BP is burning recovered oil ?

[Modelworks]

Wow they really don't understand the 'environmental impact' concept. As if polluting the water wasn't enough, they now are burning recovered oil. Pollute the water and lets get the air involved while we are at it. I also read they are taking the oil collected close to shore to landfills. Does anyone not see a problem with any of this ?

I hope if this country ever switches to nuclear power as a major form of energy that companies like bp are not involved. They would probably bury spent fuel in the local drinking water wells to keep the waste cool.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iCUYf92klwOvrC8gCdnYJwDqekwgD9GCHUN00

NEW ORLEANS — BP began burning oil siphoned from a ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico on Wednesday as part of its plans to more than triple the amount of crude it can stop from reaching the sea, the company said.
BP said oil and gas siphoned from the well first reached a semi-submersible drilling rig on the surface of the Gulf around 1 a.m.
Once that gas reaches the rig, it will be mixed with compressed air, shot down a specialized boom made by Schlumberger Ltd. and ignited at sea. It's the first time this particular burner has been deployed in the Gulf of Mexico.
BP officials previously said they believed the burner system could incinerate anywhere from 210,000 gallons of oil to 420,000 gallons of oil daily once it's fully operational. Work to optimize the new system was still ongoing, and the company did not say how much oil it has burned so far.
Under pressure from the Coast Guard, the energy firm is attempting to expand its ability to trap leaking oil before it reaches the water. Already, oil and gas are being siphoned from a containment cap sitting over the well head and flowing to a drill ship sitting above it in the Gulf of Mexico.
Adding the burner is part of BP's plan to expand its containment system so it can capture as much as 2.2 million gallons of oil a day by late June, or nearly 90 percent of what a team of government scientists have estimated is the maximum flow out the well.
Only a relief well, which BP says will be completed in August, will completely stop the flow of oil. Still, comments from President Barack Obama and federal officials have raised expectations that the flow of oil could be significantly contained by the end of the month.
The Coast Guard has been pushing the British energy firm to bring more equipment and boats to the scene to deal with the leak. But plans remain subject to uncertainty.
An earlier containment box clogged with an icelike slush. A smaller "top hat" containment was abandoned. Attempting to clog the blowout preventer with junk did not work. Neither did forcing heavy drilling mud down the well bore to stanch the flow.
While the new containment cap placed of the well has been collecting more than 630,000 gallons of oil daily, the system has its own limits. A single bolt of lightning Tuesday struck the drilling ship collecting oil from the cap, started a fire and forced oil collection to stop for hours.
Lightning storms are the least of the weather worries as the Gulf approaches hurricane season

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

It's like when you dig a hole for yourself, and when someone throws you a lifeline instead of getting yourself out of the hole you drag them down to your level and force them to help you dig deeper...

 

[boomerang]

Do you have another solution? Now would you deal with that quantity of oil?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Well, it's oil, it's going to be burnt anyway. But purifying it, selling it off, and letting others burn it, whatever the cost of purification, would look a lot better than just burning it as is. Heck, it's likely that the more it costs, the better.

 

[theeedude]

Can they burn it to generate power to purify water?

 

[Modelworks]

Do you have another solution? Now would you deal with that quantity of oil?

Refine it.
Dumping the toxins into the air of an area with already polluted water isn't smart.
Poor pelicans not only will they die from contacting the water, they will die just flying over it.

 

[nonlnear]

Refine it.
Dumping the toxins into the air of an area with already polluted water isn't smart.
Poor pelicans not only will they die from contacting the water, they will die just flying over it.

You should tell BP about this. I'm sure they totally failed to consider the possibility of refining briny crude oil soup because refining is so totally not in their area of expertise.

 

[Moonbeam]

They are recovering more oil than they can pump to ships, as I understand it, so the excess is to be burned. The toxic waste from the combustion will disperse with much less environmental damage done than the oil in the water. They are doing what they can with what they have to do it with, I think.

Enraged and distraught folk are irrational. Impotence makes the mouth move but does little else. A disaster is a disaster because it is a disaster.

 

[Moonbeam]

It seems to me that before any new drilling operations get under way the oil companies need to build robots that can go down to a broken pipe and clamp onto it, saw if off, and then close up around the end with a valve into which new pipe could be inserted from a new platform and the valve open again. I would think such a machine would not be that hard to create.

 

[glenn1]

Why do you care? The left got its $20 billion in blood money, so let BP do whatever it wants with the recovered oil (that they have to pay royalties on anyway).

 

[Modelworks]

You should tell BP about this. I'm sure they totally failed to consider the possibility of refining briny crude oil soup because refining is so totally not in their area of expertise. .

Cleanup is not BP area of expertise they have shown that. The reasons BP give for burning the oil have nothing do with not being able to refine it. This isn't oil off the surface, it is oil leaking out of the well head before it ever reaches the surface. The reason they give for burning is they do not have enough tankers to store it and it is cheaper to burn it than use other means. The EPA would not even approve it if they were required to get a permit, but because the location is so far out it is beyond the authority of the EPA and they can handle it however they want. The release of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene that would never be released in a refinery or factory without strict controls shows how much BP cares . Can't wait till all that toxic water now containing more chemicals due to the burning which would have remained locked up in the oil will become rain that pours down on the coast and inland regions in hurricane season.

