This is a serious question, I'm not trying to insinuate any conspiracy theory or anything. How many days did oil gush into the Gulf before BP said "I've got an idea. Let's stop the leak." Was it two weeks? Has anyone in the media addressed this question? A scientific answer would be nice, if it was available. More likely the answer is political, which is unfortunate.
Because there were safer options which were deemed better to try first.
Probably because they tried other things that they thought had a higher chance of succeeding. They made a couple of attempts to cap the well, IIRC. As far as I know the technique that they used (which hasn't actually stopped everything, btw), hadn't ever been tried at that depth before.
They had to make repairs to the blowout preventer before they could start pumping mud into it. BP tried to put the steel cap over the well first because it had the potential to stop the leak the fastest. Thus, in all fairness, BP hasn't delayed capping the well. Remember that it is BP's oil that is leaking into the Gulf. They have a direct economic interest in stopping the leak.
On the other hand, the fact of the matter is that no one had any real idea how to deal with a problem like this because everyone assumed that a blowout preventer would work. Once it failed, BP and the entire industry had to scramble to figure out how to cap the well. You would think that the industry would be required to have an effective way to deal with this kind of problem in place before it started doing deepwater drilling. The sad answer is that they did not. But that is what you get when you have had 8 years of a pro-oil administration and a "drill baby drill" attitude. And BP is operating a rig, "Atlantis", that is twice the size of the deepwater Horizon. I doubt BP knows how to cap a blowout that is twice the size of deepwater Horizon.
This article from The Economist does a good job of explaining the problems involved in trying to stop the oil spill:
http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16160853
I didn't think BP actually operated the platform. Isn't there another company that was contracted for that?
And also, there has been off shore oil drilling for longer than 8 years so your attempt to blame Bush is pretty weak. My Uncle was working on oil platforms 30 years ago.
They should've called me to drill, but did they? No. Any surface, anywhere in not only the world, but in the universe, and I can drill into it.
Serious question about a hypothetical situation: if one could actually go out on the Gulf and collect large amounts of oil from the surface, would they have to return that oil to BP? Could they sell it? Other...?
Maganga wrote:
This article from The Economist does a good job of explaining the problems involved in trying to stop the oil spill:
http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16160853
Some memorable lines from the article:
The insertion device, about a fifth of the diameter of the riser itself, is not supposed to block the flow of oil completely... Instead it sucks at the oil flowing around it, but gauging how hard to suck is tricky....If the oil wins, then the team will try a “junk shot”...The second container of junk provides another shot.
In all seriousness, after reading that article, I'm left with the impression that we probably shouldn't be getting oil from a deposit that is 3 miles below a sea bed that is 1 mile below the surface of the ocean (total distance underground = 4 miles) unless we're sure we can fix problems that deep.
How the heck does oil get so deep? Isn't it dead vegetation and dinosaurs and stuff? How did it get down there?
The same reason you need some time to get into shape to run your best. You can't simply try a something on a hair-trigger. Something like this needs planning.
Since the U.S. has many oil wells like this one, this type of solution should be ready to go, almost immediately, the next time. This will likely happen again, if not in the U.S. somewhere else in the world. The U.S. should help any country that runs into a similar problem, regardless of political differences. Of course, we have to make sure this solution actually worked, and then we need to evaluate any negatives caused and make adjustments accordingly.
Ever hear about Noah's Flood? How about plate tectonics, or Pangaea, or a really big meteor from about 65 million years ago?
Why you not use an apostrophe in your handle?
staunchy mustachio wrote:
How the heck does oil get so deep? Isn't it dead vegetation and dinosaurs and stuff? How did it get down there?
You should run for Congress or the Presidency. You have all of the brain power that they have.
A "real" apostrophe is not allowed. Fake (simulated) ones are okay.
Thanks for updating.
Hummm, I tried a real apostrophe and it actually works now. I thought I'd never see the day that would happen. I must adjust my handles in the future.
I'm as smart as Obama? Wow, thanks!
No seriously. Think about my question and see if you can answer it without looking it up.
I would guess that the carbon-based organisms died on land, became sediments, sank as more sediments piled on top, then under pressure became oil underground (but still above sea level!). Then, somehow, this layer containing the oil and those above it became part of the ocean crust instead of a continental plate? This is where I get lost.
The earth is only 6,000 years old, so that's not enough time for oil to form naturally. Most likely, our Intelligent Designer cast the oil deposits into the earth as he created our planet.