Started By
Message
locked post

Great Move: Rapid Response System

Posted on 7/22/10 at 10:26 am
Posted by Douboy
Louisiana
Member since Nov 2007
4332 posts
Posted on 7/22/10 at 10:26 am
Oil Majors Develop Rapid Response System

While not in agreement with the moratorium, I think these are the kind of results from industry that the administration was hoping to get. These kind of initiatives also show that the industry is taking this accident (and sanctions) very seriously.

I also think it is awesome news for the Gulf to see this kind of commitment being made. I think that is a sign that these companies see a future in the GOM, despite how badly the administration has reacted to the BP spill in regards to shutting down the entire industry.

Discuss your thoughts.
Posted by MountainTiger
The foot of Mt. Belzoni
Member since Dec 2008
14663 posts
Posted on 7/22/10 at 10:34 am to
I agree with you. It's a shame that it has to take a disaster to make people see the danger but that's always the way it is. Good move by the industry and hopefully it will get the moratorium lifted sooner.
Posted by ottothewise
Member since Sep 2008
32094 posts
Posted on 7/22/10 at 11:24 am to
quote:

I agree with you. It's a shame that it has to take a disaster to make people see the danger but that's always the way it is. Good move by the industry and hopefully it will get the moratorium lifted sooner.




some items remain.

guilty plea for 11 counts of involuntary manslaughter
on the basis of evidence & confession.

BP stop opposing requirement for relief wells.
BP is STILL opposing Canada attempting to require relief wells, FROM NOW ON.


Posted by oilfieldtiger
Pittsburgh, PA
Member since Dec 2003
2904 posts
Posted on 7/22/10 at 12:01 pm to
quote:

BP stop opposing requirement for relief wells.
BP is STILL opposing Canada attempting to require relief wells, FROM NOW ON.

drilling a relief well simultaneously w/ the subject well essentially doubles your risk of having a severe incident while mitigating essentially nothing. it's been detailed numerous times on this board, specifically in response to your posts.

also, there is one specific part offshore in the canadian arctic where a second rig is required -- not an entire relief well -- because the area is so remote and it would be impossible to respond appropriately if the second rig wasn't in the area. there are wells drilling in the atlantic right now offshore canada and there is no simultaneous relief operations ongoing, only demonstrating to the canadian gov't that a rig is available in the basin to begin relief operations should it be necessary.

furthermore, there is no "opposition" to relief wells that can be mounted in the GOM. the department of the interior, through their notice to lessees #6 outlined what is expected of operators applying for new development plans in the gulf of mexico -- specifically outlining relief well plans, worst case blowout calculations, and anticipated relief well times. there's no way to "oppose" this, it is the way it is from now on.

This post was edited on 7/22/10 at 12:02 pm
Posted by SD 71
DeWitt County, Texas
Member since May 2010
56 posts
Posted on 7/22/10 at 12:14 pm to
Good reply tiger. Ottothewise needs to wise up and not keep SPEWING the same old drivel.

Posted by Douboy
Louisiana
Member since Nov 2007
4332 posts
Posted on 7/22/10 at 12:47 pm to
quote:

oilfieldtiger


What are your thoughts on the original subject in this topic? I'd love to hear what you think.
Posted by oilfieldtiger
Pittsburgh, PA
Member since Dec 2003
2904 posts
Posted on 7/22/10 at 1:33 pm to
there is a history of joint industry spill response type stuff. this is just expanding it to a much greater scale, and in doing so greatly expands the costs needed to acquire the equipment and maintain the appropriate level of readiness. it's definitely a serious cost committment.

and when you start talking about the technologies involved in these kinds of subsea interventions, you really need a lot of horsepower to make it a reality.
This post was edited on 7/22/10 at 1:53 pm
Posted by lsugradman
Member since Sep 2003
8545 posts
Posted on 7/22/10 at 3:19 pm to
quote:

furthermore, there is no "opposition" to relief wells that can be mounted in the GOM. the department of the interior, through their notice to lessees #6 outlined what is expected of operators applying for new development plans in the gulf of mexico -- specifically outlining relief well plans, worst case blowout calculations, and anticipated relief well times. there's no way to "oppose" this, it is the way it is from now on.


Exactly. I have to start helping our drillers on relief well planning tommorrow. Its a fact of life now...nothing to oppose.
This post was edited on 7/22/10 at 3:21 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram