Setback Delays ‘Top Kill’ Effort to Seal Leaking Oil Well in Gulf

The New York Times ^ | 5/27/10 | CLIFFORD KRAUSS, JOHN M. BRODER and LIZ ROBBINS

[Wonder Warthog]

"No, it's not. It's been emphasized over and over again, they don't know."

By whom?? Seems to me I've seen plenty of numbers, most of which are around 10,000 bpd. Certainly ANY number is going to be somewhat of an estimate, but BP and the Coast Guard are in the best position to make the best estimate. You certainly will never know by "looking for plumes"

[Wonder Warthog]

"Natural processes are at a much greater disadvantage when the oil remains at all depths - and in large concentrations. Which is the case here."

Sorry, one hundred and eighty degrees WRONG. The more spread out the oil is, the easier it is for natural processes to work. The only processes for which this is not true are sun-induced photochemical reactions that happen in the layers closest to the surface. But these comprise only a tiny fraction of things that reduce spills. Most reduction happens by bacterial action. The more spread out the oil is, and the smaller the particles it exists as, the easier the bacteria can work.

Dude, I'm a chemist. This is my SPECIALTY.

[D-fendr]

It's been moving up since the beginning. No one knows for sure, estimates range widely.

Nor is the exact size of the spill known with any certainty. Scientists have said that calculating the size of the spill carefully will be critical in order to predict the amount of damage the oil and chemicals could do in the ocean and onshore in the near term and in the future.

So what is the flow rate? Is it 5,000 barrels a day, as BP and the government have repeatedly claimed in recent weeks? Or is it closer to 80,000 or 100,000 barrels a day, as some independent analysts have guessed based on footage of the oil gushing out of the riser pipe?

http://www.energyboom.com/policy/flow-rate-remains-critical-unanswered-question-bp-oil-disaster

In addition, no one knows how long it will continue - even the slant hit is not a sure bet (which is why they're drilling two, it could take four or more tries, months away).

This is a huge field under a mile of water with no sure end in sight. No one can say today "This spill is X barrels."

[D-fendr]

The more spread out the oil is

You're missing my point. It's huge, the surface, where it is spreading out, is a tiny percent.

[D-fendr]

The other problem with it remaining under the surface is it isn’t caught by booms protecting the shoreline.

[Wonder Warthog]

"It's been moving up since the beginning. No one knows for sure, estimates range widely."

True. But I can guarantee you that BP and the Coast Guard have got the best estimates, and have since not long after the "pump and capture" process has been put in place.

Here is how they know:

1) the size of all the leak points is known (by this point they have 3D CAD models of the whole riser pipe and all the penetrations).

2) the size of the inlet pipe for "pump and capture" is known (obviously, since BP installed it).

3) BP knows how fast they have to run the suction pump so as to draw in the maximum amount of oil and minimum amount of water from that inlet line. Given these facts, "I" could calculate a pretty reasonable figure for the amount of oil flow, and I'm sure that the oil professionals could calculate it even more closely.

Is this an accurate method. No, it's an estimate, since BP has NOT known what the spill flow was prior to the installation of the pump and capture. But it will certainly give the full size of the spill to within a factor of two, and probably closer than that.

[Wonder Warthog]

And so what??? What matters is the total emitted. The longer it takes to come to the surface, the more time it has to decrease in droplet size, dissolve in the seawater, and be eaten by bacteria. It is true that all of those processes work faster as it gets closer to the surface, and once it "does" reach the surface, it is exposed to air (more oxygen) and sunlight, which brings other degradation mechanisms into play.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The other problem with it remaining under the surface is it isn’t caught by booms protecting the shoreline."

Uh, the further under the surface it is, the further away from shore it is. To get onto the beaches, it has to come up to the surface. The oil booms are deployed right along the water/shore interface.

[Wonder Warthog]

I left off one key point. What I summarized will yield the "linear velocity" of the oil column. This can also be gotten by "particle velocitometry" (the Purdue guy). But without knowing the oil/gas ratio (which is also available from samples taken from the "pump and capture" plumbing), the linear velocity isn't worth a bucket of warm spit in calculating the amount of oil spilled.

Which is why the stargazing done by all the armchair experts looking at the video feed has zero likelihood of being right.

But BP and the Coast Guard "do" have all the necessary information. You might say (as many on here do) that "BP lies". That may be true, but not with the Coast Guard (and probably others by this time) auditing every action taken.

[D-fendr]

To get onto the beaches, it has to come up to the surface. The oil booms are deployed right along the water/shore interface.

Marshes. Key wildlife habitat.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Marshes. Key wildlife habitat."

Since I'm from Louisiana, I'm well aware of the marshes. I was referring to beaches. As to the effects on the marshes, we'll have to wait and see. I don't think "Mother Nature" is quite the weak sister that a lot of folks think she is.

Some indirectly relevant info:

"Katrina's storm surge also destroyed an oil tank at Chevron's Empire facility, releasing oil into a retention pond in a region surrounded by marshland. Three and half weeks later, Hurricane Rita's storm surge hit the oily mess in the retention pond, washing 4,000 - 8,000 gallons of oil into nearby marshlands, which were heavily or moderately oiled. According to the EPA and Merten et al. (2008), the oiled marshlands were set on fire six weeks after the spill, resulting in 80-90% removal of the oil and contaminated vegetation. The marshland recovered fairly quickly, as seen in aerial photos taken five months after the burn (Figure 1)--though oil still remained in the roots, affecting burrowing crabs and the wildlife that feed on them."

From:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1492&tstamp=&page=2

[D-fendr]

I don’t think Mother Nature is a weak sister either. Eventually she will adapt, recover and thrive. A short time frame for Mother Nature, a long one for man.

But this is a big and continuing blow to life in the Gulf and to livlihoods dependent on it. Louisiana has 40% of the US marshlands and that’s where a great deal of gulf food starts.

The sub-surface problem, from all causes, adds to damage:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/30/1656217/gulf-oil-spill-this-disaster-just.html

[Wonder Warthog]

"A short time frame for Mother Nature, a long one for man."

2-5 years is a short time frame even for man, which is what the data from past spills says. Yes, oil can be "detected" in some sub-soil spots even today, but the ecology has recovered and thriving.

Your linked article is the same old alarmist drivel that has been the norm for the media ever since this started. Try looking up some actual science studies instead. There is simply no way that the magnitude of the spill will be 100 million gallons. Ixtoc "blew" at a higher rate for a FAR longer time to reach that amount.

"The sub-surface problem, from all causes, adds to damage...

Ixtoc had "sub-surface" damage, too, because they used the SAME dispersants to drive the oil into solution. And yet the Gulf of Mexico is not dead. And post-spill studies couldn't even DETECT "Ixtoc oil" along the Texas coastline after three years (I've posted a link to that scientific study on another thread).

[Wonder Warthog]

Here is the definitive word on the subject of “subsurface plumes”:

“No definitive conclusions have been reached by this research team about the composition of the undersea layers they discovered. Characterization of these layers will require analysis of samples and calibration of key instruments. The hypothesis that the layers consist of oil remains to be verified.”

“While oxygen levels detected in the layers were somewhat below normal, they are not low enough to be a source of concern at this time.”

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/552671/

The “plumes” consist of water with a somewhat lower oxygen content than that which surrounds it. Such low-oxygen layers can be caused by many things, one of which is dissolved oil.

Unfortunately, the term “subsurface plume” brings an image of an amoeboid blob of black/brown fluid with tendrils oozing off, which is not the case.

[D-fendr]

I think that’s a bit understated at this point. I can understand a desire to downplay it. And they could be right. However, among the findings this far:

“Tests showed that about 30 percent of the oxygen in the plume has been depleted, which could threaten marine life — mussels, clams, crabs, eels, jellyfish, shrimp and even sharks.”

It’s also not known precisely what the benefit or damage of the dispersal agents will be.

More testing of the samples is still to be done, and very recently one of the plumes seemed to be heading away from the coast.

“No definitive conclusions” is accurate, but I don’t find it that comforting a statement.

[D-fendr]

Ixtoc was in 50 ft of water and did not hit the shoreline in anything what this one seems to be doing.

I grew up in Galveston. I remember eating shelling and eating Gulf oysters.

I’m hopeful that this one is stopped soon and its effects are limited to a mere 5 years. But it looks far worse to me now in size and effect.

[Wonder Warthog]

"“Tests showed that about 30 percent of the oxygen in the plume has been depleted, which could threaten marine life — mussels, clams, crabs, eels, jellyfish, shrimp and even sharks.”

Sorry, but the guys on the "Pelican" (who are the ones doing the tests), say "not so". They specifically say that the reduction in oxygen levels is insufficient to cause problems.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Ixtoc was in 50 ft of water and did not hit the shoreline in anything what this one seems to be doing."

Actually, Ixtoc was in 135 ft of water, but I'll buy that that isn't all "that" different from 50 ft. What you don't seem to grasp is that the shallower water makes the effects WORSE. Like it or not, dilution "does" have an effect on pollution.

"I’m hopeful that this one is stopped soon and its effects are limited to a mere 5 years. But it looks far worse to me now in size and effect."

Yeah, that's what the media are painting it as, but the numbers don't support that conclusion. The press seems to be "one-upping" each other to find some commentator, no matter how ill qualified, to spout an ever-larger catastrophe. Nobody seems to actually be checking facts (apparently other than me).

The "plumes" are yet another un-substantiated story at this point. They may not even be oil-related.

[D-fendr]

They specifically say that the reduction in oxygen levels is insufficient to cause problems.

Do you still have your source for the Pelican scientists saying this? My 30% came from here:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/scientists-to-study-deepwater-oil-plume

[D-fendr]

Another difference between Ixtoc is the area hit. South Texas beaches versus the marshes.And booms were effective. Some oil escaped around, but Impacts to the estuaries were minor.