Frankly, the only people I would trust to plug that hole are geologists

[MrScorpio]

So, what the fuck are they saying?

I'm tired of paper pushers hovering over this thing.

[dipsydoodle]

1. geologists

may well have suggested the hole not be there in the first place.

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. Good suggestion.

[rotund1]

16. It is a certainty that geologists told them where to drill. Their job is to locate oil deposits

not to make the economic or technical decision whether or not to drill. In general, geologists don't have the sort of training to attack this kind of problem, it's simply a different professional discipline...even a regular vanilla petroleum engineer would be hard pressed to address it without a lot of consultation with hydrologists and hydraulic specialists.

[meeshrox]

18. I agree with your assessment

especially since you mentioned hydrologists. I think drilling for oil is just like drilling for water, which is what I do. Oil is still a liquid that reacts to pressure gradients. I spoke with some other hydros in my office when this first happened, when we were watching the top hat go in. We all knew it wouldn't work because we are familiar with the physics involved.

Also, like you said, geologists are not trained to carry out the solutions, that's why we have engineers. But, we do have some good ideas once in a while. :)

[Speck Tater]

3. Geologists might know what to do, but it will take physicists to figure out HOW to do it. nt

[MrScorpio]

4. Good point

These guys need to work hand in hand

[FBI_Un_Sub]

11. Don't you mean ENGINEERS?

[Speck Tater]

42. In a sense, engineers are applied physicists.

As a retired engineer myself, my work often overlapped with, and required input from physics. There is no engineering without physics.

[HereSince1628]

5. Somehow I think engineers will be involved...

and I expect that their expertise will include geology and physics in addition to geology.

[meeshrox]

6. I'm glad I just signed on, I may have missed this...

I'm a geologist, although I think engineers also have the expertise for plugging the well. Looking back at other leaks, such as the one in Australia a couple of years ago, there are things that we know work and don't work.

The pressures involved are the biggest challenge along with the remote location (a mile below sea level). Pressures in the well are in excess of millions of psi. In order to reduce the pressure enough, the Australian well needed FIVE relief wells to be able to cement the leak. I haven't done the calculations in the differences in pressure between the two, but I do know for sure that two relief wells will not be enough. Also, the way they will be pumping cement from the relief wells, I think, will bring the same problem we had with top kill. There will be incredible pressures going from the leaking well into the relief wells and there will be issues with back flow of oil into the relief wells. If they try with only the two wells planned, I speculate that it will fail.

The largest problem I see now, of course other than the oil-soaked birds and damage to coast, is that only two wells are being drilled now. We will need more, and if we figure that out after the first two are drilled, it will be that much longer before the spill is stopped.

I can think of two reasons why geologists are not being heard. Either they are so depressed because they know how fucked we all are, or they are being silenced because they are saying what the execs don't want to hear. Michio Kaku, one of my favorite physicists (and yes, I'm nerdy enough to have favorites) has some wonderful videos posted on his website talking about what things could go wrong and (pretty much) why we are fucked. He also addresses the nuke idea...the worst.idea.ever. I called it a few days ago on a thread on DU, I hate being right about these things.

http://mkaku.org/home/?cat=1

Also, I would love to answer any specific questions people have. One major goal in life (and on DU) is spreading scientific knowledge. Thanks for asking the technical professionals!

[MrScorpio]

7. Great post

Let's include engineers along with the geologists and physicists to get this thing squared away.

[meeshrox]

8. Agreed...we need to bring the smart guys in because

apparently, they don't have them there now. If you missed the video, Rachel Maddow did a wonderful piece on a spill off the coast of Texas in 1979. All of the things they've done have failed before, in 200 feet of water, 31 years ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=DZjMP8YdNbg&feature=related

[jdlh8894]

10. Thanks for that!

I do have a question concerning the pressure from the sea water hitting from all sides at that depth. If they would have just pulled the pipe(creating less force from the well),would the density and pressure from the water at that depth @ least slowed the flow?

[meeshrox]

15. Not really, no...

the pressure differences are astronomical. We are looking at hundreds/thousands of psi at the bottom of the Gulf and pressures in the millions of psi in the well head. The oil reservoir is 18,000 feet down, with all of that water plus all of that rock on top of it. The difference in pressure when pulling out the pipe is negligible.

