This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
A Key Piece in the Oil Leak Story: Two Sections of Drill Pipe Lodged in the Blowout Preventer
Blog
On June 30th, I noted that the Department of Energy had found that there were two section of drilling pipe lodge in the blowout preventer.
Yesterday, the Times-Picayune gave an update
on this story, which includes competing interpretations about where the
second section came from and what that means for the relief wells:
For
the first time Friday, the Coast Guard and BP acknowledged that a
mysterious second pipe, wedged next to the drill pipe in what remains
of the Deepwater Horizon's riser, is fouling up the works where the
well is spewing hundreds of millions of gallons of crude oil into the
Gulf of Mexico.
"We used a diamond saw and we got inside. We
found there was actually two sets of drill pipe there," said retired
Adm. Thad Allen, the top U.S. Coast Guard official overseeing the
response to America's worst-ever oil spill.
***
It
"presumably fell down beside it as a result of the explosion and the
riser pipe being bent over," Allen said. He noted that the second pipe
does not have oil shooting from it.
BP officials said late
Friday that they believe the second pipe is drill pipe. Pictures show
it is similar in diameter to the known drill pipe.
While Allen
said he believes the second pipe fell from above, some experts have
advanced another explanation. They believe poorly cemented casings --
tubes that are supposed to form solid walls down thousands of feet of
the well bore -- may have been dislodged by the blast of natural gas
that shot up out of the well and above the sea floor.
***
The
idea that a loose pipe shot up from deeper in the well and prevented
the shear ram from closing has been espoused by such experts as oil
industry investment banker Matt Simmons and Bob Bea, a University of
California at Berkeley engineer leading a scientific investigation into
the blowout [Bea is an expert in offshore drilling and a high-level governmental adviser
concerning disasters]. But others have wondered if the mystery pipe
isn't just a section of the same drill pipe that came loose, or even a
pipe that fell down the riser from the rig 5,000 feet above.
The source of the second segment is key to determining the condition of
the oil well beneath the seafloor. If Simmons and Bea are proven right,
drilling the relief wells will be a lot more challenging.
Therefore, I hope they are wrong, and that the second drill pipe came from:
(1) a collapse of pipe above the blowout preventer;
or
(2) a miscellaneous segment of drilling pipe (drilling pipe is temporarily used in drilling a well, and is not the same as well casing or even well lining, which are permanently installed to support the well).
The
second section of drill pipe is key to the oil leak story for another
reason. As the Times-Picayune notes, it has contributed to problems in
securely capping the leak from the point where it's leaking so that
more oil can be captured:
The presence of two pipes
could have also contributed to BP's failure to make a clean cut on the
riser when securing the existing containment dome, inhibiting its
ability to collect the maximum amount of oil.***
Allen
said the second pipe also led to a jagged cut on the larger riser pipe,
forcing the response team to use the loose cap with a rubber seal. And
now, the two pieces are forcing the team to spend several days tying
them together and clearing the way for a new, hopefully more solid
connection.
Finally, the two sections of drill pipe are
important because they may have been one of the reasons that the
blowout preventer failed in the first place.
As the Times-Picayune notes:
Some
experts say a second piece of drill pipe in the riser could have
prevented shear rams on the rig's blowout preventer from sealing the
well and permanently cutting off the flow of oil after the April 20
explosion.
Even if it turns out that this is one of the causes of the BOP's failure, it might not be the only cause.
As I pointed out in May:
[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 [Several weeks before the Gulf oil
explosion] 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.
»
- advertisements -
Gentlemen, either of you have any details to add to this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704545004575353364174224780.html
If these are options, why were they not implemented sometime in the last 2.5 months?
Why did it take this long to fabricate a new cap? Explain why this new cap is different from placing a second BOP atop the first, with additional pipe fittings?
OK, so the relief well is ranging in on the casing. Cemented portions of the casing are not likely to have moved. But the last portion of the casing string is followed by the liner, which was (presumably) not cemented properly. If this happened to have moved up - not necessarily into BOP, just up say past the liner ring - would this not make the last few hundred feet of the relief well a much more difficult excercise? As in drilling blind - or at least relying solely on the calculated spatial location of the drillbit?
I have seen that article and these are good questions. They were not implemented in the last 2.5 months because they only come into play with this newest cap system that appears to be able to capture all the hydrocarbons and at least partially form a pressure seal.
