Chickens are coming home to roost: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/72ea44d4-861d-11df-bc22-00144feabdc0.html
And from the comic relief department: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f24ca96-8824-11df-a4e7-00144feabdc0.html
[QUOTE=alvis;39157]What a crock…
BP Used Oil Industry Tax Break to Write Off Its Rent for Deepwater Rig
Washington DC 101: It is [B][I]always[/I][/B] easier to get this sort of ‘tax relief’ passed than to get a subsidy/grant/money from the feds. But, at the end of the day, it’s all the same. I [I][U]really[/U][/I] hope that the Budget Commission takes a real hard look at every last one of these.
[QUOTE=BLISTERS;38866]
My question : At that time when ROV was attempting to make a hot stab to close the BOP , why would they want to do that ? My understanding is that at best, a fully functional BOP should only be closed as soon a possible after detection of a positive kick indication. We have to do this so that shut in well bore pressures do not exceed MAASP. If we shut in too late then no matter how well a BOP is functioning the shut-in wellbore pressures, due to the kick, will exceed MAASP and blow itself out via cement at the casing shoe up the casing annulus. Put simply , shut -in too late and the BOP is really of not much use,. We still end up with a blowout but not one coming up the well bore, but one that is less controllable by tertiary well control becaue we now have the blowout emanating from cracks around the wellhead/BOP. Google “Lapindo”…before BP buys the rights for this word from Google.
At the risk of stating the obvious the blowout was well in progress undersea when the hot stab attempts were in progress. If the hot stab was successful in closing BOP rams would not this have this caused surface broaching or an underground blowout ? and if so , why even bother to do this. Would success with the hot stab mean screwing up things down hole even worse compared to what it was at the planning stage and after just after the blowout was taken ? Hence for the benefit of Joe public- please note that having a functional BOP does not mean we can shut in a kick and prevent a blowout always. I do not ask this question with the benefit of hindsight.[/QUOTE]
Now that we’re turning to the right again (Yea!), I’d still like to hear the thoughts on this.
[QUOTE=alvis;39179]http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=40&contentId=7061813
I see a cropped version of the dual DP mockup here. Bigmoose or others, do you know the original source to the other pictures?[/QUOTE]
Sorry Alvis, I don’t know where larger source photo’s are. Hopefully scurvydog may return, I think he would be the best lead, as he was the original poster, I believe. Great pix, aren’t they!
Whooppee, NO database error. Thanks to John, Mike and all the gents who worked overtime to “cleanse” the board and get it back on a steady course. Know your efforts are appreciated. All the best, Moose.
[QUOTE=bigmoose;39234]Sorry Alvis, I don’t know where larger source photo’s are. Hopefully scurvydog may return, I think he would be the best lead, as he was the original poster, I believe. Great pix, aren’t they!
Whooppee, NO database error. Thanks to John, Mike and all the gents who worked overtime to “cleanse” the board and get it back on a steady course. Know your efforts are appreciated. All the best, Moose.[/QUOTE]
They are great pics indeed!
[QUOTE=dell;39223]Didn’t someone capture a screenshot that showed this–and wasn’t there a lot of speculation here as to exactly what that second pipe could be/meant?[/QUOTE]
Yup yup. And here they are:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1025[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1026[/ATTACH]
Thanks for fixing the forum!
New BP’s new “open” media guidelines for relief workers:
More info: https://www.piersystem.com/posted/1927/BPMediaAccessPolicy.729563.pdf
C:\Users\my angel\Documents\My Received Files\RememberDeepwaterHorizon11.jpg nice wallpaper,<smile…>
cynthia,post that gift you sent me,here,I m having trouble with the file.
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/4rAqwGWeaW2gnYCU8ofi4lrQZPZnnXdil0YcOhfvWMg?feat=directlink HOPE THIS WORKS
[QUOTE=alvis;39179]
I see a cropped version of the dual DP mockup here. Bigmoose or others, do you know the original source to the other pictures?[/QUOTE]
I found them here, at the bottom:
[U]http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9033571&contentId=7061902[/U]
You can d’ld the high resolution image and read the tape…looks like about 13 3/4" to me.<g>
I tried to attach them, but upload failed about 3/4 way through 3 times.
Edit:Maybe the upload failed because of this.<s>
"[B]Terms of use:[/B] These images are the copyright of BP p.l.c. and are made available in good faith. You may reproduce the images on the understanding that (i) any reproduction of these images will include the following acknowledgement adjacent to the image(s) used - ‘© BP p.l.c.’ and (ii) these images will not be used in connection with any purpose that is prejudicial to BP, its officers or employees or any other third party. "
[QUOTE=Alf;38788]6 engine rooms??
I know the rig was built with 6 x Wartsila 18V32 rated 9775 hp engines (ref TO)[/QUOTE]
You’re right Alf, it’s 3 engine rooms in the stern and what looks like an emg. gen in the port bow is really a standby, no auto transfer switch. With DP they figured if you can’t get 11kv on line (another main gen) it’s not worth the trouble, even the Nautilus was that way. And yes that’s FU’ed and we all thought so in Korea.
Anyone out there know how they are doing it now on the newer DP rigs.
[QUOTE=kwCharlie;39258]You’re right Alf, it’s 3 engine rooms in the stern and what looks like an emg. gen in the port bow is really a standby, no auto transfer switch. With DP they figured if you can’t get 11kv on line (another main gen) it’s not worth the trouble, even the Nautilus was that way. And yes that’s FU’ed and we all thought so in Korea.
Anyone out there know how they are doing it now on the newer DP rigs.[/QUOTE]
Since my post I’ve seen a schematic of the 2nd level showing 6 engine rooms (see link below). Thanks.
go here for a reasonably clear drawing/photo of 2nd level of the DWH
http://cgvi.uscg.mil/media/main.php?..geViewsIndex=1
A 2 year old R&B falcon design rig I’ve got drawing access to shows 4 engine rooms one on each corner.
Transocean is coming under increasing financial scrutiny.
Owner of Exploded Rig Is Known for Testing Rules
[QUOTE=bigmoose;39172]Alf, if I read it right, and I am no lawyer, it looks like for temporary abandonment, they must comply with all permanent abandonment requirements except (8). So they must comply with permanent abandonment (9) in a temporary abandonment.
Do you agree?[/QUOTE]
I would need t read the regs carefully to give a good answer, but sometimes temporary abandonment can have different rules/interpretations to permanent abandonment. They should rightly be similar
BP Slickhas some great pictures of BP literally covering up/burying the news with Coast Guard collusion.
US Coast Guard issued a press release claiming that no covering of oiled beach was occurring. I sat in my motel room in Orange Beach and watched as multiple pieces of heavy equipment excavated sand and hauled it up the beach and used it to cover oiled sections of beach.
While contractors drove bulldozers, front end loaders, screening tractors and various kinds of equipment on beaches known for Turtle nesting.
I watched them from about 11:00 P.M 07/02/10 until about lunch the next day excavating the beach under cover of darkness. There was a stand of ponded water with oil and so called “Tar Balls” which was covered with sand from another area.
U. S. Coast Guard issued a press release stating that this is not happening. USCG uniformed men sat in ATV buggies and watched. I saw them and photographed them.
Why is our Coast Guard playing toady to BP? Are they nothing more than oil lackeys?
I give up. Why? Simple answers to simple questions?
Some good links too: http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/07/08/relief-wells-the-pressure-grows/
Via commenter Lotusat theoildrum.com is a link for a press release from the Department of the Interior regarding enhanced safety/environmental regulations:
Here is an exerpt of the meat and potatos:
Under the NTL, lessees and operators are required to:
• Show certification by the operator’s Chief Executive Officer that they are conducting their operations in compliance with all operating regulations and that they have tested their drilling equipment, ensured that personnel are properly trained, and reviewed their procedures to ensure the safety of personnel and protection of the environment;
• Provide certification from a Professional Engineer – before beginning any new drilling operations using either a surface or subsea blowout preventer (BOP) stack – of all well casing and cement design requirements, including that there are at least two independent tested barriers for the well, and adhere to new casing installation procedures;
• Provide independent third-party verification, before drilling any new well, that the BOP will operate properly with the drilling rig equipment and is compatible with the specific well location, borehole design and drilling plan;
• Provide independent third-party verification that shows that the blind-shear rams installed on the surface or subsea BOP stack are capable of shearing the drill pipe in the hole under maximum anticipated surface pressures;
• Adhere to new inspection and reporting requirements for BOP and well control system configuration, BOP and well control test results, BOP and loss of well control events, and BOP and loss of well control system downtime;
• Receive independent third-party verification, before spudding a new well, of re-certification of BOP equipment used on all floating drilling rigs to ensure that the devices will operate as originally designed, and that any modifications or upgrades conducted after delivery have not compromised the design or operation of the BOP;
• Have a secondary control system for subsea BOP stacks with remote operated vehicle (ROV) intervention capabilities, including the ability to close one set of blind-shear rams and one set of pipe rams. The subsea BOP system must have an emergency shut-in system in the event of lost power, as well as a deadman system and an autoshear system;
• Conduct ROV Hot Stab Function Testing of the ROV Intervention Panel on subsurface BOP stacks; and
• Provide documentation that the BOP has been maintained according to the regulations.
The only delay caused (or complained about) is based on the first requirement; CEO personal assurances and criminal liability.
From the Times Picayune:
Hunt [president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, which represents the largest oil companies and their biggest rig owners and contractors around the world.] said that most companies made enough significant changes and performed sufficient safety reviews in the 30 days after the Deepwater Horizon incident to comply with the certification requirements. But the issue of CEO liability, something that companies are used to when certifying their financial statements, is a bit more difficult.
It will take some time to ensure the same protocols exists to give oil company CEOs confidence in the specific engineering procedures on rigs, Hunt said.
"No one minds taking responsibility, however a lot of due process is involved before you can be required to put your name to a blank sheet of paper," he said. “We have no problem being responsible, we just want to be duly responsible.”
So, the necessary certifications are mostly already in place, but the CEOs are dragging their feet because they don’t trust their own company. Wrong Mr. Hunt “a lot of due process” is NOT involved, because nobody is requiring you to put your name on a blank sheet of paper. Given the money those CEOs are paid, I assure you I can find a few million people who will put their name on a blank sheet of paper without a second of hesitation if all the necessary documentation is in place. If Mr. Hunt is having trouble finding one, he can just PM me.
I wonder if John Wright realizes that he (personally) can move billions: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/07/08/281691/bp-nearing-the-kill-zone/?updatedcontent=1
"Hunt [president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, which represents the largest oil companies and their biggest rig owners and contractors around the world.] said that most companies made enough significant changes and performed sufficient safety reviews in the 30 days after the Deepwater Horizon incident to comply with the certification requirements. But the issue of CEO liability, something that companies are used to when certifying their financial statements, is a bit more difficult. It will take some time to ensure the same protocols exists to give oil company CEOs confidence in the specific engineering procedures on rigs, Hunt said. “No one minds taking responsibility, however a lot of due process is involved before you can be required to put your name to a blank sheet of paper,” he said. “We have no problem being responsible, we just want to be duly responsible.”
That last is pure gibberish. The CEO’s do this for Sarbanes-Oxley compliance quarterly. It’s not ‘due process’; it’s a matter of due diligence, and they don’t have the internal structures built to scare the bejeezus out of everybody involved, as they do with SOX. And methinks they might be just a little afraid about what has been going on these last few years, and are just a little worried about retrospective assumption of personal responsibility/liability. In other words, the Aspen-Davos-Gstaad chalet could be on the line…