Phatose on 4/6/2010 at 00:26
Worst ecological disaster in memory and they're asking the fucking internet for solutions? That's like going to 4chan for relationship advice, wtf.
DDL on 4/6/2010 at 00:39
Quote Posted by Martin Karne
Sure thing, with a big blast, bigger holes.
More oil spilled per second, sounds really smart.
Pretty sure the oil is buried quite a ways down, with a long thin hole drilled down to it. A nuke would shake the crap out of the seabed and essentially destroy the drill hole, locking the oil away again.
...Which would mean they'd have to drill down all over again if they wanted to get at the oil, and I can really see
that being popular.. :D
Thief13x on 4/6/2010 at 03:30
cut the pipe off and plug it full of dirt!
Oh wait..seriously though. I see so many folks with novel opinions on this who aren't engineers it makes me wonder if they really trust the folks who actually know what they're talking about...
Fafhrd on 4/6/2010 at 05:40
Considering how the people that supposedly know what they're talking about have completely fucking failed to contain this disaster, is it all that surprising that nobody trusts them?
Nuke the hole, says I, and strap the board of BP to the bomb. I imagine something in the range of a one kiloton blast should do the job and not trigger any untoward seismic disturbances.
Koki on 4/6/2010 at 06:08
Don't cry about spilled milk, but all this oil... :(
Queue on 4/6/2010 at 12:42
Quote Posted by Phatose
Worst ecological disaster in memory and they're asking the fucking internet for solutions? That's like going to 4chan for relationship advice, wtf.
Did they at least Twitter it so we can see how many people "like" the post?
zombe on 4/6/2010 at 21:37
Quote:
The number one benefit of a product like Corexit for a company like BP is to push the most plainly visible pollutants to the sea floor and away from coastal areas, where the true ecological damage will remain out of sight.
That. My perception of their actions says this reflects their mindset quite accurately. Highly irritating.
rachel on 4/6/2010 at 22:24
I read that the soviet nukes worked because it was a rocky environment and it wouldn't be so well-suited to the soft muddy seafloor of that one.
That said I'm not a geologist, so feel free to correct me.
Quote:
"This is the Eight Sign: You will see many youth, who wear their hair long like my people, come and join the tribal nations, to learn their ways and wisdom.
Didn't that happen in the sixties...? :p
Ko0K on 5/6/2010 at 03:52
I am curious as to why they are not pursuing one of the original ideas, which is to drill a relief well near the leaky one so that the leak can be plugged. One thing I can think of is that the relief well would have to be of a considerably larger diameter to offer a flow path of less resistance, and that may present a feasibility challenge.
I guess they're considering placing a dome over the leak again, but I don't know if that will be successful, since the reservoir that the oil is spouting out of is under an artesian condition. By that, I mean that the negative pressure of the pump has to be far greater than the positive pressure of the leak for the dome to stay put on the sea floor, but I am not even sure if any pump is in existence that can do that. I suppose they can try to bolt the dome down to the sea floor, but that means the bolts would have to be pretty long to punch through soft clay and extend far enough into the bedrock to provide sufficient foundation support for the structure that has to resist the internal pressure resulting from oil coming out of a reservoir under the weight of a mile of water.
Nope, I don't have any solution. I think, however, that all that petrochemicals already in the water (not just "on" the water) will have a lasting effect, and we're fucked in one way or another.
