Drill, baby, drill!! - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-16-2010, 05:45 PM   #226
Refugee
 
Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: K-Mart Lingerie Section
Posts: 1,794
Local Time: 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Controled explosions are HUGELY risky underwater, it could possibly cause a much much worse opening.

Plus if you're suggesting atomic, like one poster said the Russians did then you are contaminating life and economies for decades.
Well, nuclear devices are optional. And there are low radiation nuclear devices for that matter.

There is a 15,000 foot long pipe gushing oil out uncontrollably. Drill a hole a few thousand feet down, place some shaped charged explosives, and you may end up shearing rock enough to pinch the pipe shut.

Nuclear is probably overkill. A conventional charge is probably enough to do it. I doubt it will rip open a fifteen thousand foot trench through solid rock. The only thing stopping anyone is probably the list of unknowns.
__________________

__________________
Moser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 05:52 PM   #227
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moser View Post
and you may end up shearing rock enough to pinch the pipe shut.

The only thing stopping anyone is probably the list of unknowns.
Like I said very risky.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 05:58 PM   #228
Refugee
 
Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: K-Mart Lingerie Section
Posts: 1,794
Local Time: 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Like I said very risky.
Elaborate, because you haven't presented any reasons why it is so risky.
__________________
Moser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 06:05 PM   #229
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I think they mean the right size explosion to collapse the drilled well opening and close it.
I had a similar suggestion ^

I guess the reservation is that after the explosion, there may be enough pressure from the tapped oil reserve to displace the exploded materials

much like water through a garden hose can be used to bore a hole in the ground
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 06:06 PM   #230
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moser View Post
Elaborate, because you haven't presented any reasons why it is so risky.
Your post was full of so many "mays", "unknown"s, and "probably"s that I'm suprised you're not seeing the risk.

When using an explosion as a means to solve a problem, "mays", "unknown"s, and "probably"s are not words that need to be in the equation. If there isn't a scientific model that can be rendered then it's not worth the risk. What if one of the unknowns was to cause a larger leak? No engineer worth their salt would take that job with so many unknowns in play.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 06:17 PM   #231
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 459
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Exactly. It is interesting the people you find yourself in agreement with sometimes in a crisis-I agreed with Bill, too. He was even shaking his head a bit at Sarah, there was a debate going on. Kinda nice to see that.

Something else to consider, too, I guess BP operates under a foreign flag. So even if Obama did try and put some control on them, technically he really can't do much if anything there because they aren't under U.S. control, they're under Marshall Islands control. It's another clever way for an oil company to sneak past that pesky regulation stuff.



Thank you, and I fully understand that mindset. I absolutely do. I too want future generations to be able to enjoy the very same things we've been lucky enough to enjoy in this world-clean beaches, clear air, lush forests, all sorts of fantastic and curious wildlife, all that good stuff. And I have absolutely no problem with the idea of holding the Obama adminstration responsible for whatever decisions they make about anything. They shouldn't get a free pass, either, no question there. Every government is subject to criticism and scrutiny, and I do appreciate you and other people calling them out on things that I agree are valid arguments, like the vacations and leisure activities and such. I have no disagreement with you on any of this, and I can definitely understand it from a personal standpoint. It's a lot easier to say what you say if you're not so intimately involved in the matter, after all.

And since you live in that area I enjoy hearing your specific opinion, as you know better than I do the way that part of the country operates and can see firsthand the effects of this tragedy. I think it's safe to say I speak for everybody here when I say that I am incredibly sorry for what your area is going through. You guys have been through way too much shit in recent years, and you definitely deserve better . I will be more than happy to help in any way I can think of, donating money when I have it to aid the cleanup efforts, animal rescue people, I can share links I find to spread the word so others can help, etc. I hope they do find a solution, and you all have your way of life back as soon as possible.



I definitely never thought of you as some "right-wing loon", and apologize if any of what I said ever insinuated that, you do seem very middle-of-the-road to me, which is good. We could use more of that. I think you are spot on with all your observations. I don't think we got the results of the 2008 election wrong, but I think you're right in that everything did happen a bit fast for Obama. I think he was slightly naive and thought that Americans would actually maybe start coming together and that the Republican Party wouldn't play such lowball tactics and that some of the racist tangents of the extreme right wouldn't be nearly as strong and that he had more support from more politicians than he thought or something. He has a lot of fantastic ideas, there's a reason he won in 2008 and that was it, and if he can manage to get all those ideas to be law then hey, we're on the happy train to good times. But, and I can relate to this, as this is a problem I have sometimes, too, he comes up with all these big picture plans and sometimes tends to forget about the boring, tiring, small-detail elements of getting those plans to be a reality.

Surrounding yourself with good people is absolutely important. Like I said, we desperately need campaign finance reform, because it's hard to tell anymore who are the genuinely good political officials and who are just in it for the money and the power and the prestige. Obama could try and seek out the purest people possible to surround hiimself with, and he would be lucky to get maybe five people at best that could fit that criteria. Fixing our political system would do wonders for future governments. I've made my feelings about a Palin presidency quite known here, so you and I are completely in sync there . Again, I do understand your viewpoint, and you make a lot of excellent arguments, and I apologize again if things got a bit heated here and there . It's a stressful topic, I don't blame people for getting angry one bit.

Angela
There's plenty of American companies involved which the US government could directly target. BP basically owned the majority rights to the well, but leased out the actual production to Transocean (a swiss-american company who actually owned and operated the rig) and Halliburton who produced and installed the casing which failed. BP have a lot of failing in the whole mess, but there's been a bit of US xenophobia about the whole thing. BP may have owned and drove the car when the brakes failed but there were two other mechanics playing about them before they set off.

The main problem here is that the whole shebang was regulated so lightly. The market heads towards a cost floor so cannot regulate itself, safety gets less and less important against the need for profit. This would never have happened in the North Sea, where remote shutoffs for blowout preventers are legally required.

I actually think if the casing is found to be substandard Halliburton will end up paying for most of this anyway.
__________________
popshopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 06:21 PM   #232
Refugee
 
Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: K-Mart Lingerie Section
Posts: 1,794
Local Time: 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Your post was full of so many "mays", "unknown"s, and "probably"s that I'm suprised you're not seeing the risk.

When using an explosion as a means to solve a problem, "mays", "unknown"s, and "probably"s are not words that need to be in the equation. If there isn't a scientific model that can be rendered then it's not worth the risk. What if one of the unknowns was to cause a larger leak? No engineer worth their salt would take that job with so many unknowns in play.
Well, yes, there is the risk of making the situation worse. I speak with uncertainty because I am not an expert. But the tactic has been used with success before. But still, no one has offered any reason WHY this idea isn't considered more and more when no other quick solution exists, except of the easy "It can make things worse" argument without offering any evidence on why. I asked why we haven't collapsed the well with explosives, and that's all I have heard. "It can make things worse." HOW? "It just can. We don't know anything about it."

Well, why don't you looked into the issue a little more? Why do you think I asked?
__________________
Moser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 06:49 PM   #233
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moser View Post
Well, yes, there is the risk of making the situation worse. I speak with uncertainty because I am not an expert. But the tactic has been used with success before. But still, no one has offered any reason WHY this idea isn't considered more and more when no other quick solution exists, except of the easy "It can make things worse" argument without offering any evidence on why. I asked why we haven't collapsed the well with explosives, and that's all I have heard. "It can make things worse." HOW? "It just can. We don't know anything about it."

Well, why don't you looked into the issue a little more? Why do you think I asked?
Your line of logic is perplexing. You say I'm not offering any evidence of why, but you're only offering that it might work.

If you don't know all the variables then here are two biggest concerns: the collapse doesn't result in closing the opening but instead opens it up even further. You have to understand everything underneath that surface to know for sure it will close up the opening. And two, like Deep mentioned the pressure has to go somewhere. The well is tapped now it has to go somewhere, you can't exactly reverse the flow.

Another thing to consider is that if the explosion doesn't seal off the opening now you have the main part of the leak under rubble and you've made it harder to access.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 06:54 PM   #234
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,269
Local Time: 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
There's plenty of American companies involved which the US government could directly target. BP basically owned the majority rights to the well, but leased out the actual production to Transocean (a swiss-american company who actually owned and operated the rig) and Halliburton who produced and installed the casing which failed. BP have a lot of failing in the whole mess, but there's been a bit of US xenophobia about the whole thing. BP may have owned and drove the car when the brakes failed but there were two other mechanics playing about them before they set off.[/B]
Doh, that's right, yes, I forgot about Haliburton being involved. Lots of people to share the blame here, definitely, thank you for elaborating on that. Will be interesting to see how that all plays out, if prosecutions do go ahead, which I can't imagine they won't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
The main problem here is that the whole shebang was regulated so lightly. The market heads towards a cost floor so cannot regulate itself, safety gets less and less important against the need for profit. This would never have happened in the North Sea, where remote shutoffs for blowout preventers are legally required.[/B]
They've got their heads on straight in the North Sea, then, that's reassuring to hear somebody out there gets it. Yeah, this is obviously a case of lack of proper regulation, and just further illustrates precisely why it's so important to have it, why we can't just be so laissez-faire with businesses. It's amazing and sickening what gets neglected in the rush for profits nowadays.

Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
I actually think if the casing is found to be substandard Halliburton will end up paying for most of this anyway.
Oooh. Good. I hope so, they deserve to pay up their part of this, too. I'd love to see Haliburton get punished for once.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 07:45 PM   #235
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
The main problem here is that the whole shebang was regulated so lightly. The market heads towards a cost floor so cannot regulate itself, safety gets less and less important against the need for profit. This would never have happened in the North Sea, where remote shutoffs for blowout preventers are legally required.






"he's more machine now, than man. twisted, and evil."
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 09:20 PM   #236
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post



"he's more machine now, than man. twisted, and evil."
Is it wrong for me to want to waterboard him with crude oil to find out what was said in the energy policy meetings?
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 09:21 PM   #237
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
The main problem here is that the whole shebang was regulated so lightly. The market heads towards a cost floor so cannot regulate itself, safety gets less and less important against the need for profit. This would never have happened in the North Sea, where remote shutoffs for blowout preventers are legally required.
don't you love the race to the bottom? capitalism ftw!
__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 10:46 PM   #238
Refugee
 
Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: K-Mart Lingerie Section
Posts: 1,794
Local Time: 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Your line of logic is perplexing. You say I'm not offering any evidence of why, but you're only offering that it might work.

If you don't know all the variables then here are two biggest concerns: the collapse doesn't result in closing the opening but instead opens it up even further. You have to understand everything underneath that surface to know for sure it will close up the opening. And two, like Deep mentioned the pressure has to go somewhere. The well is tapped now it has to go somewhere, you can't exactly reverse the flow.

Another thing to consider is that if the explosion doesn't seal off the opening now you have the main part of the leak under rubble and you've made it harder to access.
From your answers, it sounded like you didn't want a bomb used because you didn't know what was going on. Now, let me re-explain my perplexing logic.

a) An explosive is a quite simple stop solution to the oil spill. It has been used in effect before.

b) It has been considered and dropped. How come? Why did they drop the idea? What are the technical problems? Exactly, why can it make things worse?

I came searching for good answers, wondering if anyone who has the knowledge on the situation has good reasons, not the same half-baked answers I have found all over the net "It can make things worse by creating new ruptures." Why do you say that? "There are so many things to be considered." Like what? This is what I actually want to know. But anyway, I feel like I'm rephrasing everything to just find out no one here actually knows anything. I don't blame you. I don't either.

For example, this is what I was looking for:

Quote:
Knowledgeable sources think that it's very possible there are cracks and fractures in the seabed of the Deepwater Horizon well explosion. In this immediate region, there is a layer of about 1,200 feet of compressed mud from a million years of outflow of the Mississippi River, lying on the bottom. The drilling may have hit a methane hydrate formation in this well, which caused an overpressure of 20,000 psi or so. The Blowout Protector (BOP) is built to handle 15,000. So it just blew everything. It could easily have fractured casing on the well, and worked through fractures in the rocks. This must be evaluated. Also, there is more confirmation of undersea plumes, and it is possible that they are coming from more than one location.
OK, here is quite a damn good reason to not use a bomb. If the bore casing is fractured, then a bomb won't help at all. The oil plumes are a good sign that oil is working its way through fissures from breaks in the casing.

But others say the plumes are just oil that won't float to the surface. They are very dilute (0.5 parts per million) from what I have read recently. So that would mean the oil is only leaking from one source. That would mean an explosion can have obvious consequences:

Pro: Can seal the well by shearing the rock.

Con: Fail to seal the well. Weaken the seabed...create more leaks (a consequence I'm well aware of)

I'm only asking if anyone has real information on the structural integrity of the bore casing, geological information of the sea bed (i.e., specifically how porous is the rock, can the high pressure oil erode through the rock). How can explosion shear the rock? You know....ACTUAL INFORMATION, not assumptions.
__________________
Moser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 10:55 PM   #239
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moser View Post
Exactly, why can it make things worse?
you're asking how introducing radioactive materials to an oil spill will make things worse?

are you thinking the people of the gulf coast aren't happy with black beaches, but they will be happy with glow in the dark green ones?
__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 11:51 PM   #240
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:03 PM
Moser, I thought I made myself very clear, I wasn't proceeding on assumptions. If you don't know all the variables than a bomb is not the choice. I'm not sure how much clearer one can make that.

Like I said:

Quote:
You have to understand everything underneath that surface to know for sure it will close up the opening.
Your quote says the exact same thing.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com