what are you saying? do you still think that the term "oil pool" is not a real term? lol .... ok

http://oilgasglossary.com/oil-pool.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/oil-pool

http://www.yourdictionary.com/pool

http://www.science-dictionary.com/de.../oil-pool.html

moron

P.S. just so you know... everyone knows about the term "oil pool" ... you're the only one stupid enough to think it's a made up term. can anyone chime in here and explain to him that he's wrong?

Man, you just don't get it. It's not the term, it's how you used it. Your post about how crude oil is not a fossil fuel, but it's renewable (maybe by the Keebler cookie elves?) and is just lying around in pools waiting for some luckbox to stick some pipe in it, was something I'd expect from an 8 year old.

Oil is produced from rocks. The rocks must have porosity and permeability to let the oil move through it, much like a sponge. It needs some type of trapping mechanism as well as some type of drive.

you think oil is produced from rocks.... i think oil is produced much deeper down in the earth by some chemical process and then pushed outward through the rocks that have porosity and permeability. just because we don't agree on how oil created, doesn't mean i used the term "oil pool" incorrectly.

By produced, I meant that's where we produce it from. I wasn't talking about the actual process of how it came to be.

I notice you had no response to the debunking of abiotic theory in this link:

http://www.oilempire.us/abiotic.html

If Soviet Cold War propaganda science is more palpable to you, that's fine. Either way, where is it in any significant amounts so as to offset rising demand? Where is it? And don't say shale/tar sands/arctic sea bed...

We should start a pool on day fixed, final est of barrels per day, and total barrels. 1k sounded like a mess, 5k+ a total disaster, I don't know what to think of 60K. My idiot brother drove off with a 5 gallon bucket of killz on his tailgate, what a mess.

Matt Simmons says the most accurate estimates are in excesses of 100k bpd.

I really have no clue what level the final estimate is going to be, and whether or not it's going to anywhere near accurate. However, to be honest, I'm not sure the final number really matters, outside of the size of the fine levied on BP. The quantities being bandied about are so abstract to most people that they're almost meaningless at this point.

ouch.

just pump in some steel balls?

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...stop-the-.html

One Ballsy Proposal to Stop the Leak
by Adrian Cho on June 16, 2010 6:12 PM

Did they say how that could make things worse?

Reading articles FTW!

Plaintiffs persuaded a judge the grant a temporary injunction on feds GOM drilling moratorium today. Feds apparently offered flimsy reasons for imposing the moratorium (we're the govt, we should get what we want). Apparantly govt is going to file a motion to lift the injunction offering more substantial reasons than POTUS wants to do it. About time methinks. In my view feds would be wise to negotiate with plaintiffs to find a middle ground on this.

because why, in your opinion? we must keep drilling?

i'm not trying to be condescending, i'm seriously curious.

About time that someone challenged administration in court. FWIW my take is that Obama admin overreached and someone called them on it. I'm fairly certain that Obama admin will have to actually make a case as to why the moratorium should be imposed. Certainly saying because we're the feds wasn't a good enough reason to continue the moratorium for this judge anyway.

Whether right or wrong, the governments shutdown of all offshore drilling is having just about the same devastating effects on the economy of these people as the spill itself. They are lashing out and seeking help from wheever they can get it.

If an airliner crashed or some other kind of like catastrophe, would you support the government shutdown of all airline flights?

yeah this is pretty much the analogy, because of one accident or negligence on one drill platform the entire industry has been halted. that's an emotional decision, not a logical one

I actually agree with you surprisingly enough, but that being said if a plane crashes and it's not obvious why it crashed we have in the past grounded entire models of airplanes until it can be determined what happened..

I assume deep water drilling is still banned beyond a certain depth or is it a free for all again?

Now if another hole has the same problem, are you all going to say, "You can't stop all this work". BP called the shots, of that there is no dispute. But the USA drillers will use the same protocols that failed, again and again.

Never enough time to do it right, but always enough time to do it again.

I heard today that many of the workers/companies that will receive compensation for their losses are complaining about having to pay tax on the money. Yeah, they are all thinking rationally.

just curious but do you even know what you are talking about?

How about the same disaster response plan, carbon copies for each oil company, with a DEAD first responder and a major concern for walruses in the Gulf of Mexico (where they don't exist). So do you know what you are talking about?

I haven't said whether I support the outright ban or not.

But I will say that I certainly don't believe drilling at those depths for "kiddie pools" of 50-70 million barrels is remotely worth it. And that was my firm stance long before this (inevitable) disaster. Unfortunately, this level of desperation is where the Bigs are at now that we're starting the terminal downswing to Hubbert's curve, which no one can honestly attempt to deny any longer without sounding ridiculous.

In my opinion, MMS shouldn't even offer these kinds of sites up for lease sale to the Bigs at all. Not at these depths when the seismic data reveals anything less than 100 million barrels. Great, the technology "exists." But what's the point? A day's worth of global consumption? With this level of risk? With essentially no effective "cure" for a worst-case scenario? Any truly forward-thinking administration would have put the kybosh on this arrogant crap long ago.

I dunno. Some days it seems like Obama gets this whole global oil depletion thing, but then the next day he acts like he still doesn't have a clue, or is in complete denial, or is covering the truth to prevent panic. It's really hard to tell. But if I had to guess, he recognizes it, and is resorting the Dick Cheney approach: "Talk a good game, but to hell with alternatives, just keep feeding the beast at all costs!"

Jiggs, you may not have outright said it, but if you leaned any further in that direction you would fall over...

by the way.... what a shocker.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/201006...ews_ts2771?dfs

Judge who overturned drilling moratorium reported owning stock in drilling companies

The federal judge who overturned Barack Obama's offshore drilling moratorium reported owning stock in numerous companies involved in the offshore oil industry — including Transocean, which leased the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig to BP prior to its April 20 explosion in the Gulf of Mexico — according to 2008 financial disclosure reports.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman issued a preliminary injunction today barring the enforcement of the president's proposed six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, arguing that the ban is too broad.

According to Feldman's 2008 financial disclosure form, posted online by Judicial Watch [pdf], the judge owned stock in Transocean, as well as five other companies that are either directly or indirectly involved in the offshore drilling business.

It's not surprising that Feldman, who is a judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, has invested in the offshore drilling business — an Associated Press investigation found earlier this month that more than half the federal judges in the districts affected by the BP spill have financial ties to the oil and gas industry.

You know what it takes to stop an oil leak??



It takes brass balls to stop an oil leak.

Have you ever seen a model from someone trying to describe porosity? They use balls in a jar and if the balls are the same size the porosity is like 50% or something which means you would have flow through the balls no matter how thick they were. So I can't see how this would stop anything?