News Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

[mheslep]

I expect people who are discussing the issue have a general knowledge of what they are discussing.

Could be, though general knowledge, even expert knowledge would not provide a basis for all your comments in #345. In any case what you expect doesn't manufacture an exception to the PF guidelines for sources.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Too much moderation, too little contributin here. I've had enough of this nonsense, which is not debate, or a coherent discussion anymore (enjoy the straight line). Goodbye.

 

[jreelawg]

Who measured it and made that claim? That's not misinformation, that's suppressing information. There is a difference. 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.
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. 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. Again, based on what?

Is 1000 barrels not a fraudulent estimation? How did they come up with this number? They had access to video footage which apparently takes 2 hours for an engineer to come up with an accurate estimate. Seems their own engineers who are tackling the problem ought to had to have that knowledge in order to make calculations. Suspiciously, they withhold footage of the leak for an impressive 18 plus days, and then only a 30 second clip which they release right after testifying before congress.

It is clear they are engaged in substantial effort to keep the facts about this spill a secret, which is understandable. Especially since they recently have recently gone through so much trouble to look like an environmentally friendly company.

 

[WhoWee]

I believe that 0-300 feet, was the range loosely cited by one biologist as the major biosphere. I know that some plants like microalgae [base of the food chain sort of stuff] are only active at first millimeter or so of depth.

Ivan, your post was lost in a flurry of debate. I believe you are the resident expert...please elaborate.

 

[edward]

President Obama in the last couple of days:

"I will not tolerate more finger pointing or irresponsibility.

Obama was referring to the executives from the three companies and their finger pointing during the congressional hearing.



It starts about half way though the video.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, your post was lost in a flurry of debate. I believe you are the resident expert...please elaborate.

I was essentially quoting verbatim from a marine biologist interviewed on CNN. Similar comments can be found elsehwere. The bit about microalgae I know from my efforts in working with algae, as discussed in Earth Sciences.

When we are talking about wetlands critical to the local ecosystems, of course we may only be talking about a few feet of water.

 

[mheslep]

Obama was referring to the executives from the three companies and their finger pointing during the congressional hearing.



It starts about half way though the video.

I know. I was drawing attention to those comments in contrast to the conciliatory, self deprecating ones he makes about foreign powers hostile to the United States. The 2nd comment "...verify" was also in reference to lapses in federal regulation.

 

[WhoWee]

I was essentially quoting verbatim from a marine biologist interviewed on CNN. Similar comments can be found elsehwere. The bit about microalgae I know from my efforts in working with algae, as discussed in Earth Sciences.

When we are talking about wetlands critical to the local ecosystems, of course we may only be talking about a few feet of water.

Strictly speaking about microalgae (and algae) then, please elaborate as to the specific effects of this leak.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

for example

Phytoplankton obtain energy through the process of photosynthesis and must therefore live in the well-lit surface layer (termed the euphotic zone) of an ocean, sea, lake, or other body of water. Phytoplankton account for half of all photosynthetic activity on Earth.[2]..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton

I thought this was mostly common knowledge.

 

[WhoWee]

for example


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton

I thought this was mostly common knowledge.

Generally speaking, I suppose it is. However, please provide a specific analysis of the direct effects of this type of oil on the resident algae.

 

[Astronuc]

It's difficult to find good sources of technical information.

Anyhow, here is some background. The Transocean rig was name Deep Water Horizon and the well's name is Macondo.

Deep Water Horizon Fire


http://www.drillingahead.com/forum/topics/transocean-deepwater-horizon-1

Deepwater Horizon was finishing work on an exploration well named Macondo, in an area called Mississippi Canyon Block 252. After weeks of drilling, the rig had pushed a bit down over 18,000 feet, into an oil-bearing zone. The Transocean and BP personnel were installing casing in the well. BP was going to seal things up, and then go off and figure out how to produce the oil -- another step entirely in the oil biz.

The Macondo Block 252 reservoir may hold as much as 100 million barrels. That's not as large as other recent oil strikes in the Gulf, but BP management was still pleased. Success is success --
certainly in the risky, deep-water oil environment. The front office of BP Exploration was preparing a press release to announce a "commercial" oil discovery.

'Cementing' of rig's well eyed as possible culprit in blowout
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/6980770.html
By ERIC NALDER
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
April 29, 2010, 4:27PM

The Slippery Deepwater Horizon Blame Game
http://themoderatevoice.com/72606/the-slippery-deepwater-horizon-blame-game/
Posted by PETER J. ORVETTI in Law, Science & Technology, Society.
May 15th, 2010

BP America Chairman/President Lamar McKay told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on Tuesday that “BP, as the leaseholder and the operator of the well, hired Transocean to drill that well.” Transocean President/CEO Steven Newman, sitting right next to McKay, kicked the can along, saying, “On the evening of April 20, there was a sudden catastrophic failure of the cement, the casing, or both. Without a failure of one of those elements, the explosion could not have occurred.” (Transocean, by the way, hired its own lobbyists, the Capitol Hill Consulting Group, last Monday.)

Newman put the blame on Halliburton Global Business Lines — whose president Tim Probert, also seated at the Table of Shame, tossed the buck back up to McKay, saying, “Halliburton is a service provider to the well owner. It’s contractually bound to comply with the well owner’s instructions.” Over in the House, Rep. Bart Stupak, head of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations asked an industry representative, “The one control panel we did find, the battery wasn’t working, correct?” The answer was in the affirmative.

So, it’s not BP’s fault, it’s not Transocean’s fault, it’s not Halliburton’s fault. Can we at least do what all real Americans do, and say it’s the government’s fault? On CNN last Sunday morning, Sen. Richard Shelby of Gulf-bordering Alabama said the Senate should not be blamed, arguing, “We are not in charge of the regulators. We have oversight of the regulators. The Executive Branch is in charge of the regulators.”

That points us to the Minerals Management Service, which, the New York Times reported this week, let BP and “dozens of other oil companies” drill in the Gulf without getting proper permits from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as it is required to do by law.
. . . .

Macondo 'mud woes' in spotlight
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article214723.ece
UK supermajor BP may have been struggling with lost circulation and other problems in controlling the Macondo well six weeks prior to the 20 April blowout onboard Transocean semisub Deepwater Horizon, according to testimony to the joint Coast Guard - Minerals Management Service safety hearing in Kenner, Louisiana.

BP brings smaller Macondome into play
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article214544.ece

upstreamonline and drillingahead are trade blogs/sites. The seem to be relatively dispassionate in their accounts/discussions.

 

[mheslep]

Nice finds Astronuc, thanks for posting.

 

[turbo]

An Anderson Cooper interview with professor Steve Wereley who co-wrote a scientific book on the technique he used to estimate the spill rate based on the BP video. Bear in mind that this is just one leak. IIR, there are three in total. Prof. Wereley tagged his analysis with a 20% margin of error because the video was shot from a single viewpoint. In a controlled setting, the method yields measurements accurate to about 1%.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/14/must-see-ac360°-video-oil-spill-worse-than-expected/

The book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=fd...&resnum=7&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Generally speaking, I suppose it is. However, please provide a specific analysis of the direct effects of this type of oil on the resident algae.

Oh, I see, your objection is not to the point made, that being that using the entire volume of the ocean, as did the CEO of BP, is not the appropriate volume when considering oil concentrations, and in fact that his statement is ridiculous, but rather that I am supposed to describe in detail the effects on biology? Are you defending the CEOs comments or just trying to change the subject? In any event, let me google that for you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=effects+of+oil+spills+on+environment

 

[Ivan Seeking]

An Anderson Cooper interview with professor Steve Wereley who co-wrote a scientific book on the technique he used to estimate the spill rate based on the BP video. Bear in mind that this is just one leak. IIR, there are three in total. Prof. Wereley tagged his analysis with a 20% margin of error because the video was shot from a single viewpoint. In a controlled setting, the method yields measurements accurate to about 1%.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/14/must-see-ac360°-video-oil-spill-worse-than-expected/

The book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=fd...&resnum=7&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes, I saw that. He seems to be pretty confident that this is about a 3 million gallon a day spill - over ten times what BP claims. He also stated that this is what he's been doing for twenty years.

If true, that is an absolutely horrific number! That would be one Exxon Valdez every four days or so.

 

[Evo]

Yes, I saw that. He seems to be pretty confident that this is about a 3 million gallon a day spill - over ten times what BP claims. He also stated that this is what he's been doing for twenty years.

If true, that is an absolutely horrific number! That would be one Exxon Valdez every four days or so.

How many videos of oil leaks that were later confirmed has he analyzed? Oh, none.

The current estimates being used is from the Coast Guard. I'd say right now, no one actually knows the amount. I find people tossing around estimates of the amount of oil pretty meaningless at this point. People should be working on figuring out how to stop the flow. This guy is doing nothing towards helping solve the problem.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How many videos of oil leaks that were later confirmed has he analyzed? Oh, none.

The current estimates being used is from the Coast Guard. I'd say right now, no one actually knows the amount. I find people tossing around estimates of the amount of oil pretty meaningless at this point. People should be working on figuring out how to stop the flow. This guy is doing nothing towards helping solve the problem.

The key is that his technique is likely the most accurate as it is a direct meaure of particle velocities, in a stream moving through a known diameter orifice or pipe. The spill rate is otherwise inferred from the plume, which is a far less direct method of measurement. Apparently his technique is well established with a known precision. The only real variable would seem to be the ratio of gas to oil in the mix. While that ratio is certainly an unknown, he did allow for this in his measurements.

There is certainly great value in knowing the true size of the spill. This is related directly to the anticipated effects, costs, and the best courses of action. It may in fact be the best estimate that we will ever have. No one will ever have a more direct method of measurement.

 

[Evo]

There is certainly great value in knowing the true size of the spill. This is related directly to the anticipated effects, costs, and the best courses of action. It may in fact be the best estimate that we will ever have. No one will ever have a more accurate method to measure the spill.

I don't know how valuable it is in light of it being a deep sea spill. Did you see that article I posted, it raises points about the uniqueness of this spill. Guestimating the amount of oil seems a bit pointless in helping figure out what to do, or where or to what extent the environmental impact may be since it's not acting normally.

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know how valuable it is in light of it being a deep sea spill. Did you see that article I posted, it raises points about the uniqueness of this spill. Guestimating the amount of oil seems a bit pointless in helping figure out what to do, or where or to what extent the environmental impact may be since it's not acting normally.

Sorry, the notion that hard data has no value is pretty indefensible. Every time they say "little is known about", insert the words "more hard data is required". The real test will be the impact on the ecosystems. But we won't know the depth of that damage for a long time.

So far they have been lucky and the weather has been favorable. When a storm hits, if there is still a plume, it will be driven directly onshore and into sensitive ecosystems, and this won't be a deep ocean spill anymore. Some areas have already been hit. Also, it is no secret that this evaporates and turns to tar balls over time. Note that I mentioned that around the first page or so. There are also oil-eating microbes that will help to clean this up over the long term. But beyond the shallow waters near land, the impact on the evironment is happening right now, mainly in the first few feet of water, everywhere you see a plume. The questions is, how much damage is being done? Biologists interviewed all say about the same thing: This is very bad. It is a problem of rate. If this was leaking a gallon a year for a billion years, it wouldn't be a problem.

 

[turbo]

When I was working in an environmental capacity (often) as a process chemist in a pulp mill, I was often tasked with estimating flows or leaks/contaminants. It was absolutely necessary, if we were to remain in compliance with our licenses and prepare for remediation. Perhaps oil exploration companies are not held to such standards.

 

[Evo]

Sorry, the notion that hard data has no value is pretty indefensible. Every time they say "little is known about", insert the words "more hard data is required". The real test will be the impact on the ecosystems. But we won't know the depth of that damage for a long time.

So far they have been lucky and the weather has been favorable. When a storm hits, if there is still a plume, it will be driven directly onshore and into sensitive ecosystems, and this won't be a deep ocean spill anymore. Some areas have already been hit. Also, it is no secret that this evaporates and turns to tar balls over time. Note that I mentioned that around the first page or so. There are also oil-eating microbes that will help to clean this up over the long term. But beyond the shallow waters near land, the impact on the evironment is happening right now, mainly in the first few feet of water, everywhere you see a plume. The questions is, how much damage is being done? Biologists interviewed all say about the same thing: This is very bad.

I absolutely agree it's bad. I just think that the real problem (aside from stopping the spill) is trying to figure out what to do to limit the damage. As you can see from the article, this is going to be a daunting task and there isn't going to be one solution.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I have a question: The EPA ran a whopping 48 hour exposure study of the dispersants used on adult brine shrimp and the like. Marine biologists who have been speaking out point out that the dispersant is in fact very toxic, to humans as well. BP now says their new plan of injecting dispersant at the well-head is "working".

The dispersant is 52% effective in a lab, so what is "working"?! The same marine biologist who pointed this out expressed concern that the temp at that depth will allow the oil to remain suspended with the dispersant in the water column. She was also worried about the effects of both on young marine life, and people. She didn't claim to be sure, but felt that this course was inadvisable.

Why are these being used? Why, when making a nuclear reactor do we need to have SCRAM function to begin with, but you can drill an open well in the gulf of mexico with no tested recovery plan?! When something cannot be allowed to fail, redundancy would seem to be a key to safety, and that isn't going on here. The only redundancy is in failed attempts to divert, plug, top, and cap this gusher.

http://blog.al.com/al/2010/05/exxon_valdez_veteran_marine_bi.html

http://www.amsa.gov.au/Marine_Environment_Protection/National_plan/General_Information/Dispersants_Information/FAQ_Oil_Spills_Dispersants.asp

http://www.pwsrcac.org/projects/EnvMonitor/dispers.html

Then there is this:
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/13/13greenwire-less-toxic-dispersants-lose-out-in-bp-oil-spil-81183.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414111018.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems that the Republicans may be trying to maneuver to use the oil spill as political fodder next fall.

SEN. McCONNELL: Well, look, we're all angry about it. This is a--an environmental disaster of gargantuan proportions, but the president's spent a whole lot of time pointing the finger at, at BP--and you should point the finger at BP and the other companies involved in it. We're also interested in knowing what the administration did. Was the Mineral Management Service a part of this administration that approved this site? It also approved this spill response plan. What kind of oversight did the administration provide during the course of the drilling? There are plenty of questions that need to be answered, and there'll be adequate time for that. But the administration's involvement in this will be a big part of the inquiry. In the meantime, we need to do everything we can to stop this spill...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37151786/ns/meet_the_press/page/2/

Go ahead, McConnell, let's see how far that one gets you. It sounds to me like yet another one of Obama's Waterloos . Obama was pushing for more drilling, but the history of this lands squarely in the laps of the Republicans. Spill, baby, spill, should be the new mantra for the Democrats.

This is my favorite part. McConnell is arguing that we need to allow competition in the gulf for players who COULD NOT afford to pay for a disaster like the one before us!

MR. GREGORY: What about the issue of legitimate claims, as BP said, that it will honor? Do you think that the cap for damages should be higher now, higher than $75 million, as you heard Senator Schumer say they would propose?

SEN. McCONNELL: Well, the danger in that, of course, is that if you raise the cap too high, there will be no competition in the Gulf and you'll leave all the business to the big guys like BP. What BP has said they need to be held to, which is they're going to pay for this. They ought to pay for it, and they will pay for it. But the danger of taking the cap too high is that you end up with only massive, very large oil producers able to meet that cap and produce in the Gulf...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37151786/ns/meet_the_press/page/3/

Yes, let's make sure that Bobby Joe and Billy Bob can drill as well. That way when they wipe out entire industries through negligence, we the taxpayers can foot the bill. Statements like that are why I left the Republican Party.

We haven't even begun to see the damage from this yet. Wait until the real cost of this begins to sink in. The 24-hour news cycle and talk radio are not well served by slow-motion disasters.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes, the latest effort to insert a pipe into the leaking pipe, has failed. The dome failed. The top hat failed. I am not aware of any additional serious options, so we may be in for a 90 day+ spill. If we truly are near 3 million gallons per day, this would be a 240-million gallon spill, or about 770,000 tonnes, in 90 days, if they can do this in 90 days. Anyone taking any bets?

With hurricane season two weeks away, it is a virtual certainty that there will be significant storms that will push the oil towards land, before the side-drilling is completed. Hopefully we will not see an actual hurricane. Clearly no cleanup or containment efforts can be implemented during severe storms.

 

[WhoWee]

Oh yes, the latest effort to insert a pipe into the leaking pipe, has failed. The dome failed. The top hat failed. I am not aware of any additional serious options, so we may be in for a 90 day+ spill. If we truly are near 3 million gallons per day, this would be a 240-million gallon spill, or about 770,000 tonnes, in 90 days, if they can do this in 90 days. Anyone taking any bets?

With hurricane season two weeks away, it is a virtual certainty that there will be significant storms that will push the oil towards land, before the side-drilling is completed. Hopefully we will not see an actual hurricane. Clearly no cleanup or containment efforts can be implemented during severe storms.

I find it ironic Ivan that when I asked you to explain how this spill might actually affect the algae - you brushed it off in a disinterested way.

But now, when you can make an anti-Republican political statement and cheerlead the failures - you are long winded. What gives?

 

[mheslep]

There's no mention of composition assumption in Wereley's CNN interview[*]. I would like to see where he's stated that he's allowed for composition in his estimate, as I don't see how he can make any more accurate assumption about that than we can. Another composition variable would be the amount of seawater and silt/other minerals, i.e. hot non-hydrocarbon slurries.

*BTW Wereley clearly states in the CNN interview his 70k estimate was in gallons as opposed to barrels, a sloppy mistake on his part at this point.

 

[turbo]

If I was told to investigate a leak/spill at the pulp mill that I worked at, I would have to report to my superiors. If I was stupid enough to say "We are losing 50 gallons a minute of black liquor in that leak." and leave it at that, I would have been handed my hat. The report would have necessarily included the concentration of the black liquor, the projected soda loss, and the estimated pH remediation needed at the waste treatment plant. Does anybody here think that BP requires less of its engineers?

 

[edward]

Generally speaking, I suppose it is. However, please provide a specific analysis of the direct effects of this type of oil on the resident algae.

This should be plain old common sense in nature crude oil and algae are never present at the same time. There will be much more than algae effected.

I Will post the link instead of excerpts because it applies in it's entirety.

http://www.wec.ufl.edu/Introduction to Marine oil spills.pdf

 

[jreelawg]

And right now wiki has accidentally added a zero.

"Steven Wereley, an associate professor at Purdue University used a computer analysis (particle image velocimetry) yielding a rate of 700,000 barrels (29,000,000 US gal) per day."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Spill_flow_rate

That would be some spill huh.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/huge_underwater_oil_plumes_fou.html

This is probably more to the point.
Wikipedia is wrong, but Wereley did in fact say 70,000 barells, not gallons. He specified:

Up to now, the previous estimate based upon oil on the surface stated the amount of the spill at 5,000 barrels, or 210,000 gallons per day. Purdue University Associate Professor of mechanical engineering Steven Wereley, however, has created a program to track the particle flow of material from the open pipe, and has created new estimates of the open flow of approximately 70,000 barrels or 2.9 million gallons a day, within an accuracy of 20%. This deviation creates a range of the spill at anywhere from 56,000 barrels, or 2.4 million gallons a day to 84,000 barrels, or 3.5 million gallons per day.

Wereley, who is an expert in the field of fluid mechanics, has co-written Particle Image Velocimetry: A Practical Guide and Fundamentals and Applications of Microfluidics.

“I spent a couple of hours this afternoon analyzing the video, and the number I get is 70,000 barrels a day coming out of that pipe,” Wereley stated, according to the Los Angeles Times. He continued, “BP has said you can't measure this. I agree you can't measure [the flow] to a very high degree of precision, but that doesn't mean you can't get a good estimate. This estimate, I think, is much better than the 5,000 barrels a day they have previously been floating.”

http://www.examiner.com/x-27431-Wor...may-be-at-a-rate-of-3-million-gallons-per-day