IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Back Of The Envelope Oil Spill Calculations

GroundPounder
post May 16 2010, 07:57 AM
Post #1





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



been reading in various places about the doom and gloom, low ball numbers etc etc., so i thought i'd do some brain work. anybody want to check the math, please??


caribbean - volume = 7195075 km^3
//based on area = 2,718,200 km^2 && avg depth = 2.647 km)

i liter = 1000cm^3 = .001m^3 = 1e-12 km^3

or 1km^3 = 1e12 liters

caribbean = ~7.19e18 liters

if true that 1 liter of oil spoils 100000 liters of seawater /* submitted by some source on the web */
then 7.19e13 liters of oil is required.

at the rate of 3e6 liters per day of oil it would take /* using low value of a couple of profs from web, but
still higher than official or BP sources */
2.39e7 days = 65479 years to spoil the whole sea


///doubtful, but what if the oil floats to the surface and and makes a 1mm thick layer on top?

2.7e6 km^2 x ( 1mm = 1e-6km) = 2.7km^3 = 2.7e12 liters

using the same flow rate of 3e6 liters, still takes 900000 days = 2465 years to cover the
whole sea

//still a long time, but what about just the coastline of the gulf states?

tidal shoreline of gulf coast states = 17141 miles = 27579 km
general shoreline = 1631 miles = 2624 km

to blanket the general shoreline with a 1 meter wide, 1 millimeter deep ribbon of oil
only takes 2.6e6 liters which is the daily flow. less than 2 weeks for the whole tidal
shoreline.

that's pretty depressing!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post May 17 2010, 09:30 AM
Post #2





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm


quote

Sunday's report this week focused in particular on the reports of huge underwater plumes of oil. And how big are the plumes? Most of the reports on the keyword "plume" very carefully give only two numbers - a length and depth, or a length and width, so doing the math requires some diligence on a readers part to come up with facts.



However, credit to the NY Times and MSNBC for their report on Saturday which contained all three numbers: 10 miles long, 3-miles wide, and 300-feet thick.



So let's discount the hell out of even these numbers and see where it leads us, shall we?



The length of the underwater plume (which is of heaviest crude components like asphalt and paraffin and such) is given as 10-miles.



The width is report as 3-miles. But because we expect it's only 3-miles wide at its widest, maybe it's only one eighth of a mile wide (660') on average, or some smaller fraction like that.



And while the thickness is given as "300 feet", let's use one third that number - just 50 feet - and then run out some basic numbers and see if the reported 210,000 gallons per day being spoon-fed to the MSM is anywhere near measured reality, shall we?

(this chart makes more sense at the urbansurvival link above and yes that is over 400 million gallons per day--bill)

Dim. Operator Units Multiplies to
L 52800
W X 660 34,848,000 sq/ft
H X 50 1,742,400,000 cu/ft
Gal/CuFt X 7.48 13,033,152,000 gallons
Days / 28 465,469,714 Gal/Day
/ 42 11,082,612 BBL/Day



Peoplenomics this weekend went on to cite the references, like how many gallons are in a cubic foot - that and how many gallons are in an average swimming pool.



The spoon-fed MSM number of 210,000 gallons per day would mean a spill of 11 average swimming pools a day and since we're 28-days into the event, about 300 swimming pools of oil.



One of the numbers is obviously bullshit. Either BP & gov't are underplaying the hell out of this hoping to avoid wholesale panic around the Gulf Coast states (can't blame 'em...) OR this 'oil volcano' continues to be an extinction level event in the works.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 17 2010, 10:08 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Perhaps it was 210,000 barrels a day?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post May 17 2010, 10:55 AM
Post #4





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



according to this site:

http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA3068/

90k bpd was the most productive well in california
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post May 17 2010, 01:42 PM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



Try this site for your own analysis.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post May 17 2010, 02:00 PM
Post #6





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (Ricochet @ May 15 2010, 04:42 PM) *
Try this site for your own analysis.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/


you lost me there? what am i looking at/for?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 17 2010, 02:15 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ May 17 2010, 07:55 AM) *
according to this site:

http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA3068/

90k bpd was the most productive well in california


So i suppose it is unlikely that the underwater gusher could output more than that 90,000 barrels a day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post May 17 2010, 03:35 PM
Post #8





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (lunk @ May 15 2010, 04:15 PM) *
So i suppose it is unlikely that the underwater gusher could output more than that 90,000 barrels a day.


i'm not sure. i haven't found any other metrics. it would probably depend on the size pipe used as well. the california gusher was based on 1910 technology....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post May 17 2010, 03:56 PM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ May 17 2010, 11:00 AM) *
you lost me there? what am i looking at/for?

Sort of like google for mathematics and the real world.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 17 2010, 06:25 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ May 17 2010, 12:35 PM) *
i'm not sure. i haven't found any other metrics. it would probably depend on the size pipe used as well. the california gusher was based on 1910 technology....


i think it gives a good idea of a gusher.
And yes it probably was a six inch pipe California.
Do we have any idea of how big of diameter the pipe is coming from the ocean floor?
i've heard 5 feet, down to a small cooking-pot,
er, and possibly 3 of them, with the rig sitting atop, on the sea-bed.

The numbers are obscure, per day,
5000 gallons, 210,000 gallons, millions of barrels?!

Is something being underestimated or overestimated?
An extinction event, or no more than a drop in the sea...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post May 17 2010, 08:18 PM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



firstly, would you please stop using the SPILL euphemism that was promoted by BP and its corporate/governmental allies.

a spill indicates something finite. as in "spilling" a glass of water. or as in the amoco cadiz/exxon valdez incidents[where the tonnage of/gallonage of crude oil that escaped into the ocean[s] was known. these were finite events.

the submarine gusher in the mississippi canyon is in no way similar to those incidents. THIS IS NO SPILL. this is an underwater wild well. a blow-out. on land, it was the kind of catastrophe that red adair[and now his former subordinates, boots&coots] knew how to extinguish and cap.

the issue that continues to go mostly undiscussed is the composition of the hydrocarbons escaping from that reservoir. though crude oil is clearly gushing into the gulf, since this hole was way deeper than 10,000', the likelihood is that methane and other gases may be the major constituent of the escaping hydrocarbons. and i think that introduces an aspect to this catastrophe that has been avoided...and that is the reality that methane and other gases[such as hydrogen sulfide] exceed the liquid hydrocarbons gushing into the gulf.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post May 17 2010, 08:28 PM
Post #12





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



one website stated that according to bp, the 'main leak is 20" in diameter '

http://energyboom.com/policy/answering-dee...e-size-question
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post May 17 2010, 08:48 PM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



QUOTE (albertchampion @ May 17 2010, 05:18 PM) *
firstly, would you please stop using the SPILL euphemism that was promoted by BP and its corporate/governmental allies.

a spill indicates something finite. as in "spilling" a glass of water. or as in the amoco cadiz/exxon valdez incidents[where the tonnage of/gallonage of crude oil that escaped into the ocean[s] was known. these were finite events.

the submarine gusher in the mississippi canyon is in no way similar to those incidents. THIS IS NO SPILL. this is an underwater wild well. a blow-out. on land, it was the kind of catastrophe that red adair[and now his former subordinates, boots&coots] knew how to extinguish and cap.

the issue that continues to go mostly undiscussed is the composition of the hydrocarbons escaping from that reservoir. though crude oil is clearly gushing into the gulf, since this hole was way deeper than 10,000', the likelihood is that methane and other gases may be the major constituent of the escaping hydrocarbons. and i think that introduces an aspect to this catastrophe that has been avoided...and that is the reality that methane and other gases[such as hydrogen sulfide] exceed the liquid hydrocarbons gushing into the gulf.

Exactly my sentiments and observations. There seems to be a few of us that are monitoring the day to day information on this. BP is trying like hell to squelch any negative aspect (not that there can possibly be any positive) by using the term "spill". Obummer spews forth that he is just as angry as us low lifes but we see that his balls is in their grip. This has already been refered to as a possible "extinction event". Not stating who or what the extinction is related to but I suspect it shall turn out to be us. Collectively as humans we have wounded the earth big time, pay back is a bitch ain't it? Don't stop picking up all we can on this keep reading up on the technical side of this and for damn sakes get angry. We need to get some adults down there trying a little harder than "golf balls and used tires", who the fuck thought that up? What a bunch of rertarded pencilnecks. Someone check the Georgia Guidstones for relative material, I'm no conspiracy nut... wait a minute.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post May 17 2010, 09:09 PM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



euphemisms aside, it is either an ELE or it isn't. if it is, make your peace. if on the other hand it isn't, pray tptb don't turn it in to one.

i will not sit in judgement, i don't have the intellect for it. can we collectively as humans learn something from this? this is soooo deja-vu.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post May 17 2010, 09:57 PM
Post #15





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



i do have the intellect for it. i have been involved in the oil&gas industry for most of my life.

up until the coronation of ronnie raygun, the industry was operated in a "conservative" manner. and by that i mean that "safe operations" were paramount. and that runaway greed was restrained.

and then, the era of deregulation was introduced. what that meant was that "greed" became unleashed. all barriers to "greed" became erased. and those erasures became institutionalized. and apparently, the brain-damaged[autistic?] u.s. populace welcomed that devolution.

the most notorious incident in that erasure was ken lay's enron. an incident in which many of the key players in promoting that fraud skated free[this is not unlike the banksters' recent and ongoing fraud continuing to go unopposed, unrestrained by the purported sheriffs].

you know, so many belittle those of us who relate the existence of conspiracies. my avocation is the study of history. my studies inform me that the history of my lifetime is the record of conspiracies[some failed, some successful]. still, history is the record of conspiracies.

for an illustration, study on the bankruptcy of enron. reflect on how many seeing that ken lay and his organization was naked, preferred to look away.

regrettably, the enron episode is not an anomaly. that fraud, in a sense still unpoliced, continues to govern way too many corporate entities.

but here were some of the cognizant entities in the enron fraud....

the harvard university endowment[at a time when the board of overseers consisted of robert rubin herbert winocur et alia].

jp morgan chase. morgan stanley. ubs. credit suisse. deutsche bank. citibank. to name but a few.

this british petroleum incident is one that must become wallpapered. after all, i think that the house of saxe-coburg gotha[aka windsor] may be the largest shareholder in this freebooter entity.

and these folks don't care about the serfs.

if you doubt me, study the story of sellafield. the british nuclear reprocessing facility on the irish sea.

turbots that glowed in the dark.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 18 2010, 02:13 AM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



http://www.energyboom.com/policy/everythin...ilation-stories

We're up to,
20 inch hole,
gushing 70,000 barrels per day.
plus a considerable volume of gasses,
like methane, and hydrogen sulfide.
With the potential of continuing on for months,
or more.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post May 18 2010, 05:59 AM
Post #17





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



so the equivalent of an exxon valdez every 3 days + prodigious quantities of noxious gases. great sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 18 2010, 08:12 AM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Are there any reports of the smell of rotten eggs on the shore yet?
(hydrogen sulfide)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post May 18 2010, 11:16 AM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



It seems criminal negligence is indeed the way this will play out.
http://uruknet.com/?p=m66092&hd=&size=1&l=e
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post May 18 2010, 12:09 PM
Post #20





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



criminally negligent so liability limits don't apply.
so, who benefits from bp being bankrupted?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 08:07 PM