This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
A Key Piece in the Oil Leak Story: Two Sections of Drill Pipe Lodged in the Blowout Preventer
Blog
On June 30th, I noted that the Department of Energy had found that there were two section of drilling pipe lodge in the blowout preventer.
Yesterday, the Times-Picayune gave an update
on this story, which includes competing interpretations about where the
second section came from and what that means for the relief wells:
For
the first time Friday, the Coast Guard and BP acknowledged that a
mysterious second pipe, wedged next to the drill pipe in what remains
of the Deepwater Horizon's riser, is fouling up the works where the
well is spewing hundreds of millions of gallons of crude oil into the
Gulf of Mexico.
"We used a diamond saw and we got inside. We
found there was actually two sets of drill pipe there," said retired
Adm. Thad Allen, the top U.S. Coast Guard official overseeing the
response to America's worst-ever oil spill.
***
It
"presumably fell down beside it as a result of the explosion and the
riser pipe being bent over," Allen said. He noted that the second pipe
does not have oil shooting from it.
BP officials said late
Friday that they believe the second pipe is drill pipe. Pictures show
it is similar in diameter to the known drill pipe.
While Allen
said he believes the second pipe fell from above, some experts have
advanced another explanation. They believe poorly cemented casings --
tubes that are supposed to form solid walls down thousands of feet of
the well bore -- may have been dislodged by the blast of natural gas
that shot up out of the well and above the sea floor.
***
The
idea that a loose pipe shot up from deeper in the well and prevented
the shear ram from closing has been espoused by such experts as oil
industry investment banker Matt Simmons and Bob Bea, a University of
California at Berkeley engineer leading a scientific investigation into
the blowout [Bea is an expert in offshore drilling and a high-level governmental adviser
concerning disasters]. But others have wondered if the mystery pipe
isn't just a section of the same drill pipe that came loose, or even a
pipe that fell down the riser from the rig 5,000 feet above.
The source of the second segment is key to determining the condition of
the oil well beneath the seafloor. If Simmons and Bea are proven right,
drilling the relief wells will be a lot more challenging.
Therefore, I hope they are wrong, and that the second drill pipe came from:
(1) a collapse of pipe above the blowout preventer;
or
(2) a miscellaneous segment of drilling pipe (drilling pipe is temporarily used in drilling a well, and is not the same as well casing or even well lining, which are permanently installed to support the well).
The
second section of drill pipe is key to the oil leak story for another
reason. As the Times-Picayune notes, it has contributed to problems in
securely capping the leak from the point where it's leaking so that
more oil can be captured:
The presence of two pipes
could have also contributed to BP's failure to make a clean cut on the
riser when securing the existing containment dome, inhibiting its
ability to collect the maximum amount of oil.***
Allen
said the second pipe also led to a jagged cut on the larger riser pipe,
forcing the response team to use the loose cap with a rubber seal. And
now, the two pieces are forcing the team to spend several days tying
them together and clearing the way for a new, hopefully more solid
connection.
Finally, the two sections of drill pipe are
important because they may have been one of the reasons that the
blowout preventer failed in the first place.
As the Times-Picayune notes:
Some
experts say a second piece of drill pipe in the riser could have
prevented shear rams on the rig's blowout preventer from sealing the
well and permanently cutting off the flow of oil after the April 20
explosion.
Even if it turns out that this is one of the causes of the BOP's failure, it might not be the only cause.
As I pointed out in May:
[Mike
Williams, the chief electronics technician on the Deepwater Horizon,
and one of the last workers to leave the doomed rig] claimed that the
blowout preventer was then damaged [Several weeks before the Gulf oil
explosion] when a crewman accidentally moved a joystick, applying
hundreds of thousands of pounds of force. Pieces of rubber were found
in the drilling fluid, which he said implied damage to a crucial seal.
But a supervisor declared the find to be “not a big deal”, Mr Williams
alleged.
»
- advertisements -
Let's hope the casings are not leaking, or this is going to be quite a mess to contain...
AC
Gasmiinder- On 60 Minutes, the drill guy said someone ran 15 ft of pipe through the "andular" and rubber pieces came up in the mud, and BP said don't worry about it. It's a seal in the BOP? What is this andular?
The BOP has several types of seals in it. the normal way it works is that there is drill pipe in the hole when there is a kick. the hit the activator and some rubber seals clamp around the drill pipe to seal the kick before the mud is really unloaded and well control is lost. then they circulate the kick out using the choke and kill lines.
so, in drilling activeties on this well, earlier in the process, BP had stripped out some drill pipe through the BOP when the rubber rams were tight. It caused some rubber to wear off of the rubber seals and show up in the mud return tank. I can't tell you if that is a big deal or not. I really don't believe it had anything to do with the blowout. It may not have been good practice to have continued drilling with the compromised rubber rams.
I'd agree with all that. I'd probably even go so far as to say I doubt it was a big deal in the blowout. Mainly because I think they waited to long to attempt to close the BOP such that the rubber seals wouldn't have held anyway. I suspect the blind rams failure was the biggest issue with the BOP and we don't know why that happened but the test valve, leaking hydraulic and other issues are all possibilities (obviously a second set of blind rams would have been VERY helpful).
The real issue here is a dysfunctional decisions making process at BP. This company has a long history in multiple divisions of these kinds of problems over a long period. We are into my opinions now but - this is an issue of culture in management decision making. In the string of decisions made on this well you will always be able to find someone (often myself) who will say "oh that decision is not that big a deal or that uncommon". The problem comes when multiple "most risky" choice decisions are made but no one is realizing that those choices are COMPOUNDING the RISK. I will argue till my ringers are raw that is CAUSED by the decision making process and by a dysfunctional management culture.
It is very satisfying to scream vitriol about the company being evil and not caring etc. I can assure you no one INTENTIONALLY allowed this to happen. People died. It is quite likely that some of those who died were friends of people who made at least some of these choices. The danger is understood and no one intentionally ignored it. BUT some VERY STUPID decisions were made and it goes back to being blind to how the risk is compounding.
So - the real issue with the rubber seal is that it is evidence of an attitude rather than being an actual cause of the loss of control.
.-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/10/business/main6666292.shtml
BP Cuts Payments to 40,000, La. Official Says
Nikola Tesla wanted the world to have free renewable energy.
I gave my car back last week. Time for the real Tesla which means Nikola and not that stupid car already invented free energy - build it yourselves. You pull the electricity out of that which is already floating around you. It works. It is even on YouTube. Our buddy banker Morgan bought him up in the early part of the 20th century to shut him up. We make our own individual energy - no need for BP.
Updated DOW charts:
http://stockmarket618.wordpress.com
http://www.zerohedge.com/forum/latest-market-outlook-1
click on this and wait about 10 seconds
http://instantoilspill.com/?url=http://www.bp.com
Wow, they are everywhere!
Anyone hear about BP testing out a nuclear weapon up in Canada?
Well I'm just so tickled that Holder is investigating. But so far the only criminal activity to have been discovered is watching from <65'
Should have "detained" the MFIC instead of letting him slip away to go yachting. Might have speeded things up a tad.
In following this crisis from the earliest days I have observed an interesting dynamic in the blogs with what I see as four different groups (note that this is a broad generalization and therefore does not apply in every case):
Techs (industry types, experts and pseudo experts)
Seekers (looking for info outside of the MSM)
Conspirators (attracted to or promoting extreme scenarios)
Politicos (either trying to defend the administration or demonize it)
What is interesting is that the Techs feed off one another often supported by the Politicos when the discussion benefits their position. The techs seem to have a bit of a superiority complex and in many cases make it their business to take the seekers and politicos under their wing while ridiculing the conspirators. They tend to dominate the discussion as they are seen to have credibility.
The good thing about the techs is that they generally bring solid information and practical thinking about the situation often from industry experience. They strike me as literal types who take things at face value e.g. if the authorities say it's 5000 bbd it must be so. Ironically techs don't have much time for academics whom they perceive to be detached from reality (particularly if the academic challenges status quo). My experience with techs is that in some cases they mix fact with opinion but rely on their stature in the discussion to carry the argument. What can be more dangerous are pseudo techs who have enough knowledge to sound expert but in fact are just making a case for a favored point of view. The other concern is that the industry is under attack and I suspect that those who are close to it have a need to defend it and accordingly have descended on the blogs.
Seekers are just folks who want to know what the truth is and don't trust the MSM. I have observed that they tend to be open to all ideas but in many cases come under the influence of the techs.
Conspirators either promote or adopt the ideas that are furthest from the status quo and main stream. Some have technical knowledge and some simply look at the situation and are attracted to Armageddon scenarios. The techs love to toy with this group and try to make them look foolish while the politicos pile on for good sport. Conspirators don't take things at face value but often apply bad science to legitimate facts and create their scenario e.g. undersea methane explosions. Unfortunately the legit facts often get associated with the bad science and both are discarded.
Politicos are on both sides, either using the crisis to criticize Obama or defending the actions of the administration by talking up how well it has handled the crisis and how things really aren't all that bad.
A fifth group generally avoids the blogs as far as I have been able to see and that's the academics. They too can have agendas often related to funding for research but they also bring the capabilities and discipline to gather and interpret data.
The methane topic is a great example of how this dynamic plays out. On the one extreme you have those who deny the existence of plumes of methane floating beneath the surface and at the other you have those who claim that there are not only plumes but that they can explode creating the equivalent of a nuclear nightmare. One of the latest discussions I have observed in some of the blogs is how the environmental damage appears to be far less than what everyone was expecting. (you can guess who is promoting that notion)
Salinger;
I suspect you'd place me in the "tech" category (I hope). The tone I get from your post however is sort of "those guys just buy into what the govt & BP are saying". That is a misunderstanding of what I've attempted to do here. Both the govt & BP have a vested interest in covering up as much as possible. But that being true does not lead to "you can't use any of the data released and must assume that you don't know anything about what is going on - i.e. anything could be happening." I have confined myself from day one to correcting obviously incorrect assumptions based on physical realities.
I have been very disdainful of certain academics - specifically those who are trading on their titles to get attention/interviews as 'experts' then make statements that are utterly ignorant of basic physical facts available to even the most cursory inspection.
When the "conspirators" base their arguments on completely inaccurate and impossible ideas I think it adds value to the discussion to point that out. It does NOT reflect on my opinion of liability and certainly does not indicate faith in our government's ability to accomplish anything. I don't trust the MSM for squat - they are the source of almost all the disinformation both because they are shills for the gov't and refuse to validate whether anyone with a title knows what they are talking about as long as it sounds ominous.
But that being said - you don't have to be stupid about what you use for data and you don't have to approach a question with the notion that the world is ending and anyone who questions you is just "believing the man". BP did not send fake logs and drilling reports to the government. We know where the well is located and how deep the water is, what the substrate is, and how the well was designed. Those things control what can be going on and the discussion is improved, and everyones understanding is improved if we confince ourselves to discussing the implications of what CAN POSSIBLY be going on.
gasminder, don't disagree with what your are saying, the conspiracy crowd have in a way done more damage in that they latch on to a piece of good science and then run with it to create all manner of scenarios blending junk science with real data. One of my frustrations, however is that the techs, as I call them, seem to come down on the side of status quo more often than not while dispatching with ease the "conspiracies" but in doing that they sometimes dispatch the good science/creative thinking and/or add in their own agenda.
Plumes are an example that have gotten a great deal of discussion in the blogs and I am amazed at the almost violent reaction any mention of the word plume gets by techs and non techs alike (some, not all), there are some examples in this thread. Mention the word plume and you may as well be wearing a truther tee shirt (not that there is anything wrong with that) and a birther hat while sipping a cup of tea at Nancy Pelosi appreciation rally. The reality is that based on the science that we currently have there is good reason to believe that there are vast subsurface plumes that contain both dissolved methane and suspended droplets of oil and likely dispersant. Will those plumes explode, not a chance. Will those plumes damage the ecosystem of the gulf, good chance they will in ways that have not even be imagined. Is it in the best interest of the administration and BP to deny or play down their existence, absolutely.
One of the reasons I think the more extreme conspiracy ideas have taken hold is the lack of credibility (deserved or undeserved) by those managing the crisis. From the early days there was a vocal group that was suggesting the output of the leak was unprecedented in size yet the "authorities" clung to estimates that we now know were bogus. At the same time there were early suggestions of cover-up by BP and the Coast Guard, which now appear to have had some merit . Add to that the use of dispersants where lead scientists were contradicting themselves or at least compromising; restricting reporters access, confusion over deployment of resources etc., the politicization of this crisis is an abomination. Issues like the integrity of the casing and then the discovery of the second pipe. Sorting out what is real and what is propaganda has been tough. Scientists trolling for research grants or employed by BP talking up or talking down the crisis while other scientists have their comments and work hijacked by special interests. Add to all of that a stong distrust of the media and an increasing distrust of goverment and corporations and this is what you have.
