This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Top Oil Expert: Geology is “Fractured”, Relief Wells May Fail and Oil May Leak for Years … BP is Using a “Cloak of Silence”, and Refusing to Share Even Basic Data with the Government
Few people in the world know more about oil drilling disasters than Dr. Robert Bea.
Bea
teaches engineering at the University of California Berkeley, and has
55 years of experience in engineering and management of design,
construction, maintenance, operation, and decommissioning of engineered
systems including offshore platforms, pipelines and floating facilities.
Bea has worked for many years in governmental and quasi-governmental
roles, and has been a high-level governmental adviser concerning
disasters. He worked for 16 years as a top mechanical engineer and
manager for Shell Oil, and has worked with Bechtel and the Army Corps of
Engineers. One of the world's top experts in offshore drilling problems, Bea is a member of the Deepwater Horizon Study Group, and has been interviewed by news media around the world concerning the BP oil disaster.
Washington's Blog spoke with Dr. Bea yesterday.
WB: Is BP sharing information with the government?
Bea: No. BP is using a "cloak of silence". BP is not voluntarily sharing information or documents with the government.
In
May, for example, Senator Boxer subpoenaed information from BP
regarding footage of the seafloor taken before the blowout by BP's
remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). We still have not received a
response 12 weeks later.
[Bea subsequently clarified that
he's not sure whether BP has failed to release the information, or
Senator Boxer's committee has sat on the information. My bet is on BP.
Indeed, BP has refused to answer some very basic written questions from
Congressman Markey, chair of the Select Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming. See this and this.
Indeed, it is unclear whether BP is sharing vital details even with
Thad Allen, Secretary of energy Chu, or the Unified Command].
WB: Might there be problems with the relief wells? I know that it took a couple of relief wells to finally stop the Ixtoc leak, and it has taken as many as 5 relief wells to stop some blowouts.
Bea: Yes, it could take repeated attempts.
WB:
Are there any conditions at BP's well which might make killing the leak
with relief wells more difficult than with the average deepwater oil
spill?
Bea: That's an interesting question. You have to ask why did this location blow out when nearby wells drilled in even deeper water didn't blow out.
You
have to look at the geology of the Macondo well. It is in a subsalt
location, in a Sigsbee salt formation. [For background, see this and this]
The geology is fractured.
Usually, the deeper you drill, the more pressure it takes to fracture rock. This is called the "fracture gradient".
But when BP was drilling this well, the fracture gradient reversed. Indeed, BP lost all pressure as it drilled into the formation.
WB:
Is it possible that this fractured, subsea salt geology will make it
difficult to permanently kill the oil leak using relief wells?
Bea:
Yes, it could. The Santa Barbara channel seeps are still leaking,
decades after the oil well was supposedly capped. This well could keep
leaking for years.
Scripps mapped out seafloor seeps in the area of the well prior to the blowout. Some of the natural seeps penetrate 10,000 to 15,000 feet beneath the seafloor. The oil will follow lines of weakness in the geology. The leak can travel several horizontal miles from the location of the leak.
[In other words, the geology beneath the seafloor is so fractured, with soft and unstable salt formations, that we may never
be able to fully kill the well even with relief wells. Instead, the
loss of containment of the oil reservoir caused by the drilling accident
could cause oil to leak out through seeps for years to come. See this and this for further background].
WB: I know that you've previously said that you're concerned that there might be damage to the well bore, which could make it more difficult for the relief wells to succeed.
Bea: Yes, that's still a concern.
WB: I have heard that BP is underestimating the size of the oil reservoir (and see this). Is it possible that the reservoir is bigger than BP is estimating, and so - if not completely killed - the leak could therefore go on for longer than most assume?
Bea: That's plausible.
WB: The chief electronics technician on the Deepwater Horizon said that the Macondo well was originally drilled in another location,
but that "going faster caused the bottom of the well to split open,
swallowing tools", and that BP abandoned that well. You've spoken to
that technician and looked into the incident, and concluded that “they
damn near blew up the rig.” [See this and this].
Do you know where that abandoned well location is, and do you know if that well is still leaking?
Bea:
The abandoned well is very close to the current well location. BP had
to file reports showing the location of the abandoned well and the new
well [with the Minerals Management Service], so the location of the
abandoned well is known.
We don't know if the abandoned well is leaking.
WB: Matthew Simmons talked
about a second leaking well. There are rumors on the Internet that the
original well is still leaking. Do you have any information that can
either disprove or confirm that allegation?
Bea: There are two
uncorroborated reports. One is that there is a leak 400 feet West of
the present well's surface location. There is another report that there
is a leak several miles to the West.
[Bea does not know whether
either report is true at this time, because BP is not sharing
information with the government, let alone the public.]
WB: There
are rumors on the Internet of huge pockets of methane gas under the well
which could explode. I've looked into this rumor, and have come to the conclusion
that - while the leak is releasing tremendous amounts of methane -
there are no "pockets" of methane gas which could cause explosions. Do
you have any information on this?
Bea: I have looked into this
and discussed methane with people who know a tremendous amount about it.
There is alot of liquid and solid methane at the Macondo site, but no
pockets of methane gas.
WB: That's good news, indeed.
Bea:
But there was one deepwater leak I worked with where tremendous amounts
of hydrogen sulfite were released. We had to evacuate two towns because
of the risk. [I didn't ask Dr. Bea if there were any dangerous
compounds which could be formed from the interaction of the crude oil
and methane with chemicals in the ocean water or dispersants].
And
with the Bay Charman oil leak, more than 50% of the oil stayed below
the surface of the ocean. [As I've previously pointed out, the US
Minerals Management Service and a consortium of oil companies, including
BP, found that as little as 2%
of the oil which spill from deepwater wells ever makes it to the
surface of the ocean. And the use of dispersant might decrease that
number still further].
WB: I have previously argued that nuking the well would be a bad idea. What do you think?
Bea:
[Bea agreed that nuking the well would be counter-productive. He told
me a story about a leaking deepwater well that he was involved in
killing. A nuclear package was on its way to the well site but -
fortunately - the well stopped by itself before a nuke was deployed. I'm
not sure whether this is classified information, so I won't disclose
the name of the well. Bea also discussed alternatives in the form of
high-pressure, high-temperature conventional explosives, echoing what Bill Clinton said recently].
WB: Thank you for your generous time and for sharing your expertise with us, Dr. Bea.
Bea: You're welcome.
- advertisements -
For those of you who read their application to drill, and recently updated, BP stated originally that their intent was to drill two (2) wells and cap them both, whether they struck anything producible or not. Thus the first well was drilled, apparently to its intended depth, and then capped. It did not blow out then, and like thousands of other oil wells that have been drilled and capped, there is (historically) zero probability of it blowing out on its own after it has been capped and abandoned. If it had leaked then, as some confused sheeple now contend, we would be discussing it, and the second well would never have been spudded.
As to seeps continuing for years, it has already been acknowledged that there are hundreds of known seeps in the GOM, most having continued for years. Seeps do not blow at 10,000 or 100,000 barrels per day; they are a minor contributor to the Gulf ecosystem, and have not destroyed it yet. As for supposedly connected insiders to 'admit' that the well may never be killed, that is complete hooey. If the well can be brought to static contain, meaning the formation pressure can be matched by filling the well bore with the proper weight of mud, then the well can be cemented, and cement is as sufficient a barrier to oil movement as whatever formation the well drilled through.
Since nothing can be done about seeps, if in fact there are some significant new seeps that are flowing significant quantities, then it would be reasonable to drill the formation and produce it so as to lower the formation pressure. This is the only proven way to stop seeps. Producing the Macondo formation would not be a 'gift' to BP, as they drilled there (admittedly with very poor control of the drilling process) in the hope of finding producible oil.
As for BP refusing to come clean with honest information about the situation, that should not be a surprise. In addition to the normal legal advice to refuse to incriminate yourself by just keeping your mouth shut, what you see now is the benefits of a corporate/government cooperative effort to maximize private profit (or in this case minimize private losses due to penalties and lawsuits) and maximize public losses. Do not expect this tendency to change regardless of who is elected next...
The blown out well is the first well that BP drilled in MC252. It is the only well that BP drilled in MC252. They restarted it in February with Transocean DWH after they had to stop the previous November because of damage to Transocean Marianas. There is no one with oilfield experience who believes that there are two wells. There is only one API#. It takes an unjustifiable leap of logic to deduce a second well from coordinates taken from ROV screens. It also requires a huge conspiracy of silence by people from lots of companies, a belief that BP was willing to risk confiscation of a $700M rig when all they had to do was get another API#, and several other equally implausible fantasies to be true.
BP will be lucky to be able to drill anywhere in the GoM for a while, much less drill and produce another deepwater well in MC252.
So if the reservoir is drained of its oil, does that not create a huge sinkhole into which the seabed collapses with all that pressure above it>tsumami from hell?
I see a Irwin Allen film here.
ummm i'm technically illiterate, but seems to me water would fill the space.
better to hope for an asteroid or the giant volcano under yellowstone park.
and that water would be displaced from where?
I think the point he's trying to make with respect to the sharing of information is that, because BP is not forthcoming with it, there is therefore a lot of unknowns, ergo, we shouldn't just buy the company line that everything is fine. Put more simply, if the truth of the matter is unknown, regardless of their right or good strategy in making it unknown, we shouldn't assume we have the truth of the matter then, right? Everybody is so eager to call this thing dead and move on, and particularly given the scope and severity of this, I'm pretty disturbed by this eagerness.
Some observations from the deep end of the option pool. As I've said here before (in other threads), my position is against BP as a company and its mis-management. It most certainly isn't for wagering the GoM becomes a petrochemical soup bowl.
What I've been seeing here is open interest in the Jan 2011 2.5 Puts peaked on July 27th at 8,684 with a small decline to present day at 8,621. Whatever is happening, sure isn't scaring off anybody here in the option hinterlands.
Could be nothing, but I still find it interesting - you'd think way out here the positions would've unwound after the static kill attempt and Hayward's ousting.
Maybe they wanted to save the gas money to go to the casino and put the 2.00 on the red 18.
I saw your note of the oex 505 s the other day ? Monday and looked good to close out at 17.25. How'd that finish? You said you were squeezing more but I thought that looked pretty sweet.
Thanks, I'll be honest - I let the retrace shake me out early - so no cash register cha-ching for me, if I had held on a little longer. Oh well, I'll take a bit of profit versus a market-driven knife in the gut, any day.
Waiting for the next setup.
The BP option position for me is really an outlier. I just had the overwhelming urge to call "Bullshit" on BP in general, so I put my money where my mouth is. Guess we will see in a few months...
i think the possibility of lawsuits from anyone and everyone in the southern usa is reason enough for a lot of people to buy puts or short bp.
way too risky and long term for me..either way.
So BP isn't going out of its way to share info with the Feds, what a shocker! Ask any good lawyer GW, they will tell you it's never a good idea to talk to the cops, even if you're innocent.
A better analogy is talking to the police after you've shot someone to tell them where the victim is, so they can try to save his life...
But according to Pravda no oil in gulf!
Phew, safe for the weekend at least.
Geezuss Christ! Congress is begging, BP is stonewalling, the White House is celebrating, NOAA is changing its tune and Thad Allen is now wearing a suit instead of a uniform (I'm guessing a "private sector" job will be the reward for allowing all those dispersant exceptions.)
Speaking of Thad Allen, is it just me or does it seem that as the barbarians get richer and closer to the homeland our warriors get wimpier (Petraeus, Hayden, Gates--nobody would mistake those guys for Patton)?
It's my understanding that all professional c**ksuckers get paid up front just in case the client has a change of heart with regard to compensation after his.....umm..... well pressure is released.
I wonder what Thad was paid? And I really do hope he invests some of it in a better wardrobe. Start with the dancing shoes Thad. Then knee pads for.....um.....you know.
+1
Hmm.... the story continues - please keep on posting.
thank you for reinforcing my desire for corporate capital punishment....bp should die.
BP deserves killing. But BP won't be allowed to die because it's TBTF. It's as much a financial services company as it is an energy company. Think AIG.
with that philosophy you might enjoy living in iran.
iran is beautiful http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TI-QLPoNnU&feature=search
so are you VW :-)
i'm sure iran is spectacular, but anyplace run by a religious fanatic/dictator is not for me.
as for me, 25 years ago i wasn't too bad, but now i scare small children and get cranky when i have a bad day trading : (
Subterranean Oilslick Blues
Total BS. Macondo is not subsalt !!! Macondo is a typical anticline in the area with good seismic quality since there is no salt on top of it. But all this fear-mongering should make BP stock cheap again, so keep your power dry.
Edit: Forgot to add, one can actually see nice seismic amplitude on top of Macondo, this is as good as it gets in terms of being able to see the trapping structure and have oil indicators for it.
That's the question I asked snakehead. If it's not salt trapping the oil here, what is the trapping structure? What kind of rock? Where is this information available? I am trying to understand the well structure here, not picking a fight. There has to be some sort of capping formation and I am just curious as to what it is.
All indications are that it's rock. Beyond it being non-permeable, I don't know what kind of rock it is but I'd guess it's a sedimentary formation.
cone of silence
> [See this and this]
Williams doesn't say that two wells were drilled. Neither link supports the statement. The "other well" contention is bs. And Simmons never claimed that BP drilled two wells. Simmons claimed that through a miracle of non-physics, the BOP was launched through a mile of seawater and then 7+ miles sub-orbital further, puncturing the sea floor.
Macondo isn't in a salt dome. It's a couple thousand feet above a sub-salt layer. It blew out due to shoddy practices and bad decision-making. The need to come up with spooky explanations is partially driven by the "mushroom" approach being practiced by the USG and BP and is being fed by "journalists" who can't get a grip on the science and know how to use chum.
Go back and read CD's post. If you look closely, you'll find your name in there.
Yeah, well, that's proof, isn't it?
"Macondo isn't in a salt dome. It's a couple thousand feet above a sub-salt layer. It blew out due to shoddy practices and bad decision-making."
Your links prove nothing. Oh right, you don't have ANY links or supporting information to substantiate your claims. BP, and only BP, knows what lies beneath; and they ain't saying.
Case dismissed; go sell your oysters and shrimp somewhere else.
Here's some facts: http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/backyard/sections/southcentral/southcentral2.html
It doesn't necessarily mean that macondo is on a salt dome, but it doesn't rule it out yet either. We simply don't have sufficient specific geologic information yet on the nature of the Macondo occurance. I don't yet know where the prospect falls with respect to the salt belt or vertically within the stratigraphic column. You need more commentary from GoM experienced geoscientists. Perhaps there are a few lurking around out there in ZH cyberspace?
"Miocene deep water sands were the target for the Macondo well in Mississippi Canyon Block 252, and it is probably from one of these sands that the blowout originates... A distinctive sea-floor signature of bathymetric highs has resulted (see bathymetric map), corresponding to individual shallow salt bodies that have not coalesced to form large salt sheets or canopies as has occurred farther to the west."
http://www.geoexpro.com/hot_spot/blowout/
Sands do not contain oil long term unless they are capped by some kind of non-permeable or nearly non-permeable cap rock. The fact that the producing reservoir is in Miocene sands has zilch to do with whether it is salt domed capped or some other kind of cap. Otherwise the oil flows out millions of years ago. So if it's not salt dome capped, what was capping Macondo and holding the oil in place? There HAS to be a cap of some sort. What was it? That's basic geology. What is the non-permeable layer above it that is holding the oil in place? Otherwise we get the La Brea tar pits and other such natural seeps. And the bulk of the oil escapes over a a few hundred thousand to a few million years.
