RM - Damn - Missed the cut off point.
From last thread about Artificial Lift Pumps.

Your reply is about what I was thinking, I realize you wouldn't button it up at that stage, I understand the Lift pumps to recover Oil/Condensate, But Gas has me thinking, you would need a reasonable volume in cubic ft to make it economical. A lift pump used to lift out worthless water I imagine would cut Gas Flow down to a very low volume.

Where do you get this info?

Moon - I noticed them sailing into the area last night. I assumed they were a precaution against something going wrong during the static kill that resulted in a loss of containment. But if you look at their tracks now it looks like they are skimming.

Edit - grammar.

Adding:

Using Marinetraffic.com I count 7 oil-skimmers there which started to arrive 21 hours ago (20:00 GMT yesterday).
http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?centerx=-88.36916&centery=...

The skimmer ships are Texas Responder, New Jersey R, Pacific R, Southern R, Maine R, California R, Gulf Coast R ... plus a bunch of barges to offload skimmed oil.

These "Responder" ships are oil-skimmers as described here: http://hamptonroads.com/2010/05/beachbased-ship-goes-action-gulf-oil-spill

What the hell are they skimmers doing today 10 miles west of the wild well when that well has been closed down for a week?

Is there a pipeline broken or another wild well?

Boston dot com -- Cleaning Dalian harbor
A worker cleans up oil at the oil spill site in the port near Dalian, China on July 23, 2010. Fuel exports remain temporarily halted, industry officials said amid continuing efforts to clean up an oil spill at the country's major port of Dalian. (REUTERS/Stringer)

July 28, 2010The oil spill resulting from a pipeline explosion in the port city of Dalian on July 16th [see previous entry] is being cleaned up by a small army of fisherman, locals, and government workers manning over 250 oil-sk
path: Public ~> Energy
_{originally posted: 2010-07-30 17:30:03}

US Oil Cleanup Product -- Opflex -- Headed to China for Use in Dalian Oil Spill Disaster
OSTERVILLE, Mass., July 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Cellect Plastics LLC, a client of Novak Druce Quigg LLP attorney William Ramey III, is pleased to announce that West Bay Energy, LLC (WBE) and Cellect Plastics, LLC have entered into an exclusive representation agreement wherein WBE will bring Cellect Plastics' advanced Opflex oil-spill cleanup products (www.opflex.com) to the People's Republic of China for use at Dalian - China's worst known oil spill. Based on proven performance as the l
path: Public ~> Energy
_{originally posted: 2010-07-30 17:37:06}

China Daily -- Workers struggle to retrieve barrels from river (Xinhua) Updated: 2010-07-30 11:44
CHANGCHUN/HARBIN - Soldiers and emergency workers Friday were struggling to retrieve the thousands of chemical-filled barrels that have entered a major river in Northeast China, amid concern some of the barrels may have sunk to the bottom of the river.
path: Public ~> China
_{originally posted: 2010-07-30 17:47:47}

China Daily -- BP has declined Sinopec's offer to buy its assets (Agencies) Updated: 2010-07-30 14:54
China Petroleum & Chemical Corp (Sinopec), Asia's biggest refiner, said BP Plc has declined an offer by the Chinese company to buy some of its assets.

"We've talked to BP on some good assets, but they won't sell," Zhang Jianhua, senior vice president of the company known as Sinopec, said in an interview in Shanghai today, without naming the ventures. "We aren't in any talks with BP right now."

Related readings:
Sinopec reports 16.74% rise in refining i
path: Public ~> Energy
_{originally posted: 2010-07-30 18:05:18}

Old Bear,

Special thanks for bringing the comments back to what the post is actually about!

Kent Wells does a good job of providing the Cliff's Notes version of what is going on and what is planned. I was, frankly, astounded to see his animation of the mud pushing the oil back into the reservoir. I also understand his and BP's desire not to confuse the public with details that they may not be able to understand.

This next step--the kill--is really the climax of everything that has happened since the blowout, so it seems fairly important to clarify what exactly is being attempted and what are the risks. I wish BP all the luck in the world with the top kill, but William and I think that it has a lot of potential obstacles and risks.

Art

that's one of the major questions on my mind raised by this update. I'm also wondering if there are estimates for the "considerable time" necessary for the bottom-kill approach? Would it be possible for a combination of the two approaches to be used?

Cap - For the top kill in theory about 1,200 bbls if there no losses to other zones/csg ruptures. I seem to recall that's the csg capacity. I wouldn't be surprised if they pump twice that much. Once they have the csg filled with the kill pill the flow should stop. With the bottom kill it's difficult to guess. They'll still need to fill the same csg volume but the oil/NG and mud will all be flowing up the hole at the same time. That will reduce the effective bottom hole pressure of the mud. I've never seen the details of a bottom kill before. Also, I'm sure each event is rather unique. Just a WAG but it could take 30,000 bbls or more.

Captain,

According to the July 21 update, Kent Wells said that they were going to use 13 ppg mud for the top kill. That surprised me because my engineer friends (I'm a geologist) were assuming they would use heavier mud.

Anyway, I asked one of them your question, and he said that it would probably be necessary to fill the entire well bore with 13 ppg mud, including the weight of the mud in flow lines to the surface to kill the well. This was, of course, an educated back-of-the-envelope calculation, and there are lots of unknowns about the details of the well configuration. He said maybe BP plans to pump in some 18 ppg cement after the well is killed.

This is a tentative answer to your question and is only meant as a rough approximation.

Art

Just a little insight into seafood safety. It's good to see that FDA is on the case and running a program of systematic chemical testing. That's worth maintaining. What's not generally appreciated is that the human nose is more sensitive in detecting petroleum contamination in seafood than is chemical testing; it's also possible to smell-check a very large number of samples in a short time. Thus the seafood safety people use both methods; the chemical testing is quantitative and sets a solid threshold for agency oversight and approvals, while the smell testing enables a more extensive survey program. In early May the Seafood Safety Lab at my institution ramped up its routine training program for seafood smell testers so more trained testers would be available to respond to the Gulf spill.

I've always thought the RW had to penetrate the WW and recall distinctly commentary discussing how the RW has to penetrate the formation, fill the gap (that may or not have oil or seawater) with cement, then the casing, etc., so that the well can be killed.

I think the assumption is that the failure in the well (the leak path) is outside the bottom of the pipe going into the Production Zone.

In other words, the oil is coming up in the Annulus, the space between the production pipe and the hole made by the drill. If you refer to the two diagrams in this article, you can see a clear path, uninterrupted by cement, through the Annulus all the way to the top of the well. This space is plugged at the very bottom by cement, but just above the cement "shoe" at the bottom, there is a clear space, bordered on the inside by a green line, which represents the drill pipe.

You can follow the clear space all the way to the top of the wellhead. Oil/gas which sneaks around the shoe at the bottom to get to the uncemented Annulus has a clear shot to the top of the well. Any single failure of the pipe sealing mechanisms or pipe integrity along that open Annulus, combined with the assumed flaw above the shoe, allows hydrocarbons to enter the production pipe and exit at the surface.

Since the entry point for the hydrocarbons is assumed to be along the Annulus, outside the pipe for much of the distance, a good layer of cement in the Annulus should seal the well and stop the leak. Then it would not be necessary to mill into the pipe and fill it with cement as well.

Hope that helped. Check the helpful diagrams posted in this story carefully, and you'll see the path all the way to the top of the well.

Matt, My understanding is the RW would have needed to do all you said IF there were no other containment method available. But since they have a fully functional cap with lots of nice valves and input/output devices on it, they can do a two-fer and inject mud into the original well from top while also injecting mud into the RW from the bottom.

matt -- That statement caught me by surprise too. But I'll take a guess. Most importantly, the RW is only feet away from the well bore annulus: the area between the rock and the csg. They'll drill the last few feet and cut into the WB annulus and not the csg itself. If there's communication with the reservoir thru this annulus they can start pumping the kill pill in right now. The big question is where will the kill pill go? Up the annulus, down the annulus and into the reservoir or down the annulus and u-tube back up the csg. Or any combination thereof. It may also imply that they might just try to fracture the few feet of remaining rock and break into the annulus without actually drilling it.

Once again we're given generalities that lead to a variety of interpretations/expectations.

Hope someone asks him why we are longer privy to the video feeds of the Skandi Neptune as well as the BOA SUB C(Mill36 & Mill37)

Per Allen's just concluded briefing - The delay is due to the discovery of debris in the bottom of the well. A 40' uncased section fell in on itself during the storm break and is being cleaned out today, with plans to run the 2000' of casing starting tomorrow. (Their original time-line was to begin casing sometime on Wed/Thurs, so they've slipped a few days this week.)

Briefing replay at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/294846-1
A side note - Allen looked tired today.

Wells is due to give a briefing this afternoon 3pm CDT. Here's hoping some reporters ask more detailed questions about the static kill.

Yes, I noticed the newswire story...

NPR Wire Services
July 30, 2010

New BP CEO: Some Gulf Efforts To Be Scaled Back

The time has come to scale back parts of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill cleanup, incoming BP CEO Bob Dudley said Friday.

"You will see the evidence of a pullback," Dudley told reporters in Biloxi, Miss.

"Where there is no oil on the beaches you probably don't need people walking up and down in hazmat suits. So you'll probably see that kind of a pullback," he said, adding that when it came to the company's commitment, there would be "absolutely no pullback." . . .

Probably a very logical decision technically and reducing the company's visibility can't hurt either.

SF- It's good to see BP has regained their integrity BAU/SOP. The first thing I see this a.m. when I turn the computer on is; New BP chief states it's time for clean-up efforts to be scaled back. Oh, but they plan to make everything right. These folks are so far out of touch with reality it's indescribable. Didn't Dudley learn anything from the mistakes of Tony? I can agree there are areas where hazmat suits are not required but to be insensitive enough to even mention scale back on anything at this time clearly states where his heart is.

The first person I though of was TFHG. We need more eyes **and noses** to make sure thinks are right.

To get a clear picture;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870357810457539748325618808...

Why hasn't BP placed a gag order on Tony? I know BP is trying to appease the financial markets and their shareholders but a few months of silence from TH would do them good.

You can attempt these kills anywhere from dead subtle to dead brutal.

It is easier now that we have pressure containment on the blowout.

I think too much subtlety on a top kill like this is dumb, personally, as we have no idea where the fluid path really is, just guesses.

So if you're only guessing about fluid paths, then you have no real idea of the volumes involved, just guesses.

I suspect this may just be a traditional bullhead at the end of the day. And I would think REALLY hard about what kind of spacer to use, if any. Last thing you want is a viscous spacer that you may end up HAVING to push back into the reservoir. Once its in the well, you would have to flow the well to get it back out.

You can argue that pumping water might be a better approach until we see what is happening to pressures and so forth and whether the kill profile follows their forecast closely. Then graduate to heavier mud once the well is full, and then finally cement (probably with lots of LCM in it) with a mud chaser.

From a bottom kill perspective into an uncontrolled wild well, it is common to establish communication with water, then move to kill mud, then move to cement once the well is dead and stable. One of the huge advantages of a bottom kill from a relief well is that you know pretty much exactly what vertical depth you are going to establish communication into the wild well.

In the top kill scenario we are talking about, it is next to impossible to establish where your kill fluids are going to enter the formation, as depleted zones/lost circulation zones are a big part of the picture.

Rockman put forward some really good examples of that last night or early today when talking about pressures above and below a depleted formation.

This is going to be fun. Basically gently frac the blowout to kill it, then heal the fractures to make the well stable afterwards. Interesting times. Tricky stuff.

JTF

David,

There is much that we are all missing because we don't have all of the information--that is not a criticism, just a statement of fact.

I cannot comment on statements made by other commenters about mud pills, etc. because our post was not about that. It was meant to be a description of the next steps calibrated to a well configuration diagram that we believed to be close to reality.

I can comment on the point of intersection of the relief well with the Macondo well. It is clearly marked on Figure 1b @ 17,200 ft, below the 9 7/8-inch liner. If someone said it was supposed to intersect 3,000 ft above TD, I don't know anything about that and the source of that view did not come from this post.

I appreciate your question, and hope that this helps.

Art

The use MOX fuel can increase the risk to the public from a nuclear accident or terrorist attack, says a group concerned about the plan.

After the reactor has been running for any time it will contain Plutonium and all sorts of other radioactive material anyway.

NAOM

I'll agree with what NAOM is saying, and add that it seems to me to be an awfully good idea to get rid of weapons plutonium by making it into electricity.

We're already doing this with enriched uranium from Soviet bombs: about half the nuclear energy in the US now comes from bomb uranium. But the utilities don't want to publicize it because they're afraid of enhancing the connection between civilian nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

I think I can help with 1 & 2... the green pipe in both figures is the final piping that was run in the well - the top part was 9 7/8" and the shoulder indicates where it changed to 7" diameter for the lower sections.

The red 9 7/8" liner indicated in Fig 1b is a separate liner that was put in place earlier in the drilling process - so moving from the outside in at that point there is both a 9 7/8" liner and then inside it the 7" casing that is part of the casing that is 9 7/8" higher up.

I find this simplified well diagram helpful.

Ixrodm,

First of all, thank you for asking a question about the post vs. bioterrorism, anthrax, smallpox and plutonium devices!

A point of drilling jargon: it's all casing but, if it's hung inside another string of casing, then it's liner. Don't ask me why--I'm just a geologist.

Next, there is a string of 9 7/8-inch liner down to 17, 168 ft (red). Then, the production casing (it is set inside the well head so it's casing) is tapered (green). It is 9 7/8-inches down to somewhere above 13,145 ft and then it tapers to 7-inches just above the 11 7/8-inch liner (red) and the succeeding 9 7/8-inch liner (also red).

It's not simple but that's the way it is.

Thanks for your question. I hope this helps!

Art

Well, if any significant flow is entering the formation 1500 feet below seabed, it isn't going into anything I would call rock. That's pretty much just unconsolidated mud. Anyone who has stepped into Oklahoma's red gumbo knows mud can be pretty strong, but I don't think it would withstand pressure. You should be seeing either obvious leaks, or else the seabed should be doming up like a blister. Because we don't see these things happening, I think the idea of a large shallow leak is pretty well ruled out.

Now, farther down may be another story. The gassy sand at about 8000 feet could be taking some. If so, the turbidite zones above it could well be strong enough to keep things in place, and there's now enough pressure to make doming less likely.

docellen,

My experience with the press and the government is that they have theoretical physicists, oceanography professors, and directors of centers for biodiversity (who are all very good, intelligent guys) that they think are qualified to advise on technical issues about petroleum engineering and geoscience. Go figure.

The "unexpected low pressure" is only unexpected if their experts say that it is. The truth is that several millions of barrels of oil have been probably been produced and pressure depletion has occurred. This alone may explain the "low" pressures. We know that sand was produced into the containment vessels. Once the well was capped, produced sand may have settled into the oil column partially blocking the flow of oil and, therefore, reducing pressure.

The bottom line is that pressure continues to build and that suggests well integrity. Unexpectedly low is only with respect to expectation which may have been incorrect. I don't think that there is any evidence yet of ruptured casing.

I also don't believe that anyone knows what the flow rates were. Lots of opinions, but no means to measure. So we're comparing something relative to an unknown that so many people have stated opinions about, that we start to accept a range that sounds reasonable--illusion. I don't doubt that the well may have flowed 50,000 bopd or greater...for awhile... but wells have a habit of declining over time. What I'm saying is let's not get too quantitative with what are really only educated guesses.

I'm hardly an industry apologist but let's give credit where it is due. BP has capped the well and stopped the flow of oil in water depths never experienced before.

Let's wish them the best of luck--for us!--in the coming days.

Art

One guess could be that some BP staff are still smarting from being told to stop the last top kill attempt, and want to prove it would have worked. I still wonder about any possibility that the descending mud will lubricate and dismantle any internal debris that may have been restricting the flow. The hydraulic pressure on any such material will be reversed.

It may be that they now have experimental evidence on the actual burst pressure ratings of the batch of pipes, perhaps even the assemblies, and are comfortable that they can build the necessary pressure.

Me, when the nozzle fitting comes off a garden watering hose, or compressed air line, I turn off at the source. Early experience taught me that is far less messy, and always works.

crunkcar,

That is a great question!

I suspect it is because they don't think that an early attempt to kill the well is a great risk. As we said in the post, time is the enemy because we don't know what will happen if we wait.

The inverse, however, is often true. The law of unintended consequences is not our friend. Let's hope that, because BP and the Coast Guard have more information that we do, that they are making a good decision.

Art

Go to http://gomex.erma.noaa.gov/erma.html#x=-90.42000&y=28.03000&z=6&layers=7961

Then uncheck July 29 and check any earlier date.

It looks like there was more "anomaly" there yesterday (July 29) when compared to the previous few days.

Paint,
The more I look into it, the more I wonder if Corexit is the problem, or if our mistrust of the MMS, EPA, and BP has biased our analysis. My anecdotal eyes tell me it worked well, but then folks could be hurt and I do not even know it. I know the feds lied and sprayed us directly, but from a risk management point of view, the government has tried MUCH harder in the past to kill me and dang near succeeded. We have to wait and see now, but with the flags down our problems have returned to what they were just much worse now. Our economy is dead and it will not come alive for a couple of years IMHO.

you should be worried.

the nature of water is to not clean, but to become whatever enters it. every known element exists in sea water for this reason.

the more crap you put through it, the more the water becomes the crap. the H2O molecule is not really a structured molecule, it is continuously changing hydrogen and oxygen partnerships where the hydrogen atom never really remains attached to the ogygen for more than an instant. so in reality, it acts like a plasma gas and can seemingly be altered by just the presence of a magnetic field from another material that sits in it or near it.

will the corexit poison the water? how the hell can it not.

Paintdancer--I agree 100% with your last statement about rudeness.

Let me offer some reassurance about Corexit 9500, subject to correction by the chemists and toxicologists here.

1. A number of scientists have objected to the massive use of Corexit and its deep-sea injection on the grounds that the environmental consequences are unknown. This is a reasonable objection. On the other hand, a panel of qualified experts concluded that it was probably better to use it than not to use it--obviously a judgement call that could go either way.

2. I haven't seen any qualified scientist say that the use of Corexit 9500 is a hazard to people living on the Gulf. There has been some concern about an ingredient in the other Corexit (9527) that was used briefly at the beginning, traces of which showed up in some workers who were probably directly exposed to spray.

3. Corexit 9500 is not very toxic, said to be less so than crude oil, which itself is not very toxic (rat LD50 of >5000 ppm). C9500 consists mostly of familiar substances such as kerosene and propylene glycol (antifreeze). None of the components is thought to be carcinogenic. All are biodegradable, and therefore much of the material applied is already gone.

4. Alarm about C9500 seems to leverage the finding that dispersants generally make oil more toxic than oil alone. This increase in toxicity seems to be mechanical. Microscopic oil droplets would tend to be more bioactive, and the surfactant (soaplike) property of dispersant could make the oil more readily absorbed through membranes such as fish gills, fish intestines, or egg membranes.

5. So it's possible or even likely that the use of Corexit will lead to more damage to plankton, spawn, and fish. But less oil on the surface means less damage to marshes, the birds, and possibly to the turtles, tarpon, and dolphins that must break the surface to breathe. That's the tradeoff. I don't know any reason to believe human health is at issue at all.

If you take a look around you it will become apparent that there are always questions, so I would suggest that unanswered questions in and of themselves aren't sufficient grounds to infer a conspiracy. I would guess that our tendency towards suspicion is usually more a product of our past experiences than present circumstances. Which is not to say that there aren't conspiracies around, it's just that they are profoundly complicated to initiate, let alone maintain, and usually aren't worth the effort.

It is true that many people are a bit loose with the truth, but it doesn't surprise me that anyone would be reluctant to tell the whole truth about problems when they are virtually certain, based upon past experience, that they are going to be the target of a significantly overaggressive response. If my wife asks me if she looks fat in that outfit, I'm never going to tell her yes.

You can'r beat a safe environment if you really want the truth to emerge.

Reporters haven't asked. They don't stay up all night watching ROV feed.

A footnote to the above.

If you've been watching this discussion for very long you will have noticed that responses often do not fully, or sometimes accurately, respond to the questions asked or the issues raised. It would be profoundly arrogant for me to presume that simply because someone doesn't answer my question in full complete with detail they are trying to mislead me. Often it will be because I've phrased my question less skillfully than i might to avoid such issues as ambiguity, or have been assumed to have a certain body of knowledge that may be missing, etc.

And that's regarding questions that we know have been asked. Many of the questions that people have cited as being grounds for concern are questions that either haven't been asked, or for which we have not heard the answers. To assume that a conspiracy is the reason that information is "being withheld" reflects a certain deficit in understanding of how discussions like this operate.

I was told by our county commissioners that oil dumping is still a problem in the county. I told him when the county buries oil related waste in the landfill, folks think 'the do not dump oil' and 'oil is hazardous' campaigns are dog and pony shows.

They aren't monitoring the walruses mentioned in BO's permit process? :<)

todfan, I'd be way happier to just leave this puppy alone until the relief well is done.

I can see all kinds of downside to the top kill, and not just so much upside.

I'm a bit concerned that by the time we pressure up the reservoir or some other adjacent zone during the kill process, its going to make the cementing operation from the relief well even more complicated than it already is because the zone pressures are going to be all over the place. I'm not a reservoir guy of any shape or form, the the top kill is having a hard time passing the sniff test here...

JTF

Sitting on the bottom,spinning his wheels :) Rule 1 for ROV videos of silt storms, check the numbers. Look at the northings, eastings and bearing. If those are changing he is using thrusters. Check altitude and if near the bottom then that is what the storm is. In this case bearing was changing so he is turning and the thrusters are kicking up mud.

NAOM

HR3534 bans BP from GoM permanently. Zero trust.

I agree that it’s hard to imagine this approach being terribly effective with multinational corporations like BP, especially when they have as many irons in the fire as they do.

But I’m not willing to just abandon the attempt either. I suppose I was trying to posit a beginning point and see whether it was possible to develop an approach to corporate affairs based upon a model which can work with individual or pairs of humans.

The guidelines that I outlined articulate what it is necessary that we pursue in order to have a chance at reestablishing trust, once broken.

I think that the fundamental issue revolves around the issue of corporate culture. Every corporation or other group has a culture, but most of these cultures have evolved rather than being designed. In the cases where there has been an attempt to design a culture and implement it, my impression is that there has been mixed success, but I’m not very knowledgeable in that area.

I have no desire to advocate for some pie in the sky utopian vision, but it seems to me that if a corporation looks at its objectives, structure, and culture, in many cases it will not take long to discover that a lot of corporate energy and other resources are expended (for which read “wasted”) on efforts to resolve counterproductive corporate behavior (such as the example at hand) that are easily avoidable with a relatively small amount of effort and relatively nominal expenditure of resources.

One of the first principles that I suspect we would establish is that when our corporate efforts benefit mankind as a whole, even if directed at a relatively small portion of it, they will be able to make money for us, and usually provide a very steady and reliable revenue stream, with an appropriate profit margin. When our efforts work to the detriment of mankind as a whole, or to segments of it, with which mankind as a whole share enough of a common interest to regard harm to that segment as harm to the whole, those efforts will backfire and generate expenses and lost productivity way out of proportion to what ever benefit the corporation hoped to derive from the effort.

When we begin to examine what we do through the lens of its impact over the whole of its life, I believe that we will find that it is far more profitable, in the long run, to be worthy of the trust of our fellow inhabitants of this planet then to risk harming them, especially for the promise of a short-term profit. The alternative is to hope we get away with what we’re doing that only benefits us. The record of success of that approach vs cost, suggests that it likely does not promise a good ROI (return on investment).

Certainly this vision has been a spur of the moment product, so I’m sure that it has significant and perhaps even fatal flaws, but do we want, as a civilization to continue following the path that has brought us to this moment? Is it not time to try to find a better way?

Many people see the world as an infinite collection of dangers, against which we need to be on guard all of the time.

I find the world to be full of opportunities, interspersed with many challenges which we have not yet overcome.

Hi Count,
The whole business model of Big Oil is under question. Read this opinion from FT.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/The-era-of-global-oil...

Cheers Juan

If someone is convicted of murder they are executed or given a life sentence. If some corporation kills it's only a civil offense, punishable with fines. Most individuals can only make a small donation to support their candidates in elections. Now, corporations can create whole campaigns out of their vast PR resources and spend as much as they want to support their candidates.

The only thing standing between us and a corporate-dominated new world order, i.e. corporate culture, is the people jealously, resolutely exercising their rights and inherit power over all man-made institutions.

You have to be really brave to hang your a** out over the edge on a major forum and make a headline post to state how you believe things are.

Hats off to aeberman for that.

Saying that, I do agree with you that we have no hard evidence one way or the other about flow paths.

I think the cute and elegant rupture disks in the 16" casing are a different thing altogether, but am wrong regularly.

JTF

jkrob,

There are no proofs or evidence. We are all making interpretations based on what we are given. I did not intend to make any statements as if they were fact. I am, however, stating my best guess based on my experience and the many drilling engineers that I have consulted. We may all be wrong.

I tried to simplify the very confusing diagram so people--many of whom have no technical background in drilling or petroleum-- could understand the basic elements. I didn't intend to cover anything up like rupture disks. It is, after all, public information for all who care to go online.

I don't disagree with any position by the government or anyone else. I am simply stating the risks as I see them. The purpose of this post, as stated, is to describe facts and the potential risks.

I hope this helps.

Art

big -- Good timing for your comment. I just found out this afternoon over the last couple of months the SITP has risen from 700 psi to 1,800 psi. We just closed the acquisition Wednesday and didn't have access to the well before then. Faulting: we reprocessed the 3d and worked it hard again. Just can't put a fault with enough throw to isolate the sand.

Yep...the risk to reward was just too good. We doubled our working interest to 97%. Even if it's a total bust we might be out $600,000. Plus a bonus: there's another undrilled amplitude anomaly on the acreage. Might hit it with the gas gun by next Friday.

New tire was probably cheap Chinese product.

Caught on fire? Like to hear the long story.

Not all tires are equal and most tire formulations are based on a tradeoff between lifespan and traction. Tires that give better grip will have shorter lifespans.

I learned about this in the days I did off-roading and discoverd that my (expensive) top of the line off-road tires wore down in just 20,000 miles of highway driving.

I may be a small minority, but I like this procedure. Everything else I've heard including the comments on here is mostly WAY to complicated. Reality is not going to look favorably on complex. KISS.

Still have concerns over the fracture gradient i.e how much pressure do you have to apply above static to get flow into the reservoir. Fragile flex joints and all that. And other concerns about the amount of open hole in the annulus, so the injection may take place into something other than the reservoir. But really, as long as we get mud into the hole and pressures drop in line with projections, who cares? Kill the well and move on to cement, which is not discussed in this briefing at all.

The nice thing about the procedure is that they are going to obtain a reasonable range of injection pressures before they start pumping mud. Makes it easy to shut the job down if reality does not match expectations.

I would like to hear about four stages ahead past the kill, but that's not going to happen. We get bite sized parts of the program and I guess we should be thankful for that much...

JTF

and a couple of the Q&A's from today.

Richard Harris(NPR): Hi, Richard Harris here. I have a quick question about, during either the static kill or the bottom kill, will oil flow into the water or will it be produced to the surface? Or does oil all stay underground?

Kent Wells: Yes, so the – the situation – what we'd like to do is to actually pump the mud in and it will actually pump all the oil back into the formation. That's what we'd like to do.

And that, of course, is dependent upon the wellhead's integrity, which we think (inaudible) so that's our plan. That's what we'd like to see. But as we go along each of the steps, if we get something that gives us a different answer, then we'd have to look and see what we'd need to do from that point forward.

But as I described earlier, that's the intent, is to actually – we've used the term before – bullhead all the oil that's sitting in the well today and put it back into the reservoir and follow that actually with some mud.

Jaquetta White: Hi, Kent. Jaquetta White with the Times-Picayune. Thanks for taking questions. Mine is, what would be the response if you were to find during the static kill that the well does not have integrity? Admiral Allen had mentioned a couple times that, you know, one bad sign would be if the pressure starts to drop. Would you stop the static kill and proceed with the relief well? Or is there some plan in place to respond to a situation like that?

Kent Wells: Yes, so let me say a couple of things here. As we're doing the static kill, we're actually going to be looking to actually reduce the pressure, so we will see the pressure go down, and we expect to see it go down in a planned fashion. And we have that all modeled out, and that's what we'll be looking for, and get it down to a significantly lower pressure than it is today, get it to what we call a static condition, and that's what we'll be looking to do.
...
Because I wanted to stress the point on the pressure, because Admiral Allen is right. What we don't want to have is a dramatic change in the pressure. That might indicate there was a lack of integrity. But I wanted everyone to know, we do want to consistently bring that pressure down.

In terms of – if we were to discover through this, if the pressure what we call flat-lined and indicated that we no longer had integrity, we would be in the position that we had always planned to be in with the relief wells, so nothing would change. Remember, we had never counted on the well having integrity until we completed the well integrity test. We always had a plan with the relief well, in terms of how we would kill the well.

So if we, for whatever reason, were – at this point, I guess I'd say we'd be surprised if the well didn't have integrity – we'd continue on with the relief well as planned. We'd intersect the annulus, kill and cement it, and then drill into the casing, and kill and cement it, as per the plan.

Hi! I'm back. Did I miss anything?

A man's has to do what he has to do, so I've been running my sailing class for the girls (and boys). Also learned about "bean equivalent" from my guy at Taylor Valve. And then met with Randy Pennington, a name that will mean nothing to any of you, but might sound familiar to people involved with pressure relief devices (that Rollodex of mine again!).

There is a lot of misinformation above. So let's try to bring order from the chaos.

1) Be very careful about pressure readings. Right now, you are used to having them fed to you from the pressure transmitters in the BOP at the mud line. So pressure under the capping stack is about 6,961 psi. Outside the stack the hydrostatic pressure at the mudline is about 2,250 psi, so the pressure differential is 4,721 psi. This is what the capping stack is resisting to shut in the well. The higher density mud injected into the well during the "lubricate and bleed" operation will increase the specific gravity of fluid in the WW thereby increasing the differential between the remaining formation pressure (say 11,000 psi) and the BOP. Currently, that differential will be 11,000 - 6,961 = 4,039 psi. The goal is to drive that difference up. It seems they will be changing their reference point from the BOP to the Q4000 at the surface. This will lead to lots of confusion so pay attention.

2) Since they are planning on using 13.2 ppg mud, they are aiming at creating an 18,000+ foot column of mud all the way to the surface. This is why Adm Allen said they expected the pressure to drop to "zero". The pressure at Q4000 will be zero, but at the BOP it will not be zero. Given that the sea water has a specific gravity of about 1.03 and the water pressure at the mud line is 2,250 psi, when they fill the choke line with 13.2 ppg mud (SG = 1.58) and have the well killed, the pressure transmitter at the BOP will read about 3,451 psi (down from the current 6,961). [This is 2,250 x 1.58 / 1.03 = 3,451.]

3) I have a question on whether they are using the proper technique of "Lubricate and Bleed" or a bullhead. The difference is that a lubricate and bleed would use both the kill and choke lines on the BOP, one to inject the mud and the other to bleed the oil in the well. A bullhead would not bleed off the oil, so it would necessarily require them to force (BULL) the oil in the well back DOWN into the pores of the formation. DUMB!!!! BRUTE FORCE RATHER THAN FINESSE!

Lubricate and bleed would allow two way flow in the well in a manner familiar to anyone old enough to have watched a LavaLamp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lava_lamps The heavy mud descends while the lighter oil ascends and is bled off. Properly done, they could do it by merely exchanging mud for oil and use a minimal amount of mud to effect the kill.

That's enough for now. There is also a lot of misinformation about the RW, but that can wait.

You going all Barney on me?

1. Good point. If we are running the suspected volumes through that seal assembly then things are seriously messed up. Obviously they are anyways, but you know what I mean.

2. No such thing as a static kill. Closest is lubricate then bleed, which I personally think is BS in the current situation. But that is IMO. You are going to see significantly higher pressure on the injection test as described, for values of significant.

3. Don't think so, the gas should still be in solution according to those that know, but this is NOT my field.

4. Entirely possible, or the drill pipe landed in the 9 7/8" x 7" crossover and parted the pipe there on impact. Or something wild(er).

Just when you think you've seen it all, you get to see something more.

JTF

Without oil workers there can be no solar panel factories.

My grandad was a poor farmer. His dad wad a poor farmer. So it goes back to 1820. My dad was a professional soldier. My brothers are physicians and you have me. Point being, what do you think benefits the community more. Yes, harvesting food in the community is now an honorable profession, but being a productive member of the community is more important. People change. Jobs change. Why do you think my dad preferred being a hired killer to being a farmer. Yes, that is the one thing BP could give us to make us love BP as a saint. If after this event, the South had more college graduates per capita than the rest of the country instead of the least, there is not a citizen alive that would not give Dudley the Medal of Freedom.

The solar panel facgtories are in China.
Little education is required of the workers.
So much for the Guardian on econmics.

I think that is a result of natural gas flow into the intake and engine. I once had a crewman cut into a gas main with a Cat D5. It started over revving and was going to blow, and the operator bailed. It was up to me as foreman. I drove the Cat 5 off narrowly averting disaster. Then I shut off the gas at the nearest shutoff. Banks sells a propane charger for diesels that is used like nitrous is used in gas engines.

BP is not in charge, and has not been for months.
Secretary Chu is responsible for the actions of Thad Allen.
Nothing gets done without the approval of Secretary Chu.

This was not BP's call. Blame Allen and Chu.

I'm no expert, but I know a DougR meme when I see one. Run away, run away!

No expert either, but definitely looks like a Chicken Little, mumbo jumbo website. C'mon, Rosie the Riveter?

Sea floor bubbles are not at all unusual, I see them whenever I go diving. The story headlines cover subjects that have been thoroughly debunked on TOD. This would appear to be yet another site that is trying to scare people so that they pay over money. Please look at the drawings at the top of this page, you will see that there are very big steel pipes with a lot of cement between them going thousands of feet into sea floor and rock. That sort of structure is not going to fall over. Go back through the open threads some weeks back and there is a nice pick of a section of this piping, several layers of steel and cement. Best to ignore that site.

NAOM

EDIT: check some of the comments by Beachmommy on the Matt Simmons story and you will see how much damage these needless scares are doing to people's lives and how much these scaremongers are raking in. They are doing it to rip people off and I hope someone nails them for fraud or extortion.

That site also posted that several people had died after swimming in waters of the GOM after the oil spill.........I peeked and learned they died due to drowning, one was at first reported to be a 4yr old child (which pissed me off since the rip currents were so strong Red flags were out) but later the news article on WEAR reported she was only 2yrs old. Haveing lived here on the coast the last 3 summers, it's a story we see every week sadly. P-Cola Beach where I am was known as the drowning capital of the US until just a few yrs ago, so I found the headline they used very misleading.

Just an FYI from other stories on that site.

FloridaOilSpillLaw Dot Com
(image: Jeff Parker, Florida Today via cagle.com)About FOSL: I am not even sure when I first realized what was going on in the Gulf of Mexico. But since that moment, not much has been the same for me.I was born and raised in Florida. I am living in South Florida right by the water. All of my family lives here, and most of my friends.After spending many nights looking into the Deepwater Horizon/Macondo well blowout, I decided to start Florida Oil Spill Law and share the most relev...
path: Public ~> Gulf Oil Disaster
_{originally posted: 2010-07-30 21:24:28}

KarmaDave,

I am no expert either. I rely on drilling engineers for most of what I write on this topic somewhat outside my comfort zone.

We are clearly skeptical of the top kill but support the effort as long as the pressure tolerances are respected and no damage is done. We wish them all the luck in the world.

You make many good points that I agree with. Again, the point of the post is not to take a position but to try to explain the well configuration, what is being planned and the relative risks.

As long as pressures are monitored so that the casing is not jeopardized, I have no problem with trying the top kill. If it is even partly successful, it will make the relief effort easier. For us, the bottom kill is the best solution, and I think that BP would agree. The top kill is being undertaken because time is the enemy, in my opinion.

Many thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Art

todfan,

The mud is heavier than the oil and gas mixture in the well. It should sink to the bottom given enough time. No one knows how long this will take but it should take many hours or even a day. Gravity must do its work.

The flow routes are also not known. In the post, we make an assumption that flow from the reservoir came from the annulus outside the production casing. This seems like a reasonable assumption since, otherwise, there would not have been a blowout, i.e., the cement between the production casing and the next string of pipe was the problem. Some commenters have questioned this assumption, and fair enough, but why else would they have lost control of the well when things were OK before? It is an assumption based on evidence.

We assume and hope that mud pumped into the well will fall through any and all pathways available including the annulus outside the production casing. The big question is how much pumping pressure will be necessary and will it be effective. As I've said in another reply to comments, there are at least three outcomes:

1. The top kill works,
2. Mud cannot be pumped into the well because of casing seals or some other reason, and the situation remains the same as it is now.
3. The casing ruptures as a result of the top kill and a new problem emerges.

I don't know how my times and cycles of bleed and lubricate will be necessary. My engineer friends' back-of-the-envelope guestimates suggest that, assuming 13.2 ppg mud as Kent Wells mentioned in his 21 July update, it may take replacing the full well bore volume of oil with mud plus the flow line hydrostatic pressure to kill the well. There is talk of also pumping cement.

You are also right that the bottom kill has many mechanical advantages over the top kill, but it will be at least 2 weeks, according to BP, before the relief well is ready to attempt a kill. This approach also has risks.

Art

Goodyear Rubber people make chewing gum basics in their near-Houston location. I know this because once in a while, they have to whip up a batch of "kosher chewing gum" that has to be made specially, separate from the rest. So I think the basic gum is made from the tree sap, but maybe bubble gum has oil added to make it more bubblicious?
On another topic, I am feeling anxious about 40 ft of the relief well collapsing. Well integrity for the RW is an absolute MUST!

Sounds pretty much like the same physics that operate whenever I've dug a hole, and theirs is in water.