Feeds:
Posts
Comments

A previous BOE post estimated that current stabilized GoM oil production rates were 1.7 – 1.8 million BOPD. EIA recently announced that May production was 1.791 million BOPD, which is consistent with our estimate. Per the chart below, GoM production was essentially unchanged from the beginning of the year despite a 37% increase in the price of oil (WTI) from 1 January to 31 May. This suggests that stabilized GoM production may have peaked pending first oil from several new projects.

Key production questions:

  • Will new production from Mad Dog 2, Vito, PowerNap, Thunder Horse South 2, and the recently sanctioned Whale project offset high depletion rates elsewhere in the deepwater GoM?
  • Looking further ahead, is deepwater GoM production sustainable without increased drilling activity? Per BSEE data, only 33 deepwater wells were started in 2021 YTD, just 18 of which are classified as exploratory. Drilling is thus at historic low levels. For reference, there were 477 wells started in 2001, 149 of which were exploratory. This level of activity facilitated a 30% growth in oil production, peaking at 2 million BOPD in 2019.

Regardless of one’s views on the urgency and timing of the “energy transition,” is there any doubt that oil and gas will continue to be important to our economy and security for years to come? If not, should deepwater GoM production, with its relatively low carbon intensity, be a core element of our energy strategy? To better understand the trade-offs, I suggest that BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program conduct a peer reviewed assessment of the carbon intensity of domestic and international supply alternatives. Product transportation considerations should be included in this assessment.

Continuous improvement has to be the primary objective of offshore safety leaders, and this independent blog is committed to recognizing initiatives that further reduce safety and environmental risks. Australia’s collaborative mental survey project is an interesting such initiative in its early stages. Two other important initiatives are noted below.

BSEE’s Dropped Object Risk-Based Inspection initiative: As has been the case for 50 years, most offshore fatalities and serious injuries are associated with falls or falling and moving objects/equipment. BSEE’s Dropped Objects initiative, as described in a presentation by Jason Mathews during a recent Center for Offshore Safety (COS) webinar is intended to draw further attention to and better manage these risks. In addition to BSEE’s focused inspections, the “Good Practices” being followed by some operators and contractors, as described on pages 40-50 of the presentation, are encouraging. These types of initiatives are necessary if we are to achieve the elusive “zero fatality” year on the US OCS.

IOGP process safety guidance, Report 456 v.2 : Contrary to some post-Macondo narratives, process safety and well control were always the primary focus of the US OCS regulatory program. In 1974, my boss Richard Krahl (known as “Mr. OCS” for his commitment to offshore safety) dropped 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 it was an excellent document that I should read. RP 14 C and other process safety standards were incorporated into the USGS OCS Orders (regulations) in the 1970’s. For decades, the USGS and MMS were leaders in well control and production safety research and training. That said, better indicators and improved approaches to offshore facility process safety were needed, and the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers report has provided an excellent framework. Report 456 is comprehensive and technically sound, and provides excellent guidance and examples. Very well done!

In light of energy security and price considerations, rebounding oil demand, uncertainty about the long-term viability of non-conventional onshore production, and the elimination of most other offshore options, sustaining deepwater GoM production should be a high-priority U.S. policy objective. The deepwater GoM also offers significant environmental advantages in that approximately 1.6 million BOPD are produced from only 58 widely dispersed surface facilities that are well maintained, closely monitored and inspected, and distant from shore. Another advantage of US deepwater production is the low carbon intensity relative to other sources of petroleum (more on this in a later post).

EIA (Chart 1) projects relatively stable GoM production over the next 2 years. Platt’s (Chart 2) is forecasting a slight decline in 2021 production primarily because of COVID-related delays in the initiation of production at Shell’s VIto and PowerNap and BP’s Mad Dog 2 and Thunder Horse South 2 facilities. Based on the latest available EIA data, current stabilized GoM oil production appears to be in the 1.7-1.8 million BOPD range.

Going forward, the concern is the high rate of reserve depletion and the absence of drilling activity needed to replace reserves. Schlumberger data through 2016 (Chart 3) show depletion rates rising to above 20%, the highest (by far) of the offshore regions analyzed. I was unable to find more recent data, but unless this trend line has made a sharp turn, production declines are likely in the next 3-5 years. Further, drilling trends do not suggest the likelihood of significant reserve growth. Data from BSEE’s Borehole File (Chart 4) indicate deepwater well start activity that is comparable to the moratorium years of 2010 and 2011. Even more concerning is the absence of exploratory drilling (chart 5) and the very few operating companies that are drilling deepwater wells. Only five operators have spudded deepwater exploratory wells in 2021 YTD. One US supermajor hasn’t started a well since 2019, and another US major has essentially exited the Gulf.

Deepwater production trends are not easily reversed, so dialogue is urgently needed to assess the implications of declines in drilling, reserves, and industry interest. As the resource manager on behalf of the public, BOEM is the logical choice for initiating these discussions. BOEM’s Norwegian equivalent, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) demonstrates the importance of pro-active land management. The NPD has done an outstanding job of sustaining exploration activity and production consistent with Norwegian safety and environmental values, which are among the highest in the world. On their website, NPD provides ongoing updates on exploration, production, and reserve depletion parameters. Their competency and commitment to sustaining production on the Norwegian shelf is underscored in this news release, an excerpt from which is pasted below:

Exploration is of great importance for the long-term value creation on the shelf. The supply of oil and gas resources from new discoveries, as we have seen so far this year, is necessary so that activity in the petroleum industry does not fall sharply after 2030. Without new discoveries, production can fall by more than 70 percent in 2040 compared to 2020, says Torgeir Stordal, director of Technology and coexistence in the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate.

NPD, July 21, 2021
monthly crude oil production from U.S. federal gulf of Mexico
Chart 1, EIA GoM Production Forecast
Chart 2

cid:image006.jpg@01D2C0D3.5EE7AEC0

Chart 3: Depletion calculated as annual production divided by proved-developed reserves at end of same year

Chart 4: Data from BSEE Borehole File; 2021 Data as of 7/23
Chart 5: Data from BSEE Borehole File; 2021 Data as of 7/23

Following the Piper Alpha tragedy (1988) and the Exxon Valdez spill (1989), the Minerals Management Service, under the direction of Dr. Charles Smith, embarked on new research to address the human and organizational factors that are fundamental to offshore safety. An important 1993 report, MMS project 167, Management of Human Error in Operation of Marine Systems by Robert Bea and William Moore, observed that:

“High consequence accidents resulted from a multiplicity of compounding sequences of breakdowns in the human, organization, and system; often there are precursors or early-warning indications of the breakdowns that are not recognized or are ignored.” The human element is complex and “states” such as “fatigue, negligence, ignorance, greed, folly, wishful thinking, mischief, laziness, excessive use of drugs, bad judgement, carelessness, physical limitations, boredom, and inadequate.” Environmental factors such as weather conditions, time of day, smoke, and noise further complicate human performance.

Bea and Moore, 1993

COVID 19 has further complicated human performance and facility management. In an effort to better understand human factors during COVID, NOPSEMA (the Australian offshore safety regulator) has partnered with industry, and labor organizations, and universities to survey offshore workers.

Per the survey announcement:

Your unique insight on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on members of the offshore workforce are vital to informing industry and the development of strategies that best support employee mental health and well-being.

BOE is looking forward to learning about the results of this survey and other efforts to better assess and understand mental health challenges facing offshore workers. The effective integration of mental health considerations into management systems is critical to safety achievement.

40 years ago today, drilling began on the first two exploratory wells on Georges Bank, a large seafloor feature that separates the Gulf of Maine from the Atlantic Ocean. The Cape Cod Times headline (below) attests to the drama that was unfolding 155 miles southeast of Nantucket. After years of debate, oil embargoes, gas lines, and the threat of future supply disruptions had tipped the political balance in favor of offshore leasing, and OCS Sale No. 42 (North Atlantic) was held one week before Christmas in 1979. Looking back, I find it remarkable that only 19 months elapsed between the lease sale and the initiation of drilling. During that time, bids were evaluated, exploration and spill response plans were drafted by the operating companies and reviewed by the Federal regulators and six coastal states, fisheries issues were addressed, and a comprehensive monitoring program was developed and initiated. Perhaps most impressive was the manner in which government (Federal and State), industry, and academic professionals with very different personal opinions about offshore drilling collaborated to assess and monitor impacts and mitigate risks.

The protesters pictured above were dispatched to the Zapata Saratoga drilling rig from the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior. Given the remote location, the protest was unexpected. However, the drilling operation was not disrupted and no action was taken against the protesters. Four years later, the Rainbow Warrior was bombed by French commandos while in port in Auckland, NZ prior to planned protests against French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. Sadly, one crew member was killed during this incident.

Below is a list of the exploratory wells that were drilled on Georges Bank. In addition, two off-structure geologic test wells were drilled in 1976 and 1977. None of the wells discovered commercially significant oil and gas resources. However, gas shows led to erroneous press reports such as the article below. In 2000, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) published a summary of the geologic findings.


Operator
Lease No.
Block/Well
Rig

___________

Water
Depth
(ft.)


_________


Lat/Long
Miles SE
Nantucket

____________


Onsite


__________



Spud

________


Offsite


_________


Well
Depth
(ft. )

________

Exxon
0170
133/1
Alaskan Star
22540°49’05”
67°56’03”
112
7/22/817/24/81 11/24/81 13,808

Shell
0218
410/1
410/1R
Saratoga
45240°34’24”
67°12’32”
155
7/10/81
8/8/81
7/24/81
8/10/81
8/8/81
3/31/82
875
15,043

Mobil
0200
312/1
Midland
26040°39’27”
67°45’55”
125
11/21/8112/8/816/27/8219,652

Exxon
0153
975/1
Alaskan Star
20941°00’24”
67°37’19”
125
11/24/8111/25/813/10/8214,313

Tenneco
0182
187/1
Alaskan Star
30040°46’15”
67°23’19”
140
3/10/823/12/828/22/8217,744

Shell
0210
357/1
Saratoga
26540°36’51”
67°44’41″1
128
4/2/824/14/829/27/8219,090

Conoco
0179
145/1
Aleutian Key
30040°49’59”
67°17’06”
145
5/9/825/13/828/25/8214,115

Mobil
0196
273/1
Midland
30240°41’04”
67°30’12”
140
6/28/826/30/829/13/8215,190
Excerpted from “Georges Bank Exploratory Drilling, 1981-1982” by EP Danenberger

Regulatory policy lessons from the Georges Bank experience:

  • Regulators with overlapping responsibilities function best as a joint authority, particularly at the field level.  While MOUs/MOAs tend to be primarily for the purpose of protecting regulatory turf, joint authorities focus on the specific mission and how the performance objectives they can best be achieved. Capt. Barry Eldridge had the foresight to co-locate a USCG Marine Safety Detachment, headed by Bob Pond, adjacent to the USGS office at Barnstable Municipal Airport.  This facilitated cooperative reviews, coordinated inspections, and joint exercises.  This collaboration led to the first ever unannounced offshore response drills.    Similar USCG/DOI organizational arrangements have proven effective in the Pacific and in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly for monitoring hurricane preparations and responses.
  • Strive to conduct regulatory functions at a single field office.  USGS had the foresight to assign exploration plan review, environmental assessment, and coordination with State government responsibilities to our district office.  As a result, our environmental specialists, geologists, engineers, and inspectors worked together, along with our State and Federal partners, from the initial planning to the decommissioning stages.  Positive working relations were developed and everyone was informed and involved.  A subsequent reorganization changed the structure of our office and led to greater control from Washington, which (unsurprisingly) was not helpful.  
  • Transparency may be a bit of a buzzword, but it’s critical to regulatory success.  Other than proprietary geologic information and well reports, we fully informed our regulatory partners about the status of activities, all incidents and near-misses, and any operational issues. Conveying news that is not-so-good, like the mooring failures that were experienced by 2 Georges Bank rigs, is part of the mission.
  • Those regulating the operations should be informed about and a part of the environmental monitoring programs. Our office worked closely with the Woods Hole and other scientist conducting the comprehensive Georges Bank Monitoring Program.  In support of Mike Bothner, USGS Woods Hole scientist, we tracked every drilling fluid additive, and verified the materials that were available on each rig.  Mike conducted a material balance on the barite and looked for chromium and other metals in sediments near the well sites. His outstanding work is summarized in this paper.  

After a brief pause (only 10 years 😀), the BOE blog is set to return on 7/22/2021. In the meantime, I am sharing this outstanding painting by Jean-Louis Daeschler, a pioneering offshore engineer and a very accomplished artist. Click on the image to enlarge.

Painting by JL Daeschler. Sharing with his permission.

I didn’t know what to expect when I kicked off this independent blog 18 months ago. I wanted to share some fun stuff, most notably the “Not My Job Award” favorites and the long list of “rigs-to-reefs” spinoffs. The blog was also a good way to follow and comment on emerging offshore energy issues and events.

Things didn’t go quite as planned, and two major accidents shaped our commentary and discussion. During the early days of the blog, attention was focused on the Montara hearings.  Each day’s transcripts were posted within hours by the very efficient Montara Inquiry staff, so we were able to read the transcripts in the early morning hours (US eastern time). Our small band of Montara watchers commented daily on the events and received mention during the hearings.

Next came Macondo.  The tragic fire and explosion killed 11, and the pollution spectacular that followed was streamed live for a worldwide audience. While officials in the US and around the world were busy solving problems that had yet to be identified, true offshore safety leaders were closely monitoring the investigations to learn what happened and why. Unfortunately, important gaps in our understaning of the accident still remain.

In light of increased personal and professional commitments, I have decided to discontinue BOE.  The blog will be removed from the web on August 12th.  I want to thank those who have visited the blog. Surprisingly, our obscure site had lots of visitors in the US and around the world.

In particular, I would like to thank Odd Finnestad and Cheryl Anderson.  Odd is an expert on regulatory policy who helped shape Norway’s highly respected offshore safety program and has advised governments around the world about regulatory and safety issues. Odd has been an important contributor to BOE from the outset. Cheryl is the world’s leading authority on oil spill occurrence rates and causes, and has contributed numerous entries to the blog.

I also want to thank JL Daeschler, a pioneering subsea engineer, for his insights and commentary. In addition to being an outstanding engineer, JL is a very talented artists whose works are now on display at prestigious galleries in Edinburgh, Scotland.  In you visit that wonderful city, make sure you view some of JL’s artwork.  There are others who have made major contributions to BOE, but have chosen to remain anonymous.  You know who you are; thank you for the support!

For good coverage of offshore safety issues, I encourage you to monitor Platts, Upstream, Fuel Fix, and Nola.com.  I hope these or other professional sites develop tracking systems for offshore accidents and hold operators and regulators accountable for publishing updates and reports in a timely manner.  I will continue to push for improvements in the collection and reporting of incident data.

I also recommend that you monitor the regulators’ websites. The site of the Petroleum Safety Authority of Norway (psa.no) provides timely information, reports, risk assessments, and updates on activities in the Norwegian sector, and is an excellent example of what a safety regulator’s website should look like.

In closing, I want to say that I am very optimistic about the future of offshore oil and gas operations in the US and around the world. I continue to be amazed by the dedication, competence, and commitment of offshore energy professionals. Although we don’t agree on everything, we are all committed to safety and pollution prevention. We can’t change the past, but we can shape the future. The world needs offshore energy, and it’s our job to respond to the challenge.

Feel free to contact me at edanenberger@gmail.com if there are any matters you wish to discuss.

Offshore to the future!

Bud

Phil Rae piece in Fuel Fix

  1. The well clearly had losses through the shoe during the initial displacement of the heavy spacer with seawater, immediately prior to the negative test.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

 

oil-eating bacteria

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute scientists have published important new findings on the rapid bacterial degradation of the Macondo spill.

They found that bacterial microbes inside the slick degraded the oil at a rate five times faster than microbes outside the slick—accounting in large part for the disappearance of the slick some three weeks after Deepwater Horizon’s Macondo well was shut off.

 

Cheryl Anderson forwarded this interesting Anchorage Daily News update on hydrate production research and linked information about the specific Department of Energy research projects.

The methane – carbon dioxide exchange project is particularly interesting and is summarized nicely by the Daily News:

Conoco Phillips will try injecting carbon dioxide into the hydrate. Laboratory tests show that injecting carbon dioxide displaces methane, which comes out of the hydrate as a gas. The idea is that the carbon dioxide molecules take the place of the methane molecules in the hydrate, keeping it stable.

This could be neat, if it works. Carbon dioxide would be permanently sequestered, or stored, underground, while the methane is extracted and the hydrate is left intact.

One question the Conoco Phillips production test will attempt to answer is whether this reaction in the hydrate can occur fast enough for methane production to reach practical volumes.

The comment below is an understatement, but the enormous energy potential justifies the research.
This isn’t a slam dunk, though. The technical challenges are considerable.