Deepwater Horizon

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 01 May 2010, 19:27

Exxon Valdez crashed in the Arctic. Environmentally very sensitive, but not over-populated by Americans who depend on clean seas and beaches for their livelihood. This could be much noisier politically, even if less oil ends up leaking out.

I can see Sarah Palin as the last woman standing, chanting Drill Baby Drill.

ziggy12345 · Post by **ziggy12345** » 01 May 2010, 20:08

goslow wrote:really, worse than Exxon Valdez? Guy on R said yesterday the oil should stop flowing quite soon once the pressure in the well had reduced. so won't be as much oil as Exxon Valdez

If they have drilled into a resevoir and chances are thats what they were doing then the pressure could take up to 30 years to reduce enough for the well to stop flowing.

The only real option is to hire another rig and tow it nearby and drill a releif well into the leaking well and then pump cement down the hole.

Cheers

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 01 May 2010, 22:41

Perhaps this is the first time a civil engineering nuke should be used ...

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 May 2010, 08:04

First step is to lower a concrete funnel-like structure over the leak to catch the oil and pump it up to a ship. A couple of weeks to fabricate this structure. Meanwhile another hole is drilled as Ziggy says but that takes a couple of months.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 02 May 2010, 09:02

Vortex wrote:Perhaps this is the first time a civil engineering nuke should be used ...

You're really itching to use those 'usable nukes' aren't you Vortex!!

I'm sure it would do wonders for the protection of local marine species. Forgetting the radiation for the moment, just the shockwave would kill everything within a few hundred miles radius.

ziggy12345 · Post by **ziggy12345** » 02 May 2010, 09:41

biffvernon wrote:First step is to lower a concrete funnel-like structure over the leak to catch the oil and pump it up to a ship. A couple of weeks to fabricate this structure. Meanwhile another hole is drilled as Ziggy says but that takes a couple of months.

At least the structure will be ready for the next disaster. No matter what the environmental costs oil will still be extracted

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 May 2010, 10:01

Of course it raises the question, why are such plan B structures not pre-fabricated and ready for use? The oil industry had 100% faith in blow-out protectors? Doesn't care? Doesn't think? Or has a duty to shareholders to maximise short term profits by minimising short term costs and thus only investing in safety when forced to by legislation?

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 02 May 2010, 13:05

biffvernon wrote:Of course it raises the question, why are such plan B structures not pre-fabricated and ready for use? The oil industry had 100% faith in blow-out protectors? Doesn't care? Doesn't think? Or has a duty to shareholders to maximise short term profits by minimising short term costs and thus only investing in safety when forced to by legislation?

Even if it was purely financial considerations, you would have thought keeping potential compensation pay-outs to a minimum would be a high priority.

Or does insurance cover the latter?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 02 May 2010, 16:18

foodimista wrote:
emordnilap wrote:This could be the worst environmental disaster of all time, if you care to exclude rainforest destruction and climate change. Maybe even if you include them.
A local spill worse than global warming?

It depends upon whether they can stop it. And upon whether it doesn't happen again, in some even worse spot.

Besides, I just wanted to get in first so that, if it does turn out to be huge, I can say I was right.

DN65AF · Post by **DN65AF** » 02 May 2010, 17:30

biffvernon wrote:Of course it raises the question, why are such plan B structures not pre-fabricated and ready for use? The oil industry had 100% faith in blow-out protectors? Doesn't care? Doesn't think? Or has a duty to shareholders to maximise short term profits by minimising short term costs and thus only investing in safety when forced to by legislation?

Such 'plan B items' are very expensive, and are not exactly off the shelf items: nothing in the oil is - it's all bespoke, and made for the particular application. Put an order in today for some oil production subsystem/component, find someone with production slots available and you might get it in a few months.

BP might reasonably have expected that the various safety devices should have worked, they are tested regularly and they have worked regularly in the past: without the media noticing. In this case it appears none did. Most accidents occur when several things go wrong all at once.

Actually more and more safety devices cause more trouble than they are worth. Apart from the capital cost of the item, a lot of time (and lots of money) is spent having to do certified tests on them. Then there is the problem that 'one time' failsafe devices cannot really be tested as once they are tested they have to be replaced. The more interlinked safety systems there are the more complex it becomes and the likehood of one or more not working becomes higher: you end up spending most of your time endlessly doing tests on safety devices rather than doing the job!

I fail to see why BP are getting so much flak. They subcontracted the entire drilling project to Transocean who in turn subcontracted the cementing bit (which is where the problem arose) to Halliburton. All are reputable large oil field contractors. So why is this BP's fault?
It's a bit like giving your car to a garage for some work, they subcontract the bodywork repair to another outfit..whose driver has an accident in your car and then police come along and arrest you for dangerous driving.....

All safety has a cost to it. If I want some roof work done I need scaffolding according to the regulations, so in my case/house it is possible but not easy to do it without... so I do it myself. Those who wanted scaffolding effectively priced themselves out of the job. They wanted increased safety and got nothing as a result: fine by me.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 02 May 2010, 17:34

Doncaster 6? Nice area.

Welcome, DN65AF.

Who's blaming BP? It's the human race that's to blame.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 02 May 2010, 17:51

DN65AF wrote:Halliburton

Ah. It was obviously one of those "Unknown unknowns".

Yves75 · Post by **Yves75** » 02 May 2010, 20:02

Don't you find the level of reporting really low on this event ?

I mean up to 2pm at least today the top article on CNN site were still saying :

Landfall along the Mississippi River Delta and other Gulf areas was expected as early as Saturday.

From the maps the oil has already reached some shores, plenty of stuff on the blame game, but almost no reports on site, strange ...

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 May 2010, 21:55

Welcome DN65AF, but Halliburton...reputable? That's an oxymoron.

Of course BP are to blame if the subcontract to a cowboy.

If they had hired me instead I would have told them it was a silly place to look for oil and that would have saved them a lot of stick.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 May 2010, 21:56

emordnilap wrote: Besides, I just wanted to get in first so that, if it does turn out to be huge, I can say I was right.

Hey! Who started this thread?