Show Posts
136
/dev/random / bp
« on: August 09, 2010, 06:24:34 AM »
'BP has stopped skimming for oil in the ocean because it’s having trouble finding crude on the surface, said Doug Suttles, chief operating officer for exploration and production. About 74 percent of the oil that flowed from Macondo evaporated, dissolved or biodegraded, or was burned, skimmed or captured, the government said in a report on Aug. 4. '
-wash. post
Kind of ridiculous. My bro, past poster here 'metal', is a field engineer tech in venice, louisiana atm. The job is dredging islands to absorb the oil somewhat before mainland. My father happens to be on a job as well, in mobile alabama.... They talk to these guys that run the skimmer boats, ALL the time. They haven't been picking up shit off the surface for weeks before august 4th.. and everyone down there is saying that it's from BP spraying chemicals(think of it as dawn except legal to spray everywhere in the ocean) that break it up the oil, making it's way to the bottom much faster. Kind of like those aerial photos that we'd see of the oil spill visibly shrinking in size tenfold, all the while oil is still gushing into the gulf.
My first thought of reading the statement in bold above was WHAT THE ****. The skimmers haven't been getting shit. Nearly EVERY person that my bro or dad has EVER talked to that works on one of these skimmer boats, say that haven't scooped up one DROP since they started the job. Burned/captured? Whatever. Biodegrade? What kind of organic compounds are in oil, which has to be VASTLY made up of hydrocarbons?..... DISSOLVE? Aren't hydrocarbons hydrophobic due to their non-polar nature??? Molecules must be polar to be miscible with water.. which leaves us with EVAPORATION. Yes, lighter hydrocarbons evaporate fast, which I already knew. But is evaporation solely responsible for '74% of the oil that's gone'? If so, they're saying that the rate of evaporation of crude oil is VASTLY greater than the rate that it was broken up into smaller hydrocarbons and sinking to the bottom?(They say that 3/4 of the oil that's flowed from the spill is now gone).... so this evaporation thing intrigued me so I did a little research:
http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/120/120BG.PDF
It was interesting to read that 74% is a completely realistic, but high, evaporation% for light crude oil.. 10% being a 'high' % for heavier oil. So it finally made sense to me, this is the bogus logic they're using to feed this undoubtedly false statistic. I was just talking to someone about all of this at work, and he replied 'well didn't they burn most of it?'... how are they even finding oil to burn though if 3/4 of the oil has evaporated? NOT to mention the skimmers aren't pulling up shit.
Bottom line, I don't see the water surface evaporation rate even holding a candle to the rate in which oil has collected at the bottom. I remember seeing aerial photos from 1 day to the next and the oil spill decreasing 15x in size.... 95% evaporation rate? Sure hah. All it will take is one good hurricane and we'll see some of that oil(all over new orleans)
-wash. post
Kind of ridiculous. My bro, past poster here 'metal', is a field engineer tech in venice, louisiana atm. The job is dredging islands to absorb the oil somewhat before mainland. My father happens to be on a job as well, in mobile alabama.... They talk to these guys that run the skimmer boats, ALL the time. They haven't been picking up shit off the surface for weeks before august 4th.. and everyone down there is saying that it's from BP spraying chemicals(think of it as dawn except legal to spray everywhere in the ocean) that break it up the oil, making it's way to the bottom much faster. Kind of like those aerial photos that we'd see of the oil spill visibly shrinking in size tenfold, all the while oil is still gushing into the gulf.
My first thought of reading the statement in bold above was WHAT THE ****. The skimmers haven't been getting shit. Nearly EVERY person that my bro or dad has EVER talked to that works on one of these skimmer boats, say that haven't scooped up one DROP since they started the job. Burned/captured? Whatever. Biodegrade? What kind of organic compounds are in oil, which has to be VASTLY made up of hydrocarbons?..... DISSOLVE? Aren't hydrocarbons hydrophobic due to their non-polar nature??? Molecules must be polar to be miscible with water.. which leaves us with EVAPORATION. Yes, lighter hydrocarbons evaporate fast, which I already knew. But is evaporation solely responsible for '74% of the oil that's gone'? If so, they're saying that the rate of evaporation of crude oil is VASTLY greater than the rate that it was broken up into smaller hydrocarbons and sinking to the bottom?(They say that 3/4 of the oil that's flowed from the spill is now gone).... so this evaporation thing intrigued me so I did a little research:
http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/120/120BG.PDF
It was interesting to read that 74% is a completely realistic, but high, evaporation% for light crude oil.. 10% being a 'high' % for heavier oil. So it finally made sense to me, this is the bogus logic they're using to feed this undoubtedly false statistic. I was just talking to someone about all of this at work, and he replied 'well didn't they burn most of it?'... how are they even finding oil to burn though if 3/4 of the oil has evaporated? NOT to mention the skimmers aren't pulling up shit.
Bottom line, I don't see the water surface evaporation rate even holding a candle to the rate in which oil has collected at the bottom. I remember seeing aerial photos from 1 day to the next and the oil spill decreasing 15x in size.... 95% evaporation rate? Sure hah. All it will take is one good hurricane and we'll see some of that oil(all over new orleans)
no disrespect dropping my guard on you.....uhh i blame it on the herbal supplements i took. 
wasn't paying attention and i strafed at you while pressing console or something. i got lucky with that comeback anyway 
) This may also keep people busy opposed to talking trash all the time.
