Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/05/small-satellites-keep-up-their.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/05/small-satellites-keep-up-their.shtml en-gb 30 Wed 17 Sep 2014 15:02:22 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/05/small-satellites-keep-up-their.shtml jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/05/small-satellites-keep-up-their.shtml?page=75#comment3 BluesBerry #3."Might it also be a cover-up for something so big that the American administration dare not tell the public the truth?"what? like the elephant in the room -- Halliburton. Sat 22 May 2010 21:25:50 GMT+1 BluesBerry http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/05/small-satellites-keep-up-their.shtml?page=50#comment2 Satellite images appear to show that part of the oil slick has entered the “Loop Current”.The Loop Current acts like a conveyor belt; it flows clockwise around the Gulf of Mexico towards Florida. The Loop Current joins the Gulf Stream.The Gulf Stream is the northern hemisphere’s most important ocean-current system.The Gulf Stream could carry oil up to the American East Coast.Also comparing satellite pictures, you can see that the slick is moving quickly, expanding fast.From looking at these pictures, I have to think that someone is not being totally sincere about the damage (perhaps even the cause) and what can be done.From the start, BP CEO Tony Hayward said that the spills environmental effect will be "very modest," when, in fact, it was already catastrophic, causing eccological destruction that will likely persist for hundreds of years. Initially, BP reported a 1,000 barrels per day, then 5,000 (after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's interim study).Meanwhile satellite imagery suggested about 95,000 barrels/day.Why has BP withheld information?Worse: Who’s monitoring independently?BP isn't monitoring conditions or releasing videos; Obama doesn’t seem to be pressing for action, except to shake his fist and look enraged. What if the wellhead fails in full. Couldn't these figures double overnight?Why does the media keep repeating the 5,000 (figure), or figures that are nowhere near 95,000?Why is BP talking about despersants when according to to Eugene Shinn, recently retired US Geologic Service ecology expert states that: "Under no circumstances should dispersants be used on an oil slick in the vicinity of a coral reef. They would cause oil droplets to sink and potentially destroy tiny coral polyps.”So why did Obama approve use of toxic dispersants - 600,000 gallons of surface dispersants and 55,000 underwater dispersants?This goes way beyond BP and negligence. It's another American regulatory problem.And it’s a tregedy.Might it also be a cover-up for something so big that the American administration dare not tell the public the truth? Sat 22 May 2010 14:58:52 GMT+1 melty http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/05/small-satellites-keep-up-their.shtml?page=25#comment1 P.S. Good for SSTL! Fri 21 May 2010 23:01:43 GMT+1 melty http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/05/small-satellites-keep-up-their.shtml?page=0#comment0 You might also have included NASA's Multiangle Imaging Spectroradiometer that uses multi-angle imaging to obtain clearer pictures of where the oil is. Multiangle reflectance data are sensitive to surface roughness and are used to examine various surfaces: from ice sheets to forest canopies to dust bowls. Click here to see the Deepwater Horizon oil slick in MISR images Fri 21 May 2010 23:00:44 GMT+1