Started By
Message

re: 4 inch pipe to contain a 21 inch pipe?

Posted on 5/20/10 at 5:38 pm to
Posted by TheHiddenFlask
The Welsh red light district
Member since Jul 2008
18384 posts
Posted on 5/20/10 at 5:38 pm to
quote:

Latest estimates are that the production line on the enterprise is averaging 5,000 BOPD and flairing 15 MMCFD............Zero water.


That's bad.
Posted by KnoxvilleBerryTiger
Member since Mar 2006
3412 posts
Posted on 5/20/10 at 7:20 pm to
why bad? I plead ignorance.
Posted by TheHiddenFlask
The Welsh red light district
Member since Jul 2008
18384 posts
Posted on 5/20/10 at 7:29 pm to
quote:

why bad? I plead ignorance.


Because if they were even sucking up a majority of the oil, there would have to be some water in it. No water means there's probably a lot that isn't being pumped up.

Think about it like this. If you turn on a water fountain and try to drink from it with a coffee stirrer, you can probably get a steady flow of water, with no air, but there will be a lot of water that flows past the straw. However, if you had a mcdonald's straw, you could suck up most of the water, but there would be some air coming up the straw.

Now imagine water = Oil and Air = Water.

This is all in my very humble opinion, but I did study engineering for 2 years.
Posted by KnoxvilleBerryTiger
Member since Mar 2006
3412 posts
Posted on 5/20/10 at 7:36 pm to
makes sense, unless the coffee stirrer is all that is needed and collects the oils without water?

an updated video would answer the efficiency of the siphon, no?

And what about the stopper or whatever?
Posted by TheHiddenFlask
The Welsh red light district
Member since Jul 2008
18384 posts
Posted on 5/20/10 at 7:37 pm to
quote:

makes sense, unless the coffee stirrer is all that is needed and collects the oils without water?


It's possible, but not really plausible.

quote:

And what about the stopper or whatever?


Top kill is reportedly ready to go, don't know what the hold up is.
Posted by Mudminnow
Houston, TX
Member since Aug 2004
34200 posts
Posted on 5/20/10 at 7:38 pm to
Is the video with the siphon tube in it? It looks like its still gushing quite a bit or is it the 2nd leak?
Posted by KnoxvilleBerryTiger
Member since Mar 2006
3412 posts
Posted on 5/20/10 at 7:52 pm to
I can't find video with siphon. Link??
Posted by TheHiddenFlask
The Welsh red light district
Member since Jul 2008
18384 posts
Posted on 5/20/10 at 7:55 pm to
Posted by paulie
NOLA
Member since Dec 2007
675 posts
Posted on 5/20/10 at 8:24 pm to
Wow. This is crazy. So if the leak was really 5,000 bbl / day at 42 gal / bbl and 30 days we are at 5,000 X 42 X 30 = 6.3 million gallons of oil spilled. The leak is probably at least double that based on the video (10,000 bbl?). Exxon Valdez was 10.8 million I believe.
Posted by TheHiddenFlask
The Welsh red light district
Member since Jul 2008
18384 posts
Posted on 5/20/10 at 8:28 pm to
quote:

Exxon Valdez was 10.8 million I believe.


Yes. but keep in mind that

1) the EV was over a much shorter period of time
2) the EV was much closer to the shore

On the other hand

The EV was not on a "developed" coastline.

:justtryingtobringperspective,pleasedon'tflame:
Posted by TigerDog83
Member since Oct 2005
8740 posts
Posted on 5/21/10 at 8:06 am to
quote:

Latest estimates are that the production line on the enterprise is averaging 5,000 BOPD and flairing 15 MMCFD............Zero water.


I believe that what the OP meant by this is that the formation is not producing any water. Not surprising if true because this well was probably drilled high on the structure thereby being above any potential water contact. Looking at the pictures and the latest recovery rates I would guess this thing is really flowing between 20,000 - 30,000 BOPD but nobody will really know until BP releases the info on what they have.
Posted by Mudminnow
Houston, TX
Member since Aug 2004
34200 posts
Posted on 5/21/10 at 8:12 am to
quote:

would guess this thing is really flowing between 20,000 - 30,000 BOPD but nobody will really know until BP releases the info on what they have.


Probably too late since they started pumping mud. But would have been nice to allow scientists near the site to get a better handle on this mess. BP will probably say yes we know its over 5,000 barrels, so we'll go with 10,000Barrels.
Posted by TigerDog83
Member since Oct 2005
8740 posts
Posted on 5/21/10 at 8:12 am to
This statement is pretty interesting.

quote:

nterestingly, though BP almost doubled the amount of oil it is capturing through the riser insertion tube, the amount of natural gas it is collecting increased by less than 10%.

On Wednesday, BP said it was capturing about 3000 barrels per day of oil and about 14 MMcfd of gas, meaning that the amount of oil collected increased about 66%, while the amount of gas collected increased about 7% over the same time period.


Macondo

Posted by TigerDog83
Member since Oct 2005
8740 posts
Posted on 5/21/10 at 8:16 am to
quote:

Probably too late since they started pumping mud. But would have been nice to allow scientists near the site to get a better handle on this mess. BP will probably say yes we know its over 5,000 barrels, so we'll go with 10,000Barrels.


I've been surprised by the PR from BP, or lack thereof. I think I would have at least sent someone with a technical background to Washington instead of some corporate official. Some of the decisions that are coming from BP are puzzling. Just my opinion but I don't think you would see the same response from someone like a Chevron for example.
Posted by TigerFred
Feeding hamsters
Member since Aug 2003
27807 posts
Posted on 5/21/10 at 9:26 am to
quote:

Just my opinion but I don't think you would see the same response from someone like a Chevron for example.


Chevron would be worse. they are more disorganized than BP.

The problem that everyone of these big oil companies have is the same problem as our government. There is so much bureaucracy that it takes them forever to make a decision to get anything done.

BP isn't the only ones holding information back. The Obama administration is also responsible. I can only say that there are many details that wanted to be released and BP was told NO!
Posted by TigerDog83
Member since Oct 2005
8740 posts
Posted on 5/21/10 at 9:59 am to
quote:

The problem that everyone of these big oil companies have is the same problem as our government. There is so much bureaucracy that it takes them forever to make a decision to get anything done.


I see your point. Working with majors is a totally different animal than independents. The most difficult to deal with of all has been Exxon in my opinion. A thousand layers of red tape to get an answer from anyone. Personally I wonder what the future holds for the western majors if deepwater operations in the US gulf drastically change. They are losing access to reserves overseas to national oil companies and I'm not sure the onshore shale gas plays fit their scale and method of operations.
Posted by oilfieldtiger
Pittsburgh, PA
Member since Dec 2003
2904 posts
Posted on 5/21/10 at 10:03 am to
the problem from a PR standpoint is that this is complicated shite, and you have to be intimately involved in it to really adequately explailn things. The very high level managers, while maybe familliar w/ the concepts, just don't convey the kind of technical knowledge needed to adequately convey what's going on.

i think this would be the case regardless of operator involved.
Posted by TigerDog83
Member since Oct 2005
8740 posts
Posted on 5/21/10 at 10:13 am to
quote:

the problem from a PR standpoint is that this is complicated shite, and you have to be intimately involved in it to really adequately explailn things. The very high level managers, while maybe familliar w/ the concepts, just don't convey the kind of technical knowledge needed to adequately convey what's going on.


Seeing the level of incompetence from our senators and congressmen is what is truly sickening. They don't have even a small base of knowledge regarding the industry and play towards the sensationalist sides of the issues. I would hope most people realize the hearings were nothing short of a "dog and pony show". Responsibility for that has to fall on the legislature and the administration for forcing the hearings to take place during ongoing attempts to kill the well. I suspect most of us in the industry are able to weigh things much differently than the average viewer with no understanding of these events.
Posted by GREENHEAD22
Member since Nov 2009
20514 posts
Posted on 5/21/10 at 10:29 am to
+1 You wold think that there main concern would be shutting in the well, but instead there to busy making a spectacle of the thing.
Posted by GREENHEAD22
Member since Nov 2009
20514 posts
Posted on 5/21/10 at 10:36 am to
Like ive said before, I have a hard time believing that the gov is in the dark as much as they claim. And if they are thats their fault, they just dont want to know. Its a sad day when you have to question if the leaders of your country would intensionally turn a blind eye to some thing that is hurting the country and it ppl just to further the cause.
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 4Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram