Rather than a bottom kill, why can't every Major in the world with the capability drill production wells asap and drain the reservoir? It isn't infinite, there must eventually be a point that it will no longer gush. Can't that point arrive more quickly?

I'm obviously no expert, so the answer as to why not is probably simple.

Deleted

Looks like another oil blizzard. Similar to what happened a few hours ago.

The Hoss Achiever Maxx 1 has been looking at the 'round cylinder' on the floor for a long time. A few minutes ago you couldn't even see it anymore. Now the water is clearing a bit and it's reappearing.

Edit: Now Maxx 1 is going in circles? It panned some of the equipment and kept turning. Lot's of white stuff floating by again.

It's a good lawschool question, perhaps. But the spill law grants the prez. broad authority to do whatever needs to be done.

And the action may not violate the terms of the law. Even if it did, there is prosecutorial discretion. Someone could sue and get a hearing for a legal determination, but i doubt anyone will waste the money.

It's as bad as saying they can't dump skimmer water back in gulf because it may ahve some oil in it. Under Rockman's application of the law, wouldn't we need to shut down all the skimmers, too?

In the spirit of the humor during the previous closed thread:

oldberkeley:

"I'm all for a representative democracy, of the people and for the people all the way, but the latest sociological/political craze has as its center the anti-intellectual notion that "just plain folks" know as much as trained professionals and can do everything just as well if not better. No they don't and no they can't. Just my opinion, peace also to you my friend."

I thought I'd offer the thought that amatuers built Noah's ark and experts built the Titanic. :)

Continuing the discussion of BOP's, whether they have one or two Blind Shear Rams (BSR's), and BP's reduction from three Variable Bore Rams (VBR's) to two on the previous thread:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6745#comment-680517

syncro on July 18, 2010 - 2:29pm
The significant fact here is that BP was willing make the BOP "less safe" to save a few bucks. Just like they chose to rely on a BOP with only one ram shear when most DW rigs by 2004 had two. And it was willing to weakend the effectiveness of that alreay weak BOP with this modification.

esarlls3 on July 18, 2010 - 3:43pm
Do you have a source for that?

Hiver on July 18, 2010 - 3:50pm
It's been discussed on previous threads, but here's one good source http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/us/21blowout.html

Regulators Failed to Address Risks in Oil Rig Fail-Safe Device by David Barstow, Laura Dodd, James Glanz, Stephanie Saul and Ian Urbina. Michael Moss and Henry Fountain contributing reporting.
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: June 20, 2010

Here are some of the things of interest to the BOP discussion that are learned from the article:

Regarding BSR operation:

• The DWH BSR's blades are "within a few maddening inches" of being fully closed. If they had closed, the blowout may have been prevented and this would be another near miss.
• Hydraulic fluid leaks may have reduced the BSR force available.
• There are many failure modes for BSR's. One is a single shuttle valve which can jam or leak. In one place the article indicates, "If this valve jammed or leaked, the report warned, the ram’s blades would not budge." Later is states: "Some evidence suggests that when the crew activated the blind shear ram, its blades tried to cut the drill pipe, but then failed to finish the job because one or more of its shuttle valves leaked hydraulic fluid." So I'm not sure if a leaky shuttle means it "does not budge" or "fails to finish". Remember the DWH BSR's are nearly closed.

Timeline:

• 2000: Cameron's consultants identify that the BSR shuttle valve is a single point of failure in the DWH BOP. The consultant estimates this part to be 56% of the risk of failure for the BOP.
• 2001: TO buys DWH with the single-BSR BOP. At this time TO was using dual-BSR BOP's for new rigs. DWH does not have room for the new dual-BSR BOP's. The DWH BOP can be modified to provide dual BSR's but at the loss of other functions.
• 2001: A MMS Study recommends dual-BSR BOP's.
• 2003: MMS starts requiring BOP's to have one BSR.
• 2003: MMS starts requiring BOP testing to prove the BSR's would work on the actual pipe and at the pressure where they will be in service. This becomes a "requirement" for a drilling permit but is never asked for and permits are routinely approved without it.
• 2003: MMS study recommends testing BOP disconnect, automatic BSR, and BSR on riser disconnect functions. MMS encourages drillers to use BOP's with these functions but does not require them or require testing of them.
• 2003: TO's rig Discoverer Enterprise (with a dual-BSR BOP), on lease to BP, uses a BSR to prevent a blowout due to a riser failure. Upon ROV inspection the BOP is damaged, so the second BSR is activated for additional protection from a blowout.
• 2003: TO's DWH drifts off station in high winds & currents. The emergency disconnect is activated, which uses the single BSR to cut loose. (could the BSR's have been damaged here?)
• 2004: TO's DWH BOP has three VBR's. At BP's request, one of these is changed to a Test Ram. The Test Ram saves time when doing well tests (particularly useful for development wells?). MMS requires two VBR's so the BOP is still within requirements. TO requires BP to insure payment for additional downtime to maintain a VBR if one fails since there is no longer a spare.
• 2005: Last full testing of DWH BOP. (Due again in 2010.) Significant problems found. Unusual control panel pressures and unexplained alarms. "hot line" leaking badly. Some tests could not be performed because the BOP was in service on a well rather than on the deck for testing. One check skipped was actual cutting of a pipe.
• January 2010: DWH BOP repairs and testing took 145 hours. BOP maintenance is almost daily.
• 20 April 2010: DWH BOP hydraulic test with no leaks.
• 21 April 2010: DWH Blowout. Emergency disconnect is activated but does not disconnect. BOP panel indicates low hydraulic pressure. (The blowout may have already damaged the control connection to the BOP. If the BOP senses loss of electrical and hydraulic controls, it should automatically activate the BSR.) (I think the disconnect will not function until the BSR movement is complete. Since it only moved part way, the rig was stuck.)
• 22 April 2010: ROV activation of DWH BOP BSR does not work. ROV attempt to pressure BOP hydraulics is insufficient.
• 26 April 2010: ROV with high-pressure hydraulic supply attempts to use BSR. Hyraulic leaks in BOP prevent operation. Attempts to fix leaks fail. Leak may be in single point of failure shuttle valve. Note that ROV hydraulic fittings on the BOP are not required to be tested for leaks.
• 28 April 2010: ROV applies 5000 psi to BSR, double the required pressure, but it does not move further.
• Mid-May 2010: Gamma ray imaging shows one side of the BSR fully engaged. The other side cannot be seen clearly.
• Now: TO has dual-BSR BOP's on 11 of 14 rigs. Only DWH and older rigs did not have dual-BSR BOP's.
• Now: All rigs contracted to BP, except DWH, have dual-BSR BOP's.
• Now: About 2/3 of rigs in use in the Gulf of Mexico only have one BSR.

These last three seem to indicate TO and BP are ahead of most GoM drilling operations but DWH was the weak link in their chain.

Other:

• While BOP's pass testing requirements 99.9% of the time, when used to stop blowouts, they fail 45% of the time. (Obviously there is a disconnect between testing requirements and conditions of usage when needed.)
• Downtime for BOP maintenance costs $700/minute.

Here's the humor quote from the article:

blind shear rams, so-called because they close off wells like a window blind

???

So Rock If neither of them can open it legally they have no choice but to keep Her shut down.. and thank you again for being there for all of us, I've even seen you mentioned on other boards as a source, LOL. And thank you Gail and Goose for all the long hours you spend here!!!! Bravo !!!

I'm sure the rules can bend a bit for practical reasons, if a leak was discovered or the cap was about to burst, I'm sure nobody would be throwing a fit, pollution laws or not.

Why should it be illegal, if the well is not properly shut in in the first place? If there's enough suspicion that it is leaking downhole, then it isn't a case of OPENING up a closed well, rather a case of DIVERTING the flow back to where it is likely to do the least damage, while a solution is worked out.

I don't see how this act can or should be interpreted in the same way as someone randomly opening a STABLE well and discharging it into the sea.

Rock, on previous threads it was noted that the flex joint was only rated for 5,000 psi. How much of a concern is this if the pressure keeps rising and the well is shut down until August? Might time and increasing pressure compromise the joint?

I think it's something like the "greater evil" defense. Breaking one law to prevent another more serious offense. Like breaking into a building to rescue or put out a fire before it spreads, killing or injuring someone in self-defense, etc...

If opening the well prevents a greater calamity it would not be illegal. IMHO.

It is likely there is an existing variance procedure whereby the Feds could legally allow or direct BP to open the well. It's rare that a regulation is put in place without an escape clause, although execution of the escape can be very time consuming. But there is a much faster way. The prior administration so greatly extended the power of the office of the President (aka "the Unitary Executive") that virtually anything a US President now decides is in the nation's interest is legal to do. All it takes is a Presidential Finding that X action is required in the interest of national security, and that legitimizes the action. This could be done in five minutes if the President so wished. This action could also include holding BP harmless from damages from complying with the Presidential Finding. It's really unlimited. Not a power I ever thought I would see when I was in law school, but the world changes.

If there were exigent circumstances, i.e., impending disaster, I am sure the Federal Government obtain permission to allow BP to open the well. But BP may not be liable for any damages that should occur once the well is opened.

/a lawyer, but this is just an educated guess

I am not a lawyer but frequently deal with lawyers, legal positions, and regulations.

