I was of the understanding that 'barrels' was an international thing used only by the oil companies.Interesting that this international company has stirred up a bit of anti-brit feeling in the US (not on this list though) where BP is truly an international company like Ford.
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:26:35 -0700 From: [email protected] Subject: [USMA:47641] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI To: [email protected] I hope that is a joke, as I KNOW you understand precision and sensible rounding. However, we have some "decimal dusters" who might not get it. The 1000 m is of course one of "those" numbers where you ask how many of those digits are significant. Given a vertical plume, and general lack of precision in measurements at sea, I'm guessing 1 or 2, although clearly it is a guess. However, I do wonder why British Petroleum measures the leak in American "barrels." Do they think they are aidding or hindering understanding? Given the range, that figure has no significant figures and the order of magnitude seems debatable. From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, June 10, 2010 11:00:56 AM Subject: [USMA:47640] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI Pat, In my local newspaper I read that an oil plume was located at a depth of "3 300 feet" which was probably reported at 1 000 meters. i.e. 3 300 x 0.3048 = 1 005.84 meters. Note the discrepancy of 5.84 meters between the value reported and the numbed down value disseminated by the Associated Press. Shame on the AP distortion! Gene, Censor of Deviations from SI ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:29:29 +1000 >From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:47625] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > Dear Gene, > You might be interested in this article in our local > newspaper, 'The > Age': > http://www.theage.com.au/world/experts-at-loggerheads-over-oil-leak-rate-20100608-xtlj.html > > Since each of the sources has their own > 'down-dumber' I don't suppose we can have any > confidence whether the original data (kilograms, > litres, cubic metres, metres per minute, metres per > hour, gallons UK, gallons USA, feet per minute, etc, > ) is being reported reliable given the possibility > of multiple conversion errors. > Cheers, > > Pat Naughtin >... _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/ We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
