It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Gas Leak in Gulf 3000 Times Worse Than Oil Leak

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:01 AM
reply to post by webpirate

Thanks for the info...

This is getting worse by the day... i knew our Oxygen supply was dwindling from our use of everyday products but i totally forgot about the gases coming out of this thing... and there seems to be a whole lot of it... i really do hope they can stop this thing and sooner rather than later... like one other poster said 'gas is secondary... oil is THE MAIN concern'


And some people thought 'nuking' was a great idea!

[edit on 19-5-2010 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist]

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:02 AM
reply to post by webpirate

Is the Gulf of Mexico another "Doorway to Hell"......

The Door to Hell – Burning Gas Crater in Darvaza, Turkmenistan

The geologists thought the idea of burning the gas was smart and went ahead with lighting the crater on fire. As it turns out, the supply of quality natural gas below the crater is near infinite as the crater’s been burning since. At the time of this post, on June of 2009 the gas crater in Darvaza is still burning and has been since 1971 without interruption. No one can even imagine how much quality natural gas was burnt throughout the 38 years of the crater being on fire. No one can estimate how much more gas there still is. When they first lit the gas crater on fire, they thought the fire would go out after a few days. It’s been more than a few day, it’s been more than a few weeks or months. It’s been decades and the gas crater is burning just as it did the day it was first lit. Putting all economical loses from wasted natural gas aside, imagine the ecological impact this burning gas has cause during decades of non stop burning!

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:58 AM

Originally posted by LiteraryOneTwo
reply to post by PositivelyDetermined

Which is worse, petroleum or nuclear power? The truth is that either are both good/bad depending upon how it is used, for peaceful purposes or hostile purposes, all according to the user. Accidents happen...chernobyl happened, the oil spills happen, man abuses his use of said products due to either negligence or incompetence. Both have proved to be an asset many times. It is foolish to blame a candle for starting a fire and then removing all candles simply because someone fell asleep at the wheel.

There is really no need to panic, but the worst must be accepted and acknowledged so that it can be correctedl. The worst is the leak without immediately making repairs and fixing it. Somehow or other BP got the pipe there so somehow or other they can repair it.

Western civilian Nuclear Energy has not killed a single person due to radiation in its entire history. Therefore, aircraft flying into wind turbines have killed more people than nuclear has. Overall, it is approximately 100 times safer than coal, and similarly safer than oil - my source is the Paul Scherrer Institute and the ExternE project. Additionally, Nuclear is only going to get better from hereon, whereas oil is progressively getting worse as unconventional methods are now required to drill for oil as it becomes harder to reach.

Additionally, working in a nuclear plant is now safer than working in an office building, and approximately three times safer than working as a real estate agent, or in the retail industry. Cancer rates of nuclear plant workers are approximately one third of the average population.

[edit on 19/5/2010 by C0bzz]

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:21 AM
Sorry if someone has said this already but; Here's a wild "what if" scenario:
What if the oil spill isn't an accident, but an operation to get everyone go "green" and get a lot of green taxation etc. going on.
Global warming is not really something you can just believe as of now. But if let's say..A lot of methane gets into the atmosphere well..
THEN we can talk about global warming. And since they're not reporting the gas leaks, they can just say it's because of carbon dioxide.
Note: I realize this is a big "What if" but that's one way I can think of this whole situation.

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:43 AM

Originally posted by buddha
I have no faith in mankind at all. and I hope this kills of the human race totally. I am just sorry for all the animals who suffer because of us.

at what level will the gas drift? ground or high up? when it his a flame it will be a big fire ball. could blow a airplane up?

A hydrocarbon that is a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential most recently estimated at 23+ times that of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ).

[edit on 18-5-2010 by buddha]

[edit on 18-5-2010 by buddha]

You only have yourself to be disappointed in, same for the people that starred your post. So all of humanity should die and you're concerned over a plane blowing up?? Nice one.

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:56 AM
I have heard of scientists concerned about natural methane deposits coming up from the ocean and being ignited potentially causing a huge explosion and burning off some atmosphere. I wonder if there is any risk of that happening here with all of that natural gas escaping. I heard all it would take is a bolt of lightning and BOOM. Any ideas?

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:02 AM

Originally posted by odd1out
Google gCaptain go to "FORUMS" then to the "OFFSHORE" section, and see the thread in a forum of REAL offshore oilmen about the Deepwater Horizon and the oil "spill". I would suggest people respect the thread.

Wow! Thanks,

There is great info there:

(ActivePatriot offers some amazing links / insight.) Good stuff without the drama/emotion.

I agree, that analysis should be respected. Nice find. Fresh perspective from pros in the industry.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by tauempire

The government did it.

The worst part is they knew the folks on ATS and other conspiracy sites would go ballistic.....they essentially used your paranoia against you.

They knew you would by making up apocalypse scenerios and would essentially fear monger so they would not have to.

Pathetic ATS members...pathetic.

Its now obvious this was a ploy by certain people in the government to shift public opinion against offshore drilling and eventually in the favor of nuclear or wind and sun power.

Which is pathetic that none of you have even realized your falling into the trap.....your panicking and saying "all life in gulf will be dead arghhhhhhh!!!"

Look up the gulf of tonkin.....this is just like that except one thing.....there is no nation we are going to war with. But its used the same sway public opinion.

Congradulations ATS are now sheep.

Deny ignorance my donkey!!

So let me see if I'm understanding you.

The Government, Blew up a Oil Rig.. Killing 11 men...Spewing 60,000

Barrels of Oil a Day into the Gulf... So a FEW People in a Chat Room would

Over React.. to Impose their Hidden Agenda of Alternative Energy,,?

Is that what you are saying??


