Sharing the Blame

The author of the article has no credibility and doesn't gives no references to the study. once I read this paragraph I stopped reading

quote:

---

There was ample warning that the blow out preventors presented a potential hazard for failure in any underwater environment but the fact that they were going to be used for the first time in water 5000 feet deep raised no concerns at the Obama Administrations's MMS.

---

So according to this guy a subsea blowout preventer has never been used in 5,000 feet of water which is completely false. Drilling with BOP's in 5,000 foot or greater has been happening for a long time before Bush 2 was president.

Please link to ANY study that the MMS funded to look at the subject BOP associated with the DWH.

I'll hang around and wait for this one.

Again - what violations did MMS know about?

LINK

Federal tiger do u and tiger Fred work for MMS? These articles seemed to have struck a nerve with u guys. Usually when someone is this defensive on an issue there is an underlying fear that has caused the reactivity!
I was not calling u guys out just referencing some articles for deeper thought on this issue. Sorry if I offended u or the MMS or your boss.

from the Christian Science Monitor article:

quote:

---

deepwater pressure

---

the study sites data from 2006. since then, as the majority of deepwater drilling has progressed into the 7000' water depths of the associated w/ the lower tertiary trends, there has been an increased awareness within the industry of the issues of external pressure. the horizon itself just came from a well is ~7000' of water. furthermore, at no point during the sequence of events we're discussing am i aware of a collapse load being exerted on the BOP stack; however, i guess it is possible if massive lost returns were experienced -- however, in order to get to that point the riser likely would have collapsed first.

quote:

---

test ram vulnerability

---

to explain, test rams are a set of pipe rams that are flipped upside down. rams are designed to hold pressure from one direction and are installed such that they will hold pressure from below. if possible, a set of test rams can be installed such that they will hold pressure from above, and provide a base against which to test your other rams. it is a practice that when used is well understood by all involved in the drilling of the well, and can save significant time associated w/ the 14 day cycle of BOP testing.

with a set of test rams occupying the lowest space on the BOP stack, the Horizon's stack still would have consisted of 2 more pipe rams, a set of cameron super shear rams, a set of blind shear rams, and 2 annular preventers. the annulars were rated to 10k psi, the rams rated to 15k psi. a single set of pipe rams, the blind shear rams, or either annular should have been sufficient to shut the well in prior to the blowout.

quote:

---

no safety alert

---

this section portion of the article related to annular preventer failures and an unnamed "large drill pipe". i can't comment specifically, as there's really no technical detail in the article.

however, i'll say that 6 5/8" drill pipe is the workhorse of drilling deep wells regardless of whether they are in the deepwater GOM or on land; and i am unaware of problems specific to this size.

furthermore, the horizon's stack had 2 annular preventers.

quote:

---

failure to cut pipe

---

the article sites a 2004 study. since then numerous shear tests have been conducted by numerous operators with the various BOP stack manufactures. also, there have been numerous emergency disconnect sequences executed where pipe had to be sheared during operations that were effected by whether etc (a number of them in the north sea / north atlantic where gales push rigs off location more frequently than in the GOM).

in any event, the article makes it sound like no shear testing is really ever done, and that's simply not the case. if anyting, the bigger concern on shearability is casing, not drill pipe - although the exotic landing strings are the subject of new testing currently on going.