Hollywood movies glamorize oil gushers. The scrappy driller overcomes all odds imposed by nature and man to find "black gold" and is rewarded by a shower of the icky stuff in the climactic scene. We cut away knowing that the oil-drenched hero, and his heroine, will enjoy their hard-earned riches, at least until the sequel.
In real life, there is nothing glamorous about a gusher, especially if the oil and gas catch fire. As the crew struggles to put out or prevent fire and cap the well, they are in mortal peril. The loss of product and costs of clean-up hurt the investors.
A gusher or blow out on dry land is bad enough. At least crews and specialized equipment can reach the well head to try to stop the flow ("cap" the well). When the well head is a mile under the ocean, it is that much harder, as we are finding to the horror and frustration of the public watching the disaster unfold at the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico.
In 1922, two men named Abercrombie and Cameron created a device to eliminate gushers, called a blow out preventer, or BOP. Basically, it is a big valve that sits on the top of the well hole. When the pressure or flow from within the well is too great, the valve closes, stopping the flow. There are two different kinds of valves: ram and annular. A ram valve uses a number of pistons or rams that close around the drill pipe (called a "drill string" in the trade), shear through the pipe, and then seal the well hole. The annular design, created in 1946 by a man named Knox, uses a hemisphere of rubber reinforced by steel ribs for the same purpose. The annular valve operates more smoothly, requiring less hydraulic pressure, resulting in longer service life.
Valves can be closed or "actuated" either manually or by hydraulics. The control can come from an automatic control system which is part of the blow out preventer assembly or remotely. Normally, the remote control is provided by an electrical cable that runs from the blow out preventer to the drilling rig on the surface.
For a mere half million dollars more, one could add a control that uses sound pulses transmitted through the water to control a valve. This mechanism is not required by the US government for blow out preventers in the Gulf of Mexico, but is required by other countries.
A modern blow out preventer for an undersea well consists of a series or "stack" of several different valves, with different methods of actuation, and a control system. Stacks can have 4 to 10 or more valves of different types (ram or annular), with different control mechanisms. The idea is to provide redundancy: if one valve or control mechanism fails, another should be able to take over to close the well.
Finally, a BOP stack can include a top-kill or choke mechanism. As we have learned, the idea of a top-kill mechanism is to allow the drillers to pump heavy "drilling mud" into the well to counter the natural pressure. When enough weight of drilling mud is in the well, the flow stops, and the well can be closed. Later, the well can be re-opened and the drilling mud pumped out to get the well flowing for production.
Thus, it takes several things going wrong for a blow out preventer to fail to prevent a gusher. It should be, and is, a very rare event. Since 1980, we drilled over 3,800 wells in the Gulf of Mexico, which account for one-third of US domestic oil production. Deepwater Horizon is the second failure in that period. The other one was some thirty years ago.
And that appears to be the story. BP, Transocean, and Halliburton avoided standard tests and inspections on the blow out preventer stack. The stack apparently does not have a top-kill mechanism, forcing the crews to improvise on the battered BOP stack on the sea floor. We also learned that three days before the disaster, the crews took an economic short cut by pumping free seawater instead of expensive, man-made drilling mud into the well to try to close it. The crews apparently knew, or should have known, that the seawater was not countering the pressure in the well. The crew knew for at least an hour before the explosion that the blow out preventer was failing. This much we know, even before the formal investigation ordered by the White House gets going.
Blow out preventers are not new technology. But like any technology, they are only as safe and effective as the people and procedures that use them. Even if the formal investigation finds flaws in the equipment, the failure to follow known, established procedure is clearly a major factor in the disaster, and is the likely root cause of it.
We can tolerate failure in many technologies we use daily. When our PC crashes, we curse and reboot.
But some failures cause too much havoc to tolerate, so we focus on prevention. Just as our technology is not adequate for dealing with an off-shore oil spill after it happens, there is little we can do to save the passengers after an airplane crashes. Thus, for decades, the aviation industry and government regulators cooperated on prevention.
It looks like what happened in the Gulf is like an airliner taking off a list of outstanding maintenance reports, plus ice on the wings, and letting it fly into a thunderstorm. In aviation, that nightmare scenario just would not happen. Pilots, mechanics, and controllers would be fired first for neglecting the rules.
An off-shore oil well can affect the lives and livelihood of far more people than the passengers on an airliner. Shouldn't the people responsible for the well be held to at least the same standard as the people responsible for the airliner?
This failure occurred not because off-shore oil drilling is morally bad, but because it is inherently risky, and people who should know better took short cuts. The investigation may indeed show that enforcement of existing rules would have been sufficient to avert the disaster. After all, that seemed to work for over 3,800 other wells drilled in the last 30 years in the Gulf of Mexico.
Rev. Chuck Freeman: Hearing the Prophetic Call in the Gulf Oil Disaster
In the way we conceptualize recovery from addiction, we acknowledge the truth of passages like Jeremiah 8:8-12: the addict has to "hit rock bottom" before he can muster the humility and fortitude to move toward the light.
BP CEO gives 'top kill' 48 hours in Gulf spill
Gulf oil spill: Bill Nye discusses top kill
BP update: “Top kill” started, stopped, restarted
Top kill: BP keeps us in the dark
"Top Kill" Method Of Plugging Spill Appears To Be Working
As Top Kill Drags On, BP's Credibility Problems Grow
May be 24-48 hrs before "top kill" result known-BP
"Top Kill" Progress, How to Eliminate Cell Phone "Bill Shock"
In case of an extreme reservoir pressure,the blow out prevention system may not work . In that case all that can be done is to allow gas and oil to escape until the pressure is low enough to cap the hole.Keep in mind that when closing down the flow the pressure in the cap goes up to reservoir pressure (10,000psi ? or more).
All this explains the" leaky" outcome of BP's efforts to date. They are in fact only trying to reduce the amounts being spilled knowing that they cannot close off until the time that the reservoir pressure has come down sufficiently
Future deep drilling at sea, where spills cannot be cleaned up ,should have adequate flare and burnpit facilities to catch and burn whatever comes out before the pressures have come down enough to allow closing off. Burning crude oil to the tune of ,say ,10,000 barrels/day for any length of time is in itself already an ecological disaster.And the design and cost of the flare and the liquid collecting facilities are a nightmare.Therefore one should do all necessary homework before starting the next deep drilling adventure.
I have no personal experience or expertise in oil drilling, or petroleum piping. I do however have a background in hydraulics, and valves.
The question that has been bothering me is, why are blow out preventers designed as normally open valves? Wouldn't it make more sense for a safety valve to be self actuating? If the BOP was designed as a normally closed valve, lack of maintenance would result in it closing, an incentive to keep them in good working order and making sure that the battery backups were in place and all hydraulic lines secure. Is my thinking too simplistic? Is there a technical reason for not using a NC valve design.
I would really like to know if you have the explanation.
Much as some people might want to shut down offshore drilling -- or nuclear power plants -- society will continue to depend on them for a long time to come. We might as well do it right, because we've seen how ugly it gets if it's done wrong.
President Obama has his hands full this Memorial Day Weekend, as public sentiment seems to be changing faster than oil is spewing from the uncontrolled well.
This article explains why the most disasterous environmental diaster in U.S. History could have been prevented and this is just another example of what happens when a government is owned and operated by the Robber Barons; worldwide financial meltdown, environmental disasters, insane, stupid unnecessary wars, a level of corruption never before experienced in human history, and the worst criminals in U.S. History are not prosecuted in other words a lawless society.
According to this post there have been numerous failures of BOPs:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/05/03/bp-plays-stupid/
See also:
http://www.mms.gov/incidents/blowouts.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montara_oil_spill
I read a report that some oil globs washed ashore in Florida. The press assumed that they came from the Deepwater Horizon blow out, but that proved not to be so. The source of that oil has not been identified, but could easily have been one of these smaller incidents.
I was referring to major blow outs not controlled for weeks on end. The incident in 1979 was the last such "big one" in the Gulf of Mexico.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html
I think a key to getting better behavior here is to price the risk and cost of clean-up into the commodity. Otherwise, the temptation to take short cuts is overwhelming.
Pricing the risk and cost of cleanup into the commodity is already in effect, I'm sure. The price of the oil will probably go up some after the DH spill. But that doesn't really work to promote better behavior on the part of the oil industry. The PR machine will go to work browbeating the public about increased oil prices which will be trumpeted by industry flacks as a tax. Clever political tactics will pit one interest against the other - in Louisiana, that could be the fishermen vs oil workers - or even one region against the other - the gulf vs southern California, where lots of people drive.
Finally, of course, the industry can use all kinds of statistics to game the cost of cleanup. That too would become a political issue. It will anyway.
Better well shutoff is the only answer. BOP technology can be modified and tested, including remote actuators. My back of envelope calculation showed that BP Atlantis
pumps about 90M dollars of crude per day. That amortizes the 500k cost of an actuator
pretty quickly. As a percentage, the cost passed to the consumer is miniscule. We're
Will this just end up being forgotten by both the government, the industry and the public until it happens again? It is way past time to ACT.
Yes they are responsible for the disaster. Yes they are responsible for the cleanup. Yes they are responsible for the loss of wages and earning, for an entire fishing industry that ‘catches’ from the Gulf of Mexico. The entire tourist industry may also have cause for recompense too! Yes they are responsible for the largest (oil) environmental disaster in the USA. The health of local residents and workers who are trying to clean up the horrid mess, are also at risk. The sea life and shore life and bottom life are all in terrible danger too.
And still we wait and see and hope BP will be upfront and honest with what is actually happening.
Telling half truths, denying the public access to actual data and visuals, procrastinating, prevaricating............... this is just as bad as dragging out the days, the days it should take to know if this TOP KILL experiment will work.
http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/05/when-one-day-becomes-two-then-three.html