Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

...you know, the one that Obama called "America's greatest environmental disaster"? Well, it takes someone with an eye for maths to put it into context:

http://raedwald.blogspot.com/2010/08/that-oil-spill.html

To replicate [in the Thames] the 'environmental disaster' the Septics are claiming, I'll therefore have to empty 1.87 litres of engine oil into the river.

 

[Xplicit 2.0]

...you know, the one that Obama called "America's greatest environmental disaster"? Well, it takes someone with an eye for maths to put it into context:

http://raedwald.blogspot.com/2010/08/that-oil-spill.html

To replicate [in the Thames] the 'environmental disaster' the Septics are claiming, I'll therefore have to empty 1.87 litres of engine oil into the river.

 

u see, i thinks thats just want the states want to call it... its more that they have lost god knows how much oil to which the can sell with having to trade weapons with countries that do have the oil.... just my thoughts tho haha 

[Banjax]

interesting, of course, ignore the fact that the concern with the oil slick is the area it covers, so let's apply a little science: London covers an area roughly 1,700km², the slick at one point covered 25,000km² it got larger but I'll take a conservative assessment, or an area nearly 15 times the size of London or, if that's tricky to picture, it's equivalent to a 2km wide oil slick around the entire coastline of mainland UK 

now, I'm sure we'd make no fuss if that happened 

[Nickbat]

interesting, of course, ignore the fact that the concern with the oil slick is the area it covers, so let's apply a little science: London covers an area roughly 1,700km², the slick at one point covered 25,000km² it got larger but I'll take a conservative assessment, or an area nearly 15 times the size of London or, if that's tricky to picture, it's equivalent to a 2km wide oil slick around the entire coastline of mainland UK 

now, I'm sure we'd make no fuss if that happened 

Area is less important than density. Indeed, a thin film is far more easily broken up by natural forces, as has been the case. The fact remains that the volume of oil spilled was not as large as many maintained and that the majority of it has either disappeared naturally, or been recovered. 

Sorry if the outcome has not matched your agenda, BJ. 

[albitz]

And BP shares are now heading in the right direction.

[Banjax]

interesting, of course, ignore the fact that the concern with the oil slick is the area it covers, so let's apply a little science: London covers an area roughly 1,700km², the slick at one point covered 25,000km² it got larger but I'll take a conservative assessment, or an area nearly 15 times the size of London or, if that's tricky to picture, it's equivalent to a 2km wide oil slick around the entire coastline of mainland UK 

now, I'm sure we'd make no fuss if that happened 

Area is less important than density. Indeed, a thin film is far more easily broken up by natural forces, as has been the case. The fact remains that the volume of oil spilled was not as large as many maintained and that the majority of it has either disappeared naturally, or been recovered. 

Sorry if the outcome has not matched your agenda, BJ. 

it's not an agenda - I thought we were playing a game of "Spurious Comparisons^tm" 

[Nickbat]

it's not an agenda - I thought we were playing a game of "Spurious Comparisons^tm" 

Nah, you always win at the spurious ones.

[Banjax]

it's not an agenda - I thought we were playing a game of "Spurious Comparisons^tm" 

Nah, you always win at the spurious ones.