Top Kill Failure Could Be Sign of Subsurface Leaks

Update: Even 'Bubba' Clinton talked about the possibility of using explosives to collapse the seabed around the Macondo blowout. If the well casings are not intact, then relief wells will not seal off the reservoirs because there is more than one route for the oil and gas to escape into the sea. Clinton said nuclear devices would not be necessary, but US Person thinks conventional explosives would not be sufficiently powerful to collapse porous strata over a wide enough area to permanently stop the leaks. A relatively small nuclear blast, besides burying the well bore, could also fuse rock overlying the oil reservoirs creating an impermeable layer or "cap" well below the sea bottom. Much has be made of the fact that the Soviet experience with this drastic method was on land. Pundits tend to neglect the fact that the successful explosions took place in subsurface rock strata--the same would be true for an explosion beneath the seafloor in the Mississippi Canyon formation. No doubt a nuclear blast is a risky proposition, so the suggestion has always been intended as a last resort after the relief wells have failed to stop the blowout. Letting the huge reservoirs simply drain out would be an environmental disaster beyond contemplation of even a "Freddie Kreuger".  Tar balls have washed up on Texas beaches for the first time.  Not an "act of God" as the craven Texas governor would have you believe, but a notorious act of man. But then they always do tend to exaggerate in the Lone Star State.

{6.17.10}Yes, folks US Person said it was the "big one", and knowledgeable commentators are saying the same thing. The failure of BP's top kill operation last week, could indicate leaks exist below the sea bottom in the well bore itself.  Pumping 80 barrels of heavy drilling mud a minute into the well failed to seal it after three attempts. Usually this method has a good chance of killing a gusher, but in this case the pumping action did not overtake the flow of oil, indicating a leak somewhere beyond the column of drilling mud being forced into the well. BP used up 50,000 barrels of mud before calling off the effort[1].

What does this mean? The worst case scenario is now a distinct possibility. A compromised well bore in which crude is leaking out of failed well casings means any top down method of shutting off the leak is doomed to failure[2]. Even relief wells may not work since they is no way of knowing which of four reservoirs are escaping to the surface or where exactly in the column the leaks are located. A complete bleed out of the reservoirs--2 to 2.5 billions barrels--may end up in the Gulf of Mexico, turning it into an ecological nightmare. Even the wildlife is trying to escape for their lives. One thing is certain: a $20 billion liability fund is a puny drop in the ocean compared to the cost of havoc being unleashed at 50,000 barrels of toxic crude a day.

[1] BP experienced problems controlling well pressures before the explosion due to cracks in the surrounding strata. BP finally plugged cracks through which gas was seeping into the well bore after three attempts in February before the final gas leak destroyed the Deepwater Horizon platform on April 20th. The company informed the Minerals Management Service in early March it was having a "well control situation". Other companies have shut down wells considered unsafe due to gas surges. Exxon shut its Blackbeard well in 2006 after a threatened blowout.
[2]In 1966, a nuclear explosive was detonated at Urtabulak gas field in Southern Uzbekistan in order to extinguish a gas well fire that had been burning for almost three years and had resisted numerous attempts at control. The gas fountain, which formed at pressures of almost 300 atmospheres, had resulted in the loss of over 12 million cubic metres of gas per day through a 200 mm casing – enough to supply a city the size of St Petersburg. Two 445 mm holes were drilled that aimed to come as close as possible to the well at a depth of about 1500 metres in the middle of a 200 metre thick clay zone. One of these came to within about 35 m of the well and was used to emplace the special 30-kiloton charge which had been developed by the Arzamas weapons laboratory. Immediately after the explosion the fire went out and the well was sealed. This was the first of five peaceful nuclear explosions used for this purpose, and all but one was completely successful in extinguishing the fire and sealing the well. No radioactivity above background levels was detected in subsequent surveys of any of the sites. www.world-nuclear.org. So, Mr. Garwin, is the freak still crazy after all these years?