News Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

[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

 

[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.