Ok, what's wrong with this plan to reduce (not stop) the oil from
flowing until the relief wells are drilled?

They apparently can use a saw to cut the pipe. Apparently the saw
blade is such that the pressure doesn't bend the blade too much while
cutting thru. They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to the shape of
the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow? Sorta like a gate valve.
This alone would reduce the amount of flow by as much as 50%+, and
possibly reducing the pressure, then use the cap to collect even more.

I know there are some smart people on here, so, what am I missing?

Hank

"Hustlin' Hank" wrote:

Ok, what's wrong with this plan to reduce (not stop) the oil from
flowing until the relief wells are drilled?

They apparently can use a saw to cut the pipe. Apparently the saw
blade is such that the pressure doesn't bend the blade too much while
cutting thru. They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to the shape of
the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow? Sorta like a gate valve.
This alone would reduce the amount of flow by as much as 50%+, and
possibly reducing the pressure, then use the cap to collect even more.

I know there are some smart people on here, so, what am I missing?

It sounds workable to me. . . but. . . . It appears that they are
afraid to *stop* the flow. I don't know if that is corporate greed,
or fear that if they *plug* this hole the well pressure could blow a
totally unstoppable hole someplace else.
[BTW- I know as little or less than you about the whole deal- just
what I've seen and read in the last 2 months]

Jim
[watched the debut of HBOs Gasland last night & I'm not sure natural
gas is the perfect answer as it once looked to me]

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"Hustlin' Hank" wrote:

Ok, what's wrong with this plan to reduce (not stop) the oil from
flowing until the relief wells are drilled?

....
... They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to the shape of
the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow? Sorta like a gate valve.
This alone would reduce the amount of flow by as much as 50%+, and
possibly reducing the pressure, then use the cap to collect even more.

I know there are some smart people on here, so, what am I missing?

It sounds workable to me. . . but. . . . It appears that they are
afraid to *stop* the flow. I don't know if that is corporate greed,
or fear that if they *plug* this hole the well pressure could blow a
totally unstoppable hole someplace else.
[BTW- I know as little or less than you about the whole deal- just
what I've seen and read in the last 2 months]

There are downhole leaks as well already; major contributing reason the
"top kill" didn't work was couldn't put enough mud down fast enough to
overcome it coming out elsewhere.
....

[watched the debut of HBOs Gasland last night & I'm not sure natural
gas is the perfect answer as it once looked to me]

Indeed using NG for major oil replacement is, indeed, very short-sighted
use of that resource imo (as I've commented here numerous times ere this...)

--

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:
?

It sounds workable to me. . . but. . . . It appears that they are
afraid to *stop* the flow. I don't know if that is corporate greed,
or fear that if they *plug* this hole the well pressure could blow a
totally unstoppable hole someplace else.
The first couple of rounds was trying to stop the flow. Remember
they were trying to cap it. Current attempt at a solution is to drill
and then cap relief wells to stop it. The main head was just so shredded
that capping it wasn't an option.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to
the shape of the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow?

A week after the sinking of the rig, I was wondering why they didn't
pinch the pipe shut somewhere close to the well-head (maybe 10 or 20
feet from the well head) just to stop the flow and give them time to
figure out their next move. I posted this on another newsgroup, and
someone else figured out the pressures required - 435 tons (apparently
the pipe is 21" diameter and 1" thick wall). The pressures required
were within the capability of the remote equipment that they can send
down there.

And ever since there was talk about drilling relief wells, I'm wondering
why these wells need to be drilled so far away from the site of this
dammages well head. You'd think that it would be easier and faster to
drill a relief well maybe a few hundred yards, or up to 1/4 mile away
from the dammaged well.

See also:

http://www.rigzone.com/training/insi..._id=304&c_id=1

Hustlin' Hank wrote:
Ok, what's wrong with this plan to reduce (not stop) the oil from
flowing until the relief wells are drilled?

They apparently can use a saw to cut the pipe. Apparently the saw
blade is such that the pressure doesn't bend the blade too much while
cutting thru. They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to the shape of
the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow? Sorta like a gate valve.
This alone would reduce the amount of flow by as much as 50%+, and
possibly reducing the pressure, then use the cap to collect even more.

I know there are some smart people on here, so, what am I missing?

Hank


They could put a big cork on the end of a torpedo and fire it into the well.

--
LSMFT

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

In article , Some Guy wrote:

They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to
the shape of the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow?

A week after the sinking of the rig, I was wondering why they didn't
pinch the pipe shut somewhere close to the well-head (maybe 10 or 20
feet from the well head) just to stop the flow and give them time to
figure out their next move. I posted this on another newsgroup, and
someone else figured out the pressures required - 435 tons (apparently
the pipe is 21" diameter and 1" thick wall). The pressures required
were within the capability of the remote equipment that they can send
down there.


Which is only part of the equation. In order to pinch it off, you
not only have to apply enough pressure to pinch off the pipe, but also
enough to overcome the pressure of the stuff running out. MUCH more to
work against that.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Hustlin' Hank wrote:
Ok, what's wrong with this plan to reduce (not stop) the oil from
flowing until the relief wells are drilled?

They apparently can use a saw to cut the pipe. Apparently the saw
blade is such that the pressure doesn't bend the blade too much while
cutting thru. They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to the shape of
the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow? Sorta like a gate valve.
This alone would reduce the amount of flow by as much as 50%+, and
possibly reducing the pressure, then use the cap to collect even more.

I know there are some smart people on here, so, what am I missing?

Hank

The story as I understand it is that if the flow was completely shut
off, it would cause the well to rupture at a different point. Never
expected that I would begin to understand how oil wells work...I thought
ya' just drill a big hole and yell "gusher" )

Hustlin' Hank wrote:
Ok, what's wrong with this plan to reduce (not stop) the oil from
flowing until the relief wells are drilled?

They apparently can use a saw to cut the pipe. Apparently the saw
blade is such that the pressure doesn't bend the blade too much while
cutting thru. They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to the shape of
the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow? Sorta like a gate valve.
This alone would reduce the amount of flow by as much as 50%+, and
possibly reducing the pressure, then use the cap to collect even more.

I know there are some smart people on here, so, what am I missing?

Hank

My solution for capturing the oil is to make a huge tank, like a hot air
balloon...have no idea of a flexible material that might hold oil. Said
balloon has a heavy lead or concrete ring at the base and the ring is
lowered over the pipe. "Balloon" fills with oil, rises to surface and
is captured. It can have a flexible valve, like a heart valve, to
prevent outflow. Line them up and keep filling them until the relief
wells are done.

dpb wrote:
Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"Hustlin' Hank" wrote:

Ok, what's wrong with this plan to reduce (not stop) the oil from
flowing until the relief wells are drilled?

...
... They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to the shape of
the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow? Sorta like a gate valve.
This alone would reduce the amount of flow by as much as 50%+, and
possibly reducing the pressure, then use the cap to collect even more.

I know there are some smart people on here, so, what am I missing?

It sounds workable to me. . . but. . . . It appears that they are
afraid to *stop* the flow. I don't know if that is corporate greed,
or fear that if they *plug* this hole the well pressure could blow a
totally unstoppable hole someplace else.
[BTW- I know as little or less than you about the whole deal- just
what I've seen and read in the last 2 months]

There are downhole leaks as well already; major contributing reason the
"top kill" didn't work was couldn't put enough mud down fast enough to
overcome it coming out elsewhere.
...

[watched the debut of HBOs Gasland last night & I'm not sure natural
gas is the perfect answer as it once looked to me]

Indeed using NG for major oil replacement is, indeed, very short-sighted
use of that resource imo (as I've commented here numerous times ere
this...)

--
Florida could require everyone with a parking lot to cover parking areas
with solar panels on the roofs...cars last longer, free of sun damage,
and Florida sells the electricity.

Some Guy wrote:

And ever since there was talk about drilling relief wells, I'm
wondering why these wells need to be drilled so far away from the
site of this dammages well head. You'd think that it would be easier
and faster to drill a relief well maybe a few hundred yards, or up to
1/4 mile away from the dammaged well.


They've got 25,000 feet of 21" pipe piled up around the well. It kinda gets
in the way.

Plus, there may be some environmental regulation protecting the star-faced
mole (which doesn't actually HAVE a face) that they can't overcome.

Some Guy wrote:

They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to
the shape of the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow?

A week after the sinking of the rig, I was wondering why they didn't
pinch the pipe shut somewhere close to the well-head (maybe 10 or 20
feet from the well head) just to stop the flow and give them time to
figure out their next move. I posted this on another newsgroup, and
someone else figured out the pressures required - 435 tons (apparently
the pipe is 21" diameter and 1" thick wall). The pressures required
were within the capability of the remote equipment that they can send
down there.

Presumably this idea was rejected due to the risk of causing the well
casing to fail at some point below the sea bed and making the problem
even worse.


And ever since there was talk about drilling relief wells, I'm wondering
why these wells need to be drilled so far away from the site of this
dammages well head. You'd think that it would be easier and faster to
drill a relief well maybe a few hundred yards, or up to 1/4 mile away
from the dammaged well.

