Fixing the Gulf oil spill problem

[stewartcs]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Nothing would look worse on TV, than a pelican covered in a radioactive tar.

 

[cstoos]

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]

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]

nothing would look worse on tv, than a pelican covered in a radioactive tar.

lmao!

Cs

 

[Geigerclick]

lmao!

Cs

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

 

[Arizona]

Why not drill and set anchors for the top hat method? Make some type of seal and cinch it down.

 

[OmCheeto]

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

But I liked the cloth tube idea.

It could be built in a day and unspooled from a ship in under an hour. Being deflated, it would be void of water, so you wouldn't have the methane hydrate freeze up problem when the oil/methane mixture enters the tube. Since no matter where the oil is in the column, it is going to be a sea pressure, it wouldn't have to be strong as steel. Once the oil gets to the surface, it would enter the bottom of a floating container, which would start to sink under the weight of the oil. Once the oil level in the container rises to a certain level, it would be pumped out and into a waiting oil tanker.

I think it's a brilliant and simple solution at keeping the oil contained until a permanent fix is developed.

But I think that may be why people don't like it. It's too simple.

 

[xxChrisxx]

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.

99.9% of which are all too thick to be trusted opening a tin of beans. People are stupid.

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

This I agree with, far too much energy is used for laying blame. I'm going to have to be slightly set against the Americans here so sorry about this. You have a very laissez-faire attitude to incidents like this, until it happens to you.

This has been handled dreadfully, both by BP and the US government. It highlights a lack of foresight in planning, contingency and thought by both parties. It really doesn't help that Obama has been sitting on the sidelines very publically bashing BP, granted they screwed up, but the way it's been handled doesn't help.

Not only this, but it you can gaurantee they will want to start prosecuting people for this. With a 'heads will roll' attitude. I know exactly the defense I'd use if I were a legal type. There is no way for them to get a fair trail, they have already been found guilty by public opinion.

I'm sorry it's just a little rant I've had building inside me when watching all the news and speeches on this. It's a dreadful, terrible situation, but it is an accident. Time should not be spent blaming people (apart from the idiot who allowed production to go ahead even after warning signs, which IS criminal negligence) but making sure it never happens again. And if it does, clear steps to be taken to prevent it.

eg. Relief wells must be drilled prior to production starting. (the Norwegians have this in place for wells not nearly as deep)

 

[Buzzworks]

Why not drill and set anchors for the top hat method? Make some type of seal and cinch it down.

I have thought of that before, but I think getting it a seal would be tough given the pressure of the oil.

I have another method. Can they try digging near and around the well and insert several conventional explosives around it?

The explosives will not be actually strapped around the well. There will be some mud or sediment between the well and the explosives. That should hopefully, pinch the well, seal it or radically constrict it, without destroying and making it worse.

I'm just not sure if we have existing explosives/bombs that can be safely used at such depths without exploding prematurely.

 

[mheslep]

Anyone seen any estimates of how much of the spill has been recovered? Nothing pops up, other than isolated examples. Apparently per Discovery Channel, one largish US CG ship has been collecting 100,000 gals (2300 bbls) over a day or two, at least it did early on in the spill when the leading edge was defined.

 

[Geigerclick]

Nothing I could find. BP is keeping its mouth shut now that a criminal probe has been opened (which is unfortunate, but reasonable), so I doubt we'll learn exact figures for weeks if not more. The Coast Guard does say that some fraction of the oil is been captured, but I am not hearing a lot of optimism.

 

[mheslep]

The Coast Guard does say that some fraction of the oil is been captured, but I am not hearing a lot of optimism.

What fraction? The US CG says this where?

 

[Geigerclick]

What fraction? The US CG says this where?

Admiral Allen did on CNN in an interview, and made no mention of how much. I was emphasizing just how incredibly limited the info on this is.

 

[stewartcs]

I have thought of that before, but I think getting it a seal would be tough given the pressure of the oil.

I have another method. Can they try digging near and around the well and insert several conventional explosives around it?

The explosives will not be actually strapped around the well. There will be some mud or sediment between the well and the explosives. That should hopefully, pinch the well, seal it or radically constrict it, without destroying and making it worse.

I'm just not sure if we have existing explosives/bombs that can be safely used at such depths without exploding prematurely.

Why does everyone want to blow the well up?!

If the casing is compromised already, an explosive device could open up another leak path for the hydrocarbons. It's a bit risky to try and we're not really sure of the outcome in deepwater.

CS

 

[Geigerclick]

Why does everyone want to blow the well up?!

If the casing is compromised already, an explosive device could open up another leak path for the hydrocarbons. It's a bit risky to try and we're not really sure of the outcome in deepwater.

CS

I think people don't grasp that the function of a nuclear detonation is to fuse a large area into glass/ceramic, and that simply using conventional explosives would not achieve this result. People like the idea of the boom, but don't want the blue glow, so they wish for a different way. I believe it is called "desperation."

I for one, would rather see this well leak until December than we "test" a nuke in the gulf. I for one, remember why we stopped ground and water bursts; too messy.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I think people don't grasp that the function of a nuclear detonation is to fuse a large area into glass/ceramic, and that simply using conventional explosives would not achieve this result. People like the idea of the boom, but don't want the blue glow, so they wish for a different way. I believe it is called "desperation."

I for one, would rather see this well leak until December than we "test" a nuke in the gulf. I for one, remember why we stopped ground and water bursts; too messy.

Well on the plus side it would make the fisherman's job a lot easier, al those fish can't swim away. Plus they'd probably already be cooked, granted glowing a little but a bit of radioactive fish never hurt anyone. Would probably give us all superhero like powers.

 

[RonL]

But I liked the cloth tube idea.

It could be built in a day and unspooled from a ship in under an hour. Being deflated, it would be void of water, so you wouldn't have the methane hydrate freeze up problem when the oil/methane mixture enters the tube. Since no matter where the oil is in the column, it is going to be a sea pressure, it wouldn't have to be strong as steel. Once the oil gets to the surface, it would enter the bottom of a floating container, which would start to sink under the weight of the oil. Once the oil level in the container rises to a certain level, it would be pumped out and into a waiting oil tanker.

I think it's a brilliant and simple solution at keeping the oil contained until a permanent fix is developed.

But I think that may be why people don't like it. It's too simple.

I hope everyone doesn't think we are talking about T-shirt fabric,

The reason I think it needs to be wide at the surface (from 15' bottom and much larger at the surface) is considering, a cubic foot of gas at the well leak will become close to 200 cubic feet at the surface. If that expansion can only be linear the pressure will and velocity will become too great.

Ron

 

[Buzzworks]

Well on the plus side it would make the fisherman's job a lot easier, al those fish can't swim away. Plus they'd probably already be cooked, granted glowing a little but a bit of radioactive fish never hurt anyone. Would probably give us all superhero like powers.

Exploding low yeild nuke under the seabed should not cause those problems, especially radiation and excessive heat. The radiation will be pretty much contained under the seabed. It should not progress outside the seabed at all, due to the very powerful implosion that immediately follows the explosion due to the extreme underwater pressures.

In fact, it should be avoided to use large, 'megaton-class' weaponry(like the Soviet 'Tsar Bomba') as the large explosive energy could compromise the oil-pocket itself and literally, open up the oil pocket to the sea, causing a situation that's completely impossible to fix.

 

[Geigerclick]

Well on the plus side it would make the fisherman's job a lot easier, al those fish can't swim away. Plus they'd probably already be cooked, granted glowing a little but a bit of radioactive fish never hurt anyone. Would probably give us all superhero like powers.

Eat this Tuna, and gain the ability to create fire... plus lymphoma! Heh, thanks for showing a lighter side to this. :)

Crapworks: To get deep enough in the seabed would require... wait for it... DRILLING! Why not wait for the relief well in that case? Besides, there are a lot of maybes and shoulds that I don't like when it comes to detonating a nuclear bomb.

 

[Buzzworks]

Crapworks: To get deep enough in the seabed would require... wait for it... DRILLING! Why not wait for the relief well in that case? Besides, there are a lot of maybes and shoulds that I don't like when it comes to detonating a nuclear bomb.

That's true. And this makes using conventional explosives to pinch the well a much better alternative.

Maybe it's possible to run some quick deep sea trials in collaboration with the navy to try to pinch a metal tube of the same kind used in drilling wells using explosives. If it works consistently, then they can try it on the troubled well itself.

 

[Geigerclick]

That's true. And this makes using conventional explosives to pinch the well a much better alternative.

Maybe it's possible to run some quick deep sea trials in collaboration with the navy to try to pinch a metal tube of the same kind used in drilling wells using explosives. If it works consistently, then they can try it on the troubled well itself.

I don't think you understand why a nuclear detonation might work, and why conventional explosives would not. It is the fusion of sand and mud into glass over a large area that forms the "plug" from a nuke... compared to collapse from conventionals. The latter would require even more drilling, and I have a hard time believing that it would work.

 

[Buzzworks]

I don't think you understand why a nuclear detonation might work, and why conventional explosives would not. It is the fusion of sand and mud into glass over a large area that forms the "plug" from a nuke... compared to collapse from conventionals. The latter would require even more drilling, and I have a hard time believing that it would work.

I understand how nuclear detonation will work to seal the troubled well. That was my idea initially. I had to think of other ways due to the unpopularity of 'nuclear solution'.

I'm uncertain with the conventional explosives solution as well, but it won't hurt to try or at least simulate virtually. It's a rough idea I suggested, and it may or may not require drilling, the idea has to be tested first. The basics are several explosive with some distance from the well, equally spaced around it, and simultaneously exploded around the well - that should create a powerful implosion at the middle that might pinch it without destroying it.

 

[mheslep]

Maybe it's possible to run some quick deep sea trials in collaboration with the navy to try to pinch a metal tube of the same kind used in drilling wells using explosives. If it works consistently, then they can try it on the troubled well itself.

Imagine the miles of geologic formations containing the the oil reservoir, in the worst case, as glass , i.e. brittle. Then imagine the worst case outcome of a large explosion in the 'glass' containment material over possibly hundreds of millions of barrels of oil & gas down there.