The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Spill, Baby, Spill!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lars

Active member
I hope you are wrong that THIS ONE can spread across all the major oceans if not capped...I fear this too....the whole ocean eco-system is at risk, which will effect every populated area in the world.
In that perspective this spill is literally a drop in the ocean. The gulf stream moves slowly, so most of the spill would evaporate or break down on the journey across the Atlantic. What little was left would be highly diluted. The gulf stream transports some 150 million cubic metres of water per second past Newfoundland, or some 900 million barrels per second. Compare that to the current most negative estimates of 100K barrels/day in the plume, or just over a barrel per second.

Not to belittle the disaster, but it's unlikely to have any direct effect over here.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
A diagram of the undersea "top kill" equipment and operation. It's amazing to me that they can do this from a mile above the ocean floor. It's no wonder that it took awhile to pull this all together....and I'm sure there is alot of equipment on the surface ships to make this all happen.

I sure hope it works.

Gary
 
V

Vivek

Guest
If anyone has a chance to get a small scoop of this crude floats, would they consider sending some to me?

I would like to do some photography with it.
 

Lars

Active member
Some inside info from Norwegian oil workers in the Gulf (as quoted from Swedish newspaper SvD, creative translation courtesy of Google):

"In an article in the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet argues Norwegians who participated in rescue efforts in the Gulf of Mexico that both BP and the U.S. Coast Guard tried to cover up the extent of oil spills. Norwegian ships were among the first involved in the rescue work following the explosion on the oil rig.

- BP came to direct lies and propaganda, "says one of the Norwegians to the Times. They do not want to be identified.

The Norwegians said that video footage from the mini-submarines showed a completely different reality than the one described externally. Two days after the accident showed Norwegians see uploaded images directly on the leaking oil. Five days after the explosion it was said that the leaked 1000 barrels of oil per day, and three days later 5000, a figure that BP up to the last maintained. But the Norwegians could not get the official figures to match what they saw in the pictures of the leak.

- Everybody could see that there were large amounts flowing into. We only disagreed on was how much more it was than what was said, "one of the Norwegians."
 
O

Oxide Blu

Guest
Some inside info from Norwegian oil workers ... "says one of the Norwegians to the Times. They do not want to be identified.

FWIW, we don't refer to anonymous sources as "inside info". Did the "Times" verify the information from the anonymous person with two valid/credible sources? Probably not.

My gut feeling is the whole "leaking oil" thing is probably a whole lot worse than we are led to believe. Nonetheless, my gut feelings don't allow me to accept unidentified, unverified sources as fact. And you shouldn't, either. ;)
 

Lars

Active member
FWIW, we don't refer to anonymous sources as "inside info". Did the "Times" verify the information from the anonymous person with two valid/credible sources? Probably not.

My gut feeling is the whole "leaking oil" thing is probably a whole lot worse than we are led to believe. Nonetheless, my gut feelings don't allow me to accept unidentified, unverified sources as fact. And you shouldn't, either. ;)
Perhaps unfortunate wording. Re accepting fact, I just quoted a newspaper article. I'd trust a serious Norwegian publication over oil company officials or US politicians any day, though. As pointed out by the article the sources asked not to be named but were not anonymous.

Here is the original article. The newspaper claims that it spoke directly with crew from three named norwegian ships (Boa Sub C, Ocean Intervention III, and Skandi Neptune) that aided in the initial rescue and damage survey at the spill during the first 24 hours.

http://www.dagbladet.no/2010/05/28/nyheter/deepwater_horizon/utenriks/11888617/
Translated:
http://translate.google.com/transla...pwater_horizon/utenriks/11888617/&sl=no&tl=en

Why I find their statements relevant is that they are not controlled by US politicians, nor by BP.
 
Last edited:

M5-Guy

New member
Some inside info from Norwegian oil workers in the Gulf (as quoted from Swedish newspaper SvD, creative translation courtesy of Google):

"In an article in the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet argues Norwegians who participated in rescue efforts in the Gulf of Mexico that both BP and the U.S. Coast Guard tried to cover up the extent of oil spills. Norwegian ships were among the first involved in the rescue work following the explosion on the oil rig.

- BP came to direct lies and propaganda, "says one of the Norwegians to the Times. They do not want to be identified.

The Norwegians said that video footage from the mini-submarines showed a completely different reality than the one described externally. Two days after the accident showed Norwegians see uploaded images directly on the leaking oil. Five days after the explosion it was said that the leaked 1000 barrels of oil per day, and three days later 5000, a figure that BP up to the last maintained. But the Norwegians could not get the official figures to match what they saw in the pictures of the leak.

- Everybody could see that there were large amounts flowing into. We only disagreed on was how much more it was than what was said, "one of the Norwegians."
You must remember that BP is fined a "per barrel" set amount for every barrel spilled. So it is IN THEIR interest to keep the numbers as low as possible and then try to maintain that it is impossible to gauge the true amount with any accuracy.
But, I believe we CAN know the amount with reasonable accuracy.
 

Lars

Active member
You must remember that BP is fined a "per barrel" set amount for every barrel spilled. So it is IN THEIR interest to keep the numbers as low as possible and then try to maintain that it is impossible to gauge the true amount with any accuracy.
But, I believe we CAN know the amount with reasonable accuracy.
That explains a lot.
 
D

DougDolde

Guest
I think we should boil the BP execs in oil ! And Halliburton as well.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
You must remember that BP is fined a "per barrel" set amount for every barrel spilled. So it is IN THEIR interest to keep the numbers as low as possible and then try to maintain that it is impossible to gauge the true amount with any accuracy.
But, I believe we CAN know the amount with reasonable accuracy.
I don't disagree at all with your statement re BP's interest in keeping the numbers as low as possible. I think they were probably quite happy to stick with the 5,000 bbl/day estimate for as long as they could. Just a couple points to remember:

1) the original 5,000 bbl/day estimate was from NOAA (not BP), based on surface observations. BP's original estimate was 1,000 bbl/day.

2) I don't think we can know the total amount of oil which has leaked into the Gulf with "reasonable accuracy", unless you think that NOAA's current estimate of 12,000 to 19,000 bbl/day meets that standard. If you assume those rates/day for the first 40 days....that leads to a range of 480,000 to 760,000 bbls thus far....which is a pretty big range.

Whatever the actual cummulative volumes spilled....it is likely to leave long term damage to the environment and economy of the Gulf, if the much smaller Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound is any indication of the damage done.

If this spill and the incredible difficulty of plugging the well one mile below the ocean's surface doesn't change the public's, government's and oil companies' view of risk vs reward re deep water offshore oil development then I don't know what will.

Gary
 

waynelake

Member
Uncertain if this site has been mentioned. Another interactive oil spill site. Type in where you live, & click. It overlays the spill to get perspective of size/where you are...
http://www.beowulfe.com/oil/

The news paper here mentioned 5000. Also they mentioned was probably 5X larger than such estimate...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top