Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill Well Head Is On Fire Again!

Conspirator
Posts: 3207
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 6:20 am

PostWed Jun 23, 2010 5:35 am » by lamonema


svaha wrote:
godsofatlantis wrote:Might want to look at the New's article's being published about BP, and that are going around. Look's like a hate campaign is happening just purely focusing on BP itself. They are getting what they deserve but hating BP, and campaigning against them won't do anything. Action need's to happen first.

What you resist against persists.....

Just for your information, this oil spill is not the worst oil spill ever to have happened on earth. It is the worst oil spill in American history but not earth history.

All we need to worry about is stopping it, and cleaning it up. There are people on it, and we need to have patients.

We need to have enough trust in the system that they will clean it up. Making the government, and BP evil won't make thing's go away quicker.

Second of all I have seen the bullshit constantly posted on this forum putting fear amongst many people saying there are deadly gasses in the air, or deadly toxins that could kill many, or the it will rain oil, or acid rain.

The oil spill has happened for almost 70 days. And the death toll still stand at 11 people if not more. If the oil spill was spose to be deadly we would be seeing much more death's than that.

Second of all might I ask, why doesn't it rain salt water when it rains?????

Don't let anyone take advantage of the situation. The oil spill is bad yes, but not catastrophic.


Really?
One example, measurements of the air quality show high levels of toxic elements like benzene. People won't die immediately from this but surely there will be long term effects, just look at the fact sheets.

It does not rain salt water because the salt does not evaporate, toxins found here do.

Well said Svaha. :flop:

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 401
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:22 pm

PostWed Jun 23, 2010 5:43 am » by doommongerer


will69ease wrote:I've seen people weld on a keel under water, so I know fire can burn down there. However, in this case it's more likely an optical illusion.


If you know about welding,you know stic welder use electricity ,so it's not a flame but an electrical arc.
I dont mean to be rough,im just thinking theres a lot of disinfo going on. (involontary?)
ImageImageImageImage

Conspirator
Posts: 3207
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 6:20 am

PostWed Jun 23, 2010 5:55 am » by lamonema


doommongerer wrote:
will69ease wrote:I've seen people weld on a keel under water, so I know fire can burn down there. However, in this case it's more likely an optical illusion.


If you know about welding,you know stic welder use electricity ,so it's not a flame but an electrical arc.
I dont mean to be rough,im just thinking theres a lot of disinfo going on. (involontary?)

If the weldor does not touch the work piece in weld, no problem, and yes gas welding is used for under water apps, but mainly for light duty sheet and thin pipe and angle. Bronze does not work to well on high carbon steels, ER70 series rod does the trick. As long as the weldor does not complete the circit with the work peice all is fine. AC welding under water bad idea. :D

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 401
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:22 pm

PostWed Jun 23, 2010 6:02 am » by doommongerer


lamonema wrote:
doommongerer wrote:
will69ease wrote:I've seen people weld on a keel under water, so I know fire can burn down there. However, in this case it's more likely an optical illusion.


If you know about welding,you know stic welder use electricity ,so it's not a flame but an electrical arc.
I dont mean to be rough,im just thinking theres a lot of disinfo going on. (involontary?)

If the weldor does not touch the work piece in weld, no problem, and yes gas welding is used for under water apps, but mainly for light duty sheet and thin pipe and angle. Bronze does not work to well on high carbon steels, ER70 series rod does the trick. As long as the weldor does not complete the circit with the work peice all is fine. AC welding under water bad idea. :D


Next time,please say so at the start. :bang;
Do you play dumb whit us,or i just got you wrong? :think:
I guess you know a lot about fishes too? :headscratch:
ImageImageImageImage

Writer
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:45 pm

PostWed Jun 23, 2010 7:42 am » by Crawford2010


Not An oil Spill...

Its AN OIl Leak..

u dont pour a bucket of water on the floor and try and calculate how much has poured out while its still pouring....

OIL LEAK NOT OIL SPILL
If it was a oil Tanker you might have a n argument godsofatlantis but in this instance u are talking shite mate.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7889
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:19 pm

PostWed Jun 23, 2010 12:56 pm » by Harbin


They indeed are using dispersant at the well head.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/7005108.html

BP pins its hopes on two-pronged strategy
As it attempts to plug leak, feds OK more aggressive use of dispersants
By MONICA HATCHER
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
May 15, 2010, 8:52AM

BP worked on Friday to thread a mile-deep needle it hopes will help sew up a massive oil spill, and it received federal approval to inject chemical dispersants at the site of the leaking well in an attempt to dissolve the crude before it can rise and further threaten shorelines.

Those fighting the spill hope they can contain it with smaller volumes of dispersant chemicals by applying them directly into the plume of leaking oil, breaking it down at the source, rather than by spraying over the slick on the Gulf of Mexico's surface.

more at link

Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 2:45 pm

PostWed Jun 23, 2010 1:36 pm » by Bariblind


The orange colour is what happens when water and oil form an emulsion. My job is to sell demulsifiers (it's an industry word for emulsion breakers) to oil companies. I see that orange colour all the time. It does tell you a little something about the oil though. A light orange colour implies a lighe crude with a high wax content and not much ashpaltenes. This also might be contributing to the fact that the emulsion or "plume" as they are calling it sits at low depths.
It also almost gels with the idea that there are multiple zones being tapped or leaking because it would unusual to get tar balls from a light crude. But without physically holding a sample it's impossible to tell.


I can never understand why they are using a dispersant on it though. the dispersant causes the oil to sit an depths below the surface whereas if the didn't use dispersant the oil/emulsion would float to the surface more easily.

One idea we were tossing around the office was that it might be a good idea to develop some kind of catalyst or whatever that causes the oil to polymerise and glob together into a rubbery slab. That way if it washes ashore its just a hard lump they can cut up and drag away.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3131
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:10 pm
Location: Neutral Zone

PostWed Jun 23, 2010 1:46 pm » by Svaha


bariblind wrote:The orange colour is what happens when water and oil form an emulsion. My job is to sell demulsifiers (it's an industry word for emulsion breakers) to oil companies. I see that orange colour all the time. It does tell you a little something about the oil though. A light orange colour implies a lighe crude with a high wax content and not much ashpaltenes. The fact that the emulsion or "plume" as they are calling it sits at low depths.

I can never understand why they are using a dispersant on it though. the dispersant causes the oil to sit an depths below the surface whereas if the didn't use dispersant the oil/emulsion would float to the surface more easily.

One idea we were tossing around the office was that it might be a good idea to develop some kind of catalyst or whatever that causes the oil to polymerise and glob together into a rubbery slab. That way if it washes ashore its just a hard lump they can cut up and drag away.


Great idea, but what to do with the rubbery slabs?
If you don't think about that you won't sell your product because the oil companies would rather collect as much oil as possible.

I think they inject corexit because they can't collect all the oil and now a big part of it does not reach the shores, does not come to the surface, but remains on the bottom of the Gulf.
Just a guess of course.
Follow your bliss(ters) - Joseph Campbell

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 401
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:22 pm

PostWed Jun 23, 2010 1:52 pm » by doommongerer


Svaha,im quite shure that the mixture of dispersant and oil dont sink to the bottom but flot " in Between two waters"like we say in french.and is carried by underwater "streams"(not shure im using the correct word.) :headscratch:
ImageImageImageImage


Previous

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook