[ RadSafe ] A modest proposal

Tue Jul 6 19:02:42 CDT 2010

Hmmmmm>

I accede to Doug's wisdom! 

Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Aitken [mailto:jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 16:57
To: 'Dan W McCarn'; radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] A modest proposal

Hmmmmm>

I tried to resist responding, but have to give my opinion on this:

I think the final technical report will give a number  of clear reasons for
the loss of control on this particular incident (and please don't get bent
out of shape by my characterizing this as an incident......). so I am not
going to give my opinion on the causes, many of which have been tossed
around by the media....

As for Dan's proposal that "a relief well should be drilled in parallel to
the production well", I don't think this is a viable solution. If a well is
being drilled "in parallel (I presume you mean in real time), it will run
the risk of loss of control just like the primary borehole, and you may end
up with double the trouble.

During the drilling phase, modern technology has the ability to ascertain a
lot of information regarding the formations being penetrated, in virtually
real time with instrumentation in the drill string, just above the bit. And
these measurements include not only measurements that are used to derive
formation lithology, porosity and fluid content but also direct formation
pressure measurements. Provided the operating company uses all these
technologies correctly, it should be possible to drill a well successfully.
It is always a balancing act of mud weight against formation pressure: too
much mud weight, you risk overcoming the formation pressure and losing
drilling fluid. Too little and the formation will kick. And obviously, you
must run casings at regular intervals such that the mud weight is correct
over the range of formation pressures in the open hole section (not too
heavy to break the lower pressure formations, or too light such that the
formation will kick. 

Even if things go wrong, there "should be" sufficient barriers to permit
closing in the well (the BOP stack) and allow for kill fluids to be injected
to gain control again. I therefore opine that doubling the risk (and the
cost!) by drilling two parallel wells is not a viable or reasonable
solution: proper well design/engineering, proper use of the best drilling
technology and strict adherence to safety procedures is the way to go.

It should be noted that the BP well had already been drilled to its
objective and control was lost in the temporary abandonment phase, not the
drilling phase. The reasons why they went wrong appear to be multiple, but I
certainly am not going to speculate on any of them.....

Drilling a relief well is always an "after the fact" endeavor. And it will
invariably be drilled from a reasonable distance (for both safety and
technical reasons).  It is not a sure cure, due to the problem of "threading
the needle" or steering the relief well to its intended target. The
advantage of the "after the fact" drilling is that the formations being
penetrated are already known, so well control should not be a problem. The
biggest challenge comes when the relief well hits its target, as there is
always the potential for loss of control when it is immediately exposed to
the high pressure environment of the "blowing" well. Thus the relief well
runs the danger of either taking an large "kick" itself or being unable to
pump enough heavy fluid to kill the blowing well. Which explains why two
relief wells are being drilled in this case - double the potential for
success.....

Sorry for going way off topic on this list, and we probably ought to kill
this thread, as it has strayed well off the "radsafe" theme. And I will
close by giving my opinion of the "nuclear" option: not no, but PLEASE no.
Keep nuclear endeavors to where they ought to be - power generation and
propulsion systems.

Regards
Doug
PS: personal opinions only! 

___________________________________
Doug Aitken
QHSE Advisor
D&M Operations Support
jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com
(alternate: doug.aitken at slb.com)
Phone (cell): 713-562-8585
Mail: c/o Therese Wigzell,
Schlumberger,
Drilling & Measurements HQ,
300 Schlumberger Drive, MD15,
Sugar Land, Texas 77478

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan W McCarn [mailto:hotgreenchile at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 4:27 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Cc: 'Doug Aitken'
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] A modest proposal

Dear List:

Go Doug! 

Depending on the nature of the rock, target depth, structure, complexity of
the geology, etc. a shot such as that may significantly increase
permeability of the formation with highly uncertain results. Underground
nuclear tests have in the past been use to increase permeability and have
been considered in tight gas formations.

My opinion is that a relief well stands the best chance of success and is a
targeted measure proven to work with no downside.  It also preserves the
integrity of the petroleum reservoir.

I believe future development of deep offshore oil / gas resources is
technically feasible and desirable given the state of petroleum demand. I
believe it can be made far safer with a few changes. In the future, a relief
well should be drilled in parallel to the production well.  When the
production well goes safely online, an additional relief well can be drilled
and the initial relief well can be re-directed to serve as a second
production well, and so on.

My opinion only,

Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 12:05
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] A modest proposal

Unless you have a reasonable knowledge of petroleum geology and reservoir
engineering, I would recommend that listmembers refrain from offering
positive comments on this crackpot scheme....

Regards
Doug
___________________________________
Doug Aitken
QHSE Advisor
D&M Operations Support
jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com
(alternate: doug.aitken at slb.com)
Phone (cell): 713-562-8585
Mail: c/o Therese Wigzell,
Schlumberger,
Drilling & Measurements HQ,
300 Schlumberger Drive, MD15,
Sugar Land, Texas 77478

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Geo>K0FF
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 12:10 PM
To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] A modest proposal

Well that would work and it would make 2001 nuclear explosions done on our
planet instead of just 2000

As one who has stood on the edge of the Sedan Crater with a Geiger Counter ,
I say it is a reasonable idea. Underground of course.

George Dowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
To: <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 11:59 AM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] A modest proposal

> Here is a Reuters article: Special Report: Should BP nuke its leaking 
> well?
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6611RF20100702
>
> What could possibly go wrong?
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
>
>
> =======
> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
> (Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.15370) 
> http://www.pctools.com/ =======

=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.15370)
http://www.pctools.com/ =======
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu