Deepwater Horizon Blowout

**Begbie** · 30-05-2010, 05:07 PM

Not sure that your comments are relevant to this disaster. There appears to have been a string of failures of systems and backups.

**Begbie** · 30-05-2010, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Airportwo

^ Agreed, if the flow is coming up the back of the casing, "bullheading" is going to do nothing more than clean the BOP as the formation is not exposed.
Now if they closed the BOP .............................

Killing time till the relief well is drilled?, that should be "TD" now or close, seen no progress reports..............

I'd be surprised if they hit the TD first off. May take a few plug backs.

**Airportwo** · 30-05-2010, 06:06 PM

^ IF they have accurate surveys, surely they didn't cut costs there? should be no problem to get where they need to be 1st time, common now to have targets that are 1m.............
I would have thought that they must be close to interception now, I know they are saying its weeks away, but all they need to do is drill with the minimum of casing strings so they can kill the well should be no big deal..........
The original casing program was plain ridiculous..............

**Boon Mee** · 30-05-2010, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Begbie

Originally Posted by Airportwo

^ Agreed, if the flow is coming up the back of the casing, "bullheading" is going to do nothing more than clean the BOP as the formation is not exposed.
Now if they closed the BOP .............................

Killing time till the relief well is drilled?, that should be "TD" now or close, seen no progress reports..............

I'd be surprised if they hit the TD first off. May take a few plug backs.

TD is irrelevant in this case. All they need to do is plug the highest zone to be done with it. BTW, how does a 'sample-catcher' know about such downhole details?

**Airportwo** · 30-05-2010, 08:50 PM

TD is relevant! Hopefully they have plan, drill from ? to target, wherever they have decided that will be, it will be TD....

**HermantheGerman** · 01-06-2010, 03:04 AM

Maybe BP will declare bankruptcy. And the U.S. Taxpayer will get stuck with the bill. Just a thought.....

BP oil spill could be worst US environmental disaster

The oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico has been described as the worst environmental disaster in US history after BP announced that its “top kill” operation has failed.Senior US environmental advisor Carol Browner said she is now “preparing for the worst”, six weeks after the explosion on an oil rig that ruptured a pipe a mile below the surface.

"More oil is leaking in the Gulf of Mexico than at any other time in our history," she told NBC's Meet The Press on Sunday.
Browner said it was possible that "we will have oil leaking from this well until August when the relief wells will be finished."
BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said engineers will now try using another device called the Lower Marine Riser Package Cap.
Remotely operated robots on the ocean floor, 1.6 kilometres below the spot where the rig exploded will now sever the bent riser pipe and replace it with the LMRP cap. The oil will then be siphoned to the surface.
The well will only be sealed when BP finishes drilling two relief wells, but those are not expected to be ready until August.
At least 20 million gallons are now estimated to have leaked into the ocean since the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on 20 April and sank, killing 11 workers.

**Muadib** · 01-06-2010, 04:21 AM

Here is a 3rd party analysis of the Deepwater Horizon blowout that has a bit more detail than has been previously released... I cannot release the name of the author or provide a link to this material...

What happened on DWH?

The following is my theory on what happened on April 20th. I have listed factual information to the best of my knowledge, and base this theory on 33 years of experience working on these rigs, with 16 years working as a consultant worldwide. The contractor (Transocean in this case) typically does not do anything without direction and approval from the operator (BP in this case). I believe that there was nothing wrong with the BOP, or the conduct of the crews prior to the catastrophic failure. If any operator drills a similar well using the same flawed casing and cement program, the same results will be very possible.

The well was drilled to 18,360 ft and final mud weight was 14.0 ppg. The last casing long string was 16 inch and there were 3 drilling liners (13 5/8”, 11 7/8” and 9 7/8”) with 3 liner tops. A 9-7/8” X 7” tapered casing long string was run to TD. The bottom section of casing was cemented with only 51 barrels of light weight cement containing nitrogen, a tricky procedure, especially in these conditions.

The casing seal assembly was set in wellhead and pressure tested from above to 10,000 psi. Reportedly, a lock down ring was not run on the casing hanger. The casing string was pressure tested against the Shear rams, only 16.5 hours after primary cement job. A negative test on the wellhead packoff was performed.

The rig crew was likely lead to believe that the well was successfully cemented, capped and secured. Normally a responsible operator will not remove the primary source of well control (14.0 ppg drilling mud) until such conditions were met. However, the crews were given the order to displace heavy mud from riser with seawater, prior to setting the final cement plugs. They were pumping seawater down the drill string and sending returns overboard to workboat, so there was limited ability to directly detect influx via pit level. This is the fastest way to perform the displacement operation, and the method was likely directed and certainly approved by operator. There was a sudden casing failure during this displacement procedure that allowed the well to unload, with ignition of gas and oil. Evidently, the crew was able to get the diverter closed based on initial photographs, showing flames coming out of diverter lines.

It is likely that pressure built up between the 9 7/8” and 16" casing under the casing hanger, due to gas migration from the pay zone. Based on reported mud weight, the reservoir formation pressure is in excess of 13,000 psi. The pressure building in the cross sectional area below the casing hanger would have increased casing tension and caused casing to collapse and part (rapidly separate) at a connection, probably a joint or two (50’ or 90’) below wellhead. The collapse pressure for 62.8 ppf 9-7/8” casing is +/- 10,300 psi. However, the collapse resistance of casing is considerably reduced in presence of axial stress (i.e. tension). Engineers - see formula from API bulletin 5C3, section 2.1.5 and run the math. The well then came in violently through parted casing and caused the blowout. Without lockdown ring on hanger, the casing hanger and joint(s) were slingshot up into BOP. That would explain why ALL components of the BOP are unable to seal or shear. The parted casing section remains across all BOP ram cavities and probably all the way up into the riser.

Shortcut #1: Running a tapered long string rather than a liner with 9-7/8” liner top packer, followed by tieback string and pumping heavy cement all the way to seabed. Perhaps the original permits for this casing program were based on a planned appraisal well, and changed midstream to a producer well, then hastily approved by the complacent or under-staffed MMS. This tragic shortcut may have saved about 1.5 rig days.

Shortcut #2: Insufficient time was used to cure the mud losses prior to cementing the open hole reservoir section, depending instead on using lightweight cement to prevent losses to the formation.

Shortcut #3: The nitrified primary cement job. This is difficult to pull off, even under ideal conditions.

Shortcut #4: Hanger without lock ring may have used due to the previously unplanned long string, and to avoid waiting for hanger with lock ring to be fabricated or prepared.

Shortcut #5: No cement evaluation logs were performed after a job with known high calculated risk (mud losses to formation). This shortcut may have saved 8 hours of rig time.

Shortcut #6: Pressure testing casing less than 24 hours after cement in place can expand the casing before the cement is fully set. This shortcut can “crack” the cement and create a micro annulus which will allow gas migration.

Shortcut #7: Displacing 14 ppg mud from 8000 ft MDRT with 8.7 ppg seawater, less than 20 hours after primary cement is in place. How many tested and proven barriers can you count? I count zero satisfactory barriers. Industry standards dictate that at least two tested (to maximum anticipated pressure) barriers are in place prior to removing the primary source of well control (weighted mud or brine).

The operator and owner of this well ordered and directed all of the shortcuts above. There is no doubt, in my opinion, that this tragedy could not happen on a well operated by Chevron, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, Anadarko, Noble Energy, or any other responsible operators familiar to me. Transocean is still the world’s best provider of deepwater rigs and they have very competent crews. The crews on DWH were among the best in the world but they never had a chance against this tragic engineering blunder, and now we have 11 grieving families, and the environmental disaster.

Re: 60 Minutes report on possible Annular rubber observed on shakers -even if the rubber came from one of the two annular elements, the reported quantity is insignificant. These elements can withstand a lot of damage and still seal effectively. I have seen a bucket full of rubber missing from these elements and they still closed and sealed and held pressure as designed.

In my opinion, most if not all of the lawsuits filed against RIG, HAL, and CAM can be easily re-directed against the operator, when all the facts are established and proven.

**Airportwo** · 01-06-2010, 12:14 PM

^ link here Deepwater Horizon - Transocean Oil Rig Fire

Its hardly top secret, lots of these smart folks out there now want to give their version of what May have happened, dont see the point............

**crippen** · 02-06-2010, 12:30 PM

**Airportwo** · 02-06-2010, 03:51 PM

Interesting development http://www.doi.gov/news/pressrelease...e&PageID=33716

**artist** · 02-06-2010, 05:35 PM

A Smoking Gun in BP's Deep Horizon Mess

Submitted by BassMan2 on 15. May 2010 - 11:31
Thom's nationally syndicated radio showThis hasn't seemed to have gotten much circulation yet, and I think it really needs to. Seems that a crew from Schlumberger, on contract to BP, hightailed it off the platform at their own expense 6 hours before the blowout becuase BP refused their recommendation to shut down the well. This lends more credence to Thom's suggestion that corners were cut because the bigwigs were coming for a vist.

"BP contracted Schlumberger (SLB) to run the Cement Bond Log (CBL) test that was the final test on the plug that was skipped. The people testifying have been very coy about mentioning this, and you’ll see why.

SLB is an extremely highly regarded (and incredibly expensive) service company. They place a high standard on safety and train their workers to shut down unsafe operations.

SLB gets out to the Deepwater Horizon to run the CBL, and they find the well still kicking heavily, which it should not be that late in the operation. SLB orders the “company man” (BP’s man on the scene that runs the operation) to dump kill fluid down the well and shut-in the well. The company man refuses. SLB in the very next sentence asks for a helo to take all SLB personel back to shore. The company man says there are no more helo’s scheduled for the rest of the week (translation: you’re here to do a job, now do it). SLB gets on the horn to shore, calls SLB’s corporate HQ, and gets a helo flown out there at SLB’s expense and takes all SLB personel to shore.

6 hours later, the platform explodes."

More at: http://adropofrain.net/2010/05/rumor...ep-horizon-hou...

--

**Airportwo** · 02-06-2010, 08:46 PM

yep that will be right........... Makes little sense, CBL, kicking well, and the rest is just Shite.........

**raycarey** · 02-06-2010, 11:08 PM

robert reich makes the case for putting BP under temporary receivership...

Q: Is this realistic?

A: Not only realistic but it may become necessary — both operationally and politically. If the disaster continues to worsen, it’s untenable for a for-profit corporation to be in charge.

Q: But why should we expect government to do any better job than BP?

A: BP would still be at the job — and its expertise, equipment, and other assets would continue to be utilized. But the federal government would be in overall control of the operation — weighing public risks and benefits, deciding what resources are necessary, getting accurate information and disseminating it to the public.

Q: Why should we trust the government?

A: This isn’t an ideological contest about how little you trust a giant oil company versus the federal government. It’s a matter of accountability. BP’s primary responsibility is to its shareholders. And it will cut corners — as it has before — if that’s the best way to maximize the value of their shares. But only the government, through the President, is directly accountable to the American public, and responsible for protecting it.

Q: Under what legal authority could the President take control of BP’s North American operations?

A: Obama has implicit authority through laws and regulations dealing with offshore drilling, especially the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. By analogy, if a nuclear reactor were melting down, the President would use his regulatory authority over nuclear energy to take temporary control over the plant and the relevant parts of the corporation that ran it. President Truman seized the nation’s steel mills in 1952, arguing that the emergency of the Korean War necessitated it. (The Supreme Court ultimately blocked him but according to Justice Jackson, whose opinion was essentially the majority’s, that was because Truman had no statutory basis for the seizure, not even an implicit one. That isn’t the case here.)

Q: But BP is a British corporation. How can the U.S. government take control?

A: The nationality of a corporation’s shareholders has nothing to do with it. If it is operating within the jurisdiction of the United States and poses a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of Americans, a president would take control of its operations and assets in the United States.

Q: Do you really think Obama would do this? Wouldn’t he prefer to stay away from this mess and keep the responsibility squarely on BP?

A: He may not have much of a choice. If the disaster worsens and Obama doesn’t take control he risks inheriting the mantle of Katrina.

Q: What will force his hand?

A: The White House is already inching toward control. BP’s new admission that it can’t stop the leak until August has shocked a public already deeply distrustful of it. As new evidence emerges of the scale of the disaster, the pressure on the Administration to take full and open control will only grow. Last Saturday Energy Secretary Chu asked BP to cease its so-called “top kill” effort to stop up the gush because he and his team of scientists had concluded it was too risky. Now the White House has to decide whether BP’s continued use of highly toxic dispersants poses more of a threat to the public and the environment than a help. When do these decisions tip over into control? Any time now.

Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton.

Robert Reich (Putting BP Under Temporary Receivership: Some Qs and As)

**HermantheGerman** · 03-06-2010, 03:24 AM

With a little help from Sabang.

"What we conclude from the Gulf of Mexico pollution incident is that the oil companies are out of control.
"It is clear that BP has been blocking progressive legislation, both in the US and here. In Nigeria, they have been living above the law. They are now clearly a danger to the planet. The dangers of this happening again and again are high. They must be taken to the international court of justice."

https://teakdoor.com/issues/73043-nig...ulf-spill.html
Nigeria's agony dwarfs the Gulf oil spill. The US and Europe ignore it | Environment | The Observer

P.S. have'nt heard much of our anti-tree huggers.

**Jet Gorgon** · 03-06-2010, 03:29 AM

anti-tree huggers? 55555 Cute. The press and obama still say it's Bush's fault. Gosh, he must have been a REAL president. How's the current admin dealing with this issue? Oh ya. obama has to attend a concert tonight with Paul McCartney and the Jonas Bors.

**HermantheGerman** · 03-06-2010, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

anti-tree huggers? 55555 Cute. The press and obama still say it's Bush's fault. Gosh, he must have been a REAL president. How's the current admin dealing with this issue? Oh ya. obama has to attend a concert tonight with Paul McCartney and the Jonas Bors.

Like I said: have'nt heard much of the anti-tree huggers.

**Boon Mee** · 03-06-2010, 05:24 AM

WTF is an anti-tree hugger?

Actually, this Horizon blowout will be bigger than Piper Alpha & Ocean Ranger combined...

**pet coon** · 03-06-2010, 05:44 AM

Doubt the rumor that Schlumberger had a private helicopter sent to rig to get crew. The normal wait time to run a cement bond log is at least 24 hour after cement wiper/plug hits bottom. The drill pipe was in well (news reports) and the cbl cannot be run under those conditions. The Schlumberger crew would be in living quarters and not anywhere near rig floor during drill pipe lay down. As far as this being crew who did logging 5 day earlier, highly doubtful BP would pay for crew and downhole equipment for 5 day only 40+ mile from shore. This sounds like a bar story hatched by very unknowledgeable people.

**thehighlander959** · 03-06-2010, 08:51 AM

^^

Certainly not bigger in loss of life. Environmentally yes you are probably right. Remember after Piper Alpha Occidental could not get a Permit to wipe their ass in the North Sea.
also the court cases had to be settled in the UK Courts system as the US government said that as this was an operation outside US boundaries.

If the law suits concerning negligence had gone through the US Courts damages would have been astronomcal for Occidental and they would probably have gone out of business. But alas the US Government looks after their own and Occidental was a very large Prime Mover at the time. Have a look at Armand Hammer the CEO of Occidental,s statements to the Cullen Enquiry.

**S Landreth** · 04-06-2010, 04:01 AM

BP successfully cut the lower marine riser pipe at 10 a.m., using giant shears 5,000 feet below the surface of the sea, but it was a "more jagged cut" Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen told reporters, and therefore will be a looser fitting seal.

Now a containment dome with a rubber seal will be lowered over the severed pipe. Allen called the cut a "significant step forward" and said the leak could be largely sealed today. Hope so!

This morning Allen told "GMA" that he hopes they will begin funneling oil to the surface as early as today, a long as nothing goes wrong.

"They've got the top hat containment device positioned over the top of the well head. And they will be able to lower that down on a lower marine riser package as soon as they make that cut, and that's connected to a ship on the surface," Allen said on " GMA."

story: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Media/bp-oil-leak-gulf-mexico-cut-containment/story?id=10814367

**phomsanuk** · 04-06-2010, 04:05 AM

I heard a weather man say that in a previous leak in the Gulf a hurricane solved

the problem, keep your fingers crossed.

**S Landreth** · 04-06-2010, 05:47 AM

**BobR** · 04-06-2010, 06:38 AM

I love it when the politicians pander to their stupid sheeple by talking about how "angry" they are. Does anybody really think that BP is happy about this situation, or that at $77 a barrel they are not doing everything they can to stop it?

**robuzo** · 04-06-2010, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by BobR

I love it when the politicians pander to their stupid sheeple by talking about how "angry" they are. Does anybody really think that BP is happy about this situation, or that at $77 a barrel they are not doing everything they can to stop it?

No, Bob, don't think so. BP's primary concern is to limit liability. Of course they don't like losing their inventory, but you're a lawyer (criminal, I know, but still), look at the financial shell games they are playing right now.

By the way, the drama queen antics and the complaints about certain politicians not acting "angry" enough are really pathetic, I agree.

**S Landreth** · 04-06-2010, 09:46 AM

some live feeds,..............

Live Video of BP Efforts to Lower the Cap Onto the TOP of BOP | The Seminal

Live feeds from Skandi ROV1

Thread: Deepwater Horizon Blowout

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions