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: Road Walker who wrote (81355)	8/20/2010 12:54:49 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Da plume is pretty small; big, but small. The above calculation was based on a typo later revised in the first issued reports on oil concentration in plumes. The report originally stated 0.2 ppb; it was later revised to 0.2 ppm. This is in the ballpark with the numbers being discussed in this thread. So it is more like 360,000 gallons. It still isn't anything like a lake of oil and it never will be. Also I'm rather skeptical of the idea that the higher DO levels mean much regarding the rate of metabolism. For example I haven't seen any model that includes infusion of oxygen into the plume volume. Nor do we have a hydrocarbon composition profile within the plume. At least not yet. theoildrum.com Assuming Rainy's quote from the Guardian contains correct info: "According to their findings the deepwater plume measures 22 miles long, 1.2 miles wide and 650 feet high." Then the math in English units is 2252801.25280650 = 4.78E+011 cf in Plume. Using 50 ppb as the oil content yields 2.39E+004 cf oil or 1.79E+005 gals oil or 4,260 bls oil. Check my math. the lurking engineer