Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (73621)	4/28/2011 7:07:29 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 219938

I doubt that the oil as fish food made much difference. The total amount of oil staying in the water wasn't much compared with the CO2 absorbed from air and used to feed chlorophyll plants at the bottom of the food chain. But it certainly would have helped. Various fungi and other microbes love eating oil and they are good at it. They would be good as food for fish. I have no idea why there has been a big increase in fish populations. But that will certainly shut up those claiming the oil was environmental doom. [assuming it's true that there is a LOT of fish] Maybe dolphins or other top of the chain fish eaters died, leaving fish to proliferate? That seems unlikely as it would have been reported that loads of dolphins had died. Mqurice