 

[bfdd]

lol did you guys honestly think they would be able to clean and reuse most of this oil? you guys have to be fucking kidding me, really shows how little you know about the industry. it would take an effort of monumental proportions(cost and man hours) in order to build the facilities required to reuse all that oil. Some will be reused, most will be burned off.

 

[boomerang]

Cleanup is not BP area of expertise they have shown that. The reasons BP give for burning the oil have nothing do with not being able to refine it. This isn't oil off the surface, it is oil leaking out of the well head before it ever reaches the surface. The reason they give for burning is they do not have enough tankers to store it and it is cheaper to burn it than use other means. The EPA would not even approve it if they were required to get a permit, but because the location is so far out it is beyond the authority of the EPA and they can handle it however they want. The release of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene that would never be released in a refinery or factory without strict controls shows how much BP cares . Can't wait till all that toxic water now containing more chemicals due to the burning which would have remained locked up in the oil will become rain that pours down on the coast and inland regions in hurricane season.

You bellyache about burning the oil and then when questioned about it give the reasons it must be done.

You should consider running for office. No solution is a viable one for you, so it's better to do nothing. We've already had 60 days of that. I'm guessing you're not happy with that either.

 

[Lemon law]

Burning what ever oil possible far from shore is so much better than let it wash ashore and letting it contaminate our entire gulf coast.

What is hard to understand about that. When someone hands you a shit sandwich, why do some idiots insist on eating the whole thing?

This is not about solving the problem with some pie in the sky technology we wish we had, this is all about cutting our losses.

 

[Modelworks]

You bellyache about burning the oil and then when questioned about it give the reasons it must be done.

You should consider running for office. No solution is a viable one for you, so it's better to do nothing. We've already had 60 days of that. I'm guessing you're not happy with that either.

It is people like you that allow things like this to happen in the first place. Some of us actually care what happens while others like you don't give a damn as long as someone else has to deal with it.

 

[nonlnear]

Cleanup is not BP area of expertise they have shown that.

But your question wasn't about cleanup.

The reasons BP give for burning the oil have nothing do with not being able to refine it. This isn't oil off the surface, it is oil leaking out of the well head before it ever reaches the surface. The reason they give for burning is they do not have enough tankers to store it and it is cheaper to burn it than use other means.

That being the case what exactly is the problem? It's not like BP is in the business of burning profitable crude just to piss off internet posters. Tankers aren't the fastest ships in the world and they don't keep massive stockpiles of empty ones laying around waiting for emergency pumping jobs. I'm also puzzled what you could possibly mean by "other means". Aside from taking it away by ship and burning it, what other options are available - aside from tossing it back in the ocean of course.

The EPA would not even approve it if they were required to get a permit, but because the location is so far out it is beyond the authority of the EPA and they can handle it however they want. The release of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene that would never be released in a refinery or factory without strict controls shows how much BP cares. Can't wait till all that toxic water now containing more chemicals due to the burning which would have remained locked up in the oil will become rain that pours down on the coast and inland regions in hurricane season.

One thing I wonder about is the possibility of percolating the exhaust gas underwater. Of course that would require a combustion chamber slightly more sophisticated than flaring it off of a boom...

 

[bfdd]

Burning what ever oil possible far from shore is so much better than let it wash ashore and letting it contaminate our entire gulf coast.

What is hard to understand about that. When someone hands you a shit sandwich, why do some idiots insist on eating the whole thing?

This is not about solving the problem with some pie in the sky technology we wish we had, this is all about cutting our losses.

So you can think rationally. You hit the nail on the head with this post.

 

[Modelworks]

Burning what ever oil possible far from shore is so much better than let it wash ashore and letting it contaminate our entire gulf coast.

So you have the environmental impact studies of what burning 10,000 barrels of oil a day at sea for weeks does to the environment ? Of course you don't, nobody has ever done it on that scale.

Those that think it is okay, take some motor oil , a little gasoline , and burn it in a bucket in your garage, leave the garage door open, add some fans, open the windows too if you want and then say it doesn't hurt to burn the oil.

It isn't about the best solutions it is about the cheapest one and BP being inconvenienced as little as possible.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So you have the environmental impact studies of what burning 10,000 barrels of oil a day at sea for weeks does to the environment ? Of course you don't, nobody has ever done it on that scale.

*oil-fire-induced-cough*

 

[Modelworks]

But your question wasn't about cleanup.
That being the case what exactly is the problem? It's not like BP is in the business of burning profitable crude just to piss off internet posters. Tankers aren't the fastest ships in the world and they don't keep massive stockpiles of empty ones laying around waiting for emergency pumping jobs. I'm also puzzled what you could possibly mean by "other means". Aside from taking it away by ship and burning it, what other options are available - aside from tossing it back in the ocean of course.

