[QUOTE=PDCMATE;136047]I believe these 8500 series are smaller, benign environment rigs. So, their safe mode of operation is not typical of a DP3 harsh weather semi/rig (like the GVA-7500’s/West Aquarius,etc). It would have been a slick joint at that period if the BOP was near bottom. Those joint are pretty tough, maybe some minor damage to it, but depending on where on the joint, or connection it hit and what force, could have punctured the hull.[/QUOTE]
still that is a tremendous angle that riser would have to assume. From vertical to striking a pontoon would be on the order of 60 or more horizontal feet. No gimbal or riser could take that kind of bending. I believe something else led to that flooding. Do we even know if a ballast tank was breached or could it be something else?
[QUOTE=c.captain;136049]still that is a tremendous angle that riser would have to assume. From vertical to striking a pontoon would be on the order of 60 or more horizontal feet. No gimbal or riser could take that kind of bending. I believe something else led to that flooding. Do we even know if a ballast tank was breached or could it be something else?[/QUOTE]
They would not have had their DATs hooked up at this point, not till they land out.
Do these rigs have ballast tanks in the columns? Maybe the tank in question was a column ballast tank at the waterline.
[QUOTE=PDCMATE;136050]They would not have had their DATs hooked up at this point, not till they land out.
Do these rigs have ballast tanks in the columns? Maybe the tank in question was a column ballast tank at the waterline.[/QUOTE]
Why are we speculating on this FIVE days afterward?
This happened in the US. the USCG has responded, and presumably the BOEM. There ought to be an official statement revealing what is known, if anything. Why isn’t the press on Ensco’s doorstep demanding answers about an incident that required the USCG to respond to an oil rig in trouble in US waters?
[QUOTE=tugsailor;136051]Why are we speculating on this FIVE days afterward?
This happened in the US. the USCG has responded, and presumably the BOEM. There ought to be an official statement revealing what is known, if anything. Why isn’t the press on Ensco’s doorstep demanding answers about an incident that required the USCG to respond to an oil rig in trouble in US waters?[/QUOTE]
Ahh, just read an article. It was a column ballast tank, that makes sense now. Not necessarily, the ENSCO 8506 stayed within operational limits, thus no need for any investigation and since no injuries occurred, there may not be any more news from the USCG come out from this. Unless they(ENSCO) put out some sort of IADC Event Report. Oilfield doesn’t like to necessarily share all information, especially when something serious can hurt future day rates, question integrity of rigs, make the clients wonder if the rig they have contracted will have the same happen to them.
[QUOTE=PDCMATE;136053]Ahh, just read an article. It was a column ballast tank, that makes sense now. Not necessarily, the ENSCO 8506 stayed within operational limits, thus no need for any investigation and since no injuries occurred, there may not be any more news from the USCG come out from this. Unless they(ENSCO) put out some sort of IADC Event Report. Oilfield doesn’t like to necessarily share all information, especially when something serious can hurt future day rates, question integrity of rigs, make the clients wonder if the rig they have contracted will have the same happen to them.[/QUOTE]
Seems me to that this incident ought to require a USCG port state control inspection.
[QUOTE=Fraqrat;136039]if the DPO’s had taken the chief mate test this probably wouldn’t have happened.[/QUOTE]
would that be a real mate or a USCG Modu mate?