I am sorry to report well is crippled down hole very long read

Originally posted by silent thunder
Human beings are about to discover again what used to be common knowledge: That there are forces beyond our control that cause problems of a magnitude that is too big to fix, but which we have the power to unleash through our stupidity. In other words, we can make messes too big to clean up.

I think technology exists for anything you can imagine, its just a matter of developing it or getting it out of the black project world and into the mainstream world.

There is no way the USA pentagon can spend trillions on black projects on one hand and then on the other hand have us believe we are still ape-men.

Originally posted by silent thunder
At the very least, hopefuly it will be a wake-up call for humanity to examine itself and its activities more carefully on all levels. Time to grow up and put away childish things. The stakes are too big now.

Why do you blame humans rather than capitalism itself? Madison avenue marketing relies on greed to push all kinds of products on the ignorant sheep who work 60-80 hour weeks to live in a competitively materialistic world!

Originally posted by justadood
Are you sure you read the OP? The point is, there is little to nothing, short of a relief well, that CAN be done.

This ingrained desire to believe "scientists and teh gubment" can fix any problem is something that must be dispelled.

Ingrained desire is one thing and living in the real world is quite another thing. Perhaps your still young and inexperienced so I will cut you a little slack but you really need to do a little "alternative research" and stop believing everything the PTB want you to believe.

In other words, I think your naive at best and I find it suspicious you joined yesterday with the sole purpose of attacking people who know more than you. You even went as far as to put me on your "respected foes" list...ditto your going on my # list!

Is anyone able to comment on what exactly this is showing and why they are keeping an eye on it?

www.bp.com...

looks like somekind of pressure gauge, which appears quite low at that!

Originally posted by Temperature Drop
Is anyone able to comment on what exactly this is showing and why they are keeping an eye on it?

www.bp.com...

looks like somekind of pressure gauge, which appears quite low at that!

They have been shpwing it all day. There is also another instrument next to it which they kept trying to see but it is covered in gunk and appears unreadable. Maybe someone out there is familar with this instrument. It appears that it is registering about 3/4 of capcity. If it is a pressure gauge that goes up to 100,000 psi then we are screwed here in florida.

BP running out of 50,000 barrels of mud in a very short period of time
Software Development Company

Thank you OP - this is pretty much what I thought was happening. I've been wondering if they #ed it up more with the top kill attempt.

This also explains why some things that should be obvious aren't being tried. Damaged downhole would make many things unworkable, and unique ideas such as tubing pumping and extraction of sea water impossible. These all require that the downhole casing be at least capable of withstanding it - and it isn't.

Relief wells, if they aren't drilled in time and this formation damage spreads - I can see why this is trouble.

And this is what I've been wondering the whole damn time - but I thought since I am really only at a tech level I just thought that I would have heard by now that this was the problem and that I just didn't understand the issue.

It makes sense what this guy is saying.

Relief wells aren't enough if the formation and casing are working together to widen the aperture all the way down. Relief wells drilled AND wells drilled to start pumping in formation stabilizers around the hole .... that might work.

That's a lot of cement and epoxy to start pumping - better start finding a source. Good news - you don't need anymore #ing sand.

[edit on 2010/6/14 by Aeons]

Originally posted by Dynamitrios


We (as humans) screwed up and have to pay the price. If we wouldnt have cars that need fuel, if we had plastic materials that arent made of petroleum, if we hadnt given up hemp as a supplier of fuel, as well as synthetics, we wouldn be in taht situation, everyone is guilty here (yes, me too)

I don't get it your view here? All of us haven't screwed up in this regard. We've all made our own mistakes, nobody is perfect. However, if it was up to most of us, things would be different...including the types of fuel we use.

We shouldn't all be lumped in with these power hungry idiots.

Think outside the pipe.

This would take government direction, and perhaps some innovative utilization of eminent domain.

(Innovative because you do NOT want the government to own this mess. That means you own it, and you as a bureaucracy don't have the people to do it. You want these companies to use their own money to do this. They need to be given specific direction and have the bureaucracy clear and direct hurdles to make it happen. Rant over.)

I cannot tell from the maps exactly where other wells are in the vicinity, nor who owns them. Which makes a big difference for this.

Remember YOU - the government OWNS the pools. They LEASE. They may not like this but that doesn't really matter too much in this case.

Government needs to direct the companies owning nearby wells to sell them immediately to BP. Or, the government needs to take those wells and transfer them to BP.

These wells are already partially drilled. Use of horizontal drilling to get to the problematic pool.

This might be used one of two ways - it could be used to relieve pressure in the vicinity. OR, it could be used as an injector. But instead of injecting to increase production, the injector is being used to push material that is for stabilizing the formation.


Now, I am not a metals engineer by any means. This is to continue on the riff of my previous post. Strengthening the ground around the failing casing/cement from the outside might help stop this from getting worse.

Everyone puts casing in the ground. Manufactured, transported, and then put in, cemented. Good for quality control.

What if you don't care if you're final product is consistent, you just want it strong? Can't be more iffy than what you got.

After getting as good as you can get by squeezing cement into the formation around the wellbore, you have an inconsistent and problematic hole still.

At this point I don't know if you can get into the hole - but if you can.

Pour slow molten metal into the sides. Slow enough that it hardens as it comes out and into contact with the sea water. Slow enough as to not be blown up and out in the process.

Pour a casing in place. It'll be ugly, but do you care if it is ugly or consistent as long as it works?

I have no idea how to keep metal molten under that much cold water. And you'll need to get the tech to do it. And someone with a surgeon's patience to do the task. Maybe even a surgeon. The type of work is probably most like remote controlled surgery.

BP's Deepwater Oil Spill: A Statistical Analysis of How Many Relief Wells Are Needed

Posted by JoulesBurn on June 14, 2010 - 10:25am
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: bp, gulf of mexico, oil spill, original, relief wells [list all tags]

The planned permanent solution for the BP Macondo spill in the Gulf of Mexico is the killing of the well by drilling a relief well to intersect the blowout wellbore, enabling the placement of high density mud and eventually cement. Currently, two relief wells are being drilled, one started on May 2 and the second on May 14 (although the latter was delayed a few days later on). On The Oil Drum and elsewhere, many have been questioning why only two relief wells have been sunk, given the risky and uncertain nature of the kill process and the long time lag in getting more wells drilled if the first two are unsuccessful. There are many technical, political, and economic arguments that can be used to justify the need for more wells. What I will do herein is develop a statistical model which can be used to weigh the potential benefits of additional wells added this late in the crisis. One of the more critical factors is time -- the time it takes before the blowout wells is killed. Does drilling more relief wells change the expected time before the kill?

There is some recent news and concern about the relief wells and the delays in getting started:

But BP didn't begin drilling the relief well until 12 days after the start of the disaster as the company and government rushed through environmental reviews, permits and other plans. The government does not require oil companies to have relief well plans in place ahead of time, and the lack of planning cost the company valuable time to get the spill under control.

The drilling seems to be on schedule,

BP says the relief well has been a success and ahead of schedule, representing a welcome change for engineers who have been attempting one risky, untested maneuver after another. Relief wells are a more proven method in the industry, and engineers are comfortable and confident in the process.

but it still will be a while.

Kent Wells, BP's senior vice president of exploration and production, said this week that more details would be released when the process nears completion in early August.

Should more have been drilled, based on the difficulties of the task and the chances for success? How do these chances affect the time frame we are looking at to get the well plugged? Here is one way of looking at the problem, starting with a game of chance.
Roll the Dice

Consider the following game which consists of the rolling of a single die. A single play consists of rolling it again and again until you get a six, counting the number of rolls it takes. Play the game many times, and keep score like this:


After many, many plays, the statistics get rather good and you can make a bar chart showing the frequency of each roll count divided by the total number of plays:

To be more exact, you would need to go higher than ten (infinitely high, actually), but you get the idea. This shows the statistics of how many rolls it takes to have a six come up. One is the most likely number of rolls, although it is of course more likely to take more than one.

Now, let's change the game a little. We secretly replace the die with one that explodes occasionally, ending that particular play. So you grab another (similarly loaded) die and play again -- but making sure to count the play that went awry as an attempt. The same probability profile would appear, except that the overall probability for getting a six would be less.

Now let's change the game a bit more. Instead of the number of rolls it takes, we are interested in the amount of time it takes to get a six. There is an average amount of time it takes to pick up the die and roll it again. If it took five rolls on one particular play, it would take something like five times the average for one roll. There would be some variability in the time, of course, and the spread would increase with the particular roll count we are interested in since there is a contribution from the spread of previous rolls. Before I get more specific on how this is done, or what happens if we roll more than one die, let us leave the analogy behind. But not before I add one more twist: the first roll seems to take forever.
Rolling Relief: The Assumptions

Let us consider the time probability for killing the blowout well with a relief well in the same way. There is an initial drilling period (rather long) to reach near the blowout wellbore, and then a certain probability that it will be successfully intersected, called Ps. If the try fails, the drillbit is backed up some, the hole is plugged, and a new attempt to find the wellbore is made. While not necessary, it will be assumed in this model that the probability for success remains the same for each retry. Also included is a probability that, during each additional attempt to intersect the wellbore, that the relief well becomes useless, perhaps due to a hopelessly stuck drillstring. I will call this the probability of "utter failure", or Pu.

The time needed to drill to the vicinity of the blowout wellbore will vary, as a number of things will affect the rate at which the drill bit moves. If one were to attempt the same task many times independently with the same starting conditions (obviously not possible), the set of the times required would take the form of some kind of statistical distribution. I will assume the normal (Gaussian) distribution, as shown below (e.g. mean time of 70 days and a standard deviation of 5 days).

Let us assume a 20% probability for success (Ps=.20), which could include both hitting the wellbore and successfully filling it with mud and cement. Thus, the Gaussian above would be multiplied by that factor. This gives us the probability at any point in time. What we are more interested in, though, is how this probability is manifested in time; that is, how long do we wait for success. Instead of the probability distribution, we can look at the cumulative probability distribution, again scaled by the success probability:

This is arrived at by calculating a running sum of the probabilities from left to right. With the values assumed in this example, it takes about 80 days for the full effect. However, since we only have a 20% success rate, this is not likely to be a successful resolution of the problem, and many wells would be required to insure a kill. For a given relief well, however, we get more than one crack at it. The drill bit is backed up, the hole is plugged, and a sidetrack is drilled for another attempt. This retry consumes additional time, and we can also describe this time delay with a Gaussian distribution with a separate mean and standard deviation.

The effect of the additional delay is as follows: if we consider the distribution as a large set of kill attempts in identical circumstances, 20% of these would be successful within about 80 days. Aside from a small fraction that will have failed completely, the remainder of the set will continue on with a retry. There will be a time delay, but we also have an additional spreading of the time distribution. This can be mathematically described as the convolution of the initial time distribution with a second distribution corresponding to the retry. Visually, one can describe various small segments (or discreet points) of the original distribution each giving rise to its own new distribution. The sum of all such distributions comprises the overall distribution of arrival times for the second attempt. This will be another Gaussian; conveniently, the convolution of two Gaussians is another Gaussian with the standard deviation equal to the sum of the variances of the two and with a mean equal to the sum of the two means. Defining the following parameters:
Mean Time for Initial Drill t1
Spread for Initial Drill Time SD1
Mean Time for Redrill t2
Spread for Redrill Time SD2

the successes from the initial attempt will be characterized by:

G1 = Ps . Gaussian(t1,SD1)

where G() is a normalized Gaussian distribution with the given mean time and SD. Those failed attempts that remain for each retry will give rise to a new Gaussian, displaced in time by that needed for the additional drilling etc., and this will have the form has the form:

Gi = Gaussian(t2,SD2) * Gaussian(ti-1,SDi-1)

Because of the convolution properties of Gaussians, this can be arrived at by constructing a new Gaussian displaced from the previous by the mean time for a retry and with a standard deviation somewhat larger:

SDi = SQRT(SDi-1^2 + SD2^2)

and a scaling factor Pi which can be calculated for each retry recursively as:

Alternately, one could for each retry perform a discreet convolution of the retry broadening/delay function with the previous result (if something besides Gaussians were used, for example). The back-up-and-redrill process can in principle be repeated infinitely many times, although there is probably a practical limit to how many side holes can be drilled in the single relief well.

Here is an example showing success probability distributions for a single relief well with multiple retries, with each retry contributing its own Gaussian:

The following values are assumed:
Mean time to drill well (days) 70
Mean time for each re-attempt (days) 10
Standard deviaton for initial drill time 5
Standard deviaton for each re-attempt 2
Probability for intersecting well per try 0.2
Probability for loss of well per try 0.05

The overall probability distribution for success will be the sum of the individual Gaussians. To see how this impacts the anticipated time to kill the well, we look again instead at the cumulative distribution for all successes:

This illustrates the effect of the delay time for each retry, and why a single number, the overall success probability for a relief well (even if one can arrive at such a number) does not fully describe the situation. That the probability converges on a number less than unity is due to the small probability of "utter failure" with each attempt, meaning that the relief well is abandoned, and also because a finite number of retries were included. As it is, the overall success rate with the chosen parameters is higher than that occasionally mentioned for a single relief well (~75%). To get better odds -- and to decrease the amount of time before the blowout is killed, and hence the amount of oil potentially spilled -- more relief wells are needed.
More Wells = More Relief?

To summarize where we have come thus far, I started with one relief well with a modest (20%) probability of killing the well in one try. Because of the time needed to drill it, and some variability in the amount of time, this probability shows up within a small window of time (~70 days from the start of drilling). Next, I added the possibility of more than one try with this well (to back up a bit for another attempt takes some time). Because we take more swings, the eventual probability gets much higher (over 80%), but there is a time lag in getting there. So now we add more relief wells, identical to the first except perhaps with regards to the start time.

If we assume that additional relief wells have the same probability for success that the first had, it follows that each well will have the same cumulative probability distributions as the first. But how do these act in concert? A simplistic assumption is that they just get summed together. However, it is easy to see how this is not correct. For example, flipping two coins does not give 100% probability of one of them landing with heads showing. The solution is to consider what is required for the oil to be still flowing at a specific time: none of the relief wells will have worked by then. The probability of that being the case at a specific time, for each well, is 1 minus the cumulative probability distributions (CDP) at that time. Furthermore, the combined probability that no wells have succeeded is the product of these calculated values as follows:

Let us consider the cases of 1-4 relief wells started at the same time (increasing number of wells towards the upper left):

One effect is to increase the ultimate success probability, primarily after the addition of a second well. Another effect, though, is to decrease the time elapsed before a certain probability of success is reached. For example, it takes about 178 days to reach 80% probability with one well, 115 days with two wells, 96 days with three, and 87 days with four. With thousands of barrels of oil flowing into the sea per day, this is a lot of pollution potentially mitigated by a couple more relief wells.

Unfortunately, we no longer have the luxury of starting relief wells at time=0. The second relief well is perhaps 18 days behind the first, and no others are scheduled. Does adding more now make a difference? Here is the effect of adding wells 3 and 4, at +50 days, to the two currently being drilled at (wells 1 and 2 at 0 days and +18 days).

Although the increase in the ultimate success probability is the same, the benefit at the 80% probability level is minimal. Is it worth it, then, to drill more wells now? Certainly, it is logical to conclude that the benefit of additional wells at this point is much less than if they were started right away.
Should More Be Drilled Now?

Even if this model is a good one, the probabilities for relief well success are not known with any degree of confidence. I have chosen parameters which are consistent with predictions of when the well could be killed (August), the approximate probability of success, and time needed to regroup and try again after a swing and a miss. But the results suggest that, barring the loss of one or more of the current wells, additional wells will not significantly affect the time before the blowout is quenched. Readers are invited to download the spreadsheet used for this analysis, change the assumptions to those which you find more defensible, and offer up the results for further discussion.

In spite of that, Many will argue for at least one more well anyway, and I would probably fall into that camp. Wells are drilled all the time based on the chance for a big payout, and then never go into production. Hopefully another won't be needed, but the risk of not capping the well as soon as possible should be obvious to BP, and waiting until circumstances force the issue of another well will not go over well. In retrospect, they should have looked at the calendar (with the upcoming stormy season approaching), considered yet another unthinkable scenario regarding relief well success, and planned accordingly. In lieu of that happening several weeks ago, the time is now for BP to go above and beyond what they think is required. And with the deepwater drilling moratorium in place, many rigs are looking for something to do.

In the spirit of keeping this on a knowledge based information thread I am going to include anything I see relevant towards the discussion at hand. Once again I am C&P from TOD because of bandwidth issues AND I take no credit for above listed work. I would like to point out my mentioning the FACT several times that relief well drilling is not easy and as precise that BP is relaying towards the GP.

www.theoildrum.com...

Toxic Corexit dispersant chemicals remained secret as feds colluded with Big Business

www.laleva.org...

I am postingthis here as I think it is a good strong thread where people will look.
This is the latest from National Hurricane Center.

www.nhc.noaa.gov...

If I we're in the Gulf I would seriously be looking at my options.

Be careful my friends

Well they just started pumping some white substance into the oil and gas mixture.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e6819ef1552c.jpg[/atsimg]

I have no idea what that stuff would be.

reply to post by jeffrybinladen


I don't disagree - however....

What is the height of this reservoir that is spewing in this area? How much area do they have to work in? If the producing zone is 10 feet in height that's great. If it is 2ft, more wells drilling too close might exacerbate the damage.

How close do you need to be in to drop the pressure on the damaged one?

It seems that the current plans for the secondary relief wells is to control them the same way as the one that failed. With mud. Why are they under the impression that this is going to work the second and third time when it collapsed the first time?

What's different about relief well one and two that they won't do exactly the same thing?

Is it that the pressure will be distributed into the two or three boreholes, and the expectation is that this will allow them to regain control of the first and prevent the other two from doing the exact same thing?

Are they sure that this works under the water? Because, I don't know subsea drilling at all or the geology of it and the math. But it seems to me that much of the pressure isn't from under the ground - it is from the weight of the water on top pushing down. It might not reduce pressure - it might just mean that it drains the reservoir faster with consistent pressure all around. That's not really an improvement.


Top kill didn't work. No one to my knowledge has ever tried a horizontal kill.

This is worth listening to:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

The media blackout could be an indication that the environmental damage and/or danger to nearby populations is worse than what has been indicated in mainstream media so far. It may not, but it's question without a satisfactory answer.


Also, this will be interesting to many here:
www.stuff.co.nz...

Originally posted by TankWolf
Last night in Australia one of our MSM investigative journalist shows 60 minutes showed probably the most disturbing footage of the oil slicks Ive seen yet. Somehow they were granted access over the area from the US Coast Guard. The whole report is pretty horrific to be honest but I was proud to see that our media was atleast showing the public the true extent of how bad this oil disaster really is.

Anyway I must say give this video a watch to see them follow KMs of oil slicks by helicopter its absolutely devastating to see.

video.au.msn.com...

They have pulled the Aus video showing just how bad this spill really is.............There is a reason for it being pulled and we will all find out very shortly..

reply to post by Cloudsinthesky


They sure did! I just watched it yesterday! Does anybody remember the woman activist's name?

I guess the Australians found out what the rules are...

[edit on 15/6/2010 by Iamonlyhuman]

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


This is pretty interesting:

www.bp.com...

Thats alot of PSI!!

very very strange, that happend to a boy near me years ago

Originally posted by Cloudsinthesky

Originally posted by TankWolf
Last night in Australia one of our MSM investigative journalist shows 60 minutes showed probably the most disturbing footage of the oil slicks Ive seen yet. Somehow they were granted access over the area from the US Coast Guard. The whole report is pretty horrific to be honest but I was proud to see that our media was atleast showing the public the true extent of how bad this oil disaster really is.

Anyway I must say give this video a watch to see them follow KMs of oil slicks by helicopter its absolutely devastating to see.

video.au.msn.com...

They have pulled the Aus video showing just how bad this spill really is.............There is a reason for it being pulled and we will all find out very shortly..

whoa! That's no lie.... its true that this entire news story has been pulled!!!!!


uh oh

Originally posted by Cloudsinthesky

Originally posted by TankWolf
Last night in Australia one of our MSM investigative journalist shows 60 minutes showed probably the most disturbing footage of the oil slicks Ive seen yet. Somehow they were granted access over the area from the US Coast Guard. The whole report is pretty horrific to be honest but I was proud to see that our media was atleast showing the public the true extent of how bad this oil disaster really is.

Anyway I must say give this video a watch to see them follow KMs of oil slicks by helicopter its absolutely devastating to see.

video.au.msn.com...

They have pulled the Aus video showing just how bad this spill really is.............There is a reason for it being pulled and we will all find out very shortly..

I have learned to download videos like this ASAP but last night my computer had crashed and I didn't have my software reinstalled yet.

Hopefully someone has downloaded this video and can upload it?

Anyone?