Fixing the Gulf oil spill problem

[RonL]

Just lost a long post, will try again tonight.

For those that want to blow things up, just think about how water flows thru a gravel filter bed. There is no amount of rubble that would contain the pressure of this leak.

 

[gmax137]

I'm not raging about the spill. I've been getting more and more irritated about the vindictive way this is being handled.

I've started to hear BP being referred to as 'foreign oil company'. Basically they are highlighting thee fact it used to be 'British Petroleum' with extreme emphasis on the British bit. Basically deflecting, BP is 50% american owned, the Wellhead and BOP companies are (Cameron iirc) American, the company sealing the well was American.

I'm not saying leave BP alone, as until this is solved they need to be pressured. I'm getting annoyed with the fact this **** is being dumped on 'Britains' doorstep as though "Us limeys" we've come into your lovely American home, peed on the dog, taken a dump on the couch and then left. If this were Chevron's mess you can gaurantee that people wouldn't be going after it in such a vindictive manner.

I just believe overall the entire situation could have been politically handled better.

The above is why I edited it out, it's going to cause flames.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. On the other hand, Exxon was really vilified at the time of the Valdez spill, and there are people who still won't buy gasoline from them.

 

[stewartcs]

Hadn't even thought of it. Very good point. Perhaps though we don't need to keep it vertical, but extend it's length perhaps an extra mile or two, and let it go with the flow.

It's difficult to tell really what the currents are from those images. It appears to somewhere between zero and 10 cm/sec in the region of the well head.

I just found the following http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/interactive.spill.tracker/index.html" from start to today. The flow seems to be somewhat random.


I disagree. Sitting around looking at computer models isn't going to do anything when you really don't have proper data to do the analysis in the first place.

How is the fabric tube attached at the surface again?

Here is a typical 10-yr loop current profile for the GOM:

[ft]        [knots]
mwl         3.15
82          3.15
164         3.13
246         2.82
328         2.39
400         2.12
410         2.08
492         1.85
574         1.67
656         1.50
738         1.34
820         1.24
902         1.15
984         1.05
1066        0.97
1148        0.89
1230        0.86
1312        0.80
1394        0.74
1476        0.70
1558        0.68
1640        0.64
1722        0.60
1804        0.56
1886        0.54
1968        0.51
2050        0.49
2132        0.47
2214        0.45
2296        0.45
2378        0.43
2460        0.41
2542        0.39
2624        0.37
2706        0.31
2788        0.27
2870        0.23
2952        0.19
3000        0.17
3034        0.16
3116        0.12
3198        0.12
3280        0.16
seafloor    0.16

We don't need a CFD model, although I generally agree it is better to model the design before building it. We typically use specialty software (not CFD) to model the riser. Something similar could be used for your proposal - we have all the data we need for the structural piece.

CS

 

[oil-TNTno-oil]

Yes, very helpful. It's not as though they've been trying to stop it.

EDIT: You also can't collapse the well with conventional explosives, that would just make things much much worse, the magnitude of a conventional explosive wouldn't be enough to create a seal and after you've blown it up there is nothing else you can do as you've destroyed the structure.

If you do what you suggest, you'll just end up with oil pouring out of a gaping hole in the ground of undetermined size, rather than something that is relatively more controllable.

The pipe is only so many feet wide. If you have several offset explosions from side to side from bottom to the top it will CAVE IN the ground.
I know it would work. Do you know how heavy only 10 feet of dirt and rocks are?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-05/can-explosives-stop-the-oil-spill/

 

[xxChrisxx]

The pipe is only so many feet wide. If you have several offset explosions from side to side from bottom to the top it will CAVE IN the ground.
I know it would work. Do you know how heavy only 10 feet of dirt and rocks are?

It doesn't matter, oil a bloody fluid it flows through cracks, blowing stuff up doesn't create a seal. Water flows through millions of tons of sedement and rock every day. And don't talk ****, you don't know it would work, you blindly think it might work and are ignorant to the consequences of such actions.

It's far to risky to even attempt, as if it doesn't work (and conventional explosives probably wont) you have removed ALL options to cap it.

 

[oil-TNTno-oil]

It doesn't matter, oil a bloody fluid it flows through cracks, blowing stuff up doesn't create a seal. Water flows through millions of tons of sedement and rock every day. And don't talk ****, you don't know it would work, you blindly think it might work and are ignorant to the consequences of such actions.

It's far to risky to even attempt, as if it doesn't work (and conventional explosives probably wont) you have removed ALL options to cap it.

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.

 

[OmCheeto]

How is the fabric tube attached at the surface again?

...

CS

The tube is attached to some type of floating container vessel. Preferably the underside of the vessel. The idea is that the tube never be subjected to any type of static pressure. The oil simply needs to get to the surface and be contained.

I researched supertanker capacities this morning and found that the largest tanker in the world would be filled with the oil from the leak in about 33 days.

Perhaps Ron's been spending more time on the problem than I, and decided that we don't have the capacity to store this volume of oil anywhere in the given timeframe. Hence, his monstrous tube dimensions.

 

[RonL]

The tube is attached to some type of floating container vessel. Preferably the underside of the vessel. The idea is that the tube never be subjected to any type of static pressure. The oil simply needs to get to the surface and be contained.

I researched supertanker capacities this morning and found that the largest tanker in the world would be filled with the oil from the leak in about 33 days.

Perhaps Ron's been spending more time on the problem than I, and decided that we don't have the capacity to store this volume of oil anywhere in the given timeframe. Hence, his monstrous tube dimensions.

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.

My first outlandish statement was a ring 10 miles in diameter, maybe not outlandish? but certainly too much.

My thought for the ring is to use the very large surplus of ocean shipping containers that are in great abundance all along the gulf ports.
They would float in a vertical position, locked together with the strongest rigging possible. Three or four inner tubes for large loader wheels, inflated inside would keep them floating. Air valves and lines sealed and secured in an accessable and secure location would allow for proper inflation to produce the right floatation levels. (containers weigh about 7,000 pounds ea.)
They would need to float about 10 or 15 feet above, with 25 or 30 feet below the water.

I figure each container would cost in the neighborhood of 3,000 dollars, in place. The cost of a ring 200' in diameter would require about 90 containers for a price of close to $250,000 dollars. The ring would likely need to be three or four boxes thick. This would run the cost close to 1 million dollars.

A little movement to absorb energy at each connection, but not enough to let momentum build will let the wave energy be distributed to several boxes.

A ring this size would have to be pumped as fast as it fills.

It is my thought this might be the fastest method (and cheapest) to construct a containment that might withstand the forces of the gulf waters.

Ron

P.S. I had mentioned very large concrete pads with cables attached and going to the floating ring, which would hold the fabric tube in place, but after reading other post, these cables might need to be set and locked to the sea floor.

 

[stewartcs]

The tube is attached to some type of floating container vessel. Preferably the underside of the vessel. The idea is that the tube never be subjected to any type of static pressure. The oil simply needs to get to the surface and be contained.

I researched supertanker capacities this morning and found that the largest tanker in the world would be filled with the oil from the leak in about 33 days.

Perhaps Ron's been spending more time on the problem than I, and decided that we don't have the capacity to store this volume of oil anywhere in the given timeframe. Hence, his monstrous tube dimensions.

And what will keep the floating container vessel on location?

CS

 

[stewartcs]

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.

My first outlandish statement was a ring 10 miles in diameter, maybe not outlandish? but certainly too much.

My thought for the ring is to use the very large surplus of ocean shipping containers that are in great abundance all along the gulf ports.
They would float in a vertical position, locked together with the strongest rigging possible. Three or four inner tubes for large loader wheels, inflated inside would keep them floating. Air valves and lines sealed and secured in an accessable and secure location would allow for proper inflation to produce the right floatation levels. (containers weigh about 7,000 pounds ea.)
They would need to float about 10 or 15 feet above, with 25 or 30 feet below the water.

I figure each container would cost in the neighborhood of 3,000 dollars, in place. The cost of a ring 200' in diameter would require about 90 containers for a price of close to $250,000 dollars. The ring would likely need to be three or four boxes thick. This would run the cost close to 1 million dollars.

A little movement to absorb energy at each connection, but not enough to let momentum build will let the wave energy be distributed to several boxes.

A ring this size would have to be pumped as fast as it fills.

It is my thought this might be the fastest method (and cheapest) to construct a containment that might withstand the forces of the gulf waters.

Ron

P.S. I had mentioned very large concrete pads with cables attached and going to the floating ring, which would hold the fabric tube in place, but after reading other post, these cables might need to be set and locked to the sea floor.

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

 

[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