[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704614204575245810666495600.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories]Source[/url]
[release]BP PLC successfully inserted a tube into the broken pipe leaking oil into the Gulf of Mexico early Sunday and siphoned off some of the spilling oil to a vessel on the water's surface, increasing the chances that the company will be able to siphon off much of the oil now gushing into the sea.
The crude oil was stored on a drill ship. Natural gas that accompanied the crude-oil flows was flared using a system on board.
The test was halted temporarily when the tube being inserted into the leaking riser was dislodged, according to a statement.
"Technicians have fully inspected the system and have re-inserted the tool," the statement said.
Pressing ahead after another setback, BP said it hopes to soon complete its latest effort to contain the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Jon Decker reports. Courtesy of Reuters.
The Options
Four ways are being considered to stop the spill.
[img]http://online.wsj.com/media/BP-WSJ-100504.gif[/img]
In a letter to BP , Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the oil giant must clarify its "true intentions" on paying for costs associated with the massive spill.
For the past three weeks, oil has been spewing into the Gulf from a ruptured well nearly a mile below the surface, threatening an environmental catastrophe along the Gulf coast. The leak was caused when the Deepwater Horizon rig, which had been drilling the well for BP, exploded and sank, killing 11 crew members.
Earlier efforts to contain the spill ran into a series of setbacks. BP made a first attempt to insert the tube late Saturday, but it fell out following a collision between two subsea robots. Before that, a huge dome that was to be lowered onto the leak got clogged up with gas crystals or hydrates.
It's still unclear whether the new siphoning operation will work. Even in the best-case scenario, the tube won't capture all the leaking oil.
The pipe connected to the tube is full of nitrogen, which will gradually be pulled back to allow oil and gas to flow into it. But the process must be done slowly to avoid seawater entering. Seawater could form hydrates that might block the pipe and stop the flow of oil to the surface.
BP has also received permission from federal authorities to resume spraying chemical dispersants into the leaking oil underwater, a method it says has proved effective in curtailing the oil slick.
BP CEO Tony Hayward said he hopes the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico can be stopped in a week to 10 days.
On Saturday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Salazar released a letter to BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward asking him for a clear understanding of the company's commitment to pay for damages from the spill. The U.S. secretaries wrote that their understanding is the company will not rely on a federal liability cap or seek reimbursement from the U.S. government or an oil spill liability trust fund. The move came one day after U.S. President Barack Obama criticized BP, Transocean Ltd. and Halliburton Co., which was cementing an undersea pipeline into place when the Deepwater Horizon blew up and sank, for pointing fingers at each other at a Congressional hearing on the oil spill.
A BP spokesman said in an email that the company "will respond directly" to the authors of the letter.
As BP frantically races to plug a deepwater oil spill, Chief Executive Tony Hayward says the company could have done more to prepare for the disaster. WSJ's Ben Casselman joins the News Hub with more. Plus, the safest place to put your money and South Carolina raises its cigarette taxes to plug budget holes.
Rough waters and stormy weather hampered offshore cleanup efforts over the weekend. Crews were unable to sweep offshore waters or execute controlled burns. They did use chemical dispersants in deep waters to break the oil into smaller droplets, allowing microbes in the water to break it up. The chemicals in the past were only authorized for use on the water's surface, but the Coast Guard said Friday that following several tests the Environmental Protection Agency had approved their continued use at the site of the leak.
During a press briefing Saturday, BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said the dispersants appeared to be working. A fly-over Saturday indicated the amount of oil on the water's surface near the well had "diminished," he told reporters.
Environmental groups are worried dispersants in deep water might harm sea life, but Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry played down those concerns Saturday. "This is not done by willy-nilly," she told reporters, referring to the government's decision to give the green light.
Mr. Suttles said less dispersant needs to be used under the surface of the water to clean up the spill than if it is applied on the surface.
Landry played down concerns that the well is leaking far more oil than the roughly 5,000 barrels a day that authorities have been estimating until now. "We have a very good handle on the oil we're dealing with," she told reporters.
Tar balls, seen as a possible leading edge of the spill, increasingly have washed ashore in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama in recent days. But Landry said they still weren't common. "It's a few places," she said.
The Coast Guard has reported oil sheen at the Chandeleur Islands off Louisiana. The spill is hitting the offshore fishing industry and keeping tourists away from the area.[/release]
Rate me optimistic
They should just nuke it.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21989824]They should just nuke it.[/QUOTE]
For the first time ever, a comment like this needs agrees, because it's probably the only one that works
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21989824]They should just nuke it.[/QUOTE]
It won't work.
Everyone saying this has no clue what will happen if we nuke it.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21989857]It won't work.
Everyone saying this has no clue what will happen if we nuke it.[/QUOTE]
The nuke will clog it like the golf balls
:hurr:
All that oil is enough to lubricate up a newborn baby.
Just sayin' :clint:
It's about fucking time
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21989824]They should just nuke it.[/QUOTE]
That will just make it worse, the pressure caused by the weapon will force more oil up from the well.
Top hat and needle would work.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21989857]It won't work.
Everyone saying this has no clue what will happen if we nuke it.[/QUOTE]
Of course, when people say "nuke it," everyone assumes nuke the oil slick. That wouldn't work, because on top of the fact the slick is now the size of the state of Louisiana, and the fact you would end up with a very large amount of radioactive crude oil(on top of a large amount of radioactive water vapor), you'd have the issue of a large amount o fallout, as well as the EMP from a surface detonation which would be sufficient to knock a good chunk of the Gulf Coast, myself included, back to the Stone Age. Of course on top of all o that still, you still have a broken well spewing oil into the Gulf, which a good chunk of which is now radioactive. So a nuke against the slick is a [B][I]VERY VERY BAD[/I][/B] idea.
However, using a nuke on the seafloor, at the point of the well, or even inside the well itself, would work much better. For instance, drop a low yield nuke down the drill shaft, and then detonate it when it's sufficiently beneath the ocean floor and the mouth of the wellhead, so as to minimize radioactivity. The shock wave from the multi-kiloton blast would compress the shaft, sealing the leak.
Other than dabbing around in shit that may not even work(Trash seriously?), this technique has been done by the Soviets in the 70's and 80's to seal oil wells that would have been impossible to seal otherwise. Really, at this point, it really wouldn't matter it the UN bitched about the use of a nuclear device, because the entire Environmentalist community is much louder. ANd really, what do you have to lose to try it?
[editline]ffuuuu[/editline]
Holy shit on a pogo stick wall of text.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;21989964]That will just make it worse, the pressure caused by the weapon will force more oil up from the well.[/QUOTE]
There are billions of tons of earth between the ocean floor and the well. A nuke would do absolutely nothing.
Burn it.
[QUOTE=Rubber;21990415]Burn it.[/QUOTE]
same effects, well almost or even worse
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21989857]It won't work.
Everyone saying this has no clue what will happen if we nuke it.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure it'll be awesome for at least 5 minutes.
Didn't the Russians successfully nuke some of theirs, though?
[QUOTE=Rubber;21990415]Burn it.[/QUOTE]
That could work. It would possibly stop the spread, but the heat given off and the amount of oil, not to mention the gases given off really put me off to the idea.
[QUOTE=Detective P;21990510]Didn't the Russians successfully nuke some of theirs, though?[/QUOTE]
Actually, no. The Russians back in the day of the good ol' CCCP, they had something called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy]Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy.[/url] Basically, the Reds were looking for ways to use their absurd number of nukes at the time for peaceful purposes, such as creating instant underground oil and gas reservoirs, and artificial lakes. Of course, other than making radioactive oil, gas, and lakes, it didn't come to anything. I do recall reading somewhere that one of the side effects of the tests was that the detonations had a tendency to collapse drill shafts and such, due to, you know, [I]seismic tremors.
[/I]We kind of need to seal it, pronto, and the Russian way is probably the best way in this case.
We should construct the Big Shell from MGS2.
If the nuke it i will lose all faith in humanity.
they should construct a pipeline from the oil vent to a refinery
[editline]04:58PM[/editline]
or into my mouth
If the nuke idea actually worked when the Soviets were doing then I say we should do it as well.
[QUOTE=rsa1988;21991368]If the nuke idea actually worked when the Soviets were doing then I say we should do it as well.[/QUOTE]
Only thing that puts me off the idea would be the radioactivity.
[QUOTE=RedBlade2021;21993275]Only thing that puts me off the idea would be the radioactivity.[/QUOTE]
Place graphite dome over affected area of the sea floor, every problem solved.
[QUOTE=RedBlade2021;21993275]Only thing that puts me off the idea would be the radioactivity.[/QUOTE]
If it cuts off the rest of the billions or even trillions of barrels of oil that will leak out of it, the small amount of radiation from a modern, high-efficiency, low-yield weapon would be nothing compared to the impact of the oil.
[QUOTE=zkm2009;21990849]We should construct the Big Shell from MGS2.[/QUOTE]
Have some decency, think of the untold gay jokes an infiltrator wearing skin tight leather would have to bare.
Relevant to the thread:
[url=http://io9.com/5535851/how-much-oil-will-be-wasted-in-the-deepwater-spill][img]http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/05/deepwater_550.png[/img][/url]
Don't nuke it. Blow it with a large yield conventional bomb. We don't want to irradiate the place where we get our shrimp and fish from now do we? Plus the chances of accidentally breaking one of the literal thousands of near by oil rigs with a nuclear explosion would be to great.
And they've been burning it guys. You can't burn all of it however, because the "slick" isn't really a slick. Most of it is loitering just below the surface in a milky mixture of water and oil. After awhile, crude oil on the surface will sink into the water column (where all the fish and mammals chill, shrimp too in some cases.) and collect at the bottom(where all the shrimp and inverts chill).
Send Magyver he'll fix it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
