View Full Version : Oil Rig Explosion...Cause?
It's been days and all anyone wants to talk about is the growing environmental disaster. Fair enough, but usually blame is rapidly assigned to give us all someone to hate and make us feel better. Any recent big explosions you can think of when "possible terrorism" wasn't mentioned, even as the fireball was still rising in the sky? Not this time. At least I haven't heard of it. So, why does President Obama say he is sending SWAT teams to off-shore rigs? He said that yesterday. Just a precaution or is there an unannounced reason why he would order that? Are we at war with BP? Another industry takeover? Oil pirates? Any of the 11 "missing" found yet? I suppose it COULD have been a guy on a smoke break in the wrong place.
English mfr
http://www.thorninpaw.com/u/htdocs/thorni/image/PulpVincentJules1.jpg
Do you speak it?
Not that kind of SWAT team, but a rapid deployment investigative team from the Interior Service.
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT:
The department deployed SWAT teams from the Minerals Management Service to inspect 30 drilling rigs operating in the deepwater sections of the Gulf of Mexico. Inspections should be completed within the next week, according to an Interior Department spokeswoman.
Oil spill: The government's response (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/04/oil_spill_the_governments_resp.html)
Steve99
04-30-10, 05:25 PM
Me thinks they don't know what SWAT means.
extramundane
04-30-10, 05:54 PM
Me thinks they don't know what SWAT means.
They work outside, yet they're called Interior. SWAT's the least of their problems. :gomer:
;)
stroker
04-30-10, 07:11 PM
Mr. Chavez best be hoping his plan was perfect...
I should have known SWAT meant whatever they wanted it to mean.:rolleyes:
Steve99
04-30-10, 10:30 PM
Mr. Chavez best be hoping his plan was perfect...
I wonder if he's found a defense against our earthquake machine.
and to answer the only sane question in there:
No one mused that terrorists took out BP Texas City, Valero Texas City, Tesoro Anacortes, or were involved in any way in numerous other refinery blasts and rig blowouts that have occured since 9/11
and to answer the only sane question in there:
No one mused that terrorists took out BP Texas City, Valero Texas City, Tesoro Anacortes, or were involved in any way in numerous other refinery blasts and rig blowouts that have occured since 9/11
That's cos them things just blow up. :gomer:
devilmaster
05-01-10, 03:58 PM
oh ank, you and your logic.... :rofl:
stroker
05-01-10, 05:05 PM
and to answer the only sane question in there:
No one mused that terrorists took out BP Texas City, Valero Texas City, Tesoro Anacortes, or were involved in any way in numerous other refinery blasts and rig blowouts that have occured since 9/11
That's because they didn't come on the heels of this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/21/iran-boosts-qods-shock-troops-in-venezuela/
My money is on the North Koreans, in a surplus Soviet sub, with a torpedo. :p
My money is on the North Koreans, in a surplus Soviet sub, with a torpedo. :p
read that. :laugh:
TKGAngel
05-01-10, 06:32 PM
Mr. Chavez best be hoping his plan was perfect...
Nah, Chavez has bigger things to worry about (http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=127038), like taking hours long speeches and condensing them into 140 character blurbs.
not much gulf oysters out here, but, ****, gulf is gonna be f'ed for like 10 years or more. prawns & bivalves...
Napoleon
05-02-10, 08:11 PM
On another (non-racing) board I visit someone made an interesting observation that there is reason to believe using a tactical nuke against the well head may fuse it shut.
cameraman
05-02-10, 10:57 PM
On another (non-racing) board I visit someone made an interesting observation that there is reason to believe using a tactical nuke against the well head may fuse it shut.
Just exactly what kind of boards do you visit anyway:saywhat:
On another (non-racing) board I visit someone made an interesting observation that there is reason to believe using a tactical nuke against the well head may fuse it shut.
"hey y'all, watch this!" :thumbup:
Napoleon
05-03-10, 05:30 AM
Just exactly what kind of boards do you visit anyway:saywhat:
I am tempted to make a joke here but with my luck I would be picked up by the NSA and the next you would here of me is on your evening news where my attorney would explain I was just joking.
"hey y'all, watch this!" :thumbup:
In a funny way you make the point of why I think even if there is a substantially larger chance that it will help then hurt they would not use it (assuming that they could without damaging nearby rigs). If it went wrong I think 90% of the population would think "what did you expect, its a nuke" and I doubt they would buy the explanation that "hey the data we have from test in the 40, 50 and 60 and computer modeling showed a 75% chance of success".
Methanolandbrats
05-03-10, 09:22 AM
Why don't they have a series of check valves installed in the pipes above the sea floor? Has to be some way to do it. Anyone know the technical details of drilling?
My money is on the North Koreans, in a surplus Soviet sub, with a torpedo. :p
McHales Navy in Korean? :gomer:
-Kevin
Napoleon
05-03-10, 09:59 AM
Why don't they have a series of check valves installed in the pipes above the sea floor? Has to be some way to do it. Anyone know the technical details of drilling?
