WTF?!? "Official" Gulf Oil Spill Thread - put updates here
- Thread starter Walrus Whisperer
- Start date
jed turtle
a brother in the Lord
thankyou shadowfax and tom mcdowell!!!
freebird, i am actively expanding my house here in northern new england to be able to take in my parents (currently in florida), and any other relatives from the deep south. i always figured it would be necessary to get ready to take in parents, but i can see now that the whole clan will be arriving by end of summer if not sooner, and staying...
freebird, i am actively expanding my house here in northern new england to be able to take in my parents (currently in florida), and any other relatives from the deep south. i always figured it would be necessary to get ready to take in parents, but i can see now that the whole clan will be arriving by end of summer if not sooner, and staying...
Tom McDowell
BAMN
The eyewitness on 60 minutes indicated the they'd fallen behind on the drilling schedule. They were encouraged to try and make hole faster.
This led to more problems as they ran into a disagreeable formation, which led to getting stuck in the hole.
This led to having loose the bottom hole assembly of the drill string, then they had to kick off directionally and finish drilling to specified depth.
I bring this up as it's a consideration on what these relief wells are up against.
A tough formation, a very specific target, and an urgent timetable.
===
.
This led to more problems as they ran into a disagreeable formation, which led to getting stuck in the hole.
This led to having loose the bottom hole assembly of the drill string, then they had to kick off directionally and finish drilling to specified depth.
I bring this up as it's a consideration on what these relief wells are up against.
A tough formation, a very specific target, and an urgent timetable.
===
.
gulf oil now being pulled into loop current
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/05/gulf-oil-is-now-being-pulled-into-loop.html
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/05/gulf-oil-is-now-being-pulled-into-loop.html
Border guard
Inactive
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-environment-gulf-oil-spill-cap-leak/
Christine Dell'Amore
National Geographic News
Published May 13, 2010
If efforts fail to cap the leaking Deepwater Horizon wellhead in the Gulf of Mexico (map), oil could gush for years—poisoning coastal habitats for decades, experts say.
(See satellite pictures of the Gulf oil spill's evolution.)
Last week the joint federal-industry task force charged with managing the spill tried unsuccessfully to lower a 93-ton containment dome (pictures) over one of three ruptures in the rig's downed pipe.
Crystals of methane hydrates in the freezing depths clogged an opening on the box, preventing it from funneling the spouting oil up to a waiting ship.
Yesterday a smaller dome was laid on the seafloor near the faulty well, and officials will attempt to install the structure later this week.
But such recovery operations have never been done before in the extreme deep-sea environment around the wellhead, noted Matthew Simmons, retired chair of the energy-industry investment banking firm Simmons & Company International.
For instance, at the depth of the gushing wellhead—5,000 feet (about 1,500 meters)—containment technologies have to withstand extremely high pressures.
Also, slant drilling—a technique used to relieve pressure near the leak—is difficult at these depths, because the relief well has to tap into the original pipe, a tiny target at about 7 inches (18 centimeters) wide, Simmons noted.
"We don't have any idea how to stop this," Simmons said of the Gulf leak. Some of the proposed strategies—such as temporarily plugging the leaking pipe with a jet of golf balls and other material—are a "joke," he added.
"We really are in unprecedented waters."
Gulf Oil Reservoir Bleeding Dry
If the oil can't be stopped, the underground reservoir may continue bleeding until it's dry, Simmons suggested.
The most recent estimates are that the leaking wellhead has been spewing 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons, or 795,000 liters) of oil a day.
And the oil is still flowing robustly, which suggests that the reserve "would take years to deplete," said David Rensink, incoming president of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
"You're talking about a reservoir that could have tens of millions of barrels in it."
At that rate, it's possible the Gulf oil spill's damage to the environment will have lingering effects akin to those of the largest oil spill in history, which happened in Saudi Arabia in 1991, said Miles Hayes, co-founder of the science-and-technology consulting firm Research Planning, Inc., based in South Carolina.
During the Gulf War, the Iraqi military intentionally spilled up to 336 million gallons (about 1.3 billion liters) of oil into the Persian Gulf (map) to slow U.S. troop advances, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Hayes was part of a team that later studied the environmental impacts of the spill, which impacted about 500 miles (800 kilometers) of Saudi Arabian coastline.
The scientists discovered a "tremendous" amount of oiled sediment remained on the Saudi coast 12 years after the spill—about 3 million cubic feet (856,000 cubic meters). (See "Exxon Valdez Anniversary: 20 Years Later, Oil Remains.")
Oil Spills Create Toxic Marshes
Perhaps most sobering for the marsh-covered U.S. Gulf Coast, the 2003 report found that the Saudi oil spill was most toxic to the region's marshes and mud flats.
Up to 89 percent of the Saudi marshes and 71 percent of the mud flats had not bounced back after 12 years, the team discovered. (See pictures of freshwater plants and animals.)
"It was amazing to stand there and look across what used to be a salt marsh and it was all dead—not even a live crab," Hayes said.
Saudi and U.S. Gulf Coast marshes aren't exactly the same—Saudi marshes sit in saltier waters, and the Middle Eastern climate is more arid, for example. "But to some extent they serve the same ecological function, which is extremely important," he said.
As the nurseries for much of the sea life in the Gulf of Mexico, coastal marshes are vital to the ecosystem and the U.S. seafood industry.
It's also much harder to remove oil from coastal marshes, since some management techniques—such as controlled burns—are more challenging in those environments, said Texas Tech University ecotoxicologist Ron Kendall.
"Once it gets in there, we're not getting it out," he said. (See pictures of ten animals threatened by the Gulf oil spill.)
Gulf Coast Should "Plan for the Worst"
Depth isn't the only factor that can stymie attempts to plug an oil leak.
The 1979 Ixtoc oil spill, also in the Gulf of Mexico, took nine months to cap. During that time the well spewed 140 million gallons (530 million liters) of oil—and the Ixtoc well was only about 160 feet (49 meters) deep, noted retired energy investment banker Simmons.
Efforts to contain the Ixtoc leak were complicated by poor visibility in the water and debris from the wrecked rig on the seafloor.
Also, the high pressure of oil in the well ruptured valves in the blowout preventer, a device designed to automatically cap an out-of-control-well. Recovery workers had to drill relief wells nearby before divers could cap the leak.
(See "Rig Explosion Shows Risks in Key Oil Frontier.")
In general, Simmons added, officials scrambling to cap the Deepwater Horizon well should be working just as hard to protect the shorelines in what could become a protracted event.
"We have to hope for the best," he said, "but plan for the worst."
Seen up close, an iridescent sheen of oil swirls on Gulf of Mexico waters Tuesday.
Christine Dell'Amore
National Geographic News
Published May 13, 2010
If efforts fail to cap the leaking Deepwater Horizon wellhead in the Gulf of Mexico (map), oil could gush for years—poisoning coastal habitats for decades, experts say.
(See satellite pictures of the Gulf oil spill's evolution.)
Last week the joint federal-industry task force charged with managing the spill tried unsuccessfully to lower a 93-ton containment dome (pictures) over one of three ruptures in the rig's downed pipe.
Crystals of methane hydrates in the freezing depths clogged an opening on the box, preventing it from funneling the spouting oil up to a waiting ship.
Yesterday a smaller dome was laid on the seafloor near the faulty well, and officials will attempt to install the structure later this week.
But such recovery operations have never been done before in the extreme deep-sea environment around the wellhead, noted Matthew Simmons, retired chair of the energy-industry investment banking firm Simmons & Company International.
For instance, at the depth of the gushing wellhead—5,000 feet (about 1,500 meters)—containment technologies have to withstand extremely high pressures.
Also, slant drilling—a technique used to relieve pressure near the leak—is difficult at these depths, because the relief well has to tap into the original pipe, a tiny target at about 7 inches (18 centimeters) wide, Simmons noted.
"We don't have any idea how to stop this," Simmons said of the Gulf leak. Some of the proposed strategies—such as temporarily plugging the leaking pipe with a jet of golf balls and other material—are a "joke," he added.
"We really are in unprecedented waters."
Gulf Oil Reservoir Bleeding Dry
If the oil can't be stopped, the underground reservoir may continue bleeding until it's dry, Simmons suggested.
The most recent estimates are that the leaking wellhead has been spewing 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons, or 795,000 liters) of oil a day.
And the oil is still flowing robustly, which suggests that the reserve "would take years to deplete," said David Rensink, incoming president of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
"You're talking about a reservoir that could have tens of millions of barrels in it."
At that rate, it's possible the Gulf oil spill's damage to the environment will have lingering effects akin to those of the largest oil spill in history, which happened in Saudi Arabia in 1991, said Miles Hayes, co-founder of the science-and-technology consulting firm Research Planning, Inc., based in South Carolina.
During the Gulf War, the Iraqi military intentionally spilled up to 336 million gallons (about 1.3 billion liters) of oil into the Persian Gulf (map) to slow U.S. troop advances, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Hayes was part of a team that later studied the environmental impacts of the spill, which impacted about 500 miles (800 kilometers) of Saudi Arabian coastline.
The scientists discovered a "tremendous" amount of oiled sediment remained on the Saudi coast 12 years after the spill—about 3 million cubic feet (856,000 cubic meters). (See "Exxon Valdez Anniversary: 20 Years Later, Oil Remains.")
Oil Spills Create Toxic Marshes
Perhaps most sobering for the marsh-covered U.S. Gulf Coast, the 2003 report found that the Saudi oil spill was most toxic to the region's marshes and mud flats.
Up to 89 percent of the Saudi marshes and 71 percent of the mud flats had not bounced back after 12 years, the team discovered. (See pictures of freshwater plants and animals.)
"It was amazing to stand there and look across what used to be a salt marsh and it was all dead—not even a live crab," Hayes said.
Saudi and U.S. Gulf Coast marshes aren't exactly the same—Saudi marshes sit in saltier waters, and the Middle Eastern climate is more arid, for example. "But to some extent they serve the same ecological function, which is extremely important," he said.
As the nurseries for much of the sea life in the Gulf of Mexico, coastal marshes are vital to the ecosystem and the U.S. seafood industry.
It's also much harder to remove oil from coastal marshes, since some management techniques—such as controlled burns—are more challenging in those environments, said Texas Tech University ecotoxicologist Ron Kendall.
"Once it gets in there, we're not getting it out," he said. (See pictures of ten animals threatened by the Gulf oil spill.)
Gulf Coast Should "Plan for the Worst"
Depth isn't the only factor that can stymie attempts to plug an oil leak.
The 1979 Ixtoc oil spill, also in the Gulf of Mexico, took nine months to cap. During that time the well spewed 140 million gallons (530 million liters) of oil—and the Ixtoc well was only about 160 feet (49 meters) deep, noted retired energy investment banker Simmons.
Efforts to contain the Ixtoc leak were complicated by poor visibility in the water and debris from the wrecked rig on the seafloor.
Also, the high pressure of oil in the well ruptured valves in the blowout preventer, a device designed to automatically cap an out-of-control-well. Recovery workers had to drill relief wells nearby before divers could cap the leak.
(See "Rig Explosion Shows Risks in Key Oil Frontier.")
In general, Simmons added, officials scrambling to cap the Deepwater Horizon well should be working just as hard to protect the shorelines in what could become a protracted event.
"We have to hope for the best," he said, "but plan for the worst."
Seen up close, an iridescent sheen of oil swirls on Gulf of Mexico waters Tuesday.
Attachments
Border guard
Inactive
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weat.../oil-spill-encounters-loop-current_2010-05-17
Oil Spill Encounters Loop Current
by Tim Ballisty, Jon Erdman
Oil spill streaks southeast due to influence from the Loop CurrentImage credit: NASA/GSFC, MODIS Rapid Response
Oil streak close-up viewImage credit: NASA/GSFC, MODIS Rapid Response
Gulf of Mexico Loop Current
Where will it go?
With its proximity to the northern edge of the Loop Current it may be only a matter of weeks or even days before the ocean surface oil is transported toward the Florida Keys and southeast Florida.
Clicking on the image below will open up an ensemble model computer forecast of the potential oil pathway in the coming days.
Unfortunately, three out of the four computer models show that the oil will indeed be caught in the current and swept to the south.
Click to animate ensemble computer model forecasts
Courtesy of The Ocean Circulation Group at the University of South Florida's College of Marine Science
Keys Impact and Oil Concentration
"This can't be passed off as 'it's not going to be a problem,'" said William Hogarth, dean of the University of South Florida's College of Marine Science. "This is a very sensitive area. We are concerned with what happens in the Florida Keys."
Per a report from The Associated Press, Hogarth said it's still too early to know what specific amounts of oil will make it to Florida, or what damage it might do to the sensitive Keys or beaches on Florida's Atlantic coast.
He said claims by BP that the oil would be less damaging to the Keys after traveling over hundreds of miles from the spill site were not mollifying.
Damage is already done, with the only remaining question being how much more is to come, said Paul Montagna, from the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies at Texas A&M University.
Oil Spill Encounters Loop Current
by Tim Ballisty, Jon Erdman
Satellite image speaks volumes
There have been conflicting rumblings across the newswire services and across social media outlets whether the Gulf oil spill has been entrained into the Gulf of Mexico Loop Current.
The images below from NASA's MODIS satellite speaks volumes and confirms many people's worst fears.
Per The Weather Channel's tropical expert Dr. Richard Knabb, "based on satellite images, model simulations, and on-site research vessel reports, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the oil slick at the surface is very near or partially in the loop current. The loop current is responsible in the first place for extending that stream of oil off to the southeast in satellite imagery."
There have been conflicting rumblings across the newswire services and across social media outlets whether the Gulf oil spill has been entrained into the Gulf of Mexico Loop Current.
The images below from NASA's MODIS satellite speaks volumes and confirms many people's worst fears.
Per The Weather Channel's tropical expert Dr. Richard Knabb, "based on satellite images, model simulations, and on-site research vessel reports, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the oil slick at the surface is very near or partially in the loop current. The loop current is responsible in the first place for extending that stream of oil off to the southeast in satellite imagery."
Why is the Loop Current a big deal?
It's a big deal because it's a mode of transportation for the oil spill. No longer will it be confined in the northern Gulf Coast.
The oil spill has discovered its exit strategy and that exit is now in progress.
The Loop Current's influence has pulled the oil at the ocean surface toward the southeast away from the original oil spill area.
This influential "pull" has now positioned the oil either just at the doorstep of the Loop Current or it is indeed now inside the current.
It's a big deal because it's a mode of transportation for the oil spill. No longer will it be confined in the northern Gulf Coast.
The oil spill has discovered its exit strategy and that exit is now in progress.
The Loop Current's influence has pulled the oil at the ocean surface toward the southeast away from the original oil spill area.
This influential "pull" has now positioned the oil either just at the doorstep of the Loop Current or it is indeed now inside the current.
Gulf of Mexico Loop Current
Where will it go?
With its proximity to the northern edge of the Loop Current it may be only a matter of weeks or even days before the ocean surface oil is transported toward the Florida Keys and southeast Florida.
Clicking on the image below will open up an ensemble model computer forecast of the potential oil pathway in the coming days.
Unfortunately, three out of the four computer models show that the oil will indeed be caught in the current and swept to the south.
Click to animate ensemble computer model forecasts
Courtesy of The Ocean Circulation Group at the University of South Florida's College of Marine Science
Keys Impact and Oil Concentration
"This can't be passed off as 'it's not going to be a problem,'" said William Hogarth, dean of the University of South Florida's College of Marine Science. "This is a very sensitive area. We are concerned with what happens in the Florida Keys."
Per a report from The Associated Press, Hogarth said it's still too early to know what specific amounts of oil will make it to Florida, or what damage it might do to the sensitive Keys or beaches on Florida's Atlantic coast.
He said claims by BP that the oil would be less damaging to the Keys after traveling over hundreds of miles from the spill site were not mollifying.
Damage is already done, with the only remaining question being how much more is to come, said Paul Montagna, from the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies at Texas A&M University.
Well, I'm way up the Mississippi and this can impact everything shipped up the river, is my guess. The ol' Mississippi is a huge shipping lane because you can ship vast amounts of products on those barges, and it is far cheaper than any other method of transportation. Cutting off barge traffic because of oil contamination will have a severe economic impact - time to revisit what all is shipped via barge.
1 barge = hundreds of train cars and 1 barge = thousands of semi trucks
(what I roughly remember from my visit to the River Museum)
If this well is not capped, none of us is going to escape its effects.
Border guard
Inactive
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/17/1634381/potential-oil-threat-to-south.html
Tar balls found along shore in Key West
BY DANIEL CHANG
dchang@MiamiHerald.com
U.S. COAST GUARD
Tar Balls found in Key West as reports grow that oil from the Deepwater Horizon accident has been captured in the Gulf Loop Current, destined for the ecologically sensitive Florida Keys. The balls will be investigated to determine their source.
As BP engineers continue to work on Tuesday to contain and eventually plug the deep sea oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, scientists tracking the spread of oil disagreed on whether it had entered a powerful ocean current that could carry the crude as far east as Florida and potentially damage sensitive reefs in the Keys. On Monday night, the Coast Guard reported that 20 tar balls were found along the shore at Fort Zachary Taylor State Park in Key West. Samples of the tar balls -- found by park rangers and ranging in size from three to eight inches in diameter -- will be sent to a laboratory for analysis, according to the Coast Guard.
In Washington, a top Interior official charged with overseeing oil and gas drilling resigned, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the administration's handling of the emergency at the same time she said it was largely dependent on BP to respond to the crisis.
Chris Oynes, who had overseen oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico for 12 years before being promoted to Mineral Management Services associate director for offshore energy and minerals management, sent a letter of resignation effective May 31. Oynes has come under fire for being too close to the industry officials he regulated.
Meanwhile, BP announced it was awarding tourism grants to the governors of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana to help promote tourism over the coming months, in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill.
BP said it would give $25 million to Florida and $15 million each to Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said he would use the funds ``to spread the word that Florida's beaches are clean, our fish are biting, and the Sunshine State is open for business.''
Doug Suttles, BP chief operating officer, said Monday that a mile-long tube inserted into a damaged well pipe on the sea floor was funneling a little more than 1,000 barrels -- or 42,000 gallons -- of oil, natural gas and water a day from the well into a drill ship at the surface.
BP will gradually increase the amount of oil siphoned from the leak to a potential maximum of about 2,000 barrels a day -- less than half the 5,000 barrels a day that the company and the U.S. Coast Guard estimate is leaking from the site.
Some scientists have said the leak may be 10 times worse, but that estimate has not been confirmed.
Suttles flew over the site of the spill Monday with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. He said BP's containment efforts appear to be working because he had seen ``the smallest amount [of oil] on the surface since the effort began.''
BP's next step will be the ``top kill,'' which involves pumping up to 50,000 barrels of heavy, mud-like liquid into the oil well at a high speed.
Suttles said the ``top kill'' could be deployed by the weekend or sooner.
Clean-up and monitoring of the spill will take many years, said U.S. Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry. ``We are not done,'' she said.
So far, response crews have applied more than 580,000 gallons of dispersants in the Gulf since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, killing 11 people and starting the spill.
It is too early to tell how much damage the oil has caused underwater or how it is spreading, said Charlie Henry, a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Henry said reports that the oil spill had sent miles-long plumes over ecologically sensitive reefs and other areas in the Gulf were premature.
Highlighting the conflicting assessment emanating from academia, government and industry scientists, Landry contradicted reports that the oil had reached a powerful ocean current known as the loop current, which could potentially spread oil to Florida's Atlantic Coast and the Keys. ``We know that the oil has not entered the loop current at this time,'' she said.
Yet less than a half-hour earlier, University of South Florida College of Marine Science Dean William Hogarth told a news conference that computer modeling, wind forecasts, and satellite images showed otherwise.
``I think the threat to South Florida is real and we should get ready,'' said Igor Kamenkovich, associate professor at the Rosenstiel School for Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami.
So far, winds and currents have kept the oil away from the Florida coast, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Jim Lushine, a retired meteorologist who studied the Gulfstream for 15 years at the National Weather Service in Miami, said it is unlikely that oil from the Deepwater Horizon would get caught in the loop current because of prevailing southeasterly winds in the Gulf.
Tar balls found along shore in Key West
BY DANIEL CHANG
dchang@MiamiHerald.com
U.S. COAST GUARD
Tar Balls found in Key West as reports grow that oil from the Deepwater Horizon accident has been captured in the Gulf Loop Current, destined for the ecologically sensitive Florida Keys. The balls will be investigated to determine their source.
As BP engineers continue to work on Tuesday to contain and eventually plug the deep sea oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, scientists tracking the spread of oil disagreed on whether it had entered a powerful ocean current that could carry the crude as far east as Florida and potentially damage sensitive reefs in the Keys. On Monday night, the Coast Guard reported that 20 tar balls were found along the shore at Fort Zachary Taylor State Park in Key West. Samples of the tar balls -- found by park rangers and ranging in size from three to eight inches in diameter -- will be sent to a laboratory for analysis, according to the Coast Guard.
In Washington, a top Interior official charged with overseeing oil and gas drilling resigned, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the administration's handling of the emergency at the same time she said it was largely dependent on BP to respond to the crisis.
Chris Oynes, who had overseen oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico for 12 years before being promoted to Mineral Management Services associate director for offshore energy and minerals management, sent a letter of resignation effective May 31. Oynes has come under fire for being too close to the industry officials he regulated.
Meanwhile, BP announced it was awarding tourism grants to the governors of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana to help promote tourism over the coming months, in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill.
BP said it would give $25 million to Florida and $15 million each to Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said he would use the funds ``to spread the word that Florida's beaches are clean, our fish are biting, and the Sunshine State is open for business.''
Doug Suttles, BP chief operating officer, said Monday that a mile-long tube inserted into a damaged well pipe on the sea floor was funneling a little more than 1,000 barrels -- or 42,000 gallons -- of oil, natural gas and water a day from the well into a drill ship at the surface.
BP will gradually increase the amount of oil siphoned from the leak to a potential maximum of about 2,000 barrels a day -- less than half the 5,000 barrels a day that the company and the U.S. Coast Guard estimate is leaking from the site.
Some scientists have said the leak may be 10 times worse, but that estimate has not been confirmed.
Suttles flew over the site of the spill Monday with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. He said BP's containment efforts appear to be working because he had seen ``the smallest amount [of oil] on the surface since the effort began.''
BP's next step will be the ``top kill,'' which involves pumping up to 50,000 barrels of heavy, mud-like liquid into the oil well at a high speed.
Suttles said the ``top kill'' could be deployed by the weekend or sooner.
Clean-up and monitoring of the spill will take many years, said U.S. Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry. ``We are not done,'' she said.
So far, response crews have applied more than 580,000 gallons of dispersants in the Gulf since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, killing 11 people and starting the spill.
It is too early to tell how much damage the oil has caused underwater or how it is spreading, said Charlie Henry, a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Henry said reports that the oil spill had sent miles-long plumes over ecologically sensitive reefs and other areas in the Gulf were premature.
Highlighting the conflicting assessment emanating from academia, government and industry scientists, Landry contradicted reports that the oil had reached a powerful ocean current known as the loop current, which could potentially spread oil to Florida's Atlantic Coast and the Keys. ``We know that the oil has not entered the loop current at this time,'' she said.
Yet less than a half-hour earlier, University of South Florida College of Marine Science Dean William Hogarth told a news conference that computer modeling, wind forecasts, and satellite images showed otherwise.
``I think the threat to South Florida is real and we should get ready,'' said Igor Kamenkovich, associate professor at the Rosenstiel School for Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami.
So far, winds and currents have kept the oil away from the Florida coast, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Jim Lushine, a retired meteorologist who studied the Gulfstream for 15 years at the National Weather Service in Miami, said it is unlikely that oil from the Deepwater Horizon would get caught in the loop current because of prevailing southeasterly winds in the Gulf.
Surprise
Inactive
Did Anyone See 60 Minutes Interview of survivor Mike Williams?
These are snips. The entire interview transcript can be found at the link at bottom of this post.
With the schedule slipping, Williams says a BP manager ordered a faster pace.
"And he requested to the driller, 'Hey, let's bump it up. Let's bump it up.' And what he was talking about there is he's bumping up the rate of penetration. How fast the drill bit is going down," Williams said.
Williams says going faster caused the bottom of the well to split open, swallowing tools and that drilling fluid called "mud."
"We actually got stuck. And we got stuck so bad we had to send tools down into the drill pipe and sever the pipe," Williams explained.
That well was abandoned and Deepwater Horizon had to drill a new route to the oil. It cost BP more than two weeks and millions of dollars.
"We were informed of this during one of the safety meetings, that somewhere in the neighborhood of $25 million was lost in bottom hole assembly and 'mud.' And you always kind of knew that in the back of your mind when they start throwing these big numbers around that there was gonna be a push coming, you know? A push to pick up production and pick up the pace," Williams said.
Asked if there was pressure on the crew after this happened, Williams told Pelley, "There's always pressure, but yes, the pressure was increased."
But the trouble was just beginning: when drilling resumed, Williams says there was an accident on the rig that has not been reported before. He says, four weeks before the explosion, the rig's most vital piece of safety equipment was damaged.
Down near the seabed is the blowout preventer, or BOP. It's used to seal the well shut in order to test the pressure and integrity of the well, and, in case of a blowout, it's the crew's only hope. A key component is a rubber gasket at the top called an "annular," which can close tightly around the drill pipe.
Williams says, during a test, they closed the gasket. But while it was shut tight, a crewman on deck accidentally nudged a joystick, applying hundreds of thousands of pounds of force, and moving 15 feet of drill pipe through the closed blowout preventer. Later, a man monitoring drilling fluid rising to the top made a troubling find.
"He discovered chunks of rubber in the drilling fluid. He thought it was important enough to gather this double handful of chunks of rubber and bring them into the driller shack. I recall asking the supervisor if this was out of the ordinary. And he says, 'Oh, it's no big deal.' And I thought, 'How can it be not a big deal? There's chunks of our seal is now missing,'" Williams told Pelley.
And, Williams says, he knew about another problem with the blowout preventer.
The BOP is operated from the surface by wires connected to two control pods; one is a back-up. Williams says one pod lost some of its function weeks before.
Transocean tells us the BOP was tested by remote control after these incidents and passed. But nearly a mile below, there was no way to know how much damage there was or whether the pod was unreliable.
To do it BP's way, they had to be absolutely certain that the first two plugs were keeping the pressure down. That life or death test was done using the blowout preventer which Mike Williams says had a damaged gasket.
Williams' survival may be critical to the investigation. We took his story to Dr. Bob Bea, a professor of engineering at the University of California, Berkeley.
Last week, the White House asked Bea to help analyze the Deepwater Horizon accident. Bea investigated the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster for NASA and the Hurricane Katrina disaster for the National Science Foundation. Bea's voice never completely recovered from the weeks he spent in the flood in New Orleans. But as the White House found, he's among the nation's best, having investigated more than 20 offshore rig disasters.
"Mr. Williams comes forward with these very detailed elements from his viewpoint on a rig. That's a brave and intelligent man," Bea told Pelley.
"What he's saying is very important to this investigation, you believe?" Pelley asked.
"It is," the professor replied.
What strikes Bea is Williams' description of the blowout preventer. Williams says in a drilling accident four weeks before the explosion, the critical rubber gasket, called an "annular," was damaged and pieces of it started coming out of the well.
"According to Williams, when parts of the annular start coming up on the deck someone from Transocean says, ‘Look, don't worry about it.' What does that tell you?" Pelley asked.
"Houston we have a problem," Bea replied.
Here's why that's so important: the annular is used to seal the well for pressure tests. And those tests determine whether dangerous gas is seeping in.
"So if the annular is damaged, if I understand you correctly, you can't do the pressure tests in a reliable way?" Pelley asked.
"That's correct. You may get pressure test recordings, but because you're leaking pressure, they are not reliable," Bea explained.
Williams also told us that a backup control system to the blowout preventer called a pod had lost some of its functions.
"What is the standard operating procedure if you lose one of the control pods?" Pelley asked.
"Reestablish it, fix it. It's like losing one of your legs," Bea said.
"The morning of the disaster, according to Williams, there was an argument in front of all the men on the ship between the Transocean manager and the BP manager. Do you know what that argument is about?" Pelley asked.
Bea replied, "Yes," telling Pelley the argument was about who was the boss.
In finishing the well, the plan was to have a subcontractor, Halliburton, place three concrete plugs, like corks, in the column. The Transocean manager wanted to do this with the column full of heavy drilling fluid - what drillers call "mud" - to keep the pressure down below contained. But the BP manager wanted to begin to remove the "mud" before the last plug was set. That would reduce the pressure controlling the well before the plugs were finished.
Asked why BP would do that, Bea told Pelley, "It expedites the subsequent steps."
"It's a matter of going faster," Pelley remarked.
"Faster, sure," Bea replied.
Bea said BP had won that argument.
"If the 'mud' had been left in the column, would there have been a blowout?" Pelley asked.
"It doesn't look like it," Bea replied.
To do it BP's way, they had to be absolutely certain that the first two plugs were keeping the pressure down. That life or death test was done using the blowout preventer which Mike Williams says had a damaged gasket.
Investigators have also found the BOP had a hydraulic leak and a weak battery.
"Weeks before the disaster they know they are drilling in a dangerous formation, the formation has told them that," Pelley remarked.
"Correct," Bea replied.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
fair use applies
These are snips. The entire interview transcript can be found at the link at bottom of this post.
With the schedule slipping, Williams says a BP manager ordered a faster pace.
"And he requested to the driller, 'Hey, let's bump it up. Let's bump it up.' And what he was talking about there is he's bumping up the rate of penetration. How fast the drill bit is going down," Williams said.
Williams says going faster caused the bottom of the well to split open, swallowing tools and that drilling fluid called "mud."
"We actually got stuck. And we got stuck so bad we had to send tools down into the drill pipe and sever the pipe," Williams explained.
That well was abandoned and Deepwater Horizon had to drill a new route to the oil. It cost BP more than two weeks and millions of dollars.
"We were informed of this during one of the safety meetings, that somewhere in the neighborhood of $25 million was lost in bottom hole assembly and 'mud.' And you always kind of knew that in the back of your mind when they start throwing these big numbers around that there was gonna be a push coming, you know? A push to pick up production and pick up the pace," Williams said.
Asked if there was pressure on the crew after this happened, Williams told Pelley, "There's always pressure, but yes, the pressure was increased."
But the trouble was just beginning: when drilling resumed, Williams says there was an accident on the rig that has not been reported before. He says, four weeks before the explosion, the rig's most vital piece of safety equipment was damaged.
Down near the seabed is the blowout preventer, or BOP. It's used to seal the well shut in order to test the pressure and integrity of the well, and, in case of a blowout, it's the crew's only hope. A key component is a rubber gasket at the top called an "annular," which can close tightly around the drill pipe.
Williams says, during a test, they closed the gasket. But while it was shut tight, a crewman on deck accidentally nudged a joystick, applying hundreds of thousands of pounds of force, and moving 15 feet of drill pipe through the closed blowout preventer. Later, a man monitoring drilling fluid rising to the top made a troubling find.
"He discovered chunks of rubber in the drilling fluid. He thought it was important enough to gather this double handful of chunks of rubber and bring them into the driller shack. I recall asking the supervisor if this was out of the ordinary. And he says, 'Oh, it's no big deal.' And I thought, 'How can it be not a big deal? There's chunks of our seal is now missing,'" Williams told Pelley.
And, Williams says, he knew about another problem with the blowout preventer.
The BOP is operated from the surface by wires connected to two control pods; one is a back-up. Williams says one pod lost some of its function weeks before.
Transocean tells us the BOP was tested by remote control after these incidents and passed. But nearly a mile below, there was no way to know how much damage there was or whether the pod was unreliable.
To do it BP's way, they had to be absolutely certain that the first two plugs were keeping the pressure down. That life or death test was done using the blowout preventer which Mike Williams says had a damaged gasket.
Williams' survival may be critical to the investigation. We took his story to Dr. Bob Bea, a professor of engineering at the University of California, Berkeley.
Last week, the White House asked Bea to help analyze the Deepwater Horizon accident. Bea investigated the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster for NASA and the Hurricane Katrina disaster for the National Science Foundation. Bea's voice never completely recovered from the weeks he spent in the flood in New Orleans. But as the White House found, he's among the nation's best, having investigated more than 20 offshore rig disasters.
"Mr. Williams comes forward with these very detailed elements from his viewpoint on a rig. That's a brave and intelligent man," Bea told Pelley.
"What he's saying is very important to this investigation, you believe?" Pelley asked.
"It is," the professor replied.
What strikes Bea is Williams' description of the blowout preventer. Williams says in a drilling accident four weeks before the explosion, the critical rubber gasket, called an "annular," was damaged and pieces of it started coming out of the well.
"According to Williams, when parts of the annular start coming up on the deck someone from Transocean says, ‘Look, don't worry about it.' What does that tell you?" Pelley asked.
"Houston we have a problem," Bea replied.
Here's why that's so important: the annular is used to seal the well for pressure tests. And those tests determine whether dangerous gas is seeping in.
"So if the annular is damaged, if I understand you correctly, you can't do the pressure tests in a reliable way?" Pelley asked.
"That's correct. You may get pressure test recordings, but because you're leaking pressure, they are not reliable," Bea explained.
Williams also told us that a backup control system to the blowout preventer called a pod had lost some of its functions.
"What is the standard operating procedure if you lose one of the control pods?" Pelley asked.
"Reestablish it, fix it. It's like losing one of your legs," Bea said.
"The morning of the disaster, according to Williams, there was an argument in front of all the men on the ship between the Transocean manager and the BP manager. Do you know what that argument is about?" Pelley asked.
Bea replied, "Yes," telling Pelley the argument was about who was the boss.
In finishing the well, the plan was to have a subcontractor, Halliburton, place three concrete plugs, like corks, in the column. The Transocean manager wanted to do this with the column full of heavy drilling fluid - what drillers call "mud" - to keep the pressure down below contained. But the BP manager wanted to begin to remove the "mud" before the last plug was set. That would reduce the pressure controlling the well before the plugs were finished.
Asked why BP would do that, Bea told Pelley, "It expedites the subsequent steps."
"It's a matter of going faster," Pelley remarked.
"Faster, sure," Bea replied.
Bea said BP had won that argument.
"If the 'mud' had been left in the column, would there have been a blowout?" Pelley asked.
"It doesn't look like it," Bea replied.
To do it BP's way, they had to be absolutely certain that the first two plugs were keeping the pressure down. That life or death test was done using the blowout preventer which Mike Williams says had a damaged gasket.
Investigators have also found the BOP had a hydraulic leak and a weak battery.
"Weeks before the disaster they know they are drilling in a dangerous formation, the formation has told them that," Pelley remarked.
"Correct," Bea replied.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
fair use applies
The following is for use by those on board with the ability to project future events based upon data at hand including other recent predictions.
Looking at the flow of the recently released oil as shown by the satellite images it is irrefutable that the oil is getting into the “loop current” as appears to be the preferred terminology for the flow in the Gulf. The eventual path of such loop is well known and forces the recall of other predictions about paths, loops etc.
The loop current looks to be “the” or “one of the” feeders for the massive current in the Atlantic known as the Atlantic Conveyor. Recent concerns about temperature changes and water density associated with melting of ice caps in Greenland and elsewhere indicated that these changes had a strong potential of impacting the Conveyor and thus impacting its temperature moderating effects on Europe and other areas. Some predictions indicated significant changes in its temperature/density could initiate an ice age or worse in Europe and possibly much of the U.S.
Those with fertile (and younger, more energetic) minds are invited to explore the impact of contaminating the Atlantic Conveyor with petroleum. The quantity of contamination is, of course, directly proportional to the quantity of oil being pulled into the conveyor by the loop current. This quantity is naturally dependent upon the accuracy of estimates made to date on quantities of petroleum issuing forth from the incident in the Gulf. It is obvious form satellite images that the oil in the Gulf is not minor in quantity. There also exists the specter of a leak never repaired, i.e., a leak beyond the ability of man to fix. This can additionally be blended with the possibility that the leak could become worse adding even more oil to the Conveyor. (In respect to optimists, it should not be overlooked that the leak could be repaired or the oil field in the Gulf could empty greatly mitigating the problem but at present that does not appear imminent.)
The oil “plumes” rumored to exist below the surface of the Gulf have not yet been confirmed or admitted by TPTB however, that their existence has even been mentioned lends great credibility to their existence. The specific gravity of oil is decidedly different from that of water regardless of the type of oil; therefore it is a certainty that movement of the plumes or simply any great quantity of oil into the Conveyor will change its density. The thermal impact of the intrusion of the oil is another subject altogether.
Those with fertile minds and great convolutions are invited to get those synapses cracking and project the potential of this spill contaminating the Atlantic Conveyor.
Looking at the flow of the recently released oil as shown by the satellite images it is irrefutable that the oil is getting into the “loop current” as appears to be the preferred terminology for the flow in the Gulf. The eventual path of such loop is well known and forces the recall of other predictions about paths, loops etc.
The loop current looks to be “the” or “one of the” feeders for the massive current in the Atlantic known as the Atlantic Conveyor. Recent concerns about temperature changes and water density associated with melting of ice caps in Greenland and elsewhere indicated that these changes had a strong potential of impacting the Conveyor and thus impacting its temperature moderating effects on Europe and other areas. Some predictions indicated significant changes in its temperature/density could initiate an ice age or worse in Europe and possibly much of the U.S.
Those with fertile (and younger, more energetic) minds are invited to explore the impact of contaminating the Atlantic Conveyor with petroleum. The quantity of contamination is, of course, directly proportional to the quantity of oil being pulled into the conveyor by the loop current. This quantity is naturally dependent upon the accuracy of estimates made to date on quantities of petroleum issuing forth from the incident in the Gulf. It is obvious form satellite images that the oil in the Gulf is not minor in quantity. There also exists the specter of a leak never repaired, i.e., a leak beyond the ability of man to fix. This can additionally be blended with the possibility that the leak could become worse adding even more oil to the Conveyor. (In respect to optimists, it should not be overlooked that the leak could be repaired or the oil field in the Gulf could empty greatly mitigating the problem but at present that does not appear imminent.)
The oil “plumes” rumored to exist below the surface of the Gulf have not yet been confirmed or admitted by TPTB however, that their existence has even been mentioned lends great credibility to their existence. The specific gravity of oil is decidedly different from that of water regardless of the type of oil; therefore it is a certainty that movement of the plumes or simply any great quantity of oil into the Conveyor will change its density. The thermal impact of the intrusion of the oil is another subject altogether.
Those with fertile minds and great convolutions are invited to get those synapses cracking and project the potential of this spill contaminating the Atlantic Conveyor.
Countrymouse
Country exile in the city
This needs to stay at the top---bump
Tom McDowell
BAMN
Two Videos
New oil spill videos released by BP show gushing leaks
By Andrew Boyd, The Times-Picayune
May 18, 2010, 3:43PM
Florida Senator Bill Nelson has posted new BP videos on his website that offer new views of the gushing Deepwater Horizon oil spill leaks.
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/new_oil_spill_videos_released.html
The first video offers the first views of the leaks at the blowout preventer, or BOP. The image eventually zooms in to the top of the riser and you can see multiple streams of oil gushing from this area.
http://tribeca.vidavee.com/advance/...814EB1597A9A20A.node1?AF_deliveryChannel=play
and
The second video shows BP's insertion tube at work, but huge quantities of oil are visible gushing past the device and up into the Gulf of Mexico.
http://tribeca.vidavee.com/advance/...1FBE3DCEFCA1784.node2?AF_deliveryChannel=play
Off to find the diameter of the riser pipe coming off of the BOP stack - the dimension will give give a guesstimate on size of the plume. First blush is it's larger than I expected, as initially it was described as the smallish leak at the kinked pipe. One thing I notice is the surging aspect of the flow.
The second video is somewhat hard to understand - hopefully there's a benefit taking place.
===
Edit to add diameter of riser - 21 inches
The BOP stack is six stories tall - the first video is from the top of the stack. The flattened riser was 21 inches round.
===
.
.
New oil spill videos released by BP show gushing leaks
By Andrew Boyd, The Times-Picayune
May 18, 2010, 3:43PM
Florida Senator Bill Nelson has posted new BP videos on his website that offer new views of the gushing Deepwater Horizon oil spill leaks.
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/new_oil_spill_videos_released.html
The first video offers the first views of the leaks at the blowout preventer, or BOP. The image eventually zooms in to the top of the riser and you can see multiple streams of oil gushing from this area.
http://tribeca.vidavee.com/advance/...814EB1597A9A20A.node1?AF_deliveryChannel=play
and
The second video shows BP's insertion tube at work, but huge quantities of oil are visible gushing past the device and up into the Gulf of Mexico.
http://tribeca.vidavee.com/advance/...1FBE3DCEFCA1784.node2?AF_deliveryChannel=play
Off to find the diameter of the riser pipe coming off of the BOP stack - the dimension will give give a guesstimate on size of the plume. First blush is it's larger than I expected, as initially it was described as the smallish leak at the kinked pipe. One thing I notice is the surging aspect of the flow.
The second video is somewhat hard to understand - hopefully there's a benefit taking place.
===
Edit to add diameter of riser - 21 inches
The BOP stack is six stories tall - the first video is from the top of the stack. The flattened riser was 21 inches round.
===
.
.
Last edited:
Tom McDowell
BAMN
VIA TOL
South Pass, Louisiana (USA). May 17th, 2010.
Oil from the Deepwater Horizon wellhead reaches the coast of Louisiana in the South Pass area near the mouth of the Mississippi River on May 17, 2010.
===
.
South Pass, Louisiana (USA). May 17th, 2010.
Oil from the Deepwater Horizon wellhead reaches the coast of Louisiana in the South Pass area near the mouth of the Mississippi River on May 17, 2010.
===
.
Countrymouse
Country exile in the city
Did anybody save the pics from the "response" links that had pics of the BOP, and of the procedures to try to thread in the pipe?
Because BOTH those links (BP response and TAC) have gone DEAD.
Which I find VERY interesting.
Because BOTH those links (BP response and TAC) have gone DEAD.
Which I find VERY interesting.
Tom McDowell
BAMN
Country Mouse, need a little more info on those dead links. Maybe I can find the images you're looking for by researching the links themselves.
Anyhow back to the OP - Subsurface pools of oil (blobs) on the move in the Gulf and beyond.
The .dot gov came out and said no. There's not enough data to support the claim. And we're not going to go looking either. So go away.
OTOH - There's some strange stuff going on with this oil as it surfaces, different colors, different consistencies and non-mathematically computable collection results.
At the same time deep-water fisheries are also closed and the .gov/BP protocols have added another chemical (over 500,000 gallons of Corexit) to the plume on it's way up to, and sprayed on the surface.
What follows is a technical discussion as theorized by a member of the Oil Drum Forum.
The long and short is - the oil is being fractionated as it rises from the leaks. Before entering into the ocean the oil is transformed by the pressures and velocity of the leaking process itself.
Then released at one mile below in below freezing seawater (30f) another series of changes takes place.
This is creating separation of the oil at various depths in the water column with some materials rising to the surface at a different rate than others and some which may never rise to the surface.
All very possible - since this is a novel situation - never before (that we know of anyway).
Here's the specifics:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6481#comment-625641
[-] roger_rethinker on May 19, 2010 - 1:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | [Parent subthread ] Comments top
I spoke to the New York Times Lead Environmental reporter (Justin Gillis), also the author of their May 15 story on the plumes (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/us/16oil.html), about my explanation for how the plumes may be explainable (see below). I posted this to old threads on TOD (I'm new to this site, just catching up to the current discussion). Gillis emailed me because someone on this site tipped him off about my posts; he's been looking for a scientifically plausible explanation for why several distinct plumes were observed, at different depths. He is looking to help the folks on the Pelican and from what he said, NOAA is indeed trying to squelch their information, which they (NOAA honchos) obviously think is impossible. (Reasoning from a conclusion, it seems to me...) Anyhow, I've been trying to put this into the discussion stream since last night:
Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill Multiple Plumes
(re-posted from the node 6467 discussion)
I think I can explain the fractionation of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill. This is different from an ordinary blow-out in that the methane remains supercritical all the way up the drill hole to the blow-out preventer (BOP) the way the well is discharging now. Since the hydrocarbon reservoir that was penetrated has a high methane content, and is at very high pressure (~15000 psi), I am pretty sure that within the reservoir the oil + gas are miscible; a "supercritical solution." There is not a separate oil layer & gas layer until pressure is reduced. My hypothesis can explain three subsurface oil plumes:
1. A preliminary phase separation occurs between the heaviest oil components (asphaltenes) and the rest of the crude oil, which remains in a methane-based supercritical solution, as the crude rises the 18000 feet from the reservoir to the bottom of the BOP. Gravitational pressure drop depends on average density of the solution, which I guess to be ~.6 g/cc; a pressure reduction on the order of 6000 psi can be anticipated, and a corresponding temperature reduction and volume increase corresponding to adiabatic expansion. The heaviest fraction is hypothesized to have already phase separated from the crude oil prior to reaching the BOP, and this phase forms the deepest oil plume, floating within 40 feet of the sea floor. (In rising from the reservoir, most of the pressure drop is due to gravitational lifting, as the flow is too slow for much viscous dissipation. The flow may be fast enough to sweep the phase separated asphaltenes up the pipe, if the velocity is greater than the sedimentation velocity of the asphaltene droplets.)
2. A very large pressure drop occurs in passing through the partially sealed BOP. When the solution goes through the flow restriction at the BOP, its pressure goes from ~9000 psi to near 2250 psi, causing a phase separation in which the natural gas based phase goes subcritical in less than a second. Even after the expansion, the two phase flow is still very hot, high enough for the methane phase to remain a good solvent for the light oil fractions. (The expansion should be close to an isothermal expansion, differing only from isothermal due to the Joule effect, and due to condensation of a liquid phase; I expect a small increase in temperature going through the BOP orifice.) As pressure and density are reduced, the supercritical methane phase decomposes into two phases, a primarily heavy oil liquid phase, saturated with methane (I expect this to be a viscous liquid, specific gravity ~.8; still containing quite a bit of dissolved methane), and:
3. A subcritical dense gas phase solution containing most of the gasoline and light oil fractions, and some heavy oil. This dense gas phase also forms downstream of the BOP “orifice.” This dense gas phase contains most of the methane. After this exits the pipe and mixes with sea water, the methane separates out as this solution cools, leading to the lowest density, lowest viscosity, fastest rising oil plume. This fraction, the light oil/gasoline plume could have a density as low as ~.75 g/cc) and would rise quickly; perhaps this is the only plume to reach the surface so far.
4. A fourth subsea plume of methane hydrate is formed as the natural gas separates from the light oil/gas phase as it cools and expands (after exiting the riser pipe). Most of the methane forms hydrates and slowly settles to the ocean floor (methane hydrate at this depth has density of 1.04 g/cc, so it sinks).
This scenario can explain four distinct plumes emanating from the leaking Deep Horizon well head. Most of the 3-phase hydrocarbon mixture vents out of the riser about a mile away from the BOP, while something like 15% of the hydrocarbon flow exits from a kink just above the BOP. After the three hydrocarbon phases mix with sea water, the fourth phase (methane hydrate) forms. The asphaltenes, which form the densest phase and the lowest plume, may take years to reach the surface, by which time they may well have mixed with the Atlantic deep waters via the circulation around Florida.
What is happening at the Deep Horizon oil spill is sort of a doomsday scenario, which can only happen this way because of the unique stepwise pressure reduction as the oil exits the reservoir. Because the oil has been fractionated, it is not rising as a single phase, as has been the case in all previous oil spills. If my hypothesis is correct, most of the oil is contained in two separate plumes that have not yet reached the ocean surface...God help us.
There are testable predictions that come out of this theory:
1) If there are three oil plumes as I suggest, and the oil that has made it to the surface so far is from the "lightest" (lowest molecular weight, lowest boiling point range). The tarballs that are forming now will be the residue of the light fraction, after evaporation of volatiles, and should be depleted of asphaltenes compared to the oil samples obtained by BP before they attempted to kill the well.
2) Similarly, there should be asphaltene content differences between each of the plume samples collected by the Pelican Research vessel (http://news.olemiss.edu/index.php?/niustblog/) such that asphaltene content is highest for the deepest samples.
===
.
Anyhow back to the OP - Subsurface pools of oil (blobs) on the move in the Gulf and beyond.
The .dot gov came out and said no. There's not enough data to support the claim. And we're not going to go looking either. So go away.
OTOH - There's some strange stuff going on with this oil as it surfaces, different colors, different consistencies and non-mathematically computable collection results.
At the same time deep-water fisheries are also closed and the .gov/BP protocols have added another chemical (over 500,000 gallons of Corexit) to the plume on it's way up to, and sprayed on the surface.
What follows is a technical discussion as theorized by a member of the Oil Drum Forum.
The long and short is - the oil is being fractionated as it rises from the leaks. Before entering into the ocean the oil is transformed by the pressures and velocity of the leaking process itself.
Then released at one mile below in below freezing seawater (30f) another series of changes takes place.
This is creating separation of the oil at various depths in the water column with some materials rising to the surface at a different rate than others and some which may never rise to the surface.
All very possible - since this is a novel situation - never before (that we know of anyway).
Here's the specifics:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6481#comment-625641
[-] roger_rethinker on May 19, 2010 - 1:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | [Parent subthread ] Comments top
I spoke to the New York Times Lead Environmental reporter (Justin Gillis), also the author of their May 15 story on the plumes (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/us/16oil.html), about my explanation for how the plumes may be explainable (see below). I posted this to old threads on TOD (I'm new to this site, just catching up to the current discussion). Gillis emailed me because someone on this site tipped him off about my posts; he's been looking for a scientifically plausible explanation for why several distinct plumes were observed, at different depths. He is looking to help the folks on the Pelican and from what he said, NOAA is indeed trying to squelch their information, which they (NOAA honchos) obviously think is impossible. (Reasoning from a conclusion, it seems to me...) Anyhow, I've been trying to put this into the discussion stream since last night:
Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill Multiple Plumes
(re-posted from the node 6467 discussion)
I think I can explain the fractionation of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill. This is different from an ordinary blow-out in that the methane remains supercritical all the way up the drill hole to the blow-out preventer (BOP) the way the well is discharging now. Since the hydrocarbon reservoir that was penetrated has a high methane content, and is at very high pressure (~15000 psi), I am pretty sure that within the reservoir the oil + gas are miscible; a "supercritical solution." There is not a separate oil layer & gas layer until pressure is reduced. My hypothesis can explain three subsurface oil plumes:
1. A preliminary phase separation occurs between the heaviest oil components (asphaltenes) and the rest of the crude oil, which remains in a methane-based supercritical solution, as the crude rises the 18000 feet from the reservoir to the bottom of the BOP. Gravitational pressure drop depends on average density of the solution, which I guess to be ~.6 g/cc; a pressure reduction on the order of 6000 psi can be anticipated, and a corresponding temperature reduction and volume increase corresponding to adiabatic expansion. The heaviest fraction is hypothesized to have already phase separated from the crude oil prior to reaching the BOP, and this phase forms the deepest oil plume, floating within 40 feet of the sea floor. (In rising from the reservoir, most of the pressure drop is due to gravitational lifting, as the flow is too slow for much viscous dissipation. The flow may be fast enough to sweep the phase separated asphaltenes up the pipe, if the velocity is greater than the sedimentation velocity of the asphaltene droplets.)
2. A very large pressure drop occurs in passing through the partially sealed BOP. When the solution goes through the flow restriction at the BOP, its pressure goes from ~9000 psi to near 2250 psi, causing a phase separation in which the natural gas based phase goes subcritical in less than a second. Even after the expansion, the two phase flow is still very hot, high enough for the methane phase to remain a good solvent for the light oil fractions. (The expansion should be close to an isothermal expansion, differing only from isothermal due to the Joule effect, and due to condensation of a liquid phase; I expect a small increase in temperature going through the BOP orifice.) As pressure and density are reduced, the supercritical methane phase decomposes into two phases, a primarily heavy oil liquid phase, saturated with methane (I expect this to be a viscous liquid, specific gravity ~.8; still containing quite a bit of dissolved methane), and:
3. A subcritical dense gas phase solution containing most of the gasoline and light oil fractions, and some heavy oil. This dense gas phase also forms downstream of the BOP “orifice.” This dense gas phase contains most of the methane. After this exits the pipe and mixes with sea water, the methane separates out as this solution cools, leading to the lowest density, lowest viscosity, fastest rising oil plume. This fraction, the light oil/gasoline plume could have a density as low as ~.75 g/cc) and would rise quickly; perhaps this is the only plume to reach the surface so far.
4. A fourth subsea plume of methane hydrate is formed as the natural gas separates from the light oil/gas phase as it cools and expands (after exiting the riser pipe). Most of the methane forms hydrates and slowly settles to the ocean floor (methane hydrate at this depth has density of 1.04 g/cc, so it sinks).
This scenario can explain four distinct plumes emanating from the leaking Deep Horizon well head. Most of the 3-phase hydrocarbon mixture vents out of the riser about a mile away from the BOP, while something like 15% of the hydrocarbon flow exits from a kink just above the BOP. After the three hydrocarbon phases mix with sea water, the fourth phase (methane hydrate) forms. The asphaltenes, which form the densest phase and the lowest plume, may take years to reach the surface, by which time they may well have mixed with the Atlantic deep waters via the circulation around Florida.
What is happening at the Deep Horizon oil spill is sort of a doomsday scenario, which can only happen this way because of the unique stepwise pressure reduction as the oil exits the reservoir. Because the oil has been fractionated, it is not rising as a single phase, as has been the case in all previous oil spills. If my hypothesis is correct, most of the oil is contained in two separate plumes that have not yet reached the ocean surface...God help us.
There are testable predictions that come out of this theory:
1) If there are three oil plumes as I suggest, and the oil that has made it to the surface so far is from the "lightest" (lowest molecular weight, lowest boiling point range). The tarballs that are forming now will be the residue of the light fraction, after evaporation of volatiles, and should be depleted of asphaltenes compared to the oil samples obtained by BP before they attempted to kill the well.
2) Similarly, there should be asphaltene content differences between each of the plume samples collected by the Pelican Research vessel (http://news.olemiss.edu/index.php?/niustblog/) such that asphaltene content is highest for the deepest samples.
===
.
Countrymouse
Country exile in the city
Hi Tom:
Two things. First, below are the links that no longer go anywhere for me:
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com]/
http://www.industry-tac.org]/
Second, I just heard on the 11 pm news that BP is now planning a "concrete shoot" (notice--they didn't say "junk" shoot) into the TOP of the well.
What are your thoughts on that?
Two things. First, below are the links that no longer go anywhere for me:
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com]/
http://www.industry-tac.org]/
Second, I just heard on the 11 pm news that BP is now planning a "concrete shoot" (notice--they didn't say "junk" shoot) into the TOP of the well.
What are your thoughts on that?
Tom McDowell
BAMN
Country Mouse,
The links were not posted properly by yours truly, here are the links without the brackets:
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/
http://www.industry-tac.org
I'm of the understanding the cement will be after the junk shot and kill shot. I'll see if I can find out if there's been an announced operational change.
===
.
The links were not posted properly by yours truly, here are the links without the brackets:
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/
http://www.industry-tac.org
I'm of the understanding the cement will be after the junk shot and kill shot. I'll see if I can find out if there's been an announced operational change.
===
.
Last edited:
Tom McDowell
BAMN
BP outlines their operational procedures.
http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=85821
Unclear if the junk shot is on as planned. Kill shot was previous outlined, pump mud after or if able leaks plugged or not, then cement if successful.
Operations planned Sunday or may slip into next week.
Other options:
1 Remove riser off of top of BOP stack and (a) add additional BOP, or (b) add a valve.
Also:
Will take no action to make the situation worse.
Evaluating the ability of the well to contain these procedures. Have not made the final decision yet.
===
.
http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=85821
Unclear if the junk shot is on as planned. Kill shot was previous outlined, pump mud after or if able leaks plugged or not, then cement if successful.
Operations planned Sunday or may slip into next week.
Other options:
1 Remove riser off of top of BOP stack and (a) add additional BOP, or (b) add a valve.
Also:
Will take no action to make the situation worse.
Evaluating the ability of the well to contain these procedures. Have not made the final decision yet.
===
.
Tom McDowell
BAMN
One other interpretation on the junk and top kill sequences from the Oil Drum:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6482#comment-625917
1: I think the situation with the leak is dynamic and has been from the start. The engineering solutions take time and conditions may change between when an idea is conceived and when they try to implement it. I think the 'tophat' suffered from this - perhaps by the time it was ready to be deployed the flow rate from the riser was too large for it (it was intended to capture all the flow from that point if I am not mistaken).
2: I think that the understanding of the dynamics of the leak has changed as the situation has been pieced together by the team coming up with the mitigation schemes. They got the gamma ray scan and some information directly from the BOP (pressures, internal condition, etc). The junk shot may be on hold for a variety of reasons - the situation has changed since it was conceived or the understanding of the condition of the well has changed making it seem less safe or perhaps ineffective. They went through a lot of work to prepare for it including pre-positioning the 'junk' in a holding frame on the bottom, but then moved it down the list and advanced the top kill with heavy mud.
This is how I interpret the information provided and actions I am aware of.
===
As quoted in my previous post they've yet to make a final decision.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6482#comment-625917
1: I think the situation with the leak is dynamic and has been from the start. The engineering solutions take time and conditions may change between when an idea is conceived and when they try to implement it. I think the 'tophat' suffered from this - perhaps by the time it was ready to be deployed the flow rate from the riser was too large for it (it was intended to capture all the flow from that point if I am not mistaken).
2: I think that the understanding of the dynamics of the leak has changed as the situation has been pieced together by the team coming up with the mitigation schemes. They got the gamma ray scan and some information directly from the BOP (pressures, internal condition, etc). The junk shot may be on hold for a variety of reasons - the situation has changed since it was conceived or the understanding of the condition of the well has changed making it seem less safe or perhaps ineffective. They went through a lot of work to prepare for it including pre-positioning the 'junk' in a holding frame on the bottom, but then moved it down the list and advanced the top kill with heavy mud.
This is how I interpret the information provided and actions I am aware of.
===
As quoted in my previous post they've yet to make a final decision.
Walrus Whisperer
Hope in chains...
I just read on TOL that the oil has gotten picked up by the Gulf Stream Loop. We are so screwed.
I'm too tired to go get that article right now.
(And Tom, I thank you so much for all the hard work you do on things like this. I could never do it.)
I'm too tired to go get that article right now.
(And Tom, I thank you so much for all the hard work you do on things like this. I could never do it.)
BigBadBossyDog
Membership Revoked
My thoughts go in that direction. All that oil spewing forth is leaving emptiness where the oil once was. What will happen to the planet? Will it collapse on itself?
Sorry I didn't see this thread and should have posted here instead, cross-linking for reference.
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=361722
WAVING to Tom, I've missed you!
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=361722
WAVING to Tom, I've missed you!
Tom McDowell
BAMN
Gulf oil spill leak now pegged at 95,000 barrels a day
Posted on Wed, May. 19, 2010
Renee Schoof | McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/19/94467/engineer-oil-spill-videos-show.html
last updated: May 19, 2010 09:05:09 PM
WASHINGTON — The latest video footage of the leaking Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico show that oil is escaping at the rate of 95,000 barrels — 4 million gallons — a day, nearly 20 times greater than the 5,000 barrel a day estimate BP and government scientists have been citing for nearly three weeks, an engineering professor told a congressional hearing Wednesday.
The figure of 5,000 barrels a day or 210,000 gallons that BP and the federal government have been using for weeks is based on satellite observations of the surface. But NASA’s best satellite-based instruments can’t see deep into the waters of the Gulf, where much of the oil from the gusher 5,000 feet below the surface seems to be floating.
Federal officials testified in hearings on Tuesday that they were putting together a crack team to get to the bottom of big the spill really is. That effort comes a month after the April 20 explosion that triggered the unprecedented oil spill in deep waters of the United States. Experts say knowing that amount is crucial for efforts to cap the broken wellhead and to monitor and clean up the oil.
Steve Wereley, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University, earlier this month made simple calculations from a video BP released on May 12 and came up with a flow of 70,000 barrels a day, NPR reported last week. Werely on Wednesday told a House Commerce and Energy Committee subcommittee that his calculations of two leaks that show up on videos BP released on Tuesday showed 70,000 barrels from one leak and 25,000 from the other.
He said the calculation could be off by 20 percent — meaning the spill could range from between 76,000 to 104,000 barrels a day. But Wereley said he would need to see videos that were not compressed and showed the flow over a longer period so that it would be possible to get a better calculation of the mix of oil and gas from the wellhead.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who chaired the hearing, promised to get that information from BP and make it possible for other scientists to use other methods to get a more accurate calculation of the size of the spill.
“The true extent of this spill remains a mystery,” Markey said. He said the BP had said that the flow rate was not relevant to the cleanup effort. “This faulty logic that BP is using is … raising concerns that they are hiding the full extent of the damage of this leak.”
Note - the video on this page clearly displays how materials are added to the plume at the bottom of the ocean. It's the white material sprayed into the plume. Note on the screen the lower right text is labeled - Disbursement ops.
Also note and edited to add, it's likely impossible for the figures quoted above to possible much less actual. If so it would be a well like no other. It may be possible if the casing and BOP blew out - but that's not where we are at now.
===
In Gulf Spill, BP Using Dispersants Banned in U.K.
by Marian Wang, ProPublica - May 18, 2010 2:24 pm EDT
http://www.propublica.org/ion/blog/item/In-Gulf-Spill-BP-Using-Dispersants-Banned-in-UK
Screenshot from online video about dispersants by Nalco, Corexit's manufacturer
The two types of dispersants BP is spraying in the Gulf of Mexico are banned for use [1] on oil spills in the U.K. As EPA-approved products [2], BP has been using them in greater quantities than dispersants have ever been used [3] in the history of U.S. oil spills.
BP is using two products from a line of dispersants called Corexit [4], which EPA data [2] appear to show is more toxic and less effective [5] on South Louisiana crude than other available dispersants, according to Greenwire.
We learned about the U.K. ban from a mention on The New York Times’ website. (The reference was cut from later versions of the article, so we can’t link to the Times, but we found the piece [6] elsewhere.) The Times flagged a letter [7] that Rep. Edward Markey, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, sent to the EPA on Monday. The letter pointed out that both the Corexit products currently being used in the Gulf were removed from a list of approved treatments for oil spills in the U.K. more than a decade ago. (Here’s the letter [7].)
As we’ve reported, Corexit was also used after the Exxon Valdez disaster [8] and was later linked with human health problems including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders. One of the two Corexit products also contains a compound that, in high doses, is associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems [9].
Given that the dispersants are EPA-approved, the choice of which ones to use was left to BP, which had stockpiled large amounts of Corexit and is now ordering more.
BP has defended its choice to use Corexit. A BP spokesman called the product [5] “pretty effective,” and said it had been “rigorously tested.” It is not testing other dispersants, he said, [5] because it’s focusing on stopping the spill. Mani Ramesh, the chief technology officer for Nalco, which makes Corexit, disputed claims that the product is harmful to the environment [10], telling Reuters that Corexit’s active ingredient is “an emulsifier also found in ice cream.”
Dispersants like Corexit break up oil into droplets that linger longer in the water instead of collecting at the surface. The choice to use them is inherently an environmental tradeoff. Their use in the Gulf spill has limited the instances—and images—of oil-covered seabirds, but has kept the effects of the spill mostly underwater. Scientists have discovered giant plumes of dispersed oil [11] in the deep waters of the Gulf, though the EPA has said “there is no information currently available [12]” to link the dispersants to those deep-sea plumes. The plumes are now fast approaching the Gulf loop current [13], which could spread the oil into the Atlantic Ocean.
In a hearing this afternoon, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works that the EPA is working with BP to get less toxic dispersants [14] to the site as quickly as possible, according to Kate Sheppard of Mother Jones.
The EPA, while recognizing that long-term effects on the environment are unknown [15], has said that the federal government will regularly analyze [16] the effect of dispersants, and that it will discontinue the application of dispersants underwater [17] “if any negative impacts on the environment outweigh the benefits.”
===
.
Posted on Wed, May. 19, 2010
Renee Schoof | McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/19/94467/engineer-oil-spill-videos-show.html
last updated: May 19, 2010 09:05:09 PM
WASHINGTON — The latest video footage of the leaking Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico show that oil is escaping at the rate of 95,000 barrels — 4 million gallons — a day, nearly 20 times greater than the 5,000 barrel a day estimate BP and government scientists have been citing for nearly three weeks, an engineering professor told a congressional hearing Wednesday.
The figure of 5,000 barrels a day or 210,000 gallons that BP and the federal government have been using for weeks is based on satellite observations of the surface. But NASA’s best satellite-based instruments can’t see deep into the waters of the Gulf, where much of the oil from the gusher 5,000 feet below the surface seems to be floating.
Federal officials testified in hearings on Tuesday that they were putting together a crack team to get to the bottom of big the spill really is. That effort comes a month after the April 20 explosion that triggered the unprecedented oil spill in deep waters of the United States. Experts say knowing that amount is crucial for efforts to cap the broken wellhead and to monitor and clean up the oil.
Steve Wereley, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University, earlier this month made simple calculations from a video BP released on May 12 and came up with a flow of 70,000 barrels a day, NPR reported last week. Werely on Wednesday told a House Commerce and Energy Committee subcommittee that his calculations of two leaks that show up on videos BP released on Tuesday showed 70,000 barrels from one leak and 25,000 from the other.
He said the calculation could be off by 20 percent — meaning the spill could range from between 76,000 to 104,000 barrels a day. But Wereley said he would need to see videos that were not compressed and showed the flow over a longer period so that it would be possible to get a better calculation of the mix of oil and gas from the wellhead.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who chaired the hearing, promised to get that information from BP and make it possible for other scientists to use other methods to get a more accurate calculation of the size of the spill.
“The true extent of this spill remains a mystery,” Markey said. He said the BP had said that the flow rate was not relevant to the cleanup effort. “This faulty logic that BP is using is … raising concerns that they are hiding the full extent of the damage of this leak.”
Note - the video on this page clearly displays how materials are added to the plume at the bottom of the ocean. It's the white material sprayed into the plume. Note on the screen the lower right text is labeled - Disbursement ops.
Also note and edited to add, it's likely impossible for the figures quoted above to possible much less actual. If so it would be a well like no other. It may be possible if the casing and BOP blew out - but that's not where we are at now.
===
In Gulf Spill, BP Using Dispersants Banned in U.K.
by Marian Wang, ProPublica - May 18, 2010 2:24 pm EDT
http://www.propublica.org/ion/blog/item/In-Gulf-Spill-BP-Using-Dispersants-Banned-in-UK
Screenshot from online video about dispersants by Nalco, Corexit's manufacturer
The two types of dispersants BP is spraying in the Gulf of Mexico are banned for use [1] on oil spills in the U.K. As EPA-approved products [2], BP has been using them in greater quantities than dispersants have ever been used [3] in the history of U.S. oil spills.
BP is using two products from a line of dispersants called Corexit [4], which EPA data [2] appear to show is more toxic and less effective [5] on South Louisiana crude than other available dispersants, according to Greenwire.
We learned about the U.K. ban from a mention on The New York Times’ website. (The reference was cut from later versions of the article, so we can’t link to the Times, but we found the piece [6] elsewhere.) The Times flagged a letter [7] that Rep. Edward Markey, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, sent to the EPA on Monday. The letter pointed out that both the Corexit products currently being used in the Gulf were removed from a list of approved treatments for oil spills in the U.K. more than a decade ago. (Here’s the letter [7].)
As we’ve reported, Corexit was also used after the Exxon Valdez disaster [8] and was later linked with human health problems including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders. One of the two Corexit products also contains a compound that, in high doses, is associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems [9].
Given that the dispersants are EPA-approved, the choice of which ones to use was left to BP, which had stockpiled large amounts of Corexit and is now ordering more.
BP has defended its choice to use Corexit. A BP spokesman called the product [5] “pretty effective,” and said it had been “rigorously tested.” It is not testing other dispersants, he said, [5] because it’s focusing on stopping the spill. Mani Ramesh, the chief technology officer for Nalco, which makes Corexit, disputed claims that the product is harmful to the environment [10], telling Reuters that Corexit’s active ingredient is “an emulsifier also found in ice cream.”
Dispersants like Corexit break up oil into droplets that linger longer in the water instead of collecting at the surface. The choice to use them is inherently an environmental tradeoff. Their use in the Gulf spill has limited the instances—and images—of oil-covered seabirds, but has kept the effects of the spill mostly underwater. Scientists have discovered giant plumes of dispersed oil [11] in the deep waters of the Gulf, though the EPA has said “there is no information currently available [12]” to link the dispersants to those deep-sea plumes. The plumes are now fast approaching the Gulf loop current [13], which could spread the oil into the Atlantic Ocean.
In a hearing this afternoon, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works that the EPA is working with BP to get less toxic dispersants [14] to the site as quickly as possible, according to Kate Sheppard of Mother Jones.
The EPA, while recognizing that long-term effects on the environment are unknown [15], has said that the federal government will regularly analyze [16] the effect of dispersants, and that it will discontinue the application of dispersants underwater [17] “if any negative impacts on the environment outweigh the benefits.”
===
.
Last edited:
Tom McDowell
BAMN
Tom McDowell
BAMN
VIA TOL
EPA demands less-toxic dispersant
UPDATED at noon with comment from BP's Steve Rinehart.
http://views.washingtonpost.com/cli...010/05/epa_demands_less_toxic_dispersant.html
By Juliet Eilperin
May 20, 2010; 12:02 PM ET
The Environmental Protection Agency informed BP officials late Wednesday that the company has 24 hours to choose a less-toxic form of chemical dispersants to break up its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to government sources familiar with the decision, and must apply the new form of dispersants within 72 hours of submitting the list of alternatives.
The move is significant, because it suggests federal officials are now concerned that the unprecedented use of chemical dispersants could pose a significant threat to the Gulf of Mexico's marine life. BP has been using two forms of dispersants, Corexit 9500A and Corexit 9527A, and so far has applied 600,000 gallons on the surface and 55,000 underwater.
"Dispersants have never been used in this volume before," said an administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision hasn't been formally announced. "This is a large amount of dispersants being used, larger amounts than have ever been used, on a pipe that continues to leak oil and that BP is still trying to cap."
The new policy applies to both surface and undersea application, according to sources, and comes as the EPA has just posted BP's own results from monitoring the effect that underwater application of chemical dispersants has had in terms of toxicity, dissolved oxygen and effectiveness.
An EPA official said the agency would make an announcement on the matter later Thursday.
BP spokesman Steve Rinehart wrote in an e-mail that company officials "are conducting ongoing assessment of alternative or supplemental dispersant products" and "we'll only use approved products; any dispersant that will be used going forward will be subject to government review and approval."
"Corexit was readily available in the quantities required by the spill response plan which was pre-approved by the government for use in spill response," he added. "It has been very effective in causing the oil to form into small, isolated droplets that remain suspended until they're either eaten by naturally occurring microbes, evaporate, are picked up, or dissolve."
After BP conducted three rounds of testing, federal officials approved the use of underwater dispersants late last week, but environmentalists and some lawmakers have questioned the potential dangers of such a strategy.
On Monday, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson questioning the approach, given that Britain banned some formulations of the dispersant Corexit more than a decade ago.
In the letter, Markey warned, "The release of hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemicals into the Gulf of Mexico could be an unprecedented, large and aggressive experiment on our oceans, and requires careful oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other appropriate federal agencies."
The EPA has a list of its approved dispersants on its Web site.
On Thursday, Markey commended the EPA, saying, "The effect of long-term use of dispersants on the marine ecosystem has not been extensively studied, and we need to act with the utmost of caution."
===
.
EPA demands less-toxic dispersant
UPDATED at noon with comment from BP's Steve Rinehart.
http://views.washingtonpost.com/cli...010/05/epa_demands_less_toxic_dispersant.html
By Juliet Eilperin
May 20, 2010; 12:02 PM ET
The Environmental Protection Agency informed BP officials late Wednesday that the company has 24 hours to choose a less-toxic form of chemical dispersants to break up its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to government sources familiar with the decision, and must apply the new form of dispersants within 72 hours of submitting the list of alternatives.
The move is significant, because it suggests federal officials are now concerned that the unprecedented use of chemical dispersants could pose a significant threat to the Gulf of Mexico's marine life. BP has been using two forms of dispersants, Corexit 9500A and Corexit 9527A, and so far has applied 600,000 gallons on the surface and 55,000 underwater.
"Dispersants have never been used in this volume before," said an administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision hasn't been formally announced. "This is a large amount of dispersants being used, larger amounts than have ever been used, on a pipe that continues to leak oil and that BP is still trying to cap."
The new policy applies to both surface and undersea application, according to sources, and comes as the EPA has just posted BP's own results from monitoring the effect that underwater application of chemical dispersants has had in terms of toxicity, dissolved oxygen and effectiveness.
An EPA official said the agency would make an announcement on the matter later Thursday.
BP spokesman Steve Rinehart wrote in an e-mail that company officials "are conducting ongoing assessment of alternative or supplemental dispersant products" and "we'll only use approved products; any dispersant that will be used going forward will be subject to government review and approval."
"Corexit was readily available in the quantities required by the spill response plan which was pre-approved by the government for use in spill response," he added. "It has been very effective in causing the oil to form into small, isolated droplets that remain suspended until they're either eaten by naturally occurring microbes, evaporate, are picked up, or dissolve."
After BP conducted three rounds of testing, federal officials approved the use of underwater dispersants late last week, but environmentalists and some lawmakers have questioned the potential dangers of such a strategy.
On Monday, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson questioning the approach, given that Britain banned some formulations of the dispersant Corexit more than a decade ago.
In the letter, Markey warned, "The release of hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemicals into the Gulf of Mexico could be an unprecedented, large and aggressive experiment on our oceans, and requires careful oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other appropriate federal agencies."
The EPA has a list of its approved dispersants on its Web site.
On Thursday, Markey commended the EPA, saying, "The effect of long-term use of dispersants on the marine ecosystem has not been extensively studied, and we need to act with the utmost of caution."
===
.
Tom McDowell
BAMN
BP Live camera Webcam Streams
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream2&hpt=T2
and
http://globalwarming.house.gov/spillcam
===
.
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream2&hpt=T2
and
http://globalwarming.house.gov/spillcam
===
.
onelove
Contributing Member
I believe I read somewhere that the indians called oil the blood of the earth...
Tom McDowell
BAMN
How much is leaking?
From the Oil Drum:
shelburn on May 20, 2010 - 4:10pm
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6489#comment-626528
A POSSIBLE HISTORY OF THE LEAK:
The original survey, performed shortly after the rig sunk, did not locate any oil leaking – at that time.
Comments have been made that the bottom was obscured with mud and that is quite possible, the rig and riser reaching bottom would have stirred up a lot of the very soft mud.
But ROVs don’t depend on video for locating oil leaks, they use sector scan sonar which is standard equipment on any work class oilfield ROV. Even a small oil leak will show up like fireworks on a sonar screen, even if the optical visibility is zero.
I think it is a reasonable assumption that there was an initially a very small area of leakage, literally a pinhole, most likely inside the BOP. It is also possible that the kink in the riser, and presumably a kinked or broken piece of drill pipe inside the riser, was holding back some or most of the flow.
The 21 inch riser has enough volume to hold about 2,000 barrels of oil so a slow leak would take quite a bit of time to fill it, as much as 2 days if you assumed an initial 1,000 bpd leak rate.
Some hours and days after that initial survey other inspections started locating oil flowing from three places.
1 - A video of a small oil flow from the end of a drill pipe got extensive media coverage. This was the smallest leak and was capped in a few days.
2 - A much larger flow was located at the broken end of the 21 inch riser. That outflow is about 600 feet from the BOP but the oil travels through about 4,000 to 5,000 feet of riser to get there. The riser is kinked a couple feet above the BOP and then descends to the seabed for a distance before rising off the seabed in a long loop. Originally the top of that loop was 1,200 feet above the sea bed and has gradually descended. Several days ago it was reported to be 300 feet above the bottom. I don’t know where it is now. After the loop the riser leads back towards the BOP until it reaches the broken end which was partially buried in the mud.
3 – A small leak under some pressure was observed where the riser was kinked at the BOP. An early and poor quality still photos does not seem to show any leakage while videos released in the last few days show a very substantial flow from several leak points, some with pressure behind them.
Any place there is a reduction causing high velocity flow you will have erosion. The speed of that erosion depends of a number of factors. The primary factors are velocity (which is generated by the pressure differential), the material being eroded and any entrained solids like sand in the flow. Other factors can also contribute such as temperature, the corrosive value of the flow, etc. In this case there is almost certainly some amount of sand in the flow which would act just like a sand blaster.
A small orifice will erode more quickly that a large one as more of the flow comes in direct contact with the material, but as long as the stream is running the erosion will continue and the leak area will keep growing.
It is therefore logical that the leak would start small, grow rapidly and over time the growth rate would slow down as the pressure differential and the velocity slow.
The leak at the kink has continued to erode and it has certainly gotten larger. A week or two ago the ratio between the two leaks was described as 85% out of the riser end and 15% at the kink. As time goes on that ratio has been changing so the kink will continue to leak a larger portion of the total oil and gas.
In summary, the leak started small and grew as the leak point(s) eroded. It will continue to grow until it reaches an equilibrium with the amount of oil and gas the formation is capable of producing. I doubt that equilibrium will be reached for many months as there still seems to be a substantial pressure differential between the pressure below the BOP and above the BOP. The last information I saw was several days ago but it seemed that the pressure differential was about 6,000 psi.
THE VOLUME OF FLOW
From day one I have been intensely curious about what BP would say about the flow rate, so I have specifically looked for BP to make a statement. I have never seen anything where BP actually stated any flow rate or range of flow rates. Every statement I have seen, often attributed to BP by the media, has actually traced back to a statement by the USCG, NOAA, or other government agency making estimates based on the spill size.
The only thing BP has said, as far as I can find, is a couple days after the 5,000 bpd announcement, when pressed, a BP spokesman basically said "that number is as good as any other". They have also reacted to media statements that the flow rate is 70,000 or more bpd as being inaccurate.
In Congressional testimony BP mentioned a maximum rate of 60,000 bpd but I believe the phrasing of the question (conveniently eliminated by most of the media) was what was the theoretical absolute maximum rate of flow if the well was totally unrestricted - no BOP, no downhole obstructions, etc. I think in later testimony they reduced that to a maximum of 55,000 bpd.
Historically the largest completely open well gushers have all maxed out at about 100,000 bpd and usually dropped off within a few days. The Lakeview gusher (California 1910) was estimated to reach 100,000 bpd, ran unchecked for 18 months, but over that time "only" averaged between 15,000 and 20,000 bpd.
Gulf of Mexico wells have never been capable of delivering the flow rates of the largest onshore wells in the Middle East, Texas or California. The maximum perforated and controlled flow rates have been about 40,000 bpd so it kind of requires a suspension of reality when people outside the industry start talking about flow rates of 70,000 to 100,000 bpd (and higher) through a well that does have restrictions. Even if the well was totally unrestricted, ie: no pressure reduction in the BOP, it is unlikely the well is physically capable of producing over 60,000 bpd.
From the above I doubt that the flow is much above 30,000 bpd, maybe up to 40,000 bpd.
At the same time I think it has been over 5,000 bpd and growing since at least the end of April. The videos shown in the last hour would seem to absolutely confirm this. There is still a substantial flow at the riser where BP says they are recovering 5,000 bpd - plus the leak at the kink.
A low range would seem to be in the area of 10,000 to 15,000 bpd.
My best guesstimate – more than 10,000 bpd; less than 40,000 bpd.
The accuracy of estimates of blowouts has always been problematic. Even in blowouts that have been extensively studied after the fact the minimum and maximum reasonable estimates seems to be about 50% and 200% of the median.
Trying to get an accurate volume from a short piece of video is also full of problems. To me, the statement that it is within 20% shows that the scientist involved does not fully appreciate these problems.
I am not a piping or process engineer and my fluid dynamics education was decades ago but I would love to know if he considered some of the following:
- He did state that this is mixed phase flow and that he had worked with that before but was his science based on flow at 2,250 psi ambient? I know that gases can have substantial changes in properties when under pressure and some liquids also.
- A portion of the gas is probably going into phase change as it combines with the seawater which might increase its real or apparent volume and velocity.
- Did he adjust for the optical distortion of the wide angle lens used by the ROV? As objects move out from the center of the lens they elongate, or if in motion seems to accelerate. If you are doing a pixel based measurement you would need to know the lens distortion and adjust for it. If he was measuring off center someplace where the elongation 1s 25% then that would already be outside his stated error range if he did not adjust for it. The human eye seems to adapt for surprisingly large variations in optic distortions unless a grid is overlaid on the picture.
- Other videos from the opposite side of the riser leak show a piece of dill pipe bent at about 90 degrees partially blocking the bottom of the riser. Not only does this reduce the flow area in the bottom half of the riser but also is positioned so it appears that it diverts the flow towards the side that he used to measure particle velocity. That diversion could accelerate the velocity which seems to be the entire basis of his calculation.
- As subsequent 5 minute videos show the flow is not a steady state but seems to vary, especially the gas flow. If you consider the length and layout of the riser this make sense as the riser acts a bit like a separator (note the gas separation and also the lack of separated gas at the kink) and as it has high places there is a real potential for gas to collect and cause the flow to vary even if it was entering the riser at a steady flow. Longer segments of video, as now available, would be more accurate.
I do believe BP knows much more than they are telling about what the flow rate actually is. There are some real solid technical reasons they need that information.
In designing for the top kill and/or junk shot it is really vital to the decision making. In fact, the approach they are now taking of trying the top kill before the junk shot could be a clue that the flow rate is not as great as they originally thought (we have no idea what their original estimate was) as they have to be able to pump the mud against that flow.
And I think they would be much better off if they had been open and communicated more information from the beginning. The impression that they are hiding information will persist long after the well is killed and (most of) the spill is cleaned up.
===
BP is claiming 5,000bpd collected from the riser. This amount is after pumping to surface, separating natural gas and seawater. 5,000 bpd of oil recovered from the one leak.
From the above statement from the member of the Oil Drum Forum, we can also deduce the leak at the top of the BOP is growing.
It would appear the 10 to 40,000 bpd (420,000 - 1,680,000 gallons per day) figure of leakage is as good of an educated guess as any. Especially since they are recovering 5,000 bpd a day from the leak from the riser laying on the ocean floor.
===
.
.
From the Oil Drum:
shelburn on May 20, 2010 - 4:10pm
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6489#comment-626528
A POSSIBLE HISTORY OF THE LEAK:
The original survey, performed shortly after the rig sunk, did not locate any oil leaking – at that time.
Comments have been made that the bottom was obscured with mud and that is quite possible, the rig and riser reaching bottom would have stirred up a lot of the very soft mud.
But ROVs don’t depend on video for locating oil leaks, they use sector scan sonar which is standard equipment on any work class oilfield ROV. Even a small oil leak will show up like fireworks on a sonar screen, even if the optical visibility is zero.
I think it is a reasonable assumption that there was an initially a very small area of leakage, literally a pinhole, most likely inside the BOP. It is also possible that the kink in the riser, and presumably a kinked or broken piece of drill pipe inside the riser, was holding back some or most of the flow.
The 21 inch riser has enough volume to hold about 2,000 barrels of oil so a slow leak would take quite a bit of time to fill it, as much as 2 days if you assumed an initial 1,000 bpd leak rate.
Some hours and days after that initial survey other inspections started locating oil flowing from three places.
1 - A video of a small oil flow from the end of a drill pipe got extensive media coverage. This was the smallest leak and was capped in a few days.
2 - A much larger flow was located at the broken end of the 21 inch riser. That outflow is about 600 feet from the BOP but the oil travels through about 4,000 to 5,000 feet of riser to get there. The riser is kinked a couple feet above the BOP and then descends to the seabed for a distance before rising off the seabed in a long loop. Originally the top of that loop was 1,200 feet above the sea bed and has gradually descended. Several days ago it was reported to be 300 feet above the bottom. I don’t know where it is now. After the loop the riser leads back towards the BOP until it reaches the broken end which was partially buried in the mud.
3 – A small leak under some pressure was observed where the riser was kinked at the BOP. An early and poor quality still photos does not seem to show any leakage while videos released in the last few days show a very substantial flow from several leak points, some with pressure behind them.
Any place there is a reduction causing high velocity flow you will have erosion. The speed of that erosion depends of a number of factors. The primary factors are velocity (which is generated by the pressure differential), the material being eroded and any entrained solids like sand in the flow. Other factors can also contribute such as temperature, the corrosive value of the flow, etc. In this case there is almost certainly some amount of sand in the flow which would act just like a sand blaster.
A small orifice will erode more quickly that a large one as more of the flow comes in direct contact with the material, but as long as the stream is running the erosion will continue and the leak area will keep growing.
It is therefore logical that the leak would start small, grow rapidly and over time the growth rate would slow down as the pressure differential and the velocity slow.
The leak at the kink has continued to erode and it has certainly gotten larger. A week or two ago the ratio between the two leaks was described as 85% out of the riser end and 15% at the kink. As time goes on that ratio has been changing so the kink will continue to leak a larger portion of the total oil and gas.
In summary, the leak started small and grew as the leak point(s) eroded. It will continue to grow until it reaches an equilibrium with the amount of oil and gas the formation is capable of producing. I doubt that equilibrium will be reached for many months as there still seems to be a substantial pressure differential between the pressure below the BOP and above the BOP. The last information I saw was several days ago but it seemed that the pressure differential was about 6,000 psi.
THE VOLUME OF FLOW
From day one I have been intensely curious about what BP would say about the flow rate, so I have specifically looked for BP to make a statement. I have never seen anything where BP actually stated any flow rate or range of flow rates. Every statement I have seen, often attributed to BP by the media, has actually traced back to a statement by the USCG, NOAA, or other government agency making estimates based on the spill size.
The only thing BP has said, as far as I can find, is a couple days after the 5,000 bpd announcement, when pressed, a BP spokesman basically said "that number is as good as any other". They have also reacted to media statements that the flow rate is 70,000 or more bpd as being inaccurate.
In Congressional testimony BP mentioned a maximum rate of 60,000 bpd but I believe the phrasing of the question (conveniently eliminated by most of the media) was what was the theoretical absolute maximum rate of flow if the well was totally unrestricted - no BOP, no downhole obstructions, etc. I think in later testimony they reduced that to a maximum of 55,000 bpd.
Historically the largest completely open well gushers have all maxed out at about 100,000 bpd and usually dropped off within a few days. The Lakeview gusher (California 1910) was estimated to reach 100,000 bpd, ran unchecked for 18 months, but over that time "only" averaged between 15,000 and 20,000 bpd.
Gulf of Mexico wells have never been capable of delivering the flow rates of the largest onshore wells in the Middle East, Texas or California. The maximum perforated and controlled flow rates have been about 40,000 bpd so it kind of requires a suspension of reality when people outside the industry start talking about flow rates of 70,000 to 100,000 bpd (and higher) through a well that does have restrictions. Even if the well was totally unrestricted, ie: no pressure reduction in the BOP, it is unlikely the well is physically capable of producing over 60,000 bpd.
From the above I doubt that the flow is much above 30,000 bpd, maybe up to 40,000 bpd.
At the same time I think it has been over 5,000 bpd and growing since at least the end of April. The videos shown in the last hour would seem to absolutely confirm this. There is still a substantial flow at the riser where BP says they are recovering 5,000 bpd - plus the leak at the kink.
A low range would seem to be in the area of 10,000 to 15,000 bpd.
My best guesstimate – more than 10,000 bpd; less than 40,000 bpd.
The accuracy of estimates of blowouts has always been problematic. Even in blowouts that have been extensively studied after the fact the minimum and maximum reasonable estimates seems to be about 50% and 200% of the median.
Trying to get an accurate volume from a short piece of video is also full of problems. To me, the statement that it is within 20% shows that the scientist involved does not fully appreciate these problems.
I am not a piping or process engineer and my fluid dynamics education was decades ago but I would love to know if he considered some of the following:
- He did state that this is mixed phase flow and that he had worked with that before but was his science based on flow at 2,250 psi ambient? I know that gases can have substantial changes in properties when under pressure and some liquids also.
- A portion of the gas is probably going into phase change as it combines with the seawater which might increase its real or apparent volume and velocity.
- Did he adjust for the optical distortion of the wide angle lens used by the ROV? As objects move out from the center of the lens they elongate, or if in motion seems to accelerate. If you are doing a pixel based measurement you would need to know the lens distortion and adjust for it. If he was measuring off center someplace where the elongation 1s 25% then that would already be outside his stated error range if he did not adjust for it. The human eye seems to adapt for surprisingly large variations in optic distortions unless a grid is overlaid on the picture.
- Other videos from the opposite side of the riser leak show a piece of dill pipe bent at about 90 degrees partially blocking the bottom of the riser. Not only does this reduce the flow area in the bottom half of the riser but also is positioned so it appears that it diverts the flow towards the side that he used to measure particle velocity. That diversion could accelerate the velocity which seems to be the entire basis of his calculation.
- As subsequent 5 minute videos show the flow is not a steady state but seems to vary, especially the gas flow. If you consider the length and layout of the riser this make sense as the riser acts a bit like a separator (note the gas separation and also the lack of separated gas at the kink) and as it has high places there is a real potential for gas to collect and cause the flow to vary even if it was entering the riser at a steady flow. Longer segments of video, as now available, would be more accurate.
I do believe BP knows much more than they are telling about what the flow rate actually is. There are some real solid technical reasons they need that information.
In designing for the top kill and/or junk shot it is really vital to the decision making. In fact, the approach they are now taking of trying the top kill before the junk shot could be a clue that the flow rate is not as great as they originally thought (we have no idea what their original estimate was) as they have to be able to pump the mud against that flow.
And I think they would be much better off if they had been open and communicated more information from the beginning. The impression that they are hiding information will persist long after the well is killed and (most of) the spill is cleaned up.
===
BP is claiming 5,000bpd collected from the riser. This amount is after pumping to surface, separating natural gas and seawater. 5,000 bpd of oil recovered from the one leak.
From the above statement from the member of the Oil Drum Forum, we can also deduce the leak at the top of the BOP is growing.
It would appear the 10 to 40,000 bpd (420,000 - 1,680,000 gallons per day) figure of leakage is as good of an educated guess as any. Especially since they are recovering 5,000 bpd a day from the leak from the riser laying on the ocean floor.
===
.
.
Monkeywrench
Land Owner
Perhaps at the new great depths they are drilling they are tapping into the actual "river" of oil that is in the mantle?
We also have this to worry about-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, methane ice or "fire ice" is a solid clathrate compound (more specifically, a clathrate hydrate) in which a large amount of methane is trapped within a crystal structure of water, forming a solid similar to ice.[1] Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System where temperatures are low and water ice is common, significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth.[2]
The sudden release of large amounts of natural gas from methane clathrate deposits in runaway climate change could be a cause of past, future, and present climate changes. The release of this trapped methane is a potential major outcome of a rise in temperature; it is thought that this is a main factor in the global warming of 6°C that happened during the end-Permian extinction,[8] as methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (despite its atmospheric lifetime of around 12 years, it has a global warming potential of 62 over 20 years and 23 over 100 years). The theory also predicts this will greatly affect available oxygen content of the atmosphere.
Focusing on the Permian-Triassic boundary, Gregory Ryskin explores the possibility that mass extinction can be caused by an extremely fast, explosive release of dissolved methane (and other dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide) that accumulated in the oceanic water masses prone to stagnation and anoxia (e.g., in silled basins).
According to Gregory Ryskin, a sudden release of methane from the ocean may lead to either global cooling or global warming. The explosions and burning of methane would produce lots of smoke and dust, which would lead to global cooling. The methane and carbon dioxide would "create the greenhouse effect, which may lead to global warming". Professor Ryskin writes that it is "difficult to predict" whether global cooling or warming would result.
The evolution of dust and smoke, if it caused global cooling, would likely only last a short time before the particulates washed out of the atmosphere. Then the raised levels of methane and the derivative carbon dioxide would take over. The likely result would be an alternating series of extra cold and extra warm years, arguably more devastating to crop production than a trend in one direction or the other.
It may be possible to explain past marine extinctions by the scrubbing effect. If an inert gas is bubbled through water, the surface of each bubble acts as a semi permeable membrane. Gases diffuse across this membrane according to their concentration inside and outside the bubble. The result of bubbling methane through the ocean is to deplete the oxygen dissolved in the water, leading to ocean anoxia.
The consequences of a methane-driven oceanic eruption for marine and terrestrial life are likely to be catastrophic. Figuratively speaking, the erupting region "boils over," ejecting a large amount of methane and other gases (e.g., CO2, H2S) into the atmosphere, and flooding large areas of land. Whereas pure methane is lighter than air, methane loaded with water droplets is much heavier, and thus spreads over the land, mixing with air in the process (and losing water as rain). The air-methane mixture is explosive at methane concentrations between 5% and 15%; as such mixtures form in different locations near the ground and are ignited by lightning, explosions and conflagrations destroy most of the terrestrial life, and also produce great amounts of smoke and of carbon dioxide. Firestorms carry smoke and dust into the upper atmosphere, where they may remain for several years; the resulting darkness and global cooling may provide an additional kill mechanism. Conversely, carbon dioxide and the remaining methane create the greenhouse effect, which may lead to global warming. The outcome of the competition between the cooling and the warming tendencies is difficult to predict
Effect of hydrate phase transition during deep water drilling
When drilling in oil and gas-bearing formations submerged in deep water, the reservoir gas may flow into the well bore and form gas hydrates due to the low temperatures and high pressures found during deep water drilling. The gas hydrates may then flow upward with drilling mud or other discharged fluids. As they rise, the pressure in the drill string decreases and the hydrates dissociate into gas and water. The rapid gas expansion ejects fluid from the well, reducing the pressure further, which leads to more hydrate dissociation and further fluid ejection. The resulting violent expulsion of fluid from the drill string is referred to as a "kick".[28]
Measures which reduce the risk of hydrate formation include:
· High flow-rates in the drill string, which limit the time for hydrate formation in a volume of fluid, thereby reducing the kick potential.[28]
· Careful measuring of line flow to detect incipient hydrate plugging.[28]
· Additional care in measuring when gas production rates are low, and the possibility of hydrate formation is higher than at relatively high gas flow rates.[28]
· Monitoring of well casing after it is "shut in" (isolated) will indicate hydrate formation. Following "shut in", the pressure rises as gas diffuses through the reservoir to the bore hole; the rate of pressure rise will exhibit a reduced rate of increase when hydrates are forming.[28]
· Additions of energy (e.g., the energy released by setting cement used in well completion) can raise the temperature and convert hydrates to gas, producing a "kick".
An uncontrolled "kick" can lead to a blow out.
At sufficient depths, methane complexes directly with water to form methane hydrates, as was observed during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010.
BP engineers developed and deployed a subsea oil recovery system over oil spilling from a deepwater oil well 5,000 feet (1,500 m) below sea level to capture escaping oil. This involved placing a 125-tonne (280,000 lb) dome over the largest of the well leaks and piping it to a storage vessel on the surface.[29] This option had the potential to collect as much as 85% of the leaking oil but is previously untested at such depths.[29] BP deployed the system on May 7-8, when it failed due to buildup of methane clathrate inside the dome; with its low density of ~ 0.9gm/cm3 the methane hydrates accumulated in the dome, adding buoyancy and obstructing flow. A smaller, more massive dome is being prepared for a second attempt; the reduced size may limit the opportunity for methane escaping from the well to complex with water and form methane hydrate. Should this be successful, engineers will still have to contend with the volumetric expansion of the methane (an increase of 140 in gaseous methane volume) as it rises to the surface.[30]
We also have this to worry about-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, methane ice or "fire ice" is a solid clathrate compound (more specifically, a clathrate hydrate) in which a large amount of methane is trapped within a crystal structure of water, forming a solid similar to ice.[1] Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System where temperatures are low and water ice is common, significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth.[2]
The sudden release of large amounts of natural gas from methane clathrate deposits in runaway climate change could be a cause of past, future, and present climate changes. The release of this trapped methane is a potential major outcome of a rise in temperature; it is thought that this is a main factor in the global warming of 6°C that happened during the end-Permian extinction,[8] as methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (despite its atmospheric lifetime of around 12 years, it has a global warming potential of 62 over 20 years and 23 over 100 years). The theory also predicts this will greatly affect available oxygen content of the atmosphere.
Focusing on the Permian-Triassic boundary, Gregory Ryskin explores the possibility that mass extinction can be caused by an extremely fast, explosive release of dissolved methane (and other dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide) that accumulated in the oceanic water masses prone to stagnation and anoxia (e.g., in silled basins).
According to Gregory Ryskin, a sudden release of methane from the ocean may lead to either global cooling or global warming. The explosions and burning of methane would produce lots of smoke and dust, which would lead to global cooling. The methane and carbon dioxide would "create the greenhouse effect, which may lead to global warming". Professor Ryskin writes that it is "difficult to predict" whether global cooling or warming would result.
The evolution of dust and smoke, if it caused global cooling, would likely only last a short time before the particulates washed out of the atmosphere. Then the raised levels of methane and the derivative carbon dioxide would take over. The likely result would be an alternating series of extra cold and extra warm years, arguably more devastating to crop production than a trend in one direction or the other.
It may be possible to explain past marine extinctions by the scrubbing effect. If an inert gas is bubbled through water, the surface of each bubble acts as a semi permeable membrane. Gases diffuse across this membrane according to their concentration inside and outside the bubble. The result of bubbling methane through the ocean is to deplete the oxygen dissolved in the water, leading to ocean anoxia.
The consequences of a methane-driven oceanic eruption for marine and terrestrial life are likely to be catastrophic. Figuratively speaking, the erupting region "boils over," ejecting a large amount of methane and other gases (e.g., CO2, H2S) into the atmosphere, and flooding large areas of land. Whereas pure methane is lighter than air, methane loaded with water droplets is much heavier, and thus spreads over the land, mixing with air in the process (and losing water as rain). The air-methane mixture is explosive at methane concentrations between 5% and 15%; as such mixtures form in different locations near the ground and are ignited by lightning, explosions and conflagrations destroy most of the terrestrial life, and also produce great amounts of smoke and of carbon dioxide. Firestorms carry smoke and dust into the upper atmosphere, where they may remain for several years; the resulting darkness and global cooling may provide an additional kill mechanism. Conversely, carbon dioxide and the remaining methane create the greenhouse effect, which may lead to global warming. The outcome of the competition between the cooling and the warming tendencies is difficult to predict
Effect of hydrate phase transition during deep water drilling
When drilling in oil and gas-bearing formations submerged in deep water, the reservoir gas may flow into the well bore and form gas hydrates due to the low temperatures and high pressures found during deep water drilling. The gas hydrates may then flow upward with drilling mud or other discharged fluids. As they rise, the pressure in the drill string decreases and the hydrates dissociate into gas and water. The rapid gas expansion ejects fluid from the well, reducing the pressure further, which leads to more hydrate dissociation and further fluid ejection. The resulting violent expulsion of fluid from the drill string is referred to as a "kick".[28]
Measures which reduce the risk of hydrate formation include:
· High flow-rates in the drill string, which limit the time for hydrate formation in a volume of fluid, thereby reducing the kick potential.[28]
· Careful measuring of line flow to detect incipient hydrate plugging.[28]
· Additional care in measuring when gas production rates are low, and the possibility of hydrate formation is higher than at relatively high gas flow rates.[28]
· Monitoring of well casing after it is "shut in" (isolated) will indicate hydrate formation. Following "shut in", the pressure rises as gas diffuses through the reservoir to the bore hole; the rate of pressure rise will exhibit a reduced rate of increase when hydrates are forming.[28]
· Additions of energy (e.g., the energy released by setting cement used in well completion) can raise the temperature and convert hydrates to gas, producing a "kick".
An uncontrolled "kick" can lead to a blow out.
At sufficient depths, methane complexes directly with water to form methane hydrates, as was observed during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010.
BP engineers developed and deployed a subsea oil recovery system over oil spilling from a deepwater oil well 5,000 feet (1,500 m) below sea level to capture escaping oil. This involved placing a 125-tonne (280,000 lb) dome over the largest of the well leaks and piping it to a storage vessel on the surface.[29] This option had the potential to collect as much as 85% of the leaking oil but is previously untested at such depths.[29] BP deployed the system on May 7-8, when it failed due to buildup of methane clathrate inside the dome; with its low density of ~ 0.9gm/cm3 the methane hydrates accumulated in the dome, adding buoyancy and obstructing flow. A smaller, more massive dome is being prepared for a second attempt; the reduced size may limit the opportunity for methane escaping from the well to complex with water and form methane hydrate. Should this be successful, engineers will still have to contend with the volumetric expansion of the methane (an increase of 140 in gaseous methane volume) as it rises to the surface.[30]
Monkeywrench
Land Owner
The Permian–Triassic (P–Tr) extinction event
informally known as the Great Dying was an extinction event that occurred 251.4 million years ago,[2][3] forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods. It was the Earth's most severe extinction event, with up to 96 percent of all marine species[4] and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct; it is the only known mass extinction of insects.[5][6] Fifty-seven percent of all families and 83% of all genera were killed. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on earth took significantly longer than after other extinction events.[4] This event has been described as the "mother of all mass extinctions".[7]
Nearly all of the continental shelf waters would have had to become severely hypoxic to account for the magnitude of the extinction, but such a catastrophe would make it difficult to explain the very selective pattern of the extinction. Models of the Late Permian and Early Triassic atmospheres show a significant but protracted decline in atmospheric oxygen levels, with no acceleration near the P-Tr boundary. Minimum atmospheric oxygen levels in the Early Triassic are never less than present day levels - the decline in oxygen levels does not match the temporal pattern of the extinction.[54]
The observed pattern of marine extinctions is also consistent with hypercapnia (excessive levels of carbon dioxide). Carbon dioxide (CO2) is actively toxic at above-normal concentrations, as it reduces the ability of respiratory pigments to oxygenate tissues, and makes body fluids more acidic, thereby hampering the production of carbonate hard parts like shells. At high concentrations, carbon dioxide causes narcosis (intoxication). In addition to these direct effects, CO2 reduces the concentration of carbonates in water by "crowding them out", which further increases the difficulty of producing carbonate hard parts.
Marine organisms are more sensitive to changes in CO2 levels than are terrestrial organisms for a variety of reasons. CO2 is 28 times more soluble in water than is oxygen. Marine animals normally function with lower concentrations of CO2 in their bodies than land animals, as the removal of CO2 in air-breathing animals is impeded by the need for the gas to pass through the respiratory systems membranes (lungs, tracheae, and the like). In marine organisms, relatively modest but sustained increases in CO2 concentrations hamper the synthesis of proteins, reduce fertilization rates, and produce deformities in calcareous hard parts.[54] In addition, an increase in CO2 concentration leads to ocean acidification, consistent with the preferential extinction of heavily calcified taxa and signals in the rock record that suggest a more acidic ocean.[55]
Methane hydrate gasification
Scientists have found worldwide evidence of a swift decrease of about 10 ‰ (parts per thousand) in the 13C/12C isotope ratio in carbonate rocks from the end-Permian (δ13Ccarbonate of -10 ‰).[43][94] This is the first, largest and most rapid of a series of negative and positive excursions (decreases and increases in 13C/12C ratio) that continues until the isotope ratio abruptly stabilises in the middle Triassic, followed soon afterwards by the recovery of calcifying life forms (organisms that use calcium carbonate to build hard parts such as shells).[11]
Methane clathrates, also known as methane hydrates, consist of methane molecules trapped in cages of water molecules. The methane is produced by methanogens (microscopic single-celled organisms) and has a 13C/12C ratio about 60 ‰ below normal (δ13C -60 ‰). At the right combination of pressure and temperature it gets trapped in clathrates fairly close to the surface of permafrost and in much larger quantities at continental margins (continental shelves and the deeper seabed close to them). Oceanic methane hydrates are usually found buried in sediments where the seawater is at least 300 meters (984 ft) deep. They can be found up to about 2,000 meters (6,562 ft) below the sea floor, but usually only about 1,100 meters (3,609 ft) below the sea floor.[99]
The area covered by lava from the Siberian Traps eruptions is about twice as large as was originally thought, and most of the additional area was shallow sea at the time. It is very likely that the seabed contained methane hydrate deposits and that the lava caused the deposits to dissociate, releasing vast quantities of methane.[100]
One would expect a vast release of methane to cause significant global warming, since methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. A "methane burp" could have released 10,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent - twice as much as in all the fossil fuels on Earth.[36] There is strong evidence that global temperatures increased by about 6 °C (10.8 °F) near the equator and therefore by more at higher latitudes: a sharp decrease in oxygen isotope ratios (18O/16O);[101] the extinction of Glossopteris flora (Glossopteris and plants which grew in the same areas), which needed a cold climate, and its replacement by floras typical of lower paleolatitudes.[10][102]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event
Methane Explosion
At the ocean floor lies a sleeping monster, one that millions of years ago devastated the Earth, causing a mass-extinction, and today could be released again. It is silent, invisible and deadly, and contains double the energy of the entire world's fossil fuels combined. It is the frozen methane reserves at the bottom of the sea; capable of causing massive rises in global temperatures and igniting the atmosphere.
Has frozen methane ever been released before?
55 million years ago, 20% of the world's frozen methane reserves melted. This sparked cataclysmic changes in the atmosphere: global temperatures rose by 13 degrees Fahrenheit, melting the ice caps and forcing many species to extinction. 80% of all deep-sea creatures became extinct, and there were severe consequences for land animals. If vast amounts of methane were released, the highly explosive gas would be ignited by lightning, scorching huge area in a fiery hell-on-earth.
What is methane?
Methane is an extremely flammable and explosive gas. At the bottom of the ocean it is found in a form called 'methane hydrate', when the particles are locked in a lattice with water. When this melts, it releases methane gas with 160 times this volume. Methane hydrate is found deep in the oceans, more than 350m down. It is estimated that there is more than 200,000 trillion cubic feet of this gas at the bottom of the ocean; 80,000 times conventional natural gas reserves.
How is it released?
Small bursts of methane hydrate can be released by sudden events that break the lattice, such as landslides and earthquakes on the ocean floor. This releases a large amount of methane from the local area. This has been suggested as a possible explanation for the Bermuda Triangle - an area of ocean in the South Atlantic where dozens of ships and planes have disappeared without trace. The theory goes that landslides release the methane, which explodes on contact with, for example, a plane's engines. This shows how dangerous even small bursts can be.
It would take a bigger event than an earthquake or landslide to start releasing vast quantities of methane hydrate. The current fear is that global warming would increase the ocean temperature to the point where frozen methane starts to melt all over the world.
What would be the effects if the gas was released?
If a large proportion of the gas were released the effects would be devastating. If hundreds of thousands of trillions of tons were released into the atmosphere, the rate global warming would skyrocket. Methane is 20 times more powerful a gas at raising global temperatures than carbon dioxide, so a release of a vast quantity of gas would cause huge temperature rises around the world. If temperatures rose by the 13 degrees Fahrenheit they did during the last release, ice caps would start to melt flooding large areas of the Earth. Worse, the gas would be ignited by lightning, leaving huge fires over areas of land, with coastal areas at especially great risk of destruction. Many cities that escaped the rising sea levels would not be spared the fire.
http://armageddononline.tripod.com/methane.htm
informally known as the Great Dying was an extinction event that occurred 251.4 million years ago,[2][3] forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods. It was the Earth's most severe extinction event, with up to 96 percent of all marine species[4] and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct; it is the only known mass extinction of insects.[5][6] Fifty-seven percent of all families and 83% of all genera were killed. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on earth took significantly longer than after other extinction events.[4] This event has been described as the "mother of all mass extinctions".[7]
Nearly all of the continental shelf waters would have had to become severely hypoxic to account for the magnitude of the extinction, but such a catastrophe would make it difficult to explain the very selective pattern of the extinction. Models of the Late Permian and Early Triassic atmospheres show a significant but protracted decline in atmospheric oxygen levels, with no acceleration near the P-Tr boundary. Minimum atmospheric oxygen levels in the Early Triassic are never less than present day levels - the decline in oxygen levels does not match the temporal pattern of the extinction.[54]
The observed pattern of marine extinctions is also consistent with hypercapnia (excessive levels of carbon dioxide). Carbon dioxide (CO2) is actively toxic at above-normal concentrations, as it reduces the ability of respiratory pigments to oxygenate tissues, and makes body fluids more acidic, thereby hampering the production of carbonate hard parts like shells. At high concentrations, carbon dioxide causes narcosis (intoxication). In addition to these direct effects, CO2 reduces the concentration of carbonates in water by "crowding them out", which further increases the difficulty of producing carbonate hard parts.
Marine organisms are more sensitive to changes in CO2 levels than are terrestrial organisms for a variety of reasons. CO2 is 28 times more soluble in water than is oxygen. Marine animals normally function with lower concentrations of CO2 in their bodies than land animals, as the removal of CO2 in air-breathing animals is impeded by the need for the gas to pass through the respiratory systems membranes (lungs, tracheae, and the like). In marine organisms, relatively modest but sustained increases in CO2 concentrations hamper the synthesis of proteins, reduce fertilization rates, and produce deformities in calcareous hard parts.[54] In addition, an increase in CO2 concentration leads to ocean acidification, consistent with the preferential extinction of heavily calcified taxa and signals in the rock record that suggest a more acidic ocean.[55]
Methane hydrate gasification
Scientists have found worldwide evidence of a swift decrease of about 10 ‰ (parts per thousand) in the 13C/12C isotope ratio in carbonate rocks from the end-Permian (δ13Ccarbonate of -10 ‰).[43][94] This is the first, largest and most rapid of a series of negative and positive excursions (decreases and increases in 13C/12C ratio) that continues until the isotope ratio abruptly stabilises in the middle Triassic, followed soon afterwards by the recovery of calcifying life forms (organisms that use calcium carbonate to build hard parts such as shells).[11]
Methane clathrates, also known as methane hydrates, consist of methane molecules trapped in cages of water molecules. The methane is produced by methanogens (microscopic single-celled organisms) and has a 13C/12C ratio about 60 ‰ below normal (δ13C -60 ‰). At the right combination of pressure and temperature it gets trapped in clathrates fairly close to the surface of permafrost and in much larger quantities at continental margins (continental shelves and the deeper seabed close to them). Oceanic methane hydrates are usually found buried in sediments where the seawater is at least 300 meters (984 ft) deep. They can be found up to about 2,000 meters (6,562 ft) below the sea floor, but usually only about 1,100 meters (3,609 ft) below the sea floor.[99]
The area covered by lava from the Siberian Traps eruptions is about twice as large as was originally thought, and most of the additional area was shallow sea at the time. It is very likely that the seabed contained methane hydrate deposits and that the lava caused the deposits to dissociate, releasing vast quantities of methane.[100]
One would expect a vast release of methane to cause significant global warming, since methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. A "methane burp" could have released 10,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent - twice as much as in all the fossil fuels on Earth.[36] There is strong evidence that global temperatures increased by about 6 °C (10.8 °F) near the equator and therefore by more at higher latitudes: a sharp decrease in oxygen isotope ratios (18O/16O);[101] the extinction of Glossopteris flora (Glossopteris and plants which grew in the same areas), which needed a cold climate, and its replacement by floras typical of lower paleolatitudes.[10][102]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event
Methane Explosion
At the ocean floor lies a sleeping monster, one that millions of years ago devastated the Earth, causing a mass-extinction, and today could be released again. It is silent, invisible and deadly, and contains double the energy of the entire world's fossil fuels combined. It is the frozen methane reserves at the bottom of the sea; capable of causing massive rises in global temperatures and igniting the atmosphere.
Has frozen methane ever been released before?
55 million years ago, 20% of the world's frozen methane reserves melted. This sparked cataclysmic changes in the atmosphere: global temperatures rose by 13 degrees Fahrenheit, melting the ice caps and forcing many species to extinction. 80% of all deep-sea creatures became extinct, and there were severe consequences for land animals. If vast amounts of methane were released, the highly explosive gas would be ignited by lightning, scorching huge area in a fiery hell-on-earth.
What is methane?
Methane is an extremely flammable and explosive gas. At the bottom of the ocean it is found in a form called 'methane hydrate', when the particles are locked in a lattice with water. When this melts, it releases methane gas with 160 times this volume. Methane hydrate is found deep in the oceans, more than 350m down. It is estimated that there is more than 200,000 trillion cubic feet of this gas at the bottom of the ocean; 80,000 times conventional natural gas reserves.
How is it released?
Small bursts of methane hydrate can be released by sudden events that break the lattice, such as landslides and earthquakes on the ocean floor. This releases a large amount of methane from the local area. This has been suggested as a possible explanation for the Bermuda Triangle - an area of ocean in the South Atlantic where dozens of ships and planes have disappeared without trace. The theory goes that landslides release the methane, which explodes on contact with, for example, a plane's engines. This shows how dangerous even small bursts can be.
It would take a bigger event than an earthquake or landslide to start releasing vast quantities of methane hydrate. The current fear is that global warming would increase the ocean temperature to the point where frozen methane starts to melt all over the world.
What would be the effects if the gas was released?
If a large proportion of the gas were released the effects would be devastating. If hundreds of thousands of trillions of tons were released into the atmosphere, the rate global warming would skyrocket. Methane is 20 times more powerful a gas at raising global temperatures than carbon dioxide, so a release of a vast quantity of gas would cause huge temperature rises around the world. If temperatures rose by the 13 degrees Fahrenheit they did during the last release, ice caps would start to melt flooding large areas of the Earth. Worse, the gas would be ignited by lightning, leaving huge fires over areas of land, with coastal areas at especially great risk of destruction. Many cities that escaped the rising sea levels would not be spared the fire.
http://armageddononline.tripod.com/methane.htm
Tom McDowell
BAMN
BP delays attempt to stop Gulf oil by shooting mud
By GREG BLUESTEIN, Associated Press Writer Greg Bluestein, Associated Press Writer Fri May 21, 5:37 pm ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_re_us/us_gulf_oil_spill_615
ROBERT, La. – It will be at least Tuesday before engineers can shoot mud into a blown-out well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, BP said Friday in yet another delay in the monthlong effort to stop the oil that is now washing into wetlands and onto at least one public beach.
A so-called "top kill" has been tried on land but never 5,000 feet underwater, so scientists and engineers have spent the past week preparing and taking measurements to make sure it will stop the oil that has been spewing into the sea for a month. They originally hoped to try it as early as this weekend.
BP spokesman Tom Mueller said there was no snag in the preparations, but that the company must get equipment in place and finish tests before the procedure can begin. BP already has three deepwater rigs and other equipment near the blown-out well.
"It's taking time to get everything set up," he said. "They're taking their time. It's never been done before. We've got to make sure everything is right."
Crews will shoot heavy mud into a crippled piece of equipment atop the well, which started spewing after the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon exploded April 20 off the coast of Louisiana, killing 11 workers. Then engineers will direct cement at the well to permanently stop the oil.
BP PLC, which was leasing the rig and is responsible for the cleanup, has tried and failed several times to halt the oil.
Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said Friday that a mile-long tube inserted into the leaking pipe is sucking about 92,400 gallons of oil a day (2,200 bpd) to the surface, a figure much lower than the 210,000 gallons a day the company said the tube was sucking up Thursday. Suttles said the higher number is the most the tube has been sucking up at any one time, while the lower number is the average.
The company has conceded that more oil is leaking than its initial estimate of 210,000 gallons a day total, and a government team is working to get a handle on exactly how much is flowing. Even under the most conservative estimate, about 6 million gallons have leaked so far, more than half the amount spilled by the Exxon Valdez in 1989.
Anger has grown as oil has started washing into delicate coastal wetlands in Louisiana. A deep, stagnant ooze sat in the middle of a particularly devastated marsh off the Louisiana coast.
In Grand Isle, south of New Orleans, officials were forced to close a public beach as globs of oil that resembled melted chocolate washed up.
Oil was hitting in various forms — light sheens, orange-colored splotches and heavier brown sheets — said Chris Roberts, a local official who surveyed the area Friday morning.
"It's difficult to clean up when you haven't stopped the source," said Roberts, a councilman for Jefferson Parish, which stretches from the New Orleans metropolitan area to the coast. "You can scrape it off the beach but it's coming right back."
The island thrives in the summer season on sport fishermen and beachcombers, and the warm Gulf waters off its shores are home to a variety of sport fish.
Dodie Vegas estimated that business at her family-owned Bridge Side Cabins and Marina was down about 60 percent. If the oil forces organizers to cancel the annual Grand Isle Fishing Rodeo in July, "it'll be down 100 percent," she said.
Elsewhere, frustrated local and state officials waited for the Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits so they can build sand berms in front of islands and wetlands to act as buffers between the advancing oil and the wetlands.
In a statement Friday, corps spokesman Ken Holder said officials understand the urgency, but possible environmental effects must be evaluated before even an emergency permit can be issued.
Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry also took BP to task for not responding aggressively enough to oil coming ashore in Terrebonne Parish, La., to the west of the mouth of the Mississippi River.
Public interest in the spill is high — after lawmakers pressed BP for a live video feed of the leak this week, so many people tried to view it that they crashed the government Web site where it was posted.
BP executives say the only guaranteed solution to stop the leak is a pair of relief wells crews have already started drilling, but the work will not be complete for at least two months.
That makes the stakes even higher for the top kill.
Scientists say there is a chance a misfire could lead to new problems. Ed Overton, a Louisiana State University professor of environmental studies, said the crippled piece of equipment called a blowout preventer could spring a new leak that could spew untold gallons of oil if there's a weak spot that is vulnerable to pressure from the heavy mud.
BP is also developing several other plans in case the top kill doesn't work, including an effort to shoot knotted rope, pieces of tire and other material — known as a junk shot — to plug the blowout preventer, which was meant to shut off the oil in case of an accident but did not work. And scientists say they are working on a plan to put a new device over the blowout preventer.
But they are hoping the top kill will stop the oil.
"Let's all keep our fingers crossed, let's all say our prayers," Landry said this week. "We absolutely hope top kill works, we're anxious to see that it does. We know that we have collectively done everything we could to prepare for it, to analyze it. Let's just all hope that it works."
===
.
By GREG BLUESTEIN, Associated Press Writer Greg Bluestein, Associated Press Writer Fri May 21, 5:37 pm ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_re_us/us_gulf_oil_spill_615
ROBERT, La. – It will be at least Tuesday before engineers can shoot mud into a blown-out well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, BP said Friday in yet another delay in the monthlong effort to stop the oil that is now washing into wetlands and onto at least one public beach.
A so-called "top kill" has been tried on land but never 5,000 feet underwater, so scientists and engineers have spent the past week preparing and taking measurements to make sure it will stop the oil that has been spewing into the sea for a month. They originally hoped to try it as early as this weekend.
BP spokesman Tom Mueller said there was no snag in the preparations, but that the company must get equipment in place and finish tests before the procedure can begin. BP already has three deepwater rigs and other equipment near the blown-out well.
"It's taking time to get everything set up," he said. "They're taking their time. It's never been done before. We've got to make sure everything is right."
Crews will shoot heavy mud into a crippled piece of equipment atop the well, which started spewing after the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon exploded April 20 off the coast of Louisiana, killing 11 workers. Then engineers will direct cement at the well to permanently stop the oil.
BP PLC, which was leasing the rig and is responsible for the cleanup, has tried and failed several times to halt the oil.
Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said Friday that a mile-long tube inserted into the leaking pipe is sucking about 92,400 gallons of oil a day (2,200 bpd) to the surface, a figure much lower than the 210,000 gallons a day the company said the tube was sucking up Thursday. Suttles said the higher number is the most the tube has been sucking up at any one time, while the lower number is the average.
The company has conceded that more oil is leaking than its initial estimate of 210,000 gallons a day total, and a government team is working to get a handle on exactly how much is flowing. Even under the most conservative estimate, about 6 million gallons have leaked so far, more than half the amount spilled by the Exxon Valdez in 1989.
Anger has grown as oil has started washing into delicate coastal wetlands in Louisiana. A deep, stagnant ooze sat in the middle of a particularly devastated marsh off the Louisiana coast.
In Grand Isle, south of New Orleans, officials were forced to close a public beach as globs of oil that resembled melted chocolate washed up.
Oil was hitting in various forms — light sheens, orange-colored splotches and heavier brown sheets — said Chris Roberts, a local official who surveyed the area Friday morning.
"It's difficult to clean up when you haven't stopped the source," said Roberts, a councilman for Jefferson Parish, which stretches from the New Orleans metropolitan area to the coast. "You can scrape it off the beach but it's coming right back."
The island thrives in the summer season on sport fishermen and beachcombers, and the warm Gulf waters off its shores are home to a variety of sport fish.
Dodie Vegas estimated that business at her family-owned Bridge Side Cabins and Marina was down about 60 percent. If the oil forces organizers to cancel the annual Grand Isle Fishing Rodeo in July, "it'll be down 100 percent," she said.
Elsewhere, frustrated local and state officials waited for the Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits so they can build sand berms in front of islands and wetlands to act as buffers between the advancing oil and the wetlands.
In a statement Friday, corps spokesman Ken Holder said officials understand the urgency, but possible environmental effects must be evaluated before even an emergency permit can be issued.
Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry also took BP to task for not responding aggressively enough to oil coming ashore in Terrebonne Parish, La., to the west of the mouth of the Mississippi River.
Public interest in the spill is high — after lawmakers pressed BP for a live video feed of the leak this week, so many people tried to view it that they crashed the government Web site where it was posted.
BP executives say the only guaranteed solution to stop the leak is a pair of relief wells crews have already started drilling, but the work will not be complete for at least two months.
That makes the stakes even higher for the top kill.
Scientists say there is a chance a misfire could lead to new problems. Ed Overton, a Louisiana State University professor of environmental studies, said the crippled piece of equipment called a blowout preventer could spring a new leak that could spew untold gallons of oil if there's a weak spot that is vulnerable to pressure from the heavy mud.
BP is also developing several other plans in case the top kill doesn't work, including an effort to shoot knotted rope, pieces of tire and other material — known as a junk shot — to plug the blowout preventer, which was meant to shut off the oil in case of an accident but did not work. And scientists say they are working on a plan to put a new device over the blowout preventer.
But they are hoping the top kill will stop the oil.
"Let's all keep our fingers crossed, let's all say our prayers," Landry said this week. "We absolutely hope top kill works, we're anxious to see that it does. We know that we have collectively done everything we could to prepare for it, to analyze it. Let's just all hope that it works."
===
.
Last edited:
somdwatcher
Veteran Member
This is where I draw the line, this company..(British Petroleum) will never get another cent from me. we should make this viral and boycott this company.
Tom McDowell
BAMN
BP is sticking with its dispersant choice
By Jonathan Tilove
May 21, 2010, 9:10PM
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/bp_is_sticking_with_its_disper.html
BP has told the Environmental Protection Agency that it cannot find a safe, effective and available dispersant to use instead of Corexit, and will continue to use that chemical application to help break up the growing spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
BP was responding to an EPA directive Thursday that gave BP 24 hours to identify a less toxic alternative to Corexit -- and 72 hours to start using it -- or provide the Coast Guard and EPA with a "detailed description of the alternative dispersants investigated, and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards."
BP spokesman Scott Dean said Friday that BP had replied with a letter "that outlines our findings that none of the alternative products on the EPA's National Contingency Plan Product Schedule list meets all three criteria specified in yesterday's directive for availability, toxicity and effectiveness."
Dean noted that "Corexit is an EPA pre-approved, effective, low-toxicity dispersant that is readily available, and we continue to use it."
He did not directly address widely broadcast news reports that more than 100,000 gallons of an alternative dispersant chemical call Sea-Brat 4 was stockpiled near Houston and available for application.
EPA issued its directive amid complaints from some environmentalists and members of Congress that, as Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., put it, "BP had chosen one of the most toxic and least effective chemicals that were approved for use."
On Friday, Markey, who chairs the Energy Committee's Subcommittee on the Energy and the Environment, held a briefing of the effect on the ocean of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, now in its second month and still gushing, at which experts questioned the wisdom of using any dispersant at all.
To date, BP has used a little more than 670,000 gallons of Corexit, an unprecedented application and for a duration and at depths also without precedent.
"We don't know what the effect of dispersants applied a mile underwater is; there's been no laboratory testing of that at all, or the effect of what it does when it combines with oil a mile underwater," said Sylvia Earle, the explorer-in-residence for the National Geographic Society and former chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "I would say, until we know more about the fate of the dispersants, I'd tell BP or anybody else who's involved with this, whether it's EPA or whatever, 'Stop, just stop, don't do it.' "
A second panelist at Markey's briefing, Carl Safina, president and co-founder of Blue Ocean Institute, a New York-based conservation organization, was even more unsparing in his criticism of the use of a dispersant strategy, which he said had more to do with PR than good science.
"It's not at all clear to me why we are dispersing the oil at all," Safina said. "It's an out-of-sight, out-of-mind strategy. It's just to get it away from the cameras on the shoreline.
"It takes something that we can see that we could at least partly deal with and dissolves it so we can't see it and can't deal with it."
The scientists said that we have quite literally a surface understanding of what a spill of this magnitude may have on ocean life, with most attention and understanding devoted to what is visible atop the ocean, when it soils birds or marine life that we can see, or when it fouls a wetland or beach.
But its most profound and long-lasting effects, they said, may be on ocean life in the deep waters of the Gulf, which, Earle said, at its lower depths remain, to a remarkable degree, a "mystery."
"With a huge oil spill this involves difficult trade-off decisions on what species to protect at the expense of others," said Carys Mitchelmore, an associate professor with the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, who said that one problem with breaking down the oil is that it makes it easier for many organisms to ingest.
"What is frightening about this spill isn't just what we know but what we don't know," Markey said.
Markey said that he was sending a letter Friday to BP, Transocean and Halliburton asking that they fund independent, scientific research into the spill. Transocean is the contractor that owned and ran the drilling rig that burned and sank after the well blew on April 20, killing 11 workers. Halliburton is the company that did the cementing job that was supposed to close off the well,
"We need independent scientists to step in where BP has stepped away from telling the truth," Markey said. "When will BP allow our best and brightest minds to work with them to stop this disaster?"
"BP's been lying to us," said Markey, beginning with the size of the spill, which they have estimated at some 5,000 barrels a day but which Markey said independent scientists indicate must be "at least 50,000 to 60,000 barrels a day."
Jonathan Tilove can be reached at jtilove@timespicayune.com or 202.383.7827 .
===
Originally Corexit was an Exxon product and that's why it was used in Alaska. Later on I think it was sold off to another company which BP has some part of today.
Irregardless, the real question is why use it at all?
Especially since there's no science behind the application in this specific environment (mile deep blowout with changes taking place with the materials prior to reaching the top of the water column). For all we know a new unknown synthetic material may be created by mixing these chemicals with raw petroleum deep hole effluent, at these depths.
As previously noted it appears to me the application of Corexit prolongs the natural degradation of the crude oil. This would imply the application of Corexit, even though EPA approved and likely mandated (dispersants) by the feds - is for cosmetic and political purposes, with no reliable data to ensure safety.
It also appears BP is in a no-win situation. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.
The ballsy move would be for them to back away from all dispersants with the caveat - their science was inconclusive and it would be better to err on the side of caution.
They would then have to face the PR assault for not using the dispersants and possible fines. At the same time it may help sway public opinion in their favor.
===
.
By Jonathan Tilove
May 21, 2010, 9:10PM
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/bp_is_sticking_with_its_disper.html
BP has told the Environmental Protection Agency that it cannot find a safe, effective and available dispersant to use instead of Corexit, and will continue to use that chemical application to help break up the growing spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
BP was responding to an EPA directive Thursday that gave BP 24 hours to identify a less toxic alternative to Corexit -- and 72 hours to start using it -- or provide the Coast Guard and EPA with a "detailed description of the alternative dispersants investigated, and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards."
BP spokesman Scott Dean said Friday that BP had replied with a letter "that outlines our findings that none of the alternative products on the EPA's National Contingency Plan Product Schedule list meets all three criteria specified in yesterday's directive for availability, toxicity and effectiveness."
Dean noted that "Corexit is an EPA pre-approved, effective, low-toxicity dispersant that is readily available, and we continue to use it."
He did not directly address widely broadcast news reports that more than 100,000 gallons of an alternative dispersant chemical call Sea-Brat 4 was stockpiled near Houston and available for application.
EPA issued its directive amid complaints from some environmentalists and members of Congress that, as Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., put it, "BP had chosen one of the most toxic and least effective chemicals that were approved for use."
On Friday, Markey, who chairs the Energy Committee's Subcommittee on the Energy and the Environment, held a briefing of the effect on the ocean of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, now in its second month and still gushing, at which experts questioned the wisdom of using any dispersant at all.
To date, BP has used a little more than 670,000 gallons of Corexit, an unprecedented application and for a duration and at depths also without precedent.
"We don't know what the effect of dispersants applied a mile underwater is; there's been no laboratory testing of that at all, or the effect of what it does when it combines with oil a mile underwater," said Sylvia Earle, the explorer-in-residence for the National Geographic Society and former chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "I would say, until we know more about the fate of the dispersants, I'd tell BP or anybody else who's involved with this, whether it's EPA or whatever, 'Stop, just stop, don't do it.' "
A second panelist at Markey's briefing, Carl Safina, president and co-founder of Blue Ocean Institute, a New York-based conservation organization, was even more unsparing in his criticism of the use of a dispersant strategy, which he said had more to do with PR than good science.
"It's not at all clear to me why we are dispersing the oil at all," Safina said. "It's an out-of-sight, out-of-mind strategy. It's just to get it away from the cameras on the shoreline.
"It takes something that we can see that we could at least partly deal with and dissolves it so we can't see it and can't deal with it."
The scientists said that we have quite literally a surface understanding of what a spill of this magnitude may have on ocean life, with most attention and understanding devoted to what is visible atop the ocean, when it soils birds or marine life that we can see, or when it fouls a wetland or beach.
But its most profound and long-lasting effects, they said, may be on ocean life in the deep waters of the Gulf, which, Earle said, at its lower depths remain, to a remarkable degree, a "mystery."
"With a huge oil spill this involves difficult trade-off decisions on what species to protect at the expense of others," said Carys Mitchelmore, an associate professor with the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, who said that one problem with breaking down the oil is that it makes it easier for many organisms to ingest.
"What is frightening about this spill isn't just what we know but what we don't know," Markey said.
Markey said that he was sending a letter Friday to BP, Transocean and Halliburton asking that they fund independent, scientific research into the spill. Transocean is the contractor that owned and ran the drilling rig that burned and sank after the well blew on April 20, killing 11 workers. Halliburton is the company that did the cementing job that was supposed to close off the well,
"We need independent scientists to step in where BP has stepped away from telling the truth," Markey said. "When will BP allow our best and brightest minds to work with them to stop this disaster?"
"BP's been lying to us," said Markey, beginning with the size of the spill, which they have estimated at some 5,000 barrels a day but which Markey said independent scientists indicate must be "at least 50,000 to 60,000 barrels a day."
Jonathan Tilove can be reached at jtilove@timespicayune.com or 202.383.7827 .
===
Originally Corexit was an Exxon product and that's why it was used in Alaska. Later on I think it was sold off to another company which BP has some part of today.
Irregardless, the real question is why use it at all?
Especially since there's no science behind the application in this specific environment (mile deep blowout with changes taking place with the materials prior to reaching the top of the water column). For all we know a new unknown synthetic material may be created by mixing these chemicals with raw petroleum deep hole effluent, at these depths.
As previously noted it appears to me the application of Corexit prolongs the natural degradation of the crude oil. This would imply the application of Corexit, even though EPA approved and likely mandated (dispersants) by the feds - is for cosmetic and political purposes, with no reliable data to ensure safety.
It also appears BP is in a no-win situation. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.
The ballsy move would be for them to back away from all dispersants with the caveat - their science was inconclusive and it would be better to err on the side of caution.
They would then have to face the PR assault for not using the dispersants and possible fines. At the same time it may help sway public opinion in their favor.
===
.
Walrus Whisperer
Hope in chains...
I have sure been thinking the same thing about this maybe being a terrorist attack, Tom.
Does anyone know WHY is this stuff going UP the Mississippi? The flow is towards the ocean?
AND:
Does anyone know WHY this stuff is red?
Dear God.
Does anyone know WHY is this stuff going UP the Mississippi? The flow is towards the ocean?
AND:
Does anyone know WHY this stuff is red?
Dear God.
somdwatcher
Veteran Member
The "live" video at bp.com is showing a more vigorous leak than earlier this evening....it looks like the containment pipe blew out about an hour ago..hopefully not correct but it sure does look bad.
