This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Did BP Keep Drilling Even Though It Had Lost Control of the Oil Well Much Earlier?
The New York Times noted
yesterday:
Even though it was more than a
month before the explosion, the [Deepwater Horizon] rig’s safety audit
was conducted against the backdrop of what seems to have been a losing battle to control the well.
On the March visit,
Lloyd’s investigators reported “a high degree of focus and activity
relating to well control issues,”
adding that “specialists were aboard the rig to conduct subsea explosions to help alleviate
these well control issues.”
As I pointed
out last month:
The Deepwater Horizon blew
up on April 20th, and sank a couple of days later. BP has been
criticized for failing to report on the seriousness of the blow out for
several weeks.
However, as a whistleblower previously told
60 Minutes, there was an accident at the rig a month or more prior to
the April 20th explosion:[Mike Williams, the chief
electronics technician on the Deepwater Horizon, and one of the last
workers to leave the doomed rig] ... says going faster caused the bottom of the well to split open,
swallowing tools and that drilling fluid called "mud."
"We actually got stuck. And we got stuck so
bad we had to send tools down into the drill pipe and sever the pipe,"
Williams explained.
That well
was abandoned and Deepwater Horizon had to drill a new route to the
oil. It cost BP more than two weeks and millions of dollars.
As
Bloomberg reports
today, problems at the well actually started in February:
BP
Plc was struggling to seal cracks in
its Macondo well as far back as February, more than two months
before an explosion killed 11 and spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
It took 10 days to plug the first cracks, according to reports BP
filed with the Minerals Management Service that were later delivered to
congressional investigators. Cracks in
the surrounding rock continued to complicate the drilling operation
during the ensuing weeks. Left unsealed, they can allow explosive
natural gas to rush up the shaft.
“Once they realized they had
oil down there, all the decisions they made were designed to get that
oil at the lowest cost,” said Peter Galvin of the Center for Biological
Diversity, which has been working with congressional investigators
probing the disaster. “It’s been a doomed voyage from the beginning.”
***
On Feb. 13, BP told the
minerals service it was trying to seal cracks in the well about 40 miles
(64 kilometers) off the Louisiana coast, drilling documents obtained by
Bloomberg show. Investigators
are still trying to determine whether the fissures played a role in the
disaster.
***
The company attempted a “cement
squeeze,” which involves pumping cement to seal the fissures, according
to a well activity report. Over the following week the company made
repeated attempts to plug cracks that were draining expensive drilling
fluid, known as “mud,” into the surrounding rocks.
BP used
three different substances to plug the holes before succeeding, the
documents show.
“Most of the time you do a squeeze and then
let it dry and you’re done,” said John Wang, an assistant professor of
petroleum and natural gas engineering at Penn State in University Park,
Pennsylvania. “It dries within a few hours.”
Repeated squeeze
attempts are unusual and may indicate rig workers are using the wrong
kind of cement, Wang said.In other words, the well
started losing integrity in February, and may have never been permanently stabilized.
If cracks in the well were never properly sealed, then the well may
have been unstable starting in February and continuing until the April
20 explosion. (There is substantial
evidence that there are cracks in the well now.)
Bloomberg
continues:In early March, BP told the minerals agency
the company was having trouble
maintaining control of surging natural gas, according to e-mails
released May 30 by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is
investigating the spill.
***
While gas surges are common in
oil drilling, companies have abandoned wells if they determine the risk
is too high.
***
On March 10, BP executive Scherie
Douglas e-mailed Frank Patton, the mineral service’s drilling engineer
for the New Orleans district, telling him: “We’re in the midst of a well control situation.”
The incident was a “showstopper,”
said Robert Bea, an engineering professor at the University of
California, Berkeley, who has consulted with the Interior Department on
offshore drilling safety. “They damn
near blew up the rig.”And the wives of oil
rig workers killed in the blast testified
that their husbands reported that the rig had problems controlling
well pressure weeks before
explosion.
In other words, not only is it possible that the well
casing was somewhat unstable for months
before the blow out, but BP may have ignored standard drilling
practices by failing to abandon the well when the natural gas began
surging too violently.
Sure, the rig didn't actually catch fire and
sink until April, but cracks in the well and dangerous natural gas
surges may mean that BP never fully had
control of the well.
I'm not the only one
asking such questions. It is worth re-reading the following passage
from the Bloomberg article quoted above:
On
Feb. 13, BP told the minerals service it was trying to seal cracks in
the well ... drilling documents obtained by Bloomberg show.
Investigators are still trying to determine whether the
fissures played a role in the disaster.
Damaged
Blowout Preventer
Whether or not BP had lost control of the
well earlier, it was confirmed yesterday that BP had damaged its key
piece of safety equipment - the blowout preventer - earlier, yet kept
drilling.
The Los Angeles Times reported
Monday:
BP officials knew about a
problem on a crucial well safety device at least three months before the
catastrophic April 20 explosion in the Gulf of Mexico but failed to
repair it, according to testimony Tuesday from the company's well
manager.
Ronald Sepulvado testified that he was
aware of a leak on a control pod atop the well's blowout preventer and
notified his supervisor in Houston about the problem, which Sepulvado
didn't consider crucial. The 450-ton hydraulic device, designed to
prevent gas or oil from blasting out of the drill hole, failed during
the disaster, which killed 11 men on the Deepwater Horizon rig and set
off the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
Investigators said BP did not disclose the matter to
the appropriate federal agency and failed to suspend drilling operations
until the problem was resolved, as required by law.
The New York Times adds
the following details:
Federal
investigators said Tuesday at a panel that continuing to drill despite
problems related to the blowout preventer might have been a violation of
federal regulations that require a work stoppage if the equipment is
found not to work properly.
While the equipment report says the
device’s control panels were in fair condition, it also cites a range of
problems, including a leaking door seal, a diaphragm on the purge air
pump needing replacement and several error-response messages.The device’s annulars, which are large valves used to control wellbore
fluids, also encountered “extraordinary difficulties” surrounding their
maintenance, the report said.
And as I pointed
out in May:
Several weeks before the Gulf oil
explosion, a key piece of safety equipment - the blowout preventer - was
damaged.As the Times of London reports:
[Mike Williams, the chief electronics technician on
the Deepwater Horizon, and one of the last workers to leave the doomed
rig] claimed that the blowout preventer was then damaged when a crewman
accidentally moved a joystick, applying hundreds of thousands of pounds
of force. Pieces of rubber were found in the drilling fluid, which he
said implied damage to a crucial seal. But a supervisor declared the
find to be “not a big deal”, Mr Williams alleged.UC
Berkeley engineering professor Bob Bea told 60 Minutes that a damaged
blowout preventer not only may lead to a catastrophic accident like the
Gulf oil spill, but leads to inaccurate pressure readings, so that the
well operator doesn't know the real situation, and cannot keep the rig
safe.
There are many other
examples of criminal negligence by BP, Halliburton and Transocean as well. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
- advertisements -
and
are mighty smug comments given that Wang has posted more links to official briefings than any 5 others combined (excepting GW), that CogDiss is the only commentor who's been soothed by them and that this entire post is what we in the scientific community call the 'fine art of shingling'. That is when one takes a study, or in GW's case a cut and paste of others words, and reruns the essence of the entire thing in order to gain credit for more work. (if you're wondering you can see it here: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/did-bp-oil-well-really-blow-out-februar... )
The comment string there had lots of explanations of why a large portion of this is off-base, and yes in order to earn my shill pay I also pointed out what parts could be considered worthy of concern. No time to do it all again so you fruit flies can go read it there should you wish. (ooops - I forgot, would love for Wang to point out when I've quoted or recycled a press release, I put effort into explaining rather than cutting & pasting). This of course is classic echo chamber effort, although not nearly as despicable as the "EPA Analyst post" which was pure echo chamber - having done the work to discover that the previous claims were not supportable GW takes the opportunity to repost it again with the unbelievable weasel line at the end. That's pure echo chamber and caused me to lose whatever respect I had developed for the guy (and yes I had developed a bit, I also doubt you care but it's a loss to me).
Have a great week guys - I'm off for 10 glorious days of camping without internet.
Don't go near the water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cTIYsvJOQk
Take care Bud.
On the issue of the relief wells it is worth stating that it's very disappointing that the decision was made to set a storm packer rather than running & cementing the final liner. They have carefully thought out timelines and I'm sure it was necessary but the storm packer above open holed leaves room for a lot more problems on reentry than cementing the liner first would have (which is a two day operation). There may be no problems but the potential for additional delays is higher now. I'm sure that if that occurs there will be screams of "BP lied" and "the government is covering it up". Just wanted to give you all fair warning.
Cool, thanks for the info. I went here http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=storm%20packer to figure out what you were talking about.
You should have gotten that at the last shill orientation meeting - oh that's right you were busy with boilermakers........
jesusfreakinco, you are judging the message by the reputation of the messenger, rather than focusing on the feasibility of his statements. Simmons' statements are not credible, because they are inconsistent with the known facts. He is shilling for something, but it is not in pursuit of the truth. There is no second well. What the drilling engineer meant is that they lost the drill bit and some mud, and had to pull the string and install another drill bit.
What we have now is the well is capped at the ocean floor, but oil is flowing from a lower formation either up the casing and out through a leak in the casing, or up the outside of the casing, into a higher formation. The key question is whether this higher formation can take the pressure, or whether it will create its own path up to the ocean floor. Such an uncased leak cannot be stopped, and would bleed crude into the Gulf for years. BP knows how this intra-formation transfer is going, because they can use sonics to determine the leak rate, and they have been doing sonar mapping of the upper formation since before closing off the new cap. Do not expect any honest reports from BP on this leak.
Last I heard the intercept wells were close (twenty feet) from the damaged well, and could complete and attempt bottom kill efforts soon. The problem there is that if oil is flowing into an upper formation at a high rate, no amount of mud or cement will fill the well, and the cement won't set while it is moving. So BP's strategy right now may be to fill the upper formation with crude until it pressure equilibrates with the lower formation. Then bottom kill cementing would have a chance of working.
I spent some time yesterday trying to figure out exactly what Matt Simmons is saying has happened. I'm not the only one who has problems following his story. I visited a blog that speculated that he can't tell his story clearly because he is under some kind of confidentiality agreement. Uh, right.
Anyway, so far as I can figure, he's saying that actual well is some distance away, that the pressure inside of the well blew the casing, drillpipe, and riser out and it is laying on the seafloor, and the oil we see leaking is coming out of this riser. Furthemore BP knows this and is in cahoots with the USGovt to cover it up. Do I have that right?
I've never heard of a well shooting the casing out.
I've never heard of a well tossing a 450 ton BOP for two miles (or, even two feet). Is he saying that the BOP landed upright and still attached to the riser?
If this is what happened, why wouldn't BP not go try to plug the open hole that is leaking? Surely they are not thinking that nobody will ever notice an open hole pouring 120,000 bbl/day of crude into the Gulf after the relief well has supposed done its job?
I am not defending BP for the myriad things that it has done wrong, but this is really, really far out stuff. Though maybe I just have it wrong. If so, I blame MS, because he should explain clearly what he is trying to say. Otherwise, he is just adding to the confusion.
Do I have that right?
Yes. Good summary.
Oh and he did say in that interview that the Deepwater Horizon was bigger than an aircraft carrier. But we know that's not true. Seems a strange fact to get wrong. (Credit to previous ZH poster).
If even half of this is true, the responsible corporate officer doctrine applies. BP CEO should go to jail.
Just follow the stench and you will find the ass the methane is blowing out of. If there were wells leaking in the vicinity, this would have been old news along time ago. You honestly don't think BP would announce the leaks as part of the spill to relieve some of the liability? Paleeeeeze... Now that the ships are gone we could only ask for one cost effective test to shut us up. When the storm blows away and the oceans lay down, just allow two local news helicopters to fly over the site and film the surface. If the leaks are mere drips as " RETIRED" Admiral Allen states then the slick should be minimal. If there is still heavy presence of oil in the area then we know theres more going on. Real simple test BP, will cost you nothing and will allow people to get a non biased opinion.
