26
   

The Gulf Oil Spill in a Nutshell

 
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 09:38 am
@Ionus,
Just as long as all those naysayers to the nuclear option finally clearly understand that risk assessment involves listing all options - including doing nothing - and realize beyond any doubt that every single dolphin corpse washing out on Gulf beaches is on their heads. Education on options may help:
http://news.sciencemag.org/assets/feature/oilspill/news-oil-marine.jpg
Quote:
Scientists fear the oil's negative effects on marine life great and small, from bottlenose dolphins and bluefin tuna, to jellyfish and phytoplankton. ....

http://news.sciencemag.org/oilspill/

0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 09:38 am
@Ionus,
Code:Most oil fires are extinguished with explosives.


How hot is that fire at 5,000 feet of ocean depth?

This is not a gas well, this is not an oil fire......haven't you noticed?

Quote:
Quote:
Track the big undersea globs.You mean the ones BP denies any knowledge of ? Who put them in charge.

You'll have to show me where they have denied the blobs exist. They certainly didn't go looking for them, they have been slightly involved in actually plugging the hole. They have, I would most certainly agree, underestimated the amount of gas and oil spewing out.
Who put them in charge?
We, the United States of America, did when we issued BP the same kind of licenses and permits as we have for thousands of other wells, mines, pipelines and other industrial structures. What do you suppose the USA should have done on, let's say, Day Seven of the Spill? Confiscated the company? Nationalized it's assets? Then what??? Send in those super-secret government experts who do all the well emergencies in the USA??? (psst...they don't exist.)

BP has the equipment, the personnel and the experience, the United States Government does not. (Strike that experience part. NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE has ever plugged a blown-out well at this depth of ocean.)

This disaster occurred at the very limits of BP engineering skill, it's also at the limits of humankind's engineering skill unless you know of some group who has vastly greater expertise.

Joe(Please send their email to [email protected])Nation

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 09:43 am
I'm pretty sure that those who advocate a nuke on this problem are, in fact, deeply unserious about solving it.

Cycloptichorn
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 09:44 am
@Joe Nation,
Joe - you're the one shooting from the hip here: the BP well is half methane gas, half petroleum. Read previously posted links. Look up "ablation". Please.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 09:49 am
ha

@BPGlobalPR As part of our continued re-branding effort, we are now referring to the spill as "Shell Oil's Gulf Coast Disaster". #bpcares
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:06 am
@High Seas,
No dear, 'tis you who disappoint. I read the whole Teller link, very interesting. Really.
And I saw your comment about how they might have used nuclear devices to blast a new Panama Canal....

Was there a link I missed which disclosed what entity has ever managed to explode a nuclear device at 5000 feet of ocean depth? (I did see some reference to one at some depth, but they were trying only to set off the thing, not close a hole with it.

Can you explain the physics and geology which would make it possible to explode a device on or near THIS well and close if off instead of making an even bigger hole?

I love counterintuitive thinking, now I like to know what the counterintuitive science is.

Joe(like nothing we've ever done before)Nation




dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:10 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm pretty sure that those who advocate a nuke on this problem are, in fact, deeply unserious about solving it.

Cycloptichorn
well, ok, I'm definitely unserious.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:14 am
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm pretty sure that those who advocate a nuke on this problem are, in fact, deeply unserious about solving it.

Cycloptichorn
well, ok, I'm definitely unserious.


I say this, because it seems like people looking for a quick, pat answer to the problem - not a well-considered one. We really don't know what the effects of shooting off a nuke will be (other than lots of radiation) and it very well could make the problem much, much worse.

Cycloptichorn
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:21 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm pretty sure that those who advocate a nuke on this problem are, in fact, deeply unserious about solving it.

Cycloptichorn
well, ok, I'm definitely unserious.


I say this, because it seems like people looking for a quick, pat answer to the problem - not a well-considered one. We really don't know what the effects of shooting off a nuke will be (other than lots of radiation) and it very well could make the problem much, much worse.

