Watch live streaming video from tedxoilspill at livestream.com
Showing posts with label deepwater horizon oil spill disaster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deepwater horizon oil spill disaster. Show all posts
Monday, June 28, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
A Petroleum Engineer's Explanation
Fun Fact: The water pressure is about 2400 psi At 1 mile deep (assuming an increase in pressure of 1 atmosphere (14 psi) every 33 feet.) A firehose can burst at 1200 psi and take out brick walls.
What’s really happening in the Gulf Oil Spill
I appreciate all of the concern with the disaster in the gulf, but there is an awful lot of ignorance concerning the mechanisms both on ATS as well as the myriad of so-called experts in the MSM. I am posting this thread, since I have been in the oil business for over 30 years working as a petroleum engineer and have actually designed drilled and operated oil & gas wells. This explanation may get too technical, but at least it will expose and dissipate myths concerning this disaster.
Any oil well is drilled starting with a large diameter that at certain points in the process the large diameter holes are cased off with pipe and cemented in place for various reasons and the drilling is continued with smaller diameters until it reaches its objective. I will not go into all of the reasons pipe is run and a smaller diameter is initiated, take my word for it happens & is necessary.
The Horizon Explorer had several strings of pipes until the final 7” pipe was run (probably the 7” was run in 9 5/8” OD casing). The well is blowing out of the annulus between the 7” casing & the 9 5/8” casing. There is no flow inside the 7”. This casing has tools & check valves that prevent anything from flowing into it. The 7” was supposed to be cemented in place, but the well was starting to blow out during this process. So the cement was being diluted with oil & gas where it could not solidify and shut off flow from the reservoir @ 18,000+/- feet below the seafloor.
I will not go into the failure of the blowout preventer. Let is suffice to say it didn’t work as designed and with the flow coming out, the oil & gas flowed up the riser (the pipe that connects the wellhead to the drilling rig) and it was game, set & match.
When the rig sank the riser was still attached to the wellhead and fell over & split in a reported 3 places. It w as reported that 16.5 #/gallon drilling mud was in the riser and the well blew out when it was replaced with seawater. To understand the physics I will try to explain hydrostatic head. The pressure created from a column of fluid in an oil well is identical to the reason you have water pressure out of the tap at the kitchen sink. Water which weighs 8.33 #/gallon is put into a water tower 100’ up in the air. Fresh water has a hydrostatic head equal to .433 psi per foot of height. Therefore you get 43.3 psi at your shower head. If water weighed 16 #/gallon then you would have 86.6 psi in the shower. Similarly as an oil well is drilled there is a fluid known as “drilling mud” that is pumped into the drillpipe, through the drillbit & circulated back to the surface where it is screened to remove the soil dug out of the well. This “mud” is carefully monitored to make sure that if encounters oil or gas it is heavy enough to keep it from flowing into the wellbore. The well in question had to have 16.5 #/gallon mud weight to keep the oil & gas from flowing. The hydrostatic head of the mud of this weight as opposed to fresh water is .86 psi/ft. This means that the pressure in the oil reservoir encountered must be nearly 20,000 psi. ((18,000 + 5000) X .86). As the oil replaced the column of mud that would offset this bottomhole pressure it began flowing faster & faster into the annulus with more & more force as the weight of the 23,000 foot column of fluid became lighter & lighter. When the “company man” (the BP guy in charge) removed 16.5 #/gallon mud from the riser with 8.4 #.gallon sea water he immediately reduced the hydrostatic pressure 2000 psi & it was over.
Now BP is trying to recreate this heavy mud column to offset the bottomhole pressure to balance the well using the “top kill”. A “top kill” entails pumping weighted fluid into the top of the well and forcing the oil & gas back into the reservoir and filling the annular space with heavy mud creating a hydrostatic head equal to the reservoir pressure. The oil & gas are not flowing from a void in the earth it is flowing out of the tiny spaces between sand grains. There is a limit how fast the fluid will reverse & flow back into the formation sand. If the mud is pumped at a higher rate than the formation can absorb then the pressure increases and even the heavy mud may be inadequate to hold back the bottomhole pressure and when the pumps stop the mud starts flowing back. In addition, if the injection pressure gets too high it may exceed the burst strength of the casing in the well. If the casing splits & starts blowing out into the ocean bed the party is over, there is no way to control unless the flow in contained inside pipe. So the top kill is a precarious balancing act. To further complicate this situation it appears that 90% or more of the mud is not going down the hole, but is being spewed into the ocean. To get more down the hole one needs to pump at higher pressure which means increased rate which means more escapes instead of going down creating increased hydrostatic head to decrease the flow from the reservoir. The junk shot (rubber, golf balls, etc) is not to solve the whole problem; it is only to try to reduce the amount of mud that is escaping from the holes in the riser. They shut down periodically, to measure pressure to estimate how much is going down the hole & how much is being wasted. If the well initially flowed at 5000 psi & after a day of the “top kill” it’s flowing at 4000 psi then we have offset 1000 psi of the oil & gas with mud. If the mud weighs 16.5 #/gallon with a hydrostatic head of .86 psi/ft then we have successfully gotten 1200’ of mud column in the well if we assume only gas in the wellbore. It’s actually not this much. Having done “top kills” on land with varying degrees of success I can assure that its not easy under any circumstances much less those out here.
A “bottom kill” is vastly easier and is what the relief wells are about. Unfortunately for that to work the relief well must intersect an 8 ¾” diameter well bore 3 miles underground in the dark. It has been and can be done, but the deep intersection is necessary so that the enormous bottomhole reservoir pressure can be offset with heavy drilling fluid. The drilling mud will then displace the oil and gas from the bottom rather than try to force somewhere it doesn’t want to go. Once the heavy fluid balances the bottomhole pressure then cement can be put into place that once set up will end the need for the heavy fluid.
Link follows:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread576723/pg1
What’s really happening in the Gulf Oil Spill
I appreciate all of the concern with the disaster in the gulf, but there is an awful lot of ignorance concerning the mechanisms both on ATS as well as the myriad of so-called experts in the MSM. I am posting this thread, since I have been in the oil business for over 30 years working as a petroleum engineer and have actually designed drilled and operated oil & gas wells. This explanation may get too technical, but at least it will expose and dissipate myths concerning this disaster.
Any oil well is drilled starting with a large diameter that at certain points in the process the large diameter holes are cased off with pipe and cemented in place for various reasons and the drilling is continued with smaller diameters until it reaches its objective. I will not go into all of the reasons pipe is run and a smaller diameter is initiated, take my word for it happens & is necessary.
The Horizon Explorer had several strings of pipes until the final 7” pipe was run (probably the 7” was run in 9 5/8” OD casing). The well is blowing out of the annulus between the 7” casing & the 9 5/8” casing. There is no flow inside the 7”. This casing has tools & check valves that prevent anything from flowing into it. The 7” was supposed to be cemented in place, but the well was starting to blow out during this process. So the cement was being diluted with oil & gas where it could not solidify and shut off flow from the reservoir @ 18,000+/- feet below the seafloor.
I will not go into the failure of the blowout preventer. Let is suffice to say it didn’t work as designed and with the flow coming out, the oil & gas flowed up the riser (the pipe that connects the wellhead to the drilling rig) and it was game, set & match.
When the rig sank the riser was still attached to the wellhead and fell over & split in a reported 3 places. It w as reported that 16.5 #/gallon drilling mud was in the riser and the well blew out when it was replaced with seawater. To understand the physics I will try to explain hydrostatic head. The pressure created from a column of fluid in an oil well is identical to the reason you have water pressure out of the tap at the kitchen sink. Water which weighs 8.33 #/gallon is put into a water tower 100’ up in the air. Fresh water has a hydrostatic head equal to .433 psi per foot of height. Therefore you get 43.3 psi at your shower head. If water weighed 16 #/gallon then you would have 86.6 psi in the shower. Similarly as an oil well is drilled there is a fluid known as “drilling mud” that is pumped into the drillpipe, through the drillbit & circulated back to the surface where it is screened to remove the soil dug out of the well. This “mud” is carefully monitored to make sure that if encounters oil or gas it is heavy enough to keep it from flowing into the wellbore. The well in question had to have 16.5 #/gallon mud weight to keep the oil & gas from flowing. The hydrostatic head of the mud of this weight as opposed to fresh water is .86 psi/ft. This means that the pressure in the oil reservoir encountered must be nearly 20,000 psi. ((18,000 + 5000) X .86). As the oil replaced the column of mud that would offset this bottomhole pressure it began flowing faster & faster into the annulus with more & more force as the weight of the 23,000 foot column of fluid became lighter & lighter. When the “company man” (the BP guy in charge) removed 16.5 #/gallon mud from the riser with 8.4 #.gallon sea water he immediately reduced the hydrostatic pressure 2000 psi & it was over.
Now BP is trying to recreate this heavy mud column to offset the bottomhole pressure to balance the well using the “top kill”. A “top kill” entails pumping weighted fluid into the top of the well and forcing the oil & gas back into the reservoir and filling the annular space with heavy mud creating a hydrostatic head equal to the reservoir pressure. The oil & gas are not flowing from a void in the earth it is flowing out of the tiny spaces between sand grains. There is a limit how fast the fluid will reverse & flow back into the formation sand. If the mud is pumped at a higher rate than the formation can absorb then the pressure increases and even the heavy mud may be inadequate to hold back the bottomhole pressure and when the pumps stop the mud starts flowing back. In addition, if the injection pressure gets too high it may exceed the burst strength of the casing in the well. If the casing splits & starts blowing out into the ocean bed the party is over, there is no way to control unless the flow in contained inside pipe. So the top kill is a precarious balancing act. To further complicate this situation it appears that 90% or more of the mud is not going down the hole, but is being spewed into the ocean. To get more down the hole one needs to pump at higher pressure which means increased rate which means more escapes instead of going down creating increased hydrostatic head to decrease the flow from the reservoir. The junk shot (rubber, golf balls, etc) is not to solve the whole problem; it is only to try to reduce the amount of mud that is escaping from the holes in the riser. They shut down periodically, to measure pressure to estimate how much is going down the hole & how much is being wasted. If the well initially flowed at 5000 psi & after a day of the “top kill” it’s flowing at 4000 psi then we have offset 1000 psi of the oil & gas with mud. If the mud weighs 16.5 #/gallon with a hydrostatic head of .86 psi/ft then we have successfully gotten 1200’ of mud column in the well if we assume only gas in the wellbore. It’s actually not this much. Having done “top kills” on land with varying degrees of success I can assure that its not easy under any circumstances much less those out here.
A “bottom kill” is vastly easier and is what the relief wells are about. Unfortunately for that to work the relief well must intersect an 8 ¾” diameter well bore 3 miles underground in the dark. It has been and can be done, but the deep intersection is necessary so that the enormous bottomhole reservoir pressure can be offset with heavy drilling fluid. The drilling mud will then displace the oil and gas from the bottom rather than try to force somewhere it doesn’t want to go. Once the heavy fluid balances the bottomhole pressure then cement can be put into place that once set up will end the need for the heavy fluid.
Link follows:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread576723/pg1
Oil Rig Disaster + No new drilling in Gulf = 2 new relief wells for BP
If there is no new drilling allowed in the Gulf and BP is drilling 2 new wells that may or may not work, then... Have they at least indicated how they would stop those new wells from becoming gushers as well?
Is there a possibility that we could eventually have 3 disasters instead of just 1? Yes. Maybe they'll at least put an acoustic switch on the relief wells?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100601/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_872
Is there a possibility that we could eventually have 3 disasters instead of just 1? Yes. Maybe they'll at least put an acoustic switch on the relief wells?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100601/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_872
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Bill Nye Science Guy on Oil Spills
http://gizmodo.com/5545316/watch-bill-nye-evaluate-citizens-oil-spill-solutions
The River Will Provide - Kristian Gustavson in the Huffington Post
Full Article HERE.
I knew a worst-case scenario was unfolding as soon as I heard that the Deepwater Horizon rig blew over one month ago. True to our namesake, we quickly discovered that there is a lot going on below the surface. A growing consensus among scientists estimates that over one hundred million gallons of oil have poured into the Gulf of Mexico so far. Oil booms are ineffective, dispersants are creating a toxic-stratified chemical cocktail throughout the Gulf of Mexico, and BP is still calling the shots while simultaneously dropping the ball.
Our exploration team, from Below the Surface, had plans for a cordial rendezvous with our friends and partner organizations in Louisiana as a follow-up to an expedition we launched down the Atchafalaya River this past February, which is chronicled in the June/July issue of Reader's Digest
Instead we found ourselves in a much different scenario--defense as opposed to offense. As our crew motored in the warm, turquoise waters off the Gulf Coast National Seashore, a National Park, with a pod of 20+ bottle-nosed dolphins, I knew that their fate had been sealed. I did all I could to keep my tears hidden from the other guys onboard behind my aviator sunglasses. The damage has been done; we need to recognize that the disaster has occurred! When I first arrived, I expected to see scores of oiled-birds being taken to the triage centers and thick goo lapping up on the beaches--I was conditioned to the images of the Exxon-Valdez spill.
However, this travesty is completely different from the one that occurred in Alaska over twenty-years ago. That was a spill of a finite amount. This is still flowing, and marine life is taking the brunt of the impact. We've found dead dolphins and dead sea turtles and countless jellyfish (a staple for sea turtles) washing up everywhere despite the fact that the alluring greenish-blue waters and white-sand beaches appeared to be clean. This makes the dispersants a prime culprit. The dispersants in and of themselves are toxic, and the compounds they create when interacting with oil make them even more toxic. Worse yet, dispersants spread oil throughout water column contaminating a higher percentage of the ocean instead of concentrating oil on the surface.
It is fairly safe to say that most containment methods have been for aesthetic purposes. Oil continues to flow, and BP's several attempts at containment have all failed. The contingency techniques and their names offer little assurance: top hat/top kill, junk shot, and insertion. How about a shot in the dark? After all, that's exactly what this is. BP has repeatedly claimed that this type of recovery operation has never been done in 5,000 feet of water. Why then were they allowed to take such a calculated risk by scraping the bottom by the barrel for oil without a response strategy?
Had we invested more in our oceans, this travesty may have been averted or quickly resolved. On the contrary, we know very little about our oceans; in fact, about 90% of our oceans remain unexplored. It is disturbing to think that we have better maps of Mars than of our own oceans. NOAA and other marine exploration institutions are desperately underfunded relative to other fields. For instance, NASA's annual budget would fund NOAA's budget to explore our oceans for 1,600 years. It is time to focus on the reality of issues faced by our planet and America's waterways.
Many feel that this disaster has been worse than Katrina, and the impacts will be felt for a much longer period of time. This man-made disaster has been and will be destructive to the Louisiana coastline for the exact same reasons as Hurricane Katrina--the vanishing wetlands.
What's the Solution?
This solution runs parallel to the discoveries we made while underway on the Atchafalaya expedition, dubbed Gaining Ground. Louisiana loses about one football field of land every hour, which equates to land loss of about 30 square miles per year and is approximately 2,300 square miles since 1930 gone! This is because the highly managed, dredged, and leveed Mississippi River no longer provides sediment to replenish coastal wetlands. In contrast, we found that the Atchafalaya River has the only two growing deltas in Louisiana. This is because the river is allowed to exist in a more natural state and sediment slows down and settles to form new coastal marshland known as accretion (the opposite of erosion).
When we leveed rivers, we lost the resiliency of the entire area; the best thing we can do is open up substantial and strategically placed diversions that flow around 100,000 cubic feet per second to provide the sediment necessary for rebuilding the coast. The river can do the work for us and reverse the damage done relatively quickly!
The hasty, man-made creation of barrier islands off the coast is panic-based, not science-based and may be more destructive to the coast long-term. I spoke with a number of leaders spearheading Gulf Coast conservation efforts and they believe that dredged up barrier islands will be expensive and will fail. They will certainly fail from a hurricane surge and hurricane season begins the first of June. Selectively breaching the levees to let the Mississippi River naturally reconstitute the wetlands is likely cheaper and offers a permanent benefit. Seemingly irreparable damage to wetland marshes has ensued, but nature will rebuild if we rebuild the natural conditions that make it all possible.
With all of the conservation work going on in the Gulf Coast, it seems to me that if it were easy to just build these islands, it would have been done decades ago. Repairing this disaster is beyond our control; the Mississippi River brings over 200,000 dump-truck loads of sediment to the Gulf of Mexico every day. Unfortunately most of that is sent over the continental shelf. We need to match power with power by following nature's model; the river will provide!
To minimize collateral damage, we must stop the use of any and all dispersants. Our public servants must raise the liability cap retroactively and through the roof! In addition, politicians should pass the Bingaman Baucus Senate Bill to provide $900 million per year for conservation from oil revenues. To guarantee transparency within the Unified Command we must create an NGO Representative position to serve as an ombudsman to for a more coordinated front of the well-established and experienced groups in the area. Last, but certainly not least, it would be prudent to focus on the often-overlooked issue of actually stopping the oil flow instead of allowing BP to try to salvage the well.
Southern Hospitality
I returned to the south to help my friends from various organizations and universities because of the care and generosity they have shown me. I believe that they are conditioned to be so hospitable because they are survivors. The ever-giving people in the South are in need of help. Despite all of the adversity bestowed upon the South our fellow Americans are in trouble, their true voices are not getting heard, the truth is not being revealed, and there are still a lot of questions that remain unanswered.
Remember, the only way to solve an environmental disaster is to work with nature. In the words of my dear friend and legendary outfitter and guide, John Ruskey, "May the river be with you."
Kristian Anders Gustavson, Co-Founder of Below the Surface.
I knew a worst-case scenario was unfolding as soon as I heard that the Deepwater Horizon rig blew over one month ago. True to our namesake, we quickly discovered that there is a lot going on below the surface. A growing consensus among scientists estimates that over one hundred million gallons of oil have poured into the Gulf of Mexico so far. Oil booms are ineffective, dispersants are creating a toxic-stratified chemical cocktail throughout the Gulf of Mexico, and BP is still calling the shots while simultaneously dropping the ball.
Our exploration team, from Below the Surface, had plans for a cordial rendezvous with our friends and partner organizations in Louisiana as a follow-up to an expedition we launched down the Atchafalaya River this past February, which is chronicled in the June/July issue of Reader's Digest
Instead we found ourselves in a much different scenario--defense as opposed to offense. As our crew motored in the warm, turquoise waters off the Gulf Coast National Seashore, a National Park, with a pod of 20+ bottle-nosed dolphins, I knew that their fate had been sealed. I did all I could to keep my tears hidden from the other guys onboard behind my aviator sunglasses. The damage has been done; we need to recognize that the disaster has occurred! When I first arrived, I expected to see scores of oiled-birds being taken to the triage centers and thick goo lapping up on the beaches--I was conditioned to the images of the Exxon-Valdez spill.
However, this travesty is completely different from the one that occurred in Alaska over twenty-years ago. That was a spill of a finite amount. This is still flowing, and marine life is taking the brunt of the impact. We've found dead dolphins and dead sea turtles and countless jellyfish (a staple for sea turtles) washing up everywhere despite the fact that the alluring greenish-blue waters and white-sand beaches appeared to be clean. This makes the dispersants a prime culprit. The dispersants in and of themselves are toxic, and the compounds they create when interacting with oil make them even more toxic. Worse yet, dispersants spread oil throughout water column contaminating a higher percentage of the ocean instead of concentrating oil on the surface.
It is fairly safe to say that most containment methods have been for aesthetic purposes. Oil continues to flow, and BP's several attempts at containment have all failed. The contingency techniques and their names offer little assurance: top hat/top kill, junk shot, and insertion. How about a shot in the dark? After all, that's exactly what this is. BP has repeatedly claimed that this type of recovery operation has never been done in 5,000 feet of water. Why then were they allowed to take such a calculated risk by scraping the bottom by the barrel for oil without a response strategy?
Had we invested more in our oceans, this travesty may have been averted or quickly resolved. On the contrary, we know very little about our oceans; in fact, about 90% of our oceans remain unexplored. It is disturbing to think that we have better maps of Mars than of our own oceans. NOAA and other marine exploration institutions are desperately underfunded relative to other fields. For instance, NASA's annual budget would fund NOAA's budget to explore our oceans for 1,600 years. It is time to focus on the reality of issues faced by our planet and America's waterways.
Many feel that this disaster has been worse than Katrina, and the impacts will be felt for a much longer period of time. This man-made disaster has been and will be destructive to the Louisiana coastline for the exact same reasons as Hurricane Katrina--the vanishing wetlands.
What's the Solution?
This solution runs parallel to the discoveries we made while underway on the Atchafalaya expedition, dubbed Gaining Ground. Louisiana loses about one football field of land every hour, which equates to land loss of about 30 square miles per year and is approximately 2,300 square miles since 1930 gone! This is because the highly managed, dredged, and leveed Mississippi River no longer provides sediment to replenish coastal wetlands. In contrast, we found that the Atchafalaya River has the only two growing deltas in Louisiana. This is because the river is allowed to exist in a more natural state and sediment slows down and settles to form new coastal marshland known as accretion (the opposite of erosion).
When we leveed rivers, we lost the resiliency of the entire area; the best thing we can do is open up substantial and strategically placed diversions that flow around 100,000 cubic feet per second to provide the sediment necessary for rebuilding the coast. The river can do the work for us and reverse the damage done relatively quickly!
The hasty, man-made creation of barrier islands off the coast is panic-based, not science-based and may be more destructive to the coast long-term. I spoke with a number of leaders spearheading Gulf Coast conservation efforts and they believe that dredged up barrier islands will be expensive and will fail. They will certainly fail from a hurricane surge and hurricane season begins the first of June. Selectively breaching the levees to let the Mississippi River naturally reconstitute the wetlands is likely cheaper and offers a permanent benefit. Seemingly irreparable damage to wetland marshes has ensued, but nature will rebuild if we rebuild the natural conditions that make it all possible.
With all of the conservation work going on in the Gulf Coast, it seems to me that if it were easy to just build these islands, it would have been done decades ago. Repairing this disaster is beyond our control; the Mississippi River brings over 200,000 dump-truck loads of sediment to the Gulf of Mexico every day. Unfortunately most of that is sent over the continental shelf. We need to match power with power by following nature's model; the river will provide!
To minimize collateral damage, we must stop the use of any and all dispersants. Our public servants must raise the liability cap retroactively and through the roof! In addition, politicians should pass the Bingaman Baucus Senate Bill to provide $900 million per year for conservation from oil revenues. To guarantee transparency within the Unified Command we must create an NGO Representative position to serve as an ombudsman to for a more coordinated front of the well-established and experienced groups in the area. Last, but certainly not least, it would be prudent to focus on the often-overlooked issue of actually stopping the oil flow instead of allowing BP to try to salvage the well.
Southern Hospitality
I returned to the south to help my friends from various organizations and universities because of the care and generosity they have shown me. I believe that they are conditioned to be so hospitable because they are survivors. The ever-giving people in the South are in need of help. Despite all of the adversity bestowed upon the South our fellow Americans are in trouble, their true voices are not getting heard, the truth is not being revealed, and there are still a lot of questions that remain unanswered.
Remember, the only way to solve an environmental disaster is to work with nature. In the words of my dear friend and legendary outfitter and guide, John Ruskey, "May the river be with you."
Kristian Anders Gustavson, Co-Founder of Below the Surface.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
BP Top kill procedure - aptly named?
Top kill procedure diagram (jpg, 729KB)
The primary objective of the top kill process is to put heavy kill mud into the well so that it reduces the pressure and then the flow from the well. Once the kill mud is in the well and it’s shut down, then we follow up with cement to plug the leak.
For the top kill procedure we are designing equipment to pump the highest kill rate we can, irrespective of the flow rate of oil from the well (COMMENT: Wouldn't having an accurate estimate of the output of the well allow you to make better decisions regarding the practicality of this approach?), to force a downward flow of mud into the well. This, combined with the heavy drilling fluid is designed to eventually stop the flow. This has never been attempted at these depths. This is very complex – and involves several complex procedures coming together.
Detailed description of the procedure We have the Q4000 vessel at the surface which has a crane for lifting heavy equipment and is a central part of the surface equipment for this procedure. We also have a number of other vessels: the HOS Centerline, with Halliburton pumping equipment; the HOS Strongline; and the BJ Services Blue Dolphin and Halliburton Stim Star IV pumping boats.
A total of 50,000 barrels of mud will be on location to kill the well – far more than necessary, but we want to be prepared for anything. Pumping capacity on location is more than 30,000 hydraulic horsepower.
The mud will be pumped down the 6-5/8 inch drill pipe (pipe is connected to the Q4000), then through 3-inch hoses, which go through the manifold on the seafloor. Then the mud moves through another set of 3-inch hoses attached to the Deepwater Horizon BOP choke and kill lines.
With the manifold, we can also pump the ‘junk shot’ if necessary to stop too much of the kill mud going out through the top of the BOP rather than going down into the well to stop the flow. By switching valves in the subsea manifold, we can inject the ‘bridging material’ (the junk), which will prevent such losses and enable the top kill to continue.
Most of the equipment is on site and preparations continue for this operation.
This page was last updated 23 May 2010
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9033657&contentId=7062095
Monday, May 24, 2010
BP Pledges $500 Million for Independent Research into Impact of Spill on Marine Environment
This press release indicates that research still needs to be done to answer the questions we've all had regarding the effects of oil on a marine environment. BP's dedication of $500 million to research this event is an indication that this truly is research in action and we have no idea what the long-term effects will be.
At least from a scientific perspective the damaging results that BP's research will disclose should be good fodder for future generations.
BP Pledges $500 Million for Independent Research into Impact of Spill on Marine Environment
Release date: 24 May 2010
BP today announced a commitment of up to $500 million to an open research program studying the impact of the Deepwater Horizon incident, and its associated response, on the marine and shoreline environment of the Gulf of Mexico.
"BP has made a commitment to doing everything we can to lessen the impact of this tragic incident on the people and environment of the Gulf Coast. We must make every effort to understand that impact. This will be a key part of the process of restoration, and for improving the industry response capability for the future. There is an urgent need to ensure that the scientific community has access to the samples and the raw data it needs to begin this work," said Tony Hayward, BP's chief executive.
The key questions to be addressed by this 10-year research program reflect discussions with the US government and academic scientists in Washington DC last week. BP will fund research to examine topics including:
•Where are the oil, the dispersed oil, and the dispersant going under the action of ocean currents?
•How do oil, the dispersed oil and the dispersant behave on the seabed, in the water column, on the surface, and on the shoreline?
•What are the impacts of the oil, the dispersed oil, and the dispersant on the biota of the seabed, the water column, the surface, and the shoreline?
•How do accidental releases of oil compare to natural seepage from the seabed?
•What is the impact of dispersant on the oil? Does it help or hinder biodegradation?
•How will the oil, the dispersed oil, and the dispersant interact with tropical storms, and will this interaction impact the seabed, the water column and the shoreline?
•What can be done to improve technology:
◦To detect oil, dispersed oil, and dispersant on the seabed, in the water column, and on the surface?
◦For remediating the impact of oil accidently released to the ocean?
BP already has ongoing marine research programs in the Gulf of Mexico. Building on these, BP will appoint an independent advisory panel to construct the long term research program. Where appropriate, the studies may be coordinated with the ongoing natural resources damages assessment. The program will engage some of the best marine biologists and oceanographers in the world. More immediately, a baseline of information for the long term research program is needed. A first grant to Louisiana State University will help kick start this work.
"LSU has a significant amount of experience in dealing with the oil and gas industry and deep knowledge pertaining to the Gulf of Mexico across numerous topical disciplines. The first part of the program is about obtaining and analyzing samples and assessing immediate impacts. Other areas of importance will emerge as researchers become engaged and the potential impacts from the spill are better understood," said Professor Christopher D'Elia, Dean of the School of the Coast and Environment.
Subsequent awards will be controlled by the independent advisory board.
Notes to editors: •BP has been collaborating with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography since 2004 in a program aimed at gaining a better understanding of the environment and hazards in oceans, including marine electromagnetic research. The focus of oceanography efforts has been loop currents in the Gulf of Mexico.
•In 2008, as part of the Deepwater Environmental Long-term Observatory System (DELOS), BP installed the world's first system designed to monitor deep-sea marine life. DELOS is supported by Texas A&M in Galveston, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, University of Aberdeen, National Oceanography Centre in Southampton and the University of Glasgow.
Further information: BP Press Office London +44 20 7496 4076
BP Press office, US: +1 281 366 0265
Unified Command Joint Information Center +1 985 902 5231
www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com
www.bp.com/gulfofmexico
At least from a scientific perspective the damaging results that BP's research will disclose should be good fodder for future generations.
BP Pledges $500 Million for Independent Research into Impact of Spill on Marine Environment
Release date: 24 May 2010
BP today announced a commitment of up to $500 million to an open research program studying the impact of the Deepwater Horizon incident, and its associated response, on the marine and shoreline environment of the Gulf of Mexico.
"BP has made a commitment to doing everything we can to lessen the impact of this tragic incident on the people and environment of the Gulf Coast. We must make every effort to understand that impact. This will be a key part of the process of restoration, and for improving the industry response capability for the future. There is an urgent need to ensure that the scientific community has access to the samples and the raw data it needs to begin this work," said Tony Hayward, BP's chief executive.
The key questions to be addressed by this 10-year research program reflect discussions with the US government and academic scientists in Washington DC last week. BP will fund research to examine topics including:
•Where are the oil, the dispersed oil, and the dispersant going under the action of ocean currents?
•How do oil, the dispersed oil and the dispersant behave on the seabed, in the water column, on the surface, and on the shoreline?
•What are the impacts of the oil, the dispersed oil, and the dispersant on the biota of the seabed, the water column, the surface, and the shoreline?
•How do accidental releases of oil compare to natural seepage from the seabed?
•What is the impact of dispersant on the oil? Does it help or hinder biodegradation?
•How will the oil, the dispersed oil, and the dispersant interact with tropical storms, and will this interaction impact the seabed, the water column and the shoreline?
•What can be done to improve technology:
◦To detect oil, dispersed oil, and dispersant on the seabed, in the water column, and on the surface?
◦For remediating the impact of oil accidently released to the ocean?
BP already has ongoing marine research programs in the Gulf of Mexico. Building on these, BP will appoint an independent advisory panel to construct the long term research program. Where appropriate, the studies may be coordinated with the ongoing natural resources damages assessment. The program will engage some of the best marine biologists and oceanographers in the world. More immediately, a baseline of information for the long term research program is needed. A first grant to Louisiana State University will help kick start this work.
"LSU has a significant amount of experience in dealing with the oil and gas industry and deep knowledge pertaining to the Gulf of Mexico across numerous topical disciplines. The first part of the program is about obtaining and analyzing samples and assessing immediate impacts. Other areas of importance will emerge as researchers become engaged and the potential impacts from the spill are better understood," said Professor Christopher D'Elia, Dean of the School of the Coast and Environment.
Subsequent awards will be controlled by the independent advisory board.
Notes to editors: •BP has been collaborating with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography since 2004 in a program aimed at gaining a better understanding of the environment and hazards in oceans, including marine electromagnetic research. The focus of oceanography efforts has been loop currents in the Gulf of Mexico.
•In 2008, as part of the Deepwater Environmental Long-term Observatory System (DELOS), BP installed the world's first system designed to monitor deep-sea marine life. DELOS is supported by Texas A&M in Galveston, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, University of Aberdeen, National Oceanography Centre in Southampton and the University of Glasgow.
Further information: BP Press Office London +44 20 7496 4076
BP Press office, US: +1 281 366 0265
Unified Command Joint Information Center +1 985 902 5231
www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com
www.bp.com/gulfofmexico
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
U.S. Needs to Cap the Well
BP needs to stop trying to salvage this well and just cap it. Or the U.S. Government needs to do it for them if BP is too incompetent to take care of business. While BP has an incentive to try to recoup their losses and have tried to dome it and suck it up through a straw of a pipe... ask yourself, "What have they done to cap the well and stop it from spewing more into the ocean?"
Nothing. Haven't heard it mentioned yet. Maybe they can't do it until they build their second relief well or maybe their shareholders demand that they salvage as much as they can to offset the losses from this disaster. Maybe their fiduciary responsibility to their stakeholders provides a conflict of interest with all the citizens of the Gulf Region of the United States and other countries around the Gulf.
What would it take for the U.S. Government to say, "Enough is enough. We are sending in the best and the brightest to stop this problem today."
Let's demand action from Homeland Security to step in and protect the Homeland. Not just with booms and dispersants, but submersibles with the capacity to stop the flow.
This is a public health and safety issue that is essential to protecting the prosperity of citizens of the United States of America. If ever there was a time for the Department of Homeland Security to step up to the plate and demand action, it is now.
Kick BP out of there and fine them substantially for their failure to drill in a safe manner. Raise the fine limit to something proportional to the damage caused. $75 million is seriously inadequate to incentivize a company that nearly profits to the tune of $70 million per day.
The U.S. Government needs to step in now and kick BP out. It is a matter of National Security. It is a matter of protecting the Homeland. This is more important then border patrol. This is more important than bailouts for Greece. This is more important than volcanoes in Iceland. This is more important than primary elections between party-changers and teabaggers.
This is not Obama's Katrina. This is BP's disaster. They need to pay for it, but can they fix it? After the failed attempts so far and the solutions that allow them to continue to gather their precious crude are we really going to wait around for the, 'junk shot'? Now that's just a kick in the pants.
Nothing. Haven't heard it mentioned yet. Maybe they can't do it until they build their second relief well or maybe their shareholders demand that they salvage as much as they can to offset the losses from this disaster. Maybe their fiduciary responsibility to their stakeholders provides a conflict of interest with all the citizens of the Gulf Region of the United States and other countries around the Gulf.
What would it take for the U.S. Government to say, "Enough is enough. We are sending in the best and the brightest to stop this problem today."
Let's demand action from Homeland Security to step in and protect the Homeland. Not just with booms and dispersants, but submersibles with the capacity to stop the flow.
This is a public health and safety issue that is essential to protecting the prosperity of citizens of the United States of America. If ever there was a time for the Department of Homeland Security to step up to the plate and demand action, it is now.
Kick BP out of there and fine them substantially for their failure to drill in a safe manner. Raise the fine limit to something proportional to the damage caused. $75 million is seriously inadequate to incentivize a company that nearly profits to the tune of $70 million per day.
The U.S. Government needs to step in now and kick BP out. It is a matter of National Security. It is a matter of protecting the Homeland. This is more important then border patrol. This is more important than bailouts for Greece. This is more important than volcanoes in Iceland. This is more important than primary elections between party-changers and teabaggers.
This is not Obama's Katrina. This is BP's disaster. They need to pay for it, but can they fix it? After the failed attempts so far and the solutions that allow them to continue to gather their precious crude are we really going to wait around for the, 'junk shot'? Now that's just a kick in the pants.
EPA Posts Underwater Dispersant Monitoring Data
Under stringent plan, BP must conduct constant monitoring of dispersant use at leak source and provide data to the government
CONTACT:
press@epa.gov
202-564-6794
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 20, 2010
EPA Posts Underwater Dispersant Monitoring Data
Under stringent plan, BP must conduct constant monitoring of dispersant use at leak source and provide data to the government
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last night began posting results from the ongoing monitoring of BP’s use of underwater dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico at http://www.epa.gov/bpspill. EPA received this data from BP last night and posted it within hours. Dispersants are a chemical used to break up oil into small droplets so that they are more easily degraded. Dispersants are generally less toxic than the oils they break down.
This is part of EPA’s continued commitment to make air, water, sediment and dispersant monitoring data available to the public as quickly as possible and to ensure the citizens of the gulf region have access to all relevant public and environmental health information relating to the BP spill.
On May 15, EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard authorized BP to use dispersants underwater at the source of the Deepwater Horizon leak. As the dispersant is used underwater, BP is required to do constant, scientifically rigorous monitoring so EPA scientists may determine the dispersant’s effectiveness and impact on the environment, water and air quality, and human health. EPA is posting the information BP collects during the monitoring to ensure the public has access to this data.
While EPA has not yet identified any significant effects on aquatic life, EPA today also directed BP to begin using, within 72 hours, a less toxic and more effective dispersant. EPA took this step because BP is using this dispersant in unprecedented volumes and, last week, began using it underwater at the source of the leak – a procedure that has never been tried before. Given the unprecedented use, EPA wants to ensure BP is using the least toxic approved product.
Regardless of which dispersant BP uses, EPA has been and will continue to closely scrutinize the monitoring results. EPA still reserves the right to stop BP’s use of dispersants underwater entirely if the science indicates that this dispersant method has negative impacts on the environment that outweighs its benefits.
EPA continues to add information to its BP oil spill response Web site to keep the public informed about the impact of the spill and the EPA’s response. The public can also see results of EPA’s ongoing air, water and soil quality monitoring on the Web site.
The dispersant page: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html
Continue to track EPA’s response to the spill: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill.
Additional information on the broader response from the U.S. Coast Guard and other responding agencies: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com
CONTACT:
press@epa.gov
202-564-6794
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 20, 2010
EPA Posts Underwater Dispersant Monitoring Data
Under stringent plan, BP must conduct constant monitoring of dispersant use at leak source and provide data to the government
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last night began posting results from the ongoing monitoring of BP’s use of underwater dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico at http://www.epa.gov/bpspill. EPA received this data from BP last night and posted it within hours. Dispersants are a chemical used to break up oil into small droplets so that they are more easily degraded. Dispersants are generally less toxic than the oils they break down.
This is part of EPA’s continued commitment to make air, water, sediment and dispersant monitoring data available to the public as quickly as possible and to ensure the citizens of the gulf region have access to all relevant public and environmental health information relating to the BP spill.
On May 15, EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard authorized BP to use dispersants underwater at the source of the Deepwater Horizon leak. As the dispersant is used underwater, BP is required to do constant, scientifically rigorous monitoring so EPA scientists may determine the dispersant’s effectiveness and impact on the environment, water and air quality, and human health. EPA is posting the information BP collects during the monitoring to ensure the public has access to this data.
While EPA has not yet identified any significant effects on aquatic life, EPA today also directed BP to begin using, within 72 hours, a less toxic and more effective dispersant. EPA took this step because BP is using this dispersant in unprecedented volumes and, last week, began using it underwater at the source of the leak – a procedure that has never been tried before. Given the unprecedented use, EPA wants to ensure BP is using the least toxic approved product.
Regardless of which dispersant BP uses, EPA has been and will continue to closely scrutinize the monitoring results. EPA still reserves the right to stop BP’s use of dispersants underwater entirely if the science indicates that this dispersant method has negative impacts on the environment that outweighs its benefits.
EPA continues to add information to its BP oil spill response Web site to keep the public informed about the impact of the spill and the EPA’s response. The public can also see results of EPA’s ongoing air, water and soil quality monitoring on the Web site.
The dispersant page: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html
Continue to track EPA’s response to the spill: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill.
Additional information on the broader response from the U.S. Coast Guard and other responding agencies: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com
EPA: BP MUST USE LESS TOXIC DISPERSANT
CONTACT:
press@epa.gov
202-564-6794
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 20, 2010
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a directive requiring BP to identify and use a less toxic and more effective dispersant from the list of EPA authorized dispersants. Dispersants are a chemical used to break up oil into small droplets so that they are more easily degraded.
The directive requires BP to identify a less toxic alternative – to be used both on the surface and under the water at the source of the oil leak – within 24 hours and to begin using the less toxic dispersant within 72 hours of submitting the alternative.
If BP is unable to identify available alternative dispersant products, BP must provide the Coast Guard and EPA with a detailed description of the alternative dispersants investigated, and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards.
EPA’s directive to BP can be found here: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html
While the dispersant BP has been using is on the agency’s approved list, BP is using this dispersant in unprecedented volumes and, last week, began using it underwater at the source of the leak – a procedure that has never been tried before. Because of its use in unprecedented volumes and because much is unknown about the underwater use of dispersants, EPA wants to ensure BP is using the least toxic product authorized for use. We reserve the right to discontinue the use of this dispersant method if any negative impacts on the environment outweigh the benefits.
On May 15, EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard authorized BP to use dispersants underwater at the source of the Deepwater Horizon leak. As the dispersant is used underwater, BP is required to do constant, scientifically rigorous monitoring so EPA scientists may determine the dispersant’s effectiveness and impact on the environment, water and air quality, and human health. EPA is posting the information BP collects during the monitoring to ensure the public has access to this data.
press@epa.gov
202-564-6794
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 20, 2010
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a directive requiring BP to identify and use a less toxic and more effective dispersant from the list of EPA authorized dispersants. Dispersants are a chemical used to break up oil into small droplets so that they are more easily degraded.
The directive requires BP to identify a less toxic alternative – to be used both on the surface and under the water at the source of the oil leak – within 24 hours and to begin using the less toxic dispersant within 72 hours of submitting the alternative.
If BP is unable to identify available alternative dispersant products, BP must provide the Coast Guard and EPA with a detailed description of the alternative dispersants investigated, and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards.
EPA’s directive to BP can be found here: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html
While the dispersant BP has been using is on the agency’s approved list, BP is using this dispersant in unprecedented volumes and, last week, began using it underwater at the source of the leak – a procedure that has never been tried before. Because of its use in unprecedented volumes and because much is unknown about the underwater use of dispersants, EPA wants to ensure BP is using the least toxic product authorized for use. We reserve the right to discontinue the use of this dispersant method if any negative impacts on the environment outweigh the benefits.
On May 15, EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard authorized BP to use dispersants underwater at the source of the Deepwater Horizon leak. As the dispersant is used underwater, BP is required to do constant, scientifically rigorous monitoring so EPA scientists may determine the dispersant’s effectiveness and impact on the environment, water and air quality, and human health. EPA is posting the information BP collects during the monitoring to ensure the public has access to this data.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Dissolved Oxygen and Dispersants in the Gulf
At 20 C (room temperature) and standard atmospheric pressure (sea level), the maximum amount of oxygen that can dissolve in fresh water is 9 parts per million (ppm or mg/L). If the water temperature is below 20 C, there may be more oxygen dissolved in the sample. Generally a dissolved oxygen level of 9-10 ppm is considered very good. At levels of 4 ppm or less, some fish and macroinvertebrate populations (e.g. bass, trout, salmon, mayfly nymphs, stonefly nymphs, caddisfly larvae) will begin to decline. Other organisms are more capable of surviving in water with low dissolved oxygen levels (i.e sludge worms, leeches).
Question 1: Read the following statement and assess the normal range of DO for the Gulf of Mexico? Very Good, Good, or Bad
What is dissolved oxygen (DO) and why would dispersant application monitoring be stopped if DO levels dropped?
Dissolved oxygen (DO) analysis measures the amount of gaseous oxygen (O2) dissolved in the water. Adequate dissolved oxygen is necessary for good water quality. Normal ranges for DO in the Gulf area are 4 mg/l. The lower the concentration of dissolved oxygen, the greater the stress is on aquatic life. The evaluation criteria to determine further use of subsea dispersant include DO levels that are < 2mg/l and the results of toxicity tests.
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#q011
DO Percent Saturation values of 80-120 % are considered to be excellent and values less than 60% or over 125% are considered to be poor.
Low DO levels may be found in areas where organic material (dead plant and animal matter or oil) is decaying. Bacteria require oxygen to decompose organic waste, thus, deplete the water of oxygen. Areas near sewage discharges sometimes have low DO levels due to this effect. DO levels will also be low in warm, slow moving waters.
http://www.ciese.org/curriculum/waterproj/saturation.shtml
What is dissolved oxygen (DO) and why would dispersant application monitoring be stopped if DO levels dropped?
Dissolved oxygen (DO) analysis measures the amount of gaseous oxygen (O2) dissolved in the water. Adequate dissolved oxygen is necessary for good water quality. Normal ranges for DO in the Gulf area are 4 mg/l. The lower the concentration of dissolved oxygen, the greater the stress is on aquatic life. The evaluation criteria to determine further use of subsea dispersant include DO levels that are < 2mg/l and the results of toxicity tests.
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#q011
Question 2: Which organisms would you most expect to see while snorkeling in the Gulf of Mexico at 2 ppm DO? 4 ppm DO?
Monday, May 17, 2010
Satellite Image of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Go to MODIS for most current photo
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Fuel/Dispersant mixture is more toxic
This table unequivocally shows that a fuel/dispersant mixture is more toxic than either fuel or dispersant by itself. This is from the EPA website. LC50 is the Lethal Concentration that kills 50 percent of indicator species, in this case Menidia beryllina (the current EPA-approved marine vertebrate used in both acute and chronic toxicity testing.) and Mysidopsis bahia (opossum shrimp, an estuarine species suitable for life-cycle toxicity tests to determine the effect of a pollutant).
Corexit EC9500A has an LC50 of 25.20 ppm (96-hr) for Menidia beryllina and 32.23 ppm (48-hr) for Mysidopsis bahia.
No. 2 Fuel Oil has an LC50 of 10.72 ppm (96-hr) for Menidia beryllina and 16.12 ppm (48-hr) for Mysidopsis bahia.
Corexit EC9500A & No. 2 Fuel Oil (1:10) has an LC50 of 2.61 ppm (96-hr) for Menidia beryllina and 3.40 ppm (48-hr) for Mysidopsis bahia.
These results indicate that combining the dispersant with the fuel oil increases toxicity 4-10 times.
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/ncp/products/corex950.htm
Corexit EC9500A has an LC50 of 25.20 ppm (96-hr) for Menidia beryllina and 32.23 ppm (48-hr) for Mysidopsis bahia.
No. 2 Fuel Oil has an LC50 of 10.72 ppm (96-hr) for Menidia beryllina and 16.12 ppm (48-hr) for Mysidopsis bahia.
Corexit EC9500A & No. 2 Fuel Oil (1:10) has an LC50 of 2.61 ppm (96-hr) for Menidia beryllina and 3.40 ppm (48-hr) for Mysidopsis bahia.
These results indicate that combining the dispersant with the fuel oil increases toxicity 4-10 times.
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/ncp/products/corex950.htm
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Be The Solution Shopping Center
Posts
