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

[GRG55]

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

I have NOT heard any independent conformation of this. If this was true then the relief well efforts would be in question and the whole nature of the event would be truly catastrophic. Even more so than what it is now. I watched the interview and the guy lost me when he talked about the government taking over the response effort. NO ONE has more deep water experience than BP. They want to stop this thing and are doing everything possible.

I agree. But what I can't figure out is why BP would damage its credibility by making silly statements such as the 60% to 70% probability of success for the "top kill" effort. There's not an engineer I know in BP or the industry that gave that even 10% chance of success. BP's management is not doing the company any favours...

[Rajiv]

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

I watched the interview and the guy lost me when he talked about the government taking over the response effort.

If that is indeed the case, and the government has decided to take over, it could only be because they have decided to use the Russian option.

[GRG55]

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

If that is indeed the case, and the government has decided to take over, it could only be because they have decided to use the Russian option.

There have been some rare instances where the government regulator has removed the well operator after a blowout and appointed another petroleum operating company...for example if the well was being drilled by one of the smaller companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico and that company didn't have the technical bench strength that the super-majors like Exxon, BP and Shell have. I have never heard of a case of a blowout being taken over by "the government". In fact with only a very few exceptions I wouldn't take any of the government owned National Oil Companies over BP in this situation. Just wait until Pemex starts drilling deepwater wells in the Mexican part of the Gulf of Mexico. For those of you that think this is "the worst oil spill in history"...you have short memories [either that, or you are still enviably young ]. Ixtoc I took almost 10 months to kill and cap. A lot of similarities to the current disaster, including the fact that the shear rams on the BOP couldn't be closed because there happened to be a drill collar right in line with the rams at that very moment.

IXTOC I

Bahia de Campeche, Mexico 1979-Jun-03 On June 3, 1979, the 2 mile deep exploratory well, IXTOC I, blew out in the Bahia de Campeche, 600 miles south of Texas in the Gulf of Mexico. The IXTOC I was being drilled by the SEDCO 135, a semi-submersible platform on lease to Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX). A loss of drilling mud circulation caused the blowout to occur. The oil and gas blowing out of the well ignited, causing the platform to catch fire. The burning platform collapsed into the wellhead area hindering any immediate attempts to control the blowout. PEMEX hired blowout control experts and other spill control experts including Red Adair, Martech International of Houston, and the Mexican diving company, Daivaz. The Martech response included 50 personnel on site, the remotely operated vehicle TREC, and the submersible Pioneer I. The TREC attempted to find a safe approach to the Blowout Preventer (BOP). The approach was complicated by poor visibility and debris on the seafloor including derrick wreckage and 3000 meters of drilling pipe. Divers were eventually able to reach and activate the BOP, but the pressure of the oil and gas caused the valves to begin rupturing. The BOP was reopened to prevent destroying it. Two relief wells were drilled to relieve pressure from the well to allow response personnel to cap it. Norwegian experts were contracted to bring in skimming equipment and containment booms, and to begin cleanup of the spilled oil. The IXTOC I well continued to spill oil at a rate of 10,000 - 30,000 barrels per day until it was finally capped on March 23, 1980.

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.

[Rajiv]

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

I believe the news snippet I quoted said that the Russian option had been used five time by the Soviets. I am sure that it is not an uncontrolled blast, but rather a much more directed one aimed at making the well bore collapse on itself, and the molten rock resulting from the intense heat (and this would be the primary reason for using the nuke) -- to seal the seepage. I am sure that those old "nuclear civil engineers" are getting calls -- if indeed the government has decided to step in.

You are right in it will be difficult to find a company more experienced petroleum engineering talent than BP.

[LargoWinch]

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

If anybody out there has come across anything credible regarding this please post the source.

Sir GRG55; well you are my source, but since you are referring to Matt Simmons, maybe you will be interested with the following:

[GRG55]

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

Sir GRG55; well you are my source, but since you are referring to Matt Simmons, maybe you will be interested with the following:

LOL. I would have expected better from Simmons and his colour man sidekick. Is there anybody out there that can find a reference to Red Adair actually inserting explosives INTO a wellbore in order to kill a blowout as Simmons suggested?

Red Adair pioneered the use of explosive charges suspended over wellheads of blowouts that had caught fire. The objective was to use the explosive to starve the flame of oxygen and thus snuff the fire, after which the crews could actually get close enough to the wellhead to position the equipment needed to perform the kill operations without getting fried. Variations of this technique were used to snuff the burning effluent from the sabotaged wells in Kuwait after Gulf War I. It is not the same thing as putting a charge into the well itself, so the comparison Simmons and his sidekick make is specious.

[don]

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

Under immense pressure to plug its catastrophic American oil leak, BP is preparing for a hazardous last-ditch salvage operation that risks making the gush of crude into the Gulf of Mexico even heavier if its robotic submarines fail in an inch-perfect exercise to cut through a broken pipe a mile beneath the ocean's surface.

After the failure of a "top kill" effort to stuff the leak with mud and rubbish, BP's managing director, Bob Dudley, stressed the difficulty of a new plan to pipe spurting oil to a ship on the ocean's surface, describing it as highly challenging for engineers who will be asked to perform "the equivalent of open heart surgery on television for everyone".

The under-fire company faced calls from Louisiana lawmakers to make an immediate $1bn investment to protect threatened wetlands and estuaries on the Louisiana coast. The White House's energy tsar, Carol Browner, warned that the giant, rapidly expanding oil slick caused by an explosion on BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig was‚ "probably the biggest environmental disaster we have ever faced".

Since becoming severed from BP's destroyed offshore rig on 30 April, a broken drilling pipe known as a "riser", which carries oil from an underground seam through the ocean floor, has been kinked downwards in the water. BP is deploying diamond-rimmed saws to cut through the pipe below this kink, in the hope that it can create a sufficiently clean break to attach a cap capable of siphoning oil to the ocean's surface, known as a‚ "lower marine riser package".

Experts worry that by removing the bend in the pipe, any remaining resistance to the flow of oil into the ocean will be eliminated. Philip Johnston, an engineering professor at the University of Alabama, said: "This operation is scary for BP.

"When they cut the riser the rate of flow from the well, which is already truly horrific, will get significantly bigger. If they can't then get the cap on, it will make things worse."

BP's chief operating officer Doug Suttles told a press conference on Saturday that he could not guarantee the attempt would work, and even if it did it would only capture "the majority" of the oil. Following the first Gulf war in 2001, a similar capping procedure was used to extinguish the well fires lit by the retreating Iraqi army. However, it has never been attempted 1,500 metres (5,000ft) below sea level.

President Obama admitted that cutting the riser pipe "is not without risk", saying: "That is why it was not activated until other methods had been exhausted."

On the Louisiana shore, dozens of shrimpers, fishermen, holiday-home owners, restaurateurs and hoteliers have filed lawsuits against BP for the damage to their earnings caused by the slick.

Local people expressed fury at the British company's apparent inability to stem the flow. Claude Marquette, a retired doctor in his boat at the fishing port of Venice Marina, said: "It's been a screw-up from day one. Nothing was at the ready and no one was in a position to respond."

Father Gerry Stapleton, a priest at St Patrick's Catholic church in nearby Port Sulphur, said: "Even the government seems powerless and all the experts. If these people can't stop it, then who in the name of God can?"

There is particular acrimony that BP's initial estimate of the leak at 5,000 barrels of oil a day dramatically understated the scale of the flow, which is now put at 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day. Ed Markey, the Democratic chairman of a congressional energy committee investigating the disaster, said BP was "either lying or they were incompetent".

Speaking on CBS's Face the Nation talkshow, Markey described the leak as criminal‚ and added: "I have no confidence whatsoever in BP."

The waters affected by the spill are among the most sealife-rich around the US. In 2008, commercial fishermen landed 600m kg of finfish and shellfish in the Gulf of Mexico, generating $659m. Oyster fishermen worry that not only the oil but the chemical dispersants used to break up the slick will poison their harvest for months and years to come.

Mary Landrieu, a Democratic senator for Louisiana, said BP should immediately commit $1bn to safeguarding the coastline: "While we may not be able to plug the leaking well right away, there is nothing that should stop us from getting help to the Gulf coast immediately."

Obama ordered government and contractor clean-up resources in areas affected by oil to be tripled.

The Washington Post termed the leak "the well that will not die". Many critics of the response to the crisis have urged the president to put the armed forces in charge, taking over operations from BP.

But Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said that the military did not have the necessary expertise.

"It's really not for us to lead right now because of the technical challenges," said Mullen. "The technical lead for this in our country really is the [oil] industry."

Even if BP succeeds in its latest effort to siphon oil, the operation faces a meteorological hazard in the hurricane season, which starts at the beginning of June. David Summers, a professor of mine engineering at Missouri University of Science and Technology, said it would be impossible to leave a containment vessel collecting oil on the open sea if severe weather sweeps into the Gulf.

As it attempts a seal, BP will need to pump large volumes of warm water towards the leak to avoid the formation of ice crystals, which stymied a previous attempted fix. Summers said: "This may be the best option they've got but because they're going to be dragging through the flow of oil as they cut, it's going to be difficult to achieve a smooth, straight cut."

If BP cannot halt the flow, oil will continue to gush until two relief wells are ready to intercept the flow of oil by intersecting with the original bore beneath the ocean floor.

One of these has reached a depth of 3,600 metres (12,000ft), while the other is down to 2,500 metres, but they need to go as far as 5,500 metres before they can tap into the oil, which may not happen until August. By then, the slick on the ocean's surface, estimated at 18m to 40m gallons of oil, could have doubled in size.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...isks-operation

[Roughneck]

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

agree. But what I can't figure out is why BP would damage its credibility by making silly statements such as the 60% to 70% probability of success for the "top kill" effort. There's not an engineer I know in BP or the industry that gave that even 10% chance of success. BP's management is not doing the company any favours...

I think it is pure politics and buying time. What would have been the response if BP had said we are drilling relief wells and in the interim we will do what we can but we cannot stop the flow of oil into the gulf for 3 months? Yeah right. So you proceed with plan A and then you conduct a media circus. You play the game just like Washington plays the game. You give the impression that you are doing everything possible(and you really are) all the time knowing what you are doing has a low probability of working. If any of your efforts do actually mitigate the spill then that is a plus. It is all a PR game.

[GRG55]

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

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.

[oddlots]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

On its face Simmons' claim that there must be another "leak" seems actually quite plausible if you accept two things:

1) As evidence he's citing a vast unseen body of oil in the water column that has been reported by government researchers. His argument seems to be that there is no way to account for this volume if you assume that it must have passed through the compromised Macondo well head. (That seems like a reasonable argument, but I wish he'd make it in full form.)

2) By "leak" I think people envisage another well that's blown or something. What I take from Simmons is he's suggesting that the well casing has been compromised and the high pressure fluids have forced a new path for themselves that emerges at some unknown spot and that it is flowing at massive volumes as evidenced by the underwater plume.

(It helps to realise, if any of this is an accurate reflection of the facts or even his argument, that the seafloor surrounding the casing consists of sediments rather than rock. I imagine a straw (well casing) that starts out at the bottom surrounded by something that is rock solid and impregnable but that terminates in a substance that is more like sand for a distance. Given the explosive forces at work it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that the casing was compromised in this sediment zone.)

That is terrifyingly plausible to me. It also means, if true, that all the efforts to treat the well as a discreet, intact entity with one compromised point (top kill, new riser etc...) never had or have any hope of dealing with the problem, and not for the reasons GR is citing.

So, summarising, I would only dismiss Simmons' concerns if you feel confidant that the volume of the underwater plume of oil can be accounted for by reference to the flows coming out of an intact well-bore that is compromised only at the level of the blow out preventer. Has anyone seen any analysis of this? (I can't find it.)

I wouldn't take that bet.

This event really has taken on monumental proportions over the last couple of weeks. It is absolutely devastating.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

(It helps to realise, if any of this is an accurate reflection of the facts or even his argument, that the seafloor surrounding the casing consists of sediments rather than rock. I imagine a straw (well casing) that starts out at the bottom surrounded by something that is rock solid and impregnable but that terminates in a substance that is more like sand for a distance. Given the explosive forces at work it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that the casing was compromised in this sediment zone.)

I'd think that the relief well efforts could work in this case, so long as they intercepted the original well down in solid rock.

[shiny!]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

Don't really have anything smart to add; this just makes me so sad...

Once this is plugged, assuming it gets plugged, does anybody know how long it could take the marine life and coastlines to recover their health? I need a little hope here.

[oddlots]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

I'd think that the relief well efforts could work in this case, so long as they intercepted the original well down in solid rock.

Good point. As far as I can make out there's no reason to think that the relief well solution is jeopordised by what Simmons is suggesting.

[Shakespear]

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

BP is drilling 2 relief wells. This is not new technology so I am 90% certain that they will do it. By going as close to the end of the blow out well, they will be fighting a smaller pressure drop in killing (stopping) the well.

Pressure drop = Pressure in the producing well - Pressure due to relief well drilling fluid column hydrostatic.

Thus intercepting the blow out well deeper is better :-)

Bad news is that this takes time, but there is not much we can now do about this.

The Financial Pressures did their terrible work on this operation, as SAFETY is the No. 1 issue in drilling and completing a well. You are working on an explosive "container" thus it can not be otherwise. People who endanger lives are run-off or terminated fast.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aypoT70AgFfM&pos=15
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/us/27rig.html
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-30/bp-lacked-well-control-six-weeks-before-blowout-e-mails-show.html

Obama saying he is taking over is not a good move. Gov. simply does not have the know how. BP and other big oil companies do.

[GRG55]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

Don't really have anything smart to add; this just makes me so sad...

Once this is plugged, assuming it gets plugged, does anybody know how long it could take the marine life and coastlines to recover their health? I need a little hope here.

Oil is organic. It breaks down over time [and rather quickly in high biological activity environments]. The post mortem on the Exxon Valdez accident demonstrated that the dispersants and detergents that were used to try to clean up the oil did more long term damage than the oil itself.

Once again I am not trying to underplay or understate the consequences of this disaster, but nobody even remembers the 1979/80 Ixtoc I blowout which spewed large quantities of oil into the Gulf of Mexico for almost 10 months. There's something to be learned from that.