Stuff Some Air Jacks Into The Pipe
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Coburn on 18 Jun 2010 15:11 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:29:26 -0700, Giga2 wrote: > On 17 June, 19:21, Michael Coburn <mik...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:33:08 -0700, Uncle Al wrote: >> > Bret Cahill wrote: >> >> >>http://www.asesystems.com/pneumatic-jacks.shtml?gclid=CLO- >> >> zdGRpqICFRk7gwodFnMjRg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> These rubberized Kevlar bags are small uninflated and can be packed >> >> into a canister that protects the fabric from the ragged pipe >> >> entrance. >> > [snipc rap] >> >> > Hey stooopid, >> >> > 1) Halliburton cemented the wellhead with pigeon snot. If the >> > blowout is capped, equilibrium pressure will go beyond 15,000 psig >> > and blow the hardware like a champagne cork. >> >> > 2) The blowout is not central core, it is around the periphery >> > of >> > the drill string. Ya gotta plug the annulus, jackjass. BP managers >> > ordered Trasocean engineers to omit placing centering rings to save >> > time and money. Management is perfect in every way - perfect FUBAR, >> > like you. >> >> > 3) "Inflate" Ha ha ha. Local sea floor pressure is ~2300 psia. >> > Blowout equilibrium pressure is ~15,000 psig. /_\E = /_\(PV), 101.325 >> > J/liter-atm. Yer talkin' a 20,000 psi gas compressor. Hey stooopid, >> > how does gas act at 20,000 psi? Critical pressure for nitrogen is >> > 500 psi. >> >> > Wanna plug the BP blowout? Put a refrigeration collar around the BOP >> > (ammonia or sulfur dioxide mechanical refrigerant cycle) and >> > progressively freeze the oil, inner wall to pipe center. Reversible >> > at will. Thermally insulate the other side with benthic syntactic >> > foam. Crystallized paraffins have been plugging oil wells nearly >> > since Edwin L. Drake in 1859. >> >> > idiot >> >> As I have already _GUESSED_ (and for me that is all I can do), the >> problem cannot be resolved by "capping" the pipe off in some way >> because the pressure will blow the piping below the sea floor and the >> oil will come out anyway. There are probably a zillion ways to "cap" >> the well and no one is attempting it any more. All that mud stuff was >> for show. Something to keep government and the public entertained. >> >> If this guess is correct then the only way to manage the problem is by >> recovering the oil as it comes out of the pipe or as it seeps out from >> around the damaged near surface. The dispersant was used to HIDE the >> oil so that BP could limit its liabilities. Oil on the surface can be >> skimmed, transported, and refined. This whole mess is an example of >> why extraction of natural resources cannot be safely managed by profit >> driven organizations. The incentives are totally wrong. > > Really $20bn+ sounds like quite an incentive, plus the damage to their > image which is probably even higher than that. Plus the costs of dealing > with the problem, which would probably not have happened if they had > swallowed a few million up front costs (on all such wells obviously), it > is speculated. And not to forget the opportunity cost which may even be > higher than all the others combined. While BP is concentrating on this > disaster the rest of the business is treading water or going backwards > while their competitors are taking every opportunity that they would > have. Ouch! You've missed the point. NO surprise there... there was much too much focus on profit and not enough on safety. If government did it, the costs of the drilling would have been much higher. But the _REAL_ benefits (after costs and without disaster) would have been much more. >> So here we are: If and when "relief" wells can be drilled to intercept >> the oil before it reaches the damaged (or weak) upper piping of the >> well, then the flow of oil can be stopped. I am unclear as to how that >> will work but whether the "relief" wells drop the pressure enough to >> allow a cap that does not rupture the top portions of the well as it >> sits, or whatever the relief wells are used to plug the pipe at a >> deeper point where the surrounding rock is more supportive is somewhat >> irrelevant. The objective seems to be to reduce the pressure at the top >> of the current well and go from there. What I am not understanding at >> this point is why the relief wells need to be so deep. (so deep is >> implied by the time to drill them). If four or five new pipes are added >> a few hundred feet below the top and the oil flows into tankers then >> this would dramatically reduce the pressure and allow the damaged well >> to be sealed. >> >> It may be that BP has poked a hole in a reservoir of such pressure that >> all the blowout prevention and cement would not have mattered. > > Interesting. Is that possible? Has it happened before? Surely the > upwelling pressure would be partly limited by the pipe diameter, > whatever pressure the oil was at? This ability to hold the pressure assumes that the pipe is strong enough. That is no doubt true at depth and encased in rock, but is it true at the top of the well? As to the size of the pipe we seem to agree. If you add more pathway(s) of equal or greater diameter for the oil above the current piping, the pressure in each path diminishes. That would be a "relief well". >> -- >> "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" >> --http://GreaterVoice.org/60 -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: Bret Cahill on 18 Jun 2010 19:18 > >> > That's because there is a restriction up stream limiting flow, the ~ > >> > 1" piping from the well or city water main. > > >> Yup. > > >> > If you are downstream of Lake Mead at the foot of Hoover Dam you > >> > could open up thousands of 3/4" lines to the turbine inlets and never > >> > reduce the pressure on any of the lines. > > >> But there is a 3 mile pipe from the reservoir to the well head. > > >> > The real question is the size of the reservoir and BP, at least back > >> > in April, was claiming that was their top corp. secret. > > >> > The investigation committee has power of subpoena. They need to get > >> > what ever information BP has. > > >> > When it comes to vital geo resources everything should be public > >> > anyway. > > >> > Bret Cahill > > >> It ain't like your lake Mead deal at all. > > > It's hard to say w/o more information. > > > Most wells are in porous rock which restricts flow but how is this good > > news? > > > They cannot splice into the old pipe so the only thing they can do is to > > drill down to the same area as the old one and start pumping. > > > If they luck out and manage to lower the pressure drop by a factor of 3 > > they only cut the flow rate in the old pipe by half. > > > The pressure drop due to friction over 3 miles at the recent estimates > > of flow rate would be less than 2 psi. 20" pipe at 1 ft/sec ignore > > viscosity and pipe roughness: > > >http://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/calc_pipe_friction.cfm#calc > > > If you cut that in half the pressure drop is about 0.5 psi. > > > The pipe itself is the reservoir. > > NO. The pipe is a choke. The resistance to 1 ft/sec. flow is almost nil in the 20" section of pipe. If the inlet pressure at the bottom of the well was just 2 psi above to outlet the oil would flow just as fast. Maybe they are using a smaller pipe upstream [further down the well] which is common in deep wells. Resistance to flow is inversely proportional to dia^4 so a 10" pipe would have 16 times higher pressure drop / length -- a 50 psi drop according to the calculator above. The smaller dia. line would then have a higher pressure drop / length due to friction. In any event there is no way to splice into the old well piping under the sea floor, small or large dia pipe. They are going to try to get as close as possible to the inlet of the old well but even several new wells may not lower the pressure of the porous rock feeding the old well. They'll just get a big pressure drop across the porous rock feeding the new wells and we will have waited all summer for nothing.. > If you make the pipe smaller the flow > decreases even as the pressure remains constant. If they could restrict the pipe size of the old pipe or plug it altogether the back pressure would go up, maybe a lot. > HOWEVER, if you expand > the pipe at the top and do not do anything to restrict the flow then the > pressure at the LARGER top of the pipe will be less than the pressure at > the bottom of the pipe. Depends on how close they can get and how fast they can pump. > That is what happens when you drill 4 relief > wells (install 4 additional pipes) near the top of the current well/ > pipe. You provide a place for the oil to go OTHER THAN through the > current well head. Relieving that pressure allows you to plug the > current head without blowing up the rest of the piping. This is even more iffy than the previous solutions. They need to build another heavier/volume containment vessel and lower it from a rig on a pipe, no valves near the containment vessel. Bret Cahill
From: Michael Coburn on 18 Jun 2010 21:27 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:07:22 +0100, Androcles wrote: > "Michael Coburn" <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote in message > news:hvget762qv1(a)news5.newsguy.com... | On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:03:23 > -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: | > | > On Jun 17, 5:49 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...(a)verizon.net> wrote: | >> > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:48:54 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: | >> >> [quoted > text muted] > | >> > | >> > That's because there is a restriction up stream limiting flow, > the ~ | >> > 1" piping from the well or city water main. | >> > | >> Yup. > | >> > | >> > If you are downstream of Lake Mead at the foot of Hoover Dam you > | >> > could open up thousands of 3/4" lines to the turbine inlets and > never | >> > reduce the pressure on any of the lines. | >> > | >> But there is a 3 mile pipe from the reservoir to the well head. | > >> > | >> > The real question is the size of the reservoir and BP, at least > back | >> > in April, was claiming that was their top corp. secret. | >> > | >> > The investigation committee has power of subpoena. They need to > get | >> > what ever information BP has. > | >> > | >> > When it comes to vital geo resources everything should be public > | >> > anyway. > | >> > | >> > Bret Cahill > | >> > | >> It ain't like your lake Mead deal at all. | > > | > It's hard to say w/o more information. | > > | > Most wells are in porous rock which restricts flow but how is this > good | > news? > | > > | > They cannot splice into the old pipe so the only thing they can do > is to | > drill down to the same area as the old one and start pumping. > | > > | > If they luck out and manage to lower the pressure drop by a factor > of 3 | > they only cut the flow rate in the old pipe by half. | > > | > The pressure drop due to friction over 3 miles at the recent > estimates | > of flow rate would be less than 2 psi. 20" pipe at 1 > ft/sec ignore | > viscosity and pipe roughness: > | > > | > http://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/calc_pipe_friction.cfm#calc | > > > | > If you cut that in half the pressure drop is about 0.5 psi. | > > | > The pipe itself is the reservoir. | > | NO. The pipe is a choke. If you make the pipe smaller the flow | > decreases even as the pressure remains constant. HOWEVER, if you expand > | the pipe at the top and do not do anything to restrict the flow then > the | pressure at the LARGER top of the pipe will be less than the > pressure at | the bottom of the pipe. That is what happens when you > drill 4 relief | wells (install 4 additional pipes) near the top of the > current well/ | pipe. You provide a place for the oil to go OTHER THAN > through the | current well head. Relieving that pressure allows you to > plug the | current head without blowing up the rest of the piping. | > Correct. It'll take time to drill the relief; stamping feet, throwing > the pacifier > out the baby buggy and screaming isn't going to help anyone. I already suggested how to close the pipe. Others have also suggested ways to do so. We come to the conclusion that to seal the pipe would blow it up. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: Androcles on 18 Jun 2010 23:47 "Michael Coburn" <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:hvh6dh01178(a)news3.newsguy.com... | On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:07:22 +0100, Androcles wrote: | | > "Michael Coburn" <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote in message | > news:hvget762qv1(a)news5.newsguy.com... | On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:03:23 | > -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: | | > | > On Jun 17, 5:49 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...(a)verizon.net> wrote: | >> | > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:48:54 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: | >> >> [quoted | > text muted] | > | >> | > | >> > That's because there is a restriction up stream limiting flow, | > the ~ | >> > 1" piping from the well or city water main. | >> | > | >> Yup. | > | >> | > | >> > If you are downstream of Lake Mead at the foot of Hoover Dam you | > | >> > could open up thousands of 3/4" lines to the turbine inlets and | > never | >> > reduce the pressure on any of the lines. | >> | > | >> But there is a 3 mile pipe from the reservoir to the well head. | | > >> | > | >> > The real question is the size of the reservoir and BP, at least | > back | >> > in April, was claiming that was their top corp. secret. | >> | > | >> > The investigation committee has power of subpoena. They need to | > get | >> > what ever information BP has. | > | >> | > | >> > When it comes to vital geo resources everything should be public | > | >> > anyway. | > | >> | > | >> > Bret Cahill | > | >> | > | >> It ain't like your lake Mead deal at all. | > | > | > It's hard to say w/o more information. | > | > | > Most wells are in porous rock which restricts flow but how is this | > good | > news? | > | > | > | > They cannot splice into the old pipe so the only thing they can do | > is to | > drill down to the same area as the old one and start pumping. | > | > | > | > If they luck out and manage to lower the pressure drop by a factor | > of 3 | > they only cut the flow rate in the old pipe by half. | > | > | > The pressure drop due to friction over 3 miles at the recent | > estimates | > of flow rate would be less than 2 psi. 20" pipe at 1 | > ft/sec ignore | > viscosity and pipe roughness: | > | > | > | > http://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/calc_pipe_friction.cfm#calc | | > > | > | > If you cut that in half the pressure drop is about 0.5 psi. | > | > | > The pipe itself is the reservoir. | | > | NO. The pipe is a choke. If you make the pipe smaller the flow | | > decreases even as the pressure remains constant. HOWEVER, if you expand | > | the pipe at the top and do not do anything to restrict the flow then | > the | pressure at the LARGER top of the pipe will be less than the | > pressure at | the bottom of the pipe. That is what happens when you | > drill 4 relief | wells (install 4 additional pipes) near the top of the | > current well/ | pipe. You provide a place for the oil to go OTHER THAN | > through the | current well head. Relieving that pressure allows you to | > plug the | current head without blowing up the rest of the piping. | | > Correct. It'll take time to drill the relief; stamping feet, throwing | > the pacifier | > out the baby buggy and screaming isn't going to help anyone. | | I already suggested how to close the pipe. Others have also suggested | ways to do so. According to Tony Hayward, BP have received a hundred thousand suggestions. Perhaps he should be wading through his email looking for your suggestion (and that of others) looking for the one that will be the answer to life, the universe and everything, instead of lounging around in congressional hearings. | We come to the conclusion that to seal the pipe would | blow it up. So your suggestion is to close the pipe but not seal it. Good for you, I'm sure BP's own engineers will be delighted to hear it. Send even more emails to Tony Hayward and perhaps it will get his attention. " Hey Tony! Sealing the pipe will blow it up, don't seal the pipe! " That should solve it.
From: Michael Coburn on 19 Jun 2010 01:01
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 04:47:27 +0100, Androcles wrote: > "Michael Coburn" <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote in message > news:hvh6dh01178(a)news3.newsguy.com... | On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:07:22 > +0100, Androcles wrote: | > | > "Michael Coburn" <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote in message | > > news:hvget762qv1(a)news5.newsguy.com... | On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:03:23 | > > -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: | > | > | > On Jun 17, 5:49 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...(a)verizon.net> wrote: | > >> | > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:48:54 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: | >> >> > [quoted | > text muted] > | > | >> > | > | >> > That's because there is a restriction up stream limiting > flow, | > the ~ | >> > 1" piping from the well or city water main. | >> > | > | >> Yup. > | > | >> > | > | >> > If you are downstream of Lake Mead at the foot of Hoover Dam > you | > | >> > could open up thousands of 3/4" lines to the turbine > inlets and | > never | >> > reduce the pressure on any of the lines. | > >> | > | >> But there is a 3 mile pipe from the reservoir to the well > head. | | > >> > | > | >> > The real question is the size of the reservoir and BP, at > least | > back | >> > in April, was claiming that was their top corp. > secret. | >> | > | >> > The investigation committee has power of > subpoena. They need to | > get | >> > what ever information BP has. | > > | >> > | > | >> > When it comes to vital geo resources everything should be > public | > | >> > anyway. > | > | >> > | > | >> > Bret Cahill > | > | >> > | > | >> It ain't like your lake Mead deal at all. | > | > | > It's hard > to say w/o more information. | > | > | > Most wells are in porous rock > which restricts flow but how is this | > good | > news? > | > | > > | > | > They cannot splice into the old pipe so the only thing they can > do | > is to | > drill down to the same area as the old one and start > pumping. | > | > > | > | > If they luck out and manage to lower the pressure drop by a > factor | > of 3 | > they only cut the flow rate in the old pipe by half. > | > | > | > The pressure drop due to friction over 3 miles at the recent > | > estimates | > of flow rate would be less than 2 psi. 20" pipe at 1 > | > ft/sec ignore | > viscosity and pipe roughness: | > | > > | > | > > http://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/calc_pipe_friction.cfm#calc | | > > > > | > | > If you cut that in half the pressure drop is about 0.5 psi. | > > | > | > The pipe itself is the reservoir. | | > | NO. The pipe is a > choke. If you make the pipe smaller the flow | | > decreases even as > the pressure remains constant. HOWEVER, if you expand | > | the pipe at > the top and do not do anything to restrict the flow then | > the | > pressure at the LARGER top of the pipe will be less than the | > > pressure at | the bottom of the pipe. That is what happens when you | > > drill 4 relief | wells (install 4 additional pipes) near the top of the > | > current well/ | pipe. You provide a place for the oil to go OTHER > THAN | > through the | current well head. Relieving that pressure > allows you to | > plug the | current head without blowing up the rest of > the piping. | | > Correct. It'll take time to drill the relief; stamping > feet, throwing | > the pacifier > | > out the baby buggy and screaming isn't going to help anyone. | > | I already suggested how to close the pipe. Others have also suggested > | ways to do so. > > According to Tony Hayward, BP have received a hundred thousand > suggestions. Perhaps he should be wading through his email looking for > your suggestion (and that of others) looking for the one that will be > the > answer to life, the universe and everything, instead of lounging around > in congressional hearings. > > | We come to the conclusion that to seal the pipe would | blow it up. > > So your suggestion is to close the pipe but not seal it. Good for you, > I'm sure BP's own engineers will be delighted to hear it. Send even more > emails to Tony Hayward and perhaps it will get his attention. " Hey > Tony! Sealing the pipe will blow it up, don't seal the pipe! " That > should solve it. Ahh... I see you are a Republican. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60 |