It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Anyone watching the BP spill feed- confirm?

page: 22
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in


posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:32 AM
Well, regarding the financial liability cap, Jeff Sessions, senator from Alabama, reminded us this morning on Morning Joe that BP has already sworn, and under oath, that they are financially responsible for this incomparable disaster and will foot the bill.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that companies, particularly with the assets and power of BP, won't finagle their way out of self-expressed responsibility and reposition this liability on taxpayers, but they did make the claim.

I can't imagine ANYone, regardless of political ideology or capitalist/environmental stance, is going to permit BP to stay within the cap. Even BP, evil company (by definition) that they are, would not permit it.

Also remember the assets of BP. The cap, for BP, is like a nickel to you and me ... literally.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Old_RSA
Please excuse my ignorance. I don't know if this has been mentioned before or not, as I have been following the other thread before it was closed.

There are tons and tons of methane gas leaking out... obviously from a rather large supply under the ocean floor.... There has been talk of nukes, explosions, etc. to stop the leak... Surely somebody must have gathered that methane is highly explosive and flammable, and if you ignite the stuff (which is open to the rather large supply under the seabed), then it is quite possible that we would have a rather large explosion?

I am on the other side of the globe, so it might not affect me too much, but surely somebody should have thought of this before. How big must an explosion be to knock our planet a bit off its course?

I don't know the answers, was just wondering....

What is leaking is probably natural gas, which is, in fact, a mixture containing about 75% CH4, 15% ethane (C2H6), and 5% other hydrocarbons, such as propane (C3H8) and butane (C4H10). Methane is combustible, but it requires an oxidizer such as atmospheric oxygen in an approximate 7:1 to 20:1 ratio. There is no free oxygen underwater so combustion will not be supported there.
The answer to your second question depends on your definition of the word "bit". The Earth has a mass of about 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg. That's 6x10^24. To change its orbit, you have to change the angular momentum by some amount. That is a form of acceleration, and as Dr. Newton taught us, F=MA. So, a "bit" of force accelerates the Earth 1/(6x10^24) of a bit. Now burning methane with oxygen releases about 2oMJ/kg energy and that's not a huge amount. Now to move a resting earth 1 foot would take moving 1 earth mass 1 foot the other way. Now, a 42 gallon barrel has about 5 cubic feet of interior volume, or roughly a half cubic meter. So, at 1.9kg/m^3 density of methane and about 1.35 kg/m^3 for air, you'd have to have an explosion that would push about 3x10^24 barrels of a ch4/air mixture a foot. But that's for an earth at rest. The Earth's angular momentum is 2.663x1040 kgm2s-1. That's not a bit. It's a bunch. How big a bunch? Think in terms of a gnat's fart derailing a speeding locomotive,

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:49 AM
reply to post by billyjack

Absolutely 100% uninformed and wrong. In a normal situation they back fill with "mud" the gaps and open space created by the release of oil. I probably should not even ask.. but here goes... Why would you say something that is 100% wrong? That is like me telling you that your monitor does not plug into your PC.. It is common knowledge that that is 100% wrong.. I would be a bafoon and fool for even saying this obvious incorrect statement. Now what you said somewhat applies to the extraction of sand oil.. But we are not talking about sand oil.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:56 AM
reply to post by 4nsicphd

You are correct, but the gas doesn't have to "ignite" to have an explosion. The gas is dissolved in liquid form at that depth, but it isn't very stable. If it is disturbed it could change to its gas phase in an instant. Imagine an overflowing soda bottle the size of the Gulf of Mexico!?!?!

Now, to make matters worse. There are controlled burns on the surface of the water. So imagine all that fizzy Gas and water igniting! Then, as if the expansion of all that gas, and the ignition of it weren't bad enough, we have the potential energy of all that steam that would be generated, and then we would have the immediate implosion of all that sea water collapsing back upon itself.
The first bubble of expanding methane gas was responsible for all the mechanical damage, and then the actual ignition at the rig caused the ensuing fire.

Methane eruptions and ensuing explosions are not uncommon, and they are always devastating! Read below for the amount of possible devastation!!

What caused the worst mass extinction in Earth's history 251 million years ago? This event is one of the most catastrophic in life's history: the P/T extinction.

A Northwestern University chemical engineer believes the culprit may be an enormous explosion of methane (natural gas) erupting from the ocean depths. This explanation is closer to the inverse of an external impact, like an asteroid, and more like a disgorging of trapped energy that erupts from deep below the oceans. Such a global catastrophe has a more local precedent, as a similar eruption happened in Africa at Lake Nyos in 1986, killing 1700 people and rippling as far away as 25 kilometers.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:00 AM
reply to post by getreadyalready

Exactly. Believe it or not, the methane is probably worse than the oil itself in the long run.

I've collected the data in this thread:

Gulf spill: is the methane a bigger problem than the oil?

It's probably easier to read going backwards, as I was able to find more things directly focussed on the methane more recently. The earlier posts are more general background material. In a nutshell, there are valid estimates of over 8 billion cubic feet of methane released so far, the methane either dissolves when there is no oxygen left, or is broken down into CO2 and water, in either case it's been killing the gulf through anoxia. It also will be effecting global warming significantly, either directly (20X more than CO2) or indirectly as additional CO2.

It's not a pretty picture.

The gas field that's leakinng contains over a trillion cubic feet of methane by all estimates. That's what they were after in the first place.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by apacheman]

[edit on 26-5-2010 by apacheman]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:08 AM
I'm just getting back to this, anyone know what we are looking at now?

I'm watching the bp feed and looking at a pipe with brown stuff coming out, some scissors at the bottom of the screen, oh and now an eel casually swimming through this stuff, cool!

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:15 AM
reply to post by VioletDawn

Yea that eel was crazy, it just swam right up to the oil spew and checked it out! I thought this feed was on a loop until I saw that little guy.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:43 AM

Originally posted by TwoTechnics
reply to post by VioletDawn

Yea that eel was crazy, it just swam right up to the oil spew and checked it out! I thought this feed was on a loop until I saw that little guy.

It's kinda neat to be able to see the bottom of the gulf like this. I've had the feed play on my second monitor continuously for over 2 days now. It's fascinating. Too bad they don't have some kind of ticker to let us know what we are seeing from time to time. That crazy thing that happened yesterday, I still don't know if that was just a test that was causing all that debris, or if the seabed caved in a bit.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:48 AM

Originally posted by DogsDogsDogs
Per Company Man 1 on the forum

"I want eveyone to listen & listen good. If they decide not to pump that job today, then it means only one thing, that well is flowing much more than 40,000 Bbls./ day & they know they can't get enough rate through their hoses & don't have enough horse power to get the rate they need. That would make the analysis of the professor from Purdue correct. There is nothing else to analize. Everything else such as function testing of the valves, etc. should have been done already.
Originally Posted by KoKoMo
So....just watched Tony Hayward's interview on CNN. Sounds like there was trouble with the diagnostics last night and they will continue this AM and then, later today, he will make the final decision on whether to go ahead with the Top Kill. Anybody know what kind of problems they ran into?"

"they're pumping guys. they're pumping."

"They're getting close now.Should start seeing the plume completely go brown, then start getting smaller if this is good."

So it's started. (which I assume means they think it's do-able/ they found nothing to rule it out- and we should know by now if they could have come up with a reason to stall, they would have)
Prayers and/ or good intentions would help.

So where is it??

I went to bed for 5 hours.. woke up to see the Top Kill stuff seems to be gone and I see no pumping - What happened?

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by getreadyalready

Right, this is what I've been wondering about for awhile now since I've heard about the leak/spill. Damn scarry though if all that methane ignites on an open well.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:50 AM
Maybe someone can help me out with my math.

If the pipe is 5" then the area of the pipe opening is 19.63 sq inches
the weight of 1 atmosphere at sea level is 14.7 pounds per Sq inch
So the weight of the atmosphere on a 5" pipe at sea level is 288.561 pounds.
We assume that the leak is 5000' below sea level.

A depth of 5,000 feet is equivalent to 151.5 atmospheres.
(every 33 feet below sea level = 1 Atmosphere.)

Therefore the weight of a column of water 5" in diameter, 1 mile below sea level is 43,716.99 pounds.

So even with a weight of nearly 44,000 pounds bearing down on it, the force of the oil and gas is still enough to burst out of the end of the pipe with enormous force.

Please correct me if I have made a mistake in my calculations....It's been a long time since I opened a math book.

[edit on 5/26/2010 by Sparky63]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:56 AM
reply to post by Sparky63

Your math is exactly correct! Actually better than some of the news channels have been doing.

Reportedly the pipe has positive pressure of about 30psi, which means all that pressure that you figured, plus another 30 psi (or 2 atm). That means the total pressure out of the pipe is aver 2400 psi, in a 5 inch pipe! That is alot of pressure, and there is no way this top kill stuff is going to work. Their knotted rope idea had a slight chance, assuming they can blast it in with enough pressure, and get lucky enough that it will catch a hold of something on the way out. I hope they try that soon, I don't understand all of their delays?

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by getreadyalready

Somewhere in the thread I cited above there's a post about the pipes (21" OD, btw) being good for 10,500 psi, but the well pressure was 13,300 psi or so, and that is what blew it out.

So the pressure out is extremely high, far higher than expected. So I don't think the "top kill" will work.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:10 AM
Some one please correct me if I am wrong, but are we not looking at a broken pipe which is allowing crude oil to flow out into the ocean?

There should be a way to "carry" a saw of some type down by one of the robots which the oil company is using to cut the pipe out to a clean end.

They could then send down a pipe larger than the one in place and put it over this pipe. Once in place they would start to pump up the oil and sea water to lessen the amount leaking into the ocean. The larger pipe would also have an inflatable seal inside which would help to seal the pipe once every thing is in place.

This is the same thing which I have done, though not at this depth, to fix my own plumbing problems. The stuff to do it is even available at Wal-Mart

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by hdutton

This pipe we are looking at is the overflow/bypass pipe from the well head riser. It would do no good to attempt to plug this end.The repair has to be done at the riser. It is my understanding that this pipe end we are looking at is quite a distance away fro the damaged riser.

I may be wrong though. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I have a feeling I might be way off base. If so please help me understand the real layout. CNN 's graphics don't tell the whole picture.

[edit on 5/26/2010 by Sparky63]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:34 AM

Originally posted by hdutton
This is the same thing which I have done, though not at this depth, to fix my own plumbing problems. The stuff to do it is even available at Wal-Mart

FWIW: I like your concept of the "sleeved" approach much more than the failed "domes." However it is important to remember the diameter of the pipe is reported to be 21" and 5,000 feet below the surface. What aisle are those on at Walmart?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:10 PM
Here is another graphic of the TOP KILL procedure from BP's website.

My picture is cut off...You can see the whole graphic on BP's website.

[edit on 5/26/2010 by Sparky63]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:57 PM
According to BP's website they are already have 2 relief wells within 1/2 mile of the Helix Q4000 recovery drill. I knew about 1 but I didn't know they had two in operation. Evidently they are still running diagnostics before they attempt the Top Kill Procedure.

This graphic shows the magnitude of simultaneous activities occurring between the sea surface and the sea floor to bring the Deepwater Horizon oil well under control, stop the flow and contain the oil subsea. Two thousand people, multiple surface vessels and up to 16 Remote Operated Vehicles along the seabed are progressing the work.

Here is another larger graphic that shows the general location of all the components on the sea floor. This is a high resolution graphic.

This clearly shows that the pipe we are watching in the video is the broken end of the recovery tube. Note that the recovery tube is kinked just above the riser and there is also oil leaking from the kinked section.

[edit on 5/26/2010 by Sparky63]

[edit on 5/26/2010 by Sparky63]

[edit on 5/26/2010 by Sparky63]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:25 PM
I found this interesting:

BP, MMS saw no need for blowout plan
Firm, agency considered problem highly unlikely

When it approved BP's 2009 plan to start an exploratory well 50 miles off the Louisiana coast -- the same well that is now spewing millions of gallons of crude into the Gulf -- the federal agency that oversees oil drilling assumed there would be little risk of a well blowout and likely no death to marine life if an accident were to happen.

BP estimated that in the worst case, a blowout at the well would spew out 162,000 barrels of oil every day, a massive figure that far exceeds any estimate of what is coming out now.

But in its exploration plan in March 2009, BP assured the federal Minerals Management Service that a well blowout was so unlikely that "a blowout scenario ... is not required for the operations proposed."

MMS then granted BP a "categorical exclusion" from a public review of the potential environmental impact of the drilling.

That was in line with the general view of MMS that a blowout was nothing to be feared. Before the lease of the oilfields in 2008, the MMS wrote a generic Environmental Impact Statement for the entire northern and western Gulf of Mexico that made the catastrophic well blowout that happened April 20 seem like a near impossibility.

MMS produced its blanket Environmental Impact Statement for 11 proposed leases, mostly off the Louisiana and Texas coasts. One of those planned sales was Lease Sale 206, which gave BP the right to drill at what is known as Mississippi Canyon 252 with a Transocean oil rig called Deepwater Horizon.

The MMS assessed everything from the possible impact of noise on marine life to the specific vulnerabilities of sea turtles and sturgeon, but through it all, the agency assumed any oil that might be spilled would be minimal and any leak would be quickly shut off.

The document states that small oil spills and leaks from pipelines and ships are relatively common and have little effect on the environment. In fact, thousands of natural seeps in the sea floor combine to pump much more oil into the Gulf of Mexico each year than the current manmade leak has produced, but they are spread all over the sea in amounts that quickly dissipate, according to the study.

When it comes to the type of oil well blowout that happened April 20, MMS was downright dismissive. The agency determined that fewer than six of every 10,000 wells would have a blowout that caused any oil to spill. Blowouts are "rare events of short duration," the study stated, and "the infrequent subsurface blowout that may occur on the Gulf OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) would have a negligible effect on commercial fishing."

That paved the way for BP to assert that its plans for drilling in Lease Sale 206 posed no real dangers.

After stating that 162,000 barrels a day is the worst-case scenario from a blowout of the well, BP certifies that it "has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge." Elsewhere in the document, the company states it could deal with a loss of well control by drilling a relief well, but states a "further discussion of response to an oil spill resulting from the activities proposed in this plan is not required for this Exploration Plan."

Those assertions and the acceptance of them by MMS angered Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, when he testified last week before the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

"MMS should have immediately insisted upon conducting an (environmental impact study)," Schweiger said. "Given the scale of the enterprise and the inherent risk of deepwater drilling, MMS should have recognized this as a crucial opportunity to review the adequacy of the spill prevention and response technology proposed by BP. Instead, MMS adhered to a legally flawed internal policy that was adopted by the Bush Administration in 2004 and granted a categorical exclusion ... for a huge array of environmentally hazardous activities in the Gulf of Mexico."

So This land is leased. The Gov could say they are violating the lease agreement and kick PB out of the area. If I had a house I was leasing and destroyed it, I would be violating the terms of my lease.. so why not here?

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:36 PM
There is a live feed right now of Senator Boxer talking about the oil spill and she has a TV behind her with a 'live' view of the oil spill that I have never seen. Multiple colors, huge plumes.

This is also the first time I have seen a vertical flow, instead of the horizontal flows on CNN and BP's web site.

new topics

top topics

<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in