• Welcome to Pretentious Snobby Bastard Fly Fishing!!!!. Please login or sign up.
September 21, 2021, 15:17:44 PM

News:

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.


BP... What a mess!

Started by Peddler, May 09, 2010, 11:23:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Peddler

The early bird may get the worm,
but the second mouse gets the cheese.

mattnmtns

Sadly we don't even know the extent and duration that this disaster is going to have on the economy and life of gulf states and beyond.  At least it is a vivid reminder on why there should be concern for offshore drilling. I guess the most disappointing and frustrating aspect is a lack of a viable contingency plan.  I realize that deep water drilling is pretty cutting edge, but one would think that engineers would have been tasked  to have a solution in place for what happens if the BOV fails.  Before it actually failed.  Or was it like the Titanic, it was an impossible scenario?


jkilday4

Quote from: mattnmtns on May 09, 2010, 11:55:29 AM

I guess the most disappointing and frustrating aspect is a lack of a viable contingency plan.  I realize that deep water drilling is pretty cutting edge, but one would think that engineers would have been tasked  to have a solution in place

Could it have been that BP/big oil lobbyists persuaded the government to fore-go a safer contingency requirement??   ???

From cnn linked article dated 5/10: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/10/gulf.oil/index.html?hpt=T2 - 'BP is legally required to cover economic damages from the spill up to $75 million.'  Hardly a drop in the ocean...   >:(


flatlander

Quote from: jkilday4 on May 10, 2010, 12:06:26 PM

Could it have been that BP/big oil lobbyists persuaded the government to fore-go a safer contingency requirement??   ???

What is the "safer contingency requirement" you are referring to? 

Silver Creek

Quote from: Flatlander on May 10, 2010, 14:06:44 PM

Quote from: jkilday4 on May 10, 2010, 12:06:26 PM

Could it have been that BP/big oil lobbyists persuaded the government to fore-go a safer contingency requirement??   ???

What is the "safer contingency requirement" you are referring to?
The workers did not have time to switch on the blow out preventer and the "automatic switch" failed. BP id not install a remote acoustic switch that is the third way to activate the blow out preventer because it is not required by the USA. It is required by other countires.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/04/04greenwire-warnings-on-backup-systems-for-oil-rigs-sounde-30452.html

Regards,

Silver

http://tinyurl.com/kkctayx


"Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought"..........Szent-Gyorgy

mattnmtns

Quote from: jkilday4 on May 10, 2010, 12:06:26 PM

BP is legally required to cover economic damages from the spill up to $75 million.'  Hardly a drop in the ocean...   >:(

It is laughable that there is a cap like that.  Hell BP was under contract paying Transocean just about $500,000 a day to operate Deep Horizon.  That isn't even a molecule in the ocean.


flatlander

Quote from: Silver Creek on May 10, 2010, 18:34:03 PM

Quote from: Flatlander on May 10, 2010, 14:06:44 PM

Quote from: jkilday4 on May 10, 2010, 12:06:26 PM

Could it have been that BP/big oil lobbyists persuaded the government to fore-go a safer contingency requirement??   ???

What is the "safer contingency requirement" you are referring to?
The workers did not have time to switch on the blow out preventer and the "automatic switch" failed. BP id not install a remote acoustic switch that is the third way to activate the blow out preventer because it is not required by the USA. It is required by other countires.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/04/04greenwire-warnings-on-backup-systems-for-oil-rigs-sounde-30452.html

Yeah, that's how I understand it as well.  A lot has been written about the accoustical switches (or lack thereof), but if the BOP failed and could not be activated by the remote undersea vehicle, then it seems doubtful that an accoustical switch would have worked any better. 

Woolly Bugger

make me sick, this will be with us for the rest of our lives...

ex - I'm not going to live with you through one more fishing season!

me -There's a season?

Pastor explains icons to my son: you know like the fish symbol on the back of cars.

My son: My dad has two fish on his car and they're both trout!

dnakamoto

I read in one of the articles that if they can't find a solution waiting for the reservoir to run out may end up being the only option.  I'm obviously not an expert but it seems we wouldn't know how much oil is under there.  I'm starting to wonder if this has just screwed us all for a long time.  Seems this is a lot worse that just a "spill", which is what everyone is comparing it to. 


Devinsdad

It sucks all the way around.  I read today that so far 3.5 million gallons have "spilled"  Katrina caused 8 million and Exxon Valdese was 10+ million.

Lets hope they get a friggin handle on this as it has the potential to dwarf Katrina and Valdese combined.

I'm with Woolly, this will be with us for the rest of our lives.. I am usually not one for a whole lot of gvt intervention, but in this instance the oil companies need to be made to insure safeguards and back up systems are in place.  The long term costs and effects of this will greatly outweigh the upfront costs of such preventative measures.

Funny how BP has pulled their eco ads from TV


Silver Creek

Quote from: Flatlander on May 10, 2010, 19:46:39 PM

Yeah, that's how I understand it as well.  A lot has been written about the accoustical switches (or lack thereof), but if the BOP failed and could not be activated by the remote undersea vehicle, then it seems doubtful that an accoustical switch would have worked any better.

My undertanding is that all connections to the blow out preventer were destroyed. I thought the remove vehicles were trying to stop the actual leaks and not activate the switch. If there an acoustic switch was installed then the remove vehicle could have activated the switch with an acoustic signal.

Am I mistaken?

Regards,

Silver

http://tinyurl.com/kkctayx


"Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought"..........Szent-Gyorgy

Silver Creek

Quote from: dnakamoto on May 10, 2010, 20:01:47 PM

I read in one of the articles that if they can't find a solution waiting for the reservoir to run out may end up being the only option.  I'm obviously not an expert but it seems we wouldn't know how much oil is under there.  I'm starting to wonder if this has just screwed us all for a long time.  Seems this is a lot worse that just a "spill", which is what everyone is comparing it to.

As I understand it, the next solution is to sink an angled "relief well" that will lower the pressure at the well head and also allow them to inject a slurry that will plug the leak.

Regards,

Silver

http://tinyurl.com/kkctayx


"Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought"..........Szent-Gyorgy

flatlander

May 11, 2010, 17:16:00 PM #12 Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 17:41:30 PM by Flatlander
Quote from: Silver Creek on May 11, 2010, 10:24:35 AM

Quote from: Flatlander on May 10, 2010, 19:46:39 PM

Yeah, that's how I understand it as well.  A lot has been written about the accoustical switches (or lack thereof), but if the BOP failed and could not be activated by the remote undersea vehicle, then it seems doubtful that an accoustical switch would have worked any better.

My undertanding is that all connections to the blow out preventer were destroyed. I thought the remove vehicles were trying to stop the actual leaks and not activate the switch. If there an acoustic switch was installed then the remove vehicle could have activated the switch with an acoustic signal.

Am I mistaken?

I have read many different accounts regarding the BOP failure.  My understanding is that the crew did try to deploy it before abandoning the rig.  I read one account that said the BOP deployed(crimp, shear and seal), but failed to seal the pipe.  Now it sounds like it didn't activate at all.  I have also read that attempts were made with a remote vehicle to deploy the BOP on the sea floor, but those failed as well, which would probably mean that an accoustical switch wouldn't have worked either.  Who knows what really happened?  Lot of finger-pointing between the various parties involved.  Clearly BP does not have a good record and is going to take a big hit.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/25238/?a=f

Guests are not allowed to view images in posts, please Register or Login


Trout Maharishi

Watching the head of BP, Transocean, and Halliburten at the senate hearing today was like the 3 monkey mantra; see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.  What a mess, and knowing that BP has a cap on it's liability of 75M is laughable. One more thing, all those that say see I told you so, and we need to stop drilling off shore. Check who else is drilling in the Gulf of Mexico :o What are we going to do when they have one of these disasters. ???

There's more B.S. in fly fishing than there is in a Kansas feedlot.

Lefty Kreh

Al

As everyone has already said "Big mess"  and we are going to live with it for a long time.

We shouldn't stop drilling but we sure need to make sure there is a plan in place that is properly resourced to insure we can react quickly if and when there is another spill.

As I understand it BP and it's sub contractors did and are doing exactly what is required of them by existing law. Of course the laws and plans were written with help from lobbyists who contributed tons of money to our congressmen and senators.

Anyone want to guess who the largest recipient of BP money was?

Anyone want to hazard a guess of who failed to resource the Coast Guards back up plan if the private sector could not cope with a major spill?



#CommissionsEarned