It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Gulf Spill Will Affect Europe & Artic -- Experts

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Washington (CNN) -- The damaging effects of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will be felt all the way to Europe and the Arctic, a top scientist told a congressional panel Friday.

Other scientists and researchers -- invited to brief members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee -- warned that the thousands of barrels of oil still gushing into the Gulf are contributing to a potential ecological disaster of unknown proportions.

The briefing was part of an ongoing effort to draw on a broad range of expertise for what has been, in the eyes of many observers, a frustrating and ineffective cleanup effort.

"This is not just a regional issue for the wildlife," said Carl Safina, the president of the Blue Ocean Institute. Noting common migratory patterns, he warned that multiple forms of marine life from across the Atlantic Ocean "come into the Gulf to breed."

Safina blasted BP, the company in control of the well responsible for the spill.

"I think asking BP for answers is the wrong place to look," he said. "They seem to have cut corners on some critical junctures. We keep asking their permission to go down and measure the oil that's coming out. ... This mystifies me, because they are on our property now."


Read the rest of the story here.

So what do you think ATS?

Have we not been saying this would cause global strife? Or at least affect ecosystems on some negative level for years, perhaps decades?


Safina argued that BP was using the dispersants as a public relations tool, so cameras can't see the extent of the oil slick.


Best quote yet.

Thoughts?

~Keeper




posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Scary stuff! I wonder if anyone has invested in frozen fish, for next year? You know buy them now, while they're still around.

Our government would probably be better of, seeking U.N permission to Nuke the oil that's built up for over a months. Its because everything (where it is consentrated) is already dead, and a lot more will die as oil-eating bacteria use up the oxygen in the water.
Sadly I think Obama is a bit too "left-wing" to even consider going there, whilst he is (like almost all, modern time, Western leaders) too much of a career politican to do anything particulary bold (at least not, till after its too late).



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 


I don't think that's a viable alternative. Nuking it, is kind of 1950's isn't it?

I mean, come on, in today's day and age, if we can't figure out, collectively, how to cap an oil well, than I have lost all faith in Human Ingenuity.

It is scary stuff though, I have some frozen fish, but I'm more worried about my Maritime Lobster than anything else
.

~Keeper



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Imagine all of the profoundity you can think of and multiply it times 10.

That's what I feel like screaming out loud by this.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
The gulf spill will have a global effect.

But while the oil is bad, it is the methane that is the truly bad part. The oil field might have a few million barrels of oil, but what BP was really after is the one TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas in the field. They admit to drawing off 15 million cubic feet a day through their straw. Nobody knows how many millions of cubic feet are going directly into the water each day, but it is likely that over a billion cubic feet have outgassed so far.

You'll find the specifics here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
The gulf spill will have a global effect.

But while the oil is bad, it is the methane that is the truly bad part. The oil field might have a few million barrels of oil, but what BP was really after is the one TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas in the field. They admit to drawing off 15 million cubic feet a day through their straw. Nobody knows how many millions of cubic feet are going directly into the water each day, but it is likely that over a billion cubic feet have outgassed so far.

You'll find the specifics here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I read somewhere the ratio of Gas to Oil being leaked was 300:1. That's ridiculous.

And I guess the oxygen levels in the surrounding areas of DWH is down 20% already?

I sure hope the whole "thrown mud" into it works on Tuesday.

~Keeper



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Originally posted by tothetenthpower

I don't think that's a viable alternative. Nuking it, is kind of 1950's isn't it?

Electricity was invented long before the 1950's and most people still use that!!! Besides using chemical detergents to "sink" the oil (so that it remains out of site of the news camera's) but even further within the living space of fish; is cutting edge, 1880's technology.

To (my knowledge) 3 nuclear explosions (one above the water, followed by one beneath it, and then a final one above) is the only way nearly all the oil could be burnt up-disposed of.
Well over 2000 nuclear tests have been conducted (on Earth) since 1945 (the biggest being 50 Mega tonnes) (i.e. about the same as all the explosive used in W2 times ten) so it's hardly like the Earth can't take it (not when the metor that wiped out the dinaseurs was about a Billon Hirusama bombs).

The radioactivity would mostly be absorbed by the water (water is extremely good for capturing radiation) and the radiative particles would (maybe) provide the wildlife a decade (or sol) to recover from over fishing, and the oil problems caused. Fish can survive levels, far higher than what is safe for us to eat (because we tend to eat lots of fish). Hay the fish could even be less toxic, than they would be from the oil that is now getting embeded in their food chain.


I mean, come on, in today's day and age, if we can't figure out, collectively, how to cap an oil well, than I have lost all faith in Human Ingenuity.

Not if ATS is any creative standard to go by. I did a thread about piping concrete (which sets under water) to the spill, but it was shut down by masqua
www.abovetopsecret.com... apparently because he wanted all subjects in one big "creativity dump-thread". Personally I wonder its because many moderators are enermies of freedom of discussion, and are working with non ATS entities as some kind of "disinfo agents".
Others have suggested freezing the escasping oil, so that it can be caped, people have even talked about using straw. Problem is, even if they cap the oil tommorow, it's still too late.

Only a series of Nuclear explosion can vapourize oil over tens of square miles. And of course like you (because it is a 1950's solution) its the one solution that will never be used (no matter how well, it may work).
I never lost faith in technology; just the people who govern it.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 


Your argument is certainly interesting, and does make me think twice about using such a thing, but to me, only as a last resort.

Why is there no other viable alternative? I would think so, or at least hope so.

~Keeper



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



How much gas is being released?

A BP executive stated that they were removing 3000:1 gas to oil at the well before the explosion. (thats 3000 cubic feet of gas for every barrel of oil) The amount of oil leaking into the gulf is 25,000 to 70,000 barrels.

a 3000:1 ratio would mean 75 - 210 million cubic feet of gas per day being released.

There is 5.64 cubic feet of gas per barrel.

That would mean there is 13.3 to 37.2 million "barrels" of gas being released each day.

(note: this is at standard atmospheric temp and pressure. At the ocean floor and 2,400 pounds per square inch, this gas is compressed by a factor of of over 1000 and will expand as it rises. So, in the video coming out of the pipe it looks like 75,000 to 210,000 barrels of gas per day.

you see, what happens when methane is released into the gulf? It goes into solution. There, in the deep ocean, it oxidizes, stripping the ocean of oxygen and forming carbon dioxide and water.


m.dailykos.com...

It's far worse than that.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 


I don't mean to be retarded ... BUT WTF would you nuke it for??? and blow it all over the place?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
S&F for you OP,

I don't doubt it for a second that this will affect Europe etc. Look at the Gulf Stream -



As we can see here, the current not only flows past the UK and heads Northwards, but it also flows to the West Coast of Africa as well and loops back round by the North Coast of South america.

Not to mention the Cold Deep current as well.

Not good!!



[edit on 22-5-2010 by grantbeed]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Apparently the Russians have used the nuke method to successfully stop many oil spills in their country. I would guess from that it is a tested and proven method.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by grantbeed
 


This current also links to the pacific and Indian ocean current. We could be really in trouble.

Edit.
Reply to post Bagari.

I read in a thread today those were only on land spills.

[edit on 5/22/2010 by Sinter Klaas]



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join