Register to reply

Fixing the Gulf oil spill problem

by WmCElliott
Tags: fixing, gulf, spill
Share this thread:
Geigerclick
#55
Jun2-10, 01:53 PM
P: 101
I have no experience with modern ROVs, but isn't this incredibly delicate work to be doing with remote feeds and ROVs? It sounds as though they could damage the riser relatively easily.
Arizona
#56
Jun2-10, 08:48 PM
P: 6
What about series of detonations? This could be a quick fix until the relief well is drilled. Detonations can be performed in a matter of weeks. I hope they are not trying alternative methods for the sake of reusing the well bore or to continue to collect oil. They need to stop the oil ASAP.

Drill many small diameter holes lined with explosive ~1000 meters around the well bore. Use the series of detonations to implode the well hole and cover it with ruble (i.e. make the Pressure inside the well<Pressure outside the well). I almost feel that the extreme pressures of the environment would allow for more controlled explosions or implosion from the detonations. This could stop or slow the leak until the relief well is completed.

I did some rough calcs and oil pressure at ~5000 psi, one would have to implode and cover it with ~1000 meters of ruble. I wonder how many meters they can drill in a day?

I have not heard of ideas regarding detonations of the subsea architecture or an implosion of the well head. What are the risks besides letting the oil leak like it has been for the last month? I am sure the have the well bore mapped.

BP should release some stats on the problem (i.e. map/diagram of the well, P's, T's, and V's, effluent components, flow rates, surrounding material properties, etc.) so some independent engineers can be more serviceable
Attached Thumbnails
BPoil_sol_052810.jpg  
pgardn
#57
Jun2-10, 11:01 PM
P: 621
Looks like the diamond cutter used to make a clean cut for the fitting got stuck...

I wonder if they try and somehow continue this cut?

August and the relief wells are looking like the goal now. Hopefully they got some other ideas, if the new fitting idea does indeed not work, to capture some of the oil. 2 1/2 months more of oil flow... thats not good.

God with the BP luck so far, the relief wells will probably miss the main well to plug the thing up.
M Grandin
#58
Jun3-10, 06:19 AM
P: 92
I suggested this:

"POSSIBLE REMEDY TO BP OIL LEAK ? Is it not possible sinking succesively smaller (=less diameter) and smaller steel tubes inside present tube in the well? At the same time "gluing" them to surrounding tube. Resulting in a layered steel tube of smaller and smaller inner flow diameter? At last a solid steel shaft is inserted in the last most narrow cylinder. Never a very huge force would be needed to press these units into the remaining cylindrical hole. At least every new cylinder inserted into the wider outside, will decrease the flow - so at last hardly no oil is leaking through. Theoretically this must work. Perhaps also possible inserting a large number of steel bars successevely into the main tube according to the same principle. But the point using cylinders might be possibility minimizing dead space allowing oil leaking through. Just a layman suggestion, almost certainly already considered - but I guess all suggestions are interesting in this critical case. (This is a copy of what I wrote in an ATS thread - perhaps already suggested here) "

It could be added, that the longer tubes (that may be added in series) the larger tube surface area for "glue fixing" (or corresponding) them and the more weight to overcome pressure from oil/gas well - if sufficiently long concentric tubes they may overcome pressure by their own weight. The resulting layered steel tube of about 0.5 m diameter will weigh
about a ton per meter - and some 100 meters of this may overcome well pressure by
its own weight. Of course a heavy load above this afterwards
further secures the assembly.
stewartcs
#59
Jun3-10, 10:54 AM
Sci Advisor
stewartcs's Avatar
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by M Grandin View Post
I suggested this:

"POSSIBLE REMEDY TO BP OIL LEAK ? Is it not possible sinking succesively smaller (=less diameter) and smaller steel tubes inside present tube in the well? At the same time "gluing" them to surrounding tube. Resulting in a layered steel tube of smaller and smaller inner flow diameter? At last a solid steel shaft is inserted in the last most narrow cylinder. Never a very huge force would be needed to press these units into the remaining cylindrical hole. At least every new cylinder inserted into the wider outside, will decrease the flow - so at last hardly no oil is leaking through. Theoretically this must work. Perhaps also possible inserting a large number of steel bars successevely into the main tube according to the same principle. But the point using cylinders might be possibility minimizing dead space allowing oil leaking through. Just a layman suggestion, almost certainly already considered - but I guess all suggestions are interesting in this critical case. (This is a copy of what I wrote in an ATS thread - perhaps already suggested here) "
No.

1) they can't glue steel tubes together especially while the well is flowing.
2) even if they could seal the tubes together the pressure acting on the surface area on the bottom of the tubes would blow them out.

CS
stewartcs
#60
Jun3-10, 10:57 AM
Sci Advisor
stewartcs's Avatar
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by Arizona View Post
What about series of detonations? This could be a quick fix until the relief well is drilled. Detonations can be performed in a matter of weeks. I hope they are not trying alternative methods for the sake of reusing the well bore or to continue to collect oil. They need to stop the oil ASAP.

Drill many small diameter holes lined with explosive ~1000 meters around the well bore. Use the series of detonations to implode the well hole and cover it with ruble (i.e. make the Pressure inside the well<Pressure outside the well). I almost feel that the extreme pressures of the environment would allow for more controlled explosions or implosion from the detonations. This could stop or slow the leak until the relief well is completed.

I did some rough calcs and oil pressure at ~5000 psi, one would have to implode and cover it with ~1000 meters of ruble. I wonder how many meters they can drill in a day?

I have not heard of ideas regarding detonations of the subsea architecture or an implosion of the well head. What are the risks besides letting the oil leak like it has been for the last month? I am sure the have the well bore mapped.

BP should release some stats on the problem (i.e. map/diagram of the well, P's, T's, and V's, effluent components, flow rates, surrounding material properties, etc.) so some independent engineers can be more serviceable
They are not trying to salvage this well. It is cheaper to cap this one and drill another new one than it is to try and save this one. It doesn't even make economic sense let alone common sense to try and save this well.

The rate of penetration (i.e. how much the can drill in a day) depends on many factors specific to the geology of the well and the equipment used.

In order to 'blow the well up' they would have to drill (like they are now with the relief wells) to insert the explosive device. Since that is risky (i.e. blowing up the well) and requires the same amount of time it's better to just kill it with the relief well.

CS
stewartcs
#61
Jun3-10, 11:00 AM
Sci Advisor
stewartcs's Avatar
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by Geigerclick View Post
I have no experience with modern ROVs, but isn't this incredibly delicate work to be doing with remote feeds and ROVs? It sounds as though they could damage the riser relatively easily.
The riser is already damage and has no pressure containing capabilities so it doesn't really matter if they damage it more.

CS
Geigerclick
#62
Jun3-10, 11:33 AM
P: 101
Quote Quote by stewartcs View Post
The riser is already damage and has no pressure containing capabilities so it doesn't really matter if they damage it more.

CS
Good point, and that explains why they were willing to go from the precision cut to giant tin-snips. It seems to have been a successful cut too, so perhaps this LMRP will be able to contain with a moderate seal, at least some of the oil.
mheslep
#63
Jun3-10, 12:38 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
Quote Quote by stewartcs View Post
The riser is already damage and has no pressure containing capabilities so it doesn't really matter if they damage it more.
No pressure containment? The riser appears to be kinked or otherwise has its ID reduced, possibly by internal debris. These conditions would reduce flow (and increase pressure inside the riser) as compared to a cleanly square cut riser head atop the BOP. I assumed this was the reason spill flow is expected to increase by 20% (per reports) after the cut, prior to a re-containment of some kind.
stewartcs
#64
Jun3-10, 12:50 PM
Sci Advisor
stewartcs's Avatar
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
No pressure containment? The riser appears to be kinked or otherwise has its ID reduced, possibly by internal debris. These conditions would reduce flow (and increase pressure inside the riser) as compared to a cleanly square cut riser head atop the BOP. I assumed this was the reason spill flow is expected to increase by 20% (per reports) after the cut, prior to a re-containment of some kind.
No pressure containment by design. Strictly speaking, it does offer some pressure containment but that's just a consequence of the the required collapse resistance of the pipe. But it is not designed to contain well bore pressure (other than about 500-psi).

CS
mheslep
#65
Jun3-10, 01:29 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
Quote Quote by stewartcs View Post
No pressure containment by design. Strictly speaking, it does offer some pressure containment but that's just a consequence of the the required collapse resistance of the pipe. But it is not designed to contain well bore pressure (other than about 500-psi).
Yes I understand the riser won't hold reservoir pressure. The point was that slicing off the riser is likely to increase the flow temporarily, as the current damaged riser is partially restricting it.
zoom_in
#66
Jun3-10, 09:07 PM
P: 2
This type of problem highlights both the shortcomings in our (namely the internet's) ability to vertically integrate information streams and the enormous potential of such integration.

Over six billion minds on the planet, millions of people in the US alone with degrees in the sciences and engineering--all of it an underutilized resource on problems such as this one.

I know the BP engineers are working hard to create solutions but regardless of their intelligence or number, they cannot match the potential power of a vertically integrated open approach in a public medium. What do we do when the next disaster like this happens? Do we commit to blind faith in the ethereal "experts", possibly leaving the solution to a handful of stressed-out, overworked engineers or do we demand "information transparency" where any and all technical details (by law) must be made readily available to the public? I have browsed this thread and seen the posts of people who have searched in vain for various tech specs. This is not a BP problem any longer, it is a national problem and a national resource is being wasted--namely the potential power of millions of minds gathered to assimilate raw information streams and produce solutions.

If we want to choose a best solution, why not make the pool of candidates as large as possible? Better, why not generate multiple, overlapping solutions? How many millions does this leak cost daily? For example, a fabric funnel (if it's an efffective idea) could be built concurrently with the ongoing efforts, as a back-up, as insurance, or even to capture the excess that leaks out around the LMRP cap.

I spent about two hours wading through advertisements, waiting for pages to load, downloading relevant diagrams (BP had a FIVE Mb picture file from its failed junk shot attempt with nowhere near that much information in it), sifting through lists of ideas with huge amounts of repetition and no vertical integration, all to produce my ~uneducated guess (partly thanks to no tech specs, at least not without spending another several hours hunting them down and getting hit-or-miss results) as to why various ideas didn't work, to post it in a likely unseen spot in the comments section on a blog on a PBS website.

Take one percent of the energy involved in the finger-pointing, the blame-laying, and the sound and fury about this leak in the media streams--take that one percent and devote it to information transparency, a central website with forums and hierarchical moderation, and focus the above-mentioned national, even global, resource on solutions.
Buzzworks
#67
Jun4-10, 12:27 AM
P: 68
Why not just nuke it? A well-calculated bomb location, likely below the seabed and well-calculated yeild could permanently seal the leaking well and hopefully, without compromising the 'oil chamber' and making it worse.

The 'greenest' thermonukes should be used to minimize radiation contamination. Probably a small yeild or several 'micro thermonukes' to surround the leak and hopefully, melt the well into glass, below the seabed.
jreelawg
#68
Jun4-10, 02:45 AM
P: 450
Nothing would look worse on TV, than a pelican covered in a radioactive tar.
cstoos
#69
Jun4-10, 07:51 AM
P: 64
Zoom_in: The larger a group is, the less it accomplishes.

Somebody just needs to invent the other half of an oil/something epoxy that will seal it on its own. Wait a minute! I got it! If you mix water and oil together you can freeze up an engine. We just need to somehow get water down to the leak!
stewartcs
#70
Jun4-10, 08:02 AM
Sci Advisor
stewartcs's Avatar
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by zoom_in View Post
This type of problem highlights both the shortcomings in our (namely the internet's) ability to vertically integrate information streams and the enormous potential of such integration.

Over six billion minds on the planet, millions of people in the US alone with degrees in the sciences and engineering--all of it an underutilized resource on problems such as this one.

I know the BP engineers are working hard to create solutions but regardless of their intelligence or number, they cannot match the potential power of a vertically integrated open approach in a public medium. What do we do when the next disaster like this happens? Do we commit to blind faith in the ethereal "experts", possibly leaving the solution to a handful of stressed-out, overworked engineers or do we demand "information transparency" where any and all technical details (by law) must be made readily available to the public? I have browsed this thread and seen the posts of people who have searched in vain for various tech specs. This is not a BP problem any longer, it is a national problem and a national resource is being wasted--namely the potential power of millions of minds gathered to assimilate raw information streams and produce solutions.

If we want to choose a best solution, why not make the pool of candidates as large as possible? Better, why not generate multiple, overlapping solutions? How many millions does this leak cost daily? For example, a fabric funnel (if it's an efffective idea) could be built concurrently with the ongoing efforts, as a back-up, as insurance, or even to capture the excess that leaks out around the LMRP cap.

I spent about two hours wading through advertisements, waiting for pages to load, downloading relevant diagrams (BP had a FIVE Mb picture file from its failed junk shot attempt with nowhere near that much information in it), sifting through lists of ideas with huge amounts of repetition and no vertical integration, all to produce my ~uneducated guess (partly thanks to no tech specs, at least not without spending another several hours hunting them down and getting hit-or-miss results) as to why various ideas didn't work, to post it in a likely unseen spot in the comments section on a blog on a PBS website.

Take one percent of the energy involved in the finger-pointing, the blame-laying, and the sound and fury about this leak in the media streams--take that one percent and devote it to information transparency, a central website with forums and hierarchical moderation, and focus the above-mentioned national, even global, resource on solutions.
Six billions minds would be a bigger cluster f--k than it is now. Even with more transparency the average person reading this or trying to help will not have the slightest idea what would really help fix the problem (your fabric cloth for example).

This sounds more like a political rant than anything else.

CS
stewartcs
#71
Jun4-10, 08:03 AM
Sci Advisor
stewartcs's Avatar
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by jreelawg View Post
nothing would look worse on tv, than a pelican covered in a radioactive tar.
lmao!

Cs
Geigerclick
#72
Jun4-10, 08:44 AM
P: 101
Quote Quote by stewartcs View Post
lmao!

Cs
Radium Water step aside, we now have "Plutonium Shrimp!" It cooks itself through decay.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Oil spill density? Earth 15
Gulf spill, bioengineered life, and oil-eating bacteria Biology 12
Hurricane + Oil Spill = ? Earth 13
Gulf Oil Spill Velocimetry-Based Flow Rate Estimate Mechanical Engineering 54
Gulf Oil Spill: Live Feed Now Released Current Events 5