Offshore oil drilling is safe?

[mheslep]

Well, you have still not provided any information (even poorly-reviewed) about how oil from deep-sea wells magically rises to the surface, and how the production rates of existing wells can be used to limit the theoretical maximum outflow of a damaged well-head. I don't want to characterize another forum member as cheerleading for multinational corporations, but you seem to have moved beyond that to baton-twirling. Please link some peer-reviewed studies that show that the potential blow-out rate of a drilling-rig such as this can be characterized or constrained by the production rates of wells in nearby environs.

If the Deepwater Horizon spill can reasonably be constrained (in volumetrics) by the production rates of other wells in the same area, please show some evidence.

I did - from a quote in a mainstream newspaper as a source. You ignored it as a conflict of interest, disingenuous on their part, etc.

More than half a dozen industry professionals who test wells flow and study oil formations were skeptical in interviews about estimates as high as 80,000 barrels a day, given the production rates of nearby deep water wells that yield 15,000 to 30,000 barrels a day.

“We work hard to maximize flow rates in deep-water wells and I don't know any well in the Gulf of Mexico that made that kind of rate,” said Stuart Filler, president of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/7011584.html

 

[turbo]

I did - from a quote in a mainstream newspaper as a source. You ignored it as a conflict of interest, disingenuous on their part, etc.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/7011584.html

You ignore the inconvenient fact that the flow gushing out of a broken well (highly pressurized in this case, as the videos demonstrate) is in no way comparable to the production rate of a well that has been properly controlled and has been in production for some time. The fact that the petroleum company engineers' "assessment" was printed in a paper in no way elevates their claim to fact. The comparison is sheer propaganda and damage-control on the part of industry. BP could have allowed the Woods Hole team on-site to assess the spill a month ago. They have chosen to remain secretive, so their "assessments" are necessarily suspect.

 

[mheslep]

You ignore the inconvenient fact that the flow gushing out of a broken well (highly pressurized in this case, as the videos demonstrate) is in no way comparable to the production rate of a well that has been properly controlled and has been in production for some time. The fact that the petroleum company engineers' "assessment" was printed in a paper in no way elevates their claim to fact. The comparison is sheer propaganda and damage-control on the part of industry. BP could have allowed the Woods Hole team on-site to assess the spill a month ago. They have chosen to remain secretive, so their "assessments" are necessarily suspect.

It's certainly true that the petro engineers statements are not claims of fact. I don't say otherwise and neither do they. Absent better information I'm inclined to credit their assessment as likely. I am not inclined to credit your assessment as likely about what is comparable, what is sheer propaganda, etc.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Given the issues that have been exposed with Wereley's estimate, I hesitate to simply guess or accept guesses. We'll see when the team finishes their assessment and is reviewed.

 

[turbo]

Given the issues that have been exposed with Wereley's estimate, I hesitate to simply guess or accept guesses. We'll see when the team finishes their assessment and is reviewed.

Wereley has stated that with his protocol, the flow of the leak could be estimated with an accuracy of about 2%. He has said that with the leak footage made available to him, he could only estimate to an accuracy of about 20%.

That's an indication of intellectual honesty, IMO. If after seeing more imagery of the leaks (not just the one) it is not surprising to find that he might raise his estimate of the flow-rate. Right-wingers like to point this out as an example of prevarication, while ignoring the blatant lies of BP. BP claimed a 5000 bpd spill, and then when their siphon was recovering 5000 bpd while a vast majority of the spill was un-recovered, they continued to lie about the magnitude of the spill. It really ticks me off that Obama has allowed the administrative departments under his control to play along with BP. That's a waiting-game that the Gulf fishery cannot afford.

 

[magpies]

So... the real question is can obama get 4 more years even after this? I think he can and will.

 

[turbo]

So... the real question is can obama get 4 more years even after this? I think he can and will.

He might. The right-wing-financed "grass-roots" wings of the GOP are pretty extreme, and it's hard to win the center on their platform. The Tea Party has hijacked the GOP platform in Maine, and no Republican can afford to run on that platform. Maine is very conservative, but not radical.

Obama has a problem with progressives and classic liberals. They are all fuming about his reticence on issues like gay rights in the military, etc. A lot of liberals tagged him with (perhaps unrealistic) hopes, and are now ticked off because he hasn't delivered.

 

[russ_watters]

Wereley has stated that with his protocol, the flow of the leak could be estimated with an accuracy of about 2%.

With real instruments designed to utilize his method, not with a web-video. The method he has patented won't ever be able to be applied here.

He has said that with the leak footage made available to him, he could only estimate to an accuracy of about 20%.

That's what he said the first time. The second time, he gave an error margin of 67% (20,000-100,000bpd).

That's an indication of intellectual honesty, IMO. If after seeing more imagery of the leaks (not just the one) it is not surprising to find that he might raise his estimate of the flow-rate.

No (and it would be equally unsurprising if he lowered his estimate), but it is surprising that his uncertainty would increase.

Right-wingers like to point this out as an example of prevarication, while ignoring the blatant lies of BP. BP claimed a 5000 bpd spill, and then when their siphon was recovering 5000 bpd while a vast majority of the spill was un-recovered, they continued to lie about the magnitude of the spill.

That's misinformation, turbo, and there is no excuse for not knowing it because both points have been discussed recently.
1. It wasn't BP's estimate.
2. Immediately after they announced their siphon was pulling 5,000 bpd, they acknowledged the obvoiusness that the leak rate must be above 5,000.

You ignore the inconvenient fact that the flow gushing out of a broken well (highly pressurized in this case, as the videos demonstrate) is in no way comparable to the production rate of a well that has been properly controlled and has been in production for some time.

You can tell what the pressure of the leak is just by looking at it? REALLY? C'mon, now.

The language you are using here is very provocative and not very factual in nature: it's propaganda, not objective analysis.

 

[turbo]

Russ, please provide some justification for your claims. Wereley's estimates were well thought-out. He is a professional in fluid dynamics. BP's "estimates" were pipe dreams (at best) that were very quickly debunked by their own claims at recovery. I don't care how much hydrocarbon crap is gushing out of that drilling-site. I do care that it is stopped ASAP so that the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen, bait-pickers and sellers, processing plant owners, and their employees can all have jobs.

BTW, I never claimed to be able to gauge the pressure of the oil gusher by looking at the 30 second video, as you well know. The spill from the damaged well is impressive, even a mile under the ocean. Pretend that you are well-versed in physics and let yourself imagine that the gusher is much larger than you are willing to admit. That would be a start.

 

[RonL]

Some might find the ROV at work interesting, I can't tell what they are doing.
My guess is swegging the end down around the pipe they inserted before ?

http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=2


Sorry! they changed camera view, a few minutes after I posted.

 

[EnumaElish]

Someone should have been fertilizing the beaches for maximal bacteria growth:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/can-microbes-save-the-gulf-beach.html

 

[Proton Soup]

Someone should have been fertilizing the beaches for maximal bacteria growth:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/can-microbes-save-the-gulf-beach.html

that sounds great. but we do already pump quite a bit of fertilizer into the gulf in the form of agricultural runoff and sewage treatment efflux. maybe we've been doing the "right thing" all along.

 

[turbo]

that sounds great. but we do already pump quite a bit of fertilizer into the gulf in the form of agricultural runoff and sewage treatment efflux. maybe we've been doing the "right thing" all along.

Excessive run-off of organic materials and chemical fertilizer result in Maine's coastal waters being closed to the harvest of clams, mussels, etc due to red tide. Not good.

 

[Proton Soup]

Excessive run-off of organic materials and chemical fertilizer result in Maine's coastal waters being closed to the harvest of clams, mussels, etc due to red tide. Not good.

oh, it happens here sometimes, too...

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, please provide some justification for your claims.

