Oil Spill

[ls99]

Live video link from the ROV monitoring the damaged riser

 

[REWahoo]

I'm no engineer, but one thing that I've wondered is just how much pressure the oil spewing from the pipe must be exerting to overcome the pressure of one mile of ocean water pushing against it. It seems to me the force of the oil coming out of the break must be huge and this, along with the other complicating factors involved in working deep underwater, presents a huge obstacle to plugging the leak.

 

[Zathras]

I had 'heard' previously that one of the dangers is that the pipe is already damaged, and if any attempt to stop the flow results in damaging what is left of the pipe, you could have a completely uncontrolled release of oil rather than the partial release they have now.
My 'pure guess' is that anything that just 'caps' the flow will result in so much added pressure to the pipe that they are sure it will completely collapse. Thus plugging it with mud, then concrete will allow them for form a plug 10s of feet (or more?).

 

[TromboneAl]

I imagine trying to insert a wet noodle's free end into a horizontal straw while holding said noodle with one hand.

This has always worked for me.

 

[ronocnikral]

I'm no engineer, but one thing that I've wondered is just how much pressure the oil spewing from the pipe must be exerting to overcome the pressure of one mile of ocean water pushing against it. It seems to me the force of the oil coming out of the break must be huge and this, along with the other complicating factors involved in working deep underwater, presents a huge obstacle to plugging the leak.

a reasonable estimate is to assume the reservoir is "normally pressured." a reasonable assumption for the density of seawater is 0.465 psi/ft. Assuming the source of the leak is at the bottom of the well, ~18,000' + 5000' (sea). That is a bottom hole pressure of 10700 psi (+/-). So...let's take that up to the seafloor. A good assumption for the specific gravity of oil is 0.8. Making the density 0.346 psi/ft. Assuming the well is full of oil, that gives 6250 psi of hydrostatic head of the oil. 10700 psi - 6250 psi = 4450 psi of pressure at the sea floor. Notice how many times I said assume? I know nothing about this reservoir, but this should be a good starting point for understanding the pressure. I get the feeling that the reservoir is over-pressured, or coming from another part of the well.

I had 'heard' previously that one of the dangers is that the pipe is already damaged, and if any attempt to stop the flow results in damaging what is left of the pipe, you could have a completely uncontrolled release of oil rather than the partial release they have now.
My 'pure guess' is that anything that just 'caps' the flow will result in so much added pressure to the pipe that they are sure it will completely collapse. Thus plugging it with mud, then concrete will allow them for form a plug 10s of feet (or more?).

concrete plugs can be 100's or 1000's of feet (and redundant). i'm a little rusty on MMS regs, but i recall cement plugs having to be 200-500' when abandoning wells. The problem with just cement plugs is the gas will slowly make stringers through the cement while curing, causing it be non-sealing.

 

[FUEGO]

They should just stick my dad's old Oldsmobile station wagon down there. The way that thing guzzled down the oil, 5000 barrels a day should be no problem.

 

[frayne]

BP has a monumental engineering task ahead of them to get this well to stop leaking prior to getting the horizontal intersecting line in place and killing it with cement. I'd give them about a 50-50 chance on this top kill method to the BOP working and even worse odds on the so called junk shot. I think they are trying everything they can think of but quite frankly this is a scenerio that should never had happened, so they are kind of scratching their collective asses on what to do. A real black eye for BP as well as the oil industry.

 

[Stevewc]

This has always worked for me.

And what about your partner ??
Or should I even ask ?

 

[TromboneAl]

If BP really did have to pay for all the damages, for a complete cleanup, and all the lost income for companies, wouldn't it bankrupt them? Think of all the lost hotel business, secondary effects (hotel workers get laid off, etc.).

 

[ronocnikral]

BP has a monumental engineering task ahead of them to get this well to stop leaking prior to getting the horizontal intersecting line in place and killing it with cement. I'd give them about a 50-50 chance on this top kill method to the BOP working and even worse odds on the so called junk shot. I think they are trying everything they can think of but quite frankly this is a scenerio that should never had happened, so they are kind of scratching their collective asses on what to do. A real black eye for BP as well as the oil industry.

I hadn't heard anything about a top kill. I actually think the junk shot has a good chance, if they can get the new pod connected. One thing I don't understand, is how they will connect up to the choke or kill line?

