Highly doubtful.

"Macman" wrote in message
...
Also, could it have been, dare
I say, terrorist related????

"Bruce Romero" wrote:

a ship went down somewhere...27 onboard with 6 survivors. several bodies
pulled out of the water..


Has anyone found a link to a picture of the T/V Bow Mariner (before
the accident)? I'm trying to figure out the grainy CNN IR image of
the stern sinking. It looks to me like the stern was sheared off
completely from the rest of the ship, but I can't tell whether I'm
looking at an intact stern poking out of the water or a sheared off
point with the stern under water.

Thanks,

Eric

--
Eric F. Richards

"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
- Dilbert

"Eric F. Richards" wrote:

"Bruce Romero" wrote:

a ship went down somewhere...27 onboard with 6 survivors. several bodies
pulled out of the water..


Has anyone found a link to a picture of the T/V Bow Mariner (before
the accident)? I'm trying to figure out the grainy CNN IR image of
the stern sinking. It looks to me like the stern was sheared off
completely from the rest of the ship, but I can't tell whether I'm
looking at an intact stern poking out of the water or a sheared off
point with the stern under water.

Per the pic available from the Drudge Report what you are seeing is the intact
stern poking out of the water as it sinks bow first.

Steve
Holland, MI
Drake R7, R8 and R8B

Has anyone heard exact coordinates of the wreck site on these broadcasts?
If anyone has the coordinates, could you please e-mail me?
Thanks!
Mike

I don't think any of you mentioned it but the ship was Houston-bound. I believe
I once worked on it 15-20 years ago, when it was about new. But I may have it
confused with any of the other number of Bow-somethings vessels out there, a
few of which I'd worked on.

Appareently it was under Norwegian charter from a Greek company. Here's a photo
of it during better times:

http://www.naftemporiki.gr/news/stat.../01/881353.htm

The electric motors for the pumps, although sealed, are elevated above the
deck. Now, if they had a pump itself raised out of the tank, leaving an open
access to the tank, and then there was a static electricity discharge
downwind...

I don't think ethanol is used in our gasoline in Texas, but it may be mixed
here at one of the several refineries, before being sent to California.

I'm wondering what the ethanol is doing off the east coast. I thought the stuff
was made in the Midwest.

By the way... It takes more energy to make ethanol that the resulting ethanol
can deliver. It's a corn subsidy thing. Pay the farmers to plant all the same
stuff, so we have to import what we really need.

Bill, K5BY
Houston/Galveston area

(WShoots1) wrote in message ...
I don't think any of you mentioned it but the ship was Houston-bound. I believe
I once worked on it 15-20 years ago, when it was about new. But I may have it
confused with any of the other number of Bow-somethings vessels out there, a
few of which I'd worked on.

Appareently it was under Norwegian charter from a Greek company. Here's a photo
of it during better times:

http://www.naftemporiki.gr/news/stat.../01/881353.htm

The electric motors for the pumps, although sealed, are elevated above the
deck. Now, if they had a pump itself raised out of the tank, leaving an open
access to the tank, and then there was a static electricity discharge
downwind...

I don't think ethanol is used in our gasoline in Texas, but it may be mixed
here at one of the several refineries, before being sent to California.

I'm wondering what the ethanol is doing off the east coast. I thought the stuff
was made in the Midwest.

By the way... It takes more energy to make ethanol that the resulting ethanol
can deliver. It's a corn subsidy thing. Pay the farmers to plant all the same
stuff, so we have to import what we really need.

Bill, K5BY
Houston/Galveston area

BILL [K5BY],

Actually a 5% Ethanol / 95% Gasoline results in a 5% reduction
of imported foreign oil. This also results in a 5% reduction
in Petro-Dollars spent abroad and more Dollars spent internally
in the USofA. YES it is a Farm Subsidy but it creates many more
"JOBS" between the Farm and the Pump. IMHO: It is "Better"
to spend a few Foreign Aid Dollars here at Home.

California (where I live) needs to start growing Corn for Fuel
(Ethanol) and Manufacturing Ethanol in-state for it's own internal
consumption. Why pay someone else for what you can do yourself ?
Every Gallon of California Ethanol Fuels a New California Economy.

~ RHF

..

"RHF" wrote in message
om...



