New Setback in Attempt to Contain the Gulf Oil Spill

New Setback in Attempt to Contain the Gulf Oil Spill

www.nytimes.com

The latest effort to contain the oil spill that has poured millions of gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico encountered a setback 5,000 feet underwater, officials said Saturday, meaning oil will continue gushing into the ocean for at least several more days, and possibly months.


But after successfully lowering the dome over the leak on Friday night, crews discovered that its opening was becoming clogged with gas hydrates — crystal structures that form when gas and water mix and are found

(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Review This Link: Instructions for the Breaking News Forums: Copy The Exact Headline

[edit on 8-5-2010 by pavelivanov22]

[edit on 5/8/2010 by semperfortis]

I think its about time they nuke it!

"meaning oil will continue gushing into the ocean for at least several more days, and possibly months." What? don't you think how many animals will die and get hurt, not just that the effect it will have?!

What do you think they should do to stop this oil spill?, i say nuke it.


www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by pavelivanov22


I think its about time they nuke it!

"meaning oil will continue gushing into the ocean for at least several more days, and possibly months." What? don't you think how many animals will die and get hurt, not just that the effect it will have?!

What do you think they should do to stop this oil spill?, i say nuke it.


www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Well using a Nuke would contaminate the whole area for a few thousand years causing most of the creatures in the surrounding area to grow 3 eyeballs also once the fallout gets into the jetstream it will radiate land area's up to a few thousand miles so using a nuke as an option would be the same as trying to put out a house fire with gasoline only on a much much larger scale.

Using a high explosive device could work but would have to be planted deep into the leak and even then its still hit or miss because if the explosive charge to strong it will make the leak bigger, if its too small it won't do anything. So i think using any explosives would be too risky. My solution would be to load hundreds of barges with huge boulders and litter the ocean floor with it then load a few hundred more barges with smaller boulders and dump on top of the large boulders and keep stepping down the size of the boulders till leak is stopped. Don't know if that would work either but I think it would be a much better option than nuking.

"Possibly Months" ? ? ? ?

at the thousands of barrels a hour its dumping out..

are they serious.

Not only the animal and fish negative effects, but what is all that going to do to the ocean belt that transfers heat and cold, once the oil gets into that what are the effects?

They need to get off their butt and do something.. its a hole, plug it...

I said this on another thread, but I will say it again. The scope of this disaster is sooooo yet to be seen. It is going to grow and become more and more complicated. I think we don't have the means at this point to control something like this, no matter how much knowledge we do have regarding harvesting oil.

This latest development troubles me. Inasmuch as they were supposedly aware for the potential of "frozen methane crystal," no effort was added to device to mitigate. (i.e heat exchanger or comparable system.)

I am beginning to think they are more concerned with "capping" the leak in some way so as to facilitate future tapping than simply stopping the leak.

IMO, nuclear is not an option due to fallout. Perhaps some other form of conventional demolition.

Let's not forget this thing happened 4/20 and we are over two weeks out with zero solution / remedy. The oil is now beginning to wash up on shore. This is potentially devastating.

I live in Florida.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by pavelivanov22


"New Setback" is codeword for "well that didn't work at all, we're screwed".

Nothing they can do now except drill a new hole to relieve the pressure.

i don't understand why people don't put some kind of stop valve in somewhere so that this does not happen so bad. If you get a leak, then you can shut it off. Simple, but that would mean more money, oh we cain't do that, oh no. Oh and don't let them know about all the others that do not have valves either.

reply to post by nite owl


Agreed. Apparently they had lobbied heavily to avoid (Acoustic shut off valve) due to cost ($500K) and were supposed to be "self-regulated." Pure BS. (Not to be confused with BOP which failed.)

More on Safety Valve


[edit on 8-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by nite owl


I heard that BP got an "exemption" that allowed them to circumvent an $500,000 piece of safety equipment. And gee....guess who was Obama's largest campaign contributor? BP.

All oil companies are the same. All politicians and political parties are the same. They are all corrupt...they can all be bought. And who pays? We do. The earth pays. The oceans pay. Because some corporation didn't want to pay for extra safety equipment.

Just Nuke the thing. that's how they've closed off the rest of them anytime there was an incident like this. Letting millions of barrels of oil leak into the ocean and killing everything is alot worst than 3 eyed fish. But considering there isn't anything alive around it now, I think it's safe to say nothings going to complain.

reply to post by MKultraVideos


Please provide a link to that claim. I think you are confusing ABOVE GROUND /DRY LAND examples of prior usage in remote desolated areas. Thanks.

We have a company here called Spill Response Group Holland which works with "sweep arm vessels" and which could have contained the whole disaster in a matter of time. American environment regulation doesnt allow these sweep arms because they pump back small amount of solved oilrests, however the damage now created is much much worse.



[edit on 9-5-2010 by Foppezao]

I don't know the depth of the seabed at the bottom of the gulf, but i'd guess that with the Miss deposits the sands would be substantial.
A nuclear detonation would pretty much cap this oil release by Trinitite formation (the fusion of nuclear materials to sand) as tens/hundreds of meters of sand becomes solidified under the Gulf where these wells are.
This would also help in limiting the amount of Radiation from being leaked into the Gulf and Atlantic.

It appears this would be the more Economic way of fixing the problem quickly, rather than letting it to spill more oil if this 98-tonne cap fails as possibly expected.

Turns out that people really do dream about what is on T.V.

I was asleep after working a 16 hour shift, and *thought* I had a dream about the giant concrete dome failing, and icing up. Also Alabama had gotten hit with oil on its shores.

I woke up and looked, turns out my dream was just a visualization of what was on TV. Who says you don't learn anything from sleeping!

Anyway, that was a little on/off topic. Back on topic!

Truthfully, I had hoped this was going to work but I didn't expect it would. Fresh cement in water is not a good idea, as anyone who works with concrete knows. It takes about a month to get the center of something that big so settle and dry out. Unless they KNEW this was going to happen, and just wanted another reason to up prices of petrol and already have it taken care of.

It would make sense as to why there is not a whole lot of oil showing up on the shores yet, and also why they seem to be moving pretty slow to fix this massice leak.

Just my two cents.

FYI: I was not ware of this:

A request from U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Sarasota, for an investigation into why British Petroleum received a waiver from conducting a detailed environmental impact report at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico was granted Thursday by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Why did they get an exemption? It clearly needs to be looked at, Buchanan told the Herald by phone Thursday night.

The Washington Post reported this week that the Interior Departments Minerals Management Service (MMS) exempted BPs Gulf drilling operation from the impact analysis in 2009 after three reviews of the area concluded a massive spill was unlikely.

In a letter dated May 6, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. and ranking member, wrote Buchanan: After receiving your letter, I spoke with Chairman (Rep. Edolphus) Towns (D-N.Y.) and we both share your concerns. ... (We) agreed that the committee should begin an investigation and hold a hearing into the circumstances that led to the disaster, including any failure by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) to take proper safety precautions.

Buchanan expects the investigation to begin by mid-month.

Theres plenty of time to assess blame, but I want to make sure that it wasnt some kind of a special deal. It doesnt make any sense, he said.

The industry has many times assured me that something like this could never happen and here we are.

Source

Disclosure: I live in Fla and am admittedly a staunch Obama supporter. If it becomes proven that there was ANY collusion / favoritism due to politics (BP donated heavily to Obama campaign) I will be outraged and call for his head on a platter.

I am not one to assess blame without having facts, but "big oil" and it's lobby / political influence seems to have played a part in this.

This catastrophe breaks my heart.





[edit on 9-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by ROBL240
I don't know the depth of the seabed at the bottom of the gulf, but i'd guess that with the Miss deposits the sands would be substantial.
A nuclear detonation would pretty much cap this oil release by Trinitite formation (the fusion of nuclear materials to sand) as tens/hundreds of meters of sand becomes solidified under the Gulf where these wells are.
This would also help in limiting the amount of Radiation from being leaked into the Gulf and Atlantic.

It appears this would be the more Economic way of fixing the problem quickly, rather than letting it to spill more oil if this 98-tonne cap fails as possibly expected.

What's the purpose of a nuclear detonation in this case? Would it glass all the sand and would that encase the leak?

reply to post by Foppezao


Yep that'd pretty much be it, I can't say for sure the depths of the Sand deposits or what results previous tests have had in the Nevada Desert (and other regions), but the heat would be enough to glass-over hundreds of feet of Sea-Bed and below the Leak, vapourising sand into Glass and plugging the oil.

Originally posted by space cadet
I said this on another thread, but I will say it again. The scope of this disaster is sooooo yet to be seen. It is going to grow and become more and more complicated. I think we don't have the means at this point to control something like this, no matter how much knowledge we do have regarding harvesting oil.

i agree with you...we are not being told about the full effect of this disaster. alot of money is in the balance to fixing this, and i believe it is going to run up into the billions of dollars. and as a few sea biologists have said, it is only a matter of time until the oil intergrates with the massive currents that run around florida and up along the eastern seaboard.
america does not have to worry about invasions from other countries. wealthy corporations and the power they bring to the table, will cause more harm to the people in far more subtle ways.

Disclaimer: I am not very bright.

So the "dome" was getting clogged by ice crystals and would have prevented them from siphoning off oil.

I say GOOD. Wasn't the idea to block the flow? I assume that over time the oil would have filled up cavity and caused the dome to lift or become buoyant or float. But couldn't they continue to add weight (think stack bricks) to offset pressure and force dome/cap to sea floor? I'm certain I am missing a simple explanation.

So now the dome is off to side and they are gonna scratch their heads for 48 hours.
What about Plans B thru Z?