BP's next plan: A Top Kill (from Time mag)

[Are_grits_groceries]

<snip>
To do that, BP will next try what's called a top kill, which involves pumping heavy drilling fluid — a synthetic compound that is heavier than both oil and water — into the blowout preventer, which sits over the well, smothering the leaking oil. If the maneuver, which is planned for sometime this week, works, the company will follow the drilling fluid with cement. "That should stop the well," said Suttles. "We intend to fill it up with cement and then we'll never produce from it."
<snip>
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1989803,00.html#ixzz0oHkyNyEQ

"Should"
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm that has a familiar ring to it.

[marylanddem]

1. Why is BP being left to manage this disaster?

Why is anything they have to say being believed?

[Are_grits_groceries]

3. I don't know.

They are keeping scientists out. I would have already yanked control from them and made sure vital scientific and other important personnel were not allowed to run. They would be needed to help explain some things to people with expertise that are brought in.

They also need to make sure documents aren't destroyed so that knowledge of the well problems that occurred and where are known.

As far as I can tell, corporate people are running the show.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Yes, "Top Kill". It's simple, they should have tried this on day one. Here's the graphic.

I posted yesterday:

In which kill mud is pumped into the Blow Out Preventer, and then cement.



Note: A 4000 x 2253 pixel image here: http://tinyurl.com/2fzshk4

May 16, 2010
Paula Dittrick
Senior Staff Writer

HOUSTON, May 16

BP plans to kill flow in 7-10 days

Kent Wells, BP senior vice-president of exploration and production, said BP’s first priority remains to kill the flow from the well. An effort to pump kill mud into the wellhead through choke and kill lines on the existing blowout preventer will be attempted in 7-10 days, Wells told reporters on May 16.

He also clarified that a “junk shot” in which various items will be pumped inside the BOP might or might not be done. Wells said the first plan is to try to stop the flow using kill mud followed by cement to seal the well.

“We can pump mud faster than the well can flow,” Wells said, adding the mud will go through the choke and kill lines.

A control pod was retrieved from the BOP and was brought to the surface where it’s being reconfigured to ensure that BP can electronically control a series of valves in the choke and kill lines while it pumps mud into the well.

Wells said 50,000 bbl of kill mud will be available, but that he doubts that much will be needed.

Contact Paula Dittrick at [email protected]

http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/2867244755/articles/oil-gas-journal/general-interest-2/2010/05/100516-pd-bpspill-riserworking.html

Not many seemed interested in this when I posted it yesterday.

:shrug:

[Are_grits_groceries]

5. Thanks!

I missed that.

They didn't try it because they didn't want the well ruined forever IMHO. they still don't.

[NYC_SKP]

6. That's been my theory, too.

Even two weeks ago I suggested that they probably could cap and kill this point of extraction but preferred to leave it live.

Not much chance they'd get another pop at it anytime soon, so they decided to try to remediate in other ways while leaving this a opening viable.

But, you know, what do I know?

:P

[Are_grits_groceries]

7. You know that they are

lying sacks of shite who are only concerned with profit. That's quite enough IMHO.B-)

[janx]

22. I missed that yesterday!

Too many threads with people fighting, I guess. :rofl:

Anyway, thanks for posting it again.

[arcadian]

4. "...and then we'll never produce from it."

We'll drill one right next to it

[Statistical]

8. Of couse.

That is why all the conspiracy theories that BP is intentionally allowing oil to flow free are silly.

This oil field is huge. Even without this disaster BP was going to punch 3, 4, 5, maybe 6 wells into this same field. Otherwise it would take a century or longer to drain this field.

A new well costs about $100 million. So far on just mitigation BP has spent $500 million (roughly $25 million per day). That alone could have paid for 5 wells into this pocket.

Worse is the fact that ever barrel leaked increases the long term cleanup costs & liability lawsuits. One estimate on reuters is that when all is said and done it will cost BP roughly $100 - $300 million per day the well flows.

It simply makes no sense that they would risk that kind of money for a single well (of which BP owns thousands).

[NYC_SKP]

10. Why didn't they try this sooner?

:shrug:

http://tinyurl.com/2fzshk4

[Statistical]

12. It has a low chance of success and has never been tried before.

Obviously in hindsight siphoning the well took longer and was less sucessul than they hoped but it had a higher chance of success.

Personally I don't think this will work and neither will the junkshot (although it may slow oil some).

Sadly I think oil will finally stop when relief well is completed and that is in another 70+ days.

[NYC_SKP]

15. None of the solutions has a 100% chance of working flawlessly.

And this one could have been done at the same time, AFAIK, or even right away while they were fabricating the coffer dam.

I know Top Kill might not work, they don't know the condition of the components inside the BOP, but it seems like it was worth a shot then, just as it's worth a shot now.

Could have been tried right away, if it didn't work, no loss.

They didn't try the junk shot for fear of making the leak worse, they say.

:patriot:

[Statistical]

17. Generally in probability risk assement you look at benefit vs risk vs likelihood of success.

Lets look at what they did:

Tried to trigger BOP manually
High chance of success
High benefit
Very low risk

Next tried to siphon oil to lower amount spilled (via 3 different methods)
Moderate chance of success
Moderate benefit
Very low risk

Now they are trying an untested kill
Moderate to low? chance of success
High benefit
Moderately high risk

Ultimately if you look at it as the relief well has the highest chance of success but it will take 90 days so what should we do in the meantime it makes sense.

Sadly (and I REALLY hope I am wrong) I don't think anything will completely stop the gusher except the relief well pumping concrete into well from the bottom and that is going to take 70+ days.

[NYC_SKP]

18. Again, they can attempt more than one solution simultaneously.

I'd argue that Top Kill has a very low risk.

Where's the "moderately high risk"?

They hook up the lines and, presuming there are check valves to prevent backflow, the kill mud either does or does not make it into the BOP and block the flow.

[Statistical]

19. The BOP is damaged and under a lot of pressure.

The mud has to be under even MORE pressure to force the oil flow back down the well and hold it there. Anytime you are dealing with damaged equipment there is a element of unknown risk.

What happens if the BOP blows wide open?
What happens in say a slightly less bad situation that the process fails and check valves are damaged in process resulting in a new leaks out of the kill ports (in addition to main leak at end of riser?
What happens if pressure blows out casing that BOP sits on and now oil leaks from underneath the BOP?

Not saying any of these things will happen but there is the potential for stuff to get worse. Lets compare that to siphoning oil. With siphoning oil what is the worse that happens? You don't siphon? The siphon breaks? The siphon clogs? At worse the situation remains the same. So in one operation the worse case scenario is no improvement in the other the worst case scenario is increased oil flow. That has to be accounted when making a decision.

Had original 85%+ dome capture siphon worked I doubt BP would even be trying this. They simply would siphon oil for 70 days until relief well was complete and then cement entire well shaft. It didn't so now they need to try a riskier option because current flow for 70+ more days is simply unacceptable.

I hope I am wrong and I hope it works. Would be great if flow is stopped (even temporarily) in less than a week. I am just no optimistic.

[NYC_SKP]

20. Everyone calls it a "siphon", or "siphoning". Is it really a "siphon", or does it...

...just plain SUCK?!

:hi:

[Statistical]

21. It probably does suck.

I was hoping it would work better. Maybe cut flow into Gulf 75%+.

Shows how solutions like this need to be designed, tested, perfected BEFORE you start drilling in 5000ft deep water.

[ljm2002]

11. Then it makes no sense that they didn't cap it to begin with!

They've been messing around with various tactics, most of which seem geared to recovering oil, when they already knew a more surefire way to stop it, which they are now considering. In the meantime millions of gallons of oil are gushing into the Gulf.

Please explain how that fits into your logic that they would not risk the costs of cleanup when they can just drill another well. Because I'm not seeing it.

[Statistical]

13. Thats the point. It isn't sure fired.

Nobody has ever tried this before and certainly not at this depth.
A whole lot can go wrong, worse case scenario is the damage the BOP and INCREASE the oil flow.

Personally if I were a betting man I would place two bets

a) this won't stop slow of oil
b) ultimately what stops the flow will be the relief wells which sadly will take 70+ more days

They are simply trying this hail mary because the siphon method isn't working as well as they hoped. IF (big IF) the original dome siphon method had worked and had prevented 90% of oil from leaking into bay I think they wouldn't have even attempted this. They simply would have siphoned for next 70 days until relief wells are complete and seal the leak permanently.

For them to try something as untested and risky as this means they literally are running out of options and trying for the hail mary pass.

[ljm2002]

23. Nothing they are doing has been tried at depth...

...that is of course the essential problem here, and it is the core issue of their brazen irresponsibility.

Their original plan was to put a huge structure atop the blown well and siphon oil. But first they had to build the 40-ton structure. That's right, this company that had assured regulators they had plans and the capability to handle a worst-case scenario, turned out to have NO backup plan whatsoever and they've been winging it ever since.

Seems to me they have a lot better understanding of how to use the special "mud" to staunch the flow and then to add cement to seal it off for good. After all they use mud and cement all the time in these operations, and they have sealed off wells before, the difference being that in this case the gusher is not under control.

Bottom line, I think, is that you buy more of their line than I do. You may be right, but I don't think so. I think they were still hopeful they could recover the oil from this gusher.

Remember: it was a BP man who insisted that they go ahead and add cement without the mud, which directly led to the blowout. The BP CEO recently said that the amount of oil gushing out is really very small, compared to the size of the Gulf. These people's arrogance knows no bounds, even in the face of this catastrophe of their own making.

BP needs to be destroyed. If they are made to bear the true costs of this event, they probably will be. Big IF, I'm not holding my breath.

[arcadian]

14. That, but the point being

them saying,"oh and we'll never produce from it" is a just a whitewash and some sort of attempt to try to gain redemeption in the eyes of the public. Like that is the closest BP will come to actually saying "sorry" and being held accountable.

[Statistical]

16. Oh I agree 100%.

It sounds good but means absolutely nothing.

sounds like they are making a big sacrifice. The reality is the well is severly damaged, the BOP is unreliable. They could likely never produce from this well even if they wanted to.

Kinda like me getting drunk crashing totally my car and then promising to never drive drunk in that car again. :)

[Lasher]

24. Liability and lawsuits are capped at $75 million.

The cap would not apply if BP is found to have acted negligently or violated the law. If such a ruling were to occur, it would take effect after all appeals have been exhausted - say, two or three decades from now.

[Statistical]

25. Even with liability caps the cleanup will be billions.

They have spent $500 million to date and they really aren't cleaning up right now more like mitigation.
Long term cleanup is far more expensive operation.

Also Congress is looking to raise cap to $10 billion.

Regardless of how much BP will end up paying it is clearly obvious that the best thing would be to stop the flow of oil as soon as possible.

I mean not talking about best for Gulf I am talking about best in terms of cost for BP. BP makes the most money and ends up paying out the least by stopping the flow of oil. A pure bean counter capitalist who likes shooting dolphins in the head for fun could see that.

The idea that BP is intentionally racking up billions of dollars in cost is silly.

[Lasher]

29. Congress can't retroactively raise the $75 million cap.

Ex Post Facto laws are prohibited by Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution.

[Statistical]

31. Ex Post Facto covers criminal penalties.

Not removing/changing liability limits.

Congress won't be charging them with a crime rather changing the rules. Maybe not "fair" but certainly legal and has been done in the past.

Just recently Congress changed the terms of TARP AFTER the banks accepted the money. The banks cried about it but they didn't file any legal challenges.

[Lasher]

32. Ex Post Facto covers laws, criminal and civil.

The banks chose not to challenge the legislation that retroactively changed TARP. That didn't make it constitutional.

From the Constitution:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

That's pretty clear language.

If Congress does raise or eliminate the cap, BP might challenge its constitutionality and they might not. I wouldn't want to claim that I know something I don't. That would be silly.

[Statistical]

33. The term "Ex Post Facto" specifically relates to criminal statutes (at least in the US).

There is substantial Supreme Court precedent on this and the line has been drawn at criminal punishment.

The original case is Calder v. Bull in 1798 and it has never been overturned it is one of the longer standing precedents of the court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull

Holding: Ex post facto clause applies to criminal, not civil cases

I am sorry but you are simply wrong if you think raises cap on BP damages retroactively is ex post facto. Maybe in a common sense definition or "what is fair" definition but not according to the United States Supreme Court. It is unlikely SCOTUS would even hear a case as the precedent is very strong.

Even things coming close to "punishment" have been allowed despite having an "ex post facto" like effect.

For example in Smith v. Doe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Doe

Holding: Because the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Even requiring sex offenders to register with the state (retroactively applied to all offenders on record) wasn't considered ex post facto because the intent of the law wasn't punishment. Now to a sex offender it may feel like punishment but the courts pushed the line on ex post facto further back in Smith by looking at intent.

Closer to BP financial liability would be retroactive taxes. There have been dozens of retroactive taxes in the past and none has ever even gotten heard by supreme Court because of "ex post facto".

[Lasher]

34. I concede, you are correct.

Thanks for straightening me out.

[Statistical]

35. No problem.

Pst... I was wrong previously and that is when I was "enlightened". :)

[Junkdrawer]

30. And how much of that is the cost of dispersant bought from a sister company?

You know, the environmentally and effectively inferior dispersant that they will be able to claim as a tax deduction while the sister company claims as profit.

[KharmaTrain]

9. Yep...

My bets are the BP execs are looking at that huge slick and thinking "hell, we brought in a good one". They'll be back and then keep pushing further. The sooner they plug this gusher the sooner the corporate media moves onto the next shiny toy and the politicians chase along...it'll be business as usual.

[janx]

26. K&R

.

[Owl]

27. "A top kill"... killing the oceans from the top down.

[Duppers]

28. K & R

and bookmarking thread for further reading.

thanks!