Jack was right, about BP
Ray OHara
want to recover the oil.
they are fine with it continuing to spill until they can figure a way to get
it into tankers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100515/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill
By JEFFREY COLLINS, Associated Press Writer - 2 hrs 26 mins ago
ROBERT, La. - BP was confident Saturday its latest experiment using a
mile-long pipe would capture much of the oil flowing into the Gulf of
Mexico, even as the company disclosed yet another setback in
theenvironmental disaster.
Engineers hit a snag when they tried to connect two pieces of equipment a
mile below the water's surface. BP PLC chief operating officer Doug Suttles
said one piece of equipment, called the framework, had to be brought to the
water's surface so that adjustments could be made to where it fits with the
long tube that connects to a tanker above.
The rest of the article is at the cite.
Frogwatch
I assume Ray has some good ideas on how to stop the leak that do not
concern collecting the leaking oil.
Ray OHara
"Frogwatch" <dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:11c7a431-e747-49a8...@40g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
===============================================================
it's well past time to just plug the pipe and stop the flow.
getting the oil is no longer the issue.
Mark Borgerson
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> "Ray OHara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Jack called it last week. he note BP wasn't trying to strm the leak they
> >want to recover the oil.
> >they are fine with it continuing to spill until they can figure a way to get
> >it into tankers.
> >
>
>
> Just how do you propose they stop the leak?
>
> Hint: You have to remove oil to release pressure. The oil is going
> to go somewhere. Your choice is it either goes in the water or it
> goes somewhere else.
>
>
That seems to assume that there is no way to stop the flow at the
source (somehwere below the blowout preventer). What would be the
static pressure of the oil at that point? Is there no way to
stop the flow at that point?
Mark Borgerson
David E. Powell
> In article <flruu551mfp5saubup71ttgscb69uj1...@4ax.com>,
> fjmcc...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Jack called it last week. he note BP wasn't trying to strm the leak they
> > >want to recover the oil.
> > >they are fine with it continuing to spill until they can figure a way to get
> > >it into tankers.
>
> > Jack is an idiot. You are an idiot's idiot.
>
> > Just how do you propose they stop the leak?
>
> > Hint: You have to remove oil to release pressure. The oil is going
> > to go somewhere. Your choice is it either goes in the water or it
> > goes somewhere else.
>
> That seems to assume that there is no way to stop the flow at the
> source (somehwere below the blowout preventer). What would be the
> static pressure of the oil at that point? Is there no way to
> stop the flow at that point?
If this doesn't work, there is an idea that I submitted tonight. I
heard the BP number on "Red Eye" which I DVR'd last night, and called
it this afternoon as soon as I heard it because I immediately thought
of something.
They gave me an email address once they figured the idea had merit (I
can imagine the crank calls they are getting) so I took a while to
figure out the methodology side of it, and emailed it in. Hopefully
they have it, just in case, and it might be a good idea to have on
hand in the future too.
I did take the firehosing high pressure oil flow into account, too.
Ray OHara
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef1vu557fuhcge7jk...@4ax.com...
> you silly twat?
>
if these things were impossible to control they wouldn't drill them.
Keith Willshaw
"Ray OHara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hsngel$rq9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Jack called it last week. he note BP wasn't trying to strm the leak they
> want to recover the oil.
> they are fine with it continuing to spill until they can figure a way to
> get it into tankers.
>
You are out of your tiny mind.
The cost of the cleanup and fines likely to be levied will exceed the value
of the oil recovered by an order of magnitude.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Ray OHara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hso264$oi8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>
>> And just how do you propose to do that against 30,000 PSI oil flow,
>> you silly twat?
>>
>
> if these things were impossible to control they wouldn't drill them.
>
The Blowout Preventer is the control mechanism, it failed.
The fallback plan is to drill a relief well to intercept the well
but that takes 3 months.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Mark Borgerson" <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.26591db4a...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <flruu551mfp5saubu...@4ax.com>,
> That seems to assume that there is no way to stop the flow at the
> source (somehwere below the blowout preventer). What would be the
> static pressure of the oil at that point? Is there no way to
> stop the flow at that point?
>
>
> Mark Borgerson
>
>
There are some significant problems trying to block the flow.
At the time of the blowout there was 5000 ft column of water
in the riser so the pressure was in excess of 2,000 psi. Given
that they were trying to plug the well it also blew out a cement
plug so it was likely a LOT higher.
The only way to block it would be to remove the blowout preventer
which seems to have partially closed. This would mean a considerable
increase in oil flow. Then you have to somehow block the outflow
in a damaged riser pipe at a depth of 5,000 ft.
I tend to go along with the strategy already chosen which is to try
and collect the escaping oil while drilling a relief well to intercept
the flow.
Keith
Jack Linthicum
<keithnos...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
But what is recovered will partially justify the risky operation and
the inadequate attempts at stopping the flow.
Ray OHara
> either, but I apparently know orders of magnitude more than you.
>
from reading your post I'd say you don't know what you are talking about
Fred
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f0f02ab5-86d6-4eb5...@q33g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
The recovery is aimed at mitigating the effects. The cost of processing
oil that is heavily contaminated with salt water is very high and the
residual value is unlikely to meet even the costs of its collection
If we assume that the flow rate is 5000 barrels per day and they recover
100% and got the full market price for gulf crude that would yield
around $350,000 dollars per day.
The costs of the clean up operation and drilling are currently running at
round around $33 million per day.
Work it out for yourself.
Keith
Jack Linthicum
<keithnos...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> Work it out for yourself.
>
> Keith
You are off by a factor of 20 or more, the number is now 2.9 million
barrels a day. Works out to about $7m a day which should pay for the
overtime.
Arved Sandstrom
> "Ray OHara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jack called it last week. he note BP wasn't trying to strm the leak they
>> want to recover the oil.
>> they are fine with it continuing to spill until they can figure a way to get
>> it into tankers.
>>
>
>
> Just how do you propose they stop the leak?
>
> Hint: You have to remove oil to release pressure. The oil is going
> to go somewhere. Your choice is it either goes in the water or it
> goes somewhere else.
>
nowhere...not until they drilled a hole into it. The act of drilling is
fundamentally to create a controlled leak. The accident created an
obstructed uncontrolled leak, and a full gusher would be an unobstructed
uncontrolled leak.
Reducing your statements to their essence, you're unequivocally saying
that it's impossible to plug *any* of these forms of leaks. In fact
you've essentially said that it's not possible to have a working
controlled well, which always includes the possibility of stopping the flow.
To put it yet another way, if a working blowout preventer can seal off a
wellbore, it seems fairly obvious that you can, in fact, plug a leak.
AHS
Arved Sandstrom
Sure there's significant problems trying to block the flow. Nobody's
denying that - this is a complicated problem that is exacerbated by
being a mile underwater. I expect most folks are also in agreement that
drilling a relief well, regardless of whatever else is done, is a
prudent thing to do. I also expect that most folks would agree that one
set of reasonable tactics to consider is containment and
collection...although that's not exactly working out so well.
But it strikes me as odd and counter-intuitive when people advance
arguments that it's effectively not possible to plug the leak. Pressure
is way too high etc etc. If this is the case then we are fundamentally
arguing that we can't have a safe well, and so why are we drilling there
in the first place? To put it bluntly, if you're stating that you can't
block the flow then you're stating that neither could a working blowout
preventer on a working well do it.
AHS
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:339bc5b6-3f86-4a21...@l6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
Go back and read it again, it says 2.9 million GALLONS
not barrels.
Even if we assume the figure of 70,000 barrels at the full value
with 100% recovery rates would barely yield $5 million, the reality is that
the value of recovered oil is a fraction of the market price and
the yield will be far less than 100%.
Its not just a matter of paying overtime. They have around
500 vessels and aircraft on charter. The wages of the 5000
local fisherman alone are likely to wipe out any revenue
from recovered oil.
Then there are the considerable costs of cleaning up the discharge
after the oil has been separated from it. These are not trivial
Analysts are currently assessing BP's total cost by the end of the
incident at between 5 and 10 BILLION dollars. The notion that
BP are allowing the spill to continue to recover the oil is
frankly ridiculous.
Keith
Thomas Womack
Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>But what is recovered will partially justify the risky operation and
>the inadequate attempts at stopping the flow.
What they've got at the moment is a science fair; there's a drillship
drilling the relief well, presumably as fast as BP's relatively large
budget can convince the best available drillers to drill, and in about
three months they ought to be able to kill the well. But it's a PR
impossibility to sit back for three months collecting oil at the
surface, so they need to do something; but the somethings are likely
to fail, because if they had somethings which were likely to succeed
they'd have done those first.
You want to be absolutely paranoid about avoiding things that might
increase the flow rate, so the attempts are going to look 'inadequate'
because they're not going to do anything with even a small probability
of making the problem significantly worse.
Tom
Jack Linthicum
They still will get money from that recovered oil and seem to be
having another problem at their Atlantis well. The company seems to be
either stupid, criminal or inept. And 2.9 million gallons is not a
"tiny" leak anymore that 210,000 is. Still 13+ times larger.
And on that 5,000 fishermen "employed", more like given checks for
claims made. They are called "economic injury payments" and BP is, as
usual, playing the game their way.
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/filing_claims_in_gulf_oil_spil.html
BP's own probe finds safety issues on Atlantis rig
By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI and NOAKI SCHWARTZ (AP) – 19 hours ago
HOUSTON — The company whose drilling triggered the Gulf of Mexico oil
spill also owns a rig that operated with incomplete and inaccurate
engineering documents, which one official warned could "lead to
catastrophic operator error," records and interviews show.
In February, two months before the Deepwater Horizon spill, 19 members
of Congress called on the agency that oversees offshore oil drilling
to investigate a whistle-blower's complaints about the BP-owned
Atlantis, which is stationed in 7,070 feet of water more than 150
miles south of New Orleans.
The Associated Press has learned that an independent firm hired by BP
substantiated the complaints in 2009 and found that the giant
petroleum company was violating its own policies by not having
completed engineering documents on board the Atlantis when it began
operating in 2007.
Stanley Sporkin, a former federal judge whose firm served as BP's
ombudsman, said that the allegation "was substantiated, and that's
it." The firm was hired by BP in 2006 to act as an independent office
to receive and investigate employee complaints.
Engineering documents — covering everything from safety shutdown
systems to blowout preventers — are meant to be roadmaps for safely
starting and halting production on the huge offshore platform.
Running an oil rig with flawed and missing documentation is like
cooking a dinner without a complete recipe, said University of
California, Berkeley engineering professor Robert Bea, an oil pipeline
expert who has been reviewing the whistle-blower allegations and
studied the Gulf blowout.
"This is symptomatic of a sick system. This kind of sloppiness is what
leads to disasters," he said. "The sloppiness on the industry side and
on the government side. It's a shared problem."
BP and the Minerals and Management Service, which regulates oil
drilling, did not respond to calls from the AP seeking comment on the
whistle-blower allegations. But in January an attorney for BP wrote a
letter to Congress saying the company is compliant with all federal
requirements and the Atlantis has been operating so safely that it
received an MMS award.
"BP has reviewed the allegations and found them to be
unsubstantiated," said Karen K. Westall, managing attorney for BP.
The MMS is expected to complete its probe later this month.
Last month, the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank 5,000 feet to the
ocean floor. Since then at least 210,000 gallons of oil a day has been
leaking into the Gulf, endangering wildlife, shutting down large areas
to commercial fishing and threatening coastal tourism.
Government officials and critics of the oil industry say the alleged
problems with the Atlantis are further evidence of systemic safety
problems and lax federal regulation of offshore drilling.
"I think it's a legitimate area of concern to ask serious questions
about any rig that bears any similarity whatsoever to the Deepwater
Horizon," said Richard Charter, a senior policy advisor with Defenders
of Wildlife. "If we've got another Deepwater Horizon waiting to
happen, we'd better know about it soon."
BP operates and holds 56 percent ownership in the Atlantis. The
company leased the Deepwater Horizon from Transocean Ltd.
The Atlantis subcontractor who lodged the complaint was Kenneth
Abbott. He was laid off in February 2009 and said in a written
statement a few months later that he believes it was partly in
retaliation, which the company denied.
When reached by the AP, Abbott said, "I had complained about BP's
problem," but declined to elaborate.
In a statement read on an October 8, 2009, conference call he said he
has 20 years of experience as a project control supervisor on various
engineering projects and that part of his concern about rig safety
stems for the fact that he lives on the Gulf and enjoys recreation on
its waters.
"I have never been against offshore production because I believe it
can be done safely but I am very concerned that BP is acting unsafely
and that it may lead to a disastrous spill in the Gulf ... " he said,
according to a copy of the statement.
Sporkin, the former judge who heads the Washington, D.C.-based
ombudsman office hired by BP, told the AP his office found in August
2009 that BP's execution plan for the Atlantis called for all
documents to be finalized and onboard before production started.
"That did not happen," Sporkin said.
Last month, Sporkin's deputy, Billie Pirner Garde, indicated in an e-
mail to Abbott that BP had long known there was a document problem
aboard the Atlantis.
"It was ... of concern to others who raised the concern before you
worked there, while you were there and after you left," she wrote.
"Your raising the issue did not result in any change to the schedule
of BP addressing the issues."
BP production member Barry C. Duff said in an August 2008 e-mail to
two colleagues that "hundreds if not thousands" of subsea documents
had not been finalized, and warned having the wrong documents on board
the Atlantis "could lead to catastrophic operator errors."
Abbott provided e-mails, a BP database and other documents to an
environmental group called Food & Water Watch, based in Washington.
The AP obtained copies.
Members of Congress were provided the documents and a report by Mike
Sawyer, a safety engineering consultant who previously assisted the
plaintiffs in a suit aginst BP after the 2005 explosion at its Texas
City, Texas, refinery that killed 15 workers.
Sawyer reviewed a database detailing the status of thousands of
Atlantis safety-related engineering documents provided by Abbott. He
concluded in May 2009 that the majority were incomplete, introducing
"substantial risk of large-scale damage to the deep water Gulf of
Mexico environment and harm to workers."
Sawyer said he found that about 85 percent of the piping and
instrument designs "have no final approval" and more than 95 percent
of the welding specifications had no approval at all.
"I think it's very serious," said U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.,
who led the call for an investigation. "I think it speaks to the lack
of the federal government's ability to protect its own public
property. It speaks to the opportunism and advantage these companies
took of the taxpayer."
More than a year after Abbott first lodged his complaint, it remains
unclear whether BP updated the documents.
Sporkin said BP told his office the company was not federally required
to have the documents on board the Atlantis and could change its
execution plan at any time.
Sporkin said BP recently told his office they had fixed the problem,
yet provided no written documentation.
Kenneth Arnold, a consultant to the offshore oil and gas industry for
safety and project management, read the whistleblower's allegations.
Without knowing which documents were incomplete, Arnold said it would
be difficult to draw any conclusions as to how much of a threat the
omissions might be. When his company worked on BP projects, Arnold
said they were sticklers.
"If anything they're so anal about these processes they require more
engineering and man hours than I think might be necessary," said
Arnold, who recently retired after 45 years in the industry. "If I had
a complaint about BP, it is they were too detailed. People are piling
on."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hHsk0x3SVdhh3-xCuDpsHA74QtbQD9FNEG4G0
Mark Borgerson
> you silly twat?
>
and couldn't find any mention of risers being tested beyond
22,500PSI. If the riser was only good for 22,500PSI, a 30,000
PSI well would seem to be doomed to fail!
Mark Borgerson
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
Here is the story on processing that mixture.
Oil flowing into this chamber would be collected and brought up
through a new 5,000-foot pipeline to a ship floating on the surface,
the Deepwater Enterprise. The oil would be separated from seawater and
gas, and then offloaded to an onshore oil terminal. As explained in
this fact sheet, the Deepwater Enterprise can process 15,000 barrels
of oil a day and store as much as 139,000 barrels. The system could
collect as much as 85 percent of the oil rising from the seafloor.1/
In other words the best Deepwater can do is recover 21% of the current
flow of 210,000 barrels (2.9 million gallons) a day, and store about
67% of the total flow in a day. So, they claim they can process 21% in
real time and make a million or so dollars a day doing that. The 65%
is a piece of imagination when the present flow is brought in.
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:adc6ab1b-ef81-49d8...@y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On May 16, 9:33 am, "Keith Willshaw"
>>
>> Analysts are currently assessing BP's total cost by the end of the
>> incident at between 5 and 10 BILLION dollars. The notion that
>> BP are allowing the spill to continue to recover the oil is
>> frankly ridiculous.
>>
>> Keith
>
> They still will get money from that recovered oil
Indeed but the costs of recovery will exceed the revenue by a large margin.
> and seem to be
> having another problem at their Atlantis well.
Drilling for oil in deep waters has never been easy. This particular
operation involved dynamically positioning a floating structure and
dangling 1 MILE of drilling pipe under the semisub. As for the Atlantis
well perhaps you should be asking the regulating authority about that
but it looks more like a matter of completing paperwork than a substantive
issue.
> The company seems to be
> either stupid, criminal or inept. And 2.9 million gallons is not a
> "tiny" leak anymore that 210,000 is. Still 13+ times larger.
>
I have never described it as a tiny leak. As for BP I have been involved
in projects with BP in the North Sea and Persian gulf and they have
normally been one of the better operators.
> And on that 5,000 fishermen "employed", more like given checks for
> claims made. They are called "economic injury payments" and BP is, as
> usual, playing the game their way.
> http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/filing_claims_in_gulf_oil_spil.html
>
No these are boats on charter to help with the cleanup.
>
> BP's own probe finds safety issues on Atlantis rig
>
> By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI and NOAKI SCHWARTZ (AP) � 19 hours ago
>
> HOUSTON � The company whose drilling triggered the Gulf of Mexico oil
> spill also owns a rig that operated with incomplete and inaccurate
> engineering documents, which one official warned could "lead to
> catastrophic operator error," records and interviews show.
>
So BP obviously took the problem seriously enough to commission
an enquiry.
> In February, two months before the Deepwater Horizon spill, 19 members
> of Congress called on the agency that oversees offshore oil drilling
> to investigate a whistle-blower's complaints about the BP-owned
> Atlantis, which is stationed in 7,070 feet of water more than 150
> miles south of New Orleans.
>
> The Associated Press has learned that an independent firm hired by BP
> substantiated the complaints in 2009 and found that the giant
> petroleum company was violating its own policies by not having
> completed engineering documents on board the Atlantis when it began
> operating in 2007.
>
> Stanley Sporkin, a former federal judge whose firm served as BP's
> ombudsman, said that the allegation "was substantiated, and that's
> it." The firm was hired by BP in 2006 to act as an independent office
> to receive and investigate employee complaints.
>
> Engineering documents � covering everything from safety shutdown
> systems to blowout preventers � are meant to be roadmaps for safely
> starting and halting production on the huge offshore platform.
>
The real problem is filtering the mass of documentation available
so that what's needed on the platform is readily available and
not submerged by a mountain of irrelevant stuff.
This happens to be an area in which I have been working since
the mid 1980's. On one job we did for Total Oil we filled an entire
floor of a large office building with just 2 copies of all the documentation
required for a single production platform. If you tried to keep all
the paperwork generated on the platform it would sink under the weight.
One of the major problems you run into is that the regulations imposed
by each national authority are not only unique they are continuously
changing. I have seen drilling ships docked for weeks simply because
the Norwegians suddenly started demanding a completely new
set of paperwork on a unit that had been working the North Sea
for years.
Increasingly the smarter regulating authorities require a Risk Assessment
that combines and analysis of the likelihood of failure with the costs
of such a failure, both business and environmental and produces a
proactive inspection schedule that preferentially targets the most
dangerous sections of operation.
The US unfortunately has shown little interest in such initiatives instead
relying on simplistic inspection by schedule and mandating levels of
documentation that swamp operators and maintainers with irrelevant
and hence useless paperwork.
<snip>
>
> Kenneth Arnold, a consultant to the offshore oil and gas industry for
> safety and project management, read the whistleblower's allegations.
>
> Without knowing which documents were incomplete, Arnold said it would
> be difficult to draw any conclusions as to how much of a threat the
> omissions might be. When his company worked on BP projects, Arnold
> said they were sticklers.
>
> "If anything they're so anal about these processes they require more
> engineering and man hours than I think might be necessary," said
> Arnold, who recently retired after 45 years in the industry. "If I had
> a complaint about BP, it is they were too detailed. People are piling
> on."
>
That is certainly more in line with my experience. BP were one of
the more demanding customers in terms of quality control. We
reckoned they spent 20% more on what was dismissively called
'preferential engineering' than companies like Phillips and Exxon.
Keith
Jack Linthicum
<keithnos...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> No these are boats on charter to help with the cleanup.
>
>
>
> > BP's own probe finds safety issues on Atlantis rig
>
>
> > HOUSTON — The company whose drilling triggered the Gulf of Mexico oil
> > spill also owns a rig that operated with incomplete and inaccurate
> > engineering documents, which one official warned could "lead to
> > catastrophic operator error," records and interviews show.
>
> So BP obviously took the problem seriously enough to commission
> an enquiry.
>
>
>
> > In February, two months before the Deepwater Horizon spill, 19 members
> > of Congress called on the agency that oversees offshore oil drilling
> > to investigate a whistle-blower's complaints about the BP-owned
> > Atlantis, which is stationed in 7,070 feet of water more than 150
> > miles south of New Orleans.
>
> > The Associated Press has learned that an independent firm hired by BP
> > substantiated the complaints in 2009 and found that the giant
> > petroleum company was violating its own policies by not having
> > completed engineering documents on board the Atlantis when it began
> > operating in 2007.
>
> > Stanley Sporkin, a former federal judge whose firm served as BP's
> > ombudsman, said that the allegation "was substantiated, and that's
> > it." The firm was hired by BP in 2006 to act as an independent office
> > to receive and investigate employee complaints.
>
> > systems to blowout preventers — are meant to be roadmaps for safely
BP makes risk assessments and then skips over the tests, the "tiny"
leak, a drop in the ocean, was BP's quote.
Jack Linthicum
> "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Fred J. McCall" <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:ef1vu557fuhcge7jk...@4ax.com...
> >> "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"Frogwatch" <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> either, but I apparently know orders of magnitude more than you.
>
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
lessee, zero times infinity is...?
Jack Linthicum
> even temporarily plug the current leak there would be that much more
> oil for them to recover with the relief well (and that oil wouldn't be
> contaminated with salt water). Even if you make the stupid
> assumptions Jack does about 'evil greed', it would make more sense for
> them to plug the leak if they could.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
And what is this provision in the Deepwater manual for?
Once on the surface ship, the hydrocarbons will be processed and oil
will be separated from water and gas. The oil will then be temporarily
stored before being offloaded and shipped to a designated oil terminal
onshore.
• The Deepwater Enterprise is capable of processing 15,000 barrels of
oil per day and storing 139,000 barrels.
• A support barge will also be deployed with a capacity to store
137,000 barrels of oil.
• This system could collect as much as 85% of oil rising from the
seafloor.
Mark Test
> Jack called it last week. he note BP wasn't trying to strm the leak they
> want to recover the oil.
> they are fine with it continuing to spill until they can figure a way to
> get it into tankers.
>
>
>
> By JEFFREY COLLINS, Associated Press Writer - 2 hrs 26 mins ago
> ROBERT, La. - BP was confident Saturday its latest experiment using a
> mile-long pipe would capture much of the oil flowing into the Gulf of
> Mexico, even as the company disclosed yet another setback in
> theenvironmental disaster.
>
> Engineers hit a snag when they tried to connect two pieces of equipment a
> mile below the water's surface. BP PLC chief operating officer Doug
> Suttles said one piece of equipment, called the framework, had to be
> brought to the water's surface so that adjustments could be made to where
> it fits with the long tube that connects to a tanker above.
>
>
> The rest of the article is at the cite.
>
I doubt BP or anyone else would find it OK to allow
a leak of this magnitude to occur. The law suits and gov't
fines could range in the tens of billions. BTW,
if it were more efficient to harvest oil from the sea
water....we'd do it that way in the first place.
Mark
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9e74d7f3-c084-4fdb...@y12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
Its a description of the system being used to recover the leaking oil.
> � The Deepwater Enterprise is capable of processing 15,000 barrels of
> oil per day and storing 139,000 barrels.
>
> � A support barge will also be deployed with a capacity to store
> 137,000 barrels of oil.
>
> � This system could collect as much as 85% of oil rising from the
> seafloor.
>
> http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/factsheet_subsea_oil_recovery_system_050210a_3_536819.537715.pdf
>
Now Jack a little earlier you said the oil was escaping at the rate of
70,000
barrels per day. Last time I checked 15,000 was not 85% of 70,000.
Keith
Jack Linthicum
<keithnos...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:9e74d7f3-c084-4fdb...@y12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 16, 12:51 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And what is this provision in the Deepwater manual for?
>
> > Once on the surface ship, the hydrocarbons will be processed and oil
> > will be separated from water and gas. The oil will then be temporarily
> > stored before being offloaded and shipped to a designated oil terminal
> > onshore.
>
> Its a description of the system being used to recover the leaking oil.
>
> > oil per day and storing 139,000 barrels.
>
> > 137,000 barrels of oil.
>
> > • This system could collect as much as 85% of oil rising from the
> > seafloor.
>
> >http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/factsheet_subsea_...
>
> Now Jack a little earlier you said the oil was escaping at the rate of
> 70,000
> barrels per day. Last time I checked 15,000 was not 85% of 70,000.
>
> Keith
So they lied, that's a quote from the manual.
Arved Sandstrom
I gotta agree with this statement, it's just common sense. This is doing
BP no good no way, no how.
AHS
Ray OHara
Fred makes it up as he goes.
Ray OHara
"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8PQHn.65039$BX1....@newsfe16.ams2...
>
>
> "Ray OHara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hsngel$rq9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> want to recover the oil.
>> they are fine with it continuing to spill until they can figure a way to
>> get it into tankers.
>>
>
>
> The cost of the cleanup and fines likely to be levied will exceed the
> value
> of the oil recovered by an order of magnitude.
>
> Keith
I'm sure they are counting on their friends in Congress and insurance to pay
for the cleanup.
Keith Willshaw
"Ray OHara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hspimq$t25$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Right now I seriously doubt they have many friends in Congress right now.
Keith
tankfixer
oh...@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Frogwatch" <dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:11c7a431-e747-49a8...@40g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 6:05 pm, "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > want to recover the oil.
> > they are fine with it continuing to spill until they can figure a way to
> > get
> > it into tankers.
> >
> >
> > By JEFFREY COLLINS, Associated Press Writer - 2 hrs 26 mins ago
> > ROBERT, La. - BP was confident Saturday its latest experiment using a
> > mile-long pipe would capture much of the oil flowing into the Gulf of
> > Mexico, even as the company disclosed yet another setback in
> > theenvironmental disaster.
> >
> > Engineers hit a snag when they tried to connect two pieces of equipment a
> > mile below the water's surface. BP PLC chief operating officer Doug
> > Suttles
> > said one piece of equipment, called the framework, had to be brought to
> > the
> > water's surface so that adjustments could be made to where it fits with
> > the
> > long tube that connects to a tanker above.
> >
> > The rest of the article is at the cite.
>
> I assume Ray has some good ideas on how to stop the leak that do not
> concern collecting the leaking oil.
>
>
> ===============================================================
>
> it's well past time to just plug the pipe and stop the flow.
> getting the oil is no longer the issue.
What do you intend to do when the pipe ruptures at another point ?
Mark Borgerson
paul.c...@gmail.com says...
because it dropped 5000 feet to the sea floor and ended up looking like
a mass of spaghetti?
Mark Borgerson
Jim Yanik
> In article <MPG.265a258b...@news.bytemine.net>,
> paul.c...@gmail.com says...
>> In article <hsnpri$v34$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond-
>> oh...@hotmail.com says...
>> >
>> > "Frogwatch" <dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> > news:11c7a431-e747-49a8...@40g2000vbr.googlegroups.co
>> > m... On May 15, 6:05 pm, "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com>
the pipe ruptured because the oil platform exploded/burned and
sank,twisting the pipe.
then the blowout preventer failed totally. That's the part that bugs me.
It was right after a gov't inspection,too,that they passed.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Ray OHara
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t901v5ld45ir6eb8g...@4ax.com...
> doesn't even require him to remove his head from its usual location).
>
that's crude even for you Fred.
Ray OHara
you'd be surprised.
tankfixer
mborg...@comcast.net says...
That's what we can't be sure of.
What damage is there upstream of the breakpoint ?
Plug it with no relief and you may find it rupture at a half a dozen
points.
dott.Piergiorgio
> "Ray OHara"<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jack called it last week. he note BP wasn't trying to strm the leak they
>> want to recover the oil.
>> they are fine with it continuing to spill until they can figure a way to get
>> it into tankers.
>>
>
>
> Just how do you propose they stop the leak?
>
> Hint: You have to remove oil to release pressure. The oil is going
> to go somewhere. Your choice is it either goes in the water or it
> goes somewhere else.
meh, I don't have read a zilch outside hero on incident in the question,
but if there's oil under pressure, fluids being uncompressable, there
must be some other source of the pressure.... gaseous hydrocarbons ?
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio,
Hal Murray
"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Drilling for oil in deep waters has never been easy. This particular
>operation involved dynamically positioning a floating structure and
>dangling 1 MILE of drilling pipe under the semisub. As for the Atlantis
>well perhaps you should be asking the regulating authority about that
>but it looks more like a matter of completing paperwork than a substantive
>issue.
What do floating drill rigs do when a big storm heads their way?
The Gulf of Mexico does get an occasional hurricane.
--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
Keith Willshaw
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9D7AE7B31C99B...@216.168.3.44...
> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.265a47f3f...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>
> the pipe ruptured because the oil platform exploded/burned and
> sank,twisting the pipe.
>
> then the blowout preventer failed totally. That's the part that bugs me.
> It was right after a gov't inspection,too,that they passed.
>
Indeed, there will be a lot of people interested in the findings when
they eventually recover it.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.265a5b86...@news.bytemine.net...
> In article <MPG.265a47f3f...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> mborg...@comcast.net says...
>>
>
> That's what we can't be sure of.
> What damage is there upstream of the breakpoint ?
> Plug it with no relief and you may find it rupture at a half a dozen
> points.
>
I'd love to know just how people think it can be plugged.
Given even a modest differential pressure sealing a drill
casing would be a considerable challenge even on the
surface. Attempting this on the seabed in 5000 ft of water
is all but impossible.
This is why BP are drilling a relief well at considerable expense.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
message news:hd5In.179259$813.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
Just so, most oil wells produce a mix of oil, gas and water. On a production
well there is a separation plant to handle this. The water is treated and
discharged or reinjected. The gas is either flared off, pipe ashore
or reinjected into the well and the oil sent ashore either by tanker or
pipeline.
One thing that can happen and seems to have been the root
cause of this accident is that when pressure is reduced on the
well the gas comes out of solution and the resultant rapid expansion
causes a blow out rather as fluid rushes out of a fizzy drinks bottle that
is suddenly uncorked.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Hal Murray" <hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> wrote in message
news:YKWdnbzcE4X-ZW3W...@megapath.net...
> In article <UeUHn.32605$Ir4....@newsfe28.ams2>,
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Drilling for oil in deep waters has never been easy. This particular
>>operation involved dynamically positioning a floating structure and
>>dangling 1 MILE of drilling pipe under the semisub. As for the Atlantis
>>well perhaps you should be asking the regulating authority about that
>>but it looks more like a matter of completing paperwork than a substantive
>>issue.
>
> What do floating drill rigs do when a big storm heads their way?
> The Gulf of Mexico does get an occasional hurricane.
>
Depends on how big the storm is but in the worst conditions they
pull the string and suspend operations. Drilling in really deep waters
is cutting edge technology. I was involved in a project off the Shetlands
in the late 1990's that was considered challnging because it was in
1200 ft of water, now they are drilling in 7000 ft.
Keith
Keith
dott.Piergiorgio
>> meh, I don't have read a zilch outside hero on incident in the question,
>> but if there's oil under pressure, fluids being uncompressable, there
>> must be some other source of the pressure.... gaseous hydrocarbons ?
> That's where some of it comes from (and it what usually causes
> blowouts). Some of it is merely the pressure of rock surrounding the
> oil deposit.
Thanks for the clarifications, and
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Arved Sandstrom
The blowout preventer *is* a plug, effectively. Starting with that
premise you can't really argue that it's all but impossible to attempt a
plugging operation on the seabed in a mile of water.
BP doesn't think it's completely out to lunch either, since they are
thinking of some ways to do it. Granted, none of those approaches are as
straightforward as having a nicely positioned clamp ready to go around
undamaged pipe, but you can't say that they are "all but impossible".
Side note: if things are really that terribly difficult at those depths
then maybe we shouldn't be drilling at those depths.
As for BP drilling a relief well, that's not necessarily an indication
that it's the only solution. It's a prudent thing to do, because they
may discover that high pressure and high flow does overly complicate any
attempts to plug or contain at the original wellhead. You can't read
more into it than that.
AHS
Keith Willshaw
"Arved Sandstrom" <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k58In.4090$Z6.2468@edtnps82...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.265a5b86...@news.bytemine.net...
>>> In article <MPG.265a47f3f...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> mborg...@comcast.net says...
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's what we can't be sure of.
>>> What damage is there upstream of the breakpoint ?
>>> Plug it with no relief and you may find it rupture at a half a dozen
>>> points.
>>>
>>
>> I'd love to know just how people think it can be plugged.
>> Given even a modest differential pressure sealing a drill
>> casing would be a considerable challenge even on the
>> surface. Attempting this on the seabed in 5000 ft of water
>> is all but impossible.
>>
>> This is why BP are drilling a relief well at considerable expense.
>>
>> Keith
>
> The blowout preventer *is* a plug, effectively.
If it works properly that is, this one didnt
> Starting with that premise you can't really argue that it's all but
> impossible to attempt a plugging operation on the seabed in a mile of
> water.
>
Its the difference between turning off a valve to cut off water
and blocking the broken end of the pipe.
> BP doesn't think it's completely out to lunch either, since they are
> thinking of some ways to do it. Granted, none of those approaches are as
> straightforward as having a nicely positioned clamp ready to go around
> undamaged pipe, but you can't say that they are "all but impossible".
>
Actually I can and did.
> Side note: if things are really that terribly difficult at those depths
> then maybe we shouldn't be drilling at those depths.
>
Indeed.
> As for BP drilling a relief well, that's not necessarily an indication
> that it's the only solution. It's a prudent thing to do, because they may
> discover that high pressure and high flow does overly complicate any
> attempts to plug or contain at the original wellhead.
Which is rather what I said.
Keith
Jim Yanik
news:YKWdnbzcE4X-ZW3W...@megapath.net:
> In article <UeUHn.32605$Ir4....@newsfe28.ams2>,
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Drilling for oil in deep waters has never been easy. This particular
>>operation involved dynamically positioning a floating structure and
>>dangling 1 MILE of drilling pipe under the semisub. As for the
>>Atlantis well perhaps you should be asking the regulating authority
>>about that but it looks more like a matter of completing paperwork
>>than a substantive issue.
>
> What do floating drill rigs do when a big storm heads their way?
> The Gulf of Mexico does get an occasional hurricane.
>
they shut down operations,secure the wellhead,evacuate personnel to the
mainland.
Ray OHara
>
>
and your reality is you're a white trash low-life.
Hal Murray
"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> writes:
>"Hal Murray" <hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> wrote in message
>news:YKWdnbzcE4X-ZW3W...@megapath.net...
>> What do floating drill rigs do when a big storm heads their way?
>> The Gulf of Mexico does get an occasional hurricane.
>Depends on how big the storm is but in the worst conditions they
>pull the string and suspend operations. Drilling in really deep waters
>is cutting edge technology. I was involved in a project off the Shetlands
>in the late 1990's that was considered challnging because it was in
>1200 ft of water, now they are drilling in 7000 ft.
How long does it take to "pull the string"?
If you pull it, how do you get started again?
One area that I don't understand... What is a mile long "string" of
drilling pipe like? If the drill rig on top goes up or down by a foot
what happens to the pipe? Does a mile of pipe go in a straight line
or does it wobble around a lot so it can easily absorb "minor" problems
like a foot (or several) of length change?
Perhaps railroads are an interesting example. Rails stretch a lot
as the temperature changes. But mostly, that's absorbed withing the
local rails. They just compress the spring a bit more...
Jack Linthicum
Heavy oil reaches Louisiana marshland; tar balls found in Key West
By David A. Fahrenthold and Joel Achenbach
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 19, 2010; A04
VENICE, LA. -- A tide of sludgy oil has begun washing into the fringes
of Louisiana's coastal marshes, officials said Tuesday, as BP
continued to siphon some of the oil gushing from a damaged well on the
gulf floor but remained days away from trying to cap the leak.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told Senate committees Tuesday that the
company would attempt a "dynamic kill" of the oil well Saturday. That
procedure involves pumping thick mud into the well in hopes of
blocking the oil.
And hundreds of miles from the Louisiana coast, there was a worrisome
discovery: Tar balls, sticky clumps of decayed oil, were found Monday
in Key West, Fla. Officials said they were being tested to determine
whether they came from the leaking BP well.
But the most ominous news came from south Louisiana, where the
Mississippi Delta peters out into the Gulf of Mexico. There, instead
of the tar balls that had previously washed ashore from the spill,
thick, brown oil was infiltrating the edges of the marshes.
"If I had been standing up, I would have fell to my knees," said Billy
Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish, La., about the moment that
he heard the news. Nungesser, whose parish follows the Mississippi out
to sea, said the oil had been spotted at places called South Pass and
Pass-a-Loutre. "It's our greatest fear."
If these marshes are destroyed by oil, it could mean huge losses for
the area's seafood industry and a reduction in Louisiana's already
skimpy shield against a hurricane storm surge. "We're finished. We're
out of business" if that happens, Nungesser said.
This news was not a huge surprise: For days, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration had predicted that thick oil might make
landfall near here. These marshes are the closest land to the spot
where the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig sank April 22.
But Louisiana officials said the oil's arrival underscored the need
for their radical-sounding solution: the construction of a chain of
small offshore islands to block the oil from the coast.
"This is the first time we've seen this much heavy oil this far into
our wetlands," Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said at a news
conference here in Venice, the last town before the coastal marshes
begin. "We know there's a lot more heavy oil behind it that hasn't
made it to shore yet."
Also Tuesday, BP said it was slowly increasing the amount of oil it
was siphoning away from the leaking well, using a tube inserted into a
broken-off pipe Sunday. BP said it was removing 2,000 barrels of oil a
day from the leak, up from 1,000.
It's not clear how much of the spilling oil that represents: Officials
had first estimated the leak at 5,000 barrels a day, but outside
experts have said it appears much larger than that. Video of the leak,
released by U.S. Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Barbara Boxer (D-
Calif.), showed oil continuing to billow out of the leaking pipe, even
with the siphon pipe inserted into it.
The company's plan to stop the leak involves pumping heavy "kill mud"
at 40 barrels a minute into openings in the blowout preventer, a
mechanism that surrounds the drill pipe. If the influx of mud does not
clog the drill pipe, a BP spokesman said, the company could still use
a "junk shot" later -- pumping larger debris such as golf balls and
pieces of tire into the mechanism.
Mark Proegler, a BP spokesman, said the company had not used the mud-
pumping technique earlier because it had to first gather data about
pressures inside the blowout preventer. "It takes a while to gather
the information we need," he said.
So far, officials said, the oil has not caused catastrophic damage on
shore: Just 23 "oiled" birds have been found dead, in contrast to the
tens of thousands killed by the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989. But
scientists are worried about vast areas of oil floating underwater,
unseen.
That worry was heightened by Monday's discovery in Key West. If the
tar balls found there are determined to have come from the BP leak,
that could mean some oil has made its way into the Inner Loop currents
of the Gulf Stream. NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco said that oil
swept up in the current might take eight to 10 days to reach the
Florida Keys.
Exxon Mobil, meanwhile, said it had delayed plans to start drilling an
exploration well this week in the Gulf of Mexico. may
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/18/AR2010051801676.html?hpid=topnews
Mark Test
news:dd640d68-beca-40fd...@o15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 9:05 pm, "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Heavy oil reaches Louisiana marshland; tar balls found in Key West
>
> By David A. Fahrenthold and Joel Achenbach
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Wednesday, May 19, 2010; A04
>
> VENICE, LA. -- A tide of sludgy oil has begun washing into the fringes
> of Louisiana's coastal marshes, officials said Tuesday, as BP
> continued to siphon some of the oil gushing from a damaged well on the
> gulf floor but remained days away from trying to cap the leak.
>
> Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told Senate committees Tuesday that the
> company would attempt a "dynamic kill" of the oil well Saturday. That
> procedure involves pumping thick mud into the well in hopes of
> blocking the oil.
>
> And hundreds of miles from the Louisiana coast, there was a worrisome
> discovery: Tar balls, sticky clumps of decayed oil, were found Monday
> in Key West, Fla. Officials said they were being tested to determine
> whether they came from the leaking BP well.
>
from the leak....probably left over's from a few merchant's
bilges....
Mark
Jack Linthicum
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Oh, but wait until that plume reaches the Gulf Stream. Suddenly you
think the Coast Guard knows what its doing?
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
Tar balls may be okay but NOAA thinks it is better not to take
chances. Chart at the citation.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100518180608.htm
NOAA Extends Fishing Closed Area to Portion of Loop Current as
Precaution in Wake of Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
enlarge
Fishery Closure Boundary as of May 18, 2010. Closure area may be
updated daily as necessary. (Credit: NOAA)
ScienceDaily (May 18, 2010) — NOAA has extended the boundaries of the
closed fishing area in the Gulf of Mexico into the northern portion of
the loop current as a precautionary measure to ensure that seafood
from the Gulf will remain safe for consumers. Though the latest
analysis shows that the bulk of the oil remains dozens of miles from
the loop current, the new boundaries address the possibility that a
tendril of light oil has entered or will enter the loop current.
The closed area now represents 45,728 square miles, which is slightly
less than 19 percent of Gulf of Mexico federal waters. This leaves
more than 81 percent of Gulf federal waters -- or nearly 195,000
square miles -- still available for fishing. The closure will be
effective at 6 p.m. EDT. Details can be found at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/.
The newly closed area is more than 150 miles from the nearest port and
primarily in deep water used by pelagic longline fisheries that target
highly migratory species, such as tuna and swordfish. Coastal
fisheries, such as grouper, snapper and shrimp, will not be affected
by the expansion of the closed area.
"The BP oil spill is unprecedented and quickly changing. The
administration's response since the beginning has been aggressive,
strategic, and science-based," said Dr. Jane Lubchenco, under
secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA
administrator. "As we expand the fishing closed area, we are doing
what science demands of us and are acting with caution to ensure the
safety of the seafood Americans will put on their dinner plates. We
stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Gulf coast fishermen and their
families during these challenging times."
The loop current is an area of warm water that comes up from the
Caribbean, past the Yucatan Peninsula, and into the Gulf of Mexico.
The current is also known as the Florida current as it flows through
the Florida Strait and then into the Gulf Stream as it heads north to
the east coast of the U.S. Both the location of the loop current and
the location of the oil slick are dynamic. Both move around from day
to day. Satellite imagery on May 17 indicates that the bulk of the oil
is dozens of miles away from the loop current, but a tendril of light
oil has been transported close to the loop.
The federal and state governments have systems in place to test and
monitor seafood safety, prohibit harvesting from affected areas, and
keep oiled products out of the marketplace. NOAA continues to work
closely with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the states to
ensure seafood safety, by closing fishing areas where tainted seafood
could potentially be caught, and assessing whether seafood is tainted
or contaminated to levels that pose a risk to human health. NOAA and
FDA are working to implement a broad-scaled seafood sampling plan. The
plan includes sampling seafood from inside and outside the closure
area, as well as dockside- and market-based sampling.
"Due to the unprecedented and ongoing discharge of oil, FDA agrees
that NOAA's closure of these federal waters is one appropriate public
health measure to prevent potentially unsafe seafood from being
harvested and reaching consumers," said Dr. Margaret Hamburg, FDA
commissioner. "We understand that it will be necessary to continually
evaluate the boundaries as the situation evolves.
"FDA will also continue to work closely with NOAA on future decisions
to reopen the closed fishery," she added.
According to NOAA, there are 3.2 million recreational fishermen in the
Gulf of Mexico region who took 24 million fishing trips in 2008.
Commercial fishermen in the Gulf harvested more than one billion
pounds of finfish and shellfish in 2008.
Fishermen who wish to contact BP about a claim should call
800-440-0858.
NOAA will continue to evaluate the need for fisheries closures based
on the evolving nature of the spill and will re-open closed areas as
appropriate. NOAA will also re-evaluate the closure areas as new
information that would change the boundaries of these closed areas
becomes available.
Keith Willshaw
"Hal Murray" <hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> wrote in message
news:cOqdnc_f04PQNm7W...@megapath.net...
> In article <Ja7In.70838$M17....@newsfe02.ams2>,
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>"Hal Murray" <hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> wrote in message
>>news:YKWdnbzcE4X-ZW3W...@megapath.net...
>
>>> What do floating drill rigs do when a big storm heads their way?
>>> The Gulf of Mexico does get an occasional hurricane.
>
>>Depends on how big the storm is but in the worst conditions they
>>pull the string and suspend operations. Drilling in really deep waters
>>is cutting edge technology. I was involved in a project off the Shetlands
>>in the late 1990's that was considered challnging because it was in
>>1200 ft of water, now they are drilling in 7000 ft.
>
> How long does it take to "pull the string"?
>
> If you pull it, how do you get started again?
>
>
You'd need to a driller to answer that one, I've only built them
not driven them :)
> One area that I don't understand... What is a mile long "string" of
> drilling pipe like? If the drill rig on top goes up or down by a foot
> what happens to the pipe? Does a mile of pipe go in a straight line
> or does it wobble around a lot so it can easily absorb "minor" problems
> like a foot (or several) of length change?
>
In shallow water you use a jackup that sits on the bottom
so there's no problem. In deep water you use a
semi submersible which is less affected by wave motion
than a conventional hull. The drilling rig is mounted centrally
which also helps.
Recently rotatable and swivable drilling units have been fitted
to reduce the sensitivity to roll and pitch motions while motion
compensators can mitigate the heave motion. Traditionally
the compensators used were passive, rather like the springs
on a car but a recent innovation has been the use of active
compensators which use hydraulic rams to maintain the drill
unit position.
Keith
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
It did. Envisat Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) image at
citation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100519112721.htm
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill in the Loop Current
In this Envisat Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) image,
acquired on 15 May 2010, advanced processing methods have been
performed to display ocean surface roughness variations and Doppler-
derived ocean surface radial velocities around the oil spill area in
the Gulf of Mexico. The oil spill (outlined in white) is seen
stretching toward the Loop Current (red arrow). (Credit: CLS)
ScienceDaily (May 19, 2010) — Scientists monitoring the U.S. oil spill
with the European Space Agency's Envisat radar satellite say that it
has entered the Loop Current, a powerful conveyor belt that flows
clockwise around the Gulf of Mexico towards Florida.
"With these images from space, we have visible proof that at least oil
from the surface of the water has reached the current," said Dr
Bertrand Chapron of Ifremer, the French Research Institute for
Exploitation of the Sea.
Dr Chapron and Dr Fabrice Collard of France's CLS have been combining
surface roughness and current flow information with Envisat Advanced
Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) data of the area to monitor the
proximity of the oil to the current.
In the ASAR image above, acquired on 18 May, a long tendril of the oil
spill (outlined in white) extends down into the Loop Current (red
arrow).
"We performed advanced processing methods on the images to display
surface features like variations in roughness and velocity, which
provides insight into the spatial structure of the spill and its
transport by surface currents," Dr Collard explained.
From the ASAR images of 12 May and 15 May, the oil spill was observed
stretching increasingly closer to the Loop Current, raising concerns
that it could reach the current and be carried south towards coral
reefs in the Florida Keys.
"Now that oil has entered the Loop Current, it is likely to reach
Florida within six days," Dr Chapron said. "Since Envisat ASAR, ERS-2
and other SAR satellites are systematically planned to acquire data
over the area, we will monitor the situation continuously."
The scientists warn however that since the Loop Current is a very
intense, deep ocean current, its turbulent waters will accelerate the
mixing of the oil and water in the coming days.
"This might remove the oil film on the surface and prevent us from
tracking it with satellites, but the pollution is likely to affect the
coral reef marine ecosystem," Dr Collard said.
Combined efforts using satellite imagery and in-situ measurements of
collected water samples will help to assess whether oil is in the deep
waters of the ocean.
The Loop Current joins the Gulf Stream -- the northern hemisphere's
most important ocean-current system -- sparking fears that oil could
enter this system and be carried up to the US East Coast.
Mark Test
Fact remains Key West tar bars were not from the leak.....and yes,
the Coast Guard knows what it's doing.
As for the leak reaching the gulf stream...that has yet to be seen,
the amount of oil leaking into open ocean has and will continue
to be reduced....again, there's a lot of water in the gulf to disperse
this oil....bottom line...if this oil stays offshore...enviro damage
will be minimal....btw gulf stream doesn't touch land anywhere
does it?
Mark
Jack Linthicum
Why?
Jack Linthicum
You asked for "expert" help in cleaning up the oil spill, you get it
in the form of Kevin Costner and the Hollywood submarine fleet.
Also involves the "magic" number of 210,000 gallons a day equal to
5,000 42 gallon barrels.
Nungesser was on MSNBC last night knocking the Army Corps of
Engineers.
Kevin Costner may hold key to oil spill cleanup
The actor has invested 15 years and $24 million in a cleanup system
involving centrifugal oil separators. BP and the Coast Guard plan to
test six of the machines on the spill next week.
By Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times
May 21, 2010
The " Kevin Costner solution" to the worsening oil spill in the Gulf
of Mexico may actually work, and none too soon for the president of
Plaquemines Parish.
Costner has invested 15 years and about $24 million in a novel way of
sifting oil spills that he began working on while making his own
maritime film, "Waterworld," released in 1995.
Two decades later, BP and the U.S. Coast Guard plan to test six of his
massive, stainless steel centrifugal oil separators next week.
Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser welcomed the effort, even
as he and Louisiana officials blasted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
for delays in approving an emergency plan to build sand "islands" to
protect the bayous of his parish.
"It certainly is an odd thing to see a 'Kevin Costner' and a
'centrifugal oil separator' together in a place like the Gulf of
Mexico," said actor Stephen Baldwin, who is producing a documentary
about the oil spill and Costner's device. "But, hey, some of the best
ideas sometimes come from the strangest places."
Meanwhile, "Avatar" director James Cameron has said that he would make
his underwater vessels available, and actor-director Robert Redford
appeared in a commercial, sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense
Council, that uses the spill as a clarion call to move forward on
clean energy.
It is not the first time Hollywood has come to the rescue with cutting-
edge technology. Paul Winchell, a versatile ventriloquist and the
voice of Tigger in " Winnie the Pooh," was also an inventor who
patented an early artificial heart in the 1960s. In 1940, glamorous
movie star Hedy Lamarr helped design an un-jammable communications
system for use against Nazi Germany.
Costner was unavailable for comment. But his business partner,
Louisiana attorney John Houghtaling, said, "Yes, Kevin is a star, but
he took his stardom and wrote all the checks for this project out of
his own pocket. This was one man's vision."
Details of any contractual relationship with BP were not disclosed.
Asked if the actor would charge for use of the machines, Pat Smith, a
spokesman for Costner, said, "We don't know yet. We haven't had that
discussion yet. This is only a test trial."
Houghtaling said Costner bought the technology, which was originally
developed with help from the Department of Energy, after the 1989
Exxon Valdez disaster and turned it over to a team of scientists and
engineers for fine-tuning.
"The machines are essentially like big vacuum cleaners, which sit on
barges and suck up oily water and spin it around at high speed,"
Houghtaling said. "On one side, it spits out pure oil, which can be
recovered. The other side spits out 99% pure water."
If all goes according to plan, he said, "We could have as many as 26
machines dispatched throughout the gulf. Our largest machine is 112
inches high, weighs 2 ½ tons and cleans 210,000 gallons a day of oily
water. We are hoping to have 10 machines that size out there — meaning
we could potentially clean 2 million gallons of oil water a day."
That kind of talk has intrigued BP, the party responsible for the well
blowout that caused an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon on April 20,
killing 11 workers and triggering one of the largest oil spills in
U.S. history. "BP has agreed to test Mr. Costner's machines," BP
spokesman Mark Proegler said. "Of course, they need to meet
regulations with respect to discharge."
With oil washing up on a portion of southeastern Louisiana's swampy
edges, word of Costner's devices and their potential capabilities has
triggered intense lobbying over where they should be stationed first.
High on the list of prospective sites is Plaquemines Parish, where
"we've already lost 24 miles of marshland," Nungesser said.
"Everything in it — frogs, crickets, fish and plant life — is dead and
never coming back."
Houghtaling said he was working on a deployment strategy. "Some people
want the machines placed out on the blue ocean where the oil is
surfacing. Others want them placed along the coastline."
In the meantime, frustration escalated Thursday over the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' delay in authorizing dredging to build a chain of
barrier islands with sand to protect sensitive coastal areas.
Parish leaders, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sen. David Vitter (R-
La.), a member of the Senate committee that oversees the Corps,
demanded immediate approval of the plan they estimated could cost
about $50 million.
"The Corps just doesn't get it," Vitter said in a statement. "Thick
oil has already gotten behind our existing barrier islands and is
infiltrating our marsh. Yet the Corps has no sense of emergency."
Corps spokesman Eugene Pawlik said that the agency is using emergency
rules to expedite the request, but that it still has to comply with
national environmental laws, including soliciting comments from other
agencies.
Nungesser dispatched an urgent request to the Obama administration to
force the Corps to expedite its review process. He also reached out to
Costner, the man of the hour in Louisiana's bayou country.
"I have Kevin Costner's cellphone number and I'm going to call him and
ask him to hold a press conference about the Corps' lack of response
in this time of emergency," Nungesser said. "He is a caring man, and
people know and respect him. Maybe he can help us."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-hollywood-20100521,0,2351299.story
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d0765b5c-4748-4351...@k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 9:05 pm, "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You asked for "expert" help in cleaning up the oil spill, you get it
> in the form of Kevin Costner and the Hollywood submarine fleet.
>
> Also involves the "magic" number of 210,000 gallons a day equal to
> 5,000 42 gallon barrels.
>
> Nungesser was on MSNBC last night knocking the Army Corps of
> Engineers.
>
>
> Kevin Costner may hold key to oil spill cleanup
> The actor has invested 15 years and $24 million in a cleanup system
> involving centrifugal oil separators. BP and the Coast Guard plan to
> test six of the machines on the spill next week.
>
Centrifugal separators for oil/water duty have been in use
for decades.
Keith
Jack Linthicum
<keithnos...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
But not "Kevin Costner's" centrifugal separators. Do you get the
feeling that this whole affair is designed for some Hollywood movie on
the lines of No Way Out?
Eugene Griessel
De Laval oil/water separators have been in use for close to (or
perhaps more than) a century.
Eugene L Griessel
Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks.
Eugene Griessel
I don't care who made the things - they are expensive to operate for
the very fact that the input will need to be heated. Which chows
energy. In steam plants, where they are almost an essential, one has
oodles of waste heat to do this - and the input it usually hot anyway
as it's condensate from the turbines.
Eugene L Griessel
Few things on earth are as pathetic as a bat with diarrhoea.
Jack Linthicum
This is a public relations ploy, when everything is going badly and
the next best greatest thing has a Hollywood tag, you go for the gold.
Besides, the latest idea from BP seems to be to try what they didn't
do on April 20.
Keith Willshaw
"Eugene Griessel" <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in message
news:vrncv5tg54e7ssce4...@4ax.com...
Just so but for offshore use the tendency is to use hydrocyclones
powered by the well pressure. They also have no moving parts
which makes them low maintenance devices.
http://www.merpro.com/section.php?page=bulkoilwatersep
Keith
Mark Test
news:d0765b5c-4748-4351...@k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 9:05 pm, "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You asked for "expert" help in cleaning up the oil spill, you get it
> in the form of Kevin Costner and the Hollywood submarine fleet.
>
> Also involves the "magic" number of 210,000 gallons a day equal to
> 5,000 42 gallon barrels.
>
> Nungesser was on MSNBC last night knocking the Army Corps of
> Engineers.
>
>
> Kevin Costner may hold key to oil spill cleanup
> The actor has invested 15 years and $24 million in a cleanup system
> involving centrifugal oil separators. BP and the Coast Guard plan to
> test six of the machines on the spill next week.
>
a rarity these days....
Mark Test
Hmmmm, maybe....or he's simply trying to make a few sales....
Still action is better than inaction...
Jack Linthicum
Even if its the wrong action? Please stop playing at the fool.
Mark Test
I'm no expert....my opinion if the oil stays offshore then it will
be dispersed in the ocean....(broken down naturally). If it makes
landfall....all kinds of wildlife suffer.
Mark
Jack Linthicum
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
He played the body on The Big Chill, a non-speaking part.
Dennis
> As for the leak reaching the gulf stream...that has yet to be seen,
> the amount of oil leaking into open ocean has and will continue
> to be reduced....again, there's a lot of water in the gulf to disperse
> this oil....bottom line...if this oil stays offshore...enviro damage
> will be minimal....
A letter to the editor by a local fac member - not sure of qual's -
noted that Brainless Petroleum is introducing dispersants at the well, not
the surface, and that a lot of the oil will wind up on the bottom, where
there's nothing to disperse it and it may remain for perpetuity. Not sure
of this. I'm not sure what would biodegrade it down there. Also not sure
of point of intro for surfactants.
> btw gulf stream doesn't touch land anywhere
> does it?
It does in Europe! Why do you think Europe is as warm as it is?
Esp. how do people live in Scotland?
Dennis
Dennis
>>> Centrifugal separators for oil/water duty have been in use
>>> for decades.
>>
>>But not "Kevin Costner's" centrifugal separators. Do you get the
>>feeling that this whole affair is designed for some Hollywood movie on
>>the lines of No Way Out?
Who cares if they work? If he can fund and do it, more power to him!
(I'm not saying he can.)
> I don't care who made the things - they are expensive to operate for
> the very fact that the input will need to be heated. Which chows
> energy. In steam plants, where they are almost an essential, one has
> oodles of waste heat to do this - and the input it usually hot anyway
> as it's condensate from the turbines.
Not sure it'll need to be heated. Centrifugal separators can also
operate at slow speeds, it all depends. I wonder how big Kevin Costner's
are? Must be pretty big.
Dennis
Mark Test
news:Xns9D7FEC5B6AAF3ts...@130.133.4.11...
Jack Linthicum
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
Watched some guy on TV say that the purpose of the dispersant is not
to control the spill but to reduce the measureable amount of oil being
released. Juries award payments based on how much oil is spilled and
BP wants that number to be very low, despite the continued evidence
that it is very high. Note: the oil is at 13,000 feet the well head at
5,000 feet.
Engineering a solution to the oil spill
At BP's Houston offices, hundreds of scientists are at work on the
Gulf of Mexico spill. They have an unlimited budget, an international
team of the sharpest minds in modern engineering — and they have no
time.
By Jim Tankersley, Tribune Washington Bureau
6:37 PM PDT, May 21, 2010
Reporting from Houston
More than a week into their quest to stop the oil pouring into the
Gulf of Mexico from a damaged BP well, several dozen of the brightest
minds in the engineering world gathered to watch a 100-ton failure
unfold in slow motion.
The engineers packed into a repurposed research center dubbed the
Hive, which houses a dozen video screens and, most days, about as many
scientists.
Beside a bustling freeway, in a drab Houston office park bedecked with
nearly every name in Big Oil, BP had launched a 21st century version
of "Apollo 13."
On this evening, an overflow crowd stared for three hours at one
screen as a ghostly four-story dome sank nearly a mile into the water.
The lowering of the dome encapsulated the round-the-clock effort to
end what is rapidly becoming the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
Brimming with engineering firepower, the effort was painstakingly slow
to execute.
It ultimately failed to stanch the daily flow of thousands of barrels
of light, sweet Louisiana crude into the gulf.
Hundreds of engineers from universities, rival oil companies and the
federal government immediately went back to work, in shifts lasting 13
hours or more.
"Anyone who we think could make a difference, we brought in," said
Kent Wells, BP's senior vice president for exploration and production.
Then came the "dream team" that President Obama had ordered his Nobel-
winning energy secretary, Steven Chu, to assemble: out-of-the-box
thinkers including a nuclear physicist, a pioneer on Mars drilling
techniques, an MIT professor whose research interests include "going
faster on my snowboard," an expert on the hydrogen bomb, and a
controversial astrophysicist who was later booted over a past essay
defending homophobia.
Those involved say they are crafting and deploying in a matter of days
what under normal circumstances would take a year or more.
And yet a limitless budget and all that brainpower have failed to fix
the pipe 5,000 feet below the sea surface that has leaked oil for more
than a month, spewing at least 6 million gallons, possibly far more.
That may be about to change.
As early as Sunday, BP engineers will launch their "top kill," their
most ambitious attempt to overpower the oil flow and seal the 13,000-
foot-deep well. The operation will be the culmination of weeks of
sleuthing and calculation, daylong practice runs and nonstop
contingency planning.
Once again, engineers will watch nervously in Houston, acutely aware
of the hazards that have encumbered their mission: the crushing
pressure of ocean depths so great that divers cannot survive, of a
spewing well that could blow all its restraints.
Perhaps most intense of all, the pressure of a nation that is watching
and wondering: What's taking so long?
On the walls of BP's Houston campus, glossy pictures of Gulf of Mexico
offshore platforms hang like family portraits along hallways carpeted
in flecks of green and yellow, the colors of BP's corporate emblem.
When the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, leased by BP, exploded on the
night of April 20 and sank 36 hours later, killing 11 men, workers
swarmed the third floor of the building that houses the company's
permanent crisis center. They strung wires wrapped in yellow police
tape from ceilings to tables filled with fleets of laptops.
Initially a small space designed to respond to disasters such as
hurricanes, the crisis center soon overtook the entire floor and parts
of several others. BP filled it with 500 workers, mostly men, assigned
to containing and shutting off the oil from the Mississippi Canyon 252
well.
They wear casual-Friday uniforms: polo shirts, oxfords with the
collars open, and various shades of khaki and dark slacks. The Coast
Guard officers wear blue jumpsuits. Some BP workers don blue vests,
with their job titles handily stitched in white letters on the back.
No one wears a tie.
Elsewhere on the floor, two massage therapists stand in scrubs beside
specialized chairs, ready to rub kinks from the backs and necks of
weary workers. There's a kitchen that would look small in a two-
bedroom apartment. By midafternoon, it's stacked with cookies and Rice
Krispies treats.
New arrivals start with a safety briefing, including how to evacuate
in the event of a fire. They park in a garage that posts instructions
for safe navigation of a few flights of concrete steps: Hold handrail.
One step at a time. Walk, don't run. Do not use a cellphone.
The warnings foreshadow the meticulous caution inside the building,
where the guiding principle is borrowed from the medical profession:
"First, do no harm."
The early visitors included Lt. Kirtland Linegar and Lt. Christopher
O'Neil, a pair of stocky Coast Guard engineers. O'Neil once helped
rebuild a Coast Guard base flattened by Hurricane Katrina. Linegar
started his career as an engineer on an aging drug-enforcement ship in
the Caribbean that routinely left port with two of its four engines
broken; Linegar and his crewmates would fix them en route.
In Houston, O'Neil and Linegar found other engineers already deep into
several plans to fight the blowout.
Two dozen times they tried and failed to revive the blowout preventer,
a massive apparatus of rams and valves designed to pinch off the well
pipe in case of an unexpected surge of petroleum. Throughout the
process, a small-scale model of the device sat on a table in one of
the rooms. It seemed every time someone touched it, something fell
off.
Early in May, the team moved to Option 2: the containment dome.
The dome dropped toward the seafloor for hours on the evening of May
7, as O'Neil and Linegar watched with 50-odd fellow engineers.
Finally, the dome reached the spill source. Oil spilled out of the
dome's door. Robot cameras showed what appeared to be shadows on the
dome's underside — "until you realized," O'Neil said, "that the way
the light was, shadows shouldn't be there."
When the cameras shifted, the engineers could see sooty black beehives
under the dome — icy gas formations of methane that buoyed the
structure and left it useless. Near 1 a.m., officials called off the
mission. Engineers who had worked 20 straight hours went home,
discouraged.
They returned to the command center by 6 a.m. Three hours later, the
team had settled on half a dozen fresh ideas.
Because money is no object, engineers order parts as soon as they
dream up a new plan. "If we build a $100,000 piece of equipment and we
don't use it, it's not the end of the world," Wells said.
There's no shortage of government help, either. Customs and
immigration officials have helped expedite import of parts that didn't
exist in the United States — and the arrival of scientists from other
countries.
Chu's team settled into a diagnostic role, using supercomputers, gamma-
ray imagers and other cutting-edge tools to help BP engineers answer
fundamental and vexing questions about the pressure levels in the pipe
and how much force it could handle.
They helped BP build "decision trees" — "Choose Your Own Adventure"
books of the scientific process, where engineers plan responses for
every contingency they can imagine. In the day-to-day operation of the
command center, Chu's team members are always whispering in BP's ear:
Did you think of this? What will you do if it happens?
The government engineers say they're energized by the challenge.
"These are the kind of problems I love," Chu said, adding later: "It's
really roll-up-your-sleeves, detailed stuff."
Diagnostics aren't the only big problem for the engineers in Houston,
though. There's the maddening task of managing boat traffic above the
leak, so ships can stay nearly still to manage their robot workers
underwater.
There's the frustration of watching deep-water robots plod through
even the simplest tasks, such as tightening bolts.
"It's a different world," said team leader Tom Hunter, the director of
Sandia National Laboratories, who has worked on shallow-water oil rigs
and set up containment systems for underground nuclear weapons tests.
"The thing that I notice mostly is the things you think would be
simple, a mile beneath the surface."
But evidence of the difficulty flashes every day on video screens in
the Hive: clouds of black crude billowing unabated from the pipe.
"It's like trying to do an operation on the moon," said Thomas Bickel,
deputy chief engineer at Sandia and a member of Chu's team. "It's the
same complexity. It's the same difficulty. And you don't have the
luxury of being in an academic environment where you can work on it
for three years. Everybody's very aware of that pressure."
Lately, engineers have rehearsed the "top kill," which will pump
drilling fluid, or a rubbery mixture dubbed the "junk shot," or both,
into the well. They have made dry runs on a blowout preventer
elsewhere in Houston. In the command center, they've been "killing it
on paper," Linegar said, going step by step through the process, game-
planning for every possible problem. The stakes are high: Poorly
executed, the top kill could blow the top of the blowout preventer and
dramatically increase the oil spill's volume.
If there's irony in a company and a government taking such pains to
avoid missteps — after not having a detailed response plan in the
first place — the engineers have no time to focus on it.
They're so busy, in fact, that hardly anyone gathered in the Hive one
night last weekend as the team notched its biggest success, inserting
a catheter-like tube into the leak and piping some of the oil to a
holding ship on the surface.
When engineers reported at 6 a.m. the next day, there were no big
celebrations.
They still had a leak to plug.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-houston-20100522,0,1132600,full.story
Jack Linthicum
More to the point, the whole ocean system is warming. Chart at the
citation.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100521192533.htm
Ocean Stored Significant Warming Over Last 16 Years, Study Finds
The international science team analyzed nine different estimates of
heat content in the upper ocean, based on ocean temperature data from
a global array of more than 3,200 Argo free-floating profiling floats
and longer data records from expendable bathythermographs dropped from
ships. (Credit: International Argo Project)
ScienceDaily (May 21, 2010) — The upper layer of the world's ocean has
warmed since 1993, indicating a strong climate change signal,
according to a new study. The energy stored is enough to power nearly
500 100-watt light bulbs per each of the roughly 6.7 billion people on
the planet.
"We are seeing the global ocean store more heat than it gives off,"
said John Lyman, an oceanographer at NOAA's Joint Institute for Marine
and Atmospheric Research, who led an international team of scientists
that analyzed nine different estimates of heat content in the upper
ocean from 1993 to 2008.
The team combined the estimates to assess the size and certainty of
growing heat storage in the ocean. Their findings are published in the
May 20 edition of the journal Nature. The scientists are from NOAA,
NASA, the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom, the
University of Hamburg in Germany and the Meteorological Research
Institute in Japan.
"The ocean is the biggest reservoir for heat in the climate system,"
said Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
and one of the scientists who contributed to the study. "So as the
planet warms, we're finding that 80 to 90 percent of the increased
heat ends up in the ocean."
A warming ocean is a direct cause of global sea level rise, since
seawater expands and takes up more space as it heats up. The
scientists say that this expansion accounts for about one-third to one-
half of global sea level rise.
Combining multiple estimates of heat in the upper ocean -- from the
surface to about 2,000 feet down -- the team found a strong multi-year
warming trend throughout the world's ocean. According to measurements
by an array of autonomous free-floating ocean floats called Argo as
well as by earlier devices called expendable bathythermographs or XBTs
that were dropped from ships to obtain temperature data, ocean heat
content has increased over the last 16 years.
The team notes that there are still some uncertainties and some
biases.
"The XBT data give us vital information about past changes in the
ocean, but they are not as accurate as the more recent Argo data,"
said Gregory Johnson, an oceanographer at NOAA's Pacific Marine
Environmental Laboratory. "However, our analysis of these data gives
us confidence that on average, the ocean has warmed over the past
decade and a half, signaling a climate imbalance."
Data from the array of Argo floats -- deployed by NOAA and other U.S.
and international partners - greatly reduce the uncertainties in
estimates of ocean heat content over the past several years, the team
said. There are now more than 3,200 Argo floats distributed throughout
the world's ocean sending back information via satellite on
temperature, salinity, currents and other ocean properties.
Paper abstract
Letter
Nature 465, 334-337 (20 May 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature09043; Received
8 December 2009; Accepted 22 March 2010
*
Robust warming of the global upper ocean
John M. Lyman1,2, Simon A. Good3, Viktor V. Gouretski4, Masayoshi
Ishii5,6, Gregory C. Johnson2, Matthew D. Palmer3, Doug M. Smith3 &
Josh K. Willis7
1. Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, University
of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA
2. NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle,
Washington 98115-6349, USA
3. Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK
4. KlimaCampus, University of Hamburg, Grindelberg 5, 20144
Hamburg, Germany
5. Climate Research Department, Meteorological Research Institute,
1-1 Nagamine, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0052, Japan
6. Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, 3173-25
Showa-machi, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama 236-0001, Japan
7. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, California 91109, USA
Correspondence to: John M. Lyman1,2 Email: john....@noaa.gov
A large (~1023 J) multi-decadal globally averaged warming signal in
the upper 300 m of the world’s oceans was reported roughly a decade
ago1 and is attributed to warming associated with anthropogenic
greenhouse gases2, 3. The majority of the Earth’s total energy uptake
during recent decades has occurred in the upper ocean3, but the
underlying uncertainties in ocean warming are unclear, limiting our
ability to assess closure of sea-level budgets4, 5, 6, 7, the global
radiation imbalance8 and climate models5. For example, several teams
have recently produced different multi-year estimates of the annually
averaged global integral of upper-ocean heat content anomalies
(hereafter OHCA curves) or, equivalently, the thermosteric sea-level
rise5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Patterns of interannual
variability, in particular, differ among methods. Here we examine
several sources of uncertainty that contribute to differences among
OHCA curves from 1993 to 2008, focusing on the difficulties of
correcting biases in expendable bathythermograph (XBT) data. XBT data
constitute the majority of the in situ measurements of upper-ocean
heat content from 1967 to 2002, and we find that the uncertainty due
to choice of XBT bias correction dominates among-method variability in
OHCA curves during our 1993–2008 study period. Accounting for multiple
sources of uncertainty, a composite of several OHCA curves using
different XBT bias corrections still yields a statistically
significant linear warming trend for 1993–2008 of 0.64 W m-2
(calculated for the Earth’s entire surface area), with a 90-per-cent
confidence interval of 0.53–0.75 W m-2.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/full/nature09043.html
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0cce0c71-3d39-4f5d...@w3g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 5:41 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
>
> Watched some guy on TV say that the purpose of the dispersant is not
> to control the spill but to reduce the measureable amount of oil being
> released. Juries award payments based on how much oil is spilled and
> BP wants that number to be very low, despite the continued evidence
> that it is very high. Note: the oil is at 13,000 feet the well head at
> 5,000 feet.
>
>
He is talking out of his hat. The reason for using dispersant is to
mitigate the environmental damage. Payments may be based
on the damage done but dispersant is used even when there is
no question of reducing damage payments.
The use of dispersant in the Gulf was specifically approved by the
US Coast Guard and the EPA. Federal authorities have the final
say on their use and the coastguard actually requires that operators
are able to apply dispersants within 12 hours of any spill.
Keith
Jack Linthicum
<keithnos...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Yeah, right, someone doesn't share that view.
Gulf oil spill: BP grilled over choice of dispersant
May 19, 2010 | 9:30 pm
Rep. John Hall (D-N.Y.) used some of his time in the House
Transportation and Infrastructure hearing Wednesday to grill the head
of BP America, Lamar McKay, over the company's choice of an oil
dispersant that is rated as more toxic and less effective than several
others.
Hall noted that the company that makes the dispersant, Nalco Holding,
has a former BP executive on its board. He was referring to Rodney F.
Chase, a veteran of the British oil giant, who sits on the board of
Nalco. Stock prices of Nalco rose on news that it was providing large
quantities of the dispersant to be used in the spill.
Here's some of the back-and-forth:
Hall: Mr. McKay, I was curious about the choice of dispersant,
Corexit 9500,which is being manufactured by a company called Nalco
Holding Co. in which a former 11-year board member of BP sits on the
Nalco board. Do you know approximately how much money BP has paid so
far to Nalco for this dispersant?
McKay: I'm sorry, I don't.
Hall: Could you get the -- communicate that information, please.
McKay: We can get that.
Hall: Why do you think Corexit would have been chosen over, as Mr.
Nadler [Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)] said, a less toxic and more
effective product like Dispersit, for instance, which you would think
would be a better choice, and did BP talk to -- did your company talk
to the manufacturers of the other dispersants to find out if they were
available?
McKay: I've not been personally involved in the choices around the
dispersants and what's happened in terms of talking to companies and
understanding the availability, the effectiveness or the choices they
have made. We can get you some information on that. I've just not been
involved in that.
Hall: My understanding is that the company that manufactures
dispersant just for one out of the list of 13 approved dispersants
says they could quickly produce 60,000 gallons per day which is more
than is currently being used by BP for this spill as I understand it.
So that would be a good conversation to have.
After Exxon Valdez, the dispersants were found to concentrate in
the organs of certain fish and other marine life, and I assume they
would do the same thing in the organs of human beings who consume
those fish. As a condition for the subsurface application of Corexit,
EPA directed BP to implement a monitoring plan on the plume including
measuring the toxic effects of the mixture of dispersed oil and
Corexit. What are the results of this monitoring? Are those results
posted somewhere and available to the public?
McKay: The monitoring is ongoing. I believe it's being worked
through Unified Command. I don't know how much of that has been posted
or is public. But we can certainly get back to you on when it's
expected to be and what -- as the results are tabulated. But there's
constant monitoring going on under the direction of Unified Command
and with the relevant government agencies.
Hall: Thank you. I'd appreciate a written response to that.
There was a similar exchange between McKay and Rep. Nadler:
Nadler: Corexit is 2.61 in toxicity, which means it's highly
toxic. It has an effectiveness of 54.7 in the south Louisiana crude-
oil spill.
[Dispersit] is 7.9 toxicity, which means it's a lot less toxic,
but it has an effectiveness rate of 100%. Mare Clean 200, its toxicity
rate is 42, which is much, much better. Its effectiveness rate is 84,
compared to Corexit at 54.
Now, you remember you're under oath. Who decided -- and don't tell
me the National Incident Command. They authorized the use, as I
understand, of any dispersant on this list. Who decided which
dispersant to use -- BP?
McKay: I don't know the --
Nadler: You don't know.
McKay: I don't know the individual who decided --
Nadler: I didn't ask the individual. Was it the BP who decided or
was it the government who decided, or the National Incident Command?
McKay: I don't know. I don't --
Nadler: You don't know. Could you find out for us, please?
McKay: Yes.
Jack Linthicum
Video of a small demonstration model and of the full size item.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/video/kevin-costner-oil-spill-cleanup-machine-10688556
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4d792347-2aee-4c94...@e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 6:33 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> <keithnos...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:0cce0c71-3d39-4f5d...@w3g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On May 22, 5:41 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
>>
>> > Watched some guy on TV say that the purpose of the dispersant is not
>> > to control the spill but to reduce the measureable amount of oil being
>> > released. Juries award payments based on how much oil is spilled and
>> > BP wants that number to be very low, despite the continued evidence
>> > that it is very high. Note: the oil is at 13,000 feet the well head at
>> > 5,000 feet.
>>
>> He is talking out of his hat. The reason for using dispersant is to
>> mitigate the environmental damage. Payments may be based
>> on the damage done but dispersant is used even when there is
>> no question of reducing damage payments.
>>
>> The use of dispersant in the Gulf was specifically approved by the
>> US Coast Guard and the EPA. Federal authorities have the final
>> say on their use and the coastguard actually requires that operators
>> are able to apply dispersants within 12 hours of any spill.
>>
>> Keith
>
>
> Yeah, right, someone doesn't share that view.
>
>
None of which alters the fact that the dispersant chosen by BP
is on the EPA approved list as can be seen on the EPA web site.
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/ncp/product_schedule.htm
If they don't want it used they shouldn't put it on the schedule.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7660fdb6-de11-488c...@r9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
Somebody has got some free publicity out of half assed journalists
who dont realise that such units have been available off the shelf
for several decades. There would have been at least one on the
rig that went down.
For example
http://www.aquaguard.com/skimming.php
http://www.megator.com/oil_water_separators.htm
Last time I checked there were around 50 different companies in the
business.
Now there are 51 - BFD
Keith
Jack Linthicum
Was there a more toxic dispersant on that list?
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:233828e4-c67e-4d0a...@z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Do your own homework Jack.
Keith
Jack Linthicum
EPA does it for me
EPA: BP MUST USE LESS TOXIC DISPERSANT
Release date: 05/20/2010
Contact Information: pr...@epa.gov 202-564-6794
"WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
issued a directive requiring BP to identify and use a less toxic and
more effective dispersant from the list of EPA authorized dispersants.
Dispersants are a chemical used to break up oil into small droplets so
that they are more easily degraded.
The directive requires BP to identify a less toxic alternative – to be
used both on the surface and under the water at the source of the oil
leak – within 24 hours and to begin using the less toxic dispersant
within 72 hours of submitting the alternative.
"If BP is unable to identify available alternative dispersant
products, BP must provide the Coast Guard and EPA with a detailed
description of the alternative dispersants investigated, and the
reason they believe those products did not meet the required
standards.
EPA’s directive to BP can be found here: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html
While the dispersant BP has been using is on the agency’s approved
list, BP is using this dispersant in unprecedented volumes and, last
week, began using it underwater at the source of the leak – a
procedure that has never been tried before. Because of its use in
unprecedented volumes and because much is unknown about the underwater
use of dispersants, EPA wants to ensure BP is using the least toxic
product authorized for use. We reserve the right to discontinue the
use of this dispersant method if any negative impacts on the
environment outweigh the benefits.
On May 15, EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard authorized BP to use
dispersants underwater at the source of the Deepwater Horizon leak. As
the dispersant is used underwater, BP is required to do constant,
scientifically rigorous monitoring so EPA scientists may determine the
dispersant’s effectiveness and impact on the environment, water and
air quality, and human health. EPA is posting the information BP
collects during the monitoring to ensure the public has access to this
data.
It would seem BP acts and then asks.
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a083d2f1-47d1-4dfa...@o15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> "WASHINGTON � Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
> issued a directive requiring BP to identify and use a less toxic and
> more effective dispersant from the list of EPA authorized dispersants.
> Dispersants are a chemical used to break up oil into small droplets so
> that they are more easily degraded.
>
> The directive requires BP to identify a less toxic alternative � to be
> used both on the surface and under the water at the source of the oil
> leak � within 24 hours and to begin using the less toxic dispersant
> within 72 hours of submitting the alternative.
>
Actually they don't. Interestingly they don't even instruct BP which one
to use just select another one from the same list they already selected the
current dispersant from.
Now I have no particular interest in defending BP but this looks
like a classic case of bureaucratic buck passing.
I repeat if there is a particular dispersant they think should not
be used then it ought not to be on the approved list.
Keith
Jack Linthicum
> > issued a directive requiring BP to identify and use a less toxic and
> > more effective dispersant from the list of EPA authorized dispersants.
> > Dispersants are a chemical used to break up oil into small droplets so
> > that they are more easily degraded.
>
> > used both on the surface and under the water at the source of the oil
> > within 72 hours of submitting the alternative.
>
> Actually they don't. Interestingly they don't even instruct BP which one
> to use just select another one from the same list they already selected the
> current dispersant from.
>
> Now I have no particular interest in defending BP but this looks
> like a classic case of bureaucratic buck passing.
>
> I repeat if there is a particular dispersant they think should not
> be used then it ought not to be on the approved list.
>
> Keith
Don't ask or don't act? It would seem the unique use of this
particular dispersant "in unprecedented volumes" is question being
asked.
The dispersant currently being used is Corexit, which just one of the
18 EPA-approved dispersants. Twelve are considered are more effective
on southern Louisiana crude oil than Corexit, and some are up to 20
times less toxic, EPA data shows.
"This is a large amount of dispersants being used, larger amounts than
have ever been used, on a pipe that continues to leak oil and that BP
is still trying to cap," an official from the Environmental Protection
Agency said.
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0f552f83-d50e-406b...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 12:18 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>>
>> Actually they don't. Interestingly they don't even instruct BP which one
>> to use just select another one from the same list they already selected
>> the
>> current dispersant from.
>>
>> Now I have no particular interest in defending BP but this looks
>> like a classic case of bureaucratic buck passing.
>>
>> I repeat if there is a particular dispersant they think should not
>> be used then it ought not to be on the approved list.
>>
>> Keith
>
> Don't ask or don't act? It would seem the unique use of this
> particular dispersant "in unprecedented volumes" is question being
> asked.
>
> The dispersant currently being used is Corexit, which just one of the
> 18 EPA-approved dispersants. Twelve are considered are more effective
> on southern Louisiana crude oil than Corexit, and some are up to 20
> times less toxic, EPA data shows.
>
> "This is a large amount of dispersants being used, larger amounts than
> have ever been used, on a pipe that continues to leak oil and that BP
> is still trying to cap," an official from the Environmental Protection
> Agency said.
>
> http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2010/2010-05-20-091.html
>
And if they had used less the headline would be
'BP puts environment at risk by not using enough dispersant to save money'
Keith