- They spent the week fishing (for drill pipe) at Macondo, without much success.
- More negative pressure tests have confirmed that the well is dead.
- The objectives of the relief well intercept are still a bit of a mystery. As we have previously discussed, there are other (better?) means of ensuring that the production casing annulus is plugged. Is the intercept just a risky and expensive ceremony? Not according to BP CEO Bob Dudley who offered the following explanation: “there are several reasons for the relief well to be completed, including demonstrating that the difficult procedure can be done, providing more scientific data about the leak and giving closure to an oil-weary public.” The first and third reasons confirm the “ceremony” theory. We don’t need to prove that you can complete a relief well, and the public needs solutions, not symbolic gestures. With regard to the “scientific data” argument, the intercept may provide some limited information on the condition of the annulus that will help to better understand the cause of the blowout. Whether that information is sufficiently important to justify the delays and added risks remains to be seen.
- The hurricane season continued to be kind. Will the good luck hold? While time has been less critical since the well was capped on 15 July and the endgame should not be rushed, we are surprised by the absence of urgency.
- We continue to wonder what the response would have been like if the responsible party was not a supermajor.
- BP and the Unified Command have still not given us their latest thinking on the Macondo flow path, even though some legislative and regulatory actions are being driven by flow path assumptions and speculation.
- Another garbage article about MMS’s “flawed culture” appeared in a major newspaper. These articles are great theater; too bad their major premise isn’t true.
- A few former government officials, who showed little or no interest in offshore safety during their careers, have emerged to criticize the OCS oil and gas program. Where was the criticism during the 40-year period when all was going well? Why are the officials who have publicly voiced strong support for MMS personnel not being quoted? These supportive comments have received almost no coverage. Also, why are the Inspector General quotes limited to those that paint the worst possible picture of the offshore program and MMS? These same Inspectors General have praised the overwhelming majority of MMS personnel. Finally, those calling for more inspectors and other regulatory personnel might want to start by showing some respect and support for the staff that is already onboard.
- More silly comments about the evils of “industry standards” have appeared in the press. BOE will address this nonsense later in the week.
While BOE was on vacation
August 30, 2010 by offshoreenergy
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 
Leave a comment