News Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

[mheslep]

No this does not help the nuclear argument at all. We are supposed to trust that nuclear power can be made safe when we can't even make a safe pipe?

Nuclear power is not relevant to replacing the oil supply (yet). Neither is the safety of oil drilling particularly relevant to nuclear safety. For instance, light water PWR nuclear plants don't catch fire, burn for days and kill 11 guys.

 

[mheslep]

Valves can be made to fail in a closed position. They remain open only as long as they are being powered. These are very common in industrial process-control systems.

Sure, but a fail safe valve is not the same as remote shut off valve.

 

[turbo]

Sure, but a fail safe valve is not the same as remote shut off valve.

The point is, if you no longer have the ability to control the valve, it should fail in the closed position. That solves the problem of "how do we control it"? Valves such as that are standard equipment in dangerous systems, such as high-pressure boilers.

 

[pallidin]

I can only assume that there must be something wrong with the fail-safe shut-off valve mechanism. Possibly due to the explosion itself.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, but a fail safe valve is not the same as remote shut off valve.

Not "fail safe", "fail closed". Virtually every electronically controlled valve has the option for a failure position where loss of power/signal causes the valve to go to a default position by spring or pneumatic action. The valve requires a continuous signal to stay open - the "signal" to close the valve is to shut off the signal, so whether it's done by flipping a switch or blowing up and sinking the rig, the result is the same.

In HVAC, this is an important consideration and valves for roof mounted equipment are often "fail open" to reduce the possibility that water in the coils might freeze in the event of control failure.

 

[Shalashaska]

While that may (or may not) be true, I'm not sure how that is relevant to the incident at hand. Is the decline in the gulfs shape specifically due to off shore platforms?

I guess you didn't read my posts much at all. I don't believe offshore oil has had any real effect on the gulf thus far, but that it is vulnerable now in ways that it has not been in the past. See Evo's excellent points about overfishing, the effect of runoff from farming (see hypoxic zones and algael blooms) and more.

Again, I don't know of what death and suffering of living things you are referring to. Yeah, some things will die from this accident - that's life. It's not like it was done on purpose. I have no idea what 'deaths that will occur' is supposed to mean.

You don't know what the effect of a large oil slick is on marine life and birds? I don't believe that for a moment, and the issue of this being an accident is as much a comfort to the families of the dead rig workers as it is to animals that will die as a result. This is hardly an unpredictable event Cyrus, which is precisely why they have safety measures in place to prevent them. Their failure would seem to indicate that this may have been purely accidental, or it could be negligence. Either way, unless you know things that the USCG and USN don't, it's a long way from being determined. Have you seen me post that this is some maniac plot?

This is not a strong argument for nuclear energy.

It's one of many strong arguments for alternative sources of energy, and nuclear is at the front of that list. I don't know what else to say; you haven't offered anything substantial beyond flat denials, so I can only respond to what you've said, which is minimal.

Ivan, Kennedy has filed a class-action, but I can't find a reference related to W. lowering those restrictions, not that it would surprise me for a second. I would point out that sinking a pipe 5000 feet below the ocean and drilling into an uncertain pressure vessel is actually pretty challenging. Compare that to something like a pebble-bed reactor, and I have more faith in the safety of that. I'm not a nuclear engineer however, although I gather that some people here are. I'm guessing they could explain the nature of fail-safes and SCRAM systems better than I can. You can stop a reaction cold in a number of ways, from re-arranging the fuel, inserting control rods, or in extremes injecting neutron poisons into the reaction chamber. Frankly, that's easier and more reliable than a 5000 foot pope poking at the ocean floor.

mheslep: The point is that a light water reactor also doesn't contaminate such a volume of water. Nuclear energy is also EXTREMELY tightly regulated for a number of reasons, compared to the oil industry which has failed numerous times compared to nuclear power. I would far rather see biodiesel from algae, and I realize that coal is analogues to nuclear power, whereas oil is analogues to ethanol or biofuels. That said, many homes burn oil, and nuclear plants could alleviate some of that stress.

Pallidin: Maybe the valve was faulty, or maybe it's related to gasses that blew it out. I've seen a lot of talk of possible negligence in the news, but really I think it's early to conclude anything. That said, the whole point of a fail-SAFE mechanism is as turbo-1 said: that it's default position is safe. Clearly due to design, or negligence, or radical circumstances, it was not up to the task.

addition... Russ beat me to the point of fail-safe devices. darn.

 

[Cyrus]

I guess you didn't read my posts much at all. I don't believe offshore oil has had any real effect on the gulf thus far, but that it is vulnerable now in ways that it has not been in the past. See Evo's excellent points about overfishing, the effect of runoff from farming (see hypoxic zones and algael blooms) and more.

While that is a fair enough statement, I'd need some sort of verification to the statement: "it is more vulnerable now in ways it has not been in the past," as it is not immediately clear to me if this is indeed the case or not.

You don't know what the effect of a large oil slick is on marine life and birds? I don't believe that for a moment, and the issue of this being an accident is as much a comfort to the families of the dead rig workers as it is to animals that will die as a result.

Again, wait until the damage is done before making premonitions.

This is hardly an unpredictable event Cyrus, which is precisely why they have safety measures in place to prevent them. Their failure would seem to indicate that this may have been purely accidental, or it could be negligence. Either way, unless you know things that the USCG and USN don't, it's a long way from being determined. Have you seen me post that this is some maniac plot?

That's exactly right, we don't know all the facts - which is why I have asked people to hold off and wait until the situation is assessed to the damages (or lack thereof). As for the predictability argument, I don't buy it. Again, show me statistically how common this type of problem is, and then we can make statements about the "predictability" of it occurring.

It's one of many strong arguments for alternative sources of energy, and nuclear is at the front of that list. I don't know what else to say; you haven't offered anything substantial beyond flat denials, so I can only respond to what you've said, which is minimal.

No, I simply said - you have not made a case for nuclear power. Period. Nuclear power has its own waste issues. Simply waiving your wand and saying "see, this is why we need nuclear" leaves much to be desired.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

By my count, it has been eight days since the rig sank. At 200k gallons per day, we expect 1.6 million gallons of light sweet crude have been released so far. The Exxon Valdez spilled about 10.8 million gallons [according to wiki]. At least this isn't heavy sour crude, as with the Exxon Valdez. That helps. But if this continues for months, and it may according to the experts, it could easily exceed the size of the Exxon disaster: 90 days would put us at 18 million gallons. So the current thinking is that this could get ten times worse before we even start to recover.

 

[pallidin]

Why is there not an emergency Federal response?

That is, the military going-in and shutting those leaks down.
Submarines, special-ops SEAL teams, whatever...

Or are we going to have "engineer's" around a table discussing this for 2-weeks before any actual ACTION??

 

[Shalashaska]

While that is a fair enough statement, I'd need some sort of verification to the statement: "it is more vulnerable now in ways it has not been in the past," as it is not immediately clear to me if this is indeed the case or not.

Fair enough; the link I provided Evo as well as NOAA, USN data are very reliable compared to independent research in this field which is often skewed to the environmentalist view, or an industry view.

Again, wait until the damage is done before making premonitions.

I can't imagine a scenario in which strong inland waves and winds blowing 200,000 gallons of oil per day towards the coastlines anything but damaging. As Evo said, first you get big tar-balls from the oil that has had a chance to congeal in the water and evaporate some volatiles. Then you get thicker soupier slugs, and then slick. It's not as bad as 87 million gallons just dumped on the surface (a la Exxon-Valdez), but it's still going to have a serious effect.

Examples off the top of my head:

1: All filter feeders, such as bivalves are going to be effected. Eat an oyster from the gulf after they spend some time sucking crude, and you can taste it. Now, filter feeders tend to be build to handle crap, but the fish, crustaceons, cephalopds, et al do not.

2: Sea birds. This has been, sadly, very well studied.

3: Whales

This wouldn't be so terrible if they could perform more controlled burns, but there's too much chop and wind! I'm not saying this is the end of world, but while the magnitude is unusual, the event itself is not.

That's exactly right, we don't know all the facts - which is why I have asked people to hold off and wait until the situation is assessed to the damages (or lack thereof). As for the predictability argument, I don't buy it. Again, show me statistically how common this type of problem is, and then we can make statements about the "predictability" of it occurring.

It's predictable, not the failure, but the need for the valve to prevent this kind of disaster. Whatever happened to actually blow the rig sky-high, that valve should still have failed SHUT. That's not to say that someone with a black hat stood there twirling their mustache; I doubt that rig workers or owners wanted to lose that investment, and lives, not to mention all of this oil. I'm not placing blame, but drilling into unpredictable pressure vessels is inherently risky, and disaster is predictable. Planes will crash, boats will capsize, and pipes will fail. You're being very sensitive to this issue, maybe you work in oil, either way I understand. Please know that I'm not placing blame anywhere, but that doesn't mean that such risks cannot be predicted. These companies don't spend half a million USD on a safety valve for fun, they do it because accidents and disasters occur.

You can ask people not to speculate, but that's never going to happen. The best I think we can hope for is that this isn't used an excuse to slam oil in general, but that it DOES highlight inherent risks beyond the pollutant issue.

No, I simply said - you have not made a case for nuclear power. Period. Nuclear power has its own waste issues. Simply waiving your wand and saying "see, this is why we need nuclear" leaves much to be desired.[/QUOTE]

The problem with nuclear waste is political, not practical. The technology exists to create a central dump for it, with dedicated rail if we made the choice. It's a NIMBY issue, like wind-farms, only radioactive. Yucca Mountain was just foolish given the location, but that doesn't mean the basic idea isn't sound. At some point we have to tackle that issue... why not now?

 

[Shalashaska]

Why is there not an emergency Federal response?

That is, the military going-in and shutting those leaks down.
Submarines, special-ops SEAL teams, whatever...

Or are we going to have "engineer's" around a table discussing this for 2-weeks before any actual ACTION??

Both. Normally concrete would be poured, but in this case any SEALS we send in would end like a frat-boy's beer can (crushed). ROV's and subs are the only real option, and dropping a very large concrete dome or slab(s).

As for why the response is relatively slow, I don't know if it is, or isn't. I'm a bit confused myself on that front, but it's the Federal government: Official Motto: "It isn't a problem if we haven't thought of it!"

Ivan Seeking: That, is genuinely depressing. Hopefully the response to this will be in keeping with the magnitude of what COULD happen. I don't want to upset Cyrus, but working with a high pressure leak under 5000 feet of water is going to be hellishly difficult, especially given they've already identified 3 sources of leaks. Unlike the Valdez, this slick is also really tough to see until it coalesces on the surface, which may also help to answer why the response was slow: this wasn't expected.

I am not very hopeful here, given the engineering challenges that are easy to see, and all of those which may not be.

 

[mheslep]

The problem with nuclear waste is political, not practical. The technology exists to create a central dump for it, with dedicated rail if we made the choice. It's a NIMBY issue, like wind-farms, only radioactive. Yucca Mountain was just foolish given the location, but that doesn't mean the basic idea isn't sound. At some point we have to tackle that issue... why not now?

Fine, but nuclear power doesn't have any relevance to this oil thread, at least not today. Oil runs the transportation sector - planes, trains, and automobiles - and for the moment there's no alternative.

 

[pallidin]

Indeed, nuclear issues have nothing to do with this, specifically.
Back to the issue at hand...

 

[mgb_phys]

How does one remotely operate a shut off valve a mile down?

Generally underwater you use acoustics - sound goes a long way underwater.
The wellheads and ROVs are positioned relative to a network of fixed acoustic beacons on the seabed that give you underwater GPS like positioning, you can also send back (low bandwidth) serial data from the well head by acoustic signals in the water.

You even send control signals down to the directional drilling head and get data back by tapping an acoustic signal in the wall of the drill string, or even as pressure pulses in the circulating drill mud.

Blue-green lasers also work and a lot of more modern system, including some ROVs use ethernet over laser.

 

[Shalashaska]

Generally underwater you use acoustics - sound goes a long way underwater.
The wellheads and ROVs are positioned relative to a network of fixed acoustic beacons on the seabed that give you underwater GPS like positioning, you can also send back (low bandwidth) serial data from the well head by acoustic signals in the water.

You even send control signals down to the directional drilling head and get data back by tapping an acoustic signal in the wall of the drill string, or even as pressure pulses in the circulating drill mud.

Blue-green lasers also work and a lot of more modern system, including some ROVs use ethernet over laser.

Could the explosion have disrupted any signals sent, either by drowning out an acoustic signal or detritus blocking or diffracting the laser? The Ethernet cable would probably just snap in any situation this catastrophic.

To all: I get the hint regarding nuclear energy, I'll leave it be.

 

[mgb_phys]

Could the explosion have disrupted any signals sent,

No, an air explosion doesn't couple much power into water.
But that doesn't matter - the point of a comms link is that you can command a well head valve either on the sea bed or 1000ft down the well to close days later after the rig has gone by a signal sent from a support ship.

detritus blocking or diffracting the laser? The Ethernet cable would probably just snap in any situation this catastrophic.

The lasers tend to be point-point free space links when you need to send lots of data, like a video link or a seabed sonar array.
You generally avoid cables, they are insanely expensive in this sort of environment and easily damaged.
A simple 12way connector for an ROV bonded onto a cable costs us >$2000.

 

[Shalashaska]

No, an air explosion doesn't couple much power into water.
But that doesn't matter - the point of a comms link is that you can command a well head valve either on the sea bed or 1000ft down the well to close days later after the rig has gone by a signal sent from a support ship.


The lasers tend to be point-point free space links when you need to send lots of data, like a video link or a seabed sonar array.
You generally avoid cables, they are insanely expensive in this sort of environment and easily damaged.
A simple 12way connector for an ROV bonded onto a cable costs us >$2000.

Huh... so this pretty much had to be a mechanical failure of the valve's safety mechanism, due to the violence of the event, or an issue with the valve itself?

 

[mgb_phys]

Huh... so this pretty much had to be a mechanical failure of the valve's safety mechanism, due to the violence of the event, or an issue with the valve itself?

No - this rig didn't have such a safety valve because that would be a socialist/commie/Scandinavian style interference with efficient operation of the free market.

If a safety feature costs $1M and it has a 1:10000 chance of preventing an accident that costs $10Bn you don't fit it. Actually if there is a 1:100 chance of such an accident but you reckon your lawyers can get you out of it for $100M you don't fit it.

 

[Shalashaska]

No - this rig didn't have such a safety valve because that would be a socialist/commie/Scandinavian style interference with efficient operation of the free market.

If a safety feature costs $1M and it has a 1:10000 chance of preventing an accident that costs $10Bn you don't fit it. Actually if there is a 1:100 chance of such an accident but you reckon your lawyers can get you out of it for $100M you don't fit it.

Well... that's deeply upsetting, but not surprising in the end.

 

[Cyrus]

Well... that's deeply upsetting, but not surprising in the end.

Why is it deeply upsetting?

 

[turbo]

Bottom-anchored devices should be fitted with valves that are open only when powered. If connection is lost, power is lost, etc, those valves should fail shut. Shut! Like a feedwater valve on a boiler that is experiencing a catastrophic failure. The valves of the rapid-blowdown systems should fail open in the failure of a boiler system. Only the electronic/pneumatic control systems keep them open or closed until the control systems fail. If the valves don't fail to proper protective states, then the system has been improperly designed, and improperly regulated.

It is high time that basic process-control standards be applied to oil exploration systems that can ruin our basic industries.

 

[Cyrus]

It is high time that basic process-control standards be applied to oil exploration systems that can ruin our basic industries.

Do you know that no such controls are currently being used in oil exploration systems?

 

[Shalashaska]

Why is it deeply upsetting?

Why is it upsetting that a financial calculus replaces actual responsibility? See current disaster.

P.S. Really, this is starting to look more and more like negligence on Trans Ocean and BP's part. I don't know if you have some personal connection to this industry, but your reactions are no longer making sense in this context. By the way, the first sea-birds are starting to be poisoned, and we have 6000 national guard deployed.

Mgb Physics, they're going to pay through the nose for this, so not only was that choice irresponsible, but it's going to cost them a fortune for the many MANY lawsuits.

 

[turbo]

Do you know that no such controls are currently being used in oil exploration systems?

Well, apparently no such basic standards have been applied to exploration rigs, since the experimental bores could not/did not default to a safe condition, in which the valves failed to "closed".

 

[Cyrus]

Why is it upsetting that a financial calculus replaces actual responsibility? See current disaster.

If that's the case, you need to re-evaluate your position on this moral objection. It happens all the time in real world engineering. What you need to remember is that it may only cost $1M for a better valve, but that valve is just one of thousands upon thousands of components in a system that could "just" be upgraded "in case." And then you end up with a billion dollar oil rig that no one can afford to use.

TWA 800 crashed because of faulty wiring that caused a fuel tank explosion. The FAA deemed it too expensive and improbable that such an accident would happen again in the future to require all aircraft wiring to be replaced. The point being - it happens all the time.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, apparently no such basic standards have been applied to exploration rigs, since the experimental bores could not/did not default to a safe condition, in which the valves failed to "closed".

That does not mean there are no process-control standards on oil rigs.

 

[Shalashaska]

If that's the case, you need to re-evaluate your position on this moral objection. It happens all the time in real world engineering. What you need to remember is that it may only cost $1M for a better valve, but that valve is just one of thousands upon thousands of components in a system that could "just" be upgraded "in case." And then you end up with a billion dollar oil rig that no one can afford to use.

No, I don't think that I do. The blowout valve is not required here in the USA, but it is in most other countries. BP has a long track record of negligence, and to be blunt, your point? That's called the cost of doing business, whereas an environmental disaster on this scale is unacceptable. After that you argument is that oil should be subsidized regardless of its impact, because it's profitable and needed for energy. That's not a moral position, that's just taking the very VERY short view.

As for standards, apparently they didn't work, and as I've done some reading, it appears that Trans Ocean AND BP have been under investigation for years now for negligence, leaks, and more. What justification can you possibly offer for this behavior, and for the outcome that we're seeing unfold NOW?

 

[Shalashaska]

...
TWA 800 crashed because of faulty wiring that caused a fuel tank explosion. The FAA deemed it too expensive and improbable that such an accident would happen again in the future to require all aircraft wiring to be replaced. The point being - it happens all the time.

The impact of a plane crash versus a massive oil slick is comparing apples to sprockets. I don't know what you're on about here, but your defense of this has gone from reasonable, to equivocation and what seems to be a personal agenda. edit: by the way, onboard OXYGEN tanks exploded, not the fuel tanks.

P.S. Oh look, Gen. Russel Honore is advocating a reasonable approach: an agency like that which regulates nuclear energy. Cyrus, you're taking a lot of shots at anyone who disagrees with your hidden premise. How about sharing some sources for your views, instead of simply wielding doubt and moral equivocation as a bludgeon?

 

[Cyrus]

No, I don't think that I do. The blowout valve is not required here in the USA, but it is in most other countries.

So change the regulations.

BP has a long track record of negligence, and to be blunt, your point?

I'd be interested to know this track record you speak of (Not being sarcastic).

That's called the cost of doing business, whereas an environmental disaster on this scale is unacceptable.

No, it's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_risk_assessment"

After that you argument is that oil should be subsidized regardless of its impact, because it's profitable and needed for energy. That's not a moral position, that's just taking the very VERY short view.

I never said that.

As for standards, apparently they didn't work, and as I've done some reading, it appears that Trans Ocean AND BP have been under investigation for years now for negligence, leaks, and more. What justification can you possibly offer for this behavior, and for the outcome that we're seeing unfold NOW?

I'd like some sources and, if/when necessary, an independent investigation by experts to determine the cause of the problem and the role of BP.

 

[turbo]

That does not mean there are no process-control standards on oil rigs.

No, it only means that the standards are shams, and the current standards are inadequate to protect the publicly-owned resources surrounding the off-shore rigs.