The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Spill, Baby, Spill!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
As a matter of interest, what does anyone do in a situation like this? What is the optimum and immediate containment which should have happened? Is there a solution that should have been ready and waiting or is this a case of a problem to which there is no easy and fast solution?
 
V

Vivek

Guest
The problems are so difficult and severe that no one has any solutions.

The US govt feels the necessity and importance of these operations that they are going to split up DOE (Department of Energy, swell organization btw) to create an entity for offshore drilling/extraction related stuff.
 

LJL

New member
Ben, if I may offer up some thought.....I really do not think that there is anything beyond better prevention. There is no easy way to drill an offset well to kill the leaking well. That is going to take months, even if there was a rig on standby right next to the problem well. If the leaks are coming from multiple places, each may need a different kind of solution. Some of this stuff is just not easy to contain once it gets out of control. The concept of the operation from the start is one drills a hole using bits and pipes for the mechanical part, and using drilling mud of proper weight and consistency to keep the pressures of the oil and gas from blowing out the hole as you drill. Once you hit your target, you cement the entire cap of the hole area you just drilled, and have a blowout preventer in place over the hole that is cemented in place and is designed to shut off any flow from the well. One of the problems with this well in this deep water area is the accumulation of methane hydrates (frozen gas-water) in the sea bed that extended beyond the area where the hole was drilled. Once those hydrates are exposed to any heat, they expand quickly and essentially blow up and out from the sea bed. Again, only way around that problem is prevention. Do not drill into hydrates, or if you do, make sure things are controllable.

So now we have a failure of the well, a failure of the blowout preventer which is supposed to stop oil from flowing out, maybe a failure of the cement that was containing the blowout preventer to the wellhead, and multiple leaks from broken pipe and plumbing things built for future production. Lots of serious-sized problems, and in an environment that is really hard to access and work in without very limited and very specialized equipment (deepwater submersible robots). If one had all of that gear on a tender ship nearby, plus the crews to work things, and knew exactly where the problems were, things may have been able to be slowed down or shut off a bit sooner. Not easy to anticipate, so that is why prevention is so important in the planning and execution, because recovery after the fact gets really hard and complicated.

In some other countries, Norway for example, they require multiple blowout preventers be installed. They require independent assessors to monitor and inspect installations, cementing and testing, and lots of other operations. Being a major source of Norway's income, they apply the resources, have the skilled people and equipment on hand, etc. Working conditions there are more harsh in many respects, but damages impact a lot of things they care a lot about....fisheries, etc.

That is why it is not an easy problem to solve once things get out of control like they are with this particular well. All of the thing BP is trying to do, both conventional and unconventional, are difficult to do, and take time. If, for example, they had that containment dome thingie already built and nearby, they may have been able to utilize it sooner or more effectively, but only if they knew for sure the location of the leaks.

At this point, finding and containing the leaks as quickly as possible is the priority. cleaning things up becomes the second, but most visible problem to tackle. Had they been able to string out the miles and miles of oil booms around the accumulating slick sooner, it would also have helped, but they were not readily available, and the seas were also too rough to have the containment booms contain the growing oil slick. Nobody has yet devised another effective way to keep the slick contained, that is why shutting off the source is so important first, and not even letting the leak happen in the first place is the most important. Recovery is going to take time and it is going to be very messy and damaging for sure. I live in Texas, and our shores were at first not threatened by the spill, but we were sending everything and everybody into the fray to help. Now the winds have shifted and the spill is threatening our coastal waters too, plus the extremely fertile and delicate Galveston Bay area, which is a major source for seafood for the entire world. They are already trying to build oil containment booms across the major opening to the bay at this point. If we get one bad storm, and hurricane season is just around the corner, this is going to be really ugly. Tar on the beaches is more a tourist issue. Oil and tar in the marshes is a food source and livelihood issue that takes years and years to recover.

LJ
 

monza

Active member
Former Pres. of Shell:

ESQUIRE: So do you think, aside from the U.S. Coast Guard, that the federal government should be playing any more vigorous a role? Should the White House be more visible on this?

JOHN HOFMEISTER: No. I think the more this is politicized, the worse it gets. And I think the White House and the Interior Department and others have been prudent and practical and reasonable thus far in the way they've been managing it. Letting BP continue to manage the process is far better than the government trying to take it over. And in any case, they have the Coast Guard, they have the Interior Department, the MMS, they have all the resources they need, but somebody has to actually make operational decisions without bureaucracy, and BP can do that, because they're trained to do it a whole lot better than government officials. Government is paid to debate and regulate serious matters over time. They're not paid to execute in an emergency. And we saw FEMA, in Katrina, make a complete hash of Katrina response. So what we don't want are government officials on the beaches making decisions as to what to clean next.

(And then Hofmeister made a startling suggestion...)


JH: The work going on to close the well is taking multiple approaches, and I am aware that BP has sent out a message to all the oil companies asking for help and advice. And I actually sent some people to BP in terms of the spill response cleanup to try to get them aware of a process that has been used in the Arabian Gulf that has not been used in the Gulf of Mexico, and that is to use supertankers, empty supertankers, to suck up the oil off the surface, where they can store the oil, they can treat the water, they can discharge the water and then they can either salvage the oil or destroy it, as the case may be. And I know the mayor of New Orleans and a few other officials are now asking BP about that process as a result of these engineers coming forward from Saudi Aramco.

ES: When did that spill happen, John?

JH: I don't actually know, but it was sometime back, there was a huge, huge spill that never got reported, because they don't have an open press, obviously... But I was told it was a 700-million-gallon spill.

ESQ: That would be the biggest, right?

JH: That would be the biggest the world has ever known. And they used six supertankers to clean up the oil and were very successful. We'd do well to get supertankers in the Gulf.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-response-to-gulf-oil-spill-051110
 

stephengilbert

Active member
Good News, America; we're better than Nigeria. From The Economist:

So long as Americans do not reduce their consumption of oil, refusing to drill at home means importing more of the stuff, often from places with looser environmental standards. The net effect is likely to be more pollution, not less. Nigeria, for example, has had a major oil spill every year since 1969, observes Lisa Margonelli of the New America Foundation, a think-tank. Putting a price on carbon would eventually spur the development of cleaner fuels, and persuade Americans to switch to them. But in the meantime, oil is both useful and precious. Extracting it domestically, with tougher safety rules, would bring a windfall to a Treasury that sorely needs one. When the current crisis is past, Mr Obama may remember this. http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16060073&fsrc=rss
 

monza

Active member
Unfortunately putting a price on carbon just hurts the economy at a time when we can least afford it, and it does nothing to reduce pollution. Similar to the Nigerian reference...American carbon limits have no bearing on pollution in the rest of the world, except by putting America at a disadvantage. I do agree that not using domestic supplies to the max is a huge error; every administration/congress since the 70s has failed in this regard despite stating it is imperative to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
American carbon limits have no bearing on pollution in the rest of the world, except by putting America at a disadvantage.
That is correct since there are no limits put on the carbon emissions from one of the largest pollutors in the world.

To have any real impact, these limits should apply to any American investments in China, India, South America, wherever and should be made punishable just like Iran is isolated by the US (any US companies that do business with Iran is penalized).
 

LJL

New member
Sorry to say, this idea just lends itself to complexity and corruption. A better solution is to just eliminate carbon based fuels as quickly as possible, with major industrial countries leading the way with significant measurable and sustainable reductions year on year. If this creates a "disadvantage", then maybe there are other ways to address that issue by not supporting output from nations that are not also reducing carbon output. Look, we need to do these things, and it is going to be painful to change ways, incur price increases until energy source switchovers are made, but the alternatives are less attractive for everybody. We have to move past the blame crap, the whining, and all the other excuses for exceptions, but this will never be an easy thing for many to do.

LJ
 

monza

Active member
OK simply invent a new energy source that is as cheap as oil. :) It's just not going to happen anytime soon. And there is significant doubt about the effects of carbon, just look at the recent events with regards to the IPCC, East Anglia, and all that. It's the UN, after all; corruption is a normal part of doing business.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
"...energy source that is as cheap as oil."

the problem with this is that there are other costs associated with fossil fuels that must be considered, and they are not all financial. environmental damage getting and consuming, political consequences, international compromises, wars, dependence upon foreign nations, etc.

the concept of escalating the move to alternative energy development and leading the world and that world market flies in the face of the monied oil, coal and automotive lobbies and ease of retaining the status quo, but makes a lot of sense.
not so easy to implement, but glorious if we get there
 

monza

Active member
Yes, certainly it would be nice. One under utilized option is nuclear. Compare how much power France gets from nuclear vs the US and it's an eye-opener.

However the US has plenty of our own oil, if we would just use our own resources that would eliminate several of those factors.
 

M5-Guy

New member
Sorry to say, this idea just lends itself to complexity and corruption. A better solution is to just eliminate carbon based fuels as quickly as possible, with major industrial countries leading the way with significant measurable and sustainable reductions year on year. If this creates a "disadvantage", then maybe there are other ways to address that issue by not supporting output from nations that are not also reducing carbon output. Look, we need to do these things, and it is going to be painful to change ways, incur price increases until energy source switchovers are made, but the alternatives are less attractive for everybody. We have to move past the blame crap, the whining, and all the other excuses for exceptions, but this will never be an easy thing for many to do.

LJ
USA is entrenched in the profit and the amount of fossil fuel still used as standard ways to heat and make energy made with Oil products...Tough Lobbyist and greedy companies are the biggest problems stopping new technologies to get in full swing. Right now, only a handful of new technology companies are "Trying Out" these without any real mass effects because of the low production

OK simply invent a new energy source that is as cheap as oil. :) It's just not going to happen anytime soon. And there is significant doubt about the effects of carbon, just look at the recent events with regards to the IPCC, East Anglia, and all that. It's the UN, after all; corruption is a normal part of doing business.
Or, an exsisting energy source that is cleaner to make and use...

"...energy source that is as cheap as oil."

the problem with this is that there are other costs associated with fossil fuels that must be considered, and they are not all financial. environmental damage getting and consuming, political consequences, international compromises, wars, dependence upon foreign nations, etc.

the concept of escalating the move to alternative energy development and leading the world and that world market flies in the face of the monied oil, coal and automotive lobbies and ease of retaining the status quo, but makes a lot of sense.
not so easy to implement, but glorious if we get there
+1

Yes, certainly it would be nice. One under utilized option is nuclear. Compare how much power France gets from nuclear vs the US and it's an eye-opener.

However the US has plenty of our own oil, if we would just use our own resources that would eliminate several of those factors.
Well, we could only increase out output to about 3% of our "needs" at best.. We still need to import 20% instead of maybe 23%-25%

On Nuclear: We can do this, and it is on the table.. we also have many old Nuclear plants, that need upgrading and maintenance to bring them up to modern loads. I think this might be our fastest track at the moment as others are developed for mass production use.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html

“Under the previous administration, there was a pattern of suppressing science in decisions, and we are working very hard to change the culture and empower scientists in the Department of the Interior.”

Seems like I've heard this story before......something about the extent and causes of global warming.

After all.....as one GW Bush aide said to Ron Suskind:

"Guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' ... 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

Funny how "reality" has a way of asserting itself.....and now we suffer the consequences of their arrogance, delusions and actions (or inactions, as the case may be).....the wars, the financial meltdown and now this too.

Corporate greed, complacency and hubris.....facilitated by the government.... a recipe for disaster.

Gary
 
Last edited:

bensonga

Well-known member
The data loss could be legitimate, but when potentially incriminating data "goes down with the rig".....it sure doesn't look good (putting it mildly).

http://www.adn.com/2010/05/14/1277504/well-data-missing.html

Only 5,000 bbls a day?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14oil.html?hp

It's about time.....shared responsibility and greater oversight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/us/politics/15obama.html?hp

And one more on the failure of government regulators to do the job many of us expect them to be doing.....

http://washingtonindependent.com/84564/failure-of-regulators-to-regulate-led-to-recent-disasters

Gary
 
Last edited:

jlm

Workshop Member
now if this only ends up that obama really kicks some *** in the gov and elsewhere, yippee.
 

M5-Guy

New member
now if this only ends up that obama really kicks some *** in the gov and elsewhere, yippee.
Let's hope.
But, to close the pockets of the regulators, senators and congressman is the biggest problem he has.

It is a huge undertaking and and very unpopular with many Ideologues that support so called "Free Reign Capitalism" with NO government oversight at all. You know, "The Private Sector will self regulate them" reasoning we have all heard from the extremists ... Yeah, we have seen what that has gotten us :angry:....over the last 25 years after de-regulations in many sectors got started.
 

monza

Active member
On the other hand, what has existing regulation accomplished in this specific case...absolutely nothing...with waivers granted by the very administration that is so quick to demonize the involved companies...if anyone has ideas about how government can prevent its own bureaucratic quagmire, to positive effect, please feel free to share.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
When it comes to offshore drilling, the US would be better off from learning from Norway and implementing what they do to the letter. There is little need to reinvent the wheel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top