It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Yeah I am going with the middle ground here.
2.9 million a day seems a bit over the top.
While 60,000 a day seems way too small to account for it.
So I am going with 1million barrels a day. This is a nice middle ground area that I feel is the best place to stand right now.
If this were The Price is Right, I would be making a very good bid right now.
Originally posted by SubPop79
Originally posted by FearNoEvil
reply to post by SubPop79
Well first of all, the Iranian article bases its info on ... "Russian scientists believe". That's it.
How do they know this info?
Now, I do believe the oily rain is possible from hurricanes but I've heard conflicting reports on oil evaporating into the clouds - Do you have a good source for this?
Don't get me wrong, our sources are subject to be inaccurate also. But considering Iran would like to make the USA look bad... I take their info with their bias included. I've seen it many times before.
It's a good topic and I don't doubt the severity of the situation.
Well BP's scientists calculated the spill at 5,000 barrels of oil per day, which we now know is false, considering they first stated they were siphoning off 1,000 barrels from the 5,000 barrel per day spill and then later stated siphoning off exactly 5,000 gallons of oil per day via oil tanker. Obviously the spill is not just 5,000 barrels. If they are willing to tell people they are siphoning a 1/5 of the spill, then later state they were siphoning 5,000, that leads me to believe they are still siphoning a 1/5 of the oil, but the oil spill is at least 5 times greater. So I think that the spill is at 25,000 barrels per day.
Originally posted by Skeptic4Sale
I really never knew that about the solution corexit that is being used and i suppose if it helps to break down the oil then it might be a good thing.
I'm still not sure how this will effect the marine life though, I can appreciate its similar to a mild detergent however im sure that marine life are far less tolerant to mild detergents than we (humans) are.
I'm sure if i were to add a little mild detergent to a marine hobbyists aquarium then the fish would all be paying a visit to the great aquarium in the sky within 24/48 hours.
I suppose it comes down to what is the lesser of both evils
Have a cool day
Originally posted by Karlhungis
I am curious how BP would go about covertly pumping millions of gallons of this dispersant day in and day out without anyone noticing. Seems like something like that would be pretty easy to track and prove.
Originally posted by seataka
Ok, so there are now huge blobs of oil, oil that is mixed with toxic dispersants. Might it be possible for one of these 'huge blobs' to get drawn to the surface, get picked up as sea spray or a waterspout.. and then.. in a flash of lighting, we might be activating the technology used to produce a FAE Fuel Air Explosive... the Feds cant talk about FAEs they are classified. It may have been an FAE from the fuel oil MIST from the first fertilizer explosion.. a second later that collapsed the front of the Federal Building in OK - the oil soaked fertilizer just broke the windows to let the mist in...BOOM!
Imagine a 'plume' sucked up by a waterspout during a lighting storm...perhaps a math wiz could work out the potential TNT equivalent released during that blast... how far might that shockwave go?
The blob is the gas tank, the hurricane is the carburator, and lighting completes ignition...
BP Oil Plumes + Hurricane = Air Fuel Explosive?