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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glennage
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around BP's "top kill" procedure aimed at stopping the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Participants explore the effectiveness, timing, and potential alternatives to this method, as well as the implications of the ongoing spill.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about BP's decision-making timeline, questioning why they did not proceed with the top kill sooner.
  • There are suggestions for alternative methods, such as using a concrete column or an upside-down dome to control the oil flow, although costs are noted as a concern.
  • Some participants speculate that BP was working on multiple solutions simultaneously, with the top kill requiring the most preparation time.
  • Concerns are raised about the financial risks associated with killing the well, as it may prevent future oil extraction.
  • There is discussion about the formation of ice or methane hydrate in the containment dome, with participants seeking clarification on the underlying processes.
  • Some participants express anxiety about the effectiveness of the top kill procedure and the potential consequences if it fails.
  • Questions are raised about the size of the oil field and the estimated volume of oil leaking, with some participants citing alarming estimates.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the effectiveness of the top kill procedure or the appropriateness of BP's actions. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the best approach to mitigate the spill.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include uncertainty about the exact nature of the materials forming in the containment dome, the depth-related challenges of the spill, and the financial implications of various strategies. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions and concerns without definitive resolutions.

  • #211
jackmell said:
Let me play the devil's advocate:

When they make the second cut near the top of the BOP stack, the oil flow dramatically increases 10-fold...

BP has calculated that the flow rate will not be siginficantly affected. Apparently the existing kink in the pipe is not enough to significantly reduce the flow. From there it is basically just an open pipe.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #212
Ivan Seeking said:
It is the oil equivalent of an artesian well. The effective differential pressure between the well head, and the water at depth, is supposed to be about 2500 psi.

I'm not sure about the source of pressure in the oil field itself. I think it results from the natural gas that is present.

Years ago I worked for a company that manufactured liners, pistons, rods and seals, for mud pumps, IIRC most pumps would maintain pressures around 5,000 psi, but this covered the difference of well pressure and circulating mud pressure.

The plume of oil and gas from the first views of the remote cam, looked as if the well pressure might only exceed water pressure by a small amount. (just my thoughts)
 
  • #213
Ivan Seeking said:
BP has calculated that the flow rate will not be siginficantly affected. Apparently the existing kink in the pipe is not enough to significantly reduce the flow. From there it is basically just an open pipe.

That's very good Ivan. And thanks for that. Personally I've maintained a lot of confidence in BP throughout this problem. Seriously. And I hope all goes well. However, those calculations wouldn't work for me if I was top dog. I'd say start fabricating the funnel anyway and have it delivered to the site ready to be installed if problems are encountered.

No offense. :)
 
  • #214
RonL said:
Years ago I worked for a company that manufactured liners, pistons, rods and seals, for mud pumps, IIRC most pumps would maintain pressures around 5,000 psi, but this covered the difference of well pressure and circulating mud pressure.

The plume of oil and gas from the first views of the remote cam, looked as if the well pressure might only exceed water pressure by a small amount. (just my thoughts)

It did seem to be billowing, not jetting out.
 
  • #215
Geigerclick said:
This is purely supposition on my part, but when large things sink through nearly a mile of water, they do not sink directly downward. I would expect the remains if the rig to be some distance in the direction of the prevailing currents when it sank, so, north of the well.
A map showing Deepwater Horizon rig location relative to BOP site.
http://www.upstreamonline.com/multimedia/archive/00034/Deepwater_Horizon_lo_34332a.jpg
Source - http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article213131.ece

The scale is difficult to read, but I believe the rings are 200 ft, so DWH is about 1100 ft from the BOP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #216
RonL said:
Years ago I worked for a company that manufactured liners, pistons, rods and seals, for mud pumps, IIRC most pumps would maintain pressures around 5,000 psi, but this covered the difference of well pressure and circulating mud pressure.

The plume of oil and gas from the first views of the remote cam, looked as if the well pressure might only exceed water pressure by a small amount. (just my thoughts)

Keep in mind that that we have a 26-inch diameter, open pipe, spewing oil. So, yes, one would expect that the oil coming out of the other holes is near the pressure at depth. However, if one tried to plug the hole, as they did while driving down the mud, the full 5000 psi would come into play.
 
  • #217
I am not sure why barack obama has said that he was enraged that the top kill effort failed. I can understand being enraged at the original accident, but why woul he be enraged by failure of this specific procedure? If he knew that it was bound to fail beforehand, shouldn't he have said something?
 
  • #218
jackmell said:
Let me play the devil's advocate:

When they make the second cut near the top of the BOP stack, the oil flow dramatically increases 10-fold and this causes great difficulty steering the LMRP cap onto the flange of the BOP. Additionally, the increase oil flow greatly disrupts visuals in the work area.

Then what?

Here's my plan:

Rig an inverted funnel, say 10' in diameter and maybe 10' deep onto the LMRP (such that it won't interfere with the BOP) cap to guide it squarely onto the stack. Didn't see any type of device in the pictures. It should not be a solid funnel but rather a coarse screen funnel that allows a great amount of fluid to pass through it while sufficiently maintaining it's structure. If necessary, use sophisticated video equipment that can see through the oil. Also, keep the LMRP cap open while it's being installed to allow the oil to pass through.

Yeah, I realize they know way better than me. Just havin' a lil' fun. :)

I don't know what a "LMRP" is, but control of the oil to the surface should be the first thing done while the main repair or closing of the well is being worked on.
As I commented before, a fabric funnel can direct the oil and gas to the surface where it is retained inside a large ring. This large ring might need to be as large as a 1/4 mile (or more) in diameter, something able to retain a floating mass of oil as much as 2 meters thick. Finding and delivering flat deck barges for the floating ring might take a little time.

There is a solution to all problems, this one needs to be quick.
 
  • #219
Galteeth said:
I am not sure why barack obama has said that he was enraged that the top kill effort failed. I can understand being enraged at the original accident, but why woul he be enraged by failure of this specific procedure? If he knew that it was bound to fail beforehand, shouldn't he have said something?

What are your talking about? BP claimed 60-70% confidence that top kill would work.

I think that like everyone, he is angry about the entire situation.
 
  • #220
Ivan Seeking said:
What are your talking about? BP claimed 60-70% confidence that top kill would work.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100530/twl-obama-enraged-by-bp-oil-plug-failure-3fd0ae9.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #221
Has anyone noticed that no one seems to be complaining about how they want the government out of their life? What happened to all of our fiscal libertarians? Why aren't the tea drinkers protesting?
 
  • #222
Astronuc said:
A map showing Deepwater Horizon rig location relative to BOP site.
http://www.upstreamonline.com/multimedia/archive/00034/Deepwater_Horizon_lo_34332a.jpg
Source - http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article213131.ece

The scale is difficult to read, but I believe the rings are 200 ft, so DWH is about 1100 ft from the BOP.

Thanks,:smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #223
Galteeth said:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100530/twl-obama-enraged-by-bp-oil-plug-failure-3fd0ae9.html

You said that he knew it would fail. Was that intentional misinformation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #224
It's difficult to find good data on the Macondo well, but I did find this.

Mission

Suttles said on Friday that the first of two relief wells at Macondo was “slightly ahead of schedule”

The Transocean semi-submersible rig Development Driller III has resumed drilling the first relief well after stopping to test and drop the BOP on 9 May.

The Transocean semi-submersible rig drilled out of a 22-inch casing Friday was continuing down hole Monday at 10,100 feet below the drilling floor.

Another Transocean semi-sub, Development Driller II, is drilling the second relief well.

Development Driller II set the top 36-inch casing on its relief well and has stopped drilling at 6750 feet while it performs routine tests on its BOP.

Both wells are planned for casing strings of 36, 28, 22, 18, 16, 13-5/8, 11-7/8 and 9-5/8 inches, the same string as the original Macondo well.
Ref: http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article215908.ece

I'm not sure about the riser diameter, but I believe it is on the order of 20-21 inches OD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #225
Ivan Seeking said:
Keep in mind that that we have a 26-inch diameter, open pipe, spewing oil. So, yes, one would expect that the oil coming out of the other holes is near the pressure at depth. However, if one tried to plug the hole, as they did while driving down the mud, the full 5000 psi would come into play.

I agree, but think about the difference between the plumes of free flow oil, gas and then the plume of mud under pressure.
 
  • #226
Ivan Seeking said:
You said that he knew it would fail. Was that intentional misinformation?

No, I didn't, reread my post. My point was, why was he "enraged" by the failure of the top kill procedure? It makes sense to be disappointed, but "enraged" implies that someone did something wrong. In other words, if he had said to BP, "guys, this has no chance of working" but they did it anyway and it failed, then being enraged would make sense. Being enraged at a sincere attempt to fix the problem that failed doesn't make sense.
 
  • #227
Galteeth said:
No, I didn't, reread my post. My point was, why was he "enraged" by the failure of the top kill procedure? It makes sense to be disappointed, but "enraged" implies that someone did something wrong. In other words, if he had said to BP, "guys, this has no chance of working" but they did it anyway and it failed, then being enraged would make sense. Being enraged at a sincere attempt to fix the problem that failed doesn't make sense.

Uhhh I don't really think any of this follows logically. I'm pretty angry that this topkill procedure didn't work and that's all that enraged means. The word doesn't imply anything about someone doing something wrong. It also doesn't matter how likely it was to fail or succeed. You can still be enraged or angry when something with a 90% success rate fails.
 
  • #228
RonL said:
I don't know what a "LMRP" is, but control of the oil to the surface should be the first thing done while the main repair or closing of the well is being worked on.
As I commented before, a fabric funnel can direct the oil and gas to the surface where it is retained inside a large ring. This large ring might need to be as large as a 1/4 mile (or more) in diameter, something able to retain a floating mass of oil as much as 2 meters thick. Finding and delivering flat deck barges for the floating ring might take a little time.

There is a solution to all problems, this one needs to be quick.
LMRP=Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP) Cap
Installing a Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP) Cap is a containment option for collecting the flow of oil from the MC252 well. The LMRP is the top half of the blow out preventer (BOP) stack.
The installation procedure first involves removing the damaged riser from the top of the BOP.
A remote operated hydraulic shear will be used to make two initial cuts and then that section will be removed by crane. A diamond wire saw will then be placed to cut the pipe close to the LMRP and the final damaged piece of riser will be removed.
The LMRP Cap is designed to seal on top of the riser stub. The seal will decrease the potential of inflow of seawater as well as improve the efficiency of oil recovery. Lines carrying methanol also are connected to the device to help stop hydrate formation.
The device will be connected to a riser extending from the Discoverer Enterprise drillship.
The LMRP Cap is on site, and it is anticipated that this option would be available for deployment by the end of May.
from link provide earlier.

When Deepwater Horizon sank, it pulled and distorted the riser that was connected to the rig and BOP. Apparently the oil is leaking from the riser in 2 (perhaps 3?) locations. The goal is to cut the riser the top of the BOP and connect the LMRP to 'cap' the BOP and stop the leak. In cutting the riser, the oil flow may increase, but BP hopes it is not significantly more than is coming out now (I heard a comment of a 10% increase). Hopefully then, they LMRP is intalled quickly after the riser is cut.

The BOP sits atop the well casing. The idea of pumping drill mud into the BOP was to displace the ligher oil with heavier mud to slow the flow.

I presume the siphon (5-6 inch dia) was passed through the break in the riser, but they're not drawing fast enough to capture the entire oil/gas flow.
 
  • #229
This is not the place for a technical discussion.
 
  • #230
Jimmy Snyder said:
Heat it to 21 degrees C?
16 degrees C above a surrounding ocean. Oceans tend to object to large heat gradients; they're like that. Anyway, looks like that's what they are doing next: the dome, top cover trick again this time with heat and methanol as antifreeze.
 
  • #231
Ivan Seeking said:
This is not the place for a technical discussion.

Well then... Since the Top Kill has failed, should we mention a place for the discussion to continue, and close this thread?

Physics Forums > Engineering > Engineering Systems & Design
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #232
Astronuc said:
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.
After cutting the riser flush, the opening would be ~300 in^2. At 5000 PSI (?) well pressure, the plug would have to weigh ~750 tons, or have that much force applied to it somehow. After the plug is in place, maybe the ocean's 2500 PSI could help opposing the oil pressure, but I don't think before. Probably not possible to push down from a mile up; perhaps they could pull it down, with tension from sea floor anchors. Anyway, required plug weight suggests it is much easier to allow the oil/gas to continue in a controlled, captured flow it possible.
 
Last edited:
  • #233
How did they pump mud, and do a junk shot, into a kinked over pipe?
 
  • #234
jreelawg said:
How did they pump mud, and do a junk shot, into a kinked ver pipe?
The mud was pumped directly into valves on the blow out preventer, i.e. 'upstream' of the bent riser. Google for a pic of the top kill mechanism.
 
  • #235
OmCheeto said:
Well then... Since the Top Kill has failed, should we mention a place for the discussion to continue, and close this thread?

Physics Forums > Engineering > Engineering Systems & Design

Good point, Top Kill is done, so, this thread would seem to be as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #236
Geigerclick said:
Good point, Top Kill is done, so, this thread would seem to be as well.

Actually, I think I've changed my mind. I'm now going to ask that this thread be left open, such that people can vent their frustrations about the situation. GD is good for that. :smile:
 
  • #237
OmCheeto said:
Actually, I think I've changed my mind. I'm now going to ask that this thread be left open, such that people can vent their frustrations about the situation. GD is good for that. :smile:

Leave it open. The phrase "Top Kill" will probably be relevant again when the prosecutions begin. :wink:
 
  • #238
Borg said:
Leave it open. The phrase "Top Kill" will probably be relevant again when the prosecutions begin. :wink:

:smile:

That, or as a play on words when the firing squads take aim...
 
  • #239
they're doing some type of work right now
 

Similar threads

News BP, found grossly negligent, in April 2010 oil spill
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
The BP well could be capped tonight
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K