Just some further IRC info for people:

You can access the oildrum irc channel (chat room) through a web browser by:

1. going to http://webchat.freenode.net
2. entering your desired nickname in the nick box
3. enter #theoildrum in the channel field
4. click "Connect"

A screenshot of the webchat front page:

Please note the current topic of the channel reads: "[Progress of the BP topkill - please keep discussion mostly on topic]"

Once you have connected you can create your own channel by typing "/join #thenameyouwantforyournewchannel"(without the quotes. If no one has made a channel with this name a new channel will be created and you will become the channel operator (room administrator). You can then have any interested parties join your room by using the same command.

This may be useful for branching off into discussions on politics, small talk etc. which would interrupt the topic of the main #theoildrum channel.

You can also start a private discussion with a specific user by typing "/query TheUserNameYouWantToContact Your Message"

Here is a site with some other IRC basics: http://www.ircbeginner.com/ircinfo/ircc-commands.html

For some it can be a bit frustrating when first arriving at TOD as you want to contribute but may feel, using my case as an example, under qualified compared to many of the contributors, especially the regulars. But I rapidly discovered it is not my lack of a college degree, but rather a lack of research which is the deciding factor in whether I can contribute effectively.

This tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico has given us a wide range of subjects that need exploring. There is a need for people who can keep up with the latest news and available research in specific areas so when other TOD members ask questions they are getting the best possible answers, not just a snippet of a news report that may be completely misleading.

Interesting aspects of your research can also be presented in the form of comments without a question being asked first. That often leads to a lively and informative discussion.

Here are some ideas that would-be contributors might like to consider researching and developing expertise in so they can share their findings with others. You don't have to have an advanced degree or oil patch experience, just the willingness to put in the research time required. Typically, the Drumbeat section of TOD is where these topics are discussed unless there is a specific article about them.

1. Loop Current and oil spill, and size, makeup and direction of oil spill

2. Existing Gulf problems, costal erosion, hypoxia, algal blooms and how the oil spill will interact with them

3. Subsurface oil plumes, scope of the problem, size, makeup, risks, current research efforts and results

4. Hurricane effects on oil spills, both known and theoretical

5. Congressional and MMS and Coast Guard hearings, what is the key testimony (Best for those who are not working full time)

6. Marsh cleanup and beach cleanup, what works, what does not, are enough resources available

7. Dispersant use, current use and effectiveness, how they work, toxic effects, choice of dispersants

8. Skimming and booming effectiveness and techniques, areas where successful and areas where failed

9. Dredging, timeline, risk vs. reward

10. Wildlife deaths, due to oil spill, due to natural causes, cause uncertain, numbers in each group

11. Safety of cleanup workers, lack of protective equipment, refusing to use protective equipment or use it properly, contributing factors, scams

12. Marsh damage, short term and long term, methods to assist marsh recovery

13. Gulf fisheries ecosystem damage and recovery, factors unique to Gulf, what have previous oil spills taught us

14. Actual amount of coastline affected and severity (Not nearly as much as what the news implies, although it is growing daily)

Some of these are moving targets. What was true yesterday can't be used to answer today's questions. Others require a lot of digging around on the web to find research studies, papers, presentations, conference reports, government agency reports, etc. Be wary of relying on MSM (main stream media) for information.

Just because this tragedy hits you in the gut, it can't prevent you from being objective. Don't learn just what supports your emotional response. Above all, TOD is based on critical thinking and a willingness to hear facts that may contradict current beliefs. If you present something as fact, you must be able to back it up with a verifiable source! Trust me, not doing your homework and getting zinged by someone who did is not fun. I've been there.

On the other hand, being able to answer questions asked by TOD members is rewarding and I hope you will consider developing a level of expertise in one of the above areas or a similar area you find interesting.

You know the silver lining in all this is that its gotten people to at least take a look at energy production and it raises some very large questions that as a society people need to re-evaluate every now and then. having a forum like TOD that gives what appears to be an unbiased view with experts from the fields involved is a priceless resource.

there are of course many who dont really care about this right now, and there are many that will forget about it when its done. for those of us who consider what is involved in producing the energy we consume this is a sea change and will hopefully have a permanent impact on TOD as well as begin a wider debate about these issues. as an industry outsider i really appreciate that this site has prepared such an outstanding foundation for this kind of discussion. I've observed that the commenters here, while often disagreeing, do so with respect to one another and have not embraced the MSM and politics of extremism. the people here are rational, considerate, intelligent and informative. Thanks Dr. Goose, HO, and all of you that contribute to make this place awesome.

This jet looks to be sitting at the bottom of a hole. This is clear on the left side of the image.

Did the BOP get blown off?

If that's just the open wellbore, where the BOP used to be, here's hoping they are very close to stobbing a new BOP on that sucker today.

And your estimation is based upon what? Provide analysis, comparison -- draw conclusions based in empirical analogies.

Every time they stop pumping mud into the well any mud that has been injected will be expelled again within minutes / hours by the oil. So they need to be able to pump mud in fast enough over a prolonged period until the weight of mud in the well is sufficient to overcome the pressure of the oil - that will amount to a lot of mud in the well, but as the well fills with heavy mud, the flow of oil slows making the task easier as it progresses.

Right now, too much of the mud injected is being expelled through holes - hence the junk shots are to try and seal some of the holes.

There have been several posts here that claimed we were seeing 100% mud coming out. It was never more than 50% given the volume rate of mud injected and the fact that it was being completely mixed with the gas-oil by turbulent action. Even if they could pump the mud at 20,000 psi it would proceed to enlarge the ruptures instead of burrowing into the bore hole. As noted by ROCKMAN on numerous occasions the top kill procedure is not designed for open wells.

i dont know if its mud or oil or what, but there are other possibilities.

1) the effluent appears to have a lower viscosity than what we saw earlier.

2) if this is oil, where is the gas ?

3) judging by color alone can be misleading, there could be other aditives in the "mud".

jmo

I have harbored many of these same concerns. Just how in the heck are the robots supposed to be able to fabricate a water-tight seal?

its one thing to damage the BOP if you think you have a realistic shot at making it work.

but to try a low probability event, and then try another low probability event just because they flow sequentially or logically doesn't make the most sense to me if the BOP is restricting the outflow somewhat and the likelyhood is that topkill or BOP replacement won't work, but exacerbate the outflow.

Granted, I am assuming that the topkill method doesn't have a reasonable chance of success.

I would like to see more public presentations of the technical proposals/solutions proposed by BP. justify not trying a solution just for the sake of trying it. half of the people in this country have college degrees; they should understand if you find the geekiest guy with the biggest glasses explain how doing nothing makes more sense than doing something.

BP was not going to drill the second relief well until ordered to by the government. I think that the shortage of deepwater drilling rigs must be a huge factor in the decision to use this BOP from the second relief driller. I would not imagine that taking a BOP from an operating well is possible. It seems like a mistake to me but any chance to stop this gusher quickly must be viewed by the damage of not stopping it quickly -- another two months of gushing oil and the gulf economies may be wrecked, if they are not already.

IMHO, the second BOP doesn't have to be attached with 100% pressure tight seals. I think (yes, i know it's a big leap:-) attaching a second BOP would allow an LMRP to be attached to the top BOP to prevent most O&G from leaking but then detached if/when a hurricane happens to come along and the well mostly stopped until the hurricane passes - so much less spillage than now. In parallel the relief wells are continued and fingers crossed will plug this by August.

Probably before your time but did you have any friends/family involved in Piper Alpha?

ROCKMAN, your analogy explains the difficulties succinctly.

It "feels" difficult if not impossible based on this general description. But that's what hope is for, I guess.

[edit: removed an already answered question about erosion/BOP issues]

Extreme hopes for a rapid resolution to this. Thanks to all the experts for their time and consideration.

thanks for the analogy i appreciate it greatly and it gave me a simple question i'm sure i'm not seeing the answer to. if your low pressure valve is being overrun by the inlet off the high pressure one and that is whats causing most of the excess loss (IF thats the case), then why not increase the pressure on the inlet for the low pressure valve when the high pressure pops open, run them both at 10,000psi?

do we lack the equipment for that?
does it put too much strain on the riser?

of course those questions are all taking a back seat right now to this one:

why are we seeing a gigantic column of what appears to be pure crude oil flowing from what i can only assume is the top of the riser?

Rockman: I'm in the business of explaining complex, arcane topics to lay people. Your radiator explanation of top kill is brilliant. I might add one other dimension to the difficulty. While increasing the pressure to 400 psi, you don't know when and if the increasing pressure might suddenly blow the whole radiator apart. And you're standing next to it. Bye the bye, your patience with educating us lay people at this site is outstanding. Thank you and all the other experts here. And I hope your daughter played as brilliantly as your explanation. Or, at least, as Paul Pierce did last night.

ROCKMAN has the correct attitude. Keep it simple so that everyone can understand.

I would like to add my bit also. There were a few threads dealing with ways to crimp, plug or otherwise fix the problem that did not seem to have a grasp of basic physics - specifically confusing pressure with force. We have a disconnect here when people are making comparisons about water cutting and car wash nozzle pressures to those of an oil well.

In water cutting the water in the hole in the jewel might indeed be at 20,000 psi momentarily - but the hole is only 0.05 thousands of a square inch in diameter - amounting to about 1 pound of FORCE for that area.

Now a well pipe with diameter of 20 inches has an area of 314 square inches - with each one of those experiencing a force of in excess of 10,000 pounds. You want to plug that? Try balancing a couple of fully laden jumbo jets on it. They will float ;P (clue: 314 square inches times 10,000 pounds of force per sq inch = 3,14 MILLION pounds of force)

Now for each gallon of drilling mud you want to force down the well pipe you need to do xxx amount of WORK - and so on...

And it all quickly becomes a college 101 physics lecture - through which everyone sleeps. Except those of us who do these calculations in our heads every day at our work. And this is all very basic stuff and ignores the hydrodynamics involved. Some people here have made those calculations also but very few of us know how to make them or even understand them. ROCKMAN's analogy is an excellent example of how to make EVERYONE understand what is happening. Let's follow his example!

"helpful to the newbies"

And to Average Joes; thanks for that!

With your water heater example, which I guess has pipes that twist and turn, might metal fatigue also be an issue?

Regards, Matt B
Concerned Dad

I think I follow this ... but one issue that comes up for me. On many of the design specs I have seen for BOPs (and I believe this holds true for the Cameron device currently on the sea floor), the valves on the choke and kill lines are located at the bottom of the BOP stack (closest to wellhead)? These primarily serve to regulate fluid circulation and pressures when the annulus is closed. This means the two pressure values (the lower and upper annular preventers) are located above the valves where BP is introducing new drilling fluids at high pressures.

http://www.itcas.no/software/petro_trainer/pic/ex_ss_bop.gif

Building on something I said yesterday ... I don't think they are relying solely on a differential between the two annulus preventers to try and send the drilling mud back down the pipe (or with high pressures coming out of the choke and kill lines, although these are helping). Instead, they are trying to do this with some physics and some fairly unique characteristics of drilling mud (in particular, it's ability to maintain it's viscosity at very high pressures, grab hold of obstructions, and act as a non-newtonian fluid where forces do not need to be matched in a 1:1 relationship). In general, drilling fluid can be sent down the pipe regardless of some of the pressures that are being seen (if you have some buildup "somewhere" in the pipe … perhaps around some joints). Over time, if the maneuver is successful, the pipe will start to get closed off, the pressures will decline, and you can start moving drilling fluid more effectively down the pipe. This will take 2-3 days to find out if it is working and there is a lot of monitoring going on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid

The junk shot, presumably, is something that they are trying to do to add to the debris already caught in the BOP preventing the rams and annulus from closing. They aren't trying to stop the leak at this location, they can't, but they can constrict the flow and manage the pressures better (per your description). The ultimate kill that brings the well under control, if they are successful, will take place much further down the pipe (hopefully, at around the location where they want the relief well to join the blown out well). Anything short of that, and they may not be able to add enough mud in sufficient quantities to counteract the pressures currently rising up the pipe from the reservoir.

Just back from a day out and would like to add one small point.

Once you have circa 10000 psi in the bottom of the BOP you will hold the upward flow of oil and gas. As you then increase mud flow and pressure (increasing pump speed) the mud will start going down the well. Once this is underway it is possible to back off the pumping rate/pressure within the BOP because you are adding head of mud at Specific Gravity around 2.2 rather than the oil around 0.8. This 'extra' head reduces the pressure required within the BOP to keep mud flowing down. Depending on the depth of the well you can get to the point where you need only a little above the 2200 psi of the sea at the sea bed to keep the mud going down (i.e mud pressure head about 1 psi per foot so if head is reservoir pressure 13500 minus sea bed pressure 2200 psi = 11300 psi a mud head of 11300 ft will balance this out - ipso facto isn't this about the depth of the well?

I point this out as it means whatever junk is in the BOV that allow the mud to be backpressured to obtain the pressure for flow reversal needs to hold while you get over that hump. As the mud start down the hole the stress on the junk plug becomes less until you may (I say may) get to a point where pressure equilibrium is achieved even though by then you have lost all the junk.

It is not required to hold forever, just to get over the pressure hump and well down that other side.

This is the beauty of using drilling mud rather than seawater. If you inject seawater (0.44 psi/ft) you will need the junk plug to hold forever (or until such time as you make a positive seal).

Here's a partial answer:

1) Haven't seen measured pressures other than 8000-9000 psi -- Does anyone have the source quote for this?

2) There's a wide range of pressures depending more on depth and overpressure than present water depth, but it's true that geopressures are typically high in Tertiary turbidite sections (strata deposited in deep water, but not necessarily in deep water today).

3) Yes, sort of. If the formation fluid pressure exceeds the minimum principal stress then the rock will fracture and fluids will leak, lowering the pressure. In the GOM the minimum principal stress is near horizontal, so induced fractures are near-vertical. When testing cement shoes, LOT's (leak-off tests) can measure this "fracture pressure," but the upper limit is easily estimated by calculating the overburden pressure, basically the integrated weight of the water and sediments above you (you get that from the depth and density vs. depth function. Fracture pressure in areas like the GOM are somewhat less than the overburden

4) In the hydropressured section, yes. Within the geopressured section, no. In the GOM deepwater there is typically little to no hydropressured section, geopressured from near surface down. On the shelf there is often a thick hydropressured section in the sand-rich deltaic deposits above an older geopressured section. In geopressures, within a good reservoir, fluid pressure is generally on a single hydrostatic gradient that is a function of fluid type. E.g. brine about 0.465, oil about 0.300-0.320, gas about 0.100-0.150, but depends on the specific fluid. Reservoir sands are often separated by good impermeable shale seals, so each reservoir has it's own fluid pressure gradient.

Macondo (from scout ticket leaked to blogs) drilled bottom hole with 14.1# mud, weighted up to 14.4# and lost circulation suggesting that reservoir fluid pressure is between these two gradients.

14.1# is .733 psi/ft; 14.4# is .749 psi/ft; at 18000' that's 13,000-13,500 psi reservoir pressure

The static well head pressure would have been 13500-(13000*.300) or 9600 psi filled with light oil.
Perhaps this is why "8-9000 psi" was less than expected.

Please note that some of the highest absolute pressures are encountered in deep gas wells in shallow water and onshore - e.g. 18# mud at 20000' is 18700 psi; some deep shelf wells are being drilled with higher mud weights and much greater depths - the technology probably doesn't even exist to complete and produce these wells which are also at elevated temperatures (above 400F).

Marco – The highest bottom hole pressure I’ve measured first hand was just shy of 20,000 psi. And that was on a well where the anxiety was so high that some hands were sleeping in the escape capsule when they were off tower. Finished the job without a problem but that was as much luck as anything else.

Wellheads are rated as needed whether onshore or off. The limit for reservoir pressure is actually determined by the rocks overlying it. All rocks have a fracture gradient. The reservoir cannot exceed the fracture limit of the overlying rock otherwise the oil/NG would have leak out. That’s one reason why they don’t drill with the heaviest mud weight possible: fracturing the rock and losing mud to the rock can lead to sticking drill pipe or even a blow out. Actually no…the pressure can vary when you’re dealing with a tall column of oil/NG. If the were a 300’ oil/NG column in the reservoir the pressure would be somewhat higher at the top of the structure (max hydrocarbon column) compared to structurally lower

Does anyone have a good figure for the leak rate of Ixtoc 1? All I have read gives estimate of 10,000 - 30,000 bpd.

I don't know crap, but this seems to be quite a range?

It bothers me that the Coast Guard continued to use the 5000 barrels a day number until "forced" to allow independent appraisals.

I'ma noob, found the site, started reading decided to join you. A couple of questions.. Is there a place somewhere that would let me see more this one riser shot.. is there a site map that shows the leaks and what is deployed at them? It seems we are having our view controlled pretty tightly.

When I was previously viewing the riser leak, the flow was blowing out more or less horizontally west to east +-. Now, it is spewing straight up in a depression of some sort... Is this the same leak?

Thanks for all the interesting posts and discussion, there is much to learn here.

Range of lower bounds, or best-estimate "overlap" as I've seen some places?

AlanfromBigEasy -

Aha!

Several days ago while discussing the flow rate out of the leaks, I made a few observations and rough back-of-the-envelope calculations and suggested that we set up a flow rate pool. At that time I put my 'bid' in at 20,000 bbl/day (as oil, not total fluid flow) as what I though was a reasonable estimate.

Does this make me qualify as a flow rate expert and deserving of a place in this flow rate group? Or does this only show that this is not astrophysics we're dealing with, but rather the ability to draw some reasonable conclusions based on observations and some basic principles of undergraduate fluid dynamics?

It appears to me that the people who have the greatest interest in muddying (pun) the flow problem are the same ones who have perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, depending on whether the total size of the oil release is smaller or larger. They want something that they can argue about endlessly once the inevitable litigation starts and a protracted game of the battle of the expert witnesses commences.

While the report is an interim report and the higher bound is forthcoming, I did find Professor Wereley's statements from the PBS article amusing. For example: "Wereley said he was surprised to see the estimate of 12,000 to 19,000 barrels and was "disappointed" with the way that the press release was phrased."

Come on Professor, stop looking like a child trying to salvage your original 70,000 bpd estimate and simply focus on the task at hand. Play with the press and you will get BURNED.

Alan
It may actually be a very good call by BP, the rig may have just set a string of casing and cemented, they could hangoff a plug in the wellhead, close the shear rams, disconnect the Upper Marine Package and pull over to the blowout with a backup BOP while another rig is mobilized to come over and relatch to the relief well with their UMP. Saves time if the cutting of the riser and need to restab a BOP quickly to reduce oil outflow at full blowout force.

I think it is only the drilling of new wells that has been suspended, not all drilling.

BOPs of this sort are probably not off-the-shelf items which are kept in stock in a Cameron warehouse. There is probably a lead time of at least a few months.

Most drilling rigs are probably contracted out on other jobs, and not idling about in a harbour somewhere. It is therefore probably not just a question of money but also persuading another opco to release a rig from a contract.

Whatever BP is doing now, penny-pinching it is not.

The stop on drilling the second relief well is just penny pinching at BP.

Alan

They are still paying for the rig to be where it is whether it is turning a bit or not. So how can you say they are penny pinching? They are supposed to be getting the rig ready to use the BOP stack on the well that is blowing out. They cannot do that if the rig has its BOP stack tied up drilling another well. As far as the cost of these things they are all going to ring up at somewhere around a half a million per day each. Have you counted how many they are sitting on the water out there right now? That is not counting all the support vessels in the area. I would hate to see the mud bill for this operation.

Thant last statement is is an opinion only.

I think it is only the drilling of new wells that has been suspended, not all drilling.

BOPs of this sort are probably not off-the-shelf items which are kept in stock in a Cameron warehouse. There is probably a lead time of at least a few months.

Most drilling rigs are probably contracted out on other jobs, and not idling about in a harbour somewhere. It is therefore probably not just a question of money but also persuading another opco to release a rig from a contract.

Whatever BP is doing now, penny-pinching it is not.

I think it is only the drilling of new wells that has been suspended, not all drilling.

BOPs of this sort are probably not off-the-shelf items which are kept in stock in a Cameron warehouse. There is probably a lead time of at least a few months.

Most drilling rigs are probably contracted out on other jobs, and not idling about in a harbour somewhere. It is therefore probably not just a question of money but also persuading another opco to release a rig from a contract.

Whatever BP is doing now, penny-pinching it is not.

So Development Driller II gives it's BOP to DWH blowout. How does DD II ever start drilling it's relief well again without a 6 month delay?

I'm not an oil guy, but in a long past part of my career we had a phenomena that we caled ballonning, that is probably related. We are pushing high pressure into a cyllindrical well pipe. If the pipe is not strong enough, but is ductile enough to bend, then a portion of it can get forced to expand by the pressure, thinning and getting weaker still as it goes. Most liekly would lead to catastrophic failure.

Now, maybe someone familar with well terminology can confirm or dispute whether they use "balloning" in the same way?

"Ballooning" in this context refers to losing mud to the formation when pumping or slightly overbalanced, and having the mud come back in when pumping stopped or mud-wt slightly lowered. Very difficult situation to go forward drilling as too high mw/ecds will cause lost circulation, too little and the well comes in on you - problem is no margin.

Damn it toll…I was hoping no one would bring up ballooning. I didn’t know much about it until I started doing DW well site pore pressure analysis. Here’s the dumb geologist explanation. HO might want to lay on the detail explanation.

Ballooning is a character of oil-based mud (OBM). Think of OBM as having an elastic character compared to water base. When you’re drilling with OBM the e mud system is pressurized. As Point out before a key method of determining if a well is trying to kick you is to check the mud returns when you shut the mud pumps off. If the mud keeps flowing you may have the well beginning to kick you. But with OBM you can still see a significant mud flow even if the well isn’t try to flow on you. The OBM expands (balloons) when the pumps go off. Makes it all the more difficult to tell how close your mud weight is to a correct balance. So if you have to raise MW it can make ballooning worse so at some point you run a liner to get away from this complication.

My observation also. Looks much darker this morning, or is the lighting?

If the thrusters of the battleship were angled to the side (can be done using off-the-shelf parts) and the giant screw was attached to the ship's keel prior to sinking, the ship would pirouette if waterproof engines were used--it would be the giant screw driver! Iits weight would help drive the giant screw into the well, making it even more perfect.

I remember an episode in Star Trek where they changed the gravitational constant of the universe, oh oh oh or even better the Time Turner in Harry Potter.

But why aren't we using those dilithium thingumybobs instead of that nasty crude oil?

Deep sigh and back to reality wondering how many more bombs will be suggested.

you forgot to mention the best suggestion of all, the one offered by cool_chick. That's the one I really wanted to see implemented.

That is a very reasonable question. From what I've picked up, these deep deposits are a combination of oil and dissolved methane. You'll see the more knowledgeable people here use GOR - gas to oil ratio - when referring to that.

Apparently the GOR of MC252 is fairly high (for right now) and as such, the material coming up is very compressible as opposed to water. Someone yesterday (or two days ago? it's all blurring together) mentioned conservation of momentum when referring to pinching off the flow. That's more useful when modeling a system of inelastic collisions - which a mixture of gas/oil ain't.

That being said, the system will eventually reach equilibrium with a gradient from the highest pressure at the bottom of the well to whatever it is at the top. Minimizing the reflected pressure waves is probably smart in any case.

Dan

They are relying on developing dynamic pressure. As a non-technical analogy with the BOP/riser being analogous to a garden hose, it takes relatively little pressure to force 5 gallons per minute through a garden hose, but if you were to try to force 500 gallons per minute through the same garden hose, it would take a great deal of pressure. They are trying to pump mud in fast enough that it develops enough pressure in a similar manner to force the mud down the hole.

Thanks for your comment. It is difficult for an non-oil expert to evaluate the "experts".

I have a gut feel that BP has no idea what to do, with their "finger in the dyke" strategy.

Shouldn't we be bringing in supertankers and trying to contain the flow? The idea that they will interfere with the robots seems short-sighted.

If you look just above the video image at the top of this page, you'll see the following having been written as a description of what we are seeing:

(right now it is the riser outflow that we haven't seen for a while).

That should spare you from having to speculate more ... you are looking at the end of the riser that is still attached to the BOP, not where it's bent on top of the BOP.

Its just the end of the riser leaking oil from a pit in the mud. I think it may be sinking in slowly and they may have to keep excavating it . Believe me, if they blow off the BOP you won't be seeing close-ups from the ROVs. All the fuss about 'explosions' yesterday had to do with perspective and ROV operations as the top kill/junk shot was being implemented (along with what ever else they are up to.

They are not trying to plug the riser really, it is the BOP that is the target - but most of the junk seems to be blowing right through.

I've looked and can't find a supporting link just now, but it was reported a few days ago that BP's original intent was to drill only one relief well, and the US government insisted on a second. I'll keep looking for the report.

It seems BP will do what BP wants to do, regardless.

Here's a graphic from BP showing all the casing and liner diameters.

http://bit.ly/c2urYM

Dan

The inside diameter of the riser is reported to be 18 3/4 inches. IMO, there have been no "explosions". The junk that goes into the BOP has to travel all the way to the end of the riser become it can escape into the open ocean.

The junk is injected into the BOP. It is instantly carried upward at an exceptional high speed. If it hits something, it is probably deformed and simply passes by. Hopefully some of it lodges. Once it is out of the BOP, as I said, it simply travels down the riser and exits the open end.

When the mud pumps are pumping some of the mud mud is going down the hole. When they turn the pumps off to inject more junk, there is a contest. Either well pressure is sufficient to start pushing the mud back up the hole or it isn't (victory.) If it is, the question becomes how fast. If the column is short, or full of natural gas and oil, it's light, and the well pressure would move it up and out rapidly. If the mud column is heavy and pure, and well pressure barely able to push it up, then the junk they inject will move up the bop at slower speeds. There will be less deformation and damage to it, and a better chance it well lodge. It would be a good time to shoot junk made of harder materials that might, when exposed to either mud pump pressure or well pressure, stay in place inside the bop - very helpful.

No matter what, when the mud pumps are on, the mud effluent out the end of the riser will be large as the end is 18/3/4 inches adjusted for any damage. It will look like the effort is a losing effort. That might not be true. The real battles are inside the BOP where they trying to get junk to lodge and stay, and down the well, where they are trying to inject enough mud to tame the well.

Highly variable but this article might help:

http://www.africanoiljournal.com/new_innovations_and_technologies_accele...

Productivity

High production rates have been a driving force behind the success of deepwater operations. For example, a Shell Bullwinkle well produced approximately 5,000 barrels of oil per day (BOPD) in 1992. In 1994, a Shell Auger well set a new record, producing about 10,000 BOPD. From 1994 to mid 1999, maximum deepwater oil production rates continued to climb. BP’s Horn Mountain project came online in early 2002 in a water depth of 5,400ft (1,646m), with a single well maximum rate of more than 30,000 BOPD. Since mid 2002, oil production rates have declined in the 1,500–4,999ft (457–1,524m) water-depth interval. However, production rates have increased steeply in the greater than and equal to 5,000ft (1,524m) water-depth interval. The record daily oil production rate (for a single well) is 41,532 BOPD (Troika).

I am not sure what one response had to do with your question? This is what BP expected 160,000 to 170,000 barrel a day. Nearby Thuderhorse production 1st. year was 250,000 a year later dropped to 150,000. So yes, if you are thinking like some? We could see 170,000 barrels a day into the GOM if the BOP blows off!

Thanks for the information on the previous node about what pressure can do to oil, and in particular this oil. If I am reading right, at the seabed relatively little would happen to its componentry.

If this is the case, would it not be possible to overcome the hydrate problem in the Macondome by utilizing oil as a barrier, effectively keeping saltwater and methane out of the dome until such time as the riser valve is opened ? Hang the dome sub-surface, fill it with seawater, and then close the riser valve. Divers then introduce a supply pipe of oil from underneath, and then pump the dome full of oil, thus displacing the saltwater. When the dome is full of oil lower it to the seabed.

It might also be practical to install an additional valve at the first story of the dome for pressure relief as the top riser valve is opened.

I am a bear of little brain, so fully expect to be shouted at.............

mihoda,

Under the pipe are hundreds of feet, if not a thousand feet, of mud. There is nothing under the pipe to support it as your wedge drops on it. Given the massive weight you are considering, the size of a support plate to go under the pipe would be far too large for the ROV's to handle.

mihoda wrote:
One of the BOP's functions is to squeeze the pipe got me thinking....

When it operates correctly, the BOP's shear rams cut the pipe and seal it. Suddenly stopping the flow by dropping a weight onto the riser and crushing it would probably send a shock wave back down the oil well with pressure sufficient to rupture the casing and liners. Also the weight might shear off the riser and sink into the silt since the sea floor has bearing strength similar to pudding. There isn't a solid surface below the riser to crush it against.

TheraP, one of the most sensible ideas yet ha! Welcome to you. It isn't normally like this of course. This is a well balanced site of need for production verse peak oil. Many wonderful industry people are here routinely, I myself work in high energy. I champion the building of a new reactor using Thorium with beam induced fission. Please read many of the articles relating to energy savings, gardens, process, etc. Again welcome to all!

Good suggestion, TheraP. And welcome to our extended TOD family.

Btw, really like your handle. TheraP is something the execs at BP may seeking after the public trouncing they've been getting. My sympathy, however, goes out to those who will have to clean up this mess. They will need debriefing and a listening ear.

If perchance this is your specialty, be prepared. You may be setting yourself up for future business.

Cheers!

The view has changed on the BP provided live link;

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/ho...

it looks like an ROV is hung up or something...

That looks like a saw blade

HOLY CRAP!! Saw is running. Okay, experts...Time to earn our undying gratitude, and a drink should we ever meet.

Does this mean they are now going to try and cut off the riser and attach a new BOP?

HALP!

That's a great idea but making a firm connection between the circling ships and the sinking ship (I still prefer a battleship because of the thrust that could be had from continuous firing of the guns as it sinks) seems like a problem though. I think it could be solved, however:

Connect shafts to the sinker with hinges and run them through hinged tubes on the circling ships. When the sink started they would be horizontal and extend maybe two miles past the circling ships, like spokes. As the ship sank the shafts would rise into the air. It be quite beautiful too-- would look like a flower closing.

It would interfere with the nuclear warhead solution.

The oil and gas would erode a channel under the concrete and eventually emerge at the outside diameter of the concrete pile. This would not take long. It might even erode a hole up through the concrete before it sets.

Would you recommend concrete before or after dropping the battleship on it? How far is the Titanic from the Gulf, could there be a way to use it, since it's already split in a couple of pieces?

Further, BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles told the trade publication Upstream Online, "We don't know why the BOP failed to stop the flow. Ultimately we will recover the BOP, get it to the surface and find out."

I don't believe they will recover this BOP, but if they do, it will be interesting to see if some of the casing isn't shot up through the stack and was blocking the rams from closing.

They are going to cut the riser. you can see the bend in the pipe just above the saw.

It looked like they were trying to cut a coupler on the kill/flair/choke line.

Syncro

I think if you go back and read all of BP's communications it says that -- NOT!

One of the other posters here took a safety course from TransOcean. In it he was told to *NOT* take a photo of an accident scene. It may contain "unwanted information".

What you are talking about is "unwanted information".

A new, and unwanted, concept for me.

Alan

They don't have time to explain. Or, more likely, explaining can't keep up with events. Or, even more likely, they are flying the robots on a wing and a prayer and no matter what they say will be wrong. PR department is mum or out run. Legal department scrambling to look ahead. Managers pulling for engineers and operators to overcome all and everything.

Again, I am the originator of the "battleship" idea. I posted it on the Huffington Post soon after the rig sank. It was a JOKE. In my original version I suggested they take take the flight deck off the the USS Ronald Reagan, turn the hull over, attach concrete hoses, sink it on top of the well, and fill it with concrete. It would be a way for Ronnie to win one for the Gipper. If the Ronnie missed the well, I suggested they should take the deck off the USS George H.W. Bush and repeat, only switch from concrete to Krazy Glue and Gorilla Glue.

Am I a genius? Yes, a comedic genius. Well, not really. My other idea is to have Apple Computer and Kotex Corporation collaborate on a fix. Apple could fabricate a gigantic I-Pon, and Kotex could make a gigantic special applicator.

Who knows, maybe Steve Jobs will join the Admiral. Oh, my other idea was to have Johnson&Johnson make it into a baby oil well.

Was that a screw up or did the ROV drop the saw blade on purpose?

That's much better. Just seal the engines with caulking to keep the water out and I think we are good to go. They could all fire their guns all the way down for more thrust.

Hopefully the wouldn't hit each other.

the video now is similar to last night, it appears that the submersible is surfacing?

http://i46.tinypic.com/10qm147.jpg

From BP's website:

"Should the top kill not succeed in fully stopping the flow of oil and gas from the well, BP would then intend to move forward to deployment of the LMRP cap containment system.
Deployment of this system will involve first removing the damaged riser from the top of the BOP to leave a cleanly-cut pipe at the top of the BOP’s lower marine riser package (LMRP). The LMRP cap, an engineered containment device with a sealing grommet, would then be connected to a riser from the Discoverer Enterprise drillship and then placed over the existing LMRP with the intention of capturing most of the oil and gas flowing from the well.

The LMRP cap is already on site and it is anticipated that this option will be available for deployment by the end of May." End of quote.

Does the saw indicate that the top-kill attempt is over? Is the saw being used to "leave a cleanly-cut pipe at the top of the BOP's lower marine riser package"?

"Am I actually viewing a saw? Does this mean "top kill" and "junk shot" are failures? Why am I still hearing that top kill is still ongoing and that they need more time to see if it works? I am so absolutely confused."

Welcome to the party, Pal!

Perhaps the mud line is clogged, maybe because of too coarse a mixture or the debris parts are too big, so they need to unhook the line, and blow it clear before attachment.

Strange to see the way the saw was placed, why not just cut the clamp in half instead of placing the blade flush and danger close to sever the lines and not be able to see the angel before cutting both flanges of the string and the BOP.

Maybe you should just give it a rest, then? There are a number of processes going on - they may even be working to attach another feed, in order to increase pressure. The fact that you see something, doesn't mean that other things have been abandoned.

Alien Visitor, that is simply unfair! We can not and will not discourage the brilliant ideas like, porch post cement capping the gulf, liquid nitrogen freeze, battle ship sinking (now that one came from an admiral ha), THE ALL IMPORTANT GIANT SCREW (my personal fav). I love the truly weird ideas. What would be really cool is if you where an Alien Vistor and you could create that Nuclear driven Titanic giant screw driver with optional gold plated screw and the cement back filler with the flag?

Hi AlienVisitor,

I scanned the report and found it helpful. Although it is a bit dated, the beginning of the report which describes the wellhead, BOP stack, lower riser assembly, and riser system seems little changed from what we are using today. Nice to have all that info in one place.

What scared me was the lack of solutions for deep water blowouts. The report basically seemed to say there were no cost effective ideas that could be produced in advance that would cover multiple scenarios. Heck, there were not even any non cost effective ideas that they knew for sure would work in deep water.

I was left with the impression that it is up to the industry to ensure the components used to drill and complete wells are designed with a higher level of safety.

The situation for example with the BOP is like a commercial airliner's rudder jamming hard left or hard right off. In an emergency, you are not going to capture the flow of oil any more than you are going to have the passengers and crew parachute to safety. You need a BOP that works, period, just a an airplane needs a rudder that works.

I hoping, and betting, that engineers from all companies that provide well equipment are taking a fresh look at the safety of their products and making improvements that until now may have been deemed "not cost effective" due to the extremely low risk of failure.

Good troubleshoot/speculations aardvark, tnx for the pic. What is known about the one or two pinch points in your graphic, I mean the "partly closed shear rams" in the BOP above and the potential blockage somewhere far below, in the casing? Have either of these been covered on TOD and if so where?

That picture, if it does reflect the reality, seems to clarify it.

But, a third scenario. Suppose the leak is at the bottom of the "taper lining" and a serious "partial blockage" exists somewhere within shouting distance of what's shown in the picture. Then wouldn't the mud pretty much get entrained and pushed back up at the partial blockage, rather than entering the portion below the blockage? Presumably there'd be a major pressure drop at the blockage while oil is flowing from below, that would have to be overcome. With all the openings up top, could they ever pressure it enough to force the mud down through such a blockage without bursting something? Or would it just take longer with a restrictive orifice down there, and how would they decide how long to wait while it trickles through, before deciding it wasn't working? Rockman? Shelburn? Any of our other experts? Oy vey.

Taper Lining, are you kidding me.Where on earth do you get these sewing machine calculations. More people should read and learn....GEE WHIZ

The current theory is that the leak is outside of the the 7" production casing, not in the main well bore as your diagram suggests.

The point is academic now that they've given up on the top kill, but I meant to add that the oil and gas forcing their way up form bubbles in the mud forcing its way down (think bubbles in the straw as you're sipping soda), thus reducing the effective mud weight, so even the most optimistic scenario might not be possible.

This is off topic (sort of) apologies in advance:

Charges considered (against the BLM) in deaths of 83 wild horses

The just appointed MMS (Minerals Management Service) director is Bob Abbey who was most recently director of the BLM (Bureau of Land Management)

Suggestion PROFGOOSE:

Add this to the top of new threads so we don't keep getting these ideas brought up over and over.

Shelburne - Great explanation!

(but I feel sorry for the little ROV whose saw disappeared in the mud....).

Something cheap to try: Fill a pipe of the same type as the well with an oil-gas mixture and pressurize it to 20,000psi, sealing off the ends. Sink it into the silt at the same depth as the wellhead. Take a typical smoke stack made of steel reinforced concrete, fill it with thermite, seal both ends and place it directly over the pressurized pipe -- tapered end (normally the top of the smoke stack) pointed down. Ignite the thermite at the top. If the resulting jet of molten iron surrounds the pipe without breaching it, you have a very good chance of avoiding the flaws of explosives.

Maybe Rockman or FF would like to comment (politely) on whether I have gotten this right?

basic physics question from a non geologist:

if i understand the pressure gradients correctly, gas causes the least amount of pressure on whatever is physically below it, then oil, then water then rock, right? is this a function of the mass of the material or its density? i'm assuming its the mass.

does this also reflect the 'compressability' of the substance? i was always taught that liquids dont compress. if thats the case, would it be possible to create some kind of cavitation in the well by injecting some sort of gas into it such as N2?

Leaving aside the color of de plume in de image, which may not mean much, the flow forming the plume seems much less dense than water. Just being expelled goes up very fast, like smoke from a cigarette.

I think a flow composed of mud, being more dense than water would accumulate in a cloud at ground level.

I agree. I don't believe they would sever the riser with that saw, but they might intend to remove part of the riser assembly so they can make room for a different tool.

I would not take it as a signal for the end of Top Kill. Not at all.

Instead of impeaching the good senator, we might give him an award for reducing the need for oil, by bringing demand destruction down upon one of the most expendable of all of its uses. That's still the paradox, can't live with the oil, can't live without it either.

Idiocy (even public idiocy) on the part of a sitting Senator does not so far appear to have been an impeachable offense.

I would expect that he will be fine.

As an ex commercial diver from the gulf myself, I noticed that too.

NOAA has simply not been funded-as usual. Nothing new there. But, Obama's response has been tiny in every way-- and only included a request for $5 million for NOAA (which I'm not sure has been granted?) , for all the things they are supposed to be doing here, including those highly inaccurate maps.

The riser is damaged and some of it buried beneath the sea floor. If a riser string is attached to the end, the pressure in the damaged riser would increase probably causing many leaks to erupt along its length. Many leaking sites would be more difficult to control than two. The Top Hat which BP appears to be preparing is a better idea. BP is going to cut off and remove the riser at its base where it attaches to the blowout preventer.

I think that they really started popping up after The Oil Drum was mentioned in a Houston Chronicle story on the Thunder Horse decline. I seriously doubt that BP has many non-BP defenders, even within the Oil Patch, given that BP has caused a complete shut down in deepwater drilling in US waters. It's probably about the only time that a major oil company has been unpopular in both the Houston Petroleum Club and in Greenpeace offices.

Evnow – Pay! You mean BP might pay me to post goods words about them? Putting humility aside for the moment I think I’ve developed a fairly good credibility on TOD. Add that to the skill at blowing smoke up someone’s butt without them realizing it and I should be able to a better job at being a BP apologist then anyone else.

But even with such highly mastered skills how could I significantly change anyone’s view of BP? I do appreciate your point though. But I would actually enjoy seeing such efforts by others. A nice bit of comic relief IMHO.

Suggestion to TOD Mods.

Take a look at all the new users - esp ones who are BP apologists. You don't want BP to use TOD to serve their PR needs. Paying people to post in forums or "social media sites" (or asking employees to do so) is quite common. I see a lot of new users making personal attacks (or borderline attacks) to push their agenda.

You may even prevent new users from posting for a period of 2 to 3 weeks. That might help.

Not sure who you may be referring to here, but I am certainly no fan of BP for what they have done to my future work/business in the oilfield. That being said I can see the problems they are facing and the reality of the time it takes to do what they are trying to do 5,000' down in the ocean. Also the reality of the time to drill relief/kill wells.

So what I don't understand is all the harping about what BP may be doing or not doing to get this finished. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth doesn't change what it is. We all get to suffer with the reality of the situation whether we like it or not. But I still fully expect to see more wailing and crying about it that doesn't accomplish much, except to maybe aggravate those who are working 24/7 trying to get this thing killed. It serves no purpose to anyone for it to go on one day longer than it has too. BP included.

Evnow: I'm not now nor have have I ever been an apologist for BP or any other oil company. I agree with the commenters, however, that the techs and geeks working for BP are doing their damndest to stop the leak. They also have government and industry experts in Houston watching and helping. The top executive decision makers and corporate flacks such as Tony "It's a small leak in a big ocean" Hayward that need to be put to the fire. They are the one trying to manipulate public perception of the seriousness of this disaster to maintain share value, their job security. (Recently, Hayward has had to admit that reality had caught up to his attempts to minimize.) I think this distinction is worth keeping in mind.

I sort of agree with you even though I'm a new user. I'm one of who-knows-how-many long-time lurkers that only recently registered.
How about no probationary period if you donate? You have to pay to be lame.

Absolutely. TOD is infested with BP public relations shills. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Gail the Actuary as being employees of BP and who nevertheless are still posting in The Oil Drum.

And to combine your comment with evnow's comment, I suspect that one of the BP apologists' goals is to drive down the signal to noise ratio, i.e., increase noise relative to signal.

Hey, that's my book, you can't take my idea! I have already started writing. The battle ship sinking is on the cover. I have the author of the idea and his approval.

Good idea bsmyth, perhaps a thread just for fix ideas.

Yes, and put a giant banner on it saying something like "PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING".

I wondered about #5 too. However, the rig looked to be in terrible shape by the time it sank.

5) Who gave the order to use the fireboats-and why? That is completely contrary to good practice. Once its lit, keep the fire burning to keep the spill to a minimum. The fireboats sunk the rig, seems to me.

Good Practice??? that is a new one for me, well in that case I guess they should just go ahead and remove the fire bosses off of all the deep water boats then and forget about it. Burn baby burn!!!

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/2641/201022ldp004.jpg

Contrary to popular belief, BP actually does scour this forum for new, “out of the box” ideas on how to stop the gargantuan flow of oil from the damaged riser at the bottom of the GOM.

A battleship has been found, and the necessary lifting equipment procured.

However, it will not be known if this last ditch effort has completely plugged the hole for at least 72 hours. Changes in the plume's appearance during this time are not indicative of success or failure.

Well just from reading about such things - it's fairly standard procedure to reduce the problem to a single vertical gushing leak as it's much easier to attach any kind of device to a clean cut pipe.

I don't know about likelyhood, but I do know a bit (okay, a lot) about emergency incident management. There isn't a hard-fast rule, but generally, you try to balance items such as cost/labor, risk of catastrophe, risk of making it worse, chance of success, risk of prevention of future cures, time to relief, time to resolution, and invasiveness of solution. BP has taken cost/labor out of the picture (or so stated that they have)

You would want to try the low-cost, unlikely to make it worse, high-success chance items first, but if those are not staged then you can try less-likely items (the original capture device was tried before the topkill mud and junk-shot, probably because mud and junk weren't ready, and topkill is more likely to make it worse). I am sure that the solution engineers are rating the dimensions noted above (likeliness of success, etc) for each solution and then doing them in order. (That is what I'd do as an incident lead in my business). Also you want "multiple paths to solution" tried simultaneously, drill the wells, get tophat ready, get the mudpumper ready all at the same time, and then manage the shared resources so that the relief maneuvers can be tried in a logical order. So "chance of working" must be balanced with "chance of making it worse". Incident Management was really a fun job for me, I miss it :| . It is the same thing a MD/PCP does when you are sick..they try the least-likely-to-kill-you-or-make-you-sicker things first.

My thought earlier is that if topkill mudpumping provided "relief" (no more petroleum flowing) then keep it up indefinitely until the new wells are drilled (resolution), but it appears that topkill mudpumping makes things worse over time as it erodes the holes and it doesn't provide 100% relief.. so that is not a feasible option for long term.

Like all, or at least most, I'm horrified by what's taken place and more so by what's ahead. It keeps me awake. It doesn't seem appropriate at all to be cracking jokes. That said, my gallows humor gene's gotten the better of me for the moment.

I think a giant Torx or TTAP might work better. Certainly better than a giant slotted screw and less likely to strip out than one of those giant pot metal Phillips head ones. Probably more expensive, though, although Camcar Textron or TTAP might be willing to sponsor.

Wait….

Looking at the NOAA map and the Gulf eddy(s) created by the loop current, some appear to be anti clockwise, to my untrained eye. Would this giant screw welded to the bottom of a battleship possibly need a left hand thread?

Just to be safe I suggest two giant screws and two battleships. As the giant flotilla starts to rotate the appropriate giant screw/battleship would need to be attached in the middle. Some type of coupler would need to be designed.

Crap, maybe this is more complicate than the OP thought!!

To be serious for a moment and only a moment. From the Valdez experience animals lived for not more than six days after ingesting crude oil. Most biologists recommend euthanasia immediately. The clean up with solvents did more harm to the natural bacteria that ingests the crude. The problem is we can't just let it fix itself like a wounded tree. In the end we do more harm and that is hard for people to except. The real tragedy is, we will drill more and more offshore, we have to. The easy oil is gone and if you don't believe that, why are we mining crude oil in Canada? Why are we drilling a mile deep in the Gulf? Why are we fracturing shale with water supplies to pump oil for a year and then move to the next?
With oil priced at 147$ why wasn't more being delivered? Why are people talking of drilling even more dangerous locations like the Gulf salt domes that contain 3-4 billion barrels of oil? Just ask yourself are you willing to let people starve for like of oil for fertilizers, pesticides, diesel fuel ? We need cheap energy to feed 7 billion people no ifs ands or buts. When gasoline hits 4$ a gallon due to loss of deep offshore drilling people will beg to drill the most dangerous places possible you can bet on it with your life and the life of the planet. The gulf could be a giant pool of oil and we would ask for more. I think Alan would agree.

Look, its way beyond that. After a few weeks nobody seems to give a crap about the coast anymore. There's no 'undo', return to last 'save game' - even reinstall or reboot won't work. Its gone. Finished - the Gulf coast as fishing waters, wildlife reserve, tourist destination... never in centuries... and yes, the oil from Exxon Valdez leak is still there on the Alaskan coast - on the beaches - all you have to do is take a small shovel and make a small hole and you get nice rainbow-colored water :P !

Read this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/11/865387/-Fishgrease:-DKos-Booming...

I wonder what the dolphins choking on oil would say if we stopped to listen ... "Excuse me Sir!, but the rest of the life forms on this planet would like to nominate you the Humanity for the Darwin Awards..."

Hey wait a minute. You forgot my idea witch is by far the best so far if I do say so myself. That is start shooting Big Macs in there there is just no way that those holes can compete with that substance in those burgers, it will clog any pipe any where no matter how deep it is.

Here is another book:

BP Response to Oil Disaster:

1. Deny anything happened.
2. Deny anything really bad happened.
3. Deny anything real bad will happen.
4. Blame it on somebody else.
5. Blame the rig crew.
6. Say its only going to be a minor spill.
7. Repeat these words: leak, leak, leak.
When 1-7 don't work:
8. Put an outhouse on it.
9. Suck it out with a straw.
10. Put a littler outhouse on it.
11. Keep saying we'll have it all cleared up in no time.
12. Force drilling fluid into the hole. (aka the 'Mahlia Obama' plug-the-hole method.)
When 8-12 don't work:
13. Blame it all on a U.N. fabricated email.
14. Blame it on schools that taught evolution to fledgling engineers.
15. Blame it on one-worlders.
16. Blame it on Martians.

The final response seems to be: Bend over, say your prayers and kiss your ass goodbye.

IMH,only if you believe in Iron Man and like old sci-fi flicks.

tiagoantoao,

The good news is, no. To date I have not seen any respected, (at least those I respect) qualified individuals agree with Matt Simmons. To be frank, many people who have felt comfortable with his good work in the past are extremely puzzled by his odd statements.

Stupid ideas, there are no stupid ideas! Even silly ideas with zero chance using anti-physics are not stupid ideas. Where would I get the material for my book?

To be serious for a moment and only a moment. From the Valdez experience animals lived for not more than six days after ingesting crude oil. Most biologists recommend euthanasia immediately. The clean up with solvents did more harm to the natural bacteria that ingests the crude. The problem is we can't just let it fix itself like a wounded tree. In the end we do more harm and that is hard for people to except. The real tragedy is, we will drill more and more offshore, we have to. The easy oil is gone and if you don't believe that, why are we mining crude oil in Canada? Why are we drilling a mile deep in the Gulf? Why are we fracturing shale with water supplies to pump oil for a year and then move to the next?
With oil priced at 147$ why wasn't more being delivered? Why are people talking of drilling even more dangerous locations like the Gulf salt domes that contain 3-4 billion barrels of oil? Just ask yourself are you willing to let people starve for like of oil for fertilizers, pesticides, diesel fuel ? We need cheap energy to feed 7 billion people no ifs ands or buts. When gasoline hits 4$ a gallon due to loss of deep offshore drilling people will beg to drill the most dangerous places possible you can bet on it with your life and the life of the planet. The gulf could be a giant pool of oil and we would ask for more. I think Alan would agree.

Remember the last 10% is worth far more than the first 90% always was and always will be!

Would it be possible to operate an electric arc furnace underwater? If so, does the depth make operation unrealistic? Would this operation ignite the gas?

It seems to me that many of the 'experts' on here are wasting a lot of their intellectual energy making fun of comments instead of posting something useful themselves.

Well said.

Clearly the 'established' members of TOD regard this place as THEIR clubhouse.

The uppity newbies need to show respect.

The strutting of the 'in crowd' however really does ruin the technical discussion.

Hi phemfrog,

One of the concerns faced by many here who post is the amount of time it takes lately to just get through the new comments. Even skipping over the obvious comments that are not of interest still does not even come close to cutting the time back to what it used to be. Many of the posters here work full time. How they get away with keeping TOD up on their screens at work I'll leave it for them to explain ;-) Then keep in mind that comments often require considerable research in new areas due to the tragedy in the Gulf, further making it tough to contribute at a level previously accustomed to. Keeping up with video testimony alone is just about impossible unless you don't work.

There is no excuse for making fun of any comment on TOD. There is also not excuse for getting into a pissing match with another member.

That said, human nature will sometimes get the best of us. Some of the best comments I've written are the ones that I don't save. I say they are the best because after repeatedly previewing and modifying them I finally realize they contain negative emotion that does not contribute anything except to feed my ego.

There is a fine line at TOD. It is okay to disagree with someone and provide the proof even though you know it will create an negative emotional response in the other person. In these cases you are not making fun of the person or attacking them personally, you are simply stating fact so an incorrect idea does not stand. Then there is the grey area where the facts are complex and contradictory, where each side has a valid argument. Let the good times roll when that happens! (as long as it remains civil)

We need to be careful of creating groups. Newbies, Experts, Old Timers, etc. consist of individuals, each with their own interests and abilities. It is not up to us to add characteristics to people by putting them in a group.

I still never hit the Save button until I've previewed my comment and stopped to consider not only the content but the intent behind the content.

Hey, I like that line. Consider not only the content but the intent behind the content :-)

Beyond that, we need a new plan: this oil thing ain't working out, folks.

Oh, I dunno about that, I thought things were working quite nicely up until those folks over at BP decided they could bend a little standard API industry practice and procedure here and there.

sorry if this has already been posted -Reuters just now

BP may switch tactic to plug oil well

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2812765520100529

Good points except for the fact that BP did not want to show the feed and neither the public nor the government would let them just work on relief wells.

BTW when is the list of 201 BP employees going to be shown (along with how they know). They are not doing a very good job posting (unless it is Rockman and Shelburn--but that is only two). Many seem to be disguising themselves as anti-oil/anti-BP conspiracy types. My guess is that most BP people and most other knowledgeable folks(unless retired and even then only maybe) would not waste there precious time either reading or posting on this or any other site. Can't wait until I get back to 100% mobility then I won't have time to sit around and critique plumes either.Reminds me of watching my lava lamp in the late 60's but let's not go there.

it saddens me to know just how accurate you probably are

...but hey shows activity and has a feel good factor here

Yep the feel good factor is very important here especially for guys like Alan from the big easy. Need to back up 3 or 4 more big drill ships drilling more relief wells make it look like they really busy. spare no expense BP's buying

Why does not the BOP assembly include a few Pitot tubes to measure flow?