- Your history
-
Stories
- Government Sachs
- Kilometerheffing - update
- Zwarte economie
- Jeremy Grantham
- Merry Christmas!
- Country ratings
- EU Klimaatsteun
- Just a reminder
- Financial Quiz
- Happy New Year
- Groene fietser ?
- Toch Twin Peaks!
- Falende staten
- Het gekke geld...
- The Big D-word
- Out of office
- C2C explained
- Solar Impulse
- The last bluefin tuna
- Green skiing
- Econoshock #2
- Bankbonussen - update
- Olymponomics
- Just in case...
- Power Play
- A Belgian 1
- De wurgzone
- CDS Spreads
- Tags
Bubbly BP waters
Pensacola (Florida) before the oil disaster : a crowded, white beach.
If you visit Pensacola this week, this is what you would see:
Apparently , the combination of methane gasses and the toxic oil dispersant Corexit is not ideal...
51 Comments
-
Nick Doms
On 1 Jul, 2010
This is what the beach looks like for the July 4th weekend.
The videos and pics speak for themselves and the oil and toxic chemicals are buried underneath.
The surf line was and is still bubbling but an orange foam is showing up at the beach as well as the tide comes in.
http://www.huliq.com/9990/pensacola-beach-covered-oil-and-dirty-sand-july-4th -
Nick Doms
On 1 Jul, 2010
On behalf of the 15,000 permanent residents of Pensacola Beach, i would like to thank all of you for allowing us to tell our stories and show video links.
For those of you who do not know, Pensacola beach in the Florida panhandle is a barrier island connected to the mainland by a two-lane bridge.
The population swells to about 45,000 during the holiday season (except this year because most the condo rentals were cancelled and are empty).
As for me, no i don't live there but will make my way back after the holiday weekend, hopefully with a camera crew.
Sincerely, -
Nick Doms
On 2 Jul, 2010
The bubbles in the surf off Pensacola Beach have been identified as a chemical compound known as 2-ethylhexane-1,3-diol.
Read the article for full details on how this occurred.
http://www.huliq.com/9990/water-samples-pensacola-beach-indicate-toxic-gas-mixture -
Nick Doms
On 2 Jul, 2010
Thanks JanS, i will, we all will.
A new rule has been implemented for the Gulf Coast beaches. There is a 65 feet boundary for any camera crew or photographer away from the beaches between the Texas/Louisiana border and the Alabama/Florida border.
Anyone violating the rule will be fined and placed under arrest for illegal tresspassing.
I can still get my way in through Florida.
Will keep you posted. -
Emeline/Viviane
On 2 Jul, 2010
@ Nick
We support you!
You are doing good work, as well.
Take care ! -
JanS
On 2 Jul, 2010
What American still thinks he lives in a democracy with freedom of press ??
-
Nick Doms
On 2 Jul, 2010
We are the only voice right now and it is important to me that we report accurate and factual information.
That is why we do what we do. Not for glory nor for fame, but for truth and justice.-
Theo
On 3 Jul, 2010
@Nick Doms
Ralitsa Vassileva just reported on the oil covered up with sand on the beaches on CNN's World Report.
I know it's not much, but we do all we can.
Happy 4th of July.
Theo
-
-
JanS
On 3 Jul, 2010
For the informed reader only - the news is becoming so apocalytic that I don't know anymore what to say about it...:
'A dire report prepared for President Medvedev by Russia's Ministry of Natural Resources is warning today that the British Petroleum (BP) oil and gas leak in the Gulf of Mexico is about to become the worst environmental catastrophe in all of human history threatening the entire eastern half of the North American continent with "total destruction" ...
... Russian scientists are basing their apocalyptic destruction assessment due to BP's use of millions of gallons of the chemical dispersal agent known as Corexit 9500 which is being pumped directly into the leak of this wellhead over a mile under the Gulf of Mexico waters and designed, this report says, to keep hidden from the American public the full, and tragic, extent of this leak that is now estimated to be over 2.9 million gallons a day.' -
JanS
On 4 Jul, 2010
Please find herewith a long but IMO very good article on the oil disaster, putting everything in perspective, final conculsion however is again that an explosion is the probable "solution" ... :
BP Gulf Oil Spill Disaster, An Impossible Well to Cap?
Politics / Environmental Issues
Jul 03, 2010 - 05:40 AM
By: Joshua_S_Burnett
My first article in this series was a query; I listed the theories and evidence I’d seen thus far and asked for readers to respond and tell me I was crazy (which a few of you did, in as many words…much appreciated J). I felt that what I was writing about seemed to me far “too apocalyptic” as one comment on the original article stated. If you read the introduction and conclusion of the first article it becomes rather obvious that I wasn’t advocating, I was inquiring. I received over 100 emails; after investigating those leads here are what I’ve concluded thus far.
There are three main sources of threats: oil, gas, and dispersants. Let’s examine each in turn.
Oil
The most asked question that I received concerned the statement in my previous article about oil raining down. Many folks were quick to accurately point out that oil is not transmitted through evaporation into a normal rain cycle (some oil is evaporated, but the amount is negligible). The concern I have is not evaporation but rather the extreme winds that occur in the midst of hurricanes and tropical storms; the lowest wind possible in the hurricane category is 74 mph; this is sufficient to pick up and transmit living fish, frogs, squid, etc miles inland (and such has happened multiple times throughout history); if objects weighing pounds can be transported this way it is no stretch of the imagination to see that molecules weighing milligrams can experience the same phenomenon and to a much further distance.
Another common argument was that water in hurricanes is evaporated and therefore pure; if it weren’t then the southernmost parts of Gulf States would be salt-poisoned and inhospitable to flora and fauna. This argument fails on a couple of key points: the first is that while condensation from hurricanes is primarily evaporated it is not exclusively so. Winds for hurricanes can exceed 155 mph; these storm systems commonly spawn tornados (over land) and water spouts (over water). A not insignificant portion of salt water is swept up into the storm, but the reason why this doesn’t have a greater effect on the land is due to the dilution rate. While the average salinity of ocean water is 3.5%, the salinity of human blood is 0.9% meaning that we would only have to dilute the salt water 4:1 to make an isotonic solution safe to drink. Even if we went further and decreased the salt content to what the accepted standard is for city drinking water (0.1%) we would only have to dilute it 34:1. Even if as much as 3% of the rain coming from a hurricane was salt water that was swept up and not evaporated it would still approximate the purity standards of drinking water. The rain could approximate a 10:1 solution and still be safe for humans to drink. Conversely 1 quart of oil can contaminate 250,000 gallons of water, for a dilution rate of 1,000,000:1 which is still toxic.
This may sound artificially high though; most of us don’t have a great reference point for large amounts of water. I had several folks berate me because they didn’t see how this could be true because the water supplies of many municipalities are fed by bodies of water open to public fishing and therefore frequented by motored watercraft.; they assumed that this water would be as contaminated by spilled oil as any. The first answer I gave them was that this water is filtered before being consumed by anyone in the municipality; an equally appropriate answer would again refer to dilution. An Olympic size swimming pool will hold approximately 600,000 gallons of water, meaning that someone could dump a half gallon of crude into the pool and it still wouldn’t be considered toxic. Of course judging by how fast the pool clears when a little kid blows chunks in the shallow end most people probably aren’t comfortable even with those standards of cleanliness J. How much oil will rain down on land is impossible to predict due to the size of surface spills, effects of dispersants, size of the storm, strength of the storm, etc. This will need to be monitored after storm landfall and carefully measured to determine effects.
That being said; I received a good bit of information from an environmental engineer after publishing the first article and I’m far less concerned about the long-term health effects of any oil dropped on the coast for agriculture, humans, and all other flora and fauna. The oil we’re seeing from the current spill (and especially what remains on the surface after all of the dispersants) is a very light crude and is rather easily broken down by natural processes. Any oil dropped on the coast (or further inland) will most likely not have long-term consequences.
For further reference I pulled up a 2005 study on crops in the Niger Delta region in Africa. This area is known for being one of the most fertile on the continent while simultaneously being an area rich with oil exploration and drilling. As such (and partially due to poor drilling practices) the area has been inundated with oil spills, collecting a cumulative 1.8 million unrecovered barrels spilled over the past forty years. While the study noted a demonstrable effect on crops due to contamination they concluded that a 10% increase in oil pollution corresponded to only a 1.3% reduction in crop yield and a 5% reduction in farm income. The amount of oil present there far exceeds what one would expect to rain down across the southern United States even at worst case; I feel comfortable in saying that we shouldn’t see any long-term soil damages due to any raining oil.
Two caveats to that conclusion include the wetlands of Louisiana and potential short term economic damages. Louisiana’s swamps and easy access waterways are prime targets for a storm surge; it is very possible (and I would conclude probable) that we’ll see at least medium term damages to the wetlands and birds along the coastal plain due to oil inundation if Louisiana gets hit with a hurricane of any substance. High winds and wave action would render booms essentially useless. The second caveat concerns raining oil; if sufficient quantities of oil rain down on crops during harvest they could be ruined economically. Crops may be fit for consumption (and therefore not fit into the “lost” category in a study of African agriculture) but a catalyst of either tainted taste or even publicized concerns over the agriculture’s viability may keep a large portion of the crops in these areas off of the market for at least this year, thereby making “lost” crops in an American definition exponentially higher than the cited study; we tend to be a bit more concerned about food quality than the average African nation. How probable is this? It depends on what stage the crops are in, where the storms hit, and how heavy any oil deposits are in those areas. Again, probably not a health hazard, but it could quite possibly have a significant economic impact on the region.
The fishing industries are another story; fishing, shrimping, oystering, etc are most likely dead industries along the coast for the next few years. Fishing along the Mexican coast was disrupted for two years as a result of the Ixtoc spill in 1979; the English coast saw similar experiences in certain species after the Braer spill in 1993. It looks to me like the amount of oil spilled from Deepwater Horizon will outclass both of those greatly; how long those effects last on the fishing industries remain to be seen.
There is hope, however. One thing I’ve gained an appreciation of in this research is the extent to which oil is biodegradable (the environmental engineer I mentioned earlier informed me that 5,000 barrels of oil leach into the Gulf naturally each day from the ocean floor). Oil is a natural product of the earth; while it isn’t the easiest thing for ecosystems to get along with, especially in larger concentrations, Nature does have processes in place to take care of every drop spilled. Ironically while storm systems may negatively affect land based crops the wave and wind disruptions will act as natural dispersants and help cleanse the ocean of oil. The unfortunate reality for those of us who would like to bring home a paycheck every two weeks is that these processes take time; while the environment will recover, long-term economic damage has already been done in a short period of time.
One of the forms the damage to the fishing industry will take is oxygen deprivation of the water; this occurs due to the microbial breakdown of the oil. As these natural garbage cleaners eat the oil they use oxygen; with the sheer amount of oil spilled and therefore biological breakdown occurring we’re seeing oxygen deprivation in deep water at levels that approach starvation for microbes. This creates what is known as a “dead zone” and takes quite a while for the water to re-oxygenate. Because of this it will take a while for the ecosystem to recover fully enough to support commercial harvesting at any level.
It should go without saying but the tourism industry will probably be negatively affected; my best guess is severe downturn until at least a full year after the well is capped and noticeable effects for years after that. If only due to the connotations of beaches which once had oil spilled on them, any business with ties to tourism should take measures to weather the financial storm that lies ahead.
Dispersants
There’s an incredible amount of controversy regarding dispersants; I’ll do my best to accurately represent both sides then communicate what I’ve concluded.
First, the pro side. Dispersants are used in an effort to force the oil floating on the surface to break itself into small droplets and sink (what the wave and wind action of hurricanes naturally does). The theory is two-fold: that the more surface area available to microorganisms for the purpose of biodegradation of the oil will hasten the process, and that oil below the surface of the water will pose less of a threat to birds and wetlands (at the cost of increasing risk to fish and other undersea organisms). There have been two dispersants used on the oil spill thus far: Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500. 9527 was used first and then discontinued during this spill at the request of the EPA. Although it is still on the EPA’s approved list it is apparently considered too toxic for them to stomach the use of to any large degree (why it remains on the “approved” list is a great question). Corexit 9500 has been used in its place. The manufacturers of Corexit admit that these are toxic, but to what degree is uncertain. The problems lie mainly in the test data; different types of oil (heavy vs. light crude) react differently; different life forms react differently; they also react differently at different life stages; mechanical action due to wind, waves, and storm affect the dispersant’s effectiveness in various ways, etc. When you throw in all of the variables and look at the history of dispersants one begins to see that they haven’t really been that thoroughly tested. Even the EPA’s own list of legally approved dispersants varies widely in the toxicity levels published.
Dispersants were used widely in the Braer spill in the Shetland Islands in 1993; although study has been done on the health of both the local people and wildlife there’s been no appreciable increase in any diseases that can be directly traced to use of the dispersants. As a side note there was an 800% increase in the number of individuals who “scored above the level at which a subject could be considered a case” for psychological treatment; presumably this would be due to the stresses of the incident. Although “few (fish) were either killed by the oil or suffered serious physiological damage” as a result of it, “two year classes of farmed fish were destroyed.” This was not specifically linked to either dispersants or dispersant laced oil, but rather to the oil spill effects in general.
A great deal has been made about Corexit being banned in the UK; the presumption here is that this is an obviously toxic source and we should do what the Brits do. This assumption may or may not be wrong; it is, however, based on faulty logic. The reason that the UK bans Corexit is that it fails the “limpet test,” wherein a solution of dispersant and oil is sprayed on rocks to see if limpets (a type of small mollusk) can still cling to them. Corexit proved too slippery and was therefore banned. Because the majority of England’s coasts are rocky (and almost none in the Gulf of Mexico are) using this as a basis for comparison is incorrect.
Now for the con side. One of the main ingredients in Corexit is 2-butoxyethanol which, according to its Material Safety Data Sheet, has the following characteristics:
2-Butoxy Ethanol can affect you by ingestion and may be absorbed through the skin.
2-Butoxy Ethanol should be handled as a CARCINOGEN--WITH EXTREME CAUTION.
Contact can irritate the skin and eyes with possible eye damage.
Inhaling 2-Butoxy Ethanol can irritate the nose and throat.
2-Butoxy Ethanol can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain.
Exposure can cause headache, dizziness, lightheadedness, and passing out.
2-Butoxy Ethanol may damage the liver and kidneys.
Much of this has been shouted all over the news by those who oppose the use of dispersants in any situation. What these people forget to mention is that chemicals combine with other chemicals to create more inert combinations; proponents of dispersants remind us that 2-butoxyethanol is a key ingredient in such common household products as Windex & Simple Green. Of course you then also have to think about what would happen if you squirted either of these products into your fish tank, but I’ll leave it up to those reading this to make up their mind where they stand.
