40 percent?

[LeftyFingerPop]

How are they getting 40% of the gusher with a siphon hose that is 28% the diameter of the original pipe and also when that siphon hose is surely taking on a large amount of seawater?

Why is the media not questioning this?

[joeybee12]

1. How dare you expect the media to do their job!!!!

They haven't for a couple decades now.

[sabbat hunter]

2. well i am not good in geometry

but if you have a 1 gallon tank, and compare it to a 2 gallon tank. the 2 gallon tank is not twice the size of the 1 gallon (e.g. twice as tall, twice as wide, twice as deep)

[LeftyFingerPop]

4. If they are truly 1 gallon and 2 gallon tanks, and not...

labeled as such merely for descriptive purposes, then they will hold one gallon and two gallons, respectively.

There is more that comes into play than the size of the pipe though...the flow rate and volume through those pipes come into the calculation.

My whole point is this, however. The question that I asked in the OP is something that a layman like myself, and hence the rest of the populace, can understand. Why is the media not asking a simple question like this to BP?

[damntexdem]

62. But the question here is area, not volume -- so squared not cubed.

And I thought that the siphon was said to have 20% of the area, not the diameter -- if the latter, then it would have only 4% of the area.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Maybe because of all the gas coming out in addition to oil?

[Cetacea]

6. delete.

K+R

[LeftyFingerPop]

7. Well, wouldn't that tend to support my theory that far less than 40% is being captured?

The same gas that comes out of the big pipe goes into the little pipe.

[NYC_SKP]

5. I do not know. But 28% of the diameter would be only 7.8% of the cross sectional area.

So should be less than 10% of the capacity (all other factors being equal).

:shrug:

[LeftyFingerPop]

8. Sounds about right.

[LeftyFingerPop]

9. Here is a perfect question to BP from the media...

"Please explain to the public how a siphon pipe that is 28% the diameter and 7.8% the cross sectional area of the original pipe is able to capture 40% of the oil"

[Statistical]

22. Their answer.

The riser pipe is designed to be oversized. The pipe never runs at 100% of capacity. As flow rate for a particular pipe increases, friction also increases, and the pipe wears down quicker.

For example the pipes in your house can handle 60-100gpm easy but the flow rate is artfifically limited to 30gpm. Your house could get by with much smaller pipes but pushing water through the pipes at near max flow rate means they would wear out faster. The pipes are artificially oversized so they will last decades.

Thus the "little pipe" doesn't need to capture the max flowrate from a 21" pipe because the oil flowing from it isn't the max flowrate of a 21" pipe. This does mean the "little pipe" will wear out "quickly" but the goal is to end the flow (via relief wells) long before that happens.

[LeftyFingerPop]

34. OK, I'm understanding you...I'm under the assumption all along that the

big pipe is at max flow just from looking at the video...and that seems to be incorrect as we discussed below. Thanks for this.

[SidDithers]

10. The original pipe is kinked like a garden hose...

it's not gushing it's full potential flow volume.

Sid

[LeftyFingerPop]

13. I understand that, but it is a moot point...

the amount of the spill is what is coming out of the kinked pipe, not what would be coming out if the pipe were not kinked. I do not believe that the area where the siphon pipe was inserted is kinked to less than 21 inches, or else we probably would have been told that.

[SidDithers]

21. Ah, I misunderstood what you were asking...

it's my understanding the 6" pipe has a 21" plug around it, and the whole thing is inserted into the 21" pipe. That's supposed to prevent oil from escaping around the smaller diameter pipe.

Edit: I may be wrong on this. I thought that's what I had read, but can't find the original article now, and I've been out of touch for a few days, not following too closely.

Edit 2: BP diagram, there are diaphragms on the siphon pipe to try to prevent oil from escaping around the smaller diameter pipe.



Sid

[LeftyFingerPop]

27. Sid....if you find that could you please post it here?

I saw a graphic on TV last night that did not show a plug...it just showed a small pipe being inserted. I would be interested in knowing if they plugged that.

Thank you.

[SidDithers]

29. Edited previous post...

the graphic is from BP, so take it with a grain of salt, but this is what they were trying to do.

Sid

[LeftyFingerPop]

35. Thanks Sid. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

11. Rate of flow could be the answer.

If the pump can pull up oil faster than it's coming out of the ground, then it's possible it could be pulling in 40% of the oil coming out of the ground.

[yowzayowzayowza]

12. There it is. n/t

[LeftyFingerPop]

15. That could be correct, but that pump has to contend with...

the constrictive effect of a smaller pipe, gas mixed with the oil, and seawater. Must be a hell of a pump.

I'm still not buying it, but your point is well taken.

[berni_mccoy]

16. I agree... too many unknowns and I do not know what kind of pump it would have to be

but I'm guessing it would need to be a pretty powerful pump.

Still a very good question to ask BP/the Media.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Maybe 20 hp.

145 gpm @ maybe 50' of head pressure.

Depends on the viscosity.

[Donnachaidh]

14. they don't want to reveal their total stupidity

MATH was not part of their job description :rofl:

[Statistical]

17. The flow from pipe isn't 100% of output.

Riser pipe is oversized to reduce friction and make pipe last longer.

As far as seawater the siphon pipe is placed 5 feet inside the riser pipe where oil is flowing out under pressure. This was done intentionally to reduce amount of seawater in mix (and thus reduce amount of freezing).

[LeftyFingerPop]

20. I was thinking about that, but doesn't it look like that flow...

is pretty much the entire capacity of that pipe on the video?

[Statistical]

26. You can't tell.

A 2" water main can be flowing at 100gpm or 500gpm either way the water "fills" the pipe.

In one instance is it simply flowing faster. The 500gpm flow will wear out the pipe faster though.

As flow increases the rate of friction increases non linearly so their is a "sweet spot" between flow and life of pipe and that is a small fraction of theoretical max flow.

[LeftyFingerPop]

30. Thank you. Just trying to understand...this helps. n/t

[Statistical]

31. One other thing is that a small pipe can handle a lot of flow.

I don't know anything about oil but in cooling loop a 3foot steel pipe can handle over 200 gallons per minute.
That is 200 * 60 * 24 = 288,000 gallons per day. The larger constraint on flow is the power of the pump. Pumping more fluid through smaller pipe requires more energy (due to friction).

Now that isn't even the peak flow that is peak "safe" flow were friction is kept below sweet spot. Peak flow could theoretically be triple that.

[Junkdrawer]

18. Well IF the "leak" is 5,000 bbl a day....40%...

If the "leak" is 50,000 bbl a day....4%...

Now do you get why they don't want an accurate measurement of the leak rate?

[Cetacea]

48. Thank you. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. Depending on the viscosity, 4" pipe can easily handle 145 gpm.

145*60*24 = 210,000

I can't help but recall the numerous polls indicating that 80%+ of DU'ers have college degrees.

[LeftyFingerPop]

24. That is their reported total from the RISER PIPE...

210,000 per day.

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. I don't understand what you mean. n/t

[LeftyFingerPop]

32. They are reporting the total leak at 210,000 gallons per day.

If a 4 inch pipe will handle 210,000 gallons per day as you stated, that means that the total leak is much larger than 210,000 gallons per day since they said they are capturing 40% of the spill (I hope I explained that correctly!)

[Statistical]

36. Just because the pipe CAN handle that level of flow doesn't mean they using that level of flow.

As flow increases and pipe size stays static the amount of ENERGY required to pump increases very fast.
Remember also they have a 5000ft "head" (vertical distance fluid has to travel) which requires even more energy.

BP said they started with pump rate low to avoid too much saltwater in pipe (which would lead to freezing and bursting).

The point is simply that even a "small" pipe can handle a lot of flow. The limiting factor is more the power of the pump and the max rate before they start pulling in to much seawater.

[LeftyFingerPop]

38. What is your opinion on the 5000 bbl/day estimate...

considering that particle analysis or whatever they called it that was performed independently?

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. A 20"+ riser would have to be *severely* kinked or blocked to throttle flow to that degree.

An undamaged riser could easily transport that much per hour.

[LeftyFingerPop]

50. So, do you think the reported "spill" amount of 5,000 barrels per day is correct?

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Simply knowing the diameters of the pipes in question isn't enough info.

I'm with Statistical, I don't see any strong motivation for NOAA to participate in fraud.

[Cetacea]

56. Not according to independent estimates.

http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/05/bp-gulf-oil-spill-video-of-main-leak.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Skytruth+%28SkyTruth%29


"Multiple scientists have reviewed this video; their estimates of the flow range from 840,000 gallons (20,000 barrels) per day to as much as 2.9 million gallons (70,000 barrels) per day. Add another 15-20% to those estimates for the secondary leak, and it's clear that SkyTruth's early alarm back on April 27 -- that the spill is actually much worse than the official BP and government estimates -- was valid, and conservative. By May 1 we had exceeded the official estimate of oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster (about 11 million gallons); and by our count, at a rate of at least 1.1 million gallons (26,500 barrels) per day, we're closing in on 28.9 million gallons (689,000 barrels) spilled so far (it's Day 26 since the blowout began)."

[Statistical]

44. I would hope the Obama administration is not lying to us.

I don't trust BP but NOAA has confirmed the 5K number. What reason does Obama administration have to cover for BP.

Even if flow rate is higher than 5K the larger limit is energy required to pump (due to friction which is based on viscosity of fluid and friction on pipe).

Also at least according to BP it seems to high of a pump rate results in too much water being sucked into pipe.

They initially started at 1000 bpd as a test to check for icing. They upped it to 2000 bpd. Unless iciing is a problem I would expect they would increase pump rate until either a) ice starts forming, b) they hit max limit of pumps.

[LeftyFingerPop]

47. OK, thanks for the info and the good discussion...if you have a link you can post...

concerning the NOAA confirmation, I would appreciate it...haven't seen that yet.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. The 5000' doesn't count.

The only elevation head that matters is the height to lift the oil above the water level into the tanker.

The only thing we don't know is the viscosity of the oil and thus the friction head.

[Statistical]

42. Really? Didn't know that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. Imagine the ocean as a reservoir.

Tapping into that reservoir at the bottom (5000' down) the liquid will naturally rise in the pipe to the water level - no additional energy required.

Only hp required is to lift it higher. Friction head might be an issue, I dunno. :shrug:

[Statistical]

49. Yeah makes sense when you think about it like that.

I would think friction would be a significant issue but the pumps on the ship they are using are massive (or at least looks like it from CNN video I saw) so I would imagine it can overcome any friction.

Based on your explanation I think the largest limiting factor is the max flow rate before pumps suction causes too much water to flow into pipe. Too much water means too much ice and a blockage of ice could burst the pipe.

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. It's actually an interesting engineering question.

The oil in the pipe is lighter than the water pushing down at its inlet. The water pressure should force the oil up the pipe to some degree.

The specific gravity of water is 1. The specific gravity of crude oil is between .87 and .97. At a specific gravity of .9, wouldn't oil rise 500' in the pipe from the static pressure?

It sounds to me like they don't need to pump it, but throttle it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. I suspect that they're saying their pumps are flowing 50-60 gpm.

4" pipe can flow up to 1000 gpm water at moderate pressures.

[LeftyFingerPop]

39. See post 36...same question for you. Thanks. n/t

[CreekDog]

23. It is still belching way too much

:D

[Wednesdays]

25. Maybe they attached the hose to a big vacuum cleaner

[Statistical]

41. Well actually they did.

It just is a really large pump. The ship they have it connected to has very large pumps designed to move a lot of liquid and gas.

[Kablooie]

45. They mean 40% of the siphon hose's capability.

[LeftyFingerPop]

52. I thought they meant 40% of the "spill"?

[Joanne98]

53. Are you expecting the media to do math? Don't you know who they are?

[LeftyFingerPop]

54. Well, some individuals in this thread are making me rethink this...

I would like to see a link of NOAA's verification of the 5,000 bbls per day, then I would feel better.

[Statistical]

57. It is hard to find articles now because so much "new" news on the spill but...

the original 5,000 number came from NOAA. BP didn't want to release that number but NOAA did anyways.

A BP executive on Thursday agreed with a US government estimate that the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico could be pumping up to 5,000 barrels a day of crude into the ocean, far more than previously thought.

'I would say the range is one to 5,000 barrels a day,' said Doug Suttles, BP Chief Operating Officer for Exploration and Production, interviewed on the NBC Today show.

The US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) earlier said that more than 200,000 gallons of oil a day were now thought to be spewing into the Gulf from the debris of the Deepwater Horizon rig, which sank last week following a deadly explosion.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_520754.html

As the weather became better throughout the Tuesday, skimming, boom placement, aerial application of dispersants, imaging of the oil plume, in situ burning and observation overflights all took place in an effort to handle the oil leaking from the Deepwater Horizon Incident.

Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) cut off a section at the end of the riser pipe, which used to lead from the well to the rig, and capped it with a valve. While this stopped one of the three leaks, oil continues to enter the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of approximately 5000 barrels (210,000 gallons) per day, NOAA said.

http://www.eurasiareview.com/2010/05/noaa-releases-oil-spill-update-with.html

On edit: looks like here is NOAA original press release
http://www.incidentnews.gov/attachments/8220/526428/DeepH2Oweb_29Apr.doc

Today the Deepwater Horizon incident declared a Spill of National Significance (SONS). A SONS is defined as, "a spill that, due to its severity, size, location, actual or potential impact on the public health and welfare or the environment, or the necessary response effort, is so complex that it requires extraordinary coordination of federal, state, local, and responsible party resources to contain and clean up the discharge" and allows greater federal involvement. Estimates of the release rate increased to 5000 barrels (210,000 gallons) per day based on surface observations and reports of a newly discovered leak in the damaged piping on the sea floor.

Maybe NOAA estimate is wrong but it is almost possible the highball estimates are also wrong. I mean I have heard 20,000 and I also heard 70,000. If the 70,000 number is right then the 20,000 number is obviously wrong. If 20,000 is right then the 70,000 number is off by a factor of 350%.

[Junkdrawer]

58. CBS: Oil Flow Rate Questioned as BP Tries 2nd Fix

....

Instead, Ian R. MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University and an expert on oil slick analysis, has used satellite images of the slick to produce an estimate that could "easily be four or five times" worse than assumed, according to the report.

BP's release of an underwater video of the leak, showing a plume of oil and gas spewing into the sea at a high rate, has added fodder for those who think the oil company and government are underreporting the vastness of the problem.

The government's estimate would put the flow rate at about 146 gallons a minute, Alun Lewis, a British oil-spill consultant told the Times. By comparison, a garden hose's flow rate is about 10 gallons a minute, the report notes.

"Just anybody looking at that video would probably come to the conclusion that there's more," Mr. Lewis said.

....

According to the Times report, BP officials have turned down offers from scientists to work on getting a more accurate measure of the leak, saying new estimates wouldn't affect their top priority, reducing the flow of oil into the Gulf.

...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/14/national/main6483415.shtml

[Junkdrawer]

60. Gulf Spill May Far Exceed Official Estimates

...

BP has said repeatedly that there is no reliable way to measure the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico by looking at the oil gushing out of the pipe. But scientists say there are actually many proven techniques for doing just that.

Steven Wereley, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University, analyzed videotape of the seafloor gusher using a technique called particle image velocimetry.

A computer program simply tracks particles and calculates how fast they are moving. Wereley put the BP video of the gusher into his computer. He made a few simple calculations and came up with an astonishing value for the rate of the oil spill: 70,000 barrels a day — much higher than the official estimate of 5,000 barrels a day.

The method is accurate to a degree of plus or minus 20 percent.

...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525

[Cetacea]

59. I can't find anything on NOAA's alleged verification

On Sunday, various news media were going with the independent numbers. Now they are back to 5k per day.

[LeftyFingerPop]

63. I don't believe the 5,000 bbl estimate

I think NOAA threw out an initial estimate, then never updated it.

Visually, in both the initial and updated videos, the gusher appears to be greater than 5,000 bbls by orders of magnitude.

Also, those "plumes" are unbelievably huge.

Also, the person who did the particle analysis actually detailed how he came up with his estimate, provided a margin of error, and put his reputation on the line by going public.

Why NOAA would not update their number or provide analysis on how they determined 5,000 bbls? I have no idea.

[Cetacea]

64. Very odd.

On Sunday I started a thread on how the media was still using the 5k estimate despite so many claims to the contrary. Someone asked for a link, and when I went to the google "related news stories" page and noticed that all of the major news sources were using the higher estimates in favor of the BP estimate. I then went back and deleted my OP. Now it is back to everyone reporting 5k.

[LeftyFingerPop]

65. Frustrating...

I'm not an engineering type, but I'm not stupid, and neither are most people who have an interest in this.

If someone explains a methodology to me, I can usually sense if it is bullshit or not.

When a figure like 5,000 bbls is just thrown out there with no analysis, it should be questioned.

This is very fucked up.

[damntexdem]

61. I heard that it was 20% that they were claimng to get.

Which I didn't believe, because I doubted that it worked that well.