BP Oil Spill - Could Oil Be Burned Underwater?

Interesting idea - I was just thinking today as I was working/driving if this would be a possiblity!!! Glad you brought this up - I'm interested in everyone's response!!

This thought was in my mind with some scary possible reactions occurring without intention.

Divers oxygen bottles at 130bar won't even overcome the seawater pressure found at 5000 ft. Handling oxygen at pressures above 150bar requires very special fittings and materials and design precautions. Anyone who's ever witnessed an oxygen fire will tell you that piping bulk oxygen at the pressure required to reach 5000ft carries more risk than any process plant designer would normally contemplate. It's just too deep.

What about adding pressure intensifiers into the umbilical at stages? Reciprocating intensifiers are pretty common. Please consider other alternatives than pure oxygen. Nitrous oxide comes to mind. There are a number of other oxidizers in use in the space program and the oil industry for severance tools. One could also consider the possiblity of separating water into oxygen and hydrogen at the ocean floor.

A major question to be considered here would be the flammability of crude oil. This is not kerosene or gasoline or even #2 fuel oil. This is crude oil. Bunker C which we used aboard ship had to be heated to about 230F and finely atomized in order to burn completely. While fueling one time a slow leak at the loading connection allowed a pool of Bunker C to accumulate. One of the workers flipped his cigarette into the pool. It extinguished itself, no flame,not even a puff of smoke.

Just providing a source of O2 wouldn't do diddly squat. More than likely you would need a massive heater to warm it up to some temperature and then a source of O2. Let's face it, if they could do all that they could just as easily reconnect and capture the oil

Regarding the flammability of crude oil:

The low flammability properties in air are likely not true in a highly enriched Oxygen environment. I would not want to be holding a lit match in a pure oxygen environment for fear of becoming a human torch.

Interesting demo of burning iron in a pure oxygen environment:

http://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/demos/burning_iron/burning_iron.htm

Flammability and sensitivity of materials in oxygen-enriched atmospheres:

http://books.google.com/books?id=EBhYiL3adyQC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=oil+oxygen+combustion+o-rings&source=bl&ots=1yZVuPEeVz&sig=i_pA7fsb2HBhIKYsinlC0usDYgI&hl=en&ei=FDcJTNGkDYG8lQf1_aDcDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=oil%20oxygen%20combustion%20o-rings&f=false

Oxygen Safety for Haskel Booster Users:

http://www.americanairworks.com/Oxygen_Safety_Practices.pdf

Your first reference only shows what happens to the steel wool after being ignited prior to being dropped into the O2 enriched atmosphere. My point was could you ignite Crude oil due to its physical characteristics even in an enriched environment. One can readily ignite steel wool in the normal N2-O2 environment when sufficient heat (like from a Bunsen burner) is applied. Basically you have rapid oxidation of the steel as opposed to the slow oxidation in the environment you would normally get just sitting on the table, i.e. rust.

The second reference is referring to the danger of autoignition occurring in a rich O2 environment. Note that the temperatures are shown in degrees Kelvin for autoignition are are in the neighborhood of 460K. That calculates out to over 350F. They had trouble bringing up the oil on their first attempt due to the formation of ice crystals. It sounds rather cold down there. Probably way too cold for autoignition to occur and would probably impact the ability to even start the burning process.

The last reference wasn't too germane to the conditions that exist 5000' below the surface surrounded by, immersed in, extremely cold, non-flammable, seawater (in my opinion).

Almost all hydrocarbons form a self igniting, often explosive, mixture in pure O2.

Had a case where a fitter greased a ball valve, leaving just a light film of grease on the ball. It was used in a line which fed pure O2 into a thermal lance.

To ignite, the lance was heated to bright red heat and the O2 turned on.

An unfortunate laborer did this and the cold O2 at the ball valve reacted explosively with the grease, tearing through triple steel braided hose and taking off 3 fingers.

Pure O2 is a very different animal to atmospheric O2.

Under the pressures involved, it shouldn't be hard to get it to ignite in a crude oil stream.

The danger of handling O2 at that pressure is considerable.

While intensifiers work well with air, they can ignite in pure O2.

For O2, every non-oxide can be regarded as a fuel.

Good to see you sceptic.

All good points, as we know, I mean us and a few others in the know. If you find the time let me know what you think of this:

Explosives Experts, Could This Be Done?

Since then some details have been sorted out and rebuking has not helped me to put a line through it. I firmly believe it could be managed. Hope I am not wasting your time, talk to you soon, Ky.

Thanks for your comments. I attached a link for an intensifier rated up to 5000 psi oxygen previously. Here it is again.

http://www.americanairworks.com/Oxygen_Safety_Practices.pdf

Sounds like a glass half empty/half full arguement. There appears to be little experimentation available to know what would happen at this pressure/temperature. I don't think initial ignition would be a significant issue. What I am more concerned with is that the oxygen/crude mixture could be mixed well enough to sustain efficient combustion. Could you generate a gas/steam chimney that would pull in the excess oxygen and all of the crude oil? It would be an interesting experiment to attempt it on a very small scale first.

If the suspended plumes drifting away from the well site have adequate concentration of crude would this have any potential?

Here are some more interesting links:

How do flares work? And How do they work underwater?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070702225043AARC0aD

Broco Underwater Ultrathermic Cutting Rods:
https://www.broco-rankin.com/broco/c_ultrathermiccuttingrods.cfm

Lake Aeration:

https://www.vertexwaterfeatures.com/

Google search on "Underwater combustion"

Combustion Characteristics of Pressurized Swirling Spray Flame and Unsteady Two-Phase Exhaust Jet:

http://www.enme.umd.edu/combustion/Underwater_Propulsion.pdf

Nanoaluminum – Water Slurry: A Novel "Green" Propellant for Space Applications:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2004ESASP.557E..11S

Can you succeed envisioning failure?

What about Microbes?

Click me!

Okay okay, good stuff but what's with the spin, it's fertilizer, so do it. If the normal run-off of nitrogen is funneling into the gulf from farming use it

You mean just use it and not wait for the EPA approval. Would that not break a law?

The nitrogen plume from Ag run-off is already there why not use it to encourage microbe attention to the crude. A fine for unwarranted use of a pollutant in a beneficial fashion eh?

So WTF, between bio-remediation and skimming (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/55231#newcomment) BP could be mitigating the ecological disaster unfolding. Why the hell are they not doing any of this? Their failure to stop the leak is one thing, but their failure to deal with the mess is outrageous in light of the fact that effective tools have been around for decades. Is it just incompetency?

I started this discussion not so much to deal with the current oil spill but to see what tools could be made available for the next time. Rather than wait for weeks to construct a top hat or other alternative and then deploy it, could a ship be deployed immediately to burn off the leaking oil quickly while others are exploring better options?

There is just too much equipment/people on top of the Transocean well head for underwater combustion to be considered. The only other potential application would be to attempt this on some of the oil plumes drifting away from the well site. Obviously the plumes would have to contain adequate concentration of oil to even consider this. If the oil is dispersed, that would be a better application of alternative methods.

Does anyone have any experience with underwater combustion or is it just an interesting question awaiting testing to determine feasibility?

What would the equipment look like in order to test this? Could you encircle an oil plume with an annular ring containing oxidizer injection nozzles? Could you induce a vortex with the oxidizer injection in order to better mix the sea water/crude/hydrates/oxidizer? Would it be a good idea to also inject a detergent to break down the surface tension of the water? Could you suspend one of the Broco (10,000 degree F) underwater torches in the middle of the vortex but much higher than the annular ring to ignite the mixture?

When all is said and done, does this equipment package resemble something that could be deployed in hours, not days for an emergency situation? I am talking about fully tested equipment ready for the next emergency.

Does anyone have anything to contribute regarding the fiber laser option? Would a 50 kW laser beam directly above a leak have a chance of converting the crude oil to a more environmentally friendly form? I keep thinking back to the laser experiment of popping a black balloon inside of a clear one. Would the crude oil accept the majority of the laser intensity Vs the sea water? If the beam was right above the leak point, would the heat intensity be adequate? All of this hinges on the ability to transfer the laser power through a mile of umbilical. Again, could this be configured into a package that could be deployed quickly for the next emergency? Since this method wouldn't require the use of an oxidizer, it would also be potentially safer to deploy.

You might want to check LOX, Liquid oxygen)

LOX: Assuming you would need a continuous supply, do you have any thoughts regarding how to transport it to the ocean floor? The only way I could think of is to have an insulated, jacketed umbilical with liquid nitrogen being circulated. Not a very elegant solution.

Does anyone know if there are limitations on how high you can pressurize LOX? I didn't find anything in a web search.

It would take a lot of power but what about revisiting the prospect of separating oxygen and hydrogen at the ocean floor? Would the process work in such a hostile environment?

Efficiency of electrolytic cell tends to increase with increasing pressure.

I think it is mainly due to a reduction of the required over voltage.

Once you exceed critical pressure, the density of the gases becomes similar to the density of the water. This may be a design complication.

I doubt that releasing surplus H2 into the water, and eventually the atmosphere would cause any environmental problems. H2 is so reactive, I doubt that it would remain free for long.

An electrolytic cell on the ocean floor would remove a lot of problems if this scheme was to be tried.

Generating O2 in-situ or close by seems the most likely method to work. It certainly breaks new ground technically and operationally.

By the time anyone tries it, the whole problem will probably have been solved by other means.

I am inclined to think that a shroud, properly anchored and sealed around the outlet would allow oil to be taken to the surface and shipped or pumped away.

It seems the previous attempt along these lines was poorly designed, inadequately anchored and poorly sealed hence it failed.

I agree that the time has passed for this to be used on the BP spill. Right now I am trying to focus on what tools an emergency response ship could have for future events. There are enough unknowns and new technology to have people testing for a long time if they decide to take up the challenge.

I am very disappointed in the current attempts to pump the oil away. There are a number of suggestions that I feel would have had a better chance of success including having the process capacity at the surface exceeding the amount of oil being spilled.

I did receive an email yesterday from the 50kW laser manufacturer providing a glimmer of hope for the fiber laser possibly being able to weld and cut underwater. No word yet regarding the one mile of fiber umbilical needed to place that power at the ROV level.

My first concern is IF burning the oil underwater would convert the crude to a "more environmentally friendly" form, or result in products, not normally soluble, becoming soluble toxins. I.e. you 'hide the spill' but kill the ocean.

The laser, to do anything apart from heat, needs an oxidiser - just as the welding and cutting systems need O2 to work.

Of interest is; in oxy acetylene or oxy hydrogen cutting, the capture of gas bubbles in adjacent voids and formation of gas pockets, which can explode if accidentally ignited (or pressure triggered), is a significant peril to the diver.

These welding systems rely on an envelope of either compressed air, or superheated steam forming, to protect the 'flame' from water heatsink or physical impingement. It is happening inside a bubble, which is constantly wanting to escape due to buoyancy. Takes a lot of energy and/or precision, to sustain that bubble.

Seems to me that introducing heat and O₂ into a mass of hydrocarbons is a mite perilous, unless the streams are precisely controlled.

Given the thermals and turbulence of what is essentially a giant steam and gas bubble - the breaking off of explosive bubbles would be a similar problem to the welding peril - at huge scale.

So you would need a vessel or combustion chamber, where all this can be controlled and the gas/steam products can be vented after combustion is complete. Steam is a fantastic solvent - so it might be better to not vent combustion products into the ocean. (Bwire's post #1 concern)

Other wise I think oxy-laser would just produce random steam, hydrocarbon and oxygen bubbles racing for the surface, randomly combusting.

So it looks a hardware means of gathering the oil into a combustion vessel - and a lot of energy in O₂ creation and laser power.

All a bit more complex than a sensibly sized pipe to the surface.

And all a bit slower than the roll of plastic tube and a few anchors on standby.

You have put a lot of thoughts in your answer. GA

Thanks for your feedback. To try to take your points one at a time…

Environmental issues: I am proposing only the potential for a small scale test to determine if it would work, provide complete combustion and would be able to pass an environmental impact assessment.

Laser option: The question regarding the laser is not to use it as a source of ignition. The question is whether 50 kW in close proximity with a plume would provide an intense enough reaction to carbonize the oil without free oxygen being present to burn it. Would the pressure at depth be enough to prevent the water from flashing to steam?

Divers wouldn't be involved. I wouldn't want anyone close to this process be it in the water or on the surface above the reaction.

Sustaining the bubble: This is my reason for asking about mixing in detergent to reduce the surface tension.

Perilous nature of the test: No argument. That is why I would propose modeling it through a CFD analysis before testing it on a very small scale.

Combustion chamber: I was thinking along the same lines but would like to consider a small nozzle from the oxidant injection ring.

If burning the mixture I would rather consider using the Broco torch Vs the laser to initiate it.

I would love to pipe the oil to the surface or process it on the ocean floor. Unfortunately nothing that BP has done to this point has left me with an overwhelming confidence. I have proposed my recommendations in other discussions. Anyway… not the focus of this discussion.

I'm watching the oil plume right now, it looks like its on fire, is that possible?

What you are seeing is likely the result of too much light (over exposure) of the video feed. CCD cameras don't handle variations in light intensity as well as your eyes.

For anyone who would like some light reading on the subject:

Liquid Oxygen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_oxygen

http://www.utdallas.edu/research/cleanroom/safety/msds/documents/Liquid_O2.pdf

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=203465&page=2

http://www.ehow.com/about_5245127_properties-liquid-oxygen.html.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3438100477.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=t2WQFx4iYR8C&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=LOX+oxygen&source=bl&ots=5J2UQT48xE&sig=j9Wam1KSnUJFhOBr4EnFfhPgHPI&hl=en&ei=pCwQTKLIEtCFnQfpo9CpDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDYQ6AEwCThG#v=onepage&q=LOX%20oxygen&f=false

Oxy Fuel Combustion Method

http://www.powerplantccs.com/ccs/cap/con/of/of.html

Oxy-Combustion Coal Fired Boiler and Method of Transitioning Between Air and Oxygen Firing:

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090255450

Reduced Emission Combustion Process with Resource Conservation and Recovery Options "ZEROS" zero-emission energy recycling oxidation system:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5906806.html

Industrial Burners Handbook:

http://books.google.com/books?id=cCJ_YyAEqnQC&pg=PA715&lpg=PA715&dq=pure+oxygen+combustion+byproducts&source=bl&ots=ZmaCWgK_r_&sig=aNDpKq0LnsDtY1zb83fvtdpnwgU&hl=en&ei=Q7gSTLa5NY21nAfjqNGRAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=pure%20oxygen%20combustion%20byproducts&f=false

Oxygen Powered Torpedo:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//archive/index.php/t-144293.html

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/9931020987

German WW II Torpedo Question:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=137361

How would burning be different if the air was pure oxygen:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2002-04/1018033269.Es.r.html

Oxy-Fuel Combustion:

http://www.ccsd.biz/factsheets/oxyfuel.cfm

Combustion of fuel oil:

http://www.delavaninc.com/pdf/combustion_of_fuel_oil.pdf

The Evolution of carbon capture technology: Part 1 – See the section of Oxy Combustion:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1346126/the_evolution_of_carbon_capture_technology_part_1/index.html

World Book at NASA – Rocket:

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/rocket_worldbook.html

In light of the use of oxygen injection in power plants to dramatically reduce pollution, could burning it underwater be considered a clean way to dispose of the crude oil? In the power plants this results in "water and highly pure CO₂" per the following link:

http://www.powerplantccs.com/ccs/cap/con/of/of.html

The other question is whether the excess oxygen would be absorbed in the seawater or just rise to the surface. If absorbed, it could potentially help with oxygen depletion issues due to the extremely active bacteria consuming the oil. A potential issue with oxygen absorption is whether it could accumulate in toxic concentrations to marine life. Air is poisonous at depth forcing divers to use mixed gases.

Oxygen injection doesn't reduce pollution it merely dilutes it...

I like it ^{_{- they will never get it}}

Any souces of information available to support your statement?

It's elementary; oh my.

Does it matter what you use. I remember California smog control equipment, if the air pump was disabled too many hydrocarbons in the exhaust. But re-connect the fresh air pump to add fresh air to the exhaust gases and magic, the percentage of hydrocarbons to air was within limits. How??

It is an apples to oranges comparison. If you try burning pure oxygen in an engine you wouldn't have an intact engine very long. Your point may be valid with the engine air pump but not for this example.

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/nitrous-alcohol-water-injection/16622-pure-oxygen-injection-why-why-not.html

Uff duh!

So you're injecting pure Oxygen in the coal burning and off-setting the hydrocarbon count? Or your adding Oxygen to the fuel in a coal fired process? Okay I'm getting that and it's apples to apples.

O2 makes a hotter burn or cleaner burn? Less soot but what else? Soot really isn't a smog component because it falls to the ground so quickly doesn't even get out of the parking lot.

After the hotter O2 injected burn what is released? Is the greater determining factor how much coal goes in?

From what it appears, you end up with CO₂ Vs CO and the NOX emissions are reduced because you are eliminating the 78% nitrogen in the air. Since nitrogen isn't diluting the output, chemical scrubbing to separate the CO₂ isn't needed. Soot is the result of incomplete combustion. The high concentration of oxygen should greatly aid that situation.

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090255450

See sections [0005] through [0007] under FIELD OF INVENTION. It describes the goals of injecting oxygen in the power plant example.

The fine particulate soot from diesels is a respiratory issue. Because it is so fine, it penetrates deep inside the lungs.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07121/782412-113.stm

The big question is whether combustion underwater at that depth would resemble the coal power plant example. The other issue is the non capture of the CO₂. It will likely raise the seawater acidity level.

Trains contribute to soot concentrations in the east as track density is far greater in the eastern corridor. Pollutant emissions were not addressed for trains until recently and the health effects in the thickly settled eastern areas are discouraging. Incidentally the r/r industry spent heavily to encourage emissions regulation of heavy trucking but is offended when asked to comply.

It's my opinion trains should be fueled by natural gas/turbine to spin the gen-set.