In reply to dodge1664, post #525

Not really the place but Greenpeace could arguably be condemned for their long term opposition to Nuclear power. If they had taken off the blinkers (as some elements of the eco community now appear to be doing) then we would have had more nuclear generation as opposed to the more polluting oil, coal and gas powered plants. Also we would not be facing the prospect in this country of having a cat in hell's chance of replacing the old reactors that are due to be decommissioned. (Okay Brown and Blair can take some "credit" for that).

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions......

What evidence is there that Greenpeace has provided false or misleading information?

My faith in Greenpeace was first damaged when they fought a very hard campaign - on grounds that they later had to acknowledge as inaccurate (IIRC) - to prevent a redundant oil rig being towed out to sea and sunk in deep water.  That was many years ago, but I have watched them since and find their arguments one sided and rather 'religious'.  For example, their stance on nuclear energy, whales and the like.    (All just my opinion, of course.)

I suspect most of us have a 'green' side, but I do not trust Greenpeace to present an accurate picture - they have as much of an axe to grind as the oil companies.   

AA

They have arrived WOS, not sure who is all drilling out there at the moment - but I assume BP is? Perhaps needs it's own thread if things escalate but no time at the mo............

In reply to dodge1664, post #525

What evidence is there that Greenpeace has provided false or misleading information?

Brent Spar saga.......

Oh, and what is propelling their boat out there in the first place? It ain't solar & they sure ain't using a wind sail!

In reply to oilretire, post #528

Isn't the Dana/Faroe Anne Marie prospect about to spud there? [hence my mention of KNOC]

Already spud

http://www.scandoil.com/moxie-bm2/news/faroe-petroleum-spuds-anne-marie-prospect.shtml

And I note the next one is BP operated, not sure if it's the same rig or if BP is mobilising another?

“This is the first of three 2010 exploration wells to be drilled in the deep water Atlantic margin, all of which are targeting substantial oil prospects. The second and third wells, operated by BP and Chevron respectively, will be in UK waters, targeting the North Uist/Cardhu and Lagavulin prospects.”

In reply to oilretire, post #531

Ah thanks - I'd forgotten the exact status. If Greenpeace go for it, could add another entertaining dimension to the Dana T/O battle.

2 days ago the Esperanza was just north of Peterhead.

http://www.shipais.com/showship.php?mmsi=244690000

Is it breaching maritime rules by not submitting further positions?

Could get interesting! Do the Danes have Special Forces?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100815/tuk-special-forces-sent-to-confront-prot-dba1618.html

And typical of the age, you can follow the progress of the Esperanza on its Twitter page:

http://twitter.com/gp_espy

OK, last post on this until something more concrete is released.

I've got into the ShipAIS forums where some are speculating that the Esperanza is on its way to the Schiehallion Field where BP is the operator of the Schiehallion FPSO.

http://www.bpnsi.com/index.asp?id=7369643D312669643D313838

In April 1996, the UK government gave approval for a combined Schiehallion/Loyal development plan. The Schiehallion field co-venturers comprise: BP, Shell, Amerada Hess, Murphy Petroleum, Statoil and OMV; the Loyal field co-venturers are BP and Shell. Both fields produce to the Schiehallion floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel, owned on a divided rights basis, hence any available capacity in the vessel is owned separately by the vessel owners, through their interests in the two fields.  To assist in any enquiries, BP (as FPSO operator) would be pleased to receive any service request in the first instance.

Back to BP and Macondo.

I know the news has moved on a bit, but perhaps worth posting these links.

In reply to ManSiarad, post #536

Thanks for that M S.

As a layman, 3 discrete pieces of drill pipe being found inside the BOP seems to suggest that the BOP's shear rams DID actually work and successfully sheared the drillpipe. I wonder whether the force of the blowout might have caused the drillpipe pieces to wedge in such a fashion that the BOP couldn't shut in the well effectively?

Maybe the key to the whole disaster is that there was a very small probability that this could happen - and BP/Transocean were extremely unlucky that it did? Very much as per initial thoughts on the disaster.

I hope that someone that knows what they're talking about can comment on my thoughts.

Cheers,

Mark

Hi mark

I definitely do not qualify as someone who knows what they are talking about, but I'll still chip in my two pennorth

Could there have been an explosion that occurred without the BOP being triggered. such an explosion might propel the drill pipe back up into the BOP where it might perhaps deform under the shock/pressure and then snap. The lower section would then keep coming up parallel to the first section - which is what is described above. A smaller fragment would surely be more likely to be rotated across the direction of the tube rather than remain aligned with it.

If this surmise is correct it does not follow that the BOP was triggered.

In reply to marben100, post #537

Admiral Allen comments today....

To tell you what we found there, there are basically three sections of pipe. There was a section of pipe that is suspended in the middle on the center line that we believe goes down below the blowout preventer into the well some distance. There is a shorter piece of pipe that is sitting beside that pipe in the blowout preventer that was broken or cut about the length of the blowout preventer itself. And then there's a very small piece of pipe laying crosswise.

We believe these pipes are where they're at as a result of the diamond wire cut that we attempted on the riser pipe and then the final shear cut that we did. And we know which cuts were where, because one pipe has a very clean cut, indicating that – that was cut by the diamond wire saw. And the other one is compressed and cut, which would indicate that was cut by the shears that we used.

So we have a good idea of where the pipes are at and where they're located. We're now conducting diagnostics inside the BOP and the capping stack to ascertain the best way to remove the pipes.

Mark/Tournesol  I am of the opinion that the forensics of the BOP, when it is recovered to the surface could show a piece of equipment that actually functioned (many brave attempts in inquiry will be made to try and sink that statement though). It failed in its designed role due to a catastrophic unloading (or explosion if you like) of the well due to human error in establishing downhole and industry recognised and tested barriers. Pipe or even casing could have been moving past the shear rams at the time of this unloading. I will be surprised to hear of a BOP that is expected to shear pipe under those circumstances. 

In reply to ManSiarad, post #536

A piece of pipe 1000 yards long ? Blimey... [ManSiarad]

It's only 1000 yards long if you believe the pipe to drill a 25 000 ft well is over 8 000 yards long.

In other words, it's made up of lots of 30 ft sections screwed together...

3 discrete pieces of drill pipe being found inside the BOP seems to suggest that the BOP's shear rams DID actually work and successfully sheared the drillpipe. [Marben]

I'm afraid it doesn't: if the shear rams had worked, there'd be nothing left hanging in the BOP.

Could there have been an explosion that occurred without the BOP being triggered. such an explosion might propel the drill pipe back up into the BOP... [tournesol]

The explosion would have taken place at surface following the blowout, not downhole. The trigger for that explosion, if it can be determined, is still one of the most critical pieces of information needed to understand this event IMV

where it might perhaps deform under the shock/pressure and then snap

Pipe being driven up through the BOP would just keep going, unless any of the rams were closed or partially closed. Don't forget that at this stage the pipe would have been running from the derrick, down the riser, through the BOPs and down in to the hole.

SW10

Welcome back SW10, Where have you been? :-D

Have'nt seen you post in a while, thanks for the above. Useful.

In reply to ignatius, post #516

the failure of the well control operations combined with the failure of the BOP is what caused the whole event. If these two things don't work as intended then the destruction of the rig is all but assured. [ignatius]

Sorry I'm coming a bit late to this.

Actually the destruction of the rig is not assured until you have a spark. And then an explosion.

You can have any amount of gas-cut sludge pissing out of the well without exploding as long as the rig does what it is supposed to do, which is to render itself inert by shutting off all circuits which aren't intrinsically safe. And that should happen at first sniff of gas at surface resulting in yellow flashing lights, loud sirens, semi-darkness and the depressing sight of all your systems suffering a plug-pull.

And if your rig is still there, then so is your riser and so is your BOP. All of which gives you a platform from which you can deal with the problem. It could have been over in under a week. They need to find out what ignited the damned thing and I'd say it's odds-on that Transocean kit - or possibly that of another service provider - caused it.

But you can read about that at the beginning of the thread...

Here's a video of a gas blowout on a Petrobras rig. Notice that all the lights are out, save a few intrinsically-safe installations. Notice also the incisive comment from akkwilly: "if thats really gas u couldn t pay me enough to be up on that floor, tiniest spark and it s all over no time to run." Notice finally that the person making the video is almost certainly doing so with an unauthorized and unsafe video camera, risking being the source of such a spark...

SW10

I still keep thinking they should never had got into that position. All the training, the drills and the technology should have been enough to tell them the well was not behaving. And I know they will still try to share out the blame but the guys responsible for interpretation of the inflow test were the BP Drilling Supervisor and the BP Drilling Engineers in town. They were the ones qualified, they were in charge of well operations, and that's what they were getting the big bucks for.

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0YGr_zK9Fow

In reply to Whipstock, post #543

So you don't think Transocean's poor safety record and lack of rig maintenance is an issue?

In reply to Fangorn, post #544

Of course it is an issue.

It is just not the issue that caused the well to blow out.