We dont learn from past mistakes identical oil spills in Canada and Gulf in 1979-2010 - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

RichC · #61 06-10-2010, 04:41 PM

Where are you getting your information ?
You seem to have more than anyone else.
or maybe your not talking about the same place as the link that was posted.

Not all planes fly at those altitudes, your smart enough to know that.

What happens when a jet ingests a bunch of natural gas floating in the air ???

buffa98 · #62 06-10-2010, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

Where are you getting your information ?
You seem to have more than anyone else.
or maybe your not talking about the same place as the link that was posted.

Not all planes fly at those altitudes, your smart enough to know that.

What happens when a jet ingests a bunch of natural gas floating in the air ???

Judging by the twiter I was misstaken I had not heard about that one. But there was a fire and spill in Bradford Pa a month or so ago about the same sequence of events.
My apologies for that.

On the air plane question: NAtural gas ingested into a combustion turbine(jet engine) will cause a momentary increase in the rpm and torque which will caus the fuel logic to back down primary fuel feed to compensate. There is a pilot on here that can probably explain it better. THe turbines we use have generators bolted to them not air frames.

RichC · #63 06-16-2010, 09:54 AM

BP’s ‘Nightmare’ Well: Internal Documents Uncover Negligence

By Brandon Keim
June 15, 2010 |
1:42 pm |
Categories: Energy

In an e-mail written six days before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, a BP engineer called the well a “nightmare.” The e-mail was released Monday by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and it’s one of many company documents describing the risky, cost-cutting decisions that preceded the disaster.
“This has been a nightmare well which has everyone all over the place,” wrote BP engineer Brian Morel to a colleague. Morel wanted the company to use a “liner,” or sheath around the well that would keep gas from surging up the pipes and possibly exploding.
One such surge caused the Deepwater Horizon to temporarily shut down in early April, but BP opted against installing the liner, which would have cost an extra $7 million to $10 million.
“BP appears to have made multiple decisions for economic reasons that increased the danger of a catastrophic well failure,” wrote committee chairs Henry Waxman (D-California) and Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) in a letter to BP CEO Tony Hayward. “In several instances, these decisions appear to violate industry guidelines and were made despite warnings from BP’s own personnel and its contractors. In effect, it appears that BP repeatedly chose risky procedures in order to reduce costs and save time.”
In addition to BP’s decision not to use a liner, the committee’s letter describes four other examples of risky negligence.

Halliburton, the company responsible for cement in the well shaft, recommended using 21 “centralizers” to position the metal tube that ran down the center of the well. An off-center tube would cause cement to harden at different rates, producing gaps and channels that could weaken its structure and increase chances of failure. BP used just six centralizers.
A mid-April review of the well said “it is unlikely to be a successful cement job,” but BP declined to run a “cement bond log,” a day-long evaluation of the cement’s integrity. A crew that arrived expecting to perform the evaluation was sent home.
BP also failed to circulate muds that filled the well as it was drilled. That allowed mud that stayed on the bottom to absorb gas and debris, further weakening cement at the well’s base. BP then decided not to use a “lockdown sleeve,” which would have secured the top of the well, where it emerged from the seafloor.
The full list of documents is located on the House committee’s website. BP’s Hayward testifies before the panel Thursday.
“We ask that you come prepared,” wrote Waxman and Stupak.

Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/bp-nightmare-email/#ixzz0r1YaRb6E

RichC · #64 06-16-2010, 06:55 PM

Scientists: Oil leaking up to 2.52M gallons daily

By RAY HENRY, Associated Press Writer
Associated Press
Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Gerald Herbert / AP
A member of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's staff reaches into thick oil in the Northern regions of Barataria Bay in Plaquemines Parish, La., Tuesday, June 15, 2010. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert) TRANSMITTING AS ALTERNATIVE CROP

(06-15) 18:15 PDT New Orleans (AP) --
Scientists provided a new estimate for the amount of oil gushing from the ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico on Tuesday that indicates it could be leaking up to 2.52 million gallons of crude a day.
A government panel of scientists said that the ruptured well is leaking between 1.47 million and 2.52 million gallons of oil daily. The figures move the government's worst-case estimates more in line with what an independent team had previously thought was the maximum size of the spill.
"This estimate brings together several scientific methodologies and the latest information from the sea floor, and represents a significant step forward in our effort to put a number on the oil that is escaping from BP's well," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.
The latest numbers reflect an increase in the flow that scientists believe happened after undersea robots earlier this month cut off a kinked pipe near the sea floor that was believed to be restricting the flow of oil, just as a bend in a garden hose reduces water flow. BP officials has estimated that cutting the kinked pipe likely increased the flow by up 20 percent.
The pipe was removed so BP could install a containment cap that is trapping leaking oil and drawing it a ship waiting on the ocean surface.
The new numbers are based on a combination of scientific data, including an analysis of high-resolution video taken by underwater robots, pressure meters, sonar, and measurements of oil collected by the containment device on top of the well.
It is the fourth — and perhaps not last — time the federal government has had to increase its estimate of how much oil is gushing. At one point, the federal government claimed only 42,000 gallons were spilling a day and then it upped the number to 210,000 gallons.
As of Tuesday, the maximum amount of oil that has gushed out of the well since the April 20 explosion is 116 million gallons, according to the estimates by scientists advising the federal government.
BP PLC now has a containment system in place in the Gulf of Mexico that has been capturing nearly 648,000 gallons of oil daily. That system was forced to shut down as a precaution Tuesday morning because of a fire on a ship connected to it. BP said the collection system was not damaged and about five hours after the fire, the containment operations resumed.
Under pressure from the federal government, BP plans to gradually expand its ability to capture the flow of oil until a relief well can permanently end the leak sometime in August. The collection system could expand to a peak capacity of 2.2 million gallons of oil by the end of June and up to roughly 3.4 million gallons of oil by mid July.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/06/15/national/a141941D49.DTL&type=business#ixzz0r3jqVRwZ

tonkovich · #65 06-17-2010, 12:34 AM

hey, look on the bright side. we definitely haven't hit the "peak oil" moment.

RichC · #66 06-17-2010, 05:55 PM

I was wondering how much oil it would take to make a thin film over all of the worlds oceans.

davidmash · #67 06-18-2010, 02:15 PM

Just saw this article on NPR about the emergency procedures for oil drilling accidents. The oil companies apparently all contracted to the same company as they all have the exact same procedures in place. They apparently include instructions for treating walruses that do not exist in the gulf and a phone number for a marine biologist. Having a contact for a expert marine biologist is probably a good thing. The fact that he has been dead for years which and four years before the plane was filed.

This just keeps getting better.

MS Fowler · #68 06-18-2010, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Just saw this article on NPR about the emergency procedures for oil drilling accidents. The oil companies apparently all contracted to the same company as they all have the exact same procedures in place. They apparently include instructions for treating walruses that do not exist in the gulf and a phone number for a marine biologist. Having a contact for a expert marine biologist is probably a good thing. The fact that he has been dead for years which and four years before the plane was filed.

This just keeps getting better.

That sort of thing is not all that uncommon. One of my many hats involves the use of radioactive source material. All licensees are required to have a "Safety Plan" . Almost everyone in the immediate area uses the same service tech as their back up competent person. It will be fine until 10 of us all have incidents on the same day, and that one person cannot respond to all. ( Unlikely--I've been using radioactive material since the Carter years and have not had even one incident.)

This is one of down-sides of government regulation. They have no stimulus to do it well--after all, what are you going to do, fire the regulator? So they mis-regulate an industry, and then when something happens, the cry from the party of government is "More Regulation". Maybe what is needed is BETTER regulators.
Not a defense of BP, but looking for a better solution than what got us to this point.
(Although I am not a conspiracy guy, one could see this as part of a diabolical plan for ever-increasing government control.--I think gross incompetence is the most likely cause, in this case as in every other)

davidmash · #69 06-18-2010, 02:51 PM

I disagree. As I mentioned elsewhere, what is needed is not more/better regulation but an incentive (read as 'a really big stick) for companies to do monitor them selves and insure that they are doing things right.

Had BP or any company been told that if you cause an accident you will held financially liable for all costs involved, there will be a 20% NW penalty, all execs will be held criminally liable and face jail time as well as civil penalties. This accident would not have happened.

Government regulators do not have the experience nor resources to insure that procedures are being followed. Normally I do not like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house but if the fox knows he is going to get b!tch slapped if he screws up, he is much more likely to leave the chickens alone.

I think you missed the part of the service tech being dead for 5 years already. You will be waiting quite a long time for him to show up. As was mentioned at the hearing, given that they have walruses and a dead expert in a regional procedure, I do not think they took the safety of the area very seriously.

MS Fowler · #70 06-18-2010, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I disagree. As I mentioned elsewhere, what is needed is not more/better regulation but an incentive (read as 'a really big stick) for companies to do monitor them selves and insure that they are doing things right.

Had BP or any company been told that if you cause an accident you will held financially liable for all costs involved, there will be a 20% NW penalty, all execs will be held criminally liable and face jail time as well as civil penalties. This accident would not have happened.

Government regulators do not have the experience nor resources to insure that procedures are being followed. Normally I do not like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house but if the fox knows he is going to get b!tch slapped if he screws up, he is much more likely to leave the chickens alone.

I think you missed the part of the service tech being dead for 5 years already. You will be waiting quite a long time for him to show up. As was mentioned at the hearing, given that they have walruses and a dead expert in a regional procedure, I do not think they took the safety of the area very seriously.

I did actually pick up on that, but ignored it in my response.