90 Foot Wave in the Gulf of Mexico
 

From today's Wall Street Journal in an article about oil and gas
production issues in the Gulf resulting from hurricane Ivan:

Chris Oynes, regional director for the MMS, said preliminary data from
the government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show
that central Gulf of Mexico was hit by mammoth waves -- including
perhaps the tallest ever recorded in the Gulf -- that exceeded the
design requirements of the area's infrastructure. "There were some
extremely large waves," he said. "There is some evidence that there
was one rogue wave, the largest ever seen in the Gulf of Mexico, some
90 feet high."

wayne, **IF** you knew even a tiny bit of what journalists are taught in
school, you would know 1st, this is a made up quote

"There were some
extremely large waves," he said. "There is some evidence that there
was one rogue wave, the largest ever seen in the Gulf of Mexico, some
90 feet high."

and 2nd, that "some" is a "weasel" word (that is the term used) when a
journalist wants material "with dramatic appeal" (i.e. made up) to sound
factual. notice the word "some" is used twice in the single sentence made up
quote.

nice try, though.

On 13 Oct 2004 01:02:25 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:
wayne, **IF** you knew even a tiny bit of what journalists are taught in
school, you would know 1st, this is a made up quote

"There were some
extremely large waves," he said. "There is some evidence that there
was one rogue wave, the largest ever seen in the Gulf of Mexico, some
90 feet high."

and 2nd, that "some" is a "weasel" word (that is the term used) when a
journalist wants material "with dramatic appeal" (i.e. made up) to sound
factual. notice the word "some" is used twice in the single sentence made up
quote.

nice try, though.
========================================

Go argue with the Wall Street Journal. They seem to get the story
right a lot more often than you do. The quote in question came from
an article on the unprecedented amount of damage suffered by oil field
infrastructure as a result of hurricane Ivan. The damage is real
enough, and obviously it took some very big waves to cause it. Maybe
you're right though and the wave was "only" 85 feet instead of 90.
Nobody was out there with a tape measure at the time but there was a
lot of damage to some very large platforms, very high up off the
water.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:20:33 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Some of what Jax says makes sense, some of it......

======================

If "nonsense" qualifies as "some", he makes a lot of it.

Of course both of us are once again feeding the trolls.

wayne? do you know what journalists do for a living? do you know how they do
that?

while I did not study journalism in school, I knew quite a number who did.
Years later I met a woman of very slippery ethics who the business because
**she** was appalled by what she saw in the world of journalism.

don't buy a used car from a working journalist.

Wayne.B
Date: 10/13/2004 12:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 13 Oct 2004 01:02:25 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:
wayne, **IF** you knew even a tiny bit of what journalists are taught in
school, you would know 1st, this is a made up quote

"There were some
extremely large waves," he said. "There is some evidence that there
was one rogue wave, the largest ever seen in the Gulf of Mexico, some
90 feet high."

and 2nd, that "some" is a "weasel" word (that is the term used) when a
journalist wants material "with dramatic appeal" (i.e. made up) to sound
factual. notice the word "some" is used twice in the single sentence made
up
quote.

nice try, though.
========================================

Go argue with the Wall Street Journal. They seem to get the story
right a lot more often than you do. The quote in question came from
an article on the unprecedented amount of damage suffered by oil field
infrastructure as a result of hurricane Ivan. The damage is real
enough, and obviously it took some very big waves to cause it. Maybe
you're right though and the wave was "only" 85 feet instead of 90.
Nobody was out there with a tape measure at the time but there was a
lot of damage to some very large platforms, very high up off the
water.

On 13 Oct 2004 11:05:13 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

while I did not study journalism in school, I knew quite a number who did.
Years later I met a woman of very slippery ethics who the business because
**she** was appalled by what she saw in the world of journalism.

================================================== ===

That's shocking. I always assumed you were actually a stringer for the
Village Voice, and were just here to get the low down on the world of
boating.

Back to wave height estimation: If you had an offshore oil and gas
platform that was 40 feet off the water, and it sustained wave damage
50 feet in the air, how high was the wave?

On 13 Oct 2004 11:05:13 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:


while I did not study journalism in school, I knew quite a number who did.
Years later I met a woman of very slippery ethics who the business because
**she** was appalled by what she saw in the world of journalism.



While I did not study petroleum engineering in college, I knew quite a
few students who did, including a member of the Kuwaiti royal family,
and, of course, I had heard of George W. Bush, a man of very slippery
ethics, wno entered the oil business and screwed all sorts of investors
out of their money. Later, his ethics slid even lower, and he was
appointed president of the United States, where he once again proved his
incompetency. It was appalling.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:06:02 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On 13 Oct 2004 11:05:13 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

while I did not study journalism in school, I knew quite a number who did.
Years later I met a woman of very slippery ethics who the business because
**she** was appalled by what she saw in the world of journalism.

================================================= ====

That's shocking. I always assumed you were actually a stringer for the
Village Voice, and were just here to get the low down on the world of
boating.

Back to wave height estimation: If you had an offshore oil and gas
platform that was 40 feet off the water, and it sustained wave damage
50 feet in the air, how high was the wave?

6X9 in Base 13? (Let's see if anyone gets that reference).

All the best,

Tom
--------------

"What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup...
is there a computer terminal in the day room of
some looney bin somewhere?"

Bilgeman - circa 2004

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:12:02 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Later, his ethics slid even lower, and he was
appointed president of the United States, where he once again proved his
incompetency. It was appalling.

================================

It is appalling but please give it up. The topic here is the height
of storm waves in the Gulf of Mexico and the attendant damage to oil
and gas infrastructure. (wave height = sort of boating related)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:33:21 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

6X9 in Base 13? (Let's see if anyone gets that reference).

=================================================

You've got me on that one.