News Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

[IcedEcliptic]

Can you post the link to that so the rest of us can read what you are referring to?

Thanks.

It was in my previous link... http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/21/gulf.oil.spill/index.html

Meanwhile, the Coast Guard announced the creation of a federal Flow Rate Technical Group to assess the flow rate from the well. Coast Guard Capt. Ron LaBrec said that Adm. Thad Allen would oversee the team, which will include members from the Coast Guard, the Minerals Management Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Society and others from the science community and academia.

The peer-reviewed team, which has already begun its work, is to determine the flow rate from the beginning of the incident to the present, LaBrec said.

 

[mgb_phys]

Currently only a rumor (http://adropofrain.net/2010/05/rumor-schlumberger-exits-deep-horizon-hours-before-blowout/)

But I have been on sites in the US where I have refused to go underground and I know people who work for Schlumberger and their company would definitely walk off a contract if there was any safety violation.

 

[turbo]

Well I'm assuming the floor ocean pressure can be applied, either via pressing on the buried reservoir or other means. In that case, absent force to overcome viscous friction I grant is present, raising the fluid requires no external head pressure to rise all the way up the pipe just to the surface. At that point, the pump head required is the same as pumping from the surface at the desired rate, again neglecting the viscous friction from the pipe.

This doesn't pass the straight-face test. Can you come up with a viable citation that claims that the static head of the oil in the pipeline is negligible and that minimal pump capacity is required to extract the oil? I'd love to see it.

 

[turbo]

Currently only a rumor (http://adropofrain.net/2010/05/rumor-schlumberger-exits-deep-horizon-hours-before-blowout/)

But I have been on sites in the US where I have refused to go underground and I know people who work for Schlumberger and their company would definitely walk off a contract if there was any safety violation.

Interesting. We'll see (when people are under oath months from now, perhaps) what happened. It would be refreshing to see a contractor walk off a job if they were unable to enforce a stop-work order due to unsafe conditions.

In my experience, Halliburton does not share that quality. I've been on pulp mill/paper mill shutdowns with them and was NOT impressed. Quick and dirty.

 

[tiresmokindad]

Yes Indeed. I agree that these will be a bad effect!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The sickening videos and photos of heavy oil saturating critical marshes, wetlands, and beaches, are beginning to emerge.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/soaks+into+Loisiana+bayou+admits+leak+heavier+than+first+revealed/3055732/story.html

"The oil that is leaking offshore, the oil that is coming onto our coast threatens more than just our wildlife, our fisheries, our coast," Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said at a Saturday press conference. "This oil literally threatens our way of life."...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/01/louisiana.oil.spill/index.html

This is a video taken during a flyover of the spill. We can only hope the narrator is being overly pessimistic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG8JHSAVYT0

 

[IcedEcliptic]

In the case of an offshore oil algae farm (vs ethanol) https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2692472&postcount=453" producing, say 1 million bbls per year, what's implicit in the process that would stop the same kind of disaster from happening in the case of an accident during a storm?

Hell, imagine what a tornado could do... lift a ton of the stuff and spray it everywhere. A hurricane would be even worse.

 

[magpies]

Isn't that what is going to happen with this oil spill come storm season?

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Isn't that what is going to happen with this oil spill come storm season?

It would seem likely, but there is no certain way to predict that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oil from algae is just vegetable oil. It is non-toxic. You can drink it. And it degrades readily. Also, without a significant source of nitrogen and the proper temps, the algae won't survive in open water - that is, it wouldn't exist as a giant plume that kills everything else. If you have these conditions, you would already have an algae bloom, in most cases.

You would certainly have a lot of fish food!

Also, you wouldn't have millions and millions of gallons of oil leaking endlessly. You could only spill the oil that has been processed. The rest is still trapped in the algae.

Please continue the algae discussion here
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=211274

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Isn't that what is going to happen with this oil spill come storm season?

That is what worries me the most. All of these containment efforts will be useless if a siginficant storm hits the area. Hurricane season starts in one week. The water temps off the coast of NW Africa, the local hurricane nursery, are warmer than normal.

IIRC, when we see an ocean temp of 82 degrees F up through the Carribean, that's when the hurricane engine turns on. I'm not 100% sure of the number [maybe 81 degrees F], but it is surprisingly well defined.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[RonL]

A link that will provide a simple and basic bit of info on oil and gas.

http://www.geomore.com/index.html



http://www.geomore.com/Oil%20and%20Gas%20Under%20Pressure.htm
http://www.geomore.com/Oil%20and%20Gas%20Traps.htm

It seems logical that the gas expands and pulls the oil upward on it's rise to the surface, also the oil is in it's own rights, a floating material.

 

[turbo]

Thanks, RonL. You have made my point quite well. Drill a hole into a pressurized deposit of oil and gas and fail to check it, and the flow rates can be quite spectacular. It is disingenuous in the extreme to cite the production rates of wells that have been in production for some time, and claim that their production rates set upper limits on the possible magnitude of this spill. They do not.

 

[magpies]

So has anyone figured out how big the field is yet? Is it still putting out oil like it was when they first showed video of it?

 

[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.