Comments on: Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster
Add a Comment
- I was wondering if CBS would allow me to download a copy of the 3D model used in the report? I have a special AR project set for the 4-20-2011 1st year memorial of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill.
Thanks
bkbeach4x4@gmail.com - Reply to this comment
- Drilling Deeper
There does not appear to be much published on the topic safe decommissioning of a deep well in the ocean. We might benefit from going deeper if drilling technology enables geothermal power generation to match that of hydroelectric power output (Terra Watts verses a Giga Watt). Even hydroelectric energy is still under intense study by NOAA as decimated salmon and rainbow trout (steelhead) are just starting to recover in a few areas.
Running a deep ocean well dry quickly into the negative pressure range [1] might facilitate injection of cement below the well bottom and into the collapsed formation creating a cap (or dam of sorts) that would deny access of hydrocarbons to the well bore under some scenarios. There are many unknowns: is re-pressurization likely and if so can it reach the level where hydraulic fracturing can occur? Will a cement cap prevent fracture migration toward the well bore and if so is it worth the added expense? If a seep does occur along the outside casing formation boundary what is the probability of it becoming significant? For more questions see [2]
There may be significant information to be learned from instrumenting, monitoring and performing imaging after the bottom and/or top kill have been performed. BOP and Well Head removed for analysis.
Drilling Deeper and Deeper is going to present many challenges. This event was an expensive mistake. Not drilling above an active magma chamber to extract heat or making an error (resulting in negligent homicide) could be far more expensive financially and in terms of human life.
Unfortunately, for some who were working in the Nuclear Industry when Three Mile Island melted down or NASA when the space shuttle blew up, know all to well that a lapse in management judgment can have catastrophic consequences. Sadly, doing nothing could be far worse. The atmospheric forcings (referenced earlier in the thread along with volcanic events) will continue to build unless carbon capture becomes a reality before the trigger is pulled (oceanic hydrate fields phase change). This remains one of the most likely agreed on scenarios in the scientific community.
Notes
[1] Pressure at the BOP. Hydrostatic pressure one mile below the ocean is == 2000psi so 500psi at the BOP might be considered "negative".
[2] What is the cost of drilling yet another bottom kill well into the formation below the current well bore to add a impenetrable cap ?
Can the Hydrostatic Equilibrium between upward oil pressure and downward seawater (or mud) be analogous to penetrating a magma chamber which must build a cone high enough to press down on the magma chamber with an equal amount of force in order for the eruption to stop ?
Can the rapid depletion of an oil formation, its slow collapse making much of the oil un-recoverable and its subsidence be analogous (in some ways) to the emptying of a magma chamber and its effects ?
Scaled up to caldera size a slow partial depletion of the magma chamber would seem to be far more prudent than a rapid depletion (resulting in cap collapse and catastrophic eruption at the edges, pulling the trigger on global cooling and glacial expansion).
Given a magma chamber deforming the crust and tens of thousands of geothermal wells (consisting of deep fractured bores, miles long with water injected on one end and steam extracted on the other - the "Geysers" design referenced earlier) would underground Terra Watt Generation and Transmission be practical? - Reply to this comment
- The Best Possible Outcome - Part I
100 Tons of Upward force (700psi on a 20" hole) would seem to be a lot safer than 1000 tons of force (7000psi on a 20" hole), which is what we will be stuck with if the well is not allowed to flow unimpeded and every drop captured for three or more months.
The Integrity Test has served its purpose, the well can knowingly be valved off without spilling one drop in the advent of a few hurricanes. BP claims that millions of ( pick a unit of anything here) will be dumped into the Gulf of Mexico if anyone tries to crack a valve to start the well producing again.
Logically this is highly unlikely. If millions of (pick a unit of anything here) are dumped into the Ocean any time a well is started up there would be such a mess that the outcry would demand all drilling in the Ocean be banned. Hundreds if not thousands of wells have to be shut down (out of an abundance of caution) in the face of hurricanes. Once the storm is passed they are started up again.
Misled BP Executives cannot have it both ways. However, rest assured many corporate litigators would love to get wealthy arguing otherwise.
The Engineer in Chief ought to check with other companies as to what standard industry practices and designs at present are capable of given these circumstances ("trust but verify" as one of our more noteworthy Commanders in Chief used to say). Any company but BP could be counted on to perform this delicate operation (even Transocean, Halliburtiion, Shell, Chevron, etc.) as (mentioned earlier) hundereds or thousands of wells have to be shut down out of an abundance of caution in the face of bad weather.[1]
BP assertions that a clean startup is not possible may have more to do with bad boardroom legal advice than solid science, engineering, good industry practices and regulations .
The litigators seem to be pushing BP into taking positions that are needlessly risky. The sudden escalation and exploitation of the "Integrity Test" may have been the first example of this. BP needs to be put on probation until some of the wacky strategists are thrown overboard or muzzeled [2]
We cannot know for sure if the Corporate (and Private) Lawyers convinced BP Executives to use the "Integrity Test" and later the claim of a dirty (dumping oil into the water) restart of production to avoid full recovery of all oil flowing unimpeded from the well.
However, we do know from empirical scientific evidence (and scale model validation later) that after six bolts were removed, mule shoe bolted up, new BOP placed on top and 20" annular closed in record time the flow rate out of the top looked more like smoke lazily coming out of a chimney as opposed to the exhaust from a rocket. - Reply to this comment
- The Best Possible Outcome - Part II
The pressure had already been cut in half by allowing unimpeded flow for three months, something that is well understood and never done in practice because it severely limits that amount of oil that can ultimately be produced from a well. BP has little to fear from a closed in system that recovers all the oil.
Yes, we have conclusive evidence (which can be physically modeled and validated) that when the riser was cut off at the flange HD video proved that the well was flowing at least 85K b/d. We also have conclusive evidence that just before the new BOP stopped all oil flowing (for the integrity test) HD video proved the flow rate was 45K b/d (with the Static pressure at 7000psi).
Since the ocean bottom pressure is about 2000psi this pressure may be not only the hydrostatic equilibrium but also the lowest hydrostatic pressure attainable as seeps of some kind could expose what little recoverable oil remaining to the ocean's bottom pressure.
Producing oil at the wells maximum unimpeded flow rate might decrease the flow to less than 5K b/d and perhaps a static pressure as low as 700psi which would seem to make pumping in cement from the top of the new bop relatively easy.
This should allow BP to get rid of the two giant oil platforms drilling the relief bottom kill wells (and other ships) sooner than what otherwise might be expected. This in the interest of the best possible safety engineering (hazard removal - no more pressure means no more hydraulic fracturing and scavenging along well bore(s), natural seeps, faults, etc.).
Forensics demands that we pull off the legacy BOP and maybe a good chunk of the well head and tubulars in order to learn as much as possible so this circumstance is never repeated. That?s a significant amount compensating tonnage if the well is not allowed to produce again and pressure is kept at 1000 tons (7000psi on a 20" hole and rising).
Notes
[1] This, inspite of the fact the only marine vessel known to have survived and measured a 100+ ft wave was a giant oil platform (giant because the legs go down into the water 1000ft and act like huge wave shock absorbers, and anchoring system with at least a five mile radius because the heavy chain converts horizontal energy into vertical energy as the natural sag flexes up and down with each wave).
[2] Trying to put all gulf of Mexico scientists under contract to keep research results from being published as one example. Running big PR campaigns while many claims are ignored, slow walking payouts and under-valuing claims are others. Disallowing respirators may keep litigators employed for a lifetime. - Reply to this comment
- At 7000psi and 20" hole the presure is 3.14 * 10^2 * 7000 == 2 million pounds or 1,000 Tons of Upward Force.
The principle benefit of the "Well Integrity Test" seems to be that in the event of a hurricane the well can be shut in without releasing anymore oil into the water.
Placing a hurricane proof platform over the well to capture oil (so that such high shut-in pressures would not be reached) may not be feasible since there are two large platforms in a confined space already (drilling the relief wells). Furthermore, using a 5:1 anchoring fetch (needed to be hurricane proof) would require no other large platform could be within a 5 mile radius.
Adm Allen said that 8,000 to 9,000 would show strong integrity, 6,000 to 8,000 would be ambiguous, and below 6,000 would indicate a leak. Pressure is at 6700 and will likely top out at about 7000 according to BP.
The ambiguous 7000 figure may be a result of no 9 7/8" liner at the bottom of the well not to mention casing damage from the well string breaking into and ending up as two pipes in the broken bottom BOP.
Other unknown factors included the scavenging of casing walls from sand and oil traveling through an open well for three months. The likely-hood of less that optimal cementing between segments was also pointed out.[1]
Perhaps the most hazardous threat was the scavenging of formation material next to the outer diameter casing. That and ineffective cementing between segments could have left the mass of the BOP stack, wellhead and tubulars (those properly attached) the only thing containing the pressure[2]
Leak detection resources are poor. Using seismic modeling to look for migration of oil by itself is not recommended. As pressure increases into the hydraulic fracturing range (above 8000) acoustic monitoring is the principle instrumentation used to control the process (a very well understood process in the oil business and geothermal pilot projects).
Notes
[1]Ref:msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/TVNews/Nightly%20News/2010/BobBeaPreliminaryAnalysesrev5.pdf
In Dr. Bea's report under "Seven Steps Leading to Containment Failure (Blowout, Pf)" the first two items on list are improper tubular well design and segmented discontinuous cement sheath.
[2] ref drillingcontractor.org/dcpi/dc-julyaug07/DC_July07_MMSBlowouts.pdf
See Figure 6, "Factors Contributing to Blowouts", Cementing and Casing Failure are the top two reasons.
Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you. Best practice: avoid said bear whenever possible. - Reply to this comment
- Absolutely cannot wait for *testimony* from witnesses like this one.
I can't do anything with stories about "a man who did this" or "a manager who said that."
If what Williams witnessed is true, he is a witness to ten counts of homicide. - Reply to this comment
- Detonating the world's largest pipe bomb would be the likely outcome of pressure testing the well at 8K+ psi as mentioned by numerous news organizations last night. The bomb's kinetic energy would result from pneumatic pressure that can penetrate small cracks far better than liquid and store more potential energy (when compressed) than liquid.
At 200psi valve closure yesterday the oil was not forming a perfect cone, like that of a jet or rocket exhaust (as seen in the first HD video), but did look a bit more like smoke coming out of a chimney. Without performing frame by frame motion analysis, the flow rate appeared to have slowed by a small amount (from being slightly valved off, more friction in the pipe, the depletion of the reservoir or combination thereof).
Furthermore, we cannot discount a recharging of the pressure at the bottom of the well (at about 12Kpsi) from geothermal and pressure differentials in a relative short amount of time (a total shutoff for a week or longer due to bad weather).
What we want is the least amount of pressure (perhaps 400psi to 600psi) to slow down the oil enough to give bottom kill the best possible chance of working by slowing down the flow such that minimal gas and oil is mixed with mud allowing it to maintain its heavy density enough to reach hydrostatic equilibrium.
No views were provided of any gauge on the original BOP which is unfortunate, those readings by now should be well understood and should change in sync with those on the top BOP (less friction created by increased bore length, additional obstacles and turbulence).
In the advent of a hurricane pressure needs to be vented by allowing oil and gas to flow and minimize pressure build up beyond that already measured). Seismic, Passive Acoustic and Sonar monitoring of the sea floor is probably being conducted to look for breaches in the formation. A USCG study[1] suggests the oil will present florescence at 480nm but the availability of instrumentation that can be tuned to this well's oil (plus a dispersant) is not known.
If all the oil is captured by surface vessels then (after some settling time) no oil should be coming to the surface. If there is it could be tracked back to the source and presumably plugged (more drilling, hydrostatic fracturing and cementing).
Hydrostatic fracturing has been used for sometime and is well understood, especially when good geological information is available (cores, drill cuttings, seismic and acoustic data used to generate a 3D model).
Notes
[1] oilspilltaskforce.org/docs/RDC_Submerged_Oil_Detection_Report_June_2009.pdf
The study of low-temperature geothermal power production in oil and gas operations is underway Ref: rmotc.doe.gov/symposium.html
A recent estimate of Deep Enhanced Geothermal Systems calculates the electric power
available in the US to be on the order of 15,900 GW (Giga Watts or == 16 Terra Watts).
Ref: pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2010/augustin.pdf
16 Terra Watts is considered overly conservative when factoring in 3D magma migration
models that show known pre-volcanic activity currently driving significant crust deformation.
A search by Project Keyword of the DOE site eere.energy.gov/geothermal
using the "Hydraulic Fracturing" apps1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/projects/
turned up 78 results.,. - Reply to this comment
- The "Transition Spool" has been bolted down and is awaiting placement of the new "Cap and Stack" BOP (for picture of top connector see [1]).
What appears to be a Male Connector (likened to an auto-shop compressed air quick connect) is what the new BOP will fit onto,
with the cone at the bottom presumably helping to guide and seal the 80 ton valve assembly into place.
BP has not explained if this connection is "New Technology" as this would be a logical place to see some leakage (but in a relatively small amount). No design information has been given as to why a conventional flange were used at this junction.
Once the BOP is in place a ram will be used to perform a well integrity test. Oil seeping out of the formation would presumably be dealt with by a drilling and cementing operation (if needed).
BP has finally done themselves a favor by releasing the following very instructive video (others are also available) "Animated Update with Kent Wells - Installing" youtube.com/bpplc#p/u/6/W2NlXov_evw
Comments and Critical Design Review
According to Kent Wells BP was planning for a six bolt top flange disconnect from day one. That is good because any company without the capability to change a flange should not be involved with anything to do with pipe work (Pipelines, Refineries and Drilling come to mind).
This would have been nice to know (at best) sooner than a couple of weeks ago. However, in all fairness it probably took some time for
the idea to trickle up and then be recognized as the logical choice (as many threads have been suggesting for some time now).
Hindsight is a benefit not always available at the right time. Sadly it reportedly took two months to fabricate this thing that looks like a space shuttle payload (complete with cone booster rocket to put her up into a higher orbit).
So now we know (in hindsight) it would be a good thing to have one of these on standby, thus cutting short this nightmare by several months.
Another look at the flow rate (two HD views 90 degrees apart for several minutes) might show that it is slowing down a bit, reservoir may be losing pressure from all the hydrocarbons that have exited.
Hopefully the weather will hold, at least long enough to do the well integrity (shut in containment) test.
Notes
[1] 'Oil spill commission members let BP exec off easy in questioning... The "wait-for-later" approach is similar to the process followed by other investigative bodies so far'
No-one wants to disturb BP while the Cap and Stack operation is in motion.
Ref: nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/07/oil_spill_commission_chairmen.html - Reply to this comment
- WE ARE NEARING A CRITICAL DECISION POINT IN THE CRISIS.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Of more immediate concern is whether weather conditions will calm enough for Obama administration officials to feel comfortable allowing BP to remove the current containment cap that is sitting loosely
atop a sheared-off pipe and replace it with a new one that would be bolted in place and allow the collection of between 60,000 and 80,000 barrels per day." [1]
"Officials have said previously that the new containment cap is necessary for BP to reach the 80,000-barrel-per-day capacity that the government has required the oil giant to achieve." [2]
White house recognizes need for: (1) closed bolted system (2) 80K bpd
Question 1: Can the switchover be mitigated via "Top Kill" configuration and pumping mud in ? It did did seem to stop the oil coming out which could be very valuable over ten days.
Question 2: Can a Naval Battle Group like picket line form upwind to calm the seas in the critical switchover area (mentioned below) ? Bow and Stern Thrusters, Tug Boats, etc. would be used to keep Super Tanker (A Whale) and other Tanker's beam into the wind.
If Wind gets to frisky picket line would turn into the wind simultaneously and move off.
Notes
[1] Ref: mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/08/97201/allen-sticks-with-august-prediction.html
[2] Ref: mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/07/97155/oil-containment-effort-facing.html
OSD (Office of Secretary of Defense) thanks and once again you are welcome w.r.t. the original Crisis Management System concept. It was
designed for this. - Reply to this comment
- Relief Wells and LMRP Containment Cap Part I
Sometime the phrase "Relief Cap" in the media refers to the lower marine riser package (LMRP) containment cap. A pressure relief valve is used on pressure cookers, so maybe there is an analogy between the LMRP Cap (that collects some oil) and the formation reservoir (pressure cooker).
A scary mental image indeed... There is also a reluctance to talk about nut and bolt fasteners on the marine floor. Another subject avoided is using the bottom kill technique to plug formation cracks and their seeps or 3D seismic modeling.
Perhaps the biggest threat (again no where to be found in the media) is subsidence. If too much fluid is removed from a formation the ground will sink and as of now the effect on formation integrity (the ability for oil and gas to remain trapped in the formation) is not known (with respect to a blowout, then bottom kill). There is also a creep time delay from when the oil and gas is removed and when the ground starts to move.
Subsidence also brings a drop in pore pressure and less than optimal. Pumping in an equivalent amount of seawater (to replace the volume of oil and gas removed) will halt the subsidence, restoring pressure in the formation and optimal yield. iahs.info/redbooks/a234/iahs_234_0277.pdf
Fatigue seems to have set in (like all prolonged news stories) and the Admiral said that next week 60Kb/d might be collected and if the official flow rate is actually the same no more oil gusher (Cheers !!!). If only science were so simple and instant gratification so easily had.
We are lucky to have Nobel people running operations (Dr. Obama and Dr. Chu). Some criticize the Nobel thing (Jack Welch) saying it?s the engineers, scientists and nuts and bolts that should locked in the war room deciding the important issues (which is probably the case, we just do not get a peek least we disturb them and disrupt progress.
As it turns out the Nobel people can be pretty interesting. Dr. Obama is a genius when it comes to political calculus (as are most holders of high office). Dr. Chu is also constrained by these forces, but not so much. There is a paper published where interferometry is used to measure the difference (in an atomic clock) in time between a photon's wave particle duality as predicted by Dr. Einstein's (another Nobel person) theory of relativity (Cheers!!!).
This begs the question, is this one possible answer to the so-called pioneer phenomena? As one with some experience with spacecraft, reaction wheels and ion drives the link appears obviously intuitive AND data compelling as or understanding of the outer solar system continues to grow (particle distribution changing exponentially as a function of the distance from the sun, from the outer planets, to the Khyber belt, Ort cloud and beyond).
However, this linkage of ideas between the head of the DOE and NASA may not work as some political calculus would indicate (i.e. Weber's description of bureaucracy). There is a natural repulsion among such institutions (like lions, tigers, bears and dark energy).
As a practical mater Lawrence Livermore National Lab (DOE facility) and NASA Ames are only about 40 miles from each other. The latter has (or at least was at one time) the largest wind tunnel in the world. Twenty years ago their 3D simulation of laminar and turbulent flows were without equal. It was also given that computational fluid dynamics (with finite analysis) were closely related. Admittedly this is air flow, not an air water boundary or dissimilar fluid boundary (oil and water) or the perfect description of the gusher from hell (oil, water, methane in gas and hydrate form, etc.).
In the future gusher simulations will likely be studied by renowned researchers. As far as Nuts and Bolts go NASA uses pools to simulate robotic operations on orbit, but we need to move on and leave that proposition for others to explore.
Strangely, about 75 miles north of LLNL and NASA is a geothermal plant that almost puts out 1 GW of power 24/7/365 days a week without any carbon footprint. It's called the Geysers located near Northern California's wine country. Actually they are fumaroles over a porous formation where water is pumped in and steam comes out. Surprisingly this is not a closed system and the distance between the two wells is a number of miles. Steam is collected, filtered and fed to turbines.
This is the domain of the USGS (United States Geological Survey) Geophysicists and Volcanologists ( about 10 miles north of NASA Ames). This begs the question, why not a pilot project (at the Geysers) for a closed system much deeper than the open system uses using gravity feed to inject water and multiple lines from the well heads generating an additional 200MW.
Continued in "Relief Wells and LMRP Containment Cap Part II" - Reply to this comment
