Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 21-06-2010, 23:13   #31
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexSail View Post
That oil floats on salt water is Petroleum Engineering 101 and the basis for many of the world's oil fields.
Texsail, I didn't realize that the oil industry was so uncomplicated. Getty was just lucky I guess. I am a little slow though(I rode the little bus, but wasn't required to wear a helmet! Ya!) so could you explain how the fact that oil floats on salt water is the basis for many of the world's oil fields? Could you name a few fields that are based on the fact that oil floats on salt water? I always thought that the basis for ALL the world's oil fields is that there is oil below them. Who knew? Are you referring to the way they pump water into the well to 'float' the oil?
__________________

__________________
ude123 is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 03:35   #32
Senior Cruiser
 
skipmac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: 29° 49.16’ N 82° 25.82’ W
Boat: Pearson 422
Posts: 12,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by ude123 View Post
Skipmac,
I am not saying that there is no oil spewing into the Gulf. Not even arguing about the estimates(150 million gallons). I am talking about the news reports that talk as if there is a 'giant oil slick the size of Vermont(and growing)' and the pictures and amount of oil that has shown up on the beaches(after 62 days) don't add up to what we are being told. If there were that much oil on the surface and heading for the beaches then all the skimmers on Earth wouldn't be able to catch all of it before it hit the shores. I grew up in Southern Cal and had to clean tar off my feet everyday(yeah there is lots of oil in California). The tar balls shown on Panama City Beach is about the same as on the So Cal beaches. Where is the 150 Million gallons?
By a very rough calculation the Gulf of Mexico contains at least 2.0 x 10 to the 18th power (that's 2 with 18 zeros) gallons of water. I would think that it would be easy to have 150,000,000 gallons of oil in that volume and not cover every square inch of the entire surface.
__________________

__________________
The water is always bluer on the other side of the ocean.
skipmac is online now  
Old 22-06-2010, 06:37   #33
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 226
Skipmac, I think you are assuming the oil with 'mix' with the water(why else would you calculate the volume of water in the Gulf). I do not believe this will happen. I think you need to calculate the surface area of the gulf and the volume of 150 million gallons and then calculate how much of an area(less than a foot deep of oil, and more realistically like only an inch or two) the oil would cover(BLACKEN). When oil is on the surface it spreads out and is very thin(in relation to the amount of oil) so if 150 million gallons were on the surface I believe it would cover(BLACKEN) much of the eastern Gulf. Look what small amounts(less than 1/2 gal) in marinas and see how much it actually looks like. When oil is in the water it always looks like there is MORE oil than there really is. In the case of this spill, the oil spill actually looks not as bad as the 'estimates' of 150 million gallons. If anything this oil slick should look worse than it actually is, we should not be seeing(or not seeing) a better picture than reality. Google 'Exxon Valdez' images and look at what 11 million gallons of oil looks like on the surface(it blackened over 800 miles of beaches within days). This spill has gone on now for 63 days and NOTHING looks nowhere near as bad as the much smaller Exxon Valdez. If that spill went 800 miles within days, why hasn't this spill moved onshore(in quantities even remotely close to Exxon Valdez) as of now? Remember this wellhead is only 46 miles off the shore. Have you seen ANY pictures/videos of this spill that looks even remotely as bad as the Exxon Valdez(and this spill is 15 times worse at this point).
__________________
ude123 is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 07:09   #34
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by ude123 View Post
Texsail, I didn't realize that the oil industry was so uncomplicated. Getty was just lucky I guess. I am a little slow though(I rode the little bus, but wasn't required to wear a helmet! Ya!) so could you explain how the fact that oil floats on salt water is the basis for many of the world's oil fields? Could you name a few fields that are based on the fact that oil floats on salt water? I always thought that the basis for ALL the world's oil fields is that there is oil below them. Who knew? Are you referring to the way they pump water into the well to 'float' the oil?
Example:

The East Texas Field (the world's largest when discovered in 1930), is an example of a water drive field. The Woodbine (saltwater) Aquifer covers tens of thousands of square miles and is updip (slopes up slightly) to the east. Over millions of years, the oil (lighter than the salt water), migrated to the east until it was trapped where the Woodbine Sandstone pinches out on the western flank of the Sabine uplift. The base is the Georgetown Limestone and the caprock is the Austin Chalk. As the oil has been produced, the saltwater has moved in to replace it. As long as the wells produced no salt water, the fact that oil is lighter than salt water meant that the wells flowed naturally (just open a valve to produce). As salt water encroached, the wells had to go on artificial lift (the familiar pumpjacks you have seen on television) because the hydrostatic pressure dropped and was not sufficient to overcome gravity and drive the oil to the surface. The East Texas Field is now old and tired and produces far more salt water than oil. The salt water is separated and re-injected in the formation. (more than a million barrels per day)

Not all fields are water drive. There are gas drive and others. Water drive is the most efficient and the heart of the East Texas Field is an acre in downtown Kilgore, Texas known as the "World's Richest Acre", having produced over 2.5 million barrels of oil from a downtown block.

Getty was lucky, I suppose, but was also brilliant and worked his ass off, living in the back of his car for weeks on end. BTW, he also invented the whipstock, a device still used in the oil field.
__________________
TexSail is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 07:36   #35
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Europe visiting Family & Friends
Boat: Purchasing a 40-44' Cat
Posts: 71
ude123.... maybe you should be the new spokes person for BP. You want to see the oil slick? Get in your boat and go out there then! You are really pushing the limit here bud. You sailed before... go take some pictures for yourself... I dare you!!!!
__________________
Denvermike66 is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 08:22   #36
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,573
Images: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexSail View Post
... Getty was lucky, I suppose, but was also brilliant and worked his ass off, living in the back of his car for weeks on end. BTW, he also invented the whipstock, a device still used in the oil field.
J. Paul Getty wrote a very successful book, entitled “How to Be Rich”, which can be summarised:
1. Rise early
2. Work hard
3. Strike oil

I can’t find any patent issued to J. Paul Getty, although a Fred Getty was granted a patent for the “Offset Cutting Tool” (1931).
Offset-cutting tool - Patent 1795553

There are numerous patents for “whipstock” devices.
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 08:49   #37
Registered User
 
Jetexas's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Boat: 1982 Oday 34
Posts: 439
Images: 10
Oil in the Gulf, two months later - The Big Picture - Boston.com
__________________
Jetexas is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 09:13   #38
Senior Cruiser
 
skipmac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: 29° 49.16’ N 82° 25.82’ W
Boat: Pearson 422
Posts: 12,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by ude123 View Post
Skipmac, I think you are assuming the oil with 'mix' with the water(why else would you calculate the volume of water in the Gulf). I do not believe this will happen. I think you need to calculate the surface area of the gulf and the volume of 150 million gallons and then calculate how much of an area(less than a foot deep of oil, and more realistically like only an inch or two) the oil would cover(BLACKEN). When oil is on the surface it spreads out and is very thin(in relation to the amount of oil) so if 150 million gallons were on the surface I believe it would cover(BLACKEN) much of the eastern Gulf. Look what small amounts(less than 1/2 gal) in marinas and see how much it actually looks like. When oil is in the water it always looks like there is MORE oil than there really is. In the case of this spill, the oil spill actually looks not as bad as the 'estimates' of 150 million gallons. If anything this oil slick should look worse than it actually is, we should not be seeing(or not seeing) a better picture than reality. Google 'Exxon Valdez' images and look at what 11 million gallons of oil looks like on the surface(it blackened over 800 miles of beaches within days). This spill has gone on now for 63 days and NOTHING looks nowhere near as bad as the much smaller Exxon Valdez. If that spill went 800 miles within days, why hasn't this spill moved onshore(in quantities even remotely close to Exxon Valdez) as of now? Remember this wellhead is only 46 miles off the shore. Have you seen ANY pictures/videos of this spill that looks even remotely as bad as the Exxon Valdez(and this spill is 15 times worse at this point).
You assume incorrectly. I am not saying that the oil is "mixed" with the water. Oil and water do not easily form an emulsion although the dispersants added by BP may contribute to that process. However, whatever may be "mixed" all evidence does indicate a very large quantity of unmixed oil, both on the surface and deeper in the water column.

You keep asking, over and over again, where's the oil. I was trying to point out that there's a really large area or volume of water in the gulf and even though 150 million gallons (or more or less) is a huge amount of oil and a huge social, financial and environmental disaster, it is not covering the entire Gulf like a thick, brown blanket.

Let me put it in another way. The surface of the Gulf of Mexico could be approximated as 500,000 square miles which, by the way, is many, many times larger area than Prince William Sound. 150,000,000 gallons of oil evenly dispersed over that area is about 300 gallons per square mile. Of course it is not evenly dispersed so you will see a lot of the Gulf with no oil and areas of the Gulf that are brown. That's where the oil is.
__________________
The water is always bluer on the other side of the ocean.
skipmac is online now  
Old 22-06-2010, 09:46   #39
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denvermike66 View Post
ude123.... maybe you should be the new spokes person for BP. You want to see the oil slick? Get in your boat and go out there then! You are really pushing the limit here bud. You sailed before... go take some pictures for yourself... I dare you!!!!

Hey Denvermike66, Because I am voicing an opinion that is not 'politically correct'(by your standards) means I should be BP's spokesperson(one word btw)? Exactly what 'limit' am I pushing here? BTW I'm not your 'bud'. That is the problem in our country, the USA, if you voice an opposing view you are labeled as part of the problem. It's narrowminded people that only listen to their own opinions(and ones that mimick their view) and dismiss all other ideas that is the biggest problem.
__________________
ude123 is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 10:17   #40
Registered User
 
Little Otter's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cumming, GA
Boat: Ranger 22, currently saving for a larger cruising boat
Posts: 527
Images: 3
Personally I think I have the solution, they don't need to be drilling relief wells. If you remember when they tried to pt the syphon on it they cut through the pipe. well I ran this idea by my dad who has an engineering degree from UGA and he said that it would work and he doesn't know why they don't do it, my idea is that the same tool they used to cut the pipe with could practically be converted to squeeze in stead of cut by removing the blades and replaceing them with plier like grips, then they could manually crimp off the pipe in several places.
__________________
Sailing and exploration are necessary for life to endure
Little Otter is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 10:44   #41
Senior Cruiser
 
skipmac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: 29° 49.16’ N 82° 25.82’ W
Boat: Pearson 422
Posts: 12,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by ude123 View Post
Hey Denvermike66, Because I am voicing an opinion that is not 'politically correct'(by your standards) means I should be BP's spokesperson(one word btw)? Exactly what 'limit' am I pushing here? BTW I'm not your 'bud'. That is the problem in our country, the USA, if you voice an opposing view you are labeled as part of the problem. It's narrowminded people that only listen to their own opinions(and ones that mimick their view) and dismiss all other ideas that is the biggest problem.
No one cares if you views are "politically correct" or not. You are getting called on your posts because they are not scientifically correct and denying the reality of the situation.
__________________
The water is always bluer on the other side of the ocean.
skipmac is online now  
Old 22-06-2010, 11:21   #42
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,573
Images: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Otter View Post
... I ran this idea by my dad who has an engineering degree from UGA and he said that it would work and he doesn't know why they don't do it ...
I that you’re Dad is correct - he doesn’t know ...
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 12:08   #43
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by skipmac View Post
No one cares if you views are "politically correct" or not. You are getting called on your posts because they are not scientifically correct and denying the reality of the situation.

Skipmac: Reality of the situation:
1) 10" pipe spewing oil uncontrolled into the Gulf for 62 days
2) Estimates of 150 million gallons deposited so far
3) reports saying there is an oil slick the size of Vermont lurking off the coast(presumably waiting for a surprise attack on the shores)
4) No pictures or videos of ANY oil spill near the size of 150 million gallons(nor reporters from onboard boats out in the giant oil slick cleaning up)
5) Entire area where slick is purported to be is restricted(by air and sea)
6) All cleanup workers under strict contract not letting them talk to anybody
7) appox 46 miles of coast affected so far(affected meaning any amount of oil discovered, even a quarter size piece)
8) recovered approx 24 million gallons of oil/water mix so far(meaning lots of water in this number)(using this recovered number, where is the other 126 million gallons of oil.)
9) Historical pictures/data from an oil spill of 11 million gallons on surface(Exxon Valdez) showing thousands and thousands of sea/bird life covered in oil, also showing over 800 miles of coastline BLACKENED within days(as far as 350 miles away from spill)
10) I have spoken with 3 different sailors(two that sailed from Miss.(2 separate boats) to Houston-offshore(look at a map and compare this route to where this oil slick is suppose to be), and one from St. Pete-offshore) and neither saw a drop of oil.(I'm near Houston)

I have never claimed this oil spill is a hoax or anything of the sort. I am merely pointing out the inconsistencies in what has been widely reported versus what logic says. Don't you people think this spill should act as past spills have(or how natural seeps behave)? Look at the 1979 Mexico blow out. Shouldn't we see about the same thing? Look at the stats. Compare them to Exxon Valdez. They are reporting this to be like(or way worse) than Exxon Valdez. My beleif is that it is much worse than Exxon Valdez only this time we(humans on the surface) will not be seeing the enviromental damage as it will be at the depths where the damage occurs. If the American public don't see blackened shorelines then they will forget this accident very soon. That's the problem with the way it's being reported. Here is an interesting article on natural seeps in the Gulf:
Natural Petroleum Seeps Release Equivalent Of Up To 80 Exxon Valdez Oil Spills
It was written a year ago. Look at the diagram and see how much of the natural seeps end up on the sea floor. What is the difference between a natural seep and the 'seeping' coming out of the end of the 10" pipe? Thank you Skipmac for your scientific declaration that my opinions are not scientifically correct. Do you have some sort of degree or title(say PHD?) that would give you the license to make this declaration? Is there anything incorrect in my 'reality of the situation' above?
__________________
ude123 is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 12:31   #44
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 226
Scientists Find That Tons Of Oil Seep Into The Gulf Of Mexico Each Year

I forgot to post this link in my previous post. Check it out.

Little Otter: My understanding is that the clamping method using the URV was attempted first. It didn't work due to the URV's inability to maneuver into the correct position to be able to clamp it off. Remember when the rig sank it left a tangled mess from the wellhead to where the rig now rests on the sea floor. I believe they did 'clamp' off the pipe to just above where they actually cut the pipe(they had to leave enough room(clean/straight pipe) in case the 'clamp' didn't work and they had to resort to the saw).The URV that 'clamps' is a different/less maneuverable but more powerful URV as you need more hydraulic power to 'clamp' than to saw.
__________________
ude123 is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 12:35   #45
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,573
Images: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by ude123 View Post
... Is there anything incorrect in my 'reality of the situation' above?
Yes.
What isn’t outright wrong is misleading/misapplied.
__________________

__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
oil, oil spill

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oil Spill News waterworldly Off Topic Forum 32 14-06-2010 07:20
BP Oil Spill Measures svHyLyte Cruising News & Events 0 05-05-2010 17:26
Sightings: Crowther Passagemaker 48 knottybuoyz Powered Boats 10 30-06-2008 09:24
Oil Spill - Pro Mistake? Chuteman Off Topic Forum 23 23-04-2008 09:27



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 14:31.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.