BP BOP Recovered - DOJ Takes Control - The Daily Hurricane

The BOP is a highly complex device including electronic, hydraulic and mechanical components with thousands of parts. Any device this complex has multiple means by which it can fail. You may not even be able to count the number of ways an airplane can fail yet we transport people on them by the tens of thousands every day.

I have said many times the cause of the blow out was gross negligence at more than one level. Such is the nature of large operations. BP made horrendous planning decisions like not doing the cement bond log, displacing the riser with seawater before the final plug was set, offloading mud while displacing the drilling mud and probably others since no one really knows what was done regarding the testing of the BOP in the weeks prior to the blow out.

Transocean is likely complicit in its maintenance and functional operation of the BOP. There are also probably design adjustments that can be made to a BOP to make them less dependent on operational solutions. One assumption of well control principles is that you should never get to the point that you have a blow out in progress when you function the BOP. You detect a kick when is begins and you shut the well in then, using planned operational procedures. If you can't retrieve the drill pipe, you hang it off on the pipe rams then shear the pipe. It guarantees the pipe will be in the correct position when you activate the shear rams and prevents dropping the drill string down the hole.

If you try to shut in the well while the pipe is being blown out of it obviously the BOP will be ineffective.

The drill crew without doubt also made multiple errors. A gas bubble the size of the one that blew the rig apart cannot possibly rise to the surface without indicator in the mud flow. Somehow these were not detected until it was too late. That is a fatal as well as foolish error. Anyone who knows well control knows monitoring fluid volumes into and out of a well accurately is critical to well control. My guess is the crew made the assumption the well was sealed and didn't perform its due diligence and thus missed the critical window of opportunity to control the well while the gas bubble was still compressed down hole.

I respect Mr. Lim's opinion but he tends to make assumptions based on conjecture. I have had some exchanges with him on his own posts. He has no direct knowledge of much of what happened and I disagree with many of his conclusions.

I respect Mr. Lim's opinion but he tends to make assumptions based on conjecture. I have had some exchanges with him on his own posts. He has no direct knowledge of much of what happened and I disagree with many of his conclusions.

Man of Knowlwdge

Thanks for respecting my opinion as I have for yours. The last time we exchanged comments was back in early Aug before Matt Simmons was dead. (Sorry I remember time by events). I have said many things since then and many had since come true. I would be most grateful if you care to elaborate / specify "which of my assumptions are based on conjecture".

It may be assumptions to you but I prefer to call it "predictive truth investigations". Why? Because based on a few published facts that do not add up, we could predict where certain parts of the exploration had gone wrong. It is through such predictions that subsequent investigations (analysis, existing evidence revealed, new evidence found, correlations etc) can narrow down the path to the truth. BP would definitely want the investigation and all discussions to focus on matters of accidental nature so that their wilful negligence, wilful misinterpretation, wilful misrepresentation and so many other management decision made with wilful ignorance, are not obvious to the public.

From my evaluation of your comments, I strangely find that you found no fault with BP's management at all. The blunders before the blow-out to the oil spill disaster, all seem to flow like one "symphony of accidental random errors". Most of our systems are designed only to handle randomly occurring errors or accidents. Any system will fail on consecutive multiple failures. Surely as an engineer like you would know that.

While it is true that nobody in their right sense would plan for a disaster (except terrorists, in times of war and those with evil intentions etc), there is no lack of unscrupulous businessmen who would capitalise on the misfortunes of others. I see no difference in the behaviour of Tony Hayward and other BP's top executives including Goldman Sachs in selling massive shares in anticipation of a "massive problem" that could drop BP's share prices before it was public knowledge. Is this one of my assumptions based on conjecture? This would be like "Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burns".

If BP were to abide by its own safety Policies (common in all international oil companies), BP should have stopped the exploration drilling at Macondo Well and reassessed the situation in view of the numerous problems they had in 2 wells (A and B). Did they? No they violated their own safety policy. Instead they pressed on even harder and faster. It is like your car was already giving signs of trouble. Would you send it to the mechanic for repairs / service or whatever to make it right OR continue to speed along the highway to your business meeting to clinch a deal? If the accident occurs, can it still be accidental in nature or wilful negligence? As a geohazards specialist for 30 years I have seen enough.

It is not I who are making conjectural presumptions. The same pattern of unscrupulous behaviour from vested business interest is unmistakable and is being repeated here at the BP OIL Spill disaster. It is because these crooks followed the same crooked path (as if all were reading from the same manual:How to Cheat the Gullible Public), I was able to make these accurate predictions. How do you think I was able to write to Fintan himself, advising him I have got the logical perfect answers to the BP's schills, even before he posted his so-called "checkmate questions to discredit me beyond redemptions"? I was only surprised that Fintan was one of them, planted a few weeks earlier to gain my confidence.

On the other hand, it is you who are making assumptions based on conjecture and "misinformation, half-truths and distorted facts" fed by BP, to arrive at your conclusions. I am surprised you have not changed your pro-BP stance after so many delay tactics had been so clearly evident. For instance, you commented that BP had to shut a week for the storm in an obvious question from JayBao that 3 months (at the start of May) was already planned for the relief wells; 2 times as long as it took to drill the ill-fated well or 4 times than a normal well. Jaybao made the right observation but your answer of "shut down for a week for the storm" seems nonsensical to justify the 3 months projection period made in May. I am sure when they made the 3 months projection they had already accounted for downtime due to hurricanes. If they did not then they are not fit be exploration managers. That your answer was made after the storm had passed also suggested that you were grasping at every "conceivable" explanation just to support BP.

Williams said they were told it would take 21 days; according to him, it actually took six weeks.

Jaybao

The relief wells had taken more than 3 months while the drilling of the ill-fated well took 6 weeks; twice as long as BP had expected (3 weeks). Why is the relief wells taking more than 12 weeks (twice as long as the ill-fated well or 4 times longer than a normal well over the same depth)? Does this make any sense at all? I get the feeling the relief wells are deliberately being slowed down. IMHO

Man of knowledge

They shut down for a week for the storm. That means the rig has to release from the BOP and move to safe harbor.

We are now in mid September and within 10 feet (for the last 1 month 1 think) and we had just heard that the Relief Well kill had been postponed to mid October. Does this prove my point and confirm that your apologetic pro-BP stance? I can understand people outside the industry been taken by BP lies but Men of (inside industry) Knowledge should not have been so "blind". If I do not know better I would have classed you as being part of BP's propaganda machine. I am desperate for you to prove me wrong so that I still have an ounce of faith left in the industry. After 30 years, frankly nothing surprises me any more.

BK Lim

Your conjecture is based on assumptions about the planning and execution of a well plan does not occur at the higher levels of management. While it is true that the upper management may contribute to errors by fostering an environment too focused on cost and not enough on safety, the operational decisions are made much lower in the organization.

I have never bought into your contentions that BP was somehow pulling a sleight of hand and working on one well while the problem well continued to blowout. Or that the geology of the area could not be safely drilled.

What you decry as numerous drilling problems are nothing more than typical problems encountered when drilling exploration wells. They cause delays but they can be addressed and resolved safely. I see no clear evidence that they weren't.

There is an excellent narrative describing the drilling of the Macondo well with numerous illustrations and technical explanations of operations at the link below.

http://www.energytrainingresources.com/data/default/content/Macondo.pdf

It is absurd to think a relief well can be drilled as quickly as an exploration well. Directional drilling and magnetic ranging to locate the target require numerous additional runs of drill pipe to change tools. When drilling at 15,000 feet each round trip of drill pipe takes many hours. I have read that as they approach the target they are making ranging run every few feet of drilled hole. That would add days to the process.

Your suggestion that well planners could predict the lost time due to storms in the GOM in the summer is almost laughable.

Delays in completing the relief well are easily attributable to operational decisions in preparation of the final intersection. There are pieces of drill pipe still in the blown well and many operations that can be undertaken to evaluate the status of the well prior to finishing the job. Once the rigs leave the site there will be no further opportunity to gather evidence. It is important that as much evidence as possible be obtained while they are on site. At this point they have new BOP on the well with direct access to the wellbore. It is not surprising that they are taking their time to make assessments.

You start your arguments with an assumption of deception, and then support that argument with unconfirmed evidence. That is what I call conjecture.

Your conjecture is based on assumptions about the planning and execution of a well plan does not occur at the higher levels of management.

Don’t tell me a 100 million project did not have a well plan that goes up to the top level. You must be kidding. I do not have to base on any assumptions. I do not think you have any experience of what you are talking about.

Man of Knowledge

While it is true that the upper management may contribute to errors by fostering an environment too focused on cost and not enough on safety, the operational decisions are made much lower in the organization.

We are not even talking about cost saving here. You have a blatant violation of all the offshore regulations.

When BP reentered Well A on 3 Feb did they have the approval of the top management?

When BP abandoned and shifted to Well B on or about 17Feb, was it done without Management approval?

When BP abandoned Well B on or about 14 March did they get the approval of the Management?

When they spud at the unreported location 714 ft NNW of Well A, on 16 March, did the Upper Management having anything to say?

Well A was only drilled to 5000ft. You mean the management does not know? You got to be kidding.

Man of knowledge

What you decry as numerous drilling problems are nothing more than typical problems encountered when drilling exploration wells. They cause delays but they can be addressed and resolved safely. I see no clear evidence that they weren't.

You must be crazy to say the 20 Apr blowout is something that can be handled. Are you saying those guys working on that rig on 20 Apr are incapable of doing their work? Are you saying those 11 guys died because they were not professional enough?

They were sent to a "hell hole" with a disaster in waiting. Nothing anyone can do to prevent the disaster, stop of stopping the well before reaching the reservoir.

First of all do you know safety procedures. If they were damn near to blowing well B at 13,100 ft, should BP not stop and re-evaluate? Tell me which Safety policy recommends that you continue "banging head on" until the disaster blows right into your face. One month to drill 4,023 ft is normal? Getting the 3000ft drill-string stuck in the 5000ft well is not your typical run-of-mill drilling problems. Even non-drillers know that.

They could not resolve the problems at well A and had to abandon the hole unplugged with the 3000 ft drill rod stuck. They could not solve well B and had to plug and abandon. What else do you not see "clear evidence"? If you choose to be blind, please don't try to get others to close their eyes.

I think you are just a desktop man and totally divorced from reality.

Man of knowledge

Your suggestion that well planners could predict the lost time due to storms in the GOM in the summer is almost laughable.

Obviously you had not been part of a management team before. Every survey or project planning you have to include contingencies even for hurricanes if you are surveying or drilling into the hurricane season.

It is very clear you are making every conceivable excuse for BP. How long has Relief Well been within 10 ft of the Wild Well? Why are they waiting? Are they waiting for a hurricane so that they can blame it on the weather again?

Let me ask just one question. What evidence do you have that Well A was drilled down to reservoir level at 18,300 ft?

Man of Knowledge

you start your arguments with an assumption of deception, and then support that argument with unconfirmed evidence. That is what I call conjecture.

Please show me the evidence that I started my arguments with an assumption of deception. If you have to know, I was watching and studying the disaster since 20 Apr. I did not have to assume BP was deceiving the public including you. I observed it for more than 2 1/2 months.

You have to be blind not to see the deceit. Go and read my Forensic Analysis on the bathymetry and tell me if my arguments are conjecture.

Previously you brought the subject on escarpment stated on BP's hazards assessment - the escarpment was only 1000 ft from well A. If you look at the seabed profile compiled from BP's own bathymetry, do you still agree with BP's assessment? Have a look at that and tell that BP's wilful negligence and mis-representation are all conjecture.

