applegrove
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 09:23 PM
Original message |
What if they dump a gazillion tons of sand or gravel on the hole gushing oil? |
tabatha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 09:23 PM
Response to Original message |
1. It could be more effective than mud. |
Warren Stupidity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. 'mud' is 'drilling mud' and is intended to be dense enough to actually |
|
have a chance of staying put against the up pressure from the oil. On the other hand, sand is just sand.
However I do have to admit that a 'gazillion' tons of sand is a mythically large number, and consequently beyond any rational discussion regarding its real world effect on this disaster.
|
applegrove
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
lonestarnot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 09:25 PM
Response to Original message |
2. wouldn't stay on top of the gusher due to the pressure and at that depth, |
|
don't believe that would work. :shrug:
|
RKP5637
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
8. yep, agree, it would just blow out. If drilling mud in a pipe didn't seal it |
|
pouring sand on it isn't.
|
DURHAM D
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 09:26 PM
Response to Original message |
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 09:27 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I think the force coming out would create a sandy, rocky geyser. nt |
Shadow Creature
(105 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 09:28 PM
Response to Original message |
5. It might just be better to |
|
Just attach a mile long hose and bring in the tankers.
Fixing the actual leak might take a while.
|
mike_c
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 09:32 PM
Response to Original message |
7. from the surface or with submarine dump trucks...? |
|
You see the problem. Actually, only one of the several problems, which include the porosity of sand and the enormous upwelling pressure. First, delivering sand at the rate necessary to offset the upwelling pressure couldn't be done from the surface. Delivering it via a 5000 foot pipe would run into exactly the same supply limitations as drilling mud or cement, and the sand itself would be much more porous.
|
rurallib
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 09:36 PM
Response to Original message |
9. at 7000 PSI I am not sure you could drop the Empire State Building |
|
on it. I can't even imagine 7000 PSI
|
Warpy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 09:36 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Apparently you don't realize how much pressure that oil is under |
|
All you'd do is have oily rocks and gravel all over the sea bed when the well spit it all back out again.
|
time_has_come
(872 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 09:43 PM
Response to Original message |
Canuckistanian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 09:44 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Drilling mud has special properties that even tons of sand doesn't have |
|
Edited on Wed Jun-02-10 09:44 PM by Canuckistanian
It resists flow and is heavy enough to counteract tons of pressure. It failed because there isn't any way to completely block all exit paths.
Sand would only be pushed aside by the enormous pressure of the oil, no matter how fast you poured it. There would always be SOME porosity in sand that would let the oil start flowing again.
|
Codeine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 09:44 PM
Response to Original message |
13. A fire hose could chew through sand. |
|
Imagine what this kind of PSI would do.
|
madinmaryland
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
16. Your sig line picture started a flame fest the other night with |
|
a picture of urinals with those lips.
:hi:
|
Codeine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
|
I saw that thread. We wind ourselves up tight over the strangest shit here, eh? :rofl: :hi:
|
madinmaryland
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
19. Well, let me say that I don't think of Codeine or Mick Jagger or urinals when I see |
|
Edited on Wed Jun-02-10 11:59 PM by madinmaryland
those lips!
:rofl:
|
obxhead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 10:27 PM
Response to Original message |
14. I don't think it would work. Not even a brazillion tons would fix it |
madinmaryland
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
17. But maybe three brazilians could fix it! |
Crabby Appleton
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-03-10 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #17 |
20. How many is a brazilian? |
Ganja Ninja
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-03-10 05:59 AM
Response to Original message |
21. How about drilling the relief well down just far enough to use a nuke safely |
|
instead of all the way to the reservoir?
|
Vinca
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-03-10 07:25 AM
Response to Original message |
22. Could they pump liquid nitrogen into the hole? Would it freeze? |
|
Astonishing to think we can put a man on the moon with primitive computers, but can't plug a hole in the sea bed.
|
ThomThom
(752 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-03-10 07:31 AM
Response to Original message |
23. how about a giant drill bit slightly lager than the hole |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 14th 2024, 06:10 AM
Response to Original message |