1 No judge upholds Constitutional limits anymore, Ace.  That's just crazy talk.

2 Sowell is a racist.

3 A fleeting voice of sanity...

4 Obama is probably happy about this decision. It gets him off the hook for a stupid policy but still lets him look good to the progressives. Of course they just said they would appeal so what do I know?

5 Barry's doing a lot of things he doesn't have the power to do.  Now a judge actually calls him on it?  Talk about a 'slippery slope'.  Next thing you know, some one else is going to call Barry's bluff.

6 The judge may have just ruled there might be an issue and people will suffer immediate economic harm.  It was an injunction, right?

7

 

8 simply doesn't have the constitutional power to order such a thing absent an act of Congress.

Congress?, pfft.  We don't need no stinkin congress!

9 Well, that's something to cheer.  Maybe it will make more of the Left abandon Obamao?

Thank you Judge!

10 I saw that Jake Tapper just sent a tweet that Gibbs said that continuing to drill at that depth without knowing what went wrong puts people and environment at risk (paraphrase of a paraphrase).  You know, that's not a bad point but from what I understand the moratorium was on all drilling, not just deep sea drilling.  That's a totally different matter. 

That will be the easy way out for the court, btw.  Bypass Constitutional issues and go after the ban as being too broad.

11 Congress?, pfft.  We don't need no stinkin congress!

Posted by: Obama bandito at June 22, 2010 02:00 PM (T0bhq)

*fist bump*

12 Feldman says in his ruling that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium. He says it seems to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger.

13 This is some hacktastic judging by the New Orleans judge, IMO.  It grants a result that I am in favor of, but it's still shit.  And I'm a constitutional lawyer, so I know something about this. 

Equity is all well and good, but this court seriously be trippin' over executive power issues here.

14

Bammie ain't having a good week so far, is he?

..what's bad for Bammie is good for America

15 Slippery slope to tyranny? more like a boblsed track to tyranny.
I was wondering how Obama had the power to unilaterally shut down an entire industry.

16

Feldman says in his ruling that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium

Well, duh..

...now we just ahve to challenge the healthscare scam

17 I don't like the Hitler card, but Sowell is a pretty sober commentator. When both Sowell and Barone are that extreme is their criticism it's a very telling sign. Obama is doing some very serious stuff that needs to be addressed by the media and the American people. I have faith in the latter, but not the former.

18 Obama can't be happy about this decision; it defies his edict and makes him look impotent. Let's see if he reacts by trying to sway public opinion against the judiciary on his appeal. He's imperious; he has no regard for the rule of law when it doesn't suit him, so I think he will ratchet up the heat on the courts.

19

 saw that Jake Tapper just sent a tweet that Gibbs said that continuing to drill at that depth without knowing what went wrong puts people and environment at risk

Posted by: alexthechick at June 22, 2010 02:01 PM (8WZWv)

good.  I guess He's advocating for anwar.

20 Constitutional power?  I am not familiar with that concept.

21 Many here, including me, agree with Sowell. Not exactly known as a wild eyed right wing conspiracy buff, Sowell adds weight to what has been described as right wing hysteria.

22 Sowell, Has really stood up to much of Obama's dealings. He's an excellant advocate for america and conservatism.

23

 saw that Jake Tapper just sent a tweet that Gibbs said that continuing to drill at that depth without knowing what went wrong puts people and environment at risk

Posted by: alexthechick at June 22, 2010 02:01 PM (8WZWv)

good.  I guess He's advocating for anwar.

Knight-fork.

24
I was wondering how Obama had the power to unilaterally shut down an entire industry.

I'm altering our deal.... pray I dont alter it further.

25 I'm sure Obama is much more comfortable with the title "Strongman" than the wimpy "President."

26 If the New Orlean's court reasoning really is as described above, then I stand by first post: this is a poorly reasoned decision that flies in the face of some pretty well-established principles of administrative law and will be overturned right quick by the 5th Circuit, probably in an unanimous decision.  Oh well.

27 Thank you Judge Feldman--JOO--for upholding the rule of law.  And this made me smile:

Judge Feldman was appointed to the bench by President Reagan in 1983. 

28 >>>Equity is all well and good, but this court seriously be trippin' over executive power issues here. What is your basis for saying so?

29 Hey, wait one second! I issued the drilling moratorium strictly on the advice of my blue ribbon commission on offshore drilling, which was comprised of the following oil and gas experts: the head of Greenpeace, the VP of the Sierra Club, the CFO of Amnesty Int'l, assorted ACLU guys, Bono, and that bald guy from Midnight Oil.

30 Does that mean BP does not have to pay the $100M to fund Obama's oil industry shut job losses???

31 Where are all these comments based on the ruling coming from. The link doesn't have the actual ruling.  As for whether or not Obama has the authority to shutdown and entire industry I don't think there is any question at all that he does NOT have such authority without action from congress or the courts.

Of course, this is a local court which I am sure they will appeal and judge "shop" until they get a ruling they want.

32 I wouldn't be surprised if Obama calls this Judge to his Oval office..

This power hungry jug eared fuckitupakis that has demonstrated his TOTAL disregard for the Constitution probably thinks he can fire him.

33 SeeBS/NYtimes poll gives Prez Oilspill a +4.  The bloom on that rose really must be fading when these guys come in with anything less than a +10.

34 If Gibbs says continuing to drill at that depth is nuts when we don't understand what wrong, then why are they drilling two relief wells? Take his logic all the way and we shouldn't be doing that, it'd be nuts. But that's exactly what we are doing, because it's the best, surest way to control the situation. The only problem is that it takes too long -- so -- guess what -- they're drilling in a BIG HURRY to relieve this well. Those guys on the relief well got pressure coming down on them from the feds and from BP like the Deepwater Horizon guys never though possible. And, it's going to work, too.

35 >>>Many here, including me, agree with Sowell. Not exactly known as a wild eyed right wing conspiracy buff, Sowell adds weight to what has been described as right wing hysteria. Indeed, that's why I posted it. I'm not knocking him. I mentioned the Hitler card not to be demeaning but just to note that he "goes there."

36 Barry: Obviously the judge acted stupidly. Doesn't he know that I am the Ruler of the Country?!?! All must obey me just like the media does

37 I hope Odumbass continues to get smacked in the face (figuratively speaking) with one crisis after another until the little pussy snaps and they they find him curled-up in a fecal position with his thumb stuck in his mouth.

38 BP is the Oil Company That Believes, Embraces, and Makes Love to the Climate Change Hoax--if they don't endorse science, why would they endorse good engineering?

39 This is why I'm pissed off and pro-additional-regulation here.

Isn't it already a regulation to have a backup BOP preventer?  Don't know, looking for someone to put me some info.

40 Isn't it already a regulation to have a backup BOP preventer?  Don't know, looking for someone to put me some info.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 22, 2010 02:11 PM (T0bhq)

My understanding is that it is "highly recommended", not required.  What would be better is a single BOP that can handle 100,000 psi.  It doesn't exist.

41 Rush now talking about the Sowell essay.

42

Here's the link for the quote: http://tinyurl.com/28gdse3

"Feldman says in his ruling that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium. He says it seems to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger."

43 My week so far?  A solid B+. 

44 >>>Isn't it already a regulation to have a backup BOP preventer? Don't know, looking for someone to put me some info. I have no specific cite -- just stuff I *THINK* I know -- but I'm pretty sure the answer is "no," they said the BOP itself was incapable of failure or had redundant systems in place, etc.

45

He says it seems to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger.

IIRC, we've drilled over 30,000 wells in the gulf with one failure.

46

Thank goodness for good judges.

As for regulations, let's enforce the ones we already have. Let's not forget that the former MMS is liable for not only failing to shut-down the well, but for giving BP a pass in multiple instances.

The individuals at BP America were cutting-corners & cost-cutting. They essentially tried to save $1 & instead put themselves & everyone else in the industry in a world of hurt.  

47 I looked, and it was a preliminary injunction.  The standard for that is much less than a genuine legal issue.  They're granted because there might be an issue along with the fact there will be immediate damage reardless if not ordered.

48 You've got to submit your complete well design detailing all of the safety systems including the BOP to the feds for them to sign off on it before you drill. Then you have to follow the approved plan. This seems to have been done in the Deepwater Horizon case unless unknown details are forthcoming. So I doubt you'll be able to make any claims about having two BOPs and so forth -- what they had was given blessing.

49 Krauthammer's point was there would be no need to drill that far out, except that the enviros are offended that they could see a speck of an oil rig from the beach.

Other news is that they think this reservoir is at least a billion barrels which means at current rates this thing could leak for 25-30 years if they couldn't cap it.

50

IIRC, we've drilled over 30,000 wells in the gulf with one failure.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 22, 2010 02:14 PM (h86fF)

The problem is like flying a 747. Millions of miles without an accident, but when you do have an accident, there is wholesale death and damage.

51 I mentioned the Hitler card not to be demeaning but just to note that he "goes there."

For what it's worth (negative numbers do exist!), I didn't read that as being demeaning or insulting but a matter of fact statement that Sowell "goes there".  Hell, I was shocked to find out that he started there.  I did not expect that.

The more regulation issue is interesting.  I would be in ace's camp of assuming that there would be some type of backup or redundancy requirement, if for no other reason than the risk involved.  I can't begin to answer the marginal cost question, I just don't know.  What the Discovery Channel has taught me is that deep sea stuff is freaking dangerous and there should be redundancies in place.  That seems to be common sense, not the creeping regulation of everything. 

52

Posted by: Cowboy at June 22, 2010 02:09 PM (tfMGP)

The reason they are drilling TWO relief wells is simple... their is a leak further down the well, that you just can't fix by capping it on the surface (why the mud shot did not work).

One well will be used to siphon off the pressure, the other will intersect the pipe below the leak, but above the other relief well, and will be used to put a cap in place there.

They've know since before the blowout that this well had problems, but the Obama admin is trying to keep a lid on that information (Fox had an opinion piece on it yesterday).

 

53

Yes, Ace more regulation is required.  That way offending companies can have more violations that are overlooked. 

What is really needed are more regulations about regulations.

They are from the Gov. and are here to help. Fuck.

54 The Constitution acted stupidly.

55

41 My understanding is that it is "highly recommended", not required.  What would be better is a single BOP that can handle 100,000 psi.  It doesn't exist.

The heads of the oil companies (including Hayward) are all advocating for a better BOP.

56 puh puh puh poopy.

57 This incident would be a perfect posterchild for strengthening regulation, IF BP weren't in apparent violation of existing regulations when they blew up the well in the first place.

58 This is why I'm pissed off and pro-additional-regulation here.

WTF? A company as big as BP doesn't have to obey regulations. They pay the pols, and they get exempted. You missed that?

You think the oil business needs more barriers to entry? You think there aren't enough Big Oil lobbyists? You think the government isn't corrupt enough? Not fascist enough?

Seriously, WTF?

59 Posted by: Michael Collins at June 22, 2010 02:21 PM (I+7Zv)

Go play golf like your dreamy Messiah, you clueless fuckwad.

60 There is a limit to how much weight the sandy seafloor could support, I doubt a backup BOP would be a good idea - could cause the whole stack to tilt or subside. I think the leak is down in the shaft - that is the only reason I can think of why the top kill did not succeed. I suspect the shear rams on the BOP did fire - but not completely. It is a lot more complicated then it appears. What bothers me is the lack of third party sign-off for each step - you would think the subcontractors would insist on it.

61 I'll bet The Precedent doesn't care and doesn't give the permits back, anyway.  If any oil company complains, they'll be attacked and threatened ... shakedown style.

This Precedent acknowledges no limits on his power.  He's happy to bring the nation to a Constitutional crisis over just about anything.  That's a big part of his plan, in fact.

62 I have no specific cite -- just stuff I *THINK* I know -- but I'm pretty sure the answer is "no," they said the BOP itself was incapable of failure or had redundant systems in place, etc.

Posted by: ace at June 22, 2010 02:14 PM (3o3v0)

I think you're right about that. One thing contrary to poplular belief or propoganda. During the hearings the BP sailor said that they drill all over the world including Norway and the UK and that the US regulations in the Gulf were the most stringent. Not that we don't need more, just sayin.

63 romeo13 do you have a linky for the down pipe problem.

64 The mechanical BOP design is bogus. 

I'm thinking more along the lines of a series of loosely fit disks inset into dimples in the pipe that are released by the pressure/volume of oil released during a blow out - i.e. use the force of the blow out itself to your advantage to kick the disks into the flow.

The disks could catch on mechanical dogs around the perimeter of the pipe and/or a stout lip at the top beefy enough to hold under the most extreme conditions -- think about how quarters kinda automatically stack and align as they're being dropped into a roll of quarters.

65

39 BP has good engineers. What happened here is that the former CEO (now in the House of Lords) promoted a culture of corruption that exists within the company, one in which people were permitted to do whatever it takes to save time & money. Hayward was chosen so that he could "clean house", which he did to a certain extent, but it's like a Hydra. This mindset has been ingrained in too many people at that company, both here in Houston & in London.

_{/My dad is a petroleum geochemist, FTR.}

66

mms- signed off, they are as responsible for the safety of the rig and the workers, oil destruction  as is BP in my opinion.

If they aren't why even have a regulator?

67 Romeo13, I understand why they are drilling the relief wells. My point was about the drilling ban -- it's a ban they don't believe in, and it's a ban they themselves violate. Because they've banned all drilling. And they themselves are drilling, nevertheless. Furiously, in haste, they themselves are drilling in very deep water. This in itself is an admission that the ban is overbroad, and in fact impossibly counter-productive if applied to all parties (ie., it's a real "ban"). This does in fact support the notion of the "blue ribbon panel" who made the overridden claim that a drilling ban would actually be harmful to safety in the gulf.

68

How about a shear ram than can cut and close regardless of what is in the way--whether a drill pipe, a pipe joint or any other debris or obstruction.  In other words, make a much more robust shear ram.

From what I've read, there are four or five rams below the shear ram that pinch the pipe.  The shear ram is the last resort.  Not sure how they decide what ram to use when.

This well cranks out 100,000 barrels a day.  Say it would have actually produced oil at half that amount.  At $77.00 a barrel (today), that comes out to $3,850,000.00 a day.  So the cost of more caution or a better BOP would have been nothing.

69 Look familiar?


http://tinyurl.com/2bw7jjq

70 ^{_{MMS Drilling Official Retires in Oil Spill Fallout Official in charge of offshore drilling retires in fallout from Gulf spill}};

 

The federal official overseeing offshore drilling announced his departure Monday in a fallout from the Gulf oil spill and criticism that federal regulators have been too cozy with industry.

may 17, abc news

71 If the New Orlean's court reasoning really is as described above, then I stand by first post: this is a poorly reasoned decision that flies in the face of some pretty well-established principles of administrative law and will be overturned right quick by the 5th Circuit, probably in an unanimous decision.  Oh well.

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 22, 2010 02:06 PM (l1KFP)

Seriously, man, you need to 'splain yourself--cite a source, quote.....something

72 What I don't understand is if BP was having problems with the well, why would they ask the Government for help? That doesn't add up. The government doesn't know anything about drilling an oil well. BP is the expert on drilling oil wells. BP and their various sub contractors. And the prudent thing for BP to do if they were having problems is stop, and to call in people like Halliburton, Hughes, and others and work out a solution with the various engineering departments. And a plan "B" and "C" alternatives if the first solution failed. The whole thing smells bad, and where there is stink, there is often shit.

73

The disks could catch

What about the effect of inertia of the column of oil on the BOP when that thing stops suddenly?

74 Obama is destroying the rule of law ... That has to be stopped.

75 Ace, the cost of an "acoustic switch" widely believed to have been able to shut this thing down costs about $500,000 - WSJ had an article on it a few weeks ago - http://bit.ly/b2cHiv. That's roughly the cost of running Deepwater Horizon for one day.

One. Day.

The oil industry has lobbied heavily (and successfully) against having to put these things in place.

To save on the costs of an additional device which, what could it cost, $50,000 tops? $100,000? Sure, it costs money to maneuver it into place, too, but can't you take care of three of them if you're taking care of one?

That's exactly why, pro-business as I am, BP - along with the politicians who relented on requiring safeguards - should hang for this.

76 Here is a good read on the govt's responsibiltiy in this massive screw-up.

McCullough does a total takedown of Prez Oilspill
http://tiny.cc/yi5zu

77 Also, I think that with multiple BOPs (not an engineer, but work in litigation in the awl patch) the issue of weight on the stack is going to come up pretty quickly.

The latest MMS documents show that they were dealing with leaks around the jacket of well before the BOP failed.  My educated guess on this is that the BOP never failed the way we are thinking -- that the entire wellhead shifted, and the BOP more or less broke off or came loose, rather than just not holding the pressure.

78 So basically, Judge Feldman agrees that Barry is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

79 PA - don't think you can do that with all of the different media (cement, mud, oil, gas, water) and stuff that uses that pipe.

80

One of the problems is that too many rely on the BOP. Yes, it exists as a fail-safe, but you shouldn't behave foolishly in the expectation that it's going to save you no-matter-what. My understanding is that the company man did just that. 

81


Feldman has made his decision.  Now let him enforce it.

82 @68 willow

mms- signed off, they are as responsible for the safety of the rig and the workers, oil destruction  as is BP in my opinion.

If they aren't why even have a regulator?

FTW!

Obama has set an anti-drilling tone in his administration.  Do these regulators have the power already to specify a redundant BOP?  If they don't have this explicit power, then why would Obama's people suddenly become sticklers for following rules?

BP got a pass because this administration is in their pocket.  It's as simple as that.

83
That first part down to but not including my "FTW!" was willow's comment, not mine.  I lost the italics somehow.

Sorry, willow.

84 Has Obama returned all of BPs campaign contributions yet?

85

"This is why I'm pissed off and pro-additional-regulation here."

Do you know what the existing regulations are?  And do you know whether the existing safety measures were followed?  And do you know whether there was follow-up by the government, or lip service oversight?

Do you know whether the government had ever bothered to review and approve the BOP?  Who reviewed it, clerks, bureaurocrats, politicians or industry experts?  What is the accepted industry standard?

I would have worded your comment quite differently...."This is why I wonder what the existing oversight for dangerous deep-sea drilling is, whether the oversight is effectively enforced, and whether the very best safety engineers have examined all possibilities.  When the government forces businesses to do inherently dangerous things, it's the responsibility of GOVERNMENT, as well as the business' responsibility, to see that all possible safety precautions have been made, and that procedures are rigorously followed.  And if BP or the government violated existing safety precautions, the responsible people should be appropriately punished.....not by ipso facto thumb screws, but according to the existing law."

You're usually spot-on, Ace.  This time you sound like the moron bill o'reilly.

86 What the Discovery Channel has taught me is that deep sea stuff is freaking dangerous and there should be redundancies in place.  That seems to be common sense, not the creeping regulation of everything.

ATC; I am disappointed that you would use TV for education on ANYTHING.

As for regulation, it is very rare in this country that we ever get good regulation in any area. When we do get regulation 99.99% of the time it involves paper. The feds require a piece of paper and the company provides it.  The feds audit that paper ad issue fines based on how well the paper has been completed.

I have said this many times here. Based on a lifetime of experience in federal over-regulation. Regulation is there to punish the honest companies.  It is like the proverbial pad lock on the tool shed out in the woods. It only keeps the honest people out.

87 Well one thing for sure, if the escaping oil is all coming out of the well casing it is not a major engineering problem to design a valve that will shut it off. Even if the BOP failed another backup gate valve that could be closed manually by the ROV's is not a big engineering problem or a great expense.

88 Equity is all well and good, but this court seriously be trippin' over executive power issues here.

Posted by: Jeff B.

1. Payback is a be-otch

2. This might actually compell the Manufactured Messiah to read the constitution.

 

result = win-win

89 the cost of an "acoustic switch" widely believed to have been able to shut this thing down

The NY Times video ace linked indicated that the shear ram did trigger but didn't close the pipe completely, which makes it unlikely that another trigger is the solution.

90 What about the effect of inertia of the column of oil on the BOP when that thing stops suddenly?

The first disks to release would look like swiss cheese, with subsequent ones necking down more and more to reduce the hydraulic ram effect gradually.  The pockets the disks are released/pivot from can house valves and secondary taps so the well head isn't completely useless and pressure can be relived from the sides like a perforated drain pipe so permanent repairs can be done to the head.

91 >>>WTF? A company as big as BP doesn't have to obey regulations. They pay the pols, and they get exempted. You missed that? >>>You think the oil business needs more barriers to entry? You think there aren't enough Big Oil lobbyists? You think the government isn't corrupt enough? Not fascist enough? I know, it's crazy and unconstitutional for the government to pass laws regarding ultrahazardous activities performed in areas specifically under federal jurisdiction. You know, oblig., you're not so much a conservative as an anarchist. It's just as fascist for the government (state or federal) to have laws on the books regarding the explosive demolition of buildings -- hey, let people do what they want! YAAHHH! FREEEEEDOOMMMM!!!

92

The acoustic trigger:

As a third line of defense, some rigs have the acoustic trigger: It's a football-sized remote control that uses sound waves to communicate with the valve on the seabed floor and close it.

[...]

Transocean Ltd., which owned and operated the Deepwater Horizon and the shut-off valve, declined to comment on why a remote-control device wasn't installed on the rig or to speculate on whether such a device might have stopped the spill. A BP spokesman said the company wouldn't speculate on whether a remote control would have made a difference.

93 >>>The NY Times video ace linked indicated that the shear ram did trigger but didn't close the pipe completely, which makes it unlikely that another trigger is the solution. I don't think the NYT video is definite on what the problem was -- I think they are saying "here are some things that might have gone wrong." A switch is a possibility, I think... like if one side of the shear arm closed but the other one didn't fire. Or the valve thing. or... we don't know.

94 robtr - which is why I think they have a problem down the well - and at 3K+ psi it could be eroding the seabed under the well head. Remember those pictures of the sink hole last month - imagine the whole well head - BOP and all going in.

95 This is why I'm pissed off and pro-additional-regulation here.

Yea, but how is that under the purview of the Federal gov't? Fedzilla tellign businesses how to run their business? eehhhh...

96 or just tipping over.

97 Very simple, no owner is in the building.  Large corporations that run by committee are run by a committee.  No one is in charge.

98 doctrine doctrine doctrine doctrine

99 The mode of triggering is moot, since it triggered and didn't work.

100 A constitution?  You mean we still have one?  Cool.  Well I'm sure that Barry and Company will take care of that little inconvience as soon as he's off the golf course.  Can't have some musty old document fouling up our new socialist utopia now can we?

101

BASED UPON the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

1.  The Drilling Moratorium is stayed until a full hearing on the merits is conducted, whereupon the Court will make a final ruling on its validity;

2.  The President of the United States is declared an utterly incompetent dildo who cannot make any decision more difficult than what toilet paper to wipe his ass with, and even then the Court questions his ability to do so. 

SO ORDERED,

Dated this 22nd day of June, 2010.

___/s/___________________________________

Judge Sharkman (life-time tenure, Bitchez!)

102 >>>Yea, but how is that under the purview of the Federal gov't? Fedzilla tellign businesses how to run their business? eehhhh... the coasts beyond a mile out (or whatever) are specifically under federal jurisdiction. Same as Washington DC is specifically under federal jurisdiction. I really don't buy into this mutated simplistic doctrine of "It's THUNDERDOME, Baby!" It's amazing to me how people so distrustful of the government suddenly find so deep a reservoir of trust for corporations.

103 So where do think the situation is more tense. In the McChrystal's plane for 18hr, on the third tee when Obama has to drive the water, or the BP operations center

104 >>>The mode of triggering is moot, since it triggered and didn't work. Do we know that?

105 Do we know that?

If we believe the  NYT when they say the shear ram did not fully deploy, yes.

106 Ace, I saw something that said they triggered.

107 It's amazing to me how people so distrustful of the government suddenly find so deep a reservoir of trust for corporations.

Posted by: ace at June 22, 2010 02:45 PM (3o3v0)

not government PER SE, but THIS government.

and distrusting Obama is not equal to a 'deep reservoir of trust for corporations', whatever that means

108 right but that doesn't mean it "triggered." What we know is that someone hit the button to activate the shear. We don't know (I don't think) what happened after, whether the signal failed to reach the shear arm or only one arm fired or the valve blew so there wasn't enough pressure to crush the pipe closed, etc.

109 I never thought sticking Garbage in the pipe would work.  Too little oil field experience.  Much better with power chords.

110

The (former) MMS is corrupt, & has been for years. My understanding is that they've proven they can be bought by the highest bidder.

Among MMS's regulatory decisions contributing to the 2010 BP oil spill:

• March 2008 - The mineral rights to drill for oil were purchased by BP at the MMS's Lease Sale #206, held at the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans. 

 
• MMS's 2009 decision that acoustically-controlled shut-off valve (BOP) would not be required as a last resort against underwater spills at the site.

• MMS's failure to suggest other “fail-safe” mechanisms after a 2004 report raised questions about the reliability of the electrical remote-control devices.

 
• Prior to Director Birnbaum's appointment, MMS granted a categorical exclusion waiver on April 6, 2009 to BP exempting it from National Environmental Policy Act's requirements including a detailed environmental analysis, concluding the spill risk in that part of the Gulf was “minimal or nonexistent.” Such NEPA waivers have become routine at MMS, and the Interior department approves 250 to 400 per year for Gulf of Mexico projects.

111

BP and MMS responsible; neither did their job.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., a longtime MMS critic, said the agency has been corrupt for more than a decade, a period spanning three administrations, and that its shortcomings were not the fault of one person. The agency "is in need of an exhaustive overhaul and comprehensive reform," he said.

AP Eileen Sullivan and Matthew Daly, Associated Press Writers, On Monday May 17, 2010, 8:21 pm EDT

112 Jean, I think what we're all reading is that someone hit the button, to send the signal. I don't think we know what happened next, if the signal was interrupted by a cut cable or what.

113 It's not a matter of whether the gov. passes laws or has the authority pass laws in a given dangerous business. But what's the point in having the regs if no one enforces them? I don't care that they do, but why do it if they'll just get a kickback and ignore it, as they obviously did here? Nope, lets just ignore culpability and pass more regulations that they simply ignore for campaign donations and free apartments.

114 ATC; I am disappointed that you would use TV for education on ANYTHING.

Ummm, I thought it was a pretty obvious joke about the Discovery Channel constantly running stuff on sharks and the ocean and crap and my obsessively watching it. 

The common sense part is true though, it's simple common sense that ultrahazardous activities in an ultrahazardous environment require an extra level of care. 

115 Lots of "could'a should'a" on the oil leak, but there had not been a significant leak from a US platform  for 36 years.  This is likely to cultivate a sense of complacency in any business.  (Although they deserve kudos for such an amazing safety record.)
And the government, which spent tens of billions on regulation and oversight failed as badly as BP, although Obama is making sure that not much attention is paid to that, except to blame it all on Bush.  (And racism, probably.)  It reminds me of the FDA.  Drug companies have to get FDA approval of drug safety at a cost of around $100 million bucks, but when some side effect pops up, the FDA is "Nothing to do with us.  So what if we said it was safe!  So?  Look over there--evil BIG PHARMA!"  And despite the failure of the regulatory apparatus, doubtless the response will be to bloat it up even larger.
I'd like to see half the effort being put into blaming and suing go into cleanup and stopping the damn leak, but I doubt it will happen.
 I look forward with interest to how the environmentalists will handle it if it comes down to using a nuke or letting it keep flowing.  Their heads will explode.

116 >>>not government PER SE, but THIS government. >>>and distrusting Obama is not equal to a 'deep reservoir of trust for corporations', whatever that means Well can we have a discussion about whether it is wise to require a second BOP, or a relief well, without dragging the freaking constitution into it? We are allowed to pass laws. Jesus. These laws should be evaluated according to known facts. We don't need a frigging doctrinal answer to every question.

117 Nemo i think 80's girl has a link, where there were problems with this rig, way back in february.

118 The inside skinny from my BP and Halliburton buddies is that the shear ram triggered, but the string of casing was jammed up in the BOP and since the shear ram is engineered to cut drillpipe and not larger casing, it failed to completely close.

119 Ummm, I thought it was a pretty obvious joke about the Discovery Channel constantly running stuff on sharks and the ocean and crap and my obsessively watching it.

I'm sorry, I took it the wrong way.

120 Fuck you ace and your straw men.

There WERE regulations on all this shit on the books, but were they enforced? NO. The real issue is that regulations don't work because they are so easily side stepped. Adding more doesn't do shit.

121 robtr - which is why I think they have a problem down the well - and at 3K+ psi it could be eroding the seabed under the well head. Remember those pictures of the sink hole last month - imagine the whole well head - BOP and all going in.

Posted by: Jean at June 22, 2010 02:42 PM (x7FJQ)

I've heard rumors to that effect but the video shows all the oil leaving the pipe and not bubbling up from the seafloor. That may be least resistance and all but so far that appears to be where it is coming from. Even at 3,000 psi it's pretty hard for a liquid to bore through 2 miles of earth provided the casing was grouted properly which they claim it was. If it wasn't and the oil is escaping via the outside of the casing there would be a big ass hole bored in the seafloor next to the casing I would think.

122

Ace, I am around people who do this kind of thing for a living, and let me assure you, adding another set of shear rams would cost way more than $100,000....not that 100k is too much if that was the primary cause of failure. 

If you do your well design and drilling right, you should never have to actuate the blowout preventer.  Also, if you have last defense mechanism to keep you and your rig safe, it whould be tested and working (I have seen reports of leaks in the hydraulics system that were not fixed).  As a final note, the letter from Congress stated that the tubing hanger was not locked down, meaning that this may be across the set of shear rams, and the shear rams are not designed to close on this type of equipment.

If BP makes the right (industry standard) decisions, this well does not blow out, kill 11 people, sink a rig, and dump 10 of thousands of barrels of oil in the Gulf.

123 My point that the debate about acoustic triggering or sending a signal down the pipe is moot, because (I heard) it triggered but failed.  In that case, acoustic triggering wasn't necessary.  But if it didn't trigger properly, well, that's different.  Maybe an acoustic triggering backup would be good. 

124 ace, No - I saw an ROV footage of an indicator on the BOP. My understanding is that the shear ram is held open by hydraulics provided from the surface - so the removal of said hydraulics by the sinking of the platform should have released the ram.

125 right but that doesn't mean it "triggered."

Yes it does. "Not fully deployed" means it was triggered.

They were driven on, documents and interviews reveal, by indications that the shear ram's blades had come within a few maddening inches of achieving their purpose. Again and again, they tried to make the blades close completely, knowing it was their best chance to end the nightmare of oil and gas billowing into the Gulf of Mexico.

126

2.  The President of the United States is declared an utterly incompetent dildo who cannot make any decision more difficult than what toilet paper to wipe his ass with, and even then the Court questions his ability to do so. 

SO ORDERED,

Dated this 22nd day of June, 2010.

___/s/___________________________________

Judge Sharkman (life-time tenure, Bitchez!)

Posted by: Judge Sharkman at June 22, 2010 02:45

 

Additional evidence has been presented to this court which invalidates this courts second finding in the aformentioned case (people with jobs vs. maladjusted, self-absorbed tax fattened hyenas et.al).

Wheras, evidence exists that this current President of the United States cannot find his ass without the aid of GPS, Force Recon and the Department of the Interior (Sherpa guide usage being struck down by this court), this court cannot rule that the abilities stated in finding #2 are proven.

 

So Ordered,

22 June, 2010 Annno Domini

Judge Sharkman

127 Drill baby drill. The schills always seem to win out anymore.

128 Only teabaggers still say drill baby drill.

129

 99 Very simple, no owner is in the building.  Large corporations that run by committee are run by a committee.  No one is in charge.

The people out on the rig (the company man & the completions engineer) & those giving the commands from Houston were in-charge. Given what we know, the company man should have shut down the entire operation when he noticed there was a problem. If Houston HQ was pressuring, then Transocean should have refused to continue, as was their right.

130 So teabaggers suck?

131

I did read something, IIRC, that said the sheer ram had never been tested. 

That kinda sucks.

132
Can't believe this didn't get a siren.  You cob-loggers know how many jobs this guy just saved?  Bet he ain't a Clinton appointee.

133 We are allowed to pass laws. Jesus. These laws should be evaluated according to known facts. We don't need a frigging doctrinal answer to every question.

Posted by: ace at June 22, 2010 02:52 PM (3o3v0)

Who's "we"?  Legislatures pass laws, etc ( you know this stuff ).  Obama has this Disturbing Tendency to assume & assert powers--for expediency, bribes, ego-inflation, and all sortsa other reasons.  I object; many object.

In a constitutional system, EVERYTHING is 'about the Constitution'.  Everything.

and don't call me 'Jesus'............

134 I'll bet The Precedent doesn't care and doesn't give the permits back, anyway.  If any oil company complains, they'll be attacked and threatened ... shakedown style.

This Precedent acknowledges no limits on his power.  He's happy to bring the nation to a Constitutional crisis over just about anything.  That's a big part of his plan, in fact.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 22, 2010 02:24 PM (Qp4DT)

That was quick.  The interior department just announced that drilling could only continue if drillers met NEW standards, in defiance of the court ruling.

LOL.  The Precedent is shitting all over the court system that helped conceal his clear ineligibility through their cowardice and partisanship.  Just like every other useful idiot that helps The Precedent and eventually ends up under the bus.

135 >>>Ace, I am around people who do this kind of thing for a living, and let me assure you, adding another set of shear rams would cost way more than $100,000....not that 100k is too much if that was the primary cause of failure. Well, what is "way more"? You concede it is not a significant cost in the scheme of things. >>>If you do your well design and drilling right, you should never have to actuate the blowout preventer. Right, but the word "if" hides such an enormity that I don't know why people even use it. IF I handle a cobra properly, it is safe. IF I have sex in just the right way but without birth control I do not need to fear a pregnancy. >>>Also, if you have last defense mechanism to keep you and your rig safe, it whould be tested and working (I have seen reports of leaks in the hydraulics system that were not fixed). Should is like If. Obviously things should have happened, and they didn't.

136 135 That comment screamed racism.

137

I'm surprised there isn't a valve nipple thingy where they can't plug in with an extra hydraulic source.  They could equip one of the subs with backup hydraulic power, plug in, and badabing, badaboom, crush that pig.  Seems simple, a no-brainer--just a matter of one extra valve.

PA, what do you think about that?

138 Why don't we just tax  gas, raise the price to about 6.00 per gallon, like most rest of the world? Wouldn't most of our problems (deficit, reliance on foreign oil, C02, etc) be helped if not solved?

139 I don't think we know what happened next, if the signal was interrupted by a cut cable or what.

Anything that requires a remote signal, hydraulics, etc -- i.e. anything that needs something OTHER than the energy provided by the blowout itself to engage is bogus IMO.

Failsafes that depend on something other than the failure itself to engage are intrinsically flawed designs.

140

IF I handle a cobra properly, it is safe.

Heh. 

141 Well at least the stock market is tanking again today so we've got that.

142 If anyone's interested, here is a link to the judge's order: http://tinyurl.com/2ekdwnc

143 >>>I'm surprised there isn't a valve nipple thingy where they can't plug in with an extra hydraulic source. They could equip one of the subs with backup hydraulic power, plug in, and badabing, badaboom, crush that pig. Seems simple, a no-brainer--just a matter of one extra valve. Eesh. Yeah...

144

In the world of deep Gulf and western Atlantic wells, this 5000' water depth well was a piker.

The Brazilians are drilling dozens of wells in 10,000'+ deep water without a hitch.

BP, Exxon and the other majors have led the way with this technology. There are over 7,000 Cameron BOPs all over the world safely producing oil from shallow and deep offshore wells every day. 

This was a freakish accident, to say the least.

145

June 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stocks fell for a second day after home sales unexpectedly dropped and the Obama administration said it would appeal after a judge lifted the White HouseÂ’s six-month ban on new deep-water drilling projects.

 

Bullshit. The housing data was out this morning and the market was flat. The White House announces it will appeal the judge's ruling and the the Dow is down over 100 points

146 133

I did read something, IIRC, that said the sheer ram had never been tested. 

That kinda sucks.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 22, 2010 02:55 PM (h86fF)

Testing a shear ram is like testing a stick of dynamite.

147

but the string of casing was jammed up in the BOP and since the shear ram is engineered to cut drillpipe and not larger casing, it failed to completely close.

Hence, my argument @70 for a more robust ram.

I was thinking about the blowout process.  If the well was blowing pipe out of the hole, naturally the ram, while closing, would catch on a pipe joint.  There would be no way to avoid that. 

148 How do you test a sheer ram? It's a one way trip

149 That comment screamed racism.

Posted by: Leftwing troll that calls people either racists or teabaggers at June 22, 2010 02:58 PM (7BuB

yeah, I gotcher 'scream' right here............

Wait--is this Hot Air?

150 Why don't we just tax  gas, raise the price to about 6.00 per gallon, like most rest of the world? Wouldn't most of our problems (deficit, reliance on foreign oil, C02, etc) be helped if not solved?

Nope.  When you artificially raise the cost of a resource that is integral to all other products, you simply get a burst of inflation.  Prices & salaries adjust and you are right back where you started, with the added benefit of 3-5 years of misery during the adjustment.

151 Posted by: TexasJew in Israel at June 22, 2010 03:01 PM (VnDuH)

Do the other guys make fun of your ten-gallon hat over there?

152 "Nope.  When you artificially raise the cost of a resource that is integral to all other products, you simply get a burst of inflation.  Prices & salaries adjust and you are right back where you started, with the added benefit of 3-5 years of misery during the adjustment."

We were fine at 4.00 per gallon just a short while ago, after a huge run up. Europe lives with 6.00 per gallon and often more than that.

153 OK, maybe no one will read this but i just saw the post and Ace's question -- Why was there only a single blind shear ram?

As a former failure analysis engineer, the most likely explanation is that the data quoted in the article says that a single one is 99% reliable, and with a back up it goes to 99.37%.

Any analysis of this stuff is iffy since it only looks at first order effects, and I am sure that second order effects would show that a second one might make the system less safe since there would me more downtime for testing or maybe more expense leading to more cost cutting, etc. 

But the numbers seem very wrong. First of all, the BSR is not designed or capable of cutting the joints between pipes. every 30' there is a joint a couple feet long so you know from the start that you are playing the odds.
The truth is, in this case as in all cases of trying to control complex systems there are a lot of things you can do to make it more safe, and after the problem occurs the all seem obvious in retrospect. And for every problem there are gonna be dozens of engineers crying how they predicted it and if we had only listened to them. Sure, but but what about the hundreds of other guys predicting other problems? If we listen to all of them we will never get out of bed in the morning.

All complex human endeavors involve some risk, and all safety regulations are written in blood. After a disaster we pick up the pieces, figure out what happened, and make sure it does not happen again. This is what we have been doing since the first caveman piled rocks up to make a wall and crushed his family and it continues to this day. This is not a reason to stop trying. When a plane crashes we investigate, learn, and make sure it does not happen again.

154 TexasJew, while you're in Israel, pick us up some Tavors, would you?

155

<sub>- Right, but the word "if" hides such an enormity that I don't know why people even use it.
- Should is like If. Obviously things should have happened, and they didn't.</sub>

My grandfather had a saying for this -

"You thought you farted. 

But you shit your pants."

156 Whatever the case was, this is one area where I would bet there won't be any waivers for regulations in the future.  and if there isn't currently a reg for a half drilled relief well, I would add that one too.  Of course, I am guessing also that the cost to bp of this spill will make other oil drillers especially careful about putting in redundancies and double redundancies.

I think this thing is a lot worse than the gov or bp is telling us or what we can see.

157

146 TexasJew,

Can I run this by you? This is what my dad told me:

Lord John Browne, former CEO, is the culprit in this mess.
(1) The company man & the completion engineer were responsible for not stopping what happened at Deepwater Horizon. Transocean should have stood up to the individuals in Houston calling the shots, but they didn't. #1 issue - what happened with the mud. Anyone in the petroleum industry should have known better than to pull that stunt. It was outrageous.

(2) Since the age of Browne, BP has been willing to cut corners to save time & money. Apparently, the # of things they did wrong on DH are numerous, & they essentially decided to waste billions just to save pennies. They believed DH was like the Titanic, that the fail-safe mechanism could save her.   (3) MMS should have never signed any of the waivers, or signed-off on any of the equipment. Over the course of 3 decades, they have proven to be ineffective, incompetent, &/or corrupt.

158 We were fine at 4.00 per gallon just a short while ago, after a huge run up. Europe lives with 6.00 per gallon and often more than that.

Posted by: bobcon at June 22, 2010 03:05 PM (gzfLC)

$4.00 per gallon immediatley preceeded the worst recession we have had in some time.

159
ace,

This is not a technical problem.  The actual details might turn out to be something that could have been addressed by regulation, and I guess that BOP redundancy will be a new requirement from here forward.

Regulation *caused* this problem.  Once MMS signed-off on BP's plans, the beancounters at BP were able to assign a value of $75M as BP's downside share of any risks on the rig.

Any boss at BP not willing to push forward would have been replaced by another who would be.

160 >>>This was a freakish accident, to say the least. Right, well, it is an accident, but is it 'freakish"? There is a big difference if this was a series of unlikely calamaties making this an incident that is 1 in one million, or if this was a series of fairly likely failures making the incident like 1 in 1000 or 1 in 100 or... even worse. As my template, here, I am thinking of the Space SHuttle disasters, which were supposedly 1 in 1,000,000 events, that is to say, supposedly the risk evaluation managers had determined that was the risk of catastrophic failure. But when indepdenent analysts came in, they found the risk was 1 in 1000 or even 1 in 100. People have a natural subconscious tendency to believe what their incentive system tells them to believe. If you are rewarding managers for getting rigs on-line as fast and as cheap as possible and not rewarding someone for a smart hold-up or request for additional safety equipment, it will not be long until everyone is on the same page as far as risk assessment -- the wrong page. Don't forget that. People are people. And people are not always consciously corrupt, but people subconsciously wind up believing their own interests -- for promotion -- align perfectly with the general interest. And no one can do a damn thing about that, because people will always do that.

161
Why don't we just tax  gas, raise the price to about 6.00 per gallon, like most rest of the world? Wouldn't most of our problems (deficit, reliance on foreign oil, C02, etc) be helped if not solved?

Ok, who let the Axelturfer in the house?  Yeah sure, "bobcon", let's tax our way out of socialism.  Good thinkin'.

162 153 Posted by: TexasJew in Israel at June 22, 2010 03:01 PM (VnDuH)

Do the other guys make fun of your ten-gallon hat over there?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 22, 2010 03:03 PM (5aa4z)

Walking on the beach here in Tel Aviv this afternoon, looking at some of the great-looking nafkas on the beach, I needed a ten-gallon hat just to hide my shlong. 

163 This was a freakish accident, to say the least.

More a cascade of failures (some human, some mechanical)...which most "disaster" type things tend to be.  A lot of things have to go wrong before the nightmare scenario presents itself.

I'll pimp Henry Petroski's awsome book To Engineer Is Human again.  Its an examination of engineering failure.

164 Once MMS signed-off on BP's plans, the beancounters at BP were able to assign a value of $75M as BP's downside share of any risks on the rig.

Which  is why the $20B slushfund is bullshit.  They owed their investors a fiduciary duty to NOT cave in on this slush fund. 

165

Do the other guys make fun of your ten-gallon hat over there?

He wears a ten-gallon yamaka.

166

Testing a shear ram is like testing a stick of dynamite.

Cool!  Anybody call Mythbusters yet?  That's an episode I'd love to see.

167 We were fine at 4.00 per gallon just a short while ago, after a huge run up. Europe lives with 6.00 per gallon and often more than that.

Posted by: bobcon at June 22, 2010 03:05 PM (gzfLC)

That $4.00 gas is what pushed this nation over the economic edge.

Europe lives with $6 gas, but Europe is an unproductive shithole that is quickly being recognized to be insolvent.

168
They owed their investors a fiduciary duty to NOT cave in on this slush fund. 

Yeah, good luck to them trying to enforce some sanity on the executive payouts.

169 13 This is some hacktastic judging by the New Orleans judge, IMO. It grants a result that I am in favor of, but it's still shit. And I'm a constitutional lawyer, so I know something about this. Equity is all well and good, but this court seriously be trippin' over executive power issues here. Posted by: Jeff B. at June 22, 2010 02:01 PM (l1KFP) I seem to recall that there was a required level of reasoning and co-operation with States included in the authority provided in the legislation. So, between Gov. Jindal, this judge, and what I am sure will be Mark Levin's analysis, I think it's safe to say you should call your law schools bursar's office and ask for a refund.

