ST's BP Rantings

[SpidermanTuba]

Using your logic no one should engage in any venture that has the potential for a disasterous accident.

Incorrect Mr Strawman. Using my logic, companies that cause grave damage to our environment and economy should be punished severely by the government, the lawyers, and their customers.

But damn near every industry has the potential for catasphropic envornmental and economical damages and no one has said that BP shouldn't be held accountable. It's not a strawman argument, I was referencing your logic.

Hey, we've all got the potential to be murderers, maybe we shouldn't punish murderers.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Could you provide a case number where they were charged, convicted and plead guilty?

No, I can't give you a case number.

hahahahahahah so you admit you made the shit up.

No, I just said I can't give you a case number.

 

[ABikerSailor]

This weekend I was watching the History Chanel, "It Came From Outer Space", which was a program showing some of the innovations developed for the space program by NASA, that had everyday applications here on earth.

One of the more interesting things that I came across was PRP, a powder that is made from beeswax that will soak up oil and biodegrade it.

Bioremediation is the process of using biological agents, such as bacteria or plants, to remove or neutralise contaminants in polluted soil or water.

Petroleum Remediation Product (PRP) is a 100% natural, non-toxic hydrocarbon (oil) absorbent, that attracts and stimulates the natural (indigenous) microbial population, to degrade oil on land or water.

PRP is oleophilic (clings to petroleum); yet hydrophobic (repels water) and is the only biological product that contains and remediates hydrocarbons in a micro-environment on the water’s surface. When contact is achieved between the hydrocarbon and the PRP, the encapsulating wax forms a floating matrix thus initiating and enabling the bioremediation process.

The beeswax functions as a nutrient for the indigenous microbes and as a stimulant, that causes them to consume the hydrocarbons and reproduce, which they do exponentially approximately every 20-30 minutes. PRP overcomes one of the most obvious problems faced by other bioremediation technologies, that of microbial survivability. PRP provides a means of stimulating massive quantities of viable hydrocarbon micro-organisms at a contaminated site, thus enabling the indigenous population of micro-organisms to not only survive but to multiply.

The specific gravity of PRP is greater than oil but less than water. Consequently, PRP provides a barrier between spilled oil and the water or land into which the oil has spilled, thus preventing contact with ecotypes. Once applied PRP repels water and floats, thus enabling it to maintain its position on the surface of the water, it is therefore able to rise and fall with the tide, enhancing the opportunity of the PRP to come in contact with floating hydrocarbons and those hydrocarbons that have impacted the shoreline.

This tidal ability allows PRP to travel to impenetrable areas where hydrocarbons are present and avoids the problems found with other products which tend to disperse rapidly in the water column and cannot be controlled in the same way achieved by PRP.

PRP (OIL BUSTER) comes in the form of loose powder, the application procedure really depends on how big the contaminated site is and ranges from sprinkling by hand to application by a spraying machine (hydro-seeder) in which it is mixed with water. The amount of PRP applied also depends on the level of contamination.

A dosage of 2 - 4 ounces per square foot on soil or water, depending on how much oil is has been spilled is usually recommended but additional applications may be required.

Having PRP in BIO-BOOMS, WELL-BOOMS and BIO-SOKS is simply another way to use the product when it must be confined to one area of an oil spill. This is very significant when the environmental impact of the spill is on land, in or around desalination plants, around storage tanks, in or on boat and ship bilges, storm drains, collection basins, fish farms, fishing grounds, industrial water intakes, recreational beaches, harbours and contaminated wells.

With PRP, in a typical spill, dramatic results can be seen in the first week and most of the spill is gone after only three weeks. Bioremediation is a proven method where oil released into marine water (salt & fresh) can be removed with little impact to the habitat. The entire process is environmentally safe with the absorbed hydrocarbons being biodegraded or broken down into CO_ and water, leaving no residue, by enzymes produced by the indigenous microbes. Life expectancy for microbes is around 30 days (as the population continues to expand for the duration of the spill) after applying PRP. After all hydrocarbons and PRP are consumed by the microbes, they will go dormant and then die within 30 days.

Necessary conditions for PRP are simply; oxygen, water and a hydrocarbon spill. Ideal temperatures for bio-remediation are considered to be in the 35°-95° range, as this is the temperature that indigenous microbes operate most effectively. As an absorbent, PRP works from 60° below freezing to 130° above. Temperature however is not a factor once applied in a water environment.

Petroleum Remediation Product PRP - how it works

My question is where the fuck is BP, and why the fuck aren't they dumping this stuff into the wetlands to soak up the oil?

 

[Intense]

I think they are busy making deals with Iran.

 

[HUGGY]

This weekend I was watching the History Chanel, "It Came From Outer Space", which was a program showing some of the innovations developed for the space program by NASA, that had everyday applications here on earth.

One of the more interesting things that I came across was PRP, a powder that is made from beeswax that will soak up oil and biodegrade it.

Bioremediation is the process of using biological agents, such as bacteria or plants, to remove or neutralise contaminants in polluted soil or water.

Petroleum Remediation Product (PRP) is a 100% natural, non-toxic hydrocarbon (oil) absorbent, that attracts and stimulates the natural (indigenous) microbial population, to degrade oil on land or water.

PRP is oleophilic (clings to petroleum); yet hydrophobic (repels water) and is the only biological product that contains and remediates hydrocarbons in a micro-environment on the water’s surface. When contact is achieved between the hydrocarbon and the PRP, the encapsulating wax forms a floating matrix thus initiating and enabling the bioremediation process.

The beeswax functions as a nutrient for the indigenous microbes and as a stimulant, that causes them to consume the hydrocarbons and reproduce, which they do exponentially approximately every 20-30 minutes. PRP overcomes one of the most obvious problems faced by other bioremediation technologies, that of microbial survivability. PRP provides a means of stimulating massive quantities of viable hydrocarbon micro-organisms at a contaminated site, thus enabling the indigenous population of micro-organisms to not only survive but to multiply.

The specific gravity of PRP is greater than oil but less than water. Consequently, PRP provides a barrier between spilled oil and the water or land into which the oil has spilled, thus preventing contact with ecotypes. Once applied PRP repels water and floats, thus enabling it to maintain its position on the surface of the water, it is therefore able to rise and fall with the tide, enhancing the opportunity of the PRP to come in contact with floating hydrocarbons and those hydrocarbons that have impacted the shoreline.

This tidal ability allows PRP to travel to impenetrable areas where hydrocarbons are present and avoids the problems found with other products which tend to disperse rapidly in the water column and cannot be controlled in the same way achieved by PRP.

PRP (OIL BUSTER) comes in the form of loose powder, the application procedure really depends on how big the contaminated site is and ranges from sprinkling by hand to application by a spraying machine (hydro-seeder) in which it is mixed with water. The amount of PRP applied also depends on the level of contamination.

A dosage of 2 - 4 ounces per square foot on soil or water, depending on how much oil is has been spilled is usually recommended but additional applications may be required.

Having PRP in BIO-BOOMS, WELL-BOOMS and BIO-SOKS is simply another way to use the product when it must be confined to one area of an oil spill. This is very significant when the environmental impact of the spill is on land, in or around desalination plants, around storage tanks, in or on boat and ship bilges, storm drains, collection basins, fish farms, fishing grounds, industrial water intakes, recreational beaches, harbours and contaminated wells.

With PRP, in a typical spill, dramatic results can be seen in the first week and most of the spill is gone after only three weeks. Bioremediation is a proven method where oil released into marine water (salt & fresh) can be removed with little impact to the habitat. The entire process is environmentally safe with the absorbed hydrocarbons being biodegraded or broken down into CO_ and water, leaving no residue, by enzymes produced by the indigenous microbes. Life expectancy for microbes is around 30 days (as the population continues to expand for the duration of the spill) after applying PRP. After all hydrocarbons and PRP are consumed by the microbes, they will go dormant and then die within 30 days.

Necessary conditions for PRP are simply; oxygen, water and a hydrocarbon spill. Ideal temperatures for bio-remediation are considered to be in the 35°-95° range, as this is the temperature that indigenous microbes operate most effectively. As an absorbent, PRP works from 60° below freezing to 130° above. Temperature however is not a factor once applied in a water environment.

Petroleum Remediation Product PRP - how it works

My question is where the fuck is BP, and why the fuck aren't they dumping this stuff into the wetlands to soak up the oil?

AAAaaa...EERRrrrrrr..One tiny problem...Bees...They are tiny. I doubt there is enough bees wax on the planet to deal with 1 or 2 or 20 or 100 million gallons of spilt oil.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Actually Huggy, they use it already to soak up oil spills.

And yes.............after seeing the factory where they make this stuff, there's a LOT of it.

 

[HUGGY]

Actually Huggy, they use it already to soak up oil spills.

And yes.............after seeing the factory where they make this stuff, there's a LOT of it.

Well shut my mouth and make me turn tricks on Aurora Avenue! I guess I should mind my own "Bees Wax!"

 

[ABikerSailor]

Actually Huggy, they use it already to soak up oil spills.

And yes.............after seeing the factory where they make this stuff, there's a LOT of it.

Well shut my mouth and make me turn tricks on Aurora Avenue! I guess I should mind my own "Bees Wax!"

Actually, all BP would have to do is take a few tanker ships and suck up all the oil plumes.

The PRP would take care of the rest.

And, before anyone says it's not feasible, check this out.......

Could Secret Saudi Spill Hold Fix for Gulf Slick?

Chanan Tigay
AOL News

(May 14) -- Even as proposals pour in for cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, one veteran of a massive (and secret) crude spill in the Persian Gulf says he has a tried-and-true solution.

Now if only the people who could make it happen would return his calls.

"No one's listening," says Nick Pozzi, who was an engineer with Saudi Aramco in the Middle East when he says an accident there in 1993 generated a spill far larger than anything the United States has ever seen.

An engineer who witnessed a crude spill in the Persian Gulf in 1993 says BP should use a fleet of empty supertankers to suck crude off the water's surface.

According to Pozzi, that mishap, kept under wraps for close to two decades and first reported by Esquire, dumped nearly 800 million gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf, which would make it more than 70 times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill.

But remarkably, by employing a fleet of empty supertankers to suck crude off the water's surface, Pozzi's team was not only able to clean up the spill, but also salvage 85 percent of the oil, he says.

"We took [the oil] out of the water so it would save the environment off the Arabian Gulf, and then we put it into tanks until we could figure out how to clean it," he told AOL News.

While BP, the oil giant at the center of the recent accident, works to stanch the leak from the sunken Deepwater Horizon rig, Pozzi insists the company should be following his lead.

AOL News could not independently verify Pozzi's account, but one former Aramco employee did acknowledge that there was a large spill in the region in the early '90s, and that Aramco had used tankers to clean up earlier oil slicks.

Could Cleanup Fix for Gulf Oil Spill Lie in Secret Saudi Disaster? - AOL News

Nope............those BP fuckers are too stupid to do anything except fuck up the Gulf.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Actually Huggy, they use it already to soak up oil spills.

And yes.............after seeing the factory where they make this stuff, there's a LOT of it.

Well shut my mouth and make me turn tricks on Aurora Avenue! I guess I should mind my own "Bees Wax!"

Actually, all BP would have to do is take a few tanker ships and suck up all the oil plumes.

The PRP would take care of the rest.

And, before anyone says it's not feasible, check this out.......

Could Secret Saudi Spill Hold Fix for Gulf Slick?

Chanan Tigay
AOL News

(May 14) -- Even as proposals pour in for cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, one veteran of a massive (and secret) crude spill in the Persian Gulf says he has a tried-and-true solution.

Now if only the people who could make it happen would return his calls.

"No one's listening," says Nick Pozzi, who was an engineer with Saudi Aramco in the Middle East when he says an accident there in 1993 generated a spill far larger than anything the United States has ever seen.

An engineer who witnessed a crude spill in the Persian Gulf in 1993 says BP should use a fleet of empty supertankers to suck crude off the water's surface.

According to Pozzi, that mishap, kept under wraps for close to two decades and first reported by Esquire, dumped nearly 800 million gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf, which would make it more than 70 times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill.

But remarkably, by employing a fleet of empty supertankers to suck crude off the water's surface, Pozzi's team was not only able to clean up the spill, but also salvage 85 percent of the oil, he says.

"We took [the oil] out of the water so it would save the environment off the Arabian Gulf, and then we put it into tanks until we could figure out how to clean it," he told AOL News.

While BP, the oil giant at the center of the recent accident, works to stanch the leak from the sunken Deepwater Horizon rig, Pozzi insists the company should be following his lead.

AOL News could not independently verify Pozzi's account, but one former Aramco employee did acknowledge that there was a large spill in the region in the early '90s, and that Aramco had used tankers to clean up earlier oil slicks.

Could Cleanup Fix for Gulf Oil Spill Lie in Secret Saudi Disaster? - AOL News

Nope............those BP fuckers are too stupid to do anything except fuck up the Gulf.

WTF? Clean the crap up you fuckers! ABikerSailor? You should start a thread with that link bro. ~BH

 

[saveliberty]

Actually Huggy, they use it already to soak up oil spills.

And yes.............after seeing the factory where they make this stuff, there's a LOT of it.

Well shut my mouth and make me turn tricks on Aurora Avenue! I guess I should mind my own "Bees Wax!"

Actually, all BP would have to do is take a few tanker ships and suck up all the oil plumes.

The PRP would take care of the rest.

And, before anyone says it's not feasible, check this out.......

Could Secret Saudi Spill Hold Fix for Gulf Slick?

Chanan Tigay
AOL News

(May 14) -- Even as proposals pour in for cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, one veteran of a massive (and secret) crude spill in the Persian Gulf says he has a tried-and-true solution.

Now if only the people who could make it happen would return his calls.

"No one's listening," says Nick Pozzi, who was an engineer with Saudi Aramco in the Middle East when he says an accident there in 1993 generated a spill far larger than anything the United States has ever seen.

An engineer who witnessed a crude spill in the Persian Gulf in 1993 says BP should use a fleet of empty supertankers to suck crude off the water's surface.

According to Pozzi, that mishap, kept under wraps for close to two decades and first reported by Esquire, dumped nearly 800 million gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf, which would make it more than 70 times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill.

But remarkably, by employing a fleet of empty supertankers to suck crude off the water's surface, Pozzi's team was not only able to clean up the spill, but also salvage 85 percent of the oil, he says.

"We took [the oil] out of the water so it would save the environment off the Arabian Gulf, and then we put it into tanks until we could figure out how to clean it," he told AOL News.

While BP, the oil giant at the center of the recent accident, works to stanch the leak from the sunken Deepwater Horizon rig, Pozzi insists the company should be following his lead.

AOL News could not independently verify Pozzi's account, but one former Aramco employee did acknowledge that there was a large spill in the region in the early '90s, and that Aramco had used tankers to clean up earlier oil slicks.

Could Cleanup Fix for Gulf Oil Spill Lie in Secret Saudi Disaster? - AOL News

Nope............those BP fuckers are too stupid to do anything except fuck up the Gulf.

I think this problem requires a lot of different ideas employed all at the same time. Sucking up the oil as A BikerSailor suggests, start drilling a relief well, pack the existing well with mud and concrete, soaking up oil before it goes it shore, booms and using oil eating bacteria. We have more than one problem now. We have a well leak, oil freely moving around the Gulf and some reaching shore.

This is a great opportunity for 0bama to take the lead. So far he seems unwilling to do that. Pointing blame is not leadership. I hope he gets this and comes through for us.

 

[Intense]

Cairo, Egypt
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill has put a spotlight on the dangerous world of offshore oil drilling. With a well spewing thousands of barrels of crude (estimates range from 5,000 to 100,000 barrels) a day into the Gulf of Mexico, many are wondering if the industry has been too lightly regulated.


.The Deepwater Hori*zon spill is shaping up to be among the biggest in American history - now estimated to be at least 6 million gallons according to US Coast Guard and British Petroleum figures. But such massive blowouts remain rare for offshore rigs. Thousands of drilling rigs operate all over the world every day without disaster. As they pursue oil in deeper waters, however, leaks become more difficult to contain. Safety procedures and clean-up techniques have not kept pace with the race to drill in deeper and deeper waters.


How many offshore rigs are there, and where are they located?

According to Rigzone, an industry website, there are currently about 1,234 exploration rigs. (Spills are more common during exploration, as with the Deepwater Hori*zon.) One hundred and forty-six are in Europe's North Sea. The Gulf of Mexico is home to 114. The remainder are off the coasts of Brazil, Venezuela, and West Africa; in the Persian Gulf; and in the seas of south and southeast Asia.



What have been the worst spills from offshore oil rigs?

Ixtoc I oil spill, Gulf of Mexico, 1979: Generally considered the second-worst oil spill in history (first is a 1991 disaster at a Persian Gulf oil port during the first Gulf War), the Ixtoc spill occurred when the Mexican state-owned Pemex was drilling an exploratory well in shallow water in the Bay of Campeche. The Ixtoc suffered a blowout, and more than 3 million barrels of oil gushed from the well for more than nine months before engineers were able to cap it. The spill contaminated more than 162 miles of beach in Texas.

Nowruz oil field, Persian Gulf, 1983: After a tanker hit a rig off the coast of Iran, the rig began leaking 1,500 barrels a day. Because Iran and Iraq were at war, the oil flow was not stopped, and the platform was later attacked by Iraqi warplanes. Later, a second platform was attacked, and initially spilled 5,000 barrels a day before slowing to 1,500. Two years passed before Iran capped the wells, but by then some 733,000 barrels of oil had spilled into the Persian Gulf.

Santa Barbara, Calif., 1969: A blowout at a well five miles off the coast of Santa Barbara caused a leak that flowed for 11 days. According to a report by the Uni*ver*sity of California, Santa Barbara, the spill affected 800 square miles of ocean and coated 35 miles of coastline with oil. It led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and a moratorium on offshore drilling in California.

Montara, Australia, 2009: An oil well in the Timor Sea, off the coast of Western Australia, began leaking, and the platform subsequently caught fire. The well spewed oil for more than two months, leaking as much as 2,000 barrels a day before it was capped, making it one of the worst spills in Australian history.


Have cleanup and containment methods improved?

The basic techniques used to contain offshore spills haven't changed much in the past three decades, but spills are now tracked by satellite; containment booms stand up better to waves; skimming technology has improved; and chemical dispersants, used to break up the oil into smaller particles, are now less toxic, though they still have a harmful effect on the environment. In the case of the Deepwater Horizon, dispersants have been pumped into the source of the leak for the first time.


Jerome Milgram, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who has extensively studied oil spills, says open-water cleanup is tough to improve. "It's never been particularly effective in open waters, and I don't think it ever will be," he notes. Dr. Milgram, who worked to contain the Ixtoc oil spill, says there hasn't been enough research into subsea containment devices.


Have preventive measures improved?

Offshore oil wells have blowout preventers, valves intended to seal off the well if oil or gas begins to flow uncontrollably. Norway and Brazil require a last-resort backup method called an acoustic switch in case the blowout valve fails. The United States does not require rigs to be equipped with these devices.

Andy Radford, senior policy adviser for offshore issues at the American Petroleum Institute, says questions about the reliability of acoustic switches played a role in the US decision not to require their use. But even if the US had more stringent regulations, enforcement would be difficult, says MIT's Milgram: "I haven't the foggiest idea of how to enforce them. You can't send an inspector down 5,000 feet to check a voltage meter on a battery," he says, referring to allegations of a dead battery on one of the Deepwater Horizon's blowout prevention devices.



How bad is Gulf oil spill? A global Q&A on offshore oil spills - CSMonitor.com

 

[Chris]

If the U.S. had required something called an "acoustic switch" to be installed on the rig, which cost a paltry $500,000 (compared to BP's billions in annual profits and the millions they are spending daily to fix their mess)

Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device - WSJ.com

Norway and Brazil installed these switches after they had major oil spills.

We should do the same.

 

[theHawk]

Cairo, Egypt
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill has put a spotlight on the dangerous world of offshore oil drilling. With a well spewing thousands of barrels of crude (estimates range from 5,000 to 100,000 barrels) a day into the Gulf of Mexico, many are wondering if the industry has been too lightly regulated.

Too lightly regulated? The oil companies have been forced to drill in these deep waters because the government says they can't drill in the closer, shallow (and safer) waters. Leaks like this can easily be capped, just not at 1 mile depths.

 

[Intense]

Cairo, Egypt
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill has put a spotlight on the dangerous world of offshore oil drilling. With a well spewing thousands of barrels of crude (estimates range from 5,000 to 100,000 barrels) a day into the Gulf of Mexico, many are wondering if the industry has been too lightly regulated.

Too lightly regulated? The oil companies have been forced to drill in these deep waters because the government says they can't drill in the closer, shallow (and safer) waters. Leaks like this can easily be capped, just not at 1 mile depths.

True.

 

[Dr.House]

Cairo, Egypt
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill has put a spotlight on the dangerous world of offshore oil drilling. With a well spewing thousands of barrels of crude (estimates range from 5,000 to 100,000 barrels) a day into the Gulf of Mexico, many are wondering if the industry has been too lightly regulated.

Too lightly regulated? The oil companies have been forced to drill in these deep waters because the government says they can't drill in the closer, shallow (and safer) waters. Leaks like this can easily be capped, just not at 1 mile depths.

NIMBY-ism.... Tough hurdle to overcome...

 

[saveliberty]

I find it telling that deep water seems to be the big issue here. Technique after technique is foiled by the temperature and depth. Even the original problem of the blow out preventer seems to be related to that. Maybe the lesson to be learned here is, limit rig depth in off-shore situations?

 

[ABikerSailor]

If the U.S. had required something called an "acoustic switch" to be installed on the rig, which cost a paltry $500,000 (compared to BP's billions in annual profits and the millions they are spending daily to fix their mess)

Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device - WSJ.com

Norway and Brazil installed these switches after they had major oil spills.

We should do the same.

Why do you think those foreign fuckers known as British Petrolium are drilling HERE?

Bush Jr. and Cheney took out those restrictions, that's why they're fucking up the Gulf.

 

[Intense]

I find it telling that deep water seems to be the big issue here. Technique after technique is foiled by the temperature and depth. Even the original problem of the blow out preventer seems to be related to that. Maybe the lesson to be learned here is, limit rig depth in off-shore situations?

Don't forget the pressure. If this aren't grounds for outfitting Submarines for the Coast Guard, who is the Authority here, I don't know what is. Sure looks like everyone is still acting reckless in the response. That cement will most likely harden and turn into a projectile. One would wonder about placing an open dome over the hole, having a secured mechanism that after the dome was fortified in place, could be activated and triggered to seal itself by the force of the oil running through it. The less moving parts the better. Ah, what do I know. I hope Louisiana gets It's Barrier Islands. One of the few great ideas.

 

[Intense]

If the U.S. had required something called an "acoustic switch" to be installed on the rig, which cost a paltry $500,000 (compared to BP's billions in annual profits and the millions they are spending daily to fix their mess)

Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device - WSJ.com

Norway and Brazil installed these switches after they had major oil spills.

We should do the same.

Why do you think those foreign fuckers known as British Petrolium are drilling HERE?

Bush Jr. and Cheney took out those restrictions, that's why they're fucking up the Gulf.

Maybe they are drilling there because there is a need for Oil? I know that sounds crazy to you, but I suspect there is something there, huh.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Norway and Brazil installed these switches after they had major oil spills.

We should do the same.

Why do you think those foreign fuckers known as British Petrolium are drilling HERE?

Bush Jr. and Cheney took out those restrictions, that's why they're fucking up the Gulf.

Maybe they are drilling there because there is a need for Oil? I know that sounds crazy to you, but I suspect there is something there, huh.

It's also patently obvious to even the most casual observer that they are drilling HERE because it's cheaper than anywhere else.

We don't have restrictions on our drilling like many other countries do.

Face it, if you can skimp on equipment and safety procedures, it increases the profitability of your company. Ever hear of the slipshod work done by Halliburton at Walter Reed and the Green Zone Baghdad barracks?