Member Info for adoubleuk

(Cont) It all depends on what sort of deal or deals are eventually struck. But I do think that if an 'EPS' is done on Linwick, it'll be with another vessel. Though before some longstanding contributors here jump on be for being a hypocrite and joining the ranks of those who see the entire Rona Ridge looking like a duckpondful of FPSO's, I have a strong feeling that if the Linwick / Lancaster 'parallel' is established, no 'quick an' dirty' EPS will be done, but instead straight to FFD. Though I might be wrong. I'm not the guy holding the purse-strings of a major oil company. Maybe they'll do a 'Lancaster-style small-start' on Linwick as well, just to have another cash-cow to pay the engineers' wages! But I don't believe it'll involve the Aoka Mizu. (PS. Off-Topic for the 'regulars' here. Yes, I'm home early from the casino! But sometimes it's best to take the money and run. And it means I can have the TV on and watch the LeMans 24 Hours while replying to johnpwh's interesting post.)

johnpwh, " wonder if anyone could help with a few basic questions." Often one's tempted to rudely post 'DYOR' on seeing that query, but as SiPP has said, you appear to have done the real basic stuff already. Plus also, as things progress, there is more to absorb, so what may seem 'basic' for people who've been here a while (and have probably got it committed to memory) might be quite complicated for newcomers. I'd like to add to what the others have written, but please understand that it's personal opinion only, with which others may disagree. JayKay has answered your first question regarding overall 'ownership' of the EPS. "When is further drilling due on Halifax, both to evaluate DST and to provide conclusive proof that Lancaster/ Halifax is a single accumulation? When will Warwick be drilled, similarly its continuity with Lincoln hopefully established?" We don't know. But we do know it will happen sometime. The company has two options on the rig for end of Q1 2019. Maybe a couple of those projects are what the options (if exercised) will be targetted at, but to my (personal) recollection the company hasn'tgiven confirmation of this. "And is Whirlwind likely to be held 'in reserve' until L/H, L/W are better understood? " That's not a 'basic' question at all! My personal opinion is that yes, Whirlwind will be left as it is for quite a long while. It's a 'discovery' and has been proved-up through DST testing, but it's not on the crest of the Rona Ridge (unlike the others), deeper water, and the oil is not the same. It's 'on the books', and certainly shouldn't be considered an 'ugly duckling', just a bit different. The well has been left 'suspended for eventual re-entry', but I think it will be a while until that happens. " Is the EPS likely to be transferred then to, say, Lincoln?" Personally I think not, though others may disagree! I (opinion only, remember), think it will remain as it is, as a 'cash-cow', maybe with a couple more wells tied in. Because FFD will take time and a whole lot of money to even begin physically seeing the light of day. It must be recalled that 'Linwick' is considered to be essentially identical to Lancaster. This can be conclusively proved (or worst-case disproved) through rig-based DST's and comparing the two. Plus once Halifax has been re-entered and tested, there will be a lot of focus on proving (or again disproving) the 'Lanfax connection'. During which time, the FPSO will be getting older, but still chugging along, providing a nice cashflow to cover such stuff. So why shut it down, most likely take it somewhere for refurb again, all of which COSTS money?

JayKay1, " If you don't mind me asking, what's your take on the apportionment of blame between BP and the other players in the mix?" That's getting onto dangerous ground, because 'justice' has spoken (and acted) on the matter, and speaking out against City Hall is not always a good idea. Also, I'm not a great fan of 'blame culture' in a context like the Macondo disaster. It's not something clear-cut like when a man shoots his neighbour because he doesn't like his dog barking in the morning, or something like that. Instead of just shooting the dog. Furthermore, 'justice' in this instance was very politically-charged, administerd by people who knew little of the subject matter, based on 'evidence' acquired during investigations and inquiries performed by people who themselves knew little or nothing about the subject until the event occured. So with those caveats, all I'd like to offer as a purely personal opinion is that certain corporate 'defendants' got off lightly as compared to BP. And the US government itself was never actually put in the box as such, though was dam fast in devolving MMS into two separate entities which thus couldn't be held accountable for anything. One thing which would be interesting might be how much money was spent in lawyer's fees over the last eight years, by all parties? That must run into billions, as well!

JayKay1, " based on some of this evenings chat.... but did the film (which I recently watched) have any relation with the reality of the (very tragic in terms of loss of life) happenings?... I recollect you mentioned you watched it at some point" You can bet your boots I did! I live in France, but the town I live in has a big cinema (part of a national chain) which has one- time-only previews of movies prior to general release. So I pre-booked myself a seat. It was the same week as a prerelease showing of the movie of the Rolling Stones live in Cuba, so I 'went to the flicks' twice in a week! The Rolling Stones preview was packed out. The Macondo movie had only a couple of dozen viewers. Myself included, with a notepad on my knee. I knew the movie was in the making before shooting even started. And knew that one 'technical advisor' to it was the onboard Maintenance Supervisor of the DWH, a survivor of the event and one of the few prepared to openly speak about it. And he'd spoken on the phone (and once met with) the author of the book I've mentioned. So of course I was interested! My notepad rapidly filled up with things which were technically very wrong. Both technically regarding the well itself, but also regarding the way an offshore oilrig is run. Even when it's a 'happy rig', which the DWH obviously was. But 'happy rig' or no, the evident friction between the TO people and BP people seemed based in fact, though (for the sake of the movie) over-dramatised. Some' technical' elements were pure Hollywood science-fiction: bubbles of gas coming from the seabed, for instance: just not true. The diagram of the 'cement job' on a whiteboard? Whoops, guys, wrong part of the well. But the thing is, their 'technical advisor' was involved in keeping the rig running: his actual knowledge of what happened below the seabed exceedingly limited. But his 'advice' regarding the rig itself? Spot on. Beneath a nicely-painted appearance it was being kept running on a wing and a prayer, leading to the engineering staff leading very stressed lives. Technically as well, the tannoy announcements about how a pressure-test was progressing, and rotating the rig on its axis prior to that are pure science-fiction as well. Equally footage of the 'BOP' operating. Not a BOP. More like some imaginary thing from Dr Who. The 'set' was very realistic, though. I stopped taking notes 'after the first explosion', because it was flames, fear, and mayhem. And I've thankfully never experienced anything like that. So essentially, to learn anything technical about the Macondo blowout, the film is worthless. But for backgound to some of the 'tensions', maybe it got somewhere. I found the ending rather moving, though. Because although it sounds callous, the eleven dead just wasn't (still isn't, really) part of the equation for me. It can be dangerous work, especially when you get it wrong.

SG2 Oh yes, another thing about BOP's (from your earlier post). " I was referring to the 'last-ditch' ('shear' i think the industry refers to them as) type, where an as close as possible to 100% guarantee is required that the system will close the pipe/completion." Yes, the BSR's are supposed to be a 'last-ditch' failsafe resort in case of dire emergency. But that's not their only purpose. They are used in non-emergency (ie planned-for) ways as well. The bottom technical line is (and this applies to anything, be it a subsea BOP, your car's ABS, an aircraft's autopilot, the computers managing a bank's accouns records, or the fusebox in your house, "When a failsafe system fails, it will axiomatically fail to an unsafe status being created."

JayKay1 "Now now gents, I'm sure I distinctly remember 'The Rev' (amen) stating that the sweepstake would close on the day the AM set sail from Dubai, and as a result have deliberately kept my powder dry for many months, playing by the rules as I saw them!" Hmm. Very clever! However I've read these recent posts, and agree that the good Rev who set the rules when he created the sweepstake ignores all pressure from some here who'd like to move the goalposts. And also, it's 'one date per person' (oh, good old monogamy!) plus 'no changing dates' (idem), so anyone joining in will be obliged to find an available remaining gap (no comment, for the sake of good taste). I see nothing wrong in waiting 'til the AM sails as a cutoff point, anyway. Timing from that date to announcement of FoiL TO THE DAY will still be almost impossible. Just ballpark. I suspect that once the Aoka Mizo gets to the Bay of Biscay on the way north, she'll be the most-watched vessel in European waters since the Bismark! And this BB will have more 'shipwatchers' than the Americas Cup.

Dicky H, " I wonder would you (or indeed anybody else) be good enough to recommend a good all round book on the subject of the Macondo disaster and what happened?" Yes. 'Deepwater Horizon. (A Systems Analysis of the Macondo Disaster)' Auth Earl Boebert & James Blossom. Pub 2016, Harvard University Press. Available via Amazon. I have to admit to bias, because I was part of the (unpaid) 'research team' who assisted the authors in putting the work together. Unpaid because we all wanted to find out the truth as best we could. So tens of thousands of manhours went into it. " Something which is understandable by your average investor." Yes. This was one of the goals. So (for instance) containing explanations of what a BOP is and exactly and in detail how it works, so the reader then understands the meaning of the failures in that bit of equipment. Just one example. I personally have a number of 'Macondo books' on my shelves, but that one is still head and shoulders the best of the lot, and I'm proud to have participated in its creation. The 'research team' still exists and remains in constant communication, fine-tuning things even further. The book's 'final script' went to the publisher early 2016, and although none of it is in any way 'out of date', since then and now we've discovered yet more. But that will most likely be published in specialised journals and be included in the author's assorted lectures on the subject here and there, rather in a second edition.

Wellwell, "I thought you were the author and the publisher was deliberately hiking the price to save us the pain ;-)" Glad you put the ;-) after that! No, and I won't even be buying a copy, because it's science which (in depth) will be way over my head. But I've read a quantity of the research post-Macondo related to the off-centre pipe in the BOP, so know the stuff in generalised terms only.

wellwell, Using my phone, so can't insert quote. But regarding your post about the cost of that book I mentioned. Utter rubbish, and knee-jerk cynical nonsense. Technical / scientific oilfield books are never cheap, and due to its very specialised nature I doubt that one would sell more than a couple of hundred copies even if priced at 5 bucks. Also the subject matter has nothing directly to do with safety.

Wellwell, Three further comments. And believe me, I appreciate your responses, because it make s me glad to know that at least someone is interested in this esoteric stuff. 1 "What plug and why would they leave a plug in?" The plug which must have been left in a landing-nipple in the tailpipe below the production packer as part of TA. I'm making an assumption. A circulating valve of the sliding-sleeve type (maybe wireline actioned) below the ESP's. With the 'Y bypass' this can be accessed below the ESP's, whereas in an old 'classic' setup it would be above the ESP. However it's not a big assumption, because an SSV is essentially a requirement for future workover, even in ten years' time. With a plug in the tailpipe, the well and ESP's can be 'tested' closed-circuit, without being open to the payzone, and thus without need of a test-spread nor flaring. So, following on from that, don't retrieve the plug until you're 'ready to go'. 2 It's quite possible that they may want to run coil-conveyed production-logging tools into the OH anyway during startup, though that's just a new off-the cuff idea of mine and not terribly important. 3 "I hadn’t read your reasoning. Whilst it may make sense, it doesn’t fly commercially when needing an intervention vessel (not cheap day rate) which would be at the mercy of the seas, and adding risk of a delay to FOIL." I have seen utterly no evidence of operational cost-cutting for the sake of speed as regards Hurricane. Nor fear of the high seas. Heck, they left the Spitsbergen bobbing around doing nowt for about three weeks 2016-17 between Lincoln and Halifax, didn't they? Also, why might a few days pulling a plug and maybe running downhole instruments 'delay FoiL'? The target remains H1 2019, remember.

SG2, "Somehow i suspect you're not on AS's 'free-beers' list any more, AK." I clicked the 'recommend' button for that remark! Though somehow I'm not sure I've ever been on that list, if one exists! But in my defense, I've never criticised the man for his handling of raising finance for the company, nor calling the shipwatchers 'lunatics', and in some ways I understand his peevishness that we beat the RNS's to operational news, sometimes. Can I have a free whisky instead please, AS?

SG2, " A pyromech bop element would almost certainly have prevented the Macondo deaths and spill." That is an exceedingly strong statement, and not one I would agree with. Macondo and the events and systems failures that led to it becoming a full-blown disaster cannot be simplified down to any single 'root cause'. And for that reason there is no single cure for that nor anything which can guarantee that a similar event may not recur. However, there are mitigations which can be put in place. It's a bit like Humpty Dumpty's unfortunate (and shattering) demise. OK, all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put him back together again. (Macondo happened: no time-machines to reverse that.) But one can ask questions and learn lessons. Would it have helped if Humpty was wearing a hardhat or other PPE? How about a harness attached to a fall-arresting device? And anyway, what was the egg doing on the wall, anyway? How did he get up there? Was he even competent to sit there? Etc... The BOP on Macondo failed in a dire emergency situation for a number of reasons,some mechanical, some due to misunderstanding of the situation itself, some 'administrative'. Books have been written about the event itself, but a complete book ((or books) could be devoted to just the BOP. There was one design fault identified, and which had existed for years. But nobody had noticed it before, or perhaps not in circumstances which led to such a disaster. The pipe in the hole was off-centre when the BSR's were finally operated, and off-centre to an extent that you could have used an atom-bomb to power the rams and the pipe still wouldn't have sheared. This was due to two interlinked phenomena known as Helical and Euler buckling. It has been the subject of intense research since 2010, but also BSR ram design has been modified since. In fact, a colleague recently sent me (and a certain 'team') the following link: "An excellent reference, now connecting riser mechanics with drill pipe buckling behaviors. www.pennwellbooks.com/shop-petroleum-industry/new-products/fundamentals-of-marine-riser-mechanics-2nd-ed/" But I warn you, other than being intensely technical, the book costs $140.

"To do what though?" To retrieve a plug.

Wellwell, "I don’t understand what you think could be achieved one the FPSO is hooked up yet prior to FOIL that the PBLJ can’t do with or without coil when on location?" It all hinges on the other recent topic regarding the ESP's. IF the PBLJ does a full cleanup while on location (which will involve flaring) then no, my idea of an intervention vessel goes out of the window. But if only a 'partial cleanup' and 'completion test' is performed, (which I believe is possible and ties in with post-AGM info), that strongly implies that there will be a wireline or coil-set plug will remain in the tailpipe below the production packer, and that will have to be retrieved prior to the wells actually going online with oil production. And to do that will require an intervention vessel. It's not ROV work. I'm just trying to reconcile AGM info, new technical info, and standard industry risk management. And reckon I've found something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, so I think it's a duck. A full technical explanation would require a PM. This ain't the place.

IJWT, "This will be the kind of ship watching that AS loves so!" Yes, just after posting, that occured to me as well! IF I am correct in my prediction (Wellwell already disagrees, but that's his prerogative) the appearance of a vessel such as I've described over the wells might possibly preceed a FoiL RNS by only a matter of a few days. And that's what makes AS annoyed. In some ways I can quite understand his position, but the shipwatchers aren't doing anything illegal or ipso facto wrong.

Wellwell, "I’ll happily argue against that happening AK." OK. But let's wait and see. It's a few months hence.

I just wrote " I do suspect it'll be somewhere in the build-up before angle gets to 50 degrees or so, to enable wireline access to the ESP bypass junction without having to resort to coil." And this naturally brings a further thought to mind. Looking a few months ahead, a prediction, after the FPSO is in place. Something for the shipwatchers. I think it exceedingly likely that we'll see a 'well intervention vessel' turn up in the field. Something along the lines of the Beucentaur (already used by the company), Skandi Constructor, or similar. When (and I believe not 'if') that happens, we'll know Foil is imminent. There may quite possibly be a separate DSCC / OGA permit issued for it.

Wellwell, "You can be pretty sure the Packer is adjacent to the cap rock / seal on the vertical section I’d say AK?" No, I can't. Because the kickoff from vertical is waay above the 'caprock'! But I do suspect it'll be somewhere in the build-up before angle gets to 50 degrees or so, to enable wireline access to the ESP bypass junction without having to resort to coil.

dspp, (Belated welcome to this BB by the way!) "Some of you were asking if anyone here has ever run ESPs. Many years ago I have run (in both senses, installed and operated) ESPs, and also done preliminary/conceptual completion design work using ESPs. However we don't have a completion diagram that I have seen, or a list of the actual kit in these wells so are we not in guesswork territory ? " Forgive me saying so, but once again there's a slight misunderstanding. This recent discussion about ESP's was instigated by myself. And I've personally been involved in the running (same sense as you) scores of the things in the past. However a recent RNS referred to 'dual pod' ESP's, and I'd never heard of them, so did some research on Schlumberger's website. And in doing so, realised that their inclusion (or rather the inclusion of the associated 'Y junction' could reconcile what has seemed to me to be a paradox, that being, how to test the completion (including the ESP's) without performing a full well cleanup using the rig? Which wwould involve flaring, of course. Because information emerging from the AGM indicates that cleanup will only be done once the FPSO is tied in. I reckon I've now figured out how this can be done, but of course explaining it would be very technical, and probably not of interest to (nor understood by) 95% of posters here. Nevertheless I was trying to find out if anyone here has had experience with this particular piece of kit, and whether they might be interested in further discussion of the subject. But that 'trawl' has come up empty. You're correct, other than just a few isolated bits of info, we know very little about the completion architecture, let alone have a diagram. The company is extremely tight-lipped about stuff like that, but that's not surprising. But one gets a 'rough idea' from these few snippets For instance we know that the wells were TA'd with a permanent production packer installed. I, for one, would love to know at what depth, just to build up a mental image of the final architecture. Not 'guesswork', exactly, more like putting together a jigsaw without knowing what the final picture's supposed to look like. But it's purely to satisfy my own technical curiousity, won't affect any outcomes, and that stuff's of very minority interest anyway!

Biffadog, As usual at this part of the week, I'm playing catch-up ad an odd hout of the day. (Or night, depending how you look at things. The Dawn Chorus has just started, which means I ought to go to bed soon. And on the subject of tweets...) ""Tweets from Rhomboid1 saying that CA is a forced seller" Does anyone know who 'Rhomboid1' might be? Instinct tells me that he/she/it must have some clout in the financial world to provoke the defensive (and slightly ambiguous) reply from RB.