Oil May Be Leaking at Rate of 25,000 Barrels a Day in Gulf
online.wsj.com
online.wsj.com
I'm honestly not sure whether she's just talking about cleanup or about further drilling.
It's our "gas taxes" which are lower.
Beth Hartman: From what I hear the earth takes care of it's own natural substances and oil is from the earth. The chemicals to clean up are more harmful. Ecology takes care of itself. An example, a forest fire. In fact, it recreates better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
What I find interesting about this is this bit:
Despite the extensive cleanup attempts, a study conducted by NOAA determined that as of early 2007 more than 26 thousand U.S. gallons (22,000 imp gal; 98,000 L) of oil remain in the sandy soil of the contaminated shoreline, declining at a rate of less than 4% per year.
That it's even measurable as percentage per year seems like it's getting better, by both human and natural means, at a rate faster than if left to its own devices (with my lay understanding, we'd be talking geologic or evolutionary timescales here, right?). Huge messes take a lot of effort and time to clean up.
What I do know is BP initially said it was roughly 1000 barrels/day when they knew it was probably more. So the rate is now at 25 times the original estimate. That's either incompetence or PR disaster control at it's worst.
I work in the oil and gas industry and live along the gulf coast. It's a heart wrenching situation.
However, your argument here either is ignoring elements of the decision-making process or isn't logical, and your number ($36BB) is off by nearly an order of magnitude.
edit: In the interest of not sounding mysterious, I'll add that you have to consider the likelihood of an event and then the likelihood of all the safety systems failing to determine whether another layer of protection has any value. Of course, now that a blowout has occurred, and the safety system has failed, it is human nature to look back and play Monday morning quarterback.
The question that is bugging me is why the safety system failed. Every refinery and chemical plant in the US relies on safety systems to prevent catastrophic incidents, and it is a huge concern when they are activated, let alone fail. We review safety systems and test them regularly.
Google for "Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device" for a good WSJ article on it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442350457521...
the acoustic control just activates the blowout preventer, and the dead-man switch should do the same thing. But I don't know anything beyond reading the article.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/bp-fought-safety-measures-deep...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowout_preventer
Wikipedia says there are 2 types. Could be there is some sediment somewhere causing a mechanical failure? Or maybe some hydraulic fluids need to be heated up?
If it is going to take months to fix it using methods that have never been tried at those depths, it seems that spending some time trying to make that device work would be a good investment.
Also, can we get a temporary stackoverflow ( no pun intended ) for engineers working to solve this problem?
IMHO (and I'm not in the industry, but here goes) the solution of least regret is to not try to stop the flow at the sea bed (at least not right now today). The better solution (and a complicated one) is to cut that pipe, try to connect a new (non-kinked) pipe, and take everything that well shaft is sending at the surface. Separate the stranded gas and flare it off, then dump the remainder into as many tankers/barges as are necessary and haul it to shore for processing. What I am suggesting is costly, but I'd be willing to bet that most of the pieces to do this are currently available.
Forget about trying to stop the flow, instead take the flow and do something with it (other than dumping it into the Gulf).
It's pretty rare that an outsider with knowledge gleaned from the (very much dumbed down) media will come up with a solution in a case like this.
The problem with being an outsider is that if you think of a 5000 feet long pipe as a simple straw that you're going to cut off somewhere and attach something new to while it is merrily arcing it's way around the ocean based on the exit force of the oil escaping from it that simply grasping it might require the development of a bunch of new tech and attaching a new chunk of pipe to it (assuming no significant leaks below the point where you've picked it up) is probably not that simple either at the depth we're talking about.
It could be quite a while before they manage to do that, so I'm guessing their first priority is to get the outflow under control, everything else is of much lower priority.
Deep sea stuff is very difficult, and a mile of standing water is a heck of a challenge.
Kudos for creative thinking though :)
-Bill Maher http://twitter.com/billmaher/status/13089003490
WRT the upvoters, none of you ever wanted to go into space or thought that the space program was a good idea. Right?
Snark isn't a basis for good policy.
I never said that it was. The relevance is that spaceflight has had disasters.
And, thanks for bringing up plane crashes. Spaceflight has killed less than 100 people. Plane flight kills that many every month or so, with incidents as much as 300 people.
> This looks like it's going to impact most of the gulf coast, with significant losses to food industries.
You mean like the Exxon Valdez, which actually didn't despite all the predictions? Talk about crying wolf....
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tech-transport/gulfofmexico...