This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
BP's Relief Well Is Not a Slam Dunk
Blog
The team leader for BP's relief wells - Boots and Coots - is 40 for
40 in successfully stopping oil spills using relief wells (around
6:10 into video).
Many oil drilling experts are hopeful that BP's relief wells will
succeed on the first try. I hope and pray that they do.
But the relief wells are not a slam dunk, especially at such extreme
depths.
CBS News states:
"It's not a solid dunk," said Eric Smith, a deepwater drilling expert. "It's going to take some work."
Smith said two things could go wrong. The cut could miss the broken
wellbore, and BP would just try again, or engineers could drill into
hidden gas pockets."When you are drilling into that you have to be careful of a kick, a blowout in the relief well," Smith said.
George
Hirasaki, a Rice University professor in chemical and biomolecular
engineering who was involved in the Bay Marchand oil containment effort
for Shell, said engineers have to be very careful when drilling into
any formation that has hydrocarbons, which poses the risk of the same
type of explosion that destroyed the rig.
Recently-retired Shell Oil President John Hofmeister said
that the well casing below the sea floor may have been compromised,
which could render success from the relief wells less certain:
[Question]
What are the chances that the well casing below the sea floor has been
compromised, and that gas and oil are coming up the outside of the well
casing, eroding the surrounding soft rock. Could this lead to a catastrophic geological failure, unstoppable even by the relief wells?
John Hofmeister: This is what some people fear has occurred. It is also why the "top kill" process was halted.
If the casing is compromised the well is that much more difficult to
shut down, including the risk that the relief wells may not be enough. If
the relief wells do not result in stopping the flow, the next and
drastic step is to implode the well on top of itself, which carries
other risks as well.
Hofmeister subsequently told MSNBC:
The question is whether
there is enough mechanical structure left at the base of the reservoir
to hold the cement when they start pouring cement in [from the relief well].***
The more oil we some coming out, the more it tells you that the whole casing system is deteriorating. The fact that more oil would be coming out rather than less oil, would suggest that the construction within the pipe is offering no resistance whatsoever, and we’re just getting a gusher.
Yesterday, the Guardian quoted the government official in charge of oil spill response as warning:
“There is a chance – a slight chance – they could nick the wellbore,” Thad Allen, the coast guard commander, said. …
A
nick risks starting a new small leak or possibly even a collapse of a
section of the pipe given that it was damaged in the explosion in ways
still not fully understood.
***
The intercept could
be complicated if it turns out that the oil is flowing around the pipe,
between the pipe and the cement of the well bore.
And Spiegel previously reported that there are many dangers with completing the relief wells:
Independent experts warn that relief wells, like any well, are not without risk. "More
oil could leak than before, because the field is being drilled into
again," says Fred Aminzadeh, a geophysicist at the University of
Southern California. Ira Leifer, a geochemist at the University of
California in Santa Barbara, voices similar concerns: "In the worst
case, we would suddenly be dealing with two spills, and we'd have twice
the problem."
***
As straightforward as it
sounds, this approach [i.e. killing a spill by drilling relief wells]
has not always been easy to implement in the past. The disaster in the
Timor Sea, for example, ended in a debacle. It took engineer five tries
to even find the borehole under the sea floor. Shortly before the end,
the West Atlas oilrig went up in flames, after all.
***
[David Rensink, incoming president of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists] is particularly concerned that BP,
in drilling the relief wells, will penetrate into precisely those rock
formations in which extreme pressure and temperature conditions
facilitated the April blowout in the first place. Gas bubbles and
gushing oil from the depths are real possibilities. "Any relief or kill
well needs to be drilled with more caution than the first well," Donal
Van Nieuwenhuise, a geologist at the University of Houston, told the
New Orleans daily Times-Picayune. "You don't want a repeat performance.
An oil industry geologist adds:
[There are] lots of potential complications [in
drilling relief wells]. A big one would be using too high a mud
weight/pump pressure and fracturing thwe rock around the [relief well]
and losing it. Also instead of the mud building a tall colume inside
the well bore and stoping the flow it might escape out of ruptured
[casing] or failed [cement] shoes. Then they might not ever be able to
build enough back pressure to stop the flow. I suspect many of these
possible problems won't reveal themselves until the actual kill process
begins.
As CBS notes, even BP is no longer expressing full confidence:
BP leaders have showed supreme confidence in their relief wells.
"I fully expect that the well itself will be shut off in August," said Bob Dudley, BP's point man on the spill.
But recently? More caution.
"The drilling of relief wells, there's nothing guaranteed," Dudley said.
Indeed, the veteran engineer in charge of the Ixtoc Gulf oil well disaster in the 1970's states that - given the pressures involved - a single relief well might not be enough:
Carlos Osornio, a Mexican engineer in charge of
Pemex's deepwater drilling operations during the Ixtoc crisis, said BP
may ultimately find that both relief wells are needed to contain the
gusher.
"One relief well may not be enough to contain the high volume (of oil flow), but two will work for sure," he said.
Similarly, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich previously noted:
A petroleum engineer who’s worked in the oil industry tells me [that] a recent blow-out off the coast of Australia required five pressure relief wells to successfully shut it down.
For the above reasons - and given BP's track record of incompetence - I am hopeful, but not 100% confident that BP's relief wells will succeed.
- advertisements -
i wonder if the mud logs on the relief wells are
indicating any oil or gas is present and i wonder
what would the interpretation be?
MSNBC:
Hofmeister:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matt...
While perhaps the motivations here are more complex than simply that of a rival oil major's ex-CEO rooting against his former 'nemesis' (the long-term implications for Shell will also change as a result of this current crisis), I am not sure Hofmeister is entirely even-handed in his assessment.
As of yesterday's BP schematic update on the progress of the relief well #1, the drill is only 200-300' from its target depth. If they are still detecting the metal sleeve of the original well casing as has been implied, that is good news. I am also curious to see the results after the Helix platform is connected and collecting its capacity of oil. If current estimates of the flow are 'accurate', the remaining outflow should be minimal compared to what we've seen thus far.
Don't know if this was posted- nytimes fantastic explanation of technology for relief wells, amazing stuff, drilling the 30ft length of a pipe to put sensors in the wall of the pipe? Unreal stuff.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/science/06drill.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2...
Good article. Maybe GW will correct the misinformation provided by The Guardian UK above?
Of course, an admission that the fact that BP is ranging on the wild well casing strongly implies that the wild well casing exists in the hole and not stuck in the BOP (a point that I have been making for at least a week) would be nice. Nice but not anticipated.
I believe the point made earlier was about two segments of drill pipe side by side in the BOP, not the well casing:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-oil-spill-pipes-201...
Cannot vouch for Simmons, nor the integrity of well casing. But isn't the relief well ca. 1000' above the planned intersection point? Does it matter or not whether the casing extends to the bottom of the wellbore? Is the aim to drill into the bore with casing, or below it?
There are lots of different casing sets in the well. There is no indication that those strings of casing and liner are damaged. I believe that the intercept is planned approximately 1,000 ft below the last liner string. That is very near the bottom of the well. The last string of pipe was run from surface to the bottom and that is when the well blew out. It is possible that the last string of casing was moved up the well several feet (not blown out of the well and across the GoM). It is also possible that the drill pipe was dropped down the well and damaged that last long casing string. The condition of that last string is not particularly important to the success of the kill attempt. The mud pumped into the hole will take the same route to the surface that the oil is now taking. The weight of the column from the bottom to the surface will increase as therre becomes more mud in the column. That weight is what had the well under control when it was drilled and the last casing string was run and will control it again.
Good points from both Jim & Augustus. I would just add that people seem not to understand how the pressure dynamics will work. The relief well will have mud somewhere in the 13-14 lb/gal range when it intersects the Macondo well. This means that in the relief well borehole the existing pressures will exceed the pressures needed to kill the well and once penetration occurs (I love it when that happens) the pressure gradient will be into the Macondo borehole. The mud will instantly begin flowing into the Macondo well. The relief well must then pump mud fast enough to maintain a column to the surface as well as fill the Macondo well. This is one of the riskiest points in the process and is a key reason people continue to be cautious in their assessments. But the idea that it will be tricky to pump in is silly - the mud will flow into the Macondo immediately and as long as the column can be maintained.
+1
Thanks George
C'mon George, you've had plenty of time to get your position sewn up tighter that a bull's ass in flytime, now let us in on the secret. How do you make money by publishing all this drivel?
How do you make money by publishing all this drivel?
You mean providing a conduit of real information on a critical issue that impacts all of us?
I care for my fellow man and that is why I am engaged in this debate that intelligent people can get it if presented with all of the data that is out there. I appreciate his interest and willingness to devote time to the public to inform and provide a debate on his blog and here at Zero Hedge. There are still good people in this world that provide assistance without charge cause they care. There is much at stack in this crisis, do you have a skin in this game?
I think the article's rating from the ZH public sums it up.
While I don't respond to trolls, I will state that I do not have any short positions, CDS, or any other investment which would in any way benefit from BP, Andarko, Mitsui, Nalco, or any other company related to the oil spill doing poorly.
I make half a peanut from blog ads on my blog - enough to pay for the cost of my domain names - that's about it. No one pays me a cent for writing, other than the aforementioned half peanut paid by advertisers on my site (I have no control on who the advertisers are - an ad service delivers whatever ads are bought).
I have an actual day job, which is how I make my money. Blogging is a labor of love I do in my spare time (I have a busy day job and a young family I'm trying to raise, thank you very much), because I love America, and don't want her to go down the toilet.
Goodbye.
George meet Merlin12, formerly Master Bates
Thank you for posting the comment, GW, in spite of having to do it under duress.
It's always a little comforting to know the real persons behind the scenes.
Your labor is out of respect, I assume, rather than a labor of fear. That makes for better objectivity in your reports.
Anyhow, thanks.
You do a fantastic job on your blog.
question: how much subsurface material has been eroded away
at the projected intercept point and in the well bore outside the
casing, top to bottom? or how much of what we have been observing as gas and
oil and dispersant is subsurface eroded silt etc? has it been 84,000
barrels, or much more or much less, and what effect will this have
on the precision relief operation once they start pumping mud
should they get to that point before blowing more stuff to smithereens....?
Ummmm ..... MORE
NO! LESS!!!
Hope that helps.
per above..
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/kent_wells_briefing_06_28_2010.pdf
.
BP North America
Moderator: Toby Odone
June 28, 2010
9:30 a.m. CT
Operator: ...
.
" Operator: Your next question is from the line of (David Shookman) of BBC News.
(David Shookman): Hi, Kent, (David Shookman) of BBC News here, thanks for taking the call and thank for your time in Houston last week. Two quick questions. What kind of weather state are you looking for that would actually threaten the drilling the relief drilling operation. And secondly, have you seen oil leaking from anywhere other than the Mancondo well?
Kent Wells: The – in terms of the rigs these rigs are built to continue operations in everything except when we get into tropical storms and hurricanes et cetera. And we have our hurricane preparedness and we have all of our what we call our disconnect times our T-times set up and so we just consistently monitor the weather. And only at such times as basically we start being threatened by tropical storms or hurricanes would we have to disconnect. So we expect those operations to continue unless we’re unfortunately a storm heads directly our way.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of (Richard Fawcett) of (Los Angeles Times).
(Richard Fawcett): Hi. Can you tell you what percentage chance do you have of......"
.
comment: why did kent wells just absolutely ignore the second part of that question and only that question in the entire
presentation?
.perhaps the operator cut him off with the next question?
http://bp.concerts.com/gom/kwellsreliefwells062710.htm
Good explanation of what's going on out there on the relief wells. Yes it is company propaganda but watch it and you'll understand more than most of you do now.
Of course Tree of Liberty and Panafrican Funk will simply continue to post fantasy gibberish but others might get some value.
That's cute. The problem is that the relief well plan suffers from a severe lack of logic. Let's just all think this through for a sec:
1. Use a big ass drill to drill down about 18,000 feet beneath the surface of the ocean, at an angle, and reach the well pipe.
2. Drill a hole/holes in the pipe.
3. Somehow close that hole(s) off so they can pump a bunch of fluid into the pipe, somehow at a downward pressure + fluid weight that exceeds the upward pressure of that well.
4. This downward pressure +fluid weight is going to somehow be so awesome as to literally stop the flow of the oil up the pipe long enough to send cement 18,000 feet beneath the surface of the ocean.
5. That cement will somehow magically clog the pipe and not move even one inch, in spite of that upward pressure.
But hey, who am I but some random dude who's actually trying to think this through instead of spouting off soundbites and empty rhetoric. If we start from the assumption that we're being BS'ed here (as you noted yourself gasmiinder), there really isn't any other choice if we actually want to get to the bottom of this and try and figure out what the hell is actually going on, is there?
I drink your milkshake:
You're right, you don't get it.
Kill procedure about sums it up...
I think it's important to note that Boots and Coots is owned by Halliburton, and was acquired April 9th, 11 days before the explosion, which was due in part to the cement job done by... Halliburton. Yet, we never hear Halliburton mentioned much. Nor do we hear about just how much Blackstone stands to gain from this whole ordeal, being not only the owner of Nalco (who produces Corexit) but has multiple billions of dollars invested in oil shale, land-based oil, refineries, coal mines, and electric utilities, including holdings in nuclear power. Not to mention, of course, Kosmos Energy, who is very well positioned in offshore West Africa and should enjoy better returns than normal. Or Bluestar, a subsidiary of China National Chemical Corporation (seeeecret.....Chineeeese......buuuyout?)
But hey, that was just me spending 10 minutes looking at the interwebs, Augustus. Imagine what I could find out if I really bothered to dig into this. Are you sure you really want to encourage that? We might find some information that contradicts your rah-rah stance on BP. But maybe you were just making some dumbass rhetorical argument and actually just wanted to obfuscate via a flame war.
Just a coincidence HAL buys Boots 8 days before the blowout?
Boots & Coots has two core businesses. First, there is Pressure Control, which involves prevention and risk-control services for oil- and gas-well fires and blowouts. A key to this area was the acquisition of John Wright, which developed sophisticated technologies to measure well integrity.
How dare you question our omni-impotent emperor, DisgustUS Erroneous ad Infinitum?
Where are the daily air quality readings in and around the GoM from the EPA? What is the benezene levels in and around the GoM? Why haven't the mud logs from the blowout well and surrounding wells been released to the public for technical study? Why are there no fly restrictions over the affected areas? Why haven't the large tanker skimmers been deployed?
Have you attempted to contact the EPA for the air quality information? My bet is that you have not.
The logs of the blowout well have been released. I've posted the link to them several times on this web site.
No fly restrictions are to prevent DHs from having a collision over the ships working to plug the well. You can fly to Gulf Shores without a problem.
Augustus,
That is the same as saying, have you attempted to contact BLS (Bureau of Lying Statistics) about the current state of joblessness in America.
I rest my case and suggest, even to do your shill job well, to quote from real research outside the ambit/gambit of Government supplied statistics.
While academics have their own issues, enough voices are telling the truth out there.
ORI
http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com
EPA publishes reading results, just neglects to present acceptable/dangerous levels that correspond to the types of air components being measured:
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/air.html#historical
NIOSH specifies 'safe' limits for Benzene, 0.1 ppm, Toluene 50 ppm,
Naphthalene, 100 ppm.
BP is flaring off (burning) gas and boom gathered oil that is not only killing live marine life in the seaweed.
It also releases more toxics, including radioactivity and VOCs into the air and water.
Epidemiologists know any exposure to toxics, including radioactivity, can be harmful, measuring it in terms of cancer cases per 1000.
The US Military admits DU causes 1 case of cancer per 1000 people.
Iraq has a population of 70,000,000, that is 70,000 new cases of cancer, not to forget hideous birth defects:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html
The explosion was 20 April 2010.
EPA did not begin reporting results until 28 April 2010.
Their own subsequent data logs show days over the safe limits, while their PR says only orange alert low short-lived effects (Gulf Flu) unhealthy for sensitive groups...
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/air.html
http://www.epa.gov/BPSpill/
Pretty interesting for an administration that campaigned on stopping environmental degradation, global warming and war...
I suppose ignoring trolls is the way to go. There is apparently NO difference between alarmism and requesting information that is by mandate the PURPOSE of the given gov't organization to measure and provide. There is no difference between a gallon jug of gasoline and the millions of gallons spilled. The dozens/hundreds of first-hand reports resembling exposure to toxic levels of aromatic hydrocarbons and other sundry airborne particles are all due to boatmen inhaling PineSol used to clean their boats. Corexit trapped in globs of sticky tar clinging to ship hulls is certainly NOT capable of corrosive effects.
Yes, it's great that the EPA measures and publishes the results of air measurement. The problem is that Volatile Organic Compounds is not a unit that has a singular measure of toxicity. It's like measuring the average projectile penetration level of a person with a gunshot wound at the temple. Great average value for the entire body surface overall, but the individual in question is still just as dead. The analogy is a stretch, but the point is that a deluge of information in cryptic form requiring hours of decoding is NOT the same as accurate notification of the citizenry.
Every time I make up my mind to consider their input, such idiocy inevitably surfaces. Instead of sticking to facts (like they expect and loudly instruct everyone ELSE to do), whenever a question beyond immediate refutation surfaces ad hominem is the way to respond
YES, there is a vast amount of poorly reasoned/supported speculation surrounding the incident. WHY? Because the entities responsible for or in control of vital data have proven countless times they cannot be relied upon to present reliable information. Denying this simple and factual statement raises bright red flags as to the veracity of other (otherwise valid or reasonable) statements. Until such time as this is remedied, anyone who chooses to accept these so-called axioms and nuggets of common knowledge or expert opinion does so at their own peril.
This seems to be the COREXIT EATING THROUGH BOAT HULLS source: http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/06/27/corexit-oil-eating-boat-hulls-kidneys-g4/
It is one still picture. There is no evidence of:
So, to your assertion (sarcastic or not) that, "Corexit trapped in globs of sticky tar clinging to ship hulls is certainly NOT capable of corrosive effects." I will stipulate that it MAY be capable, under the right circumstances and concentrations ... but there is no visible evidence provided that it HAS.
Last attempt.
a) there are LOTS of crazy, unsubstantiated, baseless rumorgmongering idiocies circulating re: GOM spill
b) both .gov and BP are more or less in monopolistic control of info about situation on the ground and in the water, and BOTH intensely motivated minimize appearance of damage. Both also have a lousy track record of protecting citizenry from harm (to varying degrees and for different reasons). The worse the (hypothetical/real) situation is, the higher the levels of motivation to minimize adverse perceptions.
The two above points are not mutually exclusive. If you cannot accept them as ground points for debate on the topic, I am not going to be a suitable partner for you.
Pine Sol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkYJDI8pK9Y
6:15 into the video BP community 'ombudswoman' describes official response to reason for hospitalization of cleanup workers
Corexit:
http://g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/exclusives/71229/bp-oil-spill-effect-on-...
ca. 5:00 minutes into segment
No, I have not commissioned detailed, double-blind, placebo-controlled tests for the poisoned cleanup workers. Again, perhaps all of these people are faking illness for fame/compensation/sympathy.
No, I cannot provide claims documentation on the damage to boats that an insurer would pay out against - merely eyewitness hearsay. Perhaps wily boatmen looking to scalp BP.
I am merely saying that if there is reliable, objective information on these and many other questions, withholding does more harm than good. If we wait until there are critical masses of these incidents, it is already too late. Blanket denials are of course possible, snide dismissals are the rule. I just find it difficult to come up with a number -- one that would be sufficiently large to point out the PATTERN involved. Number of dead humans, number of irreparably damaged pieces of equipment, number of extinct habitats/species. There should be swarms of journalists hunting down these very narrow, very specific leads - conducting methodical, structured interviews, etc.
But nevermind, if you are right, I will be so immensely relieved, I won't mind your gloating a bit. Just enough with the self-serving apologia and blinders already.
Why so huffy? I'm not gloating. What do you mean by "self-serving apologia and blinders"? Should that piss me off? Wasn't even looking for a fight. Should we call Geithner and ask him to moderate?
You left out "C", to wit: There are reality based theories out there that do not defy gravity, mathematics, physics, and or thermodynamics. When possible, they should be perceived as having more value than either "A" or "B".
No I do not think that A and B are mutually exclusive, because I think that C exists.
Why was this your "last attempt" and why should I give a rats ass whether you are a suitable partner for me? Are you some great internet debater that I have never heard of before, yet somehow managed to offend?
Lots of things are in the eye of the beholder. My points were more general, not directed specifically (or even generally) at you, Jim. I have work I should be doing instead of spending time here, hence the 'last attempt' line. No distinction in internet debate claimed or implied. You have not offended me in the least; as far as I can tell our aims are not that far apart -- to encourage objective, fact-based discussion and SKEPTICISM. Major part of the reason I responded to your post; should have made that clearer. Sorry about the inconsistent use of 'you' in the post(s) above, did not proofread thoroughly enough - the last sentence should read 'if those maintaining that all is (reasonably or otherwise) well, spill will soon be capped, long-term damage averted are right'. Also, any real gloating would come AFTER these happy developments anyway. I suppose I was perhaps conflating you with others, and should not have. No insult intended.
Perhaps I am too paranoid, perhaps you are too trusting of 'experts' -- again, only time will settle the issue conclusively. I am generally not in the business of arguing about geophysics, hydrodynamics or organic chemistry -- subjects I know all too little about. I am merely trying to point out inconsistencies and logical fallacies when/where I perceive them and try to encourage an open mind.
People on this site who have real first-hand experience or other professional expertise can offer both valuable information, as well as a learning opportunity I would welcome taking advantage of. Telling someone to go fuck themselves 'cuz I know I'm right and you're full of shit' can be an acceptable answer, but gets old after a while when given in response to any and all non-syncophant questions.
This statement, if accepted as true, is not sufficient to suspend logic, reason, common sense, known science, and etc. when evaluating information simply because of an impugned source. It does not follow that "because A is a liar, B must be true."
I just wanted to make that point in a non-ad-hominem way.
Regarding Pine-Sol, I have never seen it used around boats. When we spilled fuel at the fuel dock (like we always did), we had a couple of squirt guns full of lemon fresh joy dishwashing soap. That sheen on top of the water would dissapear real quick. When I was in PWS Alaska 1989, all of the boats working the cleanup had a thick sludge of black buildup around the waterline. Occasionally Exxon would lift them out of the water (upon request) and set them on a barge where they would be pressure washed and set back in the water. I never saw Pine Sol being used but I am not saying that it wasn't. In my time around boats, if you needed to clean grease or oil, one did not hesitate to grab a can of solvent like carb cleaner or brake cleaner. The more tolulene and/or benzene the better.
Are you aware of the hazardous chemicals contained in the asphalt that you walked on today? Were you scared to cross the street? Do you ever get a whiff of gasoline vapors when you spill some fuel filling the lawnmower? And do you report that spill every time you make the error so that your neighbors will not be exposed?
you serious?
Don't forget the dreaded .... NAIL SALON!
Of course, the article cites the EPA but we all know we can't trust them. I heard they acquisitioned by Halliburton right before Liz Cheney had a hangnail.
You are not really serious are you?
Yeah, I am aware of what the EPA is OSTENSIBLY responsible for, it is just that...oh, fuck it, never mind.
Sure, I'm serious. My guess is that the info IS available. But it is easier for the numbnuts to complain about something which does not exist than to try to acquire the information.
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/air.html
Their header says "The air monitoring conducted through July 4 has found levels of ozone and particulates ranging from the "good" to "unhealthy for sensitive groups" levels on EPA's Air Quality Index."
Look at the data for Benzene and Naphthalene, up to several hundred times legal limits on certain days.
FEMA cannot relocate 21 million people, so 0 encouraged everyone to stay put breathe the air and drink the water by telling them the seafood is safe and to come on down to white beaches...
http://intotheashes.imva.info/?p=367
How very darned clever of the EPA. They did the data right out there on the inter web. No wonder is was so hard to find.
I call Bravo Sierra once again Augustus. That is the first log I have seen without dates and signatures/initials. The pressures indicated on this log strip is missing the time stamp increments of pressures, are they sample points, continuous run monitoring?...all of this is not stated on the very grainy and non typical log data (this is not an operational log that Tempo is speaking of). This is more of BP hoodwinking and manipulating data. This leopard does not change its spots to stipes that easy, they are not the experts they attest to be but master cost cutters instead. Transocean rig personnel as well as big oil technical support (those that took a pass on bidding on this block lease due to the very dangerous geological formation present) who have 1st hand information that is the subsequent areas of information leaks which you ostensibly deny. Once again I own no oil or oil service stock and have been working for a integrated oil company for over 20 years with field experience that also lives in this soon to be wasteland of the Gulf South Louisiana.
In a couple of weeks this well will be killed. then you will need something else to write about and churn up silliness. May I suggest that you take up the widely known event of the well that was Drilled to Hell. You will love it.
http://www.drillingahead.com/profiles/blogs/drilling-to-hellfacts-amp
You sure are calling a lot of Bravo Sierra when anyone posts any technical data, claiming that you can't trust BP, the US Gov, or the EPA for the truth. Yet, when it is in your own best interest, you supply a link to the MSDS for Corexit that leads where??? Oh yeah, the website hosted by BP and Homeland Security. You can't have it both ways.
As to your propensity to believe that Corexit can "eat boats" based on the MSDS info you provided .... at what concentrations is it harmful to: Mild steel, Carbon steel, Buna-N, Brass, Copper, Natural rubber, Polyethylene, Polypropylene, Ethylene propylene, EPDM, Neoprene, Nitrile, Polyurethane, Viton, Alfax, Hypalon. 100% ... or maybe 25% ... or maybe 100 ppm? Come on Tree, tell us. Then tell us what the concentration of Corexit is in the GOM at the surface (where the boat hulls are presumably).
Your claim to deeply care about your fellow man rings hollow so please spare me the drama. Given the opportunity to provide your fellow man with the least bit of logic, common sense, physics, chemistry, biology, or thermodynamics; you instead have consistently chosen to play the role of Alchemist. You have presumably assumed the role of bringing truth to your fellow man ... "Know the truth and the truth shall set you free" and yet you seem to be ignorant of simple concepts such as "validity" and "logical consistency". On behalf of this "fellow man", thanks.... FOR NOTHING.
So keep denying facts rooted in logic and the natural sciences and instead keep fanning the flames of sensational assinine unsubstantiated claims by the likes of alexander whats-his-name and Kendra I-want-my-own-reality-show. And yes, feel free to continue to go to the well of scientific publications at the BP Propaganda site when it suits your needs. Meantime, I will quote from less entertaining sources such as Scientific American, the oil drum, etc.
Intersecting a wild well at an 18000 ft depth below a water column of 5000 ft is not a slam dunk. DUH!! But is is not therefore proof that the GOM will go up in flames, sink into the abyss, or any other of the multitudinous of assinity ideas that you can gather on youtube.
As to who is part of the problem or part of the solution, I can only postulate with 95% certainty that this environmental catastrophe will not be solved by witch doctors and/or alchemists.
Please elaborate. What are the measured levels of methane in the "ambient atmosphere"? How is this relevant to a relief well being a certain outcome? Are you suggesting that if (some heretofore undefined concentration of) methane was not present in the "ambient atmosphere" that a relief well would be a certain outcome?
As far as what this has to do with the relief wells, not much only that your operating in an unmitigated hazard ( as they all operate with internal combustion equipment and all these associated pieces of equipment have fresh air intakes) with ambient methane, benzene and methyl Chloride levels. Additionally, it is very reckless at this stage to hang your hat on every spoken word from BP and its fed counterparts where one lies and the other swears to it.
Again the track record of BP is one of lies and deception for the past 15 years.
Do you mean to say that this is all normal activity and the situation where hospitals in the gulf south are seeing more cases of respiratory distress cases. No my friend something is very wrong here.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/09/oil.spill.health.impact/
And yet where do you run when you need a Corexit MSDS?
Yeah, the aforementioned BIG ASS FLARE 2500 ft. away (or less) is no potential ignition source to the "ambient atmosphere" methane. Instead we must worry about air intakes from internal combustion engines. Spare me.
Methane in Gulf astonishingly high: U.S. scientist | Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65L6IA20100622
Main Entry: 2ambient Function: noun Date: 16241 : an encompassing atmosphere : environment
The Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) for any gas is the lowest concentration of ... methane is reached, we say that 100% of the LEL has been reached.
They have measured methane in the ambient area as close as venice above 14% LEL, which is off the chart and simply not accceptable to a living environment. In the workplace typically we will not do any hot or hazardous work in a refinery or chemical evironment this includes oil platforms if the stated limit is not below 1% for safety.
I do not believe that the methane measure as a % of the ambient atmosphere in Venice, La has ever approached anything like 14%. Please provide some proof of that. I don't believe it even got to 1.4%.