It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Gulf Oil Gusher SOLUTIONS ONLY thread.

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
>> For this situation, I'd say you would start with a Robot sub, attach it to some solid structure or concrete. Then feed a stiff metal wire down into the bore hole -- don't even try to use a siphon pipe because the area and pressure are too massive.


This is still a great idea. They should be feeding this straight down into the BOP thru the kink leaks in the riser tube.



They should be doing that while performing their 'top kill', while feeding it full of rare earth magnets and telfon spheres, from underneath the BOP, and then epoxy putty to seal it in.



What kind of "cement" are they even using that hardens under salt water?




[edit on 27-5-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Hydraulics will work fine. The seals won't be an issue. It is pressure differental that would cause seal failure. The water pressure at that depth will counter the internal pressure of the hydraulic system. The seals only have to deal with the differential which is the same as if the system was running on the surface.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Rare Earth Magnets


I like your idea of using magnets.. but I have another idea of how to use them.. put a huge electric magnet on the outside of the pipe or huge rare earth magnets.. then pump in steel spheres (balls).. maybe marble size. They should stop when they get to the magnetic field and then start plugging up the leak.. once plugged.. then cement shut the well.

[edit on 5/27/2010 by Morpheas]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Cement will harden underwater.. canals and dams are examples of this.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Morpheas
 


Good thinking


They should be doing that right now since they're trying to feed in chunks of metal in that 'mud'. Submit it, or call it in even.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


I just submitted it.. I woundn't have ever thought of that without seeing your post.



[edit on 5/27/2010 by Morpheas]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Morpheas
 


So did I


I combined it with the other ideas I combined above, into one neat paragraph. I think it's pretty safe to say we've solved the crisis. Lets see what they do if their current attempts don't work out for them...

Good show everyone



I woundn't have ever thought of that without seeing your post.


I didn't even think of it until I took a real good look at the Top Kill strategy. I had forgotten they even had that big BOP apparatus down there lately. But after looking at the diagrams after a few hours the idea popped in my head.

I have stacks of REM's stuck to my fridge. I like to take things like hard drives apart. When they snap to the fridge its almost impossible to get them off without sliding them or similar tricks. And these are little thin ones even.

EDIT: Actually now that I look more into Sri Oracle's thread he also had the idea to put REM powder, or putty into it. I wonder is he sent the idea in?


[edit on 27-5-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Cool! I hope they have many people reading the suggestions, because they have over 7,800 that have been submitted. I would call it in, but it looks to be automated.. so not any better.

Edit: Saw your edit.. hopefully a lot of people have this idea.. the more people that submit it.. the better chance of it getting noticed.

Edit: But.. If they use this.. we at ATS take credit.. LOL



[edit on 5/27/2010 by Morpheas]

[edit on 5/27/2010 by Morpheas]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
fact:

british petroleum has made hundreds of trillions of dollars.
enough for reasearch projects.

how much time and money is required to invent a boat that can both run somewhat efficiently on the crude oil, while sucking the oil up?

or is using oil as a fuel source not an option at all?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Sorry if anyone's already suggested this; I didn't read all of them.

The detonation of a low-yield nuclear device above the ocean floor at the main leak site would collapse the shaft for hundreds or even thousands of feet with minimal contamination. We have a ton of them sitting around waiting to be eventually dismantled. We might as well use one to help the environment for a change. It would destroy the oil's path to the ocean, making it as if the hole had never been drilled. Just give the O-man a little slip to sign, roll it onto a plane, fly it or float it (if you want to be slow about it) out to the site, lower it to the ocean floor and enjoy the soothing feeling of the boat rocking gently back and forth while all of your troubles shake away.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Pump liquid nitrogen into it till it freezes, then pour lots of concrete over it.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Phlegmi
 


You see folks, how hard is this stuff? I mean if they only have like 3 or 4 engineers working on it I can see them not getting too creative, and I'm sure the welders who built that huge 'top hat' appreciated the work and all, but c'mon.


[edit on 27-5-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Anyone seen this thread about a possible second gusher 5-6 miles away - is this plausible, and if so how might it change what we/they may be dealing with?

ATS thread link



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by curioustype
 


It's just a plume that originated from the DeepwaterH. Someone jumped the gun.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by shmuu
 


Could someone reassure me that doing this is compatible with the volume/pressure/flow-rate/volatility of the oil and gas being expelled at this specific site?

From what I've read I remain concerned that this may even enlarge the outlet and hence flow-rate, the nuke fracturing/weakening the rock surrounding the (extremely high pressure - and flammable) liquid/gas jet spewing through the earth? I have visions of a conical/spherical fractured-rock-compress from the nuke being shattered and blown back up/out of the way by the deeply seated high pressure flow?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


I know about the repetitive threads about the plume cited today, but if you read this link, and the article, it mentions a second abandoned shaft which hit problems before they drilled at the rigs final site. Are you sure this is only about the under-water plume alledgedly from the known/final site?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by curioustype
 


Well if there is another one we won't be able to offer many solutions until we know more about. It will make news...



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I think they should attempt to place another dome, or several domes over the leak points.

If a primary dome was placed over the well, with piping running up to the surface to pull out the natural gas, it seems this option could be made to work. With equipment inside the dome, they should be able to cut open the pipe to control the flow, and then crimp the pipe that extends across the ocean floor.

Maybe the dome will have to be taken out in parts, and assembled on the ocean floor, but this shouldn't be that difficult of an engineering feat.

Hopefully they have teams continuing to explore this option.

They should be pursuing an option that has little chances of making the problem worse. I think this makes the dome option the best thing to pursue.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
OK, I am keenly aware of the complexities due to extreme depth, temp. and pressure at this depth. However inasmuch as I can't offer a solution to STOP the leak, I am suggesting we at least try to minimize it.

In my opinion any solutions which can mitigate the flow at it's source would seem effective before it floats to surface or spreads. My Dad used to say "never cut what you can untie" and in the spirit of medical terminology "First, do no harm." Both meaning don't exacerbate the problem with solutions that make it worse. So why not just divert or steer the flow?

Please don't laugh too hard, but think of several big honking "shop vac" type devices.
Easy to deploy and readily available:


(The stuff on the right comes in 100' lengths, so we'd need only 520 of them per hose)

The hose could be unspooled and carried via ROV and strategically placed in close proximity to the leaks. Once routed to surface, either separated or taken "as-is" by fleet of tankers/barges to shore for processing. Not sure if the "hydrate" issue would hamper because the oil would be sucked up and not have a chance to collect as in the "dome."

At least we could catch some of the oil before it spreads. I'm sure there are obvious flaws in this but feel that sometimes simple solutions work best. Even if the pressure is too severe, just back off and place pick up tubes above source.



I feel helpless when I stare at the gushing oil 24/7 with no effort made to at least divert at source. (easier target)


[edit on 27-5-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Anyone thought about sinking a massive heavily laiden ship on it, like a super tanker filled with mud and cement?

Just sink it down right on top of the well with 500,000 deadweight metric tons of mud and cement.

They cost over $100 million, but I think it would be well worth it.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join