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: Smiling Bob who wrote (260283)	7/12/2010 11:32:25 PM
From: LTK007	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Well i would CONJECTURE NASA technology has been addressed to problems of low to zero pressure, and haven't developed tech for majorly high pressure--i think the only blow-out like this was at 500feet beneath the ocean, not 5,000---the difference of reservoir pressure(lower) and the rock pressure over it top is at differential that may lead the upward thrust of the crude a rate to be just too powerful----we will know in the next to days. One geologit /flow mechanics suspect no well ever had a rate of outflow higher than this one--that is at 30k barrels a day being having been the hypothetical maximum--this is in area of 90k barrels a day--of 300% higher than what they believed to be the max flow. The higher the differential to rock pressure and reservoir pressure(with rock pressure being higher the greater upward force of escape at the point the pipeline penetrated into the reservoir--i personally think BP didn't have a clue what they were messing with. This why Matthew Simmons thinks the nuke method the only hope. We WILL see. This just MAY(i stress MAY) have MESSED with something that might exceed our solutions--and that includes NASA.