About the SA Blog Network



Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

BP’s relief well moment of truth on collision course with Gulf storm season

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

BP, Deepwater, oilAs the first of the Deepwater relief wells sinks to within a few hundred meters of intersecting the leaking Macondo oil well deep below the Gulf of Mexico’s seafloor, BP’s moment of truth is coming. Unfortunately, so is tropical storm Alex and its 95 kilometer-per-hour winds. The National Weather Service’s National Hurricane Center forecasts that Alex could become a hurricane on Tuesday, possibly delaying the drilling of relief wells generally seen as the best and last hope to plug the 9.5 million liters of crude gushing into the Gulf daily.

The first relief well, which BP started drilling on May 2, is about 5,100 meters below the Gulf’s surface and has another 275 meters to go before it can be lined up to intersect the main Macondo well. As the relief well has gotten closer to the Macondo well, BP has twice removed the drill bit and replaced it with a wire line tool that sends current into the surrounding rock formation. That ranging signal is returned by the original well’s casing, allowing workers to pinpoint Macondo’s exact location. The process of replacing the drill bit with the wire line tool can take up to two days, a delay BP is willing to endure to improve the accuracy of their drilling.

When BP gets close enough, it will drill right into the Macondo well and pump heavy drilling mud down the relief well with the help of four pumps, each with 2,200-horsepower engines. Kent Wells, BP’s senior vice president of exploration and development, says that the relief wells should require less pressure to install the drilling mud than the earlier failed attempt to force mud from ships on the Gulf’s surface straight down into the Macondo well 1,500 meters below (a procedure known as a "top kill"). In a video posted to BP’s Web site describing the relief well work, Wells says he has a "tremendous confidence" in his company’s relief well operation. By injecting the drilling mud at an angle near the bottom of the well, the mud will meet less resistance, Wells says of the "bottom kill" procedure. Both wells are still estimated to take about three months to complete, which means neither would be ready before the beginning of August.

Alex is expected to make landfall between Brownsville, Texas, and Ciudad Madero in Mexico at mid-week. This would spare BP’s oil collection south of Louisiana from a direct hit but might still disrupt these efforts as well as relief well drilling. BP is planning to install a floating riser system that would allow more rapid disconnection and reconnection of its oil-collection system. The company is also developing plans for additional leak containment capacity and flexibility for mid-July, including a second floating riser system and additional capacity through a new cap on the Macondo well’s broken blowout preventer.

Image of the Transocean semi-submersible rig Development Driller III (drilling the first relief well) courtesy of BP p.l.c.

Tags: , ,

Rights & Permissions

Comments 5 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. jtdwyer 8:47 pm 06/28/2010

    I just wonder, is this just another well proven method at lesser depths, never before tried at 5,000 feet? Well proven methods are often unsuccessful when applied to new conditions.

    Link to this
  2. 2. jimmywat 10:50 pm 06/28/2010

    I applaud the author for using one of the higher estimates of the oil flow. I must chastise him for presenting it as fact. This is a scientific mag. Who says, who disagrees, and what is the range of the spill. Same thinking for the rest of the article. It took the mexico drillers 5 times to hit – but that was back in ’79 – the technology has improved.
    What they never answered about the pressure is why they stopped with the top kill. They were supposed to take 48 hours and they stopped after 12 or less. Why? They claim it was the pressure needed to stop the flow was greater than the pressure that would blow the thing apart. Why the radical change in timing? Pardon me if I don’t trust BP. None of their predictions have come true. None of their estimates have been correct.

    Link to this
  3. 3. scientific earthling 1:04 am 06/30/2010


    I can assure you it is the only known way to stop what is happening in the gulf.

    We put up with a similar problem in the Timor sea in 2009, they did not try any other solution, since they knew of no other solution. It took months, but it worked or so they tell us.

    PS: Luckily for us, our oil was more volatile and a large proportion evaporated into our global atmosphere.

    Link to this
  4. 4. americanscientist 11:19 am 06/30/2010

    "The process of replacing the drill bit with the wire line tool can take up to two days, a delay BP is willing to endure to improve the accuracy of their drilling."

    While I am no fan of deep water drilling, I must inform everyone that BP, or ANY company, are not "…enduring a delay to improve accuracy." The time necessary to perform wire line trips are built in to the drilling ;program from the beginning. Drilling ahead blindly is not the norm, regardless one’s opinions of the industry.

    In answer to jtdwyer’s question regarding drilling relief wells in 5000′ of water: It is important to know that drilling a relief well is, with the exception of aiming at a specifically small target, is identical in all respects to drilling ANY well in 5000′ of water.

    The technology to drill in waters of this depth is not the question but rather controlling a blowout in this, and greater depth of water.

    Link to this
  5. 5. gingersanders2 1:18 pm 07/26/2012

    Thanks for the post. I don’t really have a big opinion on the whole bp situation, I just know that it would be a lot less harmful to be doing water well drilling.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article