HELP... Gulf oil hemorrhage.

pickupyourwill

chadwick wrote:

we're keeping this thread towards the top for a few more years.

I'll help ya keep it bumped.

catefrances

eyedclaar wrote:

Sure there is. I am eagerly awaiting that look of fear in everyone's eye when the whole shibang falls apart and we reveal the truth of our animalistic ways. I'll be the guy with the maniacal grin and sawed-off shotgun.

yep. thats what im waiting for too. not sure ill be holding a sawn off shotgun though.

pickupyourwill

*bump*

StillHere

prism wrote:

so are ppl "supposed" to believe that it's better to throw up our hands and give up on rescuing the oiled birds because not every bird will survive after the clean-up? is calling bird rescue attempts a big joke an excuse for ppl to believe that it's all hopeless and do nothing? or is it more to do with some think that all the sealife should be euthanised because it's cheaper than rescuing and cleaning them?

as long ppl keep their expectations resonable... isn't it better to try to save as many of the oil affected sealife as is possible?

some may need to check their facts. because these facts do make sense:

http://www.ibrrc.org/gulf-oil-spill-fre ... -2010.html

Most DEFINITELY NOT...people should NOT give up on trying to rescue wildlife affected by such tragedies....but washing them off and leaving them ashore as was done post-petro disasters in the past, leaves them even more vulnerable than they were to begin with. Affected wildlife needs to be relocated far enough away from their original habitat that they wont fly, swim, or otherwise return to the toxic area. Unfortunately for them, birds, waterfowl and our friends the seals and otters will aggregate once again in their preferred habitat unaware of the dangers that await them there.

As mentioned before, the process of cleansing of the petroleum products leaves them without the natural body oils necessary to repel such pollution and keep it off their skin, serves to insulate them from cold and heat, and in the case of waterfowl helps to keep them afloat. At the very least they need time to recover and for their skin to secrete these natural oils in sufficient quantities and time to self-groom so that the oils reach the outsides of their coats or feathers where they do them the most good.

People should definitely do all they can to help these creatures, they are our fellow earthly inhabitants, they have no control over what we humans do and should not be subject to the dangers, but since they are, and since we do want to clean them up and help them along, save them from further harm, we must move them away and allow them to recuperate and relocate to a less toxic and more suitable habitat than that from whence they came.

Granted, that takes much more planning, work, dedication, funding, space, transportation, volunteers, quarantine/recoup space, supplies, etc.....but leaving them to return to the same spot, more vulnerable physically, both from the toxins and from the lack of natural protection, is to leave them to an even more miserable death than if they were left alone....NOT SAYING WE SHOULD LEAVE THEM ALONE...Nor leave them to die...NOR is euthanasia the answer....just saying more needs to be done and done better.

After all, we put these creatures in harms way, why shouldn't we do right by them, and fully right...so that they can go on to live full, healthy, good quality lives?

chadwick

I wake up this morning and one of the first things that cross my mind is the oil catastrophe in the Gulf.
Not the greatest way to wake up I assure you.

What the fuck?

StillHere

chadwick wrote:

I wake up this morning and one of the first things that cross my mind is the oil catastrophe in the Gulf.
Not the greatest way to wake up I assure you.

What the fuck?

yup, same here.
And they are still "Talking about" what to do about it.
President is meeting with his "ADVISORS"
BP is trying this and that and might stuff some golf balls down there...ya that'll work.
GEEEZZUZZZzzzzzzzzz :roll:

StillHere

Ok so I`m seeing some video on CNN and it looks like these new containment booms they brought in at least have some substance below the surface. Thats at least something.
I don`t rely on anything i hear though...BP says its a relatively small amount leaking (relative to what?)...coast guard admiral is working off of reports more than 24 hrs old...independent observers report a leak many many times more in volume than BP is reporting. Since no human being can get to the seabed to really evaluate and finally contain this...who knows whats really going on. The film footage can be very deceptive since there`s nothing in the photos to compare it to.
Meanwhile` while we cannot send men (women) to the seabed on our own planet, space shuttle Atlantis is off again to places unknown for purposes unknown and is lifting off any minute now. Seems a little off doesn`t it? Mind boggling. Hey guys how bout we concentrate on saving the planet we have already first...huh? That too much to ask?

chadwick

StillHere wrote:

Ok so I`m seeing some video on CNN and it looks like these new containment booms they brought in at least have some substance below the surface. Thats at least something.
I don`t rely on anything i hear though...BP says its a relatively small amount leaking (relative to what?)...coast guard admiral is working off of reports more than 24 hrs old...independent observers report a leak many many times more in volume than BP is reporting. Since no human being can get to the seabed to really evaluate and finally contain this...who knows whats really going on. The film footage can be very deceptive since there`s nothing in the photos to compare it to.
Meanwhile` while we cannot send men (women) to the seabed on our own planet, space shuttle Atlantis is off again to places unknown for purposes unknown and is lifting off any minute now. Seems a little off doesn`t it? Mind boggling. Hey guys how bout we concentrate on saving the planet we have already first...huh? That too much to ask?

i read/heard it was 200,000+ gallons per day.
how many gallons are put on the average oil tanker?
how many oil tankers would have been filled by now?

Lizard

THIS IS AWFUL!!! Scientist feel the oil spilling is 4-5 x the amt. estimated----at 4x more that is over 800,000 gallons a freaking day!!!!!!!


From NY Times:

Size of Oil Spill Underestimated, Scientists Say
By JUSTIN GILLIS

Two weeks ago, the government put out a round estimate of the size of the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico: 5,000 barrels a day. Repeated endlessly in news reports, it has become conventional wisdom.

But scientists and environmental groups are raising sharp questions about that estimate, declaring that the leak must be far larger. They also criticize BP for refusing to use well-known scientific techniques that would give a more precise figure.

The criticism escalated on Thursday, a day after the release of a video that showed a huge black plume of oil gushing from the broken well at a seemingly high rate. BP has repeatedly claimed that measuring the plume would be impossible.

The figure of 5,000 barrels a day was hastily produced by government scientists in Seattle. It appears to have been calculated using a method that is specifically not recommended for major oil spills.

Ian R. MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University who is an expert in the analysis of oil slicks, said he had made his own rough calculations using satellite imagery. They suggested that the leak could “easily be four or five times” the government estimate, he said.

“The government has a responsibility to get good numbers,” Dr. MacDonald said. “If it’s beyond their technical capability, the whole world is ready to help them.”

Scientists said that the size of the spill was directly related to the amount of damage it would do in the ocean and onshore, and that calculating it accurately was important for that reason.

BP has repeatedly said that its highest priority is stopping the leak, not measuring it. “There’s just no way to measure it,” Kent Wells, a BP senior vice president, said in a recent briefing.

Yet for decades, specialists have used a technique that is almost tailor-made for the problem. With undersea gear that resembles the ultrasound machines in medical offices, they measure the flow rate from hot-water vents on the ocean floor. Scientists said that such equipment could be tuned to allow for accurate measurement of oil and gas flowing from the well.

Richard Camilli and Andy Bowen, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, who have routinely made such measurements, spoke extensively to BP last week, Mr. Bowen said. They were poised to fly to the gulf to conduct volume measurements.

But they were contacted late in the week and told not to come, at around the time BP decided to lower a large metal container to try to capture the leak. That maneuver failed. They have not been invited again.

“The government and BP are calling the shots, so I will have to respect their judgment,” Dr. Camilli said.

BP did not respond Thursday to a question about why Dr. Camilli and Mr. Bowen were told to stand down. Speaking more broadly about the company’s policy on measuring the leak, a spokesman, David H. Nicholas, said in an e-mail message that “the estimated rate of flow would not affect either the direction or scale of our response, which is the largest in history.”

Dr. MacDonald and other scientists said the government agency that monitors the oceans, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, had been slow to mount the research effort needed to analyze the leak and assess its effects. Sylvia Earle, a former chief scientist at NOAA and perhaps the country’s best-known oceanographer, said that she, too, was concerned by the pace of the scientific response.

But Jane Lubchenco, the NOAA administrator, said in an interview on Thursday: “Our response has been instantaneous and sustained. We would like to have more assets. We would like to be doing more. We are throwing everything at it that we physically can.”

The issue of how fast the well is leaking has been murky from the beginning. For several days after the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, the government and BP claimed that the well on the ocean floor was leaking about 1,000 barrels a day.

A small organization called SkyTruth, which uses satellite images to monitor environmental problems, published an estimate on April 27 suggesting that the flow rate had to be at least 5,000 barrels a day, and probably several times that.

The following day, the government — over public objections from BP — raised its estimate to 5,000 barrels a day. A barrel is 42 gallons, so the estimate works out to 210,000 gallons per day.

BP later acknowledged to Congress that the worst case, if the leak accelerated, would be 60,000 barrels a day, a flow rate that would dump a plume the size of the Exxon Valdez spill into the gulf every four days. BP’s chief executive, Tony Hayward, has estimated that the reservoir tapped by the out-of-control well holds at least 50 million barrels of oil.

The 5,000-barrel-a-day estimate was produced in Seattle by a NOAA unit that responds to oil spills. It was calculated with a protocol known as the Bonn convention that calls for measuring the extent of an oil spill, using its color to judge the thickness of oil atop the water, and then multiplying.

However, Alun Lewis, a British oil-spill consultant who is an authority on the Bonn convention, said the method was specifically not recommended for analyzing large spills like the one in the Gulf of Mexico, since the thickness was too difficult to judge in such a case.

Even when used for smaller spills, he said, correct application of the technique would never produce a single point estimate, like the government’s figure of 5,000 barrels a day, but rather a range that would likely be quite wide.

NOAA declined to supply detailed information on the mathematics behind the estimate, nor would it address the points raised by Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Lewis cited a video of the gushing oil pipe that was released on Wednesday. He noted that the government’s estimate would equate to a flow rate of about 146 gallons a minute. (A garden hose flows at about 10 gallons per minute.)

“Just anybody looking at that video would probably come to the conclusion that there’s more,” Mr. Lewis said.

The government has made no attempt to update its estimate since releasing it on April 28.

“I think the estimate at the time was, and remains, a reasonable estimate,” said Dr. Lubchenco, the NOAA administrator. “Having greater precision about the flow rate would not really help in any way. We would be doing the same things.”

Environmental groups contend, however, that the flow rate is a vital question. Since this accident has shattered the illusion that deep-sea oil drilling is immune to spills, they said, this one is likely to become the touchstone in planning a future response.

“If we are systematically underestimating the rate that’s being spilled, and we design a response capability based on that underestimate, then the next time we have an event of this magnitude, we are doomed to fail again,” said John Amos, the president of SkyTruth. “So it’s really important to get this number right.”
010

StillHere

It would be nice to have accurate numbers but we all know that is not going to happen. How convenient for BP that the break is so deep that it cannot be obsereved by human eyes, leaving them the distinct advantage of using their flow data from the most recent operational service as an acceptable estimation of the free flow of oil from this rupture. Unfortunately for the rest of us the measure of a freely gushing breach empties into our seas at a much different rate than it would had it been a contained drilling operation. We cannot be naive enough to be led by the hand down a road of calculated misinformation. I sound so cynical, and it saddens me that it has come down to the realization that we are being deceived at every level and on every conceivable issue, bringing to mind the child who constantly tells bizarre stories to his parents and lies time and time again without reget in order to make himself seem innocent and leaving his parents feeling guilty for ever doubting him in the first place. :(

chadwick

Lizard wrote:

THIS IS AWFUL!!! Scientist feel the oil spilling is 4-5 x the amt. estimated----at 4x more that is over 800,000 gallons a freaking day!!!!!!!


From NY Times:

Size of Oil Spill Underestimated, Scientists Say
By JUSTIN GILLIS

Two weeks ago, the government put out a round estimate of the size of the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico: 5,000 barrels a day. Repeated endlessly in news reports, it has become conventional wisdom.

But scientists and environmental groups are raising sharp questions about that estimate, declaring that the leak must be far larger. They also criticize BP for refusing to use well-known scientific techniques that would give a more precise figure.

The criticism escalated on Thursday, a day after the release of a video that showed a huge black plume of oil gushing from the broken well at a seemingly high rate. BP has repeatedly claimed that measuring the plume would be impossible.

The figure of 5,000 barrels a day was hastily produced by government scientists in Seattle. It appears to have been calculated using a method that is specifically not recommended for major oil spills.

Ian R. MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University who is an expert in the analysis of oil slicks, said he had made his own rough calculations using satellite imagery. They suggested that the leak could “easily be four or five times” the government estimate, he said.

“The government has a responsibility to get good numbers,” Dr. MacDonald said. “If it’s beyond their technical capability, the whole world is ready to help them.”

Scientists said that the size of the spill was directly related to the amount of damage it would do in the ocean and onshore, and that calculating it accurately was important for that reason.

BP has repeatedly said that its highest priority is stopping the leak, not measuring it. “There’s just no way to measure it,” Kent Wells, a BP senior vice president, said in a recent briefing.

Yet for decades, specialists have used a technique that is almost tailor-made for the problem. With undersea gear that resembles the ultrasound machines in medical offices, they measure the flow rate from hot-water vents on the ocean floor. Scientists said that such equipment could be tuned to allow for accurate measurement of oil and gas flowing from the well.

Richard Camilli and Andy Bowen, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, who have routinely made such measurements, spoke extensively to BP last week, Mr. Bowen said. They were poised to fly to the gulf to conduct volume measurements.

But they were contacted late in the week and told not to come, at around the time BP decided to lower a large metal container to try to capture the leak. That maneuver failed. They have not been invited again.

“The government and BP are calling the shots, so I will have to respect their judgment,” Dr. Camilli said.

BP did not respond Thursday to a question about why Dr. Camilli and Mr. Bowen were told to stand down. Speaking more broadly about the company’s policy on measuring the leak, a spokesman, David H. Nicholas, said in an e-mail message that “the estimated rate of flow would not affect either the direction or scale of our response, which is the largest in history.”

Dr. MacDonald and other scientists said the government agency that monitors the oceans, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, had been slow to mount the research effort needed to analyze the leak and assess its effects. Sylvia Earle, a former chief scientist at NOAA and perhaps the country’s best-known oceanographer, said that she, too, was concerned by the pace of the scientific response.

But Jane Lubchenco, the NOAA administrator, said in an interview on Thursday: “Our response has been instantaneous and sustained. We would like to have more assets. We would like to be doing more. We are throwing everything at it that we physically can.”

The issue of how fast the well is leaking has been murky from the beginning. For several days after the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, the government and BP claimed that the well on the ocean floor was leaking about 1,000 barrels a day.

A small organization called SkyTruth, which uses satellite images to monitor environmental problems, published an estimate on April 27 suggesting that the flow rate had to be at least 5,000 barrels a day, and probably several times that.

The following day, the government — over public objections from BP — raised its estimate to 5,000 barrels a day. A barrel is 42 gallons, so the estimate works out to 210,000 gallons per day.

BP later acknowledged to Congress that the worst case, if the leak accelerated, would be 60,000 barrels a day, a flow rate that would dump a plume the size of the Exxon Valdez spill into the gulf every four days. BP’s chief executive, Tony Hayward, has estimated that the reservoir tapped by the out-of-control well holds at least 50 million barrels of oil.

The 5,000-barrel-a-day estimate was produced in Seattle by a NOAA unit that responds to oil spills. It was calculated with a protocol known as the Bonn convention that calls for measuring the extent of an oil spill, using its color to judge the thickness of oil atop the water, and then multiplying.

However, Alun Lewis, a British oil-spill consultant who is an authority on the Bonn convention, said the method was specifically not recommended for analyzing large spills like the one in the Gulf of Mexico, since the thickness was too difficult to judge in such a case.

Even when used for smaller spills, he said, correct application of the technique would never produce a single point estimate, like the government’s figure of 5,000 barrels a day, but rather a range that would likely be quite wide.

NOAA declined to supply detailed information on the mathematics behind the estimate, nor would it address the points raised by Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Lewis cited a video of the gushing oil pipe that was released on Wednesday. He noted that the government’s estimate would equate to a flow rate of about 146 gallons a minute. (A garden hose flows at about 10 gallons per minute.)

“Just anybody looking at that video would probably come to the conclusion that there’s more,” Mr. Lewis said.

The government has made no attempt to update its estimate since releasing it on April 28.

“I think the estimate at the time was, and remains, a reasonable estimate,” said Dr. Lubchenco, the NOAA administrator. “Having greater precision about the flow rate would not really help in any way. We would be doing the same things.”

Environmental groups contend, however, that the flow rate is a vital question. Since this accident has shattered the illusion that deep-sea oil drilling is immune to spills, they said, this one is likely to become the touchstone in planning a future response.

“If we are systematically underestimating the rate that’s being spilled, and we design a response capability based on that underestimate, then the next time we have an event of this magnitude, we are doomed to fail again,” said John Amos, the president of SkyTruth. “So it’s really important to get this number right.”
010

yeah anyone with a brain knows it's huge numbers.
yet they want to down size the crisis.
how many gallons did it drill/suck up every day?
then multiple that x's a whole shit load.
these ppl are fuckin idiots
im just a fucking iowa corn fucker and i seem to know it's a lot more than what they are saying

chadwick

i was just talking about this.
i thought "holy shit, what if they nuke the fucker?" (good idea? bad idea?)
i just now found this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ojCbqfRRr8

unbelievable

StillHere

chadwick wrote:

i was just talking about this.
i thought "holy shit, what if they nuke the fucker?" (good idea? bad idea?)
i just now found this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ojCbqfRRr8

unbelievable

ha! do we really have to say...BAD IDEA???? :? :roll:

pickupyourwill

*bump*

StillHere

What do we all make of the statement that Halliburton did some "cementing" work on the rig before the disaster occurred? Hmmm...sound familiar to anyone? Ridiculous.

A MONTH now...a freakin' MONTH.

StillHere

I feel a sickness...
A sickness coming over me
Like watching freedom
Being sucked straight out to sea
And the solution?
Well, from me far would it be
But the delusion
Is feeling dangerous to me ~ EV

PearlOfAGirl

chadwick wrote:

Isn't the earth turning to shit?
Seems that way to me.
The great Pacific garbage patch, that's what they call it, right?
The oil spill catastrophe in the gulf.
Plus all the other stuff, past & present.
Natural disasters.

Madmen running governments across the globe?
Unbelievable?
Believe it!
It's been happening forever.

Is the oil situation in the gulf considered a major ecological disaster?
(I don't have a tv so my news is limited)
(I think im wanting tv for the news) :shock: :?

Why isn't President Obama down at the Gulf kicking some series ass.
(Holy Toledo, if I had any sort of authority... omg.) :twisted:

We need Ed Vedder, Neil Young & anyone with power to get something done.
This is outrageous.

We're all going down the tubes even if we love the earth. love trees, the soil and air...
Love the whales, fish, and birds.

It's like we're all going down the drain rather you like it or not.
No way out?

I agree with you this whole world is going to hell... :evil:

chadwick

dick cheney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxFc1RMbko4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOoKiszmKAQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD3k_FDYJss fantastic @ 0:20ish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYY1oDDYS18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Kv5oi2tA_U

for some reason im getting ill...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M73EGtVoWyA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_JiDYkmu6s

StillHere

Ladies and Gentlemen, Once again I give you, our Good Friend and former Vice President of the United States, Mr. Dick Cheney.....
(REMINDER: Halliburton is to be read as "Dick Cheney"... YOU MAY NOW PROCEED :roll:

QUOTE: An oil-drilling procedure called cementing is coming under scrutiny as a possible cause of the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico that has led to one of the biggest oil spills in U.S. history, drilling experts said Thursday.
The process is supposed to prevent oil and natural gas from escaping by filling gaps between the outside of the well pipe and the inside of the hole bored into the ocean floor. ....
In the case of the Deepwater Horizon, workers had finished pumping cement to fill the space between the pipe and the sides of the hole and had begun temporarily plugging the well with cement; it isn't known whether they had completed the plugging process before the blast......
Regulators have previously identified problems in the cementing process as a leading cause of well blowouts, in which oil and natural gas surge out of a well with explosive force. .......
The scrutiny on cementing will focus attention on Halliburton Co. the oilfield-services firm that was handling the cementing process on the rig, which burned and sank last week. The disaster, which killed 11, has left a gusher of oil streaming into the Gulf from a mile under the surface.
Federal officials declined to comment on their investigation, and Halliburton didn't respond to questions from The Wall Street Journal.....
According to Transocean Ltd., the operator of the drilling rig, Halliburton had finished cementing the 18,000-foot well shortly before the explosion.
Houston-based Halliburton is the largest company in the global cementing business, which accounted for $1.7 billion, or about 11%, of the company's revenue in 2009, according to consultant Spears & Associates.
...."The initial likely cause of gas coming to the surface had something to do with the cement," said Robert MacKenzie, managing director of energy and natural resources at FBR Capital Markets and a former cementing engineer in the oil industry....
A 2007 study by three U.S. Minerals Management Service officials found that cementing was a factor in 18 of 39 well blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico over a 14-year period. That was the single largest factor, ahead of equipment failure and pipe failure.
Halliburton also was the cementer on a well that suffered a big blowout last August in the Timor Sea, off Australia. The rig there caught fire and a well leaked tens of thousands of barrels of oil over 10 weeks before it was shut down. The investigation is continuing; Halliburton declined to comment on it. END QUOTE ~ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 69072.html

other interesting reads:

QUOTE: And if Halliburton already knew about this problem months (years) ago, and knew the risks it might create, why are we just now learning about this? END QUOTE ~ http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/44349

QUOTE: In the case of the Deepwater Horizon, Scott Bickford, a lawyer for a rig worker who survived the explosions, said the mud was being extracted from the riser before the top cement cap was in place, and a statement by cementing contractor Halliburton confirmed the top cap was not installed.
Mud could have averted catastrophe
If all of the mud had still been present, it would have helped push back against the gas burping up toward the rig, though it might not have held it back indefinitely. END QUOTE ~ http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill ... befor.html

QUOTE: Halliburton May Be Culprit In Oil Rig Explosion ( 0)
By Huffington Post, Investigative News Report, Saturday, May 1, 2010
This story has been updated
Giant oil-services provider Halliburton may be a primary suspect in the investigation into the oil rig explosion that has devastated the Gulf Coast, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Though the investigation into the explosion that sank the Deepwater Horizon site is still in its early stages, drilling experts agree that blame probably lies with flaws in the "cementing" process -- that is, plugging holes in the pipeline seal by pumping cement into it from the rig. Halliburton was in charge of cementing for Deepwater Horizon. END QUOTE ~ http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publi ... 9658.shtml

pickupyourwill

*bump*