Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Marine Well Containment Company’

Good Nola.com article on the well containment systems

Comments on well capping and containment:

  1. Capping and containment systems, while important and necessary, are for blowout response, not blowout prevention. Their use, successful or otherwise, would only occur after a series of unacceptable failures.
  2. Having two capping and containment consortia in the Gulf of Mexico (and none anywhere else in the world) does not seem to be very cost effective or efficient.
  3. What are the plans for subsea capping and containment systems elsewhere?
  4. A capping/containment capability would not have saved a single life on the Deepwater Horizon. Verified barriers must be in place to prevent flow from the well bore.
  5. The well responsible for our other major drilling blowout spill (Santa Barbara – 1969), was capped at the surface by closing the blind ram on the BOP shortly after flow began. However, capping doesn’t work if you don’t have a competent well bore. The well flowed through numerous channels back to the seafloor.
  6. Capping subsea wells is safer than capping surface wells.
  7. Capping the Montara blowout (2009) in only 80m of water was neither safe nor technically feasible because of the way the well was suspended. Despite the complete absence of a capping option at Montara, the capping of surface wells has received little attention.
  8. The more critical, but less publicized, post-Macondo initiatives pertain to well design, construction, and verification. In that regard, important new standards, including the Well Construction Interface Document, are scheduled to be completed soon. That work must not be delayed.
  9. While capping stacks and containment systems will only be used in the event of a series of major failures, design and construction procedures are critical every time a well is drilled. The importance of the initial design decisions continues into the production phase and beyond, even after the well has been plugged and abandoned.

Read Full Post »

1. Helix has inked 19 Gulf of Mexico customers for its Deepwater Containment System. What will happen to the Marine Well Containment Company which was announced with much fanfare in July? Does it make sense to have two such consortiums operating in the Gulf?

2. No new reports on the Apache gas leak in the press or on the company’s website.  More transparency is needed in the post-Macondo era.

3. The Deepwater Horizon BOP testing remains a mystery. If you disregard the erroneous January 5th and 6th updates (which pertain to hearings held last summer), the official investigation website has not been updated since before Christmas. Given the importance of this work, the absence of status updates is disappointing.

4. Useful listing of deepwater Gulf projects in Offshore magazine.

5. The National Commission Chairs will appear before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee tomorrow.  The hearing will be webcast live beginning at 0930. Here is some pre-hearing chatter.

6. The Aban Pearl semisubmersible drilling rig sunk offshore Venezuela last May.  Will the world ever find out what happened? In fairness to Venezuela, they aren’t the only ones sitting on reports.

7. “The oil spill [has] definitely [been] blown out of proportion.” Judith McDowell is a highly respected scientist. If this is an accurate quote, it is quite significant.

8. Transocean wants to pay dividend.

9. Interested in serving on DOI’s Safety Committee?

10. A great painting completes the list!

Read Full Post »

Click on photo to enlarge.  MWCC information sheet.

Read Full Post »

link

Exxon, Shell, Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhilips will each give $250 million to establish a non-profit organization, the Marine Well Containment Co., to produce and manage the equipment. The system will be designed and built over the next 12 to 18 months to handle spills of 100,000 barrels a day in waters as deep as 10,000 feet (3,048 meters), the companies said in a statement yesterday.

Comments:

  1. Excellent and necessary initiative.
  2. Will other GoM operators participate?  Unless they can provide a similar capability, they will probably have no choice.
  3. It may be difficult to manage a capability that will probably (hopefully) never be used?  Realistic simulations and drills will be critical.
  4. Could major components of this capability be used for other purposes?  Colin Leach has suggested that an FPSO (Cascade-Chinook?) might provide the necessary collection and processing capability.  Such an FPSO could be promptly relocated to the site of a blowout.
  5. More on this later, but there are advantages to a seafloor blowout (as opposed to a blowout from a surface wellhead), particularly from a safety standpoint.  Also, seafloor BOPE has a better historicial performance record than surface BOPE.  This new capability will address the major subsea well deficiencies –  intervention, containment, and collection. 
  6. I don’t think surface wellheads should be left out of the picture.  A surface capping operation on a platform or jack-up rig is far from a slam dunk, and is more hazardous than a subsurface capping operation.
  7. Well integrity is, of course, critical to the success of any well containment operation, and that should be the primary area of consideration for all offshore operators.

Read Full Post »