This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Matthew Simmons: Lightning Rod for Gulf Oil Controversy
Matthew Simmons has made a lot of big claims about the oil spill (see videos below).
Because
of his background, Simmons has been interviewed repeatedly in
television, newspaper and radio media. Simmons was an energy adviser to
President George W. Bush, is an adviser to the Oil Depletion Analysis
Centre, and is a member of the National Petroleum Council and the
Council on Foreign Relations, and is former chairman and CEO of Simmons
& Company International, an investment bank catering to oil
companies.
People have become polarized around Simmons as a
lightning rod. For example, people who believe all of Simmons' claims
believe that anyone who questions any of Simmons's claims is working
for BP. On the other extreme, people who think Simmons has gone senile
or is simply talking his book (he's short BP) tar and feather anyone
who questions BP's version of the Gulf narrative as being a crazy
Simmons follower.
So let's assess Simmons' claims one-by-one. And - more importantly -
let's refocus the discussion away from one person and towards the Gulf
itself (Simmons himself will either be vindicated, proven off-base, or
something in between. But that is his personal concern, not ours).
BP's stock Will Go to Zero
Simmons predicts that BP's stock will go to zero. he might be right. Fines under the Clean Water Act are $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. And civil and criminal damages could be substantial.
But BP has been doing everything in its power to lowball the amount of oil spilled into the Gulf (and see this), even though it easily could have easily quantified
how much oil is spilling. If the government allows BP to get away with
lowballing the spill number, the fines won't bankrupt BP.
Similarly, if the government let's BP maintain its $75 million liability cap on economic damages, let's BP hide the extent of the damage to the Gulf (see this and this), to perform only a superficial clean up of the Gulf and fails to press criminal charges (or let's BP off with a slap on the wrist), then BP might survive by selling assets.
And remember, BP is still one of the largest suppliers of oil to the U.S. military. See this and this.
In addition, Gordon T. Long argues that the failure of BP would have a greater affect on the U.S. economy than the failure of Lehman.
So some say that - even if it's wrong - BP will be considered "too big to fail" and will be bailed out.
There is a "Lake of Oil" in the Gulf
Simmons claims there is a "lake of oil" in the Gulf, 30 feet thick and miles long.
I don't know about this claim, but scientists have found giant underwater plumes, and NOAA has just announced traces of oil 30 meters thick stretching for quite a ways. See this, this, this and this.
Specifically, because millions of gallons of Corexit have been applied,
many solid plumes have been broken up into giant bodies of solution ...
mixtures of water, oil, methane and dispersant.
But these
solutions can contain levels of oil and other chemicals which are at or
near the levels which are toxic to marine life (see below).
BP Has Killed the Gulf
Simmons told Bloomberg that BP has "killed the Gulf".
Obviously,
the effect on the Gulf will be severe - at least in the short run -
especially because BP has used millions of gallons of Corexit
dispersant, which is highly toxic to animals.
An
independent scientist from the University of Georgia - Dr. Joye - says
that government scientists are underestimating the amount of oxygen
depletion in the Gulf waters. Dr. Joye says that it's not a conspiracy.
Rather, government scientists have only been studying oxygen levels
close to the blown out well. However, oxygen levels are much lower 3-15
kilometers from the leaking wellhead (the water right near the wellhead
has been recently exposed to oil, and so the oil and methane-eating
bacteria haven't had a chance to start breaking it down yet. Further
away from the spill site, the bacteria breaks down the oil and methane
more, depleting oxygen in the process.) See this Wall Street Journal article.
Indeed,
as Dr. Joye notes, scientists have no idea how the large quanties of
dispersant will effect the Gulf's microbial communities (for more
information, watch part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 and part 5 of Dr. Joye's July 13th press conference).
The bottom line is that the use of so much Corexit in combination
with such huge amounts of oil is a science experiment, and no one knows
the outcome. This might kill the Gulf. Or the Gulf might bounce back
surprisingly fast.
Rob Kendall, director of Texas Tech’s Insitute of Environmental & Human Health, says:
This
is a catastrophe of enormous proportions. To me, this is the biggest
environmental toxicology experiment we’ve ever conducted.
And Kim Withers, a coastal ecologist at Texas A&M University in Corpus Christi notes:
It's like the biggest science experiment ever. Unfortunately, it's a completely uncontrolled experiment.
We Should Evacuate the Gulf
On one extreme, Simmons says that the health effects from the huge quantities of oil and methane
released from the oil gusher, plus the huge quantities of Corexit used
by BP, have created a toxic brew which could kill 20 million Gulf coast
residents. He therefore says we should evacuate the Gulf coast.
On
the other extreme, the EPA, NOAA and other government agencies have
tried to downplay all potential health effects, according to a senior EPA analyst and many others. Indeed, the head of the EPA said:
I am walking a fine line between truth and hysteria. We don't want to create a panic.
Hurricanes could - under the right conditions - spread oil and toxic chemicals inland. See this and this
.
Marine toxicologist Dr. Ricki Ott and senior EPA analyst Hugh Kaufman both say that Gulf coastal communities should be evacuated.
And University of California Santa Barbara scientist and marine geochemistry expert Dr. David Valentine says
that - at least when BP is burning oil or gas - the area around the
spill site “had a cloud of smoke hanging over it at all times”,
composed of surface burn smoke and the methane flair-up. He said the
burns form “one thick mass of clouds, and when it rains, a lot of junk
comes down from the particulate“.
I simply don't know enough
about how Corexit, oil and methane combine to know how toxic a brew it
could really become, so I don't know whether evacuations should be
implemented.
We Should Nuke the Well
Simmons says that the only thing which will stop the oil spill is a small nuclear bomb inserted deep into the well.
I have researched this issue, and believe that the use of a nuke has more risk than benefit.
However,
conventional explosives - in the hands of top underwater demolition
experts working closely with top Gulf geologists - might be helpful if
the relief wells fail.
There is a Second, Bigger Leak Miles from the Leak We've Seen on the Videos
Perhaps
Simmons' best-known claim is that there is a second, bigger leak miles
away from the leak we've seen on the videos. Simmons claims that what
we've watched on the underwater videos is a smaller leak at the riser,
and that the main well is miles away and gushing 130,000 barrels a day.
He claims that there is a conspiracy by BP to cover this up.
The
claim that BP has hid the real well from the American people seems
contradicted by the evidence we have at this point. And while I can't
say for sure that the claim of a second, bigger leak somewhere else is
false, I have seen nothing to confirm this to date.
However, given that BP has not provided even basic information to the Congressional Committee chairman who demanded it in writing, that BP has done everything it could to cover up the severity of the problems in the Gulf (see this, this and this),
and that we only see what BP chooses to aim its cameras at, we need to
discover some basic facts about the situation before we can even
discuss this intelligently.
Moreover, because NOAA has
discovered other nearby leaks or seeps and because Admiral Thad Allen
says that the seep 3 kilometers away from the blown out well is from
the Rigel gas field, it is vital to find out what's really going on.
See this, this and this.
And a whistleblower previously told 60 Minutes, there was an accident at the rig a month or more before 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.
Where
did this incident occur? Was there any leak of oil, or only a loss of
equipment into the drilling mud? Have the underwater cameras, seismic
and sonar equipment taken a look at this location to make sure
everything is stable and is not leaking?
Similarly, as Bloomberg reports, 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.
Why do investigators think fissures back then might have played a part in the April 20 explosion and blowout?
The answers to the above questions must be disclosed so that we can assess what's really going on in the Gulf of Mexico.
To watch Simmons make the claims addressed above, watch these videos:
»
- advertisements -
Dear Fish,
Do you work for the Heritage Foundation or MMS?
GW, WTF? You title a section 'There is a "Lake of Oil" in the Gulf' and then write "I don't know about this claim." Simmons is clear that it's a "lake" of thick, black oil that he believes is there. In a particularly nefarious move he's claimed that that's what staff aboard the Thomas Jefferson relayed to him and that it's in their reports, which is clearly untrue. Not dispersed "plumes" measured in ppm, but a lake. Thick, black oil. In fact, the claimed size of Lake Simmons would hold ~250 times the world's known reserves. If that's not enough to just stop right there, what would be?
What's next, vaccines cause autism? And why is ZH putting this junk up top?
George, snake's comment is the point, what he has done is taken your Matt Simmons review and associated it with other things deemed as conspiracies e.g. the correlation between vaccines and autism. My guess is that snake likely takes a mainstream view on most things, a world where technocrats rule, a world where there are no CIA secret prisons and vaccines do no harm whether it be autism or GBS. Much like the tinfoil-hat crowd there is no convincing a technocrat, they share a single-minded determination and belief system that their view is the correct view.
