wrote in message
...
What are these plumbing things called?
Yea, I know they're a plug, but what's the actual name?

They're a rubber device with a bolt in the middle. When the nut is
tightened on the bolt, the rubber expands to form a tight seal inside
a pipe. I've seen them used for basement floor drains, during
flooding. Also used for temporary plugs in any pipes. I've also seen
them sold for boating. I dont know much about boating, but I assume
they are some sort of plug for the bottom of the boat.

I'm asking this because I cant understand why this method has not been
tried on the BP oil pipe in the ocean. It's a 20 inch pipe, as I saw
on the news. Why cant they make a 20" plug of this type, and their
robots can tighten the nut. Why is this so difficult? Seems that the
BP company workers are all total idiots. They stuck what looks to be
a 6" pipe in the hole. Like what the f__k is that going to do. Sure,
they're getting some of the oil up that pipe, but think about this.
They had to make and install one mile of pipe, and it only solved a
small percentage of the problem. It took them weeks to do this, and
it's not doing much good. Wouldn't it have been easier to take down a
20 inch plug that probably weighs 50 lbs at most, and tighten a nut.
Seems to make much more sense than one mile of pipe that probably
weighs many tons.

Anyhow, what are these plugs called? As soon as I know, I'm going to
find who manufactures them, and see if they can make something to
help. Relying on BP is about the same thing as a doctor putting a
bandage on the finger of someone who just had a heart attack. Since
BP has proven they are completely illiterate, the time has come for
all of us to find a solution. If we keep relying on the idiots from
BP, pretty soon we'll all be affected.



I think the real problem is overcoming the 760,000 pounds of
force to insert the plug.

22 inch pipe at 2000 estimated psi.

basilisk

On May 21, 8:44*am, "basilisk" wrote:
wrote in message

...





What are these plumbing things called?
Yea, I know they're a plug, but what's the actual name?

They're a rubber device with a bolt in the middle. *When the nut is
tightened on the bolt, the rubber expands to form a tight seal inside
a pipe. *I've seen them used for basement floor drains, during
flooding. *Also used for temporary plugs in any pipes. *I've also seen
them sold for boating. *I dont know much about boating, but I assume
they are some sort of plug for the bottom of the boat.

I'm asking this because I cant understand why this method has not been
tried on the BP oil pipe in the ocean. *It's a 20 inch pipe, as I saw
on the news. *Why cant they make a 20" plug of this type, and their
robots can tighten the nut. *Why is this so difficult? *Seems that the
BP company workers are all total idiots. *They stuck what looks to be
a 6" pipe in the hole. *Like what the f__k is that going to do. *Sure,
they're getting some of the oil up that pipe, but think about this.
They had to make and install one mile of pipe, and it only solved a
small percentage of the problem. *It took them weeks to do this, and
it's not doing much good. *Wouldn't it have been easier to take down a
20 inch plug that probably weighs 50 lbs at most, and tighten a nut.
Seems to make much more sense than one mile of pipe that probably
weighs many tons.

Anyhow, what are these plugs called? *As soon as I know, I'm going to
find who manufactures them, and see if they can make something to
help. *Relying on BP is about the same thing as a doctor putting a
bandage on the finger of someone who just had a heart attack. *Since
BP has proven they are completely illiterate, the time has come for
all of us to find a solution. *If we keep relying on the idiots from
BP, pretty soon we'll all be affected.

I think the real problem is overcoming the 760,000 pounds of
force to insert the plug.

22 inch pipe at 2000 estimated psi.

basilisk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That type of plug is used on pools to winterize them and at least for
that application they are called pool plugs or pool expansion plugs.

As for why you can't just shove one into a large oil pipe 5,000 feet
under the sea, I think the above answer covers it. I haven't done the
math, but with such a large plug area, any reasonable amount of PSI
pressure is going to exert a huge force on the plug. You can insert
a 2" plug into a drain line, but try inserting that into a water pipe
that is spewing water at even 50psi where you have easy access. And
on the ocean floor, what is a robot supposed to hold onto to keep it
from just being pushed away?

That's why they used a plug type arrangement with a smaller pipe in
the middle, so the oil and gas can flow while the apparatus is being
put in place, greatly reducing the force.

wrote:
What are these plumbing things called?
Yea, I know they're a plug, but what's the actual name?

They're a rubber device with a bolt in the middle. When the nut is
tightened on the bolt, the rubber expands to form a tight seal inside
a pipe. I've seen them used for basement floor drains, during
flooding. Also used for temporary plugs in any pipes. I've also seen
them sold for boating. I dont know much about boating, but I assume
they are some sort of plug for the bottom of the boat.

I'm asking this because I cant understand why this method has not been
tried on the BP oil pipe in the ocean. It's a 20 inch pipe, as I saw
on the news. Why cant they make a 20" plug of this type, and their
robots can tighten the nut. Why is this so difficult? Seems that the
BP company workers are all total idiots. They stuck what looks to be
a 6" pipe in the hole. Like what the f__k is that going to do. Sure,
they're getting some of the oil up that pipe, but think about this.
They had to make and install one mile of pipe, and it only solved a
small percentage of the problem. It took them weeks to do this, and
it's not doing much good. Wouldn't it have been easier to take down a
20 inch plug that probably weighs 50 lbs at most, and tighten a nut.
Seems to make much more sense than one mile of pipe that probably
weighs many tons.

Anyhow, what are these plugs called? As soon as I know, I'm going to
find who manufactures them, and see if they can make something to
help. Relying on BP is about the same thing as a doctor putting a
bandage on the finger of someone who just had a heart attack. Since
BP has proven they are completely illiterate, the time has come for
all of us to find a solution. If we keep relying on the idiots from
BP, pretty soon we'll all be affected.

The rig exploded, burnt, fell over, and sank.

Five thousand feet of 21" pipe toppled over like a giant, semi-flexible,
redwood.

The pipe broke and ruptured in at least three places.

The END of the pipe is probably not square, but jagged, bent, and deformed.
The other (at least) two breaks are certainly irregular and probably buried
under several hundred feet of collapsed pipe.

I'm sure BP will give your suggestion all the attention it deserves and I
applaud your diligence of your diligence in determining the name of the
device to use rather than insisting BP "employ one of those gizmos used to
plug holes in the bottom of a rowboat."

"Expandable plug" will go a long way in adding authenticity and expertise to
your suggestion.

On 5/21/2010 8:44 AM, basilisk wrote:
wrote in message
...
What are these plumbing things called?
Yea, I know they're a plug, but what's the actual name?

They're a rubber device with a bolt in the middle. When the nut is
tightened on the bolt, the rubber expands to form a tight seal inside
a pipe. I've seen them used for basement floor drains, during
flooding. Also used for temporary plugs in any pipes. I've also seen
them sold for boating. I dont know much about boating, but I assume
they are some sort of plug for the bottom of the boat.

I'm asking this because I cant understand why this method has not been
tried on the BP oil pipe in the ocean. It's a 20 inch pipe, as I saw
on the news. Why cant they make a 20" plug of this type, and their
robots can tighten the nut. Why is this so difficult? Seems that the
BP company workers are all total idiots. They stuck what looks to be
a 6" pipe in the hole. Like what the f__k is that going to do. Sure,
they're getting some of the oil up that pipe, but think about this.
They had to make and install one mile of pipe, and it only solved a
small percentage of the problem. It took them weeks to do this, and
it's not doing much good. Wouldn't it have been easier to take down a
20 inch plug that probably weighs 50 lbs at most, and tighten a nut.
Seems to make much more sense than one mile of pipe that probably
weighs many tons.

Anyhow, what are these plugs called? As soon as I know, I'm going to
find who manufactures them, and see if they can make something to
help. Relying on BP is about the same thing as a doctor putting a
bandage on the finger of someone who just had a heart attack. Since
BP has proven they are completely illiterate, the time has come for
all of us to find a solution. If we keep relying on the idiots from
BP, pretty soon we'll all be affected.



I think the real problem is overcoming the 760,000 pounds of
force to insert the plug.

22 inch pipe at 2000 estimated psi.

basilisk


Every hillbilly out there thinks he has the answer. There's a cute one
about absorbing the oil with straw

What are these plumbing things called?
Yea, I know they're a plug, but what's the actual name?

They're a rubber device with a bolt in the middle. When the nut is
tightened on the bolt, the rubber expands to form a tight seal inside
a pipe. I've seen them used for basement floor drains, during
flooding. Also used for temporary plugs in any pipes. I've also seen
them sold for boating. I dont know much about boating, but I assume
they are some sort of plug for the bottom of the boat.

I'm asking this because I cant understand why this method has not been
tried on the BP oil pipe in the ocean. It's a 20 inch pipe, as I saw
on the news. Why cant they make a 20" plug of this type, and their
robots can tighten the nut. Why is this so difficult? Seems that the
BP company workers are all total idiots. They stuck what looks to be
a 6" pipe in the hole. Like what the f__k is that going to do. Sure,
they're getting some of the oil up that pipe, but think about this.
They had to make and install one mile of pipe, and it only solved a
small percentage of the problem. It took them weeks to do this, and
it's not doing much good. Wouldn't it have been easier to take down a
20 inch plug that probably weighs 50 lbs at most, and tighten a nut.
Seems to make much more sense than one mile of pipe that probably
weighs many tons.

Anyhow, what are these plugs called? As soon as I know, I'm going to
find who manufactures them, and see if they can make something to
help. Relying on BP is about the same thing as a doctor putting a
bandage on the finger of someone who just had a heart attack. Since
BP has proven they are completely illiterate, the time has come for
all of us to find a solution. If we keep relying on the idiots from
BP, pretty soon we'll all be affected.

wrote:
What are these plumbing things called?
Yea, I know they're a plug, but what's the actual name?

Test plug?

It would take quite a plug to stop that pressure, and quite a machine to put it
into place.

wrote:

Anyhow, what are these plugs called? As soon as I know, I'm going to
find who manufactures them, and see if they can make something to
help. Relying on BP is about the same thing as a doctor putting a
bandage on the finger of someone who just had a heart attack. Since
BP has proven they are completely illiterate, the time has come for
all of us to find a solution. If we keep relying on the idiots from
BP, pretty soon we'll all be affected.

Upon further reflection, your suggestion reminds me of one I encountered
some years ago.

During the Viet Nam war, a backwoods citizen learned of the problems our
military was having with tunnel-bound VC. Knowing nothing about warfare, but
an expert on rabbits, and knowing less than nothing about the chain of
command but having met his local congressman, he sent a tip to his
representative. His plan was to have the military loose a wild rabbit in the
jungle. The rabbit would take off like a, well, scared rabbit. The soldiers
would then loose the dogs. The rabbit would zip down the nearest hole, the
dogs would gather 'round the hole and bark, the soldiers would approach the
dogs and discover the entrance to a Viet Cong tunnel complex.

The congressman's aide, evidently not reading the letter, but noting the
words "Viet Nam" sent the letter to the Congressional liason officer to the
Pentagon. That liason officer, also not reading the letter, dropped it in
the inner-office mail where it eventually came to rest and the following
response was generated (paraphrasing):

Dear Congressman (blank)

I have at hand a copy of the letter sent to you by your constituent (blank)
in which he suggests using wild rabbis in Viet Nam. The military does not
currently use wild rabbits in Viet Nam, but we have been using dogs - mostly
in security applications - for some time with excellent results.

Early last year, a study was conducted on the viability of using wild
rabbits in Viet Nam. While the conclusions of that study remain classified,
I can report that the United States Military Command Wild Rabbit Training
Facility was opened in San Diego to take advantage of the language school
located at the San Diego Naval Base.

The facility began with five hutches, three does, and two bucks. The number
of rabbits currently enrolled changes every second, but the hutch facility
now extends as far east as Fort Worth, Texas.

We are currently looking for a Director, U.S. Military Command Wild Rabbit
Training Facility. The only qualification for this position is that the
applicant be able to think like a rabbit. I would like to nominate your
constitute (blank) for the job.

Also needed is an Assistant Director, U.S. Military Command Wild Rabbit
Training Facility. The only requirement for this position is the ability to
think like a carrot! I strongly urge the numbskull in your office who
forwarded (blank's) suggestion.

Very cordially yours,

Leonard F. Chapman, General
Commandant,
United States Marine Corps

wrote:
What are these plumbing things called?
Yea, I know they're a plug, but what's the actual name?

They're a rubber device with a bolt in the middle. When the nut is
tightened on the bolt, the rubber expands to form a tight seal inside
a pipe. I've seen them used for basement floor drains, during
flooding. Also used for temporary plugs in any pipes. I've also seen
them sold for boating. I dont know much about boating, but I assume
they are some sort of plug for the bottom of the boat.

I'm asking this because I cant understand why this method has not been
tried on the BP oil pipe in the ocean. It's a 20 inch pipe, as I saw
on the news. Why cant they make a 20" plug of this type, and their
robots can tighten the nut. Why is this so difficult? Seems that the
BP company workers are all total idiots. They stuck what looks to be
a 6" pipe in the hole. Like what the f__k is that going to do. Sure,
they're getting some of the oil up that pipe, but think about this.
They had to make and install one mile of pipe, and it only solved a
small percentage of the problem. It took them weeks to do this, and
it's not doing much good. Wouldn't it have been easier to take down a
20 inch plug that probably weighs 50 lbs at most, and tighten a nut.
Seems to make much more sense than one mile of pipe that probably
weighs many tons.

Anyhow, what are these plugs called? As soon as I know, I'm going to
find who manufactures them, and see if they can make something to
help. Relying on BP is about the same thing as a doctor putting a
bandage on the finger of someone who just had a heart attack. Since
BP has proven they are completely illiterate, the time has come for
all of us to find a solution. If we keep relying on the idiots from
BP, pretty soon we'll all be affected.


What the need to do use a blow-out preventer that is not broken.
It HAS a rubber plug that is operated by hydraulic to block the flow.
The plug was destroyed in a test. The backup hydraulic pump was broken
and a hydraulic ram was missing. Talk about stupid engineers!

There are any number of ways they could have stopped the blowout.
They could have used a portable hydraulic clamp with the ROV to squeeze
the pipe shut. They could have cut off the pipe just above the BOP and
slipped another pipe over the old one and clamped it in place or an air
balloon seal. They are the most incompetent bunch I have ever seen.
Shows you what the engineering schools are graduating now-a-days.




--
LSMFT

I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months.
I don't like to interrupt her.

On May 21, 8:44�am, "basilisk" wrote:


I think the real problem is overcoming the 760,000 pounds of
force to insert the plug.

22 inch pipe at 2000 estimated psi.

basilisk-

I thought the pipe was much smaller, like 4-6". I also think the
outside forces (forces exerted on an object at 6000ft below sea level)
are somewhere around 6K psi. I don't think the pressure inside the
pipe is quite as high as you guess. On another factor is the weight of
the water IF it were contained in a pipe to the surface. Anyway, the
oil is normally PUMPED out of the well because the pressure in the
well is unable to overcome the lift required to bring it to the
surface.

Since it is ruptured, it is flowing out at a minimum pressure and then
surfacing.

That is the way I understand it, but I could be wrong in many ways.

Hank

"Hustlin' Hank" wrote in message
...
On May 21, 8:44?am, "basilisk" wrote:


I think the real problem is overcoming the 760,000 pounds of
force to insert the plug.

22 inch pipe at 2000 estimated psi.

basilisk-

I thought the pipe was much smaller, like 4-6". I also think the
outside forces (forces exerted on an object at 6000ft below sea level)
are somewhere around 6K psi. I don't think the pressure inside the
pipe is quite as high as you guess. On another factor is the weight of
the water IF it were contained in a pipe to the surface. Anyway, the
oil is normally PUMPED out of the well because the pressure in the
well is unable to overcome the lift required to bring it to the
surface.

Since it is ruptured, it is flowing out at a minimum pressure and then
surfacing.

That is the way I understand it, but I could be wrong in many ways.

Hank

I got the pipe size and psi from news reports, but TV news reports
aren't noted for their accuracy, who knows?

basilisk

Hustlin' Hank wrote:
....

I thought the pipe was much smaller, like 4-6". I also think the
outside forces (forces exerted on an object at 6000ft below sea level)
are somewhere around 6K psi. I don't think the pressure inside the
pipe is quite as high as you guess. On another factor is the weight of
the water IF it were contained in a pipe to the surface. Anyway, the
oil is normally PUMPED out of the well because the pressure in the
well is unable to overcome the lift required to bring it to the
surface.

Since it is ruptured, it is flowing out at a minimum pressure and then
surfacing.

That is the way I understand it, but I could be wrong in many ways.

Well, the pressure has to be larger than the static head or that would
be sufficient to prevent flow other than diffusion/displacement by
differential density. That clearly isn't the case from the video and
size of the flow.

As another says, those are reported numbers I've seen as well; what,
specifically they have to do w/ reality is also as he notes anybody's
guess....

--

On May 21, 5:18*pm, "basilisk" wrote:
"Hustlin' Hank" wrote in message

...
On May 21, 8:44?am, "basilisk" wrote:



I think the real problem is overcoming the 760,000 pounds of
force to insert the plug.

22 inch pipe at 2000 estimated psi.

basilisk-

I thought the pipe was much smaller, like 4-6". I also think the
outside forces (forces exerted on an object at 6000ft below sea level)
are somewhere around 6K psi. I don't think the pressure inside the
pipe is quite as high as you guess. On another factor is the weight of
the water IF it were contained in a pipe to the surface. Anyway, the
oil is normally PUMPED out of the well because the pressure in the
well is unable to overcome the lift required to bring it to the
surface.

Since it is ruptured, it is flowing out at a minimum pressure and then
surfacing.

That is the way I understand it, but I could be wrong in many ways.

Hank

I got the pipe size and psi from news reports, but TV news reports
aren't noted for their accuracy, who knows?

basilisk

Well a 20 inch plug has an area of around 310 square inches. Pi x R
squared!
The pressure of the oil and gas coming out of the broken well must be
considerable in water of a depth of say 5000 feet. Many times
atmospheric pressure anyway lets say it's only a 1000 pounds per
square inch? (That's way too conservative by the way).

So with a pressure of around 300,000 pounds on the plug it's not the
kind of thing where you hold it in place with one hand while
tightening the expanding bolt with the other hand. All while kneeling
on the basement or kitchen floor!

One would however imagine the much maligned engineers have figured
that out? But it is true that sometimes the best ideas are the
simplest!

Usually the problem with these situations is not only the technology
but the managerial ethics and political will to do the right thing and
spend the money and resources, beforehand, to avoid a problem in the
first place. This spillage should never have happened. But it and BPs
attitude makes one wonder about other wells, and oil industry
practices and procedures!

And, considering regulation! Just look at the countries that are
recovering nicely (Australia, Canada, China, India and others) from
the financial problems caused by the bad credit crisis! It is those
that have tough and enforced 'Banking regulations'!

Same with the oil industry there is too much emphasis on the bottom
line profit and executive bonuses and maybe lobbying? Somewhere along
the line the welfare of everybody else involved, included other users
and residents, immediately in this case, the residents, fishers,
tourist industry employees of those coastal areas get lost in the
scramble.

In the longer term that's all of us; I'm certainly not going anywhere
near Florida, for example, if there are oiled beaches and oil slicks
fouling my boat!

Hustlin' Hank wrote:
On May 21, 8:44?am, "basilisk" wrote:


I think the real problem is overcoming the 760,000 pounds of
force to insert the plug.

22 inch pipe at 2000 estimated psi.

basilisk-

I thought the pipe was much smaller, like 4-6". I also think the
outside forces (forces exerted on an object at 6000ft below sea level)
are somewhere around 6K psi. I don't think the pressure inside the
pipe is quite as high as you guess. On another factor is the weight of
the water IF it were contained in a pipe to the surface. Anyway, the
oil is normally PUMPED out of the well because the pressure in the
well is unable to overcome the lift required to bring it to the
surface.

The pipe they inserted into the leaking well is 4" in diameter. The well pipe is
much larger. The pressure from the weight of the water is the same whether it is
in a pipe or not.. When the water has been displaced by oil, then the pressure
will be less.

On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:23:02 -0400, Frank
wrote:

Every hillbilly out there thinks he has the answer. There's a cute one
about absorbing the oil with straw

_Kevin Costner may hold key to oil spill cleanup_

"The actor has invested 15 years and $24 million in a cleanup system
involving centrifugal oil separators. BP and the Coast Guard plan to
test six of the machines on the spill next week."

..."The machines are essentially like big vacuum cleaners, which sit on
barges and suck up oily water and spin it around at high speed,"
Houghtaling said. "On one side, it spits out pure oil, which can be
recovered. The other side spits out 99% pure water."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss

On May 21, 4:18*pm, terry wrote:
On May 21, 5:18*pm, "basilisk" wrote:





"Hustlin' Hank" wrote in message

....
On May 21, 8:44?am, "basilisk" wrote:

I think the real problem is overcoming the 760,000 pounds of
force to insert the plug.

22 inch pipe at 2000 estimated psi.

basilisk-

I thought the pipe was much smaller, like 4-6". I also think the
outside forces (forces exerted on an object at 6000ft below sea level)
are somewhere around 6K psi. I don't think the pressure inside the
pipe is quite as high as you guess. On another factor is the weight of
the water IF it were contained in a pipe to the surface. Anyway, the
oil is normally PUMPED out of the well because the pressure in the
well is unable to overcome the lift required to bring it to the
surface.

Since it is ruptured, it is flowing out at a minimum pressure and then
surfacing.

That is the way I understand it, but I could be wrong in many ways.

Hank

I got the pipe size and psi from news reports, but TV news reports
aren't noted for their accuracy, who knows?

basilisk

Well a 20 inch plug has an area of around 310 square inches. Pi x R
squared!
The pressure of the oil and *gas coming out of the broken well must be
considerable in water of a depth of say 5000 feet. Many times
atmospheric pressure anyway lets say it's only a 1000 pounds per
square inch? (That's way too conservative by the way).

So with a pressure of around 300,000 pounds on the plug it's not the
kind of thing where you hold it in place with one hand while
tightening the expanding bolt with the other hand. All while kneeling
on the basement or kitchen floor!


It's not the absolute pressure that matters. It's the relative
pressure difference between the well and the water at the bottom of
the sea.

wrote:
On May 21, 4:18 pm, terry wrote:
On May 21, 5:18 pm, "basilisk" wrote:





"Hustlin' Hank" wrote in message
...
On May 21, 8:44?am, "basilisk" wrote:
I think the real problem is overcoming the 760,000 pounds of
force to insert the plug.
22 inch pipe at 2000 estimated psi.
basilisk-
I thought the pipe was much smaller, like 4-6". I also think the
outside forces (forces exerted on an object at 6000ft below sea level)
are somewhere around 6K psi. I don't think the pressure inside the
pipe is quite as high as you guess. On another factor is the weight of
the water IF it were contained in a pipe to the surface. Anyway, the
oil is normally PUMPED out of the well because the pressure in the
well is unable to overcome the lift required to bring it to the
surface.
Since it is ruptured, it is flowing out at a minimum pressure and then
surfacing.
That is the way I understand it, but I could be wrong in many ways.
Hank
I got the pipe size and psi from news reports, but TV news reports
aren't noted for their accuracy, who knows?
basilisk
Well a 20 inch plug has an area of around 310 square inches. Pi x R
squared!
The pressure of the oil and gas coming out of the broken well must be
considerable in water of a depth of say 5000 feet. Many times
atmospheric pressure anyway lets say it's only a 1000 pounds per
square inch? (That's way too conservative by the way).

So with a pressure of around 300,000 pounds on the plug it's not the
kind of thing where you hold it in place with one hand while
tightening the expanding bolt with the other hand. All while kneeling
on the basement or kitchen floor!


It's not the absolute pressure that matters. It's the relative
pressure difference between the well and the water at the bottom of
the sea.



I'm puzzled that BP...BRITISH Petroleum...hasn't gotten any flak from
the British gov't., or the Brit's from the US. At least I haven't heard
of it. Is the gusher in international waters? How far out are US, or
state waters?

On May 22, 7:13*am, wrote:
On May 21, 4:18*pm, terry wrote:





On May 21, 5:18*pm, "basilisk" wrote:

"Hustlin' Hank" wrote in message

....
On May 21, 8:44?am, "basilisk" wrote:

I think the real problem is overcoming the 760,000 pounds of
force to insert the plug.

22 inch pipe at 2000 estimated psi.

basilisk-

I thought the pipe was much smaller, like 4-6". I also think the
outside forces (forces exerted on an object at 6000ft below sea level)
are somewhere around 6K psi. I don't think the pressure inside the
pipe is quite as high as you guess. On another factor is the weight of
the water IF it were contained in a pipe to the surface. Anyway, the
oil is normally PUMPED out of the well because the pressure in the
well is unable to overcome the lift required to bring it to the
surface.

Since it is ruptured, it is flowing out at a minimum pressure and then
surfacing.

That is the way I understand it, but I could be wrong in many ways.

Hank

I got the pipe size and psi from news reports, but TV news reports
aren't noted for their accuracy, who knows?

basilisk

Well a 20 inch plug has an area of around 310 square inches. Pi x R
squared!
The pressure of the oil and *gas coming out of the broken well must be
considerable in water of a depth of say 5000 feet. Many times
atmospheric pressure anyway lets say it's only a 1000 pounds per
square inch? (That's way too conservative by the way).

So with a pressure of around 300,000 pounds on the plug it's not the
kind of thing where you hold it in place with one hand while
tightening the expanding bolt with the other hand. All while kneeling
on the basement or kitchen floor!

It's not the absolute pressure that matters. *It's the relative
pressure difference between the well and the water at the bottom of
the sea.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactlyl. All that gas and oil needs is at least 1 psi above whatever
the water pressure is down there. It appears that it is much higher
than that pressure though.

Harry K

On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:44:47 -0500, "basilisk"
wrote:


Anyhow, what are these plugs called? As soon as I know, I'm going to
find who manufactures them, and see if they can make something to
help. Relying on BP is about the same thing as a doctor putting a
bandage on the finger of someone who just had a heart attack. Since
BP has proven they are completely illiterate, the time has come for
all of us to find a solution. If we keep relying on the idiots from
BP, pretty soon we'll all be affected.



I think the real problem is overcoming the 760,000 pounds of
force to insert the plug.

22 inch pipe at 2000 estimated psi.

basilisk

I agree with your answer but not your multiplication. Assuming your
numbers are right, 2000 x 22 x pi = 138,000 pounds.

Still too much, I'm sure. Compare how easy it is to close off part of
a garden hose with your thumb versus the whole thing. OTOH, the OP's
point is that his plug is smaller than the hole when put in, and would
be likea thumb closing off part of hose. I guess the high pressure is
still the problem

Not that I have a better suggestion but I don't like relying on BP to
do this. They seem to have put all their energy into avoiding a leak
and little into what to do about it if one occured.

And the OP is right, the current pipe is only about 6 inches in a 22
inch pipe, but i think it was actually 4 inches.

"mm" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:44:47 -0500, "basilisk"
wrote:


Anyhow, what are these plugs called? As soon as I know, I'm going to
find who manufactures them, and see if they can make something to
help. Relying on BP is about the same thing as a doctor putting a
bandage on the finger of someone who just had a heart attack. Since
BP has proven they are completely illiterate, the time has come for
all of us to find a solution. If we keep relying on the idiots from
BP, pretty soon we'll all be affected.



I think the real problem is overcoming the 760,000 pounds of
force to insert the plug.

22 inch pipe at 2000 estimated psi.

basilisk

I agree with your answer but not your multiplication. Assuming your
numbers are right, 2000 x 22 x pi = 138,000 pounds.

it would psi*pi*radius squared.
2000 X 3.1459 X (11 X 11) =761,307.8
My information may be bad, but not my math.

basilisk

Still too much, I'm sure. Compare how easy it is to close off part of
a garden hose with your thumb versus the whole thing. OTOH, the OP's
point is that his plug is smaller than the hole when put in, and would
be likea thumb closing off part of hose. I guess the high pressure is
still the problem

Not that I have a better suggestion but I don't like relying on BP to
do this. They seem to have put all their energy into avoiding a leak
and little into what to do about it if one occured.

And the OP is right, the current pipe is only about 6 inches in a 22
inch pipe, but i think it was actually 4 inches.

mm wrote:
....

I agree with your answer but not your multiplication. Assuming your
numbers are right, 2000 x 22 x pi = 138,000 pounds.
....

pi.D is circumference, not area...

pi.r^2 = A -- 121*3+ -- ~360*2000 = ~720klb-f

The question is what is the differential pressure at the wellhead --
what are the numbers being bandied about in the press???? There's no
way of telling and there's probably not a reporter or reporterette in a
1000 that would have a clue if you told 'em...

This beating up on BP is simply populist Monday-morning qb'ing for the
consumption of the press and populace.

There does seem to have been some culpability in the operations but
before the full incident review it's certainly too early to say for sure
who or what was root cause.

I've little doubt there's not much any of the gov't "experts" in FEMA or
HSA or any other agency know or have experience in that will outpace
that of BP production combined w/ Halliburton and their contractors.
These aren't "johnny come latelies" to the party.

--

In article ,
" wrote:

I'm puzzled that BP...BRITISH Petroleum...hasn't gotten any flak from
the British gov't., or the Brit's from the US. At least I haven't heard
of it. Is the gusher in international waters? How far out are US, or
state waters?


Isn't the leak about 30 miles offshore? Here's a lengthy treatise on
international waters:

http://tinyurl.com/6mt9hk

which from a quick scan says territorial waters used to extend as far as
a cannonball could fly (3 miles) but now, at least for the U.S., goes
out 24 miles.

In article ,
dpb wrote:

This beating up on BP is simply populist Monday-morning qb'ing for the
consumption of the press and populace.

Huh? As far as I'm concerned, they ****ed up. They should not have been
doing something that entailed risk, without a plan for dealing with any
problem that might arise. It's really just that damn simple.

On Sat, 22 May 2010 10:34:39 -0400, "
wrote:

Is the gusher in international waters? How far out are US, or
state waters?

Day trips on ships with gambling, off the coast of Florida requires 12
miles before they the turn on the slot machines.

On Sat, 22 May 2010 10:34:39 -0400, "
wrote:

wrote:
On May 21, 4:18 pm, terry wrote:
On May 21, 5:18 pm, "basilisk" wrote:





"Hustlin' Hank" wrote in message
...
On May 21, 8:44?am, "basilisk" wrote:
I think the real problem is overcoming the 760,000 pounds of
force to insert the plug.
22 inch pipe at 2000 estimated psi.
basilisk-
I thought the pipe was much smaller, like 4-6". I also think the
outside forces (forces exerted on an object at 6000ft below sea level)
are somewhere around 6K psi. I don't think the pressure inside the
pipe is quite as high as you guess. On another factor is the weight of
the water IF it were contained in a pipe to the surface. Anyway, the
oil is normally PUMPED out of the well because the pressure in the
well is unable to overcome the lift required to bring it to the
surface.
Since it is ruptured, it is flowing out at a minimum pressure and then
surfacing.
That is the way I understand it, but I could be wrong in many ways.
Hank
I got the pipe size and psi from news reports, but TV news reports
aren't noted for their accuracy, who knows?
basilisk
Well a 20 inch plug has an area of around 310 square inches. Pi x R
squared!
The pressure of the oil and gas coming out of the broken well must be
considerable in water of a depth of say 5000 feet. Many times
atmospheric pressure anyway lets say it's only a 1000 pounds per
square inch? (That's way too conservative by the way).

So with a pressure of around 300,000 pounds on the plug it's not the
kind of thing where you hold it in place with one hand while
tightening the expanding bolt with the other hand. All while kneeling
on the basement or kitchen floor!


It's not the absolute pressure that matters. It's the relative
pressure difference between the well and the water at the bottom of
the sea.



I'm puzzled that BP...BRITISH Petroleum...hasn't gotten any flak from
the British gov't., or the Brit's from the US. At least I haven't heard
of it. Is the gusher in international waters? How far out are US, or
state waters?

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2503227/posts

Looks like about 200mi due South of Dauphin Island, AL.

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:04:34 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
dpb wrote:

This beating up on BP is simply populist Monday-morning qb'ing for the
consumption of the press and populace.

Huh? As far as I'm concerned, they ****ed up. They should not have been
doing something that entailed risk, without a plan for dealing with any
problem that might arise. It's really just that damn simple.

You cannot write a contingency plan for every situation. Can't expect
a plan to cover every set of circumstances. Didn't NASA save the
Apollo with a improvised brainstorm?

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:04:34 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
dpb wrote:

This beating up on BP is simply populist Monday-morning qb'ing for the
consumption of the press and populace.

Huh? As far as I'm concerned, they ****ed up. They should not have been
doing something that entailed risk, without a plan for dealing with any
problem that might arise. It's really just that damn simple.

You cannot write a contingency plan for every situation. Can't expect
a plan to cover every set of circumstances. Didn't NASA save the
Apollo with a improvised brainstorm?

Yeah, sure, Apollo 13. Saved the lives of 3 men, who knowingly and
willingly embarked on a voyage positively fraught with danger. Not a
good analogy. Risk vs. reward is a real-world concept. Given the level
of risk involved, I'd say BP had the responsibility to write a
contingency plan for every possible complication that had a better than
1 in a million chance of materializing. And I'd say they failed,
willfully taking risks far greater than that, with no plan B.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:04:34 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
dpb wrote:

This beating up on BP is simply populist Monday-morning qb'ing for the
consumption of the press and populace.
Huh? As far as I'm concerned, they ****ed up. They should not have been
doing something that entailed risk, without a plan for dealing with any
problem that might arise. It's really just that damn simple.
You cannot write a contingency plan for every situation. Can't expect
a plan to cover every set of circumstances. Didn't NASA save the
Apollo with a improvised brainstorm?

Yeah, sure, Apollo 13. Saved the lives of 3 men, who knowingly and
willingly embarked on a voyage positively fraught with danger. Not a
good analogy. Risk vs. reward is a real-world concept. Given the level
of risk involved, I'd say BP had the responsibility to write a
contingency plan for every possible complication that had a better than
1 in a million chance of materializing. And I'd say they failed,
willfully taking risks far greater than that, with no plan B.

Trouble is, with any complex system, you never know all the ways
something can go wrong. Sometimes, things that are trivial taken
individually, when they happen at the same time, cause catastrophic
failure. Not saying BP and the various subs did everything correctly
this time (obviously), but there is a certain amount of risk that you
can never plan for.

As described in a previous message, it looks like the failure this time
was too many cooks in the kitchen, with no one person on-site that had
the whole thing in their head, with the authority to force a production
hold. (Kinda like what killed Challenger...) Knowing a blowout preventer
had failed, strongly suspecting the inflatable 'doughnut' that kept the
mud from blowing back had failed, and then attempting to use a fast
(dry) way to pull the drill shaft back out, all combined to create a
2+2=5 situation. They ran it like a drilling operation on land or in
shallow water, when it needed to be run like a space shot or deep dive
operation. I'm obviously no expert on deep ocean drilling- that is just
my take from published news reports. And wasn't this the deepest anyone
had tried to do a wellhead?

--
aem sends...

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:05:35 -0500, "basilisk"
wrote:


"mm" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:44:47 -0500, "basilisk"
wrote:


Anyhow, what are these plugs called? As soon as I know, I'm going to
find who manufactures them, and see if they can make something to
help. Relying on BP is about the same thing as a doctor putting a
bandage on the finger of someone who just had a heart attack. Since
BP has proven they are completely illiterate, the time has come for
all of us to find a solution. If we keep relying on the idiots from
BP, pretty soon we'll all be affected.



I think the real problem is overcoming the 760,000 pounds of
force to insert the plug.

22 inch pipe at 2000 estimated psi.

basilisk

I agree with your answer but not your multiplication. Assuming your
numbers are right, 2000 x 22 x pi = 138,000 pounds.

it would psi*pi*radius squared.
2000 X 3.1459 X (11 X 11) =761,307.8
My information may be bad, but not my math.

Ooops. I shouldn't have dropped out of high school half way through
geometry.

basilisk

Still too much, I'm sure. Compare how easy it is to close off part of
a garden hose with your thumb versus the whole thing. OTOH, the OP's
point is that his plug is smaller than the hole when put in, and would
be likea thumb closing off part of hose. I guess the high pressure is
still the problem

Not that I have a better suggestion but I don't like relying on BP to
do this. They seem to have put all their energy into avoiding a leak
and little into what to do about it if one occured.

And the OP is right, the current pipe is only about 6 inches in a 22
inch pipe, but i think it was actually 4 inches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13
That Apollo launch and mission sure was an adventure of adapt,
overcome, and so on.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
You cannot write a contingency plan for every situation. Can't
expect
a plan to cover every set of circumstances. Didn't NASA save the
Apollo with a improvised brainstorm?

Yeah, sure, Apollo 13. Saved the lives of 3 men, who knowingly and
willingly embarked on a voyage positively fraught with danger. Not a
good analogy. Risk vs. reward is a real-world concept. Given the level
of risk involved, I'd say BP had the responsibility to write a
contingency plan for every possible complication that had a better
than
1 in a million chance of materializing. And I'd say they failed,
willfully taking risks far greater than that, with no plan B.

On May 23, 3:16*am, aemeijers wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*Oren wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:04:34 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
dpb wrote:

This beating up on BP is simply populist Monday-morning qb'ing for the
consumption of the press and populace.
Huh? As far as I'm concerned, they ****ed up. They should not have been
doing something that entailed risk, without a plan for dealing with any
problem that might arise. It's really just that damn simple.
You cannot write a contingency plan for every situation. Can't expect
a plan to cover every set of circumstances. *Didn't NASA save the
Apollo with a improvised brainstorm?

Yeah, sure, Apollo 13. Saved the lives of 3 men, who knowingly and
willingly embarked on a voyage positively fraught with danger. Not a
good analogy. Risk vs. reward is a real-world concept. Given the level
of risk involved, I'd say BP had the responsibility to write a
contingency plan for every possible complication that had a better than
1 in a million chance of materializing. And I'd say they failed,
willfully taking risks far greater than that, with no plan B.

Trouble is, with any complex system, you never know all the ways
something can go wrong. Sometimes, things that are trivial taken
individually, when they happen at the same time, cause catastrophic
failure. Not saying BP and the various subs did everything correctly
this time (obviously), but there is a certain amount of risk that you
can never plan for.

As described in a previous message, it looks like the failure this time
was too many cooks in the kitchen, with no one person on-site that had
the whole thing in their head, with the authority to force a production
hold. (Kinda like what killed Challenger...) Knowing a blowout preventer
had failed, strongly suspecting the inflatable 'doughnut' that kept the
mud from blowing back had failed, and then attempting to use a fast
(dry) way to pull the drill shaft back out, all combined to create a
2+2=5 situation. They ran it like a drilling operation on land or in
shallow water, when it needed to be run like a space shot or deep dive
operation. I'm obviously no expert on deep ocean drilling- that is just
my take from published news reports. And wasn't this the deepest anyone
had tried to do a wellhead?



No. The world record was set by the same rig some months before on
another well. But it doesn't really matter, it was still a very deep
well.

Regarding the overall situation and who is to blame, there is
certainly plenty to spread around. While you can't predict every
possible failure mechanism, one would think you would have a plan to
effectively deal with the aftermath that works. BP did file such a
plan, claiming it was capable of cleaning up, containing, and dealing
with a leak that was huge, with most saying it was many times larger
than this actual one. Obviously, the plan didn't work. It will be
interesting to see exactly how much capability they really did have in
place prior to the accident.

I would also add the EPA and which ever agency issues leases, Dept of
the Interior?, to the list of those responsible. For years everyone
has been concerned about the dangers of oil spills in the ocean from a
variety of possible sources, eg pipeline leaks, tankers, oil well
accidents, etc. It's not something new. Yet, just a few days ago
the EPA ordered BP to prove that there is not a more environmentally
safe dispersant available to use and if there is a better one to start
using it. WTF? The EPA has a budget of what? 50bil? And they
don't know what dispersants are environmentally safe to use in the
ocean? And this latest fiasco came two weeks after EPA ordered BP
to stop using the dispersant because they thought it was doing more
harm than good. Later, apparently they reversed that decision, only
to bring it up again now.

Then we have the genius Admiral of the Coast Guard, who when asked why
they didn't immediately start burning the oil, said that he was
following a plan written many years ago that said you could only burn
if the winds were coming offshore so as not to possibly generate
onshore air pollution. WTF? Why didn't he get on the phone with
Nepolitano or Obama and get this obvious nonsense overidden on an
emergency basis.

What about all the Congressmen and Senators that have oversight on
this, including the ones that always bitch about the potential for
disaster? Did they do anything to make sure that the drilling that
was being done was done to safe standards? Along those lines, it
seems to me a reasonable thing that should have been done was somthing
along the lines of the EPA superfund where they taxed all the chemical
companies to establish a fund for environmental cleanup. Before
issuing any leases, the govt could have required that the drillers all
contribute to an entity created to be available to respond quicky and
effectively to ANY oil spill. They could also require oil shipping
companies to contribute. Said entity would not only have all the
necessary eqpt on hand to respond instantly to any accident, but would
also do research to establish best practices to deal with such
situations. Then, we wouldn't have BP looking on Google for safe and
effective dispersants.

Oren wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:04:34 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
dpb wrote:

This beating up on BP is simply populist Monday-morning qb'ing for the
consumption of the press and populace.
Huh? As far as I'm concerned, they ****ed up. They should not have been
doing something that entailed risk, without a plan for dealing with any
problem that might arise. It's really just that damn simple.

You cannot write a contingency plan for every situation. Can't expect
a plan to cover every set of circumstances. Didn't NASA save the
Apollo with a improvised brainstorm?

CAN'T write a contingency plan for every situation? Hell, how about
"What do we do when the pipe breaks one mile down?" I hope I live long
enough to witness the hearings where the oil guys are asked "Did you
ever discuss what corrective action would be taken if you opened a
gusher on the bottom of the ocean a mile down?"

BP HAD a contingency plan and fought to NOT follow it whilst the rig was
still on top of the water. They violated their own safety procedure to
save time and money. Apollo? Apollo didn't have the potential for
ruining an ocean, and the flyboys did what they did because they were
risk-takers.

On May 23, 6:38*am, "
wrote:
Oren wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:04:34 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
dpb wrote:

This beating up on BP is simply populist Monday-morning qb'ing for the
consumption of the press and populace.
Huh? As far as I'm concerned, they ****ed up. They should not have been
doing something that entailed risk, without a plan for dealing with any
problem that might arise. It's really just that damn simple.

You cannot write a contingency plan for every situation. Can't expect
a plan to cover every set of circumstances. *Didn't NASA save the
Apollo with a improvised brainstorm?

CAN'T write a contingency plan for every situation? *Hell, how about
"What do we do when the pipe breaks one mile down?" *I hope I live long
enough to witness the hearings where the oil guys are asked "Did you
ever discuss what corrective action would be taken if you opened a
gusher on the bottom of the ocean a mile down?"

BP HAD a contingency plan and fought to NOT follow it whilst the rig was
still on top of the water. *They violated their own safety procedure to
save time and money. *Apollo? *Apollo didn't have the potential for
ruining an ocean, and the flyboys did what they did because they were
risk-takers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I thought the report was that they did have that contingency - a 'blow-
out preventer'. Something went wrong with it however.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
On May 23, 6:38 am, "
wrote:
Oren wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:04:34 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:
In article ,
dpb wrote:
This beating up on BP is simply populist Monday-morning qb'ing for the
consumption of the press and populace.
Huh? As far as I'm concerned, they ****ed up. They should not have been
doing something that entailed risk, without a plan for dealing with any
problem that might arise. It's really just that damn simple.
You cannot write a contingency plan for every situation. Can't expect
a plan to cover every set of circumstances. Didn't NASA save the
Apollo with a improvised brainstorm?
CAN'T write a contingency plan for every situation? Hell, how about
"What do we do when the pipe breaks one mile down?" I hope I live long
enough to witness the hearings where the oil guys are asked "Did you
ever discuss what corrective action would be taken if you opened a
gusher on the bottom of the ocean a mile down?"

BP HAD a contingency plan and fought to NOT follow it whilst the rig was
still on top of the water. They violated their own safety procedure to
save time and money. Apollo? Apollo didn't have the potential for
ruining an ocean, and the flyboys did what they did because they were
risk-takers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I thought the report was that they did have that contingency - a 'blow-
out preventer'. Something went wrong with it however.

Harry K

As I understand it, the "mud" that is used to fill the pipe was pumped
out. The mud helped maintain proper pressure. Increasing pressure
damaged some kind of rubber seal. Someone noticed rubber particles in
whatever was being pumped out and brought it to the attention of ? That
was the beginning, and I think the pressure problem is what allowed the
gas to escape. The BOP was part of a solution, but obviously there was
no plan for "what if the BOP battery dies and the whole rig blows up?".
If I was pumping gas from the bottom of the ocean, I'd kind of wonder
what to do when the pipe breaks down at the bottom.

On May 23, 6:57*am, "
wrote:
Harry K wrote:
On May 23, 6:38 am, "
wrote:
Oren wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:04:34 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:
In article ,
dpb wrote:
This beating up on BP is simply populist Monday-morning qb'ing for the
consumption of the press and populace.
Huh? As far as I'm concerned, they ****ed up. They should not have been
doing something that entailed risk, without a plan for dealing with any
problem that might arise. It's really just that damn simple.
You cannot write a contingency plan for every situation. Can't expect
a plan to cover every set of circumstances. *Didn't NASA save the
Apollo with a improvised brainstorm?
CAN'T write a contingency plan for every situation? *Hell, how about
"What do we do when the pipe breaks one mile down?" *I hope I live long
enough to witness the hearings where the oil guys are asked "Did you
ever discuss what corrective action would be taken if you opened a
gusher on the bottom of the ocean a mile down?"

BP HAD a contingency plan and fought to NOT follow it whilst the rig was
still on top of the water. *They violated their own safety procedure to
save time and money. *Apollo? *Apollo didn't have the potential for
ruining an ocean, and the flyboys did what they did because they were
risk-takers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I thought the report was that they did have that contingency - a 'blow-
out preventer'. *Something went wrong with it however.

Harry K

As I understand it, the "mud" that is used to fill the pipe was pumped
out. *The mud helped maintain proper pressure. *Increasing pressure
damaged some kind of rubber seal. *Someone noticed rubber particles in
whatever was being pumped out and brought it to the attention of ? *That
was the beginning, and I think the pressure problem is what allowed the
gas to escape. *The BOP was part of a solution, but obviously there was
no plan for "what if the BOP battery dies and the whole rig blows up?".
If I was pumping gas from the bottom of the ocean, I'd kind of wonder
what to do when the pipe breaks down at the bottom.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

IIANM the BOP is installed where the well surfaces...in this case way
down there on the bottom.

Harry K

On May 22, 3:34�pm, "
wrote:
wrote:
On May 21, 4:18 pm, terry wrote:
On May 21, 5:18 pm, "basilisk" wrote:

"Hustlin' Hank" wrote in message
....
On May 21, 8:44?am, "basilisk" wrote:
I think the real problem is overcoming the 760,000 pounds of
force to insert the plug.
22 inch pipe at 2000 estimated psi.
basilisk-
I thought the pipe was much smaller, like 4-6". I also think the
outside forces (forces exerted on an object at 6000ft below sea level)
are somewhere around 6K psi. I don't think the pressure inside the
pipe is quite as high as you guess. On another factor is the weight of
the water IF it were contained in a pipe to the surface. Anyway, the
oil is normally PUMPED out of the well because the pressure in the
well is unable to overcome the lift required to bring it to the
surface.
Since it is ruptured, it is flowing out at a minimum pressure and then
surfacing.
That is the way I understand it, but I could be wrong in many ways.
Hank
I got the pipe size and psi from news reports, but TV news reports
aren't noted for their accuracy, who knows?
basilisk
Well a 20 inch plug has an area of around 310 square inches. Pi x R
squared!
The pressure of the oil and �gas coming out of the broken well must be
considerable in water of a depth of say 5000 feet. Many times
atmospheric pressure anyway lets say it's only a 1000 pounds per
square inch? (That's way too conservative by the way).

So with a pressure of around 300,000 pounds on the plug it's not the
kind of thing where you hold it in place with one hand while
tightening the expanding bolt with the other hand. All while kneeling
on the basement or kitchen floor!

It's not the absolute pressure that matters. �It's the relative
pressure difference between the well and the water at the bottom of
the sea.

I'm puzzled that BP...BRITISH Petroleum...hasn't gotten any flak from
the British gov't., or the Brit's from the US. �At least I haven't heard
of it. �Is the gusher in international waters? �How far out are US, or
state waters?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BP had subcontracted the job to a Swiss firm.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051302007.html

The progress of the disaster is being minutely followed by the media
over here in the UK.

On May 22, 8:04�pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,

�dpb wrote:
This beating up on BP is simply populist Monday-morning qb'ing for the
consumption of the press and populace.

Huh? As far as I'm concerned, they ****ed up. They should not have been
doing something that entailed risk, without a plan for dealing with any
problem that might arise. It's really just that damn simple.

This operation is right on the edge of what's technically possible, so
increasing the chances of complete f**k up like this one.

wrote:

Regarding the overall situation and who is to blame, there is
certainly plenty to spread around. While you can't predict every
possible failure mechanism, one would think you would have a plan to
effectively deal with the aftermath that works. BP did file such a
plan, claiming it was capable of cleaning up, containing, and dealing
with a leak that was huge, with most saying it was many times larger
than this actual one. Obviously, the plan didn't work. It will be
interesting to see exactly how much capability they really did have in
place prior to the accident.


Not necessarily.

After 9-11, the FAA and other government agencies said "We need a plan in
case another hijacking like this occurs."

After due deliberation by all the stake holders, you won't believe what they
came up with.

They concluded that the best plan was no plan at all, that the experts on
the scene and in control could devise an ad hoc response far better than any
pre-programmed response.

You may remember the movie about the attack. At some point, after at least
two buildings were hit, the head of the FAA asked: "How many aircraft aloft
over CONUS?"

"About forty-eight hundred," came the response.

"Okay. This **** stops right now. I want ATC-Zero nationwide."

"That's never been done! You can't do that!"

"I just did. Make it happen. Everything in the air is to land at the nearest
airport."

On Sat, 22 May 2010 20:44:14 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

Given the level
of risk involved, I'd say BP had the responsibility to write a
contingency plan for every possible complication that had a better than
1 in a million chance of materializing. And I'd say they failed,
willfully taking risks far greater than that, with no plan B.

The Contingency Plans, at work years ago had a Disclaimer:

(paraphrasing)

"These plans are not expected to cover every situation that might
arise. Common sense must be used."

Example: As a guest tenant agency on an military base plans, were
given to the military for review and comment, then approved so they
could go to Washington, D.C.

On September 11, 2001, the base went to DEFCON 3. Certainly not part
of our CP.

We had plans for say, 12 hour shifts. But never "pack a suitcase for
three days".

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
dpb wrote:

This beating up on BP is simply populist Monday-morning qb'ing for
the consumption of the press and populace.

Huh? As far as I'm concerned, they ****ed up. They should not have
been doing something that entailed risk, without a plan for dealing
with any problem that might arise. It's really just that damn simple.

And they were violating their own rules and procedures. Rubber chunks of the
blowout preventer came up the pipe, and they ignored it. They removed the mud
before sealing the well. And on and on.......