Louisiana deep oil drilling disaster

[Ed Jewett]

A Big Question

Can anyone help me? -- As I have watched all the stories about the Gulf, it's pretty clear that there are at least two and now likely three large plumes coming from the seabed. Simmons and others place one miles away from the well head and the new one is described as being miles in the opposite direction. What I have not seen explained is how these leaks/blowouts are mechanically connected to the Deepwater Horizon event. The rig was in a mile of water. So if the riser fell over, these other leaks should be no more than a mile away. That's how long the riser pipe was. I just can't figure that out. Anybody? How could these blowouts be miles away then and still be mechanically caused as a result of the explosion?

MCR
Posted by Jenna Orkin at 6:31 PM

http://mikeruppert.blogspot.com/2010/05/...stion.html

Comments linked to the above:

Blogger Dave Z said...

It sounds like they are caused by chemical dispersants (generalized from comments on theoildrum.com) and are drifting slowly with currents.

7:13 PM


Blogger Phil said...

MCR;

Not sure if related; i read a commentary between a rig worker who was on the rig during the explosion. I 'll be damned if i can find it now, but will keep looking. Anyhow, while i am not technically savy on oil drilling, i get the jist of what was being said. He correctly identified the gas plume that blew the top off the hole. But; he stated there was supposed to be a "valve" on the top of the hole or holes once drilled. They were mandatory in the past, but recently, lobbyists were successful in lifting that. This person stated that this was why the top blew off the drilled hole. Apparently, this valve was 1/2 million dollars to install on the cap of the drill holes in any underwater high pressure sites ??

I just thought of this, i seen this commentary about 5 days after the event broke the news, but cant locate it... i will keep looking if it is even related.

I am wondering if this has anything to do with what you are asking?

J

7:14 PM


Blogger "e Brutto" said...

Yes, it has me wondering.
So I have been digging.
Posted this on theoildrum:
'
'As per the plan, the rig was supposed to be drilling the second of the two wells planned. But it faced oil spills over two fronts: one at the well head and another at the surface offshore. The wells are located in lease G-32306 over the prospect.'
http://www.offshore-technology.com/proje...oprospect/

~ 'Well A last year and Well B this year are part of the plan.'
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/29/29977.pdf

Well A was abandoned due to a hurricane, was it completed / sealed properly.

Leaks always get worse...
Perhaps no one will notice if BP keeps us watching the small leak, LOL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4whiKQgnp4w


http://www.zerohedge.com/article/matt-simm...p-kill-just-dis

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com....html''

I came across some scuttle buck that BP had been granted some leeway in emissions related to previous drilling, well A perhaps.

Another explanation could be that Mr S has lost focus momentarily, I detected a bit of off baseness in another statement a while back.

7:24 PM


Blogger PseudoPhil said...

Mr. Ruppert -

If the well casing was cracked by the blowout, or has been eroded by the flow of material, it could be breached somewhere between the top of rock layer overlaying the oil and the surface of the mud at the bottom of the gulf. If that were the case, the oil could be escaping up through several miles of mud before reaching the water. This could conceivably cause a leak to appear miles away from the bore itself.

7:32 PM


Blogger tray said...

Simmons is wrong.

7:33 PM


Blogger Saoirsí said...

Some possibilities:

1. Simmons is primarily referring to the physical presence of a separate, larger plume, and inferring from that that they are in the wrong place, regardless of how it got there;

2. In the excitement of a live interview he has misspoken, or is not expressing himself clearly, or forgot a detail/confused a hypothesis, as to how that can be;

3. This other plume is the result of a pressure fissure or fracture opening up in the salt canopy/mud layers through which they were drilling (not "hard rock" as such);
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/prominent...#comment-378469

4. This is the result of an earlier well head reopening? such as one that they abandoned before after equipment fell into it it and they had to sever the line?
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/prominent...#comment-377966
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/...in6490197.shtml

I frankly have no idea. Also found that interview confusing.

7:43 PM


Blogger Jenna Orkin said...

an email came in from someone who didn't give a 'handle":

My impression from the multiple plumes was...

From Matt Simmons ....the other 5-6 mi away leak was a PREVIOUS "expletive deleted"ed up drill job by BP in the same field, they lost some drill tools, tried to rush the job, cost 25 million in the "expletive deleted"up, moved over 5-6 miles, drillled again

But maybe they did not do a good job of sealing that old bore hole/well off., and hey PRESSURE

Headed to NOLA manana to prevent people from killimng themselves with aircraft trying to save pelicans...what a job...

All of the above may be old news..always a day late...

no1hears

8:26 PM


Jenna Orkin said...

"Simmons thinks the bigger leak could have been caused by the destruction of the well casing when the BP oil rig exploded. Or it could be caused by a natural oil seep, although the odds of a seep of that size occurring right around the time of the Deep Horizon disaster is nearly zero."

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/201...l-leak-in-gulf/

8:50 PM