Print 42 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on Jul 15 at 12:48 PM

Containment Cap  (Source: CNN)
Two-day testing will reveal if it is effective or not

After nearly three months of trying to contain the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico with containment caps/domesrobotic submarines, the "top kill" effort, and tools to transport oil up to ships like the riser insertion tube tool (RITT), which have all failed to completely stop the leak, BP is now placing a new cap over the well in hopes of finally containing the oil for good.

The new 18-foot, 150,000-pound cap was placed over the well with robotic arms on Monday and tests are being run to determine if this is the right procedure for the job. So far, oil is still flowing from the upper section of the new cap, but BP said they expected this to happen until the company begins "well integrity tests" today. BP noted that they don't expect any oil to be released during the test, but that this doesn't indicate that the flow of oil has been stopped permanently. 

The test is expected to take anywhere from six hours to two days, but it's possible for the tests to be extended even further. The data gathered during the tests will be shared and reviewed with "relevant government agencies." According to retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, scientists will be checking the pressure inside the well and will then determine if the cap is containing the oil or if they will need to continue siphoning oil to ships at the surface. 

Allen hopes that the new containment cap can close down the valves and hold all of the oil, but BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles mentioned that it's important to first make sure there is no hydrate buildup. A huge problem in the process of placing the new cap is the possibility of new damage to the blowout preventer. 

The new containment cap has brought some new features to the table, such as allowing four collection ships instead of three (which is what the old cap allowed) to siphon oil, if oil collection is still needed after today's tests. According to BP Senior Vice President Kent Wells, 60,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil could be collected a day over the next two to three weeks if oil collection is still part of the containment process, thanks to the addition of an extra collection ship. Recently, Helix Producer ship was placed with the Q4000 collection ship and together, they are expected to gather up to 33,000 barrels of oil per day. 

In addition to new containment caps and more collection ships, a new moratorium order issued by the U.S. Interior Department is doing its part in preventing any more disasters like this from happening. 

The new moratorium is to "protect communities, coasts and wildlife" by making oil companies establish safety measures in order to reduce the risks of oil spills and blowouts in the future while deepwater drilling. This is the U.S. Interior Department's second effort to diminish deepwater oil and natural gas projects.

A previous ban after the Gulf oil spill was thrown out by a federal judge, but after a federal appeals panel "rejected the government's request to overturn the lower court judge's decision," the U.S. Interior Department issued a new order that supersedes the previous one. 

This new ban would be in effect until November 30, 2010 or until deepwater drilling operations are deemed safe by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Such a ban would insure that deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico would be suspended until the oil leak is resolved and officials can figure out what went wrong April 20 and what to do to prevent it in the future.

"More than eighty days into the BP oil spill, a pause on deepwater drilling is essential and appropriate to protect communities, coasts and wildlife from the risks that deepwater drilling currently pose," said Salazar. "I am basing my decision on evidence that grows every day of the industry's inability in the deepwater to contain a catastrophic blowout, respond to an oil spill and to operate safely.

"I remain open to modifying the new deepwater drilling suspensions based on new information."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

All that oil...
By lainofthewired on 7/13/2010 9:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
Are they gonna try to remove as much oil from the ocean as they can once they plug the leak? And if so, what happens to the stuff? Do they put it back into the operation it was supposed to go to (like refineries)? Does it get discarded in some way? I'm curious since I don't know if sea water affects the crude.

RE: All that oil...
By FITCamaro on 7/13/2010 11:48:18 PM , Rating: 5
Yes they try to capture as much as they can. Assuming it can be, it is refined.

One thing this spill has done is put to rest the Democrat lie that there isn't any oil in the Gulf so its not worth drilling out there.

RE: All that oil...
By hr824 on 7/14/2010 1:06:14 AM , Rating: 5
True but it does prove the Republican lie that corporations will always self regulate.

RE: All that oil...
By LoweredExpectations on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: All that oil...
By Kurz on 7/14/2010 9:07:31 AM , Rating: 2
Self regulate isn't the word...
It should be about contracts with the states that would find themselves economically hurt by an accident.
That is the best regulation.

RE: All that oil...
By twhittet on 7/14/2010 11:05:50 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure BP is going to be financially hurt, but that didn't exactly stop this, or even keep it from lasting months.

If you give a gambler $ to gamble, they will gamble.

RE: All that oil...
By Kurz on 7/14/2010 12:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
Every industry in the world strives to cut costs.
Thats capitalism, before you demonize capitalism you have to see that without it we would be living in worse off state. We wouldn't have the same level of comfort as we do today.

