The Schlumberger crew was out to run a CBL (Cement Bond Log) i.e a tool to verify the cementjob. It is always a discussion if it should be run or not because it may not be conclusive. It is not always easy to interpret the logging results. But at least it can tell you where top of cement is and thus verify that the cementjob went well.
"Damn. Bob, can you speak to the procedures and times it would have taken the Driller to shut it in?"
I’m sorry I cannot. I do seem to recall there was a post addressing that Q earlier.
Alf, I would certainly agree that there could have been confusion during those last 20 minutes of the log. On the other hand the Jr. TP was also on the floor at the time and had earlier agreed to call Ezell at the first sign of any trouble. His presence would have made driller’s life easier if there was indeed panic.
Here is what I think happened. During normal circulating ops you have a closed loop system, pumping mud down inside DP and recovering it across the shakers before it re-enters the pits. There, pit level is more or less stable except for give and take from the formation and volume of drill cuttings that have to be replaced with mud as hole is made. Pit gain is Unusual.
But there was no circulation going on here. Sea water was being picked up and pumped down while mud returns were being pumped (or poured) overboard to the Bankston.
In this case there would be no expectation of a constant pit level so pit gain (or loss) could reasonably be ignored.
But the reasonableness of that expectation changed the moment the rig pump(s) were turned off. At that moment pit gain became hugely important because the difference in rate of sea water in and pit level could no longer be attributed to differences in pump rates. But after 1 1/2 hours of reasonably ignoring pit gain, human nature prevented them from making the shift to changing it’s status once pumps were turned off (pumps may have been turned off because displacement was complete?). I believe this whole thing came as a complete surprise to them and that the Jr. TP did make the trouble call to Ezell around 10 of 10.
[QUOTE=New Orleans Lady;35877]copany man, do you think,then, they were aware the bop was malfunctioning?[/QUOTE]
What I am saying is the whole idea that you’re going to proceed to push all of your primary forms of well control beyond their limits & say if all else fails we will just close the BOP & risk the lives of 126 people, the rig, & the environment of the gulf coast region on the BOPs when they are strictly intended as a last line of defense isn’t just dillusional it’s flat certifiably crazy.
Edit: We have no “proof” the BOPs actually malfunctioned. We only have BP’s word right now & they just might have a reason or ten billion not to be totally honest.
So the press has doubled the estimate of size of the leak from 20K bbls/day to 40K bbls/day. Doesn’t simple hydraulics say that they need to pump as fast or faster than the leak rate in order to get this LMRP to stop leaking around the seal? Does anyone have any intel regarding the rate of recovery they have achieved in the recent days? And something I would like to know is how they are pumping a two-phase flow? They must have a separation under pressure on the suction side of the pumps in order to flare the gas. Does anyone know the size of the flare, because one could at least estimate the amount of gas they are recovering, assuming it is mostly nat gas? It is amazing that we can send a shuttle to dock with the International Space Station, but we can’t get this LMRP to seal. I think they didn’t spend as much time on the seal design as they should have. Had they cut the bolts on the last flange of the riser to BOP attachment, they could have drawn down on a permanent bolted connection once the LMRP was set. Now I say, they need to overcome the leak rate to get it to stop (other leaks at the well casing not withstanding…). Now if they didn’t want it to seal due to other integrity problems with the well casing, that’s another story.
[QUOTE=Alf;35879]Here’s a scenario for you to try and picture in your mind…
I have an alarm clock, you have an alarm clock… most people have some kind of alarm clock.
All the times on each alarm clock will be different!
Let’s now focus on what may be happening in the Driller’s shack.
… The Driller is sat in his chair (perhaps feet resting up on a panel) watching his gauges and monitors.
… Everything “seems to be going OK” with the displacement to seawater. (ie no alarms showing)
… Driller is fairly relaxed.
… Pit room phones the Driller to tell him the pits are “overflowing”… or something similar.
… Driller re-checks his instruments and may be doesn’t see anything straight away. maybe picks-up the phone to try and verify the info with someone else.
Mud then starts erupting from the rotary table.
… The Driller then has “a moment or two of shock” as he tries to understand what he is seeing!
… Then he jumps up from his seat and fumbles for the BOP Control Panel behind him.
… Panic sets in.
… The phone rings again… and distracts the Driller.
… The Control Panel has a perspex door which has to be opened first in order to reach the control buttons.
… The phone just keeps on ringing and ringing, adding to the confusion.
(Numerous people are trying to call the Driller.)
The Control Panel door is now open in the Driller’s shack (maybe he had to move people out of the way first)…
… The Driller may hesitate, because he may think that the sub Sea Engineer needs to be called for operating the BOP?
… The Driller first has to press the system enabling button and hold it down with his left hand,
… then he can only press one BOP “ram/annular” close button with his right hand, as he only has two hands.
(On a “perfect day” it would take 60 seconds or less for each function to work properly and be verified).
… The phone just keeps on ringing and ringing, adding to the confusion.
So given the potential scenario above… try and put a time frame to the events yourself. It is not easy.
If you unfortunately found yourself to be in similar circumstances (ie being on the rig at that time), how accurately do you think you would be able to remember times.
This is not a criticism of anyone who had the misfortune to experience this tragedy.[/QUOTE]
Alf, given who all was killed in this event and having to assume them to be either on the rig floor or on the pits at the time. Do you believe it went down like that ? The on duty pusher, driller, Asst. driller, & derick man along with two mud hands tells me there was a lot of awareness for a while that they suspected problems, but were being pushed to the limits & were going to have to depend on their BOPs just to get their point across that the well was coming in. Unfortunatley, due to them not taking into account that this well could literally shove the casing up the hole & allow for such a humongous flow, it not only overcame their reaction time, it most likely destroyed the integrity of the annulars & the rams at the same time.
These guys had no choice but to assume that the engineers had designed some part of this well to actually have the ability to perform some type of well control. How many of you guys would ever think a well could come in strong enough to literally shove the casing out of the hole after an 800’ cement job ?
[QUOTE=kearns;35895]Does anyone have any intel regarding the rate of recovery they have achieved in the recent days? And something I would like to know is how they are pumping a two-phase flow?[/QUOTE]
See my post on the previous page, #2319, for a link to the energy.gov page. There is a spreadsheet with quite a bit of good information. It’s the link named ‘Oil and Gas Flow Data’. It has data ending June 9th.
the way i understand this top cap fiasco, they are recovering through a 6 5/8 drill string, used as a riser in this case. i just wonder if it’s even physically possible to flow 40,000 bbl a day through this pipe. that was my concern when i saw the design on this junk. as for plugging this well now. forget it. i got a feeling, after the bullhead operation, capping this thing off would most likely result in that bop stack ending up somewhere near the place neal armstrong made that GIANT LEAP FOR MANKIND. they should have released the riser and installed another stack on top of the existing stack “FIRST”, before they destroyed the remaining integrity of the upper well structure. just my uneducated opinion
[QUOTE=plowboy;35900]the way i understand this top cap fiasco, they are recovering through a 6 5/8 drill string, used as a riser in this case. i just wonder if it’s even physically possible to flow 40,000 bbl a day through this pipe. [/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, yes they can flow that much. I ran a number of scenarios and 6" or 4" or even 3" pipe would flow that much even with a delta-P of as little as 1000 PSI. The pipe velocity would be pretty high, around 50 ft/sec, but not impossible by any means. I have no clue how much they are actually flowing, but the flow rate is not choked off by the pipe size.
i’ll bet if you had been a fly on the wall in that genius room in the first few days. you’d have seen reps from all the wild well companies. they’d have been recomending getting that wellhead cleared so a suitable stack/manifold assy. could be bolted or clamped in this case, so this thing could be shut in or at least contained until the relief wells could be drilled.
[QUOTE=jmccaski;35902]Unfortunately, yes they can flow that much. I ran a number of scenarios and 6" or 4" or even 3" pipe would flow that much even with a delta-P of as little as 1000 PSI. The pipe velocity would be pretty high, around 50 ft/sec, but not impossible by any means. I have no clue how much they are actually flowing, but the flow rate is not choked off by the pipe size.[/QUOTE]
Don’t forget that they are going to also hook up to the choke and kill lines and pull min 5k/day out of them.
[QUOTE=jmccaski;35902]Unfortunately, yes they can flow that much. I ran a number of scenarios and 6" or 4" or even 3" pipe would flow that much even with a delta-P of as little as 1000 PSI. The pipe velocity would be pretty high, around 50 ft/sec, but not impossible by any means. I have no clue how much they are actually flowing, but the flow rate is not choked off by the pipe size.[/QUOTE]
thanks for shedding some light on my doubts
jmccaski. given that we already have 3" choke and kill lines, how many 3, 4, or 6" lines would we need to have this flow rate down to a managable number? i’m speaking in terms of before the upper casing was further damaged.
[QUOTE=OldHondoHand;35904]Don’t forget that they are going to also hook up to the choke and kill lines and pull min 5k/day out of them.[/QUOTE]
I was under the impression from what had been explained a couple of days ago that they were already using the Q4000 to do this. That is supposed to be why the production went from 10,000 BPD to 15,000 BPD? The fact they have communication with the well through the choke & kill lines is proof they are flowing from the casing annulus. This means they are not just flowing through the work string & hopefully are not flowing through the work string at all. I wonder why they haven’t come forth showing the massive leak from the side of the stack. It was plainly visible a couple of evenings ago & was very large. The more recovery they get & still continue to see the slick grow, the more they will cause the general public to mistrust them.
[QUOTE=KASOL;35886]The Schlumberger crew was out to run a CBL (Cement Bond Log) i.e a tool to verify the cementjob. It is always a discussion if it should be run or not because it may not be conclusive. It is not always easy to interpret the logging results. But at least it can tell you where top of cement is and thus verify that the cementjob went well.[/QUOTE]
I would bet after this occurance it will not only be part of the discussion it will be mandatory before any displacements or inner plugs are performed. Anyone who doesn’t use them as part of their analysis & at least shows good effort to plug any potential bad spots in the cement will have their cahonnas nailed to the wall, if something bad happens & the finger can be pointed at the cement.
i hope when they finally get this thing killed, that somebody in our gvt. has the foresight to have somebody, maybe several somebodies on the vessel that recovers the bop stack in order to confiscate the bops for INDEPENDANT forensics.i’d hate to know bp would be allowed to have any say in the investigation of this foulup.
[QUOTE=Asimov;35681]Date: [B]3 April 2010[/B]
Uhm… Huh? Typo on the date is all I can figure… But even so, recall that BP has claimed “Oil floats, there are no plumes of oil under the water.”
[/QUOTE]
No info on who it was created by? Guessing you are right re the typo on the date though as the document properties show it was originally created on 25 April 2010.
[QUOTE=plowboy;35907] how many 3, 4, or 6" lines would we need to have this flow rate down to a managable number? i’m speaking in terms of before the upper casing was further damaged.[/QUOTE]
Wish I was smart enough to answer that. Too many variables for me to even hazard a guess, sorry. But a couple of 3" C&K lines should help a lot, I’m pretty sure.
[QUOTE=bigmoose;35650]Folks, I just wanted to post a [B]CAUTION[/B] with respect to shanec’s request above. I know most professionals are aware of this, but there may be many motivated folks scrounging the internet, and wanting to help and “right this wrong.”
I just wanted to caution that the documents that were requested above may well be marked “Company Proprietary” as such they fall under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 USC 1831-39):
Note to perhaps inexperienced folks trying to help. Be careful. There are big fish in the water, one or more that may soon be fighting for survival. If you send a “Company Proprietary” document say to a foreign party via your email, or host on your website a “Proprietary Document” that causes economic harm to the company you can be litigated against. The bear in the room may eat you, and end up with your treasure and your home… if you are a minor, your folks could loose all. Would this be certain, no. … but do you really want to go up against the attorneys companies of this caliber retain?
[B]If the information is not marked, have at it[/B]; [B]if it is marked “Proprietary”, please be careful[/B], this is the “real deal” for these companies that are under investigation and they will be as viscous as a wounded alligator.
Note: I am not employed by any of these companies, nor am I an attorney. In fact, I am rather upset, to say the least, by the events that led up to this blasted event.
[I]
Looks like shanec’ removed his/her post. It was two above this one. Perhaps this caution was in order?[/I][/QUOTE]
Just wanted to say thank you for giving us all a reality check Big Moose.
I have noticed that you can tell the folks who have worked hands on in this industry (and many others as per similar posts by those who admit to not being O&G folks) here in the forum by the way they engage in the problem solving methods which have been employed. I recall early on in this thread there was some concern by people not connected with industry that we were all attempting to bash the guys on the DWH & just pointing fingers to explain the tradgedy & I have noticed a few of those are showing up again. I guess somone should explain to these folks that due to the extreme hazards associated with what we all do for a living, years of experience have shown that open, brutal examination of the details surrounding an incident are the only way to get to the bottom line which is: how do we keep from wasting millions of dollars and, more importantly, keep from maiming or killing more of our own personnel in the future. What has come of this is that there is no room for worrying about people’s feelings getting hurt, you have to call things the way you see them & throw out any possibilities or solutions you see & then stand by while everyone else in the room cuts your theories to pieces & makes you feel about three inches tall. The payoff is getting to the real cause of whatever happened & knowing that you may have saved the life of a coworker. Is it fun??? Hell no, especially not if you were involved & have to admit to a mistake (even an innocent mistake is still a mistake) and are then grilled about it repeatedly to make sure everything possible has been learned from it. However, historically this method has worked to greatly reduce equipment & environmental damage, injury and deaths so in the long run you take your lumps and console yourself with the knowledge that it is all worth it if it saves even one person from being maimed, or never making it home to see their family.
Now that I have beaten all the way around the bush to get here, what I am saying is that I guess we have all gotten so used to using this method (review the data, critique what you see, brainstorm for possible flaws or misunderstood info, propose ways to avoid similar issues in the future, then toss this data onto the table to see if the others agree or can prove you are full of that odiferous substance which dribbles out of the south-facing end of a north-bound bull) that we may not see the big picture as far as outsiders trolling amongst our ranks looking for any ammunition for the sole purpose of reducing their own financial liability. I am sure I can speak for many of us when I say that I genuinely appreciate your advice and concern. . . . . . . .
unless of course, you are actually a rep for any of those parties trying to scare everyone into not releasing any possible damaging info to the world (no accusation intended I assure you, guess some of the paranoia being fostered by the obvious attempts at concealment of the facts by certain parties involved is rubbing off on me). If that is the case, I know I can speak for everyone when I say I hope there is a special level of Hell reserved for those who knowingly allow the people entrusted to them to be placed in harm’s way for nothing more than a few extra pieces of silver.
Quick levity break. The Derrickman Dance.
Full song here: http://www.wesstjon.com/music.html
[QUOTE=company man 1;35893]What I am saying is the whole idea that you’re going to proceed to push all of your primary forms of well control beyond their limits & say if all else fails we will just close the BOP & risk the lives of 126 people, the rig, & the environment of the gulf coast region on the BOPs when they are strictly intended as a last line of defense isn’t just dillusional it’s flat certifiably crazy.
Edit: We have no “proof” the BOPs actually malfunctioned. We only have BP’s word right now & they just might have a reason or ten billion not to be totally honest.[/QUOTE]
companyman 1…if there were 2 DPs [or segments] within the BOP , seems that toolpushers and others would know that the BOP was no longer functional…that it was incapable of shearing thru 2 DP segments per its operating specifications. I have seen many screen-capture pics and appears there were 2 pipe segments within riser at top of BOP. Has BP or US Gov been asked about this? Any statements whether 1 or 2 segments? The silence is deafening.