Methane gas and oil seepage a fact of life wherever undersea drilling is conducted

More ROV evidences of shallow faults & drilling problems- Part IIb of Root Causes.

– BK Lim
9 Oct 2010
hydrocomgeo@gmail.com

 

1. Periodic gas and oil seepages through cracks in the heavily cemented seafloor.

 

 

 

 

.

Figures 122-1a and 1b show 2 ROV images captured from the video clip posted by rocksiphone on 18 July 2010 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30WLz7eGYMY&feature=related. The seafloor appears hard with thin layers of encrusted foliation. Besides the dark patches of coloration, the focus of the camera shows a rather sharp edge foliation detached from the lower layer. In the video, blobs of oil and burst of gas can be seen seeping through the gap in the foliation. For such a foliated layer to withstand the periodic burst of gas, it must be pretty hard and resilient.

 

Natural deposition of clayey sediment takes a long time in quiet, low energy environment. Undisturbed natural seafloor covered with surficial soft clay has a smooth flat surface.

 

Why is this patch of the seafloor (40-50 ft ENE of well A) so heavily cemented? Obviously the cement must have resurfaced and hardened at the seafloor; possibly even during the October 2009 drilling period. This is a conclusive proof that BP had experienced difficulties in well A since the first time the well was spud on 7 Oct 2009. It also proved that BP continued to drill even deeper when the shallow sections of the well had not been properly sealed yet.

Figure 122-2 is the typical comment by an expert driller assuming the shallow sections of the well would have been properly tested and sealed before proceeding to drill deeper. This ROV evidence clearly shows that this was not the case.

 

The fact that this patch of cemented seabed and several other gas seeps (as far as 500 ft) are aligned to the “super long leaking fissure” (2), is sufficient proof that the geology here is badly fractured and faulted.

 

2. “Super Long leaking fissure”

 

ROV Video from Olympic Challenger dated 21 August : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjAPRpVr-6Q showing massive gas/oil seeps that seem to hover above seabed level.

 

ROV Video from Skandi Neptune dated 29 August: http://www.youtube.com/user/mmimic34#p/a/u/1/EKg-GJV6d54 showing an elongated cloud that hover just above the seafloor. The video has a tag “prop wash”. This cannot be a prop wash as heavy prop-wash are generated at sea surface not at depths. Further any prop-wash bubbles would rise and dissipate fairly quickly; insufficient time for the ROV to track the “prop-wash” without seeing the vehicle generating the “prop-wash”. These are only some of the arguments against the prop-wash interpretation of these rov videos.

 

Basically the 2 videos confirm the existence of the WNW-ESE fault line passing through / close to Well A and offset about 50 to 70 ft N of Well B.  See figure 122-3.

…. to be continued in part IIc of Root Causes.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Methane gas and oil seepage a fact of life wherever undersea drilling is conducted

  1. BK Lim says:

    Below is a brief summary I submitted to http://www.nexus.fr at the request of their journalist.

    The first direct proof for the 3rd well is the Deepwater Horizon wreckage. The first article that explains this is
    http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/17/4913304-the-art-of-mass-deception-part-1-ballistic-analysis-of-dwh-riser-wreck

    Basically, the main DWH wreck is either too far (1000ft if the riser is broken) or too near (if the riser is intact ie approx 4,000 – 5000ft) from well A. For the riser wreck to be standing 1500ft above the seafloor, it could have only occurred as analysed in the CSI forensic of the DWH wreckage, see diagrams in
    http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/14/4884549-dwh-blowout-csi-why-it-could-not-have-happened-as-reported-by-bp-

    The first few ROV videos in May also showed the gas/oil gushing from a broken pipe in a seabed crater, which matched the coastguard log of 714 ft NW of Well A. My forensic analysis estimated 720ft. BP accidentally exposed the truth when they lied that burning DWH had drifted. DWH could not have drifted in calm weather and because there was no slack in the steel riser. The accurate distance of 714 ft could have only been calculated using coordinates obtained from the ROV. But the coordinates were measured close to BOP at seabed not at the burning DWH on the sea surface. So BP was caught lying – http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/15/5116468-bp-caught-lying-while-deepwater-horizon-burns-part-5-aomd.

    The broken pipe dips into the ground towards the north with the open gushing end facing south. So oil was flowing from north to south. If there is no riser connection from Well A, 714ft further south, how could the gushing oil have come from the BOP at Well A? This is the most important discrepancy in BP’s official story.

    With these 4 main points, the whole picture becomes clearer. More conclusive evidences are provided by the 2nd underwater explosion, logs, MMS emails & application to spud etc in http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/12/5096273-conclusive-evidence-well-a-is-not-the-well-that-blew-up-on-20-april-part-3-aomd

    Working backwards, it makes sense since Well A could not continue after the drilling rods were stuck by the formation cave-in at 4000-5000ft open bore. Then BP moved to Well B which again encountered problems and a near-blowout after drilling down to 13,100 ft. It had to stop and plugged the well 750 ft above the open bottom. To side track wide enough to avoid the problem zone, the well would miss the oil target. If the well was not sidetrack wide enough it would still have the same problem.

    Thus, BP had to drill from a 3rd well location. There are some more evidences but these are the main points.

    This 3rd well was not reported, and no permit applied for it. So it is not authorised.

    BP tried to apply for it a few days before the blowout occured on 20 April 2010. But it was too late. In any case the blowout was so severe, there was no hope of sealing the well with a broken well head. So since Well A was leaking gas and oil (it was not properly plugged due to the stuck drilling rods) BP used well A to fool the world that it was the leaking well and pretend to “kill it”. Well A was only 5000 ft. So they could kill it much earlier like in May. But they cannot pretend to kill well A in May when the 3rd well was still openly gushing oil out. The relief well C was not ready to kill it yet from the bottom. So BP had to pretend and wait until the Relief Well C can reach the bottom of the 3rd well.

    If Well A was killed in May, and the sea still filled with oil, BP’s Mass Deception would be exposed. IT is simple logic.

    The main cause of the blowout was the gas-saturated weak sub-formation (GWSF) zone which did not allow the well to be properly cemented and sealed. That is why I am showing all the ROV evidences which confirmed there were massive losses of drilling mud and cement which resurfaced through the faults up to the seabed. The well-cementing had not effectively sealed the well annulus with the formation, allowing the drilling fluid (drilling mud, gas and some oil) to freely flow outside the well.

    When the Equivalent Circulation Density (ECD) was lowered (replacing drilling mud with salt water) gas from the GWSF zone forced back into the well through the leaks and caused the blowout. But the initial blowout was not that strong – a lot of gas to cause the fire but the well head, BOP and riser were still intact. 2 days later, the bottom cement plug kaputt and this time the oil forced out from the reservoir like a “hydraulic piston”. This toppled and broke the well head, jammed up the drilling rods and toppled the BOP. The steel riser of course broke off (as shown in my CSI illustration) into 2 parts to form the odd twisted, standing riser wreck.

    This interpretation fits everything so perfectly, it cannot be wrong. Maybe some 10-20% details still missing but 80-90% right. BP’s official version is very inconsistent and does not make any sense at all. That is why I do this analysis to prove that BP is lying and covering up the magnitude of the disaster.

    Below is a brief summary I submitted to http://www.nexus.fr at the request of their journalist.

    The first direct proof for the 3rd well is the Deepwater Horizon wreckage. The first article that explains this is

    http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/17/4913304-the-art-of-mass-deception-part-1-ballistic-analysis-of-dwh-riser-wreck

    Basically, the main DWH wreck is either too far (1000ft if the riser is broken) or too near (if the riser is intact ie approx 4,000 – 5000ft) from well A. For the riser wreck to be standing 1500ft above the seafloor, it could have only occurred as analysed in the CSI forensic of the DWH wreckage, see diagrams in

    http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/14/4884549-dwh-blowout-csi-why-it-could-not-have-happened-as-reported-by-bp-

    The first few ROV videos in May also showed the gas/oil gushing from a broken pipe in a seabed crater, which matched the coastguard log of 714 ft NW of Well A. My forensic analysis estimated 720ft. BP accidentally exposed the truth when they lied that burning DWH had drifted. DWH could not have drifted in calm weather and because there was no slack in the steel riser. The accurate distance of 714 ft could have only been calculated using coordinates obtained from the ROV. But the coordinates were measured close to BOP at seabed not at the burning DWH on the sea surface. So BP was caught lying – http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/15/5116468-bp-caught-lying-while-deepwater-horizon-burns-part-5-aomd.

    The broken pipe dips into the ground towards the north with the open gushing end facing south. So oil was flowing from north to south. If there is no riser connection from Well A, 714ft further south, how could the gushing oil have come from the BOP at Well A? This is the most important discrepancy in BP’s official story.

    With these 4 main points, the whole picture becomes clearer. More conclusive evidences are provided by the 2nd underwater explosion, logs, MMS emails & application to spud etc in http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/12/5096273-conclusive-evidence-well-a-is-not-the-well-that-blew-up-on-20-april-part-3-aomd

    Working backwards, it makes sense since Well A could not continue after the drilling rods were stuck by the formation cave-in at 4000-5000ft open bore. Then BP moved to Well B which again encountered problems and a near-blowout after drilling down to 13,100 ft. It had to stop and plugged the well 750 ft above the open bottom. To side track wide enough to avoid the problem zone, the well would miss the oil target. If the well was not sidetrack wide enough it would still have the same problem.

    Thus, BP had to drill from a 3rd well location. There are some more evidences but these are the main points.

    This 3rd well was not reported, and no permit applied for it. So it is not authorised.

    BP tried to apply for it a few days before the blowout occured on 20 April 2010. But it was too late. In any case the blowout was so severe, there was no hope of sealing the well with a broken well head. So since Well A was leaking gas and oil (it was not properly plugged due to the stuck drilling rods) BP used well A to fool the world that it was the leaking well and pretend to “kill it”. Well A was only 5000 ft. So they could kill it much earlier like in May. But they cannot pretend to kill well A in May when the 3rd well was still openly gushing oil out. The relief well C was not ready to kill it yet from the bottom. So BP had to pretend and wait until the Relief Well C can reach the bottom of the 3rd well.

    If Well A was killed in May, and the sea still filled with oil, BP’s Mass Deception would be exposed. IT is simple logic.

    The main cause of the blowout was the gas-saturated weak sub-formation (GWSF) zone which did not allow the well to be properly cemented and sealed. That is why I am showing all the ROV evidences which confirmed there were massive losses of drilling mud and cement which resurfaced through the faults up to the seabed. The well-cementing had not effectively sealed the well annulus with the formation, allowing the drilling fluid (drilling mud, gas and some oil) to freely flow outside the well.

    When the Equivalent Circulation Density (ECD) was lowered (replacing drilling mud with salt water) gas from the GWSF zone forced back into the well through the leaks and caused the blowout. But the initial blowout was not that strong – a lot of gas to cause the fire but the well head, BOP and riser were still intact. 2 days later, the bottom cement plug kaputt and this time the oil forced out from the reservoir like a “hydraulic piston”. This toppled and broke the well head, jammed up the drilling rods and toppled the BOP. The steel riser of course broke off (as shown in my CSI illustration) into 2 parts to form the odd twisted, standing riser wreck.

    This interpretation fits everything so perfectly, it cannot be wrong. Maybe some 10-20% details still missing but 80-90% right. BP’s official version is very inconsistent and does not make any sense at all. That is why I do this analysis to prove that BP is lying and covering up the magnitude of the disaster.

  2. Pingback: Methane gas and oil seepage a fact of life wherever undersea drilling is conducted « thefloridianguy.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s