[QUOTE=alcor;40127]If I had connections to BP it would be very unwise of me to speak so openly here.
I play devil’s advocate to any crap I hear. [/QUOTE]
ooohh alcooor you little devil you… yer a Jew from [B]Gethsemane[/B]. was it lonely in those informative years?
[QUOTE=alcor;40125]Is this garbage considered technical expertise?
This could easily be a quote from one of the Committee members![/QUOTE]
And speaking of technical expertise : When questioned at the hearings yesterday about the basic difference between Surface and Subsea well control, the trainee wellsite leader answered: With words to the effect that land wells use a surface BOP stack and offshore wells use a subsurface BOP. WOW ! I think the moron meant subsea but still does not know the difference between sub-surface and subsea. Then when question further, apart from these differences between Surface Well control and Subsea Well control in comparison to a Jack up with surface BOP, he said there was no difference. Obviously this BP idiot has not heard seawater hydrostatic or reduced fracture gradients make a big difference, which are main reasons why subsea stacks are used. But BP sees fit to select such idiots for deepwater high pressure wells. And he’s due to break out soon and put in charge !!! Even a smart guy like Mr. Steamer with an inquiring mind, I suspect, would be able to give a better answer than this clown. Add to this Mudman who admits F’all about Well Control. Alcor how on Earth does BP allow such people to be in charge ? As I’ve said before, if ever I encounter an engineering job applicant with BP as previous employer, I am going to pay very close attention to his expertise at the job interview, because these guys are toxic. I will treat each and every one on a case by case basis starting with simple tests like if they can add without a calculator. Idiots …total and absolute idiots in charge of BP deepwater operations. I will take on the good ones though.
More bullshit from BP. BP admits using Photoshop to exaggerate oil spill command centre activity http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/21/bp-oil-spill-oil-spills
Just wtf is your point? Your repetitive drivel does as much harm to the forum and the actual subject at hand as if you were on BP’s payroll yourself.
Hmmm, is that it, AHTF? You a counter-insurgency, psy-ops throwaway with a new gig?
Understandable.
I mean about why you weren’t successful in your last ,em, endeavor.
[QUOTE=BLISTERS;40135]And speaking of technical expertise : When questioned at the hearings yesterday about the basic difference between Surface and Subsea well control, the trainee wellsite leader answered: With words to the effect that land wells use a surface BOP stack and offshore wells use a subsurface BOP. WOW ! I think the moron meant subsea but still does not know the difference between sub-surface and subsea. Then when question further, apart from these differences between Surface Well control and Subsea Well control in comparison to a Jack up with surface BOP, he said there was no difference. Obviously this BP idiot has not heard seawater hydrostatic or reduced fracture gradients make a big difference, which are main reasons why subsea stacks are used. But BP sees fit to select such idiots for deepwater high pressure wells. And he’s due to break out soon and put in charge !!! Even a smart guy like Mr. Steamer with an inquiring mind, I suspect, would be able to give a better answer than this clown. Add to this Mudman who admits F’all about Well Control. Alcor how on Earth does BP allow such people to be in charge ? As I’ve said before, if ever I encounter an engineering job applicant with BP as previous employer, I am going to pay very close attention to his expertise at the job interview, because these guys are toxic. I will treat each and every one on a case by case basis starting with simple tests like if they can add without a calculator. Idiots …total and absolute idiots in charge of BP deepwater operations. I will take on the good ones though.[/QUOTE]
they all went to the same school, Ol’ Boy
will John Guide be much diferent ? doubt it.
bp has yer Accelerated Development Program called DAP’per somethin, where they teach em how to be asshxxles, hmmm i mean tony’s… ehhmmm i mean lamberts or alcoooors… oohhh you know what i mean.
[QUOTE=GunsnHoses;40139]Just wtf is your point? Your repetitive drivel does as much harm to the forum and the actual subject at hand as if you were on BP’s payroll yourself.
Hmmm, is that it, AHTF? You a counter-insurgency, psy-ops throwaway with a new gig?
Understandable.
I mean about why you weren’t successful in your last ,em, endeavor.[/QUOTE]
i luv spy novels GnH… lots of mystique, inuendos an intrigue… yer can be who yer want to be…
do you take alcooor his coffee?
[QUOTE=27182;40101]I think he’s right about that. Scotland isn’t England. In fact I’m almost sure of it.[/QUOTE]
maybe you want to ask him bout Adrians wall
was it built to keep em out?
No, but I take you to the trashcan, my simple-minded BP shill.
As we said in the old days…Plonk…
[QUOTE=Crash Dummy;40110]
One witness described how BP mixed a large quantity of two chemicals and injected them into the well to flush out drilling mud. But the chemicals aren’t usually mixed together, and the injection of more than 400 barrels of dense, gray fluid were about double the quantity normally used for the task, said Leo Lindner, a drilling fluid specialist for contractor M-I Swaco.
The reason for the action: BP had hundreds of barrels of the two chemicals on hand and needed to dispose of it, Lindner testified. By first flushing it into the well, the company could take advantage of an exemption in an environmental law that otherwise would have prohibited the discharge of the hazardous waste into the gulf, he said.
“It’s not something we’ve ever done before,” he said.
Despite assurances from a BP specialist,[/QUOTE]
they used an incompatible 400bbl mix
they underdisplaced it, but it were still across BOP
an it sets thick, like snot…
silly boys. snot in choke an kill lines an manifold an everywhere
lamberts all of em!
[QUOTE=GunsnHoses;40143]No, but I take you to the trashcan, my simple-minded BP shill.
As we said in the old days…Plonk…[/QUOTE]
better check yer history Old Boy…
Originally Posted by GunsnHoses
No, but I take you to the trashcan, my simple-minded BP shill.
As we said in the old days…Plonk…
my humble an sincere appologies Old Boy…
i mistook you for an Adrian when your nothing more than a simple lambert carrying ones tee…
[QUOTE=BLISTERS;40137]More bullshit from BP. BP admits using Photoshop to exaggerate oil spill command centre activity http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/21/bp-oil-spill-oil-spills[/QUOTE]
photoshopping is wunderful…tonys awful head disapears!
[QUOTE=alcor;40127]If I had connections to BP it would be very unwise of me to speak so openly here.[/QUOTE]
Alcor, just ask them to write a note and put it in your pay stub. Next I guess your excuse will be that you have Direct Deposit.
[QUOTE=27182;40148]Alcor, just ask them to write a note and put it in your pay stub. Next I guess your excuse will be that you have Direct Deposit.[/QUOTE]
alcooor has gone to beddie byes… playing with the big boys is such a challenge for a small boy with shiny shoes
WKRG News 5 testing water samples taken from coastal Alabama
It is my understanding that oil is toxic at 11 ppm.
Water samples taken tested between 16 ppm from sample taken from Katrina Key, Alabama, to 221 ppm from water taken from hole kids were playing in on Orange Beach, Alabama.
The water sample collected next to a boom on Dolphin Island exploded when tested.
All of this yet the local governments claim everything is safe and come to the beach.
It’s criminal what they are doing.
[QUOTE=AHTF;40144]they used an incompatible 400bbl mix
they underdisplaced it, but it were still across BOP
an it sets thick, like snot…
silly boys. snot in choke an kill lines an manifold an everywhere
lamberts all of em![/QUOTE]
In the good old days Company Men came up the AD, Derrickman, Driller route (when Shell and BP still had their own rigs…). Now they get them with BA’s in Business and use an accelarated process: no wonder this happens after so many mistakes!!! I wonder what type of folks Transocean has hired. Reflects really nicely on them that they do not show up today so that we can hear what they have to say. Hurts deeply since Transocean once used to be my favorite contractor…
Something I missed on Tuesday but reported today in the WSJ:
QUOTE
Ronald Sepulvado, one of the BP PLC employees overseeing the rig’s operations, told a federal investigative panel that workers detected a leak in the hydraulic system that controls the blowout preventer, the huge stack of valves on the sea floor that is supposed to shut down a well in an emergency.
</DIV>Why the blowout preventer failed to stop the surging well is one of the most significant remaining mysteries in the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers and set off one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history. A leaky hydraulic system by itself shouldn’t have kept the blowout preventer from working, as it had a backup system.
Mr. Sepulvado said he didn’t believe the leak involved a “critical function” of the blowout preventer. And Transocean Ltd., the drilling contractor that owned the preventer, said the leak was in a system used only to test the equipment and would not have affected the control of the well.
But investigators at a hearing outside New Orleans said that continuing to drill with a faulty hydraulic system could have been a violation of federal regulations, which require companies to stop drilling if either of a blowout preventer’s two control systems doesn’t work properly.
Mr. Sepulvado acknowledged he was aware of an April audit that found the Deepwater Horizon’s blowout preventer was long overdue for a major inspection that is supposed to take place every three to five years
[QUOTE=charles_oil;40097]In the plan for the casing and cementing , the negative test was to be done with base oil = this would have been a better test (greter differential on seal assembly) than just using seawater
Anyone know why it was changed?? I have not heard any mention of this in any dicoument (including the lastest “anomolies” one)
http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100614/Macondo.Well.Casing.Production.Operations.pdf
Step 15 Page 8
Thanks[/QUOTE]
The document looks like the program as issued from the beach. These are then often changed by the rig staff into something like ‘daily instructions’. Would like to see a copy of those, if they are available. If something crittical is changed (like inflow testing with seawater instead of base oil) then an amendment to the program should also have been issued from the beach.
[QUOTE=ExCompanyMan;40152]The document looks like the program as issued from the beach. These are then often changed by the rig staff into something like ‘daily instructions’. Would like to see a copy of those, if they are available. If something crittical is changed (like inflow testing with seawater instead of base oil) then an amendment to the program should also have been issued from the beach.[/QUOTE]
I agree ExCompanyMan.
the document referred to is dated: April 15,2010.
Where is the documentation/emails showing the changes that were agreed to from this original procedure?
So far they are not available to you, me or anyone else.
You should read up on the TP that was killed if you have any doubts (he started out chipping paint, since that seems to be important to you). Lower level people (up to the TP, and possibly even one of the Company Men) had raised concerns on multiple occasions which were rejected by company decision makers on the rig and on the beach. This is a failure of the organizational process.
This has been covered, but I will try and summarize the key points again since it was much earlier in the discussion.
[ul]
[li]There was a brief study done in 2004 (WEST Engineering for the MMS) that indicated a problem with the way BOP’s were rated. Many were found to be unable to shear DrillPipe (due to advances in DP metallurgy).[/li][li]A follow-up study by WEST confirmed the problems and recommendations were made but not followed. (A small footnote disclaimer was added to MMS regs.)[/li][li]Another WEST study noted that BOP’s in deepwater required higher hydraulic pressure to operate correctly.[/li][li]The possibility has recently been raised that TO waited too long to activate the BOP shear rams, and that as a result, hydraulic pressure from the DWH was unavailable. This in conjunction with a leak in hydraulics may have contributed to the inadequacy of the accumulator-stored hydraulic power to shear the DP.[/li][li]Another possibility is that during the blowout the DP had parted below the WellHead, and that the free DP had been pushed into the BOP by the well flow, along with the DP that was still hanging from the DWH. Thus there may have been two DP’s in the Shear Ram at the time of its activation.*[/li][li]and still other scenarios yet undiscovered.[/li][/ul]
In wake of oil spill, many charter captains seek counseling