Author |
Message |
Sifo
| Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 12:12 pm: |
|
A 1/4 pound of hay to soak up a few ounces of oil. I'm not sure how many tons of of hay would be needed to soak up the spill we have. OR... In all seriousness it sounds like a good idea that has some merit. I do wonder what percentage of the spill could be managed with this sort of method. |
Reepicheep
| Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Cool link Road Thing... I liked the bioluminescence shots especially. |
Hootowl
| Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 01:08 pm: |
|
I did as well. I'm surprised at the hammer head shots. Those are fairly reclusive, and only migrate through the gulf in mating season, from what I understand. |
Hex
| Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 02:39 pm: |
|
http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-oil-current-2010-5
|
Hootowl
| Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 03:06 pm: |
|
I see a guy skateboarding with a lobster on his back. Oh wait, that isn't an ink blot. |
Blake
| Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 05:31 pm: |
|
I wonder if the people at businessinsider.com understand that ocean currents are not constant and are not the only factor or sometimes even the primary factor affecting oil slick migration. Would be interesting to hear their explanation for the long thin westward migration of floating oil as depicted in their imagery. |
Blake
| Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 05:36 pm: |
|
From a BP press release: Surface Spill Response and Containment Work continues to collect and disperse oil that has reached the surface of the sea. Over 530 vessels are involved in the response effort, including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels. Over 120 flights have been made to apply dispersant to the spill since the response effort began. Intensive operations to skim oil from the surface of the water also continued. Some 97,000 barrels of oily liquid have now been recovered. The total length of boom deployed as part of efforts to prevent oil reaching the coast is now more than 1.2 million feet, with a further 400,000 feet staged in readiness for deployment. In total over 13,000 personnel from BP, other companies and government agencies are currently involved in the response to this incident. Over 16,000 people have registered to volunteer across four states. So far 6,700 claims have been filed, of which about 1,000 have already been paid. BP has also received 46,500 calls into its help lines, approximately 30 per cent of which have offered ideas to help the response or other assistance. The cost to date of the response amounts to about $450 million, including the cost of spill response, containment, relief well drilling, commitments to the Gulf Coast States, settlements and federal costs. The response effort is not unimpressive, over 1,200,000 of oil boom deployed with 400,000 more staged and ready to go. That amounts to over 300 miles worth of oil boom. |
Blake
| Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 05:49 pm: |
|
From the same BP press release:
Subsea Source Control and Containment Subsea efforts continue to focus on, firstly, progressing options to stop the flow of oil from the well through interventions via the blow out preventer (BOP) and, secondly, attempts to contain the flow of oil at source to reduce the amount spreading on the surface. These efforts are being carried out in conjunction with governmental authorities and other industry experts. Further investigation of the failed BOP, using remotely-operated vehicles and a variety of diagnostic techniques, has increased our understanding of the condition of the BOP and allowed planning to continue for a number of potential interventions, including for a so-called “top kill” of the well. This would involve first injecting material of varying densities and sizes (also known as “junk shot”) into the internal spaces of the BOP to provide a seal, before pumping specialised heavy fluids into the well to prevent further flow up the well. Plans for this option are being developed in preparation for potential application next week. Work to deploy a second system designed to contain the oil flow subsea has continued. A small dome or “top hat” has been taken out to the well site and placed on the seabed in preparation for deployment. Such a system has never been used in water depths of 5,000 feet and its successful operation is not certain. The deployment of this system is expected to be attempted within the next few days. All of the techniques being attempted or evaluated to contain the flow of oil on the seabed involve significant uncertainties because they have not been tested in these conditions before. Work on the first relief well, which began on Sunday May 2, continues. It is expected to take some three months to complete. The drilling rig that will drill the second relief well is currently en route to the site, expected to arrive by Friday. Let's hope the "top hat" approach is successful. They also reported that the leakage now seems to be comprised of less oil, more gas. A welcome development. A very informative chart. It has actual detailed information describing the extent and character of the oil slick. A lot more informative and factually relevant that a bunch of images produced by people who are ignorant of the science, the situation, and factors affecting it. |
Blake
| Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 05:52 pm: |
|
When satellite images of the oil slick from May 1 are compared with the slick today, it appears smaller in size. On explanation is that it now appears that the natural gas forcing its way out of the well could be reducing the amount of oil escaping. Instead of floating on the surface, the natural gas escapes into the atmosphere. BP confirms that it is seeing some changes in the nature of the leak, but because it is not measured, they cannot say precisely what is happening. "The pressure data we have observed in recent days gives us more confidence in a direct intervention," BP spokesman Andrew Gowers said today. from http://abcnews.go.com/WN/natural-gas-leaking-gulf- mexico-lowering-volume-escaping/story?id=10619403 |
Hex
| Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 06:21 pm: |
|
Blake et all, go to http://www.roffs.com/deepwaterhorizon.html to see the entire history of this event from ocean current point of view. Very interesting to see all the changing currents shown. |
Hex
| Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 08:18 pm: |
|
Gulf Spill Could Be Much Worse Than Believed... 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 Werely, 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. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=126809525 |
Cowboy
| Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 09:30 pm: |
|
What was the data on D S T |
Road_thing
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 08:24 am: |
|
I don't think they ran one, Cowboy. They had just cemented the production string and were preparing to TA as I understand it. I can't comment on the higher flow rate estimates on the BP well other than to say that I'm a little skeptical of the rates in the quote Hex posted. I've never heard of a well in the Gulf of Mexico flowing at 70,000 or more barrels a day, even under ideal conditions. rt |
Hex
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 08:43 am: |
|
I'm a little skeptical of any information either BP, MMS, or even the Coast Guard is reporting. Way too cozy relationships. And another opinion: Separately, a New York Times report Friday cited Florida State University oceanographer Ian MacDonald as saying his own rough calculations put the leak "easily four to five times" beyond the government's estimates. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bp-oil-leak-worse -than-previously-thought-2010-05-14?dist=beforebel l There is wonderful opportunity for honesty here, yet no one will be paid for it. |
Hex
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 09:03 am: |
|
Yesterday Tony Hayward of BP stated: "The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume." Dude, this is just a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the Universe, why should we care about a silly little thing like this? Dude, if you can see it from space, it ain't that tiny...I'll bet Mr. Hayward gets paid the big bucks to say crap like that. Who will be paying for the truth? |
Hex
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 09:13 am: |
|
This image is from 12 May Terra satellite. http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/images/image05122010_250m.jpg |
Hex
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 09:17 am: |
|
The federal Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species — and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html ?hp |
Hootowl
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 09:29 am: |
|
I read the link. He hasn't been there. He estimated 70K based on a crappy video he got off the Internet, and admits his estimate is up to 20% off. Why is this news? |
Hex
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 09:48 am: |
|
He hasn't been there. Uh, hello, NOBODY'S been there, they've drilled so deep they can't get people down there... |
Hootowl
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 10:06 am: |
|
The people on site have more data than the guy who analyzed a short video clip. |
Hex
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 10:13 am: |
|
Yes, but why is this 15sec video the only data to be 'unclassified' in over three weeks? Perhaps the truth is harder to swallow. We need transparency when it comes to incidents of national/international concern, not cover-ups, dispersant, and bold faced lies. These situations are ALWAYS worse than estimated by those who are responsible. If there is no accurate assessment, there will be NO successful response. Censorship is Un-American. |
Hex
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 10:43 am: |
|
And now you have this oil spill, and what do we have -- 11 people killed there. Other people hurt. Now we're looking at this great ecological disaster washing up on our Gulf coast. Why? Because someone didn't check the batteries, didn't check the valve fittings, because the blowout preventer was wired wrong. The fail safe system didn't work. Even though they continued to tell the American people and the Mineral Management Service, everything will be fine. We've got everything under control. We've got all these redundancies built in. The redundancies weren't turned on, the batteries were dead, it didn't work. It's just incompetence. REP. BART STUPAK, D-MICH. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,592865,00.html Yes, this is a Fox News report on something I was criticized for stating here two weeks ago. Call it a hunch. |
Hex
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 10:51 am: |
|
If someone allows someone else to become incompetent, and they take them up on the offer, who is at fault? |
Blake
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 01:53 pm: |
|
At 70,000 barrels per day times 25 days and with one barrel equaling 5.61 FT3 the approximately 2,000 square mile slick would be comprised of 9.83 MILLION cubic feet of oil. That then means that the slick would need to be on average just over two thousandths of an inch thick. Seems plausible, but I have no real idea. Some interesting information related to oil slick thickness versus appearance. What isn't plausible in my view is that the "scientists" using the video were able to know the composition of what is exiting the broken riser pipe. Meaning how much of it is oil versus gas versus water. >>> "bold faced lies." Who has lied? Quoting lawyer/politicians on the highly technical aspects of a BOP failure? FAIL. |
Blake
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 01:55 pm: |
|
>>> Call it a hunch. I prefer to call it what it is, miserable ignorant gossip of no redeeming value whatsoever. |
Hex
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 02:04 pm: |
|
I no longer consider it an accident. I consider it a crime. So why are we, the President, Congress, and the American people allowing the criminals to be in charge? They have no better interest than capturing and controlling their financial goals.
|
Glitch
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 02:15 pm: |
|
I no longer consider it an accident. I'll alert the media. |
Blake
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 03:02 pm: |
|
Sometimes the wildly self-absorbed can be really hilarious. |
Cowboy
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 04:31 pm: |
|
Att. Hoot/Blake I am very concerned about this 70K figger. I dont know the production of this well but I do know that the largest producer ever in the Gulf is the shell oil #A7(ursa) located near this field to my knowledge It was the largest well until very recent if not still @35000bbl per day. (I have a son that is the company man on that rig) |
Cowboy
| Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 04:40 pm: |
|
Blake you meat him once at the race track. |
|