In the recent (June) Transocean case, it was stated by the government:

According to the Government, the non-application of the Limitation Act to federal statutory regimes was codified in the Oil and Pollution Act, which states that nothing in the Limitation Act should be construed to affect the authority of the Government “to impose additional liability or additional requirements” related to the discharge of oil. 33 U.S.C. § 2718(c).

I take this to mean the government believes it can order companies to act in a certain way to contain oil pollution. Usually the government is given wide ground to achieve its goals, although a legal challenge to such direction is possible.

My off the cuff opinion then is that - yes, this is legal.

todfan asked questions and many more technical than I choose to approach with response. I did express my opinion regarding processing.

todfan, There seems to be conflicting info on what needs to be done to resume processing.

I have read repetitive posts by fd that emergency shutoff devices are required to resume processing and I wonder why BP doesn't have them or the vessels they have brought in doesn't have them. BP has been processing the oil captured minus what was blowing past tophat. With the new BOP installed containment was supposed to be 100%. WIthout processing capabilities for 100% of the O/NG then if they opened the valves the difference between processing capacity and WW flow would dump into the GoM. This seems to be what's being presented but why doesn't processing continue as it was prior to the new BOP.

I think we have come full circle again with BP not having adequate processing capacity. I'm not sure who is responsible for the change of plans but to hear Thad Allen comment that oil would be released into the GoM as an alternative to keeping the well shut in is irresponsible.

If testing needs to continue then continue the test but if the testing is a smoke screen buying time for BP to get their act together then it's irresponsible again to not be straight forward. If they need three days to finish the processing plan then say so. Does anyone have technical reasons for the delay in return to processing? I appreciate your comments fd but the ESD requirement doesn't fly. Not that it isn't required or important but because we are proceeding into month four.

You are right, James. The claim that if the well is opened up again, we therefore have to dump millions of gallons more oil in the water is not true. It's a red herring to stampede people into thinking the govt. is off its rocker.

If it takes 3 days to set up, why isn't it set up now? They've had 3 days. And we can always set it up first, and then open the well. They could also start setting it up now, but then they would give away their best argument against opening it.

Someone needs to prove the red herring is not being used to create a flase choice. It smells like a red herring to me.

The "6-hour" test that BP has now turned into a de facto shut-in, really means that they do not want to recover any more oil. Period. If they slowly, carefully got the manifolds handling the choke and kill lines from the old BOP and the new 3-ram addition to the stack feeding the tankers waiting above, they would have a 100% capture of the total flow of the well. This could be done with no need for their threatened "three day oil flow into the Gulf." But with 100% of the oil being measured for a month or more this would provide a documented BBLS/day figure for the $4,800/day/BBL fine for all the oil they have spewed into the Gulf. That fine total with an indisputable established flow rate figure is estimated at around $20 Billion.

Suttles is almost frantic in his insistence that they bring no more oil to the surface. Their expected 8,000 - 9,000psi pressure readings from the well that would mean no leaking have barely made it to 6,700psi. This low reading is easily interpreted as meaning that shutting off the flow and building up pressure in the blown out well has already started any number of down hole losses. Leaks that could be entering the poorly cemented area around the lower annulus or any number of other possibilities of oil and gas migrating far, far away from the well head area, seeking a path to the sea floor. But for now, the battered, short-sighted BP vision of its crumbling future trumps sound engineering or safety margins, allowing the world press to announce: "Leak Stopped in Gulf of Mexico." The market opens tomorrow, good news for BP's stock price is their focus ... not the real potential for a totally uncontrollable new sea floor gusher they may be causing by allowing the pressure build up in the trashed Macondo well.

They just as easily ordered that mud in the drill riser be replaced with sea water so they could move the rig and cut losses for being behind schedule. This resulted in the huge and deatly kick and inferno that took eleven lives and a total loss or the rig. Add in the incalculable long term damage to the Gulf of Mexico and yet they are still looking for shortcuts and a cheap way out.

Remember - the purpose of reverting back to containment is to reduce the pressure on the well from the current shut-in pressure of 6700+ back to the pressure at 2250 to ameliorate the risk of various types of well failure.

Since it is quite unproven that they can produce the entire contents of a free-flowing well immediately the only way to take the pressure off is to open the well to the ocean while they ramp up the containment to the full well output (assuming they can actually handle it, which they have yet to demonstrate).

It's not some vast conspiracy or particular form of idiocy. It's simple operational necessity if the need is in fact to reduce the pressure on the well.

James -- Not much specific experience with a situation like this. But the csg volume is around 1,200 bbls so even if theey had to dump the entire voulme back into the GOM it would be insignificcant. The big question for me is whether they try to choke the well back when they start the bottom kill.

Could be that producing the well will give an accurate rate of oil produced by the spill. Once the well is plugged, the oil spilled so far, becomes more debatable. How many billion dollars in fines, will depend upon how much oil was actually spilled. Do you think BP wants to know the actual amount of oil spilled by the blowout, when they can keep this number an unknown by not producing the well.

It is also on Drudge Report...

An administration official familiar with the spill oversight, however, told The Associated Press that a seep and possible methane were found near the busted oil well. The official spoke on condition of anonymity Sunday because an announcement about the next steps had not been made yet.

When asked about the official's comments, BP spokesman Mark Salt would only say that "we continue to work very closely with all government scientists on this."

Matt Simmon's supporters will likely jump all over this story.

However, before everybody over-analyzes this report, we need to see now the reporting develops. I for one am a bit skeptical of any unattributed source based on a single report. There are too many advocates, ax-grinders and false-flag actions going on (on all sides) to put too much faith too early from a first report from an unattributed source.

If this report is true, now that the AP has broken the story, details should come out if it is true.

If so, we should be getting specific coordinates and analysis. Where is it, how close to the well, what is seeping, how much, any samples, etc.?

If the story is true, and produces reliable data, we may learn a lot. But, this could be hokum too and only add to the conspiracy stories. Several days should tell.

I really like this part of the story..

"The spill has prevented many commercial fishermen from their jobs, though some are at work with the cleanup. Some boat captains were surprised and angry to learn that the money they make from cleanup work will be deducted from the funds they would otherwise receive from a $20 billion compensation fund set up by BP.

The fund's administrator, Kenneth Feinberg, told The Associated Press on Sunday that if BP pays fishermen wages to help skim oil and perform other cleanup work, those wages will be subtracted from the amount they get from the fund.

Longtime charter boat captain Mike Salley said he didn't realize BP planned to deduct those earnings, and he doubted many other captains knew, either.

"I'll keep running my boat," he said Sunday on a dock in Orange Beach, Ala., before heading back into the Gulf to resupply other boats with boom to corral the oil. "What else can I do?""

I remembered Jindal on TV several times making proclimation that fisherman does not want BP money, they just want to go back to work.. So now they will get the compensation from BP but they are angry that BP will deduct their earning from the payout.. Aren't they working to save their beloved coast?

"BP has a very good reason for refusing to open the well again."

Govt playing checkers, BP playing chess.

Acutally, the way you changed that sentence changes its meaning and kind of loses why i chose the colorful language for the part you quoted correctly.

No biggie, but wanted to note that that misses my point as edited.

Also, BP has no authority to defy the govt and to refuse to do anything. It has to do what it is told to do. That's the law. It's also common sense given the judgment BP has demonstrated over and over.

but it's worth noting that the government could have told BP not to conduct the "well integrity test."

They did make very clear that they were highly sceptical and concerned about it, Chu and his scientists. I suspect this falls into the category of 'benefit of doubt', ie given the lack of data, the government was obliged to at least give a chance for BP to demonstrate well integrity (since BP insisted), otherwise there would have been no end to 'coulda, shoulda, woulda', if they were not allowed to do the test at all. In the event, the test was/is being conducted with heavy caveats and a great deal of scrutiny, and reservations duly noted.

Your observation about engineered systems is spot on. I think that the focus on a controllable event-the mechanics of the well- is a means of delaying public reaction to the possibility that there may be a process taking place which will prove completely beyond human control. If indeed the seeps are related to reconfiguration of Macondo's geologic environment, we'll find out soon enough.

Maybe BP is trying to buy enough time with the plugged up pipe to dump its assets (and allow its shareholders to bail) before the bottom falls out (pun intended).

So is it capped or not?
I've been trying to figure this out, but most here seem to agree that the oil for now has stopped leaking into the Gulf. Are we sure this isn't knocked up dirt or silt?

there is at least one leak from the borehole into the surrounding landmass

Assuming that's true, that would be under the Gulf, not necessarily into the water.

Plus, there's the "Tracking the Oil Spill in the Gulf" interactive map which still shows oil leaking to the surface days after it was reported sealed, with the surface oil still centered around the well.

That's a map of distribution. The map doesn't document that oil is still leaking into the Gulf from the Macondo reservoir. In fact that map is subtitled "July 18 The Gulf entered a fourth day free of fresh oil from the well."

The map has the title "The Gulf entered a fourth day free of fresh oil from the well." In addition the total amount of oil shown in the bar on the right of the map hasn't changed since the 15th.

The story as I understand it is the top kill failed due to an obstruction in the BOP that did not allow the column of mud to build and stabilize as it normally would. Something about partially closed valves or disks didn't allow them to keep the pressure needed to overcome the gusher. From everything I've seen so far there was no evidence to support that the cause was a downhole leak.

In any case, I hope your anticipation of "great entertainment" leaves you quite disappointed.

There are no known downhole leaks which made the top kill fail. Your statement needs to be edited.

Hear! Hear! Every word!!

The secretive operating practices of multinational energy corporations are at an evolutionary dead end because they enable and aggravate environmental disasters. Continuing the secretive practices of "business as usual" at companies like BP will literally destroy the world. A new balance between private profit and public welfare must be struck, and this balance must favor openness over secrecy.

The problem with your observation is that it's not particularly true in this case. Almost immediately, the Coast Guard was all over the situation. The BP Crisis Center has not been a private place. Partner representatives, the Coast Guard, unlimited numbers of government and the administration, and even the media have been granted a continuous presence there.

BP hasn't made a decision regarding Macondo without the approval of the government. There are no secrets.

If you believe absolute power corrupts absolutely then realize...The biggest, most powerful potentialy evil corporation in the world is the US federal government. It just uses a different label to disguise itself.

Can BP send troops into the streets or around the world to enforce its' will? Yes, BP, operating under a fed govt permit, has made a very bad mess. The fed govt can destroy the entire planet or whichever general part of the planet it decides to destroy. This can be done in a matter of minutes.

We are all just wage slaves to this fed govt now. We exist to pay the taxes that enrich the people in govt, cement their power, and provide their payoffs to their cronies. I want to live in a country with a government, but things have morphed into the opposite.

Outstanding post!

Einstein said intuition was the key to discovery. I've always trusted my gut, and I'm still alive and thriving at age 70.

Well they often say the first guess is usually correct, but that isn't always the case seeing how most people end up being wrong.
As for the above debate, about the historicity of Noah's Ark, that isn't really relevant to the current discussion. But I'm not really in a position to offer advise seeing how I am new here.
But hopefully things remain the way they are, seemingly fine. But I'm still concerened about the amount of doom and gloom floating around, it's hard to remain optimistic when everyone is so bent on spreading their theories around, but hopefully they are wrong.

Gut feel or intuition does have a psychological basis -- well studied. Some folks have developed this better than others... I'm pretty sure James will disagree -- but I'm with you on the "second brain" that our body holds...

Um, its his screwdriver. He used it to free the sampler.

NAOM

Well, there are no "bubbles" per se. There are clathrate formations which protrude into the top layer of seafloor, I read. They don't go glurk all at once. Unless someone nukes them.

Could there be a "10-20 mile long, sub-seabed high pressure methane bubble"? Yes. Could it release suddenly[?]

No. To both.

I'd have mentioned it but I got a $15 BP gas card in the mail today, for free.

That might be because it was reporters from the Associated Press who cornered an anonymous official who actually knows what's going on and is willing to talk about it...instead of pure conjecture offered up by an internet troll.

Prior to this, we covered what we KNEW, now we know there is concern from someone who might know something. That leads to speculation and a lot of "I told you so's," but it still doesn't mean that anyone along the lines of Simmons is anywhere close to correct--we have a long way to go and a lot of evidence to find before we could say anything like that with any certainty because, guess what, we care about our credibility with people of reason!

Further, your insinuation about "BP control" is baseless and unjustified--open speculation and debate has taken place here on many different scenarios. When comments have been taken down it is because they were done so by the community or by an editor due to comments being outside the reader guidelines.

No one has nothing to do with how we cover or anything other than the people you see writing and working to keep this site going. We're volunteers. We make no money from this endeavor. NONE. Further, we have never received a dime from them, nor would we take it.

Now, go troll somewhere else, little one.

Early this morning I saw the sonar screen which showed bright yellow dots which, to me, looked like a feather, the quills on a feather. Recently on this blog someone mentioned that the geology under the sea in Macondo block could be a fan formation where the fan represents ancient river beds. I saw the Rov wading through what looked like alot of oil with a whole line of Rovs following early this morning. Alot of looking at the sea floor. I know it is sunday But I usually get lots of media report from BP and today I only got 2 and one of them about pink, red and orange tags on pelicans.
I also read that BP was initially busy with Keathley Canyon Bolck 102 and they found, According to Austrailian Broadcasting Corp, Jan or Feb 2009, a 300,000 billion deposit of oil in Macondo. US Govt urged them to start production there so if they wanted to declare war on Iran they wouldn't have to worry about a bottle neck in the Gulf of Hormez (sp) guess those plans have gone by the way. May have fractured the situation so badly that stuff is coming up everywhere.
Also, and I apologize, I am not watching the live feed from BP but from jtnog.org and the screens are not named but the white thingy with TH-7 written on it has taken some damage and the Rov is watching it really close and has been for about 48 hours. Damage is recent. Interpretations please. Thanks.

Just to point out that HO posted the AP story at the top of this thread only an hour after AP moved the story. Do we have a bit of a high expectation for a Sunday afternoon?

DougR, i thought for sure you would be up in arms about BP trying to keep the well shut it. Certainly your famous doomsday scenario is premised on the dangers of oil escaping the casing under pressure. I would think that tripling the well's pressure and going above the test rating for the flex joint would send you into a panic.

But nothing. Why?

DR -- Late to the party again. It was posted on TOD right after it hit the net. Stay up son...we can't keep dragging our feet for you.

For those that might have missed the feed or are just tuning in, the gas sample collected from the area of the well bore just above the mud line by Skandi ROV2 reached deck and was “sniffed” by one of the safety guys, then released from the ROV robotic arm. It is assumed to be on the way to the lab as of 7:45 pm CDT (1945).

It seems a bit strange that things were looking so well only a few hours ago and now things seem to be shrowded in uncertainity...

Given the current observations from the test, including the detected seep a distance from the well and undetermined anomalies at the well head,

So this is now OFFICIALLY CONFIRMED, the presence of seepage at a distance from the well head.

EDIT: To agree with Hiver above.

I'm sorry for being a nuisance but what does the confirmation of the seepage enar the well head mean? Are we screwed, is the cap coming off, will the relief wells solve this problem?

Michigan? :)

But is Obama another Lincoln or FDR? I think not.

Why don't they go back to top kill again? Use the kill line or choke line to pump mud down.... Wouldn't this be lower risk than trying to intercept the WW and the possible leaks it has?

Bottom line, the POTUS can close or open the well, laws be damned, if it is clearly in the best interest of the people of the United States and the World.

I disagree. We are a nation of laws, the saying goes, and that means the president is within the law, not above it. He must obey the law just as surely as the poorest, most powerless man in the country.

But just as the law is designed to forgive the poor man for breaking a law in order to save the life of another, our democracy is designed to forgive a president for violating a law in an emergency situation out of necessity to assist and protect citizens and our natural resources.

Never give the president the power to be above the law in your mind. He's a king then, not a president.

Is this being covered live on US television?

Legally, a release from the wellhead is immediately BP's responsibility. A seep " a distance from the well", is a grey area that would be tough to prove.

BP will keep the thing closed. Lowest chance of provable liability.

Giant crab monster larva?

The ROV no longer has the big yellow mesh bucket in view..

Honestly, I wasn't imagining it!!

For awhile Olympic Challenger ROV 2 was focused on a small circular dot on the seafloor.
It appeared to be a small hole...Hard to determine from a static pic, but easier to visualize with video. Note area surrounding dot is lighter than surrounding seafloor. It is lighter because whitish stuff appeared to be bubbling around this dot

Camera has moved away now...

Fish semen.

Tenega, yes I have read other accounts of the discussions of the negative pressure tests. It is a crucial area of the inquiry that holds the potential, IMO, for criminal charges, depending on how the facts play out.

It is also one area where the evfidence is all over the place. Starkly differing accounts of what happened. And some of the key players are dead.

I went back to listen to the testimony about the negative test given by the senior BP drilling engineer. He was clear in his testimony. His position is that he was told there were NO lost returns reported. And it was on that basis that no CBL was ordered. This conflcits with the apparent fact that there were unaccounted for returns on both tests.

His testimony was not credible on numerous other points and certainly appeared untruthful on the cement issues given documents that surfaced, e-mails he had received.

In any event, the BP story developing appears to be that the TO crew screwed up the pressure tests and BP just followed their interpretation. I am not sure that is a plausible scenario. It could be true I suppose. The haliburton hand tells a very different story, though.

And even if the story is true, it does not answer the failure of BP to have two barriers in place when it displaced the riser. This is what the argument was about and why the TO crew was upset. The decision was a very risky move all on its own. And there were many other BP decisions that set the stage for the blowout. But it is entirely possible that some TO error was a contributing cause, too.

U.S. Tells BP to Prepare for Reopening Oil Well After Seep Found

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-19/u-s-s-allen-tells-bp-to-prepare...

Don't know about the exact method but definitely agree with your sentiments. Stop fooling around and make this well secure ASAP!!

Can we think of the kill as a frac job in reverse. If we know that there is a leak from the casing or else where, then the proper kill is not to go in with mud pumps blazing. Rather, replace the reservoir flow with mud of the appropriate properties so that the fissures are sufficiently provided the opportunity to recieve kill fluids.
I know it sounds simple but I believe that was their plan all along.
It would be nice to see kill fluids coming out the "new" paths in the seabed(if there are any), but not too long.
This is a very challanging well kill to say the least.

Member for
23 min 25 sec

"Bon a petit!"
That's Cajun for "I told you so"

Why pressure in BP well is growing at 2 PSI per hour?

The removal of XX barrels of oil and gas from a reservoir creates a pressure gradient across a given volume of rock, with the low pressure point being the wellbore, and the high point being the original reservoir pressure. As far as the well is concerned, it has been producing for a few months now, and created quite a differential pressure within the reservoir as the fluids were removed via the wellbore. When a well is shutin, the speed at which the pressure equalizes is often measured and used in various types of plots and tests to determine compartment size, pseudo steady state (or non steady state) flow parameters, permeability, skin damage, all sorts of goodies that reservoir engineers are interested in for all sorts of other reasons.

The pressure will consistently build at the wellbore, in a gradually slowing fashion, as the reservoir portion which did NOT see a drawdown equalizes against the portion which did. This effect is permeability dependent in a big way, and compartment size dependent as well. Given enough time, the pressure will re-equalize across the entire reservoir, at a pressure lower than initial reservoir pressure.

Depletion started when the first barrel of fluid was produced from this reservoir, regardless of its size. It might not be noticeable at first, if the reservoir is large and the amount produced is small, but depletion has already begun.

If we knew the exact size of the reservoir, and the exact amount removed from it during the spill, we could calculate a reasonable guess as to the final pressure the well will achieve upon equalization. If we know the exact amount removed and that final pressure in advance, we could reasonably guess at the reservoir size (making more than a few other assumptions related to GOR, viscosity, rock properties which won't interfere with this scheme, etc. etc., but the general concept holds). This scheme also only holds if the wellbore is intact, and isn't leaking off into any other normally pressured formation higher up the strat column.

Just some thoughts from your friendly neighborhood troll.

Again should we start panicing or not?

Anyway I'd like to thank Rockman for the lesson on terminology.

+100

Yup. Even an aging telecom guy gets that. If there's a seep, open the valves.

Produce as much as possible, avoid spilling into the Gulf as much as possible, but, if it's seeping, open the valves.

You do not have to 'open to flow' in order to reduce the pressure at the wellhead.

You just crack open a kill or choke line and put a little drilling mud in there, so as not to cause a pressure spike. Then, as the heavier mud starts flowing down the well, it reduces the pressure at the wellhead and you can put more mud in. Theoretically if it does not mix with the oil/gas but pushes it down ahead of it then the pressure could be reduced to the sea pressure at the well head - that is lower than by letting it flow (since the partial closed rams and any residual junk shot must be providing some flow restriction above the wellhead). That is the best of two worlds. You relieve the pressure at the wellhead and you are not running the risk of further pollution.

Also - if you want to conduct a little experiment while doing this you can log the mud ingested against the drop in pressure. After making some assumptions for the degree of mixing with oil/gas you may get some info to help you determine whether the mud is going down the well and/or disappearing into the formation. After pumping mud for a while and getting a wellhead pressure reduction you can stop pumping and close off the line. The rate at which pressure builds up again would then be an indicator of the degree of mixing (or replacement) of the mud with the oil/gas. That then may satisfy some of the more academic/research inclined among those who have much more access to data, and say, than we commenting at TOD do.

aliilaali - from reading upstream I appreciate that you know a lot more than I about this subject. Right now I just want to get a lively discussion going. Cheers.

No, there's no need to evacuate Florida. All that it means is that killing the well may be more complicated or take longer, but any oil that spills beyond what can be collected, will still go to the ocean, as it has been doing for 90 days. Yes, there's damage to the marine and coastal environment, but that again is to be expected. If there hasn't been any reason to consider evacuating FL (or LA for that matter) up to this point, I don't see why that might change.

Time to break out the Blue Bell or beer.
Take your pick..Or both..

I had some rocky road and a valium. Does that count? :-)

Is there reason for considering evacuating Florida?

No. Sounds like you have bumped into some of the more ridiculous fear mongering related to this event.

Relax a bit. Now is not the time to evacuate Florida. I am not an optimist - I just think that now is not the time to run. Not yet.

You might pack a bag, though, with flashlight and cash money and roadmaps and stuff. At least you will be ready for the next hurricane.

Now that would panic me. Unless it was Simmons.

If I remember correctly the kill line can only be off or on, but the choke line was closed slowly, so it seems likely that it can be opened slowly as well.

Anybody know if risers are still connected to those lines?

jumper -- Don't have one handy but I think I read that Wright's web site has some details. But you're correct: the reservoir pressure in the BP well, blow out or not, are not exceptionally high. But a more important point perhaps: a blow out from a reservoir with 6,000 psi isn't easier to kill then one with 12,000 psi. The mechanics are the same. The higher pressure just needs a heavier mud weight to kill. Otherwise the process is identical.

More bad news!

Which makes we wonder why whoever is in charge of this operation just can't play it safe.

More bad news!

Which makes we wonder why whoever is in charge of this operation just can't play it safe.

If you would take time and look at the lat. and long. readings before you post chicken little, you would see it's on the move.

I'm still with Einstein. Trust your gut. If it does not look good, then it does not look good.

My own gut says that it looks good. Time will tell.

c'mon, really? You think that's what gas bubbles look like? It's sand kicked up from the ROV motors. Allen mentioned it in the past couple calls.

Greg -- Just time for a quick reply. I can see oil/NG leaking thru one of the shallower csg shoes and migrating up near the well bore and leaking from the sea floor. Doesn't reall worry me. The top/bottom kill stops the flow at the source. If the reservoir is the source of these sea floor leaks then they stop too.

Skandi ROV2 redeployed for gas monitoring at 2145 (9:45pmCDT); equipped with an unidentified sensor.

Ditto on last paragraph.

(Speculation alert) The PR guy in me says a geyser would be called a seep.(end speculation) As far as I know, Incident Command has not released a seep standard.

Relax. If it is geologic it should show up on Richter, but are we talking a microquake that does not have enough energy to be detected? What do you mean by geologic event?

It rained here tonight. The rain deepened the erosion paths at the end of my driveway by 5 millimeters, and three rocks slid down the mini-arroyo in my back yard. Those are geologic events.

k3, you seem to have something in mind when you say "geologic event." Please tell us what it is.

"1)the possibility of an incipient geological event"

Almost certain, in geologic time.

"and speculate on 2) the nature of said event"

Absolutely anything could happen.

"3) how said event might be addressed/contained/remediated"

Nothing to be done.

"and 4)could a geologic event have positive benefits for the Gulf environment?"

Yes. Maybe.

Touchdown Skandi ROV2.

From Thad Allen’s letter to BP

“When seeps are detected, you are directed to marshal resources, quickly investigate, and report findings to the government in no more than four hours.”

Don’t know whether the sample collected at the well bore and returned to M/V Skandi at 1945 (21/2 hours ago) qualifies under this part of the directive, but if it’s bad, Allen should be hearing something soon.

As for whether it will be necessary to pollute while reopening the well, Allen said it this morning it would be, but he didn’t elaborate.

Looks like the tasking description changed for Skandi ROV to "DP Beacon"

All based on ROV routes? Not sure, I would imagine there would be a marshaling point, but maybe 100 feet away. Not much to go on, need intel.

Strongly agree with #1, agnostic on #2, have no clue on #3. ;-)

I stick with Einstein.

"I see early indication that the government techs may be in the process of being overridden by the White House, whose political interests coincide with BP's on this issue."

Well, the White House might imagine that they coincide. If so, they'd better hope that keeping the well shut in doesn't cause damage that leads to a longer and more difficult bottom kill. They don't have nearly enough spare political capital to spend it on that.

Edit: Actually, they'd better hope that the public doesn't come to believe that has happened. Much more important (politically) than whether it really does.

Considering PSIG and PSIA is a high school physics concept, the overwhelming majority of oilfield engineers understand the distinction just fine.

I'm with you. But I do think Chu understands testing discipline and has tried to maintain it. On the other hand, this is not a lab. Political forces are as real and powerful as the oil in this mix.

I agree that the political knee-bucklers who advise the president may be getting nervous and weak-kneed. But i think obama will listen to Chu. Allen seems to be handling it well. Seeps from the floor will put it all down quickly.

1. They had a plan, they are government. It is just when step 3. Put ROV in water came up, it changed from there. Then it was all on a computer screen being written as it was being done. They probably could cut and paste some chunks, but probably not much. This is speculation I am basing on combat experience, which I liken this operation to.
2. Who knows. They do and they aint talking.
3. If I know the difference, they know the difference. You think folks at Sandia have to cut that from Wiki? It is a big difference between 1 ATM and 152 ATM. 152 times or so difference.

Why would you assume that you're seeing hydrates? It's getting a little sad how often someone yells "hydrates!" every time a few unrecognizable low resolution particles (most of the time it's sand) drifts by the camera.

So they're still testing to see if the pressure rises to 7,500? That might take days depending if it still is rising by an increment of 2-5psi per hour. But why all the talk about politics all the sudden? Did something happen recently that might change the way the spill is being handled.