Maybe the explosion was 'act of God'

Post #325,667 by drook 5/4/10 3:11:58 PM Reply	Maybe the explosion was 'act of God' But the spill is because they didn't have the remote cap hardware that's required in the North Sea. -- Drew
Post #325,670 by folkert 5/4/10 3:18:12 PM Reply	DING DING DING And fought it tooth and nail.
Post #325,680 by static 5/4/10 8:27:12 PM Reply	Which is why BP is going to be slugged with the bill. They should also be slugged with a fine of some large factor over the cleanup bill, like ten or twenty: hopefully something seriously big enough for it to cost a lot more than it ever cost for fighting the remote shutdown hardware. Of course, they'll then find a way to pass it on to consumers, though if they try that too hard, people will buy elsewhere. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #325,697 by drook 5/5/10 11:04:40 AM Reply	Re: "pass it on to consumers" Price and cost are independent variables. People are willing to pay a given price regardless of what it costs to produce the good. If you can reduce your costs without reducing the price people are willing to pay, your profits go up. If your costs go up at the same time your competitors' costs go up, everyone raises their prices. Consumers either pay the increase or they buy less. If they buy less, everyone lowers prices and eats a smaller profit margin. If your costs go up, but your competitors' costs don't go up, you eat a smaller profit margin. If you were already too close to 0% -- and BP was nowhere close to that -- then you can't afford to keep producing. You either operate at a loss until things change, or you go out of business. The whole "pass it on to consumers" meme is a right wing talking point designed to prevent ever assessing reasonable costs to business, since "they'll just pass it on to consumers anyway". -- Drew
Post #325,699 by boxley 5/5/10 11:12:00 AM Reply	dont worry, exxon citgo and aramco are slavering t the chance to pass this onto the consumers. A barrel of oil is getting $85 and we are awash in the stuff being held in containers everywhere If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #325,736 by static 5/5/10 8:16:47 PM Reply	I clearly missed a step. Looking back at what I posted in the light of you what you posted what I probably unknowingly meant was that BP needs to be fined enough to take most of the profit away without necessarily making continued production unprofitable. How to discourage their competitors from jacking up the selling price at the same time is a tricky one. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #325,682 by boxley 5/4/10 8:30:59 PM Reply	wrong in this case There has been some significant attention paid as to whether the rig should have been fitted with an acoustic remote control system for the BOPs Â though in one discussion I heard there was some confusion as to what this would have changed on the rig, since there were BOPs in place. The acoustic system has the following benefit: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6430 The ACS system is a redundant receiver/transmitter for communication with the rig through acoustics. It is interfaced to the BOP control pod so that different sets of emergency functions can be executed to shut down the well and avoid a pollution. If the regular umbilical is broken and normal communication with the BOP is not possible, the ACS is the last and only means to shut down the well. If a function is executed from the ACS, signal goes to a solenoid that activates a big valve on the BOP; the valve is then energized by air pressure bottles on the BOP. In this case that doesnÂt seem to be likely to have helped, since there was, apparently, a signal on the rig floor that the BOP had activated, though obviously it had not worked the way it was intended. The reason(s) for the BOP failing to work as anticipated is still a matter of conjecture. other links state that the BOP are in place but the seals or something else is blown so an acoustic trigger wouldnt help If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #325,683 by Another Scott 5/4/10 9:18:52 PM Reply	More info. BP's lawyers seem to controlling the information that's getting out, so it's hard to know what's really going on. Some more details of the work in progress is here - http://www.upstreamo...article213982.ece (lots of jargon though) [...] Focus Meanwhile, BP will continue trying to close the well with the BOP that is already in place on the sea floor. BP has been able to trigger all of the six rams that should shear the drill string and casing and close the well, but they did not stem the flow, contrary to reports earlier today. It has been one of the main focuses of BP's efforts since the initial blowout and will remain so, no matter how unlikely it is to work, Fryar said, because it offers the quickest way to stem the flow. Charlie Holt, who heads BP drilling and completions operations in the US Gulf, said BP has repaired some leaks in the BOP's hydraulic systems. Holt added some of the rubber portions of the BOP may have been eroded by sand in the flowback and may not be able to shut the well anymore. If the second BOP can be added to the well, it may be possible to circulate fluid through that to kill the well, Fryar added [...] Supposedly they tested the BOP 10 days before the incident (they're required to test it every 14 days). Via http://dailyhurrican...ll---sort-of.html via HuffingtonPost. An interesting paper on BOPs and how they work is here - http://www.eenews.ne...ocument_gw_05.pdf (61 pages via a NYTimes story). Contrary to what I understood BP's head to say on Morning Edition, BOPs have failed in the past. It says: 3.5 Previous Field Failure WEST researched known failures to shear and seal and located only the Ixtox 1 blowout and spill off of the Yucatan peninsula. Undoubtedly, there are more failures that were either not reported well or had minimal exposure. Not included are the known failures to seal during pressure testing since these were repaired prior to the rams being used on the well. Figure 3.4 Â Ixtox 1 Blowout and spill From the internet: ÂBlowout of exploratory well Ixtox 1 off of Yucatan in 1979. When workers were able to stop this blowout in 1980 an estimated 140 million gallons of oil had spilled into the ocean. This is the second largest spill ever, smaller only than the deliberate oil spills that ended the Kuwait-Iraq war of 1991. Figure 3.4 borrowed from Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Â As in other disasters, multiple issues occurred and wrong directions were taken, but the shear rams were activated at one point and did fail to shear. Reportedly, they were pulling the drill string too quickly without proper fluid replacement and the well started coming in. They had no choice but to close the shear rams; unfortunately, drill collars were in the stack and shearing failed. The situation deteriorated from this point. This incident started the development of shear rams that could shear casing and/or drill collars. [...] That sounds suspiciously like what happened here. Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I It took nearly 10 months to seal the Ixtoc I well... :-( Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!