• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

How Can they Stop the Oil Spill?

this isn't related to the spill per say, but I thought it may be interesting nonetheless.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100425151143.htm

About 35000 years ago volcanic activity caused a natural spill off the coast of California. The remnant today is a number of large asphalt domes on the ocean floor where the oil accumulated and degraded.

Well either that or they discovered Atlantis...
 
Yes; and that there was uncertainty about what actually goes into the well. So, does that mean you give a generous cure time, just for safety? Or, the calculated minimum cure time?
Both really - but the former is best practice. You certainly do not reduce the hydrostatic head above a pressure barrier (the cement plug) before you are very confident that it has achieved the proper integrity/strength, which would appear to be the case here. As others have noted, the second cement plug should have been put in place before the riser was displaced to seawater. Again, speculation, but it seems that someone decided that the first plug was sufficient to "kill" the well and was also a good quality job.
Read the cites.
"Stupak said the committee had been told that one of the BOP's ram drivers had been changed so it could be used for routine testing and was no longer designed to activate in an emergency. He said after the spill BP "spent a day trying to use this ... useless test ram" which no longer was configured for emergency use."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37107033...gulf_oil_spill
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article....f=1&a_id=93183
[URL="http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52793[/quote]Thanks"]http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52793[/URL]
Thanks for them - I had not seen the matter of the modifications done to the functioning of one set of rams in 2005. They obviously felt that there was sufficient redundancy (e.g. multiple pipe rams) in the BOP to deem this safe.
They would also have to had permission/dispensation from the MMS to do this. It's quite obvious that in the heat of the moment, someone has forgotten exactly how they had the BOP hooked up, but you still have to wonder who thought that this reconfiguration was a good idea.
What @@XX!#$ good is a BOP which has not been shown to be able to shear the string? More than disturbing! And if the umbilicals are damaged? That's my point.
And not yours alone. As has been mentioned in this thread, as far back as 2004, there had been questions raised by the MMS on whether the BOPs being run were able to function correctly on the heavier walled drillstrings being used in deepwater drilling.
All I know , is that the supply boats need to have DP3 systems, or they won't be hired to work a floater. We are supposed to test ours every time we use them.
System redundancy for thrusters is not quite the same as redundancy on pressure control systems. You'll know from experience that despite all the controls and safety valves it still happens that a hose is hooked up incorrectly or a valve is left open and the wrong material is pumped into the wrong tank - or indeed overboard.

It would seem to me that human error/judgement was the prime factor in this incident, exacerbated by poor equipment maintenance/configuration (at the least) and equipment inadequacies (at the most) - or both...
It's coming from a tube inside a 23?inch bouyant riser.
I think it is a 9 inch drillpipe? Essentially, how can you tell if it's the drill pipe or the casing?
From BP's site, they state that the main oil flow is from the broken riser.

The latest attempt with the Riser Insertion Tube (diagram) and discussions on setting a 2nd BOP on top of the existing BOP implies that there is still some integrity between the BOP/wellhead connection, or enough to mitigate the worst of the spill while relief wells are drilled.
Therefore wellfluid is being channeled through the BOP and riser. I have not seen any comment on 7in casing integrity as being a problem (or perhaps it's just not the major problem).
There is drillstring in the wellbore and it extends out of the top of the broken riser. The end of the drillpipe was capped earlier this week (one leak).

There is at least one more leak in the riser and/or drillpipe and apparently a smaller version of the first BOP containment dome has been run to be placed over the leak in the body of the riser, while the Riser Insertion Tube approach is hoped to block the end of the riser.

ETA: On this page there is video of the attempt at lowering the original dome over the BOPs.
From what I can see (start of the video), there is a large leak where the riser is bent over at the top of the BOP and is broken.
This would appear to be the major leak they they are need to contain.
ETA ETA: Hmmm. I'm now wondering if the start of the video is depicting the leak (plume) at the end of the broken riser, as it appears to be on the seafloor and has drillpipe protruding from it and the lowering of the dome is a different ROV operation.
Ah, yes it is. Dates on the two parts of the video are different.
The mud runs inside the riser/casing and was removed just prior to the !boom.
Pretty much the root cause of the accident from what we know at the moment.
I understand that there is about 1500 feet of bouyant riser above the bent over portion which is on the bottom. The bottom part of the kinked over riser is leaking. If the cement is not holding and the BOP is wide open? What then?
As above.
You must be very quick on your feet, to think you can outrun an explosion.
I don't think this, but on land people seem to think in this manner. When you're offshore you have nowhere to run, so you tend to be more safety aware (IMO).
In this case, from survivor's evidence, there were no rig alarms sounded, so there was little chance for these men.
However, I concur; it was safety/ procedural violations which gave us this F.U.
Right. A whole industry. Looks like that industry has not come up with new ideas. Please try to think of the advantages of oil that stuck together better so it would not break up at sea as much, would not coat wildlife.(Polymerization, not dispersion) Try to think of the benefit of a containment boom which would withstand moderate seas.(Booms with ballast bags on the skirts.) Now put them together. Am I the Time Cube guy?
A number of devices and ideas go this direction. A quick Google will satisfy your curiosity.
ETA: Versatech site on booms.
I'm not up on spill response devices - I'm more at the prevention of oil spills end of the equation.
Please read/watch the cites.Note the video showing the containment dome being built in Fourchon, hauled by a Chouest boat. Note that there was general hand waving, but no plan.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291430
http://www.healthygulf.org/201005011...bp-had-no-plan
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire...ll_raines.html
[URL]http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...5KebwD9FDNQR00[/URL]
Nitpicking on my part - there was a plan, as outlined in those links.
It proved to be inadequate. Also - the MMS allowed it to be lodged and adjudged to be sufficient - otherwise BP would not have been given permission to drill.
What that is, is that I am a head deck hand, AKA Limited Oceans Master for 20+ years. Unlicensed Master for 15 years previous. A genuine salt-water maggot.
Which merely means that I have collected an admirable bunch of anecdotes.
My background is working in the drilling department of operating companies and have worked offshore a number of times, for a brief time as a Night Supervisor (company man). Based on that experience, I have tried to keep the comments I make in this thread on procedures as objective as possible and given my opinion on correct/best practices where I (and Soapy Sam and Trick) have identified probable causes for this incident.

Anyway. All of the above is really only addresses mitigation of the leak until a relief well intersects the current well and kills it.
And of course, much is still speculation and opinion.
 
Last edited:
Update on the deployment of the Riser Insertion Tool:

DATE: May 16, 2010 11:45:16 CST
Overnight the Riser Insertion Tube Tool was successfully tested and inserted into the leaking riser, capturing some amounts of oil and gas. The oil was stored on board the Discoverer Enterprise drill ship 5,000 feet above on the water's surface, and natural gas was burned through a flare system on board the ship.

The test was halted temporarily when the tube was dislodged. While this is disappointing, it is not unexpected given the challenging operating environment.

Technicians have fully inspected the system and have re-inserted the tool.

The tool is fashioned from a 4-inch pipe and is inserted into the leaking riser, from which the majority of the flow is coming. While not collecting all of the leaking oil, this tool is an important step in reducing the amount of oil being released into Gulf waters.
 
Additional clarification.

Note that the first cofferdam (dome) and the "top hat" domes were not used to cover the BOP leak. Something that has been missed earlier in the thread.

The "dome" approach is being used on the broken end of the riser that is on the seafloor. This is the major leak. There is still a small leak in a crack in the riser on top of the BOP.

The end of the drillpipe extending from inside the riser and on the seafloor has been capped - this was the third leak.
 
