Web Concepts

Posts Tagged ‘Gulf oil leak’

The article also details that the Macondo well was known to be a "nightmare well" long before the blowout, and that BP cut financial corners again and again in its construction.

Read the whole story here.

Saying things can’t get any worse in the Gulf at this point seems like a dubious claim, but Willard Wattenburg’s idea has made it all the way to the desk of Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Why? Wattenburg orchestrated the capping of 500 wells in just seven months in Kuwait in the aftermath of Gulf One, a job that was estimated to take 5 years, so he’s got the oil industry chops. But naturally there are some who think the idea is a bad gamble that could indeed exacerbate later efforts to stem the flow of oil.

Wattenburg’s simple idea involves pumping steel balls into the leaking riser that are heavy enough to sink downward in spite of the upward pressure from the upward-surging oil. Once the balls get deep enough down they’ll begin to settle and slow the flow – the job the drilling mud failed to do during the top kill. Once the flow is decreased, we can pump in the concrete and cap the well. We’ll need a bout 200 tons of steel balls, Wattenburg says. Total cost: about $100,000.

What’s more, if it fails if fails without leaving an environmental crisis in its wake, Wattenburg says, and the relatively low cost make it worth a try.

Other engineers are skeptical. For one, they say, the oil is rushing up not through the central pipe, but through the space between the central pipe and the outer casing. The balls would likely take the easiest route downward into the central pipe, where they won’t make a difference. Further, a bunch of steel balls in the well could complicate capping efforts once the relief wells are complete.

The real question now is: Do we make the conservative play and wait for the relief wells to be drilled or should the government go in and attempt new methods of plugging that damn hole. And if those attempts make matters even worse in the Gulf, does that take the blame off of BP to some degree?

[Science Insider]

"It's an infusion of oil and gas unlike anything else that has ever been seen anywhere, certainly in human history." So says the leader of a group or researchers aboard the F.G. Walton Smith, who spoke with reporters yesterday after spending two weeks touring the Gulf while studying an underwater plume of oil measuring 3 miles long, 15 miles wide, and about 500 feet thick, the core of which is 3,500 to 4,000 feet below the surface. Meanwhile, NOAA researchers have confirmed the finding of undersea oil concentrations up to 40 nautical miles northeast from the leak site.

The good news from 4,000 feet down is that bacteria are breaking down the oil, feasting on the bounty of hydrocarbons loose in the water. The bad news is that the feeding frenzy is causing oxygen levels to dive and could create a "dead zone" in which marine life will be smothered.

Then there's the methane, which is rising to levels up to 10,000 times higher than normal, and the oil dispersants, whose effects on marine life and food chains are largely unknown.

The takeaway from all this: Regardless of how many barrels or gallons of oil have slipped into the water versus previous disasters, researchers in the Gulf are concerned that the Deepwater Horizon spill may be the worst ecological disaster in known marine history due to the size and density of the plumes in the Gulf as well as what can fairly be described as a botched response to the disaster (are surface dispersants necessary when the source of the oil is so deep?).

While crises like these tend to draw out all kinds of agenda-driven opinions, the federal government and many of the smartest minds therein are now coming to terms with what's going on down South, formally backing these less-than-optimistic opinions of scientists working in the Gulf. That bodes well for the spirit of consensus, but not for the long-term ecological health of the Gulf Shore.

[New York Times]

The idea of nuking the oil leak surfaced on various sites of dubious veracity over the past weeks as failure after failure to contain the leak rendered BP and U.S. agencies more and more desperate for a solution. It's rooted in the idea that, reportedly, the USSR used nuclear blasts to cap off five different gas wells from 1966 to 1981, with all of the attempts successful but the last.

Since then, the idea seems to have gained more and more adherents -- a Houston-based energy expert claimed Friday that "all the best scientists" are behind the idea (see video below) -- lending credence to the notion that the U.S. might attempt the tactic as other options seem to be running out. The fact that the New York Times actually asked DOE officials about it shows just how much traction the idea of dropping a nuke to the seabed off the coast of Louisiana has gained in the popular consciousness.

But just for the record, when the Times did ask, a DOE spokeswoman said the option never was, and is not, on the table. Aside from the fact that we would be entering technologically uncharted waters (all the alleged Soviet attempts to cap wells with nukes took place on land), to detonate a nuke in this day and age, even for peaceful purposes, would violate a variety of international agreements and perhaps undo whatever progress President Obama has made toward disarmament.

So no, we're not going to drop a nuke in the Deepwater Horizon wellhead. But if you're the type who enjoys mingling with the more sensational side of what the Internet has to offer, check out this article from Russia's Pravda, which kicked off discussion of the nuclear option in the first place (can we tempt you by noting that the film "Armageddon" is used as an analogy within the piece?). After that, it's probably a good idea to let this one die.

[New York Times]

Perhaps most optimistic is U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the federal government's top man on the job, who this morning told the L.A. Times that the efforts to reduce the well pressure to zero appeared to be working. The drilling mud being pumped into the riser by ships on the surface has apparently reduced the well pressure significantly, though the pressure is still persisting.

Another senior technician working the top kill said initial data coming back from the well has triggered a sense of general optimism among engineers on the scene, as it appears the drilling mud is indeed beginning to accrue within the well and slow the flow of oil and gas. Moreover, the well is holding together, allaying the chief concern that the damaged riser might rupture again under the pressure.

If engineers can get the pressure down to zero, they should be able to begin pumping cement into the hole, capping the well and stopping the leak.

Of course, even if the well is capped there's still the issue of the quarter million barrels of oil that have already leaked from the ocean floor. Or is it half a million? Experts trying to pinpoint just how much oil is loose in Gulf waters have been studying video of the gushing oil plumes in an attempt to revise BP's initial estimate of 5,000 barrels per day. Their analysis, released this morning, says we're likely looking at more like 12,000 to 19,000 barrels per day, which means that as of May 17 some 260,000 to 540,000 barrels of crude had flowed into the ocean. That means at minimum, this disaster surpassed the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster a full ten days ago.

You can watch the live feed of the ongoing top kill via our prior coverage here.

[New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal]

Plus, Bill Nye explains: What the #&$% is a top kill?

The Coast Guard gave BP the go-ahead this morning, and the latest attempt to seal off the Gulf oil leak that is quickly turning into the biggest ecological disaster in history began at 2 p.m. eastern time. And as BP scrambled to get its controversial "top kill" underway, the media scrambled to figure out exactly how to describe this riser-capping procedure to the public.

But (perhaps unexpectedly) CNN went directly to the best possible source for all things technical, a video explanation so thorough that we've included it below. The top kill, as explained by Bill Nye The Science Guy.

Of course, the chances of the top kill succeeding are good but not great; BP's CEO admits the chances of stopping the oil flow with a drilling mud/concrete one-two punch sit somewhere between 60% and 70%. If it fails, it could make the environmental mess even worse, releasing the toxic materials present in drilling mud -- which can be a variety of things but usually includes some trace amounts of elements like zinc, nickel, chromium, copper, lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury -- into the Gulf's ecosystem. Check out the live feed of the top kill below and keep your fingers crossed.

If the top kill doesn't work, BP will have to turn to yet another backup plan. Right now, it seems that plan is to use what's known as a low marine riser package (LMRP) to try to seal off the flow of seawater into the well. Even if engineers can't keep the oil in, they might at least be able to keep the seawater out, preventing the formation of the methane ice that thwarted the earlier effort of deploying the containment dome.

Why hasn't BP already deployed the LMRP? That's unclear. In fact -- and we're not trying to demonize here, but it is getting a bit annoying -- BP doesn't seem very receptive to ideas coming from outside the company. The public has drummed up a range of solutions, everything from deploying oil absorbent materials laced with petrol-eating microbes to the SQUID, an admittedly condom-like system that seems like it could quickly help contain the mess (perhaps it's worth noting that the success rate for the average Trojan is better than 60%).

BP says it could be a couple of days before we know if the top kill was a success. If not, it's on to the next idea (which happens to sound a lot like most of the old ideas). Since BP doesn't seem to be doing much thinking outside of the containment dome, feel free to share your leak-plugging schemes in the comments.

[CNN, Fast Company, Discovery News]