So, when somebody sees a flame this is news? Why wasn't it news six days ago when they discovered a gas leak?

That has to be a new 'Worst way to die' - being in the middle of a forming gas cloud knowing Barney will walk out and light a smoke.

denver

It was. It was on TV and at this site.

Once a well is drilled and finished, it is usually capped so they can transition from drilling to a production mode. Different equipment is involved to make the well and then to take the gas out of it to be sent to land where it will be used. Sounds like this well was in the completion stages when the leak began.

The gas reservoir they were after is about 2-1/2 miles below the sea floor but the leak is apparently coming from a lesser pocket a few thousand feet above that.

The particular reserves they are tapping here are the highest pressure and hottest of any now being tapped. About 16,000 psi and 375 degree F. The rock formation they are drilling in is very difficult too with a sloping fault line. The company is using specially designed drilling and production rigs to get at the gas which is both natural gas and liquid condensate which is like a very light oil. There is likely some heavier oil in the reserve too.

What a lot of people don't realize is the extremes involved here are substantial. It is only in recent years that the technology has risen to a level that it is even thinkable to attempt tapping such sources. What they are doing here is right on the edge of what is possible and maybe even beyond that edge. There is a lot they don't really know until they actually get into the sources. They do a lot of calculations and simulations that make pretty good predictions of what they will find, but this isn't perfect. If the actual conditions turn out to be more extreme than predicted or the very leading edge designs are inadequate for the conditions, you can quickly get into a situation that is out of control.

The company says that there was and equipment failure here and not some human error, but that's really spin because it sounds like the inadequacy of the equipment may in fact stem from some human failure in an inadequate design or production of the equipment.

This isn't your "typical" gas well and what the public needs to realize is that many of the new wells for gas and oil are very risky because of the extreme conditions they are dealing with. Whether it is deep drilling for gas and oil, fracking in shale oil or digging up oil sands, what we are talking about is tapping into sources that were not so long ago considered unrecoverable. The high prices of energy means that high cost techniques begin to look viable on paper. But as we get into these very hard to get sources, the risks involved also go up along with the cost. We have pretty much used up all the easy stuff.

And we could all ride unicorns to work, and our homes could be heated by burning unicorn farts, and we could all survive by drinking unicorn milk. Brilliant!

We could do like one of the European countries (cant remember which one it is) is planning on doing, buring the bodies of the deceased to help power the generators. Again cant remember what country it is, but they dont bury their deceased, its cremation for everyone.

What SO MANY of the anti oil people fail to realize, is that its not only fuel or gasoline that comes from oil!! There are SO many by products of oil that we use in everyday life today, we would be lost without it. Think about the tires on your cars, the tar that binds the gravel together to form asphalt that you drive your car on no matter what your car is powered with, the plastic body/frame of your computer, cell phone, Iphone, Ipad, Ipod, E-reader, the plastic baggies that you bringyour lunch to work in, the plastic bags you put your garbage in, the plastic containers that you put leftovers in, plastic soda or water bottles, polyester that is most likely in the clothes that your wearing at this very moment. I could keep going on and on with this list, but i think your getting the idea of where I'm going with this. So yes, i get a kick out of the save the world crowd that keepclaiming we don't need oil. Go ahead and keep fooling your self, because your probably the ones that have no idea just how much oil derived products your actually using yourself.

AG99
What do you mean ,"if we didn't rely on fossil fuel" ?

We could step backward a thousand years and depend on wood fires to keep warm and cook our food .
Depend on horses to get around .

We need someone to recommend an alternative fossil fuel first . We would love to hear your solution .
I do not desire to belittle you . I desire someone to speak up and say " what if we did so and so , and stop burning so much fossil fuel "

So for now . We must , Drill baby , drill and dig the mines . Also put up with the gas leaks and the oil spills .

I worry about the B P oil spill . I live 300 miles off the coast of the gulf . The oil they are saying has gone poof and gone away . Is now in the air we breath . We're not hearing a word about this . The media doesn't want to tell about this .

So help . Help me and the world , find a solution .

Anywho
I like your comment and you're correct about how unthinking most of us are . When it comes to how we use fossil fuel .
I desire the comments on this article , to become a place for solutions . Solutions much better than unicorn farts and unicorn milk . Would unicorn milk , have to be pasteurized ?
After watching solar energy slowly progress over the last 60 years . There are some answers to our energy needs . I ask for solutions . I think I have some solution , when it comes to solar energy .
But wish to hear more about unicorn farts , first . L O L

No doubt that oil has a lot of other uses beyond fuel, but the fact remains that we burn most of it. There are a lot of uses for corn too, including food. But we can also turn it into fuel and burn it too.

The point is not to abandon the use of oil entirely, but to use what is left wisely. If we start to transition from using oil as fuel for energy, we might very well be able to stretch out the remaining reserves longer. Today we are going after oil that wasn't even considered worth recovery just a few years ago and that is because we have run out of the stuff that is relatively easy to get at. The gas they are trying to get at in this case is a good example. Most people don't realize the extremes that we are going to in order to continue to feed our fossil fuel based energy needs. With these extremes come higher cost and higher risks.

What is the problem is that many seem to think that no real issue exists regarding the amount of fossil fuel that still exists for our use. The idea that there is plenty available and all we need to do is take it, is a gross mis-interpretation of the situation. We won't be able to transition from fossil fuels for energy to other sources very quickly. It will take many decades. But we need to accelerate the efforts now underway with developing the alternatives. We also need to be looking closely at each new case of going to extremes to get at remaining reserves. When the potential risks could outweigh the return, we should probably pass, at least at the present time.

There are those who would say that we need to stop all oil use tomorrow and there are those that say there is no probelm with diminishing reserves. Both of these groups are out of touch with reality.

At least some of you actually gave some thought to your response, unlike knee-jerk RationalThinker (who apparently isn't).

No, obviously we can't stop using oil today or even tomorrow, and I'm well aware it has other uses that aren't going to go away, but as 1NewDay points out, our supplies aren't limitless and they sure aren't getting any cheaper.

Nuclear power is a good alternative to coal and oil power plants, as is geothermal where applicable. Solar and wind can supply some residential areas, or at least they will be able to after a bit more development. Hydrogen fuel cells have great promise for powering cars, but we need to solve the H2 storage problem.

We should have been working on all these things since the 70s when we were rudely awakened to the realities of oil dependence, not putting them off while we drill more wells.

Rational thinker
I'm with you .

Has anyone got any farm land . We need to start raising unicorns . Have little girls heard the unicorns around on "my little pink ponies ". Have little pin wheels to charge their cell phones . Feed the unicorns and the little girls cotton candy . Read fairy tails around the camp fire . Have little boys , who will collect the unicorn farts .
This is what we can do , once there is no more fossil fuel .

In other parts of the world . They use cow patties to cook their food . Just like we use wood or charcoal . I've always wondered , what flavor cow patties give the food ? It can't be as flavorful as hickory chips .

AG;
And who was it that has hysterically opposed nuclear power from late 1970's onward? Mostly the same people who currently oppose fossil fuels, hydroelectric dams and any pretty much any other source of power that is actually reliable and economically feasible. We have thrown countless billions of research dollars ( both public and private) at various alternative energy sources since the 70's (despite your claims otherwise), yet nothing we have come up with can yet come anywhere near replacing oil, natural gas and gasoline. Further, we have more available oil and gas today in the US than we ever have before due to recent technological advancements by the oil industry. I do agree that we should continue researching new ways to efficiently and cleanly power our society, but I think that some of us have lost sight of the benefits that fossil fuels have brought and continue to bring to the modern world.

Rationalthinker: You're right when you say we've been neglecting some power sources we could have been developing, but we haven't been doing the R&D you suggest. Some, yes, but nothing to what we could have done. We put a man on the moon within a single decade. Are you telling me we couldn't have developed cheap solar power or fuel cells in 40 yrs if we'd really tried?

I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but bicfi might have a point in fingering big oil, or at least the politicians they bought.

AG99

There are ntural gas and oil leaks everywhrer in the world.

Here is an example from 1986.

At least 1,200 people are feared dead in Cameroon, West Africa, after a cloud of lethal gas escaped from a volcanic lake.

The tragedy happened at Lake Nyos, about 200 miles (322 km) northwest of the capital, Yaoundé, during the night.

Most of the victims died in their sleep.

The gas killed all living things within a 15-mile (25km) radius of the lake, and the area is still highly contaminated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/21/newsid_3380000/3380803.stm

J W
You've put a good prospective on the problem . Even if a solution to our energy need could be found . The people in power and the greed would stop it from coming about .
I'm sure , there are people who have thought out how to build a 100 M P G car . How to use solar energy much better than they are letting us know about .
Even as simple minded as I am . I've thought of how to achieve things that could change the world .
The 100 M P G car , that's simple . Large , mobile solar farms that could be in place in days .

You're correct , greed drives everything .

Ron, we could have 100MPG, or close, cars tomorrow if the EPA would let auto manufacturers bring small block diesel to the states, as they have in europe and across the world. But diesels have the reputation of being "dirty," and right now diesel costs more than gas at the average pump, so people don't want to talk about it. If we created more demand for diesel powered road cars in the US, demand would grow, and prices would fall below gasoline again, as they have in many other markets where diesel is a primary fuel source. Diesel is also taxed and regulated more by the government than gasoline, once again raising the prices artificially to discourage its use. If the goal is to give consumers more spending power by lowering their fuel costs, and creating vehicles that more efficiently use the fuels that we DO have available today, then I firmly believe small diesel power is an answer. One that unlike many technologies in their infancy, has been fully accepted and is being used in most of the rest of the world, but not here; once again in large part to the EPA, and people's historical perceptions of the technology. Furthermore, and I would note that the following is my personal opinion only, diesel engines are much more capable of burning other types of fuel than street diesel, with little or no modification the average diesel engine can burn just about any kind of alcohol, biodiesel products, and more. A gasoline engine is much more finiky, they "tolerate" ethanol at best, and anything past that will only cause issues. By putting in place a diesel infastructure, our cars would be much more ready to burn a wide variety of biofuels if they become more practical in the future. Current gasoline engines would have to go to the scrap yard.

Hey Dave, Yes synthetic does sound familiar. But its not always the least expensive way to produce a material. Manufacturers are after the most profitable procedures, products, and materials, so if synthetic happens to be the more expensive option, guess which one is going to get dropped.

Sometimes synthetic materials become a problem all their own,they are not natural, they don't usually break down like natural materials do, and some are known to cause serious illnesses in humans and other forms of life. One major synthetic chemical comes to mind, and years after halting its use it still continues to be problematic, maybe you have heard of PCBs. Before you say that it is not a synthetic material let me add a quote, "in 1881, German chemists synthesized the first PCB in a laboratory." But don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to demonize or dismiss all synthetics, Just take a look at our pharmaceutical industry, most of our medications are synthesized. The chemists just find the natural chemical compounds that do what they want them to do, and synthesize them.