Posted on 05/22/2010 6:51:24 AM PDT by valkyry1
There are certainly conflicting reports out there, I'll give you that. Every blog pimp on the planet is out there trying to one up the next and they have escalated to nuclear options.
First, nope, not basalt. Mud/sand, unconsolidated sediment. At 300 ft. you would be trying to crimp shut surface casing, intermediate casing, and any drill string in the hole with four simultaneously detonated charges an unknown distance from the wellbore, put in holes drilled from nearly a mile away (not a mile of rock, a mile of water) in sediments with uncertain shock coupling chateristics.
Once you are drilling in rock, you can maneuver the drillstring, correct your azimuth and inclination and 'steer' the wellbore. In water it's pretty tough to guide the drill string (currents affect it), in unconsolidated sediment, it is really tough. Steering can only be effected in directional holes when you have more solid rock to steer against.
Even if you could get the four charges in place, which would be a logistical nightmare, the holes in the right places, (another logistical nightmare), the effect of the explosion would have to seal that pipe well enough that a formation with sufficient pressure to produce 1000 to 5000 barrels of fluid per day against roughly 2200 psi of hydrostatic pressure (just from the seawater out there) will not leak through some small crack--because if it does, you haven't solved the problem.
That pipe will eventually corrode, and any leak will erode the pipe around the opening, no matter how small.
You only get one chance to get it right, because it won't be possible to assess the effects if it fails.
About the guy calling for 'nuking the well' (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-16/nuke-the-oil-spill/): "Christopher Brownfield is a former nuclear submarine officer, an Iraq veteran, and a visiting scholar on nuclear policy at Columbia University."
--Who apparently doesn't know diddley squat about oil wells.
For more than 100 years, explosives have been used to break the necks of runaway oil wells, snapping the long, narrow columns and sealing them shut with tons and tons of rock.
...is one I'd like to see his sources on. I have not known this method to be used to seal an oil well, ever, and I'm sure I would have heard about it from some of the old timers who were around when I broke out in the patch.
If it is an effective method, it would be in use instead of the hassle of setting cement plugs through every porous zone, even in casing.
God forbid a neutron source (used in some well logging tools) is lost in the hole, because that mandates filling the entire wellbore from bottom to surface with cement, dyed to indicate the presence of radioactive material.
As for his comment The latest nonsense and false hope, a mile-long pipe designed to divert some of the oil flow, is like putting a 4-inch straw into a 22-inch-diameter fire hose. It's a sordid attempt by BP at drinking its own milkshake.
They did it. They're pulling 2000 bbl of oil out of the riser daily and flaring the gas. That isn't a profitable venture, but one which is mitigating the environmental damage done by that oil had it gone into the gulf.
Don't confuse that with a relief well, it isn't.
What I want to know is why no one has done any calculations on the effect of a nuclear shockwave in a non-compressible fluid (water) on compressible marine life. I'm no marine biologist, but in my reading I found where only 5 psi or so of overpressure will kill humans, what's the 'squish factor' for marine life? Most of us have heard of 'nobel spinners', and a nuke would really put the squeeze on the fauna down there.
You don't cap an oil well by blowing the wellhead off. Explosives are used to snuff out oil well fires by depriving the fire of oxygen. That does not seal the well, it changes the problem.
The trick is to get in there and get a valve on the well, flanged up, bolted down and closed before the well reignites, which it can do just by static electricity discharges.
Dangerous work, but generally simpler than what BP is doing now.
Keep in mind the fire isn't extinguished until the means are available to shut the well in.
First, nope, not basalt. Mud/sand, unconsolidated sediment. At 300 ft. you would be trying to crimp shut surface casing, intermediate casing, and any drill string in the hole with four simultaneously detonated charges an unknown distance from the wellbore, put in holes drilled from nearly a mile away (not a mile of rock, a mile of water) in sediments with uncertain shock coupling chateristics.
If it's not basalt...then I can easily see how using explosives won't seal the well for good. Explosives won't seal the well drilled through sand and sediments. It's like a straw in a bowl of rice krispies
But you're the first person who has said so. You gave me a logical answer why nukes and conventional explosives won't cap off, seal off the well. So thanks!
I dont think some people really understand just how much sea food comes out of the Gulf, and it is a relatively contained body of water even as large as it is.
Since this one is a deep water uncontainable event we have no way of knowing just how much it is out there nor how much oxygen depletion will occur. We do know that there is enough oil/benzene etc out there to kill whatever it comes into contact with right now.
You are correct. Explosives only put out the flames....the well is not capped off. Flames are put out first so that the workers can go in and cap the well
But Red Adair etc....in the popular mind these guys cap the well with explosives
What I want to know is why no one has done any calculations on the effect of a nuclear shockwave in a non-compressible fluid (water) on compressible marine life. I’m no marine biologist, but in my reading I found where only 5 psi or so of overpressure will kill humans, what’s the ‘squish factor’ for marine life? Most of us have heard of ‘nobel spinners’, and a nuke would really put the squeeze on the fauna down there. >>>>>>>>>
With this well. To nuke it you would drill down say 1000 feet and detonate. Radioactivity is buried and little marine life gets killed.....Perhaps this sceme would work if it was basalt at 1000 ft down.
FRiend, I am not in favor of damage to fishing grounds. I grew up in a tidewater area, and I understand the fragility of that environment. I also understand its resillience.
At the same time I cannot advocate means which might only ensure the problem continues indefinitely because the wellhead has been destroyed and remains uncontrolled, nor can I advocate an option which will have people shun Gulf seafood a lot longer.
I have to ask just how much oil industry experience you have. You make drilling a few precisely spaced holes around the wellhead sound simple, but that isn't. You make placing explosives in those holes sound simple, but that isn't. You make it sound as if this is going to fix the problem, but that may not be so, even if you can get four explosive charges to flawlessly detonate simultaneously when one BOP would not function with two sets of double redudancies, and have it happen the very first try.
There are some crazy numbers flying around out there, going from 42000 gallons a day to now 50,000 barrels and up. There are people calling for 'nuking the well' (which, frankly will guarantee no more gulf seafood for me--ever). There are the usual spin doctors out there screaming this is The End Of The World As We Know It (Hey, they have to do something now that the last end of the world has been exposed as a fraud.)
If I had a dollar for every line of misinformation, disinformation, hyperbole, outright error and lies on the internet over this oil spill, I could pay off the national debt and have plenty to live comfortably.
So let's take a step back from the keyboard, take a deep breath, and logically examine the situation.
There have been blowouts before, there have been (much) larger spills. That hasn't killed off the oceans, and the last time I checked the map the Gulf of Mexico is still 'connected'.
More oil is 'spilled' into the environment annually by nature (natural seeps) than human activity.
Oil may be considered toxic because we can't drink it, but it is a natural and organic substance. It will break down, evaporate, be eaten by bacteria, and be dispersed by natural processes.
Right now the focus should be on protecting the wetlands, as best as possible, and in recovering as much oil as possible before the oil in the water gets there, which will assist the natural recovery of the area.
BP has one such intervention in the string pulling fluid out of the riser.
There are a bunch of contractors from all over down there to clean up the spill or skim oil off the water--that'll help. Anyone with a method and the ability to implement it will be out there trying it, in hopes of coming up with a patentable process or device which will help them retire, there is a lot of motivation to get that job done. (But you aren't hearing about that in the news, are you? Not from the people who have blamed everything from hurricane Katrina to sour milk on the oil industry.)
The relief wells are making progress, and the aim is not to salvage the current wellbore, but to control it using heavyweight drilling fluid, then plug it with cement, from depth, where it is not only easier to steer the relief wells, but where the hydrostatic from the drilling fluid will be enough to hold the flow of oil back (in both the relief wells and the uncontrolled wellbore) long enough for the cement plug to cure. When a well cannot be reentered (and this one apparently cannot because of damage to the wellhead nearly a mile under water), this is the best way to do the job and make sure it is done right.
I can sure see the progress of the cult of instantaneous gratification at work here.
I can see something else, something far uglier than oil on a beach: there are a lot of people angling for a government takeover of oil drilling. The socialists are coming out of the woodwork on this one, and all they are doing is getting in the way.
I can guarantee you that if there was a faster way to bring this under control, BP would be using it. Not only is the tab for cleanup going up every minute, even at $70/bbl, they are losing $70,000 to $350,000 daily in lost revenue in the oil (that's at 1000 to 5000 bbl/oil/day). Even if all the allegations of not caring about whatever were true, they would still give a damn about the revenue loss.
In theory, anyway. Even underground tests in Nevada occasionally 'leaked' without an oil reservoir trying to push fluid through them, and the geology was much better known.
How big across is the actual hole leaking oil?
The Exxon Valdez spill was in a cold climate. This is in a warm climate. Huge difference. Chemical reactions that will break down the oil will be effective at a much higher rate. That is not to say that the damage caused is something to laugh off.
Exactly.
If all else fails, the relief wells will contain it.
They have been steadily increasing the rate. The last I have read is now up at 5,000 BPD.
When all is said and done, life and the planet will go on and we can go back to believing that driving an SUV will kill the earth.
Like the old phrase - a mile wide and a scintilla deep...
Thanks for the update! That’s good news for everyone.
The production casing is 7-inch in diameter as I understand it. But the flow is under great velocity and pressure so it is constantly eroding the pipe away and the pipe has only so much material to erode before it gives way.
I think that is one reason they have been so hesitant with some of their other solutions. They dont really know what they have down there or maybe they do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.