Will BP's Top Kill Procedure Stop the Gulf Oil Spill?

  • Thread starter Glennage
  • Start date
In summary, BP is considering a "top kill" procedure to contain the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico but has not yet made a decision. This technique has a 60-70% chance of success but has never been tested at 5,000 feet underwater. Other methods, such as a containment box, have failed. BP may have been trying to preserve the well to finish rigging, but the current situation has likely forced them to pursue the "top kill" option. This was the last resort, as there is a risk that the well may not be able to be used again once killed. The long preparation time for this method may have delayed its implementation. However, the potential political and social consequences of not taking action may
  • #176
What if you had some kind of compressed balls, of a material which is hydrophobic, but oil absorbant. The idea would be that you junk shoot them down there using water as a lubricant, and when they hit oil, they expand. Maybe have a time release coating on them, so that after being exposed to the oil long enough to dissolve the coating, the material expands a lot. If you timed it right, maybe you could junk shoot it with this expansive material, and pump heavy mud over the top of it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #177
jreelawg said:
What if you had some kind of compressed balls, of a material which is hydrophobic, but oil absorbant. The idea would be that you junk shoot them down there using water as a lubricant, and when they hit oil, they expand. Maybe have a time release coating on them, so that after being exposed to the oil long enough to dissolve the coating, the material expands a lot. If you timed it right, maybe you could junk shoot it with this expansive material, and pump heavy mud over the top of it.

Without knowing all the details of the well head, it's difficult to determine the best solution of stopping the leak. Someone should post in the homework section all of the dynamics involved.

1. Find the inertia of a column of oil x kilometers long traveling at y meter per second in a pipe z meters in diameter.
2. Graph the pressure of the column of oil against a plug if an attempt is made to stop the flow in 30 seconds. Assume a linear reduction in flow.
3. Given a tensile strength of x of the steel pipe, what would be the nominal shutoff rate of the flow of oil to yield a safety factor of 3.

We do after all, have some of the greatest minds on the planet perusing this forum.

PF to the rescue!

I'll give Barack a call after we figure it out.
 
  • #178
I'm prepared to embrace a large series of charges to collapse the surrounding sea bed.
 
  • #179
Geigerclick said:
I'm prepared to embrace a large series of charges to collapse the surrounding sea bed.

I think you have to solve problem #1 first.

Here is wiki's blurb on my first concern:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_hammer"
Water hammer (or, more generally, fluid hammer) is a pressure surge or wave resulting when a fluid (usually a liquid but sometimes also a gas) in motion is forced to stop or change direction suddenly (momentum change). Water hammer commonly occurs when a valve is closed suddenly at an end of a pipeline system, and a pressure wave propagates in the pipe.

This pressure wave can cause major problems, from noise and vibration to pipe collapse. It is possible to reduce the effects of the water hammer pulses with accumulators and other features.

I'm afraid that with such a massive column of moving fluid, any impromptu jumble of rocks we dump on the problem will be hammered aside.

hmmm... Has anyone bothered to solicit a plumbers opinion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #180
Shadowmaru said:
Probably not. I think the last and final option for BP will be to use a Nuke. It worked for the Russians.

My point exactly, but I believe that conventional explosives can achieve a similar effect, although it will take a lot of them. That would be a difficult "pile of rocks" to move aside.
 
  • #181
Now according to BP, live in conference, Top Kill is not working. What. A. Shock. Good of them to get around to confirming what has been known for over a day.
 
  • #182
[URL]http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/crying-baby-giant-eyes1.jpg[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #184
Here's the next option:

"Under the new plan, BP would use robot submarines to cut off the damaged riser from which the oil is leaking, and then try to cap it with a containment valve. "
 
Last edited:
  • #185
Chance of working bp says 99.99999% but they won't know till christmas.
 
  • #186
Ivan Seeking said:
[PLAIN]http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/crying-baby-giant-eyes1.jpg[/QUOTE]

Ivan, Thank you for this. :frown:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #187
Ivan Seeking said:
[PLAIN]http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/crying-baby-giant-eyes1.jpg[/QUOTE]


Ditto.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #188
If only Joe the Plumber had won the election...
 
  • #189
Cyrus said:
If only Joe the Plumber had won the election...

:smile:
 
  • #190
Spill, baby, spill!
 
  • #191
Cyrus said:
If only Joe the Plumber had won the election...

What we REALLY need... is the Bob The Builder, that little claymation guy has a fleet of AI tools! I just keep imagining how Bush W. would explain this to the public, how Reagan would, how Clinton would, and McCain.

W.: Keeps reading to children.
Reagan: Fails to communicate.
Clinton: Runs away for an extra special "hug" with the nearest female with a heartbeat.
McCain: Would stammer like the sad old man he is.
How about Gov. Sanford? : MIA
Obama: So... Cold...
Glenn Beck: cries
Limbaugh: Back on the hillbilly heroin
Dukakis: Seen riding a tank into the Atlantic.

I could go on. :)
 
  • #192
Idk I think bush and crew would have handled this by now. Probably with nukes.
 
  • #193
magpies said:
Idk I think bush and crew would have handled this by now. Probably with nukes.

It worked for the russians, but it could have failed. I cannot imagine the president, even bush, who would deploy a nuclear weapon in the gulf of mexico.
 
  • #194
How many times did it work for the russians? They must be pretty lucky.

What's so bad about using a nuke in the gulf? I mean they make them so they arnt extreamly radio active now... I do suppose it's a little late now that they let it spill for month's but if they could have done a nuke attempt right away would you have been for it?
 
  • #195
magpies said:
How many times did it work for the russians? They must be pretty lucky.

Once, and all things considered I'd say they did get pretty lucky. On one hand, you might fuse a portion of the well, collapse the region and achieve your goal. On the other, you could rip away the BOP and piping, kill a TON of marine life with the noise, and create fallout, literal and political.
 
  • #197
Geigerclick said:
Once, and all things considered I'd say they did get pretty lucky. On one hand, you might fuse a portion of the well, collapse the region and achieve your goal. On the other, you could rip away the BOP and piping, kill a TON of marine life with the noise, and create fallout, literal and political.

The Russians were dealing with surface gas well fires. Big difference.

http://www.livescience.com/technolo...cecom+(LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed)
 
  • #199
Geigerclick said:
What we REALLY need... is the Bob The Builder, that little claymation guy has a fleet of AI tools! I just keep imagining how Bush W. would explain this to the public, how Reagan would, how Clinton would, and McCain.

W.: Keeps reading to children.
Reagan: Fails to communicate.
Clinton: Runs away for an extra special "hug" with the nearest female with a heartbeat.
McCain: Would stammer like the sad old man he is.
How about Gov. Sanford? : MIA
Obama: So... Cold...
Glenn Beck: cries
Limbaugh: Back on the hillbilly heroin
Dukakis: Seen riding a tank into the Atlantic.

I could go on. :)

:smile:
 
  • #200
I have to wonder that if BP could insert a pipe into the hole, why not insert a heavy plug - made of something dense like tungsten or depleted U, such that the pressure drop would allow pouring of mud or concrete above the plug, which would seal the hole. Admittedly, I don't know the details of the geometry of the hole.

The plug may not necessarily require a dense material, but just be heavy enough to settle into the hole. The denser the material, the smaller the plug and perhaps more manageable.
 
  • #201
Astronuc said:
I have to wonder that if BP could insert a pipe into the hole, why not insert a heavy plug - made of something dense like tungsten or depleted U, such that the pressure drop would allow pouring of mud or concrete above the plug, which would seal the hole. Admittedly, I don't know the details of the geometry of the hole.

The plug may not necessarily require a dense material, but just be heavy enough to settle into the hole. The denser the material, the smaller the plug and perhaps more manageable.

May I try to reply to that one: The pipe is damaged to start with and I suspect the oil rushing out of the pipe would make it very difficult to try to out-right plug it or put anything "closed" over it. My suspicion is that they'll do it just like the old-days: install a valve that is initially wide open to let the oil come out as they are installing it, secure the valve, then close it.

Also, I'm scrapping my initial thoughts about threading the pipe. Just install a valve with a flange (with teeth) that can then be constricted around the male end using a socket wrench.

Ok, and while I'm designing this brilliant plan, I would also make sure to have some type of blowers around the work area to blow away all the oil that will be gushing out all over the place as this is occurring so as not to occlude the work area although the subsequent induced currents might interfere with the robotics.
 
Last edited:
  • #202
jackmell said:
May I try to reply to that one: The pipe is damaged to start with and I suspect the oil rushing out of the pipe would make it very difficult to try to out-right plug it or put anything "closed" over it. My suspicion is that they'll do it just like the old-days: install a valve that is initially wide open to let the oil come out as they are installing it, secure the valve, then close it.

Also, I'm scrapping my initial thoughts about threading the pipe. Just install a valve with a flange (with teeth) that can then be constricted around the male end using a socket wrench.

Ok, and while I'm designing this brilliant plan, I would also make sure to have some type of blowers around the work area to blow away all the oil that will be gushing out all over the place as this is occurring so as not to occlude the work area although the subsequent induced currents might interfere with the robotics.
Yes - I found this after I posted.
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9033657&contentId=7062491

The riser coming of the top of the BOP stack is damaged, so it's not possible to drop a plug in the hole. Apparently BP plants cut the pipe and attach a plug on the top.
 
  • #203
Plus, the oil pressure is something like 5000 psi; with about 2500 psi of water pressure due to depth.
 
  • #204
Astronuc said:
Yes - I found this after I posted.
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9033657&contentId=7062491

Outstanding! I like that plan:

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/images/Containment_Contingency_Option_large.jpg


Thank for the link. :)
 
  • #205
Meanwhile, they are drilling two relief wells.

http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article215111.ece

Ostensibly, this event may inspire redesigns of deep water BOPs(?), which would be more fail proof.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #206
Has anyone heard anything about where the rig that sank, is in relation to the well head and blowout preventer ? and does that pose any problems ?
 
  • #207
Ivan Seeking said:
Plus, the oil pressure is something like 5000 psi; with about 2500 psi of water pressure due to depth.
It's the local differential pressure that is key. What is the source of the 5000 psi value?
 
  • #208
RonL said:
Has anyone heard anything about where the rig that sank, is in relation to the well head and blowout preventer ? and does that pose any problems ?

This is purely supposition on my part, but when large things sink through nearly a mile of water, they do not sink directly downward. I would expect the remains if the rig to be some distance in the direction of the prevailing currents when it sank, so, north of the well.
 
  • #209
Astronuc said:
It's the local differential pressure that is key. What is the source of the 5000 psi value?

It is the oil equivalent of an artesian well. The effective differential pressure between the well head, and the water at depth, is supposed to be about 2500 psi.

I'm not sure about the source of pressure in the oil field itself. I think it results from the natural gas that is present.
 
Last edited:
  • #210
Let me play the devil's advocate:

When they make the second cut near the top of the BOP stack, the oil flow dramatically increases 10-fold and this causes great difficulty steering the LMRP cap onto the flange of the BOP. Additionally, the increase oil flow greatly disrupts visuals in the work area.

Then what?

Here's my plan:

Rig an inverted funnel, say 10' in diameter and maybe 10' deep onto the LMRP (such that it won't interfere with the BOP) cap to guide it squarely onto the stack. Didn't see any type of device in the pictures. It should not be a solid funnel but rather a coarse screen funnel that allows a great amount of fluid to pass through it while sufficiently maintaining it's structure. If necessary, use sophisticated video equipment that can see through the oil. Also, keep the LMRP cap open while it's being installed to allow the oil to pass through.

Yeah, I realize they know way better than me. Just havin' a lil' fun. :)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News BP, found grossly negligent, in April 2010 oil spill
Replies
1
Views
1K
The BP well could be capped tonight
2
Replies
47
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top