Gulf of Mexico oil spill

[dilute micro]

If this were to have happened there at the end of the summer, they wouldn't be able to re-access the well until the spring due to pack ice and it would flow all winter.

Shits of the first water.

It's almost funny.

 

[dilute micro]

All this to save a bit of money on piping......

This may be out of place, but I'm so glad this happened in the gulf and not in the arctic. No-one would care if this happened up there. Down there, everyone is watching for many different reasons. I hope that those in power actually put better safety practices in, instead of sweeping it under the carpet as the guise of "cost of doing business".

You can bet there will be at least an attempt to sweep this under the rug. That's what money does. It turns people into zombies. Both BP and the gov know the people are passive sheep. When all this is over somehow and enough time has passed oil companies will still have the money to buy legislation unless Obama or the congress drop the ax on them. I hope Obama is taking this seriously. This might be so big that they have no choice.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Looks like (1) the top kill is failing and (2) this isn't the leak anyway. The real leak might be several miles away. Possibly the casing has blown and the reservoir is communicating directly to the ocean via a fracture in the sea floor. Makes sense: a Delaware+Maryland sized plume like that surely cannot have come from what you see on those videos, and they have discovered what appears to be another gigantic source (I can't quite make this out).

Next step (according to Simmons): tactical nukes (via the intelhub). Simmons is a pretty shrewd guy and has made a lot of money in the past on that basis. I wonder.

Thats nuts, all of it.

 

[Falcon]

Thats nuts, all of it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but a little analysis from you would be ... interesting.

 

[Falcon]

It's almost funny.

McLeod was referring to [BP and ExxonMobil's] application to change the government’s requirement on same season relief drilling for Beaufort Sea wells. Same season relief well capability is the ability to drill a relief well in the same season in which the original well was drilled... a practice intended to help control a blowout and reduce the impact of hydrocarbons being released into the Arctic Ocean.

Upstreamonline, 4 May 2010

[Anne Drinkwater, president of BP Canada], declined to answer technical questions and said she had not compared Canadian and US drilling regulations, straining the credulity of some on the committee. "You'd think coming to a hearing like this that British Petroleum would have as many answers as possible to assure the Canadian public. We got nothing today from them," Nathan Cullen of the left-leaning New Democrats, said in a Reuters report....Critics say an oil blowout in the Canadian Arctic would be much worse than the current Gulf disaster, given the ice, severe weather conditions and the lack of infrastructure in one of the world's most remote regions... shortly before the US disaster, BP and other oil companies urged Canadian regulators to drop a requirement stipulating that companies operating in the Arctic had to drill relief wells in the same season as the primary well.

Upstreamonline, 13 May 2010

 

[sleaterkinney]

Looks like (1) the top kill is failing and (2) this isn't the leak anyway. The real leak might be several miles away. Possibly the casing has blown and the reservoir is communicating directly to the ocean via a fracture in the sea floor. Makes sense: a Delaware+Maryland sized plume like that surely cannot have come from what you see on those videos, and they have discovered what appears to be another gigantic source (I can't quite make this out).

On what does he base his assertion that 1)the leak couldn't have released that much oil and 2)that there's a fracture elsewhere that's mysteriously opened and that everyone is keeping quiet about?, are all the rigs and equipment there just for show?

Next step (according to Simmons): tactical nukes (via the intelhub). Simmons is a pretty shrewd guy and has made a lot of money in the past on that basis. I wonder.

No, you don't go detonating nukes at the bottom of the ocean on top of a gushing oil reservoir. You do realise that the blow out preventer is limiting the flow at the moment?

 

[Crispy]

The Russians did it, several times

 

[sleaterkinney]

On top of a gushing oil reservoir?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Worst case scenario with a nuke: it doesn't seal the ground, just messes it up a bit - now we've got oil coming out through very radioactive rubble in the ground - how are we going to control that?

 

[Crispy]

Sounds totally nuts to me to tbf.

 

[Diamond]

Looks like (1) the top kill is failing and (2) this isn't the leak anyway. The real leak might be several miles away. Possibly the casing has blown and the reservoir is communicating directly to the ocean via a fracture in the sea floor. Makes sense: a Delaware+Maryland sized plume like that surely cannot have come from what you see on those videos, and they have discovered what appears to be another gigantic source (I can't quite make this out).

Next step (according to Simmons): tactical nukes (via the intelhub). Simmons is a pretty shrewd guy and has made a lot of money in the past on that basis. I wonder.

I respect your posts a lot but they sometimes verge into the hysterical and it was only a matter of time before you linked to a website that features conspiraloonery. It's a pity because it casts a shadow of doubt on all your contributions.

http://theintelhub.com/2010/05/27/update-hawk-must-listen/

http://theintelhub.com/2010/05/26/secret-document-counter-insurgency-of-the-american-people/

 

[Falcon]

On what does he base his assertion that 1)the leak couldn't have released that much oil

That surface area, times a plausible depth given surface tension, times a plausible multiplier given that sampling shows that there are much larger pelagic volumes, defines a total volume. That total volume, divided by the duration since the loss of containment, gives a flow rate rate. That flow rate is unlikely have issued from that diameter of tubing, with those partial restrictions, and does not correspond with estimates derived from visual volumetric analysis of the known leaks.

No, you don't go detonating nukes at the bottom of the ocean on top of a gushing oil reservoir. You do realise that the blow out preventer is limiting the flow at the moment?

According to the Russian newspaper Komsomol Pravda, the Soviet Union used the method five times to seal off hydrocarbon spillages. The first time was in 1966, near Bukhara in Uzbekistan, when a 30-kiloton atom bomb was used to blow out and seal a burning gas well. (The bomb used in Hiroshima was 20 kilotons.)
Komsomolskaya Pravda, 3 May 2010 (Russian)

They have used downhole insertion as well as surface detonation. All on land. I don't think anyone is arguing that is it a fantastic idea. But then, neither is allowing it to dissipate for years under primary depletion.

 

[Falcon]

I respect your posts a lot but they sometimes verge into the hysterical and it was only a matter of time before you linked to a website that features conspiraloonery. It's a pity because it casts a shadow of doubt on all your contributions.

http://theintelhub.com/2010/05/27/update-hawk-must-listen/

http://theintelhub.com/2010/05/26/secret-document-counter-insurgency-of-the-american-people/

Thanks Diamond. I thought ad hominem fallacies like your post were confined to the socialist threads.

The opinion I'm relaying is that of Matt Simmons - the founder of one of the largest investment banks serving the industry and a credible commentator - not the intelhub. Perhaps the difference escapes you. Feel free to conduct some sort of peculiar "disproof by quoting stuff posted by other dudes on intelhub" argument, it obviously serves no purpose.

Perhaps Simmons is wrong - but he has made enough money in the past being right sufficiently often and against conventional wisdom that relaying his opinion at this stage is at least interesting.

For my part, I have usually been reasonably careful to express caution in my posts, to flag my own speculation and, where pessimistic, to express the hope that I am wrong. In that context, labelling a post citing a credible industry commentator and prefaced with "Looks like" and ended with "I wonder" as "hysterical", and imagining that it calls into question everything else I posted is a little, well - hysterical.

If you don't think I was cautious enough on this occasion - well, I don't really care. I make fuck ups like anyone else (including you) and to assert that any single fuck up calls into question everything else shows a certain poverty of spirit. I like your fuck ups - they give you character, and you have bags of that.

Let us agree that we both hope he is wrong, hysterical or otherwise. Most of my savings are tied up in BP stock, so I have skin in the game and an interest in a positive outcome. Who knows what your motives are.

 

[Diamond]

Thanks Diamond. I thought ad hominem fallacies like your post were confined to the socialist threads.

The opinion I'm relaying is that of Matt Simmons - the founder of one of the largest investment banks serving the industry and a credible commentator - not the intelhub. Perhaps the difference escapes you. Feel free to conduct some sort of peculiar "disproof by quoting other stuff posted by intelhub" argument, it obviously serves no purpose.

Perhaps Simmons is wrong - but he has made enough money in the past being right sufficiently often and against conventional wisdom that relaying his opinion at this stage is at least interesting.

For my part, I have usually been reasonably careful to express caution in my posts, to flag my own speculation and, where pessimistic, to express the hope that I am wrong. In that context, labelling a post citing a credible industry commentator and prefaced with "Looks like" and ended with "I wonder" as "hysterical", and imagining that it calls into question everything else I posted is a little, well - hysterical.

If you don't think I was cautious enough on this occasion - well, I don't really care. I make fuck ups like anyone else (including you) and to assert that any single fuck up calls into question everything else shows a certain poverty of spirit. I like your fuck ups - they give you character, and you have bags of that.

Let us agree that we both hope he is wrong, hysterical or otherwise. Most of my savings are tied up in BP stock, so I have skin in the game and an interest in a positive outcome. Who knows what your motives are.

The point is really quite simple.

You can find Simmons' arguments on a range of different legitimate and respected news sources.

The fact that you choose to quote from what appears to be a scare-mongering, paranoid, borderline conspiraloonery website is significant.

It implies that you choose to harvest your opinions from such websites and as a consequence casts doubt, and nothing more than that, on your assertions.

Nothing really ad hominem about it, just simple common sense...

 

[Falcon]

The fact that you choose to quote from what appears to be a scare-mongering, paranoid, borderline conspiraloonery website is significant.

To you.

It implies that you choose to harvest your opinions from such websites and as a consequence casts doubt, and nothing more than that, on your assertions.

It implies that I got up early this morning, searched for Matt Simmons (who's opinion I value) and linked to the first hit on google that served up his youtube feed. I could have linked directly to the youtube site, but as a matter of thoughtless habit (and occasional laziness), I automatically link "vias" as a courtesy.

I have never heard of intelhub. If you can detect anything in this short post or any other post of mine that you think has been "harvested" from it then point it out, or just accept that you are mistaken. I will take more care over what I link to in "vias" in future, but you are making a mountain out of a molehill, for reasons only you can know. In the meantime, such mean spirited case building does you and your arguments a disservice - I have enjoyed your posts even where I have not agreed with them.

Sorry to disappoint you. Why don't we get back to more interesting matters. What do you think of the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources report that BP's use of Corexit 9500 dispersant threatens the entire eastern half of the North American continent with total destruction, not to mention secret plans to evacuate tens-of-millions of citizens? (via eutimes 24 May 2010)

 

[Crispy]

Or just coming across those pages via google search, without prior knowledge of the sites other content? Can hapen...

EDIT: see, like i said

 

[Diamond]

To you.


It implies that I got up early this morning, searched for Matt Simmons (who's opinion I value) and linked to the first hit on google that served up his youtube feed. I could have linked directly to the youtube site, but as a matter of thoughtless habit (and occasional laziness), I automatically link "vias" as a courtesy.

I have never heard of intelhub. If you can detect anything in this short post or any other post of mine that you think has been "harvested" from it then point it out, or just accept that you are mistaken. I will take more care over what I link to in "vias" in future, but you are making a mountain out of a molehill, for reasons only you can know. In the meantime, such mean spirited case building does you and your arguments a disservice - I have enjoyed your posts even where I have not agreed with them.

Sorry to disappoint you. Why don't we get back to more interesting matters. What do you think of the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources report that BP's use of Corexit 9500 dispersant threatens the entire eastern half of the North American continent with total destruction, not to mention secret plans to evacuate tens-of-millions of citizens? (via eutimes 24 May 2010)

Fair enough.

I got the wrong impression that the intelhub was a familiar source to you and am consequently mistaken.

As to the toxic rains and so on - it sounds like a disaster movie.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Intelhub said,

NOAA confirmed reports of a second fissure about 5-7 miles from the original. This new fissure appears to be releasing a plume the size of Delaware and Maryland combined!

i cant find any report saying this.

edit: From what i understand Simmons is a well respected Peak Oil guy, but his knowledge about wells and drilling is somewhere between none and not very much. Not to say he is wrong about another leak, but there's not much proof of one as far as i can see.

 

[Falcon]

Intelhub said, NOAA confirmed reports of a second fissure about 5-7 miles from the original. This new fissure appears to be releasing a plume the size of Delaware and Maryland combined!

i cant find any report saying this

No I can't either. I'm regretting the intelhub thing. I think Diamond's opinion of them is fair, and they are talking crap. Simmons talks briefly about the possibility that there is communication from the well bore to the sea floor via a fracture, but it is in passing and is probably an overemphasis to post it here. Intelhub looks like pure fiction. And Simmons is getting flak round the usual sites for drawing a bit too much attention to himself on the nuke thing. I'm going back to watching for a bit...

 

[Barking_Mad]

No I can't either. I'm regretting the intelhub thing. I think Diamond's opinion of them is fair, and they are talking crap. Simmons talks briefly about the possibility that there is communication from the well bore to the sea floor via a fracture, but it is in passing and is probably an overemphasis to post it here. Intelhub looks like pure fiction.

No worries. The video i saw of Simmons was him talking about the fact he didnt beleive so much oil could come from the end of a 21" pipe, even if it is pressured from a 50m oil reservoir. Who knows, maybe he will be proven right...

Anyhow, some food for thought....what happens when a hurricane hits oil?

Hurricane + Oil Slick: What Would Happen?

The leak from the site of the demolished Deepwater Horizon drilling platform has raised numerous environmental concerns throughout the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coast regions.

With hurricane season looming, however, speculation is growing regarding the impact that a Gulf hurricane may have on the huge oil slick. Even the experts don't really know what would happen because there is no precedent.


A hurricane could move the slick toward the coast and a storm surge or hurricane force winds could carry the oil inland, producing an even greater disaster than either a hurricane or oil slick alone. A hurricane or tropical storm in the Gulf would also impede the efforts to contain the leak and the slick. Some have even speculated that the oil slick may inhibit the formation of hurricanes in the Gulf by forming a barrier between the air and the water.

Once a hurricane has formed, however, the slick would not affect its intensity or track. Another positive effect of a hurricane may be that the churning waves would hasten degradation of the oil by disbursing it.

Unfortunately, the chances that a hurricane will hit the oil spill are fairly good. Hurricanes in the early part of hurricane season historically develop in the Gulf region, whereas later hurricanes form in the Atlantic Ocean. Moreover, hurricane forecasters from the Colorado State University predict that the chances that a hurricane will enter the Gulf of Mexico this year are 44%, higher than the historic average of 30%.

So i wonder if the US Government does have an evacuation plan for the coast should a hurricane look to hit? Of course it's not just the chemicals in the oil, but the chemicals in the dispersant they have dropped into the oil in massive amounts. Residents on the shore have already reported sore eyes, coughing etc.. as a reuslt of fumes - im guessing surface oil collected in a hurricane and dumped over cities and towns is far, far worse....


There are some numbered references on the original piece which refer to some interesting links which are worth a look.

 

[Falcon]

So i wonder if the US Government does have an evacuation plan for the coast should a hurricane look to hit? Of course it's not just the chemicals in the oil, but the chemicals in the dispersant they have dropped into the oil in massive amounts.

Well, apparently, yes but there is an increasing amount of nonsense floating about.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Nobody was in charge

Quite a horrifying read.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Clean-up workers falling ill

At least two more oil spill cleanup workers have been hospitalized after feeling ill on the job, according to local shrimpers who are assisting in the recovery effort along the Gulf Coast.

The workers were taken to West Jefferson Hospital in suburban New Orleans on Saturday after complaining of nausea, headaches and dizziness after low-flying planes applied chemical dispersants within one mile of operating cleanup vessels, according to Louisiana Shrimpers Association acting President Clint Guidry.

""My shrimpers can do this job," Guidry told the reporters. "They just need the air quality monitored and they need the proper protective equipment, which is not being done.""

Guidry, a Vietnam veteran, compared the dispersants being used to combat the spill to the deadly chemical weapon, Agent Orange, and said the actions of BP, the oil company responsible for the massive spill, should land officials in jail.

"The U.S. Coast Guard should be monitoring this," he said. "Somebody needs to take control of the situation."

Earlier in the week, seven oil spill recovery workers were hospitalized in New Orleans after complaining of feeling ill. All were properly trained and had protective gear on, said Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry, the federal on-scene coordinator for the oil spill response effort in the Gulf of Mexico.

"The heat and humidity in Louisiana can be challenging," Landry told reporters Thursday afternoon.

She said the workers were treated for several symptoms, including headaches, nausea, vomiting and shortness of breath. Safety officials from the Coast Guard, BP and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration had responded to the incident, Landry.

An investigation is under way "to make sure what we can do to ensure that these workers are all working in safe conditions," Landry said. "We will continue to monitor this situation very carefully so that nobody is put in harm's way as they respond to this spill," she added.

 

[Barking_Mad]

from the Oil Drum, the depth of ocean to scale, unlike many of the online diagrams of the scenario...

 

[two sheds]

You'd think they'd just be able to stick an umbrella down there and open it up.

 

[dilute micro]

August

The oil is going to flow till August. This is truly like a cheesy movie but every bit of it is happening.

So we're going to learn what 100 million gallons of oil will do.

I'm sick of the media - I'm sick of them talking about clean up. You can't clean this up and that's even with calm weather.

 

[dilute micro]

BP says there isn't any underwater oil plumes.

http://www.examiner.com/x-47892-Env...ys-BPs-Tony-Hayward-disagrees-with-scientists

 

[Falcon]

Soviet propaganda video showing the restoration of containment in a big gas well with a downhole nuclear explosive.

 

[goebfwai]

I found these blog posts on the spill an interesting read...

Dimitry Orlov on inertia and the psychology of change. With comment on the apparent lost in the woods approach taken by the 'powers that be' to tackling the worlds worst ever man-made disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2010/05/lost-leaders.html

Broadly similar theme from John Robb with a quasi-military slant, focussing on the drawbacks and corrupting nature of closed loop decision making systems. http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/05/journal-no-more-katrinas.html

 

[xes]

BP says there isn't any underwater oil plumes.

http://www.examiner.com/x-47892-Env...ys-BPs-Tony-Hayward-disagrees-with-scientists

BP lie through their fat stinking fucking arses.