Gulf Coast Oil Spill

[covediver]

I am assuming this is to track lost income to their operations? That way the businesses can say they lost $$$ income and can sue BP to recoup their losses?

If you are a dive operator that might be impacted, you may find this link to be of interest. I was at a conference last year with the USCG people who administer the fund. They are pretty sharp folks.

Claims for Lost Profits and Earning Capacity

 

[revvie]

At some point there were some highly paid engineers that, tasked with preventing the potential of a catastrophic public relations/safety/environmental nightmare, decided that they had the answers in case of an oil well blow-out like we're seeing in the Gulf.

If such-and-such happens we do this, if that doesn't work we do this and if, by some chance that doesn't work what do we do then? And at some point down that line of creative pre-planning solutions for possible catastrophic scenarios somebody must have answered, "What? No, the odds are a million to one that ALL those things could happen!"

Well, guess what?

And there you have nailed why a risk analysis / probablistic risk assement is performed as part of a bigger risk management program. In addition it would be required by OSHA/EPA to conduct a PHA/RMP for the rig. The PHA is, at it's most basic form, a "What if.." analysis. I've been trained to use the HazOp method, but I would think that a FMEA would be a better choice for an off-shore rig. I'm sure there are plenty of people on this board who have sat through a PHA, so let this accident be a reminder to you that while they may be the most boring meeting you've ever attended, they serve an important purpose.

And just in case anybody misunderstands what an engineer does, we are tasked with designing & building processes and equipment to meet all laws, regulations, industry standards, and specific prcoess specifications while ensuring public and environmental safety for the most cost effective price. As an example, it would be safer if all cars on the road were outfitted like a presidential limo, able to take an anti-tank missle and keep on driving. However, no one would want to pay for that, so it is engineered to be as light as possible, to obtain a certain performance specification, and meet a general price point, while ensuring that Mom, Dad, and the kiddies arrive safely at their destination or if involved in an accident, be able to walk away from it.

More often than not, its some VP suit that just got the ir MBA raising hell about the cost and wanting it done for cheap.

FAST
GOOD
CHEAP

Pick two of the above... the third is getting kicked to the curb.

 

[OnMedic]

About all we can count on is that no matter what happens, it'll get used as an excuse to raise gas prices ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Agreed, to payout the horrendous lawsuits that of course will need to come from future profits.

 

[ScubaFeenD]

And there you have nailed why a risk analysis / probablistic risk assement is performed as part of a bigger risk management program. In addition it would be required by OSHA/EPA to conduct a PHA/RMP for the rig. The PHA is, at it's most basic form, a "What if.." analysis. I've been trained to use the HazOp method, but I would think that a FMEA would be a better choice for an off-shore rig. I'm sure there are plenty of people on this board who have sat through a PHA, so let this accident be a reminder to you that while they may be the most boring meeting you've ever attended, they serve an important purpose.

And just in case anybody misunderstands what an engineer does, we are tasked with designing & building processes and equipment to meet all laws, regulations, industry standards, and specific prcoess specifications while ensuring public and environmental safety for the most cost effective price. As an example, it would be safer if all cars on the road were outfitted like a presidential limo, able to take an anti-tank missle and keep on driving. However, no one would want to pay for that, so it is engineered to be as light as possible, to obtain a certain performance specification, and meet a general price point, while ensuring that Mom, Dad, and the kiddies arrive safely at their destination or if involved in an accident, be able to walk away from it.

More often than not, its some VP suit that just got the ir MBA raising hell about the cost and wanting it done for cheap.

FAST
GOOD
CHEAP

Pick two of the above... the third is getting kicked to the curb.

I have a lot of respect for engineers. My father was an engineer, and many of my friends are engineers. Usually, they are ultra bright team oriented designers that help find amazing solutions to really difficult, sometimes seemingly imposible problems. However, I feel like arrogance can get the best of even the most hardworking, brilliant, and dedicated engineers. When that happens we get massive catastrophes because the impossible is indeed possible.

What I would rather see, in place of designing multiple failsafes, would be a design of renewable energy. Of course, what i suggest is far more than just engineering, but obviously drilling for and burning oil is trouble waiting to happen.

One day, i fear, I will have to show my kids pictures of the ocean instead of bringing them there, because everything will be toxic and dead.

 

[Scott L]

What I would rather see, in place of designing multiple failsafes, would be a design of renewable energy. Of course, what i suggest is far more than just engineering, but obviously drilling for and burning oil is trouble waiting to happen.

One day, i fear, I will have to show my kids pictures of the ocean instead of bringing them there, because everything will be toxic and dead.

Everyone one would prefer that. Unfortunately, this is the real world and fossil fuels are far more effiicent and cheap relative to any other source of energy...

 

[diver 85]

things will be back to normal within 45 days........

 

[k374]

Everyone one would prefer that. Unfortunately, this is the real world and fossil fuels are far more effiicent and cheap relative to any other source of energy...

unfortunately nobody gives a damn about the environment since being environmentally compatible has additional costs in the short term and would affect profits. Being environmentally unfriendly has gains in the short term but in the long term it is leading to an apocalypse and we will all pay a staggering price eventually. By 2048 there is going to be no more sealife left in the oceans but nobody seems to give a damn... the administration only acts like they care but in reality it is all about lobbies and dollars, they don't give a crap if everything is extinct in the next 50 years.

 

[Nemrod]

things will be back to normal within 45 days........

I hope so but I doubt it, things are not back to normal in Alaska and I am not sure "normal" is good enough for a sustainable, healthy environment.

All this energy talk and politics and blah, blah, human nature, environment, plain and simple, there are technologies that would have prevented this that were not utilized either due to expense, no legal requirement, omission, being cheap b---ds or bad luck or ignorance. In any case, if we want to scuba dive and boat in in a dead ocean KEEP IT THE ______ (you insert appropriate four letter adjective) UP and that is what we will be doing if this is the best we can do.

This whole thing from one end to the other makes me really angry.

N

 

[Scott L]

unfortunately nobody gives a damn about the environment since being environmentally compatible has additional costs in the short term and would affect profits. Being environmentally unfriendly has gains in the short term but in the long term it is leading to an apocalypse and we will all pay a staggering price eventually. By 2048 there is going to be no more sealife left in the oceans but nobody seems to give a damn... the administration only acts like they care but in reality it is all about lobbies and dollars, they don't give a crap if everything is extinct in the next 50 years.

Nuclear energy seems the far better alternative compared to fossils fuels but the left dosen't like that either. This is the first significant oil spill in the CONUS in more than 40 years. Let's not overreact. Had we shifted significantly to wind power we would now be arguing about dead birds and such forth...

 

[Scubadives]

I am about to cancel my dives to the O in 2 weeks. At first we thought it would be contained, and it would be diluted, or blown away, but it keeps getting worse. It will be months before this is stopped unless they kick the bop in the ass hard enough to get it working.

The problem is if there was a drill tool in the bop at the time, or the drill stem was 10-12 degrees off vertical the rams do not have the power to slice through.

Crimping it wont work because the risers is only rated to 500 psi much lower than the well head pressure.

The upside down funnel most likley wont work due to the fact if you use a hose to suck it out it will need to hold up against 2216 psi water pressure at 5000 ft and not collapse, or find a pump bad ass enough to pump it up 5000 ft.

If they try to use the same funnel, but use the venturi effect of air to assist the oil/water up they will have to find huge ass compressors that can pump air 5000ft under water at a huge volume through hose that can witstand it all. Then there is a chance it wont flow enough, and the oil will just fill the funnel up, and start spilling out from the sides.


Relief well and casing it in with high density mud plug, then cementing the casing in is the only option that anyone can see, and is what they are gonna have to do anyways at some point. Too bad its gonna take months.