BP fought for years against the additional layers of protection agaist spills. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/bp-fought-safety-measures-deepwater-oil-rigs/story?id=10521078)
That left what I understand to be one blow out valve that apparently failed.
Napoleon
05-03-10, 11:55 AM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/gallery-rigfire1.jpg
TrueBrit
05-03-10, 03:15 PM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/gallery-rigfire1.jpg
That looks like something out of a sci-fi movie...Holy hell!!
The Gulf is screwn for decades now...210,000 gallons spewing out per day? Jeebus...
oddlycalm
05-03-10, 03:45 PM
BP fought for years against the additional layers of protection agaist spills. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/bp-fought-safety-measures-deepwater-oil-rigs/story?id=10521078)
"We believe industry's current safety and environmental statistics demonstrate that the voluntary programs…continue to be very successful."
Right, this joins the list of greatest lies. Voluntary safety programs work, the check is in the mail, banks will self-regulate because it's in their own self-interest, my Benz is paid for, at our airline your safety is our first concern, I won't **** in your mouth, and order the liver, you won't be sorry. :gomer:
oc
Methanolandbrats
05-03-10, 03:52 PM
Right, this joins the list of greatest lies. Voluntary safety programs work, the check is in the mail, banks will self-regulate because it's in their own self-interest, my Benz is paid for, at our airline your safety is our first concern, I won't **** in your mouth, and order the liver, you won't be sorry. :gomer:
oc
There is a misspelling in that post :D
Why don't they have a series of check valves installed in the pipes above the sea floor? Has to be some way to do it. Anyone know the technical details of drilling?
to my knowledge, the BOP at that site has a remote actuator that, obviously, failed. manual actuation of the BOP hasn't shut off the leak either
Wheel-Nut
05-05-10, 12:48 PM
Mother Nature is just reminding us of who is the boss, nothing more.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1790422&spid=32364
coolhand
05-06-10, 05:15 AM
I think this is overblown,
More oil was spilled during Katrina and the press spent more time on the 10 dead turtles (That are now believed to have been killed by nets, not oil) then the 11 dead men from the rig.
datachicane
05-06-10, 09:19 AM
:saywhat:
I'm not even certain where to start with that.
The number I've seen from Katrina is 5520 barrels, compared to 5000 barrels daily in this incident.
In any case, they're both godawful full-blown catastrophes, and comparing the two is an idiot's game.
In any case, they're both godawful full-blown catastrophes, and comparing the two is an idiot's game.
I think the issue with this ongoing and active spill is the potential risk. There is talk that the release rate could actually increase.
At least with a tanker spill, you know the true worst case scenario.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575214593564769072.html
Wheel-Nut
05-06-10, 11:01 AM
These guys were at the scene when it blew, or so they say.
http://www.mudinmyblood.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6104
Sean Malone
05-06-10, 11:31 AM
These guys were at the scene when it blew, or so they say.
http://www.mudinmyblood.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6104
So he patches his boat engines up just prior to making a 41 + mile journey into open water after just having his expensive radar stolen, with the plan to stay at the oil rig (are recreational boaters allowed to tie up to a rig overnight?).
:eek:
Wheel-Nut
05-06-10, 11:41 AM
You can't tie off to a semi-submersible but there are mooring buoys out there the supply boats use.
The typical procedure for fishing a semi-sub or "floater" is to drift fish it all night.
We tie off to conventional rigs in the gulf but not the "floaters." Do they allow it? It's allowed but at your own risk. If the rig personnel ask you to move away you do it in a hurry!
Sean Malone
05-06-10, 11:55 AM
You can't tie off to a semi-submersible but there are mooring buoys out there the supply boats use.
The typical procedure for fishing a semi-sub or "floater" is to drift fish it all night.
We tie off to conventional rigs in the gulf but not the "floaters." Do they allow it? It's allowed but at your own risk. If the rig personnel ask you to move away you do it in a hurry!
That's wild! What size boats? I couldn't see much in the guys pictures but it looked like a typical 24' to 28' open bow center console. So do you just stay up all night fishing with someone watching the radar for weather moving in? I wouldn't want to be 50 miles off shore, at night, in a 24' open bow boat with a front moving in. I don't like being 2 miles off shore when it starts to pick up. :)
Napoleon
05-06-10, 12:03 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575214593564769072.html
I love how it now comes out that Halliburton may be at the center of it.
Halliburton ought to change it's corporate slogan to "Halliburton: at the center of every world class cluster**** in the last 10 years"
Wheel-Nut
05-06-10, 12:24 PM
That's wild! What size boats? I couldn't see much in the guys pictures but it looked like a typical 24' to 28' open bow center console. So do you just stay up all night fishing with someone watching the radar for weather moving in? I wouldn't want to be 50 miles off shore, at night, in a 24' open bow boat with a front moving in. I don't like being 2 miles off shore when it starts to pick up. :)
I think these guys were in a Catamaran, 25' or so, center console.
For a 24 hour trip you just stay up and fish. On longer trips you keep one guy on watch.
We run a 21' Cape Horn out of Freeport, TX. We've been 58 miles out on that boat, never overnight and no radar. You check the forecast and pick your days.
