BP Says "Top Kill" Operation Has Failed 768
MrShaggy sends a quote from a CBC story: "BP has scuttled the 'top kill' procedure of shooting heavy drilling mud into its blown-out oil well in the Gulf of Mexico after it failed to plug the leak. BP chief operating officer Doug Suttles told reporters on Saturday that over the last three days, the company has pumped more than 30,000 barrels of mud and other materials down the well but has not been able to stop the flow. 'These repeated pumping[s], we don't believe will likely achieve success, so at this point it's time to move to the next option,' Suttles said."
Top Kill didn't work, (Score:3, Funny)
let's try Bottom Seduction.
Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure. It's like operating on a patient and going 'Trust me, I'm a doctor'.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Find a sufficiently desperate patient and promise to help him, then "trust me" might be all you need.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Flamebait?
This is exactly what happened here. A government addicted to petroleum taxes as well as a band of politicians personally heavily invested in the oil industry makes for just such a desperate patient, who needs no assurance and asks no questions about the complex, expensive and dangerous procedures being conducted.
If the government was truly objective about its handling of industry, oil companies would have been required to demonstrate contingencies for all outcomes, including total catastrophic failure of equipment or processes. It's not like the industry operates on the knife's edge of profitability and can't afford to be held to account for their safety and recovery procedures; the oil industry has both the means and the funds necessary to keep such contingencies at the ready. However, they buy political apathy, and can put the money they would otherwise spend on safety into big bonuses for their directors and major stakeholders.
Fuck modern politics.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that alternatives are not (yet) economical, and will never be until they get economies of scale (which is a chicken and egg problem), or until cheap oil runs out.
Laissez-faire markets can only take us so far. Our addiction to oil is just another example of why we need to re-think the way in which markets are supposed to work, and to come up agreements on how we can internalize some of the environmental and other externalities. Things like carbon credits are crude measure, but it's a step in the right direction.
The problem is, that there is no such thing as a "collective conscience" when it comes to money.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
Or until we triple the taxes on oil. Use the revenue to promote energy alternatives.
It's taking us straight to Hell.
Ah, but there is. Unfortunately, corporations do not participate in the collective.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that alternatives are not (yet) economical, and will never be until they get economies of scale (which is a chicken and egg problem), or until cheap oil runs out.
Some allege that cheap oil is an illusion:
http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html [iags.org]
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Informative)
You have no idea what your electricity costs, do you?
I'd be willing to pay maybe $0.05/kwh more, 33-50% increase, but I'm not too interested in the 300-500% increase you seem to be willing to accept!
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
My electricity+water was $61 last month, and that was with some asshole screwing with the thermostat. Triple it. Go ahead. I'll cut back some if I need to.
More importantly, developers will cut back. I work at an organization that builds energy-efficient houses for low-income families (not HfH, though I used to volunteer there) and thanks to intelligent design and a few solar panels, residents have had electric bills well under 100USD per year. I think once guy had an electric bill of 11USD in 2008.
If we tax gasoline a lot, food prices will soar, and that will hit me a lot harder. We already subsidize food like crazy (and not very intelligently [consumerist.com]) but if necessary we could provide exemptions (or better, tax and subsidize--the point is to correct for the externality).
Informative? (Score:5, Insightful)
Electricity is NOT oil powered.
ALL USA power corps get huge massive government welfare that has historically been many times larger than alternatives. It has not been a fair playing field, where alternatives must not only compete with the collection of free energy (created by nature over millions of years) but ALSO the government subsidies and they need much more R&D being literally 100+ years behind the conventional fuel R&D.
Part of the problem is that it is difficult to monetize the additional costs of poor fuel choices and too many shallow and selfish Americans (which in the last few generations is practically our defining trait) do not care and elect people who easily fool them by thinly veiled tax games (and wars, and 3rd world exploitation) to keep costs down.
GOVERNMENT reflects the populace. That is how it works. When you bash American government, you bash the American people who are totally responsible for it. I find that most miss this reality because its a product of masses of people and not doing what they personally want all the time -- eg; this is an example of the shallow minded lack of thought that goes on. The culture encourages this dysfunction which means it will spiral downward to some floor which will likely heavily be influenced by the effectiveness of the media to report to the people what is being done in their name.
The MOB BOSS who makes vague orders and doesn't want to know how they are implemented but harshly judges those who do not deliver is a lot like how a representative democracy works! Public corp CEOs function similarly-- increase share price but don't get caught and don't tell us!
CANADA requires a relief well be drilled AT THE SAME TIME. Their people still have a functioning government. I expected naive Americans to be upset when Obama didn't quietly clean up all their messes yesterday; he is not the naive one, the populace is. Furthermore, its like people thought he was a dictator superman (the super hero thing even became a cynical joke;) forgetting only the corrupt have "power" because they are going WITH the flow of the current system. A true reformer has little power and arguably can only go 1 step forward and 2 backward in our collective fubar.
Welcome to reality. I'll think there is hope when I'm not modded down for speaking unpleasant truths.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Electricity is NOT oil powered."
Dead wrong. I can take you through two power plants in Memphis (non-TVA) that run off of refined oil products.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You completely miss my point. I wasn't talking about whether there was anything as good as petroleum, I was talking about whether the cost of petroleum accurately reflected the social and environmental problems that using it causes.
Laissez Faire does not mean no government regulation. It has more to do with duties and tariffs on trade (or state involvement in industry). One of the problems we have at the moment (esp. in the US) is that oil products are not being taxed properly to account of all the negative
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We are completely dependent on oil and will be for some time. It is 100% BP's fault for this problem. The government shouldn't have to mandate safety. The simple fact that profit will take precedence over safety is proof that
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really think that Shell, Exxon or Texaco or any other oil company would handle this better, or is prepared for a problem like this? Do you really think that if one of those companies had the solution for this problem, they wouldn't offer to help?
BP is probably to blame, and yeah you might blame Obama as well, but the real problem is the complete dependency on oil. Just like you say. And that's not BP's fault. That's not this governments fault.
I'm not American, and for me it would be easy to blame the American people or the American system. But the reality is that we all profited from the American mentality the past century. So now we have two or maybe three crises going on, all about oil and money. And the American way is turning out to be working against us.
The real problem is that still the American people don't realise that things should change. It's similar to the Greek going to strike because they are going bankrupt. It will only make things worse.
I'm very glad that this accident happened in the Mexican Gulf, and that the US is the one suffering the most. That's the only way the American people start to realise that something should change, even though they don't want to pay for it. Europe and Asia are simply not powerful enough to make a real change.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you really think that Shell, Exxon or Texaco or any other oil company would handle this better, or is prepared for a problem like this?
No, but those companies probably wouldn't have had this problem in the first place. You see, BP has the worst safety/regulatory compliance of any of the major oil companies by far. They've got 760 citations for "egregious, willful safety violations" from OSHA; their nearest competitor in the oil industry, Sunoco, has 8 (Exxon, the last poster-child for oil-industry irresponsibility, has only 1.) Their regulatory compliance for EPA issues is just as bad in comparison to their cohort. And I'm sure if you look at people supplying hookers and blow to the MMS, they're right at the top, too. Bottom line, BP is "the worst of the worst" when it comes to playing by the rules despite it's pretty green and yellow logo. They deserve to have all leases terminated and no more granted in perpetuity. Maybe then they'd get their act together.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of simply blaming governments and oil industries we have to think about our own desire to consume oil. We, as consumers, have a responsibility in this situation as well.
Let's say an apple farmer gives his apple pickers faulty ladders to work with and, as a result, dozens of workers every year fall and break their necks. Are you saying this would be the fault of consumers who purchase apples? Should people reduce their consumption of apples to fix this problem? Or does the fault lie with the farmer and have nothing at all to do with the people who purchase the apples?
Substitute farmer and apples with BP and oil.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't "desire" to consume oil. We really and seriously don't.
I come from Texas where there is no mass transit to speak of. Before I moved to an area where there is popular mass transit, I would have completely agreed with you. But mass transit is POPULAR with the people here. You don't NEED to take a car everywhere to get by. Many shops are walking distance, the definition of which has increased since the move, and the rest of most destinations are available by train and bus. I don't spend what I used to on gas just going to and from work any more. I spend a fraction of that amount for commuting now.
When there are better alternatives made available, people will use them every time. It has been the auto industry and oil industry that protested the building of rails in most areas and they are still the parties resisting mass transit today. The masses of people who have never had an alternative to POV transportation might also get fooled into protesting mass transit on the grounds that more train and bus stops will provide increased inconvenience to drivers, but I have to say, that too is marginal. For those who have access to mass transit, they will most often report that they prefer it. For those who don't, it is hard to imagine any other way.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing that BP can drill for oil with no provable solution to a catastrophic failure. It's like operating on a patient and going 'Trust me, I'm a doctor'.
It's amazing that ANY corporation can drill for oil since NONE have stepped up to the plate with a viable solution.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
There are alternatives to all of those products. If the oil industry wasn't so heavily involved in politics, the absurd regulatory structure that makes oil the best way to do just about anything would not exist, and alternative methods of producing many goods would come about.
Have a look through the dormant patents held by oil companies for a taste of how things could be, but aren't thanks to businesses run amok.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
There are alternatives to all of those products. If the oil industry wasn't so heavily involved in politics, the absurd regulatory structure that makes oil the best way to do just about anything would not exist, and alternative methods of producing many goods would come about.
And, pray tell, what are these "alternatives" ? Let's take the simplest, most obvious application of oil : transportation energy.
Which energy source can, with better economics, replace oil as a transportation fuel ? (better, since you say it's a conspiracy "holding us back", which only makes sense if there's a better alternative)
And let's not forget that there are 12 "perpetuum mobile" patents (and that's just counting the U.S.). Just because a "dormant" patent exist, doesn't mean they have a working device.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which energy source can, with better economics, replace oil as a transportation fuel ? (better, since you say it's a conspiracy "holding us back", which only makes sense if there's a better alternative)
Using technology developed in the 1980s by the USDOE at Sandia NREL, we could replace our transportation fuel needs with biodiesel using a fraction of our available desert land, growing algae in open raceways, using seawater as the medium. Since so much of our oil-related energy need is indeed diesel-fuel based (in transportation, shipping, and even power generation) this is a feasible solution today. Yet, no oil company is building biodiesel plants, even though we literally have suitable technology twenty
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet, no oil company is building biodiesel plants, even though we literally have suitable technology twenty years old.
Show me the reference where algae-based biodiesel plants will produce cheaper per-mile fuel than oil.
And this is where we know you don't know what you're talking about. Do you realize how much land it takes to make a significant difference in power usage via solar power? Do the math. And then take that amount of land (which you w
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, I have provided two examples of replacements which are viable, if not complete.
Your definition of viable doesn't take into account 'cost effective.' algae biofuel [wikipedia.org] probably won't be cost effective until oil hits $800 a barrel. That would put gas prices at around $25 a gallon. If that happens, all transportation in the US will effectively stop, thus it's not viable in any real sense. So you are wrong.
Solar is better, but it still isn't competitive with traditional methods of generating electricity, without government subsidies. If it were, it would be 100% viable, and everyone would be doing it. But it's not. You have to take price into consideration with these things.
Incidentally, even though algae is expensive, there are a number of companies and organizations trying to make algae truly viable. Some of these are even sponsored by oil companies. So in a way, you are also wrong when you say, "no oil company is building biodiesel plants." If it ever becomes viable, they will build the plants.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
NiMH batteries? Nah, feeding the rats is too much of a hassle.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
It is also worth noting that your closing statement about Obama makes it appear that he is to blame for all of this, American Presidents, for decades, have been taking money from big oil who have demanded repayment in a variety of ways. This is not unique to the US and certainly not unique to Democrats or Republicans. Trying to make this out to be an issue about Obama alone is short sighted and politics at its worst.
WE have a environment catastrophe on OUR hands and working together is the only way to deal with it. Similarly the only way of ensuring something similar does not happen again is to demand of all of our politicians a break from the status quo.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You have made quite a few assertions as to the viability of attempting such a maneuver, could you please provide evidence in the form of a well respected news article or scientific journal? As was noted by another poster the USSR often claimed things worked when they, in fact, did not.
I can't help out with the viability of it - I'm not sure how you would really go about working that out, to be honest - but I had a read through the Russian reports of this and previous disasters and a group of their nuclear weapons experts have apparently offered to help out; they claim that under the USSR they performed this operation 6 times, using bombs of around 20 kilotonnes, and that five of the operations were a success. The exception (an attempt in 1972 to use a 4kt bomb to seal a gas 'fountain' at
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
The exception (an attempt in 1972 to use a 4kt bomb to seal a gas 'fountain' at a depth of just over 2km in Kharkovskaya oblast') was not successfully closed by the detonation but the situation apparently wasn't made worse.
This is a combination gas and oil well, as proven by the methane crap that keeps clogging stuff. So it likely wouldn't work, and we would have nuked the gulf for nothing. Until you or someone else can provide some evidence that it would work here, bringing it up over and over again saying "this problem is already solved" is fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One solution known to work (the russians did this method), is nuking the hole and collapsing it to an extent that the pressure of the oil can't breach it. You then concrete over the rubble.
I fear "known to work," stretches incredulity to the nth degree. Assuming the blowout cannot be contained at the wellhead, I suspect the relief wells are the best approach. Sadly, it takes time to drill and case a well and then prepare to kill the reservoir. That time is something we don't have in a media-obsessed world that demands instant gratification. If you want oil, it's risky to get it out of the ground. When things go wrong, it can take a long time to fix it. That doesn't sit well with the great unw
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, it takes time to drill and case a well and then prepare to kill the reservoir. That time is something we don't have in a media-obsessed world that demands instant gratification.
How about, that time is something we don't have while thousands of barrels of oil are gushing into the Gulf every day? Who cares what the media is obsessed with.
I agree with you, relief wells are likely to be the answer, but in the mean time, we need to do everything possible to stop or slow down the problem some other way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
BP cannot use this method themselves. It requires Obama to step in and take some responsibility.
Malia: "Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?" ...Michelle! Where's My Super Suit?!"
Obama: "After I'm done shaving, I'll put on my super-suit and get right on it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? How exactly do you test solutions for catastrophe of unknown nature a mile underwater, working with wells of unknown pressure filled with oil and gas of unknown composition? You do understand this was an exploratory well right; the point of this thing was largely to find out what is down there.
If you have a solution to this problem of being able to prove catastrophic failure modes can be solved by doing X with all the other unknowns you are clearly way smarted than the rest of us and I welcome our new over lord; otherwise you just another arm chair quarterback here.
The only amazing thing ... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. It's not just BP - the other oil companies are doing exactly the same thing. It's just that BP drew the short straw today.
2. We do tons of things with no provable solution to a catastrophic failer. Do you want the short list or the long?
Re:The only amazing thing ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh shit, well as long as everyone else is doing it then I guess it's OK.
"2. We do tons of things with no provable solution to a catastrophic failer. Do you want the short list or the long?"
Take your long list. Now restrict it to things in which "catastrophic failure" also includes "catastrophic consequences". For example, the space shuttle disasters, catastrophic disaster resulted in the deaths of less than 10 people per shuttle. All of whom were volunteers with full knowledge of the risks. The risks they took were their own and the consequences were felt only by themselves. No one else died because they wanted to go into space. Catastrophic failure resulted in acceptable consequences.
With this oil situation we're talking about catastrophic failure causing absurdly huge consequences. Make sure you don't confuse "catastrophic failure" with "less than perfect success record".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends on the time scale. This particular catastrophe is nothing on the geological time scale. In fact no one will probably remember this spill 100 years from now.
Re:The only amazing thing ... (Score:4, Insightful)
What a pointless truism that is. The worst atrocities in human history, combined, are "nothing on the geological time scale."
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Informative)
We are drilling off our own too. And we're drilling off your coast because you gave us the contract to do so.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Informative)
BP is actually the result of a merger between AMOCO (AMerican Oil COmpany) and the old BP.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
So... (Score:5, Funny)
I believe the proper tag for this is 'now what'
Lets Try (Score:5, Funny)
Lets try the same thing again, except with BP senior execs
Why only focus on the leak? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BP working relentlessly (Score:5, Funny)
Déjà-vu (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems all to be a Déjà-vu : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmhxpQEGPo
Solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
Expect repost.... from 1979! (Score:5, Informative)
This is all deja vu. This has occures before [youtube.com]. In 1979 a oil well [wikipedia.org] in the gulf blew and it took 9 months to close the gap, using the same techniques [reuters.com] they used so far.
So expect repost of failed attempts for the next 9 months.... in the true /. tradition. If it is important it will be posted again. ;)
Re:Expect repost.... from 1979! (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh quiet. People think that this stuff is new or something, in the same way that the gulf doesn't already leak a few million or is it a few hundred thousand, barrels of oil naturally every year anyway. The reality is when you're dealing with a BFP is to go through the steps of things that have and haven't work in the past. Working your way through up to what will work. Anywho it's just my guess but they'll have to use something in relation to relief wells, it's a large amount of oil with just a little bit of water giving it forced pressure.
*parts may be sarcasm.
Not prepared (Score:5, Informative)
BP's experience is showing us that the relief well is the only solution that will work.
It's why the Canadian government is taking the position that one must be drilled at the same time as a new well is being built. Unsurprisingly, oil companies are already lobbying hard to have these measures curtailed.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-will-take-tough-stand-on-offshore-drilling/article1557095/ [theglobeandmail.com]
"At issue in talks between the oil industry and the National Energy Board on relief wells in the North is whether they must be drilled during the same season as the primary exploration well. The window for drilling in the North is only a few months because of ice conditions. However, allowing oil companies to wait a season to drill relief wells could leave a new well exposed to a potential rupture for a year or more. Mr. Pryce at CAPP said the policy for relief wells was devised in the 1970s, and alternative technology for dealing with ruptures has advanced considerably. "
Not Doubling the Cost (Score:3, Insightful)
It sounds like you're suggesting that for every deep-water oil rig that's built, the oil companies should build a spare "just in case" and have it start the drilling operation to get a lead in case there's a problem on the production platform.
And what's wrong with that? It's not going to double the cost. There's lots of other costs. Also, biodiesel can be produced right now, profitably, as the USDOE projected at Sandia NREL in the 1980s. Or in other words, that fuel could have come from algae in the desert, but because of greed, it must be pumped from the bottom of the ocean instead. I reject the notion that offshore oil drilling is even necessary, and thus I have no problem with mandating that it be done sensibly.
It's all for show from now on. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've come to the conclusion that this is mostly for show.
Best case estimates of success for any of the proposed solutions have been incredibly low.
Repeated failures are changing the problem conditions with each attempt.
BP has to appear to be trying absolutely everything (and I suppose they are), but I think there is an executive acceptance that nothing before the relief wells kick in (August!) is going to make a dent in the flow of escaping oil and gas.
The ROV operators and everyone with a real job to do are doing amazing, admirable work, but I just feel that this is all futile.
We are down to real basic mechanical approaches.
No technological solutions exist, none have been developed as there is no demand, as the oil companies have not invested in disaster management technology. Unproven response measures like the dispersants have been at best useless, and increasingly appear to have had an overall negative effect on the situation.
We seriously don't have any bright ideas about dealing with this, and it's already too late.
Re:It's all for show from now on. (Score:5, Informative)
Hhhmmm, I don't know, but I think this would have been a really simple thing to prevent... no need for any new technology whatsoever
There was absolutely no need for this mess. BP played loose and fast with the lives of millions of people. Hell, they virtually murdered the drilling crew. They knew they were engaged in risky behavior, they cut dozens of corners, shaved the rules, lied about their problems, and did anything at all to cut their expense and increase their profit. At some point, when a company creates, literally manufactures a disaster of this proportion, and the only significant cause is a blatant and callous disregard for human life, and environmental safety, I think it's only fair to invite them to leave the country permanently. They've demonstrated they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in being responsible, decent, or even vaguely accountable. We're still the largest consumer of petroleum products in the world. They must serve us, and not the other way.
Re:It's all for show from now on. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's all for show from now on. (Score:4, Funny)
DEC AlphaServer 3000s. They make great boat anchors.
You can never get a decent plumber in the UK... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Call in the Poles. They have great plumbers
Personally, I'd check the Mushroom Kingdom for plumbers. I know a couple of guys there that work pretty cheaply, if you don't mind their use of mushrooms every now and then.
Time to invest in renewable energy? (Score:5, Interesting)
... because your BP shares are going to be worth a lot less ;-)
Seriously though this accident has thrown up a lot of interesting information - such as how the US imports vastly more oil than it produces on its own territories, and I can only imagine regulation around oil drilling will become more strict rather than less after this has all been sorted out. Given that the USA does love to consume energy I would have thought that the silver lining might be increased investment in alternative energy sources; you've got a huge country with a lot of space for generating wind/solar/wave power. Now might be a time to explore more than pilot projects? Possibly an increased nuclear power plant program as well though I am not too sure about whether this is in political favour at the moment?
One thing amazes me about the present fiasco is that we don't hear of more accidents like this, how many offshore oilrigs are there round the world? I guess the oil industry is either pretty careful or pretty lucky when it comes to oil extraction (or good on PR cover-ups...)
Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? (Score:4, Insightful)
It does happen every few years or so [wikipedia.org]. We just don't hear about it because they aren't usually as large as this one, nor in as deep water, which exacerbates the difficulty of any possible fixes including relief wells (but you can expect more and more deepwater wells in the future). Also, the public and the media have short attention spans, and the oil companies will cover these things up if they can and/or wait for the public outcry to die down. BP tried the same thing here, claiming that the well was only putting out 5000 barrels per day and it wasn't until oil started showing up on shorelines that anyone questioned them. Exxon never paid more than half the money they were supposed to after the Valdez, they just funded an endless stream of lawyers to move it around in court until people gave up trying to get it.
