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."
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)
The mud or junk will not be inserted through the riser pipe.
There are access pipes on the BOP itself for this kind of stuff.
The mud or junk will therefore be inserted BEFORE the riser pipe.
Blocking the riser would be useless given it's bent, cracked at the BOP and could potentially rip off due to the blockage.
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.
> 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.
We will solve this horrible situation by dumping shredded tires and golf balls into the ocean until the problem is solved!
"But perhaps...
I said until it was solved!
I was watching a documentary on this Sunday. They interviewed one of the rig survivors. According to the survivor, pieces of the blowout prevention device had come up the pipe weeks before. They didn't bother to fix the BOP. When one of the controllers on the BOP failed, again, weeks before the accident, they didn't bother to fix the BOP. When Transocean wanted to put 3 cement plugs in the well, sandwiching the heavy drilling fluid, the BP managers said "No, use 2 plugs," so that it would take BP less time to unseal the well when they hooked up the pumping rig. According to the survivor, it was when they took the pressure off the well, with only two plugs, that the plugs failed.
This is people putting money before safety. This isn't an "accident". I would consider an earthquake ripping the BOP off the well an accident. I would consider a jet crashing on the rig and somehow managing to destroy the BOP an accident. This was people cutting corners and getting caught.
(Note well: This assumes the survivor was telling the truth.)
Accept car accidents don't kill of entire ecosystems.
OK, I accept.
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.
There's at least one survivor who claims that the BOP was punctured weeks before the blast, but that they were pressured in continuing operations regardless because they were running behind schedule and "time is money".
Donate free food here
From what I can tell, there are hugely involved and expensive processes in place to prevent this sort of disaster.
In the last three months of 2009, BP posted $3.45 billion in profits. That isn't gross income, that's PROFIT.
I think they can afford a few million to make sure their shit is set up correctly and safely.
Living With a Nerd
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.
Related link from Harpers.org April 2009:
On Friday, the New York Times reported that the federal Minerals Management Service (MMS) repeatedly violated environmental requirements when approving oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, ignoring and overruling scientists who noted the risk of potentially catastrophic spills. In the April 2009 issue of Harper’s Magazine, Bryant Urstadt discussed the “culture of ethical failure” at the MMS and its wasteful Royalty-in-Kind program.
It's not very long (a few pages), but a shocking read.
With the pressures and temperatures involved this is actually a very difficult problem to solve.
You can't just put a cork in the damaged pipes - the pressures are on the scale of being unbelivable. I believe it is around 150,000 PSI. Virtually nothing is going to withstand that sort of pressure without a lot of help.
Similarly, I keep seeing posts about how TransOcean should have "fixed" the blowout preventer when it was apparent that some seals were breaking down. Or when one of the redundant controllers failed. The problem is, it was a mile underwater. I do not believe anyone in the area had a means of working at that depth. Also, you can't just turn a valve under the blowout preventer - it is pretty much the bottom valve. So replacing this isn't an option - you are pretty much stuck with it unless you are prepared to do something drastic.
On land, you could (possibly) remove everything from the well head and accept the massive leak that would occur. I do not believe there are many land-based wells where the outflow pressure is anywhere near 150,000 PSI. So changing the blowout preventor is nasty, going to spew oil everywhere but is at least possible. At 5000+ feet of water and with the entire Gulf squeezing the oil out through that pipe changing the blowout preventer is simply not possible.
You folks do understand that the weight of the water above the well is what is causing this problem, right?
Another silly point people seem to be hung up on is that BP is working on this and the government isn't. Well, the government as a regulator has some involvement but about all they can do is make rules. There is no government oil well rescue service. The facilities do not exist within the US government, and probably for good reason - it doesn't happen all that much. The US could, I suppose, nationalize BP because of this. The problem with that idea is that a lot of other companies, oil and otherwise, would take this as an immediate indication that any US presence was no longer safe. The same thing happened in a lot of Central and South American countries upon nationalizing companies. The reason a lot of companies are in the US is because it is convenient to be close to a large market and a well educated labor force. Make noises like assets aren't safe from being nationalized and a lot of companies will take their assets elsewhere.
You folks also understand that this well is in international waters, right? The US can drill there or any other country. The US has attempted to claim 200 mile nautical boundaries before, but that is pretty much a joke today. The fact that the oil is there means it will be taken out by someone. We get to choose whether it is the US or someone else. I'd say Venezuela or Mexico are likely candidates if we abandon drilling in the Gulf. At this point I would say complete abandonment of US offshore drilling is likely, regardless of the economic consequences.
"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.