Post by: bigaudioblowhard on May 12, 2010, 05:19:30 PM
http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/the-wor st-environmental-disaster-in-american-history-the-gulf-of-me xico-oil-spill
bab
Post by: ssltech on May 12, 2010, 05:53:02 PM
The last lines:
| Quote: |
We're humped. Unless God steps in and fixes this. No human can. You can be sure of that. |
...mark it out as overly sensational writing as opposed to a sober assessment, to me.
Yes a nuke is indeed a considerable option and may have to be deployed, but it would take a LOT of setup; you don't just drop a bomb on it next week, for example.
In the meantime, several options are being deployed in parallel. -Everyone involved knows that we can't afford to try the options consecutively, they MUST be deployed concurrently, because of the likelihood that so many will not work.
EVENTUALLY, this can be capped/shut off. The problem is the TIME it will take and the damage done in that time... with hurricane season starting in about 3 weeks.
There's a lot which I never knew about how those rigs/platforms even 'STAND' there... Fact is, they DON'T stand there like the North Sea oil rigs with which I'm more familiar: apparently they FLOAT.
The sea bed at that point is apparently too deep in that location for it to stand on solid 'legs', so -as I understand it- they basically used a 'GPS system and some gyros' to keep it constantly within a couple of feet, using engines to 'drive' it to its correct position at all times, and the gyros keep it oriented correctly.
So instead of a long pipe or drill bit between three or four legs, you have a long pipe or drill bit... going between a fixed point on the sea floor and a notionally fixed point on the surface...
So when the "shin hits the fat" and the platform catches fire/explodes, you end up with a pipe or drill bit being stressed/stretched by the collapsing/burning/exploding platform.
...Which raises another issue: -What backup plans are in place to protect OTHER platforms which may be similarly arranged, in case some enemy in some future war manages to disable the GPS system... either by cyber-attack/uplink, or by 'star-wars' military-style attack?
Without a backup system -assuming my information about how this is done is correct- ANY other rigs using a similar situational positioning system would immediately be at great risk.
Keith
Post by: arconaut on May 12, 2010, 07:52:22 PM
Post by: YZ on May 12, 2010, 08:44:34 PM
| arconaut wrote on Wed, 12 May 2010 20:52 |
I understand that this person is proposing closing off the opening with an explosive - but why would it have to be a nuclear device? Because nothing else is powerful enough? |
Personally, I think said person is full of ... debris.
I'd believe such statements if they were made by an identified specialist, but an anonymous "internet engineer"...
what is this, oilrigslutz?
Post by: ssltech on May 12, 2010, 09:10:29 PM
| Quote: |
The rig belongs to Transocean, the world’s biggest offshore drilling contractor. The rig was originally contracted through the year 2013 to BP and was working on BP’s Macondo exploration well when the fire broke out. The rig costs about $500,000 per day to contract. The full drilling spread, with helicopters and support vessels and other services, will cost closer to $1,000,000 per day to operate in the course of drilling for oil and gas. The rig cost about $350,000,000 to build in 2001 and would cost at least double that to replace today. The rig represents the cutting edge of drilling technology. It is a floating rig, capable of working in up to 10,000 ft water depth. The rig is not moored; It does not use anchors because it would be too costly and too heavy to suspend this mooring load from the floating structure. Rather, a triply-redundant computer system uses satellite positioning to control powerful thrusters that keep the rig on station within a few feet of its intended location, at all times. This is called Dynamic Positioning. The rig had apparently just finished cementing steel casing in place at depths exceeding 18,000 ft. The next operation was to suspend the well so that the rig could move to its next drilling location, the idea being that a rig would return to this well later in order to complete the work necessary to bring the well into production. It is thought that somehow formation fluids – oil /gas – got into the wellbore and were undetected until it was too late to take action. With a floating drilling rig setup, because it moves with the waves, currents, and winds, all of the main pressure control equipment sits on the seabed – the uppermost unmoving point in the well. This pressure control equipment – the Blowout Preventers, or ‘BOP’s” as they’re called, are controlled with redundant systems from the rig. In the event of a serious emergency, there are multiple Panic Buttons to hit, and even fail-safe Deadman systems that should be automatically engaged when something of this proportion breaks out. None of them were aparently activated, suggesting that the blowout was especially swift to escalate at the surface. The flames were visible up to about 35 miles away. Not the glow – the flames. They were 200 – 300 ft high. All of this will be investigated and it will be some months before all of the particulars are known. For now, it is enough to say that this marvel of modern technology, which had been operating with an excellent safety record, has burned up and sunk taking souls with it. The well still is apparently flowing oil, which is appearing at the surface as a slick. They have been working with remotely operated vehicles, or ROV’s which are essentially tethered miniature submarines with manipulator arms and other equipment that can perform work underwater while the operator sits on a vessel. These are what were used to explore the Titanic, among other things. Every floating rig has one on board and they are in constant use. In this case, they are deploying ROV’s from dedicated service vessels. They have been trying to close the well in using a specialized port on the BOP’s and a pumping arrangement on their ROV’s. They have been unsuccessful so far. Specialized pollution control vessels have been scrambled to start working the spill, skimming the oil up. In the coming weeks they will move in at least one other rig to drill a fresh well that will intersect the blowing one at its pay zone. They will use technology that is capable of drilling from a floating rig, over 3 miles deep to an exact specific point in the earth – with a target radius of just a few feet plus or minus. Once they intersect their target, a heavy fluid will be pumped that exceeds the formation’s pressure, thus causing the flow to cease and rendering the well safe at last. It will take at least a couple of months to get this done, bringing all available available technology to bear. It will be an ecological disaster if the well flows all of the while; Optimistically, it could bridge off downhole. |
Contrast this fact and information based approach with the opinion-heavy letter from the "engineer with 25 years experience, who's used some 'big machines' and therefore knows more than 'MILLIONS of others' " at the end of the first link...
That's not how real engineers talk, -bombarding superlatives and declaring that nothing can be done...? -That's how hacks talk.
Keith
Post by: Podgorny on May 12, 2010, 09:31:16 PM
| ssltech wrote on Wed, 12 May 2010 20:10 |
That's not how real engineers talk |
I tried clicking on "real".
I don't use big machines.
Post by: arconaut on May 13, 2010, 09:24:31 AM
The "real engineer's" scheme does seem remarkably similar to a story line from the TV show, "Lost."
Post by: bblackwood on May 13, 2010, 09:50:48 AM
Post by: Podgorny on May 13, 2010, 11:19:46 AM
This is a disaster, no doubt. But is this the end of life on Earth? Probably not. It's a pretty resilient rock we live on.
Frankly, I hope the Deepwater Horizon spill is finally the last straw. The one that wakes people up and forces us to take alternative fuel sources seriously.
We're killing ourselves with oil - whether we're dumping it into our oceans or burning it into our atmosphere.
Post by: bblackwood on May 13, 2010, 11:59:08 AM
| Podgorny wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 10:19 |
Frankly, I hope the Deepwater Horizon spill is finally the last straw. The one that wakes people up and forces us to take alternative fuel sources seriously. |
The dollar talks, plain and simple. Petroleum fuels are simply the most inexpensive efficient fuels we know of. And even if we ween ourselves off oil for fuel, we still need to pump it out of the ground - iirc, more than half of each barrel of crude is used for things other than fuel.
We won't see the end of oil pumping in our lifetime and I'd be surprised if an inexpensive enough alternative is found any time soon...
Post by: Jay Kadis on May 13, 2010, 12:18:00 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:59 |
We won't see the end of oil pumping in our lifetime and I'd be surprised if an inexpensive enough alternative is found any time soon... |
There will be cheaper options available if we concentrate on developing them instead of catering to the oil lobby.
Post by: Edvaard on May 13, 2010, 01:06:18 PM
Yes, the ancillary costs are huge already, just from the production standpoint. And then there's the usage byproduct costs, the smog, air pollution, underground leaks into the water table, oil spills, etc. The subsidies and various tax incentives available to alternative energy are fairly significant in some instances, but there is a long long way to go before they add up to anywhere near the total financial aid given to petroleum and nuclear energy.
The other problem with making the conventional energy sources artificially lower cost is that it skews the market mechanisms that would otherwise provide greater motivation for businesses and consumers to seek lower energy consumption in their choice of all energy using products/devices, which in turn would compel manufacturers to expend more effort on designing increased efficiency into these goods.
Regardless of energy source, less usage=less cost and less pollution.
Post by: bblackwood on May 13, 2010, 01:25:41 PM
| Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 11:18 | ||
There will be cheaper options available if we concentrate on developing them instead of catering to the oil lobby. |
Oh, I agree, not suggesting we should keep on keeping on, so to speak.
Just saying that for Joe Sixpack, the price paid at the pump will have to be similar if there's to be any support.
It's telling how many reactions I've heard to this spill which were initially "how much is this going to cost us at the pump?"...
Post by: Jay Kadis on May 13, 2010, 01:52:45 PM
Maybe Joe Sixpack will finally realize he doesn't need an F-250 to haul his groceries.
Post by: ssltech on May 13, 2010, 02:29:14 PM
| Quote: |
Maybe Joe Sixpack will finally realize he doesn't need an F-250 to haul his groceries. |
Shhhhhhhhh!!!
-We just had that argument in a recent 'car' thread...
Post by: Berolzheimer on May 13, 2010, 02:29:35 PM
Post by: fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) on May 13, 2010, 02:36:34 PM
| Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 13:52 |
Maybe Joe Sixpack will finally realize he doesn't need an F-250 to haul his groceries. |
I'm sorry, can a Prius tow my boat?
I guess that will be a luxury only for the elite, you know, like Al Gore.
I'm pretty sure I won't be able to haul a ton of dirt, mulch, wood, etc. in a sub compact either.
Or does someone get to decide for me if I qualify for a truck?
I get as good mileage as most mini vans... f#ckin' soccer moms!
Not lashing out a you Jay.
Post by: bblackwood on May 13, 2010, 02:38:03 PM
| Berolzheimer wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 13:29 |
Brad, that chart is from a week ago. |
OK.
Doesn't change much.
Post by: Jay Kadis on May 13, 2010, 02:45:35 PM
| Fiasco wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 11:36 | ||
I'm sorry, can a Prius tow my boat? I guess that will be a luxury only for the elite, you know, like Al Gore. I'm pretty sure I won't be able to haul a ton of dirt, mulch, wood, etc. in a sub compact either. Or does someone get to decide for me if I qualify for a truck? I get as good mileage as most mini vans... f#ckin' soccer moms! Not lashing out a you Jay. |
BTW, my Sienna gets 27 mpg hiway - does your truck?
Post by: bblackwood on May 13, 2010, 02:54:49 PM
| Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 13:45 |
Oh, I know that. But there seem to be a whole lot of F-250s at the grocery store without trailer hitches. Of course there are legitimate uses for these vehicles, but they are more appropriate for construction sites than mall parking lots. |
Yah, and SUVs EVERYWHRERE.
| Quote: |
BTW, my Sienna gets 27 mpg hiway - does your truck? |
My truck doesn't (about 22MPG highway), but it can sure haul a heck of lot more stuff than your Sienna can.
The wife's Odyssey gets close to 27MPG highway.
Post by: fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) on May 13, 2010, 02:59:20 PM
Not incredible, but not horrible either.
Post by: Jay Kadis on May 13, 2010, 05:10:20 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 11:54 |
My truck doesn't (about 22MPG highway), but it can sure haul a heck of lot more stuff than your Sienna can. The wife's Odyssey gets close to 27MPG highway. |
Post by: Berolzheimer on May 13, 2010, 05:20:57 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 11:38 | ||
OK. Doesn't change much. |
Except that in that time 35,000 to 175,000 more barrels of oil have leaked out.
Post by: bblackwood on May 13, 2010, 05:21:44 PM
| Berolzheimer wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 16:20 | ||||
Except that in that time 35,000 to 175,000 more barrels of oil have leaked out. |
Yah, but it's still a small fraction compared to the big spills, that's my point.
Post by: bblackwood on May 13, 2010, 05:22:12 PM
| Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 16:10 | ||
|
Yah, shocking that GM went bankrupt.
Post by: Podgorny on May 13, 2010, 05:35:58 PM
| Berolzheimer wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 13:29 |
Brad, that chart is from a week ago. |
Depending on estimates, the Deepwater Horizon spill has, so far, dumped between 15,000 and 90,000 tonnes of oil. (Most seem to agree on the more conservative estimate.)
Post by: MDM, on May 13, 2010, 07:27:18 PM
the currents down there didn't make much of a difference, I guess.
Post by: Edvaard on May 13, 2010, 07:42:18 PM
| Quote: |
Depending on estimates ... |
Indeed.
This is just from wiki, but still;
BP originally estimated up to 1,000 barrels (42,000 US gal) a day was leaking from the wellhead.[58] On April 28, NOAA said that the rate was probably five times that initially estimated by BP, i.e. 5,000 barrels (210,000 US gal).[59][60] John Amos, a geologist who has worked as a consultant with oil companies on measuring oil spills, said that figure is the “extremely low end” of their estimates, putting a more realistic figure at 20,000 barrels a day.[61][62] Other sources using satellite imagery have put that number as high as 25,000 barrels (1,100,000 US gal) a day.[58][63] According to BP, estimating the flow is very difficult, as there is no metering of the flow underwater.[60] In their permit filed with the MMS, BP quotes a worst case daily discharge of 162,000 US gallons (3,900 bbl) per day.[64] Before Congress, they revised this figure upwards to 60,000 barrels (2,500,000 US gal) per day.[65]
Ian MacDonald, an oceanography specialist at Florida State University, estimated that oil might be leaking at a rate of 25,000 barrels (1,100,000 US gal) a day and that the oil slick as of May 2, 2010, might already contain more than 9,000,000 US gallons (210,000 bbl).[72] He later estimated the spill to be about 12,000,000 US gallons (290,000 bbl).[73] The Wall Street Journal suggests that the oil may be leaking at 1,000,000 US gallons (24,000 bbl) per day, reaching nearly 100,000,000 US gallons (2,400,000 bbl) in 90 days, when the spill is expected to be capped, ...
Just so everybody knows what to throw into the calculator;
One tonne (metric ton) = 308 US gals. = 7.33 bbl
All this aside from the fact that proximity to coastline and the particular environment there make for a large difference in actual impact or damage. Some of the largest spills were, fortunately, ~700 knots from shore.
Post by: ssltech on May 13, 2010, 08:55:40 PM
Just a minor nit-pick on my part... Isn't a knot a measure of speed? -I assume you mean 'nautical miles'
Keith
Post by: Berolzheimer on May 13, 2010, 09:06:43 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 14:21 | ||||||
Yah, but it's still a small fraction compared to the big spills, that's my point. |
Maybe not:
https://preview.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12 6809525&sc=nl&cc=brk-20100513-1917
" The U.S. Coast Guard has estimated that oil was gushing from a broken pipe on the Gulf floor at the rate of 5,000 barrels a day.
But sophisticated scientific analysis of seafloor video made available Wednesday by the oil company BP shows that the true figure is closer to 70,000 barrels a day, NPR's Richard Harris reports.
That means the oil spilling into the Gulf has already far exceeded the equivalent of the 1989 Exxon Valdez tanker accident in Alaska, which spilled at least 250,000 barrels of oil.
The analysis was conducted by Steve Wereley, an associate professor at Purdue University, using a technique called particle image velocimetry. Harris tells Michele Norris that the method is accurate to a degree of plus or minus 20 percent. That means the flow could range between 56,000 barrels a day and 84,000 barrels a day.
Another analysis by Eugene Chiang, a professor of astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, calculated the rate of flow to be between 20,000 barrels a day and 100,000 barrels a day. "
Post by: Berolzheimer on May 13, 2010, 09:13:38 PM
| Edvaard wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 16:42 | ||
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?
Post by: Berolzheimer on May 13, 2010, 09:28:20 PM
"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.""
Post by: bblackwood on May 13, 2010, 09:30:31 PM
Not that it's not bad already, just saying...
Post by: Edvaard 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.
Post by: Edvaard 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.
Post by: Podgorny 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.
Post by: Taproot 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.
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.
Post by: bblackwood on May 14, 2010, 09:35:38 AM
Post by: ssltech on May 14, 2010, 11:36:26 AM
Thanks for the link.
-Forwarded.
Keith
Post by: Berolzheimer on May 14, 2010, 12:21:58 PM
Post by: fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) 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.
Post by: Taproot 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.
Post by: Berolzheimer on May 14, 2010, 02:59:39 PM
| Taproot wrote on Fri, 14 May 2010 09:58 | ||
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.
Post by: Kris on May 14, 2010, 03:38:25 PM
Post by: Edvaard 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.
Post by: Berolzheimer on May 14, 2010, 06:58:30 PM
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/
Post by: Edvaard on May 15, 2010, 12:44:38 AM
This made me feel better already.
http://www.innowattech.co.il/index.aspx
http://www.innowattech.co.il/slnRoads.aspx
Post by: danickstr on May 15, 2010, 10:54:55 PM
that would make it safer, it seems to me.
Post by: RMoore on May 16, 2010, 08:38:06 AM
Its incredible no one had a decent contingency plan / plan b in effect. Considering the obvious risks involved.
Now its a human-created undersea oil-spewing mini volcano.
Using nukes to stop the flow sounds like crazy talk, seems hard to believe any agency would remotely consider that as an option.
Think big! The biggest boom will fix everything!
The failed 'capping' solution seemed to be one motivated by greed eg: drop down a cap, harness the flow & still be able to obtain oil from the site.
You'd think an obvious way to staunch the flow would be to sink materials over top in order to bury it (?).
I guess this all may spell the end of the fishery in that region of the USA & in our lifetimes..
What if this huge probable underwater cloud starts slowly drifting around the Earth's oceans?
Post by: bigaudioblowhard on May 16, 2010, 08:29:13 PM
Now its appears some success has been had with the "tube" thingey they shoved in the riser, now pumping oil up to a ship, while we wait for relief wells to be drilled.
Kinda like a catheter. They're gonna need the relief wells to pay for this mess.
I understand lots of old outdated international maritime codes, BP, Haliburton, Transocean, and even The Minerals Management Service (US Department of The Interior) all have blood on their hands, with respect to blame for allowing this to happen.
I'm happy Obama is being outspoken about this, we'll see if he follows through.
You see, the deep sea is still a kind of Frontier, where cowboy culture prevails. If you have enough money and lawyers, you can get away with anything you want. This is what has to change, IMO.
And just wait til we start building new nuclear reactors in this country. (how else are we going to supplant all the coal fired electric generating stations, really?) You'll see some underhanded shit go down then too.
As James Lovelock has said, (paraphrase) "it will be an interesting time to live, if you are lucky enough to survive."
If you're not as convinced as I am, check this guy out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilan dgas/7728577/Oil-spill-BP-accused-of-using-Gulf-of-Mexico-as -toxic-testing-ground.html
bab
Post by: Berolzheimer on May 17, 2010, 01:25:16 PM
Post by: bblackwood on May 20, 2010, 01:50:54 PM
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/19/94467/engineer-oil-spi ll-videos-show.html
As of right now, this 'spill' is putting as much oil in the gulf every 2.5 days as the entire Exxon Valdez spill!
Oh man, this is just awful...
Post by: Jon Hodgson on May 20, 2010, 02:14:36 PM
| RMoore wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 13:38 |
The failed 'capping' solution seemed to be one motivated by greed eg: drop down a cap, harness the flow & still be able to obtain oil from the site. You'd think an obvious way to staunch the flow would be to sink materials over top in order to bury it (?). |
Well I doubt that dropping "materials" over a well a mile under water is any easier than dropping a custom made steel cap, also how are you going to ensure it is properly sealed? My guess is you'd be more likely to end up with a thousand smaller leaks all spread out (and thus a bigger problem to solve).
The pressure of the oil is probably massive, I have no idea of the figures myself, but we've all seen oil gushing out of the ground in movies and news reels. It's been held in place for millions of years by layers of rock you need massive diamond tipped drill bits to get through... so you're going to need something that makes a good seal, is non-porous, and damned heavy.
Post by: bblackwood on May 20, 2010, 02:27:20 PM
| Jon Hodgson wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 13:14 |
The pressure of the oil is probably massive, I have no idea of the figures myself, but we've all seen oil gushing out of the ground in movies and news reels. It's been held in place for millions of years by layers of rock you need massive diamond tipped drill bits to get through... so you're going to need something that makes a good seal, is non-porous, and damned heavy. |
Well, I'm sure someone here can do the math, but pressure to push 46 gallons/second from a 20" diameter pipe at sea level would be pretty high - at that depth the pressure would have to be that much greater...
Post by: Jay Kadis on May 20, 2010, 02:34:56 PM
Unfortunately that's easier said than done.
Post by: bblackwood on May 20, 2010, 02:44:27 PM
| Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 13:34 |
The approximate pressure at 5000' below the sea surface is 2200 psi, so the gas/oil mix must be under more pressure than that or it wouldn't be escaping. How much more is hard to estimate. It might not be than much higher and maybe simply clogging the orifice would work, since it would only have to reduce the pressure differential to stop the flow. |
I'm just saying that someone who has the time and inclination can figure out what pressure is need @ sea level to push 46 gallons/second through a 20" pipe. Add around 2200psi to that and I'd think you'd have a fairly close approximation...
Post by: Jay Kadis on May 20, 2010, 03:07:29 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 11:44 | ||
I'm just saying that someone who has the time and inclination can figure out what pressure is need @ sea level to push 46 gallons/second through a 20" pipe. Add around 2200psi to that and I'd think you'd have a fairly close approximation... |
Post by: Berolzheimer on May 20, 2010, 03:14:32 PM
Post by: Jay Kadis on May 20, 2010, 03:27:08 PM
Post by: bigaudioblowhard on May 20, 2010, 03:42:45 PM
bab
Post by: RMoore on May 20, 2010, 07:07:40 PM
Quite sickening they've been lying about figures & are trying to siphon off what they can, leaving the rest to keep flowing out.
Incredible, all the engineers, brain power & experts I assume are trying to figure out a solution yet no silver bullet forthcoming. Curious what kind of brainstorming is going on & what if any ideas are getting vetoed by the BP management eg: ways to simply block the oil fissure.
A disaster of which the true magnitude appears to be unknown, possibly historic & unprecented, unfolding before our very eyes.
As for BP's role: talk about displaying the signs of 'Corporate Personality Disorder'
What is "corporate personality disorder?"
Corporate personality disorder is my term for organizations that show dysfunctional and dangerous behavior, causing major problems for the mental and physical health of people and destruction of the natural environment.
Dr. Eli Sopow
Post by: RMoore on May 21, 2010, 06:37:30 AM
I also don't grasp why the Govn't has not stepped in by now to remove BP from the operation seeing as BP doesn't seem to be wholeheartedly tackling the problem (?). Is there no other entity on Earth which is capable of plugging such a leak?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on May 21, 2010, 07:00:06 AM
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_u k_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov _stream.html
Post by: Jon Hodgson on May 21, 2010, 07:56:45 AM
| RMoore wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 11:37 |
I also don't grasp why the Govn't has not stepped in by now to remove BP from the operation seeing as BP doesn't seem to be wholeheartedly tackling the problem (?). Is there no other entity on Earth which is capable of plugging such a leak? |
If you figure in the loss of future revenue from the oil, the cost of all the vessels, workers, equipment, chemicals etc to try to stop the flow and contain the spill, and the massive damage claims they're going to face, it doesn't take a genius to work out that by far the cheapest (and therefore also the greediest) solution for BP is to get this leak blocked up ASAP and get on with drilling new wells to access that oil, so I suspect that far from not wholeheartedly tackling the problem they've got teams of people not getting much sleep working on the solution.
They're getting somewhere below 5000 barrels a day out of that cap... BP's daily refined oil sales are 5.9 MILLION barrels. Or to look at it another way, the Gulf as a whole (BP and whoever else is there) generates 1.7 Million barrels.
The idea that they'd delay a proper fix in order to syphon off what oil they could just makes no sense to me. Nor does the idea that they'd drag their feet fixing it.
The next stage they're working on is a "top kill", which is basically blocking the hole, as you suggested. But, to give an idea how hard this is (nobody's faced a problem quite like this, at this depth before), they don't know for certain what combination of materials will work, or even if there is one that will.
Post by: Jon Hodgson on May 21, 2010, 08:28:22 AM
19,000 personnel deployed
930 vessels on site
1.9 million feet of boom deployed
187,000 barrels of oil-water mix recovered
17 staging areas set-up to protect shoreline
19,000 claims filed, 8,000 already paid
"the cost of the response to date amounts to about $625 million, including the cost of the spill response, containment, relief well drilling, previous grants to the Gulf states, settlements and federal costs."
And you think they're not stopping the leak because they'd rather pump 5000 barrels a day out of the hole? (Oil is at 69 dollars a barrel)
Post by: ktownson on May 21, 2010, 11:20:25 AM
Below is a visualization of the "loop current" in the Gulf. This is not oil, it is "spaghetti trails" of tracking buoys turned loose in the Gulf and the Caribbean, superimposed upon one another and a map of the Gulf Coast and the East Coast.
This makes it clear that, should the oil get into the current, and indications are that it already has, this "Gulf region problem" is going to affect half the nation's shorelines. Notice where the visualization is blackest--this is where the currents die down and the oil would likely pool. Hello, Miami! Hello, Delaware! Hello, New Jersey!
Post by: Podgorny on May 21, 2010, 12:04:26 PM
WE'RE NOT EVEN SAFE INLAND!!!
Post by: ktownson on May 21, 2010, 01:03:15 PM
Not sure what happened with the rogue buoy...maybe it was flooded across central FL...
I used to work with a lot of scientific computer visualization, and a straight line was a dead giveaway something wasn't right with your dataset.
Post by: grantis on May 21, 2010, 03:07:03 PM
| ktownson wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 12:03 |
Some of that to the right looks like the coloring my 2-year-old grandsons do. Not sure what happened with the rogue buoy...maybe it was flooded across central FL... I used to work with a lot of scientific computer visualization, and a straight line was a dead giveaway something wasn't right with your dataset. |
no, it was the aliens.
Post by: ssltech on May 21, 2010, 04:19:38 PM
-Or maybe it just took Interstate-4...
Keef
Post by: mazoaudio on May 25, 2010, 11:23:40 PM
| Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 07:28 |
A little perspective 19,000 personnel deployed 930 vessels on site 1.9 million feet of boom deployed 187,000 barrels of oil-water mix recovered 17 staging areas set-up to protect shoreline 19,000 claims filed, 8,000 already paid "the cost of the response to date amounts to about $625 million, including the cost of the spill response, containment, relief well drilling, previous grants to the Gulf states, settlements and federal costs." And you think they're not stopping the leak because they'd rather pump 5000 barrels a day out of the hole? (Oil is at 69 dollars a barrel) |
Yeah but it aint doin squat...
Post by: Bill_Urick on May 25, 2010, 11:23:41 PM
Did anyone see GMA's Sam Champion dive into the spill this morning? The dispersant BP is spraying is creating clouds of globules of oil that are drifting below the surface.
Jon your command of facts is impressive.
If they can't do better than this they should stop off shore drilling.
Post by: Jon Hodgson on May 26, 2010, 06:15:27 AM
| Bill_Urick wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 04:23 |
I'm going to cross the left/right divide and agree with you guys on this one. (That doesn't mean you're wrong!) Did anyone see GMA's Sam Champion dive into the spill this morning? The dispersant BP is spraying is creating clouds of globules of oil that are drifting below the surface. Jon your command of facts is impressive. If they can't do better than this they should stop off shore drilling. |
This is a case where the consequences of problems are so bad that solutions need to be in place before the problem ever happens, which means research and testing at those depths.
The first attempt at capping it apparantly failed because of... would you believe it... ice!! I wonder if anyone even thought of that, I mean after all you don't get ice in the sea below the surface normally. But it seems that if you have a big steel cap hanging over a hole spewing out oil and gas a mile down you get ice.
Post by: MDM, on May 26, 2010, 08:44:13 AM
that's a lot of pressure being released..
what a waste..
and to think that some say there's a huge amount of oil in Alaska which is just sitting there.
Post by: Bill_Urick on May 26, 2010, 09:01:41 PM
You have to think in failure mode.
I never gig without a backup amp.
For something like this, "If something goes wrong we'll figure it out..." doesn't cut it.
BP or the Feds have no idea what to do.
And how many of these rigs are in the gulf, anyway?
