"looking at a patch of mud that is bubbling a little, though over a relatively significant area (that of the camera illumination). There is no trace of oil venting and flowing upwards"

would you please take a look at this new video of 'bursts', perhaps it is bubbling and then venting -- lighting is on the dark side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0koe1OW27zM

Hey Mud Sales guys...what are the chances that 400 barrels of hazmat disposed hole cleaner combines to make a snot lighter then even seawater...foamy matrix pulling even more pressure off the bottom plug and maybe even a phase change with negative testing...might have invented some nice new fancy mix of chemicals that will be used to insulate a future chinese moon base!

According to a briefing transcript on the #oildrum IRC channel (that I tragically forgot to save before closing), Kent Wells said BP is "100%" in favor of doing a static kill if they get permission from the government. Decision in a few days.

Perhaps this has been mentioned, but I've most of this thread and didn't see it.
Static kill will required significant over pressure, perhaps 1000psi. The reason is that the mud needs to go in at a minimum flow rate. Otherwise you have the heavy mud "falling" through the lighter oil (think lava lamp blobs to the bottom). To get the mud in fast enough to keep up with falling mud, the oil must be pushed back into the field.

The oil in the field is in a porous layer of rock/sand. Oil flows through it, but not quickly. When the well blew out, the flow rate was so high it depleted the pressure near the well bore (at the bottom of the hole). Now that it's capped, this under-pressure is coming back slowly as the oil flows into the depleted region. Likewise, pushing the oil back into the field at the minimum flow rate needs to overcome that viscosity with a significant over pressure. The question is can the BOP and flex joint etc. take this additional pressure?

I like this Static Kill procedure, and hope that it works. If there is an additional seep sourced through this well, Killing it from the top and bottom should stop that too. If the oil is coming up outside the well casing, that will have to be addressed after we kill the main well bore.

JTFish, I don't think we're disagreeing. My only point was that BP rejected the advice of its engineers, and it did so pretty clearly on the basis of cost considerations.

If you are saying the engineers are so out of touch with the real world conditions, that their warnings and opinions are meaningless, or red herrings, then that presents a whole new set of problems. But the fact remains, BP dismissed the warnings of its own engineers and Haliburton's analysis, with regard to the item that failed and caused the blowout. That may not be significant when you're pumping cement, but it is when the law kicks in.

Same with the CBL. I hear again and again that it's a worthless test, so no need to follow the regulations requiring that test. That may be true in the field, but after a disaster, in the courtroom, it is very significant.

I don't pretend to know what the answers are. But I do know enough to ask basic questions that I know will be important and will have to be answered going forward, even if they may be inconsequential in the field. Engineers' warnings were ignored. Tests were skipped. Tests procedures were varried, results were ignored. Regulations were ignored. With all due respect, your explanation won't cut it in the court room. I don't mean that in a belitting way. I understand your point. I do not dispute it.

But the disconnect between the engineering advice and the field practice, between the regs and the actual practices, is a problem in itself. And I do think the lack of clear procedures and standards are also part of that problem, not based on my expertise in O/G, but based on how many different views there are out there on what is acceptable practice, and based on how BP/TO applied/skirted them in this case.

Thanks for taking the time to write your very informative response, and for the important and interesting points you make. I would love to hear more from someone with you expertise on the casing design and how it impacted cementing. I've done a bit of concrete work in other contexts (pouring a dam's spillways, nuclear waste storage containers) so it is an area i have a particular interest in (but not corresponding knowledge/education).

Syncro, my apologies for being short.

I'm having a problem with the cost considerations. I know what you mean, but it just isn't adding up to me. I have never, ever seen a decision like leaving centralizers off a casing string because of cost considerations. Certainly not at a major oil company. It would never enter the mind of the guys offshore to do that, and frankly it would never enter the mind of any of the Drilling Managers onshore that I have worked with over the years.

Now if they were worried about getting the casing stuck because of the lost circulation zones they were passing in order to land the casing in the wellhead, then sure I can see leaving some jewelery off. That happens all the time.

Regarding ignoring the engineers recommendations, going back a few years that was almost the norm. You would have a fine upstanding young engineer with no practical experience who would regularly be told - very nicely - to go stand in the corner while the real decisions were made. No hard feelings, but drilling engineering developed plans, and drilling operations got the holes dug.

Now it feels rather more like all those engineers have finally got their revenge, and the holes are dug by engineering. Or at least looking at the casing and cementing programs for Mocando that's about what it looks like from here. And the fine upstanding engineering team at BP are encouraging the fine upstanding engineering folk at Halliburton to create fine and upstanding simulation programs, and now a couple of generations of engineers later those simulations are now mistaken for reality. I'm not actually nearly as cynical about that as I sound, some of my best friends have petroleum engineering degrees, but its too easy to mistake theory for reality, as I'm sure you've seen in your other projects.

So let's turn this around for a moment. As you mention, there is a disconnect between engineering and good field practice. To the point we are seeing deviations from good field practice like the Macando disaster. How do we get the engineering back in line to reflect the best practices in the field?

Regarding the CBL, I don't think its a regulation under normal circumstances. Its another one of those things that look great on paper, but don't work well in reality often enough that their usefulness is severely compromised. When it works, its great, but is it working today? How do you know for sure?

I do agree with you about the pressure testing, particularly the inflow test. I also feel that a lot of warning signs that the well was seriously unhappy were ignored by folks who certainly knew better and were tested regularly on their knowledge at well control school. I think the level of distraction from having the 'brass' on board that day has not been explored nearly thoroughly enough.

I understand my explanation won't cut it in a court room. All my uncles are lawyers. But that isn't necessarily relevant to making this business safer for those involved and all the innocent bystanders. That is a big difference that has been too easily confused.

On the casing design, I really don't like these interminable liner strings. I would much rather have an intermediate casing string all the way to the mud line, and preferably more than one. I really don't like cementing only the shoe and a few hundred feet above it, much prefer to cement back up into the previous casing shoe. There is a good reason for liners on an exploration well in that you can run more casing strings which allows for better formation isolation when you hit the inevitable problems, but you have to weigh up the trade-offs carefully. When you have a lot of liners, the upper part of the hole has a HUGE annulus between the drill pipe and the casing, and the casing is likely to be weaker than an intermediate string would be. Like 6 5/8 drill pipe inside 13 5/8 or even 16" casing. That is room for a huge amount of gas that you then have to circulate out if you have a kick.

Further, it discourages circulating bottoms up or making full circulations to condition mud properly. The drill pipe/casing annulus is SO big that bottoms-up takes forever. Contrast that with a relatively narrow intermediate casing to the mud line. Fast bottoms up, very strong casing for pressure control from deep formations, easy to cement back to the mudline or near mudline using a DV tool, and faster annular flow rates for better kick control and cuttings removal. Its a tradeoff, but its too easy to come up with an elegant solution from an engineering standpoint that maybe isn't quite so nice when things get ugly.

Also, liners can leak at the liner hanger and if you haven't cemented up as far as the liner hanger that can cause problems too. That is a very significant risk which was finally mentioned in testimony, but I heard it for the first time today.

FROM LAST THREAD

yep judd...you're crazy. Just teasing. It's a difficult concept to visualize because there really isn't an everyday situation to compare it too. Let's assume you've completely filled the csg with you ball bearings. The shut in well head pressure would be the same as if they weren't there. The pressure is transmitted by the fluid. The fluid phase would still be continuous from the reservoir to the well head. There would be a little loss from the friction affect but insignificant. But the ball bearings would be resting on each other. They would add nothing the effective pressure at the bottom of the well. Here's another way to visualize: two 10' tall glass columns next to each other. One filled with your bearings and water and the other with just water. The pressure gauge at the base of each reads the same. They both have the same 10' water head.

Now if you were to grind those bearings into a fine powder and mix that with the mud and have that powder stay in suspension then now you've got a heavy effective mud weight and thus increase bottom hole pressure. And that's exactly how a heavy kill pill is made. Except instead of steel they'll use powered barite (very dense and cheap) to weight the mud.

Sorry for the late reply bbfellow

bbfellow on July 20, 2010 - 4:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
Hmmmm ... those shorting BP stock gaming the system?

I was CEO of a small publicly-held broadband company until a few years ago (through the dot-com bust and the teco meltdown and recovery.) In these periods the shorts were the bane on my existance (becuase shorting was a very good play for many companies in the sector.) The gambits/scams that have been played by the shorts have been pretty unbelievably bold at times. Typically, hard for these memes impact anything very radically on anything but the small-caps and pinks UNLESS the meme gets to be a really big this scale. BP's situation certainly has the potential.

Wonder what the current short position in BP looks like? Naked shorts? Beachmommy, what's do you see?

Shorting BP right now seems dangerous to me unless there are shorts that haven't yet cover their position and someone needs to manipulate the stock lower so they can cover at a lower price. Pretty dumb, but I've seen it in the small caps before.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I 'm sorry I just got a chance to peek in, but I will tell you I would not EVER do a naked short, short against the box back when it was adventageous for tax purposes OR I'd hedge my short with an option strategy.

I have a Bloomberg and not a quotron we don't have all the access to naked shorts in the fixed income side. When I get back to work I will call the equity side and find out what the float, current short and naked short is on their subscription but in the interim I pulled this off the net....not vetted but here ya go:

BP Plc $ 35.20
BP -0.55

Short Interest (Shares Short) 15,103,900
Days To Cover (Short Interest Ratio) 0.2
Short Percent of Float 0.31 %
Short Interest - Prior 25,708,000
Short % Increase / Decrease -41.25 %
Short Squeeze Ranking™ -0

% From 52-Wk High ($ 62.38 ) -43.57 %
% From 52-Wk Low ($ 26.75 ) 31.59 %
% From 200-Day MA ($ 51.88 ) -32.15 %
% From 50-Day MA ($ 36.97 ) -4.79 %
Price % Change (52-Week) -29.81 %

Shares Float 3,130,000,000
Total Shares Outstanding 3,130,726,833
% Owned by Insiders 0.17 %
% Owned by Institutions 11.40 %
Market Cap. $ 110,389,422,877
Trading Volume - Today 40,414,658
Trading Volume - Average 91,220,200
Trading Volume - Today vs. Average 72.60 %

Am I wrong to assume that this latest 'top kill' solution being tabled by BP is merely their latest attempt to permanently choke off any way to calculate an accurate flow rate? Correct me if I'm wrong, but seepage can't be quantified? Might BP be more willing to take their chances with long-term sea floor cracks, fizzures and seepage?

Now Thad Allen says the seep 3 km away is linked to another facility... not Macondo.
- Operational Update July 20

UC Berkley Engineering Prof/former Shell exec Robert Bea disagrees.

He said so yesterday:

BP seabed survey BEFORE drilling of Macondo well showed NO indications of seep 3 km away
http://bit.ly/9bbrN4

Doggone it, for the first time ever, someone asked me a direct question and I missed the time to answer it. So I'm going to repost it here because, well, I do like to flap my yap when I actually understand something on TOD.

GreyZone said:

To Pinkfud,

Previously you were discussing the structure of the production sands in the Mississippi Canyon complex. You stated that given the folding and other changes in that structure that you didn't think that seepage could go very far before finding its way out. A question from the non-geology majors then might be exactly how large are these structures/folds? Are we talking tens of feet? Hundreds of feet? Half a mile? Miles? The size of these "domes and diapirs" should give some clue as to the likely radius of most probable seeps, correct? Obviously that can't give a black and white answer, but shouldn't we be able to get some notion of the maximum range from the well where the most probable well-related seeps should occur? Such as 50% probability that well-related seeps will be no more than X feet (X may be small or large) from the well? Or 90% probability that well-related seeps will be within Y feet of the well?

And knowing this, couldn't there then be a planned assessment and scan of said area to look for seeps? Of course I wouldn't expect the bastards at BP to do such a scan deliberately. It should obviously be an independent 3rd party. Unfortunately, Obama seems content to bow to yet another bunch of corporate thugs.

The answer is all of the above. The finest structures are the turbidites. I've examined turbidites where the folding would be measured in millimeters. At the other end of the scale, salt sheets and domes can cover many miles. Avery Island LA, where the Tabasco place is, is a salt dome. Thing is, all of these structures interact. If salt pushes up through the sediments, that forms slopes that will give rise to more turbidites. Honestly, if you gave me a detailed stratigraphic section that passes 100 feet from MC252B and asked for a flow prediction, I would complain that I need log data from the well itself to have any chance of accuracy. Only then could I extrapolate the 2D section to a general idea of the 3D reality. Since there doesn't appear to be a dome or diapir associated with MC252B, (which could create a longer path), I would give the probabilities as follows:

50% that no related seep will be found farther away than 500 meters, 99% farther than a kilometer. And I think that would be conservative - so if it turns out I'm wrong, you can flame me :)

Also, I believe Rockman said a fault, though unlikely in the shallow section, would negate this prediction. That's very true. But I think the shallow section is too soft for a fault to actually create an open path of any distance.

BTW, If there IS a stratigraphic log of the well, I'd like to get my hands on it.

Sorry for the repost, but this was posted at the tail end of the last thread.

What about thermal expansion of the casing? We had a well flowing for almost 90 days of warm oil, and presumably the well casing and surrounding rock had reached pretty much a thermal equilibrium consistent with warm oil flowing in the well. Now we have have the well shut in, and presumably the temperature along the casing is approaching the natural geothermal gradient. While the bottom of the pipe is not seeing much of a temperature change, the top of the pipe should be going back to the temperature of the surrounding rock . . . and as a result it is cooling down . . . a LOT.

Some back of the envelope calcs: If we have a coefficient of thermal expansion of 12 E-06 per deg C (Reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_thermal_expansion ) and 13000 feet of pipe that sees, on average a 50 deg C temperature swing, we would get . . . (insert sound of old-timey hand-cranked calculator here) 7.8 feet of thermal expansion!

Holy moly . . . how do the folks in the oil patch DEAL with that kind of expansion? ? ? What is it that moves due to thermal expansion? What is the weakest part of the casing string?

Here is a little diagram that illustrates some of the details of the well:

From the previous thread, comment by Cheryl Rofer:

"The link asserts that there are crude oil aerosols but gives no information on air sampling that shows aerosols. They're unlikely to exist very far from the coast. The symptoms described, as Gobbet points out, can be caused by many things.

The likelihood that gulf coast residents could be reporting similar symptoms as some kind of group psychosomatic response is very unlikely.

On the contrary; mass hysteria is well known to produce mass symptoms. Wikipedia gives some examples.

People say many things in Congressional hearings, too, that may or may not be backed up by fact.

It's certainly up to you to choose what you want to believe, oldhat1. I'm just pointing out some of what might be needed to make a substantive case."

I found the EPA data here:

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/odor.html

It does show a slightly elevated level of VOCs in certain areas in LA, which I think would explain some of the symptoms reported by gulf coast residents. It also has the particulate data you referred to.

As I'm sure you know, a lack of data doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's merely a lack of data. Also note that I wasn't making a case for anything, I was politely asking questions of those I thought could give me a considered answer regarding my concerns.

With regard to mass hysteria - I would reassert that those suffering would show other psychological signs since it is a psychological manifestation.

I would assert that the assumption of mass hysteria without supporting factual data is just as faulty as any other argument not supported by substantiating data.

Regardless, I BELIEVE the residents on the gulf coast when they report physical symptoms, and I don't automatically assign their claims to some kind of psychological manifestation - i.e., all in their heads. Doctors tend to do this when they can't explain what's wrong, as they have done to women for years because they had a complete lack of understanding about how a woman's body functions.

I don't claim to know the answers. I have never represented myself to be an expert in this area. But I think there is a logical and verifyable explanation for what gulf coast residents are experiencing other than some faulty fall back position that it must all be in their heads.

After reviewing EPA data I was pointed to by another kindly poster in the other thread, I have concluded that the most likely culprit is low level VOCs. Not mass hysteria, a la pre-dark age nonsense.

"Until the seventeenth century, hysteria was regarded as of uterine origin (from the Greek ὑστέρα "hystera" = uterus) in the Western world. Hysteria referred to a medical condition, thought to be particular to women, caused by disturbances of the uterus. The term hysteria was coined by Hippocrates, who thought that suffocation and madness arose in women whose uteri had become too light and dry from lack of sexual intercourse and, as a result, wandered upward, compressing the heart, lungs, and diaphragm. The belief was that hysterical symptoms would emanate from the part of the body in which the wandering uterus lodged itself.[1] Originally defined as "a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus" ("Hysterical")."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria

I don't believe gases pose no threat whatsoever, and I will continue to watch the EPA data. I assume, since they're collecting this data, it's why they're watching the situation themselves.

I was looking up geothermal gradients and came across the following: http://geophysics.vox.com/library/post/reading-for-comprehension.html.

At first I was going to post simply because it starts with a nice explanation of why newspaper reporting so often dissatisfies folks in the know:

Reporters and scientists are communicators, first and foremost. But where scientists use exacting language to describe their results to others with a common background [1], reporters use imprecise language to discuss the work of others with a diverse audience [2]. As a result, there is frequently an inherent disconnect when the reporter and the scientist talk to each other.

But the rest of the article is also interesting for a different reason: the author dissects a particular methane bubble doomsday post, showing in minute and scathing detail where bits of truth are added and where things diverge.

Kent Wells audio is up.

"Pressure is at 6834"

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9033572&contentId=7063039

The answer Rockman gave to the oil/gas seperation in the well bore question from the last thread has made me wonder further about sea floor breaches (I'm not promoting a belief that they currently exist):

If there was a wellbore leak to the outside, I get that it would take a long time for oil to seep through the sediment bed(years of time). But if methane was leaking out, especially in a higher proportion, would that tend to rise up through the sediments faster than oil would seep? And once the methane had passed through the sediment, could that then allow the oil to more rapidly rise as well? Essentially, the methane would trailblazing paths of least resistance which oil can then more easily follow.

I'm not sure if any seafloor bubbling has been verified as real, but would this be reasonable for why non-oily bubbling could occur?

From previous thread, comment by k3d59:

""You are doing a disservice to those who are affected on the gulf coast by calling their symptoms a stress response (i.e., they're crazy). Not to mention offending me, when I've got the real deal."

oldhat1 makes good point!!!!!! And heartfelt sympathy to you, oldhat1. I deal with a Gulf War vet and Nam vet, both of whom I love dearly and both of whom came home with PTSD as a result of military service. PTSD of any origin is a bitch and there's no other word for it.

Hang on, oldhat1, because you're going to see a lot of that nasty little semantic game of trying to disappear the biological damage from the mind of the nation. In my estimation, it's the equivalent of denigrating a whistle blower by calling him a "disgruntled employee".

Psyops of the lowest order. I think it's going to be a lot harder to make it work this go round. too many people involved.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. (http://www3.bartleby.com/100/448.html)"

Thank you for your understanding. You have my sympathies in having two with PTSD so close to you. It can be the very devil to live with - and almost as hard to be the one who loves them. It really, really sucks. But we survive and find things in life worth living for.

WRT to pointing the finger and saying it's mass hysteria or something similar, they CLAIM that, but never offer any facts to back it up.

It does demean and demoralize any who are affected by the spill, however. I guess for any BP apologists, that's the end goal.

I kind of like to think that any here would not fall into that category, and are merely commenting with the same lack of knowledge about stress as my lack of knowledge about oil and gas! They don't have our intimate experience in living with the SOB of PTSD. But, free exchange of ideas and all that. Maybe the education will do them good as the education about oil and gas does me good. Works out in the end.

TOD discussion of natural seeps from June 8th...
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6576

A natural seep occurs when the oil, which is normally trapped under a layer of rock in a reservoir, finds a pathway to the surface, generally relatively small (so that the oil doesn’t all gush out rapidly), with the oil slowly seeping upwards over the centuries.

BP is raising cash - BP Signs North America and Egypt Asset Deals with Apache

Release date: 20 July 2010

BP announced today that it has entered into several agreements to sell upstream assets in the United States, Canada and Egypt to Apache Corporation. The deals, together worth a total of $7 billion, comprise BP’s Permian Basin assets in Texas and south-east New Mexico, US; its Western Canadian upstream gas assets; and the Western Desert business concessions and East Badr El-din exploration concession in Egypt.

The decision to make these divestments follows the announcement made by BP last month that it was increasing its target for divestments to $10 billion. The proceeds of the sales will be used by BP to increase the cash available to the group.

BP Chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, said: “Over the last two months the Board has considered BP’s options for generating the cash necessary to meet the obligations likely to arise from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. BP has an extremely strong asset base which is diversified geographically as well as by asset class. The Board believes that there are opportunities to divest assets which are strategically more valuable to other parties than they are to BP. Today’s announcement is the first such transaction and meets the value and strategic criteria of both parties.”

(more at the link)

message deleted

US oil spill could destroy 100,000 jobs: experts

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gOQl6kliB7_W-taiLHKqm...

ROCKMAN commented

here's a quick calc method for getting mud weights - Pressure (psi) = o.o52 * mud weight (lbs/gallon) * mud column height. You can calc for any two unkowns. For instance, a 5,000' tall riser would need around a MW of 26 ppg to generate a 7,000 psi at the BOP.

Akiwuff replied

The formula is neat, but it would be so much neater in metric.. since 1bar is 1 kilogramm per square centimeter, the whole equitation is so simple one can do it in the head without having to use a "crummy" factor as 0.052.

I replied with a demo of how to do this using GNU units (easily installed on Linux using yum install units or apt-get units, and available as a windows binary), using (as I usually do) the non-interactive command-line mode where the command is units, the first argument is the input expression including numeric coefficients and units, and the second argument is the desired units (which may also have numeric coefficients). (You can also just type units and it will prompt You have: and You want:). Here is the demo in verbose interactive mode:

You have: (26 pound/gallon) 5000 foot
You want: pound/in^2
        (26 pound/gallon) 5000 foot = 6753.2468 pound/in^2
        (26 pound/gallon) 5000 foot = (1 / 0.00014807692) pound/in^2
You have: 0.052 26 5000
You want: 
        Definition: 6760
You have: (pound/gallon) foot
You want: pound/in^2
	(pound/gallon) foot = 0.051948052 pound/in^2
	(pound/gallon) foot = (1 / 19.25) pound/in^2

This shows that the 0.052 factor (more precisely 0.051948052) is the conversion factor from mud weight in pounds/gallon times mud column height in feed, to pressure in pounds per square inch, and that 26 pounds/gallon is just a little light, giving 6753 psi, not 7000.

Also I noted that in SI, pressure is force per unit area, not mass per unit area, so 1 bar = 100 kPa = 10^5 kg / m s^2.

I was in a hurry so I posted the comment before working out exactly how to use GNU units to get pressures in SI pressure units rather than in mass per unit area. Akiwuff said 1 bar = 1 kilogram per square centimeter, but GNU units says these units are not conformable:

You have: 1 bar
You want: 1 kilogram / cm^2
conformability error
        1 bar = 100000 kg / m s^2
        1 kilogram / cm^2 = 10000 kg / m^2

The denominator of bar is m s^2 instead of m^2. You have to multiply kg / m^2 by m / s^2 to get kg / m ^2. The factor is meters per second per second, or acceleration. But which acceleration?

At 45.5 degrees latitude and sea level (with the combined acceleration of gravity and the centripetal acceleration equal to 9.80665 m/s^2), a 1 kg mass exerts a force of 9.80665 m/s^2 = 9.80665 newton. This varies by a few tenths of a percent depending on altitude and latitude.

Now, I see I can ask GNU units this question:

You have: newton/cm^2
You want: bar
        newton/cm^2 = 0.1 bar
        newton/cm^2 = (1 / 10) bar

So at first glance it seems that Akiwuff has both the coefficient and the unit wrong: not 1 kilogram per square centimeter but 0.1 newton per square centimeter. But playing around a little more, I discovered that units defines psi as force per unit area, not mass per unit aream so I was just lucky in writing pounds / in^2 instead of psi, which is not the same thing:

You have: psi
You want: 
	Definition: pound force / inch^2 = 6894.7573 kg / m s^2

Ok, WTF is force?

You have: force
You want: 
	Definition: gravity = 9.80665 m/s^2 = 9.80665 m / s^2

Ok, force is what you multiply mass by to get weight (at sea level). So now maybe I can figure what is up with psi vs. bar (not thinking of asking that directly):

You have: psi
You want: pound force / inch^2
	psi = 1 pound force / inch^2
	psi = (1 / 1) pound force / inch^2
You have: bar
You want: kilogram force / cm^2
	bar = 1.0197162 kilogram force / cm^2
	bar = (1 / 0.980665) kilogram force / cm^2

Ah! Akiwuff says a bar is a kilogram force per square centimeter, but more precisely, a bar is 2% more than a kilogram force per square centimeter.

Asking directly, I get

You have: bar
You want: psi
	bar = 14.503774 psi
	bar = (1 / 0.068947573) psi

And while I'm at it, what is up with poundal?

You have: poundal
You want: pound force
	poundal = 0.03108095 pound force
	poundal = (1 / 32.174049) pound force
You have: gravity
You want: feet / sec / sec
	gravity = 32.174049 feet / sec / sec
	gravity = (1 / 0.03108095) feet / sec / sec
You have: poundal
You want: foot pound / sec / sec
	poundal = 1 foot pound / sec / sec
	poundal = (1 / 1) foot pound / sec / sec

Nowadays, using centimeters is almost as much as sign of age as using cycles per second instead of hertz or condenser instead of capacitor. The standard SI unit of distance is the meter, not the centimeter, and the standard SI unit of pressure is the kilopascal (kPa), not the bar.

ROCKMAN replied to my original hurried comment:

q7 - huh?

but before I got back, comments closed on thread 6754, so I quoted all of the above... and added some more details, hopefully making it somewhat clearer.

So, isnt there a drill pipe or something else that doesnt belong down hole? After they fill the hole with mud dont they at some point need to get out the damaged whatever is in the hole to finish the kill. How do they/you get that stuff outta the way and hold back the flow ?

jimgmostwealthy - I was responding to your post at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6754#comment-683201 when the previous thread was closed. I'll pick it up here.

You pose a lot of questions; too many for me to tackle all at once and many way out of my scope of knowledge.

Please note that many of you questions have been asked and answered here in past threads and a review of them might help out a lot.

First, please note that I am not in the O&G business. I'm here to learn just like you. However, I am a scientist and a technical executive of a broadband company and can comment on the more general parts of your posting.

The situation on the GOM is bad, pretty damn bad; but it is NOT apocalyptic, IMHO. The GOM isn't going to explode.

The relative I talked down today that I mention in my posting was thinking that is was. I checked out some of the blogs and comments sections of places like YouTube and was appalled by how much fear and misinformation is out there (which was the subject of my posting.)

We seem to be lacking the ability to put this event into any perspective. Understandable perhaps; no precedent for this (thank God.) Some people are promoting almost end-of-days scenarios. Some (a lot) are seeing “oil explosions” in the thruster-blown-mud videos that are all over YouTube.

Few readers are doing basic things like checking these stories out or checking the original sources. Many of these stories (some in your questions) are being passed on third-, fourth and nth-hand gospel truth. When is happens, a lot of misinformation gets codified. It is still misinformation; some of it is bunk.

For example, if you think that the airspace over the DWH site is closed or sealed, check it out. Try to use primary sources. Don't just assume its true just because it was stated in a blog somewhere or you heard it on talk radio. If you find it is true, report it along with your source(s). In other words, the FAA as a source will carry more weight than my cousin Vinnie as a source (btw, I actually do have a cousin Vinnie). We all would like to know what you find out!

Some of us are urging healthy skepticism for many of the wildest of these claims. In fact, I think all sources should be checked (just part of my training). As a result of urging this simple caution, I find it a bit strange that when healthy skepticism is recommended, many of the doom proponents paint those of us who urge caution as BP shills or assume that we think everything is "okay, no problem."

To repeat, this is a bad situation, really bad, damn bad. But I don't expect the GOM to explode or that there are undetected open bore holes in the GOM miles from the BOP or that a grand conspiracy is being staging with a fake BOP to show the ROV cameras.

I think it is foolish to worry about these absurd scenarios because it diverts attention and energy from the very real things we should have as concerns and/or actions we could be taking rather than debunking thruster-blown-mud videos.

It is my personally-held belief that the situation has been made scarier by the simple fact that all of this (geology, engineering, biosciences, etc.) is outside the scope of knowledge of the vast majority of the public, including me. What we don't understand, we tend to fear. That fear creates cracks and seams that other people can exploit for their various reasons; some pure and innocent, some really dark and everything in between.

People are wanting the short and easy answer and for it to be delivered, spoon-fed to them if you will, in just a couple of news cycles. This story isn't going to resolve itself that quickly. It is going to take months and years to work out. Also, it is far too complex to fit any sound bite, TV news package or magazine article.

Anyone who now claims to have the "full story" (even BP or the government) or that they have all of the answer right now is probably not telling the truth.

We still want answers now and the frustration of not having those answers leads to more FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). It is going to be up to us to find those answers ourselves and connect the dots.

The more I learn about this situation, the less scary it gets; it is still indeed a very bad situation but I can now put it in a better perspective. More importantly, I can separate out the flimflam artists who are trying to "sell" me hokum.

My main problem I have with Matt Simmons is that he provides NO support for his wild claims. There is a basic rule of thumb most scientists use which states, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” It is up to Mr. Simmons to step up and at least provide details and the basis on which his claims. So far, I can find nothing (as in “zero”) except vagueness.

I’ve come to the personal conclusion it is just hokum.

No, I don’t think shorting BP is Mr. Simmons' sole reason for doing all of this. But, I do think it unethical not to disclose a financial interest in the outcome of what he is selling and he is indeed very actively selling his story. BTW, I’ve seen a lot of rich people do some really dumb things for the sake of a few thousand dollars. Remember Martha Stewart participated in a cover up and went to jail over a stock trade that only netted her a few thousand dollars.

I don't know what his game is and that is part of the problem too. None of us that I have read can figure out why he is doing this. These claims are too easily refuted for me to figure out why he is ruining (has ruined?) his reputation over this. He may indeed be a true believer but he may have other motivations.

Just because I think Matt Simmons is selling hokum, doesn’t mean I have the answers. It just means that I have come to the conclusion that HE DARN SURE DOESN’T. Also, he gets no brownie points from me for “standing up” to BP and the government as some have suggested. I think he is doing far more harm than good. Certainly is wasting a lot of time in this forum.

Please see http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6734#comment-678449 for what I think about Mr. Simmons.

I see you just joined TOD a couple of hours ago at the time of your posting. Assuming that you genuinely want answers to the questions you posed, please let me suggest that you participate here. Start searching and finding the answers. You might want to go back and read the rather massive amount of information posted here at this site that will provide comments (albeit perhaps short of full answers) to the questions you raise.

This is the best place I've found because a lot of industry people participate here and I can ask questions from people with first-hand knowledge and lots of field experience.

Also, and this is just a housekeeping detail, I would suggest that rather than lumping all of your questions at one time in one big posting, break them up by topic so people can respond more easily.

This works for me: the more I learn, the more that I can (1) answer my own questions and (2) judge the veracity of other people who talk/write about the situation in the GOM. Arguably, #2 might be more important than #1.

It sure seems to me that with the lower pressure they are observing, that the total leak rate would have to be a couple hundred of GPM. If it were all coming out in one place, it would be visible. That is why I favor the idea that the leak is caught somewhere else, sort of forming it's own reservoir with gas escaping and causing some disturbance of the sea floor. How far down into the bed can the tests they are running detect anomalies?

I wanted to share a video with you. This is my first post and I post regularly at Above Top Secret. I heard someone say they saw oil seeping from the sea floor on Skandi ROV 2. I caught a good video of it and wanted to give you the link. Enjoy and feel free to comment on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oJxB1pxU8c

I am new here but have a few years in the OF (land driller and pusher).It seems odd to me that they are trying to get the well up to a higher pressure, when they can contain it and haul it away, with out leakage = money..The higher pressure is not a good thing when you want to cement a WW with a RW and all I have seen that worked correctly they drew thru the WW to help pull the cement in place. Is the hold on the WW a test for integrity ,which in my opinion , is already proven. Or is the the oil not worth production?? Accordingly people with a bit more knowledge on deep wells are telling me that the BOP pressure should be 50% or greater of the actual reserve bed pressure. This makes sense because we could deal with that pressure not the 13,900 psi they say is in the bed. Any comments? I got tired of listening to media fairytales, so I came here to listen to you and feed in put as well as I can. No I don't work for BP but I don't think people should slam them either..

I may need to buy a better grade of crack, but I'm sure I heard that tomorrow's Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation hearing is canceled because the Transocean guys have all decided to decline to appear voluntarily.

If true, that's pretty interesting. Particularly after the two BP drilling reps declined to testify today.

Anyone else hear this? I can't find a report on it so far.

I haven't see this posted. If I just missed it, somebody throw a brick and I'll delete it.

BP Macondo well leader was a fill-in
BP well manager Robert Kaluza was a temporary replacement for another employee aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig when it exploded in the Gulf of Mexico and killed 11 workers.

http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article222617.ece

A few pics of wreckage found on the seafloor today.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45732805@N02/4813414605/

Why the pressure is rising slowly?

If there is a column of mixed oil and gas, would not the pressure in the column at the top increase as the column developed a larger gas space (RM quoted about 500'?

Not because of the gas pressure, but because there would be less weight of oil in the column pressing against the reservoir pressure.

As the gas displaces more and more oil down the column, wouldn't the pressure slowly rise, perhaps asymptotically if the gas started dissolving back into the oil?

Maybe the pressure should be raising 20 psi an hour but 19 psi of it is leaking off somewhere.

Another topic -- has anyone noticed the increased presence of one Carol Browner? Do you know her role in the Administration? Could it be that she is taking more of a central role on the debate of the future of the Gulf drilling... we shall see.

I posted this a few days ago and right after I did the thread was closed so no comments were possible. Maybe that’s a good thing? But I thought I would try my luck again.

In my former Corp life I spent 20 years working for medical device manufacturers. I was in production engineering and then plant management. All of our operations were regulated by the FDA and I have participated in many inspections. First question when inspectors come in is, “let’s see the management structure-chain of command”, who works for who. It better show that quality control DOES NOT report directly to operations at the plant or corporate levels. All QC functions must report to Corp VPQC and finally to CEO. My QC manager was on my staff but did not report directly to me. He reported to Corp QC for division. If he walked in my office and said a certain line was DOWN, it was DOWN, and that was that. Operations could NEVER override QC. Is this the way it is in the oil industry? If not, I’m thinking it would be a good thing to consider. From all that we have read and heard it sounds like there were those who, if they had the final authority, would have shut the DH down until things were working properly. One question Congress never asked BP CEO that he should have been able to answerer without saying, “That’s not part of my job”, is ... “Mr. Hayward, what is the management structure of your company as it pertains to the chain of command relative to Operations and QC/Safety?” If there is one thing a CEO must know it is how his/her company is organized! Most things come back to the decisions that are made by workers and management. From what I have read on TOD there certainly are folks here that would have operated DH quite a bit differently. I hope the politicians try and fix what was broken and not just use this catastrophe to forward their political agendas. There are too many livelihoods and US security at stake.

TOD is without a doubt the most honest, intellectual and refreshing source for ideas on how to move the industry forward in a way that is good for all parties involved. I hope when the well is finally closed TOD will be a place where our politicians, regulators and industry leaders will look for inspiration on clean up of the GOM and the future of hydrocarbon based fuels as opposed to other sources of energy. Thank you to all who make this a great place!

Live Nat. Geo documentary on the Oil Spill right now. Followed up by a special about peak oil.

Can't tell for sure but it looks like Q4000 ROV2 is showing one of the seep anomalies.

According to the evening news Thad Allen says there are five MINOR leaks on the BOPs, but they are nothing to worry about. Will they fix themselves? Will sand cut oil/gas make them worse?

The Static Kill will increase pressure in BOPs in an attempt to push oil/gas back into bottom rock formation. This takes alot of pump pressure and time, and can damage the BOPs/casing/cement/formation. Will kill mud fall thru O/G and plug up formation? Do they know if leaking well bore, or formation depletion caused the low shut in pressure?

BP has an axe to grind, and what does the Coast Guard/Interior Department/Science Lab people know about killing wells. Industry experts should have access to all the data, and make the decisions on how to proceed in the safest manner.

The lower stack has been abused, and those minor leaks are major. Why risk increasing the pressure in the BOPs? Bottom Kill from RW is easier on well bore and BOPs, therefore safer.

Hmm, I didn't know they were still spraying Corexit (sp?). I'm finding morose humor in the fact that workers apply hazmat suits to put Corexit into planes just to spray it into an open ocean.

New guy here- First of all--Some simple things.
Appears BP and MMS are at fault for not using best
practices in this well, which let it get away from them.
The greenies and government want to use incident to stop
drilling, when it is shown that best practices eliminates
blowouts, so drilling should continue.
There are many seeps in the GOM and people there shouldn't
have to put up with them, anymore than putting up with
an accidental leak. So in that vein we should drill
these high pressure deep fields(with best practices only)
and use the oil.And lessen the pressure and seepage.

We should drill these formations so much, so that we wouldn't
have to import oil.These huge deep formations run all the way
from SA through the GOM, up the middle of NA to Alaska,
and beyond. In these deep fields and below, the earth is
making oil and gas, and using best practices in an
accelerated production program we would always have oil.

Nobody can tell me that the US and Can with
350 million people, a measly one twentieth of the worlds
population, doesn't have enough oil under the whole NA
continent. Figuring in all these deep fields, regular fields,
shale fields, and off the East and West coasts. No matter how
high on the hog, the greenies and gov complain, that we
live. This would moderate prices and boost the economy..
And send less dollars to terrorists. Ed

China uses oil-eating bacteria in Dalian oil spill cleanup

Over 23 tonnes of oil-eating bacteria are being used to clean up the oil spill off the coast of northeast China's Dalian City, four days after pipelines exploded near one of China's largest oil reserve bases.

"We received orders Saturday morning from the Maritime Safety Administration for bio-oil-absorbing products," said Yang Jiesen, manager of the research and development center at Beijing Weiyeyuan Bio-Technology Company.

The use of the oil-eating bacteria at the Dalian spill is the first time China has made major use of bio-technology to solve an environment pollution problem.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90882/7073820.html

Don't those deplete oxygen levels?

Credibility.

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/bp_photoshops_photo_on_its_web.html

BP Photoshops photo on its Web site; promises to replace altered version

Someone posted it already?

I know.Devil you know and all that...

For the psi crowd out there here is a new theory I ran across. Can't commenton it not my field at all, just passing it on for thought,www.opednews.com/articles/BP-Halliburton-Transocean-by-Chris-Landau-100717-77.html Do look forward to the debates.

Greetings all- newbie question and I'm sure this has already been covered ad-nauseaum so I apologize ahead of time - I was reading some of the press releases regarding the testimony before congress by various BP and Transocean employees and something struck me as odd. If I understand correctly while they were pumping mud into the well to cap it, one of the transocean engineers reported a negative flow return, which showed there was, or could be a problem inside the well, and that it suggested the mud was escaping outside of the casing even then? I not sure but it seemed to me he was suggesting the well integrity, which is the center of the worlds attention now, was compromised even before the blowout? Just looking for clarification on that from the experts...

Brutal images from China spill

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/835680-firefighter-rescued-from-drowning-in-...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hnRc-COAnkwXl4pq3IR342...

In the previous thread there was a discussion of the loss of the C.P. Baker caused by an upwelling of gas. The original poster seemed to believe that it was caused by a loss of buoyancy, but jkrob posted a link indicating a different cause:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6754#comment-682851

That article shows that Jerome Milgram et. al. got it right concerning floaters, see:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6597#comment-655051

Also, aardvark wrote:

“Wait... what if liquid methane is evaporating at the lower wellhead pressure? Couldn't evaporative cooling explain the observed low temp?”

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6754#comment-683107

Aardvark. My man. There is no liquid methane in this well. Go to

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6737#more

and search for “critical”. Follow the discussion and you will see.

"There is no longer any concern about pumping
the mud in at any high rate of pressure ..."

Say WHAT ?!!
There better be an abort switch for the DOE.

As a newcomer , I must say how much I've enjoyed following the discussions here.
If you don't wish to read a story about trusting your gut or instincts , ignore this post.
My wife's grandfather , at that time an immigrant , survived the 1906 SF earthquake , fled to the East Bay , and at some point in time got a job in one of Mr. Rockefeller's refineries. Being diligent , he bought company stock , and my wife now holds one sixth of what he had at the time of his passing. (were not rich-he was just a working stiff-I do call her "Oil Baroness" (sp?). I believe that she's actually happier to have his gold watch commemorating his retirement , that has his real name inscribed on the back- yes they messed up his name on Ellis Island).
Anyway-that's why BP sends shareholder info to our address.
A few years ago they sent one of their color, glossy brochures and I swear that the whole issue dealt with Macondo? Deepwater Horizon? BP's efforts in GOM? (As fascinating as it was , when done reading , I'm sure we recycled it-we are Left-Coasters after all).Sure wish I had that magazine now...maybe some other BP stockholder could confirm my vague memory? I know that at the time I was left with the impression that oil exploration was indeed pushing forward with new efforts and drilling technologies.

Anyway , upon 1st hearing about this dreadfull accident , I went home and told my wife that based on BP's magazine , I thought we we're looking at the worst oil-spill disaster ever seen on this planet. Turned out to be prophetically true.(days ahead of the government ,BP, or internet rumour-mongers) Anyway.....I do enjoy the discussions here . Thanks

T.A. --- Why not consider five minor leaks on BOPs consequential? Sounds like sloppy risky typical BP M.O. to me. T.A. should get technical advice from John Wright, not BP or government folks.

K.W. --- If the static kill replaced O/G in well bore and annulur spaces with kill mud, why would RW put in more kill mud? Hope they do not let Q4000 be retrofitted to a pumper for static kill, use it to receive O/G from Macondo as before.

Reuters passes along the Times of London's report that Tony Hayward will be out within 10 weeks, Bob Dudley his likeliest successor.

... Hayward would have to step down so that BP could shore up its defenses against a potential buyout threat by ExxonMobil or Royal Dutch Shell, the Times cited a person close to the matter as saying.

Citing sources close to the company, The Times said there was a growing expectation that Hayward would announce his departure in late August or September. ...

Shredded cred will do that to you, Tone. Pity. Run along home to your pile in Kent, and dear Bob.

Added: Bloomberg.

I took a quick look through the thread and didn't see this posted yet; some of you might find it interesting.... the schematic drawing and the 4/15/10 and 4/18/10 casing diagrams interest me the most. Someone posted a really nice Haliburton diagram above too. Notice any differences between all the diagrams?

http://www.deepwaterinvestigation.com/go/site/3043/

Oh, jeez, here we go.

Hi all,

I just want to pass on my appreciation for your enlightening discussions on this website. It is fascinating to follow as I understand so little of this.
If anyone is watching now, what is the ROV on the top right doing? Is that silt from the ROV? http://www.ustream.tv/pbsnewshour

Thanks again for all of your insights

Well, it sure looks bad, but the other ROVs are not panicking, so maybe the thing is just buried it's propulsion in the mud...for a long time?

I definitely saw oil seeps today, but was told it surely was just "sea snot"

On the other hand it was from the "all is well, more pressure please" crowd...

Hey guys, been reading for a while now and decided to sign up. Lots of great information coming from a wide range of people on here it's really fantastic, interesting stuff.

I had a question mainly for Dimitry, as he has been seeing the so called "sea snot" for the last few hours and combined with a few other comments regarding sea floor seepage I'm feeling a little nervous with this static kill they are proposing.

It seems that there is growing indications of leaks in the seabed, even though they are small. I don't doubt things may be a lot worse down there than they are informing us, and I don't doubt BP may be risking the structural integrity of the surrounding area if it means keeping this thing capped and avoiding open flow.

My question is if this is the case, how risky is this Static Kill going to be? Forcing the oil back down the well bore sounds pretty hairy if there might be even small casing breaches and seabed leaks. Hope someone can give me a rough answer on this.

Cheers guys, thanks for all the great info

Hmm, don't you think BP are pretty brave to hire cajuns given the history (given what the brits did to them). Still, such historic crosswires are inherent where a company uses a 'national' brand around the world.

130 birds killed by Gulf oil spill, 15 rescued in St. Bernard Parish

Louisiana's Department of Wildlife and Fisheries says oil from the Gulf spill has killed more than 100 birds in St. Bernard Parish. Department official Robert Love said Tuesday that it's the first significant effect on wildlife in the parish behind the Chandeleur Islands, which were hit by the oil in early May.

Love said crews found about 130 dead birds and 15 live birds on Monday.

Bobby Jindal's 360 million dollar Barrier to Nothing in action.

I'm tracking all the hydrate buildups on the sides of the cap right now. There are a lot of them. I'll be updating this over the next few hours. See them here:

http://wastedenergy.net/2010/07/21/upper-crust/

ABNT20 KNHC 210548
TWOAT
TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
200 AM EDT WED JUL 21 2010

FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO...
A STRONG TROPICAL WAVE...LOCATED NEAR THE EASTERN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
AND EXTENDING NORTHWARD OVER THE ATLANTIC FOR A FEW HUNDRED
MILES...

THERE IS A HIGH CHANCE...70 PERCENT...OF THIS SYSTEM BECOMING A TROPICAL DEPRESSION
OR A TROPICAL STORM DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS.

Screen-friendly storm info and forecast models: http://www.stormpulse.com/

Chuck Watson's tracking model page: http://hurricane.methaz.org/tracking/storms/AL972010_tracks.html

We've seen a progression to additional leaks and hydrate buildup. If this tropical wave starts rotating and heads for the Gulf (as most models predict), I see no alternative to opening the cap, test over.

What they should do ...

That should be TOD's motto ... preferably in Latin.