R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?  (Read 15924 times)

Berolzheimer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2709
Re: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?
« Reply #30 on: May 13, 2010, 09:13:38 pm »

Edvaard wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 16:42


Quote:

Depending on estimates ...





One tonne (metric ton) = 308 US gals. = 7.33 bbl





Seems to me that tons (tonnes) may not be the best way of assessing these things as opposed to volume, isn't it true that different types of oil, from different sources, have different densities?
Logged
The film sound side of my life:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0077235/

A bunch of songs I've recorded and/or mixed are here:
http://www.zget.me/billionaires/

Berolzheimer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2709
Re: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?
« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2010, 09:28:20 pm »

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/13/wheres-the-oil-your -gover_n_575647.html

"But there's never been an oil spill this big and this deep before. Nor have authorities ever used chemical dispersants so widely.

As a result, some scientists suspect that a lot, if not most, of the oil is lurking below the surface rather than on it, in a gigantic underwater plume the size and trajectory of which remain largely a mystery.

Oil on the surface can be fairly easily spotted by helicopter and satellite. But tracking an underwater plume is a much more complicated task, which thus far appears confined to one lonely improvising research vessel whose crew had been planning to hunt shipwrecks.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska marine conservationist who recently spent more than a week on the Gulf Coast, said the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] risks wildly underestimating the damage caused by the massive spill.
Story continues below

"If you don't look, you won't find, and they're not looking in the right places," Steiner told the Huffington Post.

Most major oil spills occur right at the surface, he explained. This one is entirely different.

With a spill this deep, the oil starts off extremely dense and under pressure. Some of it breaks up or dissolves into the water on the way up, and some of it makes it all the way to the surface. But some will "stabilize in the water column" maybe as low as 200 to 300 meters off the seabed, Steiner said. "Then it starts drifting with the current."

"I'm virtually certain that a lot of this oil hasn't even surfaced yet," he said. "What we don't know is the trajectory and direction of this subsurface toxic plume.""
Logged
The film sound side of my life:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0077235/

A bunch of songs I've recorded and/or mixed are here:
http://www.zget.me/billionaires/

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?
« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2010, 09:30:31 pm »

Yah, from everything I'm reading if the quick-fix stops don't work, this could turn out to be mind-blowingly bad.

Not that it's not bad already, just saying...
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

Edvaard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
Re: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2010, 09:36:02 pm »

ssltech wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 20:55

Yup...

Just a minor nit-pick on my part... Isn't a knot a measure of speed? -I assume you mean 'nautical miles'

Keith



True enough. I assumed others would assume ...

Incorrect but, I thought, somewhat common practical usage as short for nautical miles also.
Logged

Edvaard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
Re: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2010, 09:46:40 pm »


Berolzheimer wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 21:13



Seems to me that tons (tonnes) may not be the best way of assessing these things as opposed to volume, isn't it true that different types of oil, from different sources, have different densities?



Yes, I'm sure that is true, but tonnes and gallons and barrels seem to be equally ubiquitous in all the info given on the subject, without any qualification regarding grade, so I was just tying them together for convenience here. I conjecture they might forgo such a distinction for cause of it being a relatively minor difference given the large amount in question and the larger than usual margin for error in what are unavoidably broad estimates.


But as to the other issue you pointed out, I now remember someone in the process right at the beginning saying that it would take awhile for all the oil to make it's way to the surface.

Once it's finally capped, it will be some time after before we really know the extent of the affair.


PS

As mentioned also, there are SO many things worse about this far-below-surface eruption than the usual tanker spill.


Logged

Podgorny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1491
Re: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?
« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2010, 11:28:30 pm »

MDM, wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 18:27

so they've already made sure that the platform fell exactly on top of the drill-hole?

the currents down there didn't make much of a difference, I guess.



The platform is about a quarter-mile from the well.
Logged
"Nobody cares what the impedance is; all they care about is when you can walk into the room, set up a mic, turn the knobs, hit record, and make everybody go 'wow.'"

Taproot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 713
Re: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?
« Reply #36 on: May 14, 2010, 08:43:29 am »

Berolzheimer wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 19:28

 Nor have authorities ever used chemical dispersants so widely.


This bothers me as much as the spill, itself. Mad

I'm probably gonna make a trip to the coast in a few days and get a couple of hundred pounds of Shrimp, just in case the worst happens. Sickening. Crying or Very Sad
Logged
Jeffrey Reed
Taproot Audio Design
Oxford, Mississippi
www.taprootaudiodesign.com
www.myspace.com/taprootaudio

"That boy's so dumb, he thinks the Mexican border pays rent!" -Foghorn Leghorn

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?
« Reply #37 on: May 14, 2010, 09:35:38 am »

Some amazing yet depressing photos: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/disaster_unfolds_sl owly_in_the.html
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?
« Reply #38 on: May 14, 2010, 11:36:26 am »

Brad,

Thanks for the link.

-Forwarded.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Berolzheimer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2709
Re: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?
« Reply #39 on: May 14, 2010, 12:21:58 pm »

It just amazes me that they're out there doing this extremely dangerous thing with no plan or techniques in place for when something goes wrong.
Logged
The film sound side of my life:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0077235/

A bunch of songs I've recorded and/or mixed are here:
http://www.zget.me/billionaires/

fiasco ( P.M.DuMont )

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 437
Re: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?
« Reply #40 on: May 14, 2010, 12:46:09 pm »

Berolzheimer wrote on Fri, 14 May 2010 12:21

It just amazes me that they're out there doing this extremely dangerous thing with no plan or techniques in place for when something goes wrong.



Fully agree.
That is precisely where I want heavy regulation.
Logged
Philip

Taproot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 713
Re: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?
« Reply #41 on: May 14, 2010, 12:58:22 pm »

Berolzheimer wrote on Fri, 14 May 2010 10:21

It just amazes me that they're out there doing this extremely dangerous thing with no plan or techniques in place for when something goes wrong.



Been thinking the same thing. It just seems there should MULTIPLE stages of shutoff valves for these things. Even under the sea floor.
Logged
Jeffrey Reed
Taproot Audio Design
Oxford, Mississippi
www.taprootaudiodesign.com
www.myspace.com/taprootaudio

"That boy's so dumb, he thinks the Mexican border pays rent!" -Foghorn Leghorn

Berolzheimer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2709
Re: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?
« Reply #42 on: May 14, 2010, 02:59:39 pm »

Taproot wrote on Fri, 14 May 2010 09:58

Berolzheimer wrote on Fri, 14 May 2010 10:21

It just amazes me that they're out there doing this extremely dangerous thing with no plan or techniques in place for when something goes wrong.



Been thinking the same thing. It just seems there should MULTIPLE stages of shutoff valves for these things. Even under the sea floor.



There are.  Well, not under the sea bed, but there are several supposed automatic shutoff valves, they just didn't work and there's not much to do about it at those depths & pressures.

Maybe, all in all, it just ain't worth it.
Logged
The film sound side of my life:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0077235/

A bunch of songs I've recorded and/or mixed are here:
http://www.zget.me/billionaires/

Kris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
Re: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?
« Reply #43 on: May 14, 2010, 03:38:25 pm »

Definately not worth it to me. Crying or Very Sad  Crying or Very Sad  Crying or Very Sad
Logged

Edvaard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
Re: Worst Environmental Disaster Ever?
« Reply #44 on: May 14, 2010, 05:48:05 pm »


I am still somewhat disappointed in that we always hear more about which form of energy to use than how to reduce energy consumption in the first place. And I don't mean necessarily that everyone should be thinking at every waking moment how to use less, but rather using existing technology and better supporting ongoing research towards making every item that uses energy in any form consume less. I sometimes wonder if computer technology and engineering has been in part taking some of the engineering brain power away from more conventional engineering (but maybe not).

If we take away all subsidies, tax incentives, exploration credits, etc. from any and all forms of energy production, then all energy sources are both expensive and at least somewhat environmentally damaging and polluting just to produce in the first place, starting with the employees in those industries getting themselves to work.

An ounce of prevention ...

A few joules saved here, some there, if spread throughout all of industry and at home, could save us mountains of ungainly and convoluted 'cap and trade' legislation, e.g.

The private sector and government could increase already existing support to universities and private consortiums (consortia, I know, but ...) for basic research to seek better materials (lighter, stronger), more efficient manufacturing processes, more efficient motors, less heat waste, etc.

At the end of the day, economics determines what money gets put where, and so the biggest single obstacle to the above is the artificially low price of all of our energy at the retail level. Most of the "external cost" of energy is not reflected at the pump or in our utility bills. Nor are these external costs completely reflected in most anything we buy that uses energy in its production, both goods and services. Which in fact is pretty much anything and everything. These costs are bourne eventually by taxpayers, who mostly wonder why taxes keep going up, but usually not tying together the expensive pollution abatement and clean-ups, etc. with the relatively cheap gas and electricity. If the true total cost of energy production and usage is put before us in one price, then the basic R&D for new materials and processes looks not nearly as expensive as it seems to now.

The new hot water heater, furnace, etc. that are more energy efficient but cost more at purchase, do not look nearly as expensive now.


We cannot withstand all the solar panels and wind farms and sugar ethanol production, much less oil and nuclear and dams, required to sustain us at this level and also sustain the fast rising consumption of developing countries, at current levels of efficiency.


But, if we are as smart as we think we are (as I know we are), we do have the ability to come up with the technology to do all this. If we just have accurate prices and costs to compare, the decision is pretty easy.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10   Go Up