Queue on 10/6/2010 at 03:59
Quote Posted by Demetros
Isn't there some sort of way that they can stop the oil from flowing, though? I know it probably isn't as simple as shutting off a valve, but can't they just redirect the oil through some other pipeline?
I wonder what would happen if we dumped liquid nitrogen onto the thing...
My God.... THAT'S IT! We'll make a giant oil-cicle.
Ha ha ha ha ha hahah ha....I kid.
Seriously though, I don't think anyone thought of just turning off the stupid valve. I mean, why wouldn't they just do that in the first place instead of letting all that perfectly good oil go to waste?
I think it's to keep the price of gas high.
Demetros on 10/6/2010 at 04:52
If I wanted to keep the price of gasoline high I'd create some sort of puppet entity to buy massive quantities of oil from me at an outrageously high price, and then if I were running low on oil I'd just have the dummy account return the oil to me discreetly. Or, something like that.
Then again, if I were designing a pipeline under the ocean that would carry gasoline, I'd make sure that I'd be somehow be able to turn off the valve and redirect the oil through other pipelines.
Well, that's just my opinion. I'm not a professional investor or engineer, so for all I know my opinion is probably as good as "IBBLE BIBBLE IBBLY PURIBBLE BLEARGH."
Queue on 10/6/2010 at 05:06
Quote Posted by Demetros
If I wanted to keep the price of gasoline high I'd create some sort of puppet entity to buy massive quantities of oil from me at an outrageously high price, and then if I were running low on oil I'd just have the dummy account return the oil to me discreetly. Or, something like that.
Yeah, but then you'd be laundering oil and that'd silly because oil and water don't mix.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Quote:
Then again, if I were designing a pipeline under the ocean that would carry gasoline, I'd make sure that I'd be somehow be able to turn off the valve and redirect the oil through other pipelines.
Well obviously. And maybe an extra valve just incase the first one breaks.
Quote:
Well, that's just my opinion. I'm not a professional investor or engineer, so for all I know my opinion is probably as good as "IBBLE BIBBLE IBBLY PURIBBLE BLEARGH."
Ha ha ha ha ha...good one! :thumb: What's from?
Demetros on 10/6/2010 at 05:33
Quote Posted by Queue
Ha ha ha ha ha...good one! :thumb: What's from?
The "ibble bibble" isn't from anywhere, I think... I just came up with it on the spot.
As for my extra pipelines idea... Thinking about it, wasn't one of BP's solutions just drilling more holes into the pipe in an attempt to alleviate pressure so that less oil will come out? (Don't look at me like that. I'm not the one who came up with the idea.) Did they ever go through with that? If there were other pipelines, and they drilled holes in those other pipelines... Well, you see, right? Then my pipelines idea wouldn't work.
I'm really curious as to whether BP has actually tried shutting down the oil flow. Sure, they won't be getting money from selling that oil, but I'm sure the cash BP will have to shell out to clean everything up will be much bigger. Assuming they'll be held responsible and actually forced to clean it up. -looks at Exxon-
But, Valdez took place in Alaska, and I don't think the nation cares about Alaska as much as the Gulf coast and its many nude beaches. So... maybe more pressure will be put on BP?
Yes. I am seriously hoping that America's love of nude beaches will play a part in the clean up. Because it doesn't seem like anything else is very dependable.
Separating the oil... from the water... I don't know much about the machine, but it'd have to be big to catch a decent amount of oil, right? Or maybe we'd need a lot of those?
Anyway, it turns out that BBC got a Professeur Ershaghi to analyse a few logical-sounding proposals. The responsonse to a "freezing idea" below.
Quote Posted by http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10268979.stm
I know that a lot of wells in the Gulf of Mexico are difficult to produce because of hydrate (methane ice) formation. The containment dome failed because of this. Has the idea of promoting the formation of hydrates within the wellbore itself, to form an ice plug to stop the flow of hydrocarbons, been considered?
"With a reservoir that does not have free water, and producing at above hydrate curve temperatures, the hydrates will not form until the gas has expanded and cooled the surrounding area (Joule Thompson effect). However, if ice cold, fresh water were pumped into the wellbore, perhaps with some ice crystals or grains of sand, or something to promote the seed required to help the hydrate cage form, that may promote the formation of a hydrate plug within the wellbore itself." - Mike, Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
_______________________
Prof Ershaghi says: "You are correct. In fact, hydrate can form near the mud line close to the sea bed. Even if some restrictions develop, this is not a reliable way to stop the flow. A simple change of thermodynamics can change the conditions."
TLDR Freezing would not reliably block the wellD'aww... There goes my liquid nitrogen...
Gryzemuis on 10/6/2010 at 12:15
Quote Posted by Demetros
I'm really curious as to whether BP has actually tried shutting down the oil flow.
Of course BP management underestimated the problem at first. Like all executives at big companies do. They all think that the actual execution of their business is simple. As if the whole worth of a company only depends on the brilliancy of the executive staff. Technical people don't matter. Guess what, they're learning the hard way now. A company is as good as its employees. From top to bottom.
They better take this serious. Because this is gonna be the end of BP. The leak isn't closed. And it doesn't look like it will be closed soon. By asking for advice from the general public, they are actually admitting they have *zero* clue how to fix this. Check this out: (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill) That was an oilspill in 1979 in the Gulf of Mexico. It took 10 months to close the well. And now the shocker: that was in waters of only 50 meters deep ! This problem is at 1500 meters deep. Huge difference.
Exxon got away for several reasons, I think. Yep, people don't care about Alaska. Exxon is an american company, so 1) the US would be more reluctant to get a big american company on its knees. 2) Exxon probably had more lobbyists in the US. BP has bigger problems. This oil spill is more visible. BP is not american, so they will get less slack. BP has less influence in the US.
Even if BP doesn't have to pay billions and billions to clean everything up, it's still gonna cost them. Their stockprice has dropped 40%. It's gonna drop more. Executives don't care if BP has to pay 10 or 20 billions to clean things up. Not their money, and they don't care about the cash reserve of their company. They can't steal from it anyway. But stock price is another thing. Stock price impacts the worth of their options. And secondly, if the stockprice drops enough, they become vulnerable to hostile takeovers. And during a takeover, the original BP executives will lose power, and maybe even their jobs. So BP should be worried about this oilspill, because it will have an effect on their executives. And those are the only people in the world that BP management worries about.
Kolya on 10/6/2010 at 12:35
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
Exxon got away for several reasons, I think.
They hired Burson-Marsteller to clean up their public image. Which inspired Ted Kaczynski to blow up their executive Thomas J. Mosser via mail bomb. If you think that was a bit of an inappropriate reaction reading through (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burson-Marsteller) Burson-Marsteller's client list may change your mind. BP is one of them.
So there's your solution for BP. Now what about the oil spill?
DDL on 10/6/2010 at 13:38
Quote Posted by Demetros
As for my extra pipelines idea... Thinking about it, wasn't one of BP's solutions just drilling more holes into the pipe in an attempt to alleviate pressure so that less oil will come out? (Don't look at me like that. I'm not the one who came up with the idea.) Did they ever go through with that? If there were other pipelines, and they drilled holes in those other pipelines... Well, you see, right? Then my pipelines idea wouldn't work.
I'm not sure you quite get what's happening: this is not a pipeline, like a long tube laid across the ocean bed taking oil from A to B. This is a drill hole, a long tube drilled down into the sea bed, allowing buried oil to be extracted.
Now the original pipe setup did indeed feature a nice cut-off system, but clearly that hasn't worked. Possibly due to the fact it was unlikely to have been designed to cope with bits of an entire oil platform and 1500m of heavy pipe falling down around it.
The drilling holes idea is essentially a case of "we know oil is coming from this buried oil reserve, out of broken, unfixable drill hole A...so let's drill several regulated, controlled, SEALED OFF FROM THE SEA holes down into that buried oil reserve, so that instead of all gushing out one hole, the oil is gushing out of ...say, five holes, four of which are sealed and controlled and deliver oil to us.
It'd cut the leak down to a fifth, in that example.
As for liquid nitrogen, while I'm unsure what effect the pressure would have on the vapour point of nitrogen *checks* Ok, normally it vapourises at anything above -210 degrees, but at 150 atmospheres of pressure that only raises to -160 or so...and you'd be pumping it out into liquid water, which is going to be considerably hotter than that. So while you might marginally cool the area around, you'd also have to contend with explosive eruptions of nitrogen gas. Also, water has a high specific heat capacity, whereas nitrogen's is pretty low, so the cooling effect would be further reduced. Also you'd have to keep it cold enough to stay liquid while pumping it down there, and you'd get ice crystals forming on the pipe, which would then probably crack, and so on.
Anyway, I'm waffling now.
Still going with the nukes, though. That would be awesome.
Demetros on 10/6/2010 at 15:09
Oh, so that's what's happening... Thanks for clearing that up.
Maybe I'm just watching at the wrong time, but it seems to me right now American news is just focused on general public solutions instead of an analysis of what's happening, Anyone else notice this, or is it just me?
Queue on 10/6/2010 at 15:26
You see, the problem with the media getting out there looking for solutions from the general public is that the general public is always remarkably ill-informed, yet utterly willing to spout off their "solutions" without ever thinking once about equipping themselves with learned facts.
(Anyone else noticing that the irony of this isn't sinking in?)
