Removing oil from the Gulf

[Genecks]

I was looking at a map on Wikipedia. From a satellite picture, is the oil spill noticeable?

 

picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Gulf_of_Mexico_oil_spill_May_17_cropped.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

[sciencesimon]

I am troubled also about the oil leak. When i look at the situation and the severity of it, i wonder about how intelligent we really are. The system of oil extraction could be designed safer.

 

Meeting consumer demands is a must do for the industry. In my opinion why cant supply be regulated to weather patterns and severity of weather conditions. If people are cold and the climate is cold and oil is a viable source of heat and survival, supply can be sold. So in hot weather waste occurs if people use oil when the weather is hot and no survival danger is evident. A cause for electricity and eco energy to clear the sense of doom for a cleaner future. restricting supply in good weather with an energy supply broadcast system. More intelligently designed extraction systems and supply to consumer. Incentives to change home appliances.

[Genecks]

As a note, I wasn't asking a rhetorical question. Is that white smear in the ocean the oil spill? I'm not sure what I'm seeing in the picture.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think the black smear would be the oil, and the white smear smoke. But then again, I really have no idea.

[Genecks]

I'm starting to think that nuking this thing will be the next best alternative. It's a little unorthodox, but I think it's starting to become appropriate. If this can't be solved in a month, I think using a nuclear device to seal the release would be a good idea.

[Double K]

I'm sure this is more complicated than I am about to make it sound, however wouldn't the real problem be pressure difference?

 

The reason it's bleeding out at an unstoppable rate is it's basically a high pressure leaking to a lower pressure zone. If they can find some way to make an equilibrium between the two pressures the flow would stop, or at least slow it down...

 

Currently all they seem to be trying is to block it off, or siphon neither of which seem incredibly intelligent.

[rigney]

Many of you may be too young to remember the Exxon Valdez, a mega-tanker that went aground off Alaska in 1989 because, "supposidly" the Captain had a few too many, lost control and "zap", millions of gallons of oil into the drink. The huge difference here is, where as the Valdez had a specific lade, nature may be almost unlimited in what she wants to push up from the sea bed until it is stopped. Even at a mile down the well will "eventually" be capped, but at what expense? I don't want to see Brit.Petro. put out of business, but the two incidents are similar and aught to make the case for better "engineering and mind control". This is not natures Katrina, but both the Exxon Valdez and this boondoggle are man made catatstrophes. Lives lost in the disaster and the habitat destruction has to make one sick at their stomach. Then there is the folks who look at this coast as their only sustenance. What now?

Edited June 1, 2010 by rigney

[King, North TX]

Alright...so any thoughts on how to stop the flow?

 

---

 

Here's the notion I'm sending BP:

 

"Place concrete forms around the leak (50 ft in each direction). Sink anchors every 10 square feet, at least 50 feet deep with lots of heavy rebar crisscrossing the bed. The forms should be no less than 20 feet high. Then start pouring in a quick set cement, from the outside in..."

 

Any engineers wanna poke some holes in this solution?

[insane_alien]

Alright...so any thoughts on how to stop the flow?

 

---

 

Here's the notion I'm sending BP:

 

"Place concrete forms around the leak (50 ft in each direction). Sink anchors every 10 square feet, at least 50 feet deep with lots of heavy rebar crisscrossing the bed. The forms should be no less than 20 feet high. Then start pouring in a quick set cement, from the outside in..."

 

Any engineers wanna poke some holes in this solution?

 

5000ft of water tends to bring up a few issues with pouring concrete.

[King, North TX]

5000ft of water tends to bring up a few issues with pouring concrete.

 

Not as much as you might think, with a super think quick set.

 

*I'd also like to place 'funnels' within the pour itself, to help guild the flow to a singular spigot, where a new cut off valve is mounted to be employed once the concrete is set.

[King, North TX]

Seriously, I could have the leak totally stopped in 5-10 days.

 

Who should I submit my engineering plans to?

[iNow]

Seriously, I could have the leak totally stopped in 5-10 days.

 

Who should I submit my engineering plans to?

 

 

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/techsolution.html

Since the BP oil spill in the Gulf, EPA has received numerous suggestions regarding possible technology solutions for the oil spill response efforts. As a result, EPA has developed the voluntary submittal process described below to allow for faster review of the suggestions being offered and to provide guidance regarding what information would be most useful to the reviewing officials.

[Genecks]

I mean, I could have suggested we use robots in the first place. What I was worried about was the level of visibility with so much oil being spewed out. I wasn't sure you could operate a robot to fix this issue with little to zero visibility. With the way this ordeal has been approached, I have a feeling that NASA engineers could have handled this better.

[mooeypoo]

A friend of mine sent me this video with what appears to be a *REALLY* simple way of getting oil out of the water. I am not sure how well this will work with underwater plumes or some of the more complicated problems with this oil leak, but for the floating stuff - and maybe for the marshes and the oil that goes into the wetlands - it can be a viable solution? Looks like it could work, and hell, if it does, it's probably the simplest solution ever.

 

http://www.wimp.com/solutionoil/

 

What do you guys think?

[CharonY]

I did not have sound but based on the video I do not think that this will work. First, hay absorbs water as readily as oil, so only a fraction of the overall capacity if the hay will actually absorb oil. I would need to crunch some numbers but I am pretty sure that the amount of hay needed would be enormous.

[JohnB]

They make the point in the video that the hay doesn't actually absorb the oil, rather it gets coated with the oil. This means effectiveness would be a function of surface area as opposed to volume.

 

That might bring the requirements down a bit.

 

It's certainly an interesting idea.

[StringJunky]

I did not have sound but based on the video I do not think that this will work. First, hay absorbs water as readily as oil, so only a fraction of the overall capacity if the hay will actually absorb oil. I would need to crunch some numbers but I am pretty sure that the amount of hay needed would be enormous.

 

There's a company that is looking to increase straw's effectiveness in helping to solve this problem by impregnating it with oil munching micro-organisms.

 

"We are in the process of partnering with select chemical companies to impregnate our hay and straw with oil-eating bacteria and microorganisms to speed up the process of breaking down and removing as much oil as possible from these affected coastal waters".

 

http://oilhay.com/

 

I don't know if hay is the same as straw but straw has aglaecidal properties (it's used for reducing algae blooms in lakes and ponds) so it's effectiveness might be negated a bit if straw is used.

Edited June 10, 2010 by StringJunky

[King, North TX]

A friend of mine sent me this video with what appears to be a *REALLY* simple way of getting oil out of the water. I am not sure how well this will work with underwater plumes or some of the more complicated problems with this oil leak, but for the floating stuff - and maybe for the marshes and the oil that goes into the wetlands - it can be a viable solution? Looks like it could work, and hell, if it does, it's probably the simplest solution ever.

 

http://www.wimp.com/solutionoil/

 

What do you guys think?

 

Well, preliminary tests 'look' positive. Now they just have to multiple that by a trillion or 2, and they could make a dent in what's out there.

[mooeypoo]

Well, preliminary tests 'look' positive. Now they just have to multiple that by a trillion or 2, and they could make a dent in what's out there.

This can actually be best for the marshes and large areas of wetlands instead of the full blown leak in the ocean. It might not be good enough to collect millions of gallons in an open water, but it seems like it can collect - or at least stop - oil in marshes and wetlands and prevent more damage to plants and fish there.

[King, North TX]

This can actually be best for the marshes and large areas of wetlands instead of the full blown leak in the ocean. It might not be good enough to collect millions of gallons in an open water, but it seems like it can collect - or at least stop - oil in marshes and wetlands and prevent more damage to plants and fish there.

 

AGREED.

 

Personally, I think we should have planes dropping hay over the Gulf right now. That said, employing such a tactic to sop up even half the oil present in the Gulf would DRASTICALLY increase the cost of livestock feed in the southwest. So much so, that you'd see a dramatic difference at the market the next time you needed a steak.

 

The guy employed a handful of hay to sop up a few ounces of burnt oil. I wish they'd have done the video with actual crude, and used a gallon of it...

 

How much hay would it actually take to remove a gallon of oil?

 

We don't know.

 

There are lots of waste products that attract oil, hair being one of them, human or animal. We're are tossing that stuff out like so much garbage. I'd rather utilize that rather than valuable feed stock.

 

I'd like to see more testing.

[Zolar V]

You know looking at this from another perspective, isn't it interesting to see the Internets roll in solving this problem? just watching the "shock-wave" as the data that the spill occurred to the present has gone through the internet.

[Narroo]

I have a solution to clean up the oil spill. Many news sources are claiming that we don’t know how to clean up the oil. But I know how. The method is very simple. However, will take a lot of cooperation from people in the current administration to help speed up the process… Here is the proposed method(s): You would fill up a pillow case full of hair. Animal Hair, and or Human hair, donated from haircuts from salons for example. The pillow cases would be dropped over the oil spill and immediately start absorbing the oil. However, it would take a lot of pillow’s full of hair for it to be effective considering the quantity of oil filling up the gulf. If everyone takes part in this we can solve the crisis. I believe we need to take this solution seriously as it is a viable solution.

That's a bit more clever then the other solution I heard: Lighting it on fire.

Heck, is the crude oil even flammable? If you could light it on fire, I'd hate to think what would happen....

[Pangloss]

There've been a number of "burn-offs" on the current oil spill. I don't know why that was stopped, but I think it was of only limited success. I don't suppose it does much good when the oil is UNDER the surface, either.

[Mr Skeptic]

The burnt residue is harder for the ecosystem to deal with.

[jackson33]

The U.S. Government has apparently reconsidered a Dutch offer to supply 4 oil skimmers. These are large arms that are attached to oil tankers that pump oil and water from the surface of the ocean into the tanker. Water pumped into the tanker will settle to the bottom of the tanker and is then pumped back into the ocean to make room for more oil. Each system will collect 5,000 tons of oil each day.

 

One ton of oil is about 7.3 barrels. 5,000 tons per day is 36,500 barrels per day. 4 skimmers have a capacity of 146,000 barrels per day. That is much greater than the high end estimate of the leak. The skimmers work best in calm water, which is the usual condition this time of year in the gulf. [/Quote]

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner~y2010m6d12-US-reconsiders-Dutch-offer-to-supply-oil-skimmers

 

While all oil is not going to go straight to the surface, any that has could have been being skimmed all along or at least with in days.

 

 

The burnt residue is harder for the ecosystem to deal with. [/Quote]

 

Skeptic, I know that was the said reason, but it doesn't add up, if the current system was approved. Whether the fuel comes from deeper depths (current process), or at the surface (burn off), each gallon is going to convert to 20 pounds CO2 per gallon of fuel burned. I think it might be cost efficiency or the fact skimming made much more sense. Remember actual leakage originally was thought to much less and as the figures grew, burn off became a less practical solution.

 

Thread;

On this issue, there was an intense "inspection report" written apparently 10 days before the explosion which the Government has refused to release. I sure hope it's not altered as was the 'Experts' report on the moratorium. Another baffling thing learned today, was those killed on site (11), were NOT BP employees (Hayward Quote), however I can't find any information of those injured or on the platform.

 

Since this seems to be the thread on this issue, I have learned the Rig itself was owned by, Transocean and built in South Korea 2001 and registered on one of the Marshall Islands, with an interesting history.

 

 

Deepwater Horizon was an ultra-deepwater, dynamically positioned, semi-submersible offshore drilling rig. Built in 2001 in South Korea, it was owned by Transocean, registered in Majuro, Marshall Islands, and leased to BP plc until 2013.[7] [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon

 

 

Rigs covered by the moratorium are leaving, could all leave and getting them back will not be easy, maybe impossible.

"Already, three rigs have left or are in the process of leaving the Gulf of Mexico," Chett Chiasson, executive director of the port commission for the town of Port Fourchon, which services 90 percent of deepwater activity in the Gulf, told AFP.

 

"If this moratorium goes for six months, these rig operators and these oil companies will have no choice but to go somewhere else," with a devastating impact on jobs and the economy of Louisiana and the rest of the United States, said Chiasson.[/Quote]

 

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/oil-rigs-leaving-gulf-of-mexico-over-drill-ban

 

Insurance rates are skyrocketing and already anything connected to US Federal Actions are finding borrowing rates impossible, if even available.

Insurance Rates up 50% for Oil Companies [/Quote]

 

Read more: http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/06/insurance-rates-offshore-drilling-oil-spill-bp/#ixzz0r9IzL5Lk

 

All this will eventually cost the Taxpayer, as more and more crude or the products (Gasoline/Heating Oil/Diesel) are imported.