GUlf Oil Leak - BP???

[yaleguy3]

The article is interesting and suggests to me that the BP Gulf Well was advanced and as such the preliminary steps of lining the hole and cementing it in place as the different sections of the drill progresses would have been completed before the actual oil bearing formation was encountered. So if the well maintains it's pressure and as such confirms the integrity of the liner then the well would be capable of supporting production. I am obviously wrong but quite why I am not sure.

Thats the whole point the integrity of the liner is in question.
The liner was never tested for integrity , apparently that saved around 90k

talk about 'spoiling a ship for a halfpence of tar'

read down to the section about the cement bond log

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10370479

 

[Hysteresis]

Thanks everyone - I have learned a lot today.
Although BP have taken all of the flak and their safety record is a big question, the decisions on well integrity appear to be BP cost saving. But without any great experience in this field, a lot of blame must rest with transocean and the BOP manufacture Cameron.
Whatever happened to cause the surge is I think unknown at present and as the drilling work was completed as far as Transocean were concerned, the surge should have been contained by the BOP which apparently failed to do its designed function. If the BOP had worked, then presumably BP would have had a major problem dealing with the well but that could have been dealt with in the way they are presently doing ie drilling amazingly accurate relief wells and Plugging the well, but they could have dom=ne that without the leak causing the major oil spill. IS it not therefore the fact that the BOP and therefore Cameron the guilty party. Although BP made bad decisions, they would have been costly to address after the failure but in a situation which did not involve leaking oil and 11 deaths and numerous injuries and the loss of the rig itself. All caused by the failure of the BOP.
I obviously do not know or indeed understand the whole process but I think the Trancocean and Cameron must take their share of the blame with in my limited view Cameron taking the lions share.
Thanks everyone for the links and advice in me further understanding this tragedy.

 

[KoryLGriffin]

Here's a thought...

What about a control burn???

I think this is crazy enough to work...

 

[joinerjohn]

Purely under Health and Safety, then the buck stops with the managing director (and therefore with BP as a whole)

Put it this way,,, your working for a company and your hammer slips out of your tool belt, falls 60ft and kills someone working below... Who's at fault?? Certainly not you!,, Lawyers would defend your innocence till the cows came home. They would rather believe that you , hadn't had the necessary H&S induction.
The company that made the hammer, didn't provide you with explicit instructions on hanging it on your tool belt.
The companies H&S policy omitted to include hammers falling from height.
Someone else distracted you , causing the hammer to fall.

Anyway, I digress from the subject,,,, BP are not a totally British Company.... Large American Banks own a large majority of shares in BP.
BP profits are not only taxed here in the UK but are also taxed in the US.
Given that BP contracted the drilling work to a US company,, the US company therefore have liability before BP ever do (or at least share the culpability).
Obama is just deflecting the issues from something else at best,,, Blaming BP at worst.

 

[KoryLGriffin]

Who cares who's at fault....

Lets get it cleaned up and corrected before we blame anyone....

Prioritize people...

 

[yaleguy3]

To Hysterisis -
Further to what has been mentioned so far.

The liner isn't simply to create a pipe for the oil to come up without escaping into the surrounding rock.
The oil may be down in the well but methane gas is seeping from the rocks all the way up and around the shaft. All rock formations contain methane gas that is trapped hence so many underground explosions in conventional mining operations.
The liners main job is to prevent the seepage of gas into the pipe and up the well creating an explosive situation. Probably what actually caused the original explosion killing the poor workers.
As you say even so the BOP should have worked but it was probably overwhelmed. There are many different types of BOP valves investigation also revealed that in the Deepwater Horizon there were Two BOP valves on the 'Christmas Tree' This is so they can be serviced and maintained without ever having one available to use. Apparently one wasn't working properly and was shut down meaning only one BOP valve left to cover emergencies. These if I remember were triggered by electrical circuitry which had failed on one valve. Maybe the other valve failed too. They don't work in great conditions as mud is continually pumped into the well bore sleeve to create pressure and this wears the valves out.

 

[Hysteresis]

Thanks yaleguy.
The possible unreliability of the BOP is understandable due to their complexity but the consequences of the failure makes it unacceptable and as such the manufacturers are ultimatly responsible in my book. Having two BOP's is fine to allow maintenance but in this case maintenance in 5000ft of water is notoriously difficult. Difficult or not, Cameron seem to have been the weak link here, not BP.
Another question comes from all of this and that is to do with the relief wells which we are told One is only feet away from the original well and has been only feet away for weeks. The question is:- If one relief well is only feet away , why has it been weeks withiout intecepting the original well and plugging it. The answer may be that both relief well have to intercept simultaneously, ie one to relieve the pressure whilst the second plugs the well with concrete.
But in any event the concrete has to seal the well and how on earth can that be achieved when trying to get uncured concrete into a pipe with enormous pressure there which will just blow the concrete out before it has had time to cure. Clever guys these drilling people.

 

[JohnD]

...The possible unreliability of the BOP is understandable due to their complexity but the consequences of the failure makes it unacceptable and as such the manufacturers are ultimatly responsible in my book. Having two BOP's is fine to allow maintenance but in this case maintenance in 5000ft of water is notoriously difficult. Difficult or not, Cameron seem to have been the weak link here, not BP...

But if it is in a position where the valve is difficult to maintain, wouldn't it be better to have multiple valves in good working order? I don't know if you can blame the valve manufacturer since no device can be guaranteed to work perfectly in all conditions for ever.

Didn't I hear that one of the two valves was known to be faulty but the rig continued to be operated anyway, on the "surely nothing will go wrong" principle?

 

[Hysteresis]

...The possible unreliability of the BOP is understandable due to their complexity but the consequences of the failure makes it unacceptable and as such the manufacturers are ultimatly responsible in my book. Having two BOP's is fine to allow maintenance but in this case maintenance in 5000ft of water is notoriously difficult. Difficult or not, Cameron seem to have been the weak link here, not BP...

But if it is in a position where the valve is difficult to maintain, wouldn't it be better to have multiple valves in good working order? I don't know if you can blame the valve manufacturer since no device can be guaranteed to work perfectly in all conditions for ever.

Didn't I hear that one of the two valves was known to be faulty but the rig continued to be operated anyway, on the "surely nothing will go wrong" principle?

I think you are right, nothing can be guarunteed to work for ever but if there are such huge stakes involved, maybe three or even four valves should be used.
40 years ago the Nuclear industry were using 2 out of 4 voting systems for reactor safety.
As maintenance is extremely difficult 5000ft below water then four valve would not seem unreasonable albeit extremely expensive, but nowhere near as expensive as this failure has cost.
I also heard that one of the valves was known to be faulty , but operation of the drill had been completerd and signed off by Transocean as such operation had ceased before the blow out took place as I understand it. The fact that one valve was faulty is the very reason why two valves where installed, but I think the problem here has been the inability of the second valve to accomodate the blowout. Does this suggest faulty or inadequate design? I am sure the legal guys will argue this one for years and make themslves a fortune in the process.

 

[yaleguy3]

If we are going to apportion blame on a strict who is responsibe basis then the fault lies not with BP or transocean or any contractor but with who gave permission for the drill to go ahead.
They knew it was a risk and could have prevented it by vetoing offshore deep drilling as they have now done . . . so the buck stops with.. oh! the US administration...

 

[Hysteresis]

If we are going to apportion blame on a strict who is responsibe basis then the fault lies not with BP or transocean or any contractor but with who gave permission for the drill to go ahead.
They knew it was a risk and could have prevented it by vetoing offshore deep drilling as they have now done . . . so the buck stops with.. oh! the US administration...

My original posting questioned why BP seemed to taking ALL of the flak for the tradgedy, when it appeared to me that US companies such as Transocean were equally responsible but never got a mention.
In defence of the US administration giving the green light to drill (and I don't like to defend that bunch of doo-dah's), they are not Oil Drilling experts and take advice from Companies such as BP and Transocean and Cameron. They must have convinced the administration (Mistakenly) that everything was OK. It of course does not take any mastermind to convice a set of American Doo-Dah's that it is a good idea.
So maybe you are spot on, they are to blame for being a set of 'Thicko's' making decisions on things of which they have no knowledge.

 

[Nige F]

Bought some BP shares low - sold after they rallied . Still don`t like their forecourts now they are with M+S

 

[kevplumb]

according to the "Tennessean"

bp are selling off assets to help pay for the cleanup operation

 

[JohnD]

The FT had details of it earlier today. Can't find it just now.

they had already announced they were going to do it. Were looking at a Canadian buyer.

 

[kevplumb]

apache corp according to the paper

rarther ironic

seeing as they couldnt a patche the leak