BP Oil Catastrophe

America's thirst for oil has come back to bite them. This is the price of oil, disatsters like this are part and parcel of the oil and gas industry.

BP oil rig disaster is big setback for Big Oil peoplesworld

What do you expect when you got 'foxes guarding the henhouse'???

We should have did what Russia recommended at the very start of the leak and that was drilling a another hole along side of the leaking one about 100 feet deep which would have taken less then a day to do, and put a small yield nuke in there, blowing the hole shut. Before you all scream about the eco fallout from that...what the hell do you think we have now? Personally I think all this oil everywhere is a much bigger problem then a small nuke radiation outcome would have been. By the way, Russia did that with one of theirs back in the 70's and it worked.

Oh well, we'll just let Obama handle this, he's doing a far greater job then Bush did handling the hurricane...

MountainPro said:

America's thirst for oil has come back to bite them. This is the price of oil, disatsters like this are part and parcel of the oil and gas industry.

A contrasting view point perhaps. Without fossil fuel most of us would not be here. Oil if what fueled man kinds greatest achievement. Modern agriculture. In 1900 it took 78 percent of the population to grow and distribute the food. Today it takes just 2 percent. Today the population is much higher, and growing much higher in the future, and food production is much higher. The United States leads the world in food exportation. Most everything we do is enabled by fuel and limited by material science. People die without energy and the ability to use it. They die because they lack shelter, food, pharmaceuticals processed from petrealum, transportation to get supplies to where they need to be, or power a military to keep us safe. All of this is based on energy. Have you noticed that the wealthy nations are cleaner because they have the resources/money to reduce pollution. They can afford smoke stack scrubbers, toilets, advanced sewer systems, water treatment plants, catalytic converters, etc. Our wealth and population have been made possible by fossil fuel. The incredible economical energy has given us much. So, what does that mean for the future. Let’s look back to the past. Man’s first energy. Fire from wood. When we discovered coal was it because we ran out of wood? No. Coal was better and ushered a more powerful and productive steam engine. When gasoline prevailed did we run out of coal? No. Gasoline ushered in the more powerful and better internal combustion engine. What is next will come through the free market and will replace oil when something better and economically advantageous to switch The BP oil spill is indeed a tradedy. But, balance that against the total good fossil fuels have provided man kind I think our path is clear. A glimpse into the future? Not from me, but the Navy sure did solve their propulsion problem.

I find it funny how so many Americans complain about our use of fossil fuels, yet the use of it continues to grow. And cyclists are not exempt from this hypocrisy, many bikes have as much if not more mileage on a vehicle-mounted bike rack than on the road. Then you got the cycling events, which I'm not bashing, but look at the amount of fossil fuel use to support them. Not to mention that the Giro is talking about starting in D.C. in 2012.

I want to see these concerned "eco-friendly" people stop whinning and start showing some action, otherwise shut up. I've been commuting by bike for over 20 years and I didn't know or see many other bike commuters and still to this day don't see or know many.

We need to all go back into caves and throw all fossil consuming stuff in a large pit. This would make the ECO people smile from ear to ear.

And Eco nuts, don't start lecturing about electric cars, they consume more energy per mile then a gasoline vehicle! It was the ECO nuts fault for this disaster anyways because they forced us to drill in deep areas because they didn't want drilling close to shore, except if this leak would have occurred on a drilling platform close to shore the leak would have been stopped within a week after starting, but due to the extreme depths the BP is forced to go to get the oil the technology to stop the leak is very limited and difficult to make work. So thanks to all the eco nuts who made this all possible. And thanks to Obama for rapidly handling the situation; don't forget, he's there to talk...and talk and talk and talk and 🙁

Not Sure said:

In order to minimize a ship's likelihood to detonate mines simply by passing near to them, the ship has to maintain as close to a neutral electric charge as possible.
...but the same principle holds true for any metal ship that may come in contact with any volatile substance SUCh AS, CRUDE OIL.

The mines you are referring to have sensitive magnetic fuses designed especially for the phenomenon. They are designed to be set off by the magnetic field.

Not Sure said:

find it difficlt to believe that the BP Oil Catastrophe hasn't been brought up yet.

I think there are many unconsidered consequences of the huge clouds of crude oil.

One issue that I think should be discussed is that of de-Gauss-ing ships.

Degaussing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As metal ships move through the ocean, they build massive static electricial charges.

It may also be true for aircraft but I don't know.

In order to minimize a ship's likelihood to detonate mines simply by passing near to them, the ship has to maintain as close to a neutral electric charge as possible.

The people on a ship that are charged w/ this duty are known, in the US Navy, as Snipes.

Before getting under way, a ship always has to be degaussed, hence the phrase, "If the snipes don't groove, the ship don't move."

As stated, the main purpose for degaussing in the US Military is to avoid unintended detonation of ordnance but the same principle holds true for any metal ship that may come in contact with any volatile substance SUCh AS, CRUDE OIL.

I wonder what is the likelihood that a ship passing through a massive pillow of crude oil could ignite the oil by discharge of static electric current, causing a fire.

If it did, the fire could grow and burn uncontrolabley for ... days, months, years(?)

A lightning strike or an a hole with a road flare could have the same effect.

Responding to the OP's question, no, a ship movong through the water will not cause the oil to start to burn. Crude oil spewing from the ocean floor in this case is emulsified by the time it reaches the surface and will not burn unless it is purified, i.e. the water is removed. Also crude oil takes more heat to burn than what might be generated by a ship's static electric "field" or even a flare. Lightning is definitely hot enough to be an ignition source, but lightning never strikes the water. An electrical storm at sea produces cloud to cloud lightning.

Also, as an 11 year veteran "Snipe" in the USN, I can tell you that Snipes do not degause the ship. There are cables installed in the ship that the Electricians energize that eliminates the magnetic field. Snipes are responsible for the propulsion systems, hence the rhyme "If the snipes don't groove, the ship don't move."

Not Sure said:

find it difficlt to believe that the BP Oil Catastrophe hasn't been brought up yet.

I think there are many unconsidered consequences of the huge clouds of crude oil.

One issue that I think should be discussed is that of de-Gauss-ing ships.

Degaussing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As metal ships move through the ocean, they build massive static electricial charges.

It may also be true for aircraft but I don't know.

In order to minimize a ship's likelihood to detonate mines simply by passing near to them, the ship has to maintain as close to a neutral electric charge as possible.

The people on a ship that are charged w/ this duty are known, in the US Navy, as Snipes.

Before getting under way, a ship always has to be degaussed, hence the phrase, "If the snipes don't groove, the ship don't move."

As stated, the main purpose for degaussing in the US Military is to avoid unintended detonation of ordnance but the same principle holds true for any metal ship that may come in contact with any volatile substance SUCh AS, CRUDE OIL.

I wonder what is the likelihood that a ship passing through a massive pillow of crude oil could ignite the oil by discharge of static electric current, causing a fire.

If it did, the fire could grow and burn uncontrolabley for ... days, months, years(?)

A lightning strike or an a hole with a road flare could have the same effect.

For a spark to set off the oil on the water, the oil wound have to be heated to its flashpoint. I would think that water would help prevent ignition due to the cooling effect it had on the crude.

It's a horrible and far reaching disaster nonetheless !! The worlds worst addiction is not any kind of drug, It's oil ! It has killed more people, started more conflicts, fueled more greed, caused more pollution both directly and indirectly, and hurt the environment more than any other substance. We can make things like Iphones with incredible computing power in the palm of our hands but yet we still are dependent on this dirty antiquated petroleum to produce a lot of our chemicals and fuel our transportation. It's high time the planet finds an alternative to this oil addiction.
It has done tremendous things to help build and fuel this nation and most others. We cant live without it obviously. Heck, I drive a car too and drink out of plastic bottles.
But, its the 21st century surely we can start developing other more modern, energy efficient, less environmentally damaging, and less politically volatile energy and chemical sources I would hope!

I am not sure what the answer to the worlds energy situation is but I am sure that oil won't burn, gasoline will not burn.
The vapors of these two substances will however burn.

jhuskey said:

I am not sure what the answer to the worlds energy situation is but I am sure that oil won't burn, gasoline will not burn.
The vapors of these two substances will however burn.

Huh? What's your point?

What's really interesting is that their now using microbes that will supposedly eat the oil...except these microbes kill all life, that's right fish etc, anywhere from 40 to 80 miles around. I wonder if a hurricane came in and picked up some of those microbes and deposited them inland what would happen?

Just stating a fact that might have a direct or indirect correlation to whether or not this mixture of crude,sea water and organic waste would ignite.
My guess would be no.

jhuskey said:

Just stating a fact that might have a direct or indirect correlation to whether or not this mixture of crude,sea water and organic waste would ignite.
My guess would be no.

your guess would be correct. But even if you and I are wrong and it did ignite...so what? It can't be any worse the what is already happening there!!! :eek:

Possibly not as bad as what is happening.

This sort of oil disaster is quite common place in less publicised regions such as *****ia and Angola, for example.

Royal Dutch Shell for example destroyed the Ogoni region of *****ia.
Campaigners against this destruction such as Ken Saro Wiwa paid with their lives for trying to stop this abuse.

Big oil doesn't give a **** about the health and safety of the environment.
If it did, the cost of a litre of oil would be vastly increased because the cost of sourcing the oil and protecting the environment would make it so.

Human race needs to ween itself away from the oil [censored].

*****ia--I'm not sure why that gets censored by the forum software--has experienced a spill on the order of the Exxon Valdez every year for the last, roughly, 50 years (from the NY Times). Because people and governments, in general, aren't concerned about Africa--except when it comes to extracting Africa's natural resources or exploiting people of the African continent--especially sub-Saharan Africa--for political gain, people don't hear of such disasters. It's pathetic that it takes oil washing up on American shores for Americans to even take notices of the risks involved with oil production and the fallout from our thirst for crude.

Sadly, instead of causing people to seriously consider and question the wisdom of continuing to rely so heavily on oil and Big Oil, too many instead use the current oil drama to push for more production in "safer" areas: on land; in shallow water; in protected areas.

We are on a dead-end path, and by "we", I mean the oil dependent world. The oil teat will dry up in roughly the next 50-100 years. Think about that. We've only been drinking oil with insatiable thirst since about 1850 (invention of oil distillation to produce Kerosene; first commercial wells drilled). Consider the amount of oil we've used and the damage we've done over that interval. Meanwhile, the US and a lot of other nations refuse, in practice, to commit to alternative sources of energy. In large swaths of the US, solar and wind energy are considered jokes, something that only "greenies" take seriously. Yeah.

When oil reserves get low enough that prices sky rocket and rationing is implemented, it'll be interesting to hear the bleating from those that thought alternative energy was too expensive or required too much commitment, the bleating about why money wasn't spent to insure that we'd be prepared for said end.

Head, meet Sand.

limerickman said:

Big oil doesn't give a **** about the health and safety of the environment.
If it did, the cost of a litre of oil would be vastly increased because the cost of sourcing the oil and protecting the environment would make it so.

exactly, oil companies are in the business of extrating fossil fuels from the earth to refine into petrol and sell it to us to burn in our cars, there is nothing WORSE for the envoriment than that. As an emplyee of an oil commapny myself (not BP) i do wrestle with my concience every day about that.

PS....

C'MON GERRRRMANNNYYY...

MountainPro said:

exactly, oil companies are in the business of extrating fossil fuels from the earth to refine into petrol and sell it to us to burn in our cars, there is nothing WORSE for the envoriment than that. As an emplyee of an oil commapny myself (not BP) i do wrestle with my concience every day about that.

You wrestle with your conscious every day? You hate big oil, you hate what they do to the environment, but obvious you don't hate the money you make. So money is more important then your self worth? I kill people for a living, I hate it, it's bad on families of the dead, and I see dead people wherever I go, but I do it for a living thus wrestle with it in my conscious...why would why I go on killing people unless the money was more important then lives...does that make sense to you? I don't really kill people for a living but if I did and it effected my conscious then I would quit, and if I worked in the oil industry and didn't agree with what they do and it bothered me then I would quit. Otherwords it doesn't really bother you, you just like to complain but leave your money alone.