Post Reply 
GOM OIL Spill headed for the Coast ?
08-20-2010, 07:40 AM
Post: #471
GOM OIL Spill headed for the Coast ?

Rogue ROVs - What BP Was Hiding

New Feed! Boa Sub C Mill36 Shows the Whole Shebang (dreadful resolution)

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-20-2010, 08:43 AM
Post: #472
GOM OIL Spill headed for the Coast ?
Quote:Top Expert: Geology is "Fractured", Relief Wells May Fail ... BP is Using a "Cloak of Silence", Refusing to Share Even Basic Data with the Government

Thursday, August 19, 2010
Few people in the world know more about oil drilling disasters than Dr. Robert Bea.

Bea teaches engineering at the University of California Berkeley, and has 55 years of experience in engineering and management of design, construction, maintenance, operation, and decommissioning of engineered systems including offshore platforms, pipelines and floating facilities. Bea has worked for many years in governmental and quasi-governmental roles, and has been a high-level governmental adviser concerning disasters. He worked for 16 years as a top mechanical engineer and manager for Shell Oil, and has worked with Bechtel and the Army Corps of Engineers. One of the world's top experts in offshore drilling problems, Bea is a member of the Deepwater Horizon Study Group, and has been interviewed by news media around the world concerning the BP oil disaster.
Washington's Blog spoke with Dr. Bea yesterday.

WB: Is BP sharing information with the government?

Bea: No. BP is using a "cloak of silence". BP is not voluntarily sharing information or documents with the government.

In May, for example, Senator Boxer subpoenaed information from BP regarding footage of the seafloor taken before the blowout by BP's remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). We still have not received a response 12 weeks later.

[Bea subsequently clarified that he's not sure whether BP has failed to release the information, or Senator Boxer's committee has sat on the information. My bet is on BP. Indeed, BP has refused to answer some very basic written questions from Congressman Markey, chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. See this and this. Indeed, it is unclear whether BP is sharing vital details even with Thad Allen, Secretary of energy Chu, or the Unified Command].

WB: Might there be problems with the relief wells? I know that it took a couple of relief wells to finally stop the Ixtoc leak, and it has taken as many as 5 relief wells to stop some blowouts.

Bea: Yes, it could take repeated attempts.

WB: Are there any conditions at BP's well which might make killing the leak with relief wells more difficult than with the average deepwater oil spill?

Bea: That's an interesting question. You have to ask why did this location blow out when nearby wells drilled in even deeper water didn't blow out.

You have to look at the geology of the Macondo well. It is in a subsalt location, in a Sigsbee salt formation. [For background, see this and this]

The geology is fractured.

Usually, the deeper you drill, the more pressure it takes to fracture rock. This is called the "fracture gradient".
But when BP was drilling this well, the fracture gradient reversed. Indeed, BP lost all pressure as it drilled into the formation.

WB: Is it possible that this fractured, subsea salt geology will make it difficult to permanently kill the oil leak using relief wells?

Bea: Yes, it could. The Santa Barbara channel seeps are still leaking, decades after the oil well was supposedly capped. This well could keep leaking for years.

Scripps mapped out seafloor seeps in the area of the well prior to the blowout. Some of the natural seeps penetrate 10,000 to 15,000 feet beneath the seafloor. The oil will follow lines of weakness in the geology. The leak can travel several horizontal miles from the location of the leak.

[In other words, the geology beneath the seafloor is so fractured, with soft and unstable salt formations, that we may never be able to fully kill the well even with relief wells. Instead, the loss of containment of the oil reservoir caused by the drilling accident could cause oil to leak out through seeps for years to come. See this and this for further background].

WB: I know that you've previously said that you're concerned that there might be damage to the well bore, which could make it more difficult for the relief wells to succeed.

Bea: Yes, that's still a concern.

WB: I have heard that BP is underestimating the size of the oil reservoir (and see this). Is it possible that the reservoir is bigger than BP is estimating, and so - if not completely killed - the leak could therefore go on for longer than most assume?

Bea: That's plausible.

WB: The chief electronics technician on the Deepwater Horizon said that the Macondo well was originally drilled in another location, but that "going faster caused the bottom of the well to split open, swallowing tools", and that BP abandoned that well. You've spoken to that technician and looked into the incident, and concluded that “they damn near blew up the rig.” [See this and this].

Do you know where that abandoned well location is, and do you know if that well is still leaking?

Bea: The abandoned well is very close to the current well location. BP had to file reports showing the location of the abandoned well and the new well [with the Minerals Management Service], so the location of the abandoned well is known.

We don't know if the abandoned well is leaking.

WB: Matthew Simmons talked about a second leaking well. There are rumors on the Internet that the original well is still leaking. Do you have any information that can either disprove or confirm that allegation?

Bea: There are two uncorroborated reports. One is that there is a leak 400 feet West of the present well's surface location. There is another report that there is a leak several miles to the West.

[Bea does not know whether either report is true at this time, because BP is not sharing information with the government, let alone the public.]
WB: There are rumors on the Internet of huge pockets of methane gas under the well which could explode. I've looked into this rumor, and have come to the conclusion that - while the leak is releasing tremendous amounts of methane - there are no "pockets" of methane gas which could cause explosions. Do you have any information on this?

Bea: I have looked into this and discussed methane with people who know a tremendous amount about it. There is alot of liquid and solid methane at the Macondo site, but no pockets of methane gas.

WB: That's good news, indeed.

Bea: But there was one deepwater leak I worked with where tremendous amounts of hydrogen sulfite were released. We had to evacuate two towns because of the risk. [I didn't ask Dr. Bea if there were any dangerous compounds which could be formed from the interaction of the crude oil and methane with chemicals in the ocean water or dispersants].

And with the Bay Charman oil leak, more than 50% of the oil stayed below the surface of the ocean. [As I've previously pointed out, the US Minerals Management Service and a consortium of oil companies, including BP, found that as little as 2% of the oil which spill from deepwater wells ever makes it to the surface of the ocean. And the use of dispersant might decrease that number still further].

WB: I have previously argued that nuking the well would be a bad idea. What do you think?

Bea: [Bea agreed that nuking the well would be counter-productive. He told me a story about a leaking deepwater well that he was involved in killing. A nuclear package was on its way to the well site but - fortunately - the well stopped by itself before a nuke was deployed. I'm not sure whether this is classified information, so I won't disclose the name of the well. Bea also discussed alternatives in the form of high-pressure, high-temperature conventional explosives, echoing what Bill Clinton said recently].

WB: Thank you for your generous time and for sharing your expertise with us, Dr. Bea.

Bea: You're welcome.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-20-2010, 09:58 AM
Post: #473
GOM OIL Spill headed for the Coast ?
News this morning says a 22 mile long plume of oil floating below the surface.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-20-2010, 02:36 PM
Post: #474
GOM OIL Spill headed for the Coast ?
Quote:FDA admits NOT testing for MERCURY, ARSENIC, or other TOXIC HEAVY METALS in crude oil (VIDEO)
WARNING: Feds admit NO testing for MORE TOXIC bioaccumulating metabolites of PAHs (VIDEO)
FDA tops NOAA: Oil-contaminated fish are clear “WITHIN A MATTER OF DAYS”! (VIDEO)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-24-2010, 09:37 AM
Post: #475
GOM OIL Spill headed for the Coast ?
[SIZE="3"][COLOR="Blue"]BP finds three pieces of drill pipe inside Macondo

Aug 23, 2010

Paula Dittrick
OGJ Senior Staff Writer

Quote:HOUSTON, Aug. 23 -- BP PLC has found three pieces of pipe inside the Macondo well with the largest piece being an estimated 3,000 ft long and hanging suspended from Transocean Ltd.’s failed Deepwater Horizon semisubmersible’s blowout preventer, a federal spill response spokesman said.

National Incident Commander and retired US Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said a second pipe, estimated at 40 ft, is parallel to the longer pipe and a third pipe, estimated at 1 ft, is crosswise within the BOP.

Engineers and scientists are running tests to determine the position of the rams within the BOP and to determine the best way to remove the pipes, Allen told reporters during an Aug. 23 briefing.

In addition, engineers and scientists are reviewing BP’s suggested procedures for removing the capping stack from the Macondo wellhead and for replacing the Deepwater Horizon BOP on Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico.

An Apr. 20 blowout of the Macondo well caused an explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon, killing 11 people. The semi sank on Apr. 22.

BP started its fishing operation to find the pipes on Aug. 21 following a 48-hr ambient pressure test that confirmed the blown-out Macondo well remains shut in by cement pumped into it from the top. The well has been shut in since July 15 (OGJ Online, Aug. 20, 2010).

Allen said a stronger BOP needs to be put on Macondo before the first relief well, which is being drilled by the Development Driller III, can be completed to assure that the well has been killed from the bottom.

BP plans to replace the Deepwater Horizon BOP with a BOP from Transocean’s Development Driller II, which started a second relief well that has since been put on hold.

Allen estimates the Development Driller III relief well could intercept the Macondo well the week after Labor Day, assuming a planned sequence of events goes smoothly without weather delays.
Contact Paula Dittrick at [email protected].

Oil & Gas Journal Topic and Resource Categories:

Trained Weather Spotter
CoCoRaHS Volunteer
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2010, 11:10 AM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2010 11:11 AM by dkmac.)
Post: #476
GOM OIL Spill headed for the Coast ?
Crews pull blowout preventer out from Gulf

Quote:Published: Saturday, September 04, 2010, 10:30 PM Updated: Saturday, September 04, 2010, 10:56 PM

[Image: userpic-1827779-100x100.png] The Associated Press


A crane hoisted a key piece of oil spill evidence to the surface of the Gulf of Mexico on Saturday, giving investigators their first chance to personally scrutinize the blowout preventer, the massive piece of equipment that failed to stop the gusher four months ago.
[Image: gulfjpg-cbd4c9f76094cdfc_large.jpg]The Associated PressCrews trying to raise the blowout preventer that failed to stop oil from spewing into the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon explosion have been delayed because of ice crystals. Government investigators are expected to take possession of the device once it has been raised to the surface.
It took 29½ hours to lift the 50-foot, 300-ton blowout preventer from a mile beneath the sea to the surface. The five-story high device breached the water's surface at 6:54 p.m. CDT, and looked largely intact with black stains on the yellow metal.

FBI agents were among the 137 people aboard the Helix Q4000 vessel, taking photos and video of the device. They will escort it back to a NASA facility in Louisiana for analysis.
The AP was the only news outlet with a print reporter and photographer on board the ship.
The blowout preventer was placed into a metal contraption specifically designed to hold the massive device at 9:16 p.m. CDT Saturday. As it was maneuvered into place, crew members were silent and water dripped off the device.
Crews had been delayed raising the device after icelike crystals -- called hydrates -- formed on it. The device couldn't be safely lifted from the water until the hydrates melted because the hydrates are combustible, said Darin Hilton, the captain of the Helix Q4000.
Hydrates form when gases such as methane mix with water under high pressure and cold temperatures. The crystals caused BP PLC problems in May, when hydrates formed on a 100-ton, four-story dome the company tried to place over the leak to contain it.
As a large hatch opened up on the Helix to allow the blowout preventer to pass through, several hundred feet of light sheen could be seen near the boat, though crews weren't exactly sure what it was.

The April 20 explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon killed 11 workers and led to 206 million gallons of oil spewing from BP PLC's undersea well. Investigators know the explosion was triggered by a bubble of methane gas that escaped from the well and shot up the drill column, expanding quickly as it burst through several seals and barriers before igniting.
But they don't know exactly how or why the gas escaped. And they don't know why the blowout preventer didn't seal the well pipe at the sea bottom after the eruption, as it was supposed to. While the device didn't close -- or may have closed partially -- investigative hearings have produced no clear picture of why it didn't plug the well.
Documents emerged showing that a part of the device had a hydraulic leak, which would have reduced its effectiveness, and that a passive "deadman" trigger had a low, perhaps even dead, battery.
Steve Newman, president of rig owner Transocean, told lawmakers following the disaster that there was no evidence the device itself failed and suggested debris might have been forced into it by the surging gas.
There has also been testimony that the blowout preventer didn't undergo a rigorous recertification process in 2005 as required by federal regulators.
Recertifying the five-story device requires completely disassembling it out of the water and can take as long as three months to complete.
Testimony from BP and Transocean officials also showed that repairs were not always authorized by the manufacturer, Cameron International, and that confusion about the equipment delayed attempts to close the well in the days after the explosion.
A Transocean official has said he knew the blowout preventer was functioning because he personally oversaw its maintenance, and he said the device underwent tests to ensure it was working. The device, he said, had undergone a maintenance overhaul in February as it was being moved to the Deepwater Horizon to be placed over BP's well.
Also, according to testimony, a BP well site leader performed a pressure test April 9 on the blowout preventer, and he said it passed.
George Hirasaki, a Rice University engineering professor, said the blowout preventer should have sheared through the drill pipe and shut off the flow of oil. There may have been two sections of drill pipe or a thicker section, called the "collar," that the blowout preventer could not shear through, he said.
He also said the device's hardware was changed, but the on-site drawings were not updated to reflect the changes. Investigators will be looking for any other discrepancies between the device and its drawings.
In short, Hirasaki said, "The BOP failed to do its function. It is important to determine why so that it does not occur again."
However, some have cautioned that the blowout preventer will not provide clues to what caused the gas bubble. And it is possible a thorough review may not be able to show why it didn't work.
That could leave investigators to speculate on causes using data, records and testimony.
Lawyers will be watching closely, too, as hundreds of lawsuits have been filed over the oil spill. Future liabilities faced by a number of corporations could be riding on what the analysis of the blowout preventer shows.
A temporary cap that stopped oil from gushing into the Gulf in mid-July was removed Thursday. No more oil was expected to leak into the sea, but crews were standing by with collection vessels just in case.
The government said a new blowout preventer was placed on the blown-out well late Friday. Officials wanted to replace the failed blowout preventer first to deal with any pressure that is caused when a relief well BP has been drilling intersects the blown-out well.
Once that intersection occurs sometime after Labor Day, BP is expected to use mud and cement to plug the blown-out well for good from the bottom.

"The ultimate judge of your swing is the flight of the ball." - Ben Hogan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2010, 04:35 PM
Post: #477
GOM OIL Spill headed for the Coast ?
Gulf oxygen levels are lower, but not deadly, in wake of spill.

Quote:Published: Wednesday, September 08, 2010, 6:00 AM

[Image: userpic-1464-100x100.png] Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune

The biodegradation of oil in plumes within 60 miles of [url=]the failed BP Macondo oil well
have caused levels of dissolved oxygen in deep water of the Gulf of Mexico to drop by as much as 20 percent, but no oxygen-void dead zones have been created, a panel of scientists concluded in a report released Tuesday.
[Image: gulf-oil-microbes-sciencejpg-340e34763c7e8db3_large.jpg]View full sizeScience, AAAS, via The Associated PressMicrobes degrade oil, indicated by the circle of dashes, in the deepwater plume from the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, as documented in a study by Berkeley Lab researchers.
"To date, the decrease in oxygen has not been significant enough to cause hypoxia at depth -- that is, a dead zone -- nor is it likely to, going forward," said Steve Murawski, chief science adviser for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and lead scientist for the oil spill Unified Command's Joint Analysis Group, which authored the report.

The measurements were made in a layer of water between 3,300 feet and 4,300 feet deep, where scientists have found plumes of tiny oil and dispersant droplets, and the byproducts of their breakdown by microbes.

The lowest levels measured were about 3.7 parts per million. A dead zone is an area of water considered to be so low in oxygen that oxygen-dependent organisms will die. That level -- called hypoxia -- is generally set at 2 parts per million or less of oxygen dissolved in water.
Such levels are routinely found in much shallower water off of the shores of Louisiana and Texas each spring and summer, a result of algal blooms caused by fertilizer runoff.
"In most cases, most forms of life cannot exist in these low-oxygenated waters," Murawski said. "That's why there's considerable concern about this, because at those depths, you've got a biological community that doesn't grow very fast and doesn't reproduce at a very high rate."
The new report is the third released by the Joint Analysis Group. It was based on data collected between the first week of May and August 9 at 419 sampling sites by nine research vessels: the NOAA ships Gordon Gunter, Henry Bigelow, Nancy Foster and Thomas Jefferson and the research vessels Brooks McCall, Ferrel, Jack Fitz, Ocean Veritas and Walton Smith.
The measurements indicate that microbes are feasting on and biodegrading the oil, a process that uses up oxygen in the water. But the lost oxygen is being partially replenished by the mixing of water containing more oxygen from areas around and beneath the plumes, Murawski said.
He said computer modeling that assumed no mixing would occur indicated that the speed with which the molecules were degrading the oil could have caused the formation of dead zones.
"In the absence of being refreshed from high-oxygen water from the surrounding area, this region would have been depleted in a few weeks," he said.
Murawski said that while the results are good news, they do not represent a clean bill of health for Gulf waters.
"Because we're seeing the oxygen sag we're seeing (the drop in oxygen content), that means there's some level of degradation," he said.
"It's contingent on us to learn everything we can about this," Murawski said. "What are the potential ecological ramifications of this -- even at low levels -- to marine life that occupies these depths?"
He said the long-term effects of the remaining oil, dispersant and the chemicals remaining after they've been broken down by microbes will be monitored as part of the Unified Command's "natural resource damage assessment" process, which will end with recommendations on how to mitigate any damage.
"We continue to monitor the region," Murawski said. "We're tracking the dissolution of the plume. It's both being dispersed laterally by the ocean currents and it's also being degraded by microbes" and is now seen in even smaller particle sizes, "down to the parts-per-billion to parts-per-trillion level."
The most dangerous chemicals within the plumes would be compounds called polyaromatic hydrocarbons, which are poisonous, he said.
The study results seem to indicate at least limited success in the controversial decision to use dispersants at the wellhead, Murawski said. Several scientists and a number of environmental groups criticized the use of the chemicals, both because of their potential to create more toxic compounds when mixing with oil, and because some felt more oil could have been recovered from the surface without their use.
"The whole theory of using dispersants was that you would make the particles small enough that they could be readily consumed by bacteria, and that apparently is happening," he said.
But he said only a portion of the droplets were created by the dispersants. The explosive ejection of oil and natural gas at high speed from the wellhead also caused the oil to disperse in tiny particles that were neutrally buoyant, meaning their mass and weight keeps them from sinking or rising, and thus would continue to float in plumes in the Gulf's deeper water.
While the research was limited to a 60-mile area around the well, the majority of data was collected within 12 miles of the well because that's where oil was found at the time of several of the cruises.

"The ultimate judge of your swing is the flight of the ball." - Ben Hogan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-20-2010, 04:37 AM
Post: #478
GOM OIL Spill headed for the Coast ?
Well Is Sealed; Tale Isn't Over


[Image: NA-BI019_Well_G_20100919211714.jpg] European Pressphoto Agency Fire raged April 22 on the Deepwater Horizon, two days after an explosion unleashed a five-month scramble to seal a BP well.

BP PLC's rogue Gulf of Mexico well was declared permanently sealed Sunday as a page turned on a disaster that fouled huge swaths of the Gulf Coast, damaged the Obama White House and rocked the U.S. oil industry.
The U.S. government's point man for the spill-response effort said Sunday that BP had killed the well by pumping in mud and cement from below through a relief well.
BP's well "is effectively dead," said Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen in a statement after tests verified the strength of a cement plug placed at its bottom.
"Additional regulatory steps will be undertaken, but we can now state, definitively, that the Macondo well poses no continuing threat to the Gulf of Mexico," he said.
[Image: 091910reutersbp_512x288.jpg]
Troubled oil giant BP hopes the recent cementing will be the final kill of the ruptured oil well in the Gulf of Mexico. Video courtesy of Reuters.

It was the last act of a struggle to subdue a well that blew out five months ago off the Louisiana coast, destroying the Deepwater Horizon rig that drilled it, killing 11 men and triggering the worst offshore spill in U.S. history.
The "bottom kill" involved flooding the gap between the well casing and the rock formation that surrounds it with cement through a relief well that intersected the Deepwater Horizon well at a depth of 18,000 feet. The operation finished Friday, and cement tests early Sunday morning confirmed that "the well has been permanently sealed with cement plugs," a U.S. government statement said.
"This is a significant milestone in the response to the Deepwater Horizon tragedy and is the final step in a complex and unprecedented subsea operation," said Tony Hayward, the outgoing BP chief executive, in a statement.
Though the well is now plugged for good, the repercussions of the disaster will be felt for years, possibly decades, to come. The U.S. offshore oil industry, which was unprepared for a disaster on this scale, is bracing for change as government regulation and oversight increases. BP is facing civil and criminal probes and a wave of litigation that could tie it up in the courts for years. And the work of restoring the tarnished ecosystems of the Gulf Coast is only just beginning.
Gusher in the Gulf

View Interactive

[Image: OB-KB602_gusher_D_20100917142733.jpg]

Rig Disaster

View Interactive

[Image: OB-KB553_oilrig_D_20100917125343.jpg]
See a timeline of events in BP's oil-rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Curbs on drilling placed by the U.S. government in the wake of the disaster have also hit the region hard, putting hundreds out of work. With rigs now leaving the area, some even predict the U.S. offshore industry could forfeit its leading position. "The Gulf Coast is the Silicon Valley of the oil industry, but that innovation could easily migrate elsewhere," said Dan Yergin, head of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
On Sunday, BP said the spill has so far cost about $9.5 billion, including the spill response, containment, relief-well drilling, static kill and cementing, grants to Gulf states, claims paid and federal costs.
The process of identifying just who was to blame for the disaster and who should pay for the damage could drag on for months, if not years. Already the blowout has become one of the most scrutinized maritime disasters ever, with parallel probes by the Coast Guard and Interior Department, the Justice Department and the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, among other agencies.
More on the Well Shutdown

Lawyers representing BP, Transocean Ltd., which owned the Deepwater Horizon rig, and Halliburton Co., which did the cement job on the doomed well, are digging in for a long, high-stakes fight over culpability, the outcome of which could determine who picks up the tab for one of America's worst industrial accidents.
BP earlier this month issued the findings of its own internal investigation into the incident, which spread the blame among employees of BP, Transocean and Halliburton. But it's unlikely to be the last word in what promises to be a long, multi-pronged search for the truth of what actually happened April 20 and why.
The difficulties of drawing a line under the disaster have been underscored by the lack of consensus on how much damage the spill actually caused. In August, the government released a study that indicated that nearly 75% of the five million barrels spilled from BP's well was already gone from the Gulf or being rapidly broken down by bacteria, raising hopes that the long-term environmental impact of the spill might not be as great as initially feared.
Deep Trouble

But that optimistic view has come under sustained attack. Scientists at the University of Georgia say the rate of evaporation and biological breakdown has been greatly exaggerated. Recent findings by scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution showed that oil from the spill has formed an underwater plume of hydrocarbons 22 miles long, more than a mile wide and 3,500 feet under the sea, proof that the oil was persisting longer than expected.
The debate reflects the deep uncertainty about the long-term environmental consequences of the incident and fears that much of the oil could elude conventional detection and cleanup efforts.
View Full Image

[Image: OB-KB867_0919WE_D_20100919111414.jpg]
Associated Press John Wright, the driller responsible for drilling the relief well to seal the Macondo well, the source of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and oil spill, on the helo deck of the Development Driller III, after cement was poured into the well to seal it Saturday.

[Image: BTN_insetClose.gif]
[Image: OB-KB867_0919WE_G_20100919111414.jpg]

Even the recordable damage inflicted by the spill has been grave. The release of crude fouled nearly 700 miles of coastline, gumming up coastal marshlands, washing up as tar balls on Florida beaches, and coating hundreds of seabirds in gunk. The local economy was devastated as authorities closed thousands of square miles of federal waters to fishing.
BP and the government mobilized an effort to stem the tide of oil, with a 30,000-strong army recruited to protect the Gulf shore and more than 5,000 ships deployed in the recovery effort. The company said Sunday that about 25,000 people, 2,600 vessels and dozens of aircraft continued to be engaged in the response effort.
And a mile below the surface of the sea, BP worked to stem the flow of oil with a string of ad hoc contraptions, few of which proved effective. The company finally got lucky in mid-July, using subsea robots to install a new cap it had designed and built from scratch. Since then, no oil has been leaking into the Gulf. Still BP and the government held off from declaring the well sealed until the relief well could be completed.
But the failure of procedures like the "junk shot"—in which shredded tires and golf balls were pumped into plug the leak—seemed to underline how ill-prepared the company had been for an underwater blowout, despite its long experience of offshore drilling.
That has galvanized BP's rivals—including Exxon Mobil Corp and Royal Dutch Shell PLC—into action. In July, they said they were forming a $1 billion joint venture to design, build and operate a new rapid-response system for containing a massive deepwater oil spill.
As well as forcing greater collaboration between the majors, the Gulf disaster is also redefining Big Oil's relationship with the U.S. government. Authorities have shed their hands-off approach as they rush to make offshore drilling safer. Companies are bracing for new government rules, particularly on the capability and strength of well-control equipment.
"Regulators both in the U.S. and abroad will become more engaged in our and our customers' business," said Jack Moore, chief executive of Cameron International Corp., a major manufacturer of subsea equipment, in early August.
The oil companies themselves are also likely to become more cautious, especially in their drilling operations. "The attitude will be "we are going to take as long as the job needs, no longer and no less," said David Dismukes, associate director of the Louisiana State University Center for Energy Studies.

The rest of the article is here.

"The ultimate judge of your swing is the flight of the ball." - Ben Hogan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-20-2010, 08:20 AM
Post: #479
GOM OIL Spill headed for the Coast ?
It will be a long time before the "Fat Lady" sings at this event...

Trained Weather Spotter
CoCoRaHS Volunteer
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-20-2010, 12:22 PM
Post: #480
GOM OIL Spill headed for the Coast ?
Joe-Nathan Wrote:It will be a long time before the "Fat Lady" sings at this event...

Yes. The clean up continues and the lawyers will be starting their feeding frenzy.

Only people with oversized egos believe that mankind has caused global warming.

Scientific Consensus is an Oxymoron
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Forum Jump:

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)