The Rule of law doesn't apply.

On May 26, 6:13 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

A bunch I'm sure, but biochemistry ain't what I do.

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?

I don't know the particulars, but many people have mentioned that
bacteria are already used for bioremediation of oil spills. The
difference is, while they do digest the stuff, they can't gulp
thousands of barrels a day. It's more a way of cleaning up a static
deposit, AIUI, and it's slow.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On May 28, 3:05 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

On 28/05/2010 01:15, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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.

Lied? They've supplied streaming video of the plume. ISTM they
simply guesstimated. It's not like they could catch it and count the
buckets.

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.

If I were a left-wingnut, I'd point out that BP gave Mr. Obama $1M and
imply they got special treatment.

Or that Mr. Obama's appointee to head the supervising agency, was a
light-weight environmentalist, a Harvard (environmental) law review
buddy, a crony, and not a qualified master of her assigned duties.
IOW, another egg-head Marxist in control of stuff she doesn't
understand.

The whole incident is really a wonderful advertisement for the power
and efficacy of government oversight. Like with Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae's boatloads of regulators, and how effectively they
protected us all.

"Whoopsie, missed that. Must've been an oversight."

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:05:27 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

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).

Most likely PB down things by not using the more inclusive and more
accurate word detergent. Lots of people think dish soap or laundry soap
instead of detergent though there is usually no soaps in the store
products.

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

And waiting for more of something that may work better is a better
decision how?

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

So a glyphosphate is not the active ingredient in Roundup?
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/pdf/labels_msds/roundup_pro_msds.pdf

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

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

Proper MSDS here:
http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Polychem_MSDS_CP1927.pdf


Both products contain seriously automotive antifreeze like solvent
components. Dispersit is almost only that.

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

Actually the current inspections may have done the job if rigorously
enforced. See also Massey coal mine operations.

 

[Robert Baer]

Regarding title of this thread, one can thank Obama for killing
business contract law...Government Motors (GM) for one..
GM bond holders are not exactly happy..

 

[Martin Brown]

On 05/06/2010 16:17, JosephKK wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:05:27 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 28/05/2010 01:15, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 4:41 am, Martin Brown<|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:

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).

Most likely PB down things by not using the more inclusive and more
accurate word detergent. Lots of people think dish soap or laundry soap
instead of detergent though there is usually no soaps in the store
products.

Dumbing down to dumber than dumb then.

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

And waiting for more of something that may work better is a better
decision how?

Doing nothing at all may actually be preferable to adding dispersant. It
is more finely balanced and the gains tend to be largely cosmetic.

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

So a glyphosphate is not the active ingredient in Roundup?
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/pdf/labels_msds/roundup_pro_msds.pdf

The thing that kills green plants (and malaria parasites) is virtually
harmless to humans and other mammals. The operatives so dumb as to eat
their lunch drenched in concentrate were poisoned by the wetting agents.
It is PEOA that causes the animal toxicity not the glyphosate.

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

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

Proper MSDS here:
http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Polychem_MSDS_CP1927.pdf

It is still marginally more benign than the stuff in use.

Both products contain seriously automotive antifreeze like solvent
components. Dispersit is almost only that.

You have to have a common solvent. Oil and water do not mix.

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.

Actually the current inspections may have done the job if rigorously
enforced. See also Massey coal mine operations.

Quite possibly but it seems the inspection regime can be compromised by
the copious amounts of money in the oil company coffers. They use the
same methods to keep congress critters in their pockets and to subvert
the reporting of the science of climate change.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 13:44:48 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 05/06/2010 16:17, JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:05:27 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 28/05/2010 01:15, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 27, 4:41 am, Martin Brown<|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:

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).

Most likely PB down things by not using the more inclusive and more
accurate word detergent. Lots of people think dish soap or laundry soap
instead of detergent though there is usually no soaps in the store
products.

Dumbing down to dumber than dumb then.

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

And waiting for more of something that may work better is a better
decision how?

Doing nothing at all may actually be preferable to adding dispersant. It
is more finely balanced and the gains tend to be largely cosmetic.

Maybe, maybe not.

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

So a glyphosphate is not the active ingredient in Roundup?
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/pdf/labels_msds/roundup_pro_msds.pdf

The thing that kills green plants (and malaria parasites) is virtually
harmless to humans and other mammals. The operatives so dumb as to eat
their lunch drenched in concentrate were poisoned by the wetting agents.
It is PEOA that causes the animal toxicity not the glyphosate.

OK

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

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

Proper MSDS here:
http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Polychem_MSDS_CP1927.pdf

It is still marginally more benign than the stuff in use.

Is it available in the quantities desired?

Both products contain seriously automotive antifreeze like solvent
components. Dispersit is almost only that.

You have to have a common solvent. Oil and water do not mix.

Except for some cooking uses (and then primarily for organic oils instead
of mineral oils), yes.

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.

Actually the current inspections may have done the job if rigorously
enforced. See also Massey coal mine operations.

Quite possibly but it seems the inspection regime can be compromised by
the copious amounts of money in the oil company coffers.

OK. That is was my point.

They use the
same methods to keep congress critters in their pockets and to subvert
the reporting of the science of climate change.

Climate change is many hundreds to thousands of years, a decade or two is
weather.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

On May 26, 5:42 pm, Spehro Pefhany <speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>
wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 13:44:20 -0700, the renowned "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.

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.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/bp-oil-spill-in-gulf-of-mexico-patches-of-oil-plague-us-states/19507561

"The presence of underwater plumes carries implications for deep-sea
life because tiny microbes eat up that and consume oxygen, choking off
the supply to other organisms. The impact could cascade up the food
chain, cutting off the food supply of larger predators."

Hey, why not oxygenate / aerate the deeps? Bubble air or add
oxygenates. That'd let the bacteria bloom, and minimize breathing
problems of other animals. Self-limiting, too--just withdraw the O2,
and the bacteria fade away.

<furious scribbling...patent sending...earth saved + $$$!!>

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On May 27, 2:24 am, Bitrex <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

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?

It's a little-known threat.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:38:40 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 26, 5:42 pm, Spehro Pefhany <speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat
wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 13:44:20 -0700, the renowned "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.

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.


http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/bp-oil-spill-in-gulf-of-mexico-patches-of-oil-plague-us-states/19507561

"The presence of underwater plumes carries implications for deep-sea
life because tiny microbes eat up that and consume oxygen, choking off
the supply to other organisms. The impact could cascade up the food
chain, cutting off the food supply of larger predators."

Hey, why not oxygenate / aerate the deeps? Bubble air or add
oxygenates. That'd let the bacteria bloom, and minimize breathing
problems of other animals. Self-limiting, too--just withdraw the O2,
and the bacteria fade away.

Oh, my! Think of all the CO2.

><furious scribbling...patent sending...earth saved + $$$!!>

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:52:50 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 27, 2:24 am, Bitrex <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
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?

It's a little-known threat.

Or perhaps a little, known threat.

 

On Jun 8, 5:08 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:38:40 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/bp-oil-spill-in-gulf-of-mexico-...

"The presence of underwater plumes carries implications for deep-sea
life because tiny microbes eat up that and consume oxygen, choking off
the supply to other organisms. The impact could cascade up the food
chain, cutting off the food supply of larger predators."

Hey, why not oxygenate / aerate the deeps?  Bubble air or add
oxygenates.  That'd let the bacteria bloom, and minimize breathing
problems of other animals.  Self-limiting, too--just withdraw the O2,
and the bacteria fade away.

Oh, my!  Think of all the CO2.

Worse: bacteria farts. Silent, but deadly.