They need to STOP trying to harness the gusher

[Are_grits_groceries]

and bringing the oil to up to container vessels. BP is just trying to capture some of the oil IMHO. Even if they bring some of it up, how much will still be released into the Gulf. It's a fool's errand for the fools that believe what they are being told.

The upward pressure is well above anything that we may send down to try to contain it like that. The BOP is listed at 15,000 psi. Some estimates of the upward pressure are in the tens of thousands psi or more. That is because of the formation above the field, the ratio of natural gas to oil, and other factors. No wonder it blew.

They have to think of something that will collapse enough material into the drill hole. I am not advocating a NUCLEAR device, but I think they MAY have to try some type of exposive. Gawd help us if that is tried too with the amount of natural gas that has been released into the water and atmosphere. Another known unknown as Rumsfeld put it.

Will it harm the Gulf? No doubt. Will it harm it more than what is happening now? A known unknown.

[BlueKitteh]

1. If the nuclear option consisted of

Some massive glacier producing quality then we could instafreeze the gusher and attempt to remove the remaining sludge from the sea. But are we capable of building freeze nukes?

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. The DoD with their 'black projects budget'

appears to have the money to burn on any idea that is useful in war. Make them work on a solution for this with their devious but creative minds.

[90-percent]

3. harness?

It seems "we", or our government, is allowing BP to solve this as they see fit. And, being a modern sociopathic corporation, I feel the primary drive of BP is to maximize profits and minimize losses. I contend that the public good may not even be in the top ten of their priority lists. And if they have to make some choices between the public good and maximizing corporate profits, guess which one BP would choose?

We were a "can do" country in WW2. These days we're too hamstrung by corporate tentacles in all our public institutions to attack problems in a collective manner (through our government of we the people) and thus "we" choose to do almost nothing instead of focusing our vast national resources for a common goal.

-90% Jimmy

[90-percent]

72. to elaborate on my simplistic viewpoint

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8303188&mesg_id=8308345

-90% jimmy

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Why wouldn't blowing it up just make a bigger hole? nt

[daylan b]

6. It's about collapsing the hole. nt

[alfredo]

54. It will fuse the sediment into glass. That's what happens during underground

nuke test. What I fear is that it would fracture the rock and allow even more oil to escape from hundreds of fissures.

[TampaAnimus2010]

56. It wouldn't make a bigger hole at the deeper depths...

Sure, if you put the nuke 10ft below the surface of the ocean floor it could rupture the ground... but if you put it a mile or two under the ocean floor, it would be pretty much impossible for it to crack the seabed all the way to the ocean floor.

That said - given the pressure of the oil coming up, it would be extremely hard to get the nuke down far enough to ensure it safe. I think practicality is more of an issue here then danger.

[daylan b]

5. Capturing the oil isn’t about making money

...it’s about finding some sort of a stopgap to stop the bleeding. You don’t get in the position to make those sorts of decisions if you are stupid enough to focus on a capturing a few tankers of oil while your company is completely destroying itself in the public arena every day this goes on.

“No wonder it blew.” – It’s a lot of pressure but it’s not like this is some new record pressure or anything. There are plenty of wells that are capable of controlling it. While the pressure appears to have played a role in it, nobody knows what the cause of the blow out was.

[Mnemosyne]

7. Profit is their ONLY motivation. A "few" tankers of oil?! wow n/t

[daylan b]

10. And if you don't realize they are costing themselves profit every day this goes on...

...there's no reason to waste time pretending you have anything more than a minimal understanding of the dynamics involved in the situation. They've lost 22% of their market cap in just a month.

Letting this thing go on is more costly than anything they could ever dream of capturing.

[Are_grits_groceries]

13. THEY DON"T CARE.

While they are monkeying around in the Gulf, you better believe they have lawyers and accountants figuring out how to salvage the corporate situation.

They are looking at all laws, formation of new companies, movement of assets out of the BP umbrella, or whatever else they can think of. I am not learned enough or imaginative enough to come up with their shenanigans.

Every minute gives them more time for this, and it will all be tied up in the courts forever. BP may die, but it will just morph into some other evil form with a different name.

