Posted on 06/23/2010 10:35:57 AM PDT by penelopesire
Video Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqPF9dtCc9g
IMPEACH OBAMA!!
I didn’t see anything that would indicate that it’s raining oil.
I’m no chemist ... but my understanding is that oil and water don’t mix, and that the evaporation temp of oil is extremely high.
I don’t get the physics/chemistry of how it could possibly rain oil.
SnakeDoc
It was pretty grainy, but you can see the sheens on the sidewalks. My guess is that if this is for real..there will be more reports soon. Drudge had the link on his site and I thought it was interesting.
Looks like a couple cans of 10w30. It isn’t going to rain oil.
Could also be oil backing up into channels at hight tide, but it isn’t raining oil.
I can see exactly the same sheen on runoff from streets and parking lots here in central NC, and anywhere else cars leak oil...
The sheen doesn’t mean anything.
Thanks for the link. Very strange if true. This has been predicted. I hope it is not as bad as it sounds.
OMG that is going into the sewer system. All these peopl that think it will not effect them better pay attention.
HURRICANE SEASON will brings rains into the mid-eastern section of the country. You never know it might make it to NYC. You thin the msm will pay attention if oil is in Rockefeller Center?
The orders to ramp up the hysteria level have been given.
Distortion, fiction, innumeracy and scientific illiteracy will just have to carry the day.
that is all...
I hope you are right. It seems very possible to me that it is mixing with the rain. The Obama administration has done nothing to clean up this spill that covers almost 25% of the Gulf..it has been sitting out there evaporating into the atmosphere and washing into our shores for two months now.
As does every drop dripped by automobiles on highways and parking lots--which accounts for a tremendous amount of oil every year--which nature handles just fine.
FAKE!
That was motor oil poured on the street.
Drudge Got Punked!
Nope.
A water spout could lift oil and water high into the clouds where it would fall at some distance from the spout. Hail often falls over 5 miles from the "thunder head" that generates it. The warm water of the Gulf will evaporate the volatile parts of the oil more quickly. That crap is free to blow with the wind...over populated areas.
Keep in mind that I am not saying it isn’t raining oil there.
I’m only saying that there is nothing in that video that indicates that it’s raining oil.
That is, there is no reason to think it is raining oil after seeing that video.
Because it's counter to the laws of physics, specifically the process of convection and evaporation.
Absent storms with the potential for tremendous updrafts - think tornadoes/super cells and hurricanes - there's no way for oil to enter the atmosphere to then rain down upon the earth. Yes, in the big storms with huge seaborne waterspouts, you might see fish rain up to a several miles inland. Unless they had one of those kinds of storms, it's physically impossible for it to rain oil.
Time will tell. If it’s true and starting to happen for real, they won’t be able to hide it for very long.
The hurricane threat is overstated. The sheer amount of oil that would be required is insane. Consider this: in order to cover a single, average sized county of 500 square miles with just 1/100th of an inch of oil, you would need about 87 million gallons of the stuff.
That’s not to say its not terrible, but there’s little risk of the hurricane coating much of the southern and eastern half of the country in any significant amount of oil.
Thanks for your input. We can always depend on FReepers to post rational and logical explanations. Just saw a crazy report of this on Prison Planet....go figure....LOL. I still am a bit frightened by the possibility though. I hate to admit it...but the whole thing is very unnerving. Especially when you think of the evil permeating out of this WH and government.
There is no doubt there is oil on the street and sidewalks as shown. What is not known for sure from the film is the cause of that oil dump. The guys says it came with a rain storm and I am looking forward to other reports on this. If he had shown oil drops on his car, it would have helped his case.
Some freepers insist that it is absolutely impossible for oil to evaporate into rain clouds. I hope they are not pulling science out of their behinds.
I know that it doesn’t seem likely that ‘raining oil’ is possible BUT when massive amounts of dispersants being added, I believe it is very possible.
The gulf is being destroyed right before our eyes and, I believe, it is deliberate.
Not impossible, but not like is demonstrated in that particular video. Oil does evaporate, but not in the form that we would recognize. Crude oil is no a singular compound. It is a mixture of many different compounds, hundred of different chemicals, really.
When something evaporates it evaporates molecularly. That is to say that each molecule drifts into the atmosphere separately from the next. As such, it's impossible for a mixture of several compounds to evaporate at the same time because it's quite likely each of those compounds has a separate evaporation point.
