This paper describes new uses of existing technology for controlling a blowout in Well 3 of the West Cameron 165 Field offshore Louisiana. New methods were used for the Quartz Pressure System and side-scan sonar equipment to determine if the blowout well was flowing underground or underwater. Also, the Magnetic Gradient Ranging System determined the distance and direction from the relief well to the blowout well. Introduction West Cameron Block 165 is located 32 miles southwest of Cameron, LA, in 48 ft of water. The field was developed using six single-well platform installations. All six wells were completed in the only productive sand in the field, the K-2 sand. Before blowing out, Well 3 was the best producer in the field with flow rates of 13 MMcf/D, 90 bbl condensate/D, and with a flowing tubing pressure of 2,900 psig. Well 3 was drilled essentially as a straight hole in Nov. 1969 and completed in the K-2 sand with subsea perforations at 9,620 to 9,626 ft and 9,638 to 9,657 ft.On March 23, 1976. all six single-well platform installations in the field were shut in manually to install new production equipment on Platform 1, the central production equipment on Platform 1, the central gathering platform for this field. At 7:00 a.m. on March 24, 1976, gas was discovered escaping from around the bradenhead flange of West Cameron 165 Well 3. Initial inspection of the area indicated that the flow was occurring primarily from the bradenhead flange; however, gas bubbles also were seen around the legs of the platform. In 2 hours, the bradenhead bolts were cut by the gas flow and the Christmas tree was blown off the bradenhead flange. Well 3 was out of control and blowing gas, mud, and sand.When notified of the problem on the morning of March 24, 1976, Tenneco Oil Co. assembled its Spill Contingency Task Force. Since the structure of the Spill Contingency Task Force was organized in advance, this work force began planning strategy for bringing the well under control. Before the end of the day, the following events occurred.1. A representative with a blowout control company inspected the situation and made recommendations.2. Tenneco decided to drill a relief well.3. A drilling rig was obtained for drilling the relief well and was being towed to the location.4. A pollution control unit was on location to contain any possible pollutants.5. Two barges equipped with water-spraying facilities were placed under contract. and by mid-afternoon, one barge arrived on location and began spraying water to prevent ignition. prevent ignition. 6. All pertinent state and federal agencies were notified.Subsequently, the Spill Contingency Task Force became known as the blowout team. The blowout team met at least once a day to make recommendations, coordinate planning, and oversee the execution of various blowout planning, and oversee the execution of various blowout operations. On May 9, 1976, just 47 days after the blowout occurred, the dedicated work of this task force and many people in the industry culminated in the successful control of Well 3.This paper combines two older papers .1, 2 Its main emphasis is directed toward the reservoir evaluation of a blowout. Using the computer and other special tools for monitoring a blowout during control operations is discussed. JPT P. 1473
On March 24, 1976, Tenneco Oil Company experienced a blowout in the West Cameron 165 Field. West Cameron 165 Well No. 3, a single-sell platform installation, was blowing out of control. By April 11, 1976, the casing strings and the platform had subsided beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, leaving a huge gas boil approximately 100 feet in diameter as the only remaining visual evidence of the blowout. Prior to drilling the relief well to total depth, calculations were made to predict the anticipated bottom hole and surface injection pressures, injection volumes, and injection breakthrough times. These calculations, presented in a graphical format, would serve as guidelines during the actual injection operation. In addition, new methods were employed for utilizing the Hewlett-Packard Quartz Pressure System and side scan sonar equipment to determine if the blowout well was flowing underground and/or beneath the surface of the water. Introduction West Cameron Block 165 is located 32 miles southwest of Cameron, Louisiana, in a water depth of 48 feet. The field was developed by six single-well platform installations. All six wells were completed in the only productive sand in the field, the K-2 Sand. Prior to blowing out, Well No. 3 was the best producer in the field with a flow rate of 13 MMCFD, 90 BCPD, and with a flowing tubing pressure of 2900 psig. Well No. 3 was drilled essentially as a straight hole during November of 1969 and completed in the K-2 Sand with subsea perforations at 9620–26 feet and 9638–57 feet. On March 23, 1976, all six single-sell platform installations in the field were manually shut-in to install new production equipment on the No. 1 Platform, the central gathering platform for this Platform, the central gathering platform for this field. At 7:00 A.M., on March 24, 1976, gas was discovered escaping from around the bradenhead flange of West Cameron 165 Well No. 3. Initial inspection of the area indicated that the flow was occurring primarily between the bradenhead flange; however, gas bubbles were also seen around the legs of the platform. Within two hours, the bradenhead bolts were flow cut and the tree was blown off the bradenhead flange. Well No. 3 was out of control; blowing gas, mud, and sand. Upon being notified of the problem on the morning of March 24, 1976, Tenneco oil Company assembled its "Spill Contingency Task Force". Since the structure of the "Spill Contingency Task Force" was organized in advance, this work force immediately determined that a relief well would be required and began planning strategy to bring the well under control. Subseqnently, this task force became known as the "Blowout Team". The Blowout Team met at least once a day to make recommendations, coordinate the planning, and oversee the execution of various blowout operations. On May 9, 1976, just 47 days after the blowout occurred, the dedicated work of this task force and many people within the Industry was culminated as Well No. 3 was successfully killed. Due to the limited scope of this paper, the actions of the entire blowout operation cannot be detailed. However, the use of the computer and other special tools for monitoring a gas well blowout during the kill operation are discussed herein. A second paper deals specifically with the relief well drilling operations, kill equipment, and the injection operation. INJECTION PRESSURES, VOLUMES, AND TIMES Prior to drilling the relief well (Well No. 12) to total depth, it was necessary that the injection operation be fully understood by all involved. Since Well No. 3 was drilled essentially as a straight hole during 1969 and only single shot directional surveys were taken, then the exact bottom hole location of Well No. 3 was not known.
Based on a recent assessment of nuclear generating stations in the US, Spain and Belgium, TG Advisers identified over 20 units with various levels of torsional vibration system concerns. This was a surprising result given the relatively long and successful power generation industry history in understanding and addressing this dangerous failure mechanism.
Much of the world’s Steam Turbine Generator fleet was commissioned well over 40 years ago. These turbine generator sets have had many in-service issues leading to poor reliability and in some cases, requiring full turbine and generator replacements. On the turbine side, most issues, as documented by EPRI surveys, have been related to the low pressure turbines. Discovery of issues during planned shutdown inspections such as rotor shaft cracking, stress corrosion cracking (SCC) of dovetails, and blade reliability concerns can be addressed without the costly replacement of the full rotor/blade components. This paper will review and provide actual case studies of methods to repair and extend the life of these components.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.