From the previous thread on the new containment system.

A billion dollars and 18 months!! Well, at least that is better than the 24 months I've heard in an earlier discussion. I think if they really wanted to, they could put something together in a few days that would at least keep the oil out of the water. For a simple design, see the thread "Floating flare" at http://groups.google.com/group/stop_blowout. Here an attempt to post an image:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Floating_flare.png
We could sure use some help from anyone with engineering expertise in this area.

"They confused personal safety, which is easy to achieve but which tends to be non-catastrophic, with safety of process," one consultant said.

This was also a finding of the CSB report (Baker Panel too IIRC) regarding the Texas City incident in 2005.

http://www.csb.gov/assets/document/CSBFinalReportBP.pdf
See Section 10.2.1 beginning on p. 184.

Rosabeth Moss Kanter of Harvard Biz School:

Mr. Hayward must have studied management in a parallel universe, where a set of anti-rules for bad leadership are taught. Here's what I imagine are those anti-rules. ...

Earlier, BP had hired Bea to write a report about the human element in safety. But BP boiled down his observations to a skit, which was performed by a dozen actors.
"I was sick to my stomach," Bea said. "It was making light of serious things."

I used to work for a company that closed its domestic manufacturing department, not because it was unprofitable, but because it would be more profitable operated out of a third-world country. To help employees cope with job loss (management positions were not affected), the company called a series of special meetings to show them a video -- a cartoon based on the best-selling business book of all-time, "Who Moved My Cheese."

The book is a parable that features mice and "little people" dealing with sudden cheese shortages in a maze. Here's an interesting article on it (random quote):

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams says parables rank among the top 10 reader complaints in his e-mail.
Workers feel "terribly insulted," he says.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2002-12-26-cheese-usat_x.htm

Here's a clip from the video (couldn't find the full vid).

The "sickening" thing is that business parables like 'Who Moved My Cheese' and the skits produced to communicate them are not intended to "make light of serious things." Just the opposite. A large number of people in high management positions think they're good, effective, and appropriate. These are very shallow people who mean well but are incapable of fully grasping the seriousness of anything.

Lotus -- Interesting side story about the handrail incident. About 4 years ago I came down from the chopper pad and used one hand on the handrail. Not that easy with the gear I was carrying. And the base of the stairs was a safety officer. He complimented me for keeping one hand on the rail. The hands that didn’t keep on hand on were ushered into a small conference room and were forced to watch the same boring safety films we had all seen many time…FOR THREE HOURS.

The operator was ExxonMobil. There’s an old sailing axiom: One hand for the ship…one hand for you. It wasn’t so much preaching safety as it was telling hands aloft in bad weather to not hang on with two hands…work the sails with one and keep yourself secure with the other.

In the House, their email system has an electronic gatekeeper that is works on zip codes - if you live in the wrong place you cannot get in.

A way around that is to use an address from his area. Then add your own contact info internally. No guarantee he will get it, but it will get by the 'gate-keeper'. I have gotten (somewhat boiler-plated) responses back in the past.

lfeather, I don't know if their main topic should be "peak oil". I doubt there's such a thing as "peak oil" anyway. The topic politicians should discuss is "increasing energy prices as cheap oil supplies run out".

Here's the link for that:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR201007...

I question this:

Already, there are about 200 square miles of oiled coastline in Louisiana alone, said Robert Barham, secretary of the state's Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. He said most of that is marshland, which means around 5 percent of the state's 3,900 square miles of marsh is oily.

That would be, for example, 400 miles of shoreline oiled 1/2 mile deep, when we are told most of the marshline is only oiled a couple of feet deep, or occasionally 8-20 feet deep. I think the official said or meant 200 linear miles, which would likely be less than one square mile.

I enjoy your posts and thank you for your help.

Now let's see where flattery will get me. ;)

Just for curiosity's sake, I would like to know if these are oil seeps. I apologize for the video quality. I have no idea what happened. The actual feed was that greenish tone and fairly clear.

Times of interest:

:28 - :36
1:10 - 1:17
3:53 - 3:58

http://tinyurl.com/2c6uq6x

rovman:

I've found your interpretations of the video feeds to be very enlightening, and reassuring.

I find these videos very hard to interpret because all that most of us have to compare them with is topside, clear air, vision, which is how we normally see things.

I would guess that in training to operate these it takes longer to learn to interpret the video feed correctly than to be able to maneuver the ROV or manipulate its attachments with reasonable facility.

I suspect that most of have had the experience of finding ourselves looking at a totally alien view of something and having difficulty deciphering the detail. I often have wished I had an expert over my shoulder to help me understand what I'm looking at. So thanks for providing that to us.

I can imagine that your interpretations have had the effect of dissolving a few "discoveries." Having had a few deflated by reality myself I can appreciate how that can be disappointing. We all want to make a positive contribution to efforts like these.

So keep up the good work, and thanks for your patience and good humor.

Dave

rovman, no problem with your anonymity or expertise. Someday the ROVs will be withdrawn from MC-252, or the feeds will cease, and public discussion will evaporate.

Why burn lights? Why not? ROV pilots rarely care whether they leave the lights on or not. Really, I'm not kidding.

Best burning them. They blow more often when switched on or off than when left on. You don't want to have to keep hauling your ROVs up to change the bulb. When night diving you leave your light on ALWAYS. If you want to see phosphorescence (for example) you hold the light to your body, you do not switch it off. If people did some diving they would see many of the things that Rovman describes, silt storms, bubbles etc.It gives me confidence in his answers to compare them with what I have seen with my own 2 eyes.

NAOM

Rovman brings up an excellent point I'd like to comment on. There are people here who seem to constantly want "credentials". Some posters here, myself included, work for employers who might not like us commenting "out of school". For my part, I'm a geologist. I know very little about the petroleum industry because my specialty lies in mineralogy and petrology. In grad school, I studied plate tectonics under Dr. P.J. Coney, whose name will be familiar to geologists. I work for an agency of the U.S. Government and have for 21 years. So if I say something about geology, it's an "expert opinion". If I say something about oil, take it with a pound of salt. Thank you.

Thanks rovman, fasanating thread...

I'm totally hooked on the live feeds, best TV since Arrested Development... will surely jones when cut off...

Thinking about the technology, both oily and electronic, it's clear deep water exploration and development would not be possible without the ROV. Especially for dw oil and gas and these behemoth workhorses now on the scene. It seems, like dw drilling itself, we are pushing up against technological limits. It's obvious operators have a hard time with depth perception. I assume this is because they do not have a 3d display or adequate tactile feedback through the stick?

It will be interesting to watch this field evolve as it no doubt will, and develop more autonomous and untethered machines. Meanwhile we should hope that future guidelines and procedures will result in a more realistic picture around what these things can actually do, today.

Number one on my list for dealing with this kind of crisis in future is the use of special ROV subs that can operate one or more ROVs, regardless of the weather above. They could also be used for much needed inspection of all those capped and abandoned wells now in the GoM, for example.

In case you missed it, here's a pic of the USS Jimmy Carter, a US nuclear submarine with ROV support capability...

USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23)
_{Click image for the big picture...}

Rovman, thanks for all your posts, even this monster ;)

Especially thanks for continuing to remind folks that silt, loads of silt, is the norm in this environment. When I see repeated comments like "Blaming it all on silt being diturbed by ROVs is just as fallable in my opinion as blaming it all on hydrocarbons" I get cranky, but you keep your cool pretty well. With light, fluffy, grimy silt covering everything on the bottom, we should expect to see silt moving all the time, and oil only rarely.

Notanoilman may be right that without experience underwater most people have a hard time understanding the sudden eruptions of dark stuff all over the video screen. Personally, I would rather have skipped a couple of my silt experiences --like freediving a cave in the Caymans (but it seemed like such a good idea at the time). I understand people's fear of catastrophe, and mistrust of BP and the Gov., but I wish they would think for a minute before reflexively dissing someone with relevant experience like you or Shelburn.

I'm as interested as anyone in finding seeps, natural or BP-made, but I'm relieved every time a video link turns out to be ROV blown silt. There is already too much oil in the Gulf, so why the heck are folks so upset to hear, "excuse me, that's just silt"?

My worry with this is that it is subject to leaking. Even a very slow leak could significantly compromise the vacuum side over time. And you have no safe way of fixing this. Lifting the BOP to the surface to empty a leaking vacuum cylinder may simply not be feasible. The cylinder needs to be leakproof across the entire seal of the ram piston, and maintain that integrity for up to six months.

So the competing design :-)

Use a large spring for each ram - I mentioned a Belleville spring as a suitable design. The spring can be compressed by a hydraulic piston that forms part of the assembly. Force from the spring can be transferred to the ram via another hydraulic piston, or even via a mechanical coupling. The advantage of a hydraulic coupling is that the actuation can be performed by a valve here. A mechanical coupling would need a mechanical holdoff and trigger, which may be more complex and prone to hanging up. Another possibility is to use the compressing piston to hold the spring down, and releasing the pressure on that piston causes the shears to close.

The advantage is that the system can be set ready to fire and left. It can't leak. Better, it isn't one shot. The compressing piston can be used to recompress the spring, allow the shears to open, and then the system can be reapplied.

A follow-up;

Include an absolute presure monitoring apparatus in the air container.

NORMAL condition: 1 atmosphere topside AND submerged. Piston has not moved and there are no leaks. Unit is "Armed and Ready for Deployment".

LEAKING condition: somewhat greater than 1 atmosphere, the amount indicates the amount of leakage; until the amount is significant, operation of the ram is still possible BUT maintenance is indicated. A travel sensor on the piston top would help to determine if the increase is due to piston travel or piston rod leakage.

ACTUATED condition: Based the ratio of the sizes of the 2 air chambers, pressure of the ratio atmospheres indicates full extension of the ram. An intermediate pressure indicates the amount of travel. No need for an ROV observation if the sensors are brought to the drill ship. No wondering if the ram fully actuated; the response should be fast.

:>)

I must be missing something here. If the BOP shearing ram is at 5000’ sea depth the point where the ram leaves the cylinder(interior pressure of BOP =PSI of fluid in riser pipe) will have about 2200 PSI across the cross sectional area of the diameter of the ram or rod pushing the ram. In case of drilling fluid in the riser would be several thousand PSI higher across diameter of ram.

I have seen a well flowing on annulus side and when BOP rams were
Closed on drill pipe the drill pipe was actually blown up the hole by differential pressure on cross sectional area of pipe where rams were closed until a tool jt came up against the rams.

SequoiaCPE - nice idea. But study how railroad air brakes work. Finally something I am fully qualified to discuss on TOD. That would work better. But I think I have an even better idea.

You're far better off having a "double acting cylinder" type of design with TWO pipes to the surface. Keep those dudes pressurized with air to a wee bit over the seawater pressure at the wellhead. Remotely operated valve at the bottom to open to seawater (kind of important to flush condensed water out of the pipes periodically, as you'll soon see).

To fire off at full effect, open one of the lower valves to the sea (to limit flow losses) and open the OTHER compressed air pipe at the surface. Rather quickly, one side of the piston is at atmospheric, and the other is at sea pressure.

You don't technically have to open the lower valve, it just limits flow losses.

Say pipe #2 leaks a little. No problemo, thats why its connected to an air compressor. Or vice versa.

Say pipe #2 leaks a heck of a lot. No problemo, that line is connected to a subsurface valve that will open to the sea, in other words pipe 2 will be the subsurface pressure side and pipe 1 will be the atmospheric side. You've got some time to replace hose #2, as long as hose #1 remains undamaged. Or vice versa.

So, you've got a slightly higher air pressure at the wellhead than sea pressure, and theoretically bottom vent occasionally to blow condensed water out. No corrosion problem, no connection problem. You do need to make sure the pipe won't implode when the thing goes off.

On the other hand, on the surface you've got compressed air at subsurface pressure. But thats "no big deal" because its on the surface, easy to maintain.

RickM

In general (site-specific conditions may change details of the ops):

1 - Drilling ops are essentially the same regardless if the hole is exploratory or development. With exploratory holes some ops may be added or removed depending on downhole/formation conditions. With development drilling, most of the guess work regarding drilling conditions is removed and holes tend to be more cookie-cutter.

2 - In most cases the hole conditions (expected and existing) determine the casing schedule (types, lengths, etc. of casing and related cement) used. The hole may be cased in stages or portions of the hole may remain "open", it mostly depends on formation type and subsurface pressure/fluid conditions. When a well is completed for production, the well will have production casing (AKA as "string") run to the producing depth, cemented, and then perforated to allow fluid/gas flow into the production string. How extensive the length of cementing of the production string is a function of the hole conditions.

3 - Although their might be some types of "exotic materials" under research development for casing, the casing used is steel and the anticipated casing schedule are generally part of a well's drilling permit, which are reviewed by trained and experienced engineers as part of the approval of the drilling permit. Planned ops vs actual ops may vary once hole conditions are known and sometimes (read almost always) the casing schedule is modified (usually with regulatory approval).

4 - Casing schedule.

5 - In most cases yes, as it is also necessary on any type of drilling where subsurface pressures (or hole conditions - gas/fluid flow) could have potential for ops or safety hazards.

Rick - An exploration well = a well drilling for a potential hydrocarbon bearing reservoir which has yet to be drilled. Development well = a well drilling for a reservoir that has already been drilled by an exploratory well.

The tricky part about drilling an deep exploratory well (onshore, offshore deep water and shallow) is the rock pressure. This determines what mud weights are required. Being the first well drilled in a area makes this pre-drill estimate very difficult. There are some seismic techniques that can model pressure but the can often be very wrong. While drilling a real time estimate can be made from the log while drilling data set. I was doing this prior to my current gig. If an exploratory well drills into a much higher pressure csg has to be set. Can’t put too high a mud weight against lower pressure rocks,

All pre-drill programs have a detailed csg design. But this is based upon assumptions which can quickly change while drilling. Simply called the csg program. All wells must be drilled with a BOP. As my description explains they are all the more vital in exploratory wells.

The rectangle is probably the 'footprint' of a ROV that sat down on the bottom.

The circle is probably left when it lifted off and rotated to go to the next spot.

Pretty sure about the first one . . . not so sure about the second.

I tried to edit my post, but it was denied.

Anyway, I wanted to insert this question (thank you for your patience and allowing me to ask). I managed to get a few captures, earlier this morning, and although they did not zoom into the well, it appeared (in the corner) as if it had sank to the seabed, or that snow methane hydrate had formed a mound around it. I did the best I could to zoom in slowly in that corner (I'm just curious to know what's going on). I have this zoom in a gif. Is this methane hydrated and/or has the well sunk into the seabed--or WORSE, has the seabed raised itself around the well? Thank you.

http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae268/onefifty/julytwentysixSnowJob.gif

It might be an octagon rather than a circle.

I suspect that the rov was rotating through 45 degrees then sitting down again. Maybe for sonar scans or something, though those were 90 degree rotations last time I saw them.

Oh noes! They put the well through the main square of Atlantis!!! :)
There are a lot of mud mats down there and I have noticed a number of views that seem to show paving which may be the mud mats. The ROV explanation sounds quite reasonable. Small bubbles rising from the bottom are quite normal underwater, nothing unusual there, if that were shallower and sand I wouldn't want to put a hand there as there may be a sting ray or electric ray underneath :)

NAOM

Yes, you are absolutely right. The ASME codes and standards are written in human blood.

The codes and standards are a monumental effort and largely done by volunteers.

The codes and standards are frequently adopted in-total in federal laws and regulations.

I am a proud member of the ASME.

Private development of codes and standards can be a double-edged sword. Sometimes private groups use codes to advance their own products/systems. As a retired P.E. with over 15 years experience in state government implementation of codes and standards I have observed several instances of this. One was a provision in the NY state code that related to "lightning protection".

Short version: The NYS code provision was written so as to allow only one type of system. A vendor applied to have their system "approved" also. A brief survey indicated that, at that time, there was no scientific evidence that ANY system of lightning protection worked. We therefore acted to remove the current code language, allow any system that could be tested and approved, and refer to proper electrical grounding of structures, etc.

Not only did the private entity that had writtrn the current standard protest the potential loss of their proprietary system (and loss of sales of publications) but the state agency that was supposed to assist in the elimination of unneccessary and useless regulations fought the elimination of the code language by noting that we were removing "protection" from the codes.

We don't need MORE gov't. We need BETTER government.

How we get there I'll leave for others to argue for the next century or so.

I helped get "lightning protection" removed from the NY state building code, although it took way more work than it should have. So, I can die happy knowing that I at least swept back one or two waves of the incoming tide.

@ gmf:

The last hard number I heard from Thad Allen was six leaks in the BOP/ capping stack. This is not inclusive of the seeps/anomalies they've been discussing.

You are correct that there is a leak located below the one in your frame capture. It is located on the old BOP in the area of the upper annular. It tends to build up over time, then a blob will break away and float upward, sometimes being seen on the feed of the ROV montoring the leak around the HC connector (the leak shown in your capture).

Interesting series of posts at ZeroHedge, dated today.

Actually not that interesting at all. Just a Simmons supporter trying to make the Simmons meme look good, when all his predictions have turned out to be pure tin foil.(no insult to you TinFoilGuy).

For reals?

FT.com says Hayward

is expected to be nominated for a position on the board of BP’s 50 per cent-owned Russian joint venture TNK BP. BP has the right to nominate three directors to that board. It is understood Mr Hayward would stay on the full BP board until November.

No mention of Siberia.

Mike, Wells's and Allen's explanation was that they want to protect the RW as much as possible from anything that might go hinky in the static kill.

For the life of me, I still can't understand why they should want to have the casing in place in the RW before trying the static kill. Has anyone got any ideas as to what may have been the reasoning behind this decision?

I wouldn't have it any other way. If ANYthing goes wrong up top, you have to rescue the well from below. There's still the possibility that the casing up top is somehow compromised. The possibility is remote at this juncture, but that possibility exists. They know now there's not been a leak of any significant amount into the subsurface. That and the steady pressures from the blowout well doesn't mean there can't be at any point.

The relief well kill is the issue because now the risk of the relief well drilling into a giant washout caused by the oil/gas coming up around the outside of the casing is very possible. It's not probable, but the risk is more than zero. More than 10% I think. What that would do is complicate the kill at the bottom, and make it take longer. What this also does is make the static kill less likely to be 100% successful.

There's a scenario I could paint that is possible that a static kill from the top would look like a good kill but in fact would only be temporary. In short, there could be two paths that the oil took to get to the surface, but one method was bridged over sometime during the flowing of the millions of barrels of fluid so far. Killing the active flow path with the kill mud from above would not necessarily guarantee that the other flow path doesn't reopen again.

You definitely want to cement from below to avoid the junk that's in the busted BOP.

David, great question.I'll take a stab at defining it.

A pill is normally, but not necessarily, a specific volume of fluid separated by spacers, pumped into and specifically spotted in a well for a specific purpose. A kill pill would be for the purpose of exerting kill weight on the bottom of the hole without exerting a higher gradient up the hole. For instance a pill of 16 lb mud can be circulated which will exert a higher pressure at bottom than a column of, say 14 lb mud but the entire wellbore won't have to bear the gradient of the 16 lb mud.

There are other types of pills. Lost circulation pills, cement pill, etc.

There's also a brief CNN interview with him during an overflight of the well site this am, discussing how difficult it is to spot surface oil in patches large enough to skim.

... report & video at http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/26/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?video=true... .

ECR = ACR = Aft Control Room.

CCR = Central Control Room

Control Room = core functional entity, and its associated physical structure, where operators are stationed to carry out centralized control, monitoring and administration responsibilities.

[ISO 11064-31999, definition 3.4]

count - I went back through Williams testimony too. Some very important info in there.

He said that if two detectors entered a high state in a particular zone, the ESD for that zone should trip and the general alarm sound.

When the ESD trips, it should shut the fire dampers, kill the power and kill the 11KV power for that particular zone.

So if you lost the engine room or electrical spaces you would also lose station-keeping if I understand this correctly.

JTF

My word that's a long document I'm not even sure if I should open it, well what does it all mean for our current situation?

MC block 22 was leased first under lease 18207. A well was drilled starting 10/6/1999. It had trouble and was bypassed once on 10/20/1999 and again on 11/29/1999.
The block was leased again under lease 32306 (this is the current BP lease.) #1 well was started 10/7/2009. It was bypassed 3/18/2010 (after a long weather and rig changing delay.) #2 well was started 5/20/2010 (this is the backup relief well). #3 well was started 5/3/2010 (I don't know why the #3 well was actually started before #2 - perhaps rig/permit issues.) I didn't think to look on page 1169.

The wells on p 1169 are lease 21164 #1 and its bypass, drilled directionally in the fall of 2003 from a surface location in MC252 to a bottom hole location in adjacent block MC296. Perhaps this is the Rigel accumulation?

map: deepwater wells, GOM

the names, field locations, and pipelines came from an out-of-date MMS document that i cant find anymore: 2007_os_gommap.pdf

the fields' and pipelines' relationship to each other, and the dirt, should be fairly accurate, except for missing pipelines ---removed (some removed by mistake) to increase clarity, mostly in the west.

the topo information may be slightly haywire... it's pasted and tweaked (to get it to fit) from google maps.

This should help, and it contains numerous links to more info

http://www.theoildrum.com/special/acronyms

RE: 3000 page MMS document
This is the document discussed on ZeroHedge today in the comments section following the article discussing (yet again) Matt Simmons, found here: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/matthew-simmons-lightning-rod-gulf-oil-....

In those comments the following discussion takes place. It varies a bit from the other respondent above and to me is less confusing. There are 4 BP wells noted--2 exploratory wells and the 2 relief wells. The 2 exploratory wells (A and B) are also noted in the drilling plan. All bottom data has been removed from both reports. A note in the drill plan says all bottom (geologic) data is removed routinely from reports when they are made public.

There has been much confusion as to which of the two exploratory wells is being discussed in media releases and news stories. For those willing to take the time, this document clarifies drilling dates and shut down dates. Below is the discussion of the MMS report in relation to the current disaster (DWH well is spud#2 in discussion below.) Definitions of all the acronyms are given in one comment.

Zero Hedge comments discussion:
by CD
on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 06:46
#488383

Dear Science-based (but otherwise neutral/impartial) observers,

It seems there are 4 boreholes in the MC252 prospect drilled by BP in 2010.

In the spirit of transparency, please take a look at the bottom coordinates of all wellbores in the fabled ole' Miss Chasm block two hundred and fifty two, courtesy of the Mineral Mismanagement Agency:

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/pubinfo/repcat/well/pdf/Borehole%20by%20A...

Yes, it IS a ca. 3000 page pdf. Search for MC252. It's all there in black and white. Four boreholes in 2010. Oh wait, except their bottom locations are all: #######################

Pages 1159-1160

SPUD#1: 07-OCT-2009

Stat#1: 18-MAR-2010

TD #1 08-MAR-2010 (presumably location B)

SPUD#2: 18-MAR-2010

Stat#2: 18-MAR-2010

TD#2 09-APR-2010 (presumably location A)

SPUD and Stat #3 (no TD date as yet): 03-MAY-2010 (presumably relief well #1, Development Driller III)

SPUD and Stat #4 (no TD date as yet): 20-MAY-2010 (presumably relief well #2, Development Driller II)

In addition to the 2 relief wells being drilled, there are 2 'original' wells. 1 with the capping stack, the media darling of the last 3 months. Another in disgraceful anonymity, not worthy of even page 12 of the tabloids. We don't know where it is, why/how it was abandoned, does it have a cement plug or merely drilling mud, etc. It was conveniently left out of all media reports and congressional testimony, with the exception of the stray reference in the 60 Mins. report.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml

Even currently there are articles out there talking about 'problems with well in February' -- none of them seem to realize it was a different wellbore being drilled in Feb 2010, NOT the one currently on display.

by Cognitive Dissonance
on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 07:49
#488416

Does anyone know how to read this report, what some of the abbreviations mean?

In particular I'm interested in the category on the left titled "Well" which is over "Cd/Stat". Since the presumed relief wells (numbers 02 and 03) are "cd/stat" of "R/DRL" (on page 1160) and the two entries for well number 01 (on page 1159) have a cd/stat of "E/ST" and "E/DRL.

A wild ass guess would be this. "R/DRL" might mean "relief/drilling" for type and status for the two relief wells, number 02 and 03. The two entries for well number 01 might be "E/ST" for exploratory/stable or stabilized and "E/DRL" for exploratory/drilling. Again, that's my wild ass guess.

Anyone know how to read this report? Thanks.

* Login or register to post comments

by CD
on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 08:16
#488427

Good catch on the well numbering, I did not see that at first. None of the 'engineers' (in fact or in spirit) have touched the substance of the post (how many wellbores? where? in what condition) with a ten-foot pole the first time I posted it, so I don't have high hopes for it here either...[snip]

by M4570D0N
on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 09:06
#488465

Type codes and borehole status codes:

Type Code:

* * - Dummy
* C - Core Test
* D - Development
* E - Exploratory
* R - Relief

Borehole Status Code

* APD-Application for permit to drill.
* AST - Approved Sidetrack
* BP - Bypass
* CNL - Borehole is cancelled. The request to drill the well is cancelled after the APD or sundry has been approved. The status date of the borehole was cancelled.
* COM-Borehole Completed.
* CT-Core Test Well.
* DRL-Drilling Active.
* DSI-Drilling Suspended.
* PA-Permently Abandoned.
* ST-Borehole Side Tracked.
* TA-Temporarily Abandoned.
* VCW-Volume Chamber Well.

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/pubinfo/freeasci/well/boreholedatadom.htm...

So with respect to the wells:

1) Spud: 07-Oct-2009. Location: 06940N 01042E. Status: sidetracked on 18-Mar-2010

2) Spud: 18-Mar-2010. Location: 06940N 01042E. Status: Drilling. (well...not anymore)

3) Relief Well #1. Spud: 03-May-2010. Location: 06288S 00020E. Status: Drilling

4) Relief Well #2. Spud: 20-May-2010. Location: 06504S 02887E. Status: Drilling

* Login or register to post comments

by CD
on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 09:17
#488478

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/pubinfo/freeasci/well/boreholedatadfn.html

Thanks for digging a little deeper on the MMS site, M4570D0N. The locations you cited are the surface locations, presumably the coordinates of the DWH before it sank. . .[snip]

by Cognitive Dissonance
on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 09:50
#488538

CD

I agree that any honest assessment of this data can't be complete without the missing data. Scrolling through the 3000 pages, there are other times when this data is x'd out for other wells but it's the exception, not the rule.

Regarding the term side tracked, from what I have read, if a well-bore has a major problem, say a tool is jammed in the hole and can't be retrieved and thus the way further down is blocked, what they will do is back up a distance, say 2,000 feet if the well bore was already 10,000 feet down, and plug the hole for that 2,000 feet with cement. Then they will break through the side of the casing and start drilling off at an angle, thus saving the upper portion of the well bore and millions of dollars of expense.

Might this not be considered a second well bore? But because it's using the same BOP and original location, it would still be the same well number (number 01 in this case) but a different well bore number?

Just thinking out loud. Expert input would be appreciated here.

* Login or register to post comments

by CD
on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 10:00
#488551

I guess it all depends on the definition of "new wellbore". I don't know. I DO, however know that very little of the above is public information, none of it has been discussed to any significant extent in the MSM. I also have a (purely subjective) supposition that this is relevant to the examination of what happened to the well, and wonder WHY.

However, the spud dates are different. As far as I know, the definition of 'spud' is:

Spud
The initial penetration of the ground or seafloor / the start of the drilling operation.

Hope this helps.

Grey -- No dang way! LOL. I'm 59 yo and don't have that many years left. But toss out some specifics and I'll give it a try. In the mean time try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_field_acronyms

Thanks to EVERYONE for the replies. There is some fascinating info from this document and the ensuing discussion.

Again, thanks!

So they're pretty much on schedule, uh? That's good I'll be glad to see this episode end, hopefully the residents near the gulf are in good health and may they recover soon.

Good job, rainy -- thanks.

A spout of pure methane? I thought they bled the flow into the GOM and gradually ramped up the collection. When the methane hits the water it forms the clathrates, no? Are you saying this methane spout will rise and be a threat without being collected? I thought I used to know physics, but every time Candace Bergen comes on the Discovery Channel I get lost. I had to watch the quantum mechanics and the Steven Hawking episodes 5 times each.

Empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

Clearly visible OIL escaping from the current leaks in the capping stack. Not gas.

Would you mind checking your phase diagrams again?

Dimitry BS Aerospace :)

PHD,

To learn more about the phase behaviour of multi component hydrocarbon mixtures I'd suggest :

McCain
http://www.amazon.com/Properties-Petroleum-Fluids-William-D/dp/087814335...

or

Dinesh
http://www.amazon.com/Behaviour-Petroleum-Reservoir-Developments-Science...

I'm afraid your observations make no sense to me.

Mark, ignoring all the static, amusing as it is (note to cosmologists: everything is nothing), what do you think of Stick's theory?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6773#comment-687177

Open to all good posters. I will hold minimal editing standards, but I look forward to ideas I do not agree with. Ideas I support are welcome too.

According to the NOAA spill map the beaches in that area are oiled.

Didn't they say it would take as many days for the oil to stop coming on shore as it took to get to shore in the beginning?

That rather than be cautious, waters are reopened with incomplete data. I have a question for the rest. A ban in federal waters can be enforced, but what about past the 200 mile limit? For example, could China catch fish in a closed area and then sell it back to an American company? I see myself eating land food for for 20 years.

Hiya, tiny, how goes today?

I don't have either the training or the eyesight to deal with that page (but seem to recall a number of times when those who do around here have debunked stuff from that source). Not sure who's around today to help you, but what you might want to do is shoot an email to Ben Raines at the Press-Register. I'm sure he'll know what to make of it.

I'm lost again, is this suppose to be good or bad news or just a comment responding to said news? The well just needs to reach 7,500 psi for it not be considered leaking and as of today I figure it would be around 6,950-7,050psi.

Although I might be uninformed, I believe that no fluids/gas are currently being conveyed to the surface collection ops and that has been the case since closing of the valves with the "new" cap last week. That is partially why their has been so much discussion regarding well pressure vs possible cap leakage vs downhole well integrity. Remember all surface vessels (except for one or two used in ROV monitoring) were demobed to port due to weather just this past weekend. I believe that included the Q4000 and surface processing vessels. According to K Wells update the Q4000 is being reconfigured in preparation for the static kill which will hopefully commence later this week.

I think HO expressed this somewhat misleadingly in his original article. Although he wrote:

"the flow lines are now passing oil and gas to the surface, the circuits will be reversed to return them to their original condition, ...",

I assume he intended this to be understood as:

"the flow lines are now set up for passing oil and gas to the surface, the circuits will be reversed to return them to their original condition, ...".

As far as I am aware, the well remains shut in, and will (in the absence of some unforeseen event that forces a re-think) remain so in order to perform the static kill.

I hate to say it but do not come here if you want to get in the GOM. The risk is just too great right now. We still have an advisory.

R-2:

Thanks for your support - we here in L.A. greatly appreciate it.

Call me crazy, but my b-in-law & I went fishin' in upper Mobile Bay Sat & caught some speckies & reds. Grilled & ate them Sat nite. Only positive results to report - saved energy, didn't have to use the lights when I showered - spontaneous ignition supplied plenty of light.

Finding lots of uses for third arm I grew last nite....

tommegee out

Here's a little more about Enbridge Energy Partners from the Wiki page...

Spills and violations

1. On July 4, 2002 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured in a marsh near the town of Cohasset, Minnesota in Itasca County, spilling 6,000 barrels (~250,000 gallons) of crude oil. In an attempt to keep the oil from contaminating the Mississippi River, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources set a controlled burn that lasted for 1 day and created a smoke plume about 1 mile high and 5 miles long.[8]
2. In 2006, there were 67 reportable spills totaling 5,663 barrels on Enbridge's energy and transportation and distribution system; in 2007, there were 65 reportable spills totaling 13,777 barrels [9]
3. On March 18, 2006, approximately 613 barrels of crude oil were released when a pump failed at Enbridge's Willmar terminal in Saskatchewan.[10] According to Enbridge, roughly half the oil was recovered, the remainder contributing to 'off-site' impacts.
4. On January 1, 2007 an Enbridge pipeline that runs from Superior, Wisconsin to near Whitewater, Wisconsin cracked open and spilled ~50,000 gallons of crude oil onto farmland and into a drainage ditch.[11] The same pipeline was struck by construction crews on February 2, 2007, in Rusk County, Wisconsin, spilling ~126,000 gallons of crude. Some of the oil filled a hole more than 20 feet deep and was reported to have contaminated the local water table.[12]
5. In April 2007, roughly 6,227 barrels of crude oil spilled into a field downstream of an Enbridge pumping station near Glenavon, Saskatchewan. Long-term site remediation is being attempted to bring the site to "as close as possible to its original condition".[10]
6. In 2009, Enbridge Energy Partners, a US affiliate of Enbridge Inc., agreed to pay $1.1 million to settle a lawsuit brought against the company by the state of Wisconsin for 545 environmental violations.[13] In a news release from Wisconsin's Department of Justice, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said "...the incidents of violation were numerous and widespread, and resulted in impacts to the streams and wetlands throughout the various watersheds."[14] The violations were incurred while building portions of the company's Southern Access pipeline, a ~$2.1 billion project to transport crude from the oil sands region in Alberta to Chicago.
7. In January 2009 an Enbridge pipeline leaked about 4,000 barrels of oil southeast of Fort McMurray at the company's Cheecham Terminal tank farm. It was reported in the Edmonton Journal that most of the spilled oil was contained within berms, but that about 1% of the oil, about 40 barrels, sprayed into the air and coated nearby snow and trees.[15]
8. April 2010 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured spilling more than 1500 litres of oil in Virden, Manitoba, which leaked into the Boghill Creek which eventually connects to the Assiniboine River.[16]

Here's a sample of comments coming from folks directly impacted... so far.

SiaStar wrote:All ready its here in Battle Creek. Wife woke me up. 3:40 am can smell it at our house. It must be down to the columbia ave bridge.
I suggest every one stock pile water before it hits the water treatment plant.
7/27/2010 3:42:18 AM

GHookway wrote: Who does their monitoring and how do you NOT miss 840,000 gallons of anything without realizing something is WRONG !!!
7/26/2010 11:14:38 PM

guitarkid11305 wrote: I live on the river just past where the creek joins. We still have oil pouring past our house, and it has ruined everything nearby. The entire area smells like tar and oil, and we have yet to see the flow even so much as lessen.
7/26/2010 9:59:33 PM

Here are some pics from the local paper, Battle Creek Enquier:

A worker siphons off oil while a boom holds back the Talmadge Creek where it flows into the the Kalamazoo River near A Drive North in Marshall Township Monday afternoon. (John Grap/The Enquire)

Dead fish lie in the mix of water and oil near where Talmadge Creek flows into the the Kalamazoo River, near A Drive North in Marshall Township Monday afternoon. (John Grap/The Enquirer)

A stick dipped in Talmadge Creek near Division Drive shows some of the oil that leaked into Monday afternoon. (John Grap/The Enquirer)

Yes, early on was rotting flesh and petroleum. The flesh smell faded fast. Did you follow the link and comment? It will get us more firsthand controversial news, but the publisher needs response from the Blogosphere. Comment however you like, just comment. The locals will all answer now. TOD folks can get the everyday folks answering them. Peace.

Hi, Juan.

WSJ also fingers Andy Inglis and Doug Suttles as likely goners.

... "This is the battle for the survival of BP [and] Dudley has to be a little bit ruthless," said Fadel Gheit, an oil analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. "Regardless of the people who have to be fired, he must prevent any such accident from happening in the future."

Mr. Dudley is expected to call White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, White House energy and climate adviser Carol Browner and cabinet secretaries to assure them that he is "not abandoning the Gulf," said one person familiar with the matter.

"He will reinforce [the point] that the Gulf is more front and center" for BP now that he is taking over as CEO, the person said. ...

Brush up your Hattiesburg accent, Bob, though you've done so well at losing it.

(Those of you familiar with John Browne, does he make a habit of beginning sentences with "So, ..."? I've noticed that Dudley does, and sometimes Wells too. Just wondering if that tic is something BP's executive "turtles" picked up from Browne. Never heard Hayward do it, though he may also. If it's Dudley's idiosyncracy, stand by for everybody else to pick it up now.)

Not so happy days. BP just earned themselves a nice tax break of $10b or so.

The taxpayer, both in the US and the UK are going to end up paying for this mess.

As predicted.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/27/bp-oil-spill-taxpayers-cl...

BP is poised to spark fresh controversy after it emerged today that taxpayers on both sides of the Atlantic will be picking up part of the bill for dealing with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The cost of the clean-up has plunged BP into the red, meaning that the oil giant will be able to book a $10bn (£6.5bn) tax credit, slashing its tax bill in both the US and UK.

JTF