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.


Coverup: BP Has the Technology to Accurately Measure the Amount of Leaking Oil

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 09:04 AM

Congressman Markey - who chairs the select committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and the Energy and Environment subcommittee - alleges:

What’s clear is that BP has had an interest in low-balling the size of their accident, since every barrel spilled increases how much they could be fined by the government.

Markey and many others point to the fact that BP's fines under the Clean Water Act are based on how many barrels of oil have spilled.

It is therefore not very surprising that BP is pretending that it is difficult to measure the amount of oil spilling into the Gulf.

But a commenter at the Oil Drum points out that BP had the technology to accurately measure the amount of oil spilling into the Gulf - without damaging any equipment - 2 years ago (edited for readability):

Would it surprise anyone to know that BP had already developed the technology to accurately measure troublesome oil and gas flow mixtures at the well head two years ago? It can be done remotely and continuously, at up to 10,000 feet, with a clamp-on, calibration free, sonar flow meter, or that the company that sells and installs them is presenting at petroleum conventions in Calgary and Newfoundland this summer?

(article continued at the source link)

not only do they have the means to measure gas and oil mixtures more precisely than was BP who engineered and innovated the new technology that made this measuring device possible!

here is a document at BP's own website that undeniably shows that they had gone a long way toward mastering ways to measure the flow in deeper water than at the Deepwater disaster site.

it only takes an hour to install. in the document, it states that they wanted to put one on every well because it was "cost - effective" to do so.

by the date of this publication, BP already had deployed 45 of the units, and this was in 2008.

i can't quote from the pdf at BP's site due to their copyright terms, but check it out yourself. there is a diagram on page 5.

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 09:18 AM
now, i'm not quite sure if this could be used on the mess that is now at the site. i read through it but some of it, the technical stuff, is over my head. i'm sure someone with true expertise can clarify anything that needs it and help the rest of us to understand.

but even at that, if they got that far, driven by profits and all that, it is too damn bad they can't be driven that hard for the RIGHT reasons.

another strike against them, more than likely, especially on the no-urgency-no-hurry lack of apparent concern charge.


log in