news Canadian News
Good Evening Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

Capping oil well blowouts within 24 hours too e

Canadian Content
20690news upnews down
Link Related to Canada in some say

Capping oil well blowouts within 24 hours too expensive, says Ottawa


Environmental | 206903 hits | Aug 06 9:23 am | Posted by: DrCaleb
25 Comment

​The federal government says it is agreeing to an offshore drilling plan that allows up to 21 days to bring in capping technology for a subsea well blowout because requiring a shorter response time would be too expensive for Shell Canada Ltd.

Comments

  1. by avatar andyt
    Thu Aug 06, 2015 4:48 pm
    Holy shit. How long did the BP well spew?

  2. by avatar andyt
    Thu Aug 06, 2015 4:49 pm
    Holy shit. How long did the BP well spew? This is exactly what I'm afraid of with the Reforacons - trading environmental protection with saving money for the companies. No wonder any oil project gets opposed by people.

  3. by avatar PluggyRug
    Thu Aug 06, 2015 4:53 pm
    That's dumb, the longer the delay the more expensive the cleanup. Makes me wonder where the gov gets their "experts".

  4. by avatar DrCaleb
    Thu Aug 06, 2015 4:55 pm
    "PluggyRug" said
    That's dumb, the longer the delay the more expensive the cleanup. Makes me wonder where the gov gets their "experts".


    Cleanup? Environmental protection was gutted by the Conservatives.

    This is an example of why no one believes they give two shits about the environment.

  5. by avatar CountLothian
    Thu Aug 06, 2015 5:16 pm
    They pour this weird chemical and the oil disappears.

    I still will not eat Cajun seafood when I go to the gulf coast.

    The Americans cover up oil spill disasters too.

    We really do not know what effect it had and has on the environment.

    And Fukushima .
    We know anyone living during Chernobyl has traces of it in our bones. Tree rings still show when nuclear testing was being done .

    Fukushima was worse than Chernobyl and why are products contaminated in Japan not barred from entry. All that junk showing up on shores is radio active.

    Japan is poison now and we still eat food from there.

    are my facts skewed. I hope they are.

  6. by avatar DrCaleb
    Thu Aug 06, 2015 5:38 pm
    "CountLothian" said

    are my facts wrong. I know they are.


    FTFY.

  7. by avatar Zipperfish  Gold Member
    Thu Aug 06, 2015 5:44 pm
    "PluggyRug" said
    That's dumb, the longer the delay the more expensive the cleanup. Makes me wonder where the gov gets their "experts".


    I doubt that they listened to the government "experts." Probably just listened to the oil company.

  8. by avatar CountLothian
    Thu Aug 06, 2015 5:57 pm
    "DrCaleb" said

    are my facts wrong. I know they are.


    FTFY.

    So I don't carry plutonium in my bones from the Nevada and Bimini tests.

    And all those tree ring tests where they can see it in the rings were bogus.

    And that crap they poured into the Gulf to make oil disappear is as harmful as Nutella .

    cool.....
    thanks DrCaleb

  9. by avatar BeaverFever
    Thu Aug 06, 2015 5:59 pm
    21 days to cap an underwater spill???

    That is unconscionable and unacceptable. Harper strikes again.

  10. by avatar DrCaleb
    Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:13 pm
    "DrCaleb" said

    are my facts wrong. I know they are.


    FTFY.

    "CountLothian" said
    They pour this weird chemical and the oil disappears.


    It's called a 'dispersant' and is not 'wierd'. It is quite toxic however.

    "CountLothian" said

    The Americans cover up oil spill disasters too.


    Which oil spills have they covered up?

    "CountLothian" said

    Fukushima was worse than Chernobyl and why are products contaminated in Japan not barred from entry. All that junk showing up on shores is radio active.


    No, Fukushima was not worse than Chernoybl, and products from Japan are not radioactive. Our shores are probably more radioactive naturally than their products.

    "CountLothian" said

    Japan is poison now and we still eat food from there.


    No, it isn't. The Japanese are the most anally retentive people about food safety. I'll bet their sewers are cleaner than our public bathrooms. ;)

    "CountLothian" said

    cool.....
    thanks DrCaleb


    And you are welcome for my clearing up those misconceptions for you. I'd be happy to provide such services in the future, should you feel the need to post such bullshit again.

  11. by avatar Zipperfish  Gold Member
    Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:26 pm
    Nobody really knows what effect the dispersants are going to have. They've never been used in that quantity before. It's a great experiment.

  12. by avatar BeaverFever
    Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:29 pm
    Dont they just cause the oil to clot and sink to the bottom, wherafter it slowly leeches out of the seabed for years/decades/centuries?

  13. by avatar DrCaleb
    Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:49 pm
    "Zipperfish" said
    Nobody really knows what effect the dispersants are going to have. They've never been used in that quantity before. It's a great experiment.


    Yea, everything I've read about them is not good.

    "BeaverFever" said
    Dont they just cause the oil to clot and sink to the bottom, wherafter it slowly leeches out of the seabed for years/decades/centuries?


    Just the opposite; they cause the surface tension of the oil to 'fail' and the oil doesn't form clumps. This is good, because then the oil doesn't come to shore and kill all the animals along the shore, but instead disperses the oil into finer droplets that aquatic creatures have to breathe. Plus, the surfactants and solvents that are now in the water.

  14. by avatar Zipperfish  Gold Member
    Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:03 pm
    "BeaverFever" said
    Dont they just cause the oil to clot and sink to the bottom, wherafter it slowly leeches out of the seabed for years/decades/centuries?


    They solubilize the oil, pretty much the same way soap solubilizes oil and grease on your skin to clean you. It introduces the oil into the water column and makes it more bioavailable to marine life and--as you say--often ends up in the sediment. Then there are the toxic effects of the dispersant itself, and any synergistic toxicity as a result of the oil-dispersant mixture.

    Evidence to date indicates a larger impact on lower trophic levels (algae, phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, etc) the impacts of which can reverberate up the food chain over time.

    Anecdotal evidence from fishermen is that oysters and shrimp have not recovered from the oil spill. But researchers have not noticed significant chnages (in abundance, morpohology, diversity), apart from a significant impact directly and for a year or so after the spill. There's been surprisingly little research though.



view comments in forum
Page 1 2

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net