Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 72
Like Tree21Likes

Thread: BP Spill : The truth of the situation

  1. #51
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,056
    Likes Received
    2062 times
    Likes Given
    1281

    Re: BP Spill : The truth of the situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    It has nothing to do with standards, the jones act was put into place to protect US shipping interests.

    Do you have a link suggesting this is a reason the jones act is not being lifted?

    What requests have been granted waiving the jones act. One would think the dutch would be as capable as kevin costner at this, no?
    Go to this thread (Obama declares 'reckless' BP will pay Gulf cleanup) and read post #46. It should answer most of your questions.

  2. #52
    The Savior of DP.
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Opulence, I has it.
    Last Seen
    03-26-14 @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    55,642
    Likes Received
    13603 times
    Likes Given
    9664

    Re: BP Spill : The truth of the situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Go to this thread (Obama declares 'reckless' BP will pay Gulf cleanup) and read post #46. It should answer most of your questions.


    I read it. And I think the fear of a sailor being injured is a stretch.
    كافر
    This new rhetoric to tone down the rhetoric is simply empty rhetoric.

  3. #53
    505
    505 is offline
    Mildly Hostile
    505's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,002
    Likes Received
    1007 times
    Likes Given
    4504

    Re: BP Spill : The truth of the situation

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post

    Now, with that information : since there's been reports involving secondary plumes found up to 20 km away, which is denied by BP (Can't find the NOAA source again, sorry)
    The Associated Press: BP CEO disputes claims of underwater oil plumes
    There has been a lot of what seems to be miscommunication going on between everyone in the gov, bp, and the media. I don't think NOAA found a second source of oil leaking, it seems like they have found a submersed plume miles from the leaking well... with hydrocarbon counts in the PPM-PPB range. I could be wrong here, but that is what I have concluded after gathering info from multiple sources.

    is it POSSIBLE, That they had been drilling with a higher MW then was reported??
    Anything is possible I guess... likely?... no.

    I am pushing this because, frankly, while I don't believe this to be the result of any sort of conspiracy, I also don't believe that we the people are being entirely told the truth of the matter...
    Frankly, you are right. The casing is leaking downhole and nobody at BP or within the gov is officially stating that.

    there's something going on that's causing the numerous failures in actually stopping the flow of this leak.
    Because of the casing leak, the efforts to kill it from the top all failed. Containment/collection until relief well intercept is the only solution that will work.

  4. #54
    505
    505 is offline
    Mildly Hostile
    505's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,002
    Likes Received
    1007 times
    Likes Given
    4504

    Re: BP Spill : The truth of the situation

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    I read it. And I think the fear of a sailor being injured is a stretch.
    Yeah... what, we can't provide medical assistance to a foreigner that is HELPING clean up the spill? What a crock. The way I see it, no foreign help was accepted because government wanted the contracts/$$$$ to go to AMERICANS. Most of the time I would agree with this. During a disaster when time is critical, not so much.

  5. #55
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,614
    Likes Received
    1549 times
    Likes Given
    1623

    Re: BP Spill : The truth of the situation

    Quote Originally Posted by 505 View Post
    There has been a lot of what seems to be miscommunication going on between everyone in the gov, bp, and the media. I don't think NOAA found a second source of oil leaking, it seems like they have found a submersed plume miles from the leaking well... with hydrocarbon counts in the PPM-PPB range. I could be wrong here, but that is what I have concluded after gathering info from multiple sources.
    So, something like a portion of the original leak that caught a different current ?? I could see something like that occuring, I mean oil will generally rise to the top, but you can push a beach ball underwater.

    Anything is possible I guess... likely?... no.
    I'm just saying that, is the reported mud weight that's somthing that requires premade mud being shipped in and has a paper trail, or is it 'corporate trade secrets' and BP just spit out a number that would lowball the estimates so that they could try to downplay the incident... not that it could be rediculously higher, because as you pointed out, the rocks in the region create a 'speed limit' from being able to drill proper.

    Frankly, you are right. The casing is leaking downhole and nobody at BP or within the gov is officially stating that.
    Thank you, that's pretty much the information I was looking for... because seriously, from the moment this incident was going on, first it was a puddle of oil then 1000barrels per hour, then 10000, then 20, then 30 ,then 40, and the last articles I've been seeing are saying up to 60000. You seem to know enough about the intricacies to allow me to drill you... and that completely solves the issue of what exactly is being covered up. We can then talk about how this is being used politically to accomplish certain agendas... consider, once oil companies begin to fail because of the 'new rules' that were promised by Obama to 'kick a$$', which my bottom dollar will be some form of 'we're going to put an environmental tax for this that will hit BP really hard, it'll cost you a dollar but we'll get BP'. Then, the foot is in the door.... the carbon taxes that have been every environmentalists wet dream for the past 5 years or more (I would argue up to 30years, but for the sake of argument). It's a dollar for you in your tax bill that will barely be noticed, will promise to hit BP for millions... and if they DO fail because of the cleanup efforts, they will be 'bailed out' and suddenly Obama will take over oil companies like he's essentially nationalized GM,

    Because of the casing leak, the efforts to kill it from the top all failed. Containment/collection until relief well intercept is the only solution that will work.
    I would put the calulation would be along the lines of IF (Cost of containment daily * (estimated amount of oil * estimated number of days to empty) + (Cost of cleanup) > (cost of paying for that nuclear weapon that gets laughed off by the real experts)+ (Cost of drilling diagonally to an area along the pipe) + ((Cost of this all)*(the time it will take to accomplish in manhours)) + (Cost of redrilling the whole pipeline, or their next endeavor) + (Cost of cleanup) THEN carry on with the cleanup and standard attempts at fixing the leak, IF NOT then start the nuclear bomb proces... in the minds of the of the CEO's responsible whose interest is in preserving stock value through this process long enough to keep their bonuses.

    I'm sure they all realize that they are likely losing their jobs... not that they wouldn't get hired for anything else...
    You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. - Ayn Rand.

  6. #56
    505
    505 is offline
    Mildly Hostile
    505's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,002
    Likes Received
    1007 times
    Likes Given
    4504

    Re: BP Spill : The truth of the situation

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    So, something like a portion of the original leak that caught a different current ?? I could see something like that occuring, I mean oil will generally rise to the top, but you can push a beach ball underwater.
    That's more along what I was thinking... the dispersants are a big part of it.


    I'm just saying that, is the reported mud weight that's somthing that requires premade mud being shipped in and has a paper trail, or is it 'corporate trade secrets' and BP just spit out a number that would lowball the estimates so that they could try to downplay the incident...
    The MW was reported by the rig operators, not BP.

    Thank you, that's pretty much the information I was looking for... because seriously, from the moment this incident was going on, first it was a puddle of oil then 1000barrels per hour, then 10000, then 20, then 30 ,then 40, and the last articles I've been seeing are saying up to 60000.
    Yeah they lowballed it bigtime in the beginning... but you have to remember that under these pressures and flow rates, things are eroding. The leak is probably flowing a lot more now than it was when it started.

    You seem to know enough about the intricacies to allow me to drill you... and that completely solves the issue of what exactly is being covered up. We can then talk about how this is being used politically to accomplish certain agendas... consider, once oil companies begin to fail because of the 'new rules' that were promised by Obama to 'kick a$$', which my bottom dollar will be some form of 'we're going to put an environmental tax for this that will hit BP really hard, it'll cost you a dollar but we'll get BP'. Then, the foot is in the door.... the carbon taxes that have been every environmentalists wet dream for the past 5 years or more (I would argue up to 30years, but for the sake of argument). It's a dollar for you in your tax bill that will barely be noticed, will promise to hit BP for millions... and if they DO fail because of the cleanup efforts, they will be 'bailed out' and suddenly Obama will take over oil companies like he's essentially nationalized GM,
    It would not surprise in the least to see the gov take advantage of this however they can. As for your predictions, we will just have to wait and see.

    I would put the calulation would be along the lines of IF (Cost of containment daily * (estimated amount of oil * estimated number of days to empty) + (Cost of cleanup) > (cost of paying for that nuclear weapon that gets laughed off by the real experts)+ (Cost of drilling diagonally to an area along the pipe) + ((Cost of this all)*(the time it will take to accomplish in manhours)) + (Cost of redrilling the whole pipeline, or their next endeavor) + (Cost of cleanup) THEN carry on with the cleanup and standard attempts at fixing the leak, IF NOT then start the nuclear bomb proces... in the minds of the of the CEO's responsible whose interest is in preserving stock value through this process long enough to keep their bonuses.
    Cost just doesn't matter to be honest. The nuke option has too many unknown variables, and the risk of something very bad happening is just simply too high. The Russians supposedly used this technique on gas wells. Gas wells are completely different in the fact that they don't have crude filling and flowing through the pipe at high pressure. They didn't try this technique 5000' under water where the pressure is over 2000psi and the floor is thousands of feet of silt. Also is the fact that the rock is fracturing in this region at a mudweight of under 20 #/gal. Think about that for a sec. A column of mud with a density of 20 lbs per gallon will fracture the rock. With that in mind, what do you think a nuclear blast will do to it? Especially directly above a giant reservoir/pocket/void of oil and NG. We could release the entire contents of the reservoir in very short order and wouldn't be able to do anything to stop it.

    A much better last ditch solution (if the relief wells fail) would be to drill like 10-20 wells into the reservoir and empty it as fast as we can, while containing/collecting from the broken well. At some point it will bridge itself over and we could then get a handle on it.

  7. #57
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,614
    Likes Received
    1549 times
    Likes Given
    1623

    Re: BP Spill : The truth of the situation

    Quote Originally Posted by 505 View Post
    That's more along what I was thinking... the dispersants are a big part of it.
    The MW was reported by the rig operators, not BP.

    Yeah they lowballed it bigtime in the beginning... but you have to remember that under these pressures and flow rates, things are eroding. The leak is probably flowing a lot more now than it was when it started.
    I actually saw an update where Lindsey Williams has said that the pipe his eroded nearly an inch, according to his source.

    It would not surprise in the least to see the gov take advantage of this however they can. As for your predictions, we will just have to wait and see.
    I know these stories will all seem unrelated, but they all have enormous implications
    - Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran - Times Online
    - Fact-Checking the UN “Small Arms Treaty” | Southern Colorado Patriots Club: Blog (well sourced, read the sources if you don't want to read the blog)
    - H.R.5175: DISCLOSE Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress (Orwellian named bills keep getting proposed / passed)
    - Post Carbon: The White House's lame-duck climate strategy - Juliet Eilperin
    - Pajamas Media BREAKING: Leaked Doc Proves Spain’s ‘Green’ Policies
    - Pentagon report in April never mentioned $1 trillion in Afghan wealth | Raw Story
    - Obama: Gulf spill 'echoes 9/11' - Politico Staff - POLITICO.com

    Cost just doesn't matter to be honest. The nuke option has too many unknown variables, and the risk of something very bad happening is just simply too high. The Russians supposedly used this technique on gas wells. Gas wells are completely different in the fact that they don't have crude filling and flowing through the pipe at high pressure. They didn't try this technique 5000' under water where the pressure is over 2000psi and the floor is thousands of feet of silt. Also is the fact that the rock is fracturing in this region at a mudweight of under 20 #/gal. Think about that for a sec. A column of mud with a density of 20 lbs per gallon will fracture the rock. With that in mind, what do you think a nuclear blast will do to it? Especially directly above a giant reservoir/pocket/void of oil and NG. We could release the entire contents of the reservoir in very short order and wouldn't be able to do anything to stop it.
    Now, that's the logic that I would use... however, unless you're thinking from the mind of a CEO... something I was attempting, where the lesser of total costs becomes the preferable choice, even if there's an element of risk.

    As for what would happen... I guess that depends on what nukes actually do in those conditions... I mean, if it turns to glass several feet thick, or blows out a space that collapses... or whatever, however it reacts in those conditions is simply an unknown... at a certain point being responsible for perpetual damage control may eventually get them to consider different options.


