I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws. BP tells the EPA f*ck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant. I kinda like that. Is this how the revolution starts? :-) Government is out of control! The power is with the people. Mike
The EPA are probably right. The dispersants and the resulting oil emulsion do at least as much damage to the environment as the crude oil would - probably more. It just makes it look a bit better on the surface.
So get out there and start cleaning up the coastline by hand then.
You thought you could have cowboy operators like Transocean drill for oil without a care in the world and with their "fail safe" blow out preventers compromised. They all blame each other now, but even though in US law BP is ultimately responsible it seems to me their error was to employ irresponsible cowboy drill rig operators.
Keep pumping at all costs is the mantra. Until it all goes pear shaped and then they point at each other and say "it's their fault".
Regards, Martin Brown
I think the idea is to break up the oil and allow bacteria to consume it. The smaller drops have a higher surface area to volume ratio, so the bugs can eat it faster.
I wonder if anyone has developed a dispersible oil eating bacteria safe for use in the open ocean. They used something like this in a local park that used to be a fuel depot. When they discovered an oil plume from an old tank, they stirred some genetically engineered(?)* bugs into the ground and let it sit for a year or so.
*Or not so engineered. As anyone who owns a boat knows, stuff grows quite well in diesel tanks.-- Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
on laws.
e.
Except British Petroleum doesn't *have* anything better. That's why they said 'no'.
Yep.
Already there, on site. The Gulf gobbles oil naturally, about
5,000bbl / day, just not all gushing from one hole.Bacteria love it. After all, hydrocarbon + O2 is pretty close to carbohydrate, yes?
-- Cheers, James Arthur
It could be, but it won't be. The sheeple will return the Obama worshippers to Congress, and we'll all be scrod ;-) ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
laws.
Here, the President is blaming BP, and the people are buying it. I'm looking at news photos of people marching with "Seize BP" signs, and signs that say
"BP profits [obscured] The planet [obscured] People pay [obscured]"
Curiously, the signs are professionally printed.
Sounds like a White House event.
(Ahh, as I type I'm listening to Mr. Obama, describing how "we"--he and BP--are trying to topkill the well.)
(Update: he won't rest until it's done. Except he's going on vacation, his 2nd since the crisis started.)
-- Cheers, James Arthur
It would be wonderful if it could grow underground too.
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
-- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
PH > I wonder if anyone has developed a PH > dispersible oil eating bacteria safe PH > for use in the open ocean.
JA > Already there, on site. The Gulf gobbles JA > oil naturally, about 5,000bbl / day, just JA > not all gushing from one hole. JA >
JA > Bacteria love it. After all, hydrocarbon + O2 JA > is pretty close to carbohydrate, yes?
When these bacteria/enzymes break down oil, what compounds result?
SP > It would be wonderful if it could grow underground too.
What would that bacteria do if it got into a pocket of oil we should be pumping to use?
What would that bacteria do if it got into groundwater and into a human gut?
Can that bacteria go after oils in living animal/human tissue?
The biggest mistake was letting British petroleum call the shots. they ignored obvious damage to the equipment and made a lot of wrong choices prior to the blowout. Their record in the US is criminal.
-- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
Yeah, things will run much better, now, with Lord Obama calling the shots. For over a month everyone has been waiting for the Messiah's instructions. ...and so spaketh Obama from Mt. Washington, "Plug the damned hole!". Now they have them.
Bankrolling Obama's presidency is criminal? Tsk, tsk.
Glad to know you live in a cave hunt and forage for food. Mike
laws.
One of Obama's ankle biters was on TV yesterday saying, ?Keeping the boot on the neck? of those trying to clean up the mess. Sounds like their Nazi training is showing.
-- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
In 2046 nanoscale self-replicating robots were dispersed in the Gulf of Mexico to clean up an oil spill. Unfortunately a subtle programming error caused their consumption target to be changed from "hydrocarbons" to "all carbon based substances", and within a week the world was turned to dust. :(
That's called the "grey goo" scenario.
More recent analysis has shown that the danger of grey goo is far less likely than originally thought.[8] However, other long-term major risks to society and the environment from nanotechnology have been identified.[9] Drexler has made a somewhat public effort to retract his grey goo hypothesis, in an effort to focus the debate on more realistic threats associated with knowledge-enabled nanoterrorism and other misuses.
Nanoterrorism? O_o
Go back to FDR when he stole our gold, etc or when we got taxes despite the FACT the proposal was not ratified or that we were LIED to concerning Social Security (that it was insurance) or ...
They are trying the heavyweight clay trick to staunch the flow at the moment.
Using dispersants is an example of being seen to be doing something. Confining it behind booms and torch it is one possible solution the thick black oily smoke might be bad but it is the least worst option.
As does all the sea life that mistakes the oil droplets for food particles. It will wreck the seafood industry there for decades.
Only if your name is Immanuel Velikovsky or a right wing nitwit. It contains the same elements but in a completely different configuration. It is much closer to plant fats and oils (surprise surprise) but with various noxious components that affect higher life forms.
Yes some bacteria can metabolise oil and it is faster with larger surface area, but so is diffusion of the light fraction into seawater.
Regards, Martin Brown
On a sunny day (Wed, 26 May 2010 14:12:19 -0500) it happened "amdx" wrote in :
Yea, Omama is planning visiting after the hole gets plugged, so at least it looks like he had some influence.
ration laws.
il
ace.
No, you're wrong. The President clearly explained today that BP are idiots, and we--he and his team--have, 38 days in, finally got fed up and decided to fix it themselves. The President also explained that he's been on it from day one, with 20,000 people in the Gulf.
He's the only one doing anything, and he's frustrated with BP. It'll make a great YouTube, if anyone bothers.
The dispersant is, the PBS expert said, soap. The environmentalist guy said it was a solvent. "No," said the expert guy, "that was 40 years ago. We don't use that any more. That's not what they're doing."
It helps a lot, said he. It breaks up the oil, and even the worst happens--when the oil fouls wildlife and coastline--makes it less tenacious, less damaging, and easier to clean off.
They've been burning every drop they can, every chance they get. Anything to prevent it reaching shore--that's super old news. I guess you guys aren't getting the full scoop.
he
Which?
It certainly will. The Louisiana Gov. wants to dredge berms to protect the wetlands. His request has been pending more than two weeks with the President, who's been busy attending fundraisers. Still not approved. Now it's probably too late.
(Wetlands among the most productive and diverse of all habitats.)
eWhen I was at the university, my biology book said that airplane gas tanks were structurally attacked by a bacteria that had evolved to thrive on the combination of jet fuel and aluminum. Further, it said fuel additives had had to be developed to suppress said right-wing bacteria.
But just now, I was simply repeating what a BP guy said on PBS' The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Environmentalists have been alarmed that those non-existent right-wing bacteria are depleting the oxygen levels in the seawater, suffocating marine life.
That's the idea of a dispersant, isn't it? To break up the oil and mix it into the sea?
Look, it's all bad. It's a disaster. The Prez will seize BP and make everyone feel better.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
laws.
That will not help. Even the oilmen who are used to working under high pressure must be finding the global publicity extremely fierce.
That puts the "PBS expert" opinion into question immediately. It is not by any normal chemical definition soap - soaps are alkaline salts of fatty acids (traditionally by reacting caustic lye and animal fat).
Dispersants are typically surfactants in the sulphonated olefin class like very strong aggressive versions of washing up liquid detergent in a solvent. See for example the MSDS of the Nalco Corexit muck they are using at present. And it seems to have been chosen on grounds of bulk availability rather the suitability for the task.
The toxic component of the common weedkiller based on glyphosate is not the active ingredient but the surfactant to wet out the leaves.
If they were using something slightly more benign like Dispersit then I would not have a problem.
But the stuff they are using is not particularly benign.
There is a solvent typically about 10-30% by weight of the formulation. Don't take my word for it check the MSDS - they are not allowed to lie about the ingredients on those. The PR spun version is laughable.
Possibly it helps a bit for seabirds, but it does the larger marine organisms no good at all.
They didn't have any of the right kit in the area at first. And as I recall the sea state was initially too rough to do it anyway.
Anything that is a filter feeder initially and then later everything in the food chain that depends on them.
Sacrificial berms and booms might keep some of it out provided the sea state isn't too rough.
Of course there are bacteria that are adapted to just about every environment, but crude oil is a much tougher proposition for them than refined kerosene.
It seems BP have also lied about the extent of the oil leak. Independent experts are putting it at more like 30,000 barrels a day and some give a figure nearly 3x higher still. Either way it is now the largest US oil spill in history. Perhaps in future oil rig inspections will be just a little bit more thorough.
Regards, Martin Brown
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.