July 20 - There were Two Drilling Sites At Macondo 252... And two Rigs.
The BP application to the MMS references two sites for exploration in the same tract, one 50 miles offshore, (Site A) and one 49 miles offshore (Site B). The bottom lease area block information on both well sites is listed in the documents as:
The BP application to the MMS references two sites for exploration in the same tract, one 50 miles offshore, (Site A) and one 49 miles offshore (Site B). The bottom lease area block information on both well sites is listed in the documents as:
WELL/A - G32306/MC/252 6943 FNL, 1036 FEL
WELL/B - G32306/MC/252 7066 FNL, 1326 FEL
The Transocean Marianas Rig was initially tasked to drill both wells, with Well A to begin 7/15/2009 for a 100 day run, and well site B to be drilled 7/15/2010. Transocean Marianas began late, however. On October 7, 2009 it began drilling on the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico. On November 9, 2009 it was damaged by Hurricane Ida and was replaced by the ill fated Deepwater Horizon which was responsible for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill when that rig exploded on April 20, 2010.
Apparently the first well was abandoned when a drilling tool became stuck in the well bore. BP reimbursed the maker of the tool for the cost and then moved to site B. But was the initial well affected in any way by the blowout?
NO Contingency for Blowout or H2S Hazard in Macondo Well Plans
Application documents for the initial exploration plan (EP) on the Macondo 252 Deepwater Horizon well apparently did not require any contingency plan in the event of a blowout, or for the presence and management of dangerous H2S. Quoting from section 2.7 of these documents: “2.7 Blowout Scenario - A scenario for a potential blowout of the well from which BP would expect to have the highest volume of liquid hydrocarbons is not required for the operations proposed in this EP.” But look at these estimates of the amount of crude that these wells might release! According to the application, the volume of oil that could be released from an uncontrolled blowout in site A was estimated to be 300,000, BPD crude oil at API Gravity of 28 Degrees, and 162,000 BPD for site B at API gravity of 33 Degrees. (API Gravity determines the lightness or heaviness of the oil, and this is on the border of “Light” or “Medium” crude oil. )
In Like Manner BP asserted that there was no hazard from H2S in the area...The same H2S that frustrated the initial containment cap operation and is now building up on the new equipment there. From the application: “3.2.1 Concentration - It is not expected that H2S will be encountered during the operations proposed in this plan. 3.2.2 Classification - Pursuant to Title 30 CFR 250.490(c), BP requests a determination that Mississippi Canyon Block 252 is located in an area where the absence of H2S has been confirmed. 3.2.3 H2S Contingency Plan - An H2S Contingency Plan prepared according to 30 CFR 250.4990(f) will not be required for the operations proposed in this plan.”
Furthermore, the risk of encountering pockets of gas was deemed to be "moderate to negligible," and BP stated that no post drilling ROV survey of the area surrounding the well for for the purpose of biological and physical observations was required.
Amazingly, section 7.1.5 of the document states: “7.1.5 Oil spill response discussion - a discussion of response to an oil spill resulting from the activities proposed in this plan is not required for this Exploration Plan”
Application documents for the initial exploration plan (EP) on the Macondo 252 Deepwater Horizon well apparently did not require any contingency plan in the event of a blowout, or for the presence and management of dangerous H2S. Quoting from section 2.7 of these documents: “2.7 Blowout Scenario - A scenario for a potential blowout of the well from which BP would expect to have the highest volume of liquid hydrocarbons is not required for the operations proposed in this EP.” But look at these estimates of the amount of crude that these wells might release! According to the application, the volume of oil that could be released from an uncontrolled blowout in site A was estimated to be 300,000, BPD crude oil at API Gravity of 28 Degrees, and 162,000 BPD for site B at API gravity of 33 Degrees. (API Gravity determines the lightness or heaviness of the oil, and this is on the border of “Light” or “Medium” crude oil. )
In Like Manner BP asserted that there was no hazard from H2S in the area...The same H2S that frustrated the initial containment cap operation and is now building up on the new equipment there. From the application: “3.2.1 Concentration - It is not expected that H2S will be encountered during the operations proposed in this plan. 3.2.2 Classification - Pursuant to Title 30 CFR 250.490(c), BP requests a determination that Mississippi Canyon Block 252 is located in an area where the absence of H2S has been confirmed. 3.2.3 H2S Contingency Plan - An H2S Contingency Plan prepared according to 30 CFR 250.4990(f) will not be required for the operations proposed in this plan.”
Furthermore, the risk of encountering pockets of gas was deemed to be "moderate to negligible," and BP stated that no post drilling ROV survey of the area surrounding the well for for the purpose of biological and physical observations was required.
Amazingly, section 7.1.5 of the document states: “7.1.5 Oil spill response discussion - a discussion of response to an oil spill resulting from the activities proposed in this plan is not required for this Exploration Plan”
So there it is folks, a classic example of how these applications get rubber stamped - No contingency plans for blowout required, no expectation or plan for H2S or gas pockets, no emergency spill plan required, no post drilling ROV survey of the seabed required. Your government in action at the MMS.