The decision was made on a cost to bp basis not a lack of ships or the ability to capture the oil that would be burned. It is like saying it cost $1 million a day for the tanker, or 50 cents for a match. One releases toxic gases but will make them appear to be solving the problem because the nasty black oil will seemingly disappear replaced by invisible toxins.

One thing I wonder about is the possibility of percolating the exhaust gas underwater. Of course that would require a combustion chamber slightly more sophisticated than flaring it off of a boom...

Something needs to be done to control the exhaust gas. A small amount of burning wouldn't be too bad, but they are going to be burning upwards of 420,000 gallons a day and letting the ashes fall into the water and the toxins into the air.

 

[Lemon law]

Of course the alternative of burning the oil far from shore is a stinking turd, but in the grand scheme of all stinking turds, the bigger turd is letting it wash ashore.

Now how big of a turd do we want to eat? That is our current choice.

Or alternately, shall we insist in making the BP cleanup so expensive that they are unable to pay, defaulting to we all have to pay instead?

 

[nonlnear]

So you have the environmental impact studies of what burning 10,000 barrels of oil a day at sea for weeks does to the environment ? Of course you don't, nobody has ever done it on that scale.

At the scale they're looking at, reproducing the location might not be imperative to reproduce in order to get some vaguely useful data. If anything I suspect burning 10 000 barrels a day at sea would be much less detrimental in the long run than say burning 6 000 000 barrels a day in the Kuwaiti desert. If you're going to produce that much soot I'd much prefer it in the ocean than in a desert.

Those that think it is okay, take some motor oil , a little gasoline , and burn it in a bucket in your garage, leave the garage door open, add some fans, open the windows too if you want and then say it doesn't hurt to burn the oil.

It isn't about the best solutions it is about the cheapest one and BP being inconvenienced as little as possible.

But you can't fault BP for doing what is in their best interest. After all, that's exactly what it's about for the entire country, and the world in fact: being inconvenienced as little as possible. So we then have to ask ourselves how closely aligned BP's incentives are with the country in all of this. Now it might seem like that is a problem that would require long studies and lots of non-existent data but it's really not. That is the kind of analysis that ought to have been done (and quite realistically could have been done, and in fact may very well have been done and then ignored) years before and enshrined in the form of regulations and protocols. If BP's incentives regarding how to conduct themselves in this cleanup effort are radically different from the interests of the country then there is nobody to blame other than Congress (and of course the lobbyists - including BP of course - who bribed Congress to wage war on the people through lax regulations).

I'm not "defending" BP by any means. I hope that somehow this comes to a quick conclusion, and the liable parties (which will likely be a big chunk of BP) pay their fair share and then some hefty punitive damages. The key is to shape the incentives for any company that is large enough to pose individual regulatory risk so that their incentives are not too far afield from those of society at large - at least when there are large externalized costs involved. Over the last couple years the US Congress has shown itself through multiple failures in many industries to be completely incapable of protecting either the peopel or even a shred of sanity when going about its business. For all the talk of deflecting blame, I can't help but think of Congress. Everyone (not pointing this remark at you, but society as a whole) is so engulfed in this idiotic game of wondering if BP deserves the blame or the President (and then which President?) that the real culprits are sneaking out the back door without a single substantial criticism. That's the real tragedy on the political side.

 

[Darwin333]

Refine it.
Dumping the toxins into the air of an area with already polluted water isn't smart.
Poor pelicans not only will they die from contacting the water, they will die just flying over it.

They either don't have the tanker capacity to ferry it or they don't have the ability to safely offload it to tankers at the rate they are taking it in. I assume (big assumption considering BPs record over the last 2 months) that their choice is burn it off or let it go into the water. Burning it off is a much better solution given the options imo.

You can go back over a month on these forums and see my posts saying the Feds needed to step in and get more tankers down here. You can also read my posts outlining basically the exact same method of containment as they are doing right now but what do I know.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29773094&postcount=217

6 weeks ago my dumbass thought of basically the same solution they are employing today. I still stand by my initial post, we should have a rig that is retrofitted for this type of situation (including the ability to offload the oil onto tankers faster than they are taking it onboard) as well as a cap that hasn't been hastily engineered on standby for just such an emergency. This would be an entirely different situation had they been able to contain even 50% of the oil from week 2 or so.

 

[charrison]

So you have the environmental impact studies of what burning 10,000 barrels of oil a day at sea for weeks does to the environment ? Of course you don't, nobody has ever done it on that scale.

Those that think it is okay, take some motor oil , a little gasoline , and burn it in a bucket in your garage, leave the garage door open, add some fans, open the windows too if you want and then say it doesn't hurt to burn the oil.

It isn't about the best solutions it is about the cheapest one and BP being inconvenienced as little as possible.

You do realize that the official government plan was to use firebooms to burn the oil off, but of course it did not have any available.

 

[piasabird]

I live near a refinery and they are always burning something. On some overcast nights with a strong wind they burn even more stuff off because they know the wind will carry it away and it is so overcast most people will not know that.