DOCSLIB.ORG

Macondo Investigation Report Volume 3 4/17/2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Macondo Investigation Report Volume 3 4/17/2016 U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD INVESTIGATION REPORT VOLUME 3 DRILLING RIG EXPLOSION AND FIRE AT THE MACONDO WELL (11 Fatalities, 17 Injured, and Serious Environmental Damage) DEEPWATER HORIZON RIG MISSISSIPPI CANYON 252, GULF OF MEXICO KEY ISSUES: APRIL 20, 2010 • HUMAN FACTORS • ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING • SAFETY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS • RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES • CORPORATE GOVERNANCE • SAFETY CULTURE REPORT NO. 2010-10-I-OS 4/17/2016 Macondo Investigation Report Volume 3 4/17/2016 [This page left intentionally blank.] 2 Macondo Investigation Report Volume 3 4/17/2016 Contents VOLUME 3 – INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 15 Moving Beyond the Blowout Preventer ...................................................................................................... 19 Volume Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 20 1.0 HUMAN FACTORS ..................................................................................................................... 21 1.1 Macondo Temporary Abandonment Personnel ............................................................................. 25 1.2 Macondo Temporary Abandonment Activities: Four Phases ........................................................ 26 1.2.1 Phase 1: Presetting of the Diverter System Route ............................................................ 27 1.2.2 Phase 2: Displacement of the Drilling Mud from the Drillpipe and Upper Wellbore ...... 27 1.2.3 Phase 3: Monitoring Pressure in the Underbalanced Well ............................................... 30 1.2.4 Phase 4: Displacement of the Riser .................................................................................. 33 1.2.5 Human Performance at Macondo ..................................................................................... 34 1.3 Phase 1 – Organizational Influence on Human Performance ........................................................ 35 1.3.1 Diverter Dual Role: Operational and Emergency Mitigation Device ............................... 36 1.3.2 Organizational Policy and Practice Influence Human Performance ................................. 38 1.3.3 Diverter System Design Required Multi-Step Process to Divert Fluids Overboard ......... 41 1.3.4 Needed Improvements in Detecting Gas Influx Prior to Reaching Riser ......................... 45 1.4 Phase 2 – Seemingly Insignificant Decisions can have Great Impact in Complex Systems ......... 47 1.5 Phase 3 – Evidence of Confirmation Bias ..................................................................................... 54 1.5.1 Potential Influence of Distraction and Fatigue ................................................................. 59 1.5.1.1 Fatigue ........................................................................................................... 60 1.5.1.1 Distraction ..................................................................................................... 63 1.6 Phase 4 – Troubleshooting, Multiple Activities, and Communication Gaps Obscure Well Conditions ................................................................................................................................................... 63 1.7 Competency and Non-technical Skills ........................................................................................... 66 1.7.1 Case Study for NTS: Pressure Discrepancies between Drillpipe and Kill Line ............... 70 1.7.1.1 Role of Mudlogger ........................................................................................ 72 1.7.2 Case Study for NTS: Conversation between Well Site Leader and Onshore Engineer .... 76 1.7.3 Integration of Non-technical Skills ................................................................................... 81 1.8 Work-as-Imagined Versus Work-as-Done: The Operator/Drilling Contractor Gap ...................... 83 1.8.1 BP’s Development and Communication of the Temporary Abandonment Plan .............. 85 1.8.2 Gap between ‘Work as Imagined’ and ‘Work as Done’ at the Macondo Well ................ 91 3 Macondo Investigation Report Volume 3 4/17/2016 1.8.3 Transocean Procedural Development Policies .................................................................. 93 1.8.4 Lack of Written Transocean Procedures and Work Instructions at Macondo .................. 95 1.9 Management of Change (MOC) .................................................................................................. 102 1.9.1 Management of Change: A Missed Opportunity ............................................................ 103 1.9.2 MOC Regulatory Requirements and Good Practice Guidance ....................................... 107 1.9.2.1 Regulatory Requirements for an MOC Safety Management System .......... 107 1.9.2.2 Multi-party MOCs are an International Concern ........................................ 109 1.10 Inadequate Requirements for Incorporating Human Factors in US Offshore Operations ........... 110 1.10.1 After Macondo, Limited US Offshore Regulatory Requirements Remain for Including Human Factors .................................................................................................................................. 111 1.10.2 Good Practice Techniques and Guidance on Human Factors ......................................... 112 1.10.3 International Offshore Regulatory Requirements and Guidance .................................... 114 1.11 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 117 2.0 ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING FROM INCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS .......................... 119 2.1 Joint Incident Investigations and Challenges to Disseminating Lessons Learned Between Companies................................................................................................................................................. 119 2.2 Challenges to Disseminating Lessons Globally ........................................................................... 121 2.3 Expanding Beyond Immediate Causes and Implementing Change ............................................. 126 2.4 Effectiveness of post-Macondo SEMS Requirements for Incident Investigation ........................ 127 2.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 131 3.0 SAFETY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ............................................................................... 132 3.1 Process Safety Performance Indicators for High-hazard Work Environments ............................ 133 3.2 BP’s Selection and Use of Performance Indicators ..................................................................... 137 3.2.1 BP Corporate Policies Reflect a Focus on Production, Personal Safety, and Lagging Indicators 137 3.2.2 Individual Performance Plans Lacked Process Safety Metrics ....................................... 139 3.3 Transocean’s Selection and Use of Performance Indicators ........................................................ 143 3.3.1 Transocean Recognized Need for Process Safety Performance Indicators .................... 146 3.3.2 Transocean Bonus Awards Insufficiently Focused on Performance Relating to Process Safety and MAP ................................................................................................................................ 148 3.4 Advancing the Development and Use of Process Safety Performance Indicators ....................... 149 3.4.1 CSB Efforts to Advance Understanding and Use of Process Safety Performance Indicators 150 3.4.2 Selection of Effective Performance Indicators ............................................................... 152 4 Macondo Investigation Report Volume 3 4/17/2016 3.5 Process Safety Metrics Gleaned from the Macondo Blowout ..................................................... 157 3.5.1 Real-time Indicators for Safety Critical Elements .......................................................... 158 3.5.1.1 Well Kicks ................................................................................................... 159 3.5.2 Slow Moving Indicators for SMS Elements ................................................................... 160 3.5.2.1 Emerging MOCs Themes ............................................................................ 160 3.5.2.2 Cross Reference Indicators Between the Operator/Drilling Contractor ...... 164 3.6 Regulatory Requirements for Indicators Reporting ..................................................................... 165 3.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 166 4.0 INEFFECTIVE RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACHES AT MACONDO AND THE CHALLENGES OF THE MULTI-EMPLOYER OFFSHORE WORK ENVIRONMENT .................... 167 4.1 BP and Transocean Risk Reduction Goal: ALARP ..................................................................... 168 4.2 Contractor Safety Management Guidance Calls for Clear Definition of Roles and Responsibilities 170 4.3 Transocean did not apply its More Rigorous Corporate Risk Management Policies to the Deepwater Horizon and Macondo Well .................................................................................................... 171 4.3.1 Transocean Lacks Implementation Guidance
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mexico Energy Intelligence®
    www.energia.com Mexico Energy Intelligence® Titles of reports related to Macondo File # Published Updated Topic Pages Chart 1000030 • Apr 20, 14 Advances since Macondo: Well Integrity Management Systems & Halliburton’s 7 0 Technology Center This report comments on selected themes discussed at an industry conference that took place in Houston on April 15-16 on Well Integrity Management Systems (WIMS) and related topics. Presented by DECOM WORLD, it featured diverse speakers from operators and service companies, in addition to an exhibition area for vendors that included IBM as the Gold Sponsor. WIMS seems to have replaced SEMS, a post-Macondo initiative. The report includes observations of a tour of Halliburton's Houston Technology Center on April 16. Ideas from social science are offered to complement engineering advances. 093012 • Sep 30, 12 The Political Science of Industrial Safety: Have the Deeper Lessons of Deepwater 6 0 Horizon Been Learned? A visit took place to the Deepwater Horizon by a senior, joint safety audit team on the day of the Macondo blow-out. The team focused on occupational safety and ignored issues of process safety (e.g., tests of cement integrity). See The Journal of Energy & Development (Vol. XXXVI, No. 2, pp. 219-226). http://www.scribd.com/doc/112111810/%E2%80%9CThe-Political-Science-of-Ind ustrial-Safety-Have-the-Deeper-Lessons-of-Deepwater-Horizon-Been-Learned-% E2%80%9D-by-George-Baker 100103 • Oct 10, 11 The Political Science of Industrial Safety 6 3 This report seeks to abstract from the events that took place on Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010, in order to gain a picture of the inevitable changes ahead in law and regulation that will create a new regime in which both contractors and well owners will be jointly liability for accident prevention and accountability.
    [Show full text]
  • Blowout in the Gulf: the BP Oil Spill Disaster and the Future of Energy in America
    UCLA Electronic Green Journal Title Blowout in the Gulf: The BP Oil Spill Disaster and the Future of Energy in America Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1ps043ht Journal Electronic Green Journal, 1(32) Author Ferrara, Enzo Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Review: Blowout in the Gulf: The BP Oil Spill Disaster and the Future of Energy in America By William R. Freudenburg and Robert Gramling Reviewed by Enzo Ferrara L'Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica, Italy Freudenburg, William R. and Gramling, Robert. Blowout in the Gulf. The BP Oil Spill Disaster and the Future of Energy in America. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2011. 240 pp., 5 graphs. ISBN: 9780262015837.US$18.95, cloth. On April 20th 2010, eleven oil workers died as the Deepwater Horizon, a gigantic offshore plant rented by BP to drill deep in the Gulf of Mexico, exploded and, after burning for 36 hours, sank, causing an uncontrolled eruption of oil one mile below the sea level. Oil poured out at a rate of 56,000 barrels per day, until July 15th, causing one of the largest marine disasters in the history – second only to Saddam Hussein’s intentional opening the oil spigots as his forces retreated from Kuwait in 1991 – and frustrating the hopes of the Gulf residents, reassured in vain by BP and the government of a quick solution of the spill. Just like the complexity of its assessment, the magnitude and duration of the Gulf disaster were distinctive, due to its wide-reaching and prolonged impact in the region associated with the extensive use of dispersants.
    [Show full text]
  • Gulf Oil Disaster Complaint Exhibit 2: Deepwater Horizon Exploratory Plan
    United States Department of the Interior MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 120 1 Elmwood Park Boulevard New Orleans, Louisiana 701 23-2394 In Reply Refer To: MS 5231 April 6, 2009 Ms. Scherie Douglas BP Exploration & Production Inc 501 Westlake Park Boulevard Houston, Texas 77079 Dear Ms. Douglas: Reference is made to the following plan: Control No. N-09349 'n"L'e Initial Exploration Plan (EP) Received February 23, 2009, amended February 25, 2009 Lease (s) OCS-G 32306, Block 252, Mississippi Canyon Area (MC) You are hereby notified that the approval of the subject plan has been granted as of April 6, 2009, in accordance with 30 CFR 250.233(b)(1). This approval includes the activities proposed for Wells A and B. Exercise caution while drilling due to indications of shallow gas and possible water flow. In response to the request accompanying your plan for a hydrogen sulfide (H,S) classification, the area in which the proposed drilling operations are to be conducted is hereby classified, in accordance with 30 CFR 250.490 (c), as "H2S absent. 'I If you have any questions or comments concerning this approval, please contact Michelle Griffitt at (504) 736-2975. Sincerely, Dignally qncd by Michael M ic ha e 1 ~~b~~=MichaelTolbm,o. ou. go". <=us Dale: 1009 04.06 14:51!30 Tol bert -0soo' for Michael J. Saucier Regional Supervisor Field Operations UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT March 10, 2009 MEMORANDUM To: Public Information (MS 5030) From: Plan Coordinator, FO, Plans Section (MS 5231) Subject: Public Information copy of plan Control # N-09349 Type Initial Exploration Plan Lease(s) OCS-G32306 Block - 252 Mississippi Canyon Area Operator BP Exploration & Production Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • NEPA Exemptions, Tragic Results the Devastating 1969 Blowout and Oil
    NEPA Exemptions, Tragic Results The devastating 1969 blowout and oil spill at the Union Oil platform Santa Barbara Channel was one of the worst environmental disasters in the nation’s history, and is widely regarded as one of the events that impelled the passage of NEPA in 1970. Alas, we don’t always learn from our mistakes. In response to the energy crises of the 1970s, the U.S. undertook to dramatically increase domestic oil production, which, unfortunately, enshrined exemptions to NEPA for the central and western Gulf of Mexico. The 1978 Amendment to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act required fast- tracked approvals of exploration plans and: “expressly singles out the Gulf of Mexico for less rigorous environmental oversight under NEPA. As a result of political compromise with oil and gas interests, the Act exempts lessees from submitting development and production plans (which include environmental safeguards) for agency approval. Accordingly, Gulf leases, unlike those applicable to other offshore areas, are not subject to the requirement of at least one NEPA environmental impact statement for development plans for a particular geographic area.” (BP Oil Spill Commission Report, page 80) The Interior Department went even further: “In January 1981, the Department promulgated final rules declaring that exploration plans in the central and western Gulf of Mexico were ‘categorically excluded’ from NEPA review” (page 81), and though it later allowed for NEPA reviews in certain circumstances, that was the exception rather than the rule. As a result, the Minerals Management Service “performed no meaningful NEPA review of the potentially significant adverse environmental consequences associated with its permitting for drilling of BP’s exploratory Macondo well” (page 82) or subsequent drilling permits, and therefore one of their plans “carefully considered site-specific factors relevant to the risks presented by the drilling of the Macondo well” (page 83).
    [Show full text]
  • Bop) Control System
    RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE DEEPWATER HORIZON BLOWOUT PREVENTER (BOP) CONTROL SYSTEM April 2000 - Final Report Prepared for: CAMERON CONTROLS CORP. EQE INTERNATIONAL Confidential Treatment Requested by Transocean Holdings LLC TRN-HCEC-00056391 Deepwater Horizon BOP Control System Risk Assessment April 2000 • 4. EVALUATION RESULTS As discussed in the introduction, the evaluation of the fault trees by boolean reduction results in the identification of the minimal cutsets, or the minimum combinations of failures that will result in the occurrence of the undesired event. Each of these cutsets is composed of one or more failures and each of the failures is assigned a probability of failure as discussed in Section 3. The product of the failure probabilities for all failure events in a cutset represents the probability of occurrence of the cutset. The sum of the cutsets for each fault tree model represents the probability of occurrence of the associated undesired event. In addition to these quantitative results, potential problem areas are often identified durmg the development of the model. These are discussed in Section 5. Table 4·1 summarizes the probability of occurrence of each of the undesired events. The number of cutsets shown in the table are those with a probability of occurrence greater than 1E-1 O. The overall potential for any of the events occurring which lead to the failure to perform the EDS function is 3.1 2E-4 (1183 cutsets). which is less than the sum of the individual events in Table 4-1. This is due to the fact that some of the cutset combinations result in failure of more than one of the functions but are correctly only counted once when looking at the overall likelihood.
    [Show full text]
  • Success Story
    VAM ® BOLT-II selected by LUKOIL for its Caspian Sea well Overview SUCCESSSUCCESS LUKOIL-Nizhnevolzhskneft has chosen Vallourec to deliver its VAM ® BOLT-II solution with a large (18") outer diameter for the STORY Caspian Sea Khazri-2 well. In February, its high performance levels were proven when the VALLOUREC connection was successfully deployed with zero reject on a Neptune jack-up drilling rig. Technical Sales Manager in Russia, Ukraine, CIS, Andrei Motovilin talks us through each step of this success story. "We are particularly proud SEPT. 2020 of this success. LUKOIL- Nizhnevolzhskneft is one of our key customers developing some of the most complex Challenge The VAM® BOLT-II solution has a double- start thread design and make-up is quick offshore oil fields and wells." and easy — it saves platform installation Andrei Motovilin The most recent design-improved Technical Sales Manager in Russia, Ukraine, CIS time and make for perfect connection to generation of VAM® flush connections large bore subsea well heads. "We were gives higher torque capacity and able to deliver on time and, by working outstanding performance. Vallourec hand in hand with Lukoil, run perfectly supplied LUKOIL with 5 casing strings our VAM® BOLT-II solution, demonstrating and 345 tons of VAM® BOLT-II as well as operational product performance with zero accessories such as lifting and handling rejection." said Andrei Motovilin. circulation head. A complex well LUKOIL-Nizhnevolzhskneft, is a LUKOIL has been especially 0.64 inches with a maximum make- wholly owned subsidiary of LUKOIL technically demanding, as the up torque not exceeding 109.9 klb and specializes in oil and gas field nearest gas formation was at per ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Labor Market Impacts of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Off Shore Drilling Momentum by Joseph E
    August 2014 Labor Market Impacts of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Off shore Drilling Momentum By Joseph E. Aldy (Harvard Kennedy School) Introduction two events, while inland areas were This Policy Brief is based on “The Labor On April 20, 2010, the Transocean expected to be largely unaffected. The Market Impacts of the 2010 Deepwater moratorium was expected to affect Horizon Oil Spill and Off shore Drilling Deepwater Horizon suffered a Moratorium” working paper by Joseph Louisiana – with signifi cant support E. Aldy at http://www.nber.org/papers/ catastrophic blowout while drilling w20409. in a BP lease in the Gulf of Mexico’s of the offshore drilling industry – but Joseph E. Aldy Macondo Prospect. This accident not, for example, Florida, which had resulted in the largest oil spill in U.S. no active drilling off of its coastline. Joseph E. Aldy is an Assistant Professor of The timing and magnitude of the spill Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School history and an unprecedented spill of Government at Harvard University, a response effort. Due to the ongoing response varied across the states over Nonresident Fellow at Resources for the the course of the spill as well. Future, and a Faculty Research Fellow at the spill and concerns about the safety National Bureau of Economic Research. He of offshore oil drilling, the U.S. Taking advantage of the unexpected is also the Faculty Chair for the Regulatory Policy Program at the Mossavar-Rahmani Department of the Interior suspended nature of these events, I estimate Center for Business and Government.
    [Show full text]
  • Copernic Agent Search Results
    Copernic Agent Search Results Search: Oil Spill Deep Ocean Danger (All the words) Found: 1503 result(s) on _Full.Search Date: 7/17/2010 6:33:28 AM 1. Gulf Oil Spill Environmental Damage Could Get Much Worse Jul 6, 2010 ... McKinney points out that this deep underwater region is largely ... zone in the Gulf and that pose a long-term threat to ocean life. ... Studies of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska show that ... Be aware of toxic chemicals in house http://environment.about.com/b/2010/07/06/gulf-oil-spill-environmental- damage-could-get-much-worse.htm 99% 2. 6 lessons from the BP oil spill 2010/07/12 For years to come, the United States and the oil industry will be absorbing the lessons of the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Regulators will toughen inspections. Oil companies will adopt ... http://www.wfmj.com/Global/story.asp?S=12792031 93% 3. 2 scientists tell presidential oil spill commission fear of dispersants is mostly unfounded 2010/07/13 An update from the second public hearing of the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling Commission. You can watch the hearing live. Eliot Kamenitz, The Times-PicayuneMathy Stanislaus of the Environmental Protection Agency, Charlie Henry of the http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil- spill/index.ssf/2010/07/scientists_tell_presidential_o.html 92% 4. Gulf of Mexico oil 2010/06/28 The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is not yet an environmental catastrophe - but could worsen as the hurricane season gets under way, scientists said today.
    [Show full text]
  • Anadarko Petroleum Co. Civil Penalty Ruling
    Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 15606 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 34 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: * * * JUDGE CARL BARBIER No. 10-4536, United States of America v. BP * Exploration & Production, Inc., et al. * * MAG. JUDGE SALLY SHUSHAN * * ——————————————————————————————————————— FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PENALTY PHASE Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 15606 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 34 CONTENTS I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 A. Factual Background ......................................................................................................... 3 B. The Government’s Complaint.......................................................................................... 4 C. Relevant Prior Rulings ..................................................................................................... 6 D. The CWA’s Civil Penalty Factors ................................................................................... 7 II. Findings of Fact ..................................................................................................................... 8 A. Factor 1: Seriousness ....................................................................................................... 8 B. Factor 2: Economic Benefit ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The BP Blowout: What the Evidence Reveals | Kvue.Com | KVUE News
    9/9/2010 The BP blowout: What the evidence re… The BP blowout: What the evidence reveals by Dave Fehling/11 News Posted on September 9, 2010 at 11:46 AM HOUSTON -- The report BP released on its website Wednesday morning is the company’s version of the events that led to the Deepwater Horizon blowout, but the 11 News I-Team has been sifting through evidence gathered by a more objective source. That is the Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation, the ongoing effort by the U.S. Coast Guard and the new Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management and Enforcement (BOEMRE). For months now, Houston-based employees have been grilled by government investigators in sometimes tense exchanges. There have been hundreds of hours of testimony given and thousands of pages of internal documents and e-mails gathered. Some of the testimony has been dramatic, some of the documents revealing, but does any of it yet show one clear-cut cause, a “smoking gun?" Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) was quick to pounce on one e-mail that he said showed BP’s corporate attitude to "cut corner after corner" to save time and money -- proof, he said, of what led to the disaster. Written by BP engineer Brett Cocales in Houston just four days before the rig exploded, the e-mail is about the debate they were having over what some say were shortcuts taken in drilling the well. Cocales wrote: “But who cares, it's done, end of story, will probably be fine and we’ll get a good cement job." In testimony, August 27th, Cocales told investigators, "I did write: but who cares, it's done, end of story." But far from proof of a “who cares” attitude, Cacales’s lawyer, Philip Hilder, told the 11 kvue.com/…/The-BP-blowout-What-th… 1/3 9/9/2010 The BP blowout: What the evidence re… News I-Team that the e-mail was taken out of context.
    [Show full text]
  • Well Blowout Rates and Consequences in California Oil and Gas District 4 from 1991 to 2005: Implications for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide
    Well Blowout Rates and Consequences in California Oil and Gas District 4 from 1991 to 2005: Implications for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide Preston D. Jordan and Sally M. Benson P. D. Jordan (&) Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. M. Benson Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA Abstract Introduction Well blowout rates in oil fields undergoing Migration up abandoned and active wells is thermally enhanced recovery (via steam considered to pose perhaps the greatest risk of injection) in California Oil and Gas District 4 leakage for geological storage of CO2 (Gasda et from 1991 to 2005 were on the order of 1 per al. 2004; Benson et al. 2005). Well blowouts are 1,000 well construction operations, 1 per 10,000 formally defined as ‘‘the uncontrolled flow of active wells per year, and 1 per 100,000 shut- well fluids and/or formation fluids from the well in/idle and plugged/abandoned wells per year. bore to the surface (surface blowout), or into This allows some initial inferences about leakage lower-pressured subsurface zones (underground of CO2 via wells, which is considered perhaps blowout; Hauser and Guerard 1993).’’ The the greatest leakage risk for geological storage of ‘‘Underground geological storage’’ chapter in CO2. During the study period, 9% of the oil the IPCC special report on carbon dioxide produced in the United States was from District capture and storage (Benson et al. 2005) 4, and 59% of this production was via thermally concluded that the local risks of geological CO2 enhanced recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • The Labor Market Impacts of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Oil Drilling Moratorium
    The Labor Market Impacts of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Oil Drilling Moratorium Joseph E. Aldy* August 15, 2013 Draft * Aldy is an Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School; a Non-Resident Fellow at Resources for the Future; and a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. [email protected]; 617-496-7213; Harvard Kennedy School, 79 JFK Street, Mailbox 57, Cambridge, MA 02138. Susie Chung, Napat Jatusripitak, and Brett Long provided research assistance for this project. Ed Glaeser, Josh Goodman, Bill Hogan, Dick Morgenstern, Erich Muehlegger, Danny Shoag, Rob Stavins and seminar participants at the HKS Taubman Center Summer Seminar, the HKS Regulatory Policy Seminar, and the AERE 2013 Summer Conference Sponsored Sessions provided useful comments on an earlier draft. Research support was provided by the Taubman Center for State and Local Government. The Labor Market Impacts of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling Moratorium Abstract On April 20, 2010, the Transocean Deepwater Horizon suffered a catastrophic blowout while drilling in a BP lease in the Gulf of Mexico’s Macondo Prospect that resulted in the largest oil spill in U.S. history. In response to the spill and concerns about the safety of offshore oil drilling, the U.S. Department of the Interior suspended offshore deep water oil and gas drilling operations on May 27, 2010, in what became known as the offshore drilling moratorium. The media portrayed these events as adversely impacting local employment. The unprecedented mobilization of spill response resources, the BP compensation fund, and the rig workers relief fund, all provided employment opportunities and income to counter at least some of these adverse employment impacts.
    [Show full text]