Gigantic Purple Slug Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I think it's also a question of the state of the well (and it looks like this may well be deteriorating). It's possible that the top of the well isn't leaking at all and the top kill failed because BP drastically underestimated the flow rates and hence the amount of mud needed. Equally it could be true that the well casing is f***ed in which case it gets more interesting. BP seems to have been quite coy about the state of the well but then I guess they want to manage the information released very closely with a view to limiting damages from future litigation. Whether the occurance of multiple leaks in the sea floor/collapsed wellhead makes the situation worse is hard to tell. It depends how much the BOP is currently limiting the flow rate. If the bop is severely limiting the flow rate and the wellhead does collapse, then it could considerably increase the amount of oil released. On the other hand if the BOP is not limiting the flow rate then IMO it doesn't really matter if the wellhead collapses. The releif wells are drilled thousands of feet below the wellhead, so its unlikely they will be affected by anything that occurs up there. Ultimately it appears that the releif wells will be the only thing that stops this. Eveything else up until that point is damage limitation. Maybe they will be able to increase the capture efficiency etc. If I was Obama I'd be getting them to drill at least one more relief well, just in case the first two don't work or run into snags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 You're right - most people would prefer oil pollution to nuclear pollution anyway. (If I remember rightly, Lovelock says that Nature loves nuclear pollution - it keeps people away!) Except that the quantities of oil being discharged are so great, it has the potential to get carried into the Atlantic and thence all the world's oceans. It can only be speculated as to what effect that might have. A collapse in organic productivity in the oceans would have direct consequences for human mortality ie starvation for some/many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Noodle Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Except that the quantities of oil being discharged are so great, it has the potential to get carried into the Atlantic and thence all the world's oceans. It can only be speculated as to what effect that might have. A collapse in organic productivity in the oceans would have direct consequences for human mortality ie starvation for some/many. Let's hark back to the 70's for a moment. The solution to pollution is dilution! Could well be the case if it gets carried into the Atlantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AteMoose Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Historically this has probably naturally happened before in a bigger amount, a large earthquake must have released a huge amount of easy to access oil into the oceans at some point in history.... Oh and the oceans are unbelievably large... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Noodle Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Historically this has probably naturally happened before in a bigger amount, a large earthquake must have released a huge amount of easy to access oil into the oceans at some point in history....  Oh and the oceans are unbelievably large... Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Meh they should be more radical! You've got millions of unemployed Americans right? So they should build a massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive dam from florida to Cuba, then from Cuba to Cancun then pump the water out, I mean if some backwards commie Chinese blokes can do it in only a couple years with the 3 gorges dam the US and its industrial might ought to be able to manage it in a year or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Meh they should be more radical! You've got millions of unemployed Americans right? So they should build a massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive massive dam from florida to Cuba, then from Cuba to Cancun then pump the water out, I mean if some backwards commie Chinese blokes can do it in only a couple years with the 3 gorges dam the US and its industrial might ought to be able to manage it in a year or so. This would of course completely disrupt the Gulf Stream and plunge the UK into a climate similar to that of Canada.. or am I just getting all NIMBY about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gardener Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Historically this has probably naturally happened before in a bigger amount, a large earthquake must have released a huge amount of easy to access oil into the oceans at some point in history....  Oh and the oceans are unbelievably large... Yes. I mean just how much oil are we talking here? A quick calculation tells me that an olympic size swimming pool (assuming a depth of 2 metres) holds (5000*2500*2000) / 1000 = 2,500,000 litres of water = 550,000 gallons approx. At 42 gallons to the barrel (is that US gallons?) then we have about 13,000 barrels = one swimming pool. So basically we are dumping a swimming pool or two of oil into the Gulf of Mexico each day. Now, how many swimming pools = 1 Gulf of Mexico? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 A wiser head than mine. I think you're right, but the last bit makes me think that even if it does become time, it might keep being kicked into touch until it's too late and neither it, nor relief drills will work. Basically it is a factual physics race - the outcome is probably predecided even now by the geology. Either the relief wells will work quickly enough to reduce the flow before the situation gets unrecoverable, or they won't. Do bear in mind that all oil wells stop flowing eventually - normally the oil company has to make serious efforts to maintain pressure, stop water ingress, hydrofrac, etc.. Otherwise we wouldn't need to drill any more wells.. For some reason, people are getting it into their heads that this particular well will never stop flowing, unlike every other oil well drilled ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 This would of course completely disrupt the Gulf Stream and plunge the UK into a climate similar to that of Canada.. or am I just getting all NIMBY about it? Aye, but the oils going to do that anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Yes. I mean just how much oil are we talking here? A quick calculation tells me that an olympic size swimming pool (assuming a depth of 2 metres) holds (5000*2500*2000) / 1000 = 2,500,000 litres of water = 550,000 gallons approx. At 42 gallons to the barrel (is that US gallons?) then we have about 13,000 barrels = one swimming pool. So basically we are dumping a swimming pool or two of oil into the Gulf of Mexico each day. Now, how many swimming pools = 1 Gulf of Mexico? For a gold star, assuming the oil spreads itself out into a thin film which averages 0.1mm thick, what is the total area it will cover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Do bear in mind that all oil wells stop flowing eventually - normally the oil company has to make serious efforts to maintain pressure, stop water ingress, hydrofrac, etc.. Otherwise we wouldn't need to drill any more wells.. For some reason, people are getting it into their heads that this particular well will never stop flowing, unlike every other oil well drilled ever. True, but this one seems to be under quite high pressure at the moment. IIRC the time scale for it to stop on its own is of the order of decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AteMoose Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 For a gold star, assuming the oil spreads itself out into a thin film which averages 0.1mm thick, what is the total area it will cover? If the oil is only 0.1mm thick it will degrade within days/weeks due to sunlight, and the oil problem is gone, and you have no oil.. Answer it then covers none of the earth's surface, what do I win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 True, but this one seems to be under quite high pressure at the moment. IIRC the time scale for it to stop on its own is of the order of decades. The US government seem happy to let the Pennsylvanian underground anthracite coal fires burn like there is no tomorrow, same with the Chinese ones too. And those fires have been burning since the 50s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 http://luxemb.info/?p=23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Noodle Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 If the oil is only 0.1mm thick it will degrade within days/weeks due to sunlight, and the oil problem is gone, and you have no oil.. Answer it then covers none of the earth's surface, what do I win? Atemoose is thinking along the right lines now. But to all the doom mongers out there predicting the end of the world . . . keep going, you're good for business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 The US government seem happy to let the Pennsylvanian underground anthracite coal fires burn like there is no tomorrow, same with the Chinese ones too. And those fires have been burning since the 50s Yes, but that doesn't affect any pretty wildlife, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gardener Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 For a gold star, assuming the oil spreads itself out into a thin film which averages 0.1mm thick, what is the total area it will cover? Imagine you trail a rope all the way round the earth and tie the ends together so that it is taut but resting on the ground. Now untie it again and splice another metre of rope to one end. How high off the ground will the rope have to be until it you can pull it taut again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Noodle Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Just looking at the BP website and boom deployment. They must be running out of inter-tidal (beach seal) boom by now. When I order these booms I wait weeks for delivery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 True, but this one seems to be under quite high pressure at the moment. IIRC the time scale for it to stop on its own is of the order of decades. Well, a couple of years max, at a declining rate. Uncontrolled blowouts are not good practice if you want to maximise recovery. I feel I should be more doomerish, but it's annoying to see some of the more extreme conspiracy theories out there. I'm surprised that no one has claimed that all the world's oceans will drain into the hole.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Imagine you trail a rope all the way round the earth and tie the ends together so that it is taut but resting on the ground. Now untie it again and splice another metre of rope to one end. How high off the ground will the rope have to be until it you can pull it taut again? Where is the rope going? Is it round the equator or from pole to pole? Pesky round earthers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 If the oil is only 0.1mm thick it will degrade within days/weeks due to sunlight, and the oil problem is gone, and you have no oil.. Answer it then covers none of the earth's surface, what do I win? You win nothing because the bulk of the oil is well below the surface, well below the photic zone and the influence of wind, waves and turbulence. And it won't be 0.1mm thick if and when it surfaces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Historically this has probably naturally happened before in a bigger amount, a large earthquake must have released a huge amount of easy to access oil into the oceans at some point in history....  Oh and the oceans are unbelievably large... There's no evidence in the geological record. During the Cretaceous (ended 65 million years ago) there were a number of OAEs (Ocean anoxic Events) which led to marine die offs, but there's no evidence of any such events since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 'Course the geological record isn't a great respecter of the chain of evidence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 'Course the geological record isn't a great respecter of the chain of evidence... Please clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.