# BP Top Kill fails... NOW What?



## MA-Caver (May 29, 2010)

> ROBERT, La.  BP admitted defeat Saturday in its attempt to plug the  Gulf of Mexico oil leak by pumping mud into a busted well, but said it's  readying yet another approach to fight the spill after a series of  failures.
> BP PLC [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]Chief [COLOR=#366388 ! important]Operating [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 ! important]Officer [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 ! important]Doug [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 ! important]Suttles[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]  said the company determined the "top kill" had failed after it spent  three days pumping heavy drilling mud into the crippled well 5,000 feet  underwater. More than 1.2 million gallons of mud was used, but most of  it escaped out of the damaged riser.
> In the six weeks since the spill began, the company  has failed in each attempt to stop the gusher, as [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]estimates [COLOR=#366388 ! important]of [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 ! important]how [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 ! important]much[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] is leaking grow more dire.  It's the worst spill in U.S. history  exceeding even the Exxon Valdez  disaster in 1989 off the Alaska coast  dumping between 18 million and  40 million gallons into the Gulf, according to government estimates.
> *"This scares everybody, *the fact that we can't make  this well stop flowing, the fact that we haven't succeeded so far,"  Suttles said. "Many of the things we're trying have been done on the  surface before, but have never been tried at 5,000 feet."



So now the Gulf of Mexico is going to be so polluted that nothing will live in there for decades to come. Way to go Big Oil! 
So what does that mean? Higher gas prices? Or will we FINALLY realize that we need to STOP relying on fossil fuels and start focusing technology on alternate energy sources.  
Nah... too idealistic... there's way TOO much money still to be made from the black stuff. 

SIGH! 
At what cost is greed?


----------



## MJS (May 29, 2010)

I have been following this a little on the news and paper.  Its really a sad situation.  Whats worse, but really so typical, is that it seems that there's never a backup plan or plans in effect.  Why is it that only after the tragedy happens, that everyone runs around, like a chicken with their head cut off, trying to figure out what to do.  

I"m certainly no expert on the matter, so I have no idea as to what other solutions there are.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 29, 2010)

For alternative energy, the sources are never going to be good enough to fulfill a technological societies needs ... unless you include nuclear (fusion maybe) in the equation.

For now, it's an ecological pipe dream that is lovely in it's concept and utterly impractical in it's inception.  Most particularly when it comes to transport.

There are some promising avenues if you can wait for the technology to reach maturity and if you have the real estate per person to implement them e.g. the solar powered hydrogen farm for a house and it's 'associated' low performance car.

Such schemes do work, no question.  But you have to be a millionaire to implement them - and a millionaire who doesn't care to wander far from home.

If the IR panels I have heard about become viable, then home energy is a soluble problem; one that dissolves away in a flurry of on-site generation as the home can power itself day and night.  That could lead to enough power to waste making hydrogen to fuel a car ... but you still run into 'range' issues.

If the panels become good enough, then maybe you could run a minimal performance car off them directly - a wonderful solution if it occurs.

Until then, we need oil and that means we need to harvest it until we seriously produce viable alternatives.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (May 29, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> So now the Gulf of Mexico is going to be so polluted that nothing will live in there for decades to come. Way to go Big Oil!
> So what does that mean? Higher gas prices? Or will we FINALLY realize that we need to STOP relying on fossil fuels and start focusing technology on alternate energy sources.
> Nah... too idealistic... there's way TOO much money still to be made from the black stuff.
> 
> ...


 
Please excuse my cynicism in advance

We are humans and, by tradition, that means we won't change until we have to...well, that's actually true for all species. We, however, will live smack dab in the middle of our own feces until we have no choice but to move. We're lazy and we don't like to change. We will pursue oil until there is no more oil. We will risk it all, cause that's how we roll, yo.

As for money, there's money to be made everywhere. Soon, we'll have big wind and big geothermal and big fusion, whatever. It will all become corrupt. Such is human existance.

What is sickening is the shortsightedness we possess. How long ago was Exxon Valdez? What kind of shape is Prince William Sound in today?

[yt]aDTmjQirNcA[/yt]


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 30, 2010)

They could close the the well with an underwater nuclear detonation. The soviets used to do this. I read they had at least 5 of these leaks, and the nuke was SOP.

As for energy, imo we should have stuck with nuclear reactors. Modern reactors can be built extremely safe, with no worry about creating weapons grade fuel, and very little waste. But of course the environmentalists had to crusade against anything 'nukular'.

The participation of the greens in our national government was shortlived, but long enough to kill the nuclear industry and EOL our reactors. This was of course with full support of greenpeace, who did not propose alternative solutions. They just didn't want us to use nuclear fuel. I tore up my greenpeace membership card and told them to stick it. The irony of course is that by killing off our nuclear programs, we created a deficit, which we now import from France, from a nuclear reactor close to our border.

Now, I don't want to say 'Told you so' but whenever people are arguing for de-regularization and against government oversight, this is what you should expect.


----------



## Archangel M (May 30, 2010)

While not comforting...this spill is not the biggest ever in the Gulf. In 1979, a drilling rig in Mexican waters &#8212; the Ixtoc I &#8212; blew up, releasing 140 million gallons of oil.


----------



## Archangel M (May 30, 2010)

If it were not for regulations forcing drilling out into the deep...deep..depths a spill like this probably wouldnt have gone on for so long.

It's easy to say "jack up the cost of gas/oil" or switch to other energy sources..but the EXACT same people would be crying about the results right along with the rest of us. A total shut off or drastic escalation in oil prices would result in havoc. Its funny to see the "Ban offshore drilling" bumper stickers on cars that run on oil, are built using petroleum products, parked in garages built with materials hauled by fuel burning vessels from trucks and trains to planes. Driven by people who wear clothes and eat food all dependent on oil to make and deliver.

I agree w/Suk. Nuclear power is really the only realistic way to switch from oil to electric based transportation. And even then it would have to be a gradual switch based on the construction of new power plants...the change over in infrastructure...etc. There will never be an "Oil today...electric tomorrow" scenario.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 30, 2010)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/quotes




> *[URL="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000200/"]Hudson*





> : Let's just bug out and call it even, OK? What are we talking about this for?
> *Ripley*: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
> *Hudson*: F***' A...
> *Burke*: Ho-ho-hold on, hold on one second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it.
> *Ripley*: They can *bill* me.


[/URL]


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 30, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I agree w/Suk. Nuclear power is really the only realistic way to switch from oil to electric based transportation. And even then it would have to be a gradual switch based on the construction of new power plants...the change over in infrastructure...etc. There will never be an "Oil today...electric tomorrow" scenario.



There is a reason that hydrocarbon-based energy remains popular, and that reason is never addressed by tree-huggers; they prefer to pretend it does not exist.

Theoretically, one form of energy is equivalent to another, provided it can do the work.  Electricity does not care what is used to generate it.  Wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear, coal, they're all the same at the delivery point where electricity is put to use in the home or industry.

The problem is twofold.  First, energy sources do not store well in general, and second, they don't ramp up well to meet fluctuating demands in general.

The reason we use nuclear, hydroelectric, and coal options most often to generate electricity for the nation's electrical power grid is not just because they are plentiful or cheap, but because they store well and ramp up well.  Wind, geothermal, solar, and other 'green' sources of energy do not do that.  *They can neither be 'ramped up' to meet fluctuating demands, nor stored easily or efficiently against future needs.*

The only solution for overcoming the problem of fluctuating demand is to build for maximum capacity, which means a large part of the money for infrastructure goes to build capacity that will only be used a fraction of the time - more wind turbines than needed, more wells than needed, more solar panels than needed, etc.  That makes these 'green' options far less economically advantageous; but you won't hear that from tree-huggers; they like to quote the 1:1 costs of a solar watt versus a hydrocarbon watt as if that were actually the comparison that would be made when building a solar power plant or a coal-burning plant.

As for storage, that's a bigger problem.  Currently-popular power generation is able to overcome it by generating power on-demand and not storing it for any significant periods of time.  Storage methods remain inefficient; chemical (battery) or thermal (heating large objects) or mechanical (spinning up huge wheels) and then attempting to turn them back into electricity when demanded.  The loss is staggering, reducing the efficiencies of 'green' power sources even more.

And that's just for home and industrial use of electricity.  When it comes to automobiles, one is likewise faced with the issues of energy storage.

One potential solution for overcoming this issue is a basic and complete reordering of society; necessary because our nation (and many other Western nations) have grown up around the notion of cheap and reliable personal transportation, available on-demand and able to produce ad-hoc destinations equally easily.  It it not just our psyches that are used to jumping in the car and going where we will; our infrastructure and the distribution of cities, suburbs, towns, and villages also depends upon it.  It could be changed, but not without a massive reordering of how our world functions, where people live, and how they get from place to place.

Another potential solution for overcoming the issue is to accept the place of the personal car or transportation in current Western societies and working to replace hydrocarbon internal combustion with other, 'greener' methods.  This holds the most promise, as newer and more efficient battery technologies are promising, as are fuel cells and even cleaner-burning internal combustion technologies such as hydrogen (if it can be made safer).  Moving from hydrocarbons to alcohol is not a solution, however, as it diverts grain production that is currently used for food for people and animals; it is only a stopgap.

In the end, I have no personal objection to the use of green technologies to provide power for cars, homes, and industry.  But I also recognize that there are significant problems with power sources that cannot be ramped up to meet fluctuating demands and not stored easily once converted to power.  I do not see solutions to these basic issues using the current 'green' technologies, so I do not see us moving from traditional sources of fuel, such as coal, natural gas, oil, hydroelectric, and nuclear power.

And by the way, for those who would say that hydroelectric is green, you're right; but environmentalists have always hated them because they destroy habitats, endanger wildlife, and change the natural progression of rivers, and dams are inherently dangerous to those who live below them.  So green or not, they're usually hated by the tree huggers too; and of course it's not always possible to build a dam where the power is wanted; we've pretty much done them all.


----------



## elder999 (May 30, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> They could close the the well with an underwater nuclear detonation. The soviets used to do this. I read they had at least 5 of these leaks, and the nuke was SOP..


 
Don't think for a minute that this isn't on the table as a possible solution at this very moment. If that decision is made, though, I doubt it can be spun to be a very popular one............


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 30, 2010)

Somebody page Adam and Jamie......


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 30, 2010)

I thought of a solution.

Consider the umbrella. Turn it upside down, shove it through the hole, then open it.  If you built a gigantic metal umbrella and shoved it through the broken cut-off valve until it was clear of it, and then opened the umbrella, it would expand and go backwards trying to be pushed back out of the hole, but the struts would hold the umbrella open, and the leak would be stopped and held shut by the force of the oil trying to escape, if the material the umbrella was made of was strong enough.  Akido for oil pipeline, using its own strength against it.


----------



## Carol (May 30, 2010)

Sounds like they aren't planning on stopping it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100530/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill


----------



## kaizasosei (May 30, 2010)

Genious Bill!  Very amazing plan.  I can seriously imagine it working.  How did you come up with that? I was thinking of surgically slicing off the great pyramid of egypt and sinking it onto the mess.  

j


----------



## Big Don (May 30, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I thought of a solution.
> 
> Consider the umbrella. Turn it upside down, shove it through the hole, then open it.  If you built a gigantic metal umbrella and shoved it through the broken cut-off valve until it was clear of it, and then opened the umbrella, it would expand and go backwards trying to be pushed back out of the hole, but the struts would hold the umbrella open, and the leak would be stopped and held shut by the force of the oil trying to escape, if the material the umbrella was made of was strong enough.  Akido for oil pipeline, using its own strength against it.


Wouldn't a SUPERSIZED angioplasty balloon work? Simple fix if it would...


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 31, 2010)

I still say nuke it. That way, there is one less nuke to keep track of (saves money). Perhaps it could even fit in the disarmament agreement, so that it is one of the nukes which would be decommissioned anyway. The soldiers and submarine crew get some valuable live training, and we get another youtube vid of an awesome underwater nuclear detonation. And if greenpeace wants to stop it by parking their boats over the well, then they'll be gone as well.

Everybody wins.


[yt]qDMUekfOR-E[/yt]


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 31, 2010)

kaizasosei said:


> Genious Bill!  Very amazing plan.  I can seriously imagine it working.  How did you come up with that? I was thinking of surgically slicing off the great pyramid of egypt and sinking it onto the mess.
> 
> j



I was thinking about the hole as if it were a hole in the side of a pipe.  Applying a patch to the outside is tricky, because the pressure of the oil coming out wants to push the patch off.  Then I thought it would be easier if you could somehow put the patch inside the hole, because then the oil would actually be holding the patch against the hole instead of trying to peel it off with pressure.

So I thought of how you could get a patch into a hole when you're on the outside and you want the patch on the inside.  I was thinking about how you can shove a rifle barrel cleaning rod down a rifle barrel with a tight patch on it, but if you shove it too far and it comes out into the chamber, the patch expands and it's really hard to get it back into the barrel again to pull it out.  Then I thought if the patch was mechanical and opened up once it made it through the hole, that would be like a patch on a rifle cleaning rod, and the force of the oil trying to escape would actually drive it back against the inside of the hole, spreading the umbrella out and making it stay that way.

