• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US bans offshore drilling as Deepwater Horizon slick hits land

Jerry said:
Here's a hint: Valdez spilled one type, Deepwater spilled another.

Bonus question worth +1 internetz: Assuming identical weather conditions, volume of ocean water, tidal forces and geographical location, how does a spill of heavy crude impact the environment differently than an equal volume of light-sweet crude?


***
Here's a free-bi for my alarmist friends: Valdez did not spill it's entire contents. It only spilled 10.9Mil gallons of it's 53Mil gallon cargo.

If we're only going to discuss volume of oil spilled and not account for any other variable, the Valdez is small potatoes compared to other spills.

It was the location of the spill, not the volume of oil spilled, which created environmental problems.
Click to expand...

You might want to do some research before you look foolish.
 
USA-1 said:
Everyone does. So? This isn't light crude even though it has a low sulfer content. Are you still in denial and trying to trivialize this spill even though it will cause greater damage than the Exxon Valdez?

"The current spill "is kind of a worst-case scenario," Tunnell said.

What makes this spill relentless and most similar to Ixtoc 1 is that it's an active well that keeps flowing. The Exxon Valdez was a tanker with a limited supply of oil. The rig 40 miles from the Gulf Coast may leak for months before a relief well can be drilled to stop the flow, Kinner said.

And LSU's Overton said: "I'm not very optimistic that they'll be drilling a relief well in three months."

Type of oil also a problem
The type of oil involved is also a major problem. While most of the oil drilled off Louisiana is a lighter crude, this isn't. It's a heavier blend because it comes from deep under the ocean surface, Overton said.

"If I had to pick a bad oil, I'd put this right up there. The only thing that's not bad about this is that it doesn't have a lot of sulfur in it and the high sulfur really smells bad."

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.

Under better circumstances, with calmer winds and water, the oil might have a chance of rising without immediately emulsifying, but that's not happening here, Kulkarni said. It's pretty much mixed by the time it gets to the surface"

Experts: Oil spill is the ?bad one? they feared - Science- msnbc.com
Click to expand...

Ooohhh sorry, so close.

We're not comparing the oil in from Deepwater to oil of the surrounding aria. We're comparing the oil from Deepwater to the oil from the Valdez, which came from Prudo Bay.

You still get half credit if you submit a correct answer late, however.

***
Oh, and a relief well is not the only attempt to control the oil, either. While a relief well is still under way, the faster plan is to attach a pipe to the remains of the blown out well and drain it down until it loses pressure (sound familiar...wells loosing pressure...). Then they'll pump in cement and tomb the well.

You need to learn to trust you enemies. Evil greedy corporations are not going to let one drop of their black gold get away if they can help it. There's no money in spilling your raw materials all over the ocean.
 
Jerry said:
Ooohhh sorry, so close.

We're not comparing the oil in from Deepwater to oil of the surrounding aria. We're comparing the oil from Deepwater to the oil from the Valdez, which came from Prudo Bay.

You still get half credit if you submit a correct answer late, however.

***
Oh, and a relief well is not the only attempt to control the oil, either. While a relief well is still under way, the faster plan is to attach a pipe to the remains of the blown out well and drain it down until it loses pressure (sound familiar...wells loosing pressure...). Then they'll pump in cement and tomb the well.

You need to learn to trust you enemies. Evil greedy corporations are not going to let one drop of their black gold get away if they can help it. There's no money in spilling your raw materials all over the ocean.
Click to expand...

Its not light sweet crude like you were implying. It's bad shiit, just as bad as the shiit from Exxon Valdez. You were wrong. Again. This spill will make that one look trivial.

Face it. You have been wrong about everything so far. Why ruin your record?
 
Last edited:
USA-1 said:
Its not light sweet crude like you were implying. It's bad shiit, just as bad as the shiit from Exxon Valdez. You were wrong. Again. This spill will make that one look trivial.

Face it. You have been wrong about everything so far. Why ruin your record?
Click to expand...

Friendly FYI: bypassing the word censor can earn you points. It's nice to know you think I'm worth earning points over :rofl

***
Sorry, you did not give the correct answer.

Let's review:

1. The initial analysis is the sample taken by NOAA. A NOAA rep stated that it was only one sample; they didn’t expect the results and wondered if it was an anomaly. They decided not to make any claims until further testing was conducted. Apparently, BP and Transocean are keeping their results close to the vest. Who has verified the initial test results with greater number of samples and where/what are the results?

2. The fact that Overton states the “oil emulsifies well” means this oil is not a heavy crude. Medium or a mix of light and medium but not heavy. Think of the difference between emulsifying Crisco vs. olive oil.

3. If the current oil is making an emulsified, sticky mess, we wouldn’t expect to see the slick increase in size as we are seeing (doubling, tripling overnight) as well as the slick breaking up into many areas with such a thin sheen. The characteristics of the slick expansion indicate lighter crude.

4. Heavier crude is much easier boomed and skimmed than light. Light is more difficult to 'round up' and it doesn’t like to stick to the skimmers. These containment and collection techniques have not produced the results expected with several publicly stating the inefficacy was due to 1. a lighter weight crude, which is difficult to boom and 2. weather conditions.

5. And, finally, Overton correlates a heavier characteristic (density) of crude to two things: depth and age. He is only partly accurate: Most heavy crude is found at shallow depths because over time the crude migrates to the surface where it degrades and light hydrocarbons escape. Heavy crude (and extra heavy, unconventional crude) is deficient in hydrogen and typically abundant in sulfur (as well as carbon and heavy metals).

Ken Salazar: Government failed to assure drilling safety in Gulf oil spill
BP boss Tony Hayward admits job is on the line over Deepwater oil spill | Business | The Guardian
HowStuffWorks "How Oil Refining Works"
HowStuffWorks "Striking Oil"
Exxon Valdez: a glimpse of the future for Louisiana? | NOLA.com
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Then why the hell are you so intimidated? It's not like I'm a special forces war vet...calm the **** down man.
Click to expand...

Watch how bullies act. Usually the intimidated is the one who feels the need to resort to name calling, to personal attacks, to bragging about anything testosterone related, to try to intimidate others. Hmmm..... now who does that sound like? Hmmmm....... :2wave:
 
USA-1 said:
Its not light sweet crude like you were implying. It's bad shiit, just as bad as the shiit from Exxon Valdez. You were wrong. Again. This spill will make that one look trivial.

Face it. You have been wrong about everything so far. Why ruin your record?
Click to expand...

I think he's going for a perfect score. :cool:
 
ADK_Forever said:
Watch how bullies act. Usually the intimidated is the one who feels the need to resort to name calling, to personal attacks, to bragging about anything testosterone related, to try to intimidate others. Hmmm..... now who does that sound like? Hmmmm....... :2wave:
Click to expand...

Well since you are the one who started in with the personal attacks...
 
So, it's light crude...or a mix of medium and light at worst. This is why it's difficult to boom, burn or use dispersals against. This is why it's spreading so fast.

I'm not saying there will be NO environmental damage, I'm saying that gallon for gallon this oil will not inflict as much damage as the heavy crude form the Valdez did.

Add to this the fact that the Valdez split open in a remote, shallow and slow moving body of water relative to the middle of the Gulf of Mexico.

The light crude from the Deepwater is braking up in a way and at a rate the heavy crude from the Valdez did not.

Therefore, the world will not end, so calm the **** down :2wave:
 
Last edited:
I still can't find anything from the Left mourning the loss of the union workers who died....the only tears shed are for the fishies.
 
Jerry said:
I still can't find anything from the Left mourning the loss of the union workers who died....the only tears shed are for the fishies.
Click to expand...

Annnnnnnnnnd I don't see anything like that from you, or your Bush-loving friends either. :roll:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Everytime ADK says "bush" everyone has to drink.....



DRINK!

#1
Click to expand...

Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush

Now, let's see if you get funny... or act like a bigger bully. Down the hatch! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Everytime ADK says "bush" everyone has to drink.....



DRINK!

#1
Click to expand...

6a00d83451b77469e20120a581efa3970c-pi
 
Jerry said:
So, it's light crude...or a mix of medium and light at worst. This is why it's difficult to boom, burn or use dispersals against. This is why it's spreading so fast.

I'm not saying there will be NO environmental damage, I'm saying that gallon for gallon this oil will not inflict as much damage as the heavy crude form the Valdez did.

Add to this the fact that the Valdez split open in a remote, shallow and slow moving body of water relative to the middle of the Gulf of Mexico.

The light crude from the Deepwater is braking up in a way and at a rate the heavy crude from the Valdez did not.

Therefore, the world will not end, so calm the **** down :2wave:
Click to expand...

Both the Deepwater Horizon and the Exxon Valdez spills were Type III Crude oil. Medium Crude. Not light. Keep digging your hole.
 
USA-1 said:
Both the Deepwater Horizon and the Exxon Valdez spills were Type III Crude oil. Medium Crude. Not light. Keep digging your hole.
Click to expand...

Hmm? What was that? I couldn't hear you over my hyperlinks.

In the Wake of the Exxon Valdez
On March 24, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez hit an underwater rock formation in Prince William Sound, Alaska. 11 million gallons of heavy crude oil spilled from the tanker over the next several days. It was one of the most spectacular environmental accidents in American history.
Click to expand...

News Analysis - Gulf Oil Spill Is Bad, but How Bad? - NYTimes.com

Engineers said the type of oil pouring out is lighter than the heavy crude spilled by the Exxon Valdez, evaporates more quickly and is easier to burn. It also appears to respond to the use of dispersants, which break up globs of oil and help them sink. The oil is still capable of significant damage, particularly when it is churned up with water and forms a sort of mousse that floats and can travel long distances.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lets just get this straightened out.


Oil Type: API Gravity Sulfer content

Alaska North Slope: 31.9° 0.93%

Heavy Louisiana Sweet 32.9° 0.35%

Light Louisiana Sweet 35.6° 0.37%

South Louisiana Sweet 35.9° 0.33%

Light crude oil is defined as having an API gravity higher than 31.1 °API. (less than 870 kg/m3)
Click to expand...

Sweet crude oil is a type of petroleum. Petroleum is considered "sweet" if it contains less than 0.5% sulfur...[
Click to expand...

When the total sulfur level in the oil is > 0.5 % the oil is called "sour."
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crude_oil_products]List of crude oil products - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API_gravity]API gravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_crude_oil]Sweet crude oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_crude_oil]Sour crude oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

According to this both the valdez and the deepwater horizon spill contained light crude oil. The valdez spill contained "sour" crude oil while the deepwater horizon conains "sweet" crude oil. Anything over 10 on the api scale floats so I'm assuming that the same problems here will apply.

Assuming the best case senerio, that the deepwater horizon spill is soley comprised of south louisiana sweet, using the equation:
dcc7ff6ee544ab8769514e9c9cd2e0b2.png


it is reasonable to approximetaly assume there are 7.44 barrels per metric ton in the deepwater horizan spill and 7.26 barrels per metric ton in the exxon valdez spill. Perhaps this can better show the difference in the density of each oil.

The fact that this spill has a sweet crude may be significant though since a sour oil will tend to be more toxic since it may contain more hydrogen sulfide.

One thing I will point out, and something I have not read a lot about is the fact the this is an open pipe spilling rather than a ship spill. Despite the fact that this is sweet crude I gotta think that some nasty crap has to be coming out of that pipe (why do you think it blew up). I have not been around any drilling, but I have heard of things like bad gas that sometimes come out while drilling and this stuff will kill you in a heart beat.
 
The more I look I see there are different standards for light and heavy.

The clear cut definition of light and heavy crude varies because the classification is based more on practical grounds than theoretical. The New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) defines light crude oil for domestic U.S. oil as having an API gravity between 37° API (840 kg/m3) and 42° API (816 kg/m3), while it defines light crude oil for non-U.S. oil as being between 32° API (865 kg/m3) and 42° API (816 kg/m3).[3] The National Energy Board of Canada defines light crude oil as having a density less than 875.7 kg/m3 (30.1° API).[4] The Mexican state oil company, Pemex, defines light crude oil as being between 27° API (893 kg/m3) and 38° API (835 kg/m3).[5] This variation in definition occurred because countries such as Canada and Mexico tend to have heavier crude oils than are commonly found in the United States, whose large oil fields historically produced lighter oils than are found in many other countries.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_crude_oil]Light crude oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Although crude oil assays evaluate various chemical properties of the oil, the two most important properties determining a crude's value are its density (measured as API specific gravity) and its sulphur content (measured per mass). Crude oil is considered "heavy" if it is high in wax content, or "light" if low in wax content: an API gravity of 34 or higher is "light", between 31-33 is "medium", and 30 or below is "heavy".
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crude_oil_products]List of crude oil products - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Apparently this is the US standard for light crude and it is significantly lighter than all of the crude oils in question:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Texas_Intermediate]West Texas Intermediate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

So most of the time around the world I think both are considered light, but in the US because of our generally ligher oils the exxon valdez could be conidered light or medium depending upon the standard, but it defenitely was not a heavy crude by any standard. The South Louisiana sweet could be considered light or medium depending upon the standard as well.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_crude_oil"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_crude_oil[/ame]

Heavy crude oil has been defined as any liquid petroleum with an API gravity less than 20°
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Alright, the final word,

The NYMEX actually specifies domestic grades to include: “Specific
domestic crudes with 0.42% sulfur by weight or less, not less than 37° API gravity nor more than 42° API gravity.
Click to expand...

Sweet crude is defined as having an API gravity of 30 or higher and a
sulfur content of less than 1%. Heavy crude is defined as having an API gravity below 28, and includes heavy, high sulfur grades as well as crudes that are heavy and low in sulfur, but have a high acid content. Finally, light sour is used to define those crudes that do not meet the criteria for inclusion into either the sweet or heavy categories.
Click to expand...

http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/files/PurvinGertz_WTI_Benchmark_Study.pdf

So both are sweet crude according to the worlds largest futures exchange CME Group Inc. Just remeber, they do both contain a pretty big difference in sulfur still.

Just to confirm, exxon valdez was north slope crude:

The 987foot ship, second newest in Exxon Shipping Company's 20-tanker fleet, was loaded with 53,094,5 10 gallons (1,264,155 barrels) of North Slope crude oil bound for Long Beach, California.
Click to expand...

http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/details.cfm

and just based on geographic location I am assuming that one of the other crudes is the one we are currently dealing with since the rig was 40 miles off the coast of louisiana.
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
One thing I will point out, and something I have not read a lot about is the fact the this is an open pipe spilling rather than a ship spill. Despite the fact that this is sweet crude I gotta think that some nasty crap has to be coming out of that pipe (why do you think it blew up). I have not been around any drilling, but I have heard of things like bad gas that sometimes come out while drilling and this stuff will kill you in a heart beat.
Click to expand...

The explosion itself was caused by an excessive level of methane blowing up through the pipe and into machinery on the rig floor.


Deepwater Horizon blast triggered by methane bubble, report shows

Investigation reveals accident on Gulf of Mexico rig was caused when gas escaped from oil well before exploding

Deepwater-Horizon-oil-rig-006.jpg


The deadly blast on board the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico was triggered by a bubble of methane gas, an investigation by BP has revealed.

A report into last month's blast said the gas escaped from the oil well and shot up the drill column, expanding quickly as it burst through several seals and barriers before exploding.

The sequence of events, described in the interviews with rig workers, provides the most detailed account of the blast that killed 11 workers and led to more than 3m gallons of crude oil pouring into the Gulf.
Click to expand...
 
ADK_Forever said:
Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush

Now, let's see if you get funny... or act like a bigger bully. Down the hatch! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Click to expand...





Wow, your actually short on your Bush quota for the day....




DRINK!



#2 :cheers:
 
drz-400, thank you for your links and thoughtful posts. I may have been wrong about the weight of the crude from the Valdez. I'm not yet sure I was wrong, but you gave a good argument and I'm reconsidering the point as I argued it. If I'm wrong then I accept my error.

You sir have won:
1243912225126.jpg



If I understand the information you presented correctly, the attribute of crude which most dictates how volatile a spill is to the environment gallon for gallon, and assuming everything else is equal, is the surfer content.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom