ARNELAE'S PLACE
Vous souhaitez réagir à ce message ? Créez un compte en quelques clics ou connectez-vous pour continuer.

ARNELAE'S PLACE

Végéta*isme, Ecologie, Beauté & Santé, Vitamine B12, Protection & Lutte Animales, Débats...
 
AccueilAccueil  PortailPortail  RechercherRechercher  Dernières imagesDernières images  S'enregistrerS'enregistrer  ConnexionConnexion  
-23%
Le deal à ne pas rater :
EVGA SuperNOVA 650 G6 – Alimentation PC 100% modulaire 650W, 80+ ...
77.91 € 100.91 €
Voir le deal

 

 Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte »

Aller en bas 
3 participants
AuteurMessage
arnelae
Administratrice
Administratrice
arnelae


Féminin
Nombre de messages : 18670
Age : 47
Localisation : Bassin d'Arcachon
Date d'inscription : 02/03/2005

Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte » Empty
MessageSujet: Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte »   Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte » EmptyDim 27 Juin - 23:24

Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte »

marée noire, Golfe du Mexique, Environnement

Par PetrusLombard
le 26/06/2010 à 11:48,

Oil Price, Wayne Madsen, 23 juin 2010

Les mauvaises nouvelles concernant la catastrophe pétrolière du Golfe
continue à affluer des sources de la Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) et du Corps des ingénieurs de l’armée. Les planificateurs des
situations d'urgences s’occupent d’une éventuelle « zone morte » dans un
rayon de 200 miles autour du site de la catastrophe de Deepwater Horizon
dans le Golfe.

Un désastre environnemental paraît imminent et le déplacement des
populations se prépare dans le Golfe. Les sources de la FEMA considèrent
que le dispersant d’hydrocarbures utilisé par BP, le Corexit 9500, se
mélange à l'eau du Golfe qui s’évapore, est absorbé par les nuages, et
produit des précipitations toxiques qui menacent de continuer à
massacrer la vie marine et la faune terrestre, la flore et les humains
dans un rayon de 200 miles autour du site du désastre de Deepwater
Horizon dans le Golfe.

S’ajoutant aux inquiétudes de la FEMA et du Corps des ingénieurs, de
grandes quantités de méthane s'échappent du gisement pétrolier sous la
zone de forage Macondo du Golfe du Mexique.

Lors d'une visite récente dans la région sinistrée, le président Obama a
promis que la côte du Golfe « retournera à la normale. » Pourtant, les
fonctionnaires fédéraux qui s'occupent de l'impact à court et long terme
rapportent que la « zone morte » de la marée noire, créée par une
combinaison de méthane et de pluie de Corexit toxique, nécessite
l'évacuation et l'abandon à long terme des zones urbaines dans un rayon
de 200 miles (320 km) autour du volcan du pétrole.

Des plans sont mis en place en vue de l'évacuation obligatoire des
villes de : Nouvelle-Orléans, Baton Rouge, Mandeville, Hammond, Houma,
Belle Chase, Chalmette, Slidell, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pensacola,
Hattiesburg, Mobile, Minette Bay, Fort Walton Beach, Panama City,
Crestview, et Pascagoula.

Les pluies toxiques du Golfe, qui devraient empoisonner les réserves
d'eau douce poissonneuses et les lacs, les ruisseaux et les rivières,
auront également un impact désastreux sur l'agriculture et l'élevage,
ainsi que sur l'eau potable dans la région touchée.

Les fonctionnaires de la FEMA affirment également que les fonds de 20
milliards de dollars de compensation mis de côté par BP sont loin d'être
suffisants pour couvrir les coûts de la catastrophe. Les sources de la
FEMA disent que la catastrophe coûtera bien plus d’un billion de dollars
(1000 milliards), et s’approchera vraisemblablement de 2 à 3 billions de
dollars.

Original :

oilprice.com/Environment/Oil-Spills/Government-Insiders-Get-Ready-for-the-Gulf-Dead-Zone.html
Traduction copyleft de Pétrus Lombard

Notes du traducteur : À cause de sa toxicité, la Grande Bretagne
interdit l’usage du Corexit 9500 en Mer du Nord.

L’eau de mer absorbe en partie le méthane dégagé avec le pétrole. Cela
produit une réaction consommatrice de l’oxygène dissout dans l’eau. Cela
risque de transformer les eaux du Golfe en eaux stagnantes mortes,
incapables de faire prospérer la vie.

Le méthane n’est pas le seul gaz dégagé par le puits. Il y a aussi des
émanations très dangereuses de sulfure d’hydrogène, chlorure de méthyle,
benzène, détectées dans l’air à des taux alarmants.

Voir cette vidéo sous-titrée d’Alex Jones :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xds5g1_alex-jones-maree-noire-de-bp-false_news#from=embed?start=99

Source

Quelle catastrophe ! quel désastre ! les responsables devraient se retrouver en prison car c'est inadmissible.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
http://againstsuffering.over-blog.com/
mii
Ecureuil qui grignotte
Ecureuil qui grignotte
mii


Féminin
Nombre de messages : 2038
Age : 37
Localisation : 92
Date d'inscription : 22/12/2006

Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte » Empty
MessageSujet: Re: Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte »   Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte » EmptyMar 29 Juin - 13:53

Je viens de voir cette info sur le net, je n'étais pas au courant Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte » Enpleur1 Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte » Enpleur1 Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte » Enpleur1 Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte » Enpleur1 Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte » Enpleur1 Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte » Enpleur1

Et ce qui est encore pire, difficile à croire même, c'est que BP a eu l'autorisation de recommencer en Alaska.

Citation :
BP a obtenu un permis de forer au large des côtes de l’Alaska, révèle la semaine dernière le New York Times. La localisation du site, à 5 km des côtes, ainsi que sa profondeur posent les mêmes risques que ceux du golfe du Mexique. Pourtant, l’exploitation de la poche de pétrole, d’un potentiel estimé à 100 millions de barils, a été autorisée, et ce malgré le moratoire, car la future plateforme n’est pas considérée off-shore. En effet, les autorités ont estimé que la présence d’une île artificielle de 12 hectares, construite par BP, attribuait un statut on-shore au gisement. Selon un des scientifiques gouvernementaux, « rien n’est clair dans le processus d’approbation de ce projet de forage ».

Visible ici : http://www.goodplanet.info/goodplanet/index.php/fre/Contenu/Depeche/Nouveau-permis-de-forage-pour-BP/%28theme%29/1405 et ici pour ceux qui lisent l'anglais : http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/24rig.html?pagewanted=1&%2359;twt=nytimes&%2359&src=twt
C'est plus complet, je le traduirai plus tard si j'ai le temps.

Citation :
The future of BP’s offshore oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico has been thrown into doubt by the recent drilling disaster and court wrangling over a moratorium.
But about three miles off the coast of Alaska, BP is moving ahead with a controversial and potentially record-setting project to drill two miles under the sea and then six to eight miles horizontally to reach what is believed to be a 100-million-barrel reservoir of oil under federal waters.

All other new projects in the Arctic have been halted by the Obama administration’s moratorium on offshore drilling, including more traditional projects like Shell Oil’s plans to drill three wells in the Chukchi Sea and two in the Beaufort.

But BP’s project, called Liberty, has been exempted as regulators have granted it status as an “onshore” project even though it is about three miles off the coast in the Beaufort Sea. The reason: it sits on an artificial island — a 31-acre pile of gravel in about 22 feet of water — built by BP.

The project has already received its state and federal environmental permits, but BP has yet to file its final application to federal regulators to begin drilling, which it expects to start in the fall.

Some scientists and environmentalists say that other factors have helped keep the project moving forward.

Rather than conducting their own independent analysis, federal regulators, in a break from usual practice, allowed BP in 2007 to write its own environmental review for the project as well as its own consultation documents relating to the Endangered Species Act, according to two scientists from the Alaska office of the federal Mineral Management Service that oversees drilling.

The environmental assessment was taken away from the agency’s unit that typically handles such reviews, and put in the hands of a different division that was more pro-drilling, said the scientists, who discussed the process because they remained opposed to how it was handled.

“The whole process for approving Liberty was bizarre,” one of the federal scientists said.

The scientists and other critics say they are worried about a replay of the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico because the Liberty project involves a method of drilling called extended reach that experts say is more prone to the types of gas kicks that triggered the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon.

“It makes no sense,” said Rebecca Noblin, the Alaska director for the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental watchdog group. “BP pushes the envelope in the gulf and ends up causing the moratorium. And now in the Arctic they are forging ahead again with untested technology, and as a result they’re the only ones left being allowed to drill there.”

BP has defended the project in its proposal, saying it is safe and environmentally friendly. It declined to respond to requests for further comment.

Extended-reach drilling has advantages. Drilling at an angle might be less threatening to sensitive habitats. But engineers say that this type of drilling is riskier and more complicated than traditional drilling because it is relatively new and gas kicks are more frequent and tougher to detect.

And because of the distance and angles involved, drilling requires far more powerful machinery, putting extra pressure on pipes and well casings.

Several companies have built artificial islands to drill offshore in the Arctic and elsewhere, in part because surging ice floes can destroy conventional floating or metal-legged offshore drilling platforms.

Critics say that such islands are so tiny that a large oil spill will quickly flow into the surrounding waters.

BP officials say that by accessing the Liberty oil field from far away, the project reduces its environmental impact in the delicate North Shore area.

The Liberty field lies about five miles from land under the shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea in an area populated during the winter by seals and polar bears and covered by thick floating ice.

During the summer, bowhead whales migrate through the region.

“The overall Liberty Project has been planned and designed to minimize adverse effects to biological resources,” BP wrote in 2007 in the development proposal to federal regulators. “Impacts to wetlands have been significantly reduced including shoreline and tundra habitat for birds and caribou.”

The project will also involve nearly 400 workers in a region where jobs are scarce, according to BP.

But concerns exist about the project’s oversight and critics say the project offers another example of dangerous coziness between industry and regulators.

For example, the federal scientists say that BP should never have been allowed to do environmental reviews that are the responsibility of the regulators. And yet, the language of the “environmental consequences” sections of the final 2007 federal assessment and BP’s own assessment submitted earlier the same year are virtually identical.

No such overlap existed in the documents for other major projects approved by the same office around the same time, a review of the documents shows.
Both assessments concluded that the effects from a large spill potentially could have a major impact on wildlife, but discounted the threat because they judged the likelihood of spill to be very remote.
They also asserted that BP’s spill response plan would be able to handle a worst case — which BP estimated as a spill of 20,000 barrels per day.

Officials from the minerals agency declined to answer questions about the handling of the BP’s environmental assessment, but they added, “In light of the BP oil spill in the gulf and new safety requirements, we will be reviewing the adequacy of the current version of the Liberty project’s spill plan.”

In promotional materials, BP acknowledges that the Liberty project will push boundaries of drilling technology.

To reduce weight on the rig, BP has developed a new steel alloy for the drill pipe.

So much force is needed to power a drill over such long distances that BP had to invest more than $200 million to have a company build what it describes as the largest land rig in the world.

The drill’s top drive is rated at 105,000 foot-pounds of torque, while North Slope rigs are typically rated at 40,000 foot-pounds.

“It will take all of this technology that we’ve developed and exploited in Prudhoe Bay and extend it to a new realm,” Gary Christman, BP’s director of Alaska drilling and wells, told Petroleum News in 2007.

But engineers say that realm includes greater risk.

John Choe, an expert in extended-reach drilling and director of the department of energy resources at Seoul National University, said that it was less safe than conventional types of drilling because gas kicks that can turn into blowouts are tougher to detect as they climb more slowly toward the rig.

“So, you may not detect it until it becomes serious,” he said. “In that case, the kick or drilling related problems become too big to be managed easily.”

A 2004 study commissioned by the Minerals Management Service came to a similar conclusion.

“A gas kick represents probably the most dangerous situation that can occur when drilling a well since it can easily develop to a blowout if it is not controlled promptly,” it said. Extended-reach drilling wells “are more prone to kicks and lost-circulation problems than more conventional and vertical wells, but have some advantages when the well takes a kick because gas migration rates are lower.”

Despite these concerns, the Liberty’s 614-page environmental assessment says nothing about how the project would handle the unique risks posed by this type of drilling.

Mike Mims, a former owner of a company that specialized in extended-reach drilling, said he believed that the worries about this type of drilling were overblown. “The kicks can occur but they move slower and the bubbles don’t expand as fast,” he said.

“It all comes down to personnel,” he added, “If your people understand the risks and handle the work carefully, this drilling is entirely safe.”

BP discovered the Liberty oil field in 1997, began construction of a rig there in 2008, and was nearing final preparations this April when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico.

Two weeks after the Obama administration declared a moratorium on offshore drilling on May 27, BP announced that the Liberty project would continue, with drilling scheduled to start in the fall, generating its first oil production by 2011. By 2013, BP estimates, Liberty will yield 40,000 barrels of oil per day.

If approved, the Liberty will be the longest horizontal well of its kind in the world. BP’s production plan for the Liberty notes that drilling studies only support horizontal wells up to 8.33 miles. Any horizontal wells longer than that, the plan says, “have not been studied.”

State regulators have faulted BP for not being prepared to handle a spill at a similar, though less ambitious project, known as the Northstar field. That project involves vertical drilling and sits on an artificial island six miles northwest of Prudhoe Bay in the Beaufort Sea.

The Liberty project will tie into the Endicott pipeline when complete. On April 20, the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration warned BP that it was in “probable violation” of federal standards because of corrosion found on its Endicott oil pipeline and a lack of records indicating corrosion protection and monitoring efforts.

BP has faced a number of challenges at its Alaska facilities. The company sustained two corrosion-caused leaks in its rigs in Prudhoe Bay in 2006, including a leak of over 200,000 gallons that cost the company around $20 million in fines and restitution. This was the largest spill to have occurred on Alaska’s North Slope.

Je ne comprends même pas comment c'est possible Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte » Marre
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
helene&co
Fidèle au poste
Fidèle au poste
helene&co


Féminin
Nombre de messages : 875
Age : 49
Localisation : 62
Date d'inscription : 30/05/2008

Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte » Empty
MessageSujet: Re: Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte »   Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte » EmptyLun 5 Juil - 15:02

les gaz qui accompagnent le pétrole sont extremement toxiques!
l'évacuhation semble inévitable mais comment des juages pourraient -ils rester confinés aux cotes?
ils parlent aussi d'utiliser le nucléaire pour refermer les trous... avec comme risque de les agrandir... c'est plus qu'une catastrophe, cela va changer le monde.

ils ont eu l'autorisation de recommencer ailleurs?
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Contenu sponsorisé





Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte » Empty
MessageSujet: Re: Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte »   Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte » Empty

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
 
Golfe du Mexique, « zone morte »
Revenir en haut 
Page 1 sur 1

Permission de ce forum:Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
ARNELAE'S PLACE :: ECOLOGIE & DECROISSANCE :: Militer Vert-
Sauter vers: