Oh well, did y'all know this?????? :http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-15/1279953105162840.xml&coll=1 Safety systems were bypassed, witness says Emergency alarm, shutdown were off, technician says Saturday, July 24, 2010 By David Hammer Staff writer The Deepwater Horizon had a general alarm to warn of dangerous gas leaks on the rig and automated emergency shutdown systems to keep gas out of the engine room and to prevent it from igniting on working electronics. But rig leaders had decided to bypass those key safety functions before the disastrous explosions April 20, according to staggering testimony from the rig's chief electronics technician Friday. The technician, Mike Williams, an employee of rig owner Transocean, said he didn't like the practice of "inhibiting" critical warning and safety systems. But higher-ups insisted on it for such reasons as not wanting to be awakened in the middle of the night. The decision appears to have been a game-changer for the 11 men who were killed in the accident, especially those working on the drill floor at the time. When methane gas shot onto the rig a little before 10 p.m., the bypassed alarm meant the men on the drill floor had no audio or visual warning to help them escape; a bypassed control panel shutdown meant gas likely had an ignition source in the airtight drilling shack; and the lack of an emergency shutdown system left engines free to suck in more gaseous air, causing them to overspeed, explode and spread the fire. "The well kicked, safety systems were inhibited or failed and men lost their lives," Williams said at the conclusion of his testimony. "Somehow we have to get to the bottom of it." Williams told federal investigators that the rig's general alarm and indicator lights were set to "inhibited," meaning they would record high gas levels or fire in a computer, but wouldn't trigger any warning signals automatically. "When I discovered they were inhibited a year ago I inquired why, and the explanation I got was that from the OIM (the top Transocean official on the rig) on down, they did not want people woken up at 3 a.m. due to false alarms," said Williams, who was responsible for fixing many of the rig's systems. Williams said he took his concerns to two fellow rig workers before the accident. "I told them that was unsatisfactory, just not in those words," he said. "They told me they had orders from the OIM and the master that the alarms were to be inhibited." Transocean released a statement Friday to rebut its employee's testimony. The company said there are dozens of individual zone alarms that weren't bypassed, and leaving the general alarm to a manual control on the bridge is a normal industry practice. "This is an option on each individual vessel designed to prevent the general alarm from sounding unnecessarily when one of the hundreds of local alarms activates for what could be a minor issue or a non-emergency," the statement said. "Repeated false alarms increase risk and decrease rig safety." When gas shot up onto the rig, Williams said an emergency shutdown system, which was supposed to shut off the engines, didn't trip either. The engines ended up overspeeding by drawing power off the gas and Engine No. 3 exploded, Williams said. Rig leaders had also decided to bypass a key system on the blowout preventer control panel that would have cut off the spark source if gas got in the drill shack, Williams testified. As it turned out, that's where gas apparently shot onto the rig and ignited, killing 11 workers. Williams said he discovered that about five weeks before the accident, while he was trying to fix the gas-purging system. He said Mark Hay, the Transocean senior subsea supervisor, set the control panel system to bypass its gas shutdown function, and when Williams questioned him, Hay said there was no point in fixing it because none of the Transocean rigs use the safety system. "He said, 'Damn thing been in bypass for five years. Matter of fact, the entire (Transocean) fleet runs them in bypass,'" Williams testified. Williams also may have finally provided some clues as to why fluids seeped out through a valve in the well's blowout preventer during a final test of pressure in the well. About five weeks before the accident, Williams was called to check on a computer system in the drill shack that was constantly on the fritz. While there, he saw a contract worker with chunks of rubber that had come up from the well. Williams was disturbed because the only rubber in the system would have been the crucial annular valve on the blowout preventer, the huge device that's supposed to close the well in an emergency. But Hay assured Williams it was no big deal, Williams said. Shortly after that, Williams was called into the blowout preventer control area to see why the drill pipe had moved while the annular valve was closed tight around it. He said he discovered a joystick controlling the pipe had been moved inadvertently, and he deduced that the rubber valve must have been damaged. Transocean attorney Ned Kohnke suggested that Hay and others might have different information to suggest the annular valve was not closed around the pipe when the joystick was moved. Williams insisted that the pressure data he saw at the time indicate the valve was indeed closed. Hay was supposed to testify before the Marine Board panel Wednesday but he didn't show up. On April 20, the drilling team was surprised to find that high pressure wasn't enough to keep the annular valve closed during the negative pressure test. But the rig leaders decided to simply run the test again and, in spite of some confusion, deemed the test a success and OK'd the removal of protective drilling mud that might have stopped the fatal gas bulge. Rig officials misinterpreted that test, said John Smith, an associate professor of petroleum engineering at Louisiana State University who was brought in as an expert witness. Smith also said that because of that misinterpretation, rig workers likely failed to recognize an initial kick of gas some 50 minutes before the accident. If they had recognized increases in fluid flow at that time as a kick, they might have been able to act earlier to stop operations. The elusive meaning of the negative test is one of the biggest remaining mysteries of the events leading up to the spill. A negative pressure test essentially checks if the well can hold its contents when it's shut in and pressure is exerted on it. A good pressure test would mean no further tests would be necessary and the crew could safely remove the drilling mud that guards against gas kicking up through the riser pipe. A bad pressure test would force BP to spend more time and money on further tests. Everyone agreed the first test was unsuccessful because 15 barrels of mud were lost in the process. But, according to testimony, the crew simply tightened a valve and tried again. The results of the second test have been a major source of confusion. John Guide, BP's well site supervisor in Houston, testified Thursday that the top company man on the rig, Robert Kaluza, told him he was confused by high pressure readings on the drill pipe during the second negative test. But Kaluza, who was new to the rig, said Transocean workers assured him it was not a problem, according to Guide, so the company interpreted the test results as successful. Smith said there were actually four separate tests run, according to graphs of data made available by BP after the accident. He said none of them was successful. He said one of them may have been misinterpreted because the flow of fluid out of the well stopped. But there was heavier-than-usual fluid in the tubes feeding into the blowout preventer. Smith said that if that fluid wasn't recognized as the reason for the stopped flow, the results could have tricked the workers. "The symptoms are a successful test," said Smith, who spent 23 years as a drilling engineer for AMOCO before becoming an academic. "But the reality is it's not a test at all. (That's) my opinion." He said full records of what was going on in the rig's drill shack are not available because workers never got a chance to write out more detailed records. But based on meters tracking the movement of fluids, Smith believes it's likely the well started kicking gas at about 9 p.m., about 50 minutes before gas kicked out of control and exploded. He said the drillers probably ignored signs of a kick at that point because they thought they had a successful pressure test. "They think they've already proven the well's safe. That's a reason to reduce your rigor," he said.
Wildlife damage underestimated.... Reported number of bird deaths grow on Gulf Coast (AP) 4 days ago "NEW ORLEANS The number of dead birds collected on the Gulf Coast has more than doubled in the past month as oil from BP's broken deepwater well continues to wash up on islands and beaches rich in bird colonies. Officials say 2,599 dead birds had been collected on the Gulf Coast as of Thursday. A month ago, 1,046 dead birds had been collected, according to official death counts. The number of other dead animals being reported by officials has not climbed as steeply. For example, in the past month the number of dead sea turtles has grown from 411 to 483 and dead mammals from 47 to 62. Some bird conservation groups are stepping up criticism of the efforts to protect nesting areas and say government figures drastically under count the number of affected birds." I read another article where the gov. have not counted the hundreds of nesting birds covered in oil for some reason. There also have been dead whales,dolphins and other large mammals that have washed ashore. Necropsies(sp?) have shown damage to their gills and organs from the chemicals-NOT meaning the oil, but the cortex.......:ball: Fellas, is ANY of this making your local news or even the back of your papers?????o No: This isn't over. You should see the "DEAD ZONE articles".:shock:
NOTHING UP IN THE NY AREA. But thats typical when you live to the 2nd most liberal city in the Nation. (San Fran being # 1)
Nope. We don't get any info like this on the news here. All they have been talking about is how they stopped the leak. They make it sound like everything is all better now.
Wellll, another oil gusher leak in Louisiana. Boat rams oil rig ,now oil and gas spewing like crazy. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/27/boat-crashes-oil-creating-new-spill-gulf-mexico/
Nothing on the news about it around here in the Destin/Ft. Walton Beach area. I watch Channel 3 News from Pensacola everyday and there has been nothing mentioned about it.
Since Louisiana owns this well, think we can get Louisiana to put a billion dollars in escrow for clean-up?:idea2:
Now what would make you think WE own this abandoned well?(one of THOUSANDS BTW) And why would WE be responsible for it's clean-up?!?! Where did you come up with this???? I've never received my check..:dollar: "The collision near Bayou St. Denis occurred at about 1 a.m. when a dredge barge pulled by a tug vessel hit the orphaned well, owned by Houston-based Cedyco Corp."(now defunct) Why so pissy??? Own THAT much BP stock????ou: BTW ,The oil spill liability trust fund is gonna pick up the tab. That's what it's there for....
CNN still has coverage. That's where I get some of my info, but get lots more here, so thanks for the updates! The word broadcast from CNN is that there isn't much oil on the surface to collect. I can't imagine they even collected more than a few percent of the total spill, but that's just my wild guess... Can anyone speculate what percentages of the oil is still in the water, on the surface, or has come ashore? .....and what percentage has been cleaned up?
Walt, I don't have some of that info. BUT Parish officials are po'd!!!!!! Seems BP has recalled many of the "vessels of opportunity" and many of their own ships.ou: Estimates are up to 85% have been pulled away. (out of sight, out of mind, I guess:rant: ). Last night they showed Anderson cooper and some scientists on the beaches. After they were "cleaned" .They dug down in several places to find a layer of oil and chemicals (dispersants?) nearly a foot down.:shock: Now this could only be seen w/ special lights (UV?), but clearly showed a layer of contamination. Samples were taken and showed a "safe" level of chemicals (ppm). BUT The scientist and Cooper pointed out this was in an area where there was relatively little that washed ashore. He was VERY concerned about other areas of the coast as well as the "plume" that still is spreading across the Gulf. He stated he would be leery of kids and sand castles. Now keep in mind there has been nothing done to "clean" the marsh , bayous,estuaries and inlets.
In all fairness, I misspoke on these topics. Bp has said they would keep the "vessels of opportunity" til the end of Aug. But I know of several guys who have not been allowed back out-even to clean the interior marshes, where it still is doing damage. :moonu: :Smarty: Also Bp denies they have started pulling out support ships, even though there are obviously less on scene. The local officials seem to have a BP whistle-blower giving them some inside info.
Now the biggest story here is the million gallons of oil leaking in Michigan. 5 seconds of the BP incident of them mentioning that the well is not leaking, and 5mins of the spill in Michigan.
Some paint a rosy picture of crisis's end, but experts say looks can be deceiving Friday, July 30, 2010 By Bob Marshall Staff writer Charter captain Mike Frenette has been wondering whether the news media are living in a parallel universe. The Internet and mainstream media this week are filled with reports that the BP oil disaster is over, that the Gulf is now devoid of the slicks and sheen, and the marshes are no longer being bathed in crude. That's not what he and his crew saw at the mouth of the Mississippi River and along the river's delta this week. "There was more oil at South Pass Tuesday than I've seen since this whole thing started; it was really discouraging," Frenette said. "I don't know where everyone else is looking, but if they think there's no more oil out there, they should take a ride with me. "I wish this thing was over so I could get back to fishing. But that's just not the case. We're a long way from finished with the oil." Scientists and oil spill experts agree with Frenette. They say the Gulf might look cleaner on the surface right now, but there is probably hundreds of millions of gallons of BP's oil in tiny, hard-to-see droplets below the surface. And slicks like the one Frenette saw this week will still be floating to the surface for weeks and months to come. For months, a fleet of research vessels has been tracking clouds of diffused oil particles floating 3,300 to 4,300 feet below the surface, said Steve Murawski, NOAA's chief scientist for fisheries. The microscopic droplets were formed when the dispersant Corexit was pumped into the geyser of oil and methane that for 84 days rocketed into the Gulf from the failed wellhead 5,000 feet below the surface. "These are tiny droplets, between 20 and 60 microns, and with the concentrations we're seeing (4 to 5 parts per million) when you put this in a beaker it looks like clear sea water," Murawski said. "You can't see it, but there's definitely components (of the oil) in the water." Those findings run counter to the flurry of sunny news reports that flooded the Internet this week after Tropical Storm Bonnie. As the storm approached, officials braced for the long-feared worst-case scenario: a surge that would lift millions of gallons of crude from the Gulf and drive it deep into interior coastal wetlands, which have been largely untouched by the disaster. But when Bonnie fizzled and post-storm search crews looking for oil found little to report, the sigh of relief turned into bubbling optimism that the crisis might be over. By Tuesday, however, reports of oil impacts began rising again. Frenette and Don Sutton, both captains on "vessels of opportunity" -- boats hired to help with the spill response -- saw their optimism crushed at the river's South Pass on Monday. Frenette said the oil that flowed into and around South Pass was the thickest and largest concentration he had found since the disaster began April 20. Other captains told him, meanwhile, that they had seen long ribbons oil, with a mousse-like consistency, off the coast of Empire. Sutton said he found lines of floating tar balls that stretched for more than 15 miles Tuesday and Wednesday. "I followed a line that stretched from South Pass to Southwest Pass probably two to three miles off the shore," he said. "And that wasn't all we saw. There were patches of oil in that chocolate mousse stuff, slicks and patches of grass with oil on them. "The Gulf might look clear, but we're still seeing oil coming ashore." Doug Rader, chief ocean scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, wasn't surprised by the deceptive appearance of the Gulf. "The confusion comes with the word 'oil' itself," he said. "Most people hear 'oil' and they think of the dark, gloppy stuff that comes in the can at the automotive store, or from the barrels in Saudi Arabia. "But oil is composed of many, many more components than the black stuff you see. And when that black stuff is gone, there's still plenty of those components -- many of which are extremely toxic -- still in the water." Rader, like other marine scientists, is concerned the public will lose interest in the threat posed by the disaster once the surface is clear. "If you go back and look at the sheer amount of oil dumped -- 60,000 barrels a day for 87 days -- you get about 220 million gallons," he said. "Of that, 11 million gallons were burned and 30 some million were collected, meaning about 50 million gallons were eliminated. "That leaves you about 175 million gallons of oil-based pollution loose in the Gulf. And when it degrades from the thick stuff you can see, that doesn't mean it's all gone. There's still an untold amount of toxins from that oil in the marine environment." Other sightings of possible impacts this week included a growing swatch of dead surf clams along the coast from Buras to Empire and hundreds of starfish inching out of the water and onto the beach at the Chandeleur Island chain. Ryan Lambert, who runs Cajuns Fishing Adventures in Buras, said he first noticed a small number of the nickel-sized clam washed up on a beach on the 47the day of the disaster. By Wednesday, the dead clams stretched for several miles in a band 10 feet wide. "That first patch was maybe 6 feet by 10 feet, with maybe hundreds of clams, a lot of them wrapped around big old tar balls," he said. "Wednesday, there were millions of them. "I've been down here 40 years. I've never seen that before." The starfish were sighted by crew members working on vessels of opportunity who did not want to be quoted for fear of losing their jobs. Marine biologists said both events could be the result of low dissolved oxygen levels, a common development in warm, summer months. Or they could be related to the oil. http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-15/128047142345130.xml&coll=1
Thanks, that puts the cleanup 'progress' into perspective...only 50 million gallons of 220 million have been removed, or about 22%. The remaining 78% will be much more difficult to remove. Are there currently ANY methods to do so? Will Mother Nature be able to break it down? What was the whole point of using the dispersant??? It makes it MUCH more difficult to clean up the oil (if not impossible). It appears to me the dispersant was only used to reduce how much oil was VISIBLE to the public. If there are any benefits to using the dispersant, please educate me.
Walt, my friend, that is the $64 million question. I don't know if you/me/them are aware of how dangerous the cortex truly is. No one does. But Dawn, it aint. Funny how there is little to no oil on the surface, but now it's just spread out in the water column far and wide and is of course, throughout the spawning grounds.
Whaaaat? What time? We should have. I finally got to sleep 'round 6am. All around N.O and outlying areas, if at a stop light and a truck crosses, you sorta bounce. All soggy marsh under S. LA for the most part.
