Estimation of Oil Slick

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I was on Msn.com and noticed that NASA took a recent (May 17, 2010) picture of the oil slick:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

I used the NASA image to estimate the quantity of oil on the surface in the gulf as of May 17, 2010




And using the Google maps for reference to correctly measure the distance for conversion. I hope I have done it right, and used the correct landmarks..



So this comes out to basically 3,580 square miles, I'm not sure if this is right or what the media is saying, anyone who can estimate the average the size of the spill:

Estimating volume of the spill:
By observing the thickness of the film of oil and its appearance on the surface of the water, it is possible to estimate the quantity of oil spilled. If the surface area of the spill is also known, the total volume of the oil can be calculated.[20]


Film thickness Quantity spread
Appearance in mm gal/sq mi L/ha
Barely visible 0.0000015 0.0000380 25 0.370
Silvery sheen 0.0000030 0.0000760 50 0.730
First trace of color 0.0000060 0.0001500 100 1.500
Bright bands of color 0.0000120 0.0003000 200 2.900
Colors begin to dull 0.0000400 0.0010000 666 9.700
Colors are much darker 0.0000800 0.0020000 1332 19.500

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

If we estimate the spill to be dull colors (666 gallons/sq mile) the estimated size of the spill is 2.4 million gallons. And this is just what we see on the surface. We do not know what is going on underneath!!

**I used Dull gray because MSN is reporting it as dull gray:



The oil slick appears as a dull gray on the water's surface and stretches south from the Mississippi Delta with what looks like a tail.


www.msnbc.msn.com...




Just judging by the size of the slick — about 3,500 square miles — and the three weeks of the spill, 210,000 "looks about right as far as the slick goes," Fischbeck said.


cbs2chicago.com...

Looks like my calculation of 3580 square miles was dead on!!, therefore I am sticking with my current value of 2.4 million gallons.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by THE_PROFESSIONAL]




posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
A lot of number crunching but I'll rather consider your estimate than the other guys estimates. Next put the output of the oil spill that's leaking out daily, and put it onto a pie graph. Then I'll shall call you the Guru Oil Spill Expert Mathematician.
Good job by the way!



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Shrukin89
 


Thanks I was going to do that a few days ago using the reference video of the leak, but decided against it. It seems that BPs new siphoning pipe is starting to work..



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Hmm damnit lol no one cares :-(
Second line



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Hmm damnit lol no one cares :-(
Second line


Greetings:

Not true.

We invite you here and sincerely appreciate all you do.

Peace Love Light
tfw
[align=center][color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution[/align]



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Who cares about the oil when they dumped so many tons of that super-toxic cor-exit to save their fragile public image, while inversely damaging the seafood for a long time? Is public image really that important or is the food supply?

Oil and nuclear power should be public endeavors. The longer this stuff is profit-oriented the more disasters we will get till the point of no return. Beyond Petroluem is not British Petroleum....and this should send a chill down your spine...IF you have one.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Did you know that the manufacturer of Corexit is in fact owned by BP and Exxon? So BP made money on using Corexit because it was their own product.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Did you know that the manufacturer of Corexit is in fact owned by BP and Exxon? So BP made money on using Corexit because it was their own product.

en.wikipedia.org...


Thanks for the heads-up. I was not aware of the details. Still I think it is an illuminati cover story. Money is not the root of all evil, rather it is the people who use it for their evil deads.

I also find it interesting, in a negative sense, that trolls are attacking the article saying it needs to be cleaned up to meet wikipedia's standards. Anything that is controversial according to the PTB gets that broomstick label attached to it.

The rabbit hole goes deep. The first layer of the conspiracy is that they are using dispersants rather than congealing agents. Then they choose the most toxic of all, supposedly cause it is cheaper/easier to produce and they had stockpiles of it. The third layer of the conspiracy is that the government is bought out by corporations.

The fourth layer of the conspiracy is that is part of the depopulation agenda!





new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join