Fixing the Gulf oil spill problem

[johnl]

This has been mentioned by many others in one form or another, place a new valve body on top of the existing one. It doesn't seem to be a solution anyone is interested in, I'm wondering why it wouldn't work?

If it were lowered with the valve open, to help prevent it from being blown away, straight through design. To prevent icing pump methanol through it at side ports (valved for shut-off later). Bolt or clamp on to existing flange.

Do the ROV's have the capacity to remove the existing top flange bolts at the break, and bolt or clamp the new section in?

Is there a fear that the existing BOP and well have been compromised to where they wouldn't be able to contain the pressure if the new valve were closed at the top?

 

[stewartcs]

This has been mentioned by many others in one form or another, place a new valve body on top of the existing one. It doesn't seem to be a solution anyone is interested in, I'm wondering why it wouldn't work?

If it were lowered with the valve open, to help prevent it from being blown away, straight through design. To prevent icing pump methanol through it at side ports (valved for shut-off later). Bolt or clamp on to existing flange.

...

Is there a fear that the existing BOP and well have been compromised to where they wouldn't be able to contain the pressure if the new valve were closed at the top?

They are probably concerned with the casing being compromised and the geology not being able to contain the pressure. If it can't and the casing has failed, then the well can essentially blow out around the wellhead.

Do the ROV's have the capacity to remove the existing top flange bolts at the break, and bolt or clamp the new section in?

They wouldn't use an ROV for that, they would just remove the old LMRP and land a new one in its place.

CS

 

[BW338]

Cut a hole in the hull of an old tanker. Scuttle it over the well. Capture 100% of the oil and gas.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Cut a hole in the hull of an old tanker. Scuttle it over the well. Capture 100% of the oil and gas.

And this tanker has infinite volume does it?

 

[BW338]

Consider it a large accumulator from which to extract the oil.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Consider it a large accumulator from which to extract the oil.

But it's not is it? It'll be several thousand tons of scrap metal sitting on top of a leaky well with no viable way to stop the leak OR get the oil from the sunken tanker.

 

[perd1t1on]

I haven't been able to find any information on the architecture of the well nor am I a physics wiz, but would it be a possible solution at least temporarily to use a 'car crushing' like mechanism to seal the well and then worry about capping it 'correctly' later? It just seems like if they had some kind of boat with a pressurized bailer like crushing tool they could flatten the sides of the well and limit the amount of oil coming out to prevent further damage to the ecosystem. That really should be the top priority for now, preventing further damage to the ecosystem.

 

[perd1t1on]

And this tanker has infinite volume does it?

actually that seems like a solution if they could connect the tanker's volume to the shoreline and have it quarantined (and barrelled) as quickly as possible. Maybe even divide the locations that on the shoreline so it doesn't gush uncontrollably to one location.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I haven't been able to find any information on the architecture of the well nor am I a physics wiz, but would it be a possible solution at least temporarily to use a 'car crushing' like mechanism to seal the well and then worry about capping it 'correctly' later? It just seems like if they had some kind of boat with a pressurized bailer like crushing tool they could flatten the sides of the well and limit the amount of oil coming out to prevent further damage to the ecosystem. That really should be the top priority for now, preventing further damage to the ecosystem.

It's not really fasable to do that as there is nowhere to acutally physically get to the pipe to crimp it shut, that is essentially how the BOP works.

May I suggest that you visit BP's site, there are technical updates there in the GOM video responce.
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9033572&contentId=7061710

I'll find the most relevant tehcnical update
http://bp.concerts.com/gom/kentwellstechnicalupdate061010a.htm

There is no way to connect a sunk tanker to anywhere, that's the problem with BW's plan.

 

[johnl]

They are probably concerned with the casing being compromised and the geology not being able to contain the pressure. If it can't and the casing has failed, then the well can essentially blow out around the wellhead.



They wouldn't use an ROV for that, they would just remove the old LMRP and land a new one in its place.

CS

Thankyou, that makes sense.

There is some interesting discussion going on at another forum called The Oil Drum I think people here might enjoy if anyone wants to check them out. Some political, some more technical.

 

[dr dodge]

I'm back for a bit
I read all this thread, and am proud of ya'll
good, old, out of the box thinking. great stuff

as to this insane re-occuring theme to use explosives:

any exothermic reaction down deep can potentially heat and liberate a massive amount of the "methane hydrate snow" that is disolved in the water. IMHO this is the big, hidden danger. If you calculate the volume of gas possibly suspended for the 2 months this thing has been leaking for, even based upon the initial low flow figures, corrected to atm pressure it is unbelievable.

I really worry that "someone" is going to get desperate to make the problem (and PR nitemare) go away and use the nuke idea. think about the vapor bomb all that methane could produce. I seriously think that option is still being entertained, and an un-educated response to a public relations nightmare

but, if they nuke us, at least BP won't have to pay all the residents on the gulf for their lost lives.

keep brainstorming ya'll, and hopefully someone will listen to the voices of reason

dr

 

[johnl]

My own (unexperienced) take on using explosives, conventional or nuclear, would be that the possibility of creating a much larger problem makes such an approach "a terrible idea". I picture creating a few acres of fissures in the seabed that leak oil in a way that would be much harder to manage than the current situation. I don't think anyone is seriously considering this as an option. (I hope).


Looking at the current situation, if they are affraid of putting additional backpressure on the well by capping it, I think they could collect more oil by having a couple more vessels drawing off of the "top hat" that is now feeding just 2 vessels. As it stands it sounds like they are recovering maybe 20-30%.

 

[Pattonias]

but, if they nuke us, at least BP won't have to pay all the residents on the gulf for their lost lives.

You think a nuke in the middle of the gulf would kill all the people who live on the coast?

Anyway, they are not going to nuke anything.

 

[dr dodge]

since the methane turned to ice on the first attempt, how about, at the bottom of ya'lls "pillowcase" we first have all the flow go thru something that looks like king kongs bread rack (like Subway fast food)

the jet of methane/oil hits the removable racks, turns to thick ice, then an ROV removes the rack and places it in a sunken shipping container where the gas can be drawn off slowly by warming with water from higher up. the oil, without the disolved gas looses significant volume and becomes (slightly) easier to control

and no boiling at the surface in the "containment area"

unfortunately the explosives are still being "mentioned"
and the pres has nuclear scientists on the team
I want to believe that they are there for molecular behavior info, but...who knows

dr

 

[OmCheeto]

ya'lls "pillowcase"

...

dr

By gads! Pillowcases!

Really big ones. I'm talking hot air balloon sized. 100k ft³

We'd fill them up from a turret of spigots. It'd only take 4 minutes to fill each one. Cinch the bottom, and let them float to the surface. The prevailing winds would carry them off to Haiti, or such places. Gobs of methane and a bit of crude I'm sure would make them happy.

hmmmm... 4 minutes each. That's only 15 per hour, or 360 per day.

How many hot air balloons are there in the world?

But what a sight, covering the gulf...

hot air balloons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon#Sizes
7.26 gal/sec oil
2,961 gal/sec gas
100000 ft^3 = 748000 gallons
252.63 seconds to fill up balloon
4.21 minutes to fill up balloon
1,834.74 gallons of oil in 253 seconds

 

[socean]

What about changing the physical properties of the oil so its easier to collect? E.g. particles or threads that are engineered to have oliophillic receptors to bind the oil into huge jelly-like globs. Maybe even introduce something that also produces some sort of gas so the globs really float to the surface where we can get them. We could also add chemical tags to various batches so we could determine later where the oil came from based on where each tagged batch was released. That way we might be able to also identify other pockets of "wild" oil.

Once we got all we could we could introduce particles that sequestered the oil and made it heavier and less reactive, basically tiny weighted sponges.

Following that, we might introduce some bioactive particles that can metabolize hydrocarbons so that they are broken down.

What about it nano-guys? Can't you cook something like this up. Maybe start with fullerenes and/or nanotubes and dope them so that parts of the surfaces bind strongly with hydrocarbons.

 

[dr dodge]

glad you liked the pillow cases. I wonder how much they could lift? If they had a reasonable lifting quality the addded uses are vast. We could start with project BP airlift, where we take BP execs that made all the wonderful decisions that got us in this situation today, give them a cell phone and do some long term jet stream measurements. just call us when you come down...lol

dr

 

[Pattonias]

Solutions seem to be taking a turn toward the less plausible.

 

[OmCheeto]

glad you liked the pillow cases. I wonder how much they could lift? If they had a reasonable lifting quality the addded uses are vast. We could start with project BP airlift, where we take BP execs that made all the wonderful decisions that got us in this situation today, give them a cell phone and do some long term jet stream measurements. just call us when you come down...lol

dr

Sorry to pop your bubble, but each of the 100k ft³ balloons would also contain 44 barrels of oil. They would not fly.

hmmmmm...

Unless of course you empty out the oil once they get to the surface. Then we could attach a basket, but the BP'ers in the baskets, and ignite the methane. Then they might fly.

 

[johnl]

We're obviously going to need a way to separate the gas from the oil before filling the balloons. Also, we will need to figure out how much gas to put into the balloons, since they will expand considerably as they rise.

 

[dr dodge]

We're obviously going to need a way to separate the gas from the oil before filling the balloons. Also, we will need to figure out how much gas to put into the balloons, since they will expand considerably as they rise.

intentionally form the hydrates on steel plates in a rack
remove the plates when "full"
move them to a sunk shipping container
then fill the ballons from a vent in the top as the indise is warmed with water from higher up

dr

 

[Pattonias]

Do you think you could implement this before they finish the relief wells?

 

[dr dodge]

easy, with a vertical rack, and steel plates alternating gaps, a couple ROVs and a container with a pipe welded on the top. all kidding aside, the ballons would not be needed, because if you ran the vent pipe to a CNG compressor and filled a tanker, the methane would be controlled. without the expanding gas, the "pillow case coral" idea would have a lot better shot at working.

has anyone ever seem the oil remover that is on CNC machines?

its a rotating disc with a coulpe wipers on its side. think "tesla turbine" rotor design that let's surface tension draw the oil up, and scrappers that remove it to the sump of a barge, where it then gets pumped out to a tanker

dr

 

[johnl]

I think expanding the capacity of surface capture (by adding more vessels) to process more of the current plume will be the answer, up until the bottom kill is attempted. This is actually what they are working on now. The main delay comes from the relatively slow speeds in sea transport, getting those vessels in place from who knows where (The North Sea?).

If you haven't read it...


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/17/v-print/96112/transcript-of-adm-thad-allens.html"

 

[DrClapeyron]

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967

From what I read in this article, best case is to let all the oil bleed out, let the algae it eat, and deal with the massive dead zone.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967

From what I read in this article, best case is to let all the oil bleed out, let the algae it eat, and deal with the massive dead zone.

All bleed out? Last I looked the Deepwater reservoirs likely contained contained a couple billion barrels of oil. Even that anonymous post at The Oil Drum doesn't suggest anything like leaving it be.

 

[baywax]

Kevin Costner proves his worth with regard to oil spill clean up technology...

BP bets on Kevin Costner's oil cleaning machine

Sat Jun 26, 1:48 PM
Brett Michael Dykes
Yahoo! News


It was treated as an oddball twist in the otherwise wrenching saga of the BP oil spill when Kevin Costner stepped forward to promote a device he said could work wonders in containing the spill's damage. But as Henry Fountain explains in the New York Times, the gadget in question - an oil-separating centrifuge - marks a major breakthrough in spill cleanup technology. And BP, after trial runs with the device, is ordering 32 more of the Costner-endorsed centrifuges to aid the Gulf cleanup.

The "Waterworld" actor has invested some $20 million and spent the past 15 years in developing the centrifuges. He helped found a manufacturing company, Ocean Therapy Solutions, to advance his brother's research in spill cleanup technology. In testimony before Congress this month, Costner walked through the device's operation - explaining how it spins oil-contaminated water at a rapid speed, so as to separate out the oil and capture it in a containment tank:

continued here... http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/yahoocanada/100626/canada/bp_bets_on_kevin_costner_s_oil_cleaning_machine

(you'd think they'd credit him with "Bull Durham" rather than "Waterworld" though)

 

[GijXiXj]

Why not burn the gunk under the sea ...

Why not burn the gunk under the sea ...
... at the point of emanation ... ?

Been a while since I visited physicsforums - hope my initial impression is wrong, and that the quality of posts hasn't generally gone down everywhere ...

Some crazy ideas posted here, or what?!?

So here's another one:

http://technicalimpulse.tech.officelive.com/Documents/02b_GOD_UnderseaFlaringDome_AltTechRespFm_100527.pdf"

except it's not that crazy.

Apoloogies if s.one else posted something similar - I admit I got so fed up with reading goofy posts, I haven't read the whole thread. ... May get round to it ... ?

All the
Dennis Revell

Pythagoras, he say: S = GijXiXj

 

[Topher925]

Why not burn the gunk under the sea ...
... at the point of emanation ... ?

You're not solving the problem, just making a different mess. Burning crude oil strait from the ground isn't like burning propane. You would be generating all kinds of bad stuff (H2S, CO2, CO, NO2, NO, etc) which would probably throw off the pH of the ocean among other things.

 

[GijXiXj]

You're not solving the problem, just making a different mess. Burning crude oil strait from the ground isn't like burning propane. You would be generating all kinds of bad stuff (H2S, CO2, CO, NO2, NO, etc) which would probably throw off the pH of the ocean among other things.

Didn't say it solved the problem - it vastly mitigates it, by about 100% if it can be made to work. Check out the http://technicalimpulse.tech.officelive.com/Documents/02b_GOD_UnderseaFlaringDome_AltTechRespFm_100527.pdf" and links therefrom. << comment deleted by Moderator >>

All of those combustion products you mention, whilst not good, are, oh, I dunno, about ... infinitely less bad ... than the unburnt poisonous gunk currently killing the Gulf of Mexico, and who knows what else? The Gulf Stream?

In any case, those products were precisely how most of the gunk was, and still is, destined to end up anyway. I guess you haven't noticed they're burning what little they can get to the surface?

Ask the Pelicans, bitterns, dolphins, and of lesser importance, the Gulf fishermen, how they'd have liked to have seen 100% mitigation from the get-go: not one drop of oil on a single beach or Pelican.

<< comment deleted by Moderator >>

All the

Dennis Revell

 

[RonL]

Didn't say it solved the problem - it vastly mitigates it, by about 100% if it can be made to work. Check out the http://technicalimpulse.tech.officelive.com/Documents/02b_GOD_UnderseaFlaringDome_AltTechRespFm_100527.pdf" and links therefrom. << comment deleted by Moderator >>

All of those combustion products you mention, whilst not good, are, oh, I dunno, about ... infinitely less bad ... than the unburnt poisonous gunk currently killing the Gulf of Mexico, and who knows what else? The Gulf Stream?

In any case, those products were precisely how most of the gunk was, and still is, destined to end up anyway. I guess you haven't noticed they're burning what little they can get to the surface?

Ask the Pelicans, bitterns, dolphins, and of lesser importance, the Gulf fishermen, how they'd have liked to have seen 100% mitigation from the get-go: not one drop of oil on a single beach or Pelican.

<< comment deleted by Moderator >>

All the

Dennis Revell

I'm a little reluctant to say anything based on how you responded to Topher925, I think your idea is interesting, igniting with an electric arc is no problem underwater, I also think there are other heat shielding options, so you would not need a firebrick liner.
I can't quite get a handle on size of a containment chamber needed or how to establish the initial firing, due to even a momentary closing of such a large volume of oil, gas, saltwater and other debris ejecting from the wellhead causing an imbalance and weight change of the entire structure.
I think heat would be absorbed by the cold water of the gulf, which would be good for your system. My thought of this based on volume of material combusted and BTU's transfered, is what would it do for the intensity of a hurricane that might come across the gulf at that point ?

Not sure how you think about my idea, but it establishes a control and collection posibility that generates a payback and at a price of less than 10 million dollars, the only real setback would be bad weather.
I think Topher925 has some very valid points.
If your design can have an exhaust collection of some type, I feel it might have possibilites along with possible energy production side effects. Such as recharge stations for electric transportation almost anywhere in any ocean.

RonL

 

[GijXiXj]

Re 1: Why not burn the gunk under the sea?

Ouch! Someone didn't like my last post - an annoyed reply to Topher925's unhelpful, innaccurate &, in my view, time and space wasting reply to mine. Sorry about that, but I'd already got a similarly innaccurate reply from an ego-head and know-it-all called Thom Hartmann in an entirely different scenario. Here's a less annoyed version:

You're not solving the problem, just making a different mess. Burning crude oil strait from the ground isn't like burning propane. You would be generating all kinds of bad stuff (H2S, CO2, CO, NO2, NO, etc) which would probably throw off the pH of the ocean among other things.

Didn't say it solved the problem - it vastly mitigates it, by about 100% if it can be made to work. Check out the http://technicalimpulse.tech.officelive.com/Documents/02b_GOD_UnderseaFlaringDome_AltTechRespFm_100527.pdf" and links therefrom. I'm pretty sure Topher didn't read them before making his? response.

All of those combustion products Topher mentions, whilst not good, are, oh, I dunno, about ... infinitely less bad ... than the unburnt poisonous gunk currently killing the Gulf of Mexico, and who knows what else? The Gulf Stream?

In any case, those products were precisely how most of the gunk was, and still is, destined to end up anyway. I guess Topher hasn't noticed that BP are burning what little they can get to the surface, others are using small boats corralling what they can find, booming it into sufficiently concentrated pools, and then throwing cans of primed diesel fuel at it?

Ask the Pelicans, bitterns, dolphins, the Gulf fishermen, Red Lobster ;-) , how they'd have liked to have seen 100% mitigation from the get-go: not one drop of oil on a single beach, oyster or Pelican.

... Patiently awaiting more constructive responses, including Physics debunking of the idea - this being a Physics forum, and all ...

For more background, see a http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@98.brZik8OWvaS@.77615155/0""[/I].

That thread does ask for a Physics reason(s) debunking - may be I should have started it here instead - this being a, if not "the", Physics forum, hmm. No idea why I didn't think of that at the start.

All the

Dennis Revell

 

[baywax]

Ouch! Someone didn't like my last post - an annoyed reply to Topher925's unhelpful, innaccurate &, in my view, time and space wasting reply to mine. Sorry about that, but I'd already got a similarly innaccurate reply from an ego-head and know-it-all called Thom Hartmann in an entirely different scenario. Here's a less annoyed version:



Didn't say it solved the problem - it vastly mitigates it, by about 100% if it can be made to work. Check out the http://technicalimpulse.tech.officelive.com/Documents/02b_GOD_UnderseaFlaringDome_AltTechRespFm_100527.pdf" and links therefrom. I'm pretty sure Topher didn't read them before making his? response.

All of those combustion products Topher mentions, whilst not good, are, oh, I dunno, about ... infinitely less bad ... than the unburnt poisonous gunk currently killing the Gulf of Mexico, and who knows what else? The Gulf Stream?

In any case, those products were precisely how most of the gunk was, and still is, destined to end up anyway. I guess Topher hasn't noticed that BP are burning what little they can get to the surface, others are using small boats corralling what they can find, booming it into sufficiently concentrated pools, and then throwing cans of primed diesel fuel at it?

Ask the Pelicans, bitterns, dolphins, the Gulf fishermen, Red Lobster ;-) , how they'd have liked to have seen 100% mitigation from the get-go: not one drop of oil on a single beach, oyster or Pelican.

... Patiently awaiting more constructive responses, including Physics debunking of the idea - this being a Physics forum, and all ...

For more background, see a http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@98.brZik8OWvaS@.77615155/0""[/I].

That thread does ask for a Physics reason(s) debunking - may be I should have started it here instead - this being a, if not "the", Physics forum, hmm. No idea why I didn't think of that at the start.

All the

Dennis Revell

I'd say you're on the money with this one. The only debunking left to do is to try the system out and let the cards fall where they may fall. Maybe petition people like Kevin Costner or Tyra Banks to finance the process... or even BP for that matter.

This would be a measure taken to stop the pollution of the Gulf waters while a relief well is drilled to stop the oil flow a mile down, right?

 

[RonL]

And what's this about air bubbles?

Just watched the evening news, the mention of using air bubbles is going to be tried as a method of moving oil to the surface. No details other than a cost of $700,000. dollars per month ??

 

[OmCheeto]

Just watched the evening news, the mention of using air bubbles is going to be tried as a method of moving oil to the surface. No details other than a cost of $700,000. dollars per month ??

I still like your fabric tube the best.

But...

This just in:

From: horizon.support
Subject: An Important Message from Horizon Support
Date: June 28, 2010 11:15:00 AM PDT


Dear Omcheeto,

Thank you for your submission to the Alternative Response Technology (ART) process for the Deepwater Horizon MC252 incident. Your submission has been reviewed for its technical merits.

It has been determined that your idea falls into one of the following ART categories: Already Considered/Planned, Not Feasible, or Not Possible, and therefore will not be advanced for further evaluation. To date, we have received over 80,000 submissions with each submission receiving individual consideration and priority based on merit and need.

BP and Horizon Deepwater Unified Command appreciate your contribution and interest in responding to this incident.


Thank you very much,
Horizon Response Team