One thing that tends to be very well understood on both sides of the argument is that as toxic to the environment as both oil and dispersants are they are exponentially more toxic when combined into dispersed oil. In fact Dr. Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, reveals that independent testing shows that oil that combines with Corexit is four times as toxic as oil and ten times as toxic as Corexit alone. One has to wonder why we’re continuing to use this when independent testing has never shown that dispersant laced oil is safer; the benefit merely lies in its disappearance from view and its supposed speed of breakdown.
According to a 2005 National Research Council study titled Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects, the toxicity of Corexit varies widely among species and life stages. Toxic levels for oyster and fish larvae have been observed as low as 3 parts per million (ppm) for dispersant alone and 1 ppm for dispersed oil (the lower the number the more deadly the chemical). Average toxicity level for approved dispersants trend between 190-500 ppm for dispersants alone and typically 20-50 ppm for dispersed oil. This is frightening when NOAA measurements confirm levels of 100 ppm of dispersed oil in the first half meter of water and 12.5 ppm at ten meters; within which all of the sensitive life stages of sea life are contained according to toxicologist Carys Mitchelmore of the University of Maryland's Chesapeake Biological Laboratory.
Three final concerns: first, that Corexit evaporates readily and could therefore accumulate in rain. There’s no study that I’m aware of that has investigated this, so I couldn’t inform you accurately one way or the other. The second concern is that dispersants could bio-accumulate; this is addressed to some degree in the EPA’s MSDS’ for Corexit: “Based on a review of the individual components, utilizing U.S. EPA models, this material is not expected to bio-accumulate.” Unfortunately they’re judging simply by ingredients and not the compound (which has different properties) and they presume this to be correct. The final concern is listed in the MSDS (published by BP, referenced above) in Section 6 under “Environmental Precautions.” The statement that appears is: “Do not contaminate surface water.” I’m curious as to why more than 1 million gallons of this has been used on surface water alone (as of 1 July) if this is the case.
In the end no one really knows what effect Corexit & Corexit-laced oil will have. There is no doubt it is a toxic substance but the product has been tested to such a small degree while not controlling for even all of the known variables that it’s a crapshoot at best. By the numbers, it looks like Gulf genocide. When one steps back and considers how resilient nature is and how large the Gulf is by comparison the numbers begin to pale a bit though. Even Dr. Dennison’s worst estimates put the current amount of Corexit laid down at killing half of the fish in a 4 square mile area down to the bottom of the ocean, or if diluted sufficiently killing 5% of fish across 40 square miles. In an area as large as the Gulf of Mexico this is trivial. Hopefully these are the only side effects we’ll see.
Gas
Methane is one of the stronger greenhouse gases (21 times more potent than carbon dioxide according to the EPA). With estimates of 4.5-9.0 billion cubic feet leaked from the spill thus far one may begin to wonder about the effect this methane will have on the atmosphere. I checked to see how much methane the U.S. leaks into the air each year; the number projected for 2010 is 186.0 million metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE). At a density of 0.717 kg/m3 at STP the amount of methane gas leaked from the spill is estimated at between 91,000 and 182,000 MMTCE thus far, or between 0.05-0.1% of just the U.S.’s annual contribution, a rather negligible amount.
There have also been concerns that dissolved methane will eliminate oxygen in the waters they’re deposited into; this would create dead zones and negatively impact the surrounding ecosystems for decades. Thankfully it takes about 50 years for methane to oxidize into H2O and CO2; therefore the vast majority of the gas will surface and enter the atmosphere. Dead zones from methane gas in the ocean are not a major concern.
I was mistaken in my first article when I referred to a “methane bubble.” Based upon what I had read at the time I assumed that there was an actual bubble of methane in gaseous form beneath the ocean floor. After interviewing a chemical engineer and subsequent research I found out that the gas is actually in the form of methane hydrate; sometimes called “fire ice” (due to its unique properties of being able to burn while still frozen). This is methane trapped within a cage-like structure of water molecules frozen into a solid chunk of ice; it’s generally a very stable structure as long as temperature and pressure is held constant; usually a reliable notion since methane hydrate most commonly occurs in either permafrost or underneath the ocean floor at depths of greater than 500 meters. Deposits can slowly leak over time but rarely are they disturbed by nature to a sufficient degree to cause readily observable or significant disruptions.
One of the concerns I mentioned earlier was a tsunami triggered by the leak. This is still a concern, but not through the vector I previously wrote about. Since there is no methane “bubble” there is no danger of an eruption from that, and after speaking with a marine scientist I was assured that there is insufficient oxygen at those levels to result in an explosion of any sorts. This is great news, because the sudden expansion of a deposit as large as the methane hydrate looks to be would have triggered a tsunami that probably would have reached dozens to hundreds of miles inland along the coastline; this, however, appears to be quite the impossibility.
I did mention that tsunamis are still a concern. Methane hydrate, as mentioned earlier, is only stable under constant pressures and temperatures; the conditions under which it forms. When either of these changes (generally through a decrease in pressure or an increase in temperature) the hydrate goes through a phase change and becomes a gas. The following quotation comes from the German Advisory Council on Global Change’s Special Report in 2006: “If the methane hydrate stability zone is reduced, then methane gas forms below the hydrate layer. This gas can either penetrate through the hydrate layer and escape out of the sea floor through small channels or permeable sediment layers, or it can blast through the hydrate layer if sufficient quantities of gas collect below a continuously thinning layer. In such a blowout large amounts of methane gas are abruptly released.” Methane hydrate yields 160 times its volume in gas, so you get quite a bit of pressure release; or what we’re seeing with the Deepwater Horizon drill site now with 40-70% of the leak being comprised of methane gas. Every time a cap is attempted the intense pressures from the gas jet out from around the wellhead causing further erosion of the wellhead foundation. What we’re seeing is a rather intense phase change over an obviously significant deposit of hydrate; this is caused by one of two things. The oil coming up is heated by subsurface magma in the earth’s mantle and this temperature change would be sufficient to induce a phase change; the other possibility is that the opening provided by the drilling allowed the pressure of the hydrate deposit to vent sufficiently to allow the phase change. Whichever it is (or a combination of both) we’re seeing a steady erosion of the solids composing the deposit (and thereby the support for the ocean floor above it).
The following flow chart was pulled from the same report. Check out the stimulus on the left side: “Dissolution of hydrates from the bottom upward” which is what we’re seeing now due to pressure and/or temperature change. This of course leads to methane escaping by blowout and could possibly trigger submarine landslides.
Such a catalyst was eerily predicted by the report four years ago when this was published: “There is already a need today for institutional action with regard to marine methane hydrate deposits. This is with respect to, for one, the targeted mining of marine methane hydrates, and for another to the unintentional release of methane that could occur during sea-floor mining.
Theoretically, efforts to recover methane from hydrates could unintentionally trigger their release into the environment, in the worst case as a sudden eruption. The risks of this have not yet been sufficiently investigated (Archer, 2005). A leak of methane into the environment during mining would unnecessarily amplify global warming. In the worst case even a slope slide could be caused that could trigger a tsunami.”
Because of what the catalyst for the tsunami would be it would most likely head in a different direction than I indicated in my first article. The premise for the tsunami threat I previously wrote about was an eruption or explosion which would trigger wave action in a 360 degree circle; an underwater mudslide would head downhill and project the vast majority of its kinetic energy in that direction.
The oil spill is located on a steep canyon facing south. Any mudslide would therefore push a tsunami primarily south, away from the United States. Whether this is good or bad news depends on where you are as you’re reading this. There would probably be some larger-than-normal wave action generated north of any landslide event; this would be produced by back fill from the depression of the waves and would most likely not be large enough to be called a tsunami north of the slide. Any coastline protected by barrier islands would be that much better off as well.
The German report describes how this would occur: “Methane eruptions can…destabilize continental slopes and trigger large submarine landslides, which can then possibly result in the break-up of additional hydrates. Evidence of such slides can be found on the sea floor. For example, in the Storegga landslide off the coast of Norway around 8000 years ago, an average of 250 m of the continental slope with a width of 100 km were transported downslope (Archer, 2005). This event triggered a tsunami that was at least 25 m high off the Shetland Islands and at least 5 m high along the British coast (Smith et al., 2004).”
I’ve been asked several dozen times why the U.S. and BP didn’t do more on the front end to study the surrounding geology and determine necessary precautions. In yet another haunting quote the Germans proved to be more right than they knew at the time: “The International Seabed Authority, an institution of the international United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), is responsible for methane hydrate deposits as well as for other resources on the sea floor outside the exclusive economic zone. The Authority grants mining licenses and monitors mining operations. Its regulations adopted in 2000 for the exploration of deep-sea mineral resources contain various environmental aspects. This is a starting point for agreement on concrete standards for mining marine methane hydrate on the high seas. In the opinion of WBGU it is furthermore necessary to improve and expand the monitoring system. It is, however, important to note here that so far ‘only’ about 150 countries have ratified UNCLOS, and of those only about 120 countries have ratified the rules governing seabed resources (those who have not signed include, for example, Iran and the USA).”
Conclusion
I want to thank everyone who wrote in and contributed to my requests for information in the first article; even though I think the probability of some of the results outlined therein is far less than when I originally posted it, the threats are still viable (although several appear in different forms). That being said there are some rather severe long-term economic implications across all of the Gulf States. Fishing and tourism industries should expect a severe decline for years; recovery will have to be built from the ground up over the course of what looks like the next several decades before pre-spill strength is achieved. Because of the fact that these are driving industries across Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, the rest of the industries in these states should expect to see an economic downturn ripple effect. The impacts will of course be lessened but they will be no less significant. There is a possibility (though how probable remains to be seen) that certain crops could be damaged by any oil-infused rain; even if they remain effectively safe for human consumption they may not remain so legally (it is possible the FDA will forbid any crops from “contaminated” areas to be sold); farmers should be prepared for the possibility that this negative impact may occur. Consumers should be prepared for across the board food price increases this summer; this will especially be true the longer the Mississippi River is impacted as a shipping lane.
The concern still exists that capping the well may be a long way off. The problem BP is facing is not that the pressures in the well are so high that it is impossible to be capped (as I originally thought) but rather that the casing is most likely broken. This causes oil and gas to vector out around the well casing whenever it is shut off, further damaging the wellhead’s attachments to the sea floor. According to Matthew Simmons, energy advisor to George W. Bush and founder of the Ocean Energy Institute an intact casing is necessary for the relief wells to work. If the casing is busted what we’re looking at is trying to seal an increasingly porous and leaking ocean floor, not a wellhead. This makes the case fundamentally different from and incomparable to cases such as the Ixtoc oil well (in addition to being in 5,000 feet of water as verses 160 feet with the Ixtoc). If such indeed proves to be the case more drastic measures may be necessary, such as attempting to collapse the floor around the leak using explosives. This brings up an entire host of issues and I sincerely hope we won’t have to cross that bridge.
By Joshua S. Burnett -
Nick Doms
On 4 Jul, 2010
Good article and carefully written.
I submitted a new article to Heleen for review and approval.
The latest news is this:
Military personnel in combat fatigues showed up yesterday afternoon in Louisiana, Alabama and Florida, patrolling in military vehicles.
They did not interfere, nor did they question any beachgoer.
4,000 troops from Jacksonville, Fl have been activated to ready status as well as a platoon based in Tampa/St. Petersburg, FL.
17,000 national guards are already in activated status but have not been deployed yet.
It is widely believed and confirmed by local law enforcement agencies that after the long July 4th weekend, troops will be sent to the Gulf Coast to patrol and cordone off all the beaches with the help of private security forces (Wackenhut).
I am still making arrangements with my crew and will let you know when we leave.
All the best. -
Emeline/Viviane
On 5 Jul, 2010
@ Nick
Today in De Standaard:
"Kernbom tegen olielek van BP?" -
JanS
On 5 Jul, 2010
FYI,
Deze heren confirmeren wat reeds op andere plaatsen te lezen was, nl :
-er zijn ondertussen meerdere (!) lekken, de grootte van het olieveld is gigantisch (en het is mogleijk verbonden met nog andere velden...)
-dus het zal minstens 2 jaar en misschien veel langer olie spuiten, eigenlijk betekent dit dat de hele regio economisch "dood" is.
-de nucleaire optie is volgens hen niet bruikbaar wegens de verschillende lekken en het soort ondergrond. (en volgens mij gaat de VS dat toch uitvoeren...
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Hidden-Truths-BP-and-The-W-by-Richard-Gale-100628-768.html -
JanS
On 5 Jul, 2010
Volgens mijn definitie is de VS geen democratie meer waarbij nochtans in het beroemde "first amendment van de grondwet, freedom of speech and freedom of press" zijn opgenomen...en dit komt van CNN...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXsmLMV1CrM&feature=player_embedded
Nick, I hope you and others continue information gathering regardless of all hurdles.
Geert, thanks again for providing this forum without censorship. -
Nick Doms
On 5 Jul, 2010
This is an early morning article which i will place here.
Department of Homeland Security.
http://www.huliq.com/9990/homeland-security-seizes-control-over-bp-oil-spill-website
Another article about the US Senate vote today is in the making.
I will share when the link is active.
Thank you for all the support. -
Nick Doms
On 5 Jul, 2010
I typically do not comment on or write about politics but this decision this morning is not very comforting.
I will leave it at that and let you decide.
http://www.huliq.com/9990/us-senate-blocks-vote-bp-investigation -
Emeline/Viviane
On 5 Jul, 2010
@ Nick
This evening, on Canvas in "Terzake" was a very interesting documentary about Oil Spill/BP (BBC).
The documentary treated of de explosion , the causes, and the consequences for the people and the whole
environment, just as the lies and the inability of BP.
We could see that it's about a real disaster.
Oil is everywhere, often in very thick layers. -
Nick Doms
On 6 Jul, 2010
More disturbing news for the Gul residents.
This is a live video of military personnel patrolling Panama Beach, FL on July 04,2010.
http://www.huliq.com/9990/military-patrols-spotted-gulf-beaches-during-july-4th-weekend -
JanS
On 6 Jul, 2010
It is reported time and again that the cleanup teams are not working full speed and that there could just be so much more people activated on cleanup efforts. Military who could also be employed to assist in cleanup efforts are just "patrolling"...
It seems to me that their chiefs and the US Government are not motivated at all to put real effort in the cleanup...why ?...if one thinks further it can only mean they first want to do something with more impact to close the well...which like I said before, in my opinion, can only mean the blow up of the well... -
Nick Doms
On 8 Jul, 2010
Waste Management, Inc and BP do not adhere to EPA directives for the removal and disposal of contaminated materials, increasing the risk of cross contamination.
http://www.huliq.com/9990/bp-oil-spill-cleanup-crew-violates-epa-regulations-daily -
Nick Doms
On 11 Jul, 2010
Leaving tonight for Mississippi with a small crew.
Will be back mid-week with video and hopefully lab test results.
Lot of controversy on facebook and a lot of threats. No problem, i'll survive.
Will be in touch when i return.
All the best. -
JanS
On 11 Jul, 2010
Keep up the good work, Nick, I look forward to see your findings and any video footage you can get ))
-
JanS
On 12 Jul, 2010
Volgens dit computermodel wordt vooral de VS Oostkust en Westelijk deel Atlantische Oceaan vervuild (dus niet Europa...) Of we nog vis gaan kunnen eten is een andere zaak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAiG-TPYIFM&feature=player_embedded#! -
JanS
On 12 Jul, 2010
dirty pictures...
Awaiting Nick's new material, herewith some pictures of how the oil affects wildlife - Gaia anywhere ?
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/07/you-are-not-authorized-to-see-these.html-
Nacht Und Nebel
On 12 Jul, 2010
Nog meer slecht nieuws
http://breakingnews.gaeatimes.com/2010/06/22/bp-fund-chief-doubtful-over-strip-club-claim-35387/
-
-
JanS
On 15 Jul, 2010
BP is - again - playing very dangerous games with the oil well : the current effort to gradually close the well has enormous risk of making this much worse :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsjsTe6Y9PU&feature=player_embedded
Ben de laatste dagen ook weer enorm teleurgesteld in de lamentabele kwaliteit van de berichtgeving hierover in de Vlaamse media, gewoon overnemen van de BP propaganda is onwaardige journalistiek ! -
Nick Doms
On 30 Jul, 2010
Hello all,
Finally back in the saddle after an exhausting 3 weeks. I will try to find time to write about our "infamous" trip to the Gulf as well as California (i will explain).
The news is not so great but has not been reported in general.
Will be in touch soon, if i find a new publisher first. HULIQ thought the articles caused too much controversy so they refuse to approve and publish my articles.
We'll see what the future brings but i will find a way.
Al the best.
Nick-
Theo
On 30 Jul, 2010
Hey Nick
Glad to hear from you and that you made it back.
Would really like to read about your experiences through your trip.
Find a way to keep us informed on what's happening.
I can already tell you that the BP disaster in the GoM has contributed to the Bulgarian government having commissioned an environmental assessment study for a similar project in/near a natural reserve in the Black sea. Given the BP disaster nobody will be able to give the go ahead to the project, thus allowing the government to pull out of the project without having to pay any damages or compensations (as per contract).
One small battle against oil drilling, one big victory for nature.
-
-
Emeline/Viviane
On 30 Jul, 2010
Hello Nick
It is good to hear from you and to know that you are save.
Keep us informed. -
Nacht Und Nebel
On 31 Jul, 2010
https://www.energytrainingresources.com/content.aspx?page=SharedWrite-ups
-
Emeline/Viviane
On 31 Jul, 2010
The New York Times:
"Officials Optimistic That Cement Will Kill BP Well"
www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/us/01spill.html?_r=1&hp
We zullen dan wel zien....... -
Nick Doms
On 1 Aug, 2010
A different type of article which i will follow up tomorrow.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-43877-International-Trade-Examiner~y2010m7d31-Oil-spills-can-threaten-and-disrupt-local-maritime-and-economic-life-Part-I
The top kill is under pressure from the relief well drilling. part of the wall next to the riser pipe has collapsed. i will give more details in the next two days.
Best regards,
Nick -
Nacht Und Nebel
On 1 Aug, 2010
The U.S. Coast Guard has routinely approved BP requests to use thousands of gallons of toxic chemical a day to break up oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico despite a federal directive that the chemicals be used only rarely on surface waters, congressional investigators said Saturday after examining BP and government documents.
The documents show the Coast Guard approved 74 waivers over a 48-day period after the restrictions were imposed, resulting in hundreds of thousands of gallons of the chemicals to be spread on Gulf waters. Only in a small number of cases did the government scale back BP's request.
bron:AP -
Emeline/Viviane
On 1 Aug, 2010
@Nick
Great article!
@N&N
I searched for the topic you are writing about.
www.ap.org/oil_spill/
AP and the Gulf Oil Spill
The Latest Headlines:
"Coast Guard allows toxic chemical use on Gulf oil"
On "AP and the Gulf Oil Spill" are a lot of other interesting articles about the topic of "Gulf Oil Spill". -
Nick Doms
On 1 Aug, 2010
Follow up article on Prince Edward Island and the potential impact of the oil spill.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-43877-International-Trade-Examiner~y2010m8d1-Oil-spills-can-threaten-and-disrupt-local-maritime-and-economic-life-Final
Enjoy. -
Nick Doms
On 1 Aug, 2010
While i was set out to document the physical impact of the oil spill, i thought it would be more respectful to try to write about the psychological impact on the local residents in the aftermath.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-43877-International-Trade-Examiner~y2010m8d1-The-psychological-aftershock-of-the-BP-oil-spill
Enjoy, -
Nick Doms
On 3 Aug, 2010
BP refused to use non-toxic chemicals such as Dispersit on May 20th and continued to use the highly toxic Corexit9500 and Corexit 9527 until July 17.
A total of 2 million gallons wre sprayed on the surface waters and on coastal beach areas.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-43877-International-Trade-Examiner~y2010m8d3-BP-refused-to-use-nontoxic-dispersants-in-oil-spill -
Nick Doms
On 6 Aug, 2010
An article from a different angle with regards to the BP clean up.
The article also contains links to two indepedently written articles from The Huffington Post and Mother Nature Network.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-43877-International-Trade-Examiner~y2010m8d5-BP-waste-plants-process-dead-animals-out-of-sight -
Nick Doms
On 6 Aug, 2010
Let the legal games begin.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-43877-International-Trade-Examiner~y2010m8d6-BP-guiltynot-guilty-game-has-begun
Easy weekend reading with pun and sarcasm intended.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-43877-International-Trade-Examiner~y2010m8d6-BP-needs-two-stones-to-kill-one-well -
Emeline/Viviane
On 7 Aug, 2010
Deze morgen in De Tijd: "BP sluit nieuwe boringen bij lek niet uit".
BP acht het mogelijk dat zij, zelfs in de nabije toekoms, "op dezelfde plek" als waar het lek zich voordeed naar olie zullen boren. -
Nick Doms
On 7 Aug, 2010
The same info was released over the wires yesterday
trying to find more info but i think it is somehow connected to the relief well that is currently being completed
BP is not just going to walk away from billions of crude and gas -
Nick Doms
On 7 Aug, 2010
I didn't have the article ready earlier, but i had a very lengthy conversation with one of my BP sources last night.
Just read what i deem to be unbelievable and incredible but my source is as trustworthy as gold.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-43877-International-Trade-Examiner~y2010m8d7-BP-intends-to-use-relief-well-as-new-drilling-operation-for-oil-and-gas -
Nick Doms
On 9 Aug, 2010
Now that BP is scaling back its cleanup efforts even though it is believed that 25% of the oil/Corexit mixture is still in the marshlands, wetlands and barrier reefs, the picture of the economic impact and long-term effects become clearer and they look very bleak.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-43877-International-Trade-Examiner~y2010m8d9-Bleak-economic-outlook-for-Gulf-residents -
Nick Doms
On 14 Aug, 2010
Below is a link about the Corexit/oil mixture and its elevated toxicity for humans as well as maritime life.
The article also has a link to part I of the story, which, if interested you should read first and watch the video clip.
http://www.examiner.com/international-trade-in-national/corexit-the-final-kill-the-gulf-of-mexico-conclusion
All the best.
PS: am leaving again for the Gulf to interview locals, no video equipment this time and no cameras since we are not allowed anyway, but nobody can prohibit us from speaking with the cleanup crew and getting their story out so people know.
Talk to you soon. -
JanS
On 16 Aug, 2010
Nick, I was absent some time, so good to see you got back "sain et sauf"
Crazy story to hear BP would like to use a relief well as a new access for further exploration of the well ???!!! -
Nick Doms
On 17 Aug, 2010
Arrived yesterday morning in Pensacola, FL and went to visit Pensacola Beach and Perdido Key to get a good idea of what the Guld looks and smells like after 114 days.
Some beaches look clean, others not so. There is still oil either buried or washing up.
the surf does not smell but the water has a sheen on it. When the tide comes in, it brings a lot of light brown foam with it and it feels oily and sticky when you rub it between your fingers.
We met a guy in a local restaurant in AL who shot a video dated 8/14 which is embedded in this brief article about the tourism industry.
Restaurants are half empty and the few patrons i saw all questioned the seafood. They wanted to know whether it was local or imported first before ordering anything off the menu.
Business is slow if not to say bad. Fishing is minimal and shrimp season just started so we'll make our way to Louisiana and see what the catch tells us.
The overall sentiment among the local residents is a combination of anger, depression and resilience.
It is hard to describe but you can sense it, feel it and hear it.
They want to survive, that is for sure, but some business owners are running on fumes.
be back with more when i can.
http://www.examiner.com/international-trade-in-national/tourism-hardest-hit-the-gulf-bp-oil-spill-aftermath -
Nick Doms
On 16 Sep, 2010
This the latest news from the Gulf and its almost invisible aftermath.
I don't think the two part article needs a lot of explanation but it is only the tip of the iceberg.
Unfortunately, the mainstream media do not report on this nor do the sick people get a chance to speak. They are lucky if hospitals or doctors are even willing to order a full bloodtest.
http://www.examiner.com/international-trade-in-national/the-day-the-gulf-died-part-ii-of-ii
The link above also has an embedded link to part I
Sincerely, -
Nick Doms
On 17 Sep, 2010
VOCs and toxic dispersants may bio-accumulate in seafood as they do in humans, threatening the food supply.
http://www.examiner.com/international-trade-in-national/seafood-may-bio-accumulate-toxic-dispersants-threatens-food-supply -
cookie989273
On 7 Nov, 2011
[url=http://www.sisko-hosting.com]www.sisko-hosting.com[/url] - Best FREE HOSTING EVER! JOIN NOW!
