The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Chrysaor as potential suitor has been discussed in the past as there was a connection, being John Hogan, a Director of Chrysaor and former Director of HUR. They also had a share of Solan and think they may still have licences WOS in block 205 but would need to check. As for becoming a partner in HUR, seems they are buying up established assets but who knows.
Siem Opal will likely have been released for tow bridle when primaries run. Pretty sure b2d has not put a finger in the wind. If he is who I think he is, he is a main player in drilling op’s and will not be too far off the mark. Would have expected Transocean Leader to have been pretty light going out of Invergordon. Initially thought weekend for spud a bit optimistic and certainly won’t be taking onboard riser!
AWK - What? Celina? Don’t worry about her, she’ll shadow Rig to Warwick.
Am I correct that Transocean Leader has stopped just off Burghead? If this is the case, probable that pontoon hatches were open in Invergordon and therefore she will carry out water integrity tests prior to heading WOS. She will ballast and deballast to confirm integrity. With regards second two line, would expect bridle will be shacked to each beam. No second tow line and even if one was available, they wouldn’t go. As regards the tow bridle snapping, I don’t think the tension would be that great to find it’s way into the AHTS. She will have emergency tow lines should there be a failure of the bridle.
ADUK- Pilot will be on rig from quayside and will depart by frog at Fairway Buoy just past Cromarty and vice versa on way into Port. Rig movers will be in bridge or control room of rig when departing/entering port
AWK - Just a wake up call and I think you know it! Well aware a tow bridle will not be attached at quayside! Ear to ground given “patience...” but obviously no need. DC - Pilot will likely board rig by frog from quayside.
DC - At last. Just beat me to it.
Why no commentary?
SIPP - "We are not dealing with a yacht here and the Aoka Mizu is quite capable of maintaining her heading and position in 20 knot winds with her Dp1 dynamic positioning system. Dp1 by the way, means there is no redundancy so if there happens to be a failure in the system then she will of course not be able to maintain any sort of position even in windless conditions."
Hope ABS or DNV don't read that. Reads as though loss of DP will result in loss of control. Requirement to have manual mode to switch on and control thrusters manually.
Forget about this round of Anchor Handlers, they’ll probably sail past AM in Moray Firth. As for running the BOP, has the hole even been opened yet?
SIPPn00b/Escargot - Quite agree, but we get sucked in at times and before you know it you post things for the sake of it. Probably better saying hee haw and keep your thoughts etc. to yourself. Should maybe take my own advice.
CEBO-456 - HSG211 was a typo and you are correct re HSG221. Cannot comment on Marine Regs as I have no experience of them as LOLER governs lifting ops on installations I have worked on. Timing may be the key as to when LOLER takes over but a quick scan tells me nothing. Think we can all agree that the in-house investigation resulting in root cause is the key to this avoiding or at least mitigating the potential for this happening again.
As for oil type dudes, a quick google search of "Bluewater Crane Operator" will bring up a LinkedIn Profile for someone who is employed by Bluewater Energy Services as a Crane Operator and works on one of their NS FPSO's and it would therefore be a fair assumption that they do not use Sparrows unlike many Platforms. For obvious reasons I haven't copied the link.
CEBO -456 - "And FWIW - Bluewater will probably not come under LOLER Regs until it is actually fixed to the seabed."
FWIW, HSG211 probably suggests they do.
ADUK - Agree in part with your post re HSE and that it can, let's say, hinder operations at times and companies take it too far for one reason or another.
With regards the HSE notice, you will see there were two and it was not the Noise one which I thought about, it was the Verification Scheme one. With previous posts suggesting BW don't apply LOLER , for which third party Verification will be used to certify lifting equipment, QAQC being put into question, and it being suggested that old equipment may have been used, it makes you think and I think you will understand my thought process without me having to post a long winded response and reason for not doing so at the time.
As you rightly say, none of us will know the rigging, causes etc. and hopefully they can get it right next time.
MO - Tried searching AOKA MIZU. Seems in 2015 there Verification Scheme was under scrutiny which suggests failure to check by them and/or Third Parties.
McGee - Note you said BW does not conform to LOLER but comes under ship regs. I thought that LOLER covered all Offshore Installations and took time to see if I could find something.
"LOLER generally applies throughout Great Britain, and wherever the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 applies. In some cases, LOLER may apply on board sea-going ships where persons other than the master and crew are liable to be exposed to risks from the use of the lifting equipment. The Health and Safety at Work Act (Application outside Great Britain) Order 2001 extends the Regulations to all offshore activities and sub-sea installations on the Great Britain continental shelf. Therefore, LOLER applies to these activities."
If they BW don't adopt it, thank Christ nobody was hurt.
Just tuning in. So they dropped the stack without injury or damage. Very lucky indeed. Thankfully the buoy was tethered or it may never have been seen again had it ploughed into the seabed. Someone will have a lot of paperwork to do with that incident.
I would assume or rather expect that before the buoy was lifted, a LOLER competent person should have prepared a lift plan and checked the lifting gear. As a rough rule of thumb, a wire rope could have a breaking strain of say 5/1, so SWL of 100t should in theory lift 500t, but why break? Was the wire shock loaded or crushed during previous attempt? That may be the case and if so, maybe a slip and cut or complete change out should have happened. It is also possible that the wire was not spooling on the drum correctly and resulted in the wire being crushed and hence the failure. I can here the winch operator saying "it's not spooling correctly" and the supervisor saying "it will be alright, keeping picking up, were nearly there". One thing is for sure, the winch operator and onlookers would have shat themselves. We'll probably never find out, the outcome unless of course the investigation results is deemed serious enough to share across the NS and beyond.
Yuyus - Oh how times have changed, probably for the better though. On singing and dancing rigs, Roughnecks only dope pipe! Your right if you tried to rack back that stand in that fashion, you would be run off nowadays given the Derrick cameras and in some cases live feed to the beach. As for rope on collars, even the manual rigs use pulls back tuggers on HWDP these days, never mind collars.
SOTB - Correct. Aye but no. Enquest then HUR but somewhere else in between.
HTL - The plate was removed in Rotterdam. Hope you are doing ok. ATB.