Oilpocalypse Thread

Oilpocalypse: Divers' underwater video of BP oil spill disaster

So, your thoughts about the recent oil leak?

An interesting, common and even hilarious, solution:
Oil Removal - It's As Simple As Hay
CWRoberts Presentation - Easy Oil Spill Fix Common Southern Hay

Still, waves, currents... storms? Wouldn't they have an effect on such simple experimental solutions?

And now, a little f-bomb (profanity warning! ;-P)
BP Fails F*cking Booming School 101

Edited by: feillyne

Recent?

Recent!
Current! Latest!

;-P

Anyway, are we waiting for underground blowouts now? O.o

Edited by: feillyne

"BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles continues to insist no massive underwater oil plumes in 'large concentrations' have been detected from the spill in the Gulf of Mexico"

ive seen a live stream of the leak..and no oil plume? he must have gotten oil in his eyes because the leak was massive :/

Theonion.com

lol, just because the ocean has alot of water doesn't mean its not dangerous >_>
and i don't know, but if a tankers impact on the environment is devastating (if it sinks and it breaches its tanks) then this should be indeed the apocalypse :/

That hay is a great idea.

BP is ridiculous... using oil itself is becoming ridiculous. I understand back in the day... but we can't continue to burn things for energy.

()()seen this over on polycount:

Edited by: NGS616

I really don't understand why this leak has been going for 50 days ...

If i could physically reach it with scuba gear ... give me a ball valve, some bolts and nuts, two adjustable wrenches, (and possibly thermite depending on how well the ball valve can seal) and I could have this thing sealed in probably less than an hour ...

There is a fucking flange fitting right below the leak ... unbolt the damaged section of pipe ... slip the new ball valve over the leak while its open, then bolt the valve onto the pipe and close it ...

Even if they have to have a robot do it, it shouldn't of take 50 days to do it >_> ...

Assaultman67 wrote: I really don't understand why this leak has been going for 50 days ...

If i could physically reach it with scuba gear ... give me a ball valve, some bolts and nuts, two adjustable wrenches, (and possibly thermite depending on how well the ball valve can seal) and I could have this thing sealed in probably less than an hour ...

There is a fucking flange fitting right below the leak ... unbolt the damaged section of pipe ... slip the new ball valve over the leak while its open, then bolt the valve onto the pipe and close it ...

Even if they have to have a robot do it, it shouldn't of take 50 days to do it >_> ...

I heard that if they did that, it would stop the flow of oil and that would cost BP money.

All I can say is "LET OUR POWERS COMBINE!".

lol

korge wrote:

Assaultman67 wrote: I really don't understand why this leak has been going for 50 days ...

If i could physically reach it with scuba gear ... give me a ball valve, some bolts and nuts, two adjustable wrenches, (and possibly thermite depending on how well the ball valve can seal) and I could have this thing sealed in probably less than an hour ...

There is a fucking flange fitting right below the leak ... unbolt the damaged section of pipe ... slip the new ball valve over the leak while its open, then bolt the valve onto the pipe and close it ...

Even if they have to have a robot do it, it shouldn't of take 50 days to do it >_> ...

I heard that if they did that, it would stop the flow of oil and that would cost BP money.

oooh big deal :/ it SHOULD cost them money, they SHOULD pay for what they have done

on another note, they can't reach it with scuba gear :p
and yeah, it shouldn't take 50 days to fix it :/ they probably just don't care what they are doing to the sea >_>

Sigma wrote: ... on another note, they can't reach it with scuba gear :p
and yeah, it shouldn't take 50 days to fix it :/ they probably just don't care what they are doing to the sea >_>

I know they cant reach it with scuba gear ... but a robot or a minisub with a couple of attachments would probably work fine ...

I'm not going to even bother posting something indepth here, but my general take?

Due to how the incident happened - a methane bubble which burst through several valves, and barriers - the chances of this happening with this equipment which is generally somewhere close to 99% fail safe is minute. We're talking 1/100,000 here.

Those that are arguing it should be so much easier to stem it.. Tell me, how easy is it to replace the piping on a tap, while its on at full power?

--

Iron Wolf Studios

Due to how the incident happened - a methane bubble which burst through several valves, and barriers - the chances of this happening with this equipment which is generally somewhere close to 99% fail safe is minute. We're talking 1/100,000 here.

Maybe, if the equipment was in perfect working order and standard procedures were being followed.
Edition.cnn.com
Nytimes.com
Chron.com
Energycommerce.house.gov
Sounds a lot more preventable. The odds of it occuring randomly may be low in the ideal world, but when you're getting warning signs from your equipment and cutting corners that keeps this kind of thing down, it's less random and more I told you so.

Squiggers wrote: I'm not going to even bother posting something indepth here, but my general take?

Due to how the incident happened - a methane bubble which burst through several valves, and barriers - the chances of this happening with this equipment which is generally somewhere close to 99% fail safe is minute. We're talking 1/100,000 here.

Those that are arguing it should be so much easier to stem it.. Tell me, how easy is it to replace the piping on a tap, while its on at full power?

If you try to cap the end off while its going then yes you are going to have a problem (maybe, you could try bolting one hole on the flange and swinging it shut, but that would be a mess and may damage the flange or shear the bolt due to pressure) ... You cannot do it because you are redirecting that flow which causes a reactionary force that pushes that cap away ...

However, if you were to put a valve on it (like the one seen below this sentence) ... specifically a ball valve (since they're designed not to disrupt flow when open.) You make the task MUCH easier because the oil isn't pushing as significantly on the valve when you are bolting it on ... its passing through the open valve.

All you would have to do is unbolt the damaged section of pipe at the flange, lower the ball valve onto the flange with the valve in the open position, bolt the valve on tight and then close the valve and weld that fucker shut

If it doesn't completely stop the leak it would still slow it down considerably enough that you could weld seams around the other end of the valve and around the handle shut.

The saddest part is that they probably already have valves in stock that would work for these pipes ...

But hey, lets lower a box over it ... that didn't work? Really? ... ok well let's jam some crap down into the pipe ...

Are these guys fucking five?

Edited by: Assaultman67

I've heard that the owner of BP has so far spent around £320 million controlling the spill (this was around a week ago).
Wow, £320 MILLION?!
Really out of pocket now
The thing is, is that with this £320 million he's spending, he's hardly creating the quickest clean-up known to man.

Controlling the spill, or the publicity around it?

Not sure to be honest. I presume both.
The article I read just said that he's spent that money on the spill.
So that implies to me that it's everything to do with the spill?

Everything to do with the spill - including the publicity. LOL!

They spend $1 cleaning it up and then spend $9 dollars letting people know they spent $1 cleaning it up ...

leeswim247 wrote: Wow, £320 MILLION?!

correction, ONLY 320mil?
they should spend everything they have, its a disaster for the environment :/ they shouldn't payed their stockholders 3 billion, they should have put that money into fixing the leak :/

Awesome joke I heard:
American scientists have finally developed a car that runs on water!
Sadly, so far it only works with the water from the Gulf of Mexico.

Fair argument Cryrid and Assaultman67 - you've beaten me on those counts. In regards to the money and solutions being used, theres not many better ones. That said, in comparison to older disasters of this type, the spill has continued for some 5-7 months before, and its due to the fact there aren't contingency plans in place - its assumed that this accident is so rare it doesn't matter as much.

That said, I do question how far the Obama Administration is able to push the line that its completely and utterly BP's fault in the matter. The fact that TransOcean (An American company..) has escaped any blame does seem quite puzzling to say the least.

US hypocrisy in regards to industrial accidents like this does make me cringe however - especially considering US involvement in a certain industrial accident in India which killed 3000 outright, and caused disability in some 100,000 if I remember the figures correctly. Funnily enough there wasn't so much pressure to do much about it then. The fact is, the rig received a top safety award a matter of months before - perhaps the legislation about drilling needs to be tightened then.

Personally? I admit that BP is partially to blame. But then so is TransOcean, and the Obama Administration for not regulating the industry more tightly. Or maybe I'm just too used to the interfering government that we've had in the UK for the last 12 years that is finally being dealt with.

Sigma wrote:

leeswim247 wrote: Wow, £320 MILLION?!

correction, ONLY 320mil?
they should spend everything they have, its a disaster for the environment :/ they shouldn't payed their stockholders 3 billion, they should have put that money into fixing the leak :/

You are aware that their shareprice has nearly halved since the accident? And they are actually obligated to pay the stockholders a certain amount, so... its unfortunately that old thing about money could be better spent elsewhere. Common thing with the UK government - massive bonuses paid out to civil servants, but its allright, as its not from the Afghanistan operational budget...

Its not ideal, but 320 million is still quite a lot of money you know?

Edited by: Squiggers

Squiggers wrote: That said, I do question how far the Obama Administration is able to push the line that its completely and utterly BP's fault in the matter. The fact that TransOcean (An American company..) has escaped any blame does seem quite puzzling to say the least...

Im curious about TransOcean ... i really haven't heard that side of the story (infact this is the first time i heard "TransOcean" mentioned )

so, a belgian company who is a expert at deep waterlevel workings and things like that, offered to help
they got denied because their boats where not american made >_>