Oil spill apocalypse?

Less toxic doesn't mean not toxic. It may or may not be better than the oil in the long run.

John Brown wrote: Ummm... not really. Yes they have 72 hours to switch but the million or so pounds of dispersants that have already hit the water.

It's better than having them continue to spray Corexit until who-knows-when.

Yub-Yub time?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-top-kill-20100528,0,5782115.story

GameboyRMH wrote: Yub-Yub time? http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-top-kill-20100528,0,5782115.story

and why did they not do this 20 days ago?

ohh right it makes it so they cant get the oil...

ignorant wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: Yub-Yub time? http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-top-kill-20100528,0,5782115.story

and why did they not do this 20 days ago? ohh right it makes it so they cant get the oil...

do you really think this well was going to be abel to be re-opened?

they needed to figure out how to do it to avoid making things worse. that takes time; apparently this works well at the surface but hasn't been tried a mile underwater. they can (and are) drilling different wells to relieve the pressure. the oil still in the deposit isn't going to go anywhere...it'll still be there later.

i think your tinfoil hat is too tight.

Buzz Killington wrote: i think your tinfoil hat is too tight.

naa I've just worked for enough large corps..

If I was in BP, I'd have a report that said...

Cost of publicity vs cost of new well vs cost of cleanup.. etc.. Purely economic decision that is all.

i have no doubt about that.

but i guess that's the thing. continuing to use that well is not really an option, and never really was. once the bop failed, the well itself was toast and the only thing to be done was to cap it off and drill a new one. but capping it is not a simple exercise. they weren't holding off on this approach in hopes of "saving" the well. if they could have capped it right away, i'm sure they would have rather done so and spent the money on drilling a new well.

I heard an estimate of this costing $16 million per day. That's $576 million total and it will likely be higher with the cleanup costs and the impending law suits. I doubt they would opt to hold off on plugging in an effort to save the well if this option was immediately available.

I agree w/Buzz here.

If the latest capping venture fails, the only recourse is to drill another well-head into the same reserve; this will relieve pressure from the original leak and more attempts can be made to seal the leak.

Ironically, the POTUS announced today that all future exploratory drilling has been indefinitely suspended. Since BP already knows where to find this particular oil field, they won't be in violation of the ruling.

Oh, and expect gas prices to rise above normal and expected seasonal increases.............

Brotus7 wrote: I heard an estimate of this costing $16 million per day. That's $576 million total and it will likely be higher with the cleanup costs and the impending law suits. I doubt they would opt to hold off on plugging in an effort to save the well if this option was immediately available. I agree w/Buzz here.

Unfortunately I cannot fight misinformation everywhere, but I guess I'll keep trying. By law, BP is not allowed to save this well. Its not a matter of economics. Literally the only thing they can do is stop the flow, cement and P&A. They can't even reenter the same wellbore in the future.

And for the record, BP has said they've spent $850 million to date on trying to plug and cleanup. This number WILL be in the many many billions by the time they get back to 0. This one disaster has ruined their year.

GregTivo wrote: Unfortunately I cannot fight misinformation everywhere, but I guess I'll keep trying. By law, BP is not allowed to save this well. Its not a matter of economics. Literally the only thing they can do is stop the flow, cement and P&A. They can't even reenter the same wellbore in the future.

So, by law, what happens if BP cannot stop the flow?

Is the company, by law, forbidden to process oil from new bores intended to relieve pressure from the leak, thus allowing BP to cap the original breach?

Just curious.............

maybe I'm more draconian than most, but I'd be interested in reusing that well if possible.

oldsaw wrote:

GregTivo wrote: Unfortunately I cannot fight misinformation everywhere, but I guess I'll keep trying. By law, BP is not allowed to save this well. Its not a matter of economics. Literally the only thing they can do is stop the flow, cement and P&A. They can't even reenter the same wellbore in the future.

So, by law, what happens if BP cannot stop the flow? Is the company, by law, forbidden to process oil from new bores intended to relieve pressure from the leak, thus allowing BP to cap the original breach? Just curious.............

Relief wells are relief wells. They can not be turned into production wells. Their point is to give you access to pump cement into the well bore. After the leak is stopped, all the wells associated with it plugged off and the oil cleaned up, BP can apply for a permit to drill another production well.

ignorant wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: Yub-Yub time? http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-top-kill-20100528,0,5782115.story

and why did they not do this 20 days ago? ohh right it makes it so they cant get the oil...

From the sound of his speach yesterday it's because 20 days ago he couldn't hold his breath long enough to go a mile deep into the ocean and carry all that mud at the same time.

As far as reopening the well all the wells are drilled in land belonging to the feds and are leased, from what I've seen in the paper once you have a problem like this your lease is over

More bad news for the ocean http://www.theonion.com/articles/massive-tag-body-spray-slick-spreading-from-jersey,2048/

Wally wrote: From the sound of his speach yesterday it's because 20 days ago he couldn't hold his breath long enough to go a mile deep into the ocean and carry all that mud at the same time.

"Did you plug the hole yet, daddy?"

That's what she said, Giggity Giggity

Building barrier islands to contain an oil spill...more proof we're living in a sci-fi dystopia.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/barrier-islands-approved-for-gulf-oil-spill.html

GameboyRMH wrote: Building barrier islands to contain an oil spill...more proof we're living in a sci-fi dystopia. http://news.discovery.com/earth/barrier-islands-approved-for-gulf-oil-spill.html

Umm, the intent is to reduce contanimation, not to contain the spill.

No one really knows (yet) if artificial barrier islands will help, but the idea seems more beneficial than allowing the spill to reach even more wetlands and beaches.

Leak not plugged:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/29/bp-oil-top-kill.html

Now BP says they are going to cut off the blow-out preventer to make a clean cut to make it easier to put a plug in the pipe. My question is, "How much is this going to increase the flow of oil coming out?"

BP has already said this will increase the flow. They estimate by perhaps 10% (although I personally find all of their estimates fairly suspect).

This is why they tried the topkill first. Other options will increase the flow.

what a horrid situation all the way around.. Sad to say the least.

lol just heard this one...

If they want to make the Oil leak stop, simply place a wedding ring on the end of the broken pipe, it will immediately stop putting out!

HEY-OHHHH

Working in seafood, I'm getting tiered of having to talk about this with every other customer

On a brighter note, I was doing an oil change today and noticed that Castrol is owned by BP. I realised by using a BP product, I'm helping fund the clean up efforts.