Jump to content

Drill, baby, DRILL!


Recommended Posts

Virtually meaningless to most people. All but experts will just use that to validate their preconceived notions of how good/bad the situation is.

 

 

 

Hell, I couldn't even give you a rough order-of-magnitude estimate with that clip, and I actually know something about fluid dynamics. I doubt there are any "experts" at estimating high pressure oil leaks from broken pipes a mile under the ocean at 150 atmospheres pressure. Basically...we don't know. Simple as that. We just don't know.

 

25000 barrels/day doesn't exactly pass the smell test, though. But then, well production isn't the same as oil gushing from an unsecured hole in the ground, either.

 

 

That is what it was to me, no concept of scale. Even if I knew it, is this even the main leak? Well, I just hope they get it stopped. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 261
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Looks like BP isn't worried about it.

link

 

This is no reflection on you, but the BP exec's position is by far the dumbest, most ignorant, and irresponsibile comment concerning this incident to date. No other comment comes close. For so many reasons. BP should muzzle this guy before he says anything else.

 

You know, one teaspoon full of clostridium botulinum can kill over a billion people. I wonder how he'd feel if that little old teaspoon of toxin should end up in his huge built-in swimming pool. I mean what's a teaspoon compared to a couple thousand gallons of water?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BP is notorious for oil leaks at prudhoe bay caused by lack of maintenance. And that's a above ground pipe.

No reflection on me is right. I expressed my opinion on BP two weeks ago. I honestly think they believe America is still the colony's, to be exploited regardless of consequence's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I haven't touched on in this thread is the possibility of using a suitcase nuke to close the well. I have seen it suggested tons and was sorta confused why they didn't. I had vague recollections of that being used in the past, but assumed I was wrong. Turns out I was half right. This technique was used in the past, by the Russians, but to seal off natural gas wells.

 

So we are discussing this over lunch and this guy who is probably DCTom's cousin chimes in, "Yes, but you realize the plate in the gulf of mexico is thinner, as a huge meteor hit there millions of years ago, there is a distinct possibility it could crack into the whole oil reserve."

 

Is that even remotely correct? It sounds plausible, but none of the articles I pulled up on a quick Google search referenced a thin plate. Also, if that is complete ****, why don't they just nuke the damn thing?

 

Mystified in Memphis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I haven't touched on in this thread is the possibility of using a suitcase nuke to close the well. I have seen it suggested tons and was sorta confused why they didn't. I had vague recollections of that being used in the past, but assumed I was wrong. Turns out I was half right. This technique was used in the past, by the Russians, but to seal off natural gas wells.

 

So we are discussing this over lunch and this guy who is probably DCTom's cousin chimes in, "Yes, but you realize the plate in the gulf of mexico is thinner, as a huge meteor hit there millions of years ago, there is a distinct possibility it could crack into the whole oil reserve."

 

Is that even remotely correct? It sounds plausible, but none of the articles I pulled up on a quick Google search referenced a thin plate. Also, if that is complete ****, why don't they just nuke the damn thing?

 

Mystified in Memphis

 

My cousin's an idiot. :unsure:

 

Generally, setting off deep-sea nukes is bad for costal zones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My cousin's an idiot. :unsure:

 

Generally, setting off deep-sea nukes is bad for costal zones.

 

I should direct him here, that would be an epic thread that is a win/win for me. In any case, a suit case nuke is worse than 4 million+ (is it me or is that figure stuck there?) gallons of oil? If you say yes for now, I buy it, but what about 2 months from now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should direct him here, that would be an epic thread that is a win/win for me. In any case, a suit case nuke is worse than 4 million+ (is it me or is that figure stuck there?) gallons of oil? If you say yes for now, I buy it, but what about 2 months from now?

 

Yes. The nuke alone, you're talking about trashing the entire gulf coast with very big waves. Then add an oil slick.

 

Plus the idea on its own ignores the engineering realities of the problem (such as: it's not just a damn hole in the ground that's leaking, it's a broken equipment that's leaking, or that a "suitcase nuke" isn't necessarily engineered to even survive, much less detonate 5000 feet underwater.

 

"Nuclear" isn't synonymous with "magic". Really. It's not as simple as dropping a small nuke onto the hole. You do actually have to put some thought into using them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...