Will BP's Top Kill Procedure Stop the Gulf Oil Spill?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glennage
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
BP is currently evaluating a "top kill" procedure to contain the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, with CEO Tony Hayward indicating a 60-70% chance of success. This method, previously successful in above-ground wells, has never been attempted at such depths. Concerns have been raised about the delays in implementing this solution, with suggestions that alternative methods could have been more effective. The discussion highlights the complexity of the situation, including the formation of methane hydrates in containment attempts and the economic and environmental ramifications of the spill. The potential long-term impact on local industries, particularly fishing and tourism, is significant, with estimates suggesting that the leak could continue for decades if not contained. The conversation reflects a mix of skepticism about BP's strategies and a desire for immediate action to mitigate the disaster's effects.
  • #151
Well you this one is worse in nature I doubt anyone at least anyone from america would not agree but they are almost the same enough for me to say that you this type of oil spill can happen.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
magpies said:
Well you this one is worse in nature I doubt anyone at least anyone from america would not agree but they are almost the same enough for me to say that you this type of oil spill can happen.

I think it is important to remember this the next time someone tries to argue that the odds of this or that happening are too low to worry about. For example, "We know the reactor can't fail - we've calculated the odds!"

So after the engineers for these huge projects are all done calculating their odds, I give it a 50-50 chance that either they have missed something significant [more likely, many variables have not been considered] or the integrity of the risk evaluation process has been compromised by greed.
 
  • #153
Is there any chance they could put an upside down funnel over the leak to bring the oil to the surface? There it would be skimmed into tankers and then ... I don't know, can you get rid of it once it's in a tanker?
 
  • #154
Jimmy Snyder said:
Is there any chance they could put an upside down funnel over the leak to bring the oil to the surface? There it would be skimmed into tankers and then ... I don't know, can you get rid of it once it's in a tanker?

No.

{Apparently a one word answer is too short. My answer remains: no.}
 
  • #155
GeorginaS said:
No.

{Apparently a one word answer is too short. My answer remains: no.}
If I wanted an answer like that I would have posted to a religious forum. Anyone care to go for two words?
 
  • #156
They tried that already. The funnel filled up with some methane crystals or something
 
  • #157
Office_Shredder said:
They tried that already. The funnel filled up with some methane crystals or something
That's a solvable problem.
 
  • #158
Jimmy Snyder said:
That's a solvable problem.

They tried twice, tried pumping methanol as an antifreeze in the second case. It may be solvable, but not right now, not at that depth, and not in time compared to other approaches.
 
  • #159
Jimmy Snyder said:
Is there any chance they could put an upside down funnel over the leak to bring the oil to the surface? There it would be skimmed into tankers and then ... I don't know, can you get rid of it once it's in a tanker?

This was tried and failed, but the wrong system was tried.
A flexable walled tube of some kind of fabric and large enough to allow for expansion at the surface of the gulf, might work. Supporting guide cables held in place on the bottom, by concrete pads, and a large floating ring at the surface.
The walls would be flexable and would not accumalate any kind of buildup.

I think a second well might be quicker.:blushing:
 
  • #160
RonL said:
This was tried and failed, but the wrong system was tried.
A flexable walled tube of some kind of fabric and large enough to allow for expansion at the surface of the gulf, might work. Supporting guide cables held in place on the bottom, by concrete pads, and a large floating ring at the surface.
The walls would be flexable and would not accumalate any kind of buildup.

I think a second well might be quicker.:blushing:

Definitely quicker, but it makes you wonder why such a device is not in storage for such a contingency. Your idea seems like it would work, and it would be easier to circulate warm water and methanol in your concept.
 
  • #161
I can so relate to this kids attitude:

just a little birdy said:
Subject: Fwd: Day 7

OK so we started pumping again tonight. We transferred all our 14 pound (per gallon) mud off and filled our tanks with 16.4 pound (per gallon) mud. We are hoping that this heavier mud will pack in tighter and plug this thing. The lighter mud just blew out. We are even talking about using 17, 18 or 19 pound mud. We'll see how it goes. Its pretty exciting out here! Its like playing with toys in the mud as a kid but now I get to play with big boy toys. This boat is so bad ***! The entire thing starts to shake when we are pumping at full speed. We have eight pumps that are 3000 horse power and up to 20,000 PSI each. When we have them all going that's 24,000 Horse Power of hydraulic pumping. There is no other boat with this level of power! Not to mention that the bridge is super high tech with 14 touch screen computers and 10 other control computers and looks like something out of star trek. Love it :)
So overall, everything is looking good with the Job so far. We're just trying different types of mud. We just ordered a ton of groceries, potable water and supplies to be delivered to us. I don't think we're going anywhere anytime soon. This could take another week.
Love you all. I'll keep you posted.

I've been receiving emails from the scene via my sister via the above kids mom, so I'm losing the original date/time stamp. But I believe the above was sent out last night.

Here is the email I received on Friday May 21, 2010:
Well we just arrived on location (0700 Friday Morning). We have 625,000 gallons of engineered mud ready to push down the hole. The scene is surreal. The sun came up this morning right between the three massive oil rigs and the burn off torch was blazing away. We are 8 miles from the well standing by waiting for the green light. Positives: No sign of oil in the water yet! However we are on 10 miles to the south of the well. I'm sure the majority of the oil is drifting to the north. We'll see soon enough. I'll keep you posted

Much love - B

I think he was probably 3 years old the last time I saw him.

Git'er done kid!
 
  • #162
  • #163
Ivan Seeking said:
4). The flow was reduced over time to 10k barrels per day - less than the minimum estimated flow rate for this leak of 12,000 barrels per day. According to the current official estimate, we could be as high as 19,000 barrels per day.
That's the amount originally coming out before the insertion tube tap. Amount drifting away since then is less the the amount siphoned off, what, 5k bbb/day?
 
  • #164
Jimmy Snyder said:
If I wanted an answer like that I would have posted to a religious forum. Anyone care to go for two words?

My apologies. I thought you were joking. I envisioned a Bugs Bunny sort-of giant funnel and a vacuuming/suction boat on the water's surface.
 
  • #165
Scientists say the images may offer clues to whether BP is getting the upper hand in its struggle to contain the oil, said Tony Wood, director of the National Spill Control School at Texas A&M University in Corpus Christi. If the stuff coming out of the pipe is jet black, it is mostly oil and BP is losing. If it is whitish, it is mostly gas and BP is also losing.

If it is muddy brown, as it was much of Friday, that may be a sign that BP is starting to win, he said. That "may in fact mean that there's mud coming up and mud coming down as well," which is better than oil coming out, Wood said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100529/us-gulf-oil-spill/"

Now take a look at the colour...

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html"

They are trying something new today, "The Saw"...Won't work.

Look at BP's response plans:

Plan A: The Dome (Save The Oil)

Plan B: Top Hat (Save The Oil)

Plan C: Garden Hose (Save The Oil)

Plan D: Topkill (Save The Oil)

Plan E: Junkshot (Save The Oil)

Plan F: New BOP (Save The Oil)

Plan G: Bigger Insertion Tube (Save The Oil)

Plan F: Drill 2 relief wells (Save The Oil)

Hmmm??

What do these response plans all have in common?

Did anyone see this either?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/27/north-sea-oil-rig-gas-threat
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #166
Geigerclick said:
From what I understand it takes at least 100 hours to finish the mud portion of the top kill, so calling it a failure now cannot be supported; Glennage is clearly mistaken.

The drilling mud is nasty stuff however:

http://news.discovery.com/tech/how-bps-top-kill-will-work-we-hope.html
http://www.formatebrines.com/

Water or oil based, it usually contains Barite, or Cesium.

Hayward stated they are using a water base, which means that it is likely this mud:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3962099.html

It's nasty stuff, but compared to at least 11 million gallons of crude and over 600 thousand of dispersants, if it works, it would be worth it. If not, it'a 50,000+ pounds of toxic and sometimes mildly radioactive mud.

Nope, I wasn't mistaken... It failed.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3&hpt=T1

Looks a LOT worse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #167
Glennage said:
Nope, I wasn't mistaken... It failed.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3&hpt=T1

Looks a LOT worse.

People really need to stop posting to live feeds of this incident and claiming it 'looks a lot worst' or 'look at the colour now' because I am highly skeptical that any person on these forums is a trained professional who can make such a comment.

Do you have an actual news source? Or perhaps a comment by a professional saying it has already failed?

I mean a few posts back we can see OmCheeto posting that he gets updates (which is pretty cool actually) from someone actually working on this and who is actually involved in the topkill procedure. In those e-mails (the one which he thinks was from last night) it clearly says they are still going ahead with the topkill and are going to continue to move up in weight of the mud... That to me doesn't sound like failure it just sounds like they are still working on it.
 
  • #168
zomgwtf said:
People really need to stop posting to live feeds of this incident and claiming it 'looks a lot worst' or 'look at the colour now' because I am highly skeptical that any person on these forums is a trained professional who can make such a comment.

Do you have an actual news source? Or perhaps a comment by a professional saying it has already failed?

I mean a few posts back we can see OmCheeto posting that he gets updates (which is pretty cool actually) from someone actually working on this and who is actually involved in the topkill procedure. In those e-mails (the one which he thinks was from last night) it clearly says they are still going ahead with the topkill and are going to continue to move up in weight of the mud... That to me doesn't sound like failure it just sounds like they are still working on it.

I have a friend of a friend of a friend who works on Rigs.

It's not a "claim" its looking worse, it's a CLEAR observation, maybe you need glasses?

Here is your proof non the less... Zzzzz

Latest Attempt by BP to Plug Oil Leak in Gulf of Mexico Fails

HOUSTON — BP engineers failed again to plug the gushing oil well on Saturday, a technician working on the project said, representing yet another setback in a series of unsuccessful procedures the company has tried a mile under the sea to stem the flow spreading into the Gulf of Mexico.

BP made a third attempt at what is termed the “junk shot” Friday night, a procedure that involves pumping odds and ends like plastic cubes, knotted rope, and golf balls into the blowout preventer, the five-story safety device atop the well. The maneuver is complementary to the heavily scrutinized effort known as a “top kill,”which began four days ago and involves pumping heavy mud into the well to counteract the push of the escaping oil. If the well is sealed, the company plans to then fill it with cement.

The technician working on the project said Saturday pumping has again been halted and a review of the data so far is under way.

“Right now, I would not be optimistic,” the technician, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly about the effort. But he added, that if another attempt at the junk shot were to succeed, “that would turn things around.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30spill.html

So in other words, they tried the Top Kill, it failed. Tried the junk shot, it failed. NOW they are trying what's known as the saw.

My friend of a friend of a friend told me this from his Rig.

:rolleyes:
 
  • #169
Glennage said:
Nope, I wasn't mistaken... It failed.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3&hpt=T1

Looks a LOT worse.

If you look closely at the clock, you'll see that it is not a live feed.

not_live.jpg


The http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html" clock matches my clock within a minute.

Oh, and here are some http://home.europa.com/~garry/Horizon_Ops.pdf" the son of my friend sent about a week ago.
(~700k pdf)

I'd have posted them earlier, but I wanted to get permission from the source. His mom was away from the computer for several days so there was a bit of a delay from when I sent the request.

Kids Mom said:
Hi OmCheeto's sister ;
I've been gone for a few days. Just got home this afternoon.
Sure you can post the pictures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #170
OmCheeto said:
If you look closely at the clock, you'll see that it is not a live feed.

not_live.jpg


The http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html" clock matches my clock within a minute.

Oh, and here are some http://home.europa.com/~garry/Horizon_Ops.pdf" the son of my friend sent about a week ago.
(~700k pdf)

I'd have posted them earlier, but I wanted to get permission from the source. His mom was away from the computer for several days so there was a bit of a delay from when I sent the request.

And all that means...?

P.S - I heard it is a Live Feed, just different time zones.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #171
Glennage said:
And all that means...?

P.S - I heard it is a Live Feed, just different time zones.

Nope. It's the same feed, only delayed around 5 hours.

CNN 07:52
BP 13:10 (central)
Om's local time 11:11 (pacific)

The digital information on the images is identical with the exception of the time.
 
  • #172
OmCheeto said:
If you look closely at the clock, you'll see that it is not a live feed.

not_live.jpg


The http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html" clock matches my clock within a minute.

Oh, and here are some http://home.europa.com/~garry/Horizon_Ops.pdf" the son of my friend sent about a week ago.
(~700k pdf)

I'd have posted them earlier, but I wanted to get permission from the source. His mom was away from the computer for several days so there was a bit of a delay from when I sent the request.

Thanks for the pictures Om,

We all need to hope for the weather to stay like it is.

Ron
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #173
OmCheeto said:
Nope. It's the same feed, only delayed around 5 hours.

CNN 07:52
BP 13:10 (central)
Om's local time 11:11 (pacific)

The digital information on the images is identical with the exception of the time.

Well just watch the BP one then, its worse. :biggrin:
 
  • #174
To me it seems like keeping the well at bay using high pressure mud, in the long run would be less of a cost. The mud is far less toxic and would not require an extended cleanup.

At these high pressures erosion of the steel pipes will happen very quickly.
Might be the very reason the junk shot did not work. The interior of the BOP might already be washing out.
 
Last edited:
  • #175
RonL said:
Thanks for the pictures Om,

We all need to hope for the weather to stay like it is.

Ron

You're welcome Ron.

Kids Mom said:
I have his newest update that I will send out tonight.

I'll keep you posted.
 
  • #176
What if you had some kind of compressed balls, of a material which is hydrophobic, but oil absorbant. The idea would be that you junk shoot them down there using water as a lubricant, and when they hit oil, they expand. Maybe have a time release coating on them, so that after being exposed to the oil long enough to dissolve the coating, the material expands a lot. If you timed it right, maybe you could junk shoot it with this expansive material, and pump heavy mud over the top of it.
 
  • #177
jreelawg said:
What if you had some kind of compressed balls, of a material which is hydrophobic, but oil absorbant. The idea would be that you junk shoot them down there using water as a lubricant, and when they hit oil, they expand. Maybe have a time release coating on them, so that after being exposed to the oil long enough to dissolve the coating, the material expands a lot. If you timed it right, maybe you could junk shoot it with this expansive material, and pump heavy mud over the top of it.

Without knowing all the details of the well head, it's difficult to determine the best solution of stopping the leak. Someone should post in the homework section all of the dynamics involved.

1. Find the inertia of a column of oil x kilometers long traveling at y meter per second in a pipe z meters in diameter.
2. Graph the pressure of the column of oil against a plug if an attempt is made to stop the flow in 30 seconds. Assume a linear reduction in flow.
3. Given a tensile strength of x of the steel pipe, what would be the nominal shutoff rate of the flow of oil to yield a safety factor of 3.

We do after all, have some of the greatest minds on the planet perusing this forum.

PF to the rescue!

I'll give Barack a call after we figure it out.
 
  • #178
I'm prepared to embrace a large series of charges to collapse the surrounding sea bed.
 
  • #179
Geigerclick said:
I'm prepared to embrace a large series of charges to collapse the surrounding sea bed.

I think you have to solve problem #1 first.

Here is wiki's blurb on my first concern:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_hammer"
Water hammer (or, more generally, fluid hammer) is a pressure surge or wave resulting when a fluid (usually a liquid but sometimes also a gas) in motion is forced to stop or change direction suddenly (momentum change). Water hammer commonly occurs when a valve is closed suddenly at an end of a pipeline system, and a pressure wave propagates in the pipe.

This pressure wave can cause major problems, from noise and vibration to pipe collapse. It is possible to reduce the effects of the water hammer pulses with accumulators and other features.

I'm afraid that with such a massive column of moving fluid, any impromptu jumble of rocks we dump on the problem will be hammered aside.

hmmm... Has anyone bothered to solicit a plumbers opinion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #180
Shadowmaru said:
Probably not. I think the last and final option for BP will be to use a Nuke. It worked for the Russians.

My point exactly, but I believe that conventional explosives can achieve a similar effect, although it will take a lot of them. That would be a difficult "pile of rocks" to move aside.
 
  • #181
Now according to BP, live in conference, Top Kill is not working. What. A. Shock. Good of them to get around to confirming what has been known for over a day.
 
  • #182
[URL]http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/crying-baby-giant-eyes1.jpg[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #184
Here's the next option:

"Under the new plan, BP would use robot submarines to cut off the damaged riser from which the oil is leaking, and then try to cap it with a containment valve. "
 
Last edited:
  • #185
Chance of working bp says 99.99999% but they won't know till christmas.
 
  • #186
Ivan Seeking said:
[PLAIN]http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/crying-baby-giant-eyes1.jpg[/QUOTE]

Ivan, Thank you for this. :frown:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #187
Ivan Seeking said:
[PLAIN]http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/crying-baby-giant-eyes1.jpg[/QUOTE]


Ditto.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #188
If only Joe the Plumber had won the election...
 
  • #189
Cyrus said:
If only Joe the Plumber had won the election...

:smile:
 
  • #190
Spill, baby, spill!
 
  • #191
Cyrus said:
If only Joe the Plumber had won the election...

What we REALLY need... is the Bob The Builder, that little claymation guy has a fleet of AI tools! I just keep imagining how Bush W. would explain this to the public, how Reagan would, how Clinton would, and McCain.

W.: Keeps reading to children.
Reagan: Fails to communicate.
Clinton: Runs away for an extra special "hug" with the nearest female with a heartbeat.
McCain: Would stammer like the sad old man he is.
How about Gov. Sanford? : MIA
Obama: So... Cold...
Glenn Beck: cries
Limbaugh: Back on the hillbilly heroin
Dukakis: Seen riding a tank into the Atlantic.

I could go on. :)
 
  • #192
Idk I think bush and crew would have handled this by now. Probably with nukes.
 
  • #193
magpies said:
Idk I think bush and crew would have handled this by now. Probably with nukes.

It worked for the russians, but it could have failed. I cannot imagine the president, even bush, who would deploy a nuclear weapon in the gulf of mexico.
 
  • #194
How many times did it work for the russians? They must be pretty lucky.

What's so bad about using a nuke in the gulf? I mean they make them so they arnt extreamly radio active now... I do suppose it's a little late now that they let it spill for month's but if they could have done a nuke attempt right away would you have been for it?
 
  • #195
magpies said:
How many times did it work for the russians? They must be pretty lucky.

Once, and all things considered I'd say they did get pretty lucky. On one hand, you might fuse a portion of the well, collapse the region and achieve your goal. On the other, you could rip away the BOP and piping, kill a TON of marine life with the noise, and create fallout, literal and political.
 
  • #197
Geigerclick said:
Once, and all things considered I'd say they did get pretty lucky. On one hand, you might fuse a portion of the well, collapse the region and achieve your goal. On the other, you could rip away the BOP and piping, kill a TON of marine life with the noise, and create fallout, literal and political.

The Russians were dealing with surface gas well fires. Big difference.

http://www.livescience.com/technolo...cecom+(LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed)
 
  • #199
Geigerclick said:
What we REALLY need... is the Bob The Builder, that little claymation guy has a fleet of AI tools! I just keep imagining how Bush W. would explain this to the public, how Reagan would, how Clinton would, and McCain.

W.: Keeps reading to children.
Reagan: Fails to communicate.
Clinton: Runs away for an extra special "hug" with the nearest female with a heartbeat.
McCain: Would stammer like the sad old man he is.
How about Gov. Sanford? : MIA
Obama: So... Cold...
Glenn Beck: cries
Limbaugh: Back on the hillbilly heroin
Dukakis: Seen riding a tank into the Atlantic.

I could go on. :)

:smile:
 
  • #200
I have to wonder that if BP could insert a pipe into the hole, why not insert a heavy plug - made of something dense like tungsten or depleted U, such that the pressure drop would allow pouring of mud or concrete above the plug, which would seal the hole. Admittedly, I don't know the details of the geometry of the hole.

The plug may not necessarily require a dense material, but just be heavy enough to settle into the hole. The denser the material, the smaller the plug and perhaps more manageable.
 

Similar threads

News BP, found grossly negligent, in April 2010 oil spill
Replies
1
Views
1K
The BP well could be capped tonight
Replies
47
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top