You'd think that would be the case, but the oil industry lobbyists are already probably in high gear waiting for the news media to switch to some other topic so they can go back to baiting the rabid conservative segment of the population with drill, baby, drill slogans and paying off their favorite politicians and funding their reelection campaigns. On the other hand, after the Exxon Valdez the U.S. did start requiring that oil tankers docked in their ports [wikipedia.org] had double hulls. But I guess that a certain political party will resist any new regulations for drilling in the current political climate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though this accident has thrown up a lot of interesting information - such as how the US imports vastly more oil than it produces on its own territories
According to the media, this well's oil would have been sold on the international market.
People who think "drill baby drill" will make their gasoline prices drop are living in a fantasy land.
Re:Time to invest in renewable energy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, this accident was sort of the worst case scenario in that every fail-safe mechanism failed.
Its worst case in a hell of a lot of other ways:
1) Timing. Wells kick all the time while drilling, but while you're drilling you've got the mindset and equipment to work around it so you don't get blowouts. Cement jobs fail all the freaking time, but thats OK since you've got a hole full of heavy mud. BOPs, being mechanical devices in the ocean, fail on occasion, but thats OK because four nines of uptime, combined with un-used rate of four nines, means no problem for about eight nines. Too bad it all happened at the precise worst time.
2) Geology. Despite whatever the idiots on TV say, this is a hybrid gas/oil well not an oil well. A leaking oil well is no problemo you just suck up the oil at the source. Can't do that on a hybrid well because the methane hydrates from the gas clog up the works. Also oil gushers rarely catch fire and vaporize the platform, TV movies excepted. A leaking gas well is no problemo for the TV newsies because nothing washes on shore. Turning the GoM into a big methane fizzy drink is not an ecological ideal but its not, relatively, as bad. So, if it were a pure oil well, you'd have an intact platform uncontrolably squirting oil into a supertanker tied up next door, or worst case you'd be able to capture about 99% of the oil at the source. Or if it were a gas well you'd probably still have sunk the platform and killed everyone, if not even worse than it was, but there would be nothing floating ashore. Also the geology of the bottom of the GoM is completely unknown to the newsies so you get idiot ideas from people whom refuse to understand that the bottom of the GoM is a thousand feet of muck. They think its like the "little mermaid" movie where its all solid granite, and all their ideas reflect that inaccurate assumption.
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory link: http://twitter.com/BPGlobalPR [twitter.com]
How to really motivate them... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's an idea for how to really motivate BP - and any other company with the potential to cause such massive havoc...
For every day that the oil continues to gush, the top 10% of their employees, by total compensation, should be required to work for a day on the clean-up crews. Not simply going to meetings and coming up with plans - they are to get down and dirty scraping oil off rocks and washing birds. The kind of work that gets oil under your fingernails and in your hair, with the smell soaked so deeply into your skin that it takes weeks to get it out.
After all, these guys have so much money in the bank that firing them won't hurt, and fining the company will just translate into higher oil prices. If they had some real skin in the game, I think we would have seen them take the problem a whole lot more seriously from day one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's an idea for how to really motivate BP - and any other company with the potential to cause such massive havoc...
For every day that the oil continues to gush, the top 10% of their employees, by total compensation, should be required to work for a day on the clean-up crews. Not simply going to meetings and coming up with plans - they are to get down and dirty scraping oil off rocks and washing birds. The kind of work that gets oil under your fingernails and in your hair, with the smell soaked so deeply into your skin that it takes weeks to get it out.
After all, these guys have so much money in the bank that firing them won't hurt, and fining the company will just translate into higher oil prices. If they had some real skin in the game, I think we would have seen them take the problem a whole lot more seriously from day one.
BP top execs are corporate psychopaths - that is, psychopaths that happened to be smart enough to manipulate their way into high-paying, high-repsonsibility (without the responsibility) positions. They don't care about you, your family, or just about anyone's lives'.One buck in their pockets is worth more than a human life, for that kind of people.
Furthermore, psychopathy is NOT curable - all those fancy activities at correctional institutions, like training guide dogs for the blind, do NOT work with psycho
Same players, same outcomes (Score:5, Informative)
No, really. If Rachel Maddow is right this has happened before and continues to happen in the same way. All same players, all same tactics, all same outcomes.
Kinda WTF, but check this out:
http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/c8sqn/rachel_maddow_finds_one_massive_wtf/ [reddit.com]
Top Kill (Score:4, Insightful)
I have another idea for an operation with a name 'Top Kill'.
Here [bp.com] are the details [bp.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would add the following [deepwater.com] few [halliburton.com] lists [halliburton.com] to the above.
Guys, that "nuke it from orbit" remark was a joke. (Score:3, Funny)
Really. It was just a joke! Guys, OK? Guys? Guys! Hey. Hey! HEY! Whaddya doing with that missile? GUYS!!!!
Why not continue pumping? (Score:3, Interesting)
One article said that the oil flow stopped while they were pumping in the mud. Why not continue the pumping operation with seawater to keep the pressure in the BOP as high as possible?
Next step ... (Score:3, Funny)
... was supposed to be a 'junk shot' where they jamb the BOP with plastic and rubber to keep the mud from squirting out. So when is BP going to whip out its junk and shove it in the hole?
Re:long history of cutting corners (Score:5, Insightful)
Two BP representatives scheduled to testify in Lousiana on Thursday, today, dropped out. Mr. Vidrine cited an undisclosed medical issue. Another top BP official, the well-site leader, who was scheduled to testify, Robert Kaluza, declined to do so, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Transocean's assistant marine engineer on the Deepwater Horizon also called in sick.
Can you cover your ears with your hands and sing "la la la" loudly please?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fifth amendment not to testify? Well, isn't the next step to start a criminal investigation against all of these people, including all of the top management in all of the companies involved?
The fifth amendment exists to protect the innocent, not the guilty. It's probably the smartest thing someone could do if called to testify in front of Congress for something like this, particularly if they aren't guilty of any wrongdoing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Any competent attorney will tell you to ALWAYS invoke the 5th when you are being COMPELLED to testify about ANYTHING.
Re:long history of cutting corners (Score:5, Insightful)
Of-course this is just of top of the head and maybe stupid
^^ This ^^
30 years ago, drilling a well at this depth was not possible. Drilling technology has advanced to the point where drilling at this depth is now possible. Technology has also advanced to the point where the "same shit they tried 30 years ago" is even an available option at 5000+ ft down.
As an engineer, I take offense when people come up with stuff off the top of their head and assume that teams of professionals haven't considered the same options and rationally analyzed the feasibility.
I can assure you, all the crazy ideas you can possibly consider, and more, are being discussed among the engineers at BP who actually have experience in this industry. Yes, this spill is horrible. No, I can't believe BP doesn't want to have this fixed ASAP. The engineers on the front line simply don't have time to address the media, therefore you are left with execs so far removed from the actual work that they look like incompetent boobs
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and the BP fucked up the boom installation thus allowing the oil to come to the shore lines, to the marshes, they also use the dispersants in 1979 and now.
Most importantly, and which puts a nail into the coffin of your argument, every step of the way BP and Transocean and Halliburton engineers were trumped by the management and told not to pay attention to any of the known problems: the broken BOP, the rubber coming up, the dead battery, the bad concrete seals, the pumping of the mud out, the disregard
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:long history of cutting corners (Score:4, Insightful)
>larouchepac
These are the same people over the past decades who have done nothing except spout nonsense.
They're the nuttier parts of the Tea Party. They're the ones comparing Obama to Hitler. They're the ones that said your grandma is going into an oven. They're the ones that came up with "death panels" bullshit.
They. Are. Nuts.
I've seen other people calling you out being modded down. Go ahead, mods, mod me down, but before you do, look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche [wikipedia.org]
I wouldn't trust a Larouchian to tell me the sun was going to rise in the east.
--
BMO
Re:long history of cutting corners (Score:5, Informative)
I was about to post the same thing. After reading the LaRouche commentary on the spill, I clicked to see their video, "The Case for Impeachment". At 0:36 in the video: "In characteristic negro fashion, the president went absolutely berserk and demanded that all such senate insubordination be crushed immediately." This, to me, raises some red flags as to the credibility of their other arguments.
Did they think it wasn't racist because the guy they paid to read the script is Black?
Re:long history of cutting corners (Score:5, Informative)
>What does LaRouche have to do with the TeaParty?
The LaRouchians are within your ranks. Get to know them.
If this is not obvious to you, YOU SHOULD BE MORE OBSERVANT.
>Its rallies have actually be characterized by being peaceful and resulting in less damage to property and shared services than Obama political rallies.
Not when you ransack classrooms when you don't like the New Deal collage on the wall.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/05/14/maine_tea_party_worse_than_you_thought [salon.com]
Posting with no karma bonus, because it's off topic.
--
BMO
Re:long history of cutting corners (Score:4, Insightful)
"The fact is if you look at the Teaparty has lots of intelligent educated members"
Where's the "-1 Hilariously Misinformed" when you need it?
The fact that your signature indicates a desire to repeal a pretty crucial constitutional amendment, and that you spout support for a troupe of batshit crazy republicans in disguise, leads me to believe I shouldn't listen to anything you have to say.
Re:Suppose they can't stop the oil (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't shovel that crap you fucking industry shill.
Nothing but a very small number of anaerobic microbes can survive in an oil-saturated environment, as oil coats cell surfaces and prevents oxygen transfer. A dumping of that much oil into the world's ecosystem will have catastrophic results, and if it makes its way into the Gulf Stream, it'll be spread globally with results too great for me to describe without sounding like a crazed religious apocalyptic doomsayer.
If the entire well is emptied into the globa
Re:wow (Score:4, Informative)
"Mud" is a technical term for all sorts of drilling fluids specifically designed to keep the pressure on an oil well.
In this case, they used a special type of "Mud", even, "Kill Mud".
But it still failed (and the failure has quite possibly damaged the Blowout Preventer atop the borehole further, potentially increasing the amount of oil gushing into the ocean.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Mud" is a technical term for all sorts of drilling fluids specifically designed to keep the pressure on an oil well.
In this case, they used a special type of "Mud", even, "Kill Mud".
Specifically it's an engineered fluid of precise, high density. It is dense enough to float most rock.
IIRC, it's injected down the space inside the drill pipe, then makes a u-turn after exiting at the drill face and flushes the drilled rock particles up between the drill pipe and the bore wall, thereby clearing the "drilled ch
Falacy (Score:5, Insightful)
So carbon or nuclear, by govt or by private, TAKE YOUR POISON. The only real alternative is to go back to a pre-modern society.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or go forward to a post-modern society. Rejecting what is current does not mean going back to what was before, but moving forward to something new.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Americans are suckers for BS military language... (Score:5, Funny)
well you can sell the Americans anything if you give it macho BS military stylee language. They get all excited if you use words like "kill". Throw in a cowboy metaphor and you're away. Expect the next solution to be something like "predator total destruction high plains stealth option" or something similar ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe those russians should take a second look at it...
Yes maybe they could launch the operation from Cuba. Its quite close you know.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
/faceplam
The new BP is just a rebrand after the BP + AMOCO (ie. AMerican Oil COmpany) merger.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You have a false Dilema situation:
are they pursuing the only thing sure to work, which is drilling at a tactically chosen spot of the same oil field to relieve or nullify the pressure at the leak?
Correct action, wrong intention. The goal is to fill the well, from the bottom up, with heavy mud, just like when it was drilled. The "only" way to do that, which always works, is to drill the relief well. 100% odds of success. It just takes "about a quarter" to do. If you want to get all technical about pressures, the goal is to get the pressure due to the drilling mud to equal the down hole formation pressure... then theres no flow. (Once nothing is moving, you repl
Re:I'm almost afraid to ask... (Score:5, Informative)
Probably around 10 billion barrels. Seriously. Undersea wells can produce unbelievable amounts of oil.
10 BBL would be the biggest entire-field discovery of the last half century, at least. I think no oil fields in the last quarter century have been found above single digit billions.
Actual production from a professionally managed well, in a legendarily great field, that undergoes multiple enhancement and recovery operations, would be a world record setter at 100 MBL or so.
Since this is a hybrid gas/oil well, and in a "eh" of a field, and nothing kills future production like overproduction today, I think a high guess for this well would be 5 MBL liquid oil.
Assuming constant production (huge mistake), 5 MBL producible, and a reasonable leak rate of about 10 KBL/day, the well would stop on it's own sometime next summer. If you believe the idiots whom claim its leaking 200 KBL/day (more than any historical well has ever produced under any circumstances, as far as I know), it would have emptied out a couple weeks ago.
However, wells actually produce in an exponential decay, more or less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion#Oil_well_production_decline [wikipedia.org]
So, the well will never quite go to zero, but once it drops to less than the battleship Arizona leak rate, I think we can stop worrying.
Re:Reaganomics 101 (Score:4, Funny)
Wait, I heard about this. It's called Reaganomics. But maybe the kids have a new name for it these days, what do I know?
LOL. The mere mention of Reagan is the equivalent of viagra for Conservatives.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)