It is a good thing he did because Reuters News has just reported that the blowout preventers that BP is using for both of the relief wells had critical flaws that caused them to fail initial testing.

(Reuters) – U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a memorandum that problems were identified “in recent weeks” with blowout preventers on BP Plc’s relief wells, which are seen as the only proven way to kill the Gulf of Mexico oil leak.

In a 29-page memo to Michael Bromwich, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) dated Monday, Salazar said “performance problems” with the blowout preventers were found when new testing requirements were imposed after the April 20 blowout that preceded the gushing leak.

The blowout preventers passed new tests after the problems were fixed, BOEMRE spokesman Nicholas Pardi said on Tuesday.

The Department of the Interior “is closely monitoring the drilling of the relief wells to ensure safety,” Pardo said.

Salazar said in the memo that the discovery provided “more evidence that prior testing requirements were inadequate.”

While another catastrophe may have been diverted with the relief wells which experts warn could cause the well to leak an additional 240,000 barrels per day if they blow we are still not out of the woods yet.

Experts are still warning that blown well casing and lack of well bore integrity could cause a massive underground blowout like the one that occurred during the IXTOC disaster.

Such an underground blowout or the existence of large leaks in the sea floor may even prevent the relief wells from working altogether.

That would mean that BP may never be able to stop the leaking well.

If history serves as guide, and the parallels between this distaster and the IXTOC blowout are stunning, the well will cause an underground blowout when BP tries to shut in the well.

Just like in this incident, during the IXTOC disaster the blowout preventer also failed during the initial blowout.

Then, like now, they used a series of containment options none of which worked all that well until they installed a new device on the well can tried closing the well shut.

During the IXTOC disaster when they capped the well shut, using a move similar to the one BP is planning to try now, the pressure in the IXTOC caused an underground blowout and led to oil and gas leaking though the cracks on the sea floor around the well.

It should be noted however that even after the underground blowout and the resulting leaks in the sea floor during the IXTOC disaster the well was eventually closed by using two relief wells at the same time.

The bottom line here is the risks of this operation are high and there are major concerns that the attempt by BP to cap the well could cause a massive underground blowout.

As Washington’s blog points out the existing evidence already points to damage down the wellbore.

So you would imagine that BP and the Feds would be as transparent as possible and release all data about the condition of the well to public.

Yet in a press release issued today Rep. Markey informs us that BP is stonewalling Congressional orders to release all data about the well bore integrity and leaks on the Gulf of Mexico sea floor near the leaking well.

With Pressure Tests Delayed, Chairman Renews Call for Information on Potential Hazards

WASHINGTON (July 14, 2010) – Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today renewed his request to BP to release information on the integrity of the wellbore and sea floor leaks, especially in light of the delayed attempt to conduct pressure tests on the new containment cap system for the BP Macondo well. These efforts were delayed, at least in part, because of the need to review seismic data — which could provide information about the integrity of the wellbore — from around the well site.

Rep. Markey had originally requested this information on June 23rd, several weeks prior to this test, and has still not received any answers which might shed light on the current potential path of shutting in the well using the new cap system as well as with challenges that could be encountered as BP attempts to permanently stop the flow of oil and gas using a relief well. Rep. Markey also sent a letter to Thad Allen asking for information provided to Incident Command on these matters.

BP’s response to the order from congress was to totally ignore the orders of the investigational committee led Rep. Markey’s committee to release the data regarding damaged well casing and leaks from cracks in the seafloor.

Markey is now once again demanding that BP release the data to congress and has ordered BP to comply within 48 hours in a letter sent to BP today.

Here is the contents of Representative Markey’s letter to BP Chief Tony Hayward once again demanding the release of data on the well bore integrity data and information about leaks on the sea floor.

Dear Mr. Hayward:

On June 23, 2010, I wrote to you specifically “requesting information relating to the integrity of the wellbore and casing of the Deepwater Horizon leak site.” As I mentioned in that letter, which is attached, there has been speculation that the casing and wellbore may have been damaged and that leaks of oil may be coming up through the seafloor or through the pipe itself.

In fact, on June 17, 2010, Admiral Thad Allen noted that “we don’t know if the wellbore has been compromised or not. One of the reasons we did not continue with top kill at higher pressures, there was a concern that if we increased the pressure too hard we might do damage to the casings and the wellbore. What we didn’t want was open communication of any oil from the reservoir outside the wellbore that might get into the foundation and work its way to the subsea floor and then result in uncontrolled discharge at that point.”

BP has now installed the three ram capping stack on the Deepwater Horizon Lower Marine Riser Package. BP now plans on closing the vents on this capping stack and conducting pressure testing to determine if the well can safely be shut in. Pressure readings will be used to determine if sufficient well integrity exists and a determination will be made whether it is safe to completely shut in the well or whether additional oil collection should continue in order to relieve pressure on the well.

Question 3 of my June 23″’ letter asked BP for information needed to better understand what is known about the condition of the wellbore and about reports of sea floor leaks. It asks the following:

“Please provide documents related to the condition of the wellbore.

a. Has BP attempted to determine whether the casing inside the wellbore has been damaged and if so, what were the results? Please provide all measurements, images, and other documents related to the condition of the wellbore, as well as any future plans for such measurements going forward.

b. Has BP confirmed or attempted to confirm the presence of hydrocarbons leaking from anywhere other than the containment cap? If so, what were the results? Please provide all related documents.

c. Has BP surveyed the vicinity of the well to look for any leaks from the sea floor? If so, what area was surveyed? Please provide all measurements, images, and other documents related to any survey(s) to identify hydrocarbon leakage from the sea floor. If no survey has been performed, why not?”

On July 2, 2010, attorneys for BP responded in pan to my letter, however BP did not in any way respond to Question 3 as quoted above. My staff followed up on this issue with your representatives during the first week of July (as acknowledged in a response from David Merlot of the law of Wilmer Hale dated July 9, 2010).  Still, no information regarding these fundamental questions of well integrity has yet been provided to me or the Committee.

I am writing to reiterate the importance of providing the Subcommittee and the public with this information immediately. The Committee understands that BP is focused on capping the well and preventing the further flow of oil and gas into the Gulf of Mexico. Nevertheless, the discharge of those responsibilities does not obviate the need for BP to promptly comply with requests for information by the Congress. That is particularly the case when the information in question is well­ known to BP and has in all likelihood already been shared with executive branch agencies. A delay of more than three weeks regarding this crucial information and during this critical time period is simply not acceptable.

Since my staff requested from BP staff further information on these questions last Wednesday, I therefore request that you provide your response within the next 48 hours.

In addition, I expect that BP will provide full answers to all the questions in my original letter in a timely manner. If you have any questions or concerns, please have your staff contact Dr. Michal Freedhoff of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee staff at 202-225-2836.

In the BP’s response to Markey’s initial order to release the data BP revealed that the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, which includes the Coast Guard, is already in posses ion of the data that Markey’s committee is seeking.

Given the fact that the Coast Guard already has the information that Congress is seeking and yet neither the Coast Guard or BP is releasing it to Congress  makes the Feds just as guilty as BP of stonewalling the release of the data.

Markey has also now issued a formal letter to the Coast Guard requesting the release of the data.

Here is the plain text of Representative Markey’s letter to Thad Allen requesting the release of any and all data on the integrity of the well bore and any information about sea floor leaks.

Dear Admiral Allen:

BP has now installed the three ram capping stack on the Deepwater Horizon Lower Marine Riser Package. BP now plans on closing the vents on this capping stack and conducting pressure testing to determine if the well can safely be shut in. Pressure readings will be used to determine if sufficient well integrity exists and a determination will be made whether it is safe to completely shut in the well or whether additional oil collection should continue in order to relieve pressure on the well.

In the past, you have raised questions about wellbore integrity. On Jime 17, 2010, you noted that “we don’t know if the wellbore has been compromised or not. One of the reasons we did not continue with top kill at higher pressures, there was a concem that if we increased the pressure too hard we might do damage to the casings and the wellbore. What we didn’t want was open communication of any oil from the reservoir outside the wellbore that might get into the formation and work its way to the subsea floor and then result in uncontrolled discharge at that point.”

At today’s press conference you raised similar issues and suggested that the pressure readings will help to determine the advisability of shutting in the well, stating that:

“I think we are very confident we can take control of this hydrocarbon stream and then slowly close all these valves and stop the emission of hydrocarbons. What we can’t tell is the current condition of the well bore below the sea floor and the implication of the pressure readings. That is in fact why we’re doing a well integrity test.”

In light of the importance of understanding the situation regarding wellbore integrity, I am asking that the Coast Guard provide the Subcommittee with additional information regarding wellbore integrity at the Deepwater Horizon site. Specifically, I would like to know:

1. What information, if any, has BP provided to the Coast Guard regarding well bore integrity at the site?
2. What documents does the Coast Guard have regarding well integrity and the decision to stop the top kill procedure?
3. Did BP and the Coast Guard reach any conclusions regarding well integrity based on the failure of the top kill procedure?
4. Please provide us with all correspondence, including electronic correspondence, between the Coast Guard and BP, relating to wellbore integrity at the Deepwater Horizon site.
5. What risk does full and complete shut in of the well for an extended period of time pose for wellbore integrity?
6. You first mentioned the possibility of shutting in the well in your July 2 press briefing. When did BP first suggest that the well could be shut in? What did the government do to assess this procedure?

beforeitsnews.com/story/102/545/BP_And_Feds_Stonewalling_Congress_About_Well_Bore_Integrity_And_BP_Gulf_Oil_Spill_Sea_Floor_Leaks.html