Gulf Oil Spill

How in the hell did this discussion get to be a political, anti Cheney thread?

Nevermind.

The explosives option seems risky to me. The assumption is that pulverized or melted rock would collapse in the hole and plug it...but isn't it just as likely that pulverized rock gets jettisoned out of the hole (since the oil deposit seems to be winning the pressure battle with the water)...and you just end up with a much bigger hole?

I am wondering why they didn't try to cut the valve at the beginning. That is what they do topside. The put an open valve over the flow and bolt it to a flange like the one in the video. After they have it bolted down they shut the valve and voila' no more leak. BP has never said that there is a problem with this at 5,000 feet down.
Of course we could ask why they are drilling at 5,000 feet when they could have gotten the well drilled at 500 feet. That's right...environmental laws screw things up again. Environmental activists continually make bad choices and we have to live by them. I was stationed in California when the big push started for mylar bags to replace paper bags. Now, several years later, the push is on for going back to paper or having us carry our own bags. Mylar was a bust.

The explosion that they are talking about is a nuclear explosion that would melt the Gulf floor and seal the well.

Of course I am not a oil rig worker, or engineer nor have I played one on TV nor have I stayed at a holiday in express, but have they said why they just dont use explosives to seal it, I am not trying to be funny here this is a legit question and if there are scientific reasons I would love to hear them. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Explosives tend to make holes bigger, not smaller. Exactly how are you going to stick explosives somewhere in the well and be sure that it's going to make things better, not worse? Think of it as a big oil tank at a refinery with a leaky pipeline attached. Where are you going to place explosives and plug the leak rather than making it worse?

What is the idea behind using explosives? Stuff explosives down the well bore to some depth, set off an explosion and hope that the rubble produced plugs up the well bore instead of just making a bigger bore? How do we know that the explosion won't make the situation worse?

Look up "well fracturing." Might the pressure pulse from the explosion increase the oil flow from the reservoir?

If you set off explosives and it doesn't work, have you damaged the well to the point that other possible plugging efforts won't work now?

After you've tried to blow up the well bore, are you going to screw up the pipe and make it more difficult to finally shut things down with the relief well?

Gneiss Guy, please look at my post ahead of yours, the explosives they are talking about are nuclear. http://www.tgdaily.com/general-scien...t-bp-oil-spill

I think BP is scared to actually 'plug' the well. The guy they interviewed on 60 minutes stated that the initial well was supposed to take 2 weeks. That was apparently too fast, and they fractured the rock and stuck the bit.

So, they started over...and this one (the one leaking) took a month.

Now, the 'relief well' is scheduled to take three months. Why? I think BP knows that the current well has fractured rock around it (from drilling too fast), and after 40 days of high speed oil and gas eroding it, it probably could not hold pressure if the well were 'plugged'.

I know the explosive option people are talking about is a nuke...but I don't know why that matters. I still think there is a genuine risk of blowing the whole thing out.

They wouldn't try to push a nuke down the well, either...they would have to drill a hole close to the well. In addition to taking time to do, what is the calclation on how close the nuke would have to be to the original drill hole?....vs the diameter around the current well that is possibly already fractured? Would drilling a new hole anywhere close to the old hole risk a complete blowout...before the nuke could even be stuck in the hole?

The biggest danger of using a Nuke, is that you could end up with a radioactive oil spill. From what i've read, that option was never considered, and never will be. I've heard people talk about using Nukes to try and stop hurricanes from hitting landmasses. I asked them what they thought about the fallout and the potential of radioactive rain. Blank stare.

In the end I just want a check from bp thats all a small one at that maybe 10 or 15 mill for the hardships that I have to go thru.

There are tactical nukes with a very short half life. The fire ball at the center of the explosion will reach a million degrees. I has been done by the Soviet Union with success. Though I guess you have to define what the meaning of success is.

I haven't heard one conservative ask for more regulation. What I have heard are conservatives asking that the required regulations be enforced... Originally Posted by john_galt

...which is more regulation.

I said more regulation (singular), not more regulations (plural). I think you thought I meant the other definition of the word 'regulation'. I meant 'regulation' as "the action of regulating". That's nearly interchangeable with 'enforcement'.

What is the Bush administration's legacy of drilling regulations being enforced?

If it can be shown that Dick Cheney had anything to do with oil rig accident and subsequent spill then send him to jail. You have to prove it though. Are you willing to throw Obama under the bus if it can be shown that he took massive amounts of cash from BP or that his administration botched their inspections or that his administration sats on their hands while this crisis developed? Can you do that? Originally Posted by john_galt

1. ANYTHING TO DO? Well, ask yourself if that BP oil rig would have even been drilling in the gulf if Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force didn't secretly set U.S. energy policy back in 2001 with the CEO of BP? Would the energy policy under Al Gore have looked the same? I doubt it. Here comes your oily blobs of karma Florida!

2. OBAMA BUS (BP cash): Did BP give triple the amount to John McCain or was it four times the amount? I can't remember.

3. OBAMA BUS (botched inspections): Are you referring to the IG report that found a too cozy relationship between MMS inspectors and the petroleum industry? You know, sort of like Dick Cheney and the CEO of BP being a little too cozy for the benefit of the rest of us slobs. As I understand it most of those meth&coke using, bribe-taking inspectors were hired by the previous administration.

4. OBAMA BUS (hand sitting): What would you have Obama do? Nuke the well? (Why do you desire nuclear fallout oil hurricanes?) You should, as a conservative, just be sitting back enjoying the fact that Obama can't really do much. There are only a few robot subs in the world that can operate at that depth and they can only do so much.

There are tactical nukes with a very short half life. Originally Posted by john_galt

How short? 20 years? 3 years? 10 minutes? What elements are you talking about? Are you wanting to introduce cesium into the Gulf foodchain? I don't think the seafood industry is going to like that very much.

When has anyone ever exploded a subsurface nuclear bomb under 5000 feet of water next to an oil well? Sure we've assploded 'em under ground. Sure we've assploded 'em underwater. But when has anyone every run a science experiment like your proposed 'nuclear option'? Never. And for good reason. It is a horrible idea.

Gneiss Guy, please look at my post ahead of yours, the explosives they are talking about are nuclear. http://www.tgdaily.com/general-scien...t-bp-oil-spill Originally Posted by john_galt

"Matthew Simmons, chair and CEO of Simmons & Company International, is a prominent oil-industry insider...In his previous capacity, he served as energy adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush."

Well there's your problem right there! Let's leave the nuclear weapons to guys in uniform and scientists, not connected oil men.

Gneiss Guy, please look at my post ahead of yours, the explosives they are talking about are nuclear. http://www.tgdaily.com/general-scien...t-bp-oil-spill Originally Posted by john_galt

I understood the first time. Explosives are a stupid idea. Using a bigger explosion is a more stupid idea. Using a nuclear explosion is an enormously stupid idea.

The idea of using an explosion is pretty simple. You set off an explosion, fracturing and/or melting the material around the well bore. Then you hope that when things settle out, either the melted liquid or the rubble settles into a position where the well bore or surrounding reservoir is plugged. The big question is why would you assume that molten/fractured material ends up where you want it instead of ending up with a big pile of fractured rock still connected to the well bore?

Look up "hydraulic fracturing." It's a technique to use pressurized fluids to fracture oil/gas bearing rock formations to increase the rate at which the oil/gas flows out of the well. They also use explosive fracturing, where you set off explosives in the well bore, but hydraulic fracturing is much more common now. We already know what happens when set off explosives in an oil/gas reservoir. The result is often increased flow rates.

There are also natural oil seeps in the Gulf of Mexico. What is an underground nuclear blast going to do to the nearby rock strata? Ever see video of an underground nuclear blast? Notice that after you're done, there's a crater where the surface rock collapses into a depression? Isn't it pretty clear that the rock strata has been fractured all the way down to the location where the bomb went off? Do this on the BP well, and instead of a leaking well bore a few feet wide, do we have a 100 foot wide crater on the sea floor with oil poring out of it? Or a few hundred oil seeps?

The idea of a "clean" nuclear weapon is ludicrous. Some are dirtier than others, but they're all dirty. Even if the weapon itself doesn't produce a lot of dirty material, it will produce a lot of neutrons that will transmute the elements in the surrounding rock strata into different elements.

Maybe it would work. However, if it doesn't work, you could have a much worse situation with a lot more oil leaking out.

If it doesn't work, what is the situation you're left with? Have you destroyed the well bore to the point where the relief wells won't have anything to grab onto any more? Can you do the relief wells now or is the the well so contaminated with radioactivity that you can't safely do the relief wells? Remember, you have to circulate drilling mud down the well bore, so the material at the bottom of the well bore will be coming up to the surface and exposing the drillers to whatever radioactive material is at the bottom of the well bore. Have you damaged and contaminated the well bore and equipment to the point where you can't try some other way of stopping the leak from the top?

Remember that everyone is assuming that the relief wells are the most likely to succeed solution. All the other stuff they're doing is sort of a shot in the dark.

{putting on my conservative translator hat} So...the geologist is saying we need a 'surgical' nuclear weapon and that we'll need to sell the irradiated oil to foreigners that live downwind of us.
{taking off my conservative translator hat} Owww! I need some aspirin.

It all makes sense now. BP is a front organization for SPECTRE trying to fool the US government into contaminating the US oil supply in the Gulf with a nuclear bomb.