[daylan b]

15. None of what you mentioned is worth going through for a few tankers of oil.

So you seriously think that the few days/weeks of production they would have captured from this well would outweigh the $33 billion their investors have already lost?

And for the record, I agree with everything you said they are doing right now. They are trying to cover their asses for damn sure. However, if you think stopping the leak isn't the #1 priority in their damage control, you've lost all perspective. Stop the leak, and everything else is easier.

[Statistical]

49. They most certainly do care ..... about $$$$.

And this spill is costing them a lot of $$$.

The idea that they are letting it spill intentionally is stupid.

[Mnemosyne]

73. And Exxon, et al, have paid so much for their messes in the past. Right. n/t

[Statistical]

48. Come on think about it logically.

The cleanup is costing BP $25 million per DAY!

A brand new 100% functional deep water well costs about $100 million to drill, cap, and pipe.

The idea that they are intentionally incurring $25 million per day in damages to siphon up a small amount of oil (mixed with water) of low value into a tanker is silly.


Here is an experiment for you:
Open a store selling $100 bills for $98 dollars. By your logic you would make tons of money. I mean who wouldn't want to buy $100 bills for $98 dollars. In terms of cashflow you would be very successful but in terms of the bottom line I regret to inform you it will have a loss.

[Are_grits_groceries]

8. How are they going to stop the bleeding???

You have to stop all of it or it's just a slower death. It's like trying to stop arterial blood flow with a bandage that is too small to contain the whole flow. It has to be cut off completely.

As far as the pressure, the amount of natural gas in the mixture probably played a great part in the mess. They fear the natural gas coming up the wrong way, and there was a boatload of it in that formation. The way the oil and gas were trapped in the field is a known unknown.

[daylan b]

14. ..

The oil is spilling right now. Controlling the oil that is coming out is the quickest solution, that does the most to prevent environmental damage, with the highest chance of success. Plugging the well (which is what they are attempting now) and blowing it up are what they went to after that. If the capturing methods had worked, the oil would have been spilling into a tanker instead of the ocean while the plugging efforts were under way.

Of course pressure played a role it in it. Pressure plays a role in any oil spill regardless of how low or high it is. If there weren’t pressure it wouldn’t be physically possible for a spill to occur.

I was just saying that this isn’t some kind of record pressure that had never been seen before. There are other wells that manage it. Nobody knows for sure what went wrong yet.

[Webster Green]

28. Um..

Halliburton was in charge of the cementing, and the proper safety devices were either absent or malfunctioning. That is what went wrong. Mm-kay?

[Webster Green]

9. Wrong!

The cause of the blowout was lack of oversight on greedy corporations.

There are supposed to be redundant safety cutoffs employed in such an incident.

One set of hydraulic shear rams was installed improperly and had leaky hydraulic lines.

The acoustic shear ram device used in other countries was not required, due to deregulation by The Big Dick and his trained chimp.
It could have been activated by sound, which would have shut off the flow.

The actual cause of the blowout was a shitty job done by Halliburton as they cemented the well. I've read all about it. Where did you get the idea that nobody knows what the cause was?

Are you here to defend these assholes?

[daylan b]

12. Heaven forbid somebody look at it with their brain instead of partisan emotion.

“The cause of the blowout was lack of oversight on greedy corporations.”

How many wells are there in the gulf right now under that same lack of oversight?

I’m an engineer (environmental), physics causes blow outs, not public policy.

“Are you here to defend these assholes?”

Have you lost all sense of reality?

You know, this is why I deleted my previous username. If somebody does anything on this site other than scream bloody murder they are labeled as defending evil.

[Are_grits_groceries]

16. Physics that is not constrained by the

proper use and structure of available technology causes blowouts. That other wells haven't blown is either luck or somewhat better managing or both.

They are drilling at depths that are full of unknowns. They have done little to develop enough new equipment for those depths. They have also spent little money on new clean up methods.

[daylan b]

17. My gosh, stop trying to argue with things I'm not even saying.

..

[Are_grits_groceries]

24. I've given up trying to figure out what you are saying except

to declare that BP is primarily focused on stopping the leak.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Are_grits_groceries]

36. Ah yes. The old sideways technique of calling names.

"I'm sorry I didn't come out and call you a dumb ass from the start, that probably would have gotten the point across more efficiently but I stupidly attempted to focus on just the faulty logic."

I have an opinion. You have an opinion.

[Schema Thing]

30. well of course they are.

saying otherwise is just silly.


They don't have easy answers, the government doesn't have easy answers, and YOU don't have easy answers.

[Are_grits_groceries]

34. I didn't drill a well with

no back up plans. BP assured people this very situation wouldn't happen. I don't have easy answers and I never claimed to. I don't think there are any easy answers.

I'd be silly if I believed BP.

[Webster Green]

18. "How many wells are there in the gulf right now under that same lack of oversight?"

Too many! Are you under the impression that since they haven't blown yet that they are perfectly safe?

"I’m an engineer (environmental), physics causes blow outs, not public policy."

If you are an engineer, you must be a damn shitty one. Do you honestly believe that lack of safety devices should not enter into the equation? Do you believe that public policy has nothing to do with requiring safety devices?

Sorry pal, I'm not impressed by your credentials, and it seems you are here to defend them. Better get another username.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gristy]

19. Yes

It boggles my mind that some think that BP doesn't stop the flow because they want to be able to recover the oil from the broken well head.

[Are_grits_groceries]

23. It boggles my mind to think that

anybody believes anything BP says or does. I may be way wrong. However, they are not letting scientists in to help them with ideas or to look at the data. That is probably to cover their malfeasance. By shutting the scientists out, they are not allowing one huge resource to go unused.

Whatever they are up to, CYA is the name of their game. They have proven they don't care with their negligence and disregard of even basic regulations.

[gristy]

37. You are now arguing a different point

Previously you had argued that BP is not stopping the flow of oil because they want to recover it.

You seem to justify such a position based on simply "BP lies".

I suppose they do. But that's all you have.

A technical or business rational for your position goes unstated by you..

You think BP stands to save money by not stopping the flow? What planet are you on? BP's market cap was $186B before all this started, and it now $147B. They have lost $36 BILLION dollars in 3 weeks.

[Are_grits_groceries]

39. A planet in serious trouble because of

companies like BP and their enablers. Okay. Suppose I'm wrong. What if they can't stop the flow? They have no idea how to do it. They believe that stopping it will be by trial and error, and it will take lot of time. Salvage away.

They may be considering an extreme measure such as an explosion or whatever. I don't know. They have proven they can't be trusted. Scientists are being excluded.

[Raineyb]

50. Of course they want to stop the flow but they want to do it in a way that will still allow them to

tap back into it. It would probably be faster and certainly safer to just use the most efficient manner to stop it for good. But then they couldn't make any money in the future from selling what hasn't been spilled. All their so-called methods of attempting to stop it has been with potentially being able to go back in later. You're surprised by such reasoning? Why? We know how these companies operate. And if you don't know then you haven't been paying attention.

[gristy]

51. Why can't they just drill a completely new well into that field?

Why does permanently capping the blown well prevent them drilling a new well, thereby making money in the future from selling what hasn't been spilled?

on edit: spellin'

[Raineyb]

52. Why would they want the expense of redrilling how many thousands of feet below the bottom of the

ocean floor when they've already have pipe there. They're going to have to rebuild the well itself anyway as it's already been blown up. It costs money to drill another hole and there's geology to consider. That's what companies like that consider. They're not going to want to pay the expenses involved in drilling a second hole when the hole they've drilled is perfectly acceptable. If they were inclined to drill another hole they would have plugged up the one that's gushing into the ocean in the first place. They're trying to preserve their ability to recapture whatever hasn't been lost.

[Codeine]

53. That hole is not as easy to plug up as you think.

Drilling another well would cost significantly LESS than they've already spent on the crisis, and they'll pay a shitload nmore before it's done. If the hole COULD be plugged it would have already been done.

