|
Leperflesh posted:I thought you guys might appreciate this. This is an oil-rigger's blog site, with some pretty technical in-depth discussions about what happened to the deepwater horizon and why: That article is fantastic. Thanks for linking it.
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 03:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
Wish i had a photo. I passed a truck a while back that was sitting on the side of the road with it's nearest front wheel sitting at a rather strange angle. All i could think was the stub axle had snapped or something. passing it on the way back, the front was hoisted up by a truck towtruck and the front wheel was gone.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:Holy poo poo, what are the chances of that happening? It looks like it brought some hot engine oil along with it, judging from how it splashed against the drywall as it ruptured through the house.  Leperflesh posted:So Hyundai isn't at fault here. Possibly halliburton is, or BP, or some other contractor, or (most likely) a combination of factors that include operational error, poor planning, and physical failure of equipment.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 20:49
|
|
|
I hope BP is tallying up the ever-increasing costs of containing their gently caress-up. Maybe after that they can multiply that by the number of rigs they have in the Gulf and reevaluate whether using better prevention technology could really "cripple" them more than having to pay to fix issues those could have prevented.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:BP's lobbying was critical to defeating the law that would have required the blowout preventer to have a backup remote acoustic trigger. Norway and Brazil require them, but another few hundred thousand dollars on top of the hundreds of millions it costs to build an oil rig would cripple oil companies in the US, according to the oil industry. Which would have been useless in this case as the BOP failed to fully close, not that it failed to activate.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:28
|
|
|
el topo posted:I hope BP is tallying up the ever-increasing costs of containing their gently caress-up. Maybe after that they can multiply that by the number of rigs they have in the Gulf and reevaluate whether using better prevention technology could really "cripple" them more than having to pay to fix issues those could have prevented. I read estimates of 15 loving billion!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
tehllama posted:I once saw a truck force a minivan to slam on its brakes on and slide full stop onto the shoulder as he muscled his way into the left lane in front of it. Nevermind on that section of the interstate trucks aren't allowed in either of the left two lanes. This. I'm well aware driving in trucks blind spot is a stupid idea. However, the only times is happened to me is in heavy bumper to bumper highway traffic moving 30-50km/h, or while travelling in the left lanes at 115km/h, while the truck is doing 105 in the right lane.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 00:02
|
|
|
Why are retreads still legal?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 01:46
|
|
|
grover posted:Why are retreads still legal? The last bastion of Darwinism in action?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
grover posted:Why are retreads still legal? Listen, if you can see the steel belts in it its a blowout not a retread separation. Contrary to popular belief a retread is usually stronger than the original tire.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 02:48
|
|
|
grover posted:Why are retreads still legal? Because commercial truck tyres are expensive. Generally, they have 4 lives; run, recut, retread, recut. Then they're recycled. Yeah, many live more than 4 lives..
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 03:02
|
|
|
el topo posted:I hope BP is tallying up the ever-increasing costs of containing their gently caress-up. Maybe after that they can multiply that by the number of rigs they have in the Gulf and reevaluate whether using better prevention technology could really "cripple" them more than having to pay to fix issues those could have prevented. That said, with this much publicity and cost, it's pretty much a sure thing they'll do it anyways now.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 03:28
|
|
|
grover posted:Why are retreads still legal? Because they are pretty loving safe? And recycling and all that poo poo. I've lost a couple of tires and most of them have been new.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
I think something went wrong here:
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 07:57
|
|
|
jamal posted:I think something went wrong here: There's not enough oil in those shavings.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 08:03
|
|
|
jamal posted:I think something went wrong here: It's like you're optimus prime, and the mafia sent this to you in the mail, and you puked on it upon opening. or something.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 10:20
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:Because they are pretty loving safe? Nothing wrong with retreads as long as the core is still good. I used to use them on my beetle which would eat tyres alive. Also alright with trailers etc. Like you said trucks use them without issue. is compound very important on something that big?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 10:50
|
|
|
jamal posted:I think something went wrong here: Fram :p Do you know what happened? Thats alotta shavings.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 14:39
|
|
|
 This happened to my friend's GXP at about 700 miles. Those weird lumps of metal were apparently what was left of the piston. The techs told him some manufacturing defect caused coolant to get into the oil. In any case, after they put the new engine in, there was apparently some debris stuck in the cat that the old engine shat out when it died. That somehow made its way back into the new engine and destroyed it, too. Third time seems to have been the charm.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Probably like a train wreck There are a lot of ironies in all this. One of them is that near-shore (shallow water) drilling is likely to get seriously scuttled after this disaster, when that's actually pretty safe (comparitavely). Whereas the Deepwater Horizon was drilling a (reportedly) extremely high pressure (20,000 PSI+) deep water well. Another irony: this was a modest find. Another irony: the best way to stop the leaking, at this point, is to drill a couple of additional bores into the existing one, at an angle, so they can inject something to block the main bore. So two more ships and crews will have to take on an even more complex and potentially dangerous task, with incredible pressure to go as fast as possible, and hopefully not get killed doing it. Ultimately there is always a balance between cost and safety. Any bystander can point to wherever that line was drawn and say, post-disaster, "Oh! they could have spent just a little more, and it wouldn't have happened! What idiots!" but that is hindsight. The reality is that experienced and smart people run the numbers and try to find a point where the operation is reasonably safe and still reasonably profitable. None of those people involved want someone to get killed, none of them want a rig to blow up, and every single one of them is acutely aware of the consequences of a fuckup. I'm not a pro-drilling pro-oil guy, far from it. But it's patently unfair to point at BP and say they are to blame for this because they didn't approve of using a particular bit of kit. We simply do not know yet exactly what happened or why, and particularly what changes in practice might have prevented this.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 06:54
|
|
|
c355n4 posted:Fram :p shavings? those are chunks of piston. You can even see a piston pin circlip sitting on the pickup there. I have some pictures on the work camera and will bring mine tomorrow. needless to say that whole motor is hosed. Maybe he should have checked the oil level occasionally...
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 07:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:We simply do not know yet exactly what happened or why, and particularly what changes in practice might have prevented this. But, like, the CORPORATIONS, MAN. They're raping the world, for MONEY, and stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 14:54
|
|
|
Just another working mine. Nothing to see here.  What's that in the water? Oops. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 16:18
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:What's that in the water?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 16:23
|
|
|
Looks like one of those giant fuckoff earth movers. SlapActionJackson fucked around with this message at 16:29 on May 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 16:26
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. I hope that was stationary. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 16:28
|
|
|
Oh, I was focusing on the white thing that looks like a moving truck van on the water.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 16:33
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Just another working mine. Nothing to see here. Story, please.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 16:55
|
|
EVERYWHERE 
|
As expensive as those things are, you'd think that they would be more careful with them.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 16:58
|
|
|
I need pictures of the recovery. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:reasonably safe and still reasonably profitable I agree with everything you said, just wanted to point out that "reasonably profitable" is a laughable term when applied to the oil industry.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
Rogz posted:I need pictures of the recovery. Do they make cranes that can deadlift 120 tons through water?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 17:40
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:What's that in the water? Oops. Holy poo poo those are bigger rocks than I thought they were.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
meatpimp posted:Story, please. I just got this from a mate who works for a mine in Broome. I don't know where it happened or when.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 17:57
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:Do they make cranes that can deadlift 120 tons through water?  Airbags!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 18:22
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:Do they make cranes that can deadlift 120 tons through water? Sponge! posted:
I was thinking drain and use another truck to pull it out. But airbags probably... I must know!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 19:19
|
|
|
Rogz posted:I was thinking drain and use another truck to pull it out. But airbags probably... I must know! You'd airbag it to float it to where the pit road is closest, and then you'd use a ground winch to drag it onto dry land and then hopefully tip it right side up. You can see the pit road at the right middle frame. They'd have to float it over there. I like how it seems there was fluids spilled out of it on the way down. Yellow stain on the rocks...
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
Sponge! posted:You'd airbag it to float it to where the pit road is closest, and then you'd use a ground winch to drag it onto dry land and then hopefully tip it right side up. Oh cool. Stain was probably the driver wetting himself. I know I would.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 19:34
|
|
|
Random guy calling it Photoshop Many more giant truck accidents in that album.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
hatefulsquid posted:I agree with everything you said, just wanted to point out that "reasonably profitable" is a laughable term when applied to the oil industry. I know it. Goddamn under-performing assholes. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 23:04
|
|