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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChanceIs who wrote (135261)	6/16/2010 11:00:16 PM
From: Fiscally Conservative	Respond to of 206212

Ok then,lets us gander toward the light. This is a hell of a well. In one sense it is a huge gusher and on the other hand it is a wild untamed Stallion. Forget about capping it. Think about screwing into it and sucking the daylights out of it!

To: ChanceIs who wrote (135261)	6/16/2010 11:03:50 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 206212

Sounds to me like Suttles is being very prudent regarding capping the well. His reasoning on lack of hi def video availability seems a bit dodgy...

To: ChanceIs who wrote (135261)	6/17/2010 12:23:25 AM
From: Aggie	4 Recommendations Respond to of 206212

Hi Chancels, "As I previously noted, oil industry expert Rob Cavner said that BP must "keep the well flowing to minimize oil and gas going out into the formation on the side":" Yes, this is why I was quite curious when Simmons started making his first wild pronouncements about the well broaching. It's a significant risk to controlling the well. There is a suggestion from the evidence that flow could be taking place up the production casing annulus (I think this is the case) - but with so many liner strings, there could be a loss of integrity anywhere. It's unlikely that the flow could find its way all the way up the outside of the various casing strings. But this well has had mud losses just before penetrating the reservoir, and this zone of weakness would probably be the first to take new losses. All of these speak to the importance of killing from the bottom up, via the relief wells. Any mud that begins to work its way upward from the source of flow is also exerting its hydrostatic pressure downward, back to the reservoir. The higher the column, the less the well is inclined to flow. This will have a great effect on any potential weak zones that may have been taking a portion of the well's flow. It is also the best way to prevent making things worse. The top kill, on the other hand, was one of the best ways to make things worse - it's good that they stopped it so soon after commencing. I've worked in areas that are plagued with long term underground blowouts, some of them still going after a dozen years. It's not a legacy I would want my name attached to. I flew over the GOM a few days ago on my way to HouTex. No difficulty spotting the oil. There were long lines of it stretching into the distance every so often, and the occasional floating puddle. Lots of support craft out there, mopping up. A very sad sight to see. Regards to all Aggie

To: ChanceIs who wrote (135261)	6/17/2010 7:40:28 AM
From: carranza2	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206212

On balance, I now believe we do have casing failure and at least one more source of oil escaping from the formation. What this means at this point is really unknowable, but it isn't good. Cavnar's description of the abrupt ending of the top kill procedure seals it for me. It may be like looking for a needle in a haystack, but some effort now has to go into determining the location of the additional sources of escaping oil so that steps can be taken to determine whether they can be contained. I think the information is being managed, with dribbles of it being made public. The Administration and BP should remember basic principles of crisis manaagement: tell the whole truth and tell it right away. No one will believe or support you if you prevaricate.