Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Deepwater Horizon Blast Triggered by Methane Bubble, Report Shows
Investigation reveals accident on Gulf of Mexico rig was caused when gas escaped from oil well before exploding
The deadly blast on board the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico was triggered by a bubble of methane gas, an investigation by BP has revealed.
The deadly explosion caused 3 million gallons of crude oil to pour into the Gulf. (Photograph: KPA/Zuma/Rex Features) A
report into last month's blast said the gas escaped from the oil well
and shot up the drill column, expanding quickly as it burst through
several seals and barriers before exploding.
The sequence of events, described in the interviews with rig workers, provides the most detailed account of the blast that killed 11 workers and led to more than 3 million gallons of crude oil pouring into the Gulf.
Segments of the interviews conducted during BP's internal investigation were described in detail to the Associated Press by Robert Bea, a University of California Berkeley engineering professor who serves on a National Academy of Engineering panel on oil pipeline safety. He also worked for BP as a risk assessment consultant during the 1990s. He received the details from industry friends seeking his expert opinion.
The revelations came as a giant funnel was lowered over the oil well in a bid to contain oil leaking from it.
BP said it might take up to 12 hours for the 98-tonne, steel and concrete containment device to settle in place almost 1 mile (1.6km) below the surface. But the company added that the operation appeared to be going as planned.
It is hoped that the structure will be able to collect as much as 85% of the leaking oil and begin funnelling it to ships above by Monday.
But the BP chief executive, Tony Hayward, has warned there is no certainty the device will prove successful because it has not be tried at that depth.
The company, which is also drilling a relief well to halt the leak, faces an equally daunting challenge to contain the political and financial fallout from the spill. The Obama administration has kept up the pressure on the oil giant, a move seen in part as a tactic to divert criticism of its own role in the disaster.
Recent news reports have suggested the interior department exercised lax oversight in approving BP's operations in the Gulf, accepting too readily its claims there was little risk of an accident.
- Posted in
49 Comments so far
Show All'a bubble of methane gas'...............
kem was right all along..........this stuff is dangerous.
Sioux Rose
COCO: If you hear from him, will you tell him that he's missed? And that others previously banned are back, so he could return, too?
Re: methane, wasnt this http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3647
the link he used to post? Ive passed on this link many times over the past few years.
yeah, that's the one kitaj.............
sioux rose: he's over on mj.........i hooked up with him a few weeks ago over there. look on any discussions involving methane; you'll likely find him.
mj?
Hmmm, a methane bubble? Hmmm, bp doing the investigation?
Guess that about raps it up and no need to worry or fret with any other reasons of the blast as they will be just like all the 9/11 conspiracy nut's reasons for that 'terrorist' attack that was only perfunctorily investigated.
Every so often you will see footage on cable documentary shows of an oil rig sinking because it pierced a pocket of methane hydrates, which then escape and expand, radically lowering the density of the water which causes the rig to sink in a very short amount of time.
This is a known and documented hazard to oil exploration and extraction. This danger grows exponentially in deep water drilling operations.
The engineers and executives at BP, and the US government officials knew these facts, but allowed an obviously flawed and safety deficient drilling and extraction plan to go ahead.
Just another case of Corporate murder. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Exactly. When a person kills, it's called murder. When a corporation kills it's called just another day at the office.
If I may point out the obvious, BP will be accepting no responsibility for something that was beyond their control.
An act of God I believe they call it.
There next move will be to drill closer to shore....to avoid deep water drilling!
The Bermuda Triangle strikes again.
You know if BP were a "person" they could be facing arrest for manslaughter and other crimes and would possibly be in detention awaiting trial.
Wait a minute! The Supreme Court says that BP and other corporations are "persons". Would not the equivalent action to take with a corporate person facing such serious charges be to temporarily nationalize their assets and have the court appoint some real living people to administer the corporation's assets until the results of the trial are obtained, or require that a rather substantial bail is paid? Would not a reasonable punishment for a criminal corporate "person" include that its assets be nationalized for the term of the sentence? With the USA still having the death sentence that could be made permanent. (If we must have corporate personhod then why should the corporations get to pick and chose which aspects of personhood they want?)
Corporations have been given the rights of personhood but not the responsibilities.
They prefer the term, "Corporation-Americans".
I use to work on smaller rigs on land. The oil patch mentality is more or less criminal. Anything goes until you get caught. Don't believe anything BP says, or Obama.
Interesting discussion here including the faulty blowout prevent system, which was a deliberate risk by trying to save a little money.
Mother Of All Gushers
http://pesn.com/2010/05/02/9501643_Mother_of_all_gushers_could_kill_Earths_oceans/
"If we can't cap that hole that oil is going to destroy the oceans of the world. It only takes one quart of motor oil to make 250,000 gallons of ocean water toxic to wildlife. Are you starting to get the magnitude of this?
We're so used to our politicians creating false crises to forward their criminal agendas that we aren't recognizing that we're staring straight into possibly the greatest disaster mankind will ever see. Imagine what happens if that oil keeps flowing until it destroys all life in the oceans of this planet. Who knows how big of a reservoir of oil is down there."
It is this deposit that has me reminding people of what the Shell geologist told me about the deposit. This was the quote, "Energy shortage..., Hell! We are afraid of running out of air to burn." The deposit is very large. It covers an area off shore something like 25,000 square miles. Natural Gas and Oil is leaking out of the deposit as far inland as Central Alabama and way over into Florida and even over to Louisiana almost as far as Texas. This is a really massive deposit. Punching holes in the deposit is a really scary event as we are now seeing."
And then there is South America. The Tupi Oil Fields, about 50 miles off the coast of Brazil and under a mile of ocean and more than three miles under the ocean floor (4.5 miles from the surface total). The geologic formation is the Campos Basin. The stratigraphic layers in which the oil resides is only about 24,000 years old. There are some geologists who say the only possible explanation for the existence of this much oil in this particular place is that oil must be abiotic-not 'fossil' fuel.
Let's hope they are regulating their industries more than the good ol' USA regulates its offshore rigs.
Anyone know more about the acoustic triggered switch that is not required in US waters? They use it in North Sea. I'm reading what I can.
typo:
I used to work...
and a good illustration of a blowout preventer at:
http://politicalclimate.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/why-bp-deserves-this/
"But can BP truly be blamed for this catastrophe? In short, yes. On account of simple, deliberate negligence.
And it could just as easy have happened, or even happen AGAIN, to any of the big oil companies operating off of our shores right now."
Thanks for that URL, gonzo. I learned a lot. And yes I can see that the cause of the blowout is BP's decision not to pay for safety equipment that is mandatory in other parts of the world.
Let me summarize the link:-
* Oil wells have emergency shutoff valves called blowout preventers, which are designed to prevent such disasters. These often fail, and to stop the failures, an "acoustic control backup" is REQUIRED by some oil producing nations, eg, Norway and Brazil. These cost $0.5 million.
* When the USA considered similar legislation, the oil corporations lobbied against it, and the corporate controlled politicians imposed no such requirements, i.e. they were BOUGHT.
* The first jury required Exxon to pay $5 billion in damages. Appeals by the oil giant got that reduced to only $0.5 billion, which is the amount of profit Exxon makes in 4 days.
* BP can never be made to pay $ billions, because their legal liability is limited to $75 million.
* It was never in BP's interests, therefore to install the "accoustic control backup".
One thing became clear to me when I read that link, is that the oil companies MUST be made to pay properly for such disasters. Only if they are made to pay properly, will it be in their interests to pay for the proper safety equipment. Exxon, was not made to pay properly for their disaster, and there is no way that BP will be made to pay properly, because their legal liability is CAPPED at $75 million, which is a small fraction of the profit that these rigs make in a single day.
OK! now I've heard it all.
BP blames this catastrophe on a FART?
We TOLD you the Earth was ALIVE!
Why should anyone believe what PB has to say on this? I thought they were blaming it all on Haliburton?
Is this what the US Government means when they say they want to see a 'boom' in domestic oil production?
Uh-huh.
I am very happy to read your articles, more useful for me especially
I have the same thing with you. I am so very petrified of this in my lectures. http://computergadgetreview.com
BP's 'teapot dome' filled up with ICE-like crystals and was removed. Back to square one.
Do not pass Go, do not collect ... do we 'nuke' the well or just BP?
This is causing much more trouble than hot pants on an airplane or wet fireworks in a SUV.
I agree with the statement by gonzonews: ".... "Energy shortage..., Hell! We are afraid of running out of air to burn."... "
Interesting facts:
The Oil Companies and others have informed the public that oil, being a fossil fuel, is for all practical purposes a non-renewable resource and is quickly being consumed. The implication is that soon we will run out of the precious stuff. The big “buzz word” now is “Peak Oil” meaning we’ve reached the point where we are now at a point where we are consuming oil faster than we can discover it. The day is coming rapidly they say, at the present rate of consumption, we will have used it all up.
However, this assumes all this oil comes from dead dinosaurs, plankton, trees, plants and other living things. This is called the “biogenic origin theory” and the implications of this theory is the Oil companies are correct: We are running out of the stuff. On the other hand there is a theory that oil is “abiogenic” in origin, meaning it is simply a natural product of the earth. The implications of this theory are that oil is a virtually inexhaustible resource since it is produced in the mantle of the earth and flows into the crust. The quantities of natural petroleum must be staggering if this is the case and the “Peak Oil” phenomenon is not true.
The following is an excerpt from an article discussing the pros and cons of each theory:
In favor of the biogenic origin of petroleum, the following four observations have been advanced:
(1) Petroleum contains groups of molecules which are clearly identified as the breakdown products of complex, but common, organic molecules that occur in plants, and that could not have been built up in a non-biological process.
(2) Petroleum frequently shows the phenomenon of optical activity, i.e. a rotation of the plane of polarization when polarized light is passed through it. This implies that molecules which can have either a right-handed or a left-handed symmetry are not equally represented, but that one symmetry is preferred. This is normally a characteristic of biological materials and absent in fluids of non-biological origin.
(3) Some petroleums show a clear preference for molecules with an odd number of carbon atoms over those with an even number. Such an odd-even effect can be understood as arising from the breakdown of a class of molecules that are common in biological substances, and may be difficult to account for in other ways.
(4) Petroleum is mostly found in sedimentary deposits and only rarely in the primary rocks of the crust below; even among the sediment, it favors those that are geologically young. In many cases such sediment appears to be rich in carbonaceous materials that were interpreted as of biological origin, and as source material for the petroleum deposit.
On the other side of the argument, in favor of an origin from deeply buried materials incorporated in the Earth when it formed [abiogenic], the following observations have been cited:
(1) Petroleum and methane are found frequently in geographic patterns of long lines or arcs, which are related more to deep-seated large-scale structural features of the crust, than to the smaller scale patchwork of the sedimentary deposits.
(2) Hydrocarbon-rich areas tend to be hydrocarbon-rich at many different levels, corresponding to quite different geological epochs, and extending down to the crystalline basement that underlies the sediment. An invasion of an area by hydrocarbon fluids from below could better account for this than the chance of successive deposition.
(3) Some petroleums from deeper and hotter levels lack almost completely the biological evidence. Optical activity and the odd-even carbon number effect are sometimes totally absent, and it would be difficult to suppose that such a thorough destruction of the biological molecules had occurred as would be required to account for this, yet leaving the bulk substance quite similar to other crude oils.
(4) Methane is found in many locations where a biogenic origin is improbable or where biological deposits seem inadequate: in great ocean rifts in the absence of any substantial sediments; in fissures in igneous and metamorphic rocks, even at great depth; in active volcanic regions, even where there is a minimum of sediments; and there are massive amounts of methane hydrates (methane-water ice combinations) in permafrost and ocean deposits, where it is doubtful that an adequate quantity and distribution of biological source material is present.
(5) The hydrocarbon deposits of a large area often show common chemical or isotopic features, quite independent of the varied composition or the geological ages of the formations in which they are found. Such chemical signatures may be seen in the abundance ratios of some minor constituents such as traces of certain metals that are carried in petroleum; or a common tendency may be seen in the ratio of isotopes of some elements, or in the abundance ratio of some of the different molecules that make up petroleum. Thus a chemical analysis of a sample of petroleum could often allow the general area of its origin to be identified, even though quite different formations in that area may be producing petroleum. For example a crude oil from anywhere in the Middle East can be distinguished from an oil originating in any part of South America, or from the oils of West Africa; almost any of the oils from California can be distinguished from that of other regions by the carbon isotope ratio.
(6) The regional association of hydrocarbons with the inert gas helium, and a higher level of natural helium seepage in petroleum-bearing regions, has no explanation in the theories of biological origin of petroleum.
The answer to this argument may have come from a little spaceship many, many millions of miles away sitting on a small celestrial body in the Saturnian Moon System:
News Headline:
Titan Has More Oil Than Earth
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080213-titan-oil.html
What article are the excepts from?
The space craft is in orbit, not sitting on Titan.
The title to the linked article is deceiving. There isn't any oil on Titan.
Dear Buck,
In this post I am recalling a conversation I had with my brother a couple years back. A brief search on the internet brough these results. You could have looked yourself. Don't be lazy.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=12928
http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=182
I worked on the Cassini project and the "eyes" are definitely on the planet. A minor technicality and perceptive point of view.
Remember that Titan is kinda cold, -290 degrees F. What do you think the difference is between liquid hydrocarbons in the form of methane and ethane and petroleum crude oil? Maybe liquid hydrocarbons are the precursers to oil? No deception here. The key term is CARBON!
JJS, Thanks for responding. You peaked my curiosity. That's why I asked questions. I'm a skeptic, lies are in such profusion. Sorry if I sounded testy. The article implied that the radar was looking from above mapping the surface, no mention of a ground unit. I understand that carbon is the building block of organics, but it isn't the same as oil. I'll need time to read these articles and try to get up to speed. Post more and provide links. It's not that I'm lazy, just not proficient with these machines.
Thanks again, Buck
My words are indisputable doctrine!!!!
How DARE you question?------NOT--HA HA HA HA!!!
I don't mean to be so brusk either, but you know how it is on CD?
Some posters just want to eat you alive!
Cassini did send a probe to Titan called Huygens.
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Cassini-Huygens/SEMLIRR1VED_0.html
It took data on the way down. Not sure how long it lasted on the surface.
I had left that job before the probe launched. I'm more physics oriented, my brother is the chemist. The fields do cross over, though.
I am not 100% clear on the formation of oil. That's ok, though, even the geologists are debating oils origins.
It is good to be skeptic, no doubt about that. The vast internet information pool is polluted with junk science, though it is a great place to start. I would venture that ".edu" sites are relatively more reliable, as well as established scientific journals. Unfortunatley, most journals will want you to pay to view.
I'll see what else I can 'turnip' on the oil origin debate.
I did a search and found some reasonable resources that simply and technically explain some of the theories pros and cons. It is difficult to find anything but shrill denial of Abiotic origin, but I did not expect anything different.
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html
http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/11/4/15537/8056
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2482838/posts
I am willing to discuss my opinion and theories with you if you wish to continue this conversation.
JJS, I have read from the links you provided and find the concept fascinating. Taking Lovelock's Gia theory of a living planet further to include all of the universe and the possibility is raised that life and all that comes with it could be anywhere. Whether oil is being produced abioticly, evidently, is still unproven, but a possibility worth exploring. You have opened a new door for me. Thanks, Buck
Abiotic oil has been repeated proven to be a load of bull.
*NO* previously depleted oil reservoir has *ever* magically refilled, and any oil that had been found in depleted wells has been proven to be seepage from porous rocks that were finally free to release the trapped oil once the higher pressures had decreased.
As to the *very theoretical* prospects of hydrocarbons and possible deposits of petroleum-like organic compound on Titan, I have one simple question: How long did it take to get a simple robotic probe to that remote and inhospitable place? If you think that recovering consumer level demands of 'oil' from a place millions of miles away, in an environment that man and his technology was never meant to exist in, short term or long, you are indulging in addictive levels of recreational pharmaceuticals. Extracting, refining and transporting ANY amount of interplanetary derived hydrocarbons would put the price of even one barrel of the stuff into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars.
Wouldn't it be easier, and far less environmentally damaging if humanity simply stepped back from it's insane obsession with material wealth? I know it's extremely unlikely, but this is an eventuality that is going to be forced upon us by simple supply as restricted by the physical world. A small detail called 'reality' that the abiotic oil crowd get very cranky about.
Dear GWW,
"Abiotic oil has been repeated proven to be a load of bull."
Please elaborate with logic, facts and references, not just your 'bull' proclamation. Who are you, the Pope?
And just because one may hold Abiotic oil theory as a REAL possibility does not make them greedy whores or part of some ominous "crowd". Why must you disparage others so? I'd say you and your kind are the cranky ones.
I do not claim that reservoirs of oil refill themselves. I think the Abiotic oil bubbles up like the methane bubble did in the recent BP disaster. This would be similar to a magma and volcanic eruptions. I would extrapolate that there are pockets of oil here and there. More pockets in different areas are created as time goes on. The pockets are finite, but the source is vast.
Of course, shipping oil across the solar system is a stupid idea. Funny how you thought of it. These ideas come Mr. Natural-ly for you? The fuel on Titan would, however, provide for an energy source if you happen to be out there and need a boost for your rocket, man.
The price of oil and gasoline is not based on supply and demand, in my opinion. Except that supply is being manipulated by restricting the pumping, refining, shipping and delivery; we are awash in oil. Here is an article from last year. I don't think the oil co.s have allowed the price of oil/gas to come down much since. This being a business site, you'll see why in the text.
http://www.allbusiness.com/banking-finance/financial-markets-investing/12183328-1.html
And as you can see here, Profit is exactly what they did over the last year.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/big_profits.html
If we are in agreement it is in the notion that burning oil is generally a stupid idea if you wish to preserve the planet for human habitation. Call me greedy for THIS reason if you must. I do not think that we should continue to burn oil and other carbon based fuels to run our electric devices and internal combustion engines whether oil is abundant or scarce.
So too, we agree greed has a lot (just about everything) to do with it.
Think about who gains by making oil scarce? (see links above) On the other hand, I feel the price of oil/gas SHOULD be high only due to taxing not price manipulation. That way the revenues can go to researching and funding alternative energy technologies rather than as pure profit to the oil companies. The high cost also restricts use.
From The Oil Drum re. Abiotic/abiogenic oil:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/11/4/15537/8056
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5555
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4103
They have many more, and are a hotbed of industry analysis *from* oil industry professionals and insiders.
Is this the most authoritative argument you can present?
I am stunned.
This is GAAWD'S PUNISHMENT foar not goin ta the 'lectric cars.
New term for the English vernacular: Plan B becomes Plan BP
Another coverup; Everyone knows that rig sank when it was rammed by the Exxon Valdez and they both went down.
Eight miners have been killed by a methane blast at a Russian coal mine.
METHANE - The new Terriorist
"forebiddeninfo May 8th, 2010 8:16 pm
Eight miners have been killed by a methane blast at a Russian coal mine.
METHANE - The new Terriorist."
Tsk. Don't even THINK it.... Even though no doubt many have, including me.
"On the other hand there is a theory that oil is “abiogenic” in origin, meaning it is simply a natural product of the earth."
Using their science of locating abiogenic deposits of oil, Russia is now outproducing Saudi Arabia.
exactly
The only way to make producing oil in Russia (mining the oil sands in Canada, or exploiting Natural gas fields with fracking, un regulated off-shore drilling) economically feasible is to raise the price. What better way than to claim we are running out?
This does not negate the dangers of burning carbon fuels. We are gonna choke eventually. I think it was good that the high price monetarily and ecologically is realized and the 'consumer' is demanding alternatives. It is one of the mechanisms of capitalism. Supply, demand, market and cost.
Surprise !
Deep-sea ice crystals stymie Gulf oil leak fix
By SARAH LARIMER and HARRY R. WEBER (AP) – 3 hours ago
ON THE GULF OF MEXICO — Icelike crystals encrusting a 100-ton steel-and-concrete box meant to contain oil gushing from a broken well deep in the Gulf of Mexico forced crews Saturday to back off the long-shot plan, while more than 100 miles away, blobs of tar washed up at an Alabama beach full of swimmers.
"Blast Triggered by Methane Bubble"
Flatulence from the bowels of the Earth?
This monstrous catastrophe proves the lie of "too big to fail."
We've been raping Gaia for generations, every orifice we can find. Isn't it reasonable that She should get a bit sick to Her stomach and burp or fart occasionally?
One of these days, She's going to say, "That's it! I've had enough," and soon after, we, too, shall sleep with the dinosaurs.
Pretty good analogy, but in the past, I just don't believe this has not happened before but that by erosion, plate tectonics, earthquakes, volcano eruptions or even astral bodies slamming into earth that somewhere, somehow a reserve of oil has not be broken open and the contents emptied with all the devastation that goes with the event, of course I would think it only to have happened so long ago that Gaia has recycled it back into the environment, which is what will basically happen here.
But as long as the human population is allowed to flourish unfettered, nothing will get better for any kind of life on this planet and we will be talking about 7,000,000,000 people or more all fighting for survival using what little is left from gaia who's natural resource refresh rate is a lot slower than the human's need to survive.
I recently watched A different "Democracy Now" segment that stated BP had lost 25 million bucks worth of drill pipe on A previous job, and the segment suggested that BP was trying to double-up and catch-up by transforming this well from an "exploratory well" to A "production" well and that is where the cement and seals came into play...
I also distinctly remember in defense of Obama's lifting the ban on offshore drilling that it was only "Exploration" drilling and not offshore "Production" drilling of Oil...Can anyone help me out here, because I believe that there was an over ambitious program taking place on that rig that disregarded safety and long established drilling procedure and protocal and A big rush to make this A producer before the cement had cured in the casing, not to mention the acoustic automated shut-in valves non existence....
Sioux Rose..... Kem comments on [Mother Jones] on threads about global warming. He is on a three week vacation in Alaska now.
He is concerned with the Arctic's methane releasing into our atmosphere and believes the only hope is the current volcanic activity in Iceland may cloud the Arctic enough that the sea ice will stop thawing and the methane then stops releasing.
He has tried several times to log on at Common Dreams this year but with no success.
Hi Left Guard 57,
Just curious, do you, or anyone else on this site, remember the old MoJoWire, back in the 90's?
Is there any link to archives that contain those discussions? I'd love to re-read them. Discussions with "Pork-Stop" and "DC" were my favorite.