Oil Spill

Excellent Carl! I had not contemplated the effects of hydration heat of the cement on gas hydrates that may have been in the open hole. That could certainly be the root cause of this.

News update:

The smallest of the three leaks has been capped. the drill pipe was sawed off smooth and a temporary flange has been set with a valve bolted to it. Much as I described it would be.

The largest of the three cofferdams (well, two now....) has been offloaded from the barge onto the drillship Deepwater Enterprise and is undergoing final preparations for placement today or tomorrow if weather cooperates. Crews worked on the cofferdam on the barge on the way out to the drillship, right up until it was lifted off the barge. They've been busting their arses and they all deserve several rounds of adult beverages when they get back onto the beach. Same with Wild Well's crews.

The plan as I have heard it is that if the pressures are not too high, they will be attempting to disconnect the Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP) from the BOP and lift it away and stab Enterprise's BOP/LMRP/Riser onto the existing BOP in order to shut in the well. The Cofferdam will have to be moved out of the way during this evolution, but they will go ahead and place it while they evaluate and make preparations.

GA to CarlE and GarthH

The hydrates formed and trapped in ocean depths are well known to be a potential problem. It is even thought that the earth ice ages are ended when the ocean levels drop enough through ice formation to release the pressure on the hydrates. The next sequence of methane releases to the atmosphere causes the earth to start warming (takes a bit of time to happen though). It is one of the global warming factors that does not get into the models and likely can have the largest impact. In fact these hydrates would mimic anthropogenic global warming and are one of the reasons I don't fully subscribe to AGW.

Someone earlier asked if earthquakes could disturb the well and cause the problem as we now see it. I doubt that was a problem. But earthquakes could and have disturbed sediments to release methane from trapped hydrates. Check out the Storegga slide near Norway as an example. This slide is about 8000 years old and recent (2009) methane and CO2 vents in patchwork have been detected in the area. This slide is suspected as the cause of a global warming era about the same 8000 BP.

However, It would appear that the cementing may be the reason for sudden release of the methane on the rig in the Gulf. I am not sure if the insitu hydrates were disturbed by drilling but these are interesting issues. I believe there are exploratory plans to harvest these hydrates but it may be a bad idea environmentally.

The hydrates are supposed to be the next harvest indeed, when the oil supply becomes problematic. Studies are in the make. I heard that these hydrates present at least the same energy equivalent as attained with the oil. Just rumors.

Actually several times that. And that is just known deposits. There are lots of other places where they are expected to be found, but nobody has looked yet.

And now the DNC is using this tragedy to line their pockets.

Have they no shame? Have they no humanity? I guess not.

The use of disaster to justify actionable expenditures is hardly new.

All government, by nature, is parasitic. It must receive its value and funding from the people, and organizations of the people. (taxation, corporations, lobby groups, churches, etc) ^{_{(any other view is incorrect. even stalin's communism, that the people serve the state is incorrect. as the value is created by the people, from natural resources.)}}

or at least, that is how it was supposed to be. The central bank mechanism has allowed governments to enter into debt arrangments with the central bank (fed), and to foist the repayment and interest onto the people. (national debt and inflation)

If money does not flow from the people and their organizations, for events such as these, then the government will go into debt to accomplish its goals, which may or may not be the will of the people.

Shame never enters into it. If it did, they would have stopped several trillion dollars ago. (national debt clock) so pay me now or pay me later.

Chris

I read somewhere that the deposits around Alaska alone (84% ocean vs 16% on land) is expected to be 200,000 trillion (2 quintillion) cubic feet of methane trapped as hydrates. That is something like 20 times the current know supply. Worldwide is likely much higher. Yeah lots of potential but lots of issues to harvest including some R and D. I found this power point on the internet about hydrates that may be of interest and has some techniques of harvesting presented. Economics still not right for full scale production. I think Rorschach's idea may have merit but likely to meet lots of resistance especially from environmentalists and fishermen.

I do believe that the Gulf of Mexico is one of the areas considered for some type of hydrate harvest. However I also suspect that after the current accident is fully understood and reported there will be changes to prevent similar accidents elsewhere. So if there is any good to come through the result of the Gulf accident it will be likely improved study of the nature/occurrence of the hydrates and related safety measures about drilling.

Directing and processing crude oil flow

http://drillingclub.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=wellcontrol&action=display&thread=4837&page=17

Re: Transocean fire
« Reply #494 Today at 3:12am »

Here is an update on the concept I was attempting to describe earlier. Thanks AK for your kind words.

I wasn't aware that 70% vol seawater mousses were thixotropic. Separation of the crude at the sea floor may help this.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob....ad3445919dc3189

The closest equipment I could locate that seemed to be a good match for the concept:
http://pdf.directindustry.com/pdf/alfa-l....02-13324 8.html

It would likely need to be equipped with a secondary pump to get the separated crude back to the surface and a pump to discharge water out the side.

Concept:
Enclose the entire skid in a tank. The tank would only need to be rated for 5 to 10 psi differential pressure. The bottom would be weighted so it could be submerged without tipping.
Pressure equalization system: Similar to a second stage scuba regulator only the diaphragm would be biased so 2 – 5 psi higher pressure is maintained within the tank. It would continually adjust the pressure during descent/ascent.
Purging system: A dump valve with a float would be installed in the bottom of the enclosure. If water rises to trip the float the internal higher pressure would exhaust the water out the bottom.
Effects of pressure on machinery components: Would need to ensure that all component are solid. E.g.: No foam gaskets or seals, no voids in epoxy that could collapse under pressure. The seals may need to be replaced after recovering the unit to surface if it hasn't been decompressed. They could rupture.
Umbilical: Would allow passage of separated crude oil back up to the surface and power from the ship down to supply the motors. Could also contain booster pumps if needed.
Power: Could be hydraulic taking into account the pressure losses with this much travel. Electrical power has been considered in the past for diver tools. I am not a sparky so I would defer that to the Naval Civil Engineering Lab. The power requirements for equipment this large are considerable if you consider the possibility of multiple units.
Intake: Could be a fabric cone with lift bags at the top and anchored to the sea floor. A hose would be attached at the top of the cone and the other end connected to the centrifuge through a bulkhead fitting in the side of the enclosure.
Placement of the cone, hoses, anchors, etc would all depend on ROV capabilities.

http://drillingclub.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=wellcontrol&action=display&thread=4837&page=11

Re: Transocean fire
« Reply #328 on May 3, 2010, 12:30am »

I have not worked in the oil industry since the early 1980's but would like to contribute some possibilities for what they are worth.

To divert the flow from the riser:
Use a fitting similar to a banjo fitting typically used in automotive fuel and brake systems. It has a "U" shaped cross section with radial seals on both ends and a fitting out the side. If the back pressure isn't too extensive it could be fairly lightweight and split to saddle over the riser. Hopefully with lift bags for neutral buoyancy it would be manageable by the ROV. Once attached a hose would be attached to the side port and the housing purged of seawater. The end of the hose could potentially be attached to a large bladder on the sea floor. I believe they are available for fuel storage. Inside the banjo housing would contain a set of small jet perforators facing the OD of the riser. When detonated, the perforators would allow flow into the fitting housing and out the hose. In order to minimize the pressure multiple taps may be needed.

Closing the riser:
Review the movie Fat Man & Little Boy depicting Los Alamos in the 1940's when they were experimenting with imploding cylindrical pipe. If this technique were successful using a series of wedge shaped HE charges placed by the ROV around the riser it may serve to swage the riser to a reduced diameter or potentially closed.

Severing the riser:
If severing is required you could potentially use linear shaped charge around the OD. Another alternative is to adapt a chemical cutter to operate on the OD Vs ID. It offers a clean cut.

If the previous methods are not viable:
Saddle a clamp over the riser with a swing out plug or split annulus if needed. Sever the riser and drill string then attempt to swing the plug into place sealing the annulus, drill string or both.

I am assuming a deep water JLAY vessel may be available to pipe out the captured oil.

That's my two cents worth.

"Enclose the entire skid in a tank."

this one has my interest.. but can you please elaborate with a sketch. what would you be putting inside a tank? what are the dimensions of the proposed tank? I think there is the potential for a permanent solution here.

Chris

Chris,

The whole skid would be enclosed within a pressurized envelope. It could be a simple sheet metal or plate box capable of 5 - 10 psi internal pressure. Outside water should not be able to get inside the enclosure but in case it does, a float operated dump valve at the bottom should be able to purge it. A high pressure nitrogen bottle would be connected to a diaphragm valve similar to a second stage scuba regulator. The spring in it would be tuned to bias pressure slightly higher within the enclosure than the outside pressure at the sea floor.

The dimensions would be whatever is required to enclose the separator skid and any support equipment you wish to keep dry. An inverted railroad tanker comes to mind.

The flow rates for the separator seem substantial enough to make a dent in the recovery.

http://pdf.directindustry.com/pdf/alfa-l....02-13324 8.html

Chris,

Check out the following link for the skid mounted separator.

http://drillingclub.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=wellcontrol&action=display&thread=4837&page=26

Subsea gas/water/oil separators are in wide use already in the GoM and elsewhere so that the gas and water can be re-injected in order to maintain formation pressure as long as possible.

Thanks for the comment.

I am assuming they couldn't use them in the case of the Transocean case because of damage. What I am looking at is an independent system that would be used in emergency conditions such as this. Rather than waiting for the crude to disperse on it's way to the surface, try to catch it as close to the leak points as possible. With a potential intake of 3,600,000 gallons per day intake of water oil mix it should at least make a dent in the leakage.

I think the separator idea would be a good one, in order to deal with blowouts, especially in the future. I think perhaps they might become part of the LMRP safety equipment. I think a simple skid is not going to be heavy enough, because the gas inside will create buoyancy. Sure, the gas could be vented to the ocean. The oil will however require some method of transport to the surface, which opens it up to risk. The wellbore pressure and velocity that we are seeing is more than enough to make vortex centrifugal separators work. I think the real design issue is in the riser to the surface.

This very close to the same issue as simply capturing all of the output of the leaks, and transporting it to the surface, or of sucking it at source. If the pressure velocity of the leaks could first power some turbine pump, and then be separated, perhaps that will help with energy requirements at the seafloor. It is still a mile down, and you still need something you can set or clamp over the leak, and conduct the fluid into the system.

subsequently, it would be easier to design such a system in advance of it's need (future), and to create blowout paths at the seafloor, that prevent blowout oil & gas from reaching the surface. It would be better to have oil & gas pumped up from the seafloor, rather than blown up. there would be more control and safety.

Under a blowout condition, everything comes up.. drill pipe, mud, cement, even casing, as well as oil/gas.

good thinking.

Chris

I' wouldn't bet on that too much. Study Methane and water, and RPT.

The water/Gas mix is super critical. If you pump it up with the crude, that is a rendez-vous with the next disaster.

Later we will also know why the horizon got into that scenario.

I heard on TV that BP had learned her lesson.

We will now see if they also study up front.

That brought us to the fifth experiment, if I count well.

(In the "house" model was taken care of that by the ocean, without spill of gas or crude. Also with the clathrates.)

Looks like the containment dome has started its "12 hour journey".

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/06/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T1

A couple gentlemen have come up with a way of cleaning up oil slicks that is dead simple and cheap.

Hay. Yes, like what you feed cattle.

See for yourself.

Rorscharch

I was unable to open the utube site due to filters. I do agree hay is a good method of sopping up oil. We did work for another engineering firm and used it on remediating a waste landfill site to stop leachate entering a waterway. We used hay bails with a filter cloth on the water side. Lasted all through construction of collection system for the better part of year. Leachate from the site was huge, several full size tank trucks loads every day. Mostly heavy metals like iron but some organic component as well.

I will see if I can bypass the spam filters to see the operation in Texas. Good idea and cheap to use.

Most construction sites in my area use hay bails and filter cloth when excavation is required and possible runoff to waterway. Natural resources worry about fish kill and high turbidity entering the water. They seem always to be satisfied when action like this is taken and needed for approval. FYI

Been there , done that and bought the "T" shirt.

We were asked by petroleum engineer students at USL in Lafayette, LA. 15 years back to make netting tubes that could deployed with hay and another type of 'grass' that actually resembled a marijuana plant but was NOT marrijuana. It can grow all over Louisiana and I guess Texas too. Some kind of talll grassy weed. who knows.

The big trouble came as to how to handle the long tubes of oil soaked hay. they were drippy and they were very heavy.

When our shop fianally hit on the solution to handling the mess, the project had evolved into oil absorbent cloths and chemical disepersents.

My guess is that there is something in place today that COUILD handle this. Who knows. My phone ain't ringing!

So . back to catfish seines and shrimp trawls we went.........

sa va,

nm

These guys are proposing setting up blower on the decks of work boats and just broadcasting hay onto the slick. then it can either be skimmed off the surface or if it gets out of the containment booms and washes ashore, it can be picked up just like seaweed is with minimal oil getting into the sand.

In cajun french there is an expression called," Fui mad" (spelling is not good as I can not spell cajun french.

Anyway, it translate to "stirring the $h!t.

I am not a smart person and I keep repeating that because there are so many who are truly smart. But I have been around the block more than one time .

My guesses would be, and mind you.....these are guesses:

1. The USGG will look at this as an immediate response measure.....then, because it is NOT regulated, they may just claim it to be a hinderance to navigation if the oil soaked patches get away from them.
2. Some idiot is going to throw some diesel and some lighter on the floating patch and set it afire....just to see what happens. * my guess is a C.A. , not a Texacan on this one.
3. although the tecnology exists to squeeze the oil from the hay ( like a mealt/ bone separator in a fish plant, some eniviro-person will want a ka-zillion permits to transport it and dispose of it.
4. the very fishermen who are complaining in front the TV will gripe even harder IF this stuff water logs and sinks..........as it will plug and foul their trawls.
5. Some already dead fish, turtle or Flipper will get attached to it and the Green Peace guys ( girls) will be upon thee as stink is upon thou hound $h!t blaming the hay for the critters demise.

In nice weather like today, the hay piles will be easy to control and locate, but what happens when a few hundred are put out and the "skimmer" boat can not get to them in a timely fashion due to rough seas? Revert back to Numbers 1-5.

So what would be wrong with tossing some matches on it? Or even better just toss some metallic sodium/potassium from a low flying plane.....=b

Didn't they try to do a controlled burn but the problem was they couldn't keep it lit? Sounds like the problem was not enough hay.....

