Do we really know just how serious the oil spill is?

[Winston001]

This lady is making a lot of sense. She's voicing what a lot of pissed off Americans (and others) are thinking

Excellent find, bling to you. I wonder how many Americans though will actually see this. Its a big country and intelligent commentary gets lost.

[pete376403]

synth oil
why do we still drill for it

What do you think they make the synthetic oil out of? IE where do the chemicals come from?

[Quasievil]

[Naki Rat]

Fish breath oxygen in seawater so it will kill them, and it will acidify the water.

[mashman]

Yup and then on to where ever the gulf stream goes

[spacemonkey]

Yup and then on to where ever the gulf stream goes

Actually that reminds me of something...... With all the Sepo rants about it in the media drowning out everyone else, I've yet to see or hear anything out of the other carribian nations especially Cuba, and the north shore of Cuba is def going to be made a disaster area by this.

[Naki Rat]

Yes but No. Give us a list of the alternatives and their cost - eg. a $2/litre substitute for petrol. Google the efficiency of bio-fuel. It's either negative (ie takes more energy to make than it produces) or at best produces 20% more energy. Oil straight out of the ground produces 1400% of the energy required to dig it up.........

Nevertheless the day will come when alternative energy sources such as algae are economic but the technology right now is only getting started. Plus lets be blunt - oil is cheap. Double the price with bio-fuel and see where peoples principles go.....

The energy contained in crude oil and associated hydrocarbons originally comes from the sun's energy used in photosynthesis by the plants that the oil is made from. This energy is added to by the pressures of gravity (compression) and Earth's internal heat. That energy is essentially free for the taking when we drill holes in the ground for it but it is obviously a finite resource.

To duplicate an energy source synthetically we must input similar amounts of energy, by whatever method, so that we can then release that energy when needed as fuel. The energy source for making fuel may be solar, photosynthetic (algae), chemical, atomic, or whatever, but the process quickly becomes very input heavy and so uneconomical compared to oil. In other words you don't get nothing for nothing and we are rapidly using up the cheap stuff.

[spacemonkey]

The energy contained in crude oil and associated hydrocarbons originally comes from the sun's energy used in photosynthesis by the plants that the oil is made from.

Ahh that's a not totally accurate, as how those hydrocarbons form, and from what, and how long it takes is all still under a lot of debate and is unsettled as a theory,
Scientists are still unsure over the origins as far as I'm aware..... Feel free to correct me if im wrong and the debate over it has been setled.

[Naki Rat]

Ahh that's a not totally accurate, as how those hydrocarbons form, and from what, and how long it takes is all still under a lot of debate and is unsettled as a theory,
Scientists are still unsure over the origins as far as I'm aware..... Feel free to correct me if im wrong and the debate over it has been setled.

"According to generally accepted theory, petroleum is derived from ancient biomass." See here and most other references available.

[Genestho]

sounds like nasty stuff. According to wiki it was used during the exxon valdez incident and left quite an impression.

[b]"Corexit 9527, considered by the EPA to be an acute health hazard, is stated by its manufacturer to be potentially harmful to red blood cells, the kidneys and the liver, and may irritate eyes and skin.[24][13] The chemical 2-butoxyethanol, found in Corexit 9527, was identified as having caused lasting health problems in workers involved in the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.[25] According to the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, the use of Corexit during the Exxon Valdez oil spill caused people "respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders".[15] Like 9527, 9500 can cause hemolysis (rupture of blood cells) and may also cause internal bleeding.[4][/b["

Safety Data Sheet
https://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse...SDS.539287.pdf

June 30 Press release from Nalco

"We are pleased that the EPA's (US Environmental Protection Agency) initial testing results of dispersant alternatives continue to show the safety of our COREXIT 9500 dispersants," said Dr. David Horsup, Division Vice President, Research and Development for Nalco's Energy Services division.

In announcing the test results, EPA Assistant Administrator Paul Anastas said the EPA is not recommending any change in dispersants used to fight the Gulf spill's impact."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nal...k=MW_news_stmp

The tests looked at the dispersants alone and did not look at effects of the chemicals when mixed with oil.

[mashman]

Safety Data Sheet
https://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse...SDS.539287.pdf

I would have had a look but it throws me a rather unsavoury certificates error... did you download a copy?

