Deepwater Horizon - Transocean Oil Rig Fire

Offshore
3701

[QUOTE=Alf;37640][ATTACH=CONFIG]997[/ATTACH]
Here’s a pic I took mid last year on the rig I was working. The BOP is similar to the one on DWH.

No that isn’t me in the pic, but it should give other people an appreciation of it’s size etc.[/QUOTE]

Hey Alf, would you mind clearing up something for me?

I’ve heard that the BOP’s have a fail-safe mode, aka a “Deadman’s Switch,” where if they lose signal from the Rig, they failover to closed. But testimony from the Captain and the OIM was that the explosion must have taken out the controls, thereby preventing them from shutting the BOPs in.

Which is it? True Fail Safe or human intervention required? I know the surface controlled, sub-surface safety valves in a production string require hydraulic pressure to stay open. Lose the source and the valve leaks off and closes. Same concept with BOP, or not?

Perhaps if the BOP stack and logic was re-worked, the fail-over only worked on the test rams? Dunno. Thoughts?

3702

[QUOTE=dell;37677]From the hmm… Department, it appears that BP has a designated scapegoat (though perhaps deservedly?):

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNOjvl6zC58Q&pos=4

and see this:

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agL_vhZcM4zo&pos=4

Endgame scenarios are getting run by people like the bond guy.[/QUOTE]

I thought I heard BP say, at one of the congressional hearings, that three employees were suspended, and that they wouldn’t say which three. Did anyone else hear that? Meh, back to searching all testimony to see if my memory serves me well or not…

3703

[QUOTE=dell;37676]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.[/QUOTE]
Dell,

I was going to whine and come back that coal and cars didn’t get this kind of treatment after even worse problems but you’ve heard all that.
You seem to a little of what’s going on in that ‘district’, PLEASE convince me that this moratorium isn’t just because the people in the district now want to destroying the ‘evil’ red necks that drill for oil and despoil the earth and that their only regret is that it was BP, who Energy Secretary Chu said ‘would save the earth” in 2007 after the ‘district’ changed in the House.
If there is more than a grain of truth in what I’m saying it makes our government much more sinister than BP, at least they had a mandate to make money. Putting the interests of the Mexicans and Saudis ahead of the USA, and get even with the people, who wouldn’t vote for you anyway, at the same time, is MUCH more evil than what BP did. Tell me it ain’t so Dell, really.

3704

[QUOTE=rlanasa;37666]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]

We had a 5 year survey conducted on all equipment on the rig 7 months ago. It took 10 days to completely dismantle the BOP which was then sent onshore for complete overhaul. We got the BOP back in three weeks. Then, it took another month to re-assemble the BOP and perform all the pressure tests required.
That’s a total of 60 days.
Rig contractors can live with this complete overhaul every five years. Meantime, the BOPs are tested every 2 weeks, and all functions checked at the same time. When faults arise they are repaired. This may take the best part of two days to pull the BOP, repair the fault, and run the BOP again (in wells up to 1000 ft). In Deepwater wells, the turnaround time is substantially more, possibly 4 to 5 days. The contractor normally goes on zero dayrate for this downtime, but contracts vary from Operator to Operator.

Cameron are interested in ensuring the BOPs are overhauled in their workshops. There’s no mention of the interval in between complete overhaul, though I’d imagine it’ll be every 5 years.

3705

[QUOTE=Cynthia;37686]I thought I heard BP say, at one of the congressional hearings, that three employees were suspended, and that they wouldn’t say which three. Did anyone else hear that? Meh, back to searching all testimony to see if my memory serves me well or not…[/QUOTE]

I heard Lamar McKay say it. I don’t remember him mentioning the number but do remember him mentioning that people were suspended pending an investigation.

3706

[QUOTE=kwCharlie;37687]Dell,

I was going to whine and come back that coal and cars didn’t get this kind of treatment after even worse problems but you’ve heard all that.
You seem to a little of what’s going on in that ‘district’, PLEASE convince me that this moratorium isn’t just because the people in the district now want to destroying the ‘evil’ red necks that drill for oil and despoil the earth and that their only regret is that it was BP, who Energy Secretary Chu said ‘would save the earth” in 2007 after the ‘district’ changed in the House.
If there is more than a grain of truth in what I’m saying it makes our government much more sinister than BP, at least they had a mandate to make money. Putting the interests of the Mexicans and Saudis ahead of the USA, and get even with the people, who wouldn’t vote for you anyway, at the same time, is MUCH more evil than what BP did. Tell me it ain’t so Dell, really.[/QUOTE]

I really don’t think that “the District” is thinking like [I]that[/I]. How can they as they fill up their tanks on their luxury cars/SUV’s?

Thinking that the whole U.S. O&G industry operates all the time as BP did here, with reckless disregard of safety–now [U]that’s[/U] possible (there was a reason [B][I]I[/I][/B] was, a while back, trying to find out who had best practices–and no one ever did answer…) Thinking that only Washington can save the industry from itself–now [U]that’s[/U] possible. Thinking that more regulation (unspecified but onerous) is needed pronto if not yesterday–[U]that’s[/U] bloody likely. Doing all that–slowly–and with little regard for resulting costs–you can safely bet on [U]that[/U].

It really isn’t as personal–or as sinister–as you’re imagining. It’s more about [I][U]process[/U][/I]. The District is very, very, very big on [I][U]process[/U][/I].

The positive train control situation I posted about above is really a good example. That wasn’t motivated by animus (either). The [I]immediate[/I] problem could (and was) cured by ‘we’ll fire your a$$’ instructions not to text while operating a locomotive (duh, but 25 people died). The system being mandated by the resulting legislation is going to cost well north of $6b industry- and nationwide. The only reason the whole situation went from crash to enacted, signed legislation so quickly (just a single month) is that the law was already there, but had been bottled up in committee; it came unbottled while emergency crews were still on the scene.

Sorry, but I’m not sure, at this point, that the moratorium (in one form or another) is liftable (who wants to be seen as carrying the O&G industry’s (oily) water right now?). It seems to me that the [B][I]only[/I][/B] possibility would be to figure out something that would be off-the-shelf, but still livable and notably more rigorous than what’s there now, and to agree to become subject to that regulatory regimen.

Probably THE key driver, in the District, is the idea that “we can never let this happen again”. Only the financial industry has the power to subvert the legislation intended to do that (go to Google News, and search Blanche Lincoln; you’ll see what I mean). The majors have had that same power, but its now gushing away in the GoM.

3707

I am hopeful that BP survive this Disaster. Why? Because they employ over 60,000 people worldwide, and that’s a lot of jobs to throw away.
No-one is disputing the fact that they have caused the worst environmental disaster that I’ve heard of. No-one is disputing that the cost of the clean-up has to be met. No-one is disputing that they hold ultimate responsibility for the failures in this well which killed 11 men. No question about it.
But, is it possible that all of their 60,000 employees are responsible? No. But, they’ll all lose their jobs if BP goes under.
I don’t know which ones will be found guilty, but I’d imagine those who by-passed BP’s procedures and best practices will be held in contempt.
Who are they? That information will come out soon enough.

Right now, BP are being battered to bits by the media and by many on this site. I believe it’s in the interests of everyone to learn all the lessons from the Disaster, make the industry safer, and get back to work. That includes BP.
BP, are not all bad. They, have provided the world with the energy requirements we all need. Obviously, it is completely unacceptable to cause environmental disasters.

3708

[QUOTE=company man 1;37679]. . . a company that rigs a well to blowout & destroy the GOM & the property value of every county & parish along the GOM?[/QUOTE]

So you think BP did this intentionally?

3709

[QUOTE=dell;37690]I really don’t think that “the District” is thinking like [I]that[/I]. How can they as they fill up their tanks on their luxury cars/SUV’s?

Thinking that the whole U.S. O&G industry operates all the time as BP did here, with reckless disregard of safety–now [U]that’s[/U] possible (there was a reason [B][I]I[/I][/B] was, a while back, trying to find out who had best practices–and no one ever did answer…) Thinking that only Washington can save the industry from itself–now [U]that’s[/U] possible. Thinking that more regulation (unspecified but onerous) is needed pronto if not yesterday–[U]that’s[/U] bloody likely. Doing all that–slowly–and with little regard for resulting costs–you can safely bet on [U]that[/U].
It really isn’t as personal–or as sinister–as you’re imagining. It’s more about [I][U]process[/U][/I]. The District is very, very, very big on [I][U]process[/U][/I].

The positive train control situation I posted about above is really a good example. That wasn’t motivated by animus (either). The [I]immediate[/I] problem could (and was) cured by ‘we’ll fire your a$$’ instructions not to text while operating a locomotive (duh, but 25 people died). The system being mandated by the resulting legislation is going to cost well north of $6b industry- and nationwide. The only reason the whole situation went from crash to enacted, signed legislation so quickly (just a single month) is that the law was already there, but had been bottled up in committee; it came unbottled while emergency crews were still on the scene.

Sorry, but I’m not sure, at this point, that the moratorium (in one form or another) is liftable (who wants to be seen as carrying the O&G industry’s (oily) water right now?). It seems to me that the [B][I]only[/I][/B] possibility would be to figure out something that would be off-the-shelf, but still livable and notably more rigorous than what’s there now, and to agree to become subject to that regulatory regimen.

Probably THE key driver, in the District, is the idea that “we can never let this happen again”. Only the financial industry has the power to subvert the legislation intended to do that (go to Google News, and search Blanche Lincoln; you’ll see what I mean). The majors have had that same power, but its now gushing away in the GoM.[/QUOTE]

When you posed the question of who’s gas to buy there is a fundamental issue of who’s gas is actually going into your automobile. You can see a given gas truck pull into a corner where there are 4 competing convenience stores & the same truck will fill all four stations with gas. As for the rating post that you refered to, it stated that BP was number one in safety before the GOM disaster. This clearly was not a reputable ratings firm when you consider that BP has 2 of some 55 refineries in the United States & has 97% of all agregious violations concerning safety & environmental impact since 2007 in its refinery facilities.

3710

[QUOTE=MichaelWSmith;37693]So you think BP did this intentionally?[/QUOTE]

Absolutely I do. Whether they did it to destroy the GOM or whether they did it to intentionally save money by totally disregarding all humen morality & responsiblity is immaterial at this point. The fact is THEY DID IT! They have also lied about the possible impacts on the affected areas & caused direct reprisals against this whole industry. Their unending arrogant attitude that they did nothing wrong when any responsible leader in the industry recognizes they commited multiple acts of negligence only serves as furhter proof that they did it intentionally & would do it again if left to their own devices.

3711

[QUOTE=company man 1;37683] 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?[/QUOTE]

Sure. That’s the way government regulation works – it’s the process of punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty.

One company pulls a fraud – like Enron did – and EVERY company gets hit with Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements.

Sure, Enron got punished for what it did – but everyone else is made to suffer as a result. Same thing is going on here. One company (apparently) cuts corners and acts negligently, then EVERY company will be saddled with additional regulatory requirements.

That’s the essential injustice of government regulation.

3712

[QUOTE=company man 1;37695]Absolutely I do. . . would do it again if left to their own devices.[/QUOTE]

You’ve become unhinged.

3713

[QUOTE=dell;37684]cm1,

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.

That’s the way federal laws, federal regulations, and federal regulators work. The new law, rules and regulations apply to everyone, good actors, bad actors, in-between actors. A good example of what happens (after, in this case, 25 horrific deaths, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chatsworth_train_collision) is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_train_control Note the cost/benefit aspect…[/QUOTE]
Do they close all the auto plants & airline plants for 6 months minmum while making & enforcing those new rules & regulations?

3714

[QUOTE=MichaelWSmith;37697]You’ve become unhinged.[/QUOTE]
Tell that to the families of the 15 dead in Texas City.

3715

[QUOTE=MichaelWSmith;37696]Sure. That’s the way government regulation works – it’s the process of punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty.

One company pulls a fraud – like Enron did – and EVERY company gets hit with Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements.

Sure, Enron got punished for what it did – but everyone else is made to suffer as a result. Same thing is going on here. One company (apparently) cuts corners and acts negligently, then EVERY company will be saddled with additional regulatory requirements.

That’s the essential injustice of government regulation.[/QUOTE]
Here’s another quaint alternative. How about hunting down the guilty. Then delivering them to a swift unforgiving justice, taking away all their assets, & making certain they never have the ability to commit such acts ever again. I guarantee that will send the message that needs to be sent better than putting thousands of more people out of work & sending a whole region which is already suffering from the continuing aftermath of a criminal organization into an unrecoverable tailspin.

3716

[QUOTE=MichaelWSmith;37697]You’ve become unhinged.[/QUOTE]
Do you have evidence they won’t because I have evidence they will.

3717

[QUOTE=company man 1;37700]Here’s another quaint alternative. How about hunting down the guilty. Then delivering them to a swift unforgiving justice . . . .[/QUOTE]

That is exactly what should be done. It is exactly what we do with criminal law. When a crime is committed, we find, prosecute and then punish the guilty.

And note this: No one expects criminal law or the punishing of criminals to [B]eliminate[/B] crime – even when you have a death penalty for murder, murders will still occur. So while the existence of criminal law and punishment doubtless has some deterrent effect, no one thinks that each instance of a crime justifies and requires ever-more restrictive regulations.

But when it comes to economic crimes – such as fraud or in this case, the massive violation of other people’s property rights by an oil spill – everyone thinks that the answer is ever-more regulation that only serves to punish all the people who did NOT commit the crime in question.

And what is even more disgusting is that many of the big companies like BP fully support this regulatory approach – because they know that whatever regulatory burden is created, THEY will have the resources to handle it, while their smaller competitors may not. So the increase in government regulation only serves to insulate them from competition.

3718

This is pure common sense, CM1, & once upon a time, that might have been the response. But it seems that there would be no “benefit” to Washington (or Wall Street) by doing such a thing. All blood money aside (lobbyist cash), this administration (or even the one before it) is using this catastrophe to make political hay & as an ideal means of pushing an “environmentalist” agenda that stuffs the pockets of Wall Street & the politicians who feed them- tell people how much they’re “protecting the planet” as an excuse for bleeding them dry; not only by taxing the living you-know-what out of them but by putting them out of work as well. Regardless of the obvious harm they are doing to citizens of this country, business people like Pumpjack Hand, cities/ regions & the economy in general. (We have been there & done that with the $100+ per barrel for light, sweet crude that resulted in ridiculous gasoline prices, which started this whole downward spiral via mortgage defaults. Yet no one seems to note the obscene profits made by people like BP & Exxon when all that was going on)
It’s all part of the class war. The sooner they put the middle class into the ground, the better.

Incidentally, I agree with you that there is intent here- mind boggling as that is. Imo, if it were mere recklessness or incompetence, the reactions (“efforts” to resolve/ contain/ clean up) would be completely different. Instead, they are making it worse. Why is that do you suppose?

3719

[QUOTE=company man 1;37701]Do you have evidence they won’t because I have evidence they will.[/QUOTE]

I’m just saying that the idea that BP is out to deliberately have catastrophic, fatal accidents like this defies common sense.

3720

[QUOTE=MichaelWSmith;37705]I’m just saying that the idea that BP is out to deliberately have catastrophic, fatal accidents like this defies common sense.[/QUOTE]

I agree. But their deliberate actions to save money at the expense of safety has led directly to this catastrophe. And I think a lot of people are attributing one to the other.