Actually a 5% Ethanol / 95% Gasoline results in a 5% reduction
of imported foreign oil. This also results in a 5% reduction
in Petro-Dollars spent abroad and more Dollars spent internally
in the USofA.

Ethanol has about half the fuel value as gasoline. Gasahol, at least
around here, is 90% gasoline, 10% alcohol. If there's any merit to the
arguement that gasahol reduces imports by 5%, it's because 5% is half of
10%. Another way of saying the same thing is an efficent car will get
5% better gas mileage with gasoline as compared to gasahol.

Unfortunately, there's less to the oil import reduction than it seems.
Growing corn uses a considerable amount of fertilizer. Fertilizer
produced with oil, much of imported. Cultivating it uses fuel. Not to
mention the fuel needed to transport the stuff, ferment it and distill
it. In the end, ethanol production justs transfers alot of fossil fuels
into a "renewable resource".


YES it is a Farm Subsidy but it creates many more
"JOBS" between the Farm and the Pump.

How many jobs does ethanol production create? Corn production is highly
automated. I ezpect the same is true of the distillers. But, the
ethanol subsidy needs to take less than four dollars a year from every
American to total over a billion dollars. I'm sure we lose more than a
billion dollars a year in discretionary income every year to the ethanol
subsidy. I also have no doubt that redirecting a billion dollars into
the pockets of a few fat cats costs more jobs than it "creates".

IMHO: It is "Better"
to spend a few Foreign Aid Dollars here at Home.

Foriegn aid? Are you comparing the mega-farmers and
Archer-Daniels-Midland to a bunch of tinhorn dictators? Well, OK.


California (where I live) needs to start growing Corn for Fuel
(Ethanol) and Manufacturing Ethanol in-state for it's own internal
consumption.

Is California an efficent corn producer like Iowa or Illinois? I
thought fruits domininated California's agricultural production. I
suppose you could distill grapes and oranges into fuel if you spend
enough money. I suppose if it was an efficent use of resources,
somebody would be doing it profitably on their own now. I do believe
taking money from people for things they don't want will almost
certainly cost more jobs than it creates.

Why pay someone else for what you can do yourself ?

Because someone else can do it cheaper and better? Because forcing
people to spend money on ethanol means they have less money to spend on
take out pizza or new vacuum cleaners or shortwave radios? Because I'm
tired of transfering wealth to well connected fat cats?


Every Gallon of California Ethanol Fuels a New California Economy.

~ RHF

.

I can't say ethanol didn't create work for me. I got to replace a few
fuel pumps and fix cars with carb trouble after Illinois decided to drop
the gas tax on gasohol and make it cheaper than gasoline. But that's
like saying the government ought to subsidize tire slashing to create
jobs in Akron.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ...
"RHF" wrote in message
om...



Actually a 5% Ethanol / 95% Gasoline results in a 5% reduction
of imported foreign oil. This also results in a 5% reduction
in Petro-Dollars spent abroad and more Dollars spent internally
in the USofA.

Ethanol has about half the fuel value as gasoline.

I've never had a car that really liked running on that stuff. My V6
monte carlo, which I've since sold, hated the stuff. My ford truck
will run on it. Barely...
Still pings...I try to avoid the stuff. MK

"Mark Keith" wrote in message
om...

I've never had a car that really liked running on that stuff. My V6
monte carlo, which I've since sold, hated the stuff. My ford truck
will run on it. Barely...
Still pings...I try to avoid the stuff. MK

Gasahol forces the motor to run lean on motors without an oxygen sensor.
I had a old 77 Kawasaki KZ 400 which bucked and misfired under load with
gasahol, but ticked like a watch on gasoline. It had non adjustable EPA
mandated carbs in which I couldn't raise the needles to richen the
mixture. No problem, real gasoline was still available at Amoco, but at
the highest premium price in the area. It didn't use much. Well,
thanks to Congress, the EPA, Archer-Daniels-Midland and the corparate
farm lobby, gasohol is now "The Clean Air Fuel", and gasoline is
effectively banned in this area.

Actually, I was able to slip an O-ring under each needle to richen up
the mixture, and it ran better, but I had to leave a hold down screw
loose with the mod. I didn't like leaving screws in the carb loose, and
I didn't want to make a more permanent, irreversable mod. I guess I was
hoping the government would notice that many vehicles misfired on
gasohol, and dumped tons of unburned fuel into the air. Not to mention
that drivers prefered their vehicles ran smoothly.

Thanks to ADM and the corporate farm lobby, my Coke is gummed up with
gooey corn syrup and my gas is adulterated with alcohol. I expect
they've got the skids greased for fueling the Fires of Hell, as well.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ...
"RHF" wrote in message
om...



Actually a 5% Ethanol / 95% Gasoline results in a 5% reduction
of imported foreign oil. This also results in a 5% reduction
in Petro-Dollars spent abroad and more Dollars spent internally
in the USofA.

Ethanol has about half the fuel value as gasoline. Gasahol, at least
around here, is 90% gasoline, 10% alcohol. If there's any merit to the
arguement that gasahol reduces imports by 5%, it's because 5% is half of
10%. Another way of saying the same thing is an efficent car will get
5% better gas mileage with gasoline as compared to gasahol.

Unfortunately, there's less to the oil import reduction than it seems.
Growing corn uses a considerable amount of fertilizer.

YES - American Made Fertilizer.

Fertilizer produced with oil, much of imported.

YES - But NOT from the Middle East (Arabs).

Cultivating it uses fuel.

YES - Cultivation is one more American Job.

Not to mention the fuel needed to transport the stuff,

YES - Transportation is many more Unionized "Teamsters" American Jobs.

ferment it and distill it.


YES - Fermentation and Distillation are one more American Job.

In the end, ethanol production justs transfers alot of fossil fuels
into a "renewable resource".

YES - An American 'Renewable Resource'.


YES it is a Farm Subsidy but it creates many more
"JOBS" between the Farm and the Pump.

How many jobs does ethanol production create?
Corn production is highly automated.

YES - Automated 'High Tech' American Jobs.

I ezpect the same is true of the distillers.

YES - Automated 'High Tech' American Jobs.

But, the ethanol subsidy needs to take less than four dollars
a year from every American to total over a billion dollars.
I'm sure we lose more than a billion dollars a year in
discretionary income every year to the ethanol subsidy.
I also have no doubt that redirecting a billion dollars into
the pockets of a few fat cats costs more jobs than it "creates".


YES - From my view point just the opposite is true.

IMHO: It is "Better"
to spend a few Foreign Aid Dollars here at Home.

Foriegn aid? Are you comparing the mega-farmers and
Archer-Daniels-Midland to a bunch of tinhorn dictators? Well, OK.


NO - Just that the 'spending' of our Tax Dollars should be done
at home when possible.


California (where I live) needs to start growing Corn for Fuel
(Ethanol) and Manufacturing Ethanol in-state for it's own internal
consumption.

Is California an efficent corn producer like Iowa or Illinois?

YES - It can be on the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley.
http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/cvrank/

I thought fruits domininated California's agricultural production.
I suppose you could distill grapes and oranges into fuel if you spend
enough money. I suppose if it was an efficent use of resources,
somebody would be doing it profitably on their own now.

I do believe taking money from people for things they don't
want will almost certainly cost more jobs than it creates.

YES - But that could be said of ALL TAXES.


Why pay someone else for what you can do yourself ?

Because someone else can do it cheaper and better?

YES - But is Cheaper is not always better.

Because forcing people to spend money on ethanol means they
have less money to spend on take out pizza or new vacuum
cleaners or shortwave radios?

QUESTION - Isn't the Environment - The 'need to Save the Planet
(The Great Mother) more Important then such trivial consumer items.

Because I'm tired of transfering wealth to well connected fat cats?

BUT - That is the 'nature' of ALL TAXES.

Every Gallon of California Ethanol Fuels a New California Economy.

~ RHF

.

I can't say ethanol didn't create work for me. I got to replace a few
fuel pumps and fix cars with carb trouble after Illinois decided to drop
the gas tax on gasohol and make it cheaper than gasoline.

But that's like saying the government ought to subsidize tire
slashing to create jobs in Akron.

NO - I do not advocate Violent Criminal Acts.
Please Note: You May Be TAXED TO DEATH . . .
But Taxes are Not in an of themselves violent criminal acts.


Frank Dresser

..
ir... ~ RHF
= = = I Remain... Radical Humanoid Freak ;:o)]
..
..