Fixing the Gulf oil spill problem

[xxChrisxx]

You're an idiot. An explosion will melt the rock and ground surrounding the pipe and the pipe.
This has already been done underground a leaking well and was successful.

This is several thousand feet below sea level and then 13000 more to the acutaly well, conventional explosives just won't do enough so create a seal. Being a metal lines pipe it's more than likely to just create shrapnel that will be ejected along with the oil.

However you are totally ignoring the consequences. Solutions to problems aren't approached on 'chance of success' they are approached by assesing risk. Blowing the well up may have a moderate chance of success but is very high risk as it removes all other options for containment. i.e if it doesn't work you as well just go home and let it flow until it runs out. Not only that flow rate is proportional to pipe size (flow area), if the explosives don't create a seal you increase the bore of hte pipe and have increased low rates.


Also name the source for this underground leaking well plugged by explosives, and we'll see if it's comparable to the current situation. Note that using explosives on land is more viable than using them in deep water. Due to both heat transfer being better in air (rock will more likely melt in air) and a vastly bigger shockwave in water (any glass like rock you do create will likely be shattered in water but not it air).

Further to that, indiacte how you know they will work. How sure are you percentage wise? What is the estimated proability of success? Justify why you are so sure please.

 

[RonL]

I'm not sure how you propose getting 5000-ft of cable anchored to the seabed without a very large anchor winch (which would have to be attached to the floating containers).

A tube that has a 1-mile diameter would be subjected to enormous hydrodynamic forces which would certainly rip the fabric to pieces.

CS

The tube opening I have just made my best guess for size at 100'. If it can be smaller that would be much better. It might be able to release oil and gas 2 or 3 hundred feet below the ring, as long as the liquid oil will still move upward into the ring.
The number of cables from the container ring, going to the tube ring and at what angle they need to be designed for, will depend on where the tube opening needs to to be positioned. It might be possible to build floatation into the fabric tube to render it just slightly less than zero weight.

The tube, based on the size I think might be needed, came to a weight of 50 tons for the fabric alone, however floatation material can be built into each section as it is made (I think 50' sections would be fairly easy to work with) as for strength in the vertical length, I have used lifting straps of nylon or poly material for many years, extremely strong and impervious to the gulf waters, these can be sewn to the fabric to add not only strength but points of attachment for cables or whatever might be needed.

The idea continues to grow in complexity, but still it seems to me to be the quickest and cheapest method to construct.
It might not be possible for good engineers to pen the details for this disaster, but it might be a good start point to build a design that would serve as an emergency response for the containment of any future blowouts.

I am not an engineer but have had experience in the marine industry and have chased down a few barges in the Mississippi Sound area of the gulf, I have a small understanding of stresses imposed on rigging and barge surfaces.
It's very important that the box containers have just the right amount of slack at each connection but not too much.

As for attaching cables to the sea floor that is something for proper engineers to figure out.
Forces on the ring and tube as pointed out will be quite strong.

Hope this provides an answer or two, there is so much more in my head, but that would add confusion.

Ron

 

[mheslep]

It has failed and 3 more months is even worse failure.

Again: what are the consequences, i.e. worst case scenario, if using explosives goes bad, or not as planned?

 

[OmCheeto]

And what will keep the floating container vessel on location?

CS

A tug with GPS. Perhaps two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon" was a fifth-generation, RBS-8D design, ultra-deepwater, dynamically positioned, column-stabilized, semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU)

The idea is to piece together QUICKLY a flotilla of vessels and devices for the sole purpose of containing the oil.

I like fabric for at least [STRIKE] 3 4 5 6 7[/STRIKE] 8 reasons:
1. The tube could be manufactured in a day
2. It can be lowered to the leak in minutes
3. It's density(nylon anyways) is very near that of seawater, so it does not have to support it's own weight
4. It can be delivered to the leak deflated. No water intrusion means no methane hydrates.
5. It can be made any size you want
6. It's cheap
7. It's readily available
8. Ripstop comes in non-water permeable varieties

On April 20, 2010, the rig was in the final phases of drilling an exploratory oil well at the Macondo Prospect, Gulf of Mexico, when at 09:45 p.m. CDT, a geyser of seawater erupted from the marine riser onto the rig, shooting 240 ft into the air. This was soon followed by the eruption of a slushy combination of mud, methane gas, and water. The gas component of the slushy material quickly transitioned into a fully gaseous state and then ignited into a series of explosions and then a firestorm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon#Explosion_and_oil_spill"

My original tube size was based simply on the standard width of material. It yielded a flow of ~1 foot per second(worst case leak). I've decided that this may be too high a rate given the viscosity of crude oil. See http://www.engineersedge.com/fluid_flow/pressure_drop/pressure_drop.htm"

Hmmm... Does anyone know if they make teflon lined fabric?

never mind. Google and it shall be answered: http://www.precisioncoating.com/coated-fabrics/precisionfab_tear_resistant.html"

 

[cf8]

Fixing BP Oil Mess?

I have no idea where to put this thread, [Edit: Thanks for moving it, whoever did; apparently the forum search engine didn't understand "bp oil", since no results were returned before I posted.] but I wanted to see if this even seems possible, whether or not feasible. Also, it may not be too easy to understand, because I don't know the proper terminology for what I'm trying to explain.

That said, my idea for stopping (or slowing, rather) the oil spew goes something like this:

I saw on some television program (maybe on Discovery?) how they salvaged ships that got tipped over/stuck in the mud. Part of their equipment consists of a gigantic winch that used chain links made of some sort of metal (hard-cast iron?) that were each somewhere around 4 feet (don't remember exactly) long, and weighed a lot (at least 300 pounds, I think).

Make a bunch of these into a "net" of sorts; the final contraption should be something like an octagonal version of a mesh strainer (the food utensil thing). At least make two, but put the two layered to that the "length" of the chains are perpendicular to those in the other net.

Here's my crappy hand-drawn diagram:

You can ignore the handwritten words; I was thinking and writing simultaneously, so not only are they messy, but they don't make much sense anyway. The "perimeter" of the octagonal shape would be some sort of pipe or beam (like might be used in building construction, I'm guessing).

Use 16 helicopters to lift it, after putting a bunch of rocks or boulders on it. If 16 helicopters wouldn't be enough, make it 64 helicopters, by replacing each would-be helicopter with a cross-beam (x-shaped) that would attach at its center point, and use the "ends" of it as the helicopter attachment spots:

Is this explanation coherent, whether or not possible? (If so, is it possible and/or feasible?)

 

[stewartcs]

I have no idea where to put this thread, but I wanted to see if this even seems possible, whether or not feasible. Also, it may not be too easy to understand, because I don't know the proper terminology for what I'm trying to explain.

That said, my idea for stopping (or slowing, rather) the oil spew goes something like this:

I saw on some television program (maybe on Discovery?) how they salvaged ships that got tipped over/stuck in the mud. Part of their equipment consists of a gigantic winch that used chain links made of some sort of metal (hard-cast iron?) that were each somewhere around 4 feet (don't remember exactly) long, and weighed a lot (at least 300 pounds, I think).

Make a bunch of these into a "net" of sorts; the final contraption should be something like an octagonal version of a mesh strainer (the food utensil thing). At least make two, but put the two layered to that the "length" of the chains are perpendicular to those in the other net.

Here's my crappy hand-drawn diagram:

You can ignore the handwritten words; I was thinking and writing simultaneously, so not only are they messy, but they don't make much sense anyway. The "perimeter" of the octagonal shape would be some sort of pipe or beam (like might be used in building construction, I'm guessing).

Use 16 helicopters to lift it, after putting a bunch of rocks or boulders on it. If 16 helicopters wouldn't be enough, make it 64 helicopters, by replacing each would-be helicopter with a cross-beam (x-shaped) that would attach at its center point, and use the "ends" of it as the helicopter attachment spots:

Is this explanation coherent, whether or not possible? (If so, is it possible and/or feasible?)

What would they do with a bunch of rocks on a chain net suspended with helicopters?

CS

 

[stewartcs]

A tug with GPS. Perhaps two.



The idea is to piece together QUICKLY a flotilla of vessels and devices for the sole purpose of containing the oil.

I like fabric for at least [STRIKE] 3 4 5 6 7[/STRIKE] 8 reasons:
1. The tube could be manufactured in a day
2. It can be lowered to the leak in minutes
3. It's density(nylon anyways) is very near that of seawater, so it does not have to support it's own weight
4. It can be delivered to the leak deflated. No water intrusion means no methane hydrates.
5. It can be made any size you want
6. It's cheap
7. It's readily available
8. Ripstop comes in non-water permeable varieties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon#Explosion_and_oil_spill"

My original tube size was based simply on the standard width of material. It yielded a flow of ~1 foot per second(worst case leak). I've decided that this may be too high a rate given the viscosity of crude oil. See http://www.engineersedge.com/fluid_flow/pressure_drop/pressure_drop.htm"

Hmmm... Does anyone know if they make teflon lined fabric?

never mind. Google and it shall be answered: http://www.precisioncoating.com/coated-fabrics/precisionfab_tear_resistant.html"

One or two tugs are not capable of keeping a 1-mile diameter tube on location. The dynamically positioned vessels like the DW Horizon typically have eight azimuth thrusters and are only capable of keeping the drilling rig on location in usually up to 3-knots current. The vessels are no where near as large as what you are proposing with the tube.

And how long is the fabric tube again? 5000-ft? Not sure how a 5000-ft tube with a 1-mile diameter could be made in a day.

CS

 

[Borek]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=405948

 

[RonL]

One or two tugs are not capable of keeping a 1-mile diameter tube on location. The dynamically positioned vessels like the DW Horizon typically have eight azimuth thrusters and are only capable of keeping the drilling rig on location in usually up to 3-knots current. The vessels are no where near as large as what you are proposing with the tube.

And how long is the fabric tube again? 5000-ft? Not sure how a 5000-ft tube with a 1-mile diameter could be made in a day.

CS

The tube diameter is not 1 mile, The containment ring I mentioned, holding oil 2 meters deep, would be that size and the oil contained would be about 35,000 barrels.

The tube I mentioned, would be about 15' at the bottom and 100' at the top. Om thinks it can be much smaller, I hope he is right.

 

[stewartcs]

The tube diameter is not 1 mile, The containment ring I mentioned, holding oil 2 meters deep, would be that size and the oil contained would be about 35,000 barrels.

The tube I mentioned, would be about 15' at the bottom and 100' at the top. Om thinks it can be much smaller, I hope he is right.

You said this in post #148:

I just ran a quick calc, and a ring 1 mile in diameter and holding oil 2 meters thick will hold about 35,559 barrels of oil. This sounds close to what might be needed.

That's why I said 1-mile.

Anyway, if it is 100-ft at the top and 6.5-ft deep it sounds just like a big oil boom similar to what they are using already. They have problems with keeping them on station with the wave action and current.

CS

 

[OmCheeto]

One or two tugs are not capable of keeping a 1-mile diameter tube on location. The dynamically positioned vessels like the DW Horizon typically have eight azimuth thrusters and are only capable of keeping the drilling rig on location in usually up to 3-knots current. The vessels are no where near as large as what you are proposing with the tube.

And how long is the fabric tube again? 5000-ft? Not sure how a 5000-ft tube with a 1-mile diameter could be made in a day.

CS

I know it must be confusing with both Ron and I talking about the same thing. But the dimensions of our two systems are drastically different.

And I think I may have to drop out of the fabric business due to the numbers I just found:

http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=40&contentId=7061813"
Updated June 13 at 9:00am CDT / 3:00pm BST

For the last 12 hours on June 12 (noon to midnight), approximately 7,470 barrels of oil were collected and 17.1 million cubic feet of natural gas were flared.

This means that the gas is 400 times the volume of oil being collected.

It also means(if my calculations are correct) that if they are using a 19" ID pipe all the way to the surface, that the linear flow rate on exit will be about 137 mph.

This would explain the original 240 foot geyser.

But the BP numbers at least now give us something to scale everything to:

Ron's 100' diameter tube linear exit velocity: 0.035 mph
Om's 3' diameter tube linear exit velocity: 34.4 mph

I'd say something in between would have worked. But it looks as though they are now collecting a good portion of the oil from the well. Perhaps we can modify the fabric tube idea to collect the leakage from around the LMRP cap.

 

[cf8]

What would they do with a bunch of rocks on a chain net suspended with helicopters?

Set it down like a giant plug. Hopefully it would at least slow it down enough to give some more time for thinking through a better solution, or better yet, allow something to get close enough from underwater to put a bunch of sand to fill in the gaps between the rocks.

 

[RonL]

I think Om has started to realize the need to increase the tube size from the bottom 15' where oil and gas are ingested, then as it rises 5,000' it ejects out of a 100' opening.

The 100' opening can be some distance under the surface, but inside the ring of container boxes that form the containment area. (this seems to be an area of confusion)

A diffuser built inside the last one or two sections of the fabric tube, and having a pipe that rises far enough above the surface of the gulf (and floating oil) can flare the gas. This is one of the things I didn't want to start talking about, as it really starts to add to the confusion.

Glad you found the gas volume, Om I knew it was large, but that was more than I thought.

Not considering the money saved, by not having to clean up the beaches, the oil collected will pay for the project in a very short time. In my opinion project cost should not be a concern for one moment.


A question for thought, anyone that wants to comment,...
If the containment ring (1 mile in diameter) is constructed of ocean shipping containers that measure 8' X 8' X 40' long and they float in the vertical direction, 25' under water and 15' above water, the inside wall of the ring is sealed with a fabric layer to prevent the oil from leaking out,...how thick a layer of oil will be supported above and below the gulf water level??
I made mention of 2 meters, but I know it would be much more.

Ron

I made a mistake remembering my calucation, the 200' ring made from container boxes and holding oil 2 meters thick gives a value close to 35,000 barrels of oil.
So let's forget the one mile ring

 

[ViewsofMars]

BP Global - Gulf of Mexico response
Kent Wells technical update - released 12 June 2010
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9033572&contentId=7061710

I enjoyed viewing his video. Very informative!
"This technical update by Kent Wells outlines plans for the Q4000 Direct Connect and dual Long Term Containment options. Kent also explains the tentative timeline for deployment of these plans."
http://bp.concerts.com/gom/kentwellstechnicalupdate061010a.htm

 

[OmCheeto]

If the containment ring (1 mile in diameter) is constructed of ocean shipping containers that measure 8' X 8' X 40' long and they float in the vertical direction, 25' under water and 15' above water, the inside wall of the ring is sealed with a fabric layer to prevent the oil from leaking out,...how thick a layer of oil will be supported above and below the gulf water level??
I made mention of 2 meters, but I know it would be much more.

Ron

I made a mistake remembering my calucation, the 200' ring made from container boxes and holding oil 2 meters thick gives a value close to 35,000 barrels of oil.
So let's forget the one mile ring

No! I just calculated that a one mile diameter ring with 25 feet vertical containment would take 17 years to fill at the current leak rate.

Your new ring will fill up in only two days. Not even close to being an entertaining number.

 

[RonL]

No! I just calculated that a one mile diameter ring with 25 feet vertical containment would take 17 years to fill at the current leak rate.

Your new ring will fill up in only two days. Not even close to being an entertaining number.

We have some numbers that show it's possible to do something within reason for such a disaster.
but holding the containment ring of container boxes in place, as mentioned by cs, is the most critical thing to find an answer to.

Just the 200' ring with around 270 boxes and rigging would weigh in excess of 1,000 tons, not to mention the liquid oil being retained. Drilling and anchoring cables to the sea floor does not seem like something that would be a problem, seems that it would be a job on the same order of putting a well head and blow out preventer in place, before drilling a well is started.
The question is...how much mooring would it take to hold that in place?

 

[presence]

What the Kent Wells briefing tells me is that BP has NO PLANS to deal with the volume if it approaches even half of BP's own "worst case" estimate of 100 kbd.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/07/95467/bp-well-may-be-spewing.html

 

[RonL]

No! I just calculated that a one mile diameter ring with 25 feet vertical containment would take 17 years to fill at the current leak rate.

Your new ring will fill up in only two days. Not even close to being an entertaining number.

After looking at several sizes, somewhere between 300' and 500' for a containment ring would be worth consideration. Oil would have to be removed at the same rate it is accumulated, bad weather might disrupt for a few days but that's better than what we see now.

On land, every storage tank is required to have a retension design to catch the liquid in case of a tank failure. Requiring a method of capture in the ocean should be no different. A part of setting up for drilling could involve setting anchor points in the floor around the wellhead, spaced far enough out and around, so that some method of capture could be quickly put in place.

I'm not seeing other solutions that can be implemented as quickly or as cheap as this idea, it might not be the best design as presented, but the materials are all around the gulf and for a quick gap stop could be done quicker than August, (and what if a storm or two comes into the gulf??) we could be looking at Nov. or Dec. or longer.

If no one is looking at this, outside of this forum, and anyone has contacts that might at least evaluate the plan, please do something.

We see what fluids are excapeing the pipes as they are now, but oil, gas and saltwater along with abrasive materials, flowing at these pressures will quickly wear out the steel and rubber(if any is still there?). This flow could increase by even greater amounts.

Ron

P.S. Thanks OmCheeto for helping keep this alive

 

[OmCheeto]

P.S. Thanks OmCheeto for helping keep this alive

Not a problem.
But given the lack of data regarding just about everything, it's difficult to do anything but guess on what the best solution would be.

Now that I've a grasp on the tremendous amounts of gas being generated, the problem has been pretty much redefined.

It's actually difficult for me to imagine what is going on in the current riser.

We know that the gas remains in solution at the well head, and with a collection rate of 15,000 bbl's per day, the linear flow rate is about 1/2 foot per second.

Somewhere in the riser, the pressure is going to drop to a point where the gas is going to come out of solution, and increase the volumetric flow rate by a factor of 400. Mentos and Diet Coke is the only thing I can picture in my head. It would be interesting to see a video of the oil/gas mixture entering the surface ship.

But anyways, I think I'm going to switch from ripstop to kevlar, and double the diameter of my tube to 6 feet. This would yield a surface velocity of 14 ft/sec.

hmmm.. Does anyone know the viscosity of oil-gas foam?

 

[xxChrisxx]

The containment operation appears to acutally be going relatively well now, currently about 18k barrels per day are being collected with provisions for 10k more by the middle/end of the month, with other long term containment options being implemented.

On another note I had a visit to Cameron today and saw some subsea christmas trees, I knew this stuff was fairly big, but it's simply staggering when you stand next to it.

 

[Pattonias]

If you follow the ever increasing estimates at the flow of the spill, 18k barrels a day is a drop in the bucket. I'm still finding it frustrating that people consider an estimate to be between 20k and 45k and still make reference to it when judging our progress. A difference of 25k is enough to say that all we know is that we don't know how much oil is leaking. I even heard an estimate of 80k barrels today on the news. I think people are just making up numbers now.

They seem to have at least solved the gas crystalization problem they had before. Perhaps, we are just waiting on the next level of this new method.

 

[xxChrisxx]

If you follow the ever increasing estimates at the flow of the spill, 18k barrels a day is a drop in the bucket. I'm still finding it frustrating that people consider an estimate to be between 20k and 45k and still make reference to it when judging our progress. A difference of 25k is enough to say that all we know is that we don't know how much oil is leaking. I even heard an estimate of 80k barrels today on the news. I think people are just making up numbers now.

They seem to have at least solved the gas crystalization problem they had before. Perhaps, we are just waiting on the next level of this new method.

This is the actual amount collected, and 18k is better then zero barrels.

Point being, this is being approached in a measured and viable way and progress is being made.

 

[mheslep]

If you follow the ever increasing estimates at the flow of the spill, 18k barrels a day is a drop in the bucket.

If you have reached the point where you see 18,000 barrels per day (756,000 gallons) of oil as a 'drop in the bucket' then consider that you may be watching too much sensational TV news.

 

[Pattonias]

If you have reached the point where you see 18,000 barrels per day (756,000 gallons) of oil as a 'drop in the bucket' then consider that you may be watching too much sensational TV news.

I was implying that due to the sensational news that 18,000 barrels a day is seen by the public as a drop in the bucket. I realize that this is a major break-through as compared to the previous zero barrels a day being captured directly from the well. Don't worry, I'm really happy that something finally worked.

 

[RonL]

Kevlar,
I think that might be more than needed, as the water pressure around the tube will always be only a little different than the inside pressure.

My day was a little slow yesterday and I had some time to do a little calculating and based around the gas volume that OmCheeto gave, being flared in a 12 hour period, the size of the tube can be reduced to 50' at the top. A volume of 25,000 cfm would eject from the opening and I think it would look like a pot of boiling water at full boil. This would be in the center of a containment area several hundred feet in diameter.

My figures came out to show what I think would be practical for a design...

822 container boxes to build a confinment area 500' in diameter (4 bands of boxes) the total floating capacity of weight 65,000 tons. For the proper depth of floatation they would be allowed to fill with water to the point of 50% they would support around 30,000 tons.

The cost of boxes and assembley about 2.5 million dollars.


The tube would be 15' at bottom, 5,000' long, and 50' at the surface.
A weight of 28 tons and a cost of about 1 million dollars.

A fabric liner inside the ring of boxes, would be 1570' X 40' and weigh about 3.5 tons. A cost of about 120,000 dollars.


The 500' ring would contain close to 500,000 barrels of oil if held at 12' in depth.
The total weight of the ring and fabric materials would be just over 3'000 tons. As one can see the ring will support the weight of everything including however much cable or chain is needed to hold things in position.

I have no idea how to calculate the strength or how many mooring points might be needed to hold this in position.
It might be that thrusters could be placed in different locations, with the ability to detach and move them to other points, or the contracting of pushboats to keep things in position.

Considering this to be a portable emergency response design things need to be able to be moved in sections and assembled in a short time.
This is workable and at 5 to 10 million dollars a very affordable solution to contain a broken well while it is being repaired.
Boxes are being discarded in great numbers and used in many ways and when banded together in a proper number should absorb almost any wave energy that is normally seen in the gulf of mexico.

I would like to see anyone with the engineering skills, put a little effort into the problem of holding this mass in place, should it be moorings, thrusters or boats.

I'm out of time, later.

RonL

 

[johnl]

This has been mentioned by many others in one form or another, place a new valve body on top of the existing one. It doesn't seem to be a solution anyone is interested in, I'm wondering why it wouldn't work?

If it were lowered with the valve open, to help prevent it from being blown away, straight through design. To prevent icing pump methanol through it at side ports (valved for shut-off later). Bolt or clamp on to existing flange.

Do the ROV's have the capacity to remove the existing top flange bolts at the break, and bolt or clamp the new section in?

Is there a fear that the existing BOP and well have been compromised to where they wouldn't be able to contain the pressure if the new valve were closed at the top?

 

[stewartcs]

This has been mentioned by many others in one form or another, place a new valve body on top of the existing one. It doesn't seem to be a solution anyone is interested in, I'm wondering why it wouldn't work?

If it were lowered with the valve open, to help prevent it from being blown away, straight through design. To prevent icing pump methanol through it at side ports (valved for shut-off later). Bolt or clamp on to existing flange.

...

Is there a fear that the existing BOP and well have been compromised to where they wouldn't be able to contain the pressure if the new valve were closed at the top?

They are probably concerned with the casing being compromised and the geology not being able to contain the pressure. If it can't and the casing has failed, then the well can essentially blow out around the wellhead.

Do the ROV's have the capacity to remove the existing top flange bolts at the break, and bolt or clamp the new section in?

They wouldn't use an ROV for that, they would just remove the old LMRP and land a new one in its place.

CS

 

[BW338]

Cut a hole in the hull of an old tanker. Scuttle it over the well. Capture 100% of the oil and gas.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Cut a hole in the hull of an old tanker. Scuttle it over the well. Capture 100% of the oil and gas.

And this tanker has infinite volume does it?

 

[BW338]

Consider it a large accumulator from which to extract the oil.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Consider it a large accumulator from which to extract the oil.

But it's not is it? It'll be several thousand tons of scrap metal sitting on top of a leaky well with no viable way to stop the leak OR get the oil from the sunken tanker.

 

[perd1t1on]

I haven't been able to find any information on the architecture of the well nor am I a physics wiz, but would it be a possible solution at least temporarily to use a 'car crushing' like mechanism to seal the well and then worry about capping it 'correctly' later? It just seems like if they had some kind of boat with a pressurized bailer like crushing tool they could flatten the sides of the well and limit the amount of oil coming out to prevent further damage to the ecosystem. That really should be the top priority for now, preventing further damage to the ecosystem.

 

[perd1t1on]

And this tanker has infinite volume does it?

actually that seems like a solution if they could connect the tanker's volume to the shoreline and have it quarantined (and barrelled) as quickly as possible. Maybe even divide the locations that on the shoreline so it doesn't gush uncontrollably to one location.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I haven't been able to find any information on the architecture of the well nor am I a physics wiz, but would it be a possible solution at least temporarily to use a 'car crushing' like mechanism to seal the well and then worry about capping it 'correctly' later? It just seems like if they had some kind of boat with a pressurized bailer like crushing tool they could flatten the sides of the well and limit the amount of oil coming out to prevent further damage to the ecosystem. That really should be the top priority for now, preventing further damage to the ecosystem.

It's not really fasable to do that as there is nowhere to acutally physically get to the pipe to crimp it shut, that is essentially how the BOP works.

May I suggest that you visit BP's site, there are technical updates there in the GOM video responce.
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9033572&contentId=7061710

I'll find the most relevant tehcnical update
http://bp.concerts.com/gom/kentwellstechnicalupdate061010a.htm

There is no way to connect a sunk tanker to anywhere, that's the problem with BW's plan.

 

[johnl]

They are probably concerned with the casing being compromised and the geology not being able to contain the pressure. If it can't and the casing has failed, then the well can essentially blow out around the wellhead.



They wouldn't use an ROV for that, they would just remove the old LMRP and land a new one in its place.

CS

Thankyou, that makes sense.

There is some interesting discussion going on at another forum called The Oil Drum I think people here might enjoy if anyone wants to check them out. Some political, some more technical.

 

[dr dodge]

I'm back for a bit
I read all this thread, and am proud of ya'll
good, old, out of the box thinking. great stuff

as to this insane re-occuring theme to use explosives:

any exothermic reaction down deep can potentially heat and liberate a massive amount of the "methane hydrate snow" that is disolved in the water. IMHO this is the big, hidden danger. If you calculate the volume of gas possibly suspended for the 2 months this thing has been leaking for, even based upon the initial low flow figures, corrected to atm pressure it is unbelievable.

I really worry that "someone" is going to get desperate to make the problem (and PR nitemare) go away and use the nuke idea. think about the vapor bomb all that methane could produce. I seriously think that option is still being entertained, and an un-educated response to a public relations nightmare

but, if they nuke us, at least BP won't have to pay all the residents on the gulf for their lost lives.

keep brainstorming ya'll, and hopefully someone will listen to the voices of reason

dr

 

[johnl]

My own (unexperienced) take on using explosives, conventional or nuclear, would be that the possibility of creating a much larger problem makes such an approach "a terrible idea". I picture creating a few acres of fissures in the seabed that leak oil in a way that would be much harder to manage than the current situation. I don't think anyone is seriously considering this as an option. (I hope).


Looking at the current situation, if they are affraid of putting additional backpressure on the well by capping it, I think they could collect more oil by having a couple more vessels drawing off of the "top hat" that is now feeding just 2 vessels. As it stands it sounds like they are recovering maybe 20-30%.

 

[Pattonias]

but, if they nuke us, at least BP won't have to pay all the residents on the gulf for their lost lives.

You think a nuke in the middle of the gulf would kill all the people who live on the coast?

Anyway, they are not going to nuke anything.

 

[dr dodge]

since the methane turned to ice on the first attempt, how about, at the bottom of ya'lls "pillowcase" we first have all the flow go thru something that looks like king kongs bread rack (like Subway fast food)

the jet of methane/oil hits the removable racks, turns to thick ice, then an ROV removes the rack and places it in a sunken shipping container where the gas can be drawn off slowly by warming with water from higher up. the oil, without the disolved gas looses significant volume and becomes (slightly) easier to control

and no boiling at the surface in the "containment area"

unfortunately the explosives are still being "mentioned"
and the pres has nuclear scientists on the team
I want to believe that they are there for molecular behavior info, but...who knows

dr

 

[OmCheeto]

ya'lls "pillowcase"

...

dr

By gads! Pillowcases!

Really big ones. I'm talking hot air balloon sized. 100k ft³

We'd fill them up from a turret of spigots. It'd only take 4 minutes to fill each one. Cinch the bottom, and let them float to the surface. The prevailing winds would carry them off to Haiti, or such places. Gobs of methane and a bit of crude I'm sure would make them happy.

hmmmm... 4 minutes each. That's only 15 per hour, or 360 per day.

How many hot air balloons are there in the world?

But what a sight, covering the gulf...

hot air balloons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon#Sizes
7.26 gal/sec oil
2,961 gal/sec gas
100000 ft^3 = 748000 gallons
252.63 seconds to fill up balloon
4.21 minutes to fill up balloon
1,834.74 gallons of oil in 253 seconds

 

[socean]

What about changing the physical properties of the oil so its easier to collect? E.g. particles or threads that are engineered to have oliophillic receptors to bind the oil into huge jelly-like globs. Maybe even introduce something that also produces some sort of gas so the globs really float to the surface where we can get them. We could also add chemical tags to various batches so we could determine later where the oil came from based on where each tagged batch was released. That way we might be able to also identify other pockets of "wild" oil.

Once we got all we could we could introduce particles that sequestered the oil and made it heavier and less reactive, basically tiny weighted sponges.

Following that, we might introduce some bioactive particles that can metabolize hydrocarbons so that they are broken down.

What about it nano-guys? Can't you cook something like this up. Maybe start with fullerenes and/or nanotubes and dope them so that parts of the surfaces bind strongly with hydrocarbons.

 

[dr dodge]

glad you liked the pillow cases. I wonder how much they could lift? If they had a reasonable lifting quality the addded uses are vast. We could start with project BP airlift, where we take BP execs that made all the wonderful decisions that got us in this situation today, give them a cell phone and do some long term jet stream measurements. just call us when you come down...lol

dr

 

[Pattonias]

Solutions seem to be taking a turn toward the less plausible.

 

[OmCheeto]

glad you liked the pillow cases. I wonder how much they could lift? If they had a reasonable lifting quality the addded uses are vast. We could start with project BP airlift, where we take BP execs that made all the wonderful decisions that got us in this situation today, give them a cell phone and do some long term jet stream measurements. just call us when you come down...lol

dr

Sorry to pop your bubble, but each of the 100k ft³ balloons would also contain 44 barrels of oil. They would not fly.

hmmmmm...

Unless of course you empty out the oil once they get to the surface. Then we could attach a basket, but the BP'ers in the baskets, and ignite the methane. Then they might fly.

 

[johnl]

We're obviously going to need a way to separate the gas from the oil before filling the balloons. Also, we will need to figure out how much gas to put into the balloons, since they will expand considerably as they rise.

 

[dr dodge]

We're obviously going to need a way to separate the gas from the oil before filling the balloons. Also, we will need to figure out how much gas to put into the balloons, since they will expand considerably as they rise.

intentionally form the hydrates on steel plates in a rack
remove the plates when "full"
move them to a sunk shipping container
then fill the ballons from a vent in the top as the indise is warmed with water from higher up

dr

 

[Pattonias]

Do you think you could implement this before they finish the relief wells?

 

[dr dodge]

easy, with a vertical rack, and steel plates alternating gaps, a couple ROVs and a container with a pipe welded on the top. all kidding aside, the ballons would not be needed, because if you ran the vent pipe to a CNG compressor and filled a tanker, the methane would be controlled. without the expanding gas, the "pillow case coral" idea would have a lot better shot at working.

has anyone ever seem the oil remover that is on CNC machines?

its a rotating disc with a coulpe wipers on its side. think "tesla turbine" rotor design that let's surface tension draw the oil up, and scrappers that remove it to the sump of a barge, where it then gets pumped out to a tanker

dr

 

[johnl]

I think expanding the capacity of surface capture (by adding more vessels) to process more of the current plume will be the answer, up until the bottom kill is attempted. This is actually what they are working on now. The main delay comes from the relatively slow speeds in sea transport, getting those vessels in place from who knows where (The North Sea?).

If you haven't read it...


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/17/v-print/96112/transcript-of-adm-thad-allens.html"

 

[DrClapeyron]

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967

From what I read in this article, best case is to let all the oil bleed out, let the algae it eat, and deal with the massive dead zone.