So, is this unrefined crude worth anything? Because I was thinking, people around here pick up cans by the side of the road. They'll ****in' spend all day picking up a truckload of cans, and take them to the recycling center and basically pay for their gas plus a twelve pack.

So if this salvaged crude has enough value, we give these people buckets and barrels and siphons and tell them they can sell it for 75 cents per gallon or whatever.

Problem is, if this was ever workable, the dispersant probably killed my plan.

I'm taking buy-in's for my new venture. I'm selling t-shirts on the coast with a little smudge of oil on them so people can collect the first 5K damages from BP. The oil actually comes from East Texas, but who's to know? Entrepreneurs may be able to swing a clean up check too...

Who wants some?

in previous spills an enormous amount of the oil just evaporates (breaks down) naturally

A lot doesn't, too.

This sure has turned out to be one expensive valve they chose to not install.

Transocean Deepwater Horizon Senate Testimony [Full Text]

Operator hires various contractors to perform specific functions in the construction of the well.
In addition, the Operator brings in various sub-contractors to perform specific roles. For example:

The Operator selects a driller (in this case, Transocean), which provides a vessel (called a "rig") from which drilling operations are performed. As the name suggests, the driller is also responsible for rotating the long string of drill pipe with a drill bit on the end that drills a hole deeper and deeper into the ocean floor. The Operator's well plan dictates the manner in which the drilling is to occur, including the location, the path, the depth, the process and the testing. The drill bits, which are selected by the Operator, are supplied by another sub-contractor.

A key element of the drilling process is drilling mud, a heavy fluid manufactured to the Operator's specifications. That mud is pumped into the well hole and circulated in order to hold back the pressure of the reservoir and prevent oil, gas or water in that reservoir from moving to the surface through the well. The mud is monitored by another sub-contractor (the mud engineer) (in this instance, M-I Swaco) to detect any problems.

As the drilling progresses, huge pipes are inserted into the well to maintain the integrity of the hole that has been drilled and to serve as the primary barrier against fluids entering the well. This job is coordinated by the casing sub-contractor selected by the Operator (in this case, Weatherford). In its well plan, the Operator specifies the diameter and strength of each casing segment, purchases the casing, and dictates how it will be cemented in place. Well casing is inserted in a telescope-like manner, with each successive section inside the previous one. Each casing segment also includes a seal assembly to ensure pressure containment.

After drilling is concluded, yet another area of expertise comes into play. The cementing sub-contractor is responsible for encasing the well in cement, for putting a temporary cement plug in the top of the well, and for ensuring the integrity of the cement. The purpose of this work is to seal the well to make sure that the contents of the reservoir (i.e., oil and natural gas) are not driven by the reservoir pressure into the well. (Once drilling is complete and the well is cased and cemented, it is no longer necessary to circulate drilling mud through the well; at that point, the casing and cement serve to control the formation pressure.) The cementing process is dictated by the Operator's well plan, and the testing of the cement on the Deepwater Horizon was performed by the cement contractor (Haliburton in this instance) as specified and directed by BP.

.....


Against that background, let me turn to the April 20 Deepwater Horizon explosion and its possible causes. What is most unusual about the explosion in this case is that it occurred after the well construction process was essentially finished. Drilling had been completed on April 17, and the well had been sealed with cement (to be reopened by the Operator at a later date if the Operator chose to put the well into production). At this point, drilling mud was no longer being used as a means of reservoir pressure containment; the cement and the casing were the barriers controlling pressure from the reservoir. Indeed, at the time of the explosion, the rig crew, at the direction of the Operator, was in the process of displacing drilling mud and replacing it with sea water.

For that reason, the one thing we know with certainty is that on the evening of April 20, there was a sudden, catastrophic failure of the cement, the casing, or both. Therein lies the root cause of this occurrence; without a disastrous failure of one of those elements, the explosion could not have occurred. It is also clear that the drill crew had very little (if any) time to react. The explosions were almost instantaneous.

What caused that catastrophic, sudden and violent failure? Was the well properly designed? Was the well properly cemented? Were there problems with the well casing? Were all appropriate tests run on the cement and casings? These are some of the critical questions that need to be answered in the coming weeks and months.


Over the past several days, some have suggested that the blowout preventers (or BOPs) used on this project were the cause of the accident. That simply makes no sense. A BOP is a large piece of equipment positioned on top of a wellhead to provide pressure control. As explained in more detail in the attachment to my testimony, BOPs are designed to quickly shut off the flow of oil or natural gas by squeezing, crushing or shearing the pipe in the event of a "kick" or "blowout" - a sudden, unexpected release of pressure from within the well that can occur during drilling.

The attention now being given to the BOPs in this case is somewhat ironic because at the time of the explosion, the drilling process was complete. The well had been sealed with casing and cement, and within a few days, the BOPs would have been removed. At this point, the well barriers - the cementing and the casing - were responsible for controlling any pressure from the reservoir.



This account seems to be basically honest. I wonder too if the pressure from the well is something that had not been encountered/thought possible before. At any rate before drawing conclusions that BP is the lone culprit (I realize that they're the prime contractor) we should see what the investigation into this disaster yields ie keep an open mind about the possible causes, scerario that led to the explosion.

To the question "What would be the narrative lefty/environmentalists would be taking if the same exact situation happened under Bush's watch"

I can't tell you what a few hundred million or so left/environmentalists, most of which I'm smarter than, some of which are smarter than me would place blame.

I'd wager we'd (the collective whole) be talking a lot more of the MMS and Bush's / Bush's administration role in said agency. In due time the mess of MMS + Bush's incestuous gov't/big business relationship will bubble to the surface, so hold your horses.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/i...iew/full/91000

are those things written accurate?


in before Palin blames environmentalists again.

The problem for Obama is going to be that the incestuous nature almost surely never abated during his administration.

Surprisingly, perhaps, I'm going to come to Obama's defense here. From all I've read Obama was aware of the problems with MMS and his administration, led by Salazar, was seeking to overhaul the agency. Obama stated in a press conference IIRC more or less that in 20-20 hindsight Salazar might wish now that he'd have placed a higher priority on accelerating the pace of the overhaul. Again I'd reiterate that an overhaul of MMS doesn't mean the disaster is prevented. FWIW since Dubya is an advocate of expanded domestic drilling he should be more susceptible to criticism for the negative consequences.

there is a difference between being for more domestic drilling and being for more drilling in 5,000 feet of water

Are we going to go back into how it's either drill on land or drill in 5000' of water with no in between or doing both because it's profitable again?

a difference apparently only contrasted in the minds of "drill baby drill" enthusiasts since April 20.

Yes I agree. Until we actually can pinpoint the cause of this though it's hard to say how much drilling at 5000 ft below sea level had to do with it. The PEMEX spill took 9 months to cap and it was only 150 ft below the surface. My understanding is that spills from tankers amount to more oil spilled from drilling by a lot. Lots of natural oil seepage from ocean floor in the gulf too.

I suspect that after this disaster drilling in 5000' will become far less profitable.

i am guessing that it near ceases to exist, at least around the us

Just heard there is a 2nd oil leak near to the first one. I suppose 1 more to go for most bad things happen in 3's

lulz

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/06/08....signs/?hpt=T1

it's the damn environmentalists!!

^^^good article but i'm not sure what it has to do with my quote or yours aggo

i've mentioned before but these sorts of articles can be written on just about any construction and engineering related job unfortunately so it remains to be seen how screwed bp is. the boss man always wants it to go as fast as possible

hmm...

Miles of Oil Containment Boom Sit in Warehouse, Waiting for BP or U.S. to Use

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/miles-o...or-u-s-to-use/

Probably not the Gulf's saving grace:

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-sp...mited_way.html

http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/a...-2010_8-59-am/

The article you posted sounds like some potentially well-meaning dude ramped up production on booms that are of questionable effectiveness and has reached out to the media to build pressure to force BP/the federal government to buy his potentially useless product.

Not many people truly get the long term implications of any ban whether its 1 month or 6 month. The operators and owners of the rigs will go to Brazil, Africa, India, and soon to be China... It's all about $$$, right or wrong, this is the world we live in.

I find this disappointing that the justification for the ban may have been an unintended/purposeful twisting of the words of experts/scientists brought together to help try and make sense of this mess and the best way to ensure safe operations of oil and gas explorations.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-sp...ify_their.html


This "study" on the ramifications of a Port Fouchon Shutdown is a good read, I admit not entirely applicable but the national and regional impact is important to understand and better appreciate why people are worried about a temp ban.
http://www.portfourchon.com/site100-...pact_study.pdf

Rigs move around the world all the time. Thats what exploratory means. The production fields won't be closed, and all those jobs the tinfoiler are screaming about won't be going anywhere, unless a hurricane hits.