bi0boy
Power User
Too windy now AFAIK.
Gulf of Mexico oil spill
- Thread starter bi0boy
- Start date
Too windy now AFAIK.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
What we really need here now is...
An all American hero to save the planet!
Where have I heard that before!!?
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Not so sure. Yeah Exxon originally had to pay 5 billion and as of a couple years ago that was reduced to 500 million by the US supreme court. I think this is going to be bigger in how many people are harmed (all the gulf states potentially) and in turning the public into off-shore drilling activists once they see the holocaust it's going to bring to the wildlife and recreation. I think BP and the others will pay up. This is the nightmare scenario that everybody knew could happen but never thought it would.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
So as I understand it, this oil is not coming from some tanker, but right out of the planet into the sea. Will it ever stop?
At least 2 weeks of continuous oil coming out of the ocean floor as of now...except for what the dispersant chemicals can do.
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
Surely they could get a number of huge tankers out there and stick some very large sucking machine near the source, might not get all of it but it would massively reduce it?? Perhaps they could then settle it in the tanks and skim off the top and pump the clean water back out. BP will have to pay hundreds of millions if not billions for the clean up so its not a cheap solution, but I suspect one that would be cheaper and easier than cleaning 1000 miles of coast line. Big tankers wouldn't be stopped by some choppy waters.
Some 'out of the box' thinking is needed rather than what they are doing now, currently they seem to be pissing about trying to shut it off and drilling new holes that will take months to complete by which time the coast will be a tar blackened mess.
Some 'out of the box' thinking is needed rather than what they are doing now, currently they seem to be pissing about trying to shut it off and drilling new holes that will take months to complete by which time the coast will be a tar blackened mess.
This is why it's called "unconventional oil"
It is what is called a "pressure fed" release. The upper limit of the Exxon Valdez disaster was limited to the inventory of oil on the tanker--about 11 million gallons. The upper magnitude of this release is limited to the quantity of oil in the reservoir. This is a high pressure reservoir with volumes in the billions of gallons.
I can't tell at the moment whether the "blow out preventer"---the temporary device they install to preserve pressure integrity until the permanent valving is installed---is functional or not. If it isn't, then to contain it, they will have to drill another well near the original, then deviate to intercept the original borehole and pump cement into it. The borehole will be about thirty inches in diameter. It will have to intercept several hundred feet below ground to provide integrity. The well is in five thousand feet of water.
Drilling the original well was at the limit of the industry's technological ability. Drilling the intercept is way beyond it. By the time they get the well planned, the materials organised and a drilling rig capable of operating at that water depth, it will be hurricane season. They will probably miss on the first attempt.
One of the technology optimists main arguments is (or was) that the pace of technology will outpace depletion and that the supply of energy will be maintained.
10 years ago, amid the hubris of the early deep water discoveries, a new era of the oil industry was announced. New reserves were booked on the basis of the expectation that they were accessible and speeches were made that the peak oilers had got it all wrong again.
Of course, deep water exploration peaked about 5 years ago, BP almost sank their "Thunder Horse" and we now have the first uncontrollable deep water well failure. Yet a significant chunk of the oil that you were told would be supporting us would be coming from such sources. Meanwhile, the companies are eyeing up the Arctic (think "oil rig plus iceberg equals titanic plus oil spill") the way a vein-collapsed junky eyes up the gap between his toes.
BP, like most major oil companies, are self-insured. The companies have such large capital reserves in relation to "ordinary" risks (like a platform blowing up) and the premium to insure would be so high that it is much cheaper to self insure since they can cover almost any liability.
Until now.
It is what is called a "pressure fed" release. The upper limit of the Exxon Valdez disaster was limited to the inventory of oil on the tanker--about 11 million gallons. The upper magnitude of this release is limited to the quantity of oil in the reservoir. This is a high pressure reservoir with volumes in the billions of gallons.
I can't tell at the moment whether the "blow out preventer"---the temporary device they install to preserve pressure integrity until the permanent valving is installed---is functional or not. If it isn't, then to contain it, they will have to drill another well near the original, then deviate to intercept the original borehole and pump cement into it. The borehole will be about thirty inches in diameter. It will have to intercept several hundred feet below ground to provide integrity. The well is in five thousand feet of water.
Drilling the original well was at the limit of the industry's technological ability. Drilling the intercept is way beyond it. By the time they get the well planned, the materials organised and a drilling rig capable of operating at that water depth, it will be hurricane season. They will probably miss on the first attempt.
One of the technology optimists main arguments is (or was) that the pace of technology will outpace depletion and that the supply of energy will be maintained.
10 years ago, amid the hubris of the early deep water discoveries, a new era of the oil industry was announced. New reserves were booked on the basis of the expectation that they were accessible and speeches were made that the peak oilers had got it all wrong again.
Of course, deep water exploration peaked about 5 years ago, BP almost sank their "Thunder Horse" and we now have the first uncontrollable deep water well failure. Yet a significant chunk of the oil that you were told would be supporting us would be coming from such sources. Meanwhile, the companies are eyeing up the Arctic (think "oil rig plus iceberg equals titanic plus oil spill") the way a vein-collapsed junky eyes up the gap between his toes.
BP, like most major oil companies, are self-insured. The companies have such large capital reserves in relation to "ordinary" risks (like a platform blowing up) and the premium to insure would be so high that it is much cheaper to self insure since they can cover almost any liability.
Until now.
bi0boy
Power User
They are building a dome to place over the well and collect the oil underneath it, which will then be pumped into tankers. Trouble is it will take at least two weeks and has never been done at this depth before.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
That sounds like a plan!
dilute micro
esse quam videri
"Cleaning up" is just journalistic talk the same as they report the 10 or 11 animals that will be effected by all this.
When the oil blows into all the nooks and crannies of the marshes and backwaters it's going to do its work on all the hundreds of others of species that don't make the buzz list and in places where we won't see since the camera crews will stay at the beach.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
A photo provided by the US Coast Guard (April 25th) shows a robot sub trying to shut off the Blowout Preventer, but this failed.
Apparently 6 subs have tried to turn it off but with no luck. It sounds as if there have been issues with this piece of equipment for some time
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
The photos of the ships putting booms round the oil on the surface are really quite sad in a "this is the best we can do to stop this" kind of way.
bi0boy
Power User
Learnt lessons, improved safety yadda yadda...
This is a very bad situation but what's interesting from my point of view is the number of people who seem perversely to enjoy it because it confirms and celebrates some apocalyptic point of view that has been held for years in lieu of a proper analysis.
The ramifications of the spill are significant but no more than that. It doesn't presage some darkening of the general waters.
The ramifications of the spill are significant but no more than that. It doesn't presage some darkening of the general waters.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Well there are sometimes signs of that with peak oil in general, although I have to say that its often far from clear whether people are really enjoying it or whether they just feel the need to talk about it in dramatic terms. People that have long believed stuff like this are bound to get some powerful and strange sensations when it seems to be coming true before their eyes, or when events happen that may speed up the process. Im not sure how much perversity is involved, certainly leaves an odd taste in my mouth, but then again the status quo has ben fairly perverse so its not that hard to see where some people are coming from.
Personally Im horrified by these events, there is no silver lining here for me. Whilst it is possible to overstate the ramifications of this event on the future of oil in general, its not a safe bet at this stage that it wont have very big implications.
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
A photo provided by the US Coast Guard (April 25th) shows a robot sub trying to shut off the Blowout Preventer, but this failed.
Apparently 6 subs have tried to turn it off but with no luck. It sounds as if there have been issues with this piece of equipment for some time
For me, a picture of an robot trying to activate a device that looks like it should be above water, 5000ft below the sea, is a very sad, slightly desperate image.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
It may not be as bad as it looks. The BOP sits on the sea bed - granted, it usually expects to be controlled from topside, but having an ROV pushing levers on the side of it is exactly what it's designed to have done to it, in extremis.
What isn't supposed to happen is that it fails to work. And those particular BOPs have been called into question before.
What's more, BOPs are usually (at least) triple redundant, with various combinations of shutoff rams and valves to ensure that the bore can be closed. The last big leak in the Gulf of Mexico also wasn't able to be stopped by use of the BOP, as it all went wrong as the drill string was being pulled out of the hole, and at the point the platform went "boom", the thickest, hardest bit of the drill string was right alongside the special chopping-off-the-drill-string ram, which wasn't meaty enough to cut it at that point.
If we're going to drill holes into the bottom of the sea, 5000 feet down, into I'm not quite sure how we can make the process completely failsafe. And there are going to have to be questions asked about why this BOP didn't do what it was supposed to...
There is a saying amongst those of us who have run large offshore oil and gas installations: "Anyone who is not nervous at this stage is simply insufficiently appraised of the facts."
BP were poised in the week prior to the disaster to announce "a gusher" - this is a very prolific reservoir, by modern standards. Wells of this class can flow at rates in excess of 30,000 barrels a day. The latest estimate I have is that it is flowing at 1,000 barrels a day. Whatever pressure containment and flow restriction there is being provided by equipment which is now operating under conditions they were not designed for which, if it fails, will result in significant or total loss of containment. That is around one Exxon Valdez size spill every 8 days. If they are unable to close the blowout preventer valve, the next solutions (custom made funnels or relief wells) are several weeks to months away.
The issue then is not contamination of the coastal areas in the region. It is contamination of most coastal areas. Diamond's choice of imagery is a little unfortunate.
These things are controlled---and energised---from the surface. There is no "surface" - it blew up - and the control line was severed and, I presume, damaged. There is local energy source to power the hydraulics, but they are "one shot" devices---you get one go, then have to repressure from somewhere. I doubt these minisubs have the capability to power the unit. I hope I'm wrong and there is a quick fix. It happens.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
All of your post was interesting, Falcon - you've obviously got experience in this field.
But when you say "most coastal areas", how big are you thinking?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Ahhh, I wondered about this. I'd assumed that to drive hydraulics that are capable of severing a drill string, it'd need to be a bit more than a box on the seafloor, but the impression I got from ROVs tweaking levers marked "SHR RAM CLOSE" was that presumably something could be done.
It sounds as if they've rather had their shot, and it didn't pay off. Ulp.
PS: I spent ages googling around to find out more about BOPs, like whether they could be locally activated, and found very little. So thanks for this insight - horrible as the situation is, it is intriguing and interesting enough to warrant knowing a bit more about it...
ETA: presumably the option of reattaching control/hydraulic cables is open - is there not a ship that would have a BOP control system on board, and that could be reconnected to the BOP, just as the drilling rig was until it blew up?
elbows
Well-Known Member
But when you say "most coastal areas", how big are you thinking?
Yeah, tell me more, is it theoretically possible that all the coasts and oceans of the world could be affected?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
And, if so, how come there's never been a disaster movie that's had this as its theme? They've covered every other base.
The thought of a completely uncontrolled big well just flowing indefinitely is a horrific one, though, joking apart...
elbows
Well-Known Member
And, if so, how come there's never been a disaster movie that's had this as its theme? They've covered every other base.
Disaster movies prefer stuff where the disaster happens really quickly and the special effects are stunning.
