Breaking, plume may be ...360 gallons...really....do the math.
That's a shame, if true. What story will we have to flog next?
You miss all the good stuff in the Drum. Get it in the original.
latimesblogs.latimes.com.
"The three samples analyzed by the agency contained oil and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAH, in very low concentrations -- .5 parts per million of oil and in the parts-per-trillion range for PAH. They came from three areas: 40 and 45 nautical miles northeast of the wellhead, and 142 nautical miles southeast of the wellhead, which has been spewing an estimated 12,000 to 19,000 barrels of oil a day and possibly much more, since an April 20 explosion ripped through the Deepwater Horizon drill rig, claiming 11 lives.
Some forms of PAHs, which vary in chemical structure, can be toxic and carcinogenic. The Environmental Protection Agency has listed seven PAH compounds as possible human carcinogens.
NOAA "fingerprinted" the oil spilling from the BP well and concluded that the nearest samples were consistent with the crude spilling from the site. ***But the agency did not confirm the more distant sample's origin***..."
[new] Speaker To Animals on June 8, 2010 - 1:43pm
PAH's can be undesirable, but the EPA limit for PAH's in drinking water is 200 ppt. Levels below that in the GOM is what is a 'plume' should not be alarming.
[new] Diverdan on June 8, 2010 - 2:28pm
The PAH values are 17-20 ng/liter or PPT (I believe) in the samples.
(?)
[new] ExDrllgMgr on June 8, 2010 - 1:50pm Permalink |
I am tired of hearing about this so called "plume" of oil in the gulf. Megyn Kelly reported the NOAA ship found a plume. I sent her an email asking her to get someone to explain to her what parts per trillion means. Then, Sheppard Smith, an idiot in my opinion, just reported the same thing as a tease for his upcoming show. What's with these media people? Are they that stupid or just looking for spectacular headlines? I have read the NOAA report and it says nothing about finding any plumes and reports oil in such low concentrations as to debunk all the previous claims about plumes.
[new] Diverdan on June 8, 2010 - 2:19pm
Looking at all the samples in their data set the total hydrocarbons average about .2 parts per billion. (The EPA cutoffs are (I think) 29 PPM .The sample from near the surface 40 miles away was matched to the spill. Well duh! You will note they summarize in PPB and have PPB in the tables but then switch to PPM later in the report for the same data which appears to me to be a typo( same on one of the graphs). (Someone check as I am getting old and blind)
The second sample point has such low concentrations it could not be matched) and the third one at 140 or so miles to the southeast was from a different source.NO surprise either but might be interesting to see if that was related to the early Keys tarballs.
Note that the values all the way to the deep part of the water column in the the data near the well from several other research vessels data points found in a few anomalous areas that measured up to 70 parts per billion with vast majority of column sampling stations being at 6 PPB. That would be consistent with what NOAA and EPA have said all along.(Of course they are part of the conspiracy so we can't trust them nor USF and LSU)
(Anyone want to calculate how much oil would be in a 10 miles by 20 mile by 500 ft plume using .2 PPB! I don't think this is going to attack the Eastern Seaboard or Europe just yet )
[new] Speaker To Animals on June 8, 2010 - 2:30pm
Well let's see - that volume is 7 billion cu m. 0.2 ppb would be 1.4 m 3. (neglecting density differences for back of envelope method) Or 360 gallons.
What a hoot. Vast quantities of unaccounted for oil leaking from unknown sources.
Lakes of oil at the bottom of the Gulf. LOL.
360 gallons.
EPIC FAIL for the MSM, University of South Florida, conspiracy theorists etc.
+1 rep for NOAA.
ROTFL
theoildrum.com |
