Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gulf well "kill" update: "static kill" scheduled for Sunday.. "bottom kill" 5-7 days later.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 07:20 AM
Original message
Gulf well "kill" update: "static kill" scheduled for Sunday.. "bottom kill" 5-7 days later.
from CNN..

Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen is optimistic that steps planned for the coming days will finally, permanently seal the well. "The relief well, while it is deep, is something that has been done before," Allen said. "The technologies involved here are not novel, but obviously, the depth is a challenge here. But we are optimistic we will get this done."

Allen offered that assessment as preparations proceeded for two efforts to kill the well about a mile below the surface -- first, sealing it from above by pouring down mud and cement in an operation known as "static kill," and then closing it off from below by an intersecting relief well.

The static kill could begin Sunday, while the relief well may be ready for the "bottom kill" effort five to seven days afterward. Allen said no anomalies or breaches have been detected at the formerly leaking well, and pressure is rising slowly, with the latest readings show pressure of 6,942 pounds per square inch -- all signs that it is structurally sound. The static kill would not work if there's a leak.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/29/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

This sounds like good news. No doubt there are risks involved and thing could blow when they try the static kill. Keeping my fingers crossed... we surely dont need any more oil in Gulf.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProdigalJunkMail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. not knowing the oil drilling/gushing business
my question would be...why bother with the 'static kill' procedure when the 'bottom kill' is slated for just a few days later? i thought the relief well was 'the' solution to this mess. seems like static kill is just a risky thing to do seeing as how there is a more 'known' option a couple of days out...

seems like they are playing roulette (not the fun gambling kind) with a few million gallons of oil on the table...

sP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I think I read somewhere that the static kill will help with the process of doing the bottom kill..
I also think they are concerned the cap could spring a link at any moment and the static kill would eliminate that risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. The Gulf has already been killed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. That's not what most scientists are saying..
Where is all the oil? Nearly two weeks after BP finally capped the biggest oil spill in U.S. history, the oil slicks that once spread across thousands of miles of the Gulf of Mexico have largely disappeared. Nor has much oil washed up on the sandy beaches and marshes along the Louisiana coast. And the small cleanup army in the Gulf has only managed to skim up a tiny fraction of the millions of gallons of oil spilled in the 100 days since the Deepwater Horizon rig went up in flames.

So where did the oil go? "Some of the oil evaporates," explains Edward Bouwer, professor of environmental engineering at Johns Hopkins University. That’s especially true for the more toxic components of oil, which tend to be very volatile, he says. Jeffrey W. Short, a scientist with the environmental group Oceana, told the New York Times that as much as 40 percent of the oil might have evaporated when it reached the surface. High winds from two recent storms may have speeded the evaporation process.

Perhaps the most important cause of the oil’s disappearance, some researchers suspect, is that the oil has been devoured by microbes. The lesson from past spills is that the lion’s share of the cleanup work is done by nature in the form of oil-eating bacteria and fungi. The microbes break down the hydrocarbons in oil to use as fuel to grow and reproduce. A bit of oil in the water is like a feeding frenzy, causing microbial populations to grow exponentially.

Typically, there are enough microbes in the ocean to consume half of any oil spilled in a month or two, says Howarth. Such microbes have been found in every ocean of the world sampled, from the Arctic to Antarctica. But there are reasons to think that the process may occur more quickly in the Gulf than in other oceans.

Microbes grow faster in the warmer water of the Gulf than they do in, say, the cool waters off Alaska, where the Exxon Valdez spill occurred. Moreover, the Gulf is hardly pristine. Even before humans started drilling for oil in the Gulf — and spilling lots of it — oil naturally seeped into the water. As a result, the Gulf evolved a rich collection of petroleum-loving microbes, ready to pounce on any new spill. The microbes are clever and tough, observes Samantha Joye, microbial geochemist at the University of Georgia. Joye has shown that oxygen levels in parts of the Gulf contaminated with oil have dropped. Since microbes need oxygen to eat the petroleum, that’s evidence that the microbes are hard at work.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_excl/ynews_excl_sc3270

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I can't reply right now. I'm having a conversation with the Tooth Fairy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1620rock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Sounds like BP BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Other than the fact
the information didn't come from BP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. You have yet to learn
that anything even remotely positive or hopeful on the issue of the Gulf will immediately be attacked by the doomsday nosepickers here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Yeah. I know.. the "gulf doomers" have been bashing me for days..
I dont mind. It will make them look even more foolish when the facts come out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. Who pays those scientists I wonder..... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. NOAA, state universities, environmental groups..
and they are not affiliated with BP or any other oil firm or lobby.. afaik.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
7. My fingers are crossed in hopes these sealing measures work
as they are designed to do. Ending the risk of further oil escaping from this rig is the first, and most important thing that needs to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
10. What's different now, that a top kill will work when it didn't work before?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-10 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I read somewhere its "easier" because they have the flow stopped so there is no additional force..
from the momentum of the moving column of oil plus the fact they this fancy new cap on top now so they have much better control of things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC