This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -
No pun intended but it's much appreciated that you pointed that one out. :>)
Everytime I look up.. there you are CD.. being bad for business... ;)
I'm a very prolific one man GDP wrecking crew.
As I said earlier this week, by nature I'm contrary. I was born a breach baby and it's been down hill ever since. :>)
Have a good weekend.
Bea teaches engineering at the University of California Berkeley.
I stopped reading at Berkeley.
so the rumors were false, you can read
and unlike you, he can actually process what he reads in a rational manner
I stopped reading at "University"
morans.
Berkeley?? the same university as esteemed former host of Romper Room , Christina Romer?? Ok, I'm a believer.
If you can't do it teach it.- You just might end up on a Blue Ribbon Panel with Nobel Prize Winners apointed by Barry.
Meet the magnificent seven: Frances Beinecke, Donald Boesch, Terry Garcia, Cherry Murray, Frances Ulmer, former EPA Administrator William Reilly and former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.). The team will be led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
Graham and Reilly are D.C. bureaucrats. Garcia and Ulmer are lawyers. Chu, who had to be told how BP's funnel worked, is a Nobel Prize winner (just like the President). Feel better?
Bizarrely, not one member of the commission has actual experience in the oil industry, which begs the question: Could any of these people actually drill a well?
If this panel is to determine what went wrong and the implications for energy production in the Gulf of Mexico, balancing risk and production under more stringent regulations, it would be difficult to present that case on anything like an express timetable. It would take at least that much time for them to get remedial education on the industry's technologies and best practices.
Relevant experience aside, how can we expect a fair reading of the facts when the seven wiseheads have a predetermined negative opinion on big oil - and will likely try to assign blanket wrong across the industry for the actions of one bad actor, BP?
GW... please tell old Bob Bea to hold off skinny dipping in the swimming pool or he might just have a heart attack... just sayin.
Yin-Yang
A tale of two wells; They are 314 feet apart, and when they "capped the well" (well B), the ROV showed us the first one, well A, which had been capped and abandonned before. see this
http://dailybail.com/home/bp-questions-linger-a-tale-of-two-wells-video....
unless you are a surveyor or cartographer translating co-ordinates is complex with the MMS using a system based on data from the early 20th century - comparing the ROV co-ords to the MMS documents is apples and oranges.
yes, but comparing apples to apples, the coordinates of the ROV display are still different.
ROVs move wells don't
yes, but comparing apples to apples, the coordinates of the ROV display are still different.
So GW, it appears that a senior and well respected member of the Deepwater Horizon Study Group, which has as members oil and gas industry experts as well as those in governmental and organizations disciplines, has now said (and thus is confirmation) that there are in fact 2 wells that were drilled by BP in the Macondo 252 lease, one of which BP abandoned and one of which blew out, not just one sole and individual well as has been repeatedly beaten into our silly little heads by various visitors and comentators to your ZH BP articles.
Interesting. Very interesting.
And it seems that BP has been hiding information in a "cloak of silence" from Congress and other interested parties for some reason(s) that is presently unknown. Even Transocean has now claimed that BP has withheld and is still withholding information from them that is needed to determine what happened with and to the well or wells. And it seems that the government has been at best a silent witness to BP's public and private silence and it appears they have done nothing to compel BP to cooperate. Which makes anything the government says about the well suspect and questionable.
Once again, very interesting.
I find it fascinating that Zero Hedge and The Oil Drum (to name only two blogs) have been infested with vocal and often insulting (mostly new) posters that have from the very beginning attempted to silence any dissident or questioning voices using innuendo, invective and ad hominem attacks and arguments. Yet these very same posters have consistently claimed they are simple (often oil and gas industry) folk just like you and me who only wish to make sure that "just the facts Jack" are used when discussing the subject of BP and the Macondo blow out.
Of particular interest to these very same posters, and what received particularly virulent and caustic attacks, were the repeated claims by Matt Simmons that there was a second well and that the second well was the location of a huge leak that has not been disclosed or even acknowledged by BP or the government. Without engaging in speculation about the untimely death of Matt Simmons, it is increasing apparent that the claims of Matt Simmons are proving to be more accurate than any claims made by BP, the government and, concerning Zero Hedge, that wild and crazy band of posters that have infested ZH over the past 3 months.
Even the suggestion by Simmons that a nuke might be needed to close the Macondo well has been partially vindicated when we read that Bea claims a nuke was actually readied for use on another unknown blowout. Contrary to the ZH posters and main stream media assertions, Simmons comment was not off the deep end. I'm sure a nuke was considered and then rejected as a poor idea. That rejection doesn't discredit Simmons in the least, just that it was not a good idea......yet. Bad ideas have a tendency to be revisited several times in the future.
Bea assertion.......
May I suggest that the ZH community carefully consider the possibility of the following.
1) That BP has been and continues to maintain a "cloak of silence" and thus any information released by BP or by other parties for BP be considered toxic waste and to treat that toxic waste accordingly.
2) That the US government has been and continues to maintain a "cloak of silence" of it's own, led by their primary front man, the retired Coast Guard tug captain Thad Allen, and thus any information released by the government be considered toxic waste and to treat that toxic waste accordingly.
3) That the Zero Hedge posters who have been conducting a campaign of shock and awe in an effort to stifle questions and dissent be considered toxic waste and to treat that toxic waste accordingly.
Keep up the good work GW. Thank you for your tireless efforts to keep the channels open and this subject on the front burner precisely where it belongs, but where BP, the US government and some ZH posters don't wish to to be or remain.
I tip my hat to you George Washington. Thank you once again.
I have found the environment and the discussion to be very educational. All of the actors who have run interference were outed in my mind from the get go and are certainly outed as a result of the Well A versus B fiasco, the NOAA "no oil has been cleaned up" admission by Lehr, and the WHOI sub-surface plume results.
It is much more fun for me that people tell the truth, but I know in our current time and place that lying and stonewalling is SOP. So I am overjoyed to play with the puzzle until it blows up in their faces.
In our "$$$$ NOW!!!!" and our "Move Along NOW!!! Nothing to See Serf!!!" society was their anyone here who expected otherwise.
Thank you GW! Very much!
And thank you to all the ZHers far and wide for being the net that the Liars came to play in.
This is a must-read for anyone still interested...
http://usawatchdog.com/why-is-the-u-s-government-protecting-bp/
"1) That BP has been and continues to maintain a "cloak of silence" and thus any information released by BP or by other parties for BP be considered toxic waste and to treat that toxic waste accordingly."
... Soooooo.... dump it into the gulf?
That depends on what it is.Sometimes, a hot-tub will suffice!
+++++
Thank you, GW, for your diligence in searching for the elusive truth.
Well summarized CD and again, Thanks GW.
thank you, +1
Don't be too hard on Oil Drum, when you think about it this was a tough issue for them; torn between downplaying the magnitude of the disaster to cover for the mismanagement by the administration, yet necessarily exploiting the spill to further their enviro agenda.
Oil Drum with its confused identity brought together a strange asortment of left wing apologists and pro oil "industry experts" both with a desire to downplay the magnitude and impact of the spill and enviro activists who were caught in the crossfire. Initially it was a pretty good source for information but the comment section was hijacked by the special interests and the hostility rivaled that of DailyKook or Huffpuke. They seem to be moving back to focus on their pet themes of peak oil and alternative energy, something they should have been actively doing all along in an effort to attract new recruits.
What I've seen on TOD is discussion of the spill being dominated by new members who have seemingly made every effort to bury the debate in arguments over technical details while whitewashing BP and the CG. There's a post there today filled with fawning praise for the CG commander from a poster who just happened to join after the spill. I find the influx of new members there in the weeks after the spill -- and the general thrust of their posts -- to be, ummm, curious. I see no attempt by TOD veterans to downplay the spill or defend the administration, nor have they in the past.
great example - defense of the CG commander is defense of the administration, Oil Drum is partially moderated and over the course of the spill grew increasingly intolerant to theories outside of the mainstream
My read is that the intolerance came from the newest members, not from TOD admins. That tells me (and should tell you) volumes.
This is just a general comment and not finger pointing at specific sites. Just trying to get people to think outside the box.
We need to understand that one of the psyops methods used to control any (disaster) discussion is to co-opt the discussion. This is done in the classic way by way of shills and trolls on industry specific web sites as well as secondary sites, including general interest sites.
But it's also done by setting up web sites disguised as opposition camps and organizations (many) years in advance. The damage done by your covert opposition web site airing industry dirty laundry in order to maintain its "cover" is more than offset by the incalculable help that covert asset can lend when the shit has hit the fan and you need to control (to any degree possible) the assault/discussion.
so what you're saying is that zh could possibly be a covert website that is actually part of the giant squid matrix?
sweeeeeet
They hired you to disrupt and demoralize. Congratulations. It ain't working but at least you're employed for $6 an hour and all the Red Bull you can drink.
+1000
thank you for your continued efforts GW. stay safe!