The Hayride

If Top Kill Doesn’t Work, U.S. Navy May Take Over Spill (UPDATED)

If Top Kill Doesn’t Work, U.S. Navy May Take Over Spill (UPDATED)
May 28
15:30 2010

Hayride sources indicate that today’s effort at a “top kill” of the Macondo gusher carries with it gigantic stakes for BP – as if no measurable progress is made on the spill through that method, President Obama will announce when he comes to New Orleans on Friday that the federal government will seize control of the response from BP and turn it over to the U.S. Navy.

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has reportedly floated the idea of sinking a battleship directly on top of the Macondo well in order to drop 80,000 tons on it and crush the drill pipe and the blowout preventer alike.

We haven’t confirmed it yet, but that’s the word floating around Louisiana’s state capitol today.

UPDATE (5-28-10, 3:20 p.m.) – The battleship idea is only one of several that the folks at the Louisiana state capitol have reported hearing. Most of the others involve explosions of some kind, or sinking a barge to the bottom – some of which have been bandied about. The recipients of those ideas have generally reacted in a manner not dissimilar to our commenters – an indication that at least in Baton Rouge, there is very little faith that the federal government or the military would be in any better position to resolve the spill at the source than the people currently working on it.

The President vowed to bring in a team of “top experts” in the event BP’s top kill doesn’t work…

Related Articles

58 Comments

  1. Leanne
    Leanne May 28, 06:06

    I can't believe anyone actually believes this story. I'm crying, I'm laughing so hard.

    • expat229
      expat229 May 28, 14:15

      The problem is, there is so much stupidity in the leadership classes that, on hearing such an idiotic idea being discussed, sane people naturally assume that it is being seriously considered.

      For all we know, sinking a battleship over the leak actually IS being considered.

  2. Leanne
    Leanne May 28, 06:06

    I can't believe anyone actually believes this story. I'm crying, I'm laughing so hard.

    • expat229
      expat229 May 28, 14:15

      The problem is, there is so much stupidity in the leadership classes that, on hearing such an idiotic idea being discussed, sane people naturally assume that it is being seriously considered.

      For all we know, sinking a battleship over the leak actually IS being considered.

  3. Bob Arctor
    Bob Arctor May 28, 06:55

    Too much tinfoil in this story for my liking.

  4. Bob Arctor
    Bob Arctor May 28, 06:55

    Too much tinfoil in this story for my liking.

  5. alain maronani
    alain maronani May 28, 10:00

    The best idea is to collapse the sea floor…the battleship do not cut the mustard here….the only solution is to use a nuke (20 kilotons to start…hiroshima type) and it is easy to locate it close to the leak. Pollution yes but for a limited area and not for that long. It's better than having that kind of leak for 3 more months. The gulf will be a DEAD area for the next 30 years….from Montreal with love for the people of the gulf coast….

    • Fred Fnord
      Fred Fnord May 28, 20:03

      I keep hearing this again and again. But what I also hear is that if we used a large enough explosive to have a good chance of capping this, we would also have the possibility of shattering enough rock to just release the entire oil reservoir.

      So yeah. Your choice: an oil leak for another 3 months, or a lot of radioactivity and a chance (I've heard anything between 5% and 20%) of releasing enough oil to coat the entire gulf, plus most of the east coast of the US, a foot thick, with literally no possibly hope of remediation.

      -fred

  6. alain maronani
    alain maronani May 28, 10:00

    The best idea is to collapse the sea floor…the battleship do not cut the mustard here….the only solution is to use a nuke (20 kilotons to start…hiroshima type) and it is easy to locate it close to the leak. Pollution yes but for a limited area and not for that long. It's better than having that kind of leak for 3 more months. The gulf will be a DEAD area for the next 30 years….from Montreal with love for the people of the gulf coast….

    • Fred Fnord
      Fred Fnord May 28, 20:03

      I keep hearing this again and again. But what I also hear is that if we used a large enough explosive to have a good chance of capping this, we would also have the possibility of shattering enough rock to just release the entire oil reservoir.

      So yeah. Your choice: an oil leak for another 3 months, or a lot of radioactivity and a chance (I've heard anything between 5% and 20%) of releasing enough oil to coat the entire gulf, plus most of the east coast of the US, a foot thick, with literally no possibly hope of remediation.

