It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

Help ATS via PayPal:

# How about 350,000 barrels or more per day?

page: 7
50
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:49 PM

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So you're not an actual professional in some field relevant to ATS...

I never actually said that.

In any event, you aren't supposed to believe what I post because I'm an FSME. I have never expected anything so ridiculous.

Judge what I post on its own merits. Do your own research and present support or opposition accordingly.

My role as an FSME is not a badge of credibility, but rather a badge of responsibility. BIG difference.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:50 PM
Here's a couple thoughts from a former landlocked roughneck:
Has anyone done the research yet as to the casing sizes used in deepwater drilling, or are we just running under the 20" figure provided by the oh-so-forthcoming BP? 20" at the top of a BOP isn't too far off what we were running in WY on gas wells half the depth of this one, and the casing below the BOP is gonna be smaller in diameter than that.

As for the plumes that have been touched on in the thread:
I took the scientifically inaccurate illustration from the Daily Show link (20 miles by 6 miles by ~.5 miles deep) and made it easy: 6 mile cone .5 miles deep and did the math. several times.

6mi x .5mi cone has an volume of 4.71cu miles. 4.71cu miles = 123,482,422,960 US petroleum barrels

As mentioned earlier in the thread, only a fraction of that actual plume area is oil,

so let's just speculate that 1/100th of 1% of the volume is oil. 123,482,422,960 multiplied by .0001 = 12,348,242 barrels.

12,348,242 barrels. Ummm...This is the mother of all coverups.

As others have said, PLEASE disprove my math! (i am a former roughneck after all!), cause that's just one chunk of one possible plume, let alone all the rest of the oil!
Yeah, we're f**cked like Jon Stewart said.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by blamethegreys]

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:51 PM
Jon Stewart did a really awesome piece on BP not showing scientists the HD footage of the oil spill that they have had all along, which would have made it easier to estimate how much oil was actually leaking.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by piddles]

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:01 PM

Well you could have gotten that badge for being an aviation expert, but then come and spend most of your time in the Fragile Earth forum like you're some sort of professional environmental expert.

Kind of like taking our advice on how to gauge the oil spill from a person like Michio Kaku as the supreme authority on such matters. The lady you cited who has spent 15 years studying natural oil seeps in the gulf would be an expert, not Michio the transhumanist fearmongering nutter.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:05 PM

Like I said, you get what you pay for.

If you don't like what I post, then continue to address it or don't read it at all.

I'm comfortable with either.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:41 PM

Hey if you're not an expert whatever. If you're not proud of the profession that earned you that badge thats your bizness I guess. It's odd that people gave you 2 stars for refusing to answer what your an expert in.

Anyways you now appear to be avoiding Outcast Searchers posts, as well as the substance related to the topic in mine. I guess you've given up?

[edit on 11-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:42 PM

Originally posted by blamethegreys
Here's a couple thoughts from a former landlocked roughneck:
Has anyone done the research yet as to the casing sizes used in deepwater drilling, or are we just running under the 20" figure provided by the oh-so-forthcoming BP? 20" at the top of a BOP isn't too far off what we were running in WY on gas wells half the depth of this one, and the casing below the BOP is gonna be smaller in diameter than that.

As for the plumes that have been touched on in the thread:
I took the scientifically inaccurate illustration from the Daily Show link (20 miles by 6 miles by ~.5 miles deep) and made it easy: 6 mile cone .5 miles deep and did the math. several times.

6mi x .5mi cone has an volume of 4.71cu miles. 4.71cu miles = 123,482,422,960 US petroleum barrels

As mentioned earlier in the thread, only a fraction of that actual plume area is oil,

so let's just speculate that 1/100th of 1% of the volume is oil. 123,482,422,960 multiplied by .0001 = 12,348,242 barrels.

12,348,242 barrels. Ummm...This is the mother of all coverups.

As others have said, PLEASE disprove my math! (i am a former roughneck after all!), cause that's just one chunk of one possible plume, let alone all the rest of the oil!
Yeah, we're f**cked like Jon Stewart said.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by blamethegreys]

I have a link that will help with many oil conversions HERE
And a really good online scientific calculator HERE
.
Even at 12 million barrels that's close to 500,000,000 gallons.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:44 PM

When this whole thing first happened I am sure l heard that this oil rig was using haarp tecnology, if that was the case they would have known exactly what they were doing and what they were drilling into.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:47 PM
Why is BP getting all the blame for this?

Firstly BP is a joint British and American company, with US shareholders owning 39% of the company and UK shareholders owning 40%.

Secondly, it was a US Drilling company hired by BP to drill for oil that had the accident.

Thirdly, It was the US company Halleburton (Most likely spelt wrong) that made the drilling equipment that failed.

This is what is being reported in the UK, and the British media are starting to get annoyed with Obama who keeps trying to blame all of this on BP.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by bluloa]

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:56 PM
Several people in this thread have attempted to debunk the math given by saying there are "only 50-100 million barrels of oil down there. " So obviously such a big number coming from the leak would have nearly depleted this oil well.

How can you accept a 50-100 million barrel estimate when their estimates of oil in far smaller quantities have been off? If you cannot accurately determine how much oil is being released, your estimates of a number of a much larger magnitude cannot be trusted. I will not trust an estimate of unseen oil when seen oil cannot accurately be determined by BP.

Refute the numbers being provided and stop the obvious tangential and fallacious arguments.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:01 PM

Originally posted by bluloa
Why is BP getting all the blame for this?

Firstly BP is a joint British and American company, with US shareholders owning 39% of the company and UK shareholders owning 40%.

Secondly, it was a US Drilling company hired by BP to drill for oil that had the accident.

Thirdly, It was the US company Halleburton (Most likely spelt wrong) that made the drilling equipment that failed.

This is what is being reported in the UK, and the British media are starting to get annoyed with Obama who keeps trying to blame all of this on BP.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by bluloa]

Yep. It's a conglomoration of BP, TransOcean, Halliburton, politics, and lets not forget the greedy little shareholders.
Like they always preach to us here in the states by police officers "posession is 9/10 of the law". We all know it's hogwash, but that is the crooked govt for you...
BP is getting the sharp end of the stick because it is still leaking, regardless of how many volunteering companies and countries have been turned away. After a few attempts, BP seemed to give up and go back to the drawing bords on how to cap it and keep pumping profits into the coffers. Meanwhile, after tens of thousands of ideas have been submitted and denied, the well is still gushing. Our Gulf is RUINED, and the masses need a face to associate their pent up anger with. It's a common social engineering stunt. They did it with Bin Laden after 9/11. The ivory tower clowns are pros at scapegoating their agenda.
I'm with you 100% about getting this thing plugged up, and THEN let's go headhunting. Standing around pointing fingers during a gunfight is not advisable

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:07 PM

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Anyways you now appear to be avoiding Outcast Searchers posts...

Really?

Why don't you U2U him and ask him if he feels that is true.

You forget I have skittles. (

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:14 PM

Originally posted by ninthaxis
Several people in this thread have attempted to debunk the math given by saying there are "only 50-100 million barrels of oil down there. " So obviously such a big number coming from the leak would have nearly depleted this oil well.

How can you accept a 50-100 million barrel estimate when their estimates of oil in far smaller quantities have been off? If you cannot accurately determine how much oil is being released, your estimates of a number of a much larger magnitude cannot be trusted. I will not trust an estimate of unseen oil when seen oil cannot accurately be determined by BP.

Refute the numbers being provided and stop the obvious tangential and fallacious arguments.

From what I can calculate from the info on the Tiber Oil Field, they estimate there is between 4 and 6 billion barrels of oil. That is approximately 21,000,000,000 (billion) gallons (at 5 billion barrels), and:
.
"Tiber comprises multiple Lower Tertiary reservoirs located in Keathley Canyon block 102 about 250 miles (400 km) southeast of Houston and 300 miles (480 km) south west of New Orleans. Tiber is only the 18th Lower Tertiary well to date, and drilling in these formations is "in its infancy".

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:14 PM
I believe BP is getting the blame because the drilling permits and plans were submitted by and approved for BP.

Transocean and Halliburton are subcontractors, drilling on behalf of BP.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:22 PM

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Average production per well in the US in only 9.4 barrels per day so this well is at 350,000 barrels per day is spewing 37,000 times more oil that the average well produces.

Source

I would just like to say that under controlled circumstances it is tapped at that rate. However, this Gusher is out of control completely. I am not sure if the conditions of controlled tapping of a well and a gusher like this one can be compared with one another.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:29 PM
here is some first hand stuff and the florida GUV site for the disaster pperhaps it will answer some questions

For Davis, the events of that night, when the rig exploded killing 11 of the 126 crew, was only the beginning of his ordeal. He says he and other survivors were to spend the next 40 hours in isolation – barred from phoning their families – while his lawyers believe Transocean, the owners of the rig, readied its legal defences. Seventeen crew members were seriously injured in the incident.

For Barack Obama, whose officials are being held to account for their oversight of offshore drilling in congressional hearings this week, the disaster could be the defining event of his presidency.

For the companies involved in the disaster – BP, the well owner, Transocean, the rig owner, and subcontractors Halliburton and Cameron – that night was only the beginning of what lawyers predict will be one of the longest and most complicated court battles the US has ever seen.

"This will be one of the biggest torts probably in the history of the United States," said Anthony Buzbee, a Houston lawyer who is representing Davis and nine other survivors who are seeking \$5.5m (£3.7m) each in damages from Transocean and other firms. "These cases will be going on for many, many years." He said he was preparing litigation against two other firms who supplied equipment to the rig.
www.guardian.co.uk...

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:32 PM
It was mentioned that in Saudi Arabia a migration channel was drilled into and has been leaking millions of gallons of oil for SEVENTY years ??? What's the name of this event - does anyone know. How can something like that have been going on for 70 years and not cause disaster on a massive scale in many regions, for many years ? What's the difference between THAT migration channel and the one many people think might have been hit in the gulf , which some speculate could cause a chain reaction of events that cause global catastophe. I'm trying to understand why the one in Saudi did not cause this type of doomsday scenario.

I was also musing how what is going on could be the nail in the coffin where the global economy is concerned. Many of us believe there has been an agenda in motion to deliberately cause a total global economic collapse in order to fashion some sort of new world from the ashes of the broken one. This could turn into a nightmare scenario in more ways that one .

Reading through this thread I have to say I feel incredibly sad. It's absolutely horrific and makes me feel sick to my soul to contemplate the idea this may have all been deliberately set in motion to further the agenda along.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:48 PM

If you're referring to the Ghawar field, it is on land and does not leak.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is located about 100 km (62 mi) WSW from the city of Dhahran in Khobar county of the Eastern Province. Measuring 280 by 30 km (170 by 19 mi), it is by far the largest conventional oil field in the world.[1] The field is entirely owned and operated by Saudi Aramco, the nationalized Saudi oil company. Relatively little is known about Ghawar because the company and Saudi government closely guard field performance information and per-field production details. Available information is predominantly historical (pre-nationalization), from incidental technical publications, or anecdotal.

www.infowars.com...

“What BP drilled into was what we call a ‘migration channel,’ a deep fault on which hydrocarbons generated in the depth of our planet migrate to the crust and are accumulated in rocks, something like Ghawar in Saudi Arabia.”3 Ghawar, the world’s most prolific oilfield has been producing millions of barrels daily for almost 70 years with no end in sight. According to the abiotic science, Ghawar like all elephant and giant oil and gas deposits all over the world, is located on a migration channel similar to that in the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico.

[edit on 6/11/2010 by darkelf]

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:53 PM

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
...a total LIE...

To each his own. I won't convince you and you won't likely convince me.

FACT: The oil is Louisiana Light Sweet Crude, NOT "Heavy crude":
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 11-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I cite you this (from an article from May 5th):

"The oil by its nature is hard to peg. It's not a single, coherent blob but rather an irregular, amoeba-shaped expanse that in some places forms a thin sheen on the water and in other locations is braided and stretched into tendrils of thick, orange-brown gunk. .There may be a large plume of oil in the water column, unseen. ...........What remains forms what's called mousse, which is like chocolate mousse. It's an emulsion, which is an emulsion of oil, air and water, in a thick, gelatinous layer, and that's nasty stuff," MacDonald said.

That's after the volatiles have evaporated, we are left with an emulsified mousse that is nasty and as this slick is huge what has happened? Volatiles are gone, and in it's place is an emulsion. You can say it is light sweet crude but what does that mean, exactly when it behaves in this manner? You just don't know enough about it to condemn someone off hand because you don't like what they say.

Source

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:57 PM
If this mess EVER gets cleaned up I really hope we ban oil use forever. This is no way to treat our surroundings. This is disgusting and it needs to stop. Seriously.

50