Posted on 07/15/2010 5:24:07 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
This is a second thread for this post. Please see http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6731 for previous comments.
Update Thursday Afternoon, 4:00 pm : BP has at least temporarily capped the well, and oil has stopped flowing into the Gulf. BP will now be carefully monitoring the pressure levels. Admiral Allen reports:
"We're encouraged by this development, but this isn't over. Over the next several hours we will continue to collect data and work with the federal science team to analyze this information and perform additional seismic mapping runs in the hopes of gaining a better understanding on the condition of the well bore and options for temporary shut in of the well during a hurricane. It remains likely that we will return to the containment process using this new stacking cap connected to the risers to attempt to collect up to 80,000 barrels of oil per day until the relief well is completed."
Original post
When things are going well down at the Deepwater oil spill site in the Gulf there are press conferences, data flows in a timely manner and the public can understand what is going on. When there are problems, these get delayed.
(Excerpt) Read more at theoildrum.com ...
Good points. Yes a lower reservoir pressure could be one of the causes, but thought I read that this reservoir was going to be producing for years with eventually 3-4 Production wells sunk into it running 24 hours a day. Another possibility I read was that there could be cross talk or cross channel between the Wild Well and the Relief Well 1. That was why they stopped the RW 1, so they could tell if pressure was coming in from the Wild Well during the pressure test. Apparently if they got drilling mud coming back up RW 1, they would know something was up. Since they state they have no clue now, we must assume no drilling mud came back up Relief Well 1. My 2 cents.
Get some rest. They have the best Government and Corporate minds working on the problem. :>
Ok...for those who understand this....I’ve read so much about this on the internet and would like to know the truth from fellow freepers ‘in the know’ about the risks of this test. What’s the worst that can go wrong and what will the ramifications be? thank you.
I agree....but they need to wrestle with the facts as they find them..
But if you want a tinfoil opion I was just reading on The Oil Drum and I find this:
MSNBC July 15: Matt Simmons still says BP covering up MASSIVE HOLE miles away, cap test is "absurd"
**********************************EXCERPT****************************************
watchtower on July 15, 2010 - 10:51pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scl2dgK_-Nw
MSNBC July 15: Matt Simmons still says BP covering up MASSIVE HOLE miles away, cap test is "absurd"
He suggests that this one leak under the BOP could not fill the entire GOM.
Dan Danknick on July 16, 2010 - 12:06am says
I'm no BP apologist (or FedGuv supporter either) so I'm sure that a lot of the data we're getting outta Chu and BP has been filtered. That said, I still think Simmons lives on a world where his sky isn't the same color as ours. His dismissive attitude when dropping "facts" suggests he believes and lives within this synthesized reality.
As as scientist, I *do* think it's important to listen to he nutjobs every so often. It forces us to re-examine our beliefs and again test those assumptions that our conclusions rest upon. Discoveries are made, things change.
But Simmons... wow. More for Art Bell, not MSNBC.
*****************************EXCERPT*******************************************
by Sticks on July 16, 2010 - 2:33am
Reading a lot of the Posts about Pressure - I see nothing wrong with this number , its within a reasonable range. If you work out the weight of Oil/Gas in Column then subtract this from Formation Pressure, that will give you a ballpark figure as what to expect.
I have seen weight of Oil given as about 7.7ppg - well if you reduce this to 7.53ppg which would be possible with the amount of Gas its said to contain .
7.53 Oil would give a calculated pressure at the BOP of 6,700 psi.
We have had some information released about the testing. It is second hand, but seems very reliable. The maximum internal test pressure was measured at just shy of 7,000 psi. Around 6,700 psi. If max pressure never got above 6,000 psi, they would have stopped the test within 3 hours. It would have meant a major breach in the bore integrity. Oil and methane would have been leaking into the rock strata near the wild well. So worse case scenario has not occurred. At least not yet.
If the pressure would have gotten to 8,000 to 9,000 psi, it would have meant that the well bore integrity was intact. They need an intact well bore to permanently kill the blown out well. If the well bore is destroyed, it would be difficult to inject enough mud to stop flow. That mud would be leaking into the rock strata which can be porous. So the best case scenario did not occur.
Right now we are in a state of limbo. Between worse case and best case. More information is required. Now the 8,000 psi to 9,000 psi best case scenario range is based on the old readings of the reservoirs maximum developed pressure in the Macondo well bore. They also calculated that using mud weight just before they lost control. So what they need to determine now is why did they only get to 6,700 psi. Could the reservoir have blown off enough Methane and have its pressure drop ? It is normal for wells to drop pressure over time, but we are only talking a few months here on a very large reservoir flowing through a partially closed BOP. So it is possible that we could actually be in a best case scenario, but that cannot be determined right now. I think the only way that can be determined is if they see no leakage in the rock strata with their sonar surveys.
If they see leakage, the only way they could kill the wild well would be to use two Relief Wells. They need both to get enough mud to stop the flow, since mud will also be leaking. Earlier today there were reports of possible leakage on the ocean floor, but so far none have been verified.
At any rate, you did ask about risks during the conduction of the test. Well the main risk was that the pressure buildup during the test. If that pressure reached 8,000-9,000 psi, it could have caused damage itself to a partially fractured well bore. Especially if it was kept up that high over time. Since we did not get that high, that risk did not occur. Now running at 6,700 psi has risks too, but they are less of a factor. Again, we do not want to damage the well bore. It makes killing the well permanently much more difficult. Absolute worse case would be a sea floor breach with little resistance to flow.
Thank you very much!
We will have to see what kind of response he gets on the Oil Drum. From what I see, the Formation Pressure figure itself is now being called into question. So we are in limbo land.
oops..goblets...should read....droplets
There certainly was a pressure under which they would have called this a failure. Probably something less than 6000 pounds, but only they really knew, and they didn’t tell us. I don’t think a stable 6000psi pressure would mean a “major leak”, it could indicate leaking, and I’m not sure they would completely stop, they might well run tests because they would need to know whether it was stable or not to plan their mud kill (see below).
There was a pressure over which they would immediately “know” things were probably OK. Again, we don’t know what that pressure was. A lot of the pressure was speculation; I believe the 11,800psi number at the bottom is reasonable, but that would translate to a lot lower pressure at the wellhead because of the weight of the oil over the distance (as Earnest pointed out above in a previous comment)
But we have no way of knowing whether the current readings are in line with expectations. And frankly, they didn’t act as if the pressure readings were the all-important piece of data.
Their plan was to pressurize, and if the pressure stabilized, they would do siesmic readings on a periodic basis to determine if there was leakage.
The pressure being stable is really the most important measure. If the pressure started dropping, it would indicate that there was a leak and it was getting bigger. A stable pressure doesn’t prove there is or is not a leak, but it means if there is a leak it’s not being made worse.
The seismic and other readings they are doing will determine if there was leaking. Also of course, if they start seeing oil or methane bubble up around the well or the surrounding seafloor. They are monitoring that as well.
As to the bottom kill, they can bottom kill even if the well is compromised, so long as it isn’t so badly compromised that they simply can’t pump enough mud in to fill it faster than it leaks out.
And I would say that we already have the answer to that question. 6700 psi indicates that significant fluid is staying IN the well, so even if there is a leak they can kill that with mud.
One of the purposes of this test was to determine if they had to do a significant mud kill into the casing, before the did a mud kill into the well itself (by casing I mean the area between the liner and the casing, which should be sealed but that was one of the questions they had, whether the cementing there was adequate).
They would also do a mud kill in the casing if the casing was leaking into the strata. Note that before they do the lining of the hole, they often have leaks into the strata, and they can handle this, they had such a leak at one point in this well back in February that took a long time to seal off.
The pressure didn’t build to their 9,000psi projections, so now they’re determining whether 1)the deposit pressure was slightly relieved by the leaked volume, or 2)there are sub- surface faults in or around the casing.
I’m thinking #2
Thanks for the additional information.
Professor: Low pressure reading may suggest well has lost power, not that it's leaking
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.