BP Prepares Complex "Top Kill" Bid To Plug Well 365
shmG excerpts from the International Business Times: "Government and BP officials are hopeful after extensive preparations, but are not guaranteeing that a complex attempt early this week to cap an uncontrolled underwater oil spill from a well in the Gulf of Mexico will be successful. The so-called 'top kill' procedure that oil major BP is tentatively scheduled to attempt on Tuesday involves plugging up the well by pumping thick 'drilling mud' and cement into it. While it had been attempted on above-ground wells, it has never been tried at the depths involved with this spill, nearly 5,000 feet below the surface."
It's simple really (Score:5, Funny)
Just nuke the damn thing, it's worked before and surely nothing can go wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides, nuking a well in the Mexico bay, less than a 100 kms off the coast of the US, is not going to provoke any sort of negative PR and response...
Not to mention the load of methane hydrate sitting there on the bay floor, just waiting for a shock, like, you know, a nuke going off, to release a metric @55load of methane and turn the entire area into a nautical hell-hole, plu
Re:It's simple really (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Surrounded by what? The last graphic I saw showed rock. The mud is likely just a few meters deep after which it's the earth crust. Being in the ocean, it's a very hard rock. Maybe it's not too late to nuke it. The damage is as bad but it's going to get a lot worse unless they cap it now.
Re: (Score:2)
That aside, there's still a shitload of methane hydrate down there, and it might be in the planet's (and all ships' in the bay area) if BP didn't subject it to the shock of a nuke.
I doubt BP has any nukes, so I doubt it would be BP that subjects it to the shock of a nuke.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you overestimate the size and effect of underground nukes. The Gulf is geologically active; there are a lot bigger earthquakes than a small nuke.
Re: (Score:2)
Dynamite was used in Kuwait to put out the flames (lack of oxygen caused by the explosion), not to plug the well.
They still had to manually plug the hole after the flames were put out on a live well spitting gazes like crazy. Be careful for sparks and get the big wages ;-)
Nuking is a pretty high risk gamble IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they try nuking a well before? I know they used dynamite back in Kuwait, but surely not nukes were used for this purpose, no?
Yes, the Russians have nuked 5 wells before. The method is to drill a parallel hole and set off an explosion deep underground, crushing the rock around the original well. Deep underground detonations are quite clean.
Four times it worked, one time they were not able to drill close enough because of the gas fires on the surface from the leaking well. "Close enough" means detonating
Re: (Score:2)
Technically dynamite in Kuwait was just used to put out oil well fires, not stop the flow of oil from wells. The explosion burns out all of the oxygen thus extinguishing the fire, it's a neat trick that has been used for decades actually. After the fires are extinguished the wells were then capped through conventional means (I'm not familiar with that process). Nuking a well and dynamiting a well are meant to solve to separate problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the two explosions are completely different. Nuclear bombs aren't the same thing as a really large amount of TNT or other explosive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the fact that for an equivalent size blast, you'd displace a rather large portion of the water with the rather large physical volume of the C4 (and you'd need a whole crapload of C4,) versus the rather small physical volume of the nuke, I suspect.
Re:It's simple really (Score:4, Interesting)
You know those wacky "kiloton" and "megaton" numbers they use about nukes? That's exactly the weight of the equivalent conventional explosive charge.
Do you have fifteen thousand tons of C4 lying around somewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
First, it costs way more than a "couple million" to sink a new well out there - that will pay for about five day's rent [rigzone.com] on a drilling rig like the Deepwater Horizon (now sitting at the bottom of the ocean after baking for a while) or the Development Driller II [rigzone.com] or III [rigzone.com] (I think the links point to the stats on the rigs being used, but I'm not absolutely sure) which are/will be drilling the relief w
Re:It's simple really (Score:5, Insightful)
10) expand area to be capped.
11) repeat starting at step 2 until seabed of entire Gulf of Mexico has been cemented over.
12) maintain crews and equipment forever (well, at least for a couple billion years) plugging the inevitable cracks that in the concrete parking lot at the bottom of the GOM.
Re:It's simple really (Score:5, Informative)
Real explosives don't need ambient oxygen. Internal break down of (usually Nitrogen) bonds releases the energy, not rapid oxidation. A few exotic chemistrys exist, such as getting a normally inert noble gas to combine with a reactive gas (i.e. Xenon Trifloride) to store similar levels of energy, but mostly it's Nitrogen. C-4 isn't really the name of an explosive, but Composition 4 is about 90% RDX, which is the high explosive part (also called cyclonite). The other 9 to 10 % is the plasticizer that makes it putty like. No, C-4 does not require outside Oxygen, although it's probably not the stuff to use here. I'm sure the US Navy has some data on what explosives stay safe under very high seawater pressures and still react quickly, hopefully someone will ask them as needed.
Re:It's simple really (Score:5, Funny)
With a 4 out of 5 success result, though I really do wonder what happened when it didn't work.
My understanding is that this question will be answered in a 2 1/2-hour special report on ABC tonight.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest inviting all of the BP officers and managers and then nuking THAT site from the orbit.
The hole can be plugged by other oil companies and the money must be taking from BP corporate and personal accounts.
Re:It's simple really (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's simple really (Score:4, Funny)
No, you've got it all wrong. Plug the leak *with* the BP executives.
Dubble Bubble (Score:2, Interesting)
You know, If I was drilling oil via a pipe that went 5000 ft straight down into the water I'd have made sure there was a pretty much foolproof way to shut the damned thing down before beginning.
Re:Dubble Bubble (Score:5, Insightful)
But you're clearly much cleverer than they are. Either that or perhaps you should stfu if you don't actually know anything about the subject.
Re:Dubble Bubble (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dubble Bubble (Score:4, Informative)
Actually the blowout preventer does exactly that. When it has not been swapped out for a test fixture and damaged (known at the time) known leaking hydraulic fluid.
The bad cement job was also known to be bad before they replaced the drill mud with salt water.
There were so many things done wrong. All of them had to be bad for this to happen. B.P. knew these were all wrong and went ahead anyway.
They belong in prison and sued out of existence.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Halliburton does not have the responsibility of doing checks to ensure the cementing is not faulty. A job like that will always have the risk of being faulty thus tests should be conducted.
There were actually BP employees on the rig telling Transocean to change their plans in order to speed up the process, so they're not without responsibility here. Investigations will likely need to be made to determine how much blame each deserve.
Let's wish them luck (Score:2)
Let's wish them luck.
The top kill procedure is well known in the oil fields. Pumping mud and cement is what oil drilling is all about.
Of course, at this depth, things may be more difficult. I read TFA and it makes sense except maybe for this part, which sound too much politically correct:
His agency has been working closely with BP staff to "ensure that procedures are conducted in a safe, environmentally sensitive manner and reduce any risk of additional impact," he told reporters in a conference call on Thursday.
Although he used the term "reduce the risk". There is always risk but this procedure seems the most logical one so far for all I know about oil well drilling. So I wouldn't say that "At this point it's pretty obvious that B
Re:Let's wish them luck (Score:5, Interesting)
Although he used the term "reduce the risk". There is always risk but this procedure seems the most logical one so far for all I know about oil well drilling.
1) Research the formation pressure vs the burst strength of the casing. They are way too close for comfort. Statically they're technically OK, before you collapse a drilling rig on top of them and have a month long blowout scour them from the inside out. Bad Slashdot Analogy : Its like using a racing engine, after its been in a crash, to power a fire truck. Its not like the theoretical burst pressure limit of the casing is a factor of 100x the internal pressure... They're cutting it close, maybe too close.
2) Contemplate that the root cause of the blowout was a cement bond failure... And cement is crazy weak in tension. So hooking up ultra high pressure pumps to push down extra hard, is not exactly the ideal situation.
So, the relief well is about 1/3 of the way done. It'll work no problemo. Top kill has a modest chance of working, a modest chance of failing without damage, and a modest chance of splitting the casing wide open like a sausage on the grill.
So its a simple game theory exercise:
Solution 1 has a 100% success rate but takes three months. PR folks will vaporize themselves waiting.
Solution 2 has a, lets say, 1/3 chance of doing nothing, 1/3 chance of success, and 1/3 chance of splitting the casing like an overcooked bratwurst, thus increasing the oil squirt rate by a factor of maybe 3. So leak rate is going to zero, stay the same, or increase perhaps a factor of 3, all equally likely.
Meanwhile the longer you wait, the lower formation pressure/leak rate drops. While at the same time sandstone is scraping out the inside of the BOP and casing making the leak larger. And both effects are very non-linear. So, it starts out very slow, gets very big, and gradually declines.
Some supercomputer or whatever calculated the optimum solution is : Wait until the relief well is about 1/3 of the way there.
I have no idea if anyone in slashdot-land can replicate the game theory math that lead to that answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you have a tube of concrete and you increase the pressure within that tube....
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
the reason top kill is only being used now is because it took longer to implement. BP moved in order of swiftness to fix and safety, not cost.
Duct tape (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so maybe chewing gum is the next option?
Actually, it is. Just that it’s itself made from oil. (= rubber parts)
Re:Dubble Bubble (Score:4, Informative)
It didn't fail on it's own though. An employee broke it and BP senior execs didn't think it was important enough to delay further to fix it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
[citation needed]
Re:Dubble Bubble (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7129225.ece
"According to a survivor’s account... blowout preventer...was punctured in the weeks before the blast but nothing was done to fix it.
"a crewman accidentally nudged a joystick, which sent 15ft of the oil pipe through the closed device"
"Mr Williams added that a crewman “discovered chunks of rubber in the drilling fluid”. He thought that it was important enough to bring them into the driller shack. “I recall asking the supervisor if this was out of the ordinary. And he says, ‘Oh, it’s no big deal’
"two control pods that operate the blowout preventer had lost some of its function weeks before the explosion, and the batteries on the device were weak. With the schedule slipping, Mr Williams said that a BP manager ordered a quicker pace. The faster drilling had caused the bottom of the well to split open, swallowing tools. “There’s always pressure [on the crew], but yes, the pressure was increased,” he said. "
Re:And how would you do that? (Score:5, Interesting)
Then you do what you know how to do and you do it correctly
You keep your batteries charged in the BOP.
You tighten ALL the fittings and TEST them.
You double check everything and write it down, check it again. Stop when you find out you've missed something.
You don't send the crew with the test equipment home before they even start.
You have adequate mitigation strategies and you deploy them correctly.
You ask yourself 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' and you try to answer the question. You keep the suits well away from engineering decisions.
Just like most man made disasters, multiple fuckups had to happen before the Shit Hits the Fan. This one is just another example of hubris.
Re:And how would you do that? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And how would you do that? (Score:5, Informative)
So what do you do? Pretty much what they did - cotinue and hope for the best.
Wrong. You stop drilling and eat the $10 million you've dropped on the well so far. If that's not acceptable to you, don't drill off my damn coast.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you provide a citation for that? It sounds like you are saying they were trying to plug and abandon the well. From what I understand they were running completely different operations intended to prepare the well for production.
I can blame, and will blame, BP for their piss-poor cost saving, PR oriented, and stupid way that they have attempted containment of this problem, but if they really were capping it in response to problems noted in the BOP, then they are much less of the social psychopaths I tho
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Apparently 'test well' is the wrong description (this is me being sloppy, I have seen such language in other forums and didn't verify it), but they were in the process of capping it off so that they could move the rig:
The cause of the explosion is not yet known, although Transocean executive Adrian Rose said production casing was being run and cemented at the time. The well had been drilled to a depth of 18,000 feet.
Once the cementing was done, it was due to be tested for integrity and a cement plug set to abandon the well for later completion as a subsea producer.
From:
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article212769.ece [upstreamonline.com]
I think as much as anything, I said "They were trying their hardest to stop drilling" in reference to them wanting to move their expensive machine and you read it as a reference to them being concerned about the integrity of the undersea
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And how would you do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
You fucking plug the well and stop. The last thing you do is act like social psychopaths in search of money at any cost and continue. They KNEW what the consequences were to the environment, the economies of the coastal states in the US, not to mention other countries.
But what the fuck does a BP executive care about a hard working family in Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi that depends on the ocean for their livelihood? That's right nothing. Saying that is not hyperbole either. If the executives knew of the fragile state of the BOP and continued, they should be put in Prison. Plain and Simple.
Dear God Almighty man. The last thing you do is hope for the best and continue when the consequences of your actions can affect so many many other lives for decades to come. Your plain assertion that they really had no choice in their actions is appallingly offensive.
Of course they had a choice. They could have stopped.
Re:And how would you do that? (Score:5, Informative)
So what do you do? Pretty much what they did - cotinue and hope for the best.
Umm, I have to say I work on all surface stacks, but if I was the company man in charge - and yes that is my current job for another major (... okay, fine, company person) - we'd shut the pipe rams, bleed the pressure above them, and fix the annular. Changing out an annular preventer on a surface stack is a relatively routine procedure. Close the pipe rams, bleed the pressure off, unbolt the top, remove the annular, cut a new one in half to go around the pipe, replace it, retighten the bolts, retest, and get on with it. I find it hard to believe that they don't have a way to replace the annular with an ROV. The blowout preventer is not a singular piece of equipment. The annular, the pipe rams, and the blinds can all be functioned and replaced separately. If your blinds are messed up, you have to get more complicated and start setting plugs, but anything above that you should be able to change fairly easily.
Re:And how would you do that? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And how would you do that? (Score:5, Interesting)
The cleanup is always a fecking pain in the arse.
That is why you prevent it from happening in the first place... I also work in the oil and gas business and the whole pile of neglect in the current case pisses me off to no end.
Last week Statoil in Norway had a blowout situation at a rig and the first safety barrier failed. If this had been the system in the gulf of mexico we'd be fucked over here too.... BUT there was a -second- barrier which stopped the problem. They locked down the well and there was no spill.
It is causing all manner of hell for Statoil at the moment though... people are quite nervous ;)
Really... (Score:2)
Or in the case of success with the pipes actually plugged, all that might happen is that the part of the riser (or part of the pipe lower down even) NOT plugged could rupture from built up pressure lower down
Oh wait
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Testing backup plans for a well leak at 5000 feet pretty much would involve a leaking oil well at 5000 feet somewhere..
It would be interesting to try and get permission to setup and run such a test never mind the cost involved.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because nobody ever gets punished.
There is no need for any government regulations, I am a libertarian/objectivist/minarchist, that's my point of view, I am not here to discuss it.
My point is that given the myriad of things that can go wrong in any business, in any industry at any time, the real issue is this: is the private business aware that there will be consequences for its actions, should it cause any damage to private property of others, public property, environment in general or any people.
Government
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would prefer some degree of prevention particularly when the price of failure is so uh... what's that word? Ah, yes, so outrageously fucking huge.
I agree wholeheartedly that the gov is lacking in the punishment department. However, giving the fucking MMS was doing with BP, I see using only punishment as a solitary net to catch offenders. What would stop the likes of BP from fucking and bribing their way out of punishment?
I'm not a big fan of the death penalty but, you know, maybe China is onto something.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand your view, but realize just how many times before now Oil has been spilled into oceans, onto lands etc.
So what has really been done by any regulations so far? Seems that nothing has been done. I am a libertarian for purely practical reasons, of-course my position is ideological, but I do not see another way to fix economy at all. No amount of regulation can do it, and it only makes it worse by growing the government further, which needs to shrink instead.
Problem with regulations is that it cr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
please, don't say you think that in anything I said I meant to propose to return to the days, when people did not care about what they did to public property and environment and people.
I am talking about punishment that severe in both, economic sense and personal punishment in the sense of prison time.
I am not a proponent of wild west where anything goes without any consequences.
I am not for socializing the damage while privatizing the profits.
Just saying.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am talking about punishment that severe in both, economic sense and personal punishment in the sense of prison time.
Punishment alone won't solve the problem. It might if every company had perfect knowledge of all of the risks and was an economically rational actor, that's simply not the case in the real world. What inevitably happens without regulation is this:
When there are risks to the public, regulation is necessary to keep companies from taking those risks.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Worse than that... The libertarian view of self-regulation due to penalties is missing a really obvious factor:
The willingness of people to take risks in exchange for profit.
Let's say you got $1 million invested. You see an opportunity to increase the value of your company to $20 million, but there's a catch. There is a 10% risk that everything goes to hell; 10.000 farmers downstream will lose their job and you lose everything and spend 10 years in prison.
Libertarians for some reason think no one would take that risk. Those of us who aren't completely braindead know differently.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally, a constructive argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their failure is that the safeguards they had in place weren't sufficient to stop the problem from happening in the first place
That appears to be a bit of disingenuous spin. You might be right, the safeguards that were SUPPOSED to be in place might have been insufficient, but we'll never know, since even the safeguards that were supposed to be in place were not, and they knew that and continued anyway.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
without having set, tested plans in place in case of this sort of catastrophe.
Oh, they have plans. They're working like an anthill stirred up with a stick. Seriously.
What you meant to ask, but didn't, is why they don't have set, tested plans to fix this kind of thing "instantly" or "within hours" or at least sooner than its going to take.
Well, that's because no such technology exists. So you simply make failure impossible via paperwork. You need a perfect cement bond job, so you require one. You need a perfect and tested BOP so you require one. The odds of both failing at the same time are astronomical. Which, as you can see, does not mean its impossible, just very rare. I suspect we'll never see an identical failure, its just too unusual. Oh we'll see other failures, just not exactly like this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are set, tested plans. They are a) let the blow-out-preventer do its job so that the whole event ends up at the bottom of page 19 and b) if the blow-out-preventer fails, drill a relief well. Well they did a) and it failed spectacularly, so now they're doing b) which takes 3 months. They are also doing a lot of crazy things from c) through z) which weren't ever planned, but that's better than everyone thinking they are doing nothing at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the point is that there should be a whole series of set and tested escalating responses *between* "bottom of page 19" and "finally cut off the flow after three months of spilling tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of gallons of oil per day into the gulf, doing untold damage to the ecosystem and peoples' livelihoods.".
Just off the top of my head, how about always drilling two wells in parallel; so that if one has the big whoopsie, the relief well is already there and ready go go?
Even the smallest IT
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just off the top of my head, how about always drilling two wells in parallel; so that if one has the big whoopsie, the relief well is already there and ready go go?
Maybe because that would double the likelihood you would get a blowout?
who understands the concept of planning for redundancy, failover, and recovery.
You are assuming a level of incompetency the flat out doesn't exist. Even with fail overs and redundancy there will be events that overwhelm the planning. Failovers fail. Backup power dies when you can't deliver diesel fuel to the generators because two airliners were crashed into nearby skyscrapers. (I had servers located at a datacenter in Manhattan on 9/11). Vent flares for Methyl isocyanate don't work because somebody shut them off and you get a Bhopal disaster.
All failovers and so on do is reduce the failure rate. They don't guarantee there won't ever be a failure.
There was redundancy in this system at multiple levels. For example the blowout protector had multiple triggering mechanisms, fail safes and cutoff valves. The cutoffs were triggered and went into action even after an explosion and fire that wrecked the platform they were connected to.
The problem is that they didn't cut off the flow. All they did is restrict it somewhat. BP's X-Rays showed that they cutoffs partially cut off the flow, but not completely. Nobody will know why they failed until the valve is taken to the surface and disassembled.
Re: (Score:2)
will they pay ? (Score:3, Interesting)
i just want to see how long, or _if_, it's gonna take for the authorities to stick a huge, multi-billion dolar fine on BP.
but it's not going to happen, right ?
the way these corporations learned to manipulate the legal system, the way they're in bed with politicians, is just sickening.
Re:will they pay ? (Score:5, Informative)
As they should....
Re: (Score:2)
They will and are already paying.
As they should....
Correction, "they" are not paying. They simply sell gas to us at a higher cost. "we" are paying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you figure? BP is going to sell their oil at a higher price than other oil companies (who's going to buy it from them)?
The whole "they will just pass the cost to the consumer" argument only works when every company in an industry is hit by something...
Re: (Score:2)
And therein lies the punishment. Just because they have to charge more, doesn't mean their competitors such as Citgo & ExxonMobil have to charge more, thereby putting BP at a global disadvantage.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
BP is a corporation. What's the point of suing them or making them pay? All that's going to happen is an increase in your petrol prices (orchestrated together by all oil companies). I think charging BP/subcontractors of criminal negligence is more likely to be a deterrent.
Re:will they pay ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Although this old pseudolibertarian meme seems to always come up, that's not actually how markets work. BP is a corporation with a variable rate of profit, in a competitive market in which they have almost no pricing power (oil prices are set in a global market whose price is controlled much more by OPEC than by western oil corporations). The most likely outcome is that BP's shareholders will be the ones to ultimately pay, through lower profits.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one would rather pay for my gas per volume at the pump, rather than in income taxes, budget deficits, and inflation. Just add up all the wars, toxic waste cleanups, corporate welfare, the whole fucking nine yards and bill it right there at the pump instead of on my tax return. While you're at it, throw in road maintenance.
Then let's see how we feel about conserving oil.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The funny part is watching people desperate to fine BP... Apparently, because they have the most money. Ambulance chaser culture at its finest.
No one mentions fining Haliburton the cement company, no one mentions fining the owners of the drilling platform, no one mentions fining the govt inspectors whom may have not done their job. No one mentions fining the families of the 11 dead men, whom might have been the cause. Just, suspiciously, fining the company that happens to be the richest. While carefully
Re:BP's money is the same color as everybody else' (Score:5, Insightful)
If you fine (or tax) a corporation, it just means the customers and stockholders get shafted. The corporation just passes the cost on.
Shafted? That's nonsense. There's no easy way to say this, so I'm going to just lay it out for you. If you buy stock in murder, you are a murderer. Those who held IBM stock during the holocaust have to take their share of the blame, because IBM built the concentration camp management systems. Those who work for BP must take their share of the blame; every employee of BP shares in the profits, therefore all of them must share the blame. Why should BP's stockholders be any different?
If it is a bad enough hit, or if they can't pass it on, they go bankrupt.
Good.
That'll really help the situation ... NOT.
Your snarky sarcasm doesn't change the truth; permitting the same cast of characters to do the same nefarious shit again and again is the alternative. We must invoke the corporate death penalty on those corporations which deserve it. The people the corporations are made up of have a choice — they elected to go to work for a planet-raping corporations too irresponsible to even clean up its own messes, and they deserve no quarter from any right-thinking person. Every shareholder is just as guilty as every BP executive, no more, and no less.
And if you think stockholders mean a bunch of greedy billionaires, think again. There are countless little guys with 401K and IRA funds in that stock.
Greed is greed regardless of scale, and investing in a corporation known to do truly disgusting levels of damage to the ecosystem is just another expression of greed. There's plenty of nature-friendly investments they could make. Might they make less money? Sure. If that means they have to settle for a truck camper instead of a diesel pusher RV for their retirement, so be it. But if your argument is that people in rich countries should face no penalty for investing in the destruction of our ecosystem, you're making a morally bankrupt argument. When you invest, you're putting your money to work, and you have a responsibility to make that investment... responsibly.
But yes, the corruptocracy which is a collusion between government, bureaucracy, and megacorporations is sickening.
Corporations and governments are made up of people. Without those people they don't exist. Shareholders are critical to a public company and without them the corporation loses its ability to do evil. Ditto for employees. Therefore, the shareholders and employees of BP are evil. There's no two ways about it. If you work for big oil, you're fucking scum, even if you're one of the people who is there to contain spills, or prevent accidents. I don't care if you have to feed your family. If the price of your family's continuance is oil spills which have severe repercussions for the continuance of the entire human race, then it is both illogical and immoral to keep them going. You do not have an inherent right to life; we all die. Why should oil companies be permitted, however, to hasten that for all?
Oil Spill?? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
... early this week to cap an uncontrolled underwater oil spill from a well in the Gulf of Mexico ...
Those of us familiar with English grammar might expect definite articles, in a sentence describing a well-reported current event. Or, maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it.
Re:Oil Spill?? (Score:5, Funny)
No, there isn't an oil spill in the Gulf. There is a slight water spill in the Gulf oil pit.
Re:Oil Spill?? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that's all just liberal propaganda to harm poor BP.
is it just me or... (Score:2)
@This great guy... are you serious? You don't know about the oil leak in the gulf o mexico? If they don'
Re: (Score:2)
does this seem really stupid?
Unfortunately, BP is doing something very intelligent . . . they are wiping their hands from the affair and trying to disassociate themselves from the whole disaster. "What?!?! Liability?!?! Not us!"
It reminds me of when in a soccer (football) match when a player commits a serious foul. What is the first thing he does? He puts his hands up in the air and shakes his head at the referee, with a look, like, "I ain't done nuthin'!"
Small children, and large corporations are excellent at this. They say "It
Re:is it just me or... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, BP is doing something very intelligent . . . they are wiping their hands from the affair and trying to disassociate themselves from the whole disaster. "What?!?! Liability?!?! Not us!"
Seriously? All I've heard from them, over and over, was they're not going to hide behind the legal liability limit. If you can provide any actual quotes that their position is now to do the exact opposite, that would be very insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
I also remember hearing that it was only 5000 barrels a day. Now that's the amount they're sucking up through one of the leaks.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are suggesting that someone with experience with this create a computer model so that various approaches can be tested out before doing something to the wellhead itself?
Sounds like a really good idea. There is one minor problem with that idea though. Nothing like this has ever happened. Nobody has any idea of what the real conditions are at the wellhead other than with a few measurements and visual observation. A model could be constructed based on what is known, but that would be a very incomple
Are there any submariners here? (Score:2)
The U.S. Navy used to have a research submarine that could go down to 2500 feet: NR-1 engineering and research submarine [wikipedia.org]. This sub was recently deactivated, presumably because they've got something better, probably classified.
What kind of resources does the USN have that they could use in this situation? It's certainly more than what BP can call into service...
Leave BP in charge of drilling the relief well. The Navy should direct efforts to stop the gusher, and bill BP for the services rendered. BP will nev
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
2500 feet is only halfway there.
The Navy has no experience in oil drilling.
A side note, the engineering officer on the boat I was on (USS Kamehameha SSBN 642) went to be the CO (IIRC) on the NR-1 back around 1992.
Didn't know they decommissioned her. Too bad. I don't think they have anything "better" now. That one was unique.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cool name for a ship with that kind of firepower. I have a mental image of the captain powering up for five episodes or so before he turns the 'nuke half the planet' key.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They need to work harder (Score:2)
BTW, the feed for those that like to see loads of oil pumping into the ocean. http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html [bp.com]
Why is this taking so long? (Score:3, Insightful)
No dice on the blow off valve? Next day try the cap, next day try the plug, then the current 'top kill' method; we'd be at the current progress within a week. At the moment it seems BP is making it up as they go along, that may be all they can do at the moment, but it is unacceptable that there was no preparation or protocol for a worse case scenario, which even this isn't. A tanker full of cement and rubber could have been there within a few hours, this is a disgrace.
It's going to be a long time before new drilling is permitted in the Gulf of Mexico, I hope that time is spent drafting up legislation that sets up some sort of oil spill crisis management that has direct authority to intervene immediately when something like this happens. This sort of task absolutely should not be in the hands of people who have such a blatant conflict of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
BP is taking "a more direct approach" of drilling relief wells, but that takes months to accomplish...
In the meantime, BP is trying all sorts of things, in hopes maybe one or more will work, but mainly to placate the public - most people, understandably, would be very upset, if BP looked to be doing nothing for the next few months while waiting on the relief wells to be drilled.
Ron
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to be a long time before new drilling is permitted in the Gulf of Mexico,
The moment gas goes up over $5/gallon in the US, the new drilling permits will start flowing like oil from a ruptured well. Americans have short memories and empty wallets, and nobody outside the gulf coast states will even remember this happened in two years.
Re:Why is this taking so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
No dice on the blow off valve? Next day try the cap, next day try the plug, then the current 'top kill' method; we'd be at the current progress within a week.
Even if the equipment to do all this is available on site ready to go you could not move that rapidly. For example with the "Top Kill" BP is having to carefully X-Ray the existing valve structure at a depth of 1 mile using robot subs to determine if the structure can withstand the pressure of pumping mud through the system. They have working on determining the risks of this process for at least two weeks. Just rushing ahead without careful consideration of the side effects could do a hell of a lot more harm than good.
The BP well is the deepest well to ever blow out. It is not surprising that there is difficulty getting it under control. In fact things are moving far more quickly than in the case of the IXTOC-1 blowout which was also in the Gulf but at a depth of only 165 ft. That took nearly 10 months to cap. Total oil released by IXTOC-1 was about 3,000,000 barrels.
Here's why the Top Kill may not work (Score:5, Informative)
Fix it, jail them, move on (Score:4, Insightful)
At this point, and I am talking out of my ass here, I think it's time public funds were applied to fix this, once and for all. Prosecute any and every executive related to this incident, jail them, seize ALL their assets to recover the public expenses, and call it a day.
They fucked up, they neglected to install proper failsafes, and completely failed to plan and execute a proper cleanup. When you screw up this badly, you don't deserve to ever play the business game again. Do not pass go, do not start a new oil scam, go directly to jail and then die.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporations are operated by people.
If I create software that (somehow) gets a person killed, through an error of my own doing and not the user's, am I not responsible for it ? Pretend EULA's don't apply, just for the sake of argument.
If a group of executives create a corporation, whose actions cause great harm and financial distress to millions of people (forget the wildlife for now), don't you think the people behind the corporation should be held responsible ? I think it's high time the concept of inco
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I create software that (somehow) gets a person killed, through an error of my own doing and not the user's, am I not responsible for it ? Pretend EULA's don't apply, just for the sake of argument.
Actually, no, you probably would not be. Put it like this: if engineers were to be held accountable for every mistake, nobody would be an engineer. Sure, if there were malicious intent on your part, you'd be in trouble, but if an engineer does make a mistake (we all do, nobody's perfect) and that mistake makes it out into the field, it's the organization, it's policies, and it's leadership that failed, and should be held responsible. The same thing applies to BP ... their technical people did their jobs, bu
Re: (Score:2)