|
A $20 Billion down payment...
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:18:45 -0500, Jim wrote:
4. Deep offshore drilling can be made safe with correct procedures. One way is to require an initial 100' cemented caisson with double failsafe shutoffs instead of a single blowout preventer on the seabed. Drilling then proceeds through the caisson. Oh, that adds $20-40 million to the well cost? Big deal. Standard procedure when spudding in a new hole. IIRC, you drill several hundred feet, set casing, and cement it in. That "single blowout preventer" is a bit of a misnomer. The BOP has three rams, a shear, an annular, and another ram I forget the name of. BOPs, properly sized and maintained, work. They are not meant for abandonment of the hole, but in a pinch ... There real purpose is be able to seal the whole, while weighting up the mud, circulating on choke, and regaining control of the well. I think you will find when the investigation is complete, BP made some decisions based on economics, that were rather short sighted. One, they continued operation with a damaged annular ram. Two, switching the mud for seawater, was, I believe, the direct cause. 5,000 feet of properly weighted mud may have kept the gas incursion from ever happening. Using seawater was reckless. |
A $20 Billion down payment...
thunder wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:18:45 -0500, Jim wrote: 4. Deep offshore drilling can be made safe with correct procedures. One way is to require an initial 100' cemented caisson with double failsafe shutoffs instead of a single blowout preventer on the seabed. Drilling then proceeds through the caisson. Oh, that adds $20-40 million to the well cost? Big deal. Standard procedure when spudding in a new hole. IIRC, you drill several hundred feet, set casing, and cement it in. That "single blowout preventer" is a bit of a misnomer. The BOP has three rams, a shear, an annular, and another ram I forget the name of. BOPs, properly sized and maintained, work. They are not meant for abandonment of the hole, but in a pinch ... There real purpose is be able to seal the whole, while weighting up the mud, circulating on choke, and regaining control of the well. I'm not talking about "standard procedure" protective casing cementing or a single BOP closure redundancy. That didn't work. None of it. That's why all that oil is in the Gulf. Saying you just keep doing what you've been doing after this won't cut it. The BOP process in use is itself flawed and the Cameron BOP shear isn't designed to cut through fittings, which are 10% of drill pipe length. You can find some info on that here http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres...12.2010.oi.pdf Why do you think they haven't fitted another closure on top of the BOP? You've seen that undamaged flange just waiting to retain a valve that could shut the flow down. I won't bother to describe the process in detail, because there's more than one way to design it, but essentially you drop a specially fabricated and large throated open valve over the flange, and when in place the valve bottom is hydraulically actuated to clamp under the flange. Suitable gasketing is included or sealant can be injected. As the valve is closed, the well pressure pulls it tight against the flange bottom. This isn't a brilliant idea of mine. It all simple plumbing and BP maybe has already had the fitting fabricated. But they won't use it because they are afraid the well pressure will blow out that "standard procedure" casing and the oil will flow from the seabed with no chance of containing some of it as they are now. That's the same reason they don't try another top kill now that they can make a decent connection for the mud, instead of sticking a tube in a holed riser as they initially tried. They aren't saying what they fear, which is that they don't trust the well casing can hold the pressure. I think you will find when the investigation is complete, BP made some decisions based on economics, that were rather short sighted. One, they continued operation with a damaged annular ram. Two, switching the mud for seawater, was, I believe, the direct cause. 5,000 feet of properly weighted mud may have kept the gas incursion from ever happening. Using seawater was reckless. We'll see. But no amount of regulating inadequate procedures will make them adequate. There will be no proof that the drillers knew the BOP was damaged. I saw the Kenner Coast Guard hearings and heard the driller boss (OIM) testimony. Unless he changes his testimony there was no indication the BOP had a problem. It is possible that many deep wells are waiting to surprise drillers with totally unexpected pressures. There's so much BS and uninformed opinion on the net like what I'm writing that I gave up trying to get a handle on possible pressures. But this is an interesting link with interesting embedded links. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5...pwater-Horizon BTW, the oil lease cost and royalty payments mentioned there completely contradict what I just heard a congresscritter say - he said it was all totally free oil for BP. You can't trust the pols any more than BP. I firmly believe pressure containment caissons with multiple and perhaps non-retrievable sub-seabed BOPs are the best way to minimize spill chance to an acceptable level. That level is 0% chance. The stakes are too high to keep using "standard procedure." Jim - Now I'm going the change the kitchen sink trap. It's dripping. |
A $20 Billion down payment...
|
A $20 Billion down payment...
On 6/17/10 11:29 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 06:14:36 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:24:18 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:11:31 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:02:17 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:42:12 -0400, wrote: You may not like it but someone in the business has a better chance in building a coalition of all the oil companies to fix this than an outsider. anybody know what this means? what 'coalition' is necessary? this is an engineering problem. Exactly ... and the more engineers you have working on the fix the better chance you have. actually it's just the opposite. the more people you have working on an engineering problem the more likely you are to argue yourself into indecision. you need the RIGHT people, not MORE people. that's what you don't understand Again, who besides Tony Hayward says BP has the right people? fine. you go find more experienced engineers. then let BP know about 'em. Assuming there isn't a spoofer here, you really need to make up your mind. Either BP is the best of the best or they are incompetent assholes. You have made both cases in consecutive postings. You really don't think anyone from the other oil companies has thought of something better? Actually, no. I don't believe the oil companies spend much money or time devising ways to clean up their messes. In fact, during congressional hearings, it was revealed that the disaster mitigation plans of five of the largest oil companies were nearly identical, only nine pages long and full of boilerplate. I think nations should allow existing arrangements with oil companies to expire, and any new arrangements should keep nations in control of their resources, with the drilling companies hired as subcontractors, not owners, of a nation's mineral wealth. In fact, doesn't norway do that now? That oil belongs to us, not BP. |
A $20 Billion down payment...
"John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:29:52 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:22:20 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:12:15 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:12:23 -0400, Harry wrote: And if Bush and Cheney, the oil guys, were still in charge? I am not interested in too much finger pointing but I will say, If Bush/Cheney were in charge they would have had the best people in the oil business working together to plug this wel since they CAUSED the leak what makes you think they'd want to plug it? Because they are losing money. I thought about it and I think this is where Clinton and his brothers the Bushes should step in like they did in Haiti and help out. You may not like it but someone in the business has a better chance in building a coalition of all the oil companies to fix this than an outsider. "You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties You want Dick on that well You need Dick on that well". Besides, who says BP caused it. This could well have been a Democrat inspired ploy to get Obama's energy bills passed. You're still wearing your aluminum hat right? Don't take it off, even if you decide to take a shower some day! |
A $20 Billion down payment...
|
A $20 Billion down payment...
|
A $20 Billion down payment...
On 6/17/10 4:33 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:29:48 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 06:14:36 -0400, wrote: you need the RIGHT people, not MORE people. that's what you don't understand Again, who besides Tony Hayward says BP has the right people? fine. you go find more experienced engineers. then let BP know about 'em. Assuming there isn't a spoofer here, you really need to make up your mind. Either BP is the best of the best or they are incompetent assholes. You have made both cases in consecutive postings. right now they are the only game in town. BEFORE this event they were crminals and behaved with disregard for safety. NOW they're paying through the ass so it's in their best interests to get it capped you dont understand engineering You really don't think anyone from the other oil companies has thought of something better? nope. technology is technology. If "anyone from the other oil companies" has something better... ....where is it? |
A $20 Billion down payment...
On 17/06/2010 5:45 AM, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:18:45 -0500, Jim wrote: 4. Deep offshore drilling can be made safe with correct procedures. One way is to require an initial 100' cemented caisson with double failsafe shutoffs instead of a single blowout preventer on the seabed. Drilling then proceeds through the caisson. Oh, that adds $20-40 million to the well cost? Big deal. Standard procedure when spudding in a new hole. IIRC, you drill several hundred feet, set casing, and cement it in. That "single blowout preventer" is a bit of a misnomer. The BOP has three rams, a shear, an annular, and another ram I forget the name of. BOPs, properly sized and maintained, work. They are not meant for abandonment of the hole, but in a pinch ... There real purpose is be able to seal the whole, while weighting up the mud, circulating on choke, and regaining control of the well. Apparently, true or not there is some question if a standard BOP was used. I think you will find when the investigation is complete, BP made some decisions based on economics, that were rather short sighted. One, they continued operation with a damaged annular ram. Two, switching the mud for seawater, was, I believe, the direct cause. 5,000 feet of properly weighted mud may have kept the gas incursion from ever happening. Using seawater was reckless. Amatures... You never pump water down a well to those depths unless you want some extra pressure. -- Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com