The Rule of law doesn't apply.

A

amdx

Guest
I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.
I kinda like that.
Is this how the revolution starts? :)
Government is out of control!
The power is with the people.
Mike
 
On 26/05/2010 20:12, amdx wrote:
I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.
The EPA are probably right. The dispersants and the resulting oil
emulsion do at least as much damage to the environment as the crude oil
would - probably more. It just makes it look a bit better on the surface.

I kinda like that.
Is this how the revolution starts? :)
Government is out of control!
The power is with the people.
Mike
So get out there and start cleaning up the coastline by hand then.

You thought you could have cowboy operators like Transocean drill for
oil without a care in the world and with their "fail safe" blow out
preventers compromised. They all blame each other now, but even though
in US law BP is ultimately responsible it seems to me their error was to
employ irresponsible cowboy drill rig operators.

Keep pumping at all costs is the mantra. Until it all goes pear shaped
and then they point at each other and say "it's their fault".

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Martin Brown wrote:
On 26/05/2010 20:12, amdx wrote:
I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.

The EPA are probably right. The dispersants and the resulting oil
emulsion do at least as much damage to the environment as the crude oil
would - probably more. It just makes it look a bit better on the surface.
I think the idea is to break up the oil and allow bacteria to consume
it. The smaller drops have a higher surface area to volume ratio, so the
bugs can eat it faster.

I wonder if anyone has developed a dispersible oil eating bacteria safe
for use in the open ocean. They used something like this in a local park
that used to be a fuel depot. When they discovered an oil plume from an
old tank, they stirred some genetically engineered(?)* bugs into the
ground and let it sit for a year or so.

*Or not so engineered. As anyone who owns a boat knows, stuff grows
quite well in diesel tanks.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged
demo.
 
On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:12:19 -0500, "amdx" <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.
I kinda like that.
Is this how the revolution starts? :)
Government is out of control!
The power is with the people.
Mike
It could be, but it won't be. The sheeple will return the Obama
worshippers to Congress, and we'll all be scrod ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
 
On Wed, 26 May 2010 13:44:20 -0700, the renowned "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

On 26/05/2010 20:12, amdx wrote:
I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.

The EPA are probably right. The dispersants and the resulting oil
emulsion do at least as much damage to the environment as the crude oil
would - probably more. It just makes it look a bit better on the surface.

I think the idea is to break up the oil and allow bacteria to consume
it. The smaller drops have a higher surface area to volume ratio, so the
bugs can eat it faster.

I wonder if anyone has developed a dispersible oil eating bacteria safe
for use in the open ocean.
It would be wonderful if it could grow underground too.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
 
On May 26, 3:44 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <P...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

On 26/05/2010 20:12, amdx wrote:
  I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.

The EPA are probably right. The dispersants and the resulting oil
emulsion do at least as much damage to the environment as the crude oil
would - probably more. It just makes it look a bit better on the surface.
Except British Petroleum doesn't *have* anything better. That's why
they said 'no'.

I think the idea is to break up the oil and allow bacteria to consume
it. The smaller drops have a higher surface area to volume ratio, so the
bugs can eat it faster.
Yep.

I wonder if anyone has developed a dispersible oil eating bacteria safe
for use in the open ocean.
Already there, on site. The Gulf gobbles oil naturally, about
5,000bbl / day, just not all gushing from one hole.

Bacteria love it. After all, hydrocarbon + O2 is pretty close to
carbohydrate, yes?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
 
Martin Brown wrote:
On 26/05/2010 20:12, amdx wrote:
I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.

The EPA are probably right. The dispersants and the resulting oil
emulsion do at least as much damage to the environment as the crude oil
would - probably more. It just makes it look a bit better on the surface.

I kinda like that.
Is this how the revolution starts? :)
Government is out of control!
The power is with the people.
Mike

So get out there and start cleaning up the coastline by hand then.

You thought you could have cowboy operators like Transocean drill for
oil without a care in the world and with their "fail safe" blow out
preventers compromised. They all blame each other now, but even though
in US law BP is ultimately responsible it seems to me their error was to
employ irresponsible cowboy drill rig operators.

Keep pumping at all costs is the mantra. Until it all goes pear shaped
and then they point at each other and say "it's their fault".

The biggest mistake was letting British petroleum call the shots.
they ignored obvious damage to the equipment and made a lot of wrong
choices prior to the blowout. Their record in the US is criminal.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
 
On May 26, 3:01 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
On 26/05/2010 20:12, amdx wrote:

  I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.

The EPA are probably right. The dispersants and the resulting oil
emulsion do at least as much damage to the environment as the crude oil
would - probably more. It just makes it look a bit better on the surface.

  I kinda like that.
Is this how the revolution starts?  :)
   Government is out of control!
The power is with the people.
              Mike

So get out there and start cleaning up the coastline by hand then.

You thought you could have cowboy operators like Transocean drill for
oil without a care in the world and with their "fail safe" blow out
preventers compromised. They all blame each other now, but even though
in US law BP is ultimately responsible it seems to me their error was to
employ irresponsible cowboy drill rig operators.
Here, the President is blaming BP, and the people are buying it. I'm
looking at news photos of people marching with "Seize BP" signs, and
signs that say

"BP profits [obscured]
The planet [obscured]
People pay [obscured]"

Curiously, the signs are professionally printed.

Sounds like a White House event.

(Ahh, as I type I'm listening to Mr. Obama, describing how "we"--he
and BP--are trying to topkill the well.)

(Update: he won't rest until it's done. Except he's going on vacation,
his 2nd since the crisis started.)

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
 
PH > I wonder if anyone has developed a
PH > dispersible oil eating bacteria safe
PH > for use in the open ocean.

JA > Already there, on site. The Gulf gobbles
JA > oil naturally, about 5,000bbl / day, just
JA > not all gushing from one hole.
JA >
JA > Bacteria love it. After all, hydrocarbon + O2
JA > is pretty close to carbohydrate, yes?

When these bacteria/enzymes break
down oil, what compounds result?

SP > It would be wonderful if it could grow underground too.

What would that bacteria do if it got into
a pocket of oil we should be pumping to use?

What would that bacteria do if it got into
groundwater and into a human gut?

Can that bacteria go after oils in
living animal/human tissue?
 
On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:23:44 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

On 26/05/2010 20:12, amdx wrote:
I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.

The EPA are probably right. The dispersants and the resulting oil
emulsion do at least as much damage to the environment as the crude oil
would - probably more. It just makes it look a bit better on the surface.

I kinda like that.
Is this how the revolution starts? :)
Government is out of control!
The power is with the people.
Mike

So get out there and start cleaning up the coastline by hand then.

You thought you could have cowboy operators like Transocean drill for
oil without a care in the world and with their "fail safe" blow out
preventers compromised. They all blame each other now, but even though
in US law BP is ultimately responsible it seems to me their error was to
employ irresponsible cowboy drill rig operators.

Keep pumping at all costs is the mantra. Until it all goes pear shaped
and then they point at each other and say "it's their fault".


The biggest mistake was letting British petroleum call the shots.
Yeah, things will run much better, now, with Lord Obama calling the shots. For
over a month everyone has been waiting for the Messiah's instructions. ...and
so spaketh Obama from Mt. Washington, "Plug the damned hole!". Now they have
them.

they ignored obvious damage to the equipment and made a lot of wrong
choices prior to the blowout. Their record in the US is criminal.
Bankrolling Obama's presidency is criminal? Tsk, tsk.
 
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u6fLn.18255$TL5.5405@newsfe24.iad...
On 26/05/2010 20:12, amdx wrote:
I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration
laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.

The EPA are probably right. The dispersants and the resulting oil emulsion
do at least as much damage to the environment as the crude oil would -
probably more. It just makes it look a bit better on the surface.

I kinda like that.
Is this how the revolution starts? :)
Government is out of control!
The power is with the people.
Mike

So get out there and start cleaning up the coastline by hand then.

You thought you could have cowboy operators like Transocean drill for oil
without a care in the world and with their "fail safe" blow out preventers
compromised. They all blame each other now, but even though in US law BP
is ultimately responsible it seems to me their error was to employ
irresponsible cowboy drill rig operators.

Keep pumping at all costs is the mantra. Until it all goes pear shaped and
then they point at each other and say "it's their fault".

Regards,
Martin Brown
Glad to know you live in a cave hunt and forage for food.
Mike
 
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:23:44 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Martin Brown wrote:

On 26/05/2010 20:12, amdx wrote:
I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.

The EPA are probably right. The dispersants and the resulting oil
emulsion do at least as much damage to the environment as the crude oil
would - probably more. It just makes it look a bit better on the surface.

I kinda like that.
Is this how the revolution starts? :)
Government is out of control!
The power is with the people.
Mike

So get out there and start cleaning up the coastline by hand then.

You thought you could have cowboy operators like Transocean drill for
oil without a care in the world and with their "fail safe" blow out
preventers compromised. They all blame each other now, but even though
in US law BP is ultimately responsible it seems to me their error was to
employ irresponsible cowboy drill rig operators.

Keep pumping at all costs is the mantra. Until it all goes pear shaped
and then they point at each other and say "it's their fault".


The biggest mistake was letting British petroleum call the shots.

Yeah, things will run much better, now, with Lord Obama calling the shots. For
over a month everyone has been waiting for the Messiah's instructions. ...and
so spaketh Obama from Mt. Washington, "Plug the damned hole!". Now they have
them.

One of Obama's ankle biters was on TV yesterday saying, “Keeping the
boot on the neck” of those trying to clean up the mess. Sounds like
their Nazi training is showing.

<http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010/05/25/beating-on-bp-wont-get-the-gulf-cleaned-up/?boxes=Homepagelighttop>


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
 
Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
On 26/05/2010 20:12, amdx wrote:
I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.
The EPA are probably right. The dispersants and the resulting oil
emulsion do at least as much damage to the environment as the crude oil
would - probably more. It just makes it look a bit better on the surface.

I think the idea is to break up the oil and allow bacteria to consume
it. The smaller drops have a higher surface area to volume ratio, so the
bugs can eat it faster.

I wonder if anyone has developed a dispersible oil eating bacteria safe
for use in the open ocean. They used something like this in a local park
that used to be a fuel depot. When they discovered an oil plume from an
old tank, they stirred some genetically engineered(?)* bugs into the
ground and let it sit for a year or so.

*Or not so engineered. As anyone who owns a boat knows, stuff grows
quite well in diesel tanks.
In 2046 nanoscale self-replicating robots were dispersed in the Gulf of
Mexico to clean up an oil spill. Unfortunately a subtle programming
error caused their consumption target to be changed from "hydrocarbons"
to "all carbon based substances", and within a week the world was turned
to dust. :(
 
Greegor wrote:
In 2046 nanoscale self-replicating robots were dispersed in the Gulf of
Mexico to clean up an oil spill. Unfortunately a subtle programming
error caused their consumption target to be changed from "hydrocarbons"
to "all carbon based substances", and within a week the world was turned
to dust. :(

That's called the "grey goo" scenario.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo

More recent analysis has shown that the danger of grey goo is far less
likely than originally thought.[8] However, other long-term major
risks to society and the environment from nanotechnology have been
identified.[9] Drexler has made a somewhat public effort to retract
his grey goo hypothesis, in an effort to focus the debate on more
realistic threats associated with knowledge-enabled nanoterrorism and
other misuses.
Nanoterrorism? o_O
 
In 2046 nanoscale self-replicating robots were dispersed in the Gulf of
Mexico to clean up an oil spill.  Unfortunately a subtle programming
error caused their consumption target to be changed from "hydrocarbons"
to "all carbon based substances", and within a week the world was turned
to dust. :(
That's called the "grey goo" scenario.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo

More recent analysis has shown that the danger of grey goo is far less
likely than originally thought.[8] However, other long-term major
risks to society and the environment from nanotechnology have been
identified.[9] Drexler has made a somewhat public effort to retract
his grey goo hypothesis, in an effort to focus the debate on more
realistic threats associated with knowledge-enabled nanoterrorism and
other misuses.
 
amdx wrote:
I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.
I kinda like that.
Is this how the revolution starts? :)
Government is out of control!
The power is with the people.
Mike



Go back to FDR when he stole our gold, etc or when we got taxes
despite the FACT the proposal was not ratified or that we were LIED to
concerning Social Security (that it was insurance) or ...
 
On 26/05/2010 22:23, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 26, 3:44 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."<P...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

On 26/05/2010 20:12, amdx wrote:
I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.

The EPA are probably right. The dispersants and the resulting oil
emulsion do at least as much damage to the environment as the crude oil
would - probably more. It just makes it look a bit better on the surface.

Except British Petroleum doesn't *have* anything better. That's why
they said 'no'.
They are trying the heavyweight clay trick to staunch the flow at the
moment.

Using dispersants is an example of being seen to be doing something.
Confining it behind booms and torch it is one possible solution the
thick black oily smoke might be bad but it is the least worst option.
I think the idea is to break up the oil and allow bacteria to consume
it. The smaller drops have a higher surface area to volume ratio, so the
bugs can eat it faster.

Yep.
As does all the sea life that mistakes the oil droplets for food
particles. It will wreck the seafood industry there for decades.
I wonder if anyone has developed a dispersible oil eating bacteria safe
for use in the open ocean.

Already there, on site. The Gulf gobbles oil naturally, about
5,000bbl / day, just not all gushing from one hole.

Bacteria love it. After all, hydrocarbon + O2 is pretty close to
carbohydrate, yes?
Only if your name is Immanuel Velikovsky or a right wing nitwit. It
contains the same elements but in a completely different configuration.
It is much closer to plant fats and oils (surprise surprise) but with
various noxious components that affect higher life forms.

Yes some bacteria can metabolise oil and it is faster with larger
surface area, but so is diffusion of the light fraction into seawater.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On a sunny day (Wed, 26 May 2010 14:12:19 -0500) it happened "amdx"
<amdx@knology.net> wrote in <40de6$4bfde30b$18d66003$9161@KNOLOGY.NET>:

I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.
I kinda like that.
Is this how the revolution starts? :)
Government is out of control!
The power is with the people.
Mike
Yea, Omama is planning visiting after the hole gets plugged,
so at least it looks like he had some influence.
 
On May 27, 4:41 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
On 26/05/2010 22:23, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 26, 3:44 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."<P...@Hovnanian.com>  wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

On 26/05/2010 20:12, amdx wrote:
   I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.

The EPA are probably right. The dispersants and the resulting oil
emulsion do at least as much damage to the environment as the crude oil
would - probably more. It just makes it look a bit better on the surface.

Except British Petroleum doesn't *have* anything better.  That's why
they said 'no'.

They are trying the heavyweight clay trick to staunch the flow at the
moment.
No, you're wrong. The President clearly explained today that BP are
idiots, and we--he and his team--have, 38 days in, finally got fed up
and decided to fix it themselves. The President also explained that
he's been on it from day one, with 20,000 people in the Gulf.

He's the only one doing anything, and he's frustrated with BP. It'll
make a great YouTube, if anyone bothers.

Using dispersants is an example of being seen to be doing something.
The dispersant is, the PBS expert said, soap. The environmentalist
guy said it was a solvent. "No," said the expert guy, "that was 40
years ago. We don't use that any more. That's not what they're
doing."

It helps a lot, said he. It breaks up the oil, and even the worst
happens--when the oil fouls wildlife and coastline--makes it less
tenacious, less damaging, and easier to clean off.

Confining it behind booms and torch it is one possible solution the
thick black oily smoke might be bad but it is the least worst option.
They've been burning every drop they can, every chance they get.
Anything to prevent it reaching shore--that's super old news. I guess
you guys aren't getting the full scoop.

I think the idea is to break up the oil and allow bacteria to consume
it. The smaller drops have a higher surface area to volume ratio, so the
bugs can eat it faster.

Yep.

As does all the sea life that mistakes the oil droplets for food
particles.
Which?

It will wreck the seafood industry there for decades.
It certainly will. The Louisiana Gov. wants to dredge berms to
protect the wetlands. His request has been pending more than two
weeks with the President, who's been busy attending fundraisers.
Still not approved. Now it's probably too late.

(Wetlands among the most productive and diverse of all habitats.)

I wonder if anyone has developed a dispersible oil eating bacteria safe
for use in the open ocean.

Already there, on site.  The Gulf gobbles oil naturally, about
5,000bbl / day, just not all gushing from one hole.

Bacteria love it.  After all, hydrocarbon + O2 is pretty close to
carbohydrate, yes?

Only if your name is Immanuel Velikovsky or a right wing nitwit. It
contains the same elements but in a completely different configuration.
It is much closer to plant fats and oils (surprise surprise) but with
various noxious components that affect higher life forms.
When I was at the university, my biology book said that airplane gas
tanks were structurally attacked by a bacteria that had evolved to
thrive on the combination of jet fuel and aluminum. Further, it said
fuel additives had had to be developed to suppress said right-wing
bacteria.

But just now, I was simply repeating what a BP guy said on PBS' The
News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Environmentalists have been alarmed that
those non-existent right-wing bacteria are depleting the oxygen levels
in the seawater, suffocating marine life.

Yes some bacteria can metabolise oil and it is faster with larger
surface area, but so is diffusion of the light fraction into seawater.
That's the idea of a dispersant, isn't it? To break up the oil and
mix it into the sea?

Look, it's all bad. It's a disaster. The Prez will seize BP and make
everyone feel better.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
 
On 28/05/2010 01:15, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 4:41 am, Martin Brown<|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
On 26/05/2010 22:23, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 26, 3:44 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."<P...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

On 26/05/2010 20:12, amdx wrote:
I think it started when the federal gov. didn't enforce immigration laws.
BP tells the EPA fuck off, when told to stop using oil dispersant.

The EPA are probably right. The dispersants and the resulting oil
emulsion do at least as much damage to the environment as the crude oil
would - probably more. It just makes it look a bit better on the surface.

Except British Petroleum doesn't *have* anything better. That's why
they said 'no'.

They are trying the heavyweight clay trick to staunch the flow at the
moment.

No, you're wrong. The President clearly explained today that BP are
idiots, and we--he and his team--have, 38 days in, finally got fed up
and decided to fix it themselves. The President also explained that
he's been on it from day one, with 20,000 people in the Gulf.
That will not help. Even the oilmen who are used to working under high
pressure must be finding the global publicity extremely fierce.
He's the only one doing anything, and he's frustrated with BP. It'll
make a great YouTube, if anyone bothers.

Using dispersants is an example of being seen to be doing something.

The dispersant is, the PBS expert said, soap. The environmentalist
That puts the "PBS expert" opinion into question immediately. It is not
by any normal chemical definition soap - soaps are alkaline salts of
fatty acids (traditionally by reacting caustic lye and animal fat).

Dispersants are typically surfactants in the sulphonated olefin class
like very strong aggressive versions of washing up liquid detergent in a
solvent. See for example the MSDS of the Nalco Corexit muck they are
using at present. And it seems to have been chosen on grounds of bulk
availability rather the suitability for the task.

http://cleancaribbean.org/userfiles/Master%20EC9527A%20MSDS.pdf
http://cleancaribbean.org/userfiles/Master%20EC9500A%20MSDS.pdf

The toxic component of the common weedkiller based on glyphosate is not
the active ingredient but the surfactant to wet out the leaves.

If they were using something slightly more benign like Dispersit then I
would not have a problem.

http://www.uspoly.com/disspec.html

But the stuff they are using is not particularly benign.

guy said it was a solvent. "No," said the expert guy, "that was 40
years ago. We don't use that any more. That's not what they're
doing."
There is a solvent typically about 10-30% by weight of the formulation.
Don't take my word for it check the MSDS - they are not allowed to lie
about the ingredients on those. The PR spun version is laughable.
It helps a lot, said he. It breaks up the oil, and even the worst
happens--when the oil fouls wildlife and coastline--makes it less
tenacious, less damaging, and easier to clean off.
Possibly it helps a bit for seabirds, but it does the larger marine
organisms no good at all.
Confining it behind booms and torch it is one possible solution the
thick black oily smoke might be bad but it is the least worst option.

They've been burning every drop they can, every chance they get.
Anything to prevent it reaching shore--that's super old news. I guess
you guys aren't getting the full scoop.
They didn't have any of the right kit in the area at first. And as I
recall the sea state was initially too rough to do it anyway.
I think the idea is to break up the oil and allow bacteria to consume
it. The smaller drops have a higher surface area to volume ratio, so the
bugs can eat it faster.

Yep.

As does all the sea life that mistakes the oil droplets for food
particles.

Which?
Anything that is a filter feeder initially and then later everything in
the food chain that depends on them.
It will wreck the seafood industry there for decades.

It certainly will. The Louisiana Gov. wants to dredge berms to
protect the wetlands. His request has been pending more than two
weeks with the President, who's been busy attending fundraisers.
Still not approved. Now it's probably too late.

(Wetlands among the most productive and diverse of all habitats.)
Sacrificial berms and booms might keep some of it out provided the sea
state isn't too rough.
I wonder if anyone has developed a dispersible oil eating bacteria safe
for use in the open ocean.

Already there, on site. The Gulf gobbles oil naturally, about
5,000bbl / day, just not all gushing from one hole.

Bacteria love it. After all, hydrocarbon + O2 is pretty close to
carbohydrate, yes?

Only if your name is Immanuel Velikovsky or a right wing nitwit. It
contains the same elements but in a completely different configuration.
It is much closer to plant fats and oils (surprise surprise) but with
various noxious components that affect higher life forms.

When I was at the university, my biology book said that airplane gas
tanks were structurally attacked by a bacteria that had evolved to
thrive on the combination of jet fuel and aluminum. Further, it said
fuel additives had had to be developed to suppress said right-wing
bacteria.
Of course there are bacteria that are adapted to just about every
environment, but crude oil is a much tougher proposition for them than
refined kerosene.
But just now, I was simply repeating what a BP guy said on PBS' The
News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Environmentalists have been alarmed that
those non-existent right-wing bacteria are depleting the oxygen levels
in the seawater, suffocating marine life.

Yes some bacteria can metabolise oil and it is faster with larger
surface area, but so is diffusion of the light fraction into seawater.

That's the idea of a dispersant, isn't it? To break up the oil and
mix it into the sea?

Look, it's all bad. It's a disaster. The Prez will seize BP and make
everyone feel better.
It seems BP have also lied about the extent of the oil leak. Independent
experts are putting it at more like 30,000 barrels a day and some give a
figure nearly 3x higher still. Either way it is now the largest US oil
spill in history. Perhaps in future oil rig inspections will be just a
little bit more thorough.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top