sounds idiotic to me
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 14 Jul 2010 17:00 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:48:16 -0700, IAmTheSlime <TheSlimeFromYourVideo(a)oozingacrossyourlivingroomfloor.org> wrote: >On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:15:41 -0700 (PDT), "langwadt(a)fonz.dk" ><langwadt(a)fonz.dk> wrote: > >>On 14 Jul., 21:48, John Larkin >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100714/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_201... >>> >>> If 100% of the oil is spewing out, why not close some valves and see >>> if less spews out? What's to lose? >>> >>> John >> >>can only assume they are afraid plugging the "little" hole will burst >>something >>and create an even bigger and harder to plug hole. >> >>an why plug it, why not get the oil to the surface and start >>production, it >>might as well start making money to pay for all the damage it's >>already done >> >>-Lasse > > > They could place inverted barges down there, tied DOWN to the sea >floor, and use it as an umbrella to grab it all up, and place hoses on >the four corners to excavate it all out. Place another, higher depth >'umbrella' above that one to catch whatever it misses. They tried that, first thing. The problem is, at this depth, when methane mixes with water it forms methane ice, which gunks up all the collectors and hoses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate So the requirement is to capture the oil before it can mix with sea water. At 15,000 PSI or whatever. John
From: John Larkin on 14 Jul 2010 17:02 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 22:17:03 +0200, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour(a)ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100714/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_20100616040848 >> >> >> If 100% of the oil is spewing out, why not close some valves and see >> if less spews out? What's to lose? >> >> John >> >A blow-out? There is a big column of fluid moving at high speed, >block it suddenly and all sorts of interesting things are going >to happen. Then close the valves slowly. If they even cut the flow by 1/3, it's better than 100% flow. And why do baseline seismic studies now, when the problem is three months old? Sounds like more politics to me. John
From: Tim Wescott on 14 Jul 2010 17:27 On 07/14/2010 12:48 PM, John Larkin wrote: > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100714/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_20100616040848 > > > If 100% of the oil is spewing out, why not close some valves and see > if less spews out? What's to lose? Is 100% of the oil spilling out? You've got a teeny pipe going into a great big oil deposit, and the pipe is set into ocean floor that's not made of very strong stuff. Furthermore, the pipe isn't set into the ocean floor very well -- one of the scandalettes that's flying around is that BP saved money by only putting in something like 1/5 of the number of reinforcement structures that their own engineering staff recommended. What folks are _really_ worried about now is not so much that the pipe itself will rupture, but that the stuff the pipe is set into will start to crack open. Should that happen then you'll get a flow rate that'll dwarf what we've got now. That's what you've got to lose. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Do you need to implement control loops in software? "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
From: amdx on 14 Jul 2010 17:50 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:ao0s36praoiibqihlcc6rl8316eirkkhrq(a)4ax.com... > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100714/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_20100616040848 > > > If 100% of the oil is spewing out, why not close some valves and see > if less spews out? What's to lose? > > John > My limited understanding is; the new cap has three valves, two of them are more on/off and the third can be shut a little at a time. That's what I gleaned from Thad Allen's last press conference. They will shut one and see what the pressure readings are. That will give them some info about the integrity of the well caseing. There in lies the rub. Say the pressure was at 7,850 lbs/sqin and in 6 hrs it went down to 7,300lbs/sqin. What does that mean? If it went to 3,000 lbs/sqin they know they have a problem. I the caseing is perforated and it's 1 mile under the earth, probably not a big concern, but if it's 100 yards, we probably can't fix the leak ever. So, I think they're thinking. MikeK
From: Rich Grise on Google groups on 14 Jul 2010 18:09
On Jul 14, 2:02 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > ... > And why do baseline seismic studies now, when the problem is three > months old? > > Sounds like more politics to me. Of course it's politics! What I can't understand is howcome our Commander-In-Chief didn't immediately call out the Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy Seabees and throw them at the problem. Or howcome somebody didn't start dropping those 1,000 lb. sandbags like they've used to protect the beaches and inlets when there's a hurricane coming - not on the beach, but drop them around and on top of the well, until there's a big enough pile of them to actually weight the stuff down. Another thing that pisses me off about Obama is that he claims credit for a $20,000,000,000.00 "shakedown", when one of the first things BP said was, "We will pay all legitimate claims" on May 3, 2010: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126468782&ps=rs What part of "we will pay" doesn't Obama understand? He's just grandstanding, which seems to be all he's ever done, maybe all he's able to do at all! Thanks, Rich |