A question for Keith J...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - A question for Keith J...

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:05:09 PM EDT

Now that BP has the leak contained, what is the next step?
I assume that the relief well program continues?
With the well capped and a static fluid column, killing the well should be less complex, right?

I only have land based service experience, so there are variables out of my realm of knowledge.

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:07:23 PM EDT

[#1]

If the question is just for KeithJ, why not IM him?

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:09:44 PM EDT

[#2]

IBKJ

In before Keith J

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:12:46 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
If the question is just for KeithJ, why not IM him?

Your post date says you aren't new here.

Your post says you are.

Everyone wants to hear what KeithJ has to say.

Everyone.

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:13:30 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
If the question is just for KeithJ, why not IM him?

Well, there are others here who could answer but he seems to take point on these questions.
It's not like I am the only one interested.

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:13:55 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:

If the question is just for KeithJ, why not IM him?

Your post date says you aren't new here.

Your post says you are.

Everyone wants to hear what KeithJ has to say.

Everyone.

I bet Keith_J could explain why.

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:15:15 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If the question is just for KeithJ, why not IM him?

Your post date says you aren't new here.

Your post says you are.

Everyone wants to hear what KeithJ has to say.

Everyone.

I don't care what KeithJ says either.

I'm in to hear James Cameron's thoughts on this matter.

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:20:27 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

If the question is just for KeithJ, why not IM him?

Your post date says you aren't new here.

Your post says you are.

Everyone wants to hear what KeithJ has to say.

Everyone.

I don't care what KeithJ says either.

I'm in to hear James Cameron's thoughts on this matter.

I'm in for Mr. T.

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:29:20 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:

If the question is just for KeithJ, why not IM him?

Your post date says you aren't new here.

Your post says you are.

Everyone wants to hear what KeithJ has to say.

Everyone.

I don't care what KeithJ says either.

I'm in to hear James Cameron's thoughts on this matter.

I'm in for Mr. T.

I PITY THE FOOL, SUCKA! The only reason I no longer work offshore is because I hate the helicopter rides out there. And they don't let me wear my jewelry either. But I rock the hard hat and Redwings. Plus I look damn good in Nomex overalls.

Ok, back to the question...yes, they could go for a top kill much easier without flow. And BP would consider it, if they were in charge. The only limitation is the annulus between the casing and liner might not easily fill with mud and could be a flow path, hence the need to bottom kill. They do not know if formation fluids have displaced the drilling fluid which is in there. To do that, they would have to top kill, then once the well is balanced and can be safely opened, drop a wireline tool to determine annulus fluid makeup. Much easier to bottom kill because a cement plug bridging the liner and annulus would mean certain kill. The formation is porous, pressure cementing would kill the reservoir in that area.

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:31:38 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:

If the question is just for KeithJ, why not IM him?

Your post date says you aren't new here.

Your post says you are.

Everyone wants to hear what KeithJ has to say.

Everyone.

I bet Keith_J could explain why.

Dave is from Yankee-land

.

But otherwise, a cool guy. RC aircraft and motorcycles. With guns. Yeah, I spotted him on another web forum.

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:35:17 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If the question is just for KeithJ, why not IM him?

Your post date says you aren't new here.

Your post says you are.

Everyone wants to hear what KeithJ has to say.

Everyone.

I don't care what KeithJ says either.

I'm in to hear James Cameron's thoughts on this matter.

I'm in for Mr. T.

I PITY THE FOOL, SUCKA! The only reason I no longer work offshore is because I hate the helicopter rides out there. And they don't let me wear my jewelry either. But I rock the hard hat and Redwings. Plus I look damn good in Nomex overalls.

Ok, back to the question...yes, they could go for a top kill much easier without flow. And BP would consider it, if they were in charge. The only limitation is the annulus between the casing and liner might not easily fill with mud and could be a flow path, hence the need to bottom kill. They do not know if formation fluids have displaced the drilling fluid which is in there. To do that, they would have to top kill, then once the well is balanced and can be safely opened, drop a wireline tool to determine annulus fluid makeup. Much easier to bottom kill because a cement plug bridging the liner and annulus would mean certain kill. The formation is porous, pressure cementing would kill the reservoir in that area.

laymen terms can you type them?

I have no idea what any of that mess you just typed means.

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:40:25 PM EDT

[#11]

So ideally circulate over to mud then cement, right?
Then what, re-entry or new well (assuming new drilling in the Gulf allowed)?

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:42:14 PM EDT

[#12]

Ok, the well is now capped and under control, oil and methane isn't streaming up like it was with top kill. The oil flowing up diluted the killing mud, preventing it from settling out in the bottom of the well.

The well can be top killed again, this would be known as a static top kill, something done all the time in drilling after a BOP fires and successfully stops the flow. But in this case, the well is to be abandoned and since it had been completed, there is an annular space between the bottom casing (9-7/8") and the liner (7"). This space was left filled with mud when the liner was installed. There is no way to prove the mud is still there, it could have been replaced with oil and that would make the well flow if anything happened to the top of the well, like corrosion.

So that is why a top kill isn't enough. The kill well will be able to fill both well and annular space with cement.

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:42:28 PM EDT

[#13]

i thought the well was plugged. They are going to try and fuck with it some more?

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:44:46 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:

If the question is just for KeithJ, why not IM him?

Your post date says you aren't new here.

Your post says you are.

Everyone wants to hear what KeithJ has to say.

Everyone.

I bet Keith_J could explain why.

Dave is from Yankee-land

.

But otherwise, a cool guy. RC aircraft and motorcycles. With guns. Yeah, I spotted him on another web forum.

He seems to be interested in milsurp vehicles as well.

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:45:07 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
i thought the well was plugged. They are going to try and fuck with it some more?

Well isn't plugged, it's contained, big difference.

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:47:43 PM EDT

[#16]

Ok Keith, a top kill is essentially the same as bullheading is it not?

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:48:09 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

So ideally circulate over to mud then cement, right?

Then what, re-entry or new well (assuming new drilling in the Gulf allowed)?

If they ever decide to produce again, they will drill in another part of the formation. If BP can keep the lease, and that is a BIG if, BP knows what is down there. And that will just be banked reserve.

This field was chosen for exploration to augment Na Kika's aging fields, probably for production in 2018 at the earliest before the blowout. Yes, that far in the future. Na Kika was developed only because it was a number of smaller finds which could be tied back to a central production facility. IIRC, Na Kika is over 8 "blocks", each block being 3x3 nautical miles.

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:53:07 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Ok Keith, a top kill is essentially the same as bullheading is it not?

Not quite...bullheading can be done before total loss of control in unwanted formations. Top kill uses drilling fluid of much greater density to displace formation pressure. The key difference is the choke function, bullheading runs on a closed choke. Top kill balances out kill and choke flows, what goes in through the mud pumps is allowed to come out of the choke.

Posted: 7/19/2010 9:54:32 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

i thought the well was plugged. They are going to try and fuck with it some more?

Flow has been stopped with the new, supplemental BOP. MSM likes to call it a "cap" but in reality, it is just a smaller, functional BOP.

The well still needs to be killed, or permanently plugged.

Posted: 7/19/2010 10:00:38 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

If the question is just for KeithJ, why not IM him?

Your post date says you aren't new here.

Your post says you are.

Everyone wants to hear what KeithJ has to say.

Everyone.

I bet Keith_J could explain why.

Dave is from Yankee-land

.

But otherwise, a cool guy. RC aircraft and motorcycles. With guns. Yeah, I spotted him on another web forum.

He seems to be interested in milsurp vehicles as well.

Does he brew beer and kill small animals too?

Posted: 7/19/2010 10:04:52 PM EDT

[#21]

Keith,

can you post a diagram or link to one of the well as it is at present. Particularly the bottom of the well, the liner, casing, etc.

Thanks

ETA, I found this: http://www.roughneckcity.com/uploads/ProbertTestimony_5-11-2010.pdf.

It looks like the bottom liner is 7" and is hung in a 9 7/8" liner that extends to the BOP. Is this correct?

Posted: 7/19/2010 10:06:46 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ok Keith, a top kill is essentially the same as bullheading is it not?

Not quite...bullheading can be done before total loss of control in unwanted formations. Top kill uses drilling fluid of much greater density to displace formation pressure. The key difference is the choke function, bullheading runs on a closed choke. Top kill balances out kill and choke flows, what goes in through the mud pumps is allowed to come out of the choke.

So in a top kill, excess pressure that would 'push' back into the formation is returned via choke instead while maintaining a 'cap' of mud on the well.

Posted: 7/19/2010 10:08:13 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If the question is just for KeithJ, why not IM him?

Your post date says you aren't new here.

Your post says you are.

Everyone wants to hear what KeithJ has to say.

Everyone.

Easy there killer, I've known KeithJ for years before I came here on a model airplane forum....

Posted: 7/19/2010 10:09:51 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If the question is just for KeithJ, why not IM him?

Your post date says you aren't new here.

Your post says you are.

Everyone wants to hear what KeithJ has to say.

Everyone.

I bet Keith_J could explain why.

Dave is from Yankee-land

.

But otherwise, a cool guy. RC aircraft and motorcycles. With guns. Yeah, I spotted him on another web forum.

And they say a Texan is just a damned Mexican who couldn't get thru Oklahoma's border patrol.....

Posted: 7/19/2010 10:11:21 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If the question is just for KeithJ, why not IM him?

Your post date says you aren't new here.

Your post says you are.

Everyone wants to hear what KeithJ has to say.

Everyone.

I bet Keith_J could explain why.

Dave is from Yankee-land

.

But otherwise, a cool guy. RC aircraft and motorcycles. With guns. Yeah, I spotted him on another web forum.

He seems to be interested in milsurp vehicles as well.

Does he brew beer and kill small animals too?

Not much of a drinker (not a tea totaller tho), Small Game is all I hunt.

Posted: 7/19/2010 10:19:35 PM EDT

[#26]

http://www.energy.gov/open/documents/3.1_Item_2_Macondo_Well_07_Jun_1900.pdf

Quoted:

Keith,

can you post a diagram or link to one of the well as it is at present. Particularly the bottom of the well, the liner, casing, etc.

Thanks

Posted: 7/19/2010 10:43:02 PM EDT

[#27]

Keith,

it looks like the bottom liner is 7" and it hangs from a 9 7/8" liner that extends up to the BOP, is this correct?

Posted: 7/19/2010 11:19:31 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Keith,

it looks like the bottom liner is 7" and it hangs from a 9 7/8" liner that extends up to the BOP, is this correct?

Actually, the 7" extends to the 16" liner which ends about 160 feet below mud line. The 9-7/8" liner is cemented above the bottom hole. Above that is the 11-1/8, then the rest.

The 7-16 liner is mostly there to assure circulation of the cuttings out of the hole. And to skip the side track (actually, they deviated at 11,700'. This was probably one of the problem areas, it happens often. Usually a depleted seep which will suck drill fluid and resists control. Other times, it is a salt formation under pressure, these can flow and block the hole during a trip.