Blow Up the Well to Save the Gulf

[groovedaddy]

TONY HAYWARD, the chief executive of BP, made an astounding admission before Congress last week: after nearly two months of failure, the company and the Coast Guard have no further plans to plug the Macondo oil well leaking into the Gulf. Instead, the goal is merely to contain the leak until a relief well comes online, a process that could take months.

With tens of thousands of barrels of oil leaking from the well each day, this absence of a backup plan highlights a lack of leadership, resources and expertise on the part of the Coast Guard, which from the beginning was compelled to give BP complete control over the leaking wellhead.

Instead, President Obama needs to create a new command structure that places responsibility for plugging the leak with the Navy, the only organization in the world that can muster the necessary team. Then the Navy needs to demolish the well.

The Coast Guard, of course, should continue to play a role. But it should focus on what it can do well, like containing the oil already in the Gulf and protecting the coast with oil booms and skimmers. It should also use this crisis to establish permanent collaborations with other maritime forces around the globe, particularly those that can get to a disaster area quickly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/opinion/22Brownfield.html?th&emc=th

[JuniperLea]

1. Yes, by all means...

Let's do something else we have no first-hand knowledge about... that'll do it! Let's ignite all the gas in that massive reserve! Wooo! Fireworks! Partay!












:cry:

[jdlh8894]

6. Yeah! Let's send a shock wave

w/2000 psi (water pressure @ that depth) Kill every living thing in the Gulf.
However, it would make one HELL of a waterspout! And probably be the largest Tsunami in the history of the world.

[hedgehog]

10. Whenever I need to fix a leaky window, instead of caulking the edges,

I always smack it with a hammer!

[katsy]

15. LOL n/t

[jdlh8894]

17. And if that don't work -----

Get a BFH !!!

[Nihil]

18. Whilst agreeing with the spirit of your post ...

> Let's do something else we have no first-hand knowledge about... that'll do it!

... this bit is simply wrong ...

> Let's ignite all the gas in that massive reserve!

... due to the lack of oxygen down there (i.e., without oxygen, nothing is going
to "ignite" never mind burn or explode).

I totally agree that explosions there are a bad move but just thought I'd clear
that bit up.

:hi:

[wtmusic]

2. The Navy?

Obama should seize the well, have Chevron/other competitor plug it, and send the bill to BP.

The Navy could make things far, far worse.

[Warpy]

5. If they managed to sink an aircraft carrier directly on top of it

they'd have a chance of sealing it off. I can't think of anything else large and heavy enough to seal both the well itself and all the cracks in the sea floor oozing oil from the shattered casing.

However, your idea is best. Every exploratory rig should be sent to the site and put to work drilling multiple pressure relief wells and they should NOT be under BP's control.

[s-cubed]

14. We know the rock is fragile - BP abandomed an earlier well.

Until and unless BP released the entire mud log of the rocks they drilled through, and this was examined by competent independent geologists and engineers, I wouldn't dream of risking a demolition. You could completely fracture the rock and cause a far worst catastrophe.
Most people don't realize it, but there are lots of kinds of rock, with very different properties. The people suggesting demolition are, IMO, very ignorant about this.

[Warpy]

16. No shit, I keep trying to explain they'd just get a gusher at the bottom of a crater

and no structure at all to confine it.

You bet there are a lot of different types of rock, some so friable you can pick it apart with your fingers and others just below diamond in hardness.

My crummy geology course was a hell of a lot of years ago, but I do remember quite a lot of it.

[Nihil]

20. You remember enough.

> You bet there are a lot of different types of rock, some so friable you can
> pick it apart with your fingers and others just below diamond in hardness.
>
> My crummy geology course was a hell of a lot of years ago, but I do remember
> quite a lot of it.

Especially when you consider that there is nothing above the reservoir layer
that can be anything close to the "just below diamond in hardness" types,
just chalks, shales, sands and salt.

Not all of them are "finger-friable" but they aren't going to put up much
resistance to a shockwave from a large HE charge in their midst ...

:scared:

[daggahead]

3. With the possibility of fissures on the floor of the Gulf ...

... why blow it up and risk opening other crevasses that cannot be plugged?

Stick Dick Cheney's evil ass in the pipe.

[Pisces]

4. They knew day 1 that the only thing to be done was drill a relief well. Everything else is for

is for show. They had to attempt for the public, but the only proven method was a relief well.

[damntexdem]

12. The relief well seems to be the best chance.

But it is not a PROVEN cure at that depth with this gusher. We can only hope.

[Nihil]

19. Wrong - it is the *only* proven cure when topside solutions fail.

Depth just makes it trickier (i.e., might need several attempts).

[End Of The Road]

7. This guy is woefully uninformed.

I'm surprised that the NYT printed it.

"...after nearly two months of failure, the company and the Coast Guard have no further plans to plug the Macondo oil well leaking into the Gulf. Instead, the goal is merely to contain the leak until a relief well comes online, a process that could take months."

Uhhh, the purpose of the relief well IS to PLUG the leak.

[The Wielding Truth]

8. From the blog of the opinion piece. This is his basic assumption.

There is no possible way for an explosive demolition to "blow a bigger hole" in the reservoir and make the leak any worse than it already is. 13,000 feet of rock cannot be so easily broken... In short, the worst case scenario is a drastic, immediate reduction in the flow and a more complicated, but manageable, long term cleanup. This option has not been seriously considered because BP has only presented options that allow for their continued "production" from the oil well.

http://www.praxis-unitas.com/Blog.html

[damntexdem]

13. Well, "no possible way" -- what a relief.

Just as there was no possible way for the gusher to have happened.

Or for the oil industry to so screw up drilling.

Sure glad we can stop worrying.

LOL!

[Nihil]

21. That guy has a serious mental disconnect going on ...

"Blow Up the Well to Save the Gulf"
:wtf:

One moment he is talking about how powerful the explosives are:

> drilling a hole parallel to the leaking well and lowering charges to
> form an explosive column
> Upon detonating several tons of explosives, a pressure wave of hundreds of
> thousands of pounds per square inch would spread outward

then he loses track of the difference between water and rock:

> It’s true that the primary blast of a conventional explosion is less
> effective underwater than on land because of the intense back-pressure
> that muffles the shock wave. But as a submariner who studied the detonation
> of torpedoes, I learned that an underwater explosion also creates rapid
> follow-on shockwaves.

then claims that the desired result is pulverisation of the rock rather
than closing the shaft:

> In this case, the expansion and collapse of explosive
> gases inside the hole would act like a hydraulic jackhammer, further
> pulverizing the rock.

He claims that "13,000 feet of rock cannot be so easily broken" but omits
to mention that there are two deliberately drilled shafts to whatever
depth of the "13,000 feet" he would like to set his charges that will
provide lines of weakness *through* the overlying strata.

> There is no possible way for an explosive demolition to "blow a bigger
> hole" in the reservoir ...

... (technically true as the explosives will not be "in the reservoir") ...

> ... and make the leak any worse than it already is.

Wrong. One good way to make the leak worse than it already is would be
to widen the bore of the leaking shaft. Guess what? He's wrong yet again.


He obviously hasn't realised that detonating a torpedo in the water
(e.g., ~650 pounds of HE) has a completely different effect than detonating
"several tons" of HE in a hole deep in the rock (regardless of whether that
rock is eventually covered in water, air or more rock).

Similarly, he hasn't realised that sending a pressure wave of "hundreds of
thousands of pounds per square inch" into shales, chalks & sands of varying
consolidation will truly "pulverize" the rock - definition: "To completely
destroy, especially by crushing to fragments or a powder".

If you dump powder into an active fluid jet with a high rate of flow of fluid
you have the same effect as dumping sawdust into the path of a vacuum cleaner.

The sandblasting effect of the existing flow is scaring the shit out of the
monitoring engineers due to its erosive qualities.

What does he think this "exhaust" will do to the remnants of the bore shaft?

What does he think the shockwave will do to the already unstable BOP?

That is one "former nuclear submarine officer" who should stick to writing
his memoirs about playing hide & seek rather than throwing his particular
brand of ignorance to the public on this subject.

:grr:

[hedgehog]

9. It's a method used on land in the old Soviet Union.

Well, that's reassuring!

:nuke:
:hide:

[damntexdem]

11. Or destroy the Gulf by making things worse?

Can the Gulf be saved (at least in the short run of the next few decades)?