Booster4324 Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 They tried. The sea state wouldn't allow it. Initially yes, but later it could have been used. Still, the more I read on it, I have all but discarded the idea. That is what I get for thinking Rush Limbaugh had a point. Still, they were able to conduct a controlled burn by April 28. They couldn't start earlier, due to sea states as you said. Another thing I picked up while reading up on the idea: The first analysis of oil spill samples showed it contains asphalt-like substances that make a major sticky mess, he said. This is because the oil is older than most oil in the region and is very dense. This oil also emulsifies well, Overton said. Emulsification is when oil and water mix thoroughly together, like a shampoo, which is mostly water, said Penn State engineering professor Anil Kulkarni. It "makes a thick gooey chocolate mousse type of mix," Kulkarni said. And once it becomes that kind of mix, it no longer evaporates as quickly as regular oil, doesn't rinse off as easily, can't be eaten by oil-munching microbes as easily, and doesn't burn as well, experts said. That type of mixture essentially removes all the best oil clean-up weapons, Overton and others said. After reading up on it, they corralled the oil and burned it in a fire-proof boom. I would assume that means the oil was more concentrated that way and thus easier to burn, because it burned quite nicely. The USCG announced a plan to burn up to a 1,000 barrels a day. All the pictures and references I see are to small controlled burns like that. So essentially, too big a spill to burn enough to make any meaningful headway. There, I have completely shredded my own post. But isn't most of this submerged? I would guess burning wouldn't get rid of most of this. I think that is caused by the dispersant. However, after my thorough debunking by myself, I decline to comment further at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 5, 2010 Share Posted June 5, 2010 Initially yes, but later it could have been used. Still, the more I read on it, I have all but discarded the idea. That is what I get for thinking Rush Limbaugh had a point. Still, they were able to conduct a controlled burn by April 28. They couldn't start earlier, due to sea states as you said. Another thing I picked up while reading up on the idea: After reading up on it, they corralled the oil and burned it in a fire-proof boom. I would assume that means the oil was more concentrated that way and thus easier to burn, because it burned quite nicely. The USCG announced a plan to burn up to a 1,000 barrels a day. All the pictures and references I see are to small controlled burns like that. So essentially, too big a spill to burn enough to make any meaningful headway. There, I have completely shredded my own post. I was going to say...burning would by nature eliminate the light fractions, but leave the heavier tarry fractions. It would limit the spread (i.e. it wouldn't get to the beach as readily), as a greater proportion would sink. But you'd still have a shitload of pollution. I think that is caused by the dispersant. However, after my thorough debunking by myself, I decline to comment further at this point. Again, I'd betting that the dispersants simply speed up evaporation of the lighter fractions (could be wrong there, as now I'm really just guessing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted June 5, 2010 Share Posted June 5, 2010 Oh, I thought this thread was going to be about the media giving Obama a free pass on his lack of leadership and response to the major disaster in the Gulf. Carry on.... KD, you're nothing if not a master baiter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanM.D. Posted June 5, 2010 Share Posted June 5, 2010 Could you imagine if one of the conservatives would of said this? It should be an outrage regardless of who said it. Same can be said for Harry Reid's comments about President Obama's 'ability to be elected' based on 'how he talked etc.' In this case, implying the President is 'packing heat' based on his race is preposterous. He is an educated man...extremely bright and would likely be insulted if presented with Maher's comments. I don't support his policies much...but he is still my President....for now. And what would you have Obama do? Ride in on his magic rainbow farting unicorn and wave a magic teleprompter? Give Lindsey Lohan a glass bowl and a lighter Two of the funniest things I've read in a while. Maybe it's your avatar affecting my brain...but those were funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 5, 2010 Share Posted June 5, 2010 Two of the funniest things I've read in a while. Maybe it's your avatar affecting my brain...but those were funny. What are you talking about, his avatar doesn- ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBeane Posted June 5, 2010 Share Posted June 5, 2010 What are you talking about, his avatar doesn- ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD. Now that was funny. This is a good thread in my books Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanM.D. Posted June 5, 2010 Share Posted June 5, 2010 What are you talking about, his avatar doesn- ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD. someone call an ambulance....he's OD'd on the toad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts