please read 90 procent of air will be gone

reply to post by BluePillOrRedPill


Notice I was asking questions. Not stating you said it. Local is around the gulf area, like Florida is.

[edit on 5/6/2010 by Chamberf=6]

I flagged this language problem very early in the thread and had a U2U from the op who says hes from Holland.

I did raise the question, as I have had extensive contact with Dutch people that his English was a sad reflection on the Dutch education system I thought of so highly.

I received no reply as to why this was so - so again Im crying foul on this - its half term over here in the UK so the trolls are out in force i guess.

Acording to this article ,they might be exagerating the amount of oil..
some maths for the clever ATS members to ponder.
if true the sea life will have better chance,the PTB move the ball and chains closer.???

LOST = .

LOST is a United Nations treaty that went into effect in 1994. It defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans,

So it is here that we are forced to ask the questions, “Are these enormous plumes of oil real? Are they even possible? Or are they simply hype being promoted by the main stream media in order to facilitate the adoption of LOST, and thereby finance a New World Order controlled by an international banking elite for their own purposes?”

Let’s examine two aspects of the largest of several oil plumes as reported by NIUST. First let’s examine the reported size. And second let’s examine the time available to create such a large plume. The examination that follows was made on May 20th, exactly 30 days after the explosion of the rig, and just days after the first plume was discovered.

The largest “plume” was declared to be 10 miles long by 3 miles wide by up to 300 feet thick. As the plume was not uniform in depth, let’s be conservative and calculate the volume of a plume that is only an average of 50 feet thick:

Length = 10 miles (at 5,280 feet per mile) = 52,800 feet

Width = 3 miles (at 5,280 feet per mile) = 15,840 feet

Depth = 50 feet

Total volume of plume = Length X Width X Depth =

52,800 X 15,840 X 50 = 41,817,600,000 cubic feet

As seen in the calculation above, the plume of leaked crude oil is an estimated 41.8 billion cubic feet in volume. With each cubic foot containing 7.48 gallons, that gives us a plume containing 312.6 billion gallons of crude oil. Now think about that. Over 300 billion gallons of crude oil. The Exxon Valdez oil spill was an estimated 10.8 million gallons of crude oil. That means this one oil plume discovered by NIUST is 28,888 times as large as the volume of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. And that’s only considering a plume that is 50 feet thick as opposed to 300 feet thick as reported.

Let’s look at that another way. In the worldwide trade of crude oil there are roughly 500 super-tankers in service, and each super-tanker can carry two million barrels of oil. Two million barrels (at 42 gallons each) equates to 84,000,000 gallons of crude oil in each super-tanker. To produce this plume of crude oil discovered in the Gulf of Mexico, each ship within the total world fleet of 500 super-tankers would have to journey to the coast of Louisiana and then completely disgorge the two million barrels of oil in each tanker. And all 500 tankers would have to repeat this process seven and one-half times. This one reported plume of crude oil off the coast of Louisiana is the volume of over 3,700 super-tankers. Is it realistic to believe that this much crude oil has spilled into the gulf in a period of 30 days? The volume of 3,700 super-tankers? Can you picture that? America’s worst oil spill, the Exxon Valdez disaster, only spilled one eighth of one super-tanker.

Here’s another relevant piece of information– the Deepwater Horizon well was drilled into the Macondo Prospect oilfield located in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 of the Gulf of Mexico. It is estimated that the total volume of crude oil held in the Macondo field is only 50 to 100 MILLION barrels. That’s the entire field.

By contrast, the volume of our one plume of spilled oil as calculated above is 312 BILLION gallons. And since there are 42 gallons in a barrel, we divide by 42 and find that this plume contains 7.4 BILLION barrels of spilled crude oil. Look at that again. The reported ten mile long oil plume is calculated to contain 7.4 BILLION barrels of crude oil, but the Macondo undersea oilfield is only estimated to contain a maximum of 100 MILLION barrels of crude oil. The size of this one reported oil plume is 75 times the maximum projected size of all the crude oil held in the entire Macondo field. This information begs a question, “How can this one oil plume be composed of crude oil from the Macondo Prospect field when the plume is estimated to be 75 times greater than the total volume of the crude oil contained in the entire Macondo field?”

Does that make sense? Or perhaps does it make more sense that the media, influenced by the powers at hand, are greatly hyping the size of these reported oil plumes in order to flame the fires of public unrest and push for greater regulation which feeds right into the hands of LOST?

Now let’s look at our second point: the time available to produce the reported plume (this examination was made on May 20th, 14 days ago, just days after the plume was first reported in

News sources have reported that the source of the oil spill is a pipe that is approximately 21 inches in diameter. But British Petroleum is reported to be using a tube with only a 6-inch diameter inserted into the larger pipe to siphon off the leaking oil. A 6-inch tube has an opening of 27 square inches. This is key because we want to make a calculation as to how fast the oil would have to be exiting this pipe in order to create the massive plume of oil that has been reported . To make our calculation simple, let’s increase the size of our opening from 27 square inches to 144 square inches, which is one square foot (12 inches X 12 inches). A pipe that is 14 inches in diameter will have an opening that is approximately equivalent to one square foot or 144 square inches. Using these dimensions we can visualize a pipe with a mouth that is 14 inches across. The opening or mouth of the pipe is therefore one square foot in area.

Now we ask the question, “How fast does the oil have to be exiting this pipe in order to create our plume?” To arrive at this answer we first calculate the amount of time that the oil has been spilling into the gulf. The spill reportedly began on April 20th. So it has now been 30 days (May 20th) since the beginning of the spill. So we multiply 30 days X 24 hours X 60 minutes X 60 seconds , and that gives us 2,592,000 seconds. Now we take our previously calculated 41.8 billion cubic feet of crude oil found in the plume, and we divide that by the 2.592 million seconds, and that gives us 16,126 cubic feet per second.

If the oil plume were to be created in 30 days as reported, which is a time interval of 2.592 million seconds, then just over 16,000 cubic feet of oil would have to spill out each second. Using our theoretical 14-inch pipe with an opening of one square foot, that means our pipe would have to BLAST out a column of oil 16,000 feet long every second in order to release 16,000 cubic feet per second. Think a moment about that velocity… 16,000 feet per second. There are just over 5,200 feet in a mile. This means our pipe would have to gush out a column of oil over three miles long every second. That means the oil exiting the pipe would have to travel at over 10,000 miles per hour. In the terminology of jet aircraft, that’s an exit velocity of mach 15. That’s correct. The oil would have to be exiting the pipe at fifteen times the speed of sound. The only word that can accurately describe such an event is “unbelievable.” It is un-believable. Who can believe that there is a pipe or other opening on the sea floor that is blasting out a column of oil over three miles long per second? It’s just not believable.

The results of our examination reveal that the reported size of this one undersea plume is so enormous that it boggles the mind to comprehend it. The plume’s volume as reported is over 28,000 times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill. To get this size of oil spill we would have to take 28,000 tankers, park each of them in the Gulf of Mexico, and have each one release 10.8 millions gallons of crude.

www.infowars.com...

wow,eee i just got u2u for a good few points for a diff reply to a diff thread



[edit on 6/5/2010 by dashar]

reply to post by zatara


I don't know what his motivations are but I'm fairly certain he's American. Using numbers as homophones isn't something you learn from TV with subtitles. Also if he is truly from Holland he probably wouldn't have used gallons for measurement. Not to mention that in a couple posts he had near perfect grammar then he went back to text language.

Something smells fishy.

reply to post by Silk


As I said in my earlier post, having been raised by grandparents who are dutch natives, the fact that his sentence structure is better than his grammar really sends up red flags. My grandmother has impeccable spelling and grammar for the most part but she still transverses words quite often, something I would have expected from the OP.

If I could figure out how to do it, would post an audio of me saying my maiden name and then ask him to spell it. Only a true dutch could do that.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by calstorm]

Guys it doesnt matter what his nationality is....its the topic at hand we should be discussing.

The OP has also just admitted to me that he was wrong about his theory. I will let him explain that if he chooses to come back to this thread

reply to post by Silk


i replyied 2 u multiple times
also my sit ius www.

this is my siteb from holland ok
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Silk
I flagged this language problem very early in the thread and had a U2U from the op who says hes from Holland.

I did raise the question, as I have had extensive contact with Dutch people that his English was a sad reflection on the Dutch education system I thought of so highly.

I received no reply as to why this was so - so again Im crying foul on this - its half term over here in the UK so the trolls are out in force i guess.

u are wrigt te schools were very good until we had 2 pay 4 the financial crisis

No wonder no one understands me then.

i use c sometimes for see, even sea for see and i dont know the they,theirs there went when,.right write, lots like them words,even these comas,fullstops. i get em all jumbled loads of stuff like that ,i have gone to english gramer websites for help since useing ATS even just a few months back, but it dont really sink in.
I say i dont need it so i dont feel bad,but feel diffrent inside about it ,but when i read you guys calling someone who is not english ,well wow i feel sxxxt now,most kids type like texting now,I dont think its good though and i would love to wwrite good and corect but i carnt and im english first language ,only language,so i do this because
its just .faster.and even when i edit i sometimes make it worse, its not a book is it a forum thread.anyway
what does it matter as long as you understand what the jist is,unless its a recipe people are writeing
IM from a backward place our parents couldnt read and right a few years back believe it or not.I still know a few fiends who can not right. and bring me there forma an stuff to write it up for them.I know one guy called kev still uses a mark for his sig. and hes loaded hes a gypsy he has a bran new mercedes every 18mths,big clean pristine house,business really fit women,, i am last at english stuff.

[edit on 6/5/2010 by dashar]

Spelling isn't really the topic here. The validity of the OP is, or the lack of validity. If you are interested in the spelling topic, you might be interested in this thread:

Protesting spelling bees??

[edit on 5-6-2010 by onecon]

ok thks but people need to understand some of us are to far gone older and wish we could communicate better, but it really is a difficult thing when most of your life you never typed written stuff except to sign a check fill out insurance form,I dont post bad on purpose ,its just a lack of education really dident pay attention and should of asked for help but that was uncool when fonzie was playing on tv,before you know it your way behind,its a bad cop out but this gramer spelling dont seam to stick with me,
I thought you both was talking english of op, and felt for op and lots of people others on ats like me , this does comes up a lot.I know there are lots of very well educated people and think its wonderfull to respond in threads with them ,and them actually listen or reply
Ok no probs thks for link reading it now.

Guys..... Come on. Is it really worth ragging on someone. I am not taking sides but isn't there enough bullying in the world. I thought people on this site were suppose to be open and considerate to everyone. You don't know the OPs situation. There could be a number of reasons why they can't type/spell. Dyslexia, processing, Non- English speaker, etc.

What matters is h/she wanted to make a point. If the research doesn't pan out then fine. No one knows what is going to happen because of this oil spill. Only time will tell.

Anyways the OP made me think. So I did a little research. Personalty I don't think it will deplete our oxygen, it will cause some serious damage in the gulf though.

"Phytoplankton need two things for photosynthesis and thus their survival: energy from the sun and nutrients from the water. Phytoplankton absorb both across their cell walls.

In the process of photosynthesis, phytoplankton release oxygen into the water. Half of the world's oxygen is produced via phytoplankton photosynthesis. The other half is produced via photosynthesis on land by trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants."

news.nationalgeographic.com...

"We need marine algae a whole lot more than they need us. Think about it….70% to 80% of all the oxygen we breathe comes from algae! Without them we would really be sucking wind, but not for long! At this point you may be saying, "Yo! What about the trees and other land plants?" Well, trees and other land plants are very important, no doubt about it. But for pure survival, we couldn't make it without algae."

"Why does so much of our oxygen come from algae? Well, first of all, remember that the oceans cover about 71% of this planet and land is only about 29%. If we assume that every square mile of the ocean produces as much oxygen as every square mile of land, then this makes sense. The oceans would produce about 71% and the land 29% of the oxygen we breathe. Looks like we are in the ballpark don't you think?"

ecology.com...

"The oil spill may exacerbate the shallow-water dead zone through a variety of physical and biological processes. But it could also help minimize the dead zone through similar means. Overall, the response of the Gulf dead zone to the oil spill is quite uncertain, with oxygen levels being tugged up and down by numerous factors, leaving the future of this habitat in question.

At the same time, further from shore, the oil is having a host of potential oxygen-depleting effects from the surface waters all the way to the seafloor. "

www.scientificamerican.com...

"Marine algae and seaweed responds variably to oil, and oil spills may result in die-offs for some species. Algae may die or become more abundant in response to oil spills. Although oil can prevent the germination and growth of marine plants, most vegetation, including kelp, appears to recover after cleanup."

alaska.fws.gov...



So anyways, we will see what happens. I just hope this thing comes to an end. The gulf could truly be a dead zone when all is through.

reply to post by icecold7


umm, what is a procent? heard of percent but procent is new to me!

and u cant kill water, as it is not an organism. and if we lose water, we lose life. and if ocean water disappeared, it would not have an impact on O2. if we retained freshwater, we would still have plants, which form O2 from CO2. and we would still have humans, so that CO2 would be in a ready supply... just sayin.

yes the oil spill is an awful tragedy that stems from our out of date dependence on oil, but i doubt it will bring an apocolyptic disaster.

reply to post by Happyfeet84


Happyfeet, you sound really sensible, It is good to see someone cut thru the BS. I have seen horrific spelling from many North Americans who think they are educated, and I myself sometimes take the odd shortcut too. As long as we get the point, spelling shouldn't be picked on so much, kinda derails the topic.
That said, regardless of how bad this oil/methane/gas/dispersant poisoning gets, we are all now a lot more aware of the crap that is going into our oceans/rivers/lakes etc., not just from this leak, but from many spills and dumps.
Can you imagine how it will be to eat seafood now? Knowing more about the state of our waters?
As for the air quality, some of the pollutants from this will probably rain down on parts of the earth, thankfully we have trees to help with nature's own fix.

maybe hopefilly this spill as bad as it is....will make the govt. realise that oil isnt the best way to go at natural resourses. after this, the us govt should deffineitly realise in reussable resourses and also become less dependent on oil. this kind of thing was bound to happen sooner or later. espcially with the amount of oil we are consuming. after this people will begin to realize that oil is not the way to go and as much bad as this spill will become...... this spill will eventually cause a uprising against oil and people will ffinally begin to find out what real natural reasources are

There is no threat from the Oil spill once the right people see this video.
www.youtube.com...

Just in case anyone is interested. The recent Gulf oil spill is by far ..... not the worst oil spill in history.

There have been much worse oil spills - one in 1979 spilled 140 gallons of oil into the Gulf ... it was an off shore oil well.


No one suffocated then either.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by icecold7


All ocean (water) is not 90% of oxygene... If so, what about all the plants, forests and trees and the atmospehere itself?

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by zatara

 

I don't know what his motivations are but I'm fairly certain he's American. Using numbers as homophones isn't something you learn from TV with subtitles. Also if he is truly from Holland he probably wouldn't have used gallons for measurement. Not to mention that in a couple posts he had near perfect grammar then he went back to text language.

Something smells fishy.

u people are soooo paranoid lmao
why dont u comew visit mme if u dont belive me or go 2 my yotube sit
do u think i made it 2 fool u guys lmao again
www.youtube.com...