Methane in Gulf "astonishingly high": US scientist

Jiro said:
that wasn't just for you


controlled burning? in this case? most likely not because we don't know how it's gonna play it out. This is much much much more difficult than controlled burning in forest fires.


Yes but dangerous, of course. We've got dozens of brightest minds working on this. I'd like to hear their expert opinions
Click to expand...

Same here.
 
If the introduction of the crude oil has killed a region of life in the water or introduced hypoxicy due to methane consuming bacteria, I would feel burning the methane in that region is doable. The dead zone from the gulf has never recovered since it's debut.

Combustion of the fuel is the hands down the most cost effective method, which is a giant plus for its own reasons.
 
Banjo said:
Is there really a way of controlling the burning? I read it's a million times the normal level.

Did they ever burn them at this level and in an oil spill of this size?
Click to expand...

Burning oil spill of this size? Kuwait... set afire by Iraqis. Over 600 oil wells and it burned about 5-6 millions barrels of oil a day for more than 8 months.

Methane burning at this level? no idea but I think the # is exaggerated.
 
Wirelessly posted

Burning is bad idea...will lead to a endless oil fire. Its difficult to contain an oil fire.
 
Another one of those costs that BP failed to include in their cost / benefit analysis when deciding to cut corners.
 
sequoias said:
Wirelessly posted

Burning is bad idea...will lead to a endless oil fire. Its difficult to contain an oil fire.
Click to expand...

There are ways, using chemical dispersants. I'm not sure the exact methods how they would do it, just looking at an overall concept. Crude oil is hydrophobic and being heterogeneous it makes it easier to manipulate it.

The key difference is that this fire would be controlled and pre-planned, the reasons why it's difficult to contain oil fires from other experiences are usually because it was unprecedented.
 
sequoias said:
Wirelessly posted

Burning is bad idea...will lead to a endless oil fire. Its difficult to contain an oil fire.
Click to expand...

no not at all. This is much easier to control than oil fire on land.
 
I'm laughing. It's not because of Beowulf's post. It's because BP's denial on presence of these plumes. comical!

Scientist Awed by Size, Density of Undersea Oil Plume in Gulf
BP CEO Tony Hayward had disputed the presence of plumes, saying on June 6 that there was "no evidence" of their existence. BP spokesman John Pack said today they would be paying attention to the data that is coming in.
Click to expand...
 
Wirelessly posted

Jiro said:
sequoias said:
Wirelessly posted

Burning is bad idea...will lead to a endless oil fire. Its difficult to contain an oil fire.
Click to expand...

no not at all. This is much easier to control than oil fire on land.
Click to expand...

Then how do you contain a huge oil fire on the ocean surface? I hope not with chemicals to retard the fire.
 
sequoias said:
Then how do you contain a huge oil fire on the ocean surface? I hope not with chemicals to retard the fire.
Click to expand...

assuming that it's uncontrollable - blow it up with a few crates of TNT or so. The same method we've been using for several decades.

but really - the oil fire on ocean is not that flammable enough. It doesn't burn as violently as oil fire in Kuwait. Just think of it as 20% gasoline + 80% water.
 
Back
Top