Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, May 14, 2010

Two weeks ago, the government put out a round estimate of the size of the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico: 5,000 barrels a day. Repeated endlessly in news reports, it has become conventional wisdom.But scientists and environmental groups are raising sharp questions about that estimate, declaring that the leak must be far larger. They also criticize BP for refusing to use well-known scientific techniques that would give a more precise figure.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

snoofy

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Ya think?

I saw the video earlier today. Impressive to say the least.

I thought National Security has banned satellite pictures of the scene.

Is that right?>

www.nasa.gov

May 11th images and earlier.

Then I wonder what the guys on the radio were talking about...

No, it was a liberal station, not conservative.

Several analysis, particle analysis, etc. have all come up with numbers an order of magnitude or greater than the 5000 barrels a day number. Low end is 50,000 barrels a day.

www.npr.org

Steven Wereley, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University, analyzed videotape of the seafloor gusher using a technique called particle image velocimetry.

A computer program simply tracks particles and calculates how fast they are moving. Wereley put the BP video of the gusher into his computer. He made a few simple calculations and came up with an astonishing value for the rate of the oil spill: 70,000 barrels a day -- much higher than the official estimate of 5,000 barrels a day. [...]

"We're talking more than a factor-of-10 difference between what I calculate and the number that's being thrown around," he said.

Moreover, the New York Times reported that scientists and environmental groups are critizing BP "for refusing to use well-known scientific techniques that would give a more precise figure" of the spill size.

The figure of 5,000 barrels a day was hastily produced by government scientists in Seattle. It appears to have been calculated using a method that is specifically not recommended for major oil spills. ]

Order of magnitude low.
Yeah, it's just natural.

Fucking brilliant.

Fucking brilliant.

#7 | Posted by Zatoichi

I heard they were upgrading the rating from 'A whole shit-load' to 'holy shit!', it's expected next week to go up to 'what have we done?'.

Just got here - Anyone blame Bush yet?

"Where's the oil? Much of it may be gone"

"Model suggests a third may have evaporated"

www.msnbc.msn.com

"may have evaporated"

Straight into the atmosphere; Bypass the cars.

Yay.

Just got here - Anyone blame Bush yet?

#9 | Posted by phesterOBoyle

The finger gets pointed at Cheney before Bush on this one.

en.wikipedia.org

We must prevent the dark water from destroying the world.

We must prevent the dark water from destroying the world.

#13 | Posted by Monstman at 2010-05-14 07:22 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

We'll see........

#10

Only the lighter stuff is going to evaporate. That's your one third. That still leaves 50,000,000 gallons of crude floating around and it's only month one. At least the oil companies have a cheerleader rooting for them with KBM blogging.

I admit I don't totally understand this 'underwater dispersant' they're using at the exit point of the oil, but is all that's doing making a large quantity of the oil remain underwater where it won't be seen? PR 'damage control'?

AU...you understand it just fine. The oil/dispersion mix, which is basically detergent, creates an emulsion that allows it to mix with sea water. It's pretty basic chemistry.

www.sciencekids.co.nz

The bad part about it is that the emulsion mixes with the water but still carries the carcinogenic properties of all the molecules. It's not a chemical reaction like combustion or creating polymers with the molecules that can change those properties. The detergent molecules latch onto certain hydrocarbons and other molecules in the sea water that allow it to be absorbed or 'dispersed' in water. Those molecules are still free to poison anything that ate it if they are not immune to those carcinogens.

#17 Correction, Eat it, breath it or absorb it through the skin.

Let's pause to remember that this is one of the most serious environmental disasters to ever hit the US. Maybe the worst? And it's not even close to over. What a hit the Gulf Coast economies stand to take. Who holds the mortgages on commercial and residential properties there? What kind of losses will the banks take on foreclosures? How may fishing boats will be repossessed by the banks? How far inland will the economic rot reach?

What a tragedy. I sure hope it can be ended soon.

"How many..."

Dittoheads and SARAH! continue to believe the damage is a small price to pay for the God-given right of Americans to burn gasoline to blow dust and leaves from their driveways, run jetskis endlessly in circles, and drive 5000 lb monster station wagons to commute 20-120 miles a day between the cul-de-sac and their jobs at the office "park".

I would sympathize more with the people who will suffer most from this disaster if they didn't consistently vote for politicians who are against regulations on energy corporations.

latest attempt has met with some success

story on later.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable