Gulf of Mexico oil spill

Airship, Please stay on point. This has nothing to do with Britain, Afganistan, declarations of war or AIG. This thread is about the oil spill, and, quite frankly, I believe that matter has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction for the time being with BP's statements yesterday. They have accepted responsibility, are no longer trying to minimize the scope of the disaster and have set up a $20 billion fund to pay claims.

Deja vu - The Gulf of Mexico in 1979

Deja vu - The Gulf of Mexico in 1979. How this same disaster was handled then.

http://www.wimp.com/oilspills/



PS: And think about this, in those Congressional hearings the other day with all of the current CEO's of the major oil companies appearing, NOT ONE OF THEM KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS MAJOR OIL SPILL that occurred in our recent history....NOT ONE thats a scary thought that these guys are in charge

oil spill

Modern education does not teach "history" as it relates to CEO's jobs etc....the CEO is firstly a figurehead in a major organization and has very highly paid execs to take care of day to day issues, just like politicians, "and us .."do you know where your kids are " ?

That was just a political photo op and chance to rescue the Governments lack of action at the shoreline, word yesterday from ground zero was that the CG was totally disorganized...

"Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it". Old story. One more reason I feel that strict regulations are needed in this industry (besides profiteering and price rigging).

That was one of the points in President Obama's speech last night. He said that the coast guard was in charge, but had no way of doing anything. That was one of the things he wants changed going forward. The CG needs not only the authority to say 'Do this' but also to demand to hear 'Yes sir' from the other side.

There is an old axiom that goes somewhat like this: as ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Hi,
here are a couple of sites I came accross that maybe of intertest,

Unifed Command: www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com

A NOAA site: www.geoplatform.gov/gulfresponse

it's going to be a long time before this is all over,

Happy Boating

Tony Hayward

I'm not sure what exactly Tony Hayward is so good at that earns him the big bucks, but so far public relations and showing compassion or empathy don't seem to be it. Just when they finally make the right moves w/ the fund and putting a good face on as spokesperson they start with the who's going to be in charge when and then this:

http://www.verizon.net/newsroom/por...ewsroom_portal_page__article&_article=2874609

Just to cheer you all up, there wasn't much wind.

www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Industry/article322683.ece

There may be a problem with that link. It goes dark within seconds of opening it. All I caught there was that BP has a "secret plan" to raise $50b to pay for the clean up. I'm guessing it is to triple the price of gas until they can't take the screaming anymore, banking those profits, and then do the world a favor by pulling the increase back to only double. As for the wind, I hear his boat came in fourth in class. Apparently they can do good when they go slow. Maybe Tony should take that boat for a slow round the world cruise following the slick, but not stop back in the Gulf states.

It is very upsetting that this country has mismanaged this crisis from the beginning. Doubly so when I read about the arrogance of refusing help from other countries in assisting with the cleanup. We got change alright.

For the U.S. to accept aid from outside is a rough political decision. We're looked on as the givers, and wouldn't be perceived well as takers. As a super-power we would also be expected to repay any aid given. Since we have all the manpower and assets needed for the job it was probably not considered appropriate, especially at a time when we are trying to unburden ourselves from massive debt. It's more just a matter of managing those assets (which the president would have been better off getting in front of sooner, and is still trying to do); the fact that this is an unprecedented disaster, and the fact that it is ongoing until BP can find a way to stop the flow. At least there is no "You're doing a heck of a job Brownie" while New Orleans drowns. Haven't heard praise of anyone and doubt there will be while people are suffering.

Greetings,
Question here. As of this morning it appears "they" are still adding dispersants to the flume at the BOP (ROV camera). Given that 800,000 GALLONS of Corexit 9527 have already been applied- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit (has been banned for use in GB due to it's toxicity) and evidently a less "toxic" subsitute is now being used, wouldn't it be better NOT to use a dispersant so the oil could be better harvested on the surface?
Don't even get me started on the burning of the harvest!
Peter

Yeah, but if all that crude was sitting together in one place it would look really, really bad. Now about that burn off.

Dispersants and Clean Up

Yeah I think for 'appearances sake' they used these massive amounts of dispersant's...and just maybe they thought they might contain a great majority of the flow in a short period of time...that first capping structure.

Here is a picture of the burn I took on 9 June. Pardon the quality, it was taken from about 7 miles away.

" I think it would have been easier to corralled and sucked up had they not used the dispersant's."

If you look at the plume of smoke in the picture above you might see why they used dispersants. There is no more possibility to "corral and suck up" that oil than there is to corral and suck up all that smoke. What looks like a compact and dense spout of oil in the ROV pictures disperses on its own as it rises a mile to the surface, and without chemical dispersants it would cover the sea as the smoke covers the sky.

The technology and hardware to corral and suck up a thin layer of oil spread over thousands of square miles of sea surface simply doesn't exist. There are no good options available and hiding the worst of it until nature deals with it is one of many very bad choices made in an environment where even a BP executive taking a day away from the horror elicits a virulent response from all sides.

Greetings,
OK Marmot, I'll buy that but it still seems to me that by emulsifying the oil, you now have three phases to deal with. Oil, water and the emulsant (word?) as opposed to just oil and water. Just doesn't feel right to me somehow particularily since there IS a portion of the emulsifyer that is hydrocarbon based and the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez exposed workers to some pretty nasty stuff.
I fully realise that all the oil won't eventually end up on the surface as I am fairly sure that certain fractions will remain suspended in the water column and be innacesable to any means of recovery due to it's density. Don't know much about crude other than to be so from time to time (but I'm getting better I think/hope). Don't really care if T. Haward took a day off or not.
Will the stuff that's on the surface damage a FG hull at all?
Remember, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Peter

I'm not saying that using dispersants is good, or is better than not using them.

"There are no good options available and hiding the worst of it (the oil) until nature deals with it is one of many very bad choices ..."

In a way this thing is like Chernobyl, there will be more casualties before the threat is eliminated. And while I don't mean to downplay the effects of exposure to the crude, there were many of us living within 30 or 40 meters of the Ixtoc surface plume and fire for several months, and haven't heard of anyone on that project having problems. So far I have had no indication of physical damage from the experience either and we didn't wear Tyvek suits or wear respirators. Of course I am sure a good (?) lawyer would find something that I could use to base a claim of some sort. Who knows, in another generation or two, seawater will be determined to be a hazardous material due to the sodium and chlorine content.

"Remember, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."

I'd rather be a titrate.

Greetings,
Oh golly, I haven't titrated in years. Just don't have the concentration any more + Ive lost my equilibrium somewhere along the line.
Peter