UPDATE: 3:37 p.m. Eastern The BP-Coast Guard response team just announced that the dome BP lowered over the main leak last night “has not failed yet,” which means that they tried it and had to remove it quickly. BP Press Conference.
Less than 72 hours after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon offshore rig and the British Petroleum oil spill began, FireDogLake had discerned and blogged about the likely cause of the catastrophe: heat from the curing concrete had thawed methane trapped in icy water and the resulting methane bubble exploded when it reached the rig.
We even located a Halliburton PowerPoint presentation that explained the problem, and pointed out that there was not yet a solution in place.
The mainstream media finally caught up to us, over a week later. The Associated Press reports that according the rig crew the reason for the blowout was, wait for it…
A chemical reaction caused by the setting cement created heat and a gas bubble which destroyed the seal.
Deep beneath the seafloor, methane is in a slushy, crystalline form. Deep sea oil drillers often encounter pockets of methane crystals as they dig into the earth.
In a front page story, The New York Times reports that the rig crew told them:
As the job unfolded, however, the workers did have intermittent trouble with pockets of natural gas. Highly flammable, the gas was forcing its way up the drilling pipes.
This was something BP had not foreseen as a serious problem, declaring a year earlier that gas was likely to pose only a “negligible” risk. The government warned the company that gas buildup was a real concern and that BP should “exercise caution.”
At one point during the previous several weeks, so much of it came belching up to the surface that a loudspeaker announcement called for a halt to all “hot work,” meaning any smoking, welding, cooking or any other use of fire. Smaller belches, or “kicks,” had stalled work as the job was winding down.
By mid-April, the crew was in the mop-up stages of the operation. The day before the blast, workers from Halliburton, the oil services contractor, had finished one of the trickiest tasks in building a well: encasing it in cement, with a temporary plug of cement near the bottom of the pipe to seal the well.
–snip—
Just before 10 p.m., the crew was using seawater to flush drilling mud out of the pipes. Suddenly, with explosive fury, water and mud came hurtling up the pipes and onto the deck, followed by the ominous hiss of natural gas. In seconds, it touched some spark or flame.
It’s not clear how BP can credibly claim it did not foresee methane escape as a possible problem. If you look at the Halliburton presentation it clearly explains that the Gulf of Mexico is known to have deposits of crystallized methane trapped in the ocean floor in deep water. The presentation also explains that when heat generated by the cement curing process thaws the surrounding ocean floor under the cold deep water, it releases the trapped gas.
This was not some secret internal Halliburton memo. It was a presentation to the American Association of Drilling Engineers — a public forum for folks who know and need to know about this stuff.
Anyway, we’re happy to know that the MSM thinks this is a front page story; so did we, a week ago.
Mad props to Scarecrow for getting it on the front page in — ahem — timely fashion.




100 Comments







Thanks for this reminder of the FDL reporting and analysis Cynthia.
Kudos to the dogs.
Way to go, team.
Thanks Cynthia, congrats to Scarecrow for carrying on the great FDL tradition.
Temple of the Dust Bunnies in October 2005 was not the first FDL scoop, but it was a memorable one for me in my early days as a firedogger.
wow, there’s a trip down memoery lane
yep, saw the news today and it was a week old, normal for mainstream. I’m sure they gave you credit right:)
Kudos and congratulations and thanks very, very much!! That’s why I come here: because of the *real* news that gets reported fairly and accurately.
Way to go!
Kudos. Congratulations.
I had friends insisting a week ago that I was arrogant to think I knew what might had been the cause (quoting Scarecrow and some EW posts).
That’s right buddies out there, I am so arrogant that I read FDL!
Read the headlines today and laughed…and rolled my eyes while thinking, “About time.”
Update 3:37 p.m. Eastern: The BP-Coast Guard response team just announced that the dome BP lowered over the main leak last night “has not failed yet,” which means that they tried it and had to remove it quickly.
They positioned the dome over the riser pipe leak, but the dome immediately began to fill with gas “hydrates” — at such deep water, the gas freezes up. The “hydrates” then began to clog the top of the dome, where the escape value is located. Apparently, this caused a “buoyancy” problem, which I assume means the dome could have tipped over as the bubble lifted it OR it would become filled up and clogged up, making it impossible to remove oil out the top valve.
So BP quickly had to lift the dome off the gushing pipe to prevent the dome from being destroyed. It’s now just sitting on the ocean floor, near the gushing pipe, but not over it. The gushing continues at before.
BP officials says they will spend the next 48 hours trying to determine if there is a solution. Some way to heat the gas to prevent the formation of hydrates that clog up the dome.
When asked whether the dome effort had “failed,” the BP official said, “I wouldn’t say it has failed, yet . . .”
Nobody could have anticipated . . . . /s
They would need to pump it out fast enough for the gas slush not to get too solid to be pumpable.
Oh this sux.
They need to put it down there to attach the pipe, but they don’t have enough time to get the piping attached and pumping started before the gas bubble floats the dome?
I was worried that the pressure of the gushing oil was going to float the dome kinda like a bottle rocket.
The implication of this statement is the leak is a mixture of hydrates and oil. I’m a bit surprised because temperature in the deep mines in South Africa (7,000 ft below sea level) is hot, up to 120 deg F).
Where else would the hydrates be coming from?
Not the sea floor. I believe methane hydrates are heavier than water.
The crude oil could be coming up the outside of the casing are capturing hydrates on the way up. That would explain the complete failure of the BOP, its not designed to stop the escape of oil outside the casing (pipe) in the oil well, that’s the purpose of the cement.
Wait a minute; you mean it wasn’t a North Korean submarine manned by Islamic terrorists launching a Torpedo that destroyed the rig. Damn!
LOL – while “Wait a minute; you mean it wasn’t a North Korean submarine manned by Islamic terrorists launching a Torpedo that destroyed the rig. Damn!” may not fly
We still have Rush’s idea that the left somehow blew up the rig so as to kill offshore drilling (Who knew ELF had subs!).
:-)
Obama’s plan was so forward-thinking, that days before the rig blows up, he is quoted thusly:
Brilliant deception.
Google Murphy Oil Spill.,Katrina ,2005
Murphy oil spill (Chalmette, Louisiana)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to US Coast Guard there were about 44 oil spills in the area affected by Hurricane Katrina. Most of these occurred in areas of Plaquemines Parish which do not have large populations. The exception is the Murphy Oil Spill which hit residential areas of Chalmette, Louisiana and Meraux, Louisiana.
On August 30, 2005, the storm surge from Hurricane Katrina caused massive failure along the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet levee and inundated St. Bernard Parish 4 to 14 feet (4.3 m) of water. Murphy Oil refinery was under 6-18 feet of water. A 250,000-barrel (40,000 m3) above ground storage tank was dislodged, lifted and damaged in flooding associated. The tank contained 65,000 barrels (10,300 m3) of mixed crude oil, and released approximately 25,110 barrels (1,050,000 gallons). The pressure from the flood waters kept the water inside of the tank until the waters had receded to about 4 feet (1.2 m), five days after the storm had passed. As the oil released it flowed along with the flood waters from east to west. The released oil impacted approximately 1700 homes in an adjacent residential neighborhoods of Chalmette; an area of about one square mile. Several canals have also been impacted: the 20 Arpent Canal; the 40 Arpent Canal; the Meraux Canal; the Corinne Canal; the DeLaRonde Canal; and, various unnamed interceptor canals. [1]
Employees of oil refineries in the disaster area have stated on online forums that their refineries filled tanks with water in order to prevent them from floating away. However, typical pre-Katrina industry standards on the Gulf Coast were based on a heavy rain event, and did not anticipate a full inundation of water around the storage tanks.
Another refinery employee commented that these large oil storage tanks are sometimes purposely floated in order to move them. The containment levees around the tank are generally filled with water and tanks are moved in this way around tank farms. This is done on a planned basis with all oil removed from the tank being moved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~Wiki
As you note, Obama said “oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills”
What he did not say was that “oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills” was only true of union rigs. The EU does not have our level of spill problems (even after we remove the tiny spills that the US keeps tract of that make a direct comparison a bit unfair).
No argument at all.
OTOH, the political calculations necessary (and necessitated by) an event like the Gulf calamity…
The Gawds have spoken. “Barack, every time you go on the record, I am going to grease you, and good.”
I am not without a smile.
It is pathetic that it takes the corporate media so long to pick up on newsworthy events. One would think that in today’s digital age, these clowns would know how to look into what’s going on. But they don’t. This is because they’re trained simply to parrot whatever they are told by the powerful, with rarely any follow-up or close scrutiny.
And this is just one more example of why FDL is the best. 1)We have actual journalists here who are curious about more than so and so’s latest cosmetic surgery;
2)and that dig around out there to answer the
how” and “why” questions.
3)and that are knowledgeable in a horizontal sort of way so that they can see what is happening and put stuff together to show what’s really happening.
THAT’S journalism, folks.
Someone had cosmetic surgery?
ummmm…sorry to differ .. but i think you’re being a bit premature in your analysis .. let me pick a nit here .. in terms of the the gas in the well .. and all wells produce it in some pressure or another .. the weight of the drilling mud is calculated specifically to outweigh and hold back the upward pressure of the gas ..
i can appreciate the “hang haliburton” sentiment .. but .. haliburton did cement the well and the tests on the cement job showed everything holding pressure ..andthe cememt job had been completed some 20 hours before the upset .. how do you account for that in your and “the press’ scenario ??
imo .. [after days and days of head scratching] ..and in the opinion of many many oil field professionals..with years and years and years of actual oil field and well drilling experience.. to date ..with the information so far available .. the fundamental failure of and the loss of control of the well.. occured when the heavier drilling mud was displaced from the riser pipe with seawater .. the mud had weighed at 14.8pounds per gallon .. to supress the gas pressures and hold them down-hole .. seawater weighs only 8.4 ppg ..
see the problem now ??
secondly .. the “press” in general don’t have the slightest idea about what they’re writing about in this instance .. they don’t understand the specifics or the mechanics … don’t compound an error by taking what they say as factual nirvana .. the investigation is far from over …
the question isn’t one of whether or not there was gas in the well ..as i said.. all wells produce gas ..some more .. some less .. the question is what kind of event allowed the gas to get to the surface in the stage of development the well was in at the time of the upset ..
Also, Scarecrow’s presentation, while an informed speculation, is still just that. We can afford to do this here, but to conclude speculation as factual takes more time, sometimes lots more. I would hope that a true news media would be careful in this regard.
So many times I hear people speculate on this or that and find their speculation to be true, and their response is “I told you that!”
Makes me wince.
We didn’t report the explanation as confirmed fact and didn’t presume to know it was the right answer or not. We showed that the industry was aware of the problem that could cause the explosion, and we identified Halliburton as the people who would know about this. That made others focus on Halliburton and the potential cause, which is what needed to happen. The next day, LA Times ran a story with this “speculation,” and Halliburton immediately put out a statement revealing they were doing X, Y, and Z. That allowed others to follow up.
I realize that, Scarecrow. I certainly not faulting the position you took. I am wincing over the “way to go” stuff here. That you nailed an important concept is impressive, and I commend you for that. Pointing the way with conjecture to hypotheses to truth is time honored. But not to sneer at other media that took a bit more time. I certainly would take the time. And I would not appreciate being dinged for that. “If you don’t have time to do it right, where’s the time to do it over?” is a concept I follow, and tell my clients as well. Seems it has particular importance to deep water oil well drilling!
This situation was very different. Pressure from the sea water, undocumented percentages of crystallized methane, very different ambient temperatures may take apart assumptions based on so-called normal offshore drilling.
And that the problem with the dome attempt appears to be related to the amount of hydrates being released, I doubt it’s about the mud pressure but the inability to calculate/predict the impact of various activities on the hydrates.
it isn’t mud pressure rayne .. but the down-hole pressures exerted by the mud to dynamically balance with the upwelling pressure of the gas .. this is a fundamental to well control ..
and every new hole put down in deep water presents new and differing challenges in well control .. nothing new there ..
i’d ask you to keep in mind that this same crew had just prior to this well completed drilling the deepest hole ever drilled in the GOM ..safely ..
hydrate formation is nothing new .. not by a long shot .. not in the GOM or elsewhere in deep water applications ..
what i’m trying to get across is that the investigation as to cause is far from complete ..and there is no specific value i see in being able to jump to an incorrect conclusion a week aheadd of the MSM ..
unloading the mud and displacing to seawater will be key here .. that’s how the gas got to the deck .. where it came from is the question .. it didn’t come from the bottom of the hole .. because cementation testing was good .. speculation at the current time is that during cementation .. gas was forced up into the annulus and when they unloaded the mud and dislaced to seawater ..the imbalance let an improperly set wellhead seal give way ..and that was all she wrote ..
once again .. the question isn’t the presence of high pressure gas .. but how it got a pathway to the surface in the specific stage of operations underway .. and any “cause” stated at this point is pure speculation ..still
and i’d remind those reading along that all members of the “rig crew” aren’t necessarily versed in ..nor involved in drilling operations .. some are cooks .. some are roustabouts .. others do the laundry .. and are far from being experts simply by being present on the rig ..
thanks ..
I think we agree. We didn’t “jump to an incorrect conclusion.” We didn’t jump to any conclusion. As I wrote the story, it layed out a plausible story and showed the industry itself was concerned about this type of problem, its risks and uncertainties. It suggested Halliburton might have something to tell us about this.
It seemed reasonable to publish the fact that industry was worried about this type of problem — and it turns out, this connection seems to be gaining some confirmation from survivors on the site and is being discussed/confirmed as plausible by other experts. I hope we helped in that process — but even at this point, I wouldn’t claim I or we know exactly what happened, because I/we don’t.
My attitude as well, Scarecrow. I hope you understand where I came from.
I been around the “Awl” patch my ENTIRE life….chemical refineries,too.
Having said that, here’s an excerpt I posted on May 5, from Greg Palast’s Truthout article,re: a conversation with Daniel Becnel,(attorney who represents offshore workers ) of Reserve, Louisiana:
“As chance would have it, I was meeting last week with Louisiana lawyer Daniel Becnel Jr. when word came in of the platform explosion. Daniel represents oil workers on those platforms; now, he’ll represent their bereaved families. The Coast Guard called him. They had found the emergency evacuation capsule floating in the sea and were afraid to open it and disturb the cooked bodies.
This just in: Becnel tells me that one of the platform workers has informed him that the BP well was apparently deeper than the 18,000 feet depth reported. BP failed to communicate that additional depth to Halliburton crews, who, therefore, poured in too small a cement cap for the additional pressure caused by the extra depth. So, it blew.
Why didn’t Halliburton check? “Gross negligence on everyone’s part,” said Becnel. Negligence driven by penny-pinching, bottom-line squeezing. BP says its worker is lying. Someone’s lying here, man on the platform or the company that has practiced prevarication from Alaska to Louisiana.
Slick Operator: The BP I’ve Known Too Well – 6 hours ago
This just in: Becnel tells me that one of the platform workers has informed him that the BP well was apparently deeper than the 18000 feet depth reported. …
truthout – 12404 related articles »
t r u t h o u t | Slick Operator: The BP I’ve Known Too WellMay 5, 2010 … Slick Operator: The BP I’ve Known Too Well. Wednesday 05 May 2010. by: Greg Palast, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis. photo. I’ve seen this …
http://www.truthout.org/slick-operator-the-bp-ive-known-too-well59178
:
NOTE: The joke for about thirty years now has been that if you gave the US an enema,you’d insert the tube in Venice,Louisiana. Thanks to BP,it’s prelubed now.
FDL is doing the job that the MSM SHOULD be doing,i.e., ASKING the damn questions…and giving ENOUGH of a damn to ask in the first place.
Like Picasso said ,“Genius is in the asking”..
Firepup geniuses,take a bow-a big bow and an even bigger bow wow!
well gitchi .. i’m not tryingto start a pissing contest here .. but as to my experience .. i only spent 40 years in the awl field .. first being raised there as the “toolpushers kid’ then a couple of years on a well service rig [old wilson double drum] then five on the drilling deck[most as a derrick hand] while going skool .. then lotsa years as a construction start-up and commissioning engineer … chem plants .. refinery shutdowns.. power plants etc ..designing high pressure piping systems ..then physically checking lines .. walking them down .. testing and commissioning them …then selling them off to exxon ..amoco.. phllips 66 ..chevron .. you name it .. then i looked down one day and realized i still had all my fingers and all my toes..and i hadn’t been blown up yet …and i decided it was time to find something else .. and i did ..
my only contentions here are: 1) the investigation isn’t complete .. 2) any conclusion is premature .. 3) any “cause” is speculation at this time ..
and scarecrow .. i agree with you far more than we disagree .. but i’d ask here: since there was definitely an explosion and and a fire initially .. how hard was it to guess some form of gas event was involved ?? the big question is: how’d that gas get to the surface ?? and the exact pathway it had is of critical importance .. that’s the crux of the issue ..
and #32: word is many of the exec’s suffered broken bones when the walls of the mud pit blew into the room .. they made it to the lifeboats only with the assistance of others from the crew .. and i do agree the party ongong was an issue .. but the toool pusher and the driller and both assistant drillers were on deck and died in the explosion … so.. apparently all the pertinent personnnel were present .. the only question left there is where the “company man” [i.e the drilling rep] for BP was .. ??
Hey,J, like they say, it’s better to be pissed off than pissed on….
Speaking of which,care to address #35?
i’d say all the people on the drilling deck were killed in the initial explosion while tryng to control the upset .. gitchee .. and the only reason they were able to evacuate successfully ..according to what i’ve read .. it that it was a gas fire [i.e. burning upward only] .. but you can bet the heat was far too intense for anyone to get to the drilling floor ..
Well, I would ask ,if I were representing the deceased workers, at WHAT point in time ,and HOW were the BP honchos made aware of the fire down below?
There HAD to be some imminent danger alert relayed to the BP execs who were celebrating upstairs-where did it come from ?
Someone posted on one of the threads that the home office had all rig info being transmitted in real time.
gitchee .. all accounts i’ve read is that the BP guys were all below when the walls blew in from the mud pump explosion .. i think that’s how ..and when ..
Hmm…my ex worked for Wilson Downhole.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the annulus already be concreted? before trhey tried to set the plugs?
So, if the gas came up the annulus, that would mean that halliburton had failed to get a seal when they poured the sheathig concrete, no?
no cynthia . the annulus or even annuli in some cases depending on specific well architecture is the space between the central drill pipe [or later the production tubing] .. or .. in the first modes of drilling prior to setting the casing [which had already been done in this well] the annlus s the outer walls of drilled hole .. [see the linky] ..
but ..the specific ‘well architecture’ in this hole is somewhat of a question .. and so far as anyone can gather “so far” it isn’t known whether the cement job [i.e. the cementing which comes from bottom-hole up around the em>outside ofthe casing extended all the way to the well head itself .. it may have stopped some several hundred feet below the well head .. past the production zones .. but not all the way to top of the well ..
keep asking questions .. be skeptical .. that’s the way to go ..
Not sure what “cenemtation testing” means. Does it means that a test cube of cement set well? In which case it in no way reflects the conditions in the well, just the condition of a test cube of cement.
If it means the cement in the well between the casing & the walls of the well, how do they get a look into that environment?
You make plausible points (I say “plausible” only because I know nothing about this discipline and it sounds like you do). I agree that we shouldn’t jump to specific conclusions. But, as the rational person you truly are, you must agree that there are a range of plausible–and predictable–causal chains that could cause this type of failure (I won’t say “accident”). I know perhaps more than the average layman about the highly exothermic nature and sometimes idiosyncratic behavior of the cementing process from construction “accidents” in my youth, so I am inclined to the FDL hypothesis. But yours makes sense and is more mundane, hence more likely in my experience.
But who is right is not the point–we aren’t wagering. The issue is that the MSM has deliberately and/or incompetently soft-peddled the predictability of the disaster, as has our political leadership. This was a simple cost/benefit analysis that the oil company skipped because it, itself, had nothing to lose. IT had nothing to lose because it had political protection. So the small benefits of drilling were never balanced against the enormous dangers. The press has been covering that up because of the interlocking relationships between politics, the MSM, and business–the New American Oligarchy.
To me, M. Scarecrow and Mme. Wheel did the necessary. They speculated in a reasonable way about the causes of this disaster when the MSM would not. They used the knowledge available to them, as intelligent non-specialists, and basic logic to expose the one thing that could NOT be true: the official story. Whether they were technically correct in detail is, as I’m sure you agree, is of lesser importance, just as they would doubtless agree that your perhaps better informed analysis might well be more correct.
You are ALWAYS a discerning -and most serendipitous – point of illumination ,robespierre.
Ditto.
CNN was covering the news conference, but chose to break away in the middle of news questions, to continue its interview with people telling you how to invest your money.
It was obvious the reporters at the scene — AP, NYT were very interested in why the effort had “not failed, yet.”
Kudos to the entire team who put this information together and got it out to the world so quickly.
Big deal. I only come here because I know FDL will always keep me better informed than any MSM outlet. Where’s the news? ;-).
Fox News catching up, now summarizing the BP-Coast Guard presser, reporting it as a “setback in effort to place containment dome over leak.”
Sounds like to failure to me.
Well, at least a frustrating delay — it means there will be at least two more days in which the gushing continues unabated — at 210,000 gallons day — and that’s not good.
The consultants are busy polling to determine whether this is a ’failure’, a ’not yet a success’, an ’experiment in environmental rescue’other possible phrases not listed here; and the media waits to repeat it.
It would not be unexpected to have multiple failure in the process of solving as fast as possible an unprecedented situation such as this. That is why it was explained that
‘we are just trying a number of things and are not at all sure what might work’.Or was it ‘
we have a lot of experience with this type of thing and are prepared to handle it as we have in the past‘.Maybe it is ‘
if you refer to the Environmental Impact statement you will see that it is impossible to have this happen, so it isn’t happening.Of course the safety award celebration ( were the workers who were actually doing the work that won the award present at the party?) that is the ugly thing for B.P.
Not the injured and dead, not the spill, it is the ‘emperor has no clothes’ scenario that played out with the safety award explosion.
Were the executives last off the sinking ship?
How is it that there was enough time for the “honchos” to evacuate (and live to tell it), but not the crew on the drilling floor?
How about, “It was an experiment in Darwinism to see whether the environment was fit enought to deserve to survive? (Apologies to the creationists here, of which I hope there are none.)
Keep that up and they’ll be offering you a ‘media consultant’ position!
@ 35 I suppose it was being in enclosed space, better than on the deck, have no info on this.
I think the takeaway from the news conference is that the “experts” showed once again with their failed dome planning that they don’t know nearly enough to be trusted doing things that can destroy our environment. Their egos are always bigger than their actual penises, aren’t they (so to speak)?
Well, given that the only place to get authoritative information is about 5000 feet below sea level, i’d say we’re doing pretty well at not getting into highly improbable causes (like NKorean submarines in the Gulf of Mexico; whoever dreamed that one up is in need of help).
A lot of the more informed speculation seems to involve the kind of cement being used.
I noticed that thread’s comment was closed immediately after the N Korean torpedo post!
I’m pretty sure the comment about the N. Korean sub was meant to be snark. About as sure as I am that “up the annulus” does not contain an accidental misspelling in Cynthia’s Comment #37 lol.
It’s all way beyond my understanding of the physics of the situation. What is NOT beyond my understanding is an ability to know when the risk of pursuing dollars might be so great that one shouldn’t fuck around with an irreplaceable environment in the first place. As with this infuriating situation.
You had me at “Firedoglake beats mainstream media…”
Incidentally, this is a good place to read about it. (They also have pictures to help explain what’s going on.) Oilfieldguy’s post the other day reminded me of them.
Firedoglake – like the news only sooner. Watch the dead trees media win Pulitzers for the story.
No one should forget that the cause of the BOP failure remains unknown and that likely is a very important part of the solution.
Book Salon up at the Mothership with Bill McKibben’s Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet hosted by Heather Rogers
oh ..btw .. i agree wholehearted that we’ve had “captured regulators” in terms of the MMS and the oil boyz .. offsetting this type of catastrophe would have only been possible by tighter regulation ..years ago ..
maybe we’ll get that now .. maybe not ..
I must be missing something because drilling mud is usually fairly hot. All thawing of methane crystals would take p;ace well before any cement is pumped for plugs or casing.
i dunno OFG .. but the haliburton logs say the cementing was complete and the hole.. was pressure tested neg/pos … they’d set a plug in the casing at TD ..and had POOH’d up to 8000′ to set a floating plug .. then started to displace with seawater to 8000.. and hiss.. boom !! u want me to see if i can find a copy of the hal log and post it for u??
Posting the log might be of interest – Halliburton seems to have some problems with past cement efforts and comparing to logs from those jobs might be of interest.
And I agree with your point that at least I do jump on what I see as the most logical conclusion well before it is proven. But the main stream media avoids any pondering as to what is likely and goes with he said/she said for all reports – never trying to point out that one side’s pondering is more likely to be correct that another. I prefer FDL’s reporting.
Hydrates are an obvious “likely”, as is cement heating not being controlled. I never applied my background to the off sea oil drilling world and indeed my formal science training is 45 years old (I am a retired actuary – MIT 65) – leaving me with only the occasional reading of a paper or article so as to be “current” on most science, so I defer to you and the others that worked in this area as to the details affecting any investigation of “hydrates” and “cement” and “heating”.
But given the fact that the 2007 study by Minerals Management Service (amazing they did a study during their Cheney sleep years!) said cementing was a factor in 18 of 39 rig blowouts in the Gulf between 1992 and 2006, and adding the fact that Cheney took an obscure Haliburton and gave it a DOD contract while under Bush41 – thus buying the CEO position during the Clinton years – and got it involved in the “cementing” business, one wonders how many of the 18 rig blow outs had Haliburton under contract.
Indeed the above info is not touched by main stream media – nor do they touch the fact that union rigs have union safety groups and union safety officers – thus changing the decisions in those rig safety meetings – and causing, based on my numbers, rigs with union workers to be far far safer than our non-union gulf rigs. Indeed there is no story on how the current BP CEO is praised for the procedure changes/cost cutting he has put in, or how the current actual drillers must cut corners to save on costs so as to make their contracts profitable. Again those union folks would raise costs and screw up all those cost saving moves by BP.
But the above is as you note speculation – and corporations prefer we wait a few years for an official report (as I recall from my management days, all those outside investigative reports on the corporations I worked for were approved by the corporation before they were finalized and presented to the world).
Dear Sun Dogs, you RAWK! I Adho Mukha Svanasana in your general direction.
Poured a lot of concrete in my time. Having difficulty believing the heat generated in the curing process, over against the coldness of the water, could have thawed that many methane crystals. This, however is an engineering problem that needs to be worked backwards. How much methane was needed to create the sort of explosion incurred, and given that level of energy, how likely could that have been from the heat of the concrete curing.
Seems to me, very clear, that we don’t know shit yet, and any conclusion other than informed speculation, is just that, informed speculation.
We’ve been talking elsewhere about the extremes at that depth.
Did you know methane’s freezing point is -182.5 deg C? Yeah. At that temp, it takes almost nothing to thaw it to reach gaseous state at -161.5 deg C.
Curing concrete could certainly do the trick.
20 degrees C is not “almost nothing.” That is a lot of heat. But again, this is an engineering problem. So, unless you are an engineer, don’t suggest to me that sort of temperature increase is almost nothing.
Dude, um, that would be a mistake.
BP’s dome has failed, perhaps due to hydrates. Methane again?
LINK.
Don’t forget that there is a huge difference in methane “crystal” at a depth of 18,000 ft at the bottom of the well and those “hydrates” at 5,000 ft in seawater — and probably the chemical structure too. The temperatures are radically different, I think, at those two locations as are the pressures. The seawater at 5,000 ft is about 10 degrees above freezing, but the temps at the bottom of the well are much , much warmer iirc. jkat and old-oilfieldguy — you guys must know the approximate temperatures at depths of 18,000 ft. I would be surprised if they aren’t pretty toasty. The heat of reaction during the “curing” of the cement would, I think, have been a proverbial “drop in the bucket” at that depth.
Rayne — at what pressure is the -182.5C freezing point ? It’s important to know the pressure-temperature phase diagram.
Anyway, it is the awesome pressure at 18,000 ft that keeps the methane in “crystal” form. And as jkat and old-ofg have stated the pressure in the well decreased radically when then displaced the mud with seawater. There is a critical pressure at which the methane is solid — and it sounds as though at the temperatures and pressures in the ground at that depth it can be a crystal. Lower the pressure and you can have the “whoosh, boom, and run” at the surface. Many thanks to jkat and Old oil-fieldguy for keeping us all honest.
The formula is PV+nRT, with the T squared.
Pressure times volume equals the moles of gas times the universal gas constant times the temperature.
I learned that in chemistry in the eleventh grade.
sorry, the + should be the = sign
Yes, that’s true for the gas phase — within reason. However, at high pressures (such as down the well hole) you need to know the phase relationships. The common way of dealing with all the thermodynamic data is a “phase diagram” I’m not where I can look it up for methane, but as an example here is the phase diagram for carbon dioxide. Another way to look at it is for propane. Normally a gas it turns into a liquid at relatively reasonable pressures so that you can use it for your barbeque. If you applied enough pressure you could probably turn it into its solid phase.
I learned this well after my 11th grade chemistry class.
Methane at the bottom of the well is what I am talking about and it’s at a depth of 13,000 feet of rock on top of it along with 5000 feet of seawater — that’s a lot of weight (pressure). the methane here is in a solid phase and that was involved in the “kick” and subsequent disaster on the surface when the pressure got lowered (displaced the mud with seawater).
Don’t confuse the crystal situation at 18,000 feet with the methane-hydrates in seawater at 5000 feet. They are two totally different things.
Well, I still use charcoal rather than propane for my grill, but I understand propane is 8 times more dense than methane. Does that matter? That is a question, not a criticism. I will acknowledge that I have exhausted any knowledge I have of such things. For example, what is the difference between pure methane and methane hydrates. The fertilizer Tim McVay used was a methane hydrate; how does that relate?
That’s a great response. I only recently switched to propane — somewhat reluctantly, but it works great and I pretend that it’s a lot “greener.”
The difference between the methane hydrates and solid (frozen) methane is water. Thanks to you I just looked this up to make sure — and now I am just blown away by the complexity that oil well drillers have to deal with. Sheesh! Methane hydrates are apparently stable below 300 meters depth in the seas — That approximately 30 times the pressure at sea level. Methane hydrate forms when methane gas meets cold water at a sufficient pressure; 30 times atmospheric pressure (30 bar)is enough, especially at the cool temperatures at 5,000 ft depths. Methane hydrate consists of a methane molecule inside a “cage” of water molecules. Methane solid would be just the CH4 molecules. I’m not an expert on methane, but I know (and have learned cuz of the disaster and FDL commenters) just enough now that I have to salute the people that have to drill exploratory well under oceans. The temperatures at a particular depth (approx 18,000 feet of rock and seawater) depend on the depth of the earths mantle and its composition; and the pressures depend upon the sea depth and the composition of the overburden down to the bottom of the hole. Because of the pressures involved it is all incredibly complicated. I am humbled after looking into just the minimal details. I have some experience in space stuff and re-entry, but this well drilling stuff is off the charts.
The people that do the hands-on work deserve a lot of respect for their courage and expertise. Their managers and the corporatists above them however — not so much.
Thanks Aardvark for the dialog.
Check your figures. minus 182 C is almost minus 300 Fahrenheit. There is water in the ocean below the freezing point of 32 degrees F. because the water pressure will not allow the crystals to form. But minus 300 F? Nonsense.
Oh, I see, so according to your calculations there shouldn’t be any crystallized methane down there.
Uh-huh.
I can see now what might have been what killed those 11 guys on the rig.
It is methane hydrates, not solid methane.
Understood, but there are likely a combination of pure water, methane and everything in between in this environment.
At what temps and pressures will hydrates release methane gas? if it’s not an extreme of temperature, it’s the pressure which dictates. And pressure changes with temperature as well as depth.
[edit: as aardvark so nicely and politely points out.]
Well, you might want to do your own calculations; what you put forward was clearly nonsense. So, any more “facts” you wish to put forward? I would remind you that when you add 2 + 2, the answer is always 4.
The bottom of deep water in the Oceans is about 4 deg C, which is the maximum density of water. At lower temperatures the water rises. At temperatures higher than 4 deg C the hotter water rises.
If we ask the question, what was the most likely naturally occurring source of the sort of explosion which occurred, seems to me to be reasonable that it was methane. I don’t think there is anywhere on this planet where methane exists as crystals; remember, pressure increases temperature, which is why the core of the earth is molten. I know that the chemical process of curing concrete releases heat. But, it is over a period of hours.
Incidentally, I was also wrong in this respect, the temperature is not squared.
PV = nRT is the proper formula. For practical purposes, like pressure in your tires, you can ignore the n and R, and the simpler formula is PV=T.
Do I think BP are likely greedy bastards? Probably so.
But it also seems to me that any conclusions as to why this happened are premature.
FDL was in good company when breaking the real reason behind the blowout. It had also appeared at http://www.worldreports.org.
UPDATE:
WAXMAN’S HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE PUTS HALLIBURTON IN THE FIRING LINE WITH RESPECT TO (OUR) SUSPICIONS CONCERNING THE FAULTY CEMENTING PROCESS. SEE BELOW FOR THE TEXT OF MR HENRY A. WAXMAN’S LETTER TO MR DAVID J. LESAR, C.E.O. OF HALLIBURTON CO., DATED 30TH APRIL 2010, DEMANDING ALL DOCUMENTS.
• UPDATE: HALLIBURTON HAD ONLY JUST FINISHED A CEMENTING JOB ON THE OIL RIG:
READ THIS AND THEN READ WHAT WE SAID BELOW BEFORE THIS DATA BECAME AVAILABLE:
Although no cause has been determined, oil services contractor Halliburton Inc. says it finished a cementing operation 20 hours before a Gulf of Mexico rig went up in flames.
Halliburton is named as a defendant in most of the more than two dozen lawsuits filed by Gulf Coast people and businesses claiming the huge oil spill could ruin them financially. In one lawsuit, two Louisiana shrimpers claim cementing contributed to the explosion.
Halliburton said Friday [30th April 2010] it had four workers stationed on the rig, performing several tasks, including cementing, a process of applying cement and water to a pipe used to prevent the wall of the hole from caving in during drilling.
According to a 2007 study by Minerals Management Service, cementing was a factor in 18 of 39 rig blowouts in the Gulf between 1992 and 2006. San Francisco Chronicle:
So then I guess I should tune in to those lousy Sunday shows, because they’ll no doubt be featuring the FDL sleuths, right?
ummm ..way upstream .. sonyia.. what i meant by the “cementation job” .. was the outside annulus .. the space between the outer casing wall and the bore hole proper had been cemented in .. and tested .. then they POOH’d [pulled outta of hole] about 3000′ feet off bottom re-set the packer and pumped in the casing string plug .. then tested again after set-up time.. then POOH’d back up to 8000 feet to set the second plug .. they were in the process of displacing the mud in the drill string and riser to salt water when the blow out occurred …
and as to the temps discussion .. temps vary but .. in terms of oil formations at 35,000 feet .. temps in formation up to 190F and above have been regularly encountered ..
API bottom-hole temp calcs
sorry to take so long in getting back to you
I’m getting that Internet cannot get the link.
Try this…
Wow, I’m way late to this today, but Mz. Couril, that’s one hell of a summary.
Not questioning you, but it’s all solid as stated? The sourcing can be trusted?
Not YOU, but the NYT sourcing is solid and reliable?
I’ve read some of the same comments from oildrum dot com . . . early on, too, when THAT source was offered by a couple of OUTSTANDING PUPS (forgot who).
Only thing I don’t see is some comments rig workers made about the Mud Team Observers (not the right label) who monitor mud flows and such.
What I recall was pressure to get them off the clock because they were contracted and expensive.
Have seen nor heard anything about that since the first week of the disaster.
I guess, given the details you share Mz. Couril, the gas issue was an ongoing thang.
And if the fatal blast occurred as described, it wouldn’t have mattered much if mud observers were on station or not.
It seems from your post there had been ample warnings of gas issues, that went unheeded or at least, untended to.
And it seems this rig, during the capping effort as the well head was being sealed, suffered from a much greater and bigger kind of incompetence than staffing of mud ovservers.
Bless the 11 dead.
Thanks for all the work you do at FDL for us readers.
I still stand by my original conclusion. Halliburton used nitrogen injected cement, a sort of whipped up foamy version of cement, to seal the cracks and crevices of the bore hole wall, where the gas kicks were coming from, And this is what they used for the bottom hole plug and to set the casing in place. It held for a bit, with the added weight of the drilling mud holding everything still. They replaced the 16+ppg mud weight with 8.6ppg seawater and AMF. (That’s Adios M’Fer)
Drilling mud is probably boiling hot at that depth, or pretty near. Heat from concrete curing, I could be wrong but I just don’t see it.
that’s the consensus of the other pros too OFG .. if you’ve got to have 14.8ppg [some reports say 16ppg btw] mud to hold down the burp .. then displacing to 8.6ppg SW isn’t going to do the job .. makes no sense at all to displace to SW does it ?? so the question is who made that call .. ??
now for sure .. leaving mud in the hole makes for a more difficult job for the completion boyz .. but geebus .. it’d have been a hell of lot better than this mess … we need the straight poop from BP .. we’ll probably never see it .. but it’s really important .. the other oil boyz drilling right now could damn sure use the info to apply in their situations … and holding it back is serving no one .. not even BP ..because at the very least it’s allowing speculation to run rampant ..
disclaimer rob i r an engineer [MSME] ..and have worked the awl patch .. but have been far away from it since ’92 .. mostly what i’m doing is compiling the best consensus from the pros i do still know and the best from those i am reading ..and trying to sort the wheat from the chaff ..
That’s interesting. Makes me think that while the mud was in the column, there were two heat sources: the mud plus the curing concrete. Once the mud was replaced with the seawater there was only one heat source, the concrete. Could that rapid temperature drop have precipitated any chemical changes that would have promoted bubble formation, leading to the blowout? [Of course the temp change is in addition to the pressure drop (due the the water being so much less dense than the mud) that meant there was less mass in the column to keep any bubbles at the bottom of the hole.]
David Dayen is upstairs!
Gates Being Completely Disingenuous About DADT
I’ll have to defer to those of you with oil-field experience as to the nature of the cement used. But I do know that laymen are astonishingly ignorant of the amount of heat a “hot” batch of concrete can generate. When I was just out of college, I worked as a so-called “carpenter” building forms and such for shopping centers. One of the subcontractors tried to hire me away from my boss. His reason? I obviously didn’t know much but I was also clearly not an idiot, based on what he’d seen.
Why did he want me? He had two guys who waded into a 2-ft deep pour after being told not to–they didn’t want to hump 2x12s across a field just to bridge the wet concrete. In minutes, they were cooked alive from the knees down and had to be rescued. The subsequent workman’s comp premiums almost put their boss out of business.
IMHO, well-done folks. Nite.
Well, it is sort of morning, my oldest just got home from the prom, and I realized that taking a single bubble of methane, R is a constant, n is a constant, an T is relatively constant, which means P = V. So, our bubble of methane, moving from 5,000 feet below the surface of the water to sea level would expand to 5,000 times the volume it would have been when it started.
Good job everyone:)
Good job, ya’ll !!
I noticed the first week that the MSM sort of disappeared for awhile after their initial report….but I also noticed that you guys stayed on the story AND got it right.
Congratulations. Way to go!
You’re the best and proving it.