Disposing of excess oil
4 views
Skip to first unread message
docellen
Jul 12, 2010, 12:33:33 PM7/12/10
to blowout
What do we do if we have a blowout gushing more oil than can be
properly processed by ships at the surface. The consensus in a
discussion on The Oil Drum was that we could only do what was done in
the Deepwater Horizon blowout - let the oil flow out at the bottom,
for months if necessary, in spite of all the environmental damage. My
belief is that it could be burned at the surface. Here is a summary
of the discussion. More comments are welcome.
I suggested that they run a pipe to carry the excess oil to a barge
500 feet away from the ship where it is currently being processed, and
it could be safely burned. There were several objections:
1) The fire is too hot. It will melt the metal.
2) The parts to build another flare aren't readily available.
3) It would not be safe to burn without a properly-designed flare. I
assume this includes heat, risk of explosion, and smoke inhalation.
4) There would be objections from environmentalists concerned about
air pollution.
My responses:
1) The fire isn't hot enough to melt metal. It will weaken steel, but
not melt it. If necessary, line the edge of the barge with cement.
2) We have an emergency situation here. Use ordinary, readily
available pipe and connectors.
3) The heat would be no worse than what is currently coming off the
flare attached to the processing ship. 500 feet extra distance should
be quite enough. The smoke will go straight up most of the time. If
wind conditions are bad, shut off the flow to the barge, and move it
downwind. As for the pipe exploding, don't let air get into it.
Submerge the outlet whenever the flow is shut off.
4) Let the governors of the gulf states make the choice - oil on your
beaches, or air pollution 50 miles offshore.
One thing we didn't discuss is the possibility of piping it to other
vessels that might haul it off for later processing. I guess the
bottleneck would be separating the gas from the oil, but with a little
planning and preparation, maybe we could have enough equipment on hand
to at least do the separation step. Then invite all the other oil
companies to tank up on all the oil they can carry.
properly processed by ships at the surface. The consensus in a
discussion on The Oil Drum was that we could only do what was done in
the Deepwater Horizon blowout - let the oil flow out at the bottom,
for months if necessary, in spite of all the environmental damage. My
belief is that it could be burned at the surface. Here is a summary
of the discussion. More comments are welcome.
I suggested that they run a pipe to carry the excess oil to a barge
500 feet away from the ship where it is currently being processed, and
it could be safely burned. There were several objections:
1) The fire is too hot. It will melt the metal.
2) The parts to build another flare aren't readily available.
3) It would not be safe to burn without a properly-designed flare. I
assume this includes heat, risk of explosion, and smoke inhalation.
4) There would be objections from environmentalists concerned about
air pollution.
My responses:
1) The fire isn't hot enough to melt metal. It will weaken steel, but
not melt it. If necessary, line the edge of the barge with cement.
2) We have an emergency situation here. Use ordinary, readily
available pipe and connectors.
3) The heat would be no worse than what is currently coming off the
flare attached to the processing ship. 500 feet extra distance should
be quite enough. The smoke will go straight up most of the time. If
wind conditions are bad, shut off the flow to the barge, and move it
downwind. As for the pipe exploding, don't let air get into it.
Submerge the outlet whenever the flow is shut off.
4) Let the governors of the gulf states make the choice - oil on your
beaches, or air pollution 50 miles offshore.
One thing we didn't discuss is the possibility of piping it to other
vessels that might haul it off for later processing. I guess the
bottleneck would be separating the gas from the oil, but with a little
planning and preparation, maybe we could have enough equipment on hand
to at least do the separation step. Then invite all the other oil
companies to tank up on all the oil they can carry.
karish
Jul 13, 2010, 1:46:17 AM7/13/10
to blowout
It would be worthwhile to start out with a more complete
set of design constraints.
Wave action.
When the swells are in the 0 to 2 foot range and the wind
isn't blowing there's no need for a barge. You can burn
the oil as it floats on the water. That's being done right
now.
When the swells are between 2 feet and 10 feet a standard
barge, which might be 100 feet by 300 feet, would pitch and
roll, sending the burning oil sloshing back and forth. The
barge would have to be held in position so the hoses
supplying the oil wouldn't be pulled loose. The normal way
to do that would be with several tug boats. Tugs aren't
designed to be attached to burning barges.
When the swells are much bigger than 10 feet the ships
disconnect from the drilling platforms and scatter so they
don't slam into each other. That's what would have
happened last week if Tropical Storm Alex had taken a
more northerly course. An oil burning barge would have
had to do the same.
Heat.
How would the oil be burned? One way would be to
fill the barge two or three feet deep with oil, light it, and
come back with more oil after the barge burns out. The
burning oil would be boiling and spattering into the sea,
even without the sloshing from the waves. This would
require a lot of barges and they'd all have to be managed
so they didn't crash into each other or into the drilling
platforms or into the ships.
Another way would be to spray in a little bit of oil at a time.
This would require that a tug boat hold the equivalent
of a fire hose filled with kerosene and spray it into the
barge without having the flames flash back. Another
issue is that with just a thin layer of oil the barge would
heat up more. Every time oil came into contact with a
hot edge of the barge it would flash into vapor and make
a large, very hot billow of flame. And somebody would
have to be close enough to it to supply more fuel.
Keep thinking in this direction and you eventually arrive
at the solution that's actually doing the job. A framework
of nozzles is attached rigidly to a large ship or to an
even larger drilling platform. Steam is used to vaporize
oil and gas and drive it out of the nozzles. The mixture
burns in mid-air away from the metal structure, so the
structure doesn't absorb too much heat. This isn't just
a matter of not melting the metal. The oil/gas/steam
mixture is passing through pipes in this framework, and
if the pipes get too hot the task of carrying it to the
burner becomes very dangerous.
Standard practice seems to be to have two of these
burners on a vessel and to use only the one that's downwind
of the vessel, so the vessel doesn't catch fire and so the
people and machinery on the vessel don't get cooked.
The idea is to keep the flames and the burned gases
away from the structure and from the vessel, so the
machinery is heated only by radiation, not by convection
or by conduction. Just to handle the radiation requires
a constant spray of water from a couple of fire boats.
Burning oil a the rate of 5000 barrels a day releases
about a billion BTU per hour. That's as much heat as
is put out by 85000 stove burners. It's way too much
to dismiss with "What's the problem? Let it burn."
set of design constraints.
Wave action.
When the swells are in the 0 to 2 foot range and the wind
isn't blowing there's no need for a barge. You can burn
the oil as it floats on the water. That's being done right
now.
When the swells are between 2 feet and 10 feet a standard
barge, which might be 100 feet by 300 feet, would pitch and
roll, sending the burning oil sloshing back and forth. The
barge would have to be held in position so the hoses
supplying the oil wouldn't be pulled loose. The normal way
to do that would be with several tug boats. Tugs aren't
designed to be attached to burning barges.
When the swells are much bigger than 10 feet the ships
disconnect from the drilling platforms and scatter so they
don't slam into each other. That's what would have
happened last week if Tropical Storm Alex had taken a
more northerly course. An oil burning barge would have
had to do the same.
Heat.
How would the oil be burned? One way would be to
fill the barge two or three feet deep with oil, light it, and
come back with more oil after the barge burns out. The
burning oil would be boiling and spattering into the sea,
even without the sloshing from the waves. This would
require a lot of barges and they'd all have to be managed
so they didn't crash into each other or into the drilling
platforms or into the ships.
Another way would be to spray in a little bit of oil at a time.
This would require that a tug boat hold the equivalent
of a fire hose filled with kerosene and spray it into the
barge without having the flames flash back. Another
issue is that with just a thin layer of oil the barge would
heat up more. Every time oil came into contact with a
hot edge of the barge it would flash into vapor and make
a large, very hot billow of flame. And somebody would
have to be close enough to it to supply more fuel.
Keep thinking in this direction and you eventually arrive
at the solution that's actually doing the job. A framework
of nozzles is attached rigidly to a large ship or to an
even larger drilling platform. Steam is used to vaporize
oil and gas and drive it out of the nozzles. The mixture
burns in mid-air away from the metal structure, so the
structure doesn't absorb too much heat. This isn't just
a matter of not melting the metal. The oil/gas/steam
mixture is passing through pipes in this framework, and
if the pipes get too hot the task of carrying it to the
burner becomes very dangerous.
Standard practice seems to be to have two of these
burners on a vessel and to use only the one that's downwind
of the vessel, so the vessel doesn't catch fire and so the
people and machinery on the vessel don't get cooked.
The idea is to keep the flames and the burned gases
away from the structure and from the vessel, so the
machinery is heated only by radiation, not by convection
or by conduction. Just to handle the radiation requires
a constant spray of water from a couple of fire boats.
Burning oil a the rate of 5000 barrels a day releases
about a billion BTU per hour. That's as much heat as
is put out by 85000 stove burners. It's way too much
to dismiss with "What's the problem? Let it burn."
docellen
Jul 13, 2010, 10:47:08 AM7/13/10
to blowout
Karish, thank you for a very thoughtful post on this topic. This is
so much better than the nonsense in the discussion on TOD.
You are right, if we think it through, we end up with the solution
they have, properly-constructed flares, rigidly attached to a ship,
well away from the water and any danger to personnel. I would use the
burning barge only in the extreme situation where the only other
choice is to release the excess oil deep in the ocean. In that
situation, we might have to do some quick thinking, and add rows of
concrete block to stop the sloshing of burning oil on a long flat
barge, or hook up some long steel cables, so the tugboats can work at
a safe distance.
I don't believe that was ever the situation in the Gulf. I believe
they could have hooked up additional flares if they wanted to, even if
it meant running a line to a separate ship with the extra flares.
I am left with the hard-to-believe conclusion that the massive release
over the last few months was either a result of monumental
incompetence at the top, or a cynical decision based on some hidden
calculation of liabilities. That seem to be the conclusion also
reached by Bob Cavnar, an oil industry expert who has been appearing
on Huffington Post and on Keith Olberman's Countdown (MSNBC). He has
written about this on his website at
http://dailyhurricane.com/2010/07/bp-doesnt-want-all-of-flow-captured-before-well-is-killed.html
Like me, he is equally puzzled by this conclusion.
Anyway, I don't want to get too much into politics on this forum. My
main interest is in understanding the technology and ways we can plan
for and avoid future disasters. I would like to see additional
threads, one on each worthy idea. Hopefully, we will get more experts
like yourself to give this some serious thought.
so much better than the nonsense in the discussion on TOD.
You are right, if we think it through, we end up with the solution
they have, properly-constructed flares, rigidly attached to a ship,
well away from the water and any danger to personnel. I would use the
burning barge only in the extreme situation where the only other
choice is to release the excess oil deep in the ocean. In that
situation, we might have to do some quick thinking, and add rows of
concrete block to stop the sloshing of burning oil on a long flat
barge, or hook up some long steel cables, so the tugboats can work at
a safe distance.
I don't believe that was ever the situation in the Gulf. I believe
they could have hooked up additional flares if they wanted to, even if
it meant running a line to a separate ship with the extra flares.
I am left with the hard-to-believe conclusion that the massive release
over the last few months was either a result of monumental
incompetence at the top, or a cynical decision based on some hidden
calculation of liabilities. That seem to be the conclusion also
reached by Bob Cavnar, an oil industry expert who has been appearing
on Huffington Post and on Keith Olberman's Countdown (MSNBC). He has
written about this on his website at
http://dailyhurricane.com/2010/07/bp-doesnt-want-all-of-flow-captured-before-well-is-killed.html
Like me, he is equally puzzled by this conclusion.
Anyway, I don't want to get too much into politics on this forum. My
main interest is in understanding the technology and ways we can plan
for and avoid future disasters. I would like to see additional
threads, one on each worthy idea. Hopefully, we will get more experts
like yourself to give this some serious thought.
karish
Jul 13, 2010, 2:33:45 PM7/13/10
to blowout
On Jul 13, 7:47 am, docellen <j...@box67.com> wrote:
> Karish, thank you for a very thoughtful post on this topic. This is
> so much better than the nonsense in the discussion on TOD.
>
> You are right, if we think it through, we end up with the solution
> they have, properly-constructed flares, rigidly attached to a ship,
> well away from the water and any danger to personnel. I would use the
> burning barge only in the extreme situation where the only other
> choice is to release the excess oil deep in the ocean. In that
> situation, we might have to do some quick thinking, and add rows of
> concrete block to stop the sloshing of burning oil on a long flat
> barge, or hook up some long steel cables, so the tugboats can work at
> a safe distance.
This is an engineering problem. It needs a real design, not just
> Karish, thank you for a very thoughtful post on this topic. This is
> so much better than the nonsense in the discussion on TOD.
>
> You are right, if we think it through, we end up with the solution
> they have, properly-constructed flares, rigidly attached to a ship,
> well away from the water and any danger to personnel. I would use the
> burning barge only in the extreme situation where the only other
> choice is to release the excess oil deep in the ocean. In that
> situation, we might have to do some quick thinking, and add rows of
> concrete block to stop the sloshing of burning oil on a long flat
> barge, or hook up some long steel cables, so the tugboats can work at
> a safe distance.
a few ideas. Please be specific.
How would you keep a fleet of barges under control so they
wouldn't bump into each other or into other vessels?
How would you deliver oil to these barges when they're red
hot and spitting boiling, burning oil all around them?
How big are these barges? How many would you need to
burn, say, 1000 barrels of oil a day?
How to flare excess gas and oil from offshore wells is not a
new problem. When you offer a replacement for the designs
that have been developed and over the last century there's
an expectation that you address the issues in detail.
> I don't believe that was ever the situation in the Gulf. I believe
> they could have hooked up additional flares if they wanted to, even if
> it meant running a line to a separate ship with the extra flares.
have stored the oil rather than flare it.
> I am left with the hard-to-believe conclusion that the massive release
> over the last few months was either a result of monumental
> incompetence at the top, or a cynical decision based on some hidden
> calculation of liabilities. That seem to be the conclusion also
> reached by Bob Cavnar, an oil industry expert who has been appearing
> on Huffington Post and on Keith Olberman's Countdown (MSNBC). He has
> Like me, he is equally puzzled by this conclusion.
You and he are right to be puzzled, because the conclusion
makes no sense. BP is strongly motivated to stop the flow
of oil as quickly as is safe and to capture. burn, or disperse
as much oil as they can. It's way less expensive for them to
throw lawyers at the liability issues than to tailor their actions
in a way that might later be seen as harmful.
docellen
Jul 13, 2010, 4:37:56 PM7/13/10
to blowout
> > You are right, if we think it through, we end up with the solution
> > they have, properly-constructed flares, rigidly attached to a ship,
> > well away from the water and any danger to personnel. I would use the
> > burning barge only in the extreme situation where the only other
> > choice is to release the excess oil deep in the ocean. In that
> > situation, we might have to do some quick thinking, and add rows of
> > concrete block to stop the sloshing of burning oil on a long flat
> > barge, or hook up some long steel cables, so the tugboats can work at
> > a safe distance.
>
> This is an engineering problem. It needs a real design, not just
> a few ideas. Please be specific.
Not much time for engineering. We are assuming an emergency situation
> > they have, properly-constructed flares, rigidly attached to a ship,
> > well away from the water and any danger to personnel. I would use the
> > burning barge only in the extreme situation where the only other
> > choice is to release the excess oil deep in the ocean. In that
> > situation, we might have to do some quick thinking, and add rows of
> > concrete block to stop the sloshing of burning oil on a long flat
> > barge, or hook up some long steel cables, so the tugboats can work at
> > a safe distance.
>
> This is an engineering problem. It needs a real design, not just
> a few ideas. Please be specific.
where we have to dispose of more oil than we can process, at least
until we can get properly-engineered processing or flaring facilities
in place. Given that situation, here is what I would do using more
readily available materials and equipment.
> How would you keep a fleet of barges under control so they
> wouldn't bump into each other or into other vessels?
end.
> How would you deliver oil to these barges when they're red
> hot and spitting boiling, burning oil all around them?
tilted so the oil goes onto the barge, not in the water.
> How big are these barges? How many would you need to
> burn, say, 1000 barrels of oil a day?
for twice as many.
> How to flare excess gas and oil from offshore wells is not a
> new problem. When you offer a replacement for the designs
> that have been developed and over the last century there's
> an expectation that you address the issues in detail.
flaring system. It is an emergency measure to deal with the lack of
proper equipment. Remember the premise of the discussion.
Supposedly, the release at the bottom was because BP did not have
enough equipment to properly process or flare the excess oil.
> > I don't believe that was ever the situation in the Gulf. I believe
> > they could have hooked up additional flares if they wanted to, even if
> > it meant running a line to a separate ship with the extra flares.
>
> If it had been practical to run a line to another ship they'd
> have stored the oil rather than flare it.
is it not "practical" to run a line to another ship? This sounds a lot
like blind faith.
> > I am left with the hard-to-believe conclusion that the massive release
> > over the last few months was either a result of monumental
> > incompetence at the top, or a cynical decision based on some hidden
> > calculation of liabilities. That seem to be the conclusion also
> > reached by Bob Cavnar, an oil industry expert who has been appearing
> > on Huffington Post and on Keith Olberman's Countdown (MSNBC). He has
> > written about this on his website athttp://dailyhurricane.com/2010/07/bp-doesnt-want-all-of-flow-captured...
> > Like me, he is equally puzzled by this conclusion.
>
> You and he are right to be puzzled, because the conclusion
> makes no sense. BP is strongly motivated to stop the flow
> of oil as quickly as is safe and to capture. burn, or disperse
> as much oil as they can. It's way less expensive for them to
> throw lawyers at the liability issues than to tailor their actions
> in a way that might later be seen as harmful.
explanation for what has happened. I doubt the engineers had much say
in the decisions.
Imagine you were put in charge on day one. Knowing the BOP was
broken, would you not have done everything possible to keep the rig
from sinking? If it was going to sink anyway, would you not have
expected a situation like what happened, with oil spewing from a torn
piece of riser pipe. Would you not have been ready with a giant
pincher to crimp that pipe. If that failed, or was judged too risky,
would you not then figure out a way to connect a new riser pipe, in
spite of ragged edges, hydrates, whatever? If someone suggested
clamping a sleeve around the torn end, like what I proposed in the
other thread, wouldn't you have that ready to try in less than a day?
Maybe the engineers were so used to doing everything "by the book",
that they could't think of these things. I prefer to believe that the
problem was bosses that just wouldn't listen.
karish
Jul 15, 2010, 1:57:45 PM7/15/10
to blowout
On Jul 13, 1:37 pm, docellen <j...@box67.com> wrote:
> > > You are right, if we think it through, we end up with the solution
> > > they have, properly-constructed flares, rigidly attached to a ship,
> > > well away from the water and any danger to personnel. I would use the
> > > burning barge only in the extreme situation where the only other
> > > choice is to release the excess oil deep in the ocean. In that
> > > situation, we might have to do some quick thinking, and add rows of
> > > concrete block to stop the sloshing of burning oil on a long flat
> > > barge, or hook up some long steel cables, so the tugboats can work at
> > > a safe distance.
>
> > This is an engineering problem. It needs a real design, not just
> > a few ideas. Please be specific.
>
> Not much time for engineering.
If you won't take enough time to design an approach that
> > > You are right, if we think it through, we end up with the solution
> > > they have, properly-constructed flares, rigidly attached to a ship,
> > > well away from the water and any danger to personnel. I would use the
> > > burning barge only in the extreme situation where the only other
> > > choice is to release the excess oil deep in the ocean. In that
> > > situation, we might have to do some quick thinking, and add rows of
> > > concrete block to stop the sloshing of burning oil on a long flat
> > > barge, or hook up some long steel cables, so the tugboats can work at
> > > a safe distance.
>
> > This is an engineering problem. It needs a real design, not just
> > a few ideas. Please be specific.
>
> Not much time for engineering.
will get the job done and that won't kill the people on the
job, I don't want you to be making decisions.
> We are assuming an emergency situation
> where we have to dispose of more oil than we can process, at least
> until we can get properly-engineered processing or flaring facilities
> in place. Given that situation, here is what I would do using more
> readily available materials and equipment.
>
> > How would you keep a fleet of barges under control so they
> > wouldn't bump into each other or into other vessels?
>
> Put them in one line, with cables between them, and a tugboat at each
> end.
> > How would you deliver oil to these barges when they're red
> > hot and spitting boiling, burning oil all around them?
>
> Run the pipe underwater, and tie the end to the side of the barge,
> tilted so the oil goes onto the barge, not in the water.
now only on the highest-tech drilling ships and production
platforms.
> > How big are these barges? How many would you need to
> > burn, say, 1000 barrels of oil a day?
>
> I would ask one of the engineers on site for that estimate, and call
> for twice as many.
know better than the engineers who are now handling this
problem how they should do their jobs. If you can't estimate
yourself what it would take to burn the oil your claim falls
apart.
> > How to flare excess gas and oil from offshore wells is not a
> > new problem. When you offer a replacement for the designs
> > that have been developed and over the last century there's
> > an expectation that you address the issues in detail.
>
> Again, my suggestion is not a replacement for a properly-engineered
> flaring system. It is an emergency measure to deal with the lack of
> proper equipment. Remember the premise of the discussion.
> Supposedly, the release at the bottom was because BP did not have
> enough equipment to properly process or flare the excess oil.
>
> > > I don't believe that was ever the situation in the Gulf. I believe
> > > they could have hooked up additional flares if they wanted to, even if
> > > it meant running a line to a separate ship with the extra flares.
>
> > If it had been practical to run a line to another ship they'd
> > have stored the oil rather than flare it.
>
> In an emergency, "practical" can be a lot less than "optimum". So why
> is it not "practical" to run a line to another ship?
produce a finite amount of force. When the wind and the currents
and the waves exert more force on the ship than the positioning
propellors can resist, the ship moves. Either the line is released
or it breaks.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages