[UCGal]

[quote=clearfund]”…its close to NYC, DC and Europe.” ???

http://www.mapquest.com[/quote%5D

I see his point on this one… When I lived in Philly I literally took two “long weekend” trips to London. 6 hour red eye – paid less than $300 for the ticket – spent 3 days/night there – flew back on the 4th day. I’d keep an eye on airfare sales and do low cost vacations. The other trip was for Thanksgiving weekend – met friends in Italy and spent 5 days touring, drinking, wine, etc.

Now that I’m on the west coast – the travel time alone is a killer – add at least 8 hours to the start airport to end airport travel time (because there’s always at least one layover somewhere: Chicago/Atlanta/east coast. I used to go to Europe at least once a year – now I go every 4-5 years.

That said – Hawaii and Japan are more convenient from the West coast.

[UCGal]

[quote=clearfund]”…its close to NYC, DC and Europe.” ???

http://www.mapquest.com[/quote%5D

I see his point on this one… When I lived in Philly I literally took two “long weekend” trips to London. 6 hour red eye – paid less than $300 for the ticket – spent 3 days/night there – flew back on the 4th day. I’d keep an eye on airfare sales and do low cost vacations. The other trip was for Thanksgiving weekend – met friends in Italy and spent 5 days touring, drinking, wine, etc.

Now that I’m on the west coast – the travel time alone is a killer – add at least 8 hours to the start airport to end airport travel time (because there’s always at least one layover somewhere: Chicago/Atlanta/east coast. I used to go to Europe at least once a year – now I go every 4-5 years.

That said – Hawaii and Japan are more convenient from the West coast.

[UCGal]

[quote=clearfund]”…its close to NYC, DC and Europe.” ???

http://www.mapquest.com[/quote%5D

I see his point on this one… When I lived in Philly I literally took two “long weekend” trips to London. 6 hour red eye – paid less than $300 for the ticket – spent 3 days/night there – flew back on the 4th day. I’d keep an eye on airfare sales and do low cost vacations. The other trip was for Thanksgiving weekend – met friends in Italy and spent 5 days touring, drinking, wine, etc.

Now that I’m on the west coast – the travel time alone is a killer – add at least 8 hours to the start airport to end airport travel time (because there’s always at least one layover somewhere: Chicago/Atlanta/east coast. I used to go to Europe at least once a year – now I go every 4-5 years.

That said – Hawaii and Japan are more convenient from the West coast.

[UCGal]

[quote=flu]
If I were betting, I’d say this “cap” isn’t going to work
[/quote]

From what I’ve read – they’re not expecting it to do anything more than *slow* the flow. It won’t cap it completely. But slowing the flow is a start.

[UCGal]

[quote=flu]
If I were betting, I’d say this “cap” isn’t going to work
[/quote]

From what I’ve read – they’re not expecting it to do anything more than *slow* the flow. It won’t cap it completely. But slowing the flow is a start.

[UCGal]

[quote=flu]
If I were betting, I’d say this “cap” isn’t going to work
[/quote]

From what I’ve read – they’re not expecting it to do anything more than *slow* the flow. It won’t cap it completely. But slowing the flow is a start.

[UCGal]

[quote=flu]
If I were betting, I’d say this “cap” isn’t going to work
[/quote]

From what I’ve read – they’re not expecting it to do anything more than *slow* the flow. It won’t cap it completely. But slowing the flow is a start.

[UCGal]

[quote=flu]
If I were betting, I’d say this “cap” isn’t going to work
[/quote]

From what I’ve read – they’re not expecting it to do anything more than *slow* the flow. It won’t cap it completely. But slowing the flow is a start.

[UCGal]

[quote=CDMA ENG]Maybe someone can answer me this…

This well was going to be shutdown correct?

This seems like a productive well yes… I mean it is pouring millions of gallons into the ocean correct?

So why were they going to shut this thing down?

CE[/quote]

My understanding is the well was to be shut down as part of the required testing before it goes into production… something called a sheen test. Also once the well is drilled, cemented – they replace the rig that has the drilling equipment with one that has extraction equipment.

I could be wrong… but that’s what I’ve gleaned from what I’ve read about this.

[UCGal]

[quote=CDMA ENG]Maybe someone can answer me this…

This well was going to be shutdown correct?

This seems like a productive well yes… I mean it is pouring millions of gallons into the ocean correct?

So why were they going to shut this thing down?

CE[/quote]

My understanding is the well was to be shut down as part of the required testing before it goes into production… something called a sheen test. Also once the well is drilled, cemented – they replace the rig that has the drilling equipment with one that has extraction equipment.

I could be wrong… but that’s what I’ve gleaned from what I’ve read about this.

[UCGal]

[quote=CDMA ENG]Maybe someone can answer me this…

This well was going to be shutdown correct?

This seems like a productive well yes… I mean it is pouring millions of gallons into the ocean correct?

So why were they going to shut this thing down?

CE[/quote]

My understanding is the well was to be shut down as part of the required testing before it goes into production… something called a sheen test. Also once the well is drilled, cemented – they replace the rig that has the drilling equipment with one that has extraction equipment.

I could be wrong… but that’s what I’ve gleaned from what I’ve read about this.

[UCGal]

[quote=CDMA ENG]Maybe someone can answer me this…

This well was going to be shutdown correct?

This seems like a productive well yes… I mean it is pouring millions of gallons into the ocean correct?

So why were they going to shut this thing down?

CE[/quote]

My understanding is the well was to be shut down as part of the required testing before it goes into production… something called a sheen test. Also once the well is drilled, cemented – they replace the rig that has the drilling equipment with one that has extraction equipment.

I could be wrong… but that’s what I’ve gleaned from what I’ve read about this.

[UCGal]

[quote=CDMA ENG]Maybe someone can answer me this…

This well was going to be shutdown correct?

This seems like a productive well yes… I mean it is pouring millions of gallons into the ocean correct?

So why were they going to shut this thing down?

CE[/quote]

My understanding is the well was to be shut down as part of the required testing before it goes into production… something called a sheen test. Also once the well is drilled, cemented – they replace the rig that has the drilling equipment with one that has extraction equipment.

I could be wrong… but that’s what I’ve gleaned from what I’ve read about this.

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1]It’s interesting to see how the contingencies are failing one after the other.[/quote]
It’s predictable. They are trying (and failing at) all the same things they tried in 1979 for the Ixtoc I spill. The Ixtoc I spill was also in the Gulf of Mexico, but in Mexican territory. Pemex was the oil company for that one.

In that one they tried putting a giant funnel cap over it – calling it “The Sombrero”. This time around they called it “Top Hat”. Same results.

In that one they put out massive amounts of boom and chemical dispersant – and still had lots of oil reach delicate coastlines. Same thing this time. Except more dispersant is being used because the oil is deeper.

In that one they had divers try to shove steel balls in the hole to try to stop it. This time we had ROVs shove golf balls and debris in – calling it the “junk shot”. Didn’t work then or now.

In that one 160 miles of U.S. beaches were impacted… and laborers had to clean the barrier island beaches with rakes and shovels. Same thing is happening now.

They haven’t come up with any new methods/technologies in the past 30 years. The ixtoc well was only a few hundred feet down – and still couldn’t be plugged.

What stopped the spill in 1979 was the drilling of the relief well. 5 months to drill the relief wells, then another 4 months to successfully cap it. That’s probably going to be the final solution this time. It took 9 months to cap Ixtoc. Lets see how long it takes this time.

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1]It’s interesting to see how the contingencies are failing one after the other.[/quote]
It’s predictable. They are trying (and failing at) all the same things they tried in 1979 for the Ixtoc I spill. The Ixtoc I spill was also in the Gulf of Mexico, but in Mexican territory. Pemex was the oil company for that one.

In that one they tried putting a giant funnel cap over it – calling it “The Sombrero”. This time around they called it “Top Hat”. Same results.

In that one they put out massive amounts of boom and chemical dispersant – and still had lots of oil reach delicate coastlines. Same thing this time. Except more dispersant is being used because the oil is deeper.

In that one they had divers try to shove steel balls in the hole to try to stop it. This time we had ROVs shove golf balls and debris in – calling it the “junk shot”. Didn’t work then or now.

In that one 160 miles of U.S. beaches were impacted… and laborers had to clean the barrier island beaches with rakes and shovels. Same thing is happening now.

They haven’t come up with any new methods/technologies in the past 30 years. The ixtoc well was only a few hundred feet down – and still couldn’t be plugged.

What stopped the spill in 1979 was the drilling of the relief well. 5 months to drill the relief wells, then another 4 months to successfully cap it. That’s probably going to be the final solution this time. It took 9 months to cap Ixtoc. Lets see how long it takes this time.

[Author]

Posts