I know there has been small blurbs about this in the national press.... multiple articles/pics/video in our paper... http://www.adn.com/
No containment due to weather and terrain... limited oil boom deployment. Basically no oil cleanup equip stored out there, despite dutch harbor being the only major port on the aluetians and they had two med sized spills there in 1998
Glad the coastie rescuers are all right tho... 30-40 ft Wave swamped the Jayhawk in hover while trying to pick up people in a basket and sent her down..
I've talked to them about going out to haze/capture animals, but they're being more sticklers for everyone having Haz-Wop traning.... even the Fish & Games lead on oil spill doesnt have his current.....kinda sad, the state is really not prepared for this in resources or money.... And this is a foreign owned ship.... good luck collecting damages..
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
Been following that somewhat, mainly because my engineering brain is always intrigued by stories about giant iron boats that snap in two.
No doubt going to be an expensive cleanup. It is sad, that god the thing was hauling grain and not crude....thus it was just the fuel if i have heard correctly. May not be much less of a mess but much less bulk to clean up at least.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
If there is a real cleanup.... I'm not that optimistic... You can go to many beaches in Prince William Sound and dig down 2 feet into the sand and hit the oil sheen from EVOS... (Exxon Valdez)
Edit** I see they've changed it... heavy "bunker" oil as they call it... one 44,000 gal tank is ruptured, a second 144,000 appear ruptured but may be partially intact.....
[ 12-14-2004, 11:40: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Mikey (Member # 42) on :
I never understood and maybe you could enlighten me Joe. Why don't they just light the oil on fire that leaks out? Though I'm sure this smoke causes an environmental mess it has to be less of a mess than the oil itself washing ashore.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Didn't Lake Erie start on fire a couple times in the '80s? Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Its actually something thats talked about, and not a bad idea when you consider the alt of how long its gonna be there... and would probably be a viable option if it was a different type of oil... It was mentioned in my staff meeting this morning actually...
Prob here... this "bunker" oil, is even less flamable than crude if I understand it right.... and sitting in 45 degree water + wind/windchill.. this stuff is gell in composition.... Very hard to get it to burn is my understanding.. if at all.. I think once you created enough heat to ignite it.. you'd be looking at one hell of a explosion, which would blow everything apart, make a bigger mess spreading stuff out, and not burn all the oil anyway...
[ 12-14-2004, 13:48: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
Standard Heating Fuel Oil and Bunker Oil are similar from what I understand. It is true though that the bunker oil was its propulsion fuel and not it's cargo correct?
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
Fuel oil in general is what is left over after the refining process takes out all the good stuff.
What's left over? Semi-flamable sludge.
They add viscosity adjusters to make it distributable for heating. Not sure of the differeince to create bunker oil but I belive it is even more of an un-treated leftover. I would imagine the only use would be to fuel a standard rankine cycle turbine(s) to produce propulsion.
In short this stuff is nasty and not a clean burn , it would leave lots of nasty residue and ash. I am surprised to hear that it is in any way explosive as it is not a volitile hydrocarbon fuel at all.
[ 12-14-2004, 14:17: Message edited by: Chadwick ]
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
I've never seen it clearly detailed...but ya, I think they use this stuff for propulsion... as this ship is foreign owned, the U.S./State authority was having probs gaining details about whats onboard.. There are at least 3 other large tanks of it onboard that are either intact or they haven't been able to find signs of a rupture...
They have burned other spills before... but it was more flamible versions of petrol and likely not as big..
[ 12-14-2004, 14:13: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
I didn't mean the oil was explosive Chad... I meant you'd have to put so much C4 on the boat to ignite all that crude, thay you'd just blow it all up and scatter it all over the place...
Its my understanding that petrolium products such as this will only burn when under intense heat/pressure right??? like inside a engine??? basic physics right??
Tough to get the pressure component on busted up ship in the N.Pacific..... Talk about one of the most inhospitable places to have this happen... They turn commercial airliners around all the time trying to land at Dutch Harbor.... Its a fucking scarey ride just to land there......
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
Seems like bunker oil is about one step above coal on the fossile fuels in that it is easier to do refuels with this stuff. You could likely run the same engine on coal with different boilers.
One could argue both ways what is better for the environment. Burning coal or spilling bunker oil.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
But your statement below about volitility concurs with what I'm saying right???
Gonna be damn hard to get it to burn "intensively" ...
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
Being that it is gel like and yes, does take alot of heat to ignite. I would guess big torches would need to be used. Lots of them. And it would not be a self sustaining fire. Probably more laborous and dangerous than just cleaning it up with vacuumes, washers, and separators (or however the fuck they do it).
If it were jet fuel, well, different story.
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
Absolutly Standard explosives would just throw oil everywhere.
I supose they could try napalm or something. But i have no idea if it would work or just fry everything within miles.
Posted by Hauserdaddy (Member # 50) on :
I think they should have a "Survivor: Alaskan oil spill" and dump those bastards for 40 days up there Give them a lighter and see if they can get a fire started with the oil to cook up all of the little oil covered animals and birds that are along the shore....
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
With the "clothes" they wear on Survivor, most would not last the night...
I like your idea H-daddy... any arctic or winter Survivor would actually be a more interesting show...
Posted by Hauserdaddy (Member # 50) on :
Well you know they would never do it because nobody wants to see the fake boob chicks in parkas I think a better show would be to have hunters survivor where you have to live off of the land and your "events" would be shooting game with blackpowder rifles, chopping wood, and fishing for your food. There could also be an episode where you have to cart little "annie" through the blizzard to the hospital so she doesnt die of tuberculosis. Maybe the "oregon trail of survivor" lol
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Capt. made some questionable decisions... Talks about the engine in this ship.. kinda interesting..
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
even the Fish & Games lead on oil spill doesnt have his current.....kinda sad, the state is really not prepared for this in resources or money.... And this is a foreign owned ship.... good luck collecting damages..
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Give them a lighter and see if they can get a fire started with the oil to cook up all of the little oil covered animals and birds that are along the shore....![[Razz]](tongue.gif)