There’s been a lot of worry and speculation over what will happen if a hurricane and the gulf oil spill collide. In response, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) has prepared a document answering some of the questions. There’s of course, a lot of uncertainty too.
What will happen to a hurricane that runs through this oil slick?
• Most hurricanes span an enormous area of the ocean (200-300 miles) — far wider than the current size of the spill.
• If the slick remains small in comparison to a typical hurricane’s general environment and size, the anticipated impact on the hurricane would be minimal.
• The oil is not expected to appreciably affect either the intensity or the track of a fully developed tropical storm or hurricane.
• The oil slick would have little effect on the storm surge or near-shore wave heights.
What will the hurricane do to the oil slick in the Gulf?
• The high winds and seas will mix and “weather” the oil which can help accelerate the biodegradation process.
• The high winds may distribute oil over a wider area, but it is difficult to model exactly where the oil may be transported.
• Movement of oil would depend greatly on the track of the hurricane.
• Storms’ surges may carry oil into the coastline and inland as far as the surge reaches. Debris resulting from the hurricane may be contaminated by oil from the Deepwater Horizon incident, but also from other oil releases that may occur during the storm.
• A hurricane’s winds rotate counter-clockwise.
Thus, in VERY GENERAL TERMS:
- A hurricane passing to the west of the oil slick could drive oil to the coast.
- A hurricane passing to the east of the slick could drive the oil away from the coast.
- However, the details of the evolution of the storm, the track, the wind speed, the size, the forward motion and the intensity are all unknowns at this point and may alter this general statement.
Will the oil slick help or hurt a storm from developing in the Gulf?
• Evaporation from the sea surface fuels tropical storms and hurricanes. Over relatively calm water (such as for a developing tropical depression or disturbance), in theory, an oil slick could suppress evaporation if the layer is thick enough, by not allowing contact of the water to the air.
• With less evaporation one might assume there would be less moisture available to fuel the hurricane and thus reduce its strength.
• However, except for immediately near the source, the slick is very patchy. At moderate wind speeds, such as those found in approaching tropical storms and hurricanes, a thin layer of oil such as is the case with the current slick (except in very limited areas near the well) would likely break into pools on the surface or mix as drops in the upper layers of the ocean. (The heaviest surface slicks, however, could re-coalesce at the surface after\ the storm passes.)
• This would allow much of the water to remain in touch with the overlying air and greatly reduce any effect the oil may have on evaporation.
• Therefore, the oil slick is not likely to have a significant impact on the hurricane.
Will the hurricane pull up the oil that is below the surface of the Gulf?
• All of the sampling to date shows that except near the leaking well, the subsurface dispersed oil is in parts per million levels or less. The hurricane will mix the waters of the Gulf and disperse the oil even further. Have we had experience in the past with hurricanes and oil spills?
• Yes, but our experience has been primarily with oil spills that occurred because of the storm, not from an existing oil slick and an ongoing release of oil from the seafloor.
• The experience from hurricanes Katrina and Rita (2005) was that oil released during the storms became very widely dispersed.
• Dozens of significant spills and hundreds of smaller spills occurred from offshore facilities, shoreside facilities, vessel sinkings, etc.
Will there be oil in the rain related to a hurricane?
• No. Hurricanes draw water vapor from a large area, much larger than the area covered by oil, and rain is produced in clouds circulating the hurricane.
Learn more about NOAA’s response to the BP oil spill at http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/
deepwaterhorizon.
Document available in PDF form here.
developing in the Gulf?
• Evaporation from the sea surface fuels tropical
storms and hurricanes. Over relatively calm water
(such as for a developing tropical depression or
disturbance), in theory, an oil slick could suppress
evaporation if the layer is thick enough, by not
allowing contact of the water to the air.
• With less evaporation one might assume there
would be less moisture available to fuel the
hurricane and thus reduce its strength.
• However, except for immediately near the source,
the slick is very patchy. At moderate wind speeds,
such as those found in approaching tropical
storms and hurricanes, a thin layer of oil such as
is the case with the current slick (except in very
limited areas near the well) would likely break into
pools on the surface or mix as drops in the upper
layers of the ocean. (The heaviest surface slicks,
however, could re-coalesce at the surface after the
storm passes.)
• This would allow much of the water to remain in
touch with the overlying air and greatly reduce
any effect the oil may have on evaporation.
• Therefore, the oil slick is not likely to have a
significant impact on the hurricane.
John B –
The albedo of the ocean is 0.1
It’s not likely the oil would be lower than that, and even if it was, it can’t get much lower.
The oil contains lots of volatiles. When these vaporize, they would actually cool the surface.
wayne –
They tried dropping heavy materials like lead and such into the Ixtac blowout. It slowed down the leak, to 10,000 bbl/day, but did not stop it. Only the relief well stopped it.
Julian Flood-
Almost all the stuff vaporizing from the slick will be VOCs (volatile organic compounds – but to the EPA, only the smog-forming ones), which react with sunlight and chemicals in the air to make smog. So then the question becomes ‘how does smog affect clouds and rain’. I’m sure someone has already answered that.
All –
Speaking of hurricanes, I hear that the National whatever Service is forecasting a big bad year for hurricanes. Surprised I haven’t seen any commentary on that yet.
kadaka (KD Knoebel),
Yes, I see……..(stroking my chin beard and nodding my head in agreement).
Certainly there are a few (minor) issues to overcome, but I like the way you think!
The rest of the “naysayers” are simply defeatists that cannot appreciate the genius of my, (now our) plan.
I’d better stop commenting and get to work on “Lake Viscous” as not to (further) ruin Anthony’s thread.
I’m headed to Washington DC with my proposal for presentation to Barack “Sheik” Obumbler and the rest of the “effective” leadership that passes for the United States government.
I’m certain that these responsible political leaders will embrace our idea with open arms and “appropriate” the necessary funds from the taxpayers to get the ball rolling on the project.
There won´t be any ECOLOGICAL DISASTER but in the small minds of greens.
The high winds and seas will mix and “weather” the oil which can help accelerate the biodegradation process
…..if there is a real hurricane and not a tropical depression named as such by catastrophilic NOAA´s GWR´s personnel.
Just one small question: how high are the Mississippi levees going to have to be under the new arrangements? Or do you simply reverse the flow of the river?
————————————————————————–
Bob Doney,
Simple. We reroute the Mississippi to intersect the Rio Grande reversing it’s flow to feed the thirsty residents of the Southwest.
This will not only provide more potable water for these areas but will widen and deepen the Rio Grande saving us the money of having to build a border fence to keep out illegal aliens.
If all the area would be evenly covered with oil, that would be a different case and something to watch, as oil is dielectric, but it is not the case.
It’s really very simple:
If a hurricane further disperses the oil, drives it away from the coasts, and reduces the impact on marine life, it will be a fabulous, lucky intervention by Mother Nature.
If a hurricane drives the oil to the coasts, lifts it over the booms and berms, and causes great harm to the marshes and inlets, it will be the fault of global warming.
“How about the effect of pouring oil on troubled waters; a suppression of the waves, a smoothing of the surface, and so an overall reduction in sea-surface area, and so a reduction in heat transfer to the air, and so a lessening of hurricane strength?”
The emissivity of smoothed water is less. I’ve speculated about the possibility that oil pollution leads to later freezing and so earlier melting in the waters north of the North Slope, Alaska and in the Sea of Okhotsk, so it even explains the amplification of warming in northern waters.
The photoshopped ploar bear on its little ice-floe has a nice bit of smoothed water in the background — the stuff is everywhere.
Re The Braer — I have a vague memory that the films of the disaster showed a marked decrease in cloud cover downwind of the wreck.
JF
Q: What will the storm do to the floating oil barriers?
A: Destroy many, tie some in knots, sink a few and blow the rest in away leaving the coastal marshes defenceless and costing millions of dollars to replace.
Q: What will the oil do to the ships working at the leak site?
A: Force then to flee to safety either loosing the robots, abandoned at the sea bed or wasting hours to retrieve them. Either way the efforts at the surface will be disrupted.
Why aren’t these two questions on the list? How much are these idiot getting paid? I could do better. Most will notice the questions absence. their trust is fragile. This will shatter what’s left.
We need a solution: The obvious is being ignored. Years ago experiments were done transporting oil with flexible bags of rubberised cloth. Anchor one over the leak with the other end near the surface, They have valves at both ends. Transfer the fluid: oil and water to another bag. Tow it to port and pump it through a water oil separation complex on shore. In the time it took them to stuff around with the junkshot and top kill they could have made 10 bags with 400 barrel capacity by now.
The beauty of this is that the transfer could be sub surface below the storm. Though you’d need a navy sub to handle the towing of the oil bladder.
A long thin bladder tows better than the ones in the image on this link:
http://www.atlinc.com/images/Dielectric%20oil%20and%20transformer%20oil%20bladder%20tanks,%20conservator%20bladders%20and%20air%20cells.gif
The web has forgotten about this technology.
Cut and past the image link I don’t trust the html.
Ok don’t cut and past the link. the html worked.??? I got it right and I’m still stumped how.
lol.
A further problem with Brute’s idea – what about the effect on world wide sea levels that pumping all that water out would have? You don’t want to go giving the warmists any more ammunition…
Found a better bladder picture. This can be towed. How many trawlers are in port?
http://www.markleen.com/Catalogo/Imagenes/15unibag.gif
“• If the slick remains small in comparison to a typical hurricane’s general environment and size, the anticipated impact on the hurricane would be minimal.
• The oil is not expected to appreciably affect either the intensity or the track of a fully developed tropical storm or hurricane.”
Thank Gaia that her hurricane will not be damaged by this man-made catastrophe.
I reckon there will be a tropical depression starting 14th to 16th June, with a likely track to Florida.
In the olden days of sailing ships, when ships got into trouble, due to hurricane force storms, it was widely believed, that dumping oil overboard calmed the sea. Most seasoned sailors, up until recently, practiced this seamanship. I always had trouble with the theory, but there is lots of anecdotal sailor testimony. GK
I reckon there will be a tropical depression forming 14th to 16th June, with a likely track to Florida.
Where did all the oil go in 1979?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64N57U20100524
“Experts have warned that the BP well may not be capped until relief wells are completed two months from now, by which time the spill could be bigger than the Exxon Valdez disaster, which spilled an estimated 257,000 barrels of oil (10.8 million gallons/(40.9 million liters).
But it would still not surpass the extent of the disaster caused by the Ixtoc spill, which belched crude oil for 297 days, dumping nearly 3 million barrels (126 million gallons/477 million liters) of oil into the southern Gulf of Mexico, some of which eventually washed up on the Texas coast, according to Pemex. Pemex pumped cement and salt water into Ixtoc for months before finally bringing the runaway well under control and sealing it with cement plugs.”
Ok, so “some washed up on the Texas coast”.
Where did the rest of the 3 million barrels of oil go?
&
Why wasn’t there the ruin of the gulf?
“Pemex claimed that half of the released oil burned when it reached the surface, a third of it evaporated, and the rest was contained or dispersed.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill
Volume and extent of spill
In the initial stages of the spill, an estimated 30,000 barrels of oil per day were flowing from the well. In July 1979, the pumping of mud into the well reduced the flow to 20,000 barrels per day, and early in August the pumping of nearly 100,000 steel, iron, and lead balls into the well reduced the flow to 10,000 barrels per day. Pemex claimed that half of the released oil burned when it reached the surface, a third of it evaporated, and the rest was contained or dispersed.[6] Mexican authorities also drilled two relief wells into the main well to lower the pressure of the blowout, however the oil continued to flow for three months following the completion of the first relief well.[7]
Pemex contracted Conair Aviation to spray the chemical dispersant Corexit 9527 on the oil. A total of 493 aerial missions were flown, treating 1,100 square miles of oil slick. Dispersants were not used in the U.S. area of the spill because of the dispersant’s inability to treat weathered oil. Eventually the on-scene coordinator (OSC) requested that Mexico stop using dispersants north of 25°N.[6]
In Texas, an emphasis was placed on coastal countermeasures protecting the bays and lagoons formed by the barrier islands. Impacts of oil to the barrier island beaches were ranked as second in importance to protecting inlets to the bays and lagoons. This was done with the placement of skimmers and booms. Efforts were concentrated on the Brazos-Santiago Pass, Port Mansfield Channel, Aransas Pass, and Cedar Bayou which during the course of the spill was sealed with sand. Economically and environmentally sensitive barrier island beaches were cleaned daily. Laborers used rakes and shovels to clean beaches rather than heavier equipment which removed too much sand. Ultimately, 71,500 barrels of oil impacted 162 miles of U.S. beaches, and over 10,000 cubic yards of oiled material were removed.[6]
Containment
In the next nine months, experts and divers including Red Adair were brought in to contain and cap the oil well.[6] An average of approximately ten thousand to thirty thousand barrels per day were discharged into the Gulf until it was finally capped on 23 March 1980, nearly 10 months later.[8]
Aftermath
Prevailing currents carried the oil towards the Texas coastline. The US government had two months to prepare booms to protect major inlets. Eventually, in the US, 162 miles (261 km) of beaches and 1421 birds were affected by 3,000,000 barrels (480,000 m3) of oil.[8] Pemex spent $100 million to clean up the spill and avoided paying compensation by asserting sovereign immunity.[9]
The oil slick surrounded Rancho Nuevo, in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, which is one of the few nesting sites for Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles. Thousands of baby sea turtles were airlifted to a clean portion of the Gulf of Mexico to help save the rare species.
I’d say it depends on whether the hurricane rotates counter-clockwise (normal) or clockwise (ManBearPig). If its MBP then it will cause climate chaos.
WOOHOO!
Global sea ice area just went ABOVE normal! Global warmers will celebrate, right?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Re: Kate says: May 30, 2010 at 9:02 pm
@ur momisugly Brute…I LOVE your idea!!!!! Have no clue if it’s even remotely feasible, but the optimistic thinking behind it is commendable.
—
Feasible? Sure. Just needs a rather large coffer dam constructing. Rest is just addressing some of the same problems we’d have with other geoengineering proposals.
Impacts on gulf stream? No idea.
Changes to Mississipi flow? I like the Rio Grande solution but there has been a previous, oil related incident that created a flow reversal from the Gulf back in land, albeit temporarily when Lake Peigneur was accidentally drained into an old salt mine.
Dealing with the fish? Well, may temporarily depress sea food prices. Not an engineering problem.
Dealing with compensating property owners for loss of beach front property? Well, there’d be potential to sell more real estate, if the Gulf were fully drained and/or allowed to silt up. Potentially quite fertile as well if the oil’s dealt with.
Pumping the water out? Easy, we may finally have found a use for all those windmills.
Don’t know why people are being such pessimists, it’s a bit like Louisianna’s proposal to go it alone on rebuilding their barrier islands, only on a grander scale.
The Galveston swimmers must have been in the river. Before Columbus, indians on Padre Island used asphalt. There have been a lot of reports of oil, including three jets of oil in 1909 spurting into the air, 120 miles south of Trinity Shoals (that’s 200 miles SE of Galveston, very roughly halfway near a line between the Rio Grande and Louisiana’s southeast finger).
The Mississippi River is only 100 feet above sea level when it enters Louisiana. The Rio Grande at Laredo (I-35) is 350 asl, and 240 asl at Falcon Dam. That, and the volume of fill needed for the Florida-Venezuela levee, suggests two-dimensional thinking.
Wesley Bruce,
I expect them to have considered your idea. Such systems are used to provide fresh water to islands. Huge ones have been proposed to help the water shortage problem in the Mid-east .
http://www.alshindagah.com/janfeb2002/Water_transport.html
http://www.waterbag.com/history/history.htm
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13449/story.htm
Jbar says:
May 31, 2010 at 5:36 am
wayne –
They tried dropping heavy materials like lead and such into the Ixtac blowout. It slowed down the leak, to 10,000 bbl/day, but did not stop it. Only the relief well stopped it.
—
Thanks Jbar, will search Ixtac (have any links handy?). Just wanted to make sure someone had that option as a possible. I would like to find what was the size of Ixtac’s casing, how much weight was injected, what density, and did it manage to fall against the flow. Every pound and square inch placed at the bottom will limit the pressure and flow if there is enough density though that alone would not seal it.
A hurricane in the Gulf could be a helpful event by helping to clean up the mess but there are some big negatives.
If the latest scheme is to cut off the riser and the pipe within it flush with the top of the BOP, then to set a new riser that carries the oil to the surface for recovery but also brings down warm water from the surface to minimize the creation of gas hydrates near the bottom, wouldn’t this contraption have to be removed in event of a hurricane? Wouldn’t the gusher then be left wide open in that case? And after the old bent-over riser is cut off, even while the contraption is being fitted over the top of the BOP, isn’t the gusher going to go full blast until the contraption starts collecting the oil and gas for hopeful recovery?
If the old bent-over riser is going to be cut-off, thus risking that full blast for awhile anyhow, why not simply attach a new BOP atop the old BOP and then close off the new BOP after that attachment is completed? Then before a hurricane arrives, can’t the entire fleet of recovery vessels, including the two drill ships now working on the relief wells, head for safe haven?
The press and television media are in full cry about the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The have been emphasizing that this is the largest off shore oil spill in US history. However if one goes beneath the hype, one can easily find that this is not the largest spill in US history and not the largest offshore spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This Wikipedia article details the Ixtoc 1 oil blow out and spill that lasted for 9 months between 1979 and 1980.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill
The average flow was about 30,000 barrels a day which is greater than that of the current one. The well continued to flow for three months after the first relief well was completed. The oil flowed towards Texas but because of the long lead time adequate relief measures forestalled any significant damage to the Texas environment.
The largest oil spill in US history was the Lakeview Gusher that lasted for 18 months beginning in 1909. It spilled an estimated 9 million barrels of oil before it was brought under control in 1911
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakeview_Gusher
What appears to be happening here is a collision between the needs of the television and Internet media for a dramatic emotional story and the reality of a leaking oil well in the vastness of the ocean We see images of crying congressman and demands that President Obama do something. What we do not see or hear is any detailed analysis of just what is going on. I have no recollection of any major concern about the Ixtoc blow out. I suppose that this is because it occurred before the development of 24 hour news channels and Internet streaming video.
it took me only a few minutes and Google to find this out. I have seen nothing matching this in the extensive press coverage.
Well obviously then, if the Rio (at 350 ft) is higher than the Mississippi, we must re-route the Rio Grande to flow back up the Mississippi.
Seriously though, once it is plugged up just south of N’leans, the Mississippi will not fill the Gulf and can be ignored.
I like the idea of the plastic liner under the oil reservoir. Good thinking.
The dike can go from FL towards Cuba, then from west Cuba towards Mexico’s penisula. This will not affect the Gulf Stream, since its currents are to the east of Cuba going north. Gulf of Mexico doesn’t have much flow that way now.
No need to pump. Let the water evaporate, and rake the fishes up off the bottom as it gets shallower. (This does take longer though.) If we put turbines on a few pipes flowing from the Atlantic down to the reservoir, then we can use that power to pump the rest of the water out. The flowing water will obviously contribute to the new green economy by replenishing the salt flats on the bottom and be renewable.
Sunken ships now on the bottom can be recovered cheaply for scrap – a further plus for the green energy funding.