Why not burn the oil spills?

[FrustratedUser]

As many already know there is a new oil catastrophy happening at the coast of Spain. A tanker broke in half and sank with possible greater damage than the Exxon Waldes spill in Alaska.

Now on to the question.
Why not set the oil that leaked out on fire? Burn it.
Is that not a good method and why?

 

[Utterman]

Buring = 100x more pollution than it just sitting on the water.

 

[Waveslidin]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
As many already know there is a new oil catastrophy happening at the coast of Spain. A tanker broke in half and sank with possible greater damage than the Exxon Waldes spill in Alaska.

Now on to the question.
Why not set the oil that leaked out on fire? Burn it.
Is that not a good method and why?

It really depends on what type of oil they are shipping. Some kinds burn easier than others. Plus, most of the oil was still in containers in the holds of the ship. Most of the oil went down with the ship.

 

[Waveslidin]

Originally posted by: Utterman
Buring = 100x more pollution than it just sitting on the water.

No way, you burn oil, it may pollute the atmosphere a little bit for a while, but it will recover. They are still turning over rocks in Valdez with oil under them.

 

[Eli]

Exxon-Valdez.

I don't think they could even if they wanted to. The oil slick would become so thin and spread out that it wouldn't burn. Also, not all of the oil floats.. It's much heavier than water.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
As many already know there is a new oil catastrophy happening at the coast of Spain. A tanker broke in half and sank with possible greater damage than the Exxon Waldes spill in Alaska.

Now on to the question.
Why not set the oil that leaked out on fire? Burn it.
Is that not a good method and why?

I have often wondered that myself...

While the burning would create a nasty aircloud, that would disperse...

Oh well, I'm sure they have considered it and rejected it for some reason or another.

Grasshopper

 

[SSP]

They'll be burning for weeks. Plus, wouldnt the sorrunding fish/plant life die from the heat (assuming they didn't die from the already polluted water).

 

[klah]

Only 2 million gallons have spilled, the other 18 million is still onboard the ship 5km beneath the surface.



Why not burn the oil spills?
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oilaids/ISB/FAQtopics/General.html

 

[Scarpozzi]

The oil they were shipping was described as "sticky". That means it's pretty thick stuff and would have to be heated up quite a bit before it would even ignite. You could throw a match in the tanker's hull and the match would probably be extinguished on contact with the oil. When you add a chilled North Atlantic Ocean to that equation, it would take some sort of heat bomb to get it started...

Also, as stated above, the air pollution would only add to the water pollution. They have a lot of agents they can throw on the slick to help minimize the damage as much as possible, but it's still going to take many years to clean up. They said 4, but I would guess it's more like 6.

 

[N8Magic]

A oil spill can be burned to lessen contamination of the surrounding ecosystems, but certain conditions have to be met:

- far enough away from population centres because of the toxic cloud
- winds blowing away from population centres
- generally calm weather conditions
- waves of 2-3 feet or less

There is a special technique, called in-situ burning that is used to keep these fires under control.

In this specific case, because of waves of up to 20 feet in the area, burning the spill is not an option. Also, the oil needs calmer weather for it to settle to the top where it can be burned.

 

[MajesticMoose]

just get a couple truckloads of kitty litter and oilzorb pads -> problem solved

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: Eli
Exxon-Valdez.

I don't think they could even if they wanted to. The oil slick would become so thin and spread out that it wouldn't burn. Also, not all of the oil floats.. It's much heavier than water.

You sure about that?
I always thought that water (espescially salt water) was heavier than oil.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: Eli
Exxon-Valdez.

I don't think they could even if they wanted to. The oil slick would become so thin and spread out that it wouldn't burn. Also, not all of the oil floats.. It's much heavier than water.

You sure about that?
I always thought that water (espescially salt water) was heavier than oil.

Ahh.. Hmm... I didn't think of the salt-water part of it...

Regardless, I was just trying to use some common sense. Does having salt in the water change its specific gravity that much? Oil of nearly any type is pretty damn heavy, compared to water.. let alone something like crude oil.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
As many already know there is a new oil catastrophy happening at the coast of Spain. A tanker broke in half and sank with possible greater damage than the Exxon Waldes spill in Alaska.

Now on to the question.
Why not set the oil that leaked out on fire? Burn it.
Is that not a good method and why?

I have often wondered that myself...

While the burning would create a nasty aircloud, that would disperse...

Oh well, I'm sure they have considered it and rejected it for some reason or another.

Grasshopper

The toxic cold would get blown away to cause acid rain and environmental damage somewhere else. Burning wouldn't solve the problem. It would just move the problem.


Lethal

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
As many already know there is a new oil catastrophy happening at the coast of Spain. A tanker broke in half and sank with possible greater damage than the Exxon Waldes spill in Alaska.

Now on to the question.
Why not set the oil that leaked out on fire? Burn it.
Is that not a good method and why?

I have often wondered that myself...

While the burning would create a nasty aircloud, that would disperse...

Oh well, I'm sure they have considered it and rejected it for some reason or another.

Grasshopper

The toxic cold would get blown away to cause acid rain and environmental damage somewhere else. Burning wouldn't solve the problem. It would just move the problem.


Lethal

Nah. Burning it would be a much better solution than letting nature try and take care of it. Like someone said, you can still find oil in Valdez. Yes, it would create some nasty clouds of smoke... but the planet can deal with that much better than the local environments can deal with thousands and thousands of gallons of oil on the ground and in the water.

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: N8Magic
There is a special technique, called in-situ burning that is used to keep these fires under control.

That is what the link in my post goes to.

 

[fluxquantum]

Originally posted by: MajesticMoose
just get a couple truckloads of kitty litter and oilzorb pads -> problem solved

 

[N8Magic]

Originally posted by: klah

Originally posted by: N8Magic
There is a special technique, called in-situ burning that is used to keep these fires under control.

That is what the link in my post goes to.

Oops, I didn't see that link.

Doesn't really matter, because people are ignoring us anyways.

 

[T2T III]

I just read an interesting article where my old employer, ExxonMobil, disqualified this tanker for their use earlier this year. Being a large shareholder in that company, I'm sure glad they don't have any affiliation with that tanker because it's carrying about twice the oil that the Valdez was.

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: Waveslidin

Originally posted by: Utterman
Buring = 100x more pollution than it just sitting on the water.

No way, you burn oil, it may pollute the atmosphere a little bit for a while, but it will recover. They are still turning over rocks in Valdez with oil under them.

Burning oil is VERY bad for the environment. ACID rain is the result.

 

[kherman]

Crude Oil isn't as bad for the environment. I forget why though. Something abouthte cleanup being easier. Bacteria eats it I think.

is this spill crude oil???

 

[GoingUp]

What I want to know is isnt there something they could use to skim the oil out of the water and then seperate it from sea water?

 

[C'DaleRider]

What I want to know is isnt there something they could use to skim the oil out of the water and then seperate it from sea water?

There is just such equipment, but have you seen the waves where the tanker broke apart and sank? I think 10-20 foot waves would preclude using containment booms and such.

 

[sharkeeper]

Seawater in that region has a density of approximately 1.029 g/ml. It is quite heavier than oil. The oil will float on top. However, with the action of the wind creating large waves you have a complex water/oil interface that extends several meters below the surface of the water column. It would be possible to remove the oil with specially designed fractionators, however with the current wx conditions, this makes set up of such apparatus difficult and dangerous.

Considerable damage has been done, and more is yet to come unfortunately. As with any disaster, prevention is key and IMO all disasters such as this which are detrimental to our environment are inexcusable. What will it take for people to learn? :|

Cheers!

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: kherman
Crude Oil isn't as bad for the environment. I forget why though. Something abouthte cleanup being easier. Bacteria eats it I think.

is this spill crude oil???

I think I remember reading something that one clean up method is to spray something onto the oil to "eat it" (either the spray has certain microbes in it, or i attracks certain microbes that can "eat" the oil). I think yer right, but I don't think it is naturally accuring, something has to be added/applied to the oil to make it happen.


And for those of you who think toxic plumes of smoke and acid rain is a better way to go all I have to say is Going from one evironmental hazard to another isn't a very good plan IMO.


Lethal