As one goes through the time-line since late April one can be forgiven for suspecting a disinformation campaign: a month of media, BP and government downplaying the nature and severity of the spill; media blackouts; sequential attempts to plug the leak with clever marketing names; political grandstanding at the federal, state and local levels; the demonization of Hayward; and of course the ultimate solution (Relief Wells) being supplanted by a last minute change (Static Kill) complete with video schematics by the authoritative Kent Wells. The technocrats will argue that those in charge are simply doing their best and making changes as circumstances warrant. I think Wells used the term planning in parallel regarding Static Kill, though that parallel approach seems not to have been used throughout April.
The Tinfoil-hatters are preoccupied with a hastily assembled three ring circus: Ladies and Gentlemen in this ring we have Exploding Plumes of Gas and in that ring watch as the Ocean floor cracks open and toxic fumes consume the American South East. In the center ring we have the one, the only, the world renowned expert who for the very first time will reveal the truth about the oil spill. Ladies and Gentlemen I give you Matt Simmons.
Whether by design or happenstance, Simmons is a godsend to the technocrats and to those managing this crisis. The amount of media time he has received is curious to say the least. Any controversial theories about the spill can be quickly dispatched by tossing them into the Simmons circus tent, while any who enter that tent risk their credibility regardless of their station in life. Not to pick on snake but in his post above, he likely looks into that circus tent and sees (in many cases correctly) all manner of conspiracy theories with an audience made up of truthers waiting for 2012 .
There are many legitimate concerns with respect to this spill not the least of which is the sudden arrival of the static kill solution. Other issues relate to the environmental toll, the plumes, the politicization of scientific research, Ken Feinberg's role, NOAA's role and even the controversy around BP the White House and the release of al-Megrahi.
George, I think you have taken the bait by not only entering the tent but by accepting a backstage pass and a seat in the VIP section. Watch the Bloomberg interview and it is clear that Mr. Simmons is in need of help. My advice is don't get distracted by Simmons. Stick to the unknowns and inconsistencies in the revisionist narrative that is playing out before us. One would have to be very naive to think that there is not a disinformation campaign underway and blogs such as yours do a service in exposing them. Chasing down Simmon's theories and attempting to prove or disprove them is counterproductive, much like a dog chasing its tail as a parade of cats slip by unnoticed.
>My guess is that snake likely takes a mainstream view on most things, a world where technocrats rule, a world where there are no CIA secret prisons and vaccines do no harm whether it be autism or GBS.
Wrong, about 180 degrees. But crap info is crap info and it leads to crap conclusions and scary speculation that causes harm (telling people to evacuate, suggesting a "methane tsunami" is imminent, etc.). Crap is crap whether it supports my general viewpoint or not. Unfortunately it also frequently fits somebody's agenda.
While Simmons may well be right, it must be noted that he is one of the largest, most powerful and most connected investors in the oil business.
To say that he has an agenda would be a massive understatement.
On the other hand -- Simmons has been right far too many times to be discounted. ... Just take it all with a few grains of salt. The man has a mission...
Uhh, he's shorting BP and oil is lighter than water. An old koot wanting the spotlight. We do take him as less than a grain of salt, but GW is bent on undermining the whole of ZH.
GW, why have you not included Simmon's claims that methane pressure at the wellhead is at 40,000psi, a flow rate of at least double the maximum estimate provided by the FRTG, or some giant crater that will cause a tsunami, among all the other ridiculous claims you are leaving out? How anyone can honestly tell themselves that Matt Simmons' statement do not strike them as delusional (at best), should really consider seeking medical help.
No, it was 70,000 psi- where the bulk modulus of the steels couldn't have even withstood..Oh shit, more logic..got to go, they are evacuating the city!
GW, there is an opening and the Iraqi Minister of Information office, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf has become a great admirer of yours.
By the way:
Rob Kendall, director of Texas Tech’s Insitute of Environmental & Human Health, says:
I graduated from Texas Tech, a quote from this guy in Lubbock, 600 miles from the coast, surrounded by cotton fields is like asking Obama how it feels to be half white.
Asshat, cheap shot at Tech. You sound like an Aggie. Riddle me this, Einstein...NOAA's hurricane center is in Boulder, Colorado. How do they get away with that, since Boulder is more than 600 miles from the coast? Since you're in Houston, maybe you should stick to what you know, which is to say Tilman Fertitta and dating your cousin.
And NOAA is a POS. The really missed the destruction of class II Ike due to it's size.. But the Gov. was also why the 1901 Galveston Hurricane did not receive the hurricane warning report from Cuba. As for what I know? Let go smart guy...I am not an Aggie, such an insult is uncalled for.
BP will go to zero? Not right away, since there is an interlocking network of CDS contracts around it that would create a major domino effect. Also, it is very unlikely that BP will pay much for cleanup, as most of the oil is now drifting in submerged plumes, and we have no technology to clean them up.
There is a 'lake of oil' somewhere on the bottom. No, dispersed oil drifts as (nearly) indeterminate density droplets, subject to currents more than gravity, so the missing oil is not in a lake, but in submerged plumes. These can be tracked, but only by insitu sampling, and it is a big ocean, so most of the plume material will be lost, making realistic calculations of the impacted volume difficult. The plumes will create large swaths of moving dead zones, due to toxicity of constituents and reduced oxygen as biodegradation occurs. Incidentally, reports of depleted oxygen zones only 15 kilometers out from the well is great news, as it means that biodegradation is proceeding much faster than I would have expected.
BP has killed the Gulf. Not hardly. This is a large release of crude, which is toxic, now dispersed with Corexit, which is also toxic, and it will take some time for natural processes to degrade the total mass. In those areas where the plume is concentrated, aquatic organisms will die, the same as tidal creatures die when covered with the floating slick. But the Gulf is a large body of water, and biological degradation will occur more quickly as the plume is diluted, and as it approaches shores and shallow water. Comments that a gallon of Corexit can contaminate X-million gallons of sea water are not helpful. First, dilution is not uniform, and second, as dilution reaches the 100 ppm level, biological degradation will proceed at the reoxygenation rate, which is very high in shallow water. Butoxyethanol will be taken up preferentially by psuedomonas bacteria: they love alcohol. Although the depth of the plume was not stated in the reports of depleted oxygen, if we assume that Corexit was applied from the air, then most of the plume will be at depths of less than say 200 feet, and the complete removal of all the oil and Corexit could likely occur in as little as a year.
We should evacuate the Gulf. No, we should evacuate DC, as that is where most of the damage is coming from. Crude oil dispersed with Corexit can be transported by hurricane winds and storm surge a few miles inland. However, hurricanes are noted for involving lots of water (16 inches of rain in 24 hours). Thus effects on land are likely to be minimal. Where significant plumed crude is forced onto the land, aquatic life, birds, fish, crabs, etc are likely to be the only victims. Butoxyethanol is slightly skin absorbable, but is also rapidly degraded, and will occur in low to very low concentrations, so it presents a quite low public health effect, but could be a problem for those communities who use surface water for their potable source. Such effects would be short-lived.
We should nuke the well. No, apparently we should nuke Simmons, who has gone off the deep end. The wells problems are caused by upper layers of unconsolidated rock formations, which were poorly sealed by hasty cementing practices which did not account for porous zones that BP knew the well had passed through. A nuke would fracture these zones and create a volcano of crude which could not be stopped. As long as we have a well, with casing, the proper approach is to cement the casing properly. The difficulty, which I have alluded to in earlier posts, is that crude is moving from the deep producing zone up the outside of the casing to higher porous zones, and will continue to do so until the pressure equilibrates with the deeper zone or the upper formation blows out all the way to the ocean floor. If the upper formation holds and the pressure equilibrates, the well can be cemented without using the interceptor wells.
Finally, Why do investigators think fissures back then might have played a part in the April 20 explosion and blowout? Apparently the investigators don't understand how a well is drilled. Fissures in the rock being drilled through cause cementing problems. But any leaks caused by fissures would be outside the casing, thus can not have had any impact on the blowout. What they could have done is caused the loss of the drilling mud at an inconvenient time, like when the bit encountered a high pressure producing zone. The driller must maintain a full mud complement while drilling, as this is the way the cuttings are removed from the hole. But if the bit has gone through some porous zones, and that portion of the hole has not yet been cased and cemented, then mud will flow out into the porous zone, such that additional (perhaps large) quantities of mud would have to be continuously replaced. As the weighting agents in mud are expensive, I see a potential for the mud to have been lighter than desired on the day of the blowout. However, high pressure gas pockets will blow out a full mud charge if the downhole pressure is higher than expected, because as gas enters the mud and begins it ride to the surface, the pressure falls, the gas expands, and the total weight of the mud column begins to fall exponentially.
[full disclosure, ZH policy notwithstanding: writer is UT grad in chemical engineering]
FISHKILL,
Where does your paycheck come from? Apparently you are not able to think and work.
" Where significant plumed crude is forced onto the land, aquatic life, birds, fish, crabs, etc are likely to be the only victims. "
How about agriculture and people?
Why not take a trip to the Gulf Shore, breathe the air, drink and swim in the water, eat the seafood and then report?
Thanks for the science-based explanation.
Fishhawk, Seeing you are relatively new, let me be the first to warn you; Logic, reason, common sense are ignored on this subject (IE in their world oil does not float- it sinks into lakes). Junking is almost as common as when the subject is Jews. Go to the oil drum, this is not the place for you. I am an engineer in Houston and while I appreciate ZH for economic news, I consider the gloom and doom presented on this subject here nothing but pure ignorance.
Great post, but you won't be rewarded- only junked.
" if we assume that Corexit was applied from the air"
Much of the toxic Corexit was applied underwater to hide the evidence.
It was applied underwater because THAT IS WHERE THE OIL IS.
Dear Science-based (but otherwise neutral/impartial) observers,
It seems there are 4 boreholes in the MC252 prospect drilled by BP in 2010.
In the spirit of transparency, please take a look at the bottom coordinates of all wellbores in the fabled ole' Miss Chasm block two hundred and fifty two, courtesy of the Mineral Mismanagement Agency:
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/pubinfo/repcat/well/pdf/Borehole%20by%20A...
Yes, it IS a ca. 3000 page pdf. Search for MC252. It's all there in black and white. Four boreholes in 2010. Oh wait, except their bottom locations are all: #######################
Pages 1159-1160
SPUD#1: 07-OCT-2009
Stat#1: 18-MAR-2010
TD #1 08-MAR-2010 (presumably location B)
SPUD#2: 18-MAR-2010
Stat#2: 18-MAR-2010
TD#2 09-APR-2010 (presumably location A)
SPUD and Stat #3 (no TD date as yet): 03-MAY-2010 (presumably relief well #1, Development Driller III)
SPUD and Stat #4 (no TD date as yet): 20-MAY-2010 (presumably relief well #2, Development Driller II)
In addition to the 2 relief wells being drilled, there are 2 'original' wells. 1 with the capping stack, the media darling of the last 3 months. Another in disgraceful anonymity, not worthy of even page 12 of the tabloids. We don't know where it is, why/how it was abandoned, does it have a cement plug or merely drilling mud, etc. It was conveniently left out of all media reports and congressional testimony, with the exception of the stray reference in the 60 Mins. report.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml
Even currently there are articles out there talking about 'problems with well in February' -- none of them seem to realize it was a different wellbore being drilled in Feb 2010, NOT the one currently on display.
Does anyone know how to read this report, what some of the abbreviations mean?
In particular I'm interested in the category on the left titled "Well" which is over "Cd/Stat". Since the presumed relief wells (numbers 02 and 03) are "cd/stat" of "R/DRL" (on page 1160) and the two entries for well number 01 (on page 1159) have a cd/stat of "E/ST" and "E/DRL.
A wild ass guess would be this. "R/DRL" might mean "relief/drilling" for type and status for the two relief wells, number 02 and 03. The two entries for well number 01 might be "E/ST" for exploratory/stable or stabilized and "E/DRL" for exploratory/drilling. Again, that's my wild ass guess.
Anyone know how to read this report? Thanks.
Type codes and borehole status codes:
Type Code:
Borehole Status Code
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/pubinfo/freeasci/well/boreholedatadom.htm...
So with respect to the wells:
1) Spud: 07-Oct-2009. Location: 06940N 01042E. Status: sidetracked on 18-Mar-2010
2) Spud: 18-Mar-2010. Location: 06940N 01042E. Status: Drilling. (well...not anymore)
3) Relief Well #1. Spud: 03-May-2010. Location: 06288S 00020E. Status: Drilling
4) Relief Well #2. Spud: 20-May-2010. Location: 06504S 02887E. Status: Drilling
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/pubinfo/freeasci/well/boreholedatadfn.html
Thanks for digging a little deeper on the MMS site, M4570D0N. The locations you cited are the surface locations, presumably the coordinates of the DWH before it sank.
Well Name Suffix - An extension to the well name that indicates the number of times that a new wellbore has been drilled.
Suffix for #1) ST00BP00
Suffix for #2) ST00BP01
Note that both
Borehole Total Measured Depth - The actual distance measured along the axis of the borehole from the rig kelly bushing to the dept maximum penetration of the well.
and
True Vertical Depth - The vertical distance, in feet, from the rig kelly bushing to the maximum depth of the well.
are unavailable, along with the bottom coordinates.
CD
I agree that any honest assessment of this data can't be complete without the missing data. Scrolling through the 3000 pages, there are other times when this data is x'd out for other wells but it's the exception, not the rule.
Regarding the term side tracked, from what I have read, if a well-bore has a major problem, say a tool is jammed in the hole and can't be retrieved and thus the way further down is blocked, what they will do is back up a distance, say 2,000 feet if the well bore was already 10,000 feet down, and plug the hole for that 2,000 feet with cement. Then they will break through the side of the casing and start drilling off at an angle, thus saving the upper portion of the well bore and millions of dollars of expense.
Might this not be considered a second well bore? But because it's using the same BOP and original location, it would still be the same well number (number 01 in this case) but a different well bore number?
Just thinking out loud. Expert input would be appreciated here.
Yes it is considred a new wellbore. Naming conventions I have seen usually have an "ST" abreviation after the name of a well. ie "BP Macondo 4-5-67-7 ST1" It is treated as a separate hole.
I guess it all depends on the definition of "new wellbore". I don't know. I DO, however know that very little of the above is public information, none of it has been discussed to any significant extent in the MSM. I also have a (purely subjective) supposition that this is relevant to the examination of what happened to the well, and wonder WHY.
However, the spud dates are different. As far as I know, the definition of 'spud' is:
Spud
The initial penetration of the ground or seafloor / the start of the drilling operation.
Sidetracking is exactly how it might sound. It's the use of a whipstock, turbodrill, or other mud motor to drill around and avoid an unretrieved "fish" (a broken drill pipe or casing that has become permanently lodged in the hole). You're not drilling an entirely new wellbore. You're just backing up a bit and coming back down at a slight angle, diverting around the broken drillpipe or what have you and then continuing on from there. Here's a really simple graphic of it. I know there are much better images out there but I'm a bit pressed for time today:
http://sites.google.com/site/directionaldrillingclub/_/rsrc/125026038182...
With all of the nonsense that Geo Wash has swallowed comming from this blowout event, it sure seems that he should have understood by this late date that there was only one well drilled. BP started a well, they had trouble with it. While working on that there was a hurricane and that damaged the original drilling rig on the hole. That rig went to the shipyard for repairs and was eventually replaced with the DWH. DWH entered the same surface location borehole. The original borehole was plugged back to take care of the stuck/lost drillpipe fish. That section was cemented off and the well was deviated slightly to get around the fish. That is the SideTrack that got a new number. There can be a large number of sidetrack wells drilled from the single surface location. In this case though, there is only one vertical well drilled.
In this particular instance, GW has nothing to do with the ongoing gnawing of this bone, I am the one troubled by it. Aside from the blatant, obvious and patently bogus assertions in their plan for drilling the relief wells, the lack of status update on the 'final' bore more than 2 months after the well blew, and the lack of transparency regarding the depth, condition and 'plugging' used on the broken bore, there really is nothing to worry about. BTW, it was not definitive from your answer, but you do realize it was the DWH that seems to have broken and lost the drill bit.
It seems it was the Transocean Marianas that started drilling the well in 2009, but was damaged by Hurricane Ida in Nov. 2009, thus went to port for repairs.
The reason any of this is in the slightest way POSSIBLY relevant is the portion of the discussion earlier about the integrity of the well, and the shape the producing section is in near the reservoir. Since I obviously have no further knowledge, I can only point out that the information the well is shaped like an upside down Y instead of a (more or less straight) vertical line was NOT made part of any public discussion. You say this is irrelevant. I say, as long as everyone involved in overseeing the efforts to close and secure the well is aware of this, that's the best we can hope for. But as none of this has been made public, my only direct information is the bit from CBS (not a great source, I know): 'that well was abandoned, and BP had to drill a new way to the oil'. To me (and I think to you) the term 'abandoned well' is not the same as 'cemented and bypassed fish'. If this is merely another case of the media using incorrect/inaccurate terms, all to the good. I am merely curious as to the layout of all this: depth of initial (but unsuccesful and plugged) bore, the method used in plugging it, and the relative distance of the two bores from each other.
I have not tried to find the exact report on the plugging of the initial bore with the cut off pipe. they do have to file the report of the procedures and materials used and they do it with the MMS.
Simply because BP did not send a copy of the report to every mailbox in America should not cause you to sputter.
And no, it is not shaped like an upside down "Y". It is like a straw with a very slight bend in it. When you look at the well invormation you can see that the reported TVD is within a few feet of the Measured depth. No big deviation.
You claim that the plan for drilling the relief wells were bogus? You know they were blatently bogus because you have uncovered what, exactly? and there is nothing to update about the bottom of the blowout well. Who do you believe has been able to inspect or log it and when did that occur?
You claim that the information of the sidetrack was not made publec. How the hell do you think I knew about it? And Sure, CBS is about as clueless about making an oil well as you are.
There you go again Augustus, ruining a perfectly good conspiracy theory with facts, dangit.
As opposed to trueblooded conspiracy theorists, I must concede that further speculation along these lines is fruitless. While I remain pissed off at the level of non-competence on the part of those whose mission, nay, raison d'etre it was to prevent such an event, there is no (unexpected) conspiracy beyond the complete regulatory capture we have come to know and love at all levels of the economy/society.
I missed the TOD threads, it is not exactly easy to search that site. While either/all of you could have pointed that out a while ago, serves me right for not having been diligent enough. While I remain curious as to the details of this, it will no doubt only be a mere footnote of the events, if that.
For the record, Jim, I only meant to say you were acting like an ass, I'd like to imagine you are not actually one. And while I perhaps will never come to appreciate Augustus' style, I am certainly beginning to appreciate the fact that he can be right.
As far as acting like an ass, yes ... I had the best teachers ZH could provide.
That is absolutely true, there is no conceivable reason that they should inform Americans how the current situation came to pass. Nor the legislature, nor overseeing body, nor the regulatory agency, nor the officials charged with conducting the current salvage attempt.
It would be great if I could take a look at the well information, but I am not sure where I can find the reported TVD and measured depth. I am tempted to imagine this is another piece of info I am not worthy of asking about. But maybe I've just been lazy. Or I don't have access to the same level of BP documentation.
Besides, that difference is (even to me) of no significance. In fact, I would be comforted by knowing that the sidetracked bore is substantially farther from the original, and even that only makes any difference if the original borehole is a) deep and/or b) not sufficiently secured.
Jeez, man, relax. This one is not even on BP (though they did lie), but on MMS (and that is no surprise). But BP went thtrough the charade of pledging and witnessing, and MMS went through the charade of accepting and certifying that BP had the capacity to respond to a catastrophic spill caused by the relief wells -- at a point in time where both parties knew as FACT that BP did not have such capacity -- much less such capacity AFTER AN ALREADY OCCURRING catastrophic spill was already flowing into the water.
That is my point exactly. The current state of knowledge about the well, especially the bottom, is one of informed guesswork and theory based on indirect observations. If there is a variable missing from said hypothetical constructs, it may have a negative impact on the accuracy conclusions drawn from the data.
See, Augustus, that is where I am just not sure. How the hell DO you know for a FACT (as opposed to an educated guess)? Nevertheless, thank you for your input.
Not that this is encouraged, partly b/c un(der)informed citizens will inevitably draw all the wrong conclusions from the data presented, but mainly b/c there is not a whole lot of data there -- it is possible to wade through the documents provided by MMS to the congressional panel investigating the Macondo disaster:
http://www.boemre.gov/deepwaterreadingroom/
My issue, Augustus, is that the sum total response provided to this request:
Request #10 (R4): "All Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs), including revised APDs, for wells and bypasses submitted by BP for Lease #G32306."
Is a bunch of one-page, almost completely blank documents that lack all information besides submission date, approval date and the identification of the rig. No details, location, reason, description, attachments, drawings, NOTHING.
This is the APD for the bypass drill you are so keen on:
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/fastfacts/apdform/apd.asp?-9391
Actually, it was you who seemed so keen on the "mystery" of the bypass well. The one that created the "Y" that you were so afraid of, remember? They cemented that lost section and it is also behind the casing strings that were later run into the well.
It was not a mystery. The application states the kickoff point at 11,586. It is described as an exploratory well. They don't know exactly where they will be running the casing until they drill it. they set those different liner strings when they have a lost circulation zone. They work on drilling it with lost circulation mud additives and set pipe when they get through it. These zones are then sealed off and don't present further problems when proceeding on the Chiney with the drill bit.
Sp, when you read the report you linked, you found that BP lied about the relief wells in exactly what way. I know you are a good researcher and expert on well drilling. What was the blatant lie you found in the plans for the relief well? Don't keep it a secret.
I am most certainly not an expert on deepwater well drilling, that's your mantle.
I was talking about the drill permit application, not the bypass itself.
As for the BP lie that is quite obvious:
The exact text of the relief well plan:
But if you were aware of other lies, you would tell us, right? While we are at it, if the Marianas is in dock for repairs and the DWH is drilling on the site, why is the Marianas the rig specified for a borehole sidetrack on 12/28/2009?
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/fastfacts/apm/apm.asp?-122950
I could go on, but there is no point. Seeing as you are the one with the expertise but without the slightest desire to find out anything unknown to you, I am content for now to learn. But the multiple sidetracks and the lack of clarity on where they end, the that drilling permit modification requests can be submitted and approved with only the phrase 'Other Operations' describing what is being done is disheartening. I am not in the least familiar with the rules/regs of these submissions, and quite likely this is perfectly within the rules. And the fact that well activity reports are not accessible is probably for the best, b/c I am sure I'd have no end of dumb questions about them. However, the more incessantly you ask about what new claim you can debunk, the more convinced I am that there actually MIGHT be something noteworthy in the relief well plans. Thanks for pointing it out, will go back to check.
The response plan is mandated by the MMS. They state that they are capable of responding, "to the maximum extent practicable". You believe that is a lie because you have found . . . . . .?
When they switched rigs they notified the MMS of the change. I don't know why they changed the rig, but I can suspect that the refit of the damaged rig took longer than expected. Is that something that you consider a blatant lie to hide a secret? When you can find that they filed again to change rigs. And if you had been aware of it at the time of firing, would you, as the bureaucrat in charge, denied the application for that reason? They have to file reports at least weekly with the MMS on the well activety.
The information in this exchange about the first well and then the second, bypass, well was visible on theoildrum.com more than six weeks ago.
Good catch on the well numbering, I did not see that at first. None of the 'engineers' (in fact or in spirit) have touched the substance of the post (how many wellbores? where? in what condition) with a ten-foot pole the first time I posted it, so I don't have high hopes for it here either...
As an aside, does anyone have any informed guesses as to the nature/purpose of the two new large pieces of equipment currently being lowered to the well?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan.
You have a whole lot of the former and very little of the latter.
"Extraordinary lies require extraordinary cover up" -- anon
You have ample evidence of both.
1) it is correct to pay attention to the professionals (which I was 30 yrs. ago.). Buying gold.
2) There have been advances since the keep up to the gold sites.
Gold may go up and down near term. Lil'l old me says buy and hold your gold.
Indeed, sorry!
wrong thread
What does that have to do with this article?
If you want to discuss what university researchers are saying, why not spend more time on The University of Texas? UT has one of the best Petoleum Engineering and Geosystems Engineering programs in the country. It ranks 1st or 2nd, depending on the source. Dr. Paul Bommer is a Senior Lecturer, and also happens to be the only petroleum engineer on the Flow Rate Technical Group. If you want some objective commentary from some of the best minds in this area, I would go there.
http://www.pge.utexas.edu/
Also worth checking out is the oil spill research from UT's Marine Sciences Institute.
http://web5.cns.utexas.edu/gulfscience/
Here's a recent article about oil seeps in National Geographic with some commentary from Dr. Tad Patzek, the chair of the PGE Dept. at UT.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/07/100722-bp-gulf-oil-spill...
And for the record, yes, I am a UT graduate.
Gee, I wonder who funds the prestigious schools of thought you are referring to...how 'biased' would they be with their 'findings'?
Great article. There are unanswered questions, for sure.
George what have you done? Things were going so well here on your various commentaries on the BP DeepWater Spill. Jim_Rockford was on the run, gasmiinder skipped town and Augustus went AWOL while RichardP attempted to stand in for them, but now it appears you have just built a shrine to Mr. Simmons. I watched the Bloomberg interview, the guy needs help. Do you remember Pierre Salinger and TWA 800?
@ Wang - Please reference the substance that underlies your assertion "Jim_Rockford was on the run" if you have any. Has the GOM been recognized as being 23,000 ft deep in the last 48 hours? Has the BOP been found "blown up" on the sea floor (at 23,000 ft of course) laying next to the well casing that was blown out of the well bore? While you're at it, please reference any of your posts within the last 2 months that have refuted any of my asserted facts, if you have any. You are the worst kind of propagandist with a keen affininity for illogic.
Wang,
Here are some fairy tales you may also believe in:
Santa Clause,
Easter Bunny,
Stocks always go up, over the long run...,
Real Estate Prices always tend up,
Going long is the only way to make money in the market, over the long run....
Did I miss any?
the whole creator of all that is seen and unseen thing..