Two reasons for the distance:

- Room for the vessels and equipment to work over the well itself to try
to stop or contain the leak.
- Minimum turning radius that the equipment is capable of drilling at in
order to intersect the problem well.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , Some Guy wrote:

They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to
the shape of the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow?

A week after the sinking of the rig, I was wondering why they didn't
pinch the pipe shut somewhere close to the well-head (maybe 10 or 20
feet from the well head) just to stop the flow and give them time to
figure out their next move. I posted this on another newsgroup, and
someone else figured out the pressures required - 435 tons (apparently
the pipe is 21" diameter and 1" thick wall). The pressures required
were within the capability of the remote equipment that they can send
down there.


Which is only part of the equation. In order to pinch it off, you
not only have to apply enough pressure to pinch off the pipe, but also
enough to overcome the pressure of the stuff running out. MUCH more to
work against that.

Hydraulics scale easily. Constructing a rig capable of pinching a ~2'
dia pipe off with 1,000T of force or more wouldn't be a big deal.

HeyBub wrote:

Some Guy wrote:

And ever since there was talk about drilling relief wells, I'm
wondering why these wells need to be drilled so far away from the
site of this dammages well head. You'd think that it would be easier
and faster to drill a relief well maybe a few hundred yards, or up to
1/4 mile away from the dammaged well.


They've got 25,000 feet of 21" pipe piled up around the well. It kinda gets
in the way.

Plus, there may be some environmental regulation protecting the star-faced
mole (which doesn't actually HAVE a face) that they can't overcome.

More like 5,000 feet of pipe, and not that difficult to sling it with
the robots and haul it to the surface if it's a problem.

wrote:
Hustlin' Hank wrote:
Ok, what's wrong with this plan to reduce (not stop) the oil from
flowing until the relief wells are drilled?

They apparently can use a saw to cut the pipe. Apparently the saw
blade is such that the pressure doesn't bend the blade too much while
cutting thru. They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to the shape of
the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow? Sorta like a gate valve.
This alone would reduce the amount of flow by as much as 50%+, and
possibly reducing the pressure, then use the cap to collect even more.

I know there are some smart people on here, so, what am I missing?

Hank

The story as I understand it is that if the flow was completely shut
off, it would cause the well to rupture at a different point. Never
expected that I would begin to understand how oil wells work...I thought
ya' just drill a big hole and yell "gusher" )

So if the blowout preventer had shut it off it would have ruptured the
pipe? I don't think so.

--
LSMFT

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

"LSMFT" wrote in message
...
wrote:

stuff snipped

The story as I understand it is that if the flow was completely shut
off, it would cause the well to rupture at a different point. Never
expected that I would begin to understand how oil wells work...I thought
ya' just drill a big hole and yell "gusher" )

So if the blowout preventer had shut it off it would have ruptured the
pipe? I don't think so.

There's some evidence that BP used substandard piping that could indeed
rupture further down if the cap succeeds. I've read from more than one
source that at least some geologists fear that if that happens, oil could
begin coming up in places far from the well head. There's some video
evidence from some of the robot DSV's that this has already started
happening.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-sp...t_efforts.html
says:

"In a well of questionable design with a questionable cement job that's gone
through a major explosion, too much pressure on the well could trigger a
rupture, sending oil pushing through fissures in the rock of the ocean floor
and bubbling up through the seabed, where it can't be contained. That's why
BP abruptly stopped the "top kill" efforts to seal the well May 28 after the
company previously had said the procedure would continue for a few more
days. It's also why the company is continuing with efforts to contain the
oil flowing out of the well rather than seal the well outright by adding
another blowout preventer on top of the malfunctioning one. It's also one
reason why the containment cap that's currently capturing oil has vents in
the side that allow pressure to escape."

From what I've read the problem is strong concentrations of highly
pressurized methane gas coming up with the oil. Gas seeps far more easily
than crude, and "paves" openings for the crude to come up through fissures.
The reason that haven't been able to close it off quickly is that it's a
hell of a complicated problem happening way down in the inky, cold dark
water.

It's something I've experience doing home plumbing. Fix a leaky faucet and
the now increased pressure in the whole system forces another leak to appear
elsewhere.

Like the collapse of the WTC, when a disaster of this magnitude occurs, we
really don't have the expertise to deal with correctly from the start, but
we do tend to do a much better job the next time. This will happen again
but with the right tools on standby and ready to roll, the results won't be
as disastrous.

Bobby G.

wrote in message

stuff snipped

My solution for capturing the oil is to make a huge tank, like a hot air
balloon...have no idea of a flexible material that might hold oil. Said
balloon has a heavy lead or concrete ring at the base and the ring is
lowered over the pipe. "Balloon" fills with oil, rises to surface and
is captured. It can have a flexible valve, like a heart valve, to
prevent outflow. Line them up and keep filling them until the relief
wells are done.

That's not a bad idea at all. Might not be workable this time because no
one's got the giant condoms ready, but it could be a very effective solution
for the inevitable next deepwater disaster.

Didn't we learn anything when they drilled the world's deepest mine shaft on
the old B&W Superman TV show and those little bald guys came up the shaft
and starting shooting people with a raygun that took two of them to aim and
fire? (-:

--
Bobby G.

Pete C. wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Some Guy wrote:

And ever since there was talk about drilling relief wells, I'm
wondering why these wells need to be drilled so far away from the
site of this dammages well head. You'd think that it would be
easier and faster to drill a relief well maybe a few hundred yards,
or up to 1/4 mile away from the dammaged well.


They've got 25,000 feet of 21" pipe piled up around the well. It
kinda gets in the way.

Plus, there may be some environmental regulation protecting the
star-faced mole (which doesn't actually HAVE a face) that they can't
overcome.

More like 5,000 feet of pipe, and not that difficult to sling it with
the robots and haul it to the surface if it's a problem.

Thanks for the correction. Arthmetick wast neever my beast subjeckt.

On Jun 25, 8:11*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"LSMFT" wrote in message

...

wrote:

stuff snipped

The story as I understand it is that if the flow was completely shut
off, it would cause the well to rupture at a different point. Never
expected that I would begin to understand how oil wells work...I thought
ya' just drill a big hole and yell "gusher" )

So if the blowout preventer had shut it off it would have ruptured the
pipe? I don't think so.

There's some evidence that BP used substandard piping that could indeed
rupture further down if the cap succeeds. *I've read from more than one
source that at least some geologists fear that if that happens, oil could
begin coming up in places far from the well head. *There's some video
evidence from some of the robot DSV's that this has already started
happening.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-sp...06/oil_spill_c...
says:

"In a well of questionable design with a questionable cement job that's gone
through a major explosion, too much pressure on the well could trigger a
rupture, sending oil pushing through fissures in the rock of the ocean floor
and bubbling up through the seabed, where it can't be contained. That's why
BP abruptly stopped the "top kill" efforts to seal the well May 28 after the
company previously had said the procedure would continue for a few more
days. It's also why the company is continuing with efforts to contain the
oil flowing out of the well rather than seal the well outright by adding
another blowout preventer on top of the malfunctioning one. It's also one
reason why the containment cap that's currently capturing oil has vents in
the side that allow pressure to escape."

From what I've read the problem is strong concentrations of highly
pressurized methane gas coming up with the oil. *Gas seeps far more easily
than crude, and "paves" openings for the crude to come up through fissures.
The reason that haven't been able to close it off quickly is that it's a
hell of a complicated problem happening way down in the inky, cold dark
water.

It's something I've experience doing home plumbing. *Fix a leaky faucet and
the now increased pressure in the whole system forces another leak to appear
elsewhere.

Like the collapse of the WTC, when a disaster of this magnitude occurs, we
really don't have the expertise to deal with correctly from the start, but
we do tend to do a much better job the next time. *This will happen again
but with the right tools on standby and ready to roll, the results won't be
as disastrous.

Bobby G.

What's this "BP used substandard pipe". It was an American
organisation doing the drilling. The failed wellhead valve was made in
America too,(Haliburton)
And Obama gave permission to drill in deepwater in preference to
easier shallow sites.
And your own judicial system has deemed it OK to keep right on
drilling.
I think maybe you should try and hit the East coast of Florida now
you've destroyed the West coast. Kinda even things up.

On Jun 25, 12:20*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , Some Guy wrote:

They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to
the shape of the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow?

A week after the sinking of the rig, I was wondering why they didn't
pinch the pipe shut somewhere close to the well-head (maybe 10 or 20
feet from the well head) just to stop the flow and give them time to
figure out their next move. *I posted this on another newsgroup, and
someone else figured out the pressures required - 435 tons (apparently
the pipe is 21" diameter and 1" thick wall). *The pressures required
were within the capability of the remote equipment that they can send
down there.

* * *Which is only part of the equation. In order to pinch it off, you
not only have to apply enough pressure to pinch off the pipe, but also
enough to overcome the pressure of the stuff running out. *MUCH more to
work against that.

Hydraulics scale easily. Constructing a rig capable of pinching a ~2'
dia pipe off with 1,000T of force or more wouldn't be a big deal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's a good question why something like that can't be done. Which is
to say have a hydraulic device in two sections that secures around a
section of the pipe, then a piston gets pumped in from the side to
crush the casing. That is essentially how the blowout preventer is
supposed to work as a last resort. It's C shaped on one side, with a
piston on the other.

One obvious question is whether there is a clean section of casing
that is accessible? All I've seen are pics of the mangled end where
the oil is coming out. You could not attach a device like that there.

On Jun 26, 9:10*am, wrote:
On Jun 25, 12:20*pm, "Pete C." wrote:





Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , Some Guy wrote:

They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to
the shape of the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow?

A week after the sinking of the rig, I was wondering why they didn't
pinch the pipe shut somewhere close to the well-head (maybe 10 or 20
feet from the well head) just to stop the flow and give them time to
figure out their next move. *I posted this on another newsgroup, and
someone else figured out the pressures required - 435 tons (apparently
the pipe is 21" diameter and 1" thick wall). *The pressures required
were within the capability of the remote equipment that they can send
down there.

* * *Which is only part of the equation. In order to pinch it off, you
not only have to apply enough pressure to pinch off the pipe, but also
enough to overcome the pressure of the stuff running out. *MUCH more to
work against that.

Hydraulics scale easily. Constructing a rig capable of pinching a ~2'
dia pipe off with 1,000T of force or more wouldn't be a big deal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's a good question why something like that can't be done. * Which is
to say have a hydraulic device in two sections that secures around a
section of the pipe, then a piston gets pumped in from the side to
crush the casing. * That is essentially how the blowout preventer is
supposed to work as a last resort. *It's C shaped on one side, with a
piston on the other.

One obvious question is whether there is a clean section of casing
that is accessible? * All I've seen are pics of the mangled end where
the oil is coming out. *You could not attach a device like that there.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

currently the casing wasnt sealed properly with concrete, gross
neglience by BP.

Reports say if they try to seal it completely off the wells pressure
is so great it would just leak in other weak places and may bl;ow out
completely

On Jun 26, 2:48*pm, " wrote:
On Jun 26, 9:10*am, wrote:





On Jun 25, 12:20*pm, "Pete C." wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , Some Guy wrote:

They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to
the shape of the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow?

A week after the sinking of the rig, I was wondering why they didn't
pinch the pipe shut somewhere close to the well-head (maybe 10 or 20
feet from the well head) just to stop the flow and give them time to
figure out their next move. *I posted this on another newsgroup, and
someone else figured out the pressures required - 435 tons (apparently
the pipe is 21" diameter and 1" thick wall). *The pressures required
were within the capability of the remote equipment that they can send
down there.

* * *Which is only part of the equation. In order to pinch it off, you
not only have to apply enough pressure to pinch off the pipe, but also
enough to overcome the pressure of the stuff running out. *MUCH more to
work against that.

Hydraulics scale easily. Constructing a rig capable of pinching a ~2'
dia pipe off with 1,000T of force or more wouldn't be a big deal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's a good question why something like that can't be done. * Which is
to say have a hydraulic device in two sections that secures around a
section of the pipe, then a piston gets pumped in from the side to
crush the casing. * That is essentially how the blowout preventer is
supposed to work as a last resort. *It's C shaped on one side, with a
piston on the other.

One obvious question is whether there is a clean section of casing
that is accessible? * All I've seen are pics of the mangled end where
the oil is coming out. *You could not attach a device like that there..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

currently the casing wasnt sealed properly with concrete, gross
neglience by BP.

Reports say if they try to seal it completely off the wells pressure
is so great it would just leak in other weak places and may bl;ow out
completely- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gross negligence by Transocean, who were performing the work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transoc...try_reputation

"harry" wrote in message news:a8bd2b5a-f390-4029-875e-

stuff snipped

There's some evidence that BP used substandard piping that could indeed
rupture further down if the cap succeeds. I've read from more than one
source that at least some geologists fear that if that happens, oil could
begin coming up in places far from the well head. There's some video
evidence from some of the robot DSV's that this has already started
happening.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-sp...06/oil_spill_c...
says:

"In a well of questionable design with a questionable cement job that's
gone
through a major explosion, too much pressure on the well could trigger a
rupture, sending oil pushing through fissures in the rock of the ocean
floor
and bubbling up through the seabed, where it can't be contained. That's
why
BP abruptly stopped the "top kill" efforts to seal the well May 28 after
the
company previously had said the procedure would continue for a few more
days. It's also why the company is continuing with efforts to contain the
oil flowing out of the well rather than seal the well outright by adding
another blowout preventer on top of the malfunctioning one. It's also one
reason why the containment cap that's currently capturing oil has vents in
the side that allow pressure to escape."

From what I've read the problem is strong concentrations of highly
pressurized methane gas coming up with the oil. Gas seeps far more easily
than crude, and "paves" openings for the crude to come up through
fissures.
The reason that haven't been able to close it off quickly is that it's a
hell of a complicated problem happening way down in the inky, cold dark
water.

It's something I've experience doing home plumbing. Fix a leaky faucet and
the now increased pressure in the whole system forces another leak to
appear
elsewhere.

Like the collapse of the WTC, when a disaster of this magnitude occurs, we
really don't have the expertise to deal with correctly from the start, but
we do tend to do a much better job the next time. This will happen again
but with the right tools on standby and ready to roll, the results won't
be
as disastrous.

Bobby G.

What's this "BP used substandard pipe". It was an American
organisation doing the drilling. The failed wellhead valve was made in
America too,(Haliburton)

Guess what? I don't believe in the big business game of "subcontracting
your liability away".

BP was in charge, hired the subs and took the profits. If they hired
morons, whose work they didn't check, well, whose fault it that? Exxon?
Obama? Marvin the Martian? If you're a captain in the Navy and your
helmsman puts you up on the sandbar, you lose *your* command; the helmsman
just gets a bad report.

BP held the leases in their name and took the profit from the oil that came
out. The ultimate responsibility is theirs although I am sure a court will
attempt to apportion blame as well as possible.

There's plenty of case law on this. If Wal-mart hires a guard they fail to
train or supervise properly and he shoots a shoplifter to death with a gun
he wasn't supposed to have, Wal-mart is on the hook for big bucks.

It could easily end up that Federal leasing regulations change to forbid
subcontracting. It's the country's oil, and as such, the US has every right
to dictate how that oil is removed from the ground.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


What's this "BP used substandard pipe". It was an American
organisation doing the drilling. The failed wellhead valve was made in
America too,(Haliburton)

Guess what? I don't believe in the big business game of "subcontracting
your liability away".


Isn't a big business game, it is a long established principal
dating back into English common law. You apportion liability according
to amount of liability. If Halliburton was said in a court to have been
responsible for 50% of the damage they should have 50% of the liability.
Otherwise, there is no reason for Halliburton to do anything to limit
problems, since BP is going to be stuck with it,.

BP was in charge, hired the subs and took the profits. If they hired
morons, whose work they didn't check, well, whose fault it that? Exxon?
Obama? Marvin the Martian? If you're a captain in the Navy and your
helmsman puts you up on the sandbar, you lose *your* command; the helmsman
just gets a bad report.
Which, of course, is an internal Navy thing. Even in the Navy, that
has little or no impact on legal liability. BP could do the same thing,
too, and with the same amount of legal impact. Two completely different
worlds.


BP held the leases in their name and took the profit from the oil that came
out. The ultimate responsibility is theirs although I am sure a court will
attempt to apportion blame as well as possible.
As it should be.


It could easily end up that Federal leasing regulations change to forbid
subcontracting. It's the country's oil, and as such, the US has every right
to dictate how that oil is removed from the ground.
No way that is going to happen. No company is going to take on the
costs of the rigs. If it was profitable, then they would already being
doing it. The only that would accomplish is to drive ALL new exploration
somewhere else.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:08:22 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


What's this "BP used substandard pipe". It was an American
organisation doing the drilling. The failed wellhead valve was made in
America too,(Haliburton)

Guess what? I don't believe in the big business game of "subcontracting
your liability away".


Isn't a big business game, it is a long established principal
dating back into English common law. You apportion liability according
to amount of liability. If Halliburton was said in a court to have been
responsible for 50% of the damage they should have 50% of the liability.
Otherwise, there is no reason for Halliburton to do anything to limit
problems, since BP is going to be stuck with it,.

Except when the courts find "joint and several" liability.

BP was in charge, hired the subs and took the profits. If they hired
morons, whose work they didn't check, well, whose fault it that? Exxon?
Obama? Marvin the Martian? If you're a captain in the Navy and your
helmsman puts you up on the sandbar, you lose *your* command; the helmsman
just gets a bad report.
Which, of course, is an internal Navy thing. Even in the Navy, that
has little or no impact on legal liability. BP could do the same thing,
too, and with the same amount of legal impact. Two completely different
worlds.


BP held the leases in their name and took the profit from the oil that came
out. The ultimate responsibility is theirs although I am sure a court will
attempt to apportion blame as well as possible.
As it should be.


It could easily end up that Federal leasing regulations change to forbid
subcontracting. It's the country's oil, and as such, the US has every right
to dictate how that oil is removed from the ground.
No way that is going to happen. No company is going to take on the
costs of the rigs. If it was profitable, then they would already being
doing it. The only that would accomplish is to drive ALL new exploration
somewhere else.

That's Obama's plan. Soros doesn't mind a bit.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

It's the country's oil, and as such, the US has every right
to dictate how that oil is removed from the ground.

Really? The well is in on the high seas. What makes the oil belong to
the U.S.?

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

It's the country's oil, and as such, the US has every right
to dictate how that oil is removed from the ground.

Really? The well is in on the high seas. What makes the oil belong to
the U.S.?

ISTR a 200-mile 'resources' thing being in a treaty or UN declaration or
something, a couple of decades back. As opposed to the traditional 3 or
12 mile limit for border control. Big Oil wouldn't have paid the front
money of all the details were not worked out about all that. Where 2
countries are closer than the standard, they sit across a table
somewhere and work out an agreement. I think there is even a line
between US and Cuba, that both countries honor.

--
aem sends...

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

It's the country's oil, and as such, the US has every right
to dictate how that oil is removed from the ground.

Really? The well is in on the high seas. What makes the oil belong to
the U.S.?

ISTR a 200-mile 'resources' thing being in a treaty or UN declaration or
something, a couple of decades back. As opposed to the traditional 3 or
12 mile limit for border control. Big Oil wouldn't have paid the front
money of all the details were not worked out about all that.

As a former VP candidate might say: "Ubetcha!"

Where 2
countries are closer than the standard, they sit across a table
somewhere and work out an agreement. I think there is even a line
between US and Cuba, that both countries honor.

--
aem sends...

Correctomundo!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone

Under the law of the sea, an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a seazone
over which a state has special rights over the exploration and use of marine
resources. It stretches from the seaward edge of the state's territorial sea
out to 200 nautical miles from its coast. In casual usage, the term may
include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf beyond the 200
mile limit.

The US could force BP to stand on its head and spit out wooden nickels as a
condition for recovering the oil if it so chose.

--
Bobby G.

On Jun 28, 5:12*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message

...

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*"Robert Green" wrote:

It's the country's oil, and as such, the US has every right
to dictate how that oil is removed from the ground.

Really? The well is in on the high seas. What makes the oil belong to
the U.S.?

ISTR a 200-mile 'resources' thing being in a treaty or UN declaration or
something, a couple of decades back. As opposed to the traditional 3 or
12 mile limit for border control. Big Oil wouldn't have paid the front
money of all the details were not worked out about all that.

As a former VP candidate might say: "Ubetcha!"

Where 2
countries are closer than the standard, they sit across a table
somewhere and work out an agreement. I think there is even a line
between US and Cuba, that both countries honor.

--
aem sends...

Correctomundo!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone

Under the law of the sea, an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a seazone
over which a state has special rights over the exploration and use of marine
resources. It stretches from the seaward edge of the state's territorial sea
out to 200 nautical miles from its coast. In casual usage, the term may
include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf beyond the 200
mile limit.

The US could force BP to stand on its head and spit out wooden nickels as a
condition for recovering the oil if it so chose.

--
Bobby G.

No the company BP needs to die! After having gone bankrupt and the
executives in charge who ordered cost cutting without regard to safety
need serious harsh prison time.

This will act as a reminder to other companies of safety comes before
profit

otherwise the next disaster might be a nuke accident where a power
plant makes a big area of the US uninhabitible to humans for 1000s of
years......

companies who are this big need to operate safely.

a bankrupt BP still has enough assets to pay off the claims.

ultimately the stock holders will get zip

On Jun 28, 8:37*am, wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:04:03 -0400, Some Guy wrote:
They could cut a slit into the pipe about 1/3 (more or
less) thru and then insert a metal plate configured to
the shape of the inside of the pipe to reduce the flow?

A week after the sinking of the rig, I was wondering why they didn't
pinch the pipe shut somewhere close to the well-head (maybe 10 or 20
feet from the well head) just to stop the flow and give them time to
figure out their next move. *I posted this on another newsgroup, and
someone else figured out the pressures required - 435 tons (apparently
the pipe is 21" diameter and 1" thick wall). *The pressures required
were within the capability of the remote equipment that they can send
down there.

And ever since there was talk about drilling relief wells, I'm wondering
why these wells need to be drilled so far away from the site of this
dammages well head. *You'd think that it would be easier and faster to
drill a relief well maybe a few hundred yards, or up to 1/4 mile away
from the dammaged well.

See also:

http://www.rigzone.com/training/insi..._id=304&c_id=1

And the releif wells will just become more leaks allowing 2 or 3 times
more oil into the ocean. *There is no way to stop this thing, period.
A year from now the oceans will be filled with pure oil and there will
be no life left in them. *As a result of the ocean filling with oil,
all the water will be forced upon the land and we will all drown. *We
have reached the end of life on planet earth and the planet will be
destroyed in short order. *Everyone of us will die in the next year or
so. *Man has continued to destroy this planet, and this time they have
succeeded. *Our lives are over and this planet will be anhilated soon.
There's no turning back anymore.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you one of these American religious nuts. The world is supposed
to end in fire........Oh, I see, the oil's gonna catch fire..

On Jun 27, 5:07*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message news:a8bd2b5a-f390-4029-875e-

stuff snipped







There's some evidence that BP used substandard piping that could indeed
rupture further down if the cap succeeds. I've read from more than one
source that at least some geologists fear that if that happens, oil could
begin coming up in places far from the well head. There's some video
evidence from some of the robot DSV's that this has already started
happening.
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-sp...06/oil_spill_c...
says:

"In a well of questionable design with a questionable cement job that's
gone
through a major explosion, too much pressure on the well could trigger a
rupture, sending oil pushing through fissures in the rock of the ocean
floor
and bubbling up through the seabed, where it can't be contained. That's
why
BP abruptly stopped the "top kill" efforts to seal the well May 28 after
the
company previously had said the procedure would continue for a few more
days. It's also why the company is continuing with efforts to contain the
oil flowing out of the well rather than seal the well outright by adding
another blowout preventer on top of the malfunctioning one. It's also one
reason why the containment cap that's currently capturing oil has vents in
the side that allow pressure to escape."

From what I've read the problem is strong concentrations of highly
pressurized methane gas coming up with the oil. Gas seeps far more easily
than crude, and "paves" openings for the crude to come up through
fissures.
The reason that haven't been able to close it off quickly is that it's a
hell of a complicated problem happening way down in the inky, cold dark
water.

It's something I've experience doing home plumbing. Fix a leaky faucet and
the now increased pressure in the whole system forces another leak to
appear
elsewhere.

Like the collapse of the WTC, when a disaster of this magnitude occurs, we
really don't have the expertise to deal with correctly from the start, but
we do tend to do a much better job the next time. This will happen again
but with the right tools on standby and ready to roll, the results won't
be
as disastrous.

Bobby G.

What's this "BP used substandard pipe". It was an American
organisation doing the drilling. The failed wellhead valve was made in
America too,(Haliburton)

Guess what? *I don't believe in the big business game of "subcontracting
your liability away".

BP was in charge, hired the subs and took the profits. *If they hired
morons, whose work they didn't check, well, whose fault it that? *Exxon?
Obama? *Marvin the Martian? *If you're a captain in the Navy and your
helmsman puts you up on the sandbar, you lose *your* command; *the helmsman
just gets a bad report.

BP held the leases in their name and took the profit from the oil that came
out. *The ultimate responsibility is theirs although I am sure a court will
attempt to apportion blame as well as possible.

There's plenty of case law on this. If Wal-mart hires a guard they fail to
train or supervise properly and he shoots a shoplifter to death with a gun
he wasn't supposed to have, Wal-mart is on the hook for big bucks.

It could easily end up that Federal leasing regulations change to forbid
subcontracting. *It's the country's oil, and as such, the US has every right
to dictate how that oil is removed from the ground.

--
Bobby G.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If I get in a taxi, I expect the driver to be insured and be
compentent. I don't expect the bill if the taxi breaks down or he runs
into a wall.
No-one will seize BP's assets. Big business in America won't allow it.
Just think of the precedents that would be set for them. We could
seize some asstes over here too to pay for the Torrey Canyon
disaster. Not going to happen.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 04:38:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

No the company BP needs to die! After having gone bankrupt and the
executives in charge who ordered cost cutting without regard to safety
need serious harsh prison time.

This will act as a reminder to other companies of safety comes before
profit

I've mentioned here before that white-collar crooks _don't do hard
time_. Bernie Madoff, currently housed in Butner, NC is in the Camp --
called "Camp Fluffy".

I worked at one Camp years ago called "Club Fed". Even had a T-shirt!

"I survived Club Fed"

On Jun 28, 10:49*pm, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 04:38:23 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
No the company BP needs to die! After having gone bankrupt and the
executives in charge who ordered cost cutting without regard to safety
need serious harsh prison time.

This will act as a reminder to other companies of safety comes before
profit

I've mentioned here before that white-collar crooks _don't do hard
time_. Bernie Madoff, currently housed in Butner, NC is in the Camp --
called "Camp Fluffy".

I worked at one Camp years ago called "Club Fed". Even had a T-shirt!

"I survived Club Fed"

What was the reason for you being there then? Are you a child
molester? Oh, I forgot, child molesters get killed in jails :-)