The oil cap has held for three days

[Mini 14]

Sounds like the scientist think they might see a potential seepage problem and just want to make sure BP has a plan in place for every possible scenario.

Allen has acknowledged that there is seepage, so I don't think this is a "pro-active" process, at least in that regard.

 

[Valerie]

I have no idea why you're talking about detonation???

 

[Mini 14]

The government's plan, however, is to eventually pipe oil to the surface, which would ease pressure on the fragile well but would require up to three more days of oil spilling into the Gulf.

What happens if they attempt this and can't re-cap it? how many more thousands of gallons will be spilled?
Who's to blame then?
Why would 3 days more of spillage be okay?

That's why the sentiment to blow it is growing. Screw it. Blow it closed, and abandon it forever.

 

[Mini 14]

I have no idea why you're talking about detonation???

Because it works.

But it seals the well permanently, so you have to be willing to walk away from the millions that have been spent drilling it. (there is no easy way to re-open the well, other than drilling an entirely new well).

Down here, we're all willing

 

[Valerie]

Sounds like the scientist think they might see a potential seepage problem and just want to make sure BP has a plan in place for every possible scenario.

Allen has acknowledged that there is seepage, so I don't think this is a "pro-active" process, at least in that regard.

They say some seepage could be normal and possibly not problematic.

Scientists fear that a seep detected near the well may be a sign of a hidden leak, the Associated Press reported today, citing an unnamed federal official familiar with oversight of the spill. The official provided no additional details to the press service.

On July 17, BP, based in London, said it will investigate bubbles coming from one of the valves on the well cap near the seabed. Kent Wells, BP’s senior vice president for exploration and production, said the bubbles might be nitrogen or methane and were “quite normal,” but would be studied “with an abundance of caution.”

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-cap-has-held-for-three-days.html#post2521816


>

The US government has ordered BP to submit a plan for reopening its capped well in the Gulf of Mexico amid concerns that oil may be seeping out.

The US official in charge of cleaning up the oil spill, Thad Allen, said the plan would have to be implemented as soon as possible if this was confirmed.

He also referred to "undetermined anomalies at the well head".

BBC News - US orders BP to provide oil well cap release plan

 

[Mini 14]

Sounds like the scientist think they might see a potential seepage problem and just want to make sure BP has a plan in place for every possible scenario.

Allen has acknowledged that there is seepage, so I don't think this is a "pro-active" process, at least in that regard.

They say some seepage could be normal and possibly not problematic.

Scientists fear that a seep detected near the well may be a sign of a hidden leak, the Associated Press reported today, citing an unnamed federal official familiar with oversight of the spill. The official provided no additional details to the press service.

On July 17, BP, based in London, said it will investigate bubbles coming from one of the valves on the well cap near the seabed. Kent Wells, BP’s senior vice president for exploration and production, said the bubbles might be nitrogen or methane and were “quite normal,” but would be studied “with an abundance of caution.”

>

The US government has ordered BP to submit a plan for reopening its capped well in the Gulf of Mexico amid concerns that oil may be seeping out.

The US official in charge of cleaning up the oil spill, Thad Allen, said the plan would have to be implemented as soon as possible if this was confirmed.

He also referred to "undetermined anomalies at the well head".

BBC News - US orders BP to provide oil well cap release plan

"may be normal" means they really have no idea. A well on the sea floor is different than one on land in that you can't see it all. You have no idea where all it runs, and where oild comes seeping out when you cap it.

I hope the cap is working, and the seepage is normal or not problematic. But Allen seems VERY concerned, VERY quickly. That's a little disconcerting. I just want the whole thing over, because it has ruined many of my friends and their families, and their ways of life.

Detonation would end it, but would leave a LOT of $$$ under the sea floor. That is the only reason it hasn't been talked about much. That is a HUGE well down there (some estimate it may be the biggest ever in the Gulf). TPTB don't want to walk away from that much $$$ until they've exhausted every other possibility.

I'm already there. Blow it!

 

[Avatar4321]

You know, I really hate the fact that we can't trust the government. I just have a hard time believing they want to uncap this well to fix it rather than to prolongate the problem. If there is no crisis, people won't be motivated to pass cap and trade...

Cynical, I know, but why on earth should we trust the government?

 

[Mini 14]

One other thing to remember:

They are drilling 2 relief wells. That has several advantages, but one of them is that when they seal the existing head, and set one of the relief wells up for production, they still have a relief well in place in case something blows up on the new well-head as well.

You can bet that they aren't going to drill two relief wells, seal all 3, then walk away.

Detonation takes all of that out of play. They have to walk away.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You know, I really hate the fact that we can't trust the government. I just have a hard time believing they want to uncap this well to fix it rather than to prolongate the problem. If there is no crisis, people won't be motivated to pass cap and trade...

Cynical, I know, but why on earth should we trust the government?

Never trust a group that can create a law at a whim that will be able to throw you in jail.

 

[Mini 14]

You know, I really hate the fact that we can't trust the government. I just have a hard time believing they want to uncap this well to fix it rather than to prolongate the problem. If there is no crisis, people won't be motivated to pass cap and trade...

Cynical, I know, but why on earth should we trust the government?

Remember November.

If we live through October

 

[Avatar4321]

You know, I really hate the fact that we can't trust the government. I just have a hard time believing they want to uncap this well to fix it rather than to prolongate the problem. If there is no crisis, people won't be motivated to pass cap and trade...

Cynical, I know, but why on earth should we trust the government?

Remember November.

If we live through October

Why remember November? An election isn't going to change things. The politicians we have are a reflection of who we are. We get corrupt powergrabbing politicians because we as a society are like that.

Until we change ourselves and those immediately around us, it doesn't matter who gets elected. We are going to be dealing with crappy people who are unworthy of trust.

But I will remember the 5th of November always.

 

[Valerie]

I'm already there. Blow it!

How would a nuclear explosion stop the oil from gushing?
The bomb would be detonated deep underground, in a separate well beneath the sea floor. In theory, the extreme heat generated by the explosion would collapse the well bore, melting surrounding rock into a "glassy plug" that would seal the shaft "much like a huge stopper in a leaky bottle." Nuclear expert Christopher Brownfield tells The Takeaway: "When you're looking at this geological formation with a 15,000 foot narrow 'straw' going through it, it doesn't really take that much to break that 'straw' and seal it off."

Has the technique been tried before?
Yes. The Soviet Union capped four gas wells using nuclear bombs in 1966, 1968 and twice in 1972. Another attempt in 1981 was unsuccessful, likely due to "poor geological data."

So why don't we try it?
There are a few reasons to be cautious. Firstly, the Soviet Union's well explosions were all conducted inland. Creating an underwater explosion to seal off the well would be highly experimental technology, and would not be guaranteed to work. Secondly, the fall-out from a nuclear explosion could create fresh environmental hazards. And thirdly, detonating a nuclear bomb would potentially undermine international anti-nuclear treaties by establishing a new and legitimate "peaceful" use for nukes.

What kind of "fresh environmental hazards" could a nuclear explosion create?
Although the explosion would happen deep underground, radioactive gases could still seep into the Gulf. That said, "it seems a reasonable conjecture that the dissipation of a limited amount of radioactive material across the vast Gulf is preferable to the blanketing of thousands of miles of American coastline in ribbons of tar," says Daniel Foster in the National Review. But the worst case scenario, says Andrew Leonard at Salon, would be a "chain reaction" leading to a massive release of frozen natural gas in the seabed — potentially wiping out most of the life on planet Earth.

Is the U.S. considering the nuclear option?
A five-man team of nuclear physicists has reportedly been dispatched to the Gulf to look at "outside-the-box" solutions to the spill, but the White House says using a nuclear bomb to stem the flow was not even a possibility. "It's crazy," one senior official told The New York Times.

Could we use a conventional bomb?
Experts warn that the well and its surrounding geology are fragile and a less powerful explosion might open up fissures and make the leak essentially unstoppable. Because of the risks, using any kind of explosive device should be an option of last resort.

Nuke the oil spill? - The Week

 

[Mini 14]

You know, I really hate the fact that we can't trust the government. I just have a hard time believing they want to uncap this well to fix it rather than to prolongate the problem. If there is no crisis, people won't be motivated to pass cap and trade...

Cynical, I know, but why on earth should we trust the government?

Remember November.

If we live through October

Why remember November? An election isn't going to change things. The politicians we have are a reflection of who we are. We get corrupt powergrabbing politicians because we as a society are like that.

Until we change ourselves and those immediately around us, it doesn't matter who gets elected. We are going to be dealing with crappy people who are unworthy of trust.

But I will remember the 5th of November always.

This isn't "just another election." Nor is the next one.

October is actually MUCH more important than November. If you don't know why, its too late to matter.

 

[Mini 14]

They say some seepage could be normal and possibly not problematic.






>

"may be normal" means they really have no idea. A well on the sea floor is different than one on land in that you can't see it all. You have no idea where all it runs, and where oild comes seeping out when you cap it.

I hope the cap is working, and the seepage is normal or not problematic. But Allen seems VERY concerned, VERY quickly. That's a little disconcerting. I just want the whole thing over, because it has ruined many of my friends and their families, and their ways of life.

Detonation would end it, but would leave a LOT of $$$ under the sea floor. That is the only reason it hasn't been talked about much. That is a HUGE well down there (some estimate it may be the biggest ever in the Gulf). TPTB don't want to walk away from that much $$$ until they've exhausted every other possibility.

I'm already there. Blow it!

How would a nuclear explosion stop the oil from gushing?
The bomb would be detonated deep underground, in a separate well beneath the sea floor. In theory, the extreme heat generated by the explosion would collapse the well bore, melting surrounding rock into a "glassy plug" that would seal the shaft "much like a huge stopper in a leaky bottle." Nuclear expert Christopher Brownfield tells The Takeaway: "When you're looking at this geological formation with a 15,000 foot narrow 'straw' going through it, it doesn't really take that much to break that 'straw' and seal it off."

Has the technique been tried before?
Yes. The Soviet Union capped four gas wells using nuclear bombs in 1966, 1968 and twice in 1972. Another attempt in 1981 was unsuccessful, likely due to "poor geological data."

So why don't we try it?
There are a few reasons to be cautious. Firstly, the Soviet Union's well explosions were all conducted inland. Creating an underwater explosion to seal off the well would be highly experimental technology, and would not be guaranteed to work. Secondly, the fall-out from a nuclear explosion could create fresh environmental hazards. And thirdly, detonating a nuclear bomb would potentially undermine international anti-nuclear treaties by establishing a new and legitimate "peaceful" use for nukes.

What kind of "fresh environmental hazards" could a nuclear explosion create?
Although the explosion would happen deep underground, radioactive gases could still seep into the Gulf. That said, "it seems a reasonable conjecture that the dissipation of a limited amount of radioactive material across the vast Gulf is preferable to the blanketing of thousands of miles of American coastline in ribbons of tar," says Daniel Foster in the National Review. But the worst case scenario, says Andrew Leonard at Salon, would be a "chain reaction" leading to a massive release of frozen natural gas in the seabed — potentially wiping out most of the life on planet Earth.

Is the U.S. considering the nuclear option?
A five-man team of nuclear physicists has reportedly been dispatched to the Gulf to look at "outside-the-box" solutions to the spill, but the White House says using a nuclear bomb to stem the flow was not even a possibility. "It's crazy," one senior official told The New York Times.

Could we use a conventional bomb?
Experts warn that the well and its surrounding geology are fragile and a less powerful explosion might open up fissures and make the leak essentially unstoppable. Because of the risks, using any kind of explosive device should be an option of last resort.

Nuke the oil spill? - The Week

Exactly.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Remember November.

If we live through October

Why remember November? An election isn't going to change things. The politicians we have are a reflection of who we are. We get corrupt powergrabbing politicians because we as a society are like that.

Until we change ourselves and those immediately around us, it doesn't matter who gets elected. We are going to be dealing with crappy people who are unworthy of trust.

But I will remember the 5th of November always.

This isn't "just another election." Nor is the next one.

October is actually MUCH more important than November. If you don't know why, its too late to matter.

Ok I'll bite why is October more important ten November? I may know the answer but I am not sure as to what direction you are taking it.

 

[Mini 14]

Why remember November? An election isn't going to change things. The politicians we have are a reflection of who we are. We get corrupt powergrabbing politicians because we as a society are like that.

Until we change ourselves and those immediately around us, it doesn't matter who gets elected. We are going to be dealing with crappy people who are unworthy of trust.

But I will remember the 5th of November always.

This isn't "just another election." Nor is the next one.

October is actually MUCH more important than November. If you don't know why, its too late to matter.

Ok I'll bite why is October more important ten November? I may know the answer but I am not sure as to what direction you are taking it.

Not to be cryptic, but if you don't already know, then it really doesn't matter.

And I don't want to start another board meltdown

 

[rdean]

"may be normal" means they really have no idea. A well on the sea floor is different than one on land in that you can't see it all. You have no idea where all it runs, and where oild comes seeping out when you cap it.

I hope the cap is working, and the seepage is normal or not problematic. But Allen seems VERY concerned, VERY quickly. That's a little disconcerting. I just want the whole thing over, because it has ruined many of my friends and their families, and their ways of life.

Detonation would end it, but would leave a LOT of $$$ under the sea floor. That is the only reason it hasn't been talked about much. That is a HUGE well down there (some estimate it may be the biggest ever in the Gulf). TPTB don't want to walk away from that much $$$ until they've exhausted every other possibility.

I'm already there. Blow it!

How would a nuclear explosion stop the oil from gushing?
The bomb would be detonated deep underground, in a separate well beneath the sea floor. In theory, the extreme heat generated by the explosion would collapse the well bore, melting surrounding rock into a "glassy plug" that would seal the shaft "much like a huge stopper in a leaky bottle." Nuclear expert Christopher Brownfield tells The Takeaway: "When you're looking at this geological formation with a 15,000 foot narrow 'straw' going through it, it doesn't really take that much to break that 'straw' and seal it off."

Has the technique been tried before?
Yes. The Soviet Union capped four gas wells using nuclear bombs in 1966, 1968 and twice in 1972. Another attempt in 1981 was unsuccessful, likely due to "poor geological data."

So why don't we try it?
There are a few reasons to be cautious. Firstly, the Soviet Union's well explosions were all conducted inland. Creating an underwater explosion to seal off the well would be highly experimental technology, and would not be guaranteed to work. Secondly, the fall-out from a nuclear explosion could create fresh environmental hazards. And thirdly, detonating a nuclear bomb would potentially undermine international anti-nuclear treaties by establishing a new and legitimate "peaceful" use for nukes.

What kind of "fresh environmental hazards" could a nuclear explosion create?
Although the explosion would happen deep underground, radioactive gases could still seep into the Gulf. That said, "it seems a reasonable conjecture that the dissipation of a limited amount of radioactive material across the vast Gulf is preferable to the blanketing of thousands of miles of American coastline in ribbons of tar," says Daniel Foster in the National Review. But the worst case scenario, says Andrew Leonard at Salon, would be a "chain reaction" leading to a massive release of frozen natural gas in the seabed — potentially wiping out most of the life on planet Earth.

Is the U.S. considering the nuclear option?
A five-man team of nuclear physicists has reportedly been dispatched to the Gulf to look at "outside-the-box" solutions to the spill, but the White House says using a nuclear bomb to stem the flow was not even a possibility. "It's crazy," one senior official told The New York Times.

Could we use a conventional bomb?
Experts warn that the well and its surrounding geology are fragile and a less powerful explosion might open up fissures and make the leak essentially unstoppable. Because of the risks, using any kind of explosive device should be an option of last resort.

Nuke the oil spill? - The Week

Exactly.

If anyone ever bothered to actually do any research, they would find out the geology around the oil gusher is actually a giant "salt dome" and if someone set off a nuclear device, it would fracture and create a million cracks for oil to "seep" through.

This is why Republicans:

One. Should never be given nuclear weapons to "play with".

and

Two. Should go to school. Preferably, one of those "liberal" schools that teach "science and geology".

Of course, they will find out the earth is much older than 6,000 years.

Oh, and by the way, it looks like they may have found a "crack". Very unfortunate.

 

[Mini 14]

Nuke the oil spill? - The Week

Exactly.

If anyone ever bothered to actually do any research, they would find out the geology around the oil gusher is actually a giant "salt dome" and if someone set off a nuclear device, it would fracture and create a million cracks for oil to "seep" through.

This is why Republicans:

One. Should never be given nuclear weapons to "play with".

and

Two. Should go to school. Preferably, one of those "liberal" schools that teach "science and geology".

Of course, they will find out the earth is much older than 6,000 years.

Oh, and by the way, it looks like they may have found a "crack". Very unfortunate.

A "salt dome" at 17,000 feet?

Newsflash for you, Einstein:

Oil doesn't form in sand.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This isn't "just another election." Nor is the next one.

October is actually MUCH more important than November. If you don't know why, its too late to matter.

Ok I'll bite why is October more important ten November? I may know the answer but I am not sure as to what direction you are taking it.

Not to be cryptic, but if you don't already know, then it really doesn't matter.

And I don't want to start another board meltdown

Does it have something to do with the October surprise?

 

[Mini 14]

Ok I'll bite why is October more important ten November? I may know the answer but I am not sure as to what direction you are taking it.

Not to be cryptic, but if you don't already know, then it really doesn't matter.

And I don't want to start another board meltdown

Does it have something to do with the October surprise?

Not sure what that is, but not sure its a single incident either.