This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Top Expert: There Were No Natural Seeps Within 3 Kilometers of Blown Out Well
University of California Berkeley engineering professor Robert Bea is
one of the world's top experts on oil drilling disasters. Bea is an expert in offshore
drilling and a high-level governmental
adviser concerning disasters. He is also a member
of the Deepwater Horizon Study Group.
As the Times-Picayune reported
yesterday:
Scientists have discovered four gas
"seeps" at or near BP's blown-out Macondo well since Saturday ...
***
Berkeley
engineering professor Bob Bea has very little confidence in what’s
been said publicly about the seeps.
He’s troubled that we’re just
now hearing about seeps three kilometers away, because a survey of
the seabed conducted before BP drilled its well didn’t indicate
anything like that.
“There was nothing that indicated the
presence of such a seep,” Bea said. “I wonder why we’re just now
finding that out?”
BP has yet to release other ROV video that Bea’s
study group requested more than a month ago about what may have been
shots.
3 kilometers equals 1.9
miles, less than the 2 mile distance for the furthest seep
discussed by the government to date.
I told
you that the "natural seep" argument was a red herring.
Update: The government is now claiming that the seep 2 miles
from the blowout is from another offshore oil facility.
Specifically, Thad Allen made that claim today.
As AP writes:
The federal government's oil spill chief says seepage detected two
miles from BP's oil cap is coming from another well.There are two
wells within two miles of BP's blowout, one that has been abandoned and
another that is not in production.
I have no idea whether or not this is true. If true, I do not
yet know whether the other offshore oil facility is part of the
Mississippi Canyon 252 (MC252) prospect or a neighboring prospect.
If part of MC 252, it could well have been a well which BP previously
abandoned. Specifically, 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] said they were told it
would take 21 days; according to him, it actually took six weeks.With the schedule slipping, Williams says a BP manager ordered a
faster pace."And he requested to the driller, 'Hey, let's
bump it up. Let's bump it up.' And what he was talking about there is
he's bumping up the rate of penetration. How fast the drill bit is
going down," Williams said.Williams 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.
Here
is MC252 (where the blown out well is located) shown in comparison
with nearby sites:
And this is the definitive high-resolution
map showing block 252 in comparison with other prospects in the
Mississippi Canyon area and surrounding areas.
BP and the government must immediately specify whether the seep is
part of the abandoned BP well or another facility.
Remember that there are numerous
other seeps closer to the blown out well.
- advertisements -
so, why all these recent reported seismic runs? what are they looking for?
note: we are not being told, have not seen one posted by anyone. we would
not be able to interpret? but... some experienced people can.
so, what are they mapping with the new runs? keyword, baseline.
not baseline after the wreck of the 20th, the prior base line. this will be
important when someone or "everyone" agrees the day after the 20th
is the baseline. this is bullshit. anyway.....
i can only guess but i do and i guess that "they", and you know who they are,
are looking for changes in amplitude of reflected signals from layers of
previously mapped subsurface reflectors. ok? a guess.
looking for migration of oil and gas away from the well structure. has it migrated
away and is it being detected in the subsurface imagery> if so, where? then,
how much?
ps. we will see none of this and learn none of this as it is "proprietary" children.
just like what the fed does. get it? all we get is tits and ass stories from prison,
and light shows. so it was in the year 2010, july and hot as hell. oh lordy.
insert music of choice here. self medicate when/if/where appropriate.
the infighting is just stupid. insults are like open sores of the mind. imo.............
which reminds me of some other stuff concerning our hired and "elected" (help)
government but ... for another post.
Earlier today I came to the conclusion that gasmiinder is affiliated with BP either directly or indirectly. The following is my original post followed by a series of responses. I am re-posting here in the event that some did not see it and also in relation to some of the above comments by gasmiinder, which in my view are consistent with my conclusion.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/bp-moves-goalpost-oil-well-integrity-te...
Wang - that is one of the most fucked up threads I have read. The fact that you know "what a shill would do" makes you Wang, a shill. Also I love how ou post dates/times/phone numbers/topics/and transcripts every day on this blog for the Kent Wells Technical briefings. This too, convinces me that you Wang are a shill. How much is BP paying you Wang?
I have not undertaken (nor will I) a full analysis of your responses ... (said by wang about gasmiinder in linked post)
I am astonished at the attitude of so many on this blog - represented by that quote from wang and the post by tahoebumsmith farther back in this thread. I am astonished that so many folks think anybody cares what they have to say about the gulf blowout when they refuse to address the math and science involved. So I am reposting below part of what I posted at the end of the link that wang provided.
-----
These folks are being called shills for BP by folks who have not addressed the fundamental math and science claims being contested. I have yet to see any of these folks be called shills for the oil industry. But that is what they truely are. They are presenting the math and science required for any driller to be successful - not just BP. And if presenting the math and science facts makes them shills for the oil industry, that is a good thing, not a bad thing.
The math and science facts would not change if it was some other company that had screwed up instead of BP. So - defending the math and science cannot logically be equated with defending BP. Unfortunately, those who really don't know the math and science of the oil field have no way of coming to that conclusion on their own.
Which leads to the ages-old dilemma of the human condition: how do you convince those who don't know that they don't know?
-----
Only You Know and I Know (almost as good as the Kinks)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9CdVeKr5bk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir2eAEhtXvE&feature=related
RoboTrader moment. Nevermind the song. Just watch the blonde.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klbW-cSZ5Ac&feature=related
RichardP - you're looking past their real point. Wang and at least two others have made exactly the same logical argument; not that the science and mathematics presented was wrong - Wang even admits that no "defence" of BP has occurred. His claim is that ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE FROM SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS is EVIDENCE of bad faith. He wraps up the loop with the assertion that CRITICIZING BP constitutes evidence that BP is PAYING YOU. By that measure of course it is clear that George Washington has a lifetime annuity from BP.
The circularity of the logic is stunning - but what stuns me even more is that he thinks so highly of his argument he wanted everyone over here to see it also, he clearly really thinks it's a reasonable argument to make (oops - wait - that would make him a shill wouldn't it - the circle is making me dizzy).
... ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE FROM SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS is EVIDENCE of bad faith.
I understand you are speaking tongue-in-cheek. But I find it impossible to get my head around the idea contained in your statement I quoted above. The conversation here and elsewhere about what is happening in the gulf is not an argument. It is a conversation about why certain things cannot happen, based on the math and science. If the discussion is perceived by some as an actual argument, is the argument about whether you're for the man or against the man maybe? Rhetorical question. No need to respond.
For help with the dizzies, click on the third link I provide several posts above here and just watch the girl dance around. That should help out. I've watched her enough for tonight. I'm off to bed.
I was using "argue" in the sense of "logical argument" - a premise & conclusion. So I wasn't speaking tongue-in-cheek. I'm saying that is exactly what he has presented - IF you are clear, precise & rational in your posts THEN you must be paid by BP.
Good point though regarding interpreting it as "argument" in terms of an angry exchange. Maybe that's what I'm not 'getting' that would help me be a more "valid" ZH commentator.
I could have phrased myself better. I meant your entire post was tongue-in-cheek. And I know that you were using "argue" in the sense of "logical argument" - a premise & conclusion. I just have trouble accepting that others are using argue in that sense, since your definition has the word logic in it. I'm distressed that I'm getting close to being snarky in my comments - but I'm starting to understand why the Catholic Church kept the Bible to themselves for so long.
Richard, first of all I appreciate your critisism..but to understand the way this brain thinks, you don't look at the math and science anymore you look at the trail of evidence. Maiden Lane LLC is a limited liability company established by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York following the collapse of Bear Stearns. In Mr. Geithner’s testimony to the House Banking Committee, he claims that the contents and structuring of the portfolio controlled by Maiden Lane LLC are unable to be made public. This is because “public disclosure of individual assets in the collateral pool and of the hedging strategies that are employed to reduce the risk in the portfolio would undermine our ability to best protect the taxpayer against loss on the liquidation of the portfolio.” Following the formation of Maiden Lane LLC, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York chose BlackRock Financial Management, an investment management firm which helped to pioneer the idea of mortgage-backed securities, to manage the firm’s assets.BlackRock was founded as BlackStone Financial Management within the private equity firm Blackstone Group in 1988. Now as I stated before the Corexit chemical being used is produced by Nalco, a company owned by Blackstone. What GW is trying to get across is just the fleck on top of the sand. Now here take the shovel and hit the mother lode.
... you don't look at the math and science anymore you look at the trail of evidence.
This thread, and this conversation, is about the likelihood that the well can be contained without further damage to the gulf. That is all that this thread and conversation is about. Given that, the math and science are the trail of evidence in any attempt to come to conclusions. The math and science are the only trail of evidence. Any comments that are not consistent with the math and science are wrong as soon as they are uttered. And most people discussing this subject, here and elsewhere, do not know the math and science of the oilfield. Did you miss that point in what I said above?
Thanks for the link. I would encourage those who care to read the entire thread.
ya think? He writes the same shit on the oil drum under a different mask
Fraid not - pouring disinfectant into this cesspool takes all my free time.......
And please, you & Wang both feel free to point out ERRORS in factual presentations should you discover them.
More paranoid Junkers??? Sorry, no more dedications.
I must pay royalities when I play the Kinks.
I'm in the camp of thinking it's not likely that the gas seeps are from the well. However, today on Bloomberg they said the well had a lot of lost circulation problems while drilling, and a lot of squeeze cement jobs, so I'm going to hold my opinion. Of course, who knows if Bloomberg knows what they are talking about.
But I'm suprised no one mentioned Santa Barbara. If I correctly remember Preston Moores drilling class in Norman, OK from 1978:
The tool pusher got the flu and had to be flown off the rig. They forgot to put the check valve in the drill pipe. The well blew out through the drill pipe. They dropped the drill pipe in the hole and closed the blind rams. The well pressured up and blew out through a fault that intersected the well and the oil blew out through the sea floor 800 feet from the rig.
Of course, the well was only about 5000 ft deep and active faults are not as numerous in the Gulf. But I thought I'd mention it since this argument seems to be losing momentum.
They most certainly did have a lot of lost circulation problems - both above the last shoe and in the reservoir interval. That is why I keep mentioning a concern re: if the bottom shoe is no longer holding.
Your points about SB are very good, but the biggest difference with the faults is that in SB you're dealing with a lot of high angle reverse faults in VERY hard rock. GOM faults are essentially goop zones. Even so 800 ft is not "miles". I would say the configuration of the salt pillow that some have said overly the reservoir COULD lead to diversion of leaks away from the rig.
"Why are most journalists so fucking bad at their job?"
Because after the old hard right wing saw Nixon thrown out, their response was to buy the media. Anybody who doesn't understand this hasn't studied the history of media deregulation/concentration since 1980; it's even worse than what happened to financial regulation. Look beyond the acquisitions to who endowed journalism departments in the major universities. A culture of fealty to establishment power now permeates the profession at all levels. No need for police state censorship most of the time; journalism censors itself through a combination of boot licking and incompetence. Krugman actually put it best a few years ago: if the president were to go on TV and say that the world is flat, media reports wouldn't say "President Exhibits Delusional Behavior!". No, the reports would say "Shape of the Planet: Differing Views". Mission accomplished: everything is an opinion and Reagan was right: "Facts are stupid things."
"Facts are stupid things."
Except for when you are trying to dig an oil well, or put a man on the moon, or build an internal-combustion engine, or do open-heart surgery, or do in-vitro fertilization, or increase crop yields, or bring water to the desert through osmosis, or ... Well, you get the drift.
If we can't get out of this mode, we're doomed. And I don't think we can.
I'm not certain what your comment meant. Facts are absolutely essential for anyone who is trying to successfully do something. Unfortunately, journalism too often considers facts an unnecessary inconvienence when they want to write about what's been done or what is being considered.
I wasn't arguing against your point. I was supporting it.
But if you are saying facts are stupid in the same way that computers are stupid (it's the user that gives meaning to the computer ... and the facts??), then I did miss your point and my comment was off-base.
Less than 15 min to get junked... someone has some pretty thin skin...and I don't think it is the cockroach in the White House. Take your meds and get some rest.
Some have asked about existing oil seeps in the GoM. this link is for a NASA satellite photo from 2006 showing the GoM in the right sunlight to show the oil slicks on that day. They appear pretty extensive and it is s neat photo anyway,
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36873
You know, all I can say is, THIS one is really NOT a neat photo. Love the explanatory caption of 'muddy water', though.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=44459
Click to enlarge, it's worth a closer look.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=44589
You know, I have little reason to doubt your level of knowledge about oil in general and perhaps even 'this' oil in particular. Doesn't stop you from sometimes (often) coming off as one sick SOB, though.
You may hve missed the date of the picture I linked to. It was from 2006, quite a bit before any blow out. What is pretty neat about it is how they were able to get the shot in exactly the right sunlight reflection to show the surface oil from the leaks. Of course, the area in the picture is generally west of the Macondo well, but does give some indication of extent pre-existing leaks.
As to someone being sick, just go over the whacky posts you've made defending Matt Simmons. You should check with him to see if you can get a two-for-one rate on treatments. Get the boss to help you out.
Tsk tsk tsk. I agree that your photo is a rare, interesting one that had just the right conditions, and I understood it being from 2006. I maintain that in the current context calling it 'neat' is off-color, as one way to read it is as a joking reference to the fact that the Gulf produces lots of natural seeps anyway, that's the big fucking deal about this one.
I never called you sick, only ventured that you often engage in tasteless, degrading, condescending banter that aims merely to ridicule rather than refute, and makes you appear to be a sick/twisted/evil SOB. These stack up against the instances where you contribute, which I recognize and welcome.
Please try to find an instance where I defended MS. I have repeatedly stated that I do not understand his current behavior/statements, and found suggested explanations (with the possible exception of dementia) to be insufficient. Perhaps, as I said, he figures any time in the limelight is good for his purported IPO later this year. Speaking of bosses, how is yours doing?
The well is capped, but they have now come up with "static kill". WTF happened to the "gold standard" relief wells. Something doesn't compute. Can someone please give a layman's guess as to what is going on without giving a dissertation?
layman's guess, they don't want to blow up another platform
if they don't have to. why risk intersecting the pressure if
it can be closed from the top? but what about all that oil?
Well will be killed with this static kill method (it is safer to kill it), but plugged by the relief well which is intersecting right above the formation. They will want to plug this at the deepest point. Relief wells do the plugging, nothing will be done through the original well other than filling the well column throuh the choke and kill lines directly under the partially closed BOP. Because it is basically displacement (different density fluids), there is no shock (like on a topkill). The density of the mud is enough to kill the well- it will be kept in equillibrium (about 2200 ft by my numbers), then they will pump more mud (and it will go mud heavy) when they decide to intersect with the relief wells (drilled at different heights- the soon to be plug zone between them). Packers will be set , a foam lift will remove the oil /mud, then the cementing will occur between packers. vola' It is all ok now.
Here is oil industry expert Bob Cavner's theory:
BP doesn't want to reopen the cap, because it will incur additional fines under Clean Water Act and additional bad press from flowing oil. MORE IMPORTANTLY (according to Cavner) if BP doesn't reopen cap, then no one can accurately measure rate of oil flow, so BP can argue rate is low.
The petro engies can correct me, but the formula to calculate flow rate has pretty much every variable known EXCEPT pressure. At least I recall reading that over at TOD.
Cooter
Gentlemen BP may well wish to avoid opening the Cap for this reason, I do not think it is obvious by any means that a lower fine will be levied if the rates are measured and the rates will certainly be lower flowing through the cap than they would have been unconstrained. However the static kill attempt, should it work, would mean that the risk of further spillage, whether from a failure at the cap, the 3 days (I still don't understand) to hook up, or the much dreaded "multiple seafloor seeps many miles away" would be ENDED. The relief wells would still be needed to cement and permanently abandon the well BUT the RISK of further damage to the Gulf ecosystem would be ENDED.
Using the very finely cutting Occam's razor - might you at least admit that COULD be a rational explanation of why BP would like to move forward with a static kill now that they have managed to create a situation where it can be successful.
All of the collection fleet is sitting on standby several miles away from the well. I can imagine that moving these rather large vessels around and getting them exactly positioned will take a bit of time. they don't need any sort of accident with ships colliding. I don't know how these thing usually travel but would expect that a whole lot of equipment shown hanging over the side has been dismantled for stowage and will need to be re-set when back on collection duty. then they need to get all of the connections made and tested. Assume that two days would actually be necessary on a best time line, ad 50% for slippage in moving that many ships and it gets to be three days.
Yes - I'm just not sure I understand why the well needs to be open during that time. Another point as well - we are now seeing a tropical depression with high probability of strengthening and a modeled path that takes it directly over the Macondo wellsite. Should this develop, then in the hook up and collect scenario the collection vessels would once again have to be disconnected and the well allowed to flow during the storm.
I've read somewhere that the inital flow of oil when the well is reopened will contain sand and gas that they don't want going up to the ships. Therefore, when first reopened, the oil would need to flow freely for some period of time. Three days has been postulated as the absolute max. The actual free flow period would likely be less than that.
Notice, I disagree but do not junk. Adults talk about things. Others just change argument by decrying a racist or a BP paid troll. ROTF(Naked)LMAO
60% Chance of Tropical Cyclone formation:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
You worked on secret projects with secret names. I read about people like you in the WaPo. YOU are not to be trusted!
I shall call you Project South Amboy.
GW fell asleep, then he woke feelin' kinda' queer
Lola looked at him and said, "ooh you look so weird."
She said, "man, there's really something wrong with you.
One day you're gonna' self-destruct.
You're up, you're down, I can't work you out
You get a good thing goin' then you blow yourself out."
Silly boy ya' self-destroyer. Silly boy ya' self-destroyer
Silly boy you got so much to live for
So much to aim for, so much to try for
You blowing it all with paranoia
You're so insecure you self-destroyer
(And it goes like this, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(Here it goes again)
Paranoia, the destroyer
<<<AND IT ENDS, THATS IT!>>>
Are you sure? I pictured him expiring as he single-handedly tries to move the goalposts ....drawing his last breath as his cheek gently caresses the goal line. (regarding this: #472183 ) he says, "Jimmy I just wanted to move them one more time .... just once more Jimmy ....."
<<<AND IT ENDS, THATS IT!>>>
You are right!, we need to play it one more time!
This dedication goes to GG (known as the Junker):
GG fell asleep, then he woke feelin' kinda' queer
Marla looked at him and said, "ooh you look so weird."
She said, "man, there's really something wrong with you.
One day you're gonna' self-destruct.
You're up, you're down, I can't work you out
You get a good thing goin' then you blow yourself out."
Silly boy ya' self-destroyer. Silly boy ya' self-destroyer
Silly boy you got so much to live for
So much to aim for, so much to try for
You blowing it all with paranoia
You're so insecure you self-destroyer
(And it goes like this, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(Here it goes again)
Paranoia, the destroyer
<<<AND IT ENDS, THATS IT!>>>
one thing.
seismic surveys tell one nothing concerning the sea floor other than
the difference in acoustic properties between the sea water and the mud, sea floor.
this is already known. sound reflects back at acoustic interfaces.
seismic surveys deal with subsurface, below the seafloor, contrasts in terms
of acoustic properties. think layers of stratigraphy or contrasting media,
resolution and information gathered is of this nature
and that is it. a sound is generated, acoustic wave, and the receivers,
(geophones, hydrophones) many, record reflected sound. like a bat or an oil soaked
porpoise, but digital and immune from the toxic effects of corexit.(toxic waste).
a light less picture of the unseen emerges and is interpreted with corresponding
log information. samples observed from drilling.
3 dimensional, yes. they must have this in the can and mapped out already.
surface sonar, i believe, is used to
describe surface, not subsurface, interfaces. give or take a few meters, whatnot.
the seismic deals in tens, hundreds and thousands of meter (to discern subsurface
structure and possibly pore saturation, fluids!) not really meters,
a meter or two.
imo.
Look, lets just stop jerking each other off and admit they have a leak in the well bore. I'm no science rocket, but the evidence that has been presented to me clearly shows the well's integrity is in jeopardy. With that said, what are they hoping for? Maybe the natural mud in the cracks will just seal itself? Or maybe the pressure will trigger an earthquake that will miracoulously seal the well? Now we got a proposal for static kill? That alone put on the table days away from the intersection of the relief wells should tell you there is oil and gas seeping into the strata and finding its way out. This is the biggest cover-up in American history! Forget about Goldman Sachs and QE2 and UE benefits and all the other bull, none of that will matter when these seeps turn into gapping holes. The pressure was much higher then they say and the only reason they could put this temporary cap on was because the seeps were already there and were relieving MOST of the pressure. This is nothing but a ticking time bomb that BP, the Government and the Scientists are tossing back and forth. It kind of reminds me of how they would respond if they found out a meteor was going to collide with earth. They wouldn't just come out and announce it because there would be total chaos. All I can say is they better pony up soon or there will be no time to react. My guess is they are measuring the flow from the cracks and are drawing up a time line. This way they can attempt this static kill and claim the problem is solved. The attention would be diverted to the shoreline clean-up efforts and away from the well, just like every other ponzi scheme they would just be buying time. They would then have to decide at which point to tell the truth that the bore head was compromised and admit this well will eventually collapse in on itself. My only fear is just like every other situation the Government has failed to recognize and solve, IT WILL BE TOO LATE! Nothing but a bunch of CRONY can kickers that can't take a situation by the horns. Someone posted these videos from an rov taken after the cap was put on. What other evidence do you need? And please don't respond with a 10 page essay on how all this is natural fraking of strata bullshit!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/gulfwellstillleaking.php
The path of least resistance for any oil coming out of the well bore is up the side of the well pipe. Therefore, any substantial leak of oil would be currently visible around the well pipe where the water meets the mudline.
If there was a substantial leak, the mud would flow out that leak. So it would be useless for BP to propose a static kill. The fact that they are discussing a static kill suggests that they believe there is no substantial leak.
BP is in business to make money. If they believe the well was leaking underground and was about to fall in on itself because the cap is sealed - they would unseal the cap and harvest the oil and sell it. Why do you think it makes sense to BP to just let the well fall in on itself?
If you are not a science rocket, why do you think you have any ability to correctly interpret the evidence? The only way anyone gets any oil out of the ground is by employing science rockets who do know how to interpret the evidence. Folks who are not science rockets (or rocket scientists) and who do not know how to interpret the evidence are never employed by any oil company in this endeavor. There is a reason why that is so.
Thanks for proving my point! Sorry the State College that I attended didn't have any rocketry classes.
If you had a point other than that both BP and the Feds know the well is on its way to collapse, I missed it. And if I have correctly stated your point here, which it seems I have based on what you wrote, how does what I wrote support that point?
more stuff from the mixed up mix.....
.
I believe the shut-in pressure should be 7,100 psi.
Pressure measurements taken of the BOP and published mid-June show 4,400 psi at the well head and 2,250 psi at the outlet to Top Hat. Given a formation pressure of 11,900 psi, the oil is losing 11,900 - 4,400 = 7,500 psi due to weight of the oil column and head loss due to friction of the flowing oil.
I believe the biggest uncertainty is the specific gravity of the oil/gas fluid, so I attempted to calculate the head loss, which is less sensitive to uncertainties in assumptions.
After hours wresting with Moody Friction Factors and the Darcy-Weisbach formula, I calculate that the loss due to friction if the oil was flowing up the 9 7/8" production tube was 150 psi. Triple that to account for the greater friction if the oil is flowing up the annulus, and you get a head loss due to friction of 450 psi.
Therefore, the head loss due to weight of the column of oil/gas is 7,500 - 450 = 7,050 psi.
So the shut-in pressure becomes 11,900 - 7,050 + 2,250 (sea pressure) = 7,100 psi.
Given that the formation may have lost drive pressure and the uncertainties in the calculations, anything close to 7,000 psi should be considered satisfactory.
DETAILS: I assumed oil flowed at 35,000 bopd. Add in 2200 cu ft gas at 9,300 psi (average pressure in oil column) and flow becomes 60,300 bpd of fluid, i.e. 0.11 m^3/sec. Assume viscosity of 1.0 ctS (it's probably much less) through 3,988 m of 218 mm ID steel pipe gives 407' head loss i.e. 187 psi probably nearer 150 psi given low viscosity.
...
...
TOD readers from BP Houston won't want to click on this, but from another, longer article in today's Observer:
The well is capped. But what else lurks below the surface for BP?
Success in sealing the gulf spill does not mark the end of BP's problems. Even amid the 'cowboy culture' of offshore drilling, its operational record raises concerns, and allegations are flying about its disregard for safety procedures and propensity to pass the buck
... BP is not the only company to benefit from an almost lawless operating environment in the Gulf. But an Observer investigation has uncovered evidence of how BP has benefited from this lack of regulation and failed to use standard procedures in its US operations, particularly offshore.
The company has a reputation with insurers in the gulf for pushing its offshore subcontractors especially hard: according to one well-placed industry source, it was unofficial policy about two years ago for the Houston offices of at least one major insurance company to refuse to process applications for companies working with the oil firm. BP subcontractors seeking well-control insurance, for example, were seen as too high a risk and their applications were not passed on to head office. BP was the only company unofficially blacklisted in this way in the gulf by this insurer, says the source. The evidence given to congressional hearings so far about the events leading up to the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon explosion on 20 April seem to have confirmed the insurers' worst fears. ...
A later passage:
... BP insists that the allegations [about Atlantis' missing documentation] are unsubstantiated, and that it has complied with regulations regarding compiling and retaining as-built documents. A spokeswoman referred to a previous company statement on the issue that says: "The engineering documents for Atlantis have the appropriate approvals and platform personnel have access to the information they need for the safe operation of the facility." Nevertheless, it has emerged that the drawings on the Deepwater Horizon's failed BOP do not appear to be up to date, according to evidence given to Congress.
In the hours after the explosion on the rig, BP officials asked Transocean for drawings of the device. But as the BOP had been modified in China and the drawings Transocean supplied had not been updated, they did not match what was on the sea floor. BP says engineers wasted crucial hours trying to work out how to remotely activate the device, which represented the last chance of shutting down the well. They knew the gushing oil and debris would be shredding the blades of the BOP's blind shear ram, which had to cut through the pipe to close off the well. More than a day after the explosion, they finally tried to reactivate it, but the ram did not budge. ..
...
.
.Bench,
I'm not sure they'll answer all your questions but I found the following two Kent Wells videos helpful.
Relief Well Overview and Ranging Animation
and Relief Wells Operations Overview
and this article on relief wells on John Wright's site - he's the guy calling the shots on DD3.
Relief wells: Advancements in technology and application engineering make the relief well a more practical blowout control option
..
..
by ATG
on Mon, 07/19/2010 - 10:58
#476845
Gotta admire GW's enthusiasm and persistence.
Here's some of the rest of the story:
Global warming methane in the atmosphere tripled in the last 150 years.
Primary sources are landfills, plants, wetlands and ruminants, eg cattle, goats, sheep, giraffes, bison, yaks, water buffalo, deer, camels, alpacas, llamas, wildebeest, antelope, pronghorn, and nilgai.
Methane seeps are increasing offshore in shallower Santa Barbara as well as Siberia.
Worth recalling the methane hydrate at Macondo Canyon freezes in the two degree Celsius water a mile deep.
Locals know there are oil seeps, as in Trinidad and all the oil Saddam Hussein released in the Persian Gulf War.
Not to worry unless the oil is kept dissolved or frozen in deep underwater zombie zones by toxic Apollo BP BRK BX GS XOM Nalco Corexit where microbes are slower to digest it.
The bigger danger still remains toxic Co-rexit liberally applied by Hercules C-130 transports and underwater entering the food chain and rain cycle during hurricane season before it biodegrades.
Fact is, the Corexit MSDS states it was not tested, despite copious NLC PR claims it is safe, while cleanup workers in different locations are hospitalized from red blood cell, kidney and liver compromise described by the Green Gene BP CEO as "food poisoning."
So why were contaminated clothes confiscated by BP if Co-rexit is safe by government test as claimed on the Nalco website?
http://www.physorg.com/news9792.html
http://www.nalco.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit
PS Talking book, currently short NLC from 29 to 12 after Corexit was announced as a miracle around May Day...
http://stockcharts.com/charts/gallery.html?nlc
Macondo...
In the narrative of One Hundred Years of Solitude, the town grows from a tiny settlement with almost no contact with the outside world, to eventually become a large and thriving place, before a banana plantation is set up. The establishment of the banana plantation lead to Macondo's downfall, followed by a gigantic windstorm that wipes it from the map. As the town grows and falls, different generations of the Buendía family play important roles, contributing to its development. The fall of Macondo comes first as a result of a four-year rainfall, which destroyed most of the town's supplies and image...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macondo_Prospect
And BP named this particular well Macondo Prospect because?
I've worked on projects with secret names before. You'd never pick the name of a cursed town.
Strange.
off topic
video of laser shooting down drones off Calif coast
via CBS news
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20011041-501465.html
BP started to cap the well., and same day we heard there is an earthquake at the washington DC.
can it be a nuke used and we dont know about it ?
Anybody living close to the oil spill area heard any ground vibration ?
Just curious ...