Gulf boats having trouble finding any oil: US official
AFP - Some 750 boats drafted in to scoop up oil from the Gulf of Mexico are having "trouble" finding any crude in the sea, a top US official said Wednesday, almost a week after a busted well was capped. (busted well??? Sacrebleu!)
http://www.france24.com/en/20100721-gulf-boats-having-trouble-finding-oi...
__________
so where is all the oil?
a) it was never there in the first place
b) it evaporated and was harmlessly gobbled up by natures natural processes
the following answer was considered in inadmissible
c) the use of dispersants such as Corexit at source broke the oil down into droplets that currently are amassed in plume like formations hundreds of meters below the surface.
They have been collecting surface oil and burning surface oil for quite some time. Plus oil is broken down by the sun and evaporation. With the well shut down for a week, there is little left in a form that they can scoop up or burn.
so we'll record RichardP as selecting answer
b)
Richard, any comments on the idea of large plumes of menthane and oil deep below the surface?
Answer b) as it stands is incomplete. If you incorporate my complete response to you into Answer b), then Answer b) it is. Plus, add that the ocean is large. Even with planes flying to look, it may be that there is oil thick enough to burn or scoop up and they just haven't found it yet.
Re. the oil plumes. A number of them. Some quite large. And very deep. I have a link to a research ship that is collecting and analyzing water samples from these plumes. I've posted it here before, but at the moment can't find the link. Someone here or at theoildrum.com did the math on the found concentrations of gas in the plumes. Apparently there is a concentration above which the gas can be made to explode and below which it can't be made to explode. Don't remember the details, but apparently all of the samples collected up to that point had gas in concentrations below the level where it could be made to explode. Gotta say - were all getting a pretty good refresher course in the physical sciences by participating in this discussion - here and elswhere.
there you go (you just proved Cog Dis's point mentioned above)
mention plumes and the default response is EXPLOSIONS
RichardP have you ever heard of hypoxia or anoxia
(and so you know, the little quiz I posted was intended to be rhetorical)
Gentlemen they don't READ your posts, they skim them for something they can misquote and squeal about, both JR & myself have tried to talk about plumes, about the hazards, about what is really going on. As someone said earlier - like talking to fruit flies.
I have never disavowed the existence of "plumes" etc. I have posted an article from the scientific american three times now. The first was about a month ago. Have any of you read it?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-microbes-clean-up-oil-spills&print=true
Actually, my default response was to acknowledge that there are a number of plumes, some quite large, and some very deep. There are many more things that could be said about them - as evidenced by my reference to having a link to a research vessel that is examining samples taken from the plumes. But we have limited space and time here, so I focused on what I thought you might be interested in - where do I stand on the speculation that the gulf is on the verge of exploding? If I proved Cogs. point, so be it. I was just trying to be polite and not ignore you. You did ask ... any comments on the idea of large plumes of menthane and oil deep below the surface? - without stating that this question was rhetorical.
To answer your question GW . It sure looks that way doesn't it ? I would hate to have my signature on anything from that rig .
deleted
another awesome post on the BP fiasco GW. this tragedy reeks to high heaven from day one. just as the revelations concerning 9/11 took years of elaboration and an encyclopedic compendium of information to sift through, we will be poring over this one for decades. the corporate spin that has come to attend any contrarian insights into this (possibly engineered) catastrophe has apparently shifted into full gear here on ZH with the latest attacks on you and Simmons. quite likely some of it too is a dedicated effort on the part of BP to muddy the waters (so to speak). Whatever the ultimate outcome of the stage management and "official versions", we can be assured no containment cap will soon be clamped on the thickening muck of lies and half truths spewing from the mouth of BP and government public relations talking heads
Well it worked because I don't have the stamina to really read the GW comment sections lately. Exception here of course.
