Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

[mgb_phys]

Could the explosion have disrupted any signals sent,

No, an air explosion doesn't couple much power into water.
But that doesn't matter - the point of a comms link is that you can command a well head valve either on the sea bed or 1000ft down the well to close days later after the rig has gone by a signal sent from a support ship.

detritus blocking or diffracting the laser? The Ethernet cable would probably just snap in any situation this catastrophic.

The lasers tend to be point-point free space links when you need to send lots of data, like a video link or a seabed sonar array.
You generally avoid cables, they are insanely expensive in this sort of environment and easily damaged.
A simple 12way connector for an ROV bonded onto a cable costs us >$2000.

 

[Shalashaska]

No, an air explosion doesn't couple much power into water.
But that doesn't matter - the point of a comms link is that you can command a well head valve either on the sea bed or 1000ft down the well to close days later after the rig has gone by a signal sent from a support ship.


The lasers tend to be point-point free space links when you need to send lots of data, like a video link or a seabed sonar array.
You generally avoid cables, they are insanely expensive in this sort of environment and easily damaged.
A simple 12way connector for an ROV bonded onto a cable costs us >$2000.

Huh... so this pretty much had to be a mechanical failure of the valve's safety mechanism, due to the violence of the event, or an issue with the valve itself?

 

[mgb_phys]

Huh... so this pretty much had to be a mechanical failure of the valve's safety mechanism, due to the violence of the event, or an issue with the valve itself?

No - this rig didn't have such a safety valve because that would be a socialist/commie/Scandinavian style interference with efficient operation of the free market.

If a safety feature costs $1M and it has a 1:10000 chance of preventing an accident that costs $10Bn you don't fit it. Actually if there is a 1:100 chance of such an accident but you reckon your lawyers can get you out of it for $100M you don't fit it.

 

[Shalashaska]

No - this rig didn't have such a safety valve because that would be a socialist/commie/Scandinavian style interference with efficient operation of the free market.

If a safety feature costs $1M and it has a 1:10000 chance of preventing an accident that costs $10Bn you don't fit it. Actually if there is a 1:100 chance of such an accident but you reckon your lawyers can get you out of it for $100M you don't fit it.

Well... that's deeply upsetting, but not surprising in the end.

 

[Cyrus]

Well... that's deeply upsetting, but not surprising in the end.

Why is it deeply upsetting?

 

[turbo]

Bottom-anchored devices should be fitted with valves that are open only when powered. If connection is lost, power is lost, etc, those valves should fail shut. Shut! Like a feedwater valve on a boiler that is experiencing a catastrophic failure. The valves of the rapid-blowdown systems should fail open in the failure of a boiler system. Only the electronic/pneumatic control systems keep them open or closed until the control systems fail. If the valves don't fail to proper protective states, then the system has been improperly designed, and improperly regulated.

It is high time that basic process-control standards be applied to oil exploration systems that can ruin our basic industries.

 

[Cyrus]

It is high time that basic process-control standards be applied to oil exploration systems that can ruin our basic industries.

Do you know that no such controls are currently being used in oil exploration systems?

 

[Shalashaska]

Why is it deeply upsetting?

Why is it upsetting that a financial calculus replaces actual responsibility? See current disaster.

P.S. Really, this is starting to look more and more like negligence on Trans Ocean and BP's part. I don't know if you have some personal connection to this industry, but your reactions are no longer making sense in this context. By the way, the first sea-birds are starting to be poisoned, and we have 6000 national guard deployed.

Mgb Physics, they're going to pay through the nose for this, so not only was that choice irresponsible, but it's going to cost them a fortune for the many MANY lawsuits.

 

[turbo]

Do you know that no such controls are currently being used in oil exploration systems?

Well, apparently no such basic standards have been applied to exploration rigs, since the experimental bores could not/did not default to a safe condition, in which the valves failed to "closed".

 

[Cyrus]

Why is it upsetting that a financial calculus replaces actual responsibility? See current disaster.

If that's the case, you need to re-evaluate your position on this moral objection. It happens all the time in real world engineering. What you need to remember is that it may only cost $1M for a better valve, but that valve is just one of thousands upon thousands of components in a system that could "just" be upgraded "in case." And then you end up with a billion dollar oil rig that no one can afford to use.

TWA 800 crashed because of faulty wiring that caused a fuel tank explosion. The FAA deemed it too expensive and improbable that such an accident would happen again in the future to require all aircraft wiring to be replaced. The point being - it happens all the time.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, apparently no such basic standards have been applied to exploration rigs, since the experimental bores could not/did not default to a safe condition, in which the valves failed to "closed".

That does not mean there are no process-control standards on oil rigs.

 

[Shalashaska]

If that's the case, you need to re-evaluate your position on this moral objection. It happens all the time in real world engineering. What you need to remember is that it may only cost $1M for a better valve, but that valve is just one of thousands upon thousands of components in a system that could "just" be upgraded "in case." And then you end up with a billion dollar oil rig that no one can afford to use.

No, I don't think that I do. The blowout valve is not required here in the USA, but it is in most other countries. BP has a long track record of negligence, and to be blunt, your point? That's called the cost of doing business, whereas an environmental disaster on this scale is unacceptable. After that you argument is that oil should be subsidized regardless of its impact, because it's profitable and needed for energy. That's not a moral position, that's just taking the very VERY short view.

As for standards, apparently they didn't work, and as I've done some reading, it appears that Trans Ocean AND BP have been under investigation for years now for negligence, leaks, and more. What justification can you possibly offer for this behavior, and for the outcome that we're seeing unfold NOW?

 

[Shalashaska]

...
TWA 800 crashed because of faulty wiring that caused a fuel tank explosion. The FAA deemed it too expensive and improbable that such an accident would happen again in the future to require all aircraft wiring to be replaced. The point being - it happens all the time.

The impact of a plane crash versus a massive oil slick is comparing apples to sprockets. I don't know what you're on about here, but your defense of this has gone from reasonable, to equivocation and what seems to be a personal agenda. edit: by the way, onboard OXYGEN tanks exploded, not the fuel tanks.

P.S. Oh look, Gen. Russel Honore is advocating a reasonable approach: an agency like that which regulates nuclear energy. Cyrus, you're taking a lot of shots at anyone who disagrees with your hidden premise. How about sharing some sources for your views, instead of simply wielding doubt and moral equivocation as a bludgeon?

 

[Cyrus]

No, I don't think that I do. The blowout valve is not required here in the USA, but it is in most other countries.

So change the regulations.

BP has a long track record of negligence, and to be blunt, your point?

I'd be interested to know this track record you speak of (Not being sarcastic).

That's called the cost of doing business, whereas an environmental disaster on this scale is unacceptable.

No, it's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_risk_assessment"

After that you argument is that oil should be subsidized regardless of its impact, because it's profitable and needed for energy. That's not a moral position, that's just taking the very VERY short view.

I never said that.

As for standards, apparently they didn't work, and as I've done some reading, it appears that Trans Ocean AND BP have been under investigation for years now for negligence, leaks, and more. What justification can you possibly offer for this behavior, and for the outcome that we're seeing unfold NOW?

I'd like some sources and, if/when necessary, an independent investigation by experts to determine the cause of the problem and the role of BP.

 

[turbo]

That does not mean there are no process-control standards on oil rigs.

No, it only means that the standards are shams, and the current standards are inadequate to protect the publicly-owned resources surrounding the off-shore rigs.

 

[Cyrus]

The impact of a plane crash versus a massive oil slick is comparing apples to sprockets. I don't know what you're on about here, but your defense of this has gone from reasonable, to equivocation and what seems to be a personal agenda. edit: by the way, onboard OXYGEN tanks exploded, not the fuel tanks.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAR0003.htm

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the TWA flight 800 accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system.

Unless you have a link that specifies otherwise.

P.S. Oh look, Gen. Russel Honore is advocating a reasonable approach: an agency like that which regulates nuclear energy. Cyrus, you're taking a lot of shots at anyone who disagrees with your hidden premise. How about sharing some sources for your views, instead of simply wielding doubt and moral equivocation as a bludgeon?

No: it's quite simple. This is a physics forum. That means people here should know and understand the scientific method. The mantra is: shut up and calculate. Not sit around and speculate. I see people talking out of their butts left and right as to what did or didn't happen, what should or shouldn't be done. Discuss this issue using facts.

You can see the post directly above mine as a prime example of what I'm talking about.

 

[Cyrus]

No, it only means that the standards are shams, and the current standards are inadequate to protect the publicly-owned resources surrounding the off-shore rigs.

Cite for me specifically the standards you are referring to, please.

 

[Shalashaska]

So change the regulations.



I'd be interested to know this track record you speak of (Not being sarcastic).



No, it's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_risk_assessment"



I never said that.



I'd like some sources and, if/when necessary, an independent investigation by experts to determine the cause of the problem and the role of BP.

@Confused portion: allowing an unsafe practice to keep the price of exploration down = indirect subsidy.

For the rest, you want me to do a Google search for you, so that you can learn about BP's leaks in Alaska, and Trans Global's publicly available record? This isn't an issue of peer reviewed articles or the concept of risk assessment, which by the way, requires that the people involved care about or appreciate the risk. I don't see any evidence of the latter, and the track record indicates that the former may also be true.

If you want sources on something this easy, please, just do a search. Here are a few examples, so that you get a sense of how easy it is:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...il-cases-over-alaskan-oil-spills-1660020.html

http://gliving.com/bp-pleads-guilty-to-negligent-oil-spill/

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1632342820070217

example of harm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/EVOSWEB_013_oiled_bird3.jpg

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63T4HT20100430

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126373753 (npr, sourcing NOAA)

 

[Cyrus]

@Confused portion: allowing an unsafe practice to keep the price of exploration down = indirect subsidy. ...

I am under no obligation to do research on "factual" statements you present.

But: I do thank you for those links!

 

[Shalashaska]

I am under no obligation to do research on "factual" statements you present.

True, I will send you a PM regarding my view of this and other statements, because really, this is just disruptive to a thread.

P.S. You're right about TWA 800, I hadn't looked into that in a while, and it was the fuel-air mixture plus an arcing event. Oddly, this helps to support a notion that inerting systems should be employed, and my question to you is: what evidence do you have that the proper equipment in that case, and in the oil rig would make each venture prohibitively expensive? Please cite extensively. You've been making some explicit statements yourself (the 1 billion dollar rig) and more. I think it's time to support them with figures from independent sources (no Sierra Club, no Oil Industry).

 

[Cyrus]

True, I will send you a PM regarding my view of this and other statements, because really, this is just disruptive to a thread.

No, it's not. If you make a statement provide the facts to back it. Its part of the forum rules. This is very simple.

 

[Shalashaska]

No, it's not. If you make a statement provide the facts to back it. Its part of the forum rules. This is very simple.

I didn't mean posting facts would be disruptive, I meant that my post would be off-topic and personal, and my understanding is that such should be left out of threads. You're being quite condescending, but we're not supposed to take shots at each other or be combative. I'm trying to manage that, but you're making it somewhat difficult. Perhaps when you follow those rules and show the facts to back up your position that accidents happen "all the time", and the cost becoming prohibitive (especially for the valve in question) the situation will be different, but as of now it is lacking.

 

[Cyrus]

I didn't mean posting facts would be disruptive, I meant that my post would be off-topic and personal, and my understanding is that such should be left out of threads. You're being quite condescending, but we're not supposed to take shots at each other or be combative. I'm trying to manage that, but you're making it somewhat difficult. Perhaps when you follow those rules and show the facts to back up your position that accidents happen "all the time", and the cost becoming prohibitive (especially for the valve in question) is lacking.

Then you misunderstood the point of what I'm saying. Again, it is not enough to sit there and say "see, if only they had replaced that valve for a million more bucks. They were so cheap, and look what happened!" You have to look at the overall extent and complexity of all the critical components that "could" be upgraded. Then you have to selectively pick which are deemed to be the best allocation of money to "beef up" and which are not. For example if those pipe valves never had problems in rigs for 10+ years, it doesn't make sense to spend the money there. If (for example), on the other hand, the pipe lines are notorious for problems, then spending the money there is more justified. As I said earlier, such an analysis needs to be carried out by experts to determine the cause of this problem and how responsible BP is. Anything else is pure speculation - and nonsense.

 

[Shalashaska]

Then you misunderstood the point of what I'm saying. Again, it is not enough to sit there and say "see, if only they had replaced that valve for a million more bucks. They were so cheap, and look what happened!" You have to look at the overall extent and complexity of all the critical components that "could" be upgraded. Then you have to selectively pick which are deemed to be the best allocation of money to "beef up" and which are not. For example if those pipe valves never had problems in rigs for 10+ years, it doesn't make sense to spend the money there. If (for example), on the other hand, the pipe lines are notorious for problems, then spending the money there is more justified. As I said earlier[\b], such an analysis needs to be carried out by experts to determine the cause of this problem and how responsible BP is.

This is at best a partial response to the questions I've posed, and responses without citations.

 

[Cyrus]

This is at best a partial response to the questions I've posed, and responses without citations.

I think you're a nice guy and you care Shalashaka (Honestly, I do), but you need to think analytically.

 

[Shalashaska]

What a joke. I think you're a nice guy and you care Shalashaka (Honestly, I do), but you need to think analytically.

Well, I wanted to PM this to you, but your inbox is full, so here.

Daniel, you're too young to be so rigid in your thinking, and to be so dismissive, and disingenuous. Don't expect a response when you are unable or unwilling to provide the same evidence you demand from others. I don't care if you think I'm nice, or a complete bastard with his head in his back-passage. I only care that you provide evidence for the statements, both implicit and explicit that you have made over the last few pages. Barring that, I don't see how this can proceed.

I care about this event, and intellectual honesty (which is why, I didn't hesitate to admit how wrong I was regarding TWA 800), and the impact on biological systems with which I believe I am more familiar than you. I wouldn't tell you to put a canard on your model, so by the same token, you might want to consider that everyone who disagrees with your (experience in aerospace?) monolithic view of risk assessment is not simply being "'ishy-washy'. You can't provide accurate analysis of a situation that you perceive only as a matter of risk-reward in a financial sense.

P.S. Goodnight for now, I hope in the intervening hours events unfold in such a manner that some of this speculation becomes observed events.

 

[zomgwtf]

Weird, I always thought that Cyrus's real name was actually Cyrus. Says so on the bottom of his webpage... yes I creeped around your webpage before Cyrus... if that is your webpage. Hmph.

 

[rootX]

You can't provide accurate analysis of a situation that you perceive only as a matter of risk-reward in a financial sense.

I don't see why that would be wrong.

I would be interested in knowing if similar disasters occur at present frequency if we will be in danger at some point in the long run.

 

[Cyrus]

Weird, I always thought that Cyrus's real name was actually Cyrus. Says so on the bottom of his webpage... yes I creeped around your webpage before Cyrus... if that is your webpage. Hmph.

I thought so too!

 

[Cyrus]

Daniel, you're too young to be so rigid in your thinking, and to be so dismissive, and disingenuous. Don't expect a response when you are unable or unwilling to provide the same evidence you demand from others. I don't care if you think I'm nice, or a complete bastard with his head in his back-passage. I only care that you provide evidence for the statements, both implicit and explicit that you have made over the last few pages. Barring that, I don't see how this can proceed.

I don't know who Daniel is... (I tend to leave my PM box full because I generally don't like communicating though that medium, it's nothing personal).

I care about this event, and intellectual honesty (which is why, I didn't hesitate to admit how wrong I was regarding TWA 800), and the impact on biological systems with which I believe I am more familiar than you.

I never claimed any knowledge on the impact to biological systems. Please cite, specifically, where I did so in previous posts.

I wouldn't tell you to put a canard on your model, so by the same token, you might want to consider that everyone who disagrees with your (experience in aerospace?) monolithic view of risk assessment is not simply being "'ishy-washy'. You can't provide accurate analysis of a situation that you perceive only as a matter of risk-reward in a financial sense.

I never provided any analysis of anything. Again, where did I say this? I simply said, we need to wait for such an analysis before making idle speculation left and right. I honestly don't know how you missed that.

P.S. Goodnight for now, I hope in the intervening hours events unfold in such a manner that some of this speculation becomes observed events.

Agreed.

 

[Shalashaska]

I don't know who Daniel is... (I tend to leave my PM box full because I generally don't like communicating though that medium, it's nothing personal).

I never claimed any knowledge on the impact to biological systems. Please cite, specifically, where I did so in previous posts. I never provided any analysis of anything. Again, where did I say this? I simply said, we need to wait for such an analysis before making idle speculation left and right. I honestly don't know how you missed that. Agreed.

Your claim is implicit in the notion that you can assess this risk. If you can't, then really what you're saying about the money involved is meaningless as anything save an academic exercise. For the rest, incoming!

If that's the case, you need to re-evaluate your position on this moral objection. It happens all the time in real world engineering. What you need to remember is that it may only cost $1M for a better valve, but that valve is just one of thousands upon thousands of components in a system that could "just" be upgraded "in case." And then you end up with a billion dollar oil rig that no one can afford to use.

No one got the Daniel reference... what a pity. Daniel in the lion's den, oh well.

For the quote above, here would be the questions raised:

Thousands of components, couched in the notion of "upgrading" rather than a basic safety standard. Your conclusion is a rig that would be prohibitively expensive. Please cite.

You suggest I re-evaluate my moral position, which implies you have one here as well. Please share.

That does not mean there are no process-control standards on oil rigs.

What standards are there, that are relevant to this? What do you call a standard which is held in countries from Brazil to most of European nations. The standard of a blowout prevention valve was not employed, even though it is affordable to other nations who profit from oil exploration. In the absence of that, other measures would be meaningless under that kind of pressure (210,000 gallons per day from a well-head), and THAT is the "matter of time" issue. This is putting aside the possible causes for the explosion, which I am not going to speculate about.

Then you misunderstood the point of what I'm saying. Again, it is not enough to sit there and say "see, if only they had replaced that valve for a million more bucks. They were so cheap, and look what happened!" You have to look at the overall extent and complexity of all the critical components that "could" be upgraded. Then you have to selectively pick which are deemed to be the best allocation of money to "beef up" and which are not. For example if those pipe valves never had problems in rigs for 10+ years, it doesn't make sense to spend the money there. If (for example), on the other hand, the pipe lines are notorious for problems, then spending the money there is more justified. As I said earlier, such an analysis needs to be carried out by experts to determine the cause of this problem and how responsible BP is. Anything else is pure speculation - and nonsense.

A lot of ifs there, but still being used to make an argument that is fairly important. This statement combined with your quote about risk assessment raises the following question: Without understanding the environmental impact of past and future slicks, and with no definitive statements or evidence, how are you engaging in anything but speculation in a different direction? While we're at it, you said pages ago that it seems BP is at fault, but that evidence of gross negligence is absent. While I agree with the former, and the latter is a matter of record in USA courts (see a link I provided you re a settlement in Alaska), both were assumptions or guesses on your part, which you then proceed to decry and challenge if others make it without semantic uncertainty couching each phrase.

As for an implicit view,speculation as to the cause of the explosion is purely speculative, but the absence of a standard safety feature is not. Putting rhetoric aside, you present a dual view, that speculation should be minimized (very wise), and on the other hand you speculate about the affordability of some equipment albeit always in the hypothetical. It seems your agenda is based in your own industry, which is an understandable emotional reaction, but unwarranted. Aerospace is vilified for a number of fair and unfair reasons, but above all people are just afraid of something falling out of the sky on them. That, is a very unreasonable fear, given a reasonable assessment of risk, but it doesn't qualify you to assess the risk of a far more global event such as this. To reference such a notion, implies that you believe it applies to this situation and that you know how to do so. Risk assessment in ignorance isn't really an assessment, it's a kid skateboarding on a rail without a helmet.

 

[Astronuc]

Apparently BP dismissed the possibility of such an accident, and apparently they did not have contingency plans for such an accident, or perhaps they simply expected the government to step in with a major effort, which seems to be the case.

BP plan deemed major spill from Gulf well unlikely
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill

Meanwhile - Towns Scramble To Protect Gulf Coast From Oil Spill
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126419688

Initially, the government and British oil giant BP did not make the booms available because the site of landfall was a moving target — dependent on the tides, winds and weather. Officials said they waited until they had a better idea of where the spill was headed before they put all of the booms in place.

Then, there was a false start Thursday, when parish officials were notified that all boatmen would have to take a four-hour training course if they were going to help lay boom. The training session was taking place on Friday afternoon, as local officials waited to see how much of the oil-absorbing barrier they would be given.

Fromherz said parish officials asked for 75 miles of boom to put around the spawning grounds of the region's famous brown shrimp, crabs and oyster beds, but on Friday morning he didn't know how much they would get.

. . . .

I listened to one interview with a mayor of a coastal town. He pondered why BP didn't have a plan B, because obviously plan A failed.

 

[Shalashaska]

Oh hell, the winds have blown the sheen ahead of the main mass of oil and it's already hitting the Mississippi river delta wildlife reserve. NOAA is saying that the slick has already hit shrimp and oyster beds in the grass beds. This truly gets worse every day, and the surfactants they're using is a bit of a mixed bag given the regions effected.

I'm watching one Dr. Callaway estimate roughly 20 years for the grass beds that support shrimp and oysters alone to recover. Birds have already been effected, and as the winds shift this slick is predicted to "slide" along most of the gulf coast. BP apparatus mismanaged this risk, and they are going to be absolutely screwed in the MANY lawsuits already emerging.

 

[turbo]

Apparently BP dismissed the possibility of such an accident, and apparently they did not have contingency plans for such an accident, or perhaps they simply expected the government to step in with a major effort, which seems to be the case.

Our local paper carried a story this morning citing the failure of blowout preventers at a rate of over 50 a year, so such an accident is quite possible, and BP knew it. I'll see if I can find a link.

Here you go:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/30/461704/us-report-found-failure-of-offshore.html

 

[Ronnin]

And they just now got Galveston all nice and cleaned up after the hurricane. I guess i'll be skipping going down there for a while. BP will pay heavy, both financially and politically. Unfortunately, this will hurt so many companies that so many will go out of business before any suits are settled.