So, in an oil slick, you'll see the most volatile compounds - like ether, ethanol, and the like - evaporate very quickly, measured in hours and days. You'll see the other compounds that are more viscous - like the material shown in the footage - over months and years, if ever.
The material in that video tape certainly looks like refined oil, not light sweet crude that leaking from the Gulf.
[Because it’s counter to the laws of physics]
It may be but remember this oil is being thinned aggressively with disperants which thins the oil to a point it can evaporate with sea water.
No, it can't. Nothing can evaporate with something else because molecular compounds evaporate one molecule at a time. More over, sea water does not evaporate. Water evaporates leaving the salt behind, right? Why? Because solids don't evaporate even when dissolved in liquids. There are actually plenty of different kinds of solids in oil, which leads to varying viscosity.
Dispersants would also have zero effect on evaporation rates? Why, because as I said in a post just above, mixtures don't evaporate, molecules evaporate.
There you go inserting science fact into a perfectly good conspiracy theory.
Thanks for that explaination. Could the wind blow in droplets of oil during a storm?
Sure. There's not a doubt that along the immediate coast-line, especially in the close vicinity of an oil slick, there is oil being picked up by wind and sprayed on buildings, cars , ground and even people. It's the same principle of sea water, which of course can't evaporate, but will corrode cars and building close to bodies of salt water.
But, oil is viscous, it's virtually impossible for it to be carried any distance and the pool, like we see in this particular video.
Maybe the rains washed droplets off buildings, bushes, trees, walks and streets, etc. and pooled on the sidewalk and street in puddles.
Not in the quantity seen in that video. That video is clearly something else, probably a hoax of some kind. But, the oil picked up by the ocean breezes and carried a few hundred yards would be aerosolized - an incredibly fine mist. At best, you might seen a thin sheen of oil, much like you might see on any street after it first rains. You wouldn't see puddles of thick, viscous oil.
No, it does NOT. If anything the use of dispersant retards evaporation. The use of dispersant at the wellhead spill point is a stroke of genius, and is preventing a lot of environmental damage. The only thing that would be better were if the dispersant were "inoculated" with spores of oil-eating bacteria, to "jump start" the bioelimination of the oil.
A hurricane could certainly spread enough to pollute the crap out of places. And it could and probably will blow it toward Houston. A meat market manager told me that shrimp sold out of Galveston is caught west of the oil. A hurricane would kill the shrimp business here.
Is what this guy says correct? I saw this posted at “1:39 PM” on http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/spill_cam/. He has some earlier comments too.
“This well is completely out of control and is getting worse. We have been reviewing the telemetry and I must report that the velocity exiting the well is approaching 15ft/sec. this velocity along with the abrasive sludge will erode the casing. If this velocity isn’t reduced to under 2ft/sec, the casing will fail. this translates into over 45 cuft/sec. If 40% of this is gas and 60% is oil, then the flow rate of oil is 415,000 barrels/day or 17,000,000 gals/day. This is out of control.”
I am a Chemical Engineer with over 30 years experience and hold over 23 international and domestic patents and patents pending. Our team has developed a program to cap the well “bottom kill” in 7 days at a cost of $35MM. This can be implemented immediately.
The well is not be capped for political reasons, not technical reasons.
Sam Shepherd,
B.S. Chemical Engineer; M.S. Engineering Technology.
Diplomat American Board of Forensic Examiners
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1165/4727588751_3a658612cb_o.jpg
Was watching the live BP oil feed, and around when the robot was there—an hour ago?—this crazy white flow begin coming up from underneath.
Wednesday 1:20 PM Central time and I’m watching what are supposed to be simultaneous live feeds mirrored over at Graphoilogy, but I don’t believe it, not for a second. One feed shows “Dispersant ops” with clouds of white milky liquid being released just below the open riser tube. This liquid is surrounding the riser tube as it is drawn into the rising stream of crude & gas escaping the pipe. The other feed is from another side of the riser - I’m figuring roughly opposite the first. They both show the same time & date in the on screen data, but there is NO evidence of the milky white dispersant in the second feed. There’s so much of it in the first feed there would be no way to miss it in the second view -indeed it would be back-lit by the lamps on the ROV- but it’s not there. This “live” video is B.S.
