I got a "Top Kill" for ya...

[AZhitman]

I'm gonna go McGuyver here....

The well head is perfectly cylindrical, roughly 22" in diameter from what I've read.

I'm visualizing the tool to use, but I don't know what it's called. I think it's for flaring pipe. An array of blocks radiating from a central shaft that, when the threaded shaft is rotated, the blocks expand and interlock, forming a solid cylindrical cone-shaped tapered block...

If we can extend a drill a mile down, that drill can turn, right? If the drill head can turn, it can be fitted with a tool. If it can be fitted with a tool, it can plug a hole (with the help of submersibles). There's THOUSANDS of crafts worldwide that can operate at 5K feet with robotic arms. Get them to the Gulf.

[WDRacing]

Just think about the principle for a rubber freeze plug. Insert the plug into the hole, turn the nut, expand the rubber, plug the hole.

[stebo0728]

Well what pressures are at work here? Is the oil just coming out under the force of its own buoyancy, or is it actually being forced out by other forces as well? What is the psi water pressure at that level? If there are no other forces besides buoyancy then a rubber plug can work because water pressure will aid by pushing down on the plug. If there are internal pressures involved they may blow the plug back out. In actuality water is pouring into the hole, displacing the oil and the oil has no where to go but up. So the ticker is really more to stop the water from flowing into the pipe, then no more oil will be displaced. Thats all assuming no internal pressure, if there is internal pressure then the only way I can see is to somehow crimp this well closed, either with the "in-crust" nuke approach, or some other means of forcing the well head to pinch shut.

[IBCoupe]

Yes, we have the technology to drill down that far, but who did it? And how long did it take them? And how precise were they trying to be the first time?

I'm still not seeing a reason to be pissed off at the Federal government, least of all for inaction.

Trying to pinch the well head shut was the first thing they did, Stebo. It's the primary function of the emergency measures in place. The problem comes with the timing of the accident - they were drilling when it happened, and the drill equipment physically prevented the emergency measures from pinching off the well. It was able to pinch it off some, but not all.

That's probably why, when BP cut open the well last week, it started spewing out more.

And to come close to answering your question about the oil, Stebo, it's not just oil spewing out. It's also a large amount of gas, so while I can't tell you the exact pressures at play, I can tell you that it's more than just the oil's buoyancy that's giving them trouble.

[AZhitman]

^ That sounds reasonable.

Maybe I'm an eternal optimist... I just think there HAS to be a way.

And keep in mind, my grousing about "inaction" has more to do with the bureaucracy at work, blocking people from doing SOMETHING, ANYTHING, while they form committees and boards and panels to "rubberstamp" and approve every little thing.

There should be thousands of ships there, cleaning up. Thousands of scientists / engineers, discussing "what ifs", and thousands of people on the ground doing what little they can WHILE they can. BP hiring private security companies to keep cleanup crews and journalists OUT of certain areas is a joke.

[stebo0728]

Ok so if they were drilling when the thing blew, who pulled the auger out of the hole? Wouldnt it have sufficed as a plug, at least to keep most of it from coming out? I work in the propane industry, and we have ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL KINDS of safety s*** we have to have because propane is both pressurized and flammable. One of these is an excess flow valve. Lets say they are pumping out crude at a certain rate, if a pipe blows off, and product starts to move at a rate faster than it should, the internal mechanisms slam shut. We are now required to have these valves actually inside the body of the tank so that if a tank pipe is sheared off right at the tank level the mechanism will still operate. Now I realize that the oil drilling industry is a different animal, but wouldnt you think they would have some sort of similar measures in place? The blowout preventer doesnt sound like a sufficient safety measure to me. Perhaps a drill bit design to shear off and plug the hole in the event this happens. I dunno, im not the expert, but doesnt sound like there really is an expert. Plugging the hole, pinching the hole, just plain CLOSING the hole is what we have to focus on. BP can get the oil later through a different well, it may cost them more to drill a new well, but so what, this one failed, seal it!

I agree with AZ, the anger is not that they havent fixed it, its more that they dont seem to be giving it the "To The Moon This Decade" effort that we know this nation is capable of, where ever that fault lies, be it the POTUS, his officials, BP, Coast Gaurd, whoever ... I realize the problem is festered by the location of the well ... call the "A" Team if we have to ... lets figure it out!

[AZhitman]

THIS is bogus:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... hakedown/1

Guy expresses displeasure that the POTUS somehow thinks it's within his authority to demand funds from a private company. Dems freak out, call for his head on a platter. Weak-minded Republicans fail to stand their ground and pressure the guy to apologize.

F THAT.

Regardless of how we all feel about BP and their role in this disaster, it is NOT the place of the White House to shake down private firms to open their wallets. It is the job of the US courts system.

That's typical Obama-style Chicago mob politics for ya.

[IBCoupe]

No, I don't think it's unreasonable for the government to pressure them to set up funds.

First, that will save money in the long run - if it's run anything like the 9/11 victims families fund (I read somewhere that the same guy is going to be running this one), it will drastically cut down on the court costs over the long run, for victims, for the government, and for BP. People who took money from the fund had to agree not to go to court. Was it improper for the White House (and Congressional, if I recall) involvement in setting up that fund?

Second, BP got the lease from the federal government, and if BP's making a mess of it, the government requiring them to make available enough funds as part of the combined effort to right the wrongs is not entirely crazy.

Third, the guy's a whackjob. Republicans weren't just weak, they were outraged. If you're going to act like you're standing up for the little guy, you don't apologize to the big guy that screwed them over.

[AZhitman]

No, I don't think it's unreasonable for the government to pressure them to set up funds.

First, that will save money in the long run - if it's run anything like the 9/11 victims families fund (I read somewhere that the same guy is going to be running this one), it will drastically cut down on the court costs over the long run, for victims, for the government, and for BP. People who took money from the fund had to agree not to go to court. Was it improper for the White House (and Congressional, if I recall) involvement in setting up that fund?

Second, BP got the lease from the federal government, and if BP's making a mess of it, the government requiring them to make available enough funds as part of the combined effort to right the wrongs is not entirely crazy.

Third, the guy's a whackjob. Republicans weren't just weak, they were outraged. If you're going to act like you're standing up for the little guy, you don't apologize to the big guy that screwed them over.

First, HUGE difference. One was OUR money, the other is a private company's money.

Second, is that in the terms of the lease? Then a court should demand and enforce it. NOT a politician desperate to appear "tough". The end result, I totally agree with.

Third, he's FAR from a wackjob. Just because something seems distasteful doesn't mean it's wrong, and just because something "feels" right doesn't mean it's legal.

Listen, I'm as disgusted by this thing as anyone. But to act as if they intended for this to happen is ludicrous. I'm sure their lax safety measures didn't help, but this could have been an Act of God (methane bubble @ the well opening?).

[IBCoupe]

And, once again, all signs point to liability on the part of BP. In fact, BP has already admitted liability and promised to pay all "legitimate" claims. So BP's own signs point to liability on the part of BP.

Of all the fights for that Senator to pick, this was a silly one. The government is behaving responsibly.

This method saves money for everyone.

[stebo0728]

First, that will save money in the long run - if it's run anything like the 9/11 victims families fund (I read somewhere that the same guy is going to be running this one), it will drastically cut down on the court costs over the long run, for victims, for the government, and for BP. People who took money from the fund had to agree not to go to court. Was it improper for the White House (and Congressional, if I recall) involvement in setting up that fund?

Two different animals here. The 9/11 Fund was a government hand out, taxpayer money, paid to the victims, which personally I disagreed with, people die everyday, firefighters, cops, their families get jack, whats really so special about the 9/11 victims other than they all died at once? Anyway different topic, so that was a government sourced fund. The BP fund is coming not from taxpayers, but a private company's bottom line. Its fine that they pay, appropriate even, but the government has no right or obligation even to force anything out of them. The only way they could acquire this right or obligation is if it were in a catastrophe clause in the lease agreement.

[stebo0728]

but the government has no right or obligation even to force anything out of them

I should clarify ... the government has no right or obligation at the executive level to force BP's hand ... now at the judicial level its a different story.

[AZhitman]

The government is behaving responsibly.

This method saves money for everyone.

Just because something seems distasteful doesn't mean it's wrong, and just because something "feels" right doesn't mean it's legal.

[stebo0728]

LOL ... AZ you fast bastard ... you beat me to the punch

[IBCoupe]

Can't see images at work.

I should add, though, that this is part of a negotiated deal between a government and an international corporation. It's not as disparate a power relationship as it's made out to be by a certain Senator.

[AZhitman]

So, here's a question no one's considering:

While everyone's vilifying BP (and I agree), what about the economic impact to those of us who own BP shares?

If it was YOUR money running down the drain, you wouldn't want some showboating politician demanding arbitrary amounts all willy-nilly, would you? No. You'd want the job done RIGHT.

_____


(On a side note, according to expert accounts, $20B is a joke amount. A smaller spill 20 years ago cost more than that in cleanup and economic impact, and there are over a THOUSAND times more potential claimants in THIS instance. A THOUSAND TIMES MORE.

[stebo0728]

Well did you hear the badgering the CEO had to deal with today ... they kept demanding he admit liability. Obviously the liability is there, but if he admits it on the record, there wont even be a need for any further civil trials, the people can just call the court and ask for a check. NO CEO EVER is going to admit to liability on anything on the record. In the tort world we have today, thats just bad business!

[AZhitman]

Yep.

Waste of time and taxpayer money. Fix the leak, THEN haul him and his troops into court. All this crap is costing us valuable time, money and credibility, and I blame the Administration.

[IBCoupe]

Oh, there were no images.

And I think I see what you were trying to get at. I don't think there was anything illegal about the agreement reached.

And I imagine that, if you're a person who owns BP stock, whether BP shells out $20B today to a fund that will be managed by an independent third party, or whether it spends the next ten years going bankrupt, you're pretty unhappy either way.

I really don't think any of what's stated in the news lately has any effect on the resources lost or the money lost or the time lost or the progress made. Not the hearings, not the deals, not the apologies. The PR war? Yeah, it probably has an effect there, but I don't give a rat's a** about something as worthless as that.

[WDRacing]

just because something "feels" right doesn't mean it's legal.

[stebo0728]

Got it, this should work, and it will give some value to the current administration ...

[WDRacing]

The perfect one size fits all leak stopper!!! Great work dude

[srellim234]

AZ- First my disclosure. I own shares in Chevron, not BP.

I don't give a rat's behind about shareholder value for those who own shares in a company because, quite frankly, they're either not capable or not willing to protect their own investment in the company every single year when the shareholders vote. Shareholders routinely dilute the impact of their own stock by voting for issuance of additional stock for various reasons. Shareholders routinely vote reelection for the compensation boards that allow excesses in boardroom compensation and golden parachutes. Golden parachutes are no longer an incentive for an executive to stay. They have become something that puts the executive in an "I don't give a darn" mode since they're now going to get their big money whether they're here or not. And if let go, their "good old boys" club is going land them in the same position somewhere else. Shareholders routinely allow the corporation to commit their money to an expense that not only reduces the shareholders' percentage of investment in the company but at the same time commits them to an expense when they have no Idea how big that expense will be: stock options. Shareholders routinely vote for part-time board members who are executives and board members at other corporations and give them full time compensation while the boards only give the company divided loyalty and attention.

In this instance I would also be demanding strength from the top of the company and a CEO who at least is savvy enough to maintain a public profile that indicates knowledge, strength and caring. Most of the time you can't tell anything about a person until they are faced with a crisis situation. The head of BP has failed the test in the public arena but he will probably stay because he has buffaloed the Administration by committing company resources to the $20 billion fund in a way that will allow the company to continue to pay dividends.

As someone who is not an expert in deep water drilling, I'm all in favor of letting the experts handle it. I believe the company when they say how long it will take to drill the "fix-it" wells. I believe them mainly because no one else in the industry is coming forth with better ideas in a high-profile way. This Administration should be there to ensure that BP is working full speed to resolve the leak. This Administration should be ensuring that BP doesn't attempt to avoid its responsibility to provide adequate compensation to those who have been injured physically and/or financially by this through no fault of their own. This Administration should be working on an oversight plan to prevent an episode like this from happening again. This Administration, however, should also just watch and stay the hell out of the way.

But the shareholders? Tough break, but that's the risk we take when we buy stock. Sometimes you should demand that your company do the right thing, accept the loss and move on.

[stebo0728]

Ok new wrinkle today, we now have a debate as to whether the crude is naturally dispersing or not. Some group of scientist is making the claim that 80% of the oil is still intact below the surface? Im not quite understanding this. Is crude not less dense than water? Shouldnt whatever crude leaked out float on up to the surface? I realize its somewhat of an amalgamation of substances all with variant densities, but I would imagine most do have a density less than that of water. Does anyone have any deeper insight into this?

[IBCoupe]

I remember hearing briefly during the spill that BP's injection of disperant at the source could have long-reaching impacts, in that it might cause much of the oil to break up differently and not rise to the surface as it otherwise would, and I've been waiting to hear more about it. I wonder if this is the aftermath.

[stebo0728]

Ah yes now that you mention it, I do remember the crystaline material they used to cause the chemical makeup of the crude to change causing it to sink. Hmm perhaps this is what we are hearing about now.

EDIT - I think the original intent of the material was for it to be used on the surface, but BP used it below surface which is what may be having the effects described.

[IBCoupe]

In response to your edit, you're absolutely right. This stuff has been used for years at the surface. This was the first time it had been injected below the surface, and if memory serves, BP was criticized for it shortly after they began, and then stopped within a day or two.

[stebo0728]

Here we go again

[IBCoupe]

?

[stebo0728]

Another oil rig incident

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100902/ap_ ... _explosion