BP is an international corporation that spans drilling, production, refining, wholesale and retail sales. A 100 million dollar project is handled by local management. They have many 100 million dollar projects running year round across the world.

When BP reentered Well A on 3 Feb did they have the approval of the top management?

When BP abandoned and shifted to Well B on or about 17Feb, was it done without Management approval?

When BP abandoned Well B on or about 14 March did they get the approval of the Management?

When they spud at the unreported location 714 ft NNW of Well A, on 16 March, did the Upper Management having anything to say?

Well A was only drilled to 5000ft. You mean the management does not know? You got to be kidding.

This is all a bunch of BS you came up with. There was one well that was suspended then re-entered with a different rig.

First of all do you know safety procedures. If they were damn near to blowing well B at 13,100 ft, should BP not stop and re-evaluate? Tell me which Safety policy recommends that you continue "banging head on" until the disaster blows right into your face. One month to drill 4,023 ft is normal? Getting the 3000ft drill-string stuck in the 5000ft well is not your typical run-of-mill drilling problems. Even non-drillers know that.

They could not resolve the problems at well A and had to abandon the hole unplugged with the 3000 ft drill rod stuck. They could not solve well B and had to plug and abandon. What else do you not see "clear evidence"? If you choose to be blind, please don't try to get others to close their eyes.

I saw no reports of coming damn near blowing any well before the blow out. All evidence suggests the cause of that blow out occurred at the last stage of P&A.

Well kicks and lost drill pipe happen to be part of normal drilling operations.

Yes, the crew missed many indications the well was kicking that they should not have missed and made some critical operational decisions in the last hour before the well blew.

You have no evidence of any of your contentions. It is all a BS pile of rumor and innuendo.

This is all a bunch of BS you came up with. There was one well that was suspended then re-entered with a different rig.

Yes Marianas drilled well A from from 7 Oct till 9 Nov 2009. In that 1 month the rig drilled only 4023ft. You call that BS?

DWH reentered Well A on 3rd Feb - you call that BS? Where are evidence all those are BS?

BP is an international corporation that spans drilling, production, refining, wholesale and retail sales. A 100 million dollar project is handled by local management. They have many 100 million dollar projects running year round across the world.

Is the local management BP? What was the name in the BP application for the well Permit?

When they spud at the unreported location 714 ft NNW of Well A, on 16 March, did the Upper Management having anything to say?

Do you have any evidence to backup your claim that this is bull@!$%#?

We will go one by one later. Basically when you do not have a valid argument, you just label it BS. Isn't that conjecture?

I saw no reports of coming damn near blowing any well before the blow out. All evidence suggests the cause of that blow out occurred at the last stage of P&A.

Then you must be blind. There is no point arguing with you if are on denial. You just made yourself the laughing stock by saying the above.

I agree this is a pointless argument. I don't need evidence because I am not drawing any conclusions other than I disagree with yours. Your the one making outlandish accusations. I read your first two articles and they were so outlandish I stopped paying attention to your posts. I read the narrative I referenced in comment #2.6 and I have to say in my opinion it made more sense, it was far more detailed in the operational descriptions of events, far more technically knowledgable, more thorough and better researched than anything you have written.

Just one question, do you have any tangible evidence that well A was drilled down to reservoir level at 18,300 ft bml?

Forget about quoting your textbooks documentation. Just answer this question.

Yes. Oil came out of it.

Do you know that Well A was drilled to slightly over 5000ft?

How do you explain they could only cement 5000ft at the top of Well A if it was actually drilled down to 18,300 ft?

MOK

Oil also came out from hundreds of natural seeps. There are also a few recorded seeps in the aftermath of the 20 Apr Blowout. So did all these holes with evidence of "oil coming out of it" also meant they reached reservoir?

You must be one heck of a shallow guy. Now that is conjecture.

Where are the seeps now? Is all of the oil sinking to the bottom all of a sudden after months of floating to the surface?

Your question #2.18 makes no sense. What is Well A and Well B? I don't buy the two well contention. Wells are cemented from the bottom up not from the top down. They have multiple concentric strings of casing each of which is cemented. You have to be more specific about what casing string your referring to and what phase of drilling for me to answer your question.

If Well A was drilled down to 18,300 ft, where do you think the cement will go to if you pumped it in from the top?

Where are the seeps now? Is all of the oil sinking to the bottom all of a sudden after months of floating to the surface?

I am just wondering where you were all this while? I am sure you could not have missed out all the news. You sound as if you have just returned from outer space. So I let you settle in and find your information first before I hammer you. I wouldn't want to be accused of unfairly hammering an uninformed man.

If Well A was drilled down to 18,300 ft, where do you think the cement will go to if you pumped it in from the top?

It's pumped down the drillpipe through the cement stinger into the casing and out the bottom of the casing to fill the annulus. That is standard cementing practice.

I hope your not going to argue that corexit is sinking all of the oil from continued seeps. That is absurd.

You can hammer away. It won't change my mind. Comment after comment you make just shows your lack of understanding of drilling operations more. Either that or you're unable to express an operational question in clear enough descriptive terms.

it's pumped down the drillpipe through the cement stinger into the casing and out the bottom of the casing to fill the annulus. That is standard cementing practice.

MOK, so the drillpipe is 18,300 ft long (give & take) to the bottom of casing 18,300 ft Right?

So how come the top 5,000 ft is cemented and not the bottom?

The top 5000 feet of what? The well has 36", 28", 22", 18" 16", 13-5/8", 11-7/8", 9-7/8" and 9-7/8 x7" casing strings. the 18" 16", 13-5/8", 11-7/8", 9-7/8"are liners, they don't extend back to the wellhead but are suspended at the bottom of the previously installed casing. Each penetrates to a different depth and each is cemented in except the 36" conductor. Be specific about what you are asking.

The final casing string extends to roughly 18,300'. The cement job for that casing string would only fill the annulus back to roughly 17,000 feet. (1000 feet above the top hydrocarbon bearing zone). At the end of cementing, there would be 190' of cement in the casing bore between the shoe and the float collar and drilling mud above that. That is what was reported in the well record and testified to in the investigation. I don't know what you are referring to.

I am referring to the recent BP PC on the cementing the well (killing it) in in Aug not the cementing job on the wild well (which by the way is not Well A) in April 2010.

I'm still not clear on what your referring to. Are you referring to the cement plug pumped at the end of the static kill procedure?

If so it's an easy answer. They have no conduit to pump cement to the bottom of the well. They have to bullhead against the mud in the well and force it into the formations at TD. Its impossilble to pump enough cement to fill the entire casing before it begins to set.

How long would the cement take to set?

If the well had been free flowing, didn't the mud pumped in before displaced the oil and gas out and filled up the well? Apparently this wasn't so.

When they pumped in cement, wouldn't the cement displace the mud and sink to the bottom of the well since it is heavier?

The well is filled bottom to the top with a very heavy thick cohesive mud. Pumping cement on top of it would not cause cement to sink past the mud 18,000 feet to the bottom. It would form pill at the top and push the mud down into the formation. Because time is so critical to cementing wells, the cement is mixed and pumped into the well simultaneously. It usually takes several hours to set depending on the cement mix. They keep samples of the mix at the surface and analyze it to verify it has the correct properties.

If that is the case, should they be losing any cement at all?

The reports I've seen say the cementing operation went as planned. That is what gave them the opportunity to consider removing the BOP and replacing it with a new one. That has also been completed successfully. Now with a new BOP and full bore riser installed on the well, they have direct access to the wellbore. My understanding is that they have been doing some fishing to try to retrieve sections of drill pipe lost in the well during the blow out.

Reports are that the production casing held pressure during the integrity test prior to spotting the cement plug, and an ambient pressure test (bleeding the pressure in the well to that of ambient pressure) also resulted in no flow from the well.

I have seen no reports of lost cement even during the original casing cement job that took place immediately prior to the blow out.

BPs report on the cause of the blow out contends the cement plug and foat valve in the bottom of the production casing failed, allowing formation fluids into the casing which then rose to the surface during subsequent preparations for abandonment. The drill crew failed to detect flow into the well which every tenet of well control says must be monitored closely and then subsequently the BOP failed.

I'm not sure that will be the conclusion of the Federal investigation team but the federal oversight team clearly approved removing the BOP, which would be extremely risky without confidence in a stable well.

i have seen no reports of lost cement even during the original casing cement job that took place immediately prior to the blow out.

MOK, why do you keep evading the question? I did not ask on the cement job on the wild well in April. I asked on the recent cement kill in Aug. Do you agree that there was cement loss and if so how much?

There is only one well. I'm not buying the mysterious second well scenario. One well blew out and the same well was the one killed. Two relief wells were started. None of them experienced cement losses as far as any legitimate reports I have read.

I'm not evading the question, I'm waiting for a question that makes sense.

I've seen claims that a North Korean submarine sunk the DWH. I've also seen claims that radical environmentalists sabotaged the well. I put your theories in the same category.

MOK

I am talking about the same well you are talking about - Well A. So I am asking again was there a cement loss when they pumped in cement in Aug on the capped well (Well A) when they tried to "permanently kill (seal) the well (well A)"?

MOK - #2.3

i have seen no reports of lost cement even during the original casing cement job that took place immediately prior to the blow out.

BK - #2.31

MOK, why do you keep evading the question? I did not ask on the cement job on the wild well in April. I asked on the recent cement kill in Aug. Do you agree that there was cement loss and if so how much?

MOK I get the feeling you are purposely evasive on this one. You keep diverting back to the cement job before the the Blowout. Now please concentrate - we are now talking on events in Aug 2010; regard the "permanent killing" of Well A. Like I said, if you need to take a break to catch up as you seem to have just returned to planet earth from an outer-space journey since 20 April 2010, please say so. You do not seem to recall anything between then and now.

The reports I've seen say the cementing operation went as planned. That is what gave them the opportunity to consider removing the BOP and replacing it with a new one. That has also been completed successfully. Now with a new BOP and full bore riser installed on the well, they have direct access to the wellbore. My understanding is that they have been doing some fishing to try to retrieve sections of drill pipe lost in the well during the blow out.

Reports are that the production casing held pressure during the integrity test prior to spotting the cement plug, and an ambient pressure test (bleeding the pressure in the well to that of ambient pressure) also resulted in no flow from the well.

This from commet #2.3 is clearly a reference to the static kill operation which occurred in August. ???????

So I asked you whether there was cement loss. Then you went off tangent.

The reports I've seen say the cementing operation went as planned.

What does "went as planned" mean to you? To me it means no cement was lost.

What if I were to tell you that 40% of the 500 barrels of cement were lost? What if I were to tell you that they did not know where the lost cement went to?

I'd say where is the proof? How could they remove the BOP under those circumstances?

It comes from Thad Allen. Please check it up. You must have been sleeping thru this?

There is no such statement from Thad Allen. I'm through playing your stupid games.

Jacquetta White: How much cement was pumped into the well…?

Kent Wells: We pumped just a little over 500 barrels of cement down the casing. We talked — I think it was roughly about 200 barrels into the formation and the rest remained in the casing.

Not only Thad Allen said, but Kent Wells as well. So are you admitting you don't know or just plain lying for BP? So everything BP did wrong, you do not know but you seem to know everything BP did "right". Seems strange that BP is always right by the book - according to you.

Don't insult our intelligence.

MOK

And it is because you too knew that Well A was only drilled down to 5000 ft and not down to reservoir. So BP has been lying. So either you are also lying with them or you had been suck by BP. For too long you have been defending BP meaninglessly.