Merged Gulf oil spill more serious than reported

[Without Rights]

The crude oil spilling into the Gulf is definitely bad for marine life and fishermen but is that the extent of the harm, as the media would have you believe?

Are deadly toxic gases that are naturally formed in oil reservoirs a major problem for human beings living on the Gulf? Benzene levels have been tested, in areas, and the levels have been recorded 2000% above levels considered toxic enough to cause acute effects. Hydrogen Sulfide is tested at a 500% increase above what the EPA says can kill you. Wind gusts can bring these toxic clouds inland and cause havoc on the health of many people.

Do you think these are serious concerns?

 

[Unlike a Bull]

Can you provide me with a link for the information?

 

[shadron]

Do you have any data on how these concentrations of benzene and H2S compare to, say, living across the street from a gas station, or spending a summer working as a guide in the Norris geyser basin in Yellowstone Park? Especially for the people who live closest to the spill, say, in the Louisiana bayou? It is one thing for a benzene level to be 2000% above the EPA limits as measured from a boat above the leak, and what is experienced at ground level 75 miles away. Unlike carbon monoxide, H2S is quite detectable by humans in concentrations that are harmful, and be avoided.

 

[trvlr2]

Do you have any data on how these concentrations of benzene and H2S compare to, say, living across the street from a gas station, or spending a summer working as a guide in the Norris geyser basin in Yellowstone Park? Especially for the people who live closest to the spill, say, in the Louisiana bayou? It is one thing for a benzene level to be 2000% above the EPA limits as measured from a boat above the leak, and what is experienced at ground level 75 miles away. Unlike carbon monoxide, H2S is quite detectable by humans in concentrations that are harmful, and be avoided.

From Wiki:

* 0.00047 ppm is the recognition threshold, the concentration at which 50% of humans can detect the characteristic odor of hydrogen sulfide,[12] normally described as resembling "a rotten egg".
* Less than 10 ppm has an exposure limit of 8 hours per day.
* 10–20 ppm is the borderline concentration for eye irritation.
* 50–100 ppm leads to eye damage.
* At 100–150 ppm the olfactory nerve is paralyzed after a few inhalations, and the sense of smell disappears, often together with awareness of danger.[13][14]
* 320–530 ppm leads to pulmonary edema with the possibility of death.
* 530–1000 ppm causes strong stimulation of the central nervous system and rapid breathing, leading to loss of breathing.
* 800 ppm is the lethal concentration for 50% of humans for 5 minutes exposure (LC50).
* Concentrations over 1000 ppm cause immediate collapse with loss of breathing, even after inhalation of a single breath.
*********
First whiff of the rotten-egg smell, means, Get Out, Now!
Your nose gets overpowered by the molecule, then cannot "smell" the toxic concentration. At least, when you are working close to a source of the gas.
Distance works, helping dilute the gas.

 

[fuelair]

The crude oil spilling into the Gulf is definitely bad for marine life and fishermen but is that the extent of the harm, as the media would have you believe?

Are deadly toxic gases that are naturally formed in oil reservoirs a major problem for human beings living on the Gulf? Benzene levels have been tested, in areas, and the levels have been recorded 2000% above levels considered toxic enough to cause acute effects. Hydrogen Sulfide is tested at a 500% increase above what the EPA says can kill you. Wind gusts can bring these toxic clouds inland and cause havoc on the health of many people.

Do you think these are serious concerns?

Just to help out and not rain on any parades. A number of people in the gov't, the industry and industry watchers have known since the beginning - first viewings - that 20,000 bpd was likely a minimum figure (and as much as 80K bpd likely max) and it has not been a secret in the media, just not played up heavilly - possibly trying to make the folks on the coasts feel some hope until it was obvious. Yes, there is big reason for concern. Not sure how far inland and how far from the spill for the gasses thing, but most of the beach area is likely toast for a while and the fishing and related tourist areas on the Gulf are likely not going to recover for years. That's estimated, not something I can give you a source for - nobody wants to be blamed for putting out financial involved/lawsuit involved data until it is absolutely verified.

 

[Without Rights]

Do you have any data on how these concentrations of benzene and H2S compare to, say, living across the street from a gas station, or spending a summer working as a guide in the Norris geyser basin in Yellowstone Park?

Benzene and H2S are present in crude oil and removed during refining so gas stations are not a threat. And the NGB has been proved deadly but I fail to see your point. If gas stations were expelling benzene at levels proven toxic that would not somehow make the benzene in the Gulf insignificant.

Especially for the people who live closest to the spill, say, in the Louisiana bayou? It is one thing for a benzene level to be 2000% above the EPA limits as measured from a boat above the leak, and what is experienced at ground level 75 miles away. Unlike carbon monoxide, H2S is quite detectable by humans in concentrations that are harmful, and be avoided.

I agree that the fume cloud would be dispersed and concentrations would be lowered if wind gusts blow the gases inland. However, the longer this spill goes on the bigger the danger becomes and I seriously doubt the gas will disperse 99.9% before reaching land. Also rain captures the gases and rains on the people and our food supplies. There is no way huge amounts of toxic gas continuously emerging from a body of water, that is nearly completely surrounded by people, is not a problem. To say this is not a big issue is completely ignorant and arrogant.

