Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

[Roughneck]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

I'm just a little surprised that they haven't made some sort of flanged connection to bolt up instead of cutting the pipe and trying to slip something over it. Perhaps the rov's don't have that capability? I know there are issues with pressure and containment but you would think it could be managed. You could install a riser pack with valves to relieve the pressure if necessary. IDK enough about deep water operations. In shallow water we would send divers down.

[GRG55]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

This is a hoot. As a long time advocate that the BP "sunflower" should have been mulched years ago, I think some of these are brilliant:

BP (Logo Redesign Contest) Logo Design Contest

A few samples:

[don]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

Nope.

Have a look at earlier posts by several of us on this thread:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...63243#poststop

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...63282#poststop

Thanks for the links, that helped.

[GRG55]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

[I]Pass the smell test?

Nope.

Have a look at earlier posts by several of us on this thread:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...63243#poststop

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...63282#poststop

[don]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

Pass the smell test?

Prominent Oil Industry Insider: "There's Another Leak, Much Bigger, 5 to 6 Miles Away"

Matt Simmons was an energy adviser to President George W. Bush, is an adviser to the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, and is a member of the National Petroleum Council and the Council on Foreign Relations. Simmon is chairman and CEO of Simmons & Company International, an investment bank catering to oil companies.

Simmons told Dylan Ratigan that"there's another leak, much bigger, 5 to 6 miles away" from the leaking riser and blowout preventer which we've all been watching on the underwater cameras.

I have no idea whether or not Simmons is right. The government should immediately either debunk or admit his claim.

If accurate, the bigger leak could have been caused by the destruction of the well casing when the oil rig exploded. That is Simmons' theory.

Or it could be caused by a natural oil seep, although the odds of a seep of that size occurring right around the time of the Deep Horizon disaster is nearly zero.

There is another possibility.

It is well-known that there were previous accidents at the Deepwater Horizon rig. For example, as AP notes:

From 2000 to 2010, the Coast Guard issued six enforcement warnings and handed down one civil penalty and a notice of violation to Deepwater Horizon, agency records show.
On 18 different occasions during that period the Coast Guard cited the vessel for an "acknowledged pollution source."

And as 60 Minutes reports:

[Mike Williams, the chief electronics technician on the Deepwater Horizon, and one of the last workers to leave the doomed rig] said they were told it would take 21 days; according to him, it actually took six weeks.

With the schedule slipping, Williams says a BP manager ordered a faster pace.

"And he requested to the driller, 'Hey, let's bump it up. Let's bump it up.' And what he was talking about there is he's bumping up the rate of penetration. How fast the drill bit is going down," Williams said.

Williams says going faster caused the bottom of the well to split open, swallowing tools and that drilling fluid called "mud."
"We actually got stuck. And we got stuck so bad we had to send tools down into the drill pipe and sever the pipe," Williams explained.

That well was abandoned and Deepwater Horizon had to drill a new route to the oil. It cost BP more than two weeks and millions of dollars.
"We were informed of this during one of the safety meetings, that somewhere in the neighborhood of $25 million was lost in bottom hole assembly and 'mud.' And you always kind of knew that in the back of your mind when they start throwing these big numbers around that there was gonna be a push coming, you know? A push to pick up production and pick up the pace," Williams said.

Asked if there was pressure on the crew after this happened, Williams told Pelley, "There's always pressure, but yes, the pressure was increased."

But the trouble was just beginning: when drilling resumed, Williams says there was an accident on the rig that has not been reported before. He says, four weeks before the explosion, the rig's most vital piece of safety equipment was damaged.

It is therefore possible that there has been another ongoing leak which BP has tried to cover up.

http://www.georgewashington2.blogspo...er-theres.html

[Roughneck]

Re: Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

I don't think drillers will know much about Nuc. detonation and its effect on the well/completion.

You have to remember that as the well was drilled they went through different layers which may have had hydrates, water, oil or gas. You detonate and close the well bore close to the reservoir, but doing this may open up paths for the layers above to flow to the surface. Hence I would be talking to the geologist, completion experts and explosives experts if I was going in this direction to shut the well down.

I wouldn't say it couldn't be done. But you would risk opening multiple places for the oil to leak to the surface. Explosions have been used mostly to put out well fires so crews could gain accesss to shut off the well. The reason BP does not want to go that route is right now they have options for containment and drilling a relief well. If you try to collapse the well with explosives and it doesn't work you are out of options.

[Shakespear]

Re: Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

I don't think drillers will know much about Nuc. detonation and its effect on the well/completion.

You have to remember that as the well was drilled they went through different layers which may have had hydrates, water, oil or gas. You detonate and close the well bore close to the reservoir, but doing this may open up paths for the layers above to flow to the surface. Hence I would be talking to the geologist, completion experts and explosives experts if I was going in this direction to shut the well down.

[bpr]

Re: Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

Both the US and Russian governments have more than enough experience in conducting underground nuclear explosions -- though the last US underground test was done in 1992. So there is likely enogh people with experience who are there at the DOE and the DOD.

From your link:

Underwater testing results from nuclear devices being detonated underwater, usually moored to a ship or a barge (which is subsequently destroyed by the explosion). Tests of this nature have usually been conducted to evaluate the effects of nuclear weapons against naval vessels (such as in Operation Crossroads), or to evaluate potential sea-based nuclear weapons (such as nuclear torpedoes or depth-charges). Underwater tests close to the surface can disperse large amounts of radioactive water and steam, contaminating nearby ships or structures.

There's little here to suggest that there have been recent tests done by the U.S. government on this kind of remedy. All of these tests were military in nature (not industrial, or man vs. nature, but man vs. another man's tech).

Operation Crossroads was done in 1946.

Basically, it appears that most of the testing we've done is in determining "How large can it be?" rather than "How small will get the job done?"

I'd like to hear more from the drillers on this, since the Russians have apparently had so much success with it.

[Rajiv]

Re: Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

things can probably be done with enough control and efficiency, and it would likely even reduce the time necessary to complete a relief well.

Both the US and Russian governments have more than enough experience in conducting underground nuclear explosions -- though the last US underground test was done in 1992. So there is likely enogh people with experience who are there at the DOE and the DOD.

[bpr]

Re: Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

So probably using one of the two relief wells the Russian way could be the way how they may go????

I'd like to hear what GRG55 or Roughneck or another of our petrorockstars has to say about the Nuclear Option.

To a layman, it's kind of like saying we should pour hydrochloric acid on a burn, but these things can probably be done with enough control and efficiency, and it would likely even reduce the time necessary to complete a relief well.

The cynic in me sees that it would also allow the government to stall for another two months before taking the helm away from BP and dropping a nuke in the well their digging. Then, the feds come in with their firepower and save the day, just as midterm elections are heating up.

EDIT: GRG already said this:
nuclear explosives... [are] wishful thinking played out large in the international media.

For some reason, the forum search didn't pull that up, and I have no internal memory.

[Rajiv]

Re: Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

As for the nuke option, I am curious exactly how blowing a big hole 18,000 feet below the sea floor is supposed to "seal" the well. Seems like the proponents of this are hoping the well caves in on itself or something like that? I fail to see how that assures a top seal to keep the material from leaking to surface forever afterwards.

OK -- Here is what doesn't seem to be working

Here is what the Russians did in the past

vintage USSR movie showing us how they extinguished a gas leak fire. The same technique could be used for the oil leak in the gulf.
The Russians used nukes to put out fires like this a total of 5 times.

So probably using one of the two relief wells the Russian way could be the way how they may go????

[GRG55]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

Loved your story strittmatter. I wish my worst nightmare had been more like yours. I lost $900,000 of MWD and other tools in a hihgly deviated structural well that we were drilling to a 19,000 foot deep gas target in the Rockies. We were already below 15k in the deviated section when a heavily fractured section of the strata in the hole collapsed. My drillers gave it the best shot they could but I had to call in the cement trucks. The only saving grace is the test was a success and turned out to be one of the best wells in the field ultimately. I figure the stress will cost me 5 years off my life though...

[strittmatter]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

Second, some of these consultants are among the worst, because every one of them will claim to "know more than BP" but I can assure all of you with absolute confidence that almost none of them have ever had their own ass or their own money on the line drilling a well. Ever. Although not in the deepwater, I've had both...so I know what that feels like. And when shzt goes wrong it doesn't feel good, believe me.

Especially when it's only one ass and one money - mine.

Getting bit and drill string unstuck can take several minutes or several days. Same with fishing expeditions. My most nerve-racking and expensive episode was around 12 years or so ago. We drilled an 8.5" pilot hole to 1500', ran electric log, reamed the hole with 14.75" bit to 1340' then set and cemented 1340' of 10.75" casing ("Halliburton method - positive displacement through a cement bullnose guide shoe).

After 72 hours, drilled the shoe out then ran Smith under reamer http://www.smith.com/SBEDatasheet?bitID=10926&prod=72 (18") from 1342' to 1500'. Began to remove reamer but it would not pass back up through bottom of 10.75". One of two things had happened - either the wing cutter arms became bent therefore preventing them from falling back into the slots on the reamer body or the fluid jet inside the reamer had "washed out" which would have allowed the piston to drop down therefore blocking the arms from falling back in.

After several days of finally getting as "rought as the rig would get" - Smith's suggestion, it was time to cut bait. We ran the reamer back to the bottom, drilled another 30' of hole, then had the logger come out and "blow the thing off". This involves running primer cord to the connection point at the top of the bottom-hole collar, then you rotate the string slowly in reverse thereby putting enough back torque on the string, then lock the rotary table down. The logger sets his blast charge, at that moment the shock wave friction at the connection point downhole causes that particular connection to un-screw. I lost the one bottom hole drill collar and Smith's rented reamer.

We finished the well, the well was a success, however to this day we'd have still been out there beating a dead horse otherwise.

Daily updated tally sheets along with exact knowledge of every single component that's in the hole is ever so priceless.

[GRG55]

Re: Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

I'll second that one. You even have to take comments from some of the survivors with a skeptical eye. People have a lot of money riding on law suits and are bound to say anything. Also,you have some people covering their asses too. I heard one roustabout testify in the coast guard hearings that he over heard a Transocean employee and BP execs get in an argument over drilling procedures. The Transocean employee in question later denied those reports.

There is a lot of garbage coming out now. Here's another extract from an article posted in this thread:

Mike Williams was the chief electronics technician in charge of the rig's computers and electrical systems. And seven months before, he had helped the crew drill the deepest oil well in history, 35,000 feet...

...The tension in every drilling operation is between doing things safely and doing them fast; time is money and this job was costing BP a million dollars a day. But Williams says there was trouble from the start - getting to the oil was taking too long.

Williams said they were told it would take 21 days; according to him, it actually took six weeks.

With the schedule slipping, Williams says a BP manager ordered a faster pace...

21 days? To drill an 18,000 foot well in 5000 ft of water depth? Either this gentleman is being mis-quoted by a crappy journalist, or he doesn't have a freaking clue what he is talking about...and having apparently just participated in the drilling of a 35,055 foot well [BP's Tiber well in 4,132 feet of water at Keathley Canyon Block 102], you would think he would know better.

At these depths it takes a day just to trip out of the hole to change the bit and get it back on bottom, longer if there's an underreamer in the bottom hole assembly. It takes months to drill these wells, not days. It's going to take 3 to 4 times that duration to drill each of the relief wells and they aren't being drilled to Total Depth.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

This was always an extremely low probability of success action. But the political climate is driving everyone to be seen to be trying "everything" no matter how lousy the chances of it working...

Every engineer I know in this business understood early on, once all the efforts to close the BOPs failed, that the only reasonable probability of success method to cap this blowout is the relief well. Talk of "junk shots", top kills, nuclear explosives, sinking a battleship on the wellhead [here's a link to that fantasy suggestion], or pumping cement directly into the blowout wellhead is wishful thinking played out large in the international media.

Wouldn't attempting to scuttle the USS Iowa on top of the wellhead be about as easy as trying to get a hole in one at Pine Valley Country Club's Par 5 "Hell's Half Acre"?

The technical, logistical, and financial challenge of solving this problem fly WAY over my head.

I can't even hold an amateur conversation on this topic, but I will be CLOSELY watching public perception and opinion on this crisis in the coming years.

It will be quite interesting to see how much momentum and initiative environmental lobby groups are able to seize.

I think it could be an epic battle between wallet and heart.

Will a massive environmental disaster turn into the "awkward fart in the room" where temporarily and artificially affluent Joe 6 Pack gives up another piece of his FIRE Economy lifestyle in the form of "**excessive environmentalism"?

**(No offense to environmentalists....I consider myself a real world environmentalist myself, like a for profit farmer.....supporting sustainable ways to profit from our natural resources).

I wonder if NIMBY-ism (Not In My BackYard) could see a reversal......rather than it's current use of being applied to the opposition of local development.......I wonder if it could be applied to SUPPORTING DISTANT DEVELOPMENT, even at potentially greater risk of high environmental cost if it goes someway towards mainataing their attriting FIRE economy lifestyle, standard of living, and quality of life?

If the greenie is unemployed, the solar panel covered house is foreclosed on, and the Prius has been repo'd, who can afford the "luxury" of being a fake vaneer environmentalist?

Could the volume and venom of environmental advocates(or the potential lack, especially private fundraising) be a useful economic indicator?

Will the strength of an "Environmental Inquisition" play a significant role in future energy prices(basically perform as a catalyst for even higher prices due to curtailed and more costly current/future development)?

I know it's not related directly to the topic of the blowout........but I'm a guessin' this story might only be at Chapter 1 of a 13 Chapter saga.

Just my 0.02c