Massive Methane Leak in California - Worst Catastrophe Since BP Spill?

"Since initially reporting on California's Aliso Canyon gas leak, more details have emerged on the scale (and potential for no solution) of the problem as the infamous Erin Brockovich writes, "the enormity of the Aliso Canyon gas leak cannot be overstated. Gas is escaping through a ruptured pipe more than 8,000 feet underground, and it shows no signs of stopping," as according to the California Air Resources Board, methane - a greenhouse gas 72 times more impactful in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide - has been escaping from the Aliso Canyon site with force equivalent “to a volcanic eruption” for about two months now."

The leak includes not just methane but benzene (a carcinogen) also. Despite frantic efforts, the leak can't be stopped until Spring.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-24/unstoppable-california-gas...

I understand that Delmont, in Westmoreland County, PA, has a huge methane storage well, also. Let's hope it doesn't leak. http://old.post-gazette.com/healthscience/19990322gas2.asp

Views: 6896

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on December 29, 2015 at 8:06am

Christian Science Monitor reports:

"Huge gas leak undermines California's climate change plans".

"The effect of the leak on the state's greenhouse-gas emissions is comparable to adding 7 million cars to the road".

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2015/1224/Huge-gas-leak-underm...

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 29, 2015 at 8:58am

Paul Heckbert,

You report the same thing over and over again.

So.........I will also repeat an earlier reply.

However, in addition the following couple of / few inquiries :

Are not most enthusiastic environmentalists actually fomenting a kind of environmental terror ?

Then, are they not more appropriately called environmental terrorists ?

All hype no practical solutions the way I read them.

BTW Paul, your profile photo attached to your posts and replies gives me the impression that you're happy to report this disaster - are you ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now to repeat an earlier reply of mine to even things up so to speak :

I want to know what caused this to happen.

Perhaps a California Class Earthquake / Earthquakes  / Sabotage / Environmental Terrorism ?

In any case I don't think it's too smart to locate a huge Natural Gas Storage Reservoir (especially one that stores Mercaptan Treated / Line / Consumer Ready Natural Gas) in a Zone known for it's massive Earthquakes (where it appears to me that the population is  just waiting for the 'Big One' to happen anyway).  Actually (given a choice) I don't think it's too smart at all for anyone to even live in such a Zone.

To me it's analogous to Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant meltdown after their offshore earthquake / following tsunami wave.  That right there (to me) isn't too smart of a place for a nuclear power plant (for instance and comparison).

But after considering all that - I admit that there are times that such bad things happen to good people no matter what precautions are taken and I am also sympathetic.

JMHOs

Permalink Reply by Barry D on December 29, 2015 at 7:29pm

Paul,

No facts to sustain that contention.

It's a guess, and probably made up.

Again - it's arrogance to believe that humans can affect "Climate Change"

Climate Change is a naturally occurring event. We can't stop it or change it.

Permalink Reply by Brian Powers on December 29, 2015 at 2:26pm

I wouldn't refer to someone (Erin Brockovich) who made a ton of money in the true story that was made into a movie starring Julia Roberts as "infamous." If anything; she's quite famous (and wealthy, to boot, as well as attractive).

The BP spill was essentially a man allowed incident, with faulty equipment and poor onsite decision making; the leaky storage well may fall into the same category if the incident is properly investigated and reported. There should be plenty of idle land rigs available to drill a relief well, as well as plenty of laid off directional drillers and cementers to help. 8,000 ft vertical well with some directional work to set up the intersect is not a huge technical stretch by any means. If Red Adair weren't dead, he could help out.

Brian

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 30, 2015 at 4:48am

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/220073-why-we-cant-plug-southern...

Read another article which indicated that the intent is to plug the leaking 7" diameter line by way of the new 'relief well' (once the relief well is completed and intersects the 'leaking' pipe).  

Take the link at the top of this reply to check it out for yourself and see what you make of it.

I still don't understand the concept of that remediation, as the line pressure encountered at the intersection of the new 'relief well' and the 'leaking pipe' will be even greater than at the actual  'leak' (considering (guessing) that the 'intersection' of the new 'relief well' and the 'leaking 7" diameter pipe'  would be 'upstream' of the actual 'leak') ? ?

If the 'overpressure is too great to plug the pipe at the actual leak why would it be 'pluggable' at a higher pressure (existing at a new upstream intersection) ? ?

Permalink Reply by Steven A Joliat on December 30, 2015 at 10:21am

It could be plugged using the relief well, because the devices and materials used in the relief well string will be specifically designed to accommodate and overcome the high pressure.  It is possible that parts of the production string of the existing well due to present condition or construction are unable to support the pressure required to overcome the leak.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 30, 2015 at 10:58am

Thank you Steven A. Joliat.

So....you point out that by plugging this leak another new (or more than one other new) may be created.

Not simple is it.

Thanks again Mr  Joliat.

Permalink Reply by Steven A Joliat on December 30, 2015 at 12:08pm

Joseph, you have apparently misinterpreted my comment.  The process is simpler than you believe.  The relief well method does not create new leaks, It intercepts the existing well below the point of the existing leak.  Then the old well is either permanently sealed by pumping a cement down the relief well into the production zone of the leaking well.or a mechanical seal is achieved in the original well string to divert the flow into the relief well which would connect to the existing surface network.  It is most likely that the original well would be sealed permanently as taking a single well out of production in the storage field would not ordinarily pose a great impact on the continued operation of the field. 

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 30, 2015 at 1:08pm
You wrote earlier :

'It is possible that parts of the production string of the existing well due to present condition or construction are unable to support the pressure required to overcome the leak.'

That is where I must have mis-interpreted your meaning.

But ('if parts of the production string of the existing well are unable to support the pressure required to overcome the leak') how could we know that a new part of the existing well (upstream of the intersection of the relief well into the existing) would not also fail during the remediation ? ?

Therein lies the crux of my mis-interpretion then.

Thank you once again for your clarification Mr. Joliet.
Permalink Reply by Steven A Joliat on December 30, 2015 at 1:37pm

The relief well typically is designed to a higher standard using materials of greater strength with higher safety factors.  Also, if the age of the existing well was a contributing factor to its failure, the relief well is constructed of new materials not affected by ongoing stress, corrosion, etc.  I expect an investigation of the failure will be conducted to determine the exact cause of the well's failure and the investigation will likely include other wells in the field to ensure they are not susceptible to what problems may be discovered.  I am not familiar with California's regulations, but  other state regulators would require this sort of action. 

Sorry if my previous post was not sufficiently clear.  Send me a message and I'd be happy to discuss this in more detail if you like.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 30, 2015 at 2:21pm
I get that the new relief well would be built stronger and to withstand the pressure required to fix the leak.

It was always (in my mind) a question if the remaining upstream portions of the failed well would also fail during / soon after remediation.
Permalink Reply by Steven A Joliat on December 30, 2015 at 3:00pm

I see.  Typically the uphole, (upstream,) part of the old well is no longer exposed to the high pressure of the reservoir  when the lower part is successfully cemented off.  It would no longer be used as a well in the storage field, and it most likely will have some of the well tubing inside the casing removed and scrapped.  An additional cement or mechanical plug would then be placed in the casing surrounding the determined location of the leak.  The process of controlling the leak generally renders the old well unsuitable for further production.

The actual producing zone that supplies the gas to a well in a gas storage field is a relatively small part of the total well length.  This can vary somewhat, say in the case where a salt dome is used for storage.  That would be very unlikely considering the geology of California, so I will assume that it is a storage field and well more like what is common in Ohio.  The actual methods used to regain control of this well will vary according to the specific geology of this storage field, but I have given you a general picture of how this is usually done.  I hope you find this useful or interesting.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service