BS: off shore oil rig spill and more

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 29 May 10 - 09:03 PM

explanation of BP executive reasoning

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 May 10 - 11:31 PM

Have to start watching those Post cartoons again.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 12:05 AM

Excerpts from Houston Post:

Truitt Crawford, a roustabout for Transocean, told Coast Guard officials in a written statement about pressure to shorten time- "I heard upper management talking, saying that BP was taking shortcuts by displacing the well with saltwater instead of mud without sealing the well with cement plugs." (the plugs would sit inside the bottom of a long section of pipe that was supposed to serve as the conduit for oil and gas to the surface when the well started producing).
"The final stretch of pipe that ran from the wellhead just under the seafloor all the way into the oil reservoir was cemented in place at the very bottom. The cement barrier, however, only went several hundred feet up and did not reach the next section of larger pipe above it. This meant that there was no secondary barrier between the reservoir and the wellhead, so if any gas leaked through the cement it would have an unobstructed path all the way to the surface."
"A secondary barrier isn't required in federal well design standards, ........but taking the time and spending the money to install one would have provided another level of safety."
"The final section of the production casing was supposed to be centered in the well bore- the area carved out of the earth by the drill bits- by special brackets known as centralizers, but it was discovered that 15 of the centralizers were not the ideal design for the job.
"Rather than wait fot the right type of centralizers, the decision was made to use just the six on hand that worked."
"BP also decided not to run a final, time-consuming test on the cement job- a cement bond log- in which a device is lowered into the well thaat uses sonic signals to determine how well the cement has adhered to the pipe."
Oil field services firm Slumberger was hired to provide a variety of services and had a crew on standby........ The team, however, was not called on for the bond log so they left the rig the morning of April 20, according to Slumberger."

"Steve Tink, BP's health and safety team leader for drilling and completion in the Gulf of Mexico, said the company's drive to control the massive cost of drilling a deepwater well is not in conflict with promoting safe operations." !!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 12:10 AM

Sorry, that was from the Houston Chronicle, May 29, 2010, Tom Fowler- "Did cutting time, money come at cost of safety?"
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7027665.html

The Houston Post is long dead- living in the past again-

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alice
Date: 30 May 10 - 02:32 AM

regarding nuclear energy, here is a document with data titled
Micropower Database: How Distributed Renewables and Cogeneration are Beating Nuclear Power Stations — Supporting Data, Methodology, and Graphs

http://rmi.org/rmi/Library/E05-04_MicropowerDatabase

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 30 May 10 - 12:46 PM

RATS!!!

1 hour, 32 minutes ago

By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A BP executive says a relief well is the "end point" of efforts to stop the Gulf oil spill — which suggests there's little chance of plugging the leak until the new well is completed in August.

BP managing director Bob Dudley tells ABC television's "This Week" that the current attempt to cap the leaking well would at best minimize the oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.

Dudley says the relief well expected to be ready at the end of August "is certainly the end point on this game."

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 01:06 PM

And we can only hope that the relief well is successful.

The blowout gusher in the well in the Bay of Campeche took two relief wells and nine months to stop the flow, as previously posted.

TV crews show cleanup on-going on beaches, but it is the marsh wetlands which are many times more important- they are the breeding grounds and food source for much of the bird and marine life on the coast. Almost impossible to do anything when this environment is poisoned.

I think BP knew the top kill wasn't working days before it was stopped. They probably knew when mud injection was stopped "for evaluation." It could have been re-started just to empty the vessels of the mud on hand but no longer needed.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 May 10 - 01:37 PM

I may be simplistic, but it seems to me that recovering a large part ofa relatively shallow plume of oil should be a relatively simple problem, comapared to what's going on a mile deep. Is anyone addressing that one?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 01:47 PM

As far as I know, only the BP collection near the well site of a small portion of the gusher.

It takes specialized equipment to collect the oil and water and expel it into a tanker.
Jan Hofmeister, ex-president of the American offices of Shell, suggested sending in tankers. But where do you get them? Most are foreign-owned, under long-term contract, and the owners may not want a 'dirty' product in their tankers.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 30 May 10 - 01:53 PM

And wait until the wee beasties that eat oil start to fart all over the Atlantic... global warming just got a hand up.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 30 May 10 - 02:06 PM

Best way to recover oil at sea, you need to contain and concentrate it. That is no easy task, with currents, amount of water, weather, and I suspect much of it is in a highly weathered and dispersed state. Even freshly spilled surface oils are hard to contain (boom), skim up and store in open sea....let alone this messy stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 03:25 PM

Very difficult to collect.

Even on the beaches, workers are getting sick. I would guess high sulfur-sulfide content in the oil.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 May 10 - 07:02 PM

There's a hole in the ocean, Obama, Obama,
There's a hole in the ocean, Obama, a hole.

Well, fix it, dear BP, dear BP, dear BP,
Well, fix it, dear BP, dear BP, fix it.

With what shall I fix it....

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 08:15 PM

Stuff Tony Hayward down it-

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 09:23 PM

I had no idea that there were so many wells in the Gulf drilled in deep water.
There are about 55 drilled in water depths of 5000 feet or more, the deepest in over 9000 feet of water, (Shell, Chevron), that have encountered hydrocarbons.
These lengths of drill pipe probably have the rigidity of string.

The companies all seem to be American or British based, except for ENI (Italy) and Petrobras (Brazil).

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 31 May 10 - 01:40 PM

BP is raising the question of the quality of the blowout preventer. It did not have the latest remote triggering device, but that was known from the time of the first reports.
As the driller, it seems to me that BP had to give approval for the configuration used.
I think BP is looking for others to share the expenses.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 31 May 10 - 03:02 PM

>>
There's a hole in the ocean, Obama, Obama,
There's a hole in the ocean, Obama, a hole.

Well, fix it, dear BP, dear BP, dear BP,
Well, fix it, dear BP, dear BP, fix it.

With what shall I fix it.... <<

with what shall I fix it, Obama, Obama
with what shall I fix it, Obama, with what

With your willy, dear BP, dear BP, dear BP,
with your willy, dear BP, dear BP, your willy

But my willy is......

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 09:49 AM

Hay!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 10:40 AM

Wouldn't it be wonderful if hay or straw (cheaper)were used successfully to clean it up? Of course, I suppose that absorbent pads are already being used- and maybe that would be even faster. And with the price of hay these days, cotton pads might be cheaper...

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 11:07 AM

A buddy of mine commented on where one would find that much hay.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 01:02 PM

A daughter of mine makes good money from her hay crop.
Hay and similar materials contribute much bulk; I can see no advantage over booms.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alan Day
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 02:13 PM

I wonder if a heavy duty balloon solution has been considered for this oil leak.(Not a joke) it could be inserted deep into the pipe and blown up from above. The pipe could then be filled with concrete to seal it off.
aL

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 02:28 PM

Alan... the only problem I see with a pig is that it would have to "grab" a greased smooth steel pipe. Slipperier than whale shit comes to mind (Robin Williams' joke).

Regarding my blind flange consideration... a flared plug would work much better. With a LONG flare.

In a way, it boils down to the force exerted by the oil. I was fascinated by the velocity of flow.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alan Day
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 03:40 PM

Gnu thanks for your reply to the idea. The balloon would be held in place by the tube being inserted and through which the air is blown.
Al

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 03:48 PM

Alan... depends on the pressure on the pig (balloon). If the pressure was too great, the force exerted on the pig would have to be stemmed by the tube.... might be like trying to push a party balloon with a pin???

Unless it was a big pin? Then, grout the void around the "pin"?

Still, it boils down to holding the pig in place which depends on the force of the oil. I still see the only way to do that is with a collar over the pipe to attached threaded rods or cables to PULL whatever into place.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Melissa
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 03:51 PM

Wouldn't it be easier to get the balloon loaded if it was pumped full of water instead of air?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Alan Day
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 04:00 PM

Sounds like you and I should supervise this disaster.
If the force of the oil coming out can be utilised to slam up the hole
then that could be another solution something similar to an umbrella perhaps ?
Al

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 06:02 PM

Fill the pipe with the collected works of Ayn Rand. Solves two problems at once.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 06:27 PM

Hahahaaa... oh MT... that was baaad!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 12:30 PM

And now the diamond saw is jammed in the partially-cut pipe. Let's face it....present technology can't deal with deep-sea spills. And clearly, it can't prevent them from happening.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 01:14 PM

Durex are going to make a massive condom to put over the end of the pipe!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 01:16 PM

If present technology can't deal with deep-sea spills, and can't prevent them, then the only possible conclusion is that we can't afford to drill in those depths. The moratorium should be made permanent.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 02:10 PM

Dick Greenhouse and mousethief, I agree. New technology is needed before deep water drilling is safe.

At those water depths, the drill pipe has all the strength of a piece of string.

As I noted previously, there are some 55 wells in 5000 feet or more of water (MMS figures).
BP used lighter weight pipe, then went ahead when the annulus in the blowout preventer was broken, failed to demand proper cementing procedure, etc.
The drilling at that depth is risky enough, but BP shortcuts were inviting trouble.

When Imperial (Exxon) drilled in the Beaufort Sea, they built ice islands on which to place the rig. I watched experiments carried out in a large test basin that they built at the research center in Calgary.
That was years ago; at the time drilling in deep water was just a theory. Moreover, in the Arctic, sea ice could shove the rig and shear the pipe.

Palin's call for a go-ahead in the waters off the north Alaska slope are a call for trouble unless proper research is carried out first.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 03:19 PM

Durex? Resevoir tip?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 03:36 PM

I keep on finding a tune wandering across my mind.

They tried top kill, but the oil it kept a-coming,
Right up from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.....

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 03:54 PM

Texaco could be worked in there. Tiger in yer Gulf? Shell out? I got the BPs? Lots of stuff for a song.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 06:20 PM

"New technology is needed before deep water drilling is safe." And how can one predict whether the new technology will be adequate?

A problem with any new technology is that you can't tell when it will fail until it does. THe question then, of course, is "is the gain worth the risk?"

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 10:20 PM

I think we can see the answer to that is an emphatic, "No."

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 10:32 PM

There's actually a Facebook group called "1,000,000 People Who Want to Plug the BP Oil Spill with Sarah Palin." I thought people should know. I don't think it would work, but it's a nice thought.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 10:39 PM

Thank the gods that Palin no longer has a voice in Alaska's direction. On the other hand, Alaska Rep. Don Young just doesn't believe the oil spill is that big a deal. Oh, we may lose a few birds but the ocean will heal itself...

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 12:13 AM

Drop him in a kayak in the middle of the spill.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 11:08 AM

A canoe would be better than a kayak, MT. Holds more. Briefly.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 11:16 AM

I was trying to be charitable. If he rolls it, in a kayak he can conceivably right himself and keep paddling. In fact I'd be hoping he'd roll it and get all that oil -- that nature is perfectly capable of dealing with -- all over himself. Okay maybe I'm not so charitable after all. How one can blithely dismiss the destroying of millions of acres of fragile ecosystem, and the livelihood and way of life of thousands of people, in the name of corporate profit, escapes me entirely. I guess if you're a marionette you dance on the strings your master tugs.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 11:21 AM

I think Johnson and Johnson may have a solution:

It`s worth a try . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 01:03 PM

lol, Peace. There's a phone number where you can propose your solution. :)

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 02:21 PM

Top hat failed.
The slice and cap did not work.

Next they will try a yamika.
which is also called the chosen one but if that fails too...

fortunetly I have invented the sea condom...

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:57 PM

A paper "Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products- an Overview," by Anita George-Ares and J. R. Clark, Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc., calls Corexit one of the most toxic dispersal agents ever developed.
www,iosc.org/papers/00020.pdf

Exxon Biomedical Services is a division of Exxon-Mobil devoted to safety in operations. George-Ares and Clark have authored a number of papers concerned with their research on product toxicity.


Several oil men call the Fallen Deepwater Horizon the second largest discovery ever made, covering some 25,000 sq. miles. It is also noted, in the very few tests so far, as being very high in gas content, leading to high pressure and danger of blowout.
I have not succeeded in finding a trustworthy article so the size may be questionable.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:01 PM

The paper by George-Ares and Clark specifically mentions Corexit 9500.
Errors above-
www.
Fallon, not Fallen.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:47 PM

Top hat failed.
The slice and cap did not work.

Next they will try a yamika.
which is also called the chosen one but if that fails too...

fortunetly I have invented the sea condom...

Well, they've circumcised it. It definitely needs the yarmulke and the tefillin now.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:21 PM

I have to 10 gallon aquauriums I have never used so I decided to fill each with 37.95 liters of tap water and added 35 grams of non iodized salt to each. I let both tanks vent cholorine for 6 hours and equalized the temperature for both at 77 degrees in my laundry room. Each tank had a 100 watt spot light two feet above the tank with thermometers in each tank. Beneath each tank was tan construction paper wchich showed through the bottom of the tank.

I added one teaspoon of 30 weight motor oil(4.92892159 milliliters) to one tank only and turned on both lights and took temperature readings of the water every hour. The thermometers were on the bottom of the tank and edgwise to the light.
The oiled tank had a sheen but did not take on a black appearence like some parts of the gulf shore.

After an hour the tank with oil was 1.5 degrees higher while the the clean tank had only raised half of one degree. I assume that the inhibition of cooling evaportaion was the main factor since the color of the oiled water was not a solid dark color.

After 2 hours the room had gone up to 78 and the oiled tank was 80 degrees and the clean tank was just under 79 degrees.

The next day I put 9 more teaspoons of motor oil in the oiled tank and compared heating. Room temp was 76. After 2 hours room temp was 77 and the oiled tank was just under 82 degrees compared to the clean tank at 78 degrees.

------------

While I can not reasonably extrapolate these rates of heating to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, it is safe to say that oiled water heats significantly from a hot light source more than clean water.

If I used dirty black oil I am certain that the oiled tank temperatures would be even higher.

Under hurricane conditions I wonder how much the effect of limiting cooling evaporation and adding significantly more heat to the water will have of the strength of a storm.

As water retains heat better than air or land, oil retains heat better than water. While I have no proof or certainty, this may not bode well for this hurricane season.