that'a not pollution, THIS IS

[FNQCairns]

Nice work FNQ...very well read despite one of the most over sensationalized incidents I have ever witnessed...even saw today where the "Sunday Mail" was saying that the annual winter whale migration may be affected...fair dinkum ...

Anyway back to far more important matters...

Does anyone have any nude photo's of Pauline without the fuzzy stuff covering her boobs...???...

Scott

Amazing!! What people will swallow these days, I heard a real doozy too just cannot think of it ATM but I do remember one bloke saying little bits of the oil was being blown over the dunes into the scrub just behind ...so he was worried about the environmental effect of that

BTW I have seen some new vision of affected areas today it's looking as it should by now...almost perfectly clean right up to the mean high water mark on the rocks.

cheers fnq

[disorderly]

LOL omg Scott..you need some professional help I think.

Call me a sick puppie if you must ,Greg..

But I think she is a little hottie...and I still want to see the uncensored photo's..

[TimiBoy]

FNQ, Disorderly,

I must come up there and let you guys take me fishing. Do I have an invite? Might be a few months, have to let my hair grow back...

We'll tie it in with a SOBA road trip. Must make the trip deductable!!!

Cheers Boys, keep smiling.

I'm amazed (not) at the pics on the news tonight of cleaned up beaches that are already getting back to normal. Some work left to do, but hardly a world threatening disaster.

Cheers,


Tim

[FNQCairns]

Yeah Tim come up! consider organiseing a trip to take in this weekend http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/sho...d.php?t=144720.

I cannot seriously promise a trip out with me, it has already been almost 3 months since my last outing and that was on someone else's boat to fish his honey hole although I am open to it, the trade winds over winter keep all but the biggest rec boats at home often.

I am going to try to make Cardwell but will know better when much closer.

cheers fnq

[rando]

FNQ

Your assertion that this stuff was inert by the time it came ashore is contrary to the information I googled.
My info says a lesser spill of less than 1000lt would have only lost 13% of its volatile components after 3 months.
If that is the case, then this "bunker oil" would have 80%+ of its toxic components.
What are you basing your ,position on?

In a previous post you referrred to this as "
(quote)
The oil was a light oil, already boiled (cracked)at the refinery from it's heavier and far more environmental damaging components. (unquote)

Bunker oil is in fact the residual oil from the refinery (after the petrol, naptha ,kerosene diesel,etc has been distilled) mixed with sufficient diesel to make it less viscous so as to be manageable, and is in large part, that very product you described " the heavier more damaging components"


Based on that point alone the rest of what you have said would then also be ,,,wrong.

[FNQCairns]

Rando have you heard for sure whether it is bunker or diesel? I have heard both reported, diesel was the latest and looked to be the spill in the river on TV.

The conditions that existed at the time of the spill is the reasoning + trying to relate that the oil that made the shore couldn't be related to the original oil that spilled. The oil went through a hundred thousand mixing events before reaching shore, all the while in salt water and gathering biological remains and oils from the multitude of organisms both dead and alive on the ocean surface and within.

By inert I meant relative to what we think oil is, I should have place relatively in front each time I guess, map out 2 transects spray one bucket of the pure substance over it and in the other spray what actually made it up the shore...the pure transect will show total death the processed oil transect will not, just like the ghost crabs burrowing back up from right underneath blankets of the substance.

The information you have given is exactly why the Exon valdez spill was a true disaster, the oil simply didn't have the process or conditions to separate or oxidise the fractions, a person could have scooped it up and used it days after the indecent, no chance of doing that to the Moreton oil shore oil it was but a mere memory of what it was,largely a mix of the reduced parts and gross organic matter. I wouldnt consider eating it though.

cheers fnq

[oldboot]

The words inert and toxic are probably both inappropriate in this situation.

And remember google isn't the peak of science nor are most sites unbiased.

This is bunker oil... it is basicly similar to distilate mixed with sump oil.

The distilate ( the worst part ) part will be will be no more toxic than what comes out of the pump, it isnt a good idea to work with youir hands in it, but lots of people do, it is no more toxic than any other hydrocarbon solvent.

This portion will mostly evaporate ( not as quickly as petrol) or be absorbed and broken down in the water.
There will be a portion of this in the the remaining sludge.

The remaining sludge will be very similar to sump oil that comes out of a car with a cooling leak to the oil system.
An uggly brown black frothey BLURK that deflates with time as the water and remaining solvent evaporates out of it.
Sump oil is most certainly considered a toxic waste, but plenty of people get it all over their hands on a daily basis and more that a few home mechanics ( and a ferw pros) have ended up with this stuff all over them.

So lets get a handle on the concept of toxic........it too is a sensationalised word.

Salt is officialy toxic, in fact it is the measure by which all other substances are measured........

It is quite possible to argue that beer is more toxic than the black gunge.


I wonder what the implications of a 60 000 litre spill of beer would have on the environment.

Think about the implications if those 32 containers were in fact full of kegs of beer.
The containers would all foat, because beer is lighter than water and as the containers broke down, beer kegs would pop to the surface ( containers are mild steel and kegs are stanless with plastic seals) causing an umpordictable navigation hazard for decades.

Then there would have been a much higher tocisity because they would certainly be "one of those southern brews".

cheers

[rando]

FNQ/OLDBOOT

I am pretty sure I heard the maritime safety officer refer to it as Medium Fuel Oil.
Below is the table of fuel oil types, I used as a point of reference

• MGO (Marine gasoil) - roughly equivalent to No. 2 fuel oil, made from distillate only
• MDO (Marine diesel oil) - A blend of gasoil and heavy fuel oil
• IFO (Intermediate fuel oil) A blend of gasoil and heavy fuel oil, with less gasoil than marine diesel oil
• MFO (Medium fuel oil) - A blend of gasoil and heavy fuel oil, with less gasoil than intermediate fuel oil
• HFO (Heavy fuel oil) - Pure or nearly pure residual oil, roughly equivalent to No. 6 fuel oil

Oldboot
I am no scientist and agree that google isnt the be all and end all . But you can find good stuff there.
go to the report I tended a few pages back, some interesting reading, not to mention photos of some horrific fuel spills.
Cheers

[oldboot]

There is heaps of stuff out there to read and you have posted lots of words.

I am trying to explain thing in terms of stuff that most people would be familiar with, none of the specifications of marine fuels mean a damn thing to most people.

The point being, myself and others have been trying to point out that while this incident is serious and damaging.

It is not the disaster that many people are trying to beat it up into, it is big, smely and uggly, buy most of all highly visable.

What it isn't is a highly poisonous long term damaging thing that will have a significant effect on the environment over a long period.

In fact in the terms of environmentaly damaging activities, this causes a relativly low amountnof damage.

neither the oil nor the furtiliser will poison plants fish or effect their edibility, to the extent of many othere things that go on all the time and go un noticed.

This is relativly clean filth, with little or no poisonous or dangerous biological content.

I would be more concerned about the recent sewage spill in cannery creek or the damage caused by the port development to the tidal flow or the acres of seagrass dredged up for the airport development or the acres of mangrove that have been cleared to make canal estates or the heavy metals and organophosphtes that will continue to be washed down our creeks and rivers as a result of bad practices in the 60's and 70's.

Or for that matter being jabbed by a discarded syringe on the local beach or playground.

cheers

[rando]

And i am arguing the opposite.
Without excessive hyperbole.
To the best of my knowledge the oil is MFO, medium fuel oil, which I gave a description of & which description i found by searching... "fuel oils " / marine.

It is in a nutshell residual oil from the refining process and deisel. More of the former less of the latter.
As such it has a slower rate of biological breakdown and higher toxicity.
Despite the rough water and high winds, which would have assisted in evaporating the more volatile components the slick came ashore within 24 hours of the initial spill.
Studies have shown this type of oil will have 13% of its volatile components decay after 3 months.
Further though the spill is not of the order of the bulk carrier breaking up, or the damaging nature of a crude oil spill it is nevertheless categorized as a moderate sized spill ( according to the oil industries own parameters)
And I believe it will have moderately long term effects.
Principally because the damage that has occurred is at the bottom of the food chain,and we are coming into autumn/winter where micro-organism activity is slowing down.

[FNQCairns]

And i am arguing the opposite.
Without excessive hyperbole.
To the best of my knowledge the oil is MFO, medium fuel oil, which I gave a description of & which description i found by searching... "fuel oils " / marine.

It is in a nutshell residual oil from the refining process and deisel. More of the former less of the latter.
As such it has a slower rate of biological breakdown and higher toxicity.
Despite the rough water and high winds, which would have assisted in evaporating the more volatile components the slick came ashore within 24 hours of the initial spill.
Studies have shown this type of oil will have 13% of its volatile components decay after 3 months.
Further though the spill is not of the order of the bulk carrier breaking up, or the damaging nature of a crude oil spill it is nevertheless categorized as a moderate sized spill ( according to the oil industries own parameters)
And I believe it will have moderately long term effects.
Principally because the damage that has occurred is at the bottom of the food chain,and we are coming into autumn/winter where micro-organism activity is slowing down.

Thanks for nailing the type of oil Rando, the media really needs to get solid points like that right then stick with it. From what you say Moreton was truly lucky for the conditions that where in evidence with an oil of that weight.

I do have trouble relating the 13% volatile decay after 3 months to this particular spill in all that it is, I would suspect that it relates to a specific surface area for volume, specific temperature and sitting unmixed as per most standards are reached in the laboratory.

We all know how fast a bucket of water spilt on concrete will evaporate compared to the water in the bucket only. The violent natural churning process the fuel oil went through adds again to this dramaticly. If the spill was in the dead of winter on calm water but still made the shore in the same time the situation would be now be a horrible environmental mess.

The ghost crabs speak a thousand words and was an enlightening few seconds of vision to see, they copped the blackest of the black directly above them via multiple soakings from the highest of tide waves, yet there was never enough volatile fraction in it to cause death.

I am now very interested to hear just how many of the volume of bi-valves where killed I suspect no where like the bulk of them they are well versed at buttoning up to wait an unpleasant situation out, I surmise this only due to what this oil must have become by the time it touched shore.

I suspect the deaths (environmental damage) may fairly easily be categorised by phylum, in 2 weeks I would dearly love to walk the entire foreshore and go for a snorkel even.

cheers fnq

[Scalem]

Let's see now ..... Based on an average of the number of bags we've been goin through the last couple of days, I would say we had better order more, what do you think Jonny?

Can't believe running out of bags at 11.00am today. ....

Scalem

[TimiBoy]

I'm going to postulate that this is entirely, completely, and utterly the fault of the Premier's office.

The Professional Fishos have asked the EPA several times to develop contingency plans for this sort of thing. Their risk assessments rightly show this to be a major risk to their livelihoods.

The EPA would like to do something about it. So what do they have to do? Go to the Premier's Office to get the OK and the funding.

The Premier thinks about it, and decides it's not something he/she wants to spend money on, so it gets the kybosh.

Premier's fault. That's how the EPA works, and think about it. If they had been asked to, and it's in their brief - there's just no way they would not have wanted to do this. It has Peter/Anna stink all over it.

Cheers,

Tim

[justjack]

its not like bags are hard to get how long could it take to get garrbage bags common, and i cant beleive that the spill has gone from 30 tonne to over 250 tonne bit of difference there, in all the publicity did anyone see one EPA officer cleaning up? all i saw were main roads blokes

[PADDLES]

they can't have been main roads blokes mate, they simply don't work