Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

lady on CNN showing pics.... said oil slick is 25 feet deep.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:10 PM
Original message
lady on CNN showing pics.... said oil slick is 25 feet deep.
what were seeing on the surface is nothing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. In one place maybe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Hiding your head in the tar sands?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Huh?
Excuse me if I don't think the entire oil spill is 25 feet deep at every point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. does that help you sleep better?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. It should, yes
Anything otherwise would be indicative of a disaster many times worse than the brutal one we are already facing.

There isn't anything wrong with clarification, such as what % of the total area of the spill is actually 25 feet deep. If that can't be provided, its almost a worthless number which should cause no more additional concern. Everyone knows the situation is fucked right now, but lets know exactly how fucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angry Dragon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. One place is one too many
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. In other places, it's going to be considerably deeper...like all the way to the bottom of the ocean
That's where the oil is coming from, and it's still coming up, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Yep...3 places
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. now at 7-8 valdez
according to the french dude
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Valdez: unit of crude oil spill. Vz for short. Also kVz and MVz. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
7. BP has been lieing and obfuscating since minute 1..actually since BEFORE the rig blew up...
Edited on Mon May-24-10 03:17 PM by BrklynLiberal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomm2thumbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. I can't even imagine the situation if the weather goes bad

right now, everyone is hovering over the site, attempting solutions - but a major storm would send them, and all the spewing oil, every which way

I fear this will be the problem, not that they aren't trying to stop the well, but that they won't complete that task before they are confronted by a hurricane or other storms
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. You are right. It will be even more horrific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. Lying, obfuscating, and - much worse - POISONING the gulf with their toxic, carcinogenic,
patented "dispersant".

This is approaching the level of environmental terrorism at this point.


Of course, it would be a corporate wet dream to have the entire gulf dead, so there would be no more obstacles for drilling (what else can one do in a dead, life-free gulf?) :shrug:

And watch it, they're probably going to get away with limited liability and possibly even a taxpayer-funded bailout, too. :grr: :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
8. There are reports of slicks being measured in miles deep and wide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. In a real sense, it's a mile deep.
And that's the real problem -- not just the current destruction but the large reservoir of destructive power that has already been let loose on the sea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
14. Was this just a random lady?
this far along and our media is getting its reporting from citizen-journalists? or is this "cnn lady" showed some CNN pics?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
15. Holy crap!
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
secondwind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
16. I've seen photos of dolphins swimming just below the oil spill, and they weren't 25 ft. down
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #16
29. obviously you don't understand the scope of this catastrophe - 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 f
just 1 plume discovered "is 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick in spots."

more...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/us/16oil.html

fyi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woodsprite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
17. In one previous report, it was said that there was one underwater
pocket that was 10 miles long 1 mile wide and 300 feet deep. That was ONE pocket that was not at the surface.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. 421 Million barrels per day?
Thats what it would take to produce a volume of 10 mi by 1 mi by 300 ft in only 35 days. 84,200 times what BP reported and 5,000 times what has been speculated. On the other hand that would mean this one well was spewing five times what the entire world consumes currently. So if true we could really tell the Saudis to pound sand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BelgianMadCow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. Who said the cloud was pure oil? It's a SUSPENSION
meaning, small oil droplets in water. From the pictures I have seen taken from within such a cloud, I'd put the water to oil ratio at dunno, 100/1. And that was close to the surface, where the oil has coagulated already and there probably is much more oil to water than at depth.

Just saying, it's not because a volume of water is reported as contaminated that it's pure contaminant. :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Emmulsion probably less than 200 PPM
Absolutely it doesn't take much oil to cause a large visual impact. although some of the numbers being reported are either exaggerations or counting very low concentrations. When a slick is into thousands of square miles the depth at even 70,000 BPD doesn't come to much at any concentration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doublethink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
18. Here's Jean Michel Cousteau's website ....
http://www.oceanfutures.org/


He is the one she was talking to on the phone ..... and showing his crews pictures underwater showing the oil 5, 10, to 25 feet thick ... those pics were really really really depressing. They don't seem to be up on his website yet .... but someone will post them here I am sure when they come over the internet ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomm2thumbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. thanks for the link /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doublethink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. No problem ......
The report was on the Rick Sanchez CNN show ..... and that whole segment needs to be posted in the DU video section if someone puts it up on You Tube today ..... peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. Thanks for link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
22. OMFG!
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
27. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
28. Videos from the field from website oceanfutures.org That is Jean-MichleCousteau's site.
Edited on Mon May-24-10 04:05 PM by BrklynLiberal
http://www.oceanfutures.org/action/offshore-oil-drilling/videos-field


Oil in the Marshes
http://www.oceanfutures.org/action/offshore-oil-drilling/videos-field/may-21
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat May 11th 2024, 04:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC