Drill, baby, drill - Page 17 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Drill, baby, drill

...

Page 17 of 43

First

7 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 27 37

Last

Page 17 of 43

First

7 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 27 37

Last

05-14-2010 , 08:52 PM

#401

Chips Ahoy

help me help you

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,869

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomdemaine

I don't know. You gotta nuke something.

05-14-2010 , 08:59 PM

#402

458 Lott

banned

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 622

The best part so far was when they showed up with their fresh painted four story outhouse. So you got the biggest spill in history, and you take time to paint the funnel you intend as a temporary use. LOL What a show. Didn't work, but hey, it looked good.

05-14-2010 , 09:26 PM

#403

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by 458 Lott

They don't have to nuke it. They could stop the well. They could run explosives into the casing and implode the hole. BP can say "they don't have the data" all day long from the last 7 hours. They have data, it's just data they don't want you to see. They weren't drilling, it was a completed hole, they were capping. Haliburton and many other outfits run explosives into wells on a daily basis doing what they call "shooting" the hole. It's a method of perforation using giant buckshot toward the end of a hole completion, to open up well walls to oil and gas pockets. It doesn't take a nuke to shut something like this down.

This whole thing is so bizarre. Who knows? It's like everything else these days, more excuses than answers. Amazing all the years they have been drilling in the gulf and in oceans around the world, and in 2010 with all the technology we have beyond all the holes punched in the past, all of a sudden BP has a well they claim they can't control and is whipping the @$$ of every engineer they have on the payroll, and they have no hard data as to what happened. Okay, I wonder how many days that well would still be wild if they were getting fined mega millions on a daily basis.

wat

if it's so easy, what are they waiting for?

05-14-2010 , 09:42 PM

#404

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by 458 Lott

Paint is often used for more than making things look pretty.

05-14-2010 , 10:40 PM

#405

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 17,330

Quote:

Originally Posted by 458 Lott

Lol at this. If was so trivial they would just do it. And they say they are spending 10 million a day, the total expenses are going to be hundreds of millions of dollars. Isn't that the "mega millions" you want to fine them? How much until they just get off the ass and do your wikisolution?

05-14-2010 , 11:40 PM

#406

Brian J

TOTP Master

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 10,650

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjoefish

Paint is often used for more than making things look pretty.

lol wut, no way!

05-14-2010 , 11:53 PM

#407

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian J

lol wut, no way!

Its like you didn't read the post I was responding to or something.

05-15-2010 , 12:25 AM

#408

savman

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,469

I am in awe of the massive amounts of fail itt.

05-15-2010 , 12:29 AM

#409

Infiltraitor

centurion

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 105

Lol at this thread....

Do any of you actually work in the industry? Do you understand what it takes to drill a well like that?

The reports that I am reading say that there was either a poor cementing job or plug. The gas pressure caused a casing collapse. One of the chunks of casing blocked the BOPs. BTW, this means that an acoustic switch would NOT have helped. That is why this has become such a problem. At first, BP was gonna manually shut the BOPs with a mechanical device (think Mars Rover) but attempts were unsuccessful.

What you don't seem to understand is drilling offshore wells, while complicated, is not uncommon. This is more of a freak accident than anything else. I would be very surprised if BP did anything wrong. Usually well designs and decisions for these types of wells are reviewed by multiple people.

05-15-2010 , 12:42 AM

#410

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infiltraitor

Rig Ignores Red Flags...

Quote:

Managers at oil giant BP PLC decided to forge ahead in finishing work on the doomed Deepwater Horizon rig despite some tests suggesting that highly combustible gas had seeped into the well, according to testimony released by congressional investigators and documents seen by The Wall Street Journal.

The move to start withdrawing heavy drilling fluid that prevents gas from escaping the well, despite some worrisome tests and before a final cement plug could be placed in the well, raises questions about the judgments made on the rig in the hours before an explosion erupted into the night air of April 20, killing 11 and eventually leaving oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico.

View Full Image

Associated Press
Oil leaks into the Gulf of Mexico from the damaged pipe of the Deepwater Horizon rig on the sea floor, shown in a photo taken from a video by BP on Tuesday.

Accounts from two contractors say drilling "mud" was withdrawn before placement of a final cement plug, which would have been one more safeguard against natural gas surging from the well. Once mud came out, the last safeguard, a giant set of valves called a blowout preventer, didn't do its job, possibly because of a defect such as leaking hydraulics or because it was jammed by debris from the well, documents produced by congressional investigators show. The rig was soon engulfed in flames.

A senior BP executive and the chief executive of rig owner Transocean Ltd. told lawmakers Wednesday that discrepancies in key pressure tests on the afternoon of the explosion should have raised alarms.

They should "lead to a conclusion that there was something happening in the well bore that shouldn't be happening," Transocean CEO Steven Newman told the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

....

05-15-2010 , 10:04 AM

#411

Skeletori

centurion

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 118

So the newest estimate is 70k barrels a day, giving a total of 70 million gallons so far. The Exxon-Valdez spill was 11 million gallons...

05-15-2010 , 01:18 PM

#412

JiggsCasey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 7,274

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeletori

So the newest estimate is 70k barrels a day, giving a total of 70 million gallons so far. The Exxon-Valdez spill was 11 million gallons...

The resevoir will be depleted before they ever "cap" it. It's over... And with it, most fishing in the Gulf. ...

It rains in Florida every day between 3 and 5 or so, mostly from Gulf waters. Should be fun this summer.

Hooray for desperate, unprecedented new drilling techniques!!! .... Wonder what the EROEI is on deep water drilling now for negligible amounts of crude.

"Drill baby drill"

05-15-2010 , 01:52 PM

#413

ianlippert

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 4,960

how much longer till it runs out? what the total amount of oil estimated to be down there?

05-15-2010 , 05:29 PM

#414

savman

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,469

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiggsCasey

No.

05-15-2010 , 06:47 PM

#415

458 Lott

banned

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 622

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

10 million a day? LOL You do realize that them saving that well could be worth as much as $8 billion to them right? It really looks to me, and to a lot of others, that BP is more concerned with containment and saving the well than trying to stop the flow permanently. Many articles on the net saying the same thing, here is one. Google for more.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Do-...00512-728.html

No, $10 mil a day isn't mega millions, when the amount of destruction being caused to the Gulf is beyond any dollar amount you could imagine. I live on the Gulf Coast, I know how fragile the marine environment is here. I could care less what it costs BP at this point, they can spend until they go bankrupt as far as I'm concerned.

The Ixtoc well that blew out in Mexico in 1979 spewed oil for 9 months until they drilled two relief wells. 30 years ago, and they say you can still find oil in the sand along the mexican beaches. The BP well is losing more oil per day than that well in Mexico did. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) is expressing concerns that the well is going to start losing more and more oil into the gulf over time, due to erosion.

BTW, no one said it was trivial, but I am saying that BP is more concerned with saving their well than saving the marine and coastal environment.

Last edited by 458 Lott; 05-15-2010 at 06:58 PM.

05-15-2010 , 07:10 PM

#416

458 Lott

banned

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 622

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjoefish

Paint is often used for more than making things look pretty.

So what was it painted for? To prevent rust? LOL It was on it's way down 5,000 feet. At those depths metal tends to rust a lot slower than in shallow sea water. That box could probably sit down there and be just fine for a decade or so without paint. Of course, you knew that, right? And you are aware that subsea leak boxes that are applied to leaking pipelines aren't ever painted?

05-15-2010 , 07:34 PM

#417

458 Lott

banned

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 622

BP's track record here on the Gulf Coast wasn't that great anyway. Maybe some of you never heard of their refinery explosion we had here in the Houston/Galveston area a few years back. 15 killed and 170 injured. This happened in 2005, as of Oct. 2009 BP still hadn't corrected safety concerns issued by OSHA and they were slapped a $87 million dollar fine. BP said they would challenge it. BP, killing folks and the environment one barrel at a time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Refinery_(BP)

05-15-2010 , 10:07 PM

#418

ErikTheDread

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,124

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiggsCasey

It rains in Florida every day between 3 and 5 or so, mostly from Gulf waters. Should be fun this summer.

Are you implying that it's going to start raining petroleum??????

05-15-2010 , 10:48 PM

#419

ZeroPointMachine

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,816

Quote:

Originally Posted by 458 Lott

+1

Solving the problem of oil coming through a relatively small pipe through 2-3 miles of rock is not a real engineering challenge. BP knows that if they seal it off they will likely never get through the political firestorm of attempting to drill a new well. However, if they can "contain" the leak and temporarily siphon off the oil, then they can do whatever they deem necessary as a permanent solution going forward.

05-16-2010 , 12:04 AM

#420

obsidian

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,957

Quote:

Originally Posted by 458 Lott

The cost of cleanup is going to be huge. Likely hundreds of millions if not billions. I highly doubt it's less than drilling a new well. In fact, one of the solutions they have been attempting is to drill release wells. But then again, some guy wrote an oped on a website I've never heard of, so maybe he's right.

05-16-2010 , 12:15 AM

#421

JiggsCasey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 7,274

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErikTheDread

Are you implying that it's going to start raining petroleum??????

Well no. ... But that is the most humid part of the country, and I would imagine there will be at least some meteorological affects if just across short distances. Then there's the stink.

05-16-2010 , 12:34 AM

#422

458 Lott

banned

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 622

Quote:

Originally Posted by obsidian

And you actually believe that BP is going to pay for the total cost of all the cleanup? LOL Okay. Let's meet back here in a couple months and see if you are right. The U.S. Govt. isn't so sure that's the case. That's why they are now asking BP for a formal statement as to their intentions. Maybe at some point BP will fall back on the $75 mil liability cap and throw their hands up and walk away. By current law, since the cap has been reached, they could at any time.
Story from ABC as of today.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...ility-cap.html

05-16-2010 , 12:54 AM

#423

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Maybe I'm understanding it wrong but the way I'm reading is that the cap is for liability related to the spill. For instance, shrimpers and hoteliers claiming lost revenue. There is no cap for the clean up costs.

From this article:

Quote:

A 1990 law passed in the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill in Alaska makes responsible parties liable for cleanup costs from oil spills but limits to $75m their exposure to other kinds of claims

As of a few days ago BP has said its spent 450M$ so far.

05-16-2010 , 01:13 AM

#424

458 Lott

banned

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 622

Quote:

Administration officials also want the company involved, not U.S. taxpayers, to fund the cost of the cleanup.
In an interview published in a British newspaper on Friday, BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward appeared to play down the spill.
"The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant that we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total volume of water," Hayward was quoted as saying in Britain's Guardian newspaper.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_oil_rig_leak_obama

LOL Yes, this sounds like a guy you can trust. That $450 mil hasn't been spent on cleanup. Most of it spent on trying to save their well