U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Nature
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 06-22-2010, 10:07 AM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Ohio
17,077 posts, read 34,783,654 times
Reputation: 14272

Advertisements

Here's another scenario.

DK Matai: Gulf Oil Gusher: Danger of Tsunamis From Methane?
Methane gas trapped under the Gulf of Mexico's sea bed could be released through a crack, fault or fissure caused by seismic activity.

Quote:
With the emerging evidence of fissures, the tacit fear now is this: the methane bubble may rupture the seabed and may then erupt with an explosion within the Gulf of Mexico waters. The bubble is likely to explode upwards propelled by more than 50,000 psi of pressure, bursting through the cracks and fissures of the sea floor, fracturing and rupturing miles of ocean bottom with a single extreme explosion.
There are 3 possible catastrophic outcomes from that, according to the article at the link above.

1. Loss of Buoyancy

2. First Tsunami with Toxic Cloud


3. Second Tsunami via Vaporisation

The excerpts explaining those scenarios are too long to post here within the rules. I heard the guy who wrote this report explaining on the radio that a methane explosion in the Gulf seabed could create a tsunami with 100-foot waves. A 100-foot tsunami would likely move enough water to inundate the entire Florida peninsula and many other low-lying coastal areas around the Gulf.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-22-2010, 05:42 PM
 
Location: Interior Low Plateau
185 posts, read 376,262 times
Reputation: 99
Since the article is from HuffPo, it is not surprising that they chose go the alarmist non-sense route that is inherent in ALL(or, nearly so) of their science writing... and once again, they use subterfuge, out of context analogies, sloppy journalism, and out right quackery to make their point. For instance, where are the sources? And, why didn't the author include them in article?

Like everything else they write in regards science from HuffPo, it is stupid to the nth power.

From the article:

If the estimates of 100,000 barrels a day -- that have emerged from a BP internal document -- are true...

Notice the qualifier if and true in the above- it is bullpucky. 100kbbs/day are the worse case scenario. That means if the well bore collapsed and lead to unimpeded communication between the formation and the surface. I'm not aware of anyone making such dire predictions, other than alarmists.



Older documents indicate that the subterranean geological formation below the "Macondo" well in the Gulf of Mexico may contain the presence of a huge methane deposit.

So what! Nearly all of the producing formations in the GoM have gas in solution with the oil. Think of CO₂ in a soda... it comes out of solution when the pressure is relieved. That is what is forming the gas hydrates that one sees in the video feeds.



By some geologists' estimates, the methane could be a massive bubble trapped for thousands of years under the Gulf of Mexico sea floor.

For an engineer, the author has a poor understanding of the geology involved. There is no bubble, it is gas trapped in the interstitial pore space of the sediments, and in solution in the water and oil. And, they would have been trapped for millions of years(IIRC, those formations are Oligocene, Miocene)



More than a year ago, geologists expressed alarm in regard to BP and Transocean putting their exploratory rig directly over this massive underground reservoir of methane

What geologists, and what "massive underground reservoir"? Where's the beef?



Warnings were raised before the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe that the area of seabed chosen might be unstable and inherently dangerous.

By who? The fact that the well was near completion is proof that the seabed was stable, or else there would have been failure before reaching the formation.



...experts have discovered a large gas bubble, 15 to 20 miles wide and tens of feet high, under the ocean floor. These bubbles are common.

Once again, he mangles the science(see above). Gas laden formations are common and they have been known about for as long crew have been drilling the GoM. So what!



Experts agree that the pressure that blows the oil into the Gulf waters is estimated to be between 30,000 and 70,000 pounds per square inch (psi).

This is a straight up lie; the pressures at formation are about 12kpsi, and about 2.4kpsi at the well head. I assume it was used as a scare tactic for the following... Some speculate that the pressure of the methane at the base of the well head, deep under the ocean floor, may be as high as 100,000 psi -- far too much for current technology to contain.

Who are the ones speculating? Wingnut Daily???



Evidence of fissures opening up on the seabed have been captured by the robotic midget submarines working to repair and contain the ruptured well.

Perhaps, but probably not. If there are fissures, they should erode quickly, and apparently that is not happening. For a more rational explanation of oil seepage, see some of the thread at TOD, or Drilling Ahead.



The stretching and compression of the earth's crust causes minor cracking, called faults...

Nope, they're called joints



The close coupling of new fissures and cracks with natural fault areas could prove to be lethal.

So could Cthulhu sucking our brains out, and probably more likely.



A methane bubble this large -- if able to escape from under the ocean floor through fissures, cracks and fault areas -- is likely to cause a gas explosion. With the emerging evidence of fissures, the tacit fear now is this: the methane bubble may rupture the seabed and may then erupt with an explosion within the Gulf of Mexico waters. The bubble is likely to explode upwards propelled by more than 50,000 psi of pressure, bursting through the cracks and fissures of the sea floor, fracturing and rupturing miles of ocean bottom with a single extreme explosion.

More stupid to the nth! The author should have learned in elementary science class, back grade school, that for something to ignite, there has to be an ignition source... and there ain't none of those 5000 ft below the surface of the GoM.



If the toxic gas bubble explodes, it might simultaneously set off a tsunami travelling at a high speed of hundreds of miles per hour.

More stupid-see above




After several billion barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of gas have been released, the massive cavity beneath the ocean floor will begin to normalise, allowing freezing water to be forced naturally into the huge cavity where the oil and gas once were...

Nope, not even close... even if the reservoir were to dump its entire content into the GoM, it would stop loosing fluid when the formation pressure equalize with the overlying sea pressure.




These are some of the glaring errors and mis-truths that I spotted after only a cursury perusal of the article. There are probably many more. The guy that wrote the piece is either, and idiot, a liar, or a scaremonger... probably a little of all three. Regarding the piece, I'll conclude with graphic:

Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2010, 11:31 PM
 
13 posts, read 24,609 times
Reputation: 15
hum, and here I was half-joking but it doesn't seem so funny now
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 01:01 AM
 
111 posts, read 159,717 times
Reputation: 56
Here is a piece written by a Christian A. DeHaemer whose article appeared in the Opinion Forum of Petroleum World. DeHaemer is Editor of Energy and Capital, but Petroleum World has a disclaimer that they not "necesarily share these views."

DeHaemer writes that "Some geologists say that BP's arrogance has set off a series of events that may be irreversible. There are some that think that BP has drilled into an deep-core oil volcano that cannot be stopped, regardless of the horizontal drills the company claims will stop the oil plume in August."


DeHaemer calls his featured piece: The Well from Hell. Here is a little more of what he wrote:

"The well itself started 5,000 feet below the surface. That's the depth of the Grand Canyon from the rim.

And then the company attempted to drill more than 30,000 feet below that — Mt. Everest would give 972 feet to spare.

Furthermore, the company sought oil in a dangerous area of the seabed.

It was unstable and many think BP sought it out because seismic data showed huge pools of methane gas — the very gas that blew the top off Deepwater Horizon and killed 11 people.

More than a year ago, geologists criticized Transocean for putting their exploratory rig directly over a massive underground reservoir of methane.

According to the New York Times , BP's internal "documents show that in March, after several weeks of problems on the rig, BP was struggling with a loss of 'well control.' And as far back as 11 months ago, it was concerned about the well casing and the blowout preventer.”

The problem is that this methane, located deep in the bowels of the earth, is under tremendous pressure...

Some speculate as much as 100,000 psi — far too much for current technology to contain. The shutoff vales and safety measures were built for only 1,000 psi.

It was an accident waiting to happen... And there are many that say it could get worse — much worse."

petroleumworld
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 02:54 AM
 
Location: Interior Low Plateau
185 posts, read 376,262 times
Reputation: 99
^^Same ol' stoopid, different author with more lies. For instance:
And then the company attempted to drill more than 30,000 feet below that — Mt. Everest would give 972 feet to spare.

Bullcrap! TD was at 12000 below the surface. I'm not even going to deconstruct the stupid that is in the article, but one of his sources is telling:
Mr. Hoagland has suggested...

Anytime Hoagland is quoted, teh stoopid is sure to follow!

This is the kind of non-sense that happens when someone that received their degree in journalism or business writes about a subject that they don't understand. Most of those guys made it through college without taking even a single class in the sciences, and the few that did, completed only a couple of classes to fulfill a requirement.

If I want to learn how to construct a sentence, or run a business, I might follow their advice, otherwise...

Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 01:57 PM
 
111 posts, read 159,717 times
Reputation: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sman View Post
^^Same ol' stoopid, different author with more lies. For instance:
And then the company attempted to drill more than 30,000 feet below that — Mt. Everest would give 972 feet to spare.

Bullcrap! TD was at 12000 below the surface. I'm not even going to deconstruct the stupid that is in the article, but one of his sources is telling:
Mr. Hoagland has suggested...

Anytime Hoagland is quoted, teh stoopid is sure to follow!

This is the kind of non-sense that happens when someone that received their degree in journalism or business writes about a subject that they don't understand. Most of those guys made it through college without taking even a single class in the sciences, and the few that did, completed only a couple of classes to fulfill a requirement.

If I want to learn how to construct a sentence, or run a business, I might follow their advice, otherwise...
Besides Mr Hoagland, DeHaemer based his Opinion piece on sources like for example The Oil Drum and he does write that what this industry sheet had to say he considers "more speculation." Are the theories The Oil Drum put forth also "stoopid?"

I am just a reader of these articles and all the technalities of what's happening deep down the earth I have absolutely no knowledge if they are true.

Oh well, if more frequent occurences of earth shifts start to happen, I guess some credibility can then be given to the theories of doom that have been written by some sources from the oil industry.

One interesting thing I read this morning is the 5.0 earthquake in Canada. I believe that that is an unusual occurrence for that country. Of course, at this point it cannot be decided if that is in any way connected to what's happening in the Gulf, or not.

Thanks for your input Sman.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Interior Low Plateau
185 posts, read 376,262 times
Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tweedlydee View Post
Are the theories The Oil Drum put forth also "stoopid?" [
At least one of them is. I don't know which article on TOD they were referencing, but it was probably the one by Dougr. He is a regular there, and made many doomsday predictions in several threads-that were pretty much shot down. Apparently, in a gesture of fairness, he was allowed a guest post on the site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tweedlydee View Post
Oh well, if more frequent occurences of earth shifts start to happen, I guess some credibility can then be given to the theories of doom that have been written by some sources from the oil industry.
Are you referring to tectonic activity, or localized displacement? I just want to get a "feel" from where you are coming...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tweedlydee View Post
One interesting thing I read this morning is the 5.0 earthquake in Canada. I believe that that is an unusual occurrence for that country. Of course, at this point it cannot be decided if that is in any way connected to what's happening in the Gulf, or not.
Aah... I think that I now see where you are coming from. Of course it isn't related. How could it be?

Earthquakes happen everywhere on the planet; even in the most stable parts of the craton.

Earthquakes in that part of Canada are actually common(not common as in California common, but...), usually they result from isostatic rebound(google it).

This is an isostatic map of Canada showing relative movement over the last 8000 years.

Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 06:11 PM
 
13 posts, read 24,609 times
Reputation: 15
Sman is one of those folks who says "I can't be a wacko if I call myself a skeptic"
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 08:40 PM
 
Location: Interior Low Plateau
185 posts, read 376,262 times
Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zareste View Post
Sman is one of those folks who says "I can't be a wacko if I call myself a skeptic"
Project much do you?

Instead of vacuous non-sense, have a go at my arguments, if you can, genius.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2010, 09:04 PM
 
Location: in here, out there
3,061 posts, read 6,148,632 times
Reputation: 5109
The whole thing is going to blow up and you guys won't be laughing, then.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Nature
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top