BP, its a nightmare!

[Guinnesstime]

Re: BP, its a nightmare!

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: BP, its a nightmare!

The audio on this is not good enough that I can understand much of it, but there is what claims to be a transcript of this talk at http://susiemadrak.com/?p=3577. Those of you on blood pressure medication should take an extra dose before reading this transcript.

[Chris Coles]

Re: BP, its a nightmare!

Thanks Wriggley, very illuminating.

But the earlier report from Kessler has an anomaly:

1. Of the spilling material, 40% by weight is natural gas.
2. The main chemical component of this natural gas is methane.
3. Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas and the seafloor worldwide
stores massive amounts of methane.
4. This spill is too small to influence the methane content in the
atmosphere and thus will not influence modern climate.
5. Massive eruptions of natural gas from the seafloor have occurred in
the geological past and this spill simulates one of those eruptions.
Thus we can study this spill to understand if these previous (natural)
massive eruptions in the past influenced climate and how they might
behave in the future.

If this spill simulates one of those eruptions, then this spill might go on to simulate one of the previous Methane Driven oceanic eruptions and:

"The consequences of a methane-driven oceanic eruption for marine and terrestrial life are likely to be catastrophic" Gregory Ryskin, Geology, September 2003, p 742.

[GRG55]

Re: Methane in Large Quantities. . .

You left out House, Senate leaders finalize details of sweeping financial overhaul.

About the only thing that got swept in this financial overhaul is the problems...they got swept under the carpet...

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: BP, its a nightmare!

If this spill simulates one of those eruptions, then this spill might go on to simulate one of the previous Methane Driven oceanic eruptions and:

"The consequences of a methane-driven oceanic eruption for marine and terrestrial life are likely to be catastrophic" Gregory Ryskin, Geology, September 2003, p 742.

My hope is that even if they manage to concentrate enough methane in the waters of that area of the Gulf of Mexico go cause a methane eruption, this spill won't release enough methane to fuel such an eruption on a global scale. If I'm wrong ... nice knowing ya.

[reggie]

Re: BP, its a nightmare!

Who is funding this chick?

[Starving Steve]

Re: BP, its a nightmare!

gnk, respectfully: don't bother with SS. There's just no point. It's like talking to drying paint.

That was the attitude of the water planners at the Capitol Regional District (CRD); i.e, "don't bother talking to Starving Steve on the telephone." So, I brought my entire neighbourhood along with me to the CRD water meeting on June 9th, 2010. (We are fed-up!) The NDP so-called "opposition caucus" in the BC Legislature in Victoria also doesn't want to talk with me. So we will give them the message: "people before bird habitat, people before salmon habitat, and the cost of living in British Columbia is outrageous and unnecessarily so; jobs come first, not windmills, not solar panels, and not habitat protection".... So simple, and yet the NDP caucus here in BC just doesn't get it!

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: BP, its a nightmare!

Who is funding this chick?

Bob Chapman's speculation, if I can relate it accurately, is that BP and the global carbon tax crowd are allowing and supporting this lady. She isn't consciously a paid shill of them or any such. But BP did allow her remarkable access to what was going on behind the scenes and has not called out their security goons to shut her down.

After Al Gore's and the ICC's global warming effort ran into a couple of potholes, the gulf oil spill is Plan B to further strengthen the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to light a fire under a global carbon tax. The carbon tax or some other global tax is one essential leg of a global reserve currency. The ESA and such are useful mechanisms to continue to tightly control the exploration and production of oil.

Chapman's speculation (as I related it here, hopefully accurately) sounds quite plausible to me; but then I am usually more open to various, sometimes conflicting, conspiracy theories than most people.

P.S. -- It seems that the Kindra Arnesen video you linked to has been "removed by user." Here's another video of her:

[reggie]

Re: BP, its a nightmare!

Bob Chapman's speculation, if I can relate it accurately, is that BP and the global carbon tax crowd are allowing and supporting this lady. She isn't consciously a paid shill of them or any such. But BP did allow her remarkable access to what was going on behind the scenes and has not called out their security goons to shut her down.

Yup, these are the techniques refined by Adorno & Marcuse... what they refer to as "Victim Groups" - essential manufacturing and managing all sides of the dialectic.

Sounds as if Starving Steve is confronting the same drill in BC, where they're using front NGO's as victim groups in order to create conflict between people and bird/salmon habitats.

I never met a high level DC NGO exec who wasn't shilling for an insider. The only variable was how well it was disguised. Of course, PBS Newshour only shows the public the public-facing dupe.

[Starving Steve]

Re: BP, its a nightmare!

My hope is that even if they manage to concentrate enough methane in the waters of that area of the Gulf of Mexico go cause a methane eruption, this spill won't release enough methane to fuel such an eruption on a global scale. If I'm wrong ... nice knowing ya.

Since methane, or to be more precise, methyl-hydrate ice deposits are known to exist naturally on planet Earth at the bottom of Earth's seas, even the Gulf of Mexico, why do we have to worry about methane in the atmosphere exploding or causing climate change? What is a high concentration of methane in the atmosphere? This rather odd gas in the Earth's atmosphere, and this heretofore unknown and Neptune-like ice on Earth, even in tropical seas like the Gulf of Mexico, may not be a risk to mankind. Instead, it may be an important energy resource. We should rejoice and not live in fear of methyl-hydrate ice. So, as usual, I am missing something in this group-think; what is it? Why do I need to worry? Explain the concern about methane to me.... Yes, methane is a greenhouse gas, but so is water-vapour.... And yes, methane is explosive, but so is natural gas. So is saw dust and grain dust.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: BP, its a nightmare!

Since methane, or to be more precise, methyl-hydrate ice deposits are known to exist naturally on planet Earth at the bottom of Earth's seas, even the Gulf of Mexico, why do we have to worry about methane in the atmosphere exploding or causing climate change? ...

So, as usual, I am missing something ...

The concern is that if enough methane dissolves into solution in the ocean water, then the oxygen based bacteria that can consume the methane will use up all the oxygen dissolved in that same water, causing the bacteria to die out, and allowing the concentration of dissolved methane to rise further, so long as a methane source is present. Eventually, that methane can come out of solution. It can do so catastrophically, resulting in flaming clouds (flaming once they are ignited by lightning, which happens soon enough.)

Gregory Ryskin speculated in a paper http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/...aneGeology.pdf in 2003 that this could have been the cause of the mass extinction of the Permian-Triassic boundary, 251 million years ago, in which up to 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.

A marker to watch for as one reasonably well defined stage toward such as catastrophe would be very large "dead" (no oxygen) zones in the water.

See further comments and an informative video, posted a week ago here on iTulip at Paging GR55 (Post #14).

The concern, by the way, is with methane (CH₄), not with methyl-hydrate ice deposits, though they are related in that methyl hydrates are one possible source of methane.

[touchring]

Re: BP, its a nightmare!

In such a scenario, wouldn't it be better for a hurricane to stir up the water?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: BP, its a nightmare!

In such a scenario, wouldn't it be better for a hurricane to stir up the water?

You mean along the lines of "the solution to pollution is dilution" ? Quite possibly.

Though hurricanes don't have much affect on deeper water, so far as I know. Methane can be absorbed in much higher concentrations in very deep water, due to the higher pressure. If that water were to circulate up to shallower depths, the methane could come out of solution abruptly.

[touchring]

Re: BP, its a nightmare!

You mean along the lines of "the solution to pollution is dilution" ? Quite possibly.

Though hurricanes don't have much affect on deeper water, so far as I know. Methane can be absorbed in much higher concentrations in very deep water, due to the higher pressure. If that water were to circulate up to shallower depths, the methane could come out of solution abruptly.

The amount and the pressure of methane gas coming out of the pipe makes me wonder if any kind of drilling infrastructure today that is approved by the MMS can withstand the blowout.

And what is the use of having the MMS if the BOPs they regulate don't work? Since BOPs don't work, I guess all the BOPs in the gulf need to be replaced?

[Starving Steve]

Re: BP, its a nightmare!

I've actually already started to identify the impact of the science, by highlighting the source of some of the reactions here to date. But rather than elicit further inquiry, this identification elicits further resistance, which is typical.


Yes, that's correct, except for the double-speak part.


If you are so open to "Truth" (as you call it), then how can I provoke resistance? That's illogical.

In science, there is no "truth", no message, and there are no Messiahs, no messengers, no scripture, and nothing is "settled". Instead, in science, real science, everything is manifest and open to critical questioning and critical-thinking, checking, and re-checking.

There are no "unwashed", no heathens, no lost souls, and no goyem. No issues are "settled" and off of the table from re-examination.

This is why I find some of the posts here so odd. Apparently, many here do not understand what science and the scientific tradition of questioning, checking, and re-checking are all about. (Teachers, this is a teachable moment in this discussion.)