How long theoretically could oil spew from the BP leak?

Serious question for anyone who knows a lot about the industry...

Let's say the leak cannot be stopped, how long could it go on? Months? Years? Decades? Centuries? A millenia or more?

I would hate to imagine what would happen if for example the leak went on for 10 or more years, everything in the ocean would most likely die. Just how much oil is down there, are we talking more than what's underneath all of Saudi Arabia?

I'm not sure if anyone really knows what's down there. Hundreds of millions of barrels, or tens of billions of barrels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon

Designed originally for R&B Falcon, Deepwater Horizon was built by Hyundai Heavy Industries in Ulsan, South Korea. Construction started in December 1998 and it was delivered in February 2001 after the acquisition of R&B Falcon by Transocean. She was the second semi-submersible rig constructed of a class of two, although the Deepwater Nautilus, her predecessor, is not dynamically positioned. Since arriving in the Gulf of Mexico, Deepwater Horizon was under contract to BP Exploration. Her work included wells in the Atlantis and Thunder Horse fields, a 2006 discovery in the Kaskida field, and the 2009 Tiber oilfield.<7><8> On September 2, 2009, Deepwater Horizon drilled on the Tiber oilfield with a vertical depth of 35,050 feet (10,680 m) and measured depth of 35,055 feet (10,685 m), of which 4,132 feet (1,259 m) was water.<8><9><10>

In 2002, the rig was upgraded with "e-drill," a drill monitoring system whereby technicians based in Houston, Texas, received real-time drilling data from the rig and transmitted maintenance and troubleshooting information.<11>

At the time of the accident, Deepwater Horizon was worked on BP's Mississippi Canyon Block 252, referred to as the Macondo Prospect.<7> The rig was last located 50 miles (80 km) off the southeast coast of Louisiana.<12> In October 2009, BP extended the contract for Deepwater Horizon by three years, to begin in September 2010.<4> The lease contract was worth US$544 million, a rate of $496,800 per day.<13>
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiber_oilfield

The Tiber oilfield is a deepwater offshore oilfield in the Gulf of Mexico, discovered by BP in September 2009. Described as a "giant" find,<2> it is estimated to contain 4 to 6 billion barrels (640×10^6 to 950×10^6 m3) of oil in place<3>, although BP states it is too early to be sure of the size<2> - a "huge" field is usually considered to contain 250 million barrels (40×10^6 m3). It required the drilling of a 10,685-metre (35,056 ft) deep well under 1,260 metres (4,130 ft) of water,<4> making it one of the deepest wells drilled at the time of discovery<4> (the drilling rig's owner states "the deepest ever".<5>)

I doubt there is enough crude in the well to go beyond that.

Why would they want to stop the gusher?

BP says: "The ecological impact is small."
That: "BP can handle this, they have more resources than needed."

Those are two near verbatim BP official quotes.

So, do they want to stop the gusher, or not?

...they're seeing dollars...kinda like watching the gas pump running.

While I have little trust in BP as I see them covering their asses rather than taking responsibility, this is a bottom line corporation and this is turning into a financial disaster for them...even if they find ways to avoid any legal liabilities.

Remember, they spent millions in finding this oil and then drilling. The oil that comes out of that hole is money down their rat hole. I do think they want to salvage what they can here and return to that site after the heat has died down and try to make money with it. The longer this thing gushes, the more money escapes.

Lets say there is 5 billion barrels as estimated

And they lose one billion (likely if it gushes til August)

5B at $40 profit per barrel = 2Trillion

1B loss to the gulf = $40B lost profits

$40B vs $2 trillion. $40 B is nothing to them. They already lost the rig. They already polluted the hell out of the gulf.

That $40b loss may just buy them a brownfield site where they can drill baby drill.

From the 60 Minutes report last Sunday it was reported they've already sunk nearly $500 million into drilling the hole. I would imagine the new hole they're drilling isn't going to be much cheaper. Most experts do agree that the ultimate solution here is to drill that second well and then to use it to relieve the pressure and eventually seal off the bad pipe...as well as salvage something for BP for later.

If you saw NY-Skp's map of all the off shore plaforms and piplines, the Gulf has turned into a brownfield...forcing them to go further and further out...which is more and more expensive. Drilling in 5,000 feet is not like doing it on the shelf...far more expensive and as long as this country remains on its oil addiction, the quicker BP caps this gusher (and sorry, the Government isn't Superman...we're at the mercy of BP and other oil companies who have the expertise and equipment here) the quicker this story fades from the news.

Also there's an incalculable amount in bad PR this is generating for the company. They've got a lot of skin in this game and the sooner they cut the losses. Remember, these corporates are greedy...there are no such things as loss leaders when it comes to oil companies and speculators.

Cheers...

And a potential $2 trillion payoff? Chump change.

The gulf, most of it anyway, is not yet a brownfield, so stop saying that.

Drilling in 5,000 is cheaper. One mile less of rock to go through.

And what have they been wanting to do for years? Drill off the coasts of Florida. Until now they have been kept at bay, like a child locked in a room. They want their freedom to DBDrill and so, just maybe, they have engineered a a way to break free of those damned enviros who once had something worth fighting for?

Like you say..."as long as this country remains on its oil addiction" they have the upper hand. Who knows, maybe they get lucky and the enviros are crushed. It HAS happened before. Then the whole gulf is theirs, baby, theirs!!

I wouldn't put it past Cheney.

One thing this disaster has brought out is the corruption and ineptness of the MMS...where Cheney put his moles...many who remained after the change of Administrations. President Obama has had to go from one crisis to the next...one boooosh mess to another...trying not to ruffle feathers that has resulted in more messes blowing up and half measures being taken as the pressure builds to "move along". This disaster is a real black eye as it came right after the administration caved in to try to compromise a deal for a watered down environmental bill by lifting the drilling ban.

One thing that should be pointed out is that this well wasn't going into immediate production...this was an exploratory hole that was in the process of being sealed (poorly by Haliburton) and BP would sit on the "potential"...where they would speculate on those "futures" and then go into production after they made a ton of money in the markets. Yes, we are talking chump change...even at a $10 billion dollar liability cap (which seems will be obstructed).

Here's hoping that another moritorium on any drilling...or at least on the Continental shelf comes out of this. I'm also hopeful that now with the light focused on MMS and Interior that a thorough Housecleaning (including Salazar) is done...get rid of the industry moles still inside. I'd love to see a thorough investigation of the corruption of this department over the past decade (including Cheney's secret oil meetings), but I know better.

Cheers...

The more the field depletes the less future profit there is in it.
Thus any future well costs the same amount but the lifetime revenue from it is less.

Then the $40B isn't the total cost that is just the lost "oppertunity cost".
BP has spent roughly $500B on mitigation so far.
If it takes until August to cap that likely will rise to another $1B.

Then you got long term cleanup costs. If Valdez is any reference that can easily be double, say another $3B.
Then you got liability damages. Say the cap is raised to $10B that is another $10B.

So the COST to let this flow and INTENTIONALLY not stop the flow is more like:
lost oil: $40B
mitigation: $1.5B
long term cleanup: $3B
damages: $10B
total: $14.54B

that doesn't even include the qualitative loses like loss of brand reputation, inability to get future leases, the exposure of outright incompetence, etc.

The idea that BP is intentionally flushing $15B down the drain just to lose their own oil, and pollute the gulf is stupid.

The reality is even scarier. Everything they have tried has failed. The top kill will likely also fail and nothing will stop a breach of this size except a relief well. If Ixtoc 1 is any example the first relief well attempt won't be successful and it likely will take multiple relief wells and multiple cementing attempts before well is sealed. If top kill doesn't work this could flow for 6 months to a year.

Total profit from 5B barrels at $40 per is only 200 Billion. My bad.
Of course oil is selling at $70 and has been as high as $140. And probably will be again at 140.

So, they lose 15 B from this. (Conservative figure imo.)
Consider, too, that in reality, the oil gushing is as free as air and sunshine.

They still are looking at a minimum $185 B profit.

And if they get to drill anywhere and everywhere after this, and make mistakes again and just get their hands slapped, .... sounds like a BP plan.

if the intial pressure remains constant or dimishes with time ?

The oil is under pressure because its volume is being compressed by miles of rock. As that volume decreases so does the pressure.

This is why you see pump-rigs in TX (and other places with old wells). They no longer have sufficient pressure for oil to flow to the surface.

Being a mile under water has one positive. The water pressure at wellhead is intense. About 2500 psi. Once well pressure drops below that the oil will stop flowing.

IF we knew how big the oil field was people could design a model but that info is BPs and they aren't sharing.

As the oil moves, the rock moves to fill in where the oil was, eventually closing the space?

An oil field isn't like a giant underground cavern filled with liquid oil. It is rock. There is a top layer of non-porous rock which acts like a cap.
Beneath that there is a layer of pourous rock. The oil is in the porous rock. When the oil is removed the porous rock remains.



The green layer is representation of non-porous rock. If this layer doesn't exist oil field will never develop. The yellow layer is porous rock. When geology allows it so that you had a "ridge" in the cap rock with hydrocarbons below it oil/nat gas pockets form. The ohio valley for example at one time likely contained more oil than Saudi Arabia but something happened to the cap rock and slowly the hydrocarbons leaked to the surface over millions of years.

So when you drill for oil you drill through the "green layer" into the yellow layer. However it isn't like drilling into a cavern. You are drilling to rock however oil can flow through small spaces in the rock. The pressure is great enough (and later suction is great enough) that oil is forced out of the rock formation.

Kinda like a water in gravel. Is you remove the water the gravel still remains.

We have many old oil fields which are exhausted (economical oil removed, no oil field ever "runs out" of oil) yet they still remain. Hypothetically they could be used for underground storage of CO2 someday.

"The oil is under pressure because its volume is being compressed by miles of rock"

If the oil is being actively compressed (compression is action and movement) then the rock should collapse once the oil is gone?

And how did the oil get into the space to start with if the rock is compressing?

Oil is in equilibrium it isn't being compressed or expanding anymore.

The rock formation is capable of withstanding the weight of rock above it. If the oil was under higher pressure than then the pressure created by the cap rock then the oil would continue to be compressed and pressure increase until equilibrium is reached. On the other hand if the oil was somehow under higher pressure than that created by weight of cap rock it would expand (pushing cap rock up), volume would increase and pressure decrease until equilibrium has reached.

Much like an air compressor with air tank. You run the compressor and pressure builds up in the tank. However even once you turn off the compressor the pressure remains. It will remain as long as the tank (in this case cap rock) doesn't leak.

The oil deposit has been in equilibrium for millions of years now. When drilling you are opening a hole in the cap rock and thus pressure equalizes (like letting air out of beachball) and is slowly reduced as the oil/gas flows to the point of lowest pressure (surface).

How did it get forced into the rock?

Organic material (plankton in case of underwater deposits) dies off in massive amounts. Scientists still debate how or why but we are talking a massive and rapid die off on an epic scale. Dead organic material settles to bottom of ocean it gets covered by settlement over centuries. Now most of the time (99.99999%) of the time that is where the story ends, the material decays, CO2 and/or methane is release and that is the end. However sometimes massive geological movements at the right place and time bury that organic material deeply. Really it is pure luck. All over the planet organic material is dying continually and has been for billions of years yet an infinitesimally small amount of that become hydrocarbons.

Only when a cap rock covers semi poruous rock containing organic material does hydrocarbons form. The ombined gas law: pV = nRT

Given that volume for decaying organic material is static (or nearly static) and amount of organic mass is constant but temperature rises the pressure of the system will rise. When we say the "rock is compressing or rock compressed" the oil it is also true. There are two sides to every coin. Without sufficient weight of the rock formation the pressure increase of the gas would simply move the rock upward increasing volume and decreasing pressure and oil would never form.

That was when hydrocarbons were forming, today however the system is in equilibrium. No more natural gas is being produced today, and the oil isn't getting hotter, the cap rock isn't increasing the pressure on oil deposit. The system is in equilibrium and would remain so for billions more years. When we drill into a pocket we take the system out of equilibrium. Surface air pressure is 15 psi and the deposit is under tens of thousands of pounds of pressure. This mean oil & gas will be forced to the surface. However as material leaves the deposit pressure will fall because the external forces on deposit are static but the remaining oil becomes less compressed.

Like deflating a beach ball. Push on a beach ball with continual and equal pressure. At first ball will deflate very rapidly but then it will slow. If you don't increase pressure on the ball it will continually slow down. Eventually you will reach a point where air still remains inside the beach ball but you can't remove any more without increasing pressure. Of course if you hooked a pump up to beach ball and created a vacuum you could remove more air out of the ball (oil deposit).

So, as this push on the "beach ball" full of oil continues, doesn't the pusher go lower and lower? So, too, the rock that is (your idea) 'compressing' the oil will collapse, right?

The external pressure has to go somewhere. If the rock is external pressure on the beach ball the rock has to and will move?

Of course, I don't believe there is any external pressure. The rock is not going to move because the oil is not holding it from moving except that it might be supporting some of the rock in fluid. Like the limestone aquifers do, and as the water is removed the holes collapse forming sinkholes at the surface.

However, in this environment, the oil is replaced by seawater and there is no resultant void. Indeed, I figure the pressure of the seawater going into the hole will float the oil out and keep the rock from collapsing.

Well physics isn't open to beliefs.

I thought you wanted to hear about science not belief systems.

If you believe the universe works the way you want to to because of your belief systems there really is no point in continuing.
I feel kind stupid wasting that time.

I got to get to my run have a fun day in a universe which responds to your beliefs.

Can't even hold up your own beliefs, eh?

Can't even have a debate without getting your feelings hurt?

Or do you believe that what you believe is not open to questioning? Is that it? Your beliefs are correct and damn anybody who questions you?

It must be that, or you would actually be open to debate and not claim how stupid you feel?
Quote: "I feel kind stupid wasting that time"

:shrug:

Do you even have a clue about aquifers?

Did you know there are more conundrums in geology than most any other field?

Where is this "century of geological research" you speak of?

I found your posts enormously informative and I really, really appreciate you for posting them. Thank you. I do have a couple of questions, assuming you even revisit the thread:

You mention atmospheric pressure is 15 psi. What is the pressure at about a mile deep under the ocean? Much higher than atmospheric pressure, anyway. I recollect that the deeper one goes in the ocean, the higher the pressure. I wonder if this is the case under land as well. Say that in a given space (say, an olympic pool) at the surface of the planet, you could measure the amount of water which would fill it. Take a cave of precisely the same dimensions a mile under the land, and that same amount of water wouldn't quite fill it; it's under higher pressure. Is this correct?

Forgive me if it is a really stupid question. I'm not a science guy; I've tried to be but really, I forget too many details. And thanks again for the useful info.

He does have SOME good info.

If you are in a hole filled with air, the pressure is only slightly greater than on the surface... because it is air.

Underwater with the molecules of H2o being much thicker, the pressure greatly increases because of all that weight above you. Air weighs virtually nothing compared to water.

I have read that the PSI with 5,000 feet of water above you, is 2,500 pounds per square inch.

So, you open a hole below that and you have 2,500 psi wanting to fill that hole.

Edit to add this example:

We have 50,000+ feet of air above us, yet the pressure here is only 15 psi.

If we had a pipe of water that was 5,000 feet of high it would create, at the bottom of that pipe, 2,500 psi of pressure.

Lets get the easy one first. water pressure increases with depth. At a mile under water it is about 2500psi. The reason why I comapred the well to surface if simply to explain how drilling works. When well isn't broken a pipe connects the well to the surface thus you have a pressure diferential. The water pressure is no longer part of the system. You simply have two points of pressure. The well (tens of thousands of psi) and the surface (15psi). As a result we know fluid will move in the direction of lower pressure in an attempt to equalize.

With the well broken the end of the pipe underwater has 2500psi of water pushing against it. When the pressure in oil field drops below 2500psi at the well head it will be in equilibrium with the water. That will take very long time because as pressure drops, flow rate also drops so the oil field is draining at slower pace and thus the future pressure drops by less and less. So rather than 1 million gpd (gallons per day) flow and then it cutting to 0 you would simply see over a long period of time the flow to slowly decrease (as the relative difference between water pressure and well pressure becomes smaller).



For that matter air pressure increases with "depth". When you are standing at sea level you have an "ocean" of air above you. The 15psi you feel is the result of the miles of air above you pushing down. This is why air pressure declines as you go higher into atmosphere (in jet for example), there is less of an "air ocean" above you. You are in essence closer to the surface (space).

"Say that in a given space (say, an olympic pool) at the surface of the planet, you could measure the amount of water which would fill it. Take a cave of precisely the same dimensions a mile under the land, and that same amount of water wouldn't quite fill it; it's under higher pressure. Is this correct?"

Yes. All material have higher density at higher pressure. Each material has differing amounts of "compressibility". Air for example is highly compressible. Water not so much. So while water under 2500 psi psi will take up less space the than 15 psi the difference between the two will be less than say a tank of air under 15 psi and same tank under 2500psi. Well the oil under land is also under pressure. All the earth lying on top of the oil works in similar manner. Earth has higher density and thus a mile of earth exerts more pressure than a mile of water.

This leads me to another question, and every time someone else mentions it I've grown nervous. Let us say they drill a hole near the affected shaft. Let us further suppose they drill almost all the way down through the "red layer" of nonporous rock and stop there, removing their drill bit. Into this hole they place explosives. They then refill the hole, quite a deep hole I would imagine. Then they blow up their bomb, which in theory should send shock waves sufficient to collapse the hole through which the oil is spewing.

This scenario, I admit, appears on the surface a risky one. We're going down a mile into the ocean and then miles further into the ground with explosives; this is dangerous, even assuming we're able to completely eliminate mistakes and stupidities (a fool's errand, always). There is also a significant risk of unforceable problems. But on the other hand, do you think it would work?

Now that I think about it further, I would imagine that as long as they're able to drill that far, they may as well continue and get the oil. But just for the sake of edification, would it work in theory, and how far into the rock would they have to drill? Perhaps even only a few hundred yards, eh?

sometimes fairly rapidly. It's called rate of depletion.

Every once in a while they will go down the well and refrac it, meaning open up new fissures at the bottom of the well (using either bullet like shots into the rock, or water cannons).

The reason I don't know about this one is that it is obviously under much greater pressure with all the water piled ontop of it, so the depletion rate must be much slower than a normal well.

One thing for suire is there's a lot of oil down there to be gushing out this fast on its own.

Just as an aside, in diagrams, they show oil like it's in swimming pools underground. Really it's not at all in pools. It's more like drops in porous rock kind of like caliche that they make streets out of. The oil has to pass through the rocks to get to the hole. The idea is to open a hole in a high pressure situation and any liquid will find its way to the hole. The fracking is to help the oil along with little fracture highways in the rock.

So how's this?

There is no rock 'pressing' down on the oil.
The only pressure in the reservoir is from heat and decay, causing some vaporization. Think of it like a covered pot on the stove on high. Steam, right? That's vaporization. That's what blew the rig - that vapor coming too fast.

Now.... were I drilling a reservoir so deep, I'd want a steady source of pressure to force all the oil out of the reservoir. Free pressure is right there on the seabed. 2,500 psi of free pressure. I'd make sure that the water at the well head found it's way into the reservoir and, in effect, pumped the reservoir dry, since oil floats on water.

And that is probably what we have... water flowing down into the reservoir forcing the oil out and up.

The permanent way to end the oil gushing is to drill another well at at angle, a relief well, into the current gusher. They can redirect a lot of the flow, reduce the pressure at the well head, and inject heavy mud into the well to seal it. It can take several months to do that.

will that double the mess?

the wellhead presure. There is a risk of a blow out, as there is in all oil wells.

If they are drilling into the current well shaft.

see post #10

See this wiki article(Coal Oil Point seep field) or this The world's most spectacular marine hydrocarbon seeps (Coal Oil Point, Santa Barbara Channel, California): Quantification of emissions

In a worst case scenario, this could be a permanent feature of the gulf, a permanent asphalt volcano.

Seems pretty obvious.

But this one is much deeper.

Don

Australia's oil disaster last year took 5 relief well attempts to close.

It will work EVENTUALLY however each well takes a long time to drill and there will be a lot of misses and even once you have union (relief well joining main well) that isn't a guarantee that first attempt with mud and then concrete will work either. The concrete cap may partially fail results in a reduced flow but still some flow remaining.

Relief wells do work but they take a long time and there will be lots of failures along the way.

When the rig collapsed, some brilliant minds thought it would be a good idea to light the gas.

That was 1971. It's still burning to this day.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=93d_1264094648
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derweze

Sid

It will mix with the seawater and deplete oxygen as it breaks down. The Gulf will be a "dead-zone" within a few years if they cannot cap the well.