Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

[Sea Skimmer]

Fines will never make companies do fucking anything. We just saw with our epic banking crisis that CEOs think nothing of running massive companies into the ground for a little bit of extra short term profit. So being fined for breaking laws, even if its billions of dollars wont fucking stop anyone either. Throwing the people in jail just might do something though. BP after all has been subject to the better part of a billion dollars in fines, far more then any other oil company... and what did that accomplish?

[The Yosemite Bear]

so BP execs in Lousiana chaingangs cleaning birds might work?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Two more months. Minimum.

Good freaking Lord this is tragic.

[MKSheppard]

Good freaking Lord this is tragic.

Hmm...how big is this oil reservoir? Looks like this is a job for the mighty ATOM.

[Simon_Jester]

Shep, I'm honestly not sure we can nuke this problem to death.

I mean, how? Do we have a viable model?

[The Yosemite Bear]

well the russian have done it 5 times so far....

[Sea Skimmer]

Shep, I'm honestly not sure we can nuke this problem to death.

I mean, how? Do we have a viable model?

Hundreds and hundreds of underground nuclear tests work pretty well for that, and BP should already have massive amounts of information about the underground geology of the area. All we have to do is align a very small nuclear device at the proper distance from the well to crush a few hundred feet of its height, without converting it into an actual void. This could easily be done, but it certainly wont.

As another option I'm sure nuclear air bursts could go a long way towards burning off the oil slicks.

[JointStrikeFighter]

As another option I'm sure nuclear air bursts could go a long way towards burning off the oil slicks.

[Korgeta]

well the russian have done it 5 times so far....

From the makers of Chernobyl, a new test that would yield 4/5 sucsses attempts, to help kill Obama's popularity and elect Paldin we give you...The Nuke!

...Though each of the five Soviet attempts involved natural gas, rather than crude oil, and leaks occurring in subterranean channels. The Gulf leak is taking place 1,500 metres underwater.

It could work or it could not, if it does Obama may just stay in office, if not then it's political suicide.

[Korgeta]

It is worth pointing out that though BP is at fault and should pay the cost, the need for better regulations have been long overdue, espacilly since the Bhopal disaster in 1984, more people died in that incident then this one, and the Union Carbide were let off with a small fine in comparison to the long term damage that was caused. The critcisim on BP is justified but steps should have been taken to prevent something like this occuring and that steps must be taken in the future where all companies (and not just BP) but U.S owned as well must take better precautions. The reality is that cheap oil is dead and that deep sea drilling will be more of a reality but international steps must be taken up to prevent this kind of disaster because the technology to deal with effectively is non existant.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Shep, I'm honestly not sure we can nuke this problem to death.

I mean, how? Do we have a viable model?

I believe it's been pointed out elsewhere that the Russians have done it before . . . in surface wells. Of course, in the next sentence, it turns out that they first needed to drill a hole several kilometers deep to put the device in first. And if you're going to do that, you'd might as well just keep going and complete a relief well.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Those proposing a nuke kill... no. Just. Fucking. No. Go wank somewhere else.

[eion]

A nuke kill is obviously never going to happen, even if there were a history of success.

But is an explosive kill impossible? Is it feasible to put enough explosives down there to collapse the well-head if the only other option is to wait 2 months for a relief well?

[Admiral Valdemar]

With the flow that powerful, the BOP that damaged with no chance of stuffing the riser with sufficient conventional explosives, it seems very unlikely. There is nothing saying the wellhead wouldn't blow out to produce a larger leak either. A detonation at that depth is tricky as it is, but one where you could risk making a totally unmanageable problem arise is something to not even consider.

[MKSheppard]

With the flow that powerful, the BOP that damaged with no chance of stuffing the riser with sufficient conventional explosives, it seems very unlikely.

