New Oil Spill Total Is Bad News For BP, Wildlife (9x Size Exxon Valdez)

GRAND ISLE, La. – The astonishing news that the oil leak at the bottom of the sea may be twice as big as previously thought could have major repercussions for both the environment and BP's financial health, killing more marine life and dramatically increasing the amount the company must pay in fines and damages.

Scientists now say the blown-out well could have been spewing as much as 2 million gallons of crude a day before a cut-and-cap maneuver started capturing some of the flow, meaning more than 100 million gallons may have leaked into the Gulf of Mexico since the start of the disaster in April. That is more than nine times the size of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, previously the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

The larger estimates, while still preliminary and considered a worst-case scenario, could contribute to breathtaking liabilities against BP. Penalties can be levied against the company under a variety of environmental protection laws, including fines of up to $1,100 under the Clean Water Act for each barrel of oil spilled.

Based on the maximum amount of oil possibly spilled to date, that would translate to a potential civil fine for simple discharge alone of $2.8 billion. If BP were found to have committed gross negligence or willful misconduct, the civil fine could be up to $4,300 per barrel, or up to $11.1 billion.

"It's going to blow the record books up," said Eric Schaeffer, who led the Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement office from 1997 to 2002.

Clean Water Act

§311(c)(1) The President shall institute means for the removal of an oil discharge and mitigation or prevention of the threat of a discharge (1) into the navigable water of the U.S. or adjoining shorelines; (2) into or on the waters of the exclusive economic zone; or (3) that may affect natural resources of the U.S. In doing so the President has the authority to make any arrangements for removal or prevention, direct removal actions, and remove or destroy a vessel releasing or that has the threat of releasing.

§311(c)(2) The President shall direct all Federal, State, and private actions to remove a discharge or mitigate or prevent the threat of a discharge from onshore or offshore facilities which is determined to be a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States.

§311(j)(1)(A) The President is required to establish methods and procedures for removal of discharged oil and hazardous substances as part of the National Response System.

§311(j)(1)(C) The President is authorized to issue regulations establishing procedures, methods, equipment, and other requirements to prevent discharges of oil from vessels and facilities.

§311(j)(4) The President is authorized to establish Area Committees. These committees will prepare Area Contingency Plans that detail methods and procedures for responding to a worst case discharge, including the division of responsibilities among various authorities in a response. Each Area Committee will submit this plan to the President for approval.

§311(j)(5) The President is required to establish regulations for facility and vessel response plans.

"I have had an opportunity to think further about your answer as well as get more informed about Corexit and what BP is up to in the Gulf. I believe there is a good possibility that you are relying on second hand information that is deliberately false. And know this - BP is pre-spraying areas along the coast BEFORE the oil reaches the area AT NIGHT. Corexit is also, thanks to the proximity of the spraying, settling on land, including peoples’ back yards. Is this a reasonable preventive measure? If you find reason to change any of your answers from the other day, I would appreciate knowing. Thank you.

I think you need to stop rooting around conspiracy theory sites. WHERE are you getting this garbage?? Did it occur to you that there just MIGHT be other groups (like the radical Greens) who just MIGHT put out information that is deliberately false?? I've seen plenty of "green" misinformation on every topic from nuclear energy to Alar.

"People in effected areas of Alabama and LA can smell a very strong very irritating chemical odor in the air. In your opinion, would this be off gassing from the well (sulfuric acid is one possibility) or the smell of Corexit?

Lots of people imagine odors when they hear about oil spills, this is nothing new. Sulfuric acid HAS essentially no odor, so it is NOT a possibility.

"And know this - BP is pre-spraying areas along the coast BEFORE the oil reaches the area AT NIGHT. Corexit is also, thanks to the proximity of the spraying, settling on land, including peoples’ back yards. Is this a reasonable preventive measure?"

I see from my reply I didn't answer your specific question. Yes, I think pre-spraying ahead of the oil is a great idea. As to "why at night", it may be as simple as to avoid excessive evaporation, or it might be to avoid just the kind of "we're all gonna die" conspiracy hoopla that you are responding to. People are NOT going to be negatively affected by the tiny dose that they might get from such applications.

You have to take into consideration what BP wants to accomplish----to drive suspended oil into solution, in which form it is much less harmful to the overall environment. The Corexit can't do that unless it is IN THE WATER, so any that does not GET into the water is wasted.

So any that they put out will be in droplets such that they reach the water rather than being suspended in air and drifting away from the point of application. Droplets of that size will NOT be carried into the lungs, and a mere odor will not be toxic, either acute or chronic. Corexit would have to be worse than botulinium or ricin if it were an acute toxin, and the exposure time is simply much too short for there to be chronic exposure effects.

I’ve listened to interviews with people who live in the area. Not MSM because they are not there doing that. But not conspiracy sites, either. You know it is possible that important things are not being covered by MSM. You don’t need me to tell you why they are not reliable. I don’t see anything wrong with having an open mind and looking at 2nd and 3rd tier news sources who might just be doing some real reporting. If these sources are radical greens, then they are also great actors because I saw and heard no hint of that.

You think Corexit is OK or at least that it is short lived. I don’t know why its use is banned in other countries since you say it is acceptable to use. I assume you rule that out as a source of the odors though you did not say that. Sulfuric acid is odorless, so that’s not it.

Instead of discounting the reported odor problem from multiple people, including reporters, as some hysterical product of their over-active imaginations, why not try to figure out what it might be? With your background, you could figure it out.

The so called facts in this situation have evolved considerably since the well blew. There were a number of people poo pooing reports of larger amounts of oil gushing, BP being anything but unlucky, etc. Now we know it is a lot worse than they disclosed and has been from the start.

There might be a lot more going on than we know now. That’s not conspiracy stuff, that’s a natural reaction and a justified skepticism based on what has happened so far.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to answer.

"I don’t see anything wrong with having an open mind and looking at 2nd and 3rd tier news sources who might just be doing some real reporting. If these sources are radical greens, then they are also great actors because I saw and heard no hint of that."

The problem is that 99% of these "second tier sources" have no idea of the science involved at pretty much ANY level, and that includes the major media. I am astounded at the woeful ignorance displayed by supposedly educated people. They are not doing even BASIC fact-checking, much less in-depth. Take anything you read with a LARGE container of salt.

"You think Corexit is OK or at least that it is short lived. I don’t know why its use is banned in other countries since you say it is acceptable to use. I assume you rule that out as a source of the odors though you did not say that. Sulfuric acid is odorless, so that’s not it."

I think Corexit is OK under the conditions it is currently being used in comparison with other possibilities. If you look at the actual toxicity tables, these other choices are also toxic. For instance, one table gives a Corexit toxicity to fish at around 2 ppm, but none of the other choices break 10 ppm (i.e they are all toxic at levels < 10ppm. So, it is true that Corexit is "more toxic" than the others, but the difference is so small as to have negligible effects in the real world.

Corexit "does" have an odor. I've not smelled it myself, so I have no experience with how unpleasant or pleasant it may be. But a material rated "Moderate toxicity" by the EPA is unlikely to have any affect if you just smell it. Even chlorine, hydrogen cyanide, or hydrogen sulfide won't do that. That kind of toxicity takes something like a nerve gas, botulinium toxin, or ricin. The reason it is banned in a lot of places is that it is acutely toxic to fish.

I wouldn't want to see Corexit used, for instance, in a river or anywhere else that mechanical means (booms, skimmers, etc.) stand a good chance of getting most of the oil. But that is not the case here. Mechanical means have no chance of getting a significant fraction of the oil. Yes, it is GOING to kill some fish. No question about that. But as to any human effects.....no.

"The so called facts in this situation have evolved considerably since the well blew. There were a number of people poo pooing reports of larger amounts of oil gushing, BP being anything but unlucky, etc. Now we know it is a lot worse than they disclosed and has been from the start."

I'm one of them. I'm familiar with the different modes of measurement that people are trying to use to estimate the oil flow, and they are simply not well suited to the task. Of the three approaches, the one that is most likely to be accurate gives the lowest numbers. The other two have SERIOUS shortcomings. I would rate "#1" as a "scientific wild-assed guess", and the other two as a "unscientific wild-assed guesses". The "100,000 barrels/day" that gets thrown around with great abandon is BP's guess at what would happen in a complete blowout (totally open or no BOP), which we know is not the situation here. So we know it is some amount less than 100,000 bpd. We know they are trapping ~17000 bpd with the current rig, so it has to be greater than that.

And no, we cannot say, "they've known that from the start". There is a VERY good possibility that the flow has increased due to "downhole" factors (you can find that discussion on "The Oil Drum"). Certainly the gas/oil ratio has changed, and the removal of part of the riser MIGHT have increased the flow some by reducing the back-presssure. But we also know that a part of the piping that was inside the riser is still there (you can see the cut ends of two ~6" diameter pipes in the section of riser that was removed), so this is NOT the "open BOP" case.

My own guess (and it is a guess) is that the final flow will be something around 20,000-25,000 bpd.

The people that are basing their judgment on what they see in the video feeds are simply being ridiculous. You CANNOT estimate the flow by what you see there. The shape of the orifices have been DRASTICALLY changed by the removal of the riser and the placement of the "top hat", so a visual image comparison is completely worthless as a way of determining flow.

However, now that they have put pressure sensors in place, an accurate determination can be made, and we will shortly have a pretty good number.

"Just one disagreement and that’s with your belief that BP did not know / or flow was not this large from the start. I think there will soon be proof that they did know from the start and it was this bad from the start."

I don't see how it will be possible to prove it. Immediately after the blowout, there was no way at all to get data. It took a while just to get the resources to get "back down" to the wellhead. And once the "live feed" was in place, despite the assertions of the Purdue "expert", without knowledge of the pressure and the cross-sectional areas of the various leaks, I see no way to derive flow of oil, since the gas/oil ratio was unknown. Once the "pump and trap" system was in place, the gas/oil ratio becomes known, so it I think it was probably possible to do a very rough calculation at that point. Along about this time, they measured the pressures at various stages in the BOP, which could also be used to estimate flows.

Of course, now you reach the point at which the riser is cut off and the current "top hat" is emplaced. All the variables change, so you're back to ground zero. All you know is the gas/oil ratio.

I'm not aware of any pressure data taken in the BOP over this period, so any estimation of flow is problematic.

Given all this, I don't see any way to "track back" to the beginning of the spill. We can know the flow from the time the pressure sensors are emplaced, but no way to know (and more specifically, legally prove) what the prior flows were. And I don't see that it matters all that much....there are already a sufficient number of malfeasances in the engineering to hang BP. They're already a dead horse.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.