China's energy policy; Tar sands expansion debate; San Joaquin River Delta renewal; Asian carp problem needs comprehensive fix; Protecting Yellowstone's bison; NRDC map shows sullied Gulf beaches
Posted July 15, 2010 in The Media and the Environment
Jake Schmidt discussed Chinese energy policy in a live segment on Chicago Public Radio’s “Worldview”… Liz Barratt-Brown was quoted extensively in a Toronto Star article on the public debate surrounding the expansion of the tar sands industry… Monty Schmitt commented on the return of life to the San Joaquin River in a piece shown on ABC’s San Francisco affiliate KGO-TV… In a Christian Science Monitor article about federal attempts to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes, Henry Henderson called for more comprehensive solutions to deal with this invasive species…
A piece in Western Livestock Journal mentioned NRDC’s victory on two counts to protect bison that wander outside of Yellowstone National Park… The blog EnergyBoom.com posted NRDC’s interactive map showing the beaches affected by the Gulf oil disaster…
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Jim Bullis, Miastrada Company — Jul 15 2010 05:09 PM
I appreciate NRDC giving this disaster a lot of attention, but I also think that more muscle needs to be given to understanding the physical reasons for this uncontrolled, daily repeating disaster. Anything more harmful to the environment is hard to imagine.
I am trying to point out that there is probable basis for thinking that there is an established water path that acts as a vertical water column that is driving the gushing at the well head.
Stopping the flow at the well head apparatus may only transfer the gushing to even more uncontrolled flow paths in the geological structure.
Every effort must be made to take all the oil possible out of the pipe and, obviously to capture it and haul it away for processing. (How BP got stuck on the idea that separation of fluids had to be done on site is beyond comprehension.)
I realize that we mostly get the sixth grade science explanation of what is going on, but the description of the 'relief well' operation is very troubling.
Of course, 'relief well' has nothing to do with 'well'. It is actually a repair bore hole with the stated purpose of cutting off flow in the up-leading pipe. However, for the reasons stated above, this may actually be a further exacerbating action since it will also cause oil to find alternate paths upward.
The enourmous differential pressure at the ocean floor level is due to the fact that sea water weighs 64 lb/ft^3 and oil weighs 44 lb/ft^3 so the 12,000 feet down to the oil reservoir translates into a 2000 psi differential pressure at this ocean floor level. For ongoing flow process, there are impedances to flow that reduce the actual observable pressure.
So when I read that they are going to do an integrity test and that if the pressure is high that will indicate that the apparatus can be used to close in the well, as with a hurricane situation, this action could also be greater disaster provoking action. It might be a good thing that the apparatus can handle the pressure, but this test will not show that the geological structure is capable of restricting water flow downward.
Please NRDC, spare some time to get on your phones and raise the alert to this further disaster.