Industrial oil spill on the River Lea - help please

[rusty69]

1 minute ago, Lily Rose said:

Signed.

I had to sign this once I'd seen that it had already been signed by Feargal Sharkey (note: I would have signed it anyway) and found out that it was indeed him and not just some namesake. 

The mention of the great man's name has necessitated the appropriate instruction to Alexa. Great stuff!

 

 

 

 

You have a good heart! Thats hard to find these days.

[Lily Rose]

11 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

You have a good heart! Thats hard to find these days.

Quote

 

Excellent work! And so quick.

Here comes the summer.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Lily Rose
Fix cock-up

[anniewhere]

16 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

I suspect it will be 80,000 litres of oil and water, not just the oil.

Sorry, you're right of course. It was 80,000 litres of oily water. I don't know how much oil there has been, but enough to spread over five miles and still look very thick in places. 

 

14 hours ago, Lily Rose said:

Signed.

I had to sign this once I'd seen that it had already been signed by Feargal Sharkey (note: I would have signed it anyway) and found out that it was indeed him and not just some namesake. 

The mention of the great man's name has necessitated the appropriate instruction to Alexa. Great stuff!

 

 

 

 

Yes, THE Feargal is on board supporting the petition. If you're on Twitter, he's very active there too. https://twitter.com/Feargal_Sharkey

 

Just to be clear here, this isn't a "CRT bashing" campaign. We're are hoping to achieve concrete improvements and constructive input from boaters. 

CRT have opened navigation again yesterday - and just a few hours later the Swan Sanctuary had to rescue two swans.

[MtB]

18 hours ago, cuthound said:

1 litre of oil spilled on water will spread to cover the approximatearea of a football pitch.

 

Surely that depends how big the football pitch is. 

I read the rules once as a kid and the permissible variation is HUGE!

[cuthound]

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Surely that depends how big the football pitch is. 

I read the rules once as a kid and the permissible variation is HUGE!

That's why I said "approximate area".  How far the oil will spread also depends on the viscosity of the oil.

The fact this spillage covered 5 miles of canal indicates that a significant quantity of oil was spilled.

[LadyG]

13 minutes ago, cuthound said:

That's why I said "approximate area".  How far the oil will spread also depends on the viscosity of the oil.

The fact this spillage covered 5 miles of canal indicates that a significant quantity of oil was spilled.

and the oil is very thick in places, its not all about viscosity, its about volume.

Its preferable to contain the oil asap, rather than allowing it to spread over an area of a hundred thousand football pitches.

Edited March 21, 2018 by LadyG

[MtB]

26 minutes ago, cuthound said:

That's why I said "approximate area". 

 

Yeah I noticed, but I conveniently ignored that in order to make an irrelavant and only half-valid point 

 

26 minutes ago, cuthound said:

How far the oil will spread also depends on the viscosity of the oil.

 

I disagree with this bit. Surely the viscosity will simply govern how long said litre of oil takes to spread out. I hold that given enough time, oil of any viscosity will spread out to a thickness of one melecule. 

 

Back on topic though:

What progress has been made in identifying the source of the oil?

It looks to me as though the polution is getting worse and needs to be stopped at source.  If the source isn't identified and stopped no amount of clearing it up is going to make a jot of difference.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Mike the Boilerman

[David Mack]

22 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I disagree with this bit. Surely the viscosity will simply govern how long said litre of oil takes to spread out. I hold that given enough time, oil of any viscosity will spread out to a thickness of one melecule.

We did that experiment at school. Dropped a tiny drop of oil into a tea tray of water and watched it spread out. We measured  (estimated) the diameter of the drop and of the pool of oil and hence worked out how thick the layer of oil was, as a proxy for oil molecular size. Followed by a debate about whether the long chain oil molecules would sit horizontally or vertically on the water surface i.e. were we measuring the molecule length or width?

Edited March 21, 2018 by David Mack

[WotEver]

10 minutes ago, David Mack said:

were we measuring the molecule length or width?

And what did you conclude?

[cuthound]

56 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yeah I noticed, but I conveniently ignored that in order to make an irrelavant and only half-valid point 

 

 

I disagree with this bit. Surely the viscosity will simply govern how long said litre of oil takes to spread out. I hold that given enough time, oil of any viscosity will spread out to a thickness of one melecule. 

A thick tar like oil won't spread as far, but will be much thicker on the surface of  water.

Back on topic though:

What progress has been made in identifying the source of the oil?

It looks to me as though the polution is getting worse and needs to be stopped at source.  If the source isn't identified and stopped no amount of clearing it up is going to make a jot of difference.

Good point.

In my discussions with  EA over a few litres which leaked from a decommissioned above ground fuel tank near Great Bedwyn, and soaked into the chalk above the aquifer there (but never reached the aquifer fortunately), the EA said that all oil has a "signature" so can be traced back to source. The signature can show which refinery and batch it originally came from.  

In the case of used oil, the traces of metal can identify the engine it came from. Mixing used oil from many sources also gives a unique signature.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by cuthound
To add "decommissioned"

[David Mack]

31 minutes ago, WotEver said:

And what did you conclude?

I can't remember. It was the best part of 50 years ago!

[anniewhere]

Just blatantly bumping this post again, because unfortunately it's still looking like this in parts of the Lea. These photos including the dead coot are from today....six weeks after the oil spill was first reported. 

Please sign and post on Facebook / Twitter / Whatsapp it to your mates. Thanks so much to all who are supporting!

Just to be clear again, we are very much approaching this in a constructive way and are working on concrete suggestions for future improvements. 

✍️ https://www.change.org/p/river-lea-oil-disaster-we-demand-effective-environmental-protection-for-our-waterways

 

https://www.change.org/p/river-lea-oil-disaster-we-demand-effective-environmental-protection-for-our-waterways

Edited March 26, 2018 by anniewhere

[anniewhere]

Hi everyone,

I thought I'd post a little update for those interested. We've summed up what we've been up to here: https://www.change.org/p/river-lea-oil-disaster-we-demand-effective-environmental-protection-for-our-waterways/u/22631153

We're still collecting signatures and are working with our partners to make sure any future oil spills or other environmental emergencies are properly addressed. Meetings with the Canal & River Trust and the Environment Agency to discuss strategy improvements are in the oily pipeline. 

 

Have a good week