 | Peak Oil: How Supply Crunch Can Lead to Lower Prices (for a while!) | The Oil Drum | Drumbeat: August 6, 2010 |  |
BP's Deepwater Oil Spill - Waiting for the Cement to Set - and Open Thread
Posted by Heading Out on August 6, 2010 - 10:00am
This thread is being closed. Please comment on http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6820.
BP began pumping cement into the Deepwater well at 9:15 am CDT on Thursday and stopped the operation at 14:15 CDT, having thereby pumped cement into the well for a period of 5 hours. The intent was to fill the well and any wormholes and voids that had developed in the reservoir during the leak. The cement has to harden before it can be tested to insure that it has integrity.
During the process Admiral Allen held his press conference and commented that the wait for the cement to harden would likely be in the 24 – 36 hour time frame, after which the relief well will start to drill forward into the annulus. The process of going down, intersecting and then cementing the annulus, and then doing the same for the production casing is apparently further confirmation that the well flowed up the production casing, which implies a shoe failure, rather than the annular failure which was the predominant theory of failure earlier in the summer.
Note the Admiral’s comment on where the mud and cement from the static kill went.
Absent of what we've done in top kill, the assumption is you would have to go in, pump mud and cement into the annulus. But that hardens. So you've got that locked down. And you will come in and drill again into the casing.
Once we get in there we will know how much of an effect we've had with the mud and the cement from the top. That could shorten and make more simpler the bottom kill. That was one of the reasons to do it, and also reduce the risk of the bottom kill. Exactly.
However, the final confirmation will not come until the relief well finalizes the kill, which is still the plan.
I have stated over and over again, let me be perfectly clear. I am the National Incident Commander. I issue the orders. This will not be done until we complete the bottom kill.
With the well cemented shut, once the pressure tests are carried out to validate the seal will hold, then the well can be considered effectively sealed, even though it is going to take another two weeks (one week to intersect, check and cement the annulus, then another week to do the same for the production casing) before the fleet of ships can disperse, leaving the well itself to history.
At the same time the fleet of ships that has been capturing the spill will move closer to shore, as the last of the oil that flowed into the Gulf is likely to be more evident now at some distance from the well.
The latest distribution of how the oil has fared is shown in this pie chart:
There will continue to be a lot of controversy over these numbers. Some of them are based on actual measurement, some on models, and the residual is a catch-all covering the difference between the estimated flow and the volumes in the other slices of the pie. I would still like to see the inside of the BOP, presuming that it will at some time come to the surface, to see how much erosion went on, and thus whether there was a build in the flow rate or, as has been suggested by the Admiral, a higher earlier peak in the flow.
It is welcome news that the well can now, if necessary, be left without any further risk of oil leakage into the Gulf. Given that the possible storms are multiplying, and that we are moving into the more intense period for hurricanes, the relief felt by most at having reached this stage (assuming that the cement proves out, or is – if necessary – re-injected with a finer grade to ensure a seal if not) must be tangible.
It will also allow me to start looking again at some of the other concerns that are developing around the world that are of concern as we stare into the tea leaves predicting the available fuels for our energy future.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Ch-ch-ch-changes: As Suttles to Allen, Utsler to Mabus.
Following a major sporting event it is customary in the following days to discuss and comment on the game. Everyone watched the same game , but may have differing view about whether or not the referee made the correct decision, did the ball cross the line , did the player deserve the ban? This is a shared experience and it is better shared with people who have a similar interest. So in supporting teams and players , we form groups. This is helpful to us. It gives common ground, but some people don’t like or fear being at odds with the rest of the group,If in doubt about the group we find ourselves in , or what view the group will take, we start with a cautious comment like “ Whilst I think it was the right decision, it was a close call and maybe the player should not have been sent off ”, all the time taking note of the group reaction, and being ready to tone down or modify our comment or even go silent!. In truth, we thought something was very wrong and needed to be stopped, but isn’t it better to be part of the group, not to become an individual outside the group to be ousted, ridiculed or just ignored .
Take a look at the comments made about the Deepwater Horizon. If the contributors say anything positive about BP or question events or statements? Chances are that they start with something like “Whilst I think BP are at fault “ .....Is this a total truth or are these individuals ready to tone down or modify comments or even go silent ?!.
This need to be in the group applies equally to TV presenters, newspapers and politicians. They say they want to stay in touch and they don’t want to lose contact. In fact they want to be in the group, but here’s the question, Which group ? Answer- in many groups, and ideally in all groups.
This can be dangerous because it limits discussion. It stops vital questions been asked and stops critical actions been taken.
On the 20th April in the Gulf of Mexico on Deepwater Horizon group discussions took place about test results and the best way to go forward. Within these groups many individuals had been given the power to stop operations. In fact they had an individual duty to do so, but they failed in that duty and people died as a result. When the discussions took place did one or more persons in the group have concerns about something being very wrong, but feared the group response if they stood out? Before using that power to stop operations and before considering their duty, did they ask a carefully worded question being ready to tone down modify comments or even go silent ?!.
So now we setup enquiries both formal and informal and investigate the failures that led up to the explosion on the 20th of April yet more groups with the same possible problems, it is therefore most important for individuals to ask the difficult questions and make unpalatable comments even with the fear of being at odds with the rest of the group.
In air crash investigation it has long been recognized that the human element in how things are interpreted and relationships in a work place can be more important than technical failures as a result it is made clear to investigators it is more important to find cause than to attribute blame, pathways are setup so witnesses can give evidence without external media pressure in some cases granting immunity from prosecution when future safety implications are vital.
In the March 27 1977 Tenerife air crash the co pilot fell silent after twice warning the pilot that another 747 was on the runway. Following the investigation more emphasis was placed on team decision-making by mutual agreement known in the industry as Crew Resource Management. It was realized this had played a big part five years earlier in the 1972 Crash of Eastern Air Lines Flight 401.
Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 was a Lockheed L1011 that crashed into the Florida Everglades on December 29, 1972, causing 101 fatalities ,The crash was a result of the flight crew's failure to recognize a deactivation of the autopilot during their attempt to troubleshoot a malfunction of the landing gear position light, fundamentally the crew did not use their resources well. The indicator light did not need the attention of all three crew members. One of the pilots should have been clearly in command , flying and monitoring the aero plane. In this instance , none of the crew monitored the autopilot which gradually flew them into the ground. One glance at some of the instruments would have alerted them about the descent and would have broken the error chain.
Do we have to wait 5 or 10 year for the next blow out to realize the full impact of human interaction on the Deepwater Horizon ?.
So difficult questions and unpalatable comments:
Halliburton are contracted for their expertise in cementing if they had concerns over the spacers why did they not put a stop to the procedure they had a duty to do so?
Did any employees of Halliburton BP or Transocean have concerns over the integrity of the cement job if so why did they not ask questions request a bond log or stop the job?
In the discussions that took place took over the negative pressure tests what led to the conclusion that it was safe to proceed did any individuals have doubts and why did they not raise them or stop the job?
Many companies/individuals at numerous points had the power/duty to stop work if they deemed things unsafe what stopped them doing so and led to judgments it was safe to proceed?
From the start BP has stated it is committed to put things right so far it has tried to do so.
Halliburton claims it was following orders keeps its head down makes no comments, this is the last line of defence in war crime trials Halliburton is not military it does not give or take orders.
If you take a look at Transocean statements its seems hard to believe they owned the rig operated it had any workers on it or had any one in the country at the time maybe they were all overseas at the time avoiding taxes and limiting financial liability for the damages.
Government says BP must pay to last dollar says BP cannot be trusted but levees them in charge of cleanup, OK fair on the face of it or is it just a way of avoiding criticism when tough choices have to be made or problems occur.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in White House briefing Tuesday money from fines from BP on oil spilled is FED money not Gulf States. Looks like the only way Gulf States can get a cut is to prove fed-government made errors in stopping oil getting on the beaches.
Fed money? They're already posturing about who gets the money?? Sickening. Absolutely sickening.
I've said it all along.They are going to use this as a cash cow.Milk it dry.
I understand how you feel, I've certainly had my share of losing investments and then some. Having said that, I offer two suggestions. One, consider a service like Barry Ritholtz's Fusion IQ (I have no connection with him whatsoever) which flags warnings when market action in a particular stock is likely to lead to larger losses. While I am in the main a value investor, my imperfect stabs at market timing have saved me a bundle over the years.
Self preservation always comes first. For everything we own, we need to remember why we bought, where we intend to take profits, what can go wrong, and plan to sell if something does. We have to make these decisions (preferably in writing where we can refer to them later) before we enter the trade, not after. Once we are in the trade, price movements begin to take their toll on our minds, and this sort of thinking becomes more difficult.
Two, now that BP has bounced back 50% from its low, you can sell and replace with the stock of a different oil major, if you really are aftraid that the US Administration will bleed BP white. The other argument for selling BP: since BP is selling assets to pay its fines, that will decrease its futue earnings power.
BP doesn't know you own it and it doesn't owe you anything. All investors have to learn that the stock market is a totally impersonal place and (easier said than done) keep our emotions out investing.
The fines based on the amount of oil spill (the $1,000-4,300 figures we've seen) go to the Treasury by law (probably the oil pollution act, which also set up the mechanism to allow the use of dispersants.)
The natural resource damage assessment $$$ - which are different, based on estimates of actual damages - are in addition to the fine and I believe are intended to be used directly to deal with the damages. Mabus is due to give a report to Obama sometime in September with his estimate of the damages.
Tuesday, 03 August 2010 09:19
On Friday, the House of Representatives voted 209 to 193 to approve legislation related to the impacts of BP’s oil drilling disaster. Among other things, this bill:
• Lifts the $75 million liability cap for oil companies involved in accidents,
• Provides up to $1.2 billion in dedicated funding for coastal restoration projects paid for by BP penalties,
• Adds new protections for whistleblowers pointing out safety violations,
• Adds new safety requirements for blowout preventers,
• And stops companies with extremely poor safety records from obtaining new drilling leases.
http://healthygulf.org/blog/
For more information about the bill check out this article http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jzgs5RUnejbtYuUEigNXhG..., or click here to see the final vote tally http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll513.xml.
This kind of statement is sickening to me. It's simply an opinion without any supporting statement or even specificity.
Someone else went on about it being "a cash cow" ... also a sickening and absurdly unsupported statement.
Fact is - we still don't know the costs of this spill. The jury has still out. The President did something that was brilliant, created an independent fund and a well recognized person to manage it. There is nothing in the 20 Billion program that says the Federal Government gets to keep what is left, that's just not true. If by some chance it is not legimately disbursed to people who legitimately are entitled to it, it goes back to BP. If by an equal chance it is not enough, BP will have to add to it. That's it, that's all and this process, though it has not gotten moving yet - is absolutely going to be faster than law suits would have been. Exxon Valdez is still being settled.
So let's stop with the grafitti opinions. It craps up the quality of this excellent board.
Ahem. bartok claims (and some here swallow) that
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in White House briefing Tuesday money from fines from BP on oil spilled is FED money not Gulf States. Looks like the only way Gulf States can get a cut is to prove fed-government made errors in stopping oil getting on the beaches.
Y'all can take bartok's word for that it you want, but you should know that s/he made it up. Here's the White House transcript of the presser. The only two times questions got anywhere near such a vicinity were . . .
About three-eighths of the way down:
About three-quarters of the way down:
I watched the whole thing, and you can read the whole transcript. This is as close as they got to what bartok claimed. Gullibility won't help you here, okay?
The presser bartok was referring to was the regular Tues, 8.3 briefing by Gibbs. The relevant section is
That is where the penalty goes by law.
Ah, my misunderstanding then. My thanks to rainy, my apologies to bartok.
Thanks to Rainyday: Correct looking at White House Briefing with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Tues 8/3
Not White House Briefing 8/4 (Robert Gibbs with Thad Allen Carol Browner and Jane Lubchenco )
So how is this money going to be apportioned to those that really need it? Because it would be a damn shame to see the money allocated across the nation with only a fraction of it going to the affected areas. Another case for decentralization on all levels...
Well,considering that there is still over $400,000,000 of stimulus money that has yet to be spent,what do you think?
WWASD?
EDIT: $400,000,000,000
Note the correction: "three-eighths" for "four-fifths" -- sorry.
You are confabulating unrelated facts and distorting the truth.
The US government will lawfully collect fines from BP. States have no jurisdiction to fine for offshore activities. It's clear.
BP has set aside funds for individuals, state/local governments and companies adversely affected by this disaster. Thats the 20 Billion. There is no cap on it, BP has agreed to provide more if necessary and, if it is not all spent, it goes back to BP. THOSE ARE THE REAL FACTS. So, if Louisiana (for example) spent money or lost revenue because of the disaster - then they will be compensated just as a business or person would.
The two things are unrelated except that the money to help people is already set aside and so the US Government can impose the lawful penalty on BP without hurting those who want to be compensated.
Stick with the facts folks. I don't care whether you like or trust the President. I think he has performed brilliantly in this, but that's only my opinion. Just get the fact right and don't jump to conclusions merely to fulfill your world view.
and there will be another chunk of money due from BP when the natural resource damage assessment is completed - the one referred to by Gibbs in his 8/3 briefing.
So in all there will be at least three "pots" of money - two of which, the fines and the damage assessment, are defined and required by existing law, and the third, the $20 billion to be set aside by BP for individuals, etc, which was agreed to by Obama and BP. It is the third amount that would normally be limited to $75 million under existing law - BP voluntarily agreed to ignore that limit. (I would imagine they were given some unknown quid-pro-quo for doing that.)
Yeah,and the first two pots will probably never get a lid put on them till the goose is dead,and the cacass thrown to us pheasants to squable over.Moochelle took one pot with her to Spain to pay for her 50 rooms and have the beach closed for her and her guests for privacy.
EDIT: 40 rooms.
bartok. I remember Flight 401 well, being in that industry at the time.
Just to be anecdotal, at around the same time an L1011 was being ferried from Mexico City back to Eastern's Miami base on two engines following an engine failure. It was a bit chancy as Mexico City is a high airport with even higher around it. On take-off another engine failed. They made it around and successfully landed, flaps up I think, then successfully stopped without going beyond the end of the runway. (I forget, or maybe never knew, whether the remaining engine was on the center line or on a wing). Anyway, sometimes you get away with it and not many people get to know. It must be the same in the oil industry.
But what I am really posting about is to reproduce some words from 'ormondotvos' that he posted on Aug 3, 2010 that is brief and to the point and, I think, could be productive if it were posted at the top of the page here everyday - so as to focus the discussion. Somebody with money could also hire billboards and put this up outside BP's Houston and UK HQ's and somewhere where all Congressman can see it in their way into 'work', on K Street, by Coastguard HQ's and outside wherever the Commission of Enquiry will convene. This may make it just a bit harder for them to do a Warren-like whitewash. Here it is:
Cheers ERD
Yup. Despite the quotes from the press conferences this is going to be exactly the case. The guys talking in the press conference have no idea what is going on. Which is seriously worrying. I am not a lawyer, not even a US citizen, and live on the other side of the planet. But I have read the act, which no-one seems to have bothered to do.
The $1,000 to $4,300 fine is in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, aka the Clean Water Act. It provides for up to $1,000 per bbl for a negligent discharge of oil, and up to $4,300 per bbl for gross negligence. Now some points about this.
The Fed does not get to just send BP a bill, the EPA is required to press charges in court. The court being a district court where BP does business. Which is going to mean Texas I would imagine. The Fed does not get to decide the amount of the fine. The act specifically says the rate of the fine (per bbl) is decided by the court. The act gives some guidance about what to take into account, including the amount of effort taken by the charged party to ameliorate the damage, and the amount of economic benefit that was gained by the charged party by causing the discharge. It is very unlikely that the court will simply apply the maximum fine.
The EPA does not have to press charges for these fines at all. It has the freedom to decide to press charges under a different part of the act which has cap on the fine of $125,000 for the whole incident. Pressing charges under this part of the act prevents them ever pursuing the $1,000 to $4,300 fine. It is up to the EPA to decide this. The EPA reports directly to POTUS, not congress. It may however be politically difficult to justify a decision to to only BP them $125,000. You may assume a court action for $4,300 per bbl will drag on for years.
The money goes to the Fed. Simple as that. It is a fine. It isn't compensation, or costs, it is a fine. It is a different part of the act that provides for a fund to pay for clean-up, and it is that bit that has the $75M cap.
I wrote some weeks ago that I thought one of the smartest things Obama did was to have BP set up an escrow account for costs, and to have them directly begin paying compensation to affected locals. If this had not been done you would have exactly what is feared now being the only path of money flow. Money that was subject to the whim of congress, and the snouts in the trough of every state's congress critter looking for a bit of local benefit from the fine. That plus the legendary inefficiency of government that that takes $2 to spend 1$ where it is needed. Now that the dust is settling you may start to see local politics at its worst.
Thanks for adding a lot of clarity.
I would say we may already have seen "local politics at its worst" with state and local officials using BP's money for patronage--most obviously Gov. Jindal giving a $360m no-bid contract for the berms to a political supporter, and the mayor of Bayou La Batre, AL, being accused of enriching himself and his family members. You have to expect such things, especially in Louisiana where corruption of public officials seems to be taken for granted.
It is a different part of the act that provides for a fund to pay for clean-up, and it is that bit that has the $75M cap.
Actually the $75M in the act is not for cleanup, it's for financial damages (now replaced by the $20 billion-plus BP fund). Cleanup is separate; BP is on the hook for 100% of the cleanup, whatever the cost, above and beyond fines and damages.
Indeed, I was being a bit loose with the terms.
Insomnia has caused me to have a look at the act again. It is long and horrible, so I have not read the entire section. But a few bits are interesting. Right at the end, subsection (s) says: Any amounts received by the United States under
this section shall be deposited in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Which seems to say that the fines do not go into general revenue. Indeed, any excess money from this incident may be kept for helping with other spills and leaks.
"Halliburton claims it was following orders keeps its head down makes no comments, this is the last line of defence in war crime trials Halliburton is not military it does not give or take orders."
Actually you do keep your head down. Halliburton, as a subcontractor is at the mercy of the guys paying them. If they don't do it their way, odds are that will figure prominently in negotiations for the next contract. Lacking any proof that doing things in a particular way would be bad, how do you argue that with the guys paying you?
Try it like this. Suppose it's 2007, and you hire a guy to do your drywall. He argues with you that the cheaper drywall that you have already purchased might not be such a good idea, it could be substandard. Are you going to tolerate his argumentative nature or are you going to find another contractor? Three years later you find that the piping in your house is corroding due to the cheap drywall. Now you blame the contracting installer since he didn't raise a big enough stink about it.
A link to a free site that has a fairly comprehensivedescription of all the various components of oil wells, simplified sketches or drawings of each , and explainations of the functions of the components-all in one place and organized in lesson form -if such a site exists-would be a real treasure.
If it doesn't second choices are better than none.
Thanks anyone and everyone in advance.
This one has been very helpful for me. Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary...
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/default.cfm
Enter a term in the search box.
Also check out this Wikipedia drawing for basic rig components. The Schlumberger site also has some good articles in the Resources section.
For neophyte drill fans, the The Drilling Contractor magazine site has lots of material, some understandable by newbies.
OFM,
Here is a link to a free site that satisfies every request that you mentioned and more. And, the lessons were written by our very own Heading Out and other experts that we know and trust. http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/tech_talk?page=7. I found them soon after I started visiting TOD. You can get to them from the home page by drilling down through Tech Talk to the earliest posts and then working your way forward. Believe me, there is a LOT of good stuff there. I used it to refresh my memory and to get up to speed on how the oil patch works today. I think the lessons are detailed enough to satisfy the kind of reader that is likely to be here on TOD, yet simple enough to be understood by a beginner.
Hope this helps someone.
(Disclaimer: KarmaDave is a real customer. He is not a paid spokesperson for TOD.)
Heading Out's Tech talk series recently has been about coal mining, but before that it covered oil wells, and gives some links on other sources. If you click on the above link, and scroll back through the series, you will find quite a number of instructional articles.
Great news to hear they've cemented the well. Although the final act is not yet over, I for one will be able to sleep more easily now if they have to abandon the site again due to another tropical storm. Presumably, time is not so much of a worry now, and they could even wait until the hurricane season's over if they needed to?
Talking about storms, my question to BP would be "When and how will the disconnect from the Q4000 occur?". I'm guessing again, but I presume that if the pressure tests are successful, they will shut the choke/kill lines they've been pumping mud and cement down and then disconnect? Also, after the disconnect, would they even want to (cautiously) open one or more valves temporarily to equalize the pressure inside and outside of the BOP, before closing them again?
This is also true in project meetings. Attendants are afraid to ask questions because the self appointed gurus may not approve of the question or question your experience. Many of these gurus are what I call "desk jockeys" with very little experience except pushing paper.
Has anyone seen the details of the final cement job.
How much cement was squeezed?
What is the cement top?
What can be accomplished by the relief well now that the wild well is cemented?
Regards
I'm a bit confused about where the cement has gone. Presumably they have filled the inner production pipe, but there are doubts about filling the annulus too? Surely they know how much cement they have pumped in and that should tell them which parts of the well are filled?
Its curious that having fought to kill this well - which now seems to be dead, that they plan to drill back into it.
Maybe someday they will remove the cloak of secrecy and tell us all about the cement job they did.
As far as I know there is noway they can tell for sure they got cement into the annulus so they have to go back into it with the RW.
My question is did they follow the cement with some volume of spacer to clear the BOP and the top 500 feet of the well below mudline of cement? Or did they INTENTIONALLY entomb the BOP on the seafloor so that there will be no recovery of the BOP and associated forensics?
I haven't seen any statement that the BOP has been filled with cement. In their interim report of 24 May, BP's investigation team suggest they plan to recover the BOP.
I imagine that admiral who keeps shouting "I'm in charge, I'm in charge" will make it impossible to leave the BOP on the sea floor, even if anyone wanted to.
I'd be surprised if the BOP's owner and operator, Transocean, not BP, didn't bear some responsibility for the maintenance and operation of their equipment.
The failure of the rams in Transocean's BOP is only one of several failures that led to this disaster.
Did Halliburton's initial cement job fail? Are Halliburton in the business of doing dangerously substandard work when asked? If they are, does that absolve them?
Why didn't any people on the Deepwater Horizon (RIP eleven of them) recognise clear signs that pressure was building an hour before the explosion?
Why wasn't there a flow meter in place when displaced fluids are diverted overboard?
And so on.
the BOP's owner and operator, Transocean
A point the "They're gonna hide the BOP!" crowd seems to have forgotten . . .
Nice work, RGB.
From the Transocean Conference earnings call regarding the BOP:
Angie Sedita – UBS
Steven, can you give us a time line as far as the Coast Guard patrolling up the BOP and investigating what took place and when you would expect to have some kind of conclusion on the BOP?
Steven Newman (CEO)
In reviewing the forward planning with our operating people, I suspect we’ll have access to the BOP on the sea bed either later this month or early in September. We have proposed to the unified command that we perform some function testing on the BOP while it remains on the sea bed so we can get a better idea of the condition of the BOP as its sitting there right now. And then recovery of the BOP will take a week or 10 days beyond that, so in terms of the forensics really commencing in earnest, we’re probably looking at late September or early October. And it’s just a question of beyond that, how long those forensics take and how quickly we can get to any sort of definitive answer on what actually happened with the BOP and that’s a little bit more difficult for me to give you any real clarity or crispness around Angie.
I was just skimming an almost-exact duplicate of that scenario in some paper or other when a phone call interrupted. Got distracted and was looking for it again. I think it was attributed to Allen in that account, so maybe they're in agreement. Will keep looking for confirmation . . .
This is possibly a dumb question - but how did they keep the cement out of the BOP? Wouldn't the cement try to flow in both directions (up and down) when it is pumped in under pressure?
The BOP and the new BOP were filled with oil and some natural gas (compressed) so it was a fluid that could only be compressed a little and had no where to go, so the cement would only go down the hole. The same was true when they were pumping the mud to kill the well.
IMO there is still some residual oil and natural gas in the blowout preventers and this I believe is what is coming out though the small leaks that some have observed since there is a difference in head of about 1100 psi between the inside of the BOP's and outside.
Some comments I have seen say this is evidence the well is not killed, I don't think that is the case.
Ok - red face here.
I forgot that the greater BOP pressure meant that the cement could only flow in one direction.
...a reporter tries to follow tony hayward through heathrow airport with a suspicious bulge under is travel coat... off to his departing flight to russia... ..."mr hayward... mr hayward... there have been reports that bp will try to hide any substantive analysis of the bop from the dh well... could you comment...?" ignoring said reporter... hayward disappeared quickly down through the loading gate... later that day norwegian farmers are said to have heard a "large thud" in the distance... but could not identify any source...
They have to be sure that the well is cemented at the bottom, both in the annulus and the production casing before they can be sure it is properly plugged.
The fact that they are drilling back into a pressured well should not be a problem if they maintain the proper mud weight. Wells are drilled into higher pressures every day and don't blow out. The only reason the Deepwater Horizon blew out was they did not follow proper procedures.
Euan - That's the obvious problem with bull heading cmt down from the top: you have no way to determine where the cmt went. Assume when the cmt has cured there's no pressure at the BOP. What does that mean? Is there a cmt plug in the top of the hole preventing flow? They can pressure test to make sure. But that's all that will tell them. Is it a good plug from the well head to the bottom of the csg? No way to tell. Is the production csg full of cmt and none in the annulus...or visa versa? Can't tell. Is there a good cmt plug just the last hundred feet off the bottom of the hole and bad cmt back to the surface? Can't tell. Is there a good cmt plug the first hundred feet below the well head and did the rest of the cmt go out of a shallow failed csg shoe? Can't tell.
But they knew all the short comings of bull heading the cmt better than I. So I'll assume it was still a strong prefence to go that route than to do a bottom up cmt job.
Eventually they will be connecting to the production casing hundreds of feet above the production zone with the RW. That suggests to me that they will be able to add another cement plug in that part of the production casing also.
Also it sounds to me like they are expecting that when the RW drills into the WW well bore they won't find any reservoir pressure before they enter the production casing. If that is what happens it will indicate where the original failure point was.
Knowing all the facts you cited about problems that could occur from pumping cement down original well first I am sure thet had some logical reason for this action Hurricane season etc. When refief well is drilled into producing formation will know for sure if formation is cemented if unable to squeeze cement into formation. Alternative actions if formation is determined to be cemented off? Drill relief well into casing higher up to make sure cement is well up production casing?
If formation is squeezed off with cement wouldn't the volumn of cement pumped give a good indication if well was open to annulus farther up the hole? I don't see how they can defintly determine all this until relief well is drilled in to formation
from another postng Casing float collar blown all the way up into BOPs?????????
There is at least one logical reason.
He is in charge and of course he have to do something.
Rockman, is normal procedure to add a layer of fluid and then a layer of mud after the cement job?
cap -- They'll often have a non=cmt spacer after the cmt. A lot easier to clean out then cmt. But this situation is so far from normal I wouldn't make any assumptions myself.
Also, Admiral Allen said that they're recommencing the RW by going 30', doing range runs, going another 30', etc., with an expected connect date of 8/14 or 8/15. But then he said, "if for some reason they pierce the annulus (early), they'll be ready". Is this a usual thing?
Went down inside the casing and they have 5,000 feet of cement from the bottom of the well up inside the casing. Information from briefing just held.
tow - did you mean to say 5,000' up the annulus? If they pumped nothing but cmt down (IOW no spacer behind the cmt) then and it made it to the bottom they should have 13,000' of cmt up the inside of the csg....no?
No, Suttles said 5,000 feet of cement is now inside the casing measuring from the bottom up, with a bit in the reservoir and around the outside of the casing.
Rock,
Seems they decided not to fill up to the top and that 5000 feet of cement inside the production casing would be enough. No evidence of fluid communication outside of production casing is I think what was meant. Some cement was pumped out the bottom of the well and into the formation and thus around the bottom of the casing if I interpreted correctly.
Thanks guys. Then we have to assume that the 8,000' (13,000'-5,000') above the cmt in the csg must be filled with some sort of spacer. Otherwise they couldn't push the cmt all the way down. But I gather they don't directly say so. So frustrating.
This from Thad today.
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/08/bp_working_to_...
From Allen's morning briefing
National Incident Commander Thad Allen, in a press briefing this morning, said the company put a layer of fluid on top of the cement and then pumped more mud on top to add pressure to help cure the cement. BP is waiting for the cement job to cure before resuming work on the relief well it is drilling nearby.
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/08/bp_working_to_...
(Allen should have said they are not immediately drilling on RW1 but they have resumed work to test the integrity of the cement on the final casing.)
Suttles also said they pushed some cement into the reservoir and up around the outside of the casing. (he did not explain how they know that) They plan to run tests on cement integrity this afternoon.
Wells will be giving a technical briefing @3 pm CDT. Allen is up in a few minutes @ noon EDT.
So no cemented BOP that people have expressed concern about.
In answer to a question, Suttles also re-iterated that neither the original well nor either of the two relief wells will ever be used for production. Work on RW1 has resumed - they've done a leak test, will be doing a CBL soon.
Have they explained why the well cannot be used for production? Even if the RW's construction is not adequate for production are they excluding putting down another well into the same reservoir? It seems pointless to not harvest it since they know for sure it is not 'dry'.
Then again one of about 35 odd stocks I follow for possible investment, but not in at present, is Chevron (CVX). I note from the quarterly reports that they are allowed to deduct off of the top of earnings (meaning no tax is paid) the cost of 'dry wells' (see Cash Flow Statements on Operating Activities). It seems to me that this is a double dip as the costs are deducted already in the Earnings Statement line on operating costs but then you can do it again if it is a 'dry well' before getting to the amount you pay tax on (at about 30%), but it is not expressed in the Income Statement as a line item, it is hidden (as 'restructuring' costs, that are also usually hidden, but are deductible - incidentally I often wonder whether this is the government encouraging companies to cut the workforce!!). It does however show up in the cash flow statement to get back from the earnings declared for tax purposes to the amount actually made from operations.
see http://investor.chevron.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130102&p=irol-sec, click on the top for the download media you like and go to page 6
If this is corrected (ie you get a double deduction if it is 'dry') a wonder if BP will be very creative such that it is now worth more to them to not harvest than harvest.
Then again I might be exposing my ignorance on company financial statements and am completely wrong.
Just a thought from the fringe of a true understanding.
Have they explained why the well cannot be used for production?
Rockman has explained that there is a requirement that wild wells be permanently plugged and abandoned. Perhaps he will come along and add more detail.
Even if the RW's construction is not adequate for production are they excluding putting down another well into the same reservoir?
No, Suttles did not exclude that possibility.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0806/bp-drill-disaster-zone/
"There's lots of oil and gas here," Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said at a news briefing. "We're going to have to think about what to do with that at some point."
The vast oil reservoir beneath the blown well is still believed to hold nearly $4 billion worth of crude. With the company and its partners facing tens of billions of dollars in liabilities, the incentive to exploit the wells and the reservoir could grow.
Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the government's point man on the spill, said he had no information on BP's future plans.
If not used for the bottom kill, the relief wells could have conceivably offered a way for BP or another company to pump oil from the reservoir and sell it, an idea unlikely to sit well with Gulf Coast residents and families of workers who died on the rig.
BP later released a statement that their entire attention is focused on cleanup and that drilling isn't on their radar screen.
Suttles comments then reversed with a 'later statement'... ah, an attempt to believe the left hand knoweth not what the right hand does? I think not.
Explain why the second relief well has been dogging it for weeks, why DDII is almost always near a standstill. Find that answer, and you will know the future for BP and this lease.
rd1:
As I recall and for financial reporting, Drilling costs are accrued until the decision 'dry hole' or 'production well' is made;
dry hole, expense costs
production well, capitalize costs and write-off usually on a unit-of-production basis.
So presumably "inside the casing" means in the annulus?
Euan,
As I understand it - no. Fluid flow (and the blowout path?) was inside the production casing only with no flow in annulus. Thus they had the smallest possible volume to fill which is why the mud pumping finished a lot earlier than had been suggested.
IIRC there was a survivor account that said the mud hose was blown off the standpipe, indicating flow up the the DP (and the production casing). I've been wondering/hoping that the annulus was intact.
If the RW drills into the annulus and finds it intact, what will be their next move? I'm guessing they'll continue on into the casing and pump as much additional cement as they can? Will they be able to get any more in?
OK guys. I'll make some guesses and tell me if it fits your impressions.
They pumped 2,300 (?) bbls of cmt. If they put top of cmt 5,000' off bottom they must have an 8,000' spacer sitting on top the cmt right now. I recall the original csg volume was around 1,100 bbls. The 5,000' of cmt on the bottom should only be around 300 to 500 bbls. That leaves more than 600 bbls up the annulus and whatever might have been pushed into the reservoir. But I haven't seen a weight on the cmt so I'm not sure if much could have made it in. Normally unless you exceed the frac gradient you can't pump cmt into a reservoir to any great degree. The annulus is a rather small volume so 600 bbls should have filled in up a few thousand feet at least.
If this is anywhere close to accurate we should be in pretty good shape. I was originally concerned they were going to try to bull head in a full 13,000' of cmt. But using a spacer (as it appears they did) greatly enhanced the chance of success. And if they did get that much cmt up the annulus they have a pretty good chance of sealing it also. In a situation like this you should "over displace"...pump a good bit more cmt than the volume calculations say you need. It's the best way to avoid channels and bad cmt bond. The real proof will be when they cut the annulus with the RW. No pressure then they are in pretty good shape. At that point they might not even cut the production csg. If they have no pressure in the well head they should have the production csg plugged pretty good. But even then I would still like to see the feds make BP re-enter the well with drill pipe and spot at least two more cmt plugs in the csg. That might cost another $50 million but better safe then sorry IMHO. And it's BP's money anyway.
Seems to me that it would be physically impossible to bring cement up the annulus beyond the base of the 9 5/8 liner. If the system is closed (i.e. no uphole casing leaks) where would trapped annular fluids go except out into the formation, be it the reservoir or broken down shales above and/or below? Granted, you might gain a little bit via compression of a trapped oil/gas mixture, but I wouldn't think very much.
Fred - based upon the well plan I have (http://www.energy.gov/open/documents/3.1_Item_2_Macondo_Well_07_Jun_1900...) the base of the 9 5/8" liner is at 17,168' with the top at 14,759'. The annulus outside of the tapered production csg runs from the bottom of the hole to the well head 13,000' above. But you are correct about displacing the annular fluid with cmt...it has to go somewhere. But it's not a closed system: about 800' of the bottom of this annulus is open to the rocks. That could be where the annular fluids and some of the cmt may have leaked to.
No, not in the annulus - Suttles clearly said inside the casing, ie. inside that long 9 7/8"- 7" liner that runs from the top of the well to the bottom. As HO says in the article, it's increasingly looking as if the well blew due to a shoe failure rather than the annular failure that has been theorized for so long.
They'll know for sure when RW1 intersects the annulus next week - will there be any hydro-carbons there?
I must say I thought at the start that was where it failed (didn't post it of course so can't claim credit or prove it's not 20-20 hindsight!). Occam's razor - why invoke multiple failures of cement, casing and seals (minimum 2-3 and for some of the underground blowout cases half a dozen), when one physical failure (bottom plug) and two operational failures (dodgy test/interpretation and failure to spot the influx) would do. Plus of course the non-functional last-resort safety equipment.
Dare I suggest a lot of people didn't want to believe it? I found it more scary than an on-the-limit HPHT well where one operator's reach exceeded it's grasp. Occam's scenario could happen any place, any time, any depth, onshore or offshore. Of course it's such an obvious risk it shouldn't. Kinda like stepping in front of a bus in broad daylight with your eyes wide open (no disrespect to those who died, the decision-makers were injured but got off the rig).
I came across some stats a while ago from an MMS document where they were trying to support the mandatory use of shear rams in the mid-2000's. One that surprised me was that about half of GOM and Gulf coast blowouts were associated with workovers or cementing, not while drilling. When presumably there should be few, if any, unknowns. Makes you think.
I have been watching this ROV for the last day or so and it is showing 2 other ROV's with no public feeds checking the BOP regularly.
Is the BOP still leaking? Why did they stop the public feed to the checking of it?
http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:45683.asx
I suspect those are the ROVs from BOA Sub C (not to be confused with BOA Deep C). I've spotted them myself over the past couple of weeks. I don't know why those feeds aren't public like the rest of them, but I sure wish they were.
I share your concern QuantumUS. It would seem that to convince us that what they say is true they would publicly show the BOP until after the cement job is in and cured. That they are not doing so raises suspicions. Either they are not themselves focusing closely on the BOP or they are not showing us what they are seeing. It is hard to guess any reason for not showing us what a great success they have had other than that there are still leaks.
" That they are not doing so raises suspicions."
Raises my suspicions that you are extremely paranoid,. At least smoke some dope and enjoy the psychosis.
"It is hard to guess any reason for not showing us what a great success they have had other than that there are still leaks."
They read TOD and truly enjoy tweaking you.
The BOP is falling, the BOP is falling...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4
Yeah, the ROVs are over at the REAL well.
That's Lake Simmons. You should see the feeds from Ratigan 1.
Damn, did I miss seeing that feed? I was off reading about radioactive wild boars running amok in Germany and watching this: http://www.youtube.com/user/barich1979
I block certain scripts necessary to view autoplay videos on youtube user pages. If you could edit your post with a link to just the vid, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
Can't edit it since you replied, so http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oaf998FwQVI&feature=player_embedded
It's got pretty good production values, although I was hoping for a crane shot and didn't get it.
As a rule, I want more information not less, and I'm suspicious of attempts to suppress or limit information. If that makes me paranoid, I'm paranoid, but that's better than being a shroom, shroom.
PS: Falling falling falling...
Seems to me the people doing the work are in a no-win position. They can either spend their time doing the actual work, or they can spend their time answering questions from us kibitzers or a herd of PR guys.
Even making available raw data without wasting any effort explaining it doesn't solve anything, take the ROV video feeds for example. That only incited a bunch of questions about vast eruptions of oil bursting up from the sea-floor, BOP's falling over, etc.
Yeah, I'm frustrated, too, that our window into all the interesting stuff is limited to 15 minutes a day of Kent Wells' time, with a half dozen questions from technically inept reporters who have no idea what WE want addressed, but - bottom line - I'd rather have the people working the problem rather than spending time writing explanatory press releases.
Frank
You don't think BP has to work with the same crappy webcam quality video feeds we get, do you? I may be wrong, but I don't think so.
How many vital employees would BP have to sacrifice to the kibitzers in order to stream higher quality video? Maybe they could use the guy who photochops the still shots.
Re the video quality, I have no idea where the reduction in quality takes place. It may be that the good stuff stops at the operators' stations with insufficient bandwidth to take it to shore, or maybe the servers that relay it to the public are the bottleneck. My point was that providing the video, crappy though it might be, produced nothing but more silly questions from the ungrateful portion of the audience.
As to having PR people kibitzing in our place, that still takes productive time away from the working folks to educate the photochopper, or whatever other non-engineer would be performing that role.
Would that extra information really be worth the very real cost of additional barrels of oil in the Gulf? I'm all for it, but then I live about 700 miles up the Mississippi from there, you might want to poll some of the beach folks here on that.
Frank
Do it yourself. Be prepared for more silly questions from a very, very ungrateful portion of the audience.
Given that I feel exactly the same way, how do you square with Climategate and the researchers suppressing and limiting information there?
Censorship is bad, m'kay?
They were exonerated. There was no misconduct, no suppression of information. The scientists were applying some statistical methods to a few data series (tree-ring analysis). There are many other even more robust temperature records from the 20th century which back up the tree-ring record.
Climategate is a perfect example of a trumped-up non-scandal. It's closer to Breitbart's shenanigans (truly malicious gotcha reporting) than any legitimate fact-finding exploration.
They were implicated, then they were cleared, now there are charges of a whitewash. I've been following along via Brit sources and ignoring the howling voices here. I'd say this one's in "no decision" territory for now. But no matter what, serious science and the application thereof shouldn't be based on a few memos.
The whitewash charges are pure balderdash. Just like howls from the birther folks who refuse to believe every statement by Hawaii officials that Obama's birth certificate is genuine. They will not be swayed by any facts. Don't pay attention to the protests against them--pay closer attention to the notes themselves, and the testimony from fellow scientists. It's pretty clear that there is no misleading or falsifying of data going on.
It's a perfectly ordinary part of statistics to discount outliers (based on some selection criteria) and normalize trends.
And everyone has to communicate somehow. If a team of scientists is collaborating on a project, it's very likely they'll send memos to one another. It's not uncommon to see a citation for an idea in an article or a book, naming a colleague and stating simply, "personal communication". memos are very much a part of scientific collaboration. How could it be otherwise?
Attacking an entire field of scientific work, on the other hand, better be based on more than just a few out-of-context memos. If that's all the deniers can find, then their holster is pretty empty. (And speaking of out-of-context nonsense, the Republicans' 2008 report on climate change is one of the all-time great examples. It's a juvenile cut-and-paste book report alien to science. Worth reading if you want to give yourself a headache.)
Keep your coolaid to yourself. I downloaded the entire file INCLUDING THE SOFTWARE (which have their own story to tell) as soon as it showed up. The so-called "out of context" memos included statements such as, "I will DELETE rather than send to anyone" and low and behold, the data is now "lost". You could paint one or two emails as the product of convivial collaboration, but THOUSANDS? Sorry bub, you lose.
Remember, the British are the ones who FINALLY got around to redressing the Bloody Sunday massacre whitewash, only 40 yrs late! Oh yes, the Brits know how to wash an event "sparkling clean". Here's your "unbiased" whitewash argument placed squarely on its fanny where it belongs.
There is more of course, including members of the commission having been on the payroll of UEA previously, not interviewing ANYONE affected by the emails, the legitimate complaints go on and on, but you're wearing your rose-colored glasses so won't read any of it will you?
So there you have it agramante, by your OWN WORDS you have NO PROBLEM with BP investigating ITSELF and (QED) Exxonerating itself. LOL
Just because nutcases pick an issue up and run like hell with it doesn't mean that there can't be valid concerns held by perfectly capable people.
The truth about what the data points are supposed to represent may or may not be in the dataset itself. Let's say reality is approximated by the data. Then the analytical model chosen may or may not approximate an accurate description. Then there's the human element when it comes to interpretation and presentation.
This isn't an opinion poll; it's rather more important. The dataset isn't proprietary, right? Even if "Climategate" had never becaome an issue, you'd want a few other sets of independent, adequately trained and experienced scientists with integrity to look at the identical data, right? You'd want others to take a full, independent look at study design and analysis, right?
Not true agramante "They were exonerated. There was no misconduct, no suppression of information."
There were three so called investigations headed by people directly involved with the global warming establishment. None of their critics were involved in the these "investigations" just supporters.
First, they "lost" the original data sets they based there so called conclusions on, and according to critics, they can not be reconstructed.
The most important charge was that they refused to answer or publish critics etc, as the emails show was true.
In short they behaved like partisans, not scientists.
The worst part is that because they were incredibly sloppy with the data, we do not know what is true now.
One piece of current data, Earth is presently about .5 million square kilometers below the mean for this time of year(19 million square kilometers) for world ice cover with 1.412 million square kilometers below mean for the Northern Hemisphere. A month ago, ice cover was on the mean. The Southern Hemisphere is reporting record colds in many areas. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
The main reason arctic ice is now so low is that the Gulf Stream has been extraordinarily strong for the last couple of years. I have watched it every day since 2000. Four plus years ago, it was very weak.
Personally, as a scientist, fudging data, hiding data, and above all blocking critics shows only one thing for sure, you are not a scientist, but just another self-serving academic. Unfortunately that behavior is exactly what the released emails show was done and no amount of slither over words by other AGW advocates can hide that the emails show they did suppress criticism by other scientists.
All of us want good data and that can only be created by open public criticism, so quit defending this indefensible behavior.
Our biggest present public and scientific problem is not being wrong, to err is human, but it is not admitting it when someone shows that you are.
Dan Alter
Very well put Dan!
+100
The attention being given to Climategate is justified; it is important to weed any bad science out of the AGW argument.
However the fact of the matter is that the idea that the existence of these incidents means AGW is not valid is a logical fallacy. Climategate is a red herring as the fact of the matter is that there is lots good work supporting AGW that is not affected by anything in the stolen papers, and these papers relate to only a very minor part of the total body of work in the area.
Consider the converse. Did the Bush administration efforts to suppress pro AGW publications prove that AGW is valid? Not hardly. It's in the exact same class of red herring.
So think a little. Did any of the stuff coming out of Climategate cause the restructuring of climate models? Has there been a raft of revisions or retractions of the positions in the field? The fact is that Climategate, while attracting a great deal of popular attention and political furor it is not an event that is going change the science. It is much sound and fury amounting to nothing.
Thank you.
You're a fine one to talk about slither.
Unfortunately that behavior is exactly what the released emails show was done and no amount of slither over words by other AGW advocates can hide that the emails show they did suppress criticism by other scientists.
While I too don't know why we are currently getting no close-up views of the BOP/Stack they did keep giving us views and tours of the previous bubble spots for many hours (maybe about 12 hours from memory) after the last bubbles stopped (last ones to stop were at the top of the LMRP on the original BOP.
We've been treated to images of oil spewing into the gulf for months, courtesy of BP. Now BP has a chance to show us images of clear water and a contained well. I guess they're just too fu©king stupid to understand why that would be a good thing.
But you can be sure that when this well is completely dead, if BP hasn't gone down with it, they will spend millions on crap like this.
Jeuses Chrst, If thei spant millunns fore this theyr dember thn I thot
Ok, it was funnier when you did it :)
Tahts baceuse my slpelnig was pcsyho-lnigiusctilaly coerrct.
You can get your text scrambled for you with this handy converter
You can get yuor txet sclbmared for you wtih tihs hdnay cotrevner
http://www.togglecase.com/convert_to_scrambled_text.php/#results
http://www.togcelgase.com/cont_delbmarcs_ot_trevext.php/#relusts
bignerd
Thanks for your reply from the last thread. Sorry about the editing errors, probably didn't help to clarify my questions. iPhones are great but the keyboards are so small.
My questions were more about contents in the casing changing over time, as the different methods were used or events occurred.
Question 1 would be most recent and question 3 being at the time of the accident.
1) - When I asked about solids at the top of the casing (after the most recent cap was installed), I meant hydrates. If hydrates were inside the top of the casing when they were pumping mud and cement, I guess there would have been issues. So, I think you've answered my question.
2) - You said: Do you mean that the cap was partially closed with the well still flowing at a reasonable rate? If so I'd think there was a good chance that there would have been some gas towards the top of the well and oil lower down. It would be less likely to be gas deeper down where the pressures are higher.
I'm asking about the fluids in the casing being “regulated” by the cap (below mudline), I assumed the gas, at this point in time, would have made it up the riser (above mudline). If the gas is flowing at a good rate, inside the casing, wouldn't it be somewhat compressed at a point of resistance (ie, BOP or whatever device they were using at the time)?
3) - You said: At the time of the blowout I doubt that thermal effects from friction were important. The pressure release would be enough to cause runaway gas expansion and violent ejection of the riser contents.
I assumed there was drill pipe in the casing and riser at the time of the initial explosion. The gas is what ignited when it reached the rig, so I thought the drill pipe could have become stuck either from the top or the bottom. If the drill pipe was still intact at the time of the explosion, it seems there would have been enough force to send drill pipe back down the riser to the BOP.
Thanks again for answering my questions, not that they matter much. I'm glad they found the solutions and the well is dead.
Show us the stack.
This fuzzy long shot indicates 3 rovs are surveying the wellhead
http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:45683.asx
It also seems to show the BOP stack resembles a leafy oak tree. No doubt that's an artifact or distortion. Fine. No problem.
Show us the stack. All of it. Top and bottom.
I've seen the stack and the BOP. They are still there.
In case you hadn't notices, the rovs are floating in water. Think that has anything to do with how objects appear with cameras?
You will see what you want to see.
It's too bad you don't appreciate all of the effort by the crews on the vessels in working on this well.
Post the feed link.
Maude: I've seen the stack and the BOP. They are still there.
How? When?
After months of 24/7 cams, all of a sudden TPTB don't want us to see what happened after they supposedly killed the well and shut off the cams? Heck, they'd probably loop old feeds again anyway.
Still, if it were truly stopped with no leaks and all was good, why not show us? It does seem suspicious to me as well.
I've been wondering the same thing. You can see the ROV's hovering at about 50ft.
Yep. Why not just scoot in a bit and show us? Of course, the BOP, well head, and everything else around there may be leaking like a sieve now. Methane clouds billowing uncontrollably and the seafloor caving in from the displaced pressure eroding the strata. Who knows, maybe they nuked it already and that explains the mag 3 earthquake in south LA.
LOL. Heck, show us at least to shut up the doom and gloomers although it is kind of fun, evil grin, scaring the bejeebers out of my uninformed relatives still down there. Head for the hills. Yeah, I'll store your new bass boat for ya. :)
"Yep. Why not just scoot in a bit and show us?"
I think they're just showing us a kindness; since the exploding methane monster clouds will soon destroy all land animal life on earth, why frighten people?
Of course, it could also be that the ROVs are expensive tools and their operators' job is not to continually reassure a bunch of crisis junkies who are starting to go into withdrawal.
+10, ROFL.
Disagree - this is exactly when re-assuring footage should be being streamed. I doubt very much there is a problem but see no reason why they shouldn't be transmitting footage that shows that. Presumably the "rogue" ROVs are kept off public feeds with the full agreement of the government.
Crisis hell. I'm sitting up here on a lake in KY.I wanna watch it live when it blows.Ever since I read about moonbeam watching that methane bubble blowing that shark out of the water,and the chance of the ocean floor sinking in and sucking in everything and spitting it back out with a 1,000 ft sunami blasting up the ol' muddy,I ain't moved.Sent the ol'lady out for a case of Jack.
BREAKING:
The ROV operators have all been laid off.
More at 11!
Nice. I suppose you read the whole post, no? Regardless, I'm not a lemming lined up nose to *ss staying in line just to mindlessly go over the cliff in blissful ignorance.
BP and TPTB can certainly park an ROV for a few hours next to the BOP and show us the job was done as they say it is... since the ROV are down there in close proximity anyway. They blew it up, caused untold grief and heartache. Surely they can find it in their elitist hearts to show us what they have accomplished for good this time.
Of course, our Prez won't spend the money proving they're competent in this ... but have no problem billing us to send his wife to Spain for a half million. He and his followers are so out of touch with the average person God only knows what has truly happened to us down there.
Frankly, why don't we cease all drilling for three years or until the facts and information we seek comes out. I can afford $50 a gallon gas and seriously, it would make electric cars, smart grids, global cooling, business taxes, entitlements, etc. more attractive.
Oops, sorry. I was channeling Mrs. Obama and her "Marie Antoinette-ness". :)
Who cares anyway?
@rightsizedglass,
I did read the whole post. I understood (or at least I thought I did) that you do not actually buy in to "methane clouds billowing uncontrollably and the seafloor caving in from the displaced pressure eroding the strata." My first paragraph about exploding methane monster clouds was meant to play along with that joke.
The second paragraph was my main point, and I stand by it. These are tools that are there for a purpose, which isn't to entertain a bunch of guys with too much time on our hands, many of whom I'm convinced wouldn't be satisfied if we had a fleet of rovs looking at every square foot of the sea floor.
@Recent: You read me correctly. I am not a doom and gloomer or a conspiricist.
Recent Lurker: "... The second paragraph was my main point, and I stand by it. These are tools that are there for a purpose, which isn't to entertain a bunch of guys with too much time on our hands, many of whom I'm convinced wouldn't be satisfied if we had a fleet of rovs looking at every square foot of the sea floor. ..."
Well, I'm not asking BP to entertain me... though from what I understand MMS provides quality entertainment. :)
I simply want to see the BOP and the surrounding seafloor. I personally think BP is hiding something and I don't trust them.
Why wouldn't it be wise to show everything is in great shape and not leaking? The "tools" are down there. BP represents the oil industry at this point and the other oil companies ought to be raising hell to get BP to do everything in its power to relieve the curiosity, pain, suffering, ... whatever. If it means allowing the ROV cmas to show the well a few more days then do it.
Frankly, IMHO, to a huge number of world citizens BP currently represents the oil industry (as Exxon did a decade ago). BP and the oil industry has once again caused untold grief and misery to countless people. The least they could do is confirm the witch is indeed dead. Other than that, I could care less.
I appreciate the efforts and still want to see the BOP. Those two are reasonable and compatible positions. It seems unreasonable to suggest otherwise.
STACK!STACK!STACK!
This is just the entr'acte!
Probably be a while before we see the full sequellae . I'm thinking BP will be out of here by that time. The real problem will be in addressing what comes post-plug. I don't know if we can.
You know what? Those guys over at the drilling club kind of tore the Cement Scene a new one. I hope the presence of so many of us who are non-petro pros hasn't inhibited TOD in the sense of downplaying alternative paradigms to spare our delicate sensibilities-or because the "public just doesn't need to know and wouldn't understand." Public needs to be planning for all contingencies.
Have fun today. Later.
here is the current feed I'm using appears to be live.
http://www.searchlawrence.com/_bp_spill_lite.html
"Response in Pictures" at the BPsite has a hi-res image of the pressure curves during static kill:
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/in...
b.s. (that's a pre-kill engineering model)
I see it as it's in-process, with three actual pressures plotted (at the 350 bbls pumped mark)against predicted models for differing situations
Does that chart not CLEARLY show, exactly how much mud and cement have been lost....?
The projected ideal gradients, marked with icons for various parts of the system, are shown as fairly gradual arcs.
At the top left, it shows two lines. One brown, One blue,.
My questions :
The brown line would be the mud, the cement would be the blue.If this were the case, this chart would indicate a fairly shallow leak. If there were a leak in the wellbore, to maintain a slight overpressure from the bottom( can't get equilibrium in a system with a leak/s) than the amount of mud they were steadily and slowly pumping before cement ops proceeded, would be the amount of fluid( roughly) that they were losing to a leak ? If that were the case, that chart would also indicate a rather large drop in pressure during the mud op...but also a larger leak of cement( the blue line )...this line shows a flatline at around 5800psi...
So if there is a shallow leak, than it is technically impossible to get any kind of hydrostatic equilibrium, due to the fact that a "leg" of mud is essentially using gravity to maintain a "static" state. So that would indicate a leak above the theoretical bottom of a "mud leg"...?
Thoughts...?
I don't think any cement was pumped at this point (approximately 74 minutes into the static kill).
PT-3K-2 was the pressure at the guage monitoring the kill line
PT-C was the pressure at the guage monitoring the choke line
PT_B was the pressure at the guage monitoring the bottom of the old BOP (not real sure about this)
So those lines could still represent the "base oil" and the mud injections then...?
Great pic - good find! Looks like PT-B301 flat-lined at 5841 psi, while PT-3k-2 211 was at 5161 and dropping @ 369.8 bbl of 13.25 ppg mud.
Look at the left side over the guy's head.
PT is presumably pressure transducer. As stated on the spreadsheet, a flat-lined pressure indicates a leak, and I don't know what PT-B301 was measuring. Anybody with clue?
The spreadsheet on the right indicates that the observed pressures were less than all of their models predicted. The slope looks like its matching the casing model. Its hard to tell which model is which because of the green shading overlay making the graph colors not match the legend colors (thanks, Microsoft!).
Here's another pic at the BP site that shows the same room at a different angle. The chart on the wall shows which ROVs were monitoring the different pressures. It's kind of hard to make out.
Sorry. Here's the link:
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/in...
Interstingly, it looks like PT-B301 was the guage at the bottom of the old BOP. On the wall chart, it's been crossed out.
In those pictures they are also displaying a data-set from a different time than they have taken those photos at, ...last update on the projected gradient screen says 8/3/2010 1500( that's 3:00 ?) , compare to the time on the watches people have on. The mud pumping started at what time..?
lol, I know these are silly questions, just trying to occupy some "time".
Thanks.
Speculation on IRC that the line that appears to flatten in this snapshot is pump pressure. The line that keeps dropping (following the inside casing only profile but a little below it) is an internal BOP gauge. No idea whether that's correct though.
" PT-B301 flat-lined at 5841 psi "
So if the pressure needed from the pumps would steadily decrease as the leg of mud gets established, then we would see an arc plotted. If the pump pressure flat-lined at the same time the mud volume was increasing...would this not indicate a rather large loss...?
Maybe I am the one that's lost....idk
Maybe someone could ask Kent Wells at next briefing but I doubt it given they typical questions. However we are told that they reached the desired pressure so presumably the relevant pressure reading continued on down within accepted parameters until they had the well static (with mud-head to Q4000).
@Isaacnd200: Since that pressure guage is crossed out on the chart showing the ROV tasking, I'm wondering if they decided the data they were getting was corrupt/no longer valid (it certainly appeared to flatline and went outside a couple of the predicted curves on the first chart, but was still "within acceptable parameters" according to that chart).
Edit: wording about the curves
I was able to get some screen captures showing several gauges that were invaded with oil....I did find that a little odd. ...I'm going to assume that the plotted information given, is from P transducers placed at various points in the system, so while it is possible that a transducer was rendered inoperable due to failure....it could also be replaced fairly rapidly if need be...so maybe they decided it was no longer relevant..?
I'm thinking really about where the bore would have been damaged by the stress exerted when the rig and riser sank. The BOP stack was confirmed by many to be at a slight lean 12 degrees, if I am not mistaken. So if the bore structure is normally rigid, than it would break or fracture at the horizon of higher density in the sub-floor, ie: where the mudstone/bedrock starts.
Any body know offhand how far down the mudline goes at the wellhead ?
I had read it averages around 200' in that particular block.
Didn't the mud pumping operation suddenly end and go to cementing quicker than what they had initially stated..?
Thoughts ?
The stack had about a 3 degree lean (estimated, of course) - not 12 degrees.
Confirmed by who? I don't believe the BOP was anywhere near 12 degrees (which is a lot more than a slight lean.
Good point, I stand corrected, Going back over the original article on another site I see this,.. that "reading" of the bulls-eye gauges was given by somebody with no experience in reading them. Still doesn't quite answer my questions though. I have looked at the systems of cable tie-downs for sub-sea structures, a 4-way tie-down, 1-3, top to bottom for a total of 12 anchors set, so they seem normally able to withstand quite alot of "push-n-pull".
Can you take a look at this and give me your opinion...?
It is just another blog, a good one... a site I check from time to time....I'm not saying he gets a Pulitzer....
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/06/28/increase-leaning-bop-15-degr...
But quite obviously it didn't.
I'll file this away with the "there are two wells" material, in which none of the true believers have noticed that there's no oil spill visible.
Heh heh...Yes, admittedly, Alex might not have a firm grasp on engineering and such, ie: what the difference is in between something that is " practically impossible " as opposed to something " likely possible. ".not like I haven't put my foot in my mouth before. I take everything with a grain of salt. Really, I like Bayes theorem to stay on top of what is factual in the public mind. The entropy of a topic is related to the weight it carries. By perusing all the different sites ,like this one ,that are maintained by working professionals in the related fields, not just bloggers, I get a much better idea of what is fact and what turn's out to be ultimately fiction, simply by how much a given topic is discussed. Great site here. Thanks for allowing me to babble away. babble babble
Bayes Theorem, +10
That is not saying given enough time it wouldn't. After all when you close off the end of a fire hose it stops whipping around
I'm not sure the mudding operation ended earlier than they expected. The fact that they may have reached a certain pressure quickly was most likely great news to the engineers, meaning no significant loss of mud? i don't know any of this for sure, that may be too simplistic?
3 August
13:05 cdt - started kill injectivity test
15:00 cdt - started mud pumping
23:00 cdt - secured mud pumping (abt 8 hours total)
5 August
09:15 cdt - started cement pumping
14:15 cdt - secured cement pumping
I believe the above time line is correct, and is based on the various press releases on the BP web site.
I think that the test itself is what could cause problems..hypothetically speaking,...the leak location was established by the fact that they could not get to a hydrostatic equilibrium,ie: the point where you could saw the entire stack off and nothing would come out....if there were a shallow leak, and fluids were forced through it, this in itself, would make them larger due to erosive qualities of the flow. So really...the only way to see where the oil and gas would vent in the surrounding area would be to shut the well in....but at the same time, by doing so, you could cause larger pathways for the leak. I look at this like stress testing materials. You never stress test something...and then use it in the manufacture of a product, for you destroy what you observe in the course of the test. So I think they might have realized, that by the fact they had to continuously pump mud into the well, without ever reaching equilibrium, that that mud pumped IN , would represent roughly the mud lost, per pore counts and such. So maybe the sudden switch to cementing could be attributed to the "pucker factor" of perhaps causing a larger fluid migration path than before...?
They said they had the well static and balanced at the surface with the riser from Q4000 filled with mud.
I understand, again, my misunderstanding there. So if the leg of mud that was keeping the well " static" was measured from the surface, than that would mean it could not be established in the bore due to a shallow leak ? Thanks for your patience with my questions.
They said that was always their intention in that phase of static kill (0 psi at surface). Nothing they have said about the process or outcome implies a shallow leak. In fact they specifically said that flow was inside production casing only which rules out a shallow leak if information is correct.
Getting back to the PT-B301 flat line for a second, if you look to the very far left, top of that picture, you'll see another plot of the same reading.
There were two sharp vertical spikes downward on the PT-B301 reading (look to the left of the vertical dashed line on the plot, and just above the guy's head).
Also, it looks like the flat-line part of that reading is just too "clean" (no jitter in the plot like the rest of the lines). I'd say they simply lost a reading.
Edit: also note that at the second sharp downward spike, there was another, (apparently temporary) flat line.
Thats a great find.
Interesting that their base case injectivity was 50 b/d/psi - that is truly enormous, and indicates a VERY permeable reservoir (no surprises there). If accurate it means the well would flow 50,000 b/d at a pressure drawdown of only 1000 psi downhole. It also means they could inject the oil back into the reservoir at 5 b/m (7200 b/d) at an overbalance of only 150 psi.
I note also that their base case fracture gradient across the reservoir is only 13.5 ppg.
At the time they cemented the production casing back in April, they had a tough job designing the cement job based on a 14.5 ppg frac gradient (and I think I read that they were taking substantial mud losses at mud weights even lower than this). Hence the use of the low density foamed cement slurry at 16.7 ppg; they wanted to avoid losing cement to the formation as they were trying to get the top of cement high enough in the annulus to satisfy regulations and also perhaps to avoid damaging the reservoir from a future production perspective.
The 13.5 ppg frac gradient they now quote is probably consistent with a reduction in reservoir pressure due to depletion. But I've been wondering about what happened during the cement job; surely they would be losing a lot to the reservoir? They did well to get a 5000ft cement head in the casing; I'd like to know what they have in the wellbore above it.
I think it was count who said this to me in the last thread but I was under the impression that a lower population is what we wanted here...so are you saying that due to the decline, my work hours would be longer and I'd have to pay more for my retirement plan? Anyway I'll probably go to the library some time next week and pick up a copy of Singularity, I'm not sure what to expect.
It's happening already. Mother earth is about to blow her top. :) Just kidding. You'll be fine. Consider studying engineering. I think you'd be good at it. Cheers.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/06/villagers-missing-injured-volc...
"One of Indonesia's most active volcanos erupted Friday, sending lava and a searing gas cloud tumbling down its slopes. At least four people were feared dead, officials said, and several others were seriously hurt.
"It happened so fast," said Surono, the director of the volcanology and mitigation agency. "There was no time for an evacuation." ..."
I'm not sure what the point of that was, the volcano is rather active and it isn't suprising that whoever lived on it was hurt. But I wish their families a happy life.
Though reading the comments there sort of put me down...who knew humans were so self hating.
We had a conversation the other night where I said an Indonesian volcano would blow soon. I feel bad for anyone who experiences pain. After a while though I just kind of expect it, acknowledge it, and move on. I guess I have some compassion fatigue.... which is why I hope you and your generation become great engineers, lawyers, doctros, politicians, parents, spouses, and leaders learning from the mistakes of your predecessors.
I'm here to encourage you to step up and make a positive difference. You seem like an intelligent young 'un who has a thirst for knowledge. I hope you can channel it into something good, useful, and purposeful for the good of mankind.
BP (BP/ LN) spokesman says cementing of Macondo well performing as expected
FTSE
16:05 06-08-2010
Nothing to see here. No oil either. Move along.
Are you being facetious again?
That last part sounded like sarcasm to me, though it help if you provided the entire article.
Yeah, I added the last part. There is no story; it's a Reuters News Alert.
snakehead,
In reference to our discussion of BPs plan for a MC252a and MC252b
( http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/29/29977.pdf ), I was wondering what you make of the following:
Please note the coordinates on the following video clip from 06/07/2010:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brfBcehwnP8
1202476 and 10431302.
Here is another clip from that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBAvH9T-QX4
Here, the ROV spends most of its time at 1202497 and 10431358.
This clip is from another side of the BOP being shown in the first clip. So the 2 views are from different sides showing the same structure spewing oil.
The 2 views were taken from about 50 feet apart.
The problem is that those coordinates are 4 or 500 feet away from the coordinates of the capped structure we are currently being shown.
Now here is a clip from the location we are currently being shown. Notice that this clip shows plenty of lower structure (and a bit of mud kicked up by the ROV at times during the clip) but NO view of oil spewing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogBLjnlu4wc
At 2:20ish into the clip the coordinates are 1202812 and 10431617. This clip…which doesn’t show oil spewing…is from 05/27/2010.
Putting the coordinates side by side:
1202476 1202812
10431302 10431617
These numbers are denominated in FEET.
You can see there are hundreds of feet separating the 2 locations. 450 feet.
The coordinates we are currently being shown since the BOP was capped:
1202794 and 10431616
This is the same location as the 05/27 clip.
On page 3 of their plan BP gives the coordinates for both planned wells.
Well “a” is at 1202799 and 10431610
These are the coordinates of the location we are currently being shown.
Well “b” is at 1202514 and 10431494
These are nearly the same coordinates of the second clip above. (1202497 10431358)
Here is a calculator to find the distance of any ROV from the location of well "a":
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/06/13/bp-gulf-oil-spill-rov-utm-di...
So this hypotheis is that Well A was damaged&abandoned at same time as Marianas was damaged...OR Well A damaged&abandoned as per Mike Williams/60Minutes "that well was abandoned" ? ...I guess it doesn't matter...
IF - if if if! (and don't worry about the gov't currently knowing or not) a WELL A was abandoned as hypothesized in either/whatever situation, how might a sneaky driller pull it off...?
...cause apparently there's NO crew coming forward saying "we moved over 500 ft and started a new hole" WHY NOT? Why not Mike Williams coming forward and simply clarifying OR 60Minutes' reporter Pelley clarifying? - one would think they're following all this...
...IF the Marianas came in for repairs and, just say, returned with the exact same personnel...how would even that EXACT personnel know they were 500ft over..it's the high seas with NO visual landmarks? Maybe the only peeps who knew are all the ones taking the 5th... possible??? i dunno...
...and was the BOP left on the well when the Marianas came in...? OR was the well temporarily cemented and the BOP hauled in...OR well cemented and BOP left on ocean floor...?
also...
IS there anything inherently unusual about a drilling "plan" with two locations only 500 ft apart...?
Would you really attempt a hole in a location-A...find nothing,have problems,whatever...give up...and then return after one year and attempt a hole ONLY 500 ft over, and expect a significantly greater result...??? It would seem the geology would be too similar...?
AND...why wait a year apart...? Why NOT immediately...??? Seems illogical to have to re-deploy...and especially only 500ft over...
OR...are you planning on drilling a second successful hole to produce from...? Two production rigs 500 ft apart? One rig spanning the 500ft and producing from two holes...? BUT again, why wait a year for a second hole...?
john - easy answers for a change. Why two SURFACE locations so close together? Generally offshore all wells tend to be from a common platform or subsea location. It’s critical that the production equipment be centrally located.. The subsequent wells are directionally drilled to the deeper reservoir targets. A deep target could easily be penetrated 5,000’ to 10,000’ from its surface location. Why wait a year? Very common. Once an exploratory well finds hydrocarbons the results have to be evaluated. This typically involves utilizing the data from the well to reprocess the seismic data. Also, a company will often want to conduct production tests on the new well to determine how many development wells might be required.
Given this approach has been proven to be the most economical way to develop offshore oil/NG fields for the last 40 years or so I would say the logic of it has been fairly well proven.
Even simpler answer: backup location with same target. Many deepwater wells in this area have had to be junked due to shallow water flows and then respud in backup locations. Rarely, and expensively, a well can get pretty deep before needing to be junked. My memory is that the Macondo wellbore was re-entered after the DWH took-over - not a different location. Typical deep water permits have 4 or more locations permitted, sometimes for alternate locations allowing for new subsurface studies between submitting permit and actually spudding or for future appraisal well locations.
I'm guessing they'd know they were 500 ft over when they had to start redrilling the same hole sections.
Well, there you are.
You know, when all is said and done, I didn't give up MSNBC when Chris Matthews went from "Send in our subs" to "nuke 'em, Don". I stuck with them even when Dylan da "I give you the truth" Rat went searching for Lake Simmons, and when Rachel kept seeking out Bobby NoWindmillsAllowedHere Kennedy. Stuck with them thru all that. It was only after I read on the Drum that Olbermann was starting to spew "dougr from the Oil Drum" nonsense that I pulled the plug. I've saved a few KWH of electricity a day, so it's all good.
Sorry if this has already been addressed by I am running between 2 offices and saw on the bloomberg that Suttles stated "BP will abandon damaged well and relief well".
Seem that there is a divide between Allen and BP regarding the RW, and could someone tell me the pros/cons of both:
1) Killing the bottom with the RW
2) Just leaving the well as is from the static kill.
TIA
Work on the relief well is continuing as planned.
The comment about abandoning the wild well and relief wells came in response to a question from a reporter about whether or not any of the three wells would ever be used for production - the answer is NO. He said they had not been spending any time thinking about producing the reservoir or selling the lease to another company.
Sometimes abbreviated news clips leave a lot to be desired as far as accurate info' goes.
I am pretty sure this means after the relief well has done its job of cementing the bottom of the damaged well. As to the second relief well the jury is still out. They may find it necessary to drill into the damaged well at a different depth with it also to assure a proper plug job or maybe it might be drilled off in a different direction to be used at a later date as a producer.
Politically, if I was BP I would plug both RW's and maybe return sometime in the future and drill a whole new well. The whole thing is pretty much a hot potato at this point, so what is a another $100 million or so.
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — BP PLC says it may in the future drill in the same Gulf of Mexico oil reservoir that blew its top and caused one of the world's worst spills.
Officials said Friday at a news briefing in New Orleans that the company hasn't closed the door to tapping the reservoir again.
Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles says "there's lots of oil and gas here." He says "we're going to have to think about what to do with that at some point."
The company is plugging up the blown-out well with mud and cement. Officials have also been drilling two relief wells in a planned effort to plug the hole from the bottom.
BP says it will abandon the blown well and the relief wells but is leaving open the option of drilling nearby.
http://www.local15tv.com/news/local/story/BP-Says-It-Still-Might-Drill-I...
Sorry~I didn't see this because I hadn't refreshed, I thought it was "almost" funny to watch the streaming news on the BBERG.....almost every item for 2 pages back is a news story or an update about the possible drilling of the resovoir in the future:
Thanks for the input ......I did just read that BP says it might drill again in spill resovoir, per Doug Suttles....I too thought this would be a political hot potato for BP, and thought maybe down the line some other company would possibly produce this resovoir, so right now I am at a loss for words (a first time for everything)
Again, that is not exactly what he said. (Too bad there isn't a transcript.) He acknowledged that there is a lot of oil and gas there, but said that they have been focused on other, more immediate, concerns. What he did not do was flatly state that BP would never produce from there, although he was clear that the three current wells will all be plugged and abandoned.
Incidentally, I almost heard a slight ironic smile in his voice when he said that it is clear there is a lot of oil and gas there, as if referring to the volume of flow many of us witnessed for so many days. One of the things I've learned from the past few months is how much is often communicated by tone of voice as well as facial expressions. Reading an accurate transcript may not always tell the full story of what was meant.
Thanks, I just listened to the entire presser from Suttles and it does seem the media took it out of context somewhat and you can see by the headlines on my terminal how the media ran with it, without bothering to state it in context.
Their behavior makes sense from a legal/image standpoint, in that they are going to act "like nothing ever happened" and that their reputation is intact. To sell the lease to another producer would be an implicit admission of "____________" < you fill in the blank. I expect BP to act rather arrogant from here out; don't think we will see any corporate remorse. Expect them to start reigning in the promises of settlements and reimbursements in the weeks ahead, if the cementing holds 100%.
"Expect them to start reigning in the promises of settlements and reimbursements in the weeks ahead, if the cementing holds 100%."
Only if they were absolute idiots. BP wants to put this whole mess behind them as fast as possible. This will never happen as long as people are complaining and investigative reporters are finding evidence of wrongdoing.
In fact - I suspect that we will not see BP going after Transocean and Halliburton in public either. They will probably sit down out of the public eye and agree among themselves who owes who what. Then Transocean and Halliburton will each issue a press release admitting a certain level of fault and compensating BP with $X amount of dollars.
BP will continue processing claims and forward some of the more obvious cases of fraud to law enforcement agencies. (News stories about fraud investigations will then compete for airtime with stories about people who felt that their compensation was insufficient.)
In addition BP should set up some form of arbitration process to be used when BP and the claimant disagree on the amount of compensation - or if compensation should be paid at all. Additionally - in cases where the disagreement between BP and the claimant is reasonable - BP should place the disputed amount in a trust fund where the amount is donated to charity if BP's case prevails. (This gives BP some PR cover when they go after the people making excessive claims - since BP has already announced that they will give the disputed amount to charity nobody can accuse BP of lining their pockets at the expense of the injured.)
In effect - BP needs the claims process to become a 'non-story' from the news media perspective.
With the capping of the well - BP went from the 'Acute Crisis Phase' and entered the 'Chronic Crisis Phase.' BP needs to get through the Chronic phase as fast as possible so they can enter the 'Post Crisis Phase' and begin rebuilding their company. The faster they get the damage claims settled - the faster they can leave the Chronic Crisis Phase.
Of course - there is no reason for BP to listen to me and their ability to commit RP blunders means that it is highly likely that they are going to do something stupid again.
I too suspect Legal & PR are advising 'do nothing' other than fix things as best as can be managed.
I also suspect the reservoir engineers and explorationists are hoping for another test of the feature ASAP. "A lot of oil" indeed.
Does anyone know if the pressure drop could be just a function of resevoir damage rather than depletion? I've always wondered if the 60' expands dramatically downdip, as turbidite lenses tend to do.
Accounting for this mess will break new ground, although I suppose Extended-Production-Test actually selling oil might fly prior to the dryhole designation.
Why they are so reluctant to at least use RW2 as another test of the structure & reservoir seems odd. And I seem to recall the actual prospect they were going for is deeper.
From previous thread by Deepwater Engineer (spellchecked)
+1 This is theoretically a crime scene. Do not tamper with the evidence. Do a thorough forensic evaluation of the well.
But didn't the push for the static kill and cement job come from BP engineers rather than the DOE? So BP wanted to hide evidence of its own innocence?
But didn't the push for the static kill and cement job come from BP engineers rather than the DOE? So BP wanted to hide evidence of its own innocence?
______________________________________________________________________
I think BP is building a good case that there was nothing at all flawed about the well design that caused this. It may well be that drilling into the bottom might have destroyed their ability to make that case as effectively.
I think BP wanted to kill the well. Dead. ASAP. Before the next hurricane. Stop paying $1B/month for that armada up top, and get the shareholders confidence back. If RW1 intersects the annulus and finds no oil or gas, the casing design looks OK. maybe not best practice, but not the cause of the blowout.
In answer to a pevious questioner, I'm sure BP are desperate to recover the BOP. If anyone wants it cemented in place it's Transocean.
From what I read earlier the cement top appears to be almost entirely inside the production casing with its top about 8000' below the wellhead. There is a spacer above that and some mud above that. They intend to finalize the kill with RW 1. At some point after that, I believe about October, they will recover the entire BOP stack. I believe those are the reported facts and intentions. Given that is true, I can speculate that they will install a new BOP ( maybe properly test it this time) and re-enter the hole. It becomes a normal drilling operation. There are tools that can fish out DP and whatever else they may encounter in the hole. They could even drill out the cement plug if they wanted. Once they have the well under control and adequately cleaned out just about all investigation and abandonment options are on the table again. It seems unlikely that either BP or Transocean will be able to hide all of what happened or avoid a pretty detailed downhole investigation. I'm not dismissing the possiblility that a backroom deal has already been cut and the fix is in, but since my fears that they would cement all the way back to the wellhead did not happen, that seems less likely.
Karma Dave,
I wonder if they could accomplish the same by cutting a window in the production casing with the Relief Well. Once inside the casing, they could drill out the cement to the shoe and then run a Bond Log. If the log delineates problems, these could be healed with a squeeze job(s). With the annulus sealed, they could then properly plug the inside of the casing.
One advantage of this route is they can leave the BOP "Nippled Up" while they are screwing around.
It's fairly common to get hung up in casing windows when exiting casing from the inside so this could be a concern.
NU
NU,
I am not qualified to discuss the detailed procedures that could be used, but what you say makes sense. What you propose may be exactly what they have in mind for the reason you stated. They may find that the cement injection went so well as viewed from the bottom that there is not much of anything left to do there. I don't know the specific requirements for P&A on this well, but I believe I heard that some work at shallower depths is part of it. I believe they said they intend to recover the BOP after the well is confirmed killed. So, I'm just suggesting that they could attach a new one and re-enter from the top. If all they did was clean out the production casing to the top of the cement plug they would have about 8000' of cased hole to evaluate. Couldn't they do mechanical and wireline tests to evaluate the various annular spaces and look for damage from the cement up?
Look, all any of us outside of the BP/govt guys can do is speculate. I'm not surprised because the best way to claim plausible deniability is to keep your mouth shut when possible and speak only in general non-specific terms when you must. I can't even really get mad at them because if I was them that's the way I would handle it too.
Karma Dave,
"I can't even really get mad at them because if I was them that's the way I would handle it too."
So true.....The other advantage to keeping your mouth shut is; If new info dictates a change of the plan, you don't look like idiots.
There seemed to be a change of plans today. The plan to cut a window in the production casing fell by the wayside which means drilling out the cement inside the production casing with the relief well ain't gona happen.
Like you, I do hope they re-enter from the top, clean out the entire well, log it, and do a proper plug job. Mostly to satisfy my own curiosity. I don't think the true cause of the blow out will be known unless they re-enter the well. Also, I don't think the well will be properly plugged unless they start over from the bottom.
It sure sounds like the evidence is pointing towards the flow coming up the inside of the production string. I can envision three scenarios:
1) The casing shoe failed and flow moved down from the reservoir and entered the production casing from the bottom. If this is the case, the cement job above the reservoir and the production casing seal at the wellhead are intact.
2) The casing parted at or near the reservoir level.
3) The flow is not coming from the 60' sand intercepted in the Macondo well. It's coming from a mystery reservoir below the bottom of the Macondo Well.
One thing that is perplexing. If the flow is not coming up the production casing annulus with a clear path to the surface, how do you get a 50,000 BOPD flow rate on a well with fluid and the first (lower) cement plug inside the casing. The fluid inside the casing was balanced to the formation pressure. Before displacing with seawater, a pill was spotted to compensate for lighter seawater. It really hard to envision how this could happen on a well that sat for five days while open hole logs were run.
It's aways what you can't see that bites you. While your admiring the cute little cubs, the mama grizzly bites you in the ass. Maybe the cute little 60' sand reservoir with a measely 50 million barrel reserve is a canard. The real cause could be a much bigger sand below the bottom of the Macondo Well. The pressure applied during the cement job could have frac'd the cap rock of this mystery reservoir. The fluids and well design for the known sand were inadequate for this bigger and higher pressure reservoir.
It could be a case of not enough information, but I have a hard time envisioning the 60' Macondo Sand flowing 50,000 BOPD and producing 5 million barrels in three months. The senario is even more unlikely if the oil is flowing down from reservoir thru the very small annulus of the 7" casing (BP reduced the hole size below the reservoir)to the shoe. A casing collaspse also seems incongruous with a 50,000 BOPD flow.
Just throwing this out this mystery reservoir as a possibility. The Relief Well intercept will provide significant data.
NU
Reposted; edited; bolds mine
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/08/construction_o...
Heh. Declare away, Admiral . . .
Doesn't Allen already have the authority to rescind his (reported) order that BP pay for this boondoggle? Then, if the contract permits, BP can pull the plug.
Jindal is certainly not going to stop transferring BP's cash to his #3 political contributor, the Shaw Group.
This is an atrocious situation. Many coastal scientists think the berms may be harmful to the coast. It's acknowledged that dredging capacity has been transferred away from ongoing restoration projects that were designed by coastal scientists. One small boat equipped with the cheap and simple "heavy oil recovery device" can capture more tarballs in a day than the extant berm has captured in weeks.
I bet Rahm Emmanuel was involved in the terrible decision to issue permits. The White House political arm was scared of Jindal's bombast.
I bet Rahm Emmanuel was involved
Dunno, but is he not the easiest-to-scare "tough guy" Obama knows? Sheesh.
When he was whip in Congress, Rahm was a tough guy while herding Democrats, but apparently he's skeert of Republicans.
Rahm's happy to give Jindal all the rope he needs to hang himself later for waste, damage to oysterbeds and sterring BP$$ to personal friends/campaign contributers.
BP executives agreed to pay for this colossal waste of shareholder money.
If the shareholders are ok with that, I guess they won't mind paying for Jindal's destruction of oyster fisheries or his $173 million long-term seafood testing and marketing campaign.
If they don't start showing us the stack, I'm gonna start ordering gas mask off of the internet and bill it to BP!
It's still leaking today. I thought that might be weird until I got on Admiral Allen's press call a few minutes ago. I can't direct-quote because I'm not the fastest note-taker, but he said that they're putting down a layer of fluid then more mud -- I guess if that picture is of the mud pump thingy (laymen's terms, lol), then the leak makes more sense.
On a side note, I pushed *1 to ask a question four times and they acted like no one was asking questions and cut the call short. Hmmph.
I pushed *1 to ask a question four times and they acted like no one was asking questions and cut the call short. Hmmph.
Such crust! Don't they know who you are?
(Thanks for the pic, and good morning back.)
Well, thank you, I think the problem is that they DO know who I am -- a bit of a rabble-rouser. :)
Speaking of RR's, I was at the town hall meeting in Buras last night with Mabus; wow, did that guy absorb some anger/frustration from the crowd! Interestingly, a fisherman got up and showed a Gatorade bottle of seawater and crude he had taken out of the bay (I think Barataria) that morning. Lest folks pass him off as a liar, he challenged the Coast Guard, EPA, and Mabus himself to go out with him this morning on his boat.
The oil is there. Lifting the ban on fishing/shrimping is a big mistake until they come up with a seafood test for dispersants or dispersant-oil mix, IMHO. The fishermen and shrimpers, as much as they want to get back to work and get their lives back, are scared, too.
Lifting the ban on fishing/shrimping is a big mistake until they come up with a seafood test for dispersants or dispersant-oil mix, IMHO. The fishermen and shrimpers, as much as they want to get back to work and get their lives back, are scared, too.
Y'know, Cap, this is such a puzzle to me. All the state F&W depts know that one sickened diner finishes off their fishing industries for good, right? If they're gambling with seafood safety, they gotta be crazier'n anybody since Baghdad Bob.
There is still some oil in Barataria Bay and just off Grand Isle. It's unclear whether that might have come from the Bayou St. Denis spill. At this link you can see how the reports are thinning out; also a report of a flyover that showed little visible oil even in Barataria Bay.
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/08/louisiana_auth...
The surface oil will be gone soon, but lots of tarballs will remain for a long time. They are not so bad.
Chemical testing of seafood will focus on the relatively dangerous PAHs, which come from oil rather than dispersant. As I understand it, they can't really test for oil or Corexit, because both are mixtures. They have to test for components. Perhaps they need to test for some component of Corexit because of popular fears and rumors. But all the components of Corexit are less toxic and less persistent than some components of oil. And there was more oil released than Corexit by 50 to 1, or more.
Lubchenco's explanation on Wednesday of how quickly fish metabolize these substances, combined with the other piece we found earlier -- re how the lipid-barriers in their digestive membranes separate the flesh from whatever chemicals they ingest -- made sense to me. Wish I could find that again.
oh Lotus, you already had it on hand in the 8/4 briefing
DR. LUBCHENCO: Thank you for giving me an opportunity to clarify that. Fish metabolize hydrocarbons relatively rapidly. And so if an adult fish or a fish that would be the size that fishermen would catch and bring to market, if that fish is exposed to oil, it might be contaminated initially, but it metabolizes. It naturally breaks down the oil. And so after a period of time on the order of weeks, that fish is no longer unfit for human consumption. It has broken down the hydrocarbons, and it is safe to eat.
That’s what we are testing to make sure that that process -- that natural process has happened, and that the seafood is safe.
Transcript here, video here.
I watched the entire video last night and found it very informative. As another commenter posted earlier, it is notable for some good questions and crisp answers. And it gives a better sense of the percentage breakdowns in the oil budget analysis that is a bit more subtle than the "75% of the oil is gone!" headlines. (Lubchenko said "that at least 50 percent of the oil that was released is now completely gone from the system.")
Yepper, rainy, I'm the one who admired the better-than-usual Q&A on Wednesday, and I may even be the one who brought that other article I wish I knew where to find again (about the lipid-barriers in finfishes' membranes). I tells ya, this aging-memory thingie is hay-ell.
Yes, that was a good briefing, thanks for linking. Lubchenco clarified a lot of things that were murky in the report, which was a mess.
1. Many people took the category "residual" (25%) to mean "the oil still out there" and scoffed at that as feel-good spin. But JL explained that it meant "the oil that didn't go the other routes." She said the oil still out there is less than 50% of the flow, but they aren't sure of the biodegradation rate. Why didn't they put that in the report?
2. Reading the report, I couldn't tell whether "dispersed" meant (a) all the oil that was ever dispersed, (b) oil that was dispersed but has been degraded, or (c) the amount of dispersed oil currently in the Gulf. She explained that they meant (a), based on models and previous experiments involving turbulent deepsea release. Only 24% dispersed is surprisingly low. I recall one scientist opining that most of the oil was dispersed and only 10% to 40% would make it to the surface.
Yesterday I started a thread on the report:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6815#comment-695347
There NatResDr asked this question:
The natural gas component has consistently been estimated at 40% by weight. Samantha Joye has also questioned why everyone speaks of an oil spill instead of an oil-and-gas spill. In their research cruises, Joye and John Kessler discovered that the deepsea oil plumes (1000-1300 meters) are also methane plumes. Apparently the methane mostly dissolved in deep water rather than bubbling to the surface. It is being biodegraded as long as the oxygen holds out. See Joye's July press conference, which is on youtube in 4 parts.
The oilpatch guys can correct me on this, but I've always understood that petroleum refers to everything, gas, liquid, and solid, in that carbonaceous stuff that we mine for liquid fuels and other useful things, and I use it when that's what I mean. As we see here, oil tends to mean, in common parlance, the liquids only, although when used in the oilpatch, I think of it as shorthand for petroleum. Add in natural gas liquids, particularly when used by people who probably don't know what they're talking about, like reporters, and you've got major confusion.
I took note earlier today of some of the problems with our media filter. (WARNING: politics involved, which I think is OT here at TOD.)
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/08/tests_suggests_oil_dispersant.html#incar...
Tests suggest oil dispersant washing up on Alabama beaches
"...At some locations, the brown material was present from the surface to the sea floor. At other locations, the brown material was in a layer in the bottom 5 feet of the water column. At those sites, another material -- stringy, milky yellow filaments the thickness of a human hair -- formed a layer above the brown material.
Overton said the filaments appeared biological in nature and might be the remnants of bacteria that consumed oil..."
I'll be glad when the test results are back.
Cap, you sound like the very incarnation of Wendy Billiot, a charter captain and environmental activist who runs her boat out of Bayou DuLarge.
She was over at the meeting with Mabus last night, too. Posted an interesting response to it on her blog. For all I know, you may have been the woman she was talking about ;)
http://bayouwoman.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/navy-secretary-mabus-came-to-...
Thanks for that link, novice. I've bookmarked Wendy's blog and will follow it in future.
If you don't know Quinta Scott, you might enjoy her work, too. You can see Wendy and get a pile of links to Quinta in an entry I wrote for my own blog. Quinta spent ten years writing a book about Mississippi river wetlands, and has a good bit to say about Louisiana's estuarial systems, marsh restoration, wetland loss and so on.
http://shoreacres.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/quinta-scott-where-news-meets...
Kewl, I'll be right ovah . . .
I think she might've been at the earlier meeting -- Houma, I think. I did indeed speak up, mostly regarding the seafood testing, the suggestion to use volunteer groups in the restoration process (my own group is all HazWOpER-trained and has been blocked from volunteering throughout this whole crisis), and the need to take care of the people NOW as well as in the future (too many are not getting paid or are having their checks cut by as much as 80%).
I totally agree with the testing of the seafood; if they need to test for a component of it, so be it. I just hope that the component they select also happens to be the one that has been shown to rupture cell walls and sometimes cause hemorrhaging.
Captain Sassy :
"The oil is there. Lifting the ban on fishing/shrimping is a big mistake until they come up with a seafood test for dispersants or dispersant-oil mix, IMHO."
I agree totally ! Between all the liars you can find the truth only by on-the-spot checks.
For example in this video (Gregg takes donations, okay - but I don´t believe he is a liar !)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5unKurQinE&feature=channel
I'd say he's incredibly close. He went off about John Wright and his capabilities on a radio show, and asked many people to post a link asking for donations for him only to follow and state "that was so nice, you didn't have to do thet", yet he just asked many friends on FB to do it. I could rattle of a list a mile long about his issues with the truth, but will start with the fact he signed an affadavit of domicile to homestead property showing a previous Louisiana address after telling everyone he lived in pensacola hie entire life. I also know why he was fired and it wasn't the reason he gave everyone for now being employed by the Gulf of Mexico, many other including another pensacola resident who called him out after someone asked what he had received in donations and he stated 300.00, only problem was they found the information from Trinity at GLP that they had donated close to 4,000.00. If those aren't lies, then what is? I read there, but refuse to join his cult of hysterical victims.
But, beachmommy, does this implicate that his pictures are NOT SHOWING the truth ???
I am not talking about this particular video, rather his need to post ONE tiny section across from walkover 6 that has tidal pools vs the parts of the entire beach, and when he is on BTR telling them John Wright has never worked anywhere but the Middle East or that ~200 million people will die when the sea floor erupts and a tsunami kills them. The list of lies, half truths and conspiaracy theories, like the fact he believes Lake Simmons exist are a mile long. So, frankly I prefer my money go to someone who is honest and to be straight with you, I can make a photo look anyone I want to with the right manipulation. Also- the fact he did "sacrifice" his 6 figure income as a internet used car salesman ( LOL) to be the hero/warrior of the gulf. Maybe he'll include this in his new book since he'a already done and "e-book" on profiting from the internet thru flipping domain names and youtube hits. I prefer someone with an agenda that's not dependent on the mass hysteria being scared to death for income and donations personally.
But then again we should all vet every source, try santa rosa county, fl clerk of court search engine for gregory a hall, and then a google of gregg hall + ez articles.
Bob Cavnar's views on the cement job:
http://dailyhurricane.com/2010/08/bp-well-is-static-us-oil-is-gone-nothi...
"Is it just me, or are we watching the Matrix in real life?" says Bob, who does have a book coming out on the DWH disaster in October.
"Is it just me,...says Bob.
No, Bobby; it's you and Olbermann, who declared you to be an expert. Yer one of the reasons I quit MSNBC. But, as it sez, you do have a book coming out, so it's all good.
Finally success. Now us non-oilers can stop having to read boring technical talk about drilling (lol).
Since the Blowout Preventer and wellbore were sound enough to carry out the kill job then it could have been done earlier on in the disaster.
I still think they should inject a little oxygen at depth to help the natural processes along.
May the Gulf heal.
T-P: Drilling companies say they are poised to return to Gulf of Mexico
There is a time for bullshit and good vibes. Not now. Show us the stack.
It has been that way all night long.(Insomnia)
Whats the update with everything? Last night I was seeing multiple seeps coming from the seabed and now whats going on with all the different camera angles?
Why bother with the stack when they show us this ?
http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:44838.asx
What's with all of the bubbles? Seepage or something else?
hmmmm...focusing on that dimple ...
What else ?
If within 8 hours it has settled down it might have been the overpressure from the static kill that had spread out from the casing , but might be cemented tight right now.
If not then its a new leak to the reservoir and what you see are the gasses that are building up underneath and releasing while forming hydrates , (white blobs) and an occasional black blob (oil ?)
I am confident that somebody would be perfectly happy to rent you an ROV so you can look at whatever you want to.
On the other hand the people paying for these ROVs are paying for them to look at they things they are interested in seeing.
The people paying for the ROV's should shove them straight up their arses so we can see their faces. Then they can waddle out of US territory and stay there, if they think they don't owe us information.
The don't 'think' that they don't owe you information. They know that they don't owe you information.
In effect - you want them to spend time and money so you can look at a picture that you lack the technical understanding and expierence to evaluate.
They have no obligation to you. Thier only obligation is to the people they are contracted to.
Besides - if they gave you all of the information - you will simply accuse them of either hiding 'something' or claim that the information is faked somehow.
I want to see a well owned by BP that doesn't vomit oil out into American waters.
If BP doesn't understand the value of showing that to me, then its head is further up its arse than yours is.
As the saying goes: "People in hell want ice water."
And please explain the 'value' of wasting time and resources to show something that you dismiss out of hand anyway?
You're likening my wish to see "a well owned by BP that doesn't vomit oil" to a person in hell who wants ice water? I nominate that for best unintentional joke of the day by a commenter with a head up BP's butt.
Show me where I dismissed something out of hand.
"... In effect - you want them to spend time and money so you can look at a picture that you lack the technical understanding and expierence to evaluate.
They have no obligation to you. Thier only obligation is to the people they are contracted to. ..."
I disagree. BP and its station owners can kiss my *ss. I don't know your IQ but it doesn't take a geenyus to see if something is leaking from some pipes. If'n BP and TPTB done did thinks we be so stoopid to not unnerstan whut it iz we be lookin at they kin then splain it for us.
Of course, there are enough people here with the basic intelligence to explain it to us, ya know, those with minimal intelligence to correctly interpret what we see. Frankly it seals the deal as far as I am concerned, BP and TPTB are covering the corporate backsides and are in fact, hiding evidence in anticipation of lawsuits.
I place it at the desk of Obama. So much for transparency and honesty.
And if you hd been following the thread - you would have the explanations. However - since you seem to want a conspiracy - I suspect that you are simply dismissing any and all evidence that is not what you want to see.
At this point it boils down to credibility. Which is more credible? The idea that BP, the Coast Guard, EPA, other oil companies, etc. are involved in a conspiracy where thousands of people would have to be risking their careers to perpetuate? Or the fact that they are simply giving us the most accruate information availible?
The fact of the matter is if they had cared about our opinions - they would have wasted so much time showing you how you are wrong that they would not have had time to cap the well.
Since giving yout he video you want will do nothing to solve any real problems - I would be annoyed of one minute of ROV time was wasted just because youn wanted to see something.
Act: "... At this point it boils down to credibility. Which is more credible? The idea that BP, the Coast Guard, EPA, other oil companies, etc. are involved in a conspiracy where thousands of people would have to be risking their careers to perpetuate? Or the fact that they are simply giving us the most accruate information availible? ..."
What cracks me up is if an intelligent, tax-paying citizen asks to see the ROV Cams, which had been on 24/7 up to now, they suddenly become conspiracists. You're entitled to your opinion.
It's a fascinating thing, if nothing else, to watch the cams from time to time as they work on things. Credibility? BP has little credibility at this point and the oil industry as a whole just a little more. Read the thread for comprehension this time and see if the respected and knowledgeable elders on this board think they have all the information they wish they had.
BP, TPTB, and up to Obama, simply aren't transparent nor are they as honestly forthcoming as they could be. Everyone knows this. My opinion, which I am entitled to -thank you, is BP, TO, and others are covering their corporate behinds as best they can. They are NOT going to volunteer important information which can be used against them causing people to question their motives, decisions, and even ultimately their credibility.
The morons should simply answer the questions not directly related to their bloodguilt and potentially criminal activities. They can do a much better job of explaining the process and give some numbers supporting their reasoning. Regardless, simply point an ROV at the well at a closer distance and confirm what they are claiming. Perhaps then they could merit a rise in credibility.
Frankly, I think they are scared stiff to allow concerned taxpaying, voting citizens to view a potentially calamitous outcome with this cement/kill thing. The cams will come back on when the leaks have stopped and the well is dead. BP, TO, US gov't are not credible or honest with this crisis IMHO.
NO matter what you think about BK Lim's theory about drilling near a salt dome, he seems to have been right on in his analysis of the 'magic show' that would be created.
On July 25th, he wrote,
4 What you don’t see can be covered up.
"Perhaps the botched-up “photochop-chop” photos put up by BP was just a test. To see how keen the public eyes were in following BP’s clean up efforts. It would be hard to believe BP paid professionals for such a shoddy job. We should give BP more credit than that (remember the shares issues)? Let’s play dumb and the problems will go away.
Many experts in the oil industry were surprised and questioned the rationality of capping the well when the relief wells were so close to achieving their “bottom kill” objectives. They could have installed the TOP CAP much earlier. This means that BP knew if the gushing well was completely shut at the top, the oil and gas would spread beneath the sea floor and gas seeps would start appearing. So the TOP CAP had to be placed just before the relief well was ready for the “magic show”. Hurricane Bonnie spoilt the show and the delay is already showing signs of stress (gas seeps).
This could also mean that BP was getting less and less confident that the relief wells would work. The relief wells were held up as the last Trump card. If it fails in full (ROV) view of the concerned public throughout the world, BP’s shares would drop like a stone. There are good geological reasons why the chances of the relief wells’ success are less than 30%. But that would be in the next posting.
So instead “of going on a public stage with a final trump card of 30% chance of success” and risking everything BP stands for, a magic show will be set up so that what ever happens, it will be a success. How?
With a gushing well in full view, a successful bottom kill would show oil slowing down to eventually a tickle. With the cap on, it would be easier to manipulate the data. Thus botched-up photos were a test to check the keenness of the public eye. If the bottom kill fails, there is no independent monitor to prove it. BP could quickly pack and leave the site. Without ROVs’ video, the world is blind. Independent scientific researches later on could be disputed or controlled in post-recovery mopped up battle plan.
The TOP CAP had to be installed and the integrity pressure tests used as an excuse to completely shut down the flow. There is no need to prove the well is leaking. It is already a fact. David Copperfield could not have performed better."
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/30/4781973-why-is-bps-macondo-bl...
I think I'm done here, folks. Thanks to all for the terrific education that I got from the experts here. Hopefully, if this is an abracadabra event, the experts here will also make the powers that be accountable for inaccurate data provided to the public, since we can' so that oursleves, due to lack of education.
Thanks again, and may the Gulf heal very quickly as well as the people and creatures that have been affected by this.
Paintdancer over and out.
Sorry paintdancer, but Lim's ideas are so off-base I gave up on the more comprehensive explanation I has planned after re-reading his blog. It's like deconstructing a Dan Brown myth. There are so many wrong or unsubstantiated assumptions or conclusions in every paragraph, it would take a page each to refute them and life is just too short.
I understand this guy sells shallow hazard assessments. I hope and pray, for the sake of his customers, that his understanding of that subject is better than his understanding of deep geology, pore pressure and drilling. And that a capacity for logical thought is present when he's on his day job and only discarded when he puts on his blogging hat.
Please elucidate, quaking, for the sake of informed debate. The more input we non-pros have to evaluate, the better we can make judgements. There are plenty of respected long time TOD posters who are unabashed in presenting their commercial availability and excellent qualifications for the perusal of potential interested buyers, so the fact of providing a service for fee isn't necessary a disqualification to present in the Macondo arena, nor does it make one a whore.
That's why I make it a point to board hop. I want to see how many divergent arguments exist and how savage the debate gets (which is why I referred to the drilling club boys above). I like Lim because much of his analysis explains dynamics that have not been addressed here but have been examined in scholarly publications which are consistent with the scenario that Lim proposes to explain the dynamics of MC252.
If information is controlled in this situation, the results are going to be even more unpleasant than now, so your analyses are welcome indeed and will be scrutinized closely. Obviously we all need more enlightenment or "they" wouldn't be arrogant enough to inform the serfs that "they" haven't ruled out drilling in the same formation. That's the f*ing live definition of hubris and it scares the hell out of me.
Stones got this whole mess pegged right in Ventilator
"Messed up cheating, ain't gonna ever learn
Ev'rybody walking 'round
Ev'rybody trying to step on their Creator"
this is the "abracadabra" magic I'm appreciating today.
BP photo taken sometime during prep for the static kill, Q4000 in the middle, Blue Dolphin pump ship and HOS Center Line on the right, but, most importantly, look at the water surface. Remember what it looked like a couple of weeks ago, with flares of burning gas above it, water pouring on the flames, and ribbons of hydrocarbons streaming in all directions. Thank you to all the crews who worked for so many weeks in such hellish, dangerous conditions.
Thank you to all the crews who worked for so many weeks in such hellish, dangerous conditions.
Amen. Sure is a lovely sight. Thanks for the photo.
Once this is over--at least the activity at the site--I am so looking forward to long interviews (Charlie Rose?), articles, even books about what it was like to be out there working on those ships and rigs while the oil was still flowing. And then what it was like when they finally got it stopped. (There will undoubtedly be a movie too--maybe a multipart TV-movie; hope to goodness it'll be done by somebody who cares, and that they do it right.)
Folks here gripe about all the missing technical information. We know even less, virtually nothing, about the human element.
Speaking of the human element, I wonder how John Wright feels at the moment. Back at the beginning of summer he was getting a lot of press about being the guy who is THE guy to drill relief wells successfully and now the guys at Wild Well Control quietly moved onto the Q4000 and sealed the well before he got a chance to do his magic. So Wright spent long, hot months aboard DD3 and won't get the satisfaction of being the Macondo killer. Hard to imagine he's not feeling just a twinge - but then again he's had three weeks or so of cleaner air to breathe, so maybe he figures it's all good. (and I'm sure he's being paid a tidy sum in any event.)
Speaking of the human element, I wonder how John Wright feels at the moment
Been wondering the same wonder, rainy. I didn't realize WWC had the Q4000 show to itself (thought Wright was the overall kill-boss and figured his to be the major expert voice advising Chu and Allen on this stage of the proceedings). But I can sure see how he and everyone else out there (and detailed to Houston from elsewhere) just wanna put this past them and see home again.
I imagine that Wright was being consulted, but who knows what the org chart for this operation was.
I did notice that Wright's company was not mentioned in the caption for a photo of activity taken aboard Q4000 while the mud was being pumped down hole during the static kill.
Photo at http://www.flickr.com/photos/deepwaterhorizonresponse/4860580155/
Caption - GULF OF MEXICO - Personnel from BP, Helix Energy Services, Wild Well Control and Supreme Services manage valves on board the Q4000 to ensure consistency in pressure in the lines as mud is pumped from the vessels Blue Dolphin and HOS Centerline down 5,000 feet to the temporary cap on the Deepwater Horizon well Aug. 3, 2010. The crews began the static kill Aug. 8 and according to Q4000 Capt. Keith Schultz, the crew will try to get the well pressure to approximately 2,500 PSI. U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Sara Francis.
Seconded.
Please, not Charlie Rose. A long interview with Charlie Rose is like a long interview with Charlie Rose.
How about long interviews with Rockman, with bowls of BlueBell on the requisite round table instead of cups of who-knows-what?
YAY-ess!
A long interview with Charlie Rose is like a long interview with Charlie Rose.
LOL. I know what you mean; I used to transcribe his show. But he's smart and well informed; and if he has interesting guests, he often does a good job in drawing them out. He's a mixed blessing, to be sure, but he's a lot better than most TV interviewers, and he isn't fettered by commercials.
Photoshop.
Two plus hours - that took longer than I expected.
Is the BOP being recovered?
Sorry to shout in boldface, but this is outrageous, totally b.s., no public announcement of what they're doing, no data on how much cement pumped. BOP clearly separated from wellhead.
http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:45683.asx
My guess is that this is the new normal, since the well's been killed. BP agreed to show a feed, incident is over, feed gets pitched. They're under no enforceable obligation at all.
New normal indeed. Someone should tell Thud.
re cement - 180 barrels (5000' in 7" OD 32 ppf casing) plus a bit to flow around the end and up the annulus into the reservoir.
re BOP recovery - not yet.
In yesterday's thread Rockman introduced the topic of the moratorium and economic impacts.
I did some poking around on the internet and am confused.
There was a moratorium in place from 1982-2008.
I'm not sure I understand the parameters of the 1982-2008 moratorium, including the definition of "Outer Continental Shelf".
Is defined as the depth of water? (3 miles deep)
Or is it defined as the distance from the shore? (3 nautical miles)
If the old limit was 3 miles from shore, how does the Obama moratorium differ from the 1982 - 2008 moratorium ?
Excuse my total lack of understanding here.
TFG -- The old moratorium excluded the GOM and maybe some areas off Alaska. The OCS is essentially that area between the 3 mile limit and where international treaties say US mineral owner ship ends...which is around 200+ miles out. And I think that moratorium is still in effect. President Obama announced just a month or so before the BP accident he was planning to open up more areas of the OCS to drilling.
Funny in a cruel way isn't it: the feds said it was too risky to drill anywhere but in the GOM.
Funny in a cruel way isn't it: the feds said it was too risky to drill anywhere but in the GOM
Yes it is....Something/someone was pulling at their strings..
Very, very interesting.
I wonder if it was Texas...If it was, ironically LA is now feeling the brunt of Texas' indulgence. (I'm in TX)
Apologies if this has has already been posted to TOD.
Much Gulf Oil Remains, Deeply Hidden and Under Beaches
New U.S. Gulf oil spill report called "ludicrous."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100805-gulf-oil-spill-ce...
Much oil remains? Much?? Sorry, but I must have been absent that day in science class when they discussed the SI unit known as "Much" (is it SI, maybe it's some other system ... ;-) )
So this article has all these oceanographers saying "may" and "could" in every other sentence, but the article headlines with "Much".
So, are these brown spots that they keep flashing in front of the cameras actually oil? If oil, is it uniformly from the Macondo well? What is the concentration in the beaches; 1000 bbl per square mile, 1 bbl per square mile, 0.0000001 bbl per square mile? How do these values correspond to the proclaimed "much"?
There very well may be a problem. But we have no way of knowing its scope from the information presented in the article, or from the comments from the scientists given within it. We could have waited for the scientists to do some actual science to try to put some context and numbers around the issue, but, naw, it's better to show some pictures, link to some other articles (having the same lack of scientific rigor), and then just toss out the claim that we (maybe?) found some oil, so obviously it must mean that there is "much" more.
Awesome. Must be very embarrassing for NatGeo. At least it ought to be. Show me the science first, cupcake, then I might be impressed.
dissent555 - it´s up to you to determine if it´s "some" or "much" oil, that´s buried in the sand :
http://www.youtube.com/user/pcolagregg#p/u/48/eGq7QUmZxkE
http://www.youtube.com/user/pcolagregg#p/u/53/74wULDaidyY
From the T-P story (emph. mine):
Could somebody please explain (in simpleton-ese) how/why higher pressure helps cure the cement? T'anks.
lotus - don't hold me to it but I recall being told long ago that the cmt tends to expand while it cures but more importantly it can de-gas so pressure holds back both. Makes for a harde cmt. My damn engineer took off early to play golf! If he weren't my boss I'd fire his butt.
Ah, thanks, Rockman. (We'll hope he ends up in the drink a lot, the ingrate.)
Let's try this thought experiment.
13,000 x 13.2 x .052 = 8923.2
(8,000 x 16.2 x .052) + (5,000 x 8.5 x .052) = 6739.2 + 2210 = 8,949.2
Which would put the pressure inside the BOP essentially equal to the pressure outside the BOP. They could lift it completely off and the well would still not flow!!!
QED
If you were in charge we would have another blow-out and another how many months of fighting oil in the gulf?
Removing the BOP will happen in due time. Probably about a month from now.
lotus, In an earlier thread I posted a link to a site on cement/concrete. OK I almost forgot you said simplease. I'm not sure about the technical aspect of pressure but the fluid would assist in the curing process to insure the cement doesn't dry out. Cement and concrete test specimens are cured while submerged in water.
In regard to Allen's comment; he confuses technical terms such as using dry when the correct term is cure. I read his comment on pressure as pressure to resist the O/NG pressure of the well. As Rockman stated concrete does outgas so the fluid and mud on the top of the cement as added pressure may assist in this curing process also. My experience is topside so it isn't possible (SOP) to add pressure to cement/concrete but moisture and curing agents are a factor. The cement used in the oil well industry is different (chemical composition)than the cement used in building, bridge, and highway construction.
Thanks, mytie. Between you and Rockman, I think I get it.
Yeah, sometimes when y'all talk stuff that goes over my head, I stroll on without really trying hard to follow. (I'm sure you're being very precise and persuasive, but for those of us without the deep knowledge, it might as well be Palinspeak.)
as in right hand over the head at approx. 10:00?
As in:
"ZOOOM!"
"Whut?"
(as expressed by the formula "[well/duh[?]ornot]").
I know but I still get flashes of Ms. Sarah holding up her hand to show the location of Russia in relationship to Alaska as support for her geopolitical expertise. Thanks for the grin. Have a good weekend.
Chemically dispersed - 8%....my ass....8%???? Really? They spray millions of gallons of dispersant and we're expected to believe that only 8% of the oil was chemically dispersed? They're still sinking it for crying out loud!
And now these poor fisherman are being told that they can go fishing? Oh but wait, the shrimp, crab, and other bottom feeders metabolize oil rather quickly do they? So how long is it going to take for the oil on the bottom to dissolve? Because that's what all those fish are eating on a daily basis. I can understand if they came into contact with it once and then metabolized it, but it's not like that oil on the bottom is going anywhere anytime soon...come on.
http://www.fox8live.com/news/local/story/Disturbing-discovery-of-crabs-f...
And apparently some people on this forum think that "tarballs aren't so bad." LOL!!
Oil and gas gushing from seafloor?
http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:22458.asx
Or just thruster wash?
When the well was first closed in, Wells was asked if any of the gauges that were being monitored by the ROVs was the all critical "well pressure"
He said - No No, that it was being measured in a more technical and precise manner from above...BUT "I'm not sure - I'll get back to you"
He NEVER got back...
Anywho...Somewhere along my deep back-road travels, I picked up what i was told is a diagram of various parts of the added mini bop...
Part of the diagram shows a dial gauge labeled "BORE"...however, i never could find a ROV view of a similar configuration AND peeps didn't proceed to discuss it SO i assumed that the experts were in agreement with Wells AND there wasn't any deception going on...END of Story...although i wasn't convinced!
Saw today's comments and looked back - That "BORE" gauge sits in a small panel that has the master title "Port B Unlock"
Does that possibly have to do with the PT-B being discussed...??
I guess you mean what Kent Wells called the .
Three Ram Capping Stack.
Doug Suttles just calls it a Capping stack
There are some photos (about half way down that page). For example This one (hi-res) shows gauges but I guess they all show hydraulic line pressure.
I din't notice anything that looks like your diagram. What is the source of that diagram? URL?
There it be...
Oh yes, I see it now :-)
According to the diagram, that's part of the choke line on the three-ram capping stack.
I'm no expert but from Kent Wells presentation the static kill was conducted through the kill or choke lines on the original BOP not via those on the three-ram capping stack.
Kent Wells also said that none of the dial-gauges on the stack showed pressure in the well production casing, they show hydraulic line pressure. That doesn't seem consistent with the label "BORE" but the actual equipment at the Macondo well has a panel with different layout and labelling. See here
I have practical questions:
Now that the entire well is filled with cement, can the BOP be removed and if so, how?
In the similar vein, can the relief wells drill into the cemented wild well, and if so, why?
Or will the relief wells drill into the annular space only?
Now that the entire well is filled with cement, can the BOP be removed and if so, how?
Only the bottom 5,000' ft are cement - above that is fluid and then mud, per Suttles' briefing earlier today.
And the relief well may only drill into the annulus. From Allen's just completed, very short, press briefing:
We do not believe that the second try [after the first cut into the annulus] will be needed to go into the casing pipe because the indications are from the cement that was put in from the top is that the casing has been filled with cement down at that level, but we will not be sure of that until we finish the pressure checks that I mentioned earlier. But if the – if the pressure checks hold and we have indication the casing has been sealed off with cement, then the killing alone would require only going into the annulus. But we will not know that until the pressure checks are complete on the – on the cementing that was done yesterday and we actually enter the annulus itself and understand what the condition is at that time.
8/6 Allen briefing.
Thanks!
Did cement just sink to the bottom? I don't understand how they can pump from the top with heavy mud, which ostensibly forced the lighter oil below into the formation, and then pump with cement NOT expecting to force the mud into the formation, which I gather is very hard to do?
As I understood Wells' explanation, they were planning to drive the static kill mud into the formation as they pumped cement into the top. And they appear to have succeeded. The cement was followed by an un-identified fluid and then more mud.
Somehow the speculation here that the mud would quickly form some kind of blocking "mud-cakes" in the formation that would soon keep additional mud from entering the formation appears to have been incorrect. I wonder if their periodic injection of small amounts of mud between the time the static kill ended and the cementing began served to prevent the "mud-cakes." The press release issued at the time said that they were doing the small injections just to make sure all paths stayed open.
Hopefully some of the experts will comment here because I am curious myself. Until then, here is what I think happened. I read that the "mud" they used was formulated without barite or other weighting materials that would cause the mud cake issue. Mud cake ("filter cake" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_cake) would result from certain commonly-used weighting materials. By not using these materials (in mixture or suspension) and using some more like a solution (my poor analogy), there would be nothing to be filtered by the pores in the formation and therefore no filter cake problem.
In other words, they designed the mud specifically to be pushed into the formation/reservoir.
Although I have not heard that they used brine, I have read other posters talk about heavy brine solutions being used for this purpose too.
Caution - I barely understand this stuff myself (just learning); only repeating my current understanding.
Hopefully, some of the wise ones here will provide a better explanation.
rainy - don't have the official tech details but someone mentioned they used a non-bridging mud (no particles that would form a mud cake). It could have been a clear completion fluid that wouldn't form a mud cake. I just can't understand why they just don't use a clear explanation. Maybe the MSM couldn't follow but there's a world of consultants availble for little money to explain it to them and the public. instead we have to keep guessing between the lines.
What "solution" could be added to get weight up to 13.5 or so with out "particles" of something. I have see iron ore, galena, and a million lbs or so of barite in 100 lb bags(I go back to pre bulk mud days) added. When I first started a lot of cement was still being cut into a hopper for cement jobs. I have seen a lot of 18 ppg "lime base" mud with 35-40 vis. Mud cake was about a sixteenth on 30 minute test. Would that form "mud cake" and plug up a high porisity oil producing formation as prolific as that one? We used galena several times when we had 18.2 mud to weight the cement to 20ppg for squeeze jobs.
Even Brine was mentioned which the best I can remember will not stay in solution above 10ppg.
pass -- By brines or salts they don't mean NaCl. There are other much denser salts such as bromine. Completion brines can hit 17 ppg or higher. They are normally called completion fluids. They are put down wells instead of barite muds when they perforate them so as to not get a pressure surge. These days they shoot zones just slightly underbalanced.
It is odd to read these threads day after day and see that despite the obvious bubbles, bursts and seeps from the sea floor and equipment, despite the diminished video-feed quality and abrupt changes in officially announced plans, some posters will keep insisting nothing untoward is going on. Should we suspend our disbelief, dismiss or deny what our own eyes see? I can't imagine why anyone would not believe his or her own eyes and would not insist upon his or her right to know what is going on. We all have that right and obligation in a democracy and as a human being on this planet that sustains us and all other life. It is our responsibility to be vigilant over industry and government.
Repeating or misrepresenting an obvious fact will never make it true. Not everyone will adjust their blinders accordingly. I strongly suspect an oil industry PR job at work. But remember you can only fool some of the people some of the time. The rest of us see you for what you are.
Well said. This thread alone has numerous examples of insufficient fact and obvious deceit... such as doctored photos, looped feeds, etc.
Five thousand feet down an no eyes. Perfect. BP can walk away and say everythings's okay now, trust us. Obama can then say, see, I got this fixed for you now you owe me (the Democrats) support this fall. Sheesh.
Show us, clearly, the flippin stack, the leaks, the damage, or the success.
'"Should we suspend our disbelief, dismiss or deny what our own eyes see?"
This so called "oil industry PR job at work" -- may actually be folks who see with their eyes what they have seen for years and years. Rovman -- has done a great job educating folks on what the rov's are doing and he has been watching this stuff for years and others have years of experiencing drilling issues and understand what is happening. You do not need to take all comments at face value - but use this opportunity to learn about this industry (you're here so your are interested I think). Suspend judgment and try to understand -- ask questions where you feel uncomfortable about a response and you will be surprised how much help you will get from those that understand the industry.
Or you can just continue to attack the industry and become part of the problem - not the solution.
I just want the truth. To draw a sound conclusion, we all need more information than we have been given from those who actually know for certain what is going on. We shouldn't have to be guessing as all of us are doing. The US government has a duty to inform us, in my opinion. They work for ALL of us. Many lies have been exposed thus far. I see that as part of the problem and as a reason to be suspicious. Information is not being disseminated as one would expect. We are told all is well and can clearly see that all is not. I have seen it with my own eyes on the video feed....unless these sea floor eruptions are truly unrelated to the blown out well. If so, I'll eat my hat.
Didn't someone say that the mud was formulated so that it could be pushed in the reservoir?
Anyway, Kent Wells' video shows drilling mud being pushed into the reservoir by a cement pill followed by mud. He starts talking about the static kill at 04:30. The mud injection animation starts at 07:50 and the cement pill is at 08:40.
From Heading Out in the lead of yesterday's thread http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6815
rainy, I just want to issue a special shoutout for your great work bringing us the latest from all these briefings -- exemplary!
Why are they bracing the sides of the seabed? Is the seabed rising?
http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae268/onefifty/HiddenLedgeHoleinSeabe...
Also, why are there black oil droplets seeping from the swiss-cheese-like seabed?
http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae268/onefifty/augustfiveBlackOilFrom...
Both captures taken yesterday, August 5th.
Can someone explain why they are bracing the sides of the seabed (from inside a giant crack) and why black oil is coming from the seabed?
Thanks!
I am sorry, but the first "clip" seems like a very suspect and stitched together series of images, showing...I am not really sure what. Some views of various rocks on the floor, with a menacing zoom of one of them, followed by a piece of equipment or ROV leg on the floor, followed by very large letters declaring that it is "bracing the seafloor".
Is there money in making these "clips" or something?
It all appears very foolish and really undermines serious concerns over the finality of the repair.
I have all the captures. I put them together in a gif. Actually, I was quickly capturing all the feeds and was looking at another ROV. Today, when I was going to delete my unused captures, I noticed how I had captured the second they had panned to the full view of the ledge and the enormous crack there is in the seabed.
I can post each and every capture, if you want. I did something else, too. I have two windows of live feeds, side-by-side to show that NOTHING has been altered.
And no. I do not get paid for making gifs. I do it because it is my form of pain management, lol. I zoomed in because it gives, not only a clearer depiction of the hidden CRACK and the ledge with the sides eroding, (showing the dead crab/lobster/whatever), but it will give the TIME. I'm sure the oil-junkies out there have captured LIVE FEEDS and can scroll back to SEE for themselves, this is TRUE, ACTUAL, REAL.
There is a CRACK at the bottom of the sea.
SO, is the seabed RISING? SINKING? And WHY are they BRACING the sides of it?????
Anyone know?
There is no hidden crack. It is a shadow. There are no braces - some unidentifiable piece of equipment or an ROV leg. A collaps of the gulf floor is not happening.
And how much do you get paid?
And how much meth have you done today? And/or what are you trying to sell?
I don't think you can explain this as a shadow but I don't think it is any kind of crack.
Does anyone know what it is?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45732805@N02/4858706714/
Quantum:
ROV tracks?
Look at the shadows of the equipment holding the sides of the crack. For example, the round flat disk shaped piece, bracing the side of the crack wall has its shadow casting downwardly onto the wall side.
Why are you SHOUTING? we can hear you fine. Easy on the question marks.
How can you brace silt or soft mud? Why would you want to?
Sorry, I don't see any seabed rising or falling. I don't see any crack in the seabed - just shadows.
Hamlet: Do you see that cloud, that's almost in shape like a camel?
Polonius: By the mass, and 't is like a camel, indeed.
Hamlet: Methinks, it is like a weasel.
Polonius: It is backed like a weasel.
Hamlet: Or, like a whale?
Polonius: Very like a whale.
Here are both sides of the crack, with both sides being shown clearly. There is a deep crack, either that, or they are holding down a methane shelf which they break up every so often (yes, I have captures of them breaking up what was a white thing on the ground, which caused part of the "ledge" aka methane shelf to burst into balls of methane hydrate which buzzed by and melted away in front of the camera).
This may be why they zoomed into the crab/lobster/whatever, not only to see erosion of seabed (on top of ledge), but to make sure it wasn't a methane hydrate formation.
They panned back for a second. Because I was pressing the capture key so many times to capture oil leaking in another window, I caught this.
Here are the two sides:
http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae268/onefifty/HoldingDowntheSeabedau...
Also, there is more than one crack growing. One is on the seabed (imo) and one is on the well (proven):
http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae268/onefifty/augustfiveCrackedWellL...
I believe that white thing you are showing in the one capture is a dead horeseshoe crab the ROV picked up and shook it. It got stuck on it's hand and he was waving and twisting it. I think he was doing it to lure fish in.
I downloaded the individual pictures:
http://s978.photobucket.com/albums/ae268/onefifty/Crack%20on%20the%20Bot...
That does it, I'm not looking at another @#$ one of your images. An image is an image, no "special effect" zooms or glaring text crawls. Just an image presenting what it is you want to show.
CAPTURED LESS THAN ONE HOUR AGO!!! TODAY! 8/6/2010
Anyone who was watching the same live feed where they are bracing the sides of the deep crack in the seabed must have seen when they turned the lights on for a second, literally, and the camera caught the ledge again. It's a lovely dome shape.
Here it is (yes, I made a gif, if you don't like it, then post what you captured):
http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae268/onefifty/DomelikeSeabedaugustsi...
Take a peak.
Make sure to compare it to the other picture links I provided. How can a deep ravine like is shown, be anything other than a crack in the seabed or the seabed rising? I'm not kidding. Does anyone know, other than some boilerplate answer without really looking at the shadows of the equipment (the round cylinder which is acting like a support on the side of the wall, in first link)? The shadows of the equipment point downwardly, and are cast on the wall, downwardly.
I'm not sure if I should be concerned, everyone's told me to be calm and collected before I make any judgement but what is this?
I'm feeling slightly uneasy and that's from the gut...
Darn it! It's a shadow...curse my eyes.
Good for you, now you've got it!!
It works to stop and think and consider what else you might be seeing there.
Are you serious?
Who the guy posting all these links or me, my excuse is that it's incredibally dark outside and I probably preformed some form of auto suggestion...
The "are you serious" comment was for the other poster.
The "good for you" comment was for you.
Remember those lines on the left?
A reply to your comment is indented below yours.
I'm just wondering if it's ever occurred to you that if BP thought that the sea floor was cracking and/or that a methane tsunami death bubble was about to explode, they might get the ROVs out of there and pull the armada away?
I don't see how they can cover it up if such a scenario where to occur. I mean supposingly a team of "anymonous" scientist posted this online saying the govenment was forcing them to keep this a secret and that was passed around along with several other theories that included an asphalt volcano and a "smoke screen well". So if all this information is wide spread and true than I don't see why BP would lie about it. If New Orleans was indeed to be trashed by a enormous, sixty (some acounts say hundred) foot tsunamai than they'd have more to answer for than if they evacuated the area like responsible people...
But oops they're rumors that the government are on that too and are hushing this up in order to prevent a panic...but shhh you didn't hear that from me!
Two in a row, now you're ticking on almost all cylinders.
You might want to tune it up just a bit more.
+100
That explains why they have two ROVs dedicated to that area. They are monitoring it closely, and are, apparently skittish by the slightest movement (an eel moving causes the ROV to swing and quickly check the dome forming). Notice too, how the oil on the feed will show the oil droplets wafting over the sides toward the camera, as if being pushed over a dome by gas, rolling upwardly toward the camera, almost like rolling off the sides of an upside down bowl. Watch it. You'll get a sense the video is upside down, because the oil droplets are not going up, vertically, they are being wafted by gas following the curve of the dome.
Yeah, okay, they're monitoring that area. I think it's a good idea if they do.
Having 0 info to go on except what they're allowing us to see. it's not clear to me that your cracks in the sea floor, looming explosion, propping up the walls of a ravine scenario is much more than taking in a little data and running a bit wild with it. If it blows up tonight, I'll owe you an apology. If it doesn't blow, what will you conclude? That we've been tricked again and the real action is somewhere else?
If it blows than wouldn't that just knock tons of mud up into the sea, I don't understand exactly what happens in an underwater methane explosion but I've heard the seafloor in the gulf of Mexico is more muddy than it is solid rock...but I could be wrong.
But we can all be happy that if a tsunamai were to come from this explosion than we'd can stick it to BP good for lying and we'd be right that they're corrupt. But I am interested in one thing here. What is BP's next objective? Are they monitoring the well for a testing period before they abandon it or are they going to preform another cement job?
Yes, you're correct.
In the highly unlikely event that a "methane explosion" occurred, it wouldn't be because BP was lying. What possible reason would they have?
They're waiting for the cement job to cure out, make sure it's okay, and then finish up RW#1 for the bottom kill. If that's successful, they'll probably just abandon RW#2.
snakehead:
I just figured this out.
There are a few ROV operators who have their rovers parked right now because they have no assignment, but are on standby, and since they're checking TOD on their laptops, they've decided to stir up a little fun by giving our resident conspiracists something to stir them up.
So they park one off to the side and above a little bit, shine its spotlight down on the seafloor, then park the other one off to the side where it can create the illusion of a dome by its angle to the lighted spot, and by the way shadows create a sense of nothingness when in the proximity of a bright light.
I bet they're laughing like hell.
As for you who have been predicting doom and gloom, and seeing coverups everywhere you look, first, none of those ROV's are watching the bottom of the river outside my front door, so what do you suppose the government is trying to hide out there?
Second, don't you get tired of your predictions never coming true? Or is that evidence of the magnitude and effectiveness of the coverup also?
You might want to think about whether there are plausible other explanation for what you're seeing, especially since you seem to think they are looking at some of the things you believe they are covering up. I'm getting a headache.
Sorry snakehead for butting into your conversation.
:)
Everything groovy and under control? Great. Show us the stack.
Sorry - I put this in the wrong place -
Is it normal, after a kill, to have fields of emerging bubbles and junk? HOS ROV 1 and OI ROV 2 (or vice versa) are showing this. You can only see the whole picture with the VLC media player. The folks viewing over @Reality Check are desperate to identify something they are calling a "Cake" - a large round tank thing hooked to big chain & doesn't seem to have any connections, but gives the appearance of leaking. (could be from underneath). Would someone be kind & go over & identify this object? I notice that lack of information creates a lot of concern. Thanx. Oh, it's 2:38 PST.
It's the top of one of the two 100' long suction piles that were lowered into the seafloor to serve as anchors for the two floating riser systems that were installed as part of the containment solution. One riser was connected to the Helix Producer for a while and the second would have connected to another production vessel if they had not been able to close the 3 stack cap.
You can see a video of the installation of one of them - it contains both graphics and video - at http://bp.concerts.com/gom/freestandingriserpart1suctionpileinstall.htm .
Suction pile for the Q4000
That makes more sense than looking at one connected to a no longer needed riser.
(Gee there's a lot of stuff to disassemble and retrieve once they're declared done - I wonder if they'll just leave the suction piles behind.)
Bartok posted this at the beginning of this thread:
Sounds good. Just wondering if this focus on personal responsibility is connected to any reduction in corporate responsibility?
On the contrary it is the best expression of full corporate responsibility, because when employees at all levels are encouraged to register their divergent opinions and concerns, and are not punished for doing that, or scapegoated when something goes wrong, the the corporation is taking responsibility as a whole. It recognizes that no individual employee is the whole operation and every employee is responsible for the whole.
The key to establishing a culture of safety in a corporation is to make sure that it penetrates all parts of the corporation, whether management, marketing, financial, operations, facilities, right down to the person who mows the lawns, and right up through the board of directors.
When we all feel that we are a valued part of the corporation, then we can take responsibility for it.
Interestingly enough this exists in many organizations, where there is a sense of loyalty. Why not formalize the phenomenon and invite all to contribute to the solutions.
Coincidentally I was just talking to a friend who was a plant engineer for a major corporation, and he went on at some length about how important a role this culture of safety played in that organization, resulting in 0 deaths in 37 years, in spite of working with very dangerous equipment and products. He also mentioned that Dupont has a similar culture, especially in their explosives operation.
BP was also dealing with explosives, as they have found out to their sorrow, but I guarantee that there was no focus on that issue even after the Texas Refinery explosion.
never mind
David, your addendum puts Bartok's comment in a new light for me. Regardless of any culture-of-safety questions, well control is a primary job responsibility of rig hands. Inherently risky, yes, but the hands do it a lot, are pretty good at it, and living on the edge is part of life, especially on the DWH. I've wondered: how the heck does a person decide when to sound general alarms? How does a person decide whether or not to go for Emergency ShutDown? How does a person decide to push the Emergency Disconnect System buttons? Seems to me there must always be a risk of waiting until it's too late, and I wonder if the peer status question inhibits action.
You've put your finger on one of the situations where an employee has to be sure his company is going to support him for making the right decision, and where he is continually reassured that if he gets it wrong he will not be excoriated as long as he is leaning in the direction of a safer operation.
It is very difficult to feel supported in that mentality if alarm systems are being bypassed, where there are not explicitly clear guidelines that clearly show how to respond in all the conceivable situations which might obtain, with the personnel not being thoroughly trained in those procedures and with training not being renewed and reinforced at timely intervals, but rather the safety culture being given only lip service.
If we make it easier for the employee to not only know clearly what the right decision is, but that he is going to be backed up, not criticized, reprimanded, or otherwise treated harshly, he is far more likely to make the right decision, even in unusual, unanticipated situations, where clear procedures don't exist but where he knows that the appropriate response is to err on the side of safety.
In order for this kind of culture to exist, which makes it easy to make the right decision, everyone in the organization has to be trained in the same kind of safety driven mentality, regardless of their assignment or pay grade.
Management has to believe this is the right thing to do, regardless of the expense of starting it up, because people will feel more secure, since they know they are more secure. Therefore they will have a better attitude, be more productive, be encouraged to make positive suggestions, reduce accidents along with their direct and indirect costs, and, in general make the organization more profitable.
Businesses have been taught time after time after time that when you cut corners you end up getting bit, but when you do things right, you make money.
I wonder when they will learn their lesson.
where he is continually reassured that if he gets it wrong he will not be excoriated
It strikes me that relieving fear of excoriation by others may not entirely do the trick. No matter how much reassurance he gets, he knows he's going to feel like a real jerk if he gets it wrong, even if everybody else is patting him on the back and telling him he did the right thing to err on the side of safety. Self-excoriation can be the worst of all.
count - I first started working on offshore rigs 35 years ago. With re: "if the peer status question inhibits action". Absolutely.
I call "horsefeathers" on sonar sweeps. Can't see light oil or gas.
http://www.crrc.unh.edu/workshops/liquid_asphalt/RDC_submergedoildetecti...
Hmmm.
Is it normal, after a kill, to have fields of emerging bubbles and junk? HOS ROV 1 and OI ROV 2 (or vice versa) are showing this. You can only see the whole picture with the VLC media player. The folks viewing over @Reality Check are desperate to identify something they are calling a "Cake" - a large round tank thing hooked to big chain & doesn't seem to have any connections, but gives the appearance of leaking. (could be from underneath). Would someone be kind & go over & identify this object? I notice that lack of information creates a lot of concern. Thanx. Oh, it's 2:38 PST.
Suction pile.
See examples at http://www.suctionpile.com/bin/ibp.jsp?ibpDispWhat=zone&ibpPage=S8_Focus...
Hos ROV 2 is showing what I think is one of the anchors for the floating risers. I guess it does look like a rather enormous cake. I didn't see any bubbles, but I know when I step in a pond†, the weight of my feet causes bubbles to rise, presumably bio-methane from decaying organic matter. Maybe something similar happens with this anchor.
As I type this, Hos ROV 1 is studying a hydraulic pressure gauge.
Didn't somone post a description of how to post a link to a specific point in time in one of the ROV videos (or in an archive of them)?
† Which I haven't done for years :-)
The question to ask is why are they watching one of the most inert objects of this job 24/7?
The "official" BP feed is Cap #6. Likewise inert. On screen past 24 hrs. 100 ft above the seafloor, now swimming in a snowstorm of hydrate. http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:46245.asx
"Gulf spill investigators eye undersea evidence
Wreckage could establish who is responsible for disaster"
AP story on MSNBC website: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38589913/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf/
Some pictures of the wreckage.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45732805@N02/page3/
Speaking of wreckage did we ever get a conclusion on what that long tube was days ago? I'm of course talking about the same tube that those robot things pulled from the sea floor.
Anyway I want to know if I have anyone's permission to celebrate. I hope it's not to early.
@ Deepwater Engineer,
Your comment in the previous thread(here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6815/695600) about the credentials of Dr. Patzek and Dr. Bommer confuses me. You claimed neither are licensed engineers and questioned as to whether they even had any experience outside the classroom. This confuses me because it only takes 3 seconds to pull up information from google.
Since Bommer is on the FRTG and has a greater impact, let's go there:
http://www.pge.utexas.edu/faculty/bommer.cfm
So, he is licensed, and he has 25yrs of out-of-classroom industry experience operating his own engineering company. You are correct that Patzek is not an engineer and his resume is much shorter with respect to non-academic settings, but you're completely inaccurate about Bommer.
Kent Well's Friday PM Aug 6th briefing audio and transcript were just posted:
Audio: http://bp.concerts.com/gom/audio/techAudio_06082010_3pm.htm
Transcript: http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/in...
How much cement was used:
Recovery of BOP
Excellent bb. That's what I've been hoping to hear. There are very specific regs as to how an operator must plug any well that has encounterd hydrocarbons. And that would require going in hole to spot cmt plugs with drill pipe. And the regs require a functioning BOP to do that. Only when we get the top cmt plugs set and tested will I feel it's over.
In a related story:
From Steven Newman, president and CEO of Transocean reported today (http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/08/drilling_compa...):
My apologies if this question has already been answered, but is is not possible that the drill pipe is still hanging from the shear rams in the old BOP? If so, how does one go about removing the old BOP without dropping it into the hole? Can the BOP be unbolted, lifted and the pipe set in slips and then either cut off or broken out? Between its weight and the corkscrewing when it impacted, it ought to be capable of damaging the 7" casing.
Where it went:
Very informative and transparent:
Kent Wells: Well what I can tell you is where the mud and cement went from the – from what our pump curves in et cetera everything indicated to us that we pump straight down the casing. [not too clear on the roughly 200 barrels into the formation?] That’s what I know. What that means for the other implications, I think people with a lot more knowledge albeit all this need to look at that information, combine with other and make whatever deductions they can from that.
All right, well, thank you folks for joining us this afternoon. Looking forward to the weekend, we’re not going to plan to hold any briefings.
While we wait for the cement to cure;
http://www.secretfishingtips.com/fishing_in_the_subsea_bop.htm
I'm not attempting to unseat lotus from her prominent position of plucking gems but I discovered this a few days ago on one of my many fishing expeditions. Through all this convoluted mush we pick through every day attempting to glean a few bits of truth I (if it's not obvious) become frustrated with the information given.
After reading secret fishing tips I gained new perspective on oil patch lingo. Is this....well... I guess it's easier to ask; What is this? I'm not sure I need to know any of this. Is it a poor translation?
Now Thad and Kent come across as very articulate.
Is it a poor translation?
Looks to me like a raw computer-generated translation. Some of it sounds almost metaphysical:
This is an interesting video from the Skandi tonight... Can you handle the truth?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlbZDnjRaIo
Ocean Intervention was sitting on a leak like that for a long time and they sent him up to 3k feet depth.
Yes I see it now.
I recall the discussion several weeks back about the possibility of pumping to another reservoir (sort of a back-up containment plan) but I don't recall that reservoir ever being identified.
If I'm not mistaken, it appears that the Rigel well may have been what they had in mind, based on the flow chart on the wall shown in this picture from BP's "Response in Pictures" collection:
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/in...
MoJo -- BP Fires 10,000 Cleanup Workers
By Mac McClelland| Fri Aug. 6, 2010 10:18 AM PDT
New BP CEO Bob Dudley wasn't kidding when he announced last week that it was time for the company to scale back oil-spill cleanup operations. In fact, by the time he'd said that, the responder force had been drawn down by about 25 percent.
path: Public ~> Gulf Oil Disaster
originally posted: 2010-08-06 16:48:04
Blue goo. False color. Could be IR. Coordinates all screwy.
http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:37235.asx
"Here you are, sir. Main level D."
Oh, come on. We don't have to like each other. Just help, please.
Hey, I'm watching it. It just looks other-worldly. Big blue pixely things careening around.
I make it the Q4000 ROV-1, so it has to be in the neighborhood.
Edit: Yep, the main BOP stack. Okay WTF is going on?
FIVE OTHER ROVs blacked out.
Yep. I'm watching the videos like a hawk.
They are so screwed. No well control. Something obviously wrong topside.
It's NOT false color or infrared. Blue crap spattered all over BOP rams, frame.
Paging ROCKMAN, paging ROCKMAN.
Is there any chance they'd have pumped methylene blue in there?
Just before they started top-kill something that looked like a dyed liquid was seen pouring from a part of the BOP (liquid did not appear to rise up). The ROVs watched but didn't seem to be bothered as the BOP turned into psychedelic BOP for a while and then the coloured fluid flow stopped. Could this be connected?
I certainly don't know. But let me refer you to the ever handy Drilling Fluids Processing Handbook.
http://tinyurl.com/32slfv6, look for MBT. But it's used for testing; why it would be pumped in quantity is beyond me.
Pointing a guess in. To differentiate what they were pumping in as opposed to any fluids in there already, a colour code. That is provided it is just not colour offset on the image.
NAOM
snake - I hadn't thought about but I wouldn't be surprised if they did dye the cmt and perhaps even the "mud" (a diff color of course) so they cound distinguish different leaks.
I'm guessing that's an oil industry technical term :-)
Seriously what do you think this shows? Other than the worst quality feed ever provided so far (and that is saying something) I haven't a clue whether there is anything good or bad here.
It looks like either a blue tube or light on the far right side
That's a video compression encoding articfact. Somebody has screwed with the colorimetry of the feeds (those few we're allowed to see). This will not stand. Congressional staff, savvy science correspondents and Coasties are watching as closely as we are. This has BP stink all over it.
So...the celebrations off?
It looks like mud too me, though I have trouble seeing clearly so I'm not sure what it is...
Question about liability: negligence vs criminal negligence.
At some moment BP will want to say: killed, at some moment Allen will want to say: killed. Most probably these are not the same moments. So what happens with all evidence in criminal proceeding that was discovered during procedures that gov't told BP to do?
How far can the gov't go pushing the accused to produce evidence. I am not talking accused "taking the 5th", when pushed too hard, but simply court dismissing evidence that was "coerced" from accused? So, for example could BP say "well is killed, we do not care about BOP." Gov't says "take it out". This costs BP money and time. BP a) takes it out and judge promptly dismisses everything found there b) BP says "Nope, take it out yourselves if you really want to". c) They already have a deal for fine set as a joint submission to the court for "up to $1000 per bbl" in place and fully cooperate?
Curious - When an operator applies for a drilling permit in the OCS they agree to make any and all equipment, records and any existing data available to the govt. No warrents or court orders are required. Just because it appears the MMS was laxed in enforcement have no doubt there are regs that make everything available to the feds. All that have to do is ask for it. Refuse and you go to federal prison.
Gas hydrates, not silt or mud. Four ROVs close to the stack.
http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:22458.asx
Only time will tell, but I think there's still some doubt as to the integrity of the formations surrounding the well bore and casing. Trouble is we'll only know somethings wrong when passing vessels start reporting oil slicks in the area of the well. Anybody heard about any plans for long term monitoring?
Has Heiro noted, there has never been a answer as to what that (casing?) was that was extracted from the seabed earlier. As a point of clarity for Heiro, that substantially long piece was removed by a surface hoisting clamp which the ROVs helped attach.
Freep dot com -- Enbridge shouldn't restart pipeline without review, rep says
U.S. Rep. Mark Schauer on Friday asked federal Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to demand additional assurances from Enbridge Energy Partners before allowing it to restart a pipeline that burst two weeks ago.
[snip]
Anomalies along the line were detected in 2007 and 2009 though they were east of the spill site. Since June of last year, the company has operated the pipeline at 20% of its allowed pressure in order to allow for repairs but it recently asked the govenrment for a 2 -year ext...
path: Public ~> Energy
originally posted: 2010-08-06 17:46:38
BattleCreekEnquirer -- The latest on the Kalamazoo River Cleanup
August 6, 2010
Photo: John Grap/The Enquirer
A loader digs up soil surrounded by a oil and oil-soaked soil near ground zero of the oil spill near Talmadge Creek in Fredonia Township Friday morning.
Work began around 3 p.m. today to cut out 100 to 140 feet of the broken pipe-line responsible for the oil spill. After it is cut, the pipe-line will be extracted using cranes, examined, and sent to Washington, D.C., for further investigation.
The gross contamination has been removed from ...
path: Public ~> Energy
originally posted: 2010-08-06 17:39:52
Enbridge -- August 6 Afternoon Update
[snip]
The section of pipe where the leak originated is being removed this afternoon and there are still no estimates as to when the line will start up.
path: Public ~> Energy
originally posted: 2010-08-06 17:27:59
Enbridge -- August 5 Evening Update
Clean-up continues along Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River. We continue to increase shore clean-up and sheen removal. There are currently 105,000 feet of absorbent and containment boom deployed at 37 locations. Absorbent boom is being added in front and behind containment boom in some locations to ensure sheen coming off the containment boom is removed from the water.
path: Public ~> Energy
originally posted: 2010-08-06 17:25:22
I just had to link this...one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4gjTzfWVvI
Add: way off topic but everyone needs a good laugh now and then
Good find, +10.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiPZa0MuWv8&feature=related
Snakehead,
You asked a question of me on 8/5 at 7:44 am. Then the thread closed. Are you still interested in a answer?
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6813.
If you like, sure.
Me first.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI
Sexist.
And why would He be speaking in English when we've had to pay translators for lo these many eons?
Now that cracked me up!!!!!!!!!!!
Trust me, just vote.
Good heavens.
I liked the coming attractions slide at the end, a Congressional Forum discussion:
I've got one that I wish would disappear. He ain't wild, but sure as hell is a nuisance.
As Cement Dries, BP Mum on Reservoirs Future
by CBS/AP
Published: Fri, August 06, 2010 - 8:44 am CST
Last Updated: Fri, August 06, 2010 - 8:46 am CST
Short URL: http://wkrg.com/911138
CBS/AP - The vast oil reservoir beneath BP's blown-out well could still be worth billions of dollars even after it spewed crude into the Gulf of Mexico for more than three months - but the multinational company blamed for causing the disaster isn't saying whether it plans to cash in on this potential windfall.
path: Public ~> Gulf Oil Disaster
originally posted: 2010-08-06 19:22:55
So is this the moment they began pumping mud?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz2U4ci_ung
about 12 seconds into video
Why is this cap standing by? to do what?
To keep a camera busy? To give one view that hasn't been heavily pixelated?
Hello all and happy Friday. I have come to understand over the past several weeks that oil/gas seeps are quite common in the Gulf, and I'm wondering if it's normal to see seepage around a wellhead, whether natural or as a result of the well's construction. I imagine that construction-related seepage wouldn't really pass muster in the permitting process, but maybe with the amount of natural seepage, some is allowed? Just trying to get a better idea of how things work. Thanks for any info and hope everyone is having a fine Friday.
From what I remember, Thad had said that they found seepage from about 5 miles out...Don't mark my words though
Here read this: http://www.bayoubuzz.com/buzz/latest-buzz/25738-bp-oil-spill-thad-allen-...
What really pisses me off is that they said they found seepage far out...and now they all of a sudden plugged the well..hoorah!!!
They are very inconsistent at what they are trying to say. Some things are too good to be true.