170 We were fine at 4.00 per gallon just a short while ago

Who's this we?  The $4 gasoline is what started the recession, which triggered the housing burble to burst and brought on the Obamacalypse.

We went from .50 a gallon to 1.00 and gallon and the inflation was horrid.  Then prices caught up and we plateaued until the next rise.  Heretofore, the price increases have been OPEC/producer driven but you are proposing forcing a price increase.

I'm assuming you were not an adult in the 70's and early 80's but the inflation aspects sucked donkey dicks.

171 I'm sorry, I took it the wrong way.

No problem, Vic, it's one of those things that was clear in my head and didn't translate well into actual reality.  Like much of my life, come to think of it. 

172

Ok, who let the Axelturfer in the house?  Yeah sure, "bobcon", let's tax our way out of socialism.  Good thinkin'.

Hey, it's working in Greece!  Ok, well except for the riots and the complete collapse of their economy...

173 But when indepdenent analysts came in, they found the risk was 1 in 1000 or even 1 in 100.

The 1:1M shit was what NASA pimped to the public.  Internally at Rockwell, WE ALL (and the astronauts) KNEW the real odds were about 1:100 on any given launch for "total loss of vehicle and crew" (that was the official term used).

The people that fly the shuttle have titanium balls.

174 162 If everyone is doing it, then why is BP the only one with 760 violations, with the next 2 companies only having 8? This is a cultural problem at BP that has existed for over a decade. Under the former CEO, they had no problem with lying, cheating, or even resorting to spying.

175 173 I'm sorry, I took it the wrong way. No problem, Vic, it's one of those things that was clear in my head and didn't translate well into actual reality. Like much of my life, come to think of it. Posted by: alexthechick at June 22, 2010 03:11 PM (8WZWv) I have no idea what you are commenting about but it's nothing Gabrielle Anwar in assless chaps couldn't fix.

176 Right, well, it is an accident, but is it 'freakish"?

There is a big difference if this was a series of unlikely calamaties making this an incident that is 1 in one million, or if this was a series of fairly likely failures making the incident like 1 in 1000 or 1 in 100 or... even worse.

As my template, here, I am thinking of the Space SHuttle disasters, which were supposedly 1 in 1,000,000 events, that is to say, supposedly the risk evaluation managers had determined that was the risk of catastrophic failure. But when indepdenent analysts came in, they found the risk was 1 in 1000 or even 1 in 100.

Posted by: ace at June 22, 2010 03:07 PM (3o3v0)

You can tell by the actual history of such events.  There were only a small number of shuttle flights, but there are lots and lots of undersea wells operating.  Obviously, the odds of this event happening are pretty long, otherwise we would have seen leaking wells all over the place.

Funny how things are clean for so many years (the head honchos were at the Deepwater Horizon rig the day of the blowout to celebrate 7 years of no lost time incidents) and then, all of a sudden, eco-freaks infest the regulatory bodies and a well blows up and can't be closed.  Now, looking at the odds of everything, that would strike someone as very, very odd.

177

He wears a ten-gallon yamaka.

Filled with ten gallons of what exactly?  Ok, yikes, nevermind, please don't answer that question...

 

178

He wears a ten-gallon yamaka.

Filled with ten gallons of what exactly

I can only hope TJ takes that one out of the park.

179 Don't forget that. People are people.

And no one can do a damn thing about that, because people will always do that.

Posted by: ace at June 22, 2010 03:07 PM (3o3v0)

Another truth to be held as self-evident.  You're saying that people are flawed, which is the basis of our government.  Corporations are flawed, but they do not have sovereign powers:  They can't tax me or imprison me or seize my property.

BP was bad; that in no way decreases the threat or the fundamental dishonesty--the bad-ness--of the Obama government.  BP was bad; Obama is far worse.  I don't want him using them to make government even worse.

180 Whatever the case was, this is one area where I would bet there won't be any waivers for regulations in the future.  and if there isn't currently a reg for a half drilled relief well, I would add that one too.  Of course, I am guessing also that the cost to bp of this spill will make other oil drillers especially careful about putting in redundancies and double redundancies.

I think this thing is a lot worse than the gov or bp is telling us or what we can see.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes

 

That's what we were told about lead in toys coming from China. And surprise, Mattel gets a waiver from submitting to independent testing. The big guys don't mind these regulation crusades.They use their lobbyists to not merely survive them,, but to screw over competitors AND be seen as being compliant. This as been a reality since Upton Sinclair wrote 'The Jungle'.

181 The real argument we should be having is why wasn't the risk factored into things?

I argue that by limiting liability and writing regulations the gov removed the responsibility for failure from the guys running the rig. This happens in every case where the gov writes regulations -- the operators now worry about compliance instead of safety. Why was MMS running tests on BOP reliability instead of BP or one of the other companies? BP was only interested in compliance and if a couple trips to conferences on Oahu gets the job done, all the better.

The gov first tries to regulate, and then companies want protection from liability if they meet gov standards and things go wrong. next you end up with bureaucrats running things instead of the guys working  who know what can go wrong and who will have to pay if they do go wrong.

182 Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 22, 2010 03:13 PM (Qp4DT) Excellent point. Most suits are squirrelly creatures. Any hint of risk to their person or reputation and they'll scatter. Now, this does not preclude idiocy and/or over-confidence.

183 ace, the problem is regulation tends to replace responsibility and judgment. In this case once the regulatory hurdle was achieved -- then it is all about the bottom line (see MikeO above). At least in an airliner you have a flight crew who are going to be first to the scene of an accident as a final check. We need less regulation and more responsibility.

184 Don't forget that. People are people. And people are not always consciously corrupt, but people subconsciously wind up believing their own interests -- for promotion -- align perfectly with the general interest.

And no one can do a damn thing about that, because people will always do that.

Posted by: ace at June 22, 2010 03:07 PM (3o3v0)

I've wondered about how much that had to do with it as well. I have seen alot of people make decisions based on the bonus or raise they knew would be coming if their decision worked out. I've done it myself, hired a contractor or a supplier that was iffy because it saved a couple of hundred thousand. I always had a backup plan if it didn't work out, I wonder if the BOP was someones backup plan.

185 Obviously, the odds of this event happening are pretty long, otherwise we would have seen leaking wells all over the place.

Its not that the odds are long per se, they were 100% under this particular scenario -- given the cascade of judgment/gear failures.

Everything could have passed all its tests and this BOP and the shears could have failed if the engineers didn't consider the possibility of shit stuck in the pipe as one of the possible failure modes. 

186 At least in an airliner you have a flight crew who are going to be first to the scene of an accident as a final check. We need less regulation and more responsibility.

Perhaps there should be a government regulator forced to live on every drilling rig.

187

Ace,

Just because you replied to me...from Congress to Tony Hayward, point the first...(a car can also be as dagerous as a cobra if not handled properly)

"Well Design. On April 19, one day before the blowout, BP installed the final section of steel tubing in the well. BP had a choice of two primary options: it could lower a full string of "casing" from the top of the wellhead to the bottom of the well, or it could hang a " liner" fromthe lower end of the casing already in the well and install a "tieback" on top of the liner. The liner-tieback option would have taken extra time and was more expensive, but it would havebeen safer because it provided more barriers to the flow of gas up the annul ar space surrounding these steel tubes. A BP plan review prepared in mid-April reconunended against the full string of casing because it would create "an open annulus to the wellhead" and make the seal assembly at the wellhead the "only barrier" to gas flow if the cement job failed. Despite this and other warnings, BP chose the more risky casing option, apparently because the liner option would have cost $7 to $10 million more and taken longer."

As Napolean the pig almost stated, "Two barriers good, one barrier bad".

188 but it's nothing Gabrielle Anwar in assless chaps couldn't fix.

Now that right there is excellent life advice.

189

I can only hope TJ takes that one out of the park.

Well can't pitch heat all day, every now and again you have to throw a changeup

190 Damian - or a BP exec with P/L responsibility -- a nice little loft with an ocean view and good fishing.

191 >>>Funny how things are clean for so many years (the head honchos were at the Deepwater Horizon rig the day of the blowout to celebrate 7 years of no lost time incidents) and then, all of a sudden, eco-freaks infest the regulatory bodies and a well blows up and can't be closed. Now, looking at the odds of everything, that would strike someone as very, very odd. Does everything that contradicts a doctrinal belief need be the result of conspiracy? Isn't it POSSIBLE -- just possible, mind you -- your doctrinal belief was flawed? Is it possible that BP did not, in fact, successfully evaluate the actual risk presented here and cut corners to reduce costs and increase profits and that is what caused the disaster?

192 186 It was most likely a back-up plan. Given the circumstances & the fact that the mechanism works in most cases, it seems the people working on the rig thought that the BOP could overcome the cost & corner-cutting. Isn't what that email from the hearing implied, too? That it would all be over soon, & that it was guaranteed to work? 

193
Hey, where did bob the _*cough* "conservative" go?

194 >>>I've wondered about how much that had to do with it as well. I have seen alot of people make decisions based on the bonus or raise they knew would be coming if their decision worked out. I've done it myself, hired a contractor or a supplier that was iffy because it saved a couple of hundred thousand. I always had a backup plan if it didn't work out, I wonder if the BOP was someones backup plan. Everyone does this day-in day-out. And if you put them under a lie detector and asked if they compromised safety for personal gain they could say "No" and not be deceptive, because, as George Costanza observed, it's not a lie if you believe it yourself. Obviously MMS was supposed to be an objective third-party here scrutinizng these results and failed catastrophically.

195 But I'm sure most of them would pass the lie detector test too.

196 Its not that the odds are long per se, they were 100% under this particular scenario -- given the cascade of judgment/gear failures.

Everything could have passed all its tests and this BOP and the shears could have failed if the engineers didn't consider the possibility of shit stuck in the pipe as one of the possible failure modes. 

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 22, 2010 03:20 PM (9BoUH)

Actually, the bulk of the problems with this well were caused outside of the drilling, when they sunk the rig in their race to put the initial fire out.  That bent all the piping and contributed an unknown, but large, amount to the current problems.

This part, of course, had nothing to do with BP or regulations.

197 ace, your just missing in on the inside corner. BP complied with the existing regulatory scheme - the accident was outside of those regulatory parameters. Rather then more regulation, we need more responsibility. Once they were in compliance, of course they started optimizing to reduce cost versus reducing risk. Change the formula to less regulation, more responsibility and maybe we get smoke detectors in the cargo bay and a proper well liner.

198 Not wanting to throw a big stupid into the thread and detract from the serious, but was it just me or did anybody else hear Christopher Walken narrating that NYT vid?

Bueller? I don't see any comments to that effect ... wow, I thought it was sorta obvious ...

I mean, that dude's voice ... if it's not CW, IMO, the guy is doing a decent CW impression. Even a lot of the subtle tells are there. If this is the case I'm betting he's one of the Asians on those YouTube vids ... ;-)

Now please don't ask me why CW would narrate that, or why someone else would imitate CW while narrating that. I couldn't even begin to guess.

We'd all agree that "Walkenness" is not merely some trait that other people just happen to have ... like a hitchhiker's thumb, a widow's peak, or a mere accent ... this goes way beyond accent lol. And sure, people have varying ability to do the CW impression, but nobody naturally speaks that way. Nobody.

Except him.

More Cowbell, Baby.

Fact: if you sound just like Walken, you either are Walken, or you're doing a passably good voice impression of Walken. QED, finis.

So is it Walken? :-)

199 >>>Its not that the odds are long per se, they were 100% under this particular scenario -- given the cascade of judgment/gear failures. This is an important point. When disaster strikes, in that particular case, the odds of disaster were 100%.

200 Is it possible that BP did not, in fact, successfully evaluate the actual risk presented here and cut corners to reduce costs and increase profits and that is what caused the disaster?

It is a certainty, not a possibility.  It is precisely the sort of mindset among management that killed the Challenger crew. 

If every decision on a rig were made under the assumption that the BOP not could, but WOULD fail, you'd be operating under a radically different decision tree that made far more conservative choices.

201 >>> Change the formula to less regulation, more responsibility and maybe we get smoke detectors in the cargo bay and a proper well liner. Do you know a lot of cab companies in NYC (and other cities) are wickedly undercapitalized and underinsured? That's because their plan, should a cabbie kill a dozen people, is just to go bankrupt, fold the corporation, and start a new one. So there are a lot of regulations on the books to force cab companies to capitilze themselves to the xth degree and carry y insurance and still that is often evaded. It is human nature to put the risks of one's activities on to other people.

202 Is it possible that BP did not, in fact, successfully evaluate the actual risk presented here and cut corners to reduce costs and increase profits and that is what caused the disaster?

BP increased the number and scope of corners that it could cut by putting the Obama administration in its pocket. 

The stories hitting the news about how badly the MMS has been mismanaged tells me that BP may not be the only company who thought they had the regulators in its pocket.

One major psychological driver of the "conspicuous virtue" phenomena is a perceived behavioral economy akin to papal indulgences.  It's cool to hunt hobos as long as you donate stuff to Goodwill Industries.

203 >>>Funny how things are clean for so many years (the head honchos were at the Deepwater Horizon rig the day of the blowout to celebrate 7 years of no lost time incidents) and then, all of a sudden, eco-freaks infest the regulatory bodies and a well blows up and can't be closed. Now, looking at the odds of everything, that would strike someone as very, very odd.

Does everything that contradicts a doctrinal belief need be the result of conspiracy?

Posted by: ace at June 22, 2010 03:23 PM (3o3v0)

Er ... I wasn't intimating anything about a conspiracy.  I was just pointing to the circumstances and saying what the odds of the events having taken place look like.  We were talking about the odds of things happening, outside of malfeasance, right?

204 >>>It is a certainty, not a possibility. It is precisely the sort of mindset among management that killed the Challenger crew. You're preaching to the converted; I am just trying to get the crack in the door of a "possibility" here.

205

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at June 22, 2010 03:06 PM (Yq+qN)

"Drilling underbalanced" is the normal term. And it is done all the time on deeper wells, on land and offshore.

Thst means that you are drilling with a lighter mudweight than you usually would use. It saves you lots in drill time, rig cost and in fishing due to "differential sticking" - often casuing a dangerous and expensive "sidetrack" to be drilled.It is a gamble, certainly, but there are also problems in "drilling overbalanced", with too heavy a mud, such as the differential sticking issue.

I see a lot of rather uninformed second-guessing here, and as someone who has been on many rigs while they drill deep and ultradeep wells (down to the deepest well ever drilled in Texas - the almost-30,000' Hunt Oil Moises Cerf #1 in Pecos County -, let me just say that what BP did is not uncommon. The trick is to have a good backup. Not having a liner or an extra intermediate string - something that sticks out as the worst offence of BP - was not a good move. The BOP failed because of the casing jammed up into it, not because it wasn't tested properly. Having a string of thick casing jammed up to the top into a 60' BOP is, as the Obamaites would say, "unprecedented".

Last thing I wanted to say was this: Transocean had no choice except to accept and do what BP said to do. That is always the master-slave relationship between a driller and a company man. The buck stops with BP.

206 Whenever something goes wrong there a lot of people saying that it was obvious and that they could have predicted it or that their way was better. The press loves this stuff since it gives them a villain (the guys in charge that did not listen) and fits in with their self satisfied approach to reporting.

But it's easy to pick the winners after the fact. Go to the track and tell the guys tearing up tickets about how their horse was bound to lose since the weather or the track conditions pre-ordained it. See how long you last.

But when something blows up we always rush to hear the "experts" tell us why they were right before anyone knows what really happened.

BP may be a lousy company, but I wont second guess them yet. All i can say if the government tell me I got to have one BSR on the BOP They will get one. not two. if they want two, they better ask for two. If they want safety, then let me decide how many to use.

207

What Purple Avenger said at comment # 202.

The blowout preventer was not among the 5 issues that Congress wanted to address with Tony Hayward.

208 >>>Er ... I wasn't intimating anything about a conspiracy. I was just pointing to the circumstances and saying what the odds of the events having taken place look like. We were talking about the odds of things happening, outside of malfeasance, right? Okay, well, it sounded like an I Question the Timing. I don't get your point then -- so, BP was supposedly being regulated by eco-freaks and that caused a design flaw that was baked in the cake 10 years ago?

209 Okay, I'll join in.

>>> It is a certainty, not a possibility.  It is precisely the sort of mindset among management that killed the Challenger crew.

Agreed.

Also see: Titanic (okay, different world; same basic issue, though), and Space Shuttle Columbia.

210

"Hornbeck, which ferries people and supplies to offshore rigs, says the moratorium could cost Louisiana thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in lost wages."

 

That's a feature, not a bug.  Those thousands will become dependent on Government largesse while waiting for jobs to come back - probably AFTER the November elections, if not after the 2012 election.  I expect more people will have to ask for government help as times goes on and crisises accumulate, and will have to support the current Administration in order to assure their own well-being during this "temporary" situation.  You don't want to let a good crisis go to waste.

211
I am just trying to get the crack in the door of a "possibility" skulls of the insistent conspiracy idiots here.

ftfy

212

204 Perhaps, but that does not explain why it has always been a standard operating procedure for them to cut corners. A majority of their failures were under the Bush Administration, actually. Was that due to Bush, or corporate culture? I'm guessing corporate culture.

/My dad works in the Energy Corridor & knows people inside BP America.

213 "I'm assuming you were not an adult in the 70's and early 80's but the inflation aspects sucked donkey dicks."

But where was the GD inflation at 4.00 per gallon? 0. It was deflation still.

Chinamen are making our lives easy.

So sorry, steaks are calling.

214 Do you know a lot of cab companies in NYC (and other cities) are wickedly undercapitalized and underinsured?

You make it sound like a cab is different from any vehicle on the road. They have at least the same insurance everyone else has. And we are not talking about a wild west situation like cabbies where anyone can punch holes in the gulf. we are talking about some of highest market cap companies in the world.

215 >>>But it's easy to pick the winners after the fact. Go to the track and tell the guys tearing up tickets about how their horse was bound to lose since the weather or the track conditions pre-ordained it. See how long you last. Of course. But it's crazy to shut one's eyes to new data as it comes in and not change anything.

216
So sorry, steaks are calling.

Ostrich or tofu?

217 What a maroon.

218 207 "Drilling underbalanced" is the normal term. And it is done all the time on deeper wells, on land and offshore.

Understood.

Last thing I wanted to say was this: Transocean had no choice except to accept and do what BP said to do. That is always the master-slave relationship between a driller and a company man. The buck stops with BP.

That's what he said as well. You are under contract, so you obey.

209 ...The blowout preventer was not among the 5 issues that Congress wanted to address with Tony Hayward.

Though I heard him raise the issue on multiple occasions. Not that they really cared about substance...

219 I don't get your point then -- so, BP was supposedly being regulated by eco-freaks and that caused a design flaw that was baked in the cake 10 years ago?

Posted by: ace at June 22, 2010 03:33 PM (3o3v0)

My point was that you were asking what the odds of failure were on these rigs, to which I responded that the odds of failure were long enough that we haven't had a bad spill in decades and that there even head honchos on the Deepwater rig to celebrate 7 years of no problems, which is when the problem hit.  I mention the eco-freaks in the regulatory bodies because that is one of the only changes that has occured since the Indonesian took control of the Executive.  You would think that eco-freaks would be harsher with the regulatory schemes, being eco-freaks and general retards, but that hasn't been borne out by any evidence - quite the opposite.

As to the design flaws for the well and such, the bulk of the real problem was outside of BP's control, as it was the insane firefighting effort that sunk the well.  That is the real killer in this scenario.  That is what bent the pipiing and really screwed everything up - which is why it is strange that anyone thinks the liability of BP can be known at this point (as the slush fund is about to start handing out cash).

220 Of course. But it's crazy to shut one's eyes to new data as it comes in and not change anything.

Data? Data is at the bottom of the gulf waiting to be hauled up and torn apart to see what went wrong.

The only new data is that the old way did not work.
OK, we have a lot of indicators, but I leave it to the experts and not the NYT to figure out what went wrong. I'm just saying it's like every plane crash where before the NTSB is on site everybody has pet theories and they are all wrong. Let them figure out what happened, and then fix it.

221 Was that due to Bush, or corporate culture? I'm guessing corporate culture.

I'm sorry--that was the point I was trying [badly] to make.

IMO, BP did all that greenie "Beyond Petroleum" crap to buy themselves leeway in their own minds to continue to behave badly.

222 But where was the GD inflation at 4.00 per gallon? 0.

Did you buy an airline ticket then?  Pay a fuel surcharge on your electric bill?  Or ship a pallet of goods?  The prices for transportation and energy shot up, for a fact.

223 >>>Data? Data is at the bottom of the gulf waiting to be hauled up and torn apart to see what went wrong. Well we do know that this system which was sold as fool-proof was nothing of the sort. That we know now, right now. Or 65 days ago we knew it. What specifically failed we don't know. But we do know we sure could have used some redundancy.

224 Let them figure out what happened, and then fix it.

Nork mini subs.

225

223 I'm sorry--that was the point I was trying [badly] to make.

IMO, BP did all that greenie "Beyond Petroleum" crap to buy themselves leeway in their own minds to continue to behave badly.

The company is split on whether they actually believe in all the green nonsense, or whether it was just a marketing ploy by former CEO Lord John Browne.

As for corporate culture & Browne, search for articles about why Hayward replaced him & the damage Browne permanently inflicted on the company. Browne was basically run-out-on-a-rail, though not specifically for AK & TX City. But he deserved every last bit of it.

226 "So sorry, steaks are calling.

Ostrich or tofu?"

Black Angus, filets, prime.

227 What specifically failed we don't know. But we do know we sure could have used some redundancy.

Until we know what specifically failed and how, we cannot know that we could have used some redundancy.

228 I assume that you're not cooking with gas. 

229
Goaberment sucks, down with those commie sympathizers. Up with corporate fat cats as I will someday be one, just like all of you.

Posted by: BB at June 21, 2010 03:51 PM (gzfLC)

Go away, troll.

230 crap, left out the quote

Black Angus, filets, prime.

I assume that you're not cooking with gas. 

231 >>>Until we know what specifically failed and how, we cannot know that we could have used some redundancy. Oh I sort of think we can.

232

Having worked on rigs, let me say what *really* pisses me off about this BOP design - BOP stacks built 30, 40, 50, even 60 years ago all had better backup sytems than this supposedly supermodern, high dollar BOP did.  And that's pathetic. All BOP's *used* to be built with true purely manual backup systems that bypassed the hydraulics.  That capability was scrapped in this design.

It really is just like the Titanic - they decided that their designs and systems were so AWESOME that they didn't NEED no stinkin' backup systems!!!

233 wws - how would you drive a manual backup at 5K deep?

234 Perhaps, but that does not explain why it has always been a standard operating procedure for them to cut corners.

I tell anyone I do any electrical work for that "passing code" is like getting a D- on a test, and then proceed to tell'em why I won't use particular materials or methods that might make the job a few bucks cheaper.

Other people don't see things that way and will always do the cheapest job they can legally get away with.

The point was made above that "regulation" can (and is) often used as an excuse for doing as little as possible or as shitty a job as possible because you can then legally hide behind the legal cloak of having done what was "required". 

The problem of course is the dopes who draft all the regulation don't really consider how things work out in the field and when they specify you must do X, some guy down the line cheaps out a little and does X-.005

235 I really think we are focusing too much on the BOP instead of the well itself.

236

I see a lot of rather uninformed second-guessing here

Which is pretty much what the word Blog means.  It's french.. or latin maybe.. hell, maybe swahile.. not like it matters.  But the only place you'll find more uniformed second guessing on any topic is in Congress.  But did appreciate the more expert appraisal of the situaiton to be sure.

 

237 All BOP's *used* to be built with true purely manual backup systems that bypassed the hydraulics.

Keep talking like that baby...if you're female, then I'm in love! 

238 PA - esp. when you end up at the extremes: 5K deep, in a high mach aircraft, spacecraft, etc.

239

All BOP's *used* to be built with true purely manual backup systems that bypassed the hydraulics.  That capability was scrapped in this design.

I was wondering why they couldn't pull up in a sub and start turning a big screw.  I was surprised there wasn't one to turn.

Think about it; they could gear it up to where a small amount of torque could impart a huge force. 

Another no-brainer.

240

236 Perhaps, but that does not explain why it has always been a standard operating procedure for them to cut corners.

Well, my point was more about who used to be running BP & how he encouraged even pushing those boundaries.

But I can well believe what you're saying, PA.

241

Keep talking like that baby...if you're female, then I'm in love! 

So you're gay too?

242

wws - how would you drive a manual backup at 5K deep?

See #241.  Subs.  Gears. 

243 I was surprised there wasn't one to turn.

Its the siren song of "advanced technology".  Sometimes smacking shit with a BFH really is the best way.

244

But where was the GD inflation at 4.00 per gallon? 0. It was deflation still.

Wow.. ok, first, grab that copy of Economics for Dummies off the coffee table, run down to your local bookstore and get a refund.  It's obviously not doing you a bit of good, unless of course your using it to prop up one end of the coffee table to make it level.  Other than that it was a total waste of money.

Chinamen are making our lives easy.

Moon rocks will give you cancer but only if your an Aquarius.  Or to put it another way, One nonsensical non-sequiter deserves another.

So sorry, steaks are calling.

Which when translated from libertard moonbat troll speak into English comes out as, "I've been caught talking out of my ass again.  Time to make a lame excuse not to answer any questions and post something equally idiotic under another moniker so they won't realize what an idiot I am."

Sorry, too late.

245 Just for the sake of completeness, I am compelled to ask the extent to which the extreme depths complicated any of these factors. Would some of these measures have been rendered less an issue at the more traditional depths? More an issue? To what extent is it interfering with the task of staunching the uncontrolled flow? Because I guarantee depth was a controllable issue. And unless you can explain to me why Government is not to be assigned major blame for the extra hazard caused by forcing drilling out there to begin with, you'll have little support from this quarter about allowing such a crew of manifest incompetents even more say in how these things are handled.

246 Since there's been no official investigation, it's hard to say for sure, but it sure sounds like the existing regulations were being skirted, at best. I see similar things around here (fortunately, when we screw up, it doesn't mean much): we don't have the political will to enforce our regulations. So, we create new regulations to back them up. Which we also don't have the political will to enforce. The danger of redundant regulations is that they provide the illusion of safety and the expectation that no one can follow all of them. (And we don't know we could have used some redundancy, at least of BOPs. If, for example, a second BOP were to raise the chance of successful deployment from 99% to 99.3%, but also raise the chance that it needs to deploy from .001% to .01% per year, then that particular redundancy is not one we want. This isn't just naysaying. Adding to a system makes it more complex, and that usually increases the probabilities and/or means for it to fail.)

247

Sometimes smacking shit with a BFH really is the best way.

I say take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.

248 Well you would be wrong.

Posted by: lowandslow at June 22, 2010 04:08 PM (GZitp)

Really? I don't recall all 747's being grounded until they figured out what happened with flight 800. Were they?

249 Oh I sort of think we can.

Before we can know that that redundancy would have been helpful, we have to know that the BOP could have prevented the blowout. 

250 The judge holds stocks in drilling companies, so clearly this was a quid pro quo.

251 robtr - the FAA or the OEM can ground them; takes some balls to pull the trigger.

252 >>>The danger of redundant regulations is that they provide the illusion of safety and the expectation that no one can follow all of them. Well that *can* be true but I don't think it's such a overbearingly complex or onerous regime to say that every safety feature needs at least one redundancy. We are talking potentially billions in economic damage, remember.

253 From what I have seen, the problem in the gulf is O2 depletion not oil saturation -- so wouldn't a good tropical storm or hurricane mix that up and save some fish?

254 >>>Before we can know that that redundancy would have been helpful, we have to know that the BOP could have prevented the blowout. Two points: I am more certain we need redundancy than you can possibly be that we don't. The probability is firmly on my side. Two, even if this had nothing to do with any of the no-back-up-plan systems, it is egregious that there were no back ups for these systems. Even if the failure had nothing to do with the nonredundant systems, every system in an ultrahazardous activity should have one redundancy. At least one.

255 robtr - the FAA or the OEM can ground them; takes some balls to pull the trigger.

Posted by: Jean at June 22, 2010 04:15 PM (CSSGa)

Yeah I know that and they do require them sometimes to be grounded to make certain repairs or changes. That wasn't the point though. It was months or longer before they figured out what caused flight 800 to crash and I don't recall them grounding 747's just to be safe. Maybe they did though.

256 Are we booming, skimming and burning at the site yet?  Or still just dispersing?

I should know, since I live down here, but I don't.

257 ace - that would be an incredibly onerous restriction. Airplanes would be too heavy to fly. The best course for safety is simplicity - KISS works; failing that - flood it with N2.

258

Maybe Cheney could put his cock in it.

259 I sell BOP hoses for a living.  Thanks to the expertise of today's drillers, they are seldom used.  When employed, 99.9 percent of the time, they work as intended.  The problem is that when you are asked to apply an old  technolgy like this to something as fantastically difficult as deep, deep, water drilling -it is anybody's guess how the system will perform.  Drill on land- we got that shit figured out.

260 Are we booming, skimming and burning at the site yet?  Or still just dispersing?

I should know, since I live down here, but I don't.

Posted by: damian at June 22, 2010 04:18 PM (4WbTI)

They just showed some burning on TV, I don't know how much they are doing though.

261 Gas, gradual price increase to 6 per gallon, most of  problems (terrorists especially) will go away.

Next, we need to confront religion. That's going to be a bad one. ...

Out to the pond where the sun is a shining. Our first 75 degree day in 260+ days is maybe approaching today or tomorrow. Vitamin D deficiency.

262

Really? I don't recall all 747's being grounded until they figured out what happened with flight 800. Were they?

Posted by: robtr at June 22, 2010 04:10 PM (fwSHf)

Flight 800 was out of JFK.  The incidents of flights leaving JFK going down for mechanical failure are so overweighted that they are generally ignored for the larger picture.

263

That doesn't mean the FAA doesn't have the power to. They sometimes do, the DC-10's after the Chicago disaster and sometimes they don't. One thing about the FAA they know there are inherent risks in flying and there will be accidents so they're not so kneejerk in response to every incident. 

Posted by: lowandslow at June 22, 2010 04:20 PM (GZitp)

Yeah I know that but again that wasn't the point. The point was why are we shutting down all the oil rigs because of one accident when we don't stop flying planes when one crashes and we don't know why.

264 Before we can know that that redundancy would have been helpful, we have to know that the BOP could have prevented the blowout.

In the future, you can bet new wells will be getting beefed up shears that can crunch through anything a drilling rig might be able to shove/drop down that pipe.

265 WH Will File Against Judge's Decision

266 robtr - correct, they don't usually ground or issue a notice without a corrective course of action

267 >>>ace - that would be an incredibly onerous restriction. Airplanes would be too heavy to fly. The best course for safety is simplicity - KISS works; failing that - flood it with N2. Passenger jets have multiple engines despite being to fly on one. So you're wrong.

268 265 Gas, gradual price increase to 6 per gallon, most of  problems (terrorists especially) will go away.
Posted by: bobcon at June 22, 2010 04:22 PM (gzfLC)   So, its your contention that giving oil states MORE moeny helps fight terrorism? Problem is NOT the price of oil, but that we can't use our own resources.

269 Passenger jets have multiple engines despite being to fly on one.

So you're wrong.

Posted by: ace at June 22, 2010 04:24 PM (3o3v0)

Heh no you're wrong on that one. Planes usually have only one backup for critical parts. There are alot of passenger jets with only 2 engines.

270

O/T:  Hey, I just stumbled upon this:  According to Urban Dictionary, a "jewish duck" is 1) a large turd or 2) an insult.

No kidding.  Learn something new every day.

271 "When a plane crashes we investigate, learn, and make sure it does not happen again.

Posted by: nine coconuts at June 22, 2010 03:05 PM (DHNp4) "

Or, if you are a community organizer, you demonize, point fingers and make sure to use the crash to ruin whatever blessing of freedom it is your have decided to destroy today.

Otherwise, nine cocunuts, good and informative post.

272 I am more certain we need redundancy than you can possibly be that we don't. The probability is firmly on my side.

It would have helped or it could not have helped.  We do not know that yet.  That is my point.

The video is compelling because it effectively illustrates a scenario that may have happened, but there has been so much misinformation already published about the disaster that I'm not willing to believe much of anything that doesn't have a licensed P.E.'s verifiable signature affixed to the bottom of it.

Even if the failure had nothing to do with the nonredundant systems, every system in an ultrahazardous activity should have one redundancy.

Then why not two?  Or, when you have two backups, why not add a third?  This is not a wiseass response.  The point I am making is that you cannot reduce the probability of failure to zero.  Ceteris parabus, each backup you add reduces the probability of failure by some amount but you need to stop after some number that is deemed good enough.

"One" may have been the good enough answer in this case.

273 ace - the engines are there for performance, they dropped most designs down to two engines to save fuel as soon as the designs were powerful enough. An airliner might be able to make a controlled landing on one engine, but as that flight to Hudson found out - they can do that with none as well.

274

Ace @ 257,

My issue is with the well itself, not the BOP stack.  Because of the way the well was cased and cemented, formation pressure may have communication with the casing strings that are not rated for full formation pressure.  Because of this, even if they are able to close the BOP, the well casing may burst causing even a greater problem.

If the BOP had functioned, it may have saved the drillers and the rig, but it could have also given us a situation which could not be controlled even with a relief well.

I agree that BOPs need to function, but more important is to use industry standard drilling practices and technology that give you a secure wellbore, and reduce the chance that you will have to depend on the BOP.  BP clearly did not do this.

275 When they finish all these commissions, they should call the people who actually made the decisions before Congress.

276 Every complex system has points of uncertainty. If, at the first critical test your only worried about static electricity, ground planes, vibration harmonics or resonance, and operator error - your doing good. (Or, Windows crashing on your data collection machine.)

277 Gas, gradual price increase to 6 per gallon, most of  problems (terrorists especially) will go away.

So you asserted earlier.

278 bobcon - is that some sort of self impose jizrya (sp.)

279 (Or, Windows crashing on your data collection machine.)

Heh.  Nothing uncertain about that:

  p = 1

280 Is this site anti Jewish? I have great respect for the Jewish people. Not so sure about their God. Not so sure about anyone's God.

Pretty sure God is dead.

281 Pretty sure God is dead.

Why don't you join Him and then report back to us?

282 I have great respect for the Jewish people.

Because it just makes economic sense.

283 Why don't you join Him and then report back to us?

Ok, here I go, Baaahaaaahaaaaa,

284 "Because it just makes economic sense."

I look at the statistics. They are hard workers. They are taught to work hard.What is wrong with working hard?

285

one word: TARP.

As in: Ace wrong again.  Anarchy. Doctrine. Ron Paul.

286 Am I the only one who sees this ruling as a serious win-win politically for the Obami? They get to look tough but then claim their hands are tied by the court so they further get the benefit of not having to go through with their insane economy crushing plan.

287 "one word: TARP.

As in: Ace wrong again.  Anarchy. Doctrine. Ron Paul."

Tarp is 75 percent paid back. W started tarp. So Ace is right once again.

288

Tarp is 75 percent paid back.

TARP will NEVER be "paid back."  The loans have simply been re-written, you credulous fool.

289

I think it's nice that bobcon is here to represent persons of stupid.

Diversity is important.

290 "TARP will NEVER be "paid back."  The loans have simply been re-written, you credulous fool."

Its all financial mumbo jumbo. Buy Gold. They can't fake Gold. In Gold I trust.

291 Buy Gold and means to defend your Gold. After all, who can you trust?

292 Federal judge MARTY FELDMAN???

293 Yes..hmm..quite.  Moving on then

294

Its all financial mumbo jumbo

Translation: I am incapable of understanding anything beyond the spoon fed political propaganda that I dutifully regurgitate.

295 Regulation 1: Everyone should have a BOP in full working order. Problem 1: Crap, some people aren't following Regulation 1 and the regulators are granting exemptions. Let's add a new regulation. Regulation 2: Everyone should have a second BOP in full working order. This doesn't fix the problem. But it does double the complexity of that particular subsystem. Whatever problems a BOP adds to the overall system, there are now two of them, increasing the chances of a problem but not increasing the chances of catching the problem. The more complexity we add to bypass problem 1 instead of fixing problem 1, the closer we get to Douglas Adams's air conditioners. "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at and repair."

296 "Translation: I am incapable of understanding anything beyond the spoon fed political propaganda that I dutifully regurgitate."

Of course, your masters, the financial wizards of WS, know more than you. Keep praying for your salvation. Pray those wizards drag you out of you misery. amen.

297 Jerry, it is obvious, we need more regulation.

298 "Translation: I am incapable of understanding anything beyond the spoon fed political propaganda that I dutifully regurgitate."

Of course, your masters, the financial wizards of WS

Is that an example of asked and answered?  Or, res ipsa loquitur?

299 Evil one, damian, you are obviously a minion of Wallstreet. No one believes anything you say anymore. Be gone.

300 Requiring a relief well seems probable ... and another cutoff that could be operated by one of those little subs, if the other hydraulics/electronics have failed.  A few days of leak is acceptable since this is a once in 20 year event. 

Also figure out what shortcuts BP took that other drillers don't take ... etc.

Of course when dealing with Obama and the far left gang, oil and capitalism are evil, so rooting out the government corruption and getting honest regulation without histrionic EPA influence is difficult.  Throw in some "never let a crisis go to waste" attitude and you get  ... well ... just what we have.

By my calculations, so far the leak has amounted to one drop of oil per 60,0000 gallons of gulf water.  My Ouija Board says the leak is stopped July 24th. 

301 Dogbert, You obviously know a lot more than me. Everything you say is true (I'm sure) but the problem is is that there's not a lot that can be done, enforcement-wise, about that, since no one can really check on how the cementing is going (at least not well). I'm focusing on the fail-safe because at least that is assembled in the open air on firm ground.

302

bobcon, you're about to see what happens to boring trolls.

 

 

303 >>>Then why not two? Or, when you have two backups, why not add a third? This is not a wiseass response. I wouldn't mind a third, and I don't think in terms of overall project cost it would be significantly more costly to do just that. Weighing that against billions in potential damage. A lot of which can't be accurately measured and so can't be compensated. >>>The point I am making is that you cannot reduce the probability of failure to zero. Ceteris parabus, each backup you add reduces the probability of failure by some amount but you need to stop after some number that is deemed good enough. >>>"One" may have been the good enough answer in this case. I do not believe anything of the sort, and I'm kind of shocked that there was no redundancy. This is the sort of thing I assume that is either legally required or companies are just doing to make sure they don't have a huge liability.

304

Having one BOP isn't the problem. Not testing the BOP is.  Add to that, they only had 6 stablizers down hole and they never ran a cement bond log. It's epic stupid.

As stong of a well as they drilled, they caused the whole thing by cutting corners. The telling feature will be to look at the daily drilling report vs the scheduling of the contractors. In that, i'll bet you find them screwing up the scheduling of the various well services and then rushing decisions based on their day rate for the rig.

What a bunch of tools.

305 I think the imbecile "bobcon" was previously known as "Raygun", and Raygunisdead" and Raycon. Several names, same mushy mouldy drug addled brain cell.

306 Ace, the concept of fail safe redundancy does not include 2x of the same solution.  It would require two separate solutions to the same problem - so the same communications, power, design, management, etc. failure that took down the first solution did not also bring down the second.   Getting to four 9s reliability is about the best we can do, and that generally requires quad-redundancy in core processes utilized over a systems lifecycle. 

The problem then lies with increasing complexity.  As complexity increases, so does the chance of failure.  At some point complexity kills the value of redundancy, my internal slide rule says that as the environment gets more difficult - complexity is a bigger problem.  In a controlled, well maintained space - like a nuclear reactor or the flight deck of an airliner redundancy is ok; doing it in the dark  - 5K feet down a string using a ROV - go with simple.

307 I do not believe anything of the sort, and I'm kind of shocked that there was no redundancy.

You didn't follow what I said.

Imagine a hypothetical perfect system that starts at 99% reliability and adding another backup always adds another 9.  So, one backup gives you 99.9% reliability.  Two gives you 99.99%, et cetera.

The question is, "How many backups?"

The answer is that *some* number is enough, and that number plus one is overkill.

In this case, the answer *could* have been that the single-shot BOP without a backup was sufficient.

Some combination of legislation and regulation said that no backup was enough.  Murphy laughed.

We cannot know whether it even would have helped if the BOP had closed the pipe until all the evidence is examined and a competent root cause analysis is completed.

The video frames the problem too narrowly.  It may be that simple, but it endangers our ability to reason because we are susceptible to focusing on some minor but easily understood aspect of a complex system and then extrapolating that understanding to the whole ball of wax.  That kind of shit makes us feel smart, and when we feel smart, we are prone to saying and doing things that are stupid.

Weighing that against billions in potential damage. A lot of which can't be accurately measured and so can't be compensated.

Legislation and regulation measured those billions in potential damage that cannot be accurately measured and compensated as. . . [drumroll]. . .  $75M.

If the people running the show ran it as though they were operating without a safety net, they would have been a damned sight more careful about what they were doing.

308 Feldmen's decision is up at tinyurl.com/38szwgb. Jeff B--did you read the opinion before declaring the decision "hacktasktic?" It seems like a standard APA decision; Feldman says he has to defer to the exec, notes the inconsistencies, contradictions, and inaccuracies in the admin record, and finds the moratorium arbitrary and capricious. The plaintiffs were lucky to draw Feldman. He's a good judge, though don't ever go into his court unready, ill-prepared, and worse of all, under-dressed. He has a lot of experience in admiralty/OCSLA/APA law, and most importantly, he knows how to write a decision that'll survive appellate review.

309

It's probably a good thing the blow out preventer failed, in this instance.

Don't get me wrong, if they have BOPs on the wells, the damn things should work.  But in this instance there was more wrong with that well than a BOP could handle.  And a working BOP could actually have made it worse. 

BP knew about cracks in  and around the well bore in sea floor from at least February, and reported their troubles to the MMS.  Remember the "nightmare well" comment?  That's what they were talking about.  And probably the reason they were rushing and cutting corners to get it shut down.  They almost had it blow on them back then.

So -- if the BOP had worked, and the oil and gas just kept leaking from seabed around the bore (as it did during the junk shot shot), then no hope for top kill or junk shot or top hat or collecting or anything else, because the casing would be closed and probably impossible to open again.  The leaks around it might be less to start with -- but they could continue to erode and open up.  

If that happened, erosion and pressure around the bore would make a full blow out and bleed out of the reservoir even more likely (it's still possible now).  Remember, top kill didn't work because the mud just flowed into the cracks and out of the well bore.  And they stopped the junk shot when it became obvious that the increased pressure was just causing the oil to flow out through the cracks below the shot level. 

From the day of the explosion and sinking, the only hope has been that the relief wells will be on time so they can plug it closer to the source under stable rock.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have tried all the other methods, I'm just saying they probably knew -- must have known -- that they were long shots. Much longer shots than they let on to the public. 

Hope both the oil industry and the MMS learn the right lessons from this, and learn to identify nightmare wells and deal with them before they strike oil. I'm afraid that lesson will be lost in all the 'fixing the blame but not fixing the problem' going on.

310 Buy Gold and means to defend your Gold. After all, who can you trust?

Lord Homongous wasn't terribly interested in gold.  If the shit really goes south, gold will become worthless.  The new currency will be lead and primers.

311 So now we suppport activist judges?

I get so confused with all the flip flopping

312

It appears that a lot of people in high positions, Republicans and Democrats, alike, are now beginning to express their discontent with Obama and his ill-conceived policies.

 By now, anyone else in any other position would have been fired for showing the incompetence that he has shown. What will he have to do to get impeached?

He is such a fool that he should be an embarrassment to everybody in this country.

313

Excellent post,thanks for sharing.

Blu-ray Ripper for Mac is an all-inclusive tool for handling both Blu-ray and DVD discs, is a powerful tool specially designed for users to rip, convert, backup and edit both Blu-ray and DVD movies on Mac.

314

315 <a href="http://www.blu-rayripperformac.com">Blu-Ray Ripper for Mac</a> with most professional skills will be your ideal helper, which can help you to Rip Blu-Ray for Mac without any loss of the orginal quality. Plus, free trial is valid! You are allowed to download ultimate Blu-Ray Ripper for Mac to verify its quality freeely.

With this professional Blu-Ray Ripper for Mac, you can
1. Backup Blu-Ray DVDs and other common DVDs on hard disc for playing with most suitable output effects.
2. Rip and Convert common DVDs and Blu-Ray DVDs easily and quickly,
3. Prrotected DVDs, Blu-Ray DVDs into the compatible Audio/Video formats for playback on popular portable devices