Talk:Blowout preventer

Deepwater Horizon disaster

This section contains a lot of inaccuracies and is very much out of date. If anyone has the time and will to update it, I'd recommend referencing Transocean's Internal Investigation on the BOP. 11:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The section about the role of the failed BOP in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, deleted anonymously earlier today by 184.49.104.14 as "not related" content, has been reinstated. Arguably some of the details about the role of the BOP failure in exacerbating the accident may belong in the main article about the oil spill and not here. Nevertheless, some mention of the fact that a BOP failure has led to an unprecedented environmental catastrophe is hardly irrelevant here. In any case, a discussion here at Talk about the appropriateness of the content of this section would seem more in keeping with WP etiquette than the blunt gesture of anonymously chopping out an entire section with only a cursory comment. Piperh (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, hardly irrelevant. /ninly_(talk) 12:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case, also other disasters where the BOP failed should get a section, disasters like Ixtoc I oil spill. We are writing an encyclopedia and not a newsticker. --hroest 16:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but the term blowout preventer is at this time in common vernacular usage as a result of the recent disaster. Ixtoc etc. barely register in widespread cultural awareness compared to the Deepwater Horizon, at least right now. That said, perhaps it is appropriate to rename the section "Role in undersea oil leaks" or something like that, but for right now this doesn't seem inappropriate or undue weight to me. I, for one (and probably not a few others) came to this page as a result of the current spill. /ninly_(talk) 19:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the section should stay in for as long as it adds interest to the article. As Ninly says, its the reason we are all reading this article. Maybe in a year or so it won't be as relevant. --Dave (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a political slant about the last inspection of the BOP done in 2005 using the 5 years as some sort of negligence. Looking at the history of the Macondo Prospect drilling didn't start until 7 October 2009. I am assuming that the BOP can't be inspected once installed. There needs to be some context if we are to leave the 2005 inspection here.Vipero00 (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

dates of development

The mainpage says the first BOP was developed in 1924. This article says there are two types with the first being developed in 1932. Assuming the dates given are correct, that would mean that the BOP from 1924 is a different type, and this article should make that clear, and note that the two mentioned are the only ones currently in use (if that is truly the case). I don' t know enough about this subject but it is clear that the dates given are incorrect and/or there are more than two types of BOP. Since this device's importance is specifically mentioned on the mainpage it would be nice to get this straightened out.

Fixed.--Father Goose 08:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

failure methods

Some of the API requirements mention that the hydraulic actuators must fail closed- they must be spring closed and compressed air opens them. How does this work with the shear type of valve? It seems like a last-ditch type of valve. Is air pressure always maintained with redundancy for these valves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj245 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The rams are hydraulically operated to move between open and closed position. When closed, the sealing surface is above the rams themselves so that casing pressure helps keep them closed. (As I recall, one of the early UK North Sea blowouts was made much worse because the BOPs had been nippled up upside down and this internal-pressure actuation couldn't assist). I don't know about current API standards, but standard BOPs are not fail-safe in the sense you wonder about. An air-operated hydraulic pump keeps the accumulators charged with enough energy (stored in the compressed nitrogen) for several actuations (probably again an API standard of how many), so the BOPs can be closed even if the rig loses power. You are correct: the shear type is a last ditch effort, so on the control panels the lever for the blind rams or shear-blinds should have a guard shield or mechanism that must be moved out of the way first -- to keep them from being operated by mistake or accidentally by something or someone hitting the valve handle. I don't remember the circumstances now, but when I was engineering manager for an offshore drilling contractor 30 years ago somebody closed the shear blinds on one of our rigs off Norway when they had picked up off bottom to control a kick. Needless to say, that complicated the situation but a blowout did not occur.

The equipment described above is for a typical land rig. Subsea BOPS -- especially at today's water depths -- use more sophisticated control schemes meriting a section of their own.

Irv (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jargon

The introduction, in particular, is full of oil-industry jargon and is not accessible to the non-expert. The oil gusher page covers similar material in a much less technical way and could, perhaps, be used as a model. Dricherby (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I made some changes to address this, but it could still be improved. The intro seems to assume that oil or natural gas entering the wellbore during drilling would be a bad thing. If this is the case, it should be stated explicitly for the benefit of non-experts. Not being one myself, I did not add this specific detail. Danielx (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not! The Jargon is part of the materia. A prosaic/poetic language does not clarify more. 83.76.89.144 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where to make this suggestion but would an external pump or pressure source be able to close the shear valve if a direct connection could be made to the ram head? I have been working on an industrial endoscopic like splicing tool that could sever the original line and connect it to an external line but I would need the specs on the original line to proceed. (Brooksbot (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC))-brooksbot

Fixing

As an/the author of german article i am interested to know: how is the BOP-stack fixed to the ground? --Itu (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC) PS: (there are 100 further questions)

The BOP stack is connected -- usually with bolted flanges -- to the casing head, which itself is welded or screwed onto the casing that has been cemented in place. (No BOP's are used in drilling the very top portion of the hole.) In subsea operations, the BOP stack's bottom connector is controlled hydraulically upon command from the surface. Casey (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Itu (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems ok but how is the top piece of casing fixed in the hole ? Merely by having cement poured around it ? Seems that it might slip out thus lifting the BOP off the ground. Is it possible that tht top piece of casing is deformed in such a way that the concrete can hold it to the rock ( hopefully ) and not mud into which it is placed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.32.26 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cement is not simply poured at the top of the borehole. It is pumped into the space (annulus) between the casing and the borehole to a depth sufficient to retain the casing in place with consideration for pressure from down hole. This depth to be cemented is indicated by the well design plan. After the cement has cured a Cement Bond Log (CBL) may be run and the casing integrity tested by applying pressure to the interior of the casing and verifying the seal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.1.136 (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Diagrams

Diagrams showing the internals of the two types mentioned would be very helpful in visualizing them. -- Beland (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

An external link showing a BOP can be found: http://www.drillingcontractor.org/dcpi/dc-mayjune07/DC_May07_BOP.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.155.42 (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please label the diagrams if you can

The patent diagram is a good start. Can someone knowledgeable about blowout preventers please add labels to the parts so it's more clear how it works? Also, any other available diagrams of different types of blowout preventers? Thanks. Kwertii (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The drawing of a ram-type preventer looks like something from ancient history. Can anybody put up a cross-section of a modern BOP? Casey (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added a couple of diagrams that I hope illustrate a simplified BOP; both ram-type and annular. After I posted the annular one, I realised that it is neither conical-piston nor spherical head - the two types mentioned in the text. I hope that it illustrates how the annular type works though. If it does not serve, then either let me know, or Hey! Do it better yourself! reqdiagram tag removed. Egmason (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Egmason. Both diagrams effectively convey the concept. Catsquisher (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

History

A history of the invention of the blowout preventer would be an interesting addition. -- Beland (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a history would be nice, but a history of failures would be even better. Really, should the Deepwater Horizon be a prominent part of this article? Also, Ixtok, a similar Gulf oil spill was caused by a failed BOP and resulting hand-wringing has been mirrored by today's oil-containment. User:anonymous (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion under Deepwater Horizon, below. I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning Ixtoc, but I also thing the "History" section in a balanced article on blowout preventers would focus on the history of development and succesful use as well as failures. /ninly_(talk) 13:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy in design?

I don't find anything in the article about redundancy in the design engineering of blowout preventers. Is this done in this industry? Is redundancy in blow-out preventers (BOP) discussed at a theoretical level (say by engineering professors or others) even if it is not commonly practiced? Redundancy is common in some forms of human-engineered technology (e.g., double-hulled ships, fault-tolerant electronics in high-end data storage devices, multi-engine aircraft, ground vehicle brake systems, etc.) and appears to be generally absent in others (e.g., pre-mid-twentieth century oil tanker ships, low-end PCs, ground vehicle power systems, etc.), ostensibly, I presume, for economic reasons.

So I wonder if an expert on the subject might offer any insight into the engineering discipline of blowout preventer design: what's possible? what's common? Why?

Alternative question, are there any studies on the economics of the use of (maybe existing, or maybe possible) redundant BOP designs? In other words, do redundant BOP designs exist? (say, double wall, or some sort of big honking outer chamber surrounding the standard BOP such that a subsea blowout could be piped off to a surface ship?) but they aren't used due to complexity or expense? It could be the case that, once we let the liability issue fall on the proper party drilling for the oil, that insurance rates and other private incentives could sway the balance to an increase in the use of (perhaps very expensive) redundant design in the construction of blowout preventers. N2e (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello N2e. I would like to have a discussion on this topic, but I don't think this is the right place. You and anyone else interested in the technical aspects of this disaster might want to join me in a discussion at User talk:Macquigg/Blowout prevention. Maybe we can distill from our discussions something useful to this page, and perhaps even useful to the whoever will have to deal with similar disasters in the future. --Dave (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Great suggestion. I'll get over to the User talk:Macquigg/Blowout prevention page soon. N2e (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actuation methods

I rewrote the section on actuation because it mixed the control means with the triggering means. But I'm not up on current requirements (which may be getting tougher at the moment!) in the USA, so corrections welcomed. And I don't understand the part about closing automatically on pressure. What pressure? (There won't be any surface pressure before they're closed.) Closing on flow I assume means excessive mud return rate above pumping rate. Are modern deepwater BOPs truly triggered automatically on this? Casey (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Still wondering about the statement on automatic closing. Could it refer to automatic actuation of subsea BOP's (using pressure stored in the seafloor accumulators) if the link (which may include a hydraulic pressure line) to the rig has been lost? Somebody needs to clean up this section a bit. Casey (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actuation methods

The above section in the main article uses the terms "activated" and "actuation" in a somewhat confusing manner, referring either to signalling to the BOP actuator(s) or powering the BOP actuator(s).

For clarity, the section should outline the types of actuator (eg manual, hydraulic, pneumatic etc) that are used, the ways that the energy is supplied to the actuator (eg from hydraulic accumulator), and the way that the energy source is replenished (especially undersea where there is no obvious power supply).

The section should then outline the types of signalling used between the operator and the actuator, especially when undersea. The section currently refers to electrical activation from the surface. Does that mean that an electric signal is sent to it, or that electric power is supplied to operate the BOP? Clearly when talking of acoustic activation that means signalling, not powering. It would be interesting to have an explanation of the reason why such a feature should cost an additional $500,000.

A clarification of the above items would then put the lack of "redundant acoustic actuation" in the following section relating to the Deepwater Horizon blowout in perspective. If the actuator itself is out of order then the type of signalling used is irrelevant - it still won't work!

196.27.122.30 (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with need for these additions and hope a knowledgeable person can do the edits. Re the Macondo Blowout, at least some of the BOP functions had worked only a few hours earlier during the pressure tests following the long string's primary cement job, but that fact is not germane to THIS Wiki article. Indeed, this article should be agnostic as to the Macondo well, leaving discussions, facts and speculations to the several other Wiki articles covering it in detail. Casey (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that the article confuses and conflates the concepts of BOP control and BOP actuation. I suggest that the term trigger be used, instead of method, means or activation, in the section entitled "Actuation Methods". An actuation means or method in the context of a linear actuator such as a BOP ram most commonly refers to whether such a ram is actuated by hydraulic or mechanical means. The earliest BOP rams were mechanically actuated in the manner of a screw jack. Currently deepwater BOP rams are exclusively actuated hydraulically. The hydraulic pressure to close the rams can be triggered via the methods described in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catsquisher (talk • contribs) 18:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite this article

We need better diagrams, better explanations, and a lot more detail on the various types of BOPs. I've collected some publicly-available diagrams at User:Macquigg/Sandbox/Blowout_preventer, but we need more. Anyone with access to the BOP manuals, or just with the right knowledge, could create these diagrams and contribute them to Wikipedia. --Dave (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

I reassessed this article to 'C'. To fulfil 'B' criteria it needs additional references (right now a number of paragraphs and even some sections are without any reference. Also, there are number of very short paragraphs which probably could be merged (e.g. all paragraphs in the lead about the alternative names). Concerning the jargon issue in the lead, I think that this problem is quite well resolved, but for 'B' assessment the article can't be tagged with that kind of maintenance templates. Beagel (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blowout preventer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005223639/http://www.asmenews.org/archives/backissues/july03/features/703oilwell.html to http://www.asmenews.org/archives/backissues/july03/features/703oilwell.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://oilstatesintl.com/fw/main/Offshore_Products-145.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blowout preventer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100520003847/http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20100512/Stupak.Opening.05.12.2010.pdf to http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20100512/Stupak.Opening.05.12.2010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blowout preventer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100504013024/http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/oil-spill-debacle-points-to-rig-blowout-preventer-as-utter-failure/19461009 to http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/oil-spill-debacle-points-to-rig-blowout-preventer-as-utter-failure/19461009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

File of BOP Patent Drawing

Hydril Company's Compact BOP Ram Actuator Assembly Patent Drawing

There has been a lot of editing involving inserting and removing this file in the article. Let's put it on the talk page and add it back to the article when the file is restored. - tucoxn\^talk 16:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Section lacks citation

The entire control methods section lacks citation. If someone doesn't come forward with a good reason for me to not do this soon, I am going to comment it out when I get on an actual computer. (After flagging it as such for a little while). jayhawker6 (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)