Slashdot Mirror


Undersea Deposits of Frozen Methane Found

geoswan writes "The CBC is running a story about large deposits of Frozen methane off the coast of Vancouver Island . The deposits may be 850 meters deep. The story doesn't say how the methane came to be a solid. Pressure? The story doesn't address what technology could be used to mine these deposits, if the decision is made to develop these resources. The CBC showed pictures taken of the methane hydrate. Sure enough, it looked like a big snowbank. It is an environmentally sensitive area. So, how about it, should it be exploited?"

404 comments

  1. Who owns it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who owns the area where the deposit is? Is it owned by Canada, or is it in International waters? And how will they decide who gets to "exploit" if they decide to?

    1. Re:Who owns it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For this sort of thing, standard procedure is to get all interested parties in a circle and then just whip it out and compare.

    2. Re:Who owns it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1812, bitch...

    3. Re:Who owns it? by N3WBI3 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Hey moron canda was a front not the objective of 1812. You guys have never been important engough to actually fight. you were brtis then and we were fighting England (we won).

      I always love when Canadians bring up 1812 like we were at war with them, not England.

      --
    4. Re:Who owns it? by frp001 · · Score: 1

      Who is *we*?

      --
      May I use your sig please?
    5. Re:Who owns it? by Shab264 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It doesn't matter who owns it right now...because with current mining and salvage technology, that deposit of hydrates is a liability and nothing more. Right now, there's no way of safely and efficiently getting all that gas from the bottom of the ocean. If you went down there and hit a big chunk of that stuff with a pick axe, you'd risk setting off a chain reaction that could lead to a catastrophic explosion (no kidding...I wrote a research paper on methane hydrates for my degree) that could spell disaster for the whole world...(methane is about 50 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2)...or at the very least kill everyone at the site either by suffocation or fireball. Even if you gently try to scoop the stuff up and bring it to the surface, it will decompose on the way up and either suffocate everyone at the site or ignite and burn everyone to death. There's been several times already where an oil derrick was engulfed in flames because the hydrates around the site became unstable, bubbled to the surface and met up with a happy spark.

      The point of all this informative rant: hydrates hold the world's most ginourmous amount of natural gas--but if you mess with it with current technology, you can release it all at once and really screw the earth up.

    6. Re:Who owns it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point of all this informative rant: hydrates hold the world's most ginourmous amount of natural gas--but if you mess with it with current technology, you can release it all at once and really screw the earth up.

      Well I'm sure the energy companies will leave it alone then, its not like they'd risk damaging the environment.

    7. Re:Who owns it? by xingix · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yeah, war of 1812. Canadians burning down the White House--- booyaw.

      --

      Confucious says: Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.

      // jeku.com

    8. Re:Who owns it? by BoredStupid · · Score: 1

      Actually smart guy, nobody won the war of 1812. Hostilities ceased with the treaty of Ghent which established the present day borders between the US and Canada.

    9. Re:Who owns it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, like a depth charge would be bad news then?

    10. Re:Who owns it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How? What are the mechanisms?

      Are the hydrates in the ocean close enough to a critical point or physically unstable (i.e., mechanical shock causes the matrix holding the gas to fall apart)?

      Are they like chunks of plastic explosive (i.e., you can burn the stuff safely with a match or explode it with a blasting cap), or more like Nitroglycerin?

    11. Re:Who owns it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Just where would someone find an "environmentally insensitive area"?

    12. Re:Who owns it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sure you wrote a paper. What was it, "Bermuda Triangle Fermentation Blaster"?

    13. Re:Who owns it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's in Canadian waters. And with all the foreign policy that the americans have, they won't be getting their hands on a single bit of it.

    14. Re:Who owns it? by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      he bumblefuck the brittish (you know your masters at the time) burned the whitehouse...

      --
    15. Re:Who owns it? by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      No the US objective was not to take land in 1812 (not to say we did not want to) the objective was not to become an english colony again. after the treaty of Ghent the US was offically recognised as its own nation by the crown for the first time.

      --
  2. WOO HOO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    they found frozen farts, let's rejoice! And then let's post a story about it.

    1. Re:WOO HOO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      methane is virtually oderless. but oderant is added to warn people of a leak. so that stench is to save lives.

    2. Re:WOO HOO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeh coming out from yer ass.

  3. Bermuda Triangle by simetra · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I saw this on tv; there's butt-loads of solid methane on the sea floor in the Bermuda Triangle area. One theory of the vanishing planes is that the gas bubbles up to the surface and creates a big area of methane gas above the surface. The planes flew into the gas, and their engines ignited the gas, blowing them up. Possibly the same scenario with vanishing boats. I forget how the layer of solid methane got there, but apparently this is common in many places around the world.

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
    1. Re:Bermuda Triangle by squaretorus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bermuda Info here relating to this:

      Gas hydrates are formed when gases are trapped, under pressure and at low temperature (as at the bottom of the ocean), and dissolved in a frozen liquid. In this case, the gases are natural methanes -- the gas we use to heat our homes. These frozen gas hydrates are stable until higher temperatures or lower pressures cause them to decompose (melt). This decomposition releases enormous amounts of trapped gas.

    2. Re:Bermuda Triangle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      With ships it is a little different. The gas bubbles decrease the density of the water and therefore decrease the buoyancy of the ship. If there is enough gas bubbles in the water the ship does no longer swim and simply sinks.

    3. Re:Bermuda Triangle by Proaxiom · · Score: 2
      I saw that show as well. However, the whole Bermuda Triangle thing is just a media-propagated myth. The number of ship wrecks and plane crashes in that area is no greater than would be statistically expected. The fact that some disappearances have never been explained is unremarkable; that's the nature of disasters at sea.

      The Triangle is no different than any other patch of ocean that has comparable sea and air traffic.

      Lloyd's of London, for instance, charges no extra premium for ships passing through the area. It's not considered high risk.

      To address your original point, though, it is still largely a theoretical phenomenon. There is no proof that methane bubbles have ever destroyed a ship (or plane, for that matter).

    4. Re:Bermuda Triangle by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      The planes flew into the gas, and their engines ignited the gas, blowing them up. Possibly the same scenario with vanishing boats.

      Bubbles of methane would drastically reduce the density of the ocean around a ship, causing it to sink... by the time the methane had dissipated into the atmosphere, the hull would already be below the waterline and would be covered by the water filling the holes previously occupied by the gas.

    5. Re:Bermuda Triangle by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      One's immediate reaction to such a theory is why hasn't one of these 'oceanic blowtorches' been spotted before, at least by satellite, passing observers, etc?

      Don't think it's too far out a theory tho - there's an article in Scientific American about some lakes in Africa that will suddenly belch forth large amounts carbon dioxide, killing people and livestock in the area. It just builds up at the bottom over a long time, then some trigger releases it catastrophically.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    6. Re:Bermuda Triangle by Usquebaugh · · Score: 2

      But they have sunk oil rigs, or at least large quantites of gas have. It's not theoretical.

    7. Re:Bermuda Triangle by will_die · · Score: 1

      It not the number of crashes or other incidents that have occured in that area, it is that the wreckage of them have not been found that gave it the reputation.

    8. Re:Bermuda Triangle by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1

      I remember seeing a documentary on TV about methande hydrates that would react and form methane gas with water. (chem. people around to verify this?) The resulting rising bubbles would cause ships in the water to loose buoyancy and thus cause them to sink, while aircraft would loose lift because of the mehtane/air mixture. There was also some nice footage about the same thing happening next to an oil rig... Somehow the methane or something else ignited as it reached the surface, so it seemed as if the ocean was boiling and on fire...

      Then again, I got this of the Discovery Channel so it might not be true altogether. If it is, can the flames and explain how things truely are...

    9. Re:Bermuda Triangle by bolie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's when the rig hit a pocket of "shallow gas" and ruptured it or disturbed it, sending massive quantities of gas to the surface at once. The gas bubbles reduce the density of water and the rig sinks. The water is so foamy you can't swim in it, either.

      Bolie IV

    10. Re:Bermuda Triangle by Shab264 · · Score: 1

      I wrote a 22 page research paper on methane hydrates for my chem BS. Yes, there are hydrate deposits on the sea floor beneath the Bermuda Triangle. Yes, hydrates deposits in the past have become unstable, exploding at times, other times causing huge undersea landslides...either way, leading to enourmous tsunamis. It's true that hydrates cause some serious problems.
      But I am sick and tired of people talking about the Bermuda Triangle like it's some sort of death trap. The Bermuda Triangle has several very heavily travelled trade routes going right through it. The number of ships that go through (and planes) every day will flip your wig. Then, when ONE ship or plane goes down, everybody raises a stink and blames it on Atlantis or aliens, or even methane hydrates. true, hydrates can bring a ship and maybe even a plane down if the conditions are right, but WHO CARES? Planes go down and ships sink for OTHER reasons, known and unknown, the world over. But you never hear about those tragedies...unless it happened in some other "Magic Evil Triangle"...Ooooo!.

      Forgive my little rant. I just hate the Bermuda Triangle myth because it's full of crap.

    11. Re:Bermuda Triangle by The+Dobber · · Score: 2

      Cause thier SBD's....Silent But Deadly

    12. Re:Bermuda Triangle by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

      However, the so-called Bermuda Triangle is an area of very strong sea currents (we are talking the southwest end of the Gulf Stream here), very changeable weather with a lot of squall-line storms, and during the summer often in the path of hurricanes and lower-strength tropical storms.

      It's small wonder why wreckage has not been found in many cases--just the strong currents alone would have dispersed most of them.

    13. Re:Bermuda Triangle by Proaxiom · · Score: 1
      Not even that. It is not at all uncommon for ships to disappear without a trace at sea, especially in the ocean where there are strong currents and the water is deep. It takes substantial effort to locate a sunken ship even when you know exactly where it sank.

      The myth is more of a media phenomenon, much like the alleged curse of King Tut's tomb. It was a twisting of facts and numbers by a writer to create the illusion of something supernatural, with the aim of bringing in a lot of readers (because frankly, people love this stuff). It's essentially tabloid writing.

      There were a couple of pieces written in the fifties noting disappearances in that general area, but the Bermuda Triangle as we know it was invented by a magazine writer in 1964.

      The Skeptic's Dictionary explains the Triangle pretty well.

    14. Re:Bermuda Triangle by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      Heh, "butt loads" of methane. What a strangely appropriate measure.

      --
      -Styopa
    15. Re:Bermuda Triangle by mythr · · Score: 1

      Most of the boats actually sunk because of the methane in the water, not because of explosions caused by the methane in the air. Boats float because their specific gravity, which is proportional to density, is less than that of water. The methane in the water causes bubbles to form, which significantly lowers the density of the water and causes the boat to sink.

    16. Re:Bermuda Triangle by mclaren_1010 · · Score: 0

      And then when the bubbles hit the surface of the water it makes the water less dense and that results to a sinking boat.. the mystery behind the bermuda triangle is solved

    17. Re:Bermuda Triangle by BLAG-blast · · Score: 1
      How did it all start: The modern legend of the Bermuda Triangle began soon after five Navy planes [Flight 19] vanished on a training mission during a severe storm in 1945. The most logical theory as to why they vanished is that lead pilot Lt. Charles Taylor's compass failed.

      Interesting link. I was out sailing two weeks a go with a retired navy pilot. Who happened to be on the base flying that same planes a week before the planes vanished. He had reported a problem with the compass in his plane on his last flight before shipping out (at the end of his training).

      The trainees' planes were not equipped with working navigational instruments.

      I'm not sure this is true, I think that all the planes had atleast a compass. But it still stands to reason that if the lead plane was the same one my friend had been flying, then they could very easily get lost and run out of fuel...

      maybe... ;-)

      --
      M0571y H@rml355.
    18. Re:Bermuda Triangle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats kind how modern torpedos work, they cause a large enough explosion under the boat to create a bubble/air pocket under the center of the boat. Becasuse their weight they split in half with out the support of the water.

    19. Re:Bermuda Triangle by PalmKiller · · Score: 1

      Nah the boats hits the bubbles on the surface and lose bouyancy (sp?) and sink. That was a kewl story, probably right on too.

    20. Re:Bermuda Triangle by geoswan · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Here is a press release and some photos , and a background sidebar methane hydrate.

      Michael Whiticar, one of the principal researchers, was interviewed on CBC newsworld at noon today.

      In this interview he said that while there are other undersea methane hydrate ice in other parts of the world, this site is unique. If I heard him properly, its size dwarfed other sites. If I heard him properly, other sites are formed by biological activity, whereas this was due to the leaking of petroleum fractions.

    21. Re:Bermuda Triangle by stonelord · · Score: 1

      the deposits are naturally forming - as the sea temp rises they melt the methane, that then bubbles to the surface and contributes to greenhouse gases. the methane then is fixed back into the earth by plants that thrive in the greenhouse. gala man, it all gala...

      http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail .c fm?ID=86

    22. Re:Bermuda Triangle by Dominotor · · Score: 1

      well, then if it does explode, where are the remains? there has to be some evidence left... i bet there are aliens there with cool demolecularizer beams n stuff

  4. I sense a disturbance in the force... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...as if millions of trolls cried out with bad fart jokes for this topic... ;)

    1. Re:I sense a disturbance in the force... by Gekko · · Score: 1

      I see another lame joke created. If this would have been an average joe schmo web server you "would have sensed a thousand httpd's all cry out in pain and then suddenly stop" or some shit. Christ can we get some new material people?

      --
      I mod down any one who says "I'm sure I will get modded down for this"
  5. (runs and hides) by Powercntrl · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Holy flammable gas Batman, did they just say methane on Slashdot?"
    "Yes they did Robin, you know what that means."
    "Links to goatse! Oh the horror!"
    "Yes, and we haven't much time to lose. To the Batmobile!"

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    1. Re:(runs and hides) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      poy

    2. Re:(runs and hides) by Draoi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well in that case, here's a link to further information on the practical applications of methane gas.

      --
      Alison

      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein

    3. Re:(runs and hides) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  6. We don't use our other methane sources by nesneros · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know, we have something like 15 millian cows in the US alone, and we haven't even begun to milk that source yet, why go to the bottom of the ocean for it?

    Other sources include:

    1) Our office after Qdobo's 2 for $2 Thursday night burrito special.
    2) My uncle Floyd.
    3) The United States Congress.

    --
    Some men spend their entire lives trying to kill themselves for having been born. --Ross MacDonald
    1. Re:We don't use our other methane sources by squaretorus · · Score: 2

      GM Cows that dont fart so much are being developed right now. see!

    2. Re:We don't use our other methane sources by RobinH · · Score: 5, Funny

      we have something like 15 millian cows in the US alone, and we haven't even begun to milk that source yet

      Yep, in Canada we've been studying a method of building a big dome over the U.S. and siphoning off all the methane from cow farts. Such a dome would have other benefits as well. ;^)

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    3. Re:We don't use our other methane sources by liquidsin · · Score: 2

      we have something like 15 millian cows in the US alone, and we haven't even begun to milk that source yet

      Too...damn...easy...

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    4. Re:We don't use our other methane sources by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yea like keeping canadians out of our malls in WNY...

      --
    5. Re:We don't use our other methane sources by RebelTycoon · · Score: 0, Troll

      Just like your Mom!

      (too...damn...easy...)

    6. Re:We don't use our other methane sources by sckeener · · Score: 2

      Other sources include: ....
      3) The United States Congress.


      The added benefit about tapping congress for the gas is it would also be a muffler. After all, silence is golden.

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    7. Re:We don't use our other methane sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, ok. You can be the one to insert the piping into 15 million cows and feed them chocolate milk and doritos...

    8. Re:We don't use our other methane sources by TheSifters · · Score: 1

      You must be confused... we ARE milking them, we're just not getting any methane from them.

    9. Re:We don't use our other methane sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear you clever canadians have found another use for sheep -- you've discovered you can get WOOL from 'em too!

    10. Re:We don't use our other methane sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      big dome? methane as fuel? Sounds like Thunderdome to me.. complete with the new visa/immigration policy: two Canadians enter, one Canadian leaves

  7. Pull my finger, eh? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

    Well, nobody strike a match.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    1. Re:Pull my finger, eh? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2
      It is rather funny. If the stuff was 850 meters underground they would have a derrick and a pipeline run to it already. Heat the water, collect the bubbles.

      Unfortunately, I can't imagine the stuff is packed nearly as densely as underground supplies. It's not a matter of harvesting the stuff. It's a matter of doing it cheaply.

      Now, the other real problem is transporting the stuff. You would need to pack it into tanks and the tanks would have to be unloaded in somebody's port. Does anyone want a few kilotons of pure explosive power docking downtown? At least Oil when it leaks just makes a mess. A tanker of methane case would a) asphyxiate anyone within a few thousand feet and b) explode with the slightest spark.

      Think Fuel-Air bomb.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:Pull my finger, eh? by manon · · Score: 1

      As a matter of fact, lot's of cities have liquid gas storage in docks. Transporting the gas isn't a problem using pipes and tankers. The big problem is getting it away from the bottom of the ocean. They should build an underwater heating installation for that I think. I just hope they leave it alone and start searching for energy that is clean.

      --
      42 + 1 = 42
    3. Re:Pull my finger, eh? by The+Dobber · · Score: 2

      Ya mean something like an LNG (Liquid Natural Gas Carrier). Them things have been plying the oceans for years. http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/0 2/ngt/Quillen.pdf

    4. Re:Pull my finger, eh? by Physics+Dude · · Score: 1
      A tanker of methane case would ... explode with the slightest spark.

      You've been watching too much tv. Methane can't explode without being mixed with an oxidizer, and they usually keep those out of tankers.

      Think Fuel-Air bomb.

      The tanks don't have any air in them! Sheesh! Haven't you ever used a gas barbecue before?

    5. Re:Pull my finger, eh? by nut · · Score: 1
      -- Think Fuel-Air bomb. --

      Actually no. Your gas and air probably wouldn't be sufficiently mixed to make a good fuel-air bomb (or you wouldn't be able to asphyxiate people!)
      In fact the IRA blew up a large gasometer in norther england (I don't know the actual capacity, and all I've been able to find is picture of similar-looking one.) They didn't get an explosion, just a fireball, as the gas only burnt at the edges of the bubble.

      --
      Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
  8. Editorial style by OrangeSpyderMan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In a bid to silence the many critics of Slashdot's poor editorial team, the decision has been made to radically alter the editorial style of the articles. So, hyperlinks in the featured stories will now not only be underlined, as per usual with links, and italic, but will also be bold .

    That'll shut 'em up.

    --
    Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
  9. How it formed by Ours · · Score: 1

    According to the french science magazine "Science et vie" who made a very interesting article about that last month, those methane banks are caused by high pressures and low temperatures. The article also speculates that it could cause a enviromental hazard if the water temperature rises and the methanes rises to the athmosphere thereby contributing to global warming.

    --
    "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
    1. Re:How it formed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      contributing to global warming

      How can you contribute to something that doesn't exist (except in the dreams of a whinging left-winger econazis who want nothing but the total destruction of western industrial societies and return to the Afghanistan like life-in-the-mud-huts)?

    2. Re:How it formed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jah Vold! Sig Heil mein Herr!

      Good god man.... are you really that brainwashed?

    3. Re:How it formed by Khalid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes this a major concern in case of global warming, trapped methane can buble to the surface and cause a major disater, and even further enhance greenhouse effect. There is a lot of this methane all around the ocean.

    4. Re:How it formed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, Amen to that. Global Warming, another made up scare tactic to take money from the working people. Oh, and the fire's and oilfields that Saddam burned in Desert Storm, no way contributed to it (scare tactic aka Global Warming)....it's all the United States fault...(yeah right).

    5. Re:How it formed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Huh?

      There still is no evidence that global warming really exists not to mention that it would be caused by human action.

      I'd say that's a damn good reason not to tear down all the hundreds of years of achievements with which the western world dragged itself out of the misery of the life in a hunter-gatherer society where the econazis would like to take us back.

      I will keep driving my Chevy van until someone comes up with unbiased scientific study all the academics and industries can agree with. Even then I might keep driving it. One man doesn't make a difference.

    6. Re:How it formed by Safety+Cap · · Score: 4, Interesting
      until someone comes up with unbiased scientific study all the academics and industries can agree with
      Nice straw man argument.

      I challenge you to find ANY study that "all the academics and industries can agree with." Doesn't have to be earth-shattering or anything. Just one. In a real (printed) journal. Go on, we'll wait...

      --
      Yeah, right.
    7. Re:How it formed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I challenge you to find ANY study

      My point exactly.

      Would you be willing to bet your and your kids' comfortable life on something that might be nothing but a politically motivated wild guess.

    8. Re:How it formed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like I'll ever listen to the french.

    9. Re:How it formed by Ours · · Score: 1
      Would you be willing to bet your and your kids' comfortable life on something that might be nothing but a politically motivated wild guess.

      Are you willing to bet your kids future on a wild guess and the confort on driving excessively poluting cars? Like cleaner cars would be so much of a problem to our kids confort...
      It's that kind of thinking that gets us nowhere.

      --
      "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
    10. Re:How it formed by idiot/savant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The article also speculates that it could cause a enviromental hazard if the water temperature rises and the methanes rises to the athmosphere thereby contributing to global warming.

      There's an SF novel about this: Mother of Storms by John Barnes. It's a terrible book in many ways, but the premise - a massive release of methane from one of these undersea methane beds altering the global climate in sudden and completely unexpected ways - is interesting. It's also perhaps something to keep in mind when considering plans to liquefy carbon dioxide and dump it in the sea (as opposed to underground)

      Idiot/Savant

    11. Re:How it formed by xA40D · · Score: 2

      There still is no evidence that global warming really exists not to mention that it would be caused by human action.

      What harm is caused by listening to the environmentalists?

      And what harm is caused if all the evidence in their favour is proved correct?

      In my opinion listening to the environmentalists causes no harm; but if they are right we're fucked. So whether or not I agree with them or with you - I'm going to modify my behaviour based on what they tell me. I'll buy a more efficient car, I'll steer clear of GM foods, and I'll try to avoid creating vast quantities of waste. And where I can I'll also support them in their efforts.

      So you just keep driving about in your Chevy van, and make yourself feel better by calling people who care "econazis". And when the oil runs out and you're left with a rusting pile of useless metal on your drive remember to blame the government because "they should have done something".

      --
      Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
    12. Re:How it formed by Ours · · Score: 1

      Interesting indeed. But dumping liquid CO2 into the sea is IMOHO a risky solution. Who really could tell the effets on a long term? I don't thing it would be good news for marine wildlife. The solution is not just dumping our stuff elsewere, it should be thinking on the long term by reducing the waste until cleaner energy sources are safely and (most important) cheaply available. Nothing new but most people seem to forget to thing on the long term.

      --
      "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
    13. Re:How it formed by Ours · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. I'm not sure either if the whole global warming thing is true but I'll rather play it safe then play it cheap. If the global warming is real and whe ignore it, our children will pay dearlly for our mistake so let's stop being so selfish and do our best to reduce the risks. I'll forget about bying a car and keep on taking the (electric) bus and train everyday...

      --
      "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
    14. Re:How it formed by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2
      My point exactly.
      Your point that there is no consensus on global warming, therefore it doesn't exist?

      If that were the case, then you might as well go ahead and swap your car out for a hydrogen cell car and stop buying gas now. Why? Because hydrogen cell cars will be available next week for only $250, American. And the economy won't suffer with the switch from petrol to hydro overnight, because that's really easy to make the switch, and everyone is going to be doing it. You don't want to be the last one left that has an obsolute combustion engine, now do you?

      If you doubt the truth of my statements, then prove me wrong by finding a report that all academics and industry agree upon that refutes my claim. Any journal. Any country. I'll wait, again...

      Oh wait, I hear if you play the lottery right now then you'll win the Grand Power JackBall! Just find me a report that all academics and industry can agree upon that says you won't! See!!! I was right!!!!

      Now send me all your money.

      --
      Yeah, right.
    15. Re:How it formed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if we don't emit carbon dioxide and help the Earth keep warm so we don't get another Ice Age soon....?

    16. Re:How it formed by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > What harm is caused by listening to the environmentalists?

      The leading cause of death on the planet today is good ol' malaria. Mosquito control with DDT could solve that problem - and no, it wouldn't require spraying massive amounts of tens of millions of pounds on food crops, just a few hundred thousand pounds a year.

      "B-b-b-ut DDT is bad! The enviros said so!" - really? The evidence for that is highly questionable.

      DDT also help with another up-and-coming disease, too.

      > In my opinion listening to the environmentalists causes no harm; but if they are right we're fucked. So whether or not I agree with them or with you - I'm going to modify my behaviour based on what they tell me. I'll buy a more efficient car, I'll steer clear of GM foods, and I'll try to avoid creating vast quantities of waste. And where I can I'll also support them in their efforts.

      Dude - WTF kind of logic is that? Believing the earth is flat is also harmless. (And if the earth is flat, we're fucked because someday someone's gonna sail off the edge! ) So even if I don't agree with flat-earthers, I'll avoid cruise ships and support the flat-earthers in their efforts.

      How about trying something revolutionary, like the idea that "the d00d who makes the statement has the burden of proof". If the enviros make a claim, it's up to them to prove their case to you.

      If, after listening to their argument, you still agree with them, modify your behavior. But if you don't agree with them, don't modify your behavior.

      Avoiding GM foods because there's no harm there? You mean, like rice that could provide folks with beta-carotene and vitamin A, preventing millions of cases of blindness and about two million deaths every year? Yeah, no harm there.

      Now I dig that we might not need the carotene-advanced rice, and as such, we're quite free to stick with regular rice if we so choose. But to support the environmentalist agenda to deny everyone access to this technology is going too far. So I choose to support GM foods (and most genetic engineering in general), and I'll eat the GM foods if they taste good.

      And sometimes the enviro arguments do make sense. F'rinstance, I choose efficient cars because, umm, well, they're more efficient. Unless I'm hauling freight (which I ain't), I'm interested in getting from "A" to "B" in a reasonable timeframe, preferably with a minimum of expense. Hmm, the econobox costs $10K and $0.10 per mile, and the SUV costs $30K and $0.20 per mile, and the hybrid $20K and $0.05 per mile.

      If I expect to keep a car for 10 years and I drive 5000 miles a year, I buy the $10K car. (I could save $2500 by spending an extra $10000 for the hybrid, losing $7500 - almost enough to buy another car!) If I drive 20000 miles per year, I save $7500 out of $10000 and hybrid starts to look pretty good - assuming I can get 10 years out of the batteries. The SUV sux azz and isn't in contention for me. But even though I think they're a poor choice, I wouldn't deny someone else the right to buy one. They may simply have different transportation needs than I do.

      > And when the oil runs out and you're left with a rusting pile of useless metal on your drive remember to blame the government because "they should have done something".

      Long before the oil runs out, it'll run low. Supply and demand will increase the price of oil. When it's $0.50 per mile for the shitbox, $2.00 per mile for the SUV, and still $0.05 per mile for the electric vehicle, everyone will have an incentive to switch. (...well, assuming we have nuclear power, which is the only way we'll be able to generate enough electricity to power all the cars when the internal combustion engine dies.

      (Or would you prefer to burn more coal or natural gas - same amount of CO2 released - to get the electric current to recharge the batteries... or to electrolyze the water for the hydrogen in the fuel cells? Don't forget, you didn't mine the methane hydrates in the eco-sensitive offshore shallows, and you also helped the enviros ban genetic engineering, so you can't grow acres of sugar cane in the desert for ethanol, or genetically-engineer a batch of superbugs to crack water :-)

    17. Re:How it formed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The harm is that not all the "facts" are presented.
      • Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. Most of the greenhouse effect is caused by another gas. Can you find what the other gas is and what percent of the greenhouse effect it causes? If you have trouble with your web search, observe what is causing you harm.
      • Carbon has been leaking to the surface for as long as the Earth has existed. If we did not capture it and burn it, some of it would be digested and end up as carbon dioxide anyway, some would catch fire, and some would simply cause huge tar pits (with hydrocarbons evaporating until only the least volatile are left to gunk up the area).
      • If we run out of oil...won't environmentalists be happy? So why are they complaining?
      • We are carbon-based life forms. We need some carbon.
    18. Re:How it formed by Casualposter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "In my opinion listening to the environmentalists causes no harm; but if they are right we're fucked."

      No, We're not fucked. We will adapt. Things will be different, but there is nothing in the models, even the worst case scenarious, that destroys our civilization. We will have to move as the coast lines alter. We will have wars over shifitng agricultural lands, people and animals will move in vast numbers to other parts of the globe, but ultimately we and most of the life on the planet will survive and thrive.

      What is threatened is the current geo-political structure of the world. What would be the ramifications of the Sahara desert becomming fertile land again while the US and Europe are covered in Ice? Furthermore, rising global temperatures have been followed by an ICE AGE almost every time. (National Geographic, forget which issue) We are not talking about a rock falling from the sky and wiping life out down to the microbes. We're talking about burying Canada and the northern US in ICE and making other parts of the world have different coast lines. Some winners some losers, but to ASSUME that we can do much about it is to ASSUME that the world weather wasn't going to heat up anyway. We've not deviated from the range of previously measured global temperatures, yet. (IF we all suddenly quit poluting today, would the rising temperature continue? For CErtain? How about statistically certain, 95% sure? I've not gotten consistent odds out of the global weather folks.)

      There must be a rational risk assessment here; not conjecture and conflicting models. What we have now are warnings from scientist who want funding to continue arguably valuable research. But to make lasting and lingering decisions based upon incomplete models is risky. The only thing that is clear in the conflict is that WE really DON'T know what is going to happen to the climate in the future. We've asked at lot of the guys doing the research--long term climate modeling is hard, and we've not got measuring devices in all of the needed spots, the currents in the oceans are not all well understood. The climate is a large, non-linear, poorly understood system, so if you're off a little, the results can be drastically different. Therefore, making policy decisions one way or the other is not much better than rolling dice.

      "...listening to the environmentalists causes no harm..."

      Which environmentalists do you listen to? Many different groups each with their own subset of extremists. Each has a different and often conflicting demands. Can't satisfy them all, so who's right?

      Stear clear of GM foods? Not much biology in your background is there? Humans have been modifying animals and plants for agricultural reasons for centuries. It was originally call breeding. Now we use better and more reliable techniques. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. You don't trust the scientists who've produced the GM foods and the piles of technology that you use EVERY day, but you will trust the other scientists who tell you that it's all bad for you? HAve you been immunized? You've had GM modifications to microbes that have been directly injected into your body. Know any diabetics taking insulin shots? GM technology. Scared of the pesticides on food? Read about what nasty surprises mother natures has given plants; where do you think most of our poisons have come from? Humans are at BEST poor imitators of mother nature's chemical works. GM modifications that arrise naturally can be terrifying (AIDS?). But at least in human made GM we have a good idea of the very structure of the molecules and are in a much better position to do something if GM begins to cause harm. Unlike nature's surprises which take decades to understand, if we every understands them.

      So lets ask the really important question: Can we have our high technology and a clean, functioning environment? Sure. But we've got to be reasonable about it. And remember, that most of the environmental organizations have a POLITCAL agenda...which sometimes gets in the way of solving the polution problems that we have.

      The blanket statement that environmentalist cause no harm is untrue. In the city where I live, there was an outcry about a chemical plant expansion from several environmental groups. Bad. Bad. But, looking at the actual documents the company filed with the regulators, they were asking for permission to increase the production of a far safer and more enviromentally friendly process while reducing their polution output overall. Net effect of expansion was a reduction in total polutants and a reduction in some of the worst cases. Yet, the Evirolobby fought this tooth and nail. Listening to the environmental people without looking at both sides of the issue and decide for yourself is stupid.

      It is possible to have a completely self contained system that recycles everything but energy. Look at our planetary environment. We've got a lot to learn.

      --
      Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
    19. Re:How it formed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn right. I'm gonna drive my 74 Eldo til all the damn gas is gone, good riddance.

    20. Re:How it formed by ajs · · Score: 2

      If enough methane bubbles to the surface to change the climate, that will be the last of your worries. The 200-mile-wide fireball will be your first concern, followed by the little problem of heat disipation.

      Let's leave the eco-buzzwords at home, shall we?

    21. Re:How it formed by jaeson · · Score: 1

      The United States is against most of the rest of the world over a very significant issue, what's called the "precautionary principle." That means, is there a right for people to say, I don't want to be a subject in some experiment you're carrying out? At the personal level that is permissible. For example, if somebody comes into your office from the university biology department and says, "You're going to be a subject in an experiment I'm carrying out. I'm going to stick electrodes into your brain and measure this, that, and the other thing, then you're permitted to say, I'm sorry, I don't want to be a subject. They are not allowed to come back to you and say, You have to be, unless you can provide scientific evidencethat this is going to harm you.They're not allowed to do that, but the U.S. is insisting on exactly that internationally

      In the negotiations at Montreal, the United States, which is the center of the big biotech industries and genetic engineering, was demanding that the issue be determined under WTO rules. According to those rules, the experimental subjects have to provide scientific evidence that it's going to harm them, or else the transcendant value of corporate rights prevails and they can do what they want. That's what Ed Herman calls "producer sovereignty."

      -Noam Chomsky ~ Propaganda and the Public Mind


      So what you are saying is that you want to be an experimental subject? I for one don't want to volunteer to be an experimental subject, despite the fact that I don't have scientific proof that GM foods cause harm.

      Do you realize that the "Flavr Savr" Tomato from Monsanto is created by combining the genes of a fish with that of a Tomato? Or did you know that RoundUp(tm) Ready Corn grows in Pesticide? Farmers are told right on the seed packages not to handle the seeds with their bare hands. On top of that they can't save their seeds either. What is most alarming is that the odious biotech companies like Monsanto are bringing lawsuits against organic farmers whose crops have been cross pollinated by the GM varieties, saying that the farmers owe them money for "patent infringement".

      Of course you would know all of this if you bothered to do any research at all, instead of regurgitating what you heard on CNN, or the O'Reilly Factor.

      ~Jaeson

    22. Re:How it formed by admiralh · · Score: 1

      > The leading cause of death on the planet today is good ol' malaria. Mosquito control with DDT could solve that problem - and no, it wouldn't require spraying massive amounts of tens of millions of pounds on food crops, just a few hundred thousand pounds a year.

      > "B-b-b-ut DDT is bad! The enviros said so!" - really? The evidence [slashdot.org] for that is highly questionable.

      > DDT also help with another up-and-coming [foxnews.com] disease, too.


      Remember that DDT was originally thought to be this amazing wonder product, that killed mosquitos but caused no long term environmental damage. IIRC, the inventors won a Nobel Prize for it.

      However, the main problem with DDT was the buildup of the chemical in top-of-the-food-web animals, especially birds. The problem was not the birds themselves, but the eggs. I remember lots of pictures of eggs with paper-thin shells. The birds would sit on them in their normal nesting behavior, and the weight of the bird would break the shell.

      The whooping crane and California condor were down to a few mating pairs. The bald eagle was severely threatened. Other large birds of prey also suffered with DDT. Though your Fox source will deny it, there is plenty of evidence about this, one link being this one.

      Now that being said, it's possible that small, limited uses of DDT might be appropriate in emergencies. However, we cannot go back to the indiscrimate use that was prevalent in the '50's.
      Not unless we want to start killing the big birds again.

      Please, get your science from sources other than Faux News and the Cato Institute, OK?

      --
      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
    23. Re:How it formed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You've had GM modifications to microbes
      Do you really mean Genetically Modified Modifications?


      Unlike nature's surprises which take decades to understand, if we every understands them.
      WTF are you talking about? Yoda, is that you?


      But at least in human made GM we have a good idea of the very structure of the molecules and are in a much better position to do something if GM begins to cause harm.
      <sarcasm>
      Oh yes, I see your point. Technology will SAVE us in the end! We know better than God when it comes to things like Nature and all that gunk. Besides once we release these GM organisms into nature, if something goes wrong, we can just take it back. It's not like GM organisms breed or anything like that.
      </sarcasm>

      Please think before you post.
    24. Re:How it formed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Screw the birds! I'm scared of West Nile! S-C-A-R-E-D!

      I don't give a fuck about disrupting this nebulous "food chain" if I'm dead!

      Ahhhhhhhh! Help me!!! For the children! Start spraying immediately!

    25. Re:How it formed by hey! · · Score: 2

      DDT is not banned in most of the world where malaria is endemic.

      While mainline enviornmental groups like the WWF have advocated DDT's phase-out in favor of narrow spectrum materials and IPM techniques, they don't advocate its immediate elimination and haven't even set a firm date by which they think DDT should be eliminated.

      So, DDT remains in use in much of the world, and in none of those places it eradicated malaria.

      The reason DDT is useful in the third world is that it is cheap. But it is far from a perfect material for many reasons, and effective new narrow spectrum pesticides have replaced it in developed countries. Poor countries could replace DDT with those same modern materials, if they had aid to do so. They could also reduce mosquito populations with technical aid in waste management and vegetation management. Even simple and cheap measures like bed netting would save millions of lives, but there isn't enough money to provide them and promote their use.

      So -- are the anti-environmentalists lining up to help the third world with even the cheap public health measures? For that matter, do they advocate lifting a finger to help them with HIV, which has surpassed malaria on the list of causes of death for some years now?

      Of course not. When they spread this kind of malarkey they're just pretending to give a shit to score some debating points.

      It's a juicy blood libel to say that environmentalists are responsible for killing millions of people by banning DDT, but it's simply not true.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re:How it formed by j_w_d · · Score: 2

      There still is no evidence that global warming really exists not to mention that it would be caused by human action.

      There is plenty of evidence that the globe is warming. The issue is whether there is any contribution by human activity, and if there is, how important is the contribution. The data is quite unbiased, but it is also more or less ambiguous in terms of cause. There is interesting photo-based data from Mars that, based upon evidence of extensive sublimation of CO2 in the south polar region, suggests that Mars also is warming up. This has some pretty interesting implications all by itself. Taken in conjunction with warming in Siberia, Alaska, and northern Canada, as well as geographically unbalanced changes in Anarctica, it may be that the whole solar system is in for a hot time. Tune Rush out, check some real unbiased sources, and draw some independent conclusions.

      --
      ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
    27. Re:How it formed by xA40D · · Score: 2

      Stear clear of GM foods? Not much biology in your background is there? Humans have been modifying animals and plants for agricultural reasons for centuries. It was originally call breeding.

      Oh I see. Right. Instead of splicing a jellyfish gene into a potato using GM techniques I could just put a potato and a jellyfish and a potato in a room together - bit of wine, some light music - and let nature take it's course?

      Get real. I can see you've swallowed the GM propoganda hook, line and sinker.

      But at least in human made GM we have a good idea of the very structure of the molecules and are in a much better position to do something if GM begins to cause harm

      Dude, we can't even write software that is crash proof, and that's in an environment that humans invented. Yet miraculously when playing with genetics - an area we don't fully understand - somehow we'll get it right 100%.

      GM is not about making organisms that better, it's about MONEY. Making goods cheaper for farmers to produce; whilst using patent law to protect your product - and therefore maintain your revenue stream. Nobody needs GM foodstuffs - we can produce enough to feed the entire world without risking it.

      Ever heard of BSE? That's a disease that was caused by money - feeding cattle the bones of other dead animals BECAUSE THE PRICE OF FISHMEAL WAS GETTING TO HIGH (call me dumb but I was not actually aware that cows went fishing). Everybody though bonemeal would be fine - yet just look how wrong it all went. Ever heard of a prion? Well neither had the scientific community until BSE.

      --
      Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
    28. Re:How it formed by xA40D · · Score: 2

      The leading cause of death on the planet today is good ol' malaria

      I though the leading cause of death was starvation.

      But let's say it is Malaria. It's only poor people who are dying. So it's their own fault - after all it's their own fault they are poor. So let's not bother investing money trying to cure the disease, let's spend our money developing slimming pills and viagra. And if we concentrate on curing the symptoms of the rich, not the causes, we can rake it in for years.

      Death from malaria has more to do with Economics than it does to do with DDT & Environmentalists.

      Think I'm being facecious? Well go lookup the case of stomach ulcers and Helicobacter pylori. Strange how the suddenly found a cure just after the patents expired on all those expensive antacids.

      --
      Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
  10. Not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's more of this stuff in the North Sea -- I've seen a cool film clip where a scientist takes a chunk of it and sets it on fire!

    However, the last time I heard of these deposits, some folks were worried that mining them would destabilise the mass, causing an uncontrolled release of ENORMOUS quantities of methane. Which would mean bad things for the environment, what with methane being a greenhouse gas, and all.

    ...by ENORMOUS, I mean quantities larger than gets released in decades of industrial/agricultural activity. Vast vast vast amounts.

    1. Re:Not new by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yes, methane hydrates are old news. There are a lot of them -- some seem to be trapped methane caused by bacteria, although much of it happens near known oil and gas deposits and are simply due to methane being trapped as it leaks toward the surface.

      Of course, the risk of these deposits is in the uncontrolled release of methane. It would be good if we can mine them and turn them into the less dangerous carbon dioxide.

      After all, if we don't mine them some of them will evaporate anyway. Volcanic action, a rock from space, a sunken ship or fisherman's net scraping across...or simply a low-pressure hurricane crossing a deposit which has expanded to its upper limit.

      For that matter, those deposits which don't evaporate...what can they do? Get trapped under layers of sediment? Evaporate when the ocean floor folds into a mountain top? Get sucked back into the planet at the end of the tectonic plate, and be emitted from a volcano or leakage to the surface? It all reaches the surface sometime.

