My Solution to the Gulf Oil Disaster: Sequestering the Oil INSIDE Floating Tubes

[metamars]

When life give you lemons, you really should make lemonade. In this case, we're getting lots of black goo, and so we should make.....black goo sausages! Allow me to explain. I'm not talking about booms...


After reading this, today, I'm leaning towards believing that the oil flow will not be stopped, not until whatever underground cavern it's tapping is mostly emptied. So, the question becomes, what to do with all that oil?


My answer is to basically store it in balloons, which are made of the 'same' material used to create inflatable buildings. (Yes, there really are such things. Back in the day, the 'Busch Bubble' housed a gymnasium for Rutgers University, at Busch campus.)

These balloons would be long, tube shaped affairs. To minimize damage from leaks, like sausage, they'd be pinched off every 100 yards, or so. Because the oil+water mixture would be less dense than just water, these tubes would float. They would thus constitute de facto barges, which could be towed towards the shore, and processed as facilities at the shore allowed.

OK, I don't know how robust current inflatable materials are, and how they would handle both the corrosion from whatever chemicals are in the oil goo, plus I don't know what temperature the oil is at - if an article I read is correct, it may be 400 deg. at it's source. So, if the inflatable tubing material can't handle whatever temperature would be involved with no cooling, then it will have to be cooled. Fortunately, there's lots of water around to passively cool the oil goo....

If the oil-filled tubes pile up at shore facilities, to protect them during hurricanes and other major storms, some concrete walls may have to be dropped into the sea, ballast added, and the tubes sunk into the channels between the concrete walls.

This public message has been brought to you, free of charge, from metamars!

 

[EHocking]

When life give you lemons, you really should make lemonade. In this case, we're getting lots of black goo, and so we should make.....black goo sausages! Allow me to explain. I'm not talking about booms...


After reading this, today,

I wouldn't put too much faith in that article. The author is talking mostly out of his arse and demonstrably knows little about well engineering.

I'm leaning towards believing that the oil flow will not be stopped, not until whatever underground cavern it's tapping is mostly emptied.

There is no cavern of oil that is being emptied. This lack of geological knowledge is usually spouted by dowsers who also tend to know sod all about geology.

So, the question becomes, what to do with all that oil?

My answer is to basically store it in balloons, which are made of the 'same' material used to create inflatable buildings. (Yes, there really are such things. Back in the day, the 'Busch Bubble' housed a gymnasium for Rutgers University, at Busch campus.)

These balloons would be long, tube shaped affairs. To minimize damage from leaks, like sausage, they'd be pinched off every 100 yards, or so. Because the oil+water mixture would be less dense than just water, these tubes would float...

And just how will you be piping the oil into these sausages?

If BP were able to achieve a seal on the wellhead, we wouldn't still have oil and gas leaking to the ocean.

Also, remember that there is a HUGE amount of gas in the fluid which will expand as it rises. In fact it will expand at a greater rate the closer it gets to sealevel. Have you calculated the pressure that your balloons will need to contain and/or the volume that they would need to expand to to contain the gas expansion?

 

[Tricky]

Another problem that is overlooked in so many of the "solutions" and that it the areal extent of the spill. The spill covers a couple of thousand square miles. How many sausages would it take to cover that area? Are they available right now?

(And as a kind of irony, they would probably be made from petrochemicals.)

 

[metamars]

I wouldn't put too much faith in that article. The author is talking mostly out of his arse and demonstrably knows little about well engineering.There is no cavern of oil that is being emptied. This lack of geological knowledge is usually spouted by dowsers who also tend to know sod all about geology.And just how will you be piping the oil into these sausages?

If BP were able to achieve a seal on the wellhead, we wouldn't still have oil and gas leaking to the ocean.

Also, remember that there is a HUGE amount of gas in the fluid which will expand as it rises. In fact it will expand at a greater rate the closer it gets to sealevel. Have you calculated the pressure that your balloons will need to contain and/or the volume that they would need to expand to to contain the gas expansion?

I hadn't really thought about gas. However, my thinking was to suction the oil (mixed with water and, as you say, gas) near the spot where it's leaking, right near the sea floor. It's not inserted into the balloons there, though. It's inserted at or slightly above sea level . (I'm thinking via a makeshift factory made on top of an aircraft carrier.)

If necessary, they can simply bleed off the gasses from the mixture, before inserting the leftover goo inside the balloon. It'd be preferable to separate the water from everything else, also, before insertion into the balloons, but that's not a priority. The priority is sequestering 'it', so it can be dealt with more carefully later on.

BTW, I used to sleep on a water mattress. That's not a water bed, which only has 1 chamber. Rather, it was mostly a set of 4 water logs or tubes. While some of these leaked after a period of many years, they were generally robust. So, there are already tubes being manufactured to hold water. However, I'm thinking much longer, and width about the same width of a barrel. The ones in my bed only had a diameter of about 7 inches or so.

I don't like water beds, but my water mattress was wonderful.

 

[metamars]

Another problem that is overlooked in so many of the "solutions" and that it the areal extent of the spill. The spill covers a couple of thousand square miles. How many sausages would it take to cover that area? Are they available right now?

(And as a kind of irony, they would probably be made from petrochemicals.)

I was really only thinking about capturing the new oil that is leaking, going forward. Capturing what is already released into the environment, and widespread, is another matter.

They should have given me a call as soon as this tragedy began.

 

[LTC8K6]

The Dutch apparently could have captured most of the oil...

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/06/16/more-stuck-on-stupid-epa-vs-the-dutch/

 

[metamars]

The Dutch apparently could have captured most of the oil...

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/06/16/more-stuck-on-stupid-epa-vs-the-dutch/

I think these are more useful for a point source of oil on the water surface, such as a leaking tanker, no? For a point source a mile under the water, the oil is going to cover a much wider area by the time it breaks the surface.

Even so, if the story is true, and the skimmers would have been useful, somebody should be fired, and Obama should apologize for his Administration's ineptness.

Then again, there's a lot of stuff that Obama, the Dems, and the Repubs should apologize for, but never will.

 

[The Fool]

Mate...if you can get the oil and pump it into anything at all forget about stupid sausages....pump it into oil tankers and take the stuff to refineries.

sigh...

 

[Prometheus]

I wouldn't put too much faith in that article. The author is talking mostly out of his arse and demonstrably knows little about well engineering.There is no cavern of oil that is being emptied. This lack of geological knowledge is usually spouted by dowsers who also tend to know sod all about geology.And just how will you be piping the oil into these sausages?

If BP were able to achieve a seal on the wellhead, we wouldn't still have oil and gas leaking to the ocean.

Also, remember that there is a HUGE amount of gas in the fluid which will expand as it rises. In fact it will expand at a greater rate the closer it gets to sealevel. Have you calculated the pressure that your balloons will need to contain and/or the volume that they would need to expand to to contain the gas expansion?

Was any of the author's description of the well's engineering or his assessment of the likeliness that the entire well would collapse, accurate?

 

[EHocking]

I hadn't really thought about gas. However, my thinking was to suction the oil (mixed with water and, as you say, gas) near the spot where it's leaking, right near the sea floor..)...

How is your scheme different from the current one employed by BP?

BP's scheme uses equipment that already exists and has been in use for decades that can contain, separate, flare, store and transport the oil and gas safely directly from the subsea wellhead.

It's not inserted into the balloons there, though. It's inserted at or slightly above sea level .

See previous...

 

[metamars]

Mate...if you can get the oil and pump it into anything at all forget about stupid sausages....pump it into oil tankers and take the stuff to refineries.

sigh...

I didn't want to take the time to look into a supertanker capacity vs. the flow rate. I just did, and a supertanker can hold 2 million barrels, so yeah, if the flow rate doesn't surge, that would be better.

However,

There are abrasives still present, swirling flow will create hot spots of wear and this erosion is relentless and will always be present until eventually it wears away enough material to break it's way out. It will slowly eat the bop away especially at the now pinched off riser head and it will flow more and more. Perhaps BP can outrun or keep up with that out flow with various suckage methods for a period of time, but eventually the well will win that race, just how long that race will be?...no one really knows....However now?...there are other problems that a down hole leak will and must produce that will compound this already bad situation.

I've also seen video of oil seeping from the ocean floor. Doesn't seem like a structurally sound area....

My conclusion is that I don't know that there won't be a surge, and parking extra tankers around for a surge that may never come doesn't sound all that practical.

What if there's a surge to a million barrels per day? We can't surge supertankers into the area. They either have to be nearby, or else the oil goes into the sea.


The author is skeptical that BP can always stay ahead of the well flow increases, but if he's right, then (assuming continued failure to stop the flow from the well, completely) there is no solution, other than cleaning up the mess, after the fact.

Basically, I'm arguing that using tubing is more easily scalable than using tankers, if you factor in economics and the uncertainty of a surge.

 

[EHocking]

Was any of the author's description of the well's engineering or his assessment of the likeliness that the entire well would collapse, accurate?

In short no.

Either his understanding of well construction is practically non-existent, or his writing skills makes it look as though it is.

It looks to me that all the poster has done is to read a bunch of blogs and internet rumours, most of which have not understood the engineering either.

 

[EHocking]

...that using tubing is more easily scalable than using tankers, if you factor in economics and the uncertainty of a surge.

I disagree.

Tankers are already in place in the GoM.

Your "sausages" only exist in your mind.

Which is more "scalable", bringing in an extra tanker that exists in reality, or building more non-existent containment socks?

 

[metamars]

I disagree.

Tankers are already in place in the GoM.

Do you mean at the site?

 

[EHocking]

Do you mean at the site?

Have been for weeks.

To reduce surface vessel "clutter" they're using the largest:

• Masschusets Tanker - which can hold 140,000 bbls (1 week's production)
• Overseas Cascade - 230,000 bbls

And of course there is the capacity of the Q4000 and the Enterprise themselves and then in July, for the more permanent collection solution
2 Floating Production, Storage and Offtake (FPSO) vessels with two shuttle tankers.

 

[metamars]

Have been for weeks.

To reduce surface vessel "clutter" they're using the largest:

• Masschusets Tanker - which can hold 140,000 bbls (1 week's production)
• Overseas Cascade - 230,000 bbls

And of course there is the capacity of the Q4000 and the Enterprise themselves and then in July, for the more permanent collection solution
2 Floating Production, Storage and Offtake (FPSO) vessels with two shuttle tankers.

So if the oil surges to BP's worse case estimate of 300,000 barrels per day, how long until these 2 tankers are filled up? Less than 2 days, correct? What, then? (Also, do you know the grand total capacity slated to be onhand in July?)

BTW, at Firedoglake.com, somebody has claimed that the military has used tubes for years, and that they work.

 

[EHocking]

So if the oil surges to BP's worse case estimate of 300,000 barrels per day, how long until these 2 tankers are filled up? Less than 2 days, correct?

Irrelevant - that is NOT the estimated flowrate for this well, it is a theoretical worst case scenario in BPs Oils Spill Response Plan.

What, then? (Also, do you know the grand total capacity slated to be onhand in July?)

I suggest you acquaint yourself with the BP website, it's not difficult to find (hint www.bp.com), then view the technical updates on the subject. It'll save us a lot of posting here...

The answer is over 1 million bbls.

BTW, at Firedoglake.com, somebody has claimed that the military has used tubes for years, and that they work.

Any actual cite for the actual system the military uses, or are you just happy to take some anonymous poster's word for it?

 

[metamars]

Irrelevant - that is NOT the estimated flowrate for this well, it is a theoretical worst case scenario in BPs Oils Spill Response Plan.
I suggest you acquaint yourself with the BP website, it's not difficult to find (hint www.bp.com), then view the technical updates on the subject. It'll save us a lot of posting here...

Please tell us how you know that this won't develop into a case worse than BP's theoretical worst case scenario.

The answer is over 1 million bbls.

So if it surges to a rate of 300,000 barrels per day, then there's enough capacity to handle 3 days' worth of leakage. What then?

Any actual cite for the actual system the military uses,

No

or are you just happy to take some anonymous poster's word for it?

No, which you would have discovered for yourself if you had read my response directly under the firedoglake post that I link to.

 

[Lurker]

Don't know about the exact composition of the oil coming out of the ground there but I would imagine it has some strong chemicals in it (possibly even H2S) which would attack any rubber bladder and destroy it pretty quick. I suppose one could use a rubber that is more resistant to oil but even then I am not sure how well that would work out. I note that we store oil in large metal tanks, not large rubber bladders. I surmise there is a good reason for that.

Plus if you can direct the oil into a tube then why not into a riser to the surface where it can be shipped away? Makes more sense than thousands of bladders floating around in the Gulf.

Anyway, a novel idea on your part.

 

[EHocking]

Please tell us how you know that this won't develop into a case worse than BP's theoretical worst case scenario.

I don't - and neither do you.

But fortunately there are experts in the field that are doing the work for us.

So if it surges to a rate of 300,000 barrels per day, then there's enough capacity to handle 3 days' worth of leakage. What then?

Did you view the Technical Briefing, or read the transcript of same?

It tells you there.

No, which you would have discovered for yourself if you had read my response directly under the firedoglake post that I link to.

Oh, I had checked your link so I was quite aware that your support is merely from unverified internet rumour.

ETA: He's probably talking about absorbant booms.