The Special "TOP HAT" Cover on Top of the BOP has Apparently Blown Off!

reply to post by freakanature


I doubt there is any immediate concern for the sea floor collapsing. I would suspect we would start noticing some seismic activity before that would become a real concern. But it is a real possibility, seeing how huge that reservoir and pressure is down below. All they can really do is to try to increase the outflow from the BOP and relieve some of the pressure down below and hope that the buildup of barium sulfate crystals doesn't further restrict the outflow, which could have the affect of a top kill on that flow, and then they'll have something to really be afraid of. This could turn into an underground mount St. Helen's like explosion. The damage they caused to the sea floor below extends out far away from this well, evident by the pools of methane hydrates that have begun to form all over the place down there.

And this thing with the methane hydrates got me thinking about something else: global warming. What if all this off shore drilling has been releasing huge amounts of methane for years, going back to the 80's even, and THAT is what has been causing global warming? I wonder how much methane all these off-shore well have been releasing into the atmosphere over the planet since it has become such a popular place to drill. It may not be so much the gas we burn that has increased global warming, but the drilling for oil itself!

I say it's time to shut down the industrial era and everyone take up a modest minimal (amish like) lifestyle. I'd say it's worth it to save the planet.

Just to say for those seeing a change in oil flow BP have started using the choke and kill valve to suck oil out of the BOP aswell (this oil being transported through the same manifold as the top kill procedure to the Q4000) so there may be a small difference. They should also be starting to use the free standing riser within the coming week(s) aswell.

I really don't know which thread to post this in but I was appalled at the methods the government uses to assess environmental impacts.

It is assumed that a resuspension of sediments or a subsurface oil spill following an accidental blowout could reach the biota of a topographic feature. If this were to occur, the impacts would be primarily sublethal with the disruption or impairment of a few elements at the local scale, but no
interference to the general system performance would occur. Oil spills can cause damage to benthic organisms when the oil contacts organisms. In the unlikely event that oil from a subsurface spill would reach the biota of a topographic feature, the effects would be primarily sublethal for corals and much of the other fully developed biota. It is anticipated that potential recovery for such an event would occur within a period of 2 years (USDOC, NOAA, 2007a; Shigenaka, 2001; Rice et al., 1983). In the highly unlikely event that oil from a subsurface spill reached an area containing coral cover (e.g., Flower Garden Banks and Stetson Bank) in lethal concentrations, the impacted area would be small, but its recovery could take in excess of 10 years. However, due to the application of the proposed Topographic Features Stipulation, if adopted, blowouts would not occur in the immediate vicinity of the topographic features and associated biota because the stipulation creates a buffer zone. Therefore, there would be little impact on the features.

A search was conducted for new information published since completion of the Multisale EIS and the Supplemental EIS. *Various Internet sources were examined to identify any recent information regarding topographic features. Sources investigated include USGS National Wetlands Research Center, NOAA,
USEPA, and coastal universities. Other sites were found through general Internet searches.

Source: Proposed Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 215(PDF) Page 33

*emphasis by me

Why does the government not ask it's own organisations about relevant material rather than relying on internet searches?

reply to post by PuterMan

Hi Puterman and thank you for posting that info. It's yet another factor we need to consider.

Why does the government not ask it's own organisations about relevant material rather than relying on internet searches?

You know, the fact that they are using internet searches (rather than doing what you say they ought to be doing) is beyond the absurd. It suggests that a high degree of the "it's our info and we're not going to tell you" mindset still exists between various govt agencies, and considering that they really should info-share to the max in cases like this, we have to wonder if they even have any effective coordination in place.

Mike

Just wanted to note that right now (as I'm posting) Enterprise ROV1 and ROV 2 are actually showing exactly the same image, with just slightly different light levels. As they can't have both ROVs in exactly the same place, it means that one of them is not really there at all and so one of those feeds is effectively disinformation.

Mike

Live Feeds??? Funny but Enterprise ROV 1 & 2 were just showing exactly the same picture... somewhat impossible as they are two separate ROV's.

reply to post by JustMike


How is it disinformation?

Do you think they're trying to hide something?

The feeds were identical, meaning that one camera was sending information to two monitors.

It could be as simple as a crossed signal, who knows.

Glad to see everyone still here and watching the feeds. Keep up the good work.

Now, I just got home from a long 12 hour shift at work to open up the feeds and see that there are two cameras pointing at the flow, and not only does the top hat seem to be leaning, as we all know, but now the top of the BOP seems to be seriously leaning, in a way that it wasn't two days ago when the cap came off.

Does everyone else see this as well? When I saw the one feed, I thought the ROV was sitting at an angle. Then, seeing the second feed showing the same sort of tilt, I realized it had to be the BOP.

reply to post by Chadwickus

It's not just a matter of sending information to two monitors. Those two ROV's online feeds have different URL's. So for them both to have the same image, it's necessary to take a single "mms." url which acts as the "source" and then using it for two different URL's.

But perhaps I have misinterpreted your response. By your question, are you suggesting that they are not trying to hide anything, and that they mistakenly routed a single .mms url?

I should also note that a few minutes after I made my post, the Enterprise ROV 2 image suddenly went to just a dull gray, and that now as I write it's only showing a "test pattern" screen.

I must also emphasize that what we see via a URL stream does not need to be the same as what they see via the original feed and its related .mms url.

Best regards,

Mike


[edit on 25/6/10 by JustMike]

reply to post by Ceriddwen

I see what you are talking about. The problem is establishing a frame of reference. It could be that two ROV cameras are positioned at a tilt. It would be odd but it's not impossible by any means. Alternatively, the BOP itself is tilting more than it was.

If we could get a look at the lower end of the BOP where its 21 inch (OD) pipe bolts to the well head, then we would know better. When I saw it a few days ago at about 5 am (Gulf time), there was a tilt and it appeared to be around 3 to 5 degrees. I posted about it here on ATS.

If the tilt has increased then it's seriously worrying. If it's just the cameras then we'd have to wonder why.

Mike

If I remember correctly, hasn't BP stated that, in the event of a storm, they will have to remove the top hat and disconnect from the collection ships?

Could the removal of the top hat two days ago been a test run for the storm scenario? I know they say an ROV bumped it but..........

reply to post by JustMike


I would have thought the cameras are hard wired up to the ship, from there they would all end up at one server on land somewhere, somehow...satellite feed?

Anyway, the two feeds were identical, meaning one wasn't playing an earlier recording.

Both could have though, I suppose.

But I digress, the disinformation comment is a bit silly when you consider that they don't have to provide a live link from the rovers, they could have just not shared the feeds and done whatever they wanted down there and we would be none the wiser.

reply to post by Brandyfro


No, the top hat was removed because gas was contra-flowing up the warm water pipe, causing a potential for an explosion on the ship.

I'm following this thread closely, but can't add much, since I can't get live feed. I'm still on dial up, and it's pretty slow. Also still running Win 98, so I can't update any media players.
Anyway, I really appreciate everyones updates. I was wondering if you have the capabilities if you could possibly post more pictures with the updates for those of us who are technologically deprived? Please?

reply to post by Ceriddwen


I've noticed the tilt as well and confirmed it via the flow of oil upward establishing a plumb standard to compare the hardware attitude too.
The current can also affect the upward flow but in relation to the other debris floating in the water, you can tell that the very slight current isn't affecting the upward flow significantly.
IMHO. (Here, have a grain of salt. lol)

Originally posted by Chadwickus
I would have thought the cameras are hard wired up to the ship, from there they would all end up at one server on land somewhere, somehow...satellite feed?

Anyway, the two feeds were identical, meaning one wasn't playing an earlier recording.

Both could have though, I suppose.

But I digress, the disinformation comment is a bit silly when you consider that they don't have to provide a live link from the rovers, they could have just not shared the feeds and done whatever they wanted down there and we would be none the wiser.

The camera's digital info would be run up to the ship via the "umbilical chord", yes. And then as you suggest, it would most likely be sent via satellite to a base where it's processed. The mms. url's are derived and then they are used to assign the http. url's.

Yes, it could have been a mixup. But this is ATS so I prefer to consider other options as well.

Just a comment on your last point: I don't think my own "disinformation" comment was a bit silly. Disinformation is based upon providing information, but information that is intentionally false or inaccurate. Having two different URLs for two different ROVs showing the same feed images is obviously inaccurate. If this was accidental then it just means that somehow, someone assigned the mms. source URL to two different http. URLs. If on the other hand it was deliberate then it was disinformation.

If information is available but none is provided then it's a blackout (or whatever similar term we wish to assign).

I agree with you that they could just provide nothing. But I think that having done so they would be loathe to just switch it all off.

Just for interest, here is the source mms. url for Skandi ROV 2:

mms://a1684.l9789245683.c97892.g.lm.akamaistream.net/D/1684/97892/v0001/reflector:45683

You don't add "http" to this. Just copy and paste it into your browser and you can then play it through eg your windows media player. Even if BP changes the normal "http" URL for Skandi's live feed (or makes it unavailable), this code should still work. It's working right now, anyway.

(Thanks to ATS Member The Theorist who provided the above code
this page.)

So, do you mind if we just agree to disagree? I am holding to the opinion that they may not always be showing us everything they are seeing via their ROVs, just as they may not be reporting all they know about the amount of outflow from that pipe (and exactly what is flowing out), and the amount of tilt of the BOP and any changes to it. I don't see my stance as being entirely unreasonable.

Regards,

Mike

I want to see the bottom of the BOP as well. Last time I saw it was two days ago with the goings on with the top hat. This lean just doesn't look good to me. Especially since it seems to be leaning in the same direction as the leaning top hat. Makes me wonder if the top hat leaning like that is what is causing the BOP to lean this way, if it is leaning.


Edit to say that is a lot of leaning I am talking about up there. Sounds odd, but not changing it.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Ceriddwen]

reply to post by wirefly

Brilliant. Simple and brilliant. You're right: obviously with the sort of pressures and flow rates involved here the oil moving upwards is not likely to be greatly affected by normal currents, so we can use that "plumb line" as an effective frame of reference.

Wish they'd give us a look at the base of the BOP, but they usually do that in the wee hours of the morning.

Mike

reply to post by Ceriddwen

The LMRP cap is now starting to move around quite a bit. That thing weighs several tons but much of its mass is balanced by the outrushing oil. However, the law of action-reaction means that forces are being exerted off center on the BOP.

Wow, you are right. It is not only moving up and down, but side to side as well. Gonna be an interesting few days of this, I think.

By the way, if you get the opportunity and see something, anything, that needs attention, please screenshot it if you would.

That way those of us who must sleep after long shifts, etc, (I keep nodding off here.) will be able to see what you are talking about. This goes for anyone who is capable of doing this.

Thank you so much, all of you who are still keeping tabs, and thank you again Just Mike for starting this thread.