BP did not want to stop the oil gusher.

[kentuck]

They wanted to put a cap on it and keep on pumping. Their strategy has never been to try to stop the flow of oil but only to connect to it in some way.

Their first strategy should have been to try to stop the gusher instead of trying to save the oil. Now they are talking about putting golf balls and pieces of rubber tire into the pipes to clog it up. Shouldn't that have been the first option? They did not care about how much environmental damage was done.

[JuniperLea]

1. Red Adair used to blow up wells to put them out...

I agree. This is not a new industry. I believe their main focus is to save salable oil, period. I don't believe their Westmoreland-esque figures either.

[boston bean]

6. and our government leaves up to the corporation to do the right thing. Why???

[spanone]

32. does our government have a department of oil rigs and gusher capping?

[DURHAM D]

11. Sorry but Red didn't "blow up" wells.

He detonated explosive devices to deprive it of oxygen (thus putting out the fire) so it could be capped. Obviously a fire on dry land is not what we are dealing with here.

[icnorth]

15. He also wasn't capping oil wells at 5000 feet

below sea level.

[Statistical]

28. He also didn't have to deal with oil at 100,000 psi.

[JuniperLea]

30. The point is...

This is not a new industry.

[icnorth]

16. He also wasn't capping oil wells at 5000 feet

below sea level.

[JuniperLea]

29. Obviously the well required capping after...

What the fuck is the difference between blowing something up and detonating explosive devices... what the fuck kind of nonsense is that? Christ on a cracker... it was an illustration of how this is not a new industry, this oil business, and this isn't the first oil derrick disaster either.

[DURHAM D]

You are missing all the basics. nt

[JuniperLea]

42. You're splitting hairs...

jesus... detonated explosive device... wtf?

i grew up between the oil fields of signal hill, and the offshore derricks in long beach... i don't miss much... i've seen it all, including exploding oil tankers docked in la harbor...







the point is, this isn't the first time this has happened, this isn't a new industry...

[TheMadMonk]

23. To put out a burning well. It still had to be capped mechanically. nt

[Oregone]

2. They are going to give it a junk shot

Who can refuse one of those?

[gravity]

3. Stopping the gusher saves the oil

Right now oil is being loss in the ocean and BP is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try to contain and clean up the mess. They are now going to face increased regulation and have $10 billion in liabilities if Congress gets its act together.

If it was all about money, then BP would have just plugged up the hole immediately and drilled another hole into the same reservoir at about 1/100th the cost of spill.

These claims about BP is intentionally not trying to stop the gusher defies all logic.

[DURHAM D]

5. Yep - BP is unable to either stop the gusher or capture the oil right now.

The idea they don't wont to stop it is silly. If they stop it the oil and gas remains underground and can be accessed later. Its a free storage method. Oil floating around in the ocean is lost money.

Seems like everyone wants to believe that BP or someone had/has the ability to put a lid on the gusher. Dream on. The relief wells to re-mud the hole that will take 75-90 days are the only real hope.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Then why not the simple expedient of dropping a ton of high explosive

on the well and collapsing it? That would certainly stop it. The ecological damage of a huge explosion would certainly be less than that of the continuing spill. The cost would be minuscule. If the top 500' of the well was filled with earth and rock from the explosion, it would stop gushing.

The only reason I can think of is that would require them to drill a new well to access that field, and they just don't want that time wasted when there is a perfectly good, obviously active, well already there.

[DURHAM D]

19. They have no idea what may happen if they detonate a large charge.

Like I said, the new wells are for mudding the hole - stopping gas and oil flow from down below.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Which, coincidentally, maintains the integrity of the well, and allows them

to re-drill through the mudded portion when they have the cap fixed.

So what if it continues to spew for weeks while they do it?

[DURHAM D]

25. I could care less if it maintains the integrity of the well.

Even if it doesn't they can drill some more into the same field. That is no big deal to them.

The point is that stopping the flow down below (vs. above) seems like the only real option because of the pressure. The well was producing 8,000 barrels a day before the explosion and that was WITHOUT any pumping device.

Dropping a bomb on the ocean floor could create 10, 20 or more giant release holes and then what would you suggest? The Rocky Mountains. Won't work.

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you.

How, exactly, would a HE detonation 'create 10, 20 or more giant release holes' when the effect of the detonation would not reach below a hundred feet or so, and the oil field is at 18,000 feet?

[DURHAM D]

35. I clearly "know" more than you do.

I also understand hope and the desire for a quick solution and someone to blame.

[Statistical]

31. How do you drop something down a well with fluid coming out if at 100,000 psi?

It would be like "dropping" a golf ball down a firehose while it is on full blast.
Except a firehose is only about 300 psi. This is 350x higher pressure.

The cost to drill a new well is negligible to the cost of this disaster. BP is spending roughly $8 million per day in cleanup and likely will need to spend $10 billion+ more plus lawsuits, plus govt raises caps on penalties.

A new well costs roughly $1 million dollars a day to drill. So why go through all that to "avoid" a new well?

Lastly you are aware how big this oil field is right. When it is all done (20-30 years) BP will have drilled 20, 30, 50 wells into this field. If they don't it will take a thousand years to pump the field dry.

[BeFree]

38. 100,000 psi?

You have a link?

[JuniperLea]

43. 100,000 psi?

How much oil has been spewed?!?! That's a hell of a lot of pressure... are you sure about that?

[Statistical]

46. Maybe not.

This article here says 70,000
http://pesn.com/2010/05/02/9501643_Mother_of_all_gushers_could_kill_Earths_oceans/

The deep water blow out preventers are rated for 20,000 psi however nobody has ever drilled this deep before.
Maybe 100,000 is wrong still even if we take the low end 20,000 that is a lot of pressure.

You can't "drop" anything down that well. It is a solid wall of oil flowing up under tremendous pressure.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. OTOH, we just saw Exxon get their Valdez liability massively reduced,

for no good reason, and seeing that there is no reason for BP to believe they will be held liable to any significant fraction of the losses, so if they waste a couple weeks trying to cap the well, so they can quickly get it into production rather than spend another year trying to sink a new well, why wouldn't they?

After all, they seem to sincerely believe that there is an unlimited amount of oil - we just don't know exactly where to find it - so why would they be concerned about stopping the waste if there will be nothing but a few fines down the road?

[kentuck]

13. Exactly!

That's what it appears like to me. Only in the last couple of days have they been talking about ways to stop the oil flow. All other efforts were "top hats", etc, attempting to cap the spill and continue pumping.

[gravity]

24. They are already losing hundreds of millions on cleanup

and spending money on too relief wells in the process. Total costs of cleanup alone will likely be over a billion dollars and they would have plugged up the hole so it can't be used anyways. This in itself is enough reason to stop the gusher.

The political consequences are likely to costs BP in excess of $10 billion dollars from liabilities and regulations.

If BP has the balls to start extracting oil from the exact same well, they are giving politicians more reason to regulation and fine them. It is not going to happen.

BP has nothing to gain and is doing everything possible to cover their asses.

[Hannah Bell]

41. they make $45 million a DAY in profits.

[Statistical]

45. Exactly but it still doesn't make much sense to be paying hundreds of millions in cleanup

If they could simply shutoff the oil on day one and drill a new well.

New deep water production well costs about $100 million.
BP has paid 5x that so far in cleanup costs and true cleanup will be 20x that or more.

It simply makes no sense for them to "allow" the spill just to collect some oil water.

Even the most evil, cold heartest capitalist can see that you cut off the oil flow (thus saving company $6 million a day plus billions in long term cleanup costs) and then drill a new well.

[Robb]

8. Huh,

See, I was all ready to agree with the OP, but what you say makes even more sense.

[northernlights]

26. they do not defy logic

A few million gallons lost at sea is a drop in the bucket compared to 1.5 billion gallons they are trying to tap.

Every effort they have made so far has been to find a way to tap the gusher. Not once have they seriously attempted to shut it down.

[gravity]

33. They just have to drill a new well into the same reservoir

after they stop the gusher. This is what any profit maximizing company would do.

[Statistical]

47. Not it isn't.

An oil field this size will require 20 or 30 wells to tap its full potential.
Cost of a new deep water well is about $100 million.

Even for a die hard capitalist who doesn't care about the planet or other people and is only concerned about the bottom line it doesn't make any damn sense.

New Well: $100 million.

Intentionally not stopping the oil flow to try and "cap" this damaged well
Mitigation to date: $450 million
Total Mitigation: another billion?
Long term cleanup: another billion or two?
Liability: $10 billion (if Congress raises liability limit)

So which makes more sense.
Spend billions to try and salvage this well or simply cap it and drill a new one for $100 million?

The oil hasn't stopped because BP can't stop it. They never should have drilled this deep without a backup plan.

[northernlights]

52. how much did Exxon end up paying?

They own congress. They're already trying to get out of paying for it.

[spanone]

4. this is so sickening...

[NNN0LHI]

9. The original plan before the blowout was to find oil and cap it and move on to drill elsewhere

So I don't think you are correct on this one.

Don

[Cetacea]

10. Unbelievable.

Not really.

[atomic-fly]

12. I agree

If they can put a 6" pipe with a plug into the 22" pipe (the latest strategy), then they could have put a plug in from the very beginning.

The use of chemical disbursement also seems to defy logic. I think they were just trying
to hide how much was spilling by dissolving it.

[kentuck]

14. That should have been the first option.

Not the last, in my opinion.

[DURHAM D]

21. If they get this seated in place (and it will be difficult)

and if it works I assume this is just a "percentage" capture - not 100%.

Do you know if this is designed to capture both the oil and the gas?

[Statistical]

37. What plug can hold back 100,000 psi.

Come on people we aren't talking about a kinked firehouse.

Get at least the magnitude right.

Garden Hose - 30 psi
Ground zero of large explosion - 100 psi
Firehouse - 200 psi
primary coolant loop in nuclear reactor - <1000 psi.
Crush Depth of Seawolf class submarine - 2,000 psi
Deepest Manned Submarine dive (Challenger Deep) - 16,000 psi.

Pressure oil is leaving pipe: 100,000 psi

I mean saying "just plug it" is kinda silly at 100,000 psi. If you could just plug it then submarines would never sink. They would simply "plug" any hole.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[amborin]

20. K&R and our gov't lets them

[Statistical]

27. Stupid.

Putting a cap on the well doesn't make it a production well.
The cap was to reduce the amount of oil dumped into the Gulf while they drill a relief well.

THE RELIEF WELL WILL TAKE 90 DAYS. There is no possible way to make that go faster. Drilling 24/7 with very experienced crew will still take 90 days.

So stopping the flow will take 90 days. Should they just sit back and wait 90 days.
5000 barrels * 90 days = 450,000 barrels.

Oh maybe if they siphon off some 60%, 70%, 85% of the oil into a tanker it won't end up in the bay.

Just to put it into perspective a new production well would cost about $100 million (ballpark). To date BP has spent $450 million on cleanup/mitigation. If they don't get the oil slowed it will easily be 4x that by the time the relief well is done. Then you got the long term cleanup project which likely will be a couple billion easy. Then if Congress modifies the law their laibility rings up at another $10 billion.

So to avoid drilling a new well = $100 million.

They will:
spend $450 million in immediate cleanup
spend another $400 - $1600 million more on immediate cleanup before well is sealed
sepnd another $2B to $5B on long term cleanup
face up to $10B in liability damages

Yup sure make a lot of sense to rack up $2.4B to $17B to avoid drilling a $100 million well.

[BeFree]

48. 90 days?

They are not drilling a whole new well, are they?

They said they are going to go down and then go sideways to hit the existing pipe and tap in to it. 90 days to do that? Bullshit.

and then you wrote: "...won't end up in the bay."

"Bay"? It's called the Gulf. What other errors are you peddling, eh?

[Statistical]

50. It is going to take 90 days.

The media often gets stuff wrong. Relief well doesn't drill INTO the old well. Drilling technology isn't that accurate. The well is only 5 feet across. That is a tiny target when you are drilling down 30,000ft. Like hitting a bullet with another bullet a football field away, oh an you can't see the bullet.

No a relief well drills into the oil pocket very close to the other well. Accuracy for drilling is in dozens of meters. So they can put the relief well pretty "close" to primary well. Then by forcing concrete down the relief well it will flow up and out the main well which will clog and seal the main well.

So it IS going to take 90 days (they started 10 days ago) to drill relief well and it is possible that first relief well won't work. Nobody can see into the pocket. Their could be geology issues which make the first relief well unsuccessful. BP is getting another rig in place to start drilling relief well next week so that will be the backup relief well.

"Bay"? It's called the Gulf. What other errors are you peddling, eh?"
Get over yourself. Its called a mistake. I live next to Chesapeake Bay get use to using term Bay a lot more than Gulf.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

36. K&R great point N/T

[progressoid]

39. Aw jeez

[blindpig]

40. That's capitalism for ya.

Expropriate without compensation.

k&r

[AnArmyVeteran]

44. Why don't they use something inflatable, insert it in the pipe and then inflate it?

There must be some easier method to stop a damned pipe. But it's obvious BP and Halliburton put absolutely no thought into possible oil leaks. They are just winging things, making them up as they go along. And some idiots are saying we don't need regulations? How stupid are conservatives anyway?

[pintobean]

49. On the end of a smaller pipe.

Something like an inner-tube. The smaller pipe would relieve the pressure and duct the oil to surface ships. I have no idea how feasible that is at these depths and pressures.

[AnArmyVeteran]

51. You said you had no idea, but BP executives have no ideas either!

So why are they drilling highly dangerous, speculative drilling when they have no clue of their consequences? And why aren't the BP executives in prison?