- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New leak volume report
Posted on 5/14/10 at 10:41 am to BatonRougeRugby
Posted on 5/14/10 at 10:41 am to BatonRougeRugby
5,000 barrels per day @ 42 gallons per barrel = 145.83 gallons per minute = 0.325 cubic feet per second.
50,000 barrels per day would be 1,458.33 gallons per minute or 3.25 cubic feet per second (obviously).
The current plan is to insert tubing into the discontinuity shown on the most recent footage. One of the articles that I read asserted they will be going in with 6" dia. material, so this opening must be greater than 6" wide at it's narrowest point unless it will be pried open during this process (doubtful).
I know it is not regularly shaped, but absent any information about the split's geometry I'll use a circular 6" nozzle for an example which has a cross section of 0.196 square feet.
Approximate the fluid's velocity dividing the flow rate by the nozzle area. This yields a rough estimate which doesn't account for many unknowns.
Low number case @ 5,000 BPD, V = (0.325/0.196) = 1.66 feet per second through the opening.
High number case @ 50,000 BPD, V = (3.25/0.196) = 16.6 feet per second.
I went back and looked at the video several times and I think it lies between these numbers.
Anybody else want to take a wild arse guess at it?
50,000 barrels per day would be 1,458.33 gallons per minute or 3.25 cubic feet per second (obviously).
The current plan is to insert tubing into the discontinuity shown on the most recent footage. One of the articles that I read asserted they will be going in with 6" dia. material, so this opening must be greater than 6" wide at it's narrowest point unless it will be pried open during this process (doubtful).
I know it is not regularly shaped, but absent any information about the split's geometry I'll use a circular 6" nozzle for an example which has a cross section of 0.196 square feet.
Approximate the fluid's velocity dividing the flow rate by the nozzle area. This yields a rough estimate which doesn't account for many unknowns.
Low number case @ 5,000 BPD, V = (0.325/0.196) = 1.66 feet per second through the opening.
High number case @ 50,000 BPD, V = (3.25/0.196) = 16.6 feet per second.
I went back and looked at the video several times and I think it lies between these numbers.
Anybody else want to take a wild arse guess at it?
1
Posted on 5/14/10 at 10:44 am to Python
Two weeks ago I learned that the new estimate was 40K bbls per day. At that time I thought hat it was announced publicly. I was incorrect. I was surprised that it has taken this long to be made public.
Posted on 5/14/10 at 10:53 am to Python
quote:
So two pages in and we can confirm that nobody knows how much is leaking. Just what I thought
Nobody can. It can only be estimated.
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:00 am to Placebeaux
quote:
Nobody can. It can only be estimated.
Actually they can. And if the pricks at BP would release more video they would be ablr to get damn close to the correct figure.
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:05 am to TigerFred
quote:
Two weeks ago I learned that the new estimate was 40K bbls per day. At that time I thought hat it was announced publicly. I was incorrect. I was surprised that it has taken this long to be made public.
I think BP and others knew this as early as that Wednesday when they had the 9 pm presser saying the number was revised up to 5k bpd.
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:15 am to reverendotis
quote:
145.83 gallons per minute
I'll bite. I've pumped a lot of water in my day working with a pipeline contractor doing hydostatic testing. Our fill pumps, impeller type, through a 6" fill line, would put up 1,800 gpm against a head of 250 psi. I am no maven of fluid dynamics...but considering the well head pressure, pressure differential, and the size of the orifice...I would have to consider that the above figure is very conservative.
Thoughts?
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:20 am to Rantavious
A 6" trash pump can pump up to 1400 gpm at a max head of 120 ft.
I believe that well head is pumping out 5 times what they have been reporting. So I am not surprised to hear that it's 50,000 bbls a day instead of 5000 bbls a day
I believe that well head is pumping out 5 times what they have been reporting. So I am not surprised to hear that it's 50,000 bbls a day instead of 5000 bbls a day
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:22 am to oilfieldtiger
Tigerdog83 must have read his TPH update this AM...
If you take a risk analysis course that teaches estimating, one of the first things you learn is to conduct a reality check.
