Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 09 Jun 2010 12:58
Of which there is a great deal.SandChigger wrote:I was going to say: Except the oil affected by the dispersants, floating under the surface.
Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ
DUNE DISCUSSION FORUM FOR ORTHODOX HERBERTARIANS
http://www.jacurutu.com/
Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Page 2 of 4
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 09 Jun 2010 14:11
I think this is what makes this makes this such a tough one. I think what those guys suggests would work on the oil on top of the water but like you said. There is ALOT still under ground and from what I understand (which I could be wrong) but more and more coming out every day.
The disaster in Alaska 20+ years ago was a set amount that spilled from a tanker, please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this thing continueing to spew oil?
I would say try almost anything from spreading hay ontop of the floating to even making a giant cork and sticking it in the dang thing until something better can be designed.
The disaster in Alaska 20+ years ago was a set amount that spilled from a tanker, please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this thing continueing to spew oil?
I would say try almost anything from spreading hay ontop of the floating to even making a giant cork and sticking it in the dang thing until something better can be designed.
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 09 Jun 2010 14:55
Yes, it's an open well.
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 09 Jun 2010 14:56
1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill (still doesn't address the massive amount of oil floating underneath the surface, but I had assumed "put-hay-in-ocean" was complete shite).
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 09 Jun 2010 15:26
It seems obvious to me that the main reason this spill is as bad as it is is that BP has been wasting all this time trying to put the well back in working order rather than just cap it. As of now its actually spewing between 50 and 200% more oil since they sliced off the pipe and "capped" it. The cap is collecting some of the oil, ~ 20-40,000 gallons a day. Apparently there is also a rumor that there is another leak from an underground fissure that was opened by this blast or another failed cap.
So, you know, good news all around so far...
So, you know, good news all around so far...
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 09 Jun 2010 17:13
For BP it is.Ampoliros wrote:So, you know, good news all around so far...
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 10 Jun 2010 14:33
BP execs are idiots.
Just saw a news story where hair salons where bagging hair clippings abd sending them to storehouses near the gulf so they can be used the soak up the oil that is floating (kinda like the hay) but BP is not using it they said they are using plastic absortion material. Why spend money on plastic when a natural resource is being DONATED ? We aren't talking about a few bags of this stuff. The report said tons of hair clippings had been donated so far.
BP oil execs are idiots.
Just saw a news story where hair salons where bagging hair clippings abd sending them to storehouses near the gulf so they can be used the soak up the oil that is floating (kinda like the hay) but BP is not using it they said they are using plastic absortion material. Why spend money on plastic when a natural resource is being DONATED ? We aren't talking about a few bags of this stuff. The report said tons of hair clippings had been donated so far.
BP oil execs are idiots.
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 10 Jun 2010 20:24
I imagine BP will stockpile the hair until there's a hair shortage along the gulf coast, and then sell it back to the residents at a profit. AFter all, you know the saying ...
HAIR today, GAIN tomorrow!!!
HBJ
HAIR today, GAIN tomorrow!!!
HBJ
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 10 Jun 2010 22:18
Hunchback Jack wrote:I imagine BP will stockpile the hair until there's a hair shortage along the gulf coast, and then sell it back to the residents at a profit. AFter all, you know the saying ...
HAIR today, GAIN tomorrow!!!
HBJ
I thought that was HAIR today and ROGANE tomorrow.
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 10 Jun 2010 23:20
Team: Much more oil gushing from well than thought
I'm sorry, but that name made me laugh....Marcia McNutt...
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 11 Jun 2010 13:39
Nuke it!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html?hp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html?hp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 11 Jun 2010 14:20
I know, I can't anyone even brought such a retarded idea up.
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 11 Jun 2010 15:12
What could possibly go wrong?
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 11 Jun 2010 15:24
yeah... Better to ask what could go right?
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 11 Jun 2010 16:08
The interactive map from the NY Times is neat... you can actually watch the oil being sucked into the Atlantic by the Gulf Stream:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... tml?ref=us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... tml?ref=us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 11 Jun 2010 16:31
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 13 Jun 2010 15:17
Yeah, exactly. Not sure what "success" would look like ....A Thing of Eternity wrote:yeah... Better to ask what could go right?
HBJ
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 14 Jun 2010 09:30
the Russians have done it a number of times ... I honestly think it is the only viable solution left,A Thing of Eternity wrote:I know, I can't anyone even brought such a retarded idea up.
and should've been done about two weeks ago ...
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 14 Jun 2010 11:59
Seriously?SandRider wrote:the Russians have done it a number of times ... I honestly think it is the only viable solution left,A Thing of Eternity wrote:I know, I can't anyone even brought such a retarded idea up.
and should've been done about two weeks ago ...
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 14 Jun 2010 14:06
http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/us ... -spill.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;oil-price.net wrote: The science is to drill a hole near the leak, set off the explosion and then seal off the leak-used in the soviet for an oil spill in the desert. If it is rocky surface the explosion would shift the rock which then squeezes the funnel of the well. The first underground nuclear explosion was done in Urt-Bulak in 1966 to control burning gas wells. The success ratio is quite high with only one of them failing to prevent a spill in Kharkov region in 1972.
There is an analogy between using nukes to stop the oil leak and using Chemotherapy on a cancer patient. Chemo nearly kills the patient in order to kill all cancerous cells. Yet it is the best known way to stop cancer. The same goes with using nukes underwater. Like chemo it is drastic yet has a 80% success rate, better than anything else.
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 14 Jun 2010 14:24
2 things though -
1, sounds like those previous uses were not in the ocean. 80% success rate is good, but what if it fails and lets out even more oil? I'm sure they'd run the math to make sure they didn't open up the whole bloody oil deposit into the ocean, but a mistake of that magnitude could be damned close to apocalypic.
2. Assuming they can be sure it's not going to risk dumping the whole oil deposit at once into the ocean, couldn't they use conventional explosives instead? It'd take longer to get all that assembled and down there, but at least there wouldn't be fallout.
1, sounds like those previous uses were not in the ocean. 80% success rate is good, but what if it fails and lets out even more oil? I'm sure they'd run the math to make sure they didn't open up the whole bloody oil deposit into the ocean, but a mistake of that magnitude could be damned close to apocalypic.
2. Assuming they can be sure it's not going to risk dumping the whole oil deposit at once into the ocean, couldn't they use conventional explosives instead? It'd take longer to get all that assembled and down there, but at least there wouldn't be fallout.
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 14 Jun 2010 22:56
conventional explosives don't turn rock to glass ...
and we're not talking about a city-destroying ICBM-delivered device here -
"tactical" nuclear device, tailored for the job ....
and I haven't found the details yet, but I'm assuming the devices the Russians used
had to be underwater, or in deep shafts; above-ground detonation of an atomic
bomb has been internationally illegal since the test-ban treaty in the early sixities ...
and we're not talking about a city-destroying ICBM-delivered device here -
"tactical" nuclear device, tailored for the job ....
and I haven't found the details yet, but I'm assuming the devices the Russians used
had to be underwater, or in deep shafts; above-ground detonation of an atomic
bomb has been internationally illegal since the test-ban treaty in the early sixities ...
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 15 Jun 2010 01:17
Hmmm... interesting.
And conventional explosives can get pretty damned close to what a nuke does, we saw that in the halifax explosion.
And conventional explosives can get pretty damned close to what a nuke does, we saw that in the halifax explosion.
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 15 Jun 2010 10:37
somebody like Freak or Trang with more interest than me
might search out some info on tactical nukes, try to figure
out just exactly what we're talking about ... I base most
of my opinions on conversations with all the old oil-field guys
around here and a good friend up in Duncan, Oklahoma who
worked for Haliburton for 50 years .... he says the nuke-option
is viable and, in this case, probably justifiable and necessary ...
might search out some info on tactical nukes, try to figure
out just exactly what we're talking about ... I base most
of my opinions on conversations with all the old oil-field guys
around here and a good friend up in Duncan, Oklahoma who
worked for Haliburton for 50 years .... he says the nuke-option
is viable and, in this case, probably justifiable and necessary ...
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Posted: 15 Jun 2010 10:45
Just off the top of my head, I know the Army had nuclear artillery, that was low yield enough to not kill the people firing it...
280mm Atomic Annie Artillery
The first atomic artillery, nicknamed "Atomic Annie" is a 280mm cannon capable of firing artillery shells with tactical nuclear warheads. Twenty of the atomic cannons were produced at a cost of $800,000 each. The weapon weighed over 83 tons, with cannon and carriage, or 50 tons in firing position, and was more than 80 feet in length, the largest mobile artillery ever built.
Gun crews could set the cannon up and be ready to fire in less than 15 minutes using hydraulic jacks and winches. The atomic cannon could be be returned from firing position to traveling position also in 15 minutes, record time for any artillery of similar size. The huge gun is balanced on its nine foot circular base plate with jacks, enabling its crew (5 to 7 men) to move it through its full 360° traverse capability. The projectile and powder charge are loaded with the assistance of a power hydraulic ram.
...
The W48 yielded just 72 tons TNT equivalent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
280mm Atomic Annie Artillery
The first atomic artillery, nicknamed "Atomic Annie" is a 280mm cannon capable of firing artillery shells with tactical nuclear warheads. Twenty of the atomic cannons were produced at a cost of $800,000 each. The weapon weighed over 83 tons, with cannon and carriage, or 50 tons in firing position, and was more than 80 feet in length, the largest mobile artillery ever built.
Gun crews could set the cannon up and be ready to fire in less than 15 minutes using hydraulic jacks and winches. The atomic cannon could be be returned from firing position to traveling position also in 15 minutes, record time for any artillery of similar size. The huge gun is balanced on its nine foot circular base plate with jacks, enabling its crew (5 to 7 men) to move it through its full 360° traverse capability. The projectile and powder charge are loaded with the assistance of a power hydraulic ram.
...
The W48 yielded just 72 tons TNT equivalent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;