Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (254299)	6/15/2010 12:04:22 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 306849

First off, the entire tone of that post was conspiratorial, and as a rule, I heavily discount conspiracy theories. Incompetence I readily believe, but conspiracy I usually doubt. That said, there are a number of significant problems with the post. First off, the top kill operation was always considered difficult, because the method of injection was not a sealed BOP. Oil & mud blew out the top, in plain view of the ROV cameras throughout the operation. A mountain of mud developed below the BOP around the well casing. The BOP is partially closed, and given the pressure differential & flow rates at the time (on the order of 4000psi across the BOP and God only knows the flowrate, but lets assume about 25-30KBpd) then the effective BOP opening was small (perhaps a couple of inches diameter max), so very little of the mud made it through the BOP and down the well, it was mostly blown out right at the top. The post failed to point this out at all. But the fundamental problem with all these theories of subsurface blowouts, is the lack of all the supposed oil. Show me the oil! The oil blowing up the top on the otherhand is quite likely at high enough flows to account for all the known oil pollution. So why conjure up mythical other sources, unless there is evidence for them? Did you see this on Big Dog's thread (from a post on The Oil Drum)?