InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 252255
Next 10
Followers 16
Posts 1503
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/03/2005

Re: its_the_oxygen post# 95946

Tuesday, 05/18/2010 10:21:27 AM

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:21:27 AM

Post# of 252255
ot wells

I suppose it is common to have the drilling apparatus also become swallowed up into the hole resulting in another set of tools having to be sent down to sever the pipe? Is that common?

yup. very common. can also be very expensive.

As for the rubber chunks. You are either being dishonest or your recollection is poor. The electronics technician did not discover those chunks. That was one of his 2nd hand bits of information. He would've had no business being in a place where he could've recovered pieces so your claim makes no sense. Of course, his story that chunks were returned to the surface might be true. You really should come to grips with the fact that I'm not discounting or dismissing any firsthand, attributed, or anonymous claims from folks who were supposedly on the DwH. I am saying that speculation and apparent politically motivated manipulation of misunderstood processes is unhelpful and wrong, respectively.

As an example let's assume that rubber chunks were indeed returned to the surface. You assume a priori that the chunks came from the annular. Well, there are other possible sources for rubber chunks being returned to the surface. For example, there are these things called "packers". I have no idea whether or not a packer was used or lost during an earlier stage in the drilling but it is quite possible that one was and it was subsequently returned to the surface during continuation of drilling. The 60 minutes description of the timing and context of rubber chunks was incomplete and certainly didn't involve objective analysis by an independent expert. So there is yet another example of your lack of objectivity and how reliance on popular news sources for information can lead to potentially incorrect conclusions.

as for not 'absorbing' English: please go back and read my statement which involves the words "your thesis". In that statement i explicitly state what you wrote in all caps. Apparently, I did comprehend your thesis perfectly. I also said you may be correct but you have no objective proof at this time and consequently you are just a posturing belligerent with poor information processing capabilities.

Your bolded quotes of my words do not imply that I do not know anything about drilling and well completion processes. I know a great deal about those things and yes, I'm willing to wager, much, much more than anybody working at CBS. I don't have to know any details specific to the DwH to know that there are details which can provide alternative explanations for observations which you and others have used to derive conclusions. The rubber chunks case I gave above is an example. I also know that things like fracturing of rock around the wellbore during drilling, drilling of sidetracks, and getting pipe and tools stuck are common. I don't think any objective drilling expert would jump to the conclusion that these were necessarily related to the blowout. An electronics technician is not a drilling expert.

My knowledge of things related to oil and natural gas is very highly specialized and came from many years in universities, research labs, and industry. However, I know that in many specific areas (particularly in field operations), there are plenty of folks, even on this board, who know more than me and I even provided an example. If that isn't objective enough for you, then you really need to engage in some introspective analysis of yourself.

cso

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.