I’m not counting a well as being offshore simply because it is in the water. Lakes, rivers, canals, marshes all have wells in them. The first well off the coast out of sight of land was drilled in 1947; that’s what I am calling the first offshore well.
Nope:
[BP likely to collect more oil than it can process](http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon (/7045264.html) (Houston Chronicle, which darn well better get oil stories close ro right)
Here’s a page on Schlumberger’s EverGreen Burner.
From same article, describing where the oil to be burned is coming from:
The people who say that BP does nothing but lie ought to take a look at this.
An actual ad from 1999. Talk about follow-though!
The flow rate was estimated poorly because BP did not release the high quality videos it had. Experts say if they had access to them early they could have nailed the flow rate . But BP just gave them poor quality picures to work from. They have covered up from the first day.
Workers on the rig said BP execs told Transocean , loudly, that they were going to do riskier operations because the well,was behind schedule. The explosion followed.
Well, I think you are lying, and that you can be proven wrong easily. In the initial report by the Flow Rate Technical Group, only one of the methodologies used to estimate the flow rate relied on videos, the Plume Team. Here’s what they have to say.
[Quote=Flow Rate Technical Group Report]
The challenges this team faced in getting reliable results were many. First, they only had a limited window of data in time to choose from. They had to select data from before the RITT was inserted into the riser as that tool captured a variable amount of flow. They needed a time window when application of subsea dispersant was not perturbing the flow. They required footage from after the period when a trench was excavated at the end of the riser to better expose the end of the plume. Most challenging was getting good lighting and unobstructed views of the plumes from work-class ROV’s not intended to capture research-quality footage and occupied doing other tasks at the time.
Second, perfecting the methodology for calculating multiphase flow (oil, water, gas, hydrate in poorly known ratios) under very high pressure is worthy of a research effort. This is not a turn-key project, and yet the team did not have the luxury of time to explore many alternative approaches or calibrate methods with deep-sea tests using known fluxes of fluids in prescribed ratios. A key parameter was the average ratio of gas to liquid. This term seemed to vary over the time period of the spill. Increasing gas increased the velocity of the plume but decreased the mass flow. Lacking independent estimates, the group took the average values provided by BP at face value. Analysis of the available short movies of the raiser flow shows the existence periods when the flow oscillates from pure gas to seemingly pure oil. This appears to be an indication of Slug Flow Regime. These periods of gas-oil flow fluctuation are in the range of minutes but could also be in the range of hours or even as long as days. In order to properly determine the effect of the intermittency of the gas/oil composition in the total estimate of the oil discharged from the riser leak, the analysis should be extended to long video records spanning several days.
Not all of the experts engaged in PIV analysis. Some simply reviewed the work of those that did, while still others provided additional verification by checking the PIV answers with their calculations using other techniques. Given the challenges in applying the methods in to this particular problem, team members concluded that formal statistical error bounds on upper and lower limits on flow volume derived from a rigorous estimation of the uncertainty in model parameters would fail to capture all possible sources of error in this approach to recovering the true flow rate. It would only account for the known unknowns, but not the unknown unknowns that might be revealed if one could actually calibrate these methods against a known flow rate given the complex multiphase and flow behaviors at high pressure. The experts concluded that the effect of the unknown unknowns made it more difficult to produce a reliable upper bound on the flow rate. Therefore, they chose to simply produce a range of lower bounds from their independent analyses, all of which they thought were defendable. A formal error analysis by one member of the plume team estimated that the uncertainty in any one estimate (e.g., from the “known unknowns”) would be 40%.
[/QUOTE]
They say the problem with the videos is that the use of dispersants messed with the flow and that the ROVs aren’t designed to produce videos for this type of work. The only mention by this group of BP is that they had to rely on BP for estimates of the gas / oil ratio.
If you have any evidence to support your claim then produce it. If not, my question is why do you feel the need to lie? Isn’t causing the biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history a big enough complaint to have against BP? Why do you need to create other complaints?
Oil Spill Bounty
$10 billion to the party (other than BP) that can stop the leak. Monies deducted from BP’s Oil Pollution fines. Payable upon success.
Now in market for slightly used nuclear weapon, hardhat and pickaxe. Scuba gear desirable, but not necessary.For $10billion, I’ll damn well dive down there. Price negotiable.
Can a unprotected human body remain recognizable as such at that depth?
Ignore this. I took it to a better place, GQ.
Poor, maligned BP.
This from Jon Stewart. Comedy Central The Daily Show Fan Page Wake up, LD.
BP is in a funny spot. They want to stop the flow. They want to use the well since it is a terrific producer.They also want to limit their liability.
Lying about the spill rate is to their advantage. They will eventually have to go to court . They will want to downplay the severity of the spill, which will lower their costs. The corporation will lawyer up with some of the best and most expensive legal staffs in the world. They will overpower the plaintiffs. As bad as their rep is now, it will get worse.
They will have lobbyists all over the house and senate to try to get breaks and mitigating legislation. They will run commercials which will convince some people they are environmentally responsible and not to blame. They will dump money on politicians to get them to defend BP and the oil industry. They will attempt to put the blame on MMS.
But as far as the spill goes. Stopping it will get them out of being the biggest story in the country.
The spill rate is irrelevant to any of this.
As has been explained numerous times, there is no using of the well. It will never be a commercially producing well. At some point they or another party might drill another well to tap into the same reserves, but it will not be this same well.
At some point, we will know how much has been spilled. When the reservoir engineers come out with their final numbers, which may take many months, they will come out with a very accurate number. Remember, they (the reservoir engineering team that is part of the Flow Rate Technical Group) have not even come out with their preliminary numbers yet.
In an e-mail on April 16, a BP official involved in the decision explained: “It will take 10 hours to install them. I do not like this.” Later that day, another official recognized the risks of proceeding with insufficient centralizers but commented:
"who cares, it’s done, end of story, will probably be fine."
Has this person received a termination letter yet? Good lord talk about foot in mouth.
President Obama says “And in the end, I am confident that we’re going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before.”
Found in this article here: Oil estimate raised to 35,000-60,000 barrels a day - CNN.com
I mean, I’m all for dewy-eyed optimism and all, but seriously? “Better shape than before”? How is that even possible given the enormity of this spill?
I heard on a late night news program that he would restore the wetlands and the barrier islands that protected the south from storms.
Words of wisdom from a single guy;
If I spill coffee grounds, I might as well go ahead and (finally) sweep the whole floor.
The only realistic way of doing this would be raze (not raise) the levees on the Mississippi downstream from at least Baton Rouge. I’m pretty sure that’s not going to happen.