A cubic mile holds 1.101117147 × 10~12th = “Trillion” plus gallons of water. = 1,101,117,147,000 gallons Note: A lot of water!

42 gallons = one barrel of oil

Dividing total amount of gallons in cubic mile of seawater by 42 equals

26,217,074,929 bls of oil in a cubic mile of seawater = Billions of barrels of oil

Let’s propose the leak to the high side at 30,000 bbl per day.

Divide barrels of oil in a cubic mile of seawater by 30,000 bbl per day, the result is

873,903 days to equal one cubic mile of crude oil in the ocean.

Divide number of days to equal one cubic mile of oil by 365.25 days in a year to get total number of years to fill one cubic mile at 30,000 bbl per day flow and the result is:

2,393 years to fill up a cube one mile on a side at that rate of flow.

Total cubic miles of earth’s oceans = 326 million cubic miles!

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/bp-oil-leak-likely-far-less-than-100-000-bpd-targetukfocus-c69c53fd9cf4.html

In terms of it’s effects when making landfall and the further depletion of oxygen in settlement zones which are already naturally low in oxygen, this oil spill is surely not a planetary disaster, but just one big, ugly mess that destroys jobs, tourism and its impact on life in the Gulf which is not a zone of high circulation as the open oceans of the world.

They could solve the problem by detonating a tactical B61-11, with variable yield Models 3,4 or 10 set to .3 to 5kt yield at the blow hole preferably 5kt’s to compact, slump and fuse the site. Balancing the radioactivity contained by 4200 feet of water with minimal to no atmospheric release against the environmental disaster it would a useful application of tactical nuclear weapons technology rather than screwing around using robotic arms, concrete containment vessels and other such seemingly ineffective nonsense. Tragedies such as this call for drastic measures no differently than the typical sci-fi plot of trying to destroy an incoming asteroid with nukes etc.

We’ve spent trillions on these weps programs, but never get any utility or payback from them. This is a one time and hopefully the only time such technology could be employed to stave off this continuing disaster. It can be done providing our leadership both scientific, engineering and political have the will and guts to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

Carl Nemo **==

Sheik, I meant Shi6t.

It’s all good, wander blame direction, hearts of power pump little blood high cost in their margins.

Margin is an extremely large concept.

Give this another couple of months and the Gulf could become a dead zone.

—W—

“The volume of oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon oil rig may be at least 10 times higher than previously estimated, NPR has learned.

“The U.S. Coast Guard has estimated that oil was gushing from a broken pipe on the Gulf floor at the rate of 5,000 barrels a day.

“But sophisticated scientific analysis of sea floor video made available Wednesday by the oil company BP shows that the true figure is closer to 70,000 barrels a day, NPR’s Richard Harris reports.”

See the full NPR story.

—W—

I’m always enthused when I read material supplied from a an educated, grounded individual such as yourself. Thanks. : )

Due to the looming mega-environmental disaster, I’ve been thinking that the detonation of a ground effect low yield nuke of 5kt’s or less would slump the well head and seal the site from continued mass seepage regardless of the low yield consequences. It would be a constructive use of “bunker busters”. I’m serious too. : |

Carl Nemo **==

Here’s a bit more insight on what could come down. Out of pure curiosity I’ve spent the past week working on the matter with the guidance of a PhD civil engineer. He’s currently working for the oil and gas industry so I can’t say more. But here’s what I’ve found.

Right now the output of the well is constrained by kinks in the riser pipe that collapsed when the rig sank. What if the flow restriction of that pipe goes away, possibly due to additional movement, abrasives in the outflow, other failed attempts to restrict flow; or loss of the wellhead itself. That is, what if the well simply flows close to its natural rate?

From published accounts the depth of the well is about 18,000′ below the sea floor and the well head is in about 5000′ of water. The pressure on the sea floor at the well head is about 2200 psi. Assuming that the rock between the sea floor and the oil deposit is mostly shale with a specific gravity of about 2.4, then the pressure at the oil deposit is about 21,000 psi and the differential is then about 18,800 psi.

From Halliburton congressional testimony we know that the diameter of the well casing was 7″. The pipe casing was then lined with a cement mixture. The thickness is not known to me at this time, but estimating that it is 1/2″, then the inside diameter of the pipe becomes 6″.

The actual length of the drill hole has not been divulged, to my knowledge. But we do know that the rig was some lateral distance from the point at which the well entered the oil deposit. I make a guess that the length of the pipe from the deposit to the sea floor is about 22,000′.

The oil itself has some viscosity that has a marked effect on flow rate, determining how laminar or turbulant the flow is, as described by the Reynolds number. The viscosity of what is desctibed as “light crude” is about 100 cP. (P being Poise, a unit of viscosity. 100 cP is 1 P.) This is about the viscosity of corn oil.

The oil also has some density which contributes to the Reynolds number. I assume the specific gravity of the crude is about 0.881, a bit lighter than water.

The lining of the pipe, in this case the cement applied inside the pipe, has some roughness. Roughness slows material flow. I assume the roughness to about the same as moderately rough concrete, about 1mm bumpiness (denoted ‘e’ in the literature). These guys were using some new kind of ‘puffy’ nitrogen-mixed cement which probably contributed to the accident. No idea what the actual roughness number is but this is a reasonable guess, probably higher than actual.

The surface roughness, pipe diameter, and Reynolds number all together determine a friction coefficent that applies directly to velocity (and so volume) of material flow. A nasty equation, the Colebrook equation, describes the relationship. I say it’s ‘nasty’ because it doesn’t have a ‘rational’ solution, in the mathematical sense.

Finally, there’s the Bernoulli equation, describing conservation of energy, that brings all this together. To make it simple, it says that the energy of material flowing into a pipe, minus losses due to friction, turbulance and pressure differential, equals energy of material flow out of a pipe. From this equation one can determine velocity of material in the pipe but again it’s not a mathematically ‘rational’ solution.

Once knowing the rate of flow in the pipe and the diameter of the pipe one can easily determine the volume per unit time. That’s what we’re trying to find out, after all.

I created a calculator program that starts with some guesses for Reynolds number, friction coefficient, and velocity. It has a loop to, in order,
Calculate a new Reynolds number,
Use Newton’s method on the Colebrook equation to find a new root for the friction coefficient, and
Use Newton’s method on the Bernoulli equation fo find a new velocity
… until the incremental change in velocity is below the 6th decimal place.

Given or guessed:
Pipe Diameter – 6″
Pipe Length – 22,000′ (estimated)
Head (Z) – 18,000′
Rock material specific gravity – 2.4 (shale)
delta P – 18,728 psi
viscosity – 100 cP
mass density – 0.881 kg/l
surface roughness (e) – 1mm (estimated)

We get:
Reynolds number (R) – 14,178
Friction coefficient (f) – 0.0378
Velocity – 34.66 ft/s

That’s 104,681 barrels per day, or about 4.4 million barrels per day.

That’s more than the Exxon Valdez every three days.

Let’s hope they don’t f* it up any further.

—W—