The Special "TOP HAT" Cover on Top of the BOP has Apparently Blown Off!

reply to post by N.of norml

Yes, you've hit th nail right on the head. They could not have set up a potentially unstable well situation better if they're tried. It's staggering that it got approved.

And what is also staggering, is that given the tendency for these high-pressure wells to "burp" occasionally (ie have a short-term pressure hike), a BOP with a maximum pressure rating only about 15% above the well's known oil pressure had basically zero chance of working if the well "burped".

In other words, that BOP was pretty well guaranteed to fail.

BTW I'm sending you a U2U.

Mike

see how easy stuff on this site gets made to be a bigger deal then it really is?

Originally posted by AtruthGuy
see how easy stuff on this site gets made to be a bigger deal then it really is?

No. Can you point it out for us?

I have seen some ridiculous stuff on this site, but not on this thread. Actually this thread has only taken one or two of the biggest concerns and addressed them in detail with science and data and documents to back them up.

There are still other, very good threads, with yet more very scare other aspects of the humongous danger associated with the Gases from this well!

I think this is one of the Methane threads. If not, I will edit.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by AtruthGuy
see how easy stuff on this site gets made to be a bigger deal then it really is?

If the "stuff" you are referring to is the fact that documents prove the failed BOP would have been near its maximum pressure tolerance to contain a blowout even under ideal conditions, then maybe it should be a bigger deal than it already is.

How big a deal do you think it should be? Care to let us know what your relative values are in such matters? If this isn't a big deal then I'd like to know what is.

Have you read the documents? Or did you even read my post where I cite the figures and refer to those documents?

I'm not making this stuff up. If I did I'd get hauled over the coals by our sharp members and rightly so. I'm just getting the information out to more people.

That's what ATS is about.

Okay, I started this thread to alert members to a potential problem with the LMRP cap (the "top hat"), but this latest information relates to the reasons why that "cap" had to be made up and lowered about 5,000 feet on a cable to partly stem the flow from a failed BOP -- a "fail-safe" apparatus that was pretty likely to fail and that did fail.

I see that as both totally relevant and highly important, and those documents I've linked to give some of the reasons why.

I don't spend my time on "stuff" like this unless it's worth it. I and all the other members who are actively contributing are doing so because we see this as important.

This disaster is about people. Eleven people got killed in that blowout, and it was an event that it now seems was almost guaranteed to happen. Read the documents and you'll see why. Do you think their families see it as no big deal?

Two more people died yesterday. Do you think their families consider this is no big deal?

And people are losing their jobs. More people each day, as the pollution spreads. They could also lose their health. More people could even lose their lives.

Is that not a big deal? Want to go down to the coast in Louisiana and tell people that we're all making too big a deal out of this?

We are putting our time and effort into this because it is a big deal. We are not overstating the case; wherever possible we are relying on both documented material and video evidence.

If you think this is not a big such a big deal then okay, that's your opinion and you have a right to it. No problem. I also have a right to disagree with you.

The fact that thirteen lives have been lost to this event so far, and that the pollution is ongoing and not getting better, says that your opinion might be wrong.

This is a big deal and we need to know as much about it as we can, and that is what we are trying to do.

Regards,

Mike

Originally posted by AtruthGuy
see how easy stuff on this site gets made to be a bigger deal then it really is?

I know you are referring to my side remark that the repercussions may well be part of the plan.
If you cannot even discern a semi-sarcasm from the actual discussion, I do not think you able to comprehend the discussion.
Were you to have read the WHOLE DAMN THREAD as I have and as I do for each and every thread I post my nickname to. If you had then perhaps my SEMI-sarcasm would be more understandable to you.
When you read from official documents that the well was drilled into the fractile region that composes the CAP DOME of the deposit and understand what that means tell me how I should react or speak to this forum. Should I just pop a pill and say all is peachy and BP had an "accident" but is handling it now?
Sorry my thread derailing disinfo dude I have family in Florida and my family is watching ATS and some other sites like this for the get out of dodge message before and IF the feds do it.
Again Had you READ all the information on even the most conservative estimates of gas release and the apparent composition and understood what it means and you are not appalled and frightened for those along the GOM I am really sorry for you bro.
Sorry for the rant, delete as needed
N.

reply to post by JustMike


This thread is probably the best in the BP section right now and continues to monitor and analyze the entire situation as it continues to unfold. Keep up the good work… trolls don’t swim to well in oil!~

reply to post by tdatreefrog


Yes it is great down there and as soon as I can I will be moving back that way. I am just outside Atlanta and even though it is nice I miss the sunsets over the gulf and the fresh air. I just hope there is something left of the Gulf when I get back down. I try to get that way as much as I can to see my sister and nephews and that is probably where I will be when I die.

I am not sure if I am seeing this right. Has anyone else noticed that with the enterprise ROV 2 camera shot it seems to have a lot less of a flow coming out of it. Are we just seeing a slow down of flow or are we just seeing a different angle. Something sure looks strange with the camera shots right now.It sure looks like more is actually being caught up in the tophat.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


I was thinking that earlier but it is just the angle. I guess because of the tilt, it is all going out the other side. If you look at Skandi 2 you can see that the flow is still spewing full force.

reply to post by GATruthseeker


Yes it probably is, but with the skandi 2 camera it looks like less is being sent into the gulf. he shot from before seem to have more coming from under the tophat and into the gulf. This looks like they are catching more and the tophat is really on an odd angle. Maybe they found a way to catch more now. Don't know and I am one of those inquiring minds that want to know.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


I would love to know too & I guess every little bit helps. I think I might be getting more & more cynical by the hour though. Knowing that they are spraying millions of gallons of that poison into the mix just leaves me feeling pretty hopeless.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


I really think there IS less oil escaping the top hat. Got real busy at work today and never had a chance to look but just did and it is definitely MUCH better. I can actually SEE the top hat... not just the ends of the feet and I don't care what angle I've seen it from, except for yesterday when they were lowering it back into place, I've never actually seen it because it has been completely covered up.

Came here to see if anyone had an update since BP is late on theirs.

The flow definitely seems to have slowed since you can actually see the top hat and little seems to be coming out. This top cap seems to be larger then what was on before but still yesterday there was a nice flow coming out of it. I was saying in a couple of other posts that the well seems to be seeing an increasing level of volatility from lots to little in no time flat and then reversal. IMO that shows the casing is damaged below, perhaps the line gets clogged by the damage thus reducing outflow at the BOP only to be cleared by the intense pressure. I've noticed that when volume decreases those ROVs go out scanning the seabed also. Just my two cents.

I found this. It looks like there picking up the thing that blew off. Its a live feed and im watching them moving what looks like it. Its Thursday 8:47 central time where im at. Some one look NOW and tell me if thats what there doing.. www.bp.com...

Originally posted by JustMike
reply to post by N.of norml

 

Thanks for your response. I was beginning to wonder if anyone had followed what I was getting at in my post. I think what you've said is probably right: there is not a great deal of difference between those two pressures and that's a concern.

I think it's also important to repeat that those who were making decisions in this case had to be aware that the pressures in that well had been reported at above 13,000 psi, but even so, they used a BOP that was rated to "only" 15,000 psi. (I say "only" because that is still a pretty huge number.) This means that they were allowing only a fairly small amount of leeway as a safety margin -- even under ideal conditions and if everything in the BOP functioned perfectly and continued to do so.

The standard (western not china or India ECT)engineering practice is to rate a piece of equipment at 50% of tested failure point.

So running it right up to rated pressure would not be any worry to a engineer unless he was getting the equipment from China or India ECT. then it would be thoroughly tested to failure and rated accurately.

This is also why i think BP may be planing to try to close the BOP rams again at a higher pressure.
If they are rated for operating at 7500 psi they would not be likely to fail if you put 10,000 psi on them.
but they just might work and close at 10,000 psi.

Everyone needs to see the videos on this site, and read the information that's detailed - Whether it was an accident or caused on purpose, this is a massive situation!!! - www.apfn.org...

reply to post by Scalded Frog

Right now I'm watching the feeds from Enterprise ROV 2 and Skandi ROV 1, and I can only say that except for the "fins", the lower part of the LMRP cap ("top hat") is completely obscured by the gushing oil/gas/hydrate mix. (I'll call it "oil" for short but we'll keep in mind that it's not just oil.)

About 12 hours ago, one of the Skandi ROVs was showing this gush of oil and another ROV (Ent 2 maybe?) was on the other side of the cap and that side was quite visible. So it seems to me there are a minimum of two possibilities here.

1) As another poster suggested, perhaps there are wide variations in the rate the oil is gushing out. Sometimes it's huge and sometimes it's worse than huge. This variation could be due to whatever is happening down-hole by way of debris, or could be some anomaly in the reservoir's pressure in the region where the well was drilled through the top of the dome.

2) The exact camera position will certainly make a difference. The cap is not seated level. It is noticeably tilted and off-center. That is not surprising, because as we all saw before BP replaced the cap, the top of the pipe had deteriorated and had a chunk missing out of one side of the piece that extends vertically above the top of the BOP. (We were of course unable to see the pipe that is inside the BOP but it's not unreasonable to assume that it also might have deteriorated to some degree.)

Now, the oil is not only gushing straight up, a percentage of it is also able to spew out to one side. Naturally, because it's a "sideways" release of oil, the fluid dynamics involved mean that the "sideways pressure" may be less that the upward pressure. All the same, we're looking at a lot of pressure that is being exerted on one section of the inside of the cap's "walls". Naturally, this forces the cap off-center. The rest of the oil gushes up into the cap's cone-shaped upper section, where some of it gets picked up by the pipes there and is taken up to sea level for "capture". The rest has nowhere to go, so it billows out around the lower edges of the cap.

Again, quite naturally, the oil will find the path of least resistance, and where the cap's base is higher (due to the tilt), more oil billows out there than elsewhere. I believe this means that the cap is probably working less efficiently than before. Gut instinct tells me that something that's seated off-line and tilted won't work as well as a similar object that's seated flush and centered. I base this assumption by imagining the nth degree of such a situation, taken in stages:

(1) If the cap is sitting flush (level) and is centered, the oil will escape around its lower edge at even pressure and the turbulence and abrasive actions of any debris in the oil will also be evenly distributed. This gives the cap the best chance of capturing oil in its upper section at a regular rate and allows it to be taken off via the pipes there. It also means that abrasive wear on the cap and its components will be as evenly distributed as possible.

(2) If the cap is tilted a few degrees and slightly off-center, the oil will tend to escape at the higher part of the lower edge and the turbulence and related abrasion will therefore be greater there than elsewhere. (The abrasion is now worse in some place than in the 1st case.) As the tilt means that there is now less effective capture volume inside the cap, it might affect the amount of oil that is captured in the upper section.

(3) If the cap is severely tilted then the turbulence (and pressure and abrasion) will be far more concentrated on one side of it. Also, the capture volume inside the cap is now considerably less. Also, some sections will now have very severe abrasion risk while others will have far less than when it was level.

(4) The nth degree: if the cap is tilted to 90 degrees, then virtually no oil is now being captured and the pressure on one side of it would probably push the whole thing away from the top of the BOP. (Now, abrasion risk no longer matters.)

This is why I think that the cap is no longer working as well as it did before. It just makes sense that it cannot work as well as it did. I also think that they were well aware that this would be the outcome of the "refit". The people involved in setting up the refit are not stupid, after all. They have some very good engineers and they'd know the ins and outs of all this far, far better than I would.

For this reason I suspect that this cap was put back on as a temporary measure and they are now designing a new one that will balance better and allow for more oil capture.

One way to do this would be to fit a cap that does not have a straight (level) lower edge -- meaning that from the side, it will be gradually longer in one half than in the other half. (The base of the cap would therefore look elliptical rather than circular.) Also, in the half of the cap that is facing to the damaged part of the pipe, it would be good to fit another capture pipe.

This means the cap would not only have a pipes in the top but in one side as well. In fact, they could fit three, spaced at 120 deg intervals. By adjusting the rate those pipes collect the oil, they could help to balance the pressures on the inside of the cap and have a better chance of keeping it centered. Obviously they'd also have to fit devices to prevent clogging but at least it would improve the chances of collecting the oil and keeping the thing in place.


Apologies for the long rave. I'm still on first coffee. Meanwhile...

For BP, this tilted cap might have some advantages. If they wish, they can give the MSM video images from the side of the cap that is tilted downwards and where there is (therefore) less oil belching out, and effectively present a less-than-accurate picture of the real situation.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that BP would deliberately try to mislead the public in this way...

Mike

[edit on 25/6/10 by JustMike]

Originally posted by Scalded Frog
I really think there IS less oil escaping the top hat.

Rumor has it that barium sulfate crystals are building up on the inside of the well pipe(s) and at the top of the BOP, and THAT has begun restricting outflow.

Rumor also has it that because of this restricted outflow, more methane hydrates are escaping through the cracked well far below and are seeping up through the sediment on the sea floor. There are huge pools of the stuff off at a distance from the BOP. ROV's have found these pools and have been probing their depth and marking them with buoys, I watched and recorded them doing so for a while yesterday. It's like a methane hydrate lake down there. I'm suspecting that they may be preparing to remove the top part of the BOP to allow for greater outflow, thinking that will reduce pressure down below.

Anybody have any ideas on how much "oil" is actually left in the well? and what effects we could expect if the top of the well (sea floor) were to collapse, i'm wandering more about the nature in the ocean, not the things above. A large Tsunami is certain to happen if the well does collapse,correct?

reply to post by ANNED

Thanks, ANNED. I think I follow what you're saying about the rated limits versus limits in use and exceeding them. Does this mean that although the BOP was only tested to a max of 7,200 psi it was expected to have been able to withstand its rated 15k psi? Does testing such a device to less than half its maximum rated value give them data that unequivocally confirms it will be 100% reliable at its maximum rating?

Also, do you have an opinion on the effect of the sea water pressure on the BOP's operation and reliability? At 5,000 feet (of water depth) the pressure is around 2,300 psi. Granted, this acts equally on all components of the BOP that are exposed to the water pressure, but how would this affect its overall performance? No effect? Raise effective safe rating by 2300 psi? Lower effective safe rating by that amount? (Not being sarcastic. I really want to know.)

I'm asking because there was less than 2,000 psi difference between the oil well pressure and the BOP's rated maximum, and it would be good to know if this deep-water pressure was a factor they were concerned about. You see, I noticed that some components were tested to only 5,000 psi (and the test shows a warning to not test them beyond 5,000 psi), whereas some other major components were tested up to 7,200 psi. That 2200 psi difference equates very closely to the water pressure at that depth.

It's too complex for me to puzzle out, so if you know (or if anyone knows) please post!

Regards,

Mike