- 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
re: 4 inch pipe to contain a 21 inch pipe?
Posted on 5/19/10 at 3:48 am to baytiger
Posted on 5/19/10 at 3:48 am to baytiger
quote:
baytiger
Honestly, I can't come back with scientific studies because, just like everything else on the optimistic side, the studies suggesting a low end are buried underneath thousands of high end stories because the high end stories are the ones that make good news.
FWIW, as of the beginning of May, 5000 barrels was the official estimate of the coast guard (and I still believe it is), but was recognized as likely being below the actual flow. However, there was also a chance that the flow less than that. The official possible range was 1,000-25,000 barrels a day with the chance of 50,000 if a series of events (that haven't happened) led to a worsening of a spill.
I still feel pretty comfortable saying it's between one and twenty five thousand barrels a day, but that's about it.
Also, I respect your work to actually learn about the situation and back your argument up with sources and facts. This is what this board was designed for.
I have a question for you. Do you think the flow per day is closer to 70,000 bbl/day or 5000 bbl/day, if you had to give your opinion?
P.S. sorry if the google comment seemed like a cop out, but it's true. Searching for low end statistics just pops up sarcastic articles mocking low end estimates and articles about how low end estimates are wrong. As of two weeks ago, google was still an effective means of finding info contrary to doomsday scenarios.
2
Posted on 5/19/10 at 3:56 am to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
I have a question for you. Do you think the flow per day is closer to 70,000 bbl/day or 5000 bbl/day, if you had to give your opinion?
the latter. the truth is usually in the middle ground.
but there's no way 5,000 bbl is accurate.
Posted on 5/19/10 at 6:15 am to baytiger
70,000...that's crazy. Did the scientist account for how much the annulars are closed, gas, etc.?
I wish they wouldn't speculate so much. Regardless of how much is coming out, we have a problem.
All this speculation doesn't serve to help fix the problem.
I wish they wouldn't speculate so much. Regardless of how much is coming out, we have a problem.
All this speculation doesn't serve to help fix the problem.
Posted on 5/19/10 at 6:26 am to baytiger
quote:
70,000 barrels a day
quote:
plus or minus 20 percent.
quote:
"back of the envelope"
quote:
20,000 to 100,000 barrels a day.
quote:
order of 26,500 barrels per day.
Looks like they all agree....
Posted on 5/19/10 at 8:35 am to baytiger
However then can get a pretty good estimate if better video and/or allowed closer to the spill.
There are various ways to calculate the oil coming out. The method used by NOAA in Seattle was not one of them.
The guy from Purdue is the foremost authority in the world regarding this type of video analyzing and forumula.
There are various ways to calculate the oil coming out. The method used by NOAA in Seattle was not one of them.
The guy from Purdue is the foremost authority in the world regarding this type of video analyzing and forumula.
Posted on 5/19/10 at 9:10 am to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
I still feel pretty comfortable saying it's between one and twenty five thousand barrels a day, but that's about it.
Since BP reported yesterday that the Insertion Tube was collecting 2,000 bpd, and oil is still leaking, can't we say with certainty that the well flow must be over 2,000 bpd?
Posted on 5/19/10 at 9:24 am to 10ozMatt
quote:
I could give a crap about there profits as well. I was just explaining one reason why they might not be discussing volumes.
There are many reasons why they may not be discussing the subject (liability concerns, equipment capacity, etc.) but they aren't making a profit off this well.
Posted on 5/19/10 at 9:25 am to LSUDad
quote:
Looks like they all agree....
they all agree it's higher than 5,000 bbl/day, and that was my point
Posted on 5/19/10 at 11:47 am to baytiger
Bay you might find this NPR link interesting.
LINK
Estimating Size Of Spill
One major point of those stories was that scientists were saying it is quite possible to measure the size of the spill by studying videos of it. BP was saying it isn't possible to get an accurate answer by doing that.
Although the experts working with NPR are confident the April 20 spill is much bigger than the official estimate, there's still a lot of uncertainty in their figures.
Steven Wereley, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University, and Timothy Crone, an associate research scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, were only studying one 30-second video clip -– a shot of the main spill, coming out of a 21-inch pipe. The new video shows other impressive streams of oil and gas coming out from around the blowout preventer 600 feet away.
Wereley concluded that the flow from the main pipe was 70,000 barrels a day, plus or minus 20 percent (one barrel is approximately 42 gallons). That's 14 times the official estimate. But he added an important caveat: It was not clear how much of the flow is oil and how much is natural gas.
Last week, a BP spokesman told NPR the company didn't know that ratio. Then on Sunday, another company official told NPR the gas-oil ratio is 3,000:1 -– that is, 3,000 cubic feet of gas per barrel of oil. That's at sea level. At the seafloor, where the pressure is high, the gas compresses a lot, but the oil doesn't. So scientists tell NPR, given BP's ratio, that would mean there's three times as much gas coming out of the leaking pipe as there is oil.
But Congress is now asking whether the standard practice is best. Wereley is slated to testify Wednesday at a congressional hearing looking into methods for measuring spilled oil.
But there may be legal reasons to care. Eventually, BP will be subject to the federal Oil Pollution Act, which will hold them responsible for damages to people as well as to the environment. It will be difficult to assess the environmental damage from this spill, so legal scholars expect that eventually BP's financial responsibility could be tied to the amount of oil spilled.
LINK
Estimating Size Of Spill
One major point of those stories was that scientists were saying it is quite possible to measure the size of the spill by studying videos of it. BP was saying it isn't possible to get an accurate answer by doing that.
Although the experts working with NPR are confident the April 20 spill is much bigger than the official estimate, there's still a lot of uncertainty in their figures.
Steven Wereley, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University, and Timothy Crone, an associate research scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, were only studying one 30-second video clip -– a shot of the main spill, coming out of a 21-inch pipe. The new video shows other impressive streams of oil and gas coming out from around the blowout preventer 600 feet away.
Wereley concluded that the flow from the main pipe was 70,000 barrels a day, plus or minus 20 percent (one barrel is approximately 42 gallons). That's 14 times the official estimate. But he added an important caveat: It was not clear how much of the flow is oil and how much is natural gas.
Last week, a BP spokesman told NPR the company didn't know that ratio. Then on Sunday, another company official told NPR the gas-oil ratio is 3,000:1 -– that is, 3,000 cubic feet of gas per barrel of oil. That's at sea level. At the seafloor, where the pressure is high, the gas compresses a lot, but the oil doesn't. So scientists tell NPR, given BP's ratio, that would mean there's three times as much gas coming out of the leaking pipe as there is oil.
But Congress is now asking whether the standard practice is best. Wereley is slated to testify Wednesday at a congressional hearing looking into methods for measuring spilled oil.
But there may be legal reasons to care. Eventually, BP will be subject to the federal Oil Pollution Act, which will hold them responsible for damages to people as well as to the environment. It will be difficult to assess the environmental damage from this spill, so legal scholars expect that eventually BP's financial responsibility could be tied to the amount of oil spilled.
Posted on 5/19/10 at 12:56 pm to Mudminnow
quote:Bolding mine. His method depends on measuring speed of a single particle to extrapolate a volume across an area. The problem with that method in this application is that the flow also contains gas. Since the gas is constrained by the pipe, until it exits... the gas expands when it hits the open water. As it expands... it will propel those particles at much higher rates of speeds than they are crossing the flow boundary. (they will accelerate). Looking at the relative volume/pressures from the pipe (~8,000psig) to the open water (~2,200psig) he's likely overestimating by a factor of atleast 4X.
The guy from Purdue is the foremost authority in the world regarding this type of video analyzing and forumula in single phase flow
This post was edited on 5/19/10 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 5/19/10 at 1:07 pm to White Roach
quote:
Since BP reported yesterday that the Insertion Tube was collecting 2,000 bpd, and oil is still leaking, can't we say with certainty that the well flow must be over 2,000 bpd?
Posted on 5/19/10 at 9:40 pm to wilceaux
quote:
Since BP reported yesterday that the Insertion Tube was collecting 2,000 bpd, and oil is still leaking, can't we say with certainty that the well flow must be over 2,000 bpd?
Certainly.
Posted on 5/20/10 at 7:57 am to TheHiddenFlask
Well from the update this morning it looks like the well is fairly gassy. BP is producing 3,000 BOPD and 14 MMCFGD (million cubic feet of gas per day) through the riser insertion tube.
Macondo 5/20
Macondo 5/20
Posted on 5/20/10 at 9:27 am to Mudminnow
quote:
flow is oil and how much is natural gas
The average idiot doing the news doesn't know how significant this statment is. Two phase flow coming out of the pipe instead of single phase (just oil) could change the flow rate by orders of magnitude.
Posted on 5/20/10 at 9:37 am to TigerDog83
quote:
Well from the update this morning it looks like the well is fairly gassy. BP is producing 3,000 BOPD and 14 MMCFGD (million cubic feet of gas per day) through the riser insertion tube.
This makes me think all of these "scientists" predicting the high spill rates are off quite a bit...especially if they were predicting a flow based on single phase flow out of the pipe.
Posted on 5/20/10 at 3:07 pm to LSU0358
quote:
Well from the update this morning it looks like the well is fairly gassy. BP is producing 3,000 BOPD and 14 MMCFGD (million cubic feet of gas per day) through the riser insertion tube.
would they have been able to capture and sell this gas, had the well been completed in an ordinary way?
Or is it all burned anyway?
Posted on 5/20/10 at 3:13 pm to ottothewise
to say for certain, you would have to know exactly how they intended to produce it -- put in a dedicated production facility over the field or run the production back to a nearby structure -- but i would assume yes.
The gas oil ratio (GOR) on this stuff is 4666 scf / bbl -- which is pretty high, so there's a lot of value in the associated produced gas.
Plus, the MMS does not allow you to flare whatever you want. There are very specific rules about volumes that are allowed to be flared, duration, etc.
But a lot of this is because their is a huge gas market in the US. In places like Nigeria and Angola, there is very little domestic gas market, so up until the point of the new LNG initiatives, the gas was essentially worthless and was burned.
The gas oil ratio (GOR) on this stuff is 4666 scf / bbl -- which is pretty high, so there's a lot of value in the associated produced gas.
Plus, the MMS does not allow you to flare whatever you want. There are very specific rules about volumes that are allowed to be flared, duration, etc.
But a lot of this is because their is a huge gas market in the US. In places like Nigeria and Angola, there is very little domestic gas market, so up until the point of the new LNG initiatives, the gas was essentially worthless and was burned.
Posted on 5/20/10 at 4:28 pm to oilfieldtiger
quote:
But a lot of this is because their is a huge gas market in the US. In places like Nigeria and Angola, there is very little domestic gas market, so up until the point of the new LNG initiatives, the gas was essentially worthless and was burned.
There is a huge push for onshore domestic Natural Gas especially in shale, but with demand as low as it is and NG prices low, I would not say there is a huge market right now. Maybe overseas but not domestic. There is also a strong push for LNG terminals, etc domestic.
Posted on 5/20/10 at 4:32 pm to back9Tiger
let me rephrase -- there is well developed natural gas market in both North America and Europe, which makes it attractive to bring gas to market. there was a time when this is not so and gas was essentially useless even when produced domestically.
This is not the case in Africa and Western Australia, where there are large amounts of gas, but essentially no domestic market. hence the emergence of LNG projects in these places.
This is not the case in Africa and Western Australia, where there are large amounts of gas, but essentially no domestic market. hence the emergence of LNG projects in these places.
Posted on 5/20/10 at 4:41 pm to oilfieldtiger
Latest estimates are that the production line on the enterprise is averaging 5,000 BOPD and flairing 15 MMCFD............Zero water.
sooooooo, I would say original estimates were low.
sooooooo, I would say original estimates were low.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News