How about 350,000 barrels or more per day?

page: 8
50
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

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]



you obviously have not been keeping up on the news... you see the day it exploded everyone except BP had a safer plan in mind... but BP being the largest owner of the rig said no...


Then it exploded... and TransOceans man was overheard saying "Are yuo happy now? Are you happy now? The rig is on fire!"


So yes... this is BPs fault... all of BPs fault....

[edit on 11-6-2010 by HunkaHunka]




posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bluloa
 


BP is blamed because they commissioned the rigs and used Halliburton for the specialist work. They opted out of a fail-safe system because it cost $500,000 per rig when they make an obscene amount of profit on a yearly basis (billions, man). This is the most profitable industry in the history of the world, a disaster of this kind happened 31 years ago and they learned sweet Fanny Adams from it and invested NOTHING in preventing this from happening again. So in summary: The buck stops firmly at their door and they need to pay.

Now, please answer me this; Why clutch your pearls on behalf of a huge monster corp that doesn't give a hoot about you, yours or your back yard on which they have defecated most foully? I just don't get it, man.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluloa
My Question is this.

Why would BP lie or fail to tell us this amount of oil is being lost everyday?

Surely if these figures were true the government, BP or someone somewhere would let us know.

Also if this much oil is being lost we were never anywhere near peak oil. The cost of a barrel of oil should be going down because of all the untaped oil reserves around the world, not to mention the vast amounts of oil that will be availble from the gulf when y tap this thing.

The fact that you believe there is a scarcity of oil belies you lack of understanding.

Have you heard of Russia's super deep Wells?

How about the super reserve this may have tapped?

You answered your own question as to one of the obvious reasons is to reinforce fictional scarcity.

Yes gas should cost nothing and we shouldn't be playing with fiat crapancy either but....

This is doomy. The video on methane is a must see.

And what about the 4 million barrels a day they're burning, what that carbon footprint like?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ninthaxis
 


You do have a point. I did a bit of research and the consensus is that there are 50-100 million barrels down there. All I can tell you is that, even though that is a horrible amount of oil in its own right, I hope it is somewhat correct. I daren't contemplate anything else because we best find a new planet if this cannot be capped.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

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]


From what I gather, it's because BP had the final say in safety protocols.

If BP had been doing its job, the mess ups from the underlying contractors would've been spotted.

(talking out my butt, but I think that's the gist)

[edit on 11-6-2010 by guavas]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
i hope this is not a way someone "messed" up, so they can raise the price of oil again. This sounds fishy how all the safety procedures failed. Hmmm.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
i hope this is not a way someone "messed" up, so they can raise the price of oil again. This sounds fishy how all the safety procedures failed. Hmmm.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
watch out for a resergence of the carbon tax
it has been said if the us stops drilling the internal price of oil will sky rocket and cap the economy
I also found this:

watch out for the prices to fly straight UP

www.alyeska-pipe.com...

Pipeline shut down after contained spill at Pump Station 9


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – During a scheduled testing of the fire command system at Pump Station 9 today, the station experienced a power failure at approximately 10:20 a.m., resulting in the tank relief valves opening as they are designed to do. Subsequently, Tank 190 overflowed and crude oil was released to secondary containment. This occurred as Alyeska was conducting fire command and valve leak testing at the pump station, located near Delta Junction, during a planned pipeline shutdown.

There were no injuries and personnel have been evacuated. The pipeline is currently shut down and the North Slope Producers have been prorated to 16 percent. An Incident Management Team has been activated to manage the situation. Alyeska estimates that the potential spill volume to containment is up to several thousand barrels. The containment area has a capacity of 104,500 barrels. Additional spill response crews and equipment are en route. More information will be provided when available.

For more information on Alyeska, visit the company’s website at www.alyeska-pipe.com.

Source: Alyeska Pipeline Service Company




Pipeline Quick Facts

The Trans Alaska Pipeline System was designed and constructed to move oil from the North Slope of Alaska to the northern most ice-free port in Valdez, Alaska.
Length: 800 miles.
Diameter: 48 inches.
Crosses three mountain ranges and over 800 rivers and streams.
Cost to build: $8 billion in 1977, largest privately funded construction project at that time.
Construction began on March 27, 1975 and was completed on May 31, 1977.
First oil moved through the pipeline on June 20, 1977.
Over 15 billion barrels have moved through the Trans Alaska Pipeline System.
First tanker to carry crude oil from Valdez: ARCO Juneau, August 1, 1977.
Tankers loaded at Valdez: 19,625 through April 30, 2008.
Storage tanks in Valdez - 18 with total storage capacity of 9.1 million barrels total.
The mission of Alyeska’s Ship Escort Response Vessel System is to safely escort tankers through Prince William Sound.
Last updated May 28, 2010

www.gregpalast.com...

ith the Gulf Coast dying of oil poisoning, there's no space in the press for British Petroleum's latest spill, just this week: over 100,000 gallons, at its Alaska pipeline operation. A hundred thousand used to be a lot. Still is.

On Tuesday, Pump Station 9, at Delta Junction on the 800-mile pipeline, busted. Thousands of barrels began spewing an explosive cocktail of hydrocarbons after "procedures weren't properly implemented" by BP operators, say state inspectors. "Procedures weren't properly implemented" is, it seems, BP's company motto.

Even then, a courageous, steel-eyed government inspector, Dan Lawn, was hollering about corrosion all through the BP pipeline. I say "courageous" because Lawn kept his job only because his union's lawyers have kept BP from having his head.

It wasn't until 2006, 17 years later, that BP claimed to have suddenly discovered corrosion necessitating an emergency shut-down of the line.



[edit on 11-6-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


So you are saying that the white animal which is floating is sitting on .00000037 inch thick sheen? I read that 90% of the oil is staying below the surface so the op is much closer to reality than you are especially considering that the op posted the picture of the animal which I have now seen in many videos so as to make you understand this is not like the oil sheen seen around a 2 stroke boat motor or in the marina at your local lake, the corexit is doing it's job and doing it well.

And as far as an ordinary well in the u.s. none of them have 20.000psi, absolutely zero.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


"CONFIRMED" official sources?
You're joking, right?


Actually I was quoting how loam had said it. Re-read our posts.


And just to remind you: light, sweet crude evaporates only if it's on the surface, so your 75% evaporation rate is immaterial to the subsea plumes. Nothing you've offered to diminish the scope of the disaster holds up to reasonable analysis.


I'm not sure why you're saying this. The point of the 75% evaporation is that in relatively short time that percentage of the excreted oil will be gone off of the face of the earth, literally.

And I see you're still at it with the natural gas. We all know that the NG that doesn't evaporate off the surface will feed those microbes. But the question you still wont answer is if you'd prefer 100% crude oil or 100% NG to be spewing from that damned well??? Which you'd prefer in absolutes is important in gauging all of the grandstanding you've been doing across the site on the issue. If you'd prefer 100% crude over NG please do explain.



reply to post by Lebowski achiever
 


Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
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.


Note how your citation there says:


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.


That is in conflict to loam's article (the one being disputed that you're now responding to) reports it as this:


Three thousand feet below the surface of the Gulf, out of sight, out of mind, and certainly out of sensation-oriented news reports, is another layer of heavy crude oil of more than 100 square miles. Heavy crude oil is now ashore in the marshes of southern Louisiana. www.thetimesherald.com...


According to the article loam based this thread on it "is" a huge blob.

Even that "mousse", is that HEAVY crude oil?

Note (this goes for apacheman as well) that 75% of the light crude will evaporate, eventually. But it doesn't overnight. I've seen reports claiming about 50% of it does in 48 hours. I know first hand that it wont that fast having tons of experience with solvents, different grades of paints, adhesives, 2 part epoxy paints and adhesives, etc.