Cycloptichorn
yeah, I happen to think the current situation is such a total ******* disaster reaching far far into the future that all options should be considered but then I'm a liberal.
DrewDad
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:22 am
@Joe Nation,
HighSeas reminds me of Spendius in a lot of ways. She rides the ragged edge of coherence, and you really want there to be some thought, meaning, or understanding behind what she says, but at the end of the day she sounds like she's suffering from dementia.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:25 am
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm pretty sure that those who advocate a nuke on this problem are, in fact, deeply unserious about solving it.

Cycloptichorn
well, ok, I'm definitely unserious.


I say this, because it seems like people looking for a quick, pat answer to the problem - not a well-considered one. We really don't know what the effects of shooting off a nuke will be (other than lots of radiation) and it very well could make the problem much, much worse.

Cycloptichorn
yeah, I happen to think the current situation is such a total ******* disaster reaching far far into the future that all options should be considered but then I'm a liberal.


Surely popping off a nuke has to be considered an absolute last resort. As I said, we simply have no idea what the consequences will be - it could make the problem much worse.

I wonder why we haven't seen a non-permeable cone be placed around the leak... confine the leaking oil and gas to one area only, or at least as much as possible.

Cycloptichorn
dyslexia
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:40 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Surely popping off a nuke has to be considered an absolute last resort
seems to me (no expert on much of anything) we are at the last resort.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 11:10 am
@dyslexia,
The use of a high energy explosion to seal the man-made aperture around the pressurized petroleum deposit appears at least feasible. Further I understand from other posters that the Russians have done something like this in continental gas wells.

However, I don't believe a conventional nuclear warhead or device could function at the extreme pressures and depths involved. As a minimum a high strength containment would be required. Further, this container and the extreme surrounding pressures could significantly alter the implosion used to create the supercriticality and the nuclear detonation. Perhaps a shotgun uranium (vice plutonium) core could be employed. However, in either case I doubt seriously that a suitably designed and tested device exists anywhere. Considerable time would be required to produce one.

In addition, I very seriously doubt that our current government wold use such a device, even if it were at hand. That, however, is just my opinion.

Recent news reports indicate that numerous design modifications were submitted by BP and approved by the Department of Interior (some within minutes of submission) in the days and hours leading up to the explosion at the rig. The design standards applied to this well don't appear to provide any backup to the mechanical seal & cement system for preventing high pressure gas intrusion into the mud-filled riser. Moreover, it appears that BP proceeded without positive confirmation that the cement seal was set properly. This is, in my eyes, a remarkable combination, one that would never be accepted in either the aviation or nuclear industries (to cite two with which I am familiar). I don't know what are the prevailing standards in the Petroleum industry, but my impression is that they were applying practices that had worked well in relatively shallow wells, now in profoundly different deep water high pressure conditions.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 11:28 am
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
Surely popping off a nuke has to be considered an absolute last resort
seems to me (no expert on much of anything) we are at the last resort.


We are not yet at the 'last resort' period. Still different options exist, and BP will eventually get a relief well up and running.

Cycloptichorn
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 12:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
We are not yet at the 'last resort' period. Still different options exist, and BP will eventually get a relief well up and running.
Wow, I'm sitting here thinking we might very well be looking at a DEAD gulf of mexico in a matter of days but oh well.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 12:28 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
We are not yet at the 'last resort' period. Still different options exist, and BP will eventually get a relief well up and running.
Wow, I'm sitting here thinking we might very well be looking at a DEAD gulf of mexico in a matter of days but oh well.


Not that I don't agree with you re: the seriousness of the spill, but this is slightly over-exaggerated.

Cycloptichorn
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 12:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
well, honestly I hope I am exaggerating.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 12:35 pm
@dyslexia,
Possibly we are. Maybe well pressures will decline in the next several months. Possibly, the flow will cause erosion of the well bore and piping above the floor of the ocean, resulting in greater flow.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 12:45 pm
One thing we can all agree on is that the gulf and many land areas are soon to be dead. I for one never dreamed that the oil companies did not know how to stop such a leak. It also seems they have lost their heads and are not learning as they proceed. The new 'fix' seems crazy to me and will eat up at least another week or two before they try something else. If I were to make the call, I would try the box in the video.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 12:50 pm
My father reminds me that hurricane season is coming up...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/02/2022 at 08:33:21