Prev: Reason TV: How did Government Motors pay it's TARP loans? Itdidn't.
Next: Cam Sensor_code reset?
From: chuckcar on 6 May 2010 21:56
"hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in
news:qeednZ4hrdB2v37WnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)giganews.com:

>
> "chuckcar" <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D6FA5C22294Fchuck(a)127.0.0.1...
>> "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in
>>
>>>
>>> Viewing stupidity in hindsight is a well known human foible.
>>>
>> Hardly. It's how things don't repeat themselves. Those that don't
>> learn from history are condemmed to repeat it. Those that don't learn
>> history are incompetent.
>
> They do that from studies, not from people like yourself grousing
> about others' stupidity.
>

Look I don't want to turn this into a flame war, but clearly you have
very little interest if any in making this industry safe so that the
entire gulf ecosystem isn't ruined. Something that has already
unavoidably happened. Are you going to create new jobs for all fishermen
that make a living in the gulf now? Or fix *all* the rest of the damage
all by yourself? Are you personally making any money out of this tragedy?
If not, you have no reason for this point of view.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
From: chuckcar on 6 May 2010 21:56
"hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in
news:T92dnZz83dOwv37WnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com:

>
> "chuckcar" <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote in message
>>>
>> Nonsence. Planes *have* redundancy due to regulation of them. If the
>> engines stop working, the plane glides and a competent pilot can land
>> it. Any time there's a crash there's a long properly run
>> investigation and changes are made that stop it from being repeated.
>> That's *exactly* why it *is* safe and why oil rigs aren't.
>>
>
> I can sense from your posts that you really dont know a heck of a lot
> about oil drilling.
>
They have accidents. a *lot* of accidents. More than they have any right
to short of a chinese mine. Or perhaps a virginia coal mine.

> The following is the best information I have heard to this point, and
> there can be errors or variations in the actual situation.
>
> There ARE redundant systems, and there ARE monitoring devices.
> The platforms I have been on also relay the data back onshore and it
> is available for study.
>
> This "pipe" you keep babbling about is most likely the riser system.
> When the platform burned and sank, there was nothing that could be
> done with this.The riser fell freely to the bottom and coiled up like
> a sick snake.
>
> ROVs (remotely operated vehicles) indicated that the riser was leaking
> oil in three places (best intelligence at that time).
>
And they couldn't put a shutoff below the ocean surface somewhere?
There's all kinds of ways this could have been avoided that weren't
used.
>
> As is usually the case when this happens, a spark or ignition source
> somewhere ignited the hydrocarbon flowback. If a well spits back the
> drill pipe at you,
> there WILL normally be a spark somewhere.
>
Only above the surface. Of the water. And sparks *can* be avoided easily
And without any risk.

> Drilling fluid ("mud")weight is normally the prime controller of
> downhole pressure. The density of the mud and the depth of the column
> can offset and even overbalance the pressure of the fluids in the
> formation.
>
> The blowout preventors (BOP) are there in case the drilling fluid
> gets gas cut or you take a bubble, or you lose circulation or the
> static head, or the mud otherwise cannot perform its job.
>
> These are primary and secondary operating and safety controls.
>
> In this case, the BOP did not function. A BOP is a hydraulic tool,
> set at the ocean floor wellhead in this case, which has rams that can
> squeeze off the well tubing, seal it off, even cut the tubing to
> attain control. Repeated
> attempts to shut it off failed.
>
> Now, this was a case that is similar to the catastrophic failure of an
> airliner. It shouldnt have happened, but it DID. Something failed
> somewhere.
> Auxiliaries did not work either. This came as suddenly and as
> unannounced as the fuel tank explosions of certain aircraft in the not
> too distant past.
>
> There is nothing to be done right now but to see if this jury-rigged
> "bell" will allow the leaking oil to be pumped up and removed. Once
> this acute problem is remedied, they will probably drill another hole
> near this leaking one and try to shut it off.
>
And there's still another hole they're not plugging. What happens when
you have three holes in a container filled with water and you only plug
two of them? You get more pressure out of the third. I have yet to hear
any mention of a way of stopping this eventuality and the things that
could result from this bit of basic physics. There's absolutely no way
they're going to pump the oil out of the capped part faster than it's
coming out already. If fact it *has* to be lower because you can't pump
any liquid more than about 30 feet down. An impeller or pump on the top
of their jury rig may help, but then you have the problem of the hundreds
of feed of pip you're pushing the oil up.

> You ought to send one of your academics offshore and see if he can
> actually do something, or whether he will sit and drink coffee and
> theorize. I am sure they could have used him when the firefighting
> started.
>
Engineers do such all the time. And do it properly. *When* they're not
contrainted by people overly greedy of profit.


--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
From: Pete C. on 6 May 2010 23:00

chuckcar wrote:
>
> "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in
> news:T92dnZz83dOwv37WnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com:
>
> >
> > "chuckcar" <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote in message
> >>>
> >> Nonsence. Planes *have* redundancy due to regulation of them. If the
> >> engines stop working, the plane glides and a competent pilot can land
> >> it. Any time there's a crash there's a long properly run
> >> investigation and changes are made that stop it from being repeated.
> >> That's *exactly* why it *is* safe and why oil rigs aren't.
> >>
> >
> > I can sense from your posts that you really dont know a heck of a lot
> > about oil drilling.
> >
> They have accidents. a *lot* of accidents. More than they have any right
> to short of a chinese mine. Or perhaps a virginia coal mine.
>
> > The following is the best information I have heard to this point, and
> > there can be errors or variations in the actual situation.
> >
> > There ARE redundant systems, and there ARE monitoring devices.
> > The platforms I have been on also relay the data back onshore and it
> > is available for study.
> >
> > This "pipe" you keep babbling about is most likely the riser system.
> > When the platform burned and sank, there was nothing that could be
> > done with this.The riser fell freely to the bottom and coiled up like
> > a sick snake.
> >
> > ROVs (remotely operated vehicles) indicated that the riser was leaking
> > oil in three places (best intelligence at that time).
> >
> And they couldn't put a shutoff below the ocean surface somewhere?
> There's all kinds of ways this could have been avoided that weren't
> used.
> >
> > As is usually the case when this happens, a spark or ignition source
> > somewhere ignited the hydrocarbon flowback. If a well spits back the
> > drill pipe at you,
> > there WILL normally be a spark somewhere.
> >
> Only above the surface. Of the water. And sparks *can* be avoided easily
> And without any risk.
>
> > Drilling fluid ("mud")weight is normally the prime controller of
> > downhole pressure. The density of the mud and the depth of the column
> > can offset and even overbalance the pressure of the fluids in the
> > formation.
> >
> > The blowout preventors (BOP) are there in case the drilling fluid
> > gets gas cut or you take a bubble, or you lose circulation or the
> > static head, or the mud otherwise cannot perform its job.
> >
> > These are primary and secondary operating and safety controls.
> >
> > In this case, the BOP did not function. A BOP is a hydraulic tool,
> > set at the ocean floor wellhead in this case, which has rams that can
> > squeeze off the well tubing, seal it off, even cut the tubing to
> > attain control. Repeated
> > attempts to shut it off failed.
> >
> > Now, this was a case that is similar to the catastrophic failure of an
> > airliner. It shouldnt have happened, but it DID. Something failed
> > somewhere.
> > Auxiliaries did not work either. This came as suddenly and as
> > unannounced as the fuel tank explosions of certain aircraft in the not
> > too distant past.
> >
> > There is nothing to be done right now but to see if this jury-rigged
> > "bell" will allow the leaking oil to be pumped up and removed. Once
> > this acute problem is remedied, they will probably drill another hole
> > near this leaking one and try to shut it off.
> >
> And there's still another hole they're not plugging. What happens when
> you have three holes in a container filled with water and you only plug
> two of them? You get more pressure out of the third. I have yet to hear
> any mention of a way of stopping this eventuality and the things that
> could result from this bit of basic physics. There's absolutely no way
> they're going to pump the oil out of the capped part faster than it's
> coming out already. If fact it *has* to be lower because you can't pump
> any liquid more than about 30 feet down. An impeller or pump on the top
> of their jury rig may help, but then you have the problem of the hundreds
> of feed of pip you're pushing the oil up.
>
> > You ought to send one of your academics offshore and see if he can
> > actually do something, or whether he will sit and drink coffee and
> > theorize. I am sure they could have used him when the firefighting
> > started.
> >
> Engineers do such all the time. And do it properly. *When* they're not
> contrainted by people overly greedy of profit.
>
> --
> (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

From your latest post it's abundantly clear you have no technical or
mechanical knowledge whatsoever. Your parents probably had to take away
your blocks because you kept hurting yourself with them. Suggest you
focus your attention on parking your Prius in the parking spaces at the
local organic co-op without hitting someone else's car yet again instead
of ranting about things you have less than zero knowledge of.
From: Paul on 7 May 2010 02:36
chuckcar wrote:
> "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in
> news:qeednZ4hrdB2v37WnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)giganews.com:
>
>> "chuckcar" <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9D6FA5C22294Fchuck(a)127.0.0.1...
>>> "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in
>>>
>>>> Viewing stupidity in hindsight is a well known human foible.
>>>>
>>> Hardly. It's how things don't repeat themselves. Those that don't
>>> learn from history are condemmed to repeat it. Those that don't learn
>>> history are incompetent.
>> They do that from studies, not from people like yourself grousing
>> about others' stupidity.
>>
>
> Look I don't want to turn this into a flame war, but clearly you have
> very little interest if any in making this industry safe so that the
> entire gulf ecosystem isn't ruined. Something that has already
> unavoidably happened. Are you going to create new jobs for all fishermen
> that make a living in the gulf now? Or fix *all* the rest of the damage
> all by yourself? Are you personally making any money out of this tragedy?
> If not, you have no reason for this point of view.

O&G can only be made 100% safe by eliminating it.
From: hls on 7 May 2010 12:11

"chuckcar" <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote in message
news:Xns9D70DD9D91EBBchuck(a)127.0.0.1...
> "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in
> news:qeednZ4hrdB2v37WnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)giganews.com:
>
>>
>> "chuckcar" <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9D6FA5C22294Fchuck(a)127.0.0.1...
>>> "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Viewing stupidity in hindsight is a well known human foible.
>>>>
>>> Hardly. It's how things don't repeat themselves. Those that don't
>>> learn from history are condemmed to repeat it. Those that don't learn
>>> history are incompetent.
>>
>> They do that from studies, not from people like yourself grousing
>> about others' stupidity.
>>
>
> Look I don't want to turn this into a flame war, but clearly you have
> very little interest if any in making this industry safe so that the
> entire gulf ecosystem isn't ruined. Something that has already
> unavoidably happened. Are you going to create new jobs for all fishermen
> that make a living in the gulf now? Or fix *all* the rest of the damage
> all by yourself? Are you personally making any money out of this tragedy?
> If not, you have no reason for this point of view.
>

There is no need for a flame war.

We cannot, at this time, function well without oil and gas. We are already
in deep trade imbalance to the oil producing companies, not to mention
suppliers like China.

Having worked offshore a lot, I totally understand the need for safety in
operations. If you had ever worked offshore, you might understand. While
no one wants ecological damage, we also want to come home alive and
well.

I have been on platforms where people died. It is not a fun nor glamorous
situation.

There is always room for improvement, although the technology is very
advanced even at this moment. Unless every employee keeps his head
in the sunshine, mistakes can happen, and these mistakes can overwhelm
every safety system.

How many times have I heard (now, grimacing) that " we will put safeguards
into place so that this sort of thing will never happen again". It is a
great
goal, but something ALWAYS "happens again".

I laud your concern about the environment. I just think that your view is
rather one-sided at this time.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: Reason TV: How did Government Motors pay it's TARP loans? Itdidn't.
Next: Cam Sensor_code reset?