Guest Blog

BP's Leaky Spill Cap: Better Than It Looks?

It's impossible to say how much oil is still escaping from the stricken wellhead.

Peter Fairley 06/08/2010

  • 12 Comments
Video footage shows that oil is still pouring out of BP's wellhead.
Credit: BP.

BP claims to be sucking crude straight off its stricken mile-deep wellhead and pouring it into the drillship Enterprise at a rate of 11,000 barrels per day, thanks to a cap and tube installed on Friday. And, yet, video feeds from ROVs present a plume of oil and gas gushing out into the depths that looks as angry as ever--more black goop destined for dispersal into the Gulf of Mexico's already beleaguered ecosystems.

"Clearly alot of people are looking at it and trying to understand what does this mean," acknowledged BP senior vp/exploration Kent Wells of the top-rated video images during in a media briefing yesterday.

Wells couldn't say how much oil is escaping but he took pains to remind viewers that the leak is now pouring around their 4-foot-wide steel LMRP cap, making the plume appear wider. "It's easy to forget that there's a big vessel inside that," says Wells. And it's certainly true that his engineers might be capturing the bulk of the flow, according to the federal flow estimates released last month. The two independent federal models of the flow both said the flow could as low as 12,000 barrels per day (bpd).

Unfortunately the federal models also provided plenty of headroom, saying the flow could be as high as 19,000 bpd in one case, and 25,000 bpd in the other. And the modelers predicted the flow might accelerate as much as 20% when BP cut away the riser from the sunken Deepwater Horizon platform, as required to install the cap. In other words BP's cap could be capturing barely one-third of the flow.

A better cap is to be installed by the end of June, according to Wells. Whereas the existing cap simply pushing a rubber grommet down on to flange on the BOP, he says BP engineers and government scientists are working on three new designs that could reach around and hook onto the flange.

But Wells admitted that optimization of the oil containment effort today could give way to new disasters later this summer with the arrival of hurricane season, which usually begins menacing the Gulf in August. If a storm blows across the leak site BP will have to disconnect the drill ships collecting oil, keeping the ships and their crews safe but throwing the Gulf ecosystem back to the dogs.

Wells says the new cap they plan to install later this month is part of a system that will allow quicker disconnects and reconnects, minimizing the time without containment. But he's not prepared to say that the cap could actually seal off the flow until the storm had passed "I wouldn't want to say yet that we'd have the ability to close it off when we disconnect," says Wells. "We're just not there yet."

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

goose13066

1 Comment

  • 615 Days Ago
  • 06/08/2010

Stop the leak

Found the latest picture interesting and some what ridiculous -- you have a cap over the leaking pipe while oil/gas is still gushing out.  Can't BP just increase the suction from the drilling ship and that should take most of the oil/gas out .  Yes, you would get some sea water into the ship tank but I suppose it is better than let it leaks.  You can always separate the oil and the sea water later.  Can someone knowledgeable explain this to me?  Thanks.

Reply

windward

7 Comments

  • 614 Days Ago
  • 06/09/2010

Re: Stop the leak

The problem with seawater entering the flow, according to the experts, is that they will cause the formation of clathrate hydrates which would plug the flow.  This did happen with the first attempt to control the leak, the one hundred ton containment dome.  That experience has resulted in the mantra, "Keep the seawater out!"

However, maybe the experts are wrong.  See my comments on the Oil Drum and the Engineering Tips websites.

Reply

Docjohn

1 Comment

  • 615 Days Ago
  • 06/08/2010

Oil Spill - BIG PICTURE

I am not an oil engineer, I am an Environmental Chemist, and I have yet here for any of the BP or USA engineers to state the larger issue then the Gulf being coated with oil, though that is bad enough. The larger issue is the oil which is enterning the gulf stream, the current which is part of the interocean beltway.
If this oil spill continues, which I am sure it will, the tropical storms will churn the gulf, and this great oil spill will begin to spread, world wide, killing the phytoplankton as it spreads. Phytoplankton, first of all food webs, and more important, produces 80% - 90% of the Oxygen for EARTH. All environmentalists understand that if the PHYTOPLANTON DIES, humans have 6 month to a year to live.
So, the engineers of BP are not working to save birds and fish in the gulf, but now after 7-8 weeks, need to think of the 6.5 billion humans!

Reply

Gaetano Marano

246 Comments

  • 614 Days Ago
  • 06/09/2010

>>> oil spill scoop >>>

.
.
.
READ THIS AMAZING SCOOP ABOUT HOW BP WOULD BEEN ABLE TO STOP THE OIL SPILL FROM THE EARLY DAYS !!!
.
http://bit.ly/c8y9GX
.
.
.

Reply

2600hz

11 Comments

  • 614 Days Ago
  • 06/09/2010

History repeating... again

about 30 years ago the same thing happened. From then to now only thing changed is the depth of new boreholes. So you can see where all the research money go. Greedy industry is investing money only in making more money, and when things go wrong all they can do is pray that someone knows how to fix it?

Reply

cayojoe

7 Comments

  • 614 Days Ago
  • 06/09/2010

Government Gotcha

When it comes to the blame game let's all remember that it's the government who set the stage for this disaster. The gov't pushed the petroleum industry further and further out to sea into deeper and deeper waters because of Chicken Little fears about spills nearer to shore. Now, the eco-minded dimwits in gov't are hoisted on their own petards because the waters are far too deep to send down saturation divers to fix this damned thing. Had this occurred at 500' rather than 5000' it would have been capped a week after the blowout.

Moreover, had we been developing our oil reserves ashore, say on some Godforsaken mudflat in ANWR, even such a massive spill as we have today could have been contained and cleaned up in short order.


The Greens must wake up and realize that we are NOT going to wean ourselves from fossil fuels at any time in the forseeable future. It just isn't going to happen. Therefore rather than waging "lawfare" to push petroleum development into increasingly hostile environments (literal and figurative) AND making us more, not less, dependent on imported energy, they ought to bring their considerable mass to bear on safer, cleaner, and more accessible fossil fuels. Or, at the very least, leave the U.S. and other Western producers the hell alone and go aggravate the Russians, Chinese, and Indians who apparently have no compunctions about gas mileage and resource development.

Reply

sorgfelt

23 Comments

  • 614 Days Ago
  • 06/09/2010

Re: Government Gotcha

Your "facts" are simply wrong.  They are drilling in deep water, because the land and shallow water sites are nearly empty.  We are running out of oil, and with this spill, may soon be running out of oxygen. There is no need to worry about weaning - the nipple will be taken away abruptly.  We can extend it, with great expense, by getting our oil from shale, coal and plants, but, eventually, sooner rather than later, our energy sources and our waste of resources must change.

Reply

Advertisement

cayojoe

7 Comments

  • 613 Days Ago
  • 06/10/2010

Re: Government Gotcha

There is oil offshore of California, peninsular Florida, as well as ashore in Cali, the Rockies, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and New York. There is a whole lot of oil (and natural gas) still in the ground and untapped for nothing more than stupid political reasons conjured up by Green-minded progressives hell-bent on "saving" the environment with absolutely no regard or concern for how painful that salvation may be.

Certainly, no sane person can argue that our aging petrochemical dependent society comes with a goodly number of real and relevant dangers; the mess in the GOM is example one. And, moreover, no sane person can argue that those dangers can and must be managed to keep them at a minimum. Drilling and producing in shallower waters and ashore would seem to be obvious methods for accomplishing that.

Running around with one's hair on fire screeching that we ought not to be drilling at all because the oil is nearly gone isn't helpful. Entangling the industry in byzantine regulations written by lawyers and politicians (rather than regulations written by engineers and scientists), swamping it with lawsuits and bureaucratic proceedings, and producing a seemingly endless gusher of misleading propaganda about fossil fuels is, to my admittedly foggy old brain, not only not helpful but willfully hurtful to the American people. Why? Because we are absolutely dependent on petroleum, can't shake that dependence for the forseeable future, and are sending untolled billions of dollars to the nice people in places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela who don't give a hoot in hell about the environment and are deaf to the progressivist whining.

There is no doubt in my mind that we will run out of oil probably sooner rather than later, but there is still a huge reserve of the stuff that hasn't yet been recovered, including the 50% still in the ground at old sites that isn't technically recoverable at the moment but could be as technology advances. The market will ensure that those resources are exploited, the arguments and pleas of the Greens and progressivists be damned.

Reply

tmcmurph

36 Comments

  • 614 Days Ago
  • 06/09/2010

All this for energy we don't need. Seriously have you seen the amount of natural gas that can be recovered from the shale deposits? Centuries worth. Even if we converted all coal and nuke plants we would have enough for 5 to 6 decades. The shale gas technology is here now and has been working for 4-5 years already.

So why risk the oceans? We don't need the energy. We don't have an energy policy, have an oil policy. I wonder who calls the shots on that?

Reply

stevengt

4 Comments

  • 614 Days Ago
  • 06/09/2010

Rewriting history

Oh, please. The latest right-wing talking point is merely a bald-faced attempt to rewrite history to show that the eco movement/government "forced" the oil industry into deep-water drilling. It just ain't so, and no proof (other than the bare assertion that it's so) is ever offered. Does anyone really think the oil companies *wouldn't* be deep-sea drilling if only ANWR were open to drilling?

"Drill baby drill", the Republican/conservative mantra in 2008, specifically and explicitly included off-shore deep water drilling, and the Bush/Cheney legacy of gutting any semblance of regulatory oversight and monitoring is clear and indisputable, after-the-fact attempts to rewrite history notwithstanding. You have the right to your own opinions -- you do *not* have the right to make up your own facts.

Reply

danlgarmstrong

28 Comments

  • 614 Days Ago
  • 06/09/2010

Leaky Spill Cap

Rather than venting the overflow oil into the gulf why not try to capture it in a huge bag? Then haul the bag up for processing (replacing with another it ASAP of course). If the vent had been designed for this I think it could work. What material? I would think nylon might suffice. Size - at least 5000 gallons. Big - but under water it should be managable. Probably not a short term engineering project, but something like this could come in handy in the future. THe ship holding the piped oil could use something like this for when it reaches capacity as well.

Reply

forresttaft

1 Comment

  • 467 Days Ago
  • 11/03/2010

BP is such a joke… they should all be arrested along with the US govt. How long ago did they cap the leak? And how many legitimate claims are still “pending” from damages they suffered back in the beginning of the summer? I happen to know three people that were affected directly by BP’s shady PR tactics and manipulation of our laws, one of whom was a journalist who was almost arrested and charged with felonies for taking pictures of oil covered animals near the coast. Not only is it bad enough that thousands of fishers’ lively hoods are ruined for god knows how many years to come, they were paid a pathetic amount of money to clean up BP’s own mess. To add even more insult to injury, BP used Corexit 9527, which contains mainly 2-butoxyethanol, which is very toxic. You wouldn’t have to be a scientist to know that, since in the first week of using it over 70 fisherman ended up at the hospital. Of course if you even inquired about this, I’m sure the govt (which is pretty much owned by oil companies) would deal with you quite quickly, let alone taking pictures of it in an attempt to run a story on it. If you didn’t know already, the govt is doing what they do best… crapping on the 1st amendment: naturalnews.com/029130_Gulf_of_Mexico_censorship.html. My friend who almost got arrested on felony charges simply went out on a boat into about 30 feet of water and used a water proof cam to photograph one of the many oil plumes forming at the bottom of the surface (which BP vehemently denies). Now here comes the hilarious part. He switched the film in his camera with a blank one in the event they were stopped by police, which they were as soon as they got back to shore. They let him go but still took his name down, and what do you know... later that night, 2 guys wearing black hoodies attempted to break into his house. He caught pics of them on his home security system (he saved the pics… adt burglar alarm camera break in photos). Hmm, I wonder who paid these guys to break in and what they were after? Definitely not BP or our govt, that’s for sure!

Reply

Bio

Analysis and insight from occasional correspondents and decision makers.

Subscribe to the Guest Blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement