Oil Spill Response: If Relief Well Drilling Is Only Guaranteed Option, Why Not Make It Mandatory? [UPDATE]

My layman's read of the ongoing Top Kill/Hot Tap/Top Hat/Hat Kill/Top Tap Kill efforts is that these are mainly hoped-for quick fixes, intended to alleviate the massive flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico ahead of the digging of a relief well. A relief well -- which would be the Daniel Plainview "drink your milkshake" solution to the crisis -- seems to be the one thing to guarantee the stoppage of the spill. But the problem is one of time: while the White House reports that BP's relief well efforts are proceeding ahead of schedule, it's generally presumed that the first of two planned relief wells won't be operational until August.

Which raises an interesting question: why not make relief wells a required fail-safe to drilling? Why not make relief well construction mandatory in advance of any drilling operation? Well, I'm sure that's crazy talk! Only an insane government would require the BPs of the world to drill relief wells alongside their main wells, right?

Wait, what's that, Sarabeth Guthberg of 1115.org?

Incidentally, did you know that in Canada, when oil companies drill in the environmentally sensitive Arctic region, they are required to drill a relief well right along with the main well? Such a requirement would allow an instant reaction to disasters such as the Deepwater Horizon spill.

What the what ?

Critics say an oil blowout in the Canadian Arctic would be much worse than the current Gulf disaster, given the ice, severe weather conditions and the lack of infrastructure in one of the world's most remote regions.

In 2008, BP paid C$1.2 billion ($1.8 billion) for rights to explore three parcels in Canada's Beaufort Sea, north of the Arctic Circle.

It has yet to announce plans to drill in the region but shortly before the U.S. disaster, BP and other oil companies urged Canadian regulators to drop a requirement stipulating that companies operating in the Arctic had to drill relief wells in the same season as the primary well.

[Canadian MP Nathan] Cullen argued the companies had made this request because drilling a relief well within the required time limit would be too expensive, given the difficult Arctic conditions.

"It's not a question of cost," said [President of BP Canada Anne] Drinkwater.

"Your submission does say it's a question of cost. ... You cite money because you're concerned about money," retorted Cullen, reading from a BP document filed with the NEB, then listing recent disasters BP had been involved in.

Drinkwater -- who said BP was not rejecting the option of a relief well -- declined to answer reporters' questions following the hearing.

President Obama said today that if the current laws are not up to the task of preventing future disasters, "the laws must change." But obviously, this level of oil safety fail-safes is totally socialist, right?

UPDATE: Sarabeth sends along a couple of new clarifications:

• Canadian regulations about relief wells are not quite as simple as the Reuters story suggested. • Oil companies do not actually have to drill relief wells in advance. Rather, in order to get a drilling permit they have to satisfy the National Energy Board that they have the capability to drill a relief well the same season as the exploratory well.

She goes on to surmise that this means that this "provision probably does not have any legal teeth," and adds:

Thus, the effectiveness of the provision comes entirely from the independence and integrity with which government regulators enforce it up front, before a drilling permit is issued. We must, therefore, reluctantly conclude that such a provision probably wouldn't be very useful in the US.

Good to know. Nevertheless, if it turns out that only relief well drilling can stop this oil spill, serious consideration should be given to how the process can be expedited.

RELATED:
The Long Arm Of The Stock Market [1115]
Drilling relief wells to stop Gulf oil leak poses challenges [New Orleans Times-Picayune]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[victoria doney]

11:52 PM on 06/10/2010

do it quick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFOp1kft7

[fourtruth]

12:29 PM on 06/05/2010

The title of this piece is misleading - not up to Huffington standards. They have been working towards the wells all along, while have been trying other quicker methods.

However, yes they should have already had back ups in the first place, so this will be that lesson. They shoud make retrofitting relief wells on all existing sites mandatory (that would employ a lot of people - who could in turn buy more gas - win win, except at the profits side) and on all future sites of course.

[ThinkCreeps]

08:23 PM on 06/02/2010

Because it's very expensive, dangerous and environmentally costly. People die and are seriously hurt doing this stuff. That drilling mud stuff is not a great beauty treatment.

Let's make sure that the single-point safety equipment used works, and loses control of the mud pressure in a mile-long riser.

[Billy Jack]

07:13 PM on 06/02/2010

Makes sense. Other industries often employ redundant systems in case the main system should fail

[RTFirefli]

01:16 PM on 06/02/2010

BP did things on the cheap because we are cheap. If you believe this is the other political party's fault then you are a fool. This is all of our fault. Instead of attacking each other we should stand together. The reason we don't have more regulations and more safety devices like the other countries is because we didn't want to pay $8 a gallon for gasoline.

Ok now that I said my two cents how many Democrats out there think the Republicans are stupid? Ok now how many Republicans think the Democrats are stupid? Alright, now does anyone out there wish to make a crazy off the wall accusation? Come on everyone lets totally waste time and energy. Lets argue and fight with each other. Hey lets here it! who is evil? who is Hitlerr? who's trying to take over the world? who is a Commie? who's in bed with the oil industry? who's trying to brain wash little school children? who is stupid?

[philosopherkingtomas]

11:41 AM on 06/02/2010

why not use two condoms????

[Genep34]

10:54 AM on 06/02/2010

If we did this in this country the right, the repubs and the tea party would scream socialism.

How can anyone with a brain vote for them.

[Phrixus]

10:25 AM on 06/02/2010

"BP's net income in 2009 was $16.6 billion, or $45.4 million a day, in that time, according to separate data compiled by Bloomberg." And yet, here is a company that evidence suggests sacrificed safety and endangered the environment, industries, jobs, etc., in pursuit of more, more and more dollars by reckless cost-cutting. The solution is obvious: Following criminal and civil legal actions, force these companies to act ethically by imposing rock-solid regulation. It's obvious that today's corporations, rather they be oil, financial, or other, will not regulate themselves nor act in a socially responsible manner. They worship at one alter and one alter only, be that of Greed.

[Figerre]

09:53 AM on 06/02/2010

doesn't Canada require a relief well be done at same time as initial well, as part of their ability to drill in Canada? Sounds like a good idea for all US drilling.

[droog1]

10:31 AM on 06/02/2010

No. Canada requires that a company demonstrate that they have the capability to drill a relief well in the SAME SEASON as the original well, rather than wait an entire year. This is primarily for Arctic areas where the drilling season is pretty short.

As many people have posted, simultaneous drilling of both the main and relief wells would really just double the risk of a well control incident, and it would greatly reduce the number of wells drilled because very few deepwater drilling projects could withstand the added cost of drilling a mandatory relief well. So maybe it would have the effect some people wish for, which is to drive drilling out of US waters and into the waters of some other country.

[john frodo]

11:50 AM on 06/02/2010

Are you 100% on that, I was under a different impression, not that our theo con government would ever mislead us.

[ChristyH]

08:58 AM on 06/02/2010

AT LAST - someone is saying what I have been saying for weeks... NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THAT WE NEVER DRILL FOR OIL AGAIN - but what is VERY CLEAR is that deep water drilling IS NOT FAILSAFE. Would drilling a relief well with EVERY main well cut into Big Oil's bottom line - Of Course.... So WHAT? That would be the cost of doing buisness...

What if MMS had been effective? What if every well that was found with safety violations was SHUT DONE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL VIOLATIONS WERE CORRECTED? What if relief wells was dug along side main wells? The answer is that the DIASTER (if it would have occured) would have been capped withing a couple of weeks INSTEAD for 4-5 months...

To all of those that say GOVERNMENT IS OUR PROBLEM, please re-think! Do you REALLY want Big Oil to regulate themselves? Do you REALLY want Wall Street to regulate themselves?

A food inspector has the power to shut down a restaurant if he/she finds that a refrigerator isn't cold enough.... but we have been bribed with the idea of cheap oil..... SAD

[droog1]

10:35 AM on 06/02/2010

The cost of doing business would effectivity eliminate most if not all deepwater projects from occurring at all. If an exploration well requires a mandatory relief well be drilled, I imagine alot of those exploration wells won't be drilled at all, and companies will go drill somewhere else, like offshore Brazil or west Africa. But maybe that is what people really want anyway: no more deepwater drilling in US waters. If that is the desired result, than perhaps mandatory relief wells are the way to go.

[Genep34]

11:06 AM on 06/02/2010

first of all, just because they are drilling in the gulf of mexico does not mean the US gets the oil. It is sold on the open market. We get some royalties but not necessarily the oil - as I understand it.

[MCope]

08:35 AM on 06/02/2010

You can ask any gambler - sooner or later the odds are going to favor the bad luck run. The solution - change to green energy.

[Kevin Atlanta]

08:16 AM on 06/02/2010

There is only one reason why the United States doesn't mandate simultaneous relief well drilling and that's the Republican Cults of Jesus Inc being purchased by the Oil interests. You've had your Halliburton White House and the results are upon you now. Thanks for such great care for our nation from the Bush Regime; you really did a great job bankrupting this nation and handing over the wealth of Main Street to the Plutocrats, the Corporate Fascists and the Oligarchy.

[samidean]

11:38 AM on 06/02/2010

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. Fanned and favd

[Genep34]

01:27 PM on 06/03/2010

well said

[independent32955-2]

07:47 AM on 06/02/2010

It's ALWAYS about cost with these people.

It's quite simple...

1) Create a National Oil Company that drills ALL American areas exclusively

2) Put in place safety standards, guidelines and regulations that are non-negotiable for private companies to drill US areas

3) Do not drill these areas at all and keep pumping money to people in foreign countries who hate us for our money

Which way do you want to go America?

[droog1]

10:39 AM on 06/02/2010

I vote for number 2.

A national oil company would just be a giant money-losing venture, and American taxpayers would be unwilling to accept the capital requirements and low probabilities of success for exploration drilling.

Number 3 would simply put a lot of Americans out of work.

A fourth scenario would be to combine number 2 with a massive subsidization of alternative energy projects to reduce US consumption, thereby making it possible to achieve a metastable state with regard to our production and consumption of crude oil.

[john frodo]

11:51 AM on 06/02/2010

Go one step further, a international oil drilling treaty, all wells in all waters must be safe.

[BlackbirdHighway]

07:36 AM on 06/02/2010

Or better yet, just don't drill at all.

[pmagellan]

06:59 AM on 06/02/2010

As you said "in Canada, when oil companies drill in the environmentally sensitive Arctic region, they are required to drill a relief well right along with the main well"

I am not Canadian, and never understood the arrogant superior attitude of USAmericans over Canada. The truth is that we can learn from them not only how to do health care but exploit the Earth's resources with a bit less arrogance and cost externalities.

[droog1]

10:40 AM on 06/02/2010

No, they are only required to demonstrate the capability of drilling a relief well within the same season as the original well. This doesn't even apply to the Gulf of Mexico, where you can drill year round.

Canada has immense natural resources and a tiny population. They also have the British Queen on their money. Do you want that too?

[murphyj87]

01:25 AM on 06/04/2010

The backward, 19th century, Third World Americans could learn lots from us, but they are too arrogant to do so. Americans think they are "exceptional". Well they are. Americans are exceptionally arrogant, exceptionally narrow minded, exceptionally backward, with exceptionally poor health care, and an exceptionally poor financial and banking system just for starters..

[BillSoo]

06:09 PM on 06/07/2010

In practical terms, the same season policy requires a company to demonstrate that they can drill a well within 90 to 100 days or so.

The current estimate for capping the BP well is around 120 days. So not too much better, but still, 20 days at 15,000 barrels per day....

Anyway, the main thing in Canada is not so much the rules as the regulators. Our regulators have less (not none) political pressure on them to do favors for corporations. That's one reason why the banks are in better health. The big 5 banks in Canada are all "too big to fail" but it hasn't been a problem because they are well regulated.

Given the state of the regulators at MMS, would tougher regulations have done anything?

Empower regulators, make them immune from political influence (like tenured professors or supreme court judges) and then they might be able to make the system work.

And BTW, what's wrong with QEII on our currency? At least she is alive... :)