Where's The Oil?Model Suggests May Be Gone...

Originally posted by triplescorpio
Give it time ...

How many more weeks shall we give it before we can pretty much say the shorelines are not going to be devastated as the MSM has you'all believing?

reply to post by Doc Velocity


ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS ENCYCLOPEDIA
CRUDE OIL ENTRY (.pdf)

That is an 80 page report, but here is the summary section:

General Hazard/Toxicity Summary:

In general, spilled oil is most harmful when shallow,
productive waters, porous sediments, low energy aquatic
environments, or special-use habitats are affected.
Examples of high risk locations are wetlands, sheltered
tidal flats, shallow bays, coarse sand and gravel
beaches, and sites with concentrated reproductive and
migratory activities [782].


Crude oil and petroleum products vary considerably in
their toxicity, and the sensitivity of fish to petroleum
varies according to species [782]. The water soluble
fractions of crude oil can stunt fish growth (Denny
Buckler, NBS, Columbia, MO, personal communication,
1995).

MORE...

( Read the rest starting from PAGE 6. )


See also: Gulf Oil Spill Health Hazards

[edit on 15-5-2010 by loam]

reply to post by loam

yeah, mods gonna snip it for massive quote.
damm fella, just post the darn link.

Originally posted by loam
That is an 80 page report, but here is the summary section: blah blah blah

I take from the Environmental protection agency:

Types of Crude Oil accoridng to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

The petroleum industry often characterizes crude oils according to their geographical source, e.g., Alaska North Slope Crude. Oils from different geographical areas have unique properties; they can vary in consistency from a light volatile fluid to a semi-solid. Classification of crude oil types by geographical source is generally not a useful classification scheme for response personnel because they offer little information about general toxicity, physical state, and changes that occur with time and weathering. These characteristics are primary considerations in oil spill response. The classification scheme provided below is more useful in a response scenario.

Class A: Light, Volatile Oils. These oils are highly fluid, often clear, spread rapidly on solid or water surfaces, have a strong odor, a high evaporation rate, and are usually flammable. They penetrate porous surfaces such as dirt and sand, and may be persistent in such a matrix. They do not tend to adhere to surfaces; flushing with water generally removes them. Class A oils may be highly toxic to humans, fish, and other biota. Most refined products and many of the highest quality light crudes can be included in this class.

Class B: Non-Sticky Oils. These oils have a waxy or oily feel. Class B oils are less toxic and adhere more firmly to surfaces than Class A oils, although they can be removed from surfaces by vigorous flushing. As temperatures rise, their tendency to penetrate porous substrates increases and they can be persistent. Evaporation of volatiles may lead to a Class C or D residue. Medium to heavy paraffin-based oils fall into this class.

Class C: Heavy, Sticky Oils. Class C oils are characteristically viscous, sticky or tarry, and brown or black. Flushing with water will not readily remove this material from surfaces, but the oil does not readily penetrate porous surfaces. The density of Class C oils may be near that of water and they often sink. Weathering or evaporation of volatiles may produce solid or tarry Class D oil. Toxicity is low, but wildlife can be smothered or drowned when contaminated. This class includes residual fuel oils and medium to heavy crudes.

Class D: Nonfluid Oils. Class D oils are relatively non-toxic, do not penetrate porous substrates, and are usually black or dark brown in color. When heated, Class D oils may melt and coat surfaces making cleanup very difficult. Residual oils, heavy crude oils, some high paraffin oils, and some weathered oils fall into this class.

These classifications are dynamic for spilled oils; weather conditions and water temperature greatly influence the behavior of oil and refined petroleum products in the environment. For example, as volatiles evaporate from a Class B oil, it may become a Class C oil. If a significant temperature drop occurs (e.g., at night), a Class C oil may solidify and resemble a Class D oil. Upon warming, the Class D oil may revert back to a Class C oil.

The Gulf Oil spill is a Class C crude, which is heavy and tarry, but has low toxicity to marine and animal life. It's mainly just a sticky mess that will sink and degrade into a non-toxic Class D residue.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 5/15/2010 by Doc Velocity]

How many more weeks shall we give it before we can pretty much say the shorelines are not going to be devastated as the MSM has you'all believing?

It's disturbing to see yet another thread full of dis-info (even admitted by some in their self-described titles).

To suggest that this spill is going to just disappear or evaporate is to say the least ludicrous. The tarry oil (with toxic dispersant) is permeating different levels of the deep ocean, and at some point soon will get caught up in the Gulf Loop Current. For you non marine eco types, the current is not static but ebbs and flows in and out of the Gulf. This time of year it tends to flow inwards and has a lot to do with the development of hurricanes.

Then, there go your precious Florida Keys and Bahamas. Then it won't just be a lower Gulf coast "Katrina-type situation". Now the rich folks vacations will be f-ed up as well. And the rich sports anglers, not just the poor "Bubba-Gump" type shrimpers and fisherman trying to make a living.
Then we'll see who's calling for more disinfo and minimizing a huge and unprecedenetd disaster.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Your source on it (the current spill) being Class C crude please?

Much of this oil is at the surface, but is sinking due to continual spraying of dispersant above the water. And reportedly the source is being injected with dispersant so it never reaches the surface.

edit for clarity.



[edit on 15-5-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Silly me.

How could I have assumed you would find a six paragraph-watered-downed-for-public-consumption-not really about toxicity-summary-government-webpage more compelling than the actual scientific literature?

My bad.

I'll leave you to your obvious and desperate need to distort the truth.



[edit on 15-5-2010 by loam]

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
Your source on it (the current spill) being Class C crude please?

I've looked for it and can't find any such representation from the EPA or otherwise-- not that the classification is even that meaningful in the context of this spill.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by loam]

How silly you gloomers must feel now that it has almos been a month and the devastation hasn't happened.
Sad but I bet deep down some of you wish the oil would reach the shores and all mayhem would begin so that you didn't have to admit you were suckered yet once again by the same folks that brought us the bird flu, pig flu, global cooling, global warming, mad cow disease, hole in the ozone, y2k....I'm sure I missed some.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Doc Velocity

 

I'll leave you to your obvious and desperate need to distort the truth.

Thought you were leaving us?

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
Your source on it (the current spill) being Class C crude please?

Louisiana State University professor Ed Overton, the head of a federal chemical hazard assessment team for oil spills. Overton has been testing samples of the spilled crude at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
Much of this oil is at the surface, but is sinking due to continual spraying of dispersant above the water. And reportedly the source is being injected with dispersant so it never reaches the surface.

Most of it is not at the surface. It's emulsifying naturally, not due to the toxic dispersants being injected into it.

While most of the oil drilled off Louisiana is a lighter crude, this isn't. The Deepwater Horizon spill is a heavier blend because it comes from deep under the ocean surface, Overton said.

The first analysis of oil spill samples showed it contains asphalt-like substances that make a major sticky mess, Overton said. This is because the oil is older than most oil in the region and is very dense.

Thus, Class C.

This oil emulsifies well, Overton said. Emulsification is when oil and water mix thoroughly together, like a shampoo.


— Doc Velocity




[edit on 5/15/2010 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Just Wondering


Hey, don't get me wrong, I hope you are 100% right.

But I've seen nothing from you that convinces me you aren't in denial.



[edit on 15-5-2010 by loam]

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
Your source on it (the current spill) being Class C crude please?

I've looked for it and can't find any such representation from the EPA or otherwise-- not that the classification is even that meaningful in the context of this spill.

That's because the type of crude (a dense, low-toxicity crude) is being played down. If they announce that it's low-toxicity and mixes well with water, then the Mainstream Media doesn't have a "catastrophe"... Which this isn't.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Just Wondering

Originally posted by Just Wondering

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Doc Velocity

 

I'll leave you to your obvious and desperate need to distort the truth.

Thought you were leaving us?

How old are you?

I have "left" addressing "the need" of your obvious delusions.

That does not mean I have to leave this thread. If the mood strikes me, you're stuck with me-- however inconvenient that might be for you.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Oh.

So you have "special" knowledge no one else has?

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Just Wondering

 

But I've seen nothing form you that convinces me you aren't in denial.

Right...so I haven't posted any links or quoted any text?

Just because you choose to disregard the information I've posted doesn't mean I have to.

Originally posted by Aussie_Rock
So where does this oil come from?
If not from fossils, why cant we just make it in a lab instead of drilling thousands of metres in the ocean and why does it cost so much?
As for it being a hoax are the pictures I find all hoaxs too?
What is the purpose of this hoax?

The more we learn about oil reserve locations its beginning to look like fossils wouldnt account for the oil more specifically deep water reserves.The theory is "abiogenic" petroleum seeps upward through cracks formed by asteroid impacts to form underground pools, according to one hypothesis. The only question that remains is how much is produced and do we have 2 processes at work or just 1.

Abiogenic sources of oil have been found so we know the process occurs.
The controversy isn't over whether naturally forming oil reserves exist, said Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It's over how much they contribute to Earth's overall reserves and how much time and effort geologists should devote to seeking them out.

If abiogenic petroleum sources are indeed found to be abundant, it would mean Earth contains vast reserves of untapped petroleum and, since other rocky objects formed from the same raw material as Earth, that crude oil might exist on other planets or moons in the solar system, scientists say.

Originally posted by loam
Oh.

So you have "special" knowledge no one else has?

I have knowledge, not "special knowledge"... You have ignorance.

If you were alert and had researched oil types and knew that LSU professor Ed Overton was testing the oil spill, you'd know what I know.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Just Wondering

Originally posted by Just Wondering

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Just Wondering

 

But I've seen nothing form you that convinces me you aren't in denial.

Right...so I haven't posted any links or quoted any text?

Just because you choose to disregard the information I've posted doesn't mean I have to.

You mean like the link that serves as the source for this thread? The overwhelming portions of the article that you didn't like me quoting, because they directly contradicted the specious conclusion you were trying to peddle?

In my view, you either have very poor reading comprehension skills or are purposely trying to spread misinformation.

Which is it?


[edit on 15-5-2010 by loam]

One time, I tried transferring car fuel from a tank to a car with a plastic cup. It ate a hole through the plastic cup and evaporated. I was shocked because in the tank it's liquid, but when it comes into contact with the air, it just disappears. I don't know about crude oil, but I know that fuel will evaporate.