Why is BP solely in charge of stopping spill by Niki2

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I was watching a political talk show today, and the host said something that made me wonder.

What if there is a way to stop the spill, but the BP people aren't pursuing it because it would ruin their future access to the resource?

I hope that's not the case. To imagine someone letting untold barrels of crude pollute the environment because they hope to make a profit later is to imagine pure villainy.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2010 8:39 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

And now Senator David Vitter of Louisiana has come out asking why Congress is investigating the spill, when they should be concentrating on capping the well.

I really want to ask him, What exactly does he imagine Congress is able to do to cap a gushing well a mile under water, if the best drillers on Earth haven't been able to figure it out? How exactly would he suggest they stop the well? Pile Congresspeople on it to try to block the flow? If so, can we start with David Vitter?

Or is he just trying to finagle a nice big bailout for BP and his state?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2010 8:43 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I do believe that stopping the spill is first priority, and I am shocked and dismayed that there wasn't a book of emergency protocols to take for stopping a spill before the first rig sunk a bit into the ground.

However, I don't see why the resources of the US government can't accommodate a simultaneous spill-stoppage effort AND conduct an investigation. We're supposed to be able to fight two-front wars, after all.

I am very concerned that not all options for staunching the flow of oil are being explored.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2010 9:31 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I saw a really, REALLY bizarre idea, to at least stem the flow a bit, but the method of doing so put me aback and in confusion even when the science of it (which I haven't the background to know whether is bullshit or not) was explained.

They said bomb it - I kid you not, but when they tried to explain how and why that'd work they lost me cause I couldn't mentally keep up.

Any idea if that'd actually... work ?
*cringe*

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2010 9:39 AM

Bombing it could theoretically block it off, if you managed to collapse enough debris and rock on top of it.

But if it went wrong, you could definitely make the problem bigger.

I can't think of anything that the company might be hesitant about doing to stop the flow because it would prevent access later, that's not how I'm aware that an oil aquifer works. But I took very few classes on petroleum geology, and am not a petroleum geologist.

I'm more seeing that they're dragging their feet hoping that someone else will eventually take over it if it gets big or bad enough, then they can try to default on paying somehow.

All the other stuff they've tried has failed, the only thing I know of they might do now is to drill another one and try to tap into either the same line or the same aquifer and start trying to draw away from the leak, divert through differential pressure...

But you've still got a massive, massive spill. Blocking it or stopping it is only the first step.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2010 9:45 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

This idea isn't even a little bit scientific...

But I wondered why they can't put a balloon on a probe, stick it into the hole, and then inflate it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2010 11:17 AM

I'm still waitting for the pictures of oil cover dead birds littering the beaches, I'm still waitting for the disaster......WHERE'S THE DISASTER! I want pictures of Middle School kids wipping oil off rocks with stray kittys. Yes, I remember the Oil/Animal Fur thread NIKI2.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2010 11:25 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Do you disbelieve that there is a disaster, Mr. Zit? I'm not sure what you are angling for here.

Do you believe that 5,000 barrels of oil per day in the ocean is a positive environmental factor?

Well, it has begun. The earliest trickle of dry land contact. It is worse in the water than on land, and it will be worse everywhere before (if?) it gets solved.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/louisiana-oil-spill-2010_n_55
8287.html

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/1422836

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/
homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html

http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:46245.asx?bkup=46260

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2010 11:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Do you disbelieve that there is a disaster, Mr. Zit? I'm not sure what you are angling for here.

Do you believe that 5,000 barrels of oil per day in the ocean is a positive environmental factor?

Well, it has begun. The earliest trickle of dry land contact. It is worse in the water than on land, and it will be worse everywhere before (if?) it gets solved.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/louisiana-oil-spill-2010_n_55
8287.html

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/1422836

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

I'll believe there's a disaster when I see pictures of death and disturction, SHOW ME THE PAIN! I want to see pictures of people and animals in pain. Why you ask? Because I'm a sick right-wing fuck. I WANT PICTURES OF PEOPLE IN PAIN NOW!!! I am as God made me, SHOW ME PAIN!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2010 11:40 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The media will presently be saturated with the coverage you seek.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2010 12:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

The media will presently be saturated with the coverage you seek.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

WHEN!! I WANT PAIN!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2010 1:06 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I'm feeling a little pain now, a definite prick, if that helps.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2010 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I'm feeling a little pain now, a definite prick, if that helps.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

Not enough I want blood.......and a beach filled with dead oil covered birds. I AM THAT PRICK!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2010 3:23 PM

This is a spill 50 miles offshore, and a mile under water. There's a very, very, VERY good chance that 99.9% of the wildlife that's oil-soaked and wiped out will never even be seen, because it will simply die and sink to the bottom. Add to that the giant "plume" of oil that seems to be stuck beneath the thermocline, spreading out over more than 30 square miles some 3500 feet beneath the surface, and you have the makings of a kill-off of nearly biblical proportions - most of which WON'T be seen.

You know how you'll know it happened? You won't get shrimp any more. You won't find oysters. Fish prices will go up. And probably a very large chunk of the Mississippi river delta will simply cease to exist. It will still physically BE there, for a while, but it will be a desert. A waterlogged desert, empty of life. The plants will die, all the animal life will die, and the delta, with nothing there to hold it together, will erode and disappear, taking with it huge swaths of wetland.

Was that the disaster you were hoping for?

Once it's cleaned up, some of the marine and marsh life might come back. Y'know, in a generation or seven.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2010 4:29 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
I'm still waitting for the pictures of oil cover dead birds littering the beaches, I'm still waitting for the disaster......WHERE'S THE DISASTER! I want pictures of Middle School kids wipping oil off rocks with stray kittys. Yes, I remember the Oil/Animal Fur thread NIKI2.

I think you have a point Whozit, if Bush was still President I'm pretty sure dead babies would already be washing up on the beaches.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2010 10:35 PM

RIVERDANCER

I'm with Russia on this. Nuke it. And

BP.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2010 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
I'm still waitting for the pictures of oil cover dead birds littering the beaches, I'm still waitting for the disaster......WHERE'S THE DISASTER! I want pictures of Middle School kids wipping oil off rocks with stray kittys. Yes, I remember the Oil/Animal Fur thread NIKI2.

I think you have a point Whozit, if Bush was still President I'm pretty sure dead babies would already be washing up on the beaches.

And Cheney would be there to eat them all...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 3:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I'm feeling a little pain now, a definite prick, if that helps.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad
Not enough I want blood.......and a beach filled with dead oil covered birds. I AM THAT PRICK!!

Here ya go, ya prick.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_sc2199

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 3:55 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

What if there is a way to stop the spill, but the BP people aren't pursuing it because it would ruin their future access to the resource?

I thought that had pretty much already been established as the case.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 6:30 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Apparently, after the Exon spill, congress passed a law making the cleanup the responsibility of the oil company. This was a terrible idea, clearly, but it passed because cleanup was so expensive. Much more expensive than, you know, an entire ecosystem being destroyed. Genius. But anyway, that would be why.
I'm with Riverdancer and Russia. Melt it with fission. Especially if Russia didn't stupidly tie its own hands when it comes to doing something about this sort of disaster, they should be taken up on that idea.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 11:53 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Grrr, BP flips fur the bird - this is just a pisser, innit ?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100524/ap_on_re_us/us_gulf_oil_spill_hair

Interesting note, also, although it was utterly ignored, at the beginning of this, I asked a question that if someone brought forward a method of retrieving the oil, one that not only removed it, but left it in a useable form, should they have the right to keep it, or sell it back in exchange for doing so ?

As in, if you get it out of the water, it's your property, kind of way of lookin at it, yes ?

Well, the guy I was thinkin about was Kevin Costner, and apparently he thinks his device is real-world ready, and they've been deployed as far as I know of this past weekend, but I've heard no more about it.

My opinion - Costner should have rights to whatever useable product his machines recover.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 1:54 AM

Salvage rights of the sea, and all that.

I'm with ya, Frem - whatever he catches, he keeps.

