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 Joseph-Ohio on December 30, 2015 at 3:18pm
A very interesting and informative reply Mr. Joliet.

Thank you.

Thinking we're all wondering what caused this massive failure so it can be precluded in the future.

California earthquakes keep coming to mind but can't rule out the 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' axiom kicking in and rendering a maximized failure. Just don't know but hope to learn more.

Thanks again Mr. Joliat.
Permalink Reply by Brian Powers on December 31, 2015 at 12:12pm

Steven - I've clicked and have read many of the links on this story. The video shows me that its a surface leak, not a ruptured pipe 8,000 ft down, A simple wellbore schematic would have helped my understanding greatly.

The operator drilling the relief well will certainly have access to the original well drilling records, which will show the mud density required to contain pore pressure at the depth of the storage reservoir. Once the relief well intersects the original well, mud will be circulated to fill up the vertical column of the leaky well until it is dead, then cement will be pumped to affect the seal.

I think the original well will be lost as a storage well permanently. Another thing not discussed in the links or videos is the prevailing wind speed and direction, which will disperse the methane. The areal map that shows high ppb (parts per billion) methane readings simply exacerbate the fear and fear mongering, in my opinion.

I have no doubt that this situation  can be remediated; if the relief well is only at 3,800 ft measured depth; they still have a ways to go before this mess is all over.

I  do hope that the authorities investigate and share findings; this will help all in the storage  business learn and maybe prevent similar failures.

I'd also be surprised if the state would allow a storage well with such a high flow potential to be completed without requiring surface or subsurface safety valves, which operate in "fail safe" mode that would stop flow in the event of a breach and loss of surface hydraulic pressure. One week's cost for relief well operation would likely pay for the hardware cost for such systems.

Happy New Year, All,

Brian

Permalink Reply by Steven A Joliat on January 1, 2016 at 12:04pm

Thanks, Brian.  I look forward to the successful remediation and investigation as well.  I was having difficulty finding reliable information on the exact nature of the leak, so my responses were somewhat speculative.  I also find the lack of standard well control hardware peculiar.  I wonder if this storage field was a utility company project from the beginning without ever passing through oil industry ownership. 

Happy New Year to you and yours as well. 

Steve

Permalink Reply by Sylvester Deal on January 1, 2016 at 3:29pm

Brian & Steve,

See the links posted here Dec 29 to CA PUC and the DOGGR Well Finder site.  Well DATA file (current effort permits, schematics, history) and production/injection available as well as past temperature/pressure surveys.

Gives plenty of detail on well condition and planned effort for both it and the relief well.  The company will be able to give the best estimate of lost gas once the well is plugged and seasonal drawdown ends so to calculate remaining gas in the field

Permalink Reply by Brian Powers on January 2, 2016 at 12:04pm

Sly -

Thanks for the reminder to click on the links; for once, they contained interesting and useful information. This is an old oil producer that was converted to gas storage service some years ago. The casing and production tubing is moderate strength carbon steel. It had a water shut-off performed at some point in its life via cement squeeze technique and was reperforated above the top of cement.

The plan prior to the loss of containment event appears to have been to use a coiled tubing unit to wash a sand or scale bridge out of the tubing and then kill the well with heavy fluid. No competent company or regulator or service company would or should allow rigging up to the top of the valve tree with a known bonnet leak; that is potentially inviting disaster.

Testing connection in gas service wells with fluid also can give misleading results.

I'll be following this one to see how it turns out; I hope that the operator has a safe and successful recovery.

Brian

The age of the well, its prior production service and carbon steel tubulars do not rule out a downhole leak to me. This might be due to corrosion or packer seal leakage. Of much greater concern to me was the notation on the wellhead and surface valve schematic showing a bonnet leak on the inboard casing valve just above the wellhead. To me, it would be unconscionable for the regulators to publish a drawing like this with no further context.

Permalink Reply by David Allen Lilly on December 30, 2015 at 7:45am

Massive amounts of energy are created which fuel a global economy and make the world a better place.

A relative little drops on the ground and is quickly cleaned up,  but a few with ulterior motives want to throw us back 100 years because of some kooky notion of global warming or whatever they call it this week.

Only leftist progressives fall for this tripe.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 30, 2015 at 9:28am

Fix it and proceed.

Don't let the tail wag the dog.

The tail doesn't have a brain.

Permalink Reply by David Allen Lilly on December 31, 2015 at 6:38am

I would like your comment Joseph if we had the option of a like button.

Permalink Reply by Barry D on December 31, 2015 at 9:38am

Joseph,

Excellent thought.

This is NOT a cataclysmic situation. There is a resolution and there probably will not be any permanent damage. Life will go on.

The appropriate authorities are dealing with it and there is a fix.

I like the tail wagging the dog reference. The tail being the environmental left.

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on January 4, 2016 at 5:40pm

97% of scientists believe that humans are causing global warming. Check the video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on January 4, 2016 at 6:30pm

Burgeoning population.

More and more people everyday.

No end to the growth in sight as far as I can tell.

The more people the more good folks but also the more sickos / maniacs / criminally inclined / etc. that the good folks have to deal with.

True story.

Permalink Reply by Barry D on January 5, 2016 at 6:50pm

Paul,

That is a false statement.

The number actually comes from a survey conducted several years ago. It was a survey of scientists involved in varying areas of climate science, and did not include all scientists involved in climate science.

So it was not "all scientists" as you imply.

Second - The results were 97% of those surveyed felt humans had an effect on global warming;  not that humans were the cause.

Finally - the survey was taken again recently; the 97% number has fallen to 36%. So only 36 % of a small group of scientists felt that humans had an effect.

This is all spin and interestingly, the one piece of information that doesn't make it to public consumption is that there is no scientific data that shows the human effect. The "assumption" that humans affect or cause global warming is all based on computer models. Computer models similar to those used to predict weather for the nightly news. And we know how accurate those predictions are. Yeah right !

Anthropogenic (human caused) global warming is a falacy propogated by leftist anti fossil fuel folks such as yourself. It just does not exist. 

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service