Gulf Oil Spill Nearing Loop Current 334
An anonymous reader writes "Per The Weather Channel's tropical expert Dr. Richard Knabb, 'based on satellite images, model simulations, and on-site research vessel reports, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the oil slick at the surface is very near or partially in the Loop Current. The Loop Current is responsible in the first place for extending that stream of oil off to the southeast in satellite imagery. With its proximity to the northern edge of the Loop Current it may be only a matter of weeks or even days before the ocean surface oil is transported toward the Florida Keys and southeast Florida.'" Other experts are a little more cautious: "We know the oil has not entered the Loop Current," Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry said at a news conference Monday afternoon. "A leading edge sheen is getting close to it, but it has not entered the Loop Current. The larger volume of oil is several miles from the Loop Current."
Re:Nuke it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming it worked at stopping the continuing spill, what would be the negative effects?
British Petroleum would lose the well permanently and have to drill a new one.
--
BMO
temporary reassurance (Score:4, Insightful)
"A leading edge sheen is getting close to it, but it has not entered the Loop Current. The larger volume of oil is several miles from the Loop Current."
Oh, so the inevitable hasn't happened yet. That's so reassuring.
Re:Nuke it. (Score:4, Insightful)
And what exactly do you think that a nuke will do?
The problem is that there is a massive oil reserve deep underground that is under extreme pressure, but contained by rock and dirt. BP has tapped into that reserve with basically a giant straw and now that straw is leaking. Detonating a nuclear bomb near the leak could open that hole up wider allowing much, much oil to flow past.
Furthermore, AFAIK, the effects of a nuclear bomb on underwater sea life are basically unknown. And instead of the nuclear fallout landing on the ground near the explosion, as it would in an above ground explosion, here the fallout would be free to travel in the ocean currents.
Re:Nuke it. (Score:3, Insightful)
The prospect of a nuke igniting the oil deposit is one of the more persuasive counterarguments. It may be a low probability, but when one of the possible side effects of an experiment is the destruction of life as we know it, that tends to make people shy away from trying it.
Re:Nuke it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh boo hoo? Given the choice between losing the well and having the well spill all of it's contents into the ocean and causing havoc on the environment in the Gulf, Florida, the Atlantic and possibly around Europe once it gets into the Gulf Stream, I think we should deprive BP of a few billion dollars.
Re:Nuke it. (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens when you hit underwater sea life with a nuke?
The same thing that happens to anything else.
drill baby drill! (Score:4, Insightful)
what was that crass slogan again?
why don't i hear it anymore?
meant to appeal to low iq dimwits as a valid solution to the energy crisis? you know, buy us a couple more months of soccer moms in SUVs in suburban sprawl, before the inevitable? hey, what's a little ecosystem destruction when we need to go to walmart to buy plastic crap and mcdonalds to shovel more calories in our distended waistlines? why's it smell like oil near the beach mommy?
as the economy recovers, as newly rich brazilian, chinese, and indian economies begin to suck energy like the west, as the oil only gets deeper and deeper... welcome to a near future, 2015, 2020: $10 a gallon gas. except those brazilian, chinese, and indians: they are already seeking alternatives. you know like nuclear... NOT IN MY BACKYARD!
you were warned back in the 1970s. but you kept funding the saudis, who kept building wahhabi madrassas in pakistan, and you got 9/11. but you still didn't see the writing on the wall. in fact, you thought it was a good excuse to secure some iraqi oil
now you're destroying your own shorelines, and still living in denial, still a hopeless rationalizing junkie addict
when the inevitable comes, when we can no longer afford the gas guzzling lifestyle, many of you will say "who saw that coming?"
plenty of us did, jackass
Re:drill baby drill! (Score:2, Insightful)
what was that crass slogan again?
why don't i hear it anymore?
meant to appeal to low iq dimwits as a valid solution to the energy crisis? you know, buy us a couple more months of soccer moms in SUVs in suburban sprawl, before the inevitable? hey, what's a little ecosystem destruction when we need to go to walmart to buy plastic crap and mcdonalds to shovel more calories in our distended waistlines? why's it smell like oil near the beach mommy?
as the economy recovers, as newly rich brazilian, chinese, and indian economies begin to suck energy like the west, as the oil only gets deeper and deeper... welcome to a near future, 2015, 2020: $10 a gallon gas. except those brazilian, chinese, and indians: they are already seeking alternatives. you know like nuclear... NOT IN MY BACKYARD!
you were warned back in the 1970s. but you kept funding the saudis, who kept building wahhabi madrassas in pakistan, and you got 9/11. but you still didn't see the writing on the wall. in fact, you thought it was a good excuse to secure some iraqi oil
now you're destroying your own shorelines, and still living in denial, still a hopeless rationalizing junkie addict
when the inevitable comes, when we can no longer afford the gas guzzling lifestyle, many of you will say "who saw that coming?"
plenty of us did, jackass
Yes, I'll bet you did.
I suppose to prove your point you don't drive, you don't use oil in your house, you have solar panels on the roof and of course, you use all natural stuff, no plastic or anything made from oil?
No? Then stfu.
Re:Nuke it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:bologna (Score:1, Insightful)
Any other [scientific] expert would never make such an absolutist statement,
Unless they were 'climate change' science experts, then its okay to make absolutist statements.
Re:Good. Now it will leave the Gulf and move out (Score:1, Insightful)
If you hire the lowest bidder contractor to do your dirty (or illegal) work, and they mess it up (or get caught), it's still your responsibility.
i am smug (Score:1, Insightful)
i live in midtown manhattan, i walk everywhere. i don't own a car. no bike: i hate bikes, dangerous
and i am the future. as oil prices creep up inevitably, inexorably, and permanently, the suburbs will die. we'll live like our great granfathers: dense urban centers, lots of public transportation
so you better get used to my smugness, because your children and your grandchildren will be saying exactly what i am saying, "why didn't anyone plan ahead granddad? it was so obvious it was coming. can you walk me to the train granddad?"
plan or suffer, your choice
Re:Nuke it. (Score:3, Insightful)
3. The smallest nuke that was historically deployed by the USA was the 155mm artillery shell. Conveniently already round, just like a well hole. And about 7 inches across. But I believe its officially out of the arsenal. You'll probably need a bigger hole, think goatse size gaping hole. But to kill the well with drilling mud, you only "need" like 2 inches or so diameter. So its going to take way the heck longer to drill the well to place the nuke, than to drill a simple mud-kill well. Why not shut the well down sooner by not using a nuke?
4. Before setting off the nuke, you need to backfill the hole all they way, or all you've made is a better constructed tap to leak out of. Why not shut the well down sooner by not using a nuke?
5. The best way to increase oil flow is to set off explosive charges in a well. A nuke is a heck of a big explosive. But I thought you were trying to plug the well, not make it flow more? If the nuke fails, the flow rate will be way the heck higher, but the conventional solution is risk-free.
6. Best results if you get the nuke within say 100 feet of the wellbore. Conveniently that was the best the Russians could hope for at that time with their crude (bad pun) directional drilling technology. Heck bad drilling is probably why 1 out of 6 (or whatever) tries failed. We can directional drill with pinpoint accuracy. Just two decades ago, directional drilling to hit a well and mud-kill it was interesting, but now its no big deal. Of course, the Russians couldn't intersect, so they compromised and used a big nuke instead. But we don't need the nuke, because we can intercept the bore no problemo... Why add the extra step of the nuke, after a perfectly adequate modern American directional boring job already killed the well?
7. Nuke only worked 1 in 6 times. Intercepting and mud-killing the well always works 100% of the time, very old tried and true technology. Nuke is much more risky, and the last thing this needs is increased chance of failure.
8. If the nuke fails, all hope is realistically lost of ever controlling the well. The formation will drain out before we can get in there, repair the damage from the nuke, and try to plug. Very high stakes and the casino has rigged the odds against us. A fools wager.
So the nuke is slower, more expensive, failure mode is incredibly dangerous, much less reliable... Why use a nuke again?
i don't want to say "i told you so" (Score:5, Insightful)
i want you to listen to reason: we need to get off oil now, or we will suffer
and you react like i'm trying to run your life?
no, i'm trying to wake you up from your ignorant complacency, and you are reacting like a teenager told by his mom he needs to stop playing videogames and start studying. that indolent sloth of a teenager would then say 'Look on the bright side. Now you have an outlet for all your self-righteous indignation. Nothing feels quite as good to someone trying to run other people's lives as saying "I told you so!"'
so you are basically saying that american energy policy is akin to a fat lazy useless teenager with a sense of spoiled entitlement... but i'm in the wrong because i'm pointing out the simple obvious truth that we're on the wrong path? is that your message to me?
Re:i am smug (Score:2, Insightful)
No, we don't need to get used to your smugness.
We'll just cut off your fucking food supply.
Grow food on the roof of your highrise. You should be able to produce enough to support about 10% of the people in your building.
Here's a shovel you can use. To grow food, and later, to fight for it.
Re:Nuke it. (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL. ah, typical ignorance (Score:1, Insightful)
they were building dense cities 4,000 years ago on the nile
whatever $ is lost for moving food into the city is gained and then some by everyone not needing to drive 2 hours and sit in gridlock every day just to do their business
dense cities are the norm for humanity. dense cities make sense even when all you have is sailing ships and mules. when oil goes to $15 a gallon, the cities will contract in size and normalcy will return after 50 years of cheap oil fueled insanity
meanwhile, suburban sprawl is an artificial endangered idiocy
if that "smugness" bothers you, why doesn't the traditional tea party/ republican low iq smugness and complacency about there being no problem in energy bother you?
Re:bologna (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, so many ways your hate blinds you. But let's look at a factual one. Suppose, for a moment, that you've got a few robots working a mile undersea. Imagine these have umbilical cords a mile long. Imagine that these umbilical cords are connected to corks bobbing on top of the water. Imagine, now, that, while you're loosing a several million dollars a day, someone else wants to bring their own robot in and drive all around your work site. How well is that going to work? By the way, they're not there to help you. They're coming to hurt you, and won't give you any information you don't already have.
is this
a) a good idea, because you hate BP
b) a good idea, because you want to keep spilling oil
c) a good idea, because political grandstanding is good
d) a bad idea, since it gets in the way
Re:Oil at Key West already. (Score:3, Insightful)
How quaint. The deadly disaster has suddenly been spun into a summer employment opportunity for Archie and his chums. Oh wait. They don't know how to scuba dive, so their tar collection will be limited to walking along the shore. Tar down in the coral and elsewhere along the ocean floor will go uncollected.
Oh, and since this imaginative $10/lb. bounty program only rewards participants based on tar collected, the incentive is to go after the low-hanging fruit of big globs and ignore the smaller pieces. Instead of a thorough cleaning of the beaches, the program will result in a half-assed combing. No, to pay people to clean beaches of tar, you need to train them, supervise them, and pay them hourly. Volunteers work well, too.
Seth
Re:i don't want to say "i told you so" (Score:2, Insightful)
You have to understand the mentality of the people you're arguing with. They think that their import oil fueled Escalade is the best way to show their Red-Blooded Americaness. This just goes to show the power of marketing. I recall conservative public service ads in the Seventies urging the necessity of getting off imported oil in the wake the OPEC inspired Oil Crisis. Mind you, they didn't bang on about "Saving The Planet" but they were very much about "Saving America". But then neocons shoved aside the real conservatives a long time ago and their Ministry Of Truth works great.
Re:drill baby drill! (Score:2, Insightful)
you were warned back in the 1970s. but you kept funding the saudis, who kept building wahhabi madrassas in pakistan, and you got 9/11. but you still didn't see the writing on the wall. in fact, you thought it was a good excuse to secure some iraqi oil
now you're destroying your own shorelines, and still living in denial, still a hopeless rationalizing junkie addict
I suppose to prove your point you don't drive, you don't use oil in your house, you have solar panels on the roof and of course, you use all natural stuff, no plastic or anything made from oil?
No? Then stfu.
I think you are proving the parent's point. People were trying to sound the warning bell about our over-dependence on oil and the counter argument was that everyone uses some oil so they should "STFU." Granted the parent's post is in a "I told you so," scolding tone, but he does make a very valid point-- we use a lot more oil than we need, the price of oil is kept artificially low, and the consequences are coming back to haunt us.
Our country has not had a valid energy plan for decades-- taxing oil to bring it in line with the real cost (to the environment and militarily) would force people to reconsider whether they really need to drive an oversized SUV. That might drive down consumer oil consumption 10-20% (I am making that figure up in my head but considering that a modern compact uses well under half of the gas a large SUV uses to go the same distance I think a reasonable estimate (not short term but long term after people have made their next car purchasing decisions based on the new price of gas)). Use the money to fund research into alternative energy sources.
Instead of a rational plan, we have "drill, baby, drill."
Re:i don't want to say "i told you so" (Score:5, Insightful)
i want you to listen to reason: we need to get off oil now, or we will suffer
I know you and I disagree on a lot of political topics, but I'm 100% with you here. I'm a greedy capitalist who's far more interested in my own lifestyle than in a spotted owl, but I want us to get off oil and onto something long-term sustainable, and ASAP. I'd happily encourage Congress to fund a Manhattan Project-style national security-motivated investment to make it happen. Forget about carbon dioxide and all that (even if I do think those things are important) - I just don't want to depend on the good graces of countries who hate us to keep my country running.
Either we invest in alternative energy development now and eat the research costs for the next X years until it comes online, or we wait until gas gets ludicrously expensive and then start research - and then wait X years after that until we can use it. Maybe if we'd taken this stuff seriously in the 70s and 80s, X would almost be up and we'd have viable alternatives available today. Thanks, previous generation.
Re:Nuke it. (Score:3, Insightful)
And if BP doesn't, the Chinese or Russians will. This area is in international waters. The Chinese are already drilling off the coast of Florida.
Re:Nuke it. (Score:3, Insightful)
The question becomes: In which case is the rich gulf fishery more fucked? If it's killed off by a massive and ongoing petrochemical spill, or if the sea life is rendered inedible for decades by radioactivity?
Why would it be decades? Are we going to encase the nuke in Cobalt 60? or wrap it in iodine?
Re:i am smug (Score:3, Insightful)
Without oil-based fertilizer, pesticides and oil-powered farm equipment no real decision needs to be made about who is going to starve - approximately 90% of the current population will starve. The crops that are grown can't be transported to markets either.
If you live in a city, you are pretty much doomed should this come to pass. The cities without food are simply deathtraps. Worse, before you actually starve you will either be swept up into a gang searching for the last few scraps or killed by such a gang.
The only people that will survive are those in suburban and rural locations with arable land. If you can't grow a garden and keep chickens you are going to be in big trouble. No, I don't think a barter system will quickly evolve. I expect a lot of people to be standing around waiting for the government to "do something" only to be very, very disappointed.
I think the electricity will be the first to go - we haven't built a power plant in 40 years of any real capacity and we are unlikely to really "conserve" our way out of needing more and more. Electric cars might just be the load that pushes the grid down - there is no way that we could support having cars plugged in during the day or until around 9PM in most of the US. So I would expect the grid to collapse within the next couple of years. No electricity means no gasoline pumps, so you can't fill up your gas-powered car either. Without transportation, the cities start to die from panic, lack of food and violence.
Re:Nuke it. (Score:3, Insightful)
While it's true that this is flamebait, unfortunately so is the behavior of BP and other petro companies.
We cannot just say "oh that's distasteful" and turn our heads. Sometimes burying our heads in the sand does not buy us safety or security. Sometimes it leads to the collapse of whole banking institutions or small Mediterranean nations.
So while you may not agree with his view, or while you may consider it flamebait, consider that the truth is not always pleasant.
How will you help make the world a better place today?
Re:Oil at Key West already. (Score:3, Insightful)
...the incentive is to go after the low-hanging fruit of big globs and ignore the smaller pieces.
Speak for yourself. The real challenge lies in manufacturing your own tar balls that can pass as the real thing, and yet manufacture them in such mass quantities that you can recoup your expenses and then some (of course, when I am speaking of expenses, I'm not counting the cost of ruining your mom's kitchen, her pots and bathtub, nor am I including the cost of retarring your neighbors roof and driveway. They have jobs. You don't. They can certainly afford to subsidize your entrepreneurial spirit).
Re:Good. Now it will leave the Gulf and move out (Score:1, Insightful)
Accenture (aka Andersen Consulting) is an IT consultancy. You're confusing it with Arthur Andersen, the financial consultancy that was involved with Enron. AC was forced to rebrand because Aurthur Andersen didn't like the similarity.