If BP really did have to pay for all the damages, for a complete cleanup, and all the lost income for companies, wouldn't it bankrupt them? Think of all the lost hotel business, secondary effects (hotel workers get laid off, etc.).

While there would be quite a few claims, the reality is, most of the "hotel" business down in plaquimines parish is from oil workers. While the media may be painting it as this huge sport fishing club med, the bottom line is, most people would rather stay in new orleans and drive 1 or 1.5 hrs down to venice or lafourche parish. I know of three "hotels" in venice that have come back since katrina. none of them nice enough for me not to make the 90 min or so drive back to the west bank of new orleans. of course, I haven't been down to plaquimines or lafourche in about a year...

 

[toofrugalformycat]

Geez, I was just commenting on some of the news coverage I heard. I don't think NPR was getting their info only from oil company employees. And I heard reports of singular bird occurrences.



That is still a very imprecise measure. I don't doubt that one could still find damage at the Valdez area, but animals/plants are living there, right?




What's the solution? If we stop drilling and mining, the rest of the world will continue and we have no assurance that they will regulate/enforce the risks any better than we do. How is China doing with regulations and enforcement on mercury and other coal pollutants?



Excellent point. Looking glass half-full, I'm actually surprised at just how rare these disasters are. What % of the world is run on drilled oil? Yet, these disasters are (fortunately) big news instead of every day occurrences.

-ERD50

Sorry if I'm strident. But we in Alaska have been living with the consequences of the oil spill in PWS for over 20 years and it gets really old.
Yes, some animals and plants are living in PWS, but fewer and of less varieties than before, and many with elevated levels of toxins in their bodies. The point I was trying to make was that to someone who had never seen PWS before the spill and had no education about the critters that were there before, it would appear just fine now from a distance. But ask the herring fishermen, the orca biologists, the birders, the local people.
To a blind man, a blank wall is as beautiful as a Van Gogh painting. Most people are blind now to what beauty and abundance nature is capable of, because we live in areas that have already been trashed by those before us.
I don't claim to have a perfect solution. But I do know that a system that allows BP (and others) to consistently and repeatedly screw up by carelessness is a broken system. It's just now coming out how this well was not capped properly. They have no reason to be careful. The punishment they will get is less than the cost of doing it properly. And engineers usually have no concept of biology and the destruction they will cause. "I see some wildlife so things must be all right now!"
Exxon trashed our Sound and they have prospered since.
Would you let a brain surgeon operate on you without washing his hands first? And yet we let a few people/corporations prosper by taking unnecessary risks and poisoning our world. It is the tragedy of the commons, and a lack of regulation and oversight, and consequences that are not sufficient to punish the perps.

 

[REWahoo]

Looks like we may be able to see live video of the BP "top kill" attempt tentatively scheduled for tomorrow:

BP will continue live video feed during 'top kill' attempt - CNN.com

 

[ERD50]

But I do know that a system that allows BP (and others) to consistently and repeatedly screw up by carelessness is a broken system. It's just now coming out how this well was not capped properly. They have no reason to be careful. The punishment they will get is less than the cost of doing it properly.

I agree that the punishment needs to be great enough to keep plenty of pressure on them to prevent/contain major problems. In a competitive environment, it's tough if your competition is cutting a few corners (and gets away with the ticking time bomb for a long time), so your profits look bad in comparison so that encourages you to cut a few corners, etc. It can be (coldly) looked at as the cost of doing business - so we need to be sure the costs are high so that there is financial incentive to protect against these problems.

Would you let a brain surgeon operate on you without washing his hands first? And yet we let a few people/corporations prosper by taking unnecessary risks and poisoning our world. It is the tragedy of the commons, and a lack of regulation and oversight, and consequences that are not sufficient to punish the perps.

From what I understand, hospitals have that exact problem. Simple sanitary measures are not followed and people die. It is a tough problem, regulation is imperfect, we don't seem to have enough direct consequences to drive proper behaviors. It seems to be a tough nut to crack in all walks of life.

Sorry if I'm strident. But we in Alaska have been living with the consequences of the oil spill in PWS for over 20 years and it gets really old.
Yes, some animals and plants are living in PWS, but fewer and of less varieties than before, and many with elevated levels of toxins in their bodies. The point I was trying to make was that to someone who had never seen PWS before the spill and had no education about the critters that were there before, it would appear just fine now from a distance.

OK, all I'm trying to do is gain perspective. I am certainly aware of the beauty, importance, and delicacy of nature. But w/o some real world measures we lose perspective. It's like some 'greenies' that fight wind farms over bird kills, but don't factor in the bird kills from coal mining, pollution, etc. The emotional side maybe helps get people excited and drawn to action, but we need to use some measurements to drive actions, or those actions are likely to be counter-productive. I'm trying to get some sense of how these disasters compare to the day-to-day coal operations. How much environmental damage per mega-BTU? That probably sounds cold to some, but it is how you have to look at it to make progress and good decisions.

I don't claim to have a perfect solution.

It is tough - this world is certainly going to seek out energy to increase/maintain our standard of living. As T-Al mentioned, it's crazy to expect we can do that without mishap, without consequences. If we hadn't started using petroleum oil (with all its problems) in the 1800's, the whales would probably be extinct today. As attractive as renewables might appear, we just can't get the energy we feel we need from them anytime soon (search "Without the Hot Air" for more). As I said above, regulation is imperfect, and often counter-productive. But I do think we need to do something to make the costs hit those responsible, and to have some kind of containment methodology in place and keep it in perspective. It wouldn't be right to slap fines on oil companies and not the coal companies if coal is actually doing more damage on average (which I don't know- just throwing the concept out there).

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

Sorry if I'm strident. But we in Alaska have been living with the consequences of the oil spill in PWS for over 20 years and it gets really old.
Yes, some animals and plants are living in PWS, but fewer and of less varieties than before, and many with elevated levels of toxins in their bodies. The point I was trying to make was that to someone who had never seen PWS before the spill and had no education about the critters that were there before, it would appear just fine now from a distance. But ask the herring fishermen, the orca biologists, the birders, the local people.
To a blind man, a blank wall is as beautiful as a Van Gogh painting. Most people are blind now to what beauty and abundance nature is capable of, because we live in areas that have already been trashed by those before us.
I don't claim to have a perfect solution. But I do know that a system that allows BP (and others) to consistently and repeatedly screw up by carelessness is a broken system. It's just now coming out how this well was not capped properly. They have no reason to be careful. The punishment they will get is less than the cost of doing it properly. And engineers usually have no concept of biology and the destruction they will cause. "I see some wildlife so things must be all right now!"
Exxon trashed our Sound and they have prospered since.
Would you let a brain surgeon operate on you without washing his hands first? And yet we let a few people/corporations prosper by taking unnecessary risks and poisoning our world. It is the tragedy of the commons, and a lack of regulation and oversight, and consequences that are not sufficient to punish the perps.

First, I am not saying that the disasters were not very tragic... but...

Someone who says that "the punishment they will get is less than the cost of doing it properly" is no thinking properly IMO...

How much does it cost to drive a ship properly Not anywhere near as much as they paid for clean up, lawsuits and such...

How much does it cost to cap a well properly Not anywhere near as much as losing 11 lives, losing a floating drilling rig, all the millions they are spending every day and all the billions that will probably eventually pay in the end...

There is NO WAY that the cost of the punishment is 'less than the cost of doing it properly'....

Now, if you said... they are not paying nearly as much as they should for the damage they caused... well, that is a statement of opininon and can be defended much better...


The problem is the same at most companies.... there are budget pressures on mid to low level managers... and THEY decide to cut a corner to save a bit on their budget... because they get away with it over and over... and as long as the rig does not blow up on you... who cares...

I remember the saying of someone who worked in a plant.... "They will swallow a camel but gag on a knat"...

BP is now swallowing the camel...

 

[ERD50]

Someone who says that "the punishment they will get is less than the cost of doing it properly" is no thinking properly IMO...

How much does it cost to drive a ship properly

How much does it cost to cap a well properly

True, but I think it gets twisted when applied to a singular case (and I think you address that later in your post).

It isn't the added cost of a more secure capping procedure for that well that is the issue, it is the cost of capping every single well they drill (or make sure that NO captain is piloting improperly at ANY time on ANY tanker). Obviously, they don't know ahead of time which will be the problem, so the more secure procedures need to apply across the board. How many wells have been drilled w/o incident?

And this isn't defending them in any way. I do feel that when there is the potential for such extraordinary damage, that extraordinary measures, and extraordinary (multiple) back up plans need to be in place, and tested routinely.

I think it helps to personalize the issue (for illustration) to put the finger-pointing in perspective - consider this: Did everyone on this forum have their brakes inspected today (and every day) by a certified mechanic? Probably not, but if they fail a life close to us could be lost. But we take our chances, thinking that they 'seem' OK, and they were OK when they were last checked, etc... The cost of failure is very high indeed, yet we don't take extraordinary measures to prevent a problem.

-ERD50

 

[ronocnikral]

True, but I think it gets twisted when applied to a singular case (and I think you address that later in your post).

It isn't the added cost of a more secure capping procedure for that well that is the issue, it is the cost of capping every single well they drill (or make sure that NO captain is piloting improperly at ANY time on ANY tanker). Obviously, they don't know ahead of time which will be the problem, so the more secure procedures need to apply across the board. How many wells have been drilled w/o incident?

And this isn't defending them in any way. I do feel that when there is the potential for such extraordinary damage, that extraordinary measures, and extraordinary (multiple) back up plans need to be in place, and tested routinely.

I think it helps to personalize the issue (for illustration) to put the finger-pointing in perspective - consider this: Did everyone on this forum have their brakes inspected today (and every day) by a certified mechanic? Probably not, but if they fail a life close to us could be lost. But we take our chances, thinking that they 'seem' OK, and they were OK when they were last checked, etc... The cost of failure is very high indeed, yet we don't take extraordinary measures to prevent a problem.

-ERD50

while i agree this is a tradgedy, i would just like to point out that it is easy and quite confortable to point a finger while reaping the benefits of the very thing you are pointing at.

this is an incident that has never happened before. how do you practice for that? engineering something that has never been done takes time. more regs you say? maybe you should read the current ones and suggest some specific changes.

the president will put on a dog & pony show, but they won't stop oil production in the gulf. they want their 17.5%, in addition to proceeds from lease sales.

 

[ERD50]

this is an incident that has never happened before. how do you practice for that? engineering something that has never been done takes time. more regs you say? maybe you should read the current ones and suggest some specific changes.

the president will put on a dog & pony show, but they won't stop oil production in the gulf. they want their 17.5%, in addition to proceeds from lease sales.

Here is a bit of the perspective I was looking for (big assumption that Senator Kerry has his facts right, but...):

Sen. John Kerry: Halt to offshore oil drilling 'not going to happen' - CSMonitor.com

Stopping offshore drilling is not a realistic option, the senator said.

“Now we are not going to stop drilling in the Gulf tomorrow, folks. Let’s be realistic. There are 48,000 wells out there. One of them went sour. About 30 percent of our transportation fuel comes from the Gulf. You think Americans are going to suddenly stop driving to work tomorrow? Do you think people are going to stop driving the trucks to deliver the goods to the department stores? Not going to happen,” said the Massachusetts Democrat.

47,999 wells not leaking is pretty impressive.

No, I don't have any specific expertise in the area to recommend what changes should be made. But I do know that there are systems developed to manage high risk areas like this, even ones that have never happened before (like getting to the moon). And I guess one could argue that with 47,999 wells providing us with 30% of our oil without a major leak, the systems are working quite well.

In a very general sense though, it does seem to me that stronger backup plans are needed. In the inevitable case that one of 48,000 of these things does start leaking, it just seems they need a solid containment plan. I felt the same about the mining disaster of a few years ago (I didn't follow the recent one as closely). IIRC, that coal mine a few years ago was actually quite shallow - it went miles horizontally, but not very deep. When I looked at the diagrams, it just seemed like it wouldn't be that expensive to add additional access shafts and 'safe chambers' along the length of it. What also struck me was that the equipment they needed to try to get to those miners was days away from the site. Again, accidents will happen, the equipment needs to be a few hours away, not days. Sure, that will add to the cost, but I doubt it would be very significant at all - a few %? Sure a few % is big bucks for a big company, but if consumers need to pay a few % more for energy, the world will not come to a grinding halt.

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

True, but I think it gets twisted when applied to a singular case (and I think you address that later in your post).

It isn't the added cost of a more secure capping procedure for that well that is the issue, it is the cost of capping every single well they drill (or make sure that NO captain is piloting improperly at ANY time on ANY tanker). Obviously, they don't know ahead of time which will be the problem, so the more secure procedures need to apply across the board. How many wells have been drilled w/o incident?

And this isn't defending them in any way. I do feel that when there is the potential for such extraordinary damage, that extraordinary measures, and extraordinary (multiple) back up plans need to be in place, and tested routinely.

I think it helps to personalize the issue (for illustration) to put the finger-pointing in perspective - consider this: Did everyone on this forum have their brakes inspected today (and every day) by a certified mechanic? Probably not, but if they fail a life close to us could be lost. But we take our chances, thinking that they 'seem' OK, and they were OK when they were last checked, etc... The cost of failure is very high indeed, yet we don't take extraordinary measures to prevent a problem.

-ERD50

yes... I agree that you seem to save a lot by cutting corners at every well.... but again, how much could they save on each well... $1 mill I doubt they even saved that much... so you would have to drill a lot of wells to make up for the costs...

Using your example of brakes.. I will change a bit... make it tires... because it is easy to inspect tires all the time.. how many of us wear the tires down to the wear indicators? When a tire is older, they do not stop as well as a new tire, especially in the wet... so there are benefits to buying new tires before you really need to... and you save money... and as long as nothing bad happens... you are ahead of the game...

But the cost of this disaster is a lot higher than all the savings for all the the cost cutting for all of the drilling for probably a few years...

Now, if the blowout preventor worked... then the cost would be a lot lower... the problem is the guy who said to use water instead of mud did not know that the guy who was responsible for the blowout preventor had already cut a corner there... and the guy who said 'drill faster' and cost $25 mill caused the others to try and cut other items to make it up... so.. a lot of decisions that would work by themselves when everything else worked properly did not work because a large enough decision were made by low level people to try and save money... that to me is different than a mandate from the heads of the companies to cut corners...

 

[Texas Proud]

while i agree this is a tradgedy, i would just like to point out that it is easy and quite confortable to point a finger while reaping the benefits of the very thing you are pointing at.

this is an incident that has never happened before. how do you practice for that? engineering something that has never been done takes time. more regs you say? maybe you should read the current ones and suggest some specific changes.

the president will put on a dog & pony show, but they won't stop oil production in the gulf. they want their 17.5%, in addition to proceeds from lease sales.

And the ironic thing about this is there were people on board who were going to give an award for this drilling platform... for 7 years of work without a major work related accident... I am not any kind of expert on drilling, but I know enough that 7 years without someone getting hurt badly is very impressive...


But as the facts come out... there were signs that were ignored that soemone that had experience should not have missed..

As an example... if someone from BP was telling the people who were plugging the well to do something THEY did not think was right... they should not have done it... from what we are hearing, they say "we are not responsible because even though we though it was wrong, they told us to do it this way".... sorry, if you think it is wrong, don't take the money...

 

[Rustward]

Here is a fairly technical piece about what happened:
The Oil Drum | What caused the Deepwater Horizon disaster?

It appears corners were cut.
The author makes some good points:
"This is not an unusually deep well nor was it drilled in exceptionally deep water compared to many other wells in the Gulf of Mexico."

"I consider most of the publicly available accounts so far to be potential hearsay although they probably contain some good observations and elements of truth. I discount the value of the testimonials chiefly because none of these people were on the rig floor at the time of the blowout. In addition, the only people who have a comprehensive and fact-based understanding of the events leading to the accident are either sequestered by the companies involved or are dead."

"2. Only 51 barrels of cement were used according to the well plan. This was not sufficient to ensure a seal between the 7-inch production casing and the previously cemented 9 7/8-inch protection casing (Figure 2)."

The charts are from Surface Data Logging being performed by Halliburton who were replicating the data in their facility.

 

[REWahoo]

I've been watching the live feed from the broken well head (yeah, whaddya DO all day ). Looks like they may (?) have abandoned the "top kill" attempt as they are now in the process of sawing off something - maybe the riser pipe in preparation for trying to install a new blowout preventer as described here?

Like watching a train wreck...

 

[REWahoo]

They dropped the saw and had to go retrieve it. Not nearly as simple via a remote controlled sub/robot at 5,000 feet as out in the garage, eh?

 

[REWahoo]

Bringing the RPV up to the surface. Maybe they need to change the saw blade?

 

[ronocnikral]

i'm surprised they aren't going to blow it off and then finish off anything else with a diamond wire.

 

[Zathras]

Reports are starting to surface that BP will be announcing, at a news conference, the top kill is not working and they are on to the next idea