by frog
One way that oil companies get oil out from under the seabed and up onto the surface is that they drive a big ship out to just over where the oil is, moor it down to the seabed, put a bolt through its steering mechanism and remove the propeller. The ship is then no longer technically defined as a ship according to the Maritime Transport Act, but as a Floating Storage Production Off-loading vessel (FPSO). Oil is accumulated in the FPSO until there’s enough to fill a transport tanker, at which point a tanker connects to the FPSO and offloads the oil. Once moored to the seabed, because the FPSO is no longer technically a ship it is allowed to be staffed by land based engineers rather than seafarers.
Now here’s a question: If you were on a ship full of oil moored out in the middle of the ocean, say for instance off the coast of New Plymouth or in the Great South Basin, it has its steering and propulsion disabled and a large storm blows up, would you prefer:
- That it’s steering and propulsion could be re-engaged and that it had experienced qualified seafarers on board capable of operating in an emergency situation if required.
- Or that the only thing hold it in place was its moorings and that it had no qualified seafarers on board?
For bonus points ask yourself the same question but from the perspective of a seabird sitting on some coastline as yet not covered in oil slick and looking out at sea to a climate change related storm.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Wed, March 12th, 2008
Tags: Floating Storage Production Off-loading vessel, FPSO, oil
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Me personally if i was on a floating piece of steal in the middle of the ocean with a large storm coming my way, I would be on the first helicopter back to hard ground.
I was wondering Anyone know what happened to Just fill your car with water and step on the gas it was a 2006 story and they say I should be able to get one by now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ekstatek, any more links? seems quite interesting, im not a physicist or a chemist but i cant see how that would work considering that one would be wanting a net energy output but even at 100% efficency one could not extract more energy from the exothermic reaction of hydrogen and water than one would use in breaking the bonds in the first place? so since 100% efficency is not considerd practicaly possible one would have a net loss of energy? how can that work? unless im looking at it wrong and the presence of the extra hydrogen and oxygen in the hydrocarbon mix somehow increases the energy output of the petrols conbustion to a greater extent than the energy used in spliting the water, but then again i think thats implausable too, so lost, maybe i need to go back to highschool
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)