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.

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.

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 well on the first day.
I suspect Obama is still not getting that level of cooperation from
people he has demonized for 2 years.

You are correct.

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.

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.

"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!

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:29:48 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 06:14:36 -0400, bpuharic 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.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:49:44 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:42:56 -0400, Harry
wrote:

You really don't think anyone from the other oil companies has thought
of something better?

Actually, no.

Since they are making all of this up as they go along, why would you
think that? BP is not the only company that drills oil wells.

what makes you think their engineers are dumber than exxon's?


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 imagine that is because the government guideline for what would be
in their plan was the same.

yep. cheney told 'em to do what they wanted


That is how it works now. They get to drill under a license from the
government. Theoretically the government monitors the drilling but
they are not competent to do it.
All I have to say about the government actually managing these things
is the space shuttle.
40% failure rate of the fleet with total loss of life in each failure.
(2 out of the 5 that ever flew, came apart in the air)

tell it to toyota. how long were they making cars?

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?

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.