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.

 

Official: 750 boats can't find oil

page: 1
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Gulf boats having trouble finding any oil: US official




Some 750 boats drafted in to scoop up oil from the Gulf of Mexico are having "trouble" finding any crude in the sea, a top US official said Wednesday, almost a week after a busted well was capped.

"We are starting to have trouble finding oil," US pointman Admiral Thad Allen, who is in charge of handling the government's response, told reporters.

The boats, which have been drafted in to skim oil off the surface of the Gulf, are "really having to search for the oil in some cases" around the area of the capped well, he added.

According to official US government figures, more than 270,000 barrels of oil (11.3 million gallons) have been burned in controlled operations since the start of the spill in April.

That is more than all the crude that spilled into the seas off Alaska in the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989.

The US government also said that some 34.6 million gallons of oil water had been recovered from the Gulf since the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank in April.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Source: rawstory.com...

Are we to believe that they have mostly burned off the oil? I would almost bet that it is more the case of BP dispersing the oil with the harmful chemicals that it has been pouring into the Gulf. So, instead of a relatively easy containment process of skimming the oil off the top of the water and then burning it, we have most of the oil that has been either sunk or "dissolved" into the water. They are now going to play this off as they have successfully cleaned the oil. Again, we are being raped but is that so much of a surprise?

--airspoon




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I saw a small bit of a news story on CNN yesterday where they claimed that despite the continuing presence of oil in the reed beds on the shore and some islands, the vegetation has started to grow back. They must truly think we are brainless twits.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
So just how are they going to get rid of the giant oil plumes under the water?

Tell the MSM to not say anything, and IGNORE them away?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by warpcrafter
 


Naw, they just underestimate the intelligence of the lay person consistently. They seem to think that everyone will just buy into their lies and that will be that.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Sounds like crafty PR work to me, unless as suggested the dispersant has sunken most of the surface oil. I am trying to "follow the money" on this notion and it could be an effort to save money that is involved in the costly cleanup efforts. Thanks for the post...

Peace

[edit on 21-7-2010 by speculativeoptimist]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
750 boats
0 divers

sounds about right for a MSM PR cover-up,
the brainless public is far from brainless

guess the core-exit is working
since it's job is to HIDE the oil
under the water.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Read a study a while back that said in a deep water situation like this, we can expect to only see about 3% of the oil reaching the surface, add that to what is being deliberately hidden by the dispersant.

The case law in litigations against oil companies for spills derives it's damage awards from from estimates on the amount of the spill which is usually determined by the size of the slick, BP is doing everything in it's power to mitigate these estimates.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Have any of you heard on the MSM, or even here in the hundreds of BP threads, about what the actual plan is regarding the underwater oil plumes?

IMO, a lot of people would like to know:

1) How many oil plumes are there?
2) How tall and wide is each plume?
3) What is the depth of each plume?
4) How are they (FED,BP) going to get rid of it?
5) What are the short, and long term effects of these plumes on the ecosystem?
6) Where is each plume located?
7) If any of the oil plumes have entered the Gulf Stream, what happens to them? Reduce in size? Surface?

and probably dozens of more questions that should be asked, and more importantly, revealed.

With how little oil actually has reached the surface, shouldn't everyone be going nuts over where the rest of it is, and what it is doing?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


That would make perfect sense. BP has obviously been going through extraordinary measures to "sink" the oil. To me, this is definitely criminal intent and I know it's wishful thinking, but I'd like to see some criminal charges brought against BP. Not so much for the spill, as for their actions after the spill.

--airspoon



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


They do indeed need to be prosecuted. The Fed says that the DOJ is investigating, has anyone heard about any progress being made by them?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Well... as I see it there are two explanations.... 1. its underwater thanks to core-exit or 2. it was never there to begin with and we are again victims of another conspiracy..... Either one leads down a DEAD end road....



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Hmmmmm...

Kinda deflates the Right Wing Noise machine's mantra that Obama 'prevented' ships from 'helping' and therefore added to the disaster.

Its nearly all under water, and even what is on top of the water isnt easy to collect.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
There is one problem with this theory. Oil is lighter than water and
cannot sick to the bottom of the gulf. It will always float to the top and
fairly fast. Something else is going on with this. I suspect more lies.
Imagine that !!



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I would assume that the gas to oil ratio coming out of the pipe was highly in favor gas. Combine that with the use of corexit and it is not surprising there is little oil on the surface. If BP can keep this oil shut in then it will turn out the damage to the gulf will turn out much less severe than previous estimates. Is there really a news blackout or is that there is really little news?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by endtimer
 


Do a bit of research on how corexit interacts with the crude.

it suspends it below the surface of the water where microbes can eat it (and the media cant see it)



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bair1975
Well... as I see it there are two explanations.... 1. its underwater thanks to core-exit or 2. it was never there to begin with and we are again victims of another conspiracy..... Either one leads down a DEAD end road....


As time goes on... more and more clues are coming in to support the theory that I've been suggesting for quite a while.... that there never was an oil spill and it's all a staged illusion by BP/Media/Government: www.abovetopsecret.com...

From the photoshopped photos to this…. And now that the well is capped one of the co-conspirators, the US Coast Guard, is covering it up by saying that the oil was all burned off. Other co-conspirators will suggest that the corexit dispersed it or it's hiding under the water.

And once again most will not even mentioning about the possibility that the spill was a created illusion... still promoting the mainstream spin that there really was an oil leak disaster.

Well let's just see if they'll let the illusion die so we can all forget about the fact that they murdered 11 innocent people. And everyone that was involved in this cover-up, from the owners of BP and the fed down to their minions posting on the blogs are all co-conspirators and guilty of multiple premeditated murder.


[edit on 21-7-2010 by soleprobe]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by soleprobe
 


I don't think this was a hoax at all, as I know a bunch of people who are actually experiencing it. I, myself used to go fishing in the region as a boy. There are just far too many people who would have to be lying for this to be one big hoax, with some of those people I trust more than anyone else on this planet (though admittedly, I don't really trust anyone).

--airspoon



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
There is many reports of mass die offs in the oceans of the world, no one knows the extent this will have on it all.
Now here is the question of the night. When these microbes start eating the oil, on the shores, in the ocean, etc..
What is its byproduct and how dangerous is it?
You’ll poop your pants after you get the details.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
A storm is on the way and they will leave, I can't imagine what they might tell us when they return. Like hey, we have damage, its due to the storm or some such rubbish (cover up for leaks and methane). They sprayed dispersant like it was going out of style, and now that it is sunk and out of site, they want it out of our minds. And don't the satellite images tell a different story of oil on the surface?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by soleprobe
 


Everything from the very beginning smelled a bit fishy about this. More and more the dots are connecting. I believe that this was the biggest false flag since 9/11. My theory is that maybe they can't find any oil, because the gusher on tv was the asphalt valcano, and they purposely leaked real oil to create the illusion. If this was a staged event, i wonder what director they hired this time. I mean, Stanley Kubrick did fool a lot of people with his movie "MOON LANDING". What are they trying to hide?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join