[QUOTE=KASOL;37377]Many rigs have realtime cameras that can be viewed onshore. Since 2005 have had access to all rig cameras from operations rooms onshore on projects I have worked. You can switch cameras onshore but you are not allowed to “move cameras” from onshore.
With this technology we are one team on it is not “rig vs beach”.
Normal way of working:
Drilling guidelines developed onshore
Rig "Drillers work instruction written offshore by DSV and Drilling Engineer based on drilling guideline.
Meeting held with rig contractor(TP) and all involved service contractor( DD, mud, cement, ROV etc) to finalize drillers work instruction offshore.
Drillers work instrucution sendt onshore for review by onshore Drilling Superintendent and engineers as well as Rig Manager and service provider coordinators.
Meeting held, often video meeting, with beach/rig. Reviewing and agreeing on final procedure/drillers work instruction.
Then beach and rig agree an the way forward.
[/QUOTE]
KASOL, can you clarify a couple of things for me?
Me thinks your comments reflect Norwegian ways of doing things…
“Many rigs have realtime cameras that can be viewed onshore”… I’ve never experienced this. Yes rigs have numerous cameras that can be viewed and manipulated from different points on the rig… but fed back to town?
“Normal way of working:”… I agree with steps 1 thru’ 3, but never experienced steps 4 & 5 being done. So I have to question your use of “Normal”.
However, given the overall gist of your post, I think we all have to stand back and reflect on how we worked our operations before and how we now might want to do them in the future.
[QUOTE=company man 1;37431]I didn’t get to see the MMS & Coast guard testimonies. Could one of you guys send me a link? I can’t believe they got back 58 Bbls. of returns on the negative test & Harrell agreed to displace the riser. This whole thing is past my imagination. This is just a total embarrassment for anyone in the oilfield. One thing sounds for sure. Reading everyone’s account of the testimony given, it will be pretty easy to vet out the guilty & throw them in jail.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=company man 1;37431]I didn’t get to see the MMS & Coast guard testimonies. Could one of you guys send me a link? I can’t believe they got back 58 Bbls. of returns on the negative test & Harrell agreed to displace the riser. This whole thing is past my imagination. This is just a total embarrassment for anyone in the oilfield. One thing sounds for sure. Reading everyone’s account of the testimony given, it will be pretty easy to vet out the guilty & throw them in jail.[/QUOTE]
The Coast Guard MMS Joint Investigation site:
Alf,
On norwegian sector this way of working is common, also live streaming to town. However, now I am working for a small operator and we will not have live streaming from the rig. But still we will go through the steps as I outlined. The reason is to work as one team, not two. The 2-4 schedule also requires high focus on procedures and rig/beach working together.
While listening to Hafle’s testimony, I’ve spotted several inconsistencies.
He went to the rig for 3 days & ended up staying 10 days because he enjoyed it so much, not because they had trouble squeezing. I have never seen an engineer who wanted to be out more than 3 days anywhere in my life. BULLSHIT!
The permits for casing design were changed from dual runs on 7" & 9 7/8" separately. He stated that the difference was caused by typos of temp in regulatory group. This could not be since she would not have understood the difference between running two casing strings with individual casing shoe & tie back unless she was told how to write them of was given the original by him then changed by him later.
He was not informed of fluid loss during the cement job. There was plainly fluid loss during the pumping of the cement job. this was shown on the daily report which he said he reviewed every day.
Most discusting was his denial that cement was there to keep the zone of interest from flowing & that he wasn’t convinced the cement job didn’t hold. DAH?
He denied that he knew Schlumberger was on location, yet he reviews the daily rig reports everyday. Schlumberger was on the rig for 4 days just to hang out & eat the groceries? They were definitely there to run a CBL.
After testifying that the cement wan’t there to keep the zone isolated he testifies that the cement is there as a barrier. What does a barrier do if not to keep the well from flowing? I wonder why MMS requires 500’ above the zone if not to keep the zone from flowing ?
In my opinion his whole attitude is if we aren’t required to do it by law then we aint doin it & we might not even do it then. He also attempted to drag every other operator in saying none run CBLs before production. This to me reflects an attitude which basically pits the drilling department against the completion department. Is it possible that this accident occured because of the competing departments in the same corporation? The drilling people don’t take a certain step because they want to push the cost onto the completion/ production group? What struck me most was his belief that he was totally right in his thinking. How can someone this educated be this ignorant of the consequences of their actions. They should close down BP headquarters in Houston & make every one of those people go down to Grand Isle & clean the beaches until this well is killed. Then they might realize the consequences of their arrogance & irresponsibility.
Thanks again Alf & Alvis & Dell & all you guys for awesome investigative work.
Edit: I did catch in his testimony that there are actually two zones not just one. From what I have seen of the logs & the ECDs & hearing that they lost 3000 Bbls. at the bottom of this zone, to go along with the need for many multiple strings of the relief well, how many think this will be killed by one or even two relief wells?
Is anyone up? The well is making some major sand. It is either bridging off or its gonna blow the hell out of the LMRP cap assembly pretty soon. It’s 2:20 AM for anyone interested.
[QUOTE=john;37445]Which feed are you watching?[/QUOTE]
I was watching BPs feed on all their ROV cams. Something crazy was going on. Either the well was bridging over or the LMRP cap got blown off or the well blew out completely outside of the casing. GOOGLe BP live spill cams.
I ncan’t watch & mponitor the sight at the same time.
It looks like the LMRP cap got blown off & the well is flowing away from the well head all together. I know it was slugging sand, then gas, then oil real hard aroung 2:00 then at about 2:15 it blew the hell out of something. The BOP stack is still ther but the cap is gone & it didn’t go by design. a couple of the ROVs are gonna need major repairs.
The CNN feed is completely bizarre. It’s impossible to tell where they are, but there appear to be at least 2 ROVs in the camera’s pov. I haven’t seen this much life moving around in any of these videos (& that life looks “right” for deep sea) What is SO bizarre is that it looks like a human figure is working on either the ROV facing the camera or some equipment in between. Gad, I think I’d rather see oil. Seriously creepy!
Hafle’s testimony is good stuff, inasmuch as he answers the questions clearly, even though many questions are of the “which part of your design failed” kind.
He is basically saying that they had lost circ and ballooning problems, but that the cement job of the 7inch inside the 8.5 inch hole showed no sign of any problems. He said that there was no loss, that they bumped the plug and pressure tested it. They had no specific reason to run a CBL - even though it would have been advisable, it wasn’t necessary. You gotta say that the chances of getting a good cement job weren’t that great, given the low annulus diameter and other well factors, but he is saying that the evidence was that it was good.
We know the BOP failed - amazingly but thats not unusual apparently.
We don’t actually know if the casing design was faulty, do we?
The question is how do you qualify a barrier ? Is bumping the plug and no losses good enough ? I am sure I am not alone to have experienced good cement jobs and then when drilling out the casing shoetrack there is no cement, poor shoe indicating leak and a squeeze job is required.
[QUOTE=ex-pe-uk;37453]Hafle’s testimony is good stuff, inasmuch as he answers the questions clearly, even though many questions are of the “which part of your design failed” kind.
He is basically saying that they had lost circ and ballooning problems, but that the cement job of the 7inch inside the 8.5 inch hole showed no sign of any problems. He said that there was no loss, that they bumped the plug and pressure tested it. They had no specific reason to run a CBL - even though it would have been advisable, it wasn’t necessary. You gotta say that the chances of getting a good cement job weren’t that great, given the low annulus diameter and other well factors, but he is saying that the evidence was that it was good.
We know the BOP failed - amazingly but thats not unusual apparently.
We don’t actually know if the casing design was faulty, do we?[/QUOTE]
Leaving aside cost cutting, would not prudence call for a CBL since lost circ and ballooning problems were experienced ? Like you said chances of getting a good cement job weren’t that great. In any case when is a CBL called as per your experience ? As per my experience a CBL is called for when factors of significant doubt affected the hole while drilling, such as major losses,even if cured, and also severe ballooning. Perhaps they felt best, not running a CBL was prudent ? But why ? I am still not convinced given Hafle’s reasons.
[QUOTE=ActivePatriot;37423]BP needs to pay out the money to the coast line and the government (who supposedly works for us) needs to ensure it happens now, not later.
Watch Anderson Cooper right now, CNN has reverted to “Catastrophe” instead of “Disaster” to define the event - just like I said.
Only when they want our money do they call it a “Disaster.” When the subject is on government or BP responsibility they call it a Castastrophe.
Important subtleties in propaganda most people miss. A Declared Disaster would be DHS/FEMA responsibility but, this is a “Spill of National Significance” instead.
I hope people wake up to how this is being handled. Ask the 911 responders how well they were taken care of for their service to our country.
I agree, money to residents in the area is a good thing. Everyone just shouldn’t forget who should be paying and who should be running the show and is not.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=company man 1;37447]It looks like the LMRP cap got blown off & the well is flowing away from the well head all together. I know it was slugging sand, then gas, then oil real hard aroung 2:00 then at about 2:15 it blew the hell out of something. The BOP stack is still ther but the cap is gone & it didn’t go by design. a couple of the ROVs are gonna need major repairs.[/QUOTE]
I know this thread has jumped the shark, but pull-ease, CM, lets try and keep the tinfoil hat stuff down, OK?
Enterprise ROV 2 [I]clearly[/I] shows the cap in place at 9:45 EDT 2010-06-22.
So either it put itself firmly back on, or it was never gone in the first place, right?
I do a lot of arbitration. Nevertheless, I’m not sure I understand how this will work in terms of discovery. Anadarko needs to prove “gross negligence or willful misconduct”–and all the materials to prove that (or to disprove that) are in BP’s hands.