News Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

[turbo]

Our local paper printed an AP report regarding the frequency of blowout preventer failure. It seems that they aren't too foolproof.

To hear some industry officials talk, these devices are virtually foolproof.
But a detailed AP review shows that reliability questions have long shadowed blowout preventers:
_ Accident reports from the U.S. Minerals Management Service, a branch of the Interior Department, show that the devices have failed or otherwise played a role in at least 14 accidents, mostly since 2005.
_ Government and industry reports have raised questions about the reliability of blowout preventers for more than a decade. A 2003 report by Transocean, the owner of the destroyed rig, said: "Floating drilling rig downtime due to poor BOP reliability is a common and very costly issue confronting all offshore drilling contractors."
_ Lawsuits have fingered these valves as a factor in previous blowouts.

But the agency, known as MMS, then did its turnaround and required tests half as often. It estimated that the rule would yield an annual savings of up to $340,000 per rig. An industry executive praised the "flexibility" of regulators, long plagued with accusations that it has been too cozy with the industry it supervises.
Laurence Power, of Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, Scotland, an engineering teacher who has studied these valves in offshore oil wells, said he has "not been able to see their logic" for reducing the frequency of testing.
In 1999, right after that rule change, an MMS-commissioned report by a research group identified 117 blowout preventer failures at deepwater rigs within the previous year. These breakdowns created 3,638 hours of lost time — a 4 percent chunk of drilling time.
In 2004, an engineering study for federal regulators said only 3 of 14 new devices could shear pipe, as sometimes required to check leaks, at maximum rated depths. Only half of operators accepting a newly built device tested this function during commissioning or acceptance, according to the report.

Still:

After the accident, BP CEO Tony Hayward said of blowout preventers in general: "It's unprecedented for it to fail."

Unprecedented? As in never happened before? To borrow a line from Inigo Montoya (Princess Bride): You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g5Ne4XXtnk-mPq3yqkwj_jh3ST3wD9FIQI6O0

 

[Frame Dragger]

I think it's good that there have been some clarifications on acronym use.
With a general U.S. public perception that SWAT is a police-only acronym could lead to erroneous speculation on this disaster issue.

Anyway, I hope progress is made to cap or redirect the oil. Haven't checked the news lately.

Alas, the attempt with the "big box" (thank you for that sobriquet media) seems to be a was as it was originally intended. I suspect much of the uncertainty in reporting at this point stems from Ivan Seeking being right: this is an experiment on the fly. As for ROV images, do you really think either BP or the government wants a steady stream of images of fumbling and failure?

Thus far, attempts to "defrost" have failed, or have been shot down before deployment. The last idea floated was the trash concept, and no new info is available regarding that. Everything else is rumour at this point, as far as I can tell.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

They now are resigned to a relief well and a junk shot. This is not a good situation, made in arrogance and ignorance, made worse with the same.

 

[gravenewworld]

To think, a single quart of motor oil pollutes 250,000 gallons of water (which is 5 times the amount an average single person uses in a year). The oil spill in the Gulf is estimated to be leaking at a rate of 1 million quarts per day, and over the past 20 days that would equate to roughly 5 trillion gallons of water that's been polluted thus far.

 

[Astronuc]

I heard this morning that estimates of the well flow (~5000 bbl/day) are based on what is reaching the surface. There is apparently much more below the surface, and one estimate puts the flow at more like 5x or 25,000 bbl/day (~ 1 million gal/day). Apparently neither the Coast Guard or BP is releasing the video of the oil plume exiting the blow out. Must look really nasty.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I heard this morning that estimates of the well flow (~5000 bbl/day) are based on what is reaching the surface. There is apparently much more below the surface, and one estimate puts the flow at more like 5x or 25,000 bbl/day (~ 1 million gal/day). Apparently neither the Coast Guard or BP is releasing the video of the oil plume exiting the blow out. Must look really nasty.

I feel both miserable and vindicated by events.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/08/gulf.oil.spill/index.html

Junk shot and prayers... great.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Tyical: http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/11/news/companies/BP_hearings/index.htm?hpt=T1

 

[Astronuc]

Tyical: http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/11/news/companies/BP_hearings/index.htm?hpt=T1

From the CNN article - "Transocean said the blowout preventer performed fine in tests just a week before the accident."

But did they test it at 5000 ft (at pressure and temperature)? Did clathrates (methane ice) form in the blowout preventing and cause it to fail? Was the system consistent with other systems used at 5000 ft (1500m)?

It is BP's resonsibility to ensure the work of Transocean and Haliburton, both of whom may have done it according to the book. If this was the first time that they work this particular rig at 5000 in the Gulf of Mexico, or anywhere, then BP did not do their homework.

Oil executives face Congress on Gulf spill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100511/ts_nm/us_oil_rig_leak

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Protesters and angry lawmakers greeted top executives of companies involved with the Gulf of Mexico's massive oil spill at a congressional hearing in which the company leaders were poised to blame each other for the unfolding environmental disaster.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

EPA has given the ok to dump more dispersants. We cannot win for losing.

 

[mheslep]

Oil executives face Congress on Gulf spill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100511/ts_nm/us_oil_rig_leak

The federal Minerals Management Service is responsible for overseeing the operators, and Congress is responsible for overseeing MMS before, not after, the fact. Who will they face?

 

[Astronuc]

The federal Minerals Management Service is responsible for overseeing the operators, and Congress is responsible for overseeing MMS before, not after, the fact. Who will they face?

The voters?

 

[mheslep]

The voters?

Meanwhile MMS people could be up there testifying, if they can find some time between http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html?_r=1" Even Congress doesn't have to wait for elections to investigate itself (the interior and energy committees could be reviewed by House leadership), not that such a thing has any chance of occurring.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Meanwhile MMS people could be up there testifying, if they can find some time between http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html?_r=1"

So, the SEC, which is a pathetic entity in which doing your job is nearly pointless, the MMS, EPA, and other neutered agencies which are beholden to politicians who are in the poclets of energy, banks, polluters, etc... all act like dopes. What a shock. I'd need some drugs too if my entire agency was a bad joke.

 

[Astronuc]

Meanwhile back at the site - top hat.

Political patience wanes as Gulf oil spill grows
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100512/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill

"If this is like other catastrophic failures of technological systems in modern history, whether it was the sinking of the Titanic, Three Mile Island, or the loss of the Challenger, we will likely discover that there was a cascade of failures and technical and human and regulatory errors," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Executives from BP, rig owner Transocean Ltd. and contractor Halliburton Co., among others, were expected back on Capitol Hill on Wednesday for an inquiry by a House subcommittee into the spill.

I wonder how often someone has asked "What's the worst that could happen".

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Meanwhile back at the site - top hat.

Political patience wanes as Gulf oil spill grows
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100512/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill

I wonder how often someone has asked "What's the worst that could happen".

Engineers can be as arrogant as executives, it is just what happens. I am amazed that there is no plan of action that is proven to work at the 5000 foot of depth! I can hardly track this story anymore, it is too much. Environment is uncertain, this is no K-T extinction, or "Great Dying", but what will it be? I hate this, waiting to see matters unfold, utterly helpless.

How can one do this, and not have a fail-safe?! I don't understand, but I am not an engineer.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I hate this, waiting to see matters unfold, utterly helpless

I'm the same way. Hopefully the top hat will work and the leak will be contained. However, it was reported yesterday that BP is gearing up for the long haul. Workers are being sent to live onsite in order to support the drilling option, which is expected to require at least two and a half more months.

They need to get this contained soon, which doesn't seem likely. And the chance of a storm or hurricane increases by the day. Hurricane season starts in three weeks. A severe storm could not only halt the containment efforts, but it would also drive the oil onto the beaches and into the wetlands.

 

[turbo]

They need to get this contained soon, which doesn't seem likely. And the chance of a storm or hurricane increases by the day. Hurricane season starts in three weeks.

Yep. All we need is a couple of big storm surges to oil some of the most productive and valuable habitat around the gulf. Any damage to the plant-life anchoring the marshes bordering the delta, and New Orleans' tenuous first round of defense will be greatly compromised.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Did anyone catch the finger-pointing session yesterday with BP, Transworld, and Halliburton? Of course they are all blaming each other.

 

[turbo]

Did anyone catch the finger-pointing session yesterday with BP, Transworld, and Halliburton? Of course they are all blaming each other.

The lessee, lessor, and contractor all claim to be blameless. It's the beginning of a very long defense against legitimate claims by people who will lose their livelihoods. They will obfuscate and muddle the situation as much as possible, pointing to the concrete, the blowout preventer, engineering standards, testing and maintenance schedules and procedures etc, while allowing the gulf residents twist in the wind. This won't be pretty.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The lessee, lessor, and contractor all claim to be blameless. It's the beginning of a very long defense against legitimate claims by people who will lose their livelihoods. They will obfuscate and muddle the situation as much as possible, pointing to the concrete, the blowout preventer, engineering standards, testing and maintenance schedules and procedures etc, while allowing the gulf residents twist in the wind. This won't be pretty.

Yes, we have seen this all before, haven't we.

Congress was holding BP's feet to the fire and getting their promise for compensation on the record. When BP was specifically asked if they would reimburse municipalities for their losses, the response was "question mark".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It also ticked me off that the Congresswoman asking the questions left room for wiggle in BP's answers. Instead of demanding a yes or no answer, she allowed BP to say in response that they will reimburse all "valid" claims [actually, I don't think the word was "valid"... I can't remember the exact word, but essentially the same meaning]. This left the door wide open as to what BP considers to be "valid".

 

[turbo]

I believe he said "legitimate" claims, and followed up with "verifiable". This means practically nothing to a fisherman whose lack of cash-flow can cost him his boat, berth, house, etc, in a very short time. BP will likely not move very quickly on this front until the damage is already done, then will try to get fishermen to accept modest payments on their losses in exchange for signing releases limiting BP's liability to them. As for municipalities that may be damaged by lack of revenues, good luck going up against BP.

According to a report I bumped into earlier, the entire cost of clean-up thus far could be covered with just 4 days of BP's profits.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I wonder where the wait and see people from the first half of this thread have gone. ;)

 

[mheslep]

I wonder how often someone has asked "What's the worst that could happen".

Yes, though I don't think the question needs to be speculative. The first question should be how or why do we believe the Ixtoc I PEMEX 1979 spill, a deep water long term leak blowout, could not happen again in 2010 with our rig?

 

[russ_watters]

I wonder where the wait and see people from the first half of this thread have gone. ;)

I've grown tired of all the useless idle speculation and hyperbole. It's beyond useless: it is counterproductive.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I've grown tired of all the useless idle speculation and hyperbole. It's beyond useless: it is counterproductive.

We are past speculating now, do you not think so?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/12/news/companies/bp_house_hearing/index.htm?hpt=T2

new video http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/47151

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126667241

 

[russ_watters]

We are past speculating now, do you not think so?

There is more information available now, but that doesn't mean that people aren't still speculating and spouting hyperbole. Your first link there is mostly speculation. What caused the blowout preventer to fail? We don't know.

Also, the discussion of the Congressional hearings, while entertaining to some, is just free campaign advertising. It's all a show. It has no value, so I don't see a reason to discuss it.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

There is more information available now, but that doesn't mean that people aren't still speculating and spouting hyperbole. Your first link there is mostly speculation. What caused the blowout preventer to fail? We don't know.

Also, the discussion of the Congressional hearings, while entertaining to some, is just free campaign advertising. It's all a show. It has no value, so I don't see a reason to discuss it.

And the second and third links, environmental impact, and ongoing volume of the leak and attempts to solve it are not. We know now, that all parties including the congress had no real plan for this.

 

[Sbrownstein]

Finally some of the story is beginning to leak out and take form. Yes it was a very deep well, drilled in very deep water. But that might have made drilling challenging...but in and by itself, that is not the proximate cause of this accident. It appears that this accident wasn't caused by technological limits. It was caused by the same thing that generally causes most accidents in complicated technological systems...poor communication. In all of these situations, when critical information eventually rises to a responsible level in the organization the response is almost always...YOU DID WHAT…ARE YOU NUTS! In the Piper Alpha accident in the North Sea, on site platform operators continued to pump oil and natural gas THROUGH A WELL PLATFORM THAT WAS ALREADY ON FIRE! They were frozen by indecision and were afraid to take their own systems off line, even though local non decision makers were clamoring for action. You guessed it...when senior management eventually was contacted...YOU ARE DOING WHAT? SHUT DOWN...NOW!

It appears that the well was not completely sealed, the plan called for moving off and nobody on site (or easily contacted) was willing to make the $10 or $20 million dollar decision to go back in and fix the cement job...so they pressed on! Although unfortunately most on the drilling crew that were working at that moment are now dead and can't defend themselves, I would bet anything that many were shaking their heads and wondering who had made that call! Sounds like, when all is eventually known, the blow out preventer also failed to save them, but this safety device was never designed to cover bad decisions. They should have never withdrawn the mud (which is the principal safety against high pressure in the well), they should have taken a breather, analyzed the situation and undoubtedly would have told Halliburton to pierce the pipe and re-cement the casing, and then perform another positive and negative pressure test. This has happened before on other wells and there is a straight forward process for doing it! Hindsight is 20-20 vision, but there were many warnings for what happened and there is already a well defined process and chain of command to handle it...somebody was afraid to blow the whistle or somebody, out of fear, made the wrong call! It will happen again, but of course in a different way! But we will all go on. Forget the finger pointing, we already know what probably happened and we will know all before this is over.

 

[Astronuc]

But there are no federal standards for the makeup of the crucial cement filler, MMS spokesman David Smith confirmed Wednesday. Government and industry have been working to publish new guidelines later this year, but they will be recommendations, not mandates.

. . . .

Also Wednesday, a group of Louisiana crab fishermen claimed in a lawsuit that Halliburton — with permission from BP and rig owner Transocean — used a new quick-curing cement mix with nitrogen. It supposedly generates more heat than other recipes and could allow dangerous bursts of methane gas to escape up the well.

According to the testimony and other evidence that has emerged this week, the first sign of trouble came shortly before dawn. Workers pumped out heavy drilling fluid for a negative pressure test to make sure underground gas couldn't seep into the well. That test failed: it meant the well might be leaking. Another test was run. It too failed.

Workers debated what to do next. They eventually decided to resume work.

Further reducing protection from a blowout, heavy drilling fluid was pumped out of a pipe rising to the surface from the wellhead. It was replaced with lighter seawater in preparation for placing the last cement plug.

Federal rules say an operator must hold newly cemented well-wall casing under pressure for up to 12 hours before resuming drilling. Other than that, there are few rules about how long to let cement set.

Whatever the main cause — cement or something else — the last plug was still missing just before 10 p.m. on the 20th, when drilling fluid pushed by underground gas started kicking up uncontrollably through the well.

Desperate rig workers tried to activate a set of hydraulic cutoff valves known as a blowout preventer to squeeze off the surge. However, hydraulic fluid was leaking from a loose fitting in the preventer's emergency system, making it harder to activate powerful shear rams to cut the piping and cap the blowout. Also, a battery had gone dead in at least one of two control pods meant to automatically switch on the preventer in an emergency.

The preventer "was to be the fail-safe in case of an accident," Lamar McKay, the president of BP America, said at the House hearing.

Yet industry officials acknowledged a fistful of regulatory and operational gaps: There is no government standard for design or installation of blowout preventers. The federal government doesn't routinely inspect them before they are installed. Their emergency systems usually go untested once they are set on the seafloor at the mouth of the well. The federal government doesn't require a backup.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100513/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill

In the absence of a government regulation/standard, there should be an industry regulation/standard, as is the case in the electrical/aerospace/nuclear industries. The nuclear industry even has self-imposed 'best practices'.

 

[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.