[BeFree]

12. Ok...questions

Has there ever been a natural leak of this size in our lifetimes?

What consequences are there for spraying dispersants in to the oil at 5,000 feet deep?
IOW, what chemical reactions are happening at 5,000 feet deep, that we are not familiar with?

[meeshrox]

14. wow, so happy you brought up the dispersants!

1. Natural leak of this size in our lifetimes: there are countless natural leaks/seeps around the world. None are of this scale!

2. Dispersants: they're a detergent, like the bottle of Dawn they use to clean birds. However, at this scale, and with some of the uncertainties of the additives in Corexit (trade secrets), it could be devastating. On the MSDS (material safety data sheet) required by OHSA, it specifically states that it should not be released to surface waters. By spraying the dispersants at any level in the water (surface or at well head), the oil coalesces into smaller droplets so that natural bacteria can digest it more efficiently. However, at this scale, there are not enough bacteria to eat all of this oil. The plumes we've been hearing about is where the majority of the oil is. The dispersant just gave the oil a different buoyancy level, forming the plumes. Not saying this was intentional, but it's out-of-sight out-of-mind at least in terms of PR. The majority of life in the gulf lives in the top tens of feet in the water column (the plankton use light, the fish eat plankton, etc.) and this is where the plume resides. Eggs, larvae, etc. eat oil droplets and the fish eat the eggs, larvae, etc. The toxins concentrate into the larger and larger predators, like DDT did with the large predator birds way-back-when.

3. Chemical reactions at 5,000 feet depth: none of consequence that I know about. Do you mean with the minerals at the bottom of the Gulf or in the well? Perhaps you meant in oil reservoir? Biological?

[BeFree]

17. Disperses or coalesces?

Check that again?

The chemical reactions at 5,000 question was about how the natural gasses in the release might be forming new molecules with the water. And how adding the dispersants into the oil might be 'improving' that process?

I guess the question is really for a chemical engineer?

[meeshrox]

20. Yes, that's correct. I mistyped.

I don't think that natural gasses react with seawater, they float up to the surface. My husband does more with petroleum cleanup and would know.

I suppose a chemical engineer would know better...

[BeFree]

27. Right

At surface pressure, aka 14.7 psi, gasses and water do not mix. Neither does oil.

But at 2,335 psi, at 5000 feet of sea pressure, things are different. Then you add in the Corexit, and what do we get?

This is a grand experiment and those 'experts' weighing in, telling us that there is nothing to worry about, are jumping the shark, eh?

[meeshrox]

30. I suppose that's a nice way to put it! nt

[Statistical]

21. Misunderstanding of how relief wells works. They don't relieve any pressure.

They simply force oil back down the well.

Similar to a top kill (or maybe a top kill is similar to a relief well). In a "top kill" they tried to force mud into the well via tiny hoses and most mud flows out the top not enough downard pressure was created to force oil back down the well.


A relief well is in essence a bottom kill. At the moment the relief well intersects with main well it will have 5-6 miles of drilling mud behind the drill bit. When it punches through gravity will generate a tremendous amount of pressure and the mud will simply flow into main well. Once they force the mud down the well far enough they will let off the pressure until they reach equilibirum. mud doesn't move down. oil doesn't move up. It simply is static in the well.

Then they inject a plug of liquid cement, and then more murd. They push the last blob of mud far enough so cement is in right location and then they simply hold it there until it hardens.

There is no attempt to relieve pressure. You can't relieve pressure by simply drilling another well or dozen wells or even hundred wells. The oil field is too massive. The only thing that reduces pressure in an oil field is oil field depletion.

It would be like having a blimp the size of NY and it has a single hole in it and now you are going to relieve pressure by pooping another pinprick in it. Materially you haven't changed anything.

[meeshrox]

22. Perhaps what I don't understand is how they will intersect the main well

Do they pump cement to the bottom of the leaking well or drill directly into the side of the leaking well from the formation? I still can't find the schematic for this...

[Statistical]

26. They intersect the main well. The exact location/depth depends on geology.

However the goal is to pick a point where at intersection the weight of mud in relief well is greater than pressure of oil in main well.

At that point gravity and simple physics takes over. Austria had to drill multiple wells because they missed.

Looks like BP is going to use electo-magnetic effect as a homing beacon to guide the relief well to proper spot. I hope it works.

BP has a good video on relief wells.
http://bp.concerts.com/gom/reliefwell060210.htm

[meeshrox]

31. Got it, won't be making that mistake again!

electro-magnetic effect...meaning they'll use the iron in the drill pipe to hone in on the location?

[Statistical]

32. They are going to charge main pipe with electricity.

The video explains it. Pretty interesting stuff.

The lead for the relief well engineering team says (not verified just his statement) he has been on 40 relief well ops and they never missed target of first strike. His claim the backup relief well is just that a backup in case main well runs into problems durring drilling so it doesn't slow down the time table.

We will likely know more as we get closer to August.

[meeshrox]

35. Thanks!

I've been busy the last few weeks and have only been able to pick up stuff on DU and selected news outlets. That makes me feel much better about the relief wells...

[Statistical]

37. Yeah relief wells are a pretty proven technology.... the downside is they are very slow.

No fast way to drill through 5 miles of rock.

The rigs are running 24/7 (3 crews) but when you consider the sheer amount of earth that has to be chewed through it takes a lot of time.

[meeshrox]

41. Don't I know! Wells can be tricky!

We have been sitting on a deep injection well for several months, and that one is only 3,000 feet or so...

[dipsydoodle]

25. massive indeed

If you search you'll come up with the figure of 25,000 sq miles - second largest on the planet.

[meeshrox]

28. The schematics shown since the beginning

show that they are drilling to the bottom of the leaking well...I also just found another that shows they will intersect above the reservoir.

Thanks for clarifying on edit...

[dipsydoodle]

24. Ta for that - much appreciated input

Are there any previously undiscussed issues with the methane hydrate layer down there ?

[meeshrox]

29. I don't think there are issues with the methane hydrate

oil reservoirs never hold just crude oil. It's usually a mix of different hydrocarbons.

Someone else have insight?

[dipsydoodle]

34. I meant on the sea floor

as opposed to in the reservoir. I was under the impression that the sea floor under that depth and pressure had a layer of solid methane hydrate. Maybe I'd misunderstood something I'd read previously
here : http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

[Statistical]

36. It does however the relief wells are simply "normal" wells (with smaller casing).

They have drilled well past ocean floor (I think one well is at 12,000ft IIRC).

The intersection where they will attempt to kill the main well is under 4-5 miles of rock.

[meeshrox]

39. I don't see an issue with that

as there is no reason to think that temperatures of sediment and hydrates at depth will increase because of this.

[G_j]

48. I read weeks ago that they needed more relief wells

an 'expert' was saying they needed at least three.

Are they just being cheap, or what?

[flamingdem]

9. Ha! Tony Hayward has a Ph.D in Geology! Ahhhh! nt

[meeshrox]

13. Sure, but at that level...

all of your knowledge goes out the window...that or he's just even more of a lying scumbag! A geologist would know that we're all fucked!

[Captain Hilts]

19. Good point Mr. S!

[cbdo2007]

23. Like the geologists who work for BP?

[meeshrox]

33. This isn't the 70's anymore

not all geologists work for oil companies... :eyes:

[cbdo2007]

38. So you don't think BP employs any geologists????

[meeshrox]

40. Of course they do!

Jeez, I was saying not all geologists work for oil companies...not all of us are *evil* like that!

[Bryn]

43. K&R

This thread is educational for me.

I can hardly wait for oil to stop leaking. It's disgusting and awful for those wildlife as well as messing up the Gulf coast.

[TransitJohn]

44. This wellsite geologist has been nothing but vilified on DU

whenever I try to explain anything. Now I'm just sitting back laughing at the sheer volume of stupidity hereabouts.

[meeshrox]

45. I get that all the time...even when trying to explain

that earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics and not glaciers...sheesh! Well, here's to a fellow debunker! :toast:

[rotund1]

47. No idea if there's any cause/effect but generally it -seems- that Democrats

are less scientifically inclined or educated than folks with other political persuasions...have you gotten that impression? (keeping in mind that you and I are obviously exceptions) ;-)

(I am certain we Democrats are way WAY smarter in most other endeavors, particularly the humanities)

[stuntcat]

46. I know, right??

I'd go far as saying I want scientists in charge of EVERYTHING from now on :mad:

k, r