Easy mate. Without gas the lights go out in WA. Australia imports 40% of its oil at the moment. Then there's depletion. Onshore oil almost nil.

CSG = Coal Seam Gas? (from context of saline water release -> farmers pissed off)

a.k.a. "Coal Bed Methane" (CBM) here in the U.S.

For other foreign readers, QLD is Queensland, state in N.E. Australia.

reminder to spell out all but the most obvious abbreviations on first use.

I guess Woodside would have sound commercial and engineering reasons for putting in a floating production platform.Even if they would prefer a land based system I doubt if they would spend megabucks in a place like Timor with it's record of instability.

The Chinese can sniff around as much as they like.The Timorese government will no doubt act contrary to the long term interests of their people.Just like the Australian government who are continuing to push that abomination of a concept,a free trade agreement,this time with China.

Re your last sentence - I'm afraid that conservation was long ago consigned to the back paddock with the other pensioner nags.A hedonistic society has no concept of the future,let alone reality.

You'd almost think oil was running out with the great lengths they seem to be going to

You have to look no further than chapter 3 of the recent Australian Energy Resource Assessment:

https://www.ga.gov.au/products/servlet/controller?event=GEOCAT_DETAILS&c...

I have put it together here:

17/3/2010
Australian crude oil production to decline 85% over the next 10 years
http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?p=1243

5/5/2010
Western Australia's battle for offshore oil
Crude Oil dropped by 27% in 2009
http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?p=1425

See also a compilation of Australian graphs here:

http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?page_id=1225

I am using the above graph to superimpose traffic forecasts:

19/6/2010
M2 widening: Primary Energy Dilemma for cars
http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?p=1631

10/6/2010
Brisbane Motorists bypass the Bypass Tunnel
http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?p=1482

I believe there is talk in drilling in water a kilometre deep, double that of Deepwater

Check details here:

2010 Acreage Release

http://www.ga.gov.au/oceans/Acreage2010.jsp

New petroleum frontiers revealed

http://www.ga.gov.au/about-us/news-media/latest-news/archive/2010/apr/#swm

The Marcando well is only at about 5,000 ft deep, not extreme by any means.
A KILOMETER deep would only be at about 3,200 ft deep.

All reserves can only be produced once. It does take some time and expense to develope more of them. Withouth those investments, the Aussies would still be 50% sheep and 50% roos for the diet and traveling via walkabouts.

There is exactly zero chance the Queen would intervene in Orstralian politics. It was bad enough in 1975 when one of her representatives did.

A critical point for those of you not resident in God's own country. We have a federal election in six days time. The minister, and his entire government are up for re-election. Not only that, it is going to be a very very close election. With a report in his hand about the spill, the minister is never going to release it now. No matter what he does it will only be downhill. He may not have a job in a week, and during the period in which the election is running the government has highly proscribed powers anyway.

If the conservatives get in (We call them the Liberals believe it or not) it will be very interesting to see what happens. Even if Labour squeak back in it will be some weeks before the dust settles anyway, before business as usual resumes.

Sounds just like an ordinary top kill doesn't it?

_________________________________________________________

No it sounds like a bottom kill via relief well.

Pretty tight blackout today. Scandi low-res gone, after I saw them working at the old BOP. Usual threesome shown here, with a very odd apparent tilt.

All feeds cut at this timestamp.

Which part of this do you not understand?

Boa Deep C has left the MC252 operations area

NAOM

Rock,

Here's what Thad said yesterday. as I understand it (could be wrong...) pressure tests have confirmed no communication with reservoir seen via any path. However they are worried that there may be pressurised oil (or mud?) trapped in the annulus held at the top by the intact hanger seal and at the bottom by cement. That volume is approx 1,000 barrels according to Thad. The main worry is that, when they drill into the outer telescopic casing, they could end up blowing the hanger seal and then the weakest point at the BOP/Stack if they try to pump mud/cement into a sealed system thus venting some/all of the trapped "oil". The very worse case scenario I suppose is if they break the bottom cement seal during bottom kill and then somehow blow up the relief well as well as the original well.

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/861603/

Gary Taylor: Hi, yes, I just wanted to make sure, are we – we still only talking about a maximum release of just the 1,000 barrels that you said was caught in the annulus? Is that what we're talking about here?

Thad Allen: Right now we know there is 1,000 barrels of essentially stagnate oil in the annulus and what we really need to understand is, the pressure readings would tell us that it's static in there and there is no communication with the reservoir. What we're trying to figure out right now is, what is the – what are the implications of whatever is between the annulus and the reservoir in regards to the volume and the pressure that we created by putting the mud and the cement into the annulus. But right now, what would appear to be at risk right now is the thousand barrels.

What we don't know and never want to even get close to would be a worst case scenario where we think there'd be some kind of possibility in the process of doing this that we would create some kind of a communication that we had not expected. But at this point, a realistic risk right now is the thousand barrels and BP will have directions to mitigate that, so we will take care of that before we do any bottom kill.

ROCKMAN, what's your gut telling you about paralysis by analysis? Think the academics are fogging things up?

My impression is that Admiral Allen, and the rest of the team are concerned about another issue, and since nobody has asked him the right questions, and he's trying to explain the situation in terms in which he is not fluent, he thinks he's being understood when he's not (a common problem in the communication process).

As I understand it:

The well was drilled through the reservoir into a non-oil-bearing formation below the reservoir.

When they did the top kill they cemented inside the bottom of the casing, and u-tubed up through the annulus outside the casing below the reservoir. As a consequence they are reasonably confident that there is no communication between the well head and the reservoir. Also, therefore, they know that they have one primary barrier in place.

What they don't know for certain, is whether the entire reservoir was sealed off by this operation, or whether some of the cement penetrated the reservoir, therefore failing to seal the annulus above the reservoir.

If they didn't thereby seal the annulus above the reservoir, then that part of the annulus could in fact have a cement seal still intact, with mud above it, having been sealed properly when the original pre-blowout cement seals were put in place, providing a second primary barrier, if its integrity has survived.

Alternatively, that seal above the reservoir could have failed before or during the blowout, leaving that part of the annulus open to the reservoir for an indeterminable length above the reservoir.

They are reasonably certain that if that is the case, there is no communication between the annulus and the casing, but they can't be sure whether the annulus is open all the way to the wellhead, where the only barrier still in place is the wellhead seal.

Thus their desire/need for more information.

If the latter situation prevails, then even if they complete a normal plug and abandon process, there would conceivably only be one barrier between the reservoir and the wellhead, namely the wellhead seal, and I doubt that anyone would want to bet the farm on how long that would retain its integrity.

That's where the relief well comes into play, but also some new concerns arise.

It's my understanding that their intent is to use the relief well to penetrate the well bore outside the casing and above the reservoir, thus gaining access to the annulus.

If they find only mud in there, that pressure should tell them whether the cement plug is in place in the annulus above the reservoir (below the point of penetration). It should also tell them that there is no path of communication through the casing from the annulus to the wellhead.

If its pressure is significantly higher than reservoir pressure, that would suggest to me that the static kill did seal off the reservoir, then forced enough cement into the annulus above the reservoir to compress the mud. But it would reinforce the belief that there is no communication between the annulus and the wellhead above that point.

In that case the pressure might also give me a rough reading on how much cement penetrated the annulus above the reservoir, and thus the relative possible integrity of the seal between the reservoir and the annulus above the reservoir.

If that mud is at reservoir pressure, then they should be able to quickly determine whether they can put cement in there to seal the annulus above the reservoir. If they get a significant spike in pressure there when they start pumping mud or cement in, that should tell them that the cement plug in the annulus just above the reservoir has integrity. If there is no spike then they can pump in cement, filling the annulus between the entry point and the reservoir. Then they can be relatively confident that there is no danger in removing the old BOP and remaining drill pipe, putting in a new BOP, and proceeding with a normal Plug and abandon procedure

If there is oil in the annulus, the same steps apply as would be employed with the presence of mud, but they would also know that there is some communication between the annulus above that point and the inside of the casing. That would need to be addressed during the normal plug and abandon process.

One of the concerns they might have is over pressurizing the annulus and blowing out the wellhead seal or one of the other barriers. Thus the need to proceed very deliberately and carefully at every step.

But I could imagine that, with all of these possible variables, they would want all of the information they can gather, and as you said previously, check it thoroughly for accuracy.

I might add that it is easy to forget that BP is not the only one involved in this process. There are engineers from other companies (such as John Wright), and scientists looking over their shoulders. The notion that BP could get away with much of anything at the point strikes me as relatively remote, no matter how lousy you might think Admiral Allen and Dr. Chu might be in carrying out their assignments.

I, for one think that they are both doing a superb job, and that post-blowout, after the government got seriously involved, BP and the other ones involved have done a superb job, even though I don't agree with all of their decisions at every point.

I would hope that at least some of my points above might bear some resemblance to reality, otherwise I'll have to go back to the drawing board.

Am glad I work in watercolor!

Thank you, paintdancer, for the question and Francis, for the excellent response. My daughter is also a painter so my interest was aroused. Little did I realize (before my daughter's art study) that she would encounter so many toxic chemicals and materials, whether it be in the area of painting, photography, or metal scupture. Although caution and strict rules in handling these toxic substances are emphasized in all art schools, I've heard some hair-raising stories of students throwing caution to the winds. I guess we've all experienced those 'immortal' years of youth, but it's worrisome in any case.

@paintdancer, some further response to your questions at the end of yesterday's thread.

As I've been saying here, and as your LSU expert says, the primary threat to human health consequent to the oil spill is not Corexit, but the "aromatic" fractions of the crude oil that include benzene and the more persistent PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). For this reason, EPA sampling of air and water has included these substances, and FDA sampling of seafood focuses heavily on them.

The Gamsol you use to clean brushes is "odorless mineral spirits," a fraction of petroleum from which the dangerous aromatics have been removed. Corexit does not cause oil to sink like the sediment of oily pigment in your brush-cleaning canister. Rather, it causes microscopic droplets of oil to be suspended in the water and drift with the currents until bacteria break the oil down down.

If the goo in the bottom of your can is toxic, that's because, as Francis says, some of the pigments always were toxic.

Likewise, when crude oil residues sink to the bottom of the Gulf naturally, they will be slightly toxic mainly because these residual fractions always were, not because of any effect from Corexit. The residues left over after evaporation and bacteria have done their work are mostly asphalt. As I understand, the tar could include small amounts of the heavier PAHs, but this is not as scary as some other pollutants like the PCBs that contaminate soils and bottom sediments around the world. The tar is not very bioactive, and PAHs will eventually biodegrade-some of them very slowly, though.

Really, the key thing is ongoing testing for PAH.

I can't overly substantiate this, unfortunately, but allegedly some fishermen and shrimpers have indeed "put up" with evidence of oil to Dr. Walker. According to a pretty reliable (but biased) source, Walker and certain fishermen have had a long-running feud and Walker has engaged in a smear campaign against them.

The fishermen in question recently released videos where they took Dr. Timothy Davis, Department of Health and Human Services, with them on their boat and showed him some evidence of oil. One of the videos is referenced in this article by Riki Ott: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riki-ott/seafood-safety-and-politi_b_67881....

Again, this "proves" nothing -- just a voice from the other side, which I'm repeating. :)

You would think if the president wanted to prove the water safe to swim in he would at least chose the Gulf for his dip.

I was hoping one of the industry experts here would comment on this report.

It looks like the pressure is going down slowly. Due to leaks in the stacking cap, perhaps? And if that's the case how can you do a proper test? Fluid could leak out faster than it's leaking in (masking the fact that it is leaking in.)

Easier to read like this :-)

So they went down to near ambient pressure. (ambient - pressure due to seawater at 5000 feet below surface.)

How did they do this?

My guess from yesterday:
Helix Producer has a free standing riser line to the CDP manifold.

Q 4000 has a riser to the CDP manifold.

The CDP manifold has connections to the choke and to the kill line of the old bop.

Fill the Q-4000 risers with mud, fill the Helix Producer riser with seawater. Close the valve on the bop that had the q-4000 mudline connection. Open the valve on the bop that has the seawater riser connection.

There you are at ambient pressure in the well. Measure displacement from overpressure in the well by measuring returns on the seawater riser.

If returns are too much or pressure increases too much close seawater-line valve, open mud-line valve.

(There are more complicate and likely safer ways to do this when using the cross-lines in the CDP manifold, essentially forming a u-tube between Q-4000 and the Helix Producer. With a u-tube through the CDP manifold one could actually construct any pressure on the well between 100% mud vs. 100% seawater in the relevant riser by pumping seawater and mud between them and opening the right valves to the bop on specific pressure points one wants to test. The general principle is the same - exchange the exposure of the bop/well between two risers with different pressure in each of them.)

Australian's hardly batted an eyelid at our very substantial spill. Proportionate response is probably somewhere between these two extremes.. but that doesn't narrow it down very much!

I often wonder what would have happened if it was a family name oil company in Australia whether there would have been more publicity. Nobody has ever heard of PTTEP and you can't boycott their service stations. Bashing the big oil companies when they screw things up is very popular but nobody pays any attention to how the rest (the majority) get things done.

If you are going to have an oil spill, off the north-west coast of Western Australia with 2 people per million square kilometres who are both miners anyway is about as remote from public care as you can get. A low risk place to do business it seems.

avonaltendorf,

Was the riser you suspect is being brought down white, PVC looking with at least one joint (at least I saw one). I caught a quick glimpse of the bottom of the pipe. It had a round, flat sort of thingey at the end.

PS: Is your name really 'avonaltendorf?' I love it! Where does the "a" at the beginning come from? Oh, that's your first initial! So, 'of the old village,' right?

I looked at the link but can't find that data, i.e. how much sampling is being done, how many samples were analyzed, how many had oil, how many were unfit for human consumption? Can you point me further?

Thanks

To be technical about it, that shows fishery closures. There's no data via the map about current seafood testing. Obviously fisheries are closed for a reason but one doesn't translate directly to the other. If anybody can find current data about seafood test results, I'd appreciate a link.

Got his data from Wolf Blitzer, most likely.

Aside from that loud thunk, an interesting column, isn't it, westexas?

... George Crozier, a biologist from the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, has been causing quite a stir as he speaks to civic groups in South Alabama in recent weeks. His initial message in the early stages of the disaster was one of gloom and doom. He is now saying he believes the spill is having far less environmental impact than he thought it would. He even says he believes he helped contribute to the problems with his dire assessments. ...

Months ago, I was convinced that the Gulf of Mexico had been ruined for my lifetime and the lifetime of my grandchildren. Now I am not so sure what to believe.

No kidding. Maybe five years will tell the story. Maybe not. Anxiety ahead fer sher, but if you'd told me on June 15 that August 15 would look as it does, I couldn't have bought it. But is there a sucker punch hiding somewhere in the Gulf?

Wow, the entire basin contains a whole 3 weeks supply for the world. We're saved :-)

Valuable for the Afghans, I'm sure you mean, as well as Halliburton of course. By the way, what is a team of international geologists doing in war-torn Afghanistan? These provinces must be relatively quiet and controlled by the government.

... right after they hang Transocean.

Washing off the dispersant or oil stuck on the lens.

The view is terrible down there today.

This was a very clear camera view last night.

http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:44838.asx

Do a find for the word new in brackets [ ] and the cursor will move to the first new post. Use the "next" option to get to the next one. When you're out of 'em, refresh the browser window and do it again.

deleted for redundancy.

It's baloney. The drilling plan was for two wells but BP drilled one. Not two. They restarted drilling in same well with Deepwater Horizon after Transocean Marianas was damaged.

What gives you the idea the test is over from that data?

Interesting how the 30 percent figure seems to track roughly in line with the number of chicken little poster children here. Three in 10 absolutely persistent and unswervingly paranoid. No wonder the government and the corporacrats are reluctant to tell the truth. It hardly matters what they tell us, as the result will always be the same lunatic fringe raving.

And btw, "it's" is the contraction of "it is" or "it has."
If you don't believe me, Google it or look it up in a fracking "book."
(Howe peepel perceeve yoo doez depends on how youze rite and uze graamarz, derp.)