Advances in Global Industry Response Capability for Source Control

Abstract

Within a two-year period from 2009 through 2010, two major loss of containment incidents were experienced by the industry - Montara and Deepwater Horizon/Macondo. The reputation of the industry and its ability to self-regulate were questioned. Proposing a relief well as the primary recovery option was challenged, and after the failures of initial recovery efforts at Macondo, the US Dept. of Interior imposed a drilling moratorium to allow for the development of more effective response technologies. Several operator-led initiatives were commissioned: ExxonMobil initiated the establishment of the Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC) with Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips as founding members. MWCC was initially configured for large companies with multi-disciplined resources to support a full-scale response.Noble Energy and other operators, together with Helix Energy Solution Group (HESG), established an alternate option to MWCC that was built around the mutual aid model. Helix Well Containment Group (HWCG, and later just HWCG, LLC) was better adapted to the needs of small to mid-sized companies.The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP) established the Global Industry Response Group (GIRG), consisting of its worldwide membership of oil and gas producers, and tasked it with developing a plan to address the response deficiencies discovered during the Macondo incident. The initial GIRG report (May 2011) launched the Subsea Well Response Project (SWRP), which was charged with developing a design basis for subsea capping and containment systems.The GIRG report also founded the Wells Experts Committee and its Subsea Well Source Control Response Sub-committee which now acts as an industry center for knowledge and sharing.The SWRP was founded and led by nine of the world's largest oil & gas operators and upon project completion, Oil Spill Response, Ltd. (OSRL), was selected to manage the capping and containment equipment.In addition, some operators and multiple well control organizations developed a variety of additional capping stacks and debris removal equipment packages. During development, response equipment and systems were risk-assessed and tested via tabletop exercises. Knowledge was shared across the industry, and as the new equipment packages became physically available, a range of full-scale exercises were conducted which included physically loading aircraft and vessels and deploying equipment on abandoned wells. This paper steps back through the careful forethought in the development of these systems and shares some insights and strategic thinking behind the rationale of different response options and how they are strategically located to provide a global response.