But you're right, SOMEBODY will complain. so we'll just sit around and watch it wash ashore and really make a mess, and those selfsame people will complain anyway.

Maybe we should just tell some people to STFU and deal with the problem instead of dealing with their whining?

you are so right.

Problem comes up.

Somebody or bodies get a solution...not perfect but a solution.

Someone with no dog in the fight steps up and makes a commotion.

anyway, I think the Oil industry is going to get a handle on this soon. There are much smarter folks in this industry than in most others. the whole industry was built on field people coming up with inventions.

They will pull this off too and soon.

They must feel very comfortable, to take the time to wait for construction of the containment "domus" and the paint to dry.

It should have saved hours to paint it while traveling on the boat, but maybe it was not that important, because of the wait for other parts, like the hose or pipe?

They DID paint it on the boat, they even finished assembling it on the boat.

Several days ago, I cut and pasted an article from BP that stated a leak below the wellhead.The wellhead the BOP is currently sitting on.Since then,,I have searched,and searched.Well this old dog aint gonna hunt no mo.

Must have been quite a strain ,,,caught at the top with the drill ship.Then rig finally sinking,in direction from prevailing wind/tide.Quite a contest,resulting with the riser bent in direction of rig sinking.One mile deep.

Hopefully the dome/box will do the trick,,,oilfield way,,,the simpler, the better.Personally I feel that this is the time to NOT rush.Hope my feeling is shared with BP on this.

Search Engines,I will be your slave no longer,,,,,I cannot find the quote,and believe me I have looked.

Blowouts I have been on (surface) have a tendency to do a lot of vibrating.Vibration of the ground that is.Of course in this case we have tons of anchors,deadman.etc,etc,and 5000 feet of water.

I have no Ideas.

Ultimately it is in the hands of Mother Nature.Been there before.She can be bad beyond imagination.

Respectfully,

Joe in Texas

my question is how the heck are they going to stay connected at 800 fathoms.

Tell me they are going to have some sort of guy lines on this critter?

This is S x SW wind season and in no time there will be 15-20knots every few days.

Is that tubing so flexible it'll hold and bend at the same time?

It's pretty strong but not that strong. But the boat it'll be connected to is a DP vessel which can handle some fairly decent seas. I don't know exactly how they plan on plumbing it, but if it were me, I'd set it up like they do a conventional FPSO. with a submerged buoy that is anchored to the sea floor with 4-6 anchors with a coflexip type hose going from the buoy to the top of the "hat". there is a second hose connected to the buoy that is connected to a surface float so that it can be retrieved by the tanker.

Is this what you mean???

The bouy inbetween is anchored off to allow some "play" as wave action can and will move the boat a bit?

Like this?

yes, conceptually that is pretty much it. it also keeps the buoy far enough down that it isn't a hazard to shipping. They are used all over offshore western Africa, they are just now starting to be used in the GoM.The MMS for the longest time refused to allow them to be used.

To Netmaker, Rorsarch, and other contributors to this blog:

This just appeared as an Innocentive Challenge:

http://click.email.innocentive.com/?ju=fe561d757762067a7613&ls=fe0617717764067b74127176&m=fef91270706102&l=fe8815797c62037d72&s=fe2515777c640d7c7d1370&jb=ffcf14&t=
Emergency Response 2.0 : Solutions to Respond to Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico

Recently, an explosion on an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico

caused both loss of life and a sizable and ongoing oil spill. We are asking Solvers

worldwide to respond quickly with ideas and approaches to react to this very serious

environmental threat. Can you make a difference? Yes, InnoCentive's work with the

Oil Spill Recovery Institute a few years ago is proof positive of this. We encourage

you to get involved. Note: This is not a competition. This is an urgent call to action

to help respond to a dangerous situation affecting the environment, wildlife, and

human health of the world. There will be no award made for this Challenge.You can

try our new Team Project functionality on this Challenge.

(#9383447)

Deadline: May 30, 2010

Apparently, there are no monetary awards offered for contributions, but it strikes me that there is sufficient technical detail regarding this particular incident, as well as some good information about what might (and what might not) be an appropriate response, that others outside our community may benefit. It might be a good idea for someone to condense this blog into a summary "White Paper" and share it with the group at Innocentive...

questions.

1. what do these anchors look like.
2. are they still using cable? what dia. (6x36, etc)
3. what type connections ,as I believe there would be a tremendous amount of friction if they just has shackle to shackle? anchor swivels, hammer lock, jaw to jaw, etc.

Still just curious.

Most use Kevlar or Spectra Fiber or one of the other Aramids, or even Braided polyethylene for the mooring lines these days. They are lighter and stronger than steel cable and not subject to corrosion issues. As to how they are terminated I really can't say, I assumed they were terminated with conventional stainless steel shackles but I don't know that for certain.

As far as the anchors go, they are actually open bottom caissons with pipe fittings on the top that are connected to the suction side of a HP Triplex pump. they are set open side into the mud and the pump started, the suction pulls the caisson down into the mud. it is the suction of the mud that keeps the caisson from pulling free. this is not terribly unlike the way standard shallow water steel jacket platforms are set.

• Is there anyway you could find me a picture of this caisson?

• Is it pyramid shaped or rectangular?

• Do they come in various sizes or , are they made to order?

• Do I understand that after the suction is made, the pump can be turned off?

Here is an image that should explain although this is depicting shallower water but the process is the same, just the hoses and the cables are longer. They are essentially just large diameter pipe with a spun head on the top with pad eyes and a weld-o-let for connections to the pump.

Once it is set, then yes the connection is capped and the pump disconnected. They are not intended for easy removal and resetting. they are pretty much semi-permenent. They CAN be removed, it just isn't a simple operation. you essentially reconnect the pump but to the HP outlet side and pump them out.

And if I wanted to give the caisson and pump a name so as any clients looking for a deep sea or shallow anchoring system, what name would I call this system?

I'm not aware of a commercial brand name, they are custom engineered for the specific job.

I use Spectron 12 ( aka Amsteel from Samson) on anything we sell that puts a net, frame, anchor or trawl door more than 25 fathoms OR weighs in (on the deck) at more than 200kg. It is made from Dyneema ( a molecularly alligned High Density PE) from Holland.

I had a Misago Beam net dropped down ( 1800 fathoms) near the Marianna Trench . It snagged on an out-cropping and the 3"x3" x 1/2" beam actually tore and I mean tore itself into two sections.

The whole mess, net still attached , was hauled back on a bridle of 12mm Spectron line. It is the best for heavy towing anything......so long as you don't rub or chafe it. It is still rope, no matter how strong. Terrific abrasion but still can be worn out or chafed.

Most of them are a combination of a Dyneema/Spectra core with an Kevlar/Aramid jacket for abrasion resistance. they put an extra layer (or more) of kevlar at the termination loops. these things can be a foot or more in diameter. You should have been in town last week and visited OTC (Offshore Technology Conference), you would have been in hog heaven.

http://www.bryoecol.mtu.edu/chapters_VOL5/6TechnologicalCommercial.pdf

According to my source, the Macondo oil field, owned/leased by BP-- the one where the well is spewing a "volcano" of oil, at what some experts estimate, based on oil slick size reported by NOAA, the leak is "throwing off 25-26,000 barrels a day." That's over a million gallons a day, far more than the 200,000 most media organizations are reporting. Reportedly, when the oil was pumping out of the well, at the surface, it was coming out at a rate of 8,000 barrels a day. That means that, without pumping, just from the pressure within the well, after rising through 5,000 feet of ocean water, there was still 8,000 barrels a day of pressure. This suggests that the release at sea-floor level would be far greater. My source reports that the pressure in the well was reported to be 135-165,000 PSi. That's massive.

Do the math, do these numbers make sense from a strictly physical viewpoint, or is it just hype?

135K to 165K PSI

http://www.opednews.com/articles/BP-Insider-Massive-Dead-Z-by-Rob-Kall-100508-893.html

And the learning curve continues.

This post came as we were discussing the dead zone and any positive effects the oil might have on that.

I can come up with a few as I read about oil eating worms, clams, and oysters that have been discovered around the world.

After all since sulfur was found to be a nutrient at deep sea vents, why not oil, or possibly a solvent for agricultural run off.

Hydrates forming inside the funnel section clog up the containment dome. Dome has been removed again.

Did you see this Video?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k5SxX2EntEo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k5SxX2EntEo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5SxX2EntEo

I saw that a few days ago and wondered why it was not all over the news. (at least not here) I am not sure if salt water would make a difference but if it shows the same results it would be a must to do and plenty of it!

There is another aspect to it, namely the further use of the oil and hay. They could be made into briquettes and sold as heating material. BP is possibly already working on a royalty scheme. Would that actually bypass the oil tax? You know, there is quiet a bit of oil out there. Some legal eagles will work it out, again!

Me cynical? Ky.

Heck, I am a conspiracy theory aficionado.

From Wired:

British Petroleum and government disaster-relief agencies are using a toxic chemical to disperse oil in the Gulf of Mexico, even though a better alternative appears to be available.

As the Deepwater Horizon oil spill spreads, BP and the U.S. Coast Guard have conducted tests with Corexit 9500, a chemical designed to break oil slicks into globules that are more quickly consumed by bacteria or sink into the water column before hitting shore.

The decision has been a controversial one. A few scientists think dispersants are mostly useful as public relations strategy, as they make the oil slick invisible, even though oil particles continue to do damage. Others consider Corexit the lesser of two evils: It's known to be highly toxic, adding to the harm caused by oil, but at least it will concentrate damage at sea, sparing sensitive and highly productive coastal areas. Better to sacrifice the deep sea than the shorelines.

But even as these arguments continue, with 230,000 gallons of Corexit on tap and more commissioned by BP, a superior alternative could be left on the shelf.

Called Dispersit, it's manufactured by the U.S. Polychemical Corporation and has been approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency. Both Corexit and Dispersit were tested by the EPA, and according to those results, Corexit was 54.7 percent effective at breaking down crude oil from the Gulf, and Dispersit was 100 percent effective.

Dispersit - 105% effective - ? - instant confidence.

Yes, I guess it will take a lot of hay. Maybe it can be burnt afterwards to generate power?

Can you give me a simplified explanation of what is a hydrate?

.....and how it could clog a pipe with a suction on it.

thank you.

Methane Hydrate is ice that has methane (aka natural gas) trapped in the spaces between the water molecules. it is only stable at very high pressures and very low temperatures, when it is unstable, 1 L of methane hydrate = 160 L of methane gas.

If you let the oil and the methane accumulate in a funnel, then let it drift out of the funnel and baqck into the water, travel a short distance in the water and then accumulate back inside another funnel....and on and on and on until it reached the surface.....

could that wirk?

Just asking???

If the funnels can be floating in a line on top of each other, probably yes. But the pipe diameter still needs to be very big. Also the more opening, the more seawater will participate in the climb, seen the high volume turbulences. The funnels will also need to be very wide and pretty deep. I still believe in a rubber or other metallic hose of 2 meter diameter- that is only a guess - because I don't know the flow properties of crude oil. But on top there will be always the highest gas alert. The construction and installation of such a chain will be very time consuming. If the pipe is light and there is some friction with the oil, probably the oil will lift the pipe up, That submerged body is a lot lighter than the water. I think they need to get their gallons up with low pressure ( very big pipe ) And of course also the funnel opening that big. And then it all depends on how much cold the methane generates to freeze everything up and how it comes out - sequential / continuous? We can only guess. No info of that level for us.

GA DV

Not enough to know if it's an 'air lift' that sucks the box into the bottom, or becomes a near frozen oil column and the back pressure blows the box off the bottom, or just apart. CO₂ solubility is another 'complication'.

Also, how will the process change in time? Complications from many parts. This whole accident, where a modern giant platform was no match, shows again our limitations. I really hope the solution is near.

So many complications working at these temperatures and pressures. Flammable gasses turn into crystals which will turn back into flammable gasses if permitted to reach the surface. This is exactly why Anonymous Hero's response on another thread was so true, let the experts work on these problems. This is no place for amateurs to but in. Keep up the good work guys. _{Returning to lurker mode.}

This answer is right.

And so the answer of AH,

but with the nuance, that that answer is ALWAYS right,

and doesn't help us a bit in our mindset.

It seems to me that the specialists have underestimated the thermal energy transported with the crude.

Unless of course they are working now on heat supply or defroster chemicals to add in the stream.

Of course it is easy to comment like I do.

The solution has to be engineered with the means, know how and materials available, like always.

Depth, temperature and distance are critical.

And I am sure in their handbook for disasters is still a blanc page to fill out.

How about this idea.

An "Expert" is a person that does not allow accidents to happen, due to their superior knowledge.

If there are no experts, then everyone can participate, until this civilization produces one.

Chris

G'morning,

Is there any such thing as an accident?

Hum, not in my book, they are actions caused by some for of neglect or non observance of conditions, which takes us back to neglect.

Is RBI a tool, or a nice way to say neglect?

An "Expert" is a person that does not allow accidents catastrophes deadly to man and earth to happen, due to their superior knowledge.

Happy Mother's Day!

The yankees call it Murphy's Law.....

Down here we say " Boudreaux done did it!"

Thibodeaux' brudder in law?

Here is an important site I check on every week or so.

http://www.iberianet.com/etc/cajun_jokes/

I highly recommend it.

Kind of a longer way of saying the same thing I said, but yep, good points.

Poor design causes more fault than any other thing I have seen.

And, if TMI's safety system had been allowed to do its thing, the unit would have shut down properly. Those days were at the end of my career with The Circle Bar W Ranch and the times were interesting

There certainly are accidents that happen all the time. To dismiss this human condition and expect people to work flawlessly all the time, every time will stop all progress in its track. It is far safer to expect which accidents may likely happen and to plan accordingly than to be misguided to think that people are capable of anticipating every scenario and complication that might arise so that nothing can go wrong.

For an example, look at the safety difference that has happened in high steel work. It use to be that high steel workers worked without tethers attached to them. A tether makes sense only if one anticipates that despite the workers desire and vigilance to not fall off the building, an accident may still happen. Expecting that all potential ways that things can go wrong can be prevented lead to many a good worker to plunge to his/her death. Instead by insisting that workers had to cope with the nuisance of a tether anytime outer walls did not exist, when an accident happened there was a last chance safety system to prevent people from falling.

Accidents though can also be helpful. This is particularly true in any and all endeavors that have yet to be fully exhaustively studied. Some will argue that most of our knowledge comes from analyzing the root cause of accidents in new fields.

Oh, what does this have to do with the statistic Run Batted In?

Maybe the expert is the one who has access to the robots?

Most of the time I compare them with the Queen Bee towards the Workers.

Which was first?

The egg or the chicken?

The solution always starts with insight, understanding and computing this together with at least one remaining working brain cell.

With no name on it.

I fully agree that forums like this can help, because inspiration can come from anywhere. But I also fully know my limitations in this field. Most of my possible inputs and queries will likely slow this dialogue down to a useless bunch of noise. So I hold my tongue (fingers?) from deflecting this discussion away from anything that will either solve or explain what's happening at the bottom and surface of the GOM.

(I still like my proposed idea that the BOP tried to crush some very hard part of the drill string. But this proposal won't be investigated until containment occurs.)

_{Back to the shadows again...}

I think we all want this dealt with. That well if contained but not properly stopped will be a mayor concern during the coming hurricane months.

I try to find as much published info as possible.

But more than just some comments we cannot give I think.

I still believe in the domus method, but rather than big domus, which is not a handicap either, I keep thinking BIG Hose up and OPEN dome (funnel).

The idea is: the oil runs to the surface too now (floats).

No clogging up at the exhaust pipe of the BOP.

If that oil flow can be canalized upwards without a lot of restriction, think too small diameter, we will have walked that mile.

Hose, pipe, big drainage flexibles, if explosions can be contained, it should work.

I don't know how deep the dome went in the soil, but trying to cap it this way, IMO is not the easiest way.

The depth can help if the dome is open. Don't think structure or stability too much.... Diameter...

An appropriate quote:

"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong, it usually turns out to be impossible to get at and repair." Douglas Adams (Mostly Harmless)

4 questions I just need to know.................

concerning freezing:

1. Does the oil accumualte faster at the top of the dome so the methane has time to freeze?
2. If the hole was much larger, would that keep the freezing from occuring?
3. If tne oil was NOT contained right away...., lets say if it were caught 1,2,3, meters from the broken tubing, would that stop the freezing?
4. How far up in the water column will this freezing occur inside a 20" or so wide pipe or tubing?

As I recall, they used about 7" pipe = about 18 cm.

A1:

2 problems - restricted flow - too long time to vent. Small area, easy to freeze and clog. The methane is IN the crude and follows the same path.

A2:

The freezing will occur too but if the volumes pass, they will thaw higher up and become Methane, making a very explosive atmosphere.

A3:

The freezing will still occur locally, but probably in lesser volumes.

A4:

20" is also FAR to small - the volume of crude, released now cannot flow freely through that diameter over 1500 meter.

The dome will leak below and be lifted up.

This is my view. Now there is no problem - a very wide pipe of water column is there now - almost infinite in diameter - the problems start with narrowing - how narrow is function of how much methane and crude and water IN the crude - the temperatures - and the flow character of the contained crude.

I will try to scare up some data on the viscosity of crude oil at various temperatures, and a phase diagram for methane hydrate. Does anyone know these, as well as what the oil pressure at the well head would be, if capped, and the temperature of the oil as it emerges? I'm no petro engineer, but from first principles these data would be good to know.

crude oil viscosity is very variable. Some wells produce what is essentially tar that must be heated in order to flow. others produce what is essentially pure kerosene, most are somewhere in between. 15 degree API is pretty typical for this area.

In fact in Indonesia, it is not uncommon to pump oxygen into the formation and cause a subsurface fire in order to be able to flow the really thick oil. once the process starts, the water in the formation will crack from the heat into oxygen and hydrogen and will continue to burn for some time after the oxygen is shut off. The process is called fire flooding. it isn't used much anymore but many of the fires are still going. Steam injection (steam flood) is also quite common.

135-150C at the bottom of the well is not uncommon. I would expect that given the flow, the oil won't loose a lot of it's heat on the way up.

The pressure ratings for subsea wellhead equipment are typically around 15,000 psi-20,000psi, the question is whether at some point that pressure was exceeded, the question then is if that is still the case. Typically MMS requires you to use a wellhead rated for the next higher wellhead pressure class in order to give you what is known as a "kill margin" or the additional pressure it might take to "kill" a well that is flowing uncontrolled (like this one.) I would expect this BOP was rated for 20M or 20,000 psi service. so you could expect that the expected pressure was 15K or less.

The methane and CO2 should not actually become gaseous until the pressure drops below a few hundred psi - (liquefaction pressure) - say as of 400 ft from the surface.

(depending on the temperature of the oil, and losses to surrounds, so mass flow, so velocity)

Too little flow (or too higher back pressure) and reformation of solid gas becomes a problem due to ambient temperatures at the depths.

So to my mind capping the pipe is a balancing act of back pressure to prevent gassing and back pressure lifting the box (or just causing leaking at the foot) - whilst maintaining flow, to counter refreezing of liquid gasses by losses to ambient.

It's not a very heavy box (submerged). The weight of pipe adds (I hope) and friction losses subtract from the weight of pipe.

The system has to be able to cope with the back pressure differential (expressed over all the ambient pressures) or controlled venting of the gasses will be "difficult" and the site 'interesting' to work around.

So you could design it all for say 500 psi and accept you can never shut the flow off whilst it exists at greater relative pressure at the bottom.

Or you can figure out how to keep it intact and anchored and leak free at the current exit pressure (obviously greater than ~2000 psi bottom pressure) - which I doubt the box could resist as a 'plug'.

If someone was nice enough to tell us the actual composition, temperature and flow rate - along with the ocean ambients - it would be "useful".

Privet

Hi again,

You put some figures on it, on which I can agree about.

That domus, if they use it to cap under pressure will prove to be a joke.

I have read weights of 74 tons -100 tons - and today even 500 tons.

The information is very doubtful. Once in the water, there is maybe 12 metric tons left when submerged.

A toy for the crude.

I repeat it again, under 1 to 2 meter diameter pipe, the setup will perform poorly or even not work. To get 1500 m of that pipe together is maybe the problem, IMO 18 cm has no chance at all.

Hi and Hi back to you DM.

The down side of too bigger pipe is net buoyancy of the rig when oil filled.

I heard the box was 74 tons and of reinforced concrete - so would be about 2/3rds that submerged. The weight of pipe is potentially greater (at say 6 g/cc submerged)

The oil S.G.? subtracts from both.

More steel & less oil volume = more down force on the leak pressure / sq foot of box cross sectional area.

180 mm dia sounds a bit light on in both considerations. But maybe it suits the actual flow - given what has escaped thus far?

The pipe should be open at the bottom. In that case the only problem to overcome is the weight of the pipe, which will probably be compensated with the friction (oil moving upwards).

The pipe can also made buoyant with floaters - or a barge on top or even with balloons along the length of the pipe. But also the opposite could be true: if the pipe is too light it needs to stay down)

In the setup case, they will need NO pump since I think the pressure at sea level will be more than enough to have many pipes connected to fill tankers. The water- oil balance is controllable with the unloading of the pipe. The height of the pipe above sea level will be an indicator what is going on down below. My hypothesis is that with an open pipe - the height of a contained oil column above sea level - (if the pipe is that long)will be more than 100 meters.

The system works more like an open manometer with 2 different liquids, under condition that the flow remains. The big diameter is necessary to have the ice clots rising too. This has been my thought from the beginning.

If the well doesn't need saving, one alternative is a hydraulic press to squeeze everything together and cap after the flow stops.

Then there is also the explosive trial that Ky proposed.

Been away for a few days and just getting caught up on this thread. Lots of interesting discussion.

After reading about the hay/grass idea, I have some serious reservations. The amount of hay required for removal of oil per gallon of oil is not quantified anywhere that I can find. "Lots of hay" may be an underestimate. Another factor is the disbursement of the oil in the column of water. It appears that the oil can be found in a verily large depth of water and was shown on a news reel with a camera located underwater to some depth. The hay may be a good idea in shallow bays, surface water, or shoreline containment but I don't think it will work on the open sea. I hope I am wrong and still kudos to the fellows for the suggestion. I have no suggestions myself but I would order all the hay and grass I could to place around the beaches and shoreline that is environmentally sensitive. Tides can also be another issue about placing the hay.

The second problem is with the clathrates or hydrates of methane. It was even speculated somewhere in this thread (or a parallel one?) that the cause of the accident was a massive release of the volatile hydrates immediately after Halliburton completed it's cementing job. The heat generated by the cementing was significant enough to destabilize the hydrates. These hydrates are very unstable and are mostly trapped in the sediments. The will float in water if the sediments cannot keep them sequestered. It seems possible that the sudden release of the hydrates after cementing can even cause the freshly sealed annular space blow out the new cement and cause a deterioration of the sediments surrounding the well. If this is true, containment may still be a problem and the area become a very dangerous issue for field workers. A venting of the gases arising from the well head should be above the workers in such a method that the chance of explosion will occur above and not under the workers. I have only experience in water wells so never had to deal with hydrates. Methane in water was not an uncommon problem and has caused many accidents on well rigs. I have seen the results of a cable tool rig and worker hitting methane pockets and know of a motel that literally blew when a cigarette caused a fatal explosion. Who still thinks smoking ( in the washroom) isn't dangerous to one's health. It still remains the danger in all the issues of resolution of the runaway gulf oil well. I am not sure if a heat device or recirculation of heating fluid is possible to keep the hydrates from plugging the box. Does anyone know the current condition of the annular space?