Both really - but the former is best practice. You certainly do not reduce the hydrostatic head above a pressure barrier (the cement plug) before you are very confident that it has achieved the proper integrity/strength, which would appear to be the case here. As others have noted, the second cement plug should have been put in place before the riser was displaced to seawater. Again, speculation, but it seems that someone decided that the first plug was sufficient to "kill" the well and was also a good quality job.

No speculation on the latter. That is what was done, according to evidence.Enter speculation mode: "Y'all help me out here. Is this good to go?

Thanks"]http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52793[/URL][/COLOR][/URL]
Thanks for them - I had not seen the matter of the modifications done to the functioning of one set of rams in 2005. They obviously felt that there was sufficient redundancy (e.g. multiple pipe rams) in the BOP to deem this safe.

The more I find out about the mods made to the BOP, the less confidence I have that any parties concerned really thought heavily on the implications those mods would have. And yes, a valve intended to shear the string should be able to shear the tool joints. IMHO.

They would also have to had permission/dispensation from the MMS to do this. It's quite obvious that in the heat of the moment, someone has forgotten exactly how they had the BOP hooked up, but you still have to wonder who thought that this reconfiguration was a good idea.And not yours alone. As has been mentioned in this thread, as far back as 2004, there had been questions raised by the MMS on whether the BOPs being run were able to function correctly on the heavier walled drillstrings being used in deepwater drilling.
System redundancy for thrusters is not quite the same as redundancy on pressure control systems. You'll know from experience that despite all the controls and safety valves it still happens that a hose is hooked up incorrectly or a valve is left open and the wrong material is pumped into the wrong tank - or indeed overboard.

Right on that. In every such case it is human error. The trick is to eliminate the opportunities for error. I think that whoever does the risk analysis for MMS and Operating Cos, needs to update their data. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
By the way, here seems to be the explosion cause. Did anyone ever mention overspeed shutdown?Ahem.
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=92823&hmpn=1




It would seem to me that human error/judgement was the prime factor in this incident, exacerbated by poor equipment maintenance/configuration (at the least) and equipment inadequacies (at the most) - or both...
From BP's site, they state that the main oil flow is from the broken riser.

The latest attempt with the Riser Insertion Tube (diagram) and discussions on setting a 2nd BOP on top of the existing BOP implies that there is still some integrity between the BOP/wellhead connection, or enough to mitigate the worst of the spill while relief wells are drilled.
Yes, but the drill string and the bouyant riser will have to be removed, no?
Therefore wellfluid is being channeled through the BOP and riser. I have not seen any comment on 7in casing integrity as being a problem (or perhaps it's just not the major problem).
There is drillstring in the wellbore and it extends out of the top of the broken riser. The end of the drillpipe was capped earlier this week (one leak).

There is at least one more leak in the riser and/or drillpipe and apparently a smaller version of the first BOP containment dome has been run to be placed over the leak in the body of the riser, while the Riser Insertion Tube approach is hoped to block the end of the riser.

ETA: On this page there is video of the attempt at lowering the original dome over the BOPs.
From what I can see (start of the video), there is a large leak where the riser is bent over at the top of the BOP and is broken.
This would appear to be the major leak they they are need to contain.
ETA ETA: Hmmm. I'm now wondering if the start of the video is depicting the leak (plume) at the end of the broken riser, as it appears to be on the seafloor and has drillpipe protruding from it and the lowering of the dome is a different ROV operation.
Ah, yes it is. Dates on the two parts of the video are different.
Pretty much the root cause of the accident from what we know at the moment.As above.I don't think this, but on land people seem to think in this manner. When you're offshore you have nowhere to run, so you tend to be more safety aware (IMO).
I was being snarky. I know exactly how much I wish to swim,roast, or explode, so I take my safety inspections seriously.
In this case, from survivor's evidence, there were no rig alarms sounded, so there was little chance for these men.
A number of devices and ideas go this direction. A quick Google will satisfy your curiosity.
ETA: Versatech site on booms.
From the Rigzone link, previously, yes, alarms sounded.
I'm not up on spill response devices - I'm more at the prevention of oil spills end of the equation.Nitpicking on my part - there was a plan, as outlined in those links.
It proved to be inadequate. Also - the MMS allowed it to be lodged and adjudged to be sufficient - otherwise BP would not have been given permission to drill.

So, No Plan is a Plan? An assertion that nothing will happen,or is unlikely, is OK? Even if your regulatory agency said it's OK? From my perspective it is not. Rule number two, COLREGS. I doubt that the courts will agree with you.
Speaking of spill response,I did look at the cite and have worked with those offshore booms. I guess I should fax them a drawing of one with the skirts. And in your focus on prevention, have you considered the Worst-Case-Scenario? If so, why not be prepared for a spill?


My background is working in the drilling department of operating companies and have worked offshore a number of times, for a brief time as a Night Supervisor (company man). Based on that experience, I have tried to keep the comments I make in this thread on procedures as objective as possible and given my opinion on correct/best practices where I (and Soapy Sam and Trick) have identified probable causes for this incident.

Aha! the dreaded Company Man! My Nemesis! No wonder you get my hackles up. I always thought the rig clerk was the night supervisor. Even though we both want to get the job done safely, we see things differently. Nothing like hearing from another perspective to keep your reality in check. I too, draw upon experience , and try to keep my comments as objective as I can. I am also appreciative of the comments made by you, Tricky,Sam

Anyway. All of the above is really only addresses mitigation of the leak until a relief well intersects the current well and kills it.
And of course, much is still speculation and opinion.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. I 'm happy that the sucker hose made it. Mitigation is coming a little late, but welcome.
It's not over, yet. The economic impact of this incident will be enormous-not just for BP, but for us all.
 
<Snip>

The more I find out about the mods made to the BOP, the less confidence I have that any parties concerned really thought heavily on the implications those mods would have. And yes, a valve intended to shear the string should be able to shear the tool joints. IMHO.

<Snip>
This brings a question to my mind.
As a dynamics analyst--yes,yes, spacecraft and aircraft are a bit different from drill strings, I know--but I assume that a test of the design is made, and the shear ram successfully cuts the string at any point before going into production.
Now, the real question:
How well does the shear work in a dynamic situation? That is, when the drill string is being actually blown out of the hole, and is accelerating at some value?
The loads are totally different--the rams may have the power to cut the string, staticly, but with an applied side load, the scenario changes a lot.
Any idea on how this is analyzed and tested? Links, to anything?
 
I doubt anyone does such tests.
Remember that drillpipe is only part of a typical drill string.
The bulk of the weight on bit required to drill is provided by "drill collars", which are far more massive and thick walled even than drillpipe tooljoints.
While drillpipe is in tension while drilling, collars are mainly in compression.

If we require a shear ram to be able to cut a tool joint, why stop there? Someoene will say we must also require it to cut a drill collar. That , I suspect , would put unacceptable size requirements on the BOP stack.

I think people are putting rather too much emphasis on the BOP. Another 48 hours and they would have removed it entirely.
 
AP IMPACT: Fed'l inspections on rig not as claimed

By JUSTIN PRITCHARD, Associated Press Writer Justin Pritchard, Associated Press Writer Sun May 16, 4:34 pm ET

LOS ANGELES – The federal agency responsible for ensuring that the Deepwater Horizon was operating safely before it exploded last month fell well short of its own policy that the rig be inspected at least once per month, an Associated Press investigation shows.
In fact, the agency's inspection frequency on the Deepwater Horizon fell dramatically over the past five years, according to federal Minerals Management Service records. The rig blew up April 20, killing 11 people before sinking and triggering a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Since January 2005, inspectors issued just one minor infraction for the rig. That strong track record led the agency last year to herald the Deepwater Horizon as an industry model for safety.
The inspection gaps are the latest in a series of questions raised about the agency's oversight of the oil drilling industry. Members of Congress and President Barack Obama have criticized what they call the cozy relationship between regulators and oil companies and vowed to reform MMS, which both regulates the industry and collects billions in royalties from it.
Earlier AP investigations have shown that the doomed rig was allowed to operate without safety documentation required by MMS regulations for the exact disaster scenario that occurred; that the cutoff valve which failed has repeatedly broken down at other wells in the years since regulators weakened testing requirements; and that regulation is so lax that some key safety aspects on rigs are decided almost entirely by the companies doing the work.
more

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_inspections/print
 
I doubt anyone does such tests.
Remember that drillpipe is only part of a typical drill string.
The bulk of the weight on bit required to drill is provided by "drill collars", which are far more massive and thick walled even than drillpipe tooljoints.
While drillpipe is in tension while drilling, collars are mainly in compression.

If we require a shear ram to be able to cut a tool joint, why stop there? Someoene will say we must also require it to cut a drill collar. That , I suspect , would put unacceptable size requirements on the BOP stack.

I think people are putting rather too much emphasis on the BOP. Another 48 hours and they would have removed it entirely.
If the collars are in the BOP, and you need the BOP, you got major other problems. It just seems to me that the likelihood is the BOP was damaged during the blow-out. Due to some bad decisions by somebody(s), the whole thing went ash-can over teakettle rather quickly, then.
( I worked as a floor hand in the Permian Basin on Cactus Rig 1 back in 1969, when I got top pay as a motorman of $3.50/hr, so I remember the basics. It was a triple, and those damn 8" collars were heavy bastards in 3's. We were at 18000 feet when I left for college.)
 
It amazes me when people think that an oil spill is such a huge disaster.


... coated over 500,000 birds, fish and seals in quality, medium-weight lubricant that will provide them with valuable protection and keep important animal parts running smooth.

Local wildlife officials were excited by the spill. "A thick coat of oil should help these animals tremendously, especially with the cold weather coming," said Greg Gedman, secretary of Alaska's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "Last winter, over 2,500 Aleutian cranes suffered severe thermal breakdown from the cold. When temperatures reach 75 degrees below zero, cranes need a good oil like Castrol to keep their wings, claws and other parts loose."

Gedman said that the Bering Strait's extremely active animal population has long been in need of basic preventative oil care.

"Today's wildlife revs at higher r.p.m.'s," Gedman said.


News story here Bob.
 
This brings a question to my mind.
As a dynamics analyst--yes,yes, spacecraft and aircraft are a bit different from drill strings, I know--but I assume that a test of the design is made, and the shear ram successfully cuts the string at any point before going into production.
Now, the real question:
How well does the shear work in a dynamic situation? That is, when the drill string is being actually blown out of the hole, and is accelerating at some value?
The loads are totally different--the rams may have the power to cut the string, staticly, but with an applied side load, the scenario changes a lot.
Any idea on how this is analyzed and tested? Links, to anything?
No dynamics are expected. The pipe rams close and stop any drill pipe motion (up or down) at the next tool-joint. The shear ram should be positioned such that a tool-joint is not at the cutting point under either scenario. That is, the shear rams should be a couple of feet more or less above the pipe rams.
 
I think people are putting rather too much emphasis on the BOP. Another 48 hours and they would have removed it entirely.
With the BOP being last line of defense, I don't think enough emphasis can be placed on the BOP. And various sources imply that BOPs may not even be capable of shearing current higher-strength drill pipe.

The unconfirmed report (In 60 Minutes interview) that bits of the annular showed up in the mud pits a few weeks ago is also scary.

If the annular didn't seal the last pressure tests involved the pressure from the still-mud-filled riser.
 
...The latest attempt with the Riser Insertion Tube (diagram)
Yes, but the drill string and the bouyant riser will have to be removed, no?
No. THE RIT is only meant to slow the leak [edit]collect the leaking oil [/edit]until they can kill the well. Mostly likely achieved by the relief well(s). Once killed and plugged then they'll begin removing all the debris and BOP.
So, No Plan is a Plan? An assertion that nothing will happen,or is unlikely, is OK?
As I said, BP HAD to have an oilspill response plan in place otherwise they would not be allowed to operate. A plan was in place. The MMS provide a link the the document.
Even if your regulatory agency said it's OK? From my perspective it is not. Rule number two, COLREGS. I doubt that the courts will agree with you.
.. and despite COLREGS, supply ships collide with rigs when their triple-redundant DP system fails, - sometimes catastrophically.

Indian rig fire blamed on supply ship collision
North Sea Offshore Rig Evacuated after Supply Ship Accident
Supply vessel rams Songa Dee
Maersk Feeder collides with Thistle Platform etc, just having regulations does not prevent disasters.
Speaking of spill response,I did look at the cite and have worked with those offshore booms. I guess I should fax them a drawing of one with the skirts. And in your focus on prevention, have you considered the Worst-Case-Scenario? If so, why not be prepared for a spill?
As I've said before, EVERY operation requires an Oil Spill Response plan before they are even allowed to start, and yes, all sorts of scenarios are considered.
Aha! the dreaded Company Man! My Nemesis! No wonder you get my hackles up.
I hadn't realised hackles were being raised.
I always thought the rig clerk was the night supervisor.
You are incorrect, and frankly insulting.
This sort of banter if fine in a smoko room or a pub, but not on this forum.
Even though we both want to get the job done safely, we see things differently. Nothing like hearing from another perspective to keep your reality in check.
And to work with an operator, the Supply Vessel contractor ALSO has to draw up a safety bridging document with the rig contractor and the operator. This is to ensure that all of our safety systems are in line with each other.

Frankly I find the persistence of the "us and them" mindset in the oilfield disappointing. It is most certainly a hindrance to improving work safety.
 
Last edited:
Double post. My first!!

Back to the OP - how to stop this.

BP should be just about preparing for the top kill job. This involves pumping slugs of different sized materials (golf balls, tyre rubber, knotted rope) down the choke and kill lines and into the BOP cavities, with the aim of blocking of the cavities and the BOP against the drillstring. Once the flow is checked, they can then use the choke and kill lines to pump kill mud down into the wellbore. Once killed, then the well will be plugged with cement.

There is a video news conference dealing with the technical approach by BP here.
Dated the 10th, the expectation from that technical briefing was that they'd be ready to go with the top kill approach at the end of the week. Around about now.

ETA: Looks like they are taking more time than they thought. Quote from today's press release,
"Plans for deployment of these options are being progressed with the possibility of deployment in the next week or so."
 
Last edited:
I doubt anyone does such tests.
Remember that drillpipe is only part of a typical drill string.
The bulk of the weight on bit required to drill is provided by "drill collars", which are far more massive and thick walled even than drillpipe tooljoints.
While drillpipe is in tension while drilling, collars are mainly in compression.

If we require a shear ram to be able to cut a tool joint, why stop there? Someoene will say we must also require it to cut a drill collar. That , I suspect , would put unacceptable size requirements on the BOP stack.

I think people are putting rather too much emphasis on the BOP. Another 48 hours and they would have removed it entirely.

Good point. Somewhere you have to quit. Does that mean it cannot be improved? Since it is touted as the doomsday preventer?
Actually, I thought we(here) pretty much had determined ,as well as we can, with available fact, that safe operating procedures were not followed, and some fail-safes were not? Did you read the 'RigZone' link I provided earlier?
Way back, I said that we will never know everything concerning the incident. TransOcean's missing data for the time from 1500 till !boom, I can maybe shed some light on.
Some companies use satellite links to keep in touch with office. This data is stored until the satellite passes over, and queries for data. This could be why the data are missing. And sometimes it just vanishes. There's always a reason, though we may not know it.
Or, the NWO- mooselimb-xian-atheist- Fed -ninjas did it.
(I don't think so)
Ehocking pooh-poohed the bonus system. Which bonus do you think these guys were suspending, and why?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/article...orm-had-safety/1044363/?icid=sphere_copyright

Why things may get worse: http://blog.al.com/live/2010/04/deepwater_horizon_secret_memo.html

Here's an interview with a survivor fairly early on:
http://www.drillingahead.com/video/video/show?id=3116006:Video:99439

And another interesting article, Times-Picayune:
If you want, read the comments ,too. I am going to go cry a little.

Begin quote:
Uh oh'

A transcript Bea collected from a witness says the companies were confident enough they had a lucrative oil source that they decided to convert from an exploratory well to a more permanent production well, a process that requires them to apply a metal and cement casing to the well hole. They chose casing 7 inches in diameter, Bea said, and that was further sealed with cement pumped in by Halliburton. Bea said his sources reported that Halliburton was using a "new" kind of cement for the seal, something the scientist said made him say, "Uh oh."

"The cement is infused with chemicals and nitrogen, and those chemicals and nitrogen form a frothy cement that is like shaving soap sprayed from a can," Bea said. "It was put in there because of the concern about damage or destruction of the seals by methane hydrates."

The crew on the Deepwater Horizon waited 20 hours for the cement job to cure before opening a key valve at the wellhead so they could place a final cement plug about 5,000 feet down the well. Bea gives Halliburton credit for writing "many excellent papers" in the past two years about the challenge of setting cement seals in the presence of large amounts of methane hydrates, which the Deepwater Horizon crew encountered in spades.

"Because of the chemicals they've added, they think the cement can cure rapidly," Bea said.

But Halliburton's awareness of cementing's challenges did not stop the cement from failing in the Deepwater Horizon's well. The chemicals they added for the curing process also create a lot of heat, which can thaw the methane hydrate into the gas that causes dangerous kicks, Bea said.

"I call that 'Uh oh' again," he said.

A heated debate described

One of Bea's witness transcripts describes in detail a heated debate among BP, Halliburton and Transocean officials as they are about to add the final cement plug to the well, 5,000 below the wellhead and 10,000 feet below the rig. They argued about whether to set the plug with drilling mud still in the well and riser, or if they should do it with lighter sea water there instead.

Oil Rig ExplosionMichael DeMocker / The Times-PicayuneA cloud of smoke that could be seen for over 25 miles rises over the gulf as fireboats try to extinguish the blaze on the Deepwater Horizon. Robert Bea said the first explosion occurred in the mud pit room, where drilling mud is mixed and stored. The two engineers ion that room were killed instantly, Bea said.

As The Times-Picayune reported last week, Bea's witness claims the decision was made to displace the heavy mud barrier with water before the final plug was set in order to finish the job more quickly.. The crew was planning to temporarily abandon the well, and before leaving, they would need to remove the riser and the blowout preventer, a massive stack of valves and slicing rams that are supposed to shut off the well in case of an emergency, and some time later another operation would re-tap the well to extract its riches.

The mud in the riser would have to be replaced with salt water before the crew could take the final step of removing the blowout preventer, or else polluting mud and chemicals would spill into the sea, angering environmental regulators. But based on Bea's witness, who describes the debate on board the rig and with officials in Houston, there was still a question about whether to replace the mud before the final plug was set.

"The debate comes back that it's been pressure-tested, the coast is clear, so they will displace the upper 10,000 feet of heavy mud and replace it with salt water," Bea said. "This is a crucial step, and the reason it's crucial is if the seal at the bottom is fine, it's OK, but if it's not OK, we're screwed. We don't have enough pressure (from mud) in the column anymore to fight the reservoir (gas and liquid) pressure."

Bea says it's unclear how far down the well the crew managed to get the final cement plug before the destructive blowout. But he said it's clear the process was under way because an important valve in the blowout preventer stack, called the annular valve, was open to allow the plug assembly pipes through. Once the well's lining or bottom plug was breached, the gas had a 10,000-foot path clear of both mud and shut-off valves all the way to the water's surface.

'A geyser of water'

Three witness reports gathered by Bea describe what happened next. "A geyser of water" shot 240 feet into the air, he said, followed by "gas that spills out in the moon pool area, onto the drill deck and begins spreading. They can smell it, they can see it, but in this stage it does not ignite. It looks like ice slush, and they can see the gas emanating from it."

The next thing workers on the drill floor saw was mud, the three accounts say. The workers know there's trouble because the mud can only be coming from 10,000 feet down, not from the riser where it can block a gas kick, Bea said.

"At this point, calls come from the rig asking for more mud," Bea said the transcripts show. "I'm certain these radio calls will ultimately be traced and produced. This is at 7 p.m."

The reason nothing ignited initially is that the 21-by-93-foot moon pool, a well in the center of the drill ship, is carefully designed to remove any sources of sparks. But in the mud room and the galley and elsewhere, there are pumps with exposed metal parts. Soon, the gas did ignite when it came in contact with those, Bea said, and the descriptions in the transcripts are dramatic.

Bea said that the first explosion occurred in the mud pit room, a room where drilling mud is mixed and stored in big bins. The two engineers responding to requests for more mud in an attempt to control the runaway well were killed instantly, he said.

That explosion also blew out the wall leading to the galley, where a party was being held.

"The party is to celebrate the Transocean Deepwater Horizon going for seven years without an accident," Bea said. Present were several BP engineers or executives, who traveled to the rig for the celebration, he said.

'Here's where I broke down ...'

"The explosion hurls them against the other wall" of the galley, Bea said. "Here's where I broke down when I read it.... It describes bodies being broken, necks gashed and people bleeding, and now everybody's in the dark. People are screaming for help. People are busy helping their comrades get to two lifeboats.

"People in the lifeboats are screaming, 'We've got to get out of here!' but the lifeboats aren't full," Bea said. "The doors slam and they drop the (lifeboats), and as they do, they can see some of their colleagues jumping into the sea. They can see their outlines because the rig is burning behind them.

"Back on the drill floor, all hell has broken loose. Explosions are propagating from the mud pit room back toward them," Bea said. "At that point, one transcript that's obviously been an observer heading toward the lifeboats says the drill floor disappears in a ball of flame. And at that point, the three on-board transcripts stop."

Bea said the concluding paragraph from one of those observing the explosion summed up the depth of the failure.

"In order for a disaster of this magnitude to happen, more than one thing has to go wrong, or fail. First, a ****** cement job. The wellhead packoff/seal assembly (the equipment directly below the blowout preventer that connects the lower pipe casing to the preventer) while designed to hold the pressure, is just a backup. And finally, the ability to close the well in with the BOP somehow went away," the witness said.



David Hammer can be reached at [email protected] or 504.826.3322.

Mark Schleifstein can be reached at [email protected] or 504.826.3327.
RecommendRecommend (0)
 
...Ehocking pooh-poohed the bonus system. Which bonus do you think these guys were suspending, and why?
At least address what I posted (bolding added)
You'd be surprised how little your bonus scenario exists outside of the US. I have not encountered the sorts of incentive schemes you outlined for many many years.
Also, to nitpick, from the article quoted.,
He said the four deaths in 2009 occurred on different rigs in four different countries. Reports on one death, in Azerbaijan, appeared in the media, but Cantwell declined to disclose other locations and whether any were in U.S. waters. None were related to drilling, he said.
 
No dynamics are expected. The pipe rams close and stop any drill pipe motion (up or down) at the next tool-joint. The shear ram should be positioned such that a tool-joint is not at the cutting point under either scenario. That is, the shear rams should be a couple of feet more or less above the pipe rams.
Answers my questions-I assume the pipe rams have sufficient shear strength to stop a moving pipe-under normal circumstances.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom