Deepwater Horizon - Transocean Oil Rig Fire

Offshore
6302

A question:
Has anyone ever heard of a well where a barrier has been established, displacement performed and second barrier established…to find that when the new rig resumes the well, full well pressure is experienced on drilling out the upper barrier?
Or, what about the case where two tested barriers fail after the vessel has moved off location? It’s very possible. I believe it has happened.

The difference is that not every well has the potential flow rates the Macondo well provided, mainly due to the casing allowing the well to flow, unhindered by normal bridging expectations (one of the reasons experts came to the conclusion that the flow was from the casing and not the Annulus…if the Annulus side had failed the normal experience is for bridging to occur, in which case, the well would ‘self-seal’. Many commentators on this site missed this point in the first 6 weeks of the well’s ‘Flow’, myself included. And they didn’t come back afterwards to answer for early conclusions, perhaps understandable when you consider many were prominent experienced engineers with much to lose based on their very early conclusions, something which has set the ‘temper’ for the investigation. I should point out that we were ALL deceived at this time, and should our understanding of the well’s failures have proved to be correct BP would have hung).

6303

[QUOTE=alcor;47524]re OIM… What part did the OIM play in the activities of the vessel on the fateful day? I understand, …)

“His own personnel instructed the Sperry Logger to ignore volume displacement”

The logger has clearly stated that he called the drill floor with the intention of monitoring volumes. The A/D informed him they’d call him later when normal monitoring could be resumed. This was taking place at a time when backloading to the boat was ongoing. It is quite clear well volumes were not being monitored. The other clue is the fact that 1000 Bbls of hydrocarbons entered the well before any action took place. The big question is: Did the OIM sanction this behaviour? And, what was his input in the planning phase for displacement?
AHTF, I’m going to keep this ‘clean’ in the interests of good debate.[/QUOTE]

…so… just what were those individuals doing that night??.. and why did it get away from them?

It hasn’t been answered or addressed. Looks like they all had their feet up and were watching the world go by…

It’s time for those two Bubba wimps Kaluza and Vidrine to stand up and be counted…everyone else has done so.

ps… the Mud Loggers worked for bp, therefore they directly worked for Bubbas Kaluza and Vidrine.
If Bubba says go to sleep… then the Mud logger will go to sleep.
If Bubba says nothing… then the Mud logger does nothing!

6304

[QUOTE=AHTF;47538]…so… just what were those individuals doing that night??.. and why did it get away from them?
[B]I believe they were entertaining guests on the rig. But that’s not important! What’s important is whether or not due consideration was given to the displacement plan…or did they leave that up to Swaco? I personally believe they left it up to Swaco to formulate a displacement plan which the OIM may have sanctioned (hopefully we find out)! Remember, the OIM is responsible for all activity on the vessel, and action only takes place when he sanctions it. This is a very important statement for people outside the industry to understand. TO, perform all functions according to their contract, which includes verifying action on the vessel in accordance with established best well control practices.[/B]

It hasn’t been answered or addressed. Looks like they all had their feet up and were watching the world go by…
[B]No-one from the investigation has seriously broached this subject…they’ve played the safe card in order to maintain a respectful consideration for those who perished…while at the same time lambasting others for their failures![/B]

It’s time for those two Bubba wimps Kaluza and Vidrine to stand up and be counted…everyone else has done so.

[B]!00%. They need to reveal what they know…and the fifth amendment is an ass…but, they are collectively responsible for the negative tests, along with TO leaders. The failure of TO to have a system of volume control, considering their recent failure in the North Sea, is irresponsibility defined. In such a situation, BP merely states displacement can go ahead, based on the negative test ‘pass’! If BP signal that it can be done without monitoring volumes then they are seriously in trouble (seismic trouble). However, with the knowledge that TO have had similiar well control failures, the ultimate blame will land on their doorstep. And, the contract between the parties will always define the requirement for well control to be maintained at all times. This requirement was not achieved. And again, not explored by the investigation team![/B]

ps… the Mud Loggers worked for bp, therefore they directly worked for Bubbas Kaluza and Vidrine.

[B]The mud loggers had a contract to maintain a constant monitoring of the well. If, the A/D signalled that he’d get back to them when monitoring could be resumed they should have immediately called the BP Rep. Did he do that? I am presuming he didn’t because it’s the most obvious statement to make during the investigation…to get you off the hook! Swaco controlled the displacement plan. Did the OIM sanction it? He’s the boss, ‘King’ on the vessel[/B]!

If Bubba says go to sleep… then the Mud logger will go to sleep.

[B]Maybe, he did![/B]

If Bubba says nothing… then the Mud logger does nothing![/QUOTE]

[B]No, there exists a set contract for the logger to monitor the well. I don’t believe Bubba excused him of this duty. It would have already come out in the trial.[/B]

6305

as usual…a million words Alcor were just a few would suffice…

Originally Posted by AHTF & Alcor
…so… just what were those individuals doing that night??.. and why did it get away from them?
I believe they were entertaining guests on the rig. But that’s not important! What’s important is whether or not due consideration was given to the displacement plan…or did they leave that up to Swaco? I personally believe they left it up to Swaco to formulate a displacement plan which the OIM may have sanctioned (hopefully we find out)! Remember, the OIM is responsible for all activity on the vessel, and action only takes place when he sanctions it. This is a very important statement for people outside the industry to understand. TO, perform all functions according to their contract, which includes verifying action on the vessel in accordance with established best well control practices.
"they were entertaining guests on the rig" Yes it is important! A big distraction for those wishy-washy, and insecure bp company men.

"Swaco displacement plan" what a load of bollocks! Wishy-washy bp company men and TO people bowed down to a ‘superior’ Mud Engineer who left school at 15 with an IQ of 5!

“TO OIM”… a total disgrace

Originally Posted by AHTF & Alcor
It hasn’t been answered or addressed. Looks like they all had their feet up and were watching the world go by…
No-one from the investigation has seriously broached this subject…they’ve played the safe card in order to maintain a respectful consideration for those who perished…while at the same time lambasting others for their failures!
The investigation panels were a joke… blind people leading other blind people! Those that died do have a voice and they deserve better.

Originally Posted by AHTF & Alcor It’s time for those two Bubba wimps Kaluza and Vidrine to stand up and be counted…everyone else has done so.
100%. They need to reveal what they know…and the fifth amendment is an ass…but, they are collectively responsible for the negative tests, along with TO leaders. The failure of TO to have a system of volume control, considering their recent failure in the North Sea, is irresponsibility defined. In such a situation, BP merely states displacement can go ahead, based on the negative test ‘pass’! If BP signal that it can be done without monitoring volumes then they are seriously in trouble (seismic trouble). However, with the knowledge that TO have had similar well control failures, the ultimate blame will land on their doorstep. And, the contract between the parties will always define the requirement for well control to be maintained at all times. This requirement was not achieved. And again, not explored by the investigation team!
It’s simple… those bp company men are GUTLESS WIMPS. Chicken shits!

Originally Posted by AHTF & Alcor ps… the Mud Loggers worked for bp, therefore they directly worked for Bubbas Kaluza and Vidrine.

The mud loggers had a contract to maintain a constant monitoring of the well. If, the A/D signaled that he’d get back to them when monitoring could be resumed they should have immediately called the BP Rep. Did he do that? I am presuming he didn’t because it’s the most obvious statement to make during the investigation…to get you off the hook! Swaco controlled the displacement plan. Did the OIM sanction it? He’s the boss, ‘King’ on the vessel!
Contracts are one thing… reality is totally different. If you work on a rig you would know this.

Originally Posted by AHTF & Alcor If Bubba says go to sleep… then the Mud logger will go to sleep.

Maybe, he did!

If Bubba says nothing… then the Mud logger does nothing!

Contracts?.. get real!

6306

Thanks for scrutinising my commentary.
‘Similar’ is correct. And signaled or signalled are both correct. Your spell checker might disagree, but the language is not confined to your spell checker. That’s why I don’t use it!

Your Quote:
[B]‘as usual…a million words Alcor were just a few would suffice…’[/B]

What you should have used is ‘where’.

On the other hand, you are correct in this instance:
[B]‘The investigation panels were a joke’[/B] (except ‘panels’ is incorrect).

It’s really all quite irrelevant.
On the other hand, this statement is quite worrying:
[B]‘Contracts are one thing… reality is totally different. If you work on a rig you would know this’.[/B]
What rigs are you working on? Our loggers monitor the well.

6307

Alcor and AHTF

I hope you guys end up having a good day…kind of a rough start so far.

6308

[QUOTE=alcor;47560]
On the other hand, this statement is quite worrying:
[B]‘Contracts are one thing… reality is totally different. If you work on a rig you would know this’.[/B]
What rigs are you working on? Our loggers monitor the well.[/QUOTE]

It doesn’t worry me… I’m not a worrier! I know the reality.

You profess to being in control of everything that happens on your particular rig…

…so I ask a simple question…

“when was the last time you personally checked on your rig the accuracy and quality of the mud loggers data/screen/info/alarms etc”?

Answer… until I just goaded you… probably never!

Rig owners and their personnel don’t get into the detail of 3rd party ops/software…the data’s there, it’s used… and rarely verified.

6309

BP’S ATLANTIS PLATFORM RULED IN COMPLIANCE

Allegations unfounded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030405101.html

6310

[QUOTE=AHTF;47572]It doesn’t worry me… I’m not a worrier! I know the reality.

You profess to being in control of everything that happens on your particular rig…

…so I ask a simple question…

“when was the last time you personally checked on your rig the accuracy and quality of the mud loggers data/screen/info/alarms etc”?

Answer… until I just goaded you… probably never!

[B]How about…every single day![/B]

Rig owners and their personnel don’t get into the detail of 3rd party ops/software…the data’s there, it’s used… and rarely verified.

[B]Bottom line is that you have two displays in front of you, one the logger’s, and one the rig’s. It’s quite obvious when one of the displays differs from the other, whether it may be variations in Active volumes, pressure, gas values, strokes, or any of a multitude of others the Driller communicates the anomaly either to the logger or to his own technicians. All should be operational.
As for the logger being considered purely 3rd party my advice is that he is there for the driller to use, to ensure back-up exists. If we don’t have verifiable back up systems then what is the point in the loggers being present on the vessel? And it won’t help if you’re a worrier or not!

Our Loggers, write on the screen all action that takes place, including flow checks, any change in pump speed, all volume anomalies, when they leave the shack and return, trip volumes, all data relevant to cement jobs, essentially all action that takes place during a 24 hour period. If there is constant communication all parties are aware of the action being performed. This culture has to be developed over a period of time.

Why is it that some of our Drillers have only been in the business for 7 years, and yet, they are more accomplished than Drillers of the past? Every crew member and third party personnel use radios and they hear all communication. Imagine the value of hearing all instruction and communication on the vessel’s drilling Channel during your formative years on the vessel, the apprenticeship. And, the Toolpusher, Co Man, Derrickman and all service companies are on the same channel, fixed radio sets in the offices and all carry a handset when outdoors. This includes all the roughnecks, who hear every instruction/direction from the Driller.[/B][/QUOTE]

Rig owners and personnel should always get involved with 3rd party personnel and their systems. How can we ever run well completions, for example, and allow the well to flow without full communication and ‘fraternisation’ with 3rd party?

6311

[QUOTE=alcor;47574]“when was the last time you personally checked on your rig the accuracy and quality of the mud loggers data/screen/info/alarms etc”?

Answer… until I just goaded you… probably never!
[B]alcor:- [/B][B]How about…every single day![/B][/QUOTE]

It’s very easy for you to type these words… but it’s pure Bullshit… and you know it!. You obviously tell lies when you go to confession.

[QUOTE=alcor;47574][B]Rig owners and personnel should always get involved with 3rd party personnel and their systems. How can we ever run well completions, for example, and allow the well to flow without full communication and ‘fraternisation’ with 3rd party?[/B][/QUOTE]

Bullshit!.. and again you know it!. I’ve yet to see any Rig owner, or their personnel, [B]‘get involved with 3rd party data’.[/B]

You obviously live in cloud cuckoo land and have no understanding of real life or real drilling.

Your relief… “a real storeman” should be on his way to the rig soon.

[QUOTE=alcor;47574][B]As for the logger being considered purely 3rd party my advice is that he is there for the driller to use, to ensure back-up exists. If we don’t have verifiable back up systems then what is the point in the loggers being present on the vessel? [/B][/QUOTE]

so… when was the last time your company paid for the Mud Loggers to be there?
[B]Never![/B]
…and when was the last time you shut down your rig because the Mud Loggers data was inaccurate or simply not there?[B]
Never![/B]

Go and confess… it should be enlightening for you.

6312

William Langewiesche - onValuJet 592which crashed in the Everglades in 1996

We can find fault among those directly involved - and we probably need to. But if our purpose is to attack the roots of such an accident, we may find them so entwined with the system that they are impossible to extract without toppling the whole structure…Beyond the question of blame, it requires us to consider that our solutions, by adding to the complexity and obscurity of the airline business, may actually increase the risks of accidents. … The ValuJet case…fits the most basic definitions of an accident caused by the very functioning of the system or industry within which it occurred… The two unfortu-nate mechanics who signed off on the nonexistent safety caps just happened to be the slowest to slip away when the supervisors needed signatures. Other mechanics almost certainly would have signed too, as did the inspectors… The falsification they committed was part of a larger deception - the creation of an entire pretend reality that includes unworkable chains of command, unlearnable training pro-grams, unreadable manuals, and the fiction of regulations, checks and controls. Such pretend realities extend even into the most self-consciously progressive large organizations, with their attempts to formalize informality, to deregulate the workplace, to share profits and responsibilities, to respect the integrity and initiative of the individual. The systems work in principle, and usually in practice as well, but the two may have little to do with each other. Paperwork floats free of the ground and obscures the murky workplaces where, in the confusion of real life, system accidents are born.
K.C.

6313

When 3rd party personnel come on board a vessel who has responsibility for them? Is it the Operator? Absolutely not. It is the Rig Owner’s responsibility to ensure all work within the guidelines of the Contractor’s definition.
Our Rig, our responsibility!
So, on a daily basis how do we ensure that the logger is performing their function? We talk to him! We check his display is correct and where any anomaly is found we check if our systems are correct or if the logger’s has failed. Hopefully, the word ‘Teamwork’ is associated with this relationship! We fill in our Kill sheet each shift, sometimes several times. He, prints his out and we compare results…to ensure we’re all reading off the same page. We see a gain in the Active pits and we look to see if his display confirms or not. The derrickman instructs the Driller to take pits out of the Active, and the Logger confirms. The derrickman starts a mixing pump and we all see a volume change. The logger provides the driller with data from the MWD/LWD tools, such as ECD and BHA vibration. All facts.
I don’t know of any Contractor who can afford to ignore the logger or his data. It’s invaluable! And may save your bacon if you choose to use the tools at your disposal.
We don’t pay for the mud loggers, but you can be sure that we use ALL we can to ensure the well and all records of the well’s activities are considered by anyone ‘snooping’ as best practice. And, the Operator has instructed us to liaise with the loggers to ensure activity is correctly defined. So, we tell him every 20-30 mins what we’re doing. There is constant communication.
Our data systems can also be monitored at a later time if we save the data. Should the Logger’s data feed fail we inform the Co Man and TP, and an assessment is made as to whether or not the activity on the vessel can continue. I recall only once losing the data display from the loggers, during a cement job. We had our own system and that was observed for volumes/pressure/strokes etc… by other personnel, including the Co Man and the TP.
I’m not sure what the practices on other vessels are, but ALL would be unwise to ignore the 3rd party personnel. After all, they are working on the Contractor’s vessel, and therefore, we have a responsibility to look after them!
We look after and work with 3rd party personnel every day!

6314

[QUOTE=alcor;47586]When 3rd party personnel come on board a vessel who has responsibility for them? Is it the Operator? Absolutely not. It is the Rig Owner’s responsibility to ensure all work within the guidelines of the Contractor’s definition.
Our Rig, our responsibility!
So, on a daily basis how do we ensure that the logger is performing their function? We talk to him! We check his display is correct and where any anomaly is found we check if our systems are correct or if the logger’s has failed. Hopefully, the word ‘Teamwork’ is associated with this relationship! We fill in our Kill sheet each shift, sometimes several times. He, prints his out and we compare results…to ensure we’re all reading off the same page. We see a gain in the Active pits and we look to see if his display confirms or not. The derrickman instructs the Driller to take pits out of the Active, and the Logger confirms. The derrickman starts a mixing pump and we all see a volume change. The logger provides the driller with data from the MWD/LWD tools, such as ECD and BHA vibration. All facts.
I don’t know of any Contractor who can afford to ignore the logger or his data. It’s invaluable! And may save your bacon if you choose to use the tools at your disposal.
We don’t pay for the mud loggers, but you can be sure that we use ALL we can to ensure the well and all records of the well’s activities are considered by anyone ‘snooping’ as best practice. And, the Operator has instructed us to liaise with the loggers to ensure activity is correctly defined. So, we tell him every 20-30 mins what we’re doing. There is constant communication.
Our data systems can also be monitored at a later time if we save the data. Should the Logger’s data feed fail we inform the Co Man and TP, and an assessment is made as to whether or not the activity on the vessel can continue. I recall only once losing the data display from the loggers, during a cement job. We had our own system and that was observed for volumes/pressure/strokes etc… by other personnel, including the Co Man and the TP.
I’m not sure what the practices on other vessels are, but ALL would be unwise to ignore the 3rd party personnel. After all, they are working on the Contractor’s vessel, and therefore, we have a responsibility to look after them!
We look after and work with 3rd party personnel every day![/QUOTE]

What a load of bullshit you spout!
You obviously have a guilty conscience for not having done any of the above and now need to justify your inactions.

6315

[QUOTE=AHTF;47587]What a load of bullshit you spout!
You obviously have a guilty conscience for not having done any of the above and now need to justify your inactions.[/QUOTE]

You are a first class FOOL, and I sincerely hope you have no position of authority where you may have to make decisions affecting others! You reflect what is wrong in the industry!
Up Yours!
You offer zilch to this debate.

6316

[QUOTE=alcor;47588]You are a first class FOOL, and I sincerely hope you have no position of authority where you may have to make decisions affecting others! You reflect what is wrong in the industry!
Up Yours![/QUOTE]

You are the only fool here.

You are a fool because you say your rig can’t work without 3rd party data (mud loggers)… yet your company doesn’t/won’t pay for it and expects someone else to provide it.

You are a fool because you have never verified that 3rd party data that you expect someone else to provide and that you can’t do without.

It’s time to go and confess about the real fool that you are.

6317

[QUOTE=alcor;47485][B]It’s actually a well-written article[/B] which recognises many of the offshore industry failings.
But, it doesn’t focus on why the event occurred. It plays with quotes, but never directly states why ‘control’ of the well was lost. She dances with the main conclusions drawn by the investigation, high sounding words which don’t actually define ‘What went wrong’! At no point does she explore how a blowout occurs and the poor decisions/negligence required for it to take place. How can an accurate conclusion be drawn if comprehension is missing.
It’s a good article, repeating much of what we already know, and what many are brainwashed to understand!
She doesn’t question any of the conclusions. She simply endorses the known facts none of which truly explain the Macondo Blowout. I don’t think she even refers to the word ‘blowout’.

She writes:
Something – or, rather, many somethings – went horribly wrong, starting with a string of poor decisions leading to technical problems that contributed to the blast and subsequent gusher. Experts conclude that it ultimately came down to a culture in which an engineer, worried that the concrete centralizers that had been installed weren’t adequate for the job, wrote, in part, “But, who cares, it’s done, end of story, [we] will probably be fine… .”

I have no idea about her misleading remark: ‘concrete centralizers’. She also fails to finish the quote, where the engineer states clearly the remedial cement Squeeze is an option. There’s always remedial action.
I’d love to know if any of the ‘experts’ she refers to work in the offshore industry! The well didn’t fail because of the cultural issues. It failed because of blatant negligence and ignorance.[/QUOTE]

Written by a Bimbo who has no knowledge and couldn’t be bothered to research her facts.
Sounds very much like one of your relatives alcor…

6318

[QUOTE=AHTF;47591]You are the only fool here.

You are a fool because you say your rig can’t work without 3rd party data (mud loggers)…

[B]We can. It’s primarily required by arrogant twats like you, the example of the failure in the industry! But, you live in the past, a dinosaur, a bully who doesn’t appreciate that Loggers do have input, and can help the efficiency of the job by ensuring volumes are controlled.[/B]

yet your company doesn’t/won’t pay for it and expects someone else to provide it.

[B]I expect the Operator to pay for the whole package which includes the Rig and all personnel required to drill and complete a well. That includes many 3rd party personnel. Why would we pay for the 3rd party personnel? And yet, it is becoming increasingly common for the Rig’s Contract to include Casing personnel! Who knows if this will include loggers in the future.[/B]

You are a fool because you have never verified that 3rd party data that you expect someone else to provide and that you can’t do without.

[B]If 3rd party equipment tells me that volumes in each pit equate to ours and are confirmed visually then I accept that this particular function is working! If his pressure reading is the same as our display and confirmed by the standpipe guage then I’m happy his system is working. And the list goes on![/B]

It’s time to go and confess about the real fool that you are.

[/QUOTE]
What is your problem? Make an intelligent statement if you can! Assert something which doesn’t embarras your sorry ass!

6319

[QUOTE=AHTF;47592]Written by a Bimbo who has no knowledge and couldn’t be bothered to research her facts.
Sounds very much like one of your relatives alcor…[/QUOTE]

You are an authority of one thing only, a mouth larger than your fat ass spouting nothing but vitriol and abuse. If you have something concrete to state,give your fat useless ugly arse a chance!
You are the reason events like the Horizon occur. “I thought I didn’t need to log volumes”!

6320

[QUOTE=alcor;47593]What is your problem? Make an intelligent statement if you can! Assert something which doesn’t embarras your sorry ass![/QUOTE]

I’m not the one who has a guilty conscience for not verifying the mud loggers data.

As for problems and fat arse’s… I have neither.

[QUOTE=alcor;47593]“So, on a daily basis how do we ensure that the logger is performing their function? We talk to him! We check his display is correct and where any anomaly is found we check if our systems are correct or if the logger’s has failed. Hopefully, the word ‘Teamwork’ is associated with this relationship!”[/QUOTE]

I know you don’t. No rig owners personnel do this so don’t try and state otherwise.

6321

[QUOTE=alcor;47594]You are an authority of one thing only, a mouth larger than your fat ass spouting nothing but vitriol and abuse. If you have something concrete to state,give your fat useless ass a chance![/QUOTE]

What a shame you are… and I thought we were getting along so well now…

[QUOTE=alcor;47594]You are the reason events like the Horizon occur. “I thought I didn’t need to log volumes!”[/QUOTE]

No, you and your kind are the reason why.