BP oil disaster: Who made it that way?
in [Technical]
|
Prev: 2000 Mazda Protege ES: Might need air conditioner clutch. Remove AC instead
Next: Toyota recalling, halting sales of Lexus HS250h in US
From: hls on 28 Jun 2010 11:28 "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message Here is a quote from a message I received.. I think all the names are removed to protect the poster. The article below and comment just below are pretty technical, but it helps understand that human error and greed caused the explosion in the gulf. I don't know if the BP man on site was killed or not. The comment just below is from a friend from my job in Houston with a drilling mud company. I can sure see why SJ left. I was a drilling fluid engineer in Cook inlet offshore in Alaska when the mud man on the tender I was on said the slugging pit was almost solid and they were getting ready to slug the hole and come out (bring the pipe out so they could put another bit on the string). I went over to the barite (weighting material) bin and checked the PH - it was 14 and I checked the slug tank and it was the same. I ran to the top of the barge to the Rig Toolpusher and told them not to come out of the hole. If we would have pumped that slug down we could have had a blowout. He stopped the operation at once. It turns out that the boat that delivered us the barite had hauled cement before our load and had not cleaned their bins. We dumped thousands of lbs of barite overboard that night and the operation and perhaps lives were saved. When I came back to Houston the Dist. Mgr. from Alaska offered me a lot more money to come back. Of course my wife did not want to actually move up there and we did not go. This report about SJ is very very revealing. A note - one has just a few minutes to live if you must hit the water up there(Alaska). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Smoking Gun in BP's Deep Horizon Mess May 2010 - 11:31 Thom's nationally syndicated radio show This hasn't seemed to have gotten much circulation yet, and I think it really needs to. Seems that a crew from Schlumberger, on contract to BP, hightailed it off the platform at their own expense 6 hours before the blowout because BP refused their recommendation to shut down the well. This lends more credence to Thom's suggestion that corners were cut because the bigwigs were coming for a visit. "BP contracted Schlumberger (SLB) to run the Cement Bond Log (CBL) test that was the final test on the plug that was skipped. The people testifying have been very coy about mentioning this, and you'll see why. SLB is an extremely highly regarded (and incredibly expensive) service company. They place a high standard on safety and train their workers to shut down unsafe operations. SLB gets out to the Deepwater Horizon to run the CBL, and they find the well still kicking heavily, which it should not be that late in the operation. SLB orders the "company man" (BP's man on the scene that runs the operation) to dump kill fluid down the well and shut-in the well. The company man refuses. SLB in the very next sentence asks for a helo to take all SLB personnel back to shore. The company man says there are no more helo's scheduled for the rest of the week (translation: you're here to do a job, now do it). SLB gets on the horn to shore, calls SLB's corporate HQ, and gets a helo flown out there at SLB's expense and takes all SLB personel to shore. 6 hours later, the platform explodes."
From: Scott Dorsey on 28 Jun 2010 13:13 Tegger <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote: >news:ecSdnVOAhPCEELXRnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > > >> >> My comments have to do with the problems that lead to this disaster in >> the first place. > >What led to the /event itself/ is unremarkable. Leaks into ocean waters >from oil wells are more common than you might think. No, what led to the event itself was pretty remarkable. And yes, leaks are pretty common, but this is more than a leak. This is a pretty dramatic failure of a whole lot of things all at once. >This is why Holland--and at least eleven other nations--have marine fleets >that are built specifically to clean up those spills, along with skilled >cerwmen trained to quickly deal with such spills before they spread and >reach land. > >What turned the "event" into a /disaster/ is US government policy. If you >had read the article, you would understand that. Not really.... while I agree that it would have been a good thing to have the Europeans in and helping, I think the sheer volume of oil involved here makes just about any attempt at skimming to be a drop in the bucket. Now, if you want to argue that the government did a bad thing in turning down the Europeans, that's certainly true. The thing is, the government is _not_ designed to operate quickly, but to operate with lots of checks and balances. This means that it can sometimes take a long, long time to get things done, but on the whole it's a good thing because most of the time we aren't in crisis situations. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: jim on 28 Jun 2010 14:26 hls wrote: > > "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message > > > They communicated to whom? > > > They, according to the information I have from several sources, told this > to > the "company man", which it oilfield jargon for the BP employee on board > who is in charge of all operations. > > > You don't know what caused the well to blow and you know even less > > about what might have been done differently to prevent what happened. > > None of us "know", but that will come out in the final evaluation. What we > think we know is that they had been circulating salt water instead of > weighted > mud, and that they had been taking pressure kicks. If you have enough > hydrostatic head on the kicking formation, you can control the kicks and > not go to full blowout, in most cases. > They were displacing mud in the riser when it blew. Displacing the mud with saltwater was done in preparation to placing the final cement plug that would close the well. The bottom of The well had been cemented and pressure tested. As far as anyone knew the well was stable and sealed off. > > > >> > >> Any mud engineer could tell you the problem of circulating salt water > >> when you were already taking kicks in a high pressure zone. It is, > >> and was, suicide. > > > > That is your speculation based on your unsubstantiated facts. > > > That is my speculation based on what has surfaced so far. > > > What is pretty clear is nobody was expecting the rig to explode, burn > > and sink. > > If the Schlumberger story is true, then they at least were expecting > trouble. The story is unlikely to be true. The Schlumberger crew was standby in case they needed to do the cement log. Schlumberger crew had no way of knowing anything about the condition of the well. They weren't involved with any of the drilling operations and they didn't do any testing on the well. That crew was standing by in case the pressure tests showed the cement job had a problem. When the 25000 psi pressure test showed the cement was good they were sent home. > > But I agree with you in the sense that this situation needs a complete > investigation, and the true facts and results need to be made public. BP is responsible for the oil that is spilled and the cleanup under US law. Even if it turns out that halliburton or transocean were negligent and caused the blowout BP is still responsible and it is BP's problem to collect whatever costs they can get from some negligent third party. -jim
From: Tegger on 28 Jun 2010 18:23 kludge(a)panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in news:i0al77$qpl$1(a)panix2.panix.com: > Tegger <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote: >>news:ecSdnVOAhPCEELXRnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d(a)giganews.com: >> >> >>> >>> My comments have to do with the problems that lead to this disaster >>> in the first place. >> >>What led to the /event itself/ is unremarkable. Leaks into ocean >>waters from oil wells are more common than you might think. > > No, what led to the event itself was pretty remarkable. And yes, > leaks are pretty common, but this is more than a leak. This is a > pretty dramatic failure of a whole lot of things all at once. > >>This is why Holland--and at least eleven other nations--have marine >>fleets that are built specifically to clean up those spills, along >>with skilled cerwmen trained to quickly deal with such spills before >>they spread and reach land. >> >>What turned the "event" into a /disaster/ is US government policy. If >>you had read the article, you would understand that. > > Not really.... while I agree that it would have been a good thing to > have the Europeans in and helping, I think the sheer volume of oil > involved here makes just about any attempt at skimming to be a drop in > the bucket. Wrong. The Dutch equipment is /specifically/ meant to eliminate enormous volumes of oil. But the primary point here is the absolutely moronic refusal of the US government to allow ANY oil recovery AT ALL except by actually removing the water from the Gulf and placing it in an on-shore storage facility. > > Now, if you want to argue that the government did a bad thing in > turning down the Europeans, that's certainly true. It was /criminally/ stupid. Had Lisa Jackson taken the Dutch up on their repeated offers, oil very likely would not have reached the shore. Lisa Jackson and Barack Obama are idiots. They care more about unions and politics than protecting the environment. And hey, YOU guys voted for them! > The thing is, the > government is _not_ designed to operate quickly, but to operate with > lots of checks and balances. This means that it can sometimes take a > long, long time to get things done, but on the whole it's a good thing > because most of the time we aren't in crisis situations. Sorry, but that's a silly argument. -- Tegger
From: jim on 29 Jun 2010 08:27
Tegger wrote: > > kludge(a)panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in > news:i0al77$qpl$1(a)panix2.panix.com: > > > Tegger <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote: > >>news:ecSdnVOAhPCEELXRnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > >> > >> > >>> > >>> My comments have to do with the problems that lead to this disaster > >>> in the first place. > >> > >>What led to the /event itself/ is unremarkable. Leaks into ocean > >>waters from oil wells are more common than you might think. > > > > No, what led to the event itself was pretty remarkable. And yes, > > leaks are pretty common, but this is more than a leak. This is a > > pretty dramatic failure of a whole lot of things all at once. > > > >>This is why Holland--and at least eleven other nations--have marine > >>fleets that are built specifically to clean up those spills, along > >>with skilled cerwmen trained to quickly deal with such spills before > >>they spread and reach land. > >> > >>What turned the "event" into a /disaster/ is US government policy. If > >>you had read the article, you would understand that. > > > > Not really.... while I agree that it would have been a good thing to > > have the Europeans in and helping, I think the sheer volume of oil > > involved here makes just about any attempt at skimming to be a drop in > > the bucket. > > Wrong. The Dutch equipment is /specifically/ meant to eliminate enormous > volumes of oil. > > But the primary point here is the absolutely moronic refusal of the US > government to allow ANY oil recovery AT ALL except by actually removing > the water from the Gulf and placing it in an on-shore storage facility. The purpose is supposed to remove the oil from the gulf waters. A system that does that effectively is better than one that does not do that effectively. Your fairy tale about a little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike and making everything all better is just that - it is a fairy tale aimed at morons like yourself. The Dutch system is turning out to be not so effective, and that is mostly because it leaves so much of the oil behind. It turns out the main thing the Dutch company is good at is marketing and advertising. There oil removal capabilities are not anywhere near as good as the ability to promote themselves. > > > > > Now, if you want to argue that the government did a bad thing in > > turning down the Europeans, that's certainly true. > > It was /criminally/ stupid. Had Lisa Jackson taken the Dutch up on their > repeated offers, oil very likely would not have reached the shore. > > Lisa Jackson and Barack Obama are idiots. They care more about unions > and politics than protecting the environment. And hey, YOU guys voted > for them! They may be idiots. But at least they are idiots working with facts rather that idiots like yourself who believe in fairy tales. Anther example of made up facts is this nonsense about the "Jones AcT". The Coast Guard would be in a position to know: �In no case has the [Federal On Scene Coordinator] or [Unified Area Command] declined to request assistance or accept offers of assistance of foreign vessels that meet an operational need because the Jones Act was implicated,� Allen wrote. �To date, no Jones Act waivers have been necessary because foreign flagged vessels involved in the BP Deepwater Horizon response have not been engaged in activities that would require such a waiver.� > > > The thing is, the > > government is _not_ designed to operate quickly, but to operate with > > lots of checks and balances. > This means that it can sometimes take a > > long, long time to get things done, but on the whole it's a good thing > > because most of the time we aren't in crisis situations. > > Sorry, but that's a silly argument. No actually that was a valid argument and you are the one that is silly. You act as if you know more about oil spill clean up than the US Coast Guard or BP. And how did you get this vast experience and wisdom? Oh, You read some clown's Blog? BP has purchased or hired 1000's of boats for the clean up including the Dutch equipment and other's from around the world. They have a pretty good idea of what is working well and what is not. As it turns small boats that are equipped with small make shift skimmers and booms are most effective at removing most of the oil. That is because most of the oil is in small scattered patches. Hundreds of aircraft are being used to spot the oil patches and direct the boats to them. According to BP's the most effective new technology is the Costner equipment. That system actually does work as advertised at separating water from oil. And tankers that are equipped with the separators are being used to collect what the small boats are picking up with the small skimmers. -jim |