They can’t continue to pump with these mudlosses indefinitely. I wonder if they are preparing to install the modified LMRP sitting on the seabed. Assuming that at a certain injection rate they can keep the well from flowing but with significant mudlosses coming out on top. I would think that while they pump at max rate they will attempt to unbolt the flange under the crippled flexjoint on top of the BOP, cut the drillpipe that are jammed in the BOP/riser and install the new modified LMRP on top. It could be equipped with rams as well as one or two annulars, and choke and kill lines. The job should take about 10 - 15 hrs. With that in place they can gradually choke the well down and effectively bull head with heavy mud and then cement. Just guessing, let’s see what happen ….
I don’t know much about the LMRP, but would it be possible to fill it with mud before placing on top of the riser? Does it have a mechanism to close the bottom end of it or the hose?
Whatever they try to put on top has to be open to allow the stream to flow thru. Once the next device is secure they then can attempt to close it. If you try to put something on closed or already blocked with mud the stream or pressure will just knock it out of the way. Of if it is big enough just run undermining the soft bottom. Imagine trying to put a cap on a running fire hose.
[QUOTE=Walton;34290]I don’t know much about the LMRP, but would it be possible to fill it with mud before placing on top of the riser? Does it have a mechanism to close the bottom end of it or the hose?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=CPTdrillersails;34270]Well lookey, lookey here: apparently the government panel’s estimate that was released Thursday described the consensus [I]lower bound range[/I] on the flow rate and size of the release! The upper boundary was impossible for them to estimate.
Yeah, tell me about it.
Well, strong, strong cudos to these scientists for giving us the first honesty in this whole mess and for being adamant about it. Like I said two days ago, the press release was very unclear, also, there was much left out. Then like I said yesterday, bp has [I]absolutely no interest in giving out the hard information that will let people know what is going on, and that includes the government.[/I] Without that hard data, people (like me) have to assume and conjecture, and I think I was probably wrong that the top kill had failed yesterday. Apparently they are going through a repeated process of junk shot, pump, stop and wait to see if it works, adjust, try again. But the reason why it is so difficult from the start (caution, more conjecture) is that the leak rate is/was much higher than they anticipated, and [I]they are not going to tell you that[/I]! But (and this ain’t conjecture) the chance of it succeeding go down every day it doesn’t work.[/QUOTE]
This user says thank you for this useful post.
[QUOTE=KASOL;34245]I am not sure if it is posted but:
Very interesting wrap up from BP:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/docu…esentation.pdf[/QUOTE]
Here’s a link to document which spells out exactly what is expected of drilling companies in regards to their BOP’s. If you have any part of well control, this is a good doc to bone up on. It can also be used as a baseline to compare what Transocean and BP, MMS, et al, actually did, or did not do, regarding secondary well control.
http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/431/FinalReport431.pdf
First time poster, but have been lurking here since day one.
First, let me give my heartfelt condolences to the families and friends and co-workers of The Eleven, and those who have been injured. Some of those injuries will be permanantly disabling, and some will carry the pain in their bodies, and spirits, for the rest of their lives. I am sorry for your loss.
Since I don’t have anything of real value to add, I just like to listen and learn, but I do have a background is in offshore production, and in USGS Safety Device Certification and services… However, this Santa Barbara native is old enough to remember the '69 Union A blowout, and the years of living with the aftermath. For a long long time, we kept gasoline, kerosene, and vaseline by the back door to scrub the tar off our feet after our trips to the beach.
I have lots of friends and family in the Gulf Coast and I truly feel their pain, fear, anger and frustration with this needless and senseless act of negligence. Then there are the economic repercussions to the thousands of hands who make their living in the patch. I can’t begin to wrap my head around how this will affect them and their families. All this because “Safety First!” wasn’t being practiced, nor, does it appear, was it a part of the corporate culture of BP. Looking back, I bet there are many people who are regretting not doing anything and everything in their power to stop the trainwreck. Careers can be replaced; lives can’t. (I know, easier said than done, right?) Still, the entire industry is gonna be shook up hard. Shame on BP. Shame. And shame on those who were lax in hooking up and testing and double testing the safety devices. Way back when, I was broke in on Hondo when we were bringing her online for the first time, and had the priviledge of being trained by Joe Moffett and his partner, Ed LeBlanc. Some really good folks back then, most of them out of Houston, Gretna, Morgan City, etc. They don’t make 'em like that anymore. Those were men who put safety first and had respect for the power and danger of the patch. They had seen it first hand, and everybody back then knew somebody who had died on the job.
Many thanks to all who have shared their experience and knowledge in helping us better understand this awful scenario. One question that has nagged me since day one when it was reported that after the initial emergency shutdown, the aux firewater engines fired up, then sucked gas and subsequently ran away, so much so they tore loose and flung themselves overboard. This explosive situation is what caused the gas on the rig to explode. I believe I saw where the Rig Mechanic stated or testified that the LEL safety devices were bypassed, so the engines would not keep from over-revving. This is so unnacceptable. Had this not have happened, perhaps it would have bought some time to address the kick, or at least get everybody off the rig before the inevitable spark from static electricity would have ignited the gas. Lessons learned here.
It will be easy to want to tar and feather “the company man” who put profit ahead of safety by step-saving, but how many times have each of us boilerhoused a reading, or skipped a critical test because we grew lax in attitudes about Safety? I know I’m guilty. Let’s all remember that corny slogan, “Safety begins with me!” Sure, it can be a pain in the butt at times, but look at the price The Eleven have paid, and now the entire Gulf.
I should also add the LMRP is not intended to block or stop the flow of oil. The box is designed to capture the leak and bring the oil and gas to the surface for processing. The first box failed because it froze up based on the energy changed when the methane expanded. Just like an aerosol can cools when you release the contents. This time around the box is smaller and modified to heat the contents in an attempt to eliminate the freeze up issues.
[QUOTE=Walton;34290]I don’t know much about the LMRP, but would it be possible to fill it with mud before placing on top of the riser? Does it have a mechanism to close the bottom end of it or the hose?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=rlanasa;34291]Whatever they try to put on top has to be open to allow the stream to flow thru. Once the next device is secure they then can attempt to close it. If you try to put something on closed or already blocked with mud the stream or pressure will just knock it out of the way. Of if it is big enough just run undermining the soft bottom. Imagine trying to put a cap on a running fire hose.[/QUOTE]
What if there were a connection on the LMRP near the bottom to fill it with mud after it was placed on the riser? I suppose it wouldn’t be attached tightly enough to contain the pressure. Oh well. Just thinking out loud.
[QUOTE=HellSD;34282]Hey, been following this thread for over a month, as a preliminary, I want to thank y’all for your seriously insightful and informative commentary.
Company Man 1, I want to single you out and thank you for your analysis. I hate that you appear to be right, I wish I could write off your posts as paranoid conspiracy theories, but what you’re saying has a lot more evidence behind it than rlanasa’s unfounded BP-shitstream.
Anyways, been watching the feed for a while. After hours and hours of the bent riser, now we’ve got this:
Any idea what we’re looking at? Looks like sea floor or something, way more irregular than something man-made.[/QUOTE] It appears to be the end of the riser with oil coming out at a lower rate than earlier, but still quite a bit. Est. 8-12 BPM. certainly no less than 5 BPM. But this is not a sound way to estimate.
Thank you, … I think. Seriously, you aren’t the only one who wishes I were wrong. You can put my name on the top of that list. The evidence that I am correct is presented every day by BP’s continual lack of disclosure. there was an excellent post made earlier by another poster. It is an investigation disclosure by BP. Whie the information is very useful it has several flaws in it’s assumptions which I will point out. The main overriding one is there has been not one time they have pointed to their own design flaws of the job, which you can be sure, I will not omit. furthermore, there are a lot of very knwledgeable people reading & posting who may find things I do not point out & I welcome with sound theory, methodolgy, or standard practice to criticize points where i make errors.
EDIt: I now have live feed. I will estimate flow to be 12-15 BBls. minute. It appears to be pure oil. I would ask if they still have ROVs on the riser at the top of the stack & if they are still making the light brown plume we’ve seen. If this is the case, then it can be pretty safely assumed that this flow is coming form inside the work string below the BOPs & the well is more than likely flowing from the inside of the casing as well as out of the annulus. Disclaimer: THIS IS SPECCULATION.
I just want to publicly say [B][U]Thank You[/U][/B] to everyone on this message board. I am not in the O&G field but have become increasingly engrossed in this situation over the last few weeks. I have learned a tremendous, albeit limited - comparatively speaking, amount since happening upon this particular forum a few weeks ago. Yesterday I had to force myself away from the computer screen from time to time to take care of other things; [I]i.e.[/I], the job I’m paid to do. This outlet has provided me with understanding and hope and an occasional comedic relief and sadly at times a sinking heart. Last night I had a very difficult time sleeping and the longer I lay awake the more I thought about how the tragic event onboard DWH had an immediate effect on so many souls in just an instant of time and how it continues to ripple throughout time without much of an end in sight. I don’t mean to sound like a “dooms-dayer.” That’s not what I’m saying. I’m just saying that my heart is breaking, as it has over the years for many souls during catastrophic and even not-so-catastrophic events; and, that I am really, really glad you all are here. I sincerely appreciate the giving your time and your expert knowledge (whether you are in O&G or not). Please keep up the good work, it is people like you who will see us through this. You are all in my prayers.
[QUOTE=rlanasa;34294]I should also add the LMRP is not intended to block or stop the flow of oil. The box is designed to capture the leak and bring the oil and gas to the surface for processing. The first box failed because it froze up based on the energy changed when the methane expanded. Just like an aerosol can cools when you release the contents. This time around the box is smaller and modified to heat the contents in an attempt to eliminate the freeze up issues.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean? the “box” has no similarities to the new or any other LMRP. there is a modified LMRP ready to go on top of the BOP
[QUOTE=KASOL;34245]I am not sure if it is posted but:
Very interesting wrap up from BP:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/docu…esentation.pdf[/QUOTE] Thank you very much KASOL. This document, while I have read through only 15 pages so far has tons of information. I have noticed already there has been no inference of design flaws, premature displacement of fluids, & testing procedures which were all desinged & made & approved by BP management.
And just for more fun, the screen timestamp ROV feed from CNN, labeled “Live” is 6 hours behind the screen timestamp on the BP feed. As of 14:17 EDT. Cute, huh?
[QUOTE=company man 1;34300]Thank you very much KASOL. This document, while I have read through only 15 pages so far has tons of information. I have noticed already there has been no inference of design flaws, premature displacement of fluids, & testing procedures which were all desinged & made & approved by BP management.[/QUOTE]
CM1, please take a look at slide 13. 3,100 psi to break circ and then abnornmally low circulating pressure. did they blow the float or burst the 7"??
BP readies second BOP at Macondo
BP cautious as Allen hails top kill success
BP has stopped drilling one of the relief wells to intercept the blown out Macondo bore so it can ready the rig’s blowout preventer (BOP) to go on top of the crippled Macondo BOP.
www.upstreamonline.com/live/article216214.ece
I say BS as the Discoverer Enterprise has at least one very capable BOP and is currently set up for producing the flow.
Cap may be a better word. It cannot be on top of the BOP. To put the new unit on they have to cut the riser first. At that point Top Kill is finished and we will have free flow out of the top of the BOP. The headline will read Top Kill fails BP cuts riser increasing the rate of the leak. Not Good!
Once you have a clean riser you can try to cap it with the LMRP Cap. ( LMRP) Lower Marine Riser Package.
[QUOTE=paloma;34299]What do you mean? the “box” has no similarities to the new or any other LMRP. there is a modified LMRP ready to go on top of the BOP[/QUOTE]
Rockman at theoildrum.com has a good explanation of the top kill process for laypeople:
Everyone knows what a water heater looks like. A little more detail: it’s a pressurized tank with an inlet line coming in from the water line to the house. To avoid tank rupture should pressures become excessive there is a “pop off” valve. At a certain pressure (let’s use 80 psi) it pops open and lets the water drain out. Now consider the BOP being the water tank. And our water tank has two pop off vales: one that pops at 80 psi (represents the pressure at the seafloor of around 2,300 psi) and the second that pops open at 400 psi (represents the 10,000 + psi of the wild flow). The objective of the exercise is to make the 400-psi valve pop open (this represents forcing the mud down the casing/drill pipe). So we start pumping in water to the tank (BOP) via the water line (choke line). At 80 psi the valve pops and water starts shooting out (the mud you see flowing out of the BOP/riser). We need to increase the tank pressure to 400 psi to make the second valve open (force the oil/NG back down the hole). So we have to increase the flow rate/pressure of the water line to force more water into the tank than the 80-psi valve is letting out. Of course, as we increase the pressure/inlet rate the water flows faster out of the 80-psi valve.
Obviously only one way to get that 400-psi valve to pop: inject water (drill mud) that much faster than it can leak out the low-pressure valve. Otherwise all the injected water (mud being pumped thru the choke line) will go out the low-pressure valve (BOP/riser). Now lets say we get the flow rate/pressure high enough to pop the 400-psi valve open. Yahoo…success! Sorry not yet. Did I forget to mention that not only did we need to pop that valve open but we need to keep it open long enough to fill up 200 water tanks (filling the csg with mud all the way to the bottom)? And what happens if we let the tank pressure drop? The 400-psi valve closes (the oil/NG forces what mud is in the csg to flow back out).
And there’s BP true dilemma: not only do they have to generate at least 10,000+ psi in the BOP they have to maintain it long enough to push the oil/NG back down 13,000’ of csg. I assume this is the purpose of the junk shot: diminish the leakage rate of the BOP.
The actual process is a little more complicated, but that is the concept.
[QUOTE=rlanasa;34306]Cap may be a better word. It cannot be on top of the BOP. To put the new unit on they have to cut the riser first. At that point Top Kill is finished and we will have free flow out of the top of the BOP. The headline will read Top Kill fails BP cuts riser increasing the rate of the leak. Not Good!
Once you have a clean riser you can try to cap it with the LMRP Cap. ( LMRP) Lower Marine Riser Package.[/QUOTE]
Just wanted to clarify “free flow”. They’ve said that obstructions in the BOP are providing the majority of the flow restrictions from the well. So when they cut the riser, the resulting flow will be basically the summation of the leaks at the kink and the end of the riser. Right?
IDEA to fix (control or seal) the top leak …
- Create a [U]large cylinder or box[/U] to be placed over and completely surround the BOP or shaft outlet source. The containment chamber box should have a freespace taller that the BOP or area to be covered.
- Place a [U]large volume 15,000+psi valve on top[/U] of that box and leave it open like a faucet as the box is lowered over the well. Installed also on that box is [U]a side port for injection of quick concrete[/U]. After lowering this box with outlet valve on top and concrete injector on the side over the well head, the box or cylinder will fill with oil and it will flow out the top valve.
- Now [U]fill the well with concrete 2/3 full[/U] around the pipe outlet or BOP to surround it. High pressure oil and gas will easily force it’s way up and through the wet concrete. As the concrete hardens there will be left various open channels upward through it, as caused by the flowing oil as it had been escaping. BUT the box or cylinder with that valve on top has now been cemented to the end of the pipe or BOP. The shear strength of concrete is high enough I presume.
- Now slowly close the valve. If all works as my plan, the leak is sealed from the top valve or directed to the surface. The capping box was sealed by concrete surrounding the outlet as the oil flowed out the open top valve.
I just thought of this now, right here. My brain cannot relax over this problem. This troubles me and ALL I want to do is help. I wish I could test my idea, spec it out, make a written proposal, but I don’t know enough or even have the software to create a visual demo. My idea may be lame - and if so excuse me. I try. Can you tell me why this would NOT work? Thanks all.
[QUOTE=rlanasa;34306]Cap may be a better word. It cannot be on top of the BOP. To put the new unit on they have to cut the riser first. At that point Top Kill is finished and we will have free flow out of the top of the BOP. The headline will read Top Kill fails BP cuts riser increasing the rate of the leak. Not Good!
Once you have a clean riser you can try to cap it with the LMRP Cap. ( LMRP) Lower Marine Riser Package.[/QUOTE]
Clean riser will not help. You need to the bolt on to the flange on top of the flex joint or most likey on bottom since I think the flex joint is crippled. Of course it will be on top of the BOP, where else?
The top kill injection/circulation can continue while they install the new LMRP.
Agreed that is why I said “free flow out of the top of the BOP”. BP has publicly forecasted the riser cut will increase the flow 10-15%…
[QUOTE=alvis;34309]Just wanted to clarify “free flow”. They’ve said that obstructions in the BOP are providing the majority of the flow restrictions from the well. So when they cut the riser, the resulting flow will be basically the summation of the leaks at the kink and the end of the riser. Right?[/QUOTE]