I’ve been wondering about that too. I’m not prone to heavy conspiratorial breathing but it does seem odd. Explanation, anyone?
I sat here and watched those feeds for several minutes, the dispersant was never visible to me in the second feed, and I repeat that it should have been, there was so much of it. It was not there.
The explanation is simple; one or the other, or both of the feeds, are not live, and the the data overlays are bogus. Whatever the case, you cant trust anything on the screen.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6645
The use of dispersant at the wellhead spill point is a stroke of genius, and is preventing a lot of environmental damage
____________
That is complete BS!!!! Please don’t just make stuff up. There isn’t a single person that has said what you did. ALL have said they really don’t know what the effects will be because these quantities of this dispersant have never been used at these depths.
But I thought Charlie was doing his time over here in Aspen?
< / sarc >
Its definitely a potential issue for the coastal issues, don’t get me wrong. But as far as the idea that it could have a significant impact hundreds of miles inland? I don’t think the numbers add up.
I'm not making anything up. Various commentors are correct in saying that "these quantities of this dispersant have never been used at these depths", which is precisely scientifically correct.
In my OPINION, based on forty years of practical experience as a PhD chemist, and knowing the properties of the various chemicals involved, the use of the dispersant is exactly as I said above, a stroke of absolute genius. It is saving a lot of beaches and marshland from much worse fouling than if it had not been used. And I will predict that in two to three years, when the aquatic AND shoreline spill-effected areas have completely recovered, that the post-fact science will show precisely that.
Is it going to kill some fish.....you betcha. But fish (and shrimp and most other aquatic species) breed fast, and "replacements" will be "recruited" from areas of the Gulf NOT affected by the spill. That won't happen to anywhere near the same magnitude in the marshes.
>> I’m no chemist ... but my understanding is that oil and water don’t mix,
It emulsifies, but doesn’t evaporate.
“And I will predict that in two to three years, when the aquatic AND shoreline spill-effected areas have completely recovered,”
Wow. What are you smoking? It`s been 20 years since Exxon-Valdez, and the area still has`nt fully recovered. And it never will. They`re saying that in another 20 years, killer whales will be extinct (because of the spill) in that area. The oil volcano (spill sounds too innocent)in the gulf will be at least a thousand times worse than Exxon-Valdez.
Yes, if they're burning it, it would cause more evaporation as the heat from the fire would increase the temperature of the oil bringing it closer to it's evaporation point more quickly, and it would be jettisoned higher into the atmosphere carried on the heat plumes of the fire itself. You can see similar effects around poorly engineered refineries (especially in countries absent more stringent environmental regulations. And, anyone who has ever served aboard a ship that's fueled with bunker oil knows exactly how the exhaust fouls the air.
Still, even with the man-made (or exacerbated) evaporation, you still wouldn't see the kind of oil that is viewed in that video. I still say it's a hoax, and Drudge must agree. He removed the link from his site.
That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
Wrong, boyo. The ecology up there has already recovered, and has long been so. The greens equate "not finding oil in the dirt" to full ecological recovery. But as far as the aquatic and land species, full recovery is long past.
And the killer whales are doing just fine.
I base my statements on PROVABLE FACTS, not green propaganda. In this case, first hand facts, gotten from Dr. Ed Overton at LSU, who was one of the first responders during the Exxon-Valdez incident, and who (along with some of his researchers), has gone back up every couple of years to take more samples and judge the recovery. His statement...after five years, you couldn't tell there had ever been a spill, unless you dug down under rocks. Then you'd find some oil.
And the Ixtoc spill off the Central American coast has made the same kind of recovery, only faster (because the temps are higher, and the bacteria who eat the oil are therefore more active). Full recovery there after three years.
"Oiled" shorelines in Texas due to the Ixtoc spill also recovered in the same time frame. A VERY good scientific study done by the Texas "Bureau of Land Management" is available on line. I've linked to it elsewhere on the forum.
It depends on what sort of combustion is being investigated. There are two types....burning spilled oil that is recovered from the water using "combustion booms" will meet the criteria that Evans, et al are probably referring to, and yields a smokey, soot-filled particlate laden combustion plume.
The other type of burning (which is used on oil coming directly up from the BOP) uses a specialized combustor, which "does" burn the oil completely.
The vast majority of the oil being burned is using the second mechanism.
I very seriously doubt that the video has anything to do with the BP spill oil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
