Since Tuesday’s Congressional hearing on the Gulf of Mexico accident and spill, a lot of people have asked me about ExxonMobil’s approach to designing and drilling wells. For example, would we have used a long casing string or a liner/tieback to reduce the risk of a cement job failure? Do we use the same approach with all wells?
My answer is — every well is different. Effective casing design is complex and the approach to drilling each well must be tailored to the specific conditions involved. Casing design incorporates a number of critical elements including pore pressure, location of hydrocarbon zones and formation integrity. The final design is a risked-based decision with the objective of achieving the highest degree of wellbore integrity for the condition of the specific well.
Both a long casing string and a liner/tieback are viable casing designs for deepwater; however, their specific application is dependent on individual well conditions.
For example, we have designed deepwater wells in the Gulf of Mexico with long, single-string casing in situations where we can reliably predict pressures and other conditions we’ll encounter as we drill the well. That’s the case around our Hoover Diana production platform in the Gulf, where we have drilled 17 wells and have a very detailed understanding of the geology.
At a new exploration well; however, less geological information means additional mitigation steps are needed given the greater range of uncertainty involved. The less you know, the more mitigation steps you need.
That’s a lot of technical language, I know. But it underscores an important point: It’s all about risk management. At ExxonMobil, we rigorously apply our Operations Integrity Management System — and one of the 11 key elements is risk assessment – which gives us the safety framework for everything we do, including deepwater drilling.
Operations Integrity Management System calls for analyses of every significant operation we undertake around the world – in refineries, service stations, offshore platforms, and even in our offices. It identifies the risks to people and to the environment that are inherent in our business. And it requires procedures and processes to make sure we’re operating safely.
Ken is there any chance getting some people on here to explain in laymans terms what all these things mean and how all this is done as a series of posts?
Otherwise good to see you in the blogosphere at last
It’s a highly technical industry but I take your point on ensuring we talk about things in a comprehensible manner. For your interest, there’s an oil and gas glossary offered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that you might find helpful.
While your OIMS certainly looks like it should be sufficient to handle to risks involved in your varied operations, does BP not have a similar system in place? What’s keeping ExxonMobil from having this plan, yet still cutting corners, as it is increasingly likely that BP may have done prior to the current crisis?
James you raise a import issue in cutting corners, method statements and risk assessments must have been written prior to drilling this well. if a deviation from the MS has happened then it will be investigate as a possible cause that needs to have a valid reason for the deviation. Transocean the drillers need to answer this question if it occured, unless BP write method statements for the drillers then they need to answer it.
i doubt Very Much the method statement read
No testing of cement integrity needs to be perform we will take a guess that its good!!!!!!!………..
NO WAY the guys turned up on that rig to perform a cement test because it was a integral part of the operation and it sounds like they where turned away….a clear deviation from the method statement……corner cut or a decission based on sound engineering principles?.
Firstly a big thanks for the perspectives,site,,i think its a great idea.
Every well around the world has the potential to fail during critical drilling operations, and sure its about eliminating and reducing risk to an acceptable manageable level. Having a Operations Integrity Management System is critical they are written generally by highly experienced people with much experience. Exxon is no different to any oil company they all have similar systems
In some cases these systems can be seen to go to far in this culture of litigation. I have personally been told how to climb a set of stairs correctly in the offices of oil and gas companies. Along with environmental systems, welfare policies etc these to a high degree are a good thing especially where they have reduced incidents involving serious injury or death…
However do these risk management systems have a paragraph or matrix for reducing or eliminating the potential risk of bad decision when cost has become the main driving factor in that decision making process especially where the decision can have critical consequences. (probably not)
Generally the industry seems to have a good safety record especially knowing and considering the 24/7 operations that go on in… read more »
…refineries and rigs etc….safety critical equipment chosen especially BOPs are rigorously tested and have very high manufacturing standards and codes and are manufactured by independent specialists.
However all oil companies should now contribute significantly to a fund to allow one independent body like a UN to purchase and set up of emergency response villages at various ports around the world