Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

[B. Elliott]

What do the Russians say?

"Nuke it!"

Nuke the Gulf Oil Gusher, Russians Suggest
By Jeremy Hsu, LiveScience Senior Writer
posted: 12 May 2010 12:04 pm ET

The Russians previously used nukes at least five times to seal off gas well fires. A targeted nuclear explosion might similarly help seal off the oil well channel that has leaked oil unchecked since the sinking of a BP oil rig on April 22...

http://www.livescience.com/technology/russia-nuke-gulf-oil-well-100512.html

 

[Astronuc]

Size of Oil Spill Underestimated, Scientists Say
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14oil.html

Two weeks ago, the government put out a round estimate of the size of the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico: 5,000 barrels a day. Repeated endlessly in news reports, it has become conventional wisdom.

But scientists and environmental groups are raising sharp questions about that estimate, declaring that the leak must be far larger. They also criticize BP for refusing to use well-known scientific techniques that would give a more precise figure.

Meanwhile, Transocean is seeking to limit it's total liability to ~$27 million by consolidating all lawsuits into one in a Federal Court.

Transocean Seeks To Limit Liability For Oil Rig Blast
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126798122
by NPR Staff and Wires

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Size of Oil Spill Underestimated, Scientists Say
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14oil.html
Meanwhile, Transocean is seeking to limit it's total liability to ~$27 million by consolidating all lawsuits into one in a Federal Court.

Transocean Seeks To Limit Liability For Oil Rig Blast
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126798122
by NPR Staff and Wires

This is grotesque fraud, and now we know why everyone is so hesitant to show the video. I wish to ask the experts who early in this thread scoffed at the problem of this, what now? What is to be done if the top hat and junk shots fail, and how can this ad hoc engineering be acceptable? The US government needs to take control and stop shuffling blame, accept their culpability and get moving. BP and TO, can be dealt with later.

I would like to see the executives in charge to be lit as torches for controlled burns.

 

[mgb_phys]

This is grotesque fraud, and now we know why everyone is so hesitant to show the video.

That's business - same as Ford and exploding gas tanks.

I wish to ask the experts who early in this thread scoffed at the problem of this, what now?

The experts who pointed out that the original 1000bbl/day leak estimate wasn't armageddon?

What is to be done if the top hat and junk shots fail

You keep trying solutions until one works.

and how can this ad hoc engineering be acceptable? The US government needs to take control and stop shuffling blame,

Whats the alternative to ad hoc engineering for a circumstance that hasn't happened before?
How exactly were you proposing the government get involved?
They could take over, start by creating a Nasa-like organization in charge of oil exploration, start a research program for a government standard rig, build the facilities to manufacture the rigs, build duplicate facilities 1000mi inland in the district of every senator that supports it.
And in 10-15years launch a mission to explore this well.

Or they could mandate standards so that US oil exploration's safety record gets closer to europe's than to Azerbaijan's.

I would like to see the executives in charge to be lit as torches for controlled burns.

And the politicians who relaxed the safety standards, and the voters who elected them, and the people that drive F150s to work in the city, and the people that insist on living in Texas and use AC, and everybody else that is to blame.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

That's business - same as Ford and exploding gas tanks.


The experts who pointed out that the original 1000bbl/day leak estimate wasn't armageddon?


You keep trying solutions until one works.


Whats the alternative to ad hoc engineering for a circumstance that hasn't happened before?
How exactly were you proposing the government get involved?
They could take over, start by creating a Nasa-like organization in charge of oil exploration, start a research program for a government standard rig, build the facilities to manufacture the rigs, build duplicate facilities 1000mi inland in the district of every senator that supports it.
And in 10-15years launch a mission to explore this well.

Or they could mandate standards so that US oil exploration's safety record gets closer to europe's than to Azerbaijan's.


And the politicians who relaxed the safety standards, and the voters who elected them, and the people that drive F150s to work in the city, and the people that insist on living in Texas and use AC, and everybody else that is to blame.

Fords exploding do not damage regions for decades. The rest is fallacious attempt at equivalency. How do you engineer for a problem that has not occurred? IN A LAB. This was not unforeseeable, but no solution existed when they drilled. That is criminal, and if you believe voters have meaningful control you are kidding yourself.

 

[russ_watters]

This is grotesque fraud, and now we know why everyone is so hesitant to show the video. I wish to ask the experts who early in this thread scoffed at the problem of this, what now?

Fraud? How is it fraud? And how is the video of the leak at all useful? I do understand why they are hesitant to show the video: it clouds peoples' judgement.

I would like to see the executives in charge to be lit as torches for controlled burns.

Gee, that's reasonable.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Fraud? How is it fraud? And how is the video of the leak at all useful? I do understand why they are hesitant to show the video: it clouds peoples' judgement.

Gee, that's reasonable.

Nothing to offer, but response to my quotes, perhaps you two debate Astronuc, that would be interesting :)

 

[Evo]

This is interesting. I didn't know that the oil from the Ixtac spill was never found, and it was spilling at twice the rate of this spill. This is just such a shame. Apparently each spill is unique, so each spill requires a different solution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100514/ap_on_sc/us_gulf_spill_where_s_the_oil

 

[russ_watters]

Nothing to offer, but response to my quotes, perhaps you two debate Astronuc, that would be interesting :)

It should be obvious what my purpose is here: Since the information available is sketchy, my main purpose is to counter the misinformation and faulty analysis that others are spreading. Astronuc provided no misinformation or faulty analysis, only links/quotes to articles. But you want me to comment on his post. Fine: It doesn't surprise me that the leak estimate is questionable (that's what "estimate" means) and it doesn't surprise me that the companies involved are trying to downplay the harm being done and limit liability (that's just good business).

 

[IcedEcliptic]

It should be obvious what my purpose is here: Since the information available is sketchy, my main purpose is to counter the misinformation and faulty analysis that others are spreading. Astronuc provided no misinformation or faulty analysis, only links/quotes to articles. But you want me to comment on his post. Fine: It doesn't surprise me that the leak estimate is questionable (that's what "estimate" means) and it doesn't surprise me that the companies involved are trying to downplay the harm being done and limit liability (that's just good business).

This is good business? I did not realize that, I had assumed that good government and business does not stand to lose drilling rights, and helps a potential environmental disaster to fester. I did not realize that good engineering did not have working fail-safes, like a nuclear reactor without ability to SCRAM. I think you are too invested in your "purpose". Why don't you provide information like Astronuc, instead of merely appearing to critique? I would welcome that, but I do not hold my breath. You, Mgb Physics, and Cyrus all seem to be reading from the same script, it is not useful, helpful, or trustworthy in my opinion.

Oh, and I want you to comment on his postS plural.

 

[jreelawg]

Actually, if the new estimate at 70,000 barrels per day plus or minus 20% is accurate, then this well is leaking much faster than ixtoc which leaked an average of 10-30k barrels a day. At this rate, if it is not stopped, it will be approaching the total volume of the ixtoc by the time the relief well is estimated to be finished.

 

[jreelawg]

It should be obvious what my purpose is here: Since the information available is sketchy, my main purpose is to counter the misinformation and faulty analysis that others are spreading. Astronuc provided no misinformation or faulty analysis, only links/quotes to articles. But you want me to comment on his post. Fine: It doesn't surprise me that the leak estimate is questionable (that's what "estimate" means) and it doesn't surprise me that the companies involved are trying to downplay the harm being done and limit liability (that's just good business).

What about countering the misinformation that BP, is putting out, what about the misinformation that led to this disaster? You can't excuse some misinformation because it is good for business. I could just as well say claiming I have big foots body is good for business.

 

[mheslep]

Actually, if the new estimate at 70,000 barrels per day p

Who's new estimate?

 

[mheslep]

What about countering the misinformation that BP, is putting out, what about the misinformation that led to this disaster? ...

Such as?

 

[jreelawg]

You know this how?

Claiming that the leak was 1000 barrels a day. Refusing to measure the leak. Refusing to put out footage which would make it possible for others to measure the leak. Now sticking by 5,000 when they know it isn't accurate. How is this not fraud. Also claiming they had the capability to clean up a spill of 300,000 gallons a day in order to get their permit to drill was fraud.

 

[jreelawg]

Such as?

You really ought to watch the testimony before congress.

 

[Evo]

Actually, if the new estimate at 70,000 barrels per day plus or minus 20% is accurate, then this well is leaking much faster than ixtoc which leaked an average of 10-30k barrels a day. At this rate, if it is not stopped, it will be approaching the total volume of the ixtoc by the time the relief well is estimated to be finished.

How many barrels of oil per day was the well producing at the time of the accident? Wouldn't that be a good rule of thumb for what the spill rate would be?

 

[mheslep]

Claiming that the leak was 1000 barrels a day. Refusing to measure the leak. Refusing to put out footage which would make it possible for others to measure the leak. Now sticking by 5,000 when they know it isn't accurate. How is this not fraud. Also claiming they had the capability to clean up a spill of 300,000 gallons a day in order to get their permit to drill was fraud.

Sources for anyone of those claims?

 

[mheslep]

You really ought to watch the testimony before congress.

Maybe, but you've made several claims here, and you really should support them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is interesting. I didn't know that the oil from the Ixtac spill was never found, and it was spilling at twice the rate of this spill. This is just such a shame. Apparently each spill is unique, so each spill requires a different solution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100514/ap_on_sc/us_gulf_spill_where_s_the_oil

Do that math on that one. It appears to have been leaking at half the rate of the low-end estimates for this leak.

Edit: Correction, it was half the rate of the upper limit estimates for this one when it first started. The latest numbers suggested by some for this leak, would be 50% higher again than the previous upper limits considered.

Over a long period of time, we know that the oil will be consumed by microbes. Nature does have the ability to handle oil, but not in the short term or in such large quantities or rates.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How many barrels of oil per day was the well producing at the time of the accident? Wouldn't that be a good rule of thumb for what the spill rate would be?

No. That would depend on the viscosity of the oil, the length of the pipe, the pressure, valve restrictions, and pumping equipment, to name a few. For example, you get a lot more water from a spigot than you would at the end of a one-mile long hose.

 

[Evo]

Never fear, Kevin Costner is going to clean up the oil spill.

http://www.kctv5.com/news/23553391/detail.html

 

[turbo]

Who's new estimate?

Steven Wereley, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University, analyzed videotape of the seafloor gusher using a technique called particle image velocimetry.

A computer program simply tracks particles and calculates how fast they are moving. Wereley put the BP video of the gusher into his computer. He made a few simple calculations and came up with an astonishing value for the rate of the oil spill: 70,000 barrels a day — much higher than the official estimate of 5,000 barrels a day.

The method is accurate to a degree of plus or minus 20 percent.

Timothy Crone, an associate research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, used another well-accepted method to calculate fluid flows. Crone arrived at a similar figure, but he said he'd like better video from BP before drawing a firm conclusion.

Eugene Chiang, a professor of astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, also got a similar answer, using just pencil and paper.

https://preview.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525&sc=nl&cc=brk-20100513-1917

 

[Evo]

https://preview.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525&sc=nl&cc=brk-20100513-1917

It also continues.

(Chiang)"I would peg it at around 20,000 to 100,000 barrels per day," he said.

Chiang called the current estimate of 5,000 barrels a day "almost certainly incorrect."

BP disputed these figures.

"We've said all along that there's no way to estimate the flow coming out of the pipe accurately," said Bill Salvin, a BP spokesman.

Instead, BP prefers to rely on measurements of oil on the sea surface made by the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Those are also contentious. Salvin also says these analyses should not assume that the oil is spewing from the 21-inch pipe, called a riser, shown in the video.

"The drill pipe, from which the oil is rising, is actually a 9-inch pipe that rests within the riser," Slavin said.

 

[turbo]

The problem with BP's "method" is that it measures only the extent of the slick formed by the light fraction of the crude, from a well that is a mile underwater. What about the stuff that is dispersed by ocean currents and hasn't yet risen to the surface? In this case, estimating spill-rate by looking at the rate of movement of the discharged oil is about as accurate as we can hope for, and the results of that method dwarfs BP's assertions about the spill rate.

 

[russ_watters]

This is good business? I did not realize that, I had assumed that good government and business does not stand to lose drilling rights, and helps a potential environmental disaster to fester. I did not realize that good engineering did not have working fail-safes, like a nuclear reactor without ability to SCRAM. I think you are too invested in your "purpose".

Honestly, you're just blathering here. None of that has any relevance to what I said. My "good business" comment was only about their downplaying the damage and if you missed that, you need to step back, take a deep breath, and regain your composure.

 

[russ_watters]

What about countering the misinformation that BP, is putting out...

We have the media and a large group of people here going after BP pretty hard. You don't need me to add anything to it and even if I did, my sensible statements would get lost in the firestorm of propaganda anyway.

Yeah, they screwed-up. We all know it and you don't really need me to say it. Don't assume because I don't say it that I don't understand it.

...what about the misinformation that led to this disaster?

What are you talking about?

You can't excuse some misinformation because it is good for business.

I've done no such thing.

 

[russ_watters]

How many barrels of oil per day was the well producing at the time of the accident? Wouldn't that be a good rule of thumb for what the spill rate would be?

Probably not. The leak is uncontrolled. If there was any oil coming out before the leak, it wouldn't necessarily have any relation to the size of the leak.

 

[russ_watters]

Claiming that the leak was 1000 barrels a day.

Who measured it and made that claim?

Refusing to measure the leak.

That's not misinformation, that's suppressing information. There is a difference.

Refusing to put out footage which would make it possible for others to measure the leak.

Lol, c'mon - you're not serious, are you? You really think the video has some value? It doesn't. The only thing it does is cause people to go blind, as we can clearly see here.

Now sticking by 5,000 when they know it isn't accurate.

Who knows what? All this is just estimates being thrown around and you [and others] are trying to turn estimates into facts. They aren't.

How is this not fraud.

Using it that way, it doesn't seem like you know what the word "fraud" means. Why don't you explain why you think it is fraud. You're making the claim, you need to support it.

Also claiming they had the capability to clean up a spill of 300,000 gallons a day in order to get their permit to drill was fraud.

Again, based on what?

 

[russ_watters]

The problem with BP's "method" is that it measures only the extent of the slick formed by the light fraction of the crude, from a well that is a mile underwater. What about the stuff that is dispersed by ocean currents and hasn't yet risen to the surface? In this case, estimating spill-rate by looking at the rate of movement of the discharged oil is about as accurate as we can hope for, and the results of that method dwarfs BP's assertions about the spill rate.

Yes, certainly that method also has flaw. The bottom line here is that the size of the leak currently has a number of estimates that cover more than an order of magnitude. What does that mean? It means we really don't have a very good idea of what the real flow rate is.