Another Gulf Oil Rig Explodes 423
A few readers have noted that another gulf oil rig has exploded. This one is off the coast of Lousiana. So far all the workers are accounted for, but they are in immersion suits waiting for rescue.
"I think trash is the most important manifestation of culture we have in my lifetime." - Johnny Legend
Re:Cap (Score:5, Informative)
This one isn't a deep water rig, so it should be much easier to cap.
Re:BLAME BP (Score:3, Informative)
Are you sure? The reports I've read don't say whose rig it is.
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Informative)
The U.S. Minerals Management Service reported 69 offshore deaths, 1,349 injuries, and 858 fires and explosions on offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico from 2001 to 2010. [wikipedia.org]
We're only hearing about every new fire/explosion now because of the massive spill. Give it a few months, and nobody will be reporting on these types of stories.
Re:No Oil (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Drilling Moratorium (Score:3, Informative)
This was an operational rig, not a drilling operation so the moratorium has nothing to do with this.
"Coast Guard officials said they do not yet know if there is any type of leak associated with this explosion.
They said there are reports it was not actively producing product, but they will investigate whether there is any type of environmental impact.
The rig is known as "Vermilion 398."'
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Informative)
I've worked on the safety system of some major rigs in the Norwegian sections of the North Sea and I cannot see how this could happen if proper procedures and sane safety systems were in place...
Hell, there are so many sensors and so strict procedures in place that alarms go off like mad if there is even a tiny leak somewhere...
Snap! (Score:3, Informative)
News is broken? Can we put it back together again? Will any extra-components remain after we manage to put the news into one piece once more?
--
BTW., NOBODY said oil was leaking in the first days of the BP oil spill either.
Re:Maybe (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like oil rigs are bursty too. Big yellow fireball bursty.
Re:No Oil (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bah. (Score:3, Informative)
Funny, when I started reading it, which was well before I got my low four-digit id, it was a news aggregator. Of course, their sources tended to be more things like OS-related blogs back then, but it was still an aggregator. Here's the earliest record the Internet Archive has: Jan 13, 1998 [archive.org]. Everything there is a link to a news story or press release elsewhere.
I think the troll mod you got may have been a bit harsh, but the only alternative I see is that you're either severely confused or viewing the past through rose-colored glasses.
Re:your next car should be electric (Score:3, Informative)
If your car is electric and you live in the US, chances are that most of its electricity is produced by CO2 emitting coal burning power plants...
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Informative)
Taking the battery out of the smoke alarm is an option right after you burn the food, but leaving it out for a month isn't. If the alarm is that much of an annoyance, that means the smoke alarm is too old, and you should replace the smoke alarm.
Besides, this is not at all like a smoke alarm where the alarm might just be a nuisance (burnt popcorn, too many candles, steam from the bathroom, overcooked biscuits, etc.) and where the cause is understood (poor placement, stove fire, etc.). When alarms on an oil rig go off, you know you have a problem. The only questions you should ask are "How big?" and "What do I need to replace?".
There are no false positives when you're talking about critical safety systems on something that could cause such widespread damage in the event of a failure. Any problem is something that needs to be dealt with; if it's a bad sensor causing a false positive, the sensor needs to be replaced.
Indeed, one of the causes of the last disaster was that alarms had been going off for weeks and instead of fixing the underlying problem, they turned off the alarms. The alarms were not the problem. The alarms were indications that something was wrong. The problem was that A. things were not working, and B. people ignored the problems rather than taking corrective measures.
If we were talking about safety systems that, due to their complexity, cannot be made reliable---if constant false positives were inevitable (e.g. car alarms)---then yes, I would agree that the alarms were the problem. That said, I have no reason to believe that this is the case, and more to the point, if that is the case, then proper oil rig safety is impossible, which means that we should not be drilling off the coast, period.
Re:Cap (Score:3, Informative)
Re:your next car should be electric (Score:3, Informative)
in order for a coal plant to generate the same amount of power in kW as an engine, it produces *less* CO2 and pollutants. Even if you're at the worst case scenario for grid power, you're still doing better than an internal combustion engine with gasoline.
Re:Cap (Score:4, Informative)
That idea that they learned is a joke. here is a quote from a news site comparing the BP blow out to an earlier one.
79 Mexico oil spill
Attempted Fixes
# They attempted to put a cone over the top, calling it operation Sombrero (as oppose to Top-Hat)
# They attempted to plug up the leak by pumping rocks, mud and seawater into it
Pemex pumped cement and salt water into Ixtoc for months before finally bringing the runaway well under control and sealing it with cement plugs.
Pemex's scramble to come up with other solutions while the relief wells were being drilled will sound familiar to those who have followed BP's efforts to stop the oil gushing out of its ruptured well.
Divers tried to manually operate the blowout preventer but this effort was unsuccessful and over the next several months Pemex tried a variety of solutions, including a plan to force metal spheres into the well to cut the flow of oil and lowering a steel structure over the spill to capture the crude.
BP is trying similar schemes but the huge water depth it is operating at is vastly complicating its efforts.
Does any of that sound like BP learned anything from an almost exact issue as theirs?
In both cases natural gas flowed unnoticed into the well being drilled, causing an explosion. In both cases a critical piece of fail-safe equipment -- the blowout preventer -- failed. And in both cases the operators struggled to quickly staunch the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
Here are some links.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64N57U20100524 [reuters.com]
http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/an-identical-oil-spill/399603 [fool.com]
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's not. The only way to get oil to explode is to vaporize it
True, but irrelevant. Rig explosions are almost always the result of natural gas [energyindustryphotos.com] that was under under tremendous pressure underground. It doesn't take much to touch off a gas leak.
Re:Cap (Score:5, Informative)
False.
"Mariner's platform is in 340 feet of water, which would make any spill response much easier than the response to BP's blown-out well."
Citation [google.com]
Re:Drilling Moratorium (Score:4, Informative)
Because a ban on new drilling in depths over 500 feet would have prevented an explosion on an operational rig whose depth is less than 400 feet?
I doubt that.
Re:Maybe (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Informative)
It's called Methane. A lot of rigs burn off the Methane that comes with many oil deposits. But sometimes, Methane accumulates for whatever reason, isn't burned off in a controlled fashion, and explodes instead. And then ignites the oil. Methane/oil compositions are a bitch.
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Informative)
The parent knows what he is talking about. I am a Controls Engineer and I work at a facility that has all kinds of alarms and interlocks that are in place to keep things safe. There are very strict procedures (Management of Chance, Process Safety Management, etc.) that are meant to review and ensure that all of the systems in place are still in place and working properly.
Anytime, EACH AND EVERY SINGLE TIME, anyone asks me or one of the other Controls Engineers to make a change to these systems or interlocks, there is a MOC process where they have to submit what they want to change to their boss, someone in safety, head of engineering at a minimum. Each person has to take the time to look at what is being changed and then ask questions/raise concerns. When everyone is satisfied, then they approve it and eventually they come to me with an approved change and then and ONLY THEN will I make a change.
All of these things keep the operations working in proper order and are checked at least once a year to make sure they are in place per the design specifications, and those specs include the MOC changes, which is part of the whole process.
These are the interlocks that are in place that keep people in the place alive. These types of procedures are mandated things and if we didn't follow them, we would be fined out of existence or shut down entirely for not having a procedure and following it.
The break down in these cases are as follows:
1) Inspectors not checking and keeping the pressure on. Although, inspectors are stretched thin and can only check so many things, so ultimately, if people are cutting corners, most of the time inspectors will not catch them.
2) Operations taking short cuts to be able to meet demand that are figuring out ways to bypass something they shouldn't bypass to run anyway and they they are no longer protected.
3) People not following the procedures listed above and then things break and don't get repaired, changes made that are not documented, safety critical interlocks being modified so they no longer offer the protection that should.
If the procedures are followed properly and things documented, then the properly designed safety systems stay in place and these kinds of things can't happen. Yes there are problems with excess alarms in place and alarms getting ignored, but nuisance alarms are not the things that really matter for safety. What really matters are the interlocks where systems realize there is an issue and shut themselves down to protect the equipment and personnel. Alarms inform operators that something is not in the right range and they should look at it before it affects production. Interlocks (which have alarms with them as well) are the things that are the final protection level and the system reacts on it's own, equipment goes to fail safe mode and you are not running anymore.
I have heard in news sources of the BP spill and many other industrial accidents (check www.csb.org if interested in find out about chemical plant issues that have been investigated) and in most cases where there are issues with systems that were designed properly to begin with, like what omglolbah was stating, that the system is safe and these kind of things can't happen. It is when proper procedures are not followed and improper changes are made that we get BP and accidents happening.
So proper enforcement and inspections will only do some much, but have to be in place to make sure everyone is doing their do dilagence to stop these kinds of things from happening.
Re:Cap (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Bah. (Score:3, Informative)
Or it could be gross, deliberate negligence. As anyone who has read the report on BP's actions leading up to the previous rig accident, or has worked in the resources industry can attest, there's a corporate culture in offshore oil and gas of "it will never happen".
There were many opportunities for the gulf spill to be prevented, but proper process was circumvented on numerous occasions.