Post by: Berolzheimer on May 26, 2010, 11:16:41 PM
| Bill_Urick wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 18:01 |
And how many of these rigs are in the gulf, anyway? |
Maybe somewhere between 717 & 4000, though these articles are a bit out of date:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080831142810AA B34ks
Post by: Bill_Urick on May 27, 2010, 07:39:37 AM
Post by: Podgorny on May 27, 2010, 09:22:42 PM
| Berolzheimer wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 22:16 | ||
Maybe somewhere between 717 & 4000, though these articles are a bit out of date: |
Technically, this was a deep-water drilling rig. There are only about 200 in existence.
Post by: Bill_Urick on May 29, 2010, 05:26:37 PM
Watch out, oil well.
(It also appears that BP is making some progress, thank God)
Post by: ssltech on May 29, 2010, 07:07:56 PM
| Bill_Urick wrote on Sat, 29 May 2010 17:26 |
Just wanted to let you guys know that the President both cares, and is angry. Watch out, oil well. (It also appears that BP is making some progress, thank God) |
In turn, I just wanted to remind everyone that the last president DIDN'T care, and wasn't even slightly irritated. (Quote: "You're doing a hell of a job, Brownie"... Translation: Blackie... -you're pretty much screwed")
-But it's okay though... he had his sleeves rolled up ALMOST up to his elbow.
Post by: Berolzheimer on May 29, 2010, 09:39:46 PM
| ssltech wrote on Sat, 29 May 2010 16:07 | ||
In turn, I just wanted to remind everyone that the last president DIDN'T care, and wasn't even slightly irritated. (Quote: "You're doing a hell of a job, Brownie"... Translation: Blackie... -you're pretty much screwed") -But it's okay though... he had his sleeves rolled up ALMOST up to his elbow. |
And that of course is without even broaching the subject of his (quite obvious to anyone paying attention during the past 9 years) contribution to this disaster.
Post by: Bill_Urick on May 29, 2010, 11:31:19 PM
Bitch slapped. TWICE!
But I was askin' for it.
Looks like BP's latest effort didn't work either.
More dead animals and ruined beaches on the way.
Seriously bad deal.
Post by: Edvaard on May 30, 2010, 08:40:02 AM
| Bill_Urick wrote on Sat, 29 May 2010 23:31 |
Damn. Bitch slapped. TWICE! |
Not at all, Bill. Just taking your point further.
I think that most thinking people can see that neither the current nor the last few presidents have been doing us any great favors here, likewise the capitol hill folks. The red and blue tags make for great fun with the media, but it's unreal how universal is the damage done by the both of them.
Murder hundreds of thousands of civilians in a foreign land, murder the financial system, murder the environment, ...
That "checks and balances" and "red vs. blue" thing working out great for us, isn't it?
Post by: Jay Kadis on May 30, 2010, 01:29:57 PM
| Edvaard wrote on Sun, 30 May 2010 05:40 |
That "checks and balances" and "red vs. blue" thing working out great for us, isn't it? |
http://www.gp.org
Post by: Kris on June 02, 2010, 09:21:51 AM
Post by: RMoore on June 03, 2010, 07:48:46 PM
Post by: Berolzheimer on June 04, 2010, 03:39:56 PM
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/multimedia/livegulfoil/
Post by: bblackwood on June 04, 2010, 08:26:13 PM
Post by: YZ on June 05, 2010, 12:09:27 AM
Post by: TotalSonic on June 05, 2010, 05:35:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDGAoU1H2gM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-4oooyqe_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4whiKQgnp4w
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: jetbase on June 10, 2010, 08:39:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AAa0gd7ClM
Post by: ktownson on June 14, 2010, 11:41:42 AM
Here's a bit of response from ground zero:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnR1BrGgRVM
Post by: bblackwood on June 15, 2010, 05:30:07 PM
If accurate, this is bad, bad news...
Post by: Berolzheimer on June 15, 2010, 06:21:34 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Tue, 15 June 2010 14:30 |
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967 If accurate, this is bad, bad news... |
Wow. This guy sounds way more knowledgeable than most of the people we hear talking about this. Unfortunately.
Post by: TotalSonic on June 15, 2010, 09:16:39 PM
| Berolzheimer wrote on Tue, 15 June 2010 18:21 | ||
Wow. This guy sounds way more knowledgeable than most of the people we hear talking about this. Unfortunately. |
There are some very high quality posters at the Oil Drum including a good number of experienced petroleum geologists and energy industry insiders - definitely one of the most informed energy oriented forums on the web imho.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: bblackwood on June 15, 2010, 10:22:24 PM
| TotalSonic wrote on Tue, 15 June 2010 20:16 |
There are some very high quality posters at the Oil Drum including a good number of experienced petroleum geologists and energy industry insiders - definitely one of the most informed energy oriented forums on the web imho. |
Yah, that's what I was told and frankly, it fills me with dread.
Post by: RMoore on June 17, 2010, 03:09:20 AM
Bomb idea rears its head again
Page last updated at 13:52 GMT, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:52 UK
BP's engineers have tried several methods to block off the flow from the well that is causing the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
But oil continues to flow into the ocean, with potentially disastrous consequences for the environment.
Now a former US military scientist has proposed a seemingly radical solution: detonating a massive bomb underwater to seal the leaking well.
It sounds like an extreme measure, but could such a plan actually succeed?
One independent engineer contacted by BBC News agreed that explosives could seal off oil wells. But he also said the plan could make the spill worse.
But Franz Gayl says that the explosion could effectively cauterise the well shutting off the flow of oil into the Gulf. However, he points out that, without detailed computer modelling, he is using educated guesswork.
Mr Gayl, a former civilian science adviser to the US Marines, proposed the idea in an interview with an internet blog.
Continue reading the main story
The exploding MOAB or Daisy Cutter would have an incredible implosive-sealing effect on oil plumbing
Franz Gayl Science adviser
He says that the GBU-43 Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb, delivered to the site and then detonated underwater would generate a big enough shock wave to force the leaking pipes shut.
The idea relies on the "implosive" effect of exploding the 8,500kg (18,500lb) munition underwater, collapsing the metal plumbing of the well to seal it up. A Vietnam-era Daisy Cutter bomb could also be used, he said.
Mr Gayl says that, as the MOAB consumes all its own fuel, the idea is a greener option than the nuclear weapons allegedly used by the Soviet Union to shut down leaking wells.
"The exploding MOAB or Daisy Cutter would have an incredible implosive-sealing effect on oil plumbing within the immediate vicinity of the detonation," he told the War is Boring blog.
"That devastating shock wave will treat any metal cavity like soft Play-Doh, sealing every perceived cavity with a crushing force thousands of times greater than even the ambient water pressure.
"The oil plumbing is filled with rapidly flowing oil that has at any moment a lower density than the surrounding and effectively incompressible water through which the shock wave moves. Not only is crude oil less dense, but it also is compressible, unlike the water surrounding it."
Modelling outcomes
In an interview with BBC News, Franz Gayl said that researchers would have to use computer software to model the outcome. Only then could its workability be properly assessed.
Many different parameters would have to be taken into account in order to evaluate the plan's chances, he said. These include the explosive force and dimensions of the bomb, the exact construction of the well head and the propagation of the shock wave.
Since the weekend, Mr Gayl has been responding to a flurry of technical queries about the method posed by internet users and experts. He stressed that the idea was his own and that he was not speaking on behalf of his employers.
Continue reading the main story
There's a risk that detonation would exacerbate the leak by opening up the well in ways that enable higher flow rates
Michael E Webber University of Texas, Austin
He is well known in the military technology community: Mr Gayl became a whistleblower over what he described as failures in the supply of equipment to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
BBC News asked Michael E Webber, assistant professor in the department of mechanical engineering at the University of Texas, Austin, whether the method had merit. Dr Webber said that "explosives can definitely be used to seal off wells".
But he added that the risks were numerous: "There's a risk that detonation would exacerbate the leak by opening up the well in ways that enable higher flow rates.
"The unintended consequences to the marine environment are also difficult to predict, and the risk of dispersing explosive materials into an area that is already suffering from the threat of long term environmental damage is intimidating."
Trade off?
Another researcher said he considered detonating explosives too risky.
Professor Julius Langlinais, from Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, told BBC News: "In the case of a blowing out [an] oil well, we do not want to blow things apart, but rather perhaps squeeze the casings together to seal the well."
But he added: "Bottom line, I would not advise or suggest such an action. The odds of success are small and the odds of making things worse are high."
However, Professor Webber said that despite the challenges, "the solution remains possible".
He added: "The longer the spill continues unabated, the trade-offs start to stack up in favor of drastic action.
"Simply put, can the devastation of a weapon really stop the devastation of a massive oil leak?
"At what point do the actual environmental and political damages from the unplugged well outweigh the possible environmental and political damages from the use of a weapon?"
Post by: RMoore on June 17, 2010, 03:19:54 AM
| bblackwood wrote on Tue, 15 June 2010 23:30 |
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967 If accurate, this is bad, bad news... |
Bleak!
Post by: DarinK on June 18, 2010, 05:47:15 PM
Post by: Hank Alrich on June 19, 2010, 02:28:29 PM
Reminds me of the "scientists" suggesting we put giant parasols in space to deal with global temperature increases. Look at the climate history of the planet. Periods of relative stasis are followed by periods of dramatic instability with temps swinging wildly up and down over relatively short periods. So put up a parasol, the temps drops drastically for a few years, the parasol helps that along, and the space vehicle launch pad winds up covered with ice? Yeah, baby, that's the ticket.
Post by: Edvaard on June 19, 2010, 05:09:31 PM
That's as funny as the notion that we might be "saving the planet" in any of our choices here.
It's saving our own arse, if we choose, but the planet goes on with or with out.
Post by: billiard on June 22, 2010, 02:43:25 PM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy -independent-future
Post by: YZ on June 22, 2010, 09:22:57 PM
| billiard wrote on Tue, 22 June 2010 15:43 |
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy -independent-future |
Sorry but I couldn't resist...
While all the POTUSes shown in that video were promising alternatives to oil since 1974 in the world's richest and most powerful nation, saying that the country had the expertise, the knowledge, the scientists, the power, the money...
...Indebted and underdeveloped Brazil did create its alternative and the Ethanol-powered car reached the market by 1979.
And while the engines were being developed we went gradually increasing the mix of Ethanol in our gasoline to reduce our oil dependency.
I tell you what... if a severely indebted country with a corrupt administration and a powerful pro-Arab lobby could do it in a few years, I don't know what other factors could have kept the USA from doing better than that.
Post by: DarinK on June 23, 2010, 01:18:34 AM
I'm just speculating and am NOT saying that any of this is good.
Post by: YZ on June 23, 2010, 02:10:21 AM
That was the most direct reply I ever got on the subject; thanks for the candor.
Not that it is the truth, just for saying it as a possibility.
Post by: TotalSonic on June 23, 2010, 12:07:41 PM
| YZ wrote on Tue, 22 June 2010 21:22 | ||
Sorry but I couldn't resist... While all the POTUSes shown in that video were promising alternatives to oil since 1974 in the world's richest and most powerful nation, saying that the country had the expertise, the knowledge, the scientists, the power, the money... ...Indebted and underdeveloped Brazil did create its alternative and the Ethanol-powered car reached the market by 1979. And while the engines were being developed we went gradually increasing the mix of Ethanol in our gasoline to reduce our oil dependency. I tell you what... if a severely indebted country with a corrupt administration and a powerful pro-Arab lobby could do it in a few years, I don't know what other factors could have kept the USA from doing better than that. |
Problem is the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is actually a very poor ratio on ethanol - especially in comparison to more traditional fossil fuels. For corn ethanol as is currently being produced in the USA it is unbelievably poor - as fossil fuels are in fact what powers the farm machinery, the irrigation, creates the fertilizers and pesticides, and powers the vehicles that distribute it. In fact in some cases it can require just as much energy to produce the ethanol as you get from it so it is just better to use the fossil fuels directly instead of making a detour through the corn ethanol production.
For ethanol made from sugar in places conducive to growing it such as Brazil it is better EROEI ratio - although way less dense than oil by a good bit - but the ultimate environmental impact of current farming techniques there makes its sustainability and potential for expansion definitely very questionable.
The fact is that resource depletion and physics (as to what energy sources are actually power dense, and as to what are suitable as transportation fuels) are what prevent the USA from having energy independence. Currently over 60% of oil is imported here - and over 30% of our domestic production is off shore - and despite having absolutely every incentive to discover and develop domestic oil fields we peaked in domestic oil production in 1971 - and despite every effort to increase this can not. Since we have almost no rail transport on the electric grid here and since more and more people live in suburbs without mass transit - people depend on their cars to get to work, and the meals of about 99% in this country arrive to us via truck. Our agricultural system completely depends on fossil fuels to run as well.
Private ownership of cars is considered as such an unquestionable right here - that to suggest we need a huge new investment in comprehensive mass transit (that actually is way more energy efficient than private vehicle fleets) is nearly always met with contempt. Most here instead focuses on coming up with very unlikely story of a privately funded change to a new vehicle fleet running on some technology and infrastructure not yet developed at this time - at some future time when there will likely be financial difficulty for most.
So - the USA could certainly be energy independent now - if everyone in it accepted much less prosperous lifestyles. Meaning: the only way it will happen will be with much kicking and screaming - when there is in fact no choice to be made due to fossil fuel resource depletion finally hitting levels that can not be made up for.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: YZ on June 23, 2010, 01:43:49 PM
| TotalSonic wrote on Wed, 23 June 2010 13:07 |
Problem is the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is actually a very poor ratio on ethanol - especially in comparison to more traditional fossil fuels. |
Steve,
The EROEI for sugar cane Ethanol here is between 8 to 10:1, depending on several conditions. According to www.theoildrum.com , the current EROEI for oil is at about 6 (2007 estimate; I have no idea how they arrived at this figure).
From actual experience in Brazilian sugar cane Ethanol plants, after you start the process the plant not only produces the Ethanol but also injects back into the grid excess electricity from its generators that run on the sugar cane residues; the corrosive byproduct is reprocessed, again using energy generated by the plant itself, into fertilizer.
When you burn the Ethanol in your car, the CO2 emissions can be no greater than the CO2 that was removed from the atmosphere by the sugar cane as it grew; basically Ethanol is liquid solar energy.
As for the concerns that there won't be enough area to grow all the sugar cane needed, well... oil will end sooner or later and we can't 'grow' it... some people will have to get used to the idea that they should not drive in their daily commute that 2-ton truck that can tow the boat they don't own up the hill that they don't live near.
Sugar cane Ethanol as produced today in Brazil has been called "a first-generation alternative fuel with the overall performance of a third-generation one" by foreign experts.
Post by: bblackwood on June 23, 2010, 02:57:45 PM
http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/
Pretty sobering - especially considering this is only the oil that's made it to the surface...
Post by: DarinK on June 23, 2010, 03:27:17 PM
Post by: DarinK on June 23, 2010, 03:36:03 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Wed, 23 June 2010 11:57 |
Dunno if this works everywhere, but.. http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/ Pretty sobering - especially considering this is only the oil that's made it to the surface... |
Thanks for posting that. In some ways it almost minimizes the problem. Because of the location, the problem is worse than it would be almost anywhere else, due to how fragile those coastlands & wetlands are, and how important they are to the entire ecosystem (& economic system).
Good point about how that's just what's made it to the surface. Someone should make a map showing what the coverage would be if all the oil were taken into account, with a coverage of, say, ten feet. It's sad to even contemplate how big that would be.
Post by: YZ on June 23, 2010, 03:36:57 PM
| Quote: |
ONE week before the spill happened Halliburton bought a company. Ohhhh which company you ask? A company called Boots and Coots, a oil spill cleanup company. "Halliburton Co. (NYSE: HAL - News) – one of the largest oilfield service providers in the world – has agreed to acquire well-intervention firm Boots & Coots Inc. (AMEX: WEL - News) for about $240.4 million in stock and cash. The transaction, which has been approved by the boards of both the companies but is still subject to regulatory and shareholder approvals, is expected to close by summer." BP CEO dumped a third of his holding two weeks before the disaster. |
the plot thickens...
Post by: TotalSonic on June 23, 2010, 03:52:57 PM
| YZ wrote on Wed, 23 June 2010 13:43 | ||
Steve, The EROEI for sugar cane Ethanol here is between 8 to 10:1, depending on several conditions. According to www.theoildrum.com , the current EROEI for oil is at about 6 (2007 estimate; I have no idea how they arrived at this figure). From actual experience in Brazilian sugar cane Ethanol plants, after you start the process the plant not only produces the Ethanol but also injects back into the grid excess electricity from its generators that run on the sugar cane residues; the corrosive byproduct is reprocessed, again using energy generated by the plant itself, into fertilizer. When you burn the Ethanol in your car, the CO2 emissions can be no greater than the CO2 that was removed from the atmosphere by the sugar cane as it grew; basically Ethanol is liquid solar energy. |
You're ignoring the environmental costs of clearing land which generally has poor retention of a relatively thin top soil layer. There's the energy costs of machinery to farm this area and transport the product as well.
| Quote: |
As for the concerns that there won't be enough area to grow all the sugar cane needed, well... oil will end sooner or later and we can't 'grow' it... some people will have to get used to the idea that they should not drive in their daily commute that 2-ton truck that can tow the boat they don't own up the hill that they don't live near. |
Very good points.
| Quote: |
Sugar cane Ethanol as produced today in Brazil has been called "a first-generation alternative fuel with the overall performance of a third-generation one" by foreign experts. |
Again - my point was that the EROEI of corn ethanol was around 1:1 - which is why the USA has not implemented a successful ethanol program especially in comparison to that which has happened in Brazil.
My second point was that the potential for serious environmental degradations inherent in expanding the raising of sugar cane as it currently done in Brazil are very real and the consequences of these should not be ignored when planning its energy future.
Don't get me wrong - I do think that sugar cane ethanol is a good thing and can see Brazil coming out of the upcoming energy crises in much better shape than a lot of the rest of the world (including the USA). But it's not a panacea that should be thought could work in a lot of other places - and it does have its own costs in the same way that fossil fuel dependence does.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: bblackwood on June 23, 2010, 04:01:23 PM
| DarinK wrote on Wed, 23 June 2010 14:36 |
In some ways it almost minimizes the problem. Because of the location, the problem is worse than it would be almost anywhere else, due to how fragile those coastlands & wetlands are, and how important they are to the entire ecosystem (& economic system). |
Well, seeing wide open stretches of water with oil in it doesn't have a ton of impact on me, as there's little sense of scale, where if you were to project it over Bristol, UK, it looks like this:
... which is far more powerful to me...
Post by: Fibes on June 23, 2010, 05:08:34 PM
Either way, suicide or murder his blood is on BPs hands.
Word from offshore captains is that the baitfish are using the oil like they would a sargasso weedline for shelter and pelagics like tuna, wahoo and marlin are feeding on them. How long until the tainted baitfish toxin levels begin to build in fish we eat?
This thing is growing in ways we can't even fathom yet.
Post by: bigaudioblowhard on June 23, 2010, 09:41:01 PM
Is it a credible source of information?
heres the wiki on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oil_Drum
I don't know anything about it, am wondering if anyone around here knows more than me (or wiki)?
bab
Post by: YZ on June 24, 2010, 12:01:29 AM
| TotalSonic wrote on Wed, 23 June 2010 16:52 |
You're ignoring the environmental costs of clearing land which generally has poor retention of a relatively thin top soil layer. There's the energy costs of machinery to farm this area and transport the product as well. |
No I'm not. It doesn't cost a penny more (in environmental terms) to prepare land for sugar cane when compared to preparing it to plant something else... including the cost to farm and transport the product. And since the 'critique du jour' on sugar cane Ethanol production is about the 'danger' of it replacing food production, that argument isn't valid, unless you're proposing a global freeze on agricultural expansion.
And since we're mentioning environmental costs... what was the aggregate cost of all the oil-related environmental disasters to date?
People seem to forget that drilling for oil has an environmental cost even if no disasters happen.
So far, the numbers are in favor of sugar cane Ethanol produced 'the Brazilian way' even when compared to pumping oil from underground.
And yes, I do see sugar cane Ethanol as a panacea, and it is such a success that it endangers the status quo, going against the interests of several small groups and 'big money'.
And those interests are not in line with the interests of the general population.
Post by: YZ on June 24, 2010, 12:07:09 AM
| bigaudioblowhard wrote on Wed, 23 June 2010 22:41 |
Whats the deal with www.theoildrum.com? Is it a credible source of information? heres the wiki on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oil_Drum I don't know anything about it, am wondering if anyone around here knows more than me (or wiki)? bab |
It was the top search result when I looked for EROEI, and that's about all I know.
Since the posts I read there on oil EROEI dated from 2007 and were made to compare the EROEI of oil to corn ethanol and solar/wind electricity, showing how favorable oil was to those, I thought that the figures couldn't have a 'pro-sugar cane' bias.
Post by: Taproot on June 24, 2010, 02:35:13 PM
I planned to make my first ever trip out of Venice this summer and being the "king of procrastination", I'm fucked. I'm glad I at least got to experience Grand Isle.
This is pretty upsetting and heartbreaking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3bzypjTIWg&feature=playe r_embedded
Post by: Kris on June 24, 2010, 04:32:07 PM
Post by: Taproot on June 24, 2010, 06:44:39 PM
| Kris wrote on Thu, 24 June 2010 14:32 |
Good luck... Where are you heading? |
Launching out of Bay St. Louis, but heading to LA water for Reds and Specs. I'll be after Flounder and Blue Crab in MS waters and fishing Hwy. 90 for Shrimp.
Post by: PookyNMR on June 24, 2010, 10:39:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fqu3beMcIw
Post by: RSettee on June 25, 2010, 03:19:02 PM
| Fibes wrote on Wed, 23 June 2010 16:08 |
Now we have an alleged suicide of a dispalced captain who was part of the cleanup. See, cleaning up takes fuel and fuel/boat payments need to be made on time but clean up payments are in limbo. Either way, suicide or murder his blood is on BPs hands. Word from offshore captains is that the baitfish are using the oil like they would a sargasso weedline for shelter and pelagics like tuna, wahoo and marlin are feeding on them. How long until the tainted baitfish toxin levels begin to build in fish we eat? This thing is growing in ways we can't even fathom yet. |
Yikes.
Of course i'm aghast at this disaster and I really am empathetic towards the animals, but there's a certain part of me that thinks that i'm hypocritical--as are others--seeing as that we drive the demand for oil, in gas and oil based products. To me, that's the real dilemma....we can stop this particular leak at some point (I think?), but the demand is still there and it almost reminds me of the projects to clean up certain areas of town--when in essence, really, you just move the bums and the hookers around to a different area to squat in. Well, that's just the surface level.....you need to get into what drives the demand for prostitution and alcoholism. Without reducing our dependency on oil, surely anything is just a temporary fix.
And who's willing to stop driving? Including taking the bus?
Post by: DarinK on June 25, 2010, 05:51:35 PM
I admit to being a pro-regulation liberal, and figure that if stronger regulations & oversight cut too much into profit, prices will rise to the point where other alternatives will start looking more appealing to the corporations involved. We have to accept that corporations seek only profit, and change conditions so that what we think is best is also the most profitable, even if that means additional regulations, taxes & surcharges on what we dislike. It's the only method we have to affect corporate behavior.
Post by: RSettee on June 25, 2010, 10:54:31 PM
| DarinK wrote on Fri, 25 June 2010 16:51 |
If all safety warnings had been heeded, and all known precautionary measures had actually been taken, this would not have happened. This was a preventable accident, although I understand that with all mining endeavours, no matter how cautious one is, some sort of accident will happen eventually. |
Yeah, eventually something will happen somewhere.
| Quote: |
I admit to being a pro-regulation liberal, and figure that if stronger regulations & oversight cut too much into profit, prices will rise to the point where other alternatives will start looking more appealing to the corporations involved. We have to accept that corporations seek only profit, and change conditions so that what we think is best is also the most profitable, even if that means additional regulations, taxes & surcharges on what we dislike. It's the only method we have to affect corporate behavior. |
All true. Although the history of the oil companies intimidating and threatening anyone with a better idea (engines that could run on hydrogen, water, even air), I think, will happen until the bitter end. It's not a better idea industries are after (at least not the old ones).....they'll hold onto that kicking and screaming, because it affects their livelihood if they're put out of business. Right now, everyone knows that the oil companies are fat, greedy and complacent.....but if you go to Dubai, there's nothing that those industries can't buy off.
Post by: MDM, on June 26, 2010, 11:02:30 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilan dgas/7804922/BP-chief-Tony-Hayward-sold-shares-weeks-before- oil-spill.html
hmmm.. how strange
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19 591
could have been just routine.. I guess..
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/06/the-rigs -on-fire-i-told-you-this-was-gonna-happen/57775/
technical negligence or cost-cutting?
Post by: ssltech on June 26, 2010, 11:29:11 AM
| MDM, wrote on Sat, 26 June 2010 11:02 |
but never come to a conclusion without an in-depth look at whatever facts you can muster-up IMO |
Priceless advice.
Post by: Jay Kadis on June 27, 2010, 12:05:40 PM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100211211442.ht m
Post by: Taproot on June 27, 2010, 06:00:46 PM
Post by: Edvaard on June 28, 2010, 03:10:25 AM
Corporations only seek profit, but that is their job. Unless they want to unilaterally change priorities and go out of business very soon when their competitors don't see the light and follow along.
In any case, there is a whole legal framework that even allows corporations to exist in the first place and provides the everyday legal background for continued existence, such as the courts system to enforce contracts, etc.
And much regulation has to be in place regarding normal business practices lest we have another Standard Oil (or any other monopoly, which is the proven inevitable outcome with any industry in the absence of regulation to prevent it).
So people complaining about regulation overlook the fact that that is the ONLY way that commerce could even exist in the first place. Of course some would have it that all the legal framework and regulations necessary to be able to manufacture a car are OK, but trying to tell me I can't drive 110 MPH in any neighborhood I like means this is a nanny state socialist government, etc.
As to subsidies for alternative energy endeavors, I'm not so sure that's a good thing, because all it does is attract large corporations who are experts at finding their way to the treasury trough. Almost all the solar panel companies were bought by oil companies years ago, both to control the energy competition and to reap extra tax benefits.
If we were to remove all the innumerable tax credits, exploration tax incentives, write-offs for almost every aspect of exploration, production, refining, i.e., practically every step of the way from well to the pump, and then also have the costs of pollution and environmental damage of production properly added in, we would have a true cost with which to compare other energy modalities. I feel safe in saying that many of the alternatives could stand well on their own financially with out subsidies, given a real comparison test.
Just one example of tax payer subsidy for oil:
http://www.1031energy.com/taxBenefits.php
It says in there that the cumulative write-offs add up to greater than 100% of the initial investment. It keeps listing one write-off after another, just within this one particular scheme. Multiply this times the hundred other similar schemes and you finally understand that the corporate income tax eventually paid by the oil companies has already been covered several times over by taxpayers long before we get to operating income. All it amounts to is a partial refund to tax payers as a polite "thank you" by the oil companies.
Now it becomes clear why congress was no match for such a powerful industry they gave far to much economic power to decades prior when they meekly tried to implement fuel efficiency standards 30 years ago, and why this latest disaster will do nothing of consequence to change that.
Post by: samurai99 on July 02, 2010, 10:07:57 AM
Post by: ssltech on July 13, 2010, 10:27:05 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_oil_spill
Post by: ktownson on July 14, 2010, 03:26:21 PM
They hired SpongeBob to cap the well.
Post by: ktownson on July 15, 2010, 05:31:37 PM
Post by: bblackwood on July 15, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
| ktownson wrote on Thu, 15 July 2010 16:31 |
I'll be damned. As of Friday at 2:30 local time, Spongebob apparently capped the well. Let's hope it stays that way. |
I think it's only temporary, but it's a great success nonetheless.
Post by: RSettee on July 15, 2010, 06:54:40 PM
Smart guy.
http://gizmodo.com/5565816/bp-purchases-32-of-kevin-costners -oil+water-separation-machines
Post by: ktownson on July 23, 2010, 12:03:37 PM
Post by: YZ on July 23, 2010, 01:16:56 PM
Post by: ktownson on July 23, 2010, 02:52:05 PM
Post by: YZ on July 26, 2010, 08:34:55 AM
http://www.uk2u.co.uk/uk-news/rare-1970s-bp-board-game-promi ses-oil-thrills-comes-back-to-haunt-them.html
Post by: RSettee on August 02, 2010, 10:31:11 AM
| YZ wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 07:34 |
A game created by Nostradamus? Are we going to have a History Channel docu series on predictions of the future made by game creators? Look here: http://www.uk2u.co.uk/uk-news/rare-1970s-bp-board-game-promi ses-oil-thrills-comes-back-to-haunt-them.html |
Wow-that's ridiculously prescient. No wonder it didn't do well back then. "An exciting game for all the family".....yeah.