Transocean semi fire in BP's GoM operations

In reply to davjo, post #383

Waiter!!... a large dose of salt please!

:-)

Quite.

I wish I'd thought of a similarly-pithy and suitable response before posting this little lot: http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=11951888

SW10

In reply to SW10Chap, post #386

G'day SW10

I wish I'd thought of a similarly-pithy and suitable response before posting this little lot

It's age don't you know ;-) The older and more sceptical you become through experience of life, the easier it is to pick up on what's worth weighing and what isn't. Have to say your stuff, like the post you refer to above, is generally worth weighing every time..a thousand thanks for that :-)

In reply to SW10Chap, post #381

SW10,

Many thanks for the detailed reply. I was sure that a lot of salt water had got into that linked post but I wasn't sure what was H2O and what was NaCl, or even (NH2)2CO.

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/06/15/the-nightmare-oil-well-and-five-questions-for-bp/#more-71551

http://www.watchglennbeck.com June 14th.
Glenn Beck tries to rationalise Obama's behaviour:

Everyone thinks President Obama said that the BP Oil spill was an equal tragedy to 9/11. But, here's what he really
meant- This disaster is going to shape how we think about environment and it's going to move us forward in a bold way. The president is using the BP oil spill crisis to jam his cap-and-trade agenda down the throats of the American people and that's why he compared it to 9/11. After 9/11, you had to make sacrifices: long lines at airports; extra security checks; taking off your belts and shoes, all in the name of safety and national security. In the wake of the BP oil spill, your "sacrifice" will be the extra money you pay as energy prices "necessarily skyrocket"

In reply to ohisay, post #389

Looks like Hayward is going to have a tough time on Thursday. From my experience as a (non oil industry) engineer, I would say that the engineers on the ground routinely make comments like the "nightmare well" email. There's usually a lot of chaos behind the scenes that the public never see, which is why marketing people usually try and stop the engineers talking to outsiders! That's just the dirty reality of most engineering projects.

Whipstock,

It's a shame there's nobody here who actually wants to answer the question - yup I used the wrong words because I'm not an oil drilling expert and I'm not interested in arguing semantics.

I don't understand the fundamental reason why the top of the pipe can't be sealed?

I can think of several ways this might be done actually with bolts or without, despite your skeptical tone.

Fundamentally, crushing the end of the pipe would massively decrease the spill rate  until the relief wells are drilled but no, we must continue to allow up to 40 K barrels flood into the sea.

I think the point that there's damage down-hole to the casing is quite believable with a possibility of a majory leak if the top is closed - as soon as that happens the pressure in the well bore rises to that pressure in the reservoir and the oil and gas will start to come out around the casing.

Would love to hear from someone who actually knows the answer.

Thanks

Bugs

In reply to tournesol, post #190

   whoops - wrong thread - please ignore

In reply to bugsmunny, post #392

Bugs,

My comments were aimed at the writer of the "Conspiracy Theory" - I thought the terminology was his, so apologies if I misunderstood.

The point about using the shear rams is they cut the pipe and then seal the well bore (sometimes you have to use two sets, one to cut and another to seal). Simply crimping the pipe would restrict flow up the drill pipe but not up the wellbore unless you also closed pipe rams around the drill pipe.

Yesterday's letter from Waxman to Hayward is actually the first time I have seen some useful information about what could have caused the disaster. The fact that the casing hanger was not locked down is probably the most significant factor - it means that the casing could have been lifted out of the wellhead into the BOPs. If this is what happened (and it is still speculation) then there would have been casing and drill pipe across the BOPs giving the worst possible situation - no way of shutting off flow and no way of shearing casing or drill pipe. It certainly makes sense and explains why none of the "fail-safe" systems worked.

As it is now confirmed that a solid casing was run from TD sea bed instead of a liner and that this casing was not perforated we should be able to assume (for arguments sake lets assume no leaks through the float collar/shoe and no casing collapse) that there is no oil/gas flow inside the casing.

The relief well is supposed to intercept the casing at the reservoir. 'Intercept' usually refers to milling a hole in the steel casing wall and then pumping mud/cement to kill the flow. A tricky operation and a bit hit and miss. But why bother if there is no oil or gas in the casing! And would this not just open up another channel to the surface if it is already sealed off.

I wonder (and would be happy to be shot down if others have some other plausible suggestions) that the relief well might just target the reservoir in the first instance and pump merry hell with mud to starve the flow from the reservoir into the casing annulus (where its now assumed to be flowing) and then to the BOP. This might be easier and quicker and could show results within weeks.

Once this flow is starved and the well no longer flowing, then a intercept into the original casing would have to go ahead to meet regulatory requirements to seal the inside of the casing with cement.

passinthru

In reply to passinthru, post #395

Hi passinthru,

Once this flow is starved and the well no longer flowing, then a intercept into the original casing would have to go ahead to meet regulatory requirements to seal the inside of the casing with cement.

If the flow can be starved that way, wouldn't it allow a top-kill operation to be effective? My understanding was that the top-kill didn't work because the mudweight couldn't overcome the formation pressure.

If the formation pressure is sufficiently reduced by the relief well(s), surely the previous approach would then be effective? Given that the (slightly) tricky bit of connecting the choke & kill lines to surface hs been done, restarting the top-kill operation could surely be done quickly? Once the original well is bought back under control, would it be safer to cement it through the BOP rather than opening up a new flow pathway by milling through the casing?

[I uncomfortably but successfully escaped the EasyJet c***-up at Aberdeen last night by travelling back overnight on the non-sleeper ;0) train. Hope tournesol makes it back safe & sound tonight.]

Cheers,

Mark

In reply to marben100, post #396

Hi Mark

What you say makes sense and a combination kill of pumping in at the top and bottom might still be in order. Depending just how particular the GOM authorities want to be in placing cement to establish that the well will not develop a 'channel' in future years then pumping cement into the bottom of the well and covering the flowing part of the formation from outside and inside is usually mandatory.

Once this cement barrier is in place and plugged up to around 500 feet above the oil/gas interval and sealed into any annular space then the BOP can be removed and its quite possible that another rig will come along and run a drill pipe down to where the cement is sitting and then start to set a series of 'balanced' cement plugs probably up to the seabed.

The problem with the previous 'kill' you mentioned is that we are not sure just where the mud all went to. My guess is it took the easy route back out of the top of the BOP and I think a cement job following this pattern will create what is euphemistically referred to in the industry as sea bed car park!

New flow rate estimate out 35k to 60k estimated

Just wondering if SW10's law will have to be tweaked a bit in light of this situation.

Won't there now be more of a tendancy toward ultra cautious risk aversion increasing the size and scope of operational delays, until these considerations openly filter into future estimates?

New flow rate estimate out 35k to 60k estimated

Yes, Just seen that on the BBC. Makes me think these people producing these numbers are incompetent as they can't seem to come up with a number and stick with it for more then a few days!

Rather then just paying too much attention to headline numbers like that, I would be interested in the detail and as to why they think it is appropriate to revise their estimate.

Actually I have just found an article...

Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel laureate in physics, called the new estimate "a significant step forward in our effort to put a number on the oil that is escaping from BP's well.”

Chu, however, said the estimate is still preliminary, and that it might be revised upward.

How much oil has been flowing from the well has been hotly debated. For weeks, the Obama administration and BP placed the flow at 5,000 barrels a day. But after scientisits told Congress that the rate seemed much higher, based on brief videos of the spill, the administration set up a panel of scientists known as the Flow Rate Technical Group to provide a better assessment. Their first estimate placed the spill at 12,000 to 25,000 barrels a day. Then, last week, they raised the estimate to between 20,000 and 40,000 barrels a day, and perhaps more, before the June 3 shearing of the well's riser pipe from its dysfunctional blowout preventer.

The government said Tuesday's estimate was based on a combination of analyses: high resolution videos, acoustic technologies, measurements of oil collected at the site and new pressure measurements taken from the so-called "top hat" over the weekend.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/15/1682258/newest-oil-spill-flow-rate-35000.html#ixzz0qxhiNjoS

Says it all really. How about we are trying to screw BP as much as we can before we try to seize their assets and take our slice of the cake?

The way I see it I have taken the risk by putting a bit of money towards this. It either pays off or it does'nt, it really is that simple. At the end of the day this is just business, not the end of the world.

Does anyone know if these estimates include gas or have they been adjusted to be just oil. If 50 % gas they seem much less horrific eg maybe as low as 20k oil

Putting BP aside and regardless of what the outcome is I think it is pretty pathetic with the way Obama has dealt with this crisis.

The reality is, this is an accident, a total catastrophe that should never have happened. But the truth is it has and as a member of the public I would expect any government official, Presidenbt/Prime Minister whatever to use all the resources available to SORT THE PROBLEM out rather then looking for scapregoats to pass blame to.

But what has happened is Obama has done didly squat and just talked and talked and talked more nonsense.

I don't care whose at fault here - I just want the problem solved as quickly and efficiently as possible.

According to a Congressional panel US oil firms 'unprepared' for major offshore disaster, but what is clear to me is the US Government was not prepared for this either. What other disasters are you not prepared for?

As the so called 'most powerful' man in the world, you really are powerless.You can't seem to do anything but talk and if BP do go under it still does'nt solve this problem.

People are'nt stupid, you have the worst rating in your term and over 70% of Americans think you have'nt done everything you could.

This is no 9/11 event either, thousands of people did'nt die from this Oil leak. This is an environmental catastrophe that with time can be fixed, you can't bring back the sad loss of life from the 9/11 event. The broken families can never be fixed.

The way Obama has dealt with the current crisis is just another indication to me that I can never trust government officials to do the right thing or to trust them in a real disaster to make the right choices.

The only person I can depend on is myself.

1. BP PLC was going to pay the bills anyway

Obama is demanding BP set up a special $20 billion "fund" for Gulf victims. It sounds tough. But this is largely theater. It's like the kid who trained his pet rock to "stay."

There is no serious risk that BP would somehow skip town without paying. There never was. And, despite the hysteria, there is no danger the company will be unable to find $20 billion either.

BP has $240 billion in assets, including $70 billion in cash, inventories and receivables, compared to $135 billion in liabilities. It is one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world. It employs more than 80,000 people and has more than 50 exploration and production sites around the globe. Analysts predict BP will have operating cash flow of $30 billion this year, $36 billion next year, $42 billion in 2012 and $45 billion in 2013.

5. Let's get some perspective here

Obviously, this is an ecological disaster. The people of the Gulf coast are going to need help getting back on their feet. And the wetlands need saving and restoring. No one's going to dispute any of that.

But amid some of this hysteria, let's get a little context.

Big oil was not some evil outside monster feeding on Louisiana's plain folk. On the contrary, it was very good business for the local economy and remains so. According to the U.S. Commerce Department, Louisianans earn $13 from mining and related activities for every dollar they get from fishing.

No kidding. In 2007, the last year for which we have data, the total compensation paid to people in Louisiana working in forestry, fishing and related activities came to just $310 million. The figure for mining and support activities was $4.1 billion, with nearly all of it related to oil and gas.

Worth reading the whole  article : http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-obama-wont-tell-you-tonight-2010-06-15?dist=afterbell

SAN FRANCSICO (MarketWatch) -- Fitch Ratings revised its ratings outlook on Anadarko Petroleum  to negative because of increasing cost estimates associated with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Fitch has a BBB- rating on Anadarko. "The revision in outlook stems from the increasing flow estimates associated with the spill and uncertainties relating to Anadarko's ultimate cost responsibilities regarding its potential 25% share of containment and cleanup costs and compensatory economic damages," Fitch said in a statement

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fitch-revises-anadarko-outlook-to-negative-2010-06-15

One aspect of the COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE's letter to Hayward http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100614/Hayward.BP.2010.6.14.pdf
is interesting in respect of the federal Mineral Management Service's part in approvals needed to deviate from the drilling plan.

The letter criticises BP for taking risks in choosing to install a single string of casing instead of a liner and tieback, yet the MMS approved. Further criticism citing Transocean "Were Operator procedures appropriate?" backed up by Halliburton concerns about placement of the lockdown sleeve, were clearly an area within the jurisdiction of MMS approval to proceed or not and which was evidently sought by BP. Contractors', and lawmakers' presiding over proceedings, obviously have a deep interest to cover their own backsides and we can probably expect something of a kangaroo court in the event. Since Hayward's evidence before Committee is very likely to be an sp moving event, I very much hope he puts in a barnstorming performance. We'll see!