You (and others) keep saying it is not salt domed. Thus, I am curious - what is the cap rock? Has BP told anyone? And if not, how can you, or anyone else make the claim that the cap is not salt? Especially when the link you provide talks about the extensive salt formations in that very area?
I'm trying to understand what you are saying here but there's something you're not making clear and I am trying to understand that. And from reading your prior posts I don't believe that you are deliberately trying to be obtuse, so give me a hand and tell me how Macondo oils remained in place until we drilled it, especially at the pressures that were found.
I haven't read anything (except the salt dome contention and the crazy asphalt volcano stuff) that's said that it's not rock. The RWs are/were being drilled through rock. I assume the original bore was through rock. Nevertheless, even if it were salt that's not a sufficient condition for a blowout since lots of GoM wells have been drilled through salt and haven't blown out.
Right. But I am more curious about the type of cap rock since different rocks will fracture more or less readily. So we should be able to make educated guesses about the claims about fractures that could seep for years based purely on the type of cap rock, right? Now that doesn't rule anything out short of actual seismic data, but on probability a cap rock less susceptible to fracture makes the allegation less likely, correct? (And vice-versa.)
Since we don't have the seismic data, I was thinking at least knowing the type of cap rock might shed some insights into the likelihood of such long term seeps.
As far as I know it's sedimentary, but that doesn't really say anything about its exact density or other relevant characteristics right in that particular area. As far as major seeps lasting for decades like in the Santa Barbara Channel, I'm no tea leaf reader. I don't see why that would be an expectation, however. The Gulf seeps but I'm not aware of anything comparable to the Santa Barbara seep in the GoM. I guess we'll find out over time.
Thanks! I was mainly interested in seeing what we actually know versus the speculation.
We'll know a lot more after that they get the final bullet in its head. There'll be continuous slicks in the area or not. Meanwhile, from a poster at TOD:
"Once again, the Macondo prospect is NOT sub-salt, but it is near a couple of sub-salt fields (Mica and Pompano). Some of these sub-salt fields have been producing through the salt for years. Mica was discovered back in '91 if I remember correctly, and it's probably been producing for over 10 years. I guess industry has probably drilled well over a hundred sub-salt wells in the GOM since the mid-90's.
Yeah, in many places salt is moving pretty fast on the geologic time-scale, but slowly enough for production casing to last for years. Also, in many ways, drilling impermeable salt is much less difficult than drilling overpressured sands and shales. The difficulty with sub-salt wells is typically at the boundaries, particularly wildcats where the sub-salt fluid pressures are not well known in advance. It IS possible BTW to fracture salt - take a hammer and whack a hunk of rock salt or take a big sub-salt kick with the last casing shoe up in salt - you'll frac it. Or collect a column of oil or gas in a trap at the base of salt, if the fluid pressure reaches the overburden pressure, it'll frac the salt and leak.
The other challenge with the sub-salt is the lower overburden pressure resulting from the lower density of deeply-buried salt relative to sediments leading to narrower drilling margins (everything else being equal).
Bea's interesting comment about why this well would blow vs. other deeper nearby wells is actually somewhat true, but misleading. He seems to be talking about the pressure regression found in the main reservoir which was actually at a lower fluid pressure than overlying shales and thin sands. This situation is uncommon, but certainly not unique. it does cause difficulty drilling, generally requiring multiple casing strings seal off the high pressures from the "under-pressured" sands. This is hard enough to manage when you know the pressures in advance, but is a big problem in a wildcat situation. OTOH, it's been done safely many many times and is not the "cause" of the blowout - only a contributing factor to the difficulties encountered and the increased risk of a well control situation.
As for the "abandoned borehole," Bea is again being a bit unclear, but I think he is referring to the original hole that was bypassed from the same top hole - only one surface location.
If the area was greatly "fractured" as opposed to faulted (not generally a problem) we'd be seeing flow from the seabed around the well head - we're not."
nice.
Good stuff! Thanks, Snake.
Right, post links but then they'll be bullshit for some reason or other. Facts are facts, but they're lies from a shill when they don't fit your religion.
If the geology is fractured and if there is a risk that oil will seep out for years to come, then would not the most logical approach be to drill a number of production wells and drain this reservoir as rapidly as possible until the pressure levels abate?
Politically incorrect perhaps, but it would seem to be the most appropriate solution.
Hi ima,
The GoM has lots of natural seeps and has been leaking for millions of years. If wells are drilled into the reservoirs, the hydrocarbons can be produced for beneficial use. If done in a scientifically sound fashion it should not pollute the environment. The GoM contains many wells are currently producing in just that way. Geology is frequently naturally fractured (faulted?) and it is normal oilfield practice to artificially fracture (frac and prop w/ sand) strata that are not sufficiently permeable to produce most efficiently. B3eleive it or not, it is not best to produce it "as fast as possible" because you dissipate the reservoir pressure that could enable the well to flow on its own (a thing to be desired from a conservation and economics standpoint) rather than having to pump the oil out (expensive).
The resource is there. BP merely variously bungled the job. If there are multiple wells clouding the works then the feds should know where they are and what their status is. If they don't then that constitutes a major failure in their regulatory role. We already suspect that they have dropped the ball on some things and this whole mess has apparently taken on a life of its own from a political standpoint. If the bureaucrate/administration and/or BP are stiffing the public proper information then that constitutes an order of magnitude worse evil then simply screwing up, and may need to be addressed politically. I'm generally pretty wary of many in the environmental community because they have already demonstrated a proclivity to bend the truth for a command and control agenda, but if they can keep the feds' and BP's feet to the fire to get a realistic appraisal of the damages (including longitudinally) then they may provide a useful service here. These parties need to be held responsible for what they have done and no back room deals should be cut (Good luck?). In a way, they have to decide what they are all about. Are they really about protecting the environment when it hurts their political coalition or are they more about maintaining political power (Rahm's Never Wasted Crisis?).
I think you're missing the point of the poster. The poster was saying that if the well leak can't be stopped (the poster is speculating here) then the reservoir that is feeding the well should be produced as fast as possible in order to draw down the pressure as fast as possible, even if that does damage the reservoir.
Under the posters idea, the only reason for additional wells would be to reduce as quickly as possible the pressure that was/is causing the Macondo leak, not to maintain the natural pressure as long as possible to extend out the life of the field as long as possible.
Thanks for the re-focusing CD! I can understand how the poster might come to that as a solution to the problem but from a technical standpoint it seems inefficient immediately. The relief wells should be able to kill the leaking well if everything works out mechanically. We don't yet know the extent of the productive area or the geometry of the producing feature. Presumably, the leaking well is already under control to some extent since some feds/BPers are signalling "All clear" for the Gulf area (???). I don't think we know how good the current plug is since it apparently didn't involve the relief wells in the kill. The operator could proceed with field development by drilling additional wells for production if the feds/admin will permit them. They could place a drilled pattern around the (former?) leaker and and pull down its pressure. Field development could proceed from there as information about the reservoir is generated.
Yep. Put 2 or 3 platforms on that sucker and pump it dry.
Thus perhaps creating a politically viable excuse to "produce" the Macondo deposit. So the well that would be a slam dunk 99% probability of being "killed" using the relief wells (remember the stories about the person in charge of the relief wells is 40 for 40 in killing wells) suddenly has complications and problems and uncertainties, all completely documented and completely understandable and thus justified.
Interesting, very interesting.
And remember that the "full speed ahead with the relief wells" all changed after BP pulled a rabbit out of it's hat and came up with the tight fitting top cap, followed by static kill, then top kill with cement, all presented as high probability events.
Now we have problems that just might make the well leak for years BUT could be mitigated with lots and lots of production wells pumping like crazy to lower the reservoir pressure. I need to find that quote by the new BP CEO where he claims (honest to God and hope to die) that BP will not produce the field, but will only cap and abandon. While the public stance of BP hasn't changed......yet, I'm willing to put real money on the idea that within a few months the "we have no choice but to produce the Macondo lease to save the GOM" will be floated.
will be floated...?
It's already floated, just below the surface.