Life on an Oil Platform in the Gulf of Mexico

[analog]

As I see it, this blowout is something the drillers are aware of and should plan for...they say the failsafes were in place.

That'd be my story too !

From the excitable side of the news:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope ... 58473.html

Early investigations have revealed that BP did not bother to install -- and that U.S. regulations do not require -- a backup device to provide another layer of protection in case the "fail-safe" shutoff valve failed (which is exactly what happened). Brazil requires such a device, and oil companies like Shell install it routinely even in the U.S. BP didn't because, at $500,000, it was "too expensive."

http://ricksblog.biz/?p=9552

Kennedy said that their team discovered last night that the BP well not only didn’t have the acoustical, emergency valve that could have shut it off, but was also lacking a deep-hole valve that would have also been able to stop the leaking of 5,000 barrels a day into the Gulf of Mexico.

The acoustical valve allows operators to remotely shut off the flow of oil from the well. Senator Bill Nelson told locals at press conference in Pensacola on Friday, April 30 that he was calling for a U.S. Senate probe to find out why regulations were relaxed to allow BP to not install the acoustical valve. ...............................................................
When asked why BP wouldn’t install a deep-hole valve, Papantonio says, “Because the deep-hole valve when deployed could cause BP to lose the well site and redrill. They were cutting cost to save money.”

Wall Street Journal has a calmer article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 36798.html

Sounds like there may have been only one shutoff valve and it didn't work.
What wasn't installed is a separate and independent remotely activated valve that's set off by a sonic signal not a hard-wired switch..
I don't know anything about those acoustic activated valves for oil wells so can't comment on their merits.
I do know that a "dead man switch" might not activate its intended device when an explosion rips away its panel and the two wires to the switch become shorted together as they are physically crushed by twisted metal. i've seen that...

In my industry the "defense in depth" concept was inviolate, always have at least three barriers and redundant means of activation...with no single physical point of failure.

This will likely turn out another of those hard lessons that results in more stringent codes for design and operation.
It's the price of progress. I still like my hot water and mechanized civilization.
And i admire the oil industry for how tenaciously they extract oil from impossible places and quietly meet our need for it.

Sure I can't interest you in a Dr No style conspiracy story instead?

a.

[Shapley]

'Double valve protection' is a common attitude in the Navy towards anything that might let seawater into the people tank, or let pressure out of something that's supposed to hold pressure in. That is to say, you're supposed to be able to shut a second valve in case the first one fails. When working on something, you're supposed to shut two vavles between you and the pressure source, just in case. It's a logical safeguard.

[piqaboo]

Since we're conspiracy theorizing, we must accept the possibility it was a suicide mission, and that vetting the survivors will yield no clues.

In truth, the person or people who inadvertently sparked the thing are almost certainly among the missing 11.

[Trumpetmaster]

BP knew of problems hours before blast

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/12/news/co ... Stories%29

If this is true ....
then the interviews with BP executives I saw last weekend.... = BANTA FODDER

This is criminal and someone needs to be held responsible......

IMHO.......

end of my rant...........

[jamiebk]

I heard an interview with an oil engineering expert who says that BP has the power to quickly and permanently cap the oil leak by pumping tons fo concrete on top of the leak to seal it off. They don't want to do it because it will inhibit their ability to gain access to the oil later so they are taking "baby steps" in capping the thing.

[Trumpetmaster]

I heard an interview with an oil engineering expert who says that BP has the power to quickly and permanently cap the oil leak by pumping tons fo concrete on top of the leak to seal it off. They don't want to do it because it will inhibit their ability to gain access to the oil later so they are taking "baby steps" in capping the thing.

Those friggen SOB's..... all they care about is $$$ then try and put on a false front to the public.....
Someone needs to go to jail for the destruction of the environment and livelihood of all affected.

Monetary compensation just wont cut it....

sorry about the rant but this TOTALLY PISSES ME OFF........

[Shapley]

I wouldn't jump to conclusions on any of those. They may have had information 'hours before the explosion' that a pressure test failed, but it takes time to digest that information, formulate a response, and implement it. I'm sure there are proceedures in place for a failed pressure test. Do we know if those proceedures were violated, or were they being followed? If they were being followed, then they can hardly be faulted. One pressure test failure may not warrant a shutdown of operations. We'll have to wait for the investigation to determine that.

The press loves to find 'experts' who claim to know more than those who are doing the work. Capping a well by pouring concrete on it may work in many cases, but perhaps not all, do we know for sure that this is one of those cases. This well is drilled in very deed water, what are the proceedures for pouring concrete that deep under water? What damage was done to the wellhead when the explosion occurred? Is the wellhead covered with mud and debris with oil leeching out over a very large area, or is it simply leaking out of a single, pluggable hole? I'm not so quick to accept the word of 'experts' who are not on the scene.

There is a lot of effort by the press and by politicians to demonize BP right now. I'm not ready to jump on their bandwagon.

[Trumpetmaster]

I wouldn't jump to conclusions on any of those. They may have had information 'hours before the explosion' that a pressure test failed, but it takes time to digest that information, formulate a response, and implement it. I'm sure there are proceedures in place for a failed pressure test. Do we know if those proceedures were violated, or were they being followed? If they were being followed, then they can hardly be faulted. One pressure test failure may not warrant a shutdown of operations. We'll have to wait for the investigation to determine that.
The press loves to find 'experts' who claim to know more than those who are doing the work. Capping a well by pouring concrete on it may work in many cases, but perhaps not all, do we know for sure that this is one of those cases. This well is drilled in very deed water, what are the proceedures for pouring concrete that deep under water? What damage was done to the wellhead when the explosion occurred? Is the wellhead covered with mud and debris with oil leeching out over a very large area, or is it simply leaking out of a single, pluggable hole? I'm not so quick to accept the word of 'experts' who are not on the scene.

There is a lot of effort by the press and by politicians to demonize BP right now. I'm not ready to jump on their bandwagon.

I understand some things take time, but gee..... what was the onsite operations team looking at. You are correct and someone needs to review if the procedures were followed / violated. I understand one failure may not warrant a shutdown of the operations BUT.... there has to be something there that they started to look at that should have caused concern and quicker response to what was going on.... I realize you are not taking sides here but trying to play devils advocate that we may not have all the information to respond appropriately..... I will give you that..... Last night they show'd the oil/gas leaking on the news. It looks pretty bad.
You may be correct that it is too early to tell... but IMHO - something is seriously wrong with the way this entire situation has been handled.

[dai bread]

I doubt very much if anyone has a concrete pump that will overcome the water pressure at 1500m., plus the pressure of oil coming out of the well. It may be possible to send down a big bucketful of concrete and just tip it, but I have severe doubts about that too. I suspect the oil would blow a hole in the concrete while it was still soft, assuming turbulence around the well-head didn't simply wash it away.

[analog]

from that article:

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the oil company told the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight privately that the well failed a key pressure test just hours before it exploded on April 20.
The test indicated pressure was building up in the well, which could indicate oil or gas was seeping in and could lead to an explosion, said Waxman.

I'm with Shapley. I would be astonished if Waxman has ever set foot on a rig, or if he knows what's a BTU.
Likewise the CNN reporter who obviously wanted to shout and point fingers.

pressure was INCREASING? sounds like the leak was into not out of the well...

Witnesses before the panel, which included executives from the three primary companies working on the well - BP, Transocean, and Halliburton - said the course of events and actions leading up to the explosion is still under investigation, and will come to light over time.

Safe bet none of those executives were there at midnight, either.
I used to track down sequences of events in the power plant. It can take a long time to figure out which eggs came from which chickens..
I can't imagine doing it when the evidence is all five thousand feet under water.

I know what it's like to take a flogging (figurative of course) based on misinformation.
That's why companies are tight lipped until they know the real story.
Until then it's a matter of rumor control and they intentionally use underinformed spokesmen so no facts get out prematurely..

Reporter: Aren't you finding it easier to talk to reporters?

Dr. Einstein: There is a German proverb which says that any one can get used to being hanged.

here's a far more credible report... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... erspective

A worker who was on the drilling rig said in an interview that Halliburton was getting ready to set a final cement plug at 8,000 feet below the rig when workers received other instructions. "Usually we set the cement plug at that point and let it set for six hours, then displace the well," said the worker, meaning take out the mud.

According to this worker, BP asked permission from the federal Minerals Management Service to displace the mud before the final plugging operation had begun. The mud in the well weighed 14.3 pounds per gallon; it was displaced by seawater that weighed nearly 50% less. Like BP, the MMS declined to comment on this account. As the heavy mud was taken out and replaced with much lighter seawater, "that's when the well came at us, basically," said the worker, who was involved in the cementing process.

The worker's account is corroborated by an email account sent by another person on the rig. He said that engineers wanted to flood the well with sea water before setting the final plug. As they were taking out the mud, the blowout began with a flood of drilling fluid being pushed out of the well, followed by a series of explosions.

A pipe a mile long filled with that heavy mud would , at its bottom, be capable of holding back oil that had about 1200 psi more pressure than the seawater.
Physical reason is difference between (rho X gravity X height) inside and outside the pipe.
in the head arithmetic says 3600 psi inside the pipe from mud, 2400 psi outside from seawater, 1200 psi difference.
If you replace the mud with seawater, that difference is erased and it cannot hold back the oil at all. Oil starts up the pipe just like coffee up the center tube of your percolator. By time it gets to top it's really "hauling-a**", i'm sure would be the technical description...

That report makes it sound real simple -- like somebody inexperienced thought he could save a few hours and there was no seasoned old hand to hold him back... to have a "Catcher in the Rye" is prudent around big machinery.
To me that report is way more credible because first, it's a first-hand observation and second, the simpler explanation is usually the right one.

Interestingly MMS, the gov't agency, is silent. Did they indeed okay 'displacing' the well early? Multiple layers of inexperience....

a.

EDIT by a:

this morning i find myself guilty of conclusion jumping.

It's conceivable they were racing the leak, trying to get the well pipe cleared and attach whatever fittings it needs before pressure got high enough to interfere with the cement.

whatever went on it's a hard lesson for somebody.

my prayers for the guys in hardhats out there trying to fix it.

[Shapley]

Obama, who has been pointing the finger at BP, calls finger pointing 'a ridiculous spectacle'.

Apparently, his mind has been changed by the fact that the finger currently seems to be pointing at the Minerals Management Service...

[OperaTenor]

I highly recommend this last week's 60 Minutes story of one of the last people off the Deepwater Horizon after it exploded - he jumped.

BP is criminally responsible for this disaster, and should have their ability to do business in the US taken away forever, and their executives should be jailed. Shall I hold my breath until it happens?

[analog]

Well, we finally know why the shutoff didn't work.

In big disasters there's always a line of dominoes stacked up.

Management is supposed to be a calming influence and keep over-enthusiastic people from forcing bad judgment calls into action.. after the Challenger O-ring incident we were subjected to hours of training against intimidation and groupthink .

Rank does not confer privilege or give power. It imposes responsibility.
Peter Drucker

Haven't watched part 2 yet, it refuses to play... Did Andrea make it?

a.

[piqaboo]

Training, training, training.

[Haggis@wk]

BP is criminally responsible for this disaster, and should have their ability to do business in the US taken away forever, and their executives should be jailed. Shall I hold my breath until it happens?

If they lose their license no other American oil company can take it over, it's against U.S. law. Maybe the Chinese will do it? They don't have any problems drilling in the GOM, oh, and they refuse to meet any standards of safety other than their own.

[jamiebk]

It just gets worse and worse:

Cleaning Oil-Soaked Wetlands Could Be Impossible
05/22/2010
Associated Press/AP Online By MATTHEW BROWN

NEW ORLEANS - The gooey oil washing into the maze of marshes along the Gulf Coast could prove impossible to remove, leaving a toxic stew lethal to fish and wildlife, government officials and independent scientists said.

Officials are considering some drastic and risky solutions: They could set the wetlands on fire or flood areas in hopes of floating out the oil.

But they warn an aggressive cleanup could ruin the marshes and do more harm than good. The only viable option for many impacted areas is to do nothing and let nature break down the spill.

More than 50 miles of Louisiana's delicate shoreline already have been soiled by the massive slick unleashed after BP's Deepwater Horizon burned and sank last month. Officials fear oil eventually could invade wetlands and beaches from Texas to Florida. Louisiana is expected to be hit hardest.

"Oil in the marshes is the worst-case scenario," said Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the head of the federal effort to contain and clean up the spill.

Oil that has rolled into shoreline wetlands now coats the stalks and leaves of plants such as roseau cane - the fabric that holds together an ecosystem that is essential to the region's fishing industry and a much-needed buffer against Gulf hurricanes. Soon, oil will smother those plants and choke off their supply of air and nutrients.

In some eddies and protected inlets, the ochre-colored crude has pooled beneath the water's surface, forming clumps several inches deep.

With the seafloor leak still gushing hundreds of thousands of gallons a day, the damage is only getting worse. Millions of gallons already have leaked so far.

Coast Guard officials said Saturday the spill's impact now stretches across a 150-mile swath, from Dauphin Island, Ala. to Grand Isle, La.

Over time, experts say weather and natural microbes will break down most of the oil. However, the crude will surely poison plants and wildlife in the months - even years - it will take for the syrupy muck to dissipate.

Back in 1989, crews fighting the Exxon Valdez tanker spill - which unleashed almost 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound - used pressure hoses and rakes to clean the shores. The Gulf Coast is just too fragile for that: those tactics could blast apart the peat-like soils that hold the marshes together.

Hundreds of miles of bayous and man-made canals crisscross the coast's exterior, offering numerous entry points for the crude. Access is difficult and time-intensive, even in the best of circumstances.

"Just the compaction of humanity bringing equipment in, walking on them, will kill them," said David White, a wetlands ecologist from Loyola University in New Orleans.

Marshes offer a vital line of defense against Gulf storms, blunting their fury before they hit populated areas. Louisiana and the federal government have spent hundreds of millions rebuilding barriers that were wiped out by hurricanes, notably Katrina in 2005.

They also act as nursery grounds for shrimp, crabs, oysters - the backbone of the region's fishing industry. Hundreds of thousands of migratory birds nest in the wetlands' inner reaches, a complex network of bayous, bays and man-made canals.

To keep oil from pushing deep into Louisiana's marshes, Gov. Bobby Jindal and officials from several coastal parishes want permission to erect a $350 million network of sand berms linking the state's barrier islands and headlands.

That plan is awaiting approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If large volumes of oil make it through passes, the cleanup will become far more difficult as oil spreads into the bayous and canals.

Smaller spills have been occurring in the marshes for decades. In the past, cleanup crews would sometimes slice out oiled vegetation and take it to a landfill, said Andy Nyman with Louisiana State University.

But with the plants gone, water from the gulf would roll in and wash away the roots, turning wetlands to open water.

Adm. Allen said that where conditions are right, an "in-situ burn" could be used to set oil-coated plants ablaze.

Nyman and other experts, though, warn it's trickier than simply lighting a fire. If the marsh is too wet, the oil won't burn. Too dry, the roots burn and the marsh can be ruined.

Representatives from BP PLC - which leased the sunken rig and is responsible for the cleanup - said Saturday that cleanup crews have started more direct cleanup methods along Pass a Loutre in Plaquemines Parish. Shallow water skimmers were attempting to remove the oil from the top of the marsh.

Streams of water could later be used in a bid to wash oil from between cane stalks.

In other cases, the company will rely on "bioremediation" - letting oil-eating microbes do the work.

"Nature has a way of helping the situation," said BP spokesman John Curry.

But White, the Loyola scientist, predicted at least short-term ruin for some of the wetlands he's been studying for three decades. Under a worst-case scenario, he said the damage could exceed the 217 square miles of wetlands lost during the 2005 hurricane season.

"When I say that my stomach turns," he said.

A service of YellowBrix, Inc.

[Shapley]

I still don't sweat it when the press predicts disaster, or the nature of the extent of a disaster. They've been wrong far, far more than they've been right. Exxon Valdez, the blasting of the oil wells during the first Gulf War, Global Warming, the 2006+ hurricane seasons, you name it, they've all predicted calamities that have not materialized. Maybe they'll be right on this one, but I doubt it. Their track record is against them.

They keep comparing this to the Exxon Valdez, as if that is the worst that has ever been. In fact, there have been nearly a dozen spill since the Exxon Valdez of greater magnitude, but they have been largely ignored, probably because their location was too inaccessible for the cameras. The world survived, and survives. The are terrible, yes, but that is part of the cost of keeping the lights on. The best we can do is learn from the mistakes so they don't happen again. The worst we can do is to stop progress out of fear.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

I still don't sweat it when the press predicts disaster, or the nature of the extent of a disaster. They've been wrong far, far more than they've been right. Exxon Valdez, the blasting of the oil wells during the first Gulf War, Global Warming, the 2006+ hurricane seasons, you name it, they've all predicted calamities that have not materialized. Maybe they'll be right on this one, but I doubt it. Their track record is against them.

They keep comparing this to the Exxon Valdez, as if that is the worst that has ever been. In fact, there have been nearly a dozen spill since the Exxon Valdez of greater magnitude, but they have been largely ignored, probably because their location was too inaccessible for the cameras. The world survived, and survives. The are terrible, yes, but that is part of the cost of keeping the lights on. The best we can do is learn from the mistakes so they don't happen again. The worst we can do is to stop progress out of fear.

V/R
Shapley

I am sure that many of the people in LA have some very nice coastal land that they would like to sell to you. Your disregard for their plight and the devastation caused by BP's incompetence is appalling

[Shapley]

I"m not disregarding their plight, I'm merely saying the doom and gloom scenarios presented by the press are, much more often than not, proven false.

We had a discussion on this board earlier about Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The devastation there was terrible, but the 'perpetually uninhabitable' scenarios we've always been presented with regarding the aftermath of a nuclear blast were also, apparently, overblown. Both cities are inhabited, and thousands flock to ground zero to view the peace park there every year. Hardly the image we have been given by the experts.

[analog]

Poor Obama - i've seen this before. An incompetent bureaucracy gets built and when it's expected to deliver it falls on its face embarrassing the parent body. I guess he inherited EPA from Nixon and FEMA from Carter? Both oughta be disbanded. Parkinson said it, defensive actions are best not centralized but left to the field folks who have the local knowledge..


It's a spectacular mess but I don't believe it's same order of magnitude as Mt St Helen or Chernobyl.
Mother Nature is, as Shap points out, quite the healer.

I do question wisdom of sinking that goo with dispersant. I'd think it should float so sunlight can break it down and evaporate the lighter stuff out of it.
When i was a little kid the ships still pumped their bilges right off Miami's beaches. You invariably got "tarred" at the beach so Mom always carried a jug of mineral spirits to get it out of our hair. When digging in the sand you'd find old clumps of the stuff dried out into benign asphalt pebbles.

as concerned citizens with no local knowledge about all we could do that would be useful is go down there and help scrub pelicans.
That would be pretty noble IMHO.
a.