- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BP Reveals 'Fundamental Mistake' on Oil Well
Posted on 5/26/10 at 8:52 am to BROffshoreTigerFan
Posted on 5/26/10 at 8:52 am to BROffshoreTigerFan
quote:
You'd think that a Transocean pusher or OIM (offshore installation manager - different terminalogy for the same position) would have stepped up and used a Stop Work Authority.
i work for a drilling company that allows anyone, and i mean anyone, to stop a job if they think something is unsafe.
no "authority" necessary.
1
Posted on 5/26/10 at 8:53 am to oilfieldtiger
quote:
i for one wish more details from the memo would have been made public.
Only a couple of pages, but there is more detail:
Congressional Memo
Posted on 5/26/10 at 8:54 am to tiger91
quote:
Oilfield and BROffshore ... man, ya'll are a wealth of info
Oilfield is the man. He's got the formal education and onhand training. He's sitting in a position that I'm working towards, eventually. He's helped me understand some of the more technical sides that I didn't have experience with.
You can book it that if you have a question, he'll eventually get around to it.
I like that you're asking questions, and not afraid to say you don't know what's going on other than an explosion and oil spilling.
Posted on 5/26/10 at 8:56 am to tigerdup07
quote:
no "authority" necessary
Exactly. You don't have to be in a supervisory position to make that call.
You're a driller, aren't you tigerdup07?
Posted on 5/26/10 at 8:59 am to BROffshoreTigerFan
let's just say a did my share of holes in the gulf.
This post was edited on 5/26/10 at 9:01 am
Posted on 5/26/10 at 9:01 am to tigerdup07
quote:
let's just say a did my share of holes in the gulf
Posted on 5/26/10 at 9:09 am to Indiana Tiger
quote:
Congressional Memo
that reads like a bad dream.
Posted on 5/26/10 at 9:12 am to BROffshoreTigerFan
quote:which is ????
He's got the formal education and onhand training
And you BROffshore ... what's your position? Don't answer if you don't want to.
I did hear a SHELL former CEO I think on TV last night asking what HE would have done differently...don't remember what channel it was on (I flip between FOX and CNN just for kicks).
His answer was that he'd have had super tankers a LONG time ago out in the gulf ready to suck up the oil/water, then separate it and send the water back into the Gulf. I remember thinking then WHY in the hell didn't someone else either think of that or WHY didn't HE say that??? He said that all of the major oil companies are helping in any way that they can as they're all affected by this.
Posted on 5/26/10 at 9:15 am to tiger91
quote:
This is a BP cultural issue. Yes there is a lot of talk about safety being #1, but that is belied by safety coming in #2 to practical expediency too often. Whoever made the decision knows that the well is late; there's been a lot of pressure to get it done and that there is a big contingent of high level executives who are either there or will be soon. That person knows that bad news isn't good for him, or at the very least he certainly thinks that. He (it could be a group decision) ignores the first test and accepts the second, but how do you know which is right? Could even be both. Hope takes over at that point, but at no point did these people think that this would happen. The culture created the environment where these risks were created and accepted.
Not long after the rig exploded i heard someone who worked for a company that was overtaken by BP say something very similar
Posted on 5/26/10 at 9:29 am to tiger91
quote:
which is ????
He's an engineer for the company that I contract for. I'm not sure if he's mechanical or petroleum.
My position is unclassified.
I held various positions offshore over the 10 years I've been in the field. About a year ago, I took a contract position on land working for the cased hole division of an oil company. Cased hole meaning the well has already been drilled and casing has been set, and the rig was either put on production or plugged until they start producing it.
I work in well planning, but not the engineering side. The majority of my job is computer programs, and assuring that our reporting to MMS is in complaince. Some weeks, I'll have a different "job" every day. It just depends on where I'm needed.
I'm trying to get started with school this summer (finances might push this back a semester) and I'm going for a degree in mechanical engineering, hoping to stay in drilling and completions work after graduation. The company I contract for is very support in this move, and is willing to work with me on scheduling so I can keep working here while getting my education.
I saw the Shell CEO interview also. I don't want to say this is the reasoning, but I believe it has something to do with the cost of using a supertanker system like that. BP didn't really give a reason as to why they aren't considering this though, so there's no telling what the reason is.
Posted on 5/26/10 at 9:41 am to tiger91
quote:Thats rich. Since Shell were certainly producing int the GOM under his watch, why doesn't Shell have one of these mythical tankers at hand?
I did hear a SHELL former CEO I think on TV last night asking what HE would have done differently...
His answer was that he'd have had super tankers a LONG time ago out in the gulf ready to suck up the oil/water, then separate it and send the water back into the Gulf. I remember thinking then WHY in the hell didn't someone else either think of that or WHY didn't HE say that???
Posted on 5/26/10 at 9:47 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
why doesn't Shell have one of these mythical tankers at hand?
This method wasn't done in the gulf of mexico. It was done in the Arabian Gulf.
quote:
I remember thinking then WHY in the hell didn't someone else either think of that or WHY didn't HE say that???
From what I remember, he contacted a guy with BP that he worked with in the past, and pitched this idea to him. Supposedly the guy got rude with him, yelled at him for calling him directly and not going through the proper channels, and threatened him with a law suit.
He also went to the Coast Guard with the idea. They said it wasn't feasible, but gave no reason why.
Posted on 5/26/10 at 9:55 am to oilfieldtiger
quote:
oilfieldtiger
quote:
that reads like a bad dream.
Can you elaborate on what you read? I have withheld judgement on this since the accident happened, but this story is the first to really piss me off.
I can't speak to the technical nature of the drilling, but I know the buck stops at management. When I read that BP had supervision there, yet no action was taken when the "significant abnormality" was noticed...that falls on them.
Anything you read that cuts them some slack?
EDIT: Just read it...that sounds like a shite ton of problems, no?
This post was edited on 5/26/10 at 9:58 am
Posted on 5/26/10 at 10:00 am to BROffshoreTigerFan
quote:Again, that's why I think the guy's monday-morning quarterbacking. If it's such a great idea, why doesn't Shell have one in the GOM? They produce here too in similar water depths and envrionments to bp.
This method wasn't done in the gulf of mexico. It was done in the Arabian Gulf.
Posted on 5/26/10 at 10:07 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
why doesn't Shell have one in the GOM? They produce here too in similar water depths and envrionments to bp.
I'm not really sure. I think he was referencing using one specifically in clean up, not as a standby incase this happened, but I could be wrong about that assumption.
Is that what you're asking? Why shell doesn't have one as a stand by in case of a spill?
Posted on 5/26/10 at 10:16 am to BROffshoreTigerFan
quote:I saw the interview and do not remember ANY of this......
From what I remember, he contacted a guy with BP that he worked with in the past, and pitched this idea to him. Supposedly the guy got rude with him, yelled at him for calling him directly and not going through the proper channels, and threatened him with a law suit.
As for the supre tanker role, I can just offer a few potential reasons why it might have worked in the Arbian Gulf and not the GOM.
1) availability and OWNERSHIP of tankers. Aren't most tankers flying foreign flags? Can we legitimately rund up enough and if we did, what would the peole around the world not gettting their steady diet of crude think?
2) DISPERSANTS...Most of our oil is suspended in the water column (at least it is reportedly so)....this system was alledged to be a skimmer system.
3) We already doing this on a smaller scale (with smaller boats and skimmers)?
Posted on 5/26/10 at 10:20 am to BROffshoreTigerFan
quote:I know exactly why they don't have one. My point was that this guy shouldn't be on a high horse criticizing bp for not having something like this at the ready, when Shell doesn't have one either. If he was CEO he could have made that happen, but didn't. It's kinda douchy of him to be finger pointing after-the-fact. Which may be why the bp folks didn't want to talk to him...
Is that what you're asking? Why shell doesn't have one as a stand by in case of a spill?
Posted on 5/26/10 at 10:21 am to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
I saw the interview and do not remember ANY of this
I'm almost postive I read it. I'll look for a link since it was this morning.
ETA: It's in the thread about the former Shell CEO.
Linkage
This post was edited on 5/26/10 at 10:25 am
Posted on 5/26/10 at 10:35 am to MSMHater
the unexpected flow, the increasing drill pipe pressure, the gain to the system during the negative test, the building pressure during the negative test -- all not good.
Posted on 5/26/10 at 10:38 am to BROffshoreTigerFan
Wow! "SHUT UP OR I'LL SUE!!!" 
"Go through propper channels"
That's terrible (and unfortunatley, typical)
"Go through propper channels"
That's terrible (and unfortunatley, typical)
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News