Dissolved oxygen of Gulf Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico
in [Physics]
|
Prev: proving Dirac's new radioactivities is additive creation based on Local Group galaxies?? Chapt 14 #162; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Nuclear Density of Jesus Beard
From: Darwin123 on 15 Jun 2010 13:27 On Jun 14, 11:17 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 6/14/2010 10:42 PM, Darwin123 wrote: > > Uh, why would oil be less permable to oxygen than is water? > Now that you pointed it out, I would expect oil to be more permeable to oxygen than water. Oxygen has a nonpolar molecule. Water has a polar molecule. Most hydrocarbons are nonpolar. The oxygen may be more soluble in the crude oil than in the water. So that oil slick should pose no threat to fish, oxygen wise. I am reassured a little bit. Maybe. Is that how really it works?
From: Androcles on 15 Jun 2010 13:56 "Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c20db116-7359-4a6a-9daf-bacd213a080d(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... On Jun 14, 11:17 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 6/14/2010 10:42 PM, Darwin123 wrote: > > > > > On Jun 14, 9:09 pm, Uncle Ben<b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 14, 6:47 pm, Darwin123<drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > You are aware are you not that coal seam fires are a natural occurrance? No I wasn't. I thought that the coal seam has to be exposed to air for a fire to occur. The free oxygen has to be in contact with the the amorphous carbon to sustain a fire. Coal seams are sometimes exposed to air by erosion. I can easily believe that the "spark" initiating it is a natural occurrence (lightening strokes, etc.) However, the fires in Pennsylvania mostly occur in artificial mines. If those fires all occur on naturally exposed coal seams, then I have been misinformed. Otherwise, the mines are creating the problem. If deep-oil (i.e., high pressure) deposits are naturally punctured, creating gushing oil, then this concern over the oil in the gulf is just propaganda. Let it gush, it happens naturally all the time! That comment about oil being permeable to oxygen sounded plausible in a scientific way. So if one places a thin oil slick on a fish tank, the fish will be all right? =========================================== Whilst the long term effects may not be important, in the short term the leak is a biological menace. Moreover, we are not informed as to the depth of the borehole below the sea floor; there is no reason to suppose the deposits would be exposed naturally other than by seismic activity, and if there were any such activity the deposits would be long gone. Tar pits are the same deposits near the surface where the lighter gas and volatile components have evaporated eons ago. A fish tank requires an air pump or the fish will die. A film of oil would prevent feeding flakes of fish food. Sea World has a self-sustaining reef in a tank, it requires artificial turbulence to oxygenate the water, and light. In re coal mining; it is really coal quarrying these days, mining coal in shafts and tunnels is hopelessly inefficient. http://www.chezjag.net/mining/coal26.jpg
From: Darwin123 on 18 Jun 2010 17:04 On Jun 15, 1:56 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:c20db116-7359-4a6a-9daf-bacd213a080d(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 14, 11:17 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > On 6/14/2010 10:42 PM, Darwin123 wrote: > > > > On Jun 14, 9:09 pm, Uncle Ben<b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > >> On Jun 14, 6:47 pm, Darwin123<drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > You are aware are you not that coal seam fires are a natural occurrance? > > No I wasn't. I thought that the coal seam has to be exposed to air > for a fire to occur. The free oxygen has to be in contact with the the > amorphous carbon to sustain a fire. > Coal seams are sometimes exposed to air by erosion. I can easily > believe that the "spark" initiating it is a natural occurrence > (lightening strokes, etc.) However, the fires in Pennsylvania mostly > occur in artificial mines. > If those fires all occur on naturally exposed coal seams, then I > have been misinformed. Otherwise, the mines are creating the problem. > If deep-oil (i.e., high pressure) deposits are naturally punctured, > creating gushing oil, then this concern over the oil in the gulf is > just propaganda. Let it gush, it happens naturally all the time! > That comment about oil being permeable to oxygen sounded > plausible in a scientific way. So if one places a thin oil slick on a > fish tank, the fish will be all right? > =========================================== > Whilst the long term effects may not be important, in the short term > the leak is a biological menace. Moreover, we are not informed > as to the depth of the borehole below the sea floor; there is no reason > to suppose the deposits would be exposed naturally other than by > seismic activity, and if there were any such activity the deposits would > be long gone. > Tar pits are the same deposits near the surface where the lighter gas and > volatile components have evaporated eons ago. Tar pits are not under high pressure. The very fact they are exposed naturally exposed, and not spurting oil, shows that the petroleum is not under great great pressure. The petroleum deposit was exposed gradually, by erosion. There is a slow flow of oil coming out of the tar pits, but it is not a rapid flow. The deep-wells are miles under rock. They gush. The petroleum is entering the system very rapidly. As you pointed out, these deposits would not have been gushing out so fast under natural conditions. I never claimed such disasters are a threat to life on earth. However, a "short-term" biological menace isn't a good thing. The issue of how many species go extinct is a flag issue. Maybe no species will go extinct because of this. Still the shrimpers in the gulf area could go out of business. Still the fisheries all over the world can become further depleted. Still this could create famine conditions for a few decades near the gulf. Or maybe the only species to go extinct will be the bluefish tuna. My guess is that there will be serious biological impacts, but we won't recognize what they are right away. Fish stocks will decline, and it will be attributed to "overfishing." When fish production declines, there is no direct link to the fundamental causes. The politicians will blame the oil companies, the oil companies will blame the fishermen, and the fishermen will blame the Jews. Yes, there will be Jews distributed throughout this food chain. The Zionists will blame the Arabs, and the Arabs the Jews. Everyone will be hungry but happy |:-) I care little whether the AGW crowd whether precisely correct in all their predictions. Fossil fuels should be replaced by other energy sources, yesterday. I have expected disasters like this for some time, and I expect more in the near future. > > A fish tank requires an air pump or the fish will die. A film of oil > would prevent feeding flakes of fish food. Sea World has > a self-sustaining reef in a tank, it requires artificial turbulence to > oxygenate the water, and light. I think most of the damage will be caused by oil being ingested by animals. However, I am waiting for the data to come in. I can help be fascinated by the entire thing. It's like watching a gladiators. I really am sorry for the dead and dying. However, I like watching the action! I can't wait to see what happens next! Newsweek claims there has been a 30% decline in the oxygen concentration in some areas. This makes me curious. Someone has been nice enough to point out that the permeability of oil to oxygen is not necessarily less than the permeability of water to oxygen. So is Newsweek pulling my leg? Or is oxygen a serious consideration? > > In re coal mining; it is really coal quarrying these days, mining > coal in shafts and tunnels is hopelessly inefficient. > http://www.chezjag.net/mining/coal26.jpg Stop deep sea drilling! Start strip mining! Lets ruin the environment out in the open, where we can see it!
From: Darwin123 on 7 Jul 2010 19:50 On Jun 14, 11:17 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 6/14/2010 10:42 PM, Darwin123 wrote: > The more oil, the more bacteria. To them it's food and when they have > it they grow like crazy. Bacteria that reproduce rapidly use oxygen. There are anaerobic bacteria, but they don't reproduce quickly. Some of the recent depletion of oxygen in sections of the Gulf is being attributed to bacteria living off the oil. > > >> There was an even greater oil spill in the Gulf in 1979 closer to the > >> Mexican shore. I keep hearing that. How do you know it was greater? And will it be greater in August, when the next attempt at capping the well is initiated. Will it still be greater 6 months from now? How long did that spill keep going? How did they end it? Or is it still going?
From: WG on 7 Jul 2010 22:51
http://www.wimp.com/oilspills/ .. |