Options for Responding to Deepwater Horizon Spill

Response techniques being employed at various times to respond to the Deepwater Horizon oil rig spill in the Gulf of Mexico reportedly include the following:

1. Containing and recovering the oil at the surface, preferably before it spreads, emulsifies and reaches shore, by using a fleet of oil spill response vessels, plus booms, skimmers, etc.; this window of opportunity now seems to have closed, temporarily at least, as bad weather has set in to the region for at least three days, i.e. until Sunday night, May 2, 2010; high winds and waves will likely require that containment boom be dismantled; otherwise, oil could wash over and under it, and the boom could also be damaged or destroyed
   
2. Extensive use of dispersants at sea; they work best in rough seas, kind of like a washing machine does when getting oil out of your blue jeans; the authorities are now said to be looking at the possibility of using dispersants at the point of the leak, as well as on the sea's surface; a leaked USCG report apparently "...states that the spill has grown in size so quickly that only 1 to 2 percent of it has been sprayed with dispersants"
   
3. Protecting sensitive shoreline, marshland and resources with booms, etc. in the event the oil does eventually come ashore; if the weather turns bad, good luck with your project ( See 1. above )!
   

Other options being attempted or considered at present include, as far as is known:

• Getting the blowout preventer to work; so far unsuccessful, but keep trying
  
• Placing containment chambers over the leaks; currently under construction, with an ETA now said to be May 9, 2010
  
• Drilling a relief well, which could take between 2 and 3 months, weather permitting; one such rig is on scene or nearby, reportedly, with another on its way
  
• Burning the oil at sea; test burn conducted 28 April, 2010, judged to have been a success, reportedly burning a total of 75-100 barrels of oil in 45 minutes; however, a second test next day was called off because of high winds; burning has limited potential, due to the sums of oil involved and logistical challenges inherent in burning, such as the need to corral the oil, maintain a certain thickness for it to ignite, and the requirement of calm seas and lack of wind; also, according to Ed Overton, a Louisiana oil burning expert, interviewed on Discovery Canada's Daily Planet TV show, the Deepwater Horizon oil is very difficult to ignite; after a few days on the water, it weathers to the point where it is very viscous, like roofing tar or asphalt; all the more reason, then, to burn it ASAP after the oil surfaces from the source of the leaks on the seabed, because it is at this stage that the oil still contains volatile compounds which will ignite; after a few days these volatile compounds evaporate
  

As I reported on my Twitter site ( http://twitter.com/GeraldFGraham ), a story on an Alabama web site claims to cite a leaked USCG report to the effect that the DH well could become " an unchecked gusher" if the riser pipe deteriorates further and the well releases its maximum flow. It is expected that the pipe is eroding at the wellhead as a result of sand in the pipe that is creating friction as it shoots through it.

Responders don't seem to have considered three other options for stemming the flow of oil ASAP, all of which relate to capping the leak and staunching the flow of oil to the surface. The first option, which I suggested to the Joint Information Center as early as Sunday, 25 April, 2010, involves simply putting caps on the risers at the points where the leaks are. For example, photos and graphics repeatedly show oil flowing from the stem of the riser, where it must have attached to the rig before it sank. One wonders, therefore, why the robotic arm of a ROV couldn't simply cap the end of that pipe.

Moving on to the second of my three options, I propose attaching 5000 foot long hoses to the riser at the points where the leaks are, with a view to siphoning the oil off to the ocean's surface, for temporary storage and recovery on barges and in tanks, and eventual recycling ashore. I haven't seen any mention of this option in coverage of the incident either. It's an interim measure, obviously, that would be employed until the source of the leak can be permanently stopped, but if it is feasible it could conceivably avoid a considerable amount of environmental damage and expense by preventing the oil from surfacing and then spreading.

My third and final low-tech suggestion is to have a ROV tow three steel plates ( like the plates road construction crews typically throw over holes they've dug in the road, for use when they are not working ) down to the seabed, one at a time, and place the steel plate over each point in the pipe where there is a leak. Again, a temporary solution, and hardly rocket science, but potentially effective until a longer-term solution can be found.

For the record, I have phoned in these suggestions to BP's Command Centre Hotline ( 1-866-448-5816 ), leaving a detailed message on their answering machine. I have also emailed my suggestions to the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command Center, as well as to an individual in NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration. So far no response. BP is quoted in the press as saying, however, that patching the leaks is not possible.