Fixing the Gulf oil spill problem

[xxChrisxx]

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

It does have a valve. The valve failed, I've not been able to find any information as to why exactly, most likely massive overpressure.

However there was a failure of a key pressure test, meaning that production should not have gone ahead. Either someone did a botch repair job, and it passed a retest only to fail again (this isn't the valve it's something else) or it wan't repaired and the go ahead was given.

 

[stewartcs]

It does have a valve. The valve failed, I've not been able to find any information as to why exactly, most likely massive overpressure.

However there was a failure of a key pressure test, meaning that production should not have gone ahead. Either someone did a botch repair job, and it passed a retest only to fail again (this isn't the valve it's something else) or it wan't repaired and the go ahead was given.

I highly doubt it was overpressure. The BOP is rated for 15,000 psi. They were drilling with 14 ppg mud weight if I recall correctly and the well was in check at 18,000-ft or so.

Do you have a reference for the failure of the pressure test? Those tests are required by MMS every two weeks and the charts are signed by the engineer performing the test on board as well as the company man (BP rep. on board in this case) and logged.

CS

 

[xxChrisxx]

I highly doubt it was overpressure. The BOP is rated for 15,000 psi. They were drilling with 14 ppg mud weight if I recall correctly and the well was in check at 18,000-ft or so.

Do you have a reference for the failure of the pressure test? Those tests are required by MMS every two weeks and the charts are signed by the engineer performing the test on board as well as the company man (BP rep. on board in this case) and logged.

CS

It was a negative pressure test, I don't have any specific link, just heard about it at work. I've just googled 'negative pressure test' and lo and behold BP came up as the first link. There are three pipes, what the seal failure means is the the pressure was not equally distributed. Which possibly led to the gas rising and the subsequent explosion, and probably meant that at auto shut off of the valve did not occur.

The BOP may be rated to 15000psi (meaning the metal may not fail) but if you have overpressure that shags the seals (higher than design pressure can make an oring extrude out of it's groove and past the device that's meant to stop it) in the valve then you get problems. But like I said it's know known to the masses why the valve did not work.

EDIT: Don't know if the Tech Update has been posted yet about what BP is up to, linky below:
http://bp.concerts.com/gom/kentwellstechupdatelong053110.htm

 

[stewartcs]

It was a negative pressure test, I don't have any specific link, just heard about it at work. I've just googled 'negative pressure test' and lo and behold BP came up as the first link. There are three pipes, what the seal failure means is the the pressure was not equally distributed. Which possibly led to the gas rising and the subsequnt explosion, and probably meant that at auto shut off of the valve did not occur.

The BOP may be rated to 15000psi (meaning the metal may not fail) but if you have overpressure that shags the seals (higher than design pressure can make an oring extrude out of it's groove and past the device that's meant to stop it) in the valve then you get problems. But like I said it's know known to the masses why the valve did not work.

The BOP is not negatively pressure tested.

What three pipes are you referring to? The BOP (stack) is just that, multiple BOPs stacked on top of each other. The bodies and the rams (together make up a valve) are also rated for 15,000 psi which includes their sealing elements. So it's not just the bodies.

They don't use o-rings as sealing elements in the ram either.

CS

 

[xxChrisxx]

The BOP is not negatively pressure tested.

What three pipes are you referring to? The BOP (stack) is just that, multiple BOPs stacked on top of each other. The bodies and the rams (together make up a valve) are also rated for 15,000 psi which includes their sealing elements. So it's not just the bodies.

They don't use o-rings as sealing elements in the ram either.

CS

Kill and choke lines from the BOP and up the riser to the rig (I think they run through a manifold similar to the one they used for the top kill). There are two or three usually. In this case it appears there were three, and the tests indicated a leak that meant there was a higher than expected pressure in the drill pipe.

I gave the o-rings as an example of how higher than designed pressue can shag a seal. I also make no bones about not acutally knowing why valves failed. I thought annular BOP use rubber seals. On top of there there is the '**** or bust' hydraulic ram that basically shears off the pipe and wedges it closed, but there are only 1 or 2 of these on a stack as far as I am aware.I'm also still learning about this stuff so don't shoot me if it's wrong. I design penetrators and I'm fairly new to the industry, so anything not directly related to my job I am just picking up as I go.

 

[stewartcs]

Kill and choke lines from the BOP and up the riser to the rig (I think they run through a manifold similar to the one they used for the top kill). There are two or three usually. In this case it appears there were three, and the tests indicated a leak that meant there was a higher than expected pressure in the drill pipe.

There are only 1 choke and 1 kill line in any subsea BOP system, not three. There may be a mud boost line but it is only rated for no more than 5,000-psi. The choke and kill lines are rated for 15,000-psi.

Those are the lines they use to pressure test the BOP every two weeks with. So if the BOP passed, then they must have passed too. Also, the isolation valves (two each in each line at each entry point into the stack) are tested to 15,000-psi as well. Esentially all of the rams and valves get tested every two weeks in the GOM.

I gave the o-rings as an example of how higher than designed pressue can shag a seal. I also make no bones about not acutally knowing why valves failed. I thought annular BOP use rubber seals. On top of there there is the '**** or bust' hydraulic ram that basically shears off the pipe and wedges it closed, but there are only 1 or 2 of these on a stack as far as I am aware.

The annular is a spherical BOP. It has a solid rubber annular sealing element with a rigid steel backbone structure. A piston assembly collapses it in on itself to seal around the drill pipe or on open hole.

The annular will be the highest preventer in the stack. Typically there are two and they reside on the LMRP.

The blind shear ram will be the first preventer (from the top) on the stack that seals and locks. It is meant to shear drill pipe of a certain size and diameter. It can also shear some casing but it is geometrically limited.

Beneath that there will typically be a casing shear ram (which neither seals nor has any locking device). Then usually 3 pipe ram preventers which do seal and have locking devices.

I'm also still learning about this stuff so don't shoot me if it's wrong. I design penetrators and I'm fairly new to the industry, so anything not directly related to my job I am just picking up as I go.

If you have specific questions please feel free to ask. I've been designing and analyzing subsea systems for over a decade.

CS

 

[baywax]

Can we just set a charge and blow the thing shut? Seems to work above ground.

If this has been queried please forgive my ignorance.

By the way, every time I start my car I feel responsible for this catastrophe. As long as we keep feeding the anaconda, it will eat us.

 

[ViewsofMars]

If you have specific questions please feel free to ask. I've been designing and analyzing subsea systems for over a decade.

CS

Hi stewartcs. One of my major concerns pertains to the health of individuals that are on the frontline of this disaster. Do you take into account when designing and analyzing subsea systems any of the OIL SPILL RESPONSE RESOURCES that are made available by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Education and Information Division or CDC? If so, would you be so kind as to expand on that for us? Thanks in advance for your consideration in this matter.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/oilspillresponse/

 

[stewartcs]

Hi stewartcs. One of my major concerns pertains to the health of individuals that are on the frontline of this disaster. Do you take into account when designing and analyzing subsea systems any of the OIL SPILL RESPONSE RESOURCES that are made available by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Education and Information Division or CDC? If so, would you be so kind as to expand on that for us? Thanks in advance for your consideration in this matter.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/oilspillresponse/

No not normally. The oil spill response plan is created typically by the SHE department of the operator (BP in this case) in conjunction with, and approved by, the local and federal government. The resources required to be available are determined from the results of that plan.

Engineers that design the BOPs, Riser, Tensioning systems, etc. do not normally consider the response of the oil company and government due to a catastrophic disaster. We deal mainly with the safe and effective design of the equipment used to control the well. Note that the designers of this equipment do not work for the oil companies or the government.

CS

 

[gmax137]

Do you have a reference for the failure of the pressure test? Those tests are required by MMS every two weeks and the charts are signed by the engineer performing the test on board as well as the company man (BP rep. on board in this case) and logged.

CS

The impression I got from the interview on 60 Minutes a couple of weeks ago was that there was a failure in the valve control circuit (1 of 2 redundant circuits). Sorry if I have the terminology wrong, I really don't know anything about this. A question I do have is, what are the required actions if they fail one of these surveillance tests? In my field (nuclear power plants) the deficiency must be corrected in a specified time (varying from 1 hour to 31 days, depending on the nature of the failure) - and if it can't be corrected, the plant has to be placed in a condition where the failed component/system isn't required.

 

[mheslep]

Can we just set a charge and blow the thing shut? Seems to work above ground.

If this has been queried please forgive my ignorance.

By the way, every time I start my car I feel responsible for this catastrophe. As long as we keep feeding the anaconda, it will eat us.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2748367&postcount=90

 

[stewartcs]

The impression I got from the interview on 60 Minutes a couple of weeks ago was that there was a failure in the valve control circuit (1 of 2 redundant circuits). Sorry if I have the terminology wrong, I really don't know anything about this. A question I do have is, what are the required actions if they fail one of these surveillance tests? In my field (nuclear power plants) the deficiency must be corrected in a specified time (varying from 1 hour to 31 days, depending on the nature of the failure) - and if it can't be corrected, the plant has to be placed in a condition where the failed component/system isn't required.

There are two control PODs. Both are fully capable of completely operating the entire system. They are redundant both hydraulically and electrically. If one were to fall of the other could still be used to secure the well.

Additionally, there are two PLCs in each POD that are completely redundant as well. They control a solenoid valve to fire each function. The PLC outputs are wired to separate coils in the solenoid as well.

If a function fails in one POD then drilling is stopped to assess the situation. If drilling can be continued safely then it will. If not, the POD or LMRP will be retrieved and repaired. Once repaired it will be redeployed and drilling will commence again.

In any case, the Operator (BP for example) must agree to commence drilling. IIRC MMS has some rules that do require the system to have redundancy at all times, but not for every component. Some components are not necessary for safety. In other words there are multiple ways to secure the well that can be used if a desire method isn't available. For example, there are typically 3 pipe rams on any stack. If one fails, the other two provide the capability (as intended with their design) to secure the well.

There are multiple components that could fail that may have more than single redundancy that would not require stopping operations. For example, if one of the PLCs in one POD failed, it would not be necessary to retrieve the POD or LMRP. However, the Operator may require you to anyway. But strictly speaking, the system is still fully redundant even though one out of the two PLCs in that POD failed.

However, all functions must be working prior to deployment.

CS

 

[gmax137]

Thanks, stewartcs. Complete explanations appear to be beyond the capabilities of the 60 Minutes producers.

 

[ViewsofMars]

No not normally. The oil spill response plan is created typically by the SHE department of the operator (BP in this case) in conjunction with, and approved by, the local and federal government. The resources required to be available are determined from the results of that plan.

Engineers that design the BOPs, Riser, Tensioning systems, etc. do not normally consider the response of the oil company and government due to a catastrophic disaster. We deal mainly with the safe and effective design of the equipment used to control the well. Note that the designers of this equipment do not work for the oil companies or the government.

CS

Thanks stewartcs.

Here’s a quote from a letter dated June 8, 2010 from the National Commander Deepwater Horizon Reponses - Admiral Thad Allen, National Incident Commander to Dr. Anthony Hayward, Group Chief Executive BP:

“The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill is having a devastating impact on the environment and the economy of the Gulf Coast states and their communities. As one of the responsible parties for the event, BP is accountable to the American public for the economic loss caused by this spill and related events. I recognize that you have accepted responsibility for the spill and that you are committed to paying all related expenses.”
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/NIC_Letter_to_BP_CEO.621247.pdf
(I found that pdf off of this link: www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com[/URL])

Also, a quote from a BBC article, Gulf spill: [B]Salazar testifies at Senate safety hearing[/B], on June 9, 2010:
“Mr Salazar announced a number of new safety regulations on Tuesday.

“Among them, oil companies drilling in US waters will now have to inspect their blow-out preventers and provide safely certificates.

“The failure of the blow-out preventer on the Deepwater Horizon rig led to the oil spill, the worst in US history.”
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10273904.stm[/url]

The BBC article gives me the impression that Oil companies drilling in US waters haven't ever had blow-out preventers inspected and retained a safely certificate. Is that correct? The Deepwater Horizon rig did not have a safely certificate. Who and what department is responsible for inspection and safely certificates for blow-out preventers? Also, would you or someone else be so kind as to give me further information about safely certificates?

I'm also wondering about who are *all* 'the responsible parties for the event'. And, what are *all* the 'new safety regulations' that Mr. Salazar announced? Does any PF member know? A list would be helpful.

Thanks in advance for your help.
Mars

 

[stewartcs]

The BBC article gives me the impression that Oil companies drilling in US waters haven't ever had blow-out preventers inspected and retained a safely certificate. Is that correct? The Deepwater Horizon rig did not have a safely certificate. Who and what department is responsible for inspection and safely certificates for blow-out preventers? Also, would you or someone else be so kind as to give me further information about safely certificates?

I'm also wondering about who are *all* 'the responsible parties for the event'. And, what are *all* the 'new safety regulations' that Mr. Salazar announced? Does any PF member know? A list would be helpful.

No that is not correct. The BOPs are certified by the OEM after they are made and the data books with these certificates are kept on file by the owner of the BOP. The BOPs on the Horizon did have these certificates. The Stack is also surveyed at the beginning of each well by a 3rd Party Inspector.

MMS is the only department in the US that requires them to be inspected. However, API requires that they be certified in order to meet their specifications.

What the DOI is requiring now is that all BOPs be re-certified by a third party inspector (in addition to the other requirements listed in the documents below).

The new recommendations are on the DOI website:

http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=33598

http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=34536

CS

 

[ViewsofMars]

Looks as if you like exploration stewartcswe. Apparently, the BBC article failed to use the word re-certified.

What I enjoy doing is bringing new information to a topic by way of exploring the world wide Internet.

I found this to be extremely important that many people aren't aware of, especially the jobs that are created by the Petroleum Industry.

Testimony
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Jack Gerard, President and CEO
American Petroleum Institute
June 9, 2010

Good morning Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and members of the committee.

I am Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute. API’s 400 member companies represent all sectors of America’s oil and natural gas industry. Our industry supports 9.2 million American jobs – including many in the offshore development business – and provides most of the energy the nation needs to power the economy and our way of life. The tragic and heartbreaking accident in the Gulf was unprecedented, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the families who lost loved ones, to the workers who were injured, and to all of our neighbors in the Gulf who were affected.

The people of America’s oil and natural gas industry are working to help BP and the authorities respond to the spill. Clearly, there will be lessons to be learned, and we are fully committed to doing everything humanly possible to understand what happened and prevent it from ever happening again.

We have already assembled the world’s leading experts to conduct a top-to-bottom review of offshore drilling procedures, from operations to emergency response. And our industry is providing data and expertise to the federal government to stop the flow of oil, clean up the environment, understand the causes and correct them.

As Congress considers legislative changes that impact domestic oil and natural gas production from our offshore resources, it is critical that proposals both protect taxpayers and advance our country’s energy and economic interests. This nation’s energy and economic security demands must be met by increased domestic oil and natural gas production now and for the next several decades. We want to work with Congress and the administration as we consider the best way to protect taxpayers and provide the energy our country needs.
[Please read on . . .]
http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/...l_liability_trust_fund_20100608_Submitted.pdf

Stewartcs, will you be attending 2010 Exploration & Production Standards Conference on Oilfield Equipment & Materials scheduled for June 28 - July 2, 2010? If so, I for one would appreciate you sharing with us what you learn from the conference.

The conference is especially beneficial for:
Members of API Exploration & Production Standards Committees and subgroups, as well as:
• Engineers
• Equipment and Material Buyers
• Manufacturers and Suppliers
• API Monogram Licensees
Other parties interested in the standardization of oilfield equipment and materials such as:
Environmental and Safety Executives
Oil Company Management
Researchers, Technical Advisors and Trainers
http://www.api.org/meetings/topics/explorate/exploration-producti.cfm

I've lived through more than a few disasters, including natural disasters, in my lifetime. The most important thing that I have learned is cooperation among people is the essential factor.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well, that was fun.

Just talked to the BP hotline regarding Ron's tube idea.

Do you have ideas to help us?:
+1 281 366 5511

I was getting a bit upset that there is a whole lot of oil just dumping into the Gulf with nothing much in sight as far as doing anything about it, so I did.

I don't think the young man had ever done much sewing or fabric work. When I mentioned the fact that fabric comes in 60 inch width bolts, he asked me how a 60 inch wide boat would solve the problem.

Anyways, he took my name and email address.

Hopefully, in the next 3 days, we'll have the leak contained.

At least he knew what a self inflating swimming pool was, when I tried to describe the surface containment/collection device.

 

[xxChrisxx]

edited to remove my rage

 

[RonL]

Well, that was fun.

Just talked to the BP hotline regarding Ron's tube idea.



I was getting a bit upset that there is a whole lot of oil just dumping into the Gulf with nothing much in sight as far as doing anything about it, so I did.

I don't think the young man had ever done much sewing or fabric work. When I mentioned the fact that fabric comes in 60 inch width bolts, he asked me how a 60 inch wide boat would solve the problem.

Anyways, he took my name and email address.

Hopefully, in the next 3 days, we'll have the leak contained.

At least he knew what a self inflating swimming pool was, when I tried to describe the surface containment/collection device.

Hi Om,
Just have time for a quick response.

I sketched a very crude and simple set of drawings of what I have in mind, I'm not sure we are in tune about size of the tube (we do know it needs to be close to 5,000 feet long) but the weight (based on 16oz material) came out at 50 tons for fabric alone.
My plan is 15' dia. at the bottom and 100' at the top and a floating ring of containers (three sets of rings (90 or so each ring) to form a containment pool 200' in diameter. The containers would float in a vertical position with 10' to 15' above water and 25 or 30 feet under water (a solid wall liner from top to bottom 40', this is all just best guess and can be trimmed in size (or expanded).

The tube alone came in at 1.5 million dollars for just the fabric (16.95/yd) and the containers I calculated at $3,000 each, which I think will cover shipping and prep. Allowing for boats and barges for a working platform, the project came close to 2.5 million. Double that and at 5 million it is still a bargin.

I saw on the news last night that someone finally has tried the suction method for getting the oil off the water before it gets on land, this to me is the second most important thing to do in this disaster.

My thoughts about working the shoreline is a simple pair of pontoon floats (4' X 48' X1') built from materials from a big box store and having a bridge across them for a work surface. using the lightest materials possible a floating platform about 12'-18' wide and 48' long.
A simple diaphargm pump can be fabricated in a way it can be powered by hand or engine and a seperator to get the water out before the oil goes into a drum.

Got to go.
Thanks for the support on the basic idea of the tube.

Ronl

 

[RonL]

edited to remove my rage

Thanks Chris,
I think we all feel the same, But I do think most people, do not stop to think that in general these events are the results of one or two errors in judgement (sometimes just freak accidents) and not industry standards of operation. Oil companies do not like to lose money like this.

When someone was holding a handful of rubber particles from the drilling mud, it might have already been too late to make a right decision.

Just my opinion.

Ron

 

[stewartcs]

Stewartcs, will you be attending 2010 Exploration & Production Standards Conference on Oilfield Equipment & Materials scheduled for June 28 - July 2, 2010? If so, I for one would appreciate you sharing with us what you learn from the conference.

I normally do, however, this year I have a previous engagement that I must attend so I won't be able to make it to DC.

CS

 

[xxChrisxx]

Thanks Chris,
I think we all feel the same, But I do think most people, do not stop to think that in general these events are the results of one or two errors in judgement (sometimes just freak accidents) and not industry standards of operation. Oil companies do not like to lose money like this.

When someone was holding a handful of rubber particles from the drilling mud, it might have already been too late to make a right decision.

Just my opinion.

Ron

I'm not raging about the spill. I've been getting more and more irritated about the vindictive way this is being handled.

I've started to hear BP being referred to as 'foreign oil company'. Basically they are highlighting thee fact it used to be 'British Petroleum' with extreme emphasis on the British bit. Basically deflecting, BP is 50% american owned, the Wellhead and BOP companies are (Cameron iirc) American, the company sealing the well was American.

I'm not saying leave BP alone, as until this is solved they need to be pressured. I'm getting annoyed with the fact this **** is being dumped on 'Britains' doorstep as though "Us limeys" we've come into your lovely American home, peed on the dog, taken a dump on the couch and then left. If this were Chevron's mess you can gaurantee that people wouldn't be going after it in such a vindictive manner.

I just believe overall the entire situation could have been politically handled better.

The above is why I edited it out, it's going to cause flames.

 

[OmCheeto]

Hi Om,
Just have time for a quick response.

I sketched a very crude and simple set of drawings of what I have in mind, I'm not sure we are in tune about size of the tube (we do know it needs to be close to 5,000 feet long) but the weight (based on 16oz material) came out at 50 tons for fabric alone.
My plan is 15' dia. at the bottom and 100' at the top and a floating ring of containers

...

Got to go.
Thanks for the support on the basic idea of the tube.

Ronl

not sure if we are in tune?

I'm quite sure we are not in tune.

But it's a somewhat trivial matter regarding the size of the tube.

If your tube were 15 foot diameter the entire length, here are the numbers I come up with:

7.5 = radius
5,280 = length
933,055 = volume in ft^3 = 6,979,253 gallons

50.00 gallons per second leak rate = http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/horizon-oil-spill.html"

dividing the volume of the tube by the volumetric flow rate yields the following times to fill the tube:
139,585 seconds = 2,326 minutes = 38.77 hours = 1.62 days

with a linear flow rate of about 1/40 mile per hour

I know slugs that can move faster than that.

I think your tube is still too big. But then again, mine might be a bit too small at 3 feet in diameter.

 

[RonL]

not sure if we are in tune?

I'm quite sure we are not in tune.

But it's a somewhat trivial matter regarding the size of the tube.

If your tube were 15 foot diameter the entire length, here are the numbers I come up with:

7.5 = radius
5,280 = length
933,055 = volume in ft^3 = 6,979,253 gallons

50.00 gallons per second leak rate = http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/horizon-oil-spill.html"

dividing the volume of the tube by the volumetric flow rate yields the following times to fill the tube:
139,585 seconds = 2,326 minutes = 38.77 hours = 1.62 days

with a linear flow rate of about 1/40 mile per hour

I know slugs that can move faster than that.

I think your tube is still too big. But then again, mine might be a bit too small at 3 feet in diameter.

I know gas at the bottom will expand about 200 times by the time it pops out at the surface, maybe I need to look at their gas release numbers and find out if the volume is surface or bottom projections.
Also salt water coming out of the well has not been discussed much. What I see is oil, gas, salt water (from the well pipe) and sea water being sucked in by a siphon effect. All this will flow upward in one continuous flow due to gas expansion. Same principle as a garden hose uses to suck liquid fertilizer from a plastic container.

Comments please,

RonL

 

[OmCheeto]

I know gas at the bottom will expand about 200 times by the time it pops out at the surface, maybe I need to look at their gas release numbers and find out if the volume is surface or bottom projections.
Also salt water coming out of the well has not been discussed much. What I see is oil, gas, salt water (from the well pipe) and sea water being sucked in by a siphon effect. All this will flow upward in one continuous flow due to gas expansion. Same principle as a garden hose uses to suck liquid fertilizer from a plastic container.

Comments please,

RonL

I've not seen any notes on methane content of the effluent, so I don't know what the expansion would be. But I am worried about the effect. Are you familiar with how geysers work? Once enough water has been pushed out of a geyser spout, the pressure drops, and the entire column of superheated water turns to steam. I'm afraid a similar effect might happen here. Once the methane starts to sublimate, the upper column of crude would start moving faster due to it's increased volume.

hmmmm... The self pressure regulating properties of the flexible media might mitigate the effect though.

I still say it's the best idea.

hmmmm... Maybe BP has already thought of this and simply has an aversion to the potential news photo's of the result of this solution. Think a really bad case of diarrhea, with an explosive case of gas at the end. From a 3 foot diameter anus no less.


As to the siphon effect, this is one reason I like the fabric idea. Just install a travel bag type drawstring on the end and poof; no siphon.

 

[zoom_in]

The lowest estimate of 12,600 barrels is clearly no longer plausible, because 15,800 barrels were siphoned Wednesday to the surface and much more oil is still billowing into the gulf from around the cap...In response to a question, McNutt said that 20,000 to 40,000 barrels is the most plausible range, but she emphasized that the findings are preliminary and that the techniques have inherent limitations.[source: The Washington Post]

(erp...so we've still got upwards of 10,000 barrels spewing out...)



Oh, the wasted potential! It pains my heart...


Can you IMAGINE?

Someone has deep ocean experience, another has experience in spill containment, another is a chemist with experience in deep sea well effluents...college students, post-grads, even lay-people who want to help organize, sort, categorize--all working in concert to bring solutions to the table. One writes a blurb on the chemical properties of the effluent, another describes their past experience cleaning up seaborne spills... All these scraps of expertise are brought to a central source, organized by an outside entity (eg the US government, BP themselves) or self-organized from within.

Quoting from the past few pages of this thread alone:
"I'm also still learning about this stuff...I design penetrators and I'm fairly new to the industry,"
"I've been designing and analyzing subsea systems for over a decade."
--IOW there ARE people with valuable knowledge who are ready, willing and able to contribute. A problem such as this, that gains world attention, has such potential for collective thinking, well beyond the confines of BP's offices and conference rooms.

Mass-scale collaborative efforts CAN work, as evidenced by the open source movement or Wikipedia (imperfect, yes, but powerful nonetheless--thousands and thousands of people sharing information and expertise).

To watch all this potential scattered across the four corners of the internet instead of being refined, built and focused...it pains my heart. It's a staggering loss of a human resource (like so much leaking oil...)


What we can do:

• Push for open information--what order of magnitude increase would occur on these boards alone if we all had the tech specs available? factor of two? factor of four? ten? (browsing just this thread, again and again, I see well-meaning folks stymied by a lack of technical details--discussions on pipe diameters, discussions on composition of the effluent,
  questions about pressure tests to name a few) (to give BP the BOTD, I don't know if anyone's even ASKED for the tech specs to be made public--I doubt it would take them much time to post most of what they have)
• Push for centralized information areas when disasters happen--imagine if every stray discussion, blog and forum was put on or made available at a central source (for example, just how many times has the fabric/sheet plastic/etc... tube design been tossed around?--centralization will allow for very quick research on that design's merits and drawbacks, eliminating it or pushing it ahead...)
• Be careful of putting too much faith in the "expert"--a title whose meaning enjoys an overabundance of leeway

Consider it a meta-engineering problem. The human potential out there is ENORMOUS. Forums like this are helping but the internet can be much MORE than it is for disasters like this. Imagine if concomitant solutions were being discussed, ones that fitted with the LMRP cap--designs that could shunt off the (now, apparently large in volume--see above) effluent still leaking out.

 

[tyroman]

Ron & Om,

Some reflections of mine on the "tube" idea...

Think of the currents. The drill ship had very powerful engines driving thrusters constantly to counter surface currents and keep it directly above the wellhead on the seafloor. Such a GPS guided system would need to be a part of the "inflatable swiming pool" at the surface end of the fabric tube.

In the case of the drill ship, it was connected to the seafloor by a relatively thin, very strong piece of steel (the riser) which presented a small cross section and was thus able to withstand the crosscurrents existing in the one mile column of water it passed through... the "tube" however, will present a significant cross section to the variable underwater currents and will essentially be a huge mile-long sail.

Have you considered the shear forces which such a tube will have to withstand in order to maintain a vertical position and a cylindrical shape for its one mile length through sea water which is flowing?

To get a feel for the variability of sub-surface currents, have a look at this graphic of 700m deep currents from NOAA;

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/ofs/viewer.shtml?-gulfmex-cur-700-large-rundate=latest

and compare it to this graphic of surface currents;

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/ofs/viewer.shtml?-gulfmex-cur-0-large-rundate=latest

Of course, the animations at the links above depict only the HORIZONTAL component of currents... at the same website you can view graphics of the vertical velocities at various depths as well.

Analysis of the forces involved (and the material strengths required) is a CFD problem of the first order!

.

 

[oil-TNTno-oil]

I think too much thought is being put into this.

Drill about 10 holes 200 feet deep or so around the broken pipe, then drop the appropiate amount of explosives in each and the collape would seal all. then use the new holes being drilled in August to get your greedy oil out!

 

[mheslep]

I think too much thought is being put into this.

Drill about 10 holes 200 feet deep or so around the broken pipe, then drop the appropiate amount of explosives in each and the collape would seal all. then use the new holes being drilled in August to get your greedy oil out!

Maybe not.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2748367&postcount=90

 

[oil-TNTno-oil]

It's rock and heavy sea sediment not glass. Over 200 ft. would sound better. I don't know the depth of the well.

The pipe could be pulled up at the breaking points.


We blow everything else up as a solution like our atmosphere, why not?

 

[mheslep]

It's rock and heavy sea sediment not glass. Over 200 ft. would sound better. I don't know the depth of the well.

If you looked up a couple of the relevant figures I expect you'd get more consideration of your proposal. The well is some 13,000' below the sea floor. Some rock formations, especially salt domes, are essentially as brittle as glass. With the oil pressure at perhaps 5000 PSI, do you think 200' of over cover would hold the oil? What do you expect are the consequences if your proposal fails? Sames as now, or worse?

 

[oil-TNTno-oil]

It has failed and 3 more months is even worse failure.

I'm no pyrotechnician but I'm sure the experts could collape a several foot hole with Earth at a proper depth and have series of explosions as the pipe is lifted to contain the hole with thick heavy sediment.

 

[OmCheeto]

Ron & Om,

Some reflections of mine on the "tube" idea...

Have you considered the shear forces which such a tube will have to withstand in order to maintain a vertical position and a cylindrical shape for its one mile length through sea water which is flowing?

Hadn't even thought of it. Very good point. Perhaps though we don't need to keep it vertical, but extend it's length perhaps an extra mile or two, and let it go with the flow.

To get a feel for the variability of sub-surface currents, have a look at this graphic of 700m deep currents from NOAA;

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/ofs/viewer.shtml?-gulfmex-cur-700-large-rundate=latest

It's difficult to tell really what the currents are from those images. It appears to somewhere between zero and 10 cm/sec in the region of the well head.

I just found the following http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/interactive.spill.tracker/index.html" from start to today. The flow seems to be somewhat random.

Analysis of the forces involved (and the material strengths required) is a CFD problem of the first order!

I disagree. Sitting around looking at computer models isn't going to do anything when you really don't have proper data to do the analysis in the first place.

I say build the tube. If it doesn't work, very little is lost. They may learn something when the tube fails. Then they can build another one, that doesn't fail.

This is not rocket science. And watching TV commentators day after day, arguing over whether it's 2 million or 4 million gallons leaking per day makes me sick.

It should be zero.

Now.

 

[oil-TNTno-oil]

They need to collapse the pipe yesterday! DAY 1 it should have been done after tragady.

http://i.imwx.com/web/multimedia/images/content/spread_oilslick.jpg

 

[xxChrisxx]

They need to collapse the pipe yesterday! DAY 1 it should have been done after tragady.

http://i.imwx.com/web/multimedia/images/content/spread_oilslick.jpg

Yes, very helpful. It's not as though they've been trying to stop it.

EDIT: You also can't collapse the well with conventional explosives, that would just make things much much worse, the magnitude of a conventional explosive wouldn't be enough to create a seal and after you've blown it up there is nothing else you can do as you've destroyed the structure.

If you do what you suggest, you'll just end up with oil pouring out of a gaping hole in the ground of undetermined size, rather than something that is relatively more controllable.