What claims? Everything I referred to was already discussed in this thread. The two wrong claims of yours were discussed and referenced in post #484:

Just released by BP, their siphon is taking 5000 bbl/day, and they [now] admit that the leak is much much larger than their estimate.

...and in post 40 [from the reference]

Wednesday night, the Coast Guard and NOAA raised their estimate of the amount of oil the damaged well was pouring into the Gulf to 210,000 gallons a day, or about 5,000 barrels.

...and I also pointed it out again in post #493.

So since you are the one making statements against common knowledge facts already discussed multiple times in this thread, you need to clarify:
1. Did you just miss these facts? Clarify that this was an error on your part and correct yourself, so that we can know you have an understanding of the facts here.
2. Or: do you have a reference for your claims of fact?

Wereley's estimates were well thought-out. He is a professional in fluid dynamics.

You haven't posted anything that implies you even have looked-into Wereley's method. We've had considrable discussion of it that you have not participated in, so I don't see anything from you that you would base your opinion on except his resume. And there are lots of phd's in the world - even, I'm sure, some working for BP! I can think of only one reason for choosing to harp on the highest possible estimates without basis: it makes for good propaganda.

But if you did read-up on his method, show it by explaining why it seems well thought out. Otherwise, it's just an empty opinion.

BTW, I never claimed to be able to gauge the pressure of the oil gusher by looking at the 30 second video, as you well know.

You said:

highly pressurized in this case, as the videos demonstrate

Which means that you are saying you are able to gage the pressure is "high" by looking at the video.

Frankly, when I first looked at the video, it looked surprisingly low to me, based on how quickly the plume curves up instead of shooting out horizontally. But not having any frame of reference to compare that perception to, I understand that that perception is essentially meaningless...as is your perception from the video that the leak is "highly pressurized...as the videos demonstrate".

The spill from the damaged well is impressive, even a mile under the ocean.

Again, a perception with no frame of reference is meaningless. People I show my astrophotos to are often impressed and tell me I should try selling them. Lacking the frame of reference to understand that my photos are not impressive compared to other peoples' astrophotos, they don't understand that what they are suggesting is silly.

Recognize that you have no frame of reference and what you perceive from looking at the videos is completely useless.

This, by the way, was my point way back when the video was first released when I said it was a bad thing to release it: people see it and are impressed by it, even though it is meaningless to them.

Pretend that you are well-versed in physics and let yourself imagine that the gusher is much larger than you are willing to admit. That would be a start.

Lol, turbo. Being well-versed in physics means that I don't let myself "imagine". So, for you: start dealing with facts and stop letting your imagination control your opinions.

 

[turbo]

Russ, I was employed for a time as a troubleshooter in the pulp and paper industry. I had to take the opinions of dueling experts (supporting the agendas of the people signing their checks) with a big grain of salt. Often there was potentially millions of dollars at stake. Paper company engineers and maintenance managers would make unsupported claims against their suppliers of equipment and consumables, only to be involved in cat-fights with the experts from those entities. Rarely did it take me more than a couple of hours to discern the source of an operational problem that was crippling a paper machine, costing tens of thousands of dollars per hour in lost revenues and excess operating costs. Troubleshooting requires an appreciation of what is and what is not physically possible.

One maintenance manager claimed that a dryer felt was violently shaking a dryer section, based on the "evidence" that the shaking lined up pretty well with the passage of the felt's seam over a guide roll. It took me longer to persuade the superintendent to re-start the dryer section than it took me to find the problem. A loose retaining nut on a huge helical-cut bull-gear. I found it by using my flashlight as a stethoscope. The supplier of that dryer felt could possibly have lost a million dollars a year (easy) in business if upper management believed the maintenance manager and the engineering staff, only to have the true cause covered up by the idiots when they stumbled upon it eventually. Another time, I dropped into a mill with a dear old friend to troubleshoot their largest paper machine, which had not made a shred of salable paper in weeks. My friend knew that my expertise was strongest around the wet end of the machine, so we split the machine in two and looked it over. It took me about 1/2 hour to find the problem (improperly positioned breast roll due to the raising cables not being slacked after raising and securing the breast roll assembly) and it took me and my friend a couple of hours to organize a meeting of the brass, and another hour to convince the engineers that they were wrong. My friend (a trouble-shooter with a higher billable rate than me) finally stood up at the meeting, pointed at the superintendent and said "Either do what he has told you to do (re-align the breast roll assembly and re-shoot the headbox slice) or you won't make another lick of paper. We're leaving."

So when BP confidently claims that the leak is 5000 bbl/day and several prominent professionals claim that the number is way understated, I tend to discount the BP account. Petro engineers have a bottom line to protect. Then when BP claimed to be recovering 5000 bbl/day through their soda-straw while the bulk of the petro appeared to be still blasting out of the header, that discredited BP's claims further.

If you believe BP and want to low-ball the flow rate, have at it. The fact that they would not allow the experts from Woods Hole to send instruments on-site and measure the leak speaks volumes about their credibility.

I have been in the trenches in heavy industry, and physically unreal problems are cited all the time to deflect blame, like the claim that a dryer felt weighing several hundred pounds could violently shake a huge cast-iron and steel dryer section every few seconds. "Wait and see" and credulous acceptance of BP's claims do no good for the gulf residents who make their livings from the sea.

 

[russ_watters]

So when BP confidently claims that the leak is 5000 bbl/day...

...Then when BP claimed to be recovering 5000 bbl/day through their soda-straw while the bulk of the petro appeared to be still blasting out of the header...

Turbo-1, you need to stop making these factually wrong claims, plus deal with the ones you've already made that have been pointed out to you. All of your non-sequitur does not distract from the fact that you are stating unreferenced factual falshoods.

Correct yourself!

 

[turbo]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/19/94467/engineer-oil-spill-videos-show.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127012041

There's a lot more out there if you are interested,

 

[turbo]

To the OP: No off-shore oil drilling is not safe if the companies that you hand permits to are not competent, and claim that they have disaster- recovery plans that fail to address even modest failures. The US needs to seriously reconsider its stance on off-shore drilling and extraction, and tighten standards. When a company owned by foreign nationals is allowed to write their own inspection reports, dodge regulations, and then foul one of the most productive fisheries in the US, that's a pretty big wake-up call.

 

[zomgwtf]

To the OP: No off-shore oil drilling is not safe if the companies that you hand permits to are not competent, and claim that they have disaster- recovery plans that fail to address even modest failures. The US needs to seriously reconsider its stance on off-shore drilling and extraction, and tighten standards. When a company owned by foreign nationals is allowed to write their own inspection reports, dodge regulations, and then foul one of the most productive fisheries in the US, that's a pretty big wake-up call.

You claim that this gusher is around 100,000 bbl/day and you claim that it's only a modest failure? Give me a break. This is something that has been quite catastrophic. It sucks that it happened, it sucks even more for the guys @ BP that it happened to them but hopefully we take from it and learn then apply that knowledge to future oil drilling.

 

[mheslep]

To the OP: No off-shore oil drilling is not safe if the companies that you hand permits to are not competent, and claim that they have disaster- recovery plans that fail to address even modest failures. The US needs to seriously reconsider its stance on off-shore drilling and extraction, and tighten standards. When a company owned by foreign nationals is allowed to write their own inspection reports, dodge regulations, and then foul one of the most productive fisheries in the US, that's a pretty big wake-up call.

A wake up call to do what? Tighten standards, sure. What else? Import replacement oil from Saudi Arabia and Iran?

 

[magpies]

So like I was wondering if this oil spill will create a pocket of stench that will drift over the land? Cause like I really don't want to be smelling oil for the next few months. :(

 

[mheslep]

So like I was wondering if this oil spill will create a pocket of stench that will drift over the land? Cause like I really don't want to be smelling oil for the next few months. :(

Incense. Problem solved.

 

[Proton Soup]

So like I was wondering if this oil spill will create a pocket of stench that will drift over the land? Cause like I really don't want to be smelling oil for the next few months. :(

i would expect it to create smog (depending on the amount of volatiles released) as we move on into the summer months.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...Even the EPA's monitoring of air quality on the gulf shoreline, 50 miles from the oil leak, has detected petroleum odors strong enough to cause sickness. The agency's website warns coastal residents: "Some of these chemicals may cause short-lived effects like headache, eye, nose and throat irritation, or nausea."...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-workers-sick-20100526,0,4604887.story

Some fisherman involved in the cleanup, and other, have reported problems.

Yesterday in Venice, Louisiana, fishermen and local residents called a press conference to talk about the air. People complained of the oily smells when the wind is blowing off the water, and listed symptoms including headaches, nosebleeds, asthma attacks, cough, nausea, and vomiting. Those who had been out on the water said it was even worse out there...

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/gsolomon/sick_fishermen_and_oily_smells.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You claim that this gusher is around 100,000 bbl/day and you claim that it's only a modest failure? Give me a break. This is something that has been quite catastrophic. It sucks that it happened, it sucks even more for the guys @ BP that it happened to them but hopefully we take from it and learn then apply that knowledge to future oil drilling.

The decision to go ahead with drilling operations of this nature, while knowing full well that there was no immediate solution to a bop failure, is not a matter of lessons learned for industry. It was a catastrophic and mind-numbingly arrogant failure of responsibility and common sense. The only lesson to be learned here is that industry cannot be trusted. If everyone doesn't get that by now, or at least by the time this is over [well, that won't be for another decade or two, at least], then we deserve what we get. Drill baby drill!

They knowingly bet that a failure was not a possibliity. That is unforgivable! The only thing that would be more unforgivable is if we ever trust industry with this sort of responsiblity again. And that goes for the nuclear industry as well. From now on, when it comes to oil and nuclear, I am a die-hard regulation hawk. Screw the free market. We can't afford to have these kinds of disasters.

Did anyone catch the CEO of Shell going at it with James Carville, on CNN? The CEO actually had the nerve to defend this by in effect saying: Hey, 1:33,000 wells ain't bad! That's what we get from industry. Even today, in the midst of this crisis, he had the gall to suggest or imply that this is somehow statistically acceptable.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My guess is that most people haven't even begun to grasp the scope of this disaster. At this point I fear the absolute worst.

God I hope this top kill works. It should start in a few more hours. The bad news: The methods to stop this were executed in the order of least to greatest risk. If the top kill fails, it could make things worse. Today they were carefully reviewing calculations to ensure that they don't damage the bop. They have to apply as much pressure as they can without causing the bop to rupture. That may be why BP wanted to kill the live camera feed when they do the top kill.

At Obama's "request", the camera feed will be kept on.

 

[pallidin]

You know, what's so hard about plugging this leak?
I'll tell you right now: It's hard for BP to let go of a "money" well.

They would rather spend months trying to figure out how to re-capture the flow than to stop the environmental disaster.

What a shame.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes, the CEO of Shell did have one interesting suggestion. He cited another spill in the ME where a fleet of oil tankers were used to suck up the oil and water at the source. The tankers have huge pumps and a million gallon capacity. They were able to capture about 75% of the oil that way.

According to Carville, any tankers that could be used are sitting offshore and unavailable; stocked full of oil, waiting for the price of fuel to rise. But right now he's a ragin Cajun, so he might have been blowing off steam. I did note that the CEO of Shell didn't object to this claim.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You know, what's so hard about plugging this leak?
I'll tell you right now: It's hard for BP to let go of a "money" well.

They would rather spend months trying to figure out how to re-capture the flow than to stop the environmental disaster.

What a shame.

Oh, I have no doubt that they are doing everything possible now. The entire industry is involved and offering any help possible. They know that this will affect all oil companies.

Philippe Cousteau himself stated that he has seen engineers at BP weeping openly. But no amount of tears will fix this now.

 

[russ_watters]

The only lesson to be learned here is that industry cannot be trusted.

That's a pretty empty lesson to be learned. The whole point of a system of laws and indeed government itself is that people cannot be trusted to do the right thing and must have it enforced by government. I can't imagine that anyone would have said prior to this accident that they would trust BP to do the right thing even without laws to properly regulate it.

 

[rcgldr]

I scanned through this thread, but didn't see any references to the 60 minutes episode where they interviewed an employee that was on the rig, and talked 60 minutes through what went wrong. One of the control panels on the BOP had gone out. One of the key components of the BOP, a large rubber seal, was damaged by operator error, confirmed when chunks of rubber showed up in the return "mud". A BP manager overrode the rig managers decision about finshing up the well, deciding to use sea water instead of the denser "mud" on the final (uppermost) section of the well sealing process, in order to speed up the later process where the well would be put into operation.

When the blowout did occur, the methane gas caused the diesel generators to overrev and resulted in electrical failures that worsened the situation. An explosion might have been inevitable, but without the generators going wild, they might have been able to get all the workers off the rig before the explosion. No explanation was given for why whatever regulating devices on the generators were not able to throttle them back to avoid overevving.

In general it was a case of management rushing the work inspite of the risks.

 

[WhoWee]

The decision to go ahead with drilling operations of this nature, while knowing full well that there was no immediate solution to a bop failure, is not a matter of lessons learned for industry. It was a catastrophic and mind-numbingly arrogant failure of responsibility and common sense. The only lesson to be learned here is that industry cannot be trusted. If everyone doesn't get that by now, or at least by the time this is over [well, that won't be for another decade or two, at least], then we deserve what we get. Drill baby drill!

They knowingly bet that a failure was not a possibliity. That is unforgivable! The only thing that would be more unforgivable is if we ever trust industry with this sort of responsiblity again. And that goes for the nuclear industry as well. From now on, when it comes to oil and nuclear, I am a die-hard regulation hawk. Screw the free market. We can't afford to have these kinds of disasters.

Did anyone catch the CEO of Shell going at it with James Carville, on CNN? The CEO actually had the nerve to defend this by in effect saying: Hey, 1:33,000 wells ain't bad! That's what we get from industry. Even today, in the midst of this crisis, he had the gall to suggest or imply that this is somehow statistically acceptable.

Good job Ivan...never let a good crisis go to waste. I think you've made a great case (statistically) for shutting down the space program (actually aviation in general), the nuclear industry, probably mining, construction of large structures, logging, and etc. Please keep adding to the list - it's your big opportunity.

By the way, are you ever going to tell us how long it will take for the algae to replenish?

 

[WhoWee]

Oh yes, the CEO of Shell did have one interesting suggestion. He cited another spill in the ME where a fleet of oil tankers were used to suck up the oil and water at the source. The tankers have huge pumps and a million gallon capacity. They were able to capture about 75% of the oil that way.

According to Carville, any tankers that could be used are sitting offshore and unavailable; stocked full of oil, waiting for the price of fuel to rise. But right now he's a ragin Cajun, so he might have been blowing off steam. I did note that the CEO of Shell didn't object to this claim.

Maybe Obama should encourage them to flood the market with cheap oil...that might become his most effective stimulus to date?

 

[jackmell]

It's an acceptable risk in my opinion and most of business and government know and accept this although they won't say in public. Let me give a more harsh (fiction) scenario to exemplify this acceptance:

It's really a cover-up: it's not the well that's leaking but rather one of the undersea pipes transporting off-shore oil to the U.S was punctured by the collapsing rig. Both BP and the government know this and can easily just shut off a valve upstream of the leak but that would disrupt the flow of oil from other rigs to the U.S. They don't do this and rather accept the consequences of poisoning the Gulf at the expense of maintaining the oil flow.

That would happen in my opinion because oil is that important to the U.S. economy.