  11. What's that smell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Frozen methane
    2) Bruce Perens after he got fired from HPQ
    3) The FreeBSD developers and their failed 5.0

  12. Note frozen methane by stevelinton · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not actually frozen methane as such. The freezing point of methane is much too cold for that. It's a clathrate essentially a form of ice with methane molecules trapped among the water molecules. It's stable at temperatures just above the normal freezing point of water, and high pressures. If the pressure is released (for example by bringing it to the surface) it decomposes into water and methane gas.

    1. Re:Note frozen methane by manon · · Score: 1

      Why is it then that they are still searching for a way to get the gas out of the mass?

      --
      42 + 1 = 42
    2. Re:Note frozen methane by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      My guess: they don't want to bring tons and tons of ice to the surface just to decrease the pressure and release a little methane. It would be better to bring up only the methane.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    3. Re:Note frozen methane by stevelinton · · Score: 2

      I think that's right. It's not a fundamental problem, but you need to find an energy-efficient way of getting the methane to the surface inside your pipes, without (a) wasting energy lifting ice or (b) losing the methane as bubbles rising to the surface outside your pipes.

    4. Re:Note frozen methane by Jackazz · · Score: 1
      The methane ice can't weigh too much more than the water on top of it. You only have to lift the difference between the mass of the ice and the mass of the water, so the energy to raise the ice is probably much less than that obtained from the bubbles.

      The commercial value of methane, environmental consequences, and the depth of the deposits are probably the biggest hurdles to harvesting this resource.

  13. intresting by jdread · · Score: 1

    It seems intresting as to how it existed there in the first place, but imo I wouldnt touch it, because man are eating away at the Earth's resources and arnt stoping anytime soon. This is just another example. Find alternative sources for energy, else get a few thousand cow arse's lined up and wait for then to fart!

    1. Re:intresting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've read in, I believe Atlantic Monthly, that there is more energy to be had from methane deposits under the sea than all other forms of fossil fuels combined, including what we have burned in the past. If you're looking for an alternate source of energy, methane is one of your best choices because it burns very clean compared to other fossil fuels. The only problem that remains is how to mine it.

  14. PV=nRT? by thogard · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most living things produce some methane. At depth, the pressure is high, the temp is about 4 degrees and methane will freeze solid just by the water pressure since its on the solid side of the triple point .

    There is a huge amount of frozen methane over most of the ocean but only where its about 1000m deep. If you can find a way to get it out at lower cost than oil, you can put opec out of business.

    1. Re:PV=nRT? by OrangeSpyderMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...you can put opec out of business.

      And create mpec. or even mpec4 :-)

      --
      Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
    2. Re:PV=nRT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And create mpec. or even mpec4 :-)

      The O in OPEC stands for Organization, not Oil (OPEC = Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) so what you you would get would be more like OMEC.

    3. Re:PV=nRT? by OrangeSpyderMan · · Score: 1

      But then where would my poor mpec4 joke be? :-)

      --
      Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
    4. Re:PV=nRT? by ViXX0r · · Score: 1

      Awwww...

      that's a groaner :)

      But it should be modded funny anyway!

      --
      University - a box of academia nuts.
    5. Re:PV=nRT? by machine+of+god · · Score: 1

      Hm. I remember in Jr. High we used to put lots of straws together and drink milk from across the room. Think that would work?

  15. dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've heard in the past about methane hydrate deposits on or under the ocean floors around the world but the points i've heard made before revolved around the fact that the hydrate can become unstable and lead to the release of vast amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Methane being a very effective greenhouse gas means this is probably something we really want to avoid. So, no, we should not "exploit" it but we should probably look into ways of managing it?

  16. Fire Ice by Noemon · · Score: 1

    Beware the methane hydrate. Crazy megalomaniacal Cossack tries to destroy east coast with tsunamis caused by exploding "Fire Ice" on sea floor. Clive Cussler wrote a book about this stuff, released this year.

    1. Re:Fire Ice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clive Cussler is a plagarist - John Barnes wrote a book called Mother of Storms, published last year I think. The premise was that missiles fired into the ocean accidently release a massive quantity of trapped methane which dramatically alters the worlds climate and causes massive hurricanes to cover the globe. Worth a read if only for the numerous ideas about the future that Barnes includes in all his books.

    2. Re:Fire Ice by redcliffe · · Score: 2

      Where's he gunna get the oxygen required to burn it?

    3. Re:Fire Ice by Noemon · · Score: 1

      Not being familiar with Mother of Storms, I can't say much, but from what you state of its plot, the Cussler book has only "trapped methane" in common. In the Cussler book, the methane hydrate is used to cause underwater landslides which would cause a tsunami. The goal was to create tsunamis large enough and accurately enough to destroy major American east coast cities/ports (Boston, New York, D.C. Charleston).
      There was no accident, there was no climate change, there were no hurricanes. I don't believe that one could label Cussler a plagiarist because he used the FACT that there are deposits of methane hydrate all over the seafloor. Using this logic, anyone writing a novel where a knife figures heaviliy in a murder would be a plagiarist. Or better yet, anyone who authors a novel about an FBI agent trying to solve a crime should be taken to the woodshed.

    4. Re:Fire Ice by Noemon · · Score: 1

      From the huge compressed O2 tank that's attached to the detonation device. :)

  17. obligatory stupid jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Find frozen methane
    2. ???
    3. Profit!

    Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!

    Can you use methane to cook hot grits?

    methane is dying. ...I'll leave the goatse link as an exercise to someone else.

  18. This doesn't change the outcome, just delays by gmkeegan · · Score: 2

    I hope this doesn't kill any renewable energy projects that Canada has in the works. Yes, this will buy them more time but they, like the rest of the world will wake up one morning and discover that the fossil fuels are gone. Sooner than most people realize. No, I don't own a hybrid car, and no, my house isn't solar powered. But I do think that GM has the right idea (shockingly!)

    Jumpin' Jack Flash, it's a gas, gas, gas!

  19. Bermuda Triangle by rgoer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Someone claimed to have found a similar phenomenon off the coast of Florida, around where the fabled "Bermuda Triangle" was supposed to be. Theory went: every now and then, seismic activity would crack the methane crystal, releasing some methane gas in the process. This now-liberated methane bubble would rise to the surface, and everything was cool if its path toward the atmosphere was free of obstacles like boats or planes... however, on the off-chance that a ship might be passing right by where the methane was surfacing, that ship would become unable to maintain buoyancy--as it now rested on a bubble of gas instead of a blanket of seawater--and would go down. Same thing for the planes: if the methane bubble, which has become more of a loose cloud now that it's free of the ocean, happens to be in the path of an airplane, that plane will dramatically lose almost all lift from its wings (since they're made to be working lift from normal air, which is much heavier than methane), and it, too, hits the sea. Weird.

  20. armageddon by jukal · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If you want to get another source to fuel your paranoia and fears, read how release of underwater frozen methane could cause armageddon :)

    "Has frozen methane ever been released before? 55 million years ago, 20% of the world's frozen methane reserves melted. This sparked cataclysmic changes in the atmosphere: global temperatures rose by 13 degrees Fahrenheit, melting the ice cps and forcing many species to extinction. 80% of all deep-sea creatures became extinct, and there were severe consequences for land animals. If vast amounts of methane were released, the highly explosive gas would be ignited by lightning, scorching huge area in a fiery hell-on-earth."

    Now, do you want them to touch it? :))

    1. Re:armageddon by bogado · · Score: 2
      If it is such a harzard, shoudn't we try to develope a safe way of using this gas instead of waiting until it releases it self naturaly?

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    2. Re:armageddon by masterkool · · Score: 1
      The article says:
      But environmentalists and First Nations groups are uneasy.

      Environmentalists and First nation groups are allways uneasy. Chances are nothing is going to happen.
      --
      I once shot a man who posted too many, "Imagine a beowulf cluster of these"
    3. Re:armageddon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Chances are nothing is going to happen.

      "Nothing to see here. Just keep on consuming. Nothing to worry about."

      Idiot. Even if there is a small chance of a environmental catastrophe, strong action must be taken to preempt the threat.

      Why is it that people are talking about how the unspecific "threat" of Saddam's (most likely non-existent) weapons of mass destruction warrants a bloody invasion of a sovereign country, but the far more credible threat of Global Warming can safely be ignored?

    4. Re:armageddon by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess because it is easier to lash out at a "Foriegn Power" than it is to curb the bad behavior of the people who elected you and the corporations that bought your soul.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    5. Re:armageddon by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now, do you want them to touch it? :))

      after that ... you bet your arse I want them to touch it, or at least figure out how to release it in a contained way so we dont get a cataclysmic release during the next earthquake in that area. or it builds up to a critical mass that self releases.

      basically it can be captured if you can force a slowish release of the gas you can easily capture it with a collection dome of some type and gas pumps to siphon off the gasses. a high rate release (I mean slow as in only a few thousand cubic meters of gas an hour.. I mean high-rate as in 30-40 million cubic meters of gas per second... IE: the planet farts) would generate more pressure and power than any man made device could handle or contain.. a steel collection dome would rupture instantly.

      Although another way would be to pump tons of Oxygen down there into the "snowbank" and set it all off underwater with explosives... Sure it would create a tsunami that would pale in comparasion to a gigantic metor crashing into the ocean but it would be really cool to watch! and imagine the TV shows about it.... "Survivor XII.... who will survive in these tiny rafts in the vacinity of the methane detonation"

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:armageddon by gmkeegan · · Score: 5, Funny

      If vast amounts of methane were released, the highly explosive gas would be ignited by lightning, scorching huge area in a fiery hell-on-earth."

      We'd better start putting corks in the millions of cattle all over the world then.

    7. Re:armageddon by Paul+03244 · · Score: 1

      Sounds pretty scary...but the author doesn't cite a source for this claim of a 55 million year old disaster, nor the evidence that it actually occured.

    8. Re:armageddon by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      sorry to be nitpicky and offtopic, but technically it has to be a battle to be Armageddon. At the end of the world (according to the book of Revelation), there will be a "last battle" on the planes of Har-Megiddo, transliterated as Armageddon, and one of the forces will have two hundred million soldiers. These planes were the site of several previous bloody battles, so it is fitting that the last one should be there.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    9. Re:armageddon by danbeck · · Score: 0

      If you are going to give us a quote, at least make a reference. For all we know, you are pulling that out of your rear end.

      55 million huh? That's a long time ago. How exactly is this information culled?

    10. Re:armageddon by heathcaldwell · · Score: 1

      Duh. To get information about the past, everyone knows that all you have to do is shoot a camera really, really high.

      Then you can just film it, and send it back to earth via radio waves.

      -Heath

    11. Re:armageddon by smithmc · · Score: 1

      "Has frozen methane ever been released before? 55 million years ago, 20% of the world's frozen methane reserves melted. This sparked cataclysmic changes in the atmosphere: global temperatures rose by 13 degrees Fahrenheit, melting the ice cps and forcing many species to extinction. 80% of all deep-sea creatures became extinct, and there were severe consequences for land animals. If vast amounts of methane were released, the highly explosive gas would be ignited by lightning, scorching huge area in a fiery hell-on-earth."

      Now, do you want them to touch it? :))


      Hell, yes! I want "them" to get all of it off the ocean floor to prevent something like that from happening again! (And providing us with a nice fat cushion of clean-burning fossil fuel [relative to oil, anyway] in the process.)

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    12. Re:armageddon by firippu · · Score: 1

      time to start stockpiling beano!!

    13. Re:armageddon by geoswan · · Score: 1
      Sorry to be nitpicky and offtopic, but technically it has to be a battle to be Armageddon. At the end of the world (according to the book of Revelation), there will be a "last battle" on the planes of Har-Megiddo, transliterated as Armageddon, and one of the forces will have two hundred million soldiers. These planes were the site of several previous bloody battles, so it is fitting that the last one should be there.

      200,000,000? Now I am going to be nit-picky. Did you ever notice how people exagerrate to make a better story?

      Ancient peoples didn't have a short-hand for numbers as large as a million. IIRC the ancient greeks only had terms to count up to 10,000.

      So, I suspect a later transcriber or translator, whose piety exceeded his scholarship, or his honesty, stretched this number by many orders of magnitude.

      Pious people have a bad history of mistranslating the bible in order to advance their own, short-term, secular, political agendas. See the sin of onanism . (This web-page asserts that the bible doesn't forbid masturbation. The web-page asserts that the one passage religious prudes cite actually addresses coitus interruptus.)

    14. Re:armageddon by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Ancient peoples didn't have a short-hand for numbers as large as a million. IIRC the ancient greeks only had terms to count up to 10,000. And the Speaker said: "And the armies shall number 200 uuuMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.. very strong..."

    15. Re:armageddon by syusuf · · Score: 1

      If vast amounts of methane were released, the highly explosive gas would be ignited by lightning, scorching huge area in a fiery hell-on-earth."

      Coooool.....

    16. Re:armageddon by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 2
      Ancient peoples didn't have a short-hand for numbers as large as a million. IIRC the ancient greeks only had terms to count up to 10,000.
      You are, in fact, correct. Sort of. The Greek reads (in the text I have here):

      kai 'o arithmos twn strateumatwn tou 'ippikou dismuriades muriadwn, hkousa ton arithmon autwn.
      h=eta, w=omega, '=rough breathing, like the letter h

      i.e. and the number of_the troops of_the cavalry two_myriads of_myriads, I_heard the number of_them. So yes, it does actually say two hundred million. Now, it is possible that John was exaggerating, or that two hundred million has some meaning in gematria, but then, you could argue that the whole book was that way.
      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    17. Re:armageddon by geoswan · · Score: 1
      Myriad. Thanks. I couldn't remember that word. A greek myriad is 10,000 then? So a greek speaking bible transcriber wrote, "two myriads of myriads", 1700 years ago?

      Would this have been the same transcriber who defined pi == 3? (The crucible used to melt the precious metals to decorate Solomon's temple was 10 cubits in diameter, and 30 cubits in circumference. Therefore pi == 3 -- the bible says so -- and the bible is never wrong.)

      Seriously, weren't multiplication and division advanced mathematics in those days, when one had to use Roman numerals? How many people would have known how to square 10,000?

      Mathematical humourist Martin Gardner wrote a spoof review of a numerological guide to the bible. This numerological guide to the bible had an appendix devoted to more recent cults. One of which was founded on the dreams god delivered to the founder. The key of which concerned the 144,000 saved standing in a perfect square in front of Jesus. Gardner points out that 144,000 is not, in fact, a square number. ;-)

      This 144,000 is another translation of a large number from a bible transcribed by innumerate but pious translaters.

  21. wait a second. by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

    Sure enough, it looked like a big snowbank. It is an environmentally sensitive area. So, how about it, should it be exploited?"

    In a word: No.

    Why create new risk for environmental damage when CONSERVATION (a reduction in Western Consumption) would prolong our existing (already bad) sources of pollution?

    I will never 'support' additional non-renewable energy creation (bc it causes more(any) pollution) while disposable toys/packaging comes with childrens meals, while everyone drives a SUV (that seats seven but never contains more than 1), while western consumer culture encourages disposable-worthless garbage be created (and wastes our existing 'energy' and 'pollutes needlessly')

    Basically, until we learn to use what we have wisely - and reduce our consumption (pollution generation) to a more natural balance, we cannot continue to dig up more and more and more and more and more crap we dont *REALLY* need... unless we want to make the planet toxic beyond our ability to live on it... and btw, this is a finite limit, a real 'destination' we are straight on course for.. the question is when do we get there.

    1. Re:wait a second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Boo hoo....whine now baby. I drive an SUV that seats 7 and yes it usually one contains 1...yes I admit it...thats my freedom fool. But when I do take my family, I like to be comfortable and SAFE. There are too many female drivers out there talking on their cellphones which forced me to buy a SUV. Go after them, I'm the victim here...they forced me to buy a SUV because of their lack of responsibilty to the road.

    2. Re:wait a second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see the image of this guy sitting at Starbucks with his laptop...clicking submit after typing up that worthless message. Must be a college kid who doesn't know anything about the REAL world other than what his prof's have told him......THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!

    3. Re:wait a second. by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

      ...thats my freedom fool.

      Its not your freedom to mindlessly pollute. Your driving the SUV affects my natural world. This "freedom" you speak of does not extend beyone *MY* freedom. I am free to walk in the street and demand clean air.

      But when I do take my family, I like to be comfortable and SAFEIt is because people drive SUVs that non-SUVs are unsafe - If we take SUVs off the road more people are safe - pretty simple eh.

      ...they forced me to buy a SUV...

      no, getting run over by a Semi (towing consumer cahttle) is why you bought an SUV, that, and defending yourself from other assholes in SUVs.

    4. Re:wait a second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And just how "safe" will your kids be when they grow up and the weather and environment has been totally fucked by assholes like you?

      Ever thought about that, idiot?

    5. Re:wait a second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My biggest fear is that people like yourself might actually be serious.

    6. Re:wait a second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Listen here you pinko-commie-fag, you come near me or my stuff... i'll kill you.

      You want to save the world from the humans? Shoot yourself. Wait, no... drown yourself... be food for all the three eyed fish.
      fucker

    7. Re:wait a second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i recently took a trip to chili.. the smog was so bad i couldn't walk in the city. you can't see the mountains from hardly anywhere in the city. is this because of the great US polluting? Nope, it was Santiago and their crappy pollution.

      Third world (oh wait, must be PC.. "developing countries") put out a TON of pollution and are just trying to get some free cash from the US by complaining about our pollution.

      lame.

    8. Re:wait a second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, until we learn to use what we have wisely - and reduce our consumption (pollution generation) to a more natural balance, we cannot continue to dig up more and more and more and more and more crap we dont *REALLY* need... unless we want to make the planet toxic beyond our ability to live on it... and btw, this is a finite limit, a real 'destination' we are straight on course for.. the question is when do we get there.

      I agree with every word. But what the hell can we do about it? This consumerist society looks unstopable - big business want more and more money, so they make more and more worthless crap. Not because people need it - but because they can convince people to buy it.

      Take technology. All these endless upgrades year on year. Yet 5 Years ago I was perfectly happy with my 386 and Word for Windows 2. And just look at the way all the media companies are wetting themselves over the lack of enforcable copyright.

      Western consumerism makes me sick; because it allows people to starve to death for the crime of being poor. More children die each day from starvation than were murdered in the Twin Towers. Yet has George W declared war on Famine? Has he hell - the War on Terrorism is good for business.

      But I realise I'm a part of it all; So it's easier to ignore than it is to actually do something.

    9. Re:wait a second. by Doug+Neal · · Score: 1

      There are too many female drivers out there talking on their cellphones which forced me to buy a SUV. Go after them, I'm the victim here...they forced me to buy a SUV because of their lack of responsibilty to the road.

      Oh, my heart bleeds!

      Learn to drive properly. Part of being a responsible and safe road user is keeping an eye out for such people.

    10. Re:wait a second. by jmu1 · · Score: 2

      Wow, someone with half a brain. You actually sound intelligent. Why not post with a username? Are you afraid that people might get angry with you because you don't agree with the hivemind?

    11. Re:wait a second. by reallocate · · Score: 2

      So, before the marketers suckered you into buying an SUV, you were unfree and unsafe?

      You bought an SUV because female drivers with cellphones are gonna ram you? Guess all those men I see yapping on cellphones control their SUV's via telepathy? You're just rationalizing a buying decision based on emotion.

      What's with this "freedom tool" stuff? What freedom didn't you have before you bought the thing? Sure, you're free to drive around in your big waste-of-space. Other people are free to work the political process to boost mileage requirements for SUV's. Myself, I'd like to see a weighted tax on fuel consumption and emission rate.

      Give us all a break, OK?

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    12. Re:wait a second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I understand your POV, it may be impractible in a short time. It is quite possible that global warming is raising the temperature enough such that it will melt and rise. Better to use it and leave oil/gas in the ground. Also, it should be developed with BEST available technology rather than cheapest available technology. which gave us the like of the valdez and texas - 2 large ecological disasters.

    13. Re:wait a second. by reallocate · · Score: 2

      First, I'm sure Chileans appreciate you spelling their country's name as if it were a popular dish made with beans and spices. You must have missed the correct spelling while you were there, eh?

      Second, I'd say Chile has a Western economy. If you want third world, take a trip to subSaharan Africa.

      Developing countries are following the same path as the UK, Europe and the U.S. followed in their development a century or so ago. People want the material wealth that a Western-style economy delivers.

      Your post is an example of the polarization of the discussion around this issue -- extremists on one side selfishly claim it's all someone else's problem, while extremists on the other side want to stop all development, period. There's barely any room for serious people who want to use and manage resources to bring development to as many people as possible.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    14. Re:wait a second. by Uttles · · Score: 2

      I got an SUV because I'm very tall and my head hits the top of all cars I try to drive. Does that make me a bad person?

      --

      ~ now you know
    15. Re:wait a second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ... just someone who never heard of minivans. ;) ... which are SUVs without the big tires. :)

    16. Re:wait a second. by reallocate · · Score: 2

      Nope, that doesn't make you a bad person. Just someone using a bogus argument. I'm glad there's room for your head, but what good is all that empty space behind the driver's seat?

      I'm 6'4" and drive a VW.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    17. Re:wait a second. by Uttles · · Score: 2

      Like I said, I'm VERY tall. 6'4" is above average, but still within limits. Have fun in your VW. I can't even fit in smaller SUV's, like Explorers.

      --

      ~ now you know
    18. Re:wait a second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame SUV's on anyone but the US Government. Some idiot that decided that we didn't need station wagons to haul our families outlawed them with the CAFE standards. Families still need something to get the kids to daycare, practice, etc so Detroit provided us with station wagons on a truck frame...SUV's. SUV's are necessary whether you like them or not.
      This comes down to the same old socialism/communism vs. capitalism argument. Everyone is jealous of the US's prosperity so they constantly propose ideas, based on hack science, to kill our economy. The other side and their willing acomplaces in the media somehow always forget to mention anything that counters their arguments. If Canada has found a cost effective source of energy to supply their country for 40 years, they should exploit it. Cheap and plentiful energy means more jobs and a better economy. Renewable energy is great, but it must be cost effective. Until that happens, 'green' power is just a pipe dream.

    19. Re:wait a second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame SUV's on anyone but the US Government. Some idiot that decided that we didn't need station wagons to haul our families outlawed them with the CAFE standards.

      Yer a nut.. It's just so easy for you slashdot know-it-alls to blame everything and anything on the US Government. Why so many SUVs in Canada? Or Australia, or Europe or anywhere else?

      People just like SUVs. Its just that complicated. You can still get a station wagon if you want. Or a minivan. Both are ugly and utilitarian.

      There is still at ton of country where an SUV is useful, even necessary. Rural areas (not everything is paved), places with heavy snowfall, arid areas (deserts) with alot of sand.

    20. Re:wait a second. by susano_otter · · Score: 2
      So, how about it, should it be exploited?

      Absolutely. Any other organism on the planet with a use for this stuff and access to it would be exploiting the shit out of it without a second thought. Hell, most of these organisms wouldn't even give it a first thought, being motivated purely by biochemical imperatives. Why should we be any different?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    21. Re:wait a second. by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

      Why should we be any different?

      yes, maybe because we have a brain which can comprehend finite resources and the result of exausting them.

      unlike animals, we can decide not to eat ourselves into starvation.

    22. Re:wait a second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bullshit

    23. Re:wait a second. by varith · · Score: 1

      Scratch the heavy snow areas. I got along just fine for 7 years in the Tug Hill snow belt of upstate NY. 4 wheel drive helps but saying you need an SUV to drive in the snow is just saying you shouldn't be allowed to drive in the snow.

    24. Re:wait a second. by boskone · · Score: 1

      I disagree with your statement "unlike animals, we can decide not to eat ourselves into starvation"

      I'm not aware of a human culture that has regulated it's population to a sustainable level. (I know china has made moves this way, but I still don't think 1.2 billion people is sustainable there)

    25. Re:wait a second. by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      im proposing we decide to be that culture.

      what are you saying?

    26. Re:wait a second. by anicklin · · Score: 1

      I can't help but be reminded of that scene from the Matrix with the Smith explaining to Morpheus that AI is the cure to the human beings who are the disease/virus of the earth... like being told you are nothing more than a common cold.

    27. Re:wait a second. by susano_otter · · Score: 2

      Sounds about right. Unless you're going to invoke some external authority to justify a claim to be something more.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    28. Re:wait a second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously didn't get my humor on the "I'm the victim" excuse you Liberals like to use. I don't give a shit about you, I don't know you so I'm buying a safe vehicle. You Enviromental Whacko's are the Earths problem. Aren't you the same guys who stopped the cutting of tree's to only lead to additional MILLIONS of acres that go up inflames. You whaco's prevent natural selection. I'm probably more of conservationist than you. Go ahead and reply...hope your battery dies at Starbucks while submitting.

    29. Re:wait a second. by Pyrrus · · Score: 1

      we have the capability to blow up the world about 18 times over,
      I think we need to evolve to the point where we stop doing stuff
      that is possibly harmful just because we can (yes, I know it's tempting,
      just look at what dogs do)
      Hey, look a bunch of lemmings are jumping off a cliff. Maybe you shouldn't
      be any different than them either

    30. Re:wait a second. by susano_otter · · Score: 2

      Maybe we should be like lemmings, although that whole cliff & water thing may be a myth. But why should we evolve to be one way or another? Is there some compelling reason to value an amoeba over a platypus? An organism over a rock? A quark over a supernova? It's probable that in the past humans did not exist for billions of years. Is that a bad thing? It's possible that in the future, humans will not exist for billions of years. Is that a bad thing?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    31. Re:wait a second. by Pyrrus · · Score: 1

      well, not necissarily, however that doesn't mean that
      we should A) bring down most of the planet's life
      with us B) use that as an excuse to fuck with everything
      with total disregard to the consequences.

    32. Re:wait a second. by susano_otter · · Score: 2

      Arguments that we should or should not do something presuppose that any one state is better than any other state. Can you show me how we make the universe a better place by being mindful of consequences or preserving most of the planet's life?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  22. TECFLUX by kris · · Score: 2

    More information on Methane Hydrates on the continental shelves can be found at TECFLUX at Geomar. Find the photo galleries here.

    The TECFLUX (TECtonically- induced FLUXes) project is a German-American effort dedicated to the long-term study of continental margin gas hydrates on Hydrate Ridge, Oregon. This multi-stage research project was based on more than a decade of research on the Oregon accretionary margin and on recent results from Sonne cruises 109 and 110. During these cruises massive hydrate deposits were recovered from nearsurface sediments; and sites where fresh water and methane gas from hydrate decomposition were documented. This newly discovered site lies less than 50 miles due west of Newport, OR, making it very accessible for detailed study. This setting is a perfect natural laboratory for the study hydrate formation and decomposition in continental margin.

  23. Go see 'Paint Your Wagon' by budalite · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Remember that scene in the movie "Paint Your Wagon" where, during a funeral service at a burial site in the Old West, gold was discovered at the bottom of the 6' hole? I vividly remember people jumping in with shovels and the corpse (wrapped in a sail) flying out. I thought that was pretty funny then. I still do. I think the chances of that area remaining pristine are directly and inversely proportional to the amount of money to be made from that deposit.
    To seque a little, how should (or can ) one decide objectively/mathimatically between short-term and long-term benefits?

    1. Re:Go see 'Paint Your Wagon' by AlecC · · Score: 2, Insightful
      To seque a little, how should (or can ) one decide objectively/mathimatically between short-term and long-term benefits?

      The economists answer to this is to deflate future benefits by whatever the "zero risk" interest rate may be. Thus long term returns have to pay more, when they do pay, than the same amount of money left in a bank account.

      The trouble with this is that it says that, for example, it is not economically worth saving the whales. According the this theory, we should simply slaughter the wales now, then invest the returns in something "useful".

      Now, I cannot prove it mathematically, but to me this is wrong. But that is an emotional response.

      So my real response is that you cannot objectively decide between short and long tem benefits. By all means do the economic calculations; look at what you are forgoeing on one plan for .benefits in the other. But allow non-financial factors to affect your decision. As well as, not instead of, financial considerations.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    2. Re:Go see 'Paint Your Wagon' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> The trouble with this is that it says that, for example, it is not economically worth saving the whales. According the this theory, we should simply slaughter the wales now, then invest the returns in something "useful".

      Not to pick nits but it is either whales or welsh in the second part. Wales is a portion of the United Kingdom.

    3. Re:Go see 'Paint Your Wagon' by puckhead · · Score: 1

      Is it economically worth saving the Welsh?

      --
      Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
    4. Re:Go see 'Paint Your Wagon' by FFFish · · Score: 1

      Hey, the Welsh may not have vowels, and they may smell funny, but that's no excuse for slaughtering Wales!

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    5. Re:Go see 'Paint Your Wagon' by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the ideal ecosystem contain fewer more generalized species, like us? Would avert the problem of single specialized species causing massive change.

  24. Sensitive? by saintlupus · · Score: 1

    It is an environmentally sensitive area. So, how about it, should it be exploited?

    Of course! That's what environmentally sensitive areas exist for.

    --George W Bush

  25. do fish fart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now thats how it got there....

    1. Re:do fish fart? by purrpurrpussy · · Score: 1

      OF COURSE THEY DO!!!! Where do you think they get those little bubbles for spirit levels?

      --
      "None of this shit works" -W.Shatner
  26. Mother of Storms, anyone? by RMGiroux · · Score: 1
    Anyone else recognize this stuff from John Barnes' novel Mother of Storms? ( e-book version )

    In the book, an accidental massive nuking of clathrate deposits causes a runaway greenhouse effect. Not pretty...

    I think he was talking about much larger deposits than this, though, and a heck of a big nuke (well, antimatter, I seem to recall. Details...).

    In any case, it's a pretty good story for the weather effects, but there are some very disturbing sexual scenes, so you've been warned...

  27. CO_2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, great idea!

    Just burn all that methane and blast even more CO_2 into the atmosphere!

    The greenhouse effect is already bad enough!

    People should concentrate on using solar power, wind energy, ... (or even the methane created by cattle...) and not on harvesting a stuff that's responsible for the greenhouse effect and that brurns to another stuff that's also responsible for the greenhouse effect.

    Well, I know that it's economical a very interesting alternative to oil, but...

    1. Re:CO_2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 CH4 + 2 02 = 4 H20 + C2

      So you'll just get carbon. And carbon can be used to cure diarrhea as was resently discoverd by Vladimir Tolatraf of MIT.

    2. Re:CO_2 by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People should concentrate on using solar power, wind energy,

      Solar = destroy you planet faster... The process for making silicon solar cells is very very VERY nasty and pollutes worse than dumping raw gasoline directly into a lake (Which by the way 1 gallon of gasoline will pollute 1,000,000 gallons of water to undrinkable levels) as for wind power, you need to get the idiots and morons who sit on boards of light and power, and city/county/state governments to pull their heads out of their butts long enough so that you dont have to spend a year fighting to get a tower erected to put your windmill up and THEN spend another year getting permission to tie into the electrical grid so that the excess power you create goes to benefit mankind.

      until people start voting in smart politicians we will be doomed that way.... and I have never EVER met a politican that wasn't as dumb as a stump, but though he was a genius...

      The only other resourse is to do gurella alternative power... you just do it and hook up without permission or permits... something that is happening quite alot lately... just pick up a copy of home power magazine.. or look at their website here

      and you can make your own high efficiency wind power generation systems from crap and junk from here

      but the absolute best thing to do is to figure out how to reduce consumption.. over-insulate your home.. change all lighting to compact flouresent... buy all appliances that are energy star compliant and at the very top of the efficiency graph. (Note: instead of spending $45,000.00 onm your beloved yukon that get's 4-12 miles per gallon... buy an aztek WITHOUT 4wd that get's on average 25-27 Miles per gallon if you need big for carrying things... or get a honda insight for the highest fuel efficiency.)

      I agree, america = spend BIG and screw everyone else.. I live here.. I watch the masses of idiots who refuse to obey the speed limits and further reduce the MPG of their gas guzzlers, still throw trash out the windows and leave their homes with every light in the house on. It wont change until it's required, or energy gest's so expensive that it forces people to change... as they will not change willingly it must be forced.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:CO_2 by ParnBR · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you're not aware, but silicon cells aren't the only way to seize solar energy. In fact, one of the (currently) most efficient ways is using solar energy to heat up water, which can be directly or indirectly used (say, in a hot water turbine or something like that). This is an enormous underused, completely pollution-free, natural resource for big, sunny countries. In fact, this kind of solar cell doesn't even need to be built over land.

      But I agree completely with you, that we use too much energy and we don't use it really well.

      --
      My neighbor's .sig is better than mine.
    4. Re:CO_2 by SlugLord · · Score: 1

      Wow. Nice tirade. You might consider the possibility that that's one of the reasons solar power is not commonplace. You might also consider the possibility that further investment in research into solar power might produce more effective methods, eh? There are already quantum dot methods, but they're still in development.

      Also, keep in mind that where solar power is implemented, it is NOT with photoelectric silicon cells, but rather with mirrors focusing light onto a big tank full of water.

    5. Re:CO_2 by cruachan · · Score: 0

      Nope. Actually

      2 CH4 + 4 02 = 4 H20 + 2 C02

    6. Re:CO_2 by danbeck · · Score: 0

      "I agree, america = spend BIG and screw everyone else.. I live here.. I watch the masses of idiots who refuse to obey the speed limits and further reduce the MPG of their gas guzzlers, still throw trash out the windows and leave their homes with every light in the house on. It wont change until it's required, or energy gest's so expensive that it forces people to change... as they will not change willingly it must be forced."

      Who are we screwing exactly? We feed the world, we run to everyones defense and aid. What's wrong with spending money exactly? It's quite nice to go down to the supermarket and buy food for me and my family. And it's nice to put gas in my car so that I can get to work. What exactly is the problem here?

    7. Re:CO_2 by doozer_ex_machina · · Score: 1

      Solar power does not necesarily mean using solar cells. Witness the Solar Tower project in Australia. You can also use concentrating solar power stations to produce energy.

    8. Re:CO_2 by quax · · Score: 1

      In the context of this discussion the previous post was probably referring to the fact that the average American citizen consumes the most energy in global comparison. If I am not mistaken about twice as much as the average European, who is not very prone to energy efficient use either.

      What puzzles me is your assumption that the US "feeds the world and runs to everyone's defense and aid". While it is true that American individuals are very generous when it comes to contributing funds to global aid organizations the track record of the American government is rather mixed (Just to pick one thread in current history: Involvement of the US in overthrowing the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 50s, subsequent support for the following non-elected leader. This regime went belly up, so the US backed Sadam to contain the fundamentalist Iran, then Sadam went out of control).

      To me the common place assumption that the US only engages in do-good foreign policy is part of the reason that the US governments get away with very questionable foreign interventions. To me this looks like an awful lack of democratic control. The media hardly ever reports about these things and the average American remains complacent in the comfortable illusion that Washington, DC only brings good to the world.

      The average American hardly ever believes that DC's internal American politics are always benevolent and driven by humanitarian notions. Why then is there this illusion that this is so when it come to foreign policy?

    9. Re:CO_2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vee haff vays off makink you off mit de lichten!

    10. Re:CO_2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would anyone buy a Pontiac Aztec at ANY price? You couldn't pay me enough to be seen driving one.

      There are plenty of other vehicles similar in features and utillity to the grotesque Aztec.

      If you're looking into an Aztec, you probably should be looking at minivans also. At least get the Buick Rendezvous, and save yourself a few style points.

    11. Re:CO_2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...maybe enough of us dumb Americans see other things. We can look at the former european colonial empires also for how not to do things. Europe may be sitting on some sort of geopolitical high-horse now, but one cannot sit without too much wonder and think about how much of the current world situation is still aftereffects from the europian colonial empires. The Middle East political boundaries were essentially drawn by British colonial magistrates arbitrarily. Much was said about the borders of the 'stans', i.e., Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., and how arbitrary they were. Would we be having such problems with Afghanistan and Pakistan internal politics if each tribal group essentially defined their own borders? Instead of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we'd have a "Pushtinistan", made up of territory from both current countries. Then we don't wring our hands so much in grief because the Pushtins in one country do things we find...bad...in the country we are trying to fix and we turn the other eye when they do the same things in Pakistan, etc.

      Or like what someone said recently. If the countries surrounding Israel are so interested in peace, why don't they offer up a small corner of their countryspace also to help create a Palestinian nation? Why don't Jordan and Syria offer up some lands abutting Israel?

    12. Re:CO_2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me one with the MPG that is near that... I am going on highest MPG for a size of a vehicle.. and a direct replacement.. the Aztek looks hideous because it is highly aerodynamic.. it has an amazing drag coefficient for the size it is... but it doesnt matter anyways...

      Americans, espically bloated amercians want Big land-barges... they want POWER to block that person trying to merge into their lane.. they want giant tailpipes and 4 weel drive as they desperately NEED IT! (which is a lie, 99.997% of everyone that has a 4Wd vehicle dont need it and are really really REALLY stupid for having it. I spent 1 year in northern michigan driving in one of the worse winters on record in a Kia Sephia... I had no trouble, never got stuck and would pass the morons in their big SUV's on a regular basis... Oh and I hepled get out of ditches more 4WD suv's and pickup trucks than cars... it's either the SUV's handle like crap or the owners are just the lower 1/5th of the IQ bell curve...I'm betting the latter... same with pickup truck drivers.

    13. Re:CO_2 by dynamo_mikey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the down side of buying an Aztek, is that you have to drive an Aztek.

    14. Re:CO_2 by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

      I live here.. I watch the masses of idiots who refuse to obey the speed limits and further reduce the MPG of their gas guzzlers"

      Umm...ever heard of the autobahn?

      Quit talking like Americans are the only ones who speed and do some traveling...that's a pretty universal phenomenon.

      And for that matter....the junk generators your talking about have a problem. They are induction motors...ever tried using one as a regular generator? If a handfull of people do that, it's not going to harm much, but if everyone was doing what those idiots are, it would be a BADLY irresponsible thing to do...it would be corrupting the power grid. If an induction motor is used as a generator on it's own (once exited, etc) and you through any substancial load at it, the waveform goes all to hell, etc. It's a bad thing. Those induction generators are counting on the fact that the power company has more generating capacity than all of the induction motor generators out there by a large margin....you change that, and your gonna have trouble. If the main power goes out, and your induction genny is still plugging (if it's already exited, it will do that...)...the load you have on it might have some interested results.

      Not only that...those regulations that you have to notify the power company etc, are there for reasons...safety being one of them. Some guy gets zapped up on the poll because of one of these P.O.S. "generators", I'll be applauding when the idiot running it gets carted away.

      This is such basic stuff....why do you people have to fuck it up?

    15. Re:CO_2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey brainiac... it produces pulsed DC! It's for charging batteries and then you need to convert that back to a syncronized AC for the power grid in the form of an inverter... that you will already have for your alternative power conversion... unless you are a ted-kazinski freak and dont connect to the grid. almost all alternative power people are connected to the grid and use a good inverter that automatically sync's with the grid's power so that it supplaments the grid power and reverse feeds in surplus times.. in fact most do it this way without a battery bank.

      cripes quit trying to sound like you know something when you obviousally dont...

      this is really basic stuff... why do posers like you try to make people think you know something when you dont?

    16. Re:CO_2 by archnerd · · Score: 1

      >1 gallon of gasoline will pollute 1,000,000 gallons of water to undrinkable levels

      I'll take your word for it that this is the standard set by the EPA, but if someone told me that my glass of water contained two parts per million of gasoline, I don't think I'd be deterred from drinking it.

    17. Re:CO_2 by quax · · Score: 1

      My comment was not meant to imply that Americans who blindly trust their government when it comes to foreign policy to be dumb. I assume they are merely disinterested. I am also sorry if I came across as sitting on a high-horse.

      It just genuinely puzzles me how uncritical Americans tend to be when it comes to the track record of their government regarding foreign issues. Especially in light of the fact that many Americans are quite critical towards the power of their federal government on their own turf.

      The only explanation I came up with is genuine disinterest in issues outside the US boarder on part of the large majority of Americans.

      Your accurate description of the damage done by European nation engaging in empire building proves to me that you do have a fair interest in foreign affaires, so tell me, is my assumption correct that most of your fellow citizen don't tend to share this interest?

    18. Re:CO_2 by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

      Umm....yeah.

      AC induction motors don't produce pulsed DC...hate to rain on your parade. (Well...unless you wanna rectify the damn thing yet.) Alot of people doing this kind of thing don't have alot of use for a DC output...most people want AC to run all of their toys. An AC induction motor sync's to the grid by nature - the problem is when power goes out and the thing is still running. (Well...that's one problem with it anyways.) Plugging the wrong things into an induction motor generator can have some bad results too...hint...most people here, it's safe to say, own at least one thing that could be a problem.

      Secondly...have you priced a syncing inverter of any meaningful power level lately? It jacks up the price on the housing by quite a bit...it's not something I'd take lightly. Most people I've seen doing that are doing it with just solar though, although if your comfortable enough to do it, sure...hook up whatever the hell you want to it.

      Yep...basic stuff.

      My gripe is with the "gurella alternative power" idiots out there who just dump juice into the grid as mentioned in the original post, with no reguards to permits and procedure. Alot of people pull exactly the kinda crap that I am talking about...spin an induction motor up past the point that it would spin just running on it's own and use it to generate power - but it's just not such a smart way to do it.

      Poser...hehe. Oh yeah...well your an anonymous coward!

    19. Re:CO_2 by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      Hey, that carbon is getting into the ecosystem sometime. Would you prefer it be changed to carbon dioxide or left as methane, when the latter has greenhouse effects which are 10-50 times more than the former?

      Or you can wait for it to be released after it gets sucked back in a subduction zone -- there's must be some doing that right now. It will come back up in volcanoes or methane/petroleum leaks.

  28. Mother of Storms by John Barnes by stereoroid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a SF novel from 1994 which covers exactly this scenario. The long-term effects of global warming include the melting of the ice caps, as we know, but this book is about the shorter-term effects. An overall rise in the sea temperature, due to a huge release of clathrate methane, enlarges the hurricane-spawing areas of the ocean (areas above 27C). The result is larger and larger hurricanes, until, well, you can guess the rest from the title.

    Reviews: here and here.

    Ouch. Do you still want to touch those deposits?

    --
    (this is not a .sig)
    1. Re:Mother of Storms by John Barnes by stereoroid · · Score: 2
      Indeed, the main protagonist is a heavily re-engineered porn actress..!

      (Her body required extreme modification so that the "feelies" customers got the right amount of stimulation after transmission losses. A bit like the old days of TV, when everyone had to wear extreme makeup to be visible on screen.)

      --
      (this is not a .sig)
    2. Re:Mother of Storms by John Barnes by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      I keep telling my Uncle Bob about this everytime he heads off to Taco Bell, but he still does not believe he would have such a drastic on the world climate...

    3. Re:Mother of Storms by John Barnes by varith · · Score: 1

      I just finished reading that. It was good although I think the hurricanes seemed to get a ridiculously large (Mach 1+ winds with 1000 ft+ waves) and I found it weird that the kind of heat that could get ocean temps up to 37 degrees C didn't seem to have any other effects on the planet.

    4. Re:Mother of Storms by John Barnes by funky+womble · · Score: 2
      Methane hydrates got a mention in Antarctica by Kim Stanley Robinson too (he who wrote Red/Green/Blue Mars).

    5. Re:Mother of Storms by John Barnes by PortWineBoy · · Score: 1

      Fire Ice by Clive Cussler/Paul Kemprecos is an adventure novel that uses the mining of undersea solid methane as a plot device. Kemprecos has some oceanographic expertise that brings some depth to the story. The Amazon review can be found here http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399 149074/qid=1031772683/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/002-075806 2-2822450?v=glance&s=books

      --

      this sig deleted by another sig

  29. 1812? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh? What's supposed to have happened then?

  30. Good idea by jmu1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey, I say it's a great idea. Why manufacture weapons of mass destruction, when we could just have nature do it for us? I say go for it! Kill the world and have it done with.

  31. Bad news... by manon · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is bad news for Canada... Bush is going to want the land now...

    --
    42 + 1 = 42
    1. Re:Bad news... by hydrino · · Score: 1

      Blame Canada!
      It's not as far away as Iraq. Why not invade? Bush can keep up his approval ratings without risking actual troops.
      Then we can steal thier vast fart deposits beneath the sea!

    2. Re:Bad news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      It won't be too bad. The Prez will just declare that "we don't recognize you territoriality in these waters" and go ahead and set up a mining platform. Canada will protest strongly but of course there's nothing they can do.

      Can't believe it'll happen? It already did, in the Northwest Passage some decades back. That's Canadian territory, but Canada had always permitted sea traffic through it as long as you called it in.

      One year, the US decided "fsck you, these aren't your waters" and refused to check in anymore. Canada protested strongly but of course there was nothing they could do.

      And people wonder why we get hated. Remember, this is the way we treat our "friends".

    3. Re:Bad news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, like Canada isn't practically part of the US already ...

      Tell ya what: you can keep the methane if you take back Shatner and Bryan Adams.

  32. 850 metres by Seska · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just to be clear, the article states that the methane deposits are under 850 metres of water, not that the deposits themselves are 850 metres thick.

  33. how did they know? by squarefish · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I used to work as a fi$herman on large trawlers in Ala$ka and I'll tell you first hand that anything that wasn't the fi$h we wanted was immediately thrown overboard, with rare exception- fi$h is where the money is. It's hard for me to believe that a deckhand would actually pay attention to something that must have resembled a rock or piece of ice, but then again I bet boats have been pulling this stuff up for a very long time and it went ignored just for that reason.

    --
    Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
    1. Re:how did they know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, are a brave soul...

      After reading "Polar Star", by Michael Cruz Smith, I quickly put the kibbosh on that line of work for me when I was in HS...(I grew up in the Seattle area).

    2. Re:how did they know? by SnarkDogma · · Score: 1

      They new because when they dragged up the Methane Hydrate, the sea surface bubled like a massive alka-seltzer was dropped in. the hydrate off-gasses at ambient temperature/pressure, and since the volume of methane held in the hydrate is massive, dragging up a small amount made a big stink that it was hard to ignore.

      According to one of the scientists studying the deposit, it was lucky none of the deck hands were smoking.

      --
      "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli
    3. Re:how did they know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much can someone make working as as fi$herman?

    4. Re:how did they know? by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      Hey, fishermen would pay attention to a piece of free ice. They use ice on the fish. It's very convenient when the fish comes with its own ice.

      Oh, yeah... This is a No Smoking boat!

  34. Earth First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll strip-mine the other planets later.

  35. Are we sure is was not.. by Alec+Varezz · · Score: 1

    CowboyNeal after a night at taco bell.

  36. Thoughts by LittleGuy · · Score: 2

    Knowing human ingenuity (and greed factor), if there's a way to /e/x/p/l/o/i/t tap into it as an energy source, it will be done.

    Then again, it gives a whole new meaning to the phrase....
    Cap'n! She's gonna blow!

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    1. Re:Thoughts by jmu1 · · Score: 2
      "Cap'n, I don't know how much longer I can hold her togetha! We're running out of methane hydrate crystals!"

      Seriously though, I hate to sound like I don't care, but the Earth isn't going to last as a stable ecosystem for humans. The face of the planet has, without the help of outside(living) forces, been completely decimated. So, why not take full advantage? Besides which, I do not look forward to any afterlife, therefore, I don't see much of a fear of 'raping' the Earth. I say go for it, the world is going to get worse before it gets better. :S

  37. History & alternate fuel by edgrale · · Score: 2

    A site with more information is here.

    Here is a paper about how frozen methane may offer hope as alternate fuel

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  38. Methane Everywhere by Izang · · Score: 1

    Methane deposits like this are everywhere.

    Scientists are worried that if the ocean temperature continues to rise more methane will be released into the atmosphere. This will supposedly boost global warming, increase the overall sea temperature even more and release more methane. It is a vicious cycle thing in National Geographic a couple months ago.

  39. On global warming concerns. by Mantrid · · Score: 0, Troll

    Are there things we have to do to protect the environment? Sure. Smog in cities. Poison in the waters. This must indeedy be cleaned up. Strip mining, clear cutting these can all leave ugly scars on the landscape.

    But this global warming stuff is just making a mountain out of a molehill. Climate change is going to happen whether we are here or not. Global warming or global cooling, glacial flow, heck even mass extinctions will occur no matter what human kind does. It happened long before we were around and it'll happen long after we are gone. The earth has gone through far more dramatic climate change then anything we are witnessing - multiple times.

    Look at what happens all around us - our industrial output pales in comparison to the amount of green house gases emitted by the Mt. St. Helens eruption for example. Oil seeps up from the sea. And these methane deposits - ever think they may just make it up to the surface after particularily major events- storms, etc?

    We think we are this all powerful force that is going to overrun the earth changing it in ways that it has never changed before. Bloody nonsense. We can do some damage sure and we must be at least a bit careful. But enough of this screaming bloody murder every time we even think about using an energy source.

    Suppose there is this vast, tappable resource of methane. Let's dig it up and burn it - but replace or retrofit coal fired power stations to use methane...wouldn't that be an improvement? oh sure you want solar power and wind power - but guess what, it just isn't workable yet on any sort of large scale.

    1. Re:On global warming concerns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Climate change is going to happen whether we are here or not.

      Right. So climate change is going to happen regardless of what we do. So we may as well rape the planet for our own ends.

      Okay. Same logic:

      You are going to die. So I may as well blow your brains out now for my own personal enjoyment.

      Oh hang on - that probably makes sense in your stupid little world.

    2. Re:On global warming concerns. by jmu1 · · Score: 2
      Hey, look at me! I posted anonymously so that I can't be tracked down by the authorities... just in case this fellow gets shot.

      Wuss.

    3. Re:On global warming concerns. by Mantrid · · Score: 1

      No it's not the same logic, it's not even the same arguement.

      And if you'd bothered to read it, you'd see quite clearly that I wrote we do have to be careful. Read the post again.

      I am saying that humanity is not affecting climate change to any large degree. We are *NOT* raping the planet. Natural forces create more greenhouse gases then we ever could. Like the Mt. St. Helens example, more greenhouse gases were expelled then all of industrialized society to that point. That was one volcano.

    4. Re:On global warming concerns. by Mantrid · · Score: 1

      TROLL? Why because I have a different point of view? Try reading the moderation guidelines.

    5. Re:On global warming concerns. by varith · · Score: 1

      I dunno where you are getting that statistic from. Dick Cheney maybe? A little checking and what I found was: "Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year" (http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/cl imate_effects.html) And "Do Volcanoes Put Out as Much Carbon Dioxide as We Do? Terry Gerlach, US Geological Survey, Cascades Volcano Observatory The greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most abundant gas (after water) emitted by volcanoes. Volcanologists estimate an annual global output of 200 million tons of volcanic CO2 per year. This natural source is balanced by natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere-specifically by the weathering of rock into soil by atmospheric CO2 dissolved in rain and surface waters. By comparison, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation produce 130 times more CO2 than all the world's volcanoes put together (adding 26,000 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year, the equivalent of 8,000 Kilaueas (Hawaii's most active volcano). This comparison suggests humans are producing CO2 at a rate unprecedented in a geological history stretching back many millions of years. " (http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/mshnvm/education/Summer _Geology_Seminars.htm) Although single large eruptions can produce huge amount, perhaps even enough to jump the volcano total up by 100 times, I don't think it can produce more than all of human history.

    6. Re:On global warming concerns. by Mantrid · · Score: 1

      Interesting, how do they come to all of these figures (both human and natural)? I don't hear from Dick Cheney too much, not being from the U.S.

      Food for thought though.

    7. Re:On global warming concerns. by varith · · Score: 1

      Its simple math mostly. Take the known rates from volcanos (and they do know a lot of them, volcanos are fairly well studied.) and add them up. Take the rates from human activity and add it up also.

  40. Careful by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

    The cow's aren't happy about being exploited.

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  41. not only that, but by Interfacer · · Score: 1

    the density of the surface water drops fast if milions of liters of gas bubbles up to the surface. if the density drops far enough, ships will sink into the ocean because the water pressure drops.

  42. OT: your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Giving money and power to government is like giving whisky and car keys to teenage boys." --P.J. O'Rourke

    P.J. O'Rourke really should have said "irresponsible teenage boys". I knew several growing up, myself included, who if given car keys and whiskey would have returned both to their rightful owner.

  43. Floating ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    How come it doesn't float when methane and frozen water are less dense than liquid water >

    1. Re:Floating ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because methane hydrate - the result of dissolving methane in frozen water - is _not_ less dense than liquid water. duh.

  44. Yes we should... by BigChigger · · Score: 0

    use it. Are we in the 21st century or are we still in the Stone Age? Maybe all you enviro-nazis want to live in a cave and crap in a hole in the ground - I do not.

    BC

  45. The worms dig into your brain... by Thorrablot · · Score: 1
    Perhaps our evolutionary successors have beat us to it: gas-hoggin' worms?

    Playing armchair scientist for a moment (and damning the worms to worm-juice) - mine that baby! Aside from the immediate, relatively clean energy supply, the experience of undersea methane hydrate mining would be good to have for future space-based mining.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo. -- James Klass
  46. What would Jesus Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus would win... He's hung like this
    (hold arms outstreched like on cross)

  47. reminds me of civilization by AssFace · · Score: 1

    anytime we stuble on bits of energy sources, I always have that same feeling that I get when I'm playing civilization and get free gold or find an area with a well stocked mountain to mine.
    and thank goodness that it wasn't a rouge tribe hellbent on killing us.

    --

    There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
    1. Re:reminds me of civilization by Bearpaw · · Score: 3, Funny
      and thank goodness that it wasn't a rouge tribe hellbent on killing us.

      Well, dahling, if you put on a little lipstick, they'll probably let you live.

      Um. Or did you mean rogue tribe?

      Never mind.

  48. Re:Bermuda Triangle XENU farts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    75 million years ago, after placing hundreds of millions of bodies near volcanoes around the world, and of course before he exploded all the nuclear bombs. Xenu had one hell of a huge dinner. I mean this guy ate like there was NO tomorrow. He ate and he ate. After he finished he went up on deck of his boat and felt a cramp coming on. Pretty soon the pain got so bad that he was having trouble seeing. Suddenly Xenu found himself in the water sinking like a scientologist. The ONLY thing that saved him was the massive amount of gas in his gut which when he farted propelled him from the bottom to the deck of his boat. Quite a miracle. I don't know if Xenu thanked LronHubbard or if he thanked himself but it was still a miracle. Soon the gas settled to the bottom and froze. There ya have it. Another natural phenomenon explained through the wonders of scientology.

  49. Refilling oil wells by randomErr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's been a series of stories about oil wells refilling themselves lately. One of the ideas is that our current source of oil is from methane that was trapped beneath the Earth's surface at the big bang, and from fosilized animals. This story could actually be further evidence of that idea.

    An alternate theory is that their is a biomass layer bacteria below the surface of the Earth that is producing methane. That methane is then changed into oil by heat, preasure, and the filtration to the surface of the. Haven't you noticed that most oil well are dug where there is a large amount of sandstone and other porous rock?

    <Useful links>
    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.ht ml
    http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/recharging/
    http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html
    http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/origins.h tml
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/038798546 8/202-8329969-5193459
    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/margins/seeps_worksho p.html

    --
    You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    1. Re:Refilling oil wells by jaoswald · · Score: 2

      Another, non-crackpot idea is that the geology (i.e. rock formations) of oil well sites is somewhat more complicated than the well owners have realized, and that the finite amount of oil down there can move around under the huge pressures involved.

      The fact that petroleum tends to accumulate in porous rock layers is no more mysterious than the fact that liquid water tends to accumulate in porous rock layers. I can soak up more water with a sponge than with a stone, too.

      Neither means there is some quasi-unlimited source of petroleum down there.

    2. Re:Refilling oil wells by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1
      One of the ideas is that our current source of oil is from methane that was trapped beneath the Earth's surface at the big bang


      Dumbass!!! there was no Earth at the Big Bang. There wasn't even any methane. Or probably even surface of anything.
      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    3. Re:Refilling oil wells by randomErr · · Score: 2

      No absolute statement is true.

      If thats true then your irrelevant?

      --
      You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    4. Re:Refilling oil wells by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean "you're", a contraction of "You Are"? Besides, your comment was a statement, not a question so why the question mark? Dumbass!!

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    5. Re:Refilling oil wells by randomErr · · Score: 2

      If your trying to make a logical argument, why do have you have to result to name calling?

      --
      You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    6. Re:Refilling oil wells by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

      I wasn't trying to have a logical argument beyond making the point that methane on the sea bed has NOTHING to do with the big bang which is something any 15 year old should be able to tell you.

      The name calling came from the pathetic attempt to insult my .sig with a badly constructed sentence.

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    7. Re:Refilling oil wells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do believe you mean "resort" to name calling.

    8. Re:Refilling oil wells by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Rather than Big Bang, you obviously meant "the formation of the Earth". The amount of carbon present in the Solar System makes it obvious that there was a lot of it captured when the Earth formed. We're lucky we didn't end up with as much carbon in the atmosphere as Venus -- although maybe when the Moon stripped off our upper layers it might have removed a bunch of it.

  50. walking with the beasts! (and lab made frozen meth by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    hey, just saw this on my screen from div^H^H^H tv.

    a great 'documentary' if i may say, if not intrested in history of species just look it for the cool effects(and to get perspective).

    and i read about that methane from a science mag like ~4-5 years ago. dunno if nowadays, but back then they hadn't actually brought any ice up from the ocean floor(there weren't means yet, because of the high pressure required to keep it in ice), and stated that all the pics of scientists setting methane ice on fire were in fact made using lab made methane ice.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  51. This stuff's on land, too, and there's a LOT of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    The methane contained in these and similar deposits worldwide is estimated to be 80 MILLION
    times more than the world's conventional natural gas preserves.


    Fascinating article from the US
    DOE says we've known about this stuff for a century: Methane hydrates
    form in generally two types of geologic settings: (1) on land in permafrost
    regions where cold temperatures persist in shallow sediments, and (2) beneath
    the ocean floor at water depths greater than about 500 meters where high
    pressures dominate. The hydrate deposits themselves may be several hundred
    meters thick.

  52. Potential Enormous Energy Resource by Aaron+M.+Renn · · Score: 1

    It has been known for years that methane hydrates on the ocean floor might provide more energy than conventional fossil fuels. There's an interesting article on them from the US Geological Survey here

    The fact is that the earth contains virtually unlimited supplies of energy that can be tapped into by man. And that is apart from the truly huge reservoir of nuclear power we can tap into. There is no energy shortage - not even an oil shortage - on this planet.

  53. North Sea Boat ... by HerringFlavoredFowl · · Score: 2

    BBC has an article about a possibly similar incident in the North Sea.

    --
    TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
    1. Re:North Sea Boat ... by arivanov · · Score: 3, Informative

      Besides the article it has also been broadcasted in BBC series on global warming. Few notes: 1. It is not frozen - it is gaz-hidrate. Which is natural under the pressure+temperature conditions in question. It is though that there is a humongous quantity of methane tied in gas-hidrate on the ocean floor especially where rivers bring out organic matter into the ocean. 2. If you look into the global warming models - half of them do not account for this methane and methane has higher greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. The ones that take into account this methane in general predict hell on earth. Basically once the ocean has warmed up enough the methane starts to come out which speeds up global warming and more methane comes out. Classic chain reaction. 3. There is some geological evidence that these methane eruption global warming events have happened in the past. It was presented on the BBC program in question. 4. Forgot how the show was called but it is possible that you may find some of the data on bbc web site (not news, the proper www.bbc.co.uk).

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:North Sea Boat ... by -Nails- · · Score: 1

      I have been told by an environmental science major that methane is not a greenhouse gas. I was wondering if anyone besides OPEC funded scientests, and mindless media following sheep disagrees with him?

      Nails

    3. Re:North Sea Boat ... by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      Well, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change says
      The UNFCCC addresses all greenhouse gases, which it defines as "those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and manmade, that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation" Such gases include: (1) water vapor and clouds, which account for about 96 percent of the greenhouse effect; (2) CO2, 3.3 percent; (3) methane (CH4), 0.5 percent; and (4) all other gases, 0.2 percent.
      According to that, methane is only one-half of one percent of the Earth's greenhouse effect. Perhaps that person meant that methane doesn't warm us much; I don't know how much even its doubling would matter.
  54. Butt-loads of solid methane... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

    Huh huh

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  55. Re:This stuff's on land, too, and there's a LOT of by Mr.roboto · · Score: 1

    You're forgetting one large source I can think of; garbage dumps. They burn it off a lot so the dump doesn't blow up ;0. As far as why the liquid's there, that's real easy. It's cold. Gases are liquid when they get cold enough, propane is -40 F, Butane is 5 F and methane should be somewhere in the neighborhood I suspect. Because temperature and pressure are intermingled in the gas laws, the pressure could have created the liquid as well however.

    --
    Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
  56. Is Canada that hard up for methane? by ClassicPenguin · · Score: 1

    Do they really need it that bad? Why don't they just take ten thousand hoses to ten thousand cows and hook them up butt first? They'd have all the methane they could ever need and help preserve the ozone layer at the same time.

    1. Re:Is Canada that hard up for methane? by Matimus · · Score: 1

      Here Here,

      Cattle are continuously producing greenhouse gasses. They are one of the largest sources. So now we found some other mass of methane. Well why don't we use the stuff we already have, and eliminate one of the sources of greenhouse gas at the same time. At least that is better than releasing more gas. One may also worry that global warming will cause the ocean temperature to rise and then it will all be released, and I'm pretty sure that our environment would be really screwed up. Renewable Resources People, come on! Where is my dang fuel cell?

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    2. Re:Is Canada that hard up for methane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we've already got too many politicians per capita!! *rimshot*

  57. Methane Hydrates by practical007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Methane is hydrophyllic under certain pressure and temperature regimes. It can easily form a slushy substance known as methane hydrates. These are not only a resource, but commonly a production problem in deepwater (5000') offshore environments where flowing temperatures are low. They can form in lines and plug things up. I am doing an undergrad project on these and I have friends doing grad work on them as well. It's neat stuff, and the vast quantities mean a tremendous future for good ole clean burning natural gas. Wanna see something really amazing? Check out the methane resources beleived to be associated with geothermal brines.

  58. Just another problem by zoomshorts · · Score: 0

    Sure. let us exploit this, burn if for fuel and Use up Oxygen we would normally use for breathing. This stuff will be enormously expensive to mine. A total dangerous experiment at 800 PLUS feet deep in the ocean. Sure, plants tend to replace Oxygen when they are able to get the necessary raw materials to extract the Oxygen, but how can we assure this will happen? Desertification is already in progress worldwide. Fouling the oceans will merely reduce the amount of sea borne plants that can help produce/liberate more oxygen for life processes. Anyone want to convert to a sulphur based existance?

  59. GM cows: the downside by tlambert · · Score: 5, Funny

    "GM Cows that dont fart so much are being developed right now."

    The downside is that if you let them get more than about four years old, they explode violently.

    -- Terry

  60. Methane deposits in historical global warming by ninthwave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I saw a report on the global warming flash points within earth. Basically the idea traced the carbon output of rainforests. Geologically global warming was gradual but intensived at certain time periods. These time periods were centered around forest fires in the rain forest areas. The general map is this. Rain forests can only act as a carbon sink for so much carbon before the dead material created by the forest begins to add to carbon output instead of the plants breath cycle decreasing it. In natural historic global warming (without man made intervention) the increase of life on earth slowly moved carbon distribtion until the atmosphere warmed this slow warm hyper excelerated in the last phases. This caused quick changes in temperature followed by a dramatic cold period. The key was the current rain forest model. It appears rain forests hold more carbon than predicted. In tracing this carbon it was found that dead organic material was carried by the rivers and decayed producing methane. But instead of the gas being released in the atmosphere this material was pushed into the sea depths and froze. Methan ice packs have been hit by oil drilling before and than come up a boil. The theory is that this extra carbon sink accounts for the rapid period of global warming in the geological evidence. Slow global warming slowly raises the rates of forest fires releasing more carbon from the forests when temperatures hit a point of affectin sea temperatures the methane in the ocean becomes gas. These large storages are dumped almost instantly creating a dramatic and quick rise in temperature which melts the ice caps and glaciers. This changes the saline levels of the ocean changing the heat distribution of the currents and flipping into a cold period. So it is best to not bring up these carbon sinks but to leave them untouched. Again the drive should be to move away from carbon based fuel. Related links
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/12 18_earthbelch.html
    http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-01k.htm l
    http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/ 3_Methane.htm
    http://superstringtheory.com/forum/warmboard/messa ges2/116.html

    --
    I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
    1. Re:Methane deposits in historical global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      intensived

      You mean "intensified".

      excelerated

      You mean "accelerated".

      It is very hard to figure out what you mean when you mis-spell words so badly, and of course nobody could find find your piece searching for "intensified warming" or "accelerated release" because those words appear nowhere. Have some mercy on your readers; you only write it once, but the page is read by thousands. -- This correction brought to you by Grammar Man, who is slumming today

    2. Re:Methane deposits in historical global warming by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Doesn't your global carbon budget show more carbon being lost to the ocean floor than known supplies? A forest burning every once in a while is a good idea, we need the carbon dioxide.

    3. Re:Methane deposits in historical global warming by ninthwave · · Score: 1

      yes I did.
      Though it isn't a problem with spelling as it is more a problem with typing and poor proof reading.

      I will try harder to have less errors in my next posts. Thank you.

      --
      I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
  61. Beware the Seamonsters! by airrage · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's not frozen methane -- it's a cap on an undersea cave. If you take off the cap it will release the seamonsters! Run for your lives! aaaaaahhhhhh! ahhhhhhhh!

    --
    "This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
  62. known for decades by peter303 · · Score: 2

    IOn fact these are treated as drilling hazards witht tendency to explode when penetrated. Only recently have drillers become more confident in technology to produce them. Transport of product is still a problem. Very few natural gas ships. Most is by pipeline.

    1. Re:known for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and transporting natural gas by ship has a high global warming impact, since a certain amount of it always has to be vented en route.

    2. Re:known for decades by boskone · · Score: 1

      then why not build a pipeline, or is it too far out.

      oh right, the hippies!!!

  63. Why mine it when we already produce plenty? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2

    Why on Earth would we need to spend millions of dollars to find out how to mine the stuff when we are already producing plenty of the stuff? Every rubbish dump on earth is producing methane as a side product from the decomposing waste. Surely it would be cheaper and more ecologicaly sound to use that as a source of methane? The frozen methane is best left where it is, otherwise who knows what additional environmental issues why might face?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Why mine it when we already produce plenty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Near where I live, there are several former dumps producing gas that is used to run a few generators on-site. We're talking large landfills maybe making only a few kilowatts of power daily.

      The gas from a dump is concentrated enough to provide a steady supply (think, pumped into a pressure tank to the generators, but it is definitely no where near the same level of magnitude of gas supply having a power plant sitting right over a natural gas field or on a NG pipeline would be.

      I remember driving past the Skyway landfill in south Seattle, how they had flares that burned the gas off, essentially pipes stuck into the ground with a hood that kept the flame from being doused or snuffed out. Definitely about as bright as a giant sterno can fire would be, at night.

      Of course, now all that gas is pumped off (and the surrounding homes were bought out, after a couple blew up from concentrated gas fumes in them being ignited).

  64. leave it alone by mojowantshappy · · Score: 0

    Unless there is an environmentally safe way of removing the methane, and I seriously doubt there is, leave it alone.

    --

    This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!

  65. Re:Oh piss off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no global warming. We're still coming out of a very recent ice age, moron.

    ppl in glass houses should not throw rocks. global warming is the act of the earth warming up which you state by saying that we are coming out of an ice age. Well, on the plus side, the neanderthal repulicans (read you) are at least acknowledging that the temperature is raising. Perhaps in the future, they will state that mankind is at least possible cuasing some of the rise (actually it has never risen this fast, so most likely we are cuasing it).

    Environmentalists are really economic terrorists. They're out to bring down the evil US capitalist economy and replace it with a socialist paradise, and the environment can go to hell for all they care.

    I tend to agree that some of the environmental groups can get in the way, but then again what exactly are they trying to stop? The logging of state or national lands? Or is that they want true accounting of numbers. Old growth is worth a lot of money. Far more than what Bush/Norton/Owen conies charge and probably a lot more than what the dems were charging as well.If it is such a big problem, then have the lumber companies buy their own lands, plant their own trees, and harvest them. In fact, being the liberatian that I am, I am very much in favor of this approach.

    Rather than allow thinning in forests by evil capitalist logging companies, they tie them up in court until millions of acres of overgrown forests burn to the ground. Small fires == ok, and part of the natural way, but the massive, scorched-earth fires are ecologocal nightmares. And the "environmentalists" caused them.

    Okay tex. let me clue you in. We in the west USA, the true west, do not really care much for your medling in our business/land. You call these fires the problems of environmentalist? no. They are the direct result of several things
    1) too much over loggin in the old days, which caused:
    2) the environmentalists to step in and try an stop all logging.
    3) Lack of rain.
    4) lack of rain.
    5) lack of rain.
    We in the real west, would appreciate your staying out of our lands and simple allow us to do the right things. What is right? well, some lands need to be burned. In fact, just plain scorched. Some thinning should occur in others.
    and others should be allowed to keep growing (we do not want to look like texas).
    The problem is that your fuher is looking to restart whole sale loggin again, not thinning.
    Finally, global warming is occuring and it is reducing rain/snow here. Hopefully in the future, as the simulations show, the west will become lush and the east becomes arid.

  66. I saw the data for this methane 8 years ago! by redbaron7 · · Score: 1
    So why is this news?

    I was interviewed for a PhD place (which I didn't get) in 1994 which would have been analysing "bottom simulating reflectors" in seismic reflection data from the Vancouver Island area. It was already known that these "reflectors" represented methyl hydrate deposits, and this was one of the reasons put forward on the grant applications.

    Although the PhD really concerned geophysical techniques, the background methyl-hydrate argument supporting the project was actually concerned about global warming (warming seas -> destabilisation of methyl hydrate => might be a good idea to know how much and how stable the stuff is) rather than a future fuel source.

    RB

    1. Re:I saw the data for this methane 8 years ago! by xX_sticky_Xx · · Score: 2

      Because the Liberal government in power now would like nothing more than to get their hands on offshore mineral deposits. It is purely political. They want the federal government to give them the OK to drill off of the coast and they think that this will help.

      --

      ---

      I didn't want to leave this space blank.
  67. Um. Why? by Agermain · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We have plenty of methane that doesn't even need to be mined. Most public landfills have to vent methane properly to prevent explosions. With the right business model, I'm sure state & local governments could use income from selling off methane to be refined into an energy source Hell, even the EPA supports this course of action. Why bother with underwater mining, when it's practically in our own backyards?

  68. It's not Frozen Methane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    They are talking about Methane Hydrate. There is no way methane can be frozen solid at the range of temperatures and pressures found in the ocean floor. It will be above it's critical temperature.

    More information can be found under methane hydrate in google or:

    article

    among other. It's really an interesting compound and future power source.

  69. old news by Mr+Foot · · Score: 0

    This news is several years old now.

    1. Re:old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really want to be picky, its several millions of years old, but who's counting? ;)

  70. Solar power and pollution. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

    Solar = destroy you planet faster... The process for making silicon solar cells is very very VERY nasty and pollutes worse than dumping raw gasoline directly into a lake

    Not if you're using thin-film cells.

    Also not if you're using concentrators and very small cells.

    Especially not if you're doing both.

    Also especially not if you're using a non-photovoltaic system, like concentrators and a heat engine.

    Of the "alternative" energy production schemes proposed, I find solar farms to be the most plausible as a real solution. (Not the solution I'd choose, but at least a potentially practical alternative.)

  71. Solar != destroy planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can use solar energy to heat water and run turbines, If you use parabolic collectors. You can also use it to heat phase-changing liquids, that can be used to heat homes or power tubines. You do not have to use solar cells.

  72. It happens to the best of gases by arildsat · · Score: 2, Informative
    Gas hydrates isn't just a methane thing. Other gases can get caught up in it as well.

    Actually, the gas molecules get trapped within a cage of water molecules. Depending on pressure, this can happen above the usual temperature where water freezes. In deep sea drilling, this can cause things to ice up, even in fairly warm water, if the pressure is high enough.

    The result can be costly in terms of money (processing equipment not working or hydrates clogging up pipelines, for example), or costly in terms of human lives. Blow-out preventer valves can freeze in the "open" position, giving a false sense of security, or hydrate plugs can clog up pipes, until they shoot off down the pipe as the pressure builds up on one side, eventually arriving like a projectile at the other end. The Piper Alpha fire in the North Sea was caused partially by gas hydrates preventing safety valves from closing.

    Gas hydrates can be very problematic, and chemicals such as methanol (called inhibitors) are routinely added to the oil/water/gas mix that is pumped up to prevent the buildup of gas hydrates.

    On the other hand, they can also be used to store gas. One volume unit of gas hydrate can be separated into 179 volume units of gas and 0.8 volume units of water.

    Gas hydrates are fairly common in the ocean floor. In fact, the largest land/mud/ocean floor slide known to man, off the coast of Norway about 7000 years ago, is suspected to have been caused by melting gas hydrates releasing their "grip" on the sand.

  73. Mining technique idea!!! by Broken+Bottle · · Score: 1

    Maybe they could use torches to cut large chunks of the methane apart and then bring it to the surface :)

    Chris

  74. What about the "Worms" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A year or two ago, a submersible exploring a methane hydrite ice deposit (might have the name a little off) were amazed to find "worms" swimming around and apparently living in tunnels they burrowed/ate into the solid methane hydrite. They brought some up for study, that's the last I've heard of them. Anyone else have any info? By the way, they looked more like swimming millipedes in the video clip I saw.

  75. Oh, you just wait by Winterblink · · Score: 1

    Wait until they dig it up and find the massive deposit of frozen MANURE underneath that created the methane. That'll be the real environmental disaster, oh yeah. :P

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
  76. Carbon-sequestration by wfmcwalter · · Score: 1
    This is a bit ironic (yes, I do know what that means) given sub-oceanic sites are candidates to be future carbon sequestration sites - see this page. So we're talking about extracting hydrocarbons from one ocean floor, burning them, taking the resuling CO2 and pumping it down into another ocean floor, and at the same time extracting a vastly superior greenhouse gas (methane) from said second hole. Time for me to buy real-estate on Baffin Island. I think. </serious>

    <daft>So it's obvious how these methane deposits were formed - they're carbon-sequestration caches, established by a reptillian civilisation during the silurian period, in their attempt to avoid their global warming problem - but they were too effective, and caused the ice-age that begins the devonian, and did away with the silly silurians' civilisation.</daft>

    --
    ## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
    1. Re:Carbon-sequestration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... But wouldn't the reptilian civilization tend to enjoy global warming?

  77. The question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we mine this resource without any impact on the surrounding sea/coastal environment? As with every other mining operation I can think of - the answer to this question is a most definite "NO". The Pacific ocean/coast already has enough environmentally hazardous activities occuring there. How many species/strains of endangered fish, waterfowl, and other sea life does the area have already? Too many.

  78. almost there by fjordboy · · Score: 2

    I saw that show as well (Discovery?)...and the video of the upwelling by that oil rig was incredible....you don't often see fire in and below water. :)

    However, as I recall it wasn't frozen methane, it was large amounts of methane trapped in rock....so much that the rocks could actually be ignited and burn. I don't know if that really changes anything...but it wasn't actually frozen methane.

  79. This maybe a little off topic but by 2000+Britneys · · Score: 1

    according to this article http://www.llnl.gov/str/Durham.html they did try to create Hydrates with other gasses. Namely with carbon dioxide. Wouldn't this method be a cost effective way of removing the "green house" gasses from the athmosphere? Could someone with chemist background provide some more info plz.?

  80. Stay off my Island!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You oil crazy yanks keep away from Vancouver Island and it's shores. I not interested in some Amereican Mega Corp raping the land here, so bugger off.

  81. Scientific American on Methane Hydrates by ec_hack · · Score: 1
    According to some friends in the All Bidness, figuring out how to safely and economically "mine" these deposits is one of the holy grails of energy research.


    Scientific American has had several articles on these compounds. See:


    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00059 95 D-3FD3-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=1&catID=4

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0009EC CC-3F88-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=1&catID=4

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E0 257-B855-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=1&catID= 2

  82. Re:How it form. Listening to them causes no harm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Somewhere there is a car that gets 150 miles per gallon" This car is being witheld from the public by a major corporation."
    "Cutting down trees is bad. "
    "Increases in CO2 caused the trees to grow faster, which created more undergrowth, which is why we are having more forest fires"
    "Everyone should be forced to live in cities." Fight sprawl.
    Anything the Earth Liberation Front says.
    -
    Sorry but listening to environmentalists can be bad for your health. Now being a reasonable person I know you did not mean to shut down the economies of the world. I know that. If you are talking about conserving energy and conserving resources then we can agree. Before oil runs out, another fuel will be found to run our vehicles.

  83. African Lake Cloud by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    Yes, at least one lake in Africa does have carbon dioxide accumulating on its bottom. A major reason is that the water is deep and the minor temperature changes at the surface don't cause any currents to circulate the water.

    To prevent villages being destroyed again, right now there is at least one self-powered fountain by the lake. Scientists dropped a pipe to the bottom, pumped up a little water, and as the water charged with carbon dioxide rose...it bubbled and pushed itself up and out of the top of the pipe.

    Now that it started, the frothing is pumping more water up and it will keep doing that until the amount of carbon dioxide gets very low. Several fountains are scheduled to be installed there.

    1. Re:African Lake Cloud by Liquor · · Score: 1
      Scientists dropped a pipe to the bottom, pumped up a little water, and as the water charged with carbon dioxide rose...it bubbled and pushed itself up and out of the top of the pipe.
      Seems like this might be an effective method for extracting the methane, too. Just needs something at the bottom (like a dredge) to break off pieces of the hydrate/ice, with the pipe to suck them up to the surface. They revert to water and methane part way up, and the density change drives the flow in the pipe. Separate the gas bubbles from water at the top (or even just above the level that the ice changes state due to decreasing pressure to reduce the pipe strength neessary).

      This might even have the effect of bringing deep nutrients to the surface and improving local fishing (sort of like the natural upwellings that support huge fish population in other areas).

      Hmm. How soluble IS methane in low-pressure water? I seem to recall that some single-cell critters can eat methane - would they work as the basis of a food chain, perhaps?. It could be the basis for some intensive fish-farms, too.

      On the other hand, though, I can't find any information on how pure the methane extracted might be - if it's got high sulphur content or other similar problems, it might not be quite as good a fuel as might have been hoped for - and could be even worse disolved in seawater.
      --

      Liquor
      Sanity is a highly overrated commodity.
  84. Airplane Boom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There are so many airplanes that it would not be surprising if some of them have gotten in the way of a methane bubble. There is no reason to believe that this is more likely around Bermuda (geophysicists are welcome to do suitable research).

    I will note that a methane bubble is one possible reason for that airliner which blew up just off the New York coastline a few years ago. It certainly explains the big fireball.

    However, ignition is never certain and it is also possible that the shock of passing through a methane bubble is enough to destroy an aircraft. Methane, you see, is of different density than normal air. The airplane is happy in normal air, but then it hits an area of less density which also is moving rapidly upward. The airplane suddenly loses lift, the engines go out, there might be an upward push (first on the nose), the plane will tilt sideways if it doesn't enter head-on...and then the plane passes through and slams into the normal air on the other side.

    Remember that the nose of that 747 off NY had broken off?

    1. Re:Airplane Boom by cs0nro · · Score: 1

      Noteably research is beign done in to grand based lasers shooting missiles, they work by heating the airt infront of the missile changing the density, said missle then tears to bits as it goes through the density interface.

      --
      Get a life get a motorbike !
  85. The Earth is constantly passing gas by XNormal · · Score: 2
    Remember that methane is one of the most common gasses in the solar system - the gas giants are largely made of methane. During the formation of the Earth a lot of gasses got trapped in it and it is constantly outgassing.

    "...the great earthquake in San Francisco in 1906 was accompanied by large fires, and it was said at the time that this was due to the fracture of gas pipes in the ground. That may well have been the case; however flames were also seen on hills nearby that had no gas pipes and also on roads and fields in nearby San Jose. The Armenian earthquake of 1990 showed a line of burnt bushes along a visible faultline."
    (quoted from Thomas Gold)

    When this happens on the ocean floor the methane may combine with water under high pressure and low temperatures to make "methane ice" and chemosynthetic bacteria and methane ice worms live in it!
    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  86. Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gas just wants to be free...

  87. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only about 30% have methane in their farts. It depends on the bacteria living in your guts. The rest of us pass CO2, hydrogen and small amounts of hydrogen sulfide than accounts for most of the smell.

  88. How about not ... just a thought. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It is an environmentally sensitive area. So, how about it, should it be exploited?"

    Am I the only person who thinks this stinks? I think that this is one of the major problems in the world today. We humans see something that looks good, and we exploit the hell out of it without a moments thought to the repercusions. We are constantly thinking about money and self intersts. This has to stop. There will always be more money, but there is only one Earth, and I for one happen to like living here.

  89. Just in case you might be forgetting: by haggar · · Score: 2

    How does methane actually cause greenhouse effect? It's not the burning of the methane, which creates only a small quantity of CO2 per KJoule. It's the methane itself, which, during the course of extraction, distribution and usage, will inevitable escape into the atmosphere. And methane is a MUCH more effective greenhouse gas than CO2!

    BTW, that's why the cows in US and India do, in fact, contribute to the greenhouse effect quite considerably.

    --
    Sigged!
  90. It's only dangerous if we don't pick it up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Methane is a green house gas, plain and simple. Environmentalists and native groups get so stressed about "offshore oil and gas exploration" that they forget what they are talking about. Leaving this to melt into the ocean and bubble up is plain lousy...it is bad for sea life and bad for air quality...bad for ozone. Mining this (properly) is the best thing we can do for the environment.

  91. Mmmmmm, Frozen methane by burgburgburg · · Score: 1


    Mmmmmm, powdered frozen methanesicles.

    1. Re:Mmmmmm, Frozen methane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmmmm, powdered frozen mantesticles

  92. Re:Um. Why? by beme · · Score: 1

    Many landfills may vent methane, but many don't vent enough to make it worthwhile to generate power from it. Some of them do though, and the states or corporations that run them are already using it for power generation.

    --

    -beme
    1971
  93. Re:Lake Gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, the gas-in-the lake phenomenon is knows as 'lake overturn'. I think the principles are the same. Gas is kept under pressure at the bottom of the lake (not enough pressure to solidify it but enough to keep it from rising). The gas comes from underwater vents in the sides of volcanos.

