Top Expert: There Were No Natural Seeps Within 3 Kilometers of Blown Out Well

→ Washington’s
Blog

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.

Comments

[gasmiinder]

No one forced you to answer the questions

No one did Cog, however, someone asked;

Now would you like to answer the 6 questions I ask above? I'm not challenging you to do so. It's a general request.

And the usual response when someone troubles to fulfill your requests is "why thanks, I appreciate your time and effort".  Or perhaps you could point out which question didn't get answered?

One addition - on the "select information" concern.  I believe it was you who posted some very cogent points re: game theory and what might be going on here in a much earlier thread.  I'd encourage you to game the situation with BP, AA & the WH.  Which of them has ANY advantage to be derived from providing you with clear, correct information on what MIGHT happen going forward.  Look around this forum.  No matter what - any time anything happens that is not precisely what someone interpreted to be the meaning of a statement SOMEONE on some side is screaming "liars, bastards, obfuscators!!"

Why would you EXPECT to be "fed" an accurate assessment of a very uncertain situation?  Who of those three is in a better position for having done that in this situation?  Aren't all three better off if they hold all data tight so they can spin it as things develop - and retain flexibility in their position as things develop going forward?

Oh - and PLEASE accept my apologies for asking you to think.  It's clearly quite painful and I should not have brought it up.

[RichardP]

I am disappointed that Cognitive Dissonance has not once addressed any of the science that has been presented cogently in a number of the posts here.  C.D., you have been given the proper answers to your questions, whether you recognize that or not.  With perhaps the exception of question #1, which was not answered specifically.  But I'm guessing that is because you could answer that question yourself.

It is conventional wisdom that the gulf leaks several million gallons (barrels?) of oil per year all by itself.  Do people know this because they have had rovers for decades looking for holes in the floor of the gulf?  No.  The seeps are made visible by the oil on the surface of the water.  There is a NASA space photo that shows some of these seeps in the gulf by showing the oil on the surface of the gulf.  There are pictures taken by research vessels that show some of these seeps by showing the oil on the surface of the gulf.  Links to these pictures are at least numerous enough for me to have run across them in my readings.  It is possible that one of the rover ships set a rover down two miles away and it roamed around and discovered the seep.  But it is more likely that the presence of the seep was made known by the oil on the surface.

[Cognitive Dissonance]

You weren't asking me or anyone else to think. You were very specific with your words, as you always are. You said you were trying the make people think.

Alas gasmiinder, you can't make anyone do anything, particularly on an anonymous blog, and it speaks volumes about you and your control issues that you even think you can, that it's your responsibility to do so or that you would even try to make people think.

But I appreciate your efforts.

[gasmiinder]

You are absolutely correct, I cannot make people think.  And had I doubted it, ZH would have long ago disabused me of the notion.  Yet, while it may be a fools errand, I persist. Because I believe it might lead to a better understanding of oh so many things.  It is quite clear that MANY posters on ZH disagree vehemently.

Actually though - I don't think you're one of them (that of course is only my opinion and effects you in no way whatsoever).  I also think your questions were answered.  Repeatedly. 

[Jim_Rockford]

That is a really low class reply ... and yes, I should know.  How do you know about his personal control issues?  Of that's right, you are being subjective and hypothetical.

[Jim_Rockford]

Please observe and note my earnest attempts at snarkiness as I am told such attitudes are the mark of a "bona fide" ZH commentor.

At first I was offended by that, and then I thought, "no, a real shill would be offended.", so as a result ... I'm not offended... unless that's what Wang anticipated I was going to say, and in that case I am really pissed off.

And to think, just yesterday I was taking notes from you!

[gasmiinder]

Ah but Jim, didn't you think the Matt Simmons aside was particularly stylish?

[Jim_Rockford]

Yes and I really did laugh out loud when I read it.  You have a lot more patiece than I do my friend (or perhaps BP is paying you more than they pay me).  (I can say that because I am abrasive and irreverent)  At the end of the day though I am afraid it is pearls before swine.

[gasmiinder]

Uhmmm there you go with the "patience" compliment immediately AFTER I post the reply to Cog below.

[Jim_Rockford]

I hope you have enough breath left to air out some fat tires.  Drink one for me!  Actually I just realized what a nice night it is for boilermakers.  Non Bastardi Carborundum! (or something like that)

[Augustus]

Pretty silly post.  Bob Bea is now an expert on Seeps?  The guy is best known for giving interviews.

So, lets see.  BP conducted a survey before drilling and did not find the seeps.  I believe they are only required to "survey" about 1500 ft around the well.  But, in any case, the claim rests upon the assumption that when BP ran that survey at 5,000 ft subsurface and several years ago, they were entirely accurate and could not have missed or did not encountered a small seep within an area at least 12 sq miles of surface area.  However, since they have located a small seep now, it is absolute evidence of well leaking below the mud line?   But, when the gas samples from these bubbles are examined they do not have the signature of the Macondo gas.  It must have been the Monster from the Deep trying to excite Geo Wash again.  Entirely as predicted weeks ago concerning this Richard C. Hoagland understudy.

[bingaling]

I haven't seen anything about gas samples not matching the macondo well in anything I have read . Could you provide a link to source that or are you making this up as you go along . Also if you are looking for work I hear BP is paying scientist hush money to keep their mouths shut .

[M4570D0N]

probably referencing the technical update from yesterday:

In terms of where we have seen some gas bubbles, you heard me talk before off the 36 inch casing, which is the biggest piece of casing on the cement return line, we continue to have bubbles coming from that, but we’re expected that’s to be with nitrogen associated with the cement.

There – we did see some bubbles not too far from the well head. They were very low rate. We did capture them in a sample and we’re looking to get some good lab analysis done on that. We did a really rough check on it, it was only I think around 15 percent methane which could be biogen. So we need to do the detailed analysis but we weren’t concerned about that.

 Kent Wells Technical Briefing (transcript) - 19 July, 0530 PM CDT (pdf, 33KB)

[CD]

Augustus, the online mineral exploration, production, engineering, drilling, oil-spill response expert -- best (and come to think of it, of late exclusively) known for jumping on any ZH post containing any of the words BP, oil or Gulf -- has just proclaimed that all is well, there is ABSOLUTELY no indication of anything wrong with anything regarding the Macondo well, its surroundings, the manner in which it was drilled or anything that has happened during and subsequent to the initial loss of control. Augustus does not need to have documented 30-odd years of undersea oil engineering experience, he sees right through these petty, unfounded, libelous attempts at besmirching the lily-white reputation of the parties (but mainly BP) involved with the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf. Upon further reflection and research, we expect Augustus to soon unearth evidence that in fact BP is merely a scapegoat and victim of insidious, unscrupulous bloggers and readers.

There is, in fact, no documented evidence that there was ANYWHERE close to tens of thousands of barrels of oil spilling into the Gulf daily - the current best guess estimate was based on visual observation of the flow through HD camera images, but the frame rate could very well have been malfunctioning on the recording device. Where's the proof, so-called Well Flow Rate Group? Unless a physical copy of the DVD signed in blood by the ROV operating ship's captain certifying accuracy, origin and data integrity is sent to each and every American citizen,there is no way any rational person should trust the suppositions and whimsical airs of the FRG.

What's that you say? Why should we trust the average citizen's flow estimate - which they make by watching the video of an undersea spill? Why that would be preposterous! Indeed, the very supposition that there was, in fact, any oil leaking from any property or equipment owned, leased, rented or otherwise contractually tied to BP is -- mere hearsay. Have you been out there? Did you have an Augustus-certifed GPS tracker with you to ascertain exact location? Did you dive to the ocean floor in person to film the event? Then every single report, account, analysis, testimony regarding ANY of this is just that -- HEARSAY.

[CD]

On a more logical note:

But, in any case, the claim rests upon the assumption that when BP ran that survey at 5,000 ft subsurface and several years ago, they were entirely accurate and could not have missed or did not encountered a small seep within an area at least 12 sq miles of surface area. 

Since there have been at least one, often 2 or more ROVs around the clock conducting surveillance in 'Subsea Canyon Survey' or 'Canyon Offshore Survey' mode for the last several weeks, it seems odd to claim that BP does not have recent info re: condition of surrounding surface. Not to mention the ongoing acoustic and seismic measurements being conducted.

However, since they have located a small seep now, it is absolute evidence of well leaking below the mud line? 

No, it is not absolute evidence. But that raises additional questions -- why was the surrounding seabed being monitored/surveyed in the first place by ROVs? Also, assuming that the seeps are entirely natural and had been there years and years before BP even knew there might be oil there -- where is that oil coming from?  Wherever it's coming from, is there a chance that prolonged periods of the pressure being greatly increased on the source would increase the number/seep-rate of said seeps, and potentially enlarge their avenues of seepage from this source? 

[Panafrican Funk...]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38327850

Dude, even CNBC is starting to question this shit.  Pull your head out of your ass.

[Papasmurf]

The signature of that gas is methane...

[wang]

Today's Admiral Allen briefing 3:15 pm EDT (postponed from 11:30 am)

The call-in number for press unable to attend is [phone] for domestic callers, and [phone] for international callers. Conference ID# 89390890.

______________________

Today's BP meeting 3.00pm CDT

US/Canada Dial-in Number: [phone]
International/Local Dial-in Number: [phone]

Password for briefing: PM Technical Briefing

[CD]

I would urge you to check out the pg 16 map of the 'Initial Exploration Plan' from BP. Note the locations and distance of the two proposed wells.

Also note the interview from 60 Minutes referenced above.

Is there any available documentation on HOW DEEP the first drill attempt went?

""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. "

Then take a look at pages 24 & 25 of the mission report from the NOAA vessel Thomas Jefferson, which went to see if it could measure the quantity of oil underwater.

I am curious as to whether anyone thinks there may be a common thread here...