1. Joined
    22 Jun '08
    Moves
    8801
    23 May '10 06:32
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/04/gulf-oil-spill-drilling-technology-explained.html

    Interesting device, question: why did it fail?
  2. Joined
    01 Mar '08
    Moves
    10916
    23 May '10 19:35
    For a valve to not reach its fail safe position might suggest that something blocked the mechanism. This could have been sand, hydrates, concrete, something from the drilling operation, or a fish.

    Until the BOP has been taken out, taken to pieces, studied by BP etc it is only idle speculation.
  3. Joined
    22 Jun '08
    Moves
    8801
    23 May '10 22:451 edit
    Originally posted by mortisdead
    For a valve to not reach its fail safe position might suggest that something blocked the mechanism. This could have been sand, hydrates, concrete, something from the drilling operation, or a fish.

    Until the BOP has been taken out, taken to pieces, studied by BP etc it is only idle speculation.
    concrete perhaps, it's hard to see from the photos they have posted,, I looked at their site, and it's suppose to have 450,000 lbs of closing pressure, so a fish would not seem likely, maybe concrete. I wonder what the rate of closure is for it? I would think it would snap shut in an instant?

    http://www.c-a-m.com/content/products/product_detail.cfm?pid=2797
  4. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    24 May '10 08:49
    If a catasrophe was happening with any nuclear plant, then the general opinion would demand a quick stop of any production of nuclear energy. (Like Cernobyl, three Mile Islands, and Sellafield.)

    Now this is the second major catastrophe happened. (Exxon Valdez was the first one.) When will I hear "Stop drilling for oil, stop transporting oil!" I suppose never.

    This will not be the last major catastrophe involving oil handling. Nuclear energy production seems to be much safer.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    24 May '10 12:14
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    If a catasrophe was happening with any nuclear plant, then the general opinion would demand a quick stop of any production of nuclear energy. (Like Cernobyl, three Mile Islands, and Sellafield.)

    Now this is the second major catastrophe happened. (Exxon Valdez was the first one.) When will I hear "Stop drilling for oil, stop transporting oil!" I suppose ...[text shortened]... st major catastrophe involving oil handling. Nuclear energy production seems to be much safer.
    Nuclear energy is still being produced despite Chernobyl and three Mile Island.
    The oil disasters have mostly affected the seas and wildlife so it doesn't really bother anyone but those concerned about the environment and those who are economically affected.
    Nuclear disasters tend to have a much more dramatic impact and scare potential.
  6. Joined
    01 Mar '08
    Moves
    10916
    24 May '10 18:57
    YouTube

    Just one example, that and I know an inspection diver who found a lobster blocking a valve but for a production unit so much smaller.

    There have been bigger than Exxon, and you can't compare exploration with transport in terms of risk, nor with nuclear energy. Drilling operations deal with largely unknown (regardless of what geologists tell us) conditions that can be extremely volatile.

    Looking at the Cameron brochure I think they're partly using the live pressure to close the valve, so should be very fast. I remain very idle.

    We'll hear a call to end oil and gas production when all of us stop using plastic.
  7. Joined
    22 Jun '08
    Moves
    8801
    25 May '10 00:17
    Originally posted by mortisdead
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lem41FJNHuM

    Just one example, that and I know an inspection diver who found a lobster blocking a valve but for a production unit so much smaller.

    There have been bigger than Exxon, and you can't compare exploration with transport in terms of risk, nor with nuclear energy. Drilling operations deal with largely unknown ( ...[text shortened]... y idle.

    We'll hear a call to end oil and gas production when all of us stop using plastic.
    you're right on the plastic...
    I haven't looked at the lobster yet, but it will be interesting..All the valves I have worked with on haz mat, were normally close in failure,, and would snap a finger off.. but then again, quite small as compared to that 21" pipe.
    The pipe may have oblonged too, and that would prevent the vale from closing,, maybe? I know clearances are tight.
  8. Joined
    01 Mar '08
    Moves
    10916
    24 Jun '10 21:16
    It's still too early to tell but one interesting theory was that the BOP was designed to cuth through one pipe, but not the joint between two pipes. Whether correct or not I couldn't say.
  9. silicon valley
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    101289
    24 Jun '10 21:55
    from a drilling blog (i think), posted earlier on a different RHP thread, it was mentioned that the chain-of-events in the Deepwater explosion included a non-operable training valve that was mistakenly left in place.
  10. Joined
    29 May '10
    Moves
    586
    25 Jun '10 22:49
    it failed for a very simple reason...

    the subcontractor was pushed too hard by BP. Pushed to get more oil, quicker and costing less money than was safe.

    One of the guys on rig, said as much on 60 Minutes.

    And they killed a few guys at a rig a few years ago.

    On very rare occasion, accidents are just accidents. Most of the time, however, it is because people tried to save money by cutting costs.

    Always a recipe for disaster.

    and nuclear energy is even worse.

    In America, the entire insurance industry refused to insure nuclear power plants. They had to pass a special law so that the plants could get insured.

    When insurance companies - who only care about money, not politics...refuse to insure....that just shows you how incredibly unsafe they are.

    If you know any folks in the construction industry...you know how many corners get cut, how rarely things are made up to code.

    When you are dealing with very dangerous problems like nuclear energy production or high pressure oil wells.....these little "glitches" become huge dangers.

    Companies are not run by scientists who care about procedure and process. They are run by numbers guys, who see numbers on a page and always press harder to get another percent out of the production rate...without any connection to how that manifests in the day to day.
  11. silicon valley
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    101289
    26 Jun '10 05:12
    the big danger is when they cut corners and hide it. because when they start lying about things, you don't know what you're getting, but sooner or later someone's getting killed.

    like drivers of toyotas.

    saw an article a while back that said in contrast to the relatively open practices of other manufacturers w.r.t. antilock brake systems, Toyota USA had ONE brake analyzer capable of debugging units in the USA, which they used in a highly secretive manner to analyze on a case-by-case basis any sold units for which anomalies were reported. picture an aircraft with black boxes that only the manufacturer can read and for which they won't share the data with anyone.

    this indicates to me that toyota knew there was a problem and were trying to fix it secretly.
Back to Top