Hundred-Ton Dome To Collect Oil Spill 565
eldavojohn writes "After failing to contain the Gulf oil spill any other way, a massive containment dome had the finishing touches put on yesterday. It amounts to a giant concrete-and-steel box made by Wild Well Control that is designed to siphon the crude oil away from the water. They expect an 85 percent collection with this device. It's not a pretty situation as Google Earth illustrates."
Re:American Chernobyl (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Man. (Score:2, Informative)
What's wrong with offshore drilling? Please tell me you aren't someone who is going to condemn an entire industry because of one accident. No human enterprise ever attempted managed to get underway without mistakes. The important thing here is to learn what went wrong and take steps to ensure that it doesn't happen again in the future.
For better or worse human civilization can not exist without environmental impact. The knee-jerk reaction to this unfortunate incident by certain politicians is disappointing to say the least.
Re:And - It WORKS!!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Should have had these waiting on the shelf (Score:3, Informative)
Don't these people even think about risk mitigation?
They did. They had a blowout valve in place that was supposed to kill the oil flow. It failed. Not something that has ever happened before and not something that could have been predicted.
We could conduct offshore drilling for the next hundred years and probably not see another failure via this route.
Re:And - It WORKS!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
No, the dome isn't even lowered yet. The first leak was sealed using submersibles. Furthermore, it isn't expected that sealing that leak will do much (if anything) to reduce the total outflow.
Re:Man. (Score:5, Informative)
I'd like to know how this dome is supposed to work in rough seas. The oil is going to be contained within the dome and brought to a surface ship. What happens when that surface ship can't maintain position due to inclement weather? Hurricane season starts in another few weeks....
Probably the same way the original rig [wikipedia.org], which was a semi-submersible, dynamically positioned platform, was controlled: via a system of computer-controlled engines which maintain the vessel's position over the drill site.
Re:Man. (Score:4, Informative)
What's wrong with offshore drilling? Please tell me you aren't someone who is going to condemn an entire industry because of one accident. No human enterprise ever attempted managed to get underway without mistakes. The important thing here is to learn what went wrong and take steps to ensure that it doesn't happen again in the future.
What went wrong was believing the the oil companies when they said they had a plan in the first place. When ever there's a mistake we get boned. Every time - this isn't just an isolated case - the industry has a 100% track record with major oils spills. The contingency plan that was supposed to keep this from happening didn't get implemented or just wasn't sufficient.
For better or worse human civilization can not exist without environmental impact. The knee-jerk reaction to this unfortunate incident by certain politicians is disappointing to say the least.
It is unfortunate that the knee-jerk reaction of a certain number of politicians is going to be to defend the oil companies and their actions will predictably be enough to keep us from making any real progress.
Re:what are the chemical dispersants? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You won't mind if I poop in your yard, then? (Score:3, Informative)
BP can handle it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7640072/BP-Gulf-clean-up-could-cost-200m.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Cost of clean up, $200 million
http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2010/May/the-gulf-of-mexico-oil-disaster.html [investmentu.com]
$2-7 billion
BP
Revenue - $246.1 billion (2009)
Operating income - $26.43 billion (2009)
Net income - $16.58 billion (2009)
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/B/bp_fourth_quarter_and_full_year_2009_results.pdf [bp.com]
Fun things to watch (Score:5, Informative)
Fun things to watch in the news coverage:
Pressure creep. A gross estimate is about a PSI per foot of well depth. Its unlikely the actual pressure at the bottom of the well could exceed 20K PSI. Whats squirting out the top, order of magnitude less. Maybe, extreme cases, you can go plus or minus 50%, maybe. So, people whom know what they're talking about, knowing the drilling mud was around 18 pounds per gallon, and roughly how deep the well is, pretty much know how much pressure the stuff is boiling out of the well. However, the breathless journalists and political hacks feed on each other and one up each other for dramatic reasons. The wildest screamers blew thru 100K psi about two days ago, and I think we're well on our way to nuclear fusion pressure range in journalist-land.
Flow rate creep. An entire modest oilfield might produce 100K barrels per day. Real flow rate out of this well is probably in the range of 2K to 10K bpd. The screaming journalists and hacks recently blew thru 60K bpd, some beyond 200K bpd. We are rapidly approaching the point where the journalists-types will report figures better suited to the entire production of the country of saudi arabia, etc.
Unit changes. The flow is probably a modest 5K BPD. That doesn't sound as cool, so a couple days ago the journalists switched to gallons per day. As the flow decreases, I expect the screamers to switch to pounds per day, finally maybe milliliters per day, just to keep the numbers up.
Flow rate exaggeration. 5K BPD is like a firehose, vaguely. Journalists, over the past few days, have worked their way up on top of each other from adjectives like "dribbling" up to descriptions more in line with a Saturn-V rocket motor at full blast. Its going to flutter the "dome" around like a garden hose hitting a gnat. Uh huh, Yeah right.
Re:what are the chemical dispersants? (Score:5, Informative)
Sorbitol esters. Basically modified sugar alcohols. An example of this class of compounds is the Polysorbate 80 that is used to emulsify mild fats in ice cream.
Extremely biodegradable and pretty unlikely to cause any environmental damage.
Re:You won't mind if I poop in your yard, then? (Score:2, Informative)
Of course they won't pay for it all, but you said that they can't afford to pay for it, well they can.
BP could afford to pay every last penny for the damage done and income lost, with 26 billion in income and over 236 billion in assets they can afford it.
With BP's record here in Alaska of spills and botched cleanups someone should push them into paying for all the damage done in the Gulf, and go after their contractors and everyone else involved.
BP really should only be on the hook for 65% of the costs.
RIG Deepwater Horizon rig owner
BP 65% working interest (operator)
APC 25% working interest (operator)
Mitsui 10% working interest (operator)
CAM Manufacturer of blowout preventer (BOP)
HAL Provided cementing services to the rig
Anadarko Petroleum Corp (APC.N) - The Houston company owns a 25 percent nonoperating interest in the well.
It was built by Hyundai Heavy Industries Shipyard, Ulsan, South Korea in 2001.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30850121/Deepwater-Horizon [scribd.com]
If BP can't afford to clean it all up, then they can liquidate and other Supermajors can buy up the assets after the claimants sell it all.
Re:Man. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually they really where prepared pretty well for it.
There where and are many thousands of feet of booms prepositioned and ready to go.
What no one really seems to be talking about is what happened to the blow out preventor?
That is the huge question and no one really seems to be asking.
This should have never happened. The blow out preventor has no less then three ways to shut off the oil and ALL of them have failed?
This has never happened before! Every rig has one of these and if their is some design flaw it really must be found now.
That and the explosion that took out the rig was also not an every day kind of thing!
I see all these flames about the oil industry which may be valid but may not be. Truth is if you dive a car you depend on that oil. So less heat and more light is what is really needed IMHO.
Oh and BP is going to pay. And since they are not a US company you can bet that Congress will sock it to them big time. The US companies will love that since it will cost them nothing .
Oh and please don't mention clean energy in reference to this. I am sick of hearing idiot energy policy statements.
Solar and wind replace at best coal and natural gas. Only 3% or so of the Electricity in the US is made from oil.
Solar and wind do not compete with Oil at all.
Electric cars which in theory could reduce our Oil use are not popular yet because of the cost of purchase and range. It has nothing to do with not having enough electricity to run them. Not yet anyway if they sell big then yes the cost of electricity could come into play but we are not there yet.
Solar and wind can reduce carbon by replacing coal. Frankly as can nuclear and even Natural gas since natural gas produces less co2 than coal but not zero. It does nothing to reduce oil at this time.
Electric vehicles are good in the city and for some users. Should make great second cars for a lot of people.
Cost of the vehicle and not the cost of electricity are the problem with those as well as range. We will see how the Leaf does. I hope they do well.
In the end if you want to be part of the solution and not just bitch about it.
1. Car pool.
2. Get a small car.
3. Check your tire pressure.
4. Clean out your trunk.
5. Use mass transit if it is an option.
Or you could actually try and ration your own gas. Decide how many gallons you can use a week and stick to it.
If you are short then you stay home from the movies that night, don't drive to the mall to shop, combine trips.
Really folks this ranting really does nothing.
Re:what are the chemical dispersants? (Score:4, Informative)
The gulf coast is going to have oil contamination for years regardless of whether the oil is dispersed or not. Many years of lower concentration contamination is likely favorable to saturating the swamps and estuaries with oil now.
Further, my understanding is that agitated dispersed oil is likely to spread out in the full 3 dimensions of the gulf of Mexico, which isn't good, but it's less bad than having it bob to the surface or concentrate on the bottom where it bio-accumulates in the few deep sea bottom feeders.
Remember when your high school chemistry teacher told you that dilution isn't the solution to pollution? Well when containment isn't an option - like with an oil spill, dilution is preferable to concentration.
Re:You won't mind if I poop in your yard, then? (Score:3, Informative)
Really? so the oil industry is paying the full costs to clean this up? 100% costs, they are writing a check to the Feds for all the costs of the coast guard, navy, etc?
Re:You won't mind if I poop in your yard, then? (Score:4, Informative)
Speaking of food, most people in the industrial nations also _eat_ petroleum. In the USA the ratio appears to be 13 kcal petroleum energy to produce 1 kcal of food, according to: http://www.jhsph.edu/bin/g/k/What_You_Eat.pdf [jhsph.edu] (25:1 for producing meat).
I'm not sure if there's enough organic food to go around, at least in the developed countries (there isn't in some undeveloped countries either).
It is possible to produce lots of crops per area by planting many different types of crops in the same area ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercropping [wikipedia.org] ) but this is usually more human labor intensive - machines don't tend to cope with that sort of thing as well.
Re:You won't mind if I poop in your yard, then? (Score:1, Informative)
DUH, Coal will fuel a ship easily.
Wow, you oil lovers really have no clue to alternatives do you.
Re:what are the chemical dispersants? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Should have had these waiting on the shelf (Score:4, Informative)
Well of course, you dingbat (Score:3, Informative)
Let me tell you why your claim is busted thinking.
There are hundreds of spills that you don't hear about that could have been major spills. However, the oil companies have detailed plans and procedures for how to deal with them. As a result, these spills don't become major ones, and they don't count in your grand analysis. Of course the companies have a 100% track record with major oil spills - but what percentage of "potentially" major spills do they make up? You might instead say 99% of potentially major spills are successfully contained.
When a major spill happens people like to point and say, "Oh - they have no plan!", like there's some freaking awesome magic plan wand the oil companies could wave over the situation. Thing is, once it's a "major spill", there's no good plan. There's no easy way to deal with loose crude in large volumes on land, let alone 5000 feet under the surface of the ocean. The plan is exactly what they're doing - booms, dispersants, and now this tool they're going to try. Failing that they dig another well.
"The contingency plan that was supposed to keep this from happening didn't get implemented or just wasn't sufficient."
That remains to be determined. It wasn't just one plan - there were redundant precautions. Multiple equipment failures might have overcame the perfectly sound plan that works on thousands of rigs today. Maybe they got a pressure kick that nobody has ever encountered before. No matter how many redundancies you put in something, there is ALWAYS a scenario to failure. There are something like 5600 rigs drilling at present. They've got their shit together, or you'd be knee-deep in crude.
Re:You won't mind if I poop in your yard, then? (Score:4, Informative)
Man, you do love you some strawmen. GP's post is clear, with the reference to RR and the solar panels, that problem is one of will, not money. Also,
No, the GP said that we need another Manhattan Project to solve our energy woes. I pointed out that DoE's annual budget exceeds the total cost of the Manhattan Project, thus it would seem apparent to anyone that another project on the scope of the Manhattan project will not even scratch the surface.
Besides, the focus on solar rather misses the point. Solar is next to useless for mobile applications (ships, trucks, planes) that are the primary consumer of oil derived hydrocarbons. If you want to look at this from a scientific standpoint instead of a political one, which energy source do you see on the horizon with sufficient energy density to displace petroleum in this application?
I'm sure there's plenty of money to be found elsewhere, especially when, as GP said, you don't have to be occupying half a dozen countries at once.
No amount of money is going to change the fact that hydrocarbons are the most energy dense non-nuclear fuel.
Re:Man. (Score:4, Informative)
"The blowout preventer failing is unheard of in the oil industry."
A 1999 government report found at least 117 failures. Amazing what you can do with a simple google search.
http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/319/319AA.pdf [mms.gov]
Anyone who says otherwise is clueless or lying or both.
Re:Alternatives? I'd like to see them tried... (Score:3, Informative)
YET. Calling the matter closed when the vast majority of the oil spill has yet to reach shore is vastly too premature.
There is no particular evidence that the oil spill is inexorably destined to reach land. The spill size is currently shrinking due to various containment efforts. And likewise calling it a world changing environmental catastrophe is vastly premature when the evidence of damage is slight indeed.
The Brown Pelican, which only just recently was taken off the endangered species list, does not.
Oh poppycock. This does not endanger the Brown Pelican - a bird whose range covers the east, gulf and west coasts of the US, and extends all the way south to Chile.
And over the entire gulf. And filtered through ground sediments, not pumped up at high pressure through a bore hole. Really, people keep bringing up natural seepage, but it really just shows the contrast between nature and off shore oil rigs.
Filtered through sediments? Nonsense. You can see globs of it rising to the surface in seepage areas.
The ecosystem, as in the particular ecosystem that exists there today, may not. Nature has recovered from the annihilation of over 50% of all species in a (geologically) brief period of time, but plenty of ecosystems were lost in the process.
Nature and ecosystems are not static; they are in constant flux and have a high degree of resiliency and adaptability. The only real danger is that man's population growth extends to a point where it strips the planet of its biosphere to the point where recovery in not possible.
Re:what are the chemical dispersants? (Score:5, Informative)
The article does not report this, but other articles have noted that this oil is mostly mixed with water (more than previous spills). This could give hope that more birds than normal can actually be saved.
Re:Should have had these waiting on the shelf (Score:4, Informative)
Do you have a citation for that? Because if that's true, that's pretty frickin' serious.