Proposal For An Undersea Oil Drilling Rig

the pressures (psi) alone, one is against, makes it a very challenging environment, to put it lightly

My first thought - how would you seal the point where the drill went through to the sea bed? Remember you have about 100 bar per km depth.

This is just an idea. There are many things to consider that I leave up to the experts to solve. I do believe that it's a doable idea. I have a few years experience with nuclear submarines and offshore drilling rigs and "sealab", an undersea habitat that was home to humans back in the 60's, but not with the actual drilling or machinery itself. Please note that humans now work at depths of a mile and more in the mining industry. They can spend an hour or more just getting to the underground worksite and return. It takes a special individual to do it, but the pay is good.

Atmospheric pressure at that depth is 2,162 lbs/in^2.

Water temperature is well below freezing.

Saturation time (even with helium/oxygen) to work at that depth is non-existant, so you would need to work in a bathyscape to survive the pressure, but that is pretty much useless to do any work in.

This is why they use robots. The environment is impossible for humans to work in.

I don't know what the pipe pressure is at under nominal conditions, but it must be really high. I was told that leaking pipe is just 21" in diameter.

Nuclear submarines work at great depths also with great pressures and temperatures; still they make it work. Maybe 5000 feet may be beyond the limit, but submarine operating depths are classified. Please consider the positive aspects of this idea and not the negative ones. The negatives will be challenges that mankind can conquer. If we can go to the moon and beyond, going to the ocean floor is possible, certainly not impossible.

What advantage is there for humans to work at that depth if robots can do it?

It boils down to cost of operation. Risk management costs a lot of money. Rating things for human safety is always more expensive than for robots. The cost of the environment alone would be staggering.

Free enterprise will find the least expensive solution to the problem because it increases profit. I would think that BP, Transatlantic, etc., have some of the brightest minds on the case.

there is nothing inconsistent with robotic operations with his proposal. It would be expensive to automate drilling anywhere you do it.. just more expensive on the bottom of the sea.

I have been employed since the early 50's in the design ot the Texas towers, early offshore oil drilling platforms, jack-up platforms and nuclear submarines. If some one told me 50 years ago that a submarine could dive to 2000+ feet, or you could drill in water 5000 feet deep, or there would be a man on the moon, I would have thought you were balmy. Don't be negative in your thoughts. I might also add: heart transplants, high speed trains, supersonic planes, all of which were not possible or even conceivable 50 years ago. Please don't try to dazzle me with figures. It is your job to work around it. I'll be the devil's advocate thank-you.

Hi Ron, Do you think of a sub sea station, with permanent workshop, canteen, dormitories and a shuttle model transportation device between it and the world?

Or a big day cruiser that takes all the stuff home after a day work? How deep you want it to work? Are the sizes you have in mind O.D. or I.D?

How many people you want to stack in it?

I don't propose living in domitories at that depth. Transporting workers to and from the surface as is now done in mile deep mining operations would be a better choice.

In response to your second question, dimensions would be in the order of nuclear submarine dimensions which are approximately 30' OD with a 2 to 3" wall reinforced with internal ribs and bulkheads.

In response to another viewer; a cofferdam would be sunk into the sea floor and sealed to the bottom of the cylinder. The cofferdam would be maybe 5' diameter and extend down maybe 20'. Drilling would be within the cofferdam.

I see this as a space station under the sea. It could even be made temporary and moved to a different location; or it could just be flooded and abandoned.

At present, this idea could be considered science fiction, but how many Si-Fi ideas from the past have become reality?

There is no comparison between going 5,000 feet below the Earth's surface into a mine and going 5,000 feet below the surface of the ocean.

The way down to those depths requires specialized submarines that are made into the shape of a sphere.

To manufacture living quarters at that depth would require an enclosure that can reliably withstand much more than 2,000 pounds per square inch indefinitely. Not only that, but you need a mechanism of hatches that can work at that depth to allow egress. The hatch is going to be the weak point. The enclosure will shrink under pressure and the hatch must be able to accommodate those dimensional changes and yet still be able to be opened when the service vessel to docks.

Once inside the only way you can work is to remotely control robots. You can do that easier on the surface than you can on the ocean's floor.

There is no way you can work at the drill head (i.e., create a depressurized capsule around the well head) because the pressure of the oil and the gas is higher than 2,000 pounds per square inch. That is why it pours out.

I also am certain that it could be done. Looks like you have staggered in to a far more costly and less safe method of doing something that has already been done over and over again. Cheers!

Presumeably you want to do this to prevent future undersea blowouts? If so, how do you propose that this system will do that? If all that happens is that drilling undersea is cheaper, then we will get more blowouts, not less.

I'm not saying that it isn't a good idea... but the blowout thing must be addressed.

I love this concept of I have an idea - now it is up to you guys to figure out how to make it work! The comparison between a mine 1.5 km deep and on the ocean floor 1.5 km deep is no comparison - there is nothing in common except the number 1.5. I hope it comes out just what shortcuts BP took * what if any saftey measures were ignored or not in service.

What happened to our can-do attitudes??

All that's required to get this done is a competitor...We can do anything we put our minds to.

A good idea and most drilling is done at less than 2500' anyway closer to 1500'; so what if a drilling station were at 1500 feet and robotics were employed to a greater depth would an advantage exist? Surely weather nor surface traffic would interfere...

Being able to do and doing are very different. As far as İ can see there would be zero benefit in having people one mile down. All work would be outside the living area and done by robots anyway - plus it would be far - far - far more dangerous.

"What happened to our can-do attitudes?"

Because there is a negative ROI.

What happened to our can-do attitudes??

we have it still a can-do attitude, but do not confuse can-do with can-do till bankrupt.

criticism is healthy to bring up the negative so the negatives can be dealt with. and not washed over until people start dying. risk had to be evaluated, I look at this post as nothing more than brain storming, thinking out of the box. (if it hasn't been thought of before.)

A good idea and most drilling is done at less than 2500' anyway closer to 1500'; so what if a drilling station were at 1500 feet and robotics were employed to a greater depth would an advantage exist?

those are just words, do you realize what is involved in drilling........one should state also how robotics would be involved? What would be their tasks? Do these guys currently on these rigs, what does their experience have to add value to the job, vibration, smell, sound....... and can this be programed into a robot?

p911

I think that the pipe handling can all be automated... certainly there are some very good pipe handling systems for surface drilling that are largely automated. As for mixing mud to correct weights, and judging the type of rock, etc... that is a different story.. and to automate that would be something like having a small mining operation in place to assess the shale and compute the necessary weight of mud and other chemical additives.

I'm more concerned with better blowout prevention.

Chris

there is nothing wrong with discussing automation, I like to hear how it will be applied, and not just thrown out there as the answer.

But one has to be critical of it because I can see uses for it, if one can overcome the problems from the deep, it can possible be applied to colonise of space, though your dealing with the opposite of pressure.

But the dangers will be the same with blowouts whether underwater or on top. As far as better blowout protection, I think the jury is still out if they (being BP) followed a solid practice procedure to prevent this.

On a side note, Last week I received an email from a consortium of attorneys that asked if I was affected by this disaster, and that I could have a settlement coming.

damn spam and the attorney's that go with it.

p911

Shyster attorneys smelling blood!

"it can possible be applied to colonise of space"

Agreed.

As I understand it, the idea is to develop a process and equipment that would allow "people" to operate the equipment at the ocean floor in a "safe" environment and be economically feasible. The end result would be a safe, producing oil and/or gas well sustainable for the life of the field and would advance the technology needed to extract oil and gas from great depths below the ocean floor in other areas. Unfortunately and because economics (money) have become the sole driving force behind developing new technologies, I doubt that any group would finance the development costs for such a project, given the obvious challenges. I completely agree that we need to create a wide range of ideas to consider - not unlike "brainstorming", and let the experts sort out the most feasible ones and hope that investors can see enough profit to finance research on the good ones. One of my thoughts is that we have enough "proven reserves" of geothermal sources (volcanos, etc.) that may be a better starting point to develop energy. One of the first arguements there is probably overcoming the challenges of transporting the energy from remote locations to population centers, but that seems easier to solve than the multitude of problems presented with deep sea drilling. More thoughts to challenge.

A good idea and most drilling is done at less than 2500' anyway closer to 1500'; so what if a drilling station were at 1500 feet and robotics were employed to a greater depth would an advantage exist? Surely weather nor surface traffic would interfere...

I have no idea what depths wells are currently being drilled. I think we made an assumption that 5000' was the target depth. This is probably too ambitious for a first time try and Bwire's 1500' or less is a better target. Even depths of a few hundred feet could see benefits. I feel this idea has a lot of feasibility because we already have all the technologies availabe. It's just a matter of bringing the different technologies together in a new shape.

One advantage I can think of is, an undersea rig would not be affected by weather, like from hurricanes that can and do destroy present surface rigs. The surface part of the rig can be readily moved upon impending storms as they would be made up of supply barges and ships, leaving the undersea portion to ride out the storm under much calmer conditions. The "umbilical cord" that connects the surface to the seabed, would be flexible, disconnected and lowered to the floor. It would be retrieved after the storm had passed and reconnected. Operations could be resumed within 24 hours or less.

I haven't mentioned robots, but the use of robots would certainly improve work conditions by minimizing the number of humans needed to be there. This would be an expensive project and take many years to do, but like any first time projects, there will be successes and failures. As they say, "Rome wasn't built in a day"

For some years to come there will not be people living at 5000 feet depth (in the ocean). İt serves no purpose as they would have to be tightly sealed in their living module and do everything by remote control anyway. I think of 'brainstorming' and I think of an old boss who always said 'I have a gut feeling'. I felt if he had a gut feeling he should possibly visit the loo. Brainstroming between people who know a topic in some detail but are from different groups is useful. Brainstorming on a topic where the knowledge base is little to none will provide a good result maybe 1 time in a million.

but maybe in the future we have to live underwater, because the ozone layer depleted.

As far as

Brainstroming between people who know a topic in some detail but are from different groups is useful. Brainstorming on a topic where the knowledge base is little to none will provide a good result maybe 1 time in a million.

I have seen seemingly average disconnected people from the issues being discussed, come up with dam brillant ideas, just because they are detacted from the project/issue..

And I have had to waste a lot of time to unload the stuff that gets dumped on you as well. Even groups or companies that have some expertise in an area often are more of a hinderance than a help.

some just like to hear them selves talk, one can pick those out easy enough, but when the quiet one says something, or in one case my girlfriend. I was very surprised and impressed what they had to say.

Living in outer space serves even much less purpose, but people are still contemplating space.

"Quote" For some years to come there will not be people living at 5000 feet depth (in the ocean).

Who says anything about "living" at 5000ft? We are talking "working", not living. I don't think you read the OP carefully enough.

I read the OP quite well - you are simply talking about something that would be horribly costly and is not practical with today's technology. Working at 5000 feet means staying there - the transition to the surface is not like in the mines - it would be a very difficult 5000 feet to travel. Pressure at 5000 feet down in a mine and 5000 feet under water is two very different things. I still don't understand what you think a man could do down there anyway - robots are a far better choice and they can be remotely controlled -from the surface.

"Quote" you are simply talking about something that would be horribly costly.

How much has been spent in space exploration? The cost is astronomical. It has no practical value what-so-ever. It is only of interest to scientists and astronomers. Better to spend that money here on earth.

Who says anything about "living" at 5000ft? We are talking "working", not living. I don't think you read the OP carefully enough.

Ron, they both go together, it is not different than being deployed on a aircraft carrier for 6 months at a time.

It like your saying the astronauts are only working in space,,,,their not living there

Or are you saying that they should only work 10-18 hour shifts. Or with the risks envolved, there may not be too much of a living part. And send more down, because its a one way trip.

another option is a 'submersible' design that is basically a large barge type, but can be entirely submerged for storm conditions.

I remember in 2nd grade reading in the weekly reader, (publication for gade schoolers) Howard Hughes was designing and building a vessel to mine the sea bed.

He built this vessel in record time and actually had people who wanted to invest in this. Only to find out years later that it was only a front to recover a Soviet Sub.

Maybe this would be better received if were about digging 5000' down into a mountain and the drilling from that level

My opinion is that everything is possible, until the opposite has been proven.

I refer to many projects that have been down- talked by doctors and professors on beforehand and MADE IT successfully.

I have been a few times the clown of the story until I came up with working results.

Suppose you need to make a design, thinking away gravity. That is something irregular.

Same goes for this idea. One builds foundations for bridges at deep places too.

Working in Caissons is one of the applied techniques. People are actually working, surrounded by water in a deep big pipe.

Depending on the underground the pipe seal can be done naturally, by pumping the water out. In tunneling they also freeze the surroundings. A big Iglo shaped dome where you can freeze up the roof thickness can be made as strong as you desire, considered the temperature with (maybe acceptable) energy.

Solves a lot of problems, discussed here.

And in principle, in this case you are also just thinking of MINING. Only a thought, that is what this post is about.

It's not if we can do it, it's should we do it.

Putting it another way, you could put a sharp stick in your eye, but I assure you that there is no compelling reason to do that, yet if you do I am sure you will see the point.

good analogy

The past and present is full of examples of this standpoint.

What did we do or what are we doing that we shouldn't have done.

Maybe this is worth a post?

In all the madness and lost cases we hopefully learn(ed) something out of it.

Don't get me wrong, I am with you.

I only wanted to open a hypothetical piste. Thank you for replying. D

Right now the only way this is going to happen, is if it gives a country a miltary strectgic advantage.......and I can't think of none so far.

And there are very few country's that would even attempt this.

I can only say that if this analogy were taken as gospel the reality of the space race would be two competing enterprises.

Fine, there you have it but were this analogy applied to a thought of space exploration neither would it have occurred and what loss we would be from lack of it.

It is seemingly in my mind that having discoveries made and methods of accomplishment accrued via the space competition; why is it an inordinate proposition such benefit could be realised at depth also?

It is seemingly in my mind that having discoveries made and methods of accomplishment accrued via the space competition; why is it an inordinate proposition such benefit could be realised at depth also?

Its not, but you have to have a better reason than just because.

And as far as have an analogy of space, compared to the deep, you must remember that allot of that was PR. The reason as I stated earlier was a military advantage to (with a lack of a better word) justify working in the deep.

p911

Re: the analogy with working in space - it also must be remembered that the maximum differential pressure in space (between the external environment and the "living area") is 1 bar.

"I can only say that if this analogy were taken as gospel the reality of the space race would be two competing enterprises."

I am not sure if I understand what you are saying, but the race to the Moon was exactly that! The Soviet Union and the United States of America were the two competing entities. I assume you remember that?

If there was no competition there likely would have never been a Moon landing, even by now.

"Fine, there you have it but were this analogy applied to a thought of space exploration neither would it have occurred and what loss we would be from lack of it."

I think I may have answered that in my second paragraph.

"It is seemingly in my mind that having discoveries made and methods of accomplishment accrued via the space competition; why is it an inordinate proposition such benefit could be realised at depth also?"

Well, there has to be a compelling reason. So far, there is none at all, zero, zip, nada.

Let's review recent world history. Why was there a space race? The space race started as a competition for technology. Immediately after WWII the Soviet Union and the US made a mad dash to grab as many German rocket scientists and their equipment as possible. The US was lucky to get Werner Von Braun (inventor of the German V2), which gave us a leg up. He had a dream of sending a rocket to the Moon.

The technology scramble at the time was over building rockets capable of delivering atomic warheads (intercontinental missiles) around the world. That technology was not very public, but essential as an arms race was developing. However, that was only a part of the competition.

Have you heard of Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev's famous speech, "We will bury you!" What he meant, contrary to what most people believe, was that the USSR was not going to nuke the US, but the USSR would surpass the US in economic output, matching the US refrigerator for refrigerator, car for car, etc. Competing enterprises; USSR and US.

The larger thrust of the competition was idealogical. It was Communism versus Democracy (free enterprise). As a means to demonstrate that, the USSR put a satellite into orbit (Sputnik). This was a both a great technological achievement and a brilliant psychological weapon. The technology was one way to prove that a payload could not only be lifted above the Earth's atmosphere (the original V2 did that), but lift it into orbit. This proved a payload (atomic weapon) could be launched to any place on the planet. The psychology was to spread fear and demonstrate superior technological power. And it did!

The US had been working on a lot of other technologies, but not so much with orbital spacecraft. While Sputnik did not really provide much of a technical advantage as a satellite (all it did was beep, but it had no other functionality), it was still a PR success.

This forced the hand of the US to do something in kind. A space race was born. The Federal agency NACA became NASA and after a rocky start the US reached parity with the USSR.

President Kennedy realized that the status quo was not enough. The bar had to be raised in order to surpass the USSR in such a way as to render the US as the clear winner, thus proving Democracy was superior to Communism. The goal was the Moon.

This was the compelling reason for space exploration. It wasn't commercial exploitation, it wasn't because one man had a dream, it was idealogical politics.

Unfortunately, the bottom of the ocean floor does nothing for us as a nation, there is no compelling reason to do it and there is no economic advantage for BP or anyone else to change the way they do the business of drilling in deep water. Why spend more to get the same result?

Thanks AH

All those eggs have been hatched. That is exactly what I was on about. Those gave us stick free pans and computers. What will repairing something, that has failed terribly, bring us? Eff all, it will just keep that dinosaur alive for a little bit longer. Its over and the sooner one reprograms the better. I'd rather have a horror with an end than a never ending horror.

Not always is the future in the past, sometimes quantum leaps happen for no reason at all. Boiler makers will be one of the last to know I suppose, Ky.

Quite right, until a strange duck begins to mine the mountains under the sea to support a new technology eh?

And where the Soviets went wrong is the US measured output by finished product, while the USSR measure output by raw materials consumed.

USSR, had the natural resource that surpassed the US, whether it be productive farmland, or mining, there is of course more to itm but thats is a distraction.

"Quote" There has to be a compelling reason (savings) to put your workforce 5,000 feet below the surface

What is the compelling reason for going into space?

There have been many scientific/technical advances that can directly be traced back to the space program.

So, your logic is:

We should go to the ocean floor precisely because there is no compelling reason to go to space.

That's an interesting argument.

Sorry all

You are not only discussing if the chook or the egg was first but are speculating on chickens to hatch from that. The OP is right about need being the mother of all invention.

Bottom line (just for me):

If there is anything that should be discouraged it would be R&D in the field of oil exploration. Use that knowledge base for projects not as sinister and mind boggling as the one at hand. Anything can be done but at what cost Ronseto?

Even the mining industry has the technology to dig deeper but they are smart and stop digging when it becomes too,..... well,...not profitable. If the oil barrons haven't got the technology to suck safely they shouldn't have a permit to do so. If 200 feet is the technical limit, so be it. Just leave the stuff that can potentially all ruin our lives were it is. Make arrangements and change ones habits and as some say "Dog given rights" to rule the planet.

Not more encouragement to harvest but less greed is asked for and more humbleness, respect and discretion in dealing with what is beneath us and makes life so easy. For every action there is a reaction, how ever small or large one dimensions it. We are not the Captains of this ship, aim higher! Much higher!!

What a waste of all kinds of resources just to keep a dieing industry on a drip. The patient has died! The hemorrhage is just the symptom. Look to the future and breed other new things. Put that structure down there, by all means and make it a tourist attraction. Build it and they will come. "This is were the oil industry died" would be a nice placate. Like in "this is were Jesse James was shot." They are still making money out of that shooting I suppose?

The valve governing my cynicism has malfunctioned again. Not enough pressure to keep going at this depth.

If, as a good Christian, I am not allowed to work on a Sunday and walking on Water could be described as work, would I not be sinning, if I did it anyway?

R.I.P

Ky.

"Quote" Even the mining industry has the technology to dig deeper but they are smart and stop digging when it becomes too,..... well,...not profitable.

That is true, but only because they haven't exhausted their resources yet. When they do, they will have to dig deeper. The same goes with oil.

I think you would get less oil leaks.

The incentive to do it exactly right would be 'supreme'.

Mind you if you suffer a high pressure gas pocket intrusion, you'd be instantly dead.

But the gas/oil is less likely to get out. It would just fill up the habitat, which by necessity would be very securely mounted to the bottom due to the buoyancy and currents.

USS Thresher (SSN-593)

USS Scorpion (SSN-589)

test depth

(the freezing of the ballast blow might also interest)

(the freezing of the ballast blow might also interest)

The freezing of the ballast blow precipitated a crunch inaudible to all but the crunched. God rest their souls....

I was referring to the physics

Moving on: From 1997;

www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/23...

The sorts of things that can happen in the drilling environment/undersea habitat.

Wow 34point5

All this information makes my explosives approach even more feasible, if not a must. Shut that thing down and do it now!

Change feet to meters, if one likes. Introduce it as a must have last resort shut down to all existing rigs. Beats having to wait for the next one and not knowing what to do other than to make things very complex. Columbus egg ring a bell?

I'm spending too much time on this, gotta go, Ky.

"Quote" I'm not 'knocking the idea' - just asking questions

I have the idea, not the answers. Those answers won't be forth coming until someone picks up on the idea and has the money and resources to develop it.

Thank you

I should have had that information a while back. Anonymous Hero was right when he said : "leave it to the experts" very early in some thread regarding this "incident"

They knew all along this was going to happen at some time, that is what I get out of it.

Very informative, thanks again, Ky.

PS: reply to my approach from Horizon:

Dear ,
Thank you so much for taking the time to think about and submit your proposed solution regarding the Horizon incident. Your submission has been reviewed for its technical merits. A similar approach has already been considered or planned for possible implementation. All of us on the Horizon Support Team appreciate your thoughts and efforts.

Sincerely yours,
Horizon Support Team

Is this an incident? Why don't they call a spade a spade? It is a fully blown humanly caused bloody catastrophe. Gosh these spin doctors have a lot to answer for.

Hi Ky

That is a better response than most have seem to have got.

I had a conversation on something else yesterday that triggered a wee epiphany on the charge design and void/fracture/leak path sealing problem. I'll have a bit more of a think & PM you.

Thanks

You see, I just don't have the time to write a paper about it, otherwise my concept would not have led to so many misunderstandings. I walked around the Island a bit yesterday and saw what the direct blast area of a high explosive charge in Granite looks like. They did move a bit of rock in the old days. I should have had my camera with me but I could go out and take some shots later on. Very interesting to look at, Ky.

I don't think they will ask for, or accept help from the East like with the Shuttle service. But there is hope for Change.

From what I have read the explosion idea was considered (ala Russian experience) and rejected due to the pressence of clathrates - something to do with an uncontrollable situation. It is strictly courtesy that the team on the incident respond at all to any of the suggestions.

Is this an incident? Why don't they call a spade a spade? It is a fully blown humanly caused bloody catastrophe. Gosh these spin doctors have a lot to answer for.

it was not advised by their attorney's to say it like it is.

Is it better than current technology? I think so, but that won't be known until someone invests the time, money and effort to explore the possibilities. The fact that they are now drilling at such great depths tells me oil is getting harder to find at shallower depths. The potential for failure or disaster at great depths is increasing. It's only a matter of time before more oil disasters happen. I don't want to sound like the harbinger of impending doom, but all efforts must be employed to eliminate oil disasters or the oceans of the world will die and with that, civilization itself as we know it. I'm not concerned for myself, but for my Grandchildren and all the grandchildren of the world.

I suggest you don't hold your breath waiting for this one! If anyone was interested and they started today it would be years and I don't believe you are going to find an interested party that has the capability of designing or manufacturing the rig.

"The fact that they are now drilling at such great depths tells me oil is getting harder to find at shallower depths."

No. Actually, they drill at these depths because the government (federal and state) laws prohibits the oil companies from drilling in shallower waters.