    When a tremor or landslide dislodges rocks from the banks of the lake into the water, they disturb the gas when the reach the bottom. The gas rises to the top of the lake and (since it is heavier than air) creeps over the water and ground at floor level suffocating animals and humans. Whole African villages have been decimated overnight by this phenomenon - leading to many myths being taken into local folklore.

    Survivors have been the subject of fierce chemical burns as the gas reacts with the skin, and those who survive often tell of hallucenagenic experiences. Lake overturn has been recorded at at least two African mountain lakes - one of which the previous comment refers to. The problem is that the villagers have been crudely extracting the gas with hollow tubing to help fires burn (and possibly to kill fish?!) for years. But as the gas levels at the bottom of the lake rise, so does the chance of a disturbance releasing deadly quantaties of the gas.

    There is a theory - i think still unproven - that should a volcanic eruption throw some hot magma into a lake with tonnes of flammable gas at the bottom... well you can imagine the rest.

    This is why scientists are slowly syphoning out the gas from the lake. I forget its name but it is large enough that hundreds, if not thousands of people live on its shores.

  94. Can't Do Anything? by DCookie · · Score: 1

    You say they can't do anything? You obviously don't know about the agressive actions taken by Canadian fisherman when they barricaded our state's (Alaska) ferries!

    They're viscous I tell ya! They turned me into a NEWT! ... ... I got betta

    --
    My SIG is a SG-552 Commando
  95. An Interesting Sci Fi book on the topic by rben · · Score: 1

    Greg Bear used the methane deposits as an important plot element in Mother of All Storms. It's an interesting read considering about the possible consequences of a runaway greenhouse effect.

    --

    -All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
    www.ra

  96. Re:Um. Why? by Strider- · · Score: 2

    People are actually already doing this. In my home town, the fairgrounds are built on top of the old city dump. They use the methane taken from wells to heat the various buildings on the site (show barns, offices, ect...). The technology to do it isn't that complex; all you have to do is filter it properly.

    --
    ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  97. Yep! only in US and INDIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    because those skinny European cows don't fart right?

    1. Re:Yep! only in US and INDIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, that's because they had to put down all of the cannibalistic cows in europe due to mad cow.

  98. Re:armageddon: forget the corks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget the corks for cows. Just equip them all with pilot lights!!!

  99. Methane and the Bermuda Triangle by thelizman · · Score: 1

    Solid methane on the oceans floor is nothing new, and it shouldn't be suprising that they found some up north. Here's the deal: Plants and animals die, sink to the bottom, get covered in silt, mud, whatever. They rot, giving off methane, but the methane is trapped, supercooled and under pressure. So, it forms ice crystals. One of the coolist things I've ever seen is where scientists would pull methyl ice out of cores, and set it on fire: burning ice.

    Now picture this...an undersea quake or current shift uncovers a large deposity of methyl ice. The water immediately melts it, releasing large quanties of it in gaseous form. As these bubbles rise and depressurize, they may glow from certain electrical phenomena. When the surface, if some unlucky boat happens to be in the area - well, boats don't float in air, and they may fall intact below the waters surface, leaving little or no flotsam. As the gasses continue to rise, they gain more static charge, and this tends to draw compasses away from magnetic north. Sound familiar? Radios experience interference, magnetic navigation aids are fouled, planes fly thousands of miles off course, run out of gas, and crash. Even more fun, planes which fly through the gas clouds ignite explosions.

    This was all in someones book, and it almost perfectly explain the wierdness of the bermuda triangle for me.

  100. So... by User1234 · · Score: 0

    we now know that cows evolved from sea creatures.

  101. Trouble on the Horizon by ZombieFrog · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is the kind of news story that always appears at the beginning of a Gozilla movie.

    Save Tokyo!
    Do not disturb the frozen methane!

    --
    Z. http://www.play.net Your games, my job. C'est la vie!
  102. There are other ways to harness solar power by Albinoman · · Score: 1

    SunLab's website demontrates one effective way being applied in a few different ways.

  103. Is it just me, or is the CBC story fishy? by Liquor · · Score: 2
    The deposit of methane hydrate, or frozen gas, came to light early last month when a fishing crew pulled up a chunk of the material in their nets.
    How could they pull a chunk of pure methane hydrate to the surface without it decomposing? It breaks down when you reduce the pressure.

    It could be rocks saturated with methane, similar to those found under the North Sea - but if that's the case, the deposit itself is practically worthless (how much rock would have to be brought to the surface and crushed/heated/whatever in order to release the methane?)

    More likely, these are just (again as in the North Sea) just an indicator that there are deeper reserves of oil and/or gas below the seafloor, and little to do with methane hydrates.

    For that matter, althought he article says 'in about 850 metres of water', the text on the picture shows '850 metres below the ocean floor' - NOT the same thing.
    --

    Liquor
    Sanity is a highly overrated commodity.
    1. Re:Is it just me, or is the CBC story fishy? by Physics+Dude · · Score: 1
      How could they pull a chunk of pure methane hydrate to the surface without it decomposing? It breaks down when you reduce the pressure.

      How fast it decomposes is due to it's temperature as well as pressure. I've seen videos of meth hydrate chunks being pulled up from underwater and handled/burned on the boat's deck.

      It could be rocks saturated with methane, similar to those found under the North Sea - but if that's the case, the deposit itself is practically worthless (how much rock would have to be brought to the surface and crushed/heated/whatever in order to release the methane?)

      PLEASE... look up methane hydrates. It's NOT methane soaked rock. FYI, that word "hydrates", has somehting to do with its nature.

      More likely, these are just (again as in the North Sea) just an indicator that there are deeper reserves of oil and/or gas below the seafloor, and little to do with methane hydrates.

      So you really think that methane hydrates have little to do with methane hydrates??? For the love of ...

    2. Re:Is it just me, or is the CBC story fishy? by Liquor · · Score: 1
      PLEASE... look up methane hydrates. It's NOT methane soaked rock. FYI, that word "hydrates", has somehting to do with its nature.
      Yeah, I did, before I posted. Everything I found indicated that it breaks down at sea level at any temperature above 270K - i.e. below freezing. Canada may be the great white north, but it's NOT that cold out by Vancouver island right now, nor has the ocean bottom temperature been near that there since shortly after the last ice age.

      I did find, however, reference to porous rock structures saturated with methane hydrate, however, that keep the methane hydrate at just that slightly higher pressure needed, and that WILL burn as the methane hydrate within breaks down. There was also reference to such rocks indicating deeper oil and reserves.
      So you really think that methane hydrates have little to do with methane hydrates??? For the love of ...
      Yeah, a story where people claim 'large reserves' and confuses '850 metres below the sea floor' with '850 metres below the surface', combined with the local temperatures, and the existence of porous rocks with methane hydrate in them. It's quite possible that the actual subject of the story has very little to do with large deposits of pure methane hydrate right on the sea floor. (Such relatively pure deposits exist - I'm just not sure of the CBC story about this one location.)

      Just because the CBC has reported something doesn't mean that they got the story right. I can easily see a reporter - or anyone with second hand information and a little knowledge of methane hydrates - confusing the two possiblities.
      --

      Liquor
      Sanity is a highly overrated commodity.
    3. Re:Is it just me, or is the CBC story fishy? by Physics+Dude · · Score: 1
      Yes, gas hydrates do breakdown when they're pulled to the surface, but not immediately. They can exist for hours before melting and releasing their methane. About hydrates pulled from Oregon coastal waters:
      "The hydrates were formed in the sea under conditions of high pressure and low temperatures, Collier said. They begin to decompose as soon as they are removed from the seafloor, within hours leaving scientists with only a smelly puddle of water." --http://osu.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/1996/96Oct ober/methane.htm
      These are true methane-hydrates that are brought to the surface and can be handled etc, until they slowly decompose.
  104. Worms in the Methene Ice by UrGeek · · Score: 1

    This press release from July 29, 1997 documents the discovery of some Weird Worms that LIVE in mounds of methane ice on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, about 150 miles south of New Orleans. http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/iceworms.htm So very, very weird.

  105. A smarter reaction by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    "We think we are this all powerful force that is going to overrun the earth changing it in ways that it has never changed before."

    Well, actually I think the issue is that we are powerful enough to change the Earth in ways that it has been changed before.

    So rather than get all political about it, a smarter idea would be to figure out just how our actions do change the Earth, and then avoid changing it in ways we don't want to.

  106. Go back to Geo 101 by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    Anyone saying anything at all was "trapped on Earth at the Big Bang" needs to go back to his/her Geology books for a few years. Hint: BB = current theory of formation of the _Universe_. Formation of Earth = several billion years later...

  107. Environmental Concerns? by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

    There's a much larger concern that should be addressed: Being underwater, it's fairly safe from melting, partly due to pressure from surrounding seawater... But now that it's known to be there, it would be more in their interest to remove it... I'm not too sure of whether or not it would float if somehow it broke free of the seabed, but in the event of a sizable earthquake in the area (as it appears to lie on a major faultline)... Could it be dislodged, resulting in it's breaking free, rising to the surface and evaporating into gaseous form, adding to the abundance of already existing greenhouse gasses?

    Secondly, there are ways to mine the material without disrupting the surrounding environment... In fact, it has the potential be the first deep sea industry... A hypothetical scenario could involve deep sea submersables designed to saw away at the ice, stowing the material in cargo carriers that could then be lifted to the surface for later processing on land, complete with a smallish base for crew, management and control systems... With enough effort, it could even be automated for safety's sake...

    Just my 3.4 cents (adjusted for Canadian dollar)...

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  108. it is solid because... by halfelven · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...it is methane hydrate. That is methane associated with water; the water and methane molecules are entangled in a weird fashion, but it's solid and stable under conditions that are not quite exotic.

  109. More Green spewage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If you were from the "true west" you wouldn't be going on about global warming... you'd know better. Historically, there have been droughts. Historically, there have been floods. They happen in cycles. Only hysterical hand-wringing professional morons don't know that.

    Global warming is happening on Mars right now too...

    The simulations are rigged - there's also a simulation out there that shows that as things warm up, more water is evaporated, which produces more clouds, which reflect more sunlight and cool things off, it's self-regulating.

    Oooh, the arctic ice cap is thinning - that's a sign of a coming ice age. The arctic ocean was ice-free during the last one.

    Oooh, the antarctic glaciers are spawning huge ice bergs. That's because antarctica is cooling, the weight of the increased ice is making the glaciers flow faster.

    If anybody is really concerned with pollution, and greenhouse gases, and the destruction of the environment:
    • they wouldn't buy a computer - all those haz-mats created producing a computer are evil.
    • they wouldn't have electricity in their homes - everybody knows producing electricity causes pollution of some sort, or it dams up pristine rivers that kill fish, or it comes from windmills that kill birds and despoil pristine vistas.
    • they wouldn't live in a house made of murdered trees.
    • they wouldn't destroy the ecosystem of a cave by living in one.
    • they wouldn't harm the ecosystem of a forest by living in one.
    • they wouldn't harm the ecosystem of a meadow by living in one.
    • they wouldn't harm the ecosystem of a desert by living in one.
    • they would stop polluting the air by expelling greenhouse gases, and throw themselves into a volcano. It's the only thing left for them to do. The sooner they do that, the better for the rest of us.
    1. Re:More Green spewage by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      "they wouldn't live in a house made of murdered trees."

      Hey, I'm doing carbon sequestration! I've locked the carbon in those trees safely in a dry place where they won't rot and thus won't release their carbon back to the environment.

  110. catch that fart and paint it purple by flyneye · · Score: 1

    well now that every terrorist on earth knows about it ,osama will put a diving bell over his turban and go smack it with a camelprod.fullfilling the prophets and making their camels fertile.praise allah.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  111. The unfreezing process by ChaosMt · · Score: 1
    " Who are these people! "

    "The shouting is a temporary side affect of the unfreezing process"

    "Yes I'm having difficulty controlling the volume of my voice!!!!!! "

    I should have known it was the methane

  112. Speaking as a loyal Canadian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...no deal. And we don't want Celine Dion back, either. But we're glad Joni Mitchell still visits, even if it's not back on the Canadian prairies, where she was born. ...could you take Farley Mowat, though?

    1. Re:Speaking as a loyal Canadian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, then the US kiddies can pull apart owl puke in school...

  113. Re:OT: your sig QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bet you're a million laughs at parties.

  114. Of course it should - before it creates a disaster by aminorex · · Score: 2

    Firstly, *every* place is environmentally sensitive.
    Sensitivity to strategic perturbation is one of the
    definitive aspects of complex systems. The reason
    utilization of natural resources becomes controversial
    is that what *aspects* of any given environment are
    worthy of protection is a subjective value judgement.

    In this case, failing to exploit the resource will
    result in a future ecological catastrophe which
    extends far beyond the region of Vancouver Island:
    Methane is a primary greenhouse gas. It is crucially
    important that we should extract the bulk of the
    undersea methane deposits (which extend to many,
    many other regions of the world as well) before
    the ocean temperature raises enough to vaporize
    those deposits. Otherwise, they will create a
    global warming catastrophe.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  115. It's only natural, don't worry. by bobby_hobbes · · Score: 1

    They have been researching this effect for years in the Gulf of Mexico. It's really no big deal and is found all over the ocean floors. If you want to learn more check this site: http://oceanography.tamu.edu/Quarterdeck/QD5.3/sas sen.html It has some good info about its structure and creation. Just read..

  116. Re:Um. Why? by Kymermosst · · Score: 2

    I don't know where you're from, but over here, they DO extract methane from the landfill, and they use it to run a generator, and generate electricity for a small town whose main industry is a Foster Farms chicken plant.

    If they had a website, I'd link it for you.

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  117. Re:Um. Why? by Teun · · Score: 2

    Collection of Methane from old landfills is quite common in NW Europe.
    Often (usually) it is used to drive a generator via a Diesel engine.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  118. weighted tax by phriedom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "I'd like to see a weighted tax on fuel consumption and emission rate."

    Actually those substantial gasoline taxes are a weighted tax on consumption and emission.

    What I would prefer to see, as a midsized-car driver who is tired of seeing giant trucks with their bumpers at my eye level, is a different, more expensive, more strict drivers license for vehicles over something like 4600 pounds. Some people need big trucks that can tow and carry things, and they should be able to get them, but I want it to be inconvenient to use one for commuting. And a fedral regulation to lower the bumper height of new cars and trucks would be nice too. As it is, trucks are far too deadly to other vehicles on the road. The sad thing is that all the safety "advantages" of a big truck go away when everyone else has one too, and leaves the streets less safe on the whole.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  119. Delays it a long, long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The National Post covered this story and mentioned that similiar deposits exist in the US North. These deposits would give the US a 2000 (yes, 2000) year supply of energy. Someday the rest of the world will wake up and discover that the fossil fuels are gone, but that day is far away.

    PS: "fossil" fuel is a misnomer. We don't know how the hydrocarbons were created but it was not from a decaying biomass, the deposits are simply too large.

  120. No, they don't blow up by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    The planes flew into the gas, and their engines ignited the gas, blowing them up. Possibly the same scenario with vanishing boats.

    That's not it, if you're referring to the Discovery Channel's recurring special.

    The theory is that methane as a gas has such a low density that the planes loose lift, effectively stalling at their current velocity. Boats loose their displacement of water, and sink.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  121. DDT is bad stuff by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    DDT is bad stuff. When we bought our farm a few years back there was detectable DDT. The report said that the levels were consistent with a single light DDT application 35 years previously.

    Anything that lurks in the soil that long can't be nice stuff.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:DDT is bad stuff by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > DDT is bad stuff. When we bought our farm a few years back there was detectable DDT. The report said that the levels were consistent with a single light DDT application 35 years previously.

      Measurable, yes. But does the fact that you can measure it (parts per billion? trillion?) mean that there's a (human or other wildlife) health hazard from it?

      And if there is a hazard, is that risk outweighed by the (newly-increased) risk of West Nile to humans in North America, and the (massive, known, documented) number of deaths due to malaria in the Third World.

      (Note: These are three different questions. For instance, mosquito bites are annoying, but harmless - the risk of encephalitis has always been pretty minimal, and DDT probably wasn't justified for mosquito control in the West until recently. Before West Nile, DDT may not have been justifiable for mosquito control in the West. That risk/reward equation is changing now as West Nile spreads. And finally, the risk/reward of applying DDT to our mosquito problems has nothing to do with the risk/reward of malaria in the Third World, which IMHO more than justifies the use of DDT there.)

      > Anything that lurks in the soil that long can't be nice stuff.

      Depending on the quantities still there, probably not. (And yes, I do agree that it's long-lived. On the other hand, you don't have to apply it every week like newer pesticides. Another risk/reward tradeoff.)

      Meantime, do you have anything more substantive than that to back up the assertion that it's harmful? Here's some contrary evidence that's come out since the 60s and 70s that refutes notion that it's anywhere near as dangerous to humans or wildlife as it was claimed to be.

      (Of particular note - studies in 1999 are pretty consistent in demonstrating that there's no link between DDT and cancer in humans or primates. IMHO there never was.)

    2. Re:DDT is bad stuff by napoleone · · Score: 1

      http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/tsw /stories/081302dntexcontaminate.4eee9.html

      Please see story link. I've sprayed DDT. I've even had a touch of malaria. I am a fan of Lyndon Larouche. But no more ddt no more.

      --
      mem in MMII
    3. Re:DDT is bad stuff by hey! · · Score: 2

      Measurable, yes. But does the fact that you can measure it (parts per billion? trillion?) mean that there's a (human or other wildlife) health hazard from it?

      Yes, potentially.

      The problem with persistent chorinated hydrocarbons like DDT, aldrin, dieldrin etc. is that they bioaccumulate. This means as they move up the food chain, tiny concentrations of them are magnified at each trophic level.

      Does, this pose a risk to humans? In most cases, probably not, since casual exposure to such low concentrations is not going to affect us directly, and we don't eat much wildlife.

      Meantime, do you have anything more substantive than that to back up the assertion that it's harmful? Here's some contrary evidence [junkscience.com] that's come out since the 60s and 70s that refutes notion that it's anywhere near as dangerous to humans or wildlife as it was claimed to be.

      For now I'm content to go along with the bulk of scientific consensus, as opposed to crackpot web sites. Will there be individual studies which refute that consensus? Sure. Remember, at the very least, that 5% of studies show spurious statistically significant results. Over time, these can be assembled into a "body" of evidence. If that evidence is compelling, in time scientific consensus will shift, and my opinion along with it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:DDT is bad stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice logic. If it's still there, it's EVIL!

  122. They wouldn't stall either by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 3, Informative
    Methane has a molecular weight of 16; air has a molecular weight of about 29. If you were going at more than about 1.4 times stall speed (and most aircraft do cruise quite a bit faster than that), the wing would not stall. Even if it did, all the pilot would have to do is point the nose down a bit to gain some airspeed and the plane would be flying again.

    I don't watch the Discovery Channel, but if they didn't have anyone on staff with enough knowledge to rule out such obviously impossible failure modes you should not be using them as a source of information (at least not on a more trusted level than the National Enquirer).

    Unfortunately, a pilot in the midst of a huge bubble of methane might not be able to manage that, plus the engine quitting or backfiring (and if the methane was mixed with enough air to be flammable, BOOM!), and even if neither of those things happened the pilot would be breathing toxic amounts of methane and might not be able to control the aircraft.

    1. Re:They wouldn't stall either by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      'Tis a fair point. Discovery also runs specials on ghosts and past lives too.

      To further your point, if there methane concentration was high enough, there would not be enough oxygen for the jet fuel to burn, and the engine would simply stop. But if the plane wasn't very low, it should be able to glide long enough to get out of the methane cloud, which makes your argument about the pilot succumbing to the lack of oxygen even stronger.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:They wouldn't stall either by monkeydo · · Score: 2

      But the bubble of methane would be rising at considerable speed. The resultant updraft would cause a sudden increase in angle of attack almost certainly resulting in a stall. The pilot would probably have no idea what was going on until it was too late. A sudden stall warning during cruise is not a common occurance. The updraft would probably be short lived and by the time the pilot begins the stall recovery he may be out of it. He might wind up in a steep dive and not be able to recover.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  123. That's for ideal gasses only... by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 2
    At depth, the pressure is high, the temp is about 4 degrees and methane will freeze solid just by the water pressure since its on the solid side of the triple point .
    ... and you cannot have a solid substance above the critical temperature anyway; the critical temperature for pure methane is -82.4 C. The only reason the methane can solidify is because it combines with water to form a clathrate.
  124. Troll Definition by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    I sense a disturbance in the force as if millions of trolls cried out with bad fart jokes for this topic... ;)

    A troll (in net terms) is not someone replying to a straight line with lame jokes.

    From The the Subtle art of Trolling:

    "In Usenet usage, a troll is not a grumpy monster that lives beneath a bridge accosting passers-by, but rather a provocative posting to a newsgroup intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses. The content of a "troll posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup, or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings."

  125. Re:Um. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The region of Waterloo, Ontario does - read it in a local rag last year. They sell the methane to some company that uses it to fire their furnaces.

  126. That smell has a purpose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Methane is oderless. An oderant is added so people will notice a leak. So that stench is there to save lives.

  127. Because it isn't enough. by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 2
    The biggest landfill-gas operations only produce a few tens of megawatts (see this paper), which is nowhere near enough to meet the electrical needs of even the area served by the landfill. In addition to this, landfill gas is highly impure; if you want to do anything but use it on-site, you need expensive purification. Since there is more than enough electrical demand to consume all the gas, piping it elsewhere seems to be a waste of money.

    If we were trying to do our best to avoid global warming, what we'd do is harvest the undersea methane, crack it into hydrogen gas and carbon compounds (such as CO2, but graphite would be preferable), and bury the carbon in a form which prevents it from being released for a very long time. We could do whatever we wanted with the hydrogen without worrying about climate change.

  128. But the planets aren't by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 2
    the gas giants are largely made of methane.
    No. The gas giants are largely made of hydrogen, with other things mixed in. The atmosphere of Titan is a few percent methane, but mostly nitrogen.
  129. its frozen because... by enkidu87 · · Score: 1

    its coating the alien space craft at the bottom of the ocean

  130. Induction generators by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 2
    If an induction motor is used as a generator on it's own (once exited, etc) and you through any substancial load at it, the waveform goes all to hell, etc.
    Actually, no. No more than induction motors do. Induction generators draw magnetizing current (lagging waveform) from the grid, but they don't generate much in the way of nasty harmonics; to get really bad waveforms you need switching power supplies or SCR-based lamp dimmers.
    It's a bad thing. Those induction generators are counting on the fact that the power company has more generating capacity than all of the induction motor generators out there by a large margin....you change that, and your gonna have trouble....
    Nah. You put a capacitor across the line and generate some leading VARs to balance out the lagging VARs that the induction generator makes, and you're all set.
    If the main power goes out, and your induction genny is still plugging...
    It won't be. As soon as the induction generator loses its magnetizing current, it shuts down. If you put a capacitor on your end to move your load factor closer to 1 you might need an auto-shutdown based on frequency variation, because the capacitor might allow the generator to auto-excite.
    This is such basic stuff....why do you people have to fuck it up?
    How ironic that you should say this.
    1. Re:Induction generators by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

      Sigh...

      Actually, no. No more than induction motors do. Induction generators draw magnetizing current (lagging waveform) from the grid, but they don't generate much in the way of nasty harmonics; to get really bad waveforms you need switching power supplies or SCR-based lamp dimmers.

      It's safe to say that alot of people here have switching power supplies.

      It won't be. As soon as the induction generator loses its magnetizing current, it shuts down. If you put a capacitor on your end to move your load factor closer to 1 you might need an auto-shutdown based on frequency variation, because the capacitor might allow the generator to auto-excite.

      What I was talking about were the people turning old motors into AC generators - those are NOT sophisticated in the least. Actually, alot of- if not most induction motors hold enough residual magnetism to exite themselves up to generating even after a pretty good amount of time of inactivity...but beyond that: Your everyday asynchronous generator/induction motor does NOT cease to generate when it looses it's excitation from the grid. If you still plugged into the grid and spinning that motor/generator, your going to be playing with a number of things - one of which is resonance. All of those parallel electrical lines out there (basically gives a little capacitance), as well as capacitors and transformers are going to give some unusual excitation to the generator, and then the fun starts. Can it be dealt with? Sure...but I wouldn't trust some backyard hackjob induction generator rig to do it right. I don't think the power company would be too casual about it either.

      I am not talking about any kind of generator with a system to shut down based on frequency variations, etc. I am talking about some of the idiotic stuff the "gurella alternative power" nutcases out there try to pull. (No permits, no regulations, etc...so lets turn this motor into a genset and jack it into the grid!) That kinda crap gets linemen zapped...that's why those regulations exist. People tend not to be so responsible all too often. Hell...I wouldn't do it myself and I think I have at least a LITTLE clue what's going on.

      Well...it WAS basic...now it's getting to the fringes of what I know about AC and the grid. Give me a fuckin' break..at least I admit it, and it's been a few years since I touched wiring, your royal highness. I am pretty sure most of my most recent spewings on this one are correct at least, whether or not we are thinking of the same kinda setup here is another matter.

      Eh...whatever. Might have some reading to do, so flame away.

    2. Re:Induction generators by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 2
      It's safe to say that alot of people here have switching power supplies.
      My point exactly. They are worse for the grid waveform than induction motors are. I did forget what may be the worst offender: SCR-based motor controls.
      Actually, alot of- if not most induction motors hold enough residual magnetism to exite themselves up to generating even after a pretty good amount of time of inactivity...
      I believe you are thinking of DC generators. Induction motors are fed AC, and degauss themselves as they operate.
      Your everyday asynchronous generator/induction motor does NOT cease to generate when it looses it's excitation from the grid.
      I'm very interested in anything you have to back this assertion; it contradicts everything I have learned about induction machines.
      I am not talking about any kind of generator with a system to shut down based on frequency variations, etc. I am talking about some of the idiotic stuff the "gurella alternative power" nutcases out there try to pull. (No permits, no regulations, etc...so lets turn this motor into a genset and jack it into the grid!) That kinda crap gets linemen zapped...that's why those regulations exist. People tend not to be so responsible all too often. Hell...I wouldn't do it myself and I think I have at least a LITTLE clue what's going on.
      The "guerrilla solar" things I've seen tend to use inverters which are designed to be grid-interactive; they are only bypassing obstructive permit procedures. I've also heard of induction generators being used on large wind turbines, so there must not be too many problems with them. Last, maybe if you did a bit more study of the issue you might conclude that the safety issues are negligible and that more important things, such as having an engine to run, a place to put it or a use for the waste heat keep you from bothering with it. (That's what's stopping me.)
    3. Re:Induction generators by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

      Well...here's the link I used to double check myself to make sure I didn't have my head up my rear.

      link

      It reads: "Now, what's the point of all that? Well when you get right down to it, it's to keep you and others alive and to keep you out of the "poor house." The problem arises when for any given reason the utility grid loses power. You'd think that your motor acting as an asynchronous generator would cease to generate because it lost it's excitation. If it were just your generator and the power company's, the power would drop out like a heavy duty rock. However that's not the case. There's a factor knows as "resonance" to deal with that's inherit with power distribution systems. Some of it comes from power lines being parallel to each other, thus forming a "capacitor". However most of it comes from "power factor correction capacitors" the power company installs within it's system and inductance in transformers. Maybe some day I'll expand on those to things but for now lets stick with just the effects of resonance."

      I have seen that kind of thing said on more than on occasion onm various tinkerer's sites. I wouldn't hook one up to the grid anyways personally just because of the fact that I dont' want to even get into it.

      As for what it takes to start one generating, spin up an induction motor as a generator for a few minutes...then stop it, and remove any load. Wait a few minutes and start spinning it again. It'll likely generate. I have an old GE continuous duty pump motor that I got as scrap that does it...and from what I have heard, that's pretty much the norm (I read up on this stuff in the past because I considered trying to make a little generator out of it - decided against it. Would rather just get a proper generator if I need it.)...if it's dead for a longer period of time (obviously, this depends completely on how the motor is built), you'll eventually have it completely dead. Here's another link on to a site that explains it likely better than I can. Link

      Basically, here's what is said: "This system depends upon residual magnetism in the rotor to start generating. Almost all the motors I've tried begin generating just fine on their own, with the appropriate capacitor connected of course! If it doesn't start generating, try speeding the motor up. That will usually get it going. However, it is extremely rare to find one that doesn't start.

      If a motor doesn't start generating on the very first try, then apply 120 vac or even 12 or more volts DC to the motor for a few seconds. That will usually work to magnetize the rotor and your generator will start by itself from then on.

      It is important to not shut the generator down with a load connected to it. This tends to demagnetize the rotor and can cause it to not self-energize. That is, the motor will turn, but it will not produce voltage. It is not a serious problem since the rotor can be remagnetized by following the instructions in the paragraph above.
      "

      You could plug lights and stuff into it little cheapo one like the above link describes, and probably a good deal of other stuff - but there are things that wouldn't take too well to it, and I don't even want to have to think about it. Eh...that's just me on that one...to each their own.

      Eh...sorry if I came off like a jerk...but the whole guerilla power thing (plugging into the grid improperly/illegally) just annoys the heck out of me...even if just for safety reasons (or personality quirks...I am probably just being anal about it). Alot of the people prone to doing that kinda thing honestly don't know enough to be doing it...I don't and I'll be the first one to admit it, so I leave it the heck alone. If someone wants to crank out the juice on their own though (either off the grid, or with the right hardware to sync their output to the grid), hey...go for it. (But I can't imagine that the permits to do it are THAT hard to get if you really have the appropriate gear for it?) I'd even call it a good thing...I hope the increasing numbers of people using solar eventually knocks the price down to get it in more wide use. I think the price of it is what kills the idea to most people.

    4. Re:Induction generators by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 2
      I checked your link. The fact that it's a personal web-page on RoadRunner should tell you something about its reliability, and the spelling and grammar errors ought to give you pause too. If it came from one of the national laboratories (such as nrel.doe.gov) I'd take it seriously, but not this.

      You did notice that the qsl.net author says that you'll degauss your motor if you shut it down connected to a load, and that you need capacitance to excite it? You'd also lose voltage and frequency regulation if you weren't connected to the grid, and unless the outage was very localized you'd be trying to back-feed many times as much demand as your generator could satisfy. That would cause frequency to sag, followed by collapse of voltage when the frequency fell below resonance. At that point your line relay should drop out. This is not a problem for a properly-designed system, even a simple one.

      The cleverest thing I ever saw along those lines is a micro-hydro system designed for the third world. It used an induction generator with a small inverter to supply magnetizing current; the inverter also acted as a dump load to maintain system frequency on spec. The entire system had one moving part.

  131. more info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The University of Victoria has some more info on these deposits here.

  132. You don't want to mine them! by akincisor · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised no one has made this point yet, but you don't want to mine those huge reserves for methane, even if you have technology to do it safely. The methane that will be brought up will be burnt as fuel, and release all that stored carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide may not be as bad a greenhouse gas, but in the quantities mentioned, its bad enough. So you really want to be looking for a better alternative to carbon based fuels -aks

    1. Re:You don't want to mine them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also surprised no one has mentioned we don't exactly have a methane shortage and there are plenty of other terrestrail organic sources if people want it...moo.

    2. Re:You don't want to mine them! by Paul+03244 · · Score: 1

      Also surprised no one has mentioned we don't exactly have a methane shortage and there are plenty of other terrestrail organic sources if people want it...moo.

      Perhaps you don't have as much time on your hands as I do, but in fact plenty of posts have mentioned this ;-)

  133. This is very old news. by aardvaark · · Score: 2

    I saw a couple seminars about this several years ago. Why the news splash now? I think there are other deposits elsewhere as well. Also interesting is that methane is a green house gas, and that sure is a big sink that most people have not put in to their calculations. Wonder if we missed anything else?

    --
    If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed suicide. -Ghandi
  134. Better hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that shit doesn't sublime. If the sea temperaturewere to rise (locally, even) enough to turn these methane ices back into gas then you've got a butt-load more greenhouse gas, thus exacerbating the problem. Can you say "positive feedback"? (I don't think Dubya can...)

  135. Not Armageddon, but an end to the ice ages... by rthille · · Score: 2

    According to my geology classes, it's believed that the clathrates help to regulate the global temperature. When the seas are deep, and the amount of ice at the poles is low, then methane is sequested in the clathrates deep in the ocean. When an ice age comes and the ice at the poles grows so large as to lower the sea level and pressure enough the clathrates release the methane. Since methane is a greenhouse gas, it helps to end the ice age and start the cycle again.

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  136. Re:Um. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trash dump methane also contains plenty of corrosive gasses, which can cause problems with certain kinds of metering equipment.

  137. Exploit it? Been Done. by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    There are indeed bacteria which eat hydrocarbons. Try a Google search for "hydrocarbon bacteria". Or just buy a bacteria culture and try it yourself.

    Actually, Gold's Deep Hot Biosphere says that the petroleum deposits which we harvest are already the result of underground bacteria feeding on hydrocarbons. The rotting-plants origin is a myth -- look up where it came from. If there were more heat down there the methane hydrates would be getting eaten.

  138. Re:Bermuda Triangle (and abundant energy for all) by Andronicus · · Score: 1

    I saw the same program. The theory on the vanishing ships was that the gas release from the seafloor was large enough that the local density of the water is lowered, and the ship can no longer maintain bouyancy. It made sense if there were so much gas in one release, that the only water around was that contained in the space between the bubbles. Testing with models in tanks demonstrated the effect, but the researchers were not totally convinced the effect would be the same on the sea.

    As for energy, current (very preliminary) estimates indicate there could be more energy locked up in methane hydrates in the sea floor than in all the coal and crude oil extracted from the earth's crust to date.

    There was some speculation about the danger of extracting the methane. On another TV program run on TLC, a researcher was concerned that extracting the methane hydrate could accidentally trigger the stuff to undergo the conversion from solid to gas spontaneously, on a very massive scale. The resulting release of gas could be large enough to further upset world climate.

    I say, let's investigate. Until we achieve greenhouse-gas free fusion, it could be an excellent energy source, if it can be safely extracted. It's so abundant, we could all drive Toyota Prius-es (or Priuii?) for like $0.01/mile (versus $0.07/mile on a typical 26MPG car at today's fuel prices)

    --
    USNG: 14TPU4605
  139. God I hate the French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fucking hate them!

  140. We already WASTE other methane sources by Reziac · · Score: 2

    Actually, this has been done. There are a few prototype farms that use the cow-produced methane to generate electricity and heat the house, etc.

    But however much methane is in a frozen lump at the bottom of the ocean, I see little point in mining that til we stop burning off millions of cubic feet of methane (natural gas) from oil drilling and coal mining operations. If we can't find a way to use what's now being wasted, why spend lots of money to bring up yet more surplus??

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  141. armageddon due to ass gas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is too funny...........ha ha.

  142. Clathrates by j_w_d · · Score: 2

    For a considerably more detailed and thorough discussion of clathrates or "gas hydrates," the following page Clathrates at Weslyan is handy.

    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  143. Where I'm coming from by Agermain · · Score: 1

    The public landfill near the city I used to live just straight-out burned the gas, for no other purpose than to prevent uncontrolled explosions later.

    It's good to know it's being utilized elsewhere, at least.

    1. Re:Where I'm coming from by Kymermosst · · Score: 2

      The public landfill near the city I used to live just straight-out burned the gas, for no other purpose than to prevent uncontrolled explosions later.

      That's probably a good idea, even if they aren't using the residual heat.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  144. That still wouldn't do it by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 2
    But the bubble of methane would be rising at considerable speed.
    It is not unusual for airliners to encounter currents of air rising at considerable speed.
    The resultant updraft would cause a sudden increase in angle of attack almost certainly resulting in a stall.
    Let's see. Suppose you're cruising at 35,000 feet with an air density of 1/4 sea level and a true air speed (TAS) of 500 knots, and an indicated air speed (IAS) of 250 knots. Your aircraft stalls clean (no flaps, no slats) at ~150 KIAS, so you have a whopping 100 knot IAS difference. If the methane bubble was rising at 50 knots, you might have to point the nose down about 5-8 degrees to hold altitude. This would effectively be soaring on the rising methane bubble.
    A sudden stall warning during cruise is not a common occurance. The updraft would probably be short lived and by the time the pilot begins the stall recovery he may be out of it. He might wind up in a steep dive and not be able to recover.
    I believe I've read of stall warnings activating during severe turbulence. Furthermore, a stalled wing still generates some lift, and during this entire event the aircraft would be moving forward at close to 500 knots; the pilot would have considerable airflow over the rudder and elevator and plenty of control authority in pitch and yaw even if the ailerons were stalled (unlikely, the root would stall first). Keeping the aircraft under control until it flew out of the bubble (and then re-lighting the flamed-out engines) wouldn't be difficult so long as the pilot was okay; if you got a flammable slug of methane-air mix into the cabin pressurization system, all bets are off.
    1. Re:That still wouldn't do it by monkeydo · · Score: 2

      It is not unusual for airliners to encounter currents of air rising at considerable speed.

      And we aren't talking about airliners here. I don't know of any accounts of airliners going missing in the Bermuda Triangle. Mostly military and light aircraft. These planes may be flying low and may not cruise faster than 150 knots.

      Let's see. Suppose you're cruising at 35,000 feet with an air density of 1/4 sea level and a true air speed (TAS) of 500 knots

      Stalling has very little to do with speed, it's about angle of attack. A wing moving at 2x Vs with a 90 degree AOA is stalled, no? A sudden 50 knot updraft could result in a 30 degree change in AOA. You could go from straight and level to full stall with no warning, and your nose pointed at the horizon.

      I believe I've read of stall warnings activating during severe turbulence.

      You've probably also read of planes crasing due to severe turbulence. Wind shear is also a big factor.

      Keeping the aircraft under control until it flew out of the bubble (and then re-lighting the flamed-out engines) wouldn't be difficult so long as the pilot was okay; if you got a flammable slug of methane-air mix into the cabin pressurization system, all bets are off.

      Again, I don't think we are talking about jetliners fliwn by pilots with thousands of hours of flight time. The most well know cases are small planes and military exercises.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  145. innumerate translators by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

    OK, so first of all, the New Testament was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew. There are Greek copies of it (although not originals) which appear to be simple copies of the original (not translated at all). Revelation was a letter written by John, so the events there were not even recorded from Hebrew oral tradition. So you need no math to transcribe it, just copy the words as they appear. Innumerate scribes would have been more likely to leave the numbers the same, having no knowledge of what to change them to.

    Secondly, the old testament is written in Hebrew, not Greek, and there many Hebrew copies, which agree pretty well with each other (Hebrew scribes were very meticulous about copying scripture, copied everything letter for letter even if they thought it contained errors, etc) and with the Septuagint, a very early Greek translation of the Old Testament. The bible only says pi==3 if you assume that the 10 and 30 are exact measurements (not rounded at all: even if the 30 were exact, the 10 could be rounded from 30/pi, about 9.55) and that they were measured on the outside of the bowl (instead of the circumference being around the inside). Unlikely.

    Now, it seems that John could multiply because the 144,000 was broken into 12 groups of 12,000. Also, he does not need to square 10,000 for three reasons: first, the product does not have a name in Greek, just as you said. Secondly, it was written as two myriads of myriads, and only as 200 million upon translation into English. Third, he did not count them or compute their number: he heard it, presumably from his guide or from God. Revelation was a vision, remember?

    In any case, the bible may contain some innacuracies, but it seems to me that these numbers were probably at least transcribed accurately.

    --
    I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    1. Re:innumerate translators by jukal · · Score: 2
      > Lbh unir ivbyngrq gur QZPN. Tb qverpgyl gb wnvy. Qb abg cnff tb. Qb abg pbyyrpg $200

      Nice sig there :)= Now, you can also violate the DMCA by "cracking" this. ;)

  146. Global warming and these methane deposits by Anwir+Clud · · Score: 1

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/meth27.shtm l Global warming will get that methane out for us, and we'll get to enjoy it without all that drilling! (article: Ocean methane played role in extinctions)

  147. Light aircraft fly by the same principles by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 2
    And we aren't talking about airliners here. I don't know of any accounts of airliners going missing in the Bermuda Triangle. Mostly military and light aircraft. These planes may be flying low and may not cruise faster than 150 knots.
    Cessna 152, cruises at 95-106 knots depending on model. Stalls at 48 knots no flaps. That's a very healthy margin above the stall speed even if your air density suddenly drops by half.
    Stalling has very little to do with speed, it's about angle of attack. A wing moving at 2x Vs with a 90 degree AOA is stalled, no? A sudden 50 knot updraft could result in a 30 degree change in AOA. You could go from straight and level to full stall with no warning, and your nose pointed at the horizon.
    I've flown accelerated stalls before, I know what they feel like and how to recover the aircraft. Any pilot worth his salt is not going to lose control in an event like this.
    You've probably also read of planes crasing due to severe turbulence. Wind shear is also a big factor.
    Wind shear takes down aircraft on takeoff and approach to landing, because it deprives them of flying speed when they are low, slow and unable to recover in time to avoid the terrain. This is a very different case from an aircraft in cruise, where the biggest danger from severe turbulence is in-flight airframe failure.

    Even an airframe failure would probably leave wreckage in the water (e.g. foam seat cushions), giving a hint as to what happened. That's why I discount things like this; there are too many ways for "normal" errors to account for the observations without having to posit methane bubbles or ET.