Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
19139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5572

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1688987 14-Dec-2016 23:20
4 people support this post
Send private message

dejadeadnz:

 

Can people who aren't lawyers please stop their nonsensical commentaries on complex topics that are obviously not within their expertise?  

 

 

Yes, I agree! Only Lawyers have earned the privilege to make nonsensical commentaries on complex topics that are obviously not within their expertise!

 

:)


2644 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1280

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1689079 15-Dec-2016 08:32
One person supports this post
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

ajobbins:

 

Seakiwi:

 

^^^^exactly, ypu cannot contract out of your responsibilities under the workplace H&S act

 

 

The intent of the new law is to protect works from things like Pike River happening again right, rather than the rescue attempt per-se. The govt could always update the law or pass some kind of one off waiver through parliament if they wanted. 

 

 

If parliament has to pass a waiver to do this  then there is a risk. Putting more lives in harms way is an unacceptable high cost

 

 

There is *always* a risk. Lives are *always* in harms way.

 

But I agree... in this case, the reward of recovering the bodies doesn't seem to justify the risk. However, I do wonder whether there are potential/likely rewards that no-one is allowed to mention... that there may be evidence in the mine of criminal negligence which could also be recovered.

 

 


 
 
 
 


19139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5572

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1689083 15-Dec-2016 08:41
One person supports this post
Send private message

frankv:

 

that there may be evidence in the mine of criminal negligence which could also be recovered.

 

 

My feeling from listening to the woman the other day on the "extraaaoorrddinaarry" John Campell (Happy now rittick?) was that was the primary emotion being displayed. Anger. That anger is keeping them going, they want people held to greater account and expect to find evidence to provide that. Until they can let go of that anger, they won't be able to move on. When you are in that phase of grief you use it to power you through difficult times, and deeply entrenched people usually need professional help to show them alternative coping methods. Of course, this is a cost and they need to have enough self-awareness to know and want the help in the first place. 

 

My understanding, however, was that the people had already been held to account? Weren't hearings held and people sentenced?


4487 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 855

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1689099 15-Dec-2016 09:08
One person supports this post
Send private message

@sbiddle:

 

nakedmolerat:

 

They deserve a chance to carry their own exploration - of course it has to be made clear that this has to be at their own responsibility. Anyone entering the mine must sign a waiver form etc...

 

 

A waiver means absolutely nothing under our new H&S laws which is the point I've been trying to make.

 

You could have anybody entering the mine saying that if they're killed it's their own fault, but that means nothing under our new laws. The mine owners will ultimately be held liable for not ensuring that the workplace was safe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Easy - pass the ownership to them for 6 months or so.






144 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user


  Reply # 1689180 15-Dec-2016 10:20
Send private message

Pass the ownership of a notoriously dangerous and unstable ex-mine with extreme operating restrictions because it is within a national park that includes extremely endangered species  to an unqualified group with a conflicted interest in only one result!

 

 

 

Yep that sound s like a brilliant idea!


4487 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 855

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1689195 15-Dec-2016 10:35
Send private message

Seakiwi:

 

Pass the ownership of a notoriously dangerous and unstable ex-mine with extreme operating restrictions because it is within a national park that includes extremely endangered species  to an unqualified group with a conflicted interest in only one result!

 

 

 

Yep that sound s like a brilliant idea!

 

 

 

 

"The plan was co-authored by the vice-chair of the UN Group of Experts on Coal Mine Methane, Dr David Creedy, and former UK mines inspector Bob Stevenson.

 

It proposed using an internal pipe to pump nitrogen into the mine's 2.3km drift - causing the methane to rise - and then using external bore holes to release the gas.

 

The report said once the nitrogen had replaced the methane, fresh air could be pumped into the mine to replace the nitrogen - rendering the mine safe to enter.

 

Dr Creedy said the method was ultra-safe, easily monitored and removed any possibility of the methane gas mixing with fresh air, which could cause an explosion.

 

It would also stabilise the inside of the mine without anyone having to enter until it was safe to do so.

 

"This is ultra-careful, belt and braces. In a normal standard coal-mining environment we manage interfaces between air and methane, and we can do that - that's standard mining practice.

 

"Here, we'll take it one step forward and make it ultra-cautious to make sure we absolutely minimise any potential hazard.""






144 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user


  Reply # 1689206 15-Dec-2016 10:37
Send private message

Now you are arguing about the efficacy of the plan not passing ownership to a group for whom only one outcome will suffice


2644 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1280

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1689274 15-Dec-2016 11:34
Send private message

nakedmolerat:

 

"The plan was co-authored by the vice-chair of the UN Group of Experts on Coal Mine Methane, Dr David Creedy, and former UK mines inspector Bob Stevenson.

 

It proposed using an internal pipe to pump nitrogen into the mine's 2.3km drift - causing the methane to rise - and then using external bore holes to release the gas.

 

The report said once the nitrogen had replaced the methane, fresh air could be pumped into the mine to replace the nitrogen - rendering the mine safe to enter.

 

 

IANA mining engineer, but this plan doesn't fill me with confidence at all... it all seems very simplistic.

 

It pre-supposes that no more methane is entering the mine, which seems extraordinarily unlikely, given that the mine filled up with methane *after* the methane exploded. And surely, if you just opened up the boreholes, the methane would clear by convection.

 

And wasn't this attempted earlier? ISTR that, early on, some huge turbines were run at the mine entrance with the idea of filling the mine with inert gas (presumably the exhaust gas from the turbine which would be devoid of oxygen). And that this didn't work.

 

The minimum quantity of nitrogen needed would be 2,300 x 3 x 3 (I'm guessing at the width and height of the drift) = 21,000 cubic metres of nitrogen, just to fill the drift once. Compressed to (say) 150psi (~10 atmospheres), that's 2100 cubic metres, say 210 large truckloads? All this would need to be transported to the mine entrance (or produced there) and pumped in. Does the drift rise or fall? If it rises, you could have your nitrogen leak out the entrance, leaving a layer of methane at the far end. If it falls, then no boreholes (or pumping) are needed... the methane would exit naturally via the mine entrance. And, either way, surely there would be bubbles of methane left in hollows in the ceiling of the drift, and in the workings at the end of it.

 

Once the mine was full of inert gas, it would be safe to enter with BA. There's no need to refill it with air, which seems like a dangerous idea to me.

 

 

Dr Creedy said the method was ultra-safe, easily monitored and removed any possibility of the methane gas mixing with fresh air, which could cause an explosion.

 

 

If Dr Creedy is as expert as claimed, he must surely have been misquoted. For example, mixing methane gas with air doesn't cause explosions; it provides 2 of the preconditions for an explosion, but not the third. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


12406 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4098

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1689319 15-Dec-2016 12:18
One person supports this post
Send private message

It seems to me that the people making the noise run the risk of transitioning from people for whom there is some sympathy to people who become irritating. I'd say they are teetering on the brink of the shift in perception about now......






3212 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1010

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1689338 15-Dec-2016 12:47
Send private message

frankv: It pre-supposes that no more methane is entering the mine, which seems extraordinarily unlikely, given that the mine filled up with methane *after* the methane exploded.

 

To me this is the entire rub to the whole "safe" plan. The release of methane isn't magically going to stop and pumping in regular atmosphere to replace the nitrogen will reinstate an explosive atmosphere. I view this plan as incredibly dangerous. As I said in a previous post, with proper gear I'd go into the mine now; if this plan was implemented, I wouldn't go anywhere near the place.


369 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 42


  Reply # 1689344 15-Dec-2016 12:56
2 people support this post
Send private message

Winston has volunteered, potentially solving one or more problems...





Things are LookingUp....  A photo from my back yard :-)
http://www.astrophotogallery.org/u141-rodm.html 


4487 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 855

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1689355 15-Dec-2016 13:27
Send private message

frankv:

 

nakedmolerat:

 

"The plan was co-authored by the vice-chair of the UN Group of Experts on Coal Mine Methane, Dr David Creedy, and former UK mines inspector Bob Stevenson.

 

It proposed using an internal pipe to pump nitrogen into the mine's 2.3km drift - causing the methane to rise - and then using external bore holes to release the gas.

 

The report said once the nitrogen had replaced the methane, fresh air could be pumped into the mine to replace the nitrogen - rendering the mine safe to enter.

 

 

IANA mining engineer, but this plan doesn't fill me with confidence at all... it all seems very simplistic.

 

It pre-supposes that no more methane is entering the mine, which seems extraordinarily unlikely, given that the mine filled up with methane *after* the methane exploded. And surely, if you just opened up the boreholes, the methane would clear by convection.

 

And wasn't this attempted earlier? ISTR that, early on, some huge turbines were run at the mine entrance with the idea of filling the mine with inert gas (presumably the exhaust gas from the turbine which would be devoid of oxygen). And that this didn't work.

 

The minimum quantity of nitrogen needed would be 2,300 x 3 x 3 (I'm guessing at the width and height of the drift) = 21,000 cubic metres of nitrogen, just to fill the drift once. Compressed to (say) 150psi (~10 atmospheres), that's 2100 cubic metres, say 210 large truckloads? All this would need to be transported to the mine entrance (or produced there) and pumped in. Does the drift rise or fall? If it rises, you could have your nitrogen leak out the entrance, leaving a layer of methane at the far end. If it falls, then no boreholes (or pumping) are needed... the methane would exit naturally via the mine entrance. And, either way, surely there would be bubbles of methane left in hollows in the ceiling of the drift, and in the workings at the end of it.

 

Once the mine was full of inert gas, it would be safe to enter with BA. There's no need to refill it with air, which seems like a dangerous idea to me.

 

 

Dr Creedy said the method was ultra-safe, easily monitored and removed any possibility of the methane gas mixing with fresh air, which could cause an explosion.

 

 

If Dr Creedy is as expert as claimed, he must surely have been misquoted. For example, mixing methane gas with air doesn't cause explosions; it provides 2 of the preconditions for an explosion, but not the third. 

 

 

Duh' - you do know that you can read the full report if you wish? This was quoted from the news site and it is simplified for everyone to understand.

 

Apparently this was done many times overseas. So the method is well established.






12406 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4098

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1689509 15-Dec-2016 15:57
Send private message

LookingUp:

 

Winston has volunteered, potentially solving one or more problems...

 

 

 

 

If only he could persuade some of those charitable motorcycle gangs to accompany him on his mission of mercy, he could solve some more...! innocent






14566 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1934


  Reply # 1689636 15-Dec-2016 16:50
Send private message

nakedmolerat:

 

 

 

Duh' - you do know that you can read the full report if you wish? This was quoted from the news site and it is simplified for everyone to understand.

 

Apparently this was done many times overseas. So the method is well established.

 

 

 

 

Surely this sort of thing has been done overseas anyway. Although I am sure it isn't cheap. But if it leads to bringing closure to this whole thing, it will probably be worth it IMO. Otherwise this potentially could drag on for many years.


12406 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4098

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1689686 15-Dec-2016 19:06
One person supports this post
Send private message

mattwnz:

nakedmolerat:


 


Duh' - you do know that you can read the full report if you wish? This was quoted from the news site and it is simplified for everyone to understand.


Apparently this was done many times overseas. So the method is well established.



 


Surely this sort of thing has been done overseas anyway. Although I am sure it isn't cheap. But if it leads to bringing closure to this whole thing, it will probably be worth it IMO. Otherwise this potentially could drag on for many years.



As long as the tax payer is not paying for it.





1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.