This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
BP Moves the Goalpost for the Oil Well Integrity Test
I noted
on July 15th:
As Coast Guard admiral Thad Allen has explained,
sustained pressure readings above 8,000 pounds per square inch (psi)
would show that the wellbore is more or less intact, while pressures of
6,000 psi or less would mean there could be major problems:
We
are looking for somewhere between 8,000 and 9,000 PSI inside the
capping stack, which would indicate to us that the hydrocarbons are
being forced up and the wellbores are being able to withstand that
pressure. And that is good news.
If we are down around in the
4,000 to 5,000, 6,000 range that could potentially tell us that the
hydrocarbons are being diverted someplace else, and we would have to try
and assess the implications of that. And as you might imagine, there
are gradations as you go up from 4,000 or 5,000 PSI up to 8,000 or
9,000. …
We will at some point try to get to 8,000 or 9,000 and
sustain that for some period of time, and these will be done basically,
as I said — if we have a very low pressure reading, we will try and
need (ph) at least six hours of those readings to try to ensure that
that is the reading. If it’s a little higher, we want to go for 24
hours. And if it’s up at 8,000 or 9,000, we would like to go 48 hours
just to make sure it can sustain those pressures for that amount of
time.
How
was the 8,000 psi number calculated to determine the lower acceptable
limit for the pressure test?
Don Van Nieuwenhuise - director of
geoscience programs at the University of Houston - explained to CNN that
the pressure at the bottom of the well is 11,000 psi, and so scientists
have calculated that it should be 8,000 psi at the top of the well:
Yet
BP is now trying to pretend that 8,000 psi was never the target.
As
oil industry expert Robert Cavner writes:
Kent
Wells moved
the goalpost during his Friday, July 16 briefing, saying,
"We
also said that if the pressure go above 8,000 pounds and really the
number in 7,500 pounds, it would really say to us that we do have
integrity under, essentially, any scenario."Very
smooth. In one sweeping statement, that the press let him get away
with, Wells moved the target pressure down as much as 1,500 psi from the
9,000 psi to 7,500, much closer to the 6,700 psi they were holding,
which is actually at the lower end of the ambiguity range we
talked about on Friday. Wells did it again yesterday, moving the
"good integrity" range number
down to 6,000 psi to 7,500 psi, saying,"But
at this point there is no evidence that we have no integrity and
that's very good and the fact that the pressure is continuing to rise
is giving us more and more confidence that as we go through this
process."So, over the last 3 days, BP has walked
the "integrity" goalpost down from as high as 9,000 psi to 6,000 psi, or
at least the 6,700 psi, which happens to be where they are, give or
take 100 psi. You know Adm Allen didn't just make up the 8,000 to
9,000, being a sea captain and knowing little to nothing about oil and
gas. Somebody gave him those numbers. BP moved to goalpost and
the timeline, and the press let them get away with it. Again.***
So
the stage is set. It sure looks like to me that BP is refusing to
disclose critical data and playing chicken with the government while
holding our Gulf of Mexico as hostage. They have every motivation to
not produce the well, for all the reasons we've discussed before, most
importantly, being able to measure the flow; and the ROV feed of oil
roaring back into the Gulf is the gun to the head. The government
should compel BP to release all the data from this test. Again, this
well, this lease, this oil and gas belong to the United States. This
well is in federal waters, and we are all owners here. As owners of
this resource, we have a right to see all the information available.
BP should immediately release all of the pressure buildup data,
temperature data, acoustic data, and seismic data. They should also
release their build up models including the Horner plot forecasts that
Wells discussed yesterday. Only then can we make a judgment that BP is
managing this in the best interest of the United States, not just
their own. We need no more reason for this demand than the massive
scale of this catastrophe.One more thing...these McBriefings
are BS, and we're just passively sitting there letting BP get away with
"technical briefings" that are neither technical or briefings. It's
time to start asking the hard questions, demanding the data, and to
stop putting up with the one question per customer, no followups, no
coupons accepted policy. These briefings should be live, with
some reporters actually present rather than just by telephone. If the
government won't do it, then we need to. This is too important.
Cavner's article is well-worth reading in
full.
»
- advertisements -
Finally someone gets it. Thank you.
It's pretty obvious.
I would like to know GG's real interest in the subject.
Besides his ridiculous pronounciations of peak oil, while we have "an uncontrollable gusher" going on at the same time, that will somehow collapse the entire GoM sea floor and has already caused earthquakes on the eastern seaboard with tsunamis on tap...ROTFL.
Then take into account...there is no competency test for voting.
That gusher represents minutes or hours of use based upon US consumption.
Yes. Peak Oil is real.
Peak Oil is nonsense. When Simmons was doing his energy supply calculations, what reserves did he include for the shale gas? It now appears to be in parts of Europe and in China. Does that make any difference? And the oil from the Bakken? That was in there too wasn't it? And all of those methane hydrates he is warning about? Were they included in the energy resource base? If he had all of that, surely he included the oil in those recently discovered fields off the African coast. The guy must just have a great crystal ball.
.
I agree with your sentiment but I'd phrase it as Peak Oil has occurred but it doesn't remotely mean what the activists think it does. It's very likely that the max global oil production occurred in the last few years. We've certainly found all the cheap easy oil. But there is still a LOT of oil that we can find/recover - it will be more expensive to do that though (that's why people are drilling 100-200 million dollar deepwater wells). There is plenty to get us through aLONG transition to other sources (shale gas, hydrates, nuclear, and as costs go up some of the renewables will have breakthroughs that make them actually viable replacements as they are not now). I'm perfectly comfortable that I can spend another 20 years (my job is to much fun to ever retire) making gobs of money searching for oil and gas.
"it will be more expensive to do that though"
that's the rub isn't it? And just how much more expensive? To the point where the amount of energy in equals the amount out? And just when will that occur? And how quickly will those ratios change? And how much of our way of life is dependent on "cheap" energy? And how much more global competition is there for this energy? So much that we falsify reasons to invade the last cheap accessible land source? That sounds pretty desperate to me.
You...dear ArmchairRevolutionary, should expand your horizons. The Oil Drum is not the last word on anything concerning oil...especially when it's corrupted with censoring editoress's with an agenda.
Things are not always as they seem to be. Never trust anyone...including myself, when money or prestige is concerned...until you have verified what you think you know.
Matt Simmons is a tool, don't be a fool. Villages, local vegatables, canned food...sound familiar? Please hold my hand as we walk down memory lane...I'm skeert ;-)
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2008/10/380-trip-down-memory-lane-wi...
Oversupply till 2015, oh my, this doesn't look good for peal oil...again.
Regards.
I would be careful lumping Matt Simmons in with either Peak Oil or TheOilDrum. Peak is almost certainly 2005 for crude and condensate. QE1 gave a fighting chance for a slight new high but May and Jun numbers have fallen hard.
Yes there will be oversupply but that is symptom of credit overshoot than of technology finding more and cheaper oil. Each month we spend sub $80 oil increases the post peak decline rate - when/if/after currency reform the amount of oil traded/burned globally will be far lower than the 80+million barrels of the past decade.
well said. And, all corruption aside, isn't there an unsettled chicken and egg problem with peak energy and peak credit economies?
... paints a picture in BP's favour.
BP screwed up. That has been demonstrated by fact presented here and elsewhere. I don't think anyone is making the argument that BP didn't screw up. So to what arguments in BP's favor are you making reference? The main contest on ZH regarding this story has been between fact vs. speculation. To defend fact (or lack of same) against speculation is to neither defend nor support BP.
Well it might* maybe* tell us theres a problem - sooooooo Obviously theres a problem. Or maybe theres an entire list of things that are easily explainable that are happening that are completely normal and common in oil and gas reservoirs.
Do ya think that maybe in this thread that Augustus and Jim Rockford can avoid getting junked? That would require some disipline by the readers and some restraint/civility by A and JR. A and JR if you want a good example of how to respond in a dignified and informative manner, observe gasmiinder, not that I always agree with gas but it's the approach.
@ anon - Some people care more about style points than substance. I don't.
I agree with you, gasminder has a good way of expressing himself. I like reading his posts. At least once, I recall him calling someone an idiot (and it was't me!).
Why thanks Jim. It's not so much that I care about style as I care about making my point clear. I also find that focusing on a clear style keeps me from getting angry and spewing.....
I have called several people idiots unfortunately and not once was it you (in fact you may note above that I called GG and idiot in a clear calm and rational style). I'd never call someone an idiot who had offered me a beer........
I'm probably a bit younger than you and less wise. But I am taking notes and I appreciate your substance as well as your style. Feel free to call me an idiot if I deserve it, I wouldn't question it in the least. Cheers.
Can't be all that much younger than me if you were old enough to work the Valdez spill. (although "much younger" refers to longer periods the older one gets)
I am 72-2. The product of a misspent youth.
edit - the superscript function doesn't work. The second "2" in the above series should be superscript.
Ah yes - as a great musical philosopher once said "it ain't the years boys - it's the miles"
God forbid I try to calculate the accumulated burden of my wild & woolly early days...........
Hey now - I've gotten junked too! sometimes within seconds! Don't take my junks away - I just figured it meant I'd asked someone to think......
Hey a-hole, nobody is forcing you to post on ZH. And thanks but no thanks on your "effort to make us think". Crawl back into the hole you came from.
As a gg fan I found myself junking you (sorry but had to do it). Maybe you know something I don't or perhaps I'm just naive but hearing other perspectives is of value even if one believes that the intent is to distract or misinform. I don't have much pateince for the cheap shots or pedantic ramblings of so called experts but neither do I have patience for lowering the debate to that level.
One sign of a true expert is that they will argue a point by informing and educating the readers at the readers' level while demonstrating an understanding and respect for opposing views.
GG has never added any substance to the BP Oil Well threads. It has always been suppostion based ad hominem, and it is all there for everyone to see.
- your reply; is this not an "ad hominem" based attack Jimmy ??
It is a careful evaluation of the quality of the information that GG has contributed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJvVEt6F_Xw
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya. Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya. Oh Lord, kumbaya ...
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya. Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya. Oh Lord, kumbayah ...
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6749#comment-681437
At TheOilDrum, one of the posters outs a bunch of probable shills. Junk away, that's what the button is for.
Here is the comment in full:
Hmmm..."by quickly refuting, ingenuously questioning or ridiculing anyone trying to understand the truth of what is happening by posing as “drilling experts” or “having worked xx years in the oil industry”...does this remind y'all of some posters on ZH? Jim Rockford, gasmiinder, Broken_Trades, Augustus, Megatoxic, etc.
And you know what I find really funny? These very same bunch of posters have been found by different people on ZH (other commenters - some of them long time including yours truly - and even Mr. Washington himself) to be consistently supporting BP and vehemently demanding verifiable sources (and retractions, if a "source" to their satisfaction was not found) for any assertion maligning BP. Poor GW, these paid shills have been harassing him so bad that he has had to resort to issuing disclaimers full of legalese in advance (and he has called out these very commenters as well while issuing the disclaimers) to save himself some of the harassment. Something smells really, really bad Tyler.
BTW GW, stop responding to these shills. They don't deserve it.
OK, Let me try to explain it to you guys who opted out of the math and sciences.
Flow takes the path of least resistance. That flow is seeping out of the seafloor near the well bore (as has been seen flowing at this rate during the top-kill procedure). It is coming out around the raw drilled hole that surrounds the casing- THAT is the path of least resistance (not horizontally through the strata).
On Monday morning BP and the government said scientists had determined that methane gas seeping from the seafloor nearly two miles from the well was a natural occurrence and not related to a pressure test to assess the well’s condition. The test was extended to a fifth day on Monday.
In any case, (even the worst case-oil sent out horizontally- its still 1000 ft underground), nothing can stop the eventual plugging of this well. There is no reason the relief wells won't work. I would like to hear a reason why they won't work...anyone??
OMG, this just in: (this will hurt doom & gloomers- I mean GW & GG)
BP said it was considering an alternative plan that could permanently seal the gusher sooner than had been anticipated.
Kent Wells, a senior vice president for BP, said the company was studying the possibility of a “static kill,” in which heavy mud would be pumped into the recently capped well. Also known as bullheading, the procedure would force the oil and gas back down into the reservoir.
“The static kill does give us a new option,” he said at a briefing in Houston. A decision to proceed could be made in several days, Mr. Wells said.
<<NEXT TOPIC PLEASE>>
Yeah... that's a great idea.
Actually GW it is a reasonable idea. I alluded to it earlier in one of the threads immediately after the well was capped (or I thought I did - I had a couple lost when my laptop crashed - f*%^$g Dell). I wondered why they weren't discussing it immediately. It is much more likely to succeed than the Top Kill because you are not fighting the high-rate flow. I'd be very concerned because it appears the flex joint is leaking BUT you have to understand that if the pressure really has approached very near static then a very slight increase in pressure will start to make progress against the hydrocarbon column. If you're careful you can pump heavy mud into the borehole and never actually get much above ( a few hundred psi) the current pressure and yet make headway, this allows you to steadily increase the pressure downhole but the pressure at the wellhead stays the same.
Question: Once you get the casing full of heavy mud below the three ram stack, would you then need to run drill pipe down the hole in order to set cement? If so, will the stack/bop allow that? How do you deal with the abandoned drill pipe left in the hole (assuming there is still some in there). Would you need to remove it before you could contemplate a cement job?
Or, do you think the idea is to go heavy mud from the top to establish control and then complete the relief well in order to perform the cement ops from the bottom?
I would assume your last sentence would be the path forward for exactly the reasons you describe in the first paragraph. This is not my expertise, however it would seem very unlikely to me that they would attempt any well operations through this BOP/stack.
Relief wells do the plugging, nothing will be done through the original well other than filling the well column throuh the choke and kill lines directly under the partially closed BOP. Because it is basically displacement (different density fluids), there is no shock (like on a topkill).
Cool. Thanks AF and Gasmii. My only drilling experience was in helping a company man and a tool pusher drill a water well on a weekend in Ft. Stockton on a mutual friend's land. We used Ivory soap, water, and compressed air for a drilling medium. They taught me what WOC means and they taught me that Budweiser has a pork chop in every can.
This is a better explanation; (man GW was defending an idiot)
Relief wells do the plugging, nothing will be done through the original well other than filling the well column throuh the choke and kill lines directly under the partially closed BOP. Because it is basically displacement (different density fluids), there is no shock (like on a topkill). The density of the mud is enough to kill the well- it will be kept in equillibrium (about 2200 ft by my numbers), then it will go slightly mud heavy when they decide to intersect with the relief wells (drilled at different heights- the soon to be plug zone between them). It is all ok now.
Budweiser + Immodium= Pork Crop
See, now that wasn't so hard to explain, was it? My only remaining question is: how do you get 2x volumes of fluid into 1x volume of space without increasing the pressure substantially? Neither the mud, nor the oil are known to me to be very compressible. Where does the oil being displaced go?
Back where it came from.
You do increase the pressure substantially but you can design it so that increase occurs downhole. It's a function of the "weight" (actually density) of the drilling mud. As you fill the wellbore there is a longer column of mud pressing down so the pressure increases at the bottom but is static at the top. Think of it like diving - if you have a pool of water 100' deep it's all connected but the pressure at the bottom is much higher than at the top - same thing.
I am beginning to get it. So the only $64T question is -- where might any potential leak(s) be, or where might they form/erupt? Up- or downhole? Middle? Tricky, tricky... Relief well still sounds much better, though it takes longer and no doubt carries risks/uncertainties of its own.
Again, they kill it asap w/mud, then plug when the relief wells com in. Both methods. See earlier posts.
^^^Thanks for the read guys. :-)
The 'Static kill' seems like an easy way to kill the well for now. This would take away the risk of any more oil leaking out until everything was cemented back. Makes sense to me.
It would take away the risk, as long as any potential leak point is above the level where the mud column from the top begins to substantially increase the pressure on the oil column, to the point where the path of least resistance is no longer back into the porous rock at the bottom.
You guys are getting it and Augustus comment just above is very accurate. I'm not sure it's perfectly clear yet though. Some of the issues relate back to how you believe the well may be leaking. There are three options - flowing into a porous unit (a sand in this trend) or it can be fracturing (cracking) any rock near the wellbore and flowing into those cracks, or it could flow up behind the drill liners and force it's way out around the pipe (I only include this last one because the "committee" has been quoted in the press as being very concerned about it - I've never heard of it actually occurring so I have no idea what it's likelihood could be)
Option 1 flowing into a sand - if this is occurring you will likely increase the flow into the sand as the pressure rises until the drill mud column reaches the sand. Once that occurs the drilling mud has properties that will seal the sand and no more flow of that type will occur. This may sound worrisome but sand crossflow downhole is not going to result in the kind of catastrophic release that people are worried about.
Option 2 cracking the borehole - this can only occur if the pressure is above the "fracture gradient" of the rocks being cracked. Because the wellbore is cased down to a point where the fracture gradient is above 14 ppg (which is enough to kill this well and then some) the only way this can be a problem (or a source of any current leakage) is if there is a split in the casing above that point or if the casing shoe is gone. If this is so as the pressure rises the situation could be worsened - but only to the contents currently in the borehole (the well is static - additional oil is not flowing up at this pressure and as you increase the pressure the direction of flow will be downward). This complicates the kill procedure because once you get a full column of mud above the fracture point you will lose mud into the surrounding rock (this is not dangerous per se but it means you're still not in control - you don't have stable kill yet). There are several solutions to this - you can pump material that will "clog" the fracture or you can pump extremely heavy mud to push below the fracture then follow it with lighter mud above the leak point thus achieving your desired downhole pressure while keeping the pressure at the leak point at a level below the failure level. This scenario IS the trickiest part of the bullhead operation - if such an operation failed it would most likely be because of this problem
Option 3 flowing up around the casing - as I said above I'm not familiar with this happening (it may well have I'm not claiming omniscience here) and have never read any science or engineering regarding how that would react to pressures etc. However the mud column will push the oil out of the borehole and kill the flow out of the reservoir - that has to be a good thing even in this scenario.
The main advantage of the relief well kill from the bottom up is it's easier to deal with scenario 2 using the 'heavy/light' mud combo I described. The main advantage of the bullhead is you can design it so the upper portions of the wellbore never see pressures much above where they are now and then only gradually (failures in the shallow portions of the wellbore are much more likely to result in leakage at the seafloor and the catastrophic failures some envision). I don't see any way a bullhead makes the situation WORSE unless it caused a failure of the current cap system, it does require you to increase the pressure SOME in order to initiate the process and the flex joint IS leaking now. I'm not an engineer and I can't evaluate the risk of that. I'm sure a LOT of discussion is going on about it.
OMG, gasminder! I can't believe you wrote all that that. I stopped reading somewhere around mud cake.
You are an amazing person doing a service to all.
GW - You should* be putting your head together with gasminder and writing a simple expletive on whats actually going on for the laymen to understand. This kind of knowledge doesn't get dropped on people for free very often. It all makes perfect sense, and written in such an eloquent way!
Cheers!
It was an insomnia night - the length/detail probably put others to sleep though....
As for the expletive - I really have already let this topic/discussions take too much time (I do love the subject of geology) and need to focus back on other things. Here's hoping that VERY soon they get us to a position where the financial markets are peoples main concern on ZH when I quietly read & learn.
Yeah, ZH has a way of becoming a bit addictive. But thank you for the explanation. Here's to a speedy and successful resolution.
Think of the producing formation along these lines - IF it will give it up, it will also take it.
They don't have to substantially increase the pressure on the oil column, a few hundred # will get it started taking it back. If the formation pressure drawdown is the reason for the lower than anticipated shut in pressure then it will be easier to force the oil back into the well and stabalize the mud column of the kill top kill. And it will certainly make the relief well cementing much more likely to be successful. I believe the jury is still out on whether there is cross flow with some formations at the bottom of the hole, however. This could help to resolve that question
Well will be killed with this method (it is safer to kill it), but plugged by the relief well which is intersecting right above the formation.
They will want to plug this at the deepest point for reasons you just pointed out- no integrity in the well.
Packers will be set , a foam lift will remove the oil /mud, then the cementing will occur between packers. vola'
I see no reason why people are junking anything questioning the doom and gloom from people who have already been discredited. It is the only subject that this level of junking occurs. I would suggest that some journalists don't like being called out. They support an indefensible position and their rejection will take some time until the acceptance phase. We pray for their recovery and look forward to their insights on FINANCIAL and ECONOMIC issues.