BP's Blowout on the Gulf Floor

On April 20, 2010 Transocean's Deepwater Horizon drilling platform exploded, killing eleven workers and injuring seventeen others.  A few days later the rig was gone, crumbling into the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the subsequent fires and structural damage.  Since that time news media and political pundits have been blaming British Petroleum (BP) for the ensuing ecological disaster, which has since become America's largest oil spill in history.  BP operated the Deepwater Horizon rig, making it the company primarily responsible for the terrible accident.

 

Since the explosion, news media outlets and political blogs alike have been looking for someone to blame for the growing ecological disaster as well.  On April 30, 2010 New York times reporters Campbell Robertson and Eric Lipton criticized both BP and the U.S. federal government for its sluggish response to protecting the gulf shoreline from the effects of the massive amounts of thick, unrefined crude oil.  As the crisis continued to drag on, pressure began to mount on President Obama to take dramatic action.  On May 27, President Obama issued a six-month moratorium on deep water drilling, suggesting that this kind of disaster could potentially happen again.

 

Certainly, the ecological and economic damage will take years to remedy.  However, is the hysteria over BP's role in the accident reasonable?  Is this kind of accident unprecedented?  Was it BP's "fault" that the oil well exploded the way it did?  How should we view the accident itself?  Is BP taking the right steps to stop the leak that spews thousands of gallons of crude oil into our precious gulf waters every day?  How much oil is really flowing out of the well every day?  What's hype and what is mere political posturing?  What's the truth of the matter?

 

First, I am not a "fan" of BP.  But neither am I an anti-oil activist.  I am a Louisiana native, and know first hand about both the sensitive nature of Louisiana's coastal ecology as well as the vital importance of the oil industry to the Louisiana economy.  I have numerous relatives and friends that work in the oil and fishing industries.  Like most, I want the Louisiana coastline protected, as well as the shores of Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.  I, too, am frustrated by the President's inadequate response, as well as the chaos produced by the narrow-minded, turf protective bureaucracies of the EPA, Interior Department, Homeland Security, Coast Guard etc.  Federal control and bureaucracy are killing Louisiana, and threaten to worsen the disastrous effects of the oil spill.

 

But setting the ecological and economic consequences aside for a moment, what was the cause of the accident and is BP taking the appropriate steps to stop the leak? Should we 'blame' BP for all this? Certainly, it will take time to know what caused the problem and determine whether it could have been prevented.  But after speaking to a petroleum engineering expert yesterday, I am convinced that blaming BP for the accident is probably neither helpful nor fair.  

 

It appears at this point that the accident is what industry experts call a well "blowout."  Blowouts are one of the risks of oil exploration.  They have been occurring since the very beginning of oil exploration.  In fact, my source just recently experienced a well blowout in west Texas, and stated that while no one wants a blow out, sometimes they happen.  

 

Drilling is dangerous and risky, even though the industry generally does an excellent job managing those risks most of the time.  This expert noted that prior to BP's deep water well blowout, the well was having trouble.  They were in the process of trying to "bring in the well" (release the oil) when several tests revealed problems with the well.  Supposedly, one particular test that indicated it was safe to go forward turned out to be invalid, even though this seems to have been unknown at the time.  The expert suggested that many tests are frequently performed to preserve a safe drilling site.  Under ordinary circumstances, this particular well condition may not have resulted in a blowout.  However, with deep water drilling, sometimes the physical pressures in a well do not operate in the same way that they do in shallower waters.  BP's engineers and rig workers went ahead with the process of releasing the oil, and the blowout occurred. In other words, the accident may have been preventable, but no one may be particularly to blame.  It just happened.  No amount of federal regulation will absolutely prevent this kind of event from happening in the future.  It is a natural risk of drilling.  The industry will learn from this mistake, and hopefully find ways to minimize the potential for recurrence.  But as long as there is drilling, there will be risk.

 

But there is more.  It appears that while the deep water well exploded, the well's blowout preventers seem to have malfunctioned. Drilling wells of this type have what the industry calls "blowout preventers." These devices are located at the top of the well head and are designed to stop the kind of explosion that the Deepwater Horizon rig experienced.  This particular well had four blowout preventers at the top of the well head (on the gulf floor).  If the blowout preventers had operated normally, they would have prevented the disaster.  No one knows at this point why the blowout preventer apparatus failed, but my consultant suggested that as soon as the blowout began to, something, perhaps the drill pipe itself, may have been pushed up into the preventer's opening, keeping it from closing.   This would explain why the blowout preventers didn't work.  The exact cause of the failure is unknown at this point, but it may not be a design flaw, but simply a fluke.  Still, no one knows what caused the problem at this point.  Until the problem is resolved, determining what caused the blowout is secondary. 

 

So, has BP taken the right steps to fix the problem? This is where BP probably has some blame.  All of the steps BP has taken to resolve the crisis so far have been reasoned and measured, if not as swift as we would all like.  Clearly, BP has been overly cautious.  Public frustration with the slow progress has produced unrealistic expectations with regard to a permanent solution to the constant flow of oil from the wellhead.  Yet it may be that all the public scrutiny and outrage is also the main reason BP's efforts are cautious at best. 

 

If BP's direct remedies succeed temporarily, only to build up too much pressure on the damaged wellhead, the consequences might be even more catastrophic than they are now.  At the base of the wellhead, a weak point might provide an additional way for oil to escape, perhaps much more oil.  My engineer source suggests that this may be the primary reason BP is being extremely cautious. 

 

The figure at the right is a basic diagram of a deep water wellhead.  Should BP cap the leak successfully without making certain the wellhead structure can handle the pressure, the oil could be forced outside the wellhead at its sides, releasing the oil directly from the ocean floor.  There would then be no way to stop the leak until the relief well is completed to reduce the oil pressure at the original wellhead site.  It is reasonable, therefore, for BP to take extreme care in this process.  It is difficult enough with the wellhead being a mile deep below the ocean surface without rushing BP into making an even greater error in judgment.  While public frustration is justified, let's not rush to judgment about BP's efforts to fix the problem.

 

DAVID A. ADCOCK

Post Script:  Let us not forget those who lost their lives in this accident.  Let us hasten to protect and clean up our oil saturated shores.  Forget the politics.  Forget the bureaucratic red tape.  Let everyone who wants to help, help.  Get it done.