Isn't the drill bit still in the well when it blows out? How do you close a valve with the drill bit going through it? A schematic of the operation would be useful, too.
Indeed.
You forgot the key ingredient; human screw up. They pretty much drive that plane into the ground and were surprised it crashed.
Isn't the drilling subcontracted? I doubt it'll be the end of anything.
Good and interesting question. I think this answers it, at least to the extent that it can be closed even with drill pipe in the well during drilling, but not exactly how it's done:
Yes, that's often an important factor and may turn out to be at least part of the case here too.
The descriptions in the press have been that BP was LEASING the Deepwater Horizon from Transocean. Beyone that, which employees from the two companies were involved, supervising, making decisions, etc isn't clear.
Ah!
"and others are fitted with hardened steel shearing surfaces that can actually cut through drillpipe."
I was asking. Why wouldn't such a thing be operated remotely? The article above indicates that these things are "usually operated remotely via hydraulic actuators". What went wrong here? Did the preventer blow out itself?
They were experimenting with a live well?
Likely not intended to be clear. Though blame can always be placed after the well is contained.
-snip-
Here's another schematic that shows the 16'x40', 5way blowout preventer. It also gives a better idea of the layout than anything I've seen elsewhere-
Jim
I have not heard anything that indicated the blowout preventer blew out. Again, since they have been trying to turn it off with an underwater robotic sub thing, one would assume that they have a visual on it and you would think that if it were blown out and spewing oil there, we would have heard by now. I did hear something to the effect that they were trying with the robot to pressurize something, etc and it's never been done before. That may be consistent with using hydraulic pressure to close the valve? But again, one would think these would be rigged to failsafe, ie shut if they get cutoff, not need pressure to close it.
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
I suspect sabotage. the timing is too convenient to Comrade Obama's "support" for drilling off shore.
Consider Comrade Obama's "support" for new nuclear power plants...BUT only whne there's safe storage of nuclear wastes,and then he immediately cancells Yucca Mountain Repository,that was almost completed.(WASTING all that money spent) Then he institutes a new STUDY to find a new site,where actual site construction Of the storage!) will not begin for decades. Effectively killing off new nuke plants for the next 20 years,minimum.
Then there's Comrade Obama's statement about "bankrupting the coal industry",his Cap and Trade regulation,and the recent coal mine disaster.
THREE convenient situations like this,so closely timed,is IMO,not coincidence.
Coal generates ~50% of US electric power,20% for nuclear. Wind and solar will NOT make up the difference. The only thing left is "conservation"(cutback in lifestyle); coerced,of course.
Making the US on a par with Europe,if not lower. His real goal.
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: (snip)
If there are not multiple independent valve systems
What I expect WE are gonna get out of this is the return of $4 a gallon gas, somewhere between Memorial day and 4th of July. Labor day at the latest.
Well, the cheap-gas side effect of the economic almost-collapse a year ago was nice while it lasted. Here in SW MI, it has been dancing with $3 a gallon for the last couple of weeks- 2 steps up, then 1 step down.
Guess I better fill up the lawnmower can while I am thinking about it. :^(
The almost collapse contributed to it going back down. If it gets back up to $4 I can almost guarantee another collapse.
Jim Yanik wrote: (conspiracy stuff snipped)
Uh, solar does not always equal electricity. They saw all this coming
20-30 years ago. They should have made a requirement for all government-backed building loans that the house include passive solar design for some free heat in winter, modern skylights (with shutters) to reduce lighting requirements, proper overhangs to reduce heat loading in summer, super-insulation, and the like. Proper design can make a house that needs a LOT less power, without any exotic technology or lifestyle changes. (Although the tree-hugger in me would not have minded a square-footage cap based on how many bedrooms, to get a government-backed loan. Some of these drywall McMansions with half a dozen fake gables, are fricking ridiculous- their monthy gas bills probably exceed my mortgage.)And as for wind- well, probably not too useful in postage-stamp-lot suburbia. But if you are out in the boonies, a small windmill pumping into a raised insulated black-painted holding tank can make life a lot easier for your well pump and water heater. There are a LOT of low-tech concepts that could make a big difference if they were widely applied. In parts of the world where cheap reliable power is still scarce, people get inventive. Nobody in NA does that anymore, because electricity is so damn convenient, and until recently, so cheap.
(The 100-year-old building I work in used to have air shafts, openable cupola skylights, and transoms over the doors, for free air circulation during the months of the year when the weather was mild. They tore out and blocked off all of that when they 'modernized' the building over the decades. Now they are crying about all the power used.)
Another crazy thing on the news about the oil leak last night. They are saying BP is having some giant bell shaped metal boxes constructed with piping attached. The idea is to lower them down over the leaking areas on the ocean bottom, trap the oil and pump it out at the surface. Two things immediately stand out. First, they said it will take 1 1/2 weeks to build them. WTF? You would think in an emergency like this, any reasonable iron yard could do this in 1 day.
Second, why aren't such devices already in existence and ready to go? I would think there would have been an entity supported and funded by ALL the oil companies that are doing underwater drilling. That entity would not only have all the equipment necessary to deal with actual oil spills, but also would do research on ideas of how to deal with this, eg the bell collector gizmo, failsafe valves, etc. They could have proper eqpt built, tested, ready to go, etc. Instead, apparently we are relying on thinking things up in the middle of a crisis. It would only make sense to have some collective resource pooling, no? That way each company could have a much larger and better response to any spill than any one of them could individually.
I suspect it would take a huge device to trap the oil AND withstand the force of the oil spewing and the ocean currents.
I'm wondering if all the rain in TN and AR will help the fisheries by washing oil away from shore...hope so. We've had enough disasters/wars to last a while and hurricane season is here.
Here is a simplistic view of the leak site:
I'm glad you finally got to your point in your last two sentences, because the rest of your post is gibberish. There is no such thing as fail safe, and when you're controlling something through 5,000 feet of water, it multiplies the problem exponentially. But then zero to the nth power is still zero. But you know that, don't you.
If you're so smart, I can head you to all sorts of companies who can use your oilfield expertise.
Steve
visit my blog at
A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.
It is so absolutely amusing to watch people who have no knowledge discuss a subject so deeply and intensely, yet say, "I don't know", "I'm not sure how that works," etc.
Steve
aemeijers wrote in news:JsednYjWoot9_EDWnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
It's something to consider. (unless you believe in that "see no evil" stuff...) That blowout preventer had multiple protection layers,and ALL of them failed.
There's a pattern here,and statements have been made that leads one to believe all this is NOT accidental,if one connects the dots,particularly considering the methods ComradeObama uses and believes in;Alinsky. "dirty tricks" are not unheard of;remember Nixon's Watergate for one example. These accidents all aid ComradeObama's goals too well,and are too timely.
True,but I was only discussing electricity generation. It will be even worse if all-electric motor vehicles are mandated. Our ECONOMY depends on cheap energy,and the only reasonable,practical methods are all being BLOCKED. Intentionally!
See,there's the gist of it; cheap energy allows people to better their lifestyle,and also allows government to do more for the people. Costly energy puts people out of work,and lowers the standard of living.
If solar,passive or active, and your "out in the boonies windmill" are such a good idea,they would be used WITHOUT any Federal mandates needed. But they are not cost-competitive and have other drawbacks.
Despite claiming to know so much about the subject and going on the attack, it's obvious you don't even understand some of the most basic terminology. Failsafe does not mean that the system cannot ever fail. It means it's designed so that in the event something goes wrong, the system is designed to fail with no damage or minimized damage. In this case, it would mean having a valve in place that requires constant contact with the rest of the world to stay open. If that contact is lost, then it automatically closes. That contact could be a hydraulic line, etc that has to be pressurized to keep the valve open. Or it could be an electric signal that holds the valve open. If you had TWO of those that are independent and in series, that would be a failsafe type of design.
Now, since you hint at knowing so much from personal experience, why haven't we learned a single thing in this thread that sheds any light on how these things work? Is there one valve or two independent ones. Do they require action to make them close or close by themselves?
It's far more interesting that the one guy who claims to have personal experience in the relevant area hasn't contributed one single fact or explanation to this thread that sheds any light on the actual discussion. Instead, you just beat your chest in self-important fashion and go on the attack.
So that means if something is cheap we should just be as wasteful as possible?
They are a good idea where they work. Makes lots of sense to put windmills up out in the Great Plains states. Its just the current government idea of handing out subsidies for solar or wind whether they make sense or not that is completely stupid.
wrote
As you can see by my posts if you had thoroughly read them, I have said that I have no experience with deep water drilling, and deep water drillheads. I therefore gracefully withdrew from that discussion, and kept it to general topics and general points. Unlike you who, with zero experience comes up with all sorts of whimsical suggestions, but always prefaced with, "I'm not experienced with this, but why can't they .......?"
The thing is off and running. Could they have shut it off, it wouldn't be off and running. Something screwed up. But you seem more intent on getting on to the guilty and going over the issue of responsibility.
It is obvious you know nothing of this and have no experience, since you have never stated an answer to even the subject line.
You may go now.
Steve
What am I supposed to think about.
Reports I have read are that the well head is OK (except blow out preventer does not work). The reports are that the pipe that went to the surface has multiple leaks.
They were going to temporarily abandon the site and work on another. I would assume the pipe to the surface that they were working on would remain on the surface until they came back to work on "pilelines ... to the refineries." The pipe could have gone down with the drill rig. It could have been damaged (causing the leaks) by the drill rig sinking. If the pipe still goes to the surface, the leaks are more likely to come up in a smaller area. If the pipe is lying on the bottom the leaks are more likely to be spread out, and more difficult to catch unless there are multiple "domes" - the intended point of the question. In any case, there are multiple leak points.
So, in other words, despite crowing about experience and going on the attack, you don't know anything about how the offshore well protection system work either. But you have a problem with people raising questions and interested in finding out. You may be comfortable with writing it off as "sh** happens" and comparing it to Chernobyl, which is a piss poor example because that WAS avoidable, but I doubt that will satisfy the official investigation.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.