Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘offshore oil’

A BP plan review prepared in mid-April recommended against the full string of casing because it would create “an open annulus to the wellhead” and make the seal assembly at the wellhead the “only barrier” to gas flow if the cement job failed. Despite this and other warnings, BP chose the more risky casing option, apparently because the liner option would have cost $7 to $10 million more and taken longer.

While the circumstances and details differ significantly, Montara (Timor Sea blowout) flashed across my mind repeatedly while reading this informative letter from Chairmen Waxman and Stupak to BP.  Common themes:

  1. Well integrity roulette: high risk well design
  2. Suspect production casing cement job
  3. Only one questionable barrier above the cement
  4. Multiple poor decisions on barriers
  5. Schedule concerns, time and efficiency pressure
  6. Failure to run Cement Bond Log and conduct confirming tests
  7. Mud weight and conditioning issues

Read Full Post »

The Unified Command’s collegial atmosphere seems to have given way to letter writing and public posturing.  Agency and company logos are no longer side-by-side on the official response website banner and joint briefings ended shortly after the Top Kill disappointment.  What all this means for future emergency response operations and the Unified Command concept remains to be determined.  Major spill response exercises and table-top drills cannot simulate the stress associated with a long battle like Macondo, and the resulting legal, administrative, and political tension.

In any event, a 13 June letter from Doug Suttles to Admiral Watson outlines BP’s impressive production strategy for the Macondo, pending completion of the relief well.  Most elements of this collection and production plan had been previously identified.  However, I was surprised by the following sentence on page 3:

Install a new LMRP cap with sufficient seal integrity to ensure a successful relief well kill operation.

I believe this is the first time BP has suggested that the success of the relief well was in any way linked to seafloor capping or wellhead intervention operations.  I assume BP is simply acknowledging that the kill operation would be easier if flow from the cap is constrained and back-pressure imposed on the flowing well.  Perhaps BP would like to elaborate.

Read Full Post »

Ponder this: What if the responsible party was not BP or one of the other “supermajors” (i.e. Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Total)? This would have been the likely scenario:

  1. The responsible party, which we’ll call Company XYZ, would have quickly exhausted its financial resources, including insurance.  Bankruptcy would be a high probability.
  2. XYZ would have to control costs and would not contract a second relief well rig, employ an armada of support vessels and ROVs, fund protective barrier islands, or install a complex floating production system for oil containment and recovery purposes.  The Federal government could, of course, direct XYZ to do all of these things, but how could XYZ comply?
  3. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund would be exhausted.  The per barrel production and transportation fees would have to be quickly and  significantly increased to pay the ongoing spill response costs.
  4. XYZ would limit damage payments to the $75 million maximum specified in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.  Congress could, of course, change that limit, but could they do so retroactively?
  5. In light of the above, the entire mess would become the responsibility of the Federal government.  The government would have to design and manage the relief well operations, subsea collection programs, and all aspects of the spill response.  All this would have to be accomplished amidst loud (think vuvuzela noise levels) public criticism, finger-pointing, and emergency hearings and litigation.  Multiply the current level of acrimony and discontent by 100 and you get a sense of how ugly this would be.

What happens to the Macondo field? We don’t know much about the size of the Macondo reservoir(s), but we have certainly learned about the impressive flow potential.  After the well is plugged and the regulatory issues are addressed, will BP seek to develop the field, assign their interests to other companies, or relinquish their leases?  Will BP even have the option of making these choices, or will the Federal government seek to disqualify the company from developing the field?

Relief well plans: While BP has done a better job of providing technical information, the precise relief well target has not been specified.  In that regard, BOE has received a number of complaints from engineers and other interested parties.  Since the region and nation are literally and figuratively dependent on this well for relief, the public needs to know more about the plan.  We now have the casing program details for the well that is flowing (thanks to DOE), so the key piece of information needed is the specific intercept point in the well bore.   We also need to know the suspected flow path(s) for the oil.  Surely BP and the Unified Command have an informed opinion on that important matter.  Again, the right to confidentiality on these matters was forfeited when the well blew out.

Read Full Post »

I have received the letter from Chairmen Waxman and Stupak of the of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, requesting that the CSB investigate the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout.  It is my desire that the CSB do everything it can to facilitate the request and to undertake the investigation and determine what factors led to the explosion and failure of the blowout prevention system. ~John Bresland, CSB Chairman

In addition to the House and Senate Hearings, this would bring the number of official investigations to four:

  1. MMS-Coast Guard investigation required by the OCS Lands Act
  2. National Academy review requested by the Department of the Interior
  3. National Commission established by the President
  4. Chemical Safety Board review requested by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

I have long advocated an independent investigation capability for major OCS incidents and recommended a special commission in my testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Committee on May 11.  However, is four official reviews too many?  The MMS-CG investigation is well underway and is required by statute, but the 3 independent reviews have yet to begin.  Perhaps these efforts can be consolidated.  If not, their respective missions must be very clearly defined.  Otherwise, there is a significant risk of gaps, confusion, and unnecessary overlap.  We need to make sure that each group knows their role and is staffed to obtain the information needed to prevent the recurrence of other offshore tragedies, in the US and elsewhere.

Read Full Post »

By the end of June, BP hopes to have the following arrangements in place:

  1. New well cap with improved sealing mechanism
  2. New seafloor manifold feeding production to a floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel
  3. Shuttle tankers supporting FPSO
  4. Alternative flow path via choke and kill lines back to the Q4000 support vessel

The challenge will be minimizing production system downtime and the associated spikes in spillage, particularly during hurricane evacuations.

Read Full Post »

When they sheared the riser prior to installing the LMRP cap, the video clearly shows two segments of sheared drill pipe inside the riser.  How that happened is a mystery.  Did the explosion break the work string into multiple segments which fell back toward the BOP?

Read Full Post »

spill response methods

But I can tell you, based on 21 years’ experience analyzing and observing oil spills, that the best minds in the business are already doing all they can. No special techniques that would work well to clean up the oil in this situation aren’t being tried or planned. There simply are no foolproof solutions. ~ Dagmar Schmidt Etkin

link

Read Full Post »

Jason Mathews

Kudos to Jason Mathews, David Dykes, John McCarroll, and their Coast Guard colleagues for their excellent work on the MMS-USCG investigation of the Macondo blowout.  Catch some of the testimony on C-Span.

Read Full Post »

We won’t get a good read on the cap’s effectiveness until its placement is adjusted and oil production is stabilized.  Flow to the surface may also be initiated through the choke and kill lines, which could supplement and improve the effectiveness of the cap system.

Update from Deepwater Horizon Response Facebook page:

The LMRP Cap is in place and nitrogen pressure head is slowly being reduced in the riser. Throughout the day, the vents in the cap will be closed as production begins on the surface. The goal is to ensure methane hydrates do not form in the cap.

Read Full Post »

  • “Worst environmental disaster in US history” –  Reporters may want to wait until all of the data are in before making those kind of statements.  Largest oil spill doesn’t necessarily equate to the worst environmental disaster.  Some very large spills have had minimal long-term environmental damage, while the effects of some smaller spills have been quite serious.  The extensive long-term monitoring program will give us the answers.
  • Loss of wetlands – Louisiana has experienced serious wetland losses for years with little attention from the national media.  The barrier islands, which were approved by Admiral Allen, have been on the drawing board for some time and are primarily for wetlands restoration purposes.  Ironically, these islands may not have been approved and funded were it not for the oil spill.
  • BP employees – I’d like to see some reporting from the standpoint of typical BP employees.  Their lives have also been shattered.  The very existence of their company, which has lost 1/4 of its market value, is threatened.  While few BP employees had anything to do with the Macondo disaster, they are all working hard to set things right and continue their domestic and international operations.  It must be frustrating to realize that no matter how hard they work, it won’t be good enough to satisfy the critics.
  • Will the national reaction do more damage than the spill?  US production is threatened in the Gulf and elsewhere, and jobs are already being lost.  Preventing offshore drilling and production doesn’t prevent oil consumption.  As long as we consume oil, there will be a risk of spilling it during the production and transportation process.  We need to better manage those risks.  We didn’t eliminate tanker transport after Valdez, and we shouldn’t eliminate offshore exploration and production in the wake of Macondo.  Let’s not boycott ourselves and make OPEC the primary beneficiary of this disaster.
  • “Nationalize BP”- Just when you thought the commentary couldn’t get any sillier, you hear this kind of nonsense.  Hugo Chavez must be smiling.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »