Thad Allen Advocates Pre-Emptive Relief Well Drilling To Mitigate Future Disasters

As authorities in the Gulf try and stem and stop the current spilling of oil, a presidential commission is beginning the process of looking into the larger benefits and shortcomings of deepwater drilling.

On Monday, Adm. Thad Allen -- the man tasked with overseeing the crisis -- offered his support for a suggestion that has been bandied about on the Hill (among other places) as a way of potentially preventing the type of large-scale disaster now unfolding. Instead of waiting for an oil company to drill a relief well should a spill occur, the commission should consider requiring that company to have the relief well drilled in advance.

"I think that would be a legitimate point to be raised and put in front of the commission as they do their work," Allen said, when asked about the preemptive safety measure during a Monday White House briefing.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs added: "I would say that would fall under the regulatory framework... in order to determine the best way to operate this and create a safe atmosphere moving forward."

The two officials would not weigh in on the merits of the proposal beyond that. But on the Hill there have been at least informal discussions about requiring oil companies to have relief wells ready to go on shorter notice should an unforeseen disaster take place with a primary well.

In the case of the current spill, the benefits of having a relief well ready in a shorter time frame seem fairly clear. In instances in which a spill cannot be capped, it is the only surefire measure of stopping the flow of oil. As it stands now, Allen has acknowledged that the damage being caused in the Gulf won't end until BP finishes drilling its relief well in August.

"The final fix is the relief well in August, and that is the right time frame," he told Fox News Sunday. "And to mitigate the risk of that, there's a second relief well being drilled in case there's a problem with the first."

Comments

[Philip Ernst]

03:52 AM on 06/16/2010

Hey Droog it would appear that drilling a relief well in advance is required in some countries. In another informative article by the Huffington Post here it is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jordan-flaherty/fears-of-cultural-extinct_b_612626.html

[fairplaystacy]

04:19 PM on 06/08/2010

sounds like a great idea...

in the same way a sprinkler system in a building can immediately begin to mitigate a fire emergency, having a relief well already in place can immediately mitigate the next disaster such as this. It's an added cost, but the oil companies are awash in cash.

The alternative appears to be a colossal ecological disaster followed by bankruptcy.

Sounds like an easy choice.

Financial disasters lives and businesses: Lehman Brothers
No reason why an oil disaster of this proportion can't take down BP.

[OkieMon]

03:16 PM on 06/08/2010

isn't this required in canada?

[droog1]

03:59 PM on 06/08/2010

No.

[taiwanjohn]

07:47 AM on 06/12/2010

This article would seem to imply otherwise:

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2981928

QUOTE: "At issue is an industry bid to change a federal rule requiring energy companies to complete a 'relief well' in the same season as they drill their working well. Some companies have been trying to persuade the board that a relief well, a safety measure, is no longer necessary because of technological advances in offshore drilling."

--jrd

[Jim Krow]

02:32 PM on 06/08/2010

He's right. Shallow water drilling is no less risky than deep water. It's not the depth of the water, it's the reservoir pressure.

[droog1]

02:59 PM on 06/08/2010

Yes. Shallow water wells can encounter VERY high pressure formations. The formation pressure has nothing whatsoever to do with the height of the water column overlying the seafloor. The geologic formation is a closed system in a subsiding basin. Sea water has a constant density of roughly 9 pounds per gallon and it doesn't vary appreciably with depth. The earth has a pressure gradient that varies hugely with depth, and I've seen reservoir pressures in very shallow water (less than 50 feet) in excess of 9000 psi.

The BP well was drilled with 14 ppg mud weight; it is not at all uncommon for shallow water wells to need mud weights well over 17-18 ppg in order to control formation pressures.

Blowouts are always a risk. They are less of a risk in areas where there is a lot of well control, and the variation of pressure with depth can be calibrated to the geology and predicted with much greater control. Shallow water areas have a much higher density of well control, and are inherently less risky because much more is known of the pressure conditions at depth.

[Lhnatow]

02:31 PM on 06/08/2010

That solution literally doubles the chances of catastrophe. A relief well is essentially just another well in the same location or zone. The problem is that they are dealing with pressures exceeding 6800 psi, which is incredibly high and is the problem. Having two wells tapped into the same zone just means you have to deal with abnormally high pressures with two wells. The only prevention that will work needs to be done is on the coast, stop the rigs there and don' let them in the water.

[droog1]

03:00 PM on 06/08/2010

As I understand it, the planned relief well will not actually penetrate the formation that the oil is coming from, but will intersect the main wellbore just above the reservoir.

[ChristyH]

10:42 AM on 06/08/2010

Fact - the sea floor is 5,000 feet deep.... the ROCK that is BETWEEN the sea floor and the oil is another 13,000 feet..... IT IS 18,000 feet BETWEEN the surface of the water (where the rig sits) and the oil...... NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THAT TWO WELLS be dug INCH FOR INCH AT THE SAME TIME.....

What we are saying is have the RELIEF WELL RIG in place... If the original well is down 18,000 feet (to oil), the RELIEF WELL should be dug down about 12,000 - 14,000 feet.... perhaps one month BEHIND the original well.... Look what happened here... The original well blew and THEN A RELIEF WELL HAD TO BE BUILD ON THE WATER, HAD TO REACH THE SEABED (the easiest part), HAS TO DRILL THROUGH 13,000 feet of rock, HAS TO CUT SIDEWAYS TO INTERSECT THE ORIGINAL WELL (not an easy task and may not occur on the first attempt)...

BP STARTED this RELIEF WELL WITHIN About a WEEK OF THE DIASTER AND AREN"T EVEN DOWN 13,000 YET.... That's why the estimates for a permanent fix is either August OR December.... No one knows what delays going through the rock will cause, no one knows how many attempts to intersect will be needed...

But imagine IF BP was within ONE MONTH of potenially cutting off the gush from the moment this diaster began....

If you are going to drill deep - drill two wells....

[droog1]

01:06 PM on 06/08/2010

Some people are suggesting simultaneous drilling. Of course it is impossible to drill inch for inch at the same time since the exact drilling rate is very difficult to control.

I understand the concept very well. And there is no doubt that requiring a relief well would reduce the risk of a long duration between a blowout of the "main" well and the killing of the blowout by the relief well.

The obvious downside of the requirement is cost. And to many people, that isn't an issue; they say it should just be the cost of drilling in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Cost is a big issue to the company drilling the well, and doubling the cost of these projects can and will cause many of the planned wells to simply be cancelled and the rigs will go drill elsewhere where the requirements are less strict. If that is appetizing to the American public and congress, then maybe it will come to pass. The probable outcome would be a rapid decline in US offshore oil production, the loss of many jobs, and higher prices at the pumps in many parts of the country.

[Lhnatow]

02:43 PM on 06/08/2010

No one here understands oil at all. Even with the relief well drilled and in place does not at all mean that they will be able to stop this. It is just another well and they will have to deplete volume from the zone to decrease pressure. This well has pressures that are far from typical, that means it might be years of producing from the relief well to decrease the well bore pressure. There is nothing any one can do to prevent this and still be drilling in the ocean. Nothing. Period. Prevention will only happen when they are not allowed in the water at all. Ever.

[droog1]

10:16 AM on 06/08/2010

First, let's dispense with the argument that Canada or European countries require predrilling or simultaneous drilling of relief wells. They don't. It just isn't true. Please, prove me wrong if you can, but I doubt anyone will be able to find a regulation in any country that requires relief wells be drilled along with every well drilled.

Second, if a relief well is predrilled, there is no way to ensure the relief well doesn't experience a blowout of its own.

The only way it would work is if 2 wells are drilled simultaneously. In deepwater, this would effectively double the cost to the operator since that would require two drilling rigs (drillships or semisubs), which is by far the largest cost factor of drilling a well in deepwater. The cost would most likely kill the projects in the Gulf of Mexico, and simply export the risk to another country that doesn't require relief wells.

[mikelartist]

12:08 PM on 06/08/2010

Some of it is true. Most of it is complicated. Canada has same season relief well drilling requirements. In highly sensitive environments they require simultaneous wells to be drilled, but that is only on the west coast. There are no relief well regulations in Canada in the east coast.

Interestingly BP tried to get around Canada same season relief well rule just this year, claiming their safety record makes it needless. How ironic. Turns out it would have been FAR cheaper for BP to drill the relief well concurrent with the main well.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/06/03-3

[droog1]

01:21 PM on 06/08/2010

In hindsight, BP's attempt to 'get around" the relief well requirement looks bad, but at the time they probably believed they didn't need one, and they were looking for ways to reduce the drilling cost, which is the largest cost of any oil development.

I don't disagree that requiring relief wells be drilled simultaneous to every well would reduce the risk of a long-term blowout. It does nothing to reduce the risk of a blowout occurring; it only shortens the time frame of oil, gas and formation water getting out into the environment where it can cause harm.

But everyone must be prepared for the fallout, most notably lost jobs, lost tax revenue, lost royalty revenue and increased oil imports.

[wonder6789]

09:16 AM on 06/08/2010

ARE YOU KIDDING ME ????!!!!

When are there going to be Nuremberg trials for these freaking criminals against the Earth?

[outnow]

09:10 AM on 06/08/2010

Have the perpetrators been arrested yet?

[Dr Juan]

07:45 AM on 06/08/2010

Good to see we have such an alert proactive genius on the scene!

He is really pumped up on his Geritol today.

[Genius]

02:37 AM on 06/08/2010

The Rachel Maddow Show discussed this issue well over a week ago, and they're just now discussing it? Once again Rachel's on the ball, not so much of the rest of the media.

[DeanOfTomatoes]

01:40 AM on 06/08/2010

Here's an idea.Cap all of the wells in the gulf.End offshore drilling.Begin the transition away from carbon based energy.

[zjin]

12:39 AM on 06/08/2010

Excellent idea. After Ixtoc back in 1979, one would have thought all nations would have recognized the difficulty of closing undersea blowouts. Having a spare well in parallel, ready to relieve the first, could save months on a spill. A second well should simply be recognized as part of the cost of undersea oil.

[droog1]

10:11 AM on 06/08/2010

The only way I see that working is to drill 2 wells simultaneously. Predrilling a relief well makes no sense because the relief well can experience a blowout just as easily as the "main" well. If 2 wells are drilled simultaneously, then either well can act as a relief well for the other in the event of a blowout. The downside to this option is, of course, cost. In deepwater, simultaneous drilling of 2 wells would require two drilling rigs (drillships or semisubmersibles) which would effectively double the project cost to the operator. This requirement would most likely end deep water drilling in US waters and send those companies into the waters of other countries that don't have such strict requirements, like Brazil or Angola or really any other country because no country requires simultaneous drilling of relief wells.

[zjin]

11:17 AM on 06/08/2010

Exactly right, I covered that, and your point is? To move forward, deepsea drilling needs a faster definitive solution, and so far the only thing that is fairly reliable in these situations is a relief well. Or a nuclear bomb, which the Russians use. If the oil industry can come up with something else less expensive or less outrageous, then fine, - but the industry actually has to bring disaster preparedness up to date given the economic stakes.

Simply bankrupting every oil company that has a deep sea blowout in US waters is apparently your solution. I've heard the cost to BP could run into the $20-$100 Billion dollar range by the time this is all over. That amount of money could have paid for plenty of backup wells.

[bascombe]

11:46 PM on 06/07/2010

the europeans require it. not a bad idea, eh? just don't let Haliburton do it.

[droog1]

09:14 AM on 06/08/2010

No they don't

[bascombe]

10:53 AM on 06/08/2010

I know the canadians do, but I'll get back to you on the euros.

http://deadlinelive.info/2010/05/24/canadian-gov-requires-a-relief-well-be-drilled-simotaniously-when-drilling-a-offshore-oil-well/

[bascombe]

01:57 PM on 06/08/2010

I couldn't find any on europe.

[kingbuzz]

09:49 PM on 06/07/2010

FUTURE DISASTERS? WE HAVE NO FUTURE!!!!!!!!