- The well clearly had losses through the shoe during the initial displacement of the heavy spacer with seawater, immediately prior to the negative test.
- Allowing for, and accepting, losses of ~80 bbls during spacer displacement, explains ALL pressure and flow anomalies without the need to create or invoke undocumented and unsubstantiated valve closures or manipulations that contradict witness testimony of events. It also eliminates the need to adopt unrealistically-low pump efficiencies for the rig pumps, hypothetical washed-out tubing and ridiculously high viscosities for the drilling mud, in an effort to fit questionable computer models.
- Despite extensive examination by investigators and the publication of several reports, the fact that the well experienced losses, making it even more severely underbalanced than was planned, has been given little credence or has received little or no attention, despite several clear indications that this was the case. While this statement regarding losses may be self-evident, its significance on the outcome at Macondo merits closer examination since it explains many previous, apparently-contradictory aspects of the disaster.
- Under-displacement of heavyweight spacer, as a result of losses during displacement, caused U-tubing and partial evacuation of the kill line, the lower end of which was later refilled with heavyweight spacer, driven by pressure and flow from the formation. The vacuum, initially, and subsequent invasion of heavy fluid rendered the kill line useless for monitoring the well since the line was effectively blind to pressure changes in the well.
- While initial flow into the well was through the shoe, pressure above the casing hanger seal during the negative test was reduced to levels that could have allowed the casing to lift, compromising the seal and possibly also allowing flow from the external annulus.
- The well encountered further losses during the second displacement (to displace the riser), after completion of the negative test. These losses, which were perhaps as much as 200 bbls, effectively replaced heavy mud with sea water in the casing below the drill pipe. This further underbalanced the well to the point that it was being kept under control only by pumping friction pressure. As the pump rate was reduced prior to shut down for the sheen test, effectively reducing system backpressure, the now severely underbalanced well began to flow.
Must read piece for those following the Macondo investigations
August 4, 2011 by offshoreenergy
This is very interesting readings. I have always been wondering about the failure of a deep water riser and the immediate effect on the well stability, particularly when the mud system hydraulics is very close to unbalance conditions in order to maximise penetration rate and lower backflow friction of the returns. In some cases the riser section is same as well depth. In Macondo was roughly 5067 ft water and 13,237 ft well total 18,304 ft.
In a situation where the riser would have failed ( drive off and no EDP / subsea collision / structural separation ) and the BOP is damaged or not closing properly , or well head pulled over you just get another Macondo.
Good simple explanation of the various path and pressures acting against your will. Good report to read, thank you.
Hi there! Thanks for posting this article and thanks for the feedback/comments. Pls note that the losses referred to are through the shoe (bottom) of the well. There is ample evidence of this and as stated, EVERY SINGLE ANOMALY, in terms of pressures and flows can be explained using this analysis. Unfortunately, the government commission continues to bury its head in the sand and the involved parties are happy to shovel more sand on top, just to keep it that way. If anyone is interested in the hard numbers on this analysis, pls let me know…..I have a full and accurate picture of what happened and why!
Thanks……….Phil Rae
Phil,
Thank you for pursuing this and sharing your analysis. I would be interested in any further data you are comfortable sending. My email address is edanenberger@gmail.com
Bud
Hi Phil,
You don’t know me, but I’d be interested in discussing the issues you are raising concerning the Macondo well. My email address is Kelly.wilson@csb.gov
Thanks
Kelly