backtop

Print 106 comment(s) - last by yacoub.. on May 13 at 11:34 PM

  (Source: The Seattle Times)
BP considers shredded tires and golf balls to stop oil spewing from well

 

The world has seen accidents before when tankers have run aground and leaked massive amounts of oil. The most recent oil spill is occurring right now in the Gulf of Mexico and was the result of the deadly explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. The explosion killed several workers on the rig and the oil platform sank after the resulting fire.

The oil in the well a mile under the waters of the Gulf of Mexico continues to pour out of the well into the waters of the gulf at a rate of about 210,000 gallons of crude oil each day equating to about 5,000 barrels of crude. So far, BBC News reports that the oil slick from the well has covered about 2,000 square miles of gulf waters and is now threatening the coasts of several gulf states and coastal wetlands where several animal species breed.

The owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig is BP, a London-based company, and BP is trying everything it can think of to stem the flow of crude oil into the gulf. Reuters reports that the robotic vehicles that BP tried to use to close valves on the well piping at a depth of nearly a mile under the surface of the gulf have failed.

Doug Suttles, COO of BP said, "We've essentially used up all those options," speaking about attempts to use robotic submergible vehicles to turn valves designed to prevent oil from escaping in to the waters.

The Associated Press reports that BP also tried to use a larger containment dome to funnel the crude to ships on the surface but the done had failed because of "large hydrate volumes" that clogged the dome. A smaller dome is being readied that should be able to avoid the clogging issue of the larger dome.

The only permanent fix for the oil that is spewing from the broken pipe at the deepwater well is to drill relief wells nearby to remove pressure. The AP reports that these relief wells are expected to take three months to complete.

BBC News adds that BP is also considering a method to block the blowout preventer with debris to stop the flow of oil. This method would have the company injecting shredded tires and golf balls into the pipe under extreme pressure in an attempt to block the oil in a manner similar to blocking up a toilet.

Suttles said, "We have some pipe work on the blowout preventer, and if we can open certain valves on that we could inject basically just rubber and other type of material into [it] to plug it up, not much different to the way you might plug up a toilet."

So far the spill has cost BP an estimated $350 million and some estimates expect the final bill after clean up to run into the billions of dollars. The spill is expected to be the worst in U.S. history surpassing the damage done by the Exxon Valdez.

 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Hieyeck on 5/10/2010 12:28:34 PM , Rating: 5
for blocking nuclear power.




By Ordr on 5/10/2010 12:40:14 PM , Rating: 5
We still wouldn't have been using nuclear-powered cars...


By MrBlastman on 5/10/2010 12:44:12 PM , Rating: 5
We could be using cars powered by the fermented remains of dead hippies though... ;)


By ebakke on 5/10/2010 2:40:28 PM , Rating: 5
I literally laughed out loud. Thanks for brightening my day. :)


By quiksilvr on 5/10/2010 3:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
By Krioni on 5/11/2010 2:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
Now that was funny!


By fteoath64 on 5/11/2010 3:53:08 AM , Rating: 3
Had it not been the fear infused by the establishment of nuclear technology, progress would have been way way ahead. Look, pellet based nuclear batteries used in spacecrafts (starting with Cassini probe) have been safe.

Who would not want a bomb-proof nuclear battery in a car that needs no charging/maintenance for 25 years ?. The car manufacturers and the battery manufacturers. Monetary greed has prevented progress of human kind since the 40s.


By drewidgho5t on 5/11/2010 6:41:20 AM , Rating: 2
@ ordr == "we still would not be...

A nuclear fuel cell the same size as a 1 gal paint can has enough energy to last 20+ yrs. That 1 gal size includes ALL the safety features and the plug adapters. The ACTUAL cell size is closer to those quart size paint containers. Add on 3" of deformable graphite foam and/or aluminium foam to provide an outer safety cell and voila, all the electricity my car needs.

So actually, ya our cars also, nuclear. Be living in utopia right now if not for those damn H I P P I E S.

Facetious not sarcastic. Learn the difference it could save a life.


By squiee on 5/11/2010 10:50:56 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, we could be using nuclear powered cars. Nuclear power plants generate electricity that can be used to power electric cars.


By lyeoh on 5/11/2010 2:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
That sort of thing is easy enough for cars.

Not so easy for transoceanic/transcontinental aircraft.

Hopefully we have enough oil till someone figures out a viable alternative for that.

Or we'll be going back to the days where only the very rich could fly.

In theory one could use nuclear power to convert CO2+H2O to hydrocarbon jet-fuel and oxygen, but it's not going to be so simple to do it on a large scale and keep it cheap enough.


