Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rodo on April 30, 2010, 10:19:52 am
-
Weird it's not being discussed over here, so what's the deal with this guys?
I bet some of you are worried about this natural disaster that's taking place in the southern shores of the US.
-
and some of us are not even aware it's happening.
-
I heard it was visible from space......
And yesterday i heard the coastgurad set it on fire :wtf:
-
and some of us are not even aware it's happening.
for real?
I mean, it's ok for you not to know if you don't listen to the radio or watch tv, I'm actually more concern about if this is being broadcasted in the US at all.
-
Didn't you learn from Katrina? The rest of the US does not care about Louisiana :P
But in all seriousness its been on the news.
-
Oh yeah it's been on the news a lot. Hopefully everything turns out ok.
-
Oh yeah it's been on the news a lot. Hopefully everything turns out ok.
It won't, it's reached the coastline and they still haven't managed to plug the leak to begin with. :blah:
-
Oh yeah it's been on the news a lot. Hopefully everything turns out ok.
It won't, it's reached the coastline and they still haven't managed to plug the leak to begin with. :blah:
to give them their dues the leak is from a sinking exploded oil rig
-
It won't, it's reached the coastline and they still haven't managed to plug the leak to begin with. :blah:
It's still dumping oil? Well that's just great, ain't it?
-
Yeah, estimated to be as much as 5000 barrels a day, and at a depth of 1500 metres so it's hard to get to. Not good.
-
basically i believe we are basically waiting for the pressure in the well to fall below the water pressure at the leak point unless engineers can thing of something else though to me i can only think that a controlled sea bed explosion to seal the well
-
Maybe use a nuke to evaporate/burn the oil from the surface of the sea, if it's too hard to ignite otherwise. Might lead to some problems with pesky fallout, but hey, such is life.
That, or use white phosphorus. Lots of it. In other words firebomb the **** out of that oil stain. :nervous:
-
That, or use white phosphorus. Lots of it. In other words firebomb the **** out of that oil stain. :nervous:
It would certainly be an interesting documentary. :D
-
Don't they have some failsafe for this?
A remote-control valve at the seabed or something?
-
any chance the usaf or navy can spare a few mk77 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_77) then
Don't they have some failsafe for this?
A remote-control valve at the seabed or something?
even if they did wouldn't the control be on the now sunk rig?????
-
any chance the usaf or navy can spare a few mk77 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_77) then
Don't they have some failsafe for this?
A remote-control valve at the seabed or something?
even if they did wouldn't the control be on the now sunk rig?????
:wtf: Something fundamentally wrong with trying to eliminate oil with more oil, even if it is an incendiary mixture that succeeded napalm.
-
any chance the usaf or navy can spare a few mk77 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_77) then
Don't they have some failsafe for this?
A remote-control valve at the seabed or something?
even if they did wouldn't the control be on the now sunk rig?????
:wtf: Something fundamentally wrong with trying to eliminate oil with more oil, even if it is an incendiary mixture that succeeded napalm.
if i remember right though it would be burning before it hit the sea
-
Don't they have some failsafe for this?
A remote-control valve at the seabed or something?
We don't need your socialist regulations in here!
-
Don't they have some failsafe for this?
A remote-control valve at the seabed or something?
safety valve don't help a whole helluva lot if there's a hole ripped in the side of the tank.
-
:wtf: Something fundamentally wrong with trying to eliminate oil with more oil, even if it is an incendiary mixture that succeeded napalm.
Fight Fire With Fire! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjlgUx7_aN0&fmt=18) :lol:
-
Actually, there was a failsafe valve on the pipe. It just, well, failed...
-
[evil overlord]LET THE OCEANS BURN!![/evil overlord]
-
I know next to nothing about the intricacies of undersea oil exploration, but the more I think about it, the more I'm wondering why the powers that be just can't do the equivalent of dropping a really friggin' heavy cap on the leaking structure. Even if it doesn't contain the leak entirely, you'd figure that it'd be better than nothing for the moment.
-
something large enough to "cap off" an oil tanker is going to be a tad hard to come by, if i'm understanding your idea correctly.
-
Huh...someone apparently had the same idea (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/30/louisiana.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=C1).
A stopgap plan -- putting a chamber over the well area and sending the oil to a ship -- is unproven at that depth and could take four weeks before it's ready.
Sounds like a long shot that'll take too long to prevent immediate harm, but at least it's something.
-
It's not a tanker though, it's a pipe leading down into an undersea oil pocket. So the source of the oil is very localized.
-
Well as Shade said the emergency shutoff failed. Originally it was thought to only be leaking 1000 barrels a day from 2 smaller shutoffs. 2 or 3 days ago it was discovered the main also failed to seal and the leak is 5000 barrels a day.
While the initial fire idea worked the spill is just too big and now too close to shore to be a viable option and the weather is a factor as well. Can't have a big burning oil slick and poisonous gas cloud coming on shore instead of an oil slick.
One thing I can't believe no one has mentioned. As far as I know nothing like this has ever happened (at least not to this magnitude). Rig explodes (several explosions), fail safes fail to activate. All of this just a short time after plans for new off shore drilling being approved announced. Can you say potential sabotage?
-
potential sabotage?
It's possible, but let's not forget that plain and simply, **** happens.
-
fossil fuels explode rather easily, i wouldn't jump to sabotage. i'm not the least bit surprised the "failsafes" failed, cuz it.... well, blew up. you can't design for that without a containment structure. the failsafes are for things like failed valves.
-
As far as I know, oil industry is not very keen on upgrading their stuff. That rig might have been thirty+ years old. Maybe this is the incident that forces them to think otherwise.
What happened to that Chinese freighter at the Great Barrier Reef?
-
Can you say potential sabotage?
Had it been in shallower water, it might have been possible - though very unlikely. But with some of the sabotage having to have taken place at a depth of 1500m? Nah. Only governments and major research institutions have the means to do any kind of work that deep, and none of those would have a motive.
Personally I'd lean towards assuming that buying parts from the lowest bidder and having them maintained by the cheapest contractor might have something to do with it.
-
What happened to that Chinese freighter at the Great Barrier Reef?
I think it was a navigational error.
-
Don't they have some failsafe for this?
A remote-control valve at the seabed or something?
There is, they tried to activate it. It hasn't worked yet but they're still trying to activate it (as well as what seems like 100 other plans)
Maybe use a nuke to evaporate/burn the oil from the surface of the sea, if it's too hard to ignite otherwise. Might lead to some problems with pesky fallout, but hey, such is life.
That, or use white phosphorus. Lots of it. In other words firebomb the **** out of that oil stain. :nervous:
Nukes? firebombs? You're an American aren't you? :P
-
Maybe use a nuke to evaporate/burn the oil from the surface of the sea, if it's too hard to ignite otherwise. Might lead to some problems with pesky fallout, but hey, such is life.
That, or use white phosphorus. Lots of it. In other words firebomb the **** out of that oil stain. :nervous:
Nukes? firebombs? You're an American aren't you? :P
Nope.
-
Maybe use a nuke to evaporate/burn the oil from the surface of the sea, if it's too hard to ignite otherwise. Might lead to some problems with pesky fallout, but hey, such is life.
That, or use white phosphorus. Lots of it. In other words firebomb the **** out of that oil stain. :nervous:
Nukes? firebombs? You're an American aren't you? :P
Actually, no, I am Finnish citizen.
I was merely attempting to find a constructive use for all those tools of destruction.
If collecting the oil is unfeasible or not possible fast enough with given resources, let us get rid of the oil.
If igniting the oil is hard, let us firebomb it, aka use something as catalyst to maintain the fires so that the oil itself burns away along with the phosphorus. Negatives: incendiary chemical traces and combustion chemicals could be almost or just as bad for the environment.
If igniting the oil is impossible, let us vaporize it with medium altitude nuclear warheads. Negatives: Fallout, collateral damage, only possible far enough out in the open ocean and logistically difficult to arrange... :p
-
two pages and no source, tisk tisk. its a conspiracy i tell you!
-
potential sabotage?
It's possible, but let's not forget that plain and simply, **** happens.
Oil well blow-outs are extremely common, and very hard to cap. There's one in Turkey that's been burning for 40 years and still hasn't been successfully capped. It doesn't have to be an explanation like cheap parts, faulty installation, or anything like that - oil wells blow-out all the time, and most keep going for weeks or months before they can be capped. We had a nasty one here in Alberta earlier this year that was on fire for weeks (intentionally, mind you - most blow-outs are caused by pressure and don't always ignite naturally).
Part of the reason the fail-safe failed was because of the immense pressure involved - simply waiting for the water pressure to overcome the oil pressure probably won't work - it could be decades, depending on the size and depth of the deposit. Best proposal I read so far was the funneling idea, which can at least contain the slick to a smaller area of open water and allow the skimmers to take off the bulk of it. Incendiary devices can deal with the worst of the dense PAHs when they're boomed off, but there are a lot that won't necessarily burn into harmless by-products.
-
Couldn't they just plant explosives near the leak, and seal the damned thing?
-
I think the problem with that is you would just break off the pipe resulting in a leak that is even harder to cap.
-
Couldn't they just plant explosives near the leak, and seal the damned thing?
Consider the pressures required to spit 5000 barrels of oil (225 000 gallons, or ~1 000 000 litres) through a six-inch hole in the ocean floor where the water pressure is roughly 1.51x10^7 Newtons/m². Now answer your own question =)
-
While you guys are discussing the ecological impact, it's be forgotten that according to news the day they pulled the rig workers out of the water, there was apparently a large explosion followed by a smaller one approximately 3 hours later. While I know they are working with volatiles that can build up pressures unexpectedly, part of me can't let go of the idea that maybe there was someone on the rig with nefarious intentions(terrorist) who set a bomb that didn't quite do the job and maybe set a second one.
-
you make it too easy, Liberator
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004290038
-
While you guys are discussing the ecological impact, it's be forgotten that according to news the day they pulled the rig workers out of the water, there was apparently a large explosion followed by a smaller one approximately 3 hours later. While I know they are working with volatiles that can build up pressures unexpectedly, part of me can't let go of the idea that maybe there was someone on the rig with nefarious intentions(terrorist) who set a bomb that didn't quite do the job and maybe set a second one.
Something ridiculous like between 10 and 25% of all oil wells experience some form of blow-out (I'm currently trying to remember where I saw that figure to source it). Blow-outs are the result of gas and fluid pressure build-up as it expands nearer the surface, so this can occur multiple times after an initial blow-out. Not everything is caused by terrorism.
Not to mention there are much better and softer terrorist targets than a deep-sea rig. There are wells, refineries, and coal and petroleum power generating stations all over North America that would be much easier to penetrate and cause a great deal more damage and inconvenience.
-
More damage?
Assuming the northern is ever going to have a biological life cycle again, I reserve the right to disagree!
However, you are right, terrorism on a deep-sea rig = stupid concept.
-
While you guys are discussing the ecological impact, it's be forgotten that according to news the day they pulled the rig workers out of the water, there was apparently a large explosion followed by a smaller one approximately 3 hours later. While I know they are working with volatiles that can build up pressures unexpectedly, part of me can't let go of the idea that maybe there was someone on the rig with nefarious intentions(terrorist) who set a bomb that didn't quite do the job and maybe set a second one.
Every time you think like this it's a victory for the terrorists. You are helping the terrorists acheive their goals by being terrified of them.
-
Ok. I'm not nearly as up to speed on what is going on here as I'd like to be, but seeing as no one else here actually works in the industry...
This was not a 30-year old drilling rig. The Deepwater Horizon was a state of the art semi-submersible drilling rig built in 2001. This platform had some of the best technology the industry has to offer onboard. The target zone was deep. Very deep. My work is almost entirely on land, but most of my "deep" target zones are in the 13,000-foot range. This one was in over 5,000 feet of water with a target zone at 18,000 feet. Pressure and temperature were both high.
Information is sketchy. Halliburton and BP don't want to talk much. But it sounds like they had floated a liner down to bottom and were cementing around the bottom. Standard procedure. At around 20 hours after the cement job was completed, there was an uncontrolled flow of oil and gas to the surface. No one is saying, but it sounds like they were performing a negative pressure test of the cement job and lost control of the well.
Regardless, when the blow-out took place, the blow-out preventers (BOPs) on the subsurface wellhead at the ocean floor SHOULD have kicked in. These are massive rams that are strong enough to cut through any pipe that is in their way and shut off the well. The BOPs failed. That's not the only failsafe, but for that device to fail in this manner... heads are going to roll. Whatever else went wrong, that is a failure on the part of the QA department in Cameron that is just unforgiveable.
-
At the end ot the day. Storks should learn to wash. If they die cos they's oily. . . .darwin is made right. :p
-
terrorism on a deep-sea rig = stupid concept.
I don't know, the concept seems sort of cool.
-
terrorism on a deep-sea rig = stupid concept.
I don't know, the concept seems sort of cool.
Yeah, it was an awesome level in the first Splinter Cell.
-
So two fail-safes failed epicly?
Negligence much?
-
So two fail-safes failed epicly?
Negligence much?
Not necessarily - but I'm sure the EPA investigators will be examining the due diligence of the owners.