Mother of all gushers could kill Earth's oceans?

**Beowulf** · 05-03-2010, 05:49 PM

A disclaimer...I do not necessarily agree with the link. I am not an expert on this matter. I just thought I would post it. Have a nice day.

Mother of all gushers could kill Earth's oceans

kokonut · 05-03-2010, 05:50 PM

In short?

No.

**Beowulf** · 05-03-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

In short?

No.

I'm aware that you are better educated in this matter than I am, and I respect that. I know my post sounds like fear mongering, so we better nip it in the bud. What say you? Can you point out its errors? I am curious and willing to learn.

kokonut · 05-03-2010, 06:14 PM

The salty ocean itself naturally breaks down the oil, albeit even though this a single source of oil release in large amounts over time. The ocean bottom of the Gulf of Mexico releases 100,000 to 400,000 barrels of oil a year naturally. In this case, you won't have repercussions worldwide in terms of ecological disaster. It'd be much more limited. Just possibly at the local or regional level. Then you have hurricanes that can serve to break up the oil even faster. Now, oil on the beach, in the estuaries, etc is a different matter. Then you have the ocean's circulation to think about, too.

chucky69 · 05-03-2010, 06:23 PM

Heard those false alarms before!

-charles

**Beowulf** · 05-03-2010, 07:49 PM

A helluva lot of oil being gushed. No false alarm. It is happening.

chucky69 · 05-05-2010, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

A helluva lot of oil being gushed. No false alarm. It is happening.

What I was getting at;

There are some people who scream - "The sky is falling"!, when it really isn't!

comprende amigo?

-charles

kokonut · 05-05-2010, 04:13 PM

Here's a map of the current spill.

Deepwater Horizon Incident, Gulf of Mexico | Recent and Historical Incidents | Emergency Response | NOAA's National Ocean Service Office of Response and Restoration

**Jiro** · 05-05-2010, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

The salty ocean itself naturally breaks down the oil, albeit even though this a single source of oil release in large amounts over time. The ocean bottom of the Gulf of Mexico releases 100,000 to 400,000 barrels of oil a year naturally. In this case, you won't have repercussions worldwide in terms of ecological disaster. It'd be much more limited. Just possibly at the local or regional level. Then you have hurricanes that can serve to break up the oil even faster. Now, oil on the beach, in the estuaries, etc is a different matter. Then you have the ocean's circulation to think about, too.

that's only on controlled situation. In this case - it's an uncontrolled disaster. As you said - under controlled situation, it leaks 100,000 to 400,000 barrels a year and salty ocean will naturally breaks it down. and blah blah blah.

Right now - it's gushing about 60,000+ barrels a day and it's been about 2 weeks now. That's about 840,000 barrels total of oil in 2 weeks and going.

so a repercussion worldwide in terms of ecological disaster? much more limited? possibly at a local or regional level?

well there's Gulf Stream circulating now and that complicates the matter since many fish & mammals passes thru it. the damage to Gulf coastline may or may not be repairable depending on how long this oil spill will continue. Don't forget - the wildlife damage is still there since Exxon-Valdez accident even for 21 years. but this damage is worse than Exxon-Valdez. It will be felt for decades. I only pray that the damage is minimal but what's for sure is that the repercussion will be felt for a long time.

Elliotts Dad · 05-06-2010, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

that's only on controlled situation. In this case - it's an uncontrolled disaster. As you said - under controlled situation, it leaks 100,000 to 400,000 barrels a year and salty ocean will naturally breaks it down. and blah blah blah.

Right now - it's gushing about 60,000+ barrels a day and it's been about 2 weeks now. That's about 840,000 barrels total of oil in 2 weeks and going.

so a repercussion worldwide in terms of ecological disaster? much more limited? possibly at a local or regional level?

well there's Gulf Stream circulating now and that complicates the matter since many fish & mammals passes thru it. the damage to Gulf coastline may or may not be repairable depending on how long this oil spill will continue. Don't forget - the wildlife damage is still there since Exxon-Valdez accident even for 21 years. but this damage is worse than Exxon-Valdez. It will be felt for decades. I only pray that the damage is minimal but what's for sure is that the repercussion will be felt for a long time.

The biggest number Ive read is 5000 barrels a day.

One of the biggest spills in history also happened in the Gulf of Mexico (Ixtoc I) and released ~25000 barrels a day for about 9 months before it was stopped and the Gulf seemed to recover from that okay.

kokonut · 05-06-2010, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elliotts Dad

The biggest number Ive read is 5000 barrels a day.

One of the biggest spills in history also happened in the Gulf of Mexico (Ixtoc I) and released ~25000 barrels a day for about 9 months before it was stopped and the Gulf seemed to recover from that okay.

Yeah, I mentioned that one in another spill thread here. It was the 2nd largest oil spill that took place in 1979.

Quote:

The IXTOC I well continued to spill oil at a rate of 10,000 - 30,000 barrels per day until it was finally capped on March 23, 1980.

(about 8 months later).
IncidentNews: IXTOC I

It was 600 miles south of Texas where it later impacted that state and Arkasas but not much as you think.

Quote:

Prevailing northerly currents in the western Gulf of Mexico carried spilled oil toward the U.S. A 60-mile by 70-mile patch of sheen containing a 300 foot by 500 foot patch of heavy crude moved toward the Texas coast. On August 6, 1979,tarballs from the spill impacted a 17 mile stretch of Texas beach. Mousse patches impacted the shoreline north of Port Mansfield Channel on August 15 and again on August 18. On August 24, mousse impacted shoreline south of Aransas Pass. By August 26, most of North Padre Island was covered with moderate amounts of oil.

As of September 1, all of the south Texas coast had been impacted by oil. A storm lasting from September 13-15 removed the majority of the oil. For the remainder of the response and subsequent study period (through August 1980) only tarmats were observed on the beaches. Some oil escaped around boom barriers protecting the three major inlets. During the September storm, there was washing of oil over the Barrier Islands. Impacts to the estuaries were minor.

IncidentNews: IXTOC I

It was 2 miles down in the water. That's a long way to go to cap it and certainly would've taken a lot time. Our current spill is leaking from 5,000 feet below, just shy of 1 mile.

The current spill is 50 miles from land but the Ixtoc was 600 miles away, enough time for the salty ocean to do it's magic and reduce the overall impact on land (and having a topical storm or hurricane helps, too). This current spill is much closer so we'll see more of the oil mousse or slick than tar balls.

Despite all that, it doesn't mean we should stop drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico or anywhere else. We should learn from this and mitigate the risk even further the next time. Meanwhile, the Bakken oil shale will help take up the slack and it continues to expand in North Dakota.

**Beowulf** · 06-10-2010, 05:59 PM

Bumping this.
It is looking more and more like an extinction event after all.

Elliotts Dad · 06-19-2010, 07:20 PM

lol, its funny how a month and a fresh perspective changes things.....

extinction is a little dramatic tho I think.

**Beowulf** · 06-19-2010, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elliotts Dad

lol, its funny how a month and a fresh perspective changes things.....

extinction is a little dramatic tho I think.

Nawwww, extinction is not only possible but highly likely. It is funny how people continue playing it down, but I remain true to myself and insist on using words like blunt instruments. Har de har.

souggy · 06-19-2010, 07:33 PM

Wirelessly posted

The Russians' solution is starting to look more appealing everyday...

**Beowulf** · 06-19-2010, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

Wirelessly posted

The Russians' solution is starting to look more appealing everyday...

Steinhauer · 06-19-2010, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

Wirelessly posted

The Russians' solution is starting to look more appealing everyday...

Try looking at Kevin Costner's solution. BP did, and they bought 20 of his machines.

**sallylou** · 06-19-2010, 07:46 PM

Interesting. . . There's a link to another article here:

C'mon, how big is the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, really? - CSMonitor.com

Apparently, the rate and capture depend on how long the pipes hold up.

**Beowulf** · 06-19-2010, 08:04 PM

Would you believe anything BP tells you, sallylou? They have told so many absurd lies that they are hopelessly entangled in them.

Steinhauer · 06-19-2010, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

Would you believe anything BP tells you, sallylou? They have told so many absurd lies that they are hopelessly entangled in them.

Well .... not speaking for sallylou, but ..... BP did not make references to lucefarians ....

**sallylou** · 06-19-2010, 08:11 PM

Beowulf, that was from a government report. Not that I trust the government any more than I trust BP.

**Beowulf** · 06-19-2010, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sallylou

Beowulf, that was from a government report. Not that I trust the government any more than I trust BP.

That's certainly understandable.

Thank goodness for the internet, eh?

kokonut · 08-02-2010, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

The salty ocean itself naturally breaks down the oil, albeit even though this a single source of oil release in large amounts over time. The ocean bottom of the Gulf of Mexico releases 100,000 to 400,000 barrels of oil a year naturally. In this case, you won't have repercussions worldwide in terms of ecological disaster. It'd be much more limited. Just possibly at the local or regional level. Then you have hurricanes that can serve to break up the oil even faster. Now, oil on the beach, in the estuaries, etc is a different matter. Then you have the ocean's circulation to think about, too.

And from today's article on what's left of the oil in the ocean.

Quote:

The sea's warm surface and oil-munching bacteria have dissipated the slick to such an extent that a planeload of journalists had to fly for an hour before their pilot could find a patch of oil. His relief, according to one reporter on board, was comparable to the anxious captain of a tourist boat spotting a distant pod of dolphins.

It turns out that the playful sea mammals, like other creatures, suffered much less damage than was forecast. A grand total of three dead dolphins covered in oil have been recovered by wildlife rescue teams. The spill has so far killed less than one per cent of the number of birds claimed by the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska in 1989.

With the gush plugged for the past two weeks, experts are beginning to question whether the BP spill can really be called an environmental disaster at all.

BP's evaporating oil slick leaves America without a villain - Telegraph

**Jiro** · 08-02-2010, 12:34 AM

the damage is still unknown. short-term - it looks ok. long-term? probably will show at later date.

let's not forget - the environment damaged by Exxon-Valdez oil spill is still seriously damaged.... since 1989.

***VamPyroX*** · 08-03-2010, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

the damage is still unknown. short-term - it looks ok. long-term? probably will show at later date.

let's not forget - the environment damaged by Exxon-Valdez oil spill is still seriously damaged.... since 1989.

Yeah, and add on the recent spill... could take two lifetimes before it's done. Unless, someone else spills oil within the next 20 years!

**sequoias** · 08-03-2010, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

the damage is still unknown. short-term - it looks ok. long-term? probably will show at later date.

let's not forget - the environment damaged by Exxon-Valdez oil spill is still seriously damaged.... since 1989.

Yes, damage from the oil spill will not go away for a long time. The coasts gets the most of the damage.

**Beowulf** · 08-03-2010, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

And from today's article on what's left of the oil in the ocean.

BP's evaporating oil slick leaves America without a villain - Telegraph

The very first sentence in the link began "Nature's taking its course, aided by a naval-sized flotilla of skimming boats and some powerful chemical disperants." I read no further. They no doubt think that Corexit is a God-given gift.

Do some research, folk. It ain't over by a long shot.

kokonut · 08-03-2010, 11:30 AM

It didn't say it was over. It said it was hard to find the slick out on the ocean.

The most prominent places to see the muddy brown oil slick are along the coastline, on the coast and in the estuaries. It'll be a while til it all breaks down naturally through weathering. These will be the most visible impacted areas. I suspect it'll be 3 or 4 years til fishing, shell and crab catching can resume in the impacted area of the ocean. Coastline and estuary are a different matter.

The Exxon Valdez's oil was the processed thick black oil that is still present today under the rocks and up to several inches below the surface along the impacted coast of Alaska. Just lift a rock and you can see some oil under it. Other than life has resumed in the waters off of Alaska.

**Beowulf** · 08-03-2010, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

It didn't say it was over. It said it was hard to find the slick out on the ocean.

The most prominent places to see the muddy brown oil slick are along the coastline, on the coast and in the estuaries. It'll be a while til it all breaks down naturally through weathering. These will be the most visible impacted areas. I suspect it'll be 3 or 4 years til fishing, shell and crab catching can resume in the impacted area of the ocean. Coastline and estuary are a different matter.

The Exxon Valdez's oil was the processed thick black oil that is still present today under the rocks and up to several inches below the surface along the impacted coast of Alaska. Just lift a rock and you can see some oil under it. Other than life has resumed in the waters off of Alaska.

Of COURSE it is hard. The oil was pushed underwater. They make it sound like it was no disaster after all, yay. Gimme a break.

kokonut · 08-03-2010, 12:48 PM

Oil is biodegradable. It breaks down naturally both in the water and on the surface. Several factors either speed up or slow down the breakdown process. It will take awhile. We can only learn from this.

05-03-2010, 05:49 PM	#1 (permalink)
Beowulf Premium Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,486	Mother of all gushers could kill Earth's oceans? A disclaimer...I do not necessarily agree with the link. I am not an expert on this matter. I just thought I would post it. Have a nice day. Mother of all gushers could kill Earth's oceans

05-03-2010, 05:50 PM	#2 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 14,460	In short? No. __________________ Before AD. After AD.

05-03-2010, 06:14 PM	#4 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 14,460	The salty ocean itself naturally breaks down the oil, albeit even though this a single source of oil release in large amounts over time. The ocean bottom of the Gulf of Mexico releases 100,000 to 400,000 barrels of oil a year naturally. In this case, you won't have repercussions worldwide in terms of ecological disaster. It'd be much more limited. Just possibly at the local or regional level. Then you have hurricanes that can serve to break up the oil even faster. Now, oil on the beach, in the estuaries, etc is a different matter. Then you have the ocean's circulation to think about, too. __________________ Before AD. After AD.

05-05-2010, 04:13 PM	#8 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 14,460	Here's a map of the current spill. Deepwater Horizon Incident, Gulf of Mexico \| Recent and Historical Incidents \| Emergency Response \| NOAA's National Ocean Service Office of Response and Restoration __________________ Before AD. After AD.

06-19-2010, 07:20 PM	#13 (permalink)
Elliotts Dad Registered User Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Slater, Iowa Posts: 72	lol, its funny how a month and a fresh perspective changes things..... extinction is a little dramatic tho I think. __________________ "People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along?"

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

05-03-2010, 06:23 PM	#5 (permalink)
chucky69 Registered User Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Watertown Township, Michigan, USA Posts: 156	Heard those false alarms before! -charles

05-03-2010, 07:49 PM	#6 (permalink)
Beowulf Premium Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,486	A helluva lot of oil being gushed. No false alarm. It is happening.

06-10-2010, 05:59 PM	#12 (permalink)
Beowulf Premium Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,486	Bumping this. It is looking more and more like an extinction event after all.

06-19-2010, 07:33 PM	#15 (permalink)
souggy Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 9,541	Wirelessly posted The Russians' solution is starting to look more appealing everyday... __________________ "It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it." - Richard Freynman

06-19-2010, 07:46 PM	#18 (permalink)
sallylou Potterhead and Janeite Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: My own private Idaho Posts: 6,653	Interesting. . . There's a link to another article here: C'mon, how big is the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, really? - CSMonitor.com Apparently, the rate and capture depend on how long the pipes hold up. __________________

06-19-2010, 08:04 PM	#19 (permalink)
Beowulf Premium Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,486	Would you believe anything BP tells you, sallylou? They have told so many absurd lies that they are hopelessly entangled in them.

06-19-2010, 08:11 PM	#21 (permalink)
sallylou Potterhead and Janeite Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: My own private Idaho Posts: 6,653	Beowulf, that was from a government report. Not that I trust the government any more than I trust BP. __________________

08-02-2010, 12:34 AM	#24 (permalink)
Jiro Ready When You Are Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 54,315	the damage is still unknown. short-term - it looks ok. long-term? probably will show at later date. let's not forget - the environment damaged by Exxon-Valdez oil spill is still seriously damaged.... since 1989. __________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

08-03-2010, 11:30 AM	#28 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 14,460	It didn't say it was over. It said it was hard to find the slick out on the ocean. The most prominent places to see the muddy brown oil slick are along the coastline, on the coast and in the estuaries. It'll be a while til it all breaks down naturally through weathering. These will be the most visible impacted areas. I suspect it'll be 3 or 4 years til fishing, shell and crab catching can resume in the impacted area of the ocean. Coastline and estuary are a different matter. The Exxon Valdez's oil was the processed thick black oil that is still present today under the rocks and up to several inches below the surface along the impacted coast of Alaska. Just lift a rock and you can see some oil under it. Other than life has resumed in the waters off of Alaska. __________________ Before AD. After AD.

08-03-2010, 12:48 PM	#30 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 14,460	Oil is biodegradable. It breaks down naturally both in the water and on the surface. Several factors either speed up or slow down the breakdown process. It will take awhile. We can only learn from this. __________________ Before AD. After AD.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode