BK Lim Fires Back At BP Shills On The Oil Drum — With New Forensic Analysis of BP Bathymetric Chart — And So Do I

BK Lim has fired back at the shill on The Oil Drum in his latest post “Forensic Analysis of BP’s bathymetric chart”

The post goes on to point out five areas of fundamental problems with BP’s Macondo bathymetry which include:

1. Data acquisition fraud
2. Data compilation fraud
3. Willful Negligence and Ignorance
4. Willful Misinterpretation
5. Willful Misrepresentation

While BK Lim details his arguments for those problems in his post a second story emerges here in which BK Lim directly attacks the BP shills on The Oil Drum for their participation in the cover up for BP.

Like many, I followed the intense discussions at The Oildrum.com (TOD) to get some fair technical coverage of the BP’s oil spill disaster. As the disaster wore on, I started to wonder why industry experts like Art Berman, Rockman and many supporting actors (Rocdoc, PinkFud, Quaking, CraigWcoop & others) were so defensive of BP’s lies and zealously stamping out any independent bloggers’ views. If they had been truly professional and interested in seeking and disseminating the truth of the disaster, why were they not discussing incriminating issues that BP seems to be avoiding? Granted that nuking the gushing well was not really a good idea, but why should they be bitterly thrashing Matt Simmons’ apparently valid assertions as well.

…

Missing the Forest for the trees

If there had been no comments at all from TOD’s industry experts on my bathy posting, I would not have been so convinced of BP’s deceits and willful mass deception to cover up the long chain of human errors leading to the disaster. Even though there had been visits from BP’s goons to my column and in particular the Bathy posting, they did not want to bring more attention to my blog by commenting.

On 29 July2010-10:30am, Robert Rapier’s posted “A Critical Examination of Matt Simmons’ Claims on the Deepwater Spill”. It must have been a tremendous group effort involving multiple Oil Drum staff members particularly Joules Burn, Art Berman, Euan Mearns and Robert Rapier, to compile all those satellite photos, statistics and causes of methane emission (including belching cattle) just to put down one man.

Just when they thought they had successfully “snuffed out” the last flame of argument against BP (after an exhaustive day hammering down Matt Simmons), someone posted my article Why Is BP’s Macondo Blowout So Disastrous & Beyond Patch-Up? for discussion the next day. My diagrams and geological model must have infuriated those BP’s goons at TOD. Not only were my diagrams more beautiful than theirs, many impartial bloggers seemed to think my geohazards assessment made a lot more sense. It must have been most frustrating for those BP’s goons to have another sprout of doubts springing to life, so soon after the last one was snuffed out.

It could not have been coincidental that the debasing comments on the inconsequential scaling error by GeoNola, Klurker and Lurking came one day after my diagrammatic illustration of BP’s Macondo Blowout had attracted a 6,000% jump in website visits (first day) to my column. Their complete silence on the fundamental issues was deafening. All except Fintan Dunne are oilman experts and judging from their blog comments, are fiercely defensive of BP.

There’s an old saying; “You can see the ant over the river but not the elephant on the same bank”.

I picked BP’s bathymetry to illustrate what many had long feared. It is an open record of BP’s list of willful negligence which everyone can understand. BP’s goons at TOD, who had been so vocal on so many issues, have remained “loudly” silent on these bathymetric issues incriminating BP. I will end this posting by quoting the latest news on BP’s tripled record breaking spending on advertisement.

BP tripled Ad spending after spill – NYtimes

It will come as little surprise to newspaper readers and television watchers, but BP significantly increased its spending on advertising after the April 20 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. BP spent $93.4 million on newspaper, magazine, television and Internet advertising in the three months after the disaster, three times what it spent in the comparable period in 2009 the company reported to Congress.

Indeed BK Lim is correct.

The Oil Drum is full of BP goons who have worked in concert to silence anyone seeking the truth about this disaster by labeling them “alarmists” and member of the conspiracy theory crowd to prima facie dismiss arguments they don’t agree with.

This is a well known Government style propaganda attack that stifles open debate.

It is rather quite ironic that the Crowd at The Oil Drum would dismiss others as conspiracy theorist when the the truth is they The Oil Drum crowd themselves are conspiracy theorists who have long engaged in the practice of manipulating statistics and scaring the hell out of the world’s population to drive up the price of oil with their “Peak Oil” theory so they can rip off the consumer at the pump and line the pockets with with the profits.

For those who aren’t familiar with Peak Oil, the oil industry used the theory that the world was running out of oil to push up oil prices until data proved it was a load of crap.

So they came up with more propaganda to suck every nickel out of you pocket they could — Peak Oil — which suggests that while we aren’t running out of oil we can’t product enough oil to keep up with global consumption.

Prominent oil industry insiders and websites like The Oil Drum have pushed the propaganda for years to drive up the price of oil to benefit their careers and financial interests.

You can thank them for The Oil Drum personally for the astronomical prices that you pay at the Gas Pump which include a 400% increase in price over the last decade.

This crowd of people are the foxes guarding the Hen House.

The proof can be seen by simply looking back at the posts on The Oil Drum since the disaster has unfolded.

Within The Oil Drum IRC chat room many have complained of fascists style censorship of anyone who had anything to negative to say about BP or the Federal Government handling of the BP Gulf Oil Spill.

While the rules of the room clearly stated you would be kicked for “senseless bashing” the moderators kick those bashing BP or the Government while allowing the rest of the users to endlessly bash anyone who made any statements against BP or the Government.

On The Oil Drum website and within the chat room it is not only the “alarmists” and “conspiracy theory” crowd who have been attacked again and again.

Many well respected scientists and main stream media organizations and reporters who reported anything negative or who have disagreed with the numerous officials versions of the story told to the public by BP or the Government have also been attacked.

For example when Steve Werely first announced an estimated flowrate of 70,000 BPD they immediately began destroying his credibility offering their own calculations and estimates of the amount of oil leaking in a thread called “Is 70,000 barrels a day a possibility for the oil spill” which led to ridiculing of Steve Wereley on several sites across the internet.

While the post is littered with comments suggesting a leak rate of 20k to 30k there are others which support that Government was not lying about the leak rate and the flow of oil had actually been increasing which is why the Government continually upped their estimates.

Several comments are outright attacks on Wereley who has now been proved to be almost right on the money.

Here are several that I cherry picked from the “experts” on the thread, as opposed to the non-experts who also comment there.

GregTX on May 13, 2010 – 9:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

I’d bet my salary this leak wasn’t north of 20,000 bbls/day. An unfrac’ed well with restricted flow through a partially closed BOP into open ocean when the Gulf’s best frac’ed controlled wells can barely managed 50,000 bbls/day.

70,000 bbls/day are just laughable.

Some people just want this disaster to be worse than it already is to fuel their agenda.
Production Guy on May 13, 2010 – 10:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

I’ll bet with Greq on this one.
FMagyar on May 14, 2010 – 8:35am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Some people just want this disaster to be worse than it already is to fuel their agenda.

I’m sure you meant “fuel” as a pun, right?

Just curious, who are those people and what exactly would their agenda be?

As for the disaster, I was listening to some journalist on NPR yesterday, quite convincingly argue (not that I bought his arguments) that this spill really wasn’t all that bad and that the Gulf would easily absorb the oil and nature would take its course and everything will be just fine and dandy.

For the record, your worst case scenario of 20,000 bbls/day, sounds pretty damn dire to me.
And while I’m not much of an expert, I do think that 70,000 bbls/day is probably a gross exaggeration, However I also think that neither the 20 or 70 thousand bbls/day means very much to the public at large.

Maybe the MSM should put this mess into perspective by just telling J6pk in terms they can relate to. How about, “The Sh!t has really hit the fan this time, folks, and while the turds aren’t quite as big as they might have been, they stink about as bad as any we’ve ever smelled and if your livelihood depended of the Gulf waters you better get yourself a bigger paddle because the one you lost when you were just up sh!t’s creek, probably wouldn’t have cut it anyway! So, you might want to consider reassessing your agendas…

Good luck!
Fractional_Flow on May 14, 2010 – 8:49am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Where in the f is the oil??

All the flow rates increase increase increase But I haven’t seen a picture yet of a solid oil slick…

It reminds me of the difference between production and reserves in a deepwater discovery.

An article this morning says all the recovery efforts after separation have yeilded a whopping 1000 barrels.

FF
Admiral Valdemar on May 14, 2010 – 2:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Given BP have come out and said the GOM is so big that this slick won’t harm it, it’s not surprising some people actually accept such bullshit reasoning. It is after all, far more amazing to see a volcano erupt and conclude it emits more GHGs than it is to consider all those seemingly clean airliners flying daily.
Fractional_Flow on May 14, 2010 – 9:25am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

I have already seen those pictures. I don’t see anything in there that is not 99% water… maybe the ones right at the rig.

You have obviously never cleaned a one barrel oil spill out of a creek. I unfortunately have.

FF
gearhead on May 13, 2010 – 10:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

For 70,000 bbl/day =2000 gal/min the velocity out the 16″ pipe would be 500 in/sec. The oil flow doesn’t look nearly that fast. The white gas stream is definitely faster. If so, it would be coming out as a jet straight out the pipe – not so, it is coming out at an angle.

Consider this 16″ pipe as same area and flow as about heavy duty 500 garden hoses flowing 4 GPM /hose. Stick a hose with that flow rate in a bucket and you will get alot more mixing turbulence than shown in the picture.

I SWAG 20,000 bbl/day ratioing the flow coming out to my experience sticking flowing pipes into tanks.

David L Hagen on May 13, 2010 – 10:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

The particle image velocimetry appears to provide the best quantitative estimate of velocity of the flow out the pipe. One major uncertainty is the oil fraction.

Typically, the PIV measures on a 100 x 100 grid with accuracy between 0.2% and 5% of full scale and spatial resolution ~1mm.

Particle Image Velocimetry See Steve Wereley‘s home page.
See Wereley’s book: “Particle Imaging Velocimetry
However, here the velocimetry appears to be inferred from the video which probably degrades the accuracy.

BP later acknowledged to Congress that the worst case, if the leak accelerated, would be 60,000 barrels a day, a flow rate that would dump a plume the size of the Exxon Valdez spill into the gulf every four days.

Size of Oil Spill in Gulf Underestimated, Scientists Say”

Note missing data and description of BP’s feeding a pipe in to draw off the oil flow:

Missing data causing rig reconstruction mystery

“I can just tell you that the Halliburton hands were scratching their heads,” said Buzbee, whose clients include one of the Halliburton crew members responsible for cementing the well to prepare for moving the drilling rig to another site.

Buzbee said that when Halliburton showed BP PLC and Transocean officials the results of the pressure tests that suggested gas was leaking, the rig workers were put on “standby.” BP is the rig operator and leaseholder.

Buzbee said one of his clients told him the “Transocean and BP company people got their heads together,” and 40 minutes later gave the green light.

The attorney said the Halliburton crew members were not shown any new test results.

“They said they did their own tests, and they came out OK,” he said. “But with the phantom test that Transocean and BP allegedly did, there was no real record or real-time recordation of that test.”. . .

Meanwhile, out in the Gulf, BP settled on its next attempt to cut down on the spill: Undersea robots will try to thread a small tube into the jagged pipe that’s leaking on the sea floor. The tube, which will suck crude to a ship on the surface, will be surrounded by a stopper to keep oil from leaking into the water.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

shelburn on May 14, 2010 – 3:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

It is also likely that there was a initial leak, probably under 1,000 bpd, and it took a number of hours for that leak to fill several thousand feet of 20 dia pipe until the oil started leaking out the broken end.

When you look at the riser end leak shown when the large containment dome was tried and compare it to the recent leak video take a few days later two things stand out.

1 – the leak has substantially increased in size, which supports the projection that the restriction area is eroding , and;

2 – there is much more gas in the flow.

As both shots only show a few second of a variable flow it does not give a good picture.

For those trying to calculate particle velocity remember that the optical properties of water are different than air and that almost all ROV video lenses (except those for close up macro inspection) are very wide angle.

oilfield-trash on May 14, 2010 – 5:06am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Flow rate that high are pretty unusual. Wikki reports on a number of gushers at around the 100,000 BPD mark, but they are mostly associated with giant fields. As far as I am aware Kirkuk in Iraq holds the record for the single most (controlled) productive oil well. I’ve seen reports and daily stats claiming peak controlled flow at just over 100,000 BPD for one of its wells – recorded back in the 60s. But this coming from one huge field.

Undertow on May 14, 2010 – 9:02am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Could BP have cherry-picked the video excerpt to give us a least-worse view of the leak?

I’ll bet BP does not have final say on what is released. Do you honestly think all relevant parties don’t have access to the video? Do you think the US government asks BP for permission to release footage? NASA spilled the beans first when they published the first spill pick. Shortly after their near real time public feeds of new incoming images experienced “hardware problems” and went offline for days. I suspect they annoyed some other government agency.

Undertow on May 14, 2010 – 9:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

I am not a conspiracist by any means, but the very notion that BP is not intrested in the leak rate is very very very very very alarming.

The leak rate is everything. It tells you the problems (engineering) upstream and the problems (environment) downstream.

Without it, all engineering is compromised.

I’m stunned…

Good grief has everyone taken leave of their senses? I suggest you send your post off to the MMS, Coast Guard, FEMA etc. as they obviously haven’t considered that having the best possible knowledge of what’s going on is important to them and they’ll be glad to have this fact pointed out.

Undertow on May 14, 2010 – 1:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Regardless, this entire disaster is a product of oil company action and the industry deserves to be tarred with its own mess so that everyone remembers that this is their failure. As I’ve said before, the oil companies and their conservative allies will use the government as a whipping boy

Everything about the mad dash for deep GoM production is to do with Peak Oil and that “can’t” be explained to the public. I am disgusted by all in positions of power whether they be oil companies, banks, media, politicians, Kings or whatever. Those that think they are doing the right thing are deluding themselves at best and being actively misled by a few at worst. I am sure they disagree.

Ever seen the BBC Peak Oil Drama Burn Up where a fictionalised head of a fictionalised BP was persuaded to release unequivocal audited data on Saudi Arabia to the press as the “right thing” to do. Then the CIA stepped in and started killing everyone in desperation to retrieve the situation. Lucky it is fiction. I won’t give the end away.

CreosoteChris on May 14, 2010 – 11:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

I think that there’s a distinction to be made about what BP is saying publicly here, and what their engineering staff, responsible for the engineering solution, are assuming.

BP is a multi-billion dollar brand, subject to intensive brand management in the normal way for such entities. The brand managers will be desperate to minimise the damage to their baby, and have every reason to low-ball the numbers. It’s their job to do that, even if involves being “ecomnomical with the truth”.

There’s no reason, however, to think that the crisis-engineering team ever listened to the brand message. Why should they – they have a far clearer understanding of the leakage extent than the marketeers. They’re well-positioned to make their own estimates, so they’ll do that – then dream up their (hopefully) solutions. And they know far better than anyone writing on this board about whether there;s a spare ROV for a few days.

I’m not particularly convinced that the costs of getting accurate numbers are worth the benefits – and accurate numbers shouldn’t be confused with the expected brand management activities we’ve been seeing in the media.

Regards Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Canuckistani on May 14, 2010 – 12:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

The brand managers will be desperate to minimise the damage to their baby, and have every reason to low-ball the numbers. It’s their job to do that, even if involves being “ecomnomical with the truth”.

They’re well-positioned to make their own estimates, so they’ll do that – then dream up their (hopefully) solutions.

I’m not particularly convinced that the costs of getting accurate numbers are worth the benefits -

Your argument is internally inconsistent. You believe that BP has more accurate estimates. How expensive can a Congressional Subpoena be?

Ghung on May 14, 2010 – 10:02am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Way too many variables for me:

1. What is the oil/gas/water/sand ratio of the mix exiting the pipe?

2. What is the effect of the pressure at depth on this substance? Is this mix compressable? Is the measure of velocity/volume at depth a good estimate of the same at the surface?

3. At what point in the water column do the various components of this substance begin to separate? What percentage of crude oil components separate into solid/semi-solid “tarballs”, and at what depth do these components reach near neutral bouyancy? It occurs to me that the water column is, in effect a refinery, separating the different components.

4. How much emulsification of the lighter components of the crude occurs, and what effect does this have on the volume reaching the surface? Do the more volatile components actually evaporate immediately when reaching the surface?

5. Are the videos of the mix exiting the pipes representative of this process over time? Does the flow fluctuate? How consistant is the composition of the mix over time? Has/will the ratio of oil to gas increase over time?

Many more questions/variables will make any postulated estimate useless. There is only one good answer to the question of how much:

Too much.

ROCKMAN on May 14, 2010 – 9:58am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Caught a thread last night regarding the registration of the rig. Out on a well so I couldn’t respond at the time. But here’s the short answer. I can see how folks could be confused especially since most of us have serious doubts about BP’s integrity. But we don’t need to develop false issues. There already appears to be enough sins by the parties involve to justify a lynching.

A little clarification on the requirements for drilling in the US OCS offshore areas. It does not matter what flag a vessel flies: Liberian or the planet Venus. No drilling rig can operate in US water unless it meets all the standards required by the MMS. As pointed out, many rig fly a foreign flag for tax reasons. But that has no bearing of safety equipment or procedures used on the rig. No one has the RIGHT to drill a well in our OCS. It is a privilege granted only after the rig proves it complies with all MMS standards. The regs that deal with these issues not some short memo. It covers thousands of pages of requirements and regs. Comply satisfactory or you don’t get a drill permit. Simple as that.

OTOH, are the MMS regs and enforcement satisfactory? I think most have come to the correct conclusion that the system is very lacking. I’ve seen a rig fined by an MMS inspector because he found too many burned out light bulbs. Rules are rules, right? In the oil patch it’s called “getting ink” from the feds. Too much ink and you get a big fine. Way too much ink and they’ll shut down the operations. Way, way too much ink and they’ll cancel your operator’s license. I suspect by the time the blow out investigation is concluded they’ll discover the standards are more than adequate for the little stuff but grossly lacking for the big stuff: the stuff that burns down rigs, kills hands and destroys a big chunk of the environment. Just MHO.

ROCKMAN on May 14, 2010 – 1:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

FOR ALL

As usual I start with the big IF. IF the story is true I can promise you the lawyers of the company these potential witnesses work for already have their sworn statements in the can. And, IF those statements exist they will become a part of the official public record. Absolutely no chance of suppression. These potential witnesses, IF they really exist, don’t have a dog in the fight. Credibility will be very high.

My definition of a secret: something only one person knows. Anymore than it’s only limited knowledge. IF the story is true it will start leaking from the sources soon IMHO. If we don’t see that happening in the next week or so I’ll become more suspicious of its validity.

Criminal vs. negligent: all in the eye of the beholder IMHO.

jmygann on May 14, 2010 – 11:05am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Where’s the oil? Model suggests much may be gone

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_spill_where_s_the_oil;_ylt=Am5LmPxt4w…
pipecalculator on May 14, 2010 – 11:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

People like RedDan and that ‘professor’ are just confusing the people without getting their math right. What’s worst is that they don’t list their assumptions or how they came out with their uncertainty ranges!!

What difference in oil/gas slip velocities are they assuming?
What cross-sectional area are they choosing to come up with their volumes?
Are they assuming slug, annular, mist flow?
What PVT and compositional properties are they assuming?

And if we want to play with basic calculations, let’s play:

A typical 6″ pipe has a capacity of 0.0296 bbl/ft (you can also calculate it assuming an ID of 5.524 in). That is, a flow rate of 5000 bbl/d means an average velocity of 5000/0.0296 = 168918.92 ft/d = 1.96 ft/s or 0.6 m/s

Repeat the same calculation for a 4.5″ pipe and you will get an average velocity of 3.6 ft/s or 1.1 m/s

From the video, some people state that they have calculated a velocity of 1 m/s. Which is what I just calculated above. IN OTHER WORDS, it is possible to get those speeds with 5000 bbl/d and a cross-sectional area of 4.5″!!!

Of course, this does not include calculations on flow regime (laminar, turbulent, annular, slug, etc.) or the true cross-sectional area occupied by the relative fractions of oil/gas/water/sand present in the stream or the different slip velocities between phases or the PVT variations due to an obstruction. All of which ARE NOT BEING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT by these so called ‘fluids’ experts.

In my point of view, THESE SPEEDS ARE POSSIBLE with flow rates of 5000 bbl/d. People that keep playing with their pseudo math are just looking for press.
pipecalculator on May 15, 2010 – 2:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

You can call my 4.5″ an average or effective cross-sectional area occupied by the relative fraction of oil moving in that pipe. Remember v = q/A. The main controversy here is what to use as A to back calculate q (flow rate).

Not everything that is moving in that pipe is oil so we should not use the inner diameter as a base for our calculations. You also have gas, sand, etc. flowing in the same pipe and they all flow at different velocities. To distinguish the relative fluid fractions from this video is not straightforward. But even if you assume that half of what you see is oil, you would be talking about 10,000 bbl/d, not 70,000 bbl/d.

Here is part of the thread that discusses the story about BP skipping the Cement Bond Log and the immediate dismissal and debunking of the story.

AlanfromBigEasy on May 14, 2010 – 3:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Story circulating in New Orleans

With appropriate caveats:

BP contracted Schlumberger (SLB) to run the Cement Bond Log (CBL) test that was the final test on the plug that was skipped. The people testifying have been very coy about mentioning this, and you’ll see why.

SLB is an extremely highly regarded (and incredibly expensive) service company. They place a high standard on safety and train their workers to shut down unsafe operations.

SLB gets out to the Deepwater Horizon to run the CBL, and they find the well still
kicking heavily, which it should not be that late in the operation. SLB orders the
“company man” (BP’s man on the scene that runs the operation) to dump kill fluid down the well and shut-in the well. The company man refuses. SLB in the very next sentence asks for a helo to take all SLB personel back to shore. The company man says there are no more helo’s scheduled for the rest of the week (translation: you’re here to do a job, now do it). SLB gets on the horn to shore, calls SLB’s corporate HQ, and gets a helo flown out there at SLB’s expense and takes all SLB personel to shore.

6 hours later, the platform explodes.

Pick your jaw up off the floor now. No CBL was run after the pressure tests because the
contractor high-tailed it out of there. If this story is true, the company man (who
survived) should go to jail for 11 counts of negligent homicide.

Alan

Undertow on May 15, 2010 – 4:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Are we supposed to assume that all this went on without the knowledge of Rig Manager, Jimmy Wayne Harrell, as well? He wouldn’t notice that all Schlumberger personnel, who were supposed to be running a CBL test, just got up and ran for their lives? No other Transocean personnel noticed that either and/or bothered to inform him or query it?

Or he did notice it and just thought “Hey it’s the oil patch – that sort of thing goes on all the time and BP says it fine even though I furiously disagree as well so what the hell, I’ll just press on even though the test was not performed and the contractors ran screaming for their lives.”

Or the entire story is fictional.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

27182 on May 15, 2010 – 9:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Yeah, It is probably fictional. I can’t find an independent corroboration anywhere. And I do think someone from SLB would have spilled those beans by now. But hey, I wasn’t on the rig. And at the time it may not have looked as though they were running for their lives, but maybe just wimping out. It’s probably just a case of us wanting a bad guy to blame it all on.

Undertow on May 14, 2010 – 5:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Yes I see just how much money this “Company Man” has saved BP. And he had a go at killing some of his bosses while he was at it – what a day! Suicide Watch? He should be under enforced lock and (throw) key (away) if this is true. I do sincerely hope it is true because, if not, TOD posters I respect have allowed themselves to be used unwittingly as a conduit for a most despicable lie.

My head genuinely hurts right now.
Undertow on May 14, 2010 – 6:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Worth noting that this story appeared nowhere else at all on the Internet prior to your posting (as far as I can see with search engines). If it’s true then I commend you for posting it. Personally if I’d heard the story I’d have posted to TOD along the lines of “Does anyone know if there were Schlumberger employees on the rig?” as a first step and see what the response was.

We will know soon enough but it’s either a huge, huge story and congratulations for posting it or just a “Big Lie” that people often believe because “why would anyone make such a thing up?”
Undertow on May 14, 2010 – 5:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

I think it’s bullshit. Purely because it sets off my internal bullshit detector. However given what the outcome was it is quite possible that the true story would set off my bullshit detector. So who knows…

I do though imagine the US Congress will go ballistic and probably start demanding death penalties having just held hearings where nobody mentioned this and thus no Schlumberger witnesses present before them. I’d imagine they will be just as angry at Schlumberger for not telling them. If it’s true of course.
ROCKMAN on May 14, 2010 – 10:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

The “ordered the company man” is the one part that doesn’t fit at all. No matter the disagreement a subcontractor will never order a coman to do anything. He might refuse an order or he might tell the coman to go screw himself. I seen and done both. But never gave one an order. Perhaps it was a misinterpretation. Perhaps the SLB gave the coman an ultimatum. That I’ve seen first hand a number of times.

But soon we’ll be able to judge the validity of this story. Now that the MSM has the smell of blood we should be seeing SLB in the spot light very soon. They’ll have to respond in some form. Any form of confirmation will be solid gold proof IMHO. An absolute and clear denial would offer the same. SLB would never cover-up such an event. NEVER for a variety of reasons. A “no comment” will be subject to interpretation but could make me assume some level of truth to the story

As I responded to another TODer I consider the story 100% true or an absolute lie. No room for anything in between IMHO.

Of course this is a recurrent theme throughout all of the posts including attacks against Bob Cavnar, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, Anderson Cooper, The Huffington Post, Yahoo News,Dr. Robert Bea, Dr. Ira Leifer, …

I mean the list goes on an on, repeated theme different names from The Oil Drum attacking everyone that runs negative stories about BP or the Government that threatens their financial interests in the oil industry.

Here is more from The Oil Drum Crowd.

Francis on August 9, 2010 – 11:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

The huffingtonpost has long since become a waste of bandwidth. Whilst, on the surface, these look like learned questions, they are questions that clearly suggest that the writer has little clue, and has not been paying attention. Many are just assembling technical sounding phrases, and the run on questions are a waste of time since the opening question for all of them is “no”. The only useful questions have already been answered.
rainyday on August 9, 2010 – 12:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

* What was the pressure during the “static kill”? Did it change at any time? What was total volume pumped? Don’t think that info has been released

Per Wells’ 8/4 briefing, they pumped around 2,300 barrels of mud, initially pumping at 5 bpm, then, after the well was in static condition, at 10 bpm and 15 bpm – “we did that to give ourselves confidence that, if we chose to go ahead with the cementing procedure, that we could actually pump at higher rates, because that will give us a more effective cement job. ”

and

“We were able to watch as the base oil [already in the well from the injectivity test] and then the mud actually hit the reservoir. We were able to see it pressure up, and then we were able to see that pressure come back down.”

Guess Cavnar makes up questions without listening to the briefings.
avonaltendorf on August 9, 2010 – 11:35am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

I like Cavnar’s questions. He missed one: show us the wellhead.
[new] Wharf Rat on August 9, 2010 – 12:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

“As long as they continue to stonewall critical data, I’ll only continue to believe that the well is not “static” or safe.”

That’s OK. I continue to believe Cavnar isn’t the expert MSNBC makes him out to be. Just another industry putz flogging an upcoming book.
snakehead on August 9, 2010 – 12:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

I’m afraid I have to pretty much agree with that, given his recent appearances with KO.
fdoleza on July 14, 2010 – 9:51am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
The discussion above is very good, it’ll give people an excellent reference to argue based on facts and educated opinion.

Have you considered mailing it to Anderson Cooper and the other TV personalities who seem to apply hysteria rather than reasoning to their coverage?
Bedlam ensued. on July 5, 2010 – 2:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

fdoleza: “This has been quite a learning experience for me, watching how CNN has taken on an editorial line that distorts facts in their effort to capture audiences.” Yes indeed. CNN’s coverage of the BP Blowout has convinced me to stop watching the network altogether. Seeing what they have done with this incident has destroyed any credibility they had in my mind. If I watch at all, it’s with the sound off and the crawl covered, to minimize the risk of distorting my thought process with their false hysteria. It seems that their approach is to take pieces of actual news and use them to manufacture unnecessary fear, hoping that the anxiety will keep people glued to the channel. This is dishonest, reckless and vile. The facts are sufficient to create an excess of anxiety and confusion; the process of getting information from news media should reduce these quantities, not increase them. When the public needs information, we should have a better choice than “move-along-folks-there’s-nothing-to-see-here” and “OMG THE SKY IS FALLING RUN RUN RUN!!!!!”

TOD serves that function well, but it’s a lot more work than just watching the TeeVee.

Gobbet on July 5, 2010 – 3:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

The TV news coverage has been awful and Anderson Cooper has been as bad as any. TJ Holmes at CNN has done some decent segments, and CNN.com has been relatively decent, if you ignore the video clips with Cooper. Olberman on MSNBC promoted the dougr apocalyptic scenario. Fox and ABC’s David Muir have been busy trying to blame the federal government for everything. Print news hasn’t been much better.
xofruitcake on July 5, 2010 – 3:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

The TV news coverage has been awful and Anderson Cooper has been as bad as any

I stopped watching CNN also but for a different reason. It become boring as hell.. In cable TV, it is o.k. to take a POV and just exploit it and get to the core audience that response to the message. Fox is the master of filtering news and events for a specific conservative type of view point. But rigt now CNN (and especially Cooper coverage) is very predictable (like everyday, they ramp BP for not coming to their show and “defend” all their wrongdoing.. Fun for the first 5 times, boring the next 40 days they put it on air again and again). They are getting very boring asking the same parish president coming on air almost every day (and 2 to 3 show in a roll) and going over the news the same way every day.. You don’t expect cable TV news magazine show to be fair (heck, I don’t want it to be fair at all), but I want it to be exciting and creative… And CNN coverage is not exciting.. Not much new stuff is covered.. I want to see how the clean up operation go? What is life like in the discovery III or discovery II? Why is so many red tape in coast guard approval process? In one Adm Allen briefing, CNN is the only gal that were there asking questions (may be 8 or 9 questions). So they know how to ask question but they are too lazy to put together a good show..

And when anyone questions

snakehead on July 5, 2010 – 11:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Thought control on theoildrum.com is alive and well.

Thanks so much for coming on over to TOD to fight the influence of the BP zombies. However your claims about psi, H2S, etc. are baseless at best and purposefully deceptive at worst. And your inept McCarthyesque rhetorical attempts aren’t helpful.

Why are you trying to defraud the public?

What is your agenda?

Even local investigative reporting finding oil contamination in the sand is a lie.

TinFoilHatGuy on July 5, 2010 – 10:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

All those stories are from al.com. It is my produced by my LOCAL paper. I am one of their top posters and I can state that others have covered al.com stories here regularly and as well as myself. TOD is very open and has not deleted me many times when I thought I really deserved it. If you want to use something in the Mobile Press/ Times Picyaune/al.com/nola.com and their associated blogs, this is the story you should be concentrating on. This is the newest lie. Help instead of being a chicken little please.
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/oil-contaminated_sand_heading.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_Is_Falling_%28fable%29

Lab results showing Corexit in the water… just a lie being pushed by alarmist and the CT crowd.

Lean finding water and oil in the water more lies from more alarmists.

[new] motownmutt on September 2, 2010 – 6:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Naples area water samples showing signs of Corexit 9527 (the nasty one) http://youtu.be.com/ym6haebWz0A

50.3 ppm butoxyethanol-2 in swimming pool north of Tampa, (sample date: 17Aug10): http://is.gd/eR7Qw

I’ve observed patches of, what seems to me uncharacteristic for this area, brown, turbid, water, and thin brown film/sediment in areas around here in Naples, south of the pier, north of gordon pass, on a recent kayak outing. I also observed patches of dark grey sediment, the grains didn’t appear to be tar, based on hardness. Could be limestone, dolostone grains for all I know, just noting here because I was looking at the sediment more closely as a result of the patches of brown water, and they seemed unusual.

On the same day as I observed this, I also noted a brown film in our pool, which could very well be related to chemicals being added the week before. Again, noting this, because it was unusual, and concurrent to the observations of brown patches, where usually the water is clear, and the sediment grains are normally very light-coloured.

In other words, I’m not trying to unnecessarily hype, but trying to be complete.

In other news, I tried BBIC for the first time last night, it was pretty darn good.

Hope everyone is well, sorry if any of this has been posted and addressed elsewhere.

edit: added links to a couple low-qual pics I took. Deleted some to make room for pictures of the wildlife I saw that day, which was plentiful; dolphins, manatees, tons of fish, (sometimes schools of small fish can make the water appear darker, and while there were plenty of places where this was the case, the brown water/sediment was clearly unrelated), etc…
motownmutt on September 2, 2010 – 7:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

err, Rense, Termotto, are abiotic oil guys?

I don’t mean to dismiss the lab results out of hand, but, I’m a little embarrassed. The source of those links seems alarmist to me, but I was thinking they had lab results worthy of mention. Based on the sources, I’m a little skeptical, I guess I’ll keep monitoring.

Thanks for pointing that out, snakehead.
motownmutt on September 2, 2010 – 9:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

No skewzzs needed, I’m forever trying to unconfound the latest new tricks the internet throws at me.

When sites like Florida Oil Spill Law work to tell the truth… lets figure out ways to find out who is running the site and discredit them as well.

paintdancer on September 1, 2010 – 2:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Do any of you smart guys here know how to find out who writes the site over at Floridaoilspilllaw.com?

Whenever I read that site I feel like the world’s coming to an end. Whoever started the site is very careful not to put his name anywhere. That makes me really suspicious of his motives. Could be an agent provocateur type.

With my CT hat firmly in place, I do believe that there are folks and groups who have an agenda to divide and scare people. On the other hand, if the news there is even 80% accurate, we Gulf coast folks are screwed, physically, economically, and psychologically.
beachmommy on September 1, 2010 – 3:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

BB~just read your reply to my comment from last night. Again ITA, and AH’s blog, floridaoilspilllaw and BK Lim are the fav’s of the local CT, and if you recall FOSL was the site that posted the article about the 5 deaths from ppl swimming in “contaminated water”, when in reality it was 5 drownings during red or double red flag days for rip currents and strong surf, sadly one was a 2 yr old child. So, again incredibly misleading.

GLP because of their own disclaimer lost $1200.00 they thought was going to Gregg Hall, when they found out it wasn’t they were going to sue until a poster told them to read their own disclaimer about role playing etc., they screwed themselves (and not in a good way either)
bbfellow on September 1, 2010 – 6:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Sorry, got side-tracked on my day job

One “Grant N. Grand” shows to be an attorney at law in Florida. See http://www.quickclickattorney.com/attorney/fl/grant-grand/857092

He may be associated with Prime Design LLC. See http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Stuart/prime-design-llc/26658415….

So, the “jury is still out” to use a bad pun. FOSL is certainly an ad-whore site but I wonder if Grand is trolling for clints too.

Assuming that Mr. Grand is indeed the site’s publisher/owner AND he is hussling for clients, I wonder what his professional requirements are with the Bar. In Texas, the Bar Association is pretty tough on attorney websites advertising for clients. Attorneys actually have to submit their websites to the Bar for review. I wonder what the Florida Bar’s oversite of websites consist of.
FormerSafety on September 1, 2010 – 5:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

who writes the site over at Floridaoilspilllaw.com?

You see a pattern here? At all? Like I said the foxes guarding the Hen House.

Here’s a thread posting pictures given the illusion that Pensacola beach is clean:

beachmommy on August 31, 2010 – 7:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Agreed SH~I have to say I used to feel way behind the curve trying to learn all that I could about drilling, and oil etc here and I am so grateful to all the patient posters who have helped me, that being stated today I feel like a damn genius after reading here and the young one posting STFU every other post.

I was going for a swim today and went to the beach to check it out since I thought the really rough surf and storms we had for days might have brought in some weathered tar balls, I couldn’t find any so dug in the erosion line as I have many times and couldn’t find anything on MY END of the beach (not saying it isn’t in areas that are part of the Nat’l Seashore (which is all but 6 miles of the Island at P-Cola Beach) where they don’t allow heavy equipment. I gave it the old college try and dug all the way to my knee which I measured to be 20 inches and still no lines of buried oil. My assumption is the ninjas came in over night and made it invisible. The shells were tar/oil free and the crabs and birds were out. Too bad the sea grass was so bad or I would have gone for my evening swim. I am attaching a few pics.

Also BIRCH……I give a shit about the miners and I am sure their families do too, I can’t imagine knowing my loved one or myself was going to be underground with the anticipation of having to wait until Christmas to be free, the feeling of having no control would drive me nuts and I would need alot more than anti-depressants, so your comment is YOUR view only, so pls don’t try and speak for everyone about the trapped miners. I honestly think you’d love GLP, and I’m certain Jason Lucas would love to add new members of your caliber.

Edit~I need to learn to preview my post first………sorry y’all:)
alexhiggins732 on September 1, 2010 – 2:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

I see you found a nice clean area of the beach…

1) There are many news reports of BP admitting to covering up the fact they have been hiding the clean up of tons of oil in Pensacola.

2) Pensacola Gregg Publishes beach reports twice daily of the oil washing up on Pensacola. http://www.youtube.com/user/pcolagregg

3) Here are screen caps of his latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qjb_fQoy24

Then the response to the photos clearly showing oil and tarball on the beach:

comfychair on September 1, 2010 – 3:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Hey look, pictures of a beach. I spent nearly the first half of my life on the beach not far from Pensacola and I don’t see anything there that would have looked out of place 30 years ago and certainly wouldn’t have impacted my ability or desire to build a fire and make some s’mores.

Or is there a secret code hidden in the pictures that only crazy people and scam artists can see?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

alexhiggins732 on September 1, 2010 – 4:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Oh.. that’s a good one… There have always been oil and tar balls staining the pristine white beaches of Pensacola like in these photos even before the BP Spill.

Where are tarballs and stains in beachmommy’s photos of the perfectly clean white sand meant to deceive you into believing the beaches are perfectly clean?

Yep… the oil is all gone… nothing to see… move along folks… the emperor’s clothes are so beautiful.

A bunch of foxes guarding the hen house.

I forgot personal financial interests makes many here unable to see the the damage being done to people, livelihoods, economic and natural resources along the Gulf coast.

Pretending that everything is okay isn’t going prevent people from getting sick and having their lives destroyed no matter how much it protects your own personal career and bank account.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

comfychair on September 1, 2010 – 6:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

…says the guy spreading FUD and asking for donations at the same time.

“BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID!! oh, and hit that donate button plz! AFRAAAAAID! are you afraid enough to hit donate again? no? well, don’t worry I’ll have more posts up tomorrow”

The beach in your not-very-scary pics looks more like normal beach than beachmommy’s pics do. Yes BP needs its nutsack nailed to the floor. Yes there was a lot of oil everywhere. Yes it makes me mad. No we are not all going to die, no it’s not raining Corexit, no the venting oil simply did not have enough force to impart any significant (or even measurable) load on the BOP/wellhead. Actually that last one is so good I really wish you would talk about it some more, it’s been a long time since I laughed that hard. Do it some more.

So the photos and videos don’t even convince them so how about a local news story in which BP and the Government admits they have been covering up the fact they have been cleaning tons of oil off of Pensacola beach:

QuantumUS on September 1, 2010 – 6:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

According to this article BP was denying they were finding oil in the bay and so was the government but finally admitted it. The article also talks about a half mile ribbon of oil they were cleaning up.

Despite persistent denials from BP last week, thousands of pounds of weathered oil is being pulled from under the surface of Pensacola Bay every day.

During more than a dozen interviews last week, BP officials and spokespeople for a number of government agencies working on the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill response denied knowledge of oil in the bay.

Booms and oil-absorbent material also were being used to clean up orange-colored ribbons of oil — one a half-mile long — about a foot below the surface of the water near the beach.

http://www.pnj.com/article/20100829/NEWS01/8290333/Oil-spill-BP-reverses…
fhelton on September 1, 2010 – 11:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

According to this article BP was denying they were finding oil in the bay and so was the government but finally admitted it.

I suspect sloppy journalism. Despite it’s claim/inference that BP denied the existance of the oil, I couldn’t find a single direct quote from a BP or government spokesman doing any such thing.

Or maybe you just didn’t read carefully enough – the 2nd paragraph of the article goes on to say:

During more than a dozen interviews last week, BP officials and spokespeople for a number of government agencies working on the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill response denied knowledge of oil in the bay.

Her “denied knowledge of” is not quite the same as your “denying they were finding”.

The local BP guy certainly knew about it and seems to have been forthcoming enough when the reporter finally got around to talking to the right guy:

On Saturday, Scott Piggott, who heads the Escambia and Santa Rosa cleanup operation for BP, said cleanup workers began noticing the submerged oil at Barrancas Beach in July.

“The last month, we’ve spent considerable effort to get people to concentrate on that,” he said. “Then we notice the same phenomenon at the Fort Pickens site, and cleanup has been going on there for two weeks.”

Yeah, it’s a shame that not every element of the cleanup effort has instant total knowledge of every detail of what every other element is doing. But then maybe a competent reporter would have figured out how to find Mr. Piggott last week instead of talking to a bunch of people who had no clue as to what was going on in her little corner of the world.

And it’s too bad that the one organization in this country with the most experience in dealing with a widespread complex disaster recovery operation like this has apparently had to sit on the sidelines and watch a bunch of rookies put something together on the fly.

Even when Yahoo reports on it:

QuantumUS on August 31, 2010 – 4:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Trust us.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100831/bs_yblog_upshot/bp-acknowl…
paintdancer on August 31, 2010 – 6:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Quantum,

I cannot find any other source for this news other than the Yahoo report. Not to minimize Yahoo, but there are way too many inexperienced reporters out there working for various internet sites. Many like sensationalism. If this news about Pensacola and the photo is true , it is sad, because it makes me think of Matt Simmons all over again. But I would think it would have been plastered all over Florida papers by now if the beach really looked like that! So until I see more legitimate sources, like the Coast Guard themselves being quoted, I am going to reserve judgment about the veracity of this news. Too many nuts out there on sites like “Beforeitsnews” , The Examiner, EUTimes, etc, trying to scare the pants off people.

And when all else fails The Oil Drum Crowd resorts avoidance of the issue and turns to personal character assassination and/or the good old “tinfoil hat”, “consipracy theorists”, and “alarmists” explanations:

Brich1979 on August 31, 2010 – 6:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Angry at the BS I keep seeing on this site. Some great technical talk about stuff that really does not matter. Keep an eye on that BOP and the cement jobs. Keep distracting people. The real questions that should be asked are why are there leaks showing on sonar scans on the ocean floor (yes I know how to read sonar and if you play the sonar scan in a time lapse you can clearly see fluid movement of the pings) and why are the leaks that were mapped by the USS Thomas Jefferson not being talked about….Hey MOON, why don’t you answer that one for me!

If you want to know about the workings of a BOP this is a great site. If you want some truth about what is going on down there you will NOT get it here!
syncro on August 31, 2010 – 6:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

If you want to know about the workings of a BOP this is a great site. If you want some truth about what is going on down there you will NOT get it here!

We know that already. That’s why we all read Godlike Productions – Conspiracy Forum:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/

Brich1979 on August 31, 2010 – 6:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Did YOU read the documents. I am talking about the documents from their first trip into the GOM??? They mapped sea floor leaks. Are you really going to sit here and tell me different???

Maps of sea floor leaks from the Thomas Jefferson
http://s844.photobucket.com/albums/ab2/Barich1979/?action=view&current=T…

I see Mapped leaks coming out of the Biloxi Dome. What do you see????

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

snakehead on August 31, 2010 – 7:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

You mean,

4. Scientists observed several seeps of what appears to be natural gas in an area of known gas seepage, located to the southwest of the spill site

???

Actually what I saw when I looked at your link is Alexander Higgins trying to stir up hits on his blog. You probably ought to look at the official website for the TJ’s June trip instead of Higgins’ site. Isn’t he the flamer who posted the “ROCKS WITH HOLES!!!” video?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

alexhiggins732 on September 1, 2010 – 1:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

4. Scientists observed several seeps of what appears to be natural gas in an area of known gas seepage, located to the southwest of the spill site

The original article that image was taken from clearly states that as well.

NOAA has said that the leaks on the sea floor graphed in the 3D model above “appear to be pre-existing seeps that occur naturally and are unrelated to the spill” and have labeled leaks as such in the Thomas Jefferson report.

But how NOAA came to determination the determination that these leaks on the sea floor are natural seeps needs to be questioned.

Where is NOAA’s proof? Why the usage of the word “appears”?

Now lets fast forward and WHOI has mapped a 22 mile underwater river of oil and has verified that the oil in the plume is from BP’s reservoir and is
not from a pre-existing natural seep.

That 22 mile river starts… on the other side of Biloxi dome.

I find it very odd that the stream of oil from BP’s well turns into a river on the other side of the Biloxi dome past the supposed pre-existing and natural seeps.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

No response or explanations… but more personal attacks on a separate thread.

syncro on September 1, 2010 – 2:12am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Well speaking of the devil. Is this a blog whoring visit due to a market downturn in doomsday scenarios, Alex?

What happened to the toppled-over BOP scenario?

I have a question. How can a plume be a river? They are very different.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

BenDover on September 1, 2010 – 2:22am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

ya see – that’s all ad-hominem, appeal to ridicule garbage.

Why not address his post, prove he’s being redundant and ad-nauseous and request that he’s banned OR shut-up.??

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

syncro on September 1, 2010 – 2:50am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

You raise a good point.

My answer is that I know I know pornography when I see it. I swear i do. Besides, we have already been down this road with Alex before with leaking oil from rocks that were really metal junk from DWH and thruster wash. And toppling BOPs that never toppled. My response is based in part on empirical evidence, not on prejudice.

But I deserve some credit. I did address his post and I did ask a substantive question. How can a plume be a river? I’d like to know.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

alexhiggins732 on September 1, 2010 – 3:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

In hydrodynamics, a plume is a column of one fluid moving through another. Several effects control the motion of the fluid, including momentum, diffusion, and buoyancy (for density-driven flows). … en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plume_(hydrodynamics)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/river
1 a) : a natural stream of water of usually considerable volume b) : watercourse
2 a) : something resembling a river (a river of lava) b) plural : large or overwhelming quantities

Here we have a column of one fluid (oil) flowing through another (water) resembling a river.

The term “River” was taken from an article published on The Energy Report titled Underwater ‘River’ of Oil Confirmed in Gulf.

And just when things were looking up for the Gulf. . .a huge underwater oil plume has been discovered.

The hydrocarbon plume/river is 22 miles long, 1.2 miles wide and 650 feet high. It isn’t pure crude, of course; it’s more like a mix of oil and water.

…

People are calling it a plume, but it looks more like a river to me.

The river of hydrocarbons is currently headed southwest, towards Mexico’s coastline. That could cause a nasty international incident in a few months…

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

syncro on September 1, 2010 – 3:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Thank you for your response, Alex.

But your first explanation relying on definitions of a river actually demonstrates that you are misusing the term.

1 a) : a natural stream of water of usually considerable volume b) : watercourse
2 a) : something resembling a river (a river of lava) b) plural : large or overwhelming quantities

Here we have a column of one fluid (oil) flowing through another (water) resembling a river.

The plumes of oil that have been tested are notable for their lack of density and volume. They do not resemble a river. They resemble a cloud more than a river. Rivers and Plumes are inconsistent descriptions. One contrasts with the other. Something cannot be both a river and a plume. Using the term descriptively is inaccurate and misleading, and the key doomsday tell in this scenario. It is entertaining, though. I like the graphic depiction.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

alexhiggins732 on September 1, 2010 – 4:08am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

A river of lava would have considerably less volume than this which is 22 miles long, 1.6 miles wide and 600 feet deep.

There are many “rivers” in the world which are considerable of less volume.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

BenDover on September 1, 2010 – 4:13am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

gotta agree with syncro…would have to get my book of fallacies out but it’s a common one – it’s hyperbole but also alarmist in this situation, suggesting saturation, so it’s just more responsible to force the masses to add plume to the vocab.

it continually amazes me how peeps charged with being CTs or even just alarmists aren’t able to refrain from extremely basic errors in logic and argumentation – even peeps with seemingly good arguments otherwise.

i think willy wonka had a full-fledged chocolate river. maybe some lava rivers out there…

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

alexhiggins732 on September 1, 2010 – 4:48am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

it continually amazes me how peeps charged with being CTs or even just alarmists aren’t able to refrain from extremely basic errors in logic and argumentation – even peeps with seemingly good arguments otherwise.

Funny how you attribute the “basic errors in logic” on the “alarmists” when the term came from an analyst on The Wealth Daily in an article published on “The Energy Report”.

And to bring up errors in logic and argumentation this cries of cognitive dissociation where as a psychological defense instead of addressing the issue at hand, the hub on a wheel, the argument runs around the rim and focuses on the spokes hence perpetuating an argument that will never end.

Whether we call it a plume, a cloud, a river or a lake is immaterial.

Let’s focus on the HUB. Can we do that?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

alexhiggins732 on September 1, 2010 – 4:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

What happened to the toppled-over BOP scenario?

When you cap a fire hose that is whipping around it stops whipping around.

Given enough time that scenario could have played it which could explain why the Feds decided to take the high-risk decision of capping the well the the way they did.

Many factors play into the scenario.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Francis on September 1, 2010 – 7:05am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Alex, go away. You have been outed already, you are just wasting time and bandwidth.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

lotus on September 1, 2010 – 7:50am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Quite the flock of turkeys landed here last night, Francis, Alex for only one. Mighty poor reading for awhile.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Francis on September 1, 2010 – 8:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

I was going to comment on that. Maybe things have gone too quiet and they feel the need to stir up a few more web hits. One suspects there are a few sock puppets amongst them as well.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

lotus on September 1, 2010 – 8:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

stir up a few more web hits … a few sock puppets

Wouldn’t be surprised but can’t imagine who’d seek more of such company.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Pinkfud on September 1, 2010 – 3:05am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Crike-a-rootie. Have you been talking to BK Lim? Sigh.

Then there are the things they just outright chose to ignore.

For example The Oil Drum came up with one excuse after another the justify the increase of flow rate estimates from BP and Federal Government time and again.

One such theory was the elaborate erosion theory which said the flow rates were increasing because the oil was eroding the size of the holes leaking oil.

Just like so many other things they dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” they where slapped in the face on this one when the well pressure didn’t reach the 8,000 to 9,000 psi range and the Government put out the “well depletion” theory in which Federal Government stated the well was actually leaking 62,000 barrels per day initially and there was no increase — the amount of oil leaking actually decreased as time went by.

I just find it funny that The Oil Drum pushes their Peak Oil conspiracy theory and yet attacks other and at the same time they have promoted one lie after the next to cover up this disaster for BP and the Federal Government.

Related Posts:

• 22 Mile Plume Of Oil From BP Gulf Oil Spill Originates Near Biloxi Dome Sea Floor Leaks 7 Miles Away
• New Government Estimates of Gulf Oil Spill Flow Rate Questioned
• Use of Dispersants in the BP Gulf Oil Spill Proves to Have Little Benefit
• BP Gulf Oil Spill Seafloor Fractured So Bad Oil May Leak For Years Even If Relief Well Succeeds
• BP Gulf Oil Spill Fishing Waters Reopened Despite Lack Of Testing Required By Federal Protocols

BK Lim Fires Back At BP Shills On The Oil Drum — With New Forensic Analysis of BP Bathymetric Chart — And So Do I ©, . This copying or redistribution of this material requires that this license must remain intact

• Tweet This!
• Share this on Facebook
• Subscribe to the comments for this post?
• Share this on del.icio.us
• Digg this!
• Share this on Mixx
• Share this on Tumblr
• Post this on Diigo
• Share this on Reddit
• Submit this story to Propeller
• Share this on Technorati
• Post this to MySpace
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Email this via Hotmail
• Blog this on Blogger
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Post on Google Buzz
• Email this via Gmail
• Add this to Google Reader
• Share this on FriendFeed
• Submit this to Netvibes
• Seed this on Newsvine
• Submit this to SlashDot
• Add to a lense on Squidoo
• Sphinn this on Sphinn
• Buzz up!
• Email this via Yahoo! Mail

Read the original story at Alexander Higgins Blog