News Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

[Ivan Seeking]

... At depths accessible only by remote vehicles, Allen [CEO of BP] said it's "more like Apollo 13 than the Exxon Valdez, except it's got an oil spill attached to it that is very, very serious...

Like trying to rescue the Apollo 13? I don't recall that level of difficulty being mentioned in the pro-drilling propaganda.

Meanwhile, a Mason-Dixon poll released Friday uncovered a significant shift from last year in Floridians' opinions of offshore drilling.

The poll conducted this week found only 35 percent of Florida voters support offshore drilling, while 55 percent oppose it. That's in stark contrast to last June, when 55 percent of voters favored offshore drilling and 31 percent opposed it.

"Republicans are now the only group to still favor drilling, but even that support has dropped significantly," said Mason-Dixon pollster Brad Coker.

In the lastest poll, 57 percent of Republicans support drilling, a drop from the 80 percent who favored drilling last year...

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/05/07/1256227/giant-dome-lowered-toward-gulf.html#ixzz0nHRbKkeB

Good! It is time to take a deep breath and recognize the risks associated with our energy choices. Probably as much as anyone, I want to see energy independence for the U.S., but not that we pursue any and every option with reckless abandon. This is what bothered me so much about the drill baby drill nonsense: It was a mindless fervor used for political gain. Our energy choices need to be well considered and well regulated and not driven by the rants of the political bubblegum crowd.

 

[russ_watters]

Good! It is time to take a deep breath and recognize the risks associated with our energy choices. Probably as much as anyone, I want to see energy independence for the U.S., but not that we pursue any and every option with reckless abandon. This is what bothered me so much about the drill baby drill nonsense: It was a mindless fervor used for political gain. Our energy choices need to be well considered and well regulated and not driven by the rants of the political bubblegum crowd.

You have this all exactly backwards. It is making decisions and polling opinions in the middle of a crisis that reflects "mindless fervor" and "rants" (not sure what a "bubblegum crowd" is though). Most of your posting in this thread has been a clear example of this: lots of emotion, little logic and very light on factual basis. "Taking a deep breath" is what happens after a crisis, when people who are blinded by the crisis are more likely to "take a deep breath" and consider logically the risks instead of just losing control and letting their minds wander to "nonsense" conclusions and opinions, making them spew "mindless" "propaganda".

Right now, workers are trying to maneuver the dome into position. As reported [CNN], they have to be careful to avoid damaging the blow-out preventer or the leak could be made as much as ten times worse. So that appears to be the upper limit worst case scenario - something more like 50,000 barrels per day, or two-million gallons per day. Given the worst case, this would put the theoretical limit on the volume of this spill at 180 million gallons, or 630,000 tons of oil.

That's reasonable.

Let's hope that we get lucky. Hope and luck, not much to go on.

That's not. It doesn't take "luck" for the worst case to not happen, it takes [bad] luck for the worst case to happen!

Why would a well be designed such that a two-million gallons per day leak is possible under ANY circumstances?

Nor is that. Quite obviously, a two-million gallon a day leak is not part of the design and again, zero probability is neither reasonable nor possible.

The [large] size of the well is dictated by how much you pump out of it and how big it has to be to support the required equipment. But at the same time the large size of the well is what sets the limit in the potential spill size.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

You have this all exactly backwards. It is making decisions and polling opinions in the middle of a crisis that reflects "mindless fervor" and "rants" (not sure what a "bubblegum crowd" is though). Most of your posting in this thread has been a clear example of this: lots of emotion, little logic and very light on factual basis. "Taking a deep breath" is what happens after a crisis, when people who are blinded by the crisis are more likely to "take a deep breath" and consider logically the risks instead of just losing control and letting their minds wander to "nonsense" conclusions and opinions, making them spew "mindless" "propaganda". That's reasonable. That's not. It doesn't take "luck" for the worst case to not happen, it takes [bad] luck for the worst case to happen! Nor is that. Quite obviously, a two-million gallon a day leak is not part of the design and again, zero probability is neither reasonable nor possible.

The [large] size of the well is dictated by how much you pump out of it and how big it has to be to support the required equipment. But at the same time the large size of the well is what sets the limit in the potential spill size.

I will say this, for now this leak is unfortunate and damaging to industry and marine life, but it is not "doom". Make that 680,000 gallons of oil per day, and the impact would be catastrophic. That would put BP out of business overnight, and I don't believe anyone knows what the environmental impact would be, other than to say it would be terrible. There is something to the argument that wells of this flow-rate/size should not be drilled so so deep, when a worst-case scenario from the outset would have been catastrophic for everyone involved, including BP!

It is not fit to assume that all will be well; one assumes Murphey's law, and what can go wrong, will, and at the worst possible time. You cannot plan for every failure, or it would make oil impossible, and we do need oil. You also should not allow for failure so massive, that it could result in unforeseeable impact. It is hard enough to cap a 5,000 barrel/day leak at 5,000 feet. I do not know of a rapid way to stop a leak 10x that large at that depth, and how long can such a leak be allowed to continue? 180 million gallons is unthinkable as a spill into this gulf, as is 20 or 30 million. What we have now is no good at all, but it is not Ragnarok either. I hope the 10x figure is simply wrong, and this IS the leak at full flow, and barring this, that the cap and siphon works.

 

[Astronuc]

Once they get the dome in place and start recovering the oil, I would imagine we'd get a better idea of the flow rate from the damaged well.


Bubble of methane triggered rig blast
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill

ON THE GULF OF MEXICO – The deadly blowout of an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico was triggered by a bubble of methane gas that escaped from the well and shot up the drill column, expanding quickly as it burst through several seals and barriers before exploding, according to interviews with rig workers conducted during BP's internal investigation.

While the cause of the explosion is still under investigation, the sequence of events described in the interviews provides the most detailed account of the April 20 blast that killed 11 workers and touched off the underwater gusher that has poured more than 3 million gallons of crude into the Gulf.
. . . .
Up on the rig, the first thing workers noticed was the sea water in the drill column suddenly shooting back at them, rocketing 240 feet in the air, he said. Then, gas surfaced. Then oil.

"What we had learned when I worked as a drill rig laborer was swoosh, boom, run," Bea said. "The swoosh is the gas, boom is the explosion and run is what you better be doing."

The gas flooded into an adjoining room with exposed ignition sources, he said.

. . . .

Presumably, they hit a pocket of methane/methane clathrate.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Once they get the dome in place and start recovering the oil, I would imagine we'd get a better idea of the flow rate from the damaged well.


Bubble of methane triggered rig blast
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill
Presumably, they hit a pocket of methane/methane clathrate.

The leak aside, those poor people on the rig never had a chance if they hit a methane seam.

 

[russ_watters]

Once they get the dome in place and start recovering the oil, I would imagine we'd get a better idea of the flow rate from the damaged well.

I was thinking that too - they can measure the flow rate once they start recovering it, then back-calculate to what the total spill size has been...

...though it isn't quite that simple since they'll be pulling a water/oil slurry out.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I was thinking that too - they can measure the flow rate once they start recovering it, then back-calculate to what the total spill size has been...

...though it isn't quite that simple since they'll be pulling a water/oil slurry out.

They must be careful about that, lest they freeze the pipes with expanding LNG or freezing water. If this works, it will be an amazing feat of engineering at this depth, and it would make me MORE confident in drilling I think.

 

[PRDan4th]

It seems obvious that setting a cement seal below the sea floor caused an exothermic reaction that warmed the methane hydrate releasing a gas bubble which expanded greatly as it rose from 5000 feet (about 2200PSI) to the platform surface. This may be a fatal flaw in deep water oil production as the produced oil will be warmer than the sea floor and the risk of methane hydrate "melting" could occur at any time after production starts. The clathrate or hydrate is stable at high pressure and cold temperature. If either pressure is reduced or temperature is increased the solid hydrate will evolve its trapped methane gas molecules.

 

[pallidin]

This may be a fatal flaw in deep water oil production as the produced oil will be warmer than the sea floor and the risk of methane hydrate "melting" could occur at any time after production starts. The clathrate or hydrate is stable at high pressure and cold temperature. If either pressure is reduced or temperature is increased the solid hydrate will evolve its trapped methane gas molecules.

That's an interesting observation. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For the moment, the dome has failed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You have this all exactly backwards. It is making decisions and polling opinions in the middle of a crisis that reflects "mindless fervor" and "rants" (not sure what a "bubblegum crowd" is though). Most of your posting in this thread has been a clear example of this: lots of emotion, little logic and very light on factual basis. "Taking a deep breath" is what happens after a crisis, when people who are blinded by the crisis are more likely to "take a deep breath" and consider logically the risks instead of just losing control and letting their minds wander to "nonsense" conclusions and opinions, making them spew "mindless" "propaganda". That's reasonable. That's not. It doesn't take "luck" for the worst case to not happen, it takes [bad] luck for the worst case to happen! Nor is that. Quite obviously, a two-million gallon a day leak is not part of the design and again, zero probability is neither reasonable nor possible.

Russ, pay attention. It was stated that the leak could be that bad if they damage the blowout preventer with the dome. I did wonder [in print] why the well head itself allows that much flow without the BOP. Can they normally handle 2 million gallons per day? Maybe so.

As for the rest, people will take a much harder look at this AND, hopefully, nuclear power. No doubt we have heard the last of drill baby drill from the bubblegum crowd! This isn't a game, as some would seem to suggest. It is serious business with the real potential for disaster.

Accidents happen, but there is NO excuse for having no planned response or way to manage this. At this point they are shooting from the hip. Now is not the time to be brainstorming solutions. That should have been done long ago. So, once again, we see that industry cannot be trusted.

 

[russ_watters]

It seems obvious that setting a cement seal below the sea floor caused an exothermic reaction that warmed the methane hydrate releasing a gas bubble which expanded greatly as it rose from 5000 feet (about 2200PSI) to the platform surface.

Uh, really? Do you know when the last time they poured cement in this well was? Do you know how many such wells there are and how rare this is?

That seems wildy speculative to me.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, pay attention. It was stated that the leak could be that bad if they damage the blowout preventer with the dome.

Clearly, you misread my post. In any case, I'm stilly waiting for you to provide references to back up your wildly silly claims from your other posts. Again, where did you get the "hundreds of billions of dollars" of damage claim you made earlier?

As for the rest, people will take a much harder look at this AND, hopefully, nuclear power. No doubt we have heard the last of drill baby drill from the bubblegum crowd!

Could you define "bubblegum crowd" for me please - I've never heard the term before.

This isn't a game, as some would seem to suggest. It is serious business with the real potential for disaster.

Indeed, Ivan: you really should take it more seriously. Ie:

Accidents happen, but there is NO excuse for having no planned response or way to manage this. At this point they are shooting from the hip. Now is not the time to be brainstorming solutions. That should have been done long ago. So, once again, we see that industry cannot be trusted.

You started with something reasonable there, but as with most of the rest of your posts here, you expanded it into a pointless generalization.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I don't mean to be rude, but it doesn't set a very good example for everyone when two mentors are engaging in verbal sparring that would have shut down most threads from what I've seen.

Oh yes, hydrates forming in the done caused them to move it and leave it on the sea-floor to the side of it. "They are not giving up" says one on CNN, and now they are considering pumping ethanol or hot water (5000'?!) and try this. This doesn't look very promising I think.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Clearly, you misread my post. In any case, I'm stilly waiting for you to provide references to back up your wildly silly claims from your other posts. Again, where did you get the "hundreds of billions of dollars" of damage claim you made earlier?

Ah, I missed that objection. That was based on discussions with experts on CNN. I will have to do a little digging to see if I can find a source online.

I can cite the source of the 2 million gallons per day statement: Miles O'Brien, who is the CNN technical specialist. I will again see if I can dig up an online source. Clearly even BP admits to the one-million gallon per day potential discussed previously, because they never denied it was possible when the assertion was made. They only said that they didn't think it was that big.

Nonetheless, as stated, this was as reported. I didn't claim to have an online source, but I will try to find one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for bubblegum, that hardly needs explaining. Sarah Palin.

 

[russ_watters]

Ah, I missed that objection. That was based on discussions with experts on CNN. I will have to do a little digging to see if I can find a source online.

I can cite the source of the 2 million gallons per day statement: Miles O'Brien, who is the CNN technical specialist. I will again see if I can dig up an online source. Clearly even BP admits to the one-million gallon per day potential discussed previously, because they never denied it was possible when the assertion was made. They only said that they didn't think it was that big.

Nonetheless, as stated, this was as reported. I didn't claim to have an online source, but I will try to find one.

Ivan, I believe you think you heard it. We both know that a random TV talking-head can say things that don't make sense or are wrong. Maybe you misheard, maybe the person misspoke, maybe he just didn't know what he was talking about. What I'm really looking for here is for you to be reasonable. Put some thought into the idea that this could cost "hundreds of billions of dollars". Don't just react. Think about it and realize that the idea is just silly.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Ivan, I believe you think you heard it. We both know that a random TV talking-head can say things that don't make sense or are wrong. Maybe you misheard, maybe the person misspoke, maybe he just didn't know what he was talking about. What I'm really looking for here is for you to be reasonable. Put some thought into the idea that this could cost "hundreds of billions of dollars". Don't just react. Think about it and realize that the idea is just silly.

What is on the TV right now about this is so scattered it is almost nonsense. Even an expert is probably reading copy, and saying "billions" instead of "millions" would get less of a shave from Occam's Razor. I understand reaction too I must say, this is distressing, and I think it makes many feel helpless and angry. As you say, this is not how a discussion of the topic can proceed however. I would like to find marine-life experts who agree as to the damage. I keep hearing, "It's going to be terrible, but we have no idea how terrible." Really? That means you don't know at all! I have no doubt there will be damage, but that is not good information.

 

[turbo]

Nobody knows, IE! They are pumping dispersants above the well-head to make the oil miscible so that it doesn't surface to make a big visible slick. I have read some pretty outraged comments from shrimpers about such untested means of treating the oil. After all, shrimp are bottom feeders, and they are quite concerned about residues and by-products of this treatment that may contaminate the sea-bottom for some time. If the well is eventually capped and the leak stopped, what might be the long-term effects on the bottom-feeders that supply their livelihood? Nobody knows - we're in uncharted waters.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Nobody knows, IE! They are pumping dispersants above the well-head to make the oil miscible so that it doesn't surface to make a big visible slick. I have read some pretty outraged comments from shrimpers about such untested means of treating the oil. After all, shrimp are bottom feeders, and they are quite concerned about residues and by-products of this treatment that may contaminate the sea-bottom for some time. If the well is eventually capped and the leak stopped, what might be the long-term effects on the bottom-feeders that supply their livelihood? Nobody knows - we're in uncharted waters.

Yes, I think everyone here has agreed that pumping detergent into the water to make it look better is irresponsible, bordering on the insane.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, I believe you think you heard it. We both know that a random TV talking-head can say things that don't make sense or are wrong. Maybe you misheard, maybe the person misspoke, maybe he just didn't know what he was talking about. What I'm really looking for here is for you to be reasonable. Put some thought into the idea that this could cost "hundreds of billions of dollars". Don't just react. Think about it and realize that the idea is just silly.

I didn't hear it incorrectly and I have very little doubt that he meant what he said. Clearly people are scrambling right now to produce copy to support their position. I will do my best to find supporting information. However, I can easily see a huge impact on the economy of the South cascading throughout the economy. The numbers suggested are really not so hard to understand when one considers the index value of stocks, and the gdp. We are at a critial point in our recovery that is futher complicated by events in Europe. We do not need yet another huge strike on the economy. Serious economic ramifications from this are in fact very easy to imagine. However, I also made it clear that I am trying to establish the worst possible scenario given the situation at hand. What matters is not how lucky we get, it is what it is now, too late to change the facts and we will just have to wait and see, but we need to ask how bad the situation could be given the worst case scenario. In turn, that tells us the real risk associated with our choices.

Now more than ever is the best time to ask these questions.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would add that the following fact is indisputable:

There was no tested strategy in place to sufficiently address a situation like this.

The option of scooping and burning oil while doing R&D on the fly is irresponsible beyond belief! And it would seem that the entire oil industry is guilty of this as no one has a fix at the ready. Also, if Robert Kennedy Jr was correct in his accusation, I blame GW Bush personally, who apparently is the one who voided the requirement for sonic actuators that in all likelihood would have prevented this.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I would add that the following fact is indisputable:

There was no tested strategy in place to sufficiently address a situation like this.

The option of scooping and burning oil while doing R&D on the fly is irresponsible beyond belief! And it would seem that the entire oil industry is guilty of this as no one has a fix at the ready. Also, if Robert Kennedy Jr was correct in his accusation, I blame GW Bush personally, who apparently is the one who voided the requirement for sonic actuators that in all likelihood would have prevented this.

This is very well said, but I still don't see how you can arrive at hundreds of BILLIONS in cleanup? Perhaps intangible damages could be that high, if you put a value on every shrimp, but otherwise it is hard to imagine.

 

[Astronuc]

I was thinking that too - they can measure the flow rate once they start recovering it, then back-calculate to what the total spill size has been...

...though it isn't quite that simple since they'll be pulling a water/oil slurry out.

Once they separate the oil and pump it aboard the tanker, they can start accounting for the oil produced. It's not perfect, but that's the best they can do given the circumstances. At some point, the state and government will collect royalties, and BP (and partners) will presumable want to know what they are producing.

 

[Astronuc]

Uh, really? Do you know when the last time they poured cement in this well was? Do you know how many such wells there are and how rare this is?

That seems wildy speculative to me.

Apparently the cement was poured just (within a day or so) before the explosion. The were getting ready to pour a second plug. Apparently heat from the first plug may have melted a clathrate deposit, and that's where the gas came from.

The process was standard, but this is a rather deep (under the ocean) well, and perhaps they do not have experience with clathrate deposits. It seems the methane caught them offguard. And the fact that the dome was incapacitated by ice/slush would seem to indicate that they are operating in uncharted territory (i.e., they lack experience).

I seem to remember that gas or gas/oil wells are done differently from straight oil wells, because of the gas pressure. Normally oil and gas would be separated and the gas flared if they didn't have storage. Then again Deepwater Horizon was a development rig, not a production rig. They were supposed to cap the well so a production (or workover) rig could come in and start production.

 

[PRDan4th]

I think the producing zone was primarily oil. At 30,000 feet below the sea floor the temp. would be too high to support hydrate formation. The hydrate formation zone is below the sea floor (so that the sand would form a matrix and keep the hydrate from floating), and above the disassociation temperature. The fact that hydrate ice is plugging the funnel shows that hydrates float. The explosive gas "bubble" probably did not come from the producing zone more likely it came from the hydrate zone outside of the cemented pipe as the temperature rose from the heat released from cement setting.

Hydrates that form in sea water above the sea floor simply rise and dissociate when hydrostatic pressure is reduced to the formation limit. Any thing that constrains the hydrate crystal from rising will get fouled with the hydrate ice.

 

[Astronuc]

According to some discussion by Prof Bea (U of Cal - Berkeley), the oil is hot (a few hundred degrees), and that could have also melted the clathrate near the sea floor.

The first tarballs are washing ashore "on Dauphin Island, three miles off the Alabama mainland at the mouth of Mobile Bay and much farther east than the thin, rainbow sheens that have arrived sporadically in the Louisiana marshes."

It had taken about two weeks to build the box and three days to cart it 50 miles out and slowly lower it to the well a mile below the surface, but the frozen depths were just too much. BP officials were not giving up hopes that a containment box — either the one brought there or another one being built — could cover the well. But they said it could be days before another attempt to capture the oil and funnel it to a tanker at the surface would be tried.

. . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100509/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill

 

[WhoWee]

I blame GW Bush personally, who apparently is the one who voided the requirement for sonic actuators that in all likelihood would have prevented this.

Really Ivan? Please support with something more significant.

 

[PRDan4th]

If the oil is hot it should be a self correcting problem. Let the oil fill up the box and the hot light oil will fill up the top of the box and melt the hydrate ice blockage. Just give it time. I doubt the buoyancy of the hydrate and oil will lift the steel box, but maybe. Need dimensions and weight of the box. May need a small hole at the base, with a valve, to let the sea water escape as the oil fills the box until the icy blockage is melted. After blockage is removed close the valve on small hole.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

If the oil is hot it should be a self correcting problem. Let the oil fill up the box and the hot light oil will fill up the top of the box and melt the hydrate ice blockage. Just give it time. I doubt the buoyancy of the hydrate and oil will lift the steel box, but maybe. Need dimensions and weight of the box. May need a small hole at the base, with a valve, to let the sea water escape as the oil fills the box until the icy blockage is melted. After blockage is removed close the valve on small hole.

Or that could cause a second explosion.