- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
4 inch pipe to contain a 21 inch pipe?
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:01 pm
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:01 pm
What gives?
I saw article talking of 6 inch pipe inserted with rubber stopper.
Are these two different ideas, or does the 4 inch pipe have a stopper as well?
I saw article talking of 6 inch pipe inserted with rubber stopper.
Are these two different ideas, or does the 4 inch pipe have a stopper as well?
This post was edited on 5/16/10 at 9:06 pm
6
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:06 pm to KnoxvilleBerryTiger
If I'm not mistaken that is the riser pipe size.
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:06 pm to KnoxvilleBerryTiger
Curious myself.
I would love to know how 85% of the oil will be retrieved by a pipe so small, when compared the larger pipe?
I read somewhere BP is not willing to discuss any of the volume details regarding extraction.
I would love to know how 85% of the oil will be retrieved by a pipe so small, when compared the larger pipe?
I read somewhere BP is not willing to discuss any of the volume details regarding extraction.
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:07 pm to KnoxvilleBerryTiger
I believe its a 6" pipe. I'm sure there is a reason for it....I would guess they feel the 6" pipe is capable of handling the volume and/or perhaps it was intensional to reduce the volume because thats what they could handle topside??????????????????
This post was edited on 5/16/10 at 9:08 pm
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:08 pm to back9Tiger
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:14 pm to Kickadawgitfeelsgood
quote:
BP is not willing to discuss any of the volume details regarding extraction
Don't want people to know how much money they are going to make during the extraction.
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:27 pm to 10ozMatt
Not interested in BP profits right now. I would rather keep the discussion on topic. Thanks for your cooperation.
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:29 pm to Kickadawgitfeelsgood
It could be as simple as thats all the ROV's could handle.
This post was edited on 5/16/10 at 9:31 pm
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:33 pm to MoreOrLes
good point, I guess that's better than nothing?
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:33 pm to Kickadawgitfeelsgood
quote:
Not interested in BP profits right now
I could give a crap about there profits as well. I was just explaining one reason why they might not be discussing volumes.
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:38 pm to Kickadawgitfeelsgood
quote:
I would love to know how 85% of the oil will be retrieved by a pipe so small, when compared the larger pipe
The pressure in the 21" pipe may only require a 4" pipe to withstand the current volumes. They could also be utilizing this size pipe as some sort of releif.
e.g. The pressure may be to great to completly plug successfully, however if they provide a 4" releif, it releives enough pressure to for the rubber stop remain in place. Also less oil they have to work with on the surface until the can get the permanent fix in place
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:39 pm to KnoxvilleBerryTiger
so, this link has a BP guy saying it will collect "most" of the oil?? How's that?
Also, this is the first I hear of the oil possibly having now actually entered a current to transport oil to Fla. and possibly East coast as well.
link
Also, this is the first I hear of the oil possibly having now actually entered a current to transport oil to Fla. and possibly East coast as well.
link
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:41 pm to KnoxvilleBerryTiger
They still have one more leak to go after I wonder what % that leak is repsonsible for? 25%???
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:43 pm to KnoxvilleBerryTiger
quote:
oil possibly having now actually entered a current to transport oil to Fla. and possibly East coast as well
loop current could be some scary shite for the florida keys.
I wonder how much of the underwater plume is headed that way and no one knows.
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:43 pm to KnoxvilleBerryTiger
you know, I sit here and wonder if these guys are just jerking our chain. I understand there are unknowns and variables in play. But, that's no excuse to give unclear information, and perhaps incomplete information.
They should be responsible for detailing there efforts MUCH better.
They should be responsible for detailing there efforts MUCH better.
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:45 pm to 10ozMatt
quote:
Don't want people to know how much money they are going to make during the extraction.
Probably dont want people to know the volume thats been spewing for 26 days now.
Its one thing to say one exxon valdez has been coming out or 3 Valdez has been put out in the Gulf.
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:46 pm to 10ozMatt
Underwater plumes headed West South West "Not very rapidly" is all I have read.
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:46 pm to Mudminnow
Oilfieldtiger answered this same question in another thread by saying:
quote:
e riser ID is probably 19.5". in any case, the well is not flowing at the maximum rate that the riser can handle, it just happens to be flowing out of the riser.
the max rate of 4 1/2" tbg is something in excess of 20k bbls per day.
the flow restriction is probably downhole, specifically w/ the flow coming up the annulus between the production casing and the previously set casing strings / liner.
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:48 pm to MoreOrLes
quote:
West South West
I hate the term West...camp in Cocodrie could be screwed!
Posted on 5/16/10 at 9:55 pm to 10ozMatt
Well I took it to mean that its moving west/ south of the "Incident Location". Thats good for La. bad for the loop current fla/east coast.
Still too soon to tell IMO
Still too soon to tell IMO
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News