Site for sensible discussion of technical issues surrounding GOM oil leak.

[JerryLove]

The laws and special interest groups that prohibit drilling in Alaska ANWR have helped create this self fulfilling prophecy.
So what was meant to supposedly save Alaska has destroyed the Gulf of Mexico.

It's an impressive feat of logic that concludes "There's a gigantic ecological disaster caused by oil drilling: therefore we should drill in other sensitive ecological areas".

ANWR is <5% of a rather large state. How about drilling the rest of Alaska? Though I understand that Prince William Sound is still not fully recovered 20 years later.

 

[Tarub]

 

[Rickster71]

It's an impressive feat of logic that concludes "There's a gigantic ecological disaster caused by oil drilling: therefore we should drill in other sensitive ecological areas".

ANWR is <5% of a rather large state. How about drilling the rest of Alaska? Though I understand that Prince William Sound is still not fully recovered 20 years later.

It's an even more impressive feat to misunderstand and misrepresent what I've said.
My point was more to comparing the drilling under miles of water instead of the relative simplicity of drilling on the ground.

The only way ANWR became a "sensitive ecological area" is because politicians and special interest groups made it that way.

 

[randyb]

It's an even more impressive feat to misunderstand and misrepresent what I've said.
My point was more to comparing the drilling under miles of water instead of the relative simplicity of drilling on the ground.

The only way ANWR became a "sensitive ecological area" is because politicians and special interest groups made it that way.

Your argument does seem to offer an alternative that I don't think really is there. Why do people think that oil companies, if allowed to drill in Alaska, wouldn't still drill anywhere else they could provided they could make a profit doing so? I have heard this argument recently from others and I am curious if it is one being touted on the radio by conservative radio broadcasters. If so, please help me understand the logic that says, gee if they let them drill in Alaska or closer to shore, they won't drill in deep water? Why not if they can and it is profitable? Seems to me you would just have more drilling period.

 

[Highlander]

I would not be so black and white and say that *ALL* engineers use the scientific method. In some ways, it's not needed.

Engineers put scientific knowledge to practical use. Without scientific knowledge as its foundation, Engineering would be known instead as 'pot luck'.

 

[highfigh]

I'm happy to announce that the noble legal profession has waited about 50 days to become involved in this debacle. I got an e-mail today from a legal firm in Michigan soliciting business from people and businesses who have suffered damages from the oil spill.

 

[ArthurPE]

we know one thing...the 5000 bbl/day est was waaaay off...
they are capturing ~15,000/day currently, and estimates put what is escaping at >10,000...for a total of >25,000/day, even allowing for the 20% increase due to the cutting, that's >25,000/day for 50 days
>1,000,000 bbls...>40 mil gals, almost 4 times the Exxon Valdez...

we also know we can't trust BP http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIXWYBTpLtSayJtg41LKXpxSxVPAD9G7EPMO0

In an interview with The Associated Press, team member and Purdue University engineering professor Steve Wereley said it was a "reasonable conclusion" but not the team's final one to say that the daily flow rate is, in fact, somewhere between 798,000 gallons and 1.8 million gallons.(~ 18,000 to 45,000 bbl/day)

"BP is claiming they're capturing the majority of the flow, which I think is going to be proven wrong in short order," Wereley said. "Why don't they show the American public the before-and-after shots?"

He added: "It's strictly an estimation, and they are portraying it as fact."

Asked about the containment effort and the uncertainties in estimating how much oil is escaping, Allen said: "I have never said this is going well. We're throwing everything we've got."

Paul Bommer, a University of Texas petroleum and geosystems engineering professor and member of the flow rate team, said cap seems to have made a "dent" in reducing the flow, but there is still a lot of oil coming out. That seemed clear from the underwater "spillcam" video, which continued to show a big plume of gas and oil billowing into the water.


my opinion: they are capturing about 1/4, maybe less, and the total flow is >40,000 bbl/day...it would need to be around that tomake economic sense...the lease is 1 mil/day

 

[Gizmologist]

Imo

There is no way BP even WANTS to cap the oil flow. They have millions already invested and I believe that THEY believe they can still turn a profit even after paying damages and cleanup.Too many folks have submitted viable solutions to stop the flow so permanent capping can be done. Underwater salvage companies were turned away weeks after offering their expertise AND equipment.

The suggestion line to BP for ideas goes nowhere at all. They trot out some for CNN to play with but the engineers never see them.

I have talked to 3 marine salvage companies, CNN, Gov. Jindal's office and the coast guard. The CG guys wanted pressure estimates from my which I gave THEN he says that BP has all the control.

The solution is right there in N.O.,LA. as we speak and has been in use ever since Katrina. It would take a day or 2 to fabricate the support hardware and a few hours to place it and voila! no oil.

 

[ArthurPE]

I tend to agree they are looking for every solution other than a permanent cap...

but on the other hand, I'm not sure they could pull that off...
I think they are seriously concerned, and may never be able to stop it, even with a relief well, and they say that well can spew for 30+ years at this ~rate...I think the people that really know the situation are letting the dire nature of the situation show through in their anger and frustration...
we may be talking about this leak 3 years from now...and it will still be flowing

 

[JerryLove]

It's an even more impressive feat to misunderstand and misrepresent what I've said.
My point was more to comparing the drilling under miles of water instead of the relative simplicity of drilling on the ground.

There's a lot of ground out there. Certainly you are not asserting that ANWR represents some fundamental shift in oil availability and that we will suddenly become energy-independant if we just opened it up.

Because if you are not: you haven't really solved anything. You've just opened up another area for oil production.

The only way ANWR became a "sensitive ecological area" is because politicians and special interest groups made it that way.

I suppose we could say the same thing about why murdering people is considered "bad". Because politicians and special interest groups made it that way.

If we could move past such rhetoric: where you dismiss the possability that drilling might be undesireable for some reason other than a lack of oil, there might be a rational discussion on whether ANWR in particular should be protected, whether "safe drilling" could or could not be done, and what the cost/benefit analysis was.

After all: you are advocating this to protect the Gulf of Mexico. Is that a "sensitive ecological area"? Who decided so? Why is it more worthy of protection than ANWR?

I suspect all consistant answers to that last paragraph will boil down to "money".

 

[Rickster71]

Your argument does seem to offer an alternative that I don't think really is there. Why do people think that oil companies, if allowed to drill in Alaska, wouldn't still drill anywhere else they could provided they could make a profit doing so? I have heard this argument recently from others and I am curious if it is one being touted on the radio by conservative radio broadcasters. If so, please help me understand the logic that says, gee if they let them drill in Alaska or closer to shore, they won't drill in deep water? Why not if they can and it is profitable? Seems to me you would just have more drilling period.

Oil drilling is regulated by the Government.
There are many places on land that the Fed Government disallows oil drilling, while the same Fed Gov allows oil companies to drill in water that's miles deep.
It appears to me it's much simpler / safer to drill over land than in deep water, and that ocean drilling is an accident waiting to happen.
I think we should exhaust oil supplies on the relative safety of land before the government allows deep water drilling.

This issue isn't political for me. The political broadcasters you've mentioned /listen to don't matter, so I'd rather not drag them / politics into to this thread.

 

[TLS Guy]

The response of the Obama administration to this disaster is really starting to concern me.

I have started a blog about it.

 

[James NM]

... It appears to me it's much simpler / safer to drill over land than in deep water, and that ocean drilling is an accident waiting to happen.
I think we should exhaust oil supplies on the relative safety of land before the government allows deep water drilling.

Exactly!

This issue isn't political for me. The political broadcasters you've mentioned /listen to don't matter, so I'd rather not drag them / politics into to this thread

It's not political, it's common sense (which has sadly become an oxymoron).

 

[James NM]

The response of the Obama administration to this disaster is really starting to concern me.

You mean you do not approve of the "Ostrich Methodology" currently being employed by Obama?

 

[TLS Guy]

You mean you do not approve of the "Ostrich Methodology" currently being employed by Obama?

No I don't! And I think that is a good way of putting it.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The response of the Obama administration to this disaster is really starting to concern me.

I have started a blog about it.

Not trying to start an argument, but here's another perspective.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/06/what-other-ticking-time-bombs-await/

 

[gmichael]

Just clean up the mess!

 

[majorloser]

Just clean up the mess!

We're working on it. Just give us a little more time.

 

[TLS Guy]

Just clean up the mess!

I just wish it was that simple!

For one thing there is overwhelming evidence that cleaning marshes does more harm than good. If you try to clean them they never recover, if you leave them alone they recover in three to four years.

Today's figures indicate the flow from that pipe is colossal. That is what you would expect with 450 atmospheres minus 150 atmospheres for the water column, so 300 atmospheres of forward pressure coming up a 26" pipe.

They dare not cap it as they are pretty certain the blow out plates will give way if they do cap it from above. So the pipe has to run free while they collect what oil they can.

This will be a mess until the pipe can be sealed from the bottom.

If the relief pipe ends up in the wrong place first time, which is more likely than not, expect the leak to be sealed most likely between December and February. Average time for this maneuver is nine months. So lets hope they get lucky.

This mess won't be cleaned by skimmers and vacuum cleaners!

 

[ArthurPE]

does anyonre really think big oil bush/cheney would be responding with any more urgency? their lax policies caused it...

what can the government do? there is no 'national oil company' with the resources, both personnel and equipment to deal with this...
what would you do? send in the Marines? that worked out well in Iraq and 'Stan

if the government gets involved, they are criticized, socialism
if they don't, they are inept, they don't 'care' enough
damned they do, damned if they don't

if the largest companies in the world, with massive quantities of expertise can't tackle the problem, what do you expect the government to do?
they are in the same frustrating boat as us, at the mercy of big oil...

if someone who lost their child thinks the President is doing enough, who are we to second guess?

Keith Jones, who lost his 28-year-old son, Gordon, was among those looking forward to meeting with Obama. On Thursday morning, he told CNN he thinks the President has done enough in the 52 days since the explosion but wanted to hear from him directly about what's being done to contain the spill and to provide benefits to the victims' families.

"I don't know what people expect him to do, if they expect him to go down and clean pelicans," Jones said. "I think that the criticism of the President that I've seen is from a public relations standpoint."