Slashdot Mirror
BP's Final "Top Kill" Procedure For Gulf Oil Spill
eldavojohn writes "So far every attempted fix has resulted in failure to contain the Gulf of Mexico oil spill with the exception of the riser insertion method that appears to be little more than a mile-long tube sucking up oil. After attempting many options to allow the continued collection of crude oil, BP is finally considering a 'top kill' option that will kill the well. A vessel at the surface will use 30,000 horsepower pumps to slam kill mud and clay into the well's bent riser, allowing them to cap the well off with two relief wells (which won't be ready for several months). If that fails, the vessel will move on to a 'junk shot' that involves spewing larger debris like shredded rubber and golf balls into the lines to gum up the flow and stop it. Government officials acknowledge that while this may provide a solution, it may also worsen the situation if the resulting pressure causes the lines to blow or fail at other points. While this is likely one of the worst environmental disasters to hit the gulf, BP's debacle has caused Shell to pre-build cofferdams into seven wells that it is currently drilling in the gulf. These would drop into place in the event of such a catastrophic failure of a riser under the well."
The question is, though, will the government be able to do any better? I say let a disinterested (disinterested in the collection of the oil, that is) tackle the problem. Get BP out of the equation completely (aside from paying for the 3rd-parties services).
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
From the sounds of it, this method is _also_ wholly unproven, with the added bonus that there's a chance it could actually make things worse.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
They do, it's called an uncontained oil leak.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Accept car accidents don't kill of entire ecosystems.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Privatized profits. Socialize losses!
BP wont ever end up paying much of the real cost involved in this. Any fines they do face will be a tiny percent of their yearly profit.
And they will go on to do this again in the future.. Saving a buck or two on safety to make some money. Just like they did 20 years ago for their last major disaster.
Yeah know, we really need the oil.. But i'd say we need someplace to live way way more.
Someday we're really going to have to hold corporations accountable in a REAL way for the lives and things they destroy.
Major oil spill cuz you skiped on some safety that we have invented already? Shoot the CEO in the head.
Sooner or later companys will stop doing things that endanger the environment or peoples lives... Or we'll run out of CEO's. either way... it would be an improvement.
Do you know WHY governmental regulation has been so bad in the last dozen or so years? It's because presidential administrations and Congress have NOT ALLOWED it to be good. They have purposefully put people in those political jobs knowing that they weren't going to regulate on purpose. The Bush administration did this more than anyone else. The Clinton administration was 2nd only to Bush, and Bush, Sr. was a close 3rd.
Do you think government can't get the experts it needs to professionally oversee these companies? Are you kidding? They could in a second. It's that the politicos don't want to put competent people without conflicts of interest in these positions. And we're paying the price for it now and he gulf cost will be paying the price for the next century or so....
Accidents are rarely accidents, someone fucked up. I sure blame the person who backed into my last car. Guess what she did not even come close to risking death zones in the gulf. Her insurance paid the for everything and got me a rental while my car was fixed. That is all we ask here, they fix their mess. If that means they go out of business collecting every last drop of that oil, too fucking bad for them.
These assholes cut corners, you can read all about on the news sites. The simple fact is they did this to make a quick buck and now thousands of folks are screwed, fishermen with no fish to sell, property owners with ocean front property ruined, the list goes on and on.
The top kill is what happens when the oil gets to the surface. These desperate (and failing) attempts to contain the spill should have inspired the government to take control of the situation earlier. It's clear that BP doesn't know what the hell they're doing.
I hope everyone who chanted "drill baby drill!" during the last election cycle is willing to go down to the gulf coast and help with the cleanup. What a mess!
Facts have a liberal bias.
But when it's a large corporation, we somehow think they should be held to a higher standard?
Because the large corporation is posting billions of dollars in profits because of their drilling?
Because some people are implying that BP engaged in several salvage operations before looking to actually lose the well?
Because a car accident puts the occupants of your vehicle and the other vehicle at risk, not entire countries, their economies and endangered animals in the surrounding environment?
Because (as the article noted) we're about to let Shell start drilling in the Arctic where the seas are rougher and the location more remote to create delays in response times?
I think at this point we could reopen the debate on the effects of a nuclear plant failing compared to an oil line failing. And how much easier and effective it is to drop a cofferdam on a nuclear core than a well miles below the surface of water.
Your argument of it being a one time thing that is unprecedented does not sit well with me when we look to expand on the number of wells we have. Precedent has now been set. Either tighten regulations so that your point (a) doesn't happen and point (b) is actually true. Care to prove point (c)?
When bad things go wrong to corporations making lots and lots of money, then they should be held accountable, girlintraining. Why you rush to BP and the oil industry's rescue, I'll never know.
My work here is dung.
> But when it's a large corporation, we somehow think they should be held to a higher standard? No, I don't think they should.
Why the hell SHOULDN'T they be held to a higher standard? They are a huge corporation that has a huge amount of money therefore they are hold a huge amount of power. They should be at a MUCH higher standard. As an individual I have the power and money that I could probably ruin the environment for my neighborhood... in this case BP holds the money, power, and equipment to ruin an entire coastline.
This statement is fairly typical of American thinking right now: let corporations have all the benefits and none of the responsibilities. It's the individuals that had nothing to do with the bad decisions and cut corners that are paying in our current corporate dominated culture and government.
In all fairness, we still have no idea what went wrong. I want BP to be dragged across the coals for this as much as the next guy, but the truth of the matter is that we still don't know why the BOP failed, given that it was designed and certified to protect against this very sort of disaster.
As others in this thread have mentioned, several aspects of this accident are unprecedented, and although the oil industry should be faulted for pushing too hard too quickly, this accident may simply have to serve as a learning experience, given that it's entirely possible that BP, Transocean, SLB, and Halliburton were all following the established safety protocols in conformance with past experience.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Does it have something to do with enabling the microorganisms in the ocean that are capable of consuming hydrocarbons to consume them?
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
this is why the doctrine of reasonable prevention would have gone so much farther here. the oil industry doesn't have much experience drilling these super-deep wells, they certainly have no experience dealing with problems in them.
going down there with a known not-properly-functioning BOP and untested cementing was blatantly stupid. now they have to try to fix the problem with stuff that's essentially untested and could make the whole thing worse.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
On what basis do you claim that the dispersant has been effective in reducing the impact? I have to say I trust the judgment of the EPA on that more than I trust J. Random Slashdotter or BP, but I'm willing to look at expert opinion if you can cite some.
When corporate criminals are fouling the planet, I'm all for government agencies interfering with them.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Link
Criminal Negligence.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
"After attempting many options to allow the continued collection of crude oil, BP is finally considering a 'top kill' option that will kill the well."
Why are people coming up with this fantasy that BP wants to keep the hole viable, and wants to continue collecting or be able in the future to collect oil from this hole? Some people have developed the misconception that the only reason BP hasn't tried to plug the hole is that they want the oil to flow -- i.e. $$$$$$. It's total nonsense. Why?
A) the hole at depth and the equipment on top of it is damaged. It would be foolhardy and inconsistent with industry practice in a situation like this -- especially if instability in the hole due to melting hydrates is an issue at depth in the well -- to try to keep the hole operational. The plan was, and always will be, to stop the flow from the hole and then cement and abandon this hole once it is stopped. To produce this field they will have to drill new holes. That was and always will be the case, and BP said that was the case from the start;
B) they deployed various collection devices earlier because they are faster to deploy and do not depend on being certain about the state of the deeper borehole or the blowout preventer (BOP), both of which had to be thoroughly assessed before attempting techniques that would plug the well, especially when it was known that the BOP failed to perform the way it was supposed to and the hole was unstable. You don't fiddle with things like this when they are in an "unknown state". If they proceeded to try a "top kill" without that assessment they would run the risk of making things worse if a subsurface blowout occurred when pressures built up (i.e. the pipe failed below the sea bottom) or something failed in the BOP;
C) the oil coming out (even with upward-revised numbers) is a piddling amount compared to normal oil production rates in these types of wells when they are working properly, and the value of the oil is dwarfed by the costs of collecting it like this. Even if it were flowing at 10000 barrels a day and they collected it all, that's a "mere" $700000/day (10000 * ~$70 USD/barrel), which wouldn't cover half the daily costs of all the vessels and other gear they have on-site trying to fix the problem ($500k/day is routine for ONE rig when you add in all the materials, personnel, and support. Here are costs for just the rig contract alone -- the Semisub 4000'+ WD is the relevant one at $411k/day). Usually a rig or subsea production system in this setting will be producing from multiple holes simultaneously -- that's the only way it is economic. It would be economically stupid to try to produce from the well in its current state and with the setup they have on site. Get a clue, people!
Anyone who thinks the delay in resorting to a "top kill" solution is due to some kind of ulterior financial motive on the part of BP doesn't understand the technical challenges of doing any of this stuff at extreme depths or what the real economic situation is. They're resorting to a "top kill" now because they've finished the X-ray and gamma-ray studies of the damaged BOP that give them confidence the whole thing isn't going to blow up in their face when they try to plug it. The other techniques were worth trying in the interim. That's the whole explanation for what they've done. It's nothing nefarious.
Hold BP and other oil companies responsible for accidents. Remember that they are drilling at the ends of the Earth to satisfy *your* demand for this resource, so perhaps try to cut back a bit. Beef up safety regulations and inspections. Diligently work on alternative energy sources. But for god's green Earth's sake, leave the stupid conspiracy theories out of it. This "they haven't plugged it because they want the oil to flow so they can make money" one doesn't make a speck of technical or economic sense.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
First, it's not a bay. It's the Gulf of Mexico.
Second, no attempt was made to "save the well". If you knew anything about drilling (or even if you'd even of bothered to read the freaking summary) you'd know that the reason drastic measures like injecting a plug into the well have not been tried is that there's a very real possibility this might do further damage to the well and make the spill significantly worse, possibly to the point of not being able to stop the leak at all. Every step of this process (from remotely activating the blowout preventer, placing the "dome" on top of the break, and syphoning off the oil as it comes up) has been done with meticulous care specifically to prevent making the situation worse, as we still don't even know why it happened!
Do you know why we don't have "disinterested" parties regulating this industry or overseeing the cleanup? Because they're people like you, who don't know what the hell they're talking about but are perfectly happy to act like the solutions are obvious and simple.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Obama hasn't "taken charge" because he knows that BP is going to catch the blame when none of these other "fixes" work. That's smart. Contrast this with the actual Katrina: there were known things that could have been done to relieve the disaster situation in New Orleans, that were actually the responsibility of the Federal government to do, that did not get done. Bush actually failed to act when there was work to be done, whereas there is not much here for Obama to do.