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.



page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 06:36 AM
reply to post by EnkiCarbone

Thank you, very well put. I had read all the details in Wiki and on the manufactures site, but you put it much better than me.

reply to post by whaaa

Of course you are not going to believe anything anyone says because you have the blinkers firmly in place and the hand up to speak to.

Ducks? If it sounds like someone embracing ignorance.......

reply to post by skeptic_al

After visiting the BP Website and you download their vids, plans, see and hear them all patting each other on back about a great job they are doing. Your left feeling, WOW these are great guys and really know what they are doing and it's just not that big a deal. Mission Accomplished.

It just might have escaped your attention that the BP website contains information (as well as disinformation) which is likely as far as possible to be more accurate than doom and gloom blogs and conspiracy forums such as GLP - full of conjecture and misinformation and the wild ramblings of those who chose not to seek information but rather hypothesise the worst.

If however you choose to embrace ignorance and reject any information from the BP site then that is your affair, but it is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

"Your left feeling, WOW these are great guys"??? This is the reaction of a young person who has not been around as long as I have and is still impressionable.

I can assure you that I am not impressionable and your assessment of my reaction to the BP site is not only wrong but is also insulting. Being old and cantankerous and a complete disbeliever in anything, critical analysis of all information is the order of the day.

If you or anyone else wishes to peddle the doom and gloom angle please go and do it somewhere else. I choose to look at the information and try as best as possible to formulate a reasoned opinion of an outcome. This does not infer support for BP so that unproductive and unrealistic counter has no place here either.

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I'm not asking you if it's a good idea nuking it, I'm asking you what's next if this fails?

I agree a nuke is NOT a good idea... but if all else fails, why not try it anyway?

Because there is more of a chance that it will cause more problems instead of solving anything...

An explosion of that magnitute underground will create a crystalized bubble that would be very unstable, it will probably also crack the wea floor opening more fissures, and then you have over 5,000 feet of water pressing down on this bubble which would collapse it.

Then there is the radiation, and not to mention the several fault lines in this area, two of which have been pushing New Orleans towards the sea slowly for hundreds if not thousands of years...

Such an explosion will very likely start a chain reaction that could sink at least part of New Orleans, if not all of it, plus the sea would be radiated for centuries, which means more sea animals will die, which in itself causes another chain reaction that will affect people.

Hurricane season is close, and in case you didn't know a hurricane takes the water from the sea surface down dozens of feet and deposit all that water, oil, COREXIT in streets, houses, cars, and even people. Now add to that radiation...

Some people don't seem to understand what a nuclear bomb, or even hydrogen bomb is... You can't just go "oh lets use it no matter what", you are not trying out a new bike, or a new toy... you are talking about a nuclear bomb...

[edit on 4-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 09:48 AM
reply to post by Shadowfoot

I could post in every one of these threads to clear up some misconceptions, but I'll just post a little bit on here. If anyone wants more info, let me know and I'll do my best. One thing I will say is this isn't the deepest well that's been drilled, and there are a lot of wells being drilled right now that are deeper. I've seen wells drilled 9000' vertical (x~3 and you're looking at ~5mi). I'm looking at wells right now that are much deeper than the BP screw up.

You are correct, however "drills" isn't really the correct word as the equipment doesn't compare to a handheld drill at home. There is typically a drill bit, followed by a hydraulic motor, followed by the MWD/LWD tools. The entire drillstring is rotated by a hydraulic top drive when you want to drill in a straight line. When you want to build direction and inclination you don't rotate the entire string, but the hydraulic motor provides rotation to just the bit. All of the rotation in the string is variable and can be changed up by either the top drive (by turning a knob) or in the motor by varying the mud flow rate. Basically it isn't a one speed, on or off rotation. It's very much variable.

MWD/LWD tools are used to tell where you're going and what kind of formation you're in. It's actually a pretty interesting science, as it can give ideas on formation stress and where they will start to break. The equipment is used while drilling the hole because it gives a better idea of where you're going, what you're going through, and what you need to do to optimize drilling, as you're drilling it. As opposed to wireline who goes in after the hole has been drilled.

A planned collision of wells like this is an interesting idea. However, before everyone pins every last bit of hope on this working exactly as the book says, they need to realize the odds are against them.

The hole size is 20 or 21" in diameter. When you're drilling you're looking at that from the side. I won't do the math, so let's assume you're aiming for a 21" target. You're aiming at it from 4-5miles away, underground, and all you have to go by are the measurements from the MWD/LWD which, while accurate, have their limits. Some tools can be off anywhere up to 6 degrees of azimuth. Stretched over 20,000' how much have you missed that 21" target by?

Yes I work for an oil field service company. I've seen attempts at planned collisions, that's why I'm a little skeptical that it'll work as planned. They'll definitely hit the formation, but hitting the gushing well on the first two dozen tries, is so unlikely. Try pushing a 5mile long piece of string down the road and hitting a five gallon bucket, and you'll have an idea of what they're trying to do.

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 09:52 AM
Unfortunately, we have a bunch of psychopaths running our country, with the capability of doing just about anything they please. Due to the fact that 9/10 of the world is sleeping, blind, or just don't care what's going on. It's hard to put anything past "unreasonable", for their thinking. So we must be on our guard.

Who knows, our government might just drop a bomb, then blame it on the Russia. It would be a simple way to exterminate a large population of people all at once. And since Russia mentioned it why not use them as the scapegoat.

Thank you dyvfd, that was very informative, I think I will be leaving Louisiana very soon! Thank you for that insight!

[edit on 4-7-2010 by lizzyhock]

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 10:41 AM
reply to post by dyvfd

Thank you indeed for your input. I personally would be interested to hear more about these MWD/LWD (?) tools if it is not going to bore everyone else. At least having some idea of the technology involved would aid understanding what the chances are. I was under the impression, wrongly perhaps, that some sort of signal could be passed down the main pipe to act as a locator.

They'll definitely hit the formation, but hitting the gushing well on the first two dozen tries, is so unlikely

I found this slightly disconcerting. Do you have any idea how long each attempt might take?

Edit: Since you have a connection with the industry, in your opinion, should this planned intersection fail, do you think that complete containment can be achieved (eventually) at sea bed level or above?

[edit on 4/7/2010 by PuterMan]

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by PuterMan

The real problem is: who do you trust?

There seems to descent amount of Information that suggests that
Falsifing safty records is a Industry wide sport, by ex-riggers.
It just appears that BP pushes the safety limits further than other
companies and have been caught out several times. Even the US
safety Inspectors accepted "Gifts"
And BP registers their rigs in foreign countires to avoid the
number of safty checks, this does lean towards the ex-riggers tales
being possibly credible.

And the rig owners do not exactly tell the truth as too how much is
being spilt.

Being in the Oil biz, really is a dirty business, in more ways that one.
With so much money floating around, anybody could be bought all you
have to do find that amount.

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:28 AM
reply to post by PuterMan

Sure I can elaborate on MWD/LWD. It's the signal that you're referring to. I think wikipedia has a good answer, but I'll give a brief one too, since it's what I used to do.

MWD/LWD is Measurement While Drilling/Logging While Drilling. A basic MWD tool reads direction (azimuth), inclination, and background gamma readings (every rock gives off some level of background radiation, read the gamma and you have an idea if you're in sand or shale). More advanced tools included resistivity of the formation, porosity of the formation, pressure of the annulus, neutron porosity, and sonic readings.

The readings from these tools are sent back up hole in a few different ways. The most typical and widely used is through the drilling mud, by restricting and allowing flow through the drillstring you create a small pressure wave ~2-30 psi which can be interpreted on surface. There are EM tools which send a low frequency EM wave through the formation, however that isn't as likely to work underwater. A newer technology sends the data back through the drill pipe, like a wire.

A lot of it is extremely accurate and can tell you right where you are at all times. Some of the wells I've seen drilled have taken some crazy courses and directions.

However when it comes to Direction and Inclination, a lot of tools rely on magnetometers which reference to magnetic north for azimuth. Some use north seeking gyros. Gyros lack accuracy once you reach a certain level of inclination in the hole. Magnetometers can have accuracy issues due to magnetic interference from the drillstring or casing. If they are drilling with a magnetometer they will know when they are getting close to the other well due to the readings going crazy, like a compass would, however to find an exact location based on that interference is guessing. They can use a combination of the other tools to hone in those readings, however they are only going to tell them when they are close enough to the original well... if that makes sense.

Once they get in the general area it might not be too bad, they'll have to make a bunch of attempts, like was suggested by cementing and sidetracking over and over again. How long it could take depends on how far back they have to pull after each attempt. It could be a short amount of time for each, as it's a lot easier to sidetrack with the well profile they appear to be using. Or it could take a long time, as I can say that once you're within about 50' of the target well the magnetic interference shoots way up and your direction becomes unclear. Picture being blindfolded in a 50 cubic foot room with a bucket in the middle. You know where the bucket should be before you're blindfolded, but then someone spins you around to make you dizzy. Now find that bucket. You could walk right past it, you could walk into it, you could glance off of it, you could do lots of things.

I'm really bringing this up to point out that there is no real guarantee of two things. 1. They'll be able to hit the target on the first few tries because it's a small target so far away, and the interference is going to mess with them. 2. Nobody has said, and nobody has released that we actually know the well is where it should be. We know where the top part is, but due to uncertainty in the readings while drilling, we don't actually know where the rest of the well goes. There is a term called vertical section, it's measured horizontally, and basically the difference in location from the top of the hole to the bottom. As you drill, even straight down, it's hard to maintain exactly 0 degrees of inclination. The target may not be exactly where they think, but be within a certain area... maybe 500' from where they think or it's supposed to be.

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:51 PM
Wow i wonder if these pointless doomsday oil threads are ever going to stop.Yellowstone,fema camps,nibiru,swine flu ect...Yawn nothing ever comes of these pointless threads.�

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/5/2010 by semperfortis]

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 07:43 PM

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by PuterMan

There seems to descent amount of Information that suggests that Falsifing safty records is a Industry wide sport, by ex-riggers.

That is a world wide sport in many industries.

And BP registers their rigs in foreign countires to avoid the
number of safty checks, this does lean towards the ex-riggers tales
being possibly credible.

The rig belongs to Transocean not BP. Many ships are registered in foreign ports both from the cost angle and the accountability

And the rig owners do not exactly tell the truth as too how much is
being spilt.

Possibly true, I have no source that would verify that or otherwise. Do you? (Edit to say, that was an honest question not a dig)

[edit on 4/7/2010 by PuterMan]

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by dyvfd

Thank you most sincerely. Believe me it is far better to hear that from someone who knows and is connected with the business than to read it in Wikipedia.

You only have to look at the comments and revisions in Wiki to realise that the 'heaviest' editing team wins - and that is not always for the best.

No, believe me I really do appreciate your answer and I shall have a think about it and it's implications.

[edit on 4/7/2010 by PuterMan]

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 07:53 PM

Originally posted by buddhistpunk

First please do not shout. It is rude.

Second, not all threads are pointless. Some engender good discussion and further understanding. I hope this is one of those.

Third, if this is your considered (?) opinion then exactly what are you doing on ATS? Perhaps you should do yourself and us a favour and remove yourself since the whole process of trying to gain a better understanding appears to be boring for you.

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 09:40 PM
reply to post by dyvfd

Thank you for giving me a good bit of info to glean. At times it can seem quite bleak in this Forum, and bits like this re-enforce my hope I can continue to figure out what the heck is going on down there. It sounds like the relief wells are a bit of a shot in the dark.

If the relief wells dont work, what is the next obvious step besides accepting it may just bleed out? Keep trying new relief wells?

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 10:13 PM
reply to post by dyvfd

Your posts have given me more good information and education than I've gotten for weeks during this whole crisis.

I hope you keep posting to let us know what is really going on. I've wondered how in the heck they were going to intersect the problem well with the two relief wells and now I know it won't be easy!

So, could you explain to us technically why they are using two relief wells? Will the second relief well somehow help pinpoint the location by giving the engineers data from two probes instead of just one? I'm not a technical person but I was wondering if they are trying to compute data from 1) the original problem well, with 2) the main probing relief well, and 3) the backup relief well.

Would this give them an advantage in trying to somehow 3-d model what's down there and how close they are?

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 02:44 AM
reply to post by PuterMan

There are no Actual Figures, every one is just a Guestimate.

BP first said it 5,000 than 15,000 and I think they're admitting to 60,000 now.
So why is more now, (ship loads more now) than before.

And looking at it in the begining, the pipe size and how fast stuff was coming
out, 5,000 or 1 barrel every 17 seconds come on. Now that's a Pipe Dream.
I can do that with a fire hose.

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 03:03 AM
reply to post by PuterMan

What BP have done is basically how kids are growing up

Rule 1: lie about how big a mess you made

Little Johnney knocks over the Juice Container. How much was in the
container? , only a little bit. In reality it was Full

Rule 2: can you blame somebody else

Always try to blame your sister.

Why?, because if you admit to the whole thing people might think
your a total dick wad.

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 04:56 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 07:43 AM
reply to post by switching yard

This is just my speculation, I think they are using two relief wells for a couple of reasons. 1. it sort of doubles their chances of hitting the target.

2. If they can both hit the target it'll be a lot easier to plug it.

3. They are greedy. If they both hit the target, they cement wherever the higher one hits. This way they also start making money off of the relief well, once the target is plugged. IE. Relief#1 hits at 20,000' and Relief#2 hits at 25,000', they'll cement at 20,000 so they can produce from the lower well.

One thing I'll address because I have read it a lot. Where the formation (seabed) is cracked and leaking around the hole... if they can get the original hole to stop flowing, they can in theory fix the cracks as well. The cement they use isn't like normal household cement, fill the cracks in the formation, and bond/set extremely quickly. I'd see an order of operation like this, in the perfect scenario:

1. Drill relief well #1 to start pumping oil back to surface in a controlled manner and relieve pressure on leaking well
2. Drill relief well #2 to pump LCM and for cementing purposes
3. Drop a BOP on the leaking well. If you don't have a way to plug the top, anything you do below is like blowing through a straw. Your cement and LCM will come out the top.
4. Squeeze as much LCM down the leaking well as you can. Formations can actually heal themselves and if you pump enough material you can plug off all the cracks. The junk shot that has gotten a lot of attention is actually a form of LCM. They were using big junk because the formation has probably got a lot of big cracks and holes. LCM = Lost Circulation Material. It plugs the sides of the well so that it doesn't leak out into the surrounding formation. It can be anything from sawdust to walnut shells to metal shavings. It just depends on what the formation needs
5. Cement through the leaking well.

As far as a 3-D perspective. Yes and no that the two rigs are playing off of each other. I know a lot, but there are guys with PHd's sitting around just thinking up stuff, and believe me some of the stuff they think up is amazing. From being in a position of planning and drilling wells, I know that we have what's called an ellipse of uncertainty. It's a big circle that basically says that we don't know what's in that area around where we're drilling. We can guess that 100' from my drill bit is the other well, but exactly where it is is tough to say with any certainty.

As far as safety on the rigs. It is hit or miss. There are some good companies that actually are picky and anal about safety. I can think of one in particular that I've worked on one of their locations... if you even spilled a gallon of something on the ground they'd shut down operations and get someone out there to clean it up. I've been on some a whole lot worse than BP. The stuff I've seen on those is mind blowing.

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 12:14 PM
reply to post by PuterMan

Radiation won't go through that much water. That is not the concern.

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 02:55 PM
reply to post by dyvfd

Thanks once again for excellent information and thoughts.

Your point about the second well (producing) I had considered, but wonder if they would be allowed to do that? I suppose they are not going to lose that investment, but I recall that you said the relief wells were not to the same standards so could be drilled faster. That sounds like it might not be good.

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by PuterMan

Radiation won't go through that much water. That is not the concern.

I know what the concern is. The link to the radiation in Scotland was just an indicator of how long things can take if it were to go wrong.

Water moves by the way. If you have worked on a database of radiation readings on a nuclear power station coolant outfall then you will be aware of just how much it can pick up if things are not quite right.

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in