Ideas about how to stop the leak

[thebuttonpusher]

Here's what I've been able to come up with about a nuclear option. Scientists believe this could be the worst possible scenario. The glass that would be left to close the leak would crumble and leave a large hole. This would also let the oil leak have full throttle leakage with no way to plug it. Maybe the relief wells, but heres my question about that: If they couldn't stop the leak with junk and concrete at the well head, what makes them think they can stop it a few thousand feet deeper? How will they seal the connection? Will they then try and seal the hole at the wellhead? It all sounds a little far fetched. We can be assured that BP is looking out for their own interests and capping and abandoning this well most assuredly wouldn't be in their interest.-

Yeah it could blast a great big hole even making all 400 billion barrels come out all at once, that would really suck the Big FDD2BLK dick.

The relief wells are not being drilled so as to stop the first hole from leaking, the relief wells will RELIEVE the pressure from the initial hole so that it stops spewing so badly. Once the pressure is down they will kick on the pumps sucking the oil out and making the main hole act as a vaccum which can then be cemented in. The relief wells will actually be drilled INTO the existing hole that is there by coming from the sides. Basically they are going to maneuver the drill pipe and drill into a target the size of a dinner plate, it might not work the first few times although around these parts they drill much deeper but none of it is under water.

 

[hanimmal]

the nuclear option may be our only hope.

I heard a MIT physics professor answer about this, and it really doesn't seem like this will work on the bottom of the ocean.

The problem is that there is thousands of feet that is essentially mud at the bottom of the ocean. So it would not work like it did in Russia where they did it on land and the land shifts and squeezes the pipe shut. The nuke would push through the mud and just explode the pipe below the surface of the mud and that would most likely not stop the leak because it would burst through the mud like a oil volcano with no real point of origin. So then there would be no chance to stop it besides trying to figure out how to bore in mud for a few thousand feet, 5000 feet below the ocean surface.

 

[thebuttonpusher]

I heard a MIT physics professor answer about this, and it really doesn't seem like this will work on the bottom of the ocean.

The problem is that there is thousands of feet that is essentially mud at the bottom of the ocean. So it would not work like it did in Russia where they did it on land and the land shifts and squeezes the pipe shut. The nuke would push through the mud and just explode the pipe below the surface of the mud and that would most likely not stop the leak because it would burst through the mud like a oil volcano with no real point of origin. So then there would be no chance to stop it besides trying to figure out how to bore in mud for a few thousand feet, 5000 feet below the ocean surface.

the bottom of the ocean is NOT mud, its ROCK just like everything else the earth is made of. If it were just mud all the oil would have leaked out millions of years ago. there is mud there, but it most certainly isnt thousands of feet deep. Besides if it were just mud then they could drill the holes in a matter of a hours. Drilling through mud would go at the rate of as fast as they could connect the pipe together up top, and even i know for a fact that in 12 hours you can put more than 16,000 feet of pipe in the ground and take it all back out again. Ive done it.

http://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/02ocean/mgbottom.htm
You sure the guy was from MIT? What are they teaching over there about the ocean? I though it was about technology over there, or did MIT all of a sudden become a great oceanic school?

 

[hanimmal]

Besides if it were just mud then they could drill the holes in a matter of a hours. Drilling through mud would go at the rate of as fast as they could connect the pipe together up top, and even i know for a fact that in 12 hours you can put more than 16,000 feet of pipe in the ground and take it all back out again. Ive done it.

Was that on the ocean floor?

Pretty cool website though, I read through that page you linked and did learn a lot from it so thank you.

I am not sure if you caught this part though:

I checked for the biogenous zone and found this from a seismic test in the indian ocean which is a very similar type of ocean floor in the gulf according to that site you linked.



It looks like the sediment layers are about what 3ish kilometers thick? I think that is a few thousand feet right. I don't know this is not my field, but I am guessing it is like on land all the dirt (that is not hard solid rock) would just be a sludge, maybe very solid for most circumstances, but for a nuclear bomb may not give the same type of resistance that dry land would give due to the water reducing the friction.

I don't know much about this, and may have misheard but he definantly said that the bomb would most likely not work due to the bottom of the ocean being mud and thousands of feet may be wrong, but I am pretty sure that was what he had said. Regardless a MIT professor said that due to mud on the bottom of the ocean floor, I thought that would be pertinent to what you were thinking and that you may want to hear it. I guess I was wrong, and you would not like to hear something that someone who had addressed the issue in an educated manner had said.

 

[hanimmal]

Never mind I think that I was right according to this pic.

 

[thebuttonpusher]

Never mind I think that I was right according to this pic.

So 95% is 3 meters or less and that means you were right? No! It means you were WRONG!!!! Besides the Gulf part shows nothing, so I must assume there is none.

Sedimentary BUILDUP is not mud, it is VERY HARD Sediment that has built up over thousands of years, just like earths crust, eventually it becomes just like rock, like what you see fossils in.

FYI. they drill a hole thousands of feet deep and put the Nuke at the bottom of it, they don't just float it nearby and set it off.

 

[thebuttonpusher]

Was that on the ocean floor?

No, actually it was on land, but guess how fast a drill bit goes through dirt? And as far as I know, dirt is harder than mud, don't quote me though Im sure some guy from MIT has done a study to prove that yes indeed it takes months to drill through mud. If it were mud it would not even need to be drilled, they could just shove the pipe through, no need for an expensive diamond drill bit. And if it were that easy why is it going to take 10 weeks for the relief wells to be drilled? think here would you? use some common sense if you have any.

 

[hanimmal]

If you look around the land that is the areas that are blue to green. So it seems most likely that it is the case that the gulf would be similar because it is close to land. And the atlantic is spreading so I would think that it would look more like south america where the area of the atlantic right ofter land is the deepest sediment.

Sedimentary BUILDUP is not mud, it is VERY HARD Sediment that has built up over thousands of years, just like earths crust, eventually it becomes just like rock, like what you see fossils in.

I am not so sure, with the seismic pic the top layers are clear to see and the rock bottom is too right?

And with the pressure of the weight of the entire ocean on top of it it seems very likely that the water would be pushed through the weak points in the dirt and that would cause it to have less friction than dry land.

FYI. they drill a hole thousands of feet deep and put the Nuke at the bottom of it, they don't just float it nearby and set it off.

I understand this, but if what the professor said was right and those pictures are right then they would have to go several thousand feet deep just to get out of the what should I say instead of mud, lubricated dirt?

No, actually it was on land, but guess how fast a drill bit goes through dirt? And as far as I know, dirt is harder than mud, don't quote me though Im sure some guy from MIT has done a study to prove that yes indeed it takes months to drill through mud. If it were mud it would not even need to be drilled, they could just shove the pipe through, no need for an expensive diamond drill bit. And if it were that easy why is it going to take 10 weeks for the relief wells to be drilled? think here would you? use some common sense if you have any.

Oh I see you think that because I said mud that it must be exactly like mud in a dirt puddle right?

I would also think that the 5000 feet would greatly complicate things yes. Plus add to that the pressure at the bottom of 5000 feet is crazy. Don't most subs crush at about 2000 feet? I would think that there would be a lot of tough things with drilling those wells. But hey I guess because I was not thinking of this like a muddy pond bottom, I must not have any common sense.

Oh and you are forgetting the rest of that seismic picture, there are thousands of feet of rock under the mud. So it would not be as simple as just getting through the mud and being done with it right? You would still vae several thousands of feet of hard rock after the mud to drill through before you get to the oil.
And are you really going to always be this combative (I am fine if you are, I just am curious)? I really was just trying to give you the information I heard about this. It is not like I am anti nuke if it works, I saw that video you posted and did think that it was a very good thing at the time. That was why when I heard that I was so interested that I thought I would share it with you.

 

[thebuttonpusher]

Im not being combative, sorry if it appears that way. When you use the term "mud" it means Soupy dirt water, not compacted at 170,000 lbs per square inch mud that is hard as rock and full of rocks and pebbles and boulders water. Sure there is a silty muddy buildup on the surface, but it isnt thousands of feet deep. Besides your picture clearly shows the west coast of america has no sediment buildup, under the silt is ROCK. So lets assume the rest of the continent is the same, bedrock right under the mud. So just because the guy was from MIT makes him even more of an asshat to say there is thousands of feet of mud on the ocean floor, there isn't. Sediment is NOT mud. Mud is the shit you played in as a kid, lets not play semantic games here. I think that just because the guy is a professor at a prestigious university you automatically give his theory creedence. Use some common sense, it will get you further in this world than all the book smarts they can throw at you. Your an intelligent guy, but you also seem to be in love with the idea that people in academia are always correct. Well they aren't , in fact they are very much wrong much of the time too. Its difficult to be a critical thinker, it takes a whole lot of effort to become educated on issues of importance and to hear all sides of the arguments and make your own opinion. Hopefully your own opinion is influenced by such things as justice, the value of hard work, a penny saved is a penny earned, man should be what he was meant to be, free and independent....things of that nature, the ideals this country was founded on.

 

[fdd2blk]

all really good ideas.

 

[IAm5toned]

I heard a MIT physics professor answer about this, and it really doesn't seem like this will work on the bottom of the ocean.

The problem is that there is thousands of feet that is essentially mud at the bottom of the ocean. So it would not work like it did in Russia where they did it on land and the land shifts and squeezes the pipe shut. The nuke would push through the mud and just explode the pipe below the surface of the mud and that would most likely not stop the leak because it would burst through the mud like a oil volcano with no real point of origin. So then there would be no chance to stop it besides trying to figure out how to bore in mud for a few thousand feet, 5000 feet below the ocean surface.

it worked for the russians.
if its good enough for ivan, i suppose i could give it a go... as bad as a rep the russians have, they are not stupid. not at all.
and the MIT professor failed to consider the one critical factor that allows a nuclear explosion to occur... his calculations are based on force vectors... not thermal dynamics.
the heat would fuse it shut, the pressure from the concussion would allow it to occur. in the microseconds following detonation, during the rapid expansion of gases from the explosion, the entire force of the explosion and combined weight of the water would be directed downward, reversing flow for an extremely short duration. the ensuing heat would them fuse both the pipe and soil mass around the epicenter of the detonation.

 

[hanimmal]

Sure there is a silty muddy buildup on the surface, but it isnt thousands of feet deep. Besides your picture clearly shows the west coast of america has no sediment buildup, under the silt is ROCK. So lets assume the rest of the continent is the same, bedrock right under the mud.

View attachment 987147 I would think that this has more to do with plate techtonics. On the west coast of the state there is a plate border, on ther east there is not. So really I would think that it would be much more like the rest of the continents that are a distant away from a edge and that is where the sediment is. And I think that it is very likely that America is similar to south America where the west side has a major fault line, and the east has the sediment. I am not sure what the benefit is on thinking that it is rock in the gulf. If nothing else how much dirt has the mississippi river dumped in it over time?

So just because the guy was from MIT makes him even more of an asshat to say there is thousands of feet of mud on the ocean floor, there isn't. Sediment is NOT mud. Mud is the shit you played in as a kid, lets not play semantic games here. I think that just because the guy is a professor at a prestigious university you automatically give his theory creedence. Use some common sense, it will get you further in this world than all the book smarts they can throw at you. Your an intelligent guy, but you also seem to be in love with the idea that people in academia are always correct. Well they aren't , in fact they are very much wrong much of the time too. Its difficult to be a critical thinker, it takes a whole lot of effort to become educated on issues of importance and to hear all sides of the arguments and make your own opinion. Hopefully your own opinion is influenced by such things as justice, the value of hard work, a penny saved is a penny earned, man should be what he was meant to be, free and independent....things of that nature, the ideals this country was founded on.

Thank you, and no worries I think many many people are dumbasses in academia. I got through the first 30 years of my life and have done well mainly due to good sense. The only thing is if someone has more insight into something, I do listen to them, because I think that it is worse to not and figure that somehow I know better than they do than to listen and have to re-evaluate what I am thinking is right.

I do the same with you, and pretty much everyone else I come in contact with. I try to learn from everyone so that way I have a better idea of why and how people have come to their conclusions. And then base my decisions on the things that I have seen and heard. And it is not that I think somehow they are always correct in academia, it is just I am not going to dismiss what they say because I saw a video of something that worked on land and immediately jump to it working 5000 feet under the ocean.

And especially for this, because I was at first skeptical then saw how it worked on the video and had to change my opinion on it, because it did work, and worked well. But we both know that there is no way they will nuke this hole, it just is not going to happen. And when I heard them talking to the guy about possible ways to stop this, and the issue of the nuke was asked, I listened to what the guy said, and it makes sense. It was not a study he conducted, and I never took it as that, but it does make sense if you really try to not be closed to it off the bat.

I am convinced after seeing those sediment thickness pictures that the gulf most likely does have about 1000 or so meters of sediment in it, and with the water pushing down I do think that it is at the very least less consistent than dry land would be. And to me that would add up to at least a decent chance of this not working, and setting off a nuke for a decent chance of not working does not seem like a good idea.

And with that coupled with the fact that there is almost zero chance the government would allow a nuke to be launched in the information age we are in, with the nut ball in N. Korea salivating over us detonating a nuke, I could put it behind me as something they would not do. And I was just sharing this while enjoying my time looking up and reading your link about ocean floor and sediment thickness, because this is fun for me.

it worked for the russians.
if its good enough for ivan, i suppose i could give it a go... as bad as a rep the russians have, they are not stupid. not at all.
and the MIT professor failed to consider the one critical factor that allows a nuclear explosion to occur... his calculations are based on force vectors... not thermal dynamics.
the heat would fuse it shut, the pressure from the concussion would allow it to occur. in the microseconds following detonation, during the rapid expansion of gases from the explosion, the entire force of the explosion and combined weight of the water would be directed downward, reversing flow for an extremely short duration. the ensuing heat would them fuse both the pipe and soil mass around the epicenter of the detonation.

Interesting, are where is the nuke positioned in the way you are thinking? It looked like the russians positioned it to a side a distance away so that way the dirt pushed in and squeezed the entire pipe closed for a large portion underground. That is what I was thinking when he was talking and just imagined the blast acting more like what we see with trees in a nuke blast where they are not toppled but sheered. Of course there is the sediment but I pictured that bending/tearing holes into the pipe. Which then when the oil still flowed out it would be under/inside the layer of sediment and would be able to find ways out of it similar to a gas bubble under mud and eventually worm through and we are back to square one.

One thing though, there was not any calculations he gave, this was an answer to a question. The only real number was his thousands of feet of (I am pretty positive he said mud, but now it is a few days ago and starting to become more hazy, but at the very least it is sediment) mud and it would most likely not work like it did on dry land.

But again I am not a physicist, so don't have a clue about thermo dynamics, or the viscosity of the bottom of the gulf. But was just putting out there something that addressed this. Mainly because I was bored.

 

[ginjawarrior]

The oil spill: Your solutions

Page last updated at 13:32 GMT, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 14:32 UK

• E-mail this to a friend
• Printable version

Thousands have submitted their ideas to BP We asked readers to submit their ideas on how the Gulf of Mexico oil spill should have been stopped.
A selection of the hundreds we received has been assessed by Prof Iraj Ershaghi, director of petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California.
BP's cap on the well is currently, according to the company's estimates, capturing more than half of the oil. But could there be a better way?
NUCLEAR BLAST

"Drill a hole next to the well. Place a low-yield nuclear warhead and detonate it.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• Would create uncontrollable flow

"The power will fuse the rock together and the intense pressure from the sea water will keep the rock in place thus sealing the leak." - Michael Murray, Greensboro, North Carolina, US
Prof Ershaghi says: "A nuclear blast would not fuse the pipe under the cooling effect of water but rather would create a crater and would make it impossible to control the flow." FABRIC TUBE

"I think you should create a large fabric tube to help control the amount of oil that gets away from the leak. I think something like parachute cloth might work because that fabric is quite a tight weave - water passes through, but I don't think oil would.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• Pressure means it's impossible

"It might have access panels, especially near the bottom where the actual leaks are occurring, but perhaps that would allow for some kind of pump to pump the oily water that would be held within the tube." - Elaine Seniuk, Enfield, Canada
Prof Ershaghi says: "What forces the oil and water to flow through the fabric is a pressure of close to 7,000 pounds per square inch. We also need to realise the volume being produced (15,000-20,000 barrels per day or 600,000 to 800,000 gallons a day). That means capacity requirements that are impossible to create or install under 5,000 ft of water." POLYSTYRENE BEADS

"How about using small polystyrene beads impregnated with iron filings to cling to the oil, then pick up the beads with an electromagnet which could be mounted on any number of platforms such as vehicles or boats.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• Sinking oil harder to collect

"Beads get processed to remove the oil, then re-used. Cheap to produce, easy to collect from water, better than trying to scrape oil off difficult surfaces. Beads would be easily deployable by air/sea." - Alwyn Turner, Chapel-en-le-Frith, UK
Prof Ershaghi says: "They use straw to help in collecting oil. Any other type of material attachment could result in making the oil drops heavier. Causing the oil droplets to sink will not solve the spill clean-up as we will be polluting the water below the surface. Please also realise, mass production of any new products on the scale of sinking miles of spilled oil on the surface requires months if not years of planning and manufacturing." PILE OF ROCKS

"How do we block any hole in the earth? By using the natural resources of the earth itself. I suggest that BP utilise barge after barge of rocks that will sink quickly and directly over the outpouring.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• Rocks would leave gaps

"Enough rocks to create a mini-mountain. Sea bed sand might eventually fill the gaps in the rocks as a kind of cement." - Vernon Turner, St Ives, Cambridgeshire, UK
Prof Ershaghi says: "If BP had cut the riser during the first week and had installed a second blowout preventer, a massively heavy 48ft stack, it would have done the equivalent of what you are suggesting. By dropping large pieces of rock, there is no way they can seal all the holes in between the boulders to stop the flow. Use of soft sand will not work for sealing the holes as the flow of high pressure oil and gas will blow away sediment and rocks." METAL AND MAGNETS

"Wrap electromagnets at different sections of the pipe and secure. Turn on magnets. Inject small metal material into pipe to be attracted to magnets. As material adheres to inside of pipe, inject slightly larger material. Make sure electromagnets are powerful enough.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• Like 'top kill' and wouldn't work

"Eventually, the flow will decrease and perhaps stop just like a clogged artery in the human body. Remember, power to the magnets must not stop until the pipe is safely capped." - Anon
Prof Ershaghi says: "BP was trying to inject high pressure mud and could not fight the upward flow of oil and gas. It is hard to inject the materials you are suggesting with fluid unless they are pulverized. If they could have been injected, they would have been subjected to the upward pressure and could not have entered the casing." SINK A SHIP

"I think that the hole could be plugged to greatly reduce the flow, if not end it, by sinking an old ship over the leak.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• A ship might not create a seal

"If extra ballast were added to the ship to make it even heavier, it would exert enough pressure to seal the hole." - Howard H Rothman, Bridgeport, Connecticut, US
Prof Ershaghi says: "If we used your idea, the weight of the sunken vessel must be enough to overcome the upward force of the fluid while also a tight seal is required over the casing. A better idea is still, as mentioned above, placing another blowout preventer after cutting the riser." GIANT FUNNEL

"What will contain it is simply an enormous funnel in thin mild steel which can be lowered over the whole mess with enough pipe of suitably flexible material and diameter to guide the oil to the surface, where of course it will need a constant supply of tankers to suck/pump it safely aboard.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• The current cap is better

"Obviously the flow-rate and rate of rise needs to be well estimated to get the diameter of the mile of pipe to the surface." - G Vert Vaughan, Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria
Prof Ershaghi says: "What BP has done in terms of connecting the Lower Marine Riser Package (the cap on top of the blowout preventer) to take the oil to the surface is similar to your idea, except, they did not have to make a huge funnel to accommodate 800,000 gallons of oil per day." BARBED PLUG

"Manufacture a series of 30cm custom plugs, each tapered at the front like a bullet. Each plug must have the same diameter as the inner diameter of the tube (minus 2mm to prevent jamming on the way in). However, along the sides of the plugs, cut 100 small diagonal incisions. Thus the plug will look like it is barbed.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• Damaging the well casing would be catastrophic

"It will go in easily, but dig itself in when going out, plus the more pressure exerted by the gas, the deeper the plug will dig into the pipe sides. Clearly, the plug must be made of a metal harder than the pipe, or it won't be able to do this. Use a pneumatic or even limited explosive charge to deliver the plugs. I suggest a minimum of two - that's how we seal basement leaks in Canada, after all." - Dave Lundy, Canada
Prof Ershaghi says: "Maintaining the integrity of the casing is extremely critical. Use of any hard materials or force against the casing is counter-productive as bursting of the casing could occur. That would make it impossible to control the flow." INFLATABLE BLADDER

"The most obvious solution to me is to use a bladder that is inserted deep into the pipeline, then pumped up with a high pressure medium. Once the flow has stopped and the feed line removed, the end of the pipe may be sealed by whatever caps are required.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• Coiled tubing might have been an option

"Alternatively, once the pipe is repaired and if it is to be used again the bladder may be deflated." - Mike Konshak, Louisville, Colorado, US
Prof Ershaghi says: "BP could not have done anything of this sort until they cut the riser. One practical solution similar to yours is the use of industry standard coiled tubing. Yes, they could have done that to pump high pressure fluid to fight the well pressure. But one has to be careful not to burst the casing." PLUMBING SOLUTION

"Being an ex-plumber, the only way to deal with a pressurised leak is to keep the open end and connect a fitting to the pipe, then shut the fitting when the pipe connection is made. Underwater and at 5,000ft, you would need to use a skirt, fixed to an open-ended pipe. The skirt could be split on one side. This could be drawn down over the broken pipe end and fixed to a sound portion of the broken pipe, away from the break.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• Similar to using a second blowout preventer

"This could be fixed in place using traditional mechanical fittings, but it is not taking the strain yet, as the pressurised stream is going up the new open pipe and through the split skirt. Then you can slowly draw the skirt closed, re-strengthening the fixings on the sound part of the broken pipe, thus allowing the skirt to take more strain of the pressurised flow. The skirt can be drawn to a close, as the fixings are made good behind it and the pressurised stream will flow up the new pipe to awaiting vessels." - Paul, Canada
Prof Ershaghi says: "The practical way to use your idea, as discussed above, would have been to actually install another blowout preventer over the existing one after BP managed to cut the riser. They did not do that. Still, if the containment device does not stop the flow, they may have to resort to that option." LEAD BALLS

"To stop the oil flow in the pipe in the Gulf of Mexico, form a funnel that fits into the open pipe and also grips it below the top outside to keep it stable. Pour lead balls of the right size into the funnel to definitely sink into the oil flow despite its speed. They need to be as small as possible while being big enough to be sure to sink. They must be less than about a third of the width of the opening in the funnel to avoid self-jamming in the funnel or pipe and not so large that venturi forces around the balls (from increased oil flow speeds passing the balls) stop them from sinking.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• Like the failed 'junk shot'

"Reduce the size of the lead balls as the reduced oil flow speed allows smaller ones to sink. When enough lead balls have been fed in to slow down the oil speed, start putting clay balls into the oil pipe. When enough of them have been fed in, put in more lead balls (or steel balls would do by this stage). These last balls will, under the action of gravity, then deform the clay balls to form a seal in the pipe." - Peter Keogh, Olso, Norway
Prof Ershaghi says: "Your idea falls in the category of the junk shot that BP found was not successful." CRIMP THE PIPE

"Could the pipe be crimped shut? I have read that 'giant shears' were used to cut the pipe, so why not 'giant pliers'? Since capping and siphoning seem problematic, crimping, even if not complete and permanent, should diminish the flow at least partially and until the relief wells or other means can ameliorate the situation.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• Similar to what blowout preventer should have done

"Once crimping was used it would deform the pipe so that capping or siphoning would be almost impossible." - Julian P Crane, Everett, Massachusetts, US
Prof Ershaghi says: "Yes, if the blind ram - a device that forms a seal - had worked on the blowout preventer, that was exactly the way the seal process would have taken place to close the casing." EPOXY WARHEAD

"Epoxy might be a better top kill method than mud, and in any case a heavier solid is needed - try bismuth and/or iron shot. Delivering the resin and catalyst into the well requires two tubes, though an intermediate pulse of isopropyl alcohol may have a chance or separating the two liquids in a single feed tube, there'd be a risk of simply clogging the feed tube before it reached the well.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• Firing a warhead into the well not wise

"Another alternative plug is a torpedo, wire-guided, with a low speed mode (or restrictor) for manoeuvring into place, and an extended warhead holding just enough charge to split containers of epoxy monomer and catalyst." - Jeremy, New Jersey, US
Prof Ershaghi says: "A torpedo or any warhead entering the casing would have made this a major catastrophe as the loss of casing integrity would have resulted in a crater with continuous and uncontrollable oil flow for the next 30-40 years depending on the amount of oil in the reservoir." UMBRELLA PLUG

"Use an umbrella plug, which would be deployed into the well to the point where the drill borehole breached the well, effectively capping from the inside.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• Umbrella could not withstand pressure

"You could let the pressure of the well secure the plug or fix it to the seabed." - Shayne Dawe, Plymouth, UK
Prof Ershaghi says: "Umbrella type materials that can collapse to fit the pipe and then expand under pressure cannot withstand 6,000-7,000 pounds per square inch of pressure." SHALLOW RELIEF WELL

"They should drill another hole into the same well and continue collecting the oil. This would diminish the pressure in the currently leaking system, and make it possible to seal the leak.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• Relief well must go in at an angle

"If it is possible to hit the current well by drilling into it at an angle, this 'shallow' drill may be faster and easier to do than going all the depth into the reservoir." - Alex, Boston, Massachusetts, US
Prof Ershaghi says: "At the site there are a lot of vessels, the relief well needs to be away from them. You have to go down and then angle it, when you dig the relief well." UNSCREW THE FLANGE

"It appears that below the cut that they have made before capping the pipe, there is a section of the pipe that is bolted, which combines the two sections of pipe. Wouldn't it be possible to remove the bolts and attach a new section of pipe, bolting the new piece on incrementally, which would allow some leverage in allowing for a rotation of the new section into place.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• Necessary torque difficult under water

"The new section could have a valve that could be closed off once this section is put into place, thereby minimising the pressure that they would face when installing this new section." - John Allison, Doylestown, Pennsylvania, US
Prof Ershaghi says: "Such operations would require a tremendous amount of torque and this is very difficult with robots and underwater." HYDROCARBON POLYMER

"To clean up the spill itself they could use a hydrocarbon polymer which attaches itself to oil and produces a sponge-like material which would be easier to clean up, or scoop up.
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• These polymers are used, but sheer volume problematic

"They could even dye the polymer so that the resultant material is much more visible and again easier to collect." - Steve, Bermuda
Prof Ershaghi says: "Materials similar to what you are proposing are used, but the sheer magnitude of the amounts needed to treat the volume of oil and the timely spread and collection in a speedy manner is not easily manageable." FREEZE THE WELL

"I know that a lot of wells in the Gulf of Mexico are difficult to produce because of hydrate (methane ice) formation. The containment dome failed because of this. Has the idea of promoting the formation of hydrates within the wellbore itself, to form an ice plug to stop the flow of hydrocarbons, been considered?
EXPERT VIEW

Continue reading the main story

• Freezing would not reliably block the well

"With a reservoir that does not have free water, and producing at above hydrate curve temperatures, the hydrates will not form until the gas has expanded and cooled the surrounding area (Joule Thompson effect). However, if ice cold, fresh water were pumped into the wellbore, perhaps with some ice crystals or grains of sand, or something to promote the seed required to help the hydrate cage form, that may promote the formation of a hydrate plug within the wellbore itself." - Mike, Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Prof Ershaghi says: "You are correct. In fact, hydrate can form near the mud line close to the sea bed. Even if some restrictions develop, this is not a reliable way to stop the flow. A simple change of thermodynamics can change the conditions.

 

[Rob Roy]

I haven't read this thread so my apologies if this has already been suggested.

Why not just wait until the Gulf Stream takes the oil spill up by Iceland and wait for a volcanic eruption / molten lava to light the whole thing? Just think of the fish fry we could have. Might even warm the waters up long enough to melt those damn polar icecaps and Ohio could be the new ocean shorefront. No more Washington D.C., no more DEA, no more heavy population centers.

Think a combination of a Madmax and Waterworld movie as the new post apocolypse norm. Survivors could power their heads and vehicles with hemp oil.

 

[hanimmal]

I haven't read this thread so my apologies if this has already been suggested.​

lmao seriously I don't think that you have to worry about this one being suggested. But the thought of being able to get to work on a jet ski sound pretty fun!