[edit on 19-5-2010 by Sean48]

Umm, ever heard of 9-11 conspiracies?

Yes, because people in ATS are the only ones hearing about this news.

There would be a large shift of money if we were to go to other types of energy. Your post is hardly helpful.

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:06 AM
reply to post by buddha

GREAT!!! Another "Kill the human race" fanatic. How about you start the whole process off by taking care of "numero uno"!

Second line.

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 08:59 AM
Why don't we drop a nuke on it...

[edit on 19-5-2010 by JohnnyFever]

[edit on 19-5-2010 by JohnnyFever]

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:19 AM
Thank Halliburton for their quality work and others for ignoring the obvious signs of trouble. Testing is done because this can be the result.

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:19 AM

Originally posted by webpirate

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade


3000/1 gas to oil ratio is what BP was saying before this happened. They were pulling huge amounts of natural gas from this well. I'm not sure about monetary figures here, but if they were indeed capturing and processing that gas it seems like they would have more money from the gas than the oil even.

Folks, in evaluating this story, we really need to discriminate between units. Oil is measured in barrels, which is 42 gallons, or at about 8 gal./cubic feet, 5 ft^3.
Natural gas is measured in mcf or thousand cubic feet. To compare, both need to be converted to a common unit of measure, say, gigajoules, or MMBTU or million BTUs. People pay for fuels for energy content. Coal, at about 12,500 btu/ton, is about $65.00 for that ton
(price at the mine.) Natural gas, which is primarily methane, comes in at about 1,000 BTU per cubic foot at a cost of roughly $10.00 per mcf or a penny per cf. So that same 12,500 BTU costs $0.12.
Oil comes in barrels, at about 5.6 million BTU per barrel costs about $78.00 (today), so it is about $13.00 per million BTU, or about 13 cents for that same 12,500 BTU.
On top of that, you have to process it, store it and transport it, which adds incrementally to the cost. The bottom line is, incidental gas recovered with the oil is usually just burned off. If you ever drive through oil country at night you can see the plumes of burning gas.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by 4nsicphd]

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:42 AM
What will happen if a hurricane works its way into the gulf this season?

Could we see a hurricane sized firestorm over the gulf?

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:47 AM
reply to post by poet1b

I actually did a post on that a couple of days ago HERE.

Here is an excerpt from that post:

Storms could scuttle cleanup efforts, force containment vessels to retreat, or propel spilled crude and tar balls over vast expanses of sea and beach.

Meteorologists say that climate conditions are ripe for an unusually destructive hurricane season, the storm-prone period that runs from June 1 to the end of November in the Gulf. Oceanographers say that could hurt the clean-up.

"If a storm comes into this situation it could vastly complicate everything," said Florida State University oceanography professor Ian MacDonald.

"All efforts on the shoreline and at sea, the booms and structures and rigs involved in cleanup and containment, could stop working."

It is going to really complicate things. Especially since we are forecast for a more than normal active year in tropical systems.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by webpirate]

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:12 AM
reply to post by Fractured.Facade

So who else thinks the government needs to freeze BP assets in the US and just use them for cleanup over the years to come? Including the purchase of much more expensive sea food we'll be forced to import now.

And if escaping methane, which is, what, 23x more dangerous to warming than carbon gases, truly makes this sort of an impact on climate, BP needs to be responsible for it all.

What if their allies in the government don't see it this way. What can we, as people who will be most affected by all this, do to make sure this is enforced and not forgotten?

edit for typos

[edit on 19-5-2010 by Kharron]

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by Klavier


Remember all the "green jobs" the president promised??? The timing of this i.e. post-climategate and just when John Kerry and Joe Lieberman the "American Power Act" is highly suspicious.

Read the Act here.

Also an interesting article, "What the climate bill means for the US way of life". Can be found here.

Note the economic theory behind how people will adjust. Great example of how people believe the masses can be lead down a path.

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:28 PM
I don't understand why this news is not on every front page of every newspaper around the world. Why isn't CNN talking about it like they did for Hurricane Katrina on non-stop TV.? Planet Earth probably looks sick and dying from space now. I see this as the begining of the end of fossil feuls. Or the end of the oceans. The Carribean won't be a tourist destination anymore, and neither will Mexico's beaches. Just imagine the hurricane that is going to show up in three months in the gulf. The waters are going to heat up and some places along the ocean are going to be leveled.
This is the event which will take a century or more to recover from.
It is a terrible shame and new inventors need to step forward now.

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by frugal

CNN is the biggest puppet stooge out there right now. It;s ratings are going through the floor because of it, but somebody has them in their pocket. They are still sticking with the Coast guards story that 5,000 barrels a day is all that is leaking and 2-3k of that is being sucked up by BP already.

They don't want people to know about this. Methane is in most all oil deposits. It has already been confirmed by the MSM that is was there. First as a possible cause of the explosion then are evidence of why the first attempt to cap the well didn't work.

But this is a very huge deposit. And the size of this oil field is actually astronomical.

Described as a "giant" find, it is estimated to contain 4 to 6 billion barrels (640×10^6 to 950×10^6 m3) of oil in place, although BP states it is too early to be sure of the size - a "huge" field is usually considered to contain 250 million barrels (40×10^6 m3).

Not to mention it is over 4 miles deep into the earth. Yet people still believe this is not a massive global catastrophe.

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:46 PM
The BP/Oil company apologists are strangely silent on this thread. .

Nothing to see here. Move along. . .

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:46 PM
People, go back and read the original study on which this 'article' is based.

"Catastrophic oil spills can introduce hydrocarbons at 2-3 times the rate of
natural seeps, but such an input will not significantly alter the oxygen supply."

[edit on 19-5-2010 by ommadawn]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in