Huge 'Eye of Fire' Burning in Gulf of Mexico Extinguished (reuters.com) 39
"The Gulf of Mexico was on fire," quips a headline at Jalopnik. Long-time Slashdot reader phalse phace explains that "A rupture in an underwater gas pipeline operated by Mexico's state-owned oil company Petroleos Mexicanos (or Pemex) caused a fire to erupt in the ocean west of the Yucatan Peninsula."
Reuters reports: Bright orange flames jumping out of water resembling molten lava was dubbed an "eye of fire" on social media due to the blaze's circular shape. The fire took more than five hours to fully put out, according to Pemex.
The fire began in an underwater pipeline that connects to a platform at Pemex's flagship Ku Maloob Zaap oil development, the company's most important, four sources told Reuters earlier... Pemex said no injuries were reported, and production from the project was not affected after the gas leak ignited around 5:15 a.m. local time... Angel Carrizales, head of Mexico's oil safety regulator ASEA, wrote on Twitter that the incident "did not generate any spill." He did not explain what was burning on the water's surface.
Ku Maloob Zaap is Pemex's biggest crude oil producer, accounting for more than 40% of its nearly 1.7 million barrels of daily output. "The turbomachinery of Ku Maloob Zaap's active production facilities were affected by an electrical storm and heavy rains," according to a Pemex incident report shared by one of Reuters' sources.
Jalopnik supplies some context: Right now, there's no confirmed cause of the leak, but Pemex has said it'll be investigating what happened. The main issue is, this isn't the first time something like this has happened under Pemex's watch. It has caused massive oil spills, deadly explosions, and tanker fires that have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people dating back to the late 1970s. The company has also racked up a fairly significant list of alleged human rights violations at its facilities, with a long history of denying unionization and punishing those who attempted to unionize.
Reuters reports: Bright orange flames jumping out of water resembling molten lava was dubbed an "eye of fire" on social media due to the blaze's circular shape. The fire took more than five hours to fully put out, according to Pemex.
The fire began in an underwater pipeline that connects to a platform at Pemex's flagship Ku Maloob Zaap oil development, the company's most important, four sources told Reuters earlier... Pemex said no injuries were reported, and production from the project was not affected after the gas leak ignited around 5:15 a.m. local time... Angel Carrizales, head of Mexico's oil safety regulator ASEA, wrote on Twitter that the incident "did not generate any spill." He did not explain what was burning on the water's surface.
Ku Maloob Zaap is Pemex's biggest crude oil producer, accounting for more than 40% of its nearly 1.7 million barrels of daily output. "The turbomachinery of Ku Maloob Zaap's active production facilities were affected by an electrical storm and heavy rains," according to a Pemex incident report shared by one of Reuters' sources.
Jalopnik supplies some context: Right now, there's no confirmed cause of the leak, but Pemex has said it'll be investigating what happened. The main issue is, this isn't the first time something like this has happened under Pemex's watch. It has caused massive oil spills, deadly explosions, and tanker fires that have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people dating back to the late 1970s. The company has also racked up a fairly significant list of alleged human rights violations at its facilities, with a long history of denying unionization and punishing those who attempted to unionize.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
The Return of the Shadow (Score:2)
It's Sauron! It's BACK!!!!
How was fire ignited? (Score:1)
So oil comes bubbling to surface, but what actually ignites it?
Was it intentionally set on fire to minimize environmental impact, as has been done before?
Seems many headlines are misleading or sensationalizing if it was intentionally ignited
Re:How was fire ignited? (Score:5, Informative)
So oil comes bubbling to surface, but what actually ignites it?
It was gas, not oil. The leak was right next to an offshore platform. The social media photos show it less than 100 meters away.
The gas may have ignited from a spark or flare on the platform. Or it may have been intentionally ignited to prevent a dangerous build-up in gas around the platform.
There was a thunderstorm, but ignition by lightning is unlikely.
The flame was extinguished by flooding the pipeline with nitrogen.
Re: (Score:3)
Or it may have been intentionally ignited to prevent a dangerous build-up in gas around the platform.
This is standard operating practice on large leaks in really open areas. Just as much as it is standard operating practice *never* to put out a gas fire by force. Not putting out the fire is the most important thing you're taught when fighting a gas fire. Control it, cool surrounding equipment, and keep doing that until the source of fuel is cut-off.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a video with three ships throwing some liquid towards the fire.
What were they using? Why?
The video is too short but it doesn't even seem to reach the fire and surely that's a dangerous position with such huge fire in the ocean, so they must know what they are doing, and I can't figure out what's the goal.
Re: (Score:3)
On the surface it doesn't appear to make sense. The explanation may be as simple as the boats are equipped with the ability to spray water to suppress fires, so that is what they do, by rote, when they arrive at a fire... even if their contribution is futile.
The reflex giveth, and sometimes the reflex doesn't help at all.
Re: (Score:3)
As usual they will be using sea water for the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
That would make sense if they were between the fire and the platform or throwing the water towards the platform, but they are at 45, 90 and 180 with regards to the platform, in no way that water can cooldown the platform.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Control. The video is too short to draw conclusions and the ships very well could be in the process of moving, but the goal is to prevent things from escalating. One of the reasons why you would spray the *surrounding* area is to attempt to knock down any unburnt vapours. In the video you can see bubbles all around the fire, presumably this is unburnt vapour that could potentially build to hazardous levels. If I had to take a guess I'd say they are trying to keep the fire centred by using hoses to sort of b
Why put it out? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the methane a worse environmental disaster than the fire?
Yes. But they extinguished the fire by flooding the pipeline with nitrogen which stopped the flow of methane.
No methane, no fire.
Re:Why put it out? (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't the methane a worse environmental disaster than the fire?
Wrong concern. You *never* put out a gas fire. You only control it until you're able to cut off the source of fuel which is what they did in this case. Actually putting out the fire puts you in the very dangerous situation of standing in the middle of an explosive vapour cloud. The environment is entirely secondary.
Re: (Score:2)
You *never* put out a gas fire. You only control it until you're able to cut off the source of fuel which is what they did in this case. Actually putting out the fire puts you in the very dangerous situation of standing in the middle of an explosive vapour cloud. The environment is entirely secondary.
Right.
However, for those of you who are worried about the greenhouse effect, burning the Methane to CO2 is a LOT better than letting it blow away unburned as methane. Methane absorbs and down-converts (to stic
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the methane a worse environmental disaster than the fire?
Actually, if a gas line ruptures, it is much better for the responsible pipeline company if it is burning, because then it's just another oilfield flare [youtube.com] stack mediating the otherwise escaping methane, a powerful (but relatively short-lived) climate change multiplier.
Look, whether it's aflame or not the solution is closing a valve or three, and the combustion of the gas is not without consequence, but considerably more preferable to its escape to the ozone unscathed. I don't know how the gas ignited in the
All else aside (Score:3)
The video of a roiling, burning large patch in the ocean was pretty darn cool.
Should have left it burning (Score:3)
The methane from the leak will do more damage than the CO2 and H2O from burning the methane. Putting out the fire with nitrogen does not fix the leak. The right way to put out the fire is to remove the fuel.
Re:Should have left it burning (Score:4, Informative)
Putting out the fire with nitrogen does not fix the leak. The right way to put out the fire is to remove the fuel.
The article was unclear, but my understanding is that they put the nitrogen into the pipeline, not directly onto the flame. So they did remove the fuel.
To extinguish the flame directly with N2 would be implausible since it is lighter than air and storing and delivering it requires either extreme pressure or cryogenic temperatures. Carbon dioxide would make way more sense. CO2 is also safer since it triggers a suffocation reflex while N2 calmly kills.
Re: (Score:2)
They stopped the leak, they didn't "put it out". That would be an insanely dumb thing to do, and one of the first things you lean when firefighting: Do not put out gas fires or you risk blowing yourself up.
What a name for an oil development! (Score:2)
The video of the 'eye of fire' was cool, certainly, but the name of the oil field where this occurred is fantastic:
Ku Maloob Zaap!
Turn off the gas... (Score:2)
My rates are reasonable, you can hire me next time you want to extinguish a gas fire.
More money spent ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite a trick, managing to believe something that has been proposed but not done yet was to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
The Mexican tax does not include natural gas.
All hail Pemex, our savior! (Score:2)
Special water (Score:2)
FTFA: "...that problem is quite literally water that had lit on fire..."
This must be that special spring water that flows from Mt Doom.
Suspicious... (Score:2)
It must be the windmills that did it.
Pemex (Score:2)
Pemex is the Mexican state-owned petroleum company managed and operated by the Mexican government.
In 1938, President Lázaro Cárdenas (1934–40) sided with oil workers striking against foreign-owned oil companies for an increase in pay and social services. On March 18, 1938, citing Article 27 of the Constitution of 1917, President Cárdenas embarked on the state-expropriation of all resources and facilities, nationalizing the United States and Anglo–Dutch operating compa
Re: (Score:2)
other news (Score:2)
In other news, four hobbits returned to the Shire. And after the commercial break, stay tuned for the crowning of a new king of Gondor.
Lost opportunity (Score:2)