OT: Landing a submarine to plug a hole

[Smiley]

Is it that crazy a thought to take a sub that's near short term to be put out of commission and land or better sink that sucker over the 6-8 inch gushing pipe in the Gulf. Not a Navy guy but I can't help thinking that that could act as a measure to plug a hole. You certainly could put some pressure on the hole and slow the flow down. What am I missing as I am sure we have some Navy guys out there.

[93legendti]

Seems plausible. Any subs fit the bill?

FWIW, if the rig was in shallow waters, divers could have plugged the hole within hours...

[mschol17]

What you're fighting is the pressure differential. A mile plus of rock has been removed off the top of the oil deposit. That missing weight is what needs to be replaced, so a sub isn't going to work.

The last giant spill in the Gulf was under like 150 feet of water, and it took them months to plug it.

[Lifelover]

So you want to take a Navy submarine with an active Nuclear Reactor and sink it on top of a pipe that is spewing oil and natural gas?

This is why BP has been refusing the "help" that everyone offers.

[Smiley]

Originally Posted by Lifelover

So you want to take a Navy submarine with an active Nuclear Reactor and sink it on top of a pipe that is spewing oil and natural gas?

This is why BP has been refusing the "help" that everyone offers.

Nobody said a nuclear sub, the fleet has a few older ready to be decommissioned subs and we could buy one from another country cheap and sink her.

[Dekonick]

I do not understand why they can't blow it up with explosives. Speaking of nukes, perhaps a small tactical nuke? (kidding about the nuke but it would probably work...)

[cp43]

Originally Posted by Dekonick

I do not understand why they can't blow it up with explosives. Speaking of nukes, perhaps a small tactical nuke? (kidding about the nuke but it would probably work...)

I forget where I read it, but that's exactly what the Russians suggested. Apparently they've tried it 5 times, and it worked 4 times.

Chris

[BengeBoy]

I believe one of the concerns they have is that the well casing shows signs of weakness far below the sea floor (I think I read 1,000 feet). If you do anything *too* dramatic at the top of the well (on the seabed), it will cause pressure to build up lower in the well and it will just blow out the walls of the well casing. Then, the oil will escape out the sides of the well and then come to the surface through the sea floor who-knows-where. Which would be worse than what we have today because you have potentially multiple leaks across the sea bed.

So even though the well as drilled has failed, they need to preserve it until they can properly relieve the pressure and then cement it.

That's one reason they stopped the "top kill" operation -- they couldn't get a grasp of what was going on in the blowout preventer and lower, and worried that if they sent too much pressure back down the well without the capacity to stop it they could make a bad situation worse.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . . and the oil is coming out under enough pressure it will simply work it's way around whatever is on top and come out the sides--in many different places and be even harder to stop. The problem is not only the oil--it's the pressure that it's coming up at. I am assuming that's one of the reasons they are drilling relief wells to try and intersect the current well. Suck out the oil coming up, relieve the pressure, and once the pressure goes down as whatever oil reservoir below empties, then they can pump something back down the well to plug it up.

Also coincidentally, they can take the oil they suck up and sell it.

BBD

[Lifelover]

Originally Posted by Dekonick

I do not understand why they can't blow it up with explosives. Speaking of nukes, perhaps a small tactical nuke? (kidding about the nuke but it would probably work...)

I think you are confusing putting out well fires with stopping the leak.

Explosions are used to deny the fire of oxygen. Not sure how an explosion is used to stop the flow out of a pipe.

[Lifelover]

Is this thread a hoax?

[BdaGhisallo]

Originally Posted by Lifelover

I think you are confusing putting out well fires with stopping the leak.

Explosions are used to deny the fire of oxygen. Not sure how an explosion is used to stop the flow out of a pipe.

Apparently the Soviets uses nukes to cap some natural gas wells, not oil. Their logic in using nukes was that the heat generated would literally melt the rock surrounding the well, turning it into glass-like formations and thereby creating a huge plug that stopped any flow.

[dnades]

what is creating the pressure? the weight of the water and earth on the oil/gas mixture or is the pressure generated from below?

it seems like a long shot that they are going to hit the original well with a new one. I still think capping the well with a structure is the best solution. Drill a series of shafts around the hole - fill with concrete so that they stick above the surface - connect shafts together with more concrete to form a circular wall. Attach lid. Done. You could even make the lid so that you could pump out the oil. Easy to say and I am sure technically this would be an incredible achievement at the depth it is at but....

[happycampyer]

Originally Posted by BdaGhisallo

Apparently the Soviets uses nukes to cap some natural gas wells, not oil. Their logic in using nukes was that the heat generated would literally melt the rock surrounding the well, turning it into glass-like formations and thereby creating a huge plug that stopped any flow.

Makes you wonder which is worse, a leaking well (that one attempts to cap by non-nuclear means) or a sealed well and and giant underwater Chernobyl?

[BdaGhisallo]

Well the Soviets invariably chose the expedient route, effects on their citizens and others be damned!