If a person could stand at the BOP and work it would be possible to place a BOP atop the old one and shut the well in - that's been done on wells while they were blowing out for many many years. But we don't have the technology to do that in 5000' of water.
If the casing moved up into the BOP (which I believe is POSSIBLE) it still only moved tens of feet not hundreds - so there will still be a long string of pipe in the borehole at the penetration point. I believe the most likely scenario (by a long shot) is that the hydrocarbons are flowing in the annulus (around the outside of) the long string. They will have eroded the borehole somewhat but that should not create significant problems.
Actually knowing WHERE the borehole is is not the difficulty so much as maneuvering the drill bit to that EXACT location within a foot of accuracy at the end of 3.5 miles of pipe. That's why the constant ranging - if tells you the RELATIVE location of the bit to the borehole but still moving that bit with that much accuracy in very short distances is tricky, that's why multiple attempts are often necessary.
JR your presentation of my previous comments are exactly accurate - probably better than I explained it...............
"They were not implemented in the last 2.5 months because they only come into play with this newest cap system that appears to be able to capture all the hydrocarbons and at least partially form a pressure seal."
Why didn't BP use the "new" cap system before?
There's the production casing "long string" inside of this that runs from the bottom of the well to the BOP (or it did before the blowout anyways).
Did you see gasmiinder's post the other day in which he said that most blowouts occur before the well is cased and therefore most relief wells are drilled to intersect well bores that are not cased? He's making the point that casing and condition of casing (if any) are irrelevant to the success of the relief well. Apologies to gasmiinder for any unintended misattribution.
I understand that. The goal of the current excercise is to pump a LARGE column of cement into a long, narrow hole from near the bottom. Wait for it to set. Problem solved.
My question is, if there is no metal to range on, is it not more difficult to find the borehole/casing/liner -- the long vertical hole that is the bottom of the well.
My other issue is with the picturing of the very bottom itself. Is there an actual 'reservoir', as suggested by the BP diagram
or is there only the hole drilled by the DWH, into which the gas and oil seep from porous rock. If the latter , clearly no problem. But if the former, and say the reservoir's ceiling is not even, and we bump into it before/instead of borehole? Or the section of the borehole beneath the relief well strike is eroded into a downward-opening funnel?
Your confusion arises from an industry "jargon" issue. In the business "reservoir" refers to the rock unit (sandstone in this case) that holds the oil in it's pore spaces. It does not refer to an open area that has a 'ceiling'. I hadn't thought about it previously but our constant use of that term may be misleading a lot of folks because they don't realize what we mean by the term.
The pressures are large on the internal system. However, at any point, the pressures are equal. so that unless the fluid is more dense than drill pipe, it could fall. Or, if the flow rate was great enough, it could generate enough force on the bottom of the drill pipe to move it up. Drill strings and casings have been blown out of the hole, no doubt about that. I had that happen on a well I was working on with some light weight weight tools on a clean out. Small well, small problem. But it can be surprising.
Casing and relief well are independent of each other. Casing is a 'wall' that traverses through the crust to the oil deposit. The preventer sits on top of the casing. The relief well comes in from a different point (inserting it's own casing) and drawing off oil and pressure in an attempt to draw down pressure at the gusher location in order to seal it. The risk is...the deposit has more pressure than 1 relief well can draw off, the relief well misses and hits another deposit, the relief well hits but too much draw off causes the upper strata to compress, fissures form and the deposit ruptures. I think this is a much higher risk here due to the high level of methane involved.
You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no need for the relief well to "draw off" pressure. There is no such issue "more pressure than 1 relief well can draw off". There is no concern that the relief well will "miss and hit another depost". There is no risk that the upper strata compresses or that the deposit ruptures. The only accurate statement in the entire post is that "casing" is a steel wall in the upper wellbore.
The term "relief well" has carried over from the very first blowout of a well. Of course, the original way to produce Oil and gas was from locating blowouts and collecting the produce from the surface in pits. If it was not a gusher, it was not a producer.
Later, they figured out how to collect it without using pits and directed it into a collection systgem. If the volume was too great, they tried to drill more wells near the first one to collect the flow from the formation and "relieve" the volumes flowing into the first bore hole.
The purpose of this "relief" well is to re-establish the drilling mud control that they had on the well before it blew out. The mud weight controlled it while drilling, while they were logging it for several days, and while they ran the long string and cemented it.
If the casing was ejected, they would not have been ranging on it for the past 2 weeks at a distance of less that 20 ft.
Right. They use electrical impulses and the drill bit is a powerful magnet, they're on "it" and it must be metal, folks.
True. From what I understand, as the casing gets deeper it is made of smaller radius pipe. If it gets ejected, it would get ejected from the bottom up. That could explain why there is a smaller and larger diameter pipe stuck in the blowout preventer. There may be some casing remnants left to range on, or they may be lying, which so far has been their way (ie, the volume of the plume from the pipe)
You seem knowledgable about this, if they are just 20 feet away why would they have removed the current top hat device to switch it with a new and improved top hat device all the while allowing 50,000 - 100,000 barrels per day to escape for a few days while they do the transition, not to mention the risk of the switch?
I have been over at some of the oil websites and I get the impression that the core commenters are either industry hacks or dailykos types both with an agenda to minimize the severity of the situation.
Salinger, i share your sentiment
Even in the case that I expect - that the relief wells will be successful, it may still be weeks before that happens. At $4,000 per barrel and 50,000 barrels per day that's a lot of liability. Further this new "cap" is being described as a tighter 'fit' that will allow them to measure wellhead pressures as well as capture all the oil being released. That information will be extremely valuable in planning the relief well "kill". They are only 20' away but that is laterally and they still have a couple hundred feet to go vertically. And that will be slow because they are ranging a LOT to get to their penetration point as accurately as possible.
Also as I've tried to point out many times - no one with a brain in a disaster goes along a linear path to their solutions. You tried the "coin-flip" top kill because it MIGHT have worked even though the relief wells are the ultimate solution. You get into a position to capture all the oil if possible because there is always SOME risk that things don't go as planned.
gasminder, you state "no one with a brain in a disaster goes along a linear path to their solutions."
question: Do you recall the sequence of attempts to stop the leak in April, May and early June. Other than the almost immediate commencement of drilling relief wells their approach has been almost totally linear.
April 27 Coast Guard announces plans to burn the oil
May 6 -8 Large Concrete and Steel containment box initiative fails
May 14-24 a 4" tube inserted into Riser pipe to siphon oil with minimal impact
May 26 - June 1 Top Kill method of pumping mud into well fails followed by Junk Shot which also fails
June 4 to July 10 LMRP containment cap installed with some success
July 10 LMRP removed with plans to quickly install in the next few days a better designed LMRP
I don't know about you Gasminder but the above seems pretty linear to me.
I note you go with the 50k bbd yet they are now boasting how the new LMRP will be able to contain 70k bbd
The incompetance, poor planning and deceipt of just about every asepct of this crisis is breathtaking. As I commented above the blogs are teaming with so called techs who weigh in with "expert" opinion that in many cases just happens to downplay or dismiss any opinion that may challenge the party line. I appreciate the attention and perspective that George brings to this.
I do not see those as linear. While the attempts occurred sequentially the planning and logistics were all ongoing simultaneously with each other and with the relief wells drilling. The context of my statement that you may not be aware of, is that MANY comments have been posted on these threads that claim a great conspiracy is behind all the different attempts etc. Such as "Why did they even try Top Kill if the relief wells are the solution". The answer is that in this kind of unprecedented engineering disaster you put as many assets as you have available all trying as many different things as you can. The actual "news" cycle will always and only be about the activity that is being tried NOW but the planning and preparation from many different solutions is simultaneous as it MUST be.
@Salinger
"I don't know about you Gasminder but the above seems pretty linear to me. [...] The incompetance, poor planning and deceipt of just about every asepct of this crisis is breathtaking. "
Really? Do you have any fucking idea how much time and effort went into those kill attempts? What I see is an all-out, spare no expense, crash program to get these things built and on site. The only thing breathtaking is your cluelessness.
Lots of effort with some of the best in the biz, but the issue is linear versus concurrent. Are you suggesting that there was good planning for a crisis such as this? Are you also suggesting that we have been getting the straight goods e.g. 5,000 bbd? Are you suggesting that sinking the rig was competent?
I take heart in you adhom attack as it demonstrates your arguments are without substance.
+100
@Salinger
Your inference is that incompetence is the norm for these oil field operations and that there was insufficient planning. This was a tragic accident with no precedents to guide the on site work. I am amazed at the almost Herculean efforts being made by resourceful, knowledgeable people. Meanwhile people like you snipe at their "inadequate" efforts and look for deep dark conspiracies or spout end-of-days nonsense. Please, just stop the noise.
"This was a tragic accident with no precedents to guide the on site work. "
Unless you include the precedents BP had already set in the areas of disregard for personnel safety, following regulations, and doing business on the cheap regardless of consequence.
Maybe if even yeoman work had been done prior to this incident, herculean
efforts would not now be necessary.
Roger, first get your grammar straight, it's implication not inference. I think we agree that it was tragic and without precedent. I think we can also agree at the effort and that those making that effort are smart. But back to the point at hand, linear vs. consecutive.
Finally I think I may have missed a category in my commentary above. There seems to be an opposite version of the Conspirators, which I shall name the Gullible. Typical of the gullible is the acceptance of data and information at face value without bothering to do any research. The gullible are quick to demonize any who would challenge the status quo and hold to a position (like their conspirator cousins) even in the face of overwhelming evidence. The gullible typically resort to name calling and ad hominem argument. While some might deem the gullible to be insecure it may be that they are simply uncomfortable with the unknown such that their aggressive response is a coping mechanism.
I strongly agree - but I would apply your exact description of the "gullible" to those who swallow every lunatic assertion regardless of whether it is rooted in any physical reality. These folks can be quickly recognized by how highly they regard Matt Simmons statements, by there repeated references to leaks miles away from the leaning BOP because great methane bubbles are seeping through salt and so on and on and on and on.
My comments in these forums are based on publicly released data that I understand because I have made a career out of interpreting it. They are based an understanding of how the physics of the subsurface operates and what is physically POSSIBLE. They are based on a knowledge of how wellbores in the offshore are designed and what the pipe involved actually looks like because I have seen it. I have studiously avoided commenting on issues where I don't have knowledge or where I don't believe I have anything of value to add that would actually advance others understanding.
FYI - I use the 50,000 BOD number not because I believe that is THE number but because I believe it is likely about the middle of the likely distribution of possible numbers. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the number of barrels leaking is different every day and that no matter what ANYONE tells you NO ONE knows the actual amount. I suspect on very limited data that 50,000 BOD is close to the central tendency of a distribution that describes the flow. No assumptions about my political opinions or any attempt to drive the discussion in any direction should be made based that.
I don't consider myself knowledgable about this at all. I can imagine some scenarios in which it would be advantageous to have control at the top of the well while trying to kill it from the bottom. I suppose they will not know exactly how the kill procedure will go until they are actually doing it. I am thinking that having this new cap in place and functioning will give them a higher chance of success if they encounter difficulties.
Thanks GW. :-)
GW this and your other post share the theme of lack of full disclosure and cover-up. These themes have been associated with the BP leak from the late days of April. Many have viewed the ROV cameras of the live action a mile beneath the surface and equated that with transparency. The administration, BP and unified command have created websites, YouTube channels etc all with the express purpose of "informing" the public. Yet as you point out the media is restricted from access to many/most sensitive areas other than those reporters who are "embedded". The spin cycle is on full and with the expected new containment device and relief wells about to be implemented I suspect that we will have a moment where victory is declared as the President stands on pristine beach not far from the spill.
Meanwhile there are 2 to 3 hundred million gallons of crude that have been released into the Gulf along with vast quantities of disolved methane mostly trapped in large plumes below the surface. There has been little to no evaluation conducted of the wetlands by independent biologists. But visit the administration's new website http://www.restorethegulf.gov and you are greeted with a logo that conveys anything but the destruction that is taking place.
Just like Haiti, which has faded from view even though there is suffering beyond comprehension as its residents still wait for the promised aid, so to the Gulf oil spill will fade once the new cap is in place next week. It is imperative as the administration goes into this election cycle that the BP Gulf spill is seen as solved with minimal damage to the environment thanks to the efforts and management of the administration. That will be the message propagated by MSM.
The network news anchors are all headed down to the Gulf next week and that will be the last time you will see them there until we get a retrospective in late October titled "The Gulf Spill 6 months later Hope and Restoration".
anynonmous.........that is cutting and impressive.