I think Mr. Durden's post yesterday featuring the Bloomberg interview with MS served as as a rallying place for the oil spill discussion. Note that I am even hesitant to mention MS by name for fear of being designated one of his disciples. It actually occurred to me that he has done a great service for BP and the administration. MS is clearly in the midst of a psychiatric emergency yet he gets almost as much air time as Adm. Thad (Ret.). MS has single handedly shut down any rational discussion (other than disavowment) of oil plumes, undersea clouds of methane and integrity issues with the well casing or surrounding geology.
Go over to the some of the oil blogs and try using the word plume and methane in the same sentence and watch the shills and assorted hangers on descend like so many locusts. Mention a scientist's name e.g. Bea who has an opinion outside of the script and the character assassins emerge from the shadows.
Wang I really think you should give attribution for your ideas when you have derived the thoughts from others. Clearly you are just repeating my concerns posted here #482403 and this is a problem for me because on an anonymous site BP might think YOU'RE the shill and start paying me a reduced rate for my efforts.
GW could easily point you to my comments regarding Professor Bea's qualifications the FIRST time he was quoted regarding these issues, I followed GW's link to Professor Bea's university profile and actually READ them (that would be research, not cutting & pasting). They would NOT support a description as an expert on deepwater drilling. They would support expertise on "disasters" and I know he's had lots of oil spills to practice on the last 40 years (uhmm . . . yeah).
It is actually here: #482403
ZH has a problem with creating links to comments that are not on page 1. Luckily I figured it out and how to correct it. BP will pay me more now.
You'll note that Wang has not responded as is SOP. I had anticipated he would deny attribution on the basis that he does not READ my posts before he junks them but it was a forlorn hope to expect that level of honesty.
It's like ringing the dinner bell at a reunion of Pavlov's dogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov
That well was abandoned and Deepwater Horizon had to drill a new route to the oil.
JFC - I guess this explains Matt Simmon's second leak miles away, eh? I am sticking with Matt's explanation until proven otherwise...
I am sticking with Matt's explanation until proven otherwise...
Matt has not proven his explanation, yet someone else must prove theirs? Or was that tongue-in-cheek?
Do you know for certain that BP could move miles away and still drill into the same oil field? I don't think anyone has yet claimed proven knowledge that the field covers that much territory. And how they drilled the second well has been covered before, both here and at theoildrum.com.
Here is MC252 (where the blown out well is located) shown in comparison with nearby sites:
Looks like the oil prospects are 3 miles x 3 miles, no? Any oil industry folks know?
Federal Offshore lease blocks are 3x3 - 9 sq miles. That is what the numbered blocks you see are - they are not related to the "prospects" per se; that's just how the government auctions the acreage off.
Thanks, gasmiinder.
Wouldn't simple honesty require Wang to "junk" your thanks post along with my post to which it refers?
They explained that to me when I picked up my last check.........
Shit, it looks like they found out about the existence of the second well.....
There's more than one well in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico ? ? ? ? ?
good map on page 3 in PDF zoom for higher res
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/29/29977.pdf
of interest here are the plans for the relief wells dated April 27, 2010 (see page 21 of 60 for their locations)
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/30/30979.pdf
Are you asking if these other wells are drilling into the same oil field as the blown-out well is drilling into?
No, he's saying he's sticking with Matt until Matt is proven wrong. He's not saying anyone else must be proven, or prove themselves, right or wrong.
Matt has been proven wrong multiple times over, here and elsewhere. Not by folks listening to whether he sounds insane or unreasonable. But by folks who actually know the appropriate math and science by which to judge whether his comments are consistent with what is physically possible.
Please focus on that several miles away phrase. No one has yet demonstrated that drilling several miles away would tap into the same oil field. And there is substantial oil-field data that would suggest it is not likely.
This is not a personal attack on anyone. It is simply a statement of the truth. Only those who know the math and science needed to successfully harvest oil from deep below the sea are qualified to judge the value of Matt or anyone else's claims regarding the blowout. Saying I believe because he doesn't sound insane is not the same thing as saying I believe because his comments are consistent with what the math and science say is possible. In this case, Matt has been saying things that the math and science say are not possible.
And I remind you that it was not a personal attack when your math and science teachers marked answers wrong on your tests. But this does highlight the fact that it is possible to say with certainty that some answers are wrong when it comes to math and science and what is possible. Which says nothing at all about the political part of this discussion.
He is referring to this specific sentence. It was a general statement. He's asking someone to explain the abandoned well by BP. Could someone run a ROV over to that well and discount this line of thought? That is after showing us where that well is? Are you saying BP did not abandon a well nearby and that it doesn't exist?
JFC - I guess this explains Matt Simmon's second leak miles away, eh? I am sticking with Matt's explanation until proven otherwise...
Again, I'm not sure what MS is talking about and I don't have enough understanding of this industry to even wish to try and guess. You have proven yourself as knowledgeable. Do you know about this abandoned well of BP's either in this block or in a nearby block BP controls? You make sense when you say there is no proof that the field is big enough to be able to drill a few miles away from the alleged abandoned well. Please prove to us the field is too small and BP didn't abandon a well drilled into the same or nearby field?
Please prove to us the field is too small and BP didn't abandon a well drilled into the same or nearby field?
That discussion has already taken place, both here and at theoildrum.com. I'm not going to argue the points here. I was pointing out that the issue of determining oil-field size has been thoroughly vetted. And the size of the field that the blown-out well taps into has not been determined yet. Specifically, that can be determined only by drilling other wells and comparing that oil fingerprint against the oil fingerprint from the blown-out well.
The issue of where BP drilled after the failure of their first attempt has also been thoroughly vetted.
Cog., I left you a note about a technical issue dealing with the blog software at the point where you are exchanging comments with Jim. You might find it interesting. If you want me to delete it, say so here, not there. If you put a comment after mine there, I won't be able to edit the post.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/no-wonder-outlook-economy-unusually-unc...
I have just checked and my browser now shows the two posts are identical. They most definately were not when I copied the post as it appeared on the Comment page. I have deleted my comments and the copied post. I would be tempted to think I was just reading too fast and missed some words - except that the number of sentences was different in the last paragraph of both posts, and one post had bolded words in it and the copy did not.
You claim things were "vetted".
Perhaps vetted could be replaced with a different word, but none occurs to me at the moment. With regards to determining the actual size of a unique oil field, and where the new well was drilled after the old one was abandoned: those who didn't know asked questions. Those who did know gave answers. The back and forth continued until those who didn't know were satisfied. In the case of the new well vs. the old well, I think reference was made to documents that described the position of the new well compared to the old well. In the case of determining the actual size of an oil field, the oil-field workers agreed that the only way to be positive was to drill a number of wells and compare the oil fingerprint of the new wells to that of the original well. Imaging can give an idea of the size, but drilling makes it certain.
Perhaps a more clear way to make my point would be to have said - those two questions have been asked and answered, a number of times, here and elsewhere.
Your copy of my post and my post are identical so I have no idea what you're talking about. The problem may be with your browser because my IE shows no difference.
You claim things were "vetted". That doesn't mean proven, only discussed by unknown parties. Does that mean it was vetted and proven by actual direct evidence including visual by independent experts that are not biased or simply vetted by bloggers on TOD who then came to a conclusion.
I agree.
I listened to Matt on Kingworld news this morning (first moment I had the time to do it). http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/7/17_Matt_Simmons.html
He does not sound insane or hysterical or unreasonable. This whole thing is shaping up to be really ugly.
I see you quoted Robert Bea -
that would be a cue for the echo chamber of Augustus, Gasmiinder, Jim Rockford et. al. to launch their daily campaign against anything other than official press releases from Unified Command or BP.
That irony is so sweet coming from the guy who posts the briefing times, phone numbers, transcripts, etc. each day.
Cog Dis couldn't understand the role of the relief wells in the static kill process until she read the official Kent Wells briefing and it made her "feel better".
You're shills, obviously.
C'mon Jim. Wouldn't you feel better if you helped dampen down the shill wars that are clogging these threads rather than stoking them? (That is meant to be tongue-in-cheek and serious at the same time.)