This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -
The 'static kill' idea was 'floated' by BP as soon as the new cap was installed and closed. Please explain why this method is materially different from the 'top kill', and why if the stated reason for stopping that procedure was concern as to the integrity of the well, how this method would not run the same (to me rather serious-sounding) risk?
It was Secretary Chu who made the decision to stop the Top Kill. BP wanted to continue. I saw a quote from him stating something to the effect that "if he had known more about oil wells then, he would have let them continue." So, it might be Secretary Chu who bears the responsibility for the last couple of months of gushing oil volumes as it might have worked then. Having a static well column to pump into is certainly a much better shot at getting the kill
Always a pleasure to have you around, Mr. Objectivity. Could you reference that with a link? You know, I've found that people often hear and remember facts and "facts" that jibe with their existing opinions.
Sorry CD - think my comment below must have crossed your's in cyberspace. I know we've had this discussion before and I don't want to go round in circles. I will just state that many media types & websites have said they stopped the Top Kill due to concern as to the integrity of the wellbore. And Admiral Allen has made multiple comments about the government's concern about wellbore integrity. However, I have not seen it stated from BP or Allen that "the Top Kill was stopped due to concern as to the integrity of the wellbore" - I MAY CERTAINLY HAVE MISSED IT as I have focused more on technical questions but I haven't seen it.
When they were unable to achieve higher pressures than the flow it was clear the Top Kill was not going to work. That would have been plenty of reason to stop. More directly to your question (and it's a good one) - this well will be killed by pumping heavy mud into the wellbore until it is full of that mud. Period. That is going to happen and it can be accomplished from the top or bottom although the two options DO have different pressure profiles and would apply that pressure in different ways. But at the end of the process every point in the wellbore will have the same pressure it would have under the other approach. Then they will pump cement to seal it forever (except in Matt Simmons world where it will be flowing into the Gulf until the end of time)
This is the 'printed' version of BP's official stance, as per BP.com:
Check the CNN interview with Doug, the question starts around the 8:00 mark:
Also, do a quick calculation of the mud amounts/rates used, and think of the current "best estimate" of the flow rate prior to capping. The attempts made would have been a flow rate of 110K bpd - twice the maximum estimate of what was coming out the severed riser without cap, or the current new BOP when open PLUS the volume of oil already flowing would have had to come out of the cracks in the riser. I can hold two opposing, contradictory thoughts in my mind at the same time as well as the next guy, but it does begin to be difficult after a while...
Thanks for the info - not sure I understand how all that fits together myself. I thought I remembered the Top Kill/Junk Shot lasting a couple of days? If they pumped "over 30,000 barrels" over a couple days how does that equate to 110,000 barrels a day? (I'm not arguing - I really don't recall the sequence of events precisely). Clearly that 30,000 was not a continuous couple days as they said "in three attempts". My recollection was that the videos appeared for several stretches to be all or almost all drilling mud.
Regardless the point I was clumsily trying to make was that we're not certain they stopped 'because' of wellbore integrity issues. It was pretty clearly not working. In addition is SEEMS clear to me that BP & the "Committee" have differing opinions about the likelihood of, and relative risk associated with, a potential "leak" downhole.
The stated max mud rate of 80 barrels per minute equals a daily rate of 115K barrels. Assuming that the broken riser was ALREADY leaking at the max estimated flow of 60K bpd, adding mud which was then supposedly washed out by the oil flow would have tripled the plume. I did not see that happen. If half went out and half into the well, the flow rate of the mud downwell would have equaled the current estimated flow. And so on.
Yes, the relative likelihoods of risk are viewed differently. In the video above, Suttles himself says that BP itself considered the wellbore integrity to be a serious enough risk to abandon efforts to completely seal off the flow, and played into the decision to discontinue efforts to kill from the top. I would be fine with the statement that we have gathered the following new pieces of data since then, and we are now confident that we can do this -- here are the details. I am just sick of the learned helplessness being induced. It's gonna happen this way because I said so IS actually the way to lead in an operational situation. BUT it's not exactly the best way to justify such decisions to the public, some of whose livelihood directly depends on it.
Most of the mud from the topkill went straight out the riser (and they could not pump enough volume to offset this); now that it is capped it is basically putting in some heavy mud and let it's density do it's job.
AF
Apparently stating facts in here is grounds for junking. I'll never understand why some people have to cling so rigidly to tin foil hat theories and refuse to have any sort of rational dialogue.
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article222469.ece
a.) They would be pumping mud - slowly - against a static column of oil rather than against a gushing column. This requires less mud and allows a better monitoring of the process. b.) They are far more confident of the integrity of the well structure now than before.
Nice
ID #'s 2 digits off but our simultaneous are comments right on!
Our comments are basically the same. But you were junked and I was not. Strange. Perhaps I should junk myself to maintain the consistancy.
Have you ever actually read any of my comments? The description above would suggest not as I have consistently blamed BP for the entire liability of the spill including calling for criminal negligence.
You on the other hand are clearly incapable of any logical argument. Haven't seen anything from you except "Matt Simmons is a genius and anyone who disagrees is a shill". Matt Simmons has consistently made claims that cannot physically be true, in many cases by orders of magnitude. I have pointed out these inconsistencies with data and explanations of the physical realities that hold here in the real world - to which you have screamed "shill" loudly and repeatedly. Can't help you if you refuse to learn dude.
Your ad hominem attacks are amusing and make you sound ignorant - incapable of making a rational reply. Finally I find the notion that BP would find it worthwhile to pay people to post comments on ZH plain silly and the fact that you appear to actually believe it to be likely a further comment on your intellect.
PS - I missed your reply to my gold mining business plan. Couldn't do the math?
While I must mention that GG is unually cranky and perhaps conflated you with some rather arrogant, condescending, provocative possible experts/plants, there is a part where you are wrong.
It's happening. On a rather massive scale, and that's just the part I personally know about. Believe me. I'm helping 'them' do it. If CPG companies can do it, banks can do it -- why the hell wouldn't an oil major or .gov do it? The tech we use comes from the same strain as theirs.
The good news is, they don't yet know what the hell they are doing (exactly). Some are much less prepared than others. But it's a huge fucking petri dish, and eventually their results will crystallize. And some may have put more resources to the task, simply because they HAVE more to invest, more to gain and more to lose by not doing so. All that said, I don't truly think we have that many "shills" of significance here, with one or two remote possible exceptions. But I must say remote possibility. Because if true, the level of sophistication and pay grade thrown at the task is several levels higher than I have seen to date. So if you ARE in fact doing your job here, hats off, well done. In either case, I welcome your opinions - sometimes wastes some time, but mostly deepens thought.
CD
You would be surprised how sophisticated the professional troll business has become. Most of it now is outsourced to relatively small companies (mostly owned by defense and intelligence corporations where the art was perfected) that act as guns for hire. I've been researching this area for over 3 months while I write a book and the deeper I look, the more amazed I am at the sophistication they offer.
While some companies will try to perform their own psyops out of their PR departments, I suspect BP has outsourced their efforts. Even the US government, NSA, Military Intelligence, CIA and so on outsource most of it for a variety of reasons, not the least to get around the law. Many private companies can legally do what the government can't do, simply because the law never envisaged private companies engaging in for-hire psychological ops.
Just as the Army and Marines (and to a lessor extent the Air Force and Navy) have outsourced to private companies everything from food preparation to laundry service, they also outsource their other dirty laundry. These private companies now offer those same services to the private sector. I could write a book about it. What I am writing doesn't exclusively focus on this subject but more the bigger picture of what's coing down regarding our modern fascist state.
What do you think the goal of a professional troll operation might be? To instill PANIC in the herd, or to encourage the herd to use logic and reason?
When the S really does HTF, I will be the guy not panicing.
"What do you think the goal of a professional troll operation might be"
Just about everything their PR dept does and then some. As Cog Dis points out, their main goal is to avoid the law. It's hard to prove libel when you can't even identify the speaker.
No, not panic... Just the classic Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Off-balance, but not (yet) cornered.
But of course it would also depend on the organizational goals of the employer, wouldn't it? Which, by the way, can be selected from a REALLY wide array of options... It's a global economy, global society after all.
I am not surprised. A corporation the size of BP is on par with many national gov'ts, and I have always assumed the TLAs have been into this since the beginning.
These guys are just the grunts...
Yet I wonder if THIS isn't just part of a colossal PsyOp of its own...
Well CD & CogDis - I guess that all speaks to my naivete. It's been a long time since I worked for anyone who could rationally be called "big" oil but it still seems outside the mindset to me. But BP is as big as multinationals get and certainly are far bigger than anyone I ever worked for (although one of my ex-employers was taken into the borg after I left). I stand corrected.
I guess that's what happens when I get outside the areas I understand. Still not sure where to pick up my check though.
That's never stopped me from asking until I do... Check out the WaPo piece on the security conglomerate -- if you really want a check, several of the alphabet agencies are currently hiring, and their subcontractors certainly are. I imagine there may be an uptick in applications in the coming days... Lots of people need jobs.
No thanks - I've allowed myself to spend too much time following this one subject as it is.
I continue to resent the fact that if someone enters the discussion with a cogent and logical argument based on generally accepted scientific principals and recorded facts, and absent anything else other than supposition: therefore they might be a damn good shill.
Talk about moving the goalposts ....
Man, was it or was it not with you that we found Lord Lloyd's phone number one late night here? I doubt any paid operative would/could be that diligent. But either way, I don't care. Besides, stop trying on the shoe if it just won't fit. I was half-joking at Augustus, not you. I enjoy talking to you, in the full understanding that you could be anyone -- because I am trying to listen to what you say, not who you are.
Sorry if I misunderstood, but repeatedly being called a shill absent any evidence has gotten under my skin <obvious tag>.
Yes that was me that went sleuthing with you into the email files of Turbo and company. Perhaps Lizzy did too, but I don't think anyone else did ... and I will not speculate publicly as to why I think they did not. That would cost me some style points probably.
It was also me that realized Tyler Durden might have unwittingly revealed details of his physical appearance in photo #1 HERE (Soho Gem). After I brought it to his attention (which you can still see in the comment thread), he took a smudge pen to it and the results are what you see now. What kind of BP shill would do that I ask you?
Exploring the people that BP is buying right now for damage control is itself a worthy topic.Lawyers,Professors etc.
And internet shills too.
Transparency....yeah, right.
I'm calling you out Gekko. Cite ONE POSTING of mine that explicitly defends BP. This is not the first time I have asked you to do it and it probably won't be the last time that you will ignore it. Come on Gekko, just one.... you can do it, can't you?
Update: <CRICKETS>
Crickets will give way to silence Jim - GG never responds to a rational statement. Shout an insult preferably profane then run like hell is his MO.
I believe the appropriate word for what GG is doing in the BP comment sections is "Trolling"
http://gatsome.com/images/obvioustroll.jpg
He's arguing purely based on ad hom attacks and always avoids confrontations of logic.
I wonder what his real purpose is? It's obviously not enlightening debate.
you're not saying BP would never do anything like that. sometimes I wonder what BP and the government's real purpose is too.
Maybe there are shills and maybe not, I suspect a lot of the noise is from a few geezers longing for the good'ol days looking for some respect. The shills likely aren't the ones yelling and throwing out the caustic barbs, a shill's tone would be more like gasmiinder's steady, methodical, mostly polite with sufficient technotalk to convince the weak minded and scare off the faux experts and yes even influence the blogger towards a more politically acceptable position.