[Raineyb]

59. It COULD be if they weren't concerned with possible recapture.

They have no choice but to spend on this crisis they can't just walk away from it. They do have a choice as to whether or not they take on the expense of drilling another well. And if they could seal the gusher without making it impossible to draw from it they will certainly do all they can to do that BEFORE doing anything that will make it permanently unusable.

If plugging the hole is that difficult then frankly they ought not to be putting the hole there in the first place.

[Codeine]

61. They were already going to drill another well.

This one was being capped when it blew. They'll drill several into this field eventually. they've already spent far more than just drilling a new well would have cost. The fact is this hole is going to be the mother of all bitches to plug, and it may simply be impossible to plug. Siphoning will probably be the only option.

You're so invested in the notion of evil plutocrats twirling their moustaches in a corporate boardroom that you're not even thinking rationally. Should the well have been drilled in the first place? GOD NO! But it's drilled, and it's broken, and now they gotta fix that shit.

[gristy]

60. Some replies

Why would they want the expense of redrilling how many thousands of feet below the bottom of the ocean floor when they've already have pipe there.
Because that expense is much less than cost of the damage due to messing around with the existing blown well, trying to make it functional.

They're going to have to rebuild the well itself anyway as it's already been blown up.
Not sure your point here.

It costs money to drill another hole and there's geology to consider. That's what companies like that consider.
Yes, it costs money to drill holes. But to argue your point you need to compare those costs against not capping the blown well.

They're not going to want to pay the expenses involved in drilling a second hole when the hole they've drilled is perfectly acceptable.
The hole they've drilled is not acceptable. It is blown, and the BOPs are broken.

If they were inclined to drill another hole they would have plugged up the one that's gushing into the ocean in the first place.
To believe this, one would have to believe that they know how to plug the blown well and they have reasons to not want to plug it. But that is your basic premise, and simply restating it doesn't do anything to help prove it.

They're trying to preserve their ability to recapture whatever hasn't been lost.
At great expense to BP, if this were true.

[Feron]

63. BP is drilling two relief wells as we speak.

That's the only way to permanently fix this break. The other measures are to hopefully temporarily reduce/stop the uncontrolled flow in the meantime.

[jgraz]

26. You can NOT be serious

Have you ever met the morons who run today's modern corporations? I have. With a few exceptions (e.g. Steve Jobs), most of them are in the positions they have because of family connections.

"You don’t get in the position to make those sorts of decisions if you are stupid"

Wake up. They didn't *get* anywhere. Most were placed in their positions by rich friends and richer relatives. And yes, a lot of them are fucking idiots.

[daylan b]

27. Which BP exec are you speaking of?

[jgraz]

29. Chances are, I'm speaking of most of them

Your blind faith in your corporate masters is disturbing.

[daylan b]

31. No, I mean which specific ones are you speaking of?

I'm not familiar with the BP execs but you obviously are. I'm asking a question.

[jgraz]

32. And your question is stupid. You want a set of BP baseball cards, look them up yourself.

[daylan b]

33. How is my question stupid?

You are questioning my post because you claim the BP execs are only there due to nepotism.

I'm asking who exactly you are speaking of.

[jgraz]

35. Your reading comprehension could use some work.

I made a general claim about corporate executives, not BP in particular. You admit you know nothing about any of the executives, yet you have blind faith that they all deserve their positions or power.

I'm merely speaking of my personal experience with CEOs and board members. You're the one with the unsupported hero worship, based on ZERO experience. Go ahead, show me how the people responsible for the WORST ECOLOGICAL DISASTER IN HISTORY are brilliant men who all deserve the positions they have. :eyes:

[gristy]

38. I'd like to know too

What BP execs are you referring to?
And what did daylan b say that leads you to believe that he exhibits "blind faith" or "hero worship"? Sheesh.

:eyes: back at you

[jgraz]

40. I'll type slowly so you can follow along

My only claim is that daylan's blanket faith in the intelligence and benevolence of corporate executives is without merit. At this point, after the Iraq profiteers, the Wall Street pirates and now the WORST ECOLOGICAL DISASTER IN HISTORY, I'd say the burden is on you and anyone who claims these people are a) not morons and b) care about ANYTHING besides their personal enrichment -- and that includes the health and future of the companies they work for

So please, show me which responsible, intelligent BP executives *you're* referring to. And then explain why those people aren't fixing this mess.

[gristy]

41. I'll be happy to

But only if you can show daylan and I how he explicitly exhibits "blanket faith in the intelligence and benevolence of corporate executives".

And be sure to type slowly so I can follow along.

Thanks!

[jgraz]

43. "You don’t get in the position to make those sorts of decisions if you are stupid"

Which part of that statement are you having trouble parsing?

[gristy]

44. Here's my interpretation of daylan's complete comment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8345912#8345974

"You don’t get in the position to make those sorts of decisions if you are stupid enough to focus on a capturing a few tankers of oil while your company is completely destroying itself in the public arena every day this goes on."

I read his point as being that the BP executives are business people, they did not get to their positions by being incompetent business people, and that it makes no business sense for them to not spare any expense to cap this well.

on edit:
So my point is that it is completely false to conclude, as you did in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8345912#8346516, that daylan has "blanket faith in the intelligence and benevolence of corporate executives"

[jgraz]

45. It makes personal "business sense" to blow up the company

Or have you not been paying attention to the Wall Street collapse?

[gristy]

46. I don't think I have the energy to move on to a new topic with you here.

But before I go, does your interest in moving on mean that you concede that you misinterpreted and subsequently misrepresented daylan's statement?

[jgraz]

47. Please, don't play these schoolyard games.

When you want to have an adult discussion, let me know.

[havocmom]

75. If BP were interested in stopping the leak, they would allow any and all scientists who could help

to have access to ALL info and video. The only reason to be secretive is to CYA and try to make the best of it for the company, not fix the damned thing.

[soryang]

11. The National Weapons Lab...

...should devise a shaped charge with a superheated metal sabot and inject it across the drill hole so that it could solidify in place. It could be injected/fired from the relief well just before the actual interception of the two wells. The charge doesn't need to be nuclear, that would compound the diaster. Multiple interception points should be staged, to reverse pressure in a timed series of shaped detonations.

[Karenina]

21. Crack in the World 1965

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjqQTTB9aAc

Sometimes life imitates art! Happens often these days. Orwell comes to mind. :rofl:

[madokie]

22. No nuke but we need to stop this gusher and now

Whatever it takes short of a nuke and if thats what it'd take then maybe that too. Just stop the fucking leak. BP is wanting the oil and don't care about how much more leaks to get it. Their plan seems to be that they'd like to let the oil coming from that hole to pay for this fuck up.

I say round the whole lot of them up and show them the inside of the ole graybar hotel for a while. Some of the more guilty ones need to finish out their lives there after they've been convicted in a court of their peers according to law.

[The_Commonist]

42. I don't think I've ever seen such a blatant...

...corporate apologist newbie, as I see on this thread!

[inna]

55. agreed

[robdogbucky]

62. You mean the guy that says no one knows why it blew?

He should just trot on over to p.2 where PJPhreak has a thread about a discussion among oil rig workers on a website that recounts this story. Thanks to PJ for publishing this and I hope my referencing it to this thread does not violate any DU rules. This is just a very enlightening account. I presume we will have follow up to the story to verify it. If this is the case, I would think BP knows what caused this blowout:


This is the "Oilfield Trash (Oilfield/Drilling Rig Workers) Scuttlebutt,but this is the Story circulating in New Orleans:




" BP contracted Schlumberger (SLB) to run the Cement Bond Log (CBL) test that was the final test on the plug that was skipped. The people testifying have been very coy about mentioning this, and you'll see why.

SLB is an extremely highly regarded (and incredibly expensive) service company. They place a high standard on safety and train their workers to shut down unsafe operations.

SLB gets out to the Deepwater Horizon to run the CBL, and they find the well still
kicking heavily, which it should not be that late in the operation. SLB orders the"company man" (BP's man on the scene that runs the operation) to dump kill fluid down the well and shut-in the well. The company man refuses. SLB in the very next sentence asks for a helo to take all SLB personel back to shore. The company man says there are no more helo's scheduled for the rest of the week (translation: you're here to do a job, now do it). SLB gets on the horn to shore, calls SLB's corporate HQ, and gets a helo flown out there at SLB's expense and takes all SLB personel to shore.

6 hours later, the platform explodes.

Pick your jaw up off the floor now. No CBL was run after the pressure tests because the
contractor high-tailed it out of there. If this story is true, the company man (who
survived) should go to jail for 11 counts of negligent homicide."

It does seem that news of a Schlumberger evacuation of their personnel would have leaked before now, but on the other hand it seems bizarre that someone would put together and circulate a false story like this.

"In any case, as you said, if it is more or less true the stuff is really going to hit the fan.

I emailed a reporter I know who is covering the oil spill story and I asked him he knows anything that would confirm or refute the Schlumberger evacuation story.

Update: The reporter I contacted said he is definitely going to investigate (this was the first time he had heard rumors of a pre-explosion Schlumberger evacuation).

Given the PR lies, lack of effort, and lack of transparency by BP (all known) I chose not to hide this story.

And one cannot defame BP. Their reputation is now worthless.



Allrite you DU news hounds and those with connections to the MSM...Is there some way to verify this? If this is true....


Edit to add:If you want to read the thread that this came from,here it is.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6464



Hope the newbie corporatist apologist has some answers for this one.




Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[Rex]

57. Rummy is an idiot and no one should ever quote anything he said

as wisdom. Someone do the quick math here and tell me where the problem is in detonating a nuke into an underwater sea of oil at pressures and depth man has never experienced before. What if we put a hole in the bottom of the sea? I still suggest we plug it up with Rush or Glenn Beck...make them worthwhile since they are mostly useless.

[Codeine]

58. A hole in the bottom of the sea?

There aren't enough facepalms on Earth for this shit.

[Rex]

67. That was a joke.

Do I have to add 'sarcasm' emo to every post you don't get? :eyes:

[Codeine]

71. I owe you an apology.

But in fairness, with the amount of dumbassery going around it can be hard to distinguish satire. :hi:

[Are_grits_groceries]

69. For the record. I didn't quote what Rumsfeld said as wisdom.

You took it that way. I quoted it because it is such a stupid way to try to explain things that become FUBARed.

[Rex]

70. Oh, sorry. I just despise that man too much.

My fault.

[Swamp Rat]

74. I can easily apply the word 'hate' to that piece of shit.

If anyone deserves the worst treatment, it is Rumsfeld.

[Feron]

64. The whole point of the "hat" and tube ideas..

is to reduce the amount of oil being released into the Gulf of Mexico until the relief wells can plug the well.

It took nine months for relief wells to cap the Ixtoc 1 blowout. Nobody here on the Gulf Coast wants ~1-2 million gallons or more of oil spilling in the water everyday for the next eight months or so. Skimming and burning just don't do much. And the liberal use of dispersants is polluting the water column.

While I'd prefer the well be shutdown now, I'll take a reduction of flow in the meantime.

Of course the real question is how much oil versus water is collected.

Blowing up the well may actually make the situation worse. And when you're dealing with an environment that isn't well known, it's better to stick with an old reliable method to shut down the well. In this case it is relief wells.

[Codeine]

65. These people don't want logic.

Frothing emotion with flying spittle is much preferred.

[robdogbucky]

66. Actually

an honest answer from anyone involved would be nice once in while. Like an honest explanation of how it happened (maybe the Schlumberger account is true?)and an honest evaluation of the flow rate of this mixture into the Gulf. Like allowing scientists to view the video that was ongoing for about 3 weeks before it was made public (not mention not made available to scientists. It is almost irrefutable that business interests have fought safety regulations on a cost basis for decades with no abatement. There is no shortage of honest outrage over almost every succeeding event and disclosure about this disaster and it is all justified.

A little less snark and disrespect toward other DUers would be nice though.

Fucking arrogant pricks always get under my skin.

Especially anonymous ones hiding behind keyboards.




Just my dos centavos



robdobbucky

[Rex]

68. Snark and disrespect seem to be all some can do here.

Sad.