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?"
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?
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
...as if millions of trolls cried out with bad fart jokes for this topic... ;)
"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.
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
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!
...by ENORMOUS, I mean quantities larger than gets released in decades of industrial/agricultural activity. Vast vast vast amounts.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
"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? :))
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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.
This is bad news for Canada... Bush is going to want the land now...
42 + 1 = 42
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Wuss.
Where's he gunna get the oxygen required to burn it?
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.
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.
t ml h tml 6 8/202-8329969-5193459 o p.html
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.h
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/recharging/
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/origins.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/03879854
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/margins/seeps_worksh
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
BBC has an article about a possibly similar incident in the North Sea.
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
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.
"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
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 links2 18_earthbelch.html
m l
/ 3_Methane.htm
a ges2/116.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-01k.ht
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles
http://superstringtheory.com/forum/warmboard/mess
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
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.
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.
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?
More information can be found under methane hydrate in google or:
article
among other. It's really an interesting compound and future power source.
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
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.
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.)
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.
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
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.
The anti-salmon
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.
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 :-)
(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.
Well, dahling, if you put on a little lipstick, they'll probably let you live.
Um. Or did you mean rogue tribe?
Never mind.
"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
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!
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...
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!
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.
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!
...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.
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-
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.
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."
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?
"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.
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)
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.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
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.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
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.)
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
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/
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
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.
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.
Nice sig there :)= Now, you can also violate the DMCA by "cracking" this. ;)
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.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist