This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Breaking: Seep Found Near Blownout Well, BP Not Complying With Government Demands for More Monitoring
AP notes:
A
federal official says scientists are concerned about a seep and
possible methane near BP's busted oil well in the Gulf of Mexico
Both could be signs there are leaks in the well that's been capped off for three days.
The AP article implies that the seeps are new since BP shut off the oil
flow into the Gulf as part of its "well integrity test", but doesn't
directly address that issue.
But as I pointed out on June 24th:
The Washington Post made a very important point yesterday:
Bruce
Bullock, director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist
University, said additional leaks are a possible source of deep-sea
plumes of oil detected by research vessels. But this part of the gulf
is pocked with natural seeps, he noted. Conceivably the drilling of the well, and/or the subsequent blowout, could have affected the seeps, he said.
"Once you started disturbing the underground geology, you may have made one of those seeps even worse," he said.
Remember
that geologists have said that if the well casing is substantially
breached, the oil and methane gas will find a way through fractures in
the surrounding geology and make it into the ocean. For example, the
Houston Chronicle notes:If the well casing burst it could send oil and gas streaming through the strata to appear elsewhere on the sea floor ....
Obviously,
if there are natural oil or gas seeps nearby, there are already
pre-existing channels up to the seafloor ... so that may very well be
the path of least resistance for the subterranean oil to flow up to the
seafloor.
Therefore, if there were a substantial breach in the
well bore, nearby natural oil and gas seeps could very well increase in
volume.
Because BP would like to minimize leak estimates to minimize the damages it has to pay under the Clean Water Act,
BP would undoubtedly try to pretend that the nearby natural seeps
always had the same volume. In other words, the owner of the oil
drilling prospect where the spill is occuring - BP - may be the only
party to have mapped out the nearby seeps (Anadarko and Mitsui were partners with BP in the oil prospect; but - as passive partners - they probably didn't take a hands-on approach to such details).
So don't be surprised if - when formerly tiny seeps become gushers - BP tries to pretend that they were always that large.
Indeed
- given BP's track record of prevarication - don't be shocked if BP
pretends that brand new gushers are ancient, natural seeps.
AP also notes:
The official says BP is not complying with the government's demand for more monitoring.
As I argued
at length on June 16th, we should not trust BP to stop the oil gusher,
and they should be removed from the scene of the crime and replaced
with people who don't have such a poor track record for safety and such
severe conflicts of interest.
The health of the entire Gulf region is at stake.
For background on the release of methane from the oil spill, see this.
Update: The top government official in charge of the response to the oil spill, Thad Allen, sent a letter to BP tonight addressing the seep, additional monitoring, and the need to re-open the containment cap.
»
- advertisements -
The top hat was a massive failure. Why they didn't just put a collar on the pipe, cut the top, and then attach a new riser to the collar from the beginning is beyond me.
Thanks for the links. I actually hadn't heard about Cl2 as a clathrate, but I had heard about methane hydrates from the "burning ice" that had been found in ice column samples in the arctic. It almost became the next cold fusion until level heads brought the more exitable scientists down to earth.
GW: that second link gives you a lot of the information about methane hydrates that you were wanting to know
Excellent - hopefully when you post facts (density of hydrates, phase stability) they will not instantly be labeled "spin". The Ryskin hypothesis is just that and has certainly NOT reached the point of being widely accepted in the geologic community. It also does not remotely apply in this situation - as Ryskin has carefully pointed out.
A large portion of the "world is ending crowd" seems unable to fathom the sheer volume of the Gulf of Mexico vs the amount of material being placed into it. Ryskins hypothesis also requires large areas where the water column can 'stratify' while one of the biggest concerns with subsea plumes is the very strong currents that periodically exist in this area at depth (loop currents)
Also re: the hydrate stability point made above - the concern he mentions is in relation to pre-existing hydrates in the sediment column. A phase change there requires significant temperature/pressure shift in the sediment column - and again I think people who are worried about it have a foggy notion of the relative scale of the events here.
A sudden and massive release of methane hydrates, though, is a concern in the industry for its affect on buoyancy. This reduction in H2O density could impact the flotation of rigs and boats in the area.
The industry concern and science on these massive bubbles is real but the documented historical evidence of effect is speculative.
Whether it is a factor in extremely deep water is another variable. If ships start suddenly disappearing in the vicinity then there could be confirmation of a worst-case gas breach worthy of Hollywood.
http://seasteading.org/seastead.org/localres/misc-articles/methane_reute...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1047249.stm
Ryskin describes how seawater can become "saturated" with methane, and can be suddenly released, much like a carbonated beverage, all it needs is a good shake, or shock, like an earthquake, or bomb, like this one...
http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/article/bomb-found-on-beach/903866/Jul-06-2010_1-38-pm/
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/first-oil-now-bombs-all-sorts-cool-stuff-washing-alabama-beaches
- of course, only 40% of the blowout is methane.
Well, now. You're an upbeat sorta fella. Thanks for sharing!
..........Just like my cousin --- dug too deep ........ Balrog unleashed
Looks like they dug him a new asshole,
oh oh, and I bet he currently feels constipated! "Wholy shit! Feels like someone just pugged my ass"
How near is "near"? Six miles?
Late Sunday, Allen said a seep had been detected a distance from the busted oil well and demanded in a sharply worded letter that BP step up monitoring of the ocean floor. Allen didn't say what was coming from the seep. White House energy adviser Carol Browner told the CBS "Early Show" the seep was found less than two miles from the well site.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100719/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill
a letter from Thad Allen to Doug Suttles
F u
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/BP_Letter_18_July.79...
It appears to be from Allen to Dudley.
Interesting letter - although it basically says "tell me what the hell you're going to do"
There are really 2 issues - a "seep detected some distance away" and "undetermined anomalies at the wellhead"
Wonder that the hell an 'undetermined anomaly is?"
It's all politics now in my view and Suttles crossed Allen and therefore the administration. They are going to skewer him and BP. I commented earlier how I thought Suttles approach this AM was brilliant as he had boxed in Thad in his (Suttle's/BP's) desire to keep the well shut. I completely overlooked that Thad represents the US government and what Suttles was doing was challenging its authority. Suttles did an end run, the problem is; his opponent owns the field, owns the officials and writes the rules. BP is now screwed as they have proven themselves to be unworthy partners who cannot be trusted in the unholy alliance they had with the government.
(edit)
and to answer your question regarding what "undetermined anomalies at the wellhead" are. They are what ever Thad wishes them to be, hence BP will be unable to provide a satisfactory response necessitating that the flow be opened up and containment contingencies activated.
It just occurred to me that perhaps BP knew the government was heading down the road of reopenning the flow such that their (BP's) maneuver Sunday morning was a faint hope strategy with more upside than down. I think they miscalculated the downside.
The anomalies were small gas bubbles seen coming up from around the well head.
Not that this isn't easy to find, but:
The top U.S. oil spill official on Sunday directed BP Plc to submit a plan for reopening its capped Macondo well to flow into the ocean after engineers detected seepage on the ocean floor near the well. 'I direct you to provide me with a written procedure for opening the choke valve as quickly as possible ... should hydrocarbon seepage near the well head be confirmed,' retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen wrote in a letter to BP chief managing director Bob Dudley.
the entire paragraph is:
The entire letter is linked below by Wang.
Hanging in carmel by the sea this weekend, doesn't heyward own a place on the point near pebble? No tar balls here. All good in the hood!!!
Oh look...
BP Logo: Green
BP Gas station: Green
BP Truck: Friggin' GREEN Bitches!
Now tell me people, given the fact that BP has painted everything green, is there ANY reason WHATSOEVER that "we should NOT trust BP to stop the oil gusher"?
US dollar = green
Hey, George, you short BP or something?
well duh seep or MASSIVE HOLE
(from days ago):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scl2dgK_-Nw&feature=player_embedded
I am puzzled my Matt Simmon's claim of a giant hole in the ocean floor miles away spewing oil at +100,000 barrels a day, when Simmon's claims he has no idea where it is, but that it 5, 6, or 7 miles away, and can not explain how it came to be. Also, Simmons states there is no way a 7" production casing can produce a 100,000 bpd. But, according to BP and the Coasties their estimate of oil leaking from the top of the BOP was about 60,000 bpd (a low ball estimate of course), which is much closer to the 100,000 bpd than their initial estimate of 5,000 bpd. With at least 60,000 per leaking why does Simmons still need a giant hole spewing oil from the ocean bottom to account for the oil in the gulf? If simmons is correct then the Macondo well was leaking +60,000 bpd plus the secret spewie hole's +100,000 bpd, so that equals ....higher gas prices and oily lobster, right?
get real. it never stopped leaking (the fissures).
So now will O'wizard take credit.
Remember it was we did this, we did that
just the other morning.
Anyway, no chance of oil At Acadia.
Mapping of natural methane seeps is required as part of the process of obtaining a drilling permit in the Gulf of Mexico. This is required because the "methane seep communities" are considered environmental "havens" as it were - you have to demonstrate you're not disturbing the critters. The process does not measure the rate of seepage but you would have some guess based on the areal extent of the communities. This report is filed with the MMS and should be available. I'm surprised and enterprising reporter hasn't requested a copy from the MMS. (Of course enterprising reporter might be an oxymoron in the modern era)
I attended a scientific talk about 20 years ago where the study results estimated about 1 million barrels of oil a year seep into the Gulf from natural seeps. Of course that is spread over a huge area on an entire year.
This whole "BP is desperate to avoid the government finding out the real amount" is fishy in my opinion. Max fine is $3000/barrel based on 'gross negligence' which I think we will all agree is the definition of what occurred.
I think it's clear they spilt at least 3 million and may have spilt up to 7-8 million. I doubt seriously it's outside that. So the range of fine is 9-24 billion and is likely to be 10-15. They've already set up a 20 billion dollar fund and there will be more but the risks they're willing to take to "keep it secret" should be judged in context.
The submission from BP for the permit to drill the exploratory wells explicitly states that the proposed wells are not near any environmentally significant habitats of chemosynthetic organisms:
Check page 16.
The estimates based on official figures range from 3.1M to 5.3M barrels. The fine for negligently spilling this much is $4300/barrel. That makes the Hi/Lo $23B/$13.4B. And that's just the environmental damage fine payable to the gov't, NOT the claims from individuals and businesses.
I'd say there is plenty of wiggle room to be obfuscating for...
The statement regarding the chemosynthetic communities requires a seafloor survey - that's what I'm referring too where there will be a report available having mapped them (the partners will have copies of that report as well).
I got the $3000 number from a news report that was early in the events so I'm happy to defer to you on the $4300/barrel. I don't disagree with your point. But we're talking about a RANGE of 10 billion plus or minus. And the government is going to push for the highest level estimates (and they're the ones levying the fine after all) so it's not certain that more accurately knowing the number is a net loss on the size of the fine. My personal opinion is it's unlikely that there is a group of managers at BP sitting around a table saying "to hell with the potential for losing the whole thing, we've GOT to keep the government from finding out the real rate". I do think the psychology early on was to minimize the rate for that exact reason - I just think at this stage it's being overblown as a likely reason for decision making.
It's the risk vs the reward. And yes I do know "a billion here and a billion there pretty soon it starts to add up......."
I really should stop speculating when there are so many variables I am not even aware of, and so many of the known ones whose value is uncertain... I am just terrified of the game theory hypothetical situation where BP's calculus goes: a) if the full volume of the leak is documented, the company faces bankruptcy, breakup, takeover (x% probability), b) if the strata around the wellbore erode to the point of the doomsday scenario sketched out by Dougr on TOD, the company OBVIOUSLY ceases to exist (at least the US division) (y% probability) vs. c) we can finish the relief well and end this nightmare before a) or b) materialize, the differential in monetary terms is dozens if not hundreds of billions of dollars (z% probability)...
I think your points are well reasoned CD. And you certainly don't scream "SHILL" at the first hint of data................
I think also that there is a lot of misunderstanding of what a breach indicates and how bad it could be etc. A lot depends on where any (still speculative) wellbore breach is in depth. If it is shallow that is bad because then it is more likely to leak to the sea and the pressures will keep it open longer BUT a shallow breach doesn't really make it any harder for the relief wells to kill the well. Let's not forget that is still the solution. A deeper breach complicates the kill operation but is much less likely to reach the seafloor. Those are simplifications but are a reasonable way to think about it.
Keep in mind that they are monitoring the pressures. Anything that could lead up to "eroding around the wellhead" will show up in the pressures pretty quickly - before the doomsday scenario develops. I think you'd see a pretty quick opening of valves in that case and then your pressure gradient is no longer there to keep the fractures open. I'm not saying there isn't serious risk - just that reasonable people are working very hard to keep us on the "things are getting better" part of the curve.
I know this, thank God for them. My point is that the mgmt directing/controlling their efforts and data are operating on calculations that focus on the short-to-medium term well being of... BP and no one else. The shortness of that window may be argued (and has been extensively), but its existence is a large part of the reason we are here now. As the rig explosion and subsequent well blowout are already "long tail" events, we (and most especially these wonderfully long-sighted decision makers) are in uncharted territory. We can't know how they will react to events, b/c they don't know yet either. Add additional low-probability/high-risk factors, and the range of possible outcomes gets even harder to gauge.
I think we are actually in pretty close agreement regarding what's at play here - with the only difference being the level of concern warranted by these issues. That's just a matter of personal viewpoint.
"leaks are a possible source of deep-sea plumes of oil detected by research vessels."
For all of the whailing and gnashing of teeth, Matt Simmons has been on about this from day one. Interesting interview from Friday on King World News;
http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/7/17_Matt_Simmons.html
For all of the whailing and gnashing of teeth
As if the leak were not bad enough, now they are whaling in the Gulf, too?
Call me Ishmael!
Lighten up Ishmael.
(I just wanted to say that)
If that came from anybody but Jimmy Joe Meeker, I might take offense.
GW, how can I forward this PDF to you?? I was able to download it before they killed the link.
http://www.leanenergy.ldeo.columbia.edu
Prospectivity of the Ultra-Deepwater Gulf of Mexico
Roger N. Anderson & Albert Boulanger
Lean Energy Initiative
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Columbia University
Palisades, New York 10964
- excerpts
"Industry estimates of the hydrocarbon potential of the deep and ultra-deepwater in the
Gulf of Mexico range as high as 46 billion barrels of crude oil equivalent (boe) (see OCS Report
MMS 2000-022). That the nation will need these additional new reserves is evident from the
ever-increasing gap projected between continuing increases in consumption of hydrocarbons and
declining U.S. oil production estimated by the Energy Information Administration (Figure 2).
Recent oil and gas discoveries with colorful names like Crazy Horse, Thunder Horse, Atlantis,
Holstein, Mad Dog, Kings Peak, Diana Hoover, Auger, Mars, Na Kika, Neptune and Ursa have
demonstrated the potential of the ultra-deepwater in the Gulf of Mexico to fill some of this gap.
However, the production capabilities of the ultra-deepwater reservoirs in water depths from 6,000
to greater than 10,000 feet, remains largely a mystery at this time."
"Large "world-class" structures have been identified and drilled from the Perdido Foldbelt of
offshore Texas to the Mississippi Fan Foldbelt of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida,
although no means currently exists to produce oil and gas to market from such water depths!"
I think you will find it very interesting.
Rusty.
Rusty and GW
Here is the link to the .PDF
http://leanenergy.ldeo.columbia.edu/docs/UltraDeep%20Prosp%2010-22-02.pdf
Thanks CD !!
Sounds like maybe there's a reason BP is non compliant... Maybe, just maybe, if they never open the well again they'll never have to admit the real rate that oil was pouring into the ocean.
http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:30948.asx?bkup=35246
gasminder says:
Just wanted to repost this from the last thread ;-)
Your estimates of field volume sound good, but
"Why pressure in BP well is growing at 2 PSI per hour."
http://www.no1stcostlist.com/Forums/viewtopic/p=447.html#447
For this to be observed means the field is massive.
What?
Does not follow at all. The link you have posted goes to a comment that makes no sense - I'm sure there may be context I don't have but there are many assumptions that are inaccurate. #1 is that there were measured pressures using MDT in the reservoir pre-blowout. Those pressures were around 12,250 psi; the field pressures are NOT 65K psi (that is physically impossible). I have no idea what the "grinding up" is supposed to refer to........................
links are always useful, hopefully someone can locate the well logs that gasm is referencing, which confirm the net pay for Macondo
Having said that it appears to be a moot point as I suspect BP and Suttles are going to regret (for the rest of their days) the approach they took in Sunday's technical briefing even if the reservoir is spent.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100614/BP-Production.Casing....
there you go - pages 6-8 or so. There is additional important data annotated on there re: pressures etc. As well as IMHO the entire document is huge evidence of BP's liability.
thanks for the link gasm
you mentioned 75' net pay yet it looks to me like they stopped short and not to quibble but how do you come up with that number (below 18000) and what does your analysis show above 18000?
I think arguments could be made that the reservoir could be larger than the max 100m you suggest.
http://i30.tinypic.com/30mrhb4.jpg
also interesting testimony from Mark Hafle back in May and what they didn't know
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/225154&start=3076&end=3486
and this comment from the end of May by a BP spokes person
http://www.salon.com/wires/print.html?story=D9G1CID00_us_gulf_oil_spill_...
I should also probably point out that reasonable people can disagree on the exact net pay count from this log. It is not the detail log that would allow an accurate count. A person could argue for as much as 62 net ft of pay in the interval from 18,138' to 18,202' (some might even go 65 but I would argue). The zone from 18,082' to 18,106' could also be as high as 20 net ft. Then there could be thin-bedded pay scattered above and below - I see about 12' net that could be counted. But the very clean sands with very high oil saturations (meaning the units that could produce the kind of flow rates we've seen here) are the two I've listed. And I'd argue that the 75' net number I've been using is certainly in the reasonable range to quote.
(corrected my typos on the depths)
I'm not sure what you mean by "stopped short" - this is the last log run, it is the bottom of the well. I'm also NOT saying that the recoverable reserves couldn't be larger than 100 m - I'm saying 50 m is very reasonable given these logs and this trend. I'm also saying 100 m could be rational, that 300 m is hard to believe (but not completely impossible) and that 500 m is VERY unlikely. I'm also of course saying that estimates of a billion barrels ready to flow into the Gulf means the commentor is not credible.
I don't have time now to watch the video so can't comment. The Salon piece is behaving oddly when I try to read it (the link wants to print for some reason) but what I do get of it is standard oil company waffling about reserves. They don't know what it is on a level that would allow you to book reserves - but you can put some reasonable bounds on what may be there.
THAD is at it again...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-19/u-s-s-allen-tells-bp-to-prepare...
It looks like we think alike sometimes... (see my same post below). But what I wanted to ask you to consider is from your earlier post:
Could it be that the situation is reversed -- instead of drilling into a field estimated at 1B+ barrels and finding only a measly 50-100M... you get the idea.
Also, assuming that the field really is only 50M, and using the estimate (forgot who posted it) of 30% recovery -that's still 15M barrels if it gushes uncontrolled into the GOM. That's a lot of donuts at $4K/barrel. And that's just the cash part of it. Would YOU award a drilling contract to BP after this?
CD - keep in mind my numbers quoted above were to derive the areas needed for 50 million RECOVERABLE barrels. I believe the 50 million was a recoverable number. I'd also tell you the rumor in Houston was that BP was set to announce 50-100 million recoverable (so once again they're touting the end of the range that puts them in the best light).
Just wanted to clarify...
Oh - your final question might better be phrased "will BP be allowed to operate in US waters after this?"