Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

[Rajiv]

Re: Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

As for the nuke option, I am curious exactly how blowing a big hole 18,000 feet below the sea floor is supposed to "seal" the well. Seems like the proponents of this are hoping the well caves in on itself or something like that? I fail to see how that assures a top seal to keep the material from leaking to surface forever afterwards.

OK -- Here is what doesn't seem to be working

Here is what the Russians did in the past

vintage USSR movie showing us how they extinguished a gas leak fire. The same technique could be used for the oil leak in the gulf.
The Russians used nukes to put out fires like this a total of 5 times.

So probably using one of the two relief wells the Russian way could be the way how they may go????

[bpr]

Re: Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

So probably using one of the two relief wells the Russian way could be the way how they may go????

I'd like to hear what GRG55 or Roughneck or another of our petrorockstars has to say about the Nuclear Option.

To a layman, it's kind of like saying we should pour hydrochloric acid on a burn, but these things can probably be done with enough control and efficiency, and it would likely even reduce the time necessary to complete a relief well.

The cynic in me sees that it would also allow the government to stall for another two months before taking the helm away from BP and dropping a nuke in the well their digging. Then, the feds come in with their firepower and save the day, just as midterm elections are heating up.

EDIT: GRG already said this:
nuclear explosives... [are] wishful thinking played out large in the international media.

For some reason, the forum search didn't pull that up, and I have no internal memory.

[Rajiv]

Re: Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

things can probably be done with enough control and efficiency, and it would likely even reduce the time necessary to complete a relief well.

Both the US and Russian governments have more than enough experience in conducting underground nuclear explosions -- though the last US underground test was done in 1992. So there is likely enogh people with experience who are there at the DOE and the DOD.

[bpr]

Re: Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

Both the US and Russian governments have more than enough experience in conducting underground nuclear explosions -- though the last US underground test was done in 1992. So there is likely enogh people with experience who are there at the DOE and the DOD.

From your link:

Underwater testing results from nuclear devices being detonated underwater, usually moored to a ship or a barge (which is subsequently destroyed by the explosion). Tests of this nature have usually been conducted to evaluate the effects of nuclear weapons against naval vessels (such as in Operation Crossroads), or to evaluate potential sea-based nuclear weapons (such as nuclear torpedoes or depth-charges). Underwater tests close to the surface can disperse large amounts of radioactive water and steam, contaminating nearby ships or structures.

There's little here to suggest that there have been recent tests done by the U.S. government on this kind of remedy. All of these tests were military in nature (not industrial, or man vs. nature, but man vs. another man's tech).

Operation Crossroads was done in 1946.

Basically, it appears that most of the testing we've done is in determining "How large can it be?" rather than "How small will get the job done?"

I'd like to hear more from the drillers on this, since the Russians have apparently had so much success with it.

[Shakespear]

Re: Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

I don't think drillers will know much about Nuc. detonation and its effect on the well/completion.

You have to remember that as the well was drilled they went through different layers which may have had hydrates, water, oil or gas. You detonate and close the well bore close to the reservoir, but doing this may open up paths for the layers above to flow to the surface. Hence I would be talking to the geologist, completion experts and explosives experts if I was going in this direction to shut the well down.

[Roughneck]

Re: Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

I don't think drillers will know much about Nuc. detonation and its effect on the well/completion.

You have to remember that as the well was drilled they went through different layers which may have had hydrates, water, oil or gas. You detonate and close the well bore close to the reservoir, but doing this may open up paths for the layers above to flow to the surface. Hence I would be talking to the geologist, completion experts and explosives experts if I was going in this direction to shut the well down.

I wouldn't say it couldn't be done. But you would risk opening multiple places for the oil to leak to the surface. Explosions have been used mostly to put out well fires so crews could gain accesss to shut off the well. The reason BP does not want to go that route is right now they have options for containment and drilling a relief well. If you try to collapse the well with explosives and it doesn't work you are out of options.

[don]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

Pass the smell test?

Prominent Oil Industry Insider: "There's Another Leak, Much Bigger, 5 to 6 Miles Away"

Matt Simmons was an energy adviser to President George W. Bush, is an adviser to the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, and is a member of the National Petroleum Council and the Council on Foreign Relations. Simmon is chairman and CEO of Simmons & Company International, an investment bank catering to oil companies.

Simmons told Dylan Ratigan that"there's another leak, much bigger, 5 to 6 miles away" from the leaking riser and blowout preventer which we've all been watching on the underwater cameras.

I have no idea whether or not Simmons is right. The government should immediately either debunk or admit his claim.

If accurate, the bigger leak could have been caused by the destruction of the well casing when the oil rig exploded. That is Simmons' theory.

Or it could be caused by a natural oil seep, although the odds of a seep of that size occurring right around the time of the Deep Horizon disaster is nearly zero.

There is another possibility.

It is well-known that there were previous accidents at the Deepwater Horizon rig. For example, as AP notes:

From 2000 to 2010, the Coast Guard issued six enforcement warnings and handed down one civil penalty and a notice of violation to Deepwater Horizon, agency records show.
On 18 different occasions during that period the Coast Guard cited the vessel for an "acknowledged pollution source."

And as 60 Minutes reports:

[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.
"We were informed of this during one of the safety meetings, that somewhere in the neighborhood of $25 million was lost in bottom hole assembly and 'mud.' And you always kind of knew that in the back of your mind when they start throwing these big numbers around that there was gonna be a push coming, you know? A push to pick up production and pick up the pace," Williams said.

Asked if there was pressure on the crew after this happened, Williams told Pelley, "There's always pressure, but yes, the pressure was increased."

But the trouble was just beginning: when drilling resumed, Williams says there was an accident on the rig that has not been reported before. He says, four weeks before the explosion, the rig's most vital piece of safety equipment was damaged.

It is therefore possible that there has been another ongoing leak which BP has tried to cover up.

http://www.georgewashington2.blogspo...er-theres.html

[GRG55]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

[I]Pass the smell test?

Nope.

Have a look at earlier posts by several of us on this thread:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...63243#poststop

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...63282#poststop

[don]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

Nope.

Have a look at earlier posts by several of us on this thread:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...63243#poststop

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...63282#poststop

Thanks for the links, that helped.

[GRG55]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

This is a hoot. As a long time advocate that the BP "sunflower" should have been mulched years ago, I think some of these are brilliant:

BP (Logo Redesign Contest) Logo Design Contest

A few samples:

[Roughneck]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

I'm just a little surprised that they haven't made some sort of flanged connection to bolt up instead of cutting the pipe and trying to slip something over it. Perhaps the rov's don't have that capability? I know there are issues with pressure and containment but you would think it could be managed. You could install a riser pack with valves to relieve the pressure if necessary. IDK enough about deep water operations. In shallow water we would send divers down.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

I'm just a little surprised that they haven't made some sort of flanged connection to bolt up instead of cutting the pipe and trying to slip something over it. Perhaps the rov's don't have that capability? I know there are issues with pressure and containment but you would think it could be managed. You could install a riser pack with valves to relieve the pressure if necessary. IDK enough about deep water operations. In shallow water we would send divers down.

Well, I don't even work shallow waters, much less deep. But I'd figure that this is not an either-or, flange or cut, but rather that the pipe had to be cut regardless, for any solution along these lines, whether to fit a collar or a flange or a rubber gasket.

In other words, how do you imagine they'd fit that flange, without first cutting the pipe off down where it was still straight and solid, below the bends and such?

[Roughneck]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

They had to cut loose the riser pipe. But if you look at the pics, right below the cut is a flange where the riser pipe bolted to the LMRP which is sitting on top of the BOP stack.

[GRG55]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

They had to cut loose the riser pipe. But if you look at the pics, right below the cut is a flange where the riser pipe bolted to the LMRP which is sitting on top of the BOP stack.

TPC is correct. They had to cut or blow away the riser. That was always known. I think the risk was that they weren't sure exactly what that would to do to the flow rates [almost certainly higher, but by how much?]. Now that the riser has been removed they have more options, including taking apart the high pressure flange that connected marine riser to the BOP stack. Here's a copy of a post of mine from last week:

They have pretty well exhausted all options to contain or cap the leak working with the existing wellhead without clearing the marine riser. My best guess is what BP really wants is to try to get a better measurement of the flow rate and fluid composition using this latest idea.

There is no way to assure a positive seal on a cut off end of pipe. But if the flowrate they measure on the recovery vessel seems manageable the next thing they might try is to use the remote vehicles to unbolt the high pressure flange connection where the marine riser attaches to the top of the BOP stack, float an open BOP valve over the plume, drop it onto the high pressure flange, bolt it up with the remotes, and then close it to try to cap the well. If they think this can work they may try it, even though it means suspending the collection of the oil during that operation, because it will take less time than completing the relief wells.

This would appear somewhat simpler to accomplish in this situation than onshore, because they would be bringing the BOP onto the flange from above. Onshore we have to move the BOP across the flow laterally to position it over the wellhead or casing bowl flange.

I am not sure why BP has apparently decided not to pursue this option. I think it has more to do with the politics and potential liability issues [e.g. more oil gets released during that delicate operation because it means removing the current containment apparatus and letting the well flow for perhaps several days]. BP is probably now going to take no risk and play it safe until they get a relief well down. I hope not, but who knows in these times when everybody is a bloody expert and "smarter than BP".

[strittmatter]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

http://bp.concerts.com/gom/kentwells...long053110.htm

If you have not seen this video, check it out.

This is pretty "big stuff", and big stuff can't be thrown together overnight-as I am reminded by the video. I keep forgetting that I'm an onshore 2000' or less water well guy which means that the time, effort and execution required with deepwater apps is off the charts by comparison. It's now apparent that the sticks and stones they've been throwing at it in the meantime were indeed induced by politico/public pressures. I honestly had been wondering about the possibilities of placing an overshot with a relief line and wondering why it has not been attempted. Evidently it has been in the works for a while, but again - takes more time to execute than I had realized.