Guardian UK: BP oil well could leak another 2 to 4 years

[Bluebear]

BP's out-of-control well will go on spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico for the next two years or more if all attempts to contain or plug the gusher fail, oil industry experts said today...

Hayward told a Congressional committee on Thursday the reservoir still held 50m barrels, providing fresh urgency to efforts to contain the oil, or seal off the gusher completely with a relief well.

Using the government's present flow estimates of up to 60,000 barrels a day, BP's well could go on gushing for two to four years, unless it is stopped.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/18/bp-gulf-oil-leak-estimates

[SidDithers]

1. BP oil well could be sealed in 2 months...

if all attempts to contain or plug the gusher succeed, said an anonymous internet poster today.

Lotta "ifs" in that OP.

Sid

[Braulio]

2. They have alternatives

They could damn the Gulf of Mexico, fill it with oil. Seriously, they could also drill additional wells and pump water, eventually the well will produce nothing but water. but it'll take months to do that.

[northoftheborder]

3. What I don't understand....

Since the pressure from the gas and oil bursting up through the original drill line is so high, why won't any other drilling line into that stream just be another outlet for the oil to burst through? How can cement, or whatever they try, keep from being blasted out through the new drill just as it did through the original one???? Does someone on here understand that engineering??? Or is there some place to go to find these answers. I haven't seen this addressed anywhere, including the oil drum, unless I missed it.

Also, doesn't the sea floor seep oil all the time anyway? I can imagine that would be normal sitting on top of a large field of oil & gas.

[RC]

7. If BP had not been so cheap and in a hurry, this would not have happened and

they would have had a producing well.
There is a right way and a wrong way to drill oil wells. BP did everything wrong on this one. Everything!

[Aramchek]

4. What is the point of this article??

[metapunditedgy]

5. To show that Washington needs to stop "business as usual" by demanding *human* accountability?

When corporations commit negligent, risky behavior, roll the dice, and come up snake-eyes, someone's gotta pay.

I'm not talking about golden parachutes. I'm talking orange jumpsuits.

[Bluebear]

6. Oh, is "ignored" defending BP?

:rofl: Pathetic!

[jonnyblitz]

8. "whutz the point of this article!!1?1"

:crazy: :puke:

[Bluebear]

11. OFFS these people are barking mad.

[treestar]

13. Well no, but when you ignore people you then become

less informed and shorten your tunnel of vision until you think that your little corner of the world represents the whole world.

[SidDithers]

9. The point of the article is for the Daily Mail, a conservative tabloid...

to drive hits to their website, and to sell papers. Meaningless sensational articles are a good way to accomplish that.

Surprising that some DU'ers still think the Daily Mail is anything but fishwrap.

Sid

[WeDidIt]

10. IF it fits the agenda of the poster, any site is fair game n/t

[inna]

12. Reading comprehension problem? It's Guardian, not the Daily Mail.

Both are British papers, but... all similarities end at that point.

[treestar]

14. Abject fear and worse case scenario so as to drive more fear

and panic.