Oil Rig Explosion

#151
#151
Do they have such production numbers if they had not finished setting up the well?

I don't know how relevant this is, but here's production numbers from another BP deepwater well in the Gulf.

Thunder%20Horse%20Main%20-%20Oil%20Gas%20Water.png


Thunder%20Horse%20North%20Oil%20Gas%20Water.png


Looks like the ratios could vary from spot to spot, even within a small production area.
 
#153
#153
Just a couple data points. For all I know this well could be considerably different.

What's pretty clear, though, is that BP doesn't want a concrete leak rate to be published in the media. I'm quite sure they can have a really good estimate if they want one.
 
#154
#154
TennTradition said:
Has anyone ever seen any numbers regarding what fraction of each cut (oil, gas, water) this well was producing before the explosion? I really wonder if the Purdue professor included that in his analysis...
Click to expand...


Heard him on the radio this moning. He notes first frames of video appear to be methane gas, but remainder frames are oil, so its a combination. He can't know the breakdown, but overall states that range is 70,000 +/- 20 percent.

Minimum is ten times what BP estimates.

And means that in the first ten days it eclipsed Exxon/Valdes.
 
#155
#155
Even if the Purdue guy is off by a fair amount, it is becoming clear that the rate of leakage is far beyond what BP is estimating, just by looking at the surface area currently affected.
 
#157
#157
droski said:
then where is the oil?
Click to expand...


At and below the surface. According to the report, there is a dispute amongst authorities as to how much is on the surface, and how much they are seeing.

No one will ever know for sure, on either count. I am sure people will be debating it forever. But until it reaches shore and piles up, I think there is an element of it just not being real.
 
#158
#158
what i'm saying is that one of two things is true:

1) it's currently not anywhere near the size of exxon valdez (remember original estimates was that it would have to be leaking for 3 months to equal that)

or

2) they are doing a much better job preventing it from spreading (either by chemicals or whatever) than in prior spills

it could be a combination of the two obviously.
 
#159
#159
droski said:
what i'm saying is that one of two things is true:

1) it's currently not anywhere near the size of exxon valdez (remember original estimates was that it would have to be leaking for 3 months to equal that)

or

2) they are doing a much better job preventing it from spreading (either by chemicals or whatever) than in prior spills

it could be a combination of the two obviously.
Click to expand...



There's plenty of possibilities. Obviously BP has an interest in being conservative on all estimates. Critics will assert highest numbers.

Right now, its just huge globs of it spread out over miles and miles. I just think that we are all used to oil spills being about pictures of sea gulls covered in black ooze stumbling down a beach, etc. We haven't really seen that, yet.

When that happens, it will become more palpable.

Wait for some tropical storms to pop up and shove it somewhere, all at once. Going to be ugly.
 
#160
#160
The Exxon Valdez occurred inside of a Sound, where as the the Gulf of Mexico is quite a bit more spacious. I don't know, but that difference in the body of water might be a factor on why it isn't hitting the beaches as hard.
 
#161
#161
droski said:
what i'm saying is that one of two things is true:

1) it's currently not anywhere near the size of exxon valdez (remember original estimates was that it would have to be leaking for 3 months to equal that)

or

2) they are doing a much better job preventing it from spreading (either by chemicals or whatever) than in prior spills

it could be a combination of the two obviously.
Click to expand...

They've dumped 400,000 gallons of dispersants on it, so that is no small amount. So, a ton of the oil is sittingat the bottom of the ocean now. Also, the size of the slick is certainly growing.

I'm not sure the where is the oil questions make total sense. They are corralling the oil and the weather is keeping it off the shores, but some of the animations I've seen indicate that there is a lot of oil out there.

I still don't know if I believe 70,000 barrels a day - but I'm not basing that off of any real analysis. I would be more willing to believe 20,000 barrels a day - which is still a freaking lot. The thing we have on our side here is that all the oil isn't being released at once, we are in fairly open water, and we have dispersants that can be used (won't solve all problems, but solves some).
 
#162
#162
I'm still curious about the SWAT team comment. I haven't heard anything about it, not even a follow up question asked the president or any press secretary. Has he commented further about that particular remark? I just don't really understand why we would allocate Special Weapons and Tactics officers to oil rigs unless there was a reasonable suspicion that it was an act of terrorism.

My skeptical mind is telling me this couldn't be the case but it just seems odd.
 
#163
#163
KB5252 said:
I'm still curious about the SWAT team comment. I haven't heard anything about it, not even a follow up question asked the president or any press secretary. Has he commented further about that particular remark? I just don't really understand why we would allocate Special Weapons and Tactics officers to oil rigs unless there was a reasonable suspicion that it was an act of terrorism.

My skeptical mind is telling me this couldn't be the case but it just seems odd.
Click to expand...

If you re-watch his comments, he said that these teams were coming out of the interior department. If this was a terrorist issue, it would not be out of interior, and it wouldn't be a SWAT team, IMO.

Interior dispatched 'SWAT' teams to inspect other deepwater rigs. Here is something I found that provides some additional detail.

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT:
The department deployed SWAT teams from the Minerals Management Service to inspect 30 drilling rigs operating in the deepwater sections of the Gulf of Mexico. Inspections should be completed within the next week, according to an Interior Department spokeswoman.

Inspectors will check to see whether the rigs have conducted blow-out preventer tests and inspect related records, the spokeswoman said. The teams will also verify that emergency well control exercises are taking place. Inspectors will then inspect 47 deep-water production platforms in the gulf, a process that will take longer than rig inspections because of the complexities of the structures.
Click to expand...

Federal Eye - Oil spill: The government's response
 
#164
#164
TennTradition said:
If you re-watch his comments, he said that these teams were coming out of the interior department. If this was a terrorist issue, it would not be out of interior, and it wouldn't be a SWAT team, IMO.

Interior dispatched 'SWAT' teams to inspect other deepwater rigs. Here is something I found that provides some additional detail.



Federal Eye - Oil spill: The government's response
Click to expand...

Thank you, I knew there was reason to be skeptical but the comments were just odd, it would seem to me that a better term and explanation for the teams dispatched could and probably should have been given at the time.
 
#165
#165
KB5252 said:
Thank you, I knew there was reason to be skeptical but the comments were just odd, it would seem to me that a better term and explanation for the teams dispatched could and probably should have been given at the time.
Click to expand...

Typical government (or most organizations) problem of having your own lingo that seems normal to you, but can mean something completely different to people outside of the situation. He had probably been in meetings, hearing the term 'SWAT' team, but with more context, so much that it didn't seem odd saying it.
 
#166
#166
An unsourced rumor is floating about that BP had a safety dispute with subcontractor Schlumberger shortly before the explosion. I'll be watching to see if it pops up in the news. If it does pan out, BP is even more screwed.
 
#167
#167
Has anyone else heard that they are collecting hair to send down there? A friend of mine said that her hairstylist had a big bag of hair that was being collected in order to soak up the oil. I think she told her it was called a "hair boom."
 
#168
#168
VolGal423 said:
Has anyone else heard that they are collecting hair to send down there? A friend of mine said that her hairstylist had a big bag of hair that was being collected in order to soak up the oil. I think she told her it was called a "hair boom."
Click to expand...

Biological Aggregate Drying Agent Boom

or

BADA Boom!

:hi: I'm here all night folks!
 
#169
#169
:)

Very nice! Did you JUST think of that?! haha

They could use my hair I probably have enough to soak up a good majority of the oil.
 
#170
#170
just came with it off the top of my head after reading your post about the "hair boom"
 
#173
#173
On his show today comedian Rush Limbaugh is blaming "environmentalist wackos" for this because they "force" oil companies to drill for oil so far away that it's miles below the surface.

According to him there's plenty of oil to be had on our doorstep.

Apparently he doesn't realize that after a while the easiest to obtain oil gets depleted and you have to go to a more inaccessible place to get more.

ultimatefacepalm.gif
 
#175
#175
no one knows less about oil and resources than o'reilly. every time he speaks about it he shows himself to be an idiot.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top