DOCSLIB.ORG

Subsea Capping Stack Technology Requirements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Subsea Capping Stack Technology Requirements Subsea Capping Stack Technology Requirements Prepared for: BSEE Doc Ref: 100124.01-DG-RPT-0004 Rev: 0 Date: February 2016 Final Report Subsea Capping Stack Technology Requirements Final Report Limitations of the Report The scope of this report is limited to the matters explicitly covered and is prepared for the sole benefit of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). In preparing the report, Wood Group Kenny (WGK) relied on information provided by BSEE and third parties. WGK made no independent investigation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information and assumed that such information was accurate and complete. All recommendations, findings, and conclusions stated in this report are based on facts and circumstances as they existed at the time this report was prepared. A change in any fact or circumstance on which this report is based may adversely affect the recommendations, findings, and conclusions expressed in this report. 100124.01-DG-RPT-0004 | Rev 0 | February 2016 Page 3 of 188 Subsea Capping Stack Technology Requirements Final Report Executive Summary Since 2010, the industry has made great strides in increasing the capabilities for subsea well control response based on learnings from the Macondo incident. This study provides a detailed analysis of the subsea capping stack availability, storage locations, and technical capabilities. This study also reviews the regulations and standards and a draft Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) and a Potential Incident of Noncompliance (PINC) list for subsea capping stacks has been developed. The subsea capping stack is part of the Source Control and Containment Equipment (SCCE), along with the cap and flow system, the containment dome, and other subsea and surface devices, equipment, and vessels. The collective purpose of SCCE is to control a spill source and stop the flow of fluids into the environment. This study, which is specific to subsea capping stacks, does not consider other SCCE. Literature Review and Industry Surveys Wood Group Kenny (WGK) has conducted a detailed literature review to evaluate available U.S. regulations for source control and containment. It was determined that current U.S. regulations include no information related to SCCE. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) issued Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) 2010-N10, which required Operators to demonstrate that they have access to capping and containment equipment to receive approval for the Application for Permit to Drill (APD). In April 2015, the BSEE published a Proposed Rule for well control that would consolidate the current regulations and NTLs. As part of the Proposed Rule, the BSEE provided a separate section for source control and containment. In February 2015, the Department of the Interior (DOI), acting through the BSEE and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), proposed regulations on requirements for exploratory drilling in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This proposed Arctic regulation requires access to SCCE with a subsea capping stack positioned to arrive at a well within 24 hours after a loss of well control, and a cap and flow system and a containment dome positioned to arrive at the well within 7 days after a loss of well control. Currently, there are no active U.S. regulations or inspection criteria guidelines for subsea capping stacks. American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice (API RP) 17W provides guidelines for the design, manufacture, use, preservation, transportation, and maintenance procedures of subsea capping stacks. The development and delivery of subsea capping stacks began immediately following the Macondo incident in 2010, prior to the issuance of API RP 17W. The design of these systems was based on the existing subsea equipment (for example, Blowout Preventer [BOP] rams, valves, and chokes), for which industry standards were already established. The strategy for the design of subsea capping stacks was employed to allow for rapid delivery to industry, based on conventional components, field-proven track records, accepted reliability, 100124.01-DG-RPT-0004 | Rev 0 | February 2016 Page 4 of 188 Subsea Capping Stack Technology Requirements Final Report established technical knowledge base, and availability of spare parts. In addition, an objective of this strategy was to avoid the high costs and long lead times generally associated with the development of new safety equipment technology by shortening the process typically associated with its conception, design, fabrication, testing, and certification. Subsea Capping Stack Availability The consortiums and organizations that own subsea capping stacks are listed in the following table. No. of Subsea Name Type Staging Location Region Served Capping Stacks MWCC Consortium 3 Ingleside, TX U.S. Gulf of Mexico One in Houston, TX and HWCG Consortium 2 U.S. Gulf of Mexico another in Ingleside, TX OSPRAG Consortium 1 Aberdeen, Scotland U.K. Continental Shelf One at each location: OSRL Consortium 4 Brazil, Norway, Singapore, Global (except U.S. waters) and South Africa One in Aberdeen, Scotland Global (inclusive of U.S. WellCONTAINED Organization 2 and another in Singapore waters) One in Alaska; others in Global (Shell operations Shell Operator 3 Aberdeen, Scotland, and only) Singapore Houston stack (Global BP operations) One in Houston and BP Operator 2 another in Angola Angola stack (BP operations only in Angolan waters) For the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM), it is mandatory for Operators conducting subsea drilling operations to demonstrate access to a subsea capping stack and the necessary expertise and assets to mobilize and install the stack offshore. Five subsea capping stacks to facilitate compliance with this requirement are staged within the Gulf Coast region. Two consortiums and one organization support the U.S. GOM. The Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC) is a consortium that provides access to three subsea capping stacks, and HWCG LLC is a consortium that provides access to two subsea capping stacks. In addition, WellCONTAINED 100124.01-DG-RPT-0004 | Rev 0 | February 2016 Page 5 of 188 Subsea Capping Stack Technology Requirements Final Report organization maintains two subsea capping stacks outside of the U.S. These stacks can be mobilized to U.S. GOM if needed. Currently, WellCONTAINED does not support Operators in obtaining permits to drill in the U.S. GOM region. For the U.K. Continental Shelf (UKCS), three subsea capping stacks are staged within the region. The Oil Spill Prevention and Response Advisory Group (OSPRAG) is a consortium that has one subsea capping stack staged in Aberdeen, U.K. The WellCONTAINED organization has one subsea capping stack staged in the U.K., which is available for global use. The Oil Spill Response Limited (OSRL) consortium has one subsea capping stack staged in Norway that is available for global use. Outside of the U.S. and U.K. regions, excluding Operator-owned stacks, the industry has access to six subsea capping stack systems that are made available through the OSRL consortium and the WellCONTAINED organization. The OSRL consortium has a total of four subsea capping stacks that are available for use outside of U.S. waters; they are staged in Norway, Brazil, Singapore and South Africa. The WellCONTAINED organization has two subsea capping stacks available for use globally; they are staged in the U.K. and Singapore. In summary, the U.S. and U.K. are the only regions with dedicated consortiums (e.g., MWCC, HWCG, and OSRPAG) to support subsea capping stack response. However, there is subsea capping stack access for all regions of the world through the OSRL consortium and the WellCONTAINED organization. The caveat to this statement is that most of the countries do not have regional access to a subsea capping stack, and they are dependent on the consortium or the organization-owned capping solutions staged at varying strategic locations around the world. It can be surmised that these regions and countries will likely have longer response times because of the length of time associated with marine transport of the subsea capping stack from their storage locations to the incident sites. Recommended CFR and PINC List WGK has worked with the Well Containment Consortiums (MWCC, HWCG LLC, and OSRL) and a manufacturing company (Trendsetter Engineering) to draft regulations for subsea capping stacks based on global learnings and experience with subsea capping stacks. WGK recommends that the drafted Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) be incorporated as part of 30 CFR 250 Subpart D. WGK also drafted the PINC List for subsea capping stacks in accordance with the format included in the National PINC Guideline List. WGK participated in a workshop with the Well Containment Consortiums to review the draft PINC List and to get their feedback. WGK recommends that the PINC List be appended to the current Drilling PINCs. BSEE personnel can use this PINC List for inspection in the field and at onshore support bases. 100124.01-DG-RPT-0004 | Rev 0 | February 2016 Page 6 of 188 Subsea Capping Stack Technology Requirements Final Report The subsea capping stack CFR and the PINC List are only recommendations to BSEE: BSEE may modify and use them in the future. Recommendations: Evaluate subsea capping stack components that can accommodate weight savings. This could involve using gate valves instead of BOP rams for smaller bore sizes. The gate valves can provide the same pressure rating as BOP rams. The benefits associated with the use of gate valves include improved sealing reliability (metal-metal sealing surface), reduction in weight, and simplified operation, thereby avoiding the need for Subsea Accumulator Module (SAM) units. Because of the geographic distances between subsea capping stack storage locations and potential incident sites, it is recommended that a specific subsea capping stack should be identified prior to the commencement of operations within each deep water drilling region and the associated mobilization planning that is conducted to determine the estimated response time.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plan Coordinator, FO, Plans Section (MS 5231)
    UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT August 5, 2019 MEMORANDUM To: Public Information (MS 5030) From: Plan Coordinator, FO, Plans Section (MS 5231) Subj ect: Public Information copy of plan Control # S-07968 Type Supplemental Exploration Plan Lease(s) OCS-G36134 Elock - 629 Mississippi Canyon Area Operator LLOG Exploration Offshore, L.L.C. Description Subsea Well C and C-ALT Rig Type Not Found Attached is a copy of the subject plan. It has been deemed submitted as of this date and is under review for approval Leslie Wilson Plan Coordinator Site Type/Name Botm Lse/Area/Blk Surface Location Surf Lse/Area/Blk WELL/C G36134/MC/629 6100 FNL, 5062 FEL G36134/MC/629 WELL/C-ALT G36134/MC/629 6100 FNL, 5112 FEL G36134/MC/629 LLOG EXPLORATION OFFSHORE, L.L.C. 1001 Ochsner Boulevard, Suite 100 Covington, Louisiana 70433 SUPPLEMENTAL EXPLORATION PLAN OCS-G 36134 LEASE MISSISSIPPI CANYON BLOCK 629 Prepared By: Sue Sachitana Regulatory Specialist LLOG Exploration Offshore, L.L.C. 985-801-4300-Office 985-801-4716-Direct [email protected] Date: July 10, 2019 LLOG EXPLORATION OFFSHORE, L.L.C. SUPPLEMENTAL EXPLORATION PLAN OCS-G 36134 MISSISSIPPI CANYON BLOCK 629 APPENDIX A Plan Contents APPENDIX B General Information APPENDIX C Geological, Geophysical Information APPENDIX D H2S Information APPENDIX E Biological, Physical and Socioeconomic Information APPENDIX F Waste and Discharge Information APPENDIX G Air Emissions Information APPENDIX H Oil Spill Information APPENDIX I Environmental Monitoring Information APPENDIX J Lease Stipulation Information APPENDIX K Environmental Mitigation Measures Information APPENDIX L Related Facilities and Operations Information APPENDIX M Support Vessels and Aircraft Information APPENDIX N Onshore Support Facilities Information APPENDIX O Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Information APPENDIX P Environmental Impact Analysis APPENDIX Q Administrative Information Mississippi Canyon Block 629, OCS-G-36134 Supplemental Exploration Plan APPENDIX A PLAN CONTENTS (30 CFR Part 550.211 and 550.241) A.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report
    AAPG EMD Gas Hydrates Committee Report – 2009 By Bob Lankston and Art Johnson Progress toward commercialization of gas hydrates in North America and Asia is continuing in 2009, with some notable advancement in both resource assessment and technology. U.S. Exploration Activity With many challenges and unknowns remaining long-term, economically-viable production of natural gas from hydrates is as yet unproven. Gas hydrate R&D is the type of high cost, high-risk, high-potential endeavor that calls for government economic support. Progress in the U.S. has been limited by the relatively low budget levels of the Department of Energy (DOE) methane hydrate program, the primary source of funding for U.S. hydrate efforts. While Congress authorized $30 million for fiscal year 2008 and $40 million for fiscal year 2009 under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the appropriation for each year was for only $16 million. The new administration has shown a higher level of interest in hydrate, particularly for its carbon sequestration potential. The areas of focus for U.S. hydrate efforts are the North Slope of Alaska and the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The companies that are most involved with gas hydrate programs in the U.S. include BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Schlumberger, and Halliburton; although all of the operators on the North Slope are now becoming involved. Their in-kind contributions of labor and data are complemented by a substantial match of Federal funds. Several service companies are engaged in a support role as subcontractors. A long-term, industry-scale production test is planned for the North Slope in the summer of 2010 as a follow-up to BP’s successful “Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Parviz Izadjoo, Et Al. V. Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., Et Al. 15-CV
    Case 4:15-cv-02213 Document 23 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/16 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION PARVIZ IZADJOO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Civ. Action No. : 4:15-CV-2213 v. OWEN KRATZ, and HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GROUP, INC. Defendants. AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Lead Plaintiffs Steven Strassberg (“Strassberg”) and Bruce R. Siegfried (“Siegfried” and together with Strassberg, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, for their Amended Class Action Complaint against defendants Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. (“Helix” or “Company”) Owen Kratz (“Kratz”) Anthony Tripodo (“Tripodo”), and Clifford V. Chamblee (“Chamblee”), allege the following based upon personal knowledge as to themselves and their own acts, and information and belief as to all other matters, based upon, inter alia, the investigation conducted by and through their attorneys, which included, among other things, conversations with witnesses, a review of the defendants’ public documents, conference calls and announcements made by defendants, United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings, wire and press releases published by and regarding Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. (“Helix” or “Company”), analysts’ reports and advisories about the Company, and information readily obtainable on the Internet. Plaintiffs believe that substantial Case 4:15-cv-02213 Document 23 Filed in TXSD on
    [Show full text]
  • Beaufort Sea: Hypothetical Very Large Oil Spill and Gas Release
    OCS Report BOEM 2020-001 BEAUFORT SEA: HYPOTHETICAL VERY LARGE OIL SPILL AND GAS RELEASE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Alaska OCS Region OCS Study BOEM 2020-001 BEAUFORT SEA: HYPOTHETICAL VERY LARGE OIL SPILL AND GAS RELEASE January 2020 Author: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Alaska OCS Region U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Alaska OCS Region REPORT AVAILABILITY To download a PDF file of this report, go to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (www.boem.gov/newsroom/library/alaska-scientific-and-technical-publications, and click on 2020). CITATION BOEM, 2020. Beaufort Sea: Hypothetical Very Large Oil Spill and Gas Release. OCS Report BOEM 2020-001 Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska OCS Region. 151 pp. Beaufort Sea: Hypothetical Very Large Oil Spill and Gas Release BOEM Contents List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................................. vii 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 What is a VLOS? ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 What Could Precipitate a VLOS? ................................................................................................ 1 1.2.1 Historical OCS and Worldwide
    [Show full text]
  • Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon”
    Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 21088 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: OIL SPILL BY THE OIL § MDL No. 2179 RIG “DEEPWATER HORIZON” § IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, § SECTION: J ON APRIL 20, 2010 § This document relates to all cases. § JUDGE BARBIER § MAG. JUDGE SHUSHAN ORDER [BP’s Motion for Order of Disposal of Material (Rec. doc. 19381)] CONSIDERING BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP America Inc.’s (“BP”) motion for an order governing the disposal of source material and other substances, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. WHEREAS BP collected oil and other material from various containment and recovery vessels at the well site and from surface recovery efforts during the summer of 2010; 2. And whereas BP also collected volumes of surrogate oil for use in contexts where actual Macondo oil was not essential; 3. And whereas BP, since 2010, has advertised the availability of such materials, and has made, and continues to make, such recovered and collected material available to interested researchers; 4. And whereas BP has satisfied the demand for such materials and that demand has almost completely ended; 5. And whereas the volumes of oil and other materials currently held by BP far exceed the demand that reasonably might be expected in the future; Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 21088 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 3 6. And whereas BP has moved this Court seeking to dispose properly of superfluous oil and other material, but to continue to maintain supplies that still exceed the likely future demand by researchers and scientists; 7.
    [Show full text]
  • National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling
    National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling STOPPING THE SPILL: THE FIVE-MONTH EFFORT TO KILL THE MACONDO WELL ---Draft--- Staff Working Paper No. 6 Staff Working Papers are written by the staff of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling for the use of members of the Commission. They are preliminary, subject to change, and do not necessarily reflect the views either of the Commission as a whole or of any of its members. In addition, they may be based in part on confidential interviews with government and non-government personnel. The effort to contain and control the blowout of the Macondo well was unprecedented. From April 20, 2010, the day the well blew out, until September 19, 2010, when the government finally declared it “dead,” BP expended enormous resources to develop and deploy new technologies that eventually captured a substantial amount of oil at the source and, after 87 days, stopped the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The government organized a team of scientists and engineers, who took a crash course in petroleum engineering and, over time, were able to provide substantive oversight of BP, in combination with the Coast Guard and the Minerals Management Service (MMS).1 BP had to construct novel devices, and the government had to mobilize personnel on the fly, because neither was ready for a disaster of this nature in deepwater. The containment story thus contains two parallel threads. First, on April 20, the oil and gas industry was unprepared to respond to a deepwater blowout, and the federal government was similarly unprepared to provide meaningful supervision.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Water Depth Workshop 2011
    Table of Contents Workshop Steering Committee ....................................................................................... iii Session Chairs ................................................................................................................ iii Recorder Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... v Administrative Staff Acknowledgements ........................................................................ vii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 Introduction to Technical Summaries .............................................................................. 5 Technical Summary of Workshop Session #1 – Surface BOPs ...................................... 9 Technical Summary of Workshop Session #2 – Subsea BOPs ................................... 17 Technical Summary of Workshop Session #3 – Well Drilling and Completion Design and Barriers ............................................................................................................ 23 Technical Summary of Workshop Session #4 – Pre-Incident Planning, Preparedness, and Response .............................................................................................................. 33 Technical Summary of Workshop Session #5 – Post Incident Containment and Well Control ............................................................................................................ 37 Technical Summary
    [Show full text]
  • Deepwater Horizon Blowout Preventer Failure Analysis Report to the U
    Deepwater Horizon Blowout Preventer Failure Analysis Report To the U. S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board CSB-FINAL REPORT-BOP(06-02-2014) The Deepwater Horizon BOP stack at NASA-Michoud (with the upper LMRP portion on left) This analysis considered the BOP examinations that were conducted by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) at the NASA Michoud facility near New Orleans, Louisiana. The examinations were in two phases, the first conducted for the Joint Investigation Team and a Phase 2 funded by BP. CSB and Engineering Services were excluded from Phase 2, but subsequently obtained examination information from that period. Contents 1. Introduction...............................................................................................................................3 2. Summary of incident failures and new opinions.......................................................................4 3. Incident summary timeline.......................................................................................................8 4. Incident progression: initial fluid displacement for the negative pressure test.....................13 5. Incident progression: negative pressure test..........................................................................14 6. Incident progression: final displacement and initial oil flow starts.......................................18 7. Incident progression: oil flow increases..................................................................................20 8. Failure of the upper annular and sealing by a
    [Show full text]
  • Apache Corporation
    UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM August 27, 2021 To: Public Information From: Plan Coordinator, OLP, Plans Section (GM235D) Subject: Public Information copy of Plan Control # - S-08054 Type - Supplemental Development Operations Coordinations Document Lease(s) - OCS-G13084 Block - 963 Ewing Bank Area Operator - EnVen Energy Ventures, LLC Description - Subsea Well #5 Rig Type - Not Found Attached is a copy of the subject plan. It has been deemed submitted as of this date and is under review for approval. Nawaz Khasraw Plan Coordinator Site Type/Name Botm Lse/Area/Blk Surface Location Surf Lse/Area/Blk WELL/5 G13084/EW/963 6440 FSL, 2005 FWL G13084/EW/963 UNIT SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS COORDINATION DOCUMENT EWING BANK BLOCK 963 LEASE NO. OCS-G 13084 OFFSHORE, LOUISIANA Public Data Record of Change Log Submission Date Sent to Summary of Page Type BOEM Submission Numbers Prepared By: Cheryl Powell EnVen Energy Ventures, LLC 609 Main Street, Suite 3200 Houston, TX 77002 713-335-7041 [email protected] Date of Submittal: 08/05/2021 Estimated Start-up Date: February 1, 2022 From: [email protected] To: Cheryl Powell Subject: Pay.gov Payment Confirmation: BOEM Development/DOCD Plan - BD Date: Thursday, August 5, 2021 2:52:10 PM An official email of the United States government Pay.gov logo Your payment has been submitted to the designated government agency through Pay.gov and the details are below. Please note that this is just a confirmation of transaction submission. To confirm that the payment processed as expected, you may refer to your bank statement on the scheduled payment date.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 April 2011
    April 2011 UT3 The ONLINE magazine of the Society for Underwater Technology Offshore Engineering Tidal Energy Underwater Equipment 1 UT2 April 2011 Contents Processing Pilot Ready for Testing 4 April 2011 UT2 The magazine of the Offshore Jubarte, Wellstream 6, Gygrid, Tahiti, Gudrun, West Boreas 8, Society for Underwater Technology News Clov, Liuhua, Abkatun, FMC, Cameron/SLB 9, Deepwater Pipelay System 10, McDermott FEED, Brazil, Goliat, Ekofisk, Mariscal Sucre Dragon/Patao, BP 11, Ultra High Flow Injection, Omni- Choke 12 Underwater Flow Assurance Using Radioisotope Technology 14, Pipelines Deepwater Composite Riser 16, Hyperbaric Test Chamber Offshore Engineering Tidal Energy 17, High Pressure Swagelining, Plough in Baltic for Nord- Underwater Equipment Stream, SCAR 18 1 UT2 April 2011 The stern of Saipem’s new vessel showing the pipelay Underwater Subsea UK, RBG 20, Subspection, flexGuard 21, tower. Equipment Laser Scanning 22, HMS Audacious, TOGS, HULS, PAVS 24, Image: IHC Engineering Mojave in China 25, Tsunami Detection, Motion Sensor 26, Cable Survey 27, Cameras and Underwater Digital Stills 28, University of Plymouth Flora Lighting and Fauna Survey, True Lumens 30, Pan and Tilt Camera, April 2011 Aurora 31 Vol 6 No 1 Underwater Multi-Sensor AUV Pipeline Inspection, Integration 32, New Vehicles Markets for the AC-ROV 33, Cougar, CDS 34 2 Sonar 4000m Imaging, UUV, SALT 36, Sonar 294 37 UT Society for Underwater The Tide is Turning 36, MCT, Beluga 9 40, Bio Power 41, Technology Tidal 80 Coleman St The Bourne Alternative, Nexus Positioning, Hales Turbine 42, London EC2R 5BJ Norwegian Ocean Power 43, ORPC Turbine Generator 44, Oyster 2 45, Wave and Tidal 45 +44 (0) 1480 70007 Exhibitions UDT 46 Editor: John Howes [email protected] SUT Advanced Instrumentation for Research in Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine 47, AGM 48, Aberdeen Sub Editor: Michaelagh Shea [email protected] AGM and Dinner 49, AGM Perth 50 US: Published by UT2 Publishing Ltd for and on behalf of the Society for Underwater Stephen Loughlin Technology.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
    THE BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT REPORT REGARDING THE CAUSES OF THE APRIL 20, 2010 MACONDO WELL BLOWOUT September 14, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................1 I. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 10 A. The Investigation ......................................................................................... 10 B. Background Regarding Deepwater Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico ............ 13 C. Companies Involved in the Macondo Well.................................................. 16 D. The Deepwater Horizon............................................................................... 18 E. The Macondo Well....................................................................................... 19 F. The Blowout................................................................................................. 23 II. Well Design...................................................................................................... 25 A. Cost of the Macondo Well............................................................................ 25 B. Drilling Margin........................................................................................... 27 C. Casing Program........................................................................................... 31 D. Mud Program and Type .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the EASTERN DISTRICT of LOUISIANA in Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon
    Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-DPC Document 14021 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 44 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater * Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, * MDL 2179 on April 20, 2010, * * * SECTION J This Document Applies To: * * No. 10-2771, In re: The Complaint and Petition * JUDGE BARBIER of Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, et al. * * and * MAG. JUDGE SHUSHAN * No. 10-4536, United States of America v. BP * Exploration & Production, Inc., et al. * ——————————————————————————————————————— FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PHASE TWO TRIAL Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-DPC Document 14021 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 44 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), the Court enters these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relative to the Phase Two trial. If any finding is in truth a conclusion of law or any conclusion stated is in truth a finding of fact, it shall be deemed so, labels notwithstanding. CONTENTS I. Introduction and Procedural History ................................................................................. 3 II. Source Control Segment ....................................................................................................... 5 A. Parties to the Source Control Segment ............................................................................. 5 B. Stipulated Facts; Timeline of Source Control Events ...................................................... 6 i. Terms and Definitions.....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]