[QUOTE=dell;39876]This is the same forum, the Joint Investigation Board, Coast Guard and MMS, before which they took the Fifth before. Making them do it again could be sensible–before a different forum. Usually, if you take the Fifth before a particular forum, you’re done before that forum, but not different fora (see, 4 years of high school Latin [I]was[/I] good for something!). That answers exactly what you asked.
Now for what you’re really asking, what the %* is going on? Two possibilities: either putting on an embarrassing show–or they’ve been granted some level of immunity. We’ll see; obviously, I wouldn’t be privy to whatever deals may be being made.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=OneEyedMan;39878]I don’t think either Kaluza or Vidrine actually took the 5th yet. Vidrine claimed a medical condition prevented him appearing. I think Kaluza just phoned in that he [I]would[/I] take the 5th [I]if[/I] he was subpoenaed (he is not listed in prior witness lists on the Joint Investigation Web Site). So now they are both being called and forced to formally invoke their rights under the 5th. They may be off the stand in a couple of minutes.
They are bringing Mark Hafle (the BP drilling engineer) back for more questioning. That should be interesting.[/QUOTE]
[B]More importantly everyone… they have also called John Guide for the 22nd!![/B]
He is the man Vidrine and Kaluza reported to ie their immediate boss onshore. He was the person calling the shots on daily DWH operations. Let’s see if he actually turns up and says anything.
Originally Posted by Alf
The valve looks to be closed, and now it’s bubbling where it wasn’t before… interesting.
I wonder if they are using similar type valves to these…
“…VALVE, BALL, NOM 3, 1500 PSI INTERNAL…”?
I don’t know the exact spec for the Dril-Quip 36" Low Pressure Housing, but a competitors LPH is rated as “1000 PSI MWP”
If you found that funny, you’ll find this next bit highly hillarious…
On deepwater wellhead systems there is a seal between the 38" (or 36") LPH and the 18.3/4" HPH. That seal, plus the valves on the sidearms (that are screwed into the 36" conductor) are designed to provide a pressure seal to approx 1000psi (value and effectiveness is debatable?) to prevent shallow water/gas flows destroying the cement job in the annulus around the 22" casing when it is cemented.
So, with that in mind, now that they have shut the well in there appears to be a pressure build-up behind the 22" casing because one of those valves is now leaking/bubbling where it wasn’t before.
[B]CM1[/B], remember we discussed possible gas routes into the pit/pump room etc some time ago?
… last week I discovered that some operators (no names) sometimes make modifications to the diverter lines by plumbing in another line back to the poor boy degasser! I’m still trying to find out good reasons why, but my current understanding is that it is done to avoid dumping too much oil based mud overboard when diverting.??
If this mod was done on the DWH, then that could be why we identified the two flares ie one o/board and the other via the poor boy vent line.
Also, as you know, any large flow of fluids thru’ the poor boy would quickly push out the low pressure mud seal on the poor boy and provide a quick and easy route for gas/oil back into the pit room and beyond!!
A couple interesting comments made by Kent Wells during the briefing on the 17th…
“…[I]you’ll see we’ve got some bubbles coming from a valve that’s on the 36 inch casing.
…This is quite normal… It’s more likely [B]nitrogen[/B] or it could be biodegradable methane or something like that.[/I]”
Nitrogen? Anyone know if they used nitrified cement on the 28" and/or 22" casings? Otherwise this is bollocks.
“…[I]And when – as I talked about as the well is cooling down – as the well is cooling down that’s probably what caused those bubbles there[/I].”
Correct me if I am wrong here, but when a volume of gas/liquid cools down then its pressure decreases.
If there were no bubbles before then there should be even less of a possiblity of bubbles occuring now if the wellhead/BOP etc are cooling down. (Or looking at it a different way, if there were bubbles before they shut in then cooling would reduce the quantity of those bubbles).
The only reason I know of bubbles to suddenly appear is due to a pressure increase from somewhere else affecting the void spaces behind those valves.
[QUOTE=Alf;39887]Nitrogen? Anyone know if they used nitrified cement on the 28" and/or 22" casings?[/QUOTE] According to Hafle, they did.
Q. How many previous nitrogen jobs had you reviewed or approved?
A. Two on this particular well.
Q. Two on this well?
A. Yeah.
Q. And those were the first two?
A. The 28 inch and the 22 inch casing. Nitrogen jobs are used primarily on those two strings on every deep water well because it’s the best way to combat shallow water flow.
[QUOTE=OneEyedMan;39888]According to Hafle, they did.[/QUOTE]
Thanks. I guess I missed that part in his testimony. So no bollocks this time.
However, and in my view more important, the question remains as to… what is driving the pressure increase causing those bubbles?
Another question for those who are more experienced in well testing (maybe ex-pe-uk?) … when a well is shut in for a build-up after flowing on a DST, does the surface (and the wellbore, BOP etc) temperature increase or decrease? I am of the opinion it increases… but need someone better informed to advise?
After 90 days, BP’s gushing oil well may now be as good as dead.
In a press conference Sunday morning, a BP executive said that a mechanical “cap” used to shut off the geyser still seems to be holding. As a result, he said, the company now plans to keep it closed permanently – or at least for a few more weeks, until a “relief well” can plug the leak near its underground source.
“We’re not seeing any problems, at this point, any issues with the shut-in,” said Doug Suttles, BP’s chief operating officer, referring to the closure of the well. Because of that, Suttles said, “we’ll continue to leave the well shut in.”
[QUOTE=peakoilerrrr;39880]AyeCaptain…just came over to post the link. Here’s an excerpt…
…“There is no evidence that the significant modifications to the blowout preventer (BOP), which were carried out in China in 2005, caused the equipment to fail. But industry lawyers said BP could be made liable for any mistakes that a Chinese subcontractor made carrying out the work. It would be almost impossible to secure damages in China, where international law is barely recognised.
It is understood that lawyers for Cameron International, the manufacturer of the BOP, will argue the device was so significantly modified in China that it no longer resembled the original component, and that Cameron should therefore not be held liable.”…
TooBigToFail = Beyond Prosecution…by design. It’s a universe of, by and for the killer-rich…by design.[/QUOTE]
I find the article/news report strange because most major operators require OEM parts and (OEM) servicing as part of their HSE and Well Control Policies.
“…[I]Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon, which bought the BOP from Cameron, has already told congressional hearings into the disaster that the modifications were carried out at BP’s request and “under its direction” as the lessee of the rig[/I].”
I also find it strange that this article suggests that bp supervised these modifications. Normal practice (someone correct me if I am wrong) would be for the rig owner to organise and supervise the work and report back to the operator with updates and progress etc.
I suggest we all keep an open mind on this one until more evidence is produced. There are lots of questions and unfortunately, not many facts.
And the plan changes again. Way to go letting BP off the hook.
“No one wants to see oil flowing back into the sea, and to initiate containment would require that to occur,” he said. “Unfortunately, we would first have to open the flow back up into the Gulf of Mexico.”
Hooking the well up to those pipes would have provided a key statistic: since all the well’s oil would have been gathered, there would finally be a concrete measurement of how much oil was leaking. This “flow rate,” which has only been guessed at so far, will be a key figure in determining BP’s liability for the spill.
Messages left for Coast Guard and White House spokespeople about Suttles’ announcement were not immediately returned this morning.
After 90 days, BP’s gushing oil well may now be as good as dead.
In a press conference Sunday morning, a BP executive said that a mechanical “cap” used to shut off the geyser still seems to be holding. As a result, he said, the company now plans to keep it closed permanently – or at least for a few more weeks, until a “relief well” can plug the leak near its underground source.
“[B]We’re not seeing any problems[/B], at this point, any issues with the shut-in,” said Doug Suttles, BP’s chief operating officer, referring to the closure of the well. Because of that, Suttles said, “we’ll continue to leave the well shut in.” [/QUOTE]
Thanks Alvis, I hope the above is good news… for everyone’s sake.
“…[I][B]Suttles’ announcement seemed to alter the strategy that Coast Guard Admiral Thad W. Allen (ret.), the federal government’s point man in the disaster, had described on Saturday. Allen had extended a two-day “integrity test” on the well until Sunday. But, Allen said, when the test was eventually done, it would likely be re-opened[/B].[/I]…”
[QUOTE=Alf;39893]Thanks Alvis, I hope the above is good news… for everyone’s sake.
“…[I][B]Suttles’ announcement seemed to alter the strategy that Coast Guard Admiral Thad W. Allen (ret.), the federal government’s point man in the disaster, had described on Saturday. Allen had extended a two-day “integrity test” on the well until Sunday. But, Allen said, when the test was eventually done, it would likely be re-opened[/B].[/I]…”
bp at its best!??[/QUOTE]
For months now it has been clear that Thad Allen was completely over-matched. It is also impossible to believe that wasn’t by design of the Obama administration. He serves their purposes in that role. Imagine if, back in May, the Obama administration, and/or their representatives said something like “For the purposes of assigning liability, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are assuming that the flow rate has been from the beginning at the very highest end of the estimated ranges.”
Pow.
Then you better believe you would get BP cooperation and reporting of flow rates/pressures. Of course it would have destroyed BP’s stock share in the short term, so that is not what they did.
[QUOTE=CPTdrillersails;39896]For months now it has been clear that Thad Allen was completely over-matched. It is also impossible to believe that wasn’t by design of the Obama administration. He serves their purposes in that role. Imagine if, back in May, the Obama administration, and/or their representatives said something like “For the purposes of assigning liability, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are assuming that the flow rate has been from the beginning at the very highest end of the estimated ranges.”
Pow.
Then you better believe you would get BP cooperation and reporting of flow rates/pressures. Of course it would have destroyed BP’s stock share in the short term, so that is not what they did.[/QUOTE]
I know… but I just like to keep rubbing bp’s nose(s) in it!
Thanks.
I don’t know of Thad Allen’s (ret) accomplishments,… but it’s a sad reflection of the times we live in, to see someone thrown to the dogs… so to speak.
[QUOTE=peakoilerrrr;39880]AyeCaptain…just came over to post the link. Here’s an excerpt…
…“There is no evidence that the significant modifications to the blowout preventer (BOP), which were carried out in China in 2005, caused the equipment to fail. But industry lawyers said BP could be made liable for any mistakes that a Chinese subcontractor made carrying out the work. It would be almost impossible to secure damages in China, where international law is barely recognised.
It is understood that lawyers for Cameron International, the manufacturer of the BOP, will argue the device was so significantly modified in China that it no longer resembled the original component, and that Cameron should therefore not be held liable.”…
TooBigToFail = Beyond Prosecution…by design. It’s a universe of, by and for the killer-rich…by design.[/QUOTE]
Assuming, the modifications were made in 2005, then we’ve had loads of time to work out if all is operational with the BOPs. Hopefully, it didn’t take the Macondo well to highlight deficiencies in the BOP system, if any exist! It was also a requirement for MMS to approve the BOP…within the realm of their jurisdiction and they dictate to BP what that definition is.
The question will be: Were those changes acceptable to MMS?
And, this equipment belongs to the Contractor, and therefore, it would be highly unusual for BP to have any responsibility for the equipment. BP, as an Operator, would normally get an independent party to check and oversee that the required changes had taken place.
I think we’re going to see further interesting emails appearing in the near future. For those who imagine that BP can swallow the blame for this one, I doubt it. But, it may yet be proved that nothing was wrong with the BOP…just a case of not being able to close around two joints of pipe.
[QUOTE=Alf;39898]I know… but I just like to keep rubbing bp’s nose(s) in it!
Thanks.
ps… here is perhaps the bigger agenda…?
I don’t know of Thad Allen’s (ret) accomplishments,… but it’s a sad reflection of the times we live in, to see someone thrown to the dogs… so to speak.[/QUOTE]
Another company too big to fail… Let the UK worry about their financial state. The US has problems of its own. Like a LOT of oil in the Gulf… Personally, I say BP needs to be held fully accountable for their actions, and if negligent behavior is found, punished punitively. Let the chips fall where they may financially. They put risk ahead of safety for the sake of the shareholders. The shareholders then in turn need to eat some profits for their risky behavior. If the shareholders do not like their business practices, then dump BP stock. Which in turn punishes the company for taking risk.
[QUOTE=alvis;39900]Another company too big to fail… Let the UK worry about their financial state. The US has problems of its own. Like a LOT of oil in the Gulf… Personally, I say BP needs to be held fully accountable for their actions, and if negligent behavior is found, punished punitively. Let the chips fall where they may financially. They put risk ahead of safety for the sake of the shareholders. The shareholders then in turn need to eat some profits for their risky behavior. If the shareholders do not like their business practices, then dump BP stock. Which in turn punishes the company for taking risk.[/QUOTE]
I hope it never gets to the point that it is shown that BP have continuously cut corners in the wells they drill in the GOM. It will raise many questions about the people involved managing the GOM offshore patch. One thing I know to be true is that the decisions taken go completely against BP’s published best practices.
[QUOTE=alvis;39900]Another company too big to fail… Let the UK worry about their financial state. The US has problems of its own. Like a LOT of oil in the Gulf… Personally, I say BP needs to be held fully accountable for their actions, and if negligent behavior is found, punished punitively. Let the chips fall where they may financially. They put risk ahead of safety for the sake of the shareholders. The shareholders then in turn need to eat some profits for their risky behavior. If the shareholders do not like their business practices, then dump BP stock. Which in turn punishes the company for taking risk.[/QUOTE]
I like you, wish it were that simple alvis. In reality it isn’t. There are lots of examples where big businesses have played their hand in politics… on your side of the pond, my side of the pond and every side of the pond, and have had a big influence to their benefit.
This will no doubt turn out to be yet another one of those instances.
For you, me and others on the ground we’ll bitch and scream… and then elect another non entity to guide us all.
[QUOTE=alcor;39899]Assuming, the modifications were made in 2005, then we’ve had loads of time to work out if all is operational with the BOPs. Hopefully, it didn’t take the Macondo well to highlight deficiencies in the BOP system, if any exist! It was also a requirement for MMS to approve the BOP…within the realm of their jurisdiction and they dictate to BP what that definition is.
The question will be: Were those changes acceptable to MMS?
And, this equipment belongs to the Contractor, and therefore, it would be highly unusual for BP to have any responsibility for the equipment. BP, as an Operator, would normally get an independent party to check and oversee that the required changes had taken place.
I think we’re going to see further interesting emails appearing in the near future. For those who imagine that BP can swallow the blame for this one, I doubt it. But, it may yet be proved that nothing was wrong with the BOP…just a case of not being able to close around two joints of pipe.[/QUOTE]
Does anyone know exactly what modifications were made?
[QUOTE=Alf;39903]I like you, wish it were that simple alvis. In reality it isn’t. There are lots of examples where big businesses have played their hand in politics… on your side of the pond, my side of the pond and every side of the pond, and have had a big influence to their benefit.
This will no doubt turn out to be yet another one of those instances.
For you, me and others on the ground we’ll bitch and scream… and then elect another non entity to guide us all.[/QUOTE]
I do understand and am not naive enough to think that politics and the good ole boy system don’t play a role in things. But justice needs to be served. And I’m sure it will…
[QUOTE=Frarig;39904]Does anyone know exactly what modifications were made?[/QUOTE]
At this time… nothing known that I’m aware of.
If I had to guess, then the bottom set of rams that were converted to a set of test rams (or new rams added)?.. but then someone lost the plot on what the ROV intervention panel interfaced with.