A good Post On the Deepwater Horizon Accident

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

hanelyp wrote: As I've commented before, an explosion that large might fracture bedrock causing more seepage in the surrounding area.
So sorry. I missed your earlier.

So how thick is the seabed at this point? If it is that thin that you cannot execute a controlled explosion within its upper layers alone, then wouldn't it also be too thin to safely drill without risking such cracking either? I would've imagined it was a few 100m thick - I don't suppose you're going to crack that with a localised disruption within the upper 20m, especially if you localise the detonation to the pipe by inserting the explosives directly into it. I'm sure someone in the 'surface mining' sector would know how to do it.

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Post by DeltaV »

Diogenes wrote:This doesn't look good.


http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967
A heavy-enough, annular, concrete base constructed around the damaged BOP might compress the seabed enough to slow (or stop?) the "downhole" leaks* mentioned in the above link (but probably not the BOP leaks). Measuring flow velocity out of the BOP would give an indication: if velocity goes up, downhole leaks are reduced. If it didn't, you could still use a concrete-embedded ring to attach a new valve assembly. I left a suggestion on BP's site to modify a 61 m diameter crude oil storage tank (floating roof type) for use as a concrete form. The floating roof would also let you lift rebar into place as concrete is injected, which would strengthen the base in case seabed corruption gets as bad as mentioned above. As long as it doesn't extend beyond 61 m...

* If they are near the seabed surface.

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Post by zapkitty »

Not exactly my specialty but from what I've gathered from the Oil Drum et al over the past month the sea floor ain't a floor... it's silt for a long way down gradually giving way to a friable rock that will someday become sedimentary rock... when it's had a few more aeons to set.

And you have multiple fractures of unknown numbers, location and extent along the well bore.

And you have the upward pressure of the hydrocarbons all along the way.

So between the silt and its phase change to a not-very-rocklike rock, the compromised shaft, the immense upward pressure and the acknowledged fact that BP saved its worst malfeasance for the very last segments of the well... i.e. the very bottom of the well... the choices are very limited and explosives aren't among those choices.

So from what the professionals have said you'll know the worst when they try for a Hail Mary pass with explosives anyway. :(

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

zapkitty wrote:So between the silt and its phase change to a not-very-rocklike rock, the compromised shaft, the immense upward pressure and the acknowledged fact that BP saved its worst malfeasance for the very last segments of the well... i.e. the very bottom of the well... the choices are very limited and explosives aren't among those choices.
In that case, I would say the contrary is the case. If you can shatter the pipe with explosives so that the silt collapses back onto the pipe, then (a) it will return to as it was before the pipe was there, (b) it is impossible to shatter silt!

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Post by zapkitty »

chrismb wrote:In that case, I would say the contrary is the case. If you can shatter the pipe with explosives so that the silt collapses back onto the pipe, then (a) it will return to as it was before the pipe was there, (b) it is impossible to shatter silt!
But the silt is insufficient to contain the blowout, as the detailed descriptions of worries about leaks up through the rock itself have made very clear.

The hydrocarbon mix is under great pressure and is buoyant to boot.

So you'd need to collapse the rock bore itself and do so along a sufficient length to hold down the gunk.

Too high and it escapes from fractures under the new blockage... perhaps fractures you have just created.

(caveat: beyond this point is surmise on my part)

Too low and I think you'd just dump rock into the reservoir and enlarge the hole.

If the bottom of the well is as compromised as some fear there would seem to be no safe place to set off charges.

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Post by DeltaV »

A deeply-planted Tsar Bomba might consume the reservoir.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

zapkitty wrote: Too high and it escapes from fractures under the new blockage... perhaps fractures you have just created.

(caveat: beyond this point is surmise on my part)

Too low and I think you'd just dump rock into the reservoir and enlarge the hole.
If this is the case, then whosoever licenced BP to drill such a fragile rock structure should be taken to task on it. BP simply did what any commercial company does - try to make money. Whoever licenced it to happen sounds like the one to be questioned on this.

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Post by zapkitty »

chrismb wrote:If this is the case, then whosoever licenced BP to drill such a fragile rock structure should be taken to task on it. BP simply did what any commercial company does - try to make money. Whoever licenced it to happen sounds like the one to be questioned on this.
Which completely ignores the multitude of industry standard safety precautions that BP executives skipped in order to save money and get the well online faster.

A functional blowout preventer might have prevented the blowout.

The proper amount of seals and centering rings placed with properly cured cement could have contained a blast that the BOP might have stopped.

And letting the drillers finish the job properly instead of prematurely pulling out the drilling mud that was holding down the reservoir could have prevented the blast altogether.

By the sworn testimony to date BP was literally asking for a blowout.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

DeltaV wrote:A deeply-planted Tsar Bomba might consume the reservoir.
You don't need a Tsar Bomba (in fact I'd argue that it would just rip open the whole reservoir to the ocean). But I reckon a nuke would work, a small one, placed adjacent to the piping. Worked quite well for the Russians.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

MSimon, I see no contradiction in what I said and the Wikipedia article you linked. If anything it illustrates why I am an anti-capitalist. Read a contract sometime. You will not find any these days that doesn't give the contractor some major leverage in the vein of "rent seeking."

BTW, I was wrong, it does appear that Obama managed to make it so that BP pays, to the tune of at least $20.1 billion dollars. I am not really equipped to say whether or not that will cover all of the damage, but at least some of those being harmed are getting paid back. This, I did not expect in a million years.

($20 billion for the escrow, $100 million for rig workers who aren't able to drill currently.)
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Josh Cryer wrote:
DeltaV wrote:A deeply-planted Tsar Bomba might consume the reservoir.
You don't need a Tsar Bomba (in fact I'd argue that it would just rip open the whole reservoir to the ocean). But I reckon a nuke would work, a small one, placed adjacent to the piping. Worked quite well for the Russians.
Thanks for finding that. Case made!....

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Post by zapkitty »

chrismb wrote:
Josh Cryer wrote: You don't need a Tsar Bomba (in fact I'd argue that it would just rip open the whole reservoir to the ocean). But I reckon a nuke would work, a small one, placed adjacent to the piping. Worked quite well for the Russians.
Thanks for finding that. Case made!....
Errr... not exactly:
http://www.livescience.com/technology/r ... 00512.html
"... The Russians were using nukes to extinguish gas well fires in natural gas fields, not sealing oil wells gushing liquid, so there are big differences, and this method has never been tested in such conditions..."
As I said upthread you'll know it's the worst it can possibly be if they try something as desperate as explosives under these conditions.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

zapkitty wrote:
"... The Russians were using nukes to extinguish gas well fires in natural gas fields, not sealing oil wells gushing liquid, so there are big differences, and this method has never been tested in such conditions..."
As I said upthread you'll know it's the worst it can possibly be if they try something as desperate as explosives under these conditions.
I guess you didn't watch the video then. it was a deep subterranian detonation. It sealed the vent and the gas stops some 20 seconds later. It is clear to see. If it [merely] extinguished the flame, then it'd have gone out straight away and the oil/gas would have kept flowing. But the film clearly shows a surface shock, the flame continuing for a bit, then petering out.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

SkipJack wrote: Those things usually blow up all by themselves.
It is much more likely that lack of maintenance and greed resulted in this
.


And SkipJack was also right about this. I was wrong. Who would have believed that those people could be that stupid?


http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill ... follo.html

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Post by zapkitty »

chrismb wrote:I guess you didn't watch the video then.
Sorry, you're reaching a bit. The referenced article describes the Russian belief that the nukes were squeezing the bores shut.

The problem is with the comparisons to the gulf blowout.

The nukes squeezed shut on a natural gas flow... not an oil/gas mix of the extent currently flowing in the gulf. That changes things. The gas can be compressed... the oil, not so much.

And the condition of the rock is a problem.

And the seemingly inescapable conclusion that the oil is now chewing new paths to the surface so the 25 to 50 meters of rock believed to have been closed by the nukes that worked (1 out of the 5 attempts failed) could well be be outflanked by existing leaks into the rock and new leaks from the smashed casing below the "squeeze zone."

Again... if they say they are using explosives then that's a last resort and means that an unlimited blowout is in progress and the relief wells have failed too many times.

*(the relief wells usually require several tries before they actually hit the well. If they miss they have to back up and try again)

Post Reply