A look back as scientists raced to estimate oil flow from Deepwater Horizon macondo well

Jul 06, 2011 by Dan Krotz
Among their findings, the Berkeley Lab team found that reservoir permeability had a strong influence on oil flow rate. This graphic tracks oil flow rate, in barrels per day, as a function of reservoir permeability and gas-oil ratio in a model in which the pressure at the blowout preventer is 4,400 pounds per square inch.

(PhysOrg.com) -- The first two weeks of June 2010 were a blur for six scientists from the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). As the world focused on the ongoing crisis in the Gulf of Mexico after the blowout of BP's Deepwater Horizon Macondo well, the scientists dropped everything to estimate how much oil was flowing from the mangled wellhead.

The clock was ticking: Their work would help assess the environmental impact of the disaster, as well as develop ways to cap the well, which had been spewing unchecked since April 20.

They used some of the world's most sophisticated numerical modeling tools, developed at Berkeley Lab over the past two decades for applications ranging from geothermal energy production to environmental hydrology.

Working quickly and amid abundant uncertainties, they estimated that between 60,000 and 100,000 barrels of oil were flowing into the Gulf each day. Their calculations were in line with a final estimate derived two months later based on much more information.

Their research is recounted in an article published in this week's online early edition of the .

"We were able to harness Berkeley Lab's expertise in multiphase flow and to quickly take on this urgent problem," says Curt Oldenburg, a staff scientist in Berkeley Lab's Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the article. Also on the team were fellow Earth Sciences Division scientists Barry Freifeld, Karsten Pruess, Lehua Pan, Stefan Finsterle, and George Moridis.

The scientists were part of a group established by the National Incident Commander in May 2010 to estimate the oil flow rate from the wellhead. One component of this effort comprised scientists from five Department of Energy national laboratories, including Berkeley Lab.

The Berkeley Lab team first developed a simplified conceptual model of the system despite a lack of knowledge about the flow path from the reservoir into the well, reservoir permeability, and pressure in the blowout preventer. They then developed a coupled model of the reservoir and wellbore using a numerical program, called TOUGH2, which simulates fluid and heat flow in porous and fractured media.

Their simulations painted a range of flow rates, from a low of 60,000 barrels of oil per day to a high of 100,000 barrels of oil per day. Their initial estimates are in line with a final estimate established in August 2010 by the entire group and based on independent analyses and observations. It pegged the rate at 62,200 barrels of oil per day upon initial blowout in April, tapering to 52,700 barrels per day just before the well was capped in mid-July.

The Berkeley Lab team's modeling approach also allowed them to determine the role played by various uncertainties. For example, they found that the rate of oil flow greatly increased as the length of the well in contact with the reservoir increases.

Surprisingly, they also determined that oil flow rate is relatively insensitive to the pressure at the bottom of the blowout preventer. Common sense dictates that as pressure drops at the bottom of the blowout preventer, the oil flow rate increases. Instead, the scientists found that the lower the pressure, the more natural gas exsolves from the oil. Natural gas interferes with oil flow and counteracts the pressure that drives oil upward in the well.

Explore further: Monitoring heavy metals using mussels

More information: This research is described in an article entitled “Numerical simulations of the Macondo well blowout reveal strong control of oil flow by reservoir permeability and exsolution of gas,” that is published in the online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences the week of July 4, 2011.

Related Stories

BP removes cap from plugged well in Gulf of Mexico

Sep 02, 2010

BP on Thursday removed a massive cap which had stemmed the flow of oil from its ruptured well deep in the Gulf of Mexico in a key step toward killing the well once and for all, officials said.

Estimating How Much Oil The Gulf Spill Released

Jun 14, 2010

Official government estimates now say that around 27,000 barrels of oil per day have been pouring out of the damaged well in the Gulf of Mexico since the leak began. This estimate comes from the report of ...

Recommended for you

Monitoring heavy metals using mussels

1 hour ago

A research team in Malaysia has concluded that caged mussels are useful for monitoring heavy metal contamination in coastal waters in the Strait of Johore. Initial results indicate more pollution in the eastern ...

Climate change report identifies 'the most vulnerable'

3 hours ago

Extreme weather events leave populations with not enough food both in the short- and the long-term. A new report by the Environmental Change Institute (ECI) at the School of Geography and the Environment ...

Obama readies climate change push at UN summit

6 hours ago

President Barack Obama will seek to galvanize international support in the fight against climate change on Tuesday when he addresses the United Nations, with time running out on his hopes of leaving a lasting ...

New toxic spill traced to Mexico mine

6 hours ago

Civil protection authorities have confirmed new toxic spills in northwestern Mexico, where a massive acid spill from a copper mine contaminated waterways.

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
1 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2011
The first two weeks of June 2010 were a blur for six scientists from the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab).


Let's hope they took time to study the basic principles of science before rushing off to write a report for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

That journal appears to have been involved in promoting many less-than-honest climate disaster stories. Here are links to two stories unfolding now:

1. PNAS paper on lack of anthropogenic climate warming since 1998

http://judithcurr...ce-1998/

2. IPCCs alteration of Forster & Gregorys climate results

http://judithcurr...results/

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo