Comments on: With “Top Kill” a Failure, BP Goes Back to the Containment Dome Plan

By: chanel wallet online

chanel wallet online — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:19:46 +0000

Fortunately for us lovers of timeless classics, the Chanel reissue 2.55 captures the iconic beauty of Coco Chanel’s creation and brings it to the modern day without any additions or omissions from the original.

By: louisvuitton78

louisvuitton78 — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:02:31 +0000

you’re really a good webmaster. The site loading speed is incredible. It seems that you are doing any unique trick. Moreover, The contents are masterpiece. you’ve done a wonderful job on this topic!

By: nick lange

nick lange — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 01:01:09 +0000

This design is weak at the intake. If the ‘coffee cup’ were made with a short sleeve at the intake it would help. Structural support AND mechanical fasteners would obviously be needed to absorb torque and shock when the new pipe mates down from above.

By: nick lange

nick lange — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:35:32 +0000

The easiest way I can think of is to use the design of the spillproof coffee cup, where the diameter is large at the bottom, tapering up in a cone then goes vertically a couple inches to the rim. You cut a hole the size you need to fit the damaged riser, so you can fit over it. This design would need valves in the bottom, probably. So, weld, then up to the throat of the top end, where in my vision I see it as larger diameter than the riser, even though it takes some pressure away, it’s not a lot. Bring down a pipe that is large enough to go over the throat of the ‘coffee cup’- with the valves open-, fit pipe, weld, close valves.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:27:21 +0000

” There is only one way to stop that from occurring.” Not sure what Rabidmob means by that…
Caution must prevail when considering the potential for disaster, regardless of demand.
The deep water drilling pushes the limits of our technological capability..Like anything else, things are fine when things are fine, but when disaster strikes, you had better be prepared for all possible scenarios…In the theatre of deepwater drilling we are not technologically capable of being adequately prepared. Therefore, when considering the potential consequences, we cannot justify deep water drilling due to our technological limitations.
The spill in 79, Valdez, the Gulf..Are they truly disasters of enourmous magnitude? Certainly ecological and financial disasters but what do we know?
What will tomorrow bring? I am inclined to agree with r. coleman..We do not fully understand the physics that we are attempting to manipulate. We could easily find ourselves in another situation that we cannot control that dwarfs our previous experience with disasters..
What do you do when you have a huge oil leak 1 mile below the ocean surface?
You drill two more wells right next to it to try to stop the first! What could possibly go wrong?

By: m

Wed, 02 Jun 2010 11:10:49 +0000

gee…JMW doesn’t have an agenda.

*rolls eyes*

on the other hand i’m grateful for JMW’s post. it just goes to show you that liberals are stupid too.

By: nick

nick — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 04:40:26 +0000

Fill their tankers with cement, sink them and cement them in around the gusher. A containment dome built like a pyramid to 1:1 scale or something. You know, just built a mountain on top of it.

It’s not like they’re gonna need the tankers anyway when they go out of business over this. :) . Anyone with sense is dumping their stock like it’s gushing out the well down their with the oil. Hurricane scientists are warning we could be in for a doozy of a season. Any hurricane rolls through and they’ll have to pause all work until it’s gone.

I think what BP is actually trying to do is get that oil under control so they can start making money off of that huge gushing jet of liquid black money down there. They could give a crap about the environment, all they see is dollar signs floating away on the currents towards our family and friends.

By: rabidmob

rabidmob — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 00:36:26 +0000

R. coleman that takes the blame all too easily away from those that cause the problem.

Not only that but our technological arrogance is as much a necessity to us as air is to breath. For you see our ever increasing population needs ever increasing resources.

There is only one way to stop that from occurring.

By: r. coleman

r. coleman — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:06:14 +0000

In the coming years mother nature has more surprises in store in resonse to our technological arrogance

By: r. coleman

r. coleman — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:02:56 +0000

No one’s to blame but the arrogance man, to think that we can contol forces that deep. nature has more suprises up her sleeve

By: JMW

JMW — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:03:31 +0000

And as more people clamor for President Obama to step in and do more, given BP’s ineptitude, it’s become clear that there’s not a lot he can do.

Being cynical about all politicians, I wonder if Obama isn’t waiting for the inevitable report which will read, in part, “…the federal government did not do enough research & development in the decades prior to this oil spill, and since the previous spill from a broken off-shore drill, to prepare for this catastrophe. The failure lies both with industry itself as well as with successive Republican governments which bowed to industry assurances that it could self-regulate…”

If that’s what he is waiting for, it’ll likely backfire on him. There’s no reason the federal government can’t be doing something now to try to develop a new technique. It might not be needed for this spill, but it sure will be needed for the next one. Industry doesn’t have the forward thinking modes of thought required for this kind of research.

By: NewEnglandBob

NewEnglandBob — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:31:48 +0000

I watched the Rachel Maddow segment on how BP is doing all the same failed steps that was done in the 1979 huge oil spill. The technology is no better now and these steps failed in 200 foot depth and now fail at 5000 foot depth.