Coasties Dropped the Ball Not Demanding A Flow Rate
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
Next: could you please help me answer this problem
From: Bret Cahill on 2 Jun 2010 18:51 A pipe gushing oil under water appears clearly on video. BP claims it was able to insert a tube into the pipe to try to draw off some of the oil. Later they were apparently able to dump a few hundred thousand tons of drilling mud into or at least near what they claimed was the pipe. If they can insert tubes into the pipe they can insert in-stream probe flow meters -- a simple paddle wheel meter at the exit would be good enough -- get a velocity, estimate the Reynolds number / flow regime and a flow rate. Once BP documented their work they would then be free to bury it under an avalanche of footnotes, i.e., "it was impossible to find anyone who could computer model flow in a twisted conduit," or "surface roughness is highly leveraged in turbulent flow," etc. But without any attempt whatsoever to get a pressure drop or velocity, it just looks like the Coasties completely dropped the ball and let BP execs off the hook. The reality is that it was never a matter of BP not being able to get a fairly good estimate of the flow rate, +/- 10%, within hours or a couple of days after it appeared on the surface.. They just didn't _want_ to know. They didn't want _anyone_ to know. As the lawyers always say in court, "they either knew or *should have known*." Bret Cahill
From: Bret Cahill on 2 Jun 2010 23:27 > > A pipe gushing oil under water appears clearly on video. BP claims it > > was able to insert a tube into the pipe to try to draw off some of the > > oil. Later they were apparently able to dump a few hundred thousand > > tons of drilling mud into or at least near what they claimed was the > > pipe. > > > If they can insert tubes into the pipe they can insert in-stream probe > > flow meters -- a simple paddle wheel meter at the exit would be good > > enough -- get a velocity, estimate the Reynolds number / flow regime > > and a flow rate. > > [snip rest] > > BP is a corporate liar. BP never had to lie. The Coasties somehow let them "merely omit" the pipe flow rate. Something that basic shouldn't fool a middle school student. Instead we have all these idiots, some even with college degrees, trying to calculate flow rate use satellite images and sampling hundreds of cubic miles of sea water when a dollar store pin wheel would have been more accurate. This nonsense has been going on for 6 weeks. It's time to take BP over. Bret Cahill
From: jwarner1 on 3 Jun 2010 00:02 Bret Cahill wrote: > A pipe gushing oil under water appears clearly on video. BP claims it > was able to insert a tube into the pipe to try to draw off some of the > oil. Later they were apparently able to dump a few hundred thousand > tons of drilling mud into or at least near what they claimed was the > pipe. > > If they can insert tubes into the pipe they can insert in-stream probe > flow meters -- a simple paddle wheel meter at the exit would be good > enough -- get a velocity, estimate the Reynolds number / flow regime > and a flow rate. > > Once BP documented their work they would then be free to bury it under > an avalanche of footnotes, i.e., "it was impossible to find anyone who > could computer model flow in a twisted conduit," or "surface roughness > is highly leveraged in turbulent flow," etc. > > But without any attempt whatsoever to get a pressure drop or velocity, > it just looks like the Coasties completely dropped the ball and let BP > execs off the hook. > > The reality is that it was never a matter of BP not being able to get > a fairly good estimate of the flow rate, +/- 10%, within hours or a > couple of days after it appeared on the surface.. > > They just didn't _want_ to know. They didn't want _anyone_ to know. > > As the lawyers always say in court, "they either knew or *should have > known*." > > Bret Cahill I sure am no expert but what you ay makes sense. Pressure was measured at ~6800 psi at the well head ??? in contrast to just a bit over 1 ton of psi water pressure at that depth... there are some good discussions going on via Google like that below : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Selected portside Post Do No Harm (Posted on Sun, 30 May 2010 21:53:07 -0400) Do No Harm Yobie Benjamin sfgate.com Yobie Benjamin: Hacking Capitalism, Carbon, Politics & Food May 29 2010 www.sfgate.com [moderator recommends you visit above link to view related graphics] Do no harm. That is the mantra of the executives, engineers and scientists at BP's command center in Houston. So when BP tries to cap the oil gusher, it takes the steps in serialized order and ranked by risk. So it is clear that installing the LMRP cap is far riskier than the top hat, top kill or junk shot. So why is it risky? As a scuba diver, I have never gone deeper than 100 feet but one thing you'll notice as a diver is everything is different underwater. Even with fairly dexterous hands and fingers, everything is difficult under water. One clearly cannot move as fast under water. A spear gun fired underwater is going to be slower than if it was fired above water. Even using a personal water propeller, both machine and/or man cannot fully overcome the water's mass, weight and pressure. It's physics and nature. Water is inherently dense. For every 33 feet of seawater, the pressure exerted on an object increases by the equivalent of what a human experiences at sea level - 14.7 pounds per square inch. At the spewing wellhead, that translates into a pressure of more than one ton per square inch. Sunlight penetrates seawater to a depth of only a few hundred feet. Everything underwater is different. The LMRP is a containment plan that uses a modified containment dome / top hat approach. Even if it successful, the LMRP will NOT fully stop the oil gusher. Remember the containment dome? It was 5 stories high and 90 tons. The methane hydrate "ice crystals" buoyed it and it started bobbing around. Further, the methane hydrates clogged the receiving pipe/hose. The LMRP cap effort is similar to a much larger 98-ton containment dome placed at the end of the broken pipe in early May. That dome also was connected to the ship by pipe and was intended to corral and channel oil and gas to the surface. In the top hat and containment dome method, too much seawater got inside, and mixed with natural gas at high pressures and cold temperatures and formed ice-like methane hydrates that blocked oil from flowing up the pipe to the ship. Again, the action is one mile deep under water and the pressure is over 1 ton per square inch. It is pitch black dark. The water turbidity is complicated by the oil and gas. Now lets' talk about the ROVs (Remotely Operated Vehicles) which are submarines with lights, robotic arms and hands. These ROVs are the only way to cut and install the LMRP. The ROVs are made of titanium, thick glass and other super strong materials designed to withstand the crushing force. Seawater stops most radio signals. Workers rely on cumbersome cables thick with electrical and fiber-optic lines. ROVs working around the wellhead need powerful lights. There is no other way to work under water - end of story. The flash animation and movie of the ROV you see is likely to be the same as the ones used by BP. The ROV is manufactured by the leading ROV company in the world, I- Tech which I believe is from Norway. There is no doubt BP is using one of the very best ROVs in the planet. NOTE: You'll have to hit refresh to watch the ROV again and somehow it's not running on Chrome. First, the ROV has to cut or dismantle the 21-inch riser pipe. The riser sits above the BOP (Blowout Preventor). It will require a specialized ROV with a high speed power cutter that will shear off the riser pipe. Second, once the riser pipe is sheared off it will unleash the full unabated force of the oil gusher. The force is the same that pushed back 30,000 barrels of mud. Remember the fire hose analogy in an earlier posting? Toss that aside now. It's now a sheared off 21- inch fire hydrant a mile under water spewing out oil and methane hydrates. Notice the LMRP approach is the similar as the top hat containment dome approach. It's very risky because the engineers have to precisely position the LMRP on top of a high pressure oil and gas gusher. Notice the LMRP approach is the similar as the top hat containment dome approach. It's very risky because the engineers have to precisely position the LMRP on top of a high pressure oil and gas gusher. Third, ROVs have to position and couple a tapered end hose/pipe with a modified dome to the sheared off riser pipe. This makes me nervous because the ROVs have to position the LMRP cap precisely while the cut riser is spewing out oil and gas. The goal is to capture and contain some of the oil and gas. Imagine doing the same procedure on a gushing 21-inch fire hydrant to capture some of the water (except it's spewing gas and oil) gushing out? It's that hard times infinity. It is curious to hear BP saying they are not worried about unleashing more oil and gas if the LMRP fails. What does that say? It implies the amount of oil and gas spewing out now is the same as the amount of oil and gas expected to spew out of an uncontrolled sheared off and fully exposed riser pipe. It sounds like BP cannot screw it up any more than it is now. The point of failure seems to be the ROVs being unable to control and properly position the LMRP cap to couple it and seal the grommet. ARM CHAIR QUARTERBACKING THE LMRP CAP PLAYBOOK Step 1 - Position the LRMP cap close to BOP. Step 2 - Do another top kill to buy a few minutes of no oil and gas spewing. At least try for a few moments of reduced pressure. While the top kill did not work, the mud did stop or reduce the gusher for a few moments. Step 3 - Using the few moments when the top kill stops the oil and gas or reduce the pressure of the gusher, position the LMRP very quickly. Step 4 - Engage the sealing grommet around the sheared off riser pipe. Step 5 - Pray and hope. Do no harm any more. If you live in the Gulf Coast, please take pictures or videos of the oil slicks. We just wrote some iPhone, Android and Blackberry software that will help you document the damage. It is specially useful if you're a boat owner or clean-up volunteer to take pictures and video. Please note time and place. Some smart phone cameras' GPS chip will record location even when there is no cell signal. Documentation of the damages is going to be critical to the people of the gulf coast. Before and after pictures and videos will be particularly helpful. Feel free to download the apps. They are free. iPhone App - foo.am Android App - foo.am Blackberry App - Point your Blackberry web browser to: swooshsoftware.com If you have a regular digital video or still camera, up load your images to: gulfcoastspill.com Huge shout out to our developer friends at Intridea and UK-based Heamish Graham from Swoosh Software! SPECIAL TWITTER CLIENT TO GET ALL RELATED TWEETS We now have a special Twitter client to help organize all the tweets and other social network information on the spill. You can also try the special twitter app at Tweeb.us. Shout out to Invention Arts of San Francisco. Share this article with your friends by sending this URL: foo.am The site is an all-volunteer effort and a work-in- progress and we'll be installing search image capabilities soon. DO NOT SEND US MONEY at the Gulf Coast Spill Coalition! Donate to the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Mobile Bay Keeper or some other reputable charity of your choice. We are archiving all the pictures and video for full public use. We will soon have full search capabilities on all relevant pictures and video care of our friends at EdgeCase. _____________________________________________ Portside aims to provide material of interest to people on the left that will help them to interpret the world and to change it. Submit via email: moderator(a)portside.org Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe Account assistance: portside.org/contact Search the archives: portside.org/archive Home Published by portside support(a)portside.org Hosted and designed by May First/People Link -- members Local 1180, CWA -- AFL-CIO
From: Zerkon on 3 Jun 2010 05:51 On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 23:02:59 -0500, jwarner1 wrote: > Do no harm. > > That is the mantra of the executives, engineers and scientists at BP's > command center in Houston. So when BP tries to cap the oil gusher, it > takes the steps in serialized order and ranked by risk. Do no harm to what?
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jun 2010 09:05
Bret Cahill wrote: >> > A pipe gushing oil under water appears clearly on video. BP claims it >> > was able to insert a tube into the pipe to try to draw off some of the >> > oil. Later they were apparently able to dump a few hundred thousand >> > tons of drilling mud into or at least near what they claimed was the >> > pipe. >> >> > If they can insert tubes into the pipe they can insert in-stream probe >> > flow meters -- a simple paddle wheel meter at the exit would be good >> > enough -- get a velocity, estimate the Reynolds number / flow regime >> > and a flow rate. >> >> [snip rest] >> >> BP is a corporate liar. > > BP never had to lie. The Coasties somehow let them "merely omit" the > pipe flow rate. > > Something that basic shouldn't fool a middle school student. > > Instead we have all these idiots, some even with college degrees, > trying to calculate flow rate use satellite images and sampling > hundreds of cubic miles of sea water when a dollar store pin wheel > would have been more accurate. Why is this number important? The number doesn't matter. Stopping it is what matters and what seems to be ingnored by your ilk and politicians. > > This nonsense has been going on for 6 weeks. It's time to take BP > over. Oh, really? YOu mean the US federal government who can't do anything without creating 10,000 miles of paper for justification and 100 committees to define the problem? Not to mention that the act would start a war. /BAH |