Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘well control incidents’ Category

JL Daeschler recalls the early days of well control training at LSU

Posted in drilling, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, well control incidents, tagged , , , , , on January 29, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Pioneering offshore engineer J.L. Daeschler, a Frenchman who lives in Scotland and has worked on drilling rigs worldwide, shared his 1974 training certificate signed by Bill Hise, the first director of the Blowout Prevention and Well Control Training Center at LSU. JL recalls his training:

The LSU well control course was new and very well organized. Training options were limited at that time. LSU took a step forward and incorporated equipment donated by Cameron Iron Works, Armco Steel /National, VETCO, and others.

The course was split between indoor class room style and outdoor training on a live well to remind us of the real things, like hard hats, tally books, and safety shoes.

LSU had a 1200 ft vertical well and a small 2″ diameter gas injection line to create a bottom hole gas kick, using a nitrogen truck as the supply. (note: the live well was a first for any well control school.) You had a choice of several manual chokes.  I selected the Cameron Willis choke to circulate the gas kick out with no increase in mud weight (drillers method).

The mud return level, kick detection, and general management of the operation were realistic as if on a rig. The gas would whistle and escape thru a vent line.

The training was simple and effective in that proper well control procedures were learned. In the process, there were many errors. Mud was seen flying out of the mud shaker/pits. School management would bring things under control and explain the errors that were made !!!

Given the importance of minimizing drilling risks, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) was the primary funder of the LSU facility. MMS predecessor, the Conservation Division of USGS, first established well control training requirements in 1975 (pasted below).

LSU’s well control center video:

Read Full Post »

56 years ago today ….

Posted in accidents, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, well control incidents, tagged , , , , on January 28, 2025| Leave a Comment »

… Union Oil Company’s reckless well plan forever scarred the U.S. offshore program. Learn more about the details.

Santa Barbara blowout

Examinations of the Santa Barbara, Montara, and Macondo blowouts, the Piper Alpha fire, and other major incidents should be a part of every petroleum engineering curriculum, and should be mandatory for those who conduct and regulate offshore oil and gas operations.

There is no better learning experience than studying the failures that had such enormous human and economic consequences.

Read Full Post »

Excellent JPT article on advances in deepwater technology

Posted in Gulf of Mexico, Guyana, Offshore Energy - General, well control incidents, tagged , , , , , , , , on September 6, 2024| Leave a Comment »

Chevron slide: Advances in seismic imaging help characterize deepwater development opportunities

A new JPT article features comments from BOE contributor Lars Herbst on advances in HPHT technology, control systems, sensors and transmitters, and automation that are facilitating the next era of deepwater development.

Well capping technology, which provides a tertiary well control capability, is an essential element of post-Macondo exploration and development. Lars points to the importance of BSEE’s unannounced drill program to verify that capping stacks can be transported and installed in a timely manner. Chevron expresses pride in leading a team that deployed and installed a capping stack in 6,200 feet of water in a drill monitored by BSEE. During that drill, a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) closed 10 valves to shut in a simulated well.

Exxon’s Jayme Meier aptly characterizes the challenge and excitement of deepwater development:

“You are floating on a surface, and you have to be able to pinpoint exactly where you’re going to land subsea hardware, exactly where you’re going to moor an FPSO and hit target boxes that are a few feet by a few feet, and they’re 6,000 ft below you,” she said. “It is the most exciting thing that I’ve ever been involved in. And it involves technology, technical know-how, and an ability to really plan the base plan and the contingency plan.”

Advances in deepwater technology are indeed impressive, but continuous improvement must always be the objective. In that regard, Lars rightfully emphasizes the importance of sustaining research through the industry’s up and down cycles.

Read Full Post »

“The most common error of a smart engineer is to optimize a thing that should not exist.” ~Elon Musk

Posted in accidents, Uncategorized, well control incidents, tagged , , , , , , on July 15, 2024| Leave a Comment »

This is very true, but engineers may not have a choice when directed to optimize a flawed decision.

Gaza pier

For example, the installation of the Gaza pier was a political decision imposed on military engineers without assessing the operational risks. The $230 million pier was in operation for only 20 days, long enough for several serious injuries to result from the reckless decision.

Some of the worst offshore drilling incidents were largely the result of culture or management driven attempts to save time and money. Modest cost savings were prioritized over verifying well integrity during both the Montara and Macondo well suspensions. The Santa Barbara blowout was the result of eliminating a casing string during development drilling, which virtually assured an uncontrolled flow in the event of a well kick.

Danenberger slide

 

Read Full Post »

Safety standards, regulations, management, and culture: continuous improvement is the essential common denominator

Posted in accidents, Offshore Energy - General, UK, well control incidents, tagged , , , , , , , on May 9, 2024| Leave a Comment »

JL Daeschler, pioneering subsea engineer and BOE contributor, recounted a frightening incident in 1976, a year after UK North Sea production began:

We found ourselves in a drastic situation. While working on a subsea well, the wireline retrievable tubing safety valve got tangled up in the tree area. We had an open well situation and couldn’t cut the wire in the subsea tree. Further, the weather was bad, and keeping on location was difficult. The riser hydraulic release was faulty, so there was an imminent high risk of a “jammed ” subsea tree, bent/damaged riser, and uncontrollable well flow.

We got through this, but recognized that improved well control capabilities were needed during workover operations. Management decided that any future workover operations on a subsea tree/well would require a small diameter workover BOP with shearing capability immediately above the Xmas tree. A year later, we had the hybrid kit pictured below (with JL). Note that the guide funnels are slim to run on guide lines and not overshoot the guide base posts.

JL’s story reminds us once again that safety achievement is dependent on continuous improvement driven by experience, research, and technological advances.

When I was a young engineer with the US Geological Survey, the OCS safety regulator at the time, my boss and mentor Richard Krahl (known as “Mr. OCS” for his commitment to offshore safety) slammed😀 a copy of the first edition of API RP 14C (Analysis, Design, Installation, and Testing of Safety Systems for Offshore Production Facilities) on my desk and told me to read it carefully. That pioneering process safety document has grown with the offshore industry and is now in its 8th edition.

Similarly, API RP 2A-WSD (Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms— Working Stress Design) is now in its 22nd edition and API STD 53 (Well Control Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells) is in its 5th edition. There are countless other examples of the progression in safety equipment and practices.

As individuals, companies, agencies, and collectively as an industry, there can be no standing still. Nothing is routine and the challenges continue to grow: deeper wells, more complex geology, higher temperature and pressure, deeper water, harsher environments, remote locations, new security risks, and more. We get better or we get worse, and the latter is not an option. Onward!

Read Full Post »

Capping stack for Guyana – prudent requirement

Posted in Gulf of Mexico, Guyana, Offshore Energy - General, oil spill response, well control incidents, tagged , , , , , , on May 6, 2024| 1 Comment »

The government’s decision to require that a capping stack be located in Guyana is prudent. Although the need for a capping stack is dependent on multiple barrier failures and is thus extremely low, the environmental and economic consequences of a prolonged well blowout warrant timely access to this tertiary well control option.

A capping stack must be properly maintained and deployable without delay. In that regard, BSEE has a good program for testing Gulf of Mexico capping stack readiness. Capping stack drills are an important post-Macondo addition to the unannounced oil spill response program that dates back to 1981.

The capping stack designed during the Macondo blowout shut-in the well on 15 July 2010. The decision process that allowed the well to remain shut-in was a bit perplexing, and we had a bizarre situation where the Federal Incident Commander threatened to require the resumption of the blowout. The same well integrity concerns had prematurely ended the “top kill” operation on 28 May, allowing the well to flow unnecessarily into the Gulf for an additional 48 days (5/28-7/15). (See this important paper by LSU Petroleum Engineering professor Dr. Mayank Tyagi et al: Analysis of Well Containment and Control Attempts in the Aftermath of the Deepwater Blowout in MC252)

“Troy Naquin, BSEE New Orleans District, observes as a capping stack is carefully lowered onto the deck of ship to be transported more than 100 miles offshore for a drill designed to test industry’s ability to successfully deploy it in case of an emergency, May 8, 2023.” BSEE photo/Bobby Nash

Read Full Post »

Deepwater Horizon – Complacency: A message from Jason Mathews

Posted in accidents, drilling, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, well control incidents, tagged , , , , , , , on April 19, 2024| 1 Comment »

I had the pleasure of working with Jason Mathews when he was a young MMS engineer. He truly cared about our safety mission and has taken that commitment to the next level at BSEE. Jason shared this important, heartfelt message on the anniversary of the Macondo blowout.

One of the greatest gifts I ever received in life is having a little girl and having the opportunity to go home every evening and spending time with her at cheer, softball, doing homework, etc. I have a great deal of respect for the men and women who work offshore and put their lives on hold for 14-28 days to deliver much needed OCS production to meet US demand. Undoubtedly, they are better / tougher people than me.

Over the last year, my team has seen multiple incidents that had a high potential severity that could have led to a fatal / serious injury or major incident in the GOM. Although we can sit and debate the causal factors for hours, one that jumps to the top of the discussion is the Human Factor – Complacency. Of all the things a leader should fear, complacency heads the list. There is no doubt success breeds complacency, and complacency breeds failure.

To this day, I am still shook by the mindset and complacency of many onboard the Deepwater Horizon prior to the incident. During testimony in the public hearings, John Guide, the BP well team leader for the Horizon, believed that the rig crew had become “too comfortable” because of its good track record for drilling difficult wells. Ross Skidmore, a BP contractor on the rig on April 20, testified that the crew became complacent after completing drilling because “when you get to that point, everybody goes to the mindset that weʹre through, this job is done.”  To me, the complacency on the Deepwater Horizon could be attributable to the crew not having access to all of the well data (OptiCem reports – cement job risk) available to BP personnel onshore and the well site leaders on the rig. Our investigation concluded, the overall complacency of the Deepwater Horizon crew was a possible contributing cause of the kick detection failure.

As regulators, we have special roles in the GOM as it relates to safety:

  • Driving the avoidance of complacency and risk-free mindsets of the offshore employees
  • Understanding we can’t be selfish – Our success is not our individual personal growth / gains, but it is being unwavering in your promotion of offshore safety to ensure all offshore employees return home to their families safely
  • Holding each other (internally) and industry (externally) accountable when necessary

In order to achieve greatness offshore, we ,as a regulator,  have to believe we can, and never sit still until we achieve it. 

Everyone on this email has a very critical function and role. Never underestimate the value of what you do, have the proper mindset, and avoid complacency.

Do whatever it takes to ensure the people offshore are gifted the same gift we receive every day – going home to our families.

All In –

Jason P. Mathews, Petroleum Engineer, Field Operations – OSM

Friday Night LIghts: Coach Mathews and his daughter

Read Full Post »

Interesting new player in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico – GOM 1 Holdings Inc.

Posted in decommissioning, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, well control incidents, tagged , , , , , , on April 9, 2024| Leave a Comment »

Houston, TX, March 29, 2024. Beacon Offshore Energy LLC (“Beacon”) announced today the completion of the divestment of its non-operated interests in certain fields in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico in accordance with a previously executed definitive agreement with GOM 1 Holdings Inc., an affiliate of O.G. Oil & Gas Limited. The divestment includes Beacon’s 18.7% interest in the Buckskin producing field, 17% interest in the Leon development, 16.15% interest in the Castile development, 0.5% interest in the Salamanca FPS/lateral infrastructure, and 32.83% interest in the Sicily discovery.

Beacon

According to BOEM records, GOM 1 HOLDINGS INC, a Delaware company, registered with BOEM effective 3/15/2024. The parent entity, O.G. Oil & Gas Limited, is a privately held E&P company incorporated in 2017 and based in Singapore.

O.G. Oil & Gas Ltd is part of the Ofer Global Group, “a private portfolio of international businesses active in maritime shipping, real estate and hotels, technology, banking, energy and large public investments.”

After a partial takeover by O.G Oil & Gas Limited in 2018, New Zealand Oil and Gas is now 70% owned by the Ofer Global Group. Among other interests, NZ Oil and Gas produces from fields offshore Taranaki, NZ.

Because they are jointly and severally liable for safe operations and decommissioning, minority investors should take a strong interest in safety management and financial assurance. Investors should remember that partners are adversely affected by the mistakes of the operating company. Anadarko and Mitsubishi took a hit following the Macondo blowout. To what extent had they been monitoring bp’s risk and safety management programs for drilling operations?

Read Full Post »

55 years ago today a reckless well plan permanently scarred the US offshore program 

Posted in accidents, California, Offshore Energy - General, oil spill response, seeps, well control incidents, tagged , , , , on January 28, 2024| Leave a Comment »

On January 28, 1969, well A-21, the 5th well to be drilled from Union Oil Company’s “A” platform began flowing uncontrollably through fractures into the Santa Barbara Channel.

The absence of any well casing to protect the permeable, fractured cap rock meant that the operator couldn’t safely shut-in a sudden influx of hydrocarbons into the well bore (i.e. a “kick”). Shutting-in the well at the surface would create well bore fractures through which oil and gas could migrate to shallow strata and the sea floor. The probability of an oil blowout was thus essentially the same as the probability of a kick (>10-2). Compare this with the historical US offshore oil blowout probability (<10-4) and the probability of <10-5 for wells with optimal barrier management.

Here, in brief, is the well A-21 story:

  • Well drilled to total depth of 3203′ below the ocean floor (BOF).
  • 13 3/8″ casing had been set at 238′ BOF. The well was unprotected from the base of this casing string to total depth.
  • Evidence of natural seeps near the site suggested the presence of fracture channels
  • The well was drilled through permeable cap rock and a small high pressured gas reservoir before penetrating the target oil sands.
  • When the well reached total depth, the crew started pulling drill pipe out of hole to in preparation for well logging.
  • The first 5 stands of drill pipe pulled tight; the next 3 pulled free suggesting the swabbing of fluids into the well bore..
  • The well started flowing through the drill pipe. The crew attempted to stab an inside preventer into the drill pipe, but the well was blowing too hard. The crew then attempted unsuccessfully to stab the kelly into the drill pipe and halt the flow.
  • The crew dropped the drill pipe into the well bore and closed the blind ram to shut-in the well.
  • Boils of gas began to appear on the water surface. Oil flowed to the surface through numerous fracture channels. The above sketch by former colleague Jerry Daniels (RIP) depicts the fracturing, which greatly complicated mitigation of the flow.

Here is the link to an excellent US Geological Survey report from 1969 that describes the geologic setting, well activities, and remedial measures after the blowout.

We need to continue studying these historically important incidents, not just the technical details but also the human and organizational factors that allowed such safety and environmental disasters to occur. The idea is not to shame, but to remember and better understand.

Read Full Post »

Petrel 1 blowout, 1969, Australia

Posted in Australia, drilling, Offshore Energy - General, well control incidents, tagged , , , , on January 12, 2024| Leave a Comment »

As we approach the 55th anniversary of the Santa Barbara blowout (more to follow), pioneering subsea engineer JL Daeschler reminds us of a lesser known, but very serious, drilling blowout that occurred the same year offshore Northern Australia.

As is the case with most historic incidents, the lessons learned are still pertinent today and should be studied by those involved with well operations. Training sessions should consider what went wrong then, how technology and practices have changed since, how similar incidents could still occur, and innovations and improved practices that could further mitigate well control risks.

While well control technology and procedures are much improved, the fundamental issues discussed in the attached video remain the same. Well control must always be considered a work in progress with continuous improvement being the objective.

(The Sedco 135G semisubmersible that drilled this well is of the same design as the Sedco 135B rig that sank offshore Borneo in 1965.)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »