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.

 

BP Spill Oil 'Not Gone, It's Where Nobody Has Looked' Dead Zone At The Bottom Of The Gulf!

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by just an allusion
 


I would be relieved to see BP out there with submersible vehicles using vacuum cleaners, lets hope they do that.
I wont be holding my breath. Instead, it appears that they are pressuring the Scientists, prohibiting near all study of the underwater contamination.

I would think, that if they were going to use a vacuum, they be in a hurry, the longer they wait the worse it gets...




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by just an allusion
 


I would be relieved to see BP out there with submersible vehicles using vacuum cleaners, lets hope they do that.
I wont be holding my breath. Instead, it appears that they are pressuring the Scientists, prohibiting near all study of the underwater contamination.

I would think, that if they were going to use a vacuum, they be in a hurry, the longer they wait the worse it gets...


I believe our government can exert the amount of influence required to get BP on the ball, not to mention that it's not like the technology is unfamiliar to BP as they've used it in the past to clean up just such a spill before, pumping the sea water aboard LARGE tankers for cleansing before returning it to it's indigenous environment (the oceans).

The only real difference here is that the mess is localized beneath the ocean at a depth beyond the typical reach of the usual facilities (a mile or more)...Luckily for us though, BP has already demonstrated their apt ability to utilize unconventional resources and equipment to not only put eyes on the situation, but also maneuver suctioning hoses into the appropriate area(s) with the use of the DSSV's so it is, to me anyway, a "done deal" that now takes only the doing.

Thereafter, the minions and fauna native to that areas' ocean floor should readily return &/or regenerate their respective habitats...Problem solved.

Now if someone would only put a bug in the governments'/BP's ear....



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 




I would be relieved to see BP out there with submersible vehicles using vacuum cleaners, lets hope they do that.

they have sunk crude no to collect it up under water -- to work in the 2D with skimmers is greatly cheap than to run DSSVs in the 3D
they just have concealed crude ruefully & stupidly.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SarK0Y
 


Yes, sadly I think you are right. Its pretty obvious by now is it not?
Out of sight, out of mind...





posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by just an allusion
 

where are roots for your so boundless optimism????



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by just an allusion
 

where are roots for your so boundless optimism????


Firmly rooted in my intellect and the empirical evidence for the techniques I've described, that is, I KNOW the technology is available (just as it is/has been in use in the area) and I KNOW that it can be done (just as BP has demonstrated previously at other spills), just as I KNOW our governments' ability to exert influence over BP's administration.

It is one thing to deal with unknowns and yet another all together to deal with absolutes...There is a certain assuredness of purpose and security of mind to be derived from that observation.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
BP Spill Oil 'Not Gone, It's [a] Dead Zone At The Bottom Of The Gulf!


And may it finally rest in peace along with this sub-forum
..................................................................................



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by just an allusion
 


no one would sink crude to collect it up -- that's completely insane: to trace crude, to collect it up.. are more effective & cheap on the surface, but no below. now, politicians just play for the eyes, & do Nothing against real problem, but work too hard to protect'ir fragile a##es.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by just an allusion
 

where are roots for your so boundless optimism????


Seriously though, I do have a great deal of faith in Humanities sense of self preservation and our ability to ovedrcome adversity, even if it is of our own devising.

That and like I've already said, we've already seen that they can do it, so they'd be hard pressed to deny the feasibility, plus, they've already been provided with plenty of motivation.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by just an allusion
 


no one would sink crude to collect it up -- that's completely insane: to trace crude, to collect it up.. are more effective & cheap on the surface, but no below. now, politicians just play for the eyes, & do Nothing against real problem, but work too hard to protect'ir fragile a##es.


BP was, by all indications, deliberately sinking the crude as a means of exercising plausible deniability. That is, the whole "out of sight-out of mind" aspect, apparently thinking that no one would discover the true extent of the spill...Remember, they were initially reporting that it was much smaller than it has actually turned out to be, so the evidence of a cover up is overwhelmingly incriminating, to say the least.

To this end, I'm not saying that they deliberately sank it with the intent of cleaning it up later, rather, they sank it thinking that they'd manage to dispel fears of the actual extent of the damage they've caused, not to mention avoid sending investors scurrying over the loss of "X" gallons of crude, well, that and perhaps as a means of avoiding the expense involved in cleaning all of it up.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by just an allusion
 




and perhaps as a means of avoiding the expense involved in cleaning all of it up.

they've no reasons to conceal mission's expenses, but have had gravely sense to optimize(=minimize) whole mission's cost & losses of the stock market.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by just an allusion
 




and perhaps as a means of avoiding the expense involved in cleaning all of it up.

they've no reasons to conceal mission's expenses, but have had gravely sense to optimize(=minimize) whole mission's cost & losses of the stock market.


As it is, they've now pigeonholed themselves into doing what MUST be done, though now at far greater expense than that they would have originally incurred had they cleaned up the spill at the surface where it was more so readily accessible, but alas, the concern over investor sentiment and it's influence on the market and their ever burgeoning bottom line fueled the desperate, but inevitably futile, attempt to conceal the truth.

Perhaps it's time for America to annex the British oil enterprise, you know, just take it over and run it...?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by just an allusion


Perhaps it's time for America to annex the British oil enterprise, you know, just take it over and run it...?


on what precedent?

and for what end?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by just an allusion
 



As it is, they've now pigeonholed themselves into doing what MUST be done, though now at far greater expense than that they would have originally incurred had they cleaned up the spill at the surface where it was more so readily accessible

no everything to be so obvious & simple: actions to sink crude is indirect proof the gusher ain't been stopped. & i very doubt they have collected crude below surface -- it's economically impossible with state-of-the-art techs.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood

Originally posted by just an allusion


Perhaps it's time for America to annex the British oil enterprise, you know, just take it over and run it...?


on what precedent?

and for what end?


Perhaps they haven't the financial liquidity to cover the expense of the clean up PLUS compensate all of the fishermen, fisheries, seafood processors, manufacturers, shippers, distributors, retailers and franchises that depend on an uninterrupted supply of both fresh and processed seafood for their livelihood?

And by "seafood" I mean varieties of fish, clams, crabs, shrimp, etc., etc., etc., with some 90% of the spilt oil still unaccounted for:

www.voanews.com...

Well, I guess that we know now where it went...On the bottom.

Now, "for what end" you ask? I suppose the same "end" as occurs with all corporate take overs, that is, an assessment of accumulated assets to determine distribution or liquidation or assimilation of the acquired labor, materials, mechanicals, technologies, property holdings, stocks, bonds, etc., etc., etcetera, but primarily to get those blatantly incompetent and greedy blokes the hell out of our pocket and our coastal waterways so that they'll stop mucking up our shore line and seafood-based economic quarter.

Seriously, we're dealing with what is a National emergency, though it is being downplayed by the news outlets (likely to avoid wide spread panic), so tell me, how are YOU going to react when the waiter asks if YOU'D like a little fish with your Quaker State?!



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by just an allusion
 



As it is, they've now pigeonholed themselves into doing what MUST be done, though now at far greater expense than that they would have originally incurred had they cleaned up the spill at the surface where it was more so readily accessible

no everything to be so obvious & simple: actions to sink crude is indirect proof the gusher ain't been stopped. & i very doubt they have collected crude below surface -- it's economically impossible with state-of-the-art techs.


If they can use DSSV's to lower and position a hose to funnel and pump to the surface "X" thousands of gallons of oil gushing from the ruptured well in a "recovery" attempt before they even considered sealing it (during which the DSSV's also played the leading role), as we all saw on International television then, yes, it IS "economically [POSSIBLE] with state-of-the-art-techs"...Now all that it takes is the doing, or we'll be forced to do it for them.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by just an allusion

Originally posted by justadood

Originally posted by just an allusion


Perhaps it's time for America to annex the British oil enterprise, you know, just take it over and run it...?


on what precedent?

and for what end?


Perhaps they haven't the financial liquidity to cover the expense of the clean up PLUS compensate all of the fishermen, fisheries, seafood processors, manufacturers, shippers, distributors, retailers and franchises that depend on an uninterrupted supply of both fresh and processed seafood for their livelihood?

And by "seafood" I mean varieties of fish, clams, crabs, shrimp, etc., etc., etc., with some 90% of the spilt oil still unaccounted for:

www.voanews.com...

Well, I guess that we know now where it went...On the bottom.

Now, "for what end" you ask? I suppose the same "end" as occurs with all corporate take overs, that is, an assessment of accumulated assets to determine distribution or liquidation or assimilation of the acquired labor, materials, mechanicals, technologies, property holdings, stocks, bonds, etc., etc., etcetera, but primarily to get those blatantly incompetent and greedy blokes the hell out of our pocket and our coastal waterways so that they'll stop mucking up our shore line and seafood-based economic quarter.


Except that the US Government isn't a 'corporation'. Also, while I agree with the sentiment, the reality is such an action would have an extremely negative effect on the economy of the Gulf region, as it relies HEAVILY on the offshore oil industry to keep it alive.

Don't get me wrong. I'd LOVE to see the long-terms steps made to our economy where entire regions dont have to be dependent on destructive industries like oil extraction. I'm just saying that the action you are referring to would have an economic and political cost that you don't seem to be calculating. IF the US were to essentially commandeer BP, you would see major shockwaves through not only the Gulf economy, but the entire country. Other companies would pull out. jobs would disappear. People would be VERY angry at whoever decided to go and Nationalize BP.



Seriously, we're dealing with what is a National emergency, though it is being downplayed by the news outlets (likely to avoid wide spread panic), so tell me, how are YOU going to react when the waiter asks if YOU'D like a little fish with your Quaker State?!


There is no doubt in my mind this is a national emergency. But I fail to see how that makes your suggestion become a feasible one.

Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with the sentiment. But to actually think out the practical steps involved shows that such an action could never be successful.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by just an allusion

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by just an allusion
 



As it is, they've now pigeonholed themselves into doing what MUST be done, though now at far greater expense than that they would have originally incurred had they cleaned up the spill at the surface where it was more so readily accessible

no everything to be so obvious & simple: actions to sink crude is indirect proof the gusher ain't been stopped. & i very doubt they have collected crude below surface -- it's economically impossible with state-of-the-art techs.


If they can use DSSV's to lower and position a hose to funnel and pump to the surface "X" thousands of gallons of oil gushing from the ruptured well in a "recovery" attempt before they even considered sealing it (during which the DSSV's also played the leading role), as we all saw on International television then, yes, it IS "economically [POSSIBLE] with state-of-the-art-techs"...Now all that it takes is the doing, or we'll be forced to do it for them.


The crude is not able to be processed once mixed with corexitt, i believe.

you are really reaching there. the oil was sunk in an attempt to destroy/hide evidence. IF they wanted to harvest it, they could have left it on the surface and harvested in with an army of skimmers.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
So is the next story we see regarding this brave scientist that she's suffered a sudden heart attack? Or maybe a suicide.....


It seems that those who dare speak out the most are silenced one way or another eventually.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 



Also, while I agree with the sentiment, the reality is such an action would have an extremely negative effect on the economy of the Gulf region, as it relies HEAVILY on the offshore oil industry to keep it alive.

i'll say more: too much bonds are stretched out between fedZ, petroleum, wall street, other a@@holes -- they would not to stake someone heavy among'ir party, moreover, oil exploration/production becomes more & more risky due to devastation of most comfortable wells.
reply to post by just an allusion
 




If they can use DSSV's to lower and position a hose to funnel and pump to the surface "X" thousands of gallons of oil gushing from the ruptured well in a "recovery" attempt before they even considered sealing it

oh, that's absolutely another song: oil plumes have been stretched along miles in the different altitudes -- dssv's can Nothing to deal with.
reply to post by westcoast
 

sorry, i didn't get what you're talking about.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join