Tauranga oil spill

Forums › Off topic › Tauranga oil spill

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#533010 13-Oct-2011 17:30

Thanks for the observations.

davemc:

...polenska crane ship

Pancaldo actually

. Left Wgtn this morning just after 8, if my sums are correct should arrive at Tauranga before early evening tommorrow.

nakedmolerat

4629 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#533016 13-Oct-2011 17:43

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/rena-crisis/5776790/Rena-Deeply-sorry-for-your-situation

His video reminds me of South Park - Coon 2

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#533018 13-Oct-2011 17:47

sbiddle:Most people can't seem to comprehend that taking the oil off isn't quite like siphoning a car. The oil is virtually solid in the cold environment and needs to be heated before it can be pumped. From several reports today it had to be pumped through areas of the ship that had suffered damage.

People work with what they know...
And because it takes us 2mins to fill our cars at the servo surely it'll take just a little longer to empty it... right?

Forgetting of course it's not easy to empty any tank by siphoning (even if it was that simple in this instance), and what percentage would be left?? Too much to make us all happy that's for certain.
OK so you use the vehicles fuel pump to empty your tank... oh not a 2minute job any more.... 15min?....30min?...60min??... depending upon your tanks size, how full it was and your fuel pump.

Now scale all that up... Lets start with 'How long does it take to pour 1400 tonnes of fuel into the ship?'
I'm guessing hours... 12 or more.
And lets not forget that it's not all in one tank, it's distributed in various tanks about the vessel, because this is all part of how the vessel load is distributed to even out the bending loads generated by the sea, which despite common parlance - is not level!!

But back on land we face the same old issue that everyone with a boat is an instant expert, because we're a boat loving lot and 'know' what it takes to fill our boats up at the bowser with the free flowing fuel our boats use. We forget our tanks are smaller, our fuel of choice flows like water; not like marmite; and we forget that despite the fact we can all see whats happening, because TV-whatever has a bloke-on-the-beach, there is lot's going on in the background... there's lots we don't see and more we don't know.

To suggest there's an easier faster way is akin to someone asking why their PC doesn't instantly come back on to the exact point it was before the power cut.....

gzt

17134 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#533108 13-Oct-2011 21:54

John2010:
MikeSkyrme:
gzt: From the Herald: "The chemical Corexit 9500, used to tackle BP's disastrous spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year, is being sprayed to break up the black oil. But it is not clear whether it is working, and international experts are measuring the results"

There have been some concerns expressed about the effectiveness and toxicity of Corexit dispersants:

Wired Magazine on the BP disaster: "Not only did Corexit do a worse job of dispersing oil, but it was three times as lethal to silverfish used as a benchmark organism in toxicity testing and more than twice as lethal to shrimp, another benchmark organism and an important part of Gulf fisheries"

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/gulf-dispersants/

And a couple of far more critical articles with links and technical details:

http://www.desmogblog.com/bp-oil-dispersant-corexit-contained-cancer-causing-agents
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/77/214/Why_Is_BP_Using_Highly_Toxic_Corexit_Oil_Dispersant.html

I make no warranty claims for the second two articles, but they do have pointers to govt and regulatory sources among others.

For additional information on the dispersant used:

http://www.nalco.com/applications/corexit-technology.htm

And the MSDS can be found at www.mrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf.

It seems that the facts are quite different to that being promulagated by the fringe mobs. I have also seen it promulgated that corexit 9500 is banned in the UK, it seems this also is not the case.

I'm not sure which fringe mobs you might be referring to. I saw a fishing charter guy on TV3 last night who expressed a concern about the selection of Corexit which he contrasted to something called Dispersit which he believed to be less toxic. He did not look like a member of a fringe mob.

In the UK it may not be 'banned', but it is not approved for use in UK waters:

"COREXIT is also not approved for use in U.K. waters because it fails the so-called "limpet test". That test involves spraying the dispersant and oil on rocks and seeing if limpets (a type of small mollusk) can still cling to them, a test which COREXIT and many other dispersants with slippery surfactants fail. "This is not a product for rocky shores," Villalobos [A toxicologist working for the manufacturer] says. "These are only for open sea waters.""

Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-using-dispersants-fighting-pollution-with-pollution

It is likely to be a while before we find out exactly how much has been used so far and exactly where it has been used. I heard Nick Smith last night saying five dispersants had been trialed, and only Corexit was found to be effective. And again it will be a while before the five selected for trial are known. Availability of supply would be a big factor in selection as well.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#533117 13-Oct-2011 22:17

gzt:

...I'm not sure which fringe mobs you might be referring to. I saw a fishing charter guy on TV3 last night who expressed a concern about the selection of Corexit which he contrasted to something called Dispersit which he believed to be less toxic. He did not look like a member of a fringe mob...

Well if you want to regard a "fishing charter guy" as an expert on dispersants, go for it. But for myself I would not class one as being such, that especially so as I have had quite a bit to do with them and their boats over the years

gzt:

"This is not a product for rocky shores," Villalobos [A toxicologist working for the manufacturer] says. "These are only for open sea waters.""

Well that is ok then isn't it because that is where it was being used?

Seems to me you are just a sound bite off the media believer with no background to assess the reliability of what is said or printed. But you are not the only one as I see on TV1 the local manager of the charterer being interviewed in a manner as if he was to blame and then the Minister was interviewed straight after and seemed to think he was to blame too.

mattwnz

20163 posts

Uber Geek

#533147 13-Oct-2011 23:12

I wonder how many hundred of millions this is going to cost the NZ economy, it is not as though we can afford it. Has anyone heard any estimates? I feel so sorry for some of the businesses.

Does anyone know how effective oil removal from the sea is. eg if it sink to the sea floor, can it be cleaned up or will it break down over time? I am really wondering how long it will take the area to fully recover. There hasn't been too much information provided by the media on this. I do think the media has done a pretty poor job overall this time around.

gzt

17134 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#533149 13-Oct-2011 23:13

John2010:
gzt:

...I'm not sure which fringe mobs you might be referring to. I saw a fishing charter guy on TV3 last night who expressed a concern about the selection of Corexit which he contrasted to something called Dispersit which he believed to be less toxic. He did not look like a member of a fringe mob...

Well if you want to regard a "fishing charter guy" as an expert on dispersants, go for it. But for myself I would not class one as being such, that especially so as I have had quite a bit to do with them and their boats over the years .

gzt:

"This is not a product for rocky shores," Villalobos [A toxicologist working for the manufacturer] says. "These are only for open sea waters.""

Well that is ok then isn't it because that is where it was being used?

Seems to me you are just a sound bite off the media believer with no background to assess the reliability of what is said or printed. But you are not the only one as I see on TV1 the local manager of the charterer being interviewed in a manner as if he was to blame and then the Minister was interviewed straight after and seemed to think he was to blame too.

Seems to me you were implying any concerns about Corexit were a 'fringe mob' concern of some kind. In fact, the concerns are very mainstream. Scientific American is not a fringe publication in any sense. In addition many major mainstream news publications have carried articles on this topic related to the Gulf of Mexico experience.

gzt: "This is not a product for rocky shores," Villalobos [A toxicologist working for the manufacturer] says. "These are only for open sea waters.""

John 2010: Well that is ok then isn't it because that is where it was being used?

I have no idea where it is being used or how much is being used. Like anyone else following the news, I have been told it has been used and that is all I know. It is not clear to me what kind of proximity (if any) to reefs or rocky shores is acceptable for this product. Neither do I know if it is particular to UK geology.

I think the many reported concerns around Corexit 9500 are a legitimate topic for discussion.

Personally I do not have a strong view on the use of this product one way or the other. It may well be the best product for the job or only a small amount may have even been used. I'm sure that information will be available in time.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#533200 14-Oct-2011 08:36

BraaiGuy: Anybody watching the rugby this weekend?

