Coverage of the Gulf Oil Spill

  • Avatar

    Posted: 20 May 2010 10:07 AM #46

    Apologies if this has already been posted but Kevin Costner has some tech that will hopefully help the cleanup. I always knew he really did have gills!!

    http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/if-you-build-it/

    vid at bottom of article too.

    I would think the tech that is being used in a microcap company I have mentioned a long time ago could be utilized as well at some point in the future, ESPH Ecosphere Tech. It sounds similar in the way that the impurities are separated by using centrifugal force.

    [ Edited: 20 May 2010 10:12 AM by $Billyall ]      
  • Avatar

    Posted: 20 May 2010 12:15 PM #47

    deleted-wrong forum

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 21 May 2010 11:14 AM #48

    Think The Oil Leak Is Over-Hyped? The Trade Is Still Wide Open

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/gulf-oil-leak-trade-bp-transocean-2010-5#ixzz0oZbcFiv6
    http://www.businessinsider.com/gulf-oil-leak-trade-bp-transocean-2010-5

    Check out the volume.

    Hosting provided by FotoTime

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 21 May 2010 11:22 AM #49

    McClatchy News  has figured out why BP is slow walking this problem.  They are trying to low ball this number. 

    The longer you keep people away, the more time the oil has to disperse.
    The more time it has to disperse, the harder it is to tie to BP. 
    The harder it is to tie to BP, the less damages BP will have to pay.
    Legal experts said that not having a credible official estimate of the leak’s size provides another benefit for BP: The amount of oil spilled is certain to be key evidence in the court battles that are likely to result from the disaster. The size of the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, for example, was a significant factor that the jury considered when it assessed damages against Exxon.

    “If they put off measuring, then it’s going to be a battle of dueling experts after the fact trying to extrapolate how much spilled after it has all sunk or has been carried away,” said Lloyd Benton Miller, one of the lead plaintiffs’ lawyers in the Exxon Valdez spill litigation. “The ability to measure how much oil was released will be impossible.”

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 21 May 2010 11:41 AM #50

    Survivors of the catastrophic explosion of the Deepwater Horizon were held incommunicado for 40 hours then forced to sign statements that they did not witness the explosion and were unharmed by the explosion they did not witness. Link

    The oil plume is expected to reach Sarasota soon.

    BP is finally admitting that they underestimated the size of the spill. Ya think?

    “Steve Wereley, Associate Professor of Engineering at Purdue University, has concluded, based on video analysis of the footage released by the Senate, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill seems to be leaking faster than he originally thought.

    Last week Wereley calculated the flow from the biggest three leaks on the sea floor, using a well-established scientific technique, and found the flow could be 10 times larger than the official figure of 5,000 barrels a day. But after analyzing new video, he discovered that the flow appears to be even greater than that at 100,000 barrels a day.”

    And we have corporate apologists defending BP and downplaying the spill.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 21 May 2010 01:31 PM #51

    The outflow is definitely huge, but the flow rate and oil volume are difficult to bracket.

    One thing we don’t know is how large the water cut is. The outflow could be anywhere from 5 to 90 percent oil (and even that range is uncertain). I’ve worked onshore reservoirs that are commercial with only a 2 to 4 percent oil cut.

    My guess is that the mysterious subsea plumes are brine-related, but there is so much bad information getting out there that it is difficult to discern what is real and what is not.

    The longer this thing runs without being plugged, the slower the flow rate will be. The well is not being produced normally, and so it may be flowing water much faster than it would if it were managed by a production engineer. If the well is coning water, that will cause the oil rate to decline even faster.

    Read into all that whatever you like…

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 21 May 2010 04:47 PM #52

    jpashin - 12 May 2010 06:22 PM

    So, if the rate was 5,000 bpd at the time of the original reports, it should be lower today and will continue to decrease. Of course, we do not know the rate of decline, which may be the ultimate determinant of environmental impact should capping the blowout remain problematic for an extended period.

    Except that the flow rate was/is 10-15 times worse than that. When you stick a 6” tube into a 21” tube and are getting 5,000 bpd than you have a much bigger problem.  That 4-story box/dome thingee filled up in no time, that was a pretty big clue. Also, that was only leak number One, leak 2 is estimated to be 25% of the other one.

    We vacation almost every year in Sarasota, won’t be this year I’m afraid.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 22 May 2010 01:50 AM #53

    ChasMac77 - 21 May 2010 07:47 PM
    jpashin - 12 May 2010 06:22 PM

    So, if the rate was 5,000 bpd at the time of the original reports, it should be lower today and will continue to decrease. Of course, we do not know the rate of decline, which may be the ultimate determinant of environmental impact should capping the blowout remain problematic for an extended period.

    Except that the flow rate was/is 10-15 times worse than that. When you stick a 6” tube into a 21” tube and are getting 5,000 bpd than you have a much bigger problem.  That 4-story box/dome thingee filled up in no time, that was a pretty big clue. Also, that was only leak number One, leak 2 is estimated to be 25% of the other one.

    We vacation almost every year in Sarasota, won’t be this year I’m afraid.

    The point of my post was that we do not know the rate - and we still don’t. However, regardless of the initial rate, the flow will decline exponentially. The only real consolation here is that the outflow should not get worse, and pressure decline will eventually make this thing pluggable.

    It is obvious that the stage is set for a lot of damage to be done, and let’s hope we don’t get a major tropical storm in the Gulf any time soon. It is pure luck that there hasn’t been a storm yet with strong onshore winds.

    The box became plugged with methane hydrates, and that’s what killed that effort. They should have known that the pressure would push the gas-water fraction into the hydrate stability field. There is obviously a large amount of solution gas in the reservoir, which needs to be accounted for in the flow estimates. As an aside, there is some guy from Berkeley who has claimed that melting hydrates in the reservoir caused the blowout. This is virtually impossible - formations at 18,000 feet are way too warm to support gas hydrates.

    It became obvious that the flow was huge when the video came out showing the gushing 22-inch pipe. If you look in the background of the video, there is a sinking plume, which is probably brine. Brine from 18,000 feet is up to 7 times more saline than sea water, is anoxic, and can be rich in metals. Brine thus presents a very large set of environmental issues in its own right. BP should be able to estimate the oil, gas, and water saturation of the reservoir from the geophysical logs of the well, although the fluids that flow out of the reservoir can be different.

    We don’t even know what that 5,000 barrels recovered by the tube is. Is it 5,000 barrels of oil, or is it 5,000 barrels of fluid? If it is 5,000 barrels of fluid, they may be recovering very little oil. Much as we don’t know the flow rate, we don’t know how big the brine cut is and how it may be changing over time.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 24 May 2010 03:54 PM #54

    Tomorrow, maybe, BP will “top kill” the leaking well.  If that doesn’t work we may have to wait 3 months for the relief well.  This week is critical for BP and RIG.  We are now hearing speculation that BP could go out of business from this tragedy.  Will the “top kill” save BP this week?  There is heavy short selling in these shares on high volume.  Have the long shareholders capitulated or is it all short selling?
    Hosting provided by FotoTime

    Edit: RIG down another 9% today.  Maybe this has something to do with it

    [ Edited: 24 May 2010 04:56 PM by zulu ]      
  • Avatar

    Posted: 24 May 2010 05:08 PM #55

    Zulu, there is always info that we don’t know about. It does seem strange that RIG is getting beaten down worse than BP. With the WH doing a full press on BP, something does not add up. The WH getting Congress to appropriate money for legal defense expenses has gone unnoticed. There are so many hands that are dirty in this that it will take years to get to the truth. Here is the thing, as bad as the media has portrayed this, the GOM will survive. I know, hard to believe isn’t it? I will be in Panama City Beach next week. When I get back I will give an eyewitness account.


    If there is a biologist in the forum I would like to hear about these microbes that eat crude oil. Is there a rate of consumption? Does crude oil actually evaporate in the ocean? I know I am being lazy by not Googling this, but I don’t trust Google.  rolleyes

    Signature

    Adversity does not just build character, it reveals it.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 24 May 2010 06:14 PM #56

    mbeauch - 24 May 2010 08:08 PM

    Zulu, there is always info that we don’t know about. It does seem strange that RIG is getting beaten down worse than BP. With the WH doing a full press on BP, something does not add up. The WH getting Congress to appropriate money for legal defense expenses has gone unnoticed. There are so many hands that are dirty in this that it will take years to get to the truth. Here is the thing, as bad as the media has portrayed this, the GOM will survive. I know, hard to believe isn’t it? I will be in Panama City Beach next week. When I get back I will give an eyewitness account.


    If there is a biologist in the forum I would like to hear about these microbes that eat crude oil. Is there a rate of consumption? Does crude oil actually evaporate in the ocean? I know I am being lazy by not Googling this, but I don’t trust Google.  rolleyes

    Speaking of ‘dirty hands’—-I have a very embarrassing confession to make…...upon checking, I have discovered that I myself have actually used some of these petroleum products that BP makes.  I know, shocking.  Nevertheless my own small contribution to the oil spill can’t be overlooked.  I wish I had more time to devote to faulting BP here, but I am at the station filling up now, and here comes the attendant….gotta go. rolleyes

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 25 May 2010 12:34 AM #57

    An interesting article.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052404071.html?hpid=topnews

    My favorite part: replace them with what?

    You gotta love Salazar, he has no clue, but wants to talk tough. My take, an Admiral just told the Secretary of the Interior to STFU. LOL

    Signature

    Adversity does not just build character, it reveals it.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 25 May 2010 11:20 AM #58

    At $52 RIG it was just too low not to cover and it appears that is exactly what many short sellers did this morning.  Nice operation!

    Edit: it’s about the only green thing on my board today.  Methinks they have done their worst to RIG

    [ Edited: 25 May 2010 12:36 PM by zulu ]      
  • Avatar

    Posted: 25 May 2010 05:44 PM #59

    It would seem that, all our president wants to do is point the finger of blame concerning the leaking oil well. So I thought that I would also give it a go.
    Has anyone considered the role of our environment movement, and the steps that have been taken to bring us to this point? Will a Serra Club spokesperson ever release a statement apologizing because they have used their influence with our government to force the drilling of oil into more and more risky and expensive locations? Had this accident occurred on land it would have been corrected very quickly. Had it occurred in shallower waters it would have also been corrected quickly. But because of the enormous government restrictions, oil companies must risk more capital and increase the risk of an environmental disaster such as this one occurring, to provide us with something we can not live without. So now, in an attempt to save the environment, they are the reason for its destruction.  :-(

    :apple:

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 25 May 2010 06:16 PM #60

    MacCube - 25 May 2010 08:44 PM

    It would seem that, all our president wants to do is point the finger of blame concerning the leaking oil well. So I thought that I would also give it a go.
    Has anyone considered the role of our environment movement, and the steps that have been taken to bring us to this point? Will a Serra Club spokesperson ever release a statement apologizing because they have used their influence with our government to force the drilling of oil into more and more risky and expensive locations? Had this accident occurred on land it would have been corrected very quickly. Had it occurred in shallower waters it would have also been corrected quickly. But because of the enormous government restrictions, oil companies must risk more capital and increase the risk of an environmental disaster such as this one occurring, to provide us with something we can not live without. So now, in an attempt to save the environment, they are the reason for its destruction.  :-(

    Good point, well taken.  Ironic, but the environmentalists have contributed nothing but acrimony into an issue that really never should have been so politicized.  I understand that Big Oil has a lot influence in Washington.  Huge profits are great, and influence is our way of life.  We are a capitalistic society.  But big profits are no excuse for our current US government restrictions on imports of high gas mileage vehicles, favored by Americans,  which could help the average US driver break the high gas consumption habits.  Back to your point—maybe we would demand better vehicles if all of our coastal skylines were darkened by the view of wall to wall shallow water drilling rigs.  That way it would be a constant reminder of how much gas is consumed, and who is consuming it.  In addition to rigs on the skyline, maybe some safer, albeit more expensive,  drilling practices, funded by higher gas prices, would also help us break the habit, and make plug in electrics even more compelling than they already are.    Personally, I drive this great big ass 1 ton 4 x 4 around.  But only when I can’t cram all my tools into the Jetta TDI.  It gets 50 mpg and I definitely want to double that with an EV.