Cratermaker
Charter Member
I can't find any video of mushroom clouds of oil under water, CGG or otherwise. Link please?
-
There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politicion will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
RE: Oil in Gulf; Oh Man, another Titannic/Challenger scenario.
- Thread starter aeromed202
- Start date
T
tigisfat
Guest
+1, me too.
Cratermaker
Charter Member
Maybe the news outlet reporting it has the video on their site? Anyone remember which news outlet?
I haven't seen any video. And, if I heard the news report correct; the same research ship that reported the "oil mushroom clouds" reported later yesterday that the clouds were not in fact not clouds of oil. I just can't find the second story online.
Here is the original news story:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/18/2902320.htm
-James
aeromed202
SOH-CM-2014
I'm not really on board with this 'nature will take care of our messes' kind of position. Does this mean I can toss my TP out the window when I'm done with it? It'll eventually dissolve won't it? Pour my used motor oil down the sewer? No, of course not.
No, probably no mushroom clouds (like an atom bomb), that sounds iffy. But consider... now I'm a bit rusty at my chemistry but oil, as a liquid, is less dense than water, like big oil marbles and smaller water marbles. It's about molecular size and nuclear density. Just pour some Wesson into a glass of water. After an hour or so the water molecules will be in the lower phase and the oil molecules in the upper with a visible boundry layer. They don't mix. Now add things like wave aggitation, currents, particulates, organic and inorganic compounds and sea life and things get way more complicated. Plus undersea vortexes are common enough and can look a bit like a mushroom cloud. Oil will disperse but each smaller droplet is still chemically oil. It is out there, moving, and being ingested too.
Whatever facts get learned from this we'd better make some good from it is all I can say.
No, probably no mushroom clouds (like an atom bomb), that sounds iffy. But consider... now I'm a bit rusty at my chemistry but oil, as a liquid, is less dense than water, like big oil marbles and smaller water marbles. It's about molecular size and nuclear density. Just pour some Wesson into a glass of water. After an hour or so the water molecules will be in the lower phase and the oil molecules in the upper with a visible boundry layer. They don't mix. Now add things like wave aggitation, currents, particulates, organic and inorganic compounds and sea life and things get way more complicated. Plus undersea vortexes are common enough and can look a bit like a mushroom cloud. Oil will disperse but each smaller droplet is still chemically oil. It is out there, moving, and being ingested too.
Whatever facts get learned from this we'd better make some good from it is all I can say.
Nobody likes the idea of nature having to take care of it; but she is probably doing a better job than we can with detergents and booms.
Crude oil is also not a homogeneous substance like the Wesson in your example. The purpose of refineries si to break it down one hydrocarbon at a time; the lighter stuff like methane and kerosene first, the heavier stuff like what goes into gasoline and diesel fuel next; then heavier stuff like motor oil, eventually leaving behind tar, or pure carbon black.
Nature is doing the same thing. The lighter stuff, it is estimated to be about 20%, has evaporated away. The next-to-lightest stuff is floating as scum on the surface. The "middle stuff" is floating around underwater, and may wash up occasionally as a tar ball. The heaviest stuff sinks to the ocean floor.
I posted two links back on page two, if you didn't read them, please take time to do so. One way we "lucked out" in this case is that the oil found in the Gulf of Mexico is rich in lighter hydrocarbons, so it is breaking up well on it's own as I described above. The shifting ocean currents are helping to disperse it, and the microbes are doing there thing.
The oil found on the North Slope in Alaska is much thicker, and made up of mostly heavier hydrocarbons. So, most of it remained in the water, and washed up on the beach. (The Exxon Valdez was also much closer to shore.)
That and more was brought out in the two links I shared. And like I wrote before, crude oil is not a manmade substance. Lots of if leaks out to the ground and ocean floor on it's own; or at least it used to until we extracted it.(Don't forget that point; all of the early finds came from observations of gas escaping or oil pooling on the ground.) So nature is quite used to taking care of it.
Nobody, including myself, is just shrugging their shoulders and saying "no big deal, let's just keep polluting." The fact is, the oil industry has done a good job in the past in finding, drilling, and extracting the oil as clean as humanly possible. This was an unusual event, not business as usual. It infuriates me that some groups are treating it otherwise to forward their agenda.
-James
Crude oil is also not a homogeneous substance like the Wesson in your example. The purpose of refineries si to break it down one hydrocarbon at a time; the lighter stuff like methane and kerosene first, the heavier stuff like what goes into gasoline and diesel fuel next; then heavier stuff like motor oil, eventually leaving behind tar, or pure carbon black.
Nature is doing the same thing. The lighter stuff, it is estimated to be about 20%, has evaporated away. The next-to-lightest stuff is floating as scum on the surface. The "middle stuff" is floating around underwater, and may wash up occasionally as a tar ball. The heaviest stuff sinks to the ocean floor.
I posted two links back on page two, if you didn't read them, please take time to do so. One way we "lucked out" in this case is that the oil found in the Gulf of Mexico is rich in lighter hydrocarbons, so it is breaking up well on it's own as I described above. The shifting ocean currents are helping to disperse it, and the microbes are doing there thing.
The oil found on the North Slope in Alaska is much thicker, and made up of mostly heavier hydrocarbons. So, most of it remained in the water, and washed up on the beach. (The Exxon Valdez was also much closer to shore.)
That and more was brought out in the two links I shared. And like I wrote before, crude oil is not a manmade substance. Lots of if leaks out to the ground and ocean floor on it's own; or at least it used to until we extracted it.(Don't forget that point; all of the early finds came from observations of gas escaping or oil pooling on the ground.) So nature is quite used to taking care of it.
Nobody, including myself, is just shrugging their shoulders and saying "no big deal, let's just keep polluting." The fact is, the oil industry has done a good job in the past in finding, drilling, and extracting the oil as clean as humanly possible. This was an unusual event, not business as usual. It infuriates me that some groups are treating it otherwise to forward their agenda.
-James
The Tenerife airport disaster was terrible: 583 fatalities, lots of burning fuel and smoke, two wrecked 747s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster
What if the government and environmentalists called for the ending of all airline flights until the cause was found, and we made sure it never happened again. Most of you would hit the roof, and rightly claim it was an isolated incident.
How many of you know, or remember, that many of the early oil strikes were followed by roaring sound; then the drill pipe came flying out of the hole, followed by a gusyer of oil. This is Lucas Geyser at Spindletop, the first big strike in the United States in 1901, which blew oil over 150 ft (46 m) in the air at a rate of 100,000 barrels per day (16,000 m<SUP>3</SUP>/d)(4,200,000 gallons). It took nine days before the well was brought under control.
View attachment 8260
I can take you to that spot today, you would never know it ever occurred; except for the momument marking the spot, and the oil wells still in the area. Until this event, we haven't seen this is a very long time; there is a reason for that.
My Dad, a retired petroleum engineer; once told me about working all night in the 1960s to keep a well from blowing out, then jumping in the water pit used for the steam engines to cool off; angering the well engineer. It has been years since we had a blowout like that; that is what cementing a well and blowout protectors do.
It sounds like the oil fields off the contential shelf may have gas pressures far greater than what we usually encounter. Or, maybe someone goofed; that is what my Dad thinks. But either way, let's find out; and not let the media make us crazy over this.
-James
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster
What if the government and environmentalists called for the ending of all airline flights until the cause was found, and we made sure it never happened again. Most of you would hit the roof, and rightly claim it was an isolated incident.
How many of you know, or remember, that many of the early oil strikes were followed by roaring sound; then the drill pipe came flying out of the hole, followed by a gusyer of oil. This is Lucas Geyser at Spindletop, the first big strike in the United States in 1901, which blew oil over 150 ft (46 m) in the air at a rate of 100,000 barrels per day (16,000 m<SUP>3</SUP>/d)(4,200,000 gallons). It took nine days before the well was brought under control.
View attachment 8260
I can take you to that spot today, you would never know it ever occurred; except for the momument marking the spot, and the oil wells still in the area. Until this event, we haven't seen this is a very long time; there is a reason for that.
My Dad, a retired petroleum engineer; once told me about working all night in the 1960s to keep a well from blowing out, then jumping in the water pit used for the steam engines to cool off; angering the well engineer. It has been years since we had a blowout like that; that is what cementing a well and blowout protectors do.
It sounds like the oil fields off the contential shelf may have gas pressures far greater than what we usually encounter. Or, maybe someone goofed; that is what my Dad thinks. But either way, let's find out; and not let the media make us crazy over this.
-James
T
tigisfat
Guest
The pipe going to the well severed when the rig capsized and went under, creating the geyser. If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that an ovepressure or drilling problem caused this. I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.
Two things happened. First, the wellhead blew out due to the gas pocket, killing those who were on the well deck at the time, and setting the rig on fire. This is the initial cause I was refering to; the cement and blowout proventers never should have allowed this to happen. But something, we are not sure what, went wrong.
After burning for awhile, the rig was weakened and sank, breaking the drill string. This caused the leak you are referring to; the gas pressure is still there, so like Spindletop, we have a geyser, only it is underwater.
-James
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
James,
Your contributions in this thread have been very wise, informed, and objective. I for one very much appreciate your expertise.
Your comparison to well documented airline disasters is spot on!
I openly wonder if those who call for ending such drilling operations would be so forceful in their articulations if it guaranteed their long term unemployment! Somehow, I suspect such a dire personal outcome would moderate their enthusiasm.
We may well learn this accident was caused by negligence. Or we may well learn that a one-in-a-million set of circumstances took place outside rational human ability to control. If it is the later, then rational response would be to preserve the status quo. If the former, then properly hold accountable those who's negligence caused the destruction, damage, and death.
Ken
Your contributions in this thread have been very wise, informed, and objective. I for one very much appreciate your expertise.
Your comparison to well documented airline disasters is spot on!
I openly wonder if those who call for ending such drilling operations would be so forceful in their articulations if it guaranteed their long term unemployment! Somehow, I suspect such a dire personal outcome would moderate their enthusiasm.
We may well learn this accident was caused by negligence. Or we may well learn that a one-in-a-million set of circumstances took place outside rational human ability to control. If it is the later, then rational response would be to preserve the status quo. If the former, then properly hold accountable those who's negligence caused the destruction, damage, and death.
Ken
T
tigisfat
Guest
Okay, thanks for bringing me up to speed. I thought the underwater geyser was solely cause by the rig going under for some other reason.
Thanks. :ernae:
Thank you very much; we should also be getting this kind of reporting from the news media if they were indeed "fair and unbaised"; the fact that you have to read it from a nobody in a FS Forum is why I and others have no respect for the MSM these days. Ditto the "Global Warming", opps, "global climate change" reporting....
Hey All,
Ken Stallings wrote...
Are we talking environmental economic policy here or Conservative deregulation of the American economic system? I'm confused. :d
That aside the way I see the gulf incident is not a failure to adequately understand risk or even perhaps a failure to implement appropriate safety measures - the failure is in the understanding of consequences assuming a worst case scenario which this probably isn't. But that said what will be the cumulative cost over time to all marine based industries in the gulf? Does an oil company have the right to put at significant risk the livelihood of gulf fisherman? What would Forrest Gump think? What will be the full cost to the recreation/tourism industry? Will Cuba be able to make a claim against the American taxpayer? How much is this going to cost the taxpayer/consumer in terms of increased testing of all food from the gulf - for how long? Do you really think BP is going to pay all current and future costs? In short how much is this going to cost? - is the oil worth it? - and none of this future values have small values today krap. The use of discount rates to maximize short term cash versus future needs or that minimize present costs of future consequences has gone on too long. Our descendants deserve better - but not to get off track. What is this going to cost and then you can add on all the environmental ethics, ecological goods and services and all that sort of thing.
The arguement that the earth will survive as it has "suffered" worse is nothing but a denial of responsibility. The earth unquestionably has "suffered" worse but those events were not caused by humans with the knowledge and responsibility to act upon that knowledge to avoid those kinds of events. Even if you claim we do not have a responsibility to the earth because it doesn't care we do have a responsibility to the people we share the earth with and to future generations. The arguement that future generations will just have to inherit what we leave them just like we inherited what we got is simply unacceptable because we have the knowledge to know we are taking severe risks perhaps creating/leaving a mess to them - a mess we didn't need to make - past generations did not necessarily have to bear the burden that knowledge creates - we and future generations do.
I don't know how this "event" is going to "tally up" - we'll see - an honest accounting I hope. Hopefully we'll see this as a real "wake up" call. Most of the same concerns apply to climate change where the question is - once again - full understanding of the potential consequences. If the consequences are severe enough the risk however small it may be percieved to be probably just isn't worth it.
JMO.
Oh an one last thing I learned from Snuffy...
In... before the lock! :d
-Ed-
Ken Stallings wrote...
Are we talking environmental economic policy here or Conservative deregulation of the American economic system? I'm confused. :d
That aside the way I see the gulf incident is not a failure to adequately understand risk or even perhaps a failure to implement appropriate safety measures - the failure is in the understanding of consequences assuming a worst case scenario which this probably isn't. But that said what will be the cumulative cost over time to all marine based industries in the gulf? Does an oil company have the right to put at significant risk the livelihood of gulf fisherman? What would Forrest Gump think? What will be the full cost to the recreation/tourism industry? Will Cuba be able to make a claim against the American taxpayer? How much is this going to cost the taxpayer/consumer in terms of increased testing of all food from the gulf - for how long? Do you really think BP is going to pay all current and future costs? In short how much is this going to cost? - is the oil worth it? - and none of this future values have small values today krap. The use of discount rates to maximize short term cash versus future needs or that minimize present costs of future consequences has gone on too long. Our descendants deserve better - but not to get off track. What is this going to cost and then you can add on all the environmental ethics, ecological goods and services and all that sort of thing.
The arguement that the earth will survive as it has "suffered" worse is nothing but a denial of responsibility. The earth unquestionably has "suffered" worse but those events were not caused by humans with the knowledge and responsibility to act upon that knowledge to avoid those kinds of events. Even if you claim we do not have a responsibility to the earth because it doesn't care we do have a responsibility to the people we share the earth with and to future generations. The arguement that future generations will just have to inherit what we leave them just like we inherited what we got is simply unacceptable because we have the knowledge to know we are taking severe risks perhaps creating/leaving a mess to them - a mess we didn't need to make - past generations did not necessarily have to bear the burden that knowledge creates - we and future generations do.
I don't know how this "event" is going to "tally up" - we'll see - an honest accounting I hope. Hopefully we'll see this as a real "wake up" call. Most of the same concerns apply to climate change where the question is - once again - full understanding of the potential consequences. If the consequences are severe enough the risk however small it may be percieved to be probably just isn't worth it.
JMO.
Oh an one last thing I learned from Snuffy...
In... before the lock! :d
-Ed-
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
Nice words, but I say again, are you willing to surrender YOUR job and YOUR way of life to support those words?
Because if you are not, then you might be playing loose and fast with other people's lives!
And ultimately, I don't see that as coservative or liberal. I see it as rational human policy. Because the best policies are those that cause the least harm to society.
Cheers,
Ken
Because if you are not, then you might be playing loose and fast with other people's lives!
And ultimately, I don't see that as coservative or liberal. I see it as rational human policy. Because the best policies are those that cause the least harm to society.
Cheers,
Ken
people have legs/bikes etc oil isnt the only way to move things around. People managed fine before it and people will manage when its gone. And to all those that say humans dont effect the enviroment and that mother nature will "clean up" .. well thats utter bollacks and you need to get out away from the towns/citys etc and take a good look around you, now go back to town.
wombat666
Administrator
Try looking under Special Broadcasting Services (SBS Australia) News.
And no, I can't be bothered posting a link.
However, as the oil sludge has made landfall in the Mississippi wetlands, part of the Florida Coast, and is heading North, along with the banning of fishing in over 40,000 square miles in the Gulf, the impact (even by Ken's 'Because the best policies are those that cause the least harm to society' standards) will be huge.
Aside from the loss of 35% of America's seafood fisheries, the knock on effect down the line from fishermen all the way to the consumer will be ugly.
And yes, I KNOW 'certain people' regard me as a member of a 'Terrorist Group'.
Remarks from the 'Head' of a certain nation's government fishing industry board to the effect that when Northern Bluefin Tuna become extinct it "Will be very good as the price of fish in our stocks will rise to a high level" make me very grumpy ......... not a good thing.
Cratermaker
Charter Member
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1259832/Deep-sea-oil-plumes-could-create-new-'dead-zone'
Unless we have the technology to plunge a camera from 1000s of ft. in the air to underwater in about 2 seconds, have it survive, then take images of huge underwater oil formations through the ocean like it is clear as tap water... I'd say those "mushroom clouds" are a CGI artist's rendition.
Unless we have the technology to plunge a camera from 1000s of ft. in the air to underwater in about 2 seconds, have it survive, then take images of huge underwater oil formations through the ocean like it is clear as tap water... I'd say those "mushroom clouds" are a CGI artist's rendition.
jmig
SOH-CM-2025
Very well expressed Ed. Your thoughts, concerns, and sentiments are very valid. I will not argue that they should be part of corporate decision making just as much as profits. In a perfect world they would be. I wish it was so. Unfortunately our world is not perfect. Your ideas are more valid to me than some others expressed here.
The idea that we could go back to riding bikes and walking is a nice and pleasant image, harping to the bucolic days of shepherds and quite country living. A lot of authors make a lot of money writing fantasy fiction with just these settings. If only...."if".
Let's look at what we would really give up if we quit drilling for oil and gas:
* Fresh fruits and vegetables - they are delivered by petroleum burning internal engine vehicles.
* Seafood - see above
* Anything plastic, car panels, computer cases, IPhones, etc. Plastics are made from natural gas.
* Airplanes, vacations abroad or across country
* electricity - except for coal fired and nuclear powered generators
* air conditioning - due to a lack of electricity (I could give up computers before this)
* clothing made with chemical products - Gore-tex, Nylon, etc.
You will also see a great increase in wood burning (goodbye forests) stoves, fireplaces and cooking.
Like it or not, we are stuck with oil and gas for the next 50 years, at least. We have to drill or turn our entire economy over to people in countries who, for the most part, don't like us very well.
Is that what we want?
Not me!
So we need oil and gas. We must and will find ways of getting it more safely. Accidents like this will continue. As the saying goes, $hit happens. As long as there are humans doing things, accidents will happen. As long as the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Chaos theory are in force, things will break.
No government or corporation's safety man will ever stop it completely.
Yes! It sucks! But as the French will say, C'est la Vie!
Snuffy
Happiness Consultant
If this proves anything, it proves that the ancient way of building rigs will probably be brought back to the norm. This is speculation with regard to the floating and sinking rig problem.
Had this rig been of the rigid design with a foundation implanted in the sea bed, most likely the rig would not have sunk, and the pipe would not have failed at such a depth as it is now, and virtually impossible for man to withstand the water pressures of the location.
There still would be the geyser effect we're seeing now, but it would be a whole lot closer to depths that a man could survive in. IF it were under water at all.
Yes, I understand the leak is a mile or so below the surface, and yeah its a lot of steel/aluminum or whatever other material they could have chose to build the support structure from, but again, the cost of a mile of steel structure is a hell of a lot less than what its going to cost to clean up, as well as what its cost so far to have to repair this rupture.
Just my humble idle thought on this.
Had this rig been of the rigid design with a foundation implanted in the sea bed, most likely the rig would not have sunk, and the pipe would not have failed at such a depth as it is now, and virtually impossible for man to withstand the water pressures of the location.
There still would be the geyser effect we're seeing now, but it would be a whole lot closer to depths that a man could survive in. IF it were under water at all.
Yes, I understand the leak is a mile or so below the surface, and yeah its a lot of steel/aluminum or whatever other material they could have chose to build the support structure from, but again, the cost of a mile of steel structure is a hell of a lot less than what its going to cost to clean up, as well as what its cost so far to have to repair this rupture.
Just my humble idle thought on this.