For example, I've had this 1 gallon can of "Goof Off" for all year now. Goof Off is made from xylene and toluene, About 2 or 3 months ago I lost the cap for it. It was less than half full. It actually spent about 3 or 4 weeks in a big metal 'tool' box with some other equipment outside in the harsh Florida climate. That metal box isn't sealed, but it keeps water out. Well I just checked it and it still has almost 1/10 of a gallon in it.

If I poured this in water it wouldn't evaporate any faster. In fact, in the context of the Gulf Gusher, we don't want all of the solvents evaporating that fast, as they help break up the more solid elements, like the dispersants they dump out there.

I speculate rather confidently, based on my personal experience and what I've learned about oil lately, that the orange mousse is mostly a mix of the solvents and the paraffins (wax), and water.

Black sludge looking ooze would more contain the asphaltenes (tar compounds), which this crude oil is composed of less than 6% tars. The solvents also help thin the tars. When the solvents finally evaporate we're left with tar "balls".

More common "medium" crude is roughly 50% volatiles, 40% parrafins and 6% tars. This crude is 75% volatiles. I haven't found hard data on the compositions of this crude, and believe me I really tried to find it, but we can figure this crude to be about 3% tars and 20% wax.

I'd argue that on ATS I've probably done the most research into long -term damage from spills, from anyone I've seen out debating. I found a lot of data about tar, but in this context I never noticed one single blip of data about any threats from the waxes.

Assuming I'm correct in the mouse containing lots of solvents, I sure do feel bad for anything that gets coated in the mousse or the tar sludge which also has solvents that BURN.

I saw pictures of pelicans in another thread, totally covered in black sludge and totally surrounded by it with no where to go... and in a humane world they'd be putting them out of their misery, real quick like. But a dead bird out of its misery isn't as emotioneering as one that is still suffering, so I'm sure that putting them out of their misery is out of the question down there.


[edit on 11-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by keepingtheblade
 

We are addicted to oil, plain and simple. It is used to drive our cars, package our food, spray our crops, wash, clean and general stuff like that. It is intrinsically woven into our lives without any awareness on our part. If we give up oil (and we need to, I give you that) we will have to find alternative for nearly everything manufactured in this consumer driven society. A revolution is gon' come as awareness is growing but it will hurt.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Well you are bait n twistin in the wind my friend. What is your point? Please be concise and precise, please 'cause what you are saying is not painting a very positive picture either and seem to ignore the fact that there are plumes MILES wide full of oil, and yes, dispersants, which are not seen on the surface and which BP is trying to hide. If you try to quell fears you are failing badly. Ask yourself this: Why is BP so keen on using dispersants?

So, However you paint the picture with sweet crude or waxy TOXIC emulsified crapola, the fact remains the Gulf is toast for a while to come and the oil slick both seen and unseen is HUGE. In conclusion, the flow rate is far worse than either .gov and BP are admitting to. You have disproved nothing, sadly.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam


Great example! See all of that rainbow water, which is the majority of the photo? That is an extremely thin layer. That's pure volatile solvents / gasoline type product.


For better perspective go find a puddle next to a busy road, or parking lot... oh wait you already did for us:



Where'd you get that photo? That looks exactly like a puddle in an roughly aged asphalt parking lot, with some dirty brown water, that has an ultra thin layer of volatiles rainbowing across it. Are you trying to say that rainbow water is 4 mils thick???

Now go look at the daily NOAA images that have a huge overlay across them. You can bet that a better part of those overlays are in fact rainbow water.


ARGH!

This post was originally totally different. I went into edit mode to get the code for loam's images that I had already quoted, but forgot to copy the code and start a new post. So my post is lost. In short, loam you need to respond directly to Outkast Searcher.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Bait and twist man. Bait and twist. Totally inebriated by the exuberance of your own verbosity. What is the point you are trying to make? Up till now not clear in the slightest.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Civility and decorum will be the order of the day...

And a pre-requisite for participation here at ATS.

I'm sure that no further staff interjections will be necessary and and a spirited and polite discussion can be enjoyed by all...

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Lest a poo stained finger slip and unpleasantries ensue.

Thanks.



[edit on 11/6/2010 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaTime
I'm hoping someone can prove me wrong on this as I'm not 100% sure of the calculations. In an oil plume 20 miles long (105,600 feet) and 5 miles wide (26,400 feet) by 300 feet thick I come up with about 836 billion cubic feet, which converted to gallons is about 625,000,000 (million) gallons in one plume. Does that sound right? I'm kinda drawing a blank on that one


If I may dive in here and clean up some of the figures... (no pun intended. No, really...
).

1 statute mile = 5280 ft.

20 x 5280 = 105600 ft long.
5 x 5280 = 26400 ft wide.
300 ft thick.

105600 x 26400 x 300 = 836,352,000,000 cu.ft.

www.simetric.co.uk...


Crude oil, Mexican, 60 F, 973
Crude oil, Texas, 60 F, 873


Average = 923 kg/cu.m.

www.eppo.go.th...

1 Imperial Gallon = 0.160544 cubic foot.

1 American Barrel = 5.6146 cubic feet.

Therefore:

836,352,000,000 cu.ft. = 148,960,210,878.780 Barrels.

If we assume 50 days, that is an average 3,000,000,000 barrels/day.

The figures are clearly awry somewhere (or we are being lied to more than we thought)...

[edit on 11-6-2010 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Well you are bait n twistin in the wind my friend. ...
You have disproved nothing, sadly.


What was the point of our little micro discussion again? Oh, that the thing isn't a huge thick black HEAVY CRUDE blob. Ok, so now where am I wrong bout the content of the gulf gusher crude? Please explain.


Ask yourself this: Why is BP so keen on using dispersants?


To add even more solvents to the mess to help thin it out.


So, However you paint the picture with sweet crude or waxy TOXIC emulsified crapola, the fact remains the Gulf is toast for a while to come and the oil slick both seen and unseen is HUGE.


Here's on open sea oil spill in a nutshell:
Short Term: different types of nasty, as already discussed, floating around and stuff. Anything that comes into contact with that is pretty well screwed.

Medium Term: Solvents evaporate completely. Solid tar found in certain areas. Humans and storms clean majority of it up. Oxygen depletion in certain areas causes decline in macro life.

Long Term: After a few years, hardly a trace. Life is back to normal.

After a decade or so, what Gulf Oil Gusher? Oh yeah, the Ixtoc I. Were it not for Google and Wikipedia hardly a soul would know about that event even right this moment.


In conclusion, the flow rate is far worse than either .gov and BP are admitting to.


Oh really? Based on what?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrFake
The numbers are pretty scary, but we'd have to think about what they would gain from lying to us.. I mean, the media feeds off of exaggeration a lot of the time, and if this were all planned, why wouldn't they (bp) want the populace to be more frightened with the larger numbers?


Unlike climate change, which doesn't exist, and they can "save us" from it at some future date of their choosing, this disaster is REAL, and UNCONTROLLABLE.

As a result there is no way they can be sure they can ever fix it, so don't wish to panic the world because they can't miraculously produce a solution to the problem which will make it go away again.

This oil slick has just put a massive dent in their global warming scam in a way no other disaster could. It is in part why the environMENTALists are nowhere to be seen help clean up the mess because they know as much as the Government what a scam it all is, and they have no solution to this problem, like they have no solution to anything except invented problems.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Estimating the thickness of a spill:

en.wikipedia.org...

According to the same link, the estimated spillage so far is 136,800–701,000 tons of oil.

From my table further up (see link) this equates to 5,117,300 barrels at the worst case of 701,000 tons (or 102,346 barrels per day).

HOWEVER, if you presume the original estimate at day one of 5,000 barrels/day was correct, it is conceivable that the flow AS I TYPE is in excess of maybe 150,000 barrels/day and accelerating.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
They should seal off the Gulf of Mexico to stop it polluting any more of the ocean.

200 mile barrier from southern tip of Florida to Cuba, and another one from Cuba to Cancun.

No idea if it is even possible though.





new topics
top topics
 
50
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join