[QUOTE=company man 1;35273]Looking at the picture the riser is 3 times as wide as the object in it.[/QUOTE]
[I]This[/I] image, CMan…?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]937[/ATTACH]
Well I’ve got a PhD in Eyeball Engineering (with a minor in the Sandwich Arts)…and my learned opinion is that it looks about 4X as wide…
CM1 thank you! Experience is the best teacher and interpreter of events. Thanks to you also, for tracking down this real world data from the manufacturer. Few of us shear pipe on a daily basis of this size and strength! 
(PS forget my IM, I replied before I read your post.)
Let me put the second foot in my mouth. On that trip yesterday I was thinking of seals the rest of the time. Pix we have of one of the caps show a broad, flat black (rubber) sheet type gasket that appears to lay on the top of the flange. I am pretty sure we all accept that flat gaskets and flat surfaces are not the best for high pressure sealing, due to the pressure getting under it and separating it.
Knife edge seals are better. I was thinking where to get the compression and the knife edge and came up with the edge of the riser flange. Seal on the edge, the top/side corner. That surface should be determinate. For a gasket, I would fabricate a custom “O ring” of 1 inch diameter 314 stainless steel tube 0.100 wall thickness, vulcanized with an 1/8 inch layer of Shore A 95-100 rubber. This will provide a compliant O ring, but maintain the knife edge and rigidity.
I had a remote hydraulic finger clamp down designed also to hold the top hat on, but I am not the best with CAD and this was taking too long to draw… so I thought I would share a partial sketch in the hope it helps thinking, or helps the cause somehow, someway. It’s a partial sketch flow is from bottom to top.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]938[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]939[/ATTACH]
[QUOTE=Bob S;35272]That first image is definitely Kermit the Frog on crack.[/QUOTE]
If you knew how many times I went back & looked at that to see it, You’d be roling right now. It is ! It is! Kermit the frog looking very puzzled. Another take very drunk. :Possibly crack.
[QUOTE=johnebe;35286][I]This[/I] image, CMan…?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]937[/ATTACH]
Well I’ve got a PhD in Eyeball Engineering (with a minor in the Sandwich Arts)…and my learned opinion is that it looks about 4X as wide…[/QUOTE] Wrong image. This is from the down stream end. Where the pipe is washed out. Down stream of the bend. Or Kermit on crack?
[QUOTE=company man 1;35273]I hate to bust everyone’s bubble. You guys are great & have been doing a lot of good thinking, but there was only one joint of pipe in the riser cut by the shears. In an earlier post I explained that a shear cut would badly deform a piece of pipe. The surest way to settle this in your minds that what you saw is not what you think you are looking at is this.
The circumference of a 21" riser is 21 X3.14 = 65.94" divide by 2 since the riser was smashed in two halves. 65.94/2 = 32.97" or 33" the work string was 6 5/8" diameter 6.625 x 3.14 = 20.8"/2 = 10.4".
33 /10.5 =3.14 the larger riser when smashed into two halves is 3 times as wide as the drill pipe. Looking at the picture the riser is 3 times as wide as the object in it. The upper riser shows evidence that the work string washed out during the time it was laid over due to the high flow rate. that is why it only looks like half of it is there. That provides a somewhat plausible explanation for the continuing expande flow rates.
You guys know I’m not a BP apologist & had they been frothright from the beginning, they would have gotten help from guys like me, but there is no mystery here. The two pipes are actually one deformed piece of pipe. I called my buddy with the shears this afternoon & he is on Toledo Bend. When he gets in Monday, he will see about emailing some pics of sheared pipe. He confirmed to me that there was only one joint in the riser & since he has sheared thousands of joints of pipe I will take his word until I get further confirmation to post. It is interesting & enlightening to hear everyone’s opinion & see the tremendous amount of thought & care you all have for this situation. Thank you very much.[/QUOTE]
Ahhhh, so, this DP was split in two down the long axis and one half of it washed out? Am I understanding you? That seems a bit of a stretch to me, but I won’t say it’s not possible. Now we got to wait to hear what was in the riser to know.
[QUOTE=Cynthia;35293]Ahhhh, so, this DP was split in two down the long axis and one half of it washed out? Am I understanding you? That seems a bit of a stretch to me, but I won’t say it’s not possible. Now we got to wait to hear what was in the riser to know.[/QUOTE]
Another note. If you look at the kermit on crack picture you can see the washing on the liner itself where one side or area of the one side was washing out inside the riser.
That is my opinion.
Edit: If you observe the other picture you can see a high shine all the way around the inside & outside of the work string & inside the riser. That is an indication of high velocity flow in a symetrical manner. In other words it was sand blasted evenly like it was centered in the liner.
I am hijacking this thread for a moment to say “Buy BP”. There is apparently a growing movement to boycott BP. The wild eyed eco freakos are acting like BP caused this blowout on purpose which is absurd. I am sure that at the end of the day it will be learned that BP made mistakes but I am also sure they will make things as right as they can to pay for their sins. I am not an offshore guy. I have made my living for 41 years grubbing around the Southern Illinios oil fields as a small Independent and Petroleum Engineer. I worked for a major(Texaco) for 10 years so I know that companies like BP provide a good living for thousands of people. Ii also know how people in the oil industry work and I am sick and tired of people hating us as an industry when they would still be riding horses and reading by candles if it was not for us. I was never a BP customer but I am now just to spit in the face of the people that hate “Big Oil”.
[QUOTE=company man 1;35295]Another note. If you look at the kermit on crack picture you can see the washing on the liner itself where one side or area of the one side was washing out inside the riser.
That is my opinion.
Edit: If you observe the other picture you can see a high shine all the way around the inside & outside of the work string & inside the riser. That is an indication of high velocity flow in a symetrical manner. In other words it was sand blasted evenly like it was centered in the liner.[/QUOTE]
Thanks Company Man, this now makes sense to me.
[B]This is my first post here and maybe my last - so let me start by saying that my sincere condolences go out to those 11 families who lost loved ones in this catastrophe due to some things that should NEVER have happened in the first place. My condolences also go out to all the bait shops, fishermen, shrimpers, marinas and the rest down there for all they have lost and still stand to lose before this is over. I am additionally sorry for the rest of us citizens for the cost and loss to us as a result of this. Let me also say I knew very little to none about the drilling industry, until this incident. I have learned a great deal from this forum and from ya’ll. Thank you! For what it’s worth, I am a heavy equipment mechanic in BR, LA. I am an avid reader of several forums dealing with the state of Louisiana and the hunting and fishing opportunities here. I don’t mean to stir the pot, but I am concerned. On one of said forums, I came across this post dealing with the COREXIT subject. I am mesmerized since they got this e-mail from Nalco (the manufacturer) on this dispersant. Previously, an entire crew were to be shut down because of the ill effects of the allegedly “safe” product. If the ingredients are so safe, why then do all - or most - ‘soap scum removers’ recommend wearing gloves? And if accurate, why is an entire rig in jeopardy of shutting operations down due to multiple illnesses from exposure to this stuff? Below is a copy of the post of the e-mail received in Louisiana Sportsman Forum online. This has me concerned. Do any of you know anything about the chemicals being used? Please post any thoughts or comments and I thank you in advance. [/B]
[B]For what it’s worth …[/B]
Obviously, the manufacturer of the dispersant Corexit is feeling the heat. I received this email from them this morning:
Nalco Releases Additional Technical Information on COREXIT
(Naperville, Ill.) COREXIT 9500, the only dispersant Nalco (NYSE: NLC) is manufacturing to help break up the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico, is a simple blend of six well-established, safe ingredients that biodegrade, do not bioaccumulate and are commonly found in popular household products, the company said today. The COREXIT products do not contain carcinogens or reproductive toxins. All the ingredients have been extensively studied for many years and have been determined safe and effective by the EPA.
“Over the past few days, there has been substantial misunderstanding about the nature and composition of our product,” said Erik Fyrwald, President and CEO of Nalco. “COREXIT has played a significant role in mitigating the disastrous consequences of the Gulf oil spill and has done so effectively and safely.
“To be clear, we have made available to government regulators all information related to the product, its ingredients and how it interacts with the environment. As always, we remain willing to work with the government in their efforts to minimize the ecological effects that the oil is having on the Gulf’s precious natural resources.”
Mr. Fyrwald cited recent statements by EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson and Rear Admiral Mary E. Landry, who both have described the beneficial impact that dispersants have had in the Gulf. During a press conference on May 24, Administrator Jackson said the results of dispersant testing have been “positive.” She added: “Our tracking indicates that the dispersants are breaking up the oil and speeding its biodegradation, with limited environmental impact at this time.”
Admiral Landry added that without the timely use of dispersants, “much more” oil would have reached the shoreline from the ruptured pipe in the Gulf.
Additional technical information about COREXIT, its composition and its features follows.
Composition
Examples of everyday products with specific ingredients in common with COREXIT 9500 include:
One ingredient is used as a wetting agent in dry gelatin, beverage mixtures, and fruit juice drinks.
A second ingredient is used in a brand-name dry skin cream and also in a body shampoo.
A third ingredient is found in a popular brand of baby bath liquid.
A fourth ingredient is found extensively in cosmetics and is also used as a surface-active agent and emulsifier for agents used in food contact.
[B][U][I]A fifth ingredient is used by a major supplier of brand name household cleaning products for “soap scum” removal.[/I][/U][/B]
A sixth ingredient is used in hand creams and lotions, odorless paints and stain blockers.
Safety
Data published by Environment Canada, that country’s main environmental agency, in 1991 showed common household dish soap as having a substantially higher rainbow trout toxicity than COREXIT 9527. Put another way, COREXIT 9527 is more than 7 times safer than dish soap. COREXIT 9500 is the next generation of COREXIT products and features an improved formula.
Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, EPA said at the May 24 press briefing “Our tracking indicates that the dispersants are breaking up the oil and speeding its biodegradation, with limited environmental impact at this time.”
According to Ms. Jackson, “We know that dispersants are less toxic than oil. We know that surface use of dispersants decreases the risk to shorelines and organisms at the surface when they are properly applied.”
Biodegradation
A March, 1994, report created by France’s Institut National de L’Enviroenment Industriel et des Risques indicated that COREXIT 9500 largely biodegraded in 28 days. COREXIT oil dispersant was first applied to the Gulf oil slick on April 23.
Bioaccumulation
Based on modeling using US EPA software (as part of the EPI Suite v4.0, 2009), none of the COREXIT product components pose a risk of bioaccumulating.
Concentration
At 840,000 gallons, the amount of dispersant in the region of the 3,850 square-mile slick represents an average concentration of about 30 parts per billion to the 10 meters of depth the dispersant will go – even without factoring in that a substantial portion of the product has already biodegraded.
By comparison, the EPA allows drinking water to contain non-biodegradable contaminants – including carcinogens and reproductive toxins – that exceed the level of biodegradable chemicals present in COREXIT in the Gulf.
Application
[B][U][I]COREXIT is meant to be used at sea – away from the shoreline and has been used in more than 30 countries, including Sweden, France, Australia, Norway and Canada. Aerial spraying of dispersant is not to take place within 2 miles of a boat or 3 miles of a shoreline. With 30-mile per hour winds, the maximum expected drift for the dispersant is 2,000 feet. Spraying of dispersant from boats should only be done with personal protective equipment. Mists of the dispersant will not stray far from the boat given the proximity of the spray to the surface of the water.[/I][/U][/B]
For additional information about the use of dispersants, visit http://www.nalco.com/news-and-events/nalco-oil-dispersant-information.htm.
Thanks again to: CM1, Moose, Cpt, Pumpjack, Blisters, BNHPR, and AHTS and all the rest of you who are helping me keep up with this REAL Problem and not just what the media tells us…
There are 2 major problems handling the oil/gas release, while we wait for ReliefWell:
I predict both problems will be overcome as follows, using buoyant [floating] storage just above BOP outlet, preliminary gas/oil separation and then pumping stages get oil/gas phases to surface…
A. Direct the BOP flow upward, say 500 feet, into horizontal buffer-storage pipe [buoyancy plenums on a wide diameter cylinder to maintain desired altitude above BOP], of length long enough for gas to rise to top of cylinder.
B. Allow for release of gas from upper area of cylinder [dump into ocean or separately route to surface for standard flare-off].
C. Arrange for pumping to surface of liquid-phase remaining in cylinder, in stages, with pressure-isolation from BOP, i.e. isolate 4,500 ft. head pressure to surface from the 500 ft. head between BOP and buoyant cylinder.
The above avoids seawater-contact so no methane-hydrates can form. As gas will be further released immediately upon of pumping from cylinder, it is handled as usual in the cylinder-to-surface riser, without a solid-phase of hydrates. The staged-pumping, 4500 ft rise to surface must not contribute to back-pressure on the BOP…that’s just a routing engineering matter…I guess?
How all this would respond to lesser problems, like hurricanes, is also handled by engineers…or tolerated by disconnecting and allow oil to spill into ocean until surface rig can re-connect. What’s a million-gallon spill these days?
[QUOTE=edliz416;35307]At 840,000 gallons, the amount of dispersant in the region of the 3,850 square-mile slick represents an average concentration of about 30 parts per billion to the 10 meters of depth the dispersant will go – even without factoring in that a substantial portion of the product has already biodegraded.
.
.
.
At 840,000 gallons, the amount of dispersant in the region of the 3,850 square-mile slick represents an average concentration of about 30 parts per billion to the 10 meters of depth the dispersant will go – even without factoring in that a substantial portion of the product has already biodegraded.
[/QUOTE]
That average concentration would be great if the dispersant was well dispersed/mixed in the GoM. Just as the oil would be (in order to achieve faster biodegradation). But it is not. Hopefully someone can comment with more knowledge in fluid dynamics and concentrations of dispersant and how quickly, or slowly, they disperse into the sea water. Would the dispersants travel along with the oil plumes? What if undersea life encountered COREXIT at the higher concentrations? Would it be affected?
I don’t understand the “10 meters of depth” remark. Can someone explain? Is this remark applicable to dispersant that has been applied at 5,000 feet below the surface?
[QUOTE=edliz416;35307][B]This is my first post here and maybe my last…
…Please post any thoughts or comments and I thank you in advance.[/B][/QUOTE]
No offense…BUT…
You’re gonna begin a conversation with your very FIRST post AND [I]actively[/I] solicit others participation BUT you’re also gonna preface it with a statement that you may NOT participate in that VERY conversation…???
That Nalco email is all inane nonsense and easily defeated BUT I aint wasting my time with a potential hit and run propaganda spammer…
How about making a second post with a link to that Louisiana Sportsman Forum…where i assume you use the same username…?
Transcipt of the BP webcast to their investors today
[QUOTE=pumpjack hand;35312]http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/I/IC_BP_Investor_Briefing_webcast_4_June.pdf
Transcipt of the BP webcast to their investors today[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the Heads Up… was able to find a link to the audio webcast…it’s exactly one hour in duration…
BP Investor Briefing: June 4 2010
think i’ll have a soak and listen to that smelly crooked toothed midget bastard…
Some interesting information here from the University of Georgia Department of Marine Sciences.
[QUOTE=alvis;35325]Some interesting information here from the University of Georgia Department of Marine Sciences.
http://gulfblog.uga.edu/[/QUOTE]
A bit discouraging to find that in the very first article I read on this blog the “scientists” were throwing around the acronym VOC and then defining it as “Volatile Organic [I]Carbon[/I]”. Sorry, scientists - even a sparky like me knows it’s Volatile Organic [I]Compounds[/I]. Scary.
[QUOTE=company man 1;35291]Wrong image. This is from the down stream end. Where the pipe is washed out. Down stream of the bend. Or Kermit on crack?[/QUOTE]
Then it’s gotta be this one…?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]943[/ATTACH]
Or maybe this…???
[ATTACH=CONFIG]944[/ATTACH]
I dunno…should probably stick to my ethics & argumentation policing…
[QUOTE=company man 1;35269]I merely stated that since it is your position that Corexit is safe then you should put a dog in the hunt. YOu don’t have to drink a pint, just… let’s say wash your clothes in it, take showers for a week in it, & wash your dishes in it for a week & let us know how safe it is. Since it is harmless detergent I am sure you will have no adverse affects. Otherwise, get off your high horse about how it is totally harmless. There are a lot of people who have no choice but to come into direct contact & have long term exposure to this chemical compliments of… you guessed it, TOny & the boys. So who pays if it is found out that Corexit causes irreperable damge to the respiratory systems & cancer to thousands of workers who had no choice because of BP ? Will you ? I doubt it. So post your proof of non toxicity or STFU ![/QUOTE]
I believe Tony arrived to clear up a mess created by the ‘Old AMOCO Fraternity’ who found it hard to follow the guidelines and rules which BP happens to practice worldwide. I agree with your other critics, you simply want to bash anyone but the ‘Cowboys’ who created the disaster. If you could try to be less vindictive and search for why this catastrophe has occurred you may yet discover that homegrown culture in the GOM caused this accident. The US Gov’t will continue to ‘finger-point’ in order to lessen its own burden of guilt, but there’s nowhere to hide. The authorities have shut down exploration in GOM because no plans were in place to deal with the environmental disaster caused by this blowout. This will become clear to you too if you allow yourself some time to consider the facts, and compare operations worldwide with those practiced in the GOM. Corners are constantly being cut, and this was AMOCO personnel at the helm.
[QUOTE=bigmoose;35215]An other question for our drillers here: This well is 13,293 feet from the mudline to TD. If there is a casing blowout say 6,517 feet below mudline that communicates with a porous area or thief zone, could there be a situation where the kill mud cannot build up sufficient vertical height to build enough static pressure to counteract the reservoir pressure even if injected at the bottom with the intercept well(s)?
In other words, is there a scenario in which even the intercept wells will not be able to kill this well?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely, and the exchange of fluids from one the Reservoir to the theif zone would continue until ‘balance’ takes place. Then, the flow may continue up the original flowpath. Gas would always follow both paths.
[QUOTE=tengineer;35222]Bravo, you got a list things that someone said could only be made from oil and your point is??
I fly on airplanes about 50 times a year and I feel relatively safe doing so because various taxpayer agencies [the government] have over the years mandated safety standards which make flying in an airplane safer than driving to the airport. The Maddows [I didn’t even know what a Maddow was until recently] of the world along with the folks in the bayou just want the people we employ [government regulators] to insure that we can have all the things on your list without killing people and a clean ocean. I don’t think that’s too much to ask from the folks us citizens employ at the US government. BUT in this case we’re dealing with two foreign corporations who just screwed up the Gulf of Mexico. BP aka British Petroleum and Transocean a Swiss company. One wonders if it was a US oil company and a US rig owner things would be different. Imagine if a Mexican or Arab company just blew up a oil rig in the US gulf.[/QUOTE]
You have to realise one important fact. No foreigners were involved in this disaster. All personnel involved were form the USA. The foreign Operator merged with AMOCO. But, all operations in the US are run by the ‘Old AMOCO Fraternity’. They made decisions on this well which BP wouldn’t sanction in other parts of the world. The truth is that you have to look to the way operations are conducted in the US to understand that the rest of the world do not drill and complete wells like you do. This is fact.
BP have stringent rules worldwide which BP USA (AMOCO) have been ignoring. Why? Why take shortcuts? You must look to yourselves for these answers. This environmental disaster is not because of a foreign owned company. ‘Cowboys’ are involved.