The Lousiana oil rig failure...

[SteamWake]

Okay some of you may not know about this story but it started out as an oil rig off the shore of lousiana caught fire and 'exploded' (which in itslef is bizzare) all but 11 hands were rescued. This happened early this week. Most of the news was focused on the missing and the attempts to contain the spill and to stop the leak.

Today I hear the Feds. including Dept. of Homaland Security were to sweep into the region with "SWAT" teams being deployed to other existing rigs for inspection.

Now theres someting about that that sets off my curiosity. Already the rumors are flying that it wasent an accident.

Somewhere in the back of my mind I mused about the rig being destroyed intentionally to 'prove' how dangerous it could be to the panhandle coast. Why? because of the 'pro drilling' sentiment that has taken hold. But it got a tad out of hand. But that would be a conspiricy theory I dont quite buy. However plausible.

So I wonder what the real story is there.

Just google Lousiana oil spill for more.

Heres one for the lazy

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/04/29/2010-04-29_louisiana_oil_spill_from_horizon_deepwater_expl osion_expected_to_be_twice_as_bad.html

[Happy Times]

Okay some of you may not know about this story but it started out as an oil rig off the shore of lousiana caught fire and 'exploded' (which in itslef is bizzare) all but 11 hands were rescued. This happened early this week. Most of the news was focused on the missing and the attempts to contain the spill and to stop the leak.

Today I hear the Feds. including Dept. of Homaland Security were to sweep into the region with "SWAT" teams being deployed to other existing rigs for inspection.

Now theres someting about that that sets off my curiosity. Already the rumors are flying that it wasent an accident.

Somewhere in the back of my mind I mused about the rig being destroyed intentionally to 'prove' how dangerous it could be to the panhandle coast. Why? because of the 'pro drilling' sentiment that has taken hold. But it got a tad out of hand. But that would be a conspiricy theory I dont quite buy. However plausible.

So I wonder what the real story is there.

Just google Lousiana oil spill for more.

Heres one for the lazy

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/04/29/2010-04-29_louisiana_oil_spill_from_horizon_deepwater_expl osion_expected_to_be_twice_as_bad.html

You could be right, ive been wondering the same, something felt off in the incident.

[Platapus]

Anyone see the movie "ffolks"?

[August]

What I want to know is why it took 10 days for the Administration to respond to the situation. That's way slower than even the Bush administrations response to Katrina.

[em2nought]

I'm getting to the point that I could picture it being done for the insurance and to up the price of fuel more likely, or maybe a few of those poor guys were about to retire and start drawing pensions.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

What I want to know is why it took 10 days for the Administration to respond to the situation. That's way slower than even the Bush administrations response to Katrina.

Absolutely NO RESPONSE AT ALL for 10 days? No press release or comment from an administration spokesperson at all? Nothing?

Of course it doesn't matter; you'd still find something wrong w/the Obama administration's reaction, anyway.

[CaptainHaplo]

The conspiracy theory that is out there right now was not that this was the work of the government itself - but the act of some person or persons - either inside or outside the industry - with an environmental agenda. What better way to show what bad could happen if an oil rig was lost - than to make one sink?

[August]

Absolutely NO RESPONSE AT ALL for 10 days? No press release or comment from an administration spokesperson at all? Nothing?


Oh c'mon a "press release"? :DL That's what you call responding to the crisis?

Face it, your team has done nothing to address the crisis for nearly two entire weeks and you dare to imply that i'm not giving the Democrats a fair shake?

[Platapus]

I see an explosion that was an accident...


'Nuff said?


I mean, whats the point of lieng about an oil rig explosion? Yeah the government is useless, but I mean, why would they blow it up, KILLING their own people, and then lie? It was an accident. I could totally imagine the U.S government killing its own people, but they know they cant hide anything (horrible intelligence) and since they know this. I dont think they would blow up their own people.

Enough said.

You are assuming that it would be the United States government who blew up the oil rig?

I don't think that is the only choice in this hypothesis. :nope:

[August]

The conspiracy theory that is out there right now was not that this was the work of the government itself - but the act of some person or persons - either inside or outside the industry - with an environmental agenda. What better way to show what bad could happen if an oil rig was lost - than to make one sink?

Well it sure makes Obama look bad coming just after he came out in favor of drilling off Virginia.

[mookiemookie]

Oh c'mon a "press release"? :DL That's what you call responding to the crisis?

Face it, your team has done nothing to address the crisis for nearly two entire weeks and you dare to imply that i'm not giving the Democrats a fair shake?

Well what did you want them to do? Did you want Obama out on a boat with a mop?

Here's an article from a week ago laying out the federal response: (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018487173?Obama%20Orders%20All%20Out%20Effort%20F or%20Gulf%20Of%20Mexico%20Oil%20Spill#ixzz0mXol9qa g)

Gibbs, in his statement said, the “National Response Team has been activated and Unified and Area Commands have been established near New Orleans to coordinate search and rescue operations and oil spill response efforts.”

[SteamWake]

What pissed me off is Crist whom was formally for opening up drilling came out and said (paraphrasing) "This incident has change my mind".

That just a day or two before leaving the Republican party to run as an independant.

He basically concedes the Rep. Primary to Rubio but is going to take his votes and go home and pout.

The timing is not lost on me.

[August]

Well what did you want them to do? Did you want Obama out on a boat with a mop?

Mookiemookiemookie. :DL I could post similar statements from Bush Admin officials a day after Katrina let alone three. I'm not expecting Obama to start mopping (what's with the racist stereotype anyways?) but at least Bush bothered to visit the scene of the disaster. Obama hasn't even done that. In fact he's done practically nothing for almost 2 whole weeks and even now his people are displaying a remarkable lack of urgency about the whole thing.

Now if a Republican were in office this tardy and ineffectual response would have the Democrats howling in anger, so quit complaining because you have to taste a little of your own medicine. It goes with the office.

[Aramike]

Mookiemookiemookie. :DL I could post similar statements from Bush Admin officials a day after Katrina let alone three. I'm not expecting Obama to start mopping (what's with the racist stereotype anyways?) but at least Bush bothered to visit the scene of the disaster. Obama hasn't even done that. In fact he's done practically nothing for almost 2 whole weeks and even now his people are displaying a remarkable lack of urgency about the whole thing.

Now if a Republican were in office this tardy and ineffectual response would have the Democrats howling in anger, so quit complaining because you have to taste a little of your own medicine. It goes with the office.:salute:

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[August]

:salute:

Couldn't have said it better myself.


I'm not so sure about that but :salute:

[mookiemookie]

Mookiemookiemookie. :DL I could post similar statements from Bush Admin officials a day after Katrina let alone three. Do so. But there is absolutely no comparison between an event that was predicted ahead of time that wiped out a U.S. city and an unpredictable event that affects the middle of the Gulf of Mexico.

I'm not expecting Obama to start mopping (what's with the racist stereotype anyways?) but at least Bush bothered to visit the scene of the disaster. Obama hasn't even done that. And what's Obama going to do by flying over the site of an oil spill? Really, what is he going to do? Why would that make anything different?

In fact he's done practically nothing for almost 2 whole weeks How do you figure 2 weeks? If the event happened on the 22nd, how do you figure 2 weeks?

and even now his people are displaying a remarkable lack of urgency about the whole thing. Are you there? Do you have inside information on what the EPA and Coast Guard response is? Can you say for certain? I just posted a news article that is completely contrary to that statement, but yet you stick by it. Are you trying the "repeat it in the face of all evidence and it becomes true" tactic?

[Aramike]

Are you there? Do you have inside information on what the EPA and Coast Guard response is? Can you say for certain?You do know what "urgency" is, right? And, you do know that, when it comes to political officials, perception is reality? (I ask that because the same could apply to Bush's percieved lack of urgency regarding Katrina.)

And, in that case, were you there for Katrina? Do you know what the FEMA and Bush Administration's sense of urgency during that disaster was?

Okay, going backwards:But there is absolutely no comparison between an event that was predicted ahead of time that wiped out a U.S. city and an unpredictable event that affects the middle of the Gulf of Mexico.Mookie ... REALLY?

That is one of your most disingenious statement ever, from what I've read. Your implication is clear: that Katrina was PREDICTED to have the devastating impact upon New Orleans that it did - and that the Republican administration was at fault for doing nothing regarding said predictions. Oh, let's just skip over the fact that any and all predictions regarding Katrina were available to the LIBERAL, DEMOCRATIC administration of the city itself, and they were even MORE ineffective than the federal government, although they had more resources available from the beginning.

Now I know you completely adore the Obama Administration, but come on, man - they are handling this ecological disaster as a side-issue, with a preference towards political posturing designed to side-step an Democrat electoral disaster come November.

Please, could you set aside your liberal, Democrat shades for a moment and see things as they really are?

[Turbografx]

The difference between this and Katrina is that in New Orleans:

1.
Most of an major US city was flooded, infrastructure destroyed and unable to cope, with thousands of people trapped and in need of serious food/medical aid and evacuation, others displaced. Also, the local economy completely thrown out of whack for god knows how long.

2.
In the current crisis, a privately owned ship sank (it wasn't a permanent rig as such), out at sea, and 11 men (GBT) are presumed dead. The coast guard reacted immediately (a branch of the Fed. government btw) and rescued all the other crewmen. Indeed, the governor only declared a state of emergency this morning.
Yes, the oil leak has the potential to be a big ecological disaster. But its not exactly like the man or the administration is able to handle this kind of operation. In any case the president has already agreed to send troops to do what they can.

Also, heres a time line:
20th - explosion and fire, all but 11 crew recovered. Clearly not a National Emergency.
22nd - ship sinks, well believed to be contained.
23rd - search called off for missing men.
24th - oil leak discovered, investigation hampered by sea conditions.
25th - sea conditions.
28th - US military commits to operation.
29th - 69 vessels involved in clean-up operation.

4 days from oil discovered (cause for national, rather than local concern) to military commitment, hardly 10 days.

Comparing the two is like comparing a house fire and a pot over-boiling on the stove.

[Aramike]

Comparing the two is like comparing a house fire and a pot over-boiling on the stove.I agree. But the discussion wasn't about the obvious difference between the disasters themselves. It was about the comparison in responses of US presidential administrations, and more specifically, the accuracy of the criticisms towards those administrations' actions.

Addendum: I have to add, I hate seeing these pictures of wildlife covered by oil. It just breaks my heart.

[Zachstar]

As expected the repubs are trying to start conspiricy theories and rumors to hide the fact that 500 thousand dollars for an acoustic shutoff could have saved my state from the environmental disaster that is going to unfold.

And it is going to unfold all accounts say that the firing attempts have failed and by late tomorrow wildlife will start to be affected. And containment might take months.

This is starting to sound more like a turning point in history.

[Turbografx]

I agree. But the discussion wasn't about the obvious difference between the disasters themselves. It was about the comparison in responses of US presidential administrations, and more specifically, the accuracy of the criticisms towards those administrations' actions.


Well absolutely, and that's exactly my point: these aren't equivalent situations, they don't require equivalent reactions. New Orleans warranted immediate, national concern given the scope and nature of the disaster.

On the other hand, the Deepwater Horizon sinking was thought to be locally manageable and was only declared an emergency by the governor yesterday.

That is why you can't compare the response of the respective administrations between the two.



And it is going to unfold all accounts say that the firing attempts have failed and by late tomorrow wildlife will start to be affected. And containment might take months.

This is starting to sound more like a turning point in history.

Yeah, an emergency shrimping season has been declared to bring in as much of the harvest as possible before contamination. I wonder how that will affect populations afterward?

Also, yes, I hope BP has to pay out the ass for this. There should also be some sort of regulation requiring a redundant shutoff system for situations like this where the main one fails.

The firing attempts were a forgone conclusion, firing can only burn off the top oil when its at its thickest, as soon as it is diluted it won't burn easily. Only about 3% can be removed with burning.

[SteamWake]

Well its offical now. All drilling in the gulf has been halted (Unless your Russia) so expect fuel prices to skyrocket. :oops:

[Tribesman]

Well its offical now. All drilling in the gulf has been halted (Unless your Russia) so expect fuel prices to skyrocket.
Every oil cloud has a silver lining, higher oil prices mean higher profits which mean a higher return.

[Catfish]

First the "Deepwater Horizon" was a swimming and manoeuverable dynamic positioning rig, not a "ship" in any respect.
Second it is a privately-owned rig, so the killing of the 11 people was bad, but not a national ctastrophy that could lead to more dead people and destroy the whole infrastructure - at least not immediately. Yes i know the US govenment leases the allowance to drill, and gets cash for this in return.
Then, US regulations do not oblige additional safety measures on rigs, like e.g. Norway, and Brazil.

Since i have worked in the oil industry, I wonder what happened there.
- Was the rig already producing, or was it still drilling ?
- Was a blowout preventer set, and why did it (obviously) fail ?
- What caused the initial explosion that made the rig sink ? (And don't get me started on bullsh!t theories like lefties or russians blowing up oil rigs - get your tin hats and visit McCarthy) There's enough stuff that can easily blow up, on any rig.
- Are there gas hydrates present, under the sea floor ?

Usually there are safety automatics that shut down the pipe in a case of emergency, certainly - shutting off the pipe by force will shut off the well entry permanently, with a million dollar loss. So maybe they hesitated until it was too late ?
Or was the connection/telemetry to the BOP lost ?
Any knowing oil roughnecks here ?

Greetings,
Catfish

P.S. some good pictures, and info: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30719516/Horizon

[Platapus]

Well its offical now. All drilling in the gulf has been halted (Unless your Russia) so expect fuel prices to skyrocket. :oops:


Wow, thats a shocker. Imagine an oil company using an accident like this as a "justification" to raise prices. Did not see that coming. :nope:

[AVGWarhawk]

Well its offical now. All drilling in the gulf has been halted (Unless your Russia) so expect fuel prices to skyrocket. :oops:

They can still pump....not drill....:D

[SteamWake]

Every oil cloud has a silver lining, higher oil prices mean higher profits which mean a higher return.

Yea.. sure.. the higher prices will be handed down to the consumer ultimatly and industy will lag as well.

So much for the 'recovery'.

The more I hear about this thing the smellier it gets.

Swat teams... WTF !

[Tribesman]

Yea.. sure.. the higher prices will be handed down to the consumer ultimatly and industy will lag as well.

Then you should have invested so that you get some of the benefits.

The more I hear about this thing the smellier it gets.
Swat teams... WTF !
Shares in tin foil are going through the roof, well done.

[SteamWake]

Well since your knowledge is vastly superior to mine please explain to me the purpose and reason for sending SWAT teams out there?

[krashkart]

I don't know why they would send security elements to the area, except maybe to keep the treehuggers in line if there were to be mass demonstrations. Just a guess.

But it would appear that there won't be any wetlands left there after this is all said and done. I could care less who is to blame. When you get right down to it, it is not the human species that will suffer the most from the spill. We're not the only life form on the planet.

[Aramike]

Well absolutely, and that's exactly my point: these aren't equivalent situations, they don't require equivalent reactions. New Orleans warranted immediate, national concern given the scope and nature of the disaster. No one is saying that they do. What is being said that, should the Bush Administration have had a similar lack of urgency in response, they would have been hammered for it.

I happen to agree with that assessment.

[SteamWake]

yea you wait the next couple of days to see the scope and nature of this disastor.

Oh and much of the failure in Katrina and New Orleans lays squarely at the feet of the Mayor Nagon.

[Skybird]

German TV news showed a report from the US saying that a security device, some kind of a remote-controlled vent, that is obligatory to be used in Norway and Brasil, was prevented by oil producers lobbying in politics to be made a business standard. eventually it could have saved the situation.

That device they said costs 500.000 diollar. The damage now will go into the high billions.

And this although drilling depths have tripled (since the shallow fields all have been exploited) and the according risks from greater pressure have risen therefore - just that industry security technical standards (were they are left to voluntary actions by the industry), have not been raised accordingly. Norway seems to claim the lead in security standards. no wonder, if you need to drill in the North Sea.

[SteamWake]

German TV news showed a report from the US saying that a security device, some kind of a remote-controlled vent, that is obligatory to be used in Norway and Brasil, was prevented by oil producers lobbying in politics to be made a business standard. eventually it could have saved the situation.

That device they said costs 500.000 diollar. The damage now will go into the high billions.

And this although drilling depths have tripled (since the shallow fields all have been exploited) and the according risks from greater pressure have risen therefore - just that industry security technical standards (were they are left to voluntary actions by the industry), have not been raised accordingly. Norway seems to claim the lead in security standards. no wonder, if you need to drill in the North Sea.

That would be the sonic device mentioned earlier.

Okay get this. The 'failure' is being blamed on an emergency cut off valve that is way down on the ocean floor and set in cement somehow.

The story I heard is that the valve failed due in some manner to the concrete pour.

Betcha cant guess whom did the concrete pour :rock:

[Tribesman]

I did try to resist the temptation of gloating, but what the hell..why ain't all you crazy wingnuts got money in oil. FFS you was all rip roaring mad about playing silly buggers in Mesopotania, you must have been well in favour of not having real safety valves off Louisuiana as it would put you at a disadvantage over them regulated rigs.

I laugh my tits off at your naivity and I reallty laugh when Aramike says about the pictures of the poor little animals.
Not of course that I like watching the suffering of animals but it reminds me of that bull**** years ago when a mass murdering pillock like Saddam wasn't quite enough so they had to show fake footage of years old oil slicks swamping the sea birds to prove how bad their old buddy had become

[Tribesman]

Betcha cant guess whom did the concrete pour
Oh please please let me guess.

Was it the tin foil hat conglomerate?

Okay get this. The 'failure' is being blamed on an emergency cut off valve that is way down on the ocean floor and set in cement somehow.


Catfish can you please explain the basics over a blowout on a new drill

[Tribesman]

Betcha cant guess whom did the concrete pour
Secret commieliberaljewishmuslimathiestquackerquarriers with a fleet of idle pre-mix trucks and a batching plant

Am I right? am I right? :yeah:????????come on whats the prize for guessing the concrete pour question?

[iambecomelife]

Forget politics - I'm just relieved that "only" 11 people lost their lives. I was born not too long after the "Ocean Ranger" incident (which left no survivors), and I still remember watching a documentary on "Piper Alpha" when I was a small boy. Even back then I could feel some of the horror that Canada & Britain must have felt.

On a side note, it always irritates me when these disasters occur and the media sees things solely in environmental terms. Although each animal's death is a tragedy in itself, I am most concerned about the wellbeing of the workers.

[August]

Forget politics - I'm just relieved that "only" 11 people lost their lives. I was born not too long after the "Ocean Ranger" incident (which left no survivors), and I still remember watching a documentary on "Piper Alpha" when I was a small boy. Even back then I could feel some of the horror that Canada & Britain must have felt.

On a side note, it always irritates me when these disasters occur and the media sees things solely in environmental terms. Although each animal's death is a tragedy in itself, I am most concerned about the wellbeing of the workers.

Well said.

[VonHesse]

Betcha cant guess whom did the concrete pour :rock:

Halliburton :know:

[Skybird]

That would be the sonic device mentioned earlier.

Not sure of that, they described a purely mechanical ring-like thing working like giant tongs.

[SteamWake]

Halliburton :know:

We have a winner ! :yeah:

[tater]

Remember the press attributing Katrina to warming?

Remember them blaming the administration for not supporting kyoto? (therefore blaming the actual hurricane itself on the administration, lol).

Was pretty funny, actually. Up there with the earthquake machine.

This admin will not be as scrutinized, that's for sure. The moral of the story for presidents is that when something like this happens look like you're doing something, even if there is really nothing you can do. Presidents don't cause such disasters, and there is little they can actually do to fix them.

BTW, regarding katrina, just 1 year before the authorities in NOLA, plus the feds did an exercise that was eerily like what actually happened. They didn't do everything in the real event what they learned to do from the exercise, but regardless, everyone did do better. In the exercise, the estimated death toll was 50,000. Clearly they did far better than the practice run.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

yea you wait the next couple of days to see the scope and nature of this disastor.

Oh and much of the failure in Katrina and New Orleans lays squarely at the feet of the Mayor Nagon.

I thought the Katrina disaster was mostly because the New Orleans levies needed only like 2 billion dollars of upgrades/maintenance which N.O. had been asking for for decades and they never got it. They failed, and there was massive flooding. Plenty of blame to go around on that one.

[tater]

Yeah, simplistic blame on Katrina is pretty wrong-headed. It was complex, and happened over long time periods. People also failed to follow the ultimately voluntary requests to leave. Had they all listened, there would have been no death toll at all.

The idea that some could not afford to leave is bogus, IMO. Any CHOISE to live below sea level in a location frequently enough slammed by hurricanes requires a certain attention to having an escape plan. I would simply not live in such a place without a well-considered plan to take care of my family. Short of the ability to do that, MOVE. It's called personal responsibility.

I feel the same about morons that hike or climb outside their ability with weak planning who require rescue, too (hear more about that now with cell phones—having a phone to call 911 is not a reasonable substitute for proper planning).

[XabbaRus]

The safety device is a valve that effectively seavers and seals the well.

Norwegian standards are some of the strictest if not the strictest in the world.

They are called NORSOK and doing stuff for the Norwegians can be a complete bind.

[Platapus]

Y Any CHOISE to live below sea level in a location frequently enough slammed by hurricanes requires a certain attention to having an escape plan. I would simply not live in such a place ...


You can just stop there. Why would anyone choose to live in an area that

1. Is under sea level
2. Is totally dependent on levies and dams to prevent being flooded
3. Is right in the middle of the path of practically every hurricane?

I just don't understand why :nope:

[SteamWake]

I thought the Katrina disaster was mostly because the New Orleans levies needed only like 2 billion dollars of upgrades/maintenance which N.O. had been asking for for decades and they never got it. They failed, and there was massive flooding. Plenty of blame to go around on that one.

Thats flat out wrong.

LA was given millions to maintain and repair the levies. Unfortunatly most of that money found its way into the pockets (and freezers) of the politicians.

[Catfish]

Hello Tribesman,

you wrote:
" Catfish can you please explain the basics over a blowout on a new drill "

What exactly do you mean ? When drilling has begun, and the "spud-in" has been initiated, there is usually a lot of cementing done, and along with cementing the upper liner and the Blowout-preventer (BOP) set. On offshore rigs this device also sits directly on the upper end of the borehole, so here certainly underwater.
The liners are going up through clear water, up to the drilling rig, which is held in place by dynamic positioning (via GPS) - meaning engines hold the rig in place, instead of anchors.

While drilling, regardless rotary, turbine (downhole motor, Moineau system) or coil tube drilling, there is drilling fluid ("mud") used, pumped down within the drilling tubes, leaving the tube via jets in the bit, and rising within the angular space between drill tube, and borehole.
This drilling fluid serves numerous purposes and has developed into a highly complicated substance:
- It cools the "bit", or drilling head (may also drive the turbine motors when in slide mode or coil tubing)
- transports the chipped material from the bit to the surface
- Keeps the borehole open, before it is lined and cemented
- prevents gaseous stuff to enter the borehole in low-pressure conditions
- keeps the stony chips in suspension when rotation or pumping is stopped (via clay minerals, wet when moving, almost solid without being moved, "thixotrope")
- lubricates the turning or sliding tube
and numerous other applications.

One of the most important tasks is to control pressure in the borehole, which will rise with the depth, and - if the bit penetrates a dense layer entering a high-pressure area - can help to control a "kick" (the sudden pressing out of tubing and fluid out of the borehole) through ballasting the fluid with heavy substances, like e.g. baryte, to make it specifically heavier.
It can also help losing the drilling fluid when entering salt domes, in which case the fluid is heavily salted to prevent washing out caverns.

The drilling fluid has to be constantly observed, cleaned and chemically changed, to adjust to the downhole conditions.

When e.g. an oil or gas depot has been found, there will be a sudden pressure rise, and - if you do not pay attention - the whole mile(s)-long drill tubing will be pressed out of the borehole, which becomes very hot during this "kick", and will easily ignite any explosive gases that may be around, in the reservoir, or aboard the rig.

Should the fluid be too light to control the pressure in the borehole, the blowout-preventer can be used to control the well, but this will seal the well-entry permanently, by sheer brute force.

The problem with offshore rigs is that you can only remote-control the BOP, via electric, hydraulic or "sonic" telemetry (pulser), and if the fluid is leaking out the pulsing telemetry will not work well. Using a pulser to control directional or any other drilling under normal circumstances is difficult enough.

So the technical staff developed further well control and seal-off systems while drilling, but this is only a regulation in Norway, and Brazil (and a few others, but not in the US).

Additionally if you let the well develop its pressure increase without instantly controlling it, the former fluid substance will turn to gaseous phase, and thus develop a higher pressure and speed going up in the borehole, drastically amplifying the effect.

I will be crucified when my coworkers read this, but all else will take several pages ahem :-?

Greetings,
Catfish

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Yeah, simplistic blame on Katrina is pretty wrong-headed. It was complex, and happened over long time periods. People also failed to follow the ultimately voluntary requests to leave. Had they all listened, there would have been no death toll at all.

The idea that some could not afford to leave is bogus, IMO. Any CHOISE to live below sea level in a location frequently enough slammed by hurricanes requires a certain attention to having an escape plan. I would simply not live in such a place without a well-considered plan to take care of my family. Short of the ability to do that, MOVE. It's called personal responsibility.

I feel the same about morons that hike or climb outside their ability with weak planning who require rescue, too (hear more about that now with cell phones—having a phone to call 911 is not a reasonable substitute for proper planning).

How are you supposed to move when you have ZERO money, or close to it?

[Catfish]

Hello,
in 1938, a US citizen moved to a remote place, since he felt a world war coming. He chose a place that would be far away from any civilization, and world power interests.
The place he settled was called "Guadalcanal".

Greetings,
Catfish

[Catfish]

Hmm,
just saw the BP risk expectation report :woot: whoever signed that expertise will face some serious problems soon.

Does anyone know how deep the water is, at the "deepwater horizon" point ?
I ask because if there are 800.000 litres pouring out a day (!) there must be some pressure behind it in any other than shallow depths of seawater (serving as a counter pressure, or "plug" as well). Maybe we just solved part of the energy problem, but otherwise this will become an ecological fiasco :shifty:

Greetings,
Catfish

[mookiemookie]

"Tell you what: when dead black people are floating in the oily waters of the Gulf because of his neglect, you can call the oil rig explosion Obama's Katrina."

[August]

"Tell you what: when dead black people are floating in the oily waters of the Gulf because of his neglect, you can call the oil rig explosion Obama's Katrina."

First off shame on you for saying such a horrible thing.
Second, if you want to blame anyone for dead black people then blame Democrat Mayor Ray Nagin who, out of everyone involved, had the only real chance to prevent that from happening and he blew it.

Here's your neglect Mr Partisan:

http://www.katrinadestruction.com/images/d/13172-4/swamped+school+buses

[August]

Oh and third your man was slow to react to the gulf oil spill. Admit it and shame on you again for using past tragedy to duck present responsibility.

[iambecomelife]

"Tell you what: when dead black people are floating in the oily waters of the Gulf because of his neglect, you can call the oil rig explosion Obama's Katrina."

Wow. I swear, it's like we blacks are mascots or something to the left wingers. Whenever you need some political capital, just invoke the spectre of the Victimized Black Man!

[CaptainHaplo]

The left does take "minorities" for granted. Pretty much has for generations. Any minority group, be it based on race, sexuality, etc, are always held out by the left as victims to be protected - when it is in the interest of the left to have the political wind in their sails. Yet when the "issue" is no longer front page news, how much real attention do those same legislators give the subject?

Before this becomes a rant against the left, the right is just as guilty - though they have other "groups" they rally to defend. :nope: When people stop choosing to identify themselves as a seperate group - whether it be R or D, liberal or conservative, black or white or red or yellow or polkadotted, and instead decide to say they are "American" and leave it at that - then they can deal with issues, and they can be accepted as what they identify as. When a hispanic person chooses to be hispanic - or hispanic american - they are doing the same thing as a man who goes "I am white" or "I am black" - they are seperating themselves.

I'll repeat something my father told me many years ago. The color of a man's skin doesn't matter - because we all bleed red. Its what a man chooses to do - that shows what kind of man he is.

Getting closer to 4 decades on this earth, I can say that I have found those to be very true words.

In looking at the immigration issue - and using that standard - Illegal means the person has chosen to violate the law of the land he or she is trying to live in...... and once that is the case, I already know enough about the person to know I have no desire for them to be here ILLEGALLY.

Somebody please - just for once - explain to me why its perfectly ok for people to flaunt our laws in our lands and not be held accountable when if you go to ANY other country and violate their laws, you will be taken to task for it. In doing so, don't give me this crap about they just want to work hard and make a better life for themselves - because if that was the case, they would want to be doing things legitimately.

[Aramike]

How are you supposed to move when you have ZERO money, or close to it?Hmmm ... let's see, how about we compel personal responsibility?

But I'm sure you don't possibly see the oddity that those same people who have ZERO money are the ones who pack the liquor stores and casinos on the first of every month, right?

[Aramike]

First off shame on you for saying such a horrible thing.
Second, if you want to blame anyone for dead black people then blame Democrat Mayor Ray Nagin who, out of everyone involved, had the only real chance to prevent that from happening and he blew it.

Here's your neglect Mr Partisan:

http://www.katrinadestruction.com/images/d/13172-4/swamped+school+busesAwesome graphic!

mookie, I have a question: is there anything a liberal democrat could do wrong that you wouldn't attempt to spin these days?

[Tribesman]

Somebody please - just for once - explain to me why its perfectly ok for people to flaunt our laws in our lands and not be held accountable when if you go to ANY other country and violate their laws, you will be taken to task for it.
Caps Lock strikes again. :up:
So "ANY" country.
Well what about this one , some muppets insisted we change the constitution to solve the problem of illegal immigrants, it hasn't made much difference in enforcement of immigration laws.
Its election time over in Britain , their long running problems with illegal immigrrants and enforcing the law are a major matter of debate in this election.
Britain of course also moans about France not enforcing their laws which the French also moan about.
wow that was easy thats three countries already all in a line which have the issue you claim only america has.
So your winge about poor little America being ever so special with its victim status that no other country has is bollox.

[Catfish]

Sorry for being on topic :D

Just found out there are 3 leaking well heads, 5000 ft down, and controls scrapped away by the sinking rig, liners and drill tubes.
They have no idea yet how to get this back under control. it is starting to get really ugly.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Platapus]

Capping an oil leak on land is tough, I can't imagine how difficult it will be at 5000 feet. :nope:

[Catfish]

Worse than Exxon Valdez:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100502-702751.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

BP asks rivals for help
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608104575218441197366002.html?m od=WSJEUROPE_newsreel_business

Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html?m od=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read

[Bubblehead Nuke]

This is NOT about just the environmental damage. The economic cost of this is going to be STAGGERING.

They are deploying oil booms to try and contain this. Ships and boats can NOT cross these booms.

This renders the Mississippi River unaccessible. This renders the port of New Orleans inaccessible. This is going to STOP all shipping into and out of the area.

Think oil imports. New Orleans is a major import and distribution center. Supply and demand is gonna kick in and prices are going to skyrocket.

Think goods (a.k.a FOOD) that is shipped into the country that is docked at the port of New Orleans for distribution up the Mississippi River to other points. All those South American goods are not going to be coming in.

The fishing season is stopped. Boats can not get out to the fishing grounds because of the booms. Seafood is going to skyrocket.

Tourism on the gulf coast is going to take a beating. But it pales in comparison to the ripples this is going to make in the US Economy.

Yes, you can reroute ships to other ports, but many of those ports are already being used by other ships. The Mississippi is THE artery for good transportation in America. If you have to go around it, the cost starts to go up significantly.

[AVGWarhawk]

Sorry for being on topic :D

Just found out there are 3 leaking well heads, 5000 ft down, and controls scrapped away by the sinking rig, liners and drill tubes.
They have no idea yet how to get this back under control. it is starting to get really ugly.

Greetings,
Catfish


I undestand they have three caps that will be placed over each leak to collect the oil.

[Sammi79]

I can't quite believe I found out about this event through the subsim radio room... I gave up watching TV about 7-8 years back, but this was so gripping I read every single post thoroughly, some good points have been made, and some bad. made me larf BP asking for help from other oil companies, though I bet they ain't finding it so funny. @Catfish your knowledge of this drilling business seems very deep, I'm guessing you are/were employed by a company who is/was involved in this game, or maybe you're just very well read... conspiracy theories will abound at every available opportunity you can be sure of that, though I wouldn't pay it any mind personally, it's more like 'that's what they want you to think...' than they realise ;). I sincerely hope some genius comes up with a quick plan to solve this QUICKLY though or it's gonna be a big black oily stain on EVERYBODY on this PLANET given that our predilection to environmentally damaging resource gathering and 'I don't give a **** who cares as long as we (I) get rich' attitudes are the primary catalysts for catastrophes such as this. We are all guilty of it no matter what moral high ground we try to clamber up. Damn it I want gas to run my car, how would I do without it? The electricity that runs my computer right now is at least partially sustained by burning fossil fuels, probably mostly.

As a Briton I would like to add that although this situation is primarily an American concern (although I really hope the whole world is watching, there are lessons to be learned here), I am sorry for sticking my 2 cents in but, my condolences and best wishes go to the families of the unfortunate victims of this disaster, may they find peace and resolution in the coming actions of the brave, for they will come, of that I have no doubt. Human beings are that, the most astounding of creatures, and they have weathered many many great storms before this one. :shucks:

[Happy Times]

This is NOT about just the environmental damage. The economic cost of this is going to be STAGGERING.

They are deploying oil booms to try and contain this. Ships and boats can NOT cross these booms.

This renders the Mississippi River unaccessible. This renders the port of New Orleans inaccessible. This is going to STOP all shipping into and out of the area.

Think oil imports. New Orleans is a major import and distribution center. Supply and demand is gonna kick in and prices are going to skyrocket.

Think goods (a.k.a FOOD) that is shipped into the country that is docked at the port of New Orleans for distribution up the Mississippi River to other points. All those South American goods are not going to be coming in.

The fishing season is stopped. Boats can not get out to the fishing grounds because of the booms. Seafood is going to skyrocket.

Tourism on the gulf coast is going to take a beating. But it pales in comparison to the ripples this is going to make in the US Economy.

Yes, you can reroute ships to other ports, but many of those ports are already being used by other ships. The Mississippi is THE artery for good transportation in America. If you have to go around it, the cost starts to go up significantly.

You are correct, it seems that the oil could be leaking out for months.

Including the wide economic effects in US you mentioned this could kill or cripple even BP as a company.

This and souring oil prices could be the tipping point in the systemic crisis that is going on.

We are talking about countries and banks defaulting in mass.

We are in unknown waters with the Recession>> Euro crisis, Goldman Sachs case and this BP catastrophy combined.

Pray or keep your fingers crossed, what suits you best, this could be a wild ride.:salute:

[em2nought]

If only we had a submarine full of feminine hygiene products, guess that's a few years away yet. :03:

[TLAM Strike]

One thing I noticed is that the local fisherman are being trained to help clean this up. They are the ones out setting those booms in the water.

I checked Hazegray and the USCG has no ships suitable for containing an oil spill. The EPA has only two ships, one is on the great lakes the other is operated out of MD. So the US has to rely on privately owned ships to clean this up. Several European countries have navy/government owned pollution control vessels, why don't we?

[Catfish]

Hello Tlamstrike, and Sammi79,

" ... One thing I noticed is that the local fisherman are being trained to help clean this up. They are the ones out setting those booms in the water. ..."

Yes, they certainly need all the help they can get, and small fishing boats are probably well suited for this job, rather than high-boarded freighters. But it is not too difficult to open and close the barrage when ships go in and out, so there will be no real blockade (or so i hope).

" ... I checked Hazegray and the USCG has no ships suitable for containing an oil spill. The EPA has only two ships, one is on the great lakes the other is operated out of MD. So the US has to rely on privately owned ships to clean this up. Several European countries have navy/government owned pollution control vessels, why don't we? ..."

Because this would again raise a storm politically, of how the government interferes in privately owned companies, and "freedom". And this is not a joke. Obama has already opened enough cans of worms, and is often criticized just because of similar actions.
If you compare the events and opinions of the media and industry in the Chicago of 1885, it seems there has not much changed in the US (thinking of Mr. Spiess, and 1st may).

@Sammi79
Thanks for being the first to offer condolences (i wanted to post a "thumbs up" here, but don't think this fits). I have been active in the oil industry, but am only a "specialist" in a very small sector (geologist).
They recently have set a lot of people free (as they call it here), almost all above 40, including me. The gas industry is not doing well or so they say, and certainly has to save money. I see this every time i fill up my tank lol. ;)

To stop the spilling and keep the wellheads for further production will be a tough job. I guess they could shut the wells with explosives, in boreholes near the wells, but this will certainly ruin what's left of the seafloor equipment. Controlling wells in 5000 feet of seawater - completion is ok, but actually working or even repairing down there is complex. And the problem is - as always - the borehole pressure. The sea pressure at the well entry will be at least 160 bar, so the well has already to deliver against that pressure, which may help a bit.

Thanks and greetings
Catfish

[breadcatcher101]

They are working on some sort of a dome to be used to try to cap and draw off the oil. Also they say it could be 2 or 3 months before they drill a side bore to stem the flow. If that fails, what then?

I am sure there are projections as to how big this spill will be by then. After a week it is already the size of PR. It looks like at least the coast of Louisiana down to southern Florida will get a dose of this. On top of that you have hurricane season coming up, maybe we will get lucky concerning that.

I have lived on both the Louisiana and Florida pan handle coast lines. Both are beautiful although vastly different from each other. One is low marsh and the other is sugar-white sand beaches. It looks like both are going to suffer greatly.

[Catfish]

I just hope they did not bite into a methane gas hydrate reservoir ?
But it is all confidential by now :dead:
Greetings,
Catfish

[SteamWake]

Wow the more I learn about this the worse it seems to get...

If this had happened on Bush's watch the media would be on fire !!!

"Established emergency procedure not followed"

"No 'fire booms' available even though it is federal law."

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html

[Catfish]

" ... If this had happened on Bush's watch the media would be on fire !!! ..."

Why ? Bush sure was never "accused" of being independent or reluctant money-wise, towards the oil companies. His own one was rescued by the Saudis, with lots of money. Did anyone hear any uproar back then, from the media or anyone ? And breaking tankers or out-of-control wells in Iraq or anywhere - as long as it doesn't happen in the US it's of no interest.

Had Bush proposed to increase security measures generally, i am sure there would have not been half the media uproar, as if Obama would - like " How dares he interfere in private companies' business, he takes away our freedom etc. etc." insert the usual blubber here.
That the US do not have additional safety measures is partly due to the last goverments' reluctancy to enforce modern and expensive technology and regulations on the "poor and suffering US oil industry".

So the controlling of out-of-control events like this oil spill, is in the government's responsability, while producing oil and getting money is the task of the companies ? Or better making money is ok, but as soon as something goes wrong run to the government. Looks familiar like with Wall street ?

Greetings,
Catfish

[Fr8monkey]

Considering BP was saying for the first 3 days there was no oil leak, what did you expect Obama to do?

Plus, you can't really compare a natural disaster everyone saw coming 24 hours ahead of time and an exploding oil platform that had faulty safety gear owned by a corporation...

[Bubblehead Nuke]

I just hope they did not bite into a methane gas hydrate reservoir ?
But it is all confidential by now :dead:
Greetings,
Catfish

I have to ask, what would the ramifications of this be?

[Catfish]

Hello,

gas hydrates bind the most of the Carbon being available within the earth's outer lithosphere, sediments and atmosphere, the release of some of it would boost the already high concentration, in the atmosphere.
However no one knows what would really happen, if such a reservoir is being "hit". Some ships losses have been explained with a sudden release of CH and CO bubbles (in giant amounts) from the ocean floor, because the upwelling bubbles destroy the load-carrying capacity of water.

Rising climate temperature (speaking of 1-2 degrees Celsius) will make those buffers release their CO, thus amplifying the greenhouse effect (rising temperatures lead to more release of CO -> CO2 -> rising temperatures)

In the last few thousand years (and most probably before) gas hydrates and CaCO3 reservoirs being "trapped" underwater acted as buffers for balancing rise and fall of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, however the build up that took 2 million years before the Perm crisis some 300 million years ago with 98 percent of all species extinct, has now reached the peak and saturation in some 200 years. The problem is, that with current Ca available in the seas and the global temperature, the buffers are full and the CO can most probably not be withdrawn from the atmosphere any more.

An even greater risk are the gas hydrates being trapped and frozen in Sibiria on the continent, where the unfreezing of the soil would release enormous quantities of greenhouse gases.

Regarding drilling the seawater in greater depths has not the temperature to crack the chemical bond, so most probably nothing will happen. Maybe the rig will sink due to gas bubble release, but no greater release of CO2 due to the whole reservoir being unfrozen. But - nobody knows for sure.
However the "Deepwater Horizon" sank due to the fire and damage, not gas bubbles.

Greetings,
Catfish

[SteamWake]

Just heard on the radio that the leak is capped. :yeah:

BP is keeping a positive outlook...


“We will only succeed if we work together,” he said — a day after President Obama’s press secretary promised that the White House would “keep a boot to the throat of BP”



Mr Hayward reiterated a promise that BP “will honour all legitimate claims for business interruption”. Asked for examples of illegitimate claims, he said: “I could give you lots of examples. This is America — come on. We’re going to have lots of illegitimate claims. We all know that.”


I know this is BP speaking but after reading this article it would seem the situation is not quite as out of control as is painted in the media.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7116260.ece

[August]

Just heard on the radio that the leak is capped. :yeah:

Just one out of the three leaks but it does make capping the other two much easier according to BP.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8662573.stm

[Tribesman]

OK Tom, doin 't **** around withx horses:yeah:

[Turbografx]

Just heard on the radio that the leak is capped. :yeah:

BP is keeping a positive outlook...





I know this is BP speaking but after reading this article it would seem the situation is not quite as out of control as is painted in the media.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7116260.ece


1/3, Looking forward to see how the cone/funnel will work.

[em2nought]

Darn, I was hoping to get annual payments if the gulf became a big pool of oil. :D Thank goodness for jackbooted thugs making those evil for profit enterprises toe the line. :arrgh!:

[Fr8monkey]

http://www.boingboing.net/BPtshirt.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

:rotfl2:

Two hundred years later and the damned Brits are still trying to get back at us! Just this morning I recieved a package from Jimbuna - kidney pie - an obvious attempt at mind control.

[OneToughHerring]

I guess it's safe to say by now that it wasn't hippie-saboteurs. :)

Although the incident itself is anything but funny. US of Oil has to do some serious thinking now.

[SteamWake]

US of Oil?

I do believe other countries rely on the evils of oil as well.



Anyhow I heard today they are making addittional progress and are lowering a 4 story tall 'containment tower' over the spill site. The catch is that it is nearly a mile down and will take a couple of days to get the tower lowered and placed.

Evidently this thing is custom built, shipped out to LA and barged out to the site. Set up on a crane and started lowering in what a week? I couldent help but think to my self... some one some where is working their asses off :rock:

The first bits of oil are now starting to wash ashore. A city here in the pan handle is going to spread chopped hay to try to intercept the 'sheen' before the beach sand does.

The first images of oil soaked animals which met an untimley demise are beginning to appear.

As bad and horrible all that is I am still taken back to the statement of "The reason you havent seen coastal contamination yet is because they have done a good job at containing it at sea".

I am convinced that the hell and devistation being touted in the media is overblown. Yea I know go figure.

So someone is out there working their asses of and to me THEY are the heros here :rock: politics, other than posturing, has little to do with it.

[tater]

While I hope they contain this as quickly as possible, I do remind myself to use the reality check of WW2. Oil on the seas? LOL, "big fat target! Fire tubes 1, 2, 4, and 5!"

[SteamWake]

Being a local resident here though I do share some concearns but mine is focused on the weather.

Summer is beginning to set her teeth into the region and that means a couple of things.

Trade winds will shift to predominatly SE blowing on shore.

It wil be warmer and so will the gulf waters.

Last but not least... Storms. As some know I spent alot of times in smallish boats in the gulf as well as the atlantic and I can tell you that hellacious thunderstorms can develop move in and reek havoc in a matter of minutes. I've been on a demasted or otherwise wrecked boat at least twice. One minute fair breeze next minute your dousing sail in the driving rains gale force winds with lightning snapping all around you and praying you dont get zapped while hanging on for dear life... Great fun :yeah:

[August]

Last but not least... Storms.

Won't those tend to break up and disperse the slick?

[SteamWake]

Won't those tend to break up and disperse the slick?

Well right now alot of the slick is evidently contained within 'booms'. Rough weather will let it out. Yea itll break up but itll collect back together again somewhere it has that nature.

Oh I forgot to add about them trying surficants and emulsifiers and all kinds of crap out there. Lets hope its not "The next Exxon Valdez"

[Platapus]

Won't those tend to break up and disperse the slick?

Or drive them further inland. In any case, storms will make it harder to contain and remove the oil.

I am afraid this is going to get worse before it gets better. :nope:

On a related note.

I would like to hear from the anti-nuke people how nuclear power is not safe for the environment. Seems to me that we have had more environmental disasters with non-nuclear industries than we have had with nuclear industries. The US nuclear reactor safety record is pretty good. :up:

We really need to build more nuclear reactors that are smaller, more efficient, and safer than the current old reactors we have today. :yep:

[iambecomelife]

Or drive them further inland. In any case, storms will make it harder to contain and remove the oil.

I am afraid this is going to get worse before it gets better. :nope:

On a related note.

I would like to hear from the anti-nuke people how nuclear power is not safe for the environment. Seems to me that we have had more environmental disasters with non-nuclear industries than we have had with nuclear industries. The US nuclear reactor safety record is pretty good. :up:

We really need to build more nuclear reactors that are smaller, more efficient, and safer than the current old reactors we have today. :yep:

It never ceases to amaze me how people are comfortable with thousands of deaths per year due to coal mining, oil transport accidents, and the like - but mention nuclear power and they start to rage. Three Mile Island didn't kill anyone, and Chernobyl only happened b/c of a bad reactor design that IIRC has never been used in the US.

[CaptainHaplo]

No No No.... you guys have not been properly reprogrammed.... uh indoctrinated... uhm brainwashed....no, educated? - yea thats it- educated!

We all need to start doing away will those horrible things of technology and return to a simpler life, where people compost their own waste, ride their bikes to work, and go to sleep when its dark. This is how we will save mother earth from our excessive gluttony.

If you try - you can already feel the love Mother Earth has for us all when we do things like this.:woot:

[August]

We all need to start doing away will those horrible things of technology and return to a simpler life, where people compost their own waste, ride their bikes to work, and go to sleep when its dark. This is how we will save mother earth from our excessive gluttony.

Well, the return to the pre-industrial age would likely solve the overpopulation problem which is the real cause of global warming.

[tater]

Well, the return to the pre-industrial age would likely solve the overpopulation problem which is the real cause of global warming.

There is no overpopulation.

Also, all the population trend lines are showing a change. The 1st world is not even replacing itself. We're contracting. Even the 3d world rates are not only lower than they were (a lot) than 50 years ago, all the trend lines on the rate of change are pointing to world population stabilizing, then actually decreasing.

The simple reality is that there was a time when having more kids was virtually always an economic positive (agrarian societies with poor medical care, lack of labor saving equipment, etc). This is no longer true. Urban societies have incentives for smaller, not larger families. Better medical care—even in the 3d world they have antibiotics, etc—means better childhood mortality. Readily available birth control... everything is driving birth rates down.

[August]

There is no overpopulation.

We're at 6.8 billion and you don't consider that over populated? Far from stabilizing as you claim world population is expected to rise to 9 Billion over the next 30-40 years. I mean I'd like you to be right but I just don't see it happening.

[Aramike]

There is no overpopulation.

Also, all the population trend lines are showing a change. The 1st world is not even replacing itself. We're contracting. Even the 3d world rates are not only lower than they were (a lot) than 50 years ago, all the trend lines on the rate of change are pointing to world population stabilizing, then actually decreasing.

The simple reality is that there was a time when having more kids was virtually always an economic positive (agrarian societies with poor medical care, lack of labor saving equipment, etc). This is no longer true. Urban societies have incentives for smaller, not larger families. Better medical care—even in the 3d world they have antibiotics, etc—means better childhood mortality. Readily available birth control... everything is driving birth rates down.Where do you get your numbers, man? World population is exploding! Even if birth rates are down, there are simply more people contributing to said rates.

[Stealth Hunter]

No No No.... you guys have not been properly reprogrammed.... uh indoctrinated... uhm brainwashed....no, educated? - yea thats it- educated!

Hey, if you say so friend.

We all need to start doing away will those horrible things of technology and return to a simpler life,

If it's simpler but better for us all and the place we inhabit in the long run, then I'm totally for it.

where people compost their own waste, ride their bikes to work, and go to sleep when its dark.

Ok... what exactly is bad about doing this kind of stuff? I mean, composting is a good way to recycle organic/biological materials, getting more people to ride bikes would eventually lead to better general health amongst the population and reduce somewhat the number of overweight people outright, and well... going to sleep when it's dark is kind of rhetorical.

This is how we will save mother earth from our excessive gluttony.

It's certainly a good start.

If you try - you can already feel the love Mother Earth has for us all when we do things like this.

Well if you want to be spiritual about it yeah. Or you could just stand back and look at it all falling into place, with the knowledge and satisfaction that the species is no longer overpopulating and polluting the only place in this entire universe we CAN inhabit right now...

It never ceases to amaze me how people are comfortable with thousands of deaths per year due to coal mining, oil transport accidents, and the like -

Actually there's only about 50-70 deaths on average per year in the coal mining industry related to accidents, not thousands as it was well over a hundred years ago.

http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT2.HTM

And as far as oil transport accidents go, there are far less killed than the coal mining statistic.

http://www.offshore-environment.com/accidents.html

I would like to hear from the anti-nuke people how nuclear power is not safe for the environment. Seems to me that we have had more environmental disasters with non-nuclear industries than we have had with nuclear industries.
but mention nuclear power and they start to rage.

Really there's a better alternative to both nuclear power and non-renewable energy resources (coal, oil, natural gas, etc.): sustainable energy. Investing in synthetic, biological, natural/renewable fuels (i.e. biological matter, solar energy, wind energy, hydro energy, geothermal energy).

While you can gain more energy from nuclear fission methods, the waste they produce is very difficult to dispose of properly, and the facilities themselves are far more dangerous. This is atomic energy you are toying with here. Radioactive elements, massive explosions, nuclear fallout, etc.

The US nuclear reactor safety record is pretty good.

Somewhat true, but the more facilities you build, the greater the risk something will go wrong in one of them. The United States really doesn't have the most nuclear reactors in the world compared to contemporary Western nations. The thing about nuclear energy is that, anytime you have a problem, it's serious. It's a race against the clock until something melts down, And when the problem elevates to disaster- it's huge. It's ALWAYS global. With Chernobyl, radioactive materials were spread all over the world, nevermind the surrounding blast area. It's really not any different with an atomic weapon explosion: the nasty stuff is spread everywhere.

http://users.owt.com/smsrpm/Chernobyl/glbrad.html

Messing with atomic physics like this is dangerous. There's no need to increase the number of reactors from what we already have. Move to sustainable energy, maintain the current number of nuclear reactors, invest in nuclear fusion energy-generating methods.

We really need to build more nuclear reactors that are smaller, more efficient, and safer than the current old reactors we have today.

That's obvious. People have been saying this for decades now. The problem is that it's not that simple. Again, nuclear physics is a very dangerous and complicated field- not even touching upon research that has to be done into the elements to be used for fuel, the particle studies, etc.

Three Mile Island didn't kill anyone,

There were actually quite a few cancer deaths later on, not considering the environmental effects of 13 million curies of radioactive gases being leaked into the atmosphere and radioisotopes.

and Chernobyl only happened b/c of a bad reactor design that IIRC has never been used in the US.

Actually Chernobyl's reactor melted down because the operators failed to carry through with an inexcusable number of rules and regulations in place to prevent exactly this kind of disaster from occurring and because the ECCS was shut off (the coolant system reactors use)- which led to an increase in steam formation and therefore temperature, slowing down the effectiveness of the control rods. With that said, exactly such a disaster is a possibility, of a higher quantity with the more reactors you construct, not only with human error being a possibility but also mechanical failure in the reactor itself. Chernobyl alone caused over 4,000 deaths in a remote area of Russia; imagine how many would have died if it had been in an urban area- nevermind Russia but what it would be like in the United States. And the environmental effects are still being felt today.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/hazmat/articles/chernobyl2.html

[UnderseaLcpl]

We're at 6.8 billion and you don't consider that over populated? Far from stabilizing as you claim world population is expected to rise to 9 Billion over the next 30-40 years. I mean I'd like you to be right but I just don't see it happening.

It'll stabilize as the food supply loses ground agains the population and third-world countries grow poorer and can't afford to buy GM crops from the west. GM crops are very efficent when it comes to land usage, but they are also very expensive to grow. All of Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" crops (crops made tolerant to Roundup pesticide) are quite pricey, and you have to purchase new seed every year and plant a "stock" crop to make sure that pests and weeds that are resistant to Roundup and other pesticides get to breed with non-resistant varieties. Otherwise the GM seed would be useless in a matter of a few years. Third-world farmers can't afford that stuff, and even if they could, they lack the mechanization to apply it effectively.

True, the west often supplies food to the poorest and most overpopulated countries, but they can only do that for so long, and pressures on food surplus are mounting. The organic food craze and the ethanol fuel travesty are wasting untold hectares of good, arable land for very little return. Even worse, the food shipments only encourage the rampant population growth, and simply delay mass starvation. Furthermore, most prosperous countries have a very low or negative birth rate, which will eventually start to undermine the demand for food production, resulting in greater shortages in the third world.

Combine all this with other factors contributiing to high mortality rates like disease, resource and ethnic wars, poverty, lack of drinking water, and the nigh-universal presence of the corrupt and oppressive government in the third world, and you have a recipe for rapid population stabilization, and my guess would be at no more than 10 billion, if even that, the vast, vast majority of which will be impoverished. That's not even taking into account the damage that Western nations are doing to their own economies through wasteful government spending. At some point, that is going to produce a very severe economic backlash for them, resulting in even less food production. It already has, to some degree, and it isn't over yet. And the next one will be worse.

The brutal truth is that the world's population will be stabilized more by tremendous amounts of death than by anything else, and there is nothing we can do about it. Most attempts to reverse this trend thus far have been based on the "give a man a fish" policy, and even where they teach people to fish it will do no good if the state steals their catch and then kills them, or they die of disease. There is not enough wealth in the entire world to make a broken system work, no matter how it is distributed.

Overpopulation itself isn't actually a problem until you start talking about really, really huge numbers of people. Hong Kong has a population density twenty times that of India, produces almost no food, has no resources to speak of, and is just fine. Tokyo is doing fine, albeit a bit cramped. New York City is a bastion of socialism by American standards and it's doing relatively ok, though those budget shortfalls and taxes are going to catch up with it at some point.

By comparison, India is full of starving, diseased, impoverished, dying people because it is a socialist democracy. It is a rich nation in terms of resources, but it has long been suffering from mass starvation and absurd mortality rates. Like Hong Kong, it was a British colony until recently. In fact, Hong Kong belonged to the British far longer, until 1999. Pretty much all of sub-saharan Africa is a hellhole, even though some nations have less population density than Texas and more natural resources. China is the most populated nation in the world, but the special economic zones, where free trade is permitted (to some degree) is fine, but the Communist part of the nation is desperately poor and hungry.

The key here is government and economic freedom. Until the harmfully overpopulated nations of the world figure that out, they are going to die in filthy heaps outside the door. Barring a sudden reversal of policy in China and India, or a continent-spanning reform movement in Africa, you'll see the population stabilize a lot more quickly and brutally than it otherwise would.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Pardon the noise as I bring out my soapbox.


While you can gain more energy from nuclear fission methods, the waste they produce is very difficult to dispose of properly, and the facilities themselves are far more dangerous. This is atomic energy you are toying with here. Radioactive elements, massive explosions, nuclear fallout, etc.


Poppycock.... Pure unadulterated poppycock. Go back and learn something and forget all that trash that Greenpeace spouts.

Massive explosions? Nuclear fallout????? How may I ask? Please, back it up. How many megatons are you going to get out of a PWR plant? How about a BWR? Come on, give me a guess. Describe the situation that would result in an uncontrolled chain reaction that creates a nuclear detonation. How about during a loss of coolant accident? How about in a prompt critical situation? Stuck rod? How about a dropped rod? A cold water accident? Do you even know the difference between a controlled nuclear reaction vs a prompt critical one?

You comment on the amount of waste gererated by an atoic power plant.. The fact is, the amout of waste generated from nuclear energy is FAR FAR lower then the comparable amount of waste generated by a comparably sized fossil plant. A nuclear reactor will generate several tons over its lifetime. Fossil fuels will generate several tons of waste yearly. The toxins released by coal are bio hazards. Just look at all the ash, CO2, and other waste products that are produced

Current technology in renewable energy can not generate anywhere NEAR the amount of power to compare. I am a HUGE supported of renewable energy, but currently the tech is not there to replace more conventional means. That WILL change in the future, but how far in the future?

The thing about nuclear energy is that, anytime you have a problem, it's serious. It's a race against the clock until something melts down, And when the problem elevates to disaster- it's huge. It's ALWAYS global. With Chernobyl, radioactive materials were spread all over the world, never mind the surrounding blast area. It's really not any different with an atomic weapon explosion: the nasty stuff is spread everywhere.

Not true. Granted, Chernobyl was supreme stupidity. We had to study it. When I studied it it was still being investigated. We did not talk about it in terms of what happened. We did it in equations.

We were walking into a situation and walked step by step into the operation of a BWR. Then they turned off the pump with a subsequent failure to insert enough negative reactivity into the core during a scram. In fact, instead of negative reactivity, they initially inserted POSITIVE reactivity. Our eyes absolutely BOGGLED at what we were seeing in the math. To us it was just a equation to solve. Then then wrote the name of the place on the blackboard. We were stunned. We realized that that the problem we worked was not hypothetical, but real. We were stunned because they failed in EVERY tennent of reactor operations that we were learning. Fankly, they deserved what they got. Nobody questioned what was going on.

With that being said, there has to be multiple failures of both human and machinery to cause a serious failure. People have to ignore alarms, override safety features, and have to be basically stupid to really screw things up.

That's obvious. People have been saying this for decades now. The problem is that it's not that simple. Again, nuclear physics is a very dangerous and complicated field- not even touching upon research that has to be done into the elements to be used for fuel, the particle studies, etc.

:haha::har::haha::haha::rotfl2::rotfl2::haha::haha ::rotfl2::har::har:

Oh man.. you KILL me.

A reactor is SIMPLE physics. We are talking HIGH SCHOOL stuff here. There is no mystery in how it works. They are incredibly predicable, they will do the same thing EVERY time. But they do it VERY fast. It is that SPEED at which things change that can make them dangerous.

Now the research into particles, that is some mind bending stuff. Research reactors?? They are the same as a power reactor, they are just using the neutron flux to create radioactive isotopes.

[Platapus]

As far as I have been able to find out, the United States death toll from Nuclear power reactors is 3 in 1961 (SL-1 Incident)

Our worst nuclear reactor accident was Three Mile Island and that resulted in zero deaths. More people have been killed in the construction and operation of hydro-electric dams than have been killed in nuclear power plants in the United States.

Nuclear power has the potential of being dangerous, but that danger can be mitigated. What is more scary is that we have some very old nuclear reactors operating in the US. When one of them fails due to old age/old technology, the anti-Nuke people will proudly claim "see, we told you"

We need to shut down the older reactors and build many smaller, safer, more efficient nuclear reactors.

Nuclear power is not easy. It takes careful planning, and regulation. But it can be a safe and controllable source of power.

Fission is not the ultimate answer. But it will serve us well until we can develop other means of obtaining power.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

As far as I have been able to find out, the United States death toll from Nuclear power reactors is 3 in 1961 (SL-1 Incident)

Our worst nuclear reactor accident was Three Mile Island and that resulted in zero deaths. More people have been killed in the construction and operation of hydro-electric dams than have been killed in nuclear power plants in the United States.

Nuclear power has the potential of being dangerous, but that danger can be mitigated. What is more scary is that we have some very old nuclear reactors operating in the US. When one of them fails due to old age/old technology, the anti-Nuke people will proudly claim "see, we told you"

We need to shut down the older reactors and build many smaller, safer, more efficient nuclear reactors.

Nuclear power is not easy. It takes careful planning, and regulation. But it can be a safe and controllable source of power.

Fission is not the ultimate answer. But it will serve us well until we can develop other means of obtaining power.

A learned one.. I applaud you for learning. SL-1 was bad. It was needed to teach us the dangers. That is what started the whole "EVERYONE has to know what they are doing, not just those in supervisory positions' attititude.

The old reactors NEED to go away. Just like the cars, planes, trains, and such of yesteryear, they have served their purpose and need to make way for more efficient technology. Granted, something needs to be said for the robust over engineering they have in them.

We need to make a standardized design with common training and procedures. You can then standardize the training, testing, and certification. Currently, you are certified for ONE plant. Not one facility, but ONE plant. The one on the other side of the parking lot is off limits if you are not certified on it.

You are correct on the many small plants. It allows for more controlled maintenance and repairs. If need 1 gigawatt, you put 3 or more 500 megawatt plants on site. You can then shut down one without overstraining the grid. If you need extra power, you can bring more power on-line. If you have a problem with one you shut it down without crippling the grid.

More important, if something bad DOES happen, you can bring in BUS LOADS of trained qualified people who can help immediately without have to undergo familiarization.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Or drive them further inland. In any case, storms will make it harder to contain and remove the oil.

I am afraid this is going to get worse before it gets better. :nope:

On a related note.

I would like to hear from the anti-nuke people how nuclear power is not safe for the environment. Seems to me that we have had more environmental disasters with non-nuclear industries than we have had with nuclear industries. The US nuclear reactor safety record is pretty good. :up:

We really need to build more nuclear reactors that are smaller, more efficient, and safer than the current old reactors we have today. :yep:

I'm totally for nuclear energy.

However, our real problem is people breeding like roaches. For some stupid reason, impregnated/being impregnated is some sacred right everyone's allowed to do as often as they want even if their genes are nothing special (or, indeed, less than special).

[OneToughHerring]

What about the cancers that were caused by the nuke tests? Some say that even the Duke (John Wayne) succumbed to cancer he got from the radiation while filming near a nuclear test site.

[SteamWake]

What about the cancers that were caused by the nuke tests? Some say that even the Duke (John Wayne) succumbed to cancer he got from the radiation while filming near a nuclear test site.

Yes the smoking had nothing to do with his lung cancer :doh:

[Seth8530]

Hey, if you say so friend.





Messing with atomic physics like this is dangerous. There's no need to increase the number of reactors from what we already have. Move to sustainable energy, maintain the current number of nuclear reactors, invest in nuclear fusion energy-generating methods.



That's obvious. People have been saying this for decades now. The problem is that it's not that simple. Again, nuclear physics is a very dangerous and complicated field- not even touching upon research that has to be done into the elements to be used for fuel, the particle studies, etc.



There were actually quite a few cancer deaths later on, not considering the environmental effects of 13 million curies of radioactive gases being leaked into the atmosphere and radioisotopes.



Actually Chernobyl's reactor melted down because the operators failed to carry through with an inexcusable number of rules and regulations in place to prevent exactly this kind of disaster from occurring and because the ECCS was shut off (the coolant system reactors use)- which led to an increase in steam formation and therefore temperature, slowing down the effectiveness of the control rods. With that said, exactly such a disaster is a possibility, of a higher quantity with the more reactors you construct, not only with human error being a possibility but also mechanical failure in the reactor itself. Chernobyl alone caused over 4,000 deaths in a remote area of Russia; imagine how many would have died if it had been in an urban area- nevermind Russia but what it would be like in the United States. And the environmental effects are still being felt today.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/hazmat/articles/chernobyl2.html


Dude, that is straight up green propaganda. Do you even know what kind of explosion took place at chernobyl?? Promise you it wasnt nuclear.
Second, the reactor at chernobyl... do you have any idea what kind of containment vessel it was sitting in? Think about a giant thick metal cooking vessel. sitting inside of what was practically a warehouse.



http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/www.aopa.org/.../newsitems/2002/02-1-156x.jpgfile:///C:/Users/seth/Downloads/02-1-156x.jpghttp://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/3407088/220/3407088.jpg (http://picturepush.com/public/3407088)

This image here is what we use today. i highly doubt any gas or steam explosion is going to rip through all of this.
Third, a nuclear explosion inside of a nuclear reactor is IMPOSSIBLE. The physics are N O T there. In the unfortunate worst case scenario event, the reactor goes out of control. The control rods dont come down... The hot rock gets hotter, Nuetrons are flying around out of control, and guess what... the rock melts. it turns into a pile of slag sitting at the bottom of the containment vessel. Not very useful is it? That is THE END of the story, no radiation leakage.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/www.aopa.org/.../newsitems/2002/02-1-156x.jpg

[OneToughHerring]

Yes the smoking had nothing to do with his lung cancer :doh:

He also had stomach cancer, which he died of.

But I don't claim to know the 100% truth, I merely bring tidbits of information into the public sphere. :)

Meanwhile, in Louisiana... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8664684.stm)

"Ixtoc 1: 476,000 tonnes Bay of Campeche, Gulf of Mexico"

Edit. Crew describes explosion. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8669535.stm)

[CaptainHaplo]

The reality is that current designs of nuclear reactors are both much safer and can be much less wasteful than those of earlier generations.

Want a safe reactor - look at the Pebble Bed designs.... Damn thing could fail and wouldnt go critical for 3 days - more than enough time for problems to be noted so that a shutdown can occur and problems fixed.

[Catfish]

Hello,
Caution - highly polemic -
OT - regarding reactors:

No constructive ideas can stop the core when it's really melting.
"The explosion in Chernobyl "was not a nuclear one" "- this is such a dumb sentence that you really have to slowly digest it :haha:

Certainly not, the nuclear material in a reactor is not of the stuff to cause an explosive reaction, it just is enough to start a chain reaction - which can be controlled as long as the cooling system and rod management works.

As soon as the technical devices like cooling system or rod control fail (usually first the cooling konks out, leading to melting of the steel holding the rods, with catastrophic consequence) the core cannot be controlled anymore, and no constructive solution will prevent this. (The construction of "early" reactors that are still running after 30 + years is b.t.w. not of the "secure" concrete type mentioned above (few have it at all), but have unsafe steel housings).
No one is able to stop a chain reaction when the rod control has gone bonkers - and b.t.w. it is still taking place and developing heat, inside the sarcophague they buried the Chernobyl wreck in, and probably will for some 10.000 years to come, if slowly getting lower in temperature, and speed of reaction.

The problem is that the Ch. reactor exploded due to overheated water when the core was melting, taking the outer housing with it, and then blowing some 50 kilograms of plutonium into the atmosphere. You know the stuff that kills a man with only a microgram, not necessarily because of radiation but because of being toxic. During the cold war it was said that a teaspoon full of pulverized plutonium being dropped from a plane above England, would be able to kill all inhabitants of Great Britain just by toxic contamination.

The only thing that prevented those 50 kilograms from spreading and develop into a worldwide disaster, was that plutonium is relatively heavy, and was soon going down around Chernobyl, and being washed out of the atmosphere rather quickly. Still the windward area from Chernobyl will be a no-go area for some 10.000 years to come, if you do not want to get cancer, or being just poisoned by eating anything like mushrooms, nuts, vegetables or animals of the area.
The US and Soiet nuclear atmospheric tests dispersed more radiocative material in the atmosphere, than Chernobyl did - which is b.t.w. the reason why highly sensitive measuring devices cannot be constructed without problem anymore, due to the (if only lightly) contaminated atmosphere. They are now searching for ship wrecks that contain steel of the time before 1945, to collect fresh material.

And you cannot recycle any steel ever used around a reactor, let alone the reactor material itself. Any metallic material being exposed to radiation, will become radioactive itself after a short time. Yes, also the gatling gun of the A-10 Warthog.
Russia sinks its naval reactors near the coast of Novaja Semlja, in just cutting the hull and let the reactor section sink. Logically, afterwards they leased the area to Norway, for its fishery industry :haha:
The US dispose of their military reactors in the Bering strait, according to Bellona net. Problem solved.

The problem with nuclear reactors is that you cannot really dispose the waste or even the power plant material itself, other than shooting it into the sun.
The US found a "solution" in packing some "depleted" lol core material into the bullets of the A-10 Warthog gun, and "disposed" of the material in former Yugoslavia, and Iraq, where it again will contaminate the ground for years to come.
Anyone remember the city of "Windscale", which was renamed into "Sellafield", after its reputation was so bad due to all thiose radioactive leaks and contaminated seashore ? The new name Sellafield has already the same reputation (british nuclear "recycling" plant site for radioactive waste).


Back on topic, it seems the caps work, i just wonder how they fix them to the ocean floor over the spilling wells, to withstand the borehole pressure. As soon as it is cemented or whatever, they can certainly lower the hole pressure by "pumping the hole dead", and at first they will not even need pumps for production .. good to hear anyway that it works.

Greetings,
Catfish

[CaptainHaplo]

Catfish,

First of all - thank you for explaining some of the intricacies of this field to us laymen. Now - from what I have read, they are saying that this is leaning toward the rig hitting a methane pocket and this is what caused the explosion. Can you elaborate on how that would work, since what I read indicated that at that depth methane would actually be in a crystalline structure?

Also, it appears that there were numerous "fail-safes" that subsequently failed - including something called a "deadman". I assume this is like a deadman's brake on a train, just different in what it does?

Any info you care to share would be great - while this is a disaster without question, it is increasing my knowledge of the subject, and I always enjoy that.

[Seth8530]

Hello,
Caution - highly polemic -
OT - regarding reactors:

No constructive ideas can stop the core when it's really melting.
"The explosion in Chernobyl "was not a nuclear one" "- this is such a dumb sentence that you really have to slowly digest it :haha:

Certainly not, the nuclear material in a reactor is not of the stuff to cause an explosive reaction, it just is enough to start a chain reaction - which can be controlled as long as the cooling system and rod management works.

As soon as the technical devices like cooling system or rod control fail (usually first the cooling konks out, leading to melting of the steel holding the rods, with catastrophic consequence) the core cannot be controlled anymore, and no constructive solution will prevent this. (The construction of "early" reactors that are still running after 30 + years is b.t.w. not of the "secure" concrete type mentioned above (few have it at all), but have unsafe steel housings).
No one is able to stop a chain reaction when the rod control has gone bonkers - and b.t.w. it is still taking place and developing heat, inside the sarcophague they buried the Chernobyl wreck in, and probably will for some 10.000 years to come, if slowly getting lower in temperature, and speed of reaction.

The problem is that the Ch. reactor exploded due to overheated water when the core was melting, taking the outer housing with it, and then blowing some 50 kilograms of plutonium into the atmosphere. You know the stuff that kills a man with only a microgram, not necessarily because of radiation but because of being toxic. During the cold war it was said that a teaspoon full of pulverized plutonium being dropped from a plane above England, would be able to kill all inhabitants of Great Britain just by toxic contamination.

The only thing that prevented those 50 kilograms from spreading and develop into a worldwide disaster, was that plutonium is relatively heavy, and was soon going down around Chernobyl, and being washed out of the atmosphere rather quickly. Still the windward area from Chernobyl will be a no-go area for some 10.000 years to come, if you do not want to get cancer, or being just poisoned by eating anything like mushrooms, nuts, vegetables or animals of the area.
The US and Soiet nuclear atmospheric tests dispersed more radiocative material in the atmosphere, than Chernobyl did - which is b.t.w. the reason why highly sensitive measuring devices cannot be constructed without problem anymore, due to the (if only lightly) contaminated atmosphere. They are now searching for ship wrecks that contain steel of the time before 1945, to collect fresh material.

And you cannot recycle any steel ever used around a reactor, let alone the reactor material itself. Any metallic material being exposed to radiation, will become radioactive itself after a short time. Yes, also the gatling gun of the A-10 Warthog.
Russia sinks its naval reactors near the coast of Novaja Semlja, in just cutting the hull and let the reactor section sink. Logically, afterwards they leased the area to Norway, for its fishery industry :haha:
The US dispose of their military reactors in the Bering strait, according to Bellona net. Problem solved.

The problem with nuclear reactors is that you cannot really dispose the waste or even the power plant material itself, other than shooting it into the sun.
The US found a "solution" in packing some "depleted" lol core material into the bullets of the A-10 Warthog gun, and "disposed" of the material in former Yugoslavia, and Iraq, where it again will contaminate the ground for years to come.
Anyone remember the city of "Windscale", which was renamed into "Sellafield", after its reputation was so bad due to all thiose radioactive leaks and contaminated seashore ? The new name Sellafield has already the same reputation (british nuclear "recycling" plant site for radioactive waste).


Back on topic, it seems the caps work, i just wonder how they fix them to the ocean floor over the spilling wells, to withstand the borehole pressure. As soon as it is cemented or whatever, they can certainly lower the hole pressure by "pumping the hole dead", and at first they will not even need pumps for production .. good to hear anyway that it works.

Greetings,
Catfish

And just what is it that you think will happen once a chain reaction goes out of control in a powerplant. Also most people consider it trolling to attack peoples grammar.

[Catfish]

Hello,
" .. Also most people consider it trolling to attack peoples grammar. .."

Sorry i did not want to attack the grammar, but the meaning of the sentence that the explosion was not caused by nuclear energy - because after all it was the ooc nuclear core that caused the cooling water to overheat, and expand so rapidly that you could call it an explosion - if more a kind of sudden deflagration, taking the outer reactor housing with it in its cause.

I know the russian reactor was another type than it is used in western states, using foremost another housing technology - however the basics are the same, and apart from they seemingly tested the reactor and shut off all security devices for whatever reason until the core went wild, the reactor as such was not much bader or less secure than the ones used in Germany - in fact testing the concrete structures of the 20+ year old reactor housings here revealed they would not withstand any water deflagration, ot even much snaller explosions of any kind.

What is nowhere mentioned is that radiation alters the material itself, so apart from all metal parts becoming radioactive, also certain natural rock like granite and evaporites like salt, but also concrete with its iron or steel armoring will deteriorate and become brittle, if slowly - let alone steel tubes, plastic gaskets and sealings - it's like what high frequency UV rays do to plastics, but in a much higher dose and energy, and you cannot do much maintenance near the inner core, even when the core has been shut down with the run-in rods mostly blocking the reaction.
After the reactor is run once, its inner structure is contaminated with no chance to ever "recycle" or use the material again, apart from dumping it in "deserted" areas.


Cpt. Haplo,
" ... from what I have read, they are saying that this is leaning toward the rig hitting a methane pocket and this is what caused the explosion. ..."

oops, this was just a guess from me - so it is being discussed they really may have hit a pocket ?

" ... Can you elaborate on how that would work, since what I read indicated that at that depth methane would actually be in a crystalline structure? ..."

Unfortunately not, this has not happened before in such a scenario, as far as i know. Those sudden "kicks" when biting through HP areas are dangerous but also well-known, and i am sure they saw it coming. Maybe the specific weight of the "mud" (drilling fluid) was not enough, and when they realized gases were coming up the safety systems seem to have failed - which i must say is a bit unlikely. Maybe they hesitated a bit too long to close the valves, to spare BP a million-dollar re-entry ? -> pure speculation !

At the pressure given and the temperature down there, it is also unlikely that a methane pocket would cause such an eruption - after all there is a miles-long ballasted water column standing in the borehole. But you never know .. if the chrystalline methane reservoir develops into a gaseous aggregate state, this may develop into a self-amplifying effect, since the pressure is released more and more, with the spill.
(When in an onshore drilling in the 1930ies in Germany a gas reservoir was hit, there was no real Blow-out preventer, and the whole 3-km-long tubing was being pressed out of the hole, and ignited (heat through friction) the gas and certainly all of the rig's fuel. The self-amplifying spill killed the crew on duty, and caused a guessed 12 cubic kilometers of rock to be spilled in the atmosphere, the eruption of burning ghas ligthing the whole area for days and leaving a 300-meter crater and a melted rig, lying around in re-chrystallized metal drops.)


I do not know enough about which exact technology the "Deepwater horizon" used (and we will probably not be told), but the rig was from 2000, and thus quite a modern one. Remember it already used automatic GPS positioning without anchors, so the saftey systems will have been up to date as well.
Usually the well can be controlled by the Blow-out preventer, and there are several dead-man switches - but technical failures happen - and there are certainly also manual overrides against erroneus shut-downs.

If the methane went up the hole as bubbles in the drilling fluid, or taking the mud with it in a bad "kick", there are usually enough warnings to react to the situation. But methane is highly explosive, and when things happen fast ..
The thing is even when the automatic shuts did not work, they could have shut it manually (read: remote-controlled) from the rig, but it was either too late or the whole system did not work.

The drill string itself is usually controlled by pulsers which send compression waves through the drilling fluid, and "tell" the drilling head what to do.
The energy for the electronics comes mostly from a downhole dynamo driven by the circling mud, not from above. What this energy does, to actuate a deviation in the drilling direction by expanding one of the ribs, stop the downhole motor via release valves, or actuate hydraulics or measurement systems, is being "told" by the telemetry sent from above, via pulser through the mud. After a certain order has been sent down and received, the downhole eprom works on automatically, until the last order is cancelled, changed, or a certain situation develops, which is programmed as "dangerous", and then automatically acts according to the program.
However, if there are gas bubbles coming up, this kind of telemetry often fails, since only sheer water without bubbles is able to transport "clean" waves, both directions.

The Blowout preventer itself is only partially controlled by mud conditions, however certain temperatures and upwelling gases usually cause it to react automatically.

Again, this is pure speculation - i do not know whether they used a downhole motor, normal rotary drilling or whatever. The presence of three well entries however points in a directional drilling situation, which is nowadays usually done with steerable downhole motors. You only need one rig for several boreholes, and there can be as much, as that the arrangement of the subfloor holes look like a christmas tree.
You are then able to produce oil from several storeys, and several reservoirs, through one well entry point drilled by one rig, which again decreases the enormous drilling costs.

Greetings,
CF

[CaptainHaplo]

Catfish - actually the term that I read was "methane bubble" - but then mentioned that the methane at that depth would be crystaline - so my own inference was a "pocket" of cryaline methane. Here is the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/07/robots-working-position-giant-box-oil-spewing-gulf-mexico-work-ahead/

Reading this article it seems there are alot of safety checks that had to have failed for this to happen. Fox is now reporting that ice crystals formed in the box they were going to use and has forced them to remove it and reconsider the problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/08/ice-crystals-cause-problems-inside-oil-box/

At ~5000 feet, I wouldn't think the water would freeze - but then again I don't know alot about the physics involved there.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Hello,
Caution - highly polemic -
OT - regarding reactors:
No one is able to stop a chain reaction when the rod control has gone bonkers - and b.t.w. it is still taking place and developing heat, inside the sarcophague they buried the Chernobyl wreck in, and probably will for some 10.000 years to come, if slowly getting lower in temperature, and speed of reaction.



Sure there are. You can poison the core by the introduction of chemicals..

You can drive the reactor subcritical by heating it up. You use Alpha-T to your advantage. Heck, you can DRAIN the plant and shut the reaction down. This would work in a PWR/BWR reactor, granted decay heat would then make other problems for you.

Depending on the nature of the causality and the backup systems, there are multiple ways to shut it down.

BTW: the nuclear reaction at Chernobyl is DEAD. Without water to moderate the reaction, the nuclear chain essentially stopped. Granted, the BWR have a very positive alpha-T (sorry techies, there is no characters for the symbol used) and the steam void coefficient plays hell with your reactivity coefficients, but with NO water you have no reaction. What you have is a hell of a lot of decay heat and no way to remove it.

One other thing to remember is this. The core requires a VERY specific configuration to reach and substain a chain reaction. If you melt, explode, deform, or otherwise CHANGE this configuration the reaction pretty much STOPS. We are talking MILLIMETER tolerances. Yes, you may have some limited local zone chain reaction, but those will damp out quickly due to neutron depletion and transuranic production.

The problem is that the Ch. reactor exploded due to overheated water when the core was melting, taking the outer housing with it, and then blowing some 50 kilograms of plutonium into the atmosphere.

Actually, it was a hydrogen explosion. The hydrogen was created by the disassociation of water due to the extreme heat generated by the power transient and the low coolant flow condition. The low flow condition created a power spike that caused pressure in the core to increase rapidly. The resulting hydraulic effect flexed the closure head and depressurized the core. The remaining water in the core then flashed to steam in the sudden depressurization and the resulting void co-efficient created a MASSIVE up power transient and subsequent increase in core temp. The self ignition temp of the fixed graphic control rods was reached and they flashed setting off the hydrogen that was in the core. The resulting explosion then removed the closure head from the top of the reactor physically pulling the remaining control rods from the core. At that point the nuclear chain reaction was stopped by the physical disruption the core geometry. You still have the transuranic burnoff and decay heat that has to be dealt with. You also have the physical FIRE and the result smoke and ash that will create 'fallout' downwind.

It was not the plutonium that was the issue, it was the BILLIONS of curies that created the problems.. Plutonium was a VERY small byproduct. There are more long live transuranics that I would be worried about.

The US dispose of their military reactors in the Bering strait, according to Bellona net. Problem solved.

ALL USN reactors from the ship recycling program are stored aboveground at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State.

Bellona.net is full of it. No us naval reactor has EVER been dumped at sea. The USS Thesher and the USS Scorpion are the ONLY US naval reactors sitting in the ocean. They did not exactly have a choice. They are monitored for escaping material all the time.

Wanna sightsee??

http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/disposal-site-for-nuclear-submarine-reactors/view/?service=0

It is a decent sat shot.

[Seth8530]

Sure there are. You can poison the core by the introduction of chemicals..

You can drive the reactor subcritical by heating it up. You use Alpha-T to your advantage. Heck, you can DRAIN the plant and shut the reaction down. This would work in a PWR/BWR reactor, granted decay heat would then make other problems for you.

Depending on the nature of the causality and the backup systems, there are multiple ways to shut it down.

BTW: the nuclear reaction at Chernobyl is DEAD. Without water to moderate the reaction, the nuclear chain essentially stopped. Granted, the BWR have a very positive alpha-T (sorry techies, there is no characters for the symbol used) and the steam void coefficient plays hell with your reactivity coefficients, but with NO water you have no reaction. What you have is a hell of a lot of decay heat and no way to remove it.

One other thing to remember is this. The core requires a VERY specific configuration to reach and substain a chain reaction. If you melt, explode, deform, or otherwise CHANGE this configuration the reaction pretty much STOPS. We are talking MILLIMETER tolerances. Yes, you may have some limited local zone chain reaction, but those will damp out quickly due to neutron depletion and transuranic production.



Actually, it was a hydrogen explosion. The hydrogen was created by the disassociation of water due to the extreme heat generated by the power transient and the low coolant flow condition. The low flow condition created a power spike that caused pressure in the core to increase rapidly. The resulting hydraulic effect flexed the closure head and depressurized the core. The remaining water in the core then flashed to steam in the sudden depressurization and the resulting void co-efficient created a MASSIVE up power transient and subsequent increase in core temp. The self ignition temp of the fixed graphic control rods was reached and they flashed setting off the hydrogen that was in the core. The resulting explosion then removed the closure head from the top of the reactor physically pulling the remaining control rods from the core. At that point the nuclear chain reaction was stopped by the physical disruption the core geometry. You still have the transuranic burnoff and decay heat that has to be dealt with. You also have the physical FIRE and the result smoke and ash that will create 'fallout' downwind.

It was not the plutonium that was the issue, it was the BILLIONS of curies that created the problems.. Plutonium was a VERY small byproduct. There are more long live transuranics that I would be worried about.



ALL USN reactors from the ship recycling program are stored aboveground at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State.

Bellona.net is full of it. No us naval reactor has EVER been dumped at sea. The USS Thesher and the USS Scorpion are the ONLY US naval reactors sitting in the ocean. They did not exactly have a choice. They are monitored for escaping material all the time.

Wanna sightsee??

http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/disposal-site-for-nuclear-submarine-reactors/view/?service=0

It is a decent sat shot.

Thank you for the insight. Just curious where did you learn this stuff and what career are you involved in?

-- Catfish---

Thank you for your insight on the oilrigs, i believe that you are mistaken about the reactors but i will listen to what you have to say about drilling. one theory on what caused all the failsafes to misbehave involves some of the crystalline methane melting and turning into a gas. Assume you have 2 liters of Methane gas at 1000 feet down. every 33 ft is one atmosphere, therefore there is a 333 atmosphere difference. according to the gas laws p1 x v1 = p2 x v2...... so we have 333 atmosphere x 2 liters= 1 atmosphere x v2..

666 liters= 1 atmosphere x v2

666/1 atmoshere=v2
666L = the amount 2 liters of methane coming up from a bottom depth of 1000 ft would turn into by the time it reached the oil rig. The theory is that as the methane expanded in the oil line it ruined the failsafes and other such equipment in the line. You would prob have a better idea what to do with these numbers than i would tho.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Thank you for the insight. Just curious where did you learn this stuff and what career are you involved in?


I was a nuclear trained machinist mate in the United States Navy. Back then it was the equivalent of 3 years of engineering crammed into 6 months of school with 6 months of on-hands training.

I went through the nuke pipeline back when they educated you instead of training you. I guess I am a relic of the Rickover era. We were taught the HOW & WHY it works. Unfortunately, they do not train people like they used to train us.

What do I do now? I fix cars. I am, admittedly, overtrained for the job but I enjoy my job.

[Seth8530]

Thats really fascinating. Im going to college next year for nuclear engineering at the University of Tennessee. Ive always had an interest in being part of our countries nuclear future.

[OneToughHerring]

Mishap with the containment dome. (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/05/08/gulf.oil.spill/index.html)

[Catfish]

Hello,

thanks Bubblehead - you know a lot more than me i'm sure about reactors and such - but then i wrote it was highly polemic :D
I do not really know where i read the Bering strait reactor thing, one of the sources is Bellona net, but they have an agenda, as the pro nuclear industry has, so both not really neutral or independent. I have also read about it in several newspapers ( i remember the Time magazine, and the german "Spiegel"), must have been around 2000 - so this is indeed wrong ?
Anyway the Soviet method of disposing some of its reactors in the Kara sea, is not a myth.

I think Rickover is, despite of all that might be said against him, the one who is responsible for the highest grade of standards regarding reactor management, failsafe security and no nuclear accidents happening in the US Navy of the time.

It is said that the Scorpion was not in a good shape when it made its last voyage, although i find this rather unlikely for a nuclear submarine of the time. Anyway its sinking was obviously not related to any reactor problem.

@Steamwake:
it was not only John Wayne who died of cancer, but a lot of others of the film team, after filming in this former test area and being exposed to the radiation. Remember the US military "tested" its own people while exposing them to nuclear surface tests.


Seth,
thanks for being patient with me, regarding reactors :03:
you wrote

" ... one theory on what caused all the failsafes to misbehave involves some of the crystalline methane melting and turning into a gas. ..."

Yes, i already thought about such an occurrence, but i wondered what made the chrstylline structure "melt" -

There are only two possibilites imho, temperature and/or pressure. Usually a gas or oil reservoir is under pressure, so if you are lucky enough to hit a either resource, you are prepared. One thing is keeping the drilling fluid "heavy"/ballasted, the other is to temporarily shut the mud valves until you have ballasted and adapted the mud to the borehole pressure.

If you hit a reservoir vertically from above, there is an oil-gas cap above the oil, which is under pressure. You try to go through this cap without releasing pressure from the reservoir and enter the oil horizin below, since the cap pressure will help you to produce oil without pumping, until the pressure is so low that you will have to install a pump for further production.

sorry, have to leave, be back later
CF

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Hello,

I think Rickover is, despite of all that might be said against him, the one who is responsible for the highest grade of standards regarding reactor management, failsafe security and no nuclear accidents happening in the US Navy of the time.


Rickover made a difference because he set out to. I can guarantee you that ONE person in a industry or field can make a difference. Had someone like him been in charge of this drilling fiasco, we would not have this problem. Profits should ALWAYS take a second seat to safety. Maybe we can get someone with his uncompromising standards in place that will prevent this from happening again.


It is said that the Scorpion was not in a good shape when it made its last voyage, although i find this rather unlikely for a nuclear submarine of the time. Anyway its sinking was obviously not related to any reactor problem.


The FRONT of the boat may have been substandard, but I can guarantee you that the AFT end of the boat was fine. We nukes are OBSESSED with things running correctly. If something had been amiss, they would have flat said NO to a reactor startup. Back then all it took was a call to Rickover's office saying that the reactor was unsafe and he would have pulled the CO off that boat.

[OneToughHerring]

Profits should ALWAYS take a second seat to safety.

How totally un-American! :stare:

[Seth8530]

-- and everyone on the subsim general topic decided to be nice to each other and admit transgressions lol, i think were making the moderators proud.

:salute:

So i take it that this Rickover fella is sorta of a legend in his own discipline?

[OneToughHerring]

Oil spill flyover. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14f_1273348194)

[CaptainHaplo]

Seth - Admiral Rickover is THE reason we still have nuclear subs. He, as the head of the Naval nuke power plant - in all ways - was the ultimate buck stops here person. He didn't accept anything but getting it right - every time. In fact, I think his standard of always being on a boat during its final test still is held by his successors. It was his name on the line - he wanted to see it with his own eyes that it was right every time. That attention to detail saved lives and has made him one of most respected non-wartime leaders in the navy - especially in the sub world. If it were not for him - nuclear subs might not exist today. He is called the father of the nuke sub for a reason.

[Platapus]

And you cannot recycle any steel ever used around a reactor, let alone the reactor material itself. Any metallic material being exposed to radiation, will become radioactive itself after a short time. Yes, also the gatling gun of the A-10 Warthog.


I would be very interested in seeing an authoritative citation for this.

[Platapus]

Also most people consider it trolling to attack peoples grammar.


That should be people's grammar.

To be more grammatically correct, the sentence should be rewritten as: Also, most people would consider it trolling to attack the grammar of the writer.

:D

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Rickover demanded that all decisions be based on FACTS, no assumptions are allowed. Ever.

You have to PROVE every presumption. You have to be in complete control. This was the reason that the nuclear power plants were 100% human controlled or supervised. Nothing more complex than a on/off switch was allowed to operate a componet on a reactor plant automatically. Even then, it could be overridden by a human who was monitoring what was going on.

There are stories abound about how he hired/fired people. In the shipyards he would INTENTIONALLY create a stressful & chaotic situation just to see how people handled stress. His visits on boats are legendary.

He did not care if you were an officer or enlisted. You were on HIS plant and you therefore had FULL authority to keep the plant safe. Thats right, a junior ENLISTED man could shut down the plant on his own initative.

Do I admire the man? No, I think he was a huge pain in the butt. I DO admire the teaching, ethics, and steadfastness the man had. Yes, I do. He would accept NOTHING less than 100% from anybody who ran one of his plants. If you did not make the cut, you were gone. This could happen at ANY time in your career. You HAD to be the best, now and always. Every time, day or night, good days or bad. Being awake for 3 days straight was not an excuse.

[Fr8monkey]

"And now for something completely different..."

Latest news (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/BP-Chief-Main-Strategy-to-Contain-US-Oil-Spill-Almost-a-Failure-93225174.html?refresh=1) on the oil rig. Seems to be icing up in the deep water.

[Catfish]

Hello Platapus,

Order to an army doctor
"Thou shalt right you're after-action report such that they do not reveal the health and environmental consequence of uranium munitions because they will become politically unacceptable. [That's] a direct order. "

The fact that DU is called depleted only means it is not dense and concentrated enough for a chain raction, but the radiation is still well above safety levels.

I am certainly sure the US army has a different view of things :D

When i mentioned the longtime effect of using DU, even on own troops someone answered something like " ... i'd rather be saved by a called-in A-10 and survive the day, and to hell what happens to me when i'm 40 .. rather have cancer then, than be dead now ..". That is, when he was near the receiving end of the "Avenger" gun, in the Kosovo.

edit: just found it:


" For a U.S. soldier facing a tank attack on the ground, an A-10 is a welcome sight, he said.
"Ask me whether I'd like to have an A-10 overhead with depleted uranium when tanks are going to kill me, or if I'd rather preserve the environment and have that pilot carry heavy explosives, and I'd say: I want them carrying depleted uranium," Wood said.

"I wouldn't say no, use the heavy explosives, because I'm worried about dying of cancer 30 years from now. I would risk the consequences of inhaling depleted uranium dust before I would consider facing tanks. Depleted uranium is wonderful stuff. It turns tanks into Swiss cheese."
However, radiation expert Rosalie Bertell said depleted uranium is highly toxic to humans. Bertell, president of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, called its use in Yugoslavia radiation and toxic chemical warfare that must be denounced. "



DU is used because it is heavy, burns hot, and penetrates heavy armour or some meters of soil. Tungsten as it is used by the german army is non-radioactive, but much more expensive.

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/depleted-uranium-is-destroying-life-by.html

http://cid-126ff386f6322548.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!126FF386F6322548!229.entry

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1999/04/01/NEWS1003.dtl

http://cursor.org/stories/uranium.htm

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/businesspolitics/iraq-depleted-uranium-shells-could-kill-500000/1214

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Rokke-Depleted-Uranium-DU21apr03.htm

I did not find the article on the vets, where they said that more than 30 percent of the staff that dealt with loading and maintaining the guns were suffering from cancer only 10 years after the Kosovo conflict. Will post it when i find it.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[Platapus]

The health threat of Depleted Uranium is not very radioactive. The Alpha particles it emits are pretty harmless unless it can enter the body though a wound, lungs, or stomach. The most severe health threat from Depleted Uranium is Heavy Metal Poisoning (HMP). That will kill you way before any radioactive harm can come to you.

As Depleted Uranium decays, parts of it turn in to 234 Thorium and 24 days later turns in to 234 protactinium which are Beta emitters. 234PA has a half-life of about 6 hours.

The people who got cancer from handling DU got it from HMP and not Radioactivity. Not that it makes a great difference if you have cancer though.

Using DU in any applications where it can be burned or where dust can be produced is a bad thing.

DU should be used for shielding and for weights, but not in munitions. :nope:

DU can be some bad stuff, but it is its toxicity that is a primary concern, not its radioactivity.

[CaptainHaplo]

Now it looks like its a matter of the plug never being poured. Question is - why wasn't it?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/11/oil-firms-tie-rig-blast-plug/

[OneToughHerring]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8676341.stm

Sex and drugs? "Culture of ethical failure", you can say that again. :shifty:

[OneToughHerring]

First glimpse of gushing oil from Gulf of Mexico spill (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=187_1273728528)

[SteamWake]

Now it looks like its a matter of the plug never being poured. Question is - why wasn't it?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/11/oil-firms-tie-rig-blast-plug/

I had heard that it was the pop off valve that failed. Had a hydraulic leak.

Still its the first big failure in what... 40 years? So yea lets panic and call for a halt on all offshore drilling. Which is exactly what Florida plans to do.

[Stealth Hunter]

Still its the first big failure in what... 40 years? So yea lets panic and call for a halt on all offshore drilling. Which is exactly what Florida plans to do.

The funny thing about oil spills of this caliber is that they're like nuclear reactor meltdowns. While rare, the consequences of just one incident are devastating. And that's on a limited number. If you start spamming wells and go mad drilling here and there, you're recklessly asking for another disaster in the middle of a currently ongoing disaster- nevermind the effects both the drilling and the leaking oil will/do have on the environment (especially the native organisms).