Realizing that the hole isn't in the side of the pipe but coming out of a broken limiter valve that is partially closed, I thought that perhaps the umbrella could open up and block the opening entirely, once it was shoved past the limiter and then opened.

I don't know if it is possible; you'd have to build it out of some stern stuff, shove it down like you were sinking a drilling rig, with remote controls to operate the umbrella arms.

But I was also thinking that something like this would work for stopping leaks in city water pipes and that sort of thing too, with a smaller umbrella.  You could even use it to tap a pipe while it was in use, without shutting it off.  Just mount the umbrella thing on a pipe, pierce the pipe you want to tap, shove it in, open it, and secure the new pipe to the old one with cement or welding or whatever.  Like a toggle bolt works; once it is shoved through a hole, it spreads out and can be tightened down.

I just think of things like this sometimes.  I'm not an engineer, I'm a programmer.  I get paid to think of new ways to do stuff, and I guess I'm somewhat good at it.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 31, 2010)

I'm a programmer too, but I figure that this problem is either too complex for your approach, or mechanically unfeasible. For example, if I understand your approach correctly, you'd have to insert something up the well, but you're pushing in against the stream. The lining of the well may be very rough, and maybe not even run 100% straight. It may be impossible to block up the well like this, nevermind making the (untested) equipment and getting it ready. Btw, how deep is the well? A slender beam / pole of any significant length pushing against a thick liquid will fold / crumple if it is too long.

We may like to dump on BP for their decisions, but I don't think for a moment that their engineers are stupid. They are probably the most experienced people in this area, and I am willing to bet that if BP engineers could think of anything doable, they'd have done it by now.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 31, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I'm a programmer too, but I figure that this problem is either too complex for your approach, or mechanically unfeasible. For example, if I understand your approach correctly, you'd have to insert something up the well, but you're pushing in against the stream. The lining of the well may be very rough, and maybe not even run 100% straight. It may be impossible to block up the well like this, nevermind making the (untested) equipment and getting it ready. Btw, how deep is the well? A slender beam / pole of any significant length pushing against a thick liquid will fold / crumple if it is too long.



The blowout prevent, as I understand it, looks like this:

http://www.treesfullofmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/blow-out-preventer-diagram.png

The oil is coming out the top, and the valves on the blowout preventer did not not fully close.  The well head is 18,000 feet down (too deep for manned submarines too, btw).

So the 'umbrella' would have to be long, slender, and strong.  Fortunately, materials are stronger longways than shortways.  Think of a thin rapier sword piercing a person.  Do it on an angle and the blade bends.  Do it straight in, and it doesn't.  The trick is to keep it straight.  And since the umbrella would be closed going in, there would be less pressure pushing it up and out than there would be once it was opened inside the blowout preventer.



> We may like to dump on BP for their decisions, but I don't think for a moment that their engineers are stupid. They are probably the most experienced people in this area, and I am willing to bet that if BP engineers could think of anything doable, they'd have done it by now.



I have not dumped on anyone, let alone the BP engineers.  This is a tragedy, and it is beginning to appear that there were a chain of errors on the part of management that led to this situation; if anyone, I would tend to blame management, not the engineers.

As to the solutions their own engineers can provide, I don't doubt they're smart.  And experienced, yes.  But that can be a downside.  Once a person is very well versed in using a hammer, everything looks like a nail; know what I mean?  They have tons of procedures and engineering understanding for things that they have done before; they don't generally innovate on the fly, they plan and test over a long period of time.  This is a situation they don't find themselves in often, and it requires outside-the-box thinking.  I'm sure they can figure it out themselves, but in the meantime, lots of minds who are not in this discipline can also give it some thought, and there might be some original thinking that comes to the fore and might work to solve the problem.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 31, 2010)

Even a rapier is fairly 'thick' for the purposes of lengthwise pressure. If you want to reach the well head and go in, you have a width / length ratio that is insanely slender. It would also be affected by the undercurrents, you'd have to build it on-site and guide it down. I remember from structural engineering classes that slenderness can be expressed mathematically, and that past a certain point, the structure will collapse no matter what you try.

I agree that the idea is sound in principle. I just don't see it practically feasible. To be honest, it would have been a good idea if this scenario had been though out beforehand, and critical infrastructure like an emergency well cap put in place.

Btw the 'dumping on BP' comment was not targeted at you personally, it was just a remark in general towards the reporting in the media.


----------



## elder999 (May 31, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I still say nuke it. That way, there is one less nuke to keep track of (saves money).


 

There are real, substantive, and _time consuming_ difficuties there. All five Russian wells that were capped with nukes were, in fact, underground, and not deepsea wells.They were also _burning gas wells, in gas fields_, not gushing oil-a real and substantive difference.

 The deepest underwater nuclear detonation ever occurred in 1955, when we were still pursuing the notion of nuclear depth charges and torpedos. It was at a depth of about 2,000 ft. The well itself is 5,000 ft. below the Gulf's surface. We'd have to reengineer a weapon to withstand the pressure of the depth-greater than 2500psi ., in this case (2500 lbs.= 5,000 ft., give or take, and I'm assuming that the technique will require a somewhat greater depth). Not only that, but the well is gushing at about 9000 psi-which is why it's overcoming the water pressure and spewing out, so actually getting a weapon directly into it may well be technologically unfeasible. A detonation will probably require drilling another shaft parallel or at an angle to the well itself.

Of course, _all of that's being worked out as we speak,_ so when all other options have been exhausted, and we've spewed more than 140 million gallons into the water, we'll have our solution of last resort.

Elegant idea, Bill-


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 31, 2010)

Pressure would not be a problem I think.
Sink the nuke in a diving bell. If a diving bell can reach the bottom of the mariana trench intact, it should have no problem reaching the well. And for the purposes of detonation results, I would think the casing (bell or not) is irrelevant. I mean I can see why this wouldn't work for a torpedo, but for a simple 'sink, steer and trigger' without time pressure (compared to the war time use of a torpedo) it might do the trick.

Granted, getting it inside the well is not really feasible afaict, but if it is detonated near the well opening, wouldn't the shockwave collapse the entire well?
I don't know how deep the well is, but your suggestion of drilling a second pipe, wouldn't that risk rupturing the plateau open (outwards) compared to an external detonation where the pressure is inwards (from the pov of the well)?


----------



## elder999 (May 31, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Granted, getting it inside the well is not really feasible afaict, but if it is detonated near the well opening, wouldn't the shockwave collapse the entire well?


 
That's *not* the technique-the technique is actual placement in the well or in a parallel shaft-both of which would require the exposure or the device, and it's _*instrumentation*_ to pressure. Maybe  a nearby detonation would collapse the well, maybe it wouldn't, but even the Russian technique only has an 80% success rate (4/5). 

This isn't exactly something we want to do and have it not work, now is it?


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 31, 2010)

elder999 said:


> This isn't exactly something we want to do and have it not work, now is it?



Depends on the risk and the consequences of failure.
If a failed attempt does not carry significant consequences, I'd nuke asap. If, otoh it would have the risk of making an even bigger hole for the oil to come out, I'd be more hesitant. That is why I'd go for a 'surface' blast first.

That said, I am an armchair quarterback in this discussion without access to a supercomputer and decent simulation software.


----------



## elder999 (May 31, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> If a failed attempt does not carry significant consequences, I'd nuke asap. If, otoh it would have the risk of making an even bigger hole for the oil to come out, I'd be more hesitant. That is why I'd go for a 'surface' blast first.


 
And, actually, a surface blast would be more likely to make an even bigger hole for the oilt to come out-this is fundamental dynamics.....


----------



## dancingalone (May 31, 2010)

Just from a public perception viewpoint I would imagine a nuclear detonation would be among the last preferred solutions that Obama WH would care for.  Regardless of the actual efficacy of the remedy.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 31, 2010)

elder999 said:


> And, actually, a surface blast would be more likely to make an even bigger hole for the oilt to come out-this is fundamental dynamics.....



How so?

I mean with a surface blast, all pressure is towards the well / bottom of the ocean, which imo is likely to collapse everything in on itself. Everything goes 'down'. With a burried nuke, part of the blast goes down / sideways, but the other part of the blast will go up and take a whole lot of bedrock with it, like in the youtube clip I posted.

Don't get me wrong I am not doubting you. You seem to know a lot about weaponry. I am just wondering about the mechanics of the situation.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 31, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Just from a public perception viewpoint I would imagine a nuclear detonation would be among the last preferred solutions that Obama WH would care for.  Regardless of the actual efficacy of the remedy.



Why? If that would be a surefire way to end the spill, wouldn't that be much preferable compared to another x weeks of pouring oil? I'd think that 1 successful attempt would be better in public opinion than a string of failed ones.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 31, 2010)

Depending on the geology of the field, a nuke blast could be very bad.  Even sinking it into another shaft could blow off the overlying strata and make the problem nightmarishly worse.  A nuke isn't a simple solution, it's a desperate gamble that contends with all kinds of serious risks, both known and unknown.

Back to the discussion of alternative energy, no single or combination of renewable technologies will ever be able to ramp up to the level of fossil fuels.  The gigantic, centralized, power plants that we are so accustomed, are only possible because of the attributes of various fossil fuels.  They are portable, they are high in energy, and they are relatively cheap to get out of the ground.

Alternative energy technologies could work very well on a decentralized platform where property owners can purchase various implements cheaply and install them.  This would reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and the people's dependence on large centralized power plants.  Politically, this is a hard sell because the large corporations have every intention of keeping things centralized and maintaining their monopoly.


----------



## dancingalone (May 31, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Why? If that would be a surefire way to end the spill, wouldn't that be much preferable compared to another x weeks of pouring oil? I'd think that 1 successful attempt would be better in public opinion than a string of failed ones.



Sure, if we're being rational.  Last time I checked, the environmental lobby in the USA can be quite irrational at times.  Nukes are a dirty word to many.  Adding a nuclear blast to the oil spill could be quite incendiary politically even if it's thought to be a good solution.


----------



## elder999 (May 31, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Depending on the geology of the field, a nuke blast could be very bad. Even sinking it into another shaft could blow off the overlying strata and make the problem nightmarishly worse. A nuke isn't a simple solution, it's a desperate gamble that contends with all kinds of serious risks, both known and unknown..


 


The geology of the field is likely a known quantity in this instance, based on surveys of the field prior to drilling, and core samples from the drilling itself-all data kept by BP, and rather scrupulously maintained by all oil companies. Doesn't eliminate all the risks, but one example of where they'd be minimized-or they could possibly eliminate the nuclear option, though I have reason to doubt that.......



maunakumu said:


> , Alternative energy technologies could work very well on a decentralized platform where property owners can purchase various implements cheaply and install them. This would reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and the people's dependence on large centralized power plants. Politically, this is a hard sell because the large corporations have every intention of keeping things centralized and maintaining their monopoly.


 
They also could work very well in the original Edisonian model, with community based centralization.


----------



## elder999 (May 31, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> How so?
> 
> I mean with a surface blast, all pressure is towards the well / bottom of the ocean, which imo is likely to collapse everything in on itself. Everything goes 'down'. With a burried nuke, part of the blast goes down / sideways, but the other part of the blast will go up and take a whole lot of bedrock with it, like in the youtube clip I posted.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I am not doubting you. You seem to know a lot about weaponry. I am just wondering about the mechanics of the situation.


 
I don't really  know a lot about weaponry at all. It's not really about weapons; it's about _physics_ 

All explosive reactions can be quantified using the equations of fluid dynamics, and, basically, Newton's laws.

An explosion itself, though, especially a nuclear one, is not necessarily directional-in the case of a nuclear explosion, it's quite spherical, with equal amounts of energy expended in each direction.

Naturally, a surface detonation would result in a portion of the energy of the explosion being reflected away from the surface-this in spite of the relatively high energy in the form of heat from the initial blast. 

While the combination of the thermal release of energy and the blast shockwave might seal off the well, most of the energy really wouldn't be directed where it should be: at the complete collapse of the well itself along a good portion of its length.

To accomplish this, the shockwave of the blast should be on a lateral plane to the shaft itself; a surface blast would be longitudinal to the well shaft, and thus, less efficacious-indeed, far less energy would impact the shaft itself in this fashion, with the majority spreading along the seabed and up into the water itself. This is, of course, not the case for an instance where the munition (which would be the proper term in this instance, rather than "weapon") is placed within the shaft itself, or in an adjacent drilling. I don't think I need to explain the within the shaft model, but in an adjacent shaft we can clearly see that closer to half the shockwave would be expended along some length of the shaft itself, depending upon the radius of the shockwave and the proximity of the munition to the shaft.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 31, 2010)

Perhaps we can stuff the hole full of the bodies of all the dead wildlife this is likely to cause. 

:/


----------



## Makalakumu (May 31, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Perhaps we can stuff the hole full of the bodies of all the dead wildlife this is likely to cause.
> 
> :/



Heh, stuff it full of politicians...


----------



## kaizasosei (May 31, 2010)

Never heard of a shapedcharging a nuke with all the heat but never given it much thought. I was thinking along the lines of creating some kind of pressure zone, but i can't see it working.  

I'm not sure but something tells me the devastation would be worse and who knows what a nuke would do in that kind of environment. Well, with all the freaky bikini tests, i guess they probably do know that to some extent but i wonder if it's possible to quantify the source of the oil.

How about syphoning the source with many vents untill it it all starts to flow in the desired direction.?? 

j


----------



## elder999 (May 31, 2010)

kaizasosei said:


> Never heard of a shapedcharging a nuke with all the heat but never given it much thought. I was thinking along the lines of creating some kind of pressure zone, but i can't see it working.
> j


 

Nuclear munitions can be collimated to something less than a 30 degree spread-at least, it's been done, but I don't know that that's at all what's planned-it would be interesting, in that it would demonstrate that we had something in the arsenal that hadn't been accounted for. Of course, there are enough people working on the problem that they might be able to reengineer something within a matter of weeks......I dunno...my father-in law might, since he worked on nuclear propulsion back in the late 50's.In any case, while collimation might be part of the solution, everything I said about a lateral detonation still applies for the desired effect, as does everything I said about countering the effects of such depths: even in a diving bell, a device would be subjected to conditions that might be adverse to detonation.


----------



## kaizasosei (May 31, 2010)

> Nuclear munitions can be collimated to something less than a 30 degree  spread-at least, it's been done,



Interesting.  Isn't that a higher proportion of concentrated energy than a regular shaped charge?

Is the aim of the lateral detonation to collapse the area upon itself?

I think the navy will definitely come up with.. something.


j


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 31, 2010)

Why cant cargo or transport ships with large oil tanks in their holds, be used to suck up the oil on the surface? Using simple oil pumps, like they do on land, to pump oil into the tanks and then the ships come back, swap their full tanks for empty ones, and go back for more oil.

To me this is a simple thing the Coast Guard can do. Does not take the more scarce oil tankers but simple cargo ships. AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE A MONTH AGO!!!!

Surely with all the money the government throws around they could rent a few cargo ships!!!


----------



## elder999 (May 31, 2010)

kaizasosei said:


> Interesting. Isn't that a higher proportion of concentrated energy than a regular shaped charge?


 
The energy concentration of conventional shaped charges is confined to the mechanical shape of the chevron, the conical liner of the charge. 

Collimation is more of an optical or energetic process-think of the energy as being focused through a magnifying glass-that's an oversimplification, but all I'm really prepared to say. 

In fact, though, it's safe to say that the reflection I posited for a seabed detonation is a form of collimation, not unlike the proposed nuclear space propulsion system from the 50's and 60's, which would have employed a large reflective plate and nuclear detonations.



kaizasosei said:


> Is the aim of the lateral detonation to collapse the area upon itself?


 
Precisely.


Didn't _anybody_ see _Armageddon?_ THe whole drilling premise was actually halfway decent science......


----------



## MA-Caver (May 31, 2010)

Lots of great ideas lots of speculation... we're only bystanders one and all that sees what SHOULD be done but don't know what CAN be done in terms of actually making things work. No offense to anyone here but... well... you know what I mean. Besides... they probably wouldn't listen to our ideas if we sent them their way anyhow. 
And how long before the next idea get implemented? 

Meanwhile thousands of gallons of noxious crude oil is still being pumped into the open gulf waters.


----------



## elder999 (May 31, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> Lots of great ideas lots of speculation... we're only bystanders one and all that sees what SHOULD be done but don't know what CAN be done in terms of actually making things work. No offense to anyone here but... well... you know what I mean. Besides... they probably wouldn't listen to our ideas if we sent them their way anyway.


 
Actually, if you look here, you'll see that my speculation is well informed. In fact, I can say that there's quite a bit more than "five physicists" working on an _interesting_ solution........one that should be avoided, I think....


----------



## kaizasosei (May 31, 2010)

The oil is gushing out like a wound, at great pressure!! and for the other idea what i failed to realize is the sheer volume of the oil although i still favor it over the nuke and it would save the damn **** too.

It can't hurt to consider some ideas..who knows, you know the hundredth monkey theory?



j


----------



## shesulsa (May 31, 2010)

I just watched a very disappointing interview with some engineers and scientists including Bill Nye.  I didn't hear them discuss a single great idea for ending the problem, rather they expressed dismay that some kind of backup plan or repair plan was not waiting in the wings for such a tragedy.  

While the others lamented that we don't have good scientists in this country and wished to encourage any young people in the educational process watching the program, Nye encouraged the influx of all ideas even if uneducated ones.

*sigh*


----------



## Big Don (Jun 1, 2010)

shesulsa said:


> I just watched a very disappointing interview with some engineers and scientists including Bill Nye.  I didn't hear them discuss a single great idea for ending the problem, rather they expressed dismay that some kind of backup plan or repair plan was not waiting in the wings for such a tragedy.
> 
> While the others lamented that we don't have good scientists in this country and wished to encourage any young people in the educational process watching the program, Nye encouraged the influx of all ideas even if uneducated ones.
> 
> *sigh*


I've seen a lot of coverage, but, little of it included "Outside the box" thinking about solving the problem, a good 90% seemed little more than lamenting the horrible event.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 1, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Actually, if you look here, you'll see that my speculation is well informed. In fact, I can say that there's quite a bit more than "five physicists" working on an _interesting_ solution........one that should be avoided, I think....


Well I DID say "no offense intended to anyone"... and I did say LOTS of GOOD ideas... either way... what really needs to have a LID put on it is this bullcrap right here!... 





> President Obama accused BP and its contractors of *falling over each  other to point the finger of blame at someone else,*


 How about they just forget WHO'S to blame until AFTER the damned leak is fixed and THEN start pointing fingers. At this juncture it doesn't matter WHO is at fault ... just fix the damned thing and then look around to who will pay for it afterwards. 
However it happened it happened... the main priority right now is to fix the problem *then* look for where the responsibility lies...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 1, 2010)

Big Don said:


> I've seen a lot of coverage, but, little of it included "Outside the box" thinking about solving the problem, a good 90% seemed little more than lamenting the horrible event.



On a side note, related to the discussion, but only tangentially.  Our schools have been killing creativity.  Don, your observation is spot on and par for the course.


----------



## kaizasosei (Jun 1, 2010)

In the meantime... i just tweaked the busted jack on my mp3 by cleverly stuffing it with just the right pieces of tinfoil~stereo is back on line!  Real solid! Sweetness! 

 ?-I don't know why but around 15 min ago i just got up and went to go look for the foil without the mp3 being even close(it's been messed up for months)..-i think the creativity is  catching ,or something.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 1, 2010)

shesulsa said:


> I just watched a very disappointing interview with some engineers and scientists including Bill Nye. I didn't hear them discuss a single great idea for ending the problem, rather they expressed dismay that some kind of backup plan or repair plan was not waiting in the wings for such a tragedy.
> 
> While the others lamented that we don't have good scientists in this country and wished to encourage any young people in the educational process watching the program, Nye encouraged the influx of all ideas even if uneducated ones.
> 
> *sigh*


 
The problem is that this problem is somewhat unprecedented. Additionally, the backup would have been a redundancy that our government signed off on not being necessary for this particular well-after the backflow preventer blew, there was no other engineered safeguard in place. 

Here's an article that has the broad strokes:



> As BP and other oil companies have drilled wells as far as 10,000 feet down in the Gulf, they have continued to use key safety systems that are largely the same as those used in shallower water &#8212; safety systems that have failed in the past.
> 
> One thing has been clear from the start: The blowout preventer, a safety device connecting the pipe from the rig to the well on the Gulf floor, failed to seal off the well after the explosion, as designed.
> 
> ...


 

So, we're really left with reengineering solutions that have succeeeded on the surface or at shallower depths for this kind of event, or coming up with something novel, but 5,000 ft. below the surface may as well be in outer space............

As far as a nuclear solution goes, it would likely be a last ditch effort of a government takeover of the problem, and the biggest obstacle to using it might well be that it's potentially a violation of existing test ban treaties, and we'd have to get a sign off on it from the international community.


----------



## wushuguy (Jun 1, 2010)

i don't know if this has been mentioned, or if my thoughts are just too "untechnically realistic" but if they put a tanker with tube/pipe slightly larger than the 20 inch leaking pipe to let the gushing oil flow into the tanker instead of the gulf while they try to add a shut off valve? Kind of like adding a hose to a flowing faucet to redirect the water. there might still be some leakage but it should be much less... I think salvaging some of the black stuff would be useful if it's possible.


----------

