- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Prolly stupid ? but why didn't they.......
Posted on 5/5/10 at 4:56 pm
Posted on 5/5/10 at 4:56 pm
put the oil booms around the area of the rig after it sank as a precaution. I know they were reporting no leaks at that time but seems that it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper to boom a mile radius around the rig's position immediately and use the cleaning equipment for that small area etc. Hindsight 50/50 and all but.....why didn't they?
This post was edited on 5/5/10 at 4:58 pm
4
Posted on 5/5/10 at 5:04 pm to ELLSSUU
what would stop the oil booms from drifting away while the oil kept flowing from the bottom?
Posted on 5/5/10 at 5:05 pm to ELLSSUU
oil doesnt ride an elevator to the surface.
Posted on 5/5/10 at 5:06 pm to ELLSSUU
I was asking the same thing...I'm picturing an emergency conference call immediately after the explosion with BP execs where someone asks this very question and they decide against it since there's no evidence of a leak. I gotta think that they could have at least started looking at the prevailing winds direction and started placing booms on the leeward side of the site.
Posted on 5/5/10 at 5:08 pm to baytiger
quote:
what would stop the oil booms from drifting away while the oil kept flowing from the bottom?
Boats, maybe?
Posted on 5/5/10 at 5:17 pm to Big L
You don't want boats involved with fire and rescue getting booms caught in their screws.
Posted on 5/5/10 at 5:49 pm to redstick13
Thanks, all good answers. I guess I was assuming that the Oil would flow straight up which in retrospect has to be wrong. The dynamics of the GOM would push the oil flow in different directions depending on several factors.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Posted on 5/5/10 at 8:30 pm to Big L
quote:
I'm picturing an emergency conference call immediately after the explosion with BP execs where someone asks this very question and they decide against it since there's no evidence of a leak.
It's quite clear that you don't work for a major oil company if you think this.
Posted on 5/5/10 at 10:58 pm to redstick13
You don't want boats involved with fire and rescue getting booms caught in their screws.
rescue fine / the boats spraying rig with water was a waste of time. Just another "hey, look we are doing everything we can". That fire being fed by gas and oil was not going out with those measly streams of water.
rescue fine / the boats spraying rig with water was a waste of time. Just another "hey, look we are doing everything we can". That fire being fed by gas and oil was not going out with those measly streams of water.
Posted on 5/5/10 at 11:10 pm to BayouBuster
quote:
the boats spraying rig with water was a waste of time. Just another "hey, look we are doing everything we can"
Those boats that were spraying the rig with water was doing everything that they could. I have never been in a similar position and I assume you havent either. In the heat of the moment they were just doing the best they could do. We all know that it wasent doing much if anything to the fire, but it must have been an awful feeling to be there and know they could do nothing more. Give em a break. Holding boom around the rig would have done absolutly nothing either. Like one poster said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"oil doesnt ride an elevator to the surface."
This post was edited on 5/5/10 at 11:16 pm
Posted on 5/6/10 at 8:16 am to BayouBuster
quote:
rescue fine / the boats spraying rig with water was a waste of time. Just another "hey, look we are doing everything we can". That fire being fed by gas and oil was not going out with those measly streams of water.
they weren't trying to put out the fire, they were trying to keep the rig cool enough to stay afloat while attempts were made to shut the well in w/ ROV's.
Posted on 5/6/10 at 8:32 am to oilfieldtiger
quote:
they were trying to keep the rig cool enough to stay afloat while attempts were made to shut the well in w/ ROV's.
I understand they had to make a showing, but talk about "pissing in the wind".......
Keep the rig cool...........sheesh! Did you see that inferno?
Posted on 5/6/10 at 8:40 am to ELLSSUU
Currents under the surface carry the oil out, and would render the booms ineffective.
Posted on 5/6/10 at 8:50 am to Kracka
I would think that they could basically patrol for where the oil is coming to the surface, which would obviously be a large area since there were three leaks some hundreds of feet apart and obviously got bigger. The other thing the makes it a moot point is the weather we had this past weekend. 20-25 mph winds that made 10 foot waves, which would probably make a boom pretty uneffective (perhaps not...I don't know enough about the dynamics of a boom). I agree that trying to shut it off at the BOP was the best approach...just sucks that the BOP couldn't be activated.
This post was edited on 5/6/10 at 8:51 am
Posted on 5/6/10 at 8:57 am to luvmesumlsu
quote:
quote: they were trying to keep the rig cool enough to stay afloat while attempts were made to shut the well in w/ ROV's. I understand they had to make a showing, but talk about "pissing in the wind"....... Keep the rig cool...........sheesh! Did you see that inferno?
this situation appears to fall under "damned if you do and damned if you don't"
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News