In article ,
says...

hk wrote:

You're dealing with Boatless Flajim there, whose wife left him for a
cucumber.

It'd be interesting to hear why your first wife left you. My money is on
emotional abuse.

I'd bet there is some physical abuse that goes along with the emotional
abuse.

On 5/4/2010 4:27 PM, A.Boater wrote:
On 4-May-2010, wrote:

Prove it


That doesn't take a lot of effort.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2133

From Yale. Good work. Didn't you graduate from Yale?

On 5/4/2010 5:37 PM, anon-e-moose wrote:
On 5/4/2010 4:27 PM, A.Boater wrote:
On 4-May-2010, wrote:

Prove it


That doesn't take a lot of effort.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2133

From Yale. Good work. Didn't you graduate from Yale?

You didn't graduate from Yale?

On May 4, 9:31*pm, "A.Boater" wrote:
On *4-May-2010, anon-e-moose wrote:

*From Yale. Good work. Didn't you graduate from Yale?

You didn't graduate from Yale?

WTF would cause you to reach into your huge bag of confusion and pick some
assumption (out of all the schools on the planet) that I ever attended Yale?

Do you EVER get anything right?

This all reminds me of the first business I started, Rocky Mountain
Pressure Survey, Inc. Me and a two other oil field trash friends
leased two pressure guages and 10,000' of multi-conductor stainless
armored cable, some stainless strapping and a device to apply it
around tubing and we leased two of the old Osborne "portable"
computers (this was 1981). We were going to put the guages in wells
for months and then go around measuring them in real time with the
computers via phone line. The guages would be at the bottoms of the
wells and the cable strapped to the outside of the tubing as it was
run into the well. Knowing the pressure was critical to knowing how
the efforts to stimulate an old depleted oil field was responding to
injection from nearby wells. Our scheme was to instrument every well
in a field with each connected via phone to a computer.

We actually had an agreement with Chevron to test 5 wells in the
Midwest field north of Casper, WY but our timing was bad with the
collapse of oil prices so did our business and they cancelled the job
but they did pay for our equipment lease. I went back to grad school
and my friends both went to work offshore Argentina. Now, I know it
was all for the best that it failed because it it had sorta succeeded,
I'd still be in the oil business and that was a young mans game.

However, it did lead to my first patent attempt, a scheme to measure
fluid levels in wells using microwaves using the tubing as a
waveguide. By measuring the standing wave ratio, and its position on
a "Smith Chart" one could determine not only the fluid depth but the
nature of the gas/liquid interface. Being in grad school at the time,
I could not interest anybody in an oil patent so I had to drop it.

I figger that if the carbon credit scam ever got going, I'd buy up
abandoned oil wells near cement plants because cement plants produce
huge amounts of CO2 and inject the CO2 into one well to stimulate
production in another. Not only would I get the CO2 for free, I'd be
able to sell the carbon credit AND produce a small amount of oil
(about 3 barrels/day) for free.

In article ,
says...

For a self-proclaimed "scientist," you really are an ignorant asshole.
You're also misinformed about the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

NOAA says that everything is back to they way it was within 10 years of
the spill. That is a very fast recovery.

On 5/4/2010 6:55 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleUbqdnRAMT_9NrX3WnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

For a self-proclaimed "scientist," you really are an ignorant asshole.
You're also misinformed about the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

NOAA says that everything is back to they way it was within 10 years of
the spill. That is a very fast recovery.


What! You aren't going to take Harry's word for it?

In article ,
says...

On 5/4/2010 6:55 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleUbqdnRAMT_9NrX3WnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

For a self-proclaimed "scientist," you really are an ignorant asshole.
You're also misinformed about the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

NOAA says that everything is back to they way it was within 10 years of
the spill. That is a very fast recovery.


What! You aren't going to take Harry's word for it?

A great American once said trust but verify. However, in Harry's case it
is verify first and even then be skeptical.

On May 4, 10:32*am, Frogwatch wrote:
As a Florida native, I have seen our beaches and estuaries destroyed
by the effects of tourism including the filling of marshes and
destruction of habitat by overbuilding. *These natural areas WILL
NEVER RECOVER. *On the other hand, I remember the Exxon Valdez oil
spill and only 3 years after the accident, almost all of the oil was
gone and by 7 years organisms in the bottom had mostly recovered. *20
years afterwards, all animals initially listed as being affected by
the spill had recovered according to NOAA. *Remaining oil has
weathered so much that most volatiles are gone and it is mostly
tolerated by organisms according to NOAA.
This means that recovery from a major oil spill can happen over a 20
year period even when it happens in the far north. *Here at 30 degree
latitude where the UV index is very high, the oil would degrade much
faster and recovery would be much faster. *All you have to consider is
the occasional styrofoam cup you find that has been weathered for a
year, it is basically rotten and will be gone within a year.
Our beaches and estuaries will NEVER recover from the ravages of
tourism but would easily recover from even a major oil spill.

David OHara

I think you should do some reading, there are still effects from the
oil spill in Alaska. You must have gotten your information directly
from that idiot Palin:

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/Alaska/miller2.htm

Some parts herein:

Lasting Harm to Communities.



SUBSISTENCE


"The excitement of the season had just begun, and then, we heard the
news, oil in the water, lots of oil killing lots of water. It's too
shocking to understand. Never in the millennium of our tradition have
we thought it possible for the water to die, but its true."

-- The late Chief Walter Meganack, Port Graham, 1989[22]

· Subsistence harvests of fish and wildlife substantially
declined by Alaska Native communities after the spill and continue to
be affected.

· Villagers have been forced to rely on different resources
since there is still a scarcity of important subsistence resources
like harbor seals, herring, clams, and crab. Hunters must travel
farther, spend more time, money and effort to feed their families.

· “The oil spill with its devastation affected our subsistence
way of life and resources,” said Gary Kompkoff from the village of
Tatitlek in 1999. “Subsistence is too important to have recovered
from an incident caused by carelessness and negligence. We always
have been able to rely on the land to provide for us—to be forced to
stop harvesting in traditional areas we’ve always relied upon is hard
to get over.”



FISHERIES
· Commercial salmon and herring fisheries closed in oiled areas
in 1989, including in Prince William Sound, most of Cook Inlet, and
most of the Kodiak area. Shrimp, blackcod, bottomfish and crab
fisheries were also closed.

· Five years after the spill, 100 fishing boats blockaded
tanker traffic at Valdez Narrows for 2 days when wild pink salmon runs
plummeted. These fish were the first wild runs that left Prince
William Sound during the oil spill. Banks had already repossessed 70
Cordova fishing boats. In 1993, the Pacific herring season in the
Sound was cut short when schools failed to show up, and in 1994 to
1996 the season never opened. The herring fishery remained limited in
1997 and 1998.



· Ten years after the spill, and five years after a jury
ordered Exxon to pay $5 billion in punitive damages, Exxon has yet to
pay any of this judgement to injured fishermen, Native Americans, and
landowners.





HUMAN HEALTH
· 20 communities were in the oil's path where it caused major
social and psychological impact like depression and Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder.[23] This injury continues in places like Cordova
today.

· Cleanup workers faced average oil mist exposure 12 times in
excess of the regulatory limits, with a maximum exposure 400 times
higher during hot water beach washing. In 1989, 1,811 workers filed
compensation claims, primarily for respiratory system damage,
according to National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.[24]


STATE OF THE SOUND


Toxic effects linger.



To the naked eye, Prince William Sound may appear “normal.” But if
you look beneath the surface, oil continues to contaminate beaches,
national parks, and designated wilderness. In fact, the Office of
Technology Assessment estimated beach cleanup and oil skinning only
recovered 3-4% of the Exxon Valdez oil and studies by government
scientists estimated that only 14% of the oil was removed during
cleanup operations.[15]



A decade later, the ecosystem still suffers. Substantial
contamination of mussel beds persists and this remarkably unweathered
oil is a continuing source of toxic hydrocarbons.[16] Sea otters,
river otters, Barrow’s goldeneyes, and harlequin ducks have showed
evidence of continued hydrocarbon exposure in the past few years.
[17]



The depressed population of Pacific herring – a critical source of
food for over 40 predators including seabirds, harbor seals and
Steller sea lions – is having severe impacts up the food chain.
Wildlife population declines continue for harbor seal, killer whales,
harlequin ducks, common loon, pigeon guillemot, and pelagic, red-faced
cormorant, and double-crested cormorants.



Exxon-funded scientists have repeatedly dismissed evidence of on-going
effects to wildlife from the massive 1989 oil spill by claiming that
oil seeps contribute a bigger background source of hydrocarbons in
bottom sediments in Prince William Sound.[18] Yet, they dismiss coal
as a possible source due to ignoring location of known deposits and
other factors about its “fingerprint.” A new study by the National
Marine Fisheries Service concluded that the source is coal, and that
coal hydrocarbons are not chemically available to impact wildlife.[19]

On May 4, 10:39*am, Loogypicker wrote:
On May 4, 10:32*am, Frogwatch wrote:



As a Florida native, I have seen our beaches and estuaries destroyed
by the effects of tourism including the filling of marshes and
destruction of habitat by overbuilding. *These natural areas WILL
NEVER RECOVER. *On the other hand, I remember the Exxon Valdez oil
spill and only 3 years after the accident, almost all of the oil was
gone and by 7 years organisms in the bottom had mostly recovered. *20
years afterwards, all animals initially listed as being affected by
the spill had recovered according to NOAA. *Remaining oil has
weathered so much that most volatiles are gone and it is mostly
tolerated by organisms according to NOAA.
This means that recovery from a major oil spill can happen over a 20
year period even when it happens in the far north. *Here at 30 degree
latitude where the UV index is very high, the oil would degrade much
faster and recovery would be much faster. *All you have to consider is
the occasional styrofoam cup you find that has been weathered for a
year, it is basically rotten and will be gone within a year.
Our beaches and estuaries will NEVER recover from the ravages of
tourism but would easily recover from even a major oil spill.

David OHara

I think you should do some reading, there are still effects from the
oil spill in Alaska. You must have gotten your information directly
from that idiot Palin:

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/Alaska/miller2.htm

Some parts herein:

Lasting Harm to Communities.

SUBSISTENCE

"The excitement of the season had just begun, and then, we heard the
news, oil in the water, lots of oil killing lots of water. *It's too
shocking to understand. *Never in the millennium of our tradition have
we thought it possible for the water to die, but its true."

-- The late Chief Walter Meganack, Port Graham, 1989[22]

· * * * *Subsistence harvests of fish and wildlife substantially
declined by Alaska Native communities after the spill and continue to
be affected.

· * * * *Villagers have been forced to rely on different resources
since there is still a scarcity of important subsistence resources
like harbor seals, herring, clams, and crab. *Hunters must travel
farther, spend more time, money and effort to feed their families.

· * * * *“The oil spill with its devastation affected our subsistence
way of life and resources,” said Gary Kompkoff from the village of
Tatitlek in 1999. *“Subsistence is too important to have recovered
from an incident caused by carelessness and negligence. *We always
have been able to rely on the land to provide for us—to be forced to
stop harvesting in traditional areas we’ve always relied upon is hard
to get over.”

FISHERIES
· * * * *Commercial salmon and herring fisheries closed in oiled areas
in 1989, including in Prince William Sound, most of Cook Inlet, and
most of the Kodiak area. *Shrimp, blackcod, bottomfish and crab
fisheries were also closed.

· * * * *Five years after the spill, 100 fishing boats blockaded
tanker traffic at Valdez Narrows for 2 days when wild pink salmon runs
plummeted. *These fish were the first wild runs that left Prince
William Sound during the oil spill. *Banks had already repossessed 70
Cordova fishing boats. *In 1993, the Pacific herring season in the
Sound was cut short when schools failed to show up, and in 1994 to
1996 the season never opened. *The herring fishery remained limited in
1997 and 1998.

· * * * * Ten years after the spill, and five years after a jury
ordered Exxon to pay $5 billion in punitive damages, Exxon has yet to
pay any of this judgement to injured fishermen, Native Americans, and
landowners.

HUMAN HEALTH
· * * * *20 communities were in the oil's path where it caused major
social and psychological impact like depression and Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder.[23] *This injury continues in places like Cordova
today.

· * * * *Cleanup workers faced average oil mist exposure 12 times in
excess of the regulatory limits, with a maximum exposure 400 times
higher during hot water beach washing. *In 1989, 1,811 workers filed
compensation claims, primarily for respiratory system damage,
according to National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.[24]

STATE OF THE SOUND

Toxic effects linger.

To the naked eye, Prince William Sound may appear “normal.” *But if
you look beneath the surface, oil continues to contaminate beaches,
national parks, and designated wilderness. *In fact, the Office of
Technology Assessment estimated beach cleanup and oil skinning only
recovered 3-4% of the Exxon Valdez oil and studies by government
scientists estimated that only 14% of the oil was removed during
cleanup operations.[15]

A decade later, the ecosystem still suffers. *Substantial
contamination of mussel beds persists and this remarkably unweathered
oil is a continuing source of toxic hydrocarbons.[16] *Sea otters,
river otters, Barrow’s goldeneyes, and harlequin ducks have showed
evidence of continued hydrocarbon exposure in the past few years.
[17]

The depressed population of Pacific herring – a critical source of
food for over 40 predators including seabirds, harbor seals and
Steller sea lions – is having severe impacts up the food chain.
Wildlife population declines continue for harbor seal, killer whales,
harlequin ducks, common loon, pigeon guillemot, and pelagic, red-faced
cormorant, and double-crested cormorants.

Exxon-funded scientists have repeatedly dismissed evidence of on-going
effects to wildlife from the massive 1989 oil spill by claiming that
oil seeps contribute a bigger background source of hydrocarbons in
bottom sediments in Prince William Sound.[18] *Yet, they dismiss coal
as a possible source due to ignoring location of known deposits and
other factors about its “fingerprint.” *A new study by the National
Marine Fisheries Service concluded that the source is coal, and that
coal hydrocarbons are not chemically available to impact wildlife.[19]

My info comes from NOAA, not industry. Here is the NOAA site:
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov...c_to pic%29=1

Herring populations 3 years after the spill recovered to record levels
and then OVERFISHING reduced them to 25% from which they are slowly
recovering.

On May 4, 11:05*am, Frogwatch wrote:
On May 4, 10:39*am, Loogypicker wrote:





On May 4, 10:32*am, Frogwatch wrote:

As a Florida native, I have seen our beaches and estuaries destroyed
by the effects of tourism including the filling of marshes and
destruction of habitat by overbuilding. *These natural areas WILL
NEVER RECOVER. *On the other hand, I remember the Exxon Valdez oil
spill and only 3 years after the accident, almost all of the oil was
gone and by 7 years organisms in the bottom had mostly recovered. *20
years afterwards, all animals initially listed as being affected by
the spill had recovered according to NOAA. *Remaining oil has
weathered so much that most volatiles are gone and it is mostly
tolerated by organisms according to NOAA.
This means that recovery from a major oil spill can happen over a 20
year period even when it happens in the far north. *Here at 30 degree
latitude where the UV index is very high, the oil would degrade much
faster and recovery would be much faster. *All you have to consider is
the occasional styrofoam cup you find that has been weathered for a
year, it is basically rotten and will be gone within a year.
Our beaches and estuaries will NEVER recover from the ravages of
tourism but would easily recover from even a major oil spill.

David OHara

I think you should do some reading, there are still effects from the
oil spill in Alaska. You must have gotten your information directly
from that idiot Palin:

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/Alaska/miller2.htm

Some parts herein:

Lasting Harm to Communities.

SUBSISTENCE

"The excitement of the season had just begun, and then, we heard the
news, oil in the water, lots of oil killing lots of water. *It's too
shocking to understand. *Never in the millennium of our tradition have
we thought it possible for the water to die, but its true."

-- The late Chief Walter Meganack, Port Graham, 1989[22]

· * * * *Subsistence harvests of fish and wildlife substantially
declined by Alaska Native communities after the spill and continue to
be affected.

· * * * *Villagers have been forced to rely on different resources
since there is still a scarcity of important subsistence resources
like harbor seals, herring, clams, and crab. *Hunters must travel
farther, spend more time, money and effort to feed their families.

· * * * *“The oil spill with its devastation affected our subsistence
way of life and resources,” said Gary Kompkoff from the village of
Tatitlek in 1999. *“Subsistence is too important to have recovered
from an incident caused by carelessness and negligence. *We always
have been able to rely on the land to provide for us—to be forced to
stop harvesting in traditional areas we’ve always relied upon is hard
to get over.”

FISHERIES
· * * * *Commercial salmon and herring fisheries closed in oiled areas
in 1989, including in Prince William Sound, most of Cook Inlet, and
most of the Kodiak area. *Shrimp, blackcod, bottomfish and crab
fisheries were also closed.

· * * * *Five years after the spill, 100 fishing boats blockaded
tanker traffic at Valdez Narrows for 2 days when wild pink salmon runs
plummeted. *These fish were the first wild runs that left Prince
William Sound during the oil spill. *Banks had already repossessed 70
Cordova fishing boats. *In 1993, the Pacific herring season in the
Sound was cut short when schools failed to show up, and in 1994 to
1996 the season never opened. *The herring fishery remained limited in
1997 and 1998.

· * * * * Ten years after the spill, and five years after a jury
ordered Exxon to pay $5 billion in punitive damages, Exxon has yet to
pay any of this judgement to injured fishermen, Native Americans, and
landowners.

HUMAN HEALTH
· * * * *20 communities were in the oil's path where it caused major
social and psychological impact like depression and Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder.[23] *This injury continues in places like Cordova
today.

· * * * *Cleanup workers faced average oil mist exposure 12 times in
excess of the regulatory limits, with a maximum exposure 400 times
higher during hot water beach washing. *In 1989, 1,811 workers filed
compensation claims, primarily for respiratory system damage,
according to National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.[24]

STATE OF THE SOUND

Toxic effects linger.

To the naked eye, Prince William Sound may appear “normal.” *But if
you look beneath the surface, oil continues to contaminate beaches,
national parks, and designated wilderness. *In fact, the Office of
Technology Assessment estimated beach cleanup and oil skinning only
recovered 3-4% of the Exxon Valdez oil and studies by government
scientists estimated that only 14% of the oil was removed during
cleanup operations.[15]

A decade later, the ecosystem still suffers. *Substantial
contamination of mussel beds persists and this remarkably unweathered
oil is a continuing source of toxic hydrocarbons.[16] *Sea otters,
river otters, Barrow’s goldeneyes, and harlequin ducks have showed
evidence of continued hydrocarbon exposure in the past few years.
[17]

The depressed population of Pacific herring – a critical source of
food for over 40 predators including seabirds, harbor seals and
Steller sea lions – is having severe impacts up the food chain.
Wildlife population declines continue for harbor seal, killer whales,
harlequin ducks, common loon, pigeon guillemot, and pelagic, red-faced
cormorant, and double-crested cormorants.

Exxon-funded scientists have repeatedly dismissed evidence of on-going
effects to wildlife from the massive 1989 oil spill by claiming that
oil seeps contribute a bigger background source of hydrocarbons in
bottom sediments in Prince William Sound.[18] *Yet, they dismiss coal
as a possible source due to ignoring location of known deposits and
other factors about its “fingerprint.” *A new study by the National
Marine Fisheries Service concluded that the source is coal, and that
coal hydrocarbons are not chemically available to impact wildlife.[19]

My info comes from NOAA, not industry. *Here is the NOAA site:http://response.restoration.noaa.gov...ry.php?RECORD_...

Herring populations 3 years after the spill recovered to record levels
and then OVERFISHING reduced them to 25% from which they are slowly
recovering.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What information that I posted do you find erroneous and why?