Why only 2 relief wells?

[midnight armadillo]

Why not 6? or 8? You know, just in case the 1st two don't work...

[mikelgb]

1. 42

[caledesi]

2. BP wanted to build just 1 relief well!

Obama said "build 2"....BP has never built a r. well this deep! Obama really does not trusi them. Wonder why?

LOL!

[Yupster]

3. It is an amazing bit of engineering

to try to intercept one holew with another not only way below the ocean, but way below the land below the ocean.

I think they're hoping to use the sound of the gushing oil to lead them to the interception.

[Kringle]

7. do you have a link for that? .nt

[caledesi]

8. Yep. link...

As an example of the government's hands-on approach, Obama said that BP had wanted to drill a single "relief" well in an effort to eventually stop the leak in several months if all else failed. Instead, the administration insisted on two relief wells, Obama said.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011964063_apusgulfoilspillwashington.html

[treestar]

4. I don't know; maybe that is impractical or impossible

That is a highly technical issue.

[stranger81]

5. Easy . . . . 6 or 8 relief wells are more expensive than two.

End of story.

[BelgianMadCow]

6. alanfrombigeasy on TOD pleads for 3 or 4

based on the chance one can go wrong. You do have to keep in mind, if they miss the well on one try, they back up the drill bit and have another go. So one relief well can do multiple tries. Another factor is the amount of vessels on the site - which is getting dangerously crowded as it is.
But your point is valid - the "similar" Ixtoc spill took 5 relief wells and 8 months iirc.

A bit of good news: the company doing the relief wells, is headed by a Wright guy, and he is THE worldwise best in this kind of thing. He hasn't missed a well on the first try yet it seems. Of course, this one is harder than the others...