I heard one little thing which cheers me up a tiny bit. It doesn't mean anything for the spill or getting it stopped, but it has an impact on BP's bottom line. Seems when they get the rights to drill in these kinds of areas, the U.S. considers it "our" oil, and BP has to pay royalties on the oil it pumps out. Well, as it turns out, the way things are worded, the oil company who taps the source has to pay royalties on all the oil that comes out of the source. NOT all the oil that's *pumped out*, but all the oil that *comes out*.

Which would explain one more reason why they're so adamant that there's not as much oil gushing into the Gulf as there is. If they have to pay the government royalties on that oil, they'd have a keen interest in downplaying the size and amount of the spill.

This was mentioned in a little news story I heard yesterday; I *hope* it's true.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:59 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I’m confused, Anthony; why would BP not capping the well “because it would ruin their future access to the resource?” They’re already drilling a release well, which surely they could use in future? It seems to me that the oil companies are experiencing such a flood of ill will, and what’s happening could well impinge on their future ability to drill, that it would be in their interests to minimize the disaster as soon as possible? How would it ruin their future access, can you help me understand?

Well, we know about Vitter. I agree, send him down there and see if HE can fix it, or he and some of his buddies.

There’s no reason both can’t be pursued at the same time, aside from which, it’s BP’s JOB to stop the flow; it’s the government’s job to find out what happened and who’s responsible to stop (sigh... “minimize”) future incidents. Each should be doing their job, and each supposedly IS, it’s just that oil companies know how to DRILL deep, they just don’t know how to stop a SPILL deep, which has been the case for a long, long time now.

The idea of bombing it gives me the shivers. It DOES seem quite possible it would worsen the situation. As it is, apparently some of the things they’re considering might make matters worse, which is unthinkable.

How can you ask about “the disaster” Whatsit is beyond me. Yes, Anthony, I’m feeling a prick too. In fact a rather large, and stupid one. I’m not doing birds, it’s too awful, but if you want "blood", check out Mike's link.

The bigger point is the tidal marshes:

It’s in the marshes now. These marshes are dead, will never return, once oil hits them, do you understand that?

There goes the fishing industry. It NEVER RECOVERED in Alaska, you know. (Gov. Bobby Jindal manning the net)

Half of the all the life created in the nature-rich Louisiana coast, one of the world's most productive estuaries, takes place in the thin layer of slime on top of the marshes. The grass, microscopic algae and critters living in the wafer-thin top layer of marsh mud - called the benthic community - are the fuel that drives the whole system. That's the base, the food that fuels the whole system. If you lose that in a large enough area it could have a disproportionate impact on the food web, and everything that depends on it: fish, shrimp, oysters, all the species that rely on the estuary. And so will the humans who rely on the marsh for storm protection and seafood production. In fact, marine biologists estimate 97 percent of all marine species in the Gulf of Mexico depend on estuaries at some point in their life cycles, which means that benthic community has an impact far beyond the beach line

There’s tons more, it’s all on the internet. The spill has reached land for 650 MILES already...can you comprehend the impact? Maybe your imagination doesn’t go that far, but what is happening, and will happen for a long time to come, will be the biggest disaster of its kind to ever hit America. That you don’t already understand that says pretty much all there is to say.

The Coast will never recover completely, and what recovery that will take place will take generations.

Frem, what I heard last night was that recapturing and making the oil viable IS possible right now and has been done elsewhere. The problem is, the ships that can do it are already full of oil, the pundit said, and waiting somewhere for the price of oil to go up, rather than being brought to the Gulf to do the job.

Mike, what I heard about the royalties is that there’s no way of knowing what’s been paid (or probably WILL be paid) in royalties because MMS has been in charge of such things. Given what we already know of MMS, there is no way to calculate how much (or little) of the royalties have been paid to the government. IF they do something about MMS, maybe royalties will go to the government, but there’s serious doubt at this point that anywhere near the royalties owed have been paid, so....

This "spill" (I'd call it a "gush") is in the Gulf Stream now. It's already hitting Florida; it will go around the Florida Coast, and may well go up the Atlantic Seaboard, given it's not yet capped. That means this will occur to every state from Florida on up, depending on how far it goes.

You want disaster? It's already HERE, and it's going to get much, much worse.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 7:50 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

On another note:

Quote:
BP plans to continue using a controversial subsea dispersant to break up a plume of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, saying that the leading alternative could pose a risk over the long term, the EPA indicated Saturday.

The EPA issued a directive on Thursday, ordering BP to find, within 24 hours, a less toxic but equally effective chemical than its current product, Corexit 9500 -- and one that is available in sufficient quantities. The directive also gave the company 72 hours to stop applying it to the undersea gusher.

Corexit has been rated more toxic and less effective than many others on the list of 18 EPA-approved dispersants, according to testimony at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

The EPA released BP's response to the mandate on Saturday.

"Based on the information that is available today, BP continues to believe that Corexit was the best and most appropriate choice at the time when the incident occurred, and that Corexit remains the best option for subsea application," BP said.

Despite the continuing use of Corexit, BP is not in violation of the EPA directive, which said that should the company not be able to identify alternative products, "BP shall provide ... a detailed description of the products investigated [and] the reason the products did not meet the standards" required by the agency.

"We will continue to review and discuss the science through the end of the 72-hour window on Sunday, and then we will reach a decision," an EPA spokesman said Saturday.

John Sheffield, president of Alabaster Corp., which manufactures Sea Brat, took issue with BP's response, saying Saturday that the company is "nitpicking my product because they want to use what they've always used."

The EPA has not yet publicly issued a formal response to BP's letter. EPA officials met with BP executives on Friday to discuss the issue and to explore alternatives.

The EPA said Saturday that it "will continue to work over the next 48 hours to ensure BP is complying with the directive," but did not respond to requests for additional comment.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/22/gulf.oil.spill/index.html

In other words, our government said to BP: “Stop using this dispersant, it’s toxic”, and BP replied: “No thank you, we’ll do what we want to do”. Who exactly is in charge??

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:45 AM

RIVERDANCER

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
congress passed a law making the cleanup the responsibility of the oil company.

That is disgusting.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
congress passed a law making the cleanup the responsibility of the oil company.

That is disgusting.

Cleanup should be the FINANCIAL responsibility of the oil company. They shouldn't get to say when it's clean enough, though - that should be up to the EPA, working in concert with fish & game departments and water agencies, as well as environmental groups.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:11 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I’m confused, Anthony; why would BP not capping the well “because it would ruin their future access to the resource?” They’re already drilling a release well, which surely they could use in future? It seems to me that the oil companies are experiencing such a flood of ill will, and what’s happening could well impinge on their future ability to drill, that it would be in their interests to minimize the disaster as soon as possible? How would it ruin their future access, can you help me understand?"

Hello,

None of the methods BP is employing would ruin their future access to the resource. (No more than the accident itself, that is.)

I was wondering if there were other methods of stopping the spill that are not being considered. Methods that might render the site or the oil there unusable.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:28 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I was wondering if there were other methods of stopping the spill that are not being considered. Methods that might render the site or the oil there unusable.

I can't imagine any, not with the release wells being dug somewhere else. Just a guess. But this thread contains the information I posted on the wetlands and marshes, plus other things, if anyone's interested.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:52 AM

IMHO, this seems like a fairly simple problem.

First off, you have to get the pressure relationship right. Oil is not rising, rather, water is falling, into what is essentially an empty hole of indeterminate size, which could be a fair percent of the size of the gulf but probably not, but at least is large enough to cause a problem.

Secondly, recall what used to block this hole, which was five miles of rock.

Third, why it is not, which is because there's a twenty one inch hole through the rock.

Fourth, what you would need to stop it.

We can calculate the exact pressure, which is five thousand feet of a vertical column of water twenty one inches across, and representing off the top of my head around 150 atmospheric pressures.

We know that rock stops it, so we could fill the hole all the way, but that's undoubtedly more than is required.

I propose a simple solution:

Firstly, cover the hole with something that does not stop oil from rising, but would stop something from falling down the hole, like a hat.

Second, pour very large amounts of sand on top of the hat. My guess would be that nothing would be leaking through by the time the hat was under about thirty feet of sand.

This would stop the leak, and leave the oil well in tact. Even if it's not a permanent fix, it will last long enough to make a more permanent fix if one is needed.

Finally, hire someone else to drill the next well. If BP is the problem, which i suspect they are, at least in part, eminent domain the well, and give it to someone else. Also, have halliburton not do the seal, and probably hire someone other than transocean to build the well.

I gnawed over Raps doomsday scenario, it's good that you care that much man, we can never overdo the concern, but I actually don't think it will be that bad. The flow of water is from the land to the sea, so it I suspect it will eventually all come out in the wash. It was a fairly major screw up on everyone's part, and I agree that the president spent just a little to much time on the blame game and not actually fixing the problem, and Anthony is definitely right, there's a fix that involves killing the well... but I really don't think tis that bad. I think we can actually save the well and the sea, birds, beaches and all. Of course, someone would actually have to do something.

Heres my leaky hat idea:

___/-\___

Leaking oil around the rim. This would make the anything which was inclined to go straight down, like sand, to just fill the hat rather than the hole.

There's nothing particularly wrong with filling the hole with sand, except it would take lots and lots of sand and its a small hole to target, covering the leaky hat with sand would be really easy by comparison. Just take a truckload of sand and lower it down.

And sure, some sand would go in the well,but not that much, and the well is mostly sand anyway.

Anyone here connected to the cleanup?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 12:15 PM

I see one problem: porosity and pore pressure.

You can bury the leak, and throw sand down in the water on top of the leak. Fine. Initially, the pores between sand grains are filled with water.

The oil is displacing water as it comes out of the leak.

If you put sand on top, the oil will displace the water out of the space between the sand grains, until it again fills up the available volume and begins leaking out of your now contaminated sand.

You have a plume, probably roughly makes kind of an upside down cone shape (skewed by currents). It stretches maybe 2,000 feet or so down, a few tendrils coming off of the main plume due to gradient and temperature differences and currents, and at the top of the cone estimated 2,500 square miles. I guarantee that's more volume than the pore space in the sand you're proposing.

HOWEVER... Clays have almost no pore space and are very absorbant, they take in fluids into spaces within their molecular structure. It's why cat litter has bentonite in it. That could be an alternative. Stuff in a saturated clay doesn't really go anywhere. It's why people try to dig landfills into clay.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 12:28 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Uhhh, I think the problem is mostly getting anything ON TOP OF THE HOLE, given the pressure with which it's spewing. Otherwise, wouldn't it have been easier by now? Besides, their "top hat" didn't work, so why would this?

I should think if they could stop the flow for ANY measurable amount of time, they could dump that "drilling mud" or whatever they're trying to get in NOW into the hole, which is more solid than oil they say. It's the getting anything on TOP of such a strong pressure flow to stop it even for a minute that's the problem, isn't it?

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 1:20 PM

Yeah, pretty much. The leaking oil is coming out under pressure. Initial pressure of the oil is equal to mass of water column*g, plus mass of overburden *g, plus the bouyancy of the oil, all over the area of the pipe. Force decreases through friction with water and the weight of the oil as the oil travels up the water column. At the surface, the weight of the oil is equal to the bouyancy of the oil over some surface area.

The drilling mud is bentonite. That's what they always use, for precisely the reasons I explained. Hey, I know something about wells after all!

The mass of the bentonite times gravity over the cross section of the leak area would have to equal the integral of the density of oil times volume discharge with respect to time, over the cross section of the leak area.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 1:27 PM

Well, I checked, and lw and behold BP tried my idea, but it didn't work. It's close though, and clearly not absurd. The problem was that the sand specifically in the way was pushed out.

Here's my next plan. Take a large pipe, larger than the hole. Put it over the little pipe. Or medium pipe actually, the hole to the well. Then fill with sand around the pipe. Slowly push the pipe over so the well is leaking out sideways, then remove the pipe. Let the sand collapse. I think this would also need leaky hat inside, so the sand doesn't fall down the well.

Put clay in the sand. That should seal any pores. we use it around here to stop leaks, we have a lot of clay. Clay and sand, sand and clay. Just push it over, and the tunnel of oil will cave in.

Still imagine the ocean running down into an open hole to an empty cavern below, because that's basically what is going on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 1:32 PM

bentonite is clay, that would work. But the oil is not pushing up, the water is running down. I know the distinctive is a fine one, but in think in this case it matters,

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I see one problem: porosity and pore pressure.

You can bury the leak, and throw sand down in the water on top of the leak. Fine. Initially, the pores between sand grains are filled with water.

The oil is displacing water as it comes out of the leak.

If you put sand on top, the oil will displace the water out of the space between the sand grains, until it again fills up the available volume and begins leaking out of your now contaminated sand.

You have a plume, probably roughly makes kind of an upside down cone shape (skewed by currents). It stretches maybe 2,000 feet or so down, a few tendrils coming off of the main plume due to gradient and temperature differences and currents, and at the top of the cone estimated 2,500 square miles. I guarantee that's more volume than the pore space in the sand you're proposing.

HOWEVER... Clays have almost no pore space and are very absorbant, they take in fluids into spaces within their molecular structure. It's why cat litter has bentonite in it. That could be an alternative. Stuff in a saturated clay doesn't really go anywhere. It's why people try to dig landfills into clay.

I see one big problem: depth. You can't just throw stuff overboard from a ship directly above the gusher, and expect it to land atop said gusher. People act like this is similar in any way to capping a broken water pipe under your house. It is, if your house were a mile in the sky, and you were trying to cap it from there with a fishing rod and a lead weight.

Hell, we could dump 40-foot-tall dump trucks on it all day long, like the ones Byte pictured in the other thread, but they actually have to LAND ON THE WELL before they do any good at all. And sure, you can lower them down, but you have to be able to AIM anything you're lowering, and keep it on target. That's the hard part. You're dealing with over a mile of moving water, shifting currents, rising and falling columns of water, AND plumes of oil. Ever play that game where you drop a quarter in a barrel of water, trying to make the quarter land in a shotglass at the bottom of the barrel? It's like that - only the barrel is more than a mile deep, and the shotglass is shooting oil out of it at hundreds of thousands of pounds of pressure. And the shotglass is smaller in diameter than a drinking straw.

But hey, if you do it, you win a nifty prize! (Well, if a Gulf filled with crude oil fits your definition of "nifty", that is.)

If this were an easy problem, it wouldn't be a problem.

Do we even HAVE any ROV's (Remote-operated vehicles) or submersibles capable of carrying such a huge weight down to the wellhead and then positioning it in place?

I'm not trying to discourage anyone; I'm trying to lay out the size and scope of the problem. We know more about rescuing astronauts in space than we know about fixing leaking wellheads a mile under water.

In the past, the only thing that worked was the relief well that was drilled. I suspect things have not changed very much in 31 years.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:48 PM

That also, although to make oil rigs, I do know that companies have sometimes brought in soil... I remember hearing about a rig in Alaska where they built a sandbar out to it for some reason. So it's not impossible to position. I do grant that it's exceedingly difficult.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:51 PM

Quote:
Still imagine the ocean running down into an open hole to an empty cavern below, because that's basically what is going on.

Granted, because of density, though there has to be both oil AND water in the pipe, and an oil water interface, and two currents going in opposite directions.

And it's not so much a cavern as it is pore space in the oil aquifer rock.

In any case, we basically have two phases moving past each other and displacing each other.

EDIT: relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capillary_pressure

Also, you have to consider the potential for the oil to sorb to soil particles.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 4:38 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"And sure, you can lower them down, but you have to be able to AIM anything you're lowering, and keep it on target."

Hello,

Too bad we don't have an aqua-Wash to do the sci-fi derring-do.

Maybe the 21st century will be the age of deep-sea ocean exploration and development. As much as I hate to tip the hat to SeaQuest, it may make more sense to test our limits under the sea than to do so above the sky.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"And sure, you can lower them down, but you have to be able to AIM anything you're lowering, and keep it on target."

Hello,

Too bad we don't have an aqua-Wash to do the sci-fi derring-do.

Maybe the 21st century will be the age of deep-sea ocean exploration and development. As much as I hate to tip the hat to SeaQuest, it may make more sense to test our limits under the sea than to do so above the sky.

Right on. And I'm not trying to make light or anything, but this might be a wonderful time to start doing what you just suggested. And yes, we DO need some Water-Wash types to pilot these boats!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 4:51 PM

Mike,

I'm assuming they have a tether, perhaps left over from the rig, they've put some things down there already, a camera, a small pipe, some random capping attempts. The problem here is pressure, not so much getting there. I also think they have a submersible or two. They have several dozen skimmers of types, its a pretty major effort.

Byte,

Yes, I got what it is, even if my brain doesn't feel up to that circle equation. The gist of it is that the water is displacing the oil, and sure, it will be less pressure than if it were over an empty cavern, but not so much less as to make a serious differential, you want to plan your seal so that it would work for an open cavern. The major difference here is that there's no compression for the displaced phase, so all oil will push up, but that just brings us back to not letting any water through in the first place. Before you can stop it, you have to be in control of the flow of oil and wafer. Or water even.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 5:17 PM

Well... the approximation for what shit need be done is correct, in that anything that could handle a cavern filled with oil WOULD most likely do the job.

I have to think on how the general increase of pressure with depth when making your model pore space in an aquifer would compare to the insanely high hydraulic conductivity you're looking at with a cavern as opposed to pore space. When we're talking near surface groundwater, you can expect much higher flow and much higher contaminant spread and mobilization in the cavern/fracture scenario.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 5:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike,

I'm assuming they have a tether, perhaps left over from the rig, they've put some things down there already, a camera, a small pipe, some random capping attempts. The problem here is pressure, not so much getting there. I also think they have a submersible or two. They have several dozen skimmers of types, its a pretty major effort.

I think you misunderstand me, Dream. The pressures we're talking about - thousands of pounds per square inch - mean that you need an ENORMOUS amount of weight sitting on top of that gusher to hold it back for long enough to get some cement on it and get it hardened. So you need a tether capable of holding that kind of weight WITHOUT dropping it (until needed) and WITHOUT sinking and being brought down on top of it (again, until needed.

). And you need submersibles with robotic arms that can maneuver these kinds of enormous weights under water, without getting crushed by them.

To put it into a rough kind of visual image, think about something that could pick up that earthmover that Byte posted up from the Montana mine, that could pick that thing up like a Tonka toy, and place it gently atop a geyser of oil, and hold it there and steady long enough to start squeezing concrete on top and all around it.

There's ways to do it. Buoyancy is the key. Take something like an anchor leg of one of the drilling platforms. They're hollow, designed to be flooded to a neutral or positive buoyancy so they can be moved around and positioned, then flooded the rest of the way so they can be anchored to the sea floor. So you get that in position, drop it SLOOOOOWWWWWLLLLLY to the bottom, playing with the buoyancy as you go, so you can still position it laterally, and then you flood it, first with water (which means you now have the entire weight of the steel and concrete thing sitting atop the gusher, with no air to help hold it up), and then with concrete. Voila! Done.

Sounds simple. But remember, you're working a mile down, where pressures are as nothing imaginable on land. In currents, in the dark, atop an erupting volcano of oil and mud and gas.

It can be done. Not quickly, not easily, and not by the President. But it can be done.

Even so, it's a temporary fix at best. That's no reason not to do it; it's a reason not to do that, and then walk away and act like that's all there is to it, and tomorrow's a short news cycle, so let's move on to something more fun. (And yes, that's how the national attention span works)

So, thoughts?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 5:42 PM

Also, I'm not too sure about the "water running into a hole" analogy. As I understood it, the wellhead wasn't designed to pump oil OUT of the ground - it was to keep the oil IN the ground, and only let it out under controlled circumstances. And that's where it went wrong. They said they use a column of drilling mud - a mile of the stuff, 21" in diameter, so it weighs literally thousands of tons - to hold down the gas and oil that's in the hole, and only let a little of the oil come up at a time, because it's under such intense pressure that it's TRYING to blow out every second of every day. It's not a cavern of oil so much as it's like an overinflated balloon full of oil, which is just trying to blast out of any hole it finds. We provided the hole, then let the pressure off that hole. Boom. Glug. Sploosh.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 7:36 PM