Oil cap

On Jun 14, 4:16*pm, LSMFT wrote:
Somebody on the news said it's a shame we can go to the moon but can't
cap on oil well. Now that I've though about that; *we CAN'T go to the
moon any longer. The country has gone stupid and is no longer capable.

--
LSMFT

I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months.
I don't like to interrupt her.

Perhaps we can charge them Rothschilds and their Queen with wrongful
deaths (humans as well as countless other species), holding them fully
accountable because there's no way the BP corporate offshore (tax
avoidance) piggy bank is going to last, unless the artificial value of
all crude goes back up past the $150/barrel mark.

Once the Corexit modified crude oil that's also laced with sulfur and
a fair number of known carcinogens gets storm blown and deposited
inland 1000 miles, and otherwise global distributed by ocean
currents, perhaps not even those trillions held by them Rothschilds
and their Queen are going to help.

The good news, is that this BP fiasco will finally make their Bhopal
gas tragedy via Union Carbide (UCC) seem insignificant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

According to our CDC, anything above the 2.6 ppm level of Corexit all
by itself is potentially toxic (not to mention secondary reactions
with the raw oil and gas that's spewing out of their dysfunctional BP
well), so it'll certainly be interesting to see how far reaching this
known brew of toxins manages to get.

The Chesapeake Bay summer-only dead zone of 1.5e9 m2 for example, is
not 0.1% of what the new and improved BP Gulf area hypoxia plus
otherwise artificially toxic laced dead zone has to offer as a nearly
year round environment of toxic hypoxia, is made worse because of
previous spillage and certainly future contributions by Big Energy (US
as well as Mexican) that obviously doesn’t have to survive by having
to eat anything that comes out of those polluted waters that were
previously used to economically feed us “small people”.

How exactly do we “small people” test our water, food and surrounding
property where adults, children, pets plus other biodiversity need to
live, for any measurable signs of BP’s oil and its Corexit?

Our CDC and FEMA needs to hand out chemical test kits, so that
individuals and families can verify throughout each and every day, as
to whatever they are about to drink, eat or touch is safe. How about
handing out portable technology/devices for continually testing the
air we breath?

~ BG

On Jun 27, 1:00*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jun 14, 4:16*pm, LSMFT wrote:

Somebody on the news said it's a shame we can go to the moon but can't
cap on oil well. Now that I've though about that; *we CAN'T go to the
moon any longer. The country has gone stupid and is no longer capable.

--
LSMFT

I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months.
I don't like to interrupt her.

Perhaps we can charge them Rothschilds and their Queen with wrongful
deaths (humans as well as countless other species), holding them fully
accountable because there's no way the BP corporate offshore (tax
avoidance) piggy bank is going to last, unless the artificial value of
all crude goes back up past the $150/barrel mark.

Once the Corexit modified crude oil that's also laced with sulfur and
a fair number of known carcinogens gets storm blown and deposited
inland 1000 miles, and otherwise global distributed by ocean
currents, perhaps not even those trillions held by them Rothschilds
and their Queen are going to help.

The good news, is that this BP fiasco will finally make their Bhopal
gas tragedy via Union Carbide (UCC) seem insignificant.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

According to our CDC, anything above the 2.6 ppm level of Corexit all
by itself is potentially toxic (not to mention secondary reactions
with the raw oil and gas that's spewing out of their dysfunctional BP
well), so it'll certainly be interesting to see how far reaching this
known brew of toxins manages to get.

The Chesapeake Bay summer-only dead zone of 1.5e9 m2 for example, is
not 0.1% of what the new and improved BP Gulf area hypoxia plus
otherwise artificially toxic laced dead zone has to offer as a nearly
year round environment of toxic hypoxia, is made worse because of
previous spillage and certainly future contributions by Big Energy (US
as well as Mexican) that obviously doesn’t have to survive by having
to eat anything that comes out of those polluted waters that were
previously used to economically feed us “small people”.

How exactly do we “small people” test our water, food and surrounding
property where adults, children, pets plus other biodiversity need to
live, for any measurable signs of BP’s oil and its Corexit?

Our CDC and FEMA needs to hand out chemical test kits, so that
individuals and families can verify throughout each and every day, as
to whatever they are about to drink, eat or touch is safe. *How about
handing out portable technology/devices for continually testing the
air we breath?

*~ BG

The next really big thing of environmental contributors to our global
doom and gloom may involve even bigger Big Energy players, along with
even better spin-masters to boot. SHELL’s Perdido is certainly much
deeper and having 22 BOPs plus loads of seafloor manifolds and piping
infrastructure that’s 200 miles out in the Gulf of Mexico.

Their daily energy output of hydrocarbons is supposed to equal
something like 14e6 gallons worth of gasoline, or roughly what 2.75e6
of us use per day (I believe that’s not including whatever Shell
Perdido vents and flares off). However, their blowout risk is also
potentially worth at least 22 fold worse than BP’s Deepwater Horizon
single BOP malfunction.

SHELL’s Perdido (27.5% BP owned) is also so potentially much worse
than their Niger fiasco:
“according to a report by the independent Niger Delta Stakeholder
Democracy Network, the company is illegally flaring 256m cubic feet of
natural gas a day – which, apart from polluting the surroundings, adds
considerably to climate change, and is one of the most wasteful
practices on earth.”

Perdido’s raw natural gas at perhaps 2.8e6 m3/day (100e6 cf/day)
that’s only partially ch4, goes on and on because of the relative
surplus of commercial natural gas and the lack of having a suitable
method of bulk capture, storage plus transporting such natural gas
that started off as LNG while under pressure, is simply not a high
priority consideration.

“The Perdido platform peak production will be 100,000 barrels of oil
equivalent a day, enough to meet the energy needs of about 2.2 million
US households. The oil and gas fields beneath the platform lie in a
geological formation holding resources estimated at 3-15 billion
barrels of oil equivalent*. Shell has a 35% share of the facility and
operates the project on behalf of its partners Chevron (37.5%) and BP
(27.5%).”

Their suggested 200,000 cf or 5,634 m3 of natural gas/day is perhaps
less than 0.25% of what that system of extremely deep wells is
actually making available as raw atmospheric (1 bar) gasses that get
vented or flared on location. If in fact this number from Shell
refers to their wellhead LNG volumes (because that makes it seem a
whole lot less problematic or simply less wasteful), then you should
be aware that such wellhead raw LNG expands by roughly 500 fold as it
decompresses and phase shifts from liquid to vapor, so as to invisibly
displace and pollute the atmosphere along with packing several known
toxins, as well as wherever the local inland rains shall fall is not
exactly going to be any better off.

It seems Big Energy is always informatively careful, or lets call it
selective and/or sensitive about interpreting relevant matters as to
their shielding its fellow industry and investors in order to properly
confuse or keep us outsider “small people” snookered and/or
dumbfounded past the point of no return. It’s called obfuscation, so
perhaps there’s no obvious reason(s) to believe much of anything
touted or otherwise getting PR spun by most of these hydrocarbon
suppliers. Clearly, they as a collective cabal/cartel do not
interpret their vented or flared gasses as worth any hoot, as they
sure as hell refuse to take proper responsibility before, during or
after whatever unfortunate events, as well as whatever future
consequences are for the next generations to figure out on the usual
need-to-know and pay-as-you-go basis.

The lack of any good Gulf area news has gotten so obscure (harder to
find than Muslim WMD or OBL), in that as of 6:13 AM on Friday is when
our public Google Groups version of Usenet/newsgroups “alt.astronomy”
stopped updating for the next 5 hours. Go figure, as sometimes this
stoppage occurs the instant after I’ve updated or posted something.

Perhaps we need to revise our CDC standards by a factor of allowing
100 fold greater exposure as being within reasonable spec, and perhaps
that way the 200 mile radius as only an advisory should apply instead
of a FEMA mandatory evacuation.

http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/153055.html
“”The “dead zone” created by a combination of methane gas and Corexit
toxic rain, Madsen continues, will ultimately result in the evacuation
and long-term abandonment of cities and towns within the 200-mile
radius of the oil gusher.””

“Plans are being put in place for the mandatory evacuation of New
Orleans, Baton Rouge, Mandeville, Hammond, Houma, Belle Chase,
Chalmette, Slidell, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pensacola, Hattiesburg, Mobile,
Bay Minette, Fort Walton Beach, Panama City, Crestview, and
Pascagoula,” Madsen writes.

“How the ultimate BP Gulf disaster could kill millions”
http://www.helium.com/items/1864136-...-kill-millions

This might be a good time for the rest of us to invest in motels and
trailer parks, that which BP and taxpayers are going to have to pick
up the tab.

~ BG

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.space.policy message
, Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:42:53, Alain Fournier
posted:


Yes, it is the rates actually encountered by wind turbine farms. Quebec
is a large area. Imagine a million 3MW wind turbines, that has a
theoretical capacity of 1,000,000*365*24*3 MWh or 26,280,000,000,000 kWh.
That is less than one turbine per km^2 and a theoretical output about seven
times the North American electricity consumption. In practice we can have
much more than one turbine per km^2, but there is lots of places where
it isn't windy enough, so 1 per km^2 is about right. I agree that wind
turbine farms should not be considered a core power source, there are
some days when the wind levels are not appropriate, and because weather
systems are rather large things, those days can be so for large areas.


ISTM that if the level of Lakes Huron & Michigan were lowered by one
millimetre, the water going via hydroelectric plants into James Bay,
enough energy would be generated to power the whole of North America
(does that include Mexico, Cuba, etc.?) for the order of a day; and Lake
Superior would give over 50% more. Check that arithmetic.

So if the Quebec and Ontario wind-farms were to pump their local river
water into the Lakes whenever the wind was blowing, a steady and
substantial electricity supply would be obtained. Dwr Cymru may be able
to advise.

Put a floating barrage in James Bay, to separate the river-water from
the sea-water, and the clean water could be re-used by the system.

Yes hydro power and wind-farms can be paired up together very well. In
Quebec, our hydro power plants can generate electricity at power levels
way beyond what would be sustainable. If the wind is low on a day of high
energy demand the water level behind the dams go down. We then let the
water levels rise again when the wind is more favourable.


Alain Fournier

In sci.space.policy message
, Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:06:14, Alain Fournier
posted:

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.space.policy message
, Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:42:53, Alain Fournier
posted:

Yes, it is the rates actually encountered by wind turbine farms.
Quebec
is a large area. Imagine a million 3MW wind turbines, that has a
theoretical capacity of 1,000,000*365*24*3 MWh or 26,280,000,000,000 kWh.
That is less than one turbine per km^2 and a theoretical output about seven
times the North American electricity consumption. In practice we can have
much more than one turbine per km^2, but there is lots of places where
it isn't windy enough, so 1 per km^2 is about right. I agree that wind
turbine farms should not be considered a core power source, there are
some days when the wind levels are not appropriate, and because weather
systems are rather large things, those days can be so for large areas.
ISTM that if the level of Lakes Huron & Michigan were lowered by
one
millimetre, the water going via hydroelectric plants into James Bay,
enough energy would be generated to power the whole of North America
(does that include Mexico, Cuba, etc.?) for the order of a day; and Lake
Superior would give over 50% more. Check that arithmetic.
So if the Quebec and Ontario wind-farms were to pump their local
river
water into the Lakes whenever the wind was blowing, a steady and
substantial electricity supply would be obtained. Dwr Cymru may be able
to advise.
Put a floating barrage in James Bay, to separate the river-water
from
the sea-water, and the clean water could be re-used by the system.

Yes hydro power and wind-farms can be paired up together very well. In
Quebec, our hydro power plants can generate electricity at power levels
way beyond what would be sustainable. If the wind is low on a day of high
energy demand the water level behind the dams go down. We then let the
water levels rise again when the wind is more favourable.

That's only part-way. When the wind is high at a time of low demand,
the water should be pumped back up again. That is what an upper
reservoir, such as the Lakes, is useful for.

--
(c) John Stockton, near London.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (RFC5536/7)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (RFC5536/7)

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
Alain Fournier posted:

Yes hydro power and wind-farms can be paired up together very well. In
Quebec, our hydro power plants can generate electricity at power levels
way beyond what would be sustainable. If the wind is low on a day of high
energy demand the water level behind the dams go down. We then let the
water levels rise again when the wind is more favourable.

That's only part-way. When the wind is high at a time of low demand,
the water should be pumped back up again. That is what an upper
reservoir, such as the Lakes, is useful for.

At Niagra Falls there is a large reservoir. At night the demand for
electricity is low and the amount they can take from the river is high,
so they use electricity from a few shoots to drive pumps to fill the
reservoir. During the day they take less from the river for better
tourism and drain the reservior of the extra electricity.

The same concept could be used for either wind or solar but the price of
the construction is very high and it wouldn't be a useful option in arid
zones.