BP Oil Relief Well Update

Shouldn't the top should be 1977 while the bottom is 1925? It doesn't make sense. Sea level is at 0 so how is that possible?

Or are those numbers actually negative?
 
netrox said:
Shouldn't the top should be 1977 while the bottom is 1925? It doesn't make sense. Sea level is at 0 so how is that possible?

Or are those numbers actually negative?
Click to expand...

The ground level sank. so 1977 is at bottom. get it?
 
Jiro said:
The ground level sank. so 1977 is at bottom. get it?
Click to expand...

nope.

Sea level is 0 - lower than 0 would be a negative number. When you're on the ground, it's often above the sea level (exceptions are death valley). So, suppose you're on the land that's 1000 feet high and that land sinks 200 feet down, it should be like 800 feet so you'd see 1000...900...800 ft. What I am seeing is that the number is actually increasing as it goes down... it doesn't make sense to me unless those numbers are negative.

So, how is it possible?
 
netrox said:
nope.

Sea level is 0 - lower than 0 would be a negative number. When you're on the ground, it's often above the sea level (exceptions are death valley). So, suppose you're on the land that's 1000 feet high and that land sinks 200 feet down, it should be like 800 feet so you'd see 1000...900...800 ft. What I am seeing is that the number is actually increasing as it goes down... it doesn't make sense to me unless those numbers are negative.

So, how is it possible?
Click to expand...

those number is the year, not feet. the sign on the ground is where it was at in 1977. The sign at top was when it was in 1925. so what you're seeing in the pix is the effect of land subsidence in 52 years.
 
netrox said:
Shouldn't the top should be 1977 while the bottom is 1925? It doesn't make sense. Sea level is at 0 so how is that possible?

Or are those numbers actually negative?
Click to expand...

No. It's just a lower elevation now. Currently elevation is still above sea level. It's just lower.
 
Those are years. Year 1925 to 1977. Not elevation levels. They mined the water since 1925 and the ground sank to where it was in the 1977 photo.
 
OH!!!! Now that makes sense.. I thought they were measuring the elevation level in feet! Now, I get it... it was years, not feet. Thanks.
 
netrox said:
nope.

Sea level is 0 - lower than 0 would be a negative number. When you're on the ground, it's often above the sea level (exceptions are death valley). So, suppose you're on the land that's 1000 feet high and that land sinks 200 feet down, it should be like 800 feet so you'd see 1000...900...800 ft. What I am seeing is that the number is actually increasing as it goes down... it doesn't make sense to me unless those numbers are negative.

So, how is it possible?
Click to expand...

I think I understand your confusion. The point at the top is not a measurement in feet .... it is the year
 
Back
Top