 | Drumbeat: July 29, 2010 | The Oil Drum | A Critical Examination of Matt Simmons’ Claims on the Deepwater Spill |  |
BP's Deepwater Oil Spill - the Hundredth Day - and Open Thread
Posted by Heading Out on July 29, 2010 - 10:25am
This thread is being closed. Please comment on http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6790.
Admiral Allen held a press conference in the Gulf region (rather than recent ones held in Washington), in which he noted that the news of the rapid disappearance of the oil already emitted by the Deepwater well is raising questions as to how long to retain the different parts of the fleet assembled to deal with it. Well pressure continues to slowly build, and there are no signs that the well integrity has been breached. The problem of the skimmer fleet, and the distributed lengths of boom are non-trivial. Should a hurricane appear then the oil-contaminated boom segments can become polluting sources themselves if they are carried inland. And so they must be collected, cleaned and stored, if there is no longer a need. (Or if they are too contaminated they may need to be disposed of as hazardous waste).
The Admiral also discussed the continuing developments with both the top static kill, (waiting on the cementing of the relief well) and the progress of the relief well itself. The packer sealing the well has been released and recovered, and the well is now being cleaned, before operations restart.
They removed the subsea containment device—which they call a packer—that was put in to protect the well while they evacuated the site before of the severe weather.
After that (was) done, they will run another drill string clear to the bottom of the relief well, and then they're going to flush the entire wellbore out to make sure there's no particles or anything—sediment from the formation. When that is done, they will be ready then to put the casing pipe in. The casing pipe is the last structural member that will go into the relief well and cement that in place.
Once that is done, that will be the cue to start the static or the top kill we've talked about, which will happen next week. Following that—then we'll be in a position, once the cement dries, to go ahead and drill into the annulus and begin the bottom kill sequence of events as I've briefed before.
Note that once the relief well (RW) is cased and cemented, then it is not necessary to have the cement harden before doing the static kill, though it will be necessary for the relief well operation to complete.
In the latter case, since the cemented casing will act as a springboard to allow the drill to advance the last one hundred feet to meet the 7-inch casing of the original well, accuracy in positioning is still critical to success. The RW is planned to run alongside the original well, slowly chewing through the original cement annulus and finding out whether that is the source of the oil, or whether its integrity is still sound. (And with lots of opinions there is yet little real data on which to give a definitive answer.)
In regard to the static kill, he answered a question on the chances of success by noting
One of the things that, as you know, has been a subject of a lot of controversy or discussion, I would say—maybe not controversy, but discussion, spirited discussion among the science team, BP engineers, and so forth—is why the pressure was so low when we capped the well itself, down in the 6,000 range.
The competing theories from that are we have depletion in the reservoir that caused the pressure to be lower or there could potentially be a leak down there.
One of the things we're going to find out when we start to put the mud in for the static kill—if there's a precipitous drop in pressure, we'll know we have a well integrity issue at that point. If there is not, and we fill that well with mud right away, and it holds pressure, I think we'll know a lot more about the condition of the well.
One of the big concerns with injecting fluid into the well lies with the strength of the rocks in the bottom of the existing well. There is some concern that if the mud injected into the well is too heavy, then it can raise the pressure in the bottom of the hole to the point that the surrounding rock fractures. At this point the build-up of pressure in the well is relieved, as the fluid can now flow into the crack generated (and there is the precipitate drop in pressure that the Admiral refers to). That (because the rest of the well is lined with a cement and steel jacket or casing) is most likely to occur in the lowest section of the well, where it was not lined with both steel and cement, but rather a full-well-length steel tube (the production casing) was cemented into place, with cement only at the bottom of the well. Further the oil bearing rock tends to be weaker than the rest.
It is thus down around the zone of the producing rock that this fracture and leakage – the loss in well integrity – is likely to occur. And it is that zone that will be penetrated by the relief well. Thus if there are problems that arise during the static kill from the top of the well, then they will likely be remediated by the following arrival of the relief well in the critical region.
Now I think there may be another complexity (and in reality there are many in this process) and that relates to the possible injection of cement at the end of the static kill as a way of sealing the well. My concern is that while the static kill will displace oil and gas in the well by pushing them back into the formation, from which they earlier escaped, that is not true with the mud. The oil and gas, having flowed out of the rock with the differential pressure having the well pressure lower, can flow back, when the well pressure is higher. Mud on the other hand, bear in mind, is designed in part to line the well and provide an impermeable liner to the well during drilling. Thus to inject cement with the intent of driving some of the mud that the cement displaces into the formation may require higher pressures that with the oil and gas. This may, in turn, bring the well pressure above that at which the formation fractures. It is for reasons such as this that I expect the process to be carried out somewhat slowly, and in stages, rather than as a sudden “magical” flourish to end the crisis.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Prof. Goose's comment:
Welcome--modified 21 JUL 2010
Thanks for your donations; they have been helpful--be assured that every penny of that will go toward Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future/The Oil Drum costs, especially towards the servers, etc.
1. The Oil Drum is a special place. We strive to maintain a high signal to noise ratio in our comment threads. Short, unengaging comments, or comments that are off topic, are likely to be deleted without notice. (to be clear--engaging, on point humor and levity is more than welcome.) We are trying to perform a service to the public here to coordinate smart people who know their stuff with other people who want to learn about what's going on. Promotion of that ideal will be the criteria by which we make our decisions about what stays and what goes. Flame wars, polemic exchanges, and other content deleterious to the community will be removed, either by an editor or by the community through its moderation process.
2. If you see a problematic comment USE THE COMMENT MODERATION SYSTEM--see the "Flag as inappropriate" and (?) beside it? Learn more there. If you see comments that are questionable after you've done that (that aren't being removed), let us know at the eds email address. It is up to this community to enforce the norms we have established here (a high signal to noise ratio), keep. it. up. Our guide to commenting at TOD can be found here: http://www.theoildrum.com/special/guidelines . Please check it out if you are unfamiliar with it, but it is essentially 1) citations welcome (if not necessary), 2) be kind to others, and 3) be nice to the furniture.
3. We have gotten a lot of queries whether this bump in traffic is adding costs to keep the site functioning. Truth is, yes, we are incurring added expenses from these events. It is also true that we try not to beg from you very often as we are not the types to bother you with constant queries. That being said, if you are inclined to help out, your support is always welcome and very much appreciated. To those who have already given, thank you very much. You can find the donate button in the top left hand corner of the main page.
4. If you would like to catch up with what's been going on in the last few days, our IRC channel has been maintaining a FAQ, which is an open source log full of information, links, and such. Check it out: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dff7zmqz_7c6rdwsc9 . Also, if you're looking for live chat to talk about the ROV/LMRP video, etc., and are IRC capable, go to freenode, the channel is #theoildrum (google MIRC and download it; Hit the lightening bolt and fill in your info; select the server as "freenode" (it is in the server list), hit connect; when connected type /join #theoildrum) or you can get there just via a browser: http://webchat.freenode.net / Just enter a nickname and #theoildrum in the boxes; then when connected type /join #theoildrum)
5. Don't be afraid to go back and read the last couple of open threads yesterday and today before you start on this thread. That will likely catch you up if you have been out of the loop for a while. We shut down threads when we get to 300-400 comments, as it's really unmanageable.
We were discussing nuclear power on a different thread a few weeks ago. Good article on the safety and mortality of nuclear power at:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/29-0
The first few paragraphs:
"Don’t Be Fooled: Nuclear Power Kills
by John LaForge
Two of the nuclear industry's talking points these days are that "nuclear power hasn't killed anyone" and that "no one died at Three Mile Island."
The 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe puts the lie to such bull, but the deliberate denial of thousands of other deaths is also part of the industry's effort. For younger people who have no experience or recall of reactor explosions and meltdowns, steam bursts or radioactive waste spills, pro-nuclear propaganda has convinced many of them that radiation is merely medicinal or dental and must be harmless. On the contrary, there is no safe dose of radiation, and any exposure no matter how little increases the risk of cancer and other diseases.
A quick look at the record of some of the deadliest radiation accidents counters efforts by the Nuclear Energy Institute, and some in Congress, to whitewash their poisoned nuclear power and win another $32 billion in taxpayer giveaways for building new reactors. What follows is a sampling -- a completely footnoted version of the list is available from Nukewatch. +
On the contrary, there is no safe dose of radiation, and any exposure no matter how little increases the risk of cancer and other diseases.
Then you and I should be dead from our daily dose of radiation from the sun.
There are many concerns with the use of nuclear power, but broad, misconcieved statements don't help educate anyone as to what they are and how to deal with them.
I am just the messenger. Thought this would be a great place to discuss this. Though my time for doing so is limited (I am on vacation!)
Again - these are two types of radiation. Ionizing and non-ionizing. This is one of the industries' ways of confusing the issue - by comparing radiation from radionucleides which can be ingested (and continue releasing radiation)with UV, xrays, etc. which are ephemeral. A better analogy would be the radioactive seeds they implant to kill cancers - but also cause hair loss, burns, etc.
Radioactive particles ingested are too weak to kill except a few immediate cells - but they can certainly cause mutations which can lead to cancers.
UV from the sun certainly is bad, especially for the fair skinned like me. But it can be avoided with sun screen, clothes, and just staying out of the sun. Not so easy to avoid ionizing radiation. We used to have fallout shelters for this purpose, for a nuclear attack.
There is no way to avoid exposure to cancer causing ionizing radiation released by nuclear plants if you are unfortunate to live downwind or eat food with this stuff in it, such as seafood or milk. Or if there is a large release in an accident. Certain areas of Europe were off limits as far as dairy production after Chernobyl, for instance.
How the west learned of Chernobyl is interesting. A scientist was bicycling to work at CERN, and wearing his favorite mohair sweater. When he arrived he set off alarms. They assayed his sweater and found certain daughter products that pointed towards a meltdown somewhere upwind.
Radiation from Chernobyl was spread by the jet stream and found its was as far as the Pacific Northwest even. But the worst hit areas were in Europe.
Anyway - its an interesting article worth reading and considering. Its less wild idea-wise than some of Matt Simmons' wild ideas......
A discussion concerning ionizing and non-ionizing radiation should be had, thats for sure. I just don't like blanket statements.
Hair loss in cancer treatment is due to chemotherapy where you are given poisons to kill the cancer cells not from the radioactive 'seeds' that have only a very localised effect. You are ingesting radioactive substances all the time from natural sources. Are you dead? That gives some sense that there are lower limits for radiation damage.
NAOM
No one has ever said that all radiation always kills. Not everyone who smokes dies, yet some get cancer and die.
When we say there is no safe dose we aren't saying that radiation always kills. We are saying that some dose will have an effect on some people, and larger doses on more people.
Not everyone that tans themselves gets cancer, but some do and live with it and some get melanoma and die rather quickly. So sunlight is unsafe, but not for everyone and the dose that causes cancer or melanoma is different for everyone. So we cannot set a safe dose for sun exposure. Obviously less is better for those who are susceptible. But even though we have Vitamin D supplements now, it is better to get sunlight in some amount to produce enough Vitamin D for good health. So we trade a risk for a necessary. While we have come to think of our excessive use of electricity as necessary, 200,000 years or more of humans lived and passed on genes without it. So in this case we are trading a risk for an unnecessary.
There are many natural sources of ionizing radiation, including literally the entire universe.
Cosmic rays during commercial air travel:
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html
Or minerals used in your home for decorative effect (i.e. granite counter tops):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/garden/24granite.html
And then there are televisions:
http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/ResourcesforYouRadiationEm...
So the idea that there is no safe level of radiation exposure falls flat on its face because there is a natural background, and at some level of radiation exposure from nuclear power generation the effect will simply not be measurable.
One more time ... NOBODY is building a chernyoble type of reactor. Everything that happened at Chernyobl is irrelevant to the type of reactor being proposed and, in fact with any reactor that exists presently in the US.
The way to avoid radiation around a properly functioning reactor is ... that there isn't any detectable. If the modern reactor fails, it is true that a hazard could exist... However an industrial coal fire is at least as dangerous.
Your story about the scientist at CERN is poppy cock ... an urban legend.
If you don't understand the difference between different types of reactor, you are not a credible contributor to this forum.
I would put your post directly in league with Matt Simmons actually. Again, there is a useful debate regarding Nuclear Power but baloney is not debate.
Actually, its not. My wife worked for him at CERN. You're telling me that my wife, who is a scientist herself, lied to me?
I am raising the BS flag here. The radiation was not initially detected at CERN but instead at a nuclear power plant in Sweden.
"In Sweden fallout from the Soviet reactor in Chernobyl was
first detected on 28 April when personnel from the morning
shift at the Forsmark power station measured increasing
amounts of radioactivity on personnel passing the station's
portal monitor."
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull283/28302793032.pdf
For BS, the following statement (see a few posts above) takes the cake:
"...If the modern reactor fails, it is true that a hazard could exist... However an industrial coal fire is at least as dangerous..."
Then sit down and give us an arguement refuting it. I do not accept that something is true or not true just because somebnody says so.
BTW - how much radioactive material is released by burning coal?
Unless you say it.
Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per million (ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the amount of thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of uranium. For a large number of coal samples, according to Environmental Protection Agency figures released in 1984, average values of uranium and thorium content have been determined to be 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Which is more then a operation nuclear plant.
I normally just come here and read. I have resisted the temptation to respond on numerous issues and to many different posters. Just not my cup of tea you might say. But...........every now and again, here and at other sites I read something that screams at me. So, geoffreyf I would like to point out a couple of things that chap my butt. You offered a very condescending rebuttal..... without one shred of back up. At least the person who you rudely responded to presented more than opinion.
And for you and everyone who thinks Nuke Energy is the Holy Yellow Cake Road, I offer a challenge. Go to any of the small towns down wind of TMI along the Susquehanna River.....find a local bar....enter and buy yourself a brew...... and spout off about how Nukes are super safe.....and the energy companies will run them in a safe manner and will keep the public informed..........also quickly throw in how Nuke Energy has never killed anyone. I say quickly cause the next thing you will hear is your ass hitting the floor. It might be a good idea if you line up an oral surgeon up prior to accepting this challenge.
There is a reason why there are several doses of Potassium Iodine in my nightstand. But oh, everything is safe people...........but if you're pregnant.....well ya might want to pack a bag and keep it by the door.........but not to worry......and oh you might want to close the windows and let the AC circulate the air already in the house..........but there is no need to worry.....really.....we mean it.........we wouldn't lie. People around my neck of the woods have not forgotten the BS that was spewed from TMI.....along with the rads. And oh by the way........I don't know anyone in the area that were of age during that "incident" who remotely believe the BS investigations that found no links to the cancer clusters in the "down wind" areas. And that includes Right......Left.........Libertarians........Bible Beaters......and Harley Riders.
And yes, like you I offer no back up. But I dare you to take the challenge to disprove my observations. As far as scientific back up.........you wouldn't believe it anyway......but seriously, I'd love to buy you a beer.
Great post againcajun. Unfortunately the people in the area affected (coal mining, nukes, fracing, etc.) are never worth considering or consulting. Their water spouts methane right after fracing starts, just a coincidence. Cancer clusters - not our fault. Undrinkable water and polluted streams in the mountains of W. Virginia. Not related to coal for sure. Unfortunately one can often only see the truth when it lands in your own backyard and then it is too late.
Agincajun, you sound like somebody I would want to share a homebrew with if I ever make it down your way sometime! I'll be hearing some excellent Cajun music just outside my cabin all week at a music camp on the California Coast and I'll think of you.
Its funny how some here try to prove that Nukes are safe by saying how deadly coal is. Sure - coal is bad (I never said it wasn't) along with a whole lot of other things. Some are also insisting that we have only one choice in the future - coal or nuclear. Meanwhile, there is that unfamiliar bright thing in the sky that hurts our eyes if we look at it (this is someone from Seattle speaking. What the hell is that thing anyway? We rarely see it!). Seems elsewhere it should be tapped into the grid.
You brew? I knew there was something redeeming in your posts. What can I say.........try as I might, sometimes I just can't help myself. And yes, I too have noticed that if it's the other guy's bathtub and well that gets crapped and pissed in.........well... "they are cleaning it up....aren't they?" I have enjoyed reading this site since I found it a couple of months ago. However, just like every pasture there are always a few fresh piles and fire ant beds.....so step with care and deliberation. Enjoy the music and beer.
I have no fear of the current nuclear fuel industry. If you really want to save lives and if you really wanted to make an immediate impact, get rid of:
1. Motorized tranpsortation including airplanes, space shuttles, etc
2. Illicit drugs
3. War
4. Violent gangs
5. Violent religions
6. Violent spouses and family members
7. Fad diets
8. Stress
9. Abortions as a means of birth control
etc :)
If you want to save lives there is only 1 thing you can do. Don't have babies. No one dies unless they are first born.
Ionizing radiation, particles or rays that can cause the ejection of orbital electrons from absorber atoms. Examples are xrays,gamma rays and the high frequency end of the ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum.
non-ionizing radiation, any type of electromagnetic radiation that does not carry enough energy to completly remove an electron from an atom. Examples are visable light and radio waves.
There are two kinds of effects from ionizing radiation doses.
1) Deterministic. A health effect from radioactive dose that has a severity directly dependant on dose and there is a threshold below which no effect is seen. As an example the first attempt to define a unit of radiation exposure was defined to be the output of an xray machine that would just cause visable skin reddening.
2)Stochastic. These are health effects basically occuring by chance, it is still up for debate if there is a threshold below which there is zero chance. What this means is the probability of an effect (cancer) increases with dose but the severity does not. That is a dose from a Cobalt 60 source is more likely to give you cancer than a dose from your cat litter but if you are unlucky enough to get cancer from either you will experience similar health effects.
Radiation from the sun, Greg, isn't necessarily as strong as that from radioactive sources like fissile materials and byproducts. The effects of UV are cumulative, in fact. But it's much lower in energy than beta particles or gamma radiation. (Also much lower in energy than X-rays, which is why there's a limit to how many X-rays you should receive in a lifetime.)
That wasn't what was said. I am annoyed when people oversimplify the problem. Radiation isn't necessarily the problem. Its excessive radiation that can cause big issues.
If you're going to proclaim something is bad, explain what is bad to start off.
Casey Burns - Actually your rather overblown comments are based on incomplete information. What is wrong with your thinking is that all nuclear facilities are not alike. Chernyobl was a graphite moderated reactor and, at nuclear reactor temperatures - very flamable. Also controlling such a reactor is quite cumbersome. To my knowledge, the only Graphite reactor in the US was at Hannaford, WA and was built during WWII. Absolutely nobody anywhere is proposing any new construction of anything vaguely similar to Graphite reactors of the Chernyobl type.
The reactors built primarily during the '60s are far safer and, in point of fact, there are no cases of deaths from a commercial reactor of that type. Furthermore the newer reactors which are now proposed are far more failsafe than even those were. BTW ... I'm not "younger" ... I was born in 1951. In fact, I was opposed to commercial reactor development when I was young but many of my reasons at that time have not held up.
Indeed there is no "Safe dose of radiation" but nuclear reactors are not the only source of radiation. Of those people who die of radiation, 99% of them will die of one particular kind and in fact, a significant portion of the human population will die of that kind. I'm talking about sunshine and skin cancer. So the real SCIENTIFIC (balance one fact with the other) point is that, even allowing for exposure to radiation from airplane flights, medical procedures and even the occasionally misplaced isotope, you have A LOT MORE to fear from the medical consequencs of burning fossil fuels.
There are issues with nuclear power. It deserves a vigorous scientific debate but you did not introduce any science to contribute to that debate. You conflated an antique, dangerous and almost not existant form of nuclear plant with ones that are proposed and of a totally different design. Chernyobl is irrelevant to the current debate, especially in this country where such a reactor has not been built in 65 years.
"...The reactors built primarily during the '60s are far safer and, in point of fact, there are no cases of deaths from a commercial reactor of that type..."
geoffreyf, listen to your elder. I have posted a link on TOD to this article before, “People Died at Three Mile Island” by Harvey Wasserman:
http://www.harveywasserman.com/
He provides plenty of other evidence on his blog that we ought to get rid of all nuclear reactors ASAP and certainly not build anymore, and that we must deal immediately with existing nuclear waste. It is a catastrophe ready to happen.
Um, 'Passions of the Potsmoking Patriots', are you sure about the link?
NAOM
I think there might be some patriot pot smokers here, just trying to be inclusive.
If the feds would get off their butts and really tax the stuff, then many would be such. Travel agents around here are now selling California 'pot tourist' packages. In Alabama. Guess the GOM trips are sort of screwed for now.
TFHG, we know you are a patriot, now about that other part...
How about commercially grow the stuff?
I don't understand why so few people mention hemp when talking about alternatives to petroleum products.
Industrial hemp could do wonders for this nation. We need jobs and industry and hemp can be grown in most parts of the country.
Hemp is not legal to grow in the U.S. under Federal law because of its relation to marijuana, and any imported hemp products must meet a zero tolerance level. It is considered a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (P.L. 91-513; 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). Some states have defied Federal law and made the cultivation of industrial hemp legal. These states — North Dakota, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, West Virginia, and Vermont — have not yet begun to grow hemp because of resistance from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration.
It is a part of the game.
Hemp for Victory - 1942
Hemp for Victory - 1942 USDA promoting Cannabis for hemp cultivation in WWII Tags:hemp, victory, 1942, rope, usda, cannabis, wwII AOL@Television 2008 AOL LLC. All Rights Reserved.
path: Public ~> Marijuana
Related Linkoriginally posted: 2009-09-27 14:20:22
Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6cVmx5bOaU
Again, I am just the messenger - and not the author of the article I mentioned. Yes I know that we aren't building any Chernobyls but I am not convinced the modern designs are any better. But I agree with the article's premise that what the industry tells us versus the reality is suspect. Such as "too cheap to meter" or "we'll have a permanent waste repository soon" or "a little radiation release is like having a chest xray" or that nobody has died from this.
Certainly other things can kill us too. But that is like telling someone you just shot in the heart with a gun not to worry because driving a car is inherently unsafe.
Yes, a little bit of plutonium released into the environment from reprocessing will only give you a tiny dose of radiation. Its usually harmless. But if it happens to lodge in your lung somewhere you may end up dying from lung cancer. Or iodine released ends up in the milk of a nursing mother - the child could die early from thyroid cancer.
I know its hard to prove such causes directly except that the epidemiological studies around places like Hanford, Rocky Flats, and 3 Mile Island all point to this. The industry does not want similar studies done around their nuclear plants for fear of what such studies might turn up - bad news for them and their investors. So they try to suppress such studies or try to peer review them into the dark ages or simply remove the problem in Karen Silkwood fashion.
Its to the industry's bottom line to market the idea widely that everything is as safe as sunlight or a chest xray (indeed and sadly there are many here who share this view - showing that the marketing works).
We've heard similar lies from one big corporation recently. First the leak was only 5000 barrels a day. The 10 thousand, then who knows. I think the corporate culture protecting their bottom line while funding a huge marketing push to push "good" news and suppress any "bad" news is common amongst energy companies, including the nuclear industry that pushed "too cheap to meter" in the past and is now pushing a huge greenwashing of how safe Nuclear Power is.
And we still aren't any closer to having any viable solution to the ever growing nuclear waste problem. This is a fact, not a belief. Yucca Mountain is dead and there are no other alternatives. But the industry keeps telling us this isn't a problem and that we'll have a solution soon. They will be saying this 100 years from now.
Back when I was a kid, they had x-ray machines in some shoe stores including the one I went to. Not that shoe stores needed to xray your feet, just an attraction really. Hey kid get your foot xrayed. Not a danger they told us...
http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/shoexray.htm
Hey kid get your foot xrayed.
I remember those. I had it done once, but I don't think more than that.
Casey Burns,you are off topic - if you want to spread your anti-nuclear nonsense then The Drumbeat is the forum to do it.Even better,I'm sure there are plenty of sites in fantasy land which will welcome you.
Its not nonsense to me. I am not trying to spread propaganda. Whereas a few here saying how this technology is wonderful appear to be doing just that from my perspective. And then accuse me of doing this and wanting the free speech to go elsewhere.
This is a topic worthy of discussion and this seems like an appropriate site when other articles here discuss new reactor designs etc. Not everyone here is cheerleading for the nuclear industry and not a few are quite alarmed by it, such as myself. Your comment calling this "anti-nuclear nonsense" seems inappropriate frankly.
IMHO the biggest problem with building a new nuclear power plant in the USA is the perception of the potential financial liability from an accident. The only entity with the resources to take on a "perceived" risk greater than the GOM is the Government.
Casey Burns,you have deliberately ignored my reason for commenting on your post.This thread is about the Deepwater oil spill,not nuclear power.If you wish to post links on that or comment then there are other appropriate venues.
I suspect you are the sort of person who will use any avenue to parrot your worn out views on nuclear power.You are very likely an activist in that area.It is my opinion that you are parroting antinuclear nonsense and not only on this thread.You have a different opinion and it is your right to express it.Just refrain from hijacking the debate on a completely different subject.
No I am not an activist - though I was once. With a daughter in college and a business to run I don't have time. I am a Downwinder (look that up if you don't know what it is), and grew up eating Columbia River Salmon in the 60s.
So this "revival" of the nuclear power industry is something that deeply concerns me, and is my response to this new phenomenon. And given how Wall Street and the Insurance Industry will probably avoid it, it will only thrive with a huge government subsidy. As a taxpayer I am against yet another bailout to a failing industry.
I thought this was an "open thread" which means anything discussed elsewhere on the Oil Drum (and Nuclear Power has been discussed a bunch recently) can be discussed here. Correct me if I am wrong.
"Discussions about energy, and our future"
I'm nobody important to any one here, but I wholly agree the topic deserves rigourous discussion.
Now, I haven't divined the reason some have commented on your post, though they seem adept at divining that you deliberately ignored their reasons for doing so. But divining whether someone else's divination stands up to scrutiny is not really a discussion about energy, or our future, that I can tell. Since it is a discussion of "our" future, I would like to think that that includes those with differences of opinion on subjects which some may have less or more experience.
But that's just me. I've already contended that I'm no-one important to anyone here.
I would proceed with the static kill using brine. Brine's a problem if they intend to flow the well, but it won't be if they want to pump everything back.
Several weeks ago I suggested pumping from the top would be useful, using brine would be better, because it allows displacing oil back away from the wellbore - the brine can be used to "waterflood" the reservoir. Since the well conditions are so good, they may even want to follow the brine with a bit of brine mixed with polymers to about 2 cp, to make sure they displace oil away from the well as effectively as possible. Once they have the well and the near well area (say 2-3 feet away from the well) thoroughly swept, then they can proceed to cement it from the top. However, I'm still leery about cementing top down, when I think of it. It may make more sense to have the well loaded, then displace with mud. THEN drill in with the relief well to get into the annulus, make sure the two wells are in communication, and pump cement from the bottom up. I'm doing this sitting in my living room after having lunch, so this is just an possible outline.
I've been trying to figure out how the Development Driller III disconnected and reconnected its riser from/to the BOP so quickly for Bonnie. I can't seem to find anything in old threads. Can anyone help?
By the way TFHG, I'm KofC. PGK, Color Corp, and under 60 (something of an anomaly, true)! VJ! My dad was jebbie trained; I had Holy Cross brothers and Vincentian. No match.
There is a quick disconnect device on top of the BOP stack that allows the disconnect. This did not function in the case of the DWH.
NAOM
Thank you for the reply! Is that part of the Lower Marine Riser Package? I don't see anything labeled as a quick disconnect on the diagrams. I have to assume the rig must then pull up the riser and remove some sections before it can move to safer waters. Is it safe to assume they'd only pull it up a few sections (as needed based on depth at destination) or did they have to pull up the whole thing before they could move?
(And thanks for anticipating and answering my next question about the DWH!)
My nym is descriptive so take what I say with a pinch of salt. This is from what I have learned from TOD and then reading around. If you look at the original stack above the flexjoint and below the new spool they bolted on you will see an actuator stuck out at an angle. I believe that is it but I will not guarantee that. It is part of the EDS (Emergency Disconnect System) and is used for things like the hurricane disconnect or if there is a problem such as the disaster that happened. I understand that the rig has to pull up the whole riser stack before moving any distance. That riser would make for one heck of a sea anchor :)
NAOM
Thanks NAOM. The diagram on the FAQ page has "Hydraulic Actuator" under the LRMP so that must be it.
Yeah, it must to be hard enough to move a rig that size but I thought maybe there was a compromise somewhere between drag and the effort to pull it all the way up.
The LMRP hydraulic connector on the DWH is somewhat in the middle of the BOP, below the annular preventers but above the rams.
See diagram here, line 31.
http://www.energy.gov/open/documents/4.2_Item_1_BOP_Pressures_07_Jun_120...
JTF
Good diagram! Thanks
Sorry I missed this question last night LL:
Lady-Li on July 29, 2010 - 5:39am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top beachmommy - here is another view from Pensacola Beach :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN32f8fqnl4&feature=channel
Which one is true ? Depends on the point of view or on the position ?
Hard to find out for me...
I saw that video, lot's of sea grass and some tiny tar balls, clear water etc. He was down at the West end of the Island at the mouth of the pass where alot of the skimmers, heavy machinery are located. I take his videos and postings/photos with a grain of salt since I live here too and see that most of his videos are at one area of the beach by his condo, the he focuses on the tidal pools in many of them which accumulate alot of muck in the mornings. I also know he's got about 10 web pages, including 3 FB pages and has others ask to post for donations for him since he was fired. He'll tell you it's because he is reporting the truth but in reality that is BS. I have problems with anyone asking for money to walk the beach, take money from conspiracy forums like godlikeproductions, and spread false information like a leak 7 miles away spewing 120,000 barrels a day, methan gas tsunamis that could kill 200 million people, toxic clouds of corexit that will kill, etc., and when asked to cite his source he refuses to but then adds "you need to be enlightened". The damage he's done to the scared, gullible people following his sites is sad and then to take their money on top of it is disgusting.
Also my point of view is I want facts based on science, evidence, etc and I personally have no position. Last week when he posted the water was black I couldn't believe what I read as Iwas on the deck drinking coffee and the water was emerald green as usual.
Regarding Chernobyl, Ukraine has the lowest birth rate in Europe and one of the highest infertility rates on the planet. Yet the World Health Organization insists that:
'Given the low radiation doses received by most people exposed to the Chernobyl accident, no effects on fertility, numbers of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes or delivery complications have been demonstrated nor are there expected to be any. A modest but steady increase in reported congenital malformations in both contaminated and uncontaminated areas of Belarus appears related to improved reporting and not to radiation exposure.'
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html
Last year I painted a beautiful young Ukrainian girl who was missing a hand. I only painted her portrait, not her entire body, so the deformity was not shown in the artwork. It really bothers me to read reports like that above, dismissing the overall health effects on the Ukraine and other regions as a result of Chernobyl. I truly hope that ten years from now the WHO won't be saying:
'Given the overall low levels of Corexit received by the GOM during the Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010, studies indicate that most people in the Gulf states exposed to the dispersants and hydrocarbons received no ill effects on their nervous systems, internal organs, respiratory organs, etc, as a result of the spill. The high increase in mortality rates among Floridians is attributed to the fact they were fat old farts to begin with, and expected to die within a decade of the spill anyway, thanks to their affinity for fried fish and french fries. Reports indicating that the aquifers were contaminated and that Gulf seafood was not properly inspected after the spill are overblown and cannot be proven to be related to the increase in mortality, cancer and nervous system disease in the Gulf states.
This whistle blower from the EPA was on MSNBC last night and I must confess that after watching this, I have no confidence that the gov't or the EPA has been straight with us regarding the safety in the use of dispersants.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN4MJFeEYuE&feature=player_embedded
This is an example of the logical fallacy of assuming that correlation equals causation. What it does is take two facts and implies a cause-and-effect relationship for which there is no evidence.
We see this all the time when we read about the studies that show that people who have a particular lifestyle habit life longer. All the studies show that the people have two factors in common - but does not mean that they are connected. (For example: people who eat a certain type of 'healthy' food living longer - is the longevity caused by eating that food or are the longevity and eating that food the results of a more healthy lifestyle?)
Since your examples cannot demonstrate causation - then we must conclude that your radiation examples are in fact nothing but an example of the correlation/causation fallacy.
I was not trying to imply anything. I was simply stating the facts. The facts are that the Chernobyl disaster took place near Kiev in the now abandoned village of Prypiat in the Ukraine. The facts are that Ukraine has one of the highest mortality and infertility rates in the world. In addition, 'an increased incidence of thyroid cancer among children in areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia has been firmly established as a result of screening programs and, in the case of Belarus, an established cancer registry.'
Those are the facts, not implications.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects
I am not a scientist, engineer, lawyer, doctor, or philosopher and I do not wish to debate you regarding causation, implication or assumptions. I am simply stating facts and my concern is that the World Health Organization, has stated that Chernobyl cannot be directly implicated. If I am still alive ten years from now, I hope that there won't be reports coming from the WHO stating that the use of dispersants cannot be directly attributed to a high rise in mortality and cancer in Gulf coast residents.
I do not wish to debate you regarding causation, implication or assumptions.
Then you should not be posting this in this forum for that is the mission of this site.
Ukraine has one of the highest mortality and infertility rates in the world
Many of the other former Soviet Republics have similar poor statistics in these categories. For example Russia has a mortality rate statistically indistinguishable from the Ukraine.
Your posting is basically an invalid logical fallacy posted in a way intended to scare people.
A less polite way of putting it is you are engaging in deception to promote a political position.
As you like Wikipedea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertil...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
However you base all this on Chernoble? Have you examined other factors? The death rates in Afghanistan, Angola and Swaziland are way higher but I do not recall their having had a nuclear accident. Fertility rates in South Korea, Hong Kong and Macau are lower again no nuclear accidents. You have to take in all causes to extract a correlation.
NAOM
The problem is that you are presenting those facts in a misleading manner. And you apparently are doing this deliberately.
All you are doing is pushing an agenda and are willing to 'spin' facts in order to mislead people.
Is it fair to accuse paintdancer of deliberate falsification? He or she may have found the claim about Ukraine at some anti-nuclear source and not thought to make the comparison with, for example, Russia.
Fair enough. What other possible explanations would there be?
Naivete?
Failed educational system?
Lack of intellectual capability?
There are many....
Why don't you stick in your mass spectrometer and find out?
It is not unfair when I pointed out the fallacy in the information he was presenting and he immediately regurgitated the same information - only this time knowing it was misleading.
I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt the first time - but not the second.
The facts also are that Chernyobl was a type of reactor that even when it was constructed was irresponsibly wrong in design. It's entire theory of operation is completely different from any commercial reactor built in this country or proposed for new construction anywhere.
You might as well point out how many people died or had their lives shortened by a nuclear bomb. Because of the burning graphite carrying off the fissile material ... arguably the graphite type reactor at Chernyobl was worse than a nuclear bomb. That's why it shouldn't have been built and that's why nobody is building them.
You are right ... you are not a scientist. Even a child taking a science course in high school knows that science involves comparing and contrasting of facts and information. You could have asked yourself if there was a difference between chernyobl and other reactors, but you didn't. If you had, you would have learned that there is no reasonable way that a commercial reactor in the US could do the same thing. You also would have learned that WHEN CHERNYOBL was built, the type of accident which occured was predictable. The Soviet Union was famous for these kinds of short cuts. In fact, Chernyobl was not the worst. However that has nothing whatever to do with whether we should build nuclear plants using a totally different design from that one.
The other thing you arrogantly missed is that people who are scientifically inclined don't know about Chernyobl. So, the FACTS (to borrow your phrase) are that the design is different. The other fact is that other kinds of industrial plants for plastics, petro chemicals, fertilizer and coal burning power plants have considerable dangers. It is that which a true scientist will compare a new proposed nuclear facility to, not a crackpot and outmoded design.
googling "an increased incidence of thyroid cancer among children" doesn't bring up anything about fetal alcohol syndrome, but there are several references to Chernobyl. Not that it proves causation, but I do think it's odd how quickly appeals to logical reasoning are used to out of hand dismiss the discussion.
You must not dismiss the effects of dirty industry and pollution either. The effects you mention sound more likely to be caused by chemicals than radiation.
NAOM
Or a preview of the post fossil fuel world.
The low fertility rates in Ukraine and Russia (and other ex-Soviet Union countries) can largely be attributed to alcohol abuse. Fetal alcohol syndrome is rampant contributing to high infant mortality rates.
You also have to take into account the economic problems caused by low energy resources.
This morning about 2am, an event was seen on the Ocean Intervention III, ROV-2 sonar camera of a large bloom:
http://yfrog.com/6b201007290259pmq40001sonj
The OI's position was reported an hour earlier to be at a location approximately two (2) miles due west of the well, along with the HOS Iron Horse. Yesterday, this location was apparently scanned by the Pisces and also visited by the OI3.
http://a.imageshack.us/img413/410/pisces.jpg
Coordinates of this location were reported to be: 28.73775˚ / -88.4087
A ROV mission there was briefly on video, but was terminated with a still picture. As far as we know, BP is not obliged to provide feeds for ROV missions not actually at the Macondo well.
My best theory is that they were opening the 18" oil pipeline (which runs NW across the SW corner of the MC252 tract) in order to install a connector for use by the Macondo well. But I do NOT have an exact location of that pipeline.
If the pipeline is not there, then something really *unusual* occurred. And I'd also like to know why first the Pisces, and then the OI ROV were using sonar for this area.
Bad theory, as people here and BP and MMS ALL have said Macando is NOT going to EVER be a production well so its not hooked to a pipeline. Nor is the Relief well, they will BOTH be plugged and abandoned ASAP. i don't think an ROV is needed to open a valve on a pipeline, that seems an awful waste of $$$ (ROVs cost 1000's per hour) when it can be done remotely from an on-shore control centers. IF (big IF, assume a lot) the valve wasn't responding they might send an ROV (which was in the area and not busy) down to check it.
I do expect that sometime in the future BP or someone else will come in to drill this area,. While it's a tricky drill it's a very good producer.
BTW, Your sonar scan seems to be missing (I can't see it) and your track chart has no time stamps and no way to id what ships laid which tracks.
eople here and BP and MMS ALL have said Macando is NOT going to EVER be a production well so its not hooked to a pipeline.
I had understood from several of Allen's press briefings (and a few comments here, as I recall) that BP was working on a backup plan, for use if current efforts fail, to contain the oil by piping it into another nearby (inactive) well. Could that account for some of what's currently being seen?
I think Allen mentioned this at yesterday's briefing; I'll see if I can find it.
Here it is, in response to a question about whether Allen is confident the current plan will work:
http://app.restorethegulf.gov/go/doc/2931/832131
IIRC BP said they bought pipe, and laying it was one of the alternatives they were pursuing in parallel to everything else. I wouldn't be surprised if that effort was on hold now that the kill is near but it was something mentioned.
I wouldn't be surprised if that effort was on hold now that the kill is near
But if they were still working on it, could it explain the "bloom" and all the messing around they've been doing with that mysterious piping?
Good question, but I have no idea!
It would help us non oil people if someone could tell us what that sonar image is showing. I wonder why you would release oil into the GOP without capture. I would think that's a violation. I did find the ship tracking map interesting, back & forth in a tight pattern. They always kill the feed when the odd happens :(
Why would they spen a huge amount of money laying pipeline for a well that is capped and about to be killed?
NAOM
For containment in case the relief well fails or takes a very long time.
A contingency plan, one of many. Certainly the pipeline for the tie-in has been ordered. It was in one of the Admiral's briefings.
JTF
Uh huh. MMS permit? Shell doing the pipeline tie-in work?
No idea, just remember that a tie in was part of the contingency planning.
JTF
Makes absolutely no sense to me. Case #1 kill well, cement, recover BOP. Case #2 kill and cement fails, can't recover BOP, but the well is full of mud and cement. Not designed or set up to produce to a pipeline.
Maybe I lack imagination.
Remember this was proposed before the well was shut in.
If you have a hurricane, and have to move collection vessels off site, what better way to contain flow than pipe it into an existing pipeline.
Particularly now you can generate reasonable delivery pressures with the new capping system. Makes sense from here.
JTF
Okay, I follow what you said, and I recognise that you're an offshore hand. The pipeline idea was something to provide before they decided to shut in the new stack, which was initally a well integrity test, in case there was a hurricane and couldn't produce to surface ships, most of which is being burned and flared. Pipeline was a good idea except all the facts have changed and I don't think Shell would be enthusiastic about a multiphase tie-in.
Maybe splash a subsea separator? and do what with the gas?
That leaves failed BOP and new stack in line permanently, no forensics and BP earns something on pipeline production. Maybe convert RWs for production too. That explains why BP liked it, pitched it to USCG, bought pipe for it.
I'm still stuck with an explanation why pipeline tie-in is being actively pursued (if true?) when top kill and RW kill are officially in play?
I'm not clear on what they are actually planning on tying into. Do you have a good handle on this?
If its a regular production system, I think Shell would shut in their wells if using the pipeline tie-in became necessary. Think of the brownie points and nose-thumbing at BP. Cool!
So no problem with multi-phasic if you are just trying to get to some remote depleted well or a production facility with separators. Saying that, isn't all production in the area going to be multi-phasic until it hits a production facility?
JTF
As Swift Loris quoted above (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6791#comment-690012) the plan would be to tie into a depleted well, putting the oil and gas back in the earth rather than producing it. Rigel has been mentioned as one of two possible destination wells and, I believe, was the one previously identified as the source of the seep noted several km away from the WW.
As Allen said yesterday...
So we have always asked for a backup plan to the backup plan from BP, and they provided that.
Pipeline is 2 mi west of well along trend easy pipelay
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6789#comment-689944
Shown here as oil only. Connected to Na Kika regional hub.
We need Shell to confirm or deny what's up, if anything.
Well again what would you do that would result in a garunteed success? Since if the kill fails then we'll have a bigger problem.
Would they be working on it so close to the kill attempt? To connect to the pipeline they would need the new BOP to be functional in containing the oil after a failed kill. If it is functional then they can keep the oil in while they connect so no rush. If they are leaking then would they be able to connect to the pipeline anyway? Any thoughts on this would be gratefully received as I am not seeing any need for a rush to connect yet.
NAOM
Thanks, levi. Pisces track is v interesting.
It also bothers me when people assume that just because the water looks blue or green and pretty , that it is not dangerous. In today's Sarasota Herald Tribune there was an article titled "Where's the rest of the spill?" citing the fact that although oil can not be seen on the surface that's not a sign that everything is fine and dandy. From the article a professor from Tulane, Caz Taylor, reports that she looked at baby blue crabs and saw something odd under their translucent shells: orange blobs. She speculates that the crabs may have molted in the midst of oil or dispersant and trapped some of it literally inside themselves.
More about the research at Tulane here:
http://healthygulf.org/201007281450/blog/bps-oil-drilling-disaster-in-th...
Well it's almost lunch time. Open -faced blue crab sandwich anyone?
Well this comes from the out of sight and out of mind perspective but there is another side to every coin, with the observable oil slowly dwindling from view, quiet a few of the problems have been taken care of, though we shouldn't dismiss your claims we should be thankful that things are going well.
I wouldn't eat any odd looking crab. However, I'm starting to think the oil is being munched on by bacteria, and we'll just see an unusual amount of tarballs in the near future. If the water oxygen levels stay at the adequate level, then the biggest problem the Mississippi delta will have is the large amount of fertilizer being drained from the mid-West. This fertilizer is creating a dead zone, and it really needs to be controlled.
I think you summarized it pretty well. If the well is plugged, top way, bottom way or another way and it seems that that will be the case, then the whole story is over.
Greed will drive legal actions and engineering lessons will be learned. But methane is gone, benzene evaporated and dispersed, mid-weight fractions collected or burned and the only thing left are tarballs. Even stuff in marshes will disappear quickly: burrowing animals will mash it so well, that with bacteria, light, heat and time the whole thing is done. It ain't Exxon Valdez where 60F is a summer heat wave.
There are too many people who can't let it end: After all there is $20B in the kitty and everyone wants a piece. People want their judgements, lawyers want their 1/3, scientists need their publications, people sitting in bars need something to complain about.
But let's be honest, for all practical purposes, by now the problem is cosmetic, tarballs on white beach.
I was born in one of the countries around Baltic Sea, it has always been full of tarballs and everyone around (I mean all countries...) was skinny dipping and eating flounder - and we all seem to be OK. Frigging cold water, though. GOM better, every time.
It's over.
Water certainly be dangerous. It can cause hyponatraemia, pneumonia, suffocation etc.
http://www.netreach.net/~rjones/no_dhmo.html
NAOM
Ever since a Tulane researcher reported that monkey brains exposed to THC, then cooked, then run through a blender, showed cell damage, and thus THC was dangerous, I've taken Tulane scientist's speculations with an extra grain of salt.
PD, as far as I can tell from your link, Taylor hasn't bothered to squash one of those blobs to see if it smells like oil before publicizing her assumption. That might sound flippant, but you can smell oil at concentrations that are invisible to your eye, so it's a pretty good test. I'll keep eating crab, including their tasty natural orange globs of fat, while I wait for the full report.
I just lost my appetite for krabby patties
But I crave monkey brains, go figure.
Mutant crabs are alright, but I wonder how they're doing as a community right now.
BP (BP/ LN) says no oil is leaking into Gulf from Macondo well, and relief well rig will make clean run on drill pipe
FTSE
15:29 29-07-2010
Says:
- Relief well rig preparing to run final casing.
- Pressure in Macondo well rising, reached 6951 PSI.
Splendid news! I'm also glad to see the pressure rising, hoever slow it be. Now they say they are going to begin to kill operation today, right?
They're not quite ready for the static kill operation to begin.
They're saying that they're about to begin running the final 2,000' of casing in the relief well, which takes a couple of days in their estimates. They have to complete that plus cement it in place and wait out the first 48 hours of the cement setting before they begin the static kill attempt on the wild well. (I've noticed they haven't mentioned the 48 hr post cement wait recently. I know they're awfully eager to begin the static kill - wonder if they're now going to begin as soon as the last drop of cement is in place. "Let's just get this done" - where have they said that before? and what say does Wright have in the decision of when to begin the static kill?)
I hope they don't go that route, caution is the key here, and while things may look good now, I'm hoping they weigh the possibilities more accurately before begining the static kill.
As for an earlier post, I wouldn't eat any weird looking crabs either, but I'm not sure what you meant about an unsual amount of tarballs. Since we establish that a certain percentage of the oil is being eaten away by microbes, wouldn't any amount of oil washing ashore be dealt with quickly, especially is they are only tarballs.
Tar is the residue left after evaporation and bacterial digestion have done their thing. It will persist for decades. But apparently it isn't highly toxic or destructive. It can sink, so a lot of it will end up buried harmlessly under sediment.
I thought the out of sight out of mind approach was looked down upon here? While I'm glad it isn't considered highly destructive it does bother me that it will take decades before this is taken care of. Though hopefully the gulf will at least look normal after a few years, though I personally expect it to take as long as you said to recover ecologically wise.
It isn't great to have 250,000 bbl of tar (very rough estimate) rolling around the Gulf, but in this case, if it's out of sight, it probably isn't doing much damage. It's a nuisance on the beach or fouling the shrimpers' nets. A thick layer could smother coral temporarily, but I doubt if it will be that concentrated.
I grew up around the Gulf and stepped on plenty of tarballs even 50 years ago.
Well if you say so, but the consequences of they tar balls dissappeared tar balls should be thoroughly considered. I don't know much about the oil industry and the many branches that go in to it, but for safe meassure I'd much prefer the oil to boarded on a skimmer than have float around or sink beneath the waters of the gulf. It just seems much safer, which in most cases is a good thing.
weathered tar is asphalt. Once it's been around for a while, it's just a rock.
It is a conspiracy. Of greed and ignoring government regs perhaps, but a conspiracy nonetheless.
1. In one report, the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration raised concerns in January about Enbridge discontinuing the use of monitoring systems for corrosion inside Line 6B, saying its plans for ensuring pipe safety while a new monitoring system was brought on line didn't meet standards.
2. Macondo 252 causes one of the largest oil spills ever.
3. Enbridge pipeline Leaks in one of the largest spills in the history Midwest
4. TinFoil finds out Enbridge SEC forms list "Anadarko system comprising approximately 1,800 miles of natural gas gathering and transportation pipelines and 6 natural gas processing plants;
5. TinFoil finds out Alberta Oil Shale project is at least partly BP and Enbridge driven.
6. TinFoil sends full alert to media and Congress.
7. Media and Congressman Running for Re-election did not know and said, "No way, get the **** out of here" Congressman in close race said there is a God. He is going to see if he can do a full court Congressional press on this issue. Hearings are in process of being scheduled. TinFoil may get invited, we shall see.
Tin Foil, You are my hero! Bravo!
I have a friend who lives right near the spill who happens to know someone who works at Enbrdige. He told me some interesting info that his friend gave him. He said the name Enbridge is actually a hybrid of two words, energy and bridge. The companies name is actually a business statement as their business goal is as a energy bridge between oil and alternative technologies. Enbridge delivers oil and natural gas, as well as works in the fields of Carbon capture technologies, waste heat, and fuel cells.
Keep up the great work!
I'm not sure that I follow what you're saying here. The Anadarko referred to in (4) is a region in Oklahoma and the name of a pipeline that runs from that region into the Texas panhandle, not the oil company named after that location which was part of the DWH rig consortium. The assets in Alberta owned by BP referred to in (5) were sold a few days ago to the Apache group.
I don't think that this is a conspiracy among a cabal of companies that are the sole culprits for bucking safety regulations so much as it demonstrates the sort of connections one is likely to find in any large corporate industries and failures peculiar to an industry that is poorly regulated due to the power of its lobbyists and the corruption of our public officials.
Good luck with the latter folks though. ;)
Enbridge and BP Announce Agreement to Develop Delivery System for Canadian crude oil from Illinois to the U.S. Gulf Coast
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7047538
Surely it is the same BP and Enbridge. My daddy once told me if you play with crap, you get it all over yourself. Love you man. TinFoil.
What of it? That's well known - you're referencing a two year old press release for a partnership to transit oil over existing pipeline facilities. The operating consortium for the Alaskan oil pipeline that BP has (had?) an interest in is called Denali if you want more info.
DrGoon
Dr, a small nit-picky correction. The operating consortium for the Alaska oil pipeline is called "Alyeska", and the pipeline is formally known as the "Trans Alaska Pipeline" but commonly referred to as "TAPS". TAPS has been in operation since Prudhoe Bay went into production in 1977.
"Denali" is a consortium of BP and ConocoPhillips formed with the intent to build a gas pipeline from the North Slope to connect with the Canadian gas infrastructure. There is a competing gas pipeline proposal by Transcanada backed by the State of Alaska. Whether either gas pipeline will actually get built is still an open question, depending in large part on ones perception of the long term natural gas price.
Edit to add slightly more info
So, back to the question of what the hell was that 100' plus of casing (?) extracted from the seabed last night???
The missing link? As in Michigan pipeline? I am interested in knowing too. Update on my story, I just called my Senator's office. His chief of staff said, "No way. Get the **** out of here." Is there an echo in here? Sorry nessus if I stepped on you, I want to know about the pipe too.
Have your ever played Madlibs? You know the game where you go I need a noun or a verb, etc? These two seemingly unrelated incidents are tied together with the common theme of greed and shortcuts causing disaster. Warnings all along the way. Direct federal orders to fix the problems.
TinFoil says these are two victims of the same petroleum serial killers. There are good oilmen and oilwomen (real word?/oilpersons?) for sure. Many of them are here. We need to stop the Axis of Oil Evil however.
THE TWO EVENTS NEED TO BE THOUGHT OF AS THE SAME THING. I promise Michigan folks are 10 out of 10 on the PO meter too. Michigan folks vacation here. You guys think I am nuts and complain? Those evil oil drug dealers do not want the bridge set after them. Who do you think owns the stock and the politicians?
No. The events are not tied together. Not even Matt Simmons is that nutty.
There is no more connection between the events and regulations than between two truck accidents on the same day involving Kenworth tractors pulling loads of oil pipe.
Call your Senator about that too. No more hauling of that darned pipe until they can certify that they can do it will complete safety.
You DO mention that you are known as TinFoilHatGuy, don't you? If you are not giving them all of your names when you make contact, then you are intentionally being deceptive and hiding stuff.
What about this event? I just do not want corner cutters moving all this petroleum around. The press has my real name. I use TinFoil with the media and politicians unless I meet them. I have met them regularly. I have email. If they want me, they can find me. At what point do we say no Enron, you cannot do that?
These guys just do not when to quit. I could not make this up. News flash. After causing two of the largest spills in American history, they partner up?
CALGARY, Alberta and WARRENVILLE, Ill. - August 29, 2008 - Enbridge Inc. (TSX:ENB) (NYSE:ENB) and BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. announced today they have entered into an agreement to develop a new delivery system to transport Canadian heavy crude oil from Flanagan, Illinois, to Houston and Texas City, Texas, using a combination of existing facilities and new pipeline construction where required.
FROM THE BP SITE. WTH! STOP THEM NOW!!!
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7047538
I understand that accuracy and truthfullness are not part of your primary agenda,
But next time you might want to not show the date in the material which proves you have concocted nonsense.
If you really were interested in improving response to oil spills,
Please contact Matt Simmons and get him to explain how BP secretly closed off the BIG leak while taking care of the small one shown on the ROVs. It is really a technological miracle that needs to be shared.
Ok sorry, got the date wrong. They have been partners for two years. Actually, all the earlier date does is prove that they have been partnering longer. That is why I gave outlets for response. Thanks. TinFoil.
BTW I shall now see what ACTIVE role BP might have played in the Enbridge Michigan spill. I am all about the truth, could you please help me and vet the rest. I am only one man and as you can see it is easy for me to miss something.
Was is casing or riser pipe? I know I would not know the difference.
Nessus, I watched them pull that pipe at a rate of about 2 foot every 5 seconds and it took them 25 minutes to get it out of the ground once they started pulling on it.
I say it was closer to 1000 feet.
I'll grant that it was "bigger than a bread basket", all I want to know is WHAT the casing/drill pipe was doing there in the first place...
I hear ya, that thing was sunk there for a reason and now it is being pulled and nobody is talking. LOL
After checking the position of the Discoverer Enterprise (whose ROV was monitoring the extraction) I jumped over to the IRC channel to monitor the chatter over there. One comment was that the pipe could have been a drill pipe that had to be sawed off a couple of weeks ago and was allowed to fall to the bottom. Not much else was said about it.
If the pipe really was 1000' long, I tend to doubt the above. To me, it looked like the pipe was more or less in a true vertical position as they extracted it, almost like it had been placed there deliberately.
The Enterprise was located about 1200 feet, a little east of north of the Q4000 when it was raising the pipe.
Yeah it was way to deep to have been dropped. When they started pulling it too they would pull a little bit then watch the hole, they did that for the first 5 minutes or so. It was like they were watching to see if anything came out the hole.
Anything to do with the old riser?
NAOM
Here is a bad pic of the top of the pipe hanging from the sling.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45732805@N02/4839405989/
and here is one when they are hooking the sling up to it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45732805@N02/4840038898/
Horizon debris field?
I know this is a serious forum for serious discussion... I'm no oil engineer but I'm also no dummy. It doesn't take an engineer to know that the oil has NOT gone away.
The Obama Administration and BP are LIARS of the highest order. This is what they have you believe now. 'GOD must be blessing us because we are such caring stewards of the Earth! See? Ahh... mother nature is working FASTER that we expected'. Gnawing on the dole, most buy it. Disgusting disgusting disgusting.
BP (criminals) has only hidden their mess (and consequentially BILLIONS in fines) through the unprecedented sub-sea use of Corexit and other things they will NEVER tell you about in unprecedented amounts. Only time will will peel back the mask these people wear so you can see the worms underneath. Tony Haywards mask fell off which you all saw. Do you think he was the only one? No, he was the one that just didn't have his mask on tight enough.
I don't disagree with your overall assessment but before you push blame toward our government just remember this issue is being caused by MONEY....period.
We wouldn't drill deepwater wells if it wasn't profitable.
We show concerns about Corexit but we have ignored for years its use in diluting raw oil so that it can be pumped mile via underwater pipeline to a point of use.
I was born and raised in Houston Texas and have witnessed clouds changing color
because of "jacked-up" chemicals blow into our atmosphere. Oil isn't bad but oil company's are. It is about profit and more of it. Tony Hayward doesn't wear a mask. We stick our heads in the sand making him having to wear a mask a joke.
My first memory that I can remember (I was about 4yrs old) was of a sea turtle in a slaughtering pen in Key West Florida. Yes we used to slaughter them for soup meat and precious oil used in womens cosmetics.
Now they are just incidently damage.
This just sucks.
Well it isn't exactly in sight, which what they are saying. I personally believe BP is trying to remain optimistic and are most likely not tellng the whole truth, but the oil is being eaten away. Maybe not all of it but it isn't exactly as troublesome as it was before.
VIEWPOINT
The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated?
By Michael Grunwald / Port Fourchon, La. Thursday, Jul. 29, 2010
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007202,00.html#ixzz0v61k...
Of course spill damage has been exaggerated. The real question is, "What is the real damage from this event?" I am moving soon. I have lived here for many years. I am going off to school and my family is staying, but many others are moving or have moved. I have not heard much about relocation. I do not know if moving falls into the "damage" category, but it is a fairly life changing event. What about homelessness or bankruptcy? Losing a career? I guarantee you, the projections of doom outside of the high body count Simmons type of nonsense probably pales in comparison to the final cost of this largest environmental and oil industry disaster in US History. You think Rush is going to be able to sell how we are all overreacting when gas hits $4 a gallon? $5 a gallon?
This is a big deal. I know I am biased and I live in the impact zone, but you are reading this stuff. I wonder if Rush can float me a couple of tabs until this is over? I bet he likes Blue Bell too, it is safer for you.
I agree, TFHG. The human cost isn't really calculable but it's immense already. And BP won't be paying anything out the $20B fund of many colors for mental health effects.
Before people start piling on, remember that Michael Grunwald has strong credentials as an environmental writer and has done good previous work about the Louisiana coast.
I agree with the main thrust of the article. Clearly the impact on the coastal ecosystems--not counting the human part-- has been much less than we feared. But my goodness: only 10 or 12 oiled dolphins? Somebody needs to look at the James Wathen video.
This is only an exercise.
(DRILL)Ok, I am now going FPCON Bravo. The Michigan oil spill has interrupted production at Kellog's famous Battle Creek plant. Folks, if I do not get my Apple Jacks it might get ugly. At least Blue Bell is safe. I need to know how far the closest high pressure pipeline is to the Blue Bell factory in Texas. I will find out about the Sylacauga AL factory. 30 homes have been evacuated and wells are feared contaminated. The oil is halfway to Lake Michigan with no signs of stopping.(end drill)
From http://www.freep.com/article/20100729/NEWS06/100729035/1001/NEWS/Oil-bre...
Edit this pipeline is with 7 miles of Bluebell in Sylacauga AL. Can someone click thumbnail below and tell what is in the pipeline and other info?
What is a CPC pipeline?
CPC - Colonial Pipeline Co
Carries something that is not a highly volatile liquid, maybe crude or diesel or something like that. Sorry, can't help much more.
NAOM
Never mind got it. They don't tell much do they.
“…One of the things that, as you know, has been a subject of a lot of controversy or discussion…is why the pressure was so low when we capped the well itself, down in the 6,000 range.…The competing theories from that are we have depletion in the reservoir that caused the pressure to be lower or there could potentially be a leak down there…”
I think the Admiral missed two other possibilities. If I understand the discussion, maybe crossover has something to do with it, right fdoleza?
Second, bignerd’s excellent post yesterday on phase behavior in the well
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6786#comment-689436
leaves open the possibility that Sticks could be right:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6775#comment-687570
If there were a gas phase in the well piping as the flow was being shut in, Sticks says that the gas would have migrated to the top. He thinks that BP might have vented this gas during the operation.
This would have created a fluid column that is mainly oil, which would be much heavier than the original gas/oil mixture. If it is heavier, it would reduce the pressure at the BOP compared to the pressure that would result from a column of gas and oil. This would indicate a higher pressure in the reservoir, which is an argument against both depletion and casing leaks as I understand it.
If Sticks’ theory is a possible explanation of the lower than expected BOP pressure, why does the Admiral not mention it? Sticks, please give us some more on why BP might want us to ignore your theory.
I'm curious about that too, somebody explain it to me, because it seems rather odd.
Folks -- I don't like making the discussion of pressures more difficult but I have to point out why it's so difficult to attribute whatever pressures we see or don't see at the cap. I've mentioned it before (reservoir damage) and I'll offer a real life example I'm dealing with right now. Several months ago I drilled a well in Matagorda County, Texas, and it came in better than expected: a nice juicy NG reservoir at 11,000'. Completed it and flowed it into the pipeline at 4 million cu ft per day. Reservoir pressure was 8,300 psi. At just 35 days after production began the pressure decreased to 700 psi and stopped flowing. We know this is a large reservoir and should have produced strongly for several years at a minimum.
So what happened? The operator (I've taken over operations now) apparently damaged the reservoir during the drilling or completion phase. The pressure at the perforations in the well are 700 psi. Not more than 100' to 200' away the reservoir pressure is 8,300 psi. Remember this is not a well that blew out. It's not a well in 5,000' of water. It's sitting there with an undamaged well head in the middle of a cow pasture. It was initially produced at a conservative rate and not allowed to flow wild. It has a good cmt job and a rather conventional plain vanilla completion. And I have no freaking idea what's exactly wrong nor the nature of the damage to the flow characteristic of the reservoir. But I do know the low pressure readings at the well head have absolutely no bearing on what's in the reservoir.
This is why I’ve avoided this discussion. If I can’t figure out what’s going on in my little “depleted” NG well there’s really no hope for me to understand exactly what’s going on in the BP well. Most of the theories I’ve heard expressed are reasonable. But they’re just theories…not conclusions IMHO. I've mentioned it before: most of us in the oil patch can't understand why the reservoir hasn't collapsed after the truly excessive flow rate.
Rockman, much obliged. I really enjoy these reports from the field.
Edit: and it is a third possibility that is not on the Admiral's radar screen, so far as we know.
ww -- I have to think the feds have consultants explaining these posibilities to them. OTOH it would nice if they shared it with the public. But OTOOH folks at TOD could follow the chat but it may confuse the general publicto tears.
Ww, rm,
Sorry, can't resist digging into someone elses reservoir problem (!)
But I'm not sure macondo is analogous.
For a near wellbore or mechanical wellbore issue to delay the build up like this, there would have to be massive obstruction to flow with tiny volumes bleeding through to the upper part of the well. But the well was still flowing like a barnstormer just before shutin, and the early part of the build up was apparently quite rapid.
It's not inconceivable that there was some failure in the very early part of the shut in that prevents the wellhead talking to the reservoir, but it seems like a tiny probability to me.
ditto what windward said, I enjoy these updates, too.
This is a vertical well? Does subsidence come into play often in this line of work, where you pump out a volume and nature starts abhorring what you've done?
moto - The Matagorda well is vertical. Subsidence has been noted in some shallow fields (a couple of thousands of feet) but it's not a factor in the deeper wells. Also, you're correct: Mother Nature likes to remind us occasionally that she’s still in control.
And how do the various tech folks view my troubled little NG well? Our partners gave us their 50% interest in the well just for our agreeing to pay for 100% of the plugging costs (about $60,000). But we think we can get it to produce about $15 million of NG. Our partners are competent. Just shows you how qualified individuals can sharply disagree on tech analysis. That's a big reason why I don't make a point of knocking the analysis of others on TOD: it's difficult enough when you have all the facts. And we obviously don't have them on the BP well. My owner believes in me and my engineer. I really hope we’re as smart as he thinks we are. LOL.
"not more than 100' to 200' feet away" vertically, or horizontally? (I'm guessin' vertically, but it seems important to distinguish).
When producing NG, do you displace? I'm new to all this downhole thinking, but how do you monitor pore pressure in a reservoir? You had reason to believe it would continue producing, what would you base a verification of that assumption on?
moto --Nope...horizontally. I least we hope so. We need to get beyond whatever damage there is to the unaffected portion of the reservoir. As far as knowing reservoir pressure it's relatively easy to estimate if you're producing NG with no liquids. The shut in pressure gets you pretty close to reservoir pressure. But the more fluids (oil or water) you load up in the tubing the more difficult the estimate due to the back pressure exerted by the fluids. By displacing I'm guessing you mean getting the completion fluid out. Typically you perforate with a completion fluid that put's slightly less pressure on the reservoir than it's pressure (called shooting underbalanced). By doing so you get a little surge of production as soon as you perf and that helps get the holes open. But not too underbalanced: surge too hard and you can produced sand/damage the reservoir.
Verification: very good question. Within the next two weeks I'm going to pop it with a "gas gun" thru the existing perforations. It's essentially a very small but very fast explosive lowered on wireline. It will hopefully blow new channels of communications back into the unaffected reservoir. If it works we might instantly see that 8,000+ psi original reservoir pressure. But it might only maintain that pressure for a few minutes before the damage inflicts itself again. But we'll confirm the reservoir is still productive. Very cheap: $15,000. But important: the fix we might try next could cost $500,000. I'd rather be proved wrong for $15,000 than $500,000.
BTW: pore pressure and reservoir pressure can be two very different parameters. Even experienced hands have trouble with this concept. Pore pressure in the non-flowing component in a rock. Reservoir pressure is the flowing component. It may be useful with respect to the RW bottom kill for folks to follow this. I'll skip the technical nitty gritty and give a simple example. The BP reservoir had a reservoir pressure of 11,900 psi. The shale rock above and below it had a pore pressure very close to that number. Just for sake of illustration let's assume the reservoir pressure has fallen to 8,000 psi. The pore pressure in the shales is still around 11,900 psi...it can't be reduced by production. So if they don't want the kill pill to just flow into the reservoir (lost circulation) but rather flow up the csg and kill the well they need to keep the mud pressure less than 8,000 psi. But 8,000 psi might not be sufficient to hold the high pressure shale back and that could cause the shale to collapse the hole. I don't think is going to be a problem but can't rule it out entirely IMHO.
RM - Interesting Post, raised a few questions for me. I know nothing about Gas Wells or completion and bringing into Production of Oil Wells.
My question is what happens as a gas well gets depleted over the years, If your 11,000 ft well for example had a high water content, when pressure falls to about 5,000 psi, would the well perform a Bottom Kill on itself with water or is there a way that water is stripped out during production.
sticks -- never put it in those terms but your self-inflicted bottom kill is correct. We just say the well loaded up and died. It could load up with condensate, water or both. In a water drive reservoir it's the produced water that kills the well. In a pure pressure depletion drive the well just stops flowing. But when an oil/NG well loads up it doesn't mean it time to plug and abandon. There is a huge technology area in the oil patch called "artificial lift". There are a variety of mechanical methods used to keep a well making money once it reached that loading up phase. Much of our oil production and a lot of NG production are on artificial lift. The one technique many have seen is the pump jack or cricket pump as some call it. A rod with swab cups is run up and down the tubing to help lift the oil out since it won't flow any longer.
Rm,
To be clear, initial static Bhp was 8300 psi, but the 700 psi at the perfs was flowing or shut in?
And was it measured across the perfs or some distance above? Did you run a gauge on slickline? Full access to perfs and gas gradient all the way?
Or is the bhp inferred from whp?
And the pressure 200 ft away is from a shut in well?
Did your flow rate decline steadily from 4 million to zero over the well life or was the change abrupt?
big -- Shut in pressure was 700 psi and no flow when opened up...have a little condensate yield that loads the tubing at that pressure so the well dies. No..we ran multiple pressure bombs in the hole to confirm. Even repeated since no one could believe it. In fact, we saw the BHP pressure dropping with a few hours of initial flow...had abomb in the hole to record BHP. The 200' number is just my WAG. No other wells in the reservoir but seismic clearly shows a large extent. Back calculated the well drained 0.7 acres before pressure depleting. Difficult to come up with a depsotional model that puts an 80' sand on less than one acre. No...a very even straight line pressure depletion. That's the troubling part: I've never seen a damaged well produce so clearly as a pressure depleted reservoir. That's why I mentioned the gas gun to moto above; need to be damn sure we're right before we try an expensive frac pack or some such thing. Worse case scenario we might have to sidetrack a new hole into it for a couple of million $'s.
Windward - Just read your post. As I have stated before, I'm basically a nuts and bolts type, No Technical or Academic qualifications, so most of my thinking comes from experience of things I have done over the years. I spent many years bleeding down and pressure testing Pipelines.
So when I saw the time period they used to shut down the well, it was obvious to me they were doing a bleed-down more than a shut-down, and this makes perfect sense to me.
As bignerd stated, the only ones that really know what the Gas in this well will do is BP, they have all the info, we are just groping around in the dark. And many others have pointed out the inherent dangers of a large Gas build up at the top of the well, As Rockman stated could be a very large build up ( I think the 500 ft suggested is very conservative.)
So BP would be very aware if a gas build up was possible, and they would also be very aware of the dangers, so it would make sense that they bleed the system down. ( I think they are well past the point of taking chances - 'The She'll be right Jack' days are past.)
The reasons they gave for the long shutdown are partly valid, it gives them more time to "listen" and monitor for leaks is a valid point. The other reason, to put less strain on the system is a bit on the weak side. The flow in the pipe was only about 1.5 mtrs a second, so the Kinetic energy load was not very big. If you got faulty plumbing in your house, slamming the Faucet closed will cause waterhammer which can cause damage, however if you shut it down slowly over a couple of seconds, it is no problem. Same with the well, close it down gently over a couple of minutes and it will impose almost zero extra strain on the system.
As for the reasons BP never mentioned this as a reason for a low pressure reading, I have no Idea, Maybe it gives them more wriggle room for legal reasons, they never knew at this stage what the condition of the casing was, so maybe they were just covering their arse's.
Rockman seems to have the best grasp of the legalities, politics and mindsets on the Oil Patch so might have a reason why BP should be keeping their cards close to their chest.
As for the slow increase in pressure, only really two options. 1. Pressure Depletion coming back into equilibrium or 2. Oil column Re-Gassing itself.
The Pressure increase rate is tailing off over time, so this suggests it is the reservoir pressure is equalizing, as the pressures equal out you can expect the rate of increase to slow down.
As for the column re-gassing itself, there would be a bit of this happening also, but as the gas accumulated at top, the weight of column would also fall lower allowing more gas to rise from reservoir, also this change in column weight would also tend to make the bubble point migrate lower into the well, So If pressure increase was caused by re-Gassing I would expect the pressure increase rate to be increasing.
(I think - Still haven't thought this one right through yet - Just another Theory pulled out of my rear end.)
So I had thought the casing would most likely have damage at the 3000 ft level, but from what I have been seeing lately, I now think the casing is in good condition.
Also willing to bet the Annulus cement job is also intact.
But the last word goes to Rockman, Its all only Theory until we can get more info.
Theories are like bellybuttons - everyone has one. LOL
And I got lots of theories about a lot of things that others will disagree with.
Edit : My keyboard can't spell for crap
A small but interesting question: should BP pay damages for the damage to the oyster fishery caused by the Louisiana state government's opening massive freshwater diversion into wetlands on both sides of the river?
a. Yes, because it wasn't a completely dumb idea and may have held the oil back some.
b. No, because Jindal squandered $360 million of BP's money on the stupid berm projects.
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/07/oyster_death_c...
Yes they should pay. Folks would not eat the oysters if they made it. Now what should they pay? To send the oystermen to college. Break the cycle. There is nothing wrong with a college educated oysterman, for he is an oysterman with options.
How much of that $360M actually had a chance to be SPENT? Is this like TARP or Stimulus, where the money is still being dribbled out? IIRC the berms they were attempting to build got held up by multiple events, including EPA, courts, weather and other issues. Therefore did they REALLY spend $360M? Or was it more like $25?
Interesting also that your favorite environmental groups have come up with a $5Billion plan to essentially do the same thing on a larger scale. But of course they're the "right" (meaning "left") party so it is smart when they do it and dumb when the "wrong" (meaning "right") party does the same thing. LOL, politics is so funny sometimes.
Widelyred, good point that only part of the money has been spent, and who knows whether Jindal will finish it.
But the criticisms of the berms aren't that political, and they aren't just from lefty enviros. To use a building analogy. it's the difference between a good Hardiboard siding job that will last fifty years, compared to just tacking up a blue tarp and praying it doesn't storm too bad.
Without the right size sand in the right place on the offshore slope, and back marshes and mangroves to stabilize it, these quicky berms are likely to wash away fast, at best.
I don't know why you write in the past tense. As of today I've seen no talk of canceling the project. Just yesterday Jindal announced that National Guardsmen had removed 700 pounds of oil and debris from the Chandeleur berm, proving that they are working just great! (This would be 6 or 7 cubic feet of oily sand.)
Normally, as you know, contractors get paid per chunk of work accomplished. The berms were scheduled to be completed in late October, so I doubt if as much as $100 million has been paid out so far. I wonder how long they'll keep dredging after any plausible threat of oiling the Gulf side of the Chandeleurs is gone. I wonder what the contract says about compensation for rebuilding sections that wash out during construction, as already happened on the e-4 berm.
Gob, you really think King Bobby of North Louisiana is dumb enough to squander this windfall?
I think he wisely invested it with his number three campaign contributor (the berm contractor), and expects a good return on the investment to show up in his campaign coffers when he runs for King of the United States of Real America.
LOL, if Jindal wants to be the most corrupt politician from Louisiana, he has a LONG LONG LONG way to go. Hint: LONG. Now if he only had a "D" after his name instead of that pesky "R", he might be jas fine.
Jindld or Jindlr, either will do.
As in, "That corrupt, showboating jindlr jindld me out of a livelihood."
BP paid the first installment of $60 million, I believe. Whether Jindal has already wasted it, I don't know. He sure has been trying hard. And heavy equipment costs have been higher than anticipated due to... ah, the weather.
If BP pays another dime for this boondoggle, shareholders should sue.
As for who should pay for the destruction of the oyster fisheries -- not the oystermen, definitely. The oystermen should sue the Jindal administration. He was warned (but he wanted a Moses moment and he doesn't believe in Jesus-hatin scientists anyway so he jus went ahead an got er done).
Over on http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6789, somebody just posted this:
Anybody else see this?
I missed that, I think that was about the time I started watching TV. I was wondering what they were going to do with that pipe they pulled out of the seabed.
The time was approx. 1 a.m. PST and again at about 1:15 am.- if anyone has tape, it is very clear, not dubious at all.
??
http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:31499.asx
??!!
Right now I see swirling clouds of black and white ,
I don't know what to make of it ,
but you'll reason it away won't you ,
like its the bottom kill that has started to eject all this ,
or they are pushing up the bottom because ....
(And the ROV just sits there)
Looks like stirred up silt to me...
Either it's silt, or a big gusher, or another blowout. I'm betting on silt. Chunky brown silt.
Good ,
Thanks
I do not know what feeds you can see guys & gals but I have not been able to see one BOP monitoring feed all day. Isn't constant monitoring of the BOP part of the licence to be able to carry on with the well integrity test?
http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=9034366&contentId=7063636
I can't recall seeing any monitoring of the BOP or wellhead recently. The last thing I remember seeing was the constant "bubble count" of the leaks at the new containment cap but that was 2 or 3 days ago. Nor have I seen any other inpections of the wellsite.
I work during the day and sleep sometimes lol ... so maybe I missed some but they certainly have cut back from previous days.
This strikes me as odd because I would have thought the BOP and wellhead structure would be of a lot of interest for them.
I also never heard why they took 2 more seperate samples (last weekend) from the mudline of the wellhead, after saying that the first test showed it was biogen material. Nor did I hear of any results mentioned in briefings. An "over abundance of caution" perhaps? Dunno.
For newcomers like me, I highly recommend reading more about Piper Alpha (cited recently in TOD here and here).
In particular, this report of the 20th anniversary is tragically gripping.
I challenge anyone to read the analysis in Learning from Piper Alpha and not find scary parallels in what we know of the DWH disaster.
One parallel missing is that the UK government did NOT sh^t on the US operator and they allowed the company to get on with the job of restoration without political interference.
Did you complain when BP was buying hookers and blow for MMS, or was that others in the industry that did that? I do agree however that on some level, continually hammering BP is counterproductive.
Thanks.
TinFoil.
I am hammering Anadarko at the moment. I am sure BP will come back into the mix.
Cheers TFHG. Margaret Thatcher rather than posing on the beaches fingering tar balls and ranting and raving at the US oil company responsible for the Piper Alpha tragedy, instead put all UK government resources at their immediate service to try and resolve the crisis. Obama has a lot to learn.
What's all this about buying hookers for the MMS? :)
Maybe I stretched. The term was 'illicit sex.' Close enough not to get slammed on it though. Cocaine and I forgot marijuana for sure. No good sex-addicted, coke-head, worth his salt can do without weed.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/10/feds-denver-dc-probed-...
Those weren't hookers, they were lobbyists. Lobbyists can't do their job without access.
That gives me a whole different slant on the meaning of "access."
Perhaps what is at work here is the political ideology of Madam Prime Minister.
There were members of the US Republican party who publicly apologized to BP for the "shakedown" perpetrated by the "liberal administration" and other indignities suffered by this good corporation at the hands of these "socialists".
I am sure that if they were in power, BP's liability would have been quickly limited and the government would have been VERY defferential to this powerful business entity. The main brunt of the costs would have been provided by the taxpayers, who under the Republican sense of financial justice would have had the upper tax brackets as small as possible.
So absolutely, Obama has "a lot to learn" - bow low to the business interests, NEVER say anything bad about corporations, and shift all costs that you can to the middle class, while proclaiming your perpetual love of "free markets".
I recognize that you communists don't understand justice. Let me help.
BP did have liability for damage claims. You might note that they have been making payments to those who submit claims. What the socialist Berry Soretoes did was to make you happy and simply assess them a large amount for him to distribute. In typical communist fashion Berry extracted tribute to the party. It is not supposed to work that way in the US. It is common practice that you are familiar with from the USSR days.
You're Doughy Pantload, aren't you?
No, that was not me.
I'm not surprised that you keep links to Pantloads though.
I do appreciate the rule of law.
You, and Berry seem to have no regard for it.
I can note that you outed yourself.
Old socialists are the true believers and cannot hide for long.
==I recognize that you communists==
What is it in my statements that make you think calling me a "communist" is a good idea?
I come from an old ANTI-COMMUNIST family and spent my younger years organizing protests in front of the Soviet consulate in NYC.
Protesting a foreign government from the safety of American soil. Mighty courageous and effective*.
*My sarcasm isn't just directed at you. I've been accosted by my fair share of circle protesters as a pedestrian. I found them all equally unconvincing and egotistical.
Tin Foil, glad to see Andarko mentioned. They seem to be very succesfully avoiding taking any responsibility for the moment. Keep it up.
A few thousand shares, no real responsibility. Limited partner, possible unlimited liability. The limited means more that your say is limited, no? I know there is some liability limits, but not really. If it can be proven they did know or should have known. Hard to argue with a filed Executive branch order. I would not want to be CEO of Andarko right now. I think some Congresspersons will be looking for him soon. The Michigan spill was the worst case of bad timing since I walked in on my parents when I was in high school. Talk about video pollution. When you cut corners in many places, things will break in many places.
TinFoil
TFHG, Check this out.
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7047538
Enbridge and BP Announce Agreement to Develop Delivery System for Canadian crude oil from Illinois to the U.S. Gulf Coast
Thanks . I just sent a chain e-mail to everyone. This shall not come to pass if I have ANYTHING to do with this. If pray that this will be on the national news by Monday. I will try my best. I am 1-0 so far.
Thad Allen briefing from today:
http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/07/29/HP/A/36250/Coast+Guard+Admiral+T...
Rellio asked :
What is the compressibility at points A&B.? This implications for bottom kill if the oil/gas mixture is still in the well. i.e. there is no topkill.
Point A (initial reservoir conditions) the oil compressibility is probably around 1.0 e-5 /psi.
But I guess you are asking about compressibilities at the top of the well under shut-in conditions, ie point C? (Rather than point B which would be the bottom hole conditions with the well flowing at high rate).
At 7000 psi and 40F the oil compressibility would still be something like 1.3 e-5 /psi, but if free gas was present it would have a higher compressibility, perhaps 3 e-5 /psi (at these pressures the difference between oil and gas densities and compressibilities is not as large as you would think based on experience of fluids at typical surface conditions).
Although it is not ideal, I don’t think the presence of free gas would prevent them attempting to bullhead the fluids back down into the formation.
Thank you.
Karma dave said :
…The hole would be plenty big enough to allow a gas to pass, but too small to allow a liquid to pass.
Hi KD,
Nice try! My gut feel is that this won’t work. I think any hole large enough to flow the sort of blobs we’ve been seeing is probably macro enough to flow both oil and gas. This happens through tiny pore spaces in the reservoir itself all the time. I think you’d need molecular scale holes to allow, say, methane sized molecules to pass but exclude , say, decane sized molecules. Maybe there are membrane technology specialists here who can comment, I’m afraid its well outside my knowledge base, and I fear unlikely to be relevant here.
BN,
Thanks for your reply. Last comment first: “…and I fear unlikely to be relevant here.” If you mean relevant to the big picture regarding what happened out in the GOM and what people have to say about it, then I must at least partially agree. After all the big picture and what people here have to share is what brought me to TOD in the first place. I quickly noticed that there were many threads that ranged so far afield and were so esoteric that I wondered about their relevance to the oil spill or even the mission of TOD. But, who am I to be the arbiter of relevance. If a thread doesn’t interest me I just don’t read it.
If you mean relevant to your post about hydrocarbon phase behavior, then I must disagree. You said, “Stop reading now if you expect an answer to whether there is gas in the wellbore or not. My guess is there isn't but I'm afraid there isn't enough data available to us to say for sure.” My guess is that you are right. I think you made a pretty good case for the HC at the wellhead being liquid. I assume that people look at the ROV cap leak videos and decide whether they are seeing only gas, only liquid, or both. I see only gas. My reply to your post was a poorly worded attempt to bolster your belief that gas is not in the wellbore even though I think I see only gas coming out.
That was yesterday. Today I am sticking my neck out to say that most likely the HC phase in the vicinity of the cap is liquid and that only gas (and perhaps sheen of liquid) is escaping from the leaks. I did some research and discovered that the cap leaks have a technical name: micro-flow defined as “Common flow is a MACRO (or average) phenomena. Micro-flow is the part of fluid dynamics where the flow is significantly influenced by the molecule transport phenomenon. This typical occurs in flow through micro-channels (like leak flow) or very low flow at vacuum conditions.” http://www.atcinc.net/faq.asp#pinhole. I lost the link, but I found that this micro-flow regime involves openings in the nanometer to several hundreds of micrometers range. Point of reference: human hair is about 100 micrometers.
There is even a way to get an order of magnitude handle on the gas flow rate. Just count the bubbles. There is a really neat Bubbles to Leak conversion chart here:
http://www.tqc.co.uk/leaktesting/leak_spec_guidelines.htm.
I will leave it to someone else to try to guesstimate how much methane is coming out converted to surface conditions.
You said, “I think any hole large enough to flow the sort of blobs we’ve been seeing is probably macro enough to flow both oil and gas…. I think you’d need molecular scale holes to allow, say, methane sized molecules to pass but exclude , say, decane sized molecules.” I don’t know how big a blob is, but I would not characterize the bubbles that I have seen as blobs. The thing is you do not need molecular scale holes. If you have the right opening geometry (could be anything), pressure and temperature, whatever fractions of the HC that would change to the gas phase at the interior leak interface will pass through the hole. Those that remain liquid will not. Here is an excerpt regarding this, “Can an object that obviously leaks air be water tight? The answer is a definite "yes." The reason for this can be found in the different physical properties of liquids and gases. The two most dominant factors contributing to the phenomenon in question are: viscosity and surface tension. Leakage of liquids is governed by the viscosity of the liquid. The higher the viscosity the slower the liquid will leak through a particular hole. The viscosity of a gas is generally much lower than that of a liquid. The viscosity of air is roughly 50 times less than that of water. This means if we consider the influence of viscosity only, a particular leak that passes 0.02 cc of air per second would only pass 0.004 cc (4 x 10-3) of water per second—or 1 drop in 2 minutes. Be advised this number can be easily affected by the surface tension of the liquid, along with other factors such as the hole size and the length of the leak channel. In some cases, this number may be as high as 4 to 6 cc/minute of air.” http://www.i-boards.com/bnp/assem/messages.asp?MsgID=668&ThreadID=308. Even though we are discussing an oil well 5000 ft under the GOM I believe the basic physics still apply.
So there you have it. It is possible to have a pure gas leak at the cap even though the HC in the wellhead is liquid phase. Nothing is proven, but adding this to the data and suppositions of your original post makes it even more likely that the HC phase is liquid.
Thanks for pointing out the fascinating science. The idea of a bubble conversion rate is really amazing.
Hi Karma,
Excellent post in my opinion. And my apologies for a poor choice of words; I thought your original idea was entirely 'relevant' in being a thoughtful, creative and interesting contribution to the story.
My final line only referred to my own prejudice that the leak paths would probably be fairly macro when compared to a molecular scale. For example there was talk by some posters earlier that the LMRP flange received a heavy ding or two from the cap during installation. And if seepage at a micro or nano scale was a feature of normal steel-to-steel seals then I guess I'd expect to see it on other similar wells, and as far as I know we don't. Perhaps we don't look hard enough.
Your latest post is very enlightening, and reinforces my appreciation that I don't know anything about the subject and shouldn't really think with my gut.
At wellhead conditions I'd expect the oil to be about 10 times more viscous than any free gas present. What I find slightly tricky to imagine is how the oil on the inside of the bore feels enough local pressure drop to partially flash to gas prior to preferentially exiting the leak path. Would you not have to have some oil flow too?
As you say, academic from a big picture perspective, but interesting nevertheless.
Folks, we do have responsibility for the truth. I am glad, bring it on. I always include raw footage in the same folder as any edited stuff and I note that it was edited. I also have many places to comment and provide contact information for media and others. I also do not use race as weapon. How could I, I am a micro-minority.
Ousted USDA employee Shirley Sherrod says she'll sue blogger (with video)
This might suit you ;)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8188326@N02/3248980358/
NAOM
(please check attributions before use)
Didn't Adair use tin until the feds made him upgrade. I think 'The Hellfighters' made a reference. Old school oil tie-in, how about that. I forgot about that until just now.
Don't know about Adair though I would prefer the old style to ABS plastic when dealing with those fires. That image is under CC so you may use it on your web site or wherever you may need as long as you follow the terms.
NAOM
I appreciate the offer, but as an editorial decision, I took out all the satire and goofy stuff. I was afraid of looking too much like Keith Obermann. Thanks. TinFoil.
Shirley and her husband really have a lot more 'splainin to do. Have you noticed that she is not on MSNBC any more? Both are simply very redistributionist radicals from the 60's and proud to implementing the agenda. He's got over 300,000 in dept of ag funds based upon discrimination.
Here is his video speaking about Uncle Toms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m22eXuYNbkY
Here is the writeup:
We Must Stop the White Man and his Uncle Toms:
http://riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/07/sherrod-we-mu...
There will never be an end to right wing bilgewater. But the fact is that wealth is for redistribution to the wealthy. We know by now that the Democratic Party will not disturb the process:
“…Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007)…”
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Any geophys types out there?
Nicked this screen grab off Kent Wells' presentation of 21st July.
A ropey looking line of 2D seismic but its all I've seen to date.
Whats the strong reflector just below 20,000 ft? Is that salt? Seems to provide some structure in the overlying sediments.
I wonder what that purple line is at about 8k feet. I know they went down below 8k to pump the kill pill mud in and nobody really had an answer why.
Quant - Oh...oh...oh...I know that one! Ready? It's a purple line. Ta da. LOL. Geophysicists love to color crap. Just a WAG but it may represent a formation change. And it could just simply be a reflector they colored purple so it would stand out. I haven't noticed any aspect of particular interest at that depth.
Its very easy to figure out what that purple line on the seismic reflection profile is. Its a no brainer.
These are the smushed remains of Purple Dinosaurs named Barney.
(see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsKO_r76kfQ if you don't understand this or have never heard of a purple dinosaur named Barney)
"I wonder what that purple line is"
Could be a coal. In the first round of hearings, the BP office engineer, Hafle, mentioned a severe lost circulation problem in a coal zone. Since they set 18" casing just below the purple line, it seems likely this is the coal/lost circulation zone.
The shoe test (Formation Integrity Test) on the casing shoe below the lost circulation zone failed and a remedial cement was required.
NU
Salt would be scrambled eggs, so it's not salt. 20,000 ft (red) was the MMS permitted target. Note also highlighted (pink) pay at 12,000 and highlighted (purple) horizon at 8,000 top of 18" casing. Plenty strange. The first couple thousand feet of unconsolidated mud should be featureless, which it isn't. And I don't like the faults. Wrong throw for N-S line. Are the RWs to scale distance? - no, can't be - two RWs aren't on a single line with WW.
Must be West-East. Strong reflector is basement IMO.
The more I look at this, the weirder it seems. Why is the well on a mud/silt high?
Hard to say what each color means. Often the geo-mysticists will color a reflector because it's consistant and easy to map over a large area, or it is a regional paleo pick which can be tied to other wells. The deep red reflector is clearly much higher amplitude. Maybe salt, maybe a significant lith change, maybe a deeper pay. I suspect the image is actually two line segments in different orientations which tie the RWs and are spliced to tie at the WW (note the faint solid line extending below the WW BHL). Making two arbitrary orientation cuts like that is easy to do with 3D.
All just speculation without more info.
Edited puntuation
Avon,
"The first couple thousand feet of unconsolidated mud should be featureless, which it isn't.......Why is the well on a mud/silt high?"
Way above my pay grade but I think this may be a ghost reflection. In other words, it is strange because its not real. Its a repeat of the strong reflectors and structure near the the base of the well.
Kinda like Lake Simmons....Its a ghost.
Had dinner with our Chief Scientist and got laughed at. Definitely a salt sheet. Bathymetric map indicates salt sheet made a structural nose. Purple horizon at 8,000 is gassy sand. Thick low frequency section above the reservoir is tight shale seal. Sand dominated stacked pay all the way to salt sheet. Contrary to my embarrassingly half-baked business manager's puzzlement, swirls in shallow mud are sand-shale debris pods from the most recent shelf collapse.
We both believe this is a pre-drill arb line from spec 3D survey.
Will add just a bit to this. The gassy sand at the purple highlight is also an interval between two well defined turbid flow events. In effect, the line defines a major change in the energy of the environment with a depositional pause. Probably doesn't impress the oil guys much, but it's interesting to me. Also, the "bump" in the basement is certainly due to movement in the underlying Louann Salt. With the nice shale cap above the pay, that would be your best drilling point. (Hey, I wonder if that's why they put the hole where they did?) :-)
big - Could be but difficult to tell w/o seeing the deeper data. Might be another pore pressure jump. But the reflector is a lot stronger than it appears: they've muted much of the shallower data. But it is interesting to see that it's a rather simple structure at least in this orientation. Thanks.
That would be the Oligocene "chalk," the base of the Miocene sand objectives, not salt. GN.
It does seem that the target was defined by the structure at about 20,000 ft. The mud at the top would not have been particularly significant.
The thing I find interesting is that the pipe depths were deeper on RW#1 than on the original well. If the RW encountered high pressure flows comming from a leak in the Macondo well, wouldn't they have had to deal with that with an additional string someway? So, if there is the leak that so many have predicted - including Simmons - wouldn't that show up in the casing plan? I would expect it certainly would have to be evident in the mud logs showing differences. The kill wells are only about 2500 ft away from the blowout. Wouldn't any substantial leak have to be flooding whatever formation was taking it if there was the Simmons volumes and pressures being drilled through?
Yes and no. Given the depositional environment when those layers were formed, the permeable feature could be long and narrow, like a stream course with impermeable clays or mudstones capping either side. In that case, you could drill beside the feature without finding anything. (Not defending MS or anyone else, just saying it could happen that way).
Common sense logic flaw?
"once the relief well (RW) is cased and cemented, then it is not necessary to have the cement harden before doing the static kill"
What if something unforeseen goes wrong in the static kill and unhardened cement in the releif well prevents its use while unforeseen things are going awry and the whole thing gets out of hand? I don't think this a situation in which, after the fact, someone should say "Looking back, we really should have waited for the cement to harden."
"the rapid disappearance of the oil already emitted by the Deepwater well"
Right!
The extensive use of dispersant has insured that most of the oil already emitted by the Deepwater well is subsurface or is not readily visible.
So it must be ok for the press and everybody else to just go away and forget about it.
Actually I don't know much about it so if it's ok not to loose sleep over it then, ... I guess.
Just about every bit of news causes me to loose some sleep but can someone explain BP's reasoning for this? I'm sure the guys working on this are working pretty hard and know what they're doing but it doesn't sound right to me.
It's politics IMHO. My theory, based on the various comments I've heard from BP and Thad Allen so far, is that BP thinks it's unnecessary to run the final casing before doing the static kill, but has been told to do this as a condition of the agreement to go ahead with it. However, whoever it was who insisted that BP run that casing probably didn't also explicitly stipulate that they also have to wait for the cement to harden, so they're not obliged to wait for that.
To be quite honest, I can't see why it's necessary to run that final casing in the RW first, either. Why should slowly filling up a hole with a material of similar density to the material that was excavated to create it in the first place make a second nearby hole (i.e., the relief well) more likely to collapse? Furthermore, even if one is ultra-cautious, wouldn't it have been better to stabilize the RW in preparation for the static kill by simply filling it with drilling mud? That way, they could have performed the static kill days ago, before Bonnie came along.
Gulf Coast Restoration Group With Oil Industry Ties Defends Itself From Critics
A Gulf-area wetland restoration company under heat for advocating taxpayer assistance for coastal cleanup efforts defended itself on Thursday against charges that it is merely doing the bidding of the oil companies that help fund its operations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/gulf-coast-restoration-gr_n_664...
Any Oil dudes want to take a crack at estimating the rate of flow from the ruptured wellhead near Bayou St. Denis?
Here's a good video of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3LqdTGGzLs
No fair looking up the official estimate.
120,000 barrels per day
Looks like about 10-15 bbls per minute, which is about 15-22,000 per day...
JTF
If it were REALLY 22K bbls per day, why in the hell would it be abandoned? My guess is 300bbls per day, but even that shouldn't be abandoned. How many of the 27K wells that have been abandoned in the gulf could still produce like that? Stripper wells add up to tons of oil in this country, IIRC about 20% of US production.
Flow looks up in those numbers, but I'm not saying its all oil. Could be a whole lot of water too.
JTF
No one will know until Matt Simmons reveals the true numbers and the actual source.
If the bullhead kill works,
Will Secretary Chu take credit for stopping the earlier attempts when BP wanted to make more attempts.
We know that the US govt. has been in charge of this since Obama told the nation that he had made the Secretary the final decision maker.
So, if it now turns out that the well could have been killed with mud several months ago,
Will the U S Govt. take credit for the extra months of oil leaking?
Sure, BP screwed up the well and initiated the leak. does the company have the right to prevent additional damage?
Then there are the high priced consultants that have profited by giving advice to Chu. If it developes that they were in error and the well could have been killed months ago, will they step up and pay back the money they took for developing the scare stories? What will Matt Simmons owe for presenting the second well fantasy that has scared most of Florida into a vacation depression? How rich was he supposed to be? Then there are ones who simply got checks for conversations and influenced the incorrect decisions of Chu. What will their liability be? Who has the phone logs or will they voluntarily come foreward and pay?
It sure will be an interesting situation that is going to play out. It sure is great that there is nothing further leaking into the GoM. And I hope the lady with the skin problems on her legs was able to find some satisfactory treatment for whatever caused it.
Hey Wayless, can you please find SOMETHING that you DON'T blame Obama and Chu for?
Your shtick is tiresome.
I am waiting until you start blaming Obama for the original leak.
Dimitry,
You missed it, evidently.
I wrote that BP was responsible for the blowout.
Why would you want to suggest that I thought Obama or Chu were responsible?
How long were you with Pravda?
Again, your shtick is tiresome.
I am an American citizen since '82 and have done FAR more for this country than "me first" folks like yourself can ever hope to accomplish.
I find your propaganda filled commentary mostly off-topic, irrelevant and if trying to make a point, it is usually quite simple, if not to say stupid.
In your above missive, you exhibit complete lack of understanding of risk management. You use your uncommon ignorance to attack those you perceive as your political opponents. It is not based on facts or knowledge, but rather on your intense and abiding hatred of the current administration.
Dimitry,
You were trained as a propagandist from the cradle. It shows in the post above and most others you write. Most striking is that you can hardly write a post without some political porpaganda included. It comes natural for you after yur training.
Dimitry
Leave him alone
and he'll go home
wagging his tail behind him
He's only been around TOD a week,
soon he will find a better place to grind his political ax
That is wise.
Done.
If you are careful to follow the posts,
It is Dimitry who is the one with the continual political ax in hand.
Can you help me Waymore? I am not being sarcastic but I am in the process of writing my BP Enbridge story and I need to make sure I vet my story further. Do you need relinks or do you have enough? You have been a good and fair critical thinker and rather than hide or argue with your likes, I want to encourage you. I do not have a staff and quite honestly, this place is probably better than any staff I could hire. The truth will set you free. Probably the slogan for Pravda. TinFoil.
Dimitry is an opinionated immigrant. I am an opinionated native. Well at least according to Jus Sanguines. We mean no harm and should share some vodka or something.
There is not Enbridge / BP story.
Companies in the oil and gas business partner with others in the same business.
Enbridge is involved with pipeline transportation and has a MLP for a fairly cheap cost of capital for holding the pipes.
Exploration companies make money by developing assets. They have to get them to market through pipes. Pipes cost money and are necessary but not as profitable as drilling wells, IF the wells are successful.
rather than own the pipes, they put them into the MLP and get reasonably cheap financing for an big dollar asset with limited upside. Enbridge is one of the very largest pipe operators and a logical candidate for BP to make a transportation deal with. The larger the company with the pipe, the cheaper the financing. I'm not involved with either, but I would not expect that there is any more to the story.
It is not something that GM, GE, or WLP would have knowledge of or an interest in.
If you want to look into that type of arrangement further look at what is going on in the various shale drilling plays. the E&P companies have more commitments to drill than they have capital. they cannot fund the pipes to move it and they need to be the right scale to be profitable. the various MLPs will get the reserves dedicated and build the pipe for several producers volumes. Nothing nefarious.
Not nefarious - against divine or moral law. This is not a morals issue for I assume BP and Anbridge have none. It is an unethical alliance. Folks are not going to put up with operations as they have been. I will do the old list and you break it down as necessary.
1. BP has a history of violations and a cozy relationship with MMS. The BOP signoff was pre alliance. There is evidence that violations and shortcuts occurred throughout the life of the project.
2. BP and Anbridge form an alliance for the Alberta Oil Shale project announced August 29, 2008. The pipeline is a mix of old and new. It is a model of using existing routes to greater capacity.
3. Anbridge gets fined and cited multiple times for bad practices and plant on the very crossing that failed in 7/2010.
4. 4/20 Macondo 252 blows, killing 11.
5. BP accepts responsibility and is working on remediation and compensation. I am currently receiving a portion of that compensation, and it is now on time, though it is paltry.
6. Anbridge pipeline in Michigan leaks, spilling nearly 1 million gallons in the Kalamazoo river and Lake Michigan might be contaminated.
7. BP and Anbridge pipeline is scheduled to go fully live in 2012. I have no idea how much pressure, oil, or what condition all the pipes are in. I do not just 'trust' BP or the Department of Transportation to ensure it is safe. I am calling on the press and bloggers to help vet the plan.
8. I am opposed to the pipeline going live in 2012. I am attempting to sway others to see if BP and Anbridge can be stopped. Any non-BP, non-Anbridge, company with an acceptable safety and financial record is welcome to take over as far as I am concerned. My beef is with how BP and Anbridge likes to cut corners and sacrifice safety.
Then I will include links of Anbridge's 10K, their citations, and partnership press releases.
I will mention the Anadarko connection only if it is the same Anadarko. I will also include a current list of BP violations. Did anyone notice one end was terminating in Texas City?
I am inviting all to please help me get this right. I am not Simmons by any means.
Edit: Found this old TOD link on oil shale. Is it still well accepted. Choice quote, again help me vet.
"At present, the environmental impacts of shale oil production seem large. Oil shale is usually mined and so there are surface impacts; however, the Shell ICP process may be able to reduce surface impacts by up to a factor of ten (US DOE ONPOSR. 2004). Production is water intensive, which is an important limited resource in the dry U.S. regions with large oil shale deposits (Committee on Resources 2005; Veil and Puder 2006). It is thought to require 1 or 2 barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced, where two-thirds of that water is dedicated to human resources, supporting people and infrastructure around production (Committee on Resources 2005; US DOE ONPOSR. 2004)."
From: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839
Poor sweet beautiful sexy Sandra Bullock, keeps getting tricked by scumbags.
Email me, Sandra honey (kilobyte at lavabit d0t comestibles). I swear I'm not a Nazi or BP.
TinFoilHatGuy-thanks for your reply on my emulsion question on the last thread. Although, there wasn't any other discussion, your reply seemed to confirm the "Science Guy" example of pressurized releases. Thanks.
Yesterday I posted these comments: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6786#comment-689441.
There were several responses, some of which revealed that I had included enough ambiguity in my comments to draw some well-deserved expressions of concern.
I apologize for that.
What I was referring to was the competency of the people presently involved in trying to resolve a very challenging problem.
I am fully aware that the decisions that led to this problem appear to have reflected very poorly on the quality of management and other parties involved, their level of concern about, and perhaps knowledge of, the risk factors, all through the process of drilling and then trying to shut down this well. I have no interest in trying to assign blame and responsibility for the decisions that were made, that's for others to do who have far better access to relevant information and expertise than I can ever hope to have. Even less am I prepared to defend them.
My comments were intended to refer to the activities of the principals who have taken prominent parts in the operation intended to stop the leak, reduce the risk of further leaks, and mitigate the damage that's already been done. They've been called in under very difficult circumstances to both engineer a solution and to reduce the risk that the kinds of mistakes which led to this mess are not repeated, let alone exceeded.
It is ironic, but true, that the very volume of information which has been made available to the public has created what I believe is an erroneous belief that we have sufficient information to know when and where decisions have been or are about to be problematic.
Its easy to get the impression that it's almost as if we are looking over their shoulders and therefore should clearly understand exactly what is being done, and because there are gaps in that understanding, the decisions they are making are of necessity challengeable if not questionable.
I do not know what Dr. Chu has done, I do not know exactly what Admiral Allen's role is, and I most certainly don't even know who the BP personnel, or the outside engineers and other experts are who are involved in this. Therefore I'm not in a position, based upon what I know of them and their competency, let alone the body of information that they are sifting through to pass judgment on either them or their decisions. If everything goes BOOM, that situation may change, but at present I believe the best role for me in this is to gather as much information about what is going on, both in the technical area (because of my naturally curious nature and the related vacuum cleaner attitude towards any interesting information which comes within view), and in the process area because I am very interested in how people see issues and respond to them and how that speaks about who they are and why they've done the things they've done, as well as how we can design processes which will reduce the impact of the kind of perceptual distortions that undermine processes.
All of us are looking at this from different perspectives, I would just ask people to carefully consider how much grounds we have to be any more than mildly, or moderately concerned, or perhaps even very concerned about what we believe is happening, enough to pose questions, but hardly enough in my (probably not very humble) opinion to pull out the flaming rhetoric and attack anyone.
What do you propose to be the "take away" in terms of recommended posting behavior or suggested rational position, based on the information you present?
I would add that incomplete information is a very common basis from which we operate mentally quite often.
I would further add that technical competence is the assumed baseline, but with problems of sufficient complexity it becomes not nearly sufficient quality for success, unfortunately.
Perhaps the best response that I could make is something I tell my clients, who have a history of making somewhat less than optimal decisions (I hope you heard the understatement in that comment) upon occasion.
I remind them that there are very few instances where pausing to reflect about a contemplated action does any harm, and it often leads to an opportunity to employ a better choice of response (The situation on DWH on April 20th probably is an example of the fact that emergencies do not lend themselves to this approach. That's why procedures which are well thought out, and therefore applicable almost automatically in an emergency).
An example that I often cite is if someone gets punched in the nose they often believe that they have no choice but to respond by punching the person who punches them. But that's not true (yes, I know, perhaps easier said than done - fortunately no one has yet tested my commitment to this principle). In fact, if we pause to reflect for a little while, we don't lose the availability of a choice to punch back, but we open up the possibility of any number of potentially better choices depending on our read of the circumstances rather than a defensive response which is likely to close off any possibility for a better resolution of the problem.
It occurs to me that boxers could tell us quite a bit about the efficacy of this approach.
A couple of questions that we could ask ourselves come to mind when it comes to considering how to respond to a comment in a blog like this.
First of all, what are we trying to accomplish with our post? Are we trying to advance the dialogue, or score points (which, we may find, even pooled together with 25¢, probably won't get us a cup of coffee)?
Do we have some frustration and/or anger about unrelated issues which we have not been successful in resolving, and see this as a good (and usually safe) way to vent some of that even though venting it here won't help our other situation?
Are we trying to show off, fit in, or otherwise feel a part of this process, which can be so collegial and otherwise attractive.
Do we have an unrelated agenda and see this as an opportunity to pursue that?
Is our response an amalgamation of several of these or something else?
I'm certainly not prepared to render an opinion on whether any specific poster or their comment runs afoul of any of these concerns, and maybe it's difficult to tell what's going on based upon just one post, but I submit that if we examine a number of our past posts, we may well see a trend, and it may be telegraphed by the general tone of those posts.
It doesn't take nearly as long to reflect as it does to talk about reflecting, but I believe that our submissions will become more valuable if we each engage in this process, and I further believe that all of us want to make a positive contribution to a forum like this, especially when, as many so have commented, it is already extremely valuable.
All very nice. I have to advise clients, therefore have to understand the situation.
Congress forced BP technical disclosures and ROV feeds. TOD is great, but informed speculation at gCaptain and Drillers Club were equally important in April and May, especially info provided by Transocean hands on sister ships. Scout ticket was posted on an obscure site, without which I would never have learned about lost circulation or the stuck tool and sidetrack. Have you seen the ship tracking?
My comments are not valuable per se. It's the stream of chatter with Blue Bell ice cream and Hooter girls, legal theories and rejoinders, knowledge of oilfield practice and physics and subsea engineering that slowly sifts necessary truth and highest probability from conjecture.
Tone is nothing. Actionable information is everything.
With regard to tone, my point was that it can often serve as a clue to help us understand what our motivations were in engaging in a dialogue, but I would submit that it also plays a very important role in determining how likely others are to take our proffering seriously, or perhaps dismissing it without examination because they find it offensive in some fashion.
For example, it is a very common human tendency for humans to go on the defensive when we believe we're under attack, and tone often plays an important part in triggering that defensive response. When we're on the defensive we almost invariably stop listening to substance, but rather become invested in advancing our agenda. I have seen this get to the point of being in an argument with my brother, and suddenly realizing that we're taking the same position, but are so focused on trying to get heard we aren't hearing each other. What I find even more interesting is that when, on one occasion, I realized this in the middle of the argument, I still didn't change my approach because, I presume, I believed that it was an imperative that I continue to defend myself, thus, ironically, impairing understanding rather than advancing it. Elizabeth George said it pretty well when she said "Those who construct ramparts rarely feel constrained by their presence." I had to think about that for a while but it proved to be full of profoundly rich meaning.
One of the elements of my practice which has become most valuable in my attempts to help people resolve the problems that bring them to me is the atmosphere of safety that permeates everything that I do. When my client feels safe in my presence, it is much easier for them to listen to my suggestions and consider how they might apply them to their situation. An important part of what makes it possible for me to do that is the respect that I find that I have for all of my clients, regardless of how they respond to me. I find that when they come to feel respected (even if it takes a while for them to believe it - sometimes even having tested my commitment to the principle - they are far more likely to listen to and respect my input.
I suppose this is a variation on how a good salesman approaches a prospect. Qualification of the customer involves respecting the customer enough to determine what will be most valuable to him, not just what he wants, knowing that a satisfied customer is likely to come back, whereas a customer who discovers that he has been sold something that he doesn't want, need, or value, is far less likely to return.
So I would suggest that it is very helpful for us to respect our correspondents in blogs like this. I believe that approach, that tone, is most likely to advance the overall objectives of a forum like this.
My apologies, Dimitry, I got so focused on the challenge of responding to your first question that the other two points fell off my radar screen.
I agree that we often forget how problematic lack of information can be to both our thought processes and our choices of behaviors, but I suspect that when we attend to the fact that we have incomplete information, we are generally more cautious in both thought process and actions. To paraphrase an old saying though, the state of not knowing what we don't know can oft lead us astray.
As for the limitations of the efficacy of technical competence, I suspect that part of what is at issue here is the very common, but often problematic desire that characterizes the human race, namely wanting to have control over our lives. The search for control has been at the root of much of the damage that I have seen people do to each other. I have come to believe in a zen-like paradox regarding that, however. I have come to believe that we only gain control when we surrender control. This is very similar to the AA precept of surrendering to a higher power.
In cases like this I believe that if we are to accept the limitations of our technical competence we have to join with others on whom we can rely to fill the gaps, and then trust in their judgment. A very hard thing to do sometimes, as is perhaps exemplified by some of the comments here. But much more likely to be possible if we are prepared to surrender control and rely on others in a mutually supportive way. Of course this becomes easier if we are both confident that we share values and are committed to a common goal.
Thanks much for making me stretch more than a little bit.
No apologies required.
I think that the "stumbling block" for some of us would be lack of trust, whether it is fully warranted or not. I don't think one could or should trust a large organization with multi-faceted financial and/or political interests to "do the right thing", which is further complicated by the potential divergence of common goals.
Large organizations often do not understand this paradigm, preferring to "control the message", which results in even less trust and actually works against the interests of the company.
BP, for example, instead of producing slick videos and animations, could have assigned some engineers to answer technical questions from the interested public, so that the actual information is less filtered and "controlled". Most companies consider this kind of behavior to be very dangerous and lacking in "control", which in the end produces results contrary to their (and shareholders', I should add) interests.
I think that the corporate communications model is rooted in the deep mistrust the management feels toward the "hired help", in this case the technical people that actually make the work of the company possible. There are other communications models that I think work much better, but they are not in favor stateside.
You need both. I like the pictures. Not always as accurate in the sense of context or information, but with both more folks get 'in the know'. 15% of ALL Alabamians are illiterate. Though eliminating illiteracy is a goal of mine, including the illiterate in the process is also a goal. I have volunteered for the literacy council before. I am lucky. I am also a redneck and proud of it. Half my young friends have GED's or just dropped out. I encourage them to go to school, but I also bring them into my Blogosphere. I will even read and explain posts to them. I think they 'get it wrong' sometimes due to lack of education, but maybe I am the one 'getting it wrong'.
TinFoil.
I consider all of your points to be on target.
Issues of trust surface all of the time in my work, and they present very thorny challenges.
I think that most of us have a sense of how fragile trust is, and how invidious a lack of trust proves to be when we try to move on from the point where trust has been violated.
I find it very interesting that the beliefs are very different depending on what side of the issue you are on, but usually have a common element in that neither side, no matter how much they want to re-establish a trusting relationship, knows how to bring that into being. One of the problems they encounter is that, as with much human conflict they each want the other to change. One side wants the other to forget the past and trust them again, while the other side wants to be shown that their trust has been earned.
As I've struggled with this over the years, as I tried to help both my clients and myself learn how to deal with this issue, where I've come out turns out to be very simple. As with many issues in human relationships, when I have a problem in a relationship, and I decide to wait for the other person to resolve it I'm almost certain to be disappointed. But when I focus on trying to address my side of the issue, I often find that I can make significant progress.
Take our "relationship" with BP for example. If I wait for BP to prove that I can trust them, I'm very likely to be disappointed and find that nothing they do is likely to reassure me. But my attitude towards this problem is the key. If I approach BP with the attitude that I will give them the benefit of the doubt, but neither commit myself to a long-term relationship with them, nor give them any passes if they violate the trust of anyone again, then their fate is in their hands. If they choose to go on with business as usual, then I will sever any reliance upon them, commitment to them, or, indeed, any relationship with them, and I will be the sole determiner of whether they've violated those boundaries. Since I have no expectations of them nor commitment to them, if they stumble, while I'm not going to happy about it, I'm not going to be disappointed either.
If, on the other hand, I have lost the trust of someone I value, it is important to understand that they don't owe me anything, so for me to expect that If I go for X number of months, years, or whatever, without screwing up again, they should then trust me, is not likely to produce the results I want. So what do I do? I have to earn their trust. I have to demonstrate to them that their well-being and happiness are more important to me than my own. That means that I have to learn what they want and need until I understand them better than they do, and anticipate those needs consistently and faithfully.
I often check on that with couples who come to me at the very end stage of their relationship, usually because he has resisted going to counseling before, but now, because they have separated, or he finally believes that she plans on leaving, he finally agrees to come to me.
After getting a general idea of the situation (which almost always is that, though they love each other just as much as they ever did, they each have come to believe that the other person doesn't love them), he will often say, after he has agreed to counseling if she'll just stay with him, "I love her so much that I will do anything for her," I always respond with "do you love her enough to let her go if that's what she truly wants?" If he says yes, there's probably a chance. If he balks I generally pronounce last rites over the relationship.
Trust can be regained though it is not a trivial undertaking, but equally true is that we don't have to live in the constant shadow of a lack of trust in another, we just have to set reasonable boundaries on their behavior, with appropriate consequences for failure to adhere to those boundaries and a sincere commitment to enforce those boundaries.
I have come to believe in a zen-like paradox regarding that, however. I have come to believe that we only gain control when we surrender control.
Signs from local headshop and restaurant, shot at night/dusk with no flash.
From today's photobucket. http://s892.photobucket.com/albums/ac126/tinfoilhatguy/GS-OB%20July%2020...
Edit (I am not sure about this): Does anyone have a good timeline of BP' errors as it relates to Macondo 252. I am especially interested in government sign offs and exemptions such as the last BP test was never? I am working on one for the Enbridge spill.
Does anyone have a good timeline of BP' errors as it relates to Macondo 252.
Wikipedia has a fairly detailed general timeline; it might not list the kinds of details you're looking for, but it has lots of links in the individual items that might be helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill
Place to start, maybe.
I happened to venture over to the ROV feeds a little bit ago and as feeds came up, I was able to pull up the feed from BOA Deep C ROV 1 and snag a screen grab of this little guy before he disappeared.
This was at approximately 10:16pm CDT. Unfortunately, I couldn't get a better shot before he left. Is this a Deepwater Catshark?
btw, What's going on with Boa Deep C - ROV 1 right now? There was a huge amount of debris floating around. And now it looks like a significant amount of bubbles floating around, but I am not sure if that is what I am seeing. It could be the ROV kicking up the sea floor but it sure does seem like it is more than that.
Watch the compass direction at the top of the screen. When you see these big "storms" Boa 1 is turning. It takes a bit of time after it completes the turn to settle down.
Is this a Deepwater Catshark?
Which direction is he facing? I can't tell. He looks rather featureless, doesn't he?
Neat that you were able to nab him like that.
The head is on the left side. The end of the tail is cut off on the right and extended upward a little bit further. It looked almost like a sand shark without a dorsal fin and that had me very confused as to what it is. It may have had one but I didnt see it. I'm also not sure about scale with respect to the ROVs to estimate how large it is.
This may be a stupid question, but what kind of marine life should we be seeing down here? I've heard of a crab, an eel and now this thing being seen in all the time these cameras have been running. Just doesn't seem right.
Add: Found this article about the sealife in the area of the well: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS297937814220100609
In the area immediately surrounding the spill, Shirley and his fellow scientists tallied 8,332 species of plants and animals, including more than 1,200 fish (such as the Atlantic bluefin tuna), more than 1,500 crustaceans (including the blue crab), and 29 marine mammals (including bottlenose dolphins).
We are down to one red flag on our beach alert system. I have a story on it and I finally wrote the trash story. I am now working on the pipeline story I need the naysayers to start slamming me again, I have had to correct some details. It will be written tomorrow. Have any seen this Camp Lejune story. BPS did you get a letter.
Trussville parents say tainted water at Camp Lejeune, N.C., caused childrens' brain cancer
"The federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has reported that, from 1957 through 1987, the level of chlorinated solvents exceeded Navy regulations and was at times hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of times greater than the safe levels for human use, according to the Edwards' lawsuit."
NEW POST AT http://gcn01.com . I need comments, writer's block is over.
TFHG-did you see this? I checked thread and didn't catch it. Our insurer elected not to renew our property owner policy today after 25 years with the company due to being Tier 2 etc, etc. In discussing with rep (took a while to get through-lines were jammed so I know we are not alone), oil spill came up. Evidently the prospect of oil damage in conjunction with flood and hurricane winds was the last straw for the underwriters. I'm sure there will be more spin-offs from Macondo coming down the pike.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-waste-201...
"...Members of the Gulf Coast congressional delegation said they intended to hold BP accountable for the health and safety of communities where spill waste was dumped. Gulf Coast residents have a right to be concerned about the waste placed in their landfills, and BP and its agents should do everything they can to work with local officials to address these concerns," said Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) after a trip to spill-affected areas this month."
I am all for fire and theft insurance only. Why should we protect the mortgage holder's? They had no problem sticking it to us. The economy has taught us getting ruined and having to start over happens. There is life without insurance, and I am about ready for it. Life is a crap shoot anyhow. Why do you think it is called the Lloyd's of London syndicate? At some level is it legalized and regulated gambling? When insurance causes more grief than it alleviates, then it might be time to get rid of it IMHO.
TinFoil
I have life and auto insurance. VA benefits only for health. Screw the rest.
Edit: I will get the landfill on the not bury immediately program. It should not be hard. I will have my solid waste director get with theirs and trade ideas. This way I just made two government employees work together and find a solution instead of fighting even more folks. The Mississippi guys went science and they might be on a limb. They have a lower rated landfill than us, so that could be a difference. I will find out. Thanks.
Enbridge announced they are going deepwater on 10/2009?
Enbridge to Construct Pipeline from Big Foot in Deepwater GOM
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=81013
Is the Macondo 252 well hooking up to the Enbridge line? If not whose line and does it connect later?
BP's Gulf spill spells trouble for Enbridge pipeline
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Gulf+spill+spells+trouble+Enbridge+pipe...
Coastal First Nations Oppose Canada Tar Sands Pipeline
The Coastal First Nations, a coalition of aboriginal communities in Canada’s Great Bear Rainforest, publicly announced their strong opposition this week to the Northern Gateway pipeline, a project would would run tar sands oil from Alberta to a port near the Pacific Ocean.
Enbridge Inc.'s plan is to open export markets for tar sands oil outside the United States — notably China. However, the Coastal First Nations see the pipeline as a major threat to their territory and way of life.
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100325/coastal-first-nations-oppose-canad...
I am calling me some native Americans tomorrow. They will love me.
TinFoil
"The most serious Enbridge accident was in 2007, when an explosion on an Enbridge pipeline near Clearbook, Minnesota, caused two deaths and $2 million in damage, according to regulators. PHMSA said the company exceeded the maximum pressure. The agency fined Enbridge $2.4 million and ordered it to make several procedural changes.
In another citation in January this year following a 126,000-gallon oil leak near Neche, North Dakota, PHMSA said Enbridge was told in 1988 and 1989 that lines built before 1970 and welded as the Neche lines were are susceptible to failure at the seams. The Neche line was built in 1956.
The local pipeline that malfunctioned here was built in 1969. Larson said she couldn't say whether the Neche lines and local lines were made the same way or were susceptible to the same problems."
http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20100729/OILSPILL/7290330/Enb...
Enbridge Credit Risk Falls as U.S. Pipeline Boosts Cashflow: Canada Credit
Credit-default swaps on Enbridge Inc. and TransCanada Pipeline Ltd., Canada’s biggest pipeline companies, were among the country’s largest decliners over the last month, as new pipeline links to the U.S. boost cash flow.
The cost to protect Enbridge’s bonds from default fell 15.9 basis points over the last 30 days, the fourth-biggest drop among the 30 Canadian companies tracked by Bloomberg. Swaps on TransCanada Pipeline fell 13.3 basis points. Credit-default swaps decline as investor confidence improves.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-23/enbridge-credit-risk-falls-as-u...
If this is not BP's evil twin there is not one. It really reminds me of the Apocalypse. Four horseman, four companies. BP, Halliburton, Transocean, and Anbridge. I will be working on which company is represented by which horse. I will take suggestions. I will get a post spill rating when I find one.
Edit: I found a projected flow amount.
The key driver for the 525,000-barrel-per-day pipeline is to open new markets for producers by 20116 (sic), rather than increase pipeline capacity, Daniel said.
Northern gateway is being backstopped by a $100-million commitment from undisclosed producers and refiners, primarily from the Asia Pacific region. (CHINA Maybe?)
http://dirtyoilsands.org/news/article/enbridge_plows_ahead_with_b.c._pip...
How big is that in the grand scheme?
"This is our mess," says Patrick Daniel, CEO of Enbridge Energy Partners. "We will clean it up."
BP CEO Tony Hayward, the energy company executive who has become the face of the mammoth ... "I give my pledge as the leader of BP that we will not rest until we make this right. ...
Edit: My work is done.
Pat Daniel, Enbridge's chief executive, who flew to Battle Creek, Mich., to monitor the clean-up, pledged Wednesday to return the river to its original state. "We at Enbridge are committing to cleaning up anything and everything that that oil has touched along the way," he said at the first of two press conferences about the leak.
The Calgary-based company is in emergency mode, doubling the amount of employees responding to the spill to 300, increasing the amount of protective boom it is using to protect the waterways to 30,000 feet, with another 15,000 feet on hand, and hosting multiple press conferences with local and international media.
Some observers, meanwhile, said the fallout from the Michigan spill will hit the Northern Gateway project, which would, pending approvals, go into service in 2016.
"I'm personally of the view that the Gateway project — the Enbridge project — is dead," said Michael Byers, an international relations professor at the University of British Columbia who studies U.S.-Canada relations, as well as Arctic issues. "This spill in Michigan will make it more difficult for the company to proceed."
TransCanada Corp., which has offered Enbridge emergency support, could also be caught in the aftermath of both this leak and BP plc's Gulf of Mexico disaster, Mr. Byers said. Its Keystone pipeline extension south of the border, which critics argue could damage the Ogallala aquifer and other areas in the United States, is already under political pressure as 50 members of Congress have asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to derail the pipeline's reach into the United States.
"The spill in Michigan could be the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of one or both projects," Mr. Byers said.
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Michigan+spill+fuels+opposition+Enbridg...
Enbridge -- July 29 evening update
As of 12 p.m. EDT, 2,400 barrels of oil have been recovered and pumped into large tanks. An additional 10,000 barrels of oil have been isolated into a holding area and will be pumped into holding tanks. The oil is measured on an ongoing basis so that we can evaluate and confirm the amount of oil that was released in relation to the 19,500 barrels we believe has been released.
Enbridge continues to deploy every available resource to contain and clean up the oil. 17 booms locations have been...
path: Public ~> Energy
originally posted: 2010-07-30 04:52:39
Cleanup Photos
These photos were taken of the cleanup effort in Michigan on July 28th.
Freep dot com -- Is the Michigan oil spill sealed?
Posted: July 30, 2010
Is the Michigan oil spill sealed?
EPA is hopeful Lake Michigan can be spared
BY ERIC D. LAWRENCE, JOHN WISELY, CHRISTINA HALL and JENNIFER DIXON
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS
KALAMAZOO -- Cleanup crews said Thursday they had stopped the westward spread of an oil spill heading down the Kalamazoo River, but officials from various agencies offered conflicting accounts of how far the slick had spread and whether oil continues to leak from the source.
"We do not antici
path: Public ~> Energy
originally posted: 2010-07-30 05:33:42