BP relief well draws fears: Experts say effort faces similiar risks that caused original blow out

[Better Believe It]

Spill relief well draws scrutiny, fears
Experts say effort faces similar risks that caused original well to blow out
By GREG BLUESTEIN, JASON DEAREN
Associated Press
June 13, 2010

NEW ORLEANS - In the chaotic days after the oil rig explosion, BP engineers and federal regulators desperate to plug the blown-out well scrambled to complete plans for a pair of deepwater relief wells that represent the best chance to end the disastrous spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

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.

And the plan ultimately approved by the government offers virtually no details outlining the relief well effort or what dangers might lurk in the depths as the company drills 18,000 feet below the surface — the equivalent of 16 Eiffel Towers. Experts say the relief effort could be exposed to the same risks that caused the original well to blow out in catastrophic fashion, while potentially creating a worse spill if engineers were to accidentally damage the existing well or tear a hole in the undersea oil reservoir.

U.S. regulations are more lax than other countries when it comes to relief wells. In Canada, for example, energy companies must have plans and permits for relief wells before drilling is approved. These plans must describe exactly how engineers would drill a relief well if required to do so — down to identifying the drilling vessel and spelling out how long it would take.

To get permits for the relief wells, the company used similar wording from earlier papers and submitted them to the federal Minerals Management Service. The plans lacked specifics about how it planned to drill the wells or how long it would take.

But the company underscored the danger of such hasty planning when it noted that a mishap could lead to another blowout that could leak more oil into the ocean. The permits also discuss a worst-case scenario that would involve inadvertently puncturing the reservoir.

As with any deepsea drilling effort, there are risks — including the potential for a blowout in the relief wells just like what happened in April. BP said in a filing that if a relief well were to blow out, each could spew 250,000 gallons more crude into the Gulf's waters each day — and force engineers to try to plug a new, separate leak.

Read the full article at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37674027/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. "U.S. regulations are more lax than other countries when it comes to relief wells." And just who

can we thank for that?

[Kurt Remarque]

2. these bastards have a tiger by the tail and won't admit it

[LisaL]

3. When is this nightmare going to end?

[obxhead]

4. So what's the other option?

A nuke - no thanks, for too many reasons.
Leave it alone to just empty out? In that case a relief well blowout would only speed up the same result.

It is risky, of course. If it was safe this blow out would not have happened. It has to be tried as it's about the only option left that has a realistic chance of success.

We do have a very real choice though. How we handle all the wells currently drilled and all future wells drilled. There has been few times when the country has been unified just enough to possibly allow some good to shine through the mess.

[LisaL]

5. Supposedly there is so much oil that that it could take

10 years for it to leak out (or maybe more?), so that does not look like a good option.

[Laelth]

16. Not sure how long it would take to leak out, but there's a lot of oil down there.

According to BP data from about five years ago, there are four separate reservoirs containing a total of 2.5 billion barrels (barrels not gallons). One of the reservoirs has 1.5 billion barrels. I saw an earlier post here quoting an Anadarko Petroleum report which set the total amount at 2.3 billion barrels. One New York Times article put it at 2 billion barrels.

If the BP data correctly or honestly identified four separate reservoirs then a bleed-out might gush less than 2 to 2.5 billion barrels unless the walls -- as it were -- fracture or partially collapse.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593#comment-648967

That's a lot of oil. Valdez spilled 10.8 million gallons. There are 42 gallons in a barrel of oil. Assuming 2 billion barrels, that's 84 billion gallons. That would make this spill 7,777 times worse than Valdez.

:dem:

-Laelth

[LisaL]

6. I bet Russians could nuke it. They've done it before.

[obxhead]

7. Not with 100% success.

If a total and complete emptying of this reservoir is not an option, then a nuke is not either as that could very well be the result of it.

[KharmaTrain]

8. Not A Well At 5,000 Feet Below The Sea...

There's also many other reasons a majority of scientists and other experts are ruling out this hail mary. Just what we need, radiation added to the toxins in the oil...

[LisaL]

9. I keep hearing that "this hasn't been tried 5,000 feet below

the sea, that hasn't been tried 5,000 below the sea." It boggles my mind that the oil companies are allowed to dig these wells but if something goes wrong, we are basically screwed because it's hard to do anything 5,000 feet under the sea.

[chill_wind]

12. And now 8000 feet (Shell's Perdido 200 miles off Texas, March 31)

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2010/03/shell_brings_its_massive_perdi.html

What could possibly go wrong that we couldn't fix, there?

[KharmaTrain]

13. Yep...Sucks Doesn't It?

Many of us who were against ALL offshore drilling; especially in that region were ignored...the mighty dollar reigns supreme. Then came along a regime that let the regulated write the "laws" and control the regulators. That's when we were screwed...the rest has been the "afterglow".

[Mojorabbit]

10. This is why

it wouldn't be a good idea from what I am hearing.
http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/michio-kaku-hurricane-impact-along-gulf-coast-to-dump-oil-all-over-the-south-potentially-100s-of-miles-inland

[Laelth]

15. The likelihood that anything good will come of this is slim.

One of the widows of one of the men who died in the explosion says she still supports off-shore drilling and "always will." Both Louisiana's Senators have asked the President to lift the moratorium on off-shore drilling. There's just too much money to be made in mining Gulf oil. The economies of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are dependent upon that oil.

This catastrophe will change nothing, I am afraid. Just look at this graphic.



That's a lot of money to be made, and the economy trumps the environment in the good old U. S. of A.

:dem:

-Laelth

[obxhead]

17. there is a lot of money and it won't stop, however

that does not mean we must let them continue in this destructive manner. If we don't fix regulation and the MMS now, while this disaster is happening, then we never will. It needs to be pushed for HARD now while the outrage is still a national feeling.

[Laelth]

18. I agree with you. We SHOULD do a number of things.

I just don't think that we will, as depressing as that belief may be, and I don't think that pushing hard will make a bit of difference.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Hydra]

11. *epic facepalm*

*gets his probability calculator out*

...oh shit...

Any guesses on how much of the ocean we can kill with this?

[Better Believe It]

14. Put BP into receivership as Robert Reich and others propose.

But, it probably won't happen with this timid "do little" administration.