And BP says if they are required to attach the pipes to the well, they have to remove the cap to do so and it will take three days of free flow……

This sounds so ridiculous.

I am wondering why BP were not made to attach a cap that had a couple of side Tees, valves and elbows on it so that a riser could be easily attached and a a simple valve opened to flow oil?

No answers appeared that I saw but I didn’t have time to read the whole thread there on it.

However, one thing is clear, in no case will the well be reused, it will be abandoned as a total loss in all cases, because the well bore is too damaged to ever be used for production purposes. The reservoir will be reused, but not that well bore.

But it’s a real question why they’ve said for weeks now that they can’t put those pressures on the well-bore but now they can. Today’s theoildrum.com BP’s Deepwater Oil Spill – the 3-ram stack thread explains the process fairly well. Part 1 of the thread has links to some Kent Wells videos from BP showing the methods and technologies used, in the comment section.

I think the idea is to test the well for integrity, so they can shut it down in the case of a hurricane. Should know today if that works. Ie, they will add the device, attach the production pipes below the new rams, test them, close the rams, close the BOP valves used now, test pressures, if stable, ie, rising and not showing leaks, will then begin production from the new valves below the rams, basically just using the BOP as a pipe to the new device. I think that’s the idea anyway.

However, given that the only empirical example of a blowout on this well is this same well, it’s relatively easy to see that there’s a lot of trial and error going on, along with political damage control and liability controls, so I’d say some conflicting statements reflect that reality.

Re nuke stuff, as someone involved in the anti nuclear movement told me decades ago, ignore the babble, focus on present disposal of nuclear waste products. If disposal is complete and safe, then nuclear energy is not so bad. It’s definitely better than coal power, which is the dominant source of global electrical production, and, with petroleum based transport, CO2 production. Remember, nuclear waste is not just spent uranium rods, it’s basically everything that came into contact with the radioactive core, and the surrounding plant itself, which generally doesn’t last more than about 50 years.

The proper disposal of ALL waste products has never been reality as far as I know, anywhere on the planet, although recently Monbiot posted a newish method of disposal that apparently is viable, but VERY expensive. It has not I believe been used yet. It involves creating I think copper containment vessels, coated in some type of concrete, then embedding those further in some type of mineral compound, deep in some type of cavern or mine. Apparently that method, if used, does in fact seal the stuff for the multiple 10s of thousands of years required.

All methods that are not currently being used should be considered fantasies, especially fusion. AKA techno-utopianism, on an intellectually equal level to the belief that angels will come down from heaven to clean up all our pollution once God decides that enough is enough, it’s time to start caring for the environment and our ecosystem again. In other words, never.

By the way, the Norwegian government, which tends to be relatively more rational, ie, they don’t allow corporate lobbying to determine public policy as much as the US does, studied thorium as a possible source for nukes and found it to be a non viable option. Thorium is frequently referred to by nuke nuts as a real alternative, but must be considered as yet another fantasy method until proven viable on a large scale. And no, I don’t want to hear any nuke nuts responding here, sorry.

Nuke nuts are a class of techno-utopians that basically believe that all current power can be provided by nukes, and that no major alterations of a non-sustainable life-style need to be made in the present, or the future, except for switching to nuclear energy. Basically they watched too many Star Trek episodes. For a reference point, USA produces something like 3-5 million pounds of uranium yearly, but consumes around 50 million. And global production of that ore are hitting lower and lower quality ores to produce enough to supply greater and greater demand. This doesn’t even look at the problem of toxically radioactive tailings, another thing the nuke nuts tend to totally ignore, since anything is preferable than actually stopping the environmental destruction of our ecosystem. People who believe we can replace more than 90% of our current energy consumption using finite uranium supplies, with no actually existing alternatives, are basically occupying a simplistic faith based religious position, minus the actual essence of religion, which makes it even more absurd.

Conservation is the low hanging fruit, and any position that tries to get around that is a pipe dream, a fantasy, and delusional. Carter knew this in the 70s, as did pretty much everyone else who used reason to examine the question. Everything else is a stop gap measure, though some, very few, countries can have hopes of producing enough electricity to get by, Iceland with geo-thermal, Norway with Hydro. There’s not a lot of other countries on that list though, and that’s about 5 million people out of approaching 7 billion.

Once you ignore corporate / industrial society generated lies about global warming and return to reality, the fact is that global warming was understood and observed (observed, mind you, not predicted) by a Swedish researcher about 100 years ago. Industrial coal production/consumption had already been underway by that time for over 100 years in Europe. The affects of CO2 were also understood that long ago. The only reason there’s been any pretense that this is not the case is because of the massive dependence on hydrocarbon based energy of our industrial society. IE, people refuse to think outside the box that contains them, no matter how much evidence reason presents us. In essence, life without raw material exploitation and non sustainable consumption methods is genuinely unthinkable if we assume our current way of life is viable. That’s growth based economic systems, populations, etc.

I’ll take a look at that book, but the notion that radioactive uranium use causes global warming strikes me as odd to say the least, though I assume there are more valid points in such a book, it’s certain that industry has really squelched a lot of issues with using radioactivity in this way re safety and fundamental principles.

On uranium, I recommend every one to read the book: Atomic Suicide by Walter Russel

What radioactivity is?
How it kills?
What to do about it?
What everyone should know about radioactivity?

The problems with nuclear fuel are many times bigger and insidious than the BP disaster. Order the book and read it to find out what modern science has misunderstood about how the use of uranium will kill the planet. According to Russel it is the cause of global warming. He predicted global warming 50 years before it happened and warned the scientists, but no one listened.

Available at www. philosophy.org

Back to the real reason that I am posting here now is to ask the people who may have some knowledge or understanding of why BP appears to be installing a Christmas tree or some version of a BOP, on the well head and why they then want to try and close the valves on the well? Since according to earlier discussions that no one is sure of the condition of the cementings and casings.

To me this sounds ridiculous to attempt to try and put such pressure on the well or and formation.

At least this is what the media reported today.

Are they going to try and save the well and make it a producer?

Not all drillers are arrogant in this way, ROCKMAN who has been posting in theoildrum.com a lot for example does not allow any shortcuts or cowboy methods to be used on the rigs he is responsible for. So it’s more of an IQ/greed test, some pass and some fail.

In Norwegian drilling for example, such practices are simply not tolerated, since they are basically stupid business practices, as well as potentially toxic and lethal to both human life and the environment.

As for the example I set, unfortunately I’m not very consistent at setting such tones, that comes and goes, but my background should, allegedly, make it more consistent than it actually is, sad to say. But thanks for the kind words anyway.

There’s a few things worth keeping in mind that unfortunately we moderns aren’t keeping in mind: Heraclites noted that there is intelligence only in what surrounds humans, not in them. I’m not totally clear on the actual meaning of the Greek term that is translated by ‘intelligence’, but I’m fairly certain it’s something more wide ranging than our word.

Second is Lao Tzu’s observation that humans are unable to use knowledge non-destructively, for the same reason as noted above, what we think we know is never adequate to the actual world and reality that surrounds us. BP is simply a microcosmic example of this problem. But by no means should it be considered as unique, sad to say.

The entire notion of drilling oil to create and maintain a massively unsustainable system and population and consumption pattern is one of the strongest proofs I’ve ever seen regarding the above two observations. Same for coal and uranium.

So in general, while this tiny example found in the BP blowout is fascinating on a technical and environmental level, it’s really just a reminder that what we are trying to do, with increasing desperation as we grasp at increasingly volatile energy sources, is simply not a viable forward path.

Personally I rank these personal first hand reports of something someone said who was directly involved with the companies involved in the region involved far higher than blanket condemnations from someone who never declares actually why we should pay attention to them.

While this isn’t of course a first hand report, I do consider a firsthand report coming from a friend then rereported as essentially firsthand, such as your example, since this is not a court of law, more just an attempt to actually figure out what really happened. Courts of law, of course, are merely there to assign legal responsibility, within a legal structure, and as such often have little to nothing to do with reality or truth.

However, thanks for your feedback, it’s part of a puzzle that is certainly interesting to watch develop, and fits with what a few other posters who also directly knew people involved had said. Then reread the thread here and ask yourself just why some people are able to state so categorically that certain statements are false, without even having been there or having worked for the companies in question. I call it spin control, increasingly common on the internet, ie., people get paid to do it, or have actually internalized the corporate cultures so much that they do it for free.

So there you have it I heard about this weeks ago, a few days after the event, all the way over here in scotland and told as fact from a very good friend who works in the oil business – stories match a 100% so as far as I’m concerned I take it as fact (did anyways).

Also worth noting, that as far as I’m aware schlumberger have loads of data about the hours leading up to the event from their logs – ie they have most of the facts.

best!

You have a very good ability to identify and sort out fact from loose thinking and loose talk.

You have a well above average quality of mind. Your expression in words is accurate.

You would be refreshing to sit down and have an intelligent talk with.

This is so in direct contrast to all the stupid talk that goes on on every subject of every day by 99.99999% of the people.

I hope people learn what intellectual integrity means when they read your words.

You set a good example.

The lack of intellectual integrity is the major problem in the world today.

Integrity: The condition or quality of being unimpaired or sound.

This reminds me of the words I read many years ago:

In vain we build a world if at first we don’t build the man with a noble character.

I could not resist posting this. And I do not apologize for being off topic.

As the lack of integrity is at the root cause of the gulf mess. And the lack of integrity is hindering the stopping the leak and cleaning up the mess. This goes for almost every other problem in the world also.

shelburn on June 20, 2010 – 7:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

I agree it is quite possible that there is a leak into another “rock” formation (an underground blowout) but to be in a rock formation it must be well below the mud layer, which I believe extends well below 1,000 feet.

I still am confident that no oil is leaking out of the mud near the wellhead as it would be obvious on the ROV videos.

I have also seen some of the videos many are claiming are oil leaks from the bottom. I have spend over 20 years reviewing ROV videos and I have seen nothing here that looks like an oil leak. Most is turbidity kicked up by the ROV’s thrusters and a few show what appears to be small threads of mud as if a drill pipe (from the sinking rig) or something below the surface had been disturbed. Oil and gas will move upwards through the water column with much higher velocity than the mud shown in these videos; as an example see the oil coming out from under the cap.
…

And that’s the leak / fissure rumor. Matt Simmons is not helping matters by his constant bizarre announcements that things that aren’t physically possible are happening. Same for the mysterious ‘plume’ of solid oil Simmons keeps talking about, which direct references to the research ship’s data he refers to fails to disclose. Ie, they are talking about faint cloud like structures of tiny oil particles, which come and go, like literal underwater clouds. What has gone wrong in Simmons’ mind is something I think a lot of people right about now would like to know. No interviewer has had the knowledge or intelligence to push him when he repeats these false assertions, but it needs to happen.

This situation is bad enough as it is, without people making stuff up. Really, it is bad enough. High estimates for daily spill rates are 60k barrels, low, 35, of which as of today, they are capturing 21k. I mean, this is a really really bad situation.

One guy, who I should have noted and referenced, said that while he can’t tell details, due to NDA at his work, they are using some type of newer complex technology methods that makes intercepting the well bore with the relief wells very likely on the first basic attempt. Something about the way he said it made me believe him, primarily because it sounds like he works for the firm that makes it.

Re the link you posted, pointing out that the Mainstream Media is missing or misrepresenting things is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. Making any further conclusions about anything real from what the MSM does or doesn’t say is fairly pointless, from Fox to MSNBC, their business is selling ads, that’s what they do, it’s why they exist. Well, ok, Fox also is there to promote a right-wing pro-corporate spin agenda, but that also happens to dovetail nicely with selling ads. No ad sales, no tv news, no newspapers. That’s why I prefer business or specialist media / web sources, properly filtered to get rid of the worst and sloppiest. Bloomberg.com has been surprisingly good, by the way.

Listen to it here:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/872.html