« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

About Those Oil Rig S.W.A.T. Teams…

The 'cozy relationship' meme is a lie and a slur on the reputations of some good people - both in government and in the private sector.

By: Steve Maley (Diary)  |  May 23rd, 2010 at 10:29 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

With great fanfare, President Obama dispatched Interior Department “S.W.A.T Teams” to all 29 active deepwater drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Their charge:

  1. Perform a thorough, complete drilling inspection of each deepwater rig.
  2. Key on the BOP [blowout preventer] test time frame, leaks and resolution, discrepancies, and repairs.
  3. Make sure well control drills were performed as required by 30 CFR 250.462.

What’s that? You missed the results?

Well, you came to the right place.

From a May 12 press release from the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command:

MMS has completed its inspection of deepwater drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and no major violations were found. … The inspections of deepwater drilling rigs found Incidents of Non-Compliance (INC) on two rigs.  Those violations were corrected and no other violations were found.  To view the inspection report, click here.

[emphasis added]

I’ll recap to save you the trouble.

Twenty-nine rigs were inspected. Twenty-seven were INC-free. Evidence of the “cozy relationship”? No, I imagine that these inspectors went loaded for bear.

Two rigs received a total of four INCs; one of them received three.

The rig with one INC was the Development Driller II, one of the Transocean rigs drilling a relief well for BP at MC 252. Paperwork revealed that proper blowout preventer testing procedure was not followed. BOPs are tested every 14 days, and the tests should alternate between the main and the backup activation panel. DD II function tested the backup panel, but conducted the pressure test from the main twice in a row.

Not a trivial violation, but not one that should be ignored, especially under the circumstances. It’s what operators call a “good INC”.

The other rig:

The Transocean Nautilus working for Shell, received three Incidents of Non-Compliance:

  • A warning INC for having some flammable material [I heard it was a paper coffee cup. - ed.] in the scrap metal bin of the safe welding area. Corrective Action Taken: the material was removed at the time of the inspection.
  • A warning INC for having a 6-inch x 12-inch hole [in the deck grating, a step hazard] by the mud pump suction pipe. Corrective Action Taken: additional grating was place over the hole.
  • A warning INC for having expired eye wash bottles. Corrective Action Taken: the eye wash bottles were replaced.

Few large-scale industrial operations could withstand the level of highly-charged scrutiny involved in these inspections and come away with such a clean bill of health.

Where are the news stories?

Cross-posted at VladEnBlog.

 

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • eastbaylarry

    I would call all of these INCs insignifcant, at least from a laymans point of view.
    I take it you have no new info as to what actually went wrong at the failed BP rig?

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir
      • eastbaylarry

        It is the best educational information I have encountered on how deep water drilling is done.

        But it didn’t say if any of the possible causes of failure had been confirmed. The whole process reminds me of the “belt plus suspenders” level of caution that seems quite prudent in such work, so how DID this failure happen?

        • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

          I will be shocked if it does not implicate poor design, equipment failure and human error.

          Not that it necessarily will reflect reality.

          Based on the publicly available info, it seems fair to suspect a cement failure and the lack of a production liner/hanger to keep the consequences of same 17,000 ft from the surface.

          Something is keeping the BOPs from working. External pressure might have caused the production casing to part & move uphole.

          Nobody has much focused on the failure of the riser disconnect. If that had worked properly, BP wouldn’t be dealing with the twisted riser leaking from multiple points. They would certainly have killed the well by now.

  • rbdwiggins

    nor advance the Liberal/Progressive agenda (The Big Lie). Therefore, the results must be ignored or marginalized.

    SOP from the Left and the Party of Murder, Racism, and Hate.

  • Bill S

    ;-)

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    It has been noted that BP was going to temp abandon the well. We see by all the oil that has come out that there is apparently a lot of oil there.

    Why would they abandon, even temporarily, a well that can produce?

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      BP originally planned to permanently abandon the well. Often, in exploration, a well may be drilled in not an optimum position for production, but instead to delineate the reservoir & prove up enough reserves to justify development. Sometimes fields take several such expendable holes.

      In this case, once BP saw the logs they changed their minds & decided the well could be a good “take point” for production. They ran & cemented the production string and were preparing to temporarily abandon the well. Once they figured out where & how they would process production, they would run pipelines, come back (prob. with another rig), and complete the well for production, then tie it in to pipelines.

      “Completing” is the process of plumbing the well for optimum production. First, they would tie into the well, install BOPs and drill out the cement plugs. Perforations are shot in the casing with explosive charges so that oil and gas can enter the wellbore. Smaller pipe called tubing is run into the well to flow the fluids out. And a set of valves would be set on the floor of the Gulf (in this case) to control the flow.

  • hungarianfalcon

    on the regulatory agencies in general within the drilling industry. We’re most directly regulated by EPA and TCEQ (OSHA and others are there, too, but do not occupy as high a fraction of our time in ensuring compliance).

    I’m of the opinion (and I’ve got company) that these agencies tend to be run by a bunch of clowns that don’t have anywhere near the technical competency that should be required for their position. We see frequently:

    1. Grossly inconsistent interpretation of regulations
    2. Test procedures that are either RETARDED or in no way applicable to what the regulations intend them for (the testing procedures included in the EPA’s GHG rule would be exhibit A)
    3. Frequently extended waiting periods for them to evaluate our compliance efforts but when they get of their … they expect immediate response- we had a compliance test burn plan for an incinerator that they failed to evaluate for almost a full year past our permit expiration. Guidelines are that as long as they are evaluating we can operate under our past permit so we were fine but when they finally got their act together we had a very narrow window to verify compliance.

    Thoughts?

    HF

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      And yes, I agree with your 3 points.

      1. We are frequently requested/required to make changes & modifications that are not supported by regs and are arguably less safe than what the regs call for, it’s just the personal preference of the particular inspector on that particular day. I would add “arbitrary” to your list of adjectives. Ex: all platforms have an emergency escape ladder down one leg. One engineer in one district likes to see them enclosed in safety cages (at a cost of probably $50K for fab/install) when the ladder is for emergency use only, and the presence of the cage may hamper the use of it in the event of an emergency. We tend not to buck the MMS on things like this for fear of incurring their wrath on something else.
      2.Yes. Some of the inspectors are great. Some don’t have the sense to come in out of the rain.
      3. Yes, yes, yes. We frequently get permit approval on certain items long after the project is finished. One example is Coast Guard, who is supposed to approve evacuation plans for drilling rigs. We usually get their approval after the well is done & the rig is off location, so you have a paper chase with no purpose.

      For EPA, we have to monitor air emissions and, believe it or not, the rain water runoff from rigs and platforms. I have no idea what they use that for.

      MMS is getting a lot of heat because of the way EPA permits were handled for drilling. Instead of individual environmental impact studies for each and every well that gets drilled, MMS would file a blanket EIS for a lease sale. It’s kind of ridiculous to think that you can differentiate the environmental impact of drilling a particular 9 sq mi tract 100 miles offshore from, say the 9 sq mi tract right next to it.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    working on some sort of submersible clamping device that could just crimp a pipe like the BP blowout? It seems to me that it could be a way to contain such problems.

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      In this case we have a 21″ riser with a string of 6-3/4″ drill pipe inside. I don’t know that crimping it would do any good. Remember that the fluids (now ~50% or so gas) are at somewhere around 10,000 psi.

      One of the ideas is to stack another BOP on top of this one. That might work, if they get the riser out of the way,

      Since it’s at 5,000 ft, every operation is a challenge.

      • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

        would have to exert some incredible pressure. And it would have to be presented by some sort of submarine. Still, the idea is sound. Even if the flow was not stopped it might be suppressed to a great extent.

        If I had capital I would try to develop such a tool.

        • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir
          • hickorystick

            drop clay or concrete down the riser, then pump oxygen down the smaller pipe and light the two gases on fire at the bottom of the well. That would cure the clay.

          • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir
  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    …and that is provide factual context, i.e, when a non-story should be a story and when a story (or part thereof) should be a non-story.

    Consider what you get paid to do this, and what they get paid to neglect their primary function as reporters, technical and factual. Orwell was right

    • ashland_avenue

      nt

    • Achance
    • Stan(ley) Pruss

      Clearest, most complete explanation I’ve seen.

  • qurys

    and the link to Deepwater 101

  • qurys

    and the link to Deepwater 101

  • partyless1

    In typical government fashion, it’s all about compounding the problem! 1st) the environmentalist/EPA types force oil exploration and production to high risk environments, assuring an increased risk for the unknown and problems in general, along with increasing the difficulty of addressing the problems when they arrive. 2nd) They waste resources pushing home grown rules/agendas based on political perspectives, with no comprehension of the technologies they strive to control; thus again increasing the potential for problems. 3rd) When a problem happens, they jump in the middle of what they are clueless about, demand investigations, hearings, answers before investigations can even be started, etc.; each stealing resources from JOB #1 to fix the problem, so JOB#2 Problem Causes can be properly and completely evaluated, followed by JOB #3 to implement resolutions to prevent a similar problem in the future.

    Besides slowing down the process and increasing costs, what has the government done that serves a purpose? True help would be to offer resources to help fix the problem, such as specialized equipment that a Coast Guard or Navy may have available in this case, while true experts in the field work on the problem. If experts won’t or can’t do their job, then an intervention may be in order, even then if experts fail what will the follies of government honestly provide (a well run immigration and border security, a well run social security, or one of the myriad of stellar examples of how government can run things?)

    What we see is a president, a congress and many other political entities posturing and grand standing for personal elevation; cosequences be damned for their own edification and glory!

  • Warrior

    Didn’t I read about some kind of redundant Blow Out Preventers called “Accoustics” or “Accoustic BOP’s” which are required overseas, the North Sea for example, but not here?

    Do you know anything about that or am I mixed up?

    BTW, thanks much for your elucidating posts.

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      Apparently, in the North Sea & offshore Brazil, rigs with subsea BOPs must be tended by a boat that has an acoustic “remote control” for the BOP in case the redundant shut-down panels on the rig are disabled.

      BP has been criticized for not having such a system.

      But, just think about it for a minute: ROVs have failed on multiple attempts to close the rams manually (that is, mechanically). They’re broken. You could have 100 acoustic switches, or any other kind of control, and it’s still not going to close those rams.

  • ceili_dancer

    Is there any way to put a new tap into the “pool” of oil that is gushing out? If it was pumped out shouldn’t that alleviate some of the pressure pushing out all that oil?
    P.S.- you pack the most information into these articles, thanks for all of it, soon, we will take care of Man-Bear-Pig :)

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      If you drilled, say, a thousand feet away from this well & put that well on production, this well would hardly sense the pressure difference. Besides, it would take too long to prepare it for production – measured in many months to a few years.

      The better strategy is the one they’re doing: drill a well (actually 2 wells) on a path to intersect the blowout well. When they get within a few feet, they will be able to pump heavy mud, followed by cement. That’s the only way this baby’s going to be permanently put to bed.

    • Warrior

      bear-pig?

      • ceili_dancer

        Ask AlGore, … actually it’s South Park’s analogy to AGW. Make the monster scary enough and people will do anything to get rid of it. So, in the episode Al is doing his “inconvenient Truth” presentation to the kids with Man-Bear-Pig as the threat and in the rush to take care of the threat destroys a beautiful piece of natural cave system. He looked awsome in the Imaginationland episode.

        • Warrior

          Create a crisis and then offer gubmint (or carbon offsets) as the solution (especially if you happen to be selling them)…

          Remember Henry Louis Menken said it first:

          “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

          • ceili_dancer

            For this adiministration.