That's scary, and makes sense to me. I heard one of the workers from the rig say that gas had come up the pipe really fast and then was ignited by the drill engines. In short, a blowout, right?- where all pressure control over the huge volume of evolved gas was totally lost.

The tube in the pipe idea is meant to just transfer the force of the gas/oil gusher to the surface, without pressure control, and they'll be back to having a blowout on the surface, which can't be pressure-capped without blowing the small pipe out at the bottom, unless it is made as a high-pressure connection, which these mud flap thingies probably won't provide. That's what it seems like to me, (basically the same as the way you already explained).
So if they get this "straw" to take all this fizzy foamy flammable fluid out of the bottle, so to speak, to the surface, what then? The ultimate Mentos foamarama, only highly combustible?

I'm not trained in anyting oil, but just an interested amateur, and find this TOD site the BEST, by far, that I've seen for scientific/technical discussion of the problem.
This is my first comment. I registered just to participate in the discussions here. It was very refreeshing to read the comments here compared to most other forums I've seen, which are too general, to say the least (and to be kind about it!)- and populated mostly by people who can't even calculate the area of a circle, or who just want to gripe about lefty-righty politics; or top each other in creatively blaming various "they"s and "them"s; or hate on the "drill baby drill" cheerleaders.
But if one's house in on fire, the only important thing is to put it out, not assign liablity and blame. The only important thing is to get the well plugged, and then roll heads later, if heads are gonna roll.

I've always been fascinated by marine salvage, having grown up on the coast around ships and mostly submarines (near the SUBASE in Ct.) Which reminds me, we sure could use the abilities of the late great marine salvage dude Edward Ellsberg on this job. I bet HE could have had the thing plugged by now. He was really really good at impossible-looking marine salvage jobs.
But since he is gone, I wish the president would order the Navy to take control of the whole operation, to get on it with everything they have got- that is, if they have any necessary capabilities BP doesn't have.
fisherseye

Newdood,
The BP spokesperson said that the GOR (Gas to Oil ratio) is 3000 quoted in Upstream. 3,000 cu ft of gas per barrel of oil is close the limit of 10,000 where it is considered a gas well. What will happen if they let the gas escape at 600 mph?

Maybe Matt Simmons was right. I thought he made a pretty bold prediction at the start that they would not be able to fix it.

newdood, I'm not an engineer nor have I ever worked in the oil business. But I do have a degree in physics. And the first time I read about this option (Rube #2 I call it), my thoughts were exactly the same as yours.

If this brew does get to the surface I wouldn't want to be anywhere close to it. No way would I even think about getting on that containment ship.

If they're using rubber "flaps" the intention is not to achieve a complete or "airtight" seal. If the conduit to the surface is initially filled with oil, let's say, with a valve at the surface and (2) pressure gauges, one before and one after (before receiving vessel), you can crack open the valve as you start to "thread" the six-inch tube into the larger riser. I think as the pressure builds up inside ahead of the insertion tube, the idea is to have much of the gas "blow by" the flaps to keep the sea water from entering. They don't need gas to enter the tube, and it's better if most of it doesn't, both from a hydrate point of view and excess velocity as it nears the pressure level at the surface.

By observing the behavior remotely, one can determine if the "right" amount of gas is blowing by and also by monitoring the flow and pressure at the top, although there will be a significant delay, decide how far and fast to open the valve. That's about all I have--hope it helps somebody.

All the equipment from the bottom going up is standard equipment used for drilling and producing oil and gas from these water depths.

The Discoverer Enterprise is purpose built to drill and test wells in water depth up to 10,000 feet. At the cost of almost a billion dollars it is specifically designed to handle high pressure, high velocity, mixed phase flows.

It has equipment on board to separate the gas from the oil - the gas will be flared and the oil put in storage tanks.

The processing equipment is rated at 15,000 bpd but, depending on the composition of the flow they may be able to handle more.

I did a back of an envelope calc about how much oil could flow to the surface through a 6 inch drill string based on the buoyancy of the oil and came up with a minimum of 20,000 bpd, probably about 30,000 bpd or more. As soon as you add some gas that will act as an air or gas lift that number increases.

In other words they use the same physics that concern you to actually produce the oil and gas.

When the oil/gas stream reaches the surface it is still under pressure, the 6" drill stream does not go to STP, the stream goes in to separation pressure vessels so the velocity is reduced to near zero during the rest of the processing.

BUT there is a very real problem. The flow rate will be controlled at the surface by throttling the stream as it exits the drill string into the processing system. Control of that flow is critical to stabilizing the flow where the pipe is inserted into the broken riser.

Open the valve too much and the pipe will develop a suction that will try to draw salt water into the system which will cause hydrate formation.

Close off the flow and it will cause a build up of pressure behind the seals or flaps and try to blow the pipe out of the riser.

If it was my project I would try to install a clamp on the riser that would attach to the drill string with a chain or cable - similar to a thrust block.

It may be that the sheer volume of the riser - 21" dia by several thousand feet long, and the compressible gas inside will be slow enough to react to pressure changes that they will be able to adjust the throttle on the drill ship.

I don't know if anyone heard this before but "its never been done at this depth". And actually as far as I know this particular procedure has never been done before at any depth.

Isn't that a good reason to leave the methane in the form of methane hydrate for the trip to the surface? Surely there should be a way pump a slurry of methane hydrate slush to the surface without destabilizing it by increasing the temperature or adding methanol?

Containment #1 is absolutely seafloor junk.

From reading previous posts here, I believe that there was a plan to drop the "building" on top of the blowout, and then hook a riser to the "chimney" on top of it. Even before the plan failed, one of the knowledgeable TOD contributors mentioned that they -do- have plumbing in the riser to supply warm water and methanol, an antifreeze, to the device so hydrates wouldn't clog it up.

The plan failed because the hydrates formed more quickly than anticipated. There was never a chance to hook up the riser. The container was choked with hydrates and gunk from the blowout within minutes of hovering over the leak. It had to be simply moved off to the side and abandoned.

This tube-insertion plan is an attempt to do just what you are saying, and siphon off some of the oil/gas mixture without the H2O in it.

Here's hoping that this, the junk-shot, and the top-kill all work.

Reason?

Think back to what the rig looked like while it was on fire - that's what the flare would look like. This setup leaves no way to control the flow, which is the same process that melted the rig and sent it to the seafloor. They know this won't work. I just hope these PR stunts don't create even more carnage.

I have an idea that's more likely to work: build a dam from Florida to Yucatan, then pump out all the water. Easy! xD

I think the problem is that the gas doesn't emerge from the surface at one specific, albeit "wandering" location. The "physics" seems to require that the gas break-up randomly into "bubble trains" which interact chaotically with the much denser and more viscous water phase.

Thus you could be burning gas in one location, and the flow would suddenly disappear and pop-up somewhere else. In fact, the gas could be emerging from several locations hundreds of feet apart from one another at virtually the same time, or at least, within seconds of one another.

Somebody who's actually seen what happens, please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

As I've suggested before, it may be possible to "rotate" the water column around the rising gas and oil, creating a "virtual chimney" to make sure it all comes out in one location. It may require quite a bit of energy to maintain this rotation in a 5000 foot water column, but how much is being expended in the clean-up?

Of course, you would have to vacuum the oil phase up as fast as it reached the surface, or you would hardly be any better off than if you did nothing.

I cannot think of a case where (eventually) they did not get a relief well working, though it sometimes takes several tries.

Read this paper:
http://www.jwco.com/technical-litterature/p11.htm

for how they sense the target borehole with electromanetics..

The result. In 1989, the result of 20 years of new technology and strategy proved itself in the North Sea on the Saga petroleum 2/4-14 blowout, with a direct intersection of an 8 1/2-in. borehole at a depth of nearly 5 km.(7) No sidetracks were requred and only nine electromagnetic fixes were made.

acronym alert:
BHA - bottom hole assembly, the mud powered drill motor + steering unit + (probably) Measurement While Drilling and/or Logging While Drilling.

Also:
http://www.vectormagnetics.com/Relief%20Well%20Services.htm
http://www.vectormagnetics.com/Case_HistoryO&G.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mud_motor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_while_drilling

This beyond my understanding of the physics down below the water depths, but could the out flowing mixture be ignited as it leaves the riser?

The other leak is from the bent over part of the riser atop the BOP.
Sealing the BOP would stop this leak (too).
The main leak is at the end of the riser, some distance from the BOP.
There is no leak around the casing that I'm aware of.

Heavy enough mud would stop the flow down inside the well.
The junk shot is to cut/stop the flow rate through the BOP so that kill mud (extra heavy) can settle down in the well.
Then they might put in cement through the BOP to seal that.
I think to officially seal the well, they have to go in through the BOP and fully cement the thing, but don't quote me there.

Relief wells (in the oil patch) are misnamed - they are kill wells.
Did you see this reply in this thread?
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6467#comment-623745

Rockman has implied that "by regs" they must plug and abandon a blown-out well. He'll have the definitive word, but given the high flow rates and who knows what else is going on down there damaging the formation/casing/cement/..., it would be safest to plug it full of (dense) cement and start all over.

BP is on the hook for cleaning every inch of oiled beach, every oiled bird, every disappointed hotelier, every out of work fisherperson, etc., so unless they want to loose a lot of money, they have a lot of incentive to stop the flow ASAP.

latest relief well graphic (pdf):
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/551163/

May 9 - BOP maintenance and testing
May 14 - running the BOP
guess they're about to start drilling again.

Maybe this is old news but last night was the first time I saw a BP Exec in Houston categorically reject the 70,000 BOPD number. Until then, they had said they did not know but would go with the Unified Command number. He said they know what the pressure drop is and that the high number made by the Purdue prof, who is getting his 15 minutes of fame on all the networks, is wrong. So they must have a lot better idea of what is going on inside the BOP and of what this well can do.

I actually think if they can show by way of data the range of flow and that some of the arm chair quarter backs, who assume the team working on this are not a bunch of "know nothings" it might help their PR. Of course one of these other ideas would need to work to really help.

As others have said, the capture and insert methods have a lot of drawback but are being tried while they engineer for the junk shot /top kill and after that perhaps cut the riser to put a valve or new BOP on the well. They are experiments that they can do quickly , learn from, and at least show visibly that they are trying something while designing things that have a better chance of working.

Organizationally I like the way they are approaching problem solving, checking ideas, and the way the coordination is working with the agencies. That part beats what I have seen in past disasters.

The kill wells, of course, are the proven way. They are each being engineered to make multiple attempts. Fortunately, well bore mapping is much more accurate, as are directional drilling tools and procedures than when I was in the "patch". I am sure the best folks are involved in the drill planning and work.

I think you can pretty safely assume that, by the time it has wandered through the riser for almost a mile at a FAIRLY leisurely pace, the temperature will be pretty close to that of the water in the area. I think I remember seeing somewhere that this is about 40 deg F

As to the dynamics of hydrate formation, you'll have to find somebody a few pay grades above mine.

Oil temp from a well that I know about up on the north slope is about 450 degrees F.

oil and water do not mix, certainly some of the compounds in the oil degrade or are affected by water but your guess would be good as mine.

I am a refrigeration engineer, who did some work years ago up in deadhorse.

if you part of this team, i know its bad, i always for some reason gravitated towards where the shit hit the fan.
good luck!

Pit: I believe that the oil will rapidly approach the ambient temp of +/- 4C after it leaves the riser. The degradation of the oil takes place at surface due to evaporation of light ends and release of dissolved gas. The UV from the sunlight and bacteria also start working to degrade the oil on surface. There may be dilution of the oil underwater but I don't expect that there will be any degradation.

Knowing the pressure differential is a good start, but we can't calculate flow unless/until we also know the effective orifice size. Given the spectacularly convoluted flow path through the partially closed BOP and the riser kink, there isn't going to be any way to even guess at this

If the pressure at the output side of the BOP is known a good estimate of the total gas/ oil flow rate can be made by modeling the geometry of the twisted mile of pipe. No super computer required but CFD software is (which unfortunetly I don't have access to) plus a good map of the geometry of the pipe and images of any kinks.

A simple calculation can be done however to put an upper limit on the flow just by assuming the pipe is straight and unkinked. THis could be done with a paper and pencil. The unknown is the ratio of oil to gas I've seen a few estimates but they mostly amount to guesses.

Even relatively low pressure lines will "walk" from pressure pulses without hefty anchors.

The only way I can see the internal tube mechanism working is to positively anchor the sippy straw to the riser or drill pipe. Assuming the ROVs can weld, perhaps they'll simply scab on anchors, attach a structural member, and then stab the straw? Or perhaps there is an insertable expanding seal that could be put in place as an anchor? Or an external crimper that could crush the pipe around a lip on the straw? For any of this one would think the straw must have a release valve to allow oil to flow through unimpeded while they stab it.

As for the expanding gas, the obvious solution would be use a big enough pipe to keep the flow velocity down to something you can handle at the pressure you have to work with. There certainly can be a good bit of pressure maintained, given the density difference between sea water and a very gassy oil-water mix.

With a high gas fraction, the pressure available for lift is a couple of thousand pounds, IIRC from last week's math work. Part of this can be used to maintain gas pressure, and reduce volume, without preventing flow. In fact, there might be a solution point where the rubber flaps keep water out, instead of oil in, due to a partial vacuum at the bottom of the straw.

EDIT: I think I have a logical inconsistency in my rough analysis -- if the gas/oil/water mix rises with constraint (back pressure), the straw will actually suck itself into the leaky pipe. Only if it is sufficiently restricted at the top will pressure build against the rubber flaps and the straw itself.

It's the same physics at work as for the top hat and dome, only with an "innie" instead of an "outie".

My understanding is they are working in parallel on the "crap-shot" but that technique is more complicated than it sounds (I read there are 100 people working on it). I've read three reasons for this. One, they want to choose their materials carefully, and shoot them in pre-defined waves, one after another, at certain time intervals. Two, they need to figure out how to monitor its success/failure (in particular, they want to make sure it's not accidentally making things worse). And three, the BOP has weird curves in it, and they want to make sure they don't plug a valve (rather than the BOP).

In summary, they are working as fast as possible, it's just more complicated than shoving some junk in some valve.

Maybe not. Worst case is they blow the seals on the wellhead and there is a wide-open flow path for 8000 psi oil to the sea bed. Low probability, but possible.

As I understand things, the drill pipe has been shut off - valve installed last week. The remaining leaks are at the end of the riser and at the kink just above the BOP.

I have not seen a clear explanation of the dynamics of the leak and its path through the BOP - BP likely has some reasonable idea, but I haven't seen information posted by anyone who knows. Some of the pipe rams operated and I believe the annular preventer is closed. Its hard to evaluate the situation without more information (in order to discuss what reasonable solutions might be).

The NYTimes released this graphic of the BOP re the 'junk shot:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/05/15/us/15junk_graphic.html?ref=us

So you can see that they have re-plumbed the choke and kill lines that were damaged when the riser collapsed. It seems there is not an easy place to connect new plumbing at the top end - perhaps because that connection has been damaged, but I believe some people are working on how to do that.

Full article link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/us/15junk.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Maybe they think the kinked riser is backpressuring the BOP to some extent?

Tey're not sure how much of the down-hole pressure is being held back by that kink in the riser.

If they just slice it off, they MAY make the effective orifice bigger and wind up releasing MORE oil if they can't get the thing shut off or plugged up.

from the msds for corexit 9527a:

"excessive exposure may cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects," and "repeated or excessive exposure to butoxyethanol [an active ingredient] may cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver."

"No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product"

this is not dishwashing liquid.

This appears much like the initial containment box, only several magnitudes larger...almost like sinking a bottom-less oil freighter on top of the leak site like an enormous inverted bathtub. Why not pre-fit the "barge" with couplings to allow a reconnect to the risers that go to shore?

I'm not sure the capacity of one barge is several days of oil, more like 1 day? Barges are not that cheap. One problem I see is that it prevents work around the leak area.

It is not dissimilar to the containment dome idea. If the problem of hydrates could be addressed, and oil separated sufficiently from gas, a riser could be attached to a filled barge and oil removed. So while one barge fills, the others are drained. It would seem such a system (or two) could be built and tested and kept on standby, before the next deepwater leak happens.

All the equipment from the bottom going up is standard equipment used for drilling and producing oil and gas from these water depths.

Many deepwater riser designs have vanes for vortex shedding.

So we had an initially routine meeting in the morning. Afterwards BP and Transocean Senior Managers talked with each other to resolve a question between them on the plan for the day. The attorney says people were asked to leave the room but, as the WSJ points out, the actual sworn statement by Williams doesn't say that. Was it just the end of the main meeting and they left anyway but Harrell and Vidrine just had a quick chat and resolved a simple issue which will turn out not to be relevant in any case - or was this really something mission critical and the start of the disaster? We'll find out in due course I guess.

methinks the name 'Donald Vidrine' might become the new Joseph Hazelwood

Looks like someone thinks that perhaps cotton could be used to plug the leak.

http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2010-05-14/Local-man-pitches-oil-s...

This ain't a bad idea. It's unclear how much of a pressure reduction they'll get in the rest of the failed riser (especially if they have to choke down the flow to control velocity), but if worst comes to worst, they can still just shut it off and be back where they started from.

They almost have the hat trick.

not to worry, shelburn assures us that they have hundreds of people working on this, around the clock.

Keep it simple as possible. IMO, the original top hat was way too small and also didn't have a means to siphon off enough pressure through bleeder lines. If the top hat had been big enough, had bleeder lines, and also had additional means of injecting hot fluids into the hat the crystal hydrate formation would've been IMO significantly ameliorated. Also had it had rotating 'scraper blades' at the top of it (inconjunction with bleeder lines siphoning off the continuously now broken up crystal hydrate formations into manageable dimensions) it would've worked. The following approach takes that into consideration. Someone posted that they had located a good amount of 156" pipe in the general vicinity. That's getting closer to the right size needed. But they would need to take this same size pipe and triple its dimension by cutting it up into halves and rearranging it to form a 'clover' pattern at least for the first 500 feet. Again, bleeder lines tapped into it as it gradually gets closer to the surface will eliminate the explosive pressure problems previously addressed. Bottomline the top hat approach would work if it had been big enough to start with. So ultimately if the top hat idea is scrubbed even with the foregoing modifications the most viable solution is again to use the approach below. The current tube insertion approach IMO will create too much back pressure (with intermittent huge pressure spikes to boot) and furthermore risks additional rupture failures somewhere else.

lubricity

(Originally posted 5/13/10)......

"Should the new top hat fail IMHO there is a better temporary solution.

Picture an inverted funnel. A open at both ends tube of 'x' feet in diameter and 'x' length would be lowered over the leak(s) and or well head/BP. This tube can be 'solid' rigid walled or conduit designed much like electrical conduit to afford inherent flexibility. The tube diameter is then gradually narrowed through reducers until it reaches the surface to 'x' diameter. An important design redundacy feature is that through the first 'x' feet of the tube from the sea floor a series of 'bleeder' tubes of 'x' diameter are t-connected. Picture a 'mennorah' if you will.

Finally as the main tube reaches the ocean surface a floating containment 'funnel/lid' is attached to the tube's end. Picture one of those oil drainage capture funnels you see in automotive quick-change oil businesses. This funnel/lid will have an 'x' foot high wall and would be 'x' yards in diameter. As the funnel/lid fills with oil and sea water it is then pumped into oil processors.

The end result, weather permitting, is a vast containment of the leak(s) until a permanent relief well is functioning.

lubricity"

Read the article and the context and more of the interview. The comment "appeared to dismiss" is BS.Given the absolute sensationalism of the press I an surprised Tony (who is a geologist) oould even spend as much time fielding reporters questions as he does.

thanks rockman for your (as usual) clear and helpful analysis.

I'm scientific, but not oil. Learning fast . .. but still not clear how much suction there will be at the bottom of the newly inserted riser (due to gas expansion). More than the pressure in the wellhead? Or less? Or do we not know -yet? If there's too much gas, will we suck water in round the 'flaps'?

Why not some sort of choke valve at the _bottom_ of the newly inserted riser - surely safer in case of suddenly getting too much oil/NG to safely separate & flare?

Obviously shutting it completely would blow the insertion out, but a partial choke could be useful? And safer than shutting the top surely?

re immediate relief well - see Rockman's comment:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6444#comment-620428

You don't want to blow out the blowout.

I agree about the sorry state of the BOP.
One hand of BP changes the BOP to include a non-functional test ram,
the other tries to use it to seal the well.
Not sure if you could attach a seperate set of shear rams post-facto though.
In this case we have a bent-over riser in the way.
They do have connections that ROVs can use, and that's what they tried.
But the BOP had a hydraulic leak, so didn't work.

They need BOPs that can shear the pipe joints, are tested for real and properly maintained.

Drilling the relief (kill) well is a proven and well understood procedure. I believe Rockman has explained a couple of times in older threads that the wells must intersect at the bottom so that the same weight of kill mud will service both holes. A higher intercept introduces unnecessary risk of making the problem worse. (poor explanation but I am a novice like you and can't do better without searching back for the explanation)

The long and the short - although progress may seem slow, the engineers are working as fast as they can to complete these wells in a safe and effective manner.

I'm no expert in the topic, but as I understand things, the problem with an early (shallow) intercept of the well bore is that any mud or cement injected will be lifted by the flow and vented through the busted riser.

The "kill fluid" only works if it's in a column (pipe) thousands of feet tall.

Jet -- finally an easy answer…thanks. It’s all about the money IMHO. First, I believe a second RW is planned but they are waiting for the rig to be available. Haven’t heard anything about that plan is a week or so. A RW could easy cost $100 million and perhaps a good bit more. Given availability of rigs they could easily drill 4 RW’s: one from each quadrant. They would not interfere with each other. IMHO two RW’s is a good plan: the first well could run into drilling problems completely unrelated to the blow out. Having a second well underway is a good idea IMHO. Now how many “insurance wells” would I try? If I knew the drilling conditions were not too difficult I would go with two since would be likely both will make it to the target. But if I were BP I would have opted for all 4: even though the odds would be in their favor with 2 RW's they obviously don’t need any more bad PR.

Right. Its very clear that my idea of democracy (majority rule with guaranteed rights and freedoms) doesn't coincide with that of Dick Cheney et.al. (any means of disciplining the masses and providing for elites to exploit).

sunnnv

Thanks! Your first link regarding the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was a real eye opener.

Not quite sure how this improves our understanding of the current situation.

Sure, BP was once upon a time a state-owned British company called Anglo Persian, which was involved in the less-than-glorious colonial escapade to overthrow an Iranian regime - but that was nearly 50 years ago! Along the line it got privatised, bought Amoco, bought Arco etc etc. The landscape of the industry has totally changed since then, as have all oil companies including BP.

The point is - the Horizon blowout could have happened to any deepwater operator in the GOM - and there are plenty, most of them right now probably thinking "there but for the grace of God.." They all use Transocean rigs, Cameron BOPs, Halliburton cement jobs. The guys responsible for the well design have probably worked in a variety of operators. And so on. BP happened to be holding the parcel when the music stopped.

Or was it all some dark conspiracy aimed at further destabilising the Middle East?? I think we should be told.

BP said it was confident that its experiment using a mile-long pipe would capture much of the oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, but engineers failed to connect two pieces of equipment a mile below the water's surface. BP PLC chief operating officer Doug Suttles said one piece of equipment, called the framework, had to be brought to the water's surface so that adjustments could be made to where it fits with the long tube that connects to a tanker above.
The framework holds a pipe and stopper, and engineers piloting submarine robots will try to use it to plug the massive leak and send the crude through the lengthy pipe to the surface.
"The frame shifted, so they were unable to make that connection," said Suttles, who believes the adjustments will make the device work.

So what does the framework look like. What kind of force will be needed to get the stopper into the pipe? The back pressure of inserting a smaller pipe into a bigger pipe with oil and gas flowing though it under pressure will be beyond that which can be provided by submarine robots surely?

How about a stopper (with a hole in) that could use the oil flow to pull it into the pipe, like a cork screw that has rubber fins designed to pull it through the oil coming towards it using basic aerodynamics/fluid dynamics. Could the oil/gas mix act in the same way as air passing over a wing, creating the high and low pressures to create a driving force for this to work?

Man - if it was ONLY THAT EASY!!

It takes a bit of digging, but read through this thread. There are some DAMN GOOD REASONS why they haven't just gone hogwild and tried to crimp the riser shut.

FWIW, they are NOT leaving things as they are in an effort to try and make some money off the oil they're skimming off the surface of the gulf! The money coming in from oil salvage - even if it went to BP directly, which I'm pretty sure it doesn't - wouldn't cover a fraction of what they're spending to try and stop this catastrophe.

There are enough issues in the GOM right now. I don't have time for Jew baiting, today. I hope the conclusion I jumped to without reading beyond the first paragraph is incorrect.

I wish I could disagree tim but from the little bit I know many of the NOC's run safer ops. And some countries, such as Brazil seems to, have better safety protocols for all operators. But I don't think the oil indistry has more laxed oversight then the rest of the country. Start searching your memory for past non-oil industry screw ups and you'll get my point. It seems that most of our systems are more concerned with appearences than substance.

I am new to this sight & didn't know of its existence until last night. I, however am not new to the oil business. I have done drilling, workover, completions, & P & A s for almost 30 years now. I have also worked on platforms & done well testing work. I was willing to give BP some slack until I saw the video of the flow yesterday. I have done my own unscientific survey based upon the size of the slick in square miles converted into square feet using 1000 sqaure feet per gallon as a basis for slick occurance. Based on those factors & converting the gallons to barrels & come up with approximately 9,500,000 Bbls. of oil so far. this divided by the amount of days since the blowout occured I come up with an average of 42,000,000 Bbls./ day. I can't vouch for the scientific accuracy of these numbers, but unlike BP I am willing to disclose my basis for this conclusion.
I have sympathy for the families of the people who were killed & the people who were injured during this catastrophe, but I am swiftly running out of patience with BP. They have lied, covered up, told haf-truths, & mislead the public. I was willing to cut them slack until I saw the massive flow rate coming out of the riser. Now I am convinced that these people are dillusional. They actually believe there is a way for them to recover this oil & save this well. They have to, otherwise, they would have called out Baker, BJ, Halliburton, & Schlumberger with their frac fleets & pumped this well dead. If they can pump tennis balls in it they can damn sure pump barite & cment in it. This well, if undevieated would have no more BHP than 13,600 PSI. It is probably flowing at around 7000 PSI @ the stack.
The biggest problem with BP right now is they don't respect this hole just like they don't respect any of us. If they did they would get the thought out of their heads of RECOVERY & go for the only option available & that is a KILL. They can't screw it up any worse for God's sake. If they wanted recovery, they should have repsected this well to begin with & not ignored the failed negative test on the annulus. This well has a massive flow rate & the undeniable fact is this slick now covers 15,000 Sq. miles of the gulf of Mexico. If it is not killed before the relief well is drilled & pumped dead from the bottom until then, it will have flowed AT LEAST some 60,000,000 Bbls. or more into the gulf covering over 85,000 square miles of water. There are not enough ships & boom in the world to deal with a spill of this magnitude. The gulf is about 615,000 Sq. miles & some 15% of it will be covered in oil.
Screw the fish & shrimp, every single homeowner & vacationer on the gulf coast will losse the value of their property & every inch of beach from Tampa, Florida to the Yucitan penninsulas will have come in contact with this mess. I am sorry to have to say this about BP, but I make my living in this business as well as LIVE here, unlike the board of directors for BP & Transocean which are foriegn owned companies. HOOK UP THE FRAC BOATS, PUMP BARITE & REAL CEMENT, & QUIT SCREWING AROUND LIKE THIS IS YOUR PERSONAL CHEMISTRY SET!

What is the "LMRP" attached half way up the "insertion tube" pipe to the surface ?

And they plan to add nitrogen gas to help lift the oil to the surface ?

I thought the entrained NG would do that *TOO* well.

Alan

The hinged arm at the bottom end of the insertion tube is interesting. It seems to be less than two feet long and has a hinged "foot" or pad that will rest against the outside of the riser once the insertion tube is all the way in. Will this be used to hold the insertion tube in place, perhaps by using an ROV to weld the "foot" of the arm to the riser?

Notice in the relief well diagram they have 4 more casing runs before the last hole segment. That's one reason for the long drill time. Can take a week or more for each csg run in addition to the drill time.

As I said in a previous post, I believe a gas/oil separation at this depth would not result in a clean gas layer over an oil layer. The gas is supercritical, and most of the light oil fractions (think gasoline) will remain in the upper supercritical gas phase...so you can't just vent the gas.

Oops...edited because I was totally off base:

http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article215093.ece

The plan called for ROVs to put a 6-inch pipe into the end of the 21-inch riser.

Around the pipe is a stopper-like washer that will plug the end of the riser and diver all the flow into the smaller tube.

BP operations boss Doug Suttles said that the tool shifted inside its metal frame, making it impossible to connect to the riser.

Crews hauled the riser insertion tube back up to the surface and adjusted the frame and then lowered it back down to the seafloor for another attempt by mid-day Saturday.

Suttles said the smaller tube would be shoved as far up the riser as possible to ensure try to make a seal that would keep water out of the production stream.

The tube will then be linked to the Transocean drillship Discoverer Enterprise, which can process the oil-water mix and lighter the oil to a tanker.

Suttles estimated that about 85% of the leak was coming from the end of the riser versus about 15% coming from a crimp in the riser just above the crippled BOP.

'Top hat' doffed

In choosing the riser insertion method, BP decided to delay putting on a “top hat,” a dome that would cover the riser leak.

Suttles said BP engineers believe the riser insertion tube offers the best option to try to control the formation of hydrates, because it will keep the gas-rich Macondo production stream from mixing with the cold Gulf water.

The “top hat” was lowered to the sea floor Thursday and remains ready should the riser insertion tube fail, Suttles said Friday.

BP tried a larger containment dome earlier this week and was foiled by the build up of methane hydrates, which form when natural gas hits extremely cold water.

The top hat has a port that would allow BP to intervene with methanol or hot water if there is a hydrate build-up, but its design would allow the production stream to mix with water before it is pumped through a riser.

This goes a long to toward explaining the apparent discrepancy between the oil spill rates calculated recently from measurements taken from that video of the leak and the earlier estimates based on the size of the oil patch on the surface of the ocean -- a 5 or 10-to-1 discrepancy. Now we have evidence that most of the oil coming out the pipe hasn't reached the surface yet, and some (or even most) of it may never do, or it might take a very long time, or happen in a far-away place.

You've gotta wonder about the strength of the currents at depth. Why, for example, did the sunken wreck of the Deepwater Horizon impact the seabed so far from the wellhead? We're certainly glad it did, for if it had sunk straight down in the water and landed directly on top of the wellhead, that would have presented insuperable difficulties (and perhaps worsened the leak a very great deal, unless it somehow serendipitously sealed it off).

I can't picture the sinking rig "gliding down" to the seabed at a serious angle from vertical. How did it land some 1400 feet away from the wellhead in just 5000 vertical feet? Could deep ocean currents be at work there?

One more thing -- what about all the methane gas? Where is it going? If methane hydrates (like the ones that clogged up the containment dome) form easily at that temperature and depth, there might be something like a "snowstorm" going on above the leaking riser, as the methane diffuses upward, cools, combines with seawater, and subsides back down to the seabed in a kind or underwater snowstorm. Is that happening?

And finally, why have so few pictures or videos of the wreckage and the leaks been released? Yeah, I know BP doesn't want to release any, but how come the government lets them get away with that? Doesn't the public have a right to know more about what's going on down there? The feds should be doing much more to keep the public informed -- a little arm-twisting of BP management is needed here.

In a manner of speaking, the team had struck oil, or at least that was the best guess. Both the transmissometer, which measures particle levels, and the fluorometer, which detects dissolved oil (see previous posts), were showing very large concentrations of something at about 1,000 metres down, something we had not seen anywhere else.

"That, my friend, is the smoking gun," says Asper, "We've got to home in on this. You never see signals like that in the open ocean."

Oil spill science: The smoking gun - May 13, 2010

I am pretty sure that within the reservoir the oil + gas are miscible; a "supercritical solution." There is not a separate oil layer & gas layer. My hypothesis, to explain the subsurface heavy oil plume: when the solution goes through the flow restriction at the BOP, its pressure goes from ~9000 psi to near 2500 psi, causing a phase separation in which the natural gas remains slightly supercritical, the temperature is quickly reduced, and the result is a two phase flow of primarily heavy oil & asphaltenes (viscous liquid, specific gravity close to sea water) and a supercritical natural gas solution containing most of the light oil fraction. This 2-phase mixture vents out of the riser about a mile away, and due to mixing with sea water, the natural gas phase separates again with the light petroleum fraction. Most methane forms hydrates and slowly settles to the ocean floor (methane hydrate at this depth has density of 1.04 g/cc, so it sinks). Light oil (density ~.80 g/cc) rises quickly, while the heavy oil (density ~ 1.0 g/cc) rises much more slowly. It is sort of a doomsday scenario, which can only happen this way because (1) the sea water pressure at the exit is high enough for the methane phase to remain a good solvent for the light oil fractions, and (2) the mile run in the riser pipe allows the two phases to equilibrate before escaping into the sea. At shallower depth, the phase separation would be too fast to fractionate the oil. If this hypothesis is correct, the small plume escaping near the BOP may not have enough time for phase separation, and so the light & heavy oil comes out mixed, as in all previous experience...if I'm right though, the oil/gas coming out of the riser after a slow one mile trip is fractionated, resulting in the double plumes...God help us.

Could someone point me to the document submitted to the Congressional Hearings that supports "at 8pm – two hours before the disaster – BP decided operations could resume, with Transocean apparently disagreeing."

As that doesn't seem to match Transocean's verbal testimony that I heard but I'm perfectly willing to believe I've missed something.

"The Russians have done it before"

ztexas:

Can you give a reference for this claim. You appear to believe it is a fact. I have seen many statements about the Russians that are shurely urban myth ("they eat Christian babies" kind of stuff).

How many times have they done it? In what kind of well? On-shore or off-shore? Depth of well? etc. Above all dates and locations.

I've been trying to understand some of the characteristics of deepwater drilling and one publication I found very helpful was "Geological Controls and Variability in Pore Pressure in the Deep-Water Gulf of Mexico* "(http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/smithmm76/index.htm#00%20top). Mr. Smith addresses issues which seem pertinent to the current situation.

Where would an explosive device be placed relative to the well? Can someone explain if there would be any risk of destabilizing existing geological structures within the area impacted by the explosive device? Could there be a domino effect if destabilization were to occur?

Thanks for answering this question and for your patience with those who are not familiar with geology/engineering issues.

Yes. A 500 ft radius fracture zone would be very effective. Unfortunately, what it would be effective at is releasing all the backpressure on the flow. It would also bury the new "top" of the casing some 500 feet out of reach under newly porous rubble so that NOBODY would EVER be able to get back into it to finally cement the damn thing DEAD for a proper abandonment - even AFTER we waited for the relief (kill) wells to reach their target and mud it into aquiescence.

Wishing you peace, Rockman.

bye...thx for what you've done to-date. hope to see you back....

Take care of yourself !

Best Hopes and Wishes,

Alan

Rockman-Thanks for sharing your wisdom and your patience with us newbies.
May Peace be with you soon.

Rockman, you have made your tour here. Good Job.

"but for the grace of God" has gone through my mind many times since April 20th. Like many of you in the industry I can visualize myself on that rig floor that evening. At some point there will be closure, at what cost is yet to be determined. For those of us who are currently in active operations, we must focus on what is in our direct control and Rockman I admire what you have done here with the load that you are carrying.

XLOUISIANA
in re. question #3:

What I know is stuff I learned on this blog. Several links are available above in the vacinity of this character string:

"Scientists Find Giant Plumes of Oil Forming Under the Gulf"

This string links to this URL:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/us/16oil.html

The Research Vessel Pelican is instrumented for general oceanographic data collection. It is out there because of a sudden change of plans. The data that is being gathered is slow to get with the instruments that they have, but they are out there and they have no hidden adgenda. They think the plumes are moving to the south west. But their thoughts may have changed due to new data by the time you read this.

What they are finding is quite surprising to them. New phenomena that surely were not considered in any advanced planning for Macando well. Read it.

Geek,

The choke and kill lines are 2 high pressure lines that run down the riser and into the BOP, 3" ID for shallow water, 4"or 5" ID for deep water due to friction effect, there will be two entrances into the BOP for both, upper and lower. The difference between a sub sea choke & kill is the name and nothing else. The history of the names come from land rigs. The choke line was the line that took returns from the hole while the BOP was shut in. The kill line ran off lease with a check valve, and allowed Red Adair an easy way to kill the well. Offshore platforms and jack ups kept the check valve but tied the Kill back to the choke manifold. Sub sea stacks got rid of the check valve and tied the Kill to the choke manifold. So in effect you have two choke lines.

To some up they are identical lines with different names. Just as well call them Mary & Sue.

They will have a pressure rating the same as the BOP.

Strictly speaking, the choke line on a BOP leads to a choke manifold, a set of valves that can bleed off pressure at slow/controlled rates.
The kill line is used to pump in "kill fluid", heavy mud or other stuff to control the well pressure.

On a deep subsea BOP, the choke manifold is up on the drillship, as is the kill line feedin,
so they are (at the BOP) two essentially identical lines.
Given the controllability of the BOP stack, there will be valves leading from the choke line into the top, bottom, and probably intermediate levels of the BOP, and same for the kill.

So, depending on what you're wanting to do: for example:
* test the BOP by activating the pipe rams that seal around the pipe, you can feed pressure into a section and see if it doesn't bleed off.
* to contain a kick, one might close the pipe rams if there was pipe in the hole, or the annular valve if not, then circulate out the gas bubble by pumping heavy mud (a "kill pill") down the kill line, and slowly bleeding pressure off the choke line.

you activate the correct valves at the BOP and at the surface.

So stuff could flow either way in either line.

I have not seen a good schematic of a full subsea BOP, but it's essentially the same as a surface BOP: a series of valves stacked on top of each other, with some short sections of side ports between the main valves to measure pressure, allow choke/kill flow, etc.

BOPs are put together from parts, the Transocean site says of the Deepwater Horizon's BOP:

2 x Cameron Type TL 18¾in 15K double preventers; 1 x Cameron Type TL 18¾in 15K single preventer; 1 x Cameron DWHC 18¾in 15K wellhead connector

Then you have to go to Cameron's site to see what a TL BOP assembly is.

And I'm thinking they left something off - don't see an annular valve listed, but it's mentioned by BP:
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9033657&contentId=7061989

It's a bit fat squat barrel looking thing aligned on the axis of the BOP, toward the top, but under other barrel looking things that are the flex connector to the riser.

This BP briefing has a model, explained starting at 26:00
http://bp.concerts.com/gom/bptechbriefing051010.htm

Shows the choke kill lines coming down from the top, and a valve at the top. At 34:00, he turns the model around, so you can see some of the valves on the choke/kill line going to each section of the BOP.

------------
edit to add ref to OSHA page with some land BOP pics:
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/oilandgas/drilling/wellcontrol_bop.html

Why don't you post this on the current discussion thread for comment?

Thanks for that, but how would you explain the first evidence of petroleum hitting beaches being asphalt? By your hypothesis, the asphalt shouldn't be making it to land, yet it is.

BTW, walls of text are hard on the eyes. This is great commentary from you, regardless, and I think it'd be much better with a break every few lines.