Deepwater Horizon - Transocean Oil Rig Fire

[Laurence Cuffe]

Most dispersants used on oil slicks are detergent based. This will consist of a mixture of detergent molecules, and a solvent. Detergent molecules are generally linear and have one end that likes to attach to oil molecules and another, opposite, end, which attaches to water.
By forming a bridge in this way between the oil and the water they allow the oil and water to mix.
So we know what happens when detergents mix with oil and water.

Health effects around the spill are likely to arise predominantly from the volatile fractions of the oil when it comes to the surface, either bound to detergent or free.
Why do I say this? I say it because people have been around all the significant components of the dispersant for a fairly long time, and so we have a fair idea of how toxic they are. People have also been around the volatile components of crude for a similarly long time, and we know they can be intoxicating, carcinogenic and poisonous to a greater degree. Ask any solvent addict.

To put this in a domestic context, accidentally drinking some water with some washing up liquid in it, or sitting around after we’ve mopped the floor with floor detergent is generally less harmful for us than accidentally drinking a couple of spoons full of gas, or sitting around a room with a lot of gas spilled on the floor would be.
Neither is healthy, (both are toxic) but one is significantly worse than the other.

Company Man is right to be concerned about the health effects of exposure to high levels of either. Rhansa has given a very detailed account of the exact chemicals involved, the above is just an attempt by a chemist to get it into more generally understandable terms.

[PLCGuy]

Is it just my eyes playing tricks or are there now a number of bolts missing from the riser flange that weren't missing yesterday?

flange1..jpg

Looking at the images of the "cap" on the Enterprise ROV-1 and ROV-2 feeds, I'm a bit surprised at the design of the "rocket fins" hanging off of it. It looks as though the inside edges of the "fins" are parallel to the riser stub this contraption is going to be set over. They're probably there to help keep the rubber donut in place and maybe help prevent it from bursting outward. What I can't figure is this: if there need to be fins, why not make them extend down another foot or two, with the inside edges angling outward? The idea being to act as sort of a centering mechanism so that the cap does not have to be dropped perfectly dead center. Seems like such an obvious thing - there must be a reason.

And finally, can anybody tell me what in the heck that thing is that the Q4000 ROV is looking at right now??

------

Inaugural post stuff follows...

I've been lurking here daily since 4/22 and just finally decided to register. I can honestly say I've read every post in the thread. A big thanks to the gCaptain admins for providing this place for us to discuss the situation and for putting up with the huge influx of new people!

I'm a control systems guy with 30 years of design / build / program / commission / repair experience on various automation systems. PLCs and motor control primarily. My oilpatch experience is pretty much zero (well, I did do some water injection skids for Unocal once) but I have a technical mind and a hands-on I-can-make-it-happen attitude. I've learned a lot from you guys these last few weeks and I thank you for that. I probably won't have much more to say since my experience has little relevance to what's going on here.

[A Cooke]

BP site now states that both shears and diamond cutter are being recovered to the surface and then will be lowered and the cut of riser continued. From the shots it looks like the shears were used to cut the riser above the BOP and provide some level of crimp. (can others please confirm or am I imaging that !) Previously Kent stated that the team did not want to use the shears for cutting the vertical section of pipe above the BOP as any auxiliary forces involved in this operation might tend to twist or bend the BOP over and threaten its integrity. In the meantime we are seeing shots of the hat (not cap?) and it is being raised and we are seeing the side of it and underside of it. Is there a plan to try the Hat before attempting again to try the diamond cutter and then afterwards go with the Cap ?
I did not have the life to go through all 310 pages of the http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.p...8178.4635.html forum, however I noted that at times they were talking about plumes of oil coming up from the ocean floor. Has that happened ? Did this really occur ? Was there loss of integrity from the drill bore ? In which case how does anything work that disconnects from the well during a hurricane? Is the output allowed to just spill into the sea during the hurricane, because to close off supply results in the oil/gas just oozing through the sea bed in the last few hundred feet before the BOP ? Is this why capping is a complete non option ?

[rlanasa]

The concerns with the well itself are related to the failed cement job(s), the underspecification casing and any damage from the blowout itself. There are even arguments that casing shot up into the BOP....

That is why when this is done no one will work without third party tickets and without regulated real time supervision. These 125 man rigs will become 250 man rigs with watchers watching watchers.

