Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I did a fair bit of research on the technical details of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. I, too, wanted to know why "they" didn't do X, Y, or Z, so I decided to find out. :-)

The first thing you need to know is that it's 5,000 feet from the surface of the ocean to the ocean floor at the well, and then there's another 18,000 feet of shaft below the ocean floor to the oil and gas reservoir. So, there's no clear position from which explosives can be used to "seal" it. If explosives were used, there's a pretty good chance it would blow up in our face, so to speak -- not only would the gas ignite (making the process somewhat unpredictable), but it would also likely create a huge number of microfissures that would lead to an even bigger oil geyser.

How catastrophic is it? It's ... well, not to be dramatic, but if this doesn't end up being one of the nastier long-term natural catastrophes of the next few decades, then I shudder to imagine what's coming next. Not only is this killing seabirds and mammals, it's also de-oxygenating a large portion of the Gulf rather nicely.

If BP does stick to their commitment to pay for the whole thing, I expect that they will file for bankruptcy next year. (In large part because their market cap is dropping like a rock.)

This particular incident is sort of the perfect storm of conditions for an oil disaster: it occurred at challenging depths, and when efforts have been made to stop the leak at those depths, something has gone wrong each time to stall or defeat the effort.

For further perspective: the US Navy's Seawolf class submarine has a crush depth of approximately 3,000 feet. At that depth, you're dealing with around 2,000 psi of pressure, but that's not the nasty part: the gusher is estimated to be at around 12,000 psi.

So, yeah. Explosives are probably not a wise idea here.




"If explosives were used, there's a pretty good chance it would blow up in our face, so to speak -- not only would the gas ignite (making the process somewhat unpredictable), but it would also likely create a huge number of microfissures that would lead to an even bigger oil geyser."

How exactly is the gas going to ignite in the absence of atmospheric oxygen? Remember, this is the bottom of the ocean. There's no air for the gas to react with. Presumably the solid oxidizer and fuel components of any explosive that would be used for this purpose would be well mixed and present in a stoichiometric ratio and, therefore, side reactions between oxidizer and gas aren't all that likely.

I agree on the fissure problem, though.


You're probably right. I honestly have no idea how a water / oil / gas combination would interact with a hot explosion at that depth, and I dunno how well methane hydrates oxidize.


> How catastrophic is it? It's ... well, not to be dramatic, but if this doesn't end up being one of the nastier long-term natural catastrophes of the next few decades, then I shudder to imagine what's coming next. Not only is this killing seabirds and mammals, it's also de-oxygenating a large portion of the Gulf rather nicely.

Point of clarification, this is a man-made catastrophe.


It could have been an oversight, but I think that he also might have been referring to the damage to the ecosystem (i.e. 'natural' as in that it's a disaster that's affecting nature).


I read it as something like 'one of the nastier long-term catastrophes of the natural world' - rather than being natural in origin.


Oh, I wasn't saying that explosives were the right way. I'm just trying to show that I'm at least thinking about the problem a little rather than asking a dumb question. :P Thanks for the information.


The bbc have a bunch of ideas with reasons why they won't work at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10268979.stm




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: