Joined: Aug 2003 Gender: Male Posts: 235 Location: Middle East
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2300 on Dec 10, 2011, 5:53pm »
AK and PJ, this is an interesting discussion, and i can see your points, but also the one that Naomi makes and that is: for certain "negative outcomes" ( i avoid the terms chance and risk to make it clearer) there is no acceptable recovery option. Only prevention is the right way of dealing with it.
That might sound theoretical, but i try to relate it to our drilling business: We all know that regardless of all precautions there is the possibility of a blowout. We can minimise this possibility, but we can't eliminate it altogether. In case of a blowout there is the possibility of large scale environmental polution, and that is an outcome that is unacceptable to anrainers even if after a while we get it under control, and do our best to clean it up - that's recovery.
Now her point is that for the outcome of environmental polution after a blowout the reliance on recovery is not good enough. Instead we have to take precautions that even in the low probability case of a blowout there is no environmental polution. That means having a containment system nearby and on stand-by, may be having as the industry a rig on stand-by to drill a relief well, and having a general common emergency response system that is fast enough to take action before large areas of the sea are impacted.
She now makes the parallels to global warning: again we rely on our ability of future recovery, where we should take steps now to prevent the outcome becoming unacceptable.
Finally she comes to the Alberta sands: we send the landscape through a meatmincer and rely on our ability to recultivate it later, fully knowing that this recovery can' turn the mincer backwards so that the cattle comes out again. the prevention would be to spend the money on energy saving instead, so that we don't need to use the tar.
Her first point (avoidance of water polution) is actually not that far off from the thinking of industry and regulators after the DW Horizon. The second and third point is more controversial in parts of industry and population.
Just to summarize this again in a theoretical but pragmatic approach: before you start the activity, make your HEMP analysis and do it deep enough so that you can spot the conditional outcomes that might happen. Now, before you put your preventive and recovery barriers down, circle those outcomes that are absolutely unacceptable (e.g. multiple fatalities, large scale polution, ...) and put the barriers in place that do not only minimise the probability of these outcomes, but eliminate them altogether. If this results in unacceptable effort/costs or it is not possible technically to eliminate the outcome completely, than probably now is not the right time to start your activity.
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2301 on Dec 10, 2011, 8:11pm »
Rockdoctor,
We need to totally reassess the way we prevent and tackle blowouts.
Your post alludes to containment at the surface which for a Macondo scenario is not impossible but will cost quite a bit. The idea of having a relief rig on standby is a good one. There's another involving a giant sock that can be deployed around a blownout well that will unfurl down to the seabed. All this will cost and I hope everyone will be willing to pay more for energy consumption because they can't have it both ways, like demonize the industry one one hand then complain when the price of oil goes up. Even if an alternate source of energy than can replace fossil fuels is tapped into next year there will be mass starvation for want of fertilizer, unless one subscribes to a reduced global population. Then the question of who gets to live will arise.
I agree with the context of your usage of the terms prevention and minimize but when it comes to "no environmental pollution" ensuing from a blowout we have to think of containment at the source ie: downhole.
Assuming we have pipe in the hole, there maybe and option of shutting in a kick down-hole itself by RIH with the drill string a joint or packer that can be actuated from the surface in the event a kick is detected- downhole BOP. Not just one near the bit but a few more further up the string. We also need to look at mechanisms that can induce hole (and casing) collapse or implosion from the surface without causing fracking or cross flow- undergone blowout. Technological capability for this exists today.
I don't know enough about global warming to discuss it, but I think we're going to be taxed for the air we breath by governments. I still recall when water was free. I am aware though that climate on neighboring planets are changing as well . I also recall back in the 80's that chromatographic analysis of air bubbles taken from ice cores at the poles indicate the planet has undergone periods of increased warming long before humans appeared, let alone the industrial revolution. Nevertheless current levels of atmospheric, land and oceanic pollution is appallingly dangerous and something must be done about this. Add to this.... it snowed in Tasmania, Australia a few days ago and it is summer down under. So addition to your suggestion of energy savings I think we also need to recycle everything we take out of the Earth.
I really like the last sentence in your post ie " If this results in unacceptable effort/costs or it is not possible technically to eliminate the outcome completely, than probably now is not the right time to start your activity." because the German government has decided to totally wind down its use of nuclear power to supply base load after Fukushima.
The GOM will recover to a new equilibrium after a hundred years according to some expert marine biologist but Fukushima will need about a couple or more thousand centuries.
Information or opinions are solely provided for educational and/or discussion purposes on an informal public forum and should not be interpreted as a recommendation for a specific treatment plan, course of action or product/ service. Use of any of this information does not replace consultations with qualified individuals in these respective fields.
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2302 on Dec 11, 2011, 1:19pm »
Gentlemen (rockdoc and pj),
Interesting points you've recently raised, but I do fear you've fallen into a trap which is constantly being set by the likes of Ms Klein and her ilk, and which is deliberately divisive.
Now don't get me wrong: I'm 110% in favour of people wearing their thinking-caps and dreaming up technological improvements which could be made to enhance both the safety and efficiency of oilwell drilling. It's what's called progress.
But lumping the Macondo blowout and tar-sand extraction in Alberta together is like comparing apples and oranges. They shouldn't be put into the same basket.
Personally, although I'm no tree-hugger, the 'environmental' impact of tar-sand extraction appears to be quite extreme. However, it also seems unavoidable with the techniques currently in use.
Macondo was avoidable. The technology available was perfectly well suited to preventing the catastrophe it became, if it had been properly maintained, understood, and operated. And I'm not simply referring to the BOP, here.
It seems by now generally accepted that the accident was a result of human error spanning across various of the companies involved, hence the litigation now being seen. Bad decisions, incorrect judgements, poor operating procedures, complacency, from higher management and corporate levels all the way to the wellsite itself.
Looking at it another way, thousands of people are killed on the roads worldwide on a daily basis. Are we to impose an overnight blanket ban on the use of motor vehicles? Obviously not. And anyway, people were regularly run down by horses before the internal combustion engine had been invented. Likewise global warming. Are we going to kill all the cows and stop eating beef because they produce methane? No.
Back in the old hippy era, there was that hackneyed old phrase doing the rounds about "If you're not part of the solution, you must be part of the problem". It sounds corny these days, but there was some truth in it. And I don't see Naomi Klein proposing any solutions which represent a way forward.
As regards the oil industry, that's up to people like us. The folks who correspond (or just watch) on sites such as this one, and actually in their professional lives have a day-to-day influence on how the work is done. Not an easy job, but someone's got to do it.
Technical improvements, yes. Eliminating human error? That's a tough nut to crack.
Ms Klein doesn't enter into that above category of people looking for solutions. It's easy to stand on some self-invented moral high ground and criticise, but...
AK
PS PJ, your stance regarding nuclear power seems a bit odd. If there's a lesson to be learned from Fukushima, surely it's to plan for higher tsunami waves, and make sure the emergency generators are better sited and protected in the event of such a natural phenomenon? Or do we go back to the stone age?
Information or opinions are solely provided for educational and/or discussion purposes on an informal public forum and should not be interpreted as a recommendation for a specific treatment plan, course of action or product/ service. Use of any of this information does not replace consultations with qualified individuals in these respective fields.
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2303 on Dec 11, 2011, 2:31pm »
AK,
interesting observations in your last post. Klien like lots of others are cashing on the Macondo event, in her case, for political mileage.
Re: Fukushima - it has been established that it was the earthquake that knocked out the reactors not the tsunami. ..I don't know if this included the generators...but information re these facts are available on the net.
My stance on nuclear power was relative to deepwater drilling. In the former there is no known solution to tackle such a disaster like Fukushima. Lingering damage will last for several thousand years.- there's nothing that can be done to stop molten steel and radioactive material from melting its way into the earth ( However I personally suspect directional drilling, cement and boron, may be able to mitigate this and buy time to seal off the water table.) With the latter I believe there is lots of room for innovation to make it safer. The fact that Macondo and other major blowouts have been killed proves this. We can't say the same for Fukushima.
I would like to see what tree huggers who jump at any opportunity to condemn the oil industry have to say about Fukushima, seeing that they supported nuclear power over hydrocarbons because of its zero emissions.
I am not trivializing the damage caused by Macondo but it pales compared to what Fukushima will do not just to Japan. If several more reactors around the globe end up like Fukushima, rest assured we will go back to the stone age.
Information or opinions are solely provided for educational and/or discussion purposes on an informal public forum and should not be interpreted as a recommendation for a specific treatment plan, course of action or product/ service. Use of any of this information does not replace consultations with qualified individuals in these respective fields.
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2304 on Dec 11, 2011, 5:09pm »
PJ,
This is a large digression. But my understanding of Fukushima is that the earthquake caused the reactors to shut down. But there is naturally a lot of residual heat to be dissipated via the cooling systems once that happens. And having lost the primary power source this is done by the emergency diesel generators. Then along came the wave, which knocked out the backup (or emergency) generators so the necessary cooling became unavailable. Hence subsequent overheating, and the results which followed.
Essentially, it might be considered that a root cause was human error, in that the 'worst case scenario' had been underestimated when the plant was built. But it was a design oversight, not operational mistakes being performed. Mother Nature just proved herself to be a bit stronger than had been bargained for. So there, any parallels with Macondo cease to hold up.
I'd like to revert to the comment I made earlier related to road accidents. To achieve 'zero risk', you ban the motor car, which is obviously unthinkable. Though they're manufactured by big, 'global' corporations. Same with aircraft, washing-machines, or stepladders,come to that.
Road fatalities in the developed nations have generally decreased over the past few decades, or at least remained the same. Yet the number of people who own a car, and hence the number of road users has increased immeasurably. It's a subject of debate, but this is very largely due to improved design.
Improved design has its drawbacks, though. Let's stay with the car, for now. I personally own what is one of the most complicated vehicles on the planet. There is more than a kilometer-and-a-half of wiring within it, connected to all sorts of 'black boxes'. If something goes wrong (which on rare occasions it has), I can't just get out my wrenches and fix it. I need to have a very comprehensive set of technical manuals to refer to, and even when the wrenches do come out, I know I'm literally playing with fire (airbags, for instance, being pyrotechnic devices).
The bottom line being, you've got to keep up with the technology, or choose instead to drive an old banger. But also, you've got to keep that new technology in top-notch condition all the time, otherwise it might stop working properly in inexplicable ways, by which time it might be too late.
And that (this is not a purely personal opinion, but one well-documented in various reports) is one of the technical failures which contributed to Macondo. But it is an operational failure, which has human error, or lack of judgement as its source. Another failure was a lack of understanding about how various systems worked, or alternatively their correct operation. Suppose you've got one of these new-fangled 'hybrid' cars as your transport (which I haven't). For it to continue working properly (and it remains to be seen if they will), you need to take it for regular servicing by a specialist. If you decide not to do that, for economic reasons or whatever, and the thing leaves you stranded at the side of the road, it's not the fault of the vehicle as such. It's human error.
I appreciate that this post may be better placed in the 'Idle BS' thread than here, but as I digress, why not continue? I think I've mentioned this elsewhere before, but I'm a very superstitious person. No upside-down elevators on the rigfloor, don't borrow someone else's boots, stuff like that. But really, christening a well 'Macondo' was asking for trouble right from the outset. And when news started breaking about the Japanese power plant accident, I couldn't help noticing the name. Though I guess they couldn't help that...
Information or opinions are solely provided for educational and/or discussion purposes on an informal public forum and should not be interpreted as a recommendation for a specific treatment plan, course of action or product/ service. Use of any of this information does not replace consultations with qualified individuals in these respective fields.
Joined: Aug 2003 Gender: Male Posts: 235 Location: Middle East
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2305 on Dec 11, 2011, 5:42pm »
PJ and AK,
whatever finally was responsible for Fukushima, earthquake or Tsunami, it was both that were involved. And Fukushima had prepared themselves only for one, not for both (even though a Tsunami has a high likelihood to occur after the right type of earthquake).
In the DW Horizon it was waterdepth + cement job + lack of suitable containment system ready to be mobilized on short notice
In the Montara it was bad cement job + missing corrosion cap + assumption that the reservoir is hydrostatic (and lack of a jack-up ready to drill a relief well)
In the Frade it was higher reservoir pressure and a limited shoe strength.
Lesson learned: in the HEMP you must drill down deep enough to find the negative outcome that risks your company and the reputation of the industry, and that you have to eliminate altogether by putting preventive barriers in place.
These are: Fukushima - the plant should have been build away from the shore DW Horizon - you must think about containment of a deepwater spill before you are drilling, not afterwards Montara - if you know your cement job had a problem, you must put a precautionary replacement barrier in place before suspending Frade - too early to say, probably if you start an appraisal well, you have to allow for larger uncertainty in pressure and must set your casing and test the shoe accordingly?
I hope that nobody comes now with the comment that this is hindsight, because it isn't. None of this is rocket science, and none of this was undetectable beforehand. It was just that nobody looked in this direction deep enough.
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2306 on Dec 11, 2011, 5:56pm »
AK,
I don't feel we have totally digressed because these topics including your reference to automobiles are related. There are parallels that may be applicable to us in the oilfield.
Zero risks might sound extremist when it comes to cars or the drilling industry...but lets say if a device existed with capability of setting fire to the Van Allen belts then zero risk is appropriate.
........................ To achieve 'zero risk', you ban the motor car, which is obviously unthinkable. Though they're manufactured by big, 'global' corporations. Same with aircraft, washing-machines, or stepladders,come to that.
Road fatalities in the developed nations have generally decreased over the past few decades, or at least remained the same. Yet the number of people who own a car, and hence the number of road users has increased immeasurably. It's a subject of debate, but this is very largely due to improved design.....................
AK
With automobiles though, if a flaw (lets say with ABS brake system ) results in numerous drivers killed but the manufacturer remains in denial and keeps rolling out more of the same model until such time the fact can't be denied anymore ..then a total recall of all such models is called for. So it depends on the cause of the fatalities and if something can be done about it then it should. If it means not driving that model until the flaw get fixed then all users of that model should cease driving or take chances, in hope it won't happen to their vehicle.
Information or opinions are solely provided for educational and/or discussion purposes on an informal public forum and should not be interpreted as a recommendation for a specific treatment plan, course of action or product/ service. Use of any of this information does not replace consultations with qualified individuals in these respective fields.
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2307 on Dec 11, 2011, 7:34pm »
"Fukushima - the plant should have been build away from the shore DW Horizon - you must think about containment of a deepwater spill before you are drilling, not afterwards Montara - if you know your cement job had a problem, you must put a precautionary replacement barrier in place before suspending Frade - too early to say, probably if you start an appraisal well, you have to allow for larger uncertainty in pressure and must set your casing and test the shoe accordingly?"
Rockdoc, PJ,
We are danger of turning this a bit too 'chatshop', something I know our webmaster doesn't enjoy too much. However, these are important issues being discussed, which (maybe I flatter myself) might be of interest or even educational to others, so I'm going to take the liberty of continuing.
Wrt nuclear power stations, unfortunately it's a given they have to be close to a large body of water in order that coolant can be provided. What happened in Japan was that body of water swamped and rendered inoperational the power-plant specifically designed to pump that water in a controlled manner subsequent to an emergency shutdown. It was a design oversight, and something which I'm sure will be addressed in the future, because despite the disagreeable rantings of harpies like Ms Merkel and Klein, I personally don't think nuclear power is going to disappear overnight. What worries me is the Chinese maybe thinking they can do it cheaper.
I believe (via various sources) we've now seen equipment and companies now already in place with rapid-response 'containment technologies' built directly on the back of what happened in the GOM last year. However this is a weak reaction, rather like checking a bet when you should raise. It's a band-aid (or maybe duct-tape) cure, not a prevention.
Montara. Don't really know enough about it. But from the little I do, basic procedures and common sense were not applied. Human error.
Frade. Jury out right now, and I suspect we'll never really get to know what happened there. Chevron will close up all channels of information tighter than a clamshell. Anyway, it was offshore Brazil, wasn't it? Not part of the USA. No voting rights, etc, etc...
AK
PS My previous message was posted under candlelight from my laptop, using a mobile modem. Why candlelight? Because mains power was unexpectedly out to my house and surrounding areas for five hours: probably some fool ran into a power-pole, or something like that. But I believe in positive progress. I couldn't have communicated by such means fifteen years ago. And fifteen years ago, a well like Macondo couldn't have been drilled. And thus there wouldn't have been the blowout. Sure, if we want to remain like that, let's do so. But make sure you've got enough hay to feed the horses.
Information or opinions are solely provided for educational and/or discussion purposes on an informal public forum and should not be interpreted as a recommendation for a specific treatment plan, course of action or product/ service. Use of any of this information does not replace consultations with qualified individuals in these respective fields.
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2308 on Dec 12, 2011, 11:22pm »
"In the DW Horizon it was waterdepth + cement job + lack of suitable containment system ready to be mobilized on short notice"
Rockdoc,
I'm still enjoying a bit of time off, so looking at this correspondence!
But this is important stuff, and I enjoy nit-picking about it, just in case my musings may become useful for others in the future.
I don't want to comment about what you say regarding cement jobs nor water depth. However, you're right regarding 'containment'.
It was (hopefully) a one-off event, however. Nevertheless the right sort of ambulance hadn't been built, because such an accident hadn't been foreseen. It's now obvious that lessons actually have been learned, and various companies have cooperated in getting such 'containment systems' together, just in case something similar occurs. Building on the extraordinary work which was done to bring that Macondo well under control.
Let's hope they won't be needed. But equally, let's not denigrate the business which pays our rent just because something unforeseen happened a while back.
Prevention is better than cure. But it would appear that curative solutions are now existent, which may now keep the tree-huggers a little bit quieter. Though hopefully they won't need to be mobilised. That's where we come in.
Information or opinions are solely provided for educational and/or discussion purposes on an informal public forum and should not be interpreted as a recommendation for a specific treatment plan, course of action or product/ service. Use of any of this information does not replace consultations with qualified individuals in these respective fields.
Joined: Aug 2003 Gender: Male Posts: 235 Location: Middle East
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2309 on Dec 13, 2011, 4:38pm »
AK,
we were going on here for a while, and I am reluctant to add more as readers will be bored. Nevertheless, I feel this important subject needs a wrap-up and I give it a try:
The most important things that recent major incidents have told us are the following:
1. from the point of the inquiries: the regulatory system needs to be strengthened and made more independent. Regulators need to be sufficiently staffed to go carefully through the submissions to spot omissions or lip-service statements. where industry standards should be too low, they must be able to prescribe stricter requirements.
2. from Prof. Andrew Hopkins: Leadership focus has to be balanced between personal safety and process safety. It is not ok when in KPIs and on site visits we only mention the trips and falls, we have to look at controls, supervison, and state of equipment too.
3. from Naomi Klein: For the worst possible outcomes, it is not sufficient to rely on our ability to recover. We have to make adequate provision in advance to stop escalation in time before the worst case (the mega disaster). - That echoes also some of the points in the inquiries and in the industry response.
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2310 on Dec 13, 2011, 11:36pm »
If we get back to what was bing discussed, the accusation by BP that Halliburton failed with their recipe.......... Every casing job requires a cement job to be successful. For BP to insinuate that Halliburton has anything to do with a blowout and environmental damage is simply ridiculous. All cement jobs can go wrong. That's why we test them. When we find that they've failed we may want to question or take legal action against the cement contractor. The fact is that the cement failed to isolate the reservoir. BP and TO, had the opportunity to test the cement barrier. They simply failed to test correctly. It's elementary. BP and TO operations on the vessel allowed this lack of barrier recognition develop into a full blown Blowout before anyone realised what was happening. Complacency was evident in every aspect of the job during the negative test, and later during the displacement. This is what caused the blowout. The legal eagles are going to transform this into something it isn't!
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2311 on Dec 14, 2011, 12:23pm »
Alcor,
I completely agree with you.
To my mind, if Halco employees deliberately destroyed test records in a CYA manner, that is a serious accusation being made by BP. However, doesn't BP have copies of those test results?
Lab tests, pumping schedules, all the rest of that stuff included in the programs provided by cementing companies (usually running to 18 A4 pages or more) are extremely important data, and should be closely studied and if necessary fine-tuned before the job is done. This should take place at the base office, with back-and-fro communication between the cement contractor and the client company, until both are satisfied that all potential risks have been identified and addressed. And it's no good if some engineer or superintendent just skims through such documents, on the basis that he or she is 'not a cementing specialist'. They don't have to be a 'specialist', but if they can't understand the program, they're maybe in the wrong job.
Furthermore, only the agreed, final version of such a program should be sent to the rig, so there can't be any confusion.
I think it is fairly clear from the evidence that something went seriously wrong with the final Macondo cement job. But equally, trying to say it was the cause of the blowout is patently absurd. Certainly it was a contributing factor, but nothing more than that. Seeing heavyweights like BP, Transocean, and Halliburton now slugging it out in court and trying to apportion 'blame' is almost pathetic, and counter-productive. Over many months we watched the weird Coast Guard 'investigation', where people with absolutely no knowledge of oilwell drilling were asking questions, the answers to which flew straight over their heads.
And although I personally know at least one oil-person with formal legal qualifications but also a solid grounding in the technicalities of drilling, such people are few and far between.
The phrase 'flogging a dead horse' comes to mind, here. Last year, Macondo was frequently referred to as a 'tragedy' in the media, a term which is much over-used. But yes, in fact, it was correct in the purest classical dramatic terms. Which dictate that the key player or players commit a mistake or mistakes, which inevitably lead to their downfall. The audience sees this coming, squirms in their seat, but is helpless to avoid the terrible conclusion which the playwrite has concocted.
But remember, 'tragedy' on the stage was an invention made to educate, as much (or more than) to entertain. The idea was for people to learn, and avoid such mistakes in their individual lives.
The current BP/Halco legal battle is like asking whether Hamlet was actually aware that Polonius was behind the curtain. But the point is, it doesn't matter. The one event was just one part of a whole chain of them.
Curtain call. But that doesn't mean there's not going to be another play to see next week. And personally I disagree with the Ms Kleins of this world who'd simply like to see all the theatres closed down. But there's nothing worse than watching something perfomed by complacent actors...
Information or opinions are solely provided for educational and/or discussion purposes on an informal public forum and should not be interpreted as a recommendation for a specific treatment plan, course of action or product/ service. Use of any of this information does not replace consultations with qualified individuals in these respective fields.
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2313 on Dec 16, 2011, 4:03pm »
Was it bad proofreading by the Telegraph, or was this the actual quote? (Final paragraph in the article.)
"Bob Dudley, BP chief executive, said: "Today's settlement allows BP and Cameron to put our legal issues behind us and move forward to improve drilling in the safety industry."
Information or opinions are solely provided for educational and/or discussion purposes on an informal public forum and should not be interpreted as a recommendation for a specific treatment plan, course of action or product/ service. Use of any of this information does not replace consultations with qualified individuals in these respective fields.
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2314 on Dec 16, 2011, 10:32pm »
I would like to see a detailed explanation from Cameron regarding how its engineers perceive the BOP failure. Does this settlement mean that such a report will not be published?
I would like to see a detailed explanation from Cameron regarding how its engineers perceive the BOP failure. Does this settlement mean that such a report will not be published?
Absolutely. Am I alone in thinking that if Weatherford and Cameron have settled out of court, then they must have accepted some sort of failing(s) with their equipment? If so, isn't it only responsible that they advise the industry at large what these may be, what changes they are effecting and how to prevent a similar occurrence in future?
Joined: Feb 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 79 Location: Malaysia
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2316 on Dec 20, 2011, 6:54am »
P.S. Alcor and adoubleuk, I agree with every word you've written regarding cement testing. It's a fundamental responsibility of every oil company drilling engineer that I've ever met to check the recipes in detail and ensure that they are fit for purpose. QED.
I would like to see a detailed explanation from Cameron regarding how its engineers perceive the BOP failure. Does this settlement mean that such a report will not be published?
Absolutely. Am I alone in thinking that if Weatherford and Cameron have settled out of court, then they must have accepted some sort of failing(s) with their equipment? If so, isn't it only responsible that they advise the industry at large what these may be, what changes they are effecting and how to prevent a similar occurrence in future?
burenye,
Now let it first be said that I am not a qualified lawyer, and also am unaware of the exact nature of the charges brought by BP against Cameron and Weatherford. But I would strongly suspect that they were purely in regard to certain items of equipment failing to operate according to specification, without any reference to these failures being in some way 'to blame' for the blowout.
Like you, I feel that the out-of-court settlements imply that both companies have admitted to such failures, and that also such settlements absolve either party from a duty to reveal what those failures were. Though I too feel it is their responsibility to issue a 'safety alert' within the industry spelling out the details, thus helping to prevent a recurrence.
Information or opinions are solely provided for educational and/or discussion purposes on an informal public forum and should not be interpreted as a recommendation for a specific treatment plan, course of action or product/ service. Use of any of this information does not replace consultations with qualified individuals in these respective fields.
Information or opinions are solely provided for educational and/or discussion purposes on an informal public forum and should not be interpreted as a recommendation for a specific treatment plan, course of action or product/ service. Use of any of this information does not replace consultations with qualified individuals in these respective fields.
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2320 on Jan 3, 2012, 6:13pm »
Excerpt from the London 'Times', explaining the BP/Cameron deal:
"BP said that, in return for the payment, equivalent to £161 million, it would indemnify Cameron for compensation claims relating to the accident. The companies will also drop claims made against each other. BP will add the payment to the $20 billion trust it was forced to set up by President Obama to compensate the US Government, businesses and individuals whose livelihoods were affected.
