Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (80049)	5/13/2010 11:22:40 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

An Abu Dhabi hotel has installed an ATM-style gold dispenser to give customers easy access to the precious metal. It comes as gold prices have reached record highs in recent days. The BBC

To: koan who wrote (80049)	5/13/2010 5:18:08 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

The Ixtoc One blowout was in shallow water, and it took them nine months to control the well--with relief wells: npr.org

To: koan who wrote (80049)	5/13/2010 5:37:53 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Here are some interesting comments posted on The Oil Drum website today: theoildrum.com by PapaWhiskey on May 13, 2010 - 1:59pm All this focus on the BOP's is wrong. The BOP should not be part of any well control plan. Never will it be explicitly or implicitly said "... and if something goes wrong we can close the BOP." The BOP is like the seat belts in a car. If your retainer locks up then you know you made a mistake ... driving too fast, following too close, not looking far enough ahead, whatever. You, the driver, made a mistake. If they got to the position of needing the BOP's (and they obviously did) then there were mistakes made. Serious mistakes. Of course the BOP should work and of course we should investigate and regulate as required. But the bigger issue is why did they need to close the BOP? What did those negative tests look like? Why were they misinterpreted? Or ignored, or whatever ... ? __________ by PapaWhiskey on May 13, 2010 - 2:52pm Sorry ... I think we're missing my point. I did not say the BOP was not required. I specifically said "Of course the BOP should work and of course we should investigate and regulate as required." My point was to comment on our "investigation" on this thread. In a worst case scenario they could stop all deepwater drilling. Proving that we can drill safely will not be based on a bigger, fancier BOP. It'll be based on proving that our procedures and processes are sound enough in their own right without needing the BOP And then, of course, we'll have a functional, tested, approved, certified and redundant BOP. Just in case. ____________ by Interested_public on May 13, 2010 - 3:57pm I think its difficult to know at this point what the nature of the failure in the well was. Hopefully that will be made clear and an evaluation of the drilling and lining techniques that were used will be possible. Since blowouts of this type are uncommon, and some things are known about the procedures that were followed a reasonable speculation can be made that at least a portion of the blame will be assigned to poor decision-making (e.g. failure to let the cement set long enough or other things of this nature) rather than inherent risk in trying to develop a field that is beyond the capability of current technology to handle. It also seems clear to me the the BOP that was used was neither state of the art nor properly maintained. This is correctable. It is also probable, in my opinion, that it is possible to develop better contingency plans and deploy better technology for deep water drilling (such as modifications to equipment and submersibles that will allow easier and more effective repairs). I foresee that oil that is within the reach of current technology will be developed unless the world economy crashes in some spectacular fashion - our current economic and social systems are wedded to oil, and a divorce is not possible without accepting radical changes that societies will not voluntarily accept absent the imperative of absolute and unavoidable necessity. ________________ by RedDan on May 13, 2010 - 4:37pm It appears to me that they cemented after displacing the drill mud with seawater. After cementing, they conducted the negative pressure test, and it failed... So, my questions: 1) In a well that had demonstrated extremely "bad behavior" why in the hell would you displace drilling mud to cement. Yes, the cement job will take a bit longer and be more complicated, but for god's sakes.... 2) After failing (miserably, it appears) the negative pressure test, they elected to continue with the capping operation??? WTF?? 3) In a reservoir known to have high pressures and gas, why elect to use the foamy nitrogen cement at all? First, when gas expands it cools rapidly (hence refrigerators), and cement needs heat to cure. Second, gas itself can chemically and physically disrupt the cement curing and stabilization process (bubbles are bad!) By way of intro to me: Geologist, worked on a riser drilling rig doing scientific drilling, LWD, casing and so forth. Not directly involved as technician or op, but responsible for communicating science needs to drillers and cementers and loggers, and communicating drill/ops requirements and etc to scientists.