Bluegrime on 7/6/2010 at 00:40
Queue is next. I can feel it. ;)
Anyway. My solution would be a simple one. Drop rocks on it. Lots and lots of rocks. Big ones at first, followed by a gravel/sandy slurry once a base gets formed. It's not the best idea ever and I am not a scientician of any practice, but it dosen't require mile deep dives, robots, atomic bombs or super science. :thumb:
Ko0K on 7/6/2010 at 04:35
Quote Posted by Bluegrime
Queue is next. I can feel it. ;)
Anyway. My solution would be a simple one. Drop rocks on it. Lots and lots of rocks. Big ones at first, followed by a gravel/sandy slurry once a base gets formed. It's not the best idea ever and I am not a scientician of any practice, but it dosen't require mile deep dives, robots, atomic bombs or super science. :thumb:
Those rocks are not gonna land directly below where they are dropped while on the way down through a mile of water. Either you have to plan on pelting a considerably large area around the leaky well, or you have to find a way to funnel those rocks, neither of which is simple.
Mortal Monkey on 7/6/2010 at 23:56
I wouldn't put it beyond BP to be too retarded to figure out how to plug the pipe, but more likely than that, it's not possible to plug the pipe due to the pressure.
BP wants to be able to use the well again, and the only way they can do that is by plugging the pipe. They know it can't be done, so they "try" other retarded methods (read: methods that don't involve shifting the sediments and thus destroying the well for good) until the well's pressure has dropped to a manageable level. That's when they swoop in and plug the pipe themselves, instantly making them heroes. This happens approximately 16 months from now.
theBlackman on 8/6/2010 at 03:18
Quote Posted by Martin Karne
Uh uhm, liquid water weights 1 kilogram per liter, and oil is much more dense than normal liquids.
You do the maths.
Nevermind that, I'm the dense here.
Actually, Oil weighs less than water. Between 10 and 20 percent less. If it weighed more it would sink to the bottom.
The "density" ( actually you mean "Viscosity") is a relative factor, but petroleum will always weigh less than water.
I could refer you to Bouyancy and displacement a la Archimedes, but that would not make any more sense to you than your inaccurate information as quoted.
For example, a barrel of diesel fuel ( normal 55 Gal barrel) weighs 366.95 pounds plus the weight of the container. The same barrel filled with water weighs 458.70 pounds plus the container.
As for a solution, consider that a cap that was of a large diameter forced down over the existing pipe (now that it is cut off) connected to the surface by suitable tubing/piping could catch all the oil and direct it to the surface.
Just drop it over the damaged section with both the bottom open and the piping open, weight it heavily to hold it into the bottom mud. Pump the water that flowed into the piping when it was placed and pump the oil.
This would not cure the problem as the valve would still need to be sealed eventually, however, it could contain the leakage (pumped into the tanker such as they are now using) until the slant drilled well can relieve the pressure.
At the very least this would capture the bulk of the oil and stop or significantly slow the spread.
Petroleum, in all its permutations (Parrafin wax, Gasoline, Crude Oill, you name it) weighs less than water.
Nicker on 8/6/2010 at 08:27
TBM - wasn't that the "Top Hat" idea they first tried? There was some problem with icing, IIRC.
The idea that was floated here (NPI), of using an old ship as the cap has some merit I should think.
What boggles me is that they are still proposing deep wells off the east coast of Canada and near Alaska - WITHOUT relief wells drilled in advance (because it's too expensive and time consuming, doncha know...).
Here's a little meditation on (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPbUrB0moUA&playnext_from=TL&videos=c45YQSipYzM&feature=sub) sustained stupidity...
Martin Karne on 8/6/2010 at 11:43
Quote Posted by theBlackman
Actually, Oil weighs less than water. Between 10 and 20 percent less. If it weighed more it would sink to the bottom.
The "density" ( actually you mean "Viscosity") is a relative factor, but petroleum will always weigh less than water.
Like I said, nevermind, it took me a while to plug it in (the brain oh those 2+2 neurons left), oh it's a volatile liquid, and I'm here with a blow torch!!!
Hesche on 8/6/2010 at 12:22
Quote Posted by Thirith
Send in Jack or Desmond with a big cork. Hey, it worked once before!
This. Only replace "Jack or Desmond" with "Scots" and "cork" with "cock". Actually, the leak might be too narrow for that.
Queue on 8/6/2010 at 12:27
In the end, I'm all for the idea of nuking the hole.
Not that I think it'll work, I'm just giddy with anticipation for the next manmade disaster caused by man's utter incompetence when it comes to not fucking things up.
Quote Posted by Nicker
What boggles me is that they are still proposing deep wells off the east coast of Canada an near Alaska - WITHOUT relief wells drilled in advance (because it's too expensive and time consuming, doncha know...).
Well... at least there's no tourists there lounging around on the beaches, drinking piña coladas. Just some Canadians praying for Global Warming. So no harm, no foul, right? DRILL, BABY, DRILL!
theBlackman on 8/6/2010 at 20:44
Quote Posted by Martin Karne
Like I said, nevermind, it took me a while to plug it in (the brain oh those 2+2 neurons left), oh it's a volatile liquid, and I'm here with a blow torch!!!
'S OK, Martin. We all have those Quervo moments. I too, should have fired up a few neurons before I responded.
No harm, no foul.