The one thing that worries me is we have only 1 outboard. We do bring a 25 hp "kicker" motor with us but I hope we never have to use it.
Methanolandbrats
05-06-10, 12:30 PM
I think these guys were in a Catamaran, 25' or so, center console.
For a 24 hour trip you just stay up and fish. On longer trips you keep one guy on watch.
We run a 21' Cape Horn out of Freeport, TX. We've been 58 miles out on that boat, never overnight and no radar. You check the forecast and pick your days.
The one thing that worries me is we have only 1 outboard. We do bring a 25 hp "kicker" motor with us but I hope we never have to use it.
So let's say the motors die and the weather changes and the Coast Guard has to come and get you, is that expensive? :gomer:
Wheel-Nut
05-06-10, 12:42 PM
So let's say the motors die and the weather changes and the Coast Guard has to come and get you, is that expensive? :gomer:
It's expensive if you run out of gas and the Coasties come get you. Or so I've heard. Mechanical troubles are free!
There is insurance you can buy for such instances, Sea Tow.
http://seatow.com/
I love how it now comes out that Halliburton may be at the center of it.
Halliburton ought to change it's corporate slogan to "Halliburton: at the center of every world class cluster**** in the last 10 years"
no way to tell if it was the cement job or not to be honest. lotsa diff theories amongst current offshore guys. the 1 agreement being we will probably never know what exactly happened b/c of the depth
coolhand, this is leaking 5000+bl/day. katrina was an absolute cluster**** for the tidal ecosystems in that part of the gulf, wrecking oyster reefs and shrimp beds which still haven't recovered from storm surge saltwater, the spills from platforms, and also the runoff from containment ponds & diversion channels.
the reproductive cycle for so many sea animals involves surface currents = oil slick. the shrimp are about to head out from the marshes into the sea to spawn and the blue crab gonna molt into soft shell goodness. add that to the oil bonding chemical to weigh the oil down to the seabed making its way through the grass up the food chain, and the possibility of a massive marshgrass kill off when the oil makes it into the estuaries which kills the food chain from the ground up. then the migratory birds will transition west to texas since there won't be suitable marshes to stop in down there, and there goes a sizeable chunk of hunting lease income too.
at the OTC trade show right now, no one building BOPs is willing to talk to anyone outside of industry, and BP pulled every one of its engineers that were presenting or participating in panels since they're all on this right now.
you don't start throwing around millions and mobilizing your entire global operation when something is just "overblown."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/gallery-rigfire1.jpg
my fave photo is the one w/ the rig tilted 90deg and sinking, the helipad is perpendicular to the line of sight from the camera, can see a massive hole burnt straight through the helipad all the way through below.
burnt straight through all that structural steel like it was triple creme brie... :eek:
oddlycalm
05-06-10, 04:17 PM
burnt straight through all that structural steel like it was triple creme brie... :eek:
That's the problem with steel, as soon as you reach a certain heat point it has the structural strength of, well, brie. Since 9/11 DARPA has been studying the hell out of insulation material for steel structural elements which is now widely available but insulation costs money.
oc
I wonder how much the offshore construction players are raking in on consulting & emergency operational fees right now. good racket to be in. :D
From Wheel-nut's link:
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a110/Wolfy2880/Horizon/Horizon_Page_01.jpg
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a110/Wolfy2880/Horizon/Horizon_Page_12.jpg
And this,
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=92823
Don Quixote
05-06-10, 08:12 PM
I wonder how much the offshore construction players are raking in on consulting & emergency operational fees right now. good racket to be in. :DTime and materials baby! Like finding asbestos on a remodeling job.
I wonder how much the offshore construction players are raking in on consulting & emergency operational fees right now. good racket to be in. :D
This guy agrees.
http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/9365/armageddonbrucewillis.jpg
Napoleon
05-07-10, 08:46 AM
This looks like a good first person account of the explosion as well. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/06/AR2010050606409.html?hpid=artslot)
Perhaps emergency response geek stuff, but:
May 7, 2010 Operations:
The Unified Area Command continues to work closely together with the Responsible Party and Federal, State, local and tribal partners in anticipating requirements, identifying response options, and rapidly providing response support.
The following is a synopsis of our daily response efforts:
Total Vessels (including tugs and skimmers): 256
Boom deployed: 788,085 feet
Boom available: 1,287,764 feet
Oil and Water Mix - Recovered: Approximately 1.89 million gallons
Dispersant Used : 267,195 gallons
Dispersant available: 317,591 gallons
Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV): 4
Overall Personnel Responding: 8,497
In addition to the overall personnel responding, more than 2,500 volunteers have been trained to assist in the response effort.
10 staging areas are in place and ready to protect sensitive shorelines. These areas include:
Biloxi, Miss.
Pensacola, Fla.
Venice, La.
Pascagoula, Miss.
Port Sulphur, La.
Port Fourchon, La.
Gulfport, Miss.
Dauphin Island, Ala.
Shell Beach, La.
Slidell, La.
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/537391/
Methanolandbrats
05-07-10, 01:32 PM
One statistic is missing:
Cost to oil industry shareholders $0
Cost to taxpayers after creative accounting is completed $ entire bill.
One statistic is missing:
Cost
CERCLA, the NCP (http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/lawsregs/ncpover.htm), and most state laws local gov'ts have provisions for cost reimbursement for hazardous materials emergencies.
How that actually will play out? :confused::rolleyes:
Sean Malone
05-07-10, 01:55 PM
I'm keeping my fingers crossed these caps work. I've read some real doomsday scenarios from some pretty legit (or people saying they are legit) that are making my hands sweat.
Methanolandbrats
05-07-10, 02:12 PM
I'm keeping my fingers crossed these caps work. I've read some real doomsday scenarios from some pretty legit (or people saying they are legit) that are making my hands sweat.
What you talking about sweaty plams?:gomer:
The local paper actually refered to it as a "contraption." :D
Reports say it may be able to only contain 85% of the leak, and what they'll be able to pump out of the cap will be a dirty mix of sea water, oil, methanol, and debris that will require further clean up.
BP are such slimy ****s.
their public stance this whole time has been "this is our responsibility, we will foot the entire bill and do our duty"
yet 2 weeks ago they were offering $5000 settlements w/ ppl along the coast in exchange for waiving their right to sue for further damages.
this "vessels of opportunity program," at first they had a clause in the contracts stating that none of the program participants could sue BP for any damages of any kind, as in, fisherman/shrimpers/crabbers/etc. waiving their rights in exchange for this temp employment.
bama AG told BP to gtfo
back to the drawing board:
A growing collection of crippled equipment littered the ocean floor Sunday near a ruptured oil well gushing crude into the Gulf of Mexico...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100509/D9FJHLDG0.html
Great introductory paragraph. :laugh:
Those poor bastards.
Shout out to Prof. Bea, for a quote at the end. :thumbup:
After scaring the hell out of the freshmen during their orientation, he would tell a great story about his first job as a marine engineer. He would finish by telling them that sometimes, no matter how well prepared you are, the oil rig ends up upside down on the bottom of the ocean. ;)
so much aggie designed machinery. so much failure. :gomer:
Opposite Lock
05-11-10, 11:10 AM
The spill superimposed on Chicagoland, as of May 10:
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l27o2unoPz1qzgzl4o1_500.jpg
http://paulrademacher.com/oilspill/
my offshore buddies were wrong, they might find out what happened after all
BP, the well owner, blames the failure of a big set of valves on the sea floor, known as the blowout preventer, to halt the blowout once it started.
A different account comes from Halliburton, a contractor in the drilling. This account is corroborated to some extent by Transocean, as well as by two workers on the drilling rig, The Wall Street Journal has determined.
This account describes a failure to place a cement plug within the well. The plug is designed to prevent gas from escaping up the pipe to the surface.
Before such a plug is placed, the job of keeping underground gas from coming up the pipe is done by heavy drilling fluid inside the well, commonly known as "mud." The plug is normally put in before the mud is removed, but according to the account of Halliburton, Transocean and the two workers, in this case, that wasn't done—drilling mud was removed before a final cement plug was placed in the well.
It is not clear why such a decision would have been made. Rig owner Transocean says that BP, as owner of the well that was just being completed, made key decisions on how to proceed. BP declined to comment on this account of the drilling procedures.
Cameron vs. Transocean vs. BP vs. Big Red. this is gonna get good :popcorn:
Sean Malone
05-11-10, 03:45 PM
Bob the project manager nervously looks over his project plan...
Step 1 - Drill hole. Complete
Step 2 - Install cement plug.
Step 3 - Pump oil. Complete
Wheel-Nut
05-11-10, 04:26 PM
my offshore buddies were wrong, they might find out what happened after all
Cameron vs. Transocean vs. BP vs. Big Red. this is gonna get good :popcorn:
Looks like a bunch of kids on the playground pointing fingers at each other as the principal confronts them holding the rock that broke the window.
Napoleon
05-11-10, 04:33 PM
my offshore buddies were wrong, they might find out what happened after all
Cameron vs. Transocean vs. BP vs. Big Red. this is gonna get good :popcorn:
Ankf00, on the way home last night NPR had a long story that basically said the same thing (although the story you quote seems to confuse 2 separate failures) with a little more detail, and combining it with some things I read earlier it sounds like what happen is that Halliburton set the pipe with concrete which I understand they do by forcing concrete through a one way valve at the bottom of the pipe and then what happens is the concrete fills the gap between the outside of the pipe and the bore hole. After they thought it was set they removed the drilling mud which apparently is just a heavy viscous liquid intended to act as something heavy sitting on the pressure of the well in advance of setting what I took to be a "belts and suspenders" safety measure (I presume the one way valve was thought capable of keeping O&G out of the pipe) of placing a concrete plug in the well before they moved the rig that would be replaced at some point with a production rig.
Thats when it blew. Regardless, the blowout preventer, which is intended as the last line of defense if a whole series of other mistakes/accidents happened did not work as the last line of defense but failed.
So it is entirely possible that more then one of them are to blame, even though they were responsible for separate phases. Sure, if BP/Transocean doesn't pull the mud you never find out the blowout preventer was junk, but then again if the blowout preventer worked this thread would have died a week ago.
By the way, one of the workers in the NPR story said they had a lot of problem with the drill "kicking" which happens when pressure from the formation pushes back against the drill and said "that well just did not want to get drilled."
coolhand
05-11-10, 10:52 PM
The spill superimposed on Chicagoland, as of May 10:
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l27o2unoPz1qzgzl4o1_500.jpg
http://paulrademacher.com/oilspill/
Good scary image you got there. Just don't tell anyone the slick is only 2 micrometers thick. Fold that slick over in half a THOUSAND times and it is only 2 mm thick.
Luckily the thing is 50 miles and and 5000 feet down. Plus a lot of that evaporates. This isn't the same type of thick stuff in the Exxon Valdez that was released in a narrow sea channel.
and you have no idea how much is subsea either. the short volatile HC chains evaporate quickly. the longer thicker chains do not
anyway, more info: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6444
datachicane
05-11-10, 11:30 PM
Good scary image you got there. Just don't tell anyone the slick is only 2 micrometers thick. Fold that slick over in half a THOUSAND times and it is only 2 mm thick.
Luckily the thing is 50 miles and and 5000 feet down. Plus a lot of that evaporates. This isn't the same type of thick stuff in the Exxon Valdez that was released in a narrow sea channel.
Hopefully these numbers came from a different source than your 'Katrina leaked more' stuff you posted earlier.
It's 5000 barrels a day, with no end in sight. I honestly don't understand the need to minimize it or compare it to other disasters for bragging rights. I'm sure the folks in the gulf will take great comfort in the knowledge that Alaska's sticky mess was somewhat more viscous than theirs. :saywhat:
Opposite Lock
05-11-10, 11:47 PM
Good scary image you got there. Just don't tell anyone the slick is only 2 micrometers thick. Fold that slick over in half a THOUSAND times and it is only 2 mm thick.
Luckily the thing is 50 miles and and 5000 feet down. Plus a lot of that evaporates. This isn't the same type of thick stuff in the Exxon Valdez that was released in a narrow sea channel.
:saywhat:
Is your Daddy in Oil?
Does your Momma work on a pole? :D
Good thing nothing important lives "50 miles and 5000 feet down" in the Gulf.
You, Sir, are a :gomer: of BP proportions.
coolhand
05-11-10, 11:56 PM
:saywhat:
Is your Daddy in Oil?
Does your Momma work on a pole? :D
Good thing nothing important lives "50 miles and 5000 feet down" in the Gulf.
You, Sir, are a :gomer: of BP proportions.
You are right, it makes no difference it this happened in the Mississippi Delta or out in the Gulf. My bad.
Also can anyone tell me where oil has reached shore?
datachicane
05-12-10, 12:05 AM
You are right, it makes no difference it this happened in the Mississippi Delta or out in the Gulf. My bad.
Really? Really?
You're really going to argue that since you can conceive of an even more heinous disaster, it can't be that bad? Hell, it could be in the middle of the Louvre, or the Library of Congress, or on top of Mt. Rushmore. :rolleyes:
It's a total freakin' disaster, no matter how it's spun.
You've clearly got some kind of skin in this, ideological or otherwise, 'cuz I can't imagine someone taking such pains to minimize something like this without some ego in the way.
datachicane
05-12-10, 12:07 AM
Also can anyone tell me where oil has reached shore?
Yeah, I'm sure it'll never reach shore. Lucky that.
:saywhat:
Opposite Lock
05-12-10, 12:21 AM
You are right, it makes no difference it this happened in the Mississippi Delta or out in the Gulf. My bad.
Also can anyone tell me where oil has reached shore?
You edited your post, and still got it wrong - are you that pseudo-provocateur Dependser? :saywhat:
Just don't tell anyone the slick is only 2 micrometers thick. Fold that slick over in half a THOUSAND times and it is only 2 mm thick.
Shouldn't you be out folding that oil slick over in half a THOUSAND times so that the coral and fish and seabirds can breathe? :eek:
Dude.... How'd you even get here? :thumdown:
You are right, it makes no difference it this happened in the Mississippi Delta or out in the Gulf. My bad.
Also can anyone tell me where oil has reached shore?
it has on barrier islands and oiled water fowl and sealife are washing up as well. stick to the 8balls, boob jobs and the fake tans y'all specialize in down there.
If local roughnecks and o&g are freaking out about it, I'm going to go w/ their opinion.
it doesnt matter how thick the bloody slick is when new born shrimp float along those surface currents and breeding season is coming up right now, or when oysters are absorbing the oil bonding agents + crude at the bottom of the bed.
but, hey, lets listen to the EE in socal instead of the folks who've dealt with this first hand when the Ixtoc I blew out and coated our gulf shores
anyway, more info: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6444
The 5000bpd being quoted might be a little low...
From Ank's link:
It was sometime during the night after the sinking that oil leaks started appearing from buckles and holes in the riser. This was stated to be about 1,000 barrels per day. I would read that to mean the leak was between 250 and 3,000 barrels per day (bpd). And a 5,000 bpd leak is probably between 2,000 and 10,000 bpd. Until there is some way to measure the flow--like running it through a pipeline or into a tank--it is impossible to have any accurate measurement of the leakage.
Factoid: If you assume that there is over 5,000 psi of downhole pressure at the BOP--and everything I have heard indicates it is probably substantially higher than that--then a 1/4 inch diameter hole is large enough to “leak” 5,000 barrels a day. That “leak” would probably cut off your arm if you passed it in front of it.
There is almost certainly sand in the oil. As that sand passes the leaking portion of the BOP, it acts as an extremely high pressure sand blaster, eroding the area around the leak and enlarging the hole. So there is a perfectly rational explanation why the leak would escalate from 1,000 bpd to 5,000 bpd to whatever it is now.
Nobody was lying about the volume or covering up. The leak was, and is, getting worse.
Sean Malone
05-12-10, 10:59 AM
I've been reading a few of the doomsday blogs by self proclaimed experts (my brothers mistress has a cousin who knows a guy who went to school with a guy who works on a rig) which paint a picture of dead oceans that will inevitably lead to the end of the world and incompetent engineers who are grasping at straws and will probably not be able to control leak. Not surprisingly the source of this fear mongering is mostly from proponents of alternate energy i.e. they have an agenda.
But lets not have science get in the way...counter points to the bloggers say this is a drop in the bucket looking at it from a big picture with no risk to the ecosystem of the Earth as a whole.
What's more frightening to me are the 'groups' who are using this to promote their anti-oil agenda. Of course what the US needs now is more legislation banning oil drilling so we can become even more dependent on foreign oil. :rolleyes:
As a resident of the Gulf Coast, and as person who cares deeply for nature and the health of the ecosystem, I was very happy to hear the 2 birds that had been found so far covered in oil, have been cleaned and released. :thumbup:
When the wind shifts we are getting an essence of what smells like turpentine in the air. A reminder that it's out there and real.
poser, when you yankees start drilling in your half of the gulf you can start calling yourself a gulf resident :p
What's more frightening to me are the 'groups' who are using this to promote their anti-oil agenda. Of course what the US needs now is more legislation banning oil drilling so we can become even more dependent on foreign oil.
foreign oil = strawman. unless it's the eastern gulf, which florida yankees are never going to allow, or AK, there arent reserves on the east and west coast that are going to be some panacea. virtually all of the exploration that occured off the east coast before the ban resulted in wells being plugged b/c there was nothing there.
as for using this for politics. when the other side is screaming "drill baby drill" as if e&p firms were going to pull strings and pull rigs off a 5 year backlog and pull them back to the US where the wells aren't going to be as profitable as where they are overseas right now... consider this turnabout of an equally asinine variety.
Sean Malone
05-12-10, 11:41 AM
poser, when you yankees start drilling in your half of the gulf you can start calling yourself a gulf resident :p
foreign oil = strawman. unless it's the eastern gulf, which florida yankees are never going to allow, or AK, there arent reserves on the east and west coast that are going to be some panacea. virtually all of the exploration that occured off the east coast before the ban resulted in wells being plugged b/c there was nothing there.
as for using this for politics. when the other side is screaming "drill baby drill" as if e&p firms were going to pull strings and pull rigs off a 5 year backlog and pull them back to the US where the wells aren't going to be as profitable as where they are overseas right now... consider this turnabout of an equally asinine variety.
The mindset has been changing over the last 5 years. I believe we would have seen drilling past the 125 mile mark had the Deepwater Horizon accident not happened.
TrueBrit
05-12-10, 12:06 PM
What's more frightening to me are the 'groups' who are using this to promote their anti-oil agenda. Of course what the US needs now is more legislation banning oil drilling so we can become even more dependent on foreign oil. :rolleyes:
No, you know what is more frightening? that this accident hasn't led people to realize that we need legislation to ban oil so we don't have to either drill for it or pay for it from overseas...
Until this country (and eventually the rest of the planet) kicks it's oil addiction 2 things are guaranteed 1) there will be more oil spills and 2) we will still buy the majority of our oil from folks that are furriners and not necessarily good guys...
This event should be a clarion call to tighten up drilling regs and accelerate as rapidly as possible alternative fuel technologies.
cameraman
05-12-10, 12:19 PM
You guys should live in Utah. The powers that be around here are furious that we are not strip mining the rockies for oil shale. That is would cost $500 a barrel and destroy all water sources in the region not withstanding:saywhat:
Sean Malone
05-12-10, 12:37 PM
No, you know what is more frightening? that this accident hasn't led people to realize that we need legislation to ban oil so we don't have to either drill for it or pay for it from overseas...
Until this country (and eventually the rest of the planet) kicks it's oil addiction 2 things are guaranteed 1) there will be more oil spills and 2) we will still buy the majority of our oil from folks that are furriners and not necessarily good guys...
This event should be a clarion call to tighten up drilling regs and accelerate as rapidly as possible alternative fuel technologies.
Ban oil?
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
datachicane
05-12-10, 12:51 PM
as for using this for politics. when the other side is screaming "drill baby drill" as if e&p firms were going to pull strings and pull rigs off a 5 year backlog and pull them back to the US where the wells aren't going to be as profitable as where they are overseas right now...
This bears repeating.
Our oil comes from overseas, not because of politics, but because of simple economics. Ironic that some of the most ardent fans of market fundamentalism find themselves espousing goals where political intervention in the markets is the only choice. :saywhat: Politics makes for strange bedfellows, indeed.
TrueBrit
05-12-10, 12:58 PM
Ban oil?
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
..and there, ladeez and gentlemen is why the US will continue to drill for a dwindling resource with the continued potential for more environmental disasters rather than focus on quitting the habit and becoming energy independent..
You can :rofl: as much as you like, but one day the oil will run out, and I would rather be on the team that figured that out and came up with a plan 'B' and implemented it rather then be that sorry looking sonofabitch at the local Shell station with empty pumps and an Escalade that won't go vroom vroom anymore...
Methanolandbrats
05-12-10, 01:58 PM
Oil will never "run out". It will become more expensive and finally reach a point where price will force a combination of conservation and alternatives. What alternatives? Who knows. Of course the transitional period will be a bit rocky with hyper inflation, recessions, wars, starvation and other nasty bits. No way around it, it's gonna get really ugly for a while when everyone's standard of living goes south.
Sean Malone
05-12-10, 02:00 PM
..and there, ladeez and gentlemen is why the US will continue to drill for a dwindling resource with the continued potential for more environmental disasters rather than focus on quitting the habit and becoming energy independent..
You can :rofl: as much as you like, but one day the oil will run out, and I would rather be on the team that figured that out and came up with a plan 'B' and implemented it rather then be that sorry looking sonofabitch at the local Shell station with empty pumps and an Escalade that won't go vroom vroom anymore...
You won't be alive when the oil "runs out" and there won't be global headlines saying 'Last Drop Pumped" with pictures of Escalades in the sides of roads with mothers crying behind the wheel. You live in a fantasy world.
As far as picking teams, where ever that came from, we're all on the same team. I don't know of anyone who isn't supportive of alternate energy. Hell, even the car manufactures and the oil companies themselves are promoting the investment on alternatives. But the alternative need to be realistic solutions, not slight of hand, smoke and mirror.
It's easy to jump on the anti-oil bandwagon...here...I'll join you, "Ban oil! Ban oil!", there I feel so great on the inside...but...what's that I hear?...oh, hello reality! Why do you always have to rear your ugly head and pop our fantasy's!!??!!
So the trillionth to the 10x dollar question... What will replace the oil we just banned? Just curious, as I still have to get to work. Serious question as I am hopeful you and I can solve the worlds energy problems in this thread. My mom would be so proud.:)
TrueBrit
05-12-10, 02:14 PM
Oil will never "run out". I disagree.
It will become more expensive and finally reach a point where price will force a combination of conservation and alternatives. How much more expensive? $200/barrel? $500/barrel? At what point is expensive deemed to be just too expensive before research gets serious into alternatives?
Of course the transitional period will be a bit rocky with hyper inflation, recessions, wars, starvation and other nasty bits. Oh well, as long as that is all we have to worry about we should be fine..:eek:
Wouldn't a better idea be to find and implement alternatives NOW and let the rest of the world have their starvation, wars and nasty bits all to themselves?
TrueBrit
05-12-10, 02:16 PM
Serious question as I am hopeful you and I can solve the worlds energy problems in this thread.
If either one of us was that smart we'd have better things to do than bicker on a motoring b/b...
Wheel-Nut
05-12-10, 02:21 PM
What will replace the oil we just banned?
K E R S
LOL . . .
Interesting graphic I found a few weeks ago. Not intended to politicize this event, but it vividly shows our dependence on foreign oil.
Two things must happen: the percentage must decrease as well as overall consumption. However, decreasing consumption will be difficult as our energy requirements will continue to increase. If consumption were to remain static, then the economy would also be static. Until there is a viable, economical alternative source of energy we are all slaves to oil and in particular to foreign oil.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S9guoP-utHI/AAAAAAAANVI/jhvqpZm0zaM/s1600/presidential-oil_thumb.png
source of graphic: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/
Methanolandbrats
05-12-10, 02:25 PM
I disagree.
How much more expensive? $200/barrel? $500/barrel? At what point is expensive deemed to be just too expensive before research gets serious into alternatives?
Oh well, as long as that is all we have to worry about we should be fine..:eek:
Wouldn't a better idea be to find and implement alternatives NOW and let the rest of the world have their starvation, wars and nasty bits all to themselves?
Hell ya it would be better, but it won't happen till there is serious financial pain because corporations and Wall Street can't see past the next quarters earning statement. Nobody in the United States thinks "long term" about anything. The Black Swan guy was on CNBC today talking about debt (another example of a lack of long term planning) and that kinda dovetails with energy. I predict a Global ****storm and there is nothing that can be done about it. Everyone will have to take a hit and Greece was the first salvo.....upside of that, it might ease pressure on oil reserves :gomer:
Interesting graphic I found a few weeks ago.
Thus proving it is the fault of the (fill in the blank for the party you don't like). :rolleyes:
Glad to see we are all working together and no one looks to be hiding anything:
After Oil Rig Blast, BP Refused to Share Underwater Spill Footage (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/bp-oil-spill-oil-rig-blast-bp-refused/story?id=10624972)
Throughout the clean-up effort, BP has monitored the spill site around the clock using submarine-mounted cameras at the mouth of the spill. An official at Oceaneering International, the company that operates the submarines under a contract with BP, told ABC News he "could walk right down the hall and watch it, but I can't share it without BP's express permission."
Eric Smith, a professor at Tulane University's Energy Institute said that footage could help in making independent assessments of the scope of the spill. But it also could do public relations damage to BP. It has remained closely guarded and cannot be made public under the argument that it is "proprietary," according to Coast Guard officials who have received repeated requests to release the images.
It is an argument that surfaced repeatedly during training exercises held jointly by the Coast Guard, other state and federal agencies, and major oil companies.
"Protecting proprietary information of private sector when merged with government information," was how the Coast Guard officials identified a key concern in a report filed after a 2002 war game, where they tried to plan out their response to a mock oil rig blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
Methanolandbrats
05-12-10, 02:53 PM
Thus proving it is the fault of the (fill in the blank for the party you don't like). :rolleyes:
Glad to see we are all working together and no one looks to be hiding anything:
After Oil Rig Blast, BP Refused to Share Underwater Spill Footage (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/bp-oil-spill-oil-rig-blast-bp-refused/story?id=10624972)
A suspicious person might think that is some type of coverup :gomer:
Napoleon
05-12-10, 03:27 PM
However, decreasing consumption will be difficult as our energy requirements will continue to increase.
That is one part I would pick out to take issue with. There is a significant amount of "low hanging fruit" where you could see significant cuts and no one would even notice. Sure, eventually when you wring out waste and inefficiency that would become true, but we are not remotely close to that point.
As a related example, did you know that US cut CO2 output by 7% last year (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/environment/emissions/carbon/index.html) and only about 1/3 of that was due the economy, and I bet not one person here had sleep in an unheated house or compost their sewage or God knows what to help make that happen. Also at the link output of CO2 in the US has fallen the last 4 years. (Edit - to clarify the CO2 output is energy related output, not all US sources).
A suspicious person might think that is some type of coverup :gomer:
They want to protect their proprietary system, because we see how well that worked? :rolleyes:
Dude.... How'd you even get here? :thumdown:
Pretty sure he signed up for an account like the rest of us. :\
No, you know what is more frightening? that this accident hasn't led people to realize that we need legislation to ban oil so we don't have to either drill for it or pay for it from overseas...
Yes, let's abandon practical, economical energy and settle comfortably into our decline as a nation.
What you're proposing is the same kind of knee jerk reaction that killed the development of safe, economical nuclear energy here in the states.
Oil is made from 100% green recycled energy. It would be a crime not to use it. :cry:
Methanolandbrats
05-12-10, 04:59 PM
Oil is made from 100% green recycled energy. It would be a crime not to use it. :cry:
Which brings up a good point. If the current spill kills all the life in the Gulf and marshes, won't those dead critters and plants sink and make more oil? It's not all doom and gloom :gomer:
Don Quixote
05-12-10, 05:03 PM
There is always a silver lining. :D
Napoleon
05-12-10, 05:07 PM
What you're proposing is the same kind of knee jerk reaction that killed the development of safe, economical nuclear energy here in the states.
What killed it is it never was practical, safe or economical. That is why the nuclear energy industry demanded and the Federal Government gave them Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnit y_Act) That is why the February 11, 1985 edition of Forbes Magazine (not to be confused with Mother Jones or The Nation), declared US nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history". And now with (and I am going from memory) $18B in federal loan subsidies and a proposed $36B more to be made available by the current administration the industry still can not find private money willing to take the risk, and that is after 60 years of the technology being developed.
TrueBrit
05-12-10, 05:12 PM
Yes, let's abandon practical, economical energy and settle comfortably into our decline as a nation. What is practical or economical about buying that black crack and shipping it here from overseas? The nation IS in a decline due to the criminal amount of money being sent to furriners every, single day for their oil. If we didn't have to buy it, we'd have the money for other things...like, oh I don't know, free health care, better education, the Sarah Palin channel..
What you're proposing is the same kind of knee jerk reaction that killed the development of safe, economical nuclear energy here in the states. Nope, the fact that we could all wind up glowing in the dark or growing extra limbs if things went pear-shaped up at the old built-by-the-lowest-bidder nukular power plant killed development..and a bloody good thing too, imho...
There's nothing knee-jerk about it, but using the solution of drilling more and more only makes the junkie and the pusher analogy more apt. We need to go into rehab and get off the junk..the sooner, the better...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.