I'm listening to Kent Wells Monday afternoon McBriefing. After all of the normal generalities, he has just dropped the bomb that they're considering the "static kill". He said that it's not approved and they studying it, and then did not elaborate. So far, the press hasn't picked up on it and are mostly focused on the Hatfields and McCoys style feud that kicked up yesterday after the Suttles briefing.
In his brief introduction of the "static kill" he did mention that the lower than expected wellhead pressure had raised the possibility of this procedure working. Platts Oilgram (an industry rag) finally asked the question as to how it worked, and he described a procedure that is called "bullheading" even though he didn't use that term. To bullhead is to pump into a well from the top rather than circulating in through a pipe inside the well. This can work in a static well if you can get mud to start into the well and don't exceed the working pressure of the wellhead. As more mud is pumped in, hydrostatic pressure from the heavier mud will build, pushing the oil and gas back down the well. It differs from the top kill in that the well is shut in (thus, static), and they now have a closed system rather than the leaky riser they dealt with in the last kill. The problem with this procedure is the limitation of the wellhead equipment, in this case the BOP and components, which still concerns me because of the flex joint and riser connector that we have discussed in detail several times.
I predict that they will try this. Anything to keep from opening the well and measuring the flow. We'll continue to watch this, and I'll update as more becomes available.
In his brief introduction of the "static kill" he did mention that the lower than expected wellhead pressure had raised the possibility of this procedure working. Platts Oilgram (an industry rag) finally asked the question as to how it worked, and he described a procedure that is called "bullheading" even though he didn't use that term. To bullhead is to pump into a well from the top rather than circulating in through a pipe inside the well. This can work in a static well if you can get mud to start into the well and don't exceed the working pressure of the wellhead. As more mud is pumped in, hydrostatic pressure from the heavier mud will build, pushing the oil and gas back down the well. It differs from the top kill in that the well is shut in (thus, static), and they now have a closed system rather than the leaky riser they dealt with in the last kill. The problem with this procedure is the limitation of the wellhead equipment, in this case the BOP and components, which still concerns me because of the flex joint and riser connector that we have discussed in detail several times.
I predict that they will try this. Anything to keep from opening the well and measuring the flow. We'll continue to watch this, and I'll update as more becomes available.
Static kill is bullheading. If, as you suggest, they pump in the kill line while opening the choke line to the surface, all they will do is circulate at the surface. They couldn't do that anyway since the well would then begin flowing due to lack of hydrostatic in the riser. The only way this works is to bullhead into the well with everything else closed, going slow until enough mud is in the hole that hydrostatic over comes formation pressure. THEN, they'll have to pump a retarded (slow setting) cement all the way to bottom. Since they have no idea if they're pumping down casing or down the annulus, or both, they have no idea how much to displace to get it to the formation. BTW, pumping SOBM (synthetic oil based mud) fast only changes its viscosity, not it's density. It still weighs the same. Big problem here is that they don't know where the mud will go. The 9 7/8 is probably collapsed in the liner around the 5 1/2 drill pipe. BP disclosed they were able to cycle all the rams, but unable to close, telling me that the casing and casing hanger are probably pushed up into the BOP. Add that to one or two lengths of drill pipe in the BOP and it's game over. The bore of that BOP, after over 90 days of flow, is polished clean with the amount of sand this well probably made. There's probably little left to close.
Agree that doing this with relief well so close is stupid. BTW, hydrostatic is the same. They use a riser to pump the static kill, also.
Oh, and to add why static kill would be considered when the DD-III is so close? Having the well killed would be safer in that returns would be SOBM, not well bore fluids. No dilution either, maintaining control of the well.
Pressures would have to be closely controlled between the MC-252 #1 and DD-III as the static kill would not have the 5000 feet of riser contributing to the total pressure.
Static kill isn't bullheading, to get volume flow, an equivalent volume of well fluid is released from the choke line. This would require rework of the original BOP C&K lines as they had been used for production, given the partial closing of the original BOP rams have functioned as chokes..they might have sealed a bit but 87 days of flowing would surely erode the elastomers if not rams (steel) themselves.
The key to a static kill is speed, or lack of it. If SOBM is used, high speed pumping can dilute or cut the mud, lowering its density and possibly not killing the well. But unlike top kill, the controlled flow will minimize the mixing. At 16 ppg maximum possible pumping weight, little dilution would be permitted.
Finally, they could be trying to cycle the rams on the original BOP. Since there is no flow, weight alone of the remaining tool string would cause it to fall into the well, possibly allowing the full 15k BOP shut-in. This is pure speculation on my part, Adm. Allen would be wise to keep this close since opening the original BOP would cause consternation among the media. The well is shut in, this poses no risk. Gamma radiography of the BOP was done early, they know what they are dealing with and it is a jammed BOP.
I think it's fair to say that a lot of the Hurricane Community believes the facts support the conclusion that BP plc, a multinational corporation registered in England and Wales, is guilty of gross negligence. Also lack of transparency about technical matters, suppression of the press, and lousy public relations. I haven't seen anybody disagree that lax US Government enforcement enabled this disaster, and that this laxity was paid for with generous campaign contributions to both the R & D parties, who we will all grudgingly admit are US entities. Still, BP was responsible for self-inspection to ensure adherence to Government regs, which records clearly show they failed to do, so we are back to the topic of gross negligence. No disputing that BP is publicly traded and that many shareholders live in the US. So yes, some of our citizens had something to gain from practices nudging profits up and safety down. Some of us suspect BP may have engaged in criminal conduct with respect to the Big Blowout, but this has yet to be proven in a court of law. You have pointed out that other big oil companies, the Chevrons and the Shells do business a lot like BP. I agree, there but for the grace of God...
So, in what sense is any of this "dumping" on BP? Have the facts been represented? Has BP been unfairly singled out (other than perhaps by fate)? How is this Nationalism with a big N? No Old Glories have been run up any flagpoles, that's your characterization and I don't get it. Maybe a flag should have been hoisted, to half mast, for the 11 people who died.
the nationalism you reference derives from our friends and cousins, the Brits, complaining about BP being called 'British Petroleum' and remarks made by the British PM yesterday on his first visit to the White House 'warning' U.S. law-makers, thereby inserting the British gov't. in an on-going legal fracas where depositions and testimony are being taken (!?!):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/cameron-congress-bp-oil-damages_n_653509.html
aggravating the situation is the fact BP's H.R. dept. would probably block the hiring of anyone with this record since 2003:
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7037819
where workers were killed - not including what may happen as a result of this blow-out.
the situation is so serious that no neighborhood association in Houston would likely knowingly permit a home-owner to rent out a residence subject to the neighborhood association to an individual who had BP's record.
much is over-looked because it was done as part of corporate activity, but the record is no less disturbing.
"
Philip Lamb | July 20, 2010 1:40 PM | Reply
I've followed this blog since shortly after day 1 of this crisis, and quite honestly I'm surprised to see you Bob and other commenters here lining up behind the banner of Nationalism. "
That note is probably true to an extent. However, while we await real indictments from Holder the "possibility" of criminal activity exists if BP is allowed to have total control of the well scene. They have a massive ($$$) incentive to prevent the establishment of a flowrate that their lawyers cannot shoot down in a Houston court. It is that POTENTIAL criminal activity where law enforcement is needed as a "prevention" measure.
A crime may have been originally committed. It is standard to then seal the scene to make a determination and keep the scene pristine. You do not want anyone going into a crime scene and altering the evidence, which is my point. Their original guilt, although probable, will be decided in the courts.
I hope your p.s.i. figures are taken to heart out at the scene - in fact, for things to go forward, some engineer should have to prove where your numbers are in error.
well done.
I've followed this blog since shortly after day 1 of this crisis, and quite honestly I'm surprised to see you Bob and other commenters here lining up behind the banner of Nationalism. I write that with a capital letter, as comments about the US National interest are one thing, but characterizing this disaster as a crime perpetrated on the US by foreign interests is Nationalism, straight and simple, not to mention highly disingenuous. This disaster is a direct consequence of the US domestic energy policy, flagrant oil wastage and lax regulatory oversight. The only surprise about this disaster is that it didn't happen sooner, and the "It wouldn't happen to us" attitudes from Chevron, Shell and others are pure hubris. Running Old Glory up the flagpoles on the rigs isn't going to change anything. To see commentators in the US dumping on a foreign-controlled multinational (as if ownership structure was somehow mattered when it comes to the nitty-gritty of actual mining) is highly ironic, considering its usually the US in the hot seat as owner of resources in other countries.
I just read at the Oil Drum that Admiral Thad Allen's conference / daily briefing is set for 3:30 ( I believe central not EST )... Briefing is set at the DOJ , which is different from normal Briefing sites ! Any thoughts as to what may come later today , does this square with recent divergences between BP and USCG as to handling of matters ?
If the relief wells are merely two - three weeks off at this point , why would the USCG allow BP to roll the dice with a different variety of a top kill attempt ? If BP damages the wellbore and screws up the relief well from working properly , who will take the responsibility for this curious call ?
The Well, and the area above, are a crime scene. The USA has every right to declare it and place Federal Marshals on board each involved vessel. Then order BP to start collection. I fear that BP is quite capable of creating an "accident" that will prevent collection/flow measurement. Thad Allen has shown he is weak and the President has little interest. With many billions of dollars at stake these two people must get some backbone and control the situation. That is something neither has done to-date.
Cavner is on-point with his comments on TV. I fear that until Wolf Blitzer (Cronkite stand-in) raises the issues the Government will ignore the billions in fines and let BP do whatever they want to do to cap the well. That makes good press that other flow-rate stuff is page 3. Can't confuse the voters with facts!
If this is another "BULLHEAD KILL", the risk is fairly real.
The BOP pressure (at the top) of this well is currently 6800 psi. Following a Methane temperature gradient derived from available data, that puts the Bottom Pressure between 13000-14000 psi. By sending Heavy Mud (17 lbs/gal) down the well from the surface to the bottom (where the oil enters from the Earth) is a hydrostatic pressure difference of 8235 lbs. At the bottom this will add to give 22235 psi during this operation. The steel which makes up the casing can't take this pressure, the cement which surrounds the casing is rated 19000-21500 psi. Essentially, they will destroy the bottom region of this well during this operation.
Doesn't really matter. After they slam all this mud down the hole, they will have control of the well. Then they simply follow the mud with cement.
But wait, are we forgetting there are 2 pieces of pipe sticking out of the top of the old BOP? Additionally, there is probably a leak in the casing way down below already (perhaps all the way down the casing) THESE ARE ALL ADDITIONAL PATHS WHICH MUST BE SEALED, OR THE WELL CAN'T BE CONSIDERED KILLED.
I have to agree with Bob's prediction. Both BP and the Obama Administration will find a lot to like in the new "Static Kill" option. Both parties will conclude that benefits outweigh risks. BP gets an Oil Volume Cloaking Device - and if all goes as planned, lower fines. The Administration gets a killed well without any more unsightly live feeds of gushing oil - and, fingers crossed, cheerier citizens going into the midterm elections. Stuck in the middle of this is a better informed and newly assertive Admiral Allen. Who will be pushed strongly from both sides, one of which includes his Commander In Chief. A brilliant, if Machiavellian maneuver on the part of BP. Or sausage making, take your pick. As we have learned in the past 90 days, what can possibly go wrong?
well eljefe, no need to look through the past transcripts to see if 'static kill' has come up in briefings before.
you're right - the only way BP's lawyers will ever let them take that cap off is if it's leaking 80,000 bbls/day, OR they know the damages they will be guilty of by leaving the cap on will exceed $4300/bbl. X 80,000 bbls./day; very simple cost/benefit analysis.
if the lawyers advised otherwise, BP's share-holders would likely sue them for mal-practice, so the Admiral will have to show BP it will cost them more to leave the cap on than remove it.
cute!
This is probably an uber-stupid question, but as I know diddly about oil production, perhaps someone here can tell me why it is that BP doesn't simply produce from the well, once the relief well is drilled, rather than kill it. Is the original well simply too unstable and damaged at this point to trust with production over any longer period than absolutely necessary to kill it? Or is it more psychological than anything?
Obama's Gulf War –
Snookered Again?
Lord Browne's cost cutting mantra's contagious
Are we about to be snookered again?
Are we so excited with BP's new cap
That we'll agree their new cap is the answer
And let them avoid ever taking the rap?
If the well's not reopened and more oil collected,
The rate it's been gushing may never be known.
What a gift to the BP phalanx of attorneys,
Politicians and judges they already own.
BP has spent millions exploring an oil field
That three months of gushing severely depleted?
Who's kidding whom? Are we dumb or are they?
What would it produce had the well been completed?
Is that why the pressure's not what they expected,
And why there's "no target" to restart the flow?
Are they talking of stopping their costly relief wells?
Would a "bullhead kill" cost them a whole lot less dough?
But what if their cheapie well casing is leaking?
What if their prior "top kill" saw to that?
Please. Not to worry. Bobby's Beach Berm Boondoggle
Was designed by a world famous Gulf bureaucrat.
Bob Carlson
www.politicalboondoggles.com
7/18/10
To 'BP Hopeful That Damaged Well Can Stay Closed'
To 'Sand berms a dubious solution'
To 'Photos show vanishing oil berm'
To 'Chandeleur sand berm segment shrinking
like a wool sweater in hot water!'
To 'Sand berms partially political'
To 'In BP’s Record, a History of Boldness and Costly Blunders'
To 'British Petroleum Incompetence'
To 'Oil & Gas Campaign Contributions'
To 'Judge who overturned drilling moratorium
reported owning stock in drilling companies'
BP will try this, as Mr. Cavnar predicts, because BP is lawless and the govt is deferring to them at every turn, even though BP destroyed the gulf, all to avoid capping the flow early and all to avoid measuring the flow rate.. how evil to see all those valves and machinery in place, and they know the flow and refuse to measure it, refuse to report it, holding back the technology they created which measures flow accurately.
Obama allows this... it's 3am.. ring ring.. his phone.. zzzzzzzzzzzz... commander in chief takes a 90+ day nap, while BP destroys the gulf of mexico with dispersants fused with super hot compressed oil.. life is toast for a few decades.. the entire economy down there is upside down for the future.. and yet BP is still running the show, pulling every trick in the book to keep us from measuring that well.
as for the drilling moratorium, there's NO REASON to protect the gulf now.. it's toxic, no other oil event would be remotely problematic like this one.. caution is fine, but geez, why worry about another deepwater type event.. aint gonna happen, and if it does, everything's dead already anyway...
peace
I figured it out - why BP seems so totally incompetent. It's Group Think - the sum of the whole being less intelligent than any of its parts. Nobody is in charge. The shareholders are mad. The Board of Directors is mad. The whole world is mad at this group of middle managers who are making the decisions. They don't know who to listen to, certainly not their engineers, more likely their lawyers. Nobody will step in and take charge, and risk taking the blame, certainly not the Admiral.
What a mess!!