Why can't offshore rigs shut down instantly after an explosion?

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MotoH
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Oil
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
797 replies · 109K views
I saw it reported that they were only capturing about 10% this morning. Maybe the estimate has changed a bit as they close the vents.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
mheslep said:
That may be the case (something in the stack), but my understanding per the press reports is that the ram mechanism failed to ever activate (not because it had insufficient sheer force). Reports are that crew members on the rig were about to engage the BOP moments before the surface explosion, and later ROVs were unable to activate the rams.

There are other devices that can seal the well besides the shear rams. The annulars and pipe rams can seal if the drill pipe is in the hole (annulars can also close off completely on open hole). I'm almost certain they have an ROV function port for a pipe ram too. So this leads me to believe that something with too large of a diameter is in the bore.

It will be a lot easier to figure out what went wrong as soon as they release more information from their investigation.

CS
 
If they are trying to fix the pipe where the oil is seeping out of instead of blowing it up or torpedoing it then that tells me only one thing, profits speak loudest.
Somebody attacks the US ie 911 you go to war.
Somebody creates one of the biggest manmade disasters in your waters and you want to let them take their time hmmmmmmm
That black gold speaks from the depths
Your President Obama has a lot on his shoulders but honestly he has portrayed his disgust at this situation and he is like the rest of the world and waiting for BP to get their...together. Waiting time over. Blow it up.
Send BP a bill reflective of the revenue LOST to businesses. I'd say $80BN would suffice.
Then send them a further bill for say... the worth of their profits globally. Seems fair to me for the cleanup.
 
eruera said:
If they are trying to fix the pipe where the oil is seeping out of instead of blowing it up or torpedoing it then that tells me only one thing, profits speak loudest..

Uh...no it doesn't. If profits speak loudest, they would have stopped the leak as soon as they possibly could have. The cost of the clean up alone is 10 times more already than it would have been to just drill a new well. It's a lot easier to produce oil from a reservoir when the oil is actually in the reservoir instead floating in the GOM...

BP will most likely spend at least 3 or 4 billion on this mess. It costs on average about 100 million to drill a well at that depth. So there is no foundation for your statement. I know it's easy to fall into the media trap of a "big bad oil company" is screwing everyone and the environment so they can earn a profit, but that's just simply not true (other than screwing up the environment of course).

CS
 
thedogged said:
BP should have done that long before
Silence of the arsholes!

Done what? Blown the well up?

CS
 
eruera said:
If they are trying to fix the pipe where the oil is seeping out of instead of blowing it up or torpedoing it then that tells me only one thing, profits speak loudest.
Somebody attacks the US ie 911 you go to war.
Somebody creates one of the biggest manmade disasters in your waters and you want to let them take their time hmmmmmmm
That black gold speaks from the depths
Your President Obama has a lot on his shoulders but honestly he has portrayed his disgust at this situation and he is like the rest of the world and waiting for BP to get their...together. Waiting time over. Blow it up.
Send BP a bill reflective of the revenue LOST to businesses. I'd say $80BN would suffice.
Then send them a further bill for say... the worth of their profits globally. Seems fair to me for the cleanup.

When either YOU (or Obama) are named "Dictator of the World" then impose your solution...otherwise - we have a legal process to follow.
 
Astronuc said:
It's not clear to me who cut corners. I've only heard bits and pieces, sound bites, and contradictory testimony. I've heard that a BP manager over-ruled a Haliburton or Transocean engineer with respect to the plugging and drill string cover - I don't know who to believe.
Clarification: Much of the picture I have comes from the Transocean electronics supt who was interviewed on 60 Minutes. Though I realize he has an inherrent conflict of interest and I realize it isn't exactly rational for a guy who prides himself on being rational, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to guys who just had a staring contest with death and proved they have the stones to win.
 
russ_watters said:
Clarification: Much of the picture I have comes from the Transocean electronics supt who was interviewed on 60 Minutes. Though I realize he has an inherrent conflict of interest and I realize it isn't exactly rational for a guy who prides himself on being rational, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to guys who just had a staring contest with death and proved they have the stones to win.
I agree. I hadn't watched that program, but I'd heard to conflicting stories about a disagreement between BP and TO or Haliburton staff.

Somebody made the call to replace drilling mud with seawater. Ostensibly, that person had the authority (someone from BP?) to over-rule those who were more cautious/responsible.

Interesting perspective here:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3e3e2e6-58a7-11df-a0c9-00144feab49a.html
. . . .
In an important sense, however, BP has not changed at all. It pioneered deep-water drilling in the North Sea and it regards itself as an explorer par excellence. Deep-water drilling is top of its priority list, with 11 of its 42 planned new projects up to 2015 in the Gulf of Mexico.

Extracting oil from beneath the US outer continental shelf takes enormous expertise. Last summer, the Deepwater Horizon rig drilled a well for BP in its Tiber field 35,000ft down in 10,000ft of water - in other words, 6,000ft deeper than Mount Everest is tall.
. . . .
I have to wonder, given that they've had experience, how could they have screwed up so badly. Perhaps it was because someone decided that they've done it before, so there is minimal (little or no risk).

I also heard that the Macondo well is probably more productive than they initially estimated, i.e., it was a great find, before it got out of control.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
Rule number 1: No system is failsafe.

Any reasonable risk evaluation requires the assumption that some risks have not been recognized. It is widely agreed [based on reports] that the only sure means of shutting down a runaway well, is to bottom fill the well, using relief well. [emphasis added]
So no system is failsafe except the failsafe one? Obviously, a contradiction.
No matter the level of confidence wrt failsafe equipment, I would demand that one, and perhaps even that two relief wells be drilled in parallel with any deep primary well. What makes me furious is that, imo, given the risk, any reasonable person would have demanded this up front.
Mech_E already discussed this:
Mech_E said:
Actually that's no guarantee since if both blowout preventers were in equal states of disrepair we'd have a leak that was twice as big as now. If we simply required the blowout preventer to function properly we wouldn't be in this mess right now... oh wait that's already required by regulation! And what would you say if both wells failed simultaneously? We should have seen it coming? More regulation requiring 3 wells to be drilled simultaneously? Where does it end, and at what point do you look at the tradeoffs and decide "that's safe enough?"

The difference between 99% safe and 100% safe is infinity when you're always only dividing the difference by two...
...but let me take a slightly different tack:

Why would we want to pay many tens of millions of dollars to do something that only halves the risk of failure when we could spend many tens of thousands of dollars on something that cuts it by multiple orders of magnitude?
If a successful means of controlling a runaway well is demonstrated, perhaps the requirement for relief wells could be waived. But first we would have to know for a fact that a situation like this, or worse, could be quickly controlled, with less than some maximum acceptable volume of oil escaping per unit time.
You've seen it in the movies, I'm sure, Ivan: blowouts used to be the norm, not the exception with oil wells. Some examples:
The Lucas Gusher at Spindletop in Beaumont, Texas in 1901 flowed at 100,000 barrels (16 000 m³) per day at its peak, but soon slowed and was capped within nine days. The well tripled U.S. oil production overnight and marked the start of the Texas oil industry.[6] Masjed Soleiman, Iran in 1908 marked the first major oil strike recorded in the Middle East.[7] The Lakeview Gusher on the Midway-Sunset Oil Field in Kern County, California of 1910 is believed to be the largest-ever U.S. gusher.

At its peak, more than 100,000 barrels (16 000 m³) of oil per day flowed out, reaching as high as 200 feet (60 m) in the air. It remained uncapped for 18 months, spilling over nine million barrels (378 million gallons/1.4 million m³) of oil, less than half of which was recovered.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowout_(well_drilling )

Blowout preventers and other modern procesures *are* the "successful means" you are looking for!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
russ_watters said:
So no system is failsafe except the failsafe one? Obviously, a contradiction.

The only means of killing any well is to bottom fill. I never said that any particular attempt to bottom fill was failsafe [that is why I even suggested that two relief wells might be required, but perhaps that was too obscure for some readers to catch], but it is the ONLY means of permanently plugging a well.

Mech_E already discussed this: ...but let me take a slightly different tack:

Why would we want to pay many tens of millions of dollars to do something that only halves the risk of failure when we could spend many tens of thousands of dollars on something that cuts it by multiple orders of magnitude? You've seen it in the movies, I'm sure, Ivan: blowouts used to be the norm, not the exception with oil wells. Some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowout_(well_drilling )

Blowout preventers and other modern procesures *are* the "successful means" you are looking for!

While we watch tens of millions of gallons of oil flood the gulf, your solution is to continue with the same mentality that led to this disaster in the first place? Your argument could have been made before his all happened, and we would still be right where we are right now. So clearly your logic fails. We can see the result.

If you are saying that a relief well poses too much risk, and there is no hope of developing an effective system to capture the oil from a runaway well, then we should just ban deep drilling altogether. One thing is for sure, the attitudes found here strongly drive me in that direction. The solution to the biggest environmental disaster in US history is to continue with the same logic that caused it? That is just nuts.

One popular definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would add that you neglected the option of effectively capturing the oil from a runaway well in an absolute worst-case scenario. But again, if that is too tall of an order, if it is beyond the ability of our engineers to manage a disaster, then maybe this deep drilling just can't be made safe and the drilling ban should be permanent.

For all that we know, there is another time bomb ticking away, or ten, or a hundred; or ones that will be if the drilling is ever allowed to continue. Everyone including BP admits that they have been pushing the limits of drilling technology. Maybe they have simply gone too far.
 
Last edited:
What was the original number that BP gave us wrt the size of the leak, 1000 barrels per day? Then it was 5000 barrels per day.

BP says that they captured about 10,000 barrels of oil over the last twenty-four hour period, so that is progress. Interestingly, just watching the video feeds, there is no perceptable change in the volume of oil escaping per unit time. It is still a gusher.
 
Last edited:
It is so hard to know. It could have been leaking 70,000 barrels and jumped to 84,000 after making the cut, putting the leak now with the siphon, at 74,000. Or it could have been leaking 12,000 barrels, then after the cut, 14,400, and now 4,400 barrels. Or it could have been 1000 barrels, then 1200, and now -8800. I think we will never know.
 
Astronuc said:
Somebody made the call to replace drilling mud with seawater. Ostensibly, that person had the authority (someone from BP?) to over-rule those who were more cautious/responsible.

It's almost certain that the company man onboard the rig made the call.

However, the drilling superintendent on the rig for Transocean has the authority to stop any job that is unsafe. In fact, everyone on the rig has the authority to at least temporarily stop the job to ensure it is done properly and safely. If anyone felt it was unsafe, they could have halted the operation and requested clarification on exactly what should happen.

CS
 
Ivan Seeking said:
While we watch tens of millions of gallons of oil flood the gulf, your solution is to continue with the same mentality that led to this disaster in the first place? Your argument could have been made before his all happened, and we would still be right where we are right now. So clearly your logic fails. We can see the result.

This is not a failure of the equipment or the methodology that has successfully worked for literally thousands of deepwater wells in the GOM alone. It was a failure of a human being who did not follow the procedures and fundamental process in well control. Period.

The only point you can really argue is for tighter regulations to ensure that the current practices are adhered to.

CS
 
stewartcs said:
This is not a failure of the equipment or the methodology that has successfully worked for literally thousands of deepwater wells in the GOM alone. It was a failure of a human being who did not follow the procedures and fundamental process in well control. Period.

The only point you can really argue is for tighter regulations to ensure that the current practices are adhered to.

CS

Human error will always be a factor.

But really the main problem is that after the blowout, what happens, we have months and months of leaking. Pre-drilled emergency relief wells such as required in some other countries, would have made a huge difference.

Also this dispersant business, the dispersants BP chooses to use are actually banned in their own county because they are toxic.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
I would add that you neglected the option of effectively capturing the oil from a runaway well in an absolute worst-case scenario. But again, if that is too tall of an order, if it is beyond the ability of our engineers to manage a disaster, then maybe this deep drilling just can't be made safe and the drilling ban should be permanent.

For all that we know, there is another time bomb ticking away, or ten, or a hundred; or ones that will be if the drilling is ever allowed to continue. Everyone including BP admits that they have been pushing the limits of drilling technology. Maybe they have simply gone too far.

Then we should ban driving as well. Cumulatively more people die in car accidents than do in offshore drilling rig explosions. Yet the car industry is deemed safe.

Automobiles put off enormous amounts of carbon monoxide that is damaging our environment as we speak but we still allow people to drive. Why would we do such a thing? Perhaps because no one really wants to walk everywhere they go so we are willing to take the chance and hope for the best. The same could be said for the oil and gas industry or the airline industry or the nuclear industry.

It's pretty easy to sit back while the disaster is happening and say let's ban it all together. That's the lazy thing to do. Why not ban the transport of oil in the oil tankers then? Remember the Exxon Valdez? Sure we can drill overseas and just transport the oil here. What if another one wrecks and spills damaging the environment? How then will we meet the worlds energy needs?

Better enforcement of the regulations is in order I agree. But banning something altogether is just a knee jerk reaction. Much like the recommendations given in the DOI report that are supposed to help prevent this from happening again. We are not even sure what exactly happened but yet the government already has a recommendation to fix everything.

CS
 
magpies said:
They probably ran out of drilling mud just my thought.

No. They were displacing the mud with seawater so that wasn't the problem. They recycle the mud anyway.

CS
 
No I think a ban on cars would be a responsible thing to do it's just people would revolt because most people would trade 10 years of life for 1 second of fun.
 
If a single person could fall asleep at the wheel, and the result was an economic, and environmental disaster for the entire country, then yes banning cars would be a good idea, but that's not the case.
 
jreelawg said:
If a single person could fall asleep at the wheel, and the result was an economic, and environmental disaster for the entire country, then yes banning cars would be a good idea, but that's not the case.

So if every well in the GOM were to leak just enough in total to equal the amount of the current spill then by your logic that is ok? The end result is that the cumulative effect is the same.

CS
 
All you have to do is get everyone in the United States to all agree to live like the Native American's and all our problems would be solved. Haven't you ever seen Avatar? Utopia until those stupid American corporations show up. All we need now is some strategically place Sequoias and blue paint.
 
Pattonias said:
All you have to do is get everyone in the United States to all agree to live like the Native American's and all our problems would be solved. Haven't you ever seen Avatar? Utopia until those stupid American corporations show up. All we need now is some strategically place Sequoias and blue paint.

We also need some flying uber dragons that swoop down and eat people on occasion; but we shot all those down already, so the plan's a bust
 
Pattonias said:
All you have to do is get everyone in the United States to all agree to live like the Native American's and all our problems would be solved. Haven't you ever seen Avatar? Utopia until those stupid American corporations show up. All we need now is some strategically place Sequoias and blue paint.

Yeah, or we could catch up with the times, and start using more advanced and cleaner energy technology at a faster pace.

Or we could just have good safety requirements like relief wells.

Or we could do both.
 
magpies said:
No I think a ban on cars would be a responsible thing to do it's just people would revolt because most people would trade 10 years of life for 1 second of fun.

Try thinking before posting. It goes a long way.
 
stewartcs said:
So if every well in the GOM were to leak just enough in total to equal the amount of the current spill then by your logic that is ok? The end result is that the cumulative effect is the same.

CS
Are you saying that it would be hypocritical to ban deep drilling in the gulf, and let people drive cars as well?

Granted a lot of people die in car accidents, why don't we just spill a bunch of oil as well in the ocean too, just to be fair?
 
Geigerclick said:
:smile:

I find it hinders the "creative" process. :wink:

Mapgies: Ban cars and what do you lose beyond fun? You lose trucking which has HUUUUUGE effects, you lose a valuable source of donated organs (sad, but true), and the means to transport them, and you kick the economy in the nutter butters. Now, if you believed that some greater level of automation was required, I could get on board with that, assuming it didn't make cars impossible to afford.

"kicking" the economy is a understatement. Destroy the economy. Start over with a new economy from scratch. Become a third world country and work back up. These would also describe that move.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
While we watch tens of millions of gallons of oil flood the gulf, your solution is to continue with the same mentality that led to this disaster in the first place? Your argument could have been made before his all happened, and we would still be right where we are right now. So clearly your logic fails. We can see the result.
I can't understand how you so badly missed my point, Ivan. My point was to fix the enforcement of the existing regulations so that such failures aren't possible. I'm pretty sure that was clear in my posts.
If you are saying that a relief well poses too much risk, and there is no hope of developing an effective system to capture the oil from a runaway well, then we should just ban deep drilling altogether.
Ivan, slow down and start reading my posts. You're not getting what I'm saying at all. You're not correct on either of those counts on your representation of my post.
One thing is for sure, the attitudes found here strongly drive me in that direction. The solution to the biggest environmental disaster in US history is to continue with the same logic that caused it? That is just nuts.

One popular definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
Ivan, these attitudes you think you are seeing here are a figment of your imagination. They do not exist.

This is why I keep dropping out of this thread: A useful discussion cannot be held if people are reacting based on emotion and not comprehending relatively straightforward points of discussion!
 
Ivan Seeking said:
It is widely agreed [based on reports] that the only sure means of shutting down a runaway well, is to bottom fill the well, using relief well...
A blowout preventer is also a fine means of shutting down a runaway well. Remember, a relief well also relies on a blowout preventer, so if we aren't ensuring that blowout preventers function properly, drilling a relief well just doubles the odds of a blowout!
No matter the level of confidence wrt failsafe equipment, I would demand that one, and perhaps even that two relief wells be drilled in parallel with any deep primary well.
Considering that BP is now drilling two relief wells, what level of confidence do you have in them that they aren't racing to finish those relief wells and cutting the same corners that they did with the primary well? They're giving themselves a chance of fixing the problem while simultaenously creating a chance of making it 3x worse.

See, even if we mandate drilling multiple relief wells, my solution (shoring-up inspection/enforcement of regulations on blowout preventers) is still required to ensure safety. And if you have working blowout preventers, then a relief well isn't necessary.

Heck, even using two blowout preventers would be a better solution than drilling a second well!