| Author | Message | ||
     Whatever |
I hate it when my sponge smells bad... I like to soak them in bleach myself...  | ||
| Hex |
Call me crazy: | ||
| Cowboy |
I have one other thing to add to this. As a old oil field man Here is the story. Once upon a time or this aunt no s@#t. I decided to leave the oil field and get rich in the sea food business I started my company in Port Sulpher (the place the reporters are reporting from now)I leaced a shucking house Oyster beds and got work. I wasmaking money hand over fist all was well for 2 yrs I never lost a oyster to oil not even a sheen on the water Then a damn hurricane came and put 3 to 4 inches on my beds. I could not stand the 3 to 4 yrs to get my product going so I closed down the business. Now your feelings seem to where your money is. so I feel oil good hurricanes bad. | ||
| Road_thing |
Not crazy, but it's an apples vs. oranges comparison. The Russian example in the video is an example of "snuffing" an onshore gas well fire, as I described above. One of the Russian scientists in the video said something to the effect that "It's like stopping the air to a human being." The purpose is to put out the fire so the crews can get close enough to the well to actually work on it. I've only been exposed to one burning gas well blowout (in South Louisiana). I'm guessing from the relative heights of the flares that the Russian well in the video was flowing at a much higher rate that the well I saw; still, I couldn't get closer to the fire than about 400-500 yards before the heat became too intense to stand. If you've never seen one in person, it's hard to comprehend the heat. The problem BP faces is that their well is flowing large volumes of oil. The issue is pollution, not heat. They've tried burning the oil on the surface, but the cooling effect of the water prevents ongoing combustion. They don't have a fire to put out, they "just" have to stop the flow of oil to minimize the environmental damage (and economic waste). If this were an onshore well, or even one in shallow water like Ixtoc-1, access to the wellhead wouldn't present the same problem as as it does under 5,000' of water. It's not the same situation as the Russian well at all. The environmental damage from a burning gas well is local: vegetation (and culture, like buildings) burns, but there's not much actual physical pollution. Any oil or condensate that comes up with the gas is incinerated as long as the fire is burning. rt | ||
| Road_thing |
oil good hurricanes bad Amen to that, Brother! rt | ||
| Hex |
The video also says that the nuke was placed below ground in a tunnel. The last frames show that no soil was lost in the blast, so it must have been deep. Also, it says that this technique has been used successfully a few other times but doesn't site. If I were President, I'd like to see all the data, including situations that were unsuccessful, like what Asquire wrote about. I'd like to have some options if this well opens up to full flow. Just thinking and writing ideas in public. | ||
| Road_thing |
What does the President have to with any of this? Is he in charge of getting the well under control? Unless you're talking about the President of BP, of course... rt | ||
| Hex |
What does the President have to with any of this? Is he in charge of getting the well under control? I would say ultimately YES, it is US land, and we granted the claim. If this turns out to be worst case, 60,000 barrel per day situation, you bet He will be in charge. This could quickly become an incident of international concern. BP can go bankrupt, and forfeit all responsibility. The USA cannot. | ||
| Hootowl |
Oh, we can go bankrupt. We're doing it right now. | ||
| Hootowl |
I agree though, if Obama is on the hook for this politically, and it sure seems he is, he's going to want a say in the solution. I just hope he listens to the right people and doesn't do something stupid that will either a. not help, or b. make things worse. Given that there are US navy ships on scene, he could get directly involved...doing what I don't know. I'm pretty sure he's never capped a well himself, nor does he know anyone who has. | ||
| Hex |
Why don't we have men down there? Why all ROV's. There are many maned vehicles that can reach the gulf ocean floor. BP needs to be taken out of this. They will continue to prove their incompetence as our country suffers. See here: 14,764 feet: Maximum operating depth of the research submersible Alvin. In use since 1964, Alvin was the first deep-sea sub to successfully carry passengers. 35,800 feet: Depth of the deepest manned dive. Jacques Piccard and US Navy lieutenant Don Walsh visited the Mariana Trench in the submersible Trieste on January 23, 1960. Through their porthole, Piccard and Walsh reportedly observed an animal resembling a type of flatfish that was about a foot long. The Japan Marine Science and Technology Center revisited the site with an ROV in 1995, setting a new official unmanned submersible depth record. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/dive.html | ||
| Kenm123t |
Hex most of those subs are in mueseums recycled into beer cans. The rovs have the tools to work on oil rig gear. Research subs dont have the tools arms with enough power and or have the endurance to work that long on site. Harbour Branch here in Florida just shut down their sub program due to lack of funding and no missions in the future. The oil industry and the navy have the majority of the deep subs and the navy boats are not for pipe work. Oh i dont like glow in the dark sea food so no nucs You gift your enemies with nucs from afar not in your back yard | ||
| Crackhead |
This is why the Coast Guard needs to be the agency for dealing with environmental disaster and then the Gov sends the bill. Let FEMA deal with the people and paper work, and just the president needs to give the CG the green light for a quick response. A quick response is having the people and equipment in place in under 24 hrs. One of the main agency that made up the CG was inspecting steam boilers. Back when operators would disable safety devices to produce more steam and make the ship go faster. Humm, sounds familiar. | ||
| Hex |
I'm sure the navy has deep suits to retrieve warheads from sunken subs, ours and theirs. They just don't tell us about em. Bring 'em in. If BP's efforts falter this week, my bet is they'll be off the job. | ||
| Whatever |
I would not go down there in a sub... that would be assisted suicide... Is that for real with the nuke thing? It just seems so wrong on so many levels... | ||
| Kenm123t |
The Oil industry has the best rovs and deep work equipment. Its just too deep for divers in the water. I have 6722 dives of all types working research and spearfishing lobstering. Worked with nitrox in the NOAA research stage. The best thing Obama can do is call the lawyers home they are worse than useless. I have wanna bees that try to tell me my business also. First sign of the useless is send attorneys instead how can we help. Why be afraid you know your going to die. The faithful never fear death. An old Viking and family saying Cowards never started and weaklings died along the way from mom american indian side of the family Ho Ta Heay ( it is a good day to die) | ||
| Hex |
Char, we have hundreds of craters in Nevada. You don't see environmental issues with them because all the hot shit is deep within the bedrock.  And those were all BIG ones. I'm suggesting a mini one in just the right place. The nuke is Plan Z, just like the Ruskies in 1962. It will be used if necessary. | ||
| Hex |
I found up to date information on Google Maps (May 4 image) Finding current satellite imagery or more REAL information on all 25,000 news sites that Google monitors is patchy at best.: http://maps.google.com/maps/mpl?moduleurl=http://mw1.google.com/mw-earth-vectordb/disaster/gulf_oil_spill/gulf_oil_mapplet.xml&mapclient=google&ct=konbit&cd=0&hl=en  | ||
| Hex |
| ||
| Hex |
| ||
| Hex |
They keep calling this an "Oil Spill". It's not an oil spill, it's a release of natural elements. They look at this claim, the oil, as if they owned it already. But it is not in their container, it is in Mother Earth. BP released it to the surface with human incompetence. | ||
| Hex |
"You put a major hurricane in there, you’re liable to have oil in downtown New Orleans." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/10 0505-science-environment-gulf-oil-spill-hurricanes -new-orleans/ | ||
| Hex |
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/science/earth/06dispersants.html  | ||
| Whatever |
Wouldn't irradiating the Gulf of Mexico just be trading two problems for one? The chemicals don't scare me much but the radiation does... it is much harder to track and measure and attribute damages to... I don't think they will consider it... I hope. | ||
| Aesquire |
It reminds me of an old story from Analog magazine. A tanker with toxic waste is leaking & will destroy all life, in desperation they nuke it, than have to nuke the oil spill from the tankers grounded by the giant wave, then........ ( I admit it's much better in the original ) We aren't going to nuke it, that won't work, IMHO, and has political aspects that make it impossible. Anyone think Obama would nuke U.S. territory foe any reason other than to take out the evil domestic white middle aged male terrorist teabaggers? No way. | ||
| Blake |
Hysteria, no matter how well-intentioned, is always harmful. Honest rational discussion can be very beneficial versus the often harmful effects of cheap sensationalism or what-iffing. (Message edited by blake on May 06, 2010) | ||
| Cowboy |
Blake you are correct as usual The sky is not falling. The releaf well is under way. All will be taken care of in due time. There is a group of quafied people working on this. If you want to see a real fxxx xx just turn it over to a bunch of worms in panic mode. | ||
| Blake |
Some of the news pundits are characterizing the blowout and ensuing release of crude oil into/onto the ocean as the worst in the history of the world. It's very dishonest. Then you have irresponsible statements like "BP released it to the surface with human incompetence." I'd like to see the evidence showing that "incompetence" on the driling rig caused the blowout. As stated previously, it was Transocean who was drilling the well. Blaming the blowout on BP is like seeing a taxi cab crash then blaming the pasenger. BP hired Transocean to drill the well. It certainly doesn't help when our president employs gangster talk like "we're going to keep our boot firmly on the neck of BP..." Lawyers will not resolve the crisis. We need leadership willing and able to help. The one issue at this point that justly warrants outrage is our utter lack of preparedness to respond to a mass release of crude oil into our coastal waters. We absolutely should have on hand and on hot standby all the necessary equipment and personnel for a rapid response and oil containment. It isn't too difficult. | ||
| Crackhead |
We have the people ready for the clean up responce. The coast guard needs to be able to bypass all of the red crap to get the job done. | ||
| Hex |
I'd like to see the evidence showing that "incompetence" on the driling rig caused the blowout. It looks like the Justice Department is also interested in that information: The U.S. Justice Department has asked Transocean Ltd. to preserve evidence from an April 20 rig explosion and fire that killed 11 workers, sank the vessel and caused leaks in a subsea oil well. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-05/u-s-ju stice-dept-tells-transocean-to-keep-evidence-updat e2-.html This article also states: “Accidents that theoretically could not have happened are doubly problematic, and at this stage Macondo seems to fall into that category,” the analysts said. If one makes a theory and it is wrong, how can one claim competence at theory making? |
