AMP Response Regarding CGI Drilling Project

May 26 e-mail from Janice Adams of AMP:
Thank you for your inquiry.  Per your request, Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) has examined its record of activity during the period you have asked. Based on our research, below are the responses to your questions.
 1. Dates drilling began and ended. The Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) from the USCG Island to Main Island (Grand Street) started on April 11, 2014 and ended on May 3, 2014. 2. What type drilling mud and drilling mud additives were used? The type of drilling mud used was Bentonite and it was supplied by Geo Drilling Fluids Inc. (see attached MSDS Sheet). 3. Please enumerate if exceptions were made to generally accepted engineering standards for environmental protection. No exceptions were made to engineering standards for environmental protection. The drilling, conducted by J-C Engineering Inc., started with a 7-7/8" pilot bore and then reamed with an 18" reamer to allow for the three conduits to be pulled in. 4. Were exceptions made to City standards for bidding? If so, how were they justified? The project followed AMP’s standard Request for Proposals (RFP) process and no exceptions were made to standards for bidding. 5. Did California Trenchless Inc. (CTI) have previous experience with directional drilling projects of this type and scale? As part of AMP's RFP process and general condition, AMP requested bidders to provide sufficient evidence of their qualifications and experience in providing this type and scale of service. Both the general contractor (California Trenchless Inc.) and the Sub-contractor (J-C General Engineering Inc.) met the specifications, with 17 years and 30 years in directional drilling experience respectively and both listed several projects of equal or greater magnitude. 6. How did CTI control and dispose of waste drilling mud? (The online contract documents specified a "mud pit" for retaining waste drilling mud, but there was none during the several days I observed the drilling during my daily walks.) The drilling contractor (J-C General Engineering Inc.) separated the soil using a 5,000 gallon mud recycling system at the "Entry Point". The recycling system was made up of a 5,000 gallon tank divided into three pits. A series of screens and shakers, varying in sieve size, were used on top of two pits. As the drill mud was pumped from the entry pit into the recycling system, the soils were shaken off the screens into a 10,000 gallon bin. The soils were then hauled off to McCampbell Analytical, Inc., in Pittsburg, Calif. Please note that the "Entry Point" was located at Coast Guard Island. 7. What geological data did CTI and AMP use to ensure environmental safety, e.g., the nature and composition of the drilling formation? AMP hired URS Corporation to prepare the feasibility study and prepare environmental reports and permits. URS's scope of work also included the geotechnical borings (on land and under the estuary). The soil was sampled at 5-foot intervals using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Modified California (MC) split-spoon type samplers. The Horizontal Directional Drilling was designed using the known soil types and profiles. 8. Did CTI or AMP do post-project testing for drilling mud leakage? If so, what were the results? Yes. A drilling fluid management plan was in place throughout the process to continuously monitor the mud viscosity and volume to assure returns or circulation was at 100 percent. Best management practices were used and emergency procedures for Blow Holes or drilling fluid breakouts (hydrofracture or frac-out) were in place. The HDD project went smooth, 100 percent of returns were met, and there were no frac-outs. 9. What level of on-site supervision did AMP have throughout the project? (The drilling was only yards away from AMP's headquarters.) AMP provided a Project Manager and a Compliance Inspector to the project. 10. How otherwise did AMP assure themselves of contract compliance? AMP inspected the work on a regular basis. Also, the contractor was required to maintain a daily log during the construction process, which was reviewed by AMP on a regular basis. 11. Did AMP perform on-site testing regarding environmental risks such as frac-out and waste mud leakage and disposal? Yes. A drilling fluid management plan was in place throughout the process to continuously monitor the mud viscosity and volume to assure returns or circulation was at 100 percent. Best management practices were used and emergency procedures for Blow Holes or drilling fluid breakouts (hydrofracture or frac-out) were in place. The HDD project went smooth, 100 percent of returns were met, and there were no frac-outs. 12. Does AMP and CTI have insurance coverage for environmental risk? Yes, AMP and CTI had insurance coverage for environmental risk. 13. Did anyone at AMP question why CTI's bid showed a substantially shorter duration than others? (The use of a drilling mud additive would have accelerated the ROP [rate of penetration], reducing cost by speeding up the project, but would also increase environmental risk.) A jet assembly was used and only bentonite was added. The drilling contractor continuously monitored the mud viscosity and volume throughout the drill and adjusted the viscosity as needed to keep cuttings suspended and ensure 100 percent circulation. I hope that this provides you with the information you need. Should you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me.  Sincerely, Janice AdamAlameda Municipal Power

1 comment:

  1. There are a few extras and connections that can enhance the utilization of your drill press. see it here

    ReplyDelete

Comments are welcome and encouraged.