Cut done, cap is doubtful, oil can't be skimmed, relief well not guaranteed

[Robbien]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail??blogid=150&entry_id=64949

I hate to be the pessimist but the scenario looks bleak once again. Why? The original plan called for a clean cut by a diamond saw. The saw used seized up so the clean cut was aborted. Instead BP used large hydraulic scissors to cut the riser pipe off leaving an irregular cut of riser pipe stub. You can clearly see the somewhat irregular shape from BP's live feed.

Now here are the problems I see having observed the process for almost two weeks now.

1) The cap with the grommet seal was already down there when the cut was being attempted. It was not constructed to go over an irregularly shaped pipe as the expectation was a clean shear.

2) The irregular cut is almost at the tip of the blowout preventor meaning they probably cannot attempt another cut because all they have to work with is a irregular shaped riser pipe stub.

Further the vibrations of a saw itself plus the the oscillation and vibration caused by the gushing oil itself is preventing another attempt at a clean cut of the remaining riser pipe stub.

3) There is enormous pressure from the oil gusher. The same pressure that pushed back thousands of gallons of drilling mud.

4) The robotic ROV are designed to build underwater rigs and repairs meaning - screw this on, move this there, guide this here, etc... I am not sure that the ROVs have the stability AND enough torque in their propellers to properly position the cap on a high pressure spewing oil and gas riser in a deep ocean environment with one ton per square inch of pressure.

The on-the-surface analog is a 21-inch fire hydrant going at full force spewing out oil and gas expecting ROV hovercrafts to cap the hydrant.

5) The Coast Guard continues to work with the Environmental Protection Agency on use of dispersants. BP plans to use the chemicals under the water near the site of the leak to break up oil that's not captured by the cap.

The use of dispersants underwater is problematic because it only solves a visible problem. If the oil was allowed to surface, we could map out where it will eventually end up as it makes its one mile journey up the water table. We can do this by placing underwater sensors with spectral or sonar capabilities in various depths supported by satellite used by National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, NASA, and surveillance aircraft.

Dispersed Corexit and oil which end up as broken up subsurface globules would not be visible but can and is guaranteed to make it to shorelines. The problem is booms cannot stop the oil because it cannot be seen by satellite, aircraft or boat. Oil becomes unmanageable by skim, suction or any other physical means. We have the technology to skim and suction oil. We do not even know how to get dispersed water globules out of the water.

BP's gamble bet is on dispersion, dilution and ocean currents. The problem is if they are unable to cap the well or stop the oil gusher, there is an equal if not greater chance that the oil will make it to shore and inland to marshes, swamps, corals and maybe even the everglades. Once the ecosystem is disrupted, all bets are off.

Remember Corexit did not make the oil disappear --- We just cannot see it anymore and we cannot skim or suction it out of the gulf. Oil is becomes a sub ocean surface plume. Cue theme from "Jaws".

6) Finally relief wells. Ask any oil rig worker and they will tell you well drilling is not an exact science. Dry wells happen all the time. Mapping of the earth's inner core is far from being an exact science. Digging two relief wells do not guarantee anything.

This being all said, I am praying for BP's success.

When BP gets around to actually dealing with the oil floating around in the gulf there's another problem:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/qa-miligram-0512.html

From what I’ve seen and read in the news, the response so far has been addressing the well problem. What I have not seen in the media are any tankers or barges filled with oil that has been skimmed from the surface. Ideally, oil from the slicks would be captured and brought to shore for processing.

Q. Can the oil from the spill be used after it has been mixed with salt water?

A. Yes, there are still many uses for the oil but in most cases all the water and salt must be removed from it — a difficult, expensive and time-consuming task in view of the large quantity of material. With the quantities of oil present in the Gulf, tremendous storage capacity would be required to hold the oil/water mixture before it could be processed. I am not sure if there is a facility in the United States capable of the task. A refinery that has this oil/water separation capability is something worthy of consideration for future

More and more I feel that the only thing BP is doing is a distraction campaign. Their expertise in catastrophes is limited to controlling media and politicians while walking away from the mess they made.

[snappyturtle]

1. I, too, want BP to be successful in the recovery effort, however

I doubt that it will happen. Time, past time, to examine the links of oil companies to our politicians and MMS.

[TexasObserver]

2. We seem to be looking at 60-90 more days, at a minimum.

It's sickening. All the oil that's flowed out thus far - triple it. That's how much will be out there by the time they shut this down, if then.

I am not optimistic.

[gateley]

3. BP is financially motivated to get this stopped, so I believe they're trying all

they can. I also believe they are working just as hard at obscuring the extent of the damage and lying as long as they can get away with it. I hope they get busted big time.

I'm not putting my faith in what somebody predicts will be the outcome of this particular effort. Truly, they don't know until they try. They have another cap (which is actually on the way down to the site now) for this type of contingency.

[KansasVoter]

6. So true. No reason for them to not cap it asap.

[SidDithers]

7. Agreed...nt

Sid

[Robbien]

9. They may be trying all they can

but they put so little money into developing systems for catastrophes that the tools they have in their toolbox are few.

So they may be trying to do all they can but what they can do is very limited.

[TheKentuckian]

10. They have motivation to stop the leak within a certain cost but also

every motivation to hide what they have done as well as to distract from and minimize their misdeeds and crappy decisions.

Every inch away from that well makes our interest and their's further apart. If mission #1 is closing the well then mission #2 is hide the oil, not to recover it, not to protect habitat but simply to hide the oil and delay damage to the habitat enough to deny culpability.

[gateley]

17. Agree. Again, financially motivated. It's always the money. Always. nt

[JuniperLea]

4. Distraction campaign...

I'm pretty sure I said that after the first attempt failed.

I'll just hang loose until they get back to my "Red Adair" fix comment that drew so many insults. The nuke deal is stupid. TNT will work just as well... they are going to use the nuke scare to, well, scare.

[Robbien]

14. There's a big drawback to using explosives to dam up the hole

They still want to get to harvest the oil. It is one of the biggest finds, if not the biggest, in the gulf.

If it is blasted shut, access to the oil is gone.

Or so I understand.

[bdamomma]

18. sorry for being so pessmistic apparently the environment is not

a priority to BP.

[SidDithers]

19. It's a multi-billion barrel oil field...

that covers hundreds, if not thousands of square miles. If that hole is filled, they'll drill another one to tap the field from another location.

Sealing this wellshaft does nothing but stop the gusher from this wellshaft.

Sid

[Robbien]

20. Blasting the hole shut

destabilizes the shelf above the oil. It will take some time and a lot of expense to find a new spot stabilized enough to drill.

[Statistical]

22. What kind of explosive does that?

The shelf is 5 miles thick.

[Statistical]

21. The oil isn't gone.

That oil field is massive. It will take a dozen wells to drain it.

These well is in such bad shape that explosives or not it will never be production however within a decade there will be a dozen wells reaching the exact same oil.

"If it is blasted shut, access to the oil is gone."
That would assume that this exact spot is magic and no where else in the entire world can access this oil except this 2 foot spot on the Gulf floor.

[JuniperLea]

25. It still means more expense on other drilling ops...

I understand what you're saying, but their focus on $$ is different than our focus on disaster, etc.

[Statistical]

29. A new well costs $100 mil.

The disaster to date costs $1 billion. Likely total cost including lawsuits will be $20 billion to $40 billion. That is enough to build 200 to 400 new wells.

Starting to realize how little sense that claim makes even if we simply look at cost and nothing else. :)

[JuniperLea]

31. You honestly think BP is going to pay all that?

I don't. I never did. But then I never believed there were WMD in Iraq either.

[Statistical]

32. Ok say BP pays only 25% of that. Still 100x cost of new well.

Hell if BP only pay what they have ALREADY spent and doesn't pay another penny it is 10x the cost of new well.

[JuniperLea]

37. There you have it...

Clearly they are motivated to keep this well viable. Obama just sent them a bill for what the US has spent thus far. We should have a better perspective relatively soon... he's wanting quick payment.

[Statistical]

38. No only in your brain does it make sense to pay $1B to keep this well "viable".

Plus risk billions more, and lose billions more in market cap, and destroy years of brand reputation. Riks losing future drilling rights, end up with lawsuits that have to be fought in court for next decade, and more.

Even ignoring all the enviromental damage and just looking at it from pure $$$$ and nothing else it is horribly expensive to not cap the well. In your mind (not in real world) all that cost is being expended by BP intentionally to "avoid" drilling a $100M new well.

Kinda like burning down your house (with no insurance) to avoid having to repaint it.

Only in your world does that kind of "economics" make sense.

The well hasn't been sealed because BP has failed so far not because they want to keep it "viable".



This well will NEVER be used for a production.

[JuniperLea]

40. Only in yours would BP even fork out that money...

Why do you think they tried to pump oil to tankers on the surface? You should go back and read any of the early articles you can find... if they are still around.

Occasionally you come up with something interesting, otherwise I would put you and your insults on permanent ignore.

You haven't a clue what my background is or what is in my brain... resisting the urge... resisting... resisting...

[DURHAM D]

23. If it is blasted shut, access to the oil is gone.

not true

Also, blasting the well will likely cause more unchecked oil/gas outflow - not less.

gheez

[JuniperLea]

24. Hence all the delaying tactics...

They don't want to be seen as weighting salvaging salable oil against wetland devastation. Early on they had made mention of salvaging "spilled" oil... such talk was abruptly halted the following week.

Resorting to explosives would mean they have given up hope of future revenue.

[backscatter712]

28. The well itself is so badly damaged it's cheaper to drill a new well.

Once they kill this one, the oil's still down there.

[KansasVoter]

5. No one official has said the cut cannot be connected too. But I understand your doubt of BP

[Hempathy]

8. Distraction campaigns have been proven to work wonders on Americans.

Just look at how obediently they remove their shoes for the airport security screener.

Or think that Iraq had wmd's and that Sadaam was involved with 9/11.

Or that George Bush legitimately won the 2000 presidential election.

Et cetera, et cetera te cetera...

[JuniperLea]

26. Well said...

I'm appalled at our obedience... especially those last two items you noted. I'm still red hot with anger over the lemmings and moths to flame dramas that went largely ignored by the general population.

[HughMoran]

11. What about the top cap that is being brought in now - just for this contingency?

Whereas this one fits over the flange?



The person who wrote the first article is out of the loop.

[louis-t]

12. From what I have heard, there are about 100 ships

sucking up oil and water. We haven't heard any more from Kevin Costner's people, either.

[Robbien]

16. They say they have a hundred or so ships

but anytime someone (other than MSM) goes out there to look or a satellite picture is taken, only three or four ships are actually seen in the area.

[louis-t]

27. MSM must be using...

housefly-vision cameras.

[jtrockville]

13. Yet the politicians in the south are STILL chanting DRILL BABY DRILL

Damn bozos!
:grr:

[rrneck]

15. Oil dispersion - risk dispersion. Corporate SOP. nt

[backscatter712]

30. They hacked off the riser with shears. Heckuva job, BP.

The best they can do now is try to smooth the edges with the underwater ROV tool equivalent of a Makita grinder, but I think as far as the LMRP is concerned, they might get partial mitigation, but truthfully, we're boned.

[Statistical]

33. They are using an alternate cap.

It is going to sit on the top of the BOP.
The uneven edge of the riser "stump" will actually just sit INSIDE the cap.
The seal will be made between the top of the BOP and the bottom of the cap.

HughMoron noticed this in another thread.

[backscatter712]

34. Hope that works. Will this contraption's seal stand up to 9,000 psi coming out of the gusher?

We'll find out soon enough, though I'm not holding my breath...

[Statistical]

35. Well they are not trying to "contain" the pressure.

Rather just let it flow up the pipe pushing oil under pressure all the way to the ship.

The high pressure is why most people's ideas of using a stopper or a plug won't work.

However if you can get a tight seal (big if) the pressure on the cap will be less than the pressure of the well because a large fraction of the pressure will simply be directed towards oil which flows up the pipe.

Analogy I hope works.

Take a hose and try to cap it with you hand flat. Kinda hard right. Now try instead to hold the end of the hose against another hose and warp your hand around the "joint". sure some water leaks out and sprays everywhere but your hand only needs to hold back a fraction of the pressure.

Under water at 5000ft the water outside the seal helps. It is providing 2500psi of pressure "encouraging" the oil to go up pipe instead.

[backscatter712]

39. Hope it's helpful.

I'm afraid it will be another thing like the "sippy-straw" they stuck in the riser a couple weeks ago, that works as an excuse for BP executives to pat each other on the back and congratulate themselves for stopping the disaster, when in reality, it may only suck up a fraction of the gushing oil.

[spanone]

36. they anounced the cut like it was a victory...

it allows MORE oil to flow into the gulf until they cap it, they they will only get a percentage of it.

i hope the percentage at least offsets the additional flow....

x( :mad: :puke: :evilfrown: :freak: :nopity: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :puffpiece: :rant: x( :mad: :puke: :evilfrown: :freak: :nopity: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :puffpiece: :rant: x( :mad: :puke: :evilfrown: :freak: :nopity: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :puffpiece: :rant: x( :mad: :puke: :evilfrown: :freak: :nopity: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :puffpiece: :rant: x( :mad: :puke: :evilfrown: :freak: :nopity: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :puffpiece: :rant: x( :mad: :puke: :evilfrown: :freak: :nopity: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :puffpiece: :rant: x( :mad: :puke: :evilfrown: :freak: :nopity: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :puffpiece: :rant: x( :mad: :puke: :evilfrown: :freak: :nopity: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :puffpiece: :rant: x( :mad: :puke: :evilfrown: :freak: :nopity: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :puffpiece: :rant: x( :mad: :puke: :evilfrown: :freak: :nopity: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :puffpiece: :rant: x( :mad: :puke: :evilfrown: :freak: :nopity: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :puffpiece: :rant:

[flamingdem]

41. US citizens should demand 4 more relief wells. Relief well only has 50% chance of success

So the odds must be increased by having more wells. Like shooting a pie plate 2 miles away they say. BP will make up excuses ... maybe they do not want to kill the well.

WE HAVE TO DEMAND MORE