Marky Marc,
Check this out and tell me what you think.
Mikki-Mikki
And:
Here is another one.....
The first video is an excerpt from George Noory's Coast-to-Coast AM radio program. Even though George's program tends to be speculative - too speculative - much of what they discuss here is reasonably accurate. The second video is more speculative, however, with too many "what ifs" linked together to yield a reliable story.
Nevertheless, what do I think?
Well, nothing can be ruled out at this time - and that's scary!
I haven’t heard anything reliable about changes in the sea floor in the vicinity of BP’s Macondo well, so I’m working on the assumption that they haven’t occurred yet (although they eventually will occur as the oil gets withdrawn). Right now, estimates are that it will take two or three years to completely vent the oil at current withdrawal rates. I’m also not intensely worried about their discussion of extreme pressures. Pressures increase as you go down, but as the oil comes up, pressure decreases automatically, so no particular big deal about the pressure, just by itself.
Nevertheless, there is a chance of extreme events regarding this disaster, far larger than we’ve seen, or that have been discussed in the mainstream media. Some of the things they mentioned in the first video – cavitation within the pipe, degradation of well casings, cement failures – have already happened, on a small scale, as a result of the rig collapse and uncontrolled venting of oil. The big question on everyone’s mind is ‘how bad is the damage?’ One reason they abandoned the “top kill” procedure, for example, apart from the fact that it wasn’t working, was that it was subjecting the well to higher pressures than it was designed for, which might aggravate the damage. If the well casing becomes damaged or useless, then a far-larger hole might form, a crater down into the oil body itself, which will be far less-controllable than it is now.
People have suggested using nuclear weapons to seal the oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, but there are serious drawbacks to the use of nuclear weaponry for this purpose. My fear is that it would shatter the rock in the vicinity of the pipe, leading to a blowout a zillion times larger than what they have now.
I learned several things at Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque when I worked there as a college student that make me worry (I worked in a section that evaluated the effects of previous U.S. nuclear blasts on local geology, with a view towards hardening MX missile launch points).
When the U.S. detonated the Bikini and Eniwetok thermonuclear blasts on top of coral atolls in the early 1950s, the blasts didn’t vaporize the rock, or fling it away, so much as they slammed the rock straight down, hundreds of feet, creating big craters. Granted, coral rock is porous, and so more-crushable than the stuff likely under the Gulf of Mexico, but still, one shouldn’t underestimate the power of nukes in punching rock around. That Gulf of Mexico seabed rock seals the oil reservoir right now, and we shouldn't want to break that seal in a careless manner.
When natural gas wells have been sealed previously through the use of nuclear weapons (by the Soviets) it was the nuclear heat that melted the rock that created the seal. This oil well is under water, however, and water is very good at absorbing nuclear radiation and converting it into concussive mechanical power. As a consequence, there is less rock-melting heat available than you might expect. So, in a waterlogged environment like under the Gulf of Mexico, a nuclear weapon would create lots of well-case-shattering breakage, and maybe not enough well-sealing heat. The ultimate result might be a oil leak far worse than we have now. An unstoppable oil flood, or oil volcano.
Another vastly complicating factor they have down there in the seabed is methane clathrate hydrate ice. It’s a form of water and methane ice (clathrate refers to the cagelike structure of the water ice surrounding the methane molecules) that forms under the low temperatures and high pressures that you see in deep sea drilling. The ice does not appear in shallow water drilling, however, which is why the BP engineers (and all oil-drilling engineers) are so inexperienced with it. This ice clogged up their first top-hat methods of trying to funnel the oil. Indeed, the pictures you see of the venting well are partly oil, but partly methane clathrate hydrate ice slush. Think of it as an out-of-control, slimy, oily blended margarita fountain.
Anyway, this ice is flammable (!), and potentially-explosive if the pressure is suddenly reduced. The seabed is packed with this ice, to some depth.
Methane clathrate hydrate ice is a suspect in ancient tsunamis, and maybe modern ones too. If underwater landslides occur as a result of earthquakes, the landslides can suddenly reduce the pressure in the seabed, leading to gas eruptions, enormous bubbles, even bigger landslides, and big tsunamis.
My guess at the moment is that the worst-case (explosions, tsunamis, endless oil) won’t occur, mostly because the well is too small (the hole is smaller than the typical computer screen). But just like a volcanic caldera (e.g., the Jemez, or Yellowstone), if you can create a runaway condition, where exploding ice or well-case degradation contributes to hole growth, you could create an epic catastrophe – a volcano of oil, packed with tsunamis and spectacular explosions. It might mean the end of most life in the world’s oceans. So, it’s important not to make the hole in the ocean floor bigger, even with the best of intentions.
I hope these relief wells get completed soon. August is just too far away!
Regarding the second video, I’m not a believer in Thomas Gold’s idea of abiotic oil (oil present for reasons other than a biological origin) and so this video has less persuasive power than the first one. I don’t think the oil can lead to stronger hurricanes, for example. Indeed, one of the most fascinating things regarding this oil spill is that we might finally get a test of the idea that oil slicks can quell hurricanes and reduce their power (never tried before because no one before now would ever have been so stupid as to coat the entire Gulf of Mexico with oil to give the theory a proper test).
Nevertheless, as previously mentioned, even if it’s not the end of the Earth, it can still get pretty damned bad. Good luck to BP’s relief-well efforts!
Speaking of which, I asked my bosses’ permission to come to NM in late July, but they are hesitating, because they aren’t sure whether they might need my services that week modeling the air pollution generated by burning oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico, or at least assessing the software.
BP taketh away, and BP giveth!
No comments:
Post a Comment