June 9, 2010 at 1:29 am #169408
Yeah, like a giant ball valve! The image below shows the pipe. What I wonder is; why such a shut-off valve doesn’t exist below that junction.
In the future, why not lay a pad of concrete with the all of the pluming in place. Then open the valve on the plumbing, the drill fits into the pipe, through the open valve, then drill through the concrete, into the well. Now you have control of the oil at the ocean floor, at the valve. Any kind of apparatus located above the ocean floor creates opportunity for failure below the apparatus.June 9, 2010 at 2:03 am #169407Jonathon MartinezParticipant
Quick question: Are you getting paid by Caltrans and the taxpayers of California for posting this garbage? FYI: There are a lot of unemployed LAs nationwide chomping at the bit for work right now and that looks really bad that you’re on Land8 throughout the work day posting. You criticize anyone who doesn’t have your same values (environmentalism as a religion) and its REALLY annoying. Have some respect and get a better profile picture.June 9, 2010 at 2:25 am #169406Tim ZhangParticipant
A legendary landscape agricultect of the south has found the ultimate solution to the crisis. This thread can now rest.June 9, 2010 at 3:30 am #169405
I saw this video a couple weeks ago and thought, ‘well, how will we collect the hay?’ without giving it much thought, then I saw the comment about the netted hay. I hope there’s at least one school studio working on shore cleanup/oil mitigation projects.
It seems logical enough to build a perimeter around the slick or along potentially affected coat lines. This would be a simple, yet effective cleanup solution, but the leak is still there.
We could probably go on and on about what BP should have done and had in place. The true capitalist mentality never changes, just the scale. In other words, there’s a simple reason why there is no relief well, or better shut off valve, or larger pipe.
In my mind, there must be a hidden agenda behind why they havent figured out how to seal the leak. There must also be some nefarious reason as to why the govt hasnt intervened more aggressively. Why cant the govt cease and take control of ONE of BP’s rigs or stations, be it this or another, and auction it off to the highest bidder? Doing this with each station until the blowout is sealed by BP or we have the resources nationally or globally to seal the leak and mitigate the damage on OUR terms. I just simply am not buying the fact that the leak cannot be sealed given the available financial and intellectual resources.
We’ve had humans go as deep as Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench region which is over 5 miles deep with zero daylight. Honest question, do we not have a anned ROV capable of transporting suitable pipe (rigid or flexible) with a manually clamping end like a irrigation pipe coupling down to couple the pipe?
Even if the end of the pipe is uneven where they made the cut it seems like there could be a ‘slip’ coupler with hose attached that could seal over the stub and transport pressure and oil to the surface. How about a robotically controlled coupler? I must be missing something.June 9, 2010 at 3:34 am #169404
I think I just had the same thought below Andrew.
It seems so simple doesnt it? Just like coupling an irrigation leak. I thought the pipe could be corrugated with some flex and several times the diameter as to help alleviate the pressure. The end could be a mechanically/robotically sealable coupling end with rubber-like flexible fitting to accomodate a variety of shapes and diameters. Why not?
While I’m at it, I wonder if there isn’t some way to utilize the pressure differential between the coupling pipe and the ocean at that depth like the way they use pneumatic air pumps to suck and seal on handlebar grips for bike by blowing air IN, effectively sealing the pipe.
Instead we got ‘junk shot’ ‘top hat’ and whatever else amateurish looking inventions. You gotta be kidding me.June 9, 2010 at 4:26 am #169403
Yes, Nick, I think you’re on to something. There is a nefarious reason for not sealing the leak. It’s an evil plot to create a dead-zone in the Gulf. Kill off all life in the gulf with an oil spill. Then the hippie environmentalists won’t have any reason to protest additional off-shore rigs throughout the region. There is nothing left to protect! It’s a wasteland….mmmuuaaahhaaahahahahahaha (cue sinister laugh)….
I’m mostly joking…June 9, 2010 at 5:21 am #169402
I’m just typing out loud.
Certainly thy didnt want the explosion and leak to happen in the first place, but could there be some financial incentive for them to postpone containment other than bureaucracy and incompetence? I’m under the presumption that private industry tends to be very efficient when it comes to time or money–It doesnt seem logical to me that BP would be as OK as they seem to be with losing as much as they sey they are, thats all.June 9, 2010 at 6:23 am #169401
They seem to be genuinely working on stopping the leak. The measures they have taken are expensive and i don’t think they like losing 200,000 barrels a day. That’s a lot of money. I don’t think we can comprehend what it will take to clean-up. That’s a whole other issue.
In hind site, I think it was a mistake to dump 1,000,000 gallons of dispersal agents on the oil slick. It was a feeble attempt to make the problem less visible. The oil is still there, it’s just spread out, not clumped and so it’s harder to see. The other result this has, is that it’s more difficult to clean up. If the oil is held together, as is it’s natural tendency, it’s easier to isolate and contain. It’s kind of like; would you rather pick up a bag of marbles or would you prefer to pick them up after they’ve been spread across the floor? Right now, the oil is spread across the floor. This should be a lesson for future oil spills. Fess up to the problem, don’t try to spread it out so that it’s harder to see and clean up…
Another interesting note. BP was trading at $60/share in April. Now it’s trading at $34/share. I wish I sold it short in April… Oh, well, takes money to make money. It will be interesting to see what happens to the stock. There are rumors of the company splitting up, in an effort to salvage (hide) it’s assets, (hey, that’s what they did with the oil slick!) because this spill could put BP out of business. So, the stock might continue to slide. I’m not sure what would happen if it split up. I guess BP would cease to exist and it’s assets would be purchased by other companies or other companies would be created (by BP) to buy the assets (shell game). Either way, my guess is that BP stock will continue to slide until it no longer exists. So, sell, sell, sell. As an interesting side note, if the company no longer exists, who’s responsible for the clean-up? The tax payers! Brilliant!June 9, 2010 at 11:03 am #169400Trace OneParticipant
Jonathon – no, and yes, and I agree.
Why is ‘environmentalism’ even called an ‘ism’ as though it is something you can choose not to be part of?June 9, 2010 at 3:18 pm #169399
Right, but at what point does it make sense for a company to sacrifice production in lieu of pending damage costs to write off losses?
I know this is conspiracy theory-ish as John Turk put it this morning on am760, but when he said it I burst out loud, ‘yes!.’
Given, it makes far more sense for BP to be collecting oil, making a straight profit than claiming losses, but perhaps there is a certain point in which it doesnt make sense for them to invest more money in the problem when they can let it run for a nother few months at the ‘estimated’ loss/flow until they reach the magic number so to speak to cover damages and liability, allthewhile, the federal govt intervenes and foots the remainder of the effort.
Again, it’s my understanding that private entities, in the interest of money and efficiency in time, is extrememly efficient in stopping loss and maximizing profit. That said, I find it hard to believe they/we really cant figure this out in less than three months.June 9, 2010 at 3:51 pm #169398Trace OneParticipant
Link to 18 ideas to plug pipe from BBC readers, plus reaction to each idea from a scientist.
The hydrates were methane, that is why the froze at that depth – see last idea in article….June 9, 2010 at 4:06 pm #169397
Prof Erschagi’s replies seem to be just as speculative and as or less scientific as the proposals. I understand the need for brevity.
Why not use a combination of proposed solutions?–freeze the well with methane ice as one suggested, then install transport device (clamped pipe, whatever) while the flow is down. I’m sure no one thought of this, lol, but it doesnt seem too far from reality given the ‘junk shot.’June 9, 2010 at 4:39 pm #169396Mike GParticipant
All the solutions presented by BP thus far rely on being able to capture oil for future use without destroying the well shaft and mechanisms already in place. Could this because they figured they’ve already committed to (and and are permitted to) pumping future oil from it? Why haven’t solutions that would disable the well and allow it to be abandoned been given consideration?
I guess it follows the same reason why they have continued to report lower spilled levels than actually exist, it would interfere with the levels that they are permitted to pump out. A start to an solution for this situations would be to revoke their permit, immediately. That way they shouldn’t have anything to hide, cover up, or fudge and maybe some other innovative solutions would become feasible. While we are at it all their active US drilling permits should be revoked until further notice (forever). Or set a rate of one permit revoked per day of unresolved disaster. This should be a no brainer right : revoke permit?June 9, 2010 at 4:52 pm #169395
It seems like all the solutions related to permanently disbling the well have been dismissed by speculative science (or actual science if that makes sense). I also agree with the comment about revocation of permits.June 9, 2010 at 5:04 pm #169394Adam TrujilloParticipant
i love james carville! he always calls it like he sees it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.