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.


Oil expert on CNBC: Relief wells a "SHAM"; 120,000 bpd of oil gushing;

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:47 AM
I was wondering why BP would be trying to put a new oil capture system in place ( a process that will allow the full force of the oil to escape into the gulf for as much as four days) when they are so close to finishing the relief well. Could it be that they are afraid that the relief well will not work?

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:54 AM
I'm telling you...they're going to go for the nuke option. It's just a feeling.

As for the relief wells, I read an explanation that was rather odd? They relying on mud to plug the gushing? Again? Haven't we been through that already?

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 08:54 AM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

They could let the oil come to the surface and hit it with a MOAB. Then again. Hit it and hit it hard!

A nuke deep underwater could fracture the sea bed. People would have to be evacuated first. Something could go wrong.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:14 AM
reply to post by chorizo4

I dont think that would work. And also , For the bomb to fit into the hole made by the relief well (this would be the best way to do this) it would have to be a nuke.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:35 AM
reply to post by chorizo4

I seriously doubt that evacuating people is apart of their concern sadly

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:04 AM
Some great info here on the "bottom seal" concept, along with an applicaion of a small low-yield (single-digit kiloton) nuclear detonation

The Bottom Seal technical approach is based upon a unique and safe application of a small, low-yield (single-digit kiloton) nuclear detonation and also incorporates the use of a "virtual containment vessel" created by high-pressure water mass compressed inwards upon the volume of the intensified at-seafloor nuclear detonation. The result will accentuate the energy and particularly thermal effects within the region of the well leakage channel and also aid the physical containment and reduced dispersion of predictable, expected, but very low quantities of radionuclides.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by burntheships]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:26 AM
This morning they were going on about the new cap again, and contradicted themselves right away. They said it would be done by monday, and then a couple of sentences later, they said it takes 10 days
I'm quite sure they didn't start 8 days ago.

They also said AGAIN that it would get worse before better, when they take off the old cap to put on the new one. They said that last time, and it just stayed worse. Now it's going to get MORE worse, before it supposedly gets better.

The dates for the relief wells are all over the place. I have heard everything from the middle of July, to the end of Aug.

I hope if they have to nuke it, they aren't saying "oops" afterwards.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by snowspirit]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
I'm telling you...they're going to go for the nuke option. It's just a feeling.

As for the relief wells, I read an explanation that was rather odd? They relying on mud to plug the gushing? Again? Haven't we been through that already?

Yes, but now they are trying to get at it from below the point where they suspect the well is cracked. Unfortunately, i read in some article somewhere that if the well is cracked, the bottom kill wont work either, so .... yeah, sounds like their actually going to try and seal it with an explosion, and those relief wells are actually in place to lower the explosive down into.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 12:54 PM
I'm going to repeat myself, but as long as we keep talking to that idiot Matt Simmons I'm going to continue to post. Matt Simmons is a banker at best & a journalist at worst. His technical assessments are complete nonsense. I've been drilling oil & gas wells for 30 years and I am a registered professional petroleum engineer.

First, Simmons stated that the well is 18,000' below the sea floor. That's wrong it's 18,000' below the sea surface.

He has stated that the bottomhole pressure is 60,000-100,000 psi. That is ludicrous. The bottohole pressure at most is 13,000 psi. The well was static to run casing and attempt to cement with 14#/gallon mud. Look up other threads this equates to 13,099 psi.

The flow rates he estimates are from complete ignorance again. The flow rate is limited by the Darcy equation for fluid flow through porous media. The equation is Q(stbopd)=7.083 X K X H X (Pe- Pw)/(V X ln(Re/Rw) X Bo)

Q= stock tank barrels per day
K= permeability of formation-darcies
H= thickness of reservoir- feet
Pe= reservoir pressure @ external boundary-psi
Pw= pressure in wellbore- psi
V= viscosity of oil- centipoise
Re= radius to external boundary of reservoir-feet
Rw= radius of wellbore-ft
Bo= formation volume factor-reservoir bbls/stock tank bbl

I can make reasonable estimates of the unknown variables and input. Big variable is the permeability of the formation. Therefore the flow rate is around 90,000 X K. I have never seen permeabilty exceed 1.0 darcy below 10,000' of depth due to compaction of overburden. Therefore, the maximum flow rate is 90,000 stbopd. Probability exists that it's less.

His ignorance about the casing that will prevent the relief wells from working is also stupid. We drill thousands of feet of open hole without casing a well. The drilling mud keeps the hole open and stable without having to be cased. His comments about a procedure that has been done hundreds of times before only further demonstrates his complete lack of technical expertise. I can guarantee he has never taken differential equations.

Finally, the nuclear option is total nonsense. We are supposed to solve the problem with a nuke, because the Russians did it. Does anyone remember a little problem they had at Chernobyl. I have worked in the Russian oil fields. Let me assure you that the oilfiled technology in Russia isn't much better. Certainly something we don't want to emulate.

new topics

top topics


log in