I'm sure the Poms will be as the timing is aimed rite at their breakfast time..

back on subject. It looks like a lot of public servant out there are sitting on their hands and covering their backsides in case there is an inquiry down the line. Things like . " You can't help clean up the beach because you haven't been trained" and "You can't pull containers out of the low water line because you don't have n emergency management plan in place" Oh pleaze. NZ public service at it's best. If I ever come across a road accident I won't bother helping as I don't have any training..

Good on people power for going in and just doing it..

Regards,

Old3eyes

Byrned

455 posts

Ultimate Geek

#533243 14-Oct-2011 10:23

old3eyes:

back on subject. It looks like a lot of public servant out there are sitting on their hands and covering their backsides in case there is an inquiry down the line. Things like . " You can't help clean up the beach because you haven't been trained" and "You can't pull containers out of the low water line because you don't have n emergency management plan in place" Oh pleaze. NZ public service at it's best. If I ever come across a road accident I won't bother helping as I don't have any training..

Good on people power for going in and just doing it..

Sorry, an accident on the side of the road is quite a different thing - someone’s life may be in immediate threat. Whereas, with this, people can genuinely get ill by touching this stuff. Same as with what’s in the containers, they'll still be there the next day.

But why let reason get in the way of complaining about things. It is after all our national sport.

Yes it’s a tragedy, yes, people need to be held to account, but creating issues for the health system just so people can feel better about doing something right now is not the answer. Providing assistance where it is requested, and letting people get on and do there jobs is what needs to be done now.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#533248 14-Oct-2011 10:29

mattwnz:
davemc: So it's all looking fairly grim.

I think that is an understandment. It is already NZs worst maritime environmental disaster.

Apparently oil is now gushing out, and the cleanup could take many months (I suspect that is sugar coating it)

When it is the top news story on the BBC website, you know that it is bad.

I do question NZs contingency for this sort of thing. We export and import using ships, so surely we should have the tools to deal with this sort of thing on hand, as it would only be a matter of when, not if, this sort of thing occurs. The fact that the ship that was setup to remove oil only removed a small amount of oil before needing repairs is not good.

This is exactly the observation being made and it is a valid one.

You don't have to be an expert to see the response failed to meet the need. The oil on the beaches makes that fairly obvious.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#533249 14-Oct-2011 10:31

Byrned:

Sorry, an accident on the side of the road is quite a different thing - someone’s life may be in immediate threat. Whereas, with this, people can genuinely get ill by touching this stuff. Same as with what’s in the containers, they'll still be there the next day.

But why let reason get in the way of complaining about things. It is after all our national sport.

Yes it’s a tragedy, yes, people need to be held to account, but creating issues for the health system just so people can feel better about doing something right now is not the answer. Providing assistance where it is requested, and letting people get on and do there jobs is what needs to be done now.

It's a matter of attitude and approach.

Instead of blocking....they should try enabling and supporting.

Blocking makes people frustrated and angry and also misses out on an opportunity to vastly expand the capacity of the response.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#533253 14-Oct-2011 10:37

Untrained people dealing with a fragile environment and toxic substance...
yeah guys go for it!

Old Grey Geek

149 posts

Master Geek

#533256 14-Oct-2011 10:42

Right, I agree with most posters here that getting the oil off the ship is no simple task. The ship is damaged and until the ships pumps and pipes are usable then much of the oil is unrecoverable.

But and it is a big but, why was no boom put in place when they had the chance in fine weather? they were available and not that far away...

http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/Environmental/Responding-to-spills-and-pollution/Responding-to-spills-and-pollution.asp

At least they could have contained the spill at source surely?.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#533259 14-Oct-2011 10:46

No, because most of the oil in under the surface and it's just some of the light components that are visible on the surface.

Bung

6487 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#533260 14-Oct-2011 10:50

The answer to that has been that the oil has about the same density as water so unless the boom can stop water washing over the top it won't stop the oil.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11