Marathon Announces First Oil from Deepwater Droshky Development in Gulf of Mexico
20 July 2010
Marathon Oil Corporation announced that its Droshky development in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico has begun production on time and under budget. This marks the first new deepwater production since the Obama Administration halted drilling after the Deepwater Horizon accident. The new well had already been drilled at the time of the incident.
Marathon owns a 100% working interest in Droshky, which is expected to produce approximately 50,000 net barrels of oil equivalent per day at its peak, consisting of approximately 45,000 barrels per day of liquid hydrocarbons and 30 million cubic feet per day of natural gas.
Located in approximately 3,000 feet (914 meters) of water in Green Canyon Block 244, about 160 miles (258 kilometers) southwest of New Orleans, Droshky is a major subsea project consisting of four development wells tied back to the third-party Bullwinkle platform with dual, 18-mile flowlines.
At a final development cost of less than $900 million, the initial stage of development is expected to produce 35 million of the estimated 60 million barrels of oil equivalent (boe) net resource. Future expansion of the project and ultimate total recovery will largely depend upon well performance. At year-end 2009, Droshky had booked proved reserves of approximately 26 million boe.
.
Fantastic news!!!
Now that the courts have slapped down the Obama administration's unconstitutional power grab some businesses can continue to operate, employ people, and feed families. Thank you courts!
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 20 July 2010 at 11:44 AM
I hate having to agree with the Goracle.
Posted by: JMartin | 20 July 2010 at 02:00 PM
The fact that this well was already drilled at the onset of the BP disaster means that it was likely excluded from the deep-water drilling suspension order.
How do we know that this well was not drilled and capped with with the same inattention to safety measures that BP used?
We need to get a handle on safety oversight so that more BP-like disasters do not reoccur. Further, we must make sure that we have what it takes (plans & equipment) to stop such a spewing spill within hours or days should one ever happen again.
Posted by: Sanity Chk | 20 July 2010 at 02:35 PM
@JMartin
I wonder if the Goracle would have even posted to this article if the phrase "Obama Administration" wasn't visible in the first paragraph. Have you noticed his posts tend towards the rightwing talking points more than anything else? It seems he just can't resist the words "Obama" or "study."
Posted by: ai_vin | 20 July 2010 at 03:19 PM
ai_vin: Suffice it to say that being a fossil company mouthpiece seems to be synonymous with "hard-nosed right-winger."
As a trolling troglodyte, Goracle never misses an opportunity to harangue the POTUS, all climate change researchers and their findings, Al Gore, and anyone else trying to do something about the consequences of unabated industrial and transportation CO2 spewage - regardless of the veracity of the content of their message.
Posted by: Sanity Chk | 20 July 2010 at 04:01 PM
The Goracle has gone beyond the point of no return. He is an untouchable and will not change until some ecology disaster hits him hard enough. Even then, he will pretend that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. A friend has found a way to selectively obliterate his comments. So far only about 1% has gone through his filters.
Posted by: HarveyD | 20 July 2010 at 06:12 PM
It shouldn't be that difficult to figure out how many deepwater horizon-style wells have been permitted and are getting ready to be drilled ---- the government can simply review all the issued permits & ones that are in the permitting process, and revoke all deepwater horizon-style permits until further notice, or allow them to redesign and then proceed. I support American energy independence...it's a major part of our national security - drilling is a part of it until other technologies are ready on a large scale.
Posted by: ejj | 20 July 2010 at 08:41 PM
Ultimately, my point is I do NOT support a blanket moratorium on deep sea drilling when realistically the industry has a very, very good overall record when it comes to safety and environmental responsibility. When the Exxon Valdez ripped open in Alaska, did America stop all boat traffic? The government should go after drill designs similar to deepwater horizon, not everyone. It's the same knee-jerk paranoid response that got Shirley Sherrod (USDA race flap) fired...NOT the kind of people and government I want in charge. Bunch of f-ing idiots.
Posted by: ejj | 21 July 2010 at 06:32 AM
According to a June 16 Washington Post report, "the same tiny Texas subcontractor" authored the Gulf spill response plans for BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell Oil, and Exxon Mobil:
The spill response plans for all five companies were written by the same firm, the Response Group. Although it has operations in at least seven cities nationwide, the Houston-based firm's Web site says the company has about 35 employees. (One current assignment: calling 50,000 people who have visited BP offices and getting their e-mail addresses and emergency contact information.)
Additionally, the Post reported that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) stated that oil companies all rely on one company, Marine Spill Response, to provide containment equipment.
The Post further reported:
The five oil companies submitted these plans -- each more than 500 pages long and each relying on the same reassuring language -- as part of their applications for permits to drill deepwater wells in the gulf. The firms assured the government that they could handle oil spills much larger than the one now threatening the region's environment and economy. And each time, the Minerals Management Service approved the plan and gave the go-ahead for drilling.
According the same Post report, three of the five major oil companies operating in the Gulf "listed the phone number for the same University of Miami marine science expert, Peter Lutz, who died in 2005" in their spill response plans.
The Washington Post article also noted that the companies include provisions "about the need to protect walruses." However, the article quotes Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) as stating the animals "have not called the Gulf of Mexico home for 3 million years."
In testimony before the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee on June 15, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson stated repeatedly that his company is "not well-equipped to handle" major oil spills:
REP. BART STUPAK: See, my concern is, Mr. Tillerson, then Mr. Mulva (inaudible), Chevron and Shell's worst-case scenario is 200,000 barrels per day, in their response plan. ExxonMobil's is 166,000 barrels per day. That's a lot more than what's currently leaking out into the Gulf.
So, on paper, these plans -- and you are going to rely on these plans -- might seem reassuring, but reality shows you can't prevent the oil from reaching the Gulf shores.
So, Mr. Tillerson, ExxonMobil states in its response to the pre- hearing questions that ExxonMobil is prepared to meet all the commitments in its permits, including those involving a worst-case scenario.
So do you stand by that statement?
TILLERSON: I do, because the permit does not guarantee that the oil will not get to the shore, nor does it guarantee that it will all be contained.
STUPAK: Well, we're at, what, at the most 40,000 barrels today?
TILLERSON: I don't know.
STUPAK: Forty thousand, I think, is what we've been saying, I think, for the record.
So ExxonMobil's worst-case scenario is over 160,000 barrels per day. So how can you say that you'd be able to control a spill that's four times bigger than the current spill using the same plan B.P. has with the same contractors B.P. is using?
TILLERSON: As I've said, Congressman, we would use the response capability to the maximum extent practicable. And in the models that we provide as part of the permitting, which are in conformance with what the regulatory bodies require...
STUPAK: And your plan...
(CROSSTALK)
STUPAK: ... is written...
(CROSSTALK)
STUPAK: ... by the same contractor that B.P. is. B.P. relied on Marine Spill Response Corporation to provide response equipment, and so does your plan. So if you can't handle 40,000, how are you going handle 166,000 per day, as you indicated?
TILLERSON: The answer to that is, when these things happen, we are not well-equipped to deal with them.
STUPAK: So when these things happen, these worst-case scenarios, we can't handle them, correct?
TILLERSON: We are not well-equipped to handle them. There will be impacts, as we are seeing. And we've never represented anything different than that.
STUPAK: And you've all said...
TILLERSON: And that's why the emphasis is always on preventing these things from occurring because, when they happen, we're not very well-equipped to deal with them. And that's just a fact of the enormity of what we're dealing with.
When Markey questioned Tillerson on the Exxon Mobil plan's inclusion of contact information for a "technical support person" who had been dead for four years, Tillerson acknowledged that it was an "embarrassment" and stated that "we admit that we need expertise." He further stated that just because "Dr. Lutz died in 2005 does not mean his work and the importance of his work died with him." From the testimony:
REP. MARKEY: In your response plan, Mr. Tillerson, as well as some of the other plans, including ConocoPhillips's, there is a Dr.Lutz who is referred to as an expert, a technical support person. Mr. Lutz died in 2005, four years before the plan was actually filed.
How, Mr. Tillerson, can you justify in your response plan having a person who has been dead for four years? Is that also an embarrassment? How, Mr. Tillerson, can you justify in your response plan having a person who has been dead for four years? Is that also an embarrassment?
MR. TILLERSON: Well, it is. But let me point out that Dr. Lutz was part of the University of Miami's Marine Mammal Research Division, which has been an important resource for preparation of these plans for years. The fact that Dr. Lutz died in 2005 does not mean his work and the importance of his work died with him. There are many other individuals identified in the plan --
REP. MARKEY: No, I appreciate --
MR. TILLERSON: -- (inaudible) -- more contact. And we admit that we need expertise.
REP. MARKEY: It's 2010.
MR. TILLERSON: Those numbers are all valid that are in the plan.
REP. MARKEY: It's 2010. It just seems to me that when you include Dr. Lutz's phone number in your plan for response, that you have not taken this responsibility seriously.
At the same hearing, ConocoPhillips CEO, James Mulva said of the response plan's obvious flaws, "[o]bviously it is embarrassing." He further acknowledged that "the plans need to be updated more frequently." From the hearing:
REP. MARKEY: Do you agree that it's an embarrassment to have walruses in a response plan for the Gulf of Mexico --
MR. WATSON: Certainly, in the --
REP. MARKEY: -- Mr. Watson?
MR. WATSON: -- Gulf of Mexico, that's not appropriate.
REP. MARKEY: Mr. Mulva, do you agree it's an embarrassment to have it in a plan to respond to a crisis in the Gulf of Mexico?
MR. MULVA: I agree. It's not appropriate to include for that region.
[...]
REP. MARKEY: It's 2010. It just seems to me that when you include Dr. Lutz's phone number in your plan for response, that you have not taken this responsibility seriously.
Mr. Mulva, the same is true for you. Is it an embarrassment to ConocoPhillips to have that as part of your plan?
MR. MULVA: Well, the plans need to be updated more frequently. What's important is the institution. That's who we refer to for support. Obviously it is embarrassing. But we really look towards the institution and not necessarily the individual.
Posted by: ai_vin | 21 July 2010 at 09:21 AM
ai_vin: This is exactly what I was talking about. None of the companies drilling in the gulf have a viable plan with the compliment of equipment needed to quickly stop a similar leak when the next one occurs.
The other big problem is the whole issue of chemical dispersants. At the end of the day, it may prove to have worsened the environmental impact in many ways.
Posted by: Sanity Chk | 21 July 2010 at 01:52 PM
Saying they have a good record is like saying the airline industry does too, they have some loose tail rudders, drunk pilots and sleepy air traffic controllers, but hey if it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.
There is room for improvement and the downside is so severe that it demands improving. Just looking at the statistics selectively presented can be misleading and at times is intended to be so.
If we can easily improve the planning a preparedness we MUST do so. Saying that BOPs never fail has been shown to be false over and over again. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is insanity. Let's come to our senses and improve the present situation...NOW.
Posted by: SJC | 21 July 2010 at 02:10 PM
I don't think anyone is arguing that "the drilling industry ain't broke, so don't fix it", but the Obama administration wants a blanket moratorium on all deep sea drilling which is wrong. It's a knee-jerk arbitrary and capricious response, similar to what they did to Shirley Sherrod, to something that needs intelligent thought. Instead of a blanket moratorium, the government can simply review all the issued permits & ones that are in the permitting process, and revoke all deepwater horizon-style permits until further notice, or allow them to redesign and then proceed. It's no wonder that Obama's poll numbers are approaching GWB's worst numbers.
Posted by: ejj | 21 July 2010 at 07:54 PM
I think it is obvious that there is no way to contain a "leak" such as this one. So, ai vin's endless, inconsiderate post is of no consquence.
Neither BP nor Obama found any way in 80+ days.
There is no way
The moratorium on the US oil companies in the gulf is irresponsible because other well operations in our gulf need only avoid some or most of the following 13 mistakes(from The Oil Drum):
- Opt not to inspect BOP after rubber chunks showed up in mud pits
- Opt for riskier production casing instead of safer liner ($7-$10 million savings per BP e-mail)
- Opt to ignore Halibutton's warning and not to install more centralizers in order to save the time it would have taken to get them out to the rig
- Opt not to circulate “bottoms-up” before cementing
- Opt not to wait the full best-practices time for cement to cure before displacing riser mud
- Opt not to do a CBL test before displacing riser mud after negative pressure tests produced unexplained returns
- Opt not to take the time to ensure two independent barriers were in place before displacing riser mud
- fail to achieve hydrostatic balancing in well before displacing riser mud
- fail to set top plug and lock-down sleeve before displacing riser mud
- Opt to off-load mud before they had well fully sealed and secured
- Opt to drill with BOP with only 1 shear ram instead of two despite industry standard (and Transocean practice/history since at least 2001) of 2 shear rams on DW rigs.
- Opt not to ensure effective monitoring of returns while displacing riser
- Opt to have crew occupied with rig-tear-down tasks before well fully sealed and secured
Posted by: ToppaTom | 21 July 2010 at 11:17 PM
At least this administration will admit a mistake. The previous one pretended that they never made mistakes, they were perfect even though they brought us disasters with their ignorance. It will take time to review not only more than 30 drilling rigs, but thousands of producing rigs. Lots of sloppy partying went on between MMS and the oil guys over 8 years.
Posted by: SJC | 21 July 2010 at 11:20 PM
You've got it wrong.
It's the electorate that's admitting their mistake.
This administration is saying things like;
"The previous administration pretended that they never made mistakes"
and
"It will take time to review thousands of producing rigs because lots of sloppy partying went on between MMS and the oil guys over 8 years."
But I do think it might actually work better if they replace the experienced oil people in MMS with Van Jones and his friends; "The human family has invaluable friends and irreplaceable allies in the plant and animal worlds."
LOL.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 22 July 2010 at 02:16 AM
Energy security/independence (for the masses, not just a wealthy few) is a fundamental part of national security. Without it, a country is at risk of being conquered and/or influenced by another country (or other countries) that is (are) more energy secure & independent.
National security is a fundamental part of environmental protection. How can you protect your country's air, land and water in accordance with your values if your country is under assault by others that are hostile to your values?
Therefore, drilling in America and its waters (since there is no alternative for the masses yet), like it or not, is a fundamental part of our ability to protect our environment. Whatever the alternative(s) winds up being for the masses, it/those will ultimately have a very strong bearing on our national security and ability to protect our environment. I personally would rather see renewable alternatives used instead of oil, and I completely support Obama's initiatives (& use of taxpayer dollars) for renewables (regardless of what Rush and Hannity say). But I also believe it is absolutely critical to support drilling within our borders and territorial waters until the renewable alternatives are readily available to everyone.
Posted by: ejj | 22 July 2010 at 06:28 AM
.
In the end, government funded research will show that oil spills mitigate Global Warming® (since rebranded Climate Change®, since rebranded CO2 Pollution®).
Dilemma.
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 22 July 2010 at 07:32 AM
"until the renewable alternatives are readily available to everyone."
Renewable alternative like FFV/M85 will not be available unless we all MAKE them available. We have had more than 30 years for "free market" forces to make them available. I do not want to wait another 30 years and guess what...they still are not available.
Posted by: SJC | 23 July 2010 at 08:50 AM
Most of us generally support "initiatives (& use of taxpayer dollars) for renewables".
This us because (most of us) understand that free market forces do NOT make things available if the people do not want them (for a free market price).
Not in 30 years, not in 300 years.
People do NOT generally buy things that will cost a lot more, but maybe help others - if they did you would find them maximizing their taxes (unlike Kerry) and donating money to the US Gov.
That is why the Insight I and the RAV4 EV failed and why EVs and renewables need tax support.
This is REALLY quite simple.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 24 July 2010 at 07:46 AM
Some people may be really quite simple, but there are seldom simple solutions to complex problems, no matter what free market people want you to believe.
Posted by: SJC | 24 July 2010 at 10:06 AM