Shareholders revolt?

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"The oil company could be prosecuted by shareholders for paying billions
upon billions into a fund for damages without being legally required to do
so . It's therefore a good thing that the US government has not asked for a
blank check to cover damages. With the high sum (of $20 billion), the
government can now offer quick and unbureaucratic First Aid (to people
living near the Gulf)."

"But the firm can't just run free now that an arbitrary sum has been set.
What the final cost for damages might be, and which mistakes were made by
whom, have yet to be determined. Civil and criminal complaints against BP
have to remain an open possibility. This fund is just a first step toward
stopping the holes that the oil catastrophe has ripped in the finances of
many affected people."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...701279,00.html

Smells like a cover-up in progress:

A rare and endangered species of sea turtle is being burned alive in BP's
controlled burns of the oil swirling around the Gulf of Mexico, and a boat
captain tasked with saving them says the company has blocked rescue efforts.

Mike Michael at Gather.com reports that Kemp's Ridleys are listed as
endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Harming or killing one "carries
stiff fines and civil penalties ($500-$25,000) assessed for each violation.
Criminal penalties include possible prison time and fines from
$25,000-$50,000."

Michael suggests that, given the size of the fines BP could face as a result
of the turtle deaths, the company may be happy to let turtles burn, as it
would make it impossible to calculate exactly how many turtles died. He
notes that the bodies of dead animals are being kept as evidence to
determine how much in fines BP will be liable for.

"Is BP destroying evidence to keep their liability down?" he asks. "Is
anyone going to stop them?"

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0620/bp-...turtles-alive/

A case of gross negligence?

Location of Deepwater Horizon oil rig was criticized

More than 12 months ago some geologists rang the warning bell that the
Deepwater Horizon exploratory rig might have been erected directly over a
huge underground reservoir of methane.

Documents from several years ago indicate that the subterranean geologic
formation may contain the presence of a huge methane deposit.

None other than the engineer who helped lead the team to snuff the Gulf oil
fires set by Saddam Hussein to slow the advance of American troops has
stated that a huge underground lake of methane gas-compressed by a pressure
of 100,000 pounds per square inch (psi)-could be released by BP's drilling
effort to obtain the oil deposit.

Current engineering technology cannot contain gas that is pressurized to
100,000 psi.

By some geologists' estimates the methane could be a massive 15 to 20 mile
toxic and explosive bubble trapped for eons under the Gulf sea floor. In
their opinion, the explosive destruction of the Deepwater Horizon wellhead
was an accident just waiting to happen.


http://www.helium.com/items/1864136-...-kill-millions

After all the litigation is complete will BP survive ?

Best Regards

Tom.










--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

"Azotic" wrote:

Location of Deepwater Horizon oil rig was criticized

More than 12 months ago some geologists rang the warning bell that the
Deepwater Horizon exploratory rig might have been erected directly over a
huge underground reservoir of methane.

Documents from several years ago indicate that the subterranean geologic
formation may contain the presence of a huge methane deposit.

None other than the engineer who helped lead the team to snuff the Gulf oil
fires set by Saddam Hussein to slow the advance of American troops has
stated that a huge underground lake of methane gas-compressed by a pressure
of 100,000 pounds per square inch (psi)-could be released by BP's drilling
effort to obtain the oil deposit.

Current engineering technology cannot contain gas that is pressurized to
100,000 psi.

Really? I used to work with waterjets that ran 60K psi and I noticed that the supplier of
my fittings had stuff that went 150K psi. Obviously, smaller than drilling pipe and
casing. Can't you scale up the walls of casing to deal with the pressures?

By some geologists' estimates the methane could be a massive 15 to 20 mile
toxic and explosive bubble trapped for eons under the Gulf sea floor. In
their opinion, the explosive destruction of the Deepwater Horizon wellhead
was an accident just waiting to happen.

I think not treating the pressure issues properly was the issue.

I *hope* the relief well doesn't make the same mistakes with mudding and cementing and
considers that this is a very high pressure well when setting the series of telescoping
cases as they go down hole.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Azotic" wrote:

Location of Deepwater Horizon oil rig was criticized

More than 12 months ago some geologists rang the warning bell that the
Deepwater Horizon exploratory rig might have been erected directly over a
huge underground reservoir of methane.

Documents from several years ago indicate that the subterranean geologic
formation may contain the presence of a huge methane deposit.

None other than the engineer who helped lead the team to snuff the Gulf
oil
fires set by Saddam Hussein to slow the advance of American troops has
stated that a huge underground lake of methane gas-compressed by a
pressure
of 100,000 pounds per square inch (psi)-could be released by BP's drilling
effort to obtain the oil deposit.

Current engineering technology cannot contain gas that is pressurized to
100,000 psi.

Really? I used to work with waterjets that ran 60K psi and I noticed that
the supplier of
my fittings had stuff that went 150K psi. Obviously, smaller than
drilling pipe and
casing. Can't you scale up the walls of casing to deal with the
pressures?

"Stuff" that will handle 150 kips is at the high end of workable engineering
materials. To make a little waterjet out of stronger materials is one thing.
To make containment and attachment fittings out of it, at that scale, is
just about off the charts.


By some geologists' estimates the methane could be a massive 15 to 20 mile
toxic and explosive bubble trapped for eons under the Gulf sea floor. In
their opinion, the explosive destruction of the Deepwater Horizon wellhead
was an accident just waiting to happen.

I think not treating the pressure issues properly was the issue.

I *hope* the relief well doesn't make the same mistakes with mudding and
cementing and
considers that this is a very high pressure well when setting the series
of telescoping
cases as they go down hole.

Wes

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Really? I used to work with waterjets that ran 60K psi and I noticed that
the supplier of
my fittings had stuff that went 150K psi. Obviously, smaller than
drilling pipe and
casing. Can't you scale up the walls of casing to deal with the
pressures?

"Stuff" that will handle 150 kips is at the high end of workable engineering
materials. To make a little waterjet out of stronger materials is one thing.
To make containment and attachment fittings out of it, at that scale, is
just about off the charts.

But the target pressure was 100 Ksi.

Btw. do you by into the dead dinosaur and plant life theory or do you think something else
is going on below making oil? The scale of the thing has me wondering.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Really? I used to work with waterjets that ran 60K psi and I noticed
that
the supplier of
my fittings had stuff that went 150K psi. Obviously, smaller than
drilling pipe and
casing. Can't you scale up the walls of casing to deal with the
pressures?

"Stuff" that will handle 150 kips is at the high end of workable
engineering
materials. To make a little waterjet out of stronger materials is one
thing.
To make containment and attachment fittings out of it, at that scale, is
just about off the charts.

But the target pressure was 100 Ksi.

What are you going to make the vessels and fittings out of, to tolerate 100
kips of sustained pressure? This wouldn't be some thin-walled container.
Welding is probably out of the picture.

You can make lab-scale equipment that will handle it, but I doubt if you
could produce something of the scale needed for this job.


Btw. do you by into the dead dinosaur and plant life theory or do you
think something else
is going on below making oil? The scale of the thing has me wondering.

Wes

They say it's dead zooplankton and algae. Maybe there's a dino in there
every so often. d8-)

I have no way of knowing, Wes. Anything chemical is 'way out of my realm.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:10:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Azotic" wrote:

Location of Deepwater Horizon oil rig was criticized

More than 12 months ago some geologists rang the warning bell that the
Deepwater Horizon exploratory rig might have been erected directly over a
huge underground reservoir of methane.

Documents from several years ago indicate that the subterranean geologic
formation may contain the presence of a huge methane deposit.

None other than the engineer who helped lead the team to snuff the Gulf
oil
fires set by Saddam Hussein to slow the advance of American troops has
stated that a huge underground lake of methane gas-compressed by a
pressure
of 100,000 pounds per square inch (psi)-could be released by BP's drilling
effort to obtain the oil deposit.

Current engineering technology cannot contain gas that is pressurized to
100,000 psi.

Really? I used to work with waterjets that ran 60K psi and I noticed that
the supplier of
my fittings had stuff that went 150K psi. Obviously, smaller than
drilling pipe and
casing. Can't you scale up the walls of casing to deal with the
pressures?

"Stuff" that will handle 150 kips is at the high end of workable engineering
materials. To make a little waterjet out of stronger materials is one thing.
To make containment and attachment fittings out of it, at that scale, is
just about off the charts.


By some geologists' estimates the methane could be a massive 15 to 20 mile
toxic and explosive bubble trapped for eons under the Gulf sea floor. In
their opinion, the explosive destruction of the Deepwater Horizon wellhead
was an accident just waiting to happen.

I think not treating the pressure issues properly was the issue.

I *hope* the relief well doesn't make the same mistakes with mudding and
cementing and
considers that this is a very high pressure well when setting the series
of telescoping
cases as they go down hole.

Wes

I think that the most obvious question would be, the geologist based
his estimate on what data?

That Methane is frequently found in association with crude? Obviously
as it is just another hydro-carbon.

Were other wells drilled into the formation that showed this pressure?
I, at least, haven't heard of any other major blow outs that must
certainly have occurred if anyone drilled into a 100,000 psi
reservoir.

Where did the geologist find the seismic charts showing this gigantic
gas reservoir? Certainly I've never seen a seismic printout that
guaranteed that there was oil in that dome, or anticline. Can they now
detect gas?

Was this report published in a peer reviewed publication? Which one,
when? and if not, why not.

In the more then 20 years I worked in the oil industry I have never
talked to a Reservoir Engineer or Geologist who would categorically
state there is oil THERE! They all use words like "if there is it
should be there"; or, "this is the most likely place".

In any event, from all I can find, BP was using 10,000 PSI as the test
pressure for the well, which would indicate they anticipated much
lower pressures. They were using 16 PPG mud which again indicates
lower then 100,000 psi pressures and the 16 PPG mud apparently was
containing the pressure as from all indications the well blew only
after BP had plugged the well and was flushing the riser in
preparation to moving the rig.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

The field was well known scientifically, there is gas in all fields -
breaking down of base crude into many oils and gasses.

It was the first well that deep. All others were in shallow - I believe
the Chinese wells for Cuba are close to Florida and are in shallower water.

This well is offshore from the old shore that was land before the ice age
ice melted off and raised the ocean level.

The wells that were sunk over the last 50 years in the gulf are not
that far offshore..

I want to know why the preventer failed.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/

On 6/26/2010 11:41 PM, J. D. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:10:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
wrote:

Location of Deepwater Horizon oil rig was criticized

More than 12 months ago some geologists rang the warning bell that the
Deepwater Horizon exploratory rig might have been erected directly over a
huge underground reservoir of methane.

Documents from several years ago indicate that the subterranean geologic
formation may contain the presence of a huge methane deposit.

None other than the engineer who helped lead the team to snuff the Gulf
oil
fires set by Saddam Hussein to slow the advance of American troops has
stated that a huge underground lake of methane gas-compressed by a
pressure
of 100,000 pounds per square inch (psi)-could be released by BP's drilling
effort to obtain the oil deposit.

Current engineering technology cannot contain gas that is pressurized to
100,000 psi.

Really? I used to work with waterjets that ran 60K psi and I noticed that
the supplier of
my fittings had stuff that went 150K psi. Obviously, smaller than
drilling pipe and
casing. Can't you scale up the walls of casing to deal with the
pressures?

"Stuff" that will handle 150 kips is at the high end of workable engineering
materials. To make a little waterjet out of stronger materials is one thing.
To make containment and attachment fittings out of it, at that scale, is
just about off the charts.


By some geologists' estimates the methane could be a massive 15 to 20 mile
toxic and explosive bubble trapped for eons under the Gulf sea floor. In
their opinion, the explosive destruction of the Deepwater Horizon wellhead
was an accident just waiting to happen.

I think not treating the pressure issues properly was the issue.

I *hope* the relief well doesn't make the same mistakes with mudding and
cementing and
considers that this is a very high pressure well when setting the series
of telescoping
cases as they go down hole.

Wes

I think that the most obvious question would be, the geologist based
his estimate on what data?

That Methane is frequently found in association with crude? Obviously
as it is just another hydro-carbon.

Were other wells drilled into the formation that showed this pressure?
I, at least, haven't heard of any other major blow outs that must
certainly have occurred if anyone drilled into a 100,000 psi
reservoir.

Where did the geologist find the seismic charts showing this gigantic
gas reservoir? Certainly I've never seen a seismic printout that
guaranteed that there was oil in that dome, or anticline. Can they now
detect gas?

Was this report published in a peer reviewed publication? Which one,
when? and if not, why not.

In the more then 20 years I worked in the oil industry I have never
talked to a Reservoir Engineer or Geologist who would categorically
state there is oil THERE! They all use words like "if there is it
should be there"; or, "this is the most likely place".

In any event, from all I can find, BP was using 10,000 PSI as the test
pressure for the well, which would indicate they anticipated much
lower pressures. They were using 16 PPG mud which again indicates
lower then 100,000 psi pressures and the 16 PPG mud apparently was
containing the pressure as from all indications the well blew only
after BP had plugged the well and was flushing the riser in
preparation to moving the rig.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:10:10 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Azotic" wrote:

stated that a huge underground lake of methane gas-compressed by a
pressure of 100,000 pounds per square inch (psi)

Well, I would like to see the source of that number. The oil is at 18000
ft, of which 5000 ft is water (1 g/cm3) and 13000 ft is rock (say 2.7 g/
cm3). From the simplistic 'column of stuff' argument, the pressure of oil
(0.5 g/cm3) at the sea bottom will be .448 [psi/ft] times (5000 ft +
13000 ft * (2.7-0.5)), which comes out to 15000 psi, which agrees with
what I have heard on the TV about the pressure of oil spurting from the
well head.

Why would gas be under dramatically different pressure? Rock is porous, so
if it wasn't equilibrated by the simple depth-related pressure, it would
diffuse away.

The articles claiming 1e5 psi tended to have alarmist titles like 'Gulf
disaster could kill millions' so my BS detector needle pegged on red.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:45:39 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:10:10 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Azotic" wrote:

stated that a huge underground lake of methane gas-compressed by a
pressure of 100,000 pounds per square inch (psi)

Well, I would like to see the source of that number. The oil is at 18000
ft, of which 5000 ft is water (1 g/cm3) and 13000 ft is rock (say 2.7 g/
cm3). From the simplistic 'column of stuff' argument, the pressure of oil
(0.5 g/cm3) at the sea bottom will be .448 [psi/ft] times (5000 ft +
13000 ft * (2.7-0.5)), which comes out to 15000 psi, which agrees with
what I have heard on the TV about the pressure of oil spurting from the
well head.

Why would gas be under dramatically different pressure? Rock is porous, so
if it wasn't equilibrated by the simple depth-related pressure, it would
diffuse away.

The articles claiming 1e5 psi tended to have alarmist titles like 'Gulf
disaster could kill millions' so my BS detector needle pegged on red.


Some rock is porous and some is not. In most cases gas is found in
association with oil and often is dissolved in the oil and separates
when oil is brought to the surface and the pressure drops to ambient.
In other cases relatively pure gas is found as a gas cap on top of an
oil reservoir, or even alone or with insignificant amounts of liquids.

Mobile's field in N. Sumatra and Hufco's field in Kalimantan are both
gas deposits with insignificant amounts of associated liquids.

I remember quite a long time ago (20 years ago, maybe) there was some
high pressure sour gas finds on the coast of Louisiana (I think) that
were plugged and abandoned since at the time there was no way to
produce the levels of high pressure, corrosive, gas economically.

I think the point is that the well was completed and the rig was
preparing to move off. No mention of extremely high pressure gas had
been made at that time.

Another thing that seems to go unnoticed is that much of the talk
about missing centralizers and amounts of cement pumped seems to be
coming from the cement company who did the cement job, and possibly
can be found liable if the cement job is found to have failed; almost
like someone laying out the defense before the charges are made.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

"Przemek Klosowski" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:10:10 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Azotic" wrote:

stated that a huge underground lake of methane gas-compressed by a
pressure of 100,000 pounds per square inch (psi)

Well, I would like to see the source of that number.

Then look for it.

The oil is at 18000
ft, of which 5000 ft is water (1 g/cm3) and 13000 ft is rock (say 2.7 g/
cm3). From the simplistic 'column of stuff' argument, the pressure of oil
(0.5 g/cm3) at the sea bottom will be .448 [psi/ft] times (5000 ft +
13000 ft * (2.7-0.5)), which comes out to 15000 psi, which agrees with
what I have heard on the TV about the pressure of oil spurting from the
well head.

Why would gas be under dramatically different pressure? Rock is porous, so
if it wasn't equilibrated by the simple depth-related pressure, it would
diffuse away.

The articles claiming 1e5 psi tended to have alarmist titles like 'Gulf
disaster could kill millions' so my BS detector needle pegged on red.

Then check the facts. It's a lot easier than doing speculative calculations.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Przemek Klosowski" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:10:10 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Azotic" wrote:
stated that a huge underground lake of methane gas-compressed by a
pressure of 100,000 pounds per square inch (psi)
Well, I would like to see the source of that number.

Then look for it.

The oil is at 18000
ft, of which 5000 ft is water (1 g/cm3) and 13000 ft is rock (say 2.7 g/
cm3). From the simplistic 'column of stuff' argument, the pressure of oil
(0.5 g/cm3) at the sea bottom will be .448 [psi/ft] times (5000 ft +
13000 ft * (2.7-0.5)), which comes out to 15000 psi, which agrees with
what I have heard on the TV about the pressure of oil spurting from the
well head.

Why would gas be under dramatically different pressure? Rock is porous, so
if it wasn't equilibrated by the simple depth-related pressure, it would
diffuse away.

The articles claiming 1e5 psi tended to have alarmist titles like 'Gulf
disaster could kill millions' so my BS detector needle pegged on red.

Then check the facts. It's a lot easier than doing speculative calculations.



Sorry Ed, haven't seen many facts lately.
Only various opinions...





--

Richard Lamb

On Jun 28, 10:23*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Why would gas be under dramatically different pressure? Rock is porous, so
if it wasn't equilibrated by the simple depth-related pressure, it would
diffuse away.

The articles claiming 1e5 psi tended to have alarmist titles like 'Gulf
disaster could kill millions' so my BS detector needle pegged on red.

Then check the facts. It's a lot easier than doing speculative calculations.

--
Ed Huntress

I took a course a long time ago from the chief troubleshooter at
Varian. I never used any of what the course was about. It was Vacuum
Tube Technology. BWO's, TWT's, Klystons's ect. But I did learn a lot
about estimating and error analysis. We did thing like calculate the
diameter of the wire in a 5 ma fuse. ( Given is that the wire is
platinum. So you know the melting temperature. Heat loss in the
center of the length will not be by conduction toward the ends. So
all heat loss in the center of the wire is by radiation. etc.

But what Przemek Klosowski is saying is that if the gas was much
over 15,000 psi, the pressure would have already blown the overlaying
rock and water away. That is a fact. And a much more reliable fact
than trying to find the source of the 100,000 psi estimate. Obviously
one is not going to find that estimate with any explanation of how the
estimate was made. Because if they had used reasonable methods of
estimating, they would not have come up with 100,000 psi.

Calculations done with estimates of error are an excellent way of
separating theories into plausible and implausible.

Dan

On Jun 26, 4:31*pm, Wes wrote:

Current engineering technology cannot contain gas that is pressurized to
100,000 psi.

Really? *I used to work with waterjets that ran 60K psi and I noticed that the supplier of
my fittings had stuff that went 150K psi. *Obviously, smaller than drilling pipe and
casing. *Can't you scale up the walls of casing to deal with the pressures?



Wes

My rough calculations say that for a 4 inch id and 100,000 psi, the
wall thickness would have to be about 4 inches if you used HSLA
steel. And that is without any safety factor. Time for nanotubes.

Dan

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:07:01 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 26, 4:31*pm, Wes wrote:

Current engineering technology cannot contain gas that is pressurized to
100,000 psi.

Really? *I used to work with waterjets that ran 60K psi and I noticed that the supplier of
my fittings had stuff that went 150K psi. *Obviously, smaller than drilling pipe and
casing. *Can't you scale up the walls of casing to deal with the pressures?



Wes

My rough calculations say that for a 4 inch id and 100,000 psi, the
wall thickness would have to be about 4 inches if you used HSLA
steel. And that is without any safety factor. Time for nanotubes.

Dan

The last casing set to complete the well was 7 inch. I think you can
assume a safety factor of at least 2 and probably more. From what I
read the 7 inch was hung off at the well head, so it extended the
entire depth of the well. Calculate what the weight of the entire
string of 7 inch was and how much the derrick had to support to handle
that string and I'll ask my drilling superintendent buddy that the
capacity of the BP rig was.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:31:05 -0400, Wes
wrote:

"Azotic" wrote:

Location of Deepwater Horizon oil rig was criticized

More than 12 months ago some geologists rang the warning bell that the
Deepwater Horizon exploratory rig might have been erected directly over a
huge underground reservoir of methane.

Documents from several years ago indicate that the subterranean geologic
formation may contain the presence of a huge methane deposit.

None other than the engineer who helped lead the team to snuff the Gulf oil
fires set by Saddam Hussein to slow the advance of American troops has
stated that a huge underground lake of methane gas-compressed by a pressure
of 100,000 pounds per square inch (psi)-could be released by BP's drilling
effort to obtain the oil deposit.

Current engineering technology cannot contain gas that is pressurized to
100,000 psi.

Really? I used to work with waterjets that ran 60K psi and I noticed that the supplier of
my fittings had stuff that went 150K psi. Obviously, smaller than drilling pipe and
casing. Can't you scale up the walls of casing to deal with the pressures?

By some geologists' estimates the methane could be a massive 15 to 20 mile
toxic and explosive bubble trapped for eons under the Gulf sea floor. In
their opinion, the explosive destruction of the Deepwater Horizon wellhead
was an accident just waiting to happen.

I think not treating the pressure issues properly was the issue.

I *hope* the relief well doesn't make the same mistakes with mudding and cementing and
considers that this is a very high pressure well when setting the series of telescoping
cases as they go down hole.

Wes

You guys seem to be forgetting that if the well head is say...100
kpsi...how deep is it and what is the water pressure at the bottom of
the sea bed...some 5000 feet deep?

Gunner




One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Jun 26, 8:24*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:


You guys seem to be forgetting that if the well head is say...100
kpsi...how deep is it and what is the water pressure at the bottom of
the sea bed...some 5000 feet deep?

Gunner


Did not forget. Just ignored it because it is only about 2150 psi.
Not significant compared to 100k psi.

Dan