Member since Jun 17, 2010



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

The default display order is to show this comment, my conclusion, first, so after readign this sentance go to the top right and say "oldest first" on the pull down.....

Ok now that you ahve read my prior two reactions- actually brought here by the print edition despite it failing, last week, to mention last weeks free outdoor movie downtown for some reason! ( I only know there is a movie tonioght from yesterdays wildcat!)- now I continue to beg for some hint of how this is not the case- of how, and I decided to submit again because I ignored the methane, the gaseous crap, and want to rob anyone from thinking that's what i'm in fact ignoring.... so that some real reason where I'm nearly certain there isn't one, for not recognising that this is a VERY VERY SLOW SPILL BY TANKER STANDARDS ISN'T it!

It's slow not just long....

it's capturable by a robot using regular size condoms in fact! No kidding. Imagine what can be done with hot air balloon wide, miles long ones.

These are the shapes that matter- because miles is an exageration obviously. Not many hot air ballons can fit in mckale, standard height ones!

What is volumnious even a mile below, is the methane. No oil from water is on tv everyday. But gas from oil, Natural GAS, that's trivial to seperate and maybve the video's have shown taht already occuring?

Posted by karl on 06/17/2010 at 5:58 PM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

"oil" isn't (shouldn't be euphymistically or whatever i have not figure out thsi platform speakk for sure yet) "hydrocarbons" even if NG is. I of course meant methane which isn't deep either as proposed for harvesting offshore. It is the yellow snow we shouldn't touch unless it's unstable as found.

The estimate matters as one scientist noted arguing for oeven more direct measurement then has occured since. Hundreds of millions is nice to know in terms of what revenue has been lost, even though as I mentioned aboev you assume it would of been sold, which it would not of, at todays price.

The variable of how much damage can be avoided has been ignored even now. Private investment beyond the responsible party has not been adequately leveraged.

Each barrel leaked from now on is how much further damage. In total how much damage can now be avoided by taking truly drastic steps? I don't mean bombing it.

Consider the multibillion dollarl number- how much of it is because it wasn't stopped from leaking freely in the first month. It's not about the fine!

We just don't see the first battle being fought with billions- at the leak. What kind of bag can be bought and dropped on this ocean floor for even a few hundred million? Can we boot up some old film factory, or reconfigure polycarbonate films to be made into tubes, like hot air ballons, in fact made underwater to increase there size as the tip fills?

Oh now it's leaking lower so that this 'condom' would hit the floor sooner, but nope, it's easy to move the oil short distances, just as it's easy to bag it underwater... it must be because then what, then what gets spent to recover it from the bag FOR SURE.

This whole time everyone has been banking that the dead bird at best tasted like chicken, and no one has to pay for what could of been made had it been sold at KFC instead of carried to the landfill I assume. Not even that.

No issue of compensativing for pain and suffering of not just the humans who survive even, but of all who died and contionue to die because people believe it is cheaper to let it spill as opposed to capture it near the bottom.

So that's the gain of always having a 'hope' to plug it in days. Not having to accept that a plan that saves the cost of avoiding weeks or months must be undertaken as well.

Yet they estimate weeks at least of additional very large amounts. Is it fair to let them -perhaps- correctly argue "but the damage is already done", ALREADY, not just for future wells as has been discussed. That's not even true. Capturing it within three fourths of a mile, within a mile at most, before it can get outside not of a small box like a stadium, but that sphere that stretches to teh surface, is doable. It is doable as it postpones the collection. Kind of like adding tobacco to the list of illegal substances or something.... worth thinking about at least.

(I guess I don't know how close to the surface you ahev to get it before the unemulsified oil isn't 'so' much lighter then the water to be baggable with doable materials. It can't be too close to chaotic currents and I assume that is trivial to accomplish.

The condom joke is really no joke of course. THis thing isn't ejaculating very violently at all- the video exaggerates it. Wrap it and worry about what to do with the filthy thing later which is of course the normal rule isn't it?

Posted by karl on 06/17/2010 at 5:50 PM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

I'm commenting on the oil estimate. It's less meaningful then what I heard the gallons per second figure is, or to possibly improve upon it, flushes PER SECOND. That's right this is like everyone in the most toileted home in this town flushing there toilet every second, again and again- it is possibly DOZENS OF GALLONS PER SECOND! Also the weight of that, per second, is important, as it's more then almost any of us weigh, per second.

Despite this I find that the lack of discussion about bagging it underwater, the lack of underwater village development so as to be relatively immune from terrestial weather issues, I mean I bet even a quarter mile down there's not much disturbance for housing and docking of tanking vessels etc.

I hear proposals to drill several wells to have backup ones to depressurise- but this well was supposed to be plugged for several years before it was harvested- yet nothing on that! It apparently would not of been most profitable to drain now as even if that didn't lower the price further, it's best left banked they planned and platform availability is part of this.

I propose that alternatively all activity should be within a certain distance of the bottom up to the maximum housing and docking can occur. Exposing workers to waves and potential methane explosions (by not having heavy water in all the uncontrolled space around the development displacing any such 'vapor spills') is cheaper, and the alternative might be cheaper then redundant pressure relief wells which by there nature involve sucking the oil dry even when prices are not optimum to do so.....

Finally I recall with pride confronting a local about how safely frozen methane can be harvested- it, unlike gas, once breached, needs to be collected relatively quickly before it all melts. She argued it can be done safely which is of course not relevant- will it?

Posted by karl on 06/17/2010 at 5:24 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2017 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation