Oil and Water don't mix

[yabadabapal]

I just wish this were not true, but it is. And the new oil spill in the gulf of New Mexico flowing at a rate of 5000 barrels (not gallons), per day into the open waters of the gulf will in a matter of weeks exceed the Valdez disaster in Alaska. They expect the first wave of oil to hit shoreline by Friday. Louisiana has declared a state of emergency, as if Katrina wasn’t enough. The Federal government has declared a national emergency, and now the U.S. Navy is becoming involved. BP leased the rig that blew up killing I think 11 people, and they are as a result responsible for all clean up costs. The oil is expected to be at the bottom of the Mississippi River Delta as soon as Thursday evening. Then effecting wild life sanctuaries. They are having some success with controlled burns but that is a symptomatic solution and not a solution to capping the cracks in the riser pipes that cracked when bent. This is expected to effect the entire southern coast of the USA. They are going to use cannons to continually scare of birds from being enveloped in the oil. This is a freaking mess and a wake up call to the recent support for more offshore drilling. Any thoughts or info about this.

[yabadabapal]

One of the things I though they might try (another silly invention of mine)

is to use a mesh net with ½ inch spaces so most fish cant get their gills trapped.

The tents enters into the water as a roll, like a honey cone, then as it unrolls and expands, it pushes all the fish, etc, outward and away from the center. Attached to the net every 100 feet are small underwater wide spectrum sonar cannons that send sound waves that push all underwater fish etc away from the net as it is expanding. Then once you have covered the area of concern, the sound waves keep emitting every few seconds. As the oil expands, you unroll the net and expand the area further. Then you use a similar net device as a tent suspended above water to repel birds. Then attached to the underwater tent are oil absorbers that are placed every few feet that will attract, soak up, and contain the oil.

Just a thought. I gotta got to work.

 

[upflying]

If it were me, I would send a heavy duty submersible down to see what is leaking and then engineer a cap to stop the leak.

Regarding the politics of the environmental damage and the benefits and consequences of oil drilling, shyt happens and we will get through it. All the world oil spills eventually recover. Has the cause of the explosion, fire and sinking been determined yet?

Early stages of disaster management should be exerted on capping and stopping the flow and spread of the oil and not on saving wildlife.

 

[yabadabapal]

Bob

On my way to work but I wanted to reply to you and let you know that the last info I received it that it will take about 4 week to stop the leak. That time line is what projected a greater disaster than the Valdez. The economics of the areas to be drenched in oil on the entire southern coast as a result, are going to be huge.

I wish I had more info.

[Antimatter]

I'm interested in the mechanics of the leak myself. Is the additional technology used to drill in deep water responsible for the leak? I'm guessing that whoever is drilling has to beef up the bore casing to avoid having water penetrate the well head at that depth, and that probably makes the well extra strong and resistant to being closed if something happens to the rig.

 

The impression I've gotten from the news is that the depth makes plugging or covering the well very difficult. It seems a shame that there's no easy way for someone to scoop up all that free oil, separate it from sea water and sell it on shore.

[yabadabapal]

Here is some more update. Seaside Florida is expecting to get hit with the drudge.

 

BP is also planning to cap the well and capture the leaking oil, but this will take four weeks to put in place, by which stage more than 150,000 barrels could have spilled out. If the steel cap does not work, BP will have to try drilling a relief well, which would take three months. By then, the spill could total more than 300,000 barrels (47m litres), greater than the 258,000 barrels leaked by the Exxon Valdez.

 

The Wall Street Journal reported that the well lacked a remote-control shutoff switch required by some oil producing countries, including Norway and Brazil. BP was at the forefront of recent lobbying of the US government against stronger safety controls for offshore drilling.

 

Some video and info attached.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/30/oil-spill-reaches-us-coastline

[Selden]

It's my understanding that a submersible has been looking at the well from a sea floor perspective for several days. Although I didn't work on oil rigs and am not a petroleum engineer, I did pick up some knowledge while working at the University of Petroleum and Minerals in Saudi Arabia for 5 years.

 

Most people think oil exists underground in great huge lakes; it doesn't. It's in permeable rock, under tremendous pressure (30,000 psi or more), generally maintained by a cap of impermeable rock. Often the oil is "floating" on a base of water. A young well produces entirely based on this pressure, without need for pumps. As a well ages, water, steam, or CO2 injection is used to maintain pressure, and as the layer of oil thins, the water cut increases; when a well produces 90% water, it's generally shut down for oil production, but may still be useful for natural gas (one reason US natural gas production kept going up after oil production peaked in the 1970s).

 

 

When a well is drilled, the pressure is released, which in early days created a "gusher." If the seabed for this well is 5000 feet beneath the surface of the ocean, you can imagine how much pressure the oil is under, and I suspect that a valve failed on the drilling platform, leading to the explosion and fire at the surface, and eventually to the current problem.

 

Apparently the BP well was equipped with a capping system at the well head, but it failed to cut off the flow. Some countries (but not the US) mandate use of an acoustic trigger for a cutoff valve, although there is some controversy as to how effective such a valve is. Bottom line, there are multiple redundant systems to prevent blowouts, but sometimes they all fail. If you're going to drill for oil, whether on land or under the sea, things like this are going to happen occasionally, especially as the easy plays are exploited and drilling takes place in ever more difficult environments.

 

This is going to sound completely cynical, but I'm all in favor of using up other people's oil first, and leaving ours in the ground for as long as possible. The type of thing that's happening in the Gulf today is not an unusual occurrence in other producing areas, especially west Africa, but nobody worries much about it.

 

By coincidence, Matthew Simmons did a presentation on the Louisiana industry in January of this year: Will We Still Be Celebrating Louisiana's Energy Leadership Through Next Decade?

 

Other speeches/presentations by Matthew Simmons are available at: http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches

[yabadabapal]

Selden, as usual, a great source of information from you and others. Thanks for taking the time and for the education.

 

While we're at it I wanted to ask you one more question. On an organic process, what part of the earths internal operation as an organic body, does oil play. And does the removal of oil increase the heat and friction of plates much like oil performs in automobiles etc to keep the temperatures in line and not overheating because of friction.

As we drill more oil, will we see consequences such as earthquakes.

[Selden]

I hope nobody takes the wrong meaning from my comment about not worrying much about environmental devastation in West Africa (or other impoverished oil producing regions); irony can be difficult to communicate on the net, and there was no appropriate emoticon.

[philbytx]

quote

And does the removal of oil increase the heat and friction of plates much like oil performs in automobiles etc to keep the temperatures in line and not overheating because of friction.

unquote

Hmmm! After considerable pondering, I reckon at that depth and given the heat nearer the earth's core, I would reckon Mobil1 15w50 would work well

[yabadabapal]

Precisely.

[Selden]

As far as I am aware, petroleum itself plays very little role in earthquakes, although hydro-fracturing of rock, and injection of large amounts of water may trigger quakes even in relatively stable regions (e.g., Texas). Increased earthquake activity may be a possible risk of the rush to exploit trapped gas in the marcellus shale.

[yabadabapal]

I hope nobody takes the wrong meaning from my comment about not worrying much about environmental devastation in West Africa (or other impoverished oil producing regions); irony can be difficult to communicate on the net, and there was no appropriate emoticon.

 

I don't think it came across as you not caring. It was understood.

[Green RT]

As far as I am aware, petroleum itself plays very little role in earthquakes, although hydro-fracturing of rock, and injection of large amounts of water may trigger quakes even in relatively stable regions (e.g., Texas). Increased earthquake activity may be a possible risk of the rush to exploit trapped gas in the marcellus shale.

 

There is a lot of interest in the roll that water in the crust plays in earthquake generation. Oil is not really an issue. Probably because they rarely occur in the same places. I have spent all of a long career studying earthquakes and I can't remember any papers discussing a role for oil. I suspect there are several reasons for that. The oil generally accumulates at pretty shallow depths compared to the depth of most earthquakes, although the deeper oil wells are approaching the depths of the shallower earthquakes. Another factor may be that faults that produce earthquakes generally churn up the crust and the accumulation of oil requires pretty stable conditions. Finally, earthquake faults are a pretty small fraction of the area of the planet. So are oil fields, so the likelihood of them occurring in the same place is pretty small. Just some thoughts off the top of my head on a subject I haven't thought about much before.

[T.M. Roe]

Selden, are you a Peal Oil Guy?

 

(I am).

[Selden]

Peak oil, yes, after reading Matthew Simmons' Twilight in the Desert five years ago, although I continue to hope that his outlook on economic disruption is too pessimistic. To date, worldwide oil production peaked in 2005, and has plateaued; the big question is whether this was a temporary halt in growth, or if not, whether the drop off will be gradual or precipitous. If gradual, market mechanisms will result in both conservation and substitution, but if precipitous, well, Houston, we have a problem.

 

Ironically, given the title of this thread, oil and water are inseparable, as massive amounts of water are required to extract oil (and gas) from vast, but low quality sources such as oil sands and shales.

[T.M. Roe]

I like how Jeff Rubin sums it up

Its a long watch but its worth the look.

[Selden]

Thanks for the link. Jeff Rubin was a new name for me. Where did a Canadian get an accent like Jack Nicholson?

 

[T.M. Roe]

I stay informed through several different groups so the information always gets through. Then you just analyze and place a "how much should I worry about this number" on it and plan accordingly. That's how I find these guys.

I think the accent is the cool part.

Smart and a smart *ss too!

[yabadabapal]

210,000 gallons a day into the gulf. WTF!

4 weeks until they think they can stop it.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/us/02spill.html

 

 

[yabadabapal]

WASHINGTON — The federal government has a large rainy day fund on hand to help mitigate the expanding damage on the Gulf Coast, generated by a tax on oil for use in cases like the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Up to $1 billion of the $1.6 billion reserve could be used to compensate for losses from the accident, as much as half of it for what is sometimes a major category of costs: damage to natural resources like fisheries and other wildlife habitats.

Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government, although they are responsible for the cost of containing and cleaning up the spill.

 

I guess you and I are going to be paying for this as a result of a percentage of the tax on oil going to the fund. The part that amazed me was the limit of liability on the company. But After its all said and done, I believe the fed. Govt, sends the total bill to BP for reimbursement. I may have not understood this clearly so Im posting the article for further clarification if your interested.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/us/02liability.html

[Selden]

Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government, although they are responsible for the cost of containing and cleaning up the spill.

 

The fund was set up by Congress in 1986 but not financed until after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska in 1989. In exchange for the limits on liability, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 imposed a tax on oil companies, currently 8 cents for every barrel they produce in this country or import.

 

The tax adds roughly one tenth of a percent to the price of oil. Another source of revenue is fines and civil penalties from companies that spill oil.

From this morning's Financial Times:

 

BP on Friday promised to meet all “legitimate” claims for damages arising from its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which is threatening to devastate fishing and tourism industries, and wildlife habitats along the Louisiana coast.

 

Tony Hayward, BP chief executive, told the Financial Times: “It was not our accident, but it is our responsibility to clean it up. Where people have legitimate claims for damages, we will absolutely honour them.”

 

He made his pledge as estimates of the potential cost of the clean-up and claims for damages rose to more than $12bn, of which BP would have to pay two-thirds.

The fun will become when lawyers start arguing over what "legitimate claims" means. This show is just getting started.

 

[yabadabapal]

Here is something interesting I figured out just for a curious perspective or reference.

There are 42 gallons of oil in every barrel.

But, there are 20 gallons of gasoline that are able

to be processed from every 42 gallon or 1 barrel of oil.

The remaining oil is used for heating oil and other applications.

So at 5000 barrels flowing into the gulf every 24 hours, that equals about 100,000 gallons of usable gasoline for transportation etc. Total spill over the projected 28 day period until we can stop the spill in total is about 140,000 barrels or about 6,000,000 gallons. Now the damage being done from this spill is terrible. But to give another perspective

there are 343,423,668,428,484,681,262 gallons of water in the oceans.

"That's 343 quintillion gallons, or put another way, 343 billion BILLION gallons". Thanks wikipedia

So, am I doing this correctly (help)!!!

So the targeted volume of percentage being effected relative to the

world wide volume is 1/57237278071414th. I quit. Have a nice day.

 

 

[T.M. Roe]

What percent it is would be is irrelevant.

Kill the top 3 inches of the ocean and we all die.

Get it!

[yabadabapal]

Here is something interesting I figured out just for a curious perspective or reference.

There are 42 gallons of oil in every barrel.

But, there are 20 gallons of gasoline that are able

to be processed from every 42 gallon or 1 barrel of oil.

The remaining oil is used for heating oil and other applications.

So at 5000 barrels flowing into the gulf every 24 hours, that equals about 100,000 gallons of usable gasoline for transportation etc. Total spill over the projected 28 day period until we can stop the spill in total is about 140,000 barrels or about 6,000,000 gallons. Now the damage being done from this spill is terrible. But to give another perspective

there are 343,423,668,428,484,681,262 gallons of water in the oceans.

"That's 343 quintillion gallons, or put another way, 343 billion BILLION gallons". Thanks wikipedia

So, am I doing this correctly (help)!!!

So the targeted volume of percentage being effected relative to the

world wide volume is 1/57237278071414th. I quit. Have a nice day.

 

 

Had to ad this:

1/57237278071414th % doesn't seem like a lot or rather insignificant but anytime you are dealing with an finite object, any percentage of effect is much grater than the numbers or calculation.

 

[lawnchairboy]

heard a joke once involving lawyers and the bottom of the ocean....

 

 

[MotorinLA]

I guess the price of gas will go up again. After all they are sure to find a way to pass their losses onto the consumer. :frown: If not directly, then thru increased gas taxes to replenish the money they're taking out of the emergency fund to pay for this mess.

[steve.foote]

Maybe we could contain the spill by "bombing" the gulf with dozens of B52's filled with hundreds of bullions of dollars in cash. That strategy has been tried unsuccessfully several times lately, but it just might work in this case.

[tallman]

I was thinking an underwater nuke placed with just the right spin would stop the flow.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Total spill over the projected 28 day period until we can stop the spill in total is about 140,000 barrels or about 6,000,000 gallons. Now the damage being done from this spill is terrible. But to give another perspective

there are 343,423,668,428,484,681,262 gallons of water in the oceans.

"That's 343 quintillion gallons, or put another way, 343 billion BILLION gallons". Thanks wikipedia

So, am I doing this correctly (help)!!!

So the targeted volume of percentage being effected relative to the

world wide volume is 1/57237278071414th. I quit. Have a nice day.

 

Probably wouldn't be bad at all, if the oil could be dispersed evenly throughout the world's oceans. But it isn't, and won't be. It's concentrated at the surface, and over just a small portion of the ocean's surface at that. And it'll be worse when it comes ashore. Hopefully they can burn off a lot of it and collect a lot more of it with booms/skimmers before that happens...

[steve.foote]

I was thinking an underwater nuke placed with just the right spin would stop the flow.

 

My kind of thinking, Tim.

[yabadabapal]

I was thinking an underwater nuke placed with just the right spin would stop the flow.

 

My kind of thinking, Tim.

 

Thats a great idea because the heat from an underwater nuc would seal all pipes and extension access areas. Latest today is BP is getting ready to drop a huge dome that weighs many tons over the area and hope it will serve as a containment dome. The dome will have a pipe connected to it that will connect to a barge that will then captured all the oil and fill it to the max the barge can hold which is 250000 barrels.

[Selden]

Not to dismiss the impact the Deepwater Horizon spill is going to have, but there have been much worse spills.

 

The Biggest Oil Spills in History

[notacop]

I was thinking an underwater nuke placed with just the right spin would stop the flow.

 

My kind of thinking, Tim.

 

A big sticker on my saddle bag states "nuclear winter cancels global warming"

It's amazing that the oil companies do not have emergency equiptment in areas where they drill. If gas prices go up I'm all for a group mooning of the BP folks where ever they are!

It's not a big, many ton recovery dome, it's DUNCE CAP!

[motoguy128]

Why isn't their a shut-off valve installed near the ocean floor? I'm pretty sure the well heads on land have a shut off valve installed on them. I understand it's a little harder to have a valve located deep under water, but it just seems logical to have one. Mayeb it did, but was damaged.

 

I wonder if future drilling rigs will be required to have a system that automatically shuts the well off and disconnects the pipe in the event of a major fire. Or, maybe more substanital fire supression systems will be required.

 

I find it interesting that thsi was a relatively new rig which should have the latest in safety systems installed. Maybe that's hte problem. The crews have learned to rely on the automatic safety systems rather than following strict procedures.

 

Sort of like ABS and stability control on cars.

[Boffin]

Why isn't their a shut-off valve installed near the ocean floor? I'm pretty sure the well heads on land have a shut off valve installed on them. I understand it's a little harder to have a valve located deep under water, but it just seems logical to have one. Mayeb it did, but was damaged.

 

I wonder if future drilling rigs will be required to have a system that automatically shuts the well off and disconnects the pipe in the event of a major fire. Or, maybe more substanital fire supression systems will be required.

 

I find it interesting that thsi was a relatively new rig which should have the latest in safety systems installed. Maybe that's hte problem. The crews have learned to rely on the automatic safety systems rather than following strict procedures.

 

Sort of like ABS and stability control on cars.

 

There is a blowout preventer on the ocean floor - however it did not work. I am told that they have a 1 in 10 chance of failing. They are not a simple valve - they have to cut through the drill pipe to cut off the flow and if there happens to be a pipe joint in the cutter, it cannot cut through. Add to that the problems associated with making electonic/electro-mechanical devices work 5000 feet below the sea and the old designs used just cannot cope with the real requirement.

 

BTW, this rig had a UK Health and Safety Executive inspection fail, with a fine imposed, for failings in the blowout preveter test and maintenance kit five years ago.

 

Andy

[Selden]

BTW, this rig had a UK Health and Safety Executive inspection fail, with a fine imposed, for failings in the blowout preventer test and maintenance kit five years ago.

 

Andy

Uh oh. I smell liability. Of course, the rig could (should) have been upgraded in the past 5 years. Tighter US requirements and inspection tests are a certain outcome of this mess.

[Selden]

Good article on degration of oil: How Oil Breaks Down in Water. The fact that this spill is happening in a warm environment with lots of sunshine increases the odds that the damage will not be as long-lasting as it would in a place like the north slope.

[yabadabapal]

What a great article that is, Thanks Selden! The latest is, the 40Ft tall pyramid shaped dome might be in place by Monday. They hope that with the vacuum attached to the cone, it may capture and send an estimated 85% of the leak into a container ship that I think holds 250000 barrels(Cant remember exactly). The dispersant used in a volume of 250000 gallons so far is bugging me because the effect on marine life and on edible consumable marine life may not be obvious for some time but will likely present a real danger for not just the marine life but for people, for some time in the future.

The report on BP that I have seen suggests that BP has been paying for more than the rights to drill. They may have been paying for people to keep their mouths shut for many years now.

 

 

"We're captives to the tyranny of what I call the distant depth, and there is no human access to the site of the spill," said Coast Guard Adm. Thad W. Allen, the coordinating commander of a response that includes nearly 8,500 personnel and 260 vessels.

 

 

 

 

[ESokoloff]

Link to BP's response page.

[yabadabapal]

(Reuters) - Florida, with 2,276 miles of beaches and tidal shoreline, is the U.S. state most economically vulnerable to the massive oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

U.S. | GREEN BUSINESS

 

At risk is Florida's tourist sector which last year accounted for a hefty $65 billion of state economic activity.

 

Florida's local and state governments rely heavily on sales and real estate taxes. That income would be depressed by any downturn in vacationers and the value of second homes.

 

And after the dome is placed, they still expect a 3 month time period to drill the relief extension. This is a tragedy but it will also serve as an incident that has caused many people to work together to solve a problem and inevitably will create new and better ideas and methods.

[Ken H.]

Well it (the dome thingy) didn't work. What a mess. What now?

[Gary in Aus]

Part about Gulf of Mexico breeding area interesting.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070805124347.htm

 

The tragedy hasn't arrived yet .

 

As a dedicated person of the ocean , I live beside it ,and spend as much time as I can either on it or in it,the constantly changing news reports are very worrying.

 

At this point we don't have the technology to "fix what we broke" , passionate speeches by politicians and oil company CEOs, apportioning blame and legal action for damages , engaging groups that were unable to respond effectively to Hurricane Katrina and it's aftermath unfortunately don't inspire me with any confidence in the resolution of this disaster.

 

Cynicism also leads me to watch changes in terminology such as "the BP Oil rig" to "the oil rig leased by BP" .I wonder who owns the company that leased the rig to BP and what it's assests are?

Another terminology shift I have picked up is the change from "BP will pay all costs concerning this spill" to "BP will pay for all clean up costs" ,two completely different sets of numbers .

 

A substantial amount of media seems to be focussed on when the slick reaches shore, , the amount of toxins already released into the air will be impacting on those who live in the fallout area for years.

The toxins in the water may remove animals for generations.

 

The "clever" concept of burning the oil engages the same level of intelligence as burning car tyres to get rid of them . F*&%wits.

 

With reference to comments about this rig failing safety tests in the past , also leads to the use of "foreign registered" oil rigs with the resultant liability issues such as Panamania or Liberia registered shipping. I am not an expert on oil rigs but apparently there are different safety standards around the world and this rig was apparently at the bottom of these standards.

 

In most areas rigs are required to have a combination of different systems to shut down oil flow , using acoustic, electronic and even manual methods to shut the flow, to have added a secondary shut off to this rig was in the order of $500,000 , something that is now seeming incredibly cheap.

 

I hope the capping exercise works completely ,if not then partially works , waiting 90 days for the new pipeline to be installed may just be too long . This is another interesting piece of "spin" where the terminology has changed from 'an additional bore to allow continued flow from this well" to "an emergency ,reief well to stop the oil spill"

 

I would also hope the media can establish some credibility or at least uniform reporting. Rupert and BP share too much of the same bedspread.

 

Whats the eventual cost for cheap fuel?

[yabadabapal]

I gotta tell you. This is F#$%@#G disgusting. I am upset over the forthcoming casualties to marine life, human life, and economic life. Remember, 30% of all continental USA seafood products comes from this area. Ill tell you how bad it is. Obama is requesting help from the United Nations.

The gas hydrates crystallized and blocked the flow of oil through this 92 ton dome which has a height of 4 stories and was to settle using rubber wings at a depth of 5000 feet. What I thought they should have done in the first place is to run a 5000 ft hose that would deliver warm neutralizing fluids from a containment ship all the way to the inside of the bottom of the dome and counter effect any of the hydrate issues. The other thing I thought was that prior to lowering the dome, if they started the suction thousand of feet above the point of crystallization, then as they entered the gas hydrate depth, the suction along with the warm properties from the container ship would have created an advanced atmosphere in the problem area and counter effect the hydrate problem. One of the other options is to tap into the riser, which may work, but not without some risk. It looks like they are considering doing what they did in Australia, pump heavy mud and such things into the pipe to block it

The math I did on this freaking mess is substantial.

If they actually need the 3 months to drill the relief extension, by that time a conservative minimum of 25,000,000 (million) gallons will have flowed into the gulf waters. Thats going to be about 2 to 3 times bigger than the Valdez disaster in Alaska.

The cleanup cost of the valdez was about 2.1 billion dollars.

Thats chump change compared to this gulf disaster. Anyway, Im following this thing because its important. Hope you guys dont mind my chronic reporting.

 

[russell_bynum]

What I thought they should have done in the first place is to run a 5000 ft hose that would deliver warm neutralizing fluids from a containment ship all the way to the inside of the bottom of the dome and counter effect any of the hydrate issues. The other thing I thought was that prior to lowering the dome, if they started the suction thousand of feet above the point of crystallization, then as they entered the gas hydrate depth, the suction along with the warm properties from the container ship would have created an advanced atmosphere in the problem area and counter effect the hydrate problem.

 

I'll bet there's a bunch of petroleum engineers LOLing at all the armchair quarterbacks posting on the interwebs about how _they_ could have done it better.

[yabadabapal]

Russell, Ive been expecting you. What took you so long.

 

You have good instincts. Any idea what you think they might come up with, for a solution.

 

How about Haliburton? Lousy food and double billing for it in the Iraqi War and now a lousy cement job that congress is investigating, which is similar to the poor job they did in the Australian oil disaster.

 

I cant remember. Who was it that was the chairman of that company. I think he received a 36 million severance package. What was his name.

[Gary in Aus]

"I'll bet there's a bunch of petroleum engineers LOLing at all the armchair quarterbacks posting on the interwebs about how _they_ could have done it better."

 

With the amount of "armchair quarterbacks" {US ?} on this board, I would have expected more responses with a solution by now {other than nuking it}

 

From the petroleum engineers performance so far the are probably thousands of them trawling the interweb looking for solutions better than the ones they have come up with.

 

The technology behind the current sealing attempt is based on a child in a bathtub with an plastic cup held upside down.

 

Once again not an oil expert but the last thing I would want to do if I was BP ,is to plug up the well to make it non productive. Their insurance will cover most , court cases like those involving The Exxon Valdez will go on for more than 20 years even longer , shareholders get a return , and they can still use the sucker pull of threatening rises in the price of oil if you are too "mean" to them.

 

The new well they are drilling will allow them to recommence production immediately rather than wait after plugging the well like they did on on our North west shelf.

 

Any insurance experts on how much this will raise premiums to insurance customers in the US and around the world , the oil producers can probably even squeeze a price rise out of this incident!

 

they will do what they need to do to cover costs of this exercise and guess who is going to pay ?

 

You

[Rocer]

Bobby - please don't forget to add the second L to Halliburton. I live in Haliburton and it gives me the shivers when our name gets crossed with Halliburton.

 

I read that the dispersants cause the oil to sink to the bottom. Some solution! Further reading this a.m. about the blossoming oil drilling industry off the coast of West Africa in even deeper waters than the Gulf field. It's expected that the oil business in Africa will get a big boost by the fall-out of tighter regulations due to this disaster in the Gulf.

[Ken H.]

they will do what they need to do to cover costs of this exercise and guess who is going to pay ?

 

You

BP - too big to fail?

 

Just sayin’...

[Selden]

From the beginning, BP cautioned that a cofferdam had never been used at this depth, and expressed doubt that it would work. The plan called for a coaxial pipe, with the outer pipe carrying how water to prevent clathrate formation. Methanol can also be used to dissolve the clathrates, but this liberates the methane, which increases the risk of another explosion.

 

The engineers involved with this are trying every approach they can think of, and by definition, this means most will fail, but an important principle is not to do anything (like using a nuclear explosive) that will make the situation worse.

 

It's expected that the oil business in Africa will get a big boost by the fall-out of tighter regulations due to this disaster in the Gulf.

That's not encouraging, considering that Nigeria has had at least one major oil spill every year since 1969. My greatest hope for this mess is that the Minerals Management Service will be split -- it's an absurd state affairs for a regulatory body to be directly dependent for its funding on the revenues of the industry it is supposed to be regulating.

 

I can't remember. Who was it that was the chairman of that company. I think he received a 36 million severance package. What was his name.

Richard Bruce Cheney. Halliburton is one of the oldest oil field service companies, going back to the early 20th century, when they started out in the well cementing business, in which they have probably more experience than any other company. Since then, they have acquired a large number of competitors, and expanded into many other fields. Not part of the conglomerate, but Halliburton cases, which were developed for Halliburton to meet the need for dust and waterproof cases that would hold up in the field, if made for motorcycles, would probably be the gold standard for side cases.

 

This is an environmental disaster, but it's not the end of the world, nor of the GOM. The Ixtoc I blowout in 1979 occurred in much shallower water, closer to shore, and involved (probably) far more oil, since it took a year to control. By and large, that area of the GOM recovered, and so will the coastline environments of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (if this one extends that far) -- IF most of the oil can be prevented from reaching shore. The (intentional) Gulf War I oil spill dwarfed Ixtoc I, and environmental consequences, while still severe, were less than originally anticipated, while recovery was faster, although not without ongoing damage -- especially to tidal areas.

 

Source: The Gulf War Oil Spill Twelve Years Later: Consequences of Eco-Terrorism