Printable View
Suppose there are 1000 off shore drilling rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico. Each has been designed so that the odds of it ever blowing up or failing and causing a major spill in any given year after installation is 1 chance in 50,000.
(1) If no more are erected, what is the probability that we would see at least one of them failing during the next 20 years?
(2) What is the probabilty that none of them fail during the next 10 years?
Moved To World Events
These are definitely math questions; I'm not sure why this got moved, even if it happens to relate to current events. The probability of at least one rig failing is 1-P(no rig fails). There are 1000*20 places to fail, where each place has a 49,999/50,000 chance of not failing. So, the chance that no rig fails is (49,999/50,000)^(1000*20) ~= 0.6703. The chance that at least one fails is then 1-0.6703 ~= 0.32968 ~= 33%.
The second question is similar, though with 10 instead of 20, and without subtracting the value from 1.
Thanks, Jemediah. I have no idea why Hack moved this thread to world events either. I believe the correct model to use is the Bernoulli process. The probability of failure is surprisingly high, given the assumption that there is only one chance in 50,000 that an existing rig fails in a given year. So, there was about one chance in three that one of the rigs was going to fail during the past 20 years. I'm rather surprised it didn't happen earlier than 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by jemidiah
Even if we had built a whole bunch of them recently with a P(Failure) much less that one in 50,000, most of the rest were already out there. And, as time goes by, the probability of failure is likely to be increasing on any of the rigs and that makes things even worse.
As for part (2) of the problem. This probability is surprisingly low if anyone wants to do the math. I predict we will see at least one more major failure prior to 2020. :cry:
Ahh, but consider Chaos Theory. I'm not sure we're dealing with something probabilistic.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Doc
Maybe. The calculation is incredibly sensitive to the base probability, 1/50,000. As dilettante alluded to, using such a simple model is also not necessarily accurate. The point of this little exercise, I'd say, is that even if the probability of something catastrophic happening is incredibly low, there are so many people and things in the world that it'll still happen, sometime. Expecting catastrophes from time to time is only reasonable, and demanding immediate wide-spread reform is perhaps (though of course not always) overkill.Quote:
As for part (2) of the problem. This probability is surprisingly low if anyone wants to do the math. I predict we will see at least one more major failure prior to 2020. :cry:
Of course, this discussion is wildly oversimplified. Reality is wildly chaotic. For instance, take films with time travel. Say Jim goes back in time a few hundred years. He spends only one minute there, makes a small noise that only a cat notices, and then leaves. The cat goes into one room instead of another, causing a passing human to pause instead of going quickly to bed with his wife. The pause only lasts a few seconds, but later that night a different sperm cell fertilizes an egg, and instead of one person being born, another is (imagine the original person's brother is instead born; say we keep genders constant). Like siblings, the new baby has a wildly different life than the original. He in turn has several children, all the while making tiny changes to everyone's daily lives, causing "different" children to be born, different people to die in accidents, different accidents to occur, different ideas to be thought up, ....
The changes propagate geographically, too: a trader stops off at a town a night longer and has a daughter instead of a son a year later the next town over; during gestation, he causes other traders to modify their schedules, propagating the effect at every chance encounter between any of them, spreading change far faster than the plague.
After a shockingly small amount of time, Jim's one-minute, very minor time travel that only a cat noticed has completely changed how reality unfolds.
One could try truly modeling oil rig accidents, but it would require more detail than the above, which would already require a completely unworkable amount of information (for those interested, the implications of quantum mechanics would require purely probabilistic models of horrific complexity, for instance, and quantum isn't even complete). So, you resort to other models that can actually give you meaningful results, and hope they're decent. In this case, I would be alright with a model like the following:
1. Ask many knowledgeable people what the chance of an oil rig exploding is in a given year.
2. Calculate the answers to the questions in the OP for each answer.
3. Calculate the variance of the answers, and report that as well in the error margin.
You'd end up with something like a "20-90% chance" of an oil rig exploding in the next 20 years, but that's really as good as you're gonna get. The question is a bad one--it requires an astounding amount of knowledge to properly answer. Such a calculation should only be used to gauge the estimated benefit of a particular policy, with appropriately huge error margins.
I agree 100% that the 1 in 50,000 assumption is the crux of the issue. However, considering how small that fraction is, it makes you wonder. Engineers design elevator parts with a 10- to 15-to-one safety factor and they still fail on occasion. In short, nothing is infallable.
A have a feeling that many here would argue that the 1 in 50,000 assumption I proposed is probably too slim for a drilling rig. 1 in 10,000 might be more realistic. Who knows what it is? Hard drive failure rates, for example are in this league: "Most manufacturers design the sliders to survive 50,000 contact cycles before the chance of damage on startup rises above 50%."
Anyway, it's a good discusssion topic and one thing for sure, the more off shore drilling rigs that are built, the greater the chance that another explosion will occur similar to this one. Probability theory and the binomial distribution are not to be denied. :ehh:
The people that work on the rig can play around with your probablilities. If some guy who normally pays attention to what he's doing gets a bad case of indigestion which hampers his concentration on what he's doing then the guy could do something that causes a big problem. I suppose that is part of the probability model too but it demonstrates the limitations of any probability model.
I really hope we find something to replace our oil dependency with. If we could learn how to produce electricity cleanly and develop our battery technology that would be a good step in the right direction.
Yeah, the probability model basically says "look, there's a lot of complicated effects going on, let's hope they average out into something somewhat predictable". Whether it's true or not isn't honestly a question, IMO--it's just plain wrong to say oil rig explosions follow a Bernoulli process. That's not what I'd say, though; I'd say that they can be approximated by a Bernoulli process, whatever that means.
If you try to be more rigorous, you'll end up getting nothing out of the analysis except a lot of wasted time; so, just slap large error bars on and say "this is the best we could do" when actually modeling something this complicated. Then again, I'm very, very partial to pure theory; a more experimental person might have a different perspective on basically the same idea.
Another interesting thought about models is, how powerful can they be? What does it say about reality if we can indeed, say, figure out perfectly true laws of physics which actually govern all of reality? The laws would be in some sense circular--up to relabeling, a part of their implications would be themselves, since they would necessarily describe themselves. Does that say something about the reasoning power of the universe? Can we imagine a universe with well-defined laws which don't describe themselves, but otherwise are somehow similar to our reality? That is, is it possible that, while our universe is somehow governed by patterns, we cannot know them, ever?
As for oil dependency, it simply can't last. A finite amount of fossil fuels used at an increasing rate with a very small amount of replenishment will run out, plain and simple. We'll either replace our dependency or change our society. Solar power is promising to me, as is nuclear. E=mc^2, after all, which turns out to be remarkably convenient for us humans (it helps us, you know, exist; if matter couldn't be converted into huge amounts of energy, the sun wouldn't be warm, for one, or probably even happen--I'm no nuclear physicist). Hah, that makes me think of zero-point energy. It'll solve the world's problems!
Clean energy production... I wonder if it's possible in any reasonable sense. Hydro, for instance, has huge environmental impacts; solar would eventually cool the planet, which is warmed, oddly enough, by solar; nuclear generally has extra products, but something there might be "clean"; some sort of Dyson Sphere ala Star Trek would more or less hide a star from other stars, basically causing an inverted form of light pollution; yeah, I'm not sure it exists. Maybe.
Sorry for the stream of consciousness, but this is the chit chat forum :).
So I don't get jumped on... I wish that we had cleaner, better, cheaper, more abundant sources of energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by EntityX
What most surprised me about this was that the blow-out preventer failed. The way it was explained to me they were simple devices that never failed. It sort of reminded me of how freight train brakes work in emergencies.
The other surprising thing was that no one reached one of the shut-in controls.
And what a convenient turn of events for Mr. Obama. Runs for President against off-shore drilling. Changes his mind. Disaster and now he can be against it again for good reason.
Looks like our forum really does not understand stochastic models and fails to trust their potential implications. That worries me considerably. Let's forget oil spills for a minute and reduce the scale of operations a bit.
Suppose you had the equipment required to rip the length of a large American walnut log straight down the middle using a 42" dia., $9,000 tungsten carbide blade that you just bought for your sawmill and do not wish to destroy. You estimate that blade and the equipment driving it could saw up to $300,000 worth of lumber for your company before needing to be changed out.
Unfortunately, your high-tech metal detector says that there is a hard chunk of alloy steel, likely a drift pin, that is embedded somewhere in the log, but the detector cannot precisely locate it. If you hit that pin while rip sawing with your equipment, the blade will be ruined beyond repair.
Jemediah and Code Doc both estimate that the odds are one chance in 50 that you would hit the chunk of steel with the new blade and ruin it. The "free" log was given to you by a homeowner. Would you go ahead and rip saw the log anyway if a buyer offered you $1,000 for both halves of the log, but only after you ripped it in half and gave him each piece?
Please advise. :ehh:
Outsource it to the competition for $500
It takes a math based topic to bring jemidiah to Chit-Chat.Quote:
Originally Posted by jemidiah
Solar does warm the planet, but it is not the reason that the core is molten, nor the reason that the temperature increases greatly the further down you go, so is it what warms the planet? Only partially.
Also,if the assumption behind that statement was that the radiant energy from the sun is converted into electricity means that it is not available as heat, that wouldn't really be valid. For one thing, it isn't the IR that the solar cells are converting, and more importantly, that energy will be released as heat through resistance (whether electrical or mechanical).
As for the original topic, there was a flaw. The current leak in the gulf is not the first catastrophic failure of a well, it is just the worst and most visible. This particular failure came during the cementing process. Several reports have mentioned that the cementing process has been implicated in most catastrophic well failures. Though most of the reports I have heard have not listed other failures, the very statement shows that there must have been others (one report did go over a few). In most cases, the failure was catastrophic only to the rig operator.
Therefore, your expectation that there will be more failures will be borne out. However, there may not be another failure that will be both as catastrophic and as visible as this one for decades.
I didn't mean to imply that the core is molten because of solar energy. I meant to say that without the sun the crust and atmosphere would be very, very cold. I'm sure some solar energy is converted back to heat after being used, but (without looking up numbers or asking someone knowledgeable) I'd bet that it's much less efficient than not converting in the first place. Then again, perhaps solar panels keep enough sunlight from reflecting that they make up for this effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Mostly, I was wondering what would happen if a solar panel the size of, say, the Pacific Ocean, were used to power the world (again, without looking up numbers, I'm not sure if this would even be enough, but say it would work out). If it indeed soaked up the energy that would go towards keeping the crust and atmosphere from cooling, the result would be something akin to nuclear winter without the clouds.
Unless energy can be destroyed, then solar cells should result in a net increase in heating. Not only are they black, and therefore absorb more, they would be trapping and converting other wavelengths. Since all electricity is ultimately released through electrical resistance or mechanical action (which converts to heat via friction), solar cells should increase total net heat....though not necessarily the actual heating of the area where they are located.
There was a proposal written in Popular Science a year or so back that demonstrated that enough solar energy could be generated in NV to power the entire US. A solar cell the size of the Pacific would be enough to microwave every hotdog in America.
Problem would be less severe if there is an extremely efficient and quick way to stop the leak once the rig blows up.
I can't believe these guys are still fumbling around trying to figure out what to do to plug the leak.
So far the ideas are:
1) Make a new hole to reduce pressure on the original hole.
2) Lower a large dome around the leak.
3) Use an under-water cannon to blast trash into the hole to plug the leak.
Sounds comical.
Only one of the rigs I was on was engaged in drilling operations. Some nights after dinner I would go out and watch them and it was amazing. This rig wasn't drilling for new pockets of gas, they were re-positioning. Apparently as they drill they may pass many pockets until they reach the desired target. When they are done at that level they pull the pipe out and cement the level they were in, and then put new pipe in for the new level. The device used to pull and set the pipe was so tall that the rig would actually sway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I have not seen the reports that said that it was the cementing of the well head. That, however makes more sense than the blow-out preventer failing.
Well, it was a combination. The failure happened immediately following the cementing, which, coupled with the reported preponderance of issues stemming from cementing, was what led to that being an early suspect. However, the blowout preventer did fail or else there wouldn't have been a blowout....and boy was there one! The reasons for the preventer failure are pure speculation at this point, but it was probably the failure of the preventer to prevent that caused the magnitude of the current problem.
I wonder if they damaged the preventer during the cementing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
We don't know for certain what happened, but the blame game at ego central (Congress) has already begun. What, besides show, is served in this?
Unfortunately, there doesn't need to be any other purpose served. Each individual follows the path that appears most reasonable to them, based on their needs, perspectives, desires, fears, and so forth. It is a sad commentary that the blame game is the most viable course of action for the people participating in it.
Voting out the incumbents won't solve that particular issue, either. Every group or individual that seeks to gain stalwart supporters, has to define "the enemy". A group that lacks a defined opposition, tends to fade away from lack of support. A group that has too complex of an opposition tends to fade for other reasons. If you want to start a movement, or generate strong support, fund raising, and so forth, it is necessary to have a well defined, simplistic, enemy. Thus the blame game has become a necessary survival tool for those whoes continued existence arises from what amounts to a popularity contest.
@shag - I didn't even mention the "Not Incumbent" party in the post you replied to and you brought it up. It may be a movement after all ;)
No, sorry. It may well be a movement, since I hear it from various quarters, but in this case I brought it up simply because your position is well stated, even if not in that post.
I'm not convinced all electricity is ultimately released through electrical resistance or mechanical action, though I'd be willing to believe the majority is. Considering how little of the earth is black, I agree, solar panel winter isn't likely. The opposite might be, actually--too much energy kept on the planet. Of course, you'd have to make the panel a sizeable fraction of the planet's surface area to get an effect. Several percent more energy absorbed could well have climate effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
To take some of the speculation out of this, I looked up some numbers. First, the Pacific Ocean is about 30% of the world's surface area, at about 65 million square miles. Nevada is much smaller--about 111,000 square miles, or only about 0.05% of the world's surface area. (The entire U.S. is only a few perfect in all, as it turns out.) Also, the U.S. uses around 1/4th of the world's electricity. So, assuming Nevada would be enough power, quadrupling that would take up only 0.2% of the world's surface area. An insane difference in heat absorbed or reflected of several orders of magnitude would be needed to have a decent chance at climate change. So, never mind :).
Well, forget my statistical analysis prediction and consider this fact. The water pressure right at the well head at a mile deep is about 2,300 psi.
So, the oil is trying deperately to escape from the deposit at a much greater pressure than 2,300 psi, otherwise it would be a stalemate and the sea water would stop the flow all by itself. That drilling rig was probably pumping very little if any when it exploded. It was only controlling the vertical flow of oil through the pipe, oil that was already discovered.
Apparently, it failed even while trying to do only that. :sick:
Is anyone surprised to learn that it was NOT mandatory to have an emergency capping device before you can drill? What I am trying to say is that why didn't they think of this scenario sooner and have a gigantic plug somewhere ;) I thought the systems would function as advertised, but I would've had a backup plan. Now we are into BONSOP engineering.
From the survivor accounts that have been coming out, that's a pretty accurate description of the situation. It started with a geyser of mud and water that was reported to be higher than the drill rig. That's some serious pressure there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Doc
SH, it is truly a mess that may be far worse than any authorities are willing to admit. Most estimate that there are 50 million barrels of oil underneath this well head. That means that at 5,000 barrels a day leakage, it could take 1,000 days for the leak to vanish if it can maintain the pressure. Of course, the sea water pressure could bail us all out, but when?
Let's assume that (1) the pressure eventually reaches equillibrium with the sea water after 600 days and (2) it cannot be stopped. In my book, that means the BP disaster will be at least 100 times worse than the Exxon-Valdez catastophe and 11 men are already dead. :sick:
Wonder if it's feasible, or even possible to drill additional controlled outlets into the deposit to relieve the pressure (and collect the oil)? Not sure of the time involved to do so, I would hope it's been considered and rejected as unfeasible since it has not already been started. What a mess. This will prove to be the biggest environmental disaster in history.
Does it not seem that the Valdez was a bigger story? Just seems like there was more OMG!!!! ***!!! with Valdez than there is with this. Seems everyone is eluding to how bad it is without actually opening the can of "it's that bad NOW". I suspect it's because there was a scapegoat readily available with the Valdez, ie: the captain of the ship. With this, it seems like the media is just waiting to pounce on a single source of blame, then we'll be told repeatedly how bad of a situation one entity put us in.
It was also closer to shore, in a more contained area, so the impact was apparent almost as soon as it happened. Wait until this stuff washes up on a lot of shores during peak vacation season.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
I was just about to suggest the Bernoulli process after I clicked on this thread, before I heard that it's already been suggested. Also, someone mentioned something about a chaos theory (don't know what it is, google it.) Anyways, a Bernoulli process is the probability that, in a randomly selected group of size n, the number of times an outcome of x will occur. The equation isQuote:
Originally Posted by jemidiah
P(x) = (n!/(x!-(n-x)!)) * (probability of "desired" outcome^x) * (probability of "undesired" outcome^(n-x))
By "desired" I mean the outcome that we're trying for.
The drilling on that relief well began a week or so after the blowout. However, I seem to remember hearing that it would take a month or more. Therefore, it is both already being done, and not a great solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
That could be correct, but I think it is mostly that the oil hasn't coated beaches, yet. Therefore, it is not easy to show TV footage that is sufficiently dramatic. However, some models suggest that the oil will enter a current that will sweep it down to the Gulf Stream, which would cause it to coat the Florida Keys, Miami, and that area, which would make for much more dramatic footage.Quote:
Does it not seem that the Valdez was a bigger story? Just seems like there was more OMG!!!! ***!!! with Valdez than there is with this. Seems everyone is eluding to how bad it is without actually opening the can of "it's that bad NOW". I suspect it's because there was a scapegoat readily available with the Valdez, ie: the captain of the ship. With this, it seems like the media is just waiting to pounce on a single source of blame, then we'll be told repeatedly how bad of a situation one entity put us in.
I'm very sorry. I don't know how I'm ever going to make it up to everyone for this mistake of mine. Maybe you could suggest some sort of penance for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Well, you spilled a bunch of oil, perhaps you could grease our palms.
Does anyone believe that congress will pass a bill that will be retroactive and force BP to pay for the clean-up and that the bill wouldn't be overturned on appeal?
Does anyone believe that BP will pay a penny more for any claim than they have too under current law, except where it might be a tax write-off?
Depends on how important BP branded gas stations in America are to BP.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbasnett
If it's a small percentage of their business, then yea they wouldn't care about bad PR.
If it's a big part of their business or a growth area they want to limit damage to, then they'll pay more than the current law asks for.
Assuming the current law is $75M, how many PR $ do you think they will spend above that? If BP's core business is in areas that are affected the number might be significantly higher, if not... We have one BP station where I live, and it is attached to a popular local eatery. In a year I'd be willing to bet that few, if anyone, here is going to be making a statement by boycotting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
As crass as this may seem, I hope that BP doesn't pay more than the $75M. They like Goldman Sachs, etc. were playing by the rules they bought, sorry, the rules our elected officials deemed to serve the public. The villain, IMHO, is the congress. They certainly seem to be the common denominator.
OK, men, the clock is ticking and the recent siphon doesn't seem to be working worth a tinkers. That's a joke that reminds me of tokenism.
Has anybody predicted when this disaster is going to exceed the Exxon-Valdez mayhem that occurred last century? Many experts have estimated that the BP spill volume will reach Exxon's tanker disaster several days before the 4th of July and that it will be twice as bad by Labor Day.
The entire Florida shoreline is now threatened with gook. At one time they said that only one auxilliary well would have to be drilled to equalize the pressure at the wellhead, and now they say that two will be needed. :sick:
Does anybody really know how severe this situation is? I think not.
It all depends on how much oil is actually coming out of that pipe. The original BP estimate was 1,000 barrels/day, which became 5,000 based on a NOAA estimate. More recent analysis puts the rate between 40,000-100,000 barrels/day.
The Exxon Valdez spill was 257,000 barrels. Assuming the lower end of the range that is agreed upon by unaffiliated experts reviewing the video, the spill exceeded Exxon Valdez roughly five days after it began.
Well you have to consider what causes Congress to act in ways they do. Most of it really is in response to what they think will get them elected and re-elected. But lobbying isn't only done toward them, the electorate is lobbied through various agents and operatives as well acting through mass media and every other outlet from billboards to spam campaigns.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbasnett
If ScroogeCorp can influence enough voters to write to their Representatives and Senators or even turn up at rallys carrying signs with the right message... ScroogeCorp tends to get things its way.
Since the primary purpose of incorporation is to avoid personal liability corporations are dark forces in the economy by nature. I don't think it's much of a stretch to consider them all examples of racketeering, and they have every motive for doing the wrong thing if it enhances profit. Yet we already know that the alternative isn't pretty and doesn't fit our notions of a free society either.
So this seems to take us right back where we are: discussing regulation.
Congress doesn't function in a vacuum. It is up to the electorate to sort out conflicting messages and try to support candidates and influence incumbents in the "most correct" direction. This is not an easy thing. There is seldom any simple and absolute good or evil and most issues carry a mixed bag of both and weights must be assigned to these good and evils based on the realities at hand. When we're lucky we can afford to weight them in light of our expectations of future conditions as well.
But Congress is just an extension of our society at large. That's where changes need to be made. Otherwise even if you threw 100% of those guys out and replaced them we'd be right back here in an amazingly short time.
As I recall, and I could be wrong, the electorate overwhelmingly didn't want the bail outs. Sure those with the money manipulate the masses, but it is so much easier to influence the few.
After watching the Sunday talk shows I thought it was clear that the government is in full spin mode. "Huge disaster, Doing all we can, BP at fault and will Pay", etc. Deflecting attention from the possibility of, if the gov't had been doing its job (oversight) we might not have been in this mess.
Personally, I think only a fool would want the gov't to "take" over the operation to stop this. I don't care how many tweets CNN received supporting that position.
I don't know the CG Admiral, but he seemed capable, and not somebody to mess with. He also struck me as the kind that would resign if there was any political monkey business going on. But he could just as easily be bought and payed for by BP.
Have you ever been on the Hill when Congress is in session?
Yeah, I think I was once, since there were a couple dozen representatives present, which is about all that shows up for most things.
If you walk around the halls of the Capital building or the House / Senate Office buildings, the lobbyist are thick, and they are not hard to spot.
One of the first times I went into the House Chambers there was a representative giving a quite animated speech to a handful of his aids. I asked what was going on and was told that it was for the folks back home. If you watch C-SPAN and see someone giving a speech, and the camera angle never changes, that is what is going on.
While I understand the need for openness in a representative system, cameras just lead to posturing.
The 2-mile-deep exploratory well, Ixtoc I, blew out on June 3, 1979 in the Bay of Campeche off Ciudad del Carmen, Mexico. By the time the well was brought under control in March, 1980, an estimated 140 million gallons of oil had spilled into the bay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
That means that BP 2010 has likely already exceeded the Ixtoc I spill. The wellhead sits on 50 million barrels of proven reserves, or over 2 billion gallons. If only 10% of that emerges into the Gulf of Mexico, BP 2010 will be by far the worst oil spill catastrophy in history. Based on Shaggy Hiker's data, I think that it's already the worst.
Moving, for the moment, from a math-based discussion to a
physics-based question ... how can the top-kill process work?
I understand it conceptually, well, sort of.
The mud is supposedly heavier than the oil .. ok, so far, so good.
However, the oil is under pressure.
So, the mud has to overcome the pressure as well.
If the "mud column" was 1 mile tall, the pressure at the bottom would be quite large
But, it can't be more than about 20 feet (the height of the blow-out preventer).
So.. how on earth can the "mud column" overcome the pressure of the rising oil?
Spoo
It's probably considerably more complicated than that. There may be friction with the pipe walls to take into consideration, and interactions between the particles in the mud such that a force upwards on one particle is spread to all the particles above it, and outwards to the walls of the pipe. After all, if you were to plug a garden hose with a wad of chewing gum, it would take greater force than the weight of the chewing gum alone to dislodge it. Of course, in this case, there is considerably more force, so there are probably several possible scenarios.
I like that garden hose analogy..
My understanding is that they are injecting the
mud from the sides of the pipe.
Hence, with the garden hose analogy, the wad
of gum would be "inserted" at the side of the hose,
say, 5 inches from the end of the hose.
For this scenario, the gum will not be allowed
to come back out from the side of the hose.
However, given the water flow, wouldn't the gum
just get pushed along by the water and squirt
out the end of the hose too?
I think everybody is hoping that will NOT happen.
I haven't been clear on how the top kill process works. I know they are working on drilling down beside the pipe with the intention of slant drilling into the pipe and trying to kill it from there, too, but I thought that was the process that is not slated to be completed until August.
This is my understanding of what it looks like
They are injecting mud at pressures that cause some of it to flow down the hole. What you see on TV is the mud that isn't making it down.Code:| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| --------
| < MUD
| --------
|M |
|U |
|D |
| |
|O |
|I |
|L |
| |
| |
| |
Mr Obama made it clear in his Press Conference an hour ago that the government was taking BP's word for just about everything.
Shaggy
I think the "August" effort is effectively a bottom-kill approach.
My understanding is that they hope to drill down to the oil itself,
(ie, 1 mile of water and 4+ miles of bed-rock), and plug the
pipe from the bottom.
DB
Nice sketch .. let me add my 2 cents
Code:_______
| | |
| | |
20 ft | |
| | |
back-flow | |
preventer | --------
| | < MUD << top-kill
| | --------
v | M |
-------------| U |--------------------------- sea bed
| | D |
| | |
| | O |
4 +/- | I |
miles | L |
| | |
| | |
| | |
v | |
------------ | |----------------------top of oil resevoir
<< bottom kill
If you are asking is that what they are going to do, the answer is yes. By the end of the summer the other holes should be done.
DB
Actually, it was for Shaggy's benefit... but, thanks anyway
Spoo
Shaggy, I think, understood the slant drill / seal method. It was the top kill he didn't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoo
DB
OK, maybe I'm the one that doesn't understand the
slant drill / seal method , aka the "August" method
(ie, the one BP won't be able to complete until August)
Shaggy seems to suggest BP will drill to mid-depth
in the bedrock, and thus inject mud from the side.
My understanding was that BP will drill all the way thru
the bedrock, and inject mud from bottom.
Who'd you say has it right?
Spoo
I'd say, somewhere deep, but it doesn't have to be the bottom. It is about pressure, so anywhere that they have the advantage and can get a good seal will suffice. Surely you have noticed that they do what is in the economic interest of BP, and drilling is expensive, so shallower is better. One day when this is all over, and they allow drilling again, they will go right back down the hole and get the resources that they know are there.
It is not unusual for a well to pass through different hydrocarbon products. The way it was explained to me was that they drill down and extract a resource. They then cement that level and move up to the next resource, and so on.
I have recently heard that the slant drill method is intended to be pretty deep, possibly down at the oil level.
So top kill has failed, and we are about to see Son of Containment Cap. I hope this one works. It's some fascinating attempts, I just wish the cost of failure wasn't quite so high.
I should also say that the amount of effort you people put into text based graphics is both impressive and absurd at the same time. Nice job, though.
Absurd? Me? Hardly ever. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Absurd? Me? Never
Some classic character art (select image from upper right dropdown)
http://www.rtty.com/gallery/gallery.htm