5 ms·

Bomb Designer, Mars Expert Sent by Obama to Fix Oil Spill

32 points by Flemlord 16y ago

winterlightning 16y ago
I wonder what solution they are thinking off. Using robots to put a giant containment chamber in place already seems pretty innovative to me.
jarin 16y ago
Hmm 2 nuclear bomb people, an astrophysicist, a space mining expert, and a maverick. They are planning to divert an asteroid and crash it into the leak.
- fleitz 16y ago
  No, it's James Cameron's cover story for shooting the Abyss 2.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- Vivtek 16y ago
  This is exactly what I was thinking!
mynameishere 16y ago
Is it just me or does this not really seem like that hard of a problem? I mean, it obviously is, but I don't see why they can't just attach an open value to the tube, then close the valve when it's on. I mean look at it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYFYVNvgg-A&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYFYVNvgg-A&feature=playe... Why not just get bulk carriers full of gravel and start dumping it until it's buried? Are you saying that oil can get through a million tons of gravel? If that sounds crazy, BP itself was talking about injecting golf balls into the tube. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/may/10/deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-oil-spills http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/may/10/deepw...
- arethuza 16y ago
  5000ft is one hell of a depth of water - dump gravel in and it will spread over a huge area. Especially if you dump it one boat load at a time.
- fleitz 16y ago
  Imagine the pressure the oil is under to be flowing out under 5000 ft of water. I don't think it's a simple situation. I liken it to people who don't know how to program talking about how simple or complex a particular problem is.
  - cma 16y ago
    Since oil is lighter than water, it wouldn't need to be under any pressure (just pointing that out; I know that at the rate it is coming out, buoyancy isn't necessarily the dominate effect).
    - ramidarigaz 16y ago
      I don't think that's necessarily true. From what other people have said, there are large quantities of oil spreading underneath the surface of the ocean. While some parts of the oil may be lighter than salt water, I think (disclaimer: no background in the subject whatsoever) that a good portion of the oil is actually heaver. I bet there is huuuuge pressure behind the oil spewing out.
- lutorm 16y ago
  Gravel is porous. If the oil is overpressurized, covering it with gravel may slow the leak down but it won't stop it. And you've then made any other attempt to do something about it impossible.
- tmsh 16y ago
  I agree with you. Any solution they do come up with will probably only have an impact until the relief wells are completed (knock on wood) in two months. Dumping/packing in gravel (not from the surface, but via underwater delivery) does seem like a good idea.
eavc 16y ago
I read the "In Defense of Homophobes" post. Yeeesh. I guess it's better for that guy to be working in physical science than public policy.
- gommm 16y ago
  Ah I'm glad I'm not the only one to be horrified by this guy's version of rational thought
- jacobolus 16y ago
  Seriously. Pretty reprehensible: > “A number of critics have asked if monogamous homosexuals are also culpable. Quite apart from the question of the definition of monogamous (sexual contact with only one person in a lifetime? serial monogamy? some cheating? etc.), I suggest the following analogy: A man joins the Ku Klux Klan. He is not violent, and would never hurt a fly; he just wants a safe place to express his racist feelings. Is he culpable for the Klan's past acts of violence? I believe that even though he is not criminally responsible for acts that occurred before he joined, he is morally culpable for joining the Klan. The Klan has blood on its hands, and anyone who joins must share the guilt. So, too, with the homosexual movement.”
joe_bleau 16y ago
I don't understand the 'junk shot' plan. They're talking about shooting old golf balls, knotted rope scraps, and shredded tire chunks in, followed by cement? I guess I just assumed that in such a highly engineered industry, they'd have a design and spec for the 'junk', rather than relying on what sounds like random, uncontrolled, scrap. Maybe that's just popular description, and in reality the junk in the junk shot is very well controlled?
- whyenot 16y ago
  I think it really is junk. The NYT(? I think) had an interview with someone who used junk shots to close wells in Kuwait, and his favorite junk was lamp cables because it contained both soft plastic and harder copper wires. My understanding is that they are looking for something that they can pump into the BOP, and that once inside will form a nice big tangle and hopefully plug up the leak. What to use depends on the specifics of each leak and is more an art than a science.
  - joe_bleau 16y ago
    Still surprising to me. I also read up on the BOPs a bit--very interesting. I would have expected a last ditch line of defense consisting of some sort of powerful spring-loaded ram with a maybe an explosive and/or mechanical trigger, so that if everything goes wrong, you can hook up a sub and yank something to clamp the stem, even with no hydraulic lines connected. Not that the annular BOP isn't a clever design, using the well pressure against itself to clamp down tight.
physcab 16y ago
> He [Alexander Slocum] has a lot of creative ideas. One in 10 are really brilliant ideas, but nine are dumb,” said MIT professor Wai K. Cheng, a colleague in Slocum’s department. I don't understand why some scientists come public with this type of negative commentary. It only reinforces the type of closed-off competitiveness that plagues academia. Sometimes I wonder what great advancements haven't been made as a direct result of the lack of collaboration and inherent selfishness within scientific fields.
- delano 16y ago
  I'm not familiar with any of the people involved, but it could just be an accurate statement. Also, you left out the last part of the quote: You can’t miss that one that is brilliant.
  - physcab 16y ago
    Maybe he was joking. But whether it was joking or accurate, that was probably a comment he could have kept to himself. I guess I hear those types of comments all too often in academia from scientists who are trying to make a name for themselves at the expense of others.
dailo10 16y ago
Finally! It's about time the government steps in. And I like their approach.
- Daniel_Newby 16y ago
  Whoops, didn't mean to downvote.
watmough 16y ago
Steve Wereley's particle analysis estimate 70,000 bbls / day leakage. The much publicized 5,000 bbls/day figure is from a surface only estimate by NOAA. It's been discovered that much of the leak is forming large sub-surface slicks. One such below surface slick is 10 miles long, by 3 miles wide, by 300 feet thick. These guys are not going to be visible til / if they come ashore.

32 points by Flemlord 16y ago

I wonder what solution they are thinking off. Using robots to put a giant containment chamber in place already seems pretty innovative to me.

jarin 16y ago

Hmm 2 nuclear bomb people, an astrophysicist, a space mining expert, and a maverick. They are planning to divert an asteroid and crash it into the leak.

fleitz 16y ago
No, it's James Cameron's cover story for shooting the Abyss 2.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Vivtek 16y ago
This is exactly what I was thinking!

mynameishere 16y ago

Is it just me or does this not really seem like that hard of a problem? I mean, it obviously is, but I don't see why they can't just attach an open value to the tube, then close the valve when it's on. I mean look at it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYFYVNvgg-A&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYFYVNvgg-A&feature=playe... Why not just get bulk carriers full of gravel and start dumping it until it's buried? Are you saying that oil can get through a million tons of gravel? If that sounds crazy, BP itself was talking about injecting golf balls into the tube. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/may/10/deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-oil-spills http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/may/10/deepw...

arethuza 16y ago
5000ft is one hell of a depth of water - dump gravel in and it will spread over a huge area. Especially if you dump it one boat load at a time.
fleitz 16y ago
Imagine the pressure the oil is under to be flowing out under 5000 ft of water. I don't think it's a simple situation. I liken it to people who don't know how to program talking about how simple or complex a particular problem is.
- cma 16y ago
  Since oil is lighter than water, it wouldn't need to be under any pressure (just pointing that out; I know that at the rate it is coming out, buoyancy isn't necessarily the dominate effect).
  - ramidarigaz 16y ago
    I don't think that's necessarily true. From what other people have said, there are large quantities of oil spreading underneath the surface of the ocean. While some parts of the oil may be lighter than salt water, I think (disclaimer: no background in the subject whatsoever) that a good portion of the oil is actually heaver. I bet there is huuuuge pressure behind the oil spewing out.
lutorm 16y ago
Gravel is porous. If the oil is overpressurized, covering it with gravel may slow the leak down but it won't stop it. And you've then made any other attempt to do something about it impossible.
tmsh 16y ago
I agree with you. Any solution they do come up with will probably only have an impact until the relief wells are completed (knock on wood) in two months. Dumping/packing in gravel (not from the surface, but via underwater delivery) does seem like a good idea.

eavc 16y ago

I read the "In Defense of Homophobes" post. Yeeesh. I guess it's better for that guy to be working in physical science than public policy.

gommm 16y ago
Ah I'm glad I'm not the only one to be horrified by this guy's version of rational thought
jacobolus 16y ago
Seriously. Pretty reprehensible: > “A number of critics have asked if monogamous homosexuals are also culpable. Quite apart from the question of the definition of monogamous (sexual contact with only one person in a lifetime? serial monogamy? some cheating? etc.), I suggest the following analogy: A man joins the Ku Klux Klan. He is not violent, and would never hurt a fly; he just wants a safe place to express his racist feelings. Is he culpable for the Klan's past acts of violence? I believe that even though he is not criminally responsible for acts that occurred before he joined, he is morally culpable for joining the Klan. The Klan has blood on its hands, and anyone who joins must share the guilt. So, too, with the homosexual movement.”

joe_bleau 16y ago

I don't understand the 'junk shot' plan. They're talking about shooting old golf balls, knotted rope scraps, and shredded tire chunks in, followed by cement? I guess I just assumed that in such a highly engineered industry, they'd have a design and spec for the 'junk', rather than relying on what sounds like random, uncontrolled, scrap. Maybe that's just popular description, and in reality the junk in the junk shot is very well controlled?

whyenot 16y ago
I think it really is junk. The NYT(? I think) had an interview with someone who used junk shots to close wells in Kuwait, and his favorite junk was lamp cables because it contained both soft plastic and harder copper wires. My understanding is that they are looking for something that they can pump into the BOP, and that once inside will form a nice big tangle and hopefully plug up the leak. What to use depends on the specifics of each leak and is more an art than a science.
- joe_bleau 16y ago
  Still surprising to me. I also read up on the BOPs a bit--very interesting. I would have expected a last ditch line of defense consisting of some sort of powerful spring-loaded ram with a maybe an explosive and/or mechanical trigger, so that if everything goes wrong, you can hook up a sub and yank something to clamp the stem, even with no hydraulic lines connected. Not that the annular BOP isn't a clever design, using the well pressure against itself to clamp down tight.

physcab 16y ago

> He [Alexander Slocum] has a lot of creative ideas. One in 10 are really brilliant ideas, but nine are dumb,” said MIT professor Wai K. Cheng, a colleague in Slocum’s department. I don't understand why some scientists come public with this type of negative commentary. It only reinforces the type of closed-off competitiveness that plagues academia. Sometimes I wonder what great advancements haven't been made as a direct result of the lack of collaboration and inherent selfishness within scientific fields.

delano 16y ago
I'm not familiar with any of the people involved, but it could just be an accurate statement. Also, you left out the last part of the quote: You can’t miss that one that is brilliant.
- physcab 16y ago
  Maybe he was joking. But whether it was joking or accurate, that was probably a comment he could have kept to himself. I guess I hear those types of comments all too often in academia from scientists who are trying to make a name for themselves at the expense of others.

dailo10 16y ago

Finally! It's about time the government steps in. And I like their approach.

Daniel_Newby 16y ago
Whoops, didn't mean to downvote.

watmough 16y ago

Steve Wereley's particle analysis estimate 70,000 bbls / day leakage. The much publicized 5,000 bbls/day figure is from a surface only estimate by NOAA. It's been discovered that much of the leak is forming large sub-surface slicks. One such below surface slick is 10 miles long, by 3 miles wide, by 300 feet thick. These guys are not going to be visible til / if they come ashore.