By porkpie on 5/11/2010 3:59:04 PM , Rating: 1
"Not so easy for transoceanic/transcontinental aircraft."

The US had plans for nuclear-powered aircraft in the 1960s...it even tested one prototype before budding anti-nuclear sentiment (as well as the success of in-air refueling) shut down the project.

Imagine, though, a plane that could stay aloft without landing for a couple years on end.


By porkpie on 5/10/2010 2:39:08 PM , Rating: 5
"With as many people crashing their vehicles due to texting and owning a Toyota, the last thing we need are mini-nuclear reactors in cars."

The SNAP-27 nuclear battery on board Apollo 13 survived crash landing on Earth from from space without cracking open. I think we can build nuclear sources safe enough for a car crash.

In any case, the proper role for nuclear isn't in the car itself, but providing the energy needed to run those vehicles. Had we not abandoned nuclear power 30 years ago, it seems indisputable that we'd now be much better positioned today to take advantage of electric cars, or even hydrogen ones, produced with H2 via HT nuclear reactors.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/12/2010 10:36:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
TextThe SNAP-27 nuclear battery on board Apollo 13 survived crash landing on Earth from from space without cracking open. I think we can build nuclear sources safe enough for a car crash.


Hmmm... You greatly under estimate the driving abilities of the American teenage girl. :P If something can not be broken or destroyed they have this special ability to prove you wrong.

My concern would be someone trying to make it cheaper and cheaper... till we have problems. Though I still would like to see nuclear cars, because then maybe I can get a land-speeder sometime before I die. Is that too much to ask for??


By Randomblame on 5/12/2010 9:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fuel cask from the SNAP-27 unit carried by the Apollo 13 mission currently lies in 20,000 feet (6,500 m) of water at the bottom of the Tonga Trench in the Pacific Ocean. This mission failed to land on the moon, and the lunar module carrying its generator burnt up during re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, with the trajectory arranged so that the cask would land in the trench. The cask survived re-entry, as it was designed to do,[10] and no release of plutonium has been detected. The corrosion resistant materials of the capsule are expected to contain it for 10 half-lives (870 years).[11]


By lennylim on 5/10/2010 6:58:48 PM , Rating: 4
If cars go kablooey in an accident, maybe people will stop talking on their cell phones when driving.


By nafhan on 5/10/2010 1:28:07 PM , Rating: 5
"Environmentalists" are also directly to blame for much of our continued usage of and reliance on coal power. If you look hard enough, you can find an environmentalist group that opposes pretty much anything.


By porkpie on 5/10/2010 2:41:25 PM , Rating: 3
I don't see any "big powerful companys" [sic] filing lawsuits to shut down nuclear plants, or holding protests on sites of proposed nuclear reactors, or buying anti-nuclear ads in major newspapers.

Yes, it really IS all the environmentalists.


By ebakke on 5/10/2010 2:42:10 PM , Rating: 4
Are you trying to insinuate that environmentalists don't buy politicians too? I certainly hope you're not that naive.


By wiz220 on 5/11/2010 2:24:50 PM , Rating: 3
Couldn't be less true. Our current energy use is all about what makes the most money for the least effort, and that (by FAR) is fossil fuels. With or without your hated hippies we'd still be on fossil fuels. The entire nuclear debate has and always will primarily come down to NIMBY (not in my backyard), and then to a lesser extent environmental (read: hippy) concerns. Energy companies love it when people blame environmental whackos for our current situation, but the truth is that it's always about the money.

And to all the other people saying we should have nuclear cars and such. I don't think there is enough uranium to do that. I've heard estimates that if we ran the planet on nuclear power we would run out of nuclear fuel in 50 years. Now granted, that might have been using old reactor technology, but still, it's another finite resource that will run out at some point.


By porkpie on 5/11/2010 11:34:32 PM , Rating: 3
"I don't think there is enough uranium to do that. I've heard estimates that if we ran the planet on nuclear power we would run out of nuclear fuel in 50 years"

Total nonsense. Using nothing but advanced reactors and the uranium we already have mined, we can power the US for the next 1,000+ years. Physicist Bernard Cohen has shown that, via extracting uranium from seawater, we can have nuclear power for the next 5 billion years:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen....

Oh, and let's not forget we don't need uranium for nuclear power. We can also use thorium, which is 3X as prevalent as uranium.


By Grabo on 5/12/2010 1:36:09 AM , Rating: 2
If you look hard enough, you can find environmentalists in your yard, playing with your children. If you look even harder you'll see them in the patterns of your ceiling.

If you squint furiously, no one appears innocent.


By Zuul on 5/10/2010 1:18:17 PM , Rating: 4
I'd also like them to say how this is also a lot safer/better for the environment than the Alberta Oilsands.


By porkpie on 5/10/2010 3:36:09 PM , Rating: 1
"Right, because nuclear power is 100% safe right?"

Taking a bath in your tub isn't 100% safe. Nothing is. Nuclear is simply much safer than any alternative.

As for this "disaster", I think most of us who were in favor of offshore drilling still are. The media is playing this up for all its worth, but the reality is this spill is **not** going to affect our health or safety. It's just a big expensive mess to clean up.


By AwesomeDuck on 5/11/2010 6:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that this is all a circular process, right? Life on land is directly dependent on the oceans, including those organisms inhabiting it. So perhaps it may not currently pose a threat to our health and safety, but the affects that will be incurred by this disaster on land are far greater and more important than any monetary implications.


By AwesomeDuck on 5/11/2010 7:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
The key word is seeps. While the environment will eventually recover from this event, it's also important to note that the organisms in the ocean are not equipped to deal with oil in such massive amounts in such a small time frame. It's not my intention to suggest that this one event will devastate the Earth in such a way that it will never recover, it's simply to point out that the impacts are going to be felt for a very long time.

The sky isn't my concern, Runt.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2010 2:59:01 PM , Rating: 1
What is so hard about stopping this leak?? I really don't understand. As I understand it, the well is basically a long shaft drilled down into the seabed. Correct?? Why they hell don't they just get some explosive experts down there and just cave in the well with some well placed charges?? I mean where is the military on this? If this happened under Bush, this level of Government inaction would be unacceptable. But now we're just sitting back and hoping BP can fix this themselves ??

I'm no expert, but how is this going to work? For you to be loosing two hundred THOUSAND gallons a day, the oil pressure must be significant. How are you going to block that with shredded tires and golf balls?

I say stop it at the source. Cave in the well with explosives and be done with it. Get the Navy, the Army Corpse of Engineers, whoever. But there are very few problems that can't be solved with the proper application of C4.


By porkpie on 5/10/2010 3:10:11 PM , Rating: 1
" Why they hell don't they just get some explosive experts down there"

It's a mile down. Ever try diving in waters 5,000 feet deep? I've never been below 100 feet myself, and there's only a handful of people in the world capable of breaking 700 feet.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2010 3:20:04 PM , Rating: 1
We have robotic subs, minisubs, etc etc hello?? If they can get a sub down there to try to turn a valve, they can get a sub to drop off some explosives can't they ??


By porkpie on 5/10/2010 3:29:40 PM , Rating: 3
They have robots down there now. But this isn't the year 2525...robot dexterity leaves a lot to be desired, especially in conditions of near-zero visibility in highly turbid waters.

As for "dropping some explosives" on it, that would most likely just blow off the arrestor cap, and lead to an even larger leak. The cap is still contraining the flow to a large degree.


By artemicion on 5/10/2010 3:36:14 PM , Rating: 5
Pardon my skeptecism re: your expertise on the subject of explosions solving all the world's problems, but do you have any support for your contention that a well placed C4 charge would stop the leak? Understandably, the "well placed explosion" solution served humanity well in such classics like Armageddon, but personaly, I'd like to see some numbers before we give Ben Affleck and Bruce Willis a call about the pending crisis.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2010 3:42:50 PM , Rating: 1
I wasn't making an Armageddon reference so if you feel like patronizing me than I don't feel like discussing it any further with you. And where did I claim any "expertise" ? I was asking more of a question than a statement. However in theory, I see no reason why causing the well to cave in on itself wouldn't stop the flow of oil. Do you?


By Connoisseur on 5/10/2010 3:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well from one non-expert to another, I imagine this wouldn't work for many reasons. One of the primary ones is that blasting a giant hole in an already pressurized container does nothing to stop the leak of said container. Imagine sticking a tube in an inflated balloon and siphoning air off (which is what is happening now) as opposed to outright popping the balloon. Popping it still lets most of the air out... my two cents.

As a disclaimer I have ZERO expertise in deepwater drilling, fluid or pressure dynamics. Just making conjectures based on everyday observations.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2010 4:17:48 PM , Rating: 1
Yes except the hole is already there. Extending ( I forget the exact number ) but a very long way down into the ground, or ocean floor in this case.

I'm not talking about blowing a hole in the well. The hole is already there from where it was drilled. I'm talking about filling it in with debris and caving it in.


By namechamps on 5/10/2010 4:51:05 PM , Rating: 1
How do you force an explosive down a well where oil is flowing out of it under hundred thousand psi.

It would be like trying to force a golf ball up a firehose into the firetruck while the hose in on full blast.

Also the oil gusher is relatively slow because of the kinked riser pipe and partially close BOP. To gain access to the well the riser pipe would need to be cut away and BOP opened. At which point flow rate would be about 10x as much. So if you are wrong you will be adding about 2.5 million gallons per day (more than Exxon Valdez every week).


By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2010 8:11:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It would be like trying to force a golf ball up a firehose into the firetruck while the hose in on full blast.


Oh I see. So we should just have your girlfriend on one end sucking, while we shove the C4 down !!

*crickets*

Thank you ! Thank you!!! I'll be here all week !!


By mindless1 on 5/11/2010 6:32:28 AM , Rating: 2
lol, you're getting into trouble all over the internet these days.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2010 10:23:47 AM , Rating: 2
*gasp*

Mindless1 has discovered my dirty secret!


By JediJeb on 5/11/2010 5:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
One problem with your idea would be that the well has a steel pipe casing, so in a sense there is a large steel pipe driven down deep into the sea floor. That is what the BOP and wellhead are attached to. You couldn't just cave in the well, you would have to use the blast to bend the pipe in on itself from the outside without cutting it in two.

Could it work? Maybe. But it would be very very complicated to get it right.


By ekv on 5/10/2010 4:27:50 PM , Rating: 3
From another non-expert 8)

I hear there was a methane bubble that had sufficient pressure to go through several stop valves and up the pipe into the platform, etc. The point being there appears to be a fair amount of pressure and you don't want to just blow away existing cap's and so forth.

The other thing I heard was you don't want to be using an arc cutter down there, due to fire hazard. Doesn't make much sense since, well, I don't know, there seems to be a little bit of water in the surrounding vicinity. Of course mile deep pressures and an active fuel source ... I would recommend low-risk alternatives.

I love explosives and all, but ... a mile deep. The worst of the PR has hit. The only thing left is the enviro-whacko's to try and milk it for the next dozens of years [yeah, Moore and Gore]. Standard operating procedure.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2010 4:36:37 PM , Rating: 1
You make good points. I was just throwing crap at the wall. If you go through life being worried about having a bad idea, you won't be a very happy person :)

quote:
[yeah, Moore and Gore].


LOL yeah Moore. Who owned stock in Halliburton, the driller and caper of this well and several others, will be pleased by this. Another hypocritical "documentary" on the way !!!


By JediJeb on 5/11/2010 5:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
Hey throwing out even bad ideas is better than sitting around and just watching the oil flow while doing nothing. Of course acting on them might be bad lol.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2010 7:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
It was an idea. It had nothing to do with Obama. Wash that sand out of your vag and just roll with it, cupcake.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2010 7:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
Oh come on, now you're just paraphrasing. You took me so out of context it's not even funny. Hey the ghost of Dan Rather called, he want's you to stop stealing his methods.


By porkpie on 5/10/2010 7:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
"...while President Obama's failure to consider your "more of a question than a statement" suggestion to blow up the oil leak."

Actually, Obama has been criticized here for allowing his administration to grant large number of safety and inspection waivers to BP, even as Obama himself was the single largest recipient of substantial donations from BP:

http://theweek.com/article/index/202679/Do_BPs_big...


By magreen on 5/10/2010 5:41:13 PM , Rating: 3
Don't forget about the well placed Aerosmith song. That's mission critical.


By thurston on 5/10/2010 10:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
We should send in the Superfriends. Aquaman could command a sperm whale to collapse a pile of rocks onto it.


By pequin06 on 5/10/2010 4:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
OIL!

It's not just for cars.

You can learn more about this wonderful commodity and it's many uses by going going to your favorite search engine today!


By hashish2020 on 5/10/2010 7:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
Right, because every environmentalist is identical.

I'd like to thank all businesspeople for ripping people's retirement cash off, because of Madoff.


By porkpie on 5/11/2010 1:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but this is as far from correct as one can possibly get. The oil industry is not the gas industry. There are oil spills each and every year...usually several per year. The oil industry has never succeeded in drilling for oil without the occasional mess.

On the contrary, nuclear power in the US has never harmed a single person. Not once..in over 5,000 reactor-years of operation.

Furthermore, you might want to use a little logic in your assessment of this "disaster" of a spill. It's a big mess to clean up, sure. But as for long term harm, its essentially zero. No one is going to be killed by the spill, and no one is going to have their health injured or threatened in any way by it. If that's a "disaster", we need to rethink our terms.


By kalak on 5/11/2010 4:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No human being is going to be killed by the spill, and no human being is going to have their health injured or threatened in any way by it.


Fix that for you....


By porkpie on 5/11/2010 5:44:38 PM , Rating: 1
Ah, and the kook from PETA check in.

Sorry, but I can't get too upset over some dead fish...actually, the temporary fishing ban enacted as a result of this will likely result in less overall dead fish, not more. And, for the predatory birds that feed on fish, the same thing goes.


By AwesomeDuck on 5/11/2010 7:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
The entire oceanic ecosystem within the vicinity of the spill will be affected by this. And just because someone has the intellectual capacity to recognize that ALL life on Earth is connected does not make them a "kook from PETA".

quote:
I can't get too upset over some dead fish...actually, the temporary fishing ban enacted as a result of this will likely result in less overall dead fish, not more. And, for the predatory birds that feed on fish, the same thing goes.

This demonstrates how limited your understanding of ecology really is. With the exception of a certain few microbes, oil is toxic to anything that ingests it. This includes phytoplankton and other microorganisms. Phytoplankton are in turn eaten by other, larger microorganisms such as zooplankton and other heterotrophs, which are eaten by the kind of fish that would typically come to mind when you think of fish, and other sea life such as a few filter feeders etc. But what happens once you end up at the top of the web/chain is what's known as bio-magnification. This is the same phenomenon that makes eating too much mercury-laden fish dangerous. The oil will kill plant life in the sea and on the coasts that it reaches as well, which limits food supplies for many land animals. I would also like to point out that if the seabirds were to take in the contaminated fish and feed it to their offspring, then this spill will be killing off generations of birds. Life has evolved the way it has today because every organism has a place in the world's ecosystem. It's not just about us.


By porkpie on 5/11/2010 7:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
"The entire oceanic ecosystem within the vicinity of the spill will be affected "

No. Only a portion of the euphotic zone will be affected (the topmost layer of the ocean). The dysphotic and aphotic zones won't be affected.

And the word "affected" has a very broad definition. A wind blowing across the Gulf "affects" the entire region.

So how much of an affect will this be? How much water is in the Gulf of Mexico? The total volume of the Gulf is 1.6E12 (area in meters) x 1.62E3) (mean depth) = 2.6E15 cubic meters. In gallons, that is:

680,000,000,000,000,000 gallons

Now, how much oil has been spilled? For 2.5 weeks, at 2.1E5 gallons a day, that works out to:

3,570,00 gal

Dividing one by the other, and we get the percentage of oil in the water:

0.00000013%

In other words, about one part per billion . That's less than the amount of radioactive uranium found naturally in seawater...and the ocean's ecosystem has been dealing with that just fine.

The only issue here is the surface effects which will soon be gone. Just as the effects of the Valdez spill were massively overrated (environmentalists claimed it would take "100 years" to recover), this one is being vastly overhyped as well.

"But what happens once you end up at the top of the web/chain is what's known as bio-magnification"

I got a nice chuckle out of this. Son, you can't bioamplify degradable organic compounds. Learn a little chemistry and get back to us.


By AwesomeDuck on 5/11/2010 7:41:18 PM , Rating: 1
First I would like to point out that the spill is on one area of the Gulf, it has yet to be dispersed throughout the whole thing.
Secondly, oil and radioactive uranium are definitely not the same thing. I respect your point, but I would hope you can make a better analogy than that.
As I would like to point out again, not every organism that takes up the oil is capable of digesting it, and microbial degradation is most definitely not instantaneous. After further consideration, biomagnification is not the term I want to use for that, but it's the best fitting one that comes to mind.

One more thing Porky- I am no one's son. In your mind the male gender may be the only gender, but in reality it's really not. ;)


By porkpie on 5/11/2010 7:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
"oil and radioactive uranium are definitely not the same thing."

Yes, uranium is in general considerably more toxic than oil. Yet its concentration in Gulf seawater is much higher. Get the point now?

"microbial degradation is most definitely not instantaneous"

So? What's your point?

"biomagnification is not the term I want to use for that, but it's the best fitting one that comes to mind."

It doesn't fit at all. There isn't going to be biomagnification nor any analogous process here. Oil is nothing but a hydrocarbon. Water and sunlight will break it back down into its constituents fairly rapidly. It doesn't work its way up the food chain like a heavy metal can.

"In your mind the male gender may be the only gender, but in reality it's really not. ;)"

Ok, you're a sadly misinformed, misguided, and at least inadvertently misanthropic female . I stand corrected on this point.


By AwesomeDuck on 5/11/2010 8:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
Much like sunlight and water don't magically make chlorophyll, they won't result in the magical dispersion of oil. Microbes play a massive role in this process. Part of the cause for the fears concerning the Valdez spill were that the metabolic processes of microbes in Alaska would be too slow to be effective. But given that the temperature in the Gulf is warmer than in Prince William Sound and the difference in crude grade, this will happen more quickly in Gulf. That is my point.

Hey, at least I won't waste my life cupping the balls of the primarily useless human species.


By porkpie on 5/11/2010 8:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
" Microbes play a massive role in this process."

Look, this is basic chemistry, not rocket science. Petroleum , when exposed to light, heat, and water, breaks down naturally in the environment. Microbial processes accelerate that decomposition, but they are not essential to it. The UV radiation in sunlight is particularly effective at decomposing hydrocarbon chains.

"at least I won't waste my life cupping the balls of the primarily useless human species."

Ah, so my earlier supposition was correct. You are a misanthropic, self-hating environmentalist. Tell you what, if we're all so "useless", why not start by erasing your own carbon footprint? A little of that bleach under your kitchen sink should do the job nicely.


By AwesomeDuck on 5/11/2010 9:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look, this is basic chemistry, not rocket science.


You're right, rocket science is primarily composed of astrophysics and aeronautics. Microbial degradation is faster and more effective at breaking down crude oil than UV radiation alone.

quote:
Tell you what, if we're all so "useless", why not start by erasing your own carbon footprint? A little of that bleach under your kitchen sink should do the job nicely.


No thanks. I'm not unrealistic, I don't expect people to not have a carbon footprint. The only reason to not minimize it is pure, unadulterated laziness, and as far as I'm concerned those that are lazy and greedy have no use. Especially those that are greedy and concern themselves only with matters of their personal wealth, which is most of humanity.
I don't clean with bleach and the other various harsh chemicals found in commercial cleaners. I am an intelligent being, you know, one of those people that doesn't ask for antibiotics just because I have a cold. I haven't dedicated my life to wiping out all the bacteria that live on Earth. (Hence part of the reason some consider me an "environmentalist".)


By porkpie on 5/11/2010 9:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
"Microbial degradation is faster and more effective at breaking down crude oil than UV radiation alone."

So why did you originally claim sunlight and water won't "magically remove" oil on their own. They will. At least you've begun to admit that.

"The only reason to not minimize [your carbon footprint] is pure, unadulterated laziness"

Rather, common sense. Try living in a nation with a "minimal footprint" and see just how poor the conditions really are. Our health, happiness, and welfare depend upon plentiful energy. The only two ways to provide that now are nuclear and fossil fuels...which explains why environmentalists are against both.

Meanwhile, you moan and bemoan your "carbon footprint", as you sit on an electricity-powered computer, in your electric-lit house and make useless postings. Hypocrite.

"I don't clean with bleach"

Guess what...the chlorine in that bleach came from the earth originally. You're not going to kill the planet by using a little bleach in your laundry.

Statements like yours are what has made the once-proud environmental movement a laughingstock. I bet you don't use colored or scented toilet paper either do...or are you like Sheryl Crow, and refuse to use more than one square no matter what?


By AwesomeDuck on 5/12/2010 7:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Meanwhile, you moan and bemoan your "carbon footprint"


Actually, prior to your deeming it necessary to bring such things up, I didn't say anything about carbon footprints.

quote:
Try living in a nation with a "minimal footprint" and see just how poor the conditions really are. Our health, happiness, and welfare depend upon plentiful energy.


I'm sorry to see that you think the only way to minimize a carbon footprint is through cuts of usage in electricity. There many ways to do this that don't present any kind of issue in regards to standards of living. I also think it would be interesting to point out that back in the 70s there was an operational garbage incinerator in my city, and interestingly enough, in the years that it was in operation and for a few that followed, the occurrence of various diseases, primarily lung cancer, increased by more than 20% in comparison to the state and national averages. Now as you have so willing to point out as condescendingly as possible, I am individual still learning about many things, but I believe that burning our trash was decidedly determined to be something not only detrimental to the environment, but also to the health and happiness of people (which as I understand it has been your primary concern thus far).
I'm sorry to see that yet again you have resorted to name calling rather than to simply rely on the facts of your arguments to speak for themselves.

quote:
So why did you originally claim sunlight and water won't "magically remove" oil on their own. They will. At least you've begun to admit that.


Almost. After investing the subject further I couldn't find a source to support (nothing personal, but I won't assume anything about the veracity of statements made over the internet) or a source to refute what you had said about UV degradation of oil. So my statement was intended to be in the case of that being true.

quote:
I bet you don't use colored or scented toilet paper either do...or are you like Sheryl Crow, and refuse to use more than one square no matter what?


First of all, I was not aware of the existence of colored (if by this you mean other than white-ish) or scented toilet paper, although I wouldn't use those for the same reason I originally stopped using bleach. Secondly, that's just gross. Since I'm aware of the processes used in waste water treatment I'm also aware that my toilet paper is not going to be of any significance to the environment once the water is done being treated.

Please, do continue to make more snarky responses. Although the substance in them does seem to be difficult to find at times, I rather enjoy the nature of this debate.


By WolfRamm on 5/12/2010 2:11:55 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, i stand corrected. By such blanket inaccurate statements, some people are willfully ignorant of the true realities.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/03-9

"...That a lot of people died because of what happened at Three Mile Island, as the Thompsons claim, is definitely not part of the official story. In fact, the commercial nuclear power industry and the government insist that despite the meltdown of almost half of the uranium fuel at TMI, there were only minimal releases of radiation to the environment that harmed no one... "

I would suggest you read it all in depth.

Where does our radioactive waste go? ..oh that's right, it sits on site, in swimming pools..waiting. New tech will make it all magically disappear, you say. Oh yes, just like this gulf diaster was never gonna happen because of the great new tech and saftey standards.

Please ..i can think of a few reasons why a person is telling us nuclear power is 100% reliable and cost effective.

shameful really.


I'll fix it
By VoodooChicken on 5/10/2010 12:32:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
BBC News adds that BP is also considering a method to block the blowout preventer with debris to stop the flow of oil. This method would have the company injecting shredded tires and golf balls into the pipe under extreme pressure in an attempt to block the oil in a manner similar to blocking up a toilet.


All I need is about six cheesy bean & rice burritos from Taco Bell, and a box of biscuits from KFC. I'll have that pipe clogged up by morning, and I'll remain on site for about three days for follow-up maintenance.




RE: I'll fix it
By Cullinaire on 5/10/2010 4:18:19 PM , Rating: 3
Trading one environmental disaster for another...BP has some tough decisions ahead.


RE: I'll fix it
By magreen on 5/10/2010 5:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
well played, sir.


BP don't own it.......
By Arathalus on 5/10/2010 12:46:38 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig is BP, a London-based company, and BP is trying everything it can think of to stem the flow of crude oil into the gulf.


The actual owners are Transocean, and they were the actual employers of the majority of the staff on the rig as well.

BP contracted the rig from Transocean at circa $500k per day.

Not a major point of note, but worth correcting.




RE: BP don't own it.......
By ThisSpaceForRent on 5/10/2010 7:18:08 PM , Rating: 3
Noticed the same thing when I read the article. The below CNN link states that Transocean is the owner as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/21/oil.rig.explosion...

Now watch as I get rated down for no reason! =)


the answer is clear:
By muhahaaha on 5/10/2010 1:46:19 PM , Rating: 5
jam the thing up with a million useless iPads




RE: the answer is clear:
By bodar on 5/10/2010 10:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
1M iPads x $500 = Are you trying to make Apple's quarter?


NUKE IT!
By funyun on 5/10/2010 5:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, drill a hole next to it, lower nuke, boom!, well collapses.

The Russians have done this, and it worked, but I don't think anyone in our government has the balls to suggest a nuke as a solution to anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpPNQoTlacU&feature...




RE: NUKE IT!
By tookablighty on 5/10/2010 7:47:53 PM , Rating: 5
The enviros would have a heart attack.

Wait...that'd be a double bonus!


Bruce Willis...
By Amiga500 on 5/10/2010 2:45:00 PM , Rating: 4
Would never have let this happen.

He can drill for oil on motherf**king moons ye know.

Even now, BP should hire him and he'd simply say "yippekayyay motherf**king leak" and drive a boat/car/helicopter* into the pipe and plug it.

*Note, since he is Bruce Willis, the mere presence of a mile deep bit of water is absolutely no obstacle to the use of any of the afore mentioned vehicles.




RE: Bruce Willis...
By Connoisseur on 5/10/2010 5:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
Bruce Willis also had a nuke on the asteroid. While i understand and appreciate the awesomeness of moth**f***ing nukes on a moth**f***ing asteroid, I feel that that wouldn't be an ideal solution to this current problem. Dropping a flaming 747 on that shiz tho... now there's an idea.


Underground Repricussions
By bubbastrangelove on 5/11/2010 10:08:22 AM , Rating: 1
Some quick and dirty math here: This oil leak is pouring out 5,000 barrels a day. Let's for simplicity purposes say a barrel of oil takes up four square feet of space. A tractor trailer storage container is approximately 400 square feet. That's approximately 5,000 tractor trailers worth of space being emptied underground every day. The leak started on April 20th. Tomorrow (Wednesday) will be three weeks. That's a total of 105,000 tractor trailers worth of space being vacated that is under enormous pressure. It's being estimated the leak is going to continue for up to three months.

So my question is when gravity decided to take over and fill this empty void what kind up earth shift does this cause up on the surface?




RE: Underground Repricussions
By porkpie on 5/11/2010 10:17:53 AM , Rating: 3
You're calculating in square feet, whereas volume units are cubic feet. A bbl is about 5.5 cubic feet.

As to what happens in the void, some of the displaced volume is taken up by expansion (some subterranean strata are compressible and/or contain compressible gases) whereas the rest is generally taken up by other fluids, such as seawater. There's not a gigantic empty vacuum down there...quite the opposite, in fact...the enormous pressure is coming from pressure of other fluids/solids/gases wanting to fill that space.


By bubbastrangelove on 5/11/2010 10:34:16 AM , Rating: 1
That actually makes perfect sense. The oil wouldn't be being pushed out at such a rate if there wasn't some sort of matter down there to push it out.


tell them to screw it
By tharik on 5/10/2010 12:57:01 PM , Rating: 3
just have them create a screw and screw it into the end of the pipe




Failure
By snikt on 5/10/2010 4:50:51 PM , Rating: 3
Since the robots failed, its time to send in the Droids...Droid does...




Property Values
By Mitch101 on 5/10/2010 12:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone tracking property values for homes on the gulf coast?




These guys
By icanhascpu on 5/10/2010 4:40:37 PM , Rating: 2
are so full of fail.




Environmentalists
By btc909 on 5/10/2010 6:10:45 PM , Rating: 2
If the Environmentalists had their way we would be living off the land, Vegetarians of course. Except for the Environmentalists of course, aka "The Elite Society".

If you only have an Elite Few living in a modern society then it's ok.

I still have to wonder what Obama game plan is, he still hasn't done anything regarding this continuing oil spill.

Rubber tires & golf balls, yep that'll do the trick.




They don't just tell the myths...
By MikeO on 5/11/2010 5:44:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
BP considers shredded tires and golf balls to stop oil spewing from well


This sounds like a well suited scenario for the Mythbusters, Discovery take note!




Damage not taken serious...
By DizzyMan on 5/11/2010 6:59:37 AM , Rating: 2
It's kinda sad that they do so little to clean up the ocean... they burn it, which is terribly pollutive, they throw chemicals in the water, that'll be good for the ocean, while companies in countries like the Netherlands are ready to quyickly and effectively clean up the oil from the ocean. But... BP can't make up their mind, the US government can't seem to do so either... let's just burn more....

Really... they are not taking this problem very serious...




How big's the leak?
By yacoub on 5/13/2010 11:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
Now they're saying it's possibly quite a bit more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14oil.html?hp
Potentially as much as one Exxon Valdez load every four days.




Hey
By room200 on 5/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hey
By jonmcc33 on 5/10/2010 12:56:32 PM , Rating: 4
The Deepwater Horizon drilling rig was built in Korea in 2001. It was owned by a Swiss company that leased it to a British company.

Get your facts straight.


RE: Hey
By room200 on 5/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hey
By twhittet on 5/10/2010 5:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
That makes it Bush's fault.


RE: Hey
By ImJustSaying on 5/10/10, Rating: 0
Worse then Katrina......
By sapiens74 on 5/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Worse then Katrina......
By Connoisseur on 5/10/2010 3:46:13 PM , Rating: 4
I could be wrong but i'd imagine that BP probably HAS the best engineers on point to fix this disaster. No offense to the military branches, but i'd imagine the smartest engineers would be in the private sector. The smartest engineers most knowledgeable about oceanic drilling? Guess what? They probably work for the oil companies and not the military/gov't.


RE: Worse then Katrina......
By zmatt on 5/10/2010 4:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
agreed, what would the military know about deep ocean drilling? It isn't their area of expertise. Not to mention it's a British company, so that would an international relations nightmare.


RE: Worse then Katrina......
By sapiens74 on 5/10/2010 5:20:48 PM , Rating: 1
UH

Civil engineers

And Military for being able to bring in the most heavy of equipment in a rapid response situation

Or let the cracker jacks at BP keep trying to place huge condoms on it, that's turning out well....


RE: Worse then Katrina......
By Dribble on 5/11/2010 11:03:05 AM , Rating: 2
Na, you just need to tell them the hole is Bin Laden's latest hiding place and they'll invade.
Several $Billon and a lot of smart missiles later that hole, and perhaps that section of ocean bed would be no more.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki