News Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

[mheslep]

In the CNN video/phone interview at 1:58 Wereley says 70,000 gallons per day, and he says it twice. No doubt he meant barrels, as does CNN's Cooper who corrects himself.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/14/must-see-ac360°-video-oil-spill-worse-than-expected/

I've still not seen a single word about the composition of the material coming out of that pipe.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

In the CNN video/phone interview at 1:58 Wereley says 70,000 gallons per day, and he says it twice. No doubt he meant barrels, as does CNN's Cooper who corrects himself.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/14/must-see-ac360°-video-oil-spill-worse-than-expected/

I've still not seen a single word about the composition of the material coming out of that pipe.

I've looked a lot, and the only information out there is "a mixture of LSC and Natural Gasses." I guess we can rest assured that methane is present, but the behavior of these oil "plumes" is odd. I wonder if it has to do with pressure, temp, dispersant usage, or a result of another element in the mix.

It certainly appears to be LSC being blasted by its own pressure and the release of NG.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

More fishing closures, 19% of the gulf now closed by NOAA.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/18/gulf.oil.spill.main/index.html?hpt=T1

 

[magpies]

I'm kinda thinking of the biblical/mayan prophecys on this one... Though something like this was bound to happen given our technological ignorance as a race. On the plus side this could actually end up being a good thing in a weird way I won't even hint at.

 

[turbo]

I was in the car yesterday and heard a news report in which BP claimed to be recovering 20% of the oil spewing from the big leak. I turned to my dog (a good listener) and said, they're getting maybe 1000 bbl/day and pretending that their fantasy 5000 bbl/day estimate is real. Sure enough. Today, BP released more video, and the prof who estimated 70,000 bb/day (20% error range) has studied the clips and now says that his estimate was WAY low.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I was in the car yesterday and heard a news report in which BP claimed to be recovering 20% of the oil spewing from the big leak. I turned to my dog (a good listener) and said, they're getting maybe 1000 bbl/day and pretending that their fantasy 5000 bbl/day estimate is real. Sure enough. Today, BP released more video, and the prof who estimated 70,000 bb/day (20% error range) has studied the clips and now says that his estimate was WAY low.

Great... that's less than comforting.

 

[mheslep]

...and the prof who estimated 70,000 bb/day (20% error range) has studied the clips and now says that his estimate was WAY low.

70,000 bbl of what?

 

[magpies]

clean water.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

70,000 bbl of what?

LSC and NG.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Congress pressured BP into releasing more videos today. Wereley says that based on the latest videos, his first impression is that the leak is signficantly larger than the 70,000 barrels per day, first estimated.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#37220532
[the videos are the only link up at the moment]

Tar balls have begun to wash ashore in Florida. They are being analyzed to see if they could be from the BP spill. Most people apparently think it is too soon - time and distance - to be seeing tar in Florida.

What may be large underwater plumes of oil have been detected, that are also being tested. Yesterday, one plume was estimated to be about 20 milles x 5 miles x 300 feet, in size. I think they said this was detected at a depth of about 1200 feet. This may explain the apparent conflict between the satellite-based estimates, based on the size of the visible plume, and the rate suggested by the Purdue velocimetry analysis.

Late Edit: Name/spelling

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Congress pressured BP into releasing more videos today. Worley says that based on the latest videos, his first impression is that the leak is signficantly larger than the 70,000 barrels per day, first estimated.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#37220532
[the videos are the only link up at the moment]

Tar balls have begun to wash ashore in Florida. They are being analyzed to see if they could be from the BP spill. Most people apparently think it is too soon - time and distance - to be seeing tar in Florida.

What may be large underwater plumes of oil have been detected, that are also being tested. Yesterday, one plume was estimated to be about 20 milles x 5 miles x 300 feet, in size. I think they said this was detected at a depth of about 1200 feet. This may explain the apparent conflict between the satellite-based estimates, based on the size of the visible plume, and the rate suggested by the Purdue velocimetry analysis.

Plumes are thanks to the liberal use of dispersants... idiots. They are poisoning the entire water column. Birds may not look as miserable as in the Exxon-Valdez, but this is already eclipsing that in terms of likely damage to marine environments.

 

[magpies]

I don't think the exxon valdez can compair to this honestly. Does anyone have any information on how big the oilfield that is fueling this is? I tryed to find some info on it for a lil bit but wasn't finding anything. I assume the oil companys keep it a secret anyhow...

 

[russ_watters]

Congress pressured BP into releasing more videos today. Worley says that based on the latest videos, his first impression is that the leak is signficantly larger than the 70,000 barrels per day, first estimated.

What does "significantly" mean? Is his new estimate inside or outside the 20% error margin he he claimed for his first estimate?

 

[magpies]

It's like 15 times it.

Basically an entire oilfield is emptying into the ocean. I just kinda wonder if it's part of the oilfields that run from africa to america. I find it hard to believe they are completely connected but who knows.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What does "significantly" mean? Is his new estimate inside or outside the 20% error margin he he claimed for his first estimate?

He clearly wanted to avoid any specific statements until an official analysis is done, but he made it clear that the 70k bpd estimates appear to be too low; without even doing an analysis! I think that's all we get for now.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Plumes are thanks to the liberal use of dispersants... idiots. They are poisoning the entire water column. Birds may not look as miserable as in the Exxon-Valdez, but this is already eclipsing that in terms of likely damage to marine environments.

Could be, perhaps, but I don't think that is a given. I would imagine that it was too far down. Based on the confidence of the Purdue team, it seems to me more likely we have 70k+ bpd leaking, so the oil has to be going somewhere. It sounds like plumes might get getting trapped between thermal layers. Either way, we don't know for certain if it's oil yet. The recovery team sounded pretty confident, but the analysis isn't in yet, afaik, Presumably, the analysis would show if it is oil that has been treated.

 

[magpies]

If you haven't seen this yet it's worth a look.

 

[russ_watters]

He clearly wanted to avoid any specific statements until an official analysis is done, but he made it clear that the 70k bpd estimates appear to be too low; without even doing an analysis! I think that's all we get for now.

Since we're still pretty sketchy on the details of his method and this statement by him seems odd in the context of his previous estimate and accuracy claim, I've started a companion thread in Mechanical Engineering to discuss the nuts and bolts of how this works:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2723252#post2723252

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Since we're still pretty sketchy on the details of his method and this statement by him seems odd in the context of his previous estimate and accuracy claim,

Not at all. One obviously tends to be very conservative when making any assumptions about something as big as this. Apparently he saw something suggesting that he was too conservative; significantly so. More video from multiple angles means more data. I don't find it surprising at all. What I do find surprising is that he would say anything without first doing the analysis. He must be pretty confident about what he sees. I doubt he would say anything if he thought it was only a 20% difference.

It may be that he got to see all three leaks today, instead of just a few seconds of video of one pipe. I think that is the case.

 

[russ_watters]

Not at all.

You don't think it is odd that he said his previous estimate was substantially low even though previously he said his estimate was accurate to within 20%? Seems like a contradiction to me: as if he's not as certain as he previously said he was.

One obviously tends to be very conservative when making any assumptions about something as big as this. Apparently he saw something suggesting that he was too conservative; significantly so.

No. "Conservative" here would mean providing a wide margin for error, not purposely underestimating the flow. No good scientist would purposely estimate low in a situation where such a bias isn't needed (such as in a safety-factor on building a bridge). Also, that's you saying that: he didn't say he purposely estimated it low before.

What I do find surprising is that he would say anything without first doing the analysis. He must be pretty confident about what he sees.

He seemed pretty confident in his previous claim! But yes - that is surprising.

But then, he is an expert.

Yes, which makes the contradiction in his statements all the more surprising.

 

[magpies]

Really I just want to know how big the oilfield is I can answer most the questions I have my self once I get this info.

 

[turbo]

You don't think it is odd that he said his previous estimate was substantially low even though previously he said his estimate was accurate to within 20%? Seems like a contradiction to me: as if he's not as certain as he previously said he was.

Russ, the prof made his initial estimate based on one video from one POV, and he has said that that estimate is far too low. You can second-guess him all you like, but without some scientific basis for doing so, you sound like an echo for the right-wing media that is making BP's case on the news every night. "It's only 5000 barrels per day." "We're recovering 20% of the spill with the siphon." That's crap and you know it.

BP is in full damage control and we will never know the extent of this spill until federal regulators grow a pair and demand that BP releases all relevant information. There is a team from Woods Hole ready to hit the leak site, but BP (in its imperial capacity) has refused them access to the well (really?) saying that it is more important to stop the leak than to understand the leak and measure the extent of the leak. Since when does a company operating under a US drilling license get to restrict access to a US oceanographic company that needs to monitor their operations? Wave the flag all you want, Russ, and champion the rights of corporations. This spill proves the failure of the neo-con philosophy.

 

[magpies]

Ya why is the person who makes the problem is the one in charge of fixing it?

 

[Evo]

Ya why is the person who makes the problem is the one in charge of fixing it?

Haliburton caused the problem. They were hired to cap the well, but failed, which caused the explosion.

So, what do you mean?

 

[Antiphon]

Natural oil seepage in the worlds oceans (nothing to do with evil human industrial activity and our will to live) is roughly the equivalent of an exxon valdez every year. The magnitude of this spill is irrelevant to the global environment in the big picture.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Spin power

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e41Sq-ALDGk

 

[Emreth]

Why do you think it's spin, it's the obvious truth. You might call it opportunistic.

Also apparently BP was cutting corners.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, the prof made his initial estimate based on one video from one POV, and he has said that that estimate is far too low.

Restating the issue doesn't do anything to address the apparent contradiction.

You can second-guess him all you like, but without some scientific basis for doing so, you sound like an echo for the right-wing media that is making BP's case on the news every night.

I've never seen such a thing - could you give an example?

By failing to address the issue, you sound like you're making knee-jerk anti-corporate judgements without thinking through the issue. You guys are proving yourselves to be everything that you are accusing others of being! You're showing clear bias here in your treatment of the issue. This thread is just an excuse for people to spout anti-coroporate propaganda.

BP is in full damage control and we will never know the extent of this spill until federal regulators grow a pair and demand that BP releases all relevant information.

Agreed! (and until a full investigation finishes). So why latch on to uncertain predicitons as if they have certainty? (Answer: because you like them.)

Wave the flag all you want, Russ, and champion the rights of corporations. This spill proves the failure of the neo-con philosophy.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not sure you've been reading the right thread.

 

[russ_watters]

Haliburton caused the problem. They were hired to cap the well, but failed, which caused the explosion.

So, what do you mean?

It's a lot more complicated than that and it appears from what I have seen taht Haliburton has the least of the blame of the 3 companies involved.

 

[russ_watters]

Natural oil seepage in the worlds oceans (nothing to do with evil human industrial activity and our will to live) is roughly the equivalent of an exxon valdez every year. The magnitude of this spill is irrelevant to the global environment in the big picture.

Do you have a source for that? I've never heard of it.