So use a 5 kiloton device to do it. I'm sure we have enough lying around left over from the Cold War.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You don't understand. Blowing this well up is the WORST thing you could do. The geology is entirely wrong here and could cause more fissures and leaks from them, not collapse the BOP in on itself. You could inadvertently make the whole field unstable, even assuming you could get a nuke to operate there effectively (it would be a damn sight easier than chemical explosives at least). And anyway, it's not happening because a) there's a shitload of other rigs that could feel the impact from such a detonation, b) the fallout, ecologically and socially, would be politically untenable and c) BP and others want that oil still.

[MKSheppard]

You don't understand.

We know very well the phenomenology of underwater nuclear initations -- thanks to several tests the USN did in the Old Days (TM) with actual nuclear weapons submerged at great depths and instrumented submarine targets to record effects upon them.

And when did you become an expert in underwater geology? Was that in between your proclaimations of Peak DOOM?

[Admiral Valdemar]

No, this is from petrogeologists who ripped apart the "Let's just nuke it" crowd's non-argument weeks ago, not that the US or anyone has ever done a detonation at this depth. Hilariously, you're not a nuclear physicist, so what the fuck do personal credentials mean in this debate? The geology is wrong, case closed. But yay for strawmen, eh?

[MKSheppard]

not that the US or anyone has ever done a detonation at this depth.

Closest shot was at 2,000 feet depth suspended from a barge -- water pressure at 5,000 ft is roughly a bit over double the pressure; so just thicken up the casing you place the device in; it's not like it's hard to build a casing to survive 5,000 ft depths -- we do it all the time for all the ROVs we have swarming around the site.

Hilariously, you're not a nuclear physicist, so what the fuck do personal credentials mean in this debate?

While I don't know the exact inner workings of a nuclear device; I can swipe a piecutter and figure out the pressure a nuclear device exterts; and they are much much more efficient than conventional explosives; otherwise why would the USSR keep doing PNEs right up to 1988?

The geology is wrong, case closed. But yay for strawmen, eh?

You've asserted this, prove it -- or at least link to a reputable geology blog that explains why we can't use multiple nuclear weapons in concert to blast/cut/crush the leak down.

[J]

There are several conditions which are required for a nuke shot to close off the well

• there must be an impermeable layer of rock or salt above where the device is to be placed. Not all rocks are impermeable, quite a few rock types have pores through which the oil can flow without much difficulty
• the rocks where the device is set off have to be relatively ductile, otherwise there's excessive fracturing and once again the oil flows right through
• these layers of rock have to be deep enough and thick enough to contain the nuclear blast

I'm not familiar with GoM geology so I don't know if the nuclear option can work.

[Admiral Valdemar]

ROCKMAN over at TOD has been commenting on this issue the most, but I can't find which article he gave the best response on (Now it's just a verboten topic for serious discussion). With five weeks worth of postings and a slow as fuck search option, it may take a while. Regardless, the Russian incidents are not comparable to the situation at hand here. The variables make the risk far too big compared to the constants.

Relief wells work. Whether they work before August or BP bankrupts itself is another matter.

[Temujin]

I've heard some speculative talk about possible leaks in other locations, and possibly already from the bed itself from some interviewees on MSNBC. Are there any reputable sources discussing these possibilities? With BP running the show and controlling the information released, who knows what is really going on and how bad it is. BP certainly may not know everything, and being they have been lees than honest already, I wouldn't expect them to be too forthright.

[Admiral Valdemar]

All I've heard is that off Matt Simmons, and I'm inclined to ignore such concerns until I physically see it. But as BP have fucked around so far...

[FSTargetDrone]

Plumes? What sub-surface plumes?

BP CEO disputes claims of underwater oil plumes

MATTHEW BROWN, Associated Press Writer Matthew Brown, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 54 mins ago

VENICE, La. – Disputing scientists' claims of large oil plumes suspended underwater in the Gulf of Mexico, BP PLC's chief executive on Sunday said the company has largely narrowed the focus of its cleanup to surface slicks rolling into Louisiana's coastal marshes.

During a tour of a BP PLC staging area for cleanup workers, CEO Tony Hayward said the company's sampling showed "no evidence" that oil was suspended in large masses beneath the surface. He didn't elaborate on how the testing was done.

Hayward said that oil's natural tendency is to rise to the surface, and any oil found underwater was in the process of working its way up.

"The oil is on the surface," Hayward said. "There aren't any plumes."

Scientists from several universities have reported plumes of what appears to be oil far from the site of BP's leaking wellhead, which is more than 5,000 beneath the surface.

Those findings — from the University of South Florida, the University of Georgia, Southern Mississippi University and other institutions — were based on video images and initial observations of water samples taken in the Gulf over the last several weeks. They continue to be analyzed.

One researcher said Sunday that their findings are bolstered by the fact that scientists from different institutions have come to similar conclusions after doing separate testing.

"There's been enough evidence from enough different sources," said marine scientist James Cowan of Louisiana State University, who reported finding a plume last of oil last week about 50 miles from the spill site. Cowan said oil reached to depths of at least 400 feet.

An even larger plume — 22 miles long, six miles wide and more than a thousand feet deep — was reported by the University of South Florida.

"We stand behind it," said William Hogarth, dean of the school's College of Marine Science. Hogarth, the former head of the National Marine Fisheries Service, said laboratory results are due this week.

A third scientist, LSU chemist Ed Overton, said simple physics sides with BP's Hayward. Since oil is lighter than water, Overton said it is unlikely to stay below the surface for long.

But Hogarth and Cowan said BP's use of chemical dispersants to break up the oil before it reaches the surface could reduce its buoyancy, keeping it in deeper water.

An estimated 18 to 40 million gallons of oil have been unleashed since BP's Deepwater Horizon platform exploded and sank last month, killing 11. With the undersea leak now expected to continue spewing oil until August, Hayward said the cleanup effort could last for months or even years.

The embattled CEO spent only a few minutes on the subject of plumes on Sunday, concentrating instead on outlining his company's cleanup efforts.

"The fight on this battlefield today is in Louisiana," he said.

Calls to BP seeking more information on how they tested for the underwater plumes weren't immediately returned.

Maybe these plumes:

May 28, 2010
Scientists Build Case for Undersea Plumes
By JUSTIN GILLIS

IN THE GULF OF MEXICO — The ocean caught fire.

As it blazed, a dense column of black smoke rose toward the sky. Oily water, the color of strong tea, slopped up the sides of boats. The breeze carried an acrid smell, like gasoline fumes.

Aboard the research vessel F.G. Walton Smith, anxiety was growing.

Five scientists and six students had come to study the oil leak and its effect on the sea. They brought flasks and gloves, refrigerators and freezers, tiny tools and huge cylinders of gas.

They were not looking for oil on the surface, where it was so thick in places that it was being burned off, but for plumes of fine oil droplets far beneath the waves.

The stakes were high. Two weeks earlier, when some of these scientists had disclosed evidence of undersea oil plumes, their claim had been greeted skeptically by the government. The scientists’ credibility was on the line.

If the plumes did exist, much of the wisdom about combating oil spills might need to be reconsidered. The plumes would suggest that any future oil leak in deep water could be expected to do much of its damage in the sea, not on shore.

But where were the plumes?

After a slow start, American science is finally beginning to tackle the oil disaster in earnest. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency charged with monitoring the health of the oceans, is sending multiple boats into the gulf. The National Science Foundation, another arm of the government, is issuing rapid grants to finance academic teams, including the one aboard the Walton Smith. BP, the oil company responsible for the spill, has pledged $500 million for research. And scientists like those aboard the Walton Smith are getting emergency financing from the government for their studies.

This stepped-up effort is starting to bear fruit. This week, another research vessel confirmed the existence of a huge undersea plume. And on Thursday, a team of scientists appointed by the Obama administration offered a more credible estimate of the flow rate at the broken well, putting it at two to four times the previous calculation.

That higher estimate only added to the sense among academic scientists that much of the oil must be hovering in the deep sea, instead of surfacing. The goal of the researchers aboard the Walton Smith was to nail the existence of such deep-sea plumes beyond any doubt.

They sailed early this week from Gulfport, Miss., and went back to the spot where they had originally discovered a large plume. It was no longer there.

All one afternoon, the Walton Smith hopscotched across the gulf. The top scientists on board, Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia and Vernon Asper of the University of Southern Mississippi, peered intently at instrument readouts, hoping for a signal.

Down to the bottom of the sea went a huge apparatus designed to test the water and grab samples of it. The results kept coming up clean.

Then, late in the afternoon of the second day at sea, the entire scientific crew suddenly leapt to attention.

The boat had arrived at a new sampling site, west of the oil leak, and the instruments were traveling once again to the bottom. In a clean ocean, they would be expected to produce fairly straight lines on a graph.

Instead, wild squiggles were showing up. The display looked like one of those seismograph readings taken in the throes of an earthquake. At three different depths, the instruments picked up plumes of material drifting through the deep ocean.

Dr. Asper stood back, arms crossed, watching the squiggles appear. “To see something like this is a once-in-a-lifetime thing,” he said. “It’s really remarkable.”

Soon, a giant winch on the rear of the boat hauled special bottles back from the deep, carrying water samples. The younger researchers rushed to the rear deck.

Working quickly in a daisy chain, circling the bottles, they filled small vials and other containers, then hustled back to their makeshift laboratory on the main deck of the Walton Smith.

Over the next few hours, they filtered some of the water. They shook some samples. They stirred some. They pickled some. They bubbled gases through the water. They refrigerated some vials. They froze some more.

Then they got ready to do it all again.

Within a day, word would come that a separate university vessel, the Weatherbird II, had discovered a giant plume stretching in the other direction from the broken well, toward Mobile Bay. That one threatens some of the finest fishing territory in the gulf.

It will take weeks of laboratory work to confirm with certainty that the plumes are made of oil droplets, or more likely, some complex mixture of oil and natural gas. If that idea holds up, the existence of these undersea plumes may well turn out to be the major scientific discovery of the great oil spill of 2010.

It could take years for scientists to assess the deep-sea damage fully, if that is even possible. Among other problems, gulf researchers have long been hobbled by a critical shortage of vessels equipped for oceanography.

Only a handful of such ships ply the Gulf of Mexico, and the best-outfitted boats tend to work for the oil industry. Exploring and protecting the gulf has simply not been as high a national priority as drilling it for oil.

Still uncertain are the fates of deep coral reefs that live in the gulf, as well as the condition of a unique cluster of bottom-dwelling organisms only nine miles from the damaged well. The ultimate impact the spill will have on commercially important fish like tuna and snapper is anyone’s guess.

As the week wore on, the Joye-Asper team found more and more evidence for the existence of the plumes.

The water samples they pulled up suggested that any oil in the plumes was highly diffuse — not even visible to the naked eye. But when several gallons of the water were forced through a fine filter, tiny black oil droplets appeared.

Even in that diffuse form, the plumes were having a drastic impact on the chemistry of the ocean, with dissolved oxygen levels plunging as each plume drifted through the sea.

That, Dr. Joye said, was most likely because bacteria were ramping up to consume the oil and gas — a good thing, over all, but it was creating a heavy demand for oxygen and other nutrients. Aside from the toxic effect of the oil, the declining oxygen was a potential threat to sea life.

Slowly, as the Walton Smith and other boats worked the gulf this past week, the weird physics of a deep-water well blowout came into better focus. The idea that oil rises quickly to the surface of an ocean may be one of the casualties of this disaster.

“Nothing really makes sense out here,” Dr. Joye said as her ship plowed through orange slicks of oil. “I don’t know that you can necessarily trust your intuition.”

From the bridge of the ship, Capt. Shawn Lake made an announcement. Everyone rushed to the outside decks.

Once again, in the middle distance, the ocean was burning.

[Highlord Laan]

I sincerely hop that a part of the rupture-closing and cleanup operations involves rounding it all out with a mass hanging of BP execs. It's the least those scum molds deserve.