One thing I am quite sure of is that there will be a great deal swept under the carpet to protect the guilty and the incompetent. Even today there is debate as to the size of Exxon Valdez with the accepted size of that spill being in the 11m gallons range while other suggest it could have been 2x or 3x larger. I suspect that twenty years from now there will still be the question as to how much crude was released in the Deepwater Horizon incident with special interests on both sides holding to the wrong numbers likely a couple of hundred million gallons apart.
Salinger;
I saw this comment after posting my reply to your other statement - my comment 463374 above. I think we are pretty much on the same page and that comment also addresses my thoughts on why "methane plumes" generates such vitriol immediately. I have believed for some time that anoxic zones are THE issue folks ought to be worried about. But they don't get nearly the attention that 'seafloor is collapsing' does...
"Methane" has now gotten to be an object of technical argument as well. I would point out to everyone that methane from this well that reaches the atmosphere is not dangerous. Methane is relatively insoluble in water and will rise to the surface if it is in the gas phase - HOWEVER at the temperature and pressure at the wellhead, if the methane mixes with seawater it will form 'ice' crystals(actually clathrates) that will float in the water column and can be dispersed in ways that can be described as "plumes".
Finally - I am not trying to support the status quo - whatever that is, I believe enormously stupid things were done by BP to save money, even more enormously stupid things were done by government bureaucrats because they are just stupid, and that everyone of them wants to make it all "go away" as quietly as possible.
@Salinger
"On the one extreme you have those who deny the existence of plumes of methane floating beneath the surface "
Not a "tech" are you? Methane is a gas. It is far less dense than water. It is impossible for a "plume" of methane to remain under the surface. The same is true for oil, and I'm sick of reading nonsense from "experts" about these hidden plumes.
I junked you.
+100 to Salinger's recommendation.
While you may have learned elementary chemistry and physics from different teachers in different classrooms -- there is a remarkable relationship between the two!
You will find enough material to keep you busy for weeks if you look for it: TEMPERATURE, PRESSURE, and STATE CHANGE might be good keywords. Please report back after you do.
Oh the sting of the junker!
Conditions at the BP wellhead barely support the formation of those hydrates. Raise the temperature a few degrees or decrease the pressure by a few hundred PSI, and the hydrates break down and release methane gas. The gas is barely soluble in water, so it will rise as bubbles. Since you're so well versed in this obscure area of chemistry, please explain how we can have persistent, underwater "methane plumes" at shallower depths and in warmer water.
BTW, the fish I see swimming near the wellhead don't seem to be bothered by hypoxia from the media-hyped methane "dead zone".
Roger I suggest you do some research and get back to us with your findings. (and if you were wondering I didn't junk you)
The environmental damage is yet to be determined. It will continue for some time, no doubt, even if the well was killed today.
As to the methane and "plumes", some of the confusion relates to what a plume actually is and how the term is used. A section of the water that contains more than a normal amount of methane could be and is described as a plume. That does not mean that it has any dangerous amount of methane in it, just an elevated amount. There are those who then try to conflate the scare stories by using the term plume to be the same as a large explosive cloud. It is just not there in that concentration.
the danger of the mathane relates to the micorbial action that creates a phenom known as deepwater hypoxia and anoxia that is areas where there is little oxygen <2ml per L or the absence of oxygen due to the microbial activity. In this secenario large deepsea dead zones could persist for years in areas where they have not previously existed (not to be confused with the seasonal hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico (see here http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/hypoxia101.htm )
To my point of so called experts or techs in the blogs here is a current example of a discussion over at oildrum - smart folks there with lots of good info and insight but with agendas none the less:
The author of that statement is an industry type who is complaining about the bad reporting but if you follow that person's posts and even by their own admission they are defending the industry by dismissing and attacking their critics.
You are absolutely correct about the issues of anoxia, these create "dead zones". It is not JUST methane, if there are significant 'plumes' of oil due to the use of dispersant at great depths (very cold, high pressure, no one knows what the effects really are) then these are going to be slowly broken down by bacteria and contribute to the same problem. This is a problem I have repeatedly said people ought to be worried about rather than some of the other stuff I've tried to debunk. There WILL be significant impact on the ocean environment from these zones and we don't know what they will be (unless someone funds research and allows access very soon we will likely never know).
I think that in these threads any discussion of "methane" immediately gets confused because it has been a "codeword" in some very absurd scenarios. Many 'conspirators' like it because it scares people. The better description would be 'natural gas' - that's what is actually flowing out of the well, the dominant component of that natural gas is methane. But the confusion with hydrates and the rabid fear-mongering has caused many folks to overreact to the discussion. I certainly believe that the term "methane plume" has been used by many folks to mean very many different things. It astounds many of us that the fact that there is a lot of methane coming out of the well is seen to be evidence of a conspiracy - it was always crystal clear that was the case.
There was no casing ejected from the well, period. It is nearly impossible. None of the people cited in this article are real experts. I don't know how this would affect the relief well, and this article doesn't explain it. Two pieces of drill pipe lodged in the BOP? Maybe. But I don't see what difference it makes. It's a mess anyway.
The BOP's weren't closed until after the rig exploded. BOP's are supposed to be closed before the formation fluids reach the surface. This is the most important aspect of the explosion, yet no one focuses on it.
I don't see how any of this affects the relief well. The well is flowing from outside the production casing. That is bad enough because the drill bit from the relief well can't enter the original well. I think it will be extremely difficult to kill the well with the relief well. You have to hold surface pressure to prevent oil and gas from entering the well while killing a well. They can't do this with this well. It will take a tanker full of mud to kill this well, if it is possible at all.
On TV they said the well will be produced from the two relief wells and a top kill will be performed on the original well. I don't think the relief wells will relieve much pressure, so I don't have much faith in that method either. But then what do I know, I've never had to kill a well with a relief well.
This article seems to me to be more FUD in an attempt to distract and divert blame. Everything BP has done has been a half-assed amateurish disaster (including PR / propaganda). They have no idea what they are doing. There is talk of oil leaking from the sea floor 20 miles away - where's that coming from?
The well clearly has no integrity, the reason top kill didn't do it. They are on a wing and a prayer. If the relief wells work, next they will be dropping a few kilograms of plutonium down one!
Personally I see this as the end of BP in it's present incarnation, and also used to blow-up a hell of a lot of UK "gold plated" pensions. The next thing will be dieing cleanup workers.
http://www.businessinsider.com/warning-to-gulf-cleanup-workers-almost-ev...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRrbqBEGxiw
Where is that talk comming from, you ask. Idiots.
there is no leak 20 miles away.
Augustus and James Cameron have been tooling around the ENTIRE 20 mile perimeter in Jim's submersible just to be sure.
Awesome!
And I found a picture!
http://www-movieline-com.vimg.net/images/assets_c/2009/12/fantastic_voya...
No, wait...that one was from Augustus' colonoscopy
Will the BP dying cleanup workers have to form their own club or can they just add a new chapter to the still dying Exxon Valdese Club. I always like to keep my dying cleanup workers straight. Maybe they can be honorary members of Fight Club.
Oh my, well, this disaster may very well be much worse than people currently know. Alternate facts may be:
* 120,000 barrels per day of flow
* Main leak 10 miles away from riser
* Many toxic chemicals in oil tar which is at the bottom of the ocean
Do a search for Matt Simmons Oil on the web and you'll get a different story.
If you have relatives in the gulf area you might want to warn them there might be issues they are not aware of.
On June 30th, I noted that the Department of Energy had found that there were two section of drilling pipe lodge in the blowout preventer.
Yo George,
Love your coverage of this story to date so I thought I would give you a heads up qualifier on the undeclared potential bias of the US DoE as indicated by my limited web surfing, to wit:
The US Dept of Energy appears to be intimately connected to the globalist organization known as ‘The Club of Rome’ whose long term social engineering goals are set out explictly in the following link titled:
The Canadian Association for the Club of Rome, Personal Recollections of its History ?by J. Rennie Whitehead (Memoirs)
http://www3.sympatico.ca/drrennie/CACORhis.html
Relevant excerpts are as follows [emphasis mine]:
Meetings with Heads of State
Beyond the meetings of the Club of Rome itself, and the projects and publications it has sponsored, Aurelio Peccei and Alex King have travelled literally millions of miles visiting heads of state in practically every country in their efforts to encourage a rational, cooperative approach to a global future. They were persona grata in every capital, whether East or West, North or South. Several meetings of heads of state of more than 20 countries (excluding the super powers) with a few Club of Rome members have been held, notably in Salzburg (1974), Guanajuato (1975) and Stockholm (1978). Successive meetings have shown increasing awareness of the problems on the part of the heads of state and, depressingly, increasing pessimism regarding the feasibility of addressing those problems effectively within the constraints of political institutions.
I was privileged to attend the Stockholm meeting with Heads of State, which was held in the Grand Hotel at Saltjebaden near Stockholm. There was lots of excitement – dozens of police cars at the front and a team of men patrolling the perimeter armed with automatic weapons and accompanied by police dogs. The meeting room was sealed and guarded between sessions.
It was agreed that there would be no published record of such meetings but I still have my own extensive notes. Typical of the gist of individual despairing comments (no attribution for obvious reasons) are:
"As ministers, we have received a great deal of information, forecasts and the results of analysis. What is lacking is political decision. Most politicians are aware of the nature of the problems, but no decisions are taken. Why? The man in the street is not prepared to make sacrifices and the politician will not fight this attitude -indeed he cannot without risking his political life. Sacrifice is against trade union principles. There are two possible approaches: One is to try to build up an ethic which substitutes satisfaction for material reward. The other is to frighten people to the point where they will make sacrifices in order to avoid catastrophe. Both methods must be attempted".
Changing Times
In February 1990, Alexander King retired from his position as President of the Club of Rome and was formally succeeded by Ricardo Diez-Hochleitner, President of the Spanish Association for the Club of Rome. King, who had dedicated much of his time and effort during the last 25 years to the work of the Club, was still very active as its roving ambassador. The Secrétariat Général in Paris was headed by a distiguished French scholar, Bertrand Schneider.
As a sign of the changing times the Club of Rome issued the first Report from its Council in 1991. All previous publications had been addressed by the authors to the Club and, while many of them carried a brief foreword by the Club Executive they expressed the opinions of the authors which were not necessarily those of the Club of Rome as a body. In 1991, Alex King and Bertrand Schneider wrote The First Global Revolution which carried the subtitle A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome (the emphasis is mine). The following fair description of the book appears on its back cover:
The new global revolution is coming into being amid social, economic and cultural earthquakes that have set in motion humanity’s journey into a vast unknown. The First Global Revolution outlines a strategy for mobilizing the globe for environmental security and clean technology by spelling out how to convert from a military to a civil economy, how to tackle global warming and the energy problem, and how to deal with world poverty and the disparities between North and South - all within the context of a world-wide strategy that grapples with the current tangle of crises to make our survival possible in a radically changed globe.
Club of Rome Members have asked each other for several years whether there is any longer a need for a Club of Rome. Governments and the public are now becoming more aware of the kinds of global problem originally described by Peccei in the 1960s and elaborated on over the years in the many books that have been sponsored by the Club of Rome as well as in The First Global Revolution. In spite of these efforts the political and substantive moves to alleviate the problems are woefully inadequate. It is now more urgent than ever to take a new look at the world as it appears in the new century, to examine how it arrived at its present predicament, and to initiate some of the more obvious material and behavioural changes that have to be made if there is to be any hope of the survival of civilized life beyond the middle of the next century. The need for a Club of Rome may now be greater than ever.
The Gestation Period
It was in the spirit described by Pauli that Aurelio Peccei met Alex King in Paris towards the end of the year 1966. Following that meeting, the two men invited about forty of their international friends and colleagues to an informal meeting in the Academia de Lincei in Rome on the 6-7 April, 1967. The meeting was sponsored by the Agnelli Foundation. (The Agnellis were the major shareholders of Fiat). At that meeting it was decided to give the group a name. "The Club of Rome" was an obvious choice, in order to acknowledge the location of that first meeting. Peccei often quipped that it was not to be confused with "the other club of Rome - the one in the Vatican"!
The Director of the Batelle Research Institute in Geneva, Hugo Thiemann, offered to provide facilities for regular meetings of the Club Executive and offered his Institute as the location for the registered offices of the Club. Hugo was also a member of the OECD Committee on Science and Technology Policy, of which Alex King was Secretary, and of which Hugo Thiemann and the Author became Vice-Chairmen.
Members of the group that had met in Rome met several times in Geneva during 1967-68 to hold discussions. At that time the Club had an informal "inner group" of six but had no corporate existence. The inner group consisted of:
· Aurelio Peccei
· Alexander King
· Hugo Thiemann. Swiss Director, Batelle Institute, Geneva
· Max Konstamm. A German Professor
· Jean Saint-Geours. Ministry of Finance, Paris
· Erich Jantsch. Austrian-Polish Author of "Technological Forecasting"
Searching: Hugo Thiemann. Swiss Director, Batelle Institute, Geneva
provides this link:
http://www.battelle.org/index.aspx
Excerpts from the company's homepage [emphasis mine]:
Battelle is an international science and technology enterprise that explores emerging areas of science, develops and commercializes technology, and manages laboratories for customers. Battelle supports community and education programs to promote an enhanced quality of life for our community neighbors.
We’re committed to making the world a better place through our work with government, industry and community in the key areas of:
*
Energy
*
Health & Life Sciences
*
National Security
*
Laboratory Management
*
Education
These key businesses integrate capabilities across Battelle, including the national laboratories we manage or co-manage for the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to create greater value for our customers, the nation and, ultimately, the global community.
c.f. http://www3.sympatico.ca/drrennie/chap13.html
So there you have it. The laboratories of the US DoE and Homeland Security appear to be managed by the private laboratories in Switzerland of a principal dedicated to global resource management at the expense of population control as suggested by the research here:
http://www.infowars.com/club-of-rome-behind-eco-fascist-purge-to-crimina...
Sounds like a much needed asterisk on the DoE.
Not that I doubt them in this specific case but as far as the overall arch of the clean energy/peak oil/global warming narrative, to which this story contributes, I believe these considerations are worth mentioning...as always.
Cool video taking place right now .... removing the flange bolts
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/html/OceanInterventionROV1.html
So 5 years I would have never believed there could be serious Fed charges against BP and Goldman sacs....of course only way this is happening has been for them totrash our economy and environment
For those interested in some discussion of BP's failures from actual technical experts rather than professors dug up by reporters to generate interest there is a new website http://saveusenergyjobs.com with a great deal of information and links both about the failures and impact on the Gulf Coast.
For a post that describes the specific decisions that I have mentioned previously as "criminal negligence" and explains them see:
http://www.saveusenergyjobs.com/2010/07/info-graphic-bp’s-five-fatal-f...
Another post which describes the series of decisions from start to finish that were poor for whatever reason:
http://www.saveusenergyjobs.com/resources/bp-step-by-step-to-disaster/
Finally for those (GW?) who are still determined to believe the relief wells are a significant risk the video below is a Houston TV interview with a long-time blowout expert (a guy who has actually capped them many times). The "money-shot" comes about 1:35 when he is asked if the relief wells will work. As a bonus you can check out the bazookas on that infobabe at the beginning as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntCI7BxW_78
None of those address the red methane realease from this well. They do not adress the problem that All GoM well drill into known fault zones with high probabilities of mud volcanoes. And, as Geo Wash has pointed out, this well was drilled into the Sigsby Salt with Turbitide deposits. Although they have been realatively stable for 120,000,000 years, this well released the worm from the deep that will unzip the mantle all the way to Saudi Arabia.
The parts of the article that associates whatever problems they had with the well at 15,000 ft vs the last 1,000 ft are just not credible. There is not association of those formation problems.
The accusations of criminal negligance are attorney grandstanding. Mr. Lib Blumenthal in Connecticut caused the state to pay out $18,000,000 for his false claims.. Maybe BP can benefit from the same system?
Posted 7/10 at 23:07 ?
had a few margaritas have we?????
Jim Rickards correctly predicted that BP would be charged with criminal negligence, and he also predicted this would result in damages that would finish the company altogether. In less than 30 days, Politico has confirmed that criminal charges are forthcoming against BP and that others will be prosecuted as well.
July 10, 2010
This was from the Jim Rickards piece on June 18th titled Why BP Will Not Survive:
“Don't think the law can stop this. The law will accelerate it. BP's negligence will turn out to be criminal, not civil and the criminal penalties are exponentially greater than the civil fines and normal tort claims. Obama will use the threat of criminal prosecution to get more and then use an actual criminal prosecution to get the residual.”
To read the entire Jim Rickards piece “Why BP Will Not Survive” CLICK HERE.
This was from the Politico article signaling the BP criminal investigation:
Attorney General Eric Holder signaled here that the Justice Department may be conducting a sweeping criminal investigation into the Gulf Coast oil spill, saying that its suspected targets may cover more than just BP.
"There are a variety of entities and a variety of people who are the subjects of that investigation," Holder told CBS' Bob Schieffer at the Aspen Ideas Festival.
To read the entire Politco article confirming the criminal investigation of BP and apparently others CLICK HERE.
Eric King
KingWorldNews.com
GW that is an interesting article and I have a lot of respect for the Times-Picayoune coverage on this issue. However the pipes in that picture are two 4 1/2" drill pipe segments. They are not any other pipe from this well. I can say that with such "certainty" because of the size both in diameter and wall thickness.. The smallest casing string in the well was the final long string which was a tapered 9 7/8 X 7" string. This means the upper many thousands of feet of pipe are 9 7/8" in diameter and a much smaller wall thickness than either of those pipe.
As you are aware I have been saying for weeks that I could believe the long string had moved several feet upward and contributed to the BOP failure. That may still be true but that is not what you are seeing in this picture.
It is odd that there would be two drill pipe in the riser there - an example of the bizarre things that can happen in "disaster" failures.
But again (and again and again) that does not significantly increase the difficulty of in the relief well.
I would also point out to the folks who keep arguing that because they are ranging steel pipe the casing cannot have blown out. The relief well plan is to intercept the wellbore immediately below the "shoe" (base) of the 9 7/8" liner that was set last (before the long string). Even if the long string had been "blown out" (it has not) they would be ranging that liner.
Gasmiinder,
I hope and pray that you are right...
Gasmiinder - you are right. I only keep making that point under the assumption that the "casing blew up out of the hole" crowd is implying that there is no casing left in the hole. I have never seen them make a distinction when making that claim. Perhaps I misunderstood what they were claiming.
Oh I think you are right - that seems to be the assumption. I don't think that what you describe as the "'casing blew out of the hole' crowd" understand what they are claiming or what exists in the borehole - These folks seem to think that 13,000' of steel pipe just evaporated when the well blew out (similar to the thinking of the "BOP is falling over" crowd IMHO). I just wanted to make the point for folks that the 9 7/8 is cemented in to near the penetration depth.
I'd also state that many folks who at least seem thoughtful are being misled by the very large number of "experts" opining on this topic without knowing the simplest most easily discovered facts about what is going on.
[Deleted ... duplicate]
[Deleted ... duplicate]
You rock GW!
from what little I understand;
1) with the pressure involved, it would be impossible for anything to 'fall into' the well once it blew
2) it is impossible to know how much of the casing, etc was ejected before the blowout preventer was activated. Simmons stated that usually these events involve the entire casing be ejected from the well, and that is what causes the most casualties.
3) if the casing was ejected, a relief well is not going to help.
Again and again - Simmons was a financial guy that many people tout as an "experet". He may have been but his statements about the technical issues on his many interviews were utterly without merit. They were STUPID things to say. You cannot be credible if he is your source because the technical claims were all BS.
Really, you trust what's coming from BP. What about allegations of an oil lake agt the bottom of the gulf? I thing we're about to see some very unpleasant surprises over the next couple months regaring this who issue.
Did you see that article in Barrons I linked to the other day where Simmons was quoted? The one piece that just blew me away was his assertion of the wellhead being at 23,000 ft. Like no one can google "gulf of mexico maximum depth". But of course, don't want to make waves or rock the boat in here. Simmons is an expert .... says so right up there in paragraph #8.
I'm convinced that Simmons and the Gorebot both began a search for Chakra release at about the same time.
Simmons is a wealthy guy who wrote a book which conformed to the PC meme.
AlGore was involved in a movie of fiction which promoted the PC meme.
Both earned a great deal from promoting theories which were wrong. And became heroes for doing it. LibTards are enthralled with them both.