I was thinking this morning about the oil spill from that rig that blew up. What's the issue they're having in plugging it? I tried to find some info on that but haven't found any technical description of the problem. I suppose the assumption by most people is that there's just a pipe sticking out of the floor of the gulf, but that would probably be just too easy. So what's the gig, anyone know what the "leak" really looks like and why they can't just shove a tampon (or Hilary Clinton) into it and make it stop?

I'd figure that it's deep, and hard to get to.

I have no idea why its difficult otherwise, the news is really not going into detail on it, even when they say they will.

They say they will explain the leak, and show a crappy animation that doesn't help.

Brad

They were trying to cap it when it had a build up of pressure. There was a valve that was supposed to shut off the pipe automatically if this happened but it malfunctioned. There were supposed to be other back up valves but they were not installed. From what I understand, they might have to drill another well into the firsts one to be able to cap it off and that could take over a month to do. The well was also drilled deeper than what they were supposed to have been permitted to do. There were many mistakes and it is going to cost BP a bundle.

I just found this, although it still doesn't really explain the problem. It looks like the drilling riser has some leaks. I wonder how much of the riser is intact, and what it's made of....

This has been discussed over on the corvette forum as some of the guys are actually working on it.

http://forums.corvetteforum...-gulf-of-mexico.html

Lots of knowledge on the subject over there with lots of pictures including underwater pics of the riser and of the BOP.

General idea on not being able to shut it off is that they're dealing with stuff 5k feet under water. Also, the BOP failed. I believe I read that they confirmed the shears had closed, but that it was such a massive blowout, sand essentially destroyed the rubber seals inside the BOP, causing it to leak through.

[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 05-04-2010).]

Cant be easy to cap off a high pressure leak at the bottom of the ocean...

quote Originally posted by Nurb432: Cant be easy to cap off a high pressure leak at the bottom of the ocean...

I was wondering what kind of pressure they're dealing with.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I was wondering what kind of pressure they're dealing with.

Around 10,000psi at the well head. Bottom of well is around 40,000 PSI.

[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 05-04-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I was wondering what kind of pressure they're dealing with.

Sounds like they need a submariner, any volunteers?

Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Sounds like they need a submariner, any volunteers? Ron

F'in' A man. I'm ready!

Must be hard to see when black oil is spewing everywhere?

Rusty cradle bolt keeping a valve from turning?

Not to mention it all has to be done by remote control subs. Way to deep for people to go.

Latest plan Ive seen is there going to drop concrete 'caissons' (like big tubes) over the well head in like 50' sections. It will be longer than a few Empire State buildings . Then all the oil will come up the 'tube' where it will be sucked out and loaded into full size oil tankers. They plan on doing that till they can drill a new well into it so it can be tapped off permanently. Then the new oil will come thru the new well. Theyre saying that part will take several months of drilling.

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: This has been discussed over on the corvette forum as some of the guys are actually working on it. http://forums.corvetteforum...-gulf-of-mexico.html Lots of knowledge on the subject over there with lots of pictures including underwater pics of the riser and of the BOP. General idea on not being able to shut it off is that they're dealing with stuff 5k feet under water. Also, the BOP failed. I believe I read that they confirmed the shears had closed, but that it was such a massive blowout, sand essentially destroyed the rubber seals inside the BOP, causing it to leak through.

Thanks for the link, I just read all 20 some pages. That ET guy is brilliant, give him a plus from me... There is this other member, some Random Task guy, slap him the next time you see him lol.

Brad

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: That ET guy is brilliant, give him a plus from me...

Agreed, well more knowledgeable than me. I tried to give my input on our forum for our/your benefit but that does seem to be a more intelligent discussion. I don't even know offshore work.
EDIT
Thanks for the link RandomTask, .

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-05-2010).]

Yeah, omega man has some more info in another thread;
http://forums.corvetteforum...ays-scientist-7.html

One of them had a link with actual pictures of the BOP and casing on the sea bed. Unfortunately, I can't find it and you'll have to go through all for that too.

And that random guy does suck.

[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 05-05-2010).]

More info, 2 stories

ON THE GULF OF MEXICO (AP) — A boat carrying a 100-ton concrete-and-steel contraption designed to siphon off the oil fouling the Gulf of Mexico arrived Thursday at the spot in the sea where a blown-out well is spewing hundreds of thousands of gallons a day.

Another boat with a crane plans to start lowering the box to the seafloor later in the day. Engineers hope it will be the best short-term solution to controlling the leak that has only worsened since it began two weeks ago.

http://www.pnj.com/article/...506/NEWS01/100506006
---

(CNN) -- A four-story container has arrived at a spot in the Gulf Coast that is about 5,000 feet above a massive oil spill on the seabed, a spokesman for BP, Mark Salt, said Thursday.
BP plans to lower the container into the water later Thursday, he said.
"If all goes according to plan, we should begin the process of processing the fluid and stop the spilling to the sea on Monday," said Doug Suttles, BP's chief operating officer.
But he added: "It's very complex, and it will likely have challenges along the way."
The hope is that the container will collect the leaking oil, which would be sucked up to a drill ship on the surface. If the operation is successful, BP plans to deploy a second, smaller dome to deal with a second leak in the ruptured pipe, the company has said.
Getting the large structure into position could take several days, BP said. The technique has never been attempted at the depth of about 5,000 feet underwater, according to Suttles.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/.../index.html?hpt=Sbin

What they are not saying much about is, if they damage the well head and get free flow, we are talking about 40,000 to 50,000 bls a day.
T-Boone Pickens said in an interview yesterday if they can drill an intersecting well in 3 months he would be amazed and a more realistic time frame would be 5 to 8 months.
Hope he's wrong.

[This message has been edited by Wolfhound (edited 05-06-2010).]

Factbox: How the oil spill containment dome works
(Reuters) - A 98-ton steel containment chamber, or cofferdam, reached the site of a massive oil leak 50 miles south of the Louisiana coastline on Thursday.

U.S. | Green Business

The device is intended to corral leaking oil almost a mile under the water's surface and channel it through a pipe to a ship above.

Such containment efforts have been tried before in shallow water depths, including after Hurricane Katrina, but the technology is untested in the high pressures and low temperatures 5,000 feet below the water's surface.

The chamber is BP's best hope so far of corralling the oil until a relief well is drilled within two to three months. The leak began after a blowout preventer at the seabed failed on April 20, allowing Transocean's Deepwater Horizon rig to explode and later sink.

Below are some details on the chamber and how it is intended to work, from BP and the Deepwater Horizon response team:

* At the leak site, the device will be lowered by cable to the site of the leak. Once at the seafloor, underwater robots will place it on top of the larger of two remaining leaks.

* The chamber, 40 feet tall, 24 feet wide and 14 feet deep has steel shelf-like "mud flaps" on the side to ensure it doesn't sink more than 15 feet into the mud.

* The funnel-like top of the chamber will be connected to a drill pipe inside a larger pipe, or riser. That mechanism will then be connected to Transocean's Deepwater Enterprise drillship, which is capable of processing 15,000 barrels of oil per day.

* The dual-pipe mechanism will allow warm water and a chemical, methanol, to be pumped into the space between the drill pipe and larger pipe. That is intended to counteract the possibility of ice- or sludge-like plugs in the larger pipe that could hinder or stop the flow of oil to the ship. Such plugs can form from natural gas, 3,000 cubic feet of which is in each leaking barrel of oil.

* When the fluids reach the drillship, they will go to a closed processing system designed for normal well testing. There, the oil, gas and water will be separated.

* The oil will be stored in a tank that can hold up to 139,000 barrels of oil; the gas will be flared; and the water will be dumped back into the sea.

* The oil collected aboard the drillship can be later offloaded onto a standby vessel, with the capacity to store 137,000 barrels of oil, to take to BP's 455,790 barrel-per-day (bpd) Texas City, Texas refinery to process.

* The larger leak is estimated to be releasing about 85 percent of the gushing oil from a riser that broke when the rig sank. A second leak stems from a bent pipe connected to the failed blowout preventer at the seabed.

* A second containment chamber is being built at Wild Well Control in Port Fourchon, Louisiana, to later be placed atop the second leak. In the meantime, underwater robots will continue trying to manipulate valves on the blowout preventer to stop both leaks at the main source.
http://www.reuters.com/arti...dUSTRE6454WN20100506

Excellent info 2.5. Thank you for posting it.

My questions are.........

Why is there not a more solidified solution to this issue?

Did BP not have a plan if such a disaster took place?

Did anyone at BP, or other big oil companies, come up with a disaster scenario, and solution to combat such an event?

I mean, they just finally got the cofferdam to the sight? And they just had the thing built? I wonder why there are not at least several dozen of these cofferdams built ahead of time? I would think that the amount of cleanup, loss of oil, and all of the other litigating issues would easily have offset the cost of maintaining cofferdams at or near drill sights.

If this ship is able to pump oil from the well, seperate the oil, gas, and water, then why is there not a ship that can act as a skimmer? I picture two or more ships with a type of skimmer stretched miles between them, removing the oil off of the sea.

I know, making shat up in my head. But, if I can think of these things, then why aren't the billion dollar oil companies thinking it? And the cost to invent, build, and maintain safety devices such as this, would just seem to dim by comparison to the dollar amount that will surely be added up in this disaster. Not to mention the environmental damages.

They just need a big enough hammer ... or a really really long breaker bar


J.

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: I mean, they just finally got the cofferdam to the sight? And they just had the thing built? I wonder why there are not at least several dozen of these cofferdams built ahead of time? I would think that the amount of cleanup, loss of oil, and all of the other litigating issues would easily have offset the cost of maintaining cofferdams at or near drill sights.

From what I have read it sounds like this "Dome/cofferdam" has to be custom built for the specific situation.

Yeah, and as said, these things only happen every 20 years. Though planning ahead sounds like a good idea to me!

It doesn’t matter how many plans are in place if they’re not followed and executed.

quote If U.S. officials had followed up on a 1994 response plan for a major Gulf oil spill, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land. The problem: The federal government did not have a single fire boom on hand. The "In-Situ Burn" plan produced by federal agencies in 1994 calls for responding to a major oil spill in the Gulf with the immediate use of fire booms. But in order to conduct a successful test burn eight days after the Deepwater Horizon well began releasing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf, officials had to purchase one from a company in Illinois. When federal officials called, Elastec/American Marine, shipped the only boom it had in stock, Jeff Bohleber, chief financial officer for Elastec, said today. At federal officials' behest, the company began calling customers in other countries and asking if the U.S. government could borrow their fire booms for a few days, he said. A single fire boom being towed by two boats can burn up to 1,800 barrels of oil an hour, Bohleber said. That translates to 75,000 gallons an hour, raising the possibility that the spill could have been contained at the accident scene 100 miles from shore. "They said this was the tool of last resort. No, this is absolutely the asset of first use. Get in there and start burning oil before the spill gets out of hand," Bohleber said. "If they had six or seven of these systems in place when this happened and got out there and started burning, it would have significantly lessened the amount of oil that got loose." Read More: http://blog.al.com/live/201...il_spill_raines.html

I would have thought some diesel and flares could have got it lit.
Then again I don't know what a fire boom is.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 05-07-2010).]

quote Fire booms are inflatable devices that establish a floating perimeter around an oil spill. The boom burns off the surface oil before it can escape the perimeter. A single boom, which costs in the neighborhood of $200,000, could have contained and eliminated all or nearly all of the oil from the BP accident had it been quickly employed.

http://www.elastec.com/oilspill/fireboom/

quote Originally posted by Bullet: ....$200,000, could have contained and eliminated all or nearly all of the oil from the BP accident had it been quickly employed.

Wowsers thats a major snafu, that not being prepared.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Wowsers thats a major snafu, that not being prepared.

Sacrilege. The Nobama Regime has been on top of this since day one, .

quote Originally posted by cliffw: They are not saying much about anything. I waded through your linky from another thread and Random Task's thread. Much speculation on top of previous speculation causing wild speculation. It is hard to recognize good factual information. Many in the know are contractually bound to not compromise an ongoing investigation.

I'll grant you the point, there is a world of uninformed BS out there. Lots of contradictions. I don't have the link handy but I believe I read six months on the original but that was extended by unrelated technical problems.
Over the years I and friends have kept boats down there and to beat high slip rent we've picked marinas where the shrimp boats, and fisherman are based. so I know some of them. Real people who will lend a hand and don't mind getting dirty to help you. I'm pretty upset about this .

[This message has been edited by Wolfhound (edited 05-07-2010).]

I agree, but I'm not going to blame the government for the problem. BP should have them on hand, available, and ready to deploy. It's their responsibility to contain this kind of thing, they're getting the profits from the drilling.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Wowsers thats a major snafu, that not being prepared.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I agree, but I'm not going to blame the government for the problem.

Not the problem and I am not giving BP a pass for the response, but, it was the governments self mandated duty to protect us from such an oil spill. Let me see if I can find the regulation.

Easy to blame BP they gave a lot of money to Obama & they granted permision for this well.. they took many a chance,, I knew this would happen,,but not so bad,I expected a smaller leak at sometime ,,this is a real catastrophe..
A lot of plankton,,krill and other microscopic creatures will die,, this is the base food of the sea life we eat also whales ect.
...BP is the leader in financing deep well oil exploration,,they want to make money AND
give the dunderheaded consumer what they want!!
...we are to blame ,,SUV,s ,large VANs ,wasteful V8s,hi performance cars drink twice as much oil/gas. I like hi perf cars,I have an SUV..
If we survive long enough,only small cars like the Honda CRX will be allowed for individual & family use ..
...Ownership of a Duke powered Fiero shows foresight
..there are going to be problems,, many problems with deep underwater well drilling..
I love adding to my popularity

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I believe that the well which is leaking was drilled in about 90 days. Three months seems doable.

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound: I believe I read six months on the original but that was extended by unrelated technical problems.

My info I would not bet the house on. Truthfully, I don't care. It is what it is. I can tell you this. I have no idea what an unrelated technical problem would be. They are all related. I have heard that they were fighting "lost circulation problems" (where the drilling mud you pump down does not return to the surface ... which is needed for hydrostatic pressure to counter act well pressures) and "well kicks" (high well pressures which can result in a blow out). Both not to be unexpected nor uncommon. Drilling does halt while these problems are solved, causing a longer drilling process but that would be considered related. I do know extensive records are kept and the original well drilling time frame is fact. Given all the heat they are under, I doubt that they would under estimate a realistic time frame.
Interesting is the horizontal drilling technology. Oil leases have owners. You can not tap into another lease. It's like crossing a fence line. We can steer the drill bit and put it where we want it. In this case, we do not have to drill to the total depth of the well which is leaking. If we can intersect that same well bore we might be able to keep from drilling 18,000 feet below the 5,000 foot ocean floor. Depends on a lot of stuff but we might have to drill the other 18,000 feet. I think the time frame offered by BP expexcts to do so.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I agree, but I'm not going to blame the government for the problem.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Not the problem and I am not giving BP a pass for the response, but, it was the governments self mandated duty to protect us from such an oil spill. Let me see if I can find the regulation.

John, Mineral Management Services of the US Dept of Interior Services is the regulating body for offshore drilling operations (which I did not know before this). My source is their official website and my link is legalese. You might be able to hang me with it. The exact subject content does focus on the Pacific Ocean but the language does include all offshore mineral management.
ON OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RESPONSE BETWEEN MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE PACIFIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REGION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, OFFICE OF OIL SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE

quote linky WHEREAS, Congress enacted the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) to protect the waters of the United States from oil pollution and to plan for the effective and immediate response in the event of an oil spill; and ..... WHEREAS, the State of California has enacted the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act of 1990, hereinafter referred to as the California Act, to protect the waters of the State from oil pollution and to plan for the effective and immediate response, removal, abatement, and cleanup in the event of an oil spill and to augment State authority for the prevention and response to spills in waters under the jurisdiction of the State; and .... WHEREAS, the California Act provides that the Administrator of the Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) is appointed by and acts at the direction of the Governor. The Administrator acts as the chairperson of the State Interagency Oil Spill Committee (SIOSC) and coordinates actions through the State committee, the review subcommittee, and the Technical Advisory Committee; and ... WHEREAS, the Administrator, subject to the Governor, has the primary State authority to direct prevention, removal, abatement, response, containment and cleanup efforts, with regard to all aspects of any oil spill in the marine waters ...

There is the primer.
On to the US Environmental Protection Agency (the same ones who are gonna back door Cap and Trade us).

quote linky with a sub linky[/b] Learn some of the ways that EPA and other responders clean up oil spills. Under the National Contingency Plan, EPA is the lead federal response agency for oil spills occurring in inland waters, and the U.S. Coast Guard is the lead response agency for spills in coastal waters and deepwater ports

Sublinky from the EPA link. Response and Clean-up Technologies

quote sublinky Because a hazardous substance release or an oil spill could occur virtually anywhere and at any time, EPA and a network of federal, state, and local responders stand ready 24 hours-a-day to contain and clean-up the discharged oil and released chemicals.

I really did not find what I was looking for John but to me it is clear that the gooberment screwed up. I was looking for the accepted procedure of burning the spilled oil, which no drilling company can unilaterally do. My understanding was that it is the gooberments call to do this.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I agree, but I'm not going to blame the government for the problem.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Not the problem and I am not giving BP a pass for the response, but, it was the governments self mandated duty to protect us from such an oil spill. Let me see if I can find the regulation.

Again, I can not put my finger on the legislation which describes governmental strategies/responsibilities in the event of an offshore oil spill. It originates with the National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration. We charge with and depend upon our government to protect us and because of it's ineptness the way it chooses to protect us is to shut down offshore drilling, . I think the problem lies within the myriad of governmental agencies which all have a say (not only in response to the spill but also in many other functions of government).
For offshore oil spills, here are just some of the governmental agencies which have jurisdiction. The Department of the Interior (who's Chief of Staff went on a white water rafting trip to the Grand Canyon immediately after he was informed of the spill. Much like that yahoo who went to Hawaii on vacation immediately after the crotch bomber tried his Christmas Day bombing of an airline), U.S. National Response Team, the EPA, the NOAA, Mineral Management Services, Homeland Security, the Coast Guard, and others I am sure I forget to honor, .

Here is an article about how this happened.
http://www.floridatoday.com...?source=nletter-news

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I agree, but I'm not going to blame the government for the problem. BP should have them on hand, available, and ready to deploy. It's their responsibility to contain this kind of thing, they're getting the profits from the drilling. John Stricker

I didn't note who snafu'd either. But it was not responsible at all. I'd say the gov holds some blame for not requiring better saftey standards.

I saw on the news that the big concrete gig they hoped would capture most of the leaking oil failed, anyone know anything about that? They said "ice like" crystals clogged it. Wondering what "ice like" crystals are. Are they ice, grapefruit, malted milk balls, what? WTH is "ice like"...seems it's either ice or it ain't.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 05-10-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I saw on the news that the big concrete gig they hoped would capture most of the leaking oil failed, anyone know anything about that? They said "ice like" crystals clogged it. Wondering what "ice like" crystals are. Are they ice, grapefruit, malted milk balls, what? WTH is "ice like"...seems it's either ice or it ain't.

Think Slushie, or Icee drink.

if the Gulf of Mexico dead yet?