rigorousintuition.ca

DoYouEverWonder wrote:No matter what though, the economic damage to an already fragile region is going to be enormous.

And this will likely sink Obama's RecoveryTM much faster than they planned for.

ninakat wrote:

Sepka wrote:

Col. Quisp wrote:The original estimate was about 5,000 gallons of oil a day spilling into the ocean. Now they're saying 200,000 gallons a day. That's over a million gallons of crude oil a week!

The original estimate was 5000 barrels a day, which is about 200,000 gallons. Mr. Noel's conflated the units, I think, which is rather a poor showing from an engineer. And at any rate, there was a blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979 that put out 3.5 million barrels altogether. It obviously didn't kill all life in the oceans. It didn't even do lasting damage to the Gulf of Mexico. This one will have to run about two years to spill that much oil.

But the whole premise of the OP is that the estimate of 5000 barrels a day is way off, quite possibly by 1/10:

In this case, an order of magnitude higher would mean the volume of oil coming from the well could be 10 times higher than the 5,000 barrels a day coming out now. That would mean 50,000 barrels a day, or 2.1 million gallons a day.

Assuming those numbers, it will take merely 70 days to reach the levels of the 1979 spill, not two years as you suggest. (70 days x 50,000 barrels = 3.5 million barrels)

Math, logic, and the clear thinking to apply them can be such pesky things.

The latest picture from today, looks like it's gotten a lot bigger.

http://spacegizmo.livingdazed.com/archives/tag/deepwater-horizon-oil-spill

from that latest image

horseman of the apocalypse anyone?

horseman of the apocalypse anyone?

Ha! hard to dispute after viewing the photo and your comment...

I really don't want to make light of this, I haven't felt like this since 9/11...this may be the other shoe I have been [unknowingly] waiting for to drop

smiths wrote:from that latest image

horseman of the apocalypse anyone?

"And I looked and before me was a crude horse. Its rider was named Slick, and Halliburton followed close behind him."

ninakat wrote:But the whole premise of the OP is that the estimate of 5000 barrels a day is way off, quite possibly by 1/10:

Assuming those numbers, it will take merely 70 days to reach the levels of the 1979 spill, not two years as you suggest. (70 days x 50,000 barrels = 3.5 million barrels)

True enough if it is 50,000 barrels per day, but BP, NOAA and the Coast Guard all seem to be settling around that 5000 barrel figure.

DoYouEverWonder wrote:This spill will do lots of damage, even though there are some factors that work in it's favor. The bad part is timing. This is hitting right when lot's of birds are migrating back north.

Undoubtedly. This is going to be a horror for the poor birds, and right in their nesting season too.

Experts: Oil May Be Leaking at Rate of 25,000 Barrels a Day in Gulf

WASHINGTON—The Gulf of Mexico oil spill could be leaking at a rate of 25,000 barrels a day, five times the government's current estimate, industry experts say.

Basing their calculations on government data and standard industry measurement tools, the experts said the Gulf spill may already rival the historic 1969 Santa Barbara, Calif., and 1989 Exxon Valdez disasters.

Ian MacDonald, professor of oceanography at Florida State University who specializes in tracking ocean oil seeps from satellite imagery, said there may already be more than 9 million gallons of oil floating in the Gulf now, based on his estimate of a 25,000 barrel-a-day leak rate. That's compared to 12 million gallons spilled in the Valdez accident.

Interior Department officials said it may take 90 days to cap the leaking well. If the 25,000 barrels a day is accurate and it leaks for 90 days, that's 2.25 million barrels or 94.5 million gallons.

Mr. MacDonald and his colleagues at the Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science Department have worked jointly with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the past on oil spill tracking, and have shared their estimates with NOAA scientists. He said the NOAA scientists didn't dispute the calculations.

Sepka wrote:

DoYouEverWonder wrote:This spill will do lots of damage, even though there are some factors that work in it's favor. The bad part is timing. This is hitting right when lot's of birds are migrating back north.

Undoubtedly. This is going to be a horror for the poor birds, and right in their nesting season too.

It's not just the birds. It's the turtles, whales, dolphins, fish, shrimp, oysters.... Lot's of things we like to eat, which we won't be eating for awhile or it will have to come from somewhere else and will be very expensive.

Then there's the economic damage for 1000's of people who earn their living from the Gulf. And if this stuff gets into the Gulf Stream and hits Florida's beaches, then even more people will loses their businesses and jobs. Tourists don't like oily, stinky beaches.

smiths wrote:horseman of the apocalypse anyone?

good call, smiths.

Cordelia wrote:^^Great video--thank you Allegro!

Thanks, Cordelia.

The following taped interview was televised Tuesday evening, May 4, 2010;
location was Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge.

Dr. Ed Overton professor emeritus of environmental sciences and analytical chemist analyses various oil samples delivered to his lab from the discharge in the Gulf of Mexico. Maddow describes Overton as part of a NOAA scientific support team.


Rachel Maddow | Applying science to the spill

The view from Perdido Key yesterday:

Hey wrt previous post I'd been out of town when this incident went down. Literally. I thought it was a production platform and not a drilling rig. LOL shows the knowledge of the incident when I made posting. So of course no there was downhole BOP was in place as the well wasn't yet on production.

The oildrum.com is following this all very well and great single source for anyone interested to get up on things, as is typical of any energy related story. Really a fabulous site.

I remain a bit baffled how they had a blowout though as the the production casing string was cemented into place already. Typically the biggest danger in well control is before that point, when the well is still open hole. There are sometimes strange circumstances that happen though. My friend who is a 30 year drilling engineer all over the world, including BP in the Gulf had this to say when I asked him of the matter:

"Line up of Perfect Storm issues! It's never just one thing. Have really good inside information from friends, but not something to share in an e-mail. Suffice it to say that any investigation by knowledgeable investigators would indict BP."

So again no conspiracy needs to be entertained simple poor operating by BP will suffice to explain. They should stick to their "Beyond Petroleum" solar panels LOL.

In hoping the offshore arctic remains undrilled, I heard this morning an interesting leading indicator in that offshore drilling in California has been killed after it was recently brought back in by the Terminator. Might be a knee jerk bad call in this specific instance; I don't know. Surely they should be able to do safely there? Like I said I don't know there may be some tricky and risky drilling to do that makes the ban rational.

Deep water Gulf drilling has obvious challenges; the water depth being an obvious one. Hard to work on the sea floor equipment at that depth. The pressures of the deep targets are huge. I know a fellow who was working on the Tahiti project and was pretty gob smacked to hear of some of their challenges. They are pushing the limits of metallurgy at the depths and pressures involved. I seem to recall the reservoir pressure was over 30,000 psi; and was about 2x the hydrostatic gradient. Holy smokes! Yes I'd be scared as hell being on the platform drilling that, wouldn't take much of an issue to end up with a serious problem. Obviously the risks of undertaking operations of this sort have been not adequately addressed.

On that matter, the bit by Paul Noel is ludicrous; he knows nothing about topic. 150,000 PSI? Huh? At hydrostatic gradient of .433 psi/feet that'd put the depth of the reservoir at 364,000 feet below sea level; or alternatively assuming the reservoir is 30,000 feet below sea level it implies a gradient over 10x the fresh water gradient. Ludicrous.

On fish and platforms. I've heard that the platforms act as artificial reefs and attract large numbers of fish and thus fisherman. Interesting and unanticipated positive aspect of offshore petroleum development. Sure makes me curious how beneficial the OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion would be on fisheries.

Allegro wrote:The following taped interview was televised Tuesday evening, May 4, 2010;
location was Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge.

Dr. Ed Overton professor emeritus of environmental sciences and analytical chemist analyses various oil samples delivered to his lab from the discharge in the Gulf of Mexico. Maddow describes Overton as part of a NOAA scientific support team.


Rachel Maddow | Applying science to the spill

Thanks again Allegro. I don't have T.V., so I'm unfamiliar with Rachel Maddow. (But I like her style & questions and have bookmarked her to watch online.) She and Dr. Overton point out what early days, in relation to the projected clean-up time, we're still in. Also, they address hurricane season looming, officially beginning June 1. My main customer is/was, a longtime 'hurricane chaser' (to put it politely), and most, major, anyway, hurricanes aren't generated until mid-August, so that allows three months before that particular threat. But still, all and all, none of it's looking good, including the future of the birds in Sunny's pics.....