New Official Leak Estimates from .gov...

[DReynolds]

Originally Posted by dharma

But the LMRP is not the flow limiting structure. The casing at the bottom of the well is only 7", remember?

If the casing is the limiting structure, then how are we getting 35k + from this blowout? Are you saying that this proves the casing is blown?

[dharma]

My guess is that initial flow was via the annulus just above the level of the bottom casing, and was almost zero. That's in fact very bad, much worse than if the bottom plug had not been properly placed, for instance; it means much of the multilayer structure of the well was essentially bypassed. I'm afraid the deep structure of the well is being rapidly eroded; the little hole is becoming a bigger and bigger one.

[Mama Alanna]

So will the theoretical nuke seal it, or just blow a BIGGER hole?

[dharma]

MA, I don't know. At least one knowledgeable commentator thinks it would make things much worse.

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/nukes-and-expensive-oil/

Look, here's the problem: what DReynolds is saying is that the flow from the beginning has been a great deal higher than estimated, as much as 25,000 barrels per day (meaning also that it was capable of producing as a regular well at that rate), and that it has increased to as much as 60,000-80,000 barrels per day—and that is the bad news.

No. That would be good news. It would mean that initial flow was via the well bore (since that's the only way it could have flowed that much) and that flow has only doubled, or at worst tripled—and in a fairly linear fashion. It would mean that we could probably expect that the flow might continue to increase, but that the multilayered (casing within casing within casing, see http://images.vizworld.com/wp-conten...271a66c847.jpg) structure of the well was still intact and could be expected to control flow rate within finite limits.

The bad news is that that is probably not the case. The leak was probably via the annulus (the space around the pipe near the bottom) and so the leak may be coming up through the concrete and rock at the bottom of the well, which provide much less structural resistance to erosion than the extremely tough steel of the casing string. If the leak was initially zero, and has progressed in the manner which it appears to have done, that means it is increasing at a geometric rate, with a very poorly defined upper limit (a possible "oil volcano"). This is very bad indeed, and is my main worry now.

[CanadaSue]

I just looked at the ROVs from Discovery - ROV 1 right now is showing the leaks. If you look closely, the ROV appears positioned so that the BOP appears upright... but if you look at what's pouring out; THAT stuff is definitely 'leaning' left. If the oil/gas mix rises straight up, (why would that change?), it would indicate the BOP is tiltig right at DR suggested.

If someone has a more plausible explanation - I'd love to hear it. The implications of the structure leaning in that manner & to that degree are frightening.

[Potemkin]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo...il-leakage.php

The Picture Of Inaccuracy: The Evolving Estimates Of BP's Oil Leak
Jillian Rayfield | June 16, 2010, 5:25PM


On May 5, BP CEO Tony Hayward told Congress in a closed-door briefing that, in the worst-case scenario, the oil well in the Gulf Coast would leak 60,000 barrels of oil per day.

Back then, official government estimates said the well was leaking 5,000 barrels of oil every day. Those estimates have since been repeatedly revised, most recently to reflect an estimated leakage of 35,000-60,000 barrels of oil per day.

Here's a look at how the estimates evolved over time:

April 23: 200 barrels per day.
April 24: 1000 barrels per day.
April 28: 5000 barrels per day.
May 27: 12,000-19,000 barrels per day.
June 10: 20,000-40,000 barrels per day.
June 15: 35,000-60,000 barrels per day.

[gsgs]

what was it what BP did and what can't happen on other platforms ?

Shouldn't we stop all underwater oildrilling worldwide ?

[hillsidedigger]

Think of the little Dutch boy who stuck his finger into the small leak he discovered in the dike. Had he not, the small leak would have quickly eroded the surrounding material resulting in a dike collapse.

The ongoing gusher in the Gulf of Mexico is the small leak which some say could grow and eventually release a sudden, massive (many cubic miles) bubble of methane which would extinguish life all over the surface of the Gulf and maybe 150 miles inland in all directions.

Preposterous? There are those who predict it could happen.

[CanadaSue]

'A vast bubble of methane' implies a large void wherein such a bubble could form, does it not? I thought oil formations were porous rock & sand?

Clearly we're in a lot of uncharted territory with this one - a lot of unknowns. How large might the leak become? Will it be successfully capped? Is the pipe going through the bedrock intact & if so will it stay that way? What if it isn't - do we face the possibility of oil gushing up through one or more other 'leaks' & for how long?

What about health effects - short & long term of wildlife & human life? Where will the oil end up? How far onshore might effects be felt - crops? Wildlife inshore?

All that is bad enough - I don't want to consider even more speculative stuff.

[DReynolds]

Originally Posted by CanadaSue

Will it be successfully capped?

This seems to be the real question, and what if the answer if no? Uncharted territory as you say. Here we are as a species worried about global warming in 50yrs, when BP serves up this curveball which may poison the Gulf and Atlantic ocean over the next 50months. But hey, we don't really need fish or plankton or whales or shrimp do we?

[rryan]

Originally Posted by gsgs

what was it what BP did and what can't happen on other platforms ?

Shouldn't we stop all underwater oildrilling worldwide ?

So that half the population can starve to death in short order?

[rryan]

Some perspective

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/59442.html

[flourbug]

rryan, do you have a fishtank? Pour two tablespoons of motor oil on top of the water and tell me what happens.

You don't have to fill the tank with oil. You don't have to fill 1/1,000,000th of the tank with oil to destroy the life within it. You just need a very thin layer between the surface of the water and the air.

The BP disaster is complicated by the addition of toxic dispersants. While they break down quickly, until that happens they kill whatever they touch. All of this is blown by wind and wave action to marshlands where all manner of wildlife live. For those who make their living off of the Gulf - which is a substantial portion of the population - the oil and toxic chemicals are killing their livelihood too.

Drilling in the Gulf is good. All of those rigs actually increase the fish and shellfish populations. Stick a straw down and suck that power right out of the ground.

But oil volcanoes... not good at all.

.

[DReynolds]

Originally Posted by rryan

Some perspective

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/59442.html

If there are 66quadrillion gallons of water in the Gulf, and we spilled 66million so far that means the gulf is now 1 part per billion (ppb) oil. The concentration in those parts of the gulf where the spill has been concentrated for 59 days (eastern LA, Bama, Miss, and off the Fl panhandle) must be much higher.

And it's not nearly over. At best(!), we are about halfway through the spill. We may be one tenth of the way through the spill.

Crude oil is toxic to sealife at about 10ppm (10 parts per million). That's the number to watch.

[DReynolds]

Originally Posted by rryan

So that half the population can starve to death in short order?

Humans exceeded the equilibrium carrying capacity of the planet. We are screwed regardless.

1). If we stop drilling deepwater, half the world will starve.

2). If we continue drilling, there may be accidents like this that kill the oceans. This will cause mass starvation.

3). If we continue drilling, and there are no accidents we will slowly run out of crude anyway. The N.Sea production has plummeted, so has Mexican offshore production. Global peak oil production was in September of 2005 (EIA statistics), and it's 2010.

The human race and its hubris, thinking we can have an arbitrarily large number of people on this planet.

[dharma]

Originally Posted by DReynolds

If we stop drilling deepwater, half the world will starve.

This point is not overly dramatic. Essentially all the remaining major petroleum accumulations are thought to be in deep water—offshore Brazil, Africa, the Arctic, the GOM, etc.—or in "deep water equivalent" areas, where the environment is similarly hostile and difficult to drill, e.g., the Arctic onshore. Alternative energy remains an unfunny joke; even with urgent development and buildout, it can only supply 30% or so of energy needs—in 2050. If it were economic, which it isn't.

Deepwater is the future, one way or another.

If we continue drilling, there may be accidents like this that kill the oceans.

With respect, I think this point is overly dramatic. Remember Ixtoc 1: 100,000 barrels a day into the gulf for over 3 months. The Mexicans had neither the money nor the will for remediation. When American environmental teams went back to the contaminated areas 3 years later, they found almost no evidence of the spill. Nature heals quickly, especially in the gulf, where 5,000 barrels a day of crude leaks normally, from seeps, and there is a well-developed host of organisms to metabolize it.

[dharma]

Originally Posted by flourbug

rryan, do you have a fishtank? Pour two tablespoons of motor oil on top of the water and tell me what happens.

A 50 gallon fish tank holds 89600 grams of water, yes? Motor oil is lighter than water, but for simplicity’s sake, we’ll call it isodense and say that 2 tablespoons of motor oil is 30 grams. So, we’re talking 335,000 parts per billion.

But, as DReynolds points out, the current ratio in the gulf is 1 part per billion. So, you’ll need to divide your 2 tablespoons of oil by 335,000 if you’re going to get the right amount to put in your tank (89 micrograms; 80, actually, if we go ahead and correct for the specific gravity of motor oil).

I think your fish are safe.

[rryan]

Originally Posted by DReynolds

Humans exceeded the equilibrium carrying capacity of the planet. We are screwed regardless.

1). If we stop drilling deepwater, half the world will starve.

2). If we continue drilling, there may be accidents like this that kill the oceans. This will cause mass starvation.

3). If we continue drilling, and there are no accidents we will slowly run out of crude anyway. The N.Sea production has plummeted, so has Mexican offshore production. Global peak oil production was in September of 2005 (EIA statistics), and it's 2010.

The human race and its hubris, thinking we can have an arbitrarily large number of people on this planet.

I do not think ANYONE can prove we have exceeded any carrying capacity of this planet.

[flourbug]

A 50 gallon fish tank holds 89600 grams of water, yes? Motor oil is lighter than water, but for simplicity’s sake, we’ll call it isodense and say that 2 tablespoons of motor oil is 30 grams. So, we’re talking 335,000 parts per billion.

dharma, you have wayyy too much time on your hands. lol

But I get your point. Problem is, as we see so clearly in aerial pictures, the oil is not covering the entire Gulf but is being pushed by currents to cover large areas of water near the Louisiana coast, and into the wetlands and beaches there.

[dharma]

Originally Posted by flourbug

Problem is, as we see so clearly in aerial pictures, the oil is not covering the entire Gulf but is being pushed by currents to cover large areas of water near the Louisiana coast, and into the wetlands and beaches there.

Yes, we're going to see lots of dead fish and oil-drenched birds. Still, as a disaster, I think this mess is going to be similar to 9/11: ugly and horrible up close, but a pinprick in terms of actual loss of life. Medium to long term (and maybe even short term), I strongly suspect its ecological impact in the GOM is going to be a great deal smaller than that of the much-less-hysterically-discussed-but-essentially-permanent dead zones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zo...Gulf_of_Mexico

Assuming we do not get the "oil volcano" scenario, in which case all bets are off.

[flourbug]

I hope you're right dharma. Though it is a choice I'd never want to make, I guess if it comes down to it I'd rather see a 9/11 than a Katrina.

[DReynolds]

Originally Posted by CanadaSue

I just looked at the ROVs from Discovery - ROV 1 right now is showing the leaks. If you look closely, the ROV appears positioned so that the BOP appears upright... but if you look at what's pouring out; THAT stuff is definitely 'leaning' left. If the oil/gas mix rises straight up, (why would that change?), it would indicate the BOP is tiltig right at DR suggested.

If someone has a more plausible explanation - I'd love to hear it. The implications of the structure leaning in that manner & to that degree are frightening.

Check out Enterprise ROV 2. Looks to me like today the BOP is tilting over way more than it was a couple days ago. (Noting as CS said that the O&G goes straight up and the "fins" on the side of the cap should be perpendicular to the flow.)

[neilyoungfan]

Take a look at Skandi 1 where you can see them shooting the dispersant into the plume:
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_inte...andi_ROV1.html

[Ought Six]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2020003220100620

BP's estimates for a possible worst-case scenario were up to 100k barrels/day, according to recently released documents from BP.
-----

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/06...oil-spill-leak

BP is now collecting 25k barrels/day of the oil leaking from the well, up from 15k previously. The containment strategy appears to be working.

[DReynolds]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

The containment strategy appears to be working.

Their capturing 25k bpd, and the leak rate is between 40k and 60k. Not sure I'd characterize that as "working". I'll call it working when there aren't 25,000 bpd leaking into the GOM every day.