#Login Register


  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
Home 


Salazar: Won't Bow to Political Pressure to Restart Gulf Deepwater Drilling
02-28-2011, 04:57 PM #1
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
hope they get a system together adequate to respond to deepwater drilling needs soon

"Bromwich said he was "quite confident that we are getting very close to the point where we can begin issuing deepwater permits." But he and Salazar said the industry still has work to do before exploration of the Gulf's deepest waters can resume.

The U.S. government shut down deepwater drilling shortly after the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20, killing 11 and unleashing a catastrophic oil spill.

The government's official ban was lifted in October, but regulators have yet to allow drilling to resume in water deeper than 500 feet despite mounting political pressure from congressional Republicans and Gulf Coast Democrats to reopen one of the nation's primary energy fields"

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?..._id=104549
02-28-2011, 07:04 PM #2
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:30,492 Threads:1,424 Joined:Feb 2011
Naturally everyone is both politically and environmentally apprehensive about this after what happened. Seems like everybody paid for this except BP.

wonder.gif
03-01-2011, 12:59 AM #3
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
"Feds give first green light for deep-water project since drill ban"

"The federal government just gave the green light for Noble Energy to resume a deep-water drilling project that was halted by the Obama administration’s moratorium last year — the first of its kind to be approved since the ban was lifted in October"

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/02/28/feds-...drill-ban/

FINALLY!!
03-01-2011, 03:45 AM #4
Shadow Mrs. Buckwheat
Posts:12,794 Threads:1,183 Joined:Feb 2011
Well that's good, and necessary so long as precautions are taken. I've read but I don't know that Deepwater horizon would never have happened if deep drilling hadn't been de-regulated, if BP had to have a relief well in place in the same season the primary well was drilled. Any comment on that Taco?

If the US loses Libya, if Iran and Syria shut down exports the US economy will grind to a halt, no way can Alberta's tar sands supply the demand. That only leaves as major exporter Saudi Arabia who tansits through Egypt, and if Egypt is no longer controlled, well. damned.gif What are your thoughts Taco?
03-01-2011, 03:33 PM #5
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
(03-01-2011, 03:45 AM)Shadow Wrote:  Well that's good, and necessary so long as precautions are taken. I've read but I don't know that Deepwater horizon would never have happened if deep drilling hadn't been de-regulated, if BP had to have a relief well in place in the same season the primary well was drilled. Any comment on that Taco?

If the US loses Libya, if Iran and Syria shut down exports the US economy will grind to a halt, no way can Alberta's tar sands supply the demand. That only leaves as major exporter Saudi Arabia who tansits through Egypt, and if Egypt is no longer controlled, well. damned.gif What are your thoughts Taco?

I was not aware of any de-regulation, that's another part of the problem, the Regulators (MMS) was aware of each change in Macondo drilling changes and accepted these changes.

My whole point, there have been so many people pointing fingers that have no idea who or what was involved. BP was the majority owner of that well, in case of a accident like this the owner is responsible for the cleanup. Has to be that way as somebody has to be responsible for it, look at the chaos still unraveling to where people are still pointing fingers at each other.

In the beginning many were grasping at straws for answers some to come to mind is ----there is no acoustic switch.... True but all the different switches in the world will not make something work if it is unable to.

The Centralizers, BP did not use enough centralizers.... I've never seen just 5-used before. Usually a dozen or more but the truth of the matter is the oil and gas came up through the wellbore and not behind the casing/annulus...

Do not have enough time to point out all the theories claimed by so called experts.

Relief well? nobody is going to double drilling costs for a relief well. That is 2-wells. Besides a relief well is when a 2nd well is intersected with the original well. Now a days drilling you can predict close proximity to where the drill bit is going, but not within a few inches and that is what is needed to intersect the wells. Hard to explain but a relief well is only going to be done when there is a neccesity to do so.
------------------------------------------
Latest reports show the BlowOutPreventer Shear Rams did Shear the drill pipe like it was supposed to but did not seal the well like it was supposed to.

That BOP owned by Transocean and built by Cameron was over 10-years old. I am no BOP expert but am sure recorded logs must be kept on equipment like this to be sure it is maintained correctly and tested.

So I feel as you regarding precautions. Precautions were taken, all within the legal scope regulations.

Clearly BP, MMS and Transocean were not ready for a problem like this although when BP submitted a drilling plan they included a plan for spills/blowouts. This appeared to be the same plan carbon copied to all their deepwater offshore plans. Bottom line is nobody was ready.

It's hard to develop new regulations in uncharted waters, this is relatively new challenges drilling in water depths of 1-mile plus. Although many projects are successful, clearly there are challenges that need to be addressed.

1st of all this should not have happened, all parties on that rig floor should have known clearly there was a problem and identified the problem. Known the potential for disaster and done something about it. Not just BP. There were options but nobody identified the problem. The worst thing that they could have done is remove the heavy fluids holding down the gas and oil-but they did.

People claim they are pushed to save time working on a well. Well yes, maximizing efficiency yes. Who would not at a price of $!-million/day for Deepwater Horizon. There is a big difference between working with efficiency and working dangerously.

All I am saying is yes, more safeguards need to be in place. From disaster plans to equipment to personnel.
---------------------------------------------------

As for Libya, it's not that big of deal. Saudi has already pledged to increase exports above and beyond Libyas export capacity. OPEC countries make their money off of oil, they do not want to shut down and production, Libya's is only off 50% not shut down.

Tarsands? Hell I worked for Dome Petroleum is the summers going to college here in Texas, made great money. Hardly anybody even knew about The Tarsands back then. Ft. McMurray Alberta, been there and done that, but that was when they injected steam instead of mining it.

Did you know Us Domestic Imports, Canada exports more oil to US than anybody else. Including Saudi.
Used to be Mexico number 2
Think Venezuela is like 5
Brazil is becoming a major player in Oil export.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This whole price runup is purely speculative concern about a major disruption

Oil is a commodity and commodities are speculative. Oil is no different. Who's screaming about the price of bacon, that's pork bellies another commodity.
Wait, I'm sorry the price of pork is high due to feeding the swine is corn, isn't that what the government is pushing to add to the make ethanol as a gasoline additive ? Isn't the US Government/EPA pushing to raise the ethanol additive from 10 to 15% knowing this will further increase food prices and further reduce gas mileage?

No, Hello NO

The US Government would do anything like that

Guess what, they did...



03-01-2011, 04:13 PM #6
Shadow Mrs. Buckwheat
Posts:12,794 Threads:1,183 Joined:Feb 2011
I know that Bush/Cheney deregulated deep sea drilling to give more latitude to the companies but I'm not finding facts from google just a lot of finger pointing and BP's disaster which isn't what I'm after. Also in Canada any deep sea drilling the laws mandate a relief well in the same season as the primary, in fact could be the US is the only one that doesn't do this. Not sure. I did know Canada is biggest exporter to US yes. But it's all that heavy crude. Did you watch Prometheus' vid? Very interesting.

Thanks Taco cheers.gif you always give great answers
03-01-2011, 04:42 PM #7
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:30,492 Threads:1,424 Joined:Feb 2011
cheers.gif Taco, you are indeed well informed. Thanks for sharing, we appreciate it!

wonder.gif
03-02-2011, 11:33 AM #8
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
(03-01-2011, 04:13 PM)Shadow Wrote:  I know that Bush/Cheney deregulated deep sea drilling to give more latitude to the companies but I'm not finding facts from google just a lot of finger pointing and BP's disaster which isn't what I'm after. Also in Canada any deep sea drilling the laws mandate a relief well in the same season as the primary, in fact could be the US is the only one that doesn't do this. Not sure. I did know Canada is biggest exporter to US yes. But it's all that heavy crude. Did you watch Prometheus' vid? Very interesting.

Thanks Taco cheers.gif you always give great answers

I think the deregulation during the Bush/Cheney referred to was offering more deepwater leases to the oil companies.

Shadow, drilling a relief or twin wells in Canada is only mandated in the arctic I thought. I understand the theory but would like to make no comment on it. Generally a relief well is a secondary well intersecting the primary well relieving the primary well of pressure in the annulus. If there is no need to relieve pressure from a primary well, a intersecting well is more detrimental exposing 2-wells. Makes no sense to me ....

and not all Canadian Crude is "heavy" crude. I worked on a project with ExxonMobil back in the 90's . The Jeanne d'Arc Basin offshore Newfoundland which produces light sweet crude. Newfoundland was part of Canada last time I looked.

http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/hibernia/

"Hibernia is located in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, 315km east of St John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, in a water depth of 80m. The field consists principally of two early Cretaceous reservoirs - Hibernia and Avalon - located at average depths of 3,700m and 2,400m, respectively.

Hibernia oil is a light sweet crude, with a density of 32-34° API and a sulphur content, by weight, of 0.4-0.6%. The field contains approximately three billion barrels of oil in-place, and recoverable reserves are estimated to be at around 1,200 million barrels."

Canada yields intermediate crudes also.

Y'all believe everything you read? Just because somebody makes a video or writes a news article does not make it gospel.
I have no animosity against Promo but he is constantly making comments where he knows nothing about. I have worked on Canadian projects, worked for Big Oil. Gave it up, found my little niche in the industry and have my own little company.

Some very good points are made but some seem to have trouble distinguishing fact from fiction.

03-02-2011, 12:02 PM #9
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011

Now rethinking a comment or video Promo (terrible in spelling/typing, I mean no harm in abbreviating) he was referring to a certain pipeline DEDICATED to "heavy" crude but not all Canadian exported oil crude is "heavy"

There are many many pipelines transporting different grades of crudes from Canada to US and US to Canada. Different crudes from different regions are blended in a refinery to refine to a end product which would probably be a better answer to Kreepers question about building more refineries.
03-02-2011, 12:38 PM #10
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:30,492 Threads:1,424 Joined:Feb 2011
Quote:Y'all believe everything you read? Just because somebody makes a video or writes a news article does not make it gospel.

chuckle.gif Not really, in that case our politicians are shape shifters, theres a giant genetically engineered oil monster and the bottom of GOM, Jesus the Mormons and pornstars are all coming and there are nazi bases on the moon. ha!

wonder.gif
03-02-2011, 03:30 PM #11
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
(03-02-2011, 12:38 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  
Quote:Y'all believe everything you read? Just because somebody makes a video or writes a news article does not make it gospel.

chuckle.gif Not really, in that case our politicians are shape shifters, theres a giant genetically engineered oil monster and the bottom of GOM, Jesus the Mormons and pornstars are all coming and there are nazi bases on the moon. ha!

I do believe dat...
drinking.gif
03-02-2011, 03:42 PM #12
Shadow Mrs. Buckwheat
Posts:12,794 Threads:1,183 Joined:Feb 2011
You're right taco, I was thinking of Alberta oil. And I can't find any facts on just what Bush/Cheney did back then, it'd take a year to wade thru all the BP disaster theads to get any facts lol. Looks like Harper has watered down the regulations for off-shore drilling in Canada too.

Quote:Canadian regulations about relief wells are not quite as simple as the Reuters story suggested. • Oil companies do not actually have to drill relief wells in advance. Rather, in order to get a drilling permit they have to satisfy the National Energy Board that they have the capability to drill a relief well the same season as the exploratory well

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/01...96142.html
03-02-2011, 04:17 PM #13
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
(03-02-2011, 03:42 PM)Shadow Wrote:  You're right taco, I was thinking of Alberta oil. And I can't find any facts on just what Bush/Cheney did back then, it'd take a year to wade thru all the BP disaster theads to get any facts lol. Looks like Harper has watered down the regulations for off-shore drilling in Canada too.

Quote:Canadian regulations about relief wells are not quite as simple as the Reuters story suggested. • Oil companies do not actually have to drill relief wells in advance. Rather, in order to get a drilling permit they have to satisfy the National Energy Board that they have the capability to drill a relief well the same season as the exploratory well

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/01...96142.html

Again I thought Relief Wells in the Arctic only for some reason. Thought it was something to do with Icebergs, hell I dunno

Hell yes I am all for having real disaster plans and equipment that both is up to the challenges of the environment and works.

Think BP cut and pasted alot. Trust me I have been on rigs and told Company Men I was not going to be a part of this procedure. Told him I'm going to call my boss and my boss will probably call your boss so you better call your boss. chuckle.gif Alot of chest puffing out there

I have stirred the pot but have yet to be found wrong and they always said ok you win. If I think something is either unsafe of harmful to the equipment I won't agree with and that is that. Not saying I know everything but when I know it's wrong I will have no part of it
11-18-2012, 03:46 AM #14
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(02-28-2011, 07:04 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  Naturally everyone is both politically and environmentally apprehensive about this after what happened. Seems like everybody paid for this except BP.


http://beforeitsnews.com/food-and-farmin...46208.html

Now BP has paid for this.

Is Salazar still impeding leases?
11-18-2012, 05:13 AM #15
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
(11-18-2012, 03:46 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(02-28-2011, 07:04 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  Naturally everyone is both politically and environmentally apprehensive about this after what happened. Seems like everybody paid for this except BP.


http://beforeitsnews.com/food-and-farmin...46208.html

Now BP has paid for this.

Is Salazar still impeding leases?


BP is paying and will be paying a hell of a lot more, that last round was just the fines. Next up are the civil suites. Which is going to be higher than the 4.5 billion? I forget

Ken Salazar is presently Secretary of the Interior and unsure of his duties as such. However he was heavily criticized in his handling of BP Macondo disaster. Remember every change in drilling plans on Macondo was accepted by his staff.



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com