It ain't over till it's over...

[EE_]

*BREAKING* Feds say risk of BLOWOUT near wellhead is the center of discussion (VIDEO)
August 13th, 2010 at 06:47 PM
Share169retweetPress Briefing by National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen, August 13, 2010:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSYGLYGG--s&feature=player_embedded

[Joe King]

What I got out of that is that after pumping concrete into the well in the static kill, they aren't sure how good of a seal they made.
...and really, they have no way of actually knowing that.


What I think they should have done was to just keep the cap on without doing the static kill.
Then, when the relief well finally tapped into the bottom of the bore, re-open the valves on the cap and start pumping concrete through the relief well into the Macondo bore, thereby allowing the pressure from the reservoir to push the concrete up the Macondo casing all the way to the top.

Then re-close the valves on top of the Macondo well and allow the concrete to set.

This way, the entire 3 miles of the well bore would be plugged.
With 3 miles of concrete in the well bore, I doubt it would it would still leak.


By doing the static kill, they have no way of doing that, as they can't tell just how deep into the well the static kill was able to get the concrete to.
Not to mention the fact Thad pointed out about the very real possibility of over pressurizing the well by pumping concrete in that might not have anywhere to go.
And in that case, the path of least resistance is up. Which could blow the top of it off. {top being the spooling tool and capping stack}


The reason BP did the static kill is because once thats done, there's no way to ever know for sure exactly what the flow rate was when it was wide open.
If the flow rate can never be determined, it allows BP to argue that the amount leaked was on the lower side.
i.e. an attempt to minimize their liability.

[EE_]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV-DkVOX7qE&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q75F_hjg7o&feature=pyv&ad=5849963259&kw=gulf%20oil%20spill

[EE_]

What I got out of that is that after pumping concrete into the well in the static kill, they aren't sure how good of a seal they made.
...and really, they have no way of actually knowing that.


What I think they should have done was to just keep the cap on without doing the static kill.
Then, when the relief well finally tapped into the bottom of the bore, re-open the valves on the cap and start pumping concrete through the relief well into the Macondo bore, thereby allowing the pressure from the reservoir to push the concrete up the Macondo casing all the way to the top.

Then re-close the valves on top of the Macondo well and allow the concrete to set.

This way, the entire 3 miles of the well bore would be plugged.
With 3 miles of concrete in the well bore, I doubt it would it would still leak.

By doing the static kill, they have no way of doing that, as they can't tell just how deep into the well the static kill was able to get the concrete to.
Not to mention the fact Thad pointed out about the very real possibility of over pressurizing the well by pumping concrete in that might not have anywhere to go.
And in that case, the path of least resistance is up. Which could blow the top of it off. {top being the spooling tool and capping stack}


The reason BP did the static kill is because once thats done, there's no way to ever know for sure exactly what the flow rate was when it was wide open.
If the flow rate can never be determined, it allows BP to argue that the amount leaked was on the lower side.
i.e. an attempt to minimize their liability.

That would be diabolical!

[EE_]

Could this be why Matt Simmons isn't around to tell us what they are doing? Hmmm?