Fixing the Gulf oil spill problem

[stewartcs]

nothing would look worse on tv, than a pelican covered in a radioactive tar.

lmao!

Cs

 

[Geigerclick]

lmao!

Cs

Radium Water step aside, we now have "Plutonium Shrimp!" It cooks itself through decay.

 

[Arizona]

Why not drill and set anchors for the top hat method? Make some type of seal and cinch it down.

 

[OmCheeto]

Six billions minds would be a bigger cluster f--k than it is now. Even with more transparency the average person reading this or trying to help will not have the slightest idea what would really help fix the problem (your fabric cloth for example).

This sounds more like a political rant than anything else.

CS

But I liked the cloth tube idea.

It could be built in a day and unspooled from a ship in under an hour. Being deflated, it would be void of water, so you wouldn't have the methane hydrate freeze up problem when the oil/methane mixture enters the tube. Since no matter where the oil is in the column, it is going to be a sea pressure, it wouldn't have to be strong as steel. Once the oil gets to the surface, it would enter the bottom of a floating container, which would start to sink under the weight of the oil. Once the oil level in the container rises to a certain level, it would be pumped out and into a waiting oil tanker.

I think it's a brilliant and simple solution at keeping the oil contained until a permanent fix is developed.

But I think that may be why people don't like it. It's too simple.

 

[xxChrisxx]

This type of problem highlights both the shortcomings in our (namely the internet's) ability to vertically integrate information streams and the enormous potential of such integration.

Over six billion minds on the planet, millions of people in the US alone with degrees in the sciences and engineering--all of it an underutilized resource on problems such as this one.

99.9% of which are all too thick to be trusted opening a tin of beans. People are stupid.

Take one percent of the energy involved in the finger-pointing, the blame-laying, and the sound and fury about this leak in the media streams

This I agree with, far too much energy is used for laying blame. I'm going to have to be slightly set against the Americans here so sorry about this. You have a very laissez-faire attitude to incidents like this, until it happens to you.

This has been handled dreadfully, both by BP and the US government. It highlights a lack of foresight in planning, contingency and thought by both parties. It really doesn't help that Obama has been sitting on the sidelines very publically bashing BP, granted they screwed up, but the way it's been handled doesn't help.

Not only this, but it you can gaurantee they will want to start prosecuting people for this. With a 'heads will roll' attitude. I know exactly the defense I'd use if I were a legal type. There is no way for them to get a fair trail, they have already been found guilty by public opinion.

I'm sorry it's just a little rant I've had building inside me when watching all the news and speeches on this. It's a dreadful, terrible situation, but it is an accident. Time should not be spent blaming people (apart from the idiot who allowed production to go ahead even after warning signs, which IS criminal negligence) but making sure it never happens again. And if it does, clear steps to be taken to prevent it.

eg. Relief wells must be drilled prior to production starting. (the Norwegians have this in place for wells not nearly as deep)

 

[Buzzworks]

Why not drill and set anchors for the top hat method? Make some type of seal and cinch it down.

I have thought of that before, but I think getting it a seal would be tough given the pressure of the oil.

I have another method. Can they try digging near and around the well and insert several conventional explosives around it?

The explosives will not be actually strapped around the well. There will be some mud or sediment between the well and the explosives. That should hopefully, pinch the well, seal it or radically constrict it, without destroying and making it worse.

I'm just not sure if we have existing explosives/bombs that can be safely used at such depths without exploding prematurely.

 

[mheslep]

Anyone seen any estimates of how much of the spill has been recovered? Nothing pops up, other than isolated examples. Apparently per Discovery Channel, one largish US CG ship has been collecting 100,000 gals (2300 bbls) over a day or two, at least it did early on in the spill when the leading edge was defined.

 

[Geigerclick]

Nothing I could find. BP is keeping its mouth shut now that a criminal probe has been opened (which is unfortunate, but reasonable), so I doubt we'll learn exact figures for weeks if not more. The Coast Guard does say that some fraction of the oil is been captured, but I am not hearing a lot of optimism.

 

[mheslep]

The Coast Guard does say that some fraction of the oil is been captured, but I am not hearing a lot of optimism.

What fraction? The US CG says this where?

 

[Geigerclick]

What fraction? The US CG says this where?

Admiral Allen did on CNN in an interview, and made no mention of how much. I was emphasizing just how incredibly limited the info on this is.

 

[stewartcs]

I have thought of that before, but I think getting it a seal would be tough given the pressure of the oil.

I have another method. Can they try digging near and around the well and insert several conventional explosives around it?

The explosives will not be actually strapped around the well. There will be some mud or sediment between the well and the explosives. That should hopefully, pinch the well, seal it or radically constrict it, without destroying and making it worse.

I'm just not sure if we have existing explosives/bombs that can be safely used at such depths without exploding prematurely.

Why does everyone want to blow the well up?!

If the casing is compromised already, an explosive device could open up another leak path for the hydrocarbons. It's a bit risky to try and we're not really sure of the outcome in deepwater.

CS

 

[Geigerclick]

Why does everyone want to blow the well up?!

If the casing is compromised already, an explosive device could open up another leak path for the hydrocarbons. It's a bit risky to try and we're not really sure of the outcome in deepwater.

CS

I think people don't grasp that the function of a nuclear detonation is to fuse a large area into glass/ceramic, and that simply using conventional explosives would not achieve this result. People like the idea of the boom, but don't want the blue glow, so they wish for a different way. I believe it is called "desperation."

I for one, would rather see this well leak until December than we "test" a nuke in the gulf. I for one, remember why we stopped ground and water bursts; too messy.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I think people don't grasp that the function of a nuclear detonation is to fuse a large area into glass/ceramic, and that simply using conventional explosives would not achieve this result. People like the idea of the boom, but don't want the blue glow, so they wish for a different way. I believe it is called "desperation."

I for one, would rather see this well leak until December than we "test" a nuke in the gulf. I for one, remember why we stopped ground and water bursts; too messy.

Well on the plus side it would make the fisherman's job a lot easier, al those fish can't swim away. Plus they'd probably already be cooked, granted glowing a little but a bit of radioactive fish never hurt anyone. Would probably give us all superhero like powers.

 

[RonL]

But I liked the cloth tube idea.

It could be built in a day and unspooled from a ship in under an hour. Being deflated, it would be void of water, so you wouldn't have the methane hydrate freeze up problem when the oil/methane mixture enters the tube. Since no matter where the oil is in the column, it is going to be a sea pressure, it wouldn't have to be strong as steel. Once the oil gets to the surface, it would enter the bottom of a floating container, which would start to sink under the weight of the oil. Once the oil level in the container rises to a certain level, it would be pumped out and into a waiting oil tanker.

I think it's a brilliant and simple solution at keeping the oil contained until a permanent fix is developed.

But I think that may be why people don't like it. It's too simple.

I hope everyone doesn't think we are talking about T-shirt fabric,

The reason I think it needs to be wide at the surface (from 15' bottom and much larger at the surface) is considering, a cubic foot of gas at the well leak will become close to 200 cubic feet at the surface. If that expansion can only be linear the pressure will and velocity will become too great.

Ron

 

[Buzzworks]

Well on the plus side it would make the fisherman's job a lot easier, al those fish can't swim away. Plus they'd probably already be cooked, granted glowing a little but a bit of radioactive fish never hurt anyone. Would probably give us all superhero like powers.

Exploding low yeild nuke under the seabed should not cause those problems, especially radiation and excessive heat. The radiation will be pretty much contained under the seabed. It should not progress outside the seabed at all, due to the very powerful implosion that immediately follows the explosion due to the extreme underwater pressures.

In fact, it should be avoided to use large, 'megaton-class' weaponry(like the Soviet 'Tsar Bomba') as the large explosive energy could compromise the oil-pocket itself and literally, open up the oil pocket to the sea, causing a situation that's completely impossible to fix.

 

[Geigerclick]

Well on the plus side it would make the fisherman's job a lot easier, al those fish can't swim away. Plus they'd probably already be cooked, granted glowing a little but a bit of radioactive fish never hurt anyone. Would probably give us all superhero like powers.

Eat this Tuna, and gain the ability to create fire... plus lymphoma! Heh, thanks for showing a lighter side to this. :)

Crapworks: To get deep enough in the seabed would require... wait for it... DRILLING! Why not wait for the relief well in that case? Besides, there are a lot of maybes and shoulds that I don't like when it comes to detonating a nuclear bomb.

 

[Buzzworks]

Crapworks: To get deep enough in the seabed would require... wait for it... DRILLING! Why not wait for the relief well in that case? Besides, there are a lot of maybes and shoulds that I don't like when it comes to detonating a nuclear bomb.

That's true. And this makes using conventional explosives to pinch the well a much better alternative.

Maybe it's possible to run some quick deep sea trials in collaboration with the navy to try to pinch a metal tube of the same kind used in drilling wells using explosives. If it works consistently, then they can try it on the troubled well itself.

 

[Geigerclick]

That's true. And this makes using conventional explosives to pinch the well a much better alternative.

Maybe it's possible to run some quick deep sea trials in collaboration with the navy to try to pinch a metal tube of the same kind used in drilling wells using explosives. If it works consistently, then they can try it on the troubled well itself.

I don't think you understand why a nuclear detonation might work, and why conventional explosives would not. It is the fusion of sand and mud into glass over a large area that forms the "plug" from a nuke... compared to collapse from conventionals. The latter would require even more drilling, and I have a hard time believing that it would work.

 

[Buzzworks]

I don't think you understand why a nuclear detonation might work, and why conventional explosives would not. It is the fusion of sand and mud into glass over a large area that forms the "plug" from a nuke... compared to collapse from conventionals. The latter would require even more drilling, and I have a hard time believing that it would work.

I understand how nuclear detonation will work to seal the troubled well. That was my idea initially. I had to think of other ways due to the unpopularity of 'nuclear solution'.

I'm uncertain with the conventional explosives solution as well, but it won't hurt to try or at least simulate virtually. It's a rough idea I suggested, and it may or may not require drilling, the idea has to be tested first. The basics are several explosive with some distance from the well, equally spaced around it, and simultaneously exploded around the well - that should create a powerful implosion at the middle that might pinch it without destroying it.

 

[mheslep]

Maybe it's possible to run some quick deep sea trials in collaboration with the navy to try to pinch a metal tube of the same kind used in drilling wells using explosives. If it works consistently, then they can try it on the troubled well itself.

Imagine the miles of geologic formations containing the the oil reservoir, in the worst case, as glass , i.e. brittle. Then imagine the worst case outcome of a large explosion in the 'glass' containment material over possibly hundreds of millions of barrels of oil & gas down there.

 

[Geigerclick]

Imagine the miles of geologic formations containing the the oil reservoir, in the worst case, as glass , i.e. brittle. Then what imagine the worst case outcome a large explosion in the 'glass' containment of possibly hundreds of millions of barrels of oil & gas down there.

Well, I know what I'll be having a nightmare about tonight!

 

[M Grandin]

No.

1) they can't glue steel tubes together especially while the well is flowing.
2) even if they could seal the tubes together the pressure acting on the surface area on the bottom of the tubes would blow them out.

CS

Thanks for comments! Maybe you are right regarding possibility "glueing/cementing" tube shells together in actual conditions - but I also mentioned possibility relying on the tube sections own weights. If the tubes are sufficiently long, they will of course stand the pressure - if 900 atm (that may have decreased by now) appr 1.2 km steel tubes stand the pressure. And in the beginning, when inserting the outermost tubes, the pressure may be much lower because of still decent flow through pipe, reducing pressure due to flow resistance in the well. I realize exact static and dynamic forces on tube sections are not easy to tell without knowing more. But If the total length corresponds to static pressure when flow is halted - the tube will not be lifted at any conditions - I dare say without being hydromechanics professional.

Possibly the tubes could be hanging down by help from "collars" at end of tubes - securing their position.

If the flow still cannot be fully halted, such tubes will at least reduce the flow considerably
and also prevent the original pipe from being eroded away - a very dangerous threat in the long run if the flow continues, an oil "expert" mentioned.

 

[Geigerclick]

If they can reallly reduce the flow by up to 90%, that would be a huge victory for engineering. 5000 feet under water, with ROVs, I'm amazed they've done what they have, with the cut and placement of the LMRP. I am willing to wait and see if finishing the work and adjusting the vents can allow for a greater capture of the oil.

 

[Bernie100]

BP gushing well flow calculation

Do we have a mechanical engineer here somewhere?

In my view, the flows provided to us are ridiculously low.

Am I not right that assuming a flow velocity of 10 fps, which I believe to be rather low considering the pressure behind this, for a 21" pipe would be more like 411,000 barrels per day and not anywhere close to 19,000 barrels per day being quoted in the media.

Could I have some feedback on this. If I'm anywhere close, this is a far greater catastrophe than the public is led to believe.

Based on the 19,000 barrels per day, the flow velocity would only be 0.5 fps which seems ridiculous.

 

[Buzzworks]

Am I not right that assuming a flow velocity of 10 fps, which I believe to be rather low considering the pressure behind this, for a 21" pipe would be more like 411,000 barrels per day and not anywhere close to 19,000 barrels per day being quoted in the media.

While the pressure of the oil is huge, it is significantly countered by the ambient water pressure at such depths. If you can just bring that oil pressure to the surface, the result would be quite explosive.

While I am not aware of the current figures presented by the media, I agree with your calculations. But remember, there's a constriction in the pipe before the broken end. So we may not expect the oil coming out from a 21" diameter area, effectively, but something smaller. The constriction could also create Bernoulli Effect, speeding up the flow velocity and making the leak look very bad, but not necessarily that bad. Although it is very bad, now that it has gone this long and the leak is still not stopped.

Anyway, seems like they've fixed it a bit, hope they can find a way to keep siphoning the oil in the stormy seas ahead.

 

[Bernie100]

Thanks for your response. I agree with you as far as the Bernoulli Effect but not completely.
The BOP just ahead of the cut pipe has some restrictions in it but let's not forget that the body housing this stuff inside is quite a lot larger. I don't believe that the design would allow for much pressure drop as this would constrict the flow and cut into big oil coffers. I am talking about a calculation based on velocity which shows 20 times more flow than they are stating. Am I to believe that the flow restriction in the BOP would reduce the flow down to 1/20th? Furthermore, the sea water does provide back pressure in the order of 2160 psi. However, the positive pressure from the well could very well be an additional 1000 psi greater or possibly much more. There is no question that BP knows that pressure at the well head. This would be normal instrumentation provided at every well head or well known by their engineers based on all the other flow data.
I appreciate your input.

 

[mheslep]

... for a 21" pipe

That's the outer diameter of the pipe. ID of an undamaged pipe would be 19", and this one is both slightly crushed and has internal obstructions (at least before the pipe cut). More importantly, only a fraction of the effluent is oil (vs gas).

 

[Geigerclick]

That's the outer diameter of the pipe. ID of an undamaged pipe would be 19", and this one is both slightly crushed and has internal obstructions (at least before the pipe cut). More importantly, only a fraction of the effluent is oil (vs gas).

Do we know yet what the relative fractions are?

 

[Bernie100]

Thanks for your input. The gas portion is a very valid point. However, the gas is compressible but many multiples under these pressures including the sea water pressure. As far as i know, in mechanical piping the quoted line size is the inner diameter and not the outer diameter. An example is that a schedule 80 pipe which has a thicker wall than a schedule 40 pipe has a larger outer diameter but the same inner diameter.
Thnks again,

 

[stewartcs]

Do we have a mechanical engineer here somewhere?

In my view, the flows provided to us are ridiculously low.

Am I not right that assuming a flow velocity of 10 fps, which I believe to be rather low considering the pressure behind this, for a 21" pipe would be more like 411,000 barrels per day and not anywhere close to 19,000 barrels per day being quoted in the media.

Could I have some feedback on this. If I'm anywhere close, this is a far greater catastrophe than the public is led to believe.

Based on the 19,000 barrels per day, the flow velocity would only be 0.5 fps which seems ridiculous.

They're not ridiculously low. 411,000 barrels per day is ridiculously high. There are no wells in the GOM that can produce any flow rate that high. The highest reported in that block is around 30,000 BPD - so the estimates seem quite reasonable to me.

CS

 

[stewartcs]

Thanks for your response. I agree with you as far as the Bernoulli Effect but not completely.
The BOP just ahead of the cut pipe has some restrictions in it but let's not forget that the body housing this stuff inside is quite a lot larger. I don't believe that the design would allow for much pressure drop as this would constrict the flow and cut into big oil coffers. I am talking about a calculation based on velocity which shows 20 times more flow than they are stating. Am I to believe that the flow restriction in the BOP would reduce the flow down to 1/20th? Furthermore, the sea water does provide back pressure in the order of 2160 psi. However, the positive pressure from the well could very well be an additional 1000 psi greater or possibly much more. There is no question that BP knows that pressure at the well head. This would be normal instrumentation provided at every well head or well known by their engineers based on all the other flow data.
I appreciate your input.

The body of the bop is actually smaller than the ID of the riser. The bop has an 18-3/4" nominal ID. The riser is at least 19" nominal ID (depending on the wall thickness).

CS

 

[Bernie100]

Thanks for your comment and I sincerely hope you're right. The difference though might be that normally the flow has to be brought to the surface with the full 5,000 ft. of head at the well head considering the pipe frictions. In this case, the flow is unrestricted as far as the pipe frictions.

 

[stewartcs]

Thanks for your input. The gas portion is a very valid point. However, the gas is compressible but many multiples under these pressures including the sea water pressure. As far as i know, in mechanical piping the quoted line size is the inner diameter and not the outer diameter. An example is that a schedule 80 pipe which has a thicker wall than a schedule 40 pipe has a larger outer diameter but the same inner diameter.
Thnks again,

Nope, it's the other way around with pipes. The ID is a function of the schedule. The nominal pipe size is the OD and the ID will vary depending on the wall thickness (or schedule).

CS

 

[stewartcs]

Thanks for your comment and I sincerely hope you're right. The difference though might be that normally the flow has to be brought to the surface with the full 5,000 ft. of head at the well head considering the pipe frictions. In this case, the flow is unrestricted as far as the pipe frictions.

The pipe friction is no where near high enough to reduce the flow from 411,000 BPD to 30,000 BPD. Most production risers are around 6" in diameter IIRC.

CS

 

[skumar26]

This should have been solved a long time ago. It would be a simple matter to use a valve attached to a piece of pipe the right size and fit it to the pipe at the well with wedge blocks and bolts with the valve open and then once attached the valve could be closed. This type of wedge clamping is not at all uncommon in the hydraulic and high pressure steam industry.
Since the pipe is standard sizes for well heads it seem rediculous that they don't have devices assembled and in stock for just this kind of event.

i am agree with you i was thinking the same yesterday. These money makers can't think such a small thing. This is common sense no pipe structure is designed without valve controlled system why the bloody hell these engineers designing such type of valvless gas flow underwater system.

It is completely ridiculous