[Neshi]

The only other option is atomic fission or preferably fusion but these are not easily portable and involve environmental risks.

How can you say that? Especially after this spill...
Drilling for oil is as much a hazard for the environment as nuclear power, if not worse..

Chernobyl surroundings nowadays is a haven for wildlife with rare species that have returned there after centuries like the lynx, wild boar, wolves, bears etc. They even made the Exclusion Zone an official wildlife santcuary. The animals examined showed a tolerance for the elaveted radiation levels.
There is no way animals will develop a tolerance for oil in the water.

=====

As for the person asking for an alternative to oil as a source of power. What about an engine running solely on water, reacting with aluminium to create power. The only pollution would be the process of refining Bauxite into aluminium.
"A 900 kg car runs 600 km on 20 litres of water and 1 kg of aluminium."

http://anon99.tripod.com/water_engine/index2.html

Most incredible thing about this is that is was invented in 1981.. so it's been known for 30 years, why haven't we heard about it but are fiddling around with electrolysis and the storage of hydrogen... this solution would put oil industries out of business, while at the moment they can still make money out of oil so I reckon they keep it quiet. All one would need is to buy a car or motorbike with an engine of this, and one would be able to fill it up at home. So the only money would go to the purchase of the vehicle, not the fuel. Any idea why the inventor hasn't been seen or heard of... ?

[avgas]

you gotta love the fact that they spend $$$$$$$'s on getting oil out of dirt - but not willing to spend the same to get it out of water

[Neshi]

I'm having a discussion on another board about the same thing. Someone posted some interesting stuff. Rabbit hole is deep.

Anyone that does any research, and i personally know 2 people, one of which is a direct friend of one of the survivors has explained the situation in much greater detail then even this engineer. The level of corruption is insane, the complete disreguard for safety, life in general even was totally ignored. and they were being directly ordered to do things that majority of the works knew full well they shouldn't do. Which bags the question, why'd they do it? Well considering, it was costing BP and the drillers over half a million dollars PER DAY just to have the rig sitting there. Additionally they were being told to do things they knew would cause an explosion and potential problems. YES the well was several times more powerful, however the well, the casing everything was so purposely and poorly handled it cannot be coincidence since they were repeatedly told to ignore all failsafes. Even the regulations set in place were ignored/voided and cast aside. There was more money to be made by causing this problem then there was to actually get any oil in the first place.

The survivors of the explosion were LOCKED in their hotel rooms for 40+ hours until every single one of them signed confidentiality forms and basically signed the truth away. Some are off record and only to friends around telling a few of the very important bits of information.

Don't forget also this EXACT same company (under a different name) was responcible for the deep (but much more shallow) off shore well drilling with the EXACT same mistakes made with the EXACT same solution and with a near exact same outcome in 1979. You couldn't match them up any better, it's a carbon copy. It's completely sickening.

BP and the sub companies and related companies are making millions off the cleanup that they are doing a horrible job doing. The chemicals they are using to clean up are doing more damage even.

Crude oil in itself is deadly yes, however it is still a natural compound and it breaks down steadily and nature has shown it to right itself.

However with the introduction of these chemicals they are using to "cleanup" it is causing massive devistation, the oil is actually evaporating in many places and sinking in others. The result of which has shown already evidence of oil coming many many miles INLAND and destroying hundreds if not millions of acres of land.


btw heres some video evidence of the same issue occuring.

[Winston001]

How can you say that? Especially after this spill...
Drilling for oil is as much a hazard for the environment as nuclear power, if not worse..

Chernobyl surroundings nowadays is a haven for wildlife with rare species that have returned there after centuries like the lynx, wild boar, wolves, bears etc. They even made the Exclusion Zone an official wildlife santcuary. The animals examined showed a tolerance for the elaveted radiation levels.

Very refreshing. You are right but I didn't want to get away from the main theme. In fact the atomic bomb sites of Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed a remarkable resurgence of insect and plant life quite shortly after the explosions. These were places that common belief said would be sterile for 100 years. It ain't true.

Nevertheless for at least 10 years after a nuclear accident or spill, its not a safe place to wande around for humans. Heavy isotopes tend to muck up our DNA rather badly. So nuclear does have its environmental risks, just not as bad as the common belief would have us think.