BP site now states that both shears and diamond cutter are being recovered to the surface and then will be lowered and the cut of riser continued. From the shots it looks like the shears were used to cut the riser above the BOP and provide some level of crimp. (can others please confirm or am I imaging that !) Previously Kent stated that the team did not want to use the shears for cutting the vertical section of pipe above the BOP as any auxiliary forces involved in this operation might tend to twist or bend the BOP over and threaten its integrity. In the meantime we are seeing shots of the hat (not cap?) and it is being raised and we are seeing the side of it and underside of it. Is there a plan to try the Hat before attempting again to try the diamond cutter and then afterwards go with the Cap ?
I did not have the life to go through all 310 pages of the http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.p...8178.4635.html forum, however I noted that at times they were talking about plumes of oil coming up from the ocean floor. Has that happened ? Did this really occur ? Was there loss of integrity from the drill bore ? In which case how does anything work that disconnects from the well during a hurricane? Is the output allowed to just spill into the sea during the hurricane, because to close off supply results in the oil/gas just oozing through the sea bed in the last few hundred feet before the BOP ? Is this why capping is a complete non option ?

[PLCGuy]

Big Yellow Super-Scissors (the shear) being maneuvered into place on the riser directly above the flex joint right now.

http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/r...asx?bkup=45135

Edit: After some really great multi-ROV ballet it looks like the shear is in place and I'm thinking the cut will be happening momentarily. It's 07:40 Central Time now.

[jksoft]

Mmmm, that is a bit of an oversimplification. The supposedly proprietary chemical composition of dispersant Corexit 9500 was disclosed years ago in toxicity studies, patent applications and regulatory filings during its development by Exxon. Corexit 9500 does not contain 2-butoxyl ethanol, unlike its predecessor Corexit 9527 (still used here reportedly even though it caused adverse health effects by some accounts in Exxon Valdez responders). The solvent was replaced in Corexit 9500 by propylene glycol and a mixture of food-grade (!) aliphatic hydrocarbons called Norpar 13 (n-alkanes ranging from nonane to hexadecane).

Corexit 9500 also contains two commonly used non-ionic surfactants, Tween 80 (eicosethoxy sorbitan monooleate) and Span 80 (ethoxylated sorbitan mono- and trioleates). The supposedly secret sulfonic acid salt was disclosed in the 2001 patent filing US 6168702. The basic chemical formula here is that of a zwitterionic sulfonic/carboxylic double quaternary amine but with an allowed range of substituents making the overall composition quite variable.

I'm astonished they're aerial spraying this over people on nearby rigs. I don't see carcinogens or estrogen mimetics here but this is not anything you would want on your eyes or in your lungs (resp. gills). No one has the slightest idea what the short- or long-term health effects -- how would you obtain informed consent to study it on volunteers? Like everything else here, it's an experiment being done on the fly whose outcome will be disputed. I've seen this movie before: the burden of proof falls on someone impoverished and incapacited by chronic illness -- they won't have the resources to prevail.

The concept with dispersants surely includes out-of-sight, out-of-mind (cost containment) and 'dilution is the solution to pollution' (no cost there). Despite these inconvenient coincidences, it might be argued the resulting smaller droplets and otherwise dispersed oil are more readily accessed and so more rapidly broken down by aerobic bacteria (they work for free). Then between volatile evaporation, dilution to nanomolar quantities, and oxidative catabolism, more of the spill might be mopped up -- especially at these warm Gulf temperatures -- than every could be by skim, burn, and shovel.

If not, residues and their impacts would become exceedingly difficult to monitor, much less assign unambiguously to this particular spill, especially in the mind of the uncompromising Chicago law firm already selected to represent BP here. The whole marine food chain could be disrupted but how would you prove it was BP? I suppose start by showing some change relative to pre-spill baseline conditions -- but here you have the head of NOAA working day and night to disrupt collection and publication of that data:

I think you nailed this one. While the individual components of Corexit 9500 don't look highly toxic, we have NO IDEA what effect they are going to have in these large quantities, both short and long term. I did read somewhere but I can't find the reference now, that part of BP's plan for using Corexit said it wouldn't be used within several miles of ships, rigs, or people in general. The more I think about this whole situation, the more enraged I get about what is being done to the ocean and its creatures that I love as well as to the workers out there.

[MichaelWSmith]

The concept with dispersants surely includes out-of-sight, out-of-mind (cost containment) and 'dilution is the solution to pollution' (no cost there). Despite these inconvenient coincidences, it might be argued the resulting smaller droplets and otherwise dispersed oil are more readily accessed and so more rapidly broken down by aerobic bacteria (they work for free). Then between volatile evaporation, dilution to nanomolar quantities, and oxidative catabolism, more of the spill might be mopped up -- especially at these warm Gulf temperatures -- than every could be by skim, burn, and shovel.

The ratio of surface area to mass goes up rapidly as the diameter of a sphere goes down. So having the oil dispersed as small droplets or as a sheen on the surface will present much greater surface area exposed to sea water and bacteria per unit mass of oil than having it in the form of larger globules or a thicker slick on the surface. So, yes, the dispersant should enhance the activity of the Gulf's bacteria that break down the oil.

If not, residues and their impacts would become exceedingly difficult to monitor, much less assign unambiguously to this particular spill, especially in the mind of the uncompromising Chicago law firm already selected to represent BP here. The whole marine food chain could be disrupted but how would you prove it was BP? I suppose start by showing some change relative to pre-spill baseline conditions -- but here you have the head of NOAA working day and night to disrupt collection and publication of that data:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_598461.html

Did you read the article? It hardly supports the notion that the head of NOAA is “working day and night to disrupt collection and publication of data”.

Look at what the article presents as “proof” of its claims:

Lest there be any doubt that it is official NOAA policy to minimize the nature of the threat posed by sub-surface oil, NOAA spokesperson Rachel Wilhelm on Thursday e-mailed the following statement to the Huffington Post:

"In oil spills, we expect to see dispersed and dissolved hydrocarbons and oil in the water column, and particularly so in this incident because BP is using subsurface dispersants. Within a few kilometers of the well, there is clearly a dense plume of oil droplets in the water column. While no cohesive subsurface plumes of oil have been found beyond the immediate area of the leaking well, samples collected by the Weatherbird and the Pelican last week indicated subsurface anomalies. The water samples collected during the missions are being analyzed."

"Until the data is analyzed it is premature to draw conclusions. There is ongoing sampling by multiple ships and crews to determine just how much subsurface oil there is." [Bold in the original.]

So the e-mail admits the existence of a plume in the vicinity of the Deepwater well and confirms the existence of subsurface anomalies in nearby waters. But because the e-mailer doesn’t immediately leap to the conclusion HuffPo wants to push, that means it is official NOAA policy to minimize the threat? A non sequitur if I ever heard one -- and I’ve heard plenty.

[BLISTERS]

Dispersant is nothing more than detergent!

rlanasa, BP has deployed thousands of people to help with this disaster. I wonder how many specialist have been assigned to debunk any meaningful discussion on the internet with regard to BP's incompetence. You guys seems to pop up nearly every discussion. Are you employed fulltime. Do you work overtime for this piss weak propaganda. Do you assume that most who read your drivel are just as dumb as yourself ? My understanding of damage control is to minimized damage not make things worse by making cockamamie suggestions in full view of public and damage BP's image even further. Keep up the good work. You have damaged your credibility and made a total ass of yourself on this and other forums. However I will keep reading your comments if or when I have nothing else better to do just for entertainment purposes. I know lots of folks with similar IQ as yous working in high places within the industry, but not for long. Get it through your thick skull. The damage has been done and is permanent no matter what BP pulls out of the hat between now and killing the well. Just the visual portions alone are visible from the moon and with binoculars from Mars.

[MichaelWSmith]

I think you nailed this one. While the individual components of Corexit 9500 don't look highly toxic, we have NO IDEA what effect they are going to have in these large quantities, both short and long term. I did read somewhere but I can't find the reference now, that part of BP's plan for using Corexit said it wouldn't be used within several miles of ships, rigs, or people in general. The more I think about this whole situation, the more enraged I get about what is being done to the ocean and its creatures that I love as well as to the workers out there.

It is certainly NOT TRUE that we have NO IDEA what the effects of the disperant will be. It has been in use for over 20 years, all over the world. Go here for some actual FACTS instead of mere gloom-and-doom speculation: http://www.nalco.com/news-and-events/4285.htm

[Laurence Cuffe]

A plume has been found: Agreed. Is it oil related? Most probably. Is it oil, or oil with dispersant? Not known until the samples are analyzed. Thats just science, until you are sure of your conclusions, don't conclude.

[jksoft]

It is certainly NOT TRUE that we have NO IDEA what the effects of the disperant will be. It has been in use for over 20 years, all over the world. Go here for some actual FACTS instead of mere gloom-and-doom speculation: http://www.nalco.com/news-and-events/4285.htm

Please take note that the source you quote is the manufacturer of the product. Not exactly unbiased. Please show me a case where this dispersant has been used in these quantities, on this size of an oil spill. The fact of the matter is, we won't know its FULL effects in this situation for quite some time. It may turn out to be all roses and sunshine and I hope that is the case, but I'll reserve judgement.

[A Cooke]

Claw (Yellow scissors) superbly positioned for cut. They did well getting it in there and attached around the riser. Then it was bobbing up and down a few inches, then gripped, so no longer bobbing and then the ROV started looking around. A problem with the Claw ? Waiting for something else ?

[rmcnichol]

Go tell your mother she needs you.

The dispersants we use in the downstream industry (refined products such as asphalt,

naptha, Bunker Fuels, and other heavy distillates, are nothing more than

biodegradable detergents approved by EPA, USCG, DOT, and a host of other agencies

[BLISTERS]

I wonder what professional BP apologists on this forum have to say about this ABC news clip ?

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-...ry?id=10763042

Any comments ? feedback ?

[Corky]

It is certainly NOT TRUE that we have NO IDEA what the effects of the disperant will be. It has been in use for over 20 years, all over the world. Go here for some actual FACTS instead of mere gloom-and-doom speculation: http://www.nalco.com/news-and-events/4285.htm

Thanks for the info rlaNasa . . . . uh, I mean Michael.

[xyzzy]

Is anyone here familiar with the Microbe solutions that have been used to clean up oil spills in the past, that literally consume the oil spilt?

[PLCGuy]

Yeah, maybe rlaNasa can figure out a way to reconcile these photos with his statement a couple hours ago that they were going to retrieve the shear again rather than use it right away. Lol.

For those who missed it live...

2 shots of the fish as seen looking into the lower end of the riser (the latest shear cut)

riser_fish1..jpgriser_fish2..jpg

And here's what the LMRP now looks like. Seems like they got what they wanted. The flow's not exactly laminar but it's pretty darn straight all things considered.

lmrp_now..jpg

[jksoft]

I wonder what profession BP apologists on this forum have to say about this ABC news clip ?

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-...ry?id=10763042

Any comments ? feedback ?

BP is also the largest oil producer in the US by a factor of at least two, so any numbers should also be viewed in that context. That being said, if the company is accounting for 97 percent of the "egregious, willful" violations as the article states then they must be doing something wrong or are not paying off the right feds.

http://www.gravmag.com/companies.shtml#producers

[use2be]

Hi all, I was a mud engineer for NL Baroid back in the late 70's for about 4 years. Got laid off in '80, went down a different career path and until this happened hadn't given a second thought to oil well drilling and had forgotten just about everything I learned. I have been lurking here almost since the beginning and the forum has definitely re-educated me on the basics and I have learned many things I didn't know. So thank you all.

My heart goes out to those that lost loved ones and to all the folks along the Gulf that make their living from the GOM. When I lived in NO, after Baroid, I sold chemicals (synthetic oils, disinfectants, etc.) to the fishing industry and it just breaks my heart that these good people are losing their livelihood.

I am a member of several forums (mostly political) and a recurring theme is that this blowout can be blamed on Halliburton's "crappy cement job". Their words, not mine. My question is: isn't the cementing program made up by the well operator and Halliburton jointly? If I remember correctly, Halliburton gets their "marching orders" from the operator and don't just go in an cement however they want to. I have been trying to explain to some of these folks that the service companies don't just do whatever they want, that they operate according to the instructions of the operator. Haven't gotten into the Halliburton's "crappy cement job" with them because I wanted to make sure I was correct before saying anything.

I worked for the chief exploration geologist for a major company for many years before going to Baroid and remember many meetings with the service companies before the rig was even moved on site during which time the drilling program was established. If I remember correctly, just about everything that is done while drilling must been approved be the operator. Of course, I'm getting old now, the memory isn't as good as it used to be and it has been 30+ years, so maybe I'm just off the wall here and Halliburton does call all the cementing shots. Can somebody please set me straight here.

It just gripes the living hell out of me that people that know NOTHING about well drilling are so intent in blaming this on Halliburton - mainly because they hated Bush and still hate anything that has anything to do with Cheney. Their attitude is "if Cheney was involved, it's their fault!"
Don't know why I even bother with such stupid people, but I have a problem with ignorant people throwing blame on a person/company just because they hate somebody that had something to do with said company.

"I want my life back" Nearly fell out of my chair when I heard Hayward say that. He wants HIS life back - what a jackass! I am more than sure the families of those 11 that were killed want the lives of their loved ones back and the thousands of folks on the coast want their lives back too.
What a selfish, uncaring MORON this Hayward is!

[AHTS Master]

Yes but are the deliveries keeping up with the rate of consumption aboard the rigs? Is there another reason why one of the rigs is using it's watermakers? Is the area safe for making water (maybe its been tested as safe?)?

There's large supply boats at the rigs everyday.