Cameron said that its insurers would cover at least $170 million of the payout and expected to take the charge for the amount not covered in the fourth quarter. “BP and Cameron have concluded that the settlement is in their mutual best interests, and the agreement is not an admission of liability by either party,” Cameron said. "
Information or opinions are solely provided for educational and/or discussion purposes on an informal public forum and should not be interpreted as a recommendation for a specific treatment plan, course of action or product/ service. Use of any of this information does not replace consultations with qualified individuals in these respective fields.
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2321 on Jan 4, 2012, 12:39am »
I don't want to side track the path this topic has currently taken but is there any electrician here who could explain the green flash observed seconds just prior to ignition of the blowout made by observers on the Damon Bankston and those guys who were fishing in the vicinity of the Horizon ? Why green green and not white, blue, orange or red I doubt copper has anything to do with it. Sparkys any comment....thanks.
Information or opinions are solely provided for educational and/or discussion purposes on an informal public forum and should not be interpreted as a recommendation for a specific treatment plan, course of action or product/ service. Use of any of this information does not replace consultations with qualified individuals in these respective fields.
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2322 on Jan 4, 2012, 11:47am »
PJ,
Sorry, can't answer that one. But having opened this thread to look at your post, I re-read that excerpt from the 'Times' which I myself had posted. And re-read it once more.
Because there's something slightly amazing implicit there, which I hadn't quite cottoned on to at first.
We don't (and possibly may never find out) exactly what failure Cameron admitted to, but it's got to be in respect to the BOP. And they say that their insurers will foot $170 million of the bill. Now hang on. One thing we do know about that BOP is that its certification was expired.
I don't know about everyone else, but where I live, my car has to be put through a third-party test every two years. Its 'certification', if you like. And if I've let this certification lapse, and I have an accident, my insurance company won't pay anything. But also, if I've done any modifications to my car without signalling them to my insurers, and the assessor picks up on them when inspecting the wreck, they won't pay up, once again.
There's something very strange going on here. Drilling rigs and their associated equipment are subject to mandatory inspections by third-party companies at regular intervals. And the first thing on the check-sheet is going over all the paperwork to see that everything is still within certification, or has been tested according to requirements. This applies to everything from pressure-testing BOPs and inspecting their ring-grooves all the way down to MPI of pad-eyes on a work basket.
Are we now wasting our time? Can we just skip such inspections and certification processes, happy in the knowledge that the insurers will stump up some cash when something goes wrong?
It appears to me that a very dangerous precident has been set here, unless I've completely misunderstood the situation.
Information or opinions are solely provided for educational and/or discussion purposes on an informal public forum and should not be interpreted as a recommendation for a specific treatment plan, course of action or product/ service. Use of any of this information does not replace consultations with qualified individuals in these respective fields.
Joined: Feb 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 79 Location: Malaysia
Re: Cause of Blowout/Fire on Horizon « Reply #2324 on Jan 5, 2012, 7:27am »
Referring to your post regarding your concerns that the cause of the BOP failure may never be known, I believe that this has been adequately covered by the DnV post-mortem on the stack following its recovery. I have no wish to dig back over the report and have to submit myself to re-reading them again, but from memory, it simply stated that Cameron's blind/shear ram design is unable to shear the pipe and provide an adequate seal if the pipe to be sheared is buckled (i.e. in compression) and is therefore forced to the side of the BOP bore. In this case, a remnant piece of the drill pipe would remain lodged in a cavity preventing it from fully closing, shearing and therefore effecting a seal.
I believe that this is why Cameron have paid up. As I mentioned before though, what are they doing about it to prevent a recurrence in the hundreds of similarly designed BOP stacks around the world. Sure, in deepwater drilling, there can often be enough rams available in a typical configuration, to run more than one shear ram. But on most stacks that I know of, you often have 2 or 3 rams, and therefore only enough room for 1 blind/shear.
The Driller’s Club is constructed around many oil field forums that allow drilling and oil field oriented people to ask and answer questions relating to subjects within the industry. Membership is free and you can pick your own user name
Gordon, Elias & Seely, LLP are
maritime lawyers serving injured offshore oilfield workers throughout the world
![[image]](http://www.drillfloor.com/the%20driller%27s%20club.jpg "[image]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
Author
Logged
I doubt copper has anything to do with it. Sparkys any comment....thanks.