Though I can argue that the current contract with the MMS and the Federal government we much more lax than a contract between BP and the States. The pay out cap was only 70 million dollars for crist sakes. This unrealistic damage assessment led to cutting on the Self Regulation.

Was it considered a gamble? We have honestly no clue until the relief wells have been drilled.

RE: All that oil...
By clovell on 7/14/2010 2:00:19 PM , Rating: 3
...and somewhere in-between lies the truth. Too bad America hates a moderate...

RE: All that oil...
By iNGEN2 on 7/15/2010 9:21:26 AM , Rating: 2
As the politicians have arranged it, I wholeheartedly agree. Although I disagree with the premise. There can be no effective self-regulation when there exists a government enforceable limit on damages should a disaster occur. 70 million dollar limit...come on! Self-regulation isn't even on the minds of contract negotiators when the damage limit is lower than the cost of a replacement rig.

Just more intentionally deceitful garbage spewing from the mouths of the commercial and political elites. Where have you gone Andrew Jackson? Your countrymen need you again.

Thats just the tip of the iceberg.
By YashBudini on 7/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Thats just the tip of the iceberg.
By FITCamaro on 7/13/2010 11:46:44 PM , Rating: 3
Who needs to?

It was an accident. If it comes out they broke the rules, they'll be punished. However, this is not a reason for the government to control the oil industry or enact cap and trade legislation which has nothing to do with the current problem.

RE: Thats just the tip of the iceberg.
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 9:25:27 AM , Rating: 3
However, this is not a reason for the government to control the oil industry or enact cap and trade legislation which has nothing to do with the current problem.

But you damn well better believe that it will give them more momentum to push for it. Why else would Obama have sit on his hands for the first month or more? So it could get worse, and provoke national attention of course!

Obama: "See! THAT'S why we need cap and trade!"

RE: Thats just the tip of the iceberg.
By geddarkstorm on 7/14/2010 12:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
Cynical but most likely true. If nothing else, the Obama administration has shown itself shrewd and capable of leveraging any sort of disaster to their gain.

RE: Thats just the tip of the iceberg.
By niva on 7/14/2010 2:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about that at all in this case. I personally think the administration's response to this disaster is the wost thing they have on their record. People are pretty mad about it I think.

Then again, I live in Texas so my view of the world is extremely biased, long term you might be right. They'll find a way to use this to shove cap and trade through.

By bigdawg1988 on 7/14/2010 8:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
If nothing else, the Obama administration has shown itself shrewd and capable of leveraging any sort of disaster to their gain.

And how would that be different from any previous administration?

By iNGEN2 on 7/15/2010 9:28:23 AM , Rating: 2
"Never let a serious crisis go to waste"
- Rahm Emanuel

As usual, they exploit the disaster faster than they fix it:

By YashBudini on 7/15/2010 12:03:13 AM , Rating: 2
"If it comes out they broke the rules, they'll be punished."

You mean like this slap om the wrist?

And did they learn not to cut so many corners?

"Red flags and warning signs had been raised about corrosion on several occasions both from within and outside the organization but had been ignored.[3] The 1992 tests on the eastern line had indicated the presence of calcium in the line, but nothing was done about it.[original research?] A company report in year 2005 said BP based its corrosion-fighting on a limited budget instead of needs.[8]"

Yeah corporate ethics really improved with law enforcement and fines.

"Mission Accomplished!"

By YashBudini on 7/15/2010 12:48:47 PM , Rating: 1
"Who needs to?"

The fact that you need to ask that question is the reason why no explanation or professional ethics course could possibly help you.

By martinrichards23 on 7/14/2010 6:58:09 AM , Rating: 2
And what about the company that owned and ran the rig, and the company that made the faulty device?

Ken, sharp as a bowling ball
By SandmanWN on 7/13/2010 4:54:44 PM , Rating: 4
Expect this to be struck down as well in court. Ken doesn't get it that he has to show some sort proof that the other wells are dangerous. We know this isn't possible as the other companies have openly stated in front of congress that they don't use this design in their deep water sites.

He can shut down wells of similar design or sites that used the same inspectors or possibly any run by the same company, but the court should strike down any ruling based on an assumption.

RE: Ken, sharp as a bowling ball
By AssBall on 7/13/2010 5:51:20 PM , Rating: 1
He, like most of the current administration, forgets hes a member of the executive branch. Forgets that actual laws have to be seen by the judicial branch as fair and constitutional before they can be affectual. Salazar doesn't know the constitution from a dead hooker.

RE: Ken, sharp as a bowling ball
By LordSojar on 7/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Ken, sharp as a bowling ball
By FITCamaro on 7/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Ken, sharp as a bowling ball
By Quadrillity on 7/14/2010 9:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
I'm trying to figure out if the irrational "hate everything Bush" rated you down, or if someone who doesn't understand a single thing about DHS or the Patriot Act downrated.

RE: Ken, sharp as a bowling ball
By Anoxanmore on 7/14/2010 10:14:05 AM , Rating: 3
He is FITCamro, now that reader1 is gone, FIT's counter part is Tony Swash. Basically he is an extreme right wing fundamentalist, much like yourself.

I haven't found a left wing extremist equivelant for you yet Quad, don't worry though, someone will show up.

Then we have the ultimate mud wrestling contest between DT commentators.

RE: Ken, sharp as a bowling ball
By YashBudini on 7/15/2010 12:05:42 AM , Rating: 2
"Please tell me of a single example of a violation of the constitution by Bush."

Your support for Bush is no more logical than your hatred of blacks. And you're actually using the same part of your brain in the process.

RE: Ken, sharp as a bowling ball
By YashBudini on 7/15/10, Rating: 0
Die BP
By Performance Fanboi on 7/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Die BP
By namechamps on 7/13/2010 3:59:12 PM , Rating: 5
Shareholders? Well if you own an index mutual funds in your IRA or 401K I guess you get some oil too stupid.

Punishing shareholders is not only stupid because they have no control over day to day operations but also violate the whole principle on which corporations were founded (limited liability).

Shareholders are punished when they make poor investments by those investments declining. Which they have.

RE: Die BP
By Performance Fanboi on 7/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Die BP
By dflynchimp on 7/13/2010 7:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
Surprising enough, just from reading the above posts, I find that his post was rather civil, and yours, well, let's just say I'd recommend a good anger management class.

RE: Die BP
By Mr772 on 7/13/2010 7:54:45 PM , Rating: 1
So calling somone you don't know stupid is civil to you? How sad.....for you.

RE: Die BP
By clovell on 7/14/2010 2:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
No, reading a post devoid of the word 'American' and then accusing the poster of presuming you're American actually MAKES you stupid.

If people can't be assed to read and understand something before they pop off in response to it, then they are stupid.


RE: Die BP
By Performance Fanboi on 7/14/2010 8:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
I guess a lot of non-Americans have 401k's.

RE: Die BP
By namechamps on 7/13/2010 7:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
Couple points since virtually nothing you said was accurate.

First BP is not an American company. It is a British company. Second not all shareholders of BP are American or even British. Shareholders are international.

Even if BP was American and all shareholders were American it still wouldn't matter because the legal concept of a corporations is that of limited liability. This is true in America, Russia, China, or South Africa. The concept of corproation is an entity that survives the death of the owners and in which liability is limited to the investment in the entity. The most basic research (reading wikipedia) would have informed you of how and why this is true.

The most that can legally happen to a shareholder is they lose 100% of their investment; the stock goes to $0.00 or 0.00 Euros or 0.00 Yuan. This isn't done to "punish" shareholders rather it is a mechanism of the system of capitalism in which poor investments result in losses for investors.

lastly you seem to be confused about the level of power, insight, and control shareholders have. Were you are the Deep Water Horizon design was flawed and BP cut corners in the design and drilling? If not then shareholders didn't either.

Shareholders shouldn't be liable for something beyond their control simply because you are angry and need someone to vent your anger on.

RE: Die BP
By Daniel8uk on 7/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Die BP
By YashBudini on 7/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Die BP
By BZDTemp on 7/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Die BP
By Dorkyman on 7/14/2010 1:28:56 AM , Rating: 4
So I'm to blame because I drive a Ford SUV? Don't think so.

Oil is a natural resource. Millions of barrels are extracted every day without incident and without environmental damage. The BP fiasco was apparently an operations error made much more serious (in hindsight) because of equipment failure and the extreme depth of the project. It will be fixed and a few years from now the oil contamination will be gone, or nearly so.

Oil is a marvelous energy source, and via technology we have lots of it. We don't need to turn our thermostats down or ride our bicycles to work.

RE: Die BP
By BZDTemp on 7/14/2010 9:43:22 PM , Rating: 1
Just what makes you think that oil extraction does not do environmental damage on a regular basis?

It may not make the headlines on show it self directly on the beaches but thinking oil production is a clean business is unfortunately a mistake.

Here is a link to a real tree huger site on the subject:

Also please spend a few moments with google and you will find more on the problems.

PS. You may also like to google "peak oil" and then you'll learn we do not have lots.

By Daniel8uk on 7/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Well...
By iNGEN2 on 7/15/2010 9:41:58 AM , Rating: 1
You'll never get an ethical result, when you expect the unethical to police the unethical.

"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki