Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (73763)	5/6/2010 2:12:17 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

Day one I had no clue. But let's look at it different way: We now know that the Dept of Interior has known since at least 1994 that there were problems AND solutions. This is clearly a failure of gov't to regulate oil companies in the US when other countries were already making the oil cos. toe the line. This is despite Valdez and similar spill in the Gulf with the Mexican rig. Clinton, Bush and O are all at fault because oil companies are huge money sources for their campaigns. I'm sure earlier presidents have egg on their faces as well. You see anything wrong with that logic?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (73763)	5/6/2010 8:58:48 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 149317

Was oil spewing on Day 1, or did it start spewing on ?Day 3 when the rig sank and snapped the riser?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (73763)	5/7/2010 1:04:02 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 149317

"Did you know that oil was spewing out on day 1?" It wasn't...started about day 3.5 Every deepwater work class ROV has a sector scan sonar. Sonar can pick up oil leaks that the naked eye cannot see. The picture of oil bubbles painted on a sonar screen is like fireworks going off. There was an ROV survey of the BOP and riser within hours after the rig sank. At that time there was no indication of any oil leakage from the BOP. And everyone breathed an extremely large, and extremely premature, sigh of relief. Estimates made about leakage are primarily done from aerial surveys and satellite photos and are notoriously inaccurate as is clearly stated in the USCG manual on reporting oil spills. The gravity of the oil, the temperature, weather, currents, time, weathering of the oil and other factors all have a major impact on the size of a slick from a given amount of oil. For example; if you are on a lake in very still water and pour a gallon - not a barrel, a gallon - of gasoline over the side in a matter of minutes you can have a slick covering a square mile – which will evaporate just a quickly, especially on a hot day. If you do the same with heavy crude like the Exxon Valdez spill it will probably take 500 barrels to cover that same square mile although with the fullness of time it will end up covering an area many times larger, and will take months to dissipate in the absence of heavy weather. This sweet crude is somewhere in between. It was sometime the night after the sinking that oil leaks started appearing from buckles and holes in the riser. This was stated to be about 1,000 barrels per day. I would read that to mean the leak was between 250 and 3,000 bpd. And a 5,000 bpd leak is probably between 2,000 and 10,000 bpd. Until there is some way to measure the flow like running it through a pipeline it is impossible to have any accurate measurement of the leakage. Message 26519444