While participating in inquires of the Montara, Timor Sea Australia and Macondo Gulf of Mexico blowouts, my observations are that there has been a tendency for discussion, and inquiry, to be on the "drilling system" activities and operatives rather then the "well system" design and operatives. (Comments appreciated).
A good recent example of this is in the recent CSB inquiry on Macondo Disaster
http://www.csb.gov/events/csb-public-hearing-safety-performance-indicators/ but there is the DHSG http://ccrm.berkeley.edu/deepwaterhorizonstudygroup/dhsg_reportsandtestimony.shtml the National Commission / Government and Montara inquiries http://www.iadc.org/offshore-operating-division/montara-macondo-investigations-status/
No questions on where the gas came from in any of the inquires. Why?
There are many examples of how "group think" has prevailed in all these reports but I paste below a best example from my perspective of an example (note presenters paid 350 dlrs/ hour). Any comments on my assessment would be greatly appreciated to determine any gaps of practical thinking in this whole event.
Note that during the negative test on Macondo, a "drilling systems" practical thinker noted a "Bladder Effect". (Toolpusher with Transocean), Note for definition purposes, a "well system" practical thinker would be the Company Man.
The term "Bladder Effect" relates to the use of accumulators in well control management systems and with motion compensation of floating MODU's (Mobile Offshore Drilling Units - part of "drilling systems") . So we had the drilling system noting the bladder effect on Macondo and the well systems people saying his thinking wasn't practical (also confirmed in Dr. Andrew Hopkins book, Disastrous Decisions" where his advise was from one kind of well system expert).
Below I post some trial transcripts which are discussions of where the "top of gas" is (not known during top of cement design purposes). Note also, re Montara blowout, the top of gas never got a mention, and the only evidence of gas is (bladder effect) was the "burp of gas" before the well began flowing (note discussions on Macondo in early days of event gas surge are equal to the gas burp on Montara ( http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2010/10/gulf-oil-spill/bourne-text )
A critical perspective on designing a casing and cement job is the top of gas. A general rule in the industry by regulators and well system designers is to always place over 500 feet above the highest gas in the reservoir. A practical well systems thinker would use the mud log to determine this (if ROP increases (normally because of increased porosity) and gas units on hot wire increases (correlated to be on depth of the ROP increase), then there must be gas in the formation so this is the highest gas in the reservoir).
So as an example, the inquiry logic used to verity the reasons there are systemic management failures through a dominance of commercial risk management decision making because the practical thinking based on a best practices conscience are not prevailing in commercial risk management.
Conclusion: Probability around system thinking isn't creating learning organizations or reliable process safety?
Does the Macondo Trial discussion below give an example of this lack of practical thinking in seeking top of gas? Note the prevalence of decimal points in the trial discussion as further evidence of thinking styles.
Before we offer it for admission, can you just give a brief summary of what your opinions are in this case?
A. Yes. I have two projects. The first project, identify the highest hydrocarbon-bearing zone, in my opinion. That is -- that zone is titled the M57B zone. It occurs at 17,467 measure depth by wireline.
Q. Do you have a laser pointer up there, sir? If not, I can hand you one.
A. Yes, I do. I have one.
Q. Do you want to make sure it reaches?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that help?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Now, if you would like to use this demonstrative to help clarify what your position is to the Court, feel free to do so.So can you identify where the M57B sand would be on this demonstrative?
A. Yes. It is shaded in red, and it's labeled the M57B. The depth is 17467.
Q. Based on your analysis, can you please identify what BP identified as the highest hydrocarbon-bearing zone?
A. BP's pick of the highest hydrocarbon zone was the other red horizontal line titled the M56A zone at 17,804 measure depth
Now, were you also asked to calculate the pore pressure of the M57B sand?
A. I was.
Q. Did you do that?
A. I did.
Q. Is that an accurate representation of the pore pressure that you calculated in association with the M57B sand?
A. Yeah. In my report, I put it in terms of psia, but that's -- if you want -- the equivalent pound-per-gallon density of mud to equal that pore pressure would be about 14.15.
Q. Thank you, sir.
Now, you were also asked, I believe, or you expressed opinions in your report as to whether BP should have been able to have identified M57B as the highest hydrocarbon-bearing sand in the open hole, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that opinion expressed in your report?
A. It is.
MR. HILL: Your Honor, we would tender -- or we would move for admission of Dr. Strickland's report, which is identified as TREX-60083.
A. Well, I walked into a room with a bunch of people at a 13:37 2 long conference table and they handed me the -- this log,
13:37 3 actually, the triple combo, and they said, "Can you identify
13:37 4 the highest hydrocarbon zone in this open hole interval?"
13:37 5 Q. What did you identify it as?
13:37 6 A. Well, I laid the log out and, like most petrophysicists,
13:37 7 you look at the bottom of the log first and work your way up
13:37 8 the hole. So I looked at the bottom of the log and said, "Nice
13:37 9 zone, nice zone, zone, zone, zone." I picked zones going up
13:38 10 the well.
13:38 11 And I got to this zone and I said, "Yeah, this zone,"
13:38 12 and then I looked at the zones above it and commented, Well, I
13:38 13 don't know about the zones above it. I would have to do some
13:38 14 calculations to see if -- what they might have in hydrocarbon
13:38 15 saturation, but it's a good first-look examination that it's --
13:38 16 looks like the tallest ones, I didn't know what it was called
13:38 17 then, but this one at 17,467.
13:38 18 Q. Is that the highest one that you saw in the open hole --
13:38 19 A. It was.
13:38 20 Q. -- based on this pattern recognition process that you have
13:38 21 just described you identified as a hydrocarbon-bearing sand?
13:38 22 A. It was.
13:38 23 Q. That was without having done any analysis -- any
13:38 24 quantitative analysis on your own, correct?
13:38 25 A. That's correct.
From your
13:40 8 calculations, could you provide the depth of the shallowest
13:40 9 hydrocarbon zone and 'reply all' to this e-mail."
13:40 10 Q. Now, you have read the entire chain, correct?
13:40 11 A. Yes.
13:40 12 Q. Did Ms. Galina reply?
13:40 13 A. She did.
13:40 14 Q. What did she identify as the shallow hydrocarbon-bearing
13:40 15 sand on April 13, 2010?
13:40 16 A. She writes back and says: "I think the shallowest HC,"
13:40 17 meaning hydrocarbon, "sand is at 17,803 md."
13:40 18 Q. Now, we had a chart up there before with the depths of the
13:40 19 sands. But from memory, can you associate a sand name with the
13:41 20 sand that she's identified from the depth in the e-mail?
13:41 21 A. Yes.
13:41 22 Q. What is it?
13:41 23 A. The M56A sand.
13:41 24 Q. At the top, Mr. Bodek responds back the same day and says:
13:41 25 "I can buy that. That the shallowest sand that we see
THE WITNESS: Whoever wrote this then, I think, was
13:50 3 looking at the density/neutron, the triple combo log, and they
13:50 4 looked and saw crossover. And they saw crossover in these
13:50 5 sands, the 57B, the 56A, and the 56F.
13:50 6 BY MR. HILL:
13:50 7 Q. They specifically identified it as having a gas signature,
13:50 8 correct?
13:50 9 A. Yes. So they are equating neutron/density crossover with
13:50 10 gas.
13:50 11 Q. By the way -- and we didn't talk about this before. But
13:50 12 those density/neutron plots, even if they don't cross over, but
13:50 13 are just approaching each other, is that also an indication of
13:50 14 hydrocarbon?
13:50 15 A. It's an indication of porosity, first of all.
13:50 16 Q. Right.
13:50 17 A. You need to look -- with that porosity, you also need to
13:50 18 look to the resistivity in the gamma ray to try to understand
13:50 19 what is there in lithology, porosity, and fluid content.
13:51 20 Q. To the extent that they approach each other and actually
13:51 21 touch, intersect, cross over a little or a lot, what -- what
13:51 22 extra information does that give you?
13:51 23 A. Well, to the extent that -- it's not an absolute. But to
13:51 24 the extent that they cross over, it is an indicator of gas, but
13:51 25 it's not an absolute thing.
Q. Right. But you've done quantitative analysis to determine
13:51 2 the content of gas that we will get to later. But just from
13:51 3 this, quick-look perspective?
13:51 4 A. Yes.
13:51 5 MR. HILL: Let's go to the next slide, please. Next
13:51 6 slide, Slide 8.
13:51 7 I'm sorry, you're right. Slide 7. Ignore me.
13:47 8 BY MR. HILL:
13:47 9 Q. All right. In the same document, this type of draft
13:51 10 technical memorandum on page 30, again, they identify the M57B
13:51 11 sand as being a sand of approximately how -- over what
13:51 12 thickness?
13:51 13 A. It's approximately 2 feet thick.
13:51 14 Q. On this page, what do they identify it as?
13:52 15 A. They identified it as -- that the fluid content is likely
13:52 16 to be gas.
13:52 17 MR. HILL: Finally, next slide.
13:47 18 BY MR. HILL:
13:47 19 Q. At the end of this technical memorandum, there is this
13:52 20 chart. Have you seen this chart replicated in multiple BP
13:52 21 internal documents?
13:52 22 A. Yes.
13:52 23 Q. Let's just talk about the one in this draft. This says
13:52 24 "Net/Pay Summary," and it identifies a variety of sands. But
13:52 25 let's look at what they say with respect to the specific M57B
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTRICHARD STRICKLAND - DIRECT
6461
13:52 1 sand.
13:52 2 At 17467, they call it a gas sand, correct?
13:52 3 A. The fluid content is listed as gas.
13:52 4 Q. I would like to talk to you about these measurements right
13:52 5 here.
13:52 6 Does this document identify a porosity value that BP
13:52 7 calculated for the M57B sand?
13:52 8 A. It does.
13:52 9 Q. What is it?
13:52 10 A. The porosity is 18 percent.
13:52 11 Q. Do they calculate a permeability value?
13:52 12 A. Yes. They have calculated the permeability value. It
13:52 13 ranges, depending on how you average, between 8 to
13:53 14 15 millidarcys.
13:53 15 Q. In your opinion, Dr. Strickland, is that a sufficient
13:53 16 permeability value to allow this sand to flow in the face of a
13:53 17 pressure differential?
13:53 18 A. Yes.
13:53 19 Q. Now, the other thing I want to talk to you about, they
13:53 20 also calculate a water saturation value, correct?
13:53 21 A. Correct.
13:53 22 Q. What is that value?
13:53 23 A. 52 percent.
13:53 24 Q. So based on the calculations you were describing earlier
13:53 25 about water saturation, if you have a water saturation value of
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTRICHARD STRICKLAND - DIRECT
6462
13:53 1 52 percent, what has BP calculated the hydrocarbon content to
13:53 2 be in this document?
13:53 3 A. It has to be 100 minus 52, which would be 48 percent.
13:53 4 Q. Thank you.
On June 25, 2010, Mr. Corser e-mails Morten Emilsen and
13:55 9 says: "We need some help with an update on the dynamic model.
13:55 10 Are you available now or is there someone else who could run
13:55 11 the model? We have a sand at 17,467" measured depth --
13:55 12 sorry -- "MD, that is 2 feet thick, 14.1 ppg . . ."
13:55 13 And how was it classified, Dr. Strickland?
13:55 14 A. Classified as gas and would flow.
13:55 15 Q. "Want to see how that fits to at least start the kick."
13:55 16 MR. HILL: If we could come back out of that and go
13:55 17 to the top e-mail.
13:55 18 Actually, before you go there, there is a
13:55 19 discussion that takes place wondering about this --
13:56 20 BY MR. HILL:
13:56 21 Q. Actually, what is the discussion that takes place between
13:55 22 these two, just generally?
13:55 23 A. The issue is that the Bly investigative team has found the
13:55 24 sand, and Morten Emilsen is the fellow who does the dynamic
13:55 25 model, the hydraulic wellbore model, and they are trying to
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTRICHARD STRICKLAND - DIRECT
6464
13:56 1 find someone to run it to see what the effect of adding the
13:56 2 sand would be to that simulation.
13:56 3 MR. HILL: Let's call this out at top.
13:56 4 BY MR. HILL:
13:56 5 Q. Mr. Corser's final response in this e-mail chain is, "This
13:56 6 sand" -- why don't you read it to the Court, please.
13:56 7 A. "This sand is new. They did a new study and have
13:56 8 classified it a gas-bearing and capable of flow. See attached
13:56 9 chart. This is not the brine sand."
13:56 10 Q. So how many brine sands were identified in the open hole?
13:56 11 A. There's one, typically, identified there.
13:56 12 Q. What's it called?
13:56 13 A. The M57C.
13:56 14 Q. So we know Mr. Corser isn't talking about the brine sand,
13:56 15 right?
13:56 16 A. Correct.
13:56 17 MR. HILL: Take that back down. Let's go back to
13:56 18 Demonstrative 8025, Slide 9.
13:56 19 BY MR. HILL:
13:56 20 Q. I will represent to you, Dr. Strickland, that the
13:56 21 attachment referenced in that e-mail has been blown up here on
13:56 22 this graphic.
13:56 23 Can you tell the Court what it identifies M57B as
13:56 24 being, what type of fluid content?
13:56 25 A. As gas.
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTRICHARD STRICKLAND - DIRECT
6465
13:57 1 Q. With respect to the question if it's expected to flow,
13:57 2 what does it say?
13:57 3 A. It says yes.
13:57 4 Q. Do you recognize these porosity values as being similar to
13:57 5 the ones that we saw on the chart in the technical memorandum?
13:57 6 A. I think the others were just expressed to two significant
13:57 7 digits. These are 17.95. The other document expressed it as
13:57 8 18.
13:57 9 Q. Which is a fair rounding, correct?
13:57 10 A. Yeah.
13:57 11 Q. Can you identify in this document whether BP has actually
13:57 12 calculated a pore pressure associated with the M57B sand?
13:57 13 A. Yes. They've calculated that the sand exists at
13:57 14 12,847 psia.
13:57 15 Q. If that is converted to a pounds per gallon, what is it?
13:57 16 A. 14.2 pounds per gallon.
13:57 17 MR. HILL: Back to the cover, please.
13:56 18 BY MR. HILL:
13:56 19 Q. I would like to go to that July 26 one right up there.
13:58 20 And we're not going to go through all of these, but I want to
13:58 21 get to this one.
13:58 22 This one is a technical memorandum dated July 26,
13:58 23 2010, correct?
13:58 24 A. Yes.
13:58 25 Q. Are you familiar with this document?
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTRICHARD STRICKLAND - DIRECT
6466
13:58 1 A. I am.
13:58 2 Q. Have you spent an extensive amount of time reviewing it?
13:58 3 A. This one and the ones before it.
13:58 4 Q. Did you actually use this document to take data for
13:58 5 purposes of your own calculations?
13:58 6 A. Yes. The one I looked at was actually the first draft of
13:58 7 this.
13:58 8 Q. You understand this to be the latest draft of that
13:58 9 technical memorandum, correct?
13:58 10 A. Yes, I do.
13:58 11 Q. It's the latest one you reviewed, right?
13:58 12 A. That's correct.
13:58 13 Q. How does BP, on July 26, 2010, after spending the end of
13:58 14 April, May, June, and most of July identifying M57B as a gas
13:58 15 sand, how do they identify it in this technical -- final draft
13:58 16 of the technical memorandum?
13:58 17 A. They have now identified it as a "probable gas."
13:58 18 MR. HILL: Can you go to Slide 14, please.
13:56 19 BY MR. HILL:
13:56 20 Q. Regardless of how it's classified in the body of the
13:59 21 technical memorandum, they insert this net/pay summary chart
13:59 22 again, correct?
13:59 23 A. Correct.
13:59 24 Q. As you review the data associated with M57B sand,
13:59 25 regardless of its new classification as a "probable gas," have
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTRICHARD STRICKLAND - DIRECT
6467
13:59 1 any of the calculated values of porosity, saturation of water,
13:59 2 or permeability changed?
13:59 3 A. None have.
13:59 4 MR. HILL: Let's go to Slide 15, please.
13:56 5 BY MR. HILL:
13:56 6 Q. Have you reviewed the Bly report?
13:59 7 A. I have.
13:59 8 Q. Do you know when BP published the Bly report to the world?
13:59 9 A. September or October -- September 8, I think.
13:59 10 Q. I don't want to make you guess. It's on the cover.
13:59 11 A. It's September 8, 2010.
13:59 12 Q. It's right there, September 8, 2010. Okay?
13:59 13 Are you familiar with the wellbore graphic that
13:59 14 depicts the sands on page 54 of the Bly report?
14:00 15 A. I am.
14:00 16 Q. Is the M57B sand identified?
14:00 17 A. It is not.
14:00 18 Q. At the very, very bottom, in very small print, which we
14:00 19 have blown up for you, can you tell the Court what the
14:00 20 disclaimer at the bottom of that graphic says?
14:00 21 A. It says: "Note: Sands are based on geology known at the
14:00 22 time of the accident."
14:00 23 Q. Now, all of the documents that we have just reviewed were
14:00 24 post-incident documents identifying and characterizing M57B
14:00 25 sand post-incident, correct?With respect to the question if it's expected to flow,
13:57 2 what does it say?
13:57 3 A. It says yes.
13:57 4 Q. Do you recognize these porosity values as being similar to
13:57 5 the ones that we saw on the chart in the technical memorandum?
13:57 6 A. I think the others were just expressed to two significant
13:57 7 digits. These are 17.95. The other document expressed it as
13:57 8 18.
13:57 9 Q. Which is a fair rounding, correct?
13:57 10 A. Yeah.
13:57 11 Q. Can you identify in this document whether BP has actually
13:57 12 calculated a pore pressure associated with the M57B sand?
13:57 13 A. Yes. They've calculated that the sand exists at
13:57 14 12,847 psia.
13:57 15 Q. If that is converted to a pounds per gallon, what is it?
13:57 16 A. 14.2 pounds per gallon.
13:57 17 MR. HILL: Back to the cover, please.
13:56 18 BY MR. HILL:
13:56 19 Q. I would like to go to that July 26 one right up there.
13:58 20 And we're not going to go through all of these, but I want to
13:58 21 get to this one.
13:58 22 This one is a technical memorandum dated July 26,
13:58 23 2010, correct?
13:58 24 A. Yes.
13:58 25 Q. Are you familiar with this document?
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTRICHARD STRICKLAND - DIRECT
6466
13:58 1 A. I am.
13:58 2 Q. Have you spent an extensive amount of time reviewing it?
13:58 3 A. This one and the ones before it.
13:58 4 Q. Did you actually use this document to take data for
13:58 5 purposes of your own calculations?
13:58 6 A. Yes. The one I looked at was actually the first draft of
13:58 7 this.
13:58 8 Q. You understand this to be the latest draft of that
13:58 9 technical memorandum, correct?
13:58 10 A. Yes, I do.
13:58 11 Q. It's the latest one you reviewed, right?
13:58 12 A. That's correct.
13:58 13 Q. How does BP, on July 26, 2010, after spending the end of
13:58 14 April, May, June, and most of July identifying M57B as a gas
13:58 15 sand, how do they identify it in this technical -- final draft
13:58 16 of the technical memorandum?
13:58 17 A. They have now identified it as a "probable gas."
13:58 18 MR. HILL: Can you go to Slide 14, please.
13:56 19 BY MR. HILL:
13:56 20 Q. Regardless of how it's classified in the body of the
13:59 21 technical memorandum, they insert this net/pay summary chart
13:59 22 again, correct?
13:59 23 A. Correct.
13:59 24 Q. As you review the data associated with M57B sand,
13:59 25 regardless of its new classification as a "probable gas," have
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTRICHARD STRICKLAND - DIRECT
6467
13:59 1 any of the calculated values of porosity, saturation of water,
13:59 2 or permeability changed?
13:59 3 A. None have.
13:59 4 MR. HILL: Let's go to Slide 15, please.
13:56 5 BY MR. HILL:
13:56 6 Q. Have you reviewed the Bly report?
13:59 7 A. I have.
13:59 8 Q. Do you know when BP published the Bly report to the world?
13:59 9 A. September or October -- September 8, I think.
13:59 10 Q. I don't want to make you guess. It's on the cover.
13:59 11 A. It's September 8, 2010.
13:59 12 Q. It's right there, September 8, 2010. Okay?
13:59 13 Are you familiar with the wellbore graphic that
13:59 14 depicts the sands on page 54 of the Bly report?
14:00 15 A. I am.
14:00 16 Q. Is the M57B sand identified?
14:00 17 A. It is not.
14:00 18 Q. At the very, very bottom, in very small print, which we
14:00 19 have blown up for you, can you tell the Court what the
14:00 20 disclaimer at the bottom of that graphic says?
14:00 21 A. It says: "Note: Sands are based on geology known at the
14:00 22 time of the accident."
14:00 23 Q. Now, all of the documents that we have just reviewed were
14:00 24 post-incident documents identifying and characterizing M57B
14:00 25 sand post-incident, correct?
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTRICHARD STRICKLAND - DIRECT
6468
14:00 1 A. That's right.
14:00 2 Q. And those were documents that predated the publishing of
14:00 3 the Bly report, correct?
14:00 4 A. That's correct.
14:00 5 Q. Let's move away from your review of the internal BP
14:00 6 documents and talk about your own analysis. Did you conduct
14:00 7 your own quantitative analysis of the M57B sand?
14:00 8 A. I did.
14:00 9 Q. Did you conduct your own water saturation calculations?
14:00 10 A. I did.
14:00 11 Q. Are those reflected on page 35, paragraph 102, of your
14:01 12 report?
14:01 13 A. I believe that's correct, yes.
14:01 14 Q. Can you explain to the Court what you did.
14:01 15 A. Yes. I used the information, some of which we have looked
14:01 16 at here. I calculated water saturation for the sands in the
14:01 17 open hole, and I used four different equations to calculate
14:01 18 those.
14:01 19 Q. Let me stop you there so we can break that down a little
14:01 20 bit. Of the four equations, what was the first equation you
14:01 21 used?
14:01 22 A. Archie.
14:01 23 Q. Is Archie like -- is it an obscure equation for a
14:01 24 petrophysicist?
14:01 25 A. No.
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTRICHARD STRICKLAND - DIRECT
6469
14:01 1 Q. Is it a common equation?
14:01 2 A. Yes, it is.
14:01 3 Q. Does every petrophysicist know -- well, you can't testify,
14:01 4 but should a petrophysicist know the Archie equation?
14:01 5 A. Yes, they should.
14:01 6 Q. In your opinion, Dr. Strickland, why -- in what situations
14:01 7 is the Archie equation most appropriate for use in calculating
14:01 8 the water saturation value?
14:01 9 A. The Archie equation, which -- a guy named Archie, 1942, I
14:02 10 believe, proposed this equation. And it is -- the Archie
14:02 11 equation is good for calculating water saturation in what we
14:02 12 call a "clean" sand, and that's a sand that doesn't have much
14:02 13 shale in it.
14:02 14 Q. What happens if you have a sand that has some shale in it?
14:02 15 A. Well, if you have a sand that has shale, Archie will
14:02 16 predict a higher water saturation and, consequently, a lower
14:02 17 hydrocarbon saturation.
14:02 18 Q. So are there equations that you can use that actually
14:02 19 compensate for the presence of shale in the sand in order to
14:02 20 get a more accurate water saturation value?
14:02 21 A. There are a lot of them. I used three particular ones.
14:02 22 Q. You want to name them?
14:02 23 A. Sure. I used the Simandoux, spelled S-I-M-A-N-D-O-U-X.
14:02 24 Q. Okay.
14:02 25 A. Another one called Modified Simandoux and a third one
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTRICHARD STRICKLAND - DIRECT
6470
14:03 1 called Indonesian.
14:03 2 Q. Let me ask you this: M57B, is it a clean sand or is it a
14:03 3 shaly sand?
14:03 4 A. It is a shalier sand, yes; it is not as clean as the other
14:03 5 sands.
14:03 6 MR. REGAN: I'm sorry to interrupt your answer.
14:03 7 I object to the witness -- I don't think he has
14:03 8 any physical evidence to base that opinion on. There may be a
14:03 9 way to lay the foundation for it.
14:03 10 MR. HILL: I can lay the foundation.
14:03 11 BY MR. HILL:
14:03 12 Q. Did you review logs -- did you review the laminated sands
14:03 13 analysis?
14:03 14 A. Yes.
14:03 15 Q. Does that identify what is sandy versus what is shaly --
14:03 16 versus what is shaly sand?
14:03 17 A. It's Schlumberger's calculation of it. I did my own.
14:03 18 Q. Based on your analysis of logs, what is your opinion as to
14:03 19 the -- what type of sand we are talking about with the M57B
14:03 20 sand?
14:03 21 A. I calculated the M57B sand had -- I think it was
14:03 22 33 percent shale, or called clay when you are doing the
14:04 23 calculations. But -- so that was a shaly sand.
14:04 24 Q. So, in your opinion, it's a shaly sand?
14:04 25 A. Yeah.
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTRICHARD STRICKLAND - DIRECT
6471
14:04 1 Q. Now, when you do these calculations, are there specific
14:04 2 inputs that go into the equations?
14:04 3 A. There are.
14:04 4 Q. Can you briefly -- we want to do this briefly -- explain
14:04 5 what those inputs are.
14:04 6 A. Well, there are several inputs. A lot of them refer to
14:04 7 the structure of the rock and the nature of the porosity. Some
14:04 8 of the inputs refer to the fluid in the rock, the resistivity
14:04 9 of the rock. So there's a number just -- that go into just
14:04 10 Archie's equation.
14:04 11 Q. Where did you obtain those inputs, those constants that
14:04 12 you used in the equations that you used?
14:04 13 A. Yes. In the technical memorandum that we were looking at,
14:04 14 the July 26 technical memorandum, those values that BP chose to
14:04 15 evaluate the well logs with were listed, and they were listed
14:05 16 in all the technical memorandums, the previous drafts of that
14:05 17 one. They never changed. So I called those the
14:05 18 "BP parameters." And so I used those parameters as one set of
14:05 19 parameters to do my calculations with.
14:05 20 Q. Did you use any other sets?
14:05 21 A. Yes. Schlumberger also did calculations of water
14:05 22 saturation, and they have a calculated log called the
14:05 23 "laminated sand analysis log." On that log they list the
14:05 24 parameters that they used. It was a slightly different set;
14:05 25 some of the values were the same, but slightly different. So I
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTRICHARD STRICKLAND - DIRECT
6472
14:05 1 picked up the Schlumberger parameters and used them also.
14:05 2 Q. Now, have you prepared some demonstratives today to assist
14:05 3 the Court in understanding your water saturation calculations?
14:05 4 A. Yes, I have.
14:05 5 Q. We are going to put those up there, but while we do this,
14:05 6 let's close this loop. I don't think I asked you before.
14:05 7 Who actually ran the logs for BP on the Macondo well,
14:05 8 the wireline logs?
14:05 9 A. Schlumberger.
14:06 10 Q. So when you say you were looking at Schlumberger analysis,
14:06 11 this was done pursuant to the wireline logging services,
14:06 12 correct?
14:06 13 A. Yes.
14:06 14 MR. HILL: Could we bring up Demonstrative 8244,
14:06 15 please.
14:06 16 BY MR. HILL:
14:06 17 Q. Here is Demonstrative 8244, and it says up here "using BP
14:06 18 parameters." Would you please explain to the Court what we are
14:06 19 seeing.
14:06 20 A. Yes. This is a plot that I prepared. The left-hand track
14:06 21 contains the gamma ray curve that's -- I think it's in green on
14:06 22 my plot -- showing the excursion to the left. Then the other
14:06 23 two tracks on the right are both water saturation curves, or
14:06 24 tracks, where I display my calculated results.
14:06 25 Q. Okay.
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTRICHARD STRICKLAND - DIRECT
6473
14:06 1 A. And the first track is the Archie calculation for water
14:06 2 saturation, and the little call-out box points to the
14:07 3 calculated value, the minimum water saturation of 40 percent.
14:07 4 Q. That's using the Archie equation that you said was most
14:07 5 appropriate for clean sands, correct?
14:07 6 A. Clean sands, right.
14:07 7 Q. What is this? What do we see here? What are these values
14:07 8 in the right-hand track?
14:07 9 A. On the right-hand side, the right track shows calculation
14:07 10 for the three other methods: Simandoux, Modified Simandoux,
14:07 11 and Indonesian. Each of those have additional terms to account
14:07 12 for the effect of shale in the sand.
14:07 13 So I have shown those three calculations, and that
14:07 14 effect is to reduce the calculated water saturation.
14:07 15 Q. All right. With respect to these shaly sand appropriate
14:07 16 equations, when you calculated the water saturation of the M57B
14:07 17 sand, what was the range of values that you got for saturation
14:07 18 of the water?
14:07 19 A. Using the BP parameters, from 29 percent water to
14:07 20 36 percent water.
14:07 21 Q. So if you were to identify what the corollary to that is,
14:08 22 the hydrocarbon content, what do these equations calculate the
14:08 23 hydrocarbon content of M57B to be?
14:08 24 A. A maximum of 71 to a -- to 64.
14:08 25 Q. Between 64 and 71 percent hydrocarbon?
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTRICHARD STRICKLAND - DIRECT
6474
14:08 1 A. Percent hydrocarbon.
14:08 2 Q. Thank you.
14:08 3 MR. HILL: Let's go to D-8245.
14:08 4 BY MR. HILL:
14:08 5 Q. Again, similar setup as the prior chart, the difference
14:08 6 being that here you used the Schlumberger parameters, correct?
14:08 7 A. Yes. I showed the same Archie saturation calculation on
14:08 8 the left just for comparison.
14:08 9 Q. And again, the right-hand track depicts the range using
14:08 10 the three shaly sand appropriate equations of what your
14:08 11 saturation of water calculations are using Schlumberger's
14:08 12 parameters, correct?
14:08 13 A. That's correct.
14:09 14 Q. Again, if you were to take each of these values and
14:09 15 subtract it from 100, that would give you the hydrocarbon
14:09 16 content according to those equations, correct?
14:09 17 A. That's correct.
14:09 18 Q. Now, having done these calculations, what is your opinion,
14:09 19 Dr. Strickland, as to the hydrocarbon content of the M57B sand?
14:09 20 A. The hydrocarbon content varies anywhere from -- it might
14:09 21 be 50 percent to 70 percent.
14:09 22 Q. Why do you give a range?
14:09 23 A. Because there is differences of opinion of which method
14:09 24 you should use, which parameters you should choose; and it
14:09 25 moves that saturation around, as I've demonstrated there.