[QUOTE=tvhawaii;37656]I’ll see if I can find that part of the 150,000 messages posted over there.[grin][/QUOTE]
It was pretty easy, actually…just looked at my posts in my account.
Memory was bad, it wasn’t a top hat operation at all, but nwolf had posted that Viking Poseidon ROV 1 was looking at leaks in the sea floor, which undoubtedly caught my attention. My post, " ROV 1 pic is a ‘loop of nothing’ with time stopped at 02.59.37. I guess we saw too much.", is down 5 or so from nwolf’s, but if anyone was recording this would be a good place to look for some funny business since we have date/time. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593#comment-648979
[QUOTE=dell;37637]I think Lehman, Bear, Merrill Lynch and AIG all assumed that they were indispensable to the economy too. BP’s assets, that is, producing wells/fields, can get rearranged; in fact, that is already happening. A good argument can be made that BP [B][I]needs[/I][/B] to go the way of Enron–even though the human toll of that consequence, that course is considerable.
I have known about the environmental consequences of our oil addiction ever since I used to have the former General Counsel of an independent oil company working for me (she was between GC jobs in the industry, and parked herself in my corner of the world for a while).
No one (that I have seen) is saying it, but I think a big part of the (actual) rationale for the moratorium is that 90 days (or so) is the bare minimum time needed to get the replacement agencies for the MMS up and running, and to assess what new regs are needed, get APRM’s (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) published in the Federal Register, and then follow the other procedures of the APA (Administrative Procedures Act). The administration already got their heads handed to them on a platter for ignoring APA procedures. Not that any of that is going to make any of y’all feel better; just sayin’.[/QUOTE]
Dell, do you ‘really’ believe that last paragraph? Your posts have been very informative from a perspective that is thin for the rest of us. But do people with your perspective really believe the moratorium has ANY rationale for the benefit of us, the operators, or big oil?
There might be a reason “No one is saying” I’m shocked you did.
Does anyone on this thread think that the well is producing from both inside the casing and the Annulus? Has the production casing string collapsed? I don’t think anyone knows.
The relief well is well under way. Interception will take place within the next 4 weeks. Assuming the Production casing has not collapsed, and the Annulus is eventually filled with Kill Mud, isn’t it probable that the casing will suddenly collapse and suddenly induce further flow.
If the casing holds, then BP will have to re-enter the well/casing and pump cement internally.
I want to see some more evidence like oil on parked cars, table and lawn furniture from more than one location. The oil in this video could come from a bad car leak, poor car change procedures or just a simple consumer spill.
[QUOTE=HellSD;37657]Lately there have been some rumors swirling about rain in the oil, ahem, I mean oil in the rain. I think the rumors mostly started from the following ‘sensational’ video.
Now as that’s the main bit of evidence for the rumor (which apparently made it onto huffington post), I don’t find it particularly credible. First, because if there really was oil-containing-rain falling on Louisiana creating dramatic oil slicks, local news would eat that up. Ignoring this video for a moment, http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/is-it-raining-oil-in-louisiana/ contains a decent abbreviated overview of whether or not oil could end up in rain. Basically, it is technically possible. It’s also suggested that the dispersants could end up in rain water.
Since I’ve neither seen any new stories on the subject nor reports of oily rain here, I think this rumor is almost definitely false. That mess in the video looks more like there’s a leaking underground tank (incredibly common). That or someone poured out some oil. The video is too abbreviated and shows too little to be considered reliable evidence. Especially as it is apparently the only evidence.[/QUOTE]
Alcor your discussion on the flow, annular only or annular/casing has intrigued me for weeks now. It may just be me, but I see very different flow characteristics when the cap is off from the drill string and the annular space. It is in the HD video of the capless riser flow, and I saw it again yesterday with the cap off. To me the flow from the drill string is heavily sanded and of much higher velocity than the annular flow. The drill pipe flow is tan, the annular black. I no longer think it is ROV camera/lighting effects. This implies to me that the delta pressure across the drill string is greater, or there is a choke in the annular space before the riser cut. I guess the flow velocity could be explained by a piece the upper portion of the production liner or seal in the BOP, with the BOP doing it’s best to crimp the combination of 9 5/8 and the 5.5 inch drill string,and the drill sting is mostly untouched.
What I can’t explain with my limited knowledge is the very different sanding content of the flows? Ideas?
The very real concern for GOM work is the new regs are expected to obsolete all the rigs operating today. Who will step up to build new rigs to the new US regs and how long will that take?
Consider the multiple government meter maid teams that stopped Billy and the governor from pumping sand yesterday. How many agencies will have their hands in the new offshore drilling world?.
[QUOTE=kwCharlie;37660]Dell, do you ‘really’ believe that last paragraph? Your posts have been very informative from a perspective that is thin for the rest of us. But do people with your perspective really believe the moratorium has ANY rationale for the benefit of us, the operators, or big oil?
There might be a reason “No one is saying” I’m shocked you did. [/QUOTE]
It does not matter what the cost of the spare is the new government regs will require that and much more. If you read the Cameron fine print they expect the BOP units back at their shop regularly for complete rebuild. The BOP’s are full of seals made of rubber and other materials. Weight and size made that impractical. That was yesterday. All the new rigs needed for US operation will have multiple units that rotate on a schedule back to the manufacturer.
[QUOTE=nobody;37655]What’s the typical annual downtime for BOP maintenance? If a spare would save a rig a few days each year sitting idle due to a recalcitrant BOP, then might not a spare pay for itself? You might want to design the rig to accommodate the second one from the get-go, as the design phase seems like a good time to structurally address the potential space/stability side effects of a spare…although it might also add to the cost equation.
If a leased rig is idle for BOP maintenance, who usually pays?
And as you’ve already inferred, no I don’t I have any relevant experience here, but I do find it a fascinating industry that marries geology, maritime matters, economics, engineering, and politics – all of which I often find quite interesting on their own.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=rlanasa;37665]The very real concern for GOM work is the new regs are expected to obsolete all the rigs operating today. Who will step up to build new rigs to the new US regs and how long will that take?
Consider the multiple government meter maid teams that stopped Billy and the governor from pumping sand yesterday. How many agencies will have their hands in the new offshore drilling world?.[/QUOTE]
That would completely KILL everything in the deep GoM; no return, no deposit. No one will replace, except what they havn’t started building yet, everything will not only move overseas but stay there. You think they will take the Rig off Thunder Horse too?
Then there’s the new platform, with an active Heave Rig, they just put on all those wells the Nautilus drilled moored just a few miles from Mexican waters. It will have to be replaced too under this scenario, Mexico has been trying to stop Shell since we drilled the first well there 11 years ago when the DWN left Korea a few months ahead of the DWH.
everybody gets what they want EXCEPT the USA, but that’s what we deserve isn’t it?
I’ve been telling everyone to get ready for 6-7 $ a gallon, no telling where it will go if they ban all the new 5th and 6th generation rigs.
This is a VERY SCARY scenario: only the Saudis Chinese and Nigeria will benefit. KEEP us informed please
Not trying to derail the thread, but I’d like some opinions regarding the fighting of the fire. (I’m no expert regarding fire on marine vessels)
If the first-responder boats had not embrittled the steel (cold water on super hot steel) is it even remotely possible that the DWH could still be floating today?
Obviously if the rig were still floating we’d be in a MUCH better place.
Surely the derrick would have melted. But with most of the heat radiating up, is it plausible that the hull would still have water-tight integrity?
Don’t know if it could have stayed floating, that’s a good question BUT the first little storm and the Riser would have broken off somewhere. We’de be in the same place but no rig on the bottom. At least it won’t have been a ‘fire ship’ just a floating burned hunk of steel.
[QUOTE=kwCharlie;37672]Don’t know if it could have stayed floating, that’s a good question BUT the first little storm and the Riser would have broken off somewhere. We’de be in the same place but no rig on the bottom. At least it won’t have been a ‘fire ship’ just a floating burned hunk of steel.[/QUOTE]
I forgot about the riser, they would have definitely had to have tugs holding the DWH in place so as not to snap the riser. This would have been near impossible.
It amazes me that this formation hasn’t bridged up. I have a coworker who has been on four blow-outs and all four bridged up. This monster has flowed its guts out for two months and is showing no sign of collapsing the reservoir.
Somewhere there must be some completion engineers scratching their heads.
[QUOTE=kwCharlie;37660]Dell, do you ‘really’ believe that last paragraph? Your posts have been very informative from a perspective that is thin for the rest of us. But do people with your perspective really believe the moratorium has ANY rationale for the benefit of us, the operators, or big oil?
There might be a reason “No one is saying” I’m shocked you did. [/QUOTE]
kwCharlie,
I do think that the 90 day moratorium is, as much as anything, the government trying to give itself a time out, so as to hit the (regulatory) reset button. Plus what has been said publicly: to conduct the investigation and assess whether new, different etc. safeguards are necessary etc. If anyone has good ideas about how to cut corners on this (adopt Norwegian standards in total, adopt API standards in total, ladle x, y and z additional safeguards on top of what’s already in place in MMS regs??), the best I could suggest would be to then contact (if you’re in those states) Senator Landrieu’s or Senator Bill Nelson’s office. This time-out (which may well extend longer, particularly for deep water) is damaging to real people; they do recognize that; that’s why the additional $100m fund was set up. The problem is that it is somewhat to very unlikely to be enough.
In other words, a lot of the moratorium is about intra-government process (an always fascinating topic within the District), which seems, in this instance, to be FUBAR–and that takes a while to fix. Is Robert Gibbs going to get up at the podium and say that? I think not.
rlanasa, above, seems to be saying what he’s hearing about the regulatory direction from BP’s Washington office.
Something like this–BIG–results in a flood of new, tighter regulation. Everyone who possibly can gets in the act. Note, in the one Bloomberg piece above, that 4 separate investigations are underway…
Endgame scenarios are getting run by people like the bond guy.[/QUOTE]
Thanks Dell. The more you post, the more I realize what BP actually stands for. BLOOD PRESSURE, as in high blood pressure. These articles are showing BP’s plan forward. They pin the whole thing on one guy. Then they put out all kinds of misinformation about how other companies which are less “sympathetic” to our interests could step in & buy their interests in the GOM. How can anyone be less “sympathetic” to the interests of the United States than a company that rigs a well to blowout & destroy the GOM & the property value of every county & parish along the GOM? A company that runs a refinery into the ground until it explodes? A company that runs a pipeline into the ground until it ruptures & spills 250,000 Bbls. of oil all over Alaska?
[QUOTE=rlanasa;37665]The very real concern for GOM work is the new regs are expected to obsolete all the rigs operating today. Who will step up to build new rigs to the new US regs and how long will that take?
Consider the multiple government meter maid teams that stopped Billy and the governor from pumping sand yesterday. How many agencies will have their hands in the new offshore drilling world?.[/QUOTE]
This is why it is imperative to lay the fault of the cause of this accident where it rightfully belongs. While systemic complacency by the MMS may have been contributing factors in allowing reckless endangerment to occur, the root cause of this “accident” was singleminded negligence by one company. This has been manifested in their well sight leaders, their Houston based engineering group, & their management group at the highest levels. Once again, would we punish the whole auto industry due to one auto manufacturer continuing to produce a line of automobiles that are rigged to explode? Would we punish the whole airline industry for one company rigging it’s planes to explode? Then why are we punishing the whole oil industry in this country for the guilt of one guilty, renegade company that rigs its facilities & wells to explode?
Re your #3573: Umm, actually the answer to your (you thought rhetorical) questions about Pintos and what, Constellations, is “yes”. There end up being new rules about fuel tank placement and safety that apply to everyone from GM to Lotus. Similarly, the airplane rules apply across the industry.