[QUOTE=jmccaski;39819]I know Darryl, he’s got his head screwed on straight and is real live well control expert, as compared to some of us who just think they are (don’t take offense, I’m talking about me). If he says it’s good news, I’m betting it is.[/QUOTE]
No disrespect, but it’s still just a statement with no fact or substance for anyone to look at.
I could equally say that “My car is fast”… go prove me wrong!.
Darryl… please give us a bit more info on your insight. Thanks.
So far only apparent dischare is some small bubbleing today on cement return line at seafloor of BOP:
Doesn’t look to be forming hydrates… helium separation and migration?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1046[/ATTACH]
Edit on conference call this am BP mentioned bubbles. Nitrogen or biodegradeable methane. Not concerned, will take a sample.
Hey guys, been following this thread since about a week after the rig sunk. Got a question.
I’m not a scientist, but I did study hydraulics in the Navy, and as a 20 yr electrician, I do a lot of complex math…And I stayed at a holiday inn express one time. 
Now, the pressure (psi) at the bottom of the ocean is around 2200 psi. Combine that with the pressure it would take to push the oil up a 7" pipe for 5.6 miles, is quite immense. I’m coming up with a figure of
about 70,000 just to trickle the oil out of the wellhead…9000 psi isn’t even close enough to push the oil up, let alone overcome the downward pressure of the water at 5000 ft…
And also, if they completely shut the well down, the pressure should be instantaneous. Why are they saying it’s slowly building?
And second, even if the reservoir were being depleted, it still takes the same amount of pressure to push the oil up. So that statement makes absolutely no sense to my logic. I did my calculations here,
http://shtf411.com/do-the-math-it-takes-a-minimum-of-12-092-psi-just-to-push-oil-out-of-wellhead-t7757.html
I’d certainly appreciate any technical support on my calculations. Thanks, stompk.
[QUOTE=stompk;39852]Hey guys, been following this thread since about a week after the rig sunk. Got a question.
I’m not a scientist, but I did study hydraulics in the Navy, and as a 20 yr electrician, I do a lot of complex math…And I stayed at a holiday inn express one time.
Now, the pressure (psi) at the bottom of the ocean is around 2200 psi. Combine that with the pressure it would take to push the oil up a 7" pipe for 5.6 miles, is quite immense. I’m coming up with a figure of
about 70,000 just to trickle the oil out of the wellhead…9000 psi isn’t even close enough to push the oil up, let alone overcome the downward pressure of the water at 5000 ft…
And also, if they completely shut the well down, the pressure should be instantaneous. Why are they saying it’s slowly building?
And second, even if the reservoir were being depleted, it still takes the same amount of pressure to push the oil up. So that statement makes absolutely no sense to my logic. I did my calculations here,
http://shtf411.com/do-the-math-it-takes-a-minimum-of-12-092-psi-just-to-push-oil-out-of-wellhead-t7757.html
I’d certainly appreciate any technical support on my calculations. Thanks, stompk.[/QUOTE]
Your well depth is way out. The pressure buildup is dependent upon the permeability of the oil-bearing reservoir, which is rock not a pool of oil. The pressure at the wellhead is the bottom-hole pressure (ithink thats around 13,000 psi but not sure) less the weight of a column of oil. Nothing’s being pushed anywhere at the moment, its closed off at surface. 9000 psi at the wellhead compares with 2000 psi hydrostatic seawater pressure - a massive differential.
What they are doing right now is basically a pressure buildup test. The interesting things of note are (1) the wellhead pressure is coming in a bit below what they expected, at 6,800 psi, and yet (2) there is no evidence of leaks, rupture etc. Everyone is having a hard time figuring out those two bits of info.
[QUOTE=Alf;39847]Dell, can you help me out here please as I don’t understand what’s going on.
I’m not American, nor am I very “legal” savvy, but I thought that once someone had “taken the 5th” under US law, then they were only obliged (read… forced/have to be present) to appear thereafter only in a court of law to face criminal charges?[/QUOTE]
One may “take the fifth” on individual questions. Such as Dave Chappelle illustrates here with his sketch comedy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rissm5YHJQg This is pretty much what most public congressional testimony of any consequence is like.
As far as getting to see Vidrine and Kaluza squirm, I can’t wait.
Hat tip to New Orleans Lady for her post. I’ll have my popcorn ready.
[QUOTE=stompk;39852]Hey guys, been following this thread since about a week after the rig sunk. Got a question.
I’m not a scientist, but I did study hydraulics in the Navy, and as a 20 yr electrician, I do a lot of complex math…And I stayed at a holiday inn express one time.
Now, the pressure (psi) at the bottom of the ocean is around 2200 psi. Combine that with the pressure it would take to push the oil up a 7" pipe for 5.6 miles, is quite immense. I’m coming up with a figure of
about 70,000 just to trickle the oil out of the wellhead…9000 psi isn’t even close enough to push the oil up, let alone overcome the downward pressure of the water at 5000 ft…
And also, if they completely shut the well down, the pressure should be instantaneous. Why are they saying it’s slowly building?
And second, even if the reservoir were being depleted, it still takes the same amount of pressure to push the oil up. So that statement makes absolutely no sense to my logic. I did my calculations here,
http://shtf411.com/do-the-math-it-takes-a-minimum-of-12-092-psi-just-to-push-oil-out-of-wellhead-t7757.html
I’d certainly appreciate any technical support on my calculations. Thanks, stompk.[/QUOTE]
Just to add to ex-pe-uk’s answers, Yes there is instantaneous pressure reading at shut-in, but because flow can’t go anywhere, pent up pressures - backpressure - will build up to the point it either conunterbalances formation pressures or fractures the formation OR forces formations pressures to find an alternative route out of the well, like for example, flow into a weaker porous/ permeable sand or fault line. As such pressures will climb after initial shut-in instantaneous readings . The rate at which it climbs or gradient of the psi vs time graph slope, is an interesting tell tale sign as to the nature of fluids in the wellbore and integrity of the well. Once counterbalance equilibrium is reached, pressures are expected to level off. At what value it levels off will be indicative of the well integrity. The released Kent Wells figure of 6700 psi…level off with 2 psi increase per hour puts the situation neither at definite well integrity or leak situation no-mans-land. BP has not said though at what rate , psi/hr pressure climbed to achieve 6700 psi. This is an important piece of information. They must also have a good estimate of gas-oil ratio, which they are not telling. I suspect come Monday BP share price will level off like this pressure test. To attribute 6700 psi to a suspected leak because they did not get the 7500 psi expected for an intact well, would mean hint of breach of well integrity leading investors to high tail it on Monday. Perhaps Alcor will come to BP’s rescue and give us his propaganda but so far no sign today. Possibly keeping low and lickin wounds. Alcor!!!..Youooo!!! Hoooo!!!, give us your feed back please, we have our cat-o-9 tails ready in appreciation. We know you love pain, so come back now, you hear!
[QUOTE=bigmoose;39851]So far only apparent dischare is some small bubbleing today on cement return line at seafloor of BOP:
Doesn’t look to be forming hydrates… helium separation and migration?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1046[/ATTACH]
Edit on conference call this am BP mentioned bubbles. Nitrogen or biodegradeable methane. Not concerned, will take a sample.[/QUOTE]
The valve looks to be closed, and now it’s bubbling where it wasn’t before… interesting.
I wonder if they are using similar type valves to these…
“1 EA VALVE, BALL, NOM 3 , FULL PORT (3 X 3 ),
3 NPT FEMALE END CONNECTIONS, CARBON STEEL BODY,
316SS TRIM, [B]1500 PSI INTERNAL[/B], 3000 PSI EXTERNAL”?
I don’t know the exact spec for the Dril-Quip 36" Low Pressure Housing, but a competitors LPH is rated as “1000 PSI MWP”
[QUOTE=Alf;39862]The valve looks to be closed, and now it’s bubbling where it wasn’t before… interesting.
I wonder if they are using similar type valves to these…
“1 EA VALVE, BALL, NOM 3 , FULL PORT (3 X 3 ),
3 NPT FEMALE END CONNECTIONS, CARBON STEEL BODY,
316SS TRIM, [B]1500 PSI INTERNAL[/B], 3000 PSI EXTERNAL”?
I don’t know the exact spec for the Dril-Quip 36" Low Pressure Housing, but a competitors LPH is rated as “1000 PSI MWP”[/QUOTE]
“now that’s funny right there. i don’t care who you are”
[QUOTE=ex-pe-uk;39856]Your well depth is way out. .[/QUOTE]
OK, I’m going to try to understand this one step at a time. From the data that I can find, this is the deepest well ever drilled. 30,000 + ft. There is 5280 ft in a mile…That’s 5.6 miles of well bore.
Now I know that oil weighs about 7 lbs per gallon, and there is around 7 gallons per foot, in a 7" casing (rounding number for ease of calculation). Now, being conservative, let’s say the oil only weighed 4 lbs per gallon, cause there’s 40% methane, so
that would be about 28 lbs per ft. Multiply that times 30,000 ft, and you get 840,000 lbs of oil, just in the well bore. Divide by 12.25 to get psi, and that comes up to be 68,571 psi.
Have I made a mistake in my math. I’m really trying to understand this. Thanks for your responses. stompk.
[QUOTE=stompk;39864]OK, I’m going to try to understand this one step at a time. From the data that I can find, this is the deepest well ever drilled. 30,000 + ft. There is 5280 ft in a mile…That’s 5.6 miles of well bore.[/QUOTE]
If you’ve been following this thread “since about a week after the rig sunk.”, then you need to work on your reading comprehension, not your math. The DW Horizon drilled a well to 30,000+ feet, but Macondo 252 isn’t that well.
[QUOTE=stompk;39864]OK, I’m going to try to understand this one step at a time. From the data that I can find, this is the deepest well ever drilled. 30,000 + ft. There is 5280 ft in a mile…That’s 5.6 miles of well bore.
Now I know that oil weighs about 7 lbs per gallon, and there is around 7 gallons per foot, in a 7" casing (rounding number for ease of calculation). Now, being conservative, let’s say the oil only weighed 4 lbs per gallon, cause there’s 40% methane, so
that would be about 28 lbs per ft. Multiply that times 30,000 ft, and you get 840,000 lbs of oil, just in the well bore. Divide by 12.25 to get psi, and that comes up to be 68,571 psi.
Have I made a mistake in my math. I’m really trying to understand this. Thanks for your responses. stompk.[/QUOTE]
See if this helps you…
(Depths are as measured from the original rig floor which is above sea level).
Mud Line or Seabed is at 5,067ft
Reservoir Top is at 18,083ft, with a known pressure of 12.60 ppg equivalent.
18083ft x 0.052 x 12.60ppg = 11,848 psi at 18,083ft.
(0.052 is a conversion factor for ppg - “Pounds Per Gallon” to psi)
Difference between seabed and 18,083ft is 13,016ft.
I don’t know what the exact density of the oil/gas mix is but let’s assume 6.0 ppg. (change this as required)
So 13,016ft x 0.052 x 6.0ppg = 4,061psi the hydrostatic pressure due to oil in the well.
11,848psi minus 4,016psi = 7,787psi at the seabed.
[QUOTE=tvhawaii;39866]If you’ve been following this thread “since about a week after the rig sunk.”, then you need to work on your reading comprehension, not your math. The DW Horizon drilled a well to 30,000+ feet, but Macondo 252 isn’t that well.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I’m sure no one would lie, now, would they. Don’t worry, the well isn’t leaking. Oh wait, the well is leaking at 1000 bpd. No, I mean 5000 bpd. No wait, thats actually 12000-16000 bpd., Oops, I mean 40,000-60000 bpd. But Thad Allan says they should be able to capture all of the oil if they can handle 80,000 bpd. And don’t worry, Corexit is not toxic, the water is fine to swim in, and take a deep breath of the air…
A Whale skimmer doesn’t work, because it’s not good enough, and we need a blimp that can’t handle any adverse weather to monitor where the oil is…
I can read, question is, can you think, or are you paid not to?
Thanks for sticking in there with me… I have a seven inch pipe here, and I poured a foot of water in it. It weigh approx 40 lbs. 13,000 feet is nearly 3 miles. I will kiss your feet if you can push nearly 3 miles of oil up a 7" pipe with 7,500 psi into 5000 ft of water, let alone another mile up to the rig… If it’s fuzzy, 4 legs and meows, it’s probably a cat…
It would be in the best interest of BP to hide the amount of oil coming out. And I trust the coast guard brass about as much as I trust Obama, MMS and all the other cronies. Good day.
If you can’t win the court case, just buy up all the academicians that could testify against you!
[QUOTE=stompk;39869]Thanks for sticking in there with me… I have a seven inch pipe here, and I poured a foot of water in it. It weigh approx 40 lbs. 13,000 feet is nearly 3 miles. I will kiss your feet if you can push nearly 3 miles of oil up a 7" pipe with 7,500 psi into 5000 ft of water, let alone another mile up to the rig… If it’s fuzzy, 4 legs and meows, it’s probably a cat…
It would be in the best interest of BP to hide the amount of oil coming out. And I trust the coast guard brass about as much as I trust Obama, MMS and all the other cronies. Good day.[/QUOTE]
Dude, there are literally hundreds of links that have the actual information you are looking for. What you keep writing as assumptions are completely dead-ass wrong on every single count.
We can’t do your homework for you.
Start at this post #2713, read EVERY ONE OF THE LINKS THERE, then think about it, then come back.
[QUOTE=Alf;39847]Dell, can you help me out here please as I don’t understand what’s going on.
I’m not American, nor am I very “legal” savvy, but I thought that once someone had “taken the 5th” under US law, then they were only obliged (read… forced/have to be present) to appear thereafter only in a court of law to face criminal charges?[/QUOTE]
This is the same forum, the Joint Investigation Board, Coast Guard and MMS, before which they took the Fifth before. Making them do it again could be sensible–before a different forum. Usually, if you take the Fifth before a particular forum, you’re done before that forum, but not different fora (see, 4 years of high school Latin [I]was[/I] good for something!). That answers exactly what you asked.
Now for what you’re really asking, what the %* is going on? Two possibilities: either putting on an embarrassing show–or they’ve been granted some level of immunity. We’ll see; obviously, I wouldn’t be privy to whatever deals may be being made.
[QUOTE=dell;39876]This is the same forum, the Joint Investigation Board, Coast Guard and MMS, before which they took the Fifth before. [/QUOTE] I don’t think either Kaluza or Vidrine actually took the 5th yet. Vidrine claimed a medical condition prevented him appearing. I think Kaluza just phoned in that he [I]would[/I] take the 5th [I]if[/I] he was subpoenaed (he is not listed in prior witness lists on the Joint Investigation Web Site). So now they are both being called and forced to formally invoke their rights under the 5th. They may be off the stand in a couple of minutes.
They are bringing Mark Hafle (the BP drilling engineer) back for more questioning. That should be interesting.
BP love you long time, sure; but oh shucks, no “happy ending”:
[QUOTE=AyeCaptain;39879]BP love you long time, sure; but oh shucks, no “happy ending”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/18/deepwater-horizon-blow-out-preventer-china[/QUOTE]
AyeCaptain…just came over to post the link. Here’s an excerpt…
…“There is no evidence that the significant modifications to the blowout preventer (BOP), which were carried out in China in 2005, caused the equipment to fail. But industry lawyers said BP could be made liable for any mistakes that a Chinese subcontractor made carrying out the work. It would be almost impossible to secure damages in China, where international law is barely recognised.
It is understood that lawyers for Cameron International, the manufacturer of the BOP, will argue the device was so significantly modified in China that it no longer resembled the original component, and that Cameron should therefore not be held liable.”…
TooBigToFail = Beyond Prosecution…by design. It’s a universe of, by and for the killer-rich…by design.
[QUOTE=Crash Dummy;39832]“A Whale” Operational Review Completed
NEW ORLEANS - After an extended trial period during which the supertanker skimming vessel “A Whale” was given an opportunity to demonstrate its capability to remove oil in open seas of the Gulf of Mexico, Federal On-Scene Coordinator Admiral Paul Zukunft today announced that it will not be deployed as a part of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill response.
“A Whale,” the 1,115 foot long supertanker that sailed to the United States from Lisbon, Portugal, was modified in an innovative way, and went through an extensive operational review by a multiagency team under the supervision of the U.S. Coast Guard. The report concluded that after significant effort, the amount of oil recovered was negligible, and limited oil beyond a sheen was found in the cargo tanks. Over the same 24 hour testing period, the Unified Area Command mobilized more than 590 smaller, more agile skimmers to remove more than 25,551 barrels of oil water, conducted 26 controlled burns, and recovered 12,800 barrels at the source to continue to fight the oil as far offshore as possible.
“While its stature is impressive, ‘A Whale’ is not ideally suited to the needs of this response,” said Admiral Zukunft. “We appreciate the ingenuity of the TMT team to try to make this innovative system work under these unique conditions. This is the largest oil spill response in our nation’s history and we will continue to attack the oil as far offshore as possible with our fleet of hundreds of skimmers, controlled burns, and effective use of dispersant.”
Because the oil consists of relatively smaller patches and numerous ribbons spread very thinly across a great distance, the mission has required the deployment of smaller skimmers with the agility needed to maneuver and pursue oil in both crowded and open waters.
Since early June, at the direction of National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen, the number of skimmers fighting oil in the Gulf has been increased more than fivefold to 593 as of today. There are currently more than total 6,800 vessels responding on site, including skimmers, tugs, barges, and recovery vessels to assist in containment and cleanup efforts—in addition to dozens of aircraft, remotely operated vehicles, and multiple mobile offshore drilling units. Nearly 33 million gallons of an oil-water mix have been recovered and 387 controlled burns have been conducted, efficiently removing an additional 11 million gallons of oil from the open water in an effort to protect shoreline and wildlife.[/QUOTE]
[B]Wow and we were told the A’Whale was ineffective. Wheres those Dutch Skimmers. Guess it doesn’t matter most of this euipment gets paid to sit at the dock anyway. Thanks Thad (FAT) Allen you might want to make sure you dont get caught picking up your money at the dumpster like E Edwards did[/B]
PRESS RELEASE
Report on Coastal Skimming Activities in Louisiana
BATON ROUGE (July 17, 2010) - The state of Louisiana today issued its report on skimming operations on Louisiana’s coast. The report was compiled as a result of Governor Jindal’s directive to the Louisiana National Guard to monitor and track the deployment of skimmers by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Statewide, there are 389 skimmers total, of which 346 are operational and 166 actually deployed to collect oil. In total, these skimmers collected 5 gallons of oil and 35 cubic yards of debris.
The Coastal Skimmer Activity Report above provides visibility of ongoing oil collection efforts directed by the Coast Guard. For information regarding specifics of skimmer deployment and statuses, please contact the Coast Guard Incident Command Post in Houma.
Skimmer totals for each parish include the following type skimmers: Navy vessels, skimmers of different sizes, vessels of opportunity, and shallow water barge collection systems.
Below is a breakdown of skimming operations by parish:
JEFFERSON
Operational Skimmers: 48
Non-Operational Skimmers: 4
Total number of Skimmers: 52
Number of Skimmers Deployed / Collecting Oil: 41
Amount of Oil Collected in Gallons: 0
LAFOURCHE
Operational Skimmers: 48
Non-Operational Skimmers: 14
Total number of Skimmers: 62
Number of Skimmers Deployed / Collecting Oil: 42
Amount of Oil Collected in Gallons: 0
PLAQUEMINES
Operational Skimmers: 102
Non-Operational Skimmers: 3
Total number of Skimmers: 105
Number of Skimmers Deployed / Collecting Oil: 81
Amount of Oil Collected in Gallons: 0
ST. BERNARD
Operational Skimmers: 37
Non-Operational Skimmers: 13
Total number of Skimmers: 50
Number of Skimmers Deployed / Collecting Oil: 5
Amount of Oil Collected in Gallons: 5
ST. TAMMANY
Operational Skimmers: 55
Non-Operational Skimmers: 1
Total number of Skimmers: 56
Number of Skimmers Deployed / Collecting Oil: 13
Amount of Oil Collected in Gallons: 0
TERREBONNE
Operational Skimmers: 56
Non-Operational Skimmers: 8
Total number of Skimmers: 64
Number of Skimmers Deployed / Collecting Oil: 26
Amount of Oil Collected in Gallons: 0