Archive | Disastrous

Drilling In A Mine Field

You learn the darndest things on the internets. For example, I just found out that the Gulf of Mexico is the primary disposal site for unexploded military munitions – over 30 million pounds of bombs, projectiles and chemical ordnance.

And because records are spotty and incomplete, we don’t know exactly where these dumps are.

(Are you following me?)

Many of these bombs are unstable. Just about anything could detonate them – say, an oil rig that’s digging deeper than what owners noted on their permit application. So we’re leasing offshore drilling rights to oil companies IN A FRICKIN’ MINE FIELD. (You’ll notice this NY Times piece on the problems of offshore drilling doesn’t even mention it.)

Drill, baby, drill!

There is technology available to carefully map underwater hazards like UXO but so far, I haven’t found anything that indicates offshore drilling lessees are required to do so. I have to assume that a company will try to protect their investment, but you never know.

But isn’t is reasonable that this information be part of the public debate on offshore drilling?

Here’s some of this information from a paper presented at the 2007 Offshore Technology Conference in Houston.

In June of 2006, the MMS (Editor’s note: Minerals Management Service) released its Notice to Lessees NTL
2006-G12, which outlined regulations for conducting
Ancillary Activities in the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.

Within this Notice, the MMS states a requirement to comply
with protective measures when conducting activities within
Ordnance Dumping Zones, as well as Military Warning Zones
(“Water Test Areas”) 1 through 5. Figure 1 displays the areas
delineated by the MMS as Ordnance Disposal and Military
Warning Areas in the Gulf of Mexico.

Additionally, during the writing of this paper, the MMS
released NTL 2007-G01, which updated the Shallow Hazards
Program requirements. This notice also recognizes ordnance
as a manmade hazard that may have an adverse effect on
proposed well operations
. Although the standard Gulf of
Mexico geohazard survey and assessment does not currently
involve a specifically defined unexploded ordnance
assessment, prudent owners, operators, and service vendors
should consider it on top of the To-Do list when planning
projects in those sensitive areas
. This paper presents such an
assessment as well as provides additional insights into the
problem of unexploded ordnance encountered in deepwater.

Three fundamental problems exist that the standard geohazard
assessor faces in dealing with the UXO problem. These are
simply limitations in technology, awareness, and expertise.

The solution lies in the utilization of innovative technology,
well thought out and appropriately planned geohazard survey
specifications, and most importantly the utilization of
unconventional industry experts with the ability to perform
adequate and thorough ordnance risk assessments

Historically, incidents involving ordnance discovered off the
coasts of the United States have been limited primarily to
fishing boats dragging ordnance up in their nets. It is very rare
that a detonation occurs during one of these events although it
has happened. In the early 1980’s off the coast of New Jersey,
a fishing boat attempted to haul a WWII torpedo warhead in to
harbor. While at anchor, outside the harbor, and awaiting
Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) responders, a
storm emerged. The increased wave and wind activity rattled
the warhead against the fishing boat, accidentally detonating it
and sinking the fishing boat. Due to instances like these,
survey, transportation, and exploration companies venturing
into deep waters are becoming more susceptible to
encountering UXOs and the distinct possibility of an
accidental detonation.

UXO (unexploded ordnance) dump zones also exist off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Although the Atlantic and Pacific oceans drop off very quickly and oil and gas exploration has been limited along those coasts, current technology for deepwater production is making the possibility of Atlantic and Pacific margin exploration more of a reality. This will only increase the need for UXO awareness and viable solutions to their existence in deepwater.

Don’t Be Silly

Why would they want to use the non-toxic, effective one?

British Petroleum and government disaster-relief agencies are using a toxic chemical (Corexit 9500) to disperse oil in the Gulf of Mexico, even though a better alternative appears to be available.

[…] The decision has been a controversial one. A few scientists think dispersants are mostly useful as public relations strategy, as they make the oil slick invisible, even though oil particles continue to do damage. Others consider Corexit the lesser of two evils: It’s known to be highly toxic, adding to the harm caused by oil, but at least it will concentrate damage at sea, sparing sensitive and highly productive coastal areas. Better to sacrifice the deep sea than the shorelines.

[…] Called Dispersit, it’s manufactured by the U.S. Polychemical Corporation and has been approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency. Both Corexit and Dispersit were tested by the EPA, and according to those results, Corexit was 54.7 percent effective at breaking down crude oil from the Gulf, and Dispersit was 100 percent effective.

Not only did Corexit do a worse job of dispersing oil, but it was three times as lethal to silverfish – used as a benchmark organism in toxicity testing — and more than twice as lethal to shrimp, another benchmark organism and an important part of Gulf fisheries.

Drill, Baby, Drill

I used to like those Gulf coast beaches. Oh well! But the people in charge know better than us, and it’s all gonna be O-KAY!!!!

The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn’t have a remote-control shut-off switch used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.

The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig, hired by oil giant BP PLC, last week.

BP’s Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said Thursday on NBC’s “Today” that as much as 5,000 barrels of oil a day may be leaking into the Gulf, up from original estimates of 1,000 barrels a day, matching calculations issued late Wednesday from federal investigators. Mr. Suttles said BP and government scientists have to estimate the flow based on what reaches the surface because there is no way to measure the oil pouring out on the seabed. The company also said it welcomes an offer of U.S. military help to get the spill under control.

The accident has led to one of the largest ever oil spills in U.S. water and the loss of 11 lives.

U.S. regulators don’t mandate use of the remote-control device on offshore rigs, and the Deepwater Horizon didn’t have one. With a remote control, a crew can attempt to trigger an underwater valve that shuts down the well even if the oil rig itself is damaged or evacuated.

The efficacy of the devices is unclear. Major offshore oil-well blowouts are rare, and it remained unclear Wednesday evening whether acoustic switches have ever been put to the test in a real-world accident. When wells do surge out of control, the primary shut-off systems almost always work. Remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which have been tested in simulations, are intended as a last resort.

Nevertheless, regulators in two major oil-producing countries, Norway and Brazil, in effect require them. Norway has had acoustic triggers on almost every offshore rig since 1993.

Site Meter