I ain't done with Jazz Fest yet, ya'll:

Hurricane vs. Oil Slick
What would happen if a tropical storm hit the oil floating in the Gulf?
By Chris Mooney
Posted Friday, May 21, 2010, at 5:24 PM ET


Gulf oil spill

BP claims to be capturing 5,000 barrels of oil a day from the leaking well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, but more continues to gush into the water. Meanwhile, the annual hurricane season begins on June 1, and some scientists are predicting an above-average year with 15 named storms and eight hurricanes. It sounds like a deadly combination—but what would actually happen if a storm like Katrina tracked across the spill in the Gulf?

It could make things even worse. At least one forecast team puts the chance of a strong hurricane hammering some part of the Gulf Coast this year at 44 percent, and any such storm would threaten to disrupt ongoing containment or environmental protection measures. In an absolute worst-case scenario, powerful hurricane winds might drive the oil slick towards land and push some of it ashore with the ensuing storm surge.

Much depends on the angle at which the storm crosses the slick. In the Northern Hemisphere, hurricanes rotate counterclockwise, with the largest storm surge occurring where the winds blow in the direction the storm as a whole is traveling—that's in front of the eye and off to the right. (Meteorologists worry over a hurricane's dangerous "right-front quadrant." So if a powerful storm approached the slick from the southwest, say, its most potent winds would push the oil forward, instead of sweeping it off to the side and out of the storm's path. If the storm then plowed into the Gulf Coast, you'd expect an oily landfall.

The strength, movement, and size of the storm would also make a difference. Fortunately, the height of the Atlantic hurricane season, featuring the strongest storms, doesn't arrive until August. We might reasonably hope to have cleaned up the oil by that point.

So the storm could move the slick. Could the slick affect the storm? Hurricanes draw their energy from the evaporation of warm seawater—that's why they occur over the summer and into the fall. Given that fact, you might think that oil on the surface of the ocean would interfere with a hurricane's access to its power source. Indeed, some have proposed to combat hurricanes by coating the ocean surface with an oily substance (not crude oil, of course) in order to reduce evaporation and quench a storm's strength.

Alas, this scheme probably wouldn't work, nor should we expect the oil spill to slow down any hurricanes very much this season. The first problem is that most hurricanes span an enormous area of the ocean. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the typical storm is 300 miles wide, dwarfing even this large spill. Even if a hurricane passed directly over the slick, the oil would cover just a fraction of the relevant sea surface.

What's more, by the time winds reach hurricane force (greater than 74 mph), they cause so much ocean mixing that any oil slick on the surface would be driven down into the depths and generally broken up. MIT hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel has tested the phenomenon on a small scale using an enclosed tank, half filled with water, with an air rotor at the top capable of generating hurricane force winds. When the rotor turned at high speeds, the surface of the water was torn apart, and the scientists observed no difference in the amount of evaporation that occurred with or without an oily surface film.

It's even possible that an oil slick could make a powerful hurricane a little stronger. Oil is darker than water, and so it absorbs more sunlight while also blocking evaporation from the sea surface. That means the spill could be trapping heat in one part of the ocean. If a storm passed over and churned up the surface of the water, that potential hurricane energy might then be released.

There is a small silver lining here: A hurricane of sufficient force might cause enough ocean mixing to help disperse and "weather" the oil slick, which could in turn speed up the process of biodegradation.

[www.slate.com]

The oil has been flowing for a month now. Why aren't the usual suspects chastising the Obama administration over this as they did Bush for Katrina?

Because the government isn't allow by law to step in? That might have something to do with it. People want them to - but so far, as I've read and learned, they can't.

Not sure why though. It makes zero sense. Then again, if they do, BP can say "Well we did what we could and you took over so it's all on you." That's probably why the law is there, so these companies can't just cut and run.

BP more or less has cut and run, but rather, actually, they've cut and sat still. Or they've cut and have been "thinking".

ROCKMAN

If the Fed takes over the Brits get to go home and not deal with it. That is why it hasn't and won't happen.

[www.nytimes.com]

signs of trouble before abomination oil spill

update...

[www.nytimes.com]


[www.nytimes.com]
they arresting protestors but the vile greedy criminally irresponsible murders of men, animals and entire eco systems eventually effecting the entire world...

well, they alright man. they living high on the hog believe me. no worries.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-26 05:07 by Beelyboy.

trying to plug the bitch today...

[www.bp.com]

Quote
Beelyboy
update...

[www.nytimes.com]


[www.nytimes.com]
they arresting protestors but the vile greedy criminally irresponsible murders of men, animals and entire eco systems eventually effecting the entire world...

well, they alright man. they living high on the hog believe me. no worries.

Raise your glass to the hard working people
Let's drink to the uncounted heads
Let's think of the wavering millions
Who need leaders but get gamblers instead

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters
A choice of cancer or polio

partial list of petroleum products... guitar strings?... who knew?

just saying...

[www.ranken-energy.com]

BP has started the top kill mud process, this afternoon at 1PM Central Daylight Time in Louisiana. I hope it works. Goddamn I hope it works.

Here's a live link to the "top kill" process, not that you can really see what's going on:

[www.nola.com]

I'm sick of BP's "It's very hard to plug a hole a mile under water" shit. If they didn't know how to fix something like this, they shouldn't have been drilling in water that deep.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-27 02:33 by tatters.

.
amen to that.

i'm very concerned about the toxcity of the 'dispersant'. mega mega MEGA volumes of this far reaching poison was dumped in the area, some say for cosmetic reasons, get the spill black waves tar balls off the news....at what expense??? stay tuned on this point because something profoundly toxic that EXTRAPOLATES the problem for a cosmetic fix, may be more toxic, widespreading and dangerous than the oil. omg

Still leaking.

when it first stared ...my thoughts where plug it right away......the oil companies thoughts where capture the oil??? wtf.....sick disgrace
bama needs to use this to get rid of big oil running our country....IRAQ war???come on oil was 40 a barrel then went to 175???
after we went in......the Stone should write a song about it....
19000 barrels a day!! bp said it was 1000??? .......

chicago tribune:

"Engineers have succeeded in stopping the flow of oil and gas into the Gulf of Mexico from a gushing BP well, the federal government's top oil spill commander, Adm. Thad Allen, said Thursday morning.

The so-called "top kill" effort, launched Wednesday afternoon by industry and government engineers in Houston, has pumped enough drilling fluid to block all oil and gas from the well, Allen said. The pressure from the well is very low, but persistent, he said.

Once engineers have reduced the well pressure to zero, they will begin to pump cement into the hole to entomb the well. To help that effort, he said, engineers are also pumping some debris into the blowout preventer at the top of the well.

Allen said one ship that was pumping fluid into the well has run out of the fluid, or "mud," and that a second ship is on the way. He said he was encouraged by the progress.
"We'll get this under control," he said.

Allen also said that later today, an interagency team will release a revised estimate of how much oil was flowing from the well into the Gulf. The Coast Guard has estimated the flow at 5,000 barrels a day, but independent estimates suggest it is much higher -- perhaps tens of thousands of barrels a day."

Let's hope this is actually going to be successful.

pollution on top of pollution. they took a tragedy of biblical proportions and some how, made it even worse....

[www.google.com]


[www.google.com]

how many tons of this dispersant were dumped into the ocean? how much death and carnage in it's wake for how many decades?

It'll be a minimum of fifty years for that region of the Gulf (yet alone what else gets destroyed yet) to return to the pre-BP leak state. And that's erring on the side of caution.

Quote
skipstone
Because the government isn't allow by law to step in? That might have something to do with it. People want them to - but so far, as I've read and learned, they can't.

Not sure why though. It makes zero sense. Then again, if they do, BP can say "Well we did what we could and you took over so it's all on you." That's probably why the law is there, so these companies can't just cut and run.

BP more or less has cut and run, but rather, actually, they've cut and sat still. Or they've cut and have been "thinking".

My friend, what law are you talking about? Are you suggesting there is a Federal law which states that if a corporation causes an envoirnmental catastrophe in the U.S., the federal government cannot help clean it up???????

Ummmm, the answer is a resounding no. There is alot of politics involved here, understandably, but don't think for one second this regime has handled this matter efficiently. If you know of such a law, please provide a link . . .

Quote
Beelyboy
pollution on top of pollution. they took a tragedy of biblical proportions and some how, made it even worse....

[www.google.com]


[www.google.com]

how many tons of this dispersant were dumped into the ocean? how much death and carnage in it's wake for how many decades?

...and let's be honest, in 5-10 years we'll get more information on how much worse this is than was initially reported. That's not 'conspiracy theory' that's just how it always works...not enough info, and not enough honesty.

This is really bad.

I don't understand why BP's stock isn't zero, given what the liability ultimately would be here.

MSNBC reporting oil flow has "stopped," but it will be 48 hours to verify success of the operation:

[www.msnbc.msn.com]

It's still leaking.

Why did I say the law says the Fed can't take over? Because...it's true. Besides, what the hell can they do? The feds can't stop the leak. Maybe another oil company can since BP obviously can't. But the US government does not drill for oil and does not put oil leaks out. Why would people expect them to take over?

"Allen said federal law dictated that BP had to operate the cleanup, with the government overseeing its efforts."

[news.yahoo.com]

It's the same article everywhere:

[www.nola.com]

Quote
NorthShoreBlues2

Quote
skipstone
Because the government isn't allow by law to step in? That might have something to do with it. People want them to - but so far, as I've read and learned, they can't.

Not sure why though. It makes zero sense. Then again, if they do, BP can say "Well we did what we could and you took over so it's all on you." That's probably why the law is there, so these companies can't just cut and run.

BP more or less has cut and run, but rather, actually, they've cut and sat still. Or they've cut and have been "thinking".

My friend, what law are you talking about? Are you suggesting there is a Federal law which states that if a corporation causes an envoirnmental catastrophe in the U.S., the federal government cannot help clean it up???????

Ummmm, the answer is a resounding no. There is alot of politics involved here, understandably, but don't think for one second this regime has handled this matter efficiently. If you know of such a law, please provide a link . . .

I don't know of the specific law that Skipstone was talking about but here in the US, there are all kinds of regulations as to what rights the federal government has within the individual states. I know it seems crazy now, but the founders of the USA didn't want a huge federal government that would just come into states and do whatever it pleases. The state has to request the feds to come in. A good analogy would be in vampire mythology... Unless you invite the vampire into your home, the vampire is powerless in your home... Apparently all bloodsuckers are the same.

The thing that confuses me in this case is that the spill is not in a state. It is in a body of water where the Federal Government apparently has taken jurisdiction to approve or deny the right to use that water for oil exploration but then is saying that they don't have the jurisdiction to orchestrate the clean up? I'm thinking that I'm smelling a rat? Sounds like a case of double talk to me. Oh yeah... It's politics... I should have known.

My prayers are with the PEOPLE & WILDLIFE involved on the gulf coast. Their lives are already being influenced by this in ways that the rest of us will never comprehend.

Peace
Mr DJA

Quote
skipstone
SwayStones, the way it's been understood by the people I've been listening to on the radio and from what I've been reading at nola.com and the newspaper, BP, by law, IS responsible. That will not change. The federal government is not...

What I said is " I think the federal government has to share his part of responsabilities by lack of inspections on the drilling oil rig ."

Would you mind to check this link ,please ?

Europe's worst ever Atlantic coast oil spill disaster
[www.birdlife.org]

Some people on IORR know how much I care for the U.S & his people ,and this for /since many many years but I can't help asking this question :

"how come half of a sudden ,that people find out how dangerous drills can be ???"



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

from the LA Times:

Batting away suggestions that the federal response has been lackluster and that BP executives have been calling some of the shots, Obama insisted that "BP is operating at our direction."

"Every key decision and action they take must be approved by us in advance," Obama said. If the Coast Guard orders BP to do something, he added, "they are legally bound to do it."

There's an article that asks why there is drilling in 5000 feet of water in the Gulf Of Mexico but isn't drilling on land in Alaska.

That is a logical question but I bet part of the reason is the same as to why they just don't want there to be drilling at all - in case something screws up and turns into something similar leak wise like in the Gulf Of Mexico. And I'm sure for other reasons.

Maybe like how BP just ignored the leak in the pipe...

Someone said something about Norway maybe that the drilling in the sea there they have two BOPs - one on top of the other - to be extra safe. Haven't read anything about it.

And where the hell is Kevin Costner's gigantic shop vacs?

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
skipstone
SwayStones, the way it's been understood by the people I've been listening to on the radio and from what I've been reading at nola.com and the newspaper, BP, by law, IS responsible. That will not change. The federal government is not...

What I said is " I think the federal government has to share his part of responsabilities by lack of inspections on the drilling oil rig ."

Would you mind to check this link ,please ?

Europe's worst ever Atlantic coast oil spill disaster
[www.birdlife.org]

Some people on IORR know how much I care for the U.S & his people ,and this for /since many many years but I can't help asking this question :

"how come half of a sudden ,that people find out how dangerous drills can be ???"

Sway,

First let me say that I love your English and I think you do a great job with a language that isn't your first... Much better than I could ever do in French, that's for sure!

If I'm not mistaken, could I read your question as: "How come all of the sudden, people realize how dangerous drilling for oil can be?"

If so, I think an answer, from me anyway, would be: We've always known. Unfortunately, due to many factors in the US & the rest of the world as well over the past century, we've been forced to decide what we determine to be "acceptable risks" or "acceptable dangers" and as a society come to accept them. In the US, we've, for the most part, decided to be oil dependant and limit our willingness to use nuclear power. Oh how I would LOVE to follow your people in France (I think that's where you are, right?) and start building as many nuclear power plants as possible. But that's just me. I'd trade you BP & all their oil for your nuclear power in a heartbeat. At the same time, there are many in the US who would rather use oil over nuclear power. Right now there are more of them than there are of me!

Kind of like with the Rolling Stones... We'll just have to sit back and see what happens next!

Peace,
Mr DJA