 

[This is The End]

...SNIP... A number of people in the gov't, the industry and industry watchers have known since the beginning - first viewings - that 20,000 bpd was likely a minimum figure (and as much as 80K bpd likely max) and...SNIP...

I hope I am not too off topic with adding the following question to this thread, since this thread deals with the gasses that escape with oil from an oil pocket, and purported media deception. (I didn't want to start yet another "oil spill" thread, and the other threads are already quite large.)

Let's see if I can make this question as pointed as possible....


What is the maximum pressure possible in a naturally occurring oil pocket?

(Note: I am not asking what is the assumed maximum pressure for the pocket currently in the news, but for any pocket in any location, under any naturally occurring conditions. I.E. This is more of a physics question, than a current events question.)

 

[trvlr2]

I hope I am not too off topic with adding the following question to this thread, since this thread deals with the gasses that escape with oil from an oil pocket, and purported media deception. (I didn't want to start yet another "oil spill" thread, and the other threads are already quite large.)

Let's see if I can make this question as pointed as possible....


What is the maximum pressure possible in a naturally occurring oil pocket?

(Note: I am not asking what is the assumed maximum pressure for the pocket currently in the news, but for any pocket in any location, under any naturally occurring conditions. I.E. This is more of a physics question, than a current events question.)

That varies directly with the pressure of the reservoir's surroundings....I am sure there is an upper limit where the oil, sufficiently squeezed, will no longer be 'oil'. It is a 'how long is a rope' kind of question.
Why ? Are you just curious, or what?

 

[This is The End]

That varies directly with the pressure of the reservoir's surroundings....I am sure there is an upper limit where the oil, sufficiently squeezed, will no longer be 'oil'. It is a 'how long is a rope' kind of question.

I knew I wouldn't make it clear enough! I'm asking about the maximum possible pressure for any natural surroundings. So, no it is not a 'how long is a rope' kind of question, it is a 'what is the longest rope possible' kind of question.

Why ? Are you just curious, or what?

No particular reason.

 

[shadron]

From Wiki:

* 0.00047 ppm is the recognition threshold, the concentration at which 50% of humans can detect the characteristic odor of hydrogen sulfide,[12] normally described as resembling "a rotten egg".
* Less than 10 ppm has an exposure limit of 8 hours per day.
...
*********
First whiff of the rotten-egg smell, means, Get Out, Now!
Your nose gets overpowered by the molecule, then cannot "smell" the toxic concentration. At least, when you are working close to a source of the gas.
Distance works, helping dilute the gas.

Have you ever been to Yellowstone? Approaching any of the geyser basins will give you a goodly smell of H2S. The NPS doesn't say anywhere that the gas is poisonous within the park, AFAIK.

So let's say that 1 ppm is a dose that one should not stay with. You can smell it at .5 ppb, according to the above. That gives me a range in concentration of 2000 times, or 3+ orders of magnitude. And, yes, the nose can and will become habituated to it, just as it will with any smell held in a constant concentration.

Still, I don't see H2S making it to shore in amounts that going to prove fatal to anyone. Aromatic hydrocarbons (like benzene), maybe.

Oh, and Without Rights says that it will wash out with the rain and contaminate everything. H2S, reacting with water, produces H2SO4, sulfuric acid, which is not a good thing to be bathing in, but from parts per billion concentrations of the gas you get parts per billion solution. This could be a major problem downwind from a 24/7/365 H2S source (in fact, some Yellowstone trees suffer from it, if I remember rightly), but it is not a people killer.

I don't like pollution any more than anyone else, but we do live in an industrial society, and making glow takes breaking rotten eggs, sometimes. Clean it up, by all means, change the energy source, yes, but I'm not ready to go back to knapping tools with an antler when that requires killing 99.9% of everyone on the planet.

 

[AlBell]

What is the maximum pressure possible in a naturally occurring oil pocket?

(Note: I am not asking what is the assumed maximum pressure for the pocket currently in the news, but for any pocket in any location, under any naturally occurring conditions. I.E. This is more of a physics question, than a current events question.)

Basically unknown, but engineering is being contemplated to produce from deepwater(10,000 ft +), deephole (total depth 10,000 ft water plus 20,000 ft subsea) reservoirs having 30,000 psi pressure.

 

[This is The End]

Basically unknown, but engineering is being contemplated to produce from deepwater(10,000 ft +), deephole (total depth 10,000 ft water plus 20,000 ft subsea) reservoirs having 30,000 psi pressure.

Yeah, I had a feeling depth would come into play... I didn't want to add an arbitrary cut-off to the question (5 miles, 10 miles, etc.).

I assumed there was a physical method for determining the maximum amount of pressure that a given liquid could stand, and then factoring in how deep it could possibly be.... and what type of rock (that could potentially line the oil pocket) would be strongest, etc.

 

[funk de fino]

Benzene and H2S are present in crude oil and removed during refining so gas stations are not a threat. And the NGB has been proved deadly but I fail to see your point. If gas stations were expelling benzene at levels proven toxic that would not somehow make the benzene in the Gulf insignificant.

The amounts depend very much on the specific well.

I agree that the fume cloud would be dispersed and concentrations would be lowered if wind gusts blow the gases inland. However, the longer this spill goes on the bigger the danger becomes and I seriously doubt the gas will disperse 99.9% before reaching land. Also rain captures the gases and rains on the people and our food supplies. There is no way huge amounts of toxic gas continuously emerging from a body of water, that is nearly completely surrounded by people, is not a problem. To say this is not a big issue is completely ignorant and arrogant.

If your "theory" were correct all the guys working in the rigs and boats around the well would be poisoned or dead. The rigs and the boats would have shutdown.

You are clueless.

 

[Without Rights]

The amounts depend very much on the specific well.

The amounts over the spill have already been declared so in this case, the well is excreting large amounts of VOC's and other toxins.

If your "theory" were correct all the guys working in the rigs and boats around the well would be poisoned or dead. The rigs and the boats would have shutdown.

You are clueless.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/07/eveningnews/main6558403.shtml

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/26/gulf-oil-spill-cleanup-wo_n_591346.html

http://www.salon.com/wires/allwires/2010/05/26/D9FV02100_us_gulf_oil_spill_illness/index.html

Wow, look how wrong you are. People are getting sick and some companies are pulling their boats out of the Gulf for that very reason. I guess it's placebo in your mind?

Any logical person can see that if clouds of toxins (which are already proven to exist) came inland into populations of people that it would be a problem.

You calling me clueless, in light of your ignorance, is somewhat of a compliment, so thank you. I am so glad to be clueless in your world of denial.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Without Rights, what makes you think that the experts involved - you know, those folks with scientific & engineering training - haven't been thinking about these questions already?

 

[Without Rights]

Without Rights, what makes you think that the experts involved - you know, those folks with scientific & engineering training - haven't been thinking about these questions already?

I don't recall saying, or even implying that the experts aren't thinking about it. That's why they are testing levels around the spill and that's why they are testing levels onshore, because the danger is real. They know benzene is a killer because it has been claiming lives for years.

Anyway, what is your point? Am I not allowed to speak of toxins unless I have "scientific & engineering training"? Is this discussion inappropriate in some manner?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I don't recall saying, or even implying that the experts aren't thinking about it. That's why they are testing levels around the spill and that's why they are testing levels onshore, because the danger is real. They know benzene is a killer because it has been claiming lives for years.

Anyway, what is your point? Am I not allowed to speak of toxins unless I have "scientific & engineering training"? Is this discussion inappropriate in some manner?

Not at all. I was just wondering why you seemed to think the media wasn't reporting this info.

I think the point others are making is that there is also a big difference between what the media reports & scientific reality.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

How Serious is the Oil Spill?

I've been very terrified about the oil spill. I don't like the idea of oil gushing out 24 hours a day. It's unnerving.

But then I realized I don't really know why, or really very much at all about how an oil spill affects the environment.

And don't get me wrong, I know it's bad. I know of the obvious ecological problems. (birds with oil all over them) And the obvious economic problems.

But what I don't understand, is specifically, and in a relative sense, how bad it really is.

Can anyone help explain to me how bad it is, and why?

 

[MattusMaximus]

One reason you're freaked out is because the media have been having a field day scaring the hell out of everyone with this story. Many are making it out to be the end of the world, figuratively speaking.

It's bad, but it isn't that bad. There are far worse ecological disasters in the world than this. For example, take a look at some of the stuff going on in Nigeria.

I suggest turning off the TV and no longer reading "news" stories about the horrors associated with this spill. That should calm you down a bit.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

One reason you're freaked out is because the media have been having a field day scaring the hell out of everyone with this story. Many are making it out to be the end of the world, figuratively speaking.

It's bad, but it isn't that bad. There are far worse ecological disasters in the world than this. For example, take a look at some of the stuff going on in Nigeria.

I suggest turning off the TV and no longer reading "news" stories about the horrors associated with this spill. That should calm you down a bit.

Well, I don't watch a whole lot of tv. I've kept up to date on the oil spill through the internet, and NPR news after work.

But I simply don't know enough of the science, and honestly can't find an objective answer to how serious oil (and this specific spill) is as an ecological problem.

From what I have researched, it seems it's a bit overblown. I forgot about the Nigeria pipeline leak.

But, from the article:

[...]In fact, more oil is spilled from the delta's network of terminals, pipes, pumping stations and oil platforms every year than has been lost in the Gulf of Mexico, the site of a major ecological catastrophe caused by oil that has poured from a leak triggered by the explosion that wrecked BP's Deepwater Horizon rig last month.

So it's a "major ecological catastrophe." Meaning what exactly? Couple hundreds of birds with oil on them? That's hardly a catastrophe, right?

So what else does that much oil do that makes it a "major ecological catastrophe."

And if you take the position that it's definitely overblown, then why do you say that? Could it be that the Nigerian spill was under-reported?