The more spills change the more they stay the same

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmhxpQEGPo

Apologizes if it has been posted already, haven't seen it yet.

I take it you will not be reading my book of wacky BP fixes? No matter how silly and anti-physics some of these ideas were people care and i found that very interesting. Some of the ideas were attempts to lighten the heavy burden of the spill which isn't just a U.S. tragedy, it's a global tragedy! That is one thing you will find as a common thread on TOD most people realize we share this very small world.

The last 10% is worth far more than the first 90%

BP's credibility is in the toilet. Of course they want this to stop and they're working non stop, but it's clear to readers here who have been following this for weeks that they are as transparent as a inch of their oil on the surface of the Gulf. It didn't have to be this way, but it's the course they picked.

With this in mind, when BP says the Top Kill has a 60-70% chance of success, to get a better sense of the odds, drop the zeros. Actually, Top Kill turned out to be 0%. Likewise, when Suttles says the LMRP should capture "much of the oil" substitute "little" for "much." That way, if they manage to get "some" they can claim a big success. But expect "none." I hope I'm wrong.

As many knowledgeable people here have said, probably the only fix is the relief well, which is months away. If this turns out to be the case, what a mess and we ain't seen nothing yet.

I still say there should be serious jail time for the top people at BP, including Suttles, when this is over. Only the fear of God will get the heads of all the other oil drilling companies to make drilling for oil the safest industry in the nation. We put drunk drivers in jail for killing people. Why should these jokers not get the same treatment?

Ixtoc, not Ixotoc.

They tried a lot of different things. They had divers down reactivating the BOP, but it threatened to blow from the force of the extreme pressure, and they had to open it again.
http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250

I don't think it would be a temporary measure, but I also don't think it will collect all of the oil/gas. I suspect the joint at the BOP will leak some and it probably should just to keep wellhead pressure from wanting to push LMRP off if well kicks. My concern, voiced earier, is that BOP and annular seal within has erroded from abrasion (sand in oil flow) and a large amount of oil will flow into the sea after cutting riser and until LMRP is correctly fit in place.

Microbes are wicked multipliers.

I would think that the decision to use this much dispersant is rooted in both rational and PR reasons. There would be a lot more oil on the surface without, and the marshes would be thick with it by now -- but it did let BP get away with claiming it wasn't much of a gusher for a long time.

There are multiple questions re pumping dispersants in the leak:
a) toxicity itself
b) moving the oil-droplet-patches deeper down the water column, where there is less oxygen, colder environment and it may affect more marine life
c) it may take longer for the oil to be broken up in this depth
d) depleting the water of oxygen creating "dead zones"
e) underwater plumes can't be skimmed, difficult to track down
f) in general, nobody has a clue what is really happening since it has never been done before

sadly media is mostly focusing on a) only.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/05/dispersants-killing-natural-o...
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/breaking/Oil_dispersants_an_environmenta...

there are also some questions arising sbout the negative impact of corexit on those same little microbes that we're all hoping will deal with at least some of this. apparently, they have their own system for dispersing the oil already and they may not prefer the nalco version.

Wouldn't the microbes consume a lot of oxygen in order to break up this oil? If so would that cause other nasty side effects? This is an imbalance in the system, it has to show up one way or the other.

"I just donated a weeks worth of commute funds to your site and will walk to work instead."

Now that is cool; somebody actually doing something to reduce dependency. Thanks.
My nane is Mike, and I am an oilcoholic.

BP said in a presser (don't know which one right now) they have no interest in producing from this well, ever, and that it went fubar. They were in the process of transforming this well from "exploration" to "production" when it blew up. Also note that the "relief well" is not to get oil out of it, but to plug it for good.

Covered many times in earlier threads. There is no possibility, and never has been any possibility, of recovering this well, or using the relief well (at the last the relief well that actually meets the blown well) for production. The notion does seem to arise with monotonous regularity that BP are somehow dragging the chain so that they can recover a commercially useful investment. They can't. For all sorts of reasons.

What is confusing the issue is that the well was originally drilled as an exploration well, and later converted for future production. But this has nothing to do with the post accident management of the well.

The $10 billion figure is seriously confused. The well cost about $100 million. Which is pretty much the standard cost for a well here. BP may well have invested $10 billion in the the GOM, but that includes all the exploratory work, construction of production facilities, and the drilling of many wells. This accident is basically going to mean they have invested $11 billion in the GOM. The fact that even an exploratory well costs $100 million allows you to see why investing $10 billion in a reserve is easy to do.

BP still own the concession, and will no doubt continue to work on recovering oil. But the blown well, and the relief well will be sealed for as close to eternity as reasonable. Eventually they will probably want to drill another $100 million well into the deposit, and couple it to an existing production facility, pretty much as they originally planned.

idyl -- They did not anywhere near $10 billion on this well. I think that number represents what they've spent in total in the GOM or all their Deep Water plays. I think I saw an early report that had spent $240 million on this well. If correct that about twice the avergae cost but I also understand they had a good bit of trouble. So that number could be correct.

a small suggestion:

The nomenclature for this spill is all over the map, and there is little doubt that BP will be using its extensive PR resources to try and keep its name out of whatever name this spill ends up being called in the history books. (think Exxon Valdez)

My suggestion is that whatever you call this spill please include the name BP for example the title of the above article "Deepwater Oil Spill - The LMRP Attempt Continued and Sunday's Open Thread "

How about Deepwater BP Oil Spill or some variation of that, it seems the White House has adopted Deepwater BP Oil Spill on their site.

I don't think these questions can be effectively addressed until the US, Europe, and the rest of the world take a hard look at the structure of the for-profit corporation.

I have been a lawyer for 32 years, and I have been litigating against for-profit corporations for the last 28. (Ironically, my first two years as a lawyer were on the side of the for-profit corporations -- I spent my first two years with Exxon in its Houston litigation department before the Valdez incident. I still have Exxon stock and lat year purchased quite a bit of it for my retirement).

But many of us are now beginning to realize that the present for-profit global model of corporations is the root of the problem. On the other hand, I am not for nationalizing large for-profit corporations either.

But I think we need to start seriously considering changing to the non-profit corporation model for many of our big industries and at least allow non-profits to compete globally with the for-profits.

I suggest a new paradigm -- the global non-profit corporation, or something similar. Non-profits have worked well in the medical field where most hospitals are still non-profit. Maybe we need to scale up the concept of non-profits. (The term non-profit really is a misnomer as non-profit corporations do make a profit, but but they are required to "spend" their profits on the corporation itself and on the employees rather than distributing profits to shareholders).

We need a corporate model that puts more emphasis on the regular employees of the corporation, on R&D, on reducing the impact of externalities, and on the long term not the short term. We need a new model that has less emphasis on limited liability and less emphasis on the profit of shareholders, especially the profit of a very few shareholders.

As it stands now, the law requires mangers and directors to optimize profit at the expense of everything else. That concept just does not seem sustainable.

Until we change the global corporate for-profit model, I don't think there is much of a realistic chance of adequately addressing the questions you raise.

re #3 Accurate pricing is more an issue to me than reevaluation. This crisis just emphasizes the hidden subsidies that hydro carbons get, giving them a false appearance of affordability and a damaging advantage over alternative. The liability cap is a huge subsidy. Wind farms don't fain in ways that produce billions of dollars in negative externalities yet currently pricing doesn't reflect this.

They could have "talked" to the well weeks ago. The LMRP is going to be another farce. The pinheaded arrogance of the BP management in pushing for and getting just one relief well clearly shows that they are immune to any real world input that would challenge their worldview.

Any news about if they plan to bring in a replacement BOP for the second relief well? I waited for some journalists asking this question yesterday, didn't happen...

do you have a link to the comment you referenced?

you mention Thad Allen (is that the same Thad Allen that made this announcement Friday AM)

"May 28 (Reuters) - The flow of oil and gas from the broken well in the Gulf of Mexico has been stopped by pumping mud into it, however the challenge will be whether that can be sustained, the U.S. incident commander Admiral Thad Allen said on Friday."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2812649120100528

The drilling of a second relief well must be for a very good reason. Of course we have been told that it was so that the BOP could be relocated to the blowout well. It is surely not for a reason of cost savings. The difference in costs to BP of having that rig on standby or drilling is not going to be very much. It is possible that there simply are not enough of the proper BOPs sitting in people's back yards to get one out there in a day or two.

"A lot of thanks to BP for sharing information on their attempts and activities."

Nnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooo!

"In detail, cross section drawings and models of the BOP, materials in different parts "

Mr. Gransaether: you will find some information in the following link:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100527/BP.Presentation.pdf

There are some detail drawings, unfortunately no material specs. The latter will have to be looked up elsewhere.

It might be worthwhile repeating your request here:

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/546759/

The URL is to the "Suggestions" page on that site.

Yes, I was watching the ROV's work on the BOP and riser last night around 23:00 CDT. One was doing something near the leak while looking at the riser perpendicular to its length. They retrieved a hose that was hanging over the BOP. It was refreshing to see the different perspective of one ROV watching the activity of another.

12:15 CDT Currently Mil # 21 ROV is recovering buoyancy modules.

2+2=4

Let us hope not, but I doubt it.

Alan

God, I hope their stock goes up at least one more time before they collapse totally. I need to sell high on them. I inherited some BP stock years ago from my grandfather and hoped to add to my retirement, but at this point I'm thinking I don't want to be associated with BP Plc any longer.

Unfortunately, the "Rock's" early pessimistic prediction that a relief well would likely be the only way to shut down the oil flow is looking more and more prescient.

In any case, I wonder if BP may be the most unpopular corporation on the face of the earth--except of course that a lot of trial lawyers love them.

Consider that BP may have ultimately caused: (1) A massive decline in GOM tourism; (2) A massive decline in the GOM fishing & seafood sectors; (3) A complete shutdown of deepwater GOM drilling, with a suspension of offshore drilling permits. And regarding #1 and #2, the Loop Current could spread the collapse to the Florida Keys and the East Coast of Florida.

One thing to consider is how Exxon fared after the Exxon Valdez incident and this question:

Is it a coincidence that the point person for the government that was key in the final settlement ($1.1b) for Exxon back in 1991 is the very same person who is Chairman of the just announced President's Commission to investigate the Deepwater BP Oil Spill?

BP, will survive. what would thier lawers and lobbiest do.......
"Litigation is the cornor stone of every good economy"
They must not ever be left off the hook for thier incompatence if it means nationalising ALL thier assests so be it

Accenture---Arthur Anderson, Xe---BlackWater, Altria---Phillip Morris.

thought they cut it last night

Good to see you posting Subkommander. I've seen many names from years gone by come back recently. Now, if only Humbugga would post something, my world may actually make more sense.

SD: Tell us what you really think! As to your last suggestion I have done them all and more. (The year so far have driven 230 miles max). But no matter how much I do it does not seem to make everyone else follow my lead! My pushing for a European style gas tax starting back in about 1976 hasn't been received well by either party. Oh well. or is Oil well!

Well said. I'm strongly anti-corporation, but let's not forget why they're drilling there. I wish I believed we had the capability of an organized and rational response to PO & CC, but I don't. Your colleague will continue to run that jet ski until he cannot, and then he will want someone to blame.

Thanks. We needed that. "We have met the enemy and he is us." — Pogo

Dred,

I agree with everything you say, but I'd like to raise a caveat about the statement

they are doing it because WE want and need the oil.

that I posted in an earlier thread.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6518/632207

It isn't that the statement isn't true, but that right at this moment, with this disaster unfolding, linking such sentiments to what is happening in the GOM risks letting BP off the hook. More at link - don't want to take up too much bandwidth here...

That said, I entirely agree with everything you say, tarring and feathering included!

Your comment I think goes without saying, Congress or congress (lower case loss of respect) would risk everything to go forward filling their pockets without relief well legislation! I received a letter from Senator Sanders (who I hold in high re-guard, upper case) sent a letter out already calling for this kind of regulation. Please join him @
http://sanders.senate.gov/

The Canadian Law is for drilling in a place with a short drilling season. It is to be able to drill in the same season rather than having to wait until the next season. It is an apples to oranges comparison as there is not a season in GOM.

miss -- Could certainly be an option to start a relief well when you start a new drill. But how would the relief well be less risky than the primary? IOW, what if the relief well blows out? Also, how deep do you drill the relief well? The primary could blow out at 3,000' or 28,000'.

Another way to consider your idea: drilling a relief well with the primary means drilling twice as many wells as would be normally done. If regs and procedures are not changed then you've just doubled the possibility of another major blow out/spill.

THE critical question is how did the well blow out. If the story is correct it was due to displacing the heavy mud in the csg/riser with seawater before the cmt was properly tested. A judgment call. A very easy fix there: change the rules for testing cmt jobs before you displace. And how do make sure operators follow the new rule: independent third party observers on board. An insignificant cost compared to the price of a typical DW well. And even after the cmt failed and the oil/NG started flowing up BP could have still prevented the blow out had they known the well was kicking. And how hard is that to know that? Very easy and done dozens of times every day on all the other DW wells currently drilling in the GOM. You monitor the mud when you turn off the mud pumps. I know this sound stupidly simplistic but you just measure how much mud you have in the mud pits. If the oil/NG begins to flow it has to push the mud out of the hole. If you turn a faucet off tite and the water continues to flow out of the spigot do you think you might suspect a problem? We can debate till the cows come how the judgment of displacing the riser/csg given what was known at the time about the qualityof the cmt. And neither side of that argument will change their positions. That wasn’t the proven sin by BP. THE sin was not monitoring the mud returns. How much money did BP save by not insuring that the personnel responsible for watching the mud returns were doing their job? Not one damn penny. I’ve been on DW rigs when a well was in its last stage. A great rush to shut down, pack up and get on the boat. I’m sure those hands responsible for keeping an eye on the mud returns weren’t kicking back in the galley with a cup of coffee. They were busting their butts rigging down and not paying attention. And why pay attention? They were told the cmt was tested and all was safe. Another easy fix: mandatory monitoring the mud returns AT ALL TIMES. Cost? Completely insignificant. Last January I drilled an 18,000’ well in S. La. There was one hand responsible for watching mud returns. Did I trust him 100%? No…I had a second hand monitor him. Good enough, eh? No…when ever we turned the mud pumps off my company man made that 30 yard walk to double check the mud returns. Cost to my company for this redundancy = $0.

I’ve tried to keep my criticism of BP on the light side since we’re still many months away from confirming the stories we’ve pieced together. But when the BP hand invoked the 5th to avoid self incrimination my attitude changed significantly. No more Mr. Nice Guy. I’ve sat in those meetings in the company man’s office on a rig and watched these technical debates. I’ve heard the “we don’t want to piss the office folks off” argument more times then I can remember. I’ve been told not to report my analysis because it would only up set someone. I’ve had my written reports tossed in the trashcan while I stood there and watched. I’ve been run off more than one job because I wouldn’t “be a team player”.

BP wants to hide behind the 5th…OK. But as far as I’m concerned I free to offer my very personal and very prejudiced feelings on this matter.

If you check abc's feed, it looks like they have taken the day off.

Such BOPs exist, but they are hugely unpopular because they can close down during normal operations, because of pressure fluctuations that are within parameters, causing delays. In the North Sea, you'll find that the Norwegians have insisted upon this inconvenient class of BOPs that the oil giants have managed to avoid in most other places.

ABR, good comments. I don't know what your background is but you seem to get the picture.

Here are a few of my thoughts on the question of what's next?

You can't regulate competence of Managers or Supervisors or Drilling Engineers. You CAN make dumb decisions so costly that they won't ever be made again. You can affect culture in an organization by having the right people at the top and in key jobs. I've always hated performance related goals. And, hated even more compensation based on meeting goals. Those are a couple areas for which the really smart guys who look into our heads might give us some input.

Ah, the BOP. You nailed it. When the SHTF the BOP(s), capable of being activated remotely, should shear, close, and riser disconnect, with enough hydraulic power/accumulators to do it reliably several times. This is where the regulators should concentrate their investigations and revised regulations.

I suspect there will be some extensive discussions between the regulators and industry about casing/cementing design as well there should be. I was surprised to see the casing/cementing plan for this well and confused why the centralizers were omitted and why the final hanger lockdown was omitted even though in the plan.

As far as mandating a relief well for every exploratory well...that is completely unnecessary. I heard that recommendation the other day from a Rice University Prof, a guy with a name with every letter of the alphabet in it, and wondered what planet he was from.

Also, there should be extensive discussion about relying on only one barrier while displacing the mud out of a well.

Well, how about requiring a relief well, like they do in Canada?

Open note from Matt Simmons posted at mikeruppert.blogspot.com:

…“In my opinion, what most likely happened when one of the largest surges of oil as gas blew out the BOP and within seconds, began melting down one of the world’s most technically advanced deepwater rigs ever built is that just the BOP and wellhead got tossed far away from the well bore but the riser which was attached to the rig floor was separated from the wellhead/BOP.

“What all the black crap coming out to create these plumes are is the oil from the reservoir and it is staying so deep under the ocean surface that only the recent tests by NOAA research vessels finally saw these giant plumes rapidly spreading across the sea floor of the Gulf of Mexico.

“BP is in total denial that this could be real.

“It is time for the government to ask BP to step aside and bring the military into to managing this colossal failure of judgment by BP.

“Spread this news as we all need to better understand what is really happening.

“Very tragic story.

“Matt”"

HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL? Input welcome.

13,000 psi formation pressure estimated from leaked scout ticket (posted on another blog) that showed last section of well was drilled with 14.1# mud, but was weighted up to 14.4# at which point there was a lost circulation event. Like many wells in the GOM deepwater, Macondo faced narrow margins - just look at all the liners that had to be run.

If the 13,000 psi reservoir pressure is accurate, the Macondo prospect was right at the edge of blowing out all on it's own w/o any help from BP.

Someone (apparently GeoNola) posted a note earlier to the effect that there was a very small difference in mud weight--between the weight that would cause the formation to break down and between the weight that would result in a blowout.

A pretty good analogue would be the "Coffin Corner," for jet aircraft. As they fly closer to their operational ceiling, the margin between stall speed and Mach Buffet (as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound) gets smaller and smaller. If memory serves, the difference between the two for the U2 at close to its operational ceiling was something like 5 knots or so.

pulaskite wrote:
Somewhere that I can't find now I noticed a claim that the reservoir is at 13,000 psi and 180 F accompanied by the statement that 180 F is unusually cold.

GeoNola estimates ~13,500 psi for original reservoir pressure perhaps reduced a bit currently as the well drains.

On May 21, 2010 Figure 2 in What caused the Deepwater Horizon disaster? indicates the reservoir pressure is 13,000 psi.

GeoNola estimates the reservoir temperature at 200 F.

The statement that the temperature is unusually low came from AlanfromBigEasy on May 24, 2010:

The quoted formation temperature given to one team member appears to be unrealistically low and posting a query on TOD is one quick short cut to getting info.

Reference to formation temperature being 180 F on May 24, 2010:

a. According to information given to the team that is tasked to estimate the flow, the pressure in the reservoir is about 12,000 psi, but only 180 Fahrenheit, which surprised both of us (TOD bloggers: is this credible?)

I think the issue of the solubility of gas in oil is one of the major things that was confusing people trying to estimate flowrates based on the video images. Could you work out how much the volume of oil will reduce, due to gas coming out of solution, as the pressure drops from the sea floor to sea surface? Seafloor pressure is 2100 psi (15 Mpa).

I'm also curious about what happens inside the blowout preventer. Assuming a 6000 psi pressure drop, from 8100 psi to 2100psi, how does the gas to oil ratio change?

AlanfromBigEasy tried to summarise some of the data on the blowout.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6520#comment-632332

One thing he said that confused me was ' ...lots of natural gas (3,000 GOS, 10,000 GOS is considered a gas well). ' Does this mean a gas to oil ratio of 3000 scf / bbl?

Here is a picture from the Times-Picayune showing the different casing widths being used in the well.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/20%20Deepwater%20casing%20Halliburton2.jpg

I'm using it to try to estimate flow velocities in the well just below the wellhead. There appear to be three possible flowpaths.
1/ Annulus between the 16 inch and 9 5/8 inch casing.
2/ Between the 9 5/8 inch casing and the drillpipe. I don't know the diameter of the drillpipe so I'm guessing 4 inches.
3/ Within the drillpipe. I'm guessing an internal diameter of 3 inches.

I'd apreciate any corrections people might have.

Cool graphic!

Very nice -- thanks. Now if the riser were properly scaled we probably couldn't even see it. Oh, and the BOP would be much smaller.

Now you need to add the well bore down to the formation.

Thanks for illustrating one of my gripes. BP is horrible at messaging. Perhaps the worst ever seen. I remain convinced it is not intentional. Why I do not know. Implying challenges are gigantically more difficult because of being "5,000 FEET UNDER THE SURFACE" is basically screaming a confession to the public BP had no business being down there in the first place (perhaps true; perhaps not, but not the message the offshore industry wants to be screaming at the top of their lungs: "WE DON'T BELONG DOWN THERE! )

I don't know, but after Ixtoc, Pemex paid out exactly zero in damage claims, claiming sovereign immunity.

Excellent questions. And I'm wondering how it is going to increase the difficulty/cost of working w/ NOC's that have deepwater assets.

They are preparing to cut the riser away at the BOP stack - so soon there will be no oil flowing there. It will all be coming from the top of the BOP. They may also need some of that apparatus for the LMRP capture operation.

they removed it before operation top kill. didn't want to suck up all the drilling mud shooting out of the riser I guess.

I don't know if Simmons is a total quack.

First off, Simmons was CEO of one of the largest Energy Investment Bank in the world....Simmons International. He has been around for decades and knows everyone in the business.

Secondly, Simmons was the first to write a White Paper about the largest oil fields in the world back in the early 2000's. He also wrote the book about Saudi Arabia titled, "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy", which can be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Desert-Coming-Saudi-Economy/dp/0471790184

Now, I am not saying Matt Simmons is correct, but it is silly that none of the TOD editors are looking into this knowing how much respect Simmons has gained over the past decade on peak oil and etc.

Again...I think this FOCUS on BP and this LMRP plan is a complete waste of time, and Simmons is probably more correct than BP about this large plume several miles away coming from a leak about 120,000 barrels a day.

I'd be surprised to find a natural fissure of this magnitude would suddenly appear. I can think of three possibilities:

1. It is natural and has been going on, undetected, for a long time.

2. This well's outflow has been a lot higher than 12-19K BOPD for a long time.

3. Some other nearby drilling activity (capped test well?) has failed.

I've come to believe that while we might be skilled at operating ROVs at 5000ft depth, there's a lot more to be learned about how crude (and dispersants) behave at that depth.

There must be a database of drilling activity by location. Verifying or refuting #3 should be easy.

"Last Sunday, National Underwater Labs sponsored by NOAA confirmed reports of a second fissure about 5-7 miles from the original...."

Not what Simmons said, actually. Very sloppy reporting by TheIntelHub. I just watched the Bloomberg interview this story is based on. Simmons said what NOAA has confirmed are reports of a new plume, not of a second fissure. The "second fissure" is Simmons's own "logical conclusion" from the discovery of the new plume, not anything NOAA has confirmed.

(And he means National Undersea Research Center, not "National Underwater Labs"; a Web search yields no hits on that name except the Bloomberg interview.)

Story and video of the interview here:

http://theintelhub.com/2010/05/28/simmons-calls-for-obama-to-take-over-b...

This whole Matt Simmons thing is scary.

Agree.

Putting on my tinfoil for a moment. I've encountered in other debates eg vaccination safety, where the most outrageous anti-vaccine loons often seem to get the most press, which of course makes it easy to dismiss them. In the process, other, more sane and evidence-based questions get drowned out, to a point where I sometimes wonder whether it is to the benefit of TPTB to have loud and outrageous opponents with high visibility whose ideas can easily be demolished...

The onshore cleanup workers I've talked to said they were threatened with dismissal if they wore a respirator. Offshore workers tell me when they try to wear one someone with BP will immediately tell them there's no need, tests show air quailty is fine (veiled threat).

Think about the repercussions of even one onshore worker photographed wearing a "gas mask" on the beach. Never going to happen.

Ask anyone in NOLA about wearing a respirator in this heat. There are going to be a lot of sick people from mold down the road because they just couldn't hack it in a respirator.

From McClatchy's:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/28/95049/bps-systemic-failure-harms-w...

David Michaels, the assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health who wrote the memo, raised the concerns on Tuesday, the day before seven oil spill workers on boats off the coast of Louisiana were hospitalized after they experienced nausea, dizziness and headaches.

Late Friday, the disaster response team sent four more workers to the hospital by helicopter, including two with chest pains.

In his memo to Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, Michaels said his agency has witnessed numerous problems at several work sites and staging areas through the Gulf Coast region.

"The organizational systems that BP currently has in place, particularly those related to worker safety and health training, protective equipment, and site monitoring, are not adequate for the current situation or the projected increase in clean-up operations," Michaels said in the memo.

"I want to stress that these are not isolated problems," he continued. "They appear to be indicative of a general systemic failure on BP's part, to ensure the safety and health of those responding to this disaster."

Michaels added that BP "has also not been forthcoming with basic, but critical, safety and health information on injuries and exposures."

I posted earlier on the Health and Safety implications (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6499/628465)and how easy it was to get around the laws. Apparently not as easy as I thought, if the feds and the national media are on top of you...and it's an unchangeable part of your corporate culture.

I suspect that there are synergistic effects at work here between the heat and the chemical exposure. If it were one or the other, not so bad (this from someone who would leave the shop floor when the temperature was above 85 degrees, which is nasty with Toronto humidity. And I didn't have to wear a respirator.) The exposures may indeed be within the legal limits; the problem is that people's reactions are not uniform (and the limits would be higher for most chemicals if European regs were used.)

As for the question of protective gear: people in protective gear cannot work as hard as people in normal dress, particularly in extreme environments.(My brother is on the Riot Squad, and has to wear a respirator for extended periods.) They have to move more slowly, and be aware of how much energy they are expending. They would need Health and Safety Training, and training specifically for the conditions they will encounter in the Gulf. (My suspicion is that a full 8 hour shift would be impossible for most people, or that they would have to work escalating hours (4 hours/day the first week, 5 hours the second, etc.) to train up to it. I would also screen for high fitness and require a pulmonary function test; but that's just me, not BP (or even the US gov't.) Breaks and cool down periods would be helpful as well. Perhaps a supervisor monitoring air quality and temperature, and regulating the workload during the hottest hours of the day.

The more I think about it, the more it reminds me of the problems in using NBC suits in Iraq. Hugely difficult, even with young men in peak condition.

Lloyd

OK, now imagine you have a bionic heart and your blood pressure is 23920/100. Then your mission should you choose to accept it is to remove a main artery fully intact from the heart to the end of your leg. Then you expect the blood flow to stop gushing out of said body and massive internal bleeding not to occur?!?

LOL, I hope your next 1 day and 14 hours of membership here are more productive!!

You do realize the Gaea Hypothesis is just a metaphor, right?

Like any heavy rigging, it would be very easy to due further damage to the BOP.
The LMRP will be open and lowered from the drill ship and placed above the flow with ROV's assisting. We have to hope the casing is in very good shape below the BOP and has no damage. Fingers crossed and Oilman's luck are due!

The question of the hour! Not at all stupid.

Supposing that it works, they will have a large volume of oil, water & gas coming up the pipe they will have to handle. The gas will have to be flared to avoid another explosion. It shouldn't be as big a torch as the original fire, but close. Definitely a dangerous job. Doubtless many people will complain about BP taking every precaution to avoid new casualties.

Maybe BP should call in Bruce Willis. After all he's fearless and always succeeds ;-)

After the initial setup it becomes a question of how long they have to collect fluids before they can kill the well.

I think you mean to say the BP Macondo well or perhaps the Deepwater BP well located at the Macondo prospect; as I peruse the blogs I am seeing an increased use of the name Macondo for this oil spill/leak, which I am sure BP is pleased about.

I listened to the interview with Matt noted above.

I agree. LISTEN to the interview. What he said wasn't nearly as crazy as people have reported.

He wasn't very clearly spoken - some people who are good with written words are terrible out loud -

and if you hadn't read every post on TOD for the last 2 weeks you wouldn't have a clue what he meant.

BUT, his scenario seemed to me to be:

- casing was/is fractured/leaking/badly sealed some shallow distance below seafloor

- then accident, BOP partially closed, BOP or debris restricts flow near wellhead, creates backpressure.

- backpressure forces gas/oil out leaky area into permeable layer a bit below seafloor

- this flows along subsurface and comes up about 5 miles away as a massive seep

- this seep is bigger than the loss at the BOP and no-one is paying it any attention & he's mad about that.

Now, this seems a reasonable scenario to discuss politely among ourselves.

No reason to dismiss him as a nutter yet, from what he actually said.

Ben

No need to do probablity and statistics on this one, common sense will do. They've stopped the second relief well so that makes the thinking easier.

The chance that the lone relief well will get a drill bit stuck, shutdown for various maintenance issues/ unexpected problems, experience deadly kicks, get hit by a hurricane or erupt like a volcano from hell...100% based on previous drills in this formation.

Jeff – I’ll offer you my very biased view of such stats. I make up probabilities of success almost daily. This well has a 30% chance of finding commercial oil. This well has a 90% chance of getting a good csg shoe test. That reservoir has a 60% chance of producing 1 million bbl of oil. And what formula do I utilize to calc these numbers? None…I pull those numbers out my butt just like others generate the vast majority of these stats. If I want to put a positive spin on some effort I’ll offer a 90% chance. I don’t like the idea I’ll say 15%. Same idea…just a different opinion on my part.

I’ll tend to look at reasonable possibilities…not probabilities. Is it possible for one RW to get the job done as quickly as two RW’s? YES. Is it possible that the one RW well could take a kick or lose circulation, stick drill pipe and have to be abandoned. YES. And if the RW is lost and we take an extra few months to kill the blowout will BP and the gov’t say they thought they PROBABLY made the correct decision.? Well I will give you a 100% probability of that happening.

Probability is used to study populations…not one time events. BP said the probability of the top kill working was 70%. That means if they did the top kill 100 times it would work 70 times. And that might well be a correct projection. But they weren’t doing 100 top kills …they were doing just one. So what odds would I have given the top kill? 50/50…it was either going to work or not. That was a joke, BTW. But seriously how would I have characterized the top kill: it probably wasn’t going to work. And if I were forced to put a number to it: 15% chance. That way when it failed, as I expected, I wouldn’t look too incompetent.

How many RW wells would I have chosen? I told Alan some time ago I would have gone with 3. A compromise between saving money and protecting the environment. I wouldn't argue my choice was right or wrong. But if it were my responsibility then I would have to live with the outcome. I get paid to make such decisions all the time. Doesn't mean I make the right decision all the time. I just try to.

Rough cost for an incomplete relief well (all but one will be incomplete) - $100 million.

However, $50 million or so can be salvaged by using upper liners, etc. for a later production well (*IF* BP can ever get a permit for this formation).

Risk is location specific. Wild well was 1.5 months over schedule. A single data point EXCEPT a superior rig (just drilled world's deepest well) had multiple failures on the way down.

Alan

It's hard to discuss the well chances without knowing the geology/engineering of the well. You'll notice that the proposed casing design of the relief well is different from that of the blowout well. It looks like there's a string that they won't have to set, due to knowledge learned on drilling the blowout well.

Being a geoscientist, I'm interested in the geologic maps and the pressures. There are often higher pressure zones over lower pressure zones in many areas of the Gulf. I've assumed that this is here as well. This is why you have to use so many strings of pipe. The deepwater exploration phase in the Gulf of Mexico started when it was discovered there was oil beneath the salt. Thirty years ago, if you would have proposed this in a meeting you would have been hung out to dry, btw. I don't work the deepwater GoM, so I'm only vaguely familiar with the specifics of the oil plays.

As Rockman has already mentioned about the relief wells, most of my thoughts here are redundant but here goes anyway. There are two methods of killing a flowing well with relief wells. One, go after the borehole, deep, but higher than the problem formation. Hard to find the borehole for obvious reasons, but once you get there, it's easier to control the pressures and the flow. This is the plan of the current relief well. The second relief well is to penetrate the actual problem formation near the out of control well. A "formation kill" if you will. The angles and depths would be different than the first relief design. With the "formation kill" it's a "get close enough and flood the formation with heavy mud". Both I would consider to be "bottom kill" wells. So, what's with the second relief well design, then? Was the second relief well by BP, the one that was suspended, that second relief well designed to go to the problem formation? Or was it designed to simply hit the same spot as the first relief well, near the 9 5/8" csg of the blowout well? I don't know.

Finding the well bore is tough, but that casing should be detectable at some distance away. This distance is a number I'd like to know. I would imagine it's probably on the order of 50 feet or so, but it could be double or half that.

I once sat on a relief well in the GOM. The rig that had the blowout didn't sink as it was a jackup unit, but it was burned beyond recognition. Looking at black hulk in the morning mist was spooky. No rig or remaining legs higher than the barge deck. Our blowout ended up "bridging over" (sealed itself) and the relief well never had to kill the formation.

Anytime you have a blowout and you shut in the well, you run the risk of having a subsurface blowout. Pressures within the well rise high enough to blow through the shallow casing outwards. The formation fluids (oil, gas, saltwater) will then choose a path of lease resistance, such as up along the outside of the casing to the surface (mudline here) or along a shallow sand. In the case of the blowout of gas the relief well I sat on, the gas did both. Before the well bridged over at depth (think of the sands being produced with the gas, and the overlying shale or mudrock collapsing from the weight, sealing off the hole) it was estimated that about 3 Bcfg of gas charged a shallow sand around 4000'. The shallow gas sand was a hazard for later wells drilled in the field.

In the case of this well, I think it's possible (some say probable) that the oil/gas is coming up around the 7" casing. The first relief well, as it approaches the actual 7" casing of the original blowout well far above the productive horizon, will discover either pipe or oil and pipe. If it's the oil, then this will indicate the cement failure we've heard about. It would imply that the inside of the 7" casing is still intact. The operations of the relief well at this point will be interesting, no doubt.

Matt Simmons makes a very logical and compelling argument as to why there is a huge plume (or plumes) of oil which are reported to be much larger then the observed riser leakage.This needs to be investigated fully.

A robot sub has been deployed

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/29/MN2R1DMFS3.DTL

Hi BayWeather

This method only works well in very shallow water. Also, that would mean no further work could be done on trying to control the leak above the BOP. There would be no room for the support ships and their ROVs. This would leave the relief well as the only option and that will be a couple of months yet.

Frustrating, I know.

Horizontal velocities of salt movement to the south are in the several cm/year range, making this supposedly passive margin as tectonically active as most plate boundaries.

=:O

I wonder about the Mud Loggers records as compared to the casing diagram. Anyone have any info. If the cement failed in the 7" and thier choice of a tapered long string to 9 &5/8 insted of a 7" liner configuration with no cement up in the 9 5/8 then is an underwater blowout plausable in the 9 & 5/8 section?
Hibernia off Newfoundland while not Subsea used 9&5/8 cemented in place then after drilling the Hibernia Sands, set a 7" liner tied back to a packer in the 9& 5/8 after cementing the liner. Redundancy perhaps? These wells where then brought to production thru Rigless intervetions. Just by memory but well b16-1 the reserve was 4500meters deep TVD, <10K BHP and was at the time Canadas biggest producer ever at more than 65,000 BPD on a 3/4" choke up 7" Tbg.
Lots of Oil Sub Salt off brasil how do they do it.
Are these salt layers naturally factured or do they have a low fracture gradient?
Very curious if they either didnt know or just disregarded this step as to expedite the completion of thier drilling operation.
Also regarding the relief well requirement in Canada.
Apparently a producer must in thier Drilling Plan have the capability to drill "Same Season", relief well not actually have it drilled.Good piont on Hurricane season by the way. Dome Petroleum back in the 80's had more than one rig in the Beaufort for this purpose. Still, if ther where ice floes or a frozen Sea or what not I dont see this as a "Good" response to a disaster, rather see more stringent requirements and well planning to avoid a problem in the first place.
"We cant solve a problem with the knowledge that created it"
Exploration is going into the unknown after all...so why dont we take the time to not get lost in the first place?? Or are we just poking a sleeping Giant with a stick regardless?

Thank You, Interested...!

Reading the link above was very helpful. I can start to see the logic in drilling the RW to a point on the casing just above the reservoir, in case there's a fracture somewhere. BP probably knows more a lot more. Is this why the NIUST Pelican was shut down?

Equally interesting was discussion about national security implications; with increased awareness of peak oil - from IEA's 2009 report and others - there must be new emphasis on developing strategic reserves. No matter who BP's customer is, anything in this part of the GOM would be strategic to the USA.

In general, most of these comments are correct, but specifically,

1) Macondo was not a sub-salt prospect, it's in between separate allochthonous salt bodies which merge into a more continuous canopy farther west.

2) Macondo reservoir is older Miocene in age, many millions of years old, not Plio-Pleistocene

3) There are thick Plio-Pleistocene sediments overlying the prospect, and often cause shallow flows (usually brine or biogenic gas) while drilling the upper sections of the wells in this area.

In general, most of these comments are correct, but specifically,

1) Macondo was not a sub-salt prospect, it's in between separate allochthonous salt bodies which merge into a more continuous canopy farther west.

2) Macondo reservoir is older Miocene in age, many millions of years old, not Plio-Pleistocene

3) There are thick Plio-Pleistocene sediments overlying the prospect, and often cause shallow flows (usually brine or biogenic gas) while drilling the upper sections of the wells in this area.

4) There is already production from a field right above Macondo and several large fields to the south in deeper water that have been producing for years.

It seems like a very reasonable question, since it has apparently partially worked in the past.

One question: how do you accurately hold the end of the 5000' long, 250T pipe/pump directly over the leak/plume?

BP brought only one vessel capable of separating gas from oil on station, something Explorer, capacity 15,000 b/day of liquids.

I advocated bringing at least one more on-station.

As water cut increases, so does the need for capacity topside.

Alan

Every gallon of oil recovered by some siphon/skim method is proof of how much oil actually gushed into the gulf, and therefore a financial liability for BP. Sure, they can say they recovered x gallons, but that just proves that x is a subset of a larger figure. By spraying (unproven, untested) dispersants on the plumes of oil instead, both underwater and on the surface they limit the ability of a judge to rule in a lawsuit about the existence of that gallon. A slick on the surface can be measured somewhat. An underwater plume six miles wide and who knows yet how long, part oil and part frankenstein mixture of seawater, crude and soap is oil that will never be tallied in a court case, since the legal precedent has not been established. It may be cancer to a fisherman or death to a turtle or dolphin but it's "magic disappearing fluid" to a lawyer or an accountant or a CEO.

So the answer to the question "why don't they recover oil through x, y ,or z method?" is that it will cost them twice to do it - once to employ x, y or z method and once again when the existence of that subset of floating or underwater oil is admitted as evidence in court. The alternative, which is to do nothing, is therefor cheaper. "Do the math," as they say. BP is not and never was motivated or in business to clean up oil. They are in the business of getting oil the cheapest way possible to your corner station, (meanwhile selling you a big gulp and taking $2.50 from your ATM account) and mitigating damages when they occur through whatever methods possible, ethics be damned.

Until the federal government fully takes charge of the oil industry, like it is in most other nations worldwide, BP is running the show by the usual corporate means. The purpose of a corporation is to limit liability of the owners while enjoying all the other rights of an individual while behaving like a sociopath. Or have you been in a cave somewhere? The solution is political, not scientific.

The science and practical answer is also tricky. Where do you propose these tankers unload this watery oil and who is going to refine it - if you owned a refinery would you want sea water in your pipes, tanks, earthen storage facilities? It's ALWAYS been easier and cheaper to simply degrade (ie, ruin forever) the ocean and the wildlife than it has been to mitigate the damage. The taxpayers will pay, not BP.

No need to "hammer on them" - BP have long since had these details on their response web site -

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/in...

As you suggest they are currently planning to first sever the riser as it meets the seabed (using a derrick lowered hydraulic shear), before proceeding with the ROV wire cut at the top of the BOP.

There are several reasons why BP may be limiting information:

1) They are in a 'dammed if you do and dammed if you do't' situation. Since they cannot themselves be certian about the information they are using - there is a high probability that any information they give out will turn out to be incorrect. Then people will accuse them of 'lying.'

2) They are in a rapidly changing situation. Information may simply become obsolete by the time it is ready to be released.

3) Perception of persecution. Maybe BP trusts us even less than we trust them? It would not be hard for a BP exec to feel that they did the best job they could in balancing conflicting priorities (economics/regulation/internal company politics/government politics/technical difficulties/routine practices/etc) and that something went wrong. How would you feel if you felt that you were doing the best job you could and now people want to throw you in jail?

4) Management overload. Is BP simply being asked to do more things than they can effectively manage at one time? (This is why I think that the oil spill cleanup should be transfered from BP to FEMA - management may simply be trying to juggle toom many balls at once right now.)

5) Another issue is that people are comparing the job NASA does with thier video with that of BP. NASA has the advantage that their narrators are reading off of a script for an operation that was planned and practiced months prior. BP is having to do a lot of 'seat of their pants' operations and there is litterally no time to prepare the narration.

Long time lurker.

Thank you Andrea from Italy,

For stating your anger and showing enough angst to ensure that another can understand what you are saying about the outrage you speak of.

Its weird that a native of another country can speak for us with such gusto!!!

What then has happened to deaden the sense of utter and total outrage in us the American citizens who sit by the computer watching it all unfold and hiding our anger???? What?

I like you Andrea am a fisherman as well. Not 'commercial' but I live near many inland bodies of water and own three fishing boats. I have fished these waters all my life. I find peace , calm and quiet for my soul out on those waters.

Now industrial greed and ego has brought this catastrophe down upon our country and we do not appear to be as outraged as a citizen from another country!

I cry for my country and feel huge anger at those who sit in seats of power and whose job it is to prevent such as what is happening.

Too busy to engage but instead flees to Chicago. Walks the gulf shore for three hours and makes idle promises.

I am disgusted. I am saddened. I am going out to work on my boat and try to find the energy to survive the terrible and massive doom that awaits a major portion of my country and those fisherman down on the coast who must be walking home with heads hanging down and tears running on their cheeks.

Who will not be able to return to their boats and bring in the catches. Some of who are people of my heritage.

Again thanks for your posting your thoughts.

Its good to know that some others in the world feel the same.

hi andrea - i am new to this site as well (an excellent and urgent one, i might add), and after reading it closely for the past few days, i was moved to register after reading your wrenching post.

i am a writer, often writing about the american west and the wars that are unfolding in it, one way or another, right here on our homefront. my work often involves heartbreaking stories, with the land itself as a besieged main character that also offers salvation. i often spend years living inside these stories because that's the only way i can tell them.

an editor asked me the other day if i wanted to write something about what is going on in the gulf. i declined. i just can't do it; for the first time in many years, i am truly speechless. words cannot begin to approach the scale of this disaster...or at least that's been my feeling until i read your note, which is filled with powerful images that speak to the apocalyptic thing that is occurring.

you are so right: this time, the cavalry (braves) is not coming. Repentance, cleansing, scourging, sacrifice - these are the elements of this drama and we are nowhere near the end.

let me also tell you that you have accurately pilloried the media (which goes to the importance of this site; people here have been way ahead of conventional venues, calling it like it was/is since day one).

and finally, as you so accurately point out, this event effects us all, wherever we live, and i want to say thank you, grazie grazie grazie, for reaching out across the seas and reminding us that the ocean belongs to no one, and everyone, and somehow we must all figure out a way to stop the bleeding.

A BOP (or the top part of one) is needed for the LMRP cap attempt. It will be inserted at the bottom of the new riser just above the LMRP cap tool to protect the surface assets (not I assume to kill the well as the LMRP Cap/BOP interface seal won't be up to that sort of pressure). If BP get a good seal they hope to channel the "majority" of the HC to the surface i.e. any "kicks" etc won't have anywhere else to go - you wouldn't want to do that without some protection - hence they need a BOP.

They have resumed drilling the second relief well.

Yes.

Please reference the photos of the BOP and top of the riser. If you will notice the riser is crushed and fractured at the connection to the BOP.
Yes, the LMRP will be a problem hanging from cables 5000' from the drill ship.
Any time you put a valve on with flow of pressure it is very difficult. Consider this the most important hot tap in the world.

"i don't get it ..."

Actually I think you do get it.

BINGO !

The recovery method of sucking up the oil and seawater is different in the Persian Gulf as it is only 150' - 200' deep. The oil dispersion in the water is entirely different when it is comming out with gas and at 5,000 feet down. There is very little real similarity.

The airspace control issue is because of US Disaster Response Doctrine. The big lesson learned from past disasters in the US is that you place one orginization in charge and give them total control. Just as in a major wildfire where the airspace is controlled by the fire department that has been designated as the 'incident commander' - BP is the incident commander for this disaster and as a result are the people best able to set priorities as to who/what/when gets to use the airspace.

ali...

I'm curious as to how the supertanker thing works? What do they scoop into, and what do they filter with?

There is a lot of kit, tools, umbilicals etc down there that we do not see with the usual suspect camera views i.e. the old riser end and the BOP top view. Since yesterday BP are preparing for the LMRP Cap attempt. You know what it is like when you finish a DIY job in your house - tools and stuff everywhere - better to tidy up before starting the next job (especially with loads of 5000ft power cables). BP are currently prepping the LMRP cap attempt - e.g. removing any obstructions (pipes etc) from the top of the BOP stack and using any spare ROV resource to tidy the workshop for the next job.

I found this the other day. I think it's fair to say that it would be a far worse situation. I wouldn't be surprised if the US government was working on an evacuation plan. It would also not surprise me if they weren't....

The leak from the site of the demolished Deepwater Horizon drilling platform has raised numerous environmental concerns throughout the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coast regions.

With hurricane season looming, however, speculation is growing regarding the impact that a Gulf hurricane may have on the huge oil slick. Even the experts don't really know what would happen because there is no precedent.

A hurricane could move the slick toward the coast and a storm surge or hurricane force winds could carry the oil inland, producing an even greater disaster than either a hurricane or oil slick alone. A hurricane or tropical storm in the Gulf would also impede the efforts to contain the leak and the slick. Some have even speculated that the oil slick may inhibit the formation of hurricanes in the Gulf by forming a barrier between the air and the water.

Once a hurricane has formed, however, the slick would not affect its intensity or track. Another positive effect of a hurricane may be that the churning waves would hasten degradation of the oil by disbursing it.

Unfortunately, the chances that a hurricane will hit the oil spill are fairly good. Hurricanes in the early part of hurricane season historically develop in the Gulf region, whereas later hurricanes form in the Atlantic Ocean. Moreover, hurricane forecasters from the Colorado State University predict that the chances that a hurricane will enter the Gulf of Mexico this year are 44%, higher than the historic average of 30%.

http://www.mahalo.com/2010-hurricane-season-forecast

Much of the rain water comes from evaporation. Fresh oil also "evaporates" and can be included (IMHO).

Salt does not evaporate, but I have tasted a light salt taste in tropical storm rain. Not enough to kill even salt sensitive plants, but not zero either. So some "spray" gets sucked up too.

And 2010 stands a decent chance of being the all time hurricane year, surpassing 2005 (and Climate Change is just a liberal hoax).

Alan

The Incident team can commandeer any vessel, including any drilling rig, in the GoM (outside Mexican waters) and elsewhere in the USA (such as one just repaired).

Post yesterday is that BP just towed a DW rig into the GoM. That and just one more make four.

Alan

PS: If you must put a number on the damage/day, use $400 million/day in marginal damage for one more day's pollution.

Estimated size of Macondo Prospect : 50m barrels of oil.

Estimated number of barrels of oil used in USA per day (2007) : 20.7m barrels of oil.

Two things strike me.

1) That's an awful lot of environmental damage for just 2.5 days worth of oil use.
2) It's an awful lot of time, money and expense for 2.5 days worth of oil use. In fact as important as it might be, it's also quite tragically sad to see humanity acting (somewhat unavoidably) this way.

How many drillships are there in the gulf? Take a couple, doesn't matter who they belong to, just take them for this effort (let BP pay whatever the cost may be).

If this relief well they are currently drilling doesn't work then hopefully one of the next 2 or 3 would. In any event, I'd bet this won't be over in August. Nor in September. October? Who knows.

Look, this is a matter of survival for ourselves (I live in Mobile) and the entire east coast. The sooner the president realizes this the better. Else we sit around watching another bright shiny BP object of busy work accomplishing nothing.

And a question. Will the relief well work? Everyone seems to think so. But what if it doesn't. Then what?

I am not an oil person (obviously). But I am an old physics/math/engineering type and have worked on many technical projects. Failure is a part of my business, one shot hopes (like this single relief well) doesn't get it in my book. I've seen too many guaranteed successes go down in flames too many times.

but, um... aren't the mud pumps on the seafloor? I totally understand the "there's essentially no such thing as suction" issue, but I don't understand why they can't just run the seafloor mud pump that was set up for the top kill in reverse. ok, maybe they'd have to reverse the connections, but that seems FAR less complicated than this new LMRP plan.

I have been trying to find more information on hydrates. For a good understanding of the problem read:

http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/mmri/programs/hydrates.ppt

In particular there is a very nice graphic on page 63.

In short, there is a lot of hydrocarbons seeping from very shallow sediments in very deep waters in the GOM. The rate of seepage is related to bottom water temperatures.

It's basic physical chemistry. Crude oil is a complex mixture whose composition changes w/ temperature and pressure. Like the CO2 in a can of soda but w/ many more ingredients. Both the initial gas and initial liquid phases change composition as temperature and pressure varies.

There have been ~3800 wells drilled in water deeper than 1000 ft and ~650 in water deeper than 5000 ft.

This is the first major accident. Now everyone is smarter than the people who accomplished this amazing feat.

FWIW Flow is metered at the surface. It's extremely difficult to service equipment on the bottom in 5000 ft of water. They only put the things they absolutely have to have down there. Furthermore, flow meters are of no interest until you start production and Macondo was years away from production.

rhb

The reservior is a super critical oil-gas fluid. It is not one when it pollutes the ocean.

The Kerr McGee Rose process uses the super critical > normal transition to pull asphaltenes (C11+) out from the fluid i.e. fractionation.

Alan

Do you think you could take your idea forward and design, source and procure components, build, test, transport to location, lower to sea bed and install before the relief well reaches its target 8 weeks from now? Bear in mind that engineering equipment to operate at 1500m/5000ft (150barg/2175psi)water depth is rather challenging.

In regards to the Matt Simmons comments interviews, a couple of thoughts:

a) he's an insider, in fact, an insider's insider. You don't get to be an investment bank(er) and a member of CFR if you're just a joe-schmoe.

b) as such, he's almost certainly privy to info that the rest of us mere mortals is not (or, at least, knows where to go and obtain info that others would not have access to).

c) "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit!". On the other hand, as skytruth and many others have pointed out, if there's a much greater amount of oil in the gulf than can be accounted for by the low estimates and the visible size of the what is being shown/admitted to by "officials", then it's pretty safe to assume that the glove fits perfectly and actually has the owner's name branded into the palm of it.....

d) Simmons may be part of a distractive mis-information campaign, or, he may be "dropping hints" about what is already very well known in some circles. This "dropping of hints" (bombshells? oilshells?) may be a tactic of black-mailing (oil-mailing?) other players into doing (or not doing) something that another party is trying to force (or allow, as the case may be) BP (or the government) to do...... See how it gets murky quickly?

e) As such, you may want to listen to and investigate what he says carefully.....there may be big truths embedded within some amount of noise. REMEMBER.....his intended "audience" with these statements may not (probably aren't) the general public. They may very well be a veiled threat ("we know the truth and will make it known unless........") or a shot-across-the-bow tactic.

f) From the 60 Minutes story, Mike Williams makes an assertion about what seems to be another well that was "abandoned" by BP (?) in the same lease block (?).....since lease blocks are only 2 square miles (?), then is it possible that it is that other, "abandoned well" that also blew out?

g) If so, then that might be what Simmons is alluding to about another giant leak somewhere, 6 to 7 miles away (perhaps the distance is off, but if he is, in fact, addressing an audience other than "us", then the actual distance is not important, it's the conveyance of the threat of "we know, and we'll tell" that is the important issue).

h) BP is putting a lot of effort, it seems, into "damage control", including the seeming co-opting ("calling in favors") of the Coast Guard and the White House. THAT'S A LOT OF CHIPS TO BE CASHING IN. Which might lead one to surmise that there's a lot to hide. Which means they are wide-open to being black-mailed. Which would in turn require a massive cover-up to COVER-UP AN EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM..........in other words, they may be willing to "cop a plea" for this incident to cover-up......what?

[Mike Williams, the chief electronics technician on the Deepwater Horizon,
and one of the last workers to leave the doomed rig] said they were told it
would take 21 days; according to him, it actually took six weeks.

With the schedule slipping, Williams says a BP manager ordered a faster
pace.

"And he requested to the driller, 'Hey, let's bump it up. Let's bump it up.'
And what he was talking about there is he's bumping up the rate of
penetration. How fast the drill bit is going down," Williams said.

Williams says going faster caused the bottom of the well to split open,
swallowing tools and that drilling fluid called "mud."
"We actually got stuck. And we got stuck so bad we had to send tools down
into the drill pipe and sever the pipe (!)," Williams explained.

That well was abandoned and Deepwater Horizon had to drill a new route to
the oil (and this new drilling hole is the one that blew up a few weeks
later....). It cost BP more than two weeks and millions of dollars.

My observation is that TRUTH is like a happy face smile......at the upper left corner of the smile, truth comes out at first (before spin and damage control can occur), and then gets obscured quickly as massive mis-information and distraction gets ramped up (the downward slope of the smile), and then slowly works its way back up (the right upper corner of the smile).......however, that right upper corner can be a long, Long, LONG time in the future.

Site showing multiple live screenshots:

http://interactive.foxnews.com/livestream/live.html?chanId=2

CLEARLY !!!

Please remember that the POLLUTION DOES NOT STOP the day the relief wells finally kill it. Traces will remain for a century, and the devastating impacts for at least a year.

Several decades before some sort of natural balance is returned (if we are lucky).

Alan