Oil Spill Deal

[ronocnikral]

Originally Posted by iCe

I'm not arguing I'm telling

If by STP you mean Standard Temperature and Pressure you might think about that. Conditions at 5,000' below sea level are a far cry from 14.696 and 60°F.

If you take them as a single component then I suppose the methane and ethane could rise. The reality is that they are more likely to form a hydrate due to the presence of water, pressure, and cold temperatures. A methane hydrate can form at 60° at less than the pressures that we are discussing. The stuff that people call "oil" has a relative density (in the gulf region) of around .85 at 14.696 and 60°F. As temperature decreases the density increases. Assuming that the Joule-Thomson effect works at the bottom of the ocean like it does everywhere else, which is a safe assumption, the stuff leaking out is very cold and very dense. I wouldn't say that it "mixes" with water. The hydrocarbons are saturated with water but at the pressures and temperatures we are discussing the hydrocarbon molecule doesn't have a lot of room for anything but itself.

The ocean stratifies... ever heard of a halocline? Why is it hard to believe that subcooled hydrocarbon liquid wouldn't also stratify. Eventually it should "gas off" as it rises in the water column and warms. If a hurricane passes through and agitates it then it's more likely to "gas off".

If you don't want to believe that it's possible that's cool. Where's the oil? Every piece of information that I've seen calls the visible oil a "sheen" or "areas of orange goo" (dispersant and oil) or tar balls. For a spill that's claimed to be multiples of the size of the Exxon Valdez spill that's not exactly evidence for it. The well is on the edge of the Florida Plain in 5,000' of water. A little under that actually. The depth drops to 10,000' in the area of the Florida Plain. If the density gradient is sufficient enough it's not inconceivable that the NGL's could flow down the canyons into the Florida Plain.

i was refering to gas at STP and being a liquid down deep.

oil and water aren't miscible.

halocine refers to saline content, it has nothing to do with want we are talking about. maybe you should look up the density gradient of oil. of course, density of oil is, for all intents and purposes, constant. therefore, no gradient.

i think you are tranferring propeties of gas to properties of liquid, which is big time mistake. J-T applies to gases, not liquids. liquids have very little compressibility. density is the concept you're not getting. maybe pour a little oil in some water. or get a value of density for the ngl's. it's all rising in the ocean. oil that is heavier than water wouldn't flow in these conditions.

in addition, the pressure drop (from wellhead/top of LMRP to ocean) would liberate even more gas.

oil cannot be saturated with water. there can be associated water with oil production, but there is no chemical mixture between the two without a catalyst.

if you don't want to believe that, it's cool. you're the one bucking science.

although there are many claims about the size is larger than valdez, no one knows.

[texkam]

The government "experts" don't exist. The experts are in the private sector.

Understood, but how motivated is BP to work with them? .....and how motivated are they to work with BP? This has become a national problem, so it may make sense for the Pres. to bring together a group of experts drawn from the private sector to work as a team with BP.

[biggin]

Whose fault is it? BP?
Who do you want to string up?

The guy who installed something bad / wrong? The supervisor who told him to do it?

The person who purchased “it”? The person who wrote the company memo to cut cost and caused them to purchase something at a discount from a third world company vs. another third world company with better standards?

Maybe it was a US steel product...just what the steel industry needs.

Maybe we just shut down BP, fire the CEO, fire the CFO, COO... etc... sell it to Exxon, they have never had a spill...wait...

Maybe we just blame the normal bad guy Halliburton.

I am sure we can find someone who is at fault but chances are no one will ever know who "pushed the button" to make ____ happen.

Chances are it is a multitude of issues that all accumulated and caused a single major failure, and it is real hard to blame one person.

In the end, I just want it fixed, someone else can worry about who was wrong.

Originally Posted by iCe

"It's not really anyone's fault"- Actually... it is... someone at some level made a bad decision otherwise there wouldn't have been a blowout and the BOP not functioning would be a non-issue.

[rab3rd]

How about the guy who decided to side step SOP?

[iCe]

Originally Posted by ronocnikral

i was refering to gas at STP and being a liquid down deep.

oil and water aren't miscible.

halocine refers to saline content, it has nothing to do with want we are talking about. maybe you should look up the density gradient of oil. of course, density of oil is, for all intents and purposes, constant. therefore, no gradient.

i think you are tranferring propeties of gas to properties of liquid, which is big time mistake. J-T applies to gases, not liquids. liquids have very little compressibility. density is the concept you're not getting. maybe pour a little oil in some water. or get a value of density for the ngl's. it's all rising in the ocean. oil that is heavier than water wouldn't flow in these conditions.

in addition, the pressure drop (from wellhead/top of LMRP to ocean) would liberate even more gas.

oil cannot be saturated with water. there can be associated water with oil production, but there is no chemical mixture between the two without a catalyst.

if you don't want to believe that, it's cool. you're the one bucking science.

although there are many claims about the size is larger than valdez, no one knows.

I never said they were miscible.

Halocline refers to the difference in relative density due to the difference in salinity.

No- I'm not transferring properties of gas to properties of liquid. I understand the properties of gases and liquids at high pressure and low temperature. It's a gas well. The J-T effect applies perfectly. There is likely to be 2-phase flow from the opening in the pipe resulting in cooling and therefore condensation of of the lighter hydrocarbons. Since the initial and terminal pressures are significantly higher than a "normal" processing operation I think it's not too much if a stretch to believe that there is significant condensation of the lighter components of the natural gas stream as well as formation of clathrate hydrate at the pressure and temperature of the fluid at the point(s) of the release. I wouldn't be surprised if the stream was "rising" but it's not rushing to the surface. If it was, there would be hydrocarbon all over the place and there isn't oil hydrocarbon over the place.

The density of oil is constant? Really? The density of oil at 60° is the same as the density at 32° or colder? That's amazing... and incorrect. On page 23-19 of the 11th edition of the GPSA manual there is a chart titled Effect of Temperature On Hydrocarbon Liquid Densities. For a given component / composition, they list both, as temperature decreases density increases. On page 23-20 of the 11th edition of the GPSA manual there is a nomograph. It's heading is Specific Gravity of Petroleum Fractions. Decreasing temperature at constant pressure and composition yields an increase in specific gravity. Also- raise the pressure from atmospheric to 1,500 psig and the density increases slightly. The Physical properties section of the manual is loaded with references and calculations regarding the increase in density if a hydrocarbon liquid when temperature is reduced (as well as the converse). Without knowing the composition of the stream it's hard to speculate on what the density increases to

Liquid hydrocarbon cannot be saturated with water? Really? Then I should be able to tear out page 20-3 in the Dehydration section of the 11th edition of the GPSA Engineering Data Book. It's a chart (the opposite side is the chart for natural gas). Fig 20-2 The heading of the chart is Solubility of Water in Liquid Hydrocarbons. The lowest temperature value is only 40° Probably because as the fluid gets colder the solubility values get smaller and smaller. It's not a chemical reaction. Water is soluble in hydrocarbon liquids. Period.

I never said that the density of the hydrocarbon plume was heavier than water. I do however believe that is remaining subsurface and I think that the fact that no appreciable oil has has been collected, burned, or landed on shore is testimony to the fact that it is possible that there are submerged heavy hydrocarbons under the surface and that they started out deep enough and are close enough to the density of sea water due to temperature and pressures at depth that currents could easily transport them to deeper water (just as easily as they could transport them to shallower water).

[iCe]

Originally Posted by biggin

Whose fault is it? BP?
Who do you want to string up?

The guy who installed something bad / wrong? The supervisor who told him to do it?

The person who purchased “it”? The person who wrote the company memo to cut cost and caused them to purchase something at a discount from a third world company vs. another third world company with better standards?

Maybe it was a US steel product...just what the steel industry needs.

Maybe we just shut down BP, fire the CEO, fire the CFO, COO... etc... sell it to Exxon, they have never had a spill...wait...

Maybe we just blame the normal bad guy Halliburton.

I am sure we can find someone who is at fault but chances are no one will ever know who "pushed the button" to make ____ happen.

Chances are it is a multitude of issues that all accumulated and caused a single major failure, and it is real hard to blame one person.

In the end, I just want it fixed, someone else can worry about who was wrong.

The general "public" version of the story is that the BOP failed. It didn't fail in the sense that it actuated however the shear rams couldn't shear through whatever was coming up through the well bore.

The blowout was caused by a bad decision. They were very, very close to announcing a new major find in the Gulf of Mexico. Close like a matter of days. All they had to do was bring the well in. Someone rushed that process.

[ronocnikral]

Originally Posted by iCe

I never said they were miscible.

Halocline refers to the difference in relative density due to the difference in salinity.

No- I'm not transferring properties of gas to properties of liquid. I understand the properties of gases and liquids at high pressure and low temperature. It's a gas well. The J-T effect applies perfectly. There is likely to be 2-phase flow from the opening in the pipe resulting in cooling and therefore condensation of of the lighter hydrocarbons. Since the initial and terminal pressures are significantly higher than a "normal" processing operation I think it's not too much if a stretch to believe that there is significant condensation of the lighter components of the natural gas stream as well as formation of clathrate hydrate at the pressure and temperature of the fluid at the point(s) of the release. I wouldn't be surprised if the stream was "rising" but it's not rushing to the surface. If it was, there would be hydrocarbon all over the place and there isn't oil hydrocarbon over the place.

The density of oil is constant? Really? The density of oil at 60° is the same as the density at 32° or colder? That's amazing... and incorrect. On page 23-19 of the 11th edition of the GPSA manual there is a chart titled Effect of Temperature On Hydrocarbon Liquid Densities. For a given component / composition, they list both, as temperature decreases density increases. On page 23-20 of the 11th edition of the GPSA manual there is a nomograph. It's heading is Specific Gravity of Petroleum Fractions. Decreasing temperature at constant pressure and composition yields an increase in specific gravity. Also- raise the pressure from atmospheric to 1,500 psig and the density increases slightly. The Physical properties section of the manual is loaded with references and calculations regarding the increase in density if a hydrocarbon liquid when temperature is reduced (as well as the converse). Without knowing the composition of the stream it's hard to speculate on what the density increases to

Liquid hydrocarbon cannot be saturated with water? Really? Then I should be able to tear out page 20-3 in the Dehydration section of the 11th edition of the GPSA Engineering Data Book. It's a chart (the opposite side is the chart for natural gas). Fig 20-2 The heading of the chart is Solubility of Water in Liquid Hydrocarbons. The lowest temperature value is only 40° Probably because as the fluid gets colder the solubility values get smaller and smaller. It's not a chemical reaction. Water is soluble in hydrocarbon liquids. Period.

I never said that the density of the hydrocarbon plume was heavier than water. I do however believe that is remaining subsurface and I think that the fact that no appreciable oil has has been collected, burned, or landed on shore is testimony to the fact that it is possible that there are submerged heavy hydrocarbons under the surface and that they started out deep enough and are close enough to the density of sea water due to temperature and pressures at depth that currents could easily transport them to deeper water (just as easily as they could transport them to shallower water).

"for all intents and purposes." maybe you should run a quick calculation on the density of oil at surface and at the sea floor. make some assumptions. it is highly incompressible (ask your local car mechanic). while i understand that there are some TP effects, i doubt there is any significant changes.

i've never heard this is a gas well. where did that come from? the oil looks like...a black oil reservoir. regardless of the type of reservoir and/or petroleum system, i highly doubt any hydrocarbon is being retained below the water line.

either way, your theory being an interesting one, is most likely wrong. maybe you should take your copy of GPSA and calculate the density of some methane existing in the liquid phase. see what that number is. i would have you calculate the heavier ends, but we already understand that is about 30-35 deg API. The lighter ends will have a high API gravity. either way, in liquid form or gaseous form, it would have to be heavier than sea water to remain below the surface. and the trip up would be in geometric fashion, not linear. or it would have to be mixing with the sea water. but that's one thing you understand.

[Jeff_Green]

Originally Posted by texkam

Understood, but how motivated is BP to work with them? .....and how motivated are they to work with BP? This has become a national problem, so it may make sense for the Pres. to bring together a group of experts drawn from the private sector to work as a team with BP.

It's my understanding that BP had a number of other companies talking to them shortly after the accident in an attempt to figure this thing out. It is in EVERY oil companies interest to get this thing figured out... and quickly.

[ronocnikral]

Originally Posted by iCe

The general "public" version of the story is that the BOP failed. It didn't fail in the sense that it actuated however the shear rams couldn't shear through whatever was coming up through the well bore.

The blowout was caused by a bad decision. They were very, very close to announcing a new major find in the Gulf of Mexico. Close like a matter of days. All they had to do was bring the well in. Someone rushed that process.

how do you know this? what was the bad decision? how did you know they were "close" to announcing a find? what do you mean by "bring the well in?" how do you know what was wrong with the BOP?

[rab3rd]

The "bad decision" was not following SOP when preparing to move a drilling rig off a well so the production platform can move in and start production.

[iCe]

Originally Posted by ronocnikral

"for all intents and purposes." maybe you should run a quick calculation on the density of oil at surface and at the sea floor. make some assumptions. it is highly incompressible (ask your local car mechanic). while i understand that there are some TP effects, i doubt there is any significant changes.

i've never heard this is a gas well. where did that come from? the oil looks like...a black oil reservoir. regardless of the type of reservoir and/or petroleum system, i highly doubt any hydrocarbon is being retained below the water line.

either way, your theory being an interesting one, is most likely wrong. maybe you should take your copy of GPSA and calculate the density of some methane existing in the liquid phase. see what that number is. i would have you calculate the heavier ends, but we already understand that is about 30-35 deg API. The lighter ends will have a high API gravity. either way, in liquid form or gaseous form, it would have to be heavier than sea water to remain below the surface. and the trip up would be in geometric fashion, not linear. or it would have to be mixing with the sea water. but that's one thing you understand.

The density moves from about .85 to .91 at the limits of the nomograph. Those limits fall short of actual P and T values (especially considering the subcooling that one gets from flashing). I have to say about because I don't know what the specific composition is. I just know what comes out of the "general" area. This was a new find. It was going to make the news in a big way. I guess it still has... only this situation is the antithesis of what they were about to announce.

It's not refined oil (unless it really was an alien plot to destroy the earth because we drilled into their refinery. I've actually seen that proposed on another website... seriously ) It's a hydrocarbon mix that is pretty typical for gas produced from the gulf. I don't think this. I know it. This wasn't a Spindletop find...

You're entitled to your opinion. It's a gas well. Again, I don't think this, I know it. The newsies call it an oil well because oil is more newsworthy. It makes a bigger mess. It kills sea life. Oils birds. Creates drama. The black column you see on the video's is condensed hydrocarbon. I contend that the "trip up" is ongoing. Light ends first followed by the heavier components. The loop current is affecting it's location.

I want to know where the fluid is if it's not subsurface and I don't see where you've offered a viable alternative to my thoughts. Very little has been recovered and based on good info there is nothing that can be burned. So where is it if not subsurface?

More like 48 API

[Sonny]

NERD ENGINEERING WAR!














































































Just kidding fellas. I work in the industry on the natural gas side.

[iCe]

Originally Posted by ronocnikral

how do you know this? what was the bad decision? how did you know they were "close" to announcing a find? what do you mean by "bring the well in?" how do you know what was wrong with the BOP?

Connections.

Today I got "secondhand" info. Soon I'll get to talk to that persons source which is first hand info.

The bad decision that I referenced didn't come from my contact so I'm not as confident that it's 100% accurate. The rest I have no doubt about...
However, they either went with a lighter mud or displaced the mud that they were using with seawater at the direction of the customer (BP). I've heard both. They took a kick and initial reports were that the BOP didn't actuate. Those reports were incorrect.

[iCe]

Originally Posted by Sonny

NERD ENGINEERING WAR!

Just kidding fellas. I work in the industry on the natural gas side.

I didn't know you were a low life gas guy

I have the dubious honor of working on both sides. My two largest customers are gas processors and crude oil gatherers My previous employer was one of the top ten processors in the US. 21 years... that I'm glad are behind me.

[epoh]

People blame the President because he represents the Government to the average citizen. I think Obama is personally to blame for the BP spill just as much as Bush was to blame for Katrina. Which is to say, not much at all. Other gov't entities fell on their arses, but can hardly blame one man for all the failings of a gov't the size of the US.