The American Spectator

Dan Hirsch| 5.11.10 @ 9:29AM

C'mon! How many people are out there are chanting for sloppy, casual, careless dirty drilling? "Drill, baby, drill!" is the bumper sticker, chant, rant, because "Drill as carefully, as cautiously, as environmentally responsibly, as financially responsibly as you can, baby!" is really hard to chant with ten thousand of your closest friends! Sheesh.

Okay, mebbe it should be:
"Drill, baby, drill!
Cheaply, cleanly, safely!
But drill, baby, drill!"

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 9:33AM

The irony is the conservative Gulf States will become socialists overnight, begging the govt to help them to the max.

Everyone loses except attorneys.

JmsA| 5.11.10 @ 3:39PM

Just like they helped the flood victims in Tennessee? You obviously don't know the folks from the south. Besides, the present regime promised BP would be held fully accountable, though I suspect it won't, given all of the campaign contributions made to the One and his cronies.

"Everyone loses except attorneys." I suppose you know what the political leaning of the majority of those is, right?

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 10:32PM

"Just like they helped the flood victims in Tennessee?"

Mother Nature is not a corporation, and floods do not create the environmental damage that oil spills do. Do you actually think a massive funds transfer will not result from this, which is bigger than Exxon Valdez '89?

" 'Everyone loses except attorneys.' I suppose you know what the political leaning of the majority of those is, right?"

More is the pity, JmsA!

Allan| 5.11.10 @ 8:22PM

Not happening Mr. Brooks.

The best thing the feds can do once BP cuts off the flow is walk away. The gulf and the marshes handle spills extremely efficiently (the gulf handles 22 million gallons of annual natural seepage with ease).

The more the government does, the more likely an ecological disaster - which is not happening now nor is it likely to if the feds keep their distance.

The feds decision to extinguish the rig fire is responsible for the slick out there now. Someone tell them to go away ... please.

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 10:36PM

The massive funds transfers will happen anyway, no matter what. Didn't anyone ever tell you that God is an attorney, and the Cosmos is a law office? Get with the program.

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 10:41PM

"The best thing the feds ..."

You neglected to mention state & local govts. They will be shelling out, as well. Again, don't you know how lawyered up things are today? There are hotels full of lawyers in the region right now.

That's not cynical, for once-- it is factual.

owyheewine| 5.11.10 @ 9:34AM

The congressional demogogues will beat up BP dor lack of safety measures, but the real failure as Mr Chesser intimates is a lack of planning. Drilling in extreme conditions, and drilling a well in water a mile deep is certainly extreme, requires a lot planning and some amazing engineering, but BP obviously did not have adequate emergency plans in place.
That said, Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. BP has probably drilled countless offshore wells with the procedures they were using. Hopefully they and other companies will examine the failure in the aftermath and develop additional contingency planning so that we can continue to develop these deep water resources.
Now we need a plan to put a rhetoric blow out preventer for the congressional magpies.

Dan Hirsch| 5.11.10 @ 10:45AM

"We" have been drilling in water depths over 7000' since 1993. It is not extreme; it's not easy and it does have risks, obviously.

What is continually adding demand for petroleum while pushing a "NIMBY" attitude.

People need reminding that omelets come from broken egg shells...

Gr0w1er| 5.11.10 @ 2:57PM

I can see all those 'animal lovers' fainting when I show them where a t-bone steak comes from. To all of them I ask, ''Do you want to be warm and fed, or cold and hungry...?''. Choice is yours.

Bruce Thompson| 5.11.10 @ 10:42AM

The Wall Street Journal is reporting http://online.wsj.com/article/.....11416.html that the Senate will hold hearings today on the Gulf oil spill. What questions ought to be answered?

Question 1

What is the inlet static pressure to the blowout preventer? Given the nominal size of the BOP is about 9 inches and the flow of oil through it is only 145 gallons per minute (210,000 gallons per day), either the pressure differential across the BOP is tiny or the BOP is nearly fully closed. Which is it?

Question 2

Given that the well was under control when it was full of drilling mud with a density of 14.3 pounds per cubic foot (specific gravity of 1.7) and is now unstable when full of light crude oil, would restoring the column of drilling mud restore control of the well? The oil is described as a light crude which implies it has a density of less than 870 kg/ cubic meter (specific gravity of 0.87). Every 100 feet of mud would increase the downhole hydrostatic pressure by over 35 pounds per square inch.

Question 3

Why aren't you pumping drilling mud back into the well?

Allan| 5.11.10 @ 8:33PM

What idiot came up with the questions?

Of course the BOP is partially closed but the leaks are from crimped risers, some a good distance from the BOP. The crimps offset some pressure.

In order to reintroduce mud you would have to shear the risers, dramatically increasing the leak. If you did that you would not introduce mud, you would drop another BOP on the sheared riser.

You can't pump mud effectively through an obstructed BOP.

The way to kill the well is a junk shot into the BOP and then you introduce heavy liquids and flash-setting cement through the appropriate wellhead oultets below the BOP that are designed for that.

Dan Hirsch| 5.11.10 @ 10:48AM

Bruce;

Nice calcs, but I beleieve the rig sank, there is no drill string sitting on top of the blow out preventer and the oil is discharging into the sea at about 5,000' depth, which might have a higher density than light crude...Not sure about the viscosity at the ambient temperatures down that deep...

Cabermon| 5.11.10 @ 12:40PM

Bruce: Great questions and calcs. 145 GPM is not that much.
Dan: Correct that the drill string is a pretzel now, but somehow BP has a method of jamming the "junk shot" material into the wellhead, so maybe the would get mud in there too. Just a thought.
I was worried when I noted that the "Dome" looked like a giant outhouse.

loulou| 5.11.10 @ 10:52AM

This catastrophe would NOT have happened under ExxonMobil. BP was too busy shoveling money to Obama and getting distracted from the business of oil. BP lost focus--solar, wind, etc. Plus all those annoying ads with idiots expressing their feeeelings about how we should get our energy.

The question is: how will Obama absolve BP of its guilt in this disaster... with OUR money?

stmichrick| 5.11.10 @ 10:19PM

I think BP is next to go 'under the bus.'
Anyone else notice that there is more perspective and context in this comment string than exists in all of the national media coverage of this event.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.11.10 @ 11:14AM

Mr. Chesser,
I simply take issue with your dumb article title.
"If You Must DRill....."

Well dumbshit, we must! Get over it and grow up.

Bruce Thompson| 5.11.10 @ 12:47PM

Dan,

The hydrostatic pressure at the mud line (the sea bottom) is somewhat lower than that at the inlet of the BOP. The external pressure at the BOP is the hydrostatic pressure. There is a difference across the BOP which results in the flow of the leak. Either the BOP is nearly completely closed or that difference is tiny.

Running a hose full of mud down to the mud line would provide a hydrostatic pressure nearly 70% higher than the hydrostatic pressure of about 2250 psi, or about 3700 psi, due to the difference in specific gravity. That high pressure would force the mud into the well and stop the leak.

Cabermon| 5.11.10 @ 2:57PM

Bruce: Correct of course about the delta-hydrostatic ressure being proportional to the SG. But with no drill string left (most of it lays on the ocean floor), getting a "column" of mud into the well is a problem. How long would it take to build a temp drill string? And I wonder how they're going to do their "junk shot". Maybe have their ROVs shove crap into the BOP? I must agree with the dominant liberal establishment mass media that this indeed looks like a science project.

owyheewine| 5.11.10 @ 5:07PM

There has to be a nozzle available on the BOP stack. You need some sort of blockage above the nozzle to keep the mud from flowing out into the ocean. That's why the "junk" is injected.
If there is no nozzle, there is a technique called hot tapping, where a nozzle is strapped to the side of the pipe, then welded into place. Then a hole is drilled into the leaking pipe through another valve, This will be the connection for the "junk" injection, then the mud.
The technique was utilized to kill the wells in Kuwait after Gulf War 1, so it's a proven technique. It's just 2 orders of magnitude harder under a mile of water.

Ole Moe| 5.11.10 @ 2:37PM

"So how is a company allowed to drill below a mile of water in the first place, if it doesn't have solutions prepared for the real possibility of a problem like this?"
It seems to me that I heard a fleeting reference last week on the radio to an exemption granted to BP last April by the administration. Anyone out there able to shed some light on this?

Allan| 5.11.10 @ 8:39PM

The exemption was for a blowout plan as I recall.

Most wells at that depth will freeze shut and sand over on their own if a leak occurs. Keeping a well flowing at the depth is usually the challenge. Most leaks shut themsleves down immediately. This field must be one hell of a find to overcome the natural elements and remain viable at that depth.

Time to buy BP stock.

JmsA| 5.11.10 @ 3:34PM

BP had another platform incident off the coast of Texas a few years back and its response to it was to blame the American platform workers. Also, I have just heard from a British reporter than when questioned about soon to be filed civil claims against BP, the CEO remarked, in part: Come on, this is America, of course there will be illegitimate claims. Why are these clowns drilling off our coast? Only American companies should be allow to drill off our coasts.

Karibou Kid| 5.11.10 @ 3:51PM

When it comes to safety and environmental concerns BP talks the talk but they sure as he!! don't walk the walk.

I know. I worked for those arrogant limey b@st@rds for 26 years before I wised up.

Nick| 5.11.10 @ 6:34PM

Karibou Kid,

You don't say in what capacity you worked for BP, but I'll ask anyway.

Is there a good chance that they will find out why the oil rig exploded?

Karibou Kid| 5.12.10 @ 11:36AM

I worked in Health, Safety, and Environmental where I was involved in a lot of root cause accident investigations.

The folks in the field try to work safely but management is constantly cutting budgets so one of the first things to be sacrificed is preventive maintenance and proper safety procedures are given lip service.

I expect that the investigation will determine a "plausible" cause. I believe that the real cause is that some BP manager on the rig was cutting corners to save money and it didn't quite work out the way (s)he was hoping. Now 11 people are dead and there is great environmental damage.

BP = "beyond petroleum". Yeah sure.

Nick| 5.12.10 @ 6:01PM

Karibou Kid,

Thank you for responding.

Unfortunately, your answer is the one I was fearing would be the case.

I read, last night, on a couple of different sites that the expensive "drilling mud" was extracted too soon. Is this the kind of corner cutting to which you are referring?

Thanks again!

Paul Milenkovic| 5.11.10 @ 8:02PM

Is it possible that the blowout preventer worked, but that the leak is from elsewhere, from the sides of the well casing?

I read a fleeting reference to some concern with methane hydrates, which are apparently present on account of conditions at that well. Something about that what they were doing was closing off this well with cement -- this was intended to be only a test well and producting wells would come later -- and that the heat of the cement setting set off the methane hydrates.

The picture here may be that things are more complicated than simply "BP doesn't know what they are doing." BP may not know what they are doing, but the conditions at this well are outside what is known, and that is the source of the problem.

Allan| 5.11.10 @ 8:43PM

Reports are that the rig operator pumped the mud out of the casing before the top cap was put in.

Wells have two cement caps, a bottom and a top separated by dozens of feet and heavy drilling mud.

Pumping the mud out before the top cap is secure is a big no-no.

Stan in Sugar Land| 5.11.10 @ 9:08PM

The following link has comments from folks who drill - these guys are pros and know what they are talking about - note the very cautious way they discuss the problem.
http://www.drillingahead.com/f.....8#comments

vcp-410| 5.12.10 @ 12:11AM

(implementing secure converged wide area networks)642-845 ont (optimizing converged cisco networks) and the ccna 640-802 exam.

Jeff Perren| 5.12.10 @ 1:08AM

Mr. Chesser,

I believe you are well intentioned here, but there is a fairly heavy gorilla in the room that you neglect to mention.

I don't know BP's safety record, but let's assume it's less than pristine. Who forced them (and other oil companies) to make the choice either not to explore or to drill in deep waters far off shore, where the margin for error is so slim and the difficulty of dealing with problems so high?

That would be the U.S. Federal Government.

So, let's not be so quick to even faintly suggest that perhaps BP is less than pure. Maybe they are; decades of being in bed with regulators could hardly result in any thing else. Nevertheless, it is the Feds who are fundamentally to blame for this situation.

Just as with the financial crisis, the proximate causes might be (to a degree, in some instances) the less-than-saintly behavior of some quasi-private companies. It's the Feds who set the parameters that result in failure.

Remove the completely irrational fears or deliberate coniving for the sake of control - and the irrational government actions taken as a result (in areas where they should have no say in the matter at all, such as ANWR) and these problems will be reduced to utter trivialities.

Yes, by all means, devise and enforce good downstream laws, but don't give the viros an inch on that basis. They will take a thousand miles of coastline.

diegowardd| 5.13.10 @ 7:25AM

BP must be held responsible for the oil spill that has happened in the Gulf of Mexico. There must be stringent laws to make the oil drilling companies responsible for any mishappening in the middle of sea. As a result of negligence a big loss of aquatic life has happened. It is solely irresponsible.
http://www.articlesbase.com/he.....89826.html

dk| 7.1.10 @ 3:09AM

beijing massage