Gulf Oil Spill - Is BP ignoring a green solution - PART III - the Armageddon scenario

Reprinted in full from http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-49657-Philadelphia-Science-Examiner~y2010m6d11-Gulf-Oil-Spill--Is-BP-ignoring-a-green-solution-Part-III--the-Armageddon-scenario

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over two weeks offline and I’d hoped that the Gulf oil fiasco had come to some resolution… that at the very least, the gusher would have been stopped. Sadly that’s not only not the case, but it’s becoming more and more clear that we’re not going to see any resolution soon, and possibly never.


First – statistics have been released with new figures for the amounts of crude oil entering the gulf. Revised several times, each time the number increases, often exponentially. Today, Science Daily stated that as of June 9, the amounts of oil in the gulf could have, if used for fuel, powered 38,000 cars, 3400 trucks and 1800 ships for ONE FULL YEAR. And that’s going with the latest figures, no doubt they’ll be revised upward yet again.

James J Corbett, a professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware supplied these figures, and has launched a website which reports the impact on a daily basis.


Horiffic enough, there’s another scenario being put forth by geologist Chris Landau, who believes there’s another complication no one is talking about- which might simply mean the definitive death of the Gulf and potentially more connected waters. In an article for OpEdNews, Landau states:


My worst fears have been realized. If this link is true and the oil is coming through the sea floor, they have either blown out the formation or blown out the cement (which we know they did anyway to get the blowout to occur). I am beginning to realize why they have not wanted to close the valves on the cap. The more they close it, the more oil is going to come up through the sea floor, next to the well casing. I listed 12 points in my attached article. The really big concern here is that their directional wells are now pointless. They are GUARANTEED to fail because you cannot pump mud or cement into a blown out well. It just does not set with oil and gas roaring past.


The next biggest concern is that they have to get 8 new wells in immediately to relieve the background oil and gas pressure. The oil is going to start coming up at an ever increasing rate along the casing and the blowout preventer. The oil and gas is going to act as a high pressure pressure-washer and erode away all the sandstone and mudstone. There is nothing they can do about it.


This is also the end of B.P. The claims will go on forever.

But that’s not even the worst of it!! There’s the matter of whether or not the oil is fossil fuel (30 to 200 million years old) or oil which is being produced right now, in a different process which generates oil quickly. Very quickly.

Landau continues:

The oil is either old oil, say almost as old as the formation, or they have drilled into a massive active fault zone that is reducing carbon dioxide to methane. If it is high inhydrogen sulfide, it is reducing calcareous sediments to oil and more natural gas in the presence of salt solutions. Now they are providingmore saltwater, so via the Wurtz Synthesis more oil is going to be created than natural gas. The methane is going to be converted to ethane, propane, butane, pentane and other long chain organic compounds.You see if oil is being made now, at a very rapid rate in this area, the pressure is never, ever going to drop off along the casing and the oil is going to flow into the gulf forever.The only hope to reduce the pressure will be by sinking more new wells into this area and try and drain off the oil and gas as quickly as it is being made.

You see oil is basically inorganic. It is not made from dead squashed plankton. It is not a fossil fuel. It is an inorganic chemical compound reduced from calcareous sediments and carbon dioxide and methane gas. My peer reviewed published papers using chemical and thermodynamic equations show how this occurs. The link to the papers is available below. Of course although I was published by The American Institute of Professional Geologists in 2009 and the Association of Environmentaland Engineering Geologists in 2008, it does not mean that my theories are accepted by the majority of geologists. It will probably take 50 years, as with the theory of Continental Drift to get accepted by geologists in general. Maybe this disaster will shave off 20 years. Things evolve slowly in geology!
We can only hope it is old oil. We can only date oil back 100 000 years by carbon dating, but that is fine. We need to know if this oil is 10 to 100 years old and if its age is changing as it escapes. Is the escaping oil getting older or younger? So we need to start dating the oil on a weekly basis to see what is happening.
I volunteer for the job.
One last point that the public does not understand. It is not about deep water drilling where the problems have arisen. It is about high pressure oil and gas drilling that creates the problems. These zones can be found on land as well as at sea and can start from as little as 10000 feet, not the 20000 of this well. These high pressure wells have always been a problem. Of the millions of wells drilled, there are thousands of these ticking time bomb, high pressure wells in existence and new ones are being drilled every day. New risks are being taken daily.


http://cgvi.uscg.mil/media/main.php?g2_itemId=903519I have also not found any evidence that BP or the government or any of the organizations involved here is even looking at bioremediation, a process I wrote about in two previous articles here linked above, and one which has been used successfully in numerous previous spills. So maybe it’s not 100% perfect – but it doesn’t disperse oil, it EATS it and delivers oxygen and CO2. It saves the wildlife and habitat, and at this rate, could mean the difference between utter devastation and possible recovery.

Unfortunately the manufacturers of bioremediation products aren’t movie stars. Turns out that Kevin Kostner’s idea might be a good one, and it’s been ordered now that he’s finally testified about it. Do we have to wait till there’s little left to save before we try everything?


I also received an email from the designer of the Elliot Tube – a flexible nylon hood which covers the area of oil release and channels it into an upright flexible nylon tube to the surface – anchored by buoys at the surface. (I can supply contact info for Crown - just ask.)

From Eliot Crown: Sew together a 5000 foot long nylon tube with a diameter of 20 feet, and a flared end, with a diameter of 50 feet. Attach the flared end to the ocean floor over and around the leak. At the surface, oil can be pumped directly onto tankers from the tube. The mile long tube will bow in the current and tides, but may be secured to cables that are anchored and attached to large floating buoys. Additionally, at the surface, the tube can be buoyed and cabled to stationary ships for stability. Oil's density will add stability to the tube.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/bestoftv/2010/05/27/am.int.dudley.top.kill.cnn.640x360.jpgCrown has submitted this in detail to BP, NOAA and others, and has gotten support from UCBerkeley's Deepwater Horizon Study Group. Using this tube, there’s no need for the oil to have hardware attached to stop it – at least until they CAN figure out how better to do it than they’ve tried so far. This could buy us tons of time. But … it’s also being ignored. We need outrage, or we’re going to be seeing a very different world in 20 yrs than we now see.

And we won’t like it.

All images linked to source

Views: 5

Tags: BP, disaster, gulf, oil, solutions, spill

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Фелч Гроган on June 15, 2010 at 6:42am
No, by "inorganic" they are referring to it's origin. It is the same as "mineral oils" which are technically organic chemicals, but not derived directly from an organic system. They are calling it "inorganic" oil because it is formed utilising carbon dioxide / carbonate as the carbon source.
Comment by Фелч Гроган on June 13, 2010 at 9:43pm
Costner's idea is probably the most realistic offered to date - it is based on known principles. It is high volume centrifuge separation and is an idea modeled on cyclone technology that miners have been using since pumps were invented. Essentially a super sea water vacuum cleaner. It is not complex and could have been implemented immediately with existing engineering - and should already have been implemented for capturing the larger plumes immediately before they began dispersing [*]. It wasn't - this is bureaucracy and scapegoating in action.

Bioremediation as I said is a secondary technique, a finishing touch. You don't steam clean carpets until after they have been vacuumed.

What galls me the most is not hearing a peep from the Teabaggers and Beck-tards. This is their ideal small, non-interventionist, low tax world in action. They should be dancing in the streets celebrating their "freedom". They're not. They're huddled underground in their gun bunkers (that they want to take away from them) and feverishly working out ways to contort reality to make all of this the fault of some vast liberal conspiracy.

[*] - The question why technologies such as this do not exist in current oil industry disaster recovery planning is something I hope gets really hammered home when (and if) the suits in charge get dragged out over the coals.
Comment by Carol Everhart Roper on June 13, 2010 at 1:28pm
Hi Felch, Yes, I knew... but am not ever offended when someone points something out. As I understand it, and I am NOT a chemist nor in the industry, the difference between a natural biological remedy and the chemical bioremediation is time- a month vs years. It's intensive, you need to apply it in a 1-10 ratio, which on a huge scale becomes quite costly. I take your point about the leak not even being capped yet, but since the oil is already damaging beaches and wetlands, it seems to me that it's a good time for a solution there, too.

I like your idea of turning to the mining industry... less sure about hollywood, but . It almost seems turning to kindergarten might provide some better ideas at this point.

I would LOVE to see some of the bioremediation applied - even in localized areas, even as a test comparing what's happening in two similar locations. I think the industry is foolish for not GIVING a certain amount of the chemical to a local town (not BP) because if it does work as well as they insist it does, such a move would be good for them and good for the gulf. But noooo... we don't see that. sigh.

What did you think of the nylon tubing idea submitted by Elliot Crown?

c.
Comment by Фелч Гроган on June 12, 2010 at 9:38pm
ppm, in case you don't know (not being patronising) is parts per million, usually translated as milligrams per litre or kilogram, or grams per tonne. Bioremediation is what will naturally occur over time anyway - biotech can only optimise and accelerate the process and it's time frame at best will be measured in years, and only on substrates that can be controlled, which discounts the open sea.

So both the pollutant concentration and distribution discount bioremediation as anything other than a "tidy around the edges later" option.

"Bioremediation" was a tech buzzword in the 90's amongst the hip, environmentally conscious set. And it still is. It is a good technology, it does work, but only within specific circumstances and limits. Singing it's praises as technology we should be considering now when the leak hasn't even been capped is a distraction we don't need. Paradoxically, the mining industry is who people should be turning to - they have been specialising in trace separation of materials since time began. Or even Hollywood.
Comment by Carol Everhart Roper on June 12, 2010 at 4:23pm
Oh - the other chemist is a toxicologist...

John - I haven't asked my two chemist friends to review the geologist's self-sustaining oil theory, which I plan to do. I don't have the scientific knowledge to understand if his descriptions of the process are plausible or not.
Comment by Carol Everhart Roper on June 12, 2010 at 4:19pm
Hey Felch, I interviewed the owner of the company which makes s-200, one of the top bioremediation agents, and also had two chemist friends review a lot of data about the use. Yes it is slower, on the order of 4 weeks for the degree of reduction you mention, but ... we're way past 4 weeks now, and a substantial part of this mess could have been helped. Also we concluded there was insufficient information to know about openwater remediation, though the company owner insisted it was originally designed for open water, there simple wasn't enough data to know. But shoreline remediation would be superb, at least according to the reams of data my chemists reviewed. One of them happens to be a world's authority on her area, and is a civilian employed by the US Navy, and travels all over the world. Her field is boiler water chemistry in ships which still use that technology, not oil in marine environments, but she's brilliant and only states what she knows - while also telling me what she doesn't know. Totally trustworthy... so I think I will stand with the bioremediation as a good idea for now.

I've tried very hard to find contrary evidence, but can't. Also tried contacting all the agencies involved, asking (as a journalist) what their positions were on bioremediation, but got no replies.
Comment by Фелч Гроган on June 12, 2010 at 5:06am
Please, bioremediation is just fine for the back paddock if you want to slowly work off the waste oil from your machine shop. It is NOT fine for fixing something on the scale of the gulf disaster. I don't know who's bioremediation propaganda blurbs you're reading, but they're not from this planet. We used to run oil bioremediation beds at mine sites, and a bio-bed that could reduce oil from 1000 ppm to 100 ppm in a month was considered a success story.

The last thing this disaster needs is fairy tale quick fixes. You're just opening the door for frauds and quacks.

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service