Thepanelconcludedthatbps 30cfr2501503 30cfr2501507

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: a 2.8 inch gap between the blocks, as estimated by a DNV model. DNV concluded that, at the time of the blowout, there was a drill pipe tool joint located between the closed upper annular and the closed upper VBR, which the Panel concluded were properly spaced out. The Panel believes that the rig crew manually closed the upper VBR because the upper VBR cannot be remotely activated from the hot stab panel. During the post‐blowout well intervention In its report, DNV stated that it could not rule out the possibility that the BSRs were closed through activation of the AMF circuits. 341 139 operation, once the pods had been pulled and rerun, only 2.3 gallons of hydraulic fluid were pumped to close the upper VBR. This would have been an insufficient amount of fluid to close the VBR had it been in an open state. Furthermore, DNV found no cut upper VBR hydraulic hoses during intervention. The VBR was also found to be in the closed position at Michoud. DNV found that multiple forces acted upon the drill pipe during the blo...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 01/18/2014 for the course BEPP 305 taught by Professor Nini during the Fall '11 term at UPenn.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online