GW, good work, please keep posting. Your articles are highly informative. Thank You
Big f@cking surprise!
Tony Hayward BP CEO is a Bilderberger
http://alligatorfarm.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/bp-ceo-tony-hayward-bilderberger/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine
Holy Shet! Thanks for posting that link.
Here it is to youtube direct: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X24pefQ8bKg
If you are interested, this is an interview by the Russia Today of Daniel Estulin. He wrote the book called Los Secretos del club bilderberg. You can read more at his wikipedia page below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Estulin
Some Excerpts:
"Not only the KGB people but the MI6 people, the CIA because most of the people who work for the secret service as you probably know are patriots and they love their country and they’re doing it for the good of the nation and they’re the first ones absolutely terrified of the plans of the Bilderbergers".
...
In December 2007, Estulin appeared on the Alex Jones Show, and claimed that he had "received information from sources inside the U.S. intelligence community which suggests that people from the highest levels of the U.S. government are considering an assassination attempt against Congressman Ron Paul because they are threatened by his burgeoning popularity" as a presidential candidate. Estulin has worked with American journalist Big Jim Tucker who has a similar interest in the activities of the Bilderberg Group.[7]"
It's starting to make sense, because of a video of:
CFR Meeting: Zbigniew Brzezinski Fears The Global Awakening
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDBlABD01U0
The Tim Russert ambush job on NBC was well-timed.
They're aiming to intersect the bottom of the existing well bore with the relief well. If they're successful, it shouldn't matter if the well casing above the point of intersection is damaged or missing.
they're intersecting 10,000 ft below ocean floor, below where any blown pipe is.
Very good sir - you get it. Far too many people are making absurd inferences without actually looking at the large amount of info that is now available. You are exactly correct in your assessment.
You may be one of the very, very few who read this nonsense who understands that. Sure, it is good for analysis on why the BOP failed to stop the flow. And maybe why the leak has increased. But all of the scare stuff about pipe in the hole are based upon restrictions problems of a oil producer trying to make a producing well. This one is going to be killed with mud and then cement. Hanging some junk in the middle of the cement is not a big deal. The fluid cement goes around it. Killed is killed, even with cemented in pipe.
see comment below
Thanks again George!There was noise on this ever since the cut but without the hi-res pictures it was tough to say if it was 2 or 1 pipe.The picture I saw today removed any doubt.It was oddly much better than the earlier ones...how strange.BP is SO transparent and helpful.Not.
A possible Extinction Level Event?
http://www.helium.com/items/1882339-doomsday-how-bp-gulf-disaster-may-ha...
What a joke. While you guys are all so busy high-fiving yourselves over the lack of BP transparency and deciding which will be the next chemical manufacturer you will burn down, I point you towards some pretty pictures:
http://homepage.mac.com/james_r_white/tei_share/OilSpillMovies/VikingROV1.trimed.mov
http://homepage.mac.com/james_r_white/tei_share/OilSpillMovies/pix.html
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/images/5164_test_pipe.jpg
All of the above images were supplied by BP via their LIVE ROV footage. I found out about them about 24 hours ago courtesy of theoildrum.com.
WTF?!?!?!
But I guess it is nice to receive ample evidence that your perceptions contain a great deal of imaginative creativity. I wonder if you're actually able to make the distinction for yourself?
You might give the dog a little kick, just to see if that helps. I wouldn't -- but you might.
with link goodness: #461595
Get over yourself.
that first link was a bummer and i dont trust the rest now.
Let's see...24 hours ago. Tell us the release date of the images et al so we don't have to click around. We like contrarians around here - but not if they aren't useful.
Not sure what you're complaining about or even what JR was going for but here's the data on the third image (the jpeg photo):
DateTimeOriginal - 2010:06:26 22:26:54
(that's June 26, 2010 at 10:26.54 pm)
ImageDescription - Test pipe was distorted to resemble what is reasonably expected to be at the deepwater site. During the night shift, the flanged "mule shoe" transition spool assembly is prepared for Systems Integration Testing at Oil States Industries' high-bay fabricat
Artist - Rocky Kneten
Copyright - (C) 2010 BP plc
Model - Canon EOS 5D
Thanks reductio. The other images (stills) were taken from the ROV feed on the day that they sheared the riser. Here is the context of how I found them: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6708#comment-671729