sounds idiotic to me
in [Design]
|
From: Dave Platt on 14 Jul 2010 16:28 In article <ao0s36praoiibqihlcc6rl8316eirkkhrq(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100714/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_20100616040848 >If 100% of the oil is spewing out, why not close some valves and see >if less spews out? What's to lose? As I understand it, the risk being considered here is that closing down the valves too far (or too quickly) could raise pressures enough to cause an underground rupture in the existing well pipe. This would then cause oil to start erupting from the sea-floor at some distance away from the existing blowout protector, making it even harder to capture, and possibly increasing the total amount of oil escaping from the damaged well. That could be a worst-case situation, in that we could lose the ability to contain the oil via the existing blowout preventer and the new cap, *and* increase the total amount of oil leaking into the gulf. Ideally, both the new cap and the existing pipe structure would be strong enough to hold back the full worst-case pressure of the crude coming up from below. If this turns out to be the case, then they can (carefully!) close the valves, choke the flow down to nothing, and there will be little or no oil leaking, and no need to pipe any up to the surface to be reclaimed or flared off. The middle case would be one in which there's some risk of blowing out the damaged pipe if the valves are shut off entirely. In order to avoid this, a hybrid strategy would be needed - some of the valves would be closed entirely, and others would remain open but connected to pipes going to the oil-recovery ships on the surface. In this scenario, leakage into the gulf would drop close to zero, and the amount of oil flowing through the damaged well would be substantially reduced (with almost all of it being successfully tapped up into the ships on the surface). What I believe they're trying to do, by being cautious, is figure out whether the third (middle) case is the way that they're going to have to do it, or whether they can go to the best-case (close all the valves and cap the flow entirely). Somebody in the .gov feels that it's preferable to delay the closure attempt by a few days (accepting a larger leakage into the gulf for that time), rather than risk an overpressure event which might rupture the wellhead and thus guarantee un-controlled worst-case leakage until the relief wells are completed (several weeks from now at least). -- Dave Platt <dplatt(a)radagast.org> AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
From: AM on 14 Jul 2010 16:42 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:48:19 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100714/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_20100616040848 > > >If 100% of the oil is spewing out, why not close some valves and see >if less spews out? What's to lose? > >John Sounds like they might be the ones that are afraid of math that you have been so desperate to find all these years.
From: The Great Attractor on 14 Jul 2010 16:44 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:53:26 -0700 (PDT), Michael <mrdarrett(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 14, 12:48�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100714/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_201... >> >> If 100% of the oil is spewing out, why not close some valves and see >> if less spews out? What's to lose? >> >> John > > >http://www.despair.com/government.html Nice, except that you should have to pay me to wear and use your shtuff.
From: Joerg on 14 Jul 2010 16:45 Dave Platt wrote: > In article <ao0s36praoiibqihlcc6rl8316eirkkhrq(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100714/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_20100616040848 > >> If 100% of the oil is spewing out, why not close some valves and see >> if less spews out? What's to lose? > > As I understand it, the risk being considered here is that closing > down the valves too far (or too quickly) could raise pressures enough > to cause an underground rupture in the existing well pipe. This would > then cause oil to start erupting from the sea-floor at some distance > away from the existing blowout protector, making it even harder to > capture, and possibly increasing the total amount of oil escaping from > the damaged well. That could be a worst-case situation, in that we > could lose the ability to contain the oil via the existing blowout > preventer and the new cap, *and* increase the total amount of oil > leaking into the gulf. > Exactly. AFAIK the not-so-optimal cement job has allowed the pipe inside the sandy sea bed to move about and possibly become damaged or at least fatigued, and then there is the question about whether the quality of the casing was sufficient to begin with. What I don't get is why such questions weren't pondered before this new cap was designed and being fabricated. I mean, that hasn't happened overnight. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Jan Panteltje on 14 Jul 2010 16:50
On a sunny day (Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:48:19 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in <ao0s36praoiibqihlcc6rl8316eirkkhrq(a)4ax.com>: > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100714/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_20100616040848 > > >If 100% of the oil is spewing out, why not close some valves and see >if less spews out? What's to lose? > >John I think the point is that if you stop >6000 pounds of pressure, the oil, if the well is weak, may find an other way out, so to speak make a new hole in the ground next to that blowout preventor. |