      -fred

  7. Colcall
    Colcall May 28, 13:04

    Thats the stupidest plan Ive ever heard. I'm really starting to wonder about the mental health and general competence of US government and Ray Mabus.

    Sink a battleship to crush the well head? They can hardly work at that sea depth as it is, so the idea they can thread the needle so to speak at that depth is ridiculous to say the least.

    Sounds like there is major panic happening because only such a stupid idea would get a hearing in such a scenario.

    • Fred Fnord
      Fred Fnord May 28, 20:03

      I would recommend instead wondering about the mental health and competence of The Hay Ride, since they're the only ones reporting this 'scoop'.

      -fred

  8. Colcall
    Colcall May 28, 13:04

    Thats the stupidest plan Ive ever heard. I'm really starting to wonder about the mental health and general competence of US government and Ray Mabus.

    Sink a battleship to crush the well head? They can hardly work at that sea depth as it is, so the idea they can thread the needle so to speak at that depth is ridiculous to say the least.

    Sounds like there is major panic happening because only such a stupid idea would get a hearing in such a scenario.

    • Fred Fnord
      Fred Fnord May 28, 20:03

      I would recommend instead wondering about the mental health and competence of The Hay Ride, since they're the only ones reporting this 'scoop'.

      -fred

  9. Anon
    Anon May 28, 15:12

    No, the latest proposal is to use hot air, something in abundance in the US, and under high pressure, blow back the oil so that a cement mixture can then be applied.

  10. Anon
    Anon May 28, 15:12

    No, the latest proposal is to use hot air, something in abundance in the US, and under high pressure, blow back the oil so that a cement mixture can then be applied.

  11. Anon
    Anon May 28, 16:24

    Most people I talk to just don't understand the pressures involved in the oil flow: 10,000 psi or more. To cap it you need to have NO LEAKS that can grow over time through erosion. That oil/gas REALLY wants to come out and will find a path…

    Putting a big fat battleship on top of it (even if you could) would just cause the oil/gas to find a path through the sediment on the sea floor and you would have eliminated the only thing choking the current flow (the partially closed BOP). We're talking 5x-10x the previous flow rate.

    Hopefully people with a clue will shut down stupid ideas before they spend any time on them.

  12. Anon
    Anon May 28, 16:24

    Most people I talk to just don't understand the pressures involved in the oil flow: 10,000 psi or more. To cap it you need to have NO LEAKS that can grow over time through erosion. That oil/gas REALLY wants to come out and will find a path…

    Putting a big fat battleship on top of it (even if you could) would just cause the oil/gas to find a path through the sediment on the sea floor and you would have eliminated the only thing choking the current flow (the partially closed BOP). We're talking 5x-10x the previous flow rate.

    Hopefully people with a clue will shut down stupid ideas before they spend any time on them.

  13. Dexter
    Dexter May 28, 16:49

    Exactly !…this idea couldn't be serious…could it ?

  14. Dexter
    Dexter May 28, 16:49

    Exactly !…this idea couldn't be serious…could it ?

  15. BillSmith@yahoo.com
    BillSmith@yahoo.com May 28, 18:34

    Where are they going to get a battleship from and how are they going to get there?

  16. BillSmith@yahoo.com
    BillSmith@yahoo.com May 28, 18:34

    Where are they going to get a battleship from and how are they going to get there?

  17. ralph
    ralph May 28, 18:52

    NUKE IT!

  18. ralph
    ralph May 28, 18:52

    NUKE IT!

  19. Fred Fnord
    Fred Fnord May 28, 19:47

    Actually, FYI, still just one relief well. The relief well will hit the shaft waaaay below anywhere that anything we do at the ocean floor will have an impact.

    Also, they're already drilling two relief wells. The government insisted on a backup, in case the first didn't work properly, and so that they can narrow in on the bore in half the time. (Usually the first relief well misses, and you have to back off and come in again at another angle. Sometimes it takes a number of tries.)

    -fred

  20. Fred Fnord
    Fred Fnord May 28, 19:47

    Actually, FYI, still just one relief well. The relief well will hit the shaft waaaay below anywhere that anything we do at the ocean floor will have an impact.

    Also, they're already drilling two relief wells. The government insisted on a backup, in case the first didn't work properly, and so that they can narrow in on the bore in half the time. (Usually the first relief well misses, and you have to back off and come in again at another angle. Sometimes it takes a number of tries.)

    -fred

  21. Fred Fnord
    Fred Fnord May 28, 20:00

    FYI, the dispersants that BP is using (in contravention of EPA demands, BTW) mean that the fire booms would have little or no impact on the oil being released. The vast majority of the oil is now dissolved and under water.

    There are a lot of other inaccuracies in your article, and your reading of the OPA law is completely incorrect. (From the paper 'Oil Spills in US Coastal Waters': "OPA Section 4201 amended Section 311(c) of the CWA to provide the President (delegated to the USCG or EPA) with three options: perform cleanup immediately (“federalize” the spill), monitor the response efforts of the spiller, or direct the spiller’s cleanup activities." The government is monitoring the response efforts of the spiller, and doing some limited direction of the spiller's cleanup activities. Your assertion that somehow, because Obama has the option of federalizing the spill, this makes the president 'responsible… for containment and cleanup' is either disingenuous or delusional. Perhaps you believe that the US government should maintain a huge staff of oil-spill-cleanup experts, for the one large oil spill every ten years that we seem to have? Or perhaps that would be 'government waste'? BP is responsible for the spill, they have the expertise to clean it up, they should be the ones cleaning it up, with help from the government and other oil companies as requested.)

    But I have a day job, and will therefore have to rely on other posters to get into the other inaccuracies.

    -fred

  22. Fred Fnord
    Fred Fnord May 28, 20:00

    FYI, the dispersants that BP is using (in contravention of EPA demands, BTW) mean that the fire booms would have little or no impact on the oil being released. The vast majority of the oil is now dissolved and under water.

    There are a lot of other inaccuracies in your article, and your reading of the OPA law is completely incorrect. (From the paper 'Oil Spills in US Coastal Waters': "OPA Section 4201 amended Section 311(c) of the CWA to provide the President (delegated to the USCG or EPA) with three options: perform cleanup immediately (“federalize” the spill), monitor the response efforts of the spiller, or direct the spiller’s cleanup activities." The government is monitoring the response efforts of the spiller, and doing some limited direction of the spiller's cleanup activities. Your assertion that somehow, because Obama has the option of federalizing the spill, this makes the president 'responsible… for containment and cleanup' is either disingenuous or delusional. Perhaps you believe that the US government should maintain a huge staff of oil-spill-cleanup experts, for the one large oil spill every ten years that we seem to have? Or perhaps that would be 'government waste'? BP is responsible for the spill, they have the expertise to clean it up, they should be the ones cleaning it up, with help from the government and other oil companies as requested.)

    But I have a day job, and will therefore have to rely on other posters to get into the other inaccuracies.

    -fred

  23. geo
    geo May 28, 22:31

    I think a screw-jack pile type long giant screw atatched to a high power driller or screw type device like a concrete auger used inside the tubes of cement pumps should be screwed down that hole.

  24. geo
    geo May 28, 22:31

    I think a screw-jack pile type long giant screw atatched to a high power driller or screw type device like a concrete auger used inside the tubes of cement pumps should be screwed down that hole.

  25. reedperry
    reedperry May 29, 01:53

    THIS IS CRIMINALLY INSANE! All our government can possibly do is make things worse! DEMAND JUSTICE! http://www.GulfTribunal.com

  26. reedperry
    reedperry May 29, 01:53

    THIS IS CRIMINALLY INSANE! All our government can possibly do is make things worse! DEMAND JUSTICE! http://www.GulfTribunal.com

  27. u4yeah4
    u4yeah4 May 29, 02:08

    BP? Incompetent. Navy? Maybe. Sinking ships on wellhead? Never. Mass Gulf evacuations? Pending. Firestorms? Pray not. Smoke & mirrors? All the way.

  28. u4yeah4
    u4yeah4 May 29, 02:08

    BP? Incompetent. Navy? Maybe. Sinking ships on wellhead? Never. Mass Gulf evacuations? Pending. Firestorms? Pray not. Smoke & mirrors? All the way.

  29. smarter than Palin
    smarter than Palin May 29, 02:45

    NOTHING WILL WORK. I had a little tiny leak inside my fiberglass boat. (smaller than a trickle). I created a real hot batch of fiberglass (the stickiest stuff in the world) Made a large several layer patch, dried the fiberglass and slapped in on. It turned hard in minutes. The leak was not stopped. Believe me something as soft as mud will not stop a slippery pressurized geyser. This will go on for years.

  30. smarter than Palin
    smarter than Palin May 29, 02:45

    NOTHING WILL WORK. I had a little tiny leak inside my fiberglass boat. (smaller than a trickle). I created a real hot batch of fiberglass (the stickiest stuff in the world) Made a large several layer patch, dried the fiberglass and slapped in on. It turned hard in minutes. The leak was not stopped. Believe me something as soft as mud will not stop a slippery pressurized geyser. This will go on for years.

  31. Bobby
    Bobby May 29, 03:08

    Smarter than Palin. Obviously not. If you cant patch a leaking boat with fiberglass then you are obviously incompetent. Drill fluid (mud) is heavier than oil, it holds it down. Im sure your hero obama will think of something.

  32. Bobby
    Bobby May 29, 03:08

    Smarter than Palin. Obviously not. If you cant patch a leaking boat with fiberglass then you are obviously incompetent. Drill fluid (mud) is heavier than oil, it holds it down. Im sure your hero obama will think of something.

  33. David
    David May 29, 04:04

    Interesting comment about a screw. Self-tapping screw to go inside that pipe, twist it in with a "driveshaft" of say drillpipe. Very interesting idea.

  34. David
    David May 29, 04:04

    Interesting comment about a screw. Self-tapping screw to go inside that pipe, twist it in with a "driveshaft" of say drillpipe. Very interesting idea.

  35. West
    West May 29, 04:47

    i suggest they drill a new hole somewhere near the old pipe with a hollow drill. then they essentially "inject" an ROV in there carrying a plug. the ROV wont have to deal with pressure or flow because its INSIDE. they drive the ROV up into the outgoing pipe and VIOLA! its plugged, and you've got a new pipe you can tap.

    or you could get the ROV to anchor a chain and pneumatic arm inside the oil bed, let the end of the chain dangle out the end, then attach a plug to the end. activate the pneumatic arm and it pulls the plug inside.

    -cvw171west@hotmail.com

  36. West
    West May 29, 04:47

    i suggest they drill a new hole somewhere near the old pipe with a hollow drill. then they essentially "inject" an ROV in there carrying a plug. the ROV wont have to deal with pressure or flow because its INSIDE. they drive the ROV up into the outgoing pipe and VIOLA! its plugged, and you've got a new pipe you can tap.

    or you could get the ROV to anchor a chain and pneumatic arm inside the oil bed, let the end of the chain dangle out the end, then attach a plug to the end. activate the pneumatic arm and it pulls the plug inside.

    -cvw171west@hotmail.com

  37. Bob
    Bob May 29, 15:54

    If not a battleship, then a submarine. There would be no problem in guiding it. If ours are not big enough, what about buying a Typhoon from the Russians?

    Anyway, if the plan did not work (which I doubt it would), then at least there would be a chance of removing the sub under its own power, plus some help from others.

  38. Bob
    Bob May 29, 15:54

    If not a battleship, then a submarine. There would be no problem in guiding it. If ours are not big enough, what about buying a Typhoon from the Russians?

    Anyway, if the plan did not work (which I doubt it would), then at least there would be a chance of removing the sub under its own power, plus some help from others.

  39. les
    les May 29, 15:54

    Mother of all gushers could kill Earth's oceans
    http://pesn.com/2010/05/02/9501643_Mother_of_all_

  40. les
    les May 29, 15:54

    Mother of all gushers could kill Earth's oceans
    http://pesn.com/2010/05/02/9501643_Mother_of_all_

  41. Richard
    Richard May 31, 02:49

    At a depth of one mile sinking any major ship is problematical, do we have enough deep submergence vessels to guide the sinking vessel to the correct location?

  42. Richard
    Richard May 31, 02:49

    At a depth of one mile sinking any major ship is problematical, do we have enough deep submergence vessels to guide the sinking vessel to the correct location?

  43. hammerhead
    hammerhead July 05, 12:07

    Nobody has had to work that deep in the past . The only dude that has had success at depth was turned away by the experts. So where is Robert Ballard ?

  44. hammerhead
    hammerhead July 05, 12:07

    Nobody has had to work that deep in the past . The only dude that has had success at depth was turned away by the experts. So where is Robert Ballard ?

Only registered users can comment.

Subscribe To The Nooner!

Categories

Archives