Reality check-
1. Strong wells in GOM are in 20K-30K bpd range. Those wells are completed to optimize flow.
2. This well was not completed and it is likely flowing up the annulus. Meaning NOT optimized...
3. They are in multiphase flow- Pretty hard to make a calculation based on a short video...
So reality check tells me- I wouldn't listen to the computer module from Purdue... There are several unkowns that could cause his calculations to be off considerably.
It would be interesting to know if the software runs a Monte Carlo simulation and how he determines the P10-P90 parameters. Does it take into account PVT or is his model based on atmospheric conditions. I also wonder if his model considers current and viscosity differentials. Tough to do with multi-phase flow in a partial video segement....
I wouldn't put too much merit into those estimations. It might be higher than 5000 bbls... I don't know... But I'd make a strong wager it's no where near 70K and probably less than 30K...
If you take a risk analysis course that teaches estimating, one of the first things you learn is to conduct a reality check.
Reality check-
1. Strong wells in GOM are in 20K-30K bpd range. Those wells are completed to optimize flow.
2. This well was not completed and it is likely flowing up the annulus. Meaning NOT optimized...
3. They are in multiphase flow- Pretty hard to make a calculation based on a short video...
So reality check tells me- I wouldn't listen to the computer module from Purdue... There are several unkowns that could cause his calculations to be off considerably.
It would be interesting to know if the software runs a Monte Carlo simulation and how he determines the P10-P90 parameters. Does it take into account PVT or is his model based on atmospheric conditions. I also wonder if his model considers current and viscosity differentials. Tough to do with multi-phase flow in a partial video segement....
I wouldn't put too much merit into those estimations. It might be higher than 5000 bbls... I don't know... But I'd make a strong wager it's no where near 70K and probably less than 30K...
This post was edited on 5/14/10 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:23 am to Decatur
BP knew. The Obama administration was part of the decision in holding the information back in an attempt to avoid mass hysteria.
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:30 am to chauncey1
quote:
It might be higher than 5000 bbls... I don't know... But I'd make a strong wager it's know where near 70K and probably less than 30K...
i'd tend to agree w/ you on this.
you can do the computational analysis by looking at the video, but if you're not able to include any reservoir parameters or flow geometry, then it's just part of the story.
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:35 am to TigerFred
quote:
BP knew. The Obama administration was part of the decision in holding the information back in an attempt to avoid mass hysteria.
Coast Guard and NOAA also share the blame.
Shame, shame
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:43 am to Venicetiger
quote:
Actually they can. And if the pricks at BP would release more video they would be ablr to get damn close to the correct figure.
It can be somewhat accurate but not precise. The cock cuzzies are lying and trying to cover this up(dispersants).
my estimate
Posted on 5/14/10 at 9:46 pm to Placebeaux
Posted on 5/14/10 at 10:43 pm to MC123
quote:NPR always says the sky is falling. They are alarmists and love to embellish. It's like listening to a good novel read aloud. They thrive on things that can neither be proved or disproved.
well if that is accurate:
50,000 barrels X 42 gal/barrel = 2.1 million gallons leaked per day
times roughly 20 days since the leak began = 42 MILLION GALLONS LEAKED so far
HOLY shite
Posted on 5/15/10 at 7:41 am to tigerpawl
Everone has theory
And most have an agenda
And others say its evaporating
who knows, but the only thing anyone should be focused on right now is stopping the leak
And most have an agenda
And others say its evaporating
quote:
The model shows that about 35 percent of a hypothetical 4.8 million gallon spill of light Louisiana crude oil released in conditions similar to those found in the Gulf now would evaporate.
who knows, but the only thing anyone should be focused on right now is stopping the leak
Posted on 5/15/10 at 7:58 am to Kajungee
Gee, if left on the surface some of it would evaporate. How's it suppose to evaporate with dispersants being placed at the source.
Posted on 5/15/10 at 10:53 am to notiger1997
quote:
I really don't know what to believe, but NPR is not going to be my source if I am looking for facts
Oh, come on. This is getting so old. Over the years, I've found NPR to be just as accurate as other news sources. There are, of course, no demagogues ranting and raving about this or that and it, perhaps, doesn't have the highest "entertainment" value, but it is a good, sober source of news.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News