[QUOTE=alvis;34326]Early on, quite a bit was mentioned on how this well was converted from an exploratory well to a production well and how this might have contributed to failure(s). But I haven’t seen anything that goes into exactly what does this mean. Can someone elaborate?[/QUOTE]Offering more specualtion, Bullsh>t. This well shoud have been designed as if it were going to be flowed through for years from the beginning. If BP took design short cuts in the casing desings, the ways they were hung off, & the design of the cement jobs because they weren’t sure if they were going to PRODUCE it then this is a criminal offense at the highest level of the company. It is their responsibility not to design any shortcut for financial reasons just because they may not produce the well later. If this is proven to be the case then there should be a lot of executives & engineers in orange jumpsuits chained to each other cleaning the shore line.
[QUOTE=power230;34334]Correction everyone, water based mud now, [U][B]not[/B][/U] oil based.[/QUOTE]
thank you Sir. that makes sense
[QUOTE=power230;34334]Correction everyone, water based mud now, [U][B]not[/B][/U] oil based.[/QUOTE]
Don’t worry. It’ll be oil base before long. It’s the weight that counts. Thanks.
They originally had us taking on oil based, but they just changed it over to water based.
[QUOTE=power230;34338]They originally had us taking on oil based, but they just changed it over to water based.[/QUOTE]
Thank you. Can you say how much?
Looks like our friends with BP will entertain us by showing the end of the 21" riser while they work on the top of the BOP preparing for next move. Thanks BP!
[QUOTE=company man 1;34335]Offering more specualtion, Bullsh>t. This well shoud have been designed as if it were going to be flowed through for years from the beginning. If BP took design short cuts in the casing desings, the ways they were hung off, & the design of the cement jobs because they weren’t sure if they were going to PRODUCE it then this is a criminal offense at the highest level of the company. It is their responsibility not to design any shortcut for financial reasons just because they may not produce the well later. If this is proven to be the case then there should be a lot of executives & engineers in orange jumpsuits chained to each other cleaning the shore line.[/QUOTE]
Edit post: Not Bullshit. My God man! I DON"T CARE TO HEAR ONE MORE PERSON SAY WE CAN BLAME PEOPLE LATER. THE UPPER MOST MANAGEMENT OF THIS COMAPNY APPROVED THE USE OF CASINGS THEY [U]KNEW COULD COLLAPSE & BLOW OUT UNDER A WORST CASE SCENARIO. [/U]Well guess what pals ? the worst case scenario did happen & you not only didn’t plan for it, your decision making was THE DIRECT CAUSE OF IT! Good lord in heaven is not any on e accountable any more? If this case is not prosecuted to the FULLEST extent of the law, & a lot of decision makers who put corporate profits ahead of the safety & general welfare of the citizens of the United States, then we need to just disband this country. Because rule of law no longer exists in the United States.
Topkill not working well because there’s more fresh oil on the water today then in the past two days.
[QUOTE=paloma;34331]have to correct you: you can get to 22 lbs with wtaer based barite and even higher if you add FeCo3 (bromide)[/QUOTE]
However oil based inherently lowers friction so with contorted flow channels, shapes, and sizes, could make a lower pumping pressure? and would better carry bridging agents? possibly they have shale heaving?
[QUOTE=company man 1;34335]Offering more specualtion, Bullsh>t. This well shoud have been designed as if it were going to be flowed through for years from the beginning. If BP took design short cuts in the casing desings, the ways they were hung off, & the design of the cement jobs because they weren’t sure if they were going to PRODUCE it then this is a criminal offense at the highest level of the company. It is their responsibility not to design any shortcut for financial reasons just because they may not produce the well later. If this is proven to be the case then there [U]should be a lot of executives & engineers in orange jumpsuits chained to each other cleaning the shore line[/U].[/QUOTE]
I had a friend who under bad judgement and the influence of alcohol was driving drunk one night. He killed somebody driving in another car. He had no criminal record and was really a man of good judgment and social status when he was not drinking. He was not allowed to supervise cleanup of the crime scene for 30 days while police stood by to assist. He served 2 years in PRISON for negligent homicide and was a felon the rest of his life.
This (possible, seeming) negligence of BP/Haliburton et al. Execs and engineers was premeditated and for calculation of profits. This harm done is a million times bigger. There is not enough punishment to set an example (for other execs) suitable for this atrocity which has torpedoed America’s oil reserves and independendence from foreign oil.
As an aside I used to take successful people of all walks of life on recreational fishing trips into the Gulf for years. I took out doctors, lawyers, writers, artists, economists, professioanls of all types. I had a phrase for the corporate CEO’s I took fishing … I called it the [U]CEO pathology[/U] … so goal oriented and driven to achieve it was a psychological illness really. I felt as if I was only a tool serving their grand design of posing with a bigger fish than we caught last year. Literally I would start my day hearing,[I] “Good morning. Last year you got me a 31” redfish. Today, I want you to get me a 35" redfish. See what you can do."[/I]
In my experience over years I estimate 90% of corporate CEO’s were of such a character that they thrilled me when they left my vessel. I vividly remember only one as a truly nice guy. Sometimes people who are criminal minds are smart enough to skirt the letter of the law, pass the buck via plausible deniability. I love the Gulf and I want CEO’s (as I knew them) to learn a lesson from this episiode before it’s over. And if a man somewhere misuses a gun or boat or automobile, we do not outlaw guns, boats and cars … (opinion of an ex-sport fisherman capt)
[U]Profile of the Sociopath[/U]: http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths who are sometimes just too clever to end up in prison, but rather can become very “$uccessful” in business or politics today.
[QUOTE=pumpjack hand;34344]However oil based inherently lowers friction so with contorted flow channels, shapes, and sizes, could make a lower pumping pressure? and would better carry bridging agents? possibly they have shale heaving?[/QUOTE]
I think we are back to water based mud. Shale heaving should not be an issue in a cased well.
What’s the law for making money from reclaiming spilled oil in the ocean? That undertaking could gross $2,500,000 per day if the leak rate is 40K at $62.50/brl… Whatever the law is, the gov’t could make emergency provisions for it to work. Has BP decided they can’t treat the oil to make it sellable? Move over rover, let $$ take over…. How about a special bonus spot price as enticement for anyone reclaiming spill oil, to be repaid from any future oil sales from that field…. Or other GOM fields…. or something other
[QUOTE=paloma;34346]I think we are back to water based mud. Shale heaving should not be an issue in a cased well.[/QUOTE]
Aren’t they pumping through a seal leak and outside the casing? or through parted casing into the open hole? Not saying they need oil based, but there could be applications…
[QUOTE=rlanasa;34325]Oil based is heavier than water based per gallon.[/QUOTE]
I can’t let this one go. Someone please correct me if I am wrong (and I am sure you will), but 18 lb mud means 18 pounds per gallon and this is a measure of density. While oil based mud may or may not be heaver than water based mud (I have no idea and it isn’t relevant), 18 lb mud is going to weigh the same amount for the same volume whether it is oil or mud based just by the definition of density.
[QUOTE=rlanasa;34322]All of that is why the team making the calls is going forward inch by inch. They want an exit plan for anything they sign off on and at all cost they must avoid any chance of a free flowing hole in the ground. There is some math that shows an open well hole could flow for a decade or more.
At this point they will not bet the entire GOM The Keys and maybe much more on a single play to stop the flow. [/QUOTE]
I have been waiting for someone to comment on this… rlanasa if your “friends” at BP now have a worst case scenario of an unstoppable “hole in the ocean floor” with a 10 year expiration time… don’t ya think they better gets some more deepwater drills spudded to start drawing down that reservoir?
Company Man… I’m starting to get as riled up as you are!
I’m seeing conflicting times for today’s press conference. It should be at either 4:45 or 5:00 or possibly 5:45 CDT!
Should be available here: http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_live_webcasts.php
[QUOTE=TroubledByThis;34345]This (possible, seeming) negligence of BP/Haliburton et al. Execs and engineers was premeditated and for calculation of profits.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that’s the popular belief – that companies routinely cut all sorts of corners on safety to improve profits, consequences be damned.
Trouble is, it makes no sense at all. You don’t maximize profits by increasing the risks of catastrophic, disastrous failures. If that were the path to profits, then catastrophic, disastrous failures like this one would be commonplace. But they aren’t – they are quite rare. Out of some 5000 deepwater oil wells put into production so far, we have this one catastrophic failure. 1 in 5000 is not evidence of widespread “corner cutting” of safety rules.
Any possible savings from “corner cutting” pale into complete insignificance in comparison to the costs of this disaster. BP has already spent a billion dollars on this problem – and they will doubtless spend more billions on it. The notion that they deliberately decided to risk this catastrophe just to save some money on safety is utterly ridiculous.
[QUOTE=MichaelWSmith;34352]
Any possible savings from “corner cutting” pale into complete insignificance in comparison to the costs of this disaster. BP has already spent a billion dollars on this problem – and they will doubtless spend more billions on it. The notion that they deliberately decided to risk this catastrophe just to save some money on safety is utterly ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Let’s go with the opposite extreme then. If you have decisions to make regarding the construction of the well, with one choice being safer (but costing more), or another choice that is riskier (but costs less than the safer one), why wouldn’t you automatically choose the option that is safer?
[QUOTE=MichaelWSmith;34352]Yes, that’s the popular belief – that companies routinely cut all sorts of corners on safety to improve profits, consequences be damned.
Trouble is, it makes no sense at all. You don’t maximize profits by increasing the risks of catastrophic, disastrous failures. If that were the path to profits, then catastrophic, disastrous failures like this one would be commonplace. But they aren’t – they are quite rare. Out of some 5000 deepwater oil wells put into production so far, we have this one catastrophic failure. 1 in 5000 is not evidence of widespread “corner cutting” of safety rules.
Any possible savings from “corner cutting” pale into complete insignificance in comparison to the costs of this disaster. BP has already spent a billion dollars on this problem – and they will doubtless spend more billions on it. The notion that they deliberately decided to risk this catastrophe just to save some money on safety is utterly ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Hmmmm, guess you never heard the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes
’
From Deepwater Horizon Response:
“Yes, sorry about that, it was been delayed and will start at 5 pm CDT.”
Should be here: http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_live_webcasts.php