Talk:Kuwaiti oil fires
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Kuwait, which collaborates on articles related to Kuwait. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
Contents |
[edit] Nightline Debate
"During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Dr. S. Fred Singer debated Carl Sagan on the impact of the Kuwaiti petroleum fires on the ABC News program Nightline. Sagan said the smoke would loft into the upper atmosphere, disrupt the monsoons and lead to ecological disaster. Singer said such a view was ridiculous, that the smoke would go up only a few thousand feet and then be washed out of the atmosphere by rain. Three days later, black rain began falling over Iran, which essentially put an end to the speculation." this seems not important enough to be in the introductory paragraph. The speculation of two scientists about what they thought would happen and then did does not seem very notable. In addition, I do not know what it means because of the way it was worded. It just says what to viewpoints are, then says what happened as a result, then said it ended speculation. However how did that result end the speculation, and whose theory is correct. it is to amniguous for me to be able to decipher it at all. It almots seems as if someone included this just to make a point about one of the scientists.Scotto263 01:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source for whats on this page? Apart from formatting, its unchanged since "conversion script" wrote it. Seaching google, I find nothing but multiple copies of this rather dodgy article requoted in copies of wiki...
(William M. Connolley 16:36, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)) I found something, not quite the same:
> "Quickly capping 363 oil well fires in a war zone is impossible. The > fires would burn out of control until they put themselves out... The > resulting soot might well stretch over all of South Asia... It could be > carried around the world... [and] the consequences could be dire. > Beneath such a pall sunlight would be dimmed, temperatures lowered and > droughts more frequent. Spring and summer frosts may be expected... This > endangerment of the food supplies... appears to be likely enough that it > should affect the war plans..." > > - Sagan and Richard Turco, The Baltimore Sun, January 31, 1991, > commenting during the Gulf War on the impact of oil well fires
Also:
>"In 1991, during the Persian Gulf War, some 800 oil wells in Kuwait were >set on fire by Iraqi troops. Prior to the war a number of predictions >were made concerning the possible environmental impact of such an event. >Early predictions warned of a "petroleum winter" effect: a significant >enhancement of the greenhouse effect due to the large amount of carbon >dioxide released in the combustion of the oil and global temperature and >precipitation depressions associated with a thick cloud of smoke being >lofted into the stratosphere. A number modeling studies discounted the >"petroleum winter" hypothesis, arguing that insignificant amounts of >smoke were likely to reach the stratosphere, and concluding that the >effects from the smoke plume generated were likely to be important on >only a regional scale. The predictions made in these modeling studies >are generally confirmed by later satellite and aircraft observations of >the smoke plume."
[edit] Another issue
Dear all, a separate issue.
Another contributor wrote:
"Other smaller teams gained noteriety for crazy inventions for extinguishing the fires (for example, the use by a Hungarian team of a jet turbine from a MiG-21 fighter mounted on a T-62 tank to blast water and air at out-of-control well fires), but failed to cap a decent percentage of the wells."
This section is neither accurate nor fair. Several specialized oil-fire supression teams have jet based firefighting equipment. The use of a powerful jet to inject extinguishing material into the flaming oil eruption is an existing concept though not as spectacular as using explosives (by the way, using dynamite to quell a fire sounds crazy enough, is it not?).
But back to the issue. The "crazy" machine has a name: Big Wind. It was devised in the early 80's and entered service several years later. The usage of military equipment in a firefighting vehicle may seem odd, but at the time this was the only viable and affordable option. The project was sponsored by the state and engineers from the air force and the fire department and also experts from universities praticipated in the design and building process.
The system is built on a surplus T-34/85 tank chassis modified for the mission. The choice was based on several requirements: it has to handle the combined thrust of the jets without tipping over (cca. 100 kN) and has to be able negotiate the terrain. Also the thick armor of the vehicle provides heat protection for the crew and apparatus.
The jets come from Mig-21's and can be aimed individually. The extinguishing material is introduced into the jet through nozzles located at the jet exhaust.
The main advantages of the system:
- rapid deployment, almost no site preparation is required - low operating costs - does not use hazardous materials (explosives) - provides ample protection for the operators
This is only a brief overview of the topic I can compile an entry for this if necessary.
- Hmm, I suspect you know more than us... just pile in and have a go at editing it.
Okay, I'll make a separate entry for the vehicle.
-
- I deleted the following POV section:
- Other smaller teams gained notoriety for crazy inventions for extinguishing the fires (for example, the use by a Hungarian team of a jet turbine from a MiG-21 fighter mounted on a T-34 tank to blast water and air at out-of-control well fires), but failed to cap a decent percentage of the wells; capped wells also suffered blowouts again, though without reigniting.Mozó 18:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the following POV section:
[edit] Reference to Gulf War Syndrome
"The byproducts of the petroleum burn caused pollution to the soil and air, and the oil fires have been linked in the popular imagination with what was later called Gulf War Syndrome"
Have they ? If this is to be more than hearsay then we should really have a reference or some supporting evidence for this - although phrases like 'in the popular imagination' are tending toward being weasel words in my opinion.
ahpook 16:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
In response to your arguement, I will be looking at improving this article in the coming weeks under the WikiProjects: Gulfwar banner, if you are interested in joining please feel free to investigate on my UserPage. When I improve the article I will add referances for all infomation etc etc because this article will be the guideline for other articles we work on improving in the Wikiproject. --Sharz 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Accumulated loss
The Peak Oil article mentions that approximately 1.5 Gb burned away before all fires were extinguished. That number is absent from this article (only an estimated daily loss is given). Perhaps this number (and an estimated economic loss) should be included in this article as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.62.33 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Contradictory data
In the introduction, it is mentioned that around 5 million barrels of oil were burnt a day. In the environmental impact section, its mentioned that 6 million barrels of oil were burnt a day. Which is more accurate? (Namzie11 (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC))
- Of the sources in the article, this is the only one that seems to give a specific estimate (of 6 million barrels per day). So, I have changed the figure in the introduction. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
