j_crazy;377347 wrote:cut and cap is off. the saw didn't work. FUCK!

i'm really getting upset by this. i'm going out on tuesday and all the oil I'm going to see is gonna make me sick.

SQ_Crazies;377622 wrote:This disaster is only going to get worse with the way our government is going to handle it. Spend tax payer money to take this to court over an accident and all it's going to do is tank BP stock for all of the American's that own it. Not to mention, why have an adversarial relationship rather than working together to fix the problem? This legal bullshit is nothing but another administration publicity stunt to respond to the complaints of them sitting on their hands.

rumors in NOLA wrote:Story circulating in New Orleans

With appropriate caveats:

BP contracted Schlumberger (SLB) to run the Cement Bond Log (CBL) test that was the final test on the plug that was skipped. The people testifying have been very coy about mentioning this, and you'll see why.

SLB is an extremely highly regarded (and incredibly expensive) service company. They place a high standard on safety and train their workers to shut down unsafe operations.

SLB gets out to the Deepwater Horizon to run the CBL, and they find the well still kicking heavily, which it should not be that late in the operation. SLB orders the "company man" (BP's man on the scene that runs the operation) to dump kill fluid down the well and shut-in the well. The company man refuses. SLB in the very next sentence asks for a helo to take all SLB personel back to shore. The company man says there are no more helo's scheduled for the rest of the week (translation: you're here to do a job, now do it). SLB gets on the horn to shore, calls SLB's corporate HQ, and gets a helo flown out there at SLB's expense and takes all SLB personel to shore.

6 hours later, the platform explodes.

Pick your jaw up off the floor now. No CBL was run after the pressure tests because the contractor high-tailed it out of there.

CenterBHSFan;378312 wrote:JCrazy,

Is that a rumor or has something been confirmed?

j_crazy;378462 wrote:i can confirm that Schlumberger was on the rig to do a CBL, that the CBL was not run, and that the SLB crew was shipped in 6 hours before the explosion. the rest of what i heard, and what's in the article, is conjecture.

I've heard, SLB said they weren't running the job until the well was killed, that BP said they weren't going to kill it, that they wanted to recirculate (common, but riskier than killing the well) and that when BP refused to fly them in, SLB paid for their own flight in (that part isn't in any article, that's the rumor that's going around).

believer;378828 wrote:This may seem crazy but it just might work...why not the small nuclear option? http://article.nationalreview.com/435325/nuke-it/daniel-foster

A senior Los Alamos scientist, speaking on the condition of anonymity because his comments where unauthorized, ridiculed the idea of using a nuclear blast to solve the crisis in the gulf.

“It’s not going to happen,” he said. “Technically, it would be exploring new ground in the midst of a disaster — and you might make it worse.”

Mr. 300;378953 wrote:He SHOULD be focused on domestic issues when there is a crisis at hand. Not a big deal cancelling any foreign trip, and I applaud him for doing so!! The heat's on and he knows it.

ptown_trojans_1;378911 wrote:Ugh.
1. It violates the Underwater, Peaceful nuclear explosive and the U.S.'s own moratorium on testing/ using.
2. It makes us look stupid. We just concluded a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Conference, where we are urging other states to forgo nuclear weapons and nuclear testing and now we would offer an opportunity to use nuclear weapons? That sends a great message to Iran or North Korea who could say, well we might get them just incase their is an oil spill off our coast.
3. If you listen to scientists at Los Alamos, they say it will simply not work.

4. The idea of crossing the nuclear taboo is just too much. There has not been use of nuclear weapons since North Korea test and before that, India and Pakistan. The international community killed them, and would ream the U.S. as well.
5. Again, we have no idea it would work. If you think about the physics of the blast, it could melt the rock, but the shockwave could also fracture the rock even more allowing other areas for the oil to seep out. -

believer;379361 wrote:I hear what you're saying but the Soviets apparently used it a couple of times in similar circumstances and it worked for them. If so why is this not a situation where the use of a small nuke might actually be a GOOD thing? Not an impossibility.

PLUS, and I know this gets your no-nukes tighty whiteys in a bunch , it would send a signal to the "less-than-friendlies" that we still have them and - YEP - they still work. Just sayin'.

ptown_trojans_1;379408 wrote:...do we want to follow the Soviet Union and use them as an example?

believer;379548 wrote:C'mon P-town. You can do better than that. This is not about Republicans following the Soviet example. This is leaving our options open in a very, very serious national problem. My point was the fact that nukes have been used successfully in the past to cap runaway oil spills (Soviets or not) and we should not dismiss it simply because it's a politically correct world.