OT: Anyone watching the live feed of BP cutting the stack?

[afx114]

I’m not a sawing expert — does anyone know what they’re doing now? It looks like they got a horizontal cut all the way through, and now they’re making vertical cuts down the side. As soon as they fire up the saw the screen fills with brown dust, so it’s looking like they have to saw a bit, stop, wait for it to clear, then saw some more.

Fuckin’ robots are cool!

[UCGal]

Just an fyi… I was looking at the live feed on bp’s site… it’s only one camera… and it’s showing nothing right now.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html

Then I found this site – it has multiple cameras (one for each ROV).

http://globalwarming.house.gov/spillcam/

Interesting watching the Skandi ROV1 camera – that’s the one shooting out deep water dispersant. It’s cool to see multiple angles, too.

[UCGal]

Just an fyi… I was looking at the live feed on bp’s site… it’s only one camera… and it’s showing nothing right now.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html

Then I found this site – it has multiple cameras (one for each ROV).

http://globalwarming.house.gov/spillcam/

Interesting watching the Skandi ROV1 camera – that’s the one shooting out deep water dispersant. It’s cool to see multiple angles, too.

[UCGal]

Just an fyi… I was looking at the live feed on bp’s site… it’s only one camera… and it’s showing nothing right now.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html

Then I found this site – it has multiple cameras (one for each ROV).

http://globalwarming.house.gov/spillcam/

Interesting watching the Skandi ROV1 camera – that’s the one shooting out deep water dispersant. It’s cool to see multiple angles, too.

[UCGal]

Just an fyi… I was looking at the live feed on bp’s site… it’s only one camera… and it’s showing nothing right now.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html

Then I found this site – it has multiple cameras (one for each ROV).

http://globalwarming.house.gov/spillcam/

Interesting watching the Skandi ROV1 camera – that’s the one shooting out deep water dispersant. It’s cool to see multiple angles, too.

[UCGal]

Just an fyi… I was looking at the live feed on bp’s site… it’s only one camera… and it’s showing nothing right now.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html

Then I found this site – it has multiple cameras (one for each ROV).

http://globalwarming.house.gov/spillcam/

Interesting watching the Skandi ROV1 camera – that’s the one shooting out deep water dispersant. It’s cool to see multiple angles, too.

[KSMountain]

[quote=mike92104]I was wondering the same thing. I wondered if another blow out protector could be bolted in.[/quote]

This is being discussed at theoildrum.com, which I’ve been spending far too much time on after Arraya turned us on to it.

Folks there who claim to be knowledgable say the bolts were tightened to about 13000 ft-lbs on land, and that now underwater, if the lubrication has degraded (which it likely has), you typically need triple the torque to get ’em off.

Evidently tools of that capability that work in freezing water are not widely available. 🙂

Sawing the bolts off is an option. One person made the point though that one should not underestimate the flow. The flow is like 12000 PSI! Crazy. So you saw off a bolt or two, then you got these totally crazy oil jets hitting the robot, it’s gonna be kinda hard to get the other bolts out.

Basic point being, things are not as simple as they may seem at first. Even if we stipulate that *everyone* at BP is a complete idiot, which I highly doubt, even with that I imagine Obama has sent whatever smartest guys they can get from *wherever* national resources we have, in order to prevent being Katrina’d.

I’m sure they’re trying to be smart and fast, and it makes for gripping though sad viewing.

[KSMountain]

[quote=mike92104]I was wondering the same thing. I wondered if another blow out protector could be bolted in.[/quote]

This is being discussed at theoildrum.com, which I’ve been spending far too much time on after Arraya turned us on to it.

Folks there who claim to be knowledgable say the bolts were tightened to about 13000 ft-lbs on land, and that now underwater, if the lubrication has degraded (which it likely has), you typically need triple the torque to get ’em off.

Evidently tools of that capability that work in freezing water are not widely available. 🙂

Sawing the bolts off is an option. One person made the point though that one should not underestimate the flow. The flow is like 12000 PSI! Crazy. So you saw off a bolt or two, then you got these totally crazy oil jets hitting the robot, it’s gonna be kinda hard to get the other bolts out.

Basic point being, things are not as simple as they may seem at first. Even if we stipulate that *everyone* at BP is a complete idiot, which I highly doubt, even with that I imagine Obama has sent whatever smartest guys they can get from *wherever* national resources we have, in order to prevent being Katrina’d.

I’m sure they’re trying to be smart and fast, and it makes for gripping though sad viewing.

[KSMountain]

[quote=mike92104]I was wondering the same thing. I wondered if another blow out protector could be bolted in.[/quote]

This is being discussed at theoildrum.com, which I’ve been spending far too much time on after Arraya turned us on to it.

Folks there who claim to be knowledgable say the bolts were tightened to about 13000 ft-lbs on land, and that now underwater, if the lubrication has degraded (which it likely has), you typically need triple the torque to get ’em off.

Evidently tools of that capability that work in freezing water are not widely available. 🙂

Sawing the bolts off is an option. One person made the point though that one should not underestimate the flow. The flow is like 12000 PSI! Crazy. So you saw off a bolt or two, then you got these totally crazy oil jets hitting the robot, it’s gonna be kinda hard to get the other bolts out.

Basic point being, things are not as simple as they may seem at first. Even if we stipulate that *everyone* at BP is a complete idiot, which I highly doubt, even with that I imagine Obama has sent whatever smartest guys they can get from *wherever* national resources we have, in order to prevent being Katrina’d.

I’m sure they’re trying to be smart and fast, and it makes for gripping though sad viewing.

[KSMountain]

[quote=mike92104]I was wondering the same thing. I wondered if another blow out protector could be bolted in.[/quote]

This is being discussed at theoildrum.com, which I’ve been spending far too much time on after Arraya turned us on to it.

Folks there who claim to be knowledgable say the bolts were tightened to about 13000 ft-lbs on land, and that now underwater, if the lubrication has degraded (which it likely has), you typically need triple the torque to get ’em off.

Evidently tools of that capability that work in freezing water are not widely available. 🙂

Sawing the bolts off is an option. One person made the point though that one should not underestimate the flow. The flow is like 12000 PSI! Crazy. So you saw off a bolt or two, then you got these totally crazy oil jets hitting the robot, it’s gonna be kinda hard to get the other bolts out.

Basic point being, things are not as simple as they may seem at first. Even if we stipulate that *everyone* at BP is a complete idiot, which I highly doubt, even with that I imagine Obama has sent whatever smartest guys they can get from *wherever* national resources we have, in order to prevent being Katrina’d.

I’m sure they’re trying to be smart and fast, and it makes for gripping though sad viewing.

[KSMountain]

[quote=mike92104]I was wondering the same thing. I wondered if another blow out protector could be bolted in.[/quote]

This is being discussed at theoildrum.com, which I’ve been spending far too much time on after Arraya turned us on to it.

Folks there who claim to be knowledgable say the bolts were tightened to about 13000 ft-lbs on land, and that now underwater, if the lubrication has degraded (which it likely has), you typically need triple the torque to get ’em off.

Evidently tools of that capability that work in freezing water are not widely available. 🙂

Sawing the bolts off is an option. One person made the point though that one should not underestimate the flow. The flow is like 12000 PSI! Crazy. So you saw off a bolt or two, then you got these totally crazy oil jets hitting the robot, it’s gonna be kinda hard to get the other bolts out.

Basic point being, things are not as simple as they may seem at first. Even if we stipulate that *everyone* at BP is a complete idiot, which I highly doubt, even with that I imagine Obama has sent whatever smartest guys they can get from *wherever* national resources we have, in order to prevent being Katrina’d.

I’m sure they’re trying to be smart and fast, and it makes for gripping though sad viewing.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Arraya]The don’t want to stop it really. It’s a choice between collecting oil or stopping the leak. They can siphon but not stop it the way the damage happened. I suppose the could siphon enough to pay for the cleanup, maybe a little more, but people would not be too happy about them not stopping the leak.[/quote]
Let’s “Bring some Data”:
20,000 barrels per day at $75 per barrel. That’s assuming you could siphon all of it at neglibible cost (unlikely). But anyway, that would mean the value of what’s leaking is $1.5M per day.

Uh, they’ve spent a billion already, and likely going to be on the hook for say at least $10B. The current hit to their market cap is like $40B right?

10B/1.5M = 6667 days, or about 18 years. But I believe I heard the well would run dry on its own in 3 years…

I’m thinking all in all they’d prefer to stop the flow ASAP.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Arraya]The don’t want to stop it really. It’s a choice between collecting oil or stopping the leak. They can siphon but not stop it the way the damage happened. I suppose the could siphon enough to pay for the cleanup, maybe a little more, but people would not be too happy about them not stopping the leak.[/quote]
Let’s “Bring some Data”:
20,000 barrels per day at $75 per barrel. That’s assuming you could siphon all of it at neglibible cost (unlikely). But anyway, that would mean the value of what’s leaking is $1.5M per day.

Uh, they’ve spent a billion already, and likely going to be on the hook for say at least $10B. The current hit to their market cap is like $40B right?

10B/1.5M = 6667 days, or about 18 years. But I believe I heard the well would run dry on its own in 3 years…

I’m thinking all in all they’d prefer to stop the flow ASAP.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Arraya]The don’t want to stop it really. It’s a choice between collecting oil or stopping the leak. They can siphon but not stop it the way the damage happened. I suppose the could siphon enough to pay for the cleanup, maybe a little more, but people would not be too happy about them not stopping the leak.[/quote]
Let’s “Bring some Data”:
20,000 barrels per day at $75 per barrel. That’s assuming you could siphon all of it at neglibible cost (unlikely). But anyway, that would mean the value of what’s leaking is $1.5M per day.

Uh, they’ve spent a billion already, and likely going to be on the hook for say at least $10B. The current hit to their market cap is like $40B right?

10B/1.5M = 6667 days, or about 18 years. But I believe I heard the well would run dry on its own in 3 years…

I’m thinking all in all they’d prefer to stop the flow ASAP.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Arraya]The don’t want to stop it really. It’s a choice between collecting oil or stopping the leak. They can siphon but not stop it the way the damage happened. I suppose the could siphon enough to pay for the cleanup, maybe a little more, but people would not be too happy about them not stopping the leak.[/quote]
Let’s “Bring some Data”:
20,000 barrels per day at $75 per barrel. That’s assuming you could siphon all of it at neglibible cost (unlikely). But anyway, that would mean the value of what’s leaking is $1.5M per day.

Uh, they’ve spent a billion already, and likely going to be on the hook for say at least $10B. The current hit to their market cap is like $40B right?

10B/1.5M = 6667 days, or about 18 years. But I believe I heard the well would run dry on its own in 3 years…

I’m thinking all in all they’d prefer to stop the flow ASAP.

[Author]

Posts