Breaking News: BP dismantling the Gulf oil spill BOP

Originally posted by MrCrowley
I put a lot of time in the oil field in my life as a field service engineer and automation tech , worked all over the gulf and the north sea on mainpass drilling and production platforms also on the ocean ranger in the north sea, I would like someone to tell me why BP or anyone in charge has not called Red adair Corp. or Boots and Coots to take care of this problem, after all it is what they are the best in the world at. I have seen those guy's kill a well out in 8 hours stone dead. I smell a rat in this as I know that this should have been done by the pro's in the first week. Far be it from me to lay blame, but I live here on this coast line and I am to damn old to go and start over some where else, looks like they have destroyed the place where I was living out my retirement years.

They bought them 8 or so days before the problem, finance.yahoo.com... This can't be fixed and a nuke would probably collapse the sea floor, the gulf is DEAD everyone just needs to realize it. This oil disaster will be more effective than any Naval blockade ever could.

Edit for spelling.



[edit on 29-5-2010 by Silverado292]

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Silverado292]

reply to post by Silverado292


Are there any credible sources saying that this can't be fixed with a nuke?

Originally posted by alexhiggins732
reply to post by Silverado292

 

Are there any credible sources saying that this can't be fixed with a nuke?

Not that I know of, but it would release a lot of pressure underwater. Also I don't think any of us really know the condition of the sea floor right now. Plus if it's multiple leaks spread out then it would probably take more than one to heat up and seal/glass the bottom. I don't think we have the know how to solve this, we opened a door we can't close.

Unless I missed it earlier...

they've given up



BP admits failure of "top kill/junk shot" attempt

They attempted using nuclear explosions to aid in extraction of natural gas back in the day. The theories using a nuke worked, but they didn't factor in the obvious and the gas became highly radioactive and more or less useless. They had to cap the project and retire it.
Now there are rumours of using a nuke to quell this disaster? I don't see BP's greed even for a second, considering making this gas/oil reserve forever unusable. Do ya really think they'd allow that? NO WAY I think, even it the chances of it working being 99.9%. Too much possible profit there for that to happen.
They say the sea floor around the wellhead is extremely brittle and fragile...

reply to post by Marrr


Yes, there have been a lot of non-verified reasons this wouldn't work - tidal waves, seafloor collapse, the gas, etc.

Just wondering if any scientists may have written anything about this option.


In other news---


Its official topkill fails - The new BP Gulf oil spill plan? Let it leak until August!!

http://(nolink)/2010/05/29/bps-lmrp-leaves-gulf-oil-spill-leaking-august/

It looks like i was right back on page three of this thread and they are going to try to bolt a new riser package on top of the BOP.

This will be fun to watch.

Try screwing a nut and bolt with out using your hands but with remote tools.

They better take a lot of extras with them.

Baghdad Bob denies the Americans are in Iraq.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by chefc14]

reply to post by alexhiggins732


Just an observation Alex, your site whilst being informative is becoming the sensationalist fear mongering hysteria generating rubbish that we come here to escape.

I object to the implication of the following statement on your site -

6840 suggestions BP ignores while letting Gulf oil spill leak until August.
Tens of thousands of ideas have been submitted to BP to cap and clean the Gulf oil spill, yet BP has decided to ignore them all and just let the Gulf oil spill leak until august.

Are you really suggesting that BP has ignored all? They're just gonna do nothing till then? That's unsubstantiated BS and you know it. Its a sensationalist headline to get more clicks on your site.

Why doesn't your site talk of the "Lower marine riser package?" the next stage which is currently in progress along with the relief wells that have been started already.

See the link here, this is under way now, but significant in its absence from your site.


Edit, you just added it to your site. Good.

Second edit, why the hostility to the notion of BP collecting the oil? Why must a "Damned plug" be put in instead of capturing the oil?

Which is better, capture oil from an existing drill hole that had a problem or drill another one and risk the same again? They know the oils there, its coming out one way or another any way isn't it.

Third edit, I give up, your report on the LMRP is full off generalizations, omissions and unfounded assumptions. You imply again that it will leak and BP "BAD BAD BP know that, like they want it to leak, but you fail to explain why.
Its because it has to fit over a riser pipe that was attached to a now sunken oil rig possibly also being bent or distorted somewhat in the process, which now needs to be cut off at a depth of 5000feet by a robot. They can't guarantee a decent seal under these circumstances. Which taking into consideration the above is quite understandable.

[edit on 30/5/2010 by who-me?]

reply to post by N.of norml


I have to say, that's not a pretty picture you gave us, but it could also be true, i hope that it is not.....

reply to post by user414


Apparently, the big supertankers can't get near enough because of all the 'cleanup' vessels hanging around, they are literally confounding themselves. Also the 'boom' efforts are being equally bungled-being laid in lines parallel with the beach makes nice TV but it doesn't work. They should split them into smaller units-at an angle-to the beach and let the wind carry the oil into 'catch basins'. That's according to people in the field.
Holland is sending some proper 'ocean' booms-but again, if they don't USE the stuff properly
It seems to me that this is being bungled on purpose, it will lead to a lot of deaths, poverty, & uninhabitable wasteland, causing people to flee to the cities & become slaves to the state. A very 'slick' operation, if you will excuse the pun........

Originally posted by Marrr
They attempted using nuclear explosions to aid in extraction of natural gas back in the day. The theories using a nuke worked, but they didn't factor in the obvious and the gas became highly radioactive and more or less useless. They had to cap the project and retire it.
Now there are rumours of using a nuke to quell this disaster? I don't see BP's greed even for a second, considering making this gas/oil reserve forever unusable. Do ya really think they'd allow that? NO WAY I think, even it the chances of it working being 99.9%. Too much possible profit there for that to happen.
They say the sea floor around the wellhead is extremely brittle and fragile...

The detonation attempt to mine natural gas was attempted in Utah I believe, and was not an underwater detonation. Nuclear blasts behave much differently underwater. That being said, the Utah tests were a radiological disaster. .

Those who advocate using a nuke to seal the leak (as the Russians have done in the past), are overlooking two big factors.

1. The Russians never used nukes at the extreme depths we are looking at.

2. The site is sitting on a very large methane field and a detonation very well could set off a "burp" resulting in a more catastrophic situation.

To be honest, no one really knows what route to take due to the above factors. I think progress is slow due to the high risks involved in making a mistake that exacerbates the situation and makes it more dangerous.

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
Have you seen this video.

Prediction: The air quality in the Gulf gets so bad, they evacuate people to the preplanned FEMA camps back away from the coast, in these creepy busses with no windows.

The FEMA coffins, that have been amassed, are for those that will most certainly die once panic sets in.

Martial law will be instilled, and America will be plunged into civil war.

Meanwhile, the Queen and BP's 17% of Englands GDP sit back and rub their hands together over introducing the US into the Commonwealth.

I love that no matter what is happening or what conspiracy is being discussed.
It can be brought back to the failed FEMA camp conspiracy that should have died back in 2008.

This administration hasn't even begun a criminal investigation into the worst oil spill in history.

BP Beyond Prosecution

Hi all! The obvious occured to me this afternoon while sitting in a boat on a lake.
1. They need to park some empty oil tankers oer the spill and start pumping the water oil into a tanker with hanging submersible pumps.
When the mixture separates they can pump the oil to another tanker and then dump the sea water back into the ocean. It might be time consuming and expensive but at least it collects the oil and gets it into a tanker.
2. BP can pay for the mothers and teenage students to volunteer to clean up the animals. School is out... hotels, meals, gas travel money to be paid for by BP
3. Those cannon noise trucks they drove around th get birds with west nile virus could be used to encourage the wild life to move off to other safer areas. The trunks with cannon noises should be parked in the wet land areas. These can be donated to the cause from other states.
4. A committe needs to be managing the clean up by the government.
Nothing is more important than cleaning up our own back yard. I think war is a waste of our time and resources. We need to take care of our own property, now. Money needs to be used on our property, not some far off middle east issue. Tax payers should vote on what our USD get spent on.

P.S. A nuclear bomb is never the answer for any problem.

Originally posted by frugal
P.S. A nuclear bomb is never the answer for any problem.

Amen! There must be something else going on, if they're proposing such a ridiculous measure.

I hope they use hair mats & mushrooms to eat up the oil, rather than further contaminate the Gulf w/ chemicals.

Also, what ever happened to the oil-eating microbes they used once to clean up an oil spill?

Originally posted by who-me?
reply to post by alexhiggins732

 

Just an observation Alex, your site whilst being informative is becoming the sensationalist fear mongering hysteria generating rubbish that we come here to escape.


I object to the implication of the following statement on your site -

6840 suggestions BP ignores while letting Gulf oil spill leak until August.
Tens of thousands of ideas have been submitted to BP to cap and clean the Gulf oil spill, yet BP has decided to ignore them all and just let the Gulf oil spill leak until august.

Are you really suggesting that BP has ignored all? They're just gonna do nothing till then? That's unsubstantiated BS and you know it. Its a sensationalist headline to get more clicks on your site.

Why doesn't your site talk of the "Lower marine riser package?" the next stage which is currently in progress along with the relief wells that have been started already.

See the link here, this is under way now, but significant in its absence from your site.


Edit, you just added it to your site. Good.

Second edit, why the hostility to the notion of BP collecting the oil? Why must a "Damned plug" be put in instead of capturing the oil?

Which is better, capture oil from an existing drill hole that had a problem or drill another one and risk the same again? They know the oils there, its coming out one way or another any way isn't it.

Third edit, I give up, your report on the LMRP is full off generalizations, omissions and unfounded assumptions. You imply again that it will leak and BP "BAD BAD BP know that, like they want it to leak, but you fail to explain why.
Its because it has to fit over a riser pipe that was attached to a now sunken oil rig possibly also being bent or distorted somewhat in the process, which now needs to be cut off at a depth of 5000feet by a robot. They can't guarantee a decent seal under these circumstances. Which taking into consideration the above is quite understandable.

[edit on 30/5/2010 by who-me?]

Just an observation Alex, your site whilst being informative is becoming the sensationalist fear mongering hysteria generating rubbish that we come here to escape.

Seriously... you have to be kidding me. This forum is has of some of the most off the wall conspiracy theories there are. Some are entirely valid.. others not so much...

I object to the implication of the following statement on your site -

6840 suggestions BP ignores while letting Gulf oil spill leak until August. ...

Object all you want. My simplicity is based on observations made by the main stream media. Was not the link to the original news source on that page enough. Perhaps you need more than the one i post...

abcnews.go.com...

Try this.. 314 news sources

www.google.com... qi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

So your objection is based upon your own unfounded opinions. My assertion however isn't. BP is continuing to stick to the plan it has had all along which can only lead one to the conclusion that it is ignoring the 6840 ideas that I have posted on my blog page in addition to the the tens of thousands of ideas that have been submitted directly to BP.

Yes my site does speak of the LMRP. In fact it was discussed in prior Blog posts. It was the fact that LMRP was chosen as the next step that caused me to right this post. Plus if my readers want technical information on what BP is doing they are sophisticated enough to know they should head over to oildrum.com

or if they want what every other main stream media orginazation is reporting then they will go to an MSM site.

I offer news that is not reported by MSM or my take on what is being reported on my blog.

The rest of your response your opinionated rambling is about my opinionated rambling on LMRP.

No, I do not accept an option that leaves the well leaking until August. I am sorry if you are offended by that not being good enough for me but I honestly believe that there are better options.

BP has not been on the up and up since this whole thing has started and neither has the government.

Again, I believe that there are many better options that BP should be trying and their conflict of interest between their bottom line (making a profit) and the best interests of the public has caused them to decide to use the LMRP instead of trying a method to stop the leak.

That is the whole reason for the post. It is widely reported that the LMRP could leave up to 50% of the oil leaking and if it goes wrong it could increase the amount that is leaking by 20%.'

That is my opinion and that is the opinion of many news reporters as well.

reply to post by alexhiggins732

Alex I can agree to disagree, but however I will not concede that that your argument is better than mine "Just Because".

Upon what do you base your conclusion that all of the suggestions sent to BP are ignored? You call them conclusions. They are not. A conclusion implies an ending based on evidence gathered. What you have made are assumptions which you ply as fact. - That's where I objected.

The bit about the "sensationalist fear mongering" yeah I'll admit it, I was having a bit of a dig but remember this sites motto is "deny Ignorance"

Also posting lots of links and telling me about google isn't necessary, I can search news on google too.

Lastly you didn't address my final point addressing your post. Here it is again.

Its because it has to fit over a riser pipe that was attached to a now sunken oil rig possibly also being bent or distorted somewhat in the process, which now needs to be cut off at a depth of 5000feet by a robot. They can't guarantee a decent seal under these circumstances. Which taking into consideration the above is quite understandable.

Are BP really just being "Evil oil" or do you think this might be why it could continue to leak? BP never decided to "Oh never mind lets let it leak till August, we'll catch some oil in the meantime" it is simply the most practical and logical next step solution at this time since relief wells can't be drilled in 15 minutes.

Edit-:

Again, I believe that there are many better options that BP should be trying and their conflict of interest between their bottom line (making a profit) and the best interests of the public has caused them to decide to use the LMRP instead of trying a method to stop the leak.

Instead of trying "a method"? What would your solution be then?



[edit on 1/6/2010 by who-me?]