Introduction
It entirely went awry for British Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico on the late afternoon of 20Th April this year when its service provider Transocean was making a hole on a new rig on the Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in which BP had a controlling stake. In the beginning there was a fire which then paved way for an enormous blast. On the third day, the rig went under the surface spurring a series of leak reaction procedures that have so far involved an excess of 3000 people, a navy of ships airplanes, solvents and shots. At least a dozen of workers were pronounced dead while seventeen others were wounded. Politics have also found its way to this issue.
It is now apparent that the ultimate solution lies in capping the opening which is 5000 Feet beneath the surface. So far three intercessions have been made but unsuccessful due to the fact that the depths of water involved have never been experienced before. It has been noted that the equipment used for preventing such a leak, known as Blow Out Preventor (BOP), failed and the whole oil engineering sector is unable to mitigate at deep sea surroundings1.
Thesis Statement
There are several measures that have so far been taken to mitigate the effects of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as well as the on going efforts to cap the well oozing the oil.
Topic sentence
Capping the well that is spilling oil is the most difficult and challenging measurement to completely stop the disaster since it involves a series of complex technological stages.
Discussion
The petroleum commerce has been expediting discoveries in subterranean surfaces for close to two decades and episode of this kind has never been experienced before. The foremost expedition that has been employed before was 10000 Feet of below the water surface and 35000 Feet below the seabed. This particular incident is 5000 Feet below the water surface and 18000 below the seabed. That notwithstanding, the attempts to cap the seep out has seen the petroleum engineering expertise pressed over the edge.
So far, each and every one of the procedures to stem the spill on the sea bed as well as the American shores is being administered from the command hub situated at Mobile in the state of Alabama. Currently there are more than sixteen leak ships and planes which are deploying compounds to scatter the oil that has reached the surface. Meanwhile other efforts are being employed below the water surface. Therefore there are two approaches to solve the problem namely the use of dispersants, also known as boom, and the efforts to cap the fissure, also known as the subsea method2.
Under the subsea method, there are only two procedures that have been used. First is to decrease and control the oil leaking from the fissure and secondly to completely shut it. When the incident was first reported, the first procedure was to maneuver the Blowout Preventor to shut the fissure by means of eight distantly-controlled vehicles, also called ROVs (Remotely Operated Vehicles). However, this intervention was failed.
Concurrently, BP was infusing dispersants straight to the oil spill on the seabed, propelled from the ships and disseminated by the distantly controlled vehicles with rods. This basically means that the dispersants is being forced downwards through a conduit and infusing it with a rod leading the outpouring of oil from the conduit. The chemical process involves the oil assimilating with the dispersant and being crashed into lesser globules3.
Furthermore, BP also practiced the subsea gathering and seeping of the spilled oil. This effort proved even more testing. In the beginning, it meant putting down a big auditorium shaped equipment called a cofferdam over the spilled oil and to suck the oil through a conduit on top of it to dais called an Enterprise. Simply put, the cofferdam covered the spill oil just above the fissure from where it could be pumped out through a pipe to a reservoir on the surface. Again, this effort proved futile due to the development of vast quantity of hydrates which were unexpected. The oil was never let to go through the conduit and steam was used on the outside to make it balmy but the hydrates were too much4.
With the disappointment that followed this method, the next logical step is to ensnare the spilling oil on a really lesser and convenient degree. This means that the big cofferdam is be replaced with a miniature one which is quite easy to control and productive as well given that the quantity of water that had to be reduced. The argument is that if the water was set aside from the oil then automatically the hydrates would not develop. Alternatively, ethanol would be used to ensure that water is completely kept out. But before the miniature cofferdam is given a try, a riser implement slot in was put in the riser conduit. This was hugely effective. So far the implement has been re-slotted in making the seeping and pumping processes faster.
The next stage is to completely shut the fissure given that the oil spill is now pretty much under control. A surest method of shutting it out is in the offing. It involves disengaging the manipulating shells outside the Blowout Protector and bringing them to the surface for renovation and repair of the mechanical parts that are vital. They are then reinserted back when their control and manipulation is simple and straightforward. Fluid sealants would be injected down there and with time if other effective compound are discovered and used, then there would be a victorious capping. From there BP can sanitize the affected areas and move on
Bibliography
- National Research Council (U.S.) Ocean Studies Board (2005). Oil spill dispersants: efficacy and effects. Michigan: The National Academies Press University of Michigan
- National Research Council (U.S.). (1998). Committee on Oil Spill Risks from Tank Vessel Lightering Oil: spill risks from tank vessel lightering. Michigan: National Academies Press.
- Payne, R. & Farlow, J.S. (2003). Oil spill dispersants: mechanisms of action and laboratory test. Boca Raton: CRC Press
- Tunnell, W.T. Darryl, F. L., Earle, S. (2009). Gulf of Mexico Origin, Waters, and Biota: Biodiversity. Texas A&M University Press: CRC Press
Footnotes
- National Research Council (U.S.) Ocean Studies Board (2005). Oil spill dispersants: efficacy and effects. Michigan: The National Academies Press University of Michigan
- National Research Council (U.S.). (1998). Committee on Oil Spill Risks from Tank Vessel Lightering Oil: spill risks from tank vessel lightering. Michigan: National Academies Press.
- Payne R., Farlow John S.(2003)Oil spill dispersants: mechanisms of action and laboratory test. CRC Press: Boca Raton
- Tunnell, W.T. Darryl, F. L., Earle, S. (2009). Gulf of Mexico Origin, Waters, and Biota: Biodiversity. Texas A&M University Press: CRC Press