    A much better last ditch solution (if the relief wells fail) would be to drill like 10-20 wells into the reservoir and empty it as fast as we can, while containing/collecting from the broken well. At some point it will bridge itself over and we could then get a handle on it.
    That would be several months worth of drilling though, right?

    With how abraisive oil can be on the piping, giving the pressure and that it's my understanding that unrefined oil is almost like tar, that eats away at the piping until the pipe eventually ruptures if it's not cared for.... I can't imagine that even with a pipe 2inches thick under that type of pressure.... well, how long would you figure the pipe could last?
    You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. - Ayn Rand.

  8. #58
    505
    505 is offline
    Mildly Hostile
    505's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,002
    Likes Received
    1007 times
    Likes Given
    4504

    Re: BP Spill : The truth of the situation

    Sorry for the bail out, work calls me away for weeks at a time during the warm months.

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post



    That would be several months worth of drilling though, right?
    Yes... but the first relief well is a couple weeks ahead of schedule. They are within 1000 feet of the intercept point, so the big bottom kill effort will be going down soon as long as no huge delays come from the weather.

    With how abraisive oil can be on the piping, giving the pressure and that it's my understanding that unrefined oil is almost like tar, that eats away at the piping until the pipe eventually ruptures if it's not cared for.... I can't imagine that even with a pipe 2inches thick under that type of pressure.... well, how long would you figure the pipe could last?
    The piping itself is going to be okay. Where metal erosion will be happening the most will be at any bottleneck. You could see this in the kinked riser where the holes started out tiny and by the time they cut it off they were huge. The restrictions in the BOP probably only lasted a week or two before they were toast from the erosion. With the riser cut off and the top effectively opened up, the pressure on any leak in the casing is minimized. I don't think there will be any major problems from it IMHO.

    As a disclaimer bman... since I saw you mention in an earlier post about me being an "insider" or something... I'm not in the oilpatch, but have close friends that are. I am learning all of this as I go and really didn't know much about this stuff until the "spill". I do my best to summarize what I have learned from these folks who know wtf they are talking about, and hope it helps anyone out that might be looking for good info.

  9. #59
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,614
    Likes Received
    1549 times
    Likes Given
    1623

    Re: BP Spill : The truth of the situation

    Quote Originally Posted by 505 View Post
    Sorry for the bail out, work calls me away for weeks at a time during the warm months.
    It's all good, I hope we all have lives outside of the debates... though sometimes I post so much you might think otherwise.

    Yes... but the first relief well is a couple weeks ahead of schedule. They are within 1000 feet of the intercept point, so the big bottom kill effort will be going down soon as long as no huge delays come from the weather.
    That much is good news... It still does seem as though, even though it's hardly getting mentioned, that there are already many cracks through which the oil is leaking... so, even those that were previously discussing nuke options are now putting that more as a 'final desperation move' if everything else fails.

    The piping itself is going to be okay. Where metal erosion will be happening the most will be at any bottleneck. You could see this in the kinked riser where the holes started out tiny and by the time they cut it off they were huge. The restrictions in the BOP probably only lasted a week or two before they were toast from the erosion. With the riser cut off and the top effectively opened up, the pressure on any leak in the casing is minimized. I don't think there will be any major problems from it IMHO.
    I really hope not.

    As a disclaimer bman... since I saw you mention in an earlier post about me being an "insider" or something... I'm not in the oilpatch, but have close friends that are. I am learning all of this as I go and really didn't know much about this stuff until the "spill". I do my best to summarize what I have learned from these folks who know wtf they are talking about, and hope it helps anyone out that might be looking for good info.
    Oh, well, I figured you were an 'insider' in the sense that you worked in oil and gas, but not in the boardroom level, nor in the particular wellsite. Which still makes you more of an insider then me... I'm just learning about this as I go.

    Ultimately, so far most everything from the original source of this thread has turned out to be confirmed 60k barrels /day seems to be the latest estimate and is pretty close to the million gallons per day (he did say gallons, I wrote barrels). There's been more talk about the 'abiotic' nature of the oil they hit... which, if true means that they tapped into an area where a chemical reaction within the earth is generating MORE oil as it's coming out of the ground. (Though all links discussing this have been relegated to 'opinion pieces', and any news story I see sourced is a dead link).

    Then there's the financial aspects :
    Goldman Sachs sold $250 million of BP stock before spill | Raw Story
    Other asset management firms also sold huge blocks of BP stock in the first quarter -- but their sales were a fraction of Goldman's. Wachovia, which is owned by Wells Fargo, sold 2,667,419 shares; UBS, the Swiss bank, sold 2,125,566 shares.

    Wachovia and UBS also sold much larger percentages of their BP stock, at 98 percently and 97 percent respectively.

    Wachova parent Wells Fargo, however, bought 2.3 million shares in the quarter, largely discounting Wachovia's sales.

    Those reported buying BP's stock included Wellington Management, a large asset firm, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
    This is VERY suspect.

    Now, this brings me to :
    Other rig workers have also claimed that they were pressured by BP and their supervisors to cut corners. Transocean roustabout Truitt Crawford told the Coast Guard that he overheard senior management saying that BP was "taking shortcuts" by replacing drilling mud in the well with saltwater, which would have provided less weight to contain the well's surging pressure.
    'The Rig's on Fire! I Told You This Was Gonna Happen!' - National - The Atlantic

    Deepwater Horizon Interim Incident Investigation (BP's Washington Briefing)
    On page 37 you'll see that even BP admits that there were "undocumented modifications to the hydraulic control system" as well as a "number of hydraulic leaks".

    So, while we still can't say for certain precisely what happened, it seems as though 'somehow' these people KNEW it was gonna blow, OR, the people were given orders that would lead to a catastrophic incident in order for it to blow.

    Why??? Well, it can be pretty easily established that BP was among the leaders in 'green' energy plans... having gone so far as modifying their name to 'beyond petroleum'. Then, suddenly there's renewed talk of 'cap and trade' schemes to 'kick a%%' on the BP issue... I mean, BP was also among the chief contributors to Obama's election donations.

    I'm just saying. In the time you've been gone, it seems it's a little bit more complicated then just the oil spill proper.
    You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. - Ayn Rand.

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    03-31-11 @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,331
    Likes Received
    282 times
    Likes Given
    140

    Re: BP Spill : The truth of the situation

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Now, I'm going to start this off by saying that this is a serious post, and I will report anyone that's detracting from the conversation... make the jokes in the 9-11 thread... this takes precedence now anyway....

    This is a conversation with Alex jones that I'll be linking to, but for the sake of argument pretend that he's NOT on the Alex Jones show and only pay attention to the words of this man.

    In the times I've seen him predict oil prices with a surprising accuracy, and the results were as he described. This man wrote a book about his experiences with the oil company where the source of his information, his source, 'Mr X' is a former ceo of one of the top 3 oil companies in the world, he is a globalist, and he tells him their plans and what amount of those plans he can reveal to the public.... the prospect being that even telling the people will not change the outcome.

    Now, about the BP oil spill I'll summarize this hour and a half discussion from Lindsey Williams, author of 'the energy non-crisis'.

    No, in the response, let's discuss this in terms of the actual oil spill... please. If you disagree with this analysis please explain it in detail... I only put it in this thread because it would likely get kicked here anyway.

    "This is a super-mega disaster the likes of which the world has ever experienced, and the pressures were so extreme"

    "This was absolutely not terrorism, this was an accident. They are scared."

    "The oil is ABSOLUTELY NOT the great danger. ABSOLUTELY NOT. It's what comes up WITH the oil that is deadly."

    "Mr X said that the only solution would be to diagonal drill into the same strata, drop a nuclear device and set it off. If the plan works and the hole is cauterized we'll be the saviors of the world, if it's not and it opens other fissures then it will be the greatest disaster mankind has ever experienced."

    "In 1970, the Russians have struck oil at the record depths of 4230 ft, Russia and it's major oil company has drilled 310 ST3 wells, it's now surpassing saudia arabia in oil production since last year. What they found was called "abiotic oil" and it is NOT a fossil fuel, it is a result of the reactions going on deep within the earth. The textbooks on oil production will have to be re-written. There is no such thing as peak oil. Russia had sense enough to drill these wells ON LAND... NOT in the gulf of mexico."

    "BP, a non-american company, was so stupid as to drill so deep, offshore, on a floating platform, that is kept in place with sophisticated GPS equipment. On top of ocean sitting 5000ft deep. Then they began their drilling 25-30000 ft deep... a super-deep well. They hit something so big that they could not contain it. It was much worse then they ever thought."

    "They hit a strata of oil at such high pressure that it burst ALL of their safety valves, the pressure they hit is beyond human means to contain it."

    "The BP oil well has announced a very different pressure result then they had actually mesured. 1500PSI is considered a good well-head pressure. They hit between 20 000-70 000 PSI of well-head pressure. It's now releasing up to 4 MILLION barrels per day."

    "NOAA, Chris baltimore, Houston, "US experts investigate reports of underseas oil plumes emanating from BPs stricken well,in the gulf of mexico concerned the presence below the surface, NOAA is confirming the presence of subsurface oil, and underseas plumes 20 miles away."

    "The stuff you call oil only destroys the coastline, what's coming out with the oil is killing humans and unborn children, from the EPA this week, the tests found that the most toxic compounds are in there...
    - volatile organic compounds in the air
    - hydrogen sulfide : allowable 5-10 parts per Billion tested in the gulf : 1200 PPB
    - Benzyne :TOXIC safe level 0-4ppb tested : 3000ppb This can cause leukemia, among a whole host of issues.
    - Mythlene-Chloride : safe level 61ppb tested : 3000-3400 ppb"

    *****"He told me "The only way I can see to stop this is a nuke, BUT, a nuke This strata of oil is so deep that noone has ever drilled into before, and because of the extreme pressure that's already there nothing man-made can close the fissure, and it would take months because of the angle drilling to the main fissure... but if we use a nuke and it works we will saviors of the world, but if we do nuke that strata and it opens more fissures, it will pour that same level or more oil forever and nobody will ever be able to close it untill it's empty."********

    "You will NOT see this well capped in the near future."

    "Obama will get across every aspect of his plan to turn america into a socialistic nation. Including his carbon tax." "Oil companies will be nationalized." "Airlines will go bankrupt" "You will see gas prices of 6-8$/gallon if they stop offshore oil drilling... SOON."

    "If they nuke it and it doesn't work, they will never in the history of man be able to close it again."

    "America can simply NOT afford to stop drilling."

    "Fixed income and low-income people will no longer be able to drive because of the cost."

    "The BP oil spill may have an event of apocalyptic proportions', a report said Russian ministry of natural ressources 'Threatening the entire eastern half of american continent with total destruction'. "The worst environmental catastrophe in all of human history." - European union times reported, "Russian scientists believe bp is pumping millions of gallons of corexite 9500 a chemical dispersing agent under the gulf of mexico waters to hide the extent of the leak now estimated to be 2.9 million gallons per day. Experts say corexite 9500 is a solvent four times more toxic of oil. 2.61 ppm toxicity. In the warm water it's molecules will be able to phase transition into a gas that can mix can be absorbed by clouds and being released as toxic rain. Leading to unimaginable environmental catastrophe."

    "You might even see a full evacuation of Florida and much of the Gulf coast"

    "Because of the corrosiveness of oil, it could very easily arode the pipe, and if they wait a few more months there may not be any of the pipeline left."

    "The oil companies have no possible way to solve this, other then a nuke."

    This situation is turning out to be far more serious then it's even still being implied in the media, but if you want the full interview;
    YouTube - TheAlexJonesChannel's Channel

    But please... if you're going to disagree at least make it constructive and relevant for a discussion. This man talking has a track-record of his 'predictions'...

    But Let's hear the thoughts on this and the issue from your perspectives.
    Just so you know on the credibility of Alex Jones. He once interviewed a Spec Ops soldier-that was involved in top secret stuff-that said he would go on average five missions every night. And that he had fought against small green men in Iraq, and that those small green men were the ones behind the Iraq war.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •