Next up LMRP cap

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I don't know why they did not do this in the beginning instead of spewing millions of gallons of oil into gulf because they wanted to try experimental solutions..

Basically
-you cut pipe flush and close to BOP
-Slide a high compression slip valve over the newly cut pipe.
-close valve

Baring this we'll have to wait until August when the relief well is finished - which will work. By then gulf and everything in it will be destroyed.
http://www.theoildrum.com/

BP said preparations have been made for the possible deployment of the lower marine riser package (LMRP) cap containment system, which would be complex because of the depth of the oil leak.

Deployment would first involve removing the damaged riser from the top of the failed BOP to leave a cleanly-cut pipe at the top of the BOP's LMRP.

The cap, a containment device with a sealing grommet, will be connected to a riser from the Discoverer Enterprise drillship, 5,000 feet above on the surface, and placed over the LMRP with the intention of capturing most of the oil and gas flowing from the well.

Mr Suttles said it should capture "most of the oil" and was expected to last at least four days but "we cannot guarantee success at this time."
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,227
45,401
136
I think because it basically has never been tried before. They're out of known options and are inventing new ones. Also, this involves cutting the riser which could drastically increase the flow of oil if the attempt fails.

It is glaringly clear that this scenario was never considered as possible even though it had happened before and BP (probably all offshore companies too) never developed ways to counter such a blowout.

If this well pulls an Ixtoc BP is going to be lucky to ever do business in the US again or avoid being sued into oblivion.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
They have tried methods that have the highest chance of success, each new attempt has a lessor chance than the previous one.

BP has said that they tried 16 'Junk Shots' during the 'Top Kill' to densify the column of oil, and all failed,
so it's on to the next method - the 'Top Cap'.

All are temporary solutions just to buy time to get a pair of relief wells positions to perform a 'Dynamic Kill'
deep down within the well at the entrance to the oil reservoir itself.
 
Last edited:

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
funny&
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I'm guessing that every single individual person and business that will lose money due to the oil spill can sue and win a case against BP -- pretty much the entire golf coast and possibly more.

They're absolutely falked financially.. done... finished.

That is, if this were a just world...
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
I'm guessing that every single individual person and business that will lose money due to the oil spill can sue and win a case against BP -- pretty much the entire golf coast and possibly more.

They're absolutely falked financially.. done... finished.

That is, if this were a just world...

Nope. Economic damages capped at 75 million.
(However BP is responsible for 100% of the cleanup costs)
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
6.&

What about attaching something to the top of BOP that the cap assembly can be screwed onto to get a tighter seal? Looks like right now they are relying to pressure from above to seal it.
Instead first attach around the top of the BOP tube a 2 piece nut that has screw holes for the cap, then attach the cap with big screws, kind of how they put light poles up.
 

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,516
1,128
126
6.%20Top%20cap.jpg

What about attaching something to the top of BOP that the cap assembly can be screwed onto to get a tighter seal? Looks like right now they are relying to pressure from above to seal it.
Instead first attach around the top of the BOP tube a 2 piece nut that has screw holes for the cap, then attach the cap with big screws, kind of how they put light poles up.

i am sure that drilling and taping holes 5000 feet under water with a robot is easy as pie.....
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
i am sure that drilling and taping holes 5000 feet under water with a robot is easy as pie.....

I mean have a 2 piece ring assembly with pre-drilled holes made on shore, then wrap it around the wider top of the tube and screw it together to form a ring that grabs onto it. Then screw the cap onto that assembly.

pardon my mspaint

cap.gif
 

stgauss

Junior Member
May 30, 2010
1
0
0
I mean have a 2 piece ring assembly with pre-drilled holes made on shore, then wrap it around the wider top of the tube and screw it together to form a ring that grabs onto it. Then screw the cap onto that assembly.

pardon my mspaint

Seems to me there would be 2 problems there when you cap the well: keeping the ring from slipping off the pipe and fastening the screws due to the pressure.

Keep in mind that the explosion seems to have been caused by the well behaving abnormally pressure-wise, spitting out methane bubbles and stuff like that. They pumped it full of mud, capped it with concrete and 2 days later the well simply blew it back out, it doesn't seem to me like a simple cap assembly would hold. Aside from the fact that the riser pipe is probably covered in oil. It'd be kind of like leashing a greased pig :sneaky:

4 screws probably won't hold, you'll need more than that. Say, ballpark figure, you need somewhere around 10 or 12. You put the ring on the pipe and lock it. And you start tightening the cap. You tighten one side, and when you do the oil pushes the other side up and tilts your screws. And since your screws are now out of alignment, the whole assembly is locked and you can't tighten any more. Just one slipped thread on one screw, and your whole operation is compromised.

Plus, just tightening the screws with an ROV in complete blackness and while the oil is shooting out and pushing you every way possible can't be that easy.

And after 3 days of trying, the whole thing simply blows off the well due to pressure and reduced friction, and possibly even damages or destroys your blowout preventer assembly. And there... you're really going to be "screwed" :D

Too difficult and risky in this case.
 
Last edited:

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
I still think that's the stupidest law ever. How can you cap economic damages.

EXXON spending hundreds of $millions to get these Laws passed to get them out of paying a $Billion in damages from their little spill in Alaska.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
I'm guessing that every single individual person and business that will lose money due to the oil spill can sue and win a case against BP -- pretty much the entire golf coast and possibly more.

They're absolutely falked financially.. done... finished.

That is, if this were a just world...

It's called "force majeure" and indemnification and they're in every single contract ever written. Nobody will be able to sue BP because of this.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
I mean have a 2 piece ring assembly with pre-drilled holes made on shore, then wrap it around the wider top of the tube and screw it together to form a ring that grabs onto it. Then screw the cap onto that assembly.

pardon my mspaint

cap.gif

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't the portion of the riser above the BOP just a straight pipe? With 10,000 psi (give or take) pushing upward, the only way the riser can successfully be sealed is if the downward force exerted by the seal's clamp around the circumference of the riser is greater than the upward force exerted by the oil.

If the above analysis is correct - and given the 21-inch diameter of the riser - the clamp (basically held on by friction) would need to exert a downward force of approximately 3.5 MILLION pounds. I'm very, very skeptical that this will work.

Edit: On second thought, I suppose they could drill holes through the wall of the riser, and hold the clamp on with bolts through the holes. But with oil gushing out of the riser, the turbulence inside the riser would be intense. Controlling robotic arms in that turbulence in order to place nuts inside the riser to fasten the bolts would be astoundingly difficult.
 
Last edited:

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,398
8,566
126
I still think that's the stupidest law ever. How can you cap economic damages.

it's for acts of god, war, or terrorism. it's not applicable in this case. i'm fine with the damages being limited for acts of god, war, and terrorism.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
I still think that's the stupidest law ever. How can you cap economic damages.

My guess is that a cap was put in place to encourage drilling. Maybe the oil companies argued that they wouldn't engage in risky offshore drilling if the potential loss due to economic damages caused by an accident was too large.

Not saying it's correct, but two months ago, the majority of Americans thought "drill, baby, drill" was common sense. A little Monday morning quarterbacking has dramatically changed that attitude.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
It's called "force majeure" and indemnification and they're in every single contract ever written. Nobody will be able to sue BP because of this.
Force majeur is a dubious claim in this case. If it can be demonstrated that negligence (or other modes of culpability such as willful recklessness) made such a failure foreseeable then the situation does not fall under force majeur. We'll see how the proceedings shake out...
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
I would try another "top hat" again.
Don't see any reason why that method (if properly implemented) couldn't mitigate much of the oil spill.

I mean hell, gut a super tanker, flip it, and use that as a top hat.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
This is a lot harder cosidering the upward force of pressure from the Oil gushing out. Not to mention the giant pile of mud down there.