Drilling advances

	Vol. 227 No. 4
LES SKINNER, PE CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

Oil on the water. Oil spill – the very thought brings images of dead or dying birds, struggling sea mammals and miles of shoreline covered with black, sticky ooze. It’s a nightmarish scene that tugs at the very soul of every living person.

It is this image that causes people in our industry to spend billions of dollars, euros, pounds and dinars to prevent such disasters. It is the same image that prompts legislators from all nations to pass laws, rules and regulations to punish the spiller, making the punitive consequences of such an event so unpleasant that nobody would consider intentionally allowing a spill of any size to occur.

All of this is well-known, well-documented and well-rehearsed after nearly 40 years of active environmental legislation, since the late 1960s. The majority of oil-related operations function under the umbrella of a strong environmental plan of some type depending on location, potential threat and political activism in the vicinity. Why, then, does this issue continue to surface when the discussions shift to drilling in the offshore arena?

The risk of blowouts and massive oil pollution is often given as the reason for not permitting drilling in certain areas. In the US, this involves drilling off both the east and west coasts and in other “restricted” areas such as the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Even non-invasive exploratory activities cannot be pursued because they could, someday, somehow, lead to (gasp) drilling in these areas.

It is curious that other nations with similarly sensitive areas have discovered that the oil industry can drill safely without killing marine life. US state and federal regulatory agencies have found that sensitive areas in the western Gulf can be protected adequately. These include Laguna Madre and Matagorda Bay near Corpus Christi, Texas, the marshes of southern Louisiana and Mobile Bay, Alabama. Strange that the oil industry is judged to be environmentally friendly in one area, but not in another when drilling conditions are identical in both.

Statistically, drilling is one of the least polluting segments of the industry. The probability of a blowout is very, very small. Less than 1% of the wells drilled over the past 50 years have experienced a blowout. Worldwide blowout data over the past 36 years indicate that fewer than nine wells per thousand drilled have blown out. Of that number, 25% were gas well blowouts that did not leave any sheen on the water, much less the dreaded, massive, black oil spill. Spill volumes are also very, very low, since 80% of all blowouts bridge-over within 24 hours, with another 15% bridging-over in the next two days. In fact, of all the recorded blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico, over 99% spilled less than 10 barrels of oil on the water.

In the past 30 years, only one large oil spill from a blowout occurred in the Gulf, the Pemex-Ixtoc 1 in the Bay of Campeche. In that blowout, an estimated 3.5 million barrels of oil were released during a 290-day period in 1979 and 1980. Prior to that, the worst offshore blowout was in the Santa Barbara Channel off the coast of California. That blowout lasted 11 days in January, 1969 and placed 4,800 barrels of oil on the water.

The worst recent blowout in the Gulf occurred off the Louisiana coast in 1992 on a workover. In the Greenhill blowout, the oil either burned, evaporated, was dispersed by wind and wave action, or was abated by natural processes, primarily in situ bioremediation. Of the 14,300 barrels of oil lost at the wellhead, only 95 barrels reached East Timbalier Island. Most of that oil was recovered by cleanup crews leaving only a thin “bathtub ring” on the island. Nature, in the form of Hurricane Andrew, took care of this.

Regardless of our improved performance, drilling is still linked with the image of massive oil spills. There seems to be a persistent outcry against drilling anywhere. Politicians of every stripe rant against drilling off their coastline in one breath, then caterwaul (howl) about high gasoline prices in the next. This might make one suspect that some stakeholders have been watching too many old movies in which the director shows the dirty drillers intentionally spilling oil onto the ground and the water. Coincidental, is it not, that most of these movie makers reside in California, the home state of the Santa Barbara spill. Could it be that one spill 40 years ago so affected the population of that fair state that they have become irrational?

The trend over the last 30 years or so, recorded in MMS OCS Reports and other sources from 1970 onward, has been to fewer blowouts annually with even fewer spills. This downward trend reflects improved blowout prevention equipment, procedures and crew training, along with heightened environmental awareness among operators. The latter probably comes as a shock to environmental activists – we really do care about the planet.

If one looks back at our most recent oil spills, they did not occur during drilling operations. The worst spills were transportation-related incidents, mostly involving tankers. The vessel names are familiar: Amoco Cadiz, Mega Borg, Shinoussa and Exxon Valdez. In 1983, over 2.9 million barrels of oil were spilled from tankers. In 1988 and 1989, another 2.7 million barrels were lost. The Valdez lost 285,000 barrels, alone.

As the demands of consumers increase, it is likely that transportation-related spills will also increase. The solution of many nations (including the one of which I am a citizen) is to restrict drilling, which reduces reserve replacement, making the consumer nation even more dependent on imported oil, resulting in more transportation-related incidents, resulting in even less drilling, and on, and on. It is, not a vicious circle, but a descending spiral.

So, why does drilling get the bad press? It’s probably ignorance. The media, the environmental community, the legislators and even some regulators group all energy activities into one category, OIL (and usually, BIG OIL). It’s like linking every type of medical practice into one group. If a podiatrist makes a mistake cutting a small callous off a toe, then every neurosurgeon, internist, radiologist and respiratory therapist is obviously labeled a quack.

Perhaps it’s our fault for not educating the public about drilling. They see the rig, they think of oiled birds and sea otters. It’s as simple as that. They do not want to be confused by the facts.

We honestly can drill without putting oil on the water; we’ve proven that. Oh well, as the saying goes, “There is none so blind, as he who will not see.”