Evo said:How many barrels of oil per day was the well producing at the time of the accident? Wouldn't that be a good rule of thumb for what the spill rate would be?
mheslep said:Who's new estimate?
Steven Wereley, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University, analyzed videotape of the seafloor gusher using a technique called particle image velocimetry.
A computer program simply tracks particles and calculates how fast they are moving. Wereley put the BP video of the gusher into his computer. He made a few simple calculations and came up with an astonishing value for the rate of the oil spill: 70,000 barrels a day — much higher than the official estimate of 5,000 barrels a day.
The method is accurate to a degree of plus or minus 20 percent.
Timothy Crone, an associate research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, used another well-accepted method to calculate fluid flows. Crone arrived at a similar figure, but he said he'd like better video from BP before drawing a firm conclusion.
Eugene Chiang, a professor of astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, also got a similar answer, using just pencil and paper.
It also continues.turbo-1 said:
(Chiang)"I would peg it at around 20,000 to 100,000 barrels per day," he said.
Chiang called the current estimate of 5,000 barrels a day "almost certainly incorrect."
BP disputed these figures.
"We've said all along that there's no way to estimate the flow coming out of the pipe accurately," said Bill Salvin, a BP spokesman.
Instead, BP prefers to rely on measurements of oil on the sea surface made by the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Those are also contentious. Salvin also says these analyses should not assume that the oil is spewing from the 21-inch pipe, called a riser, shown in the video.
"The drill pipe, from which the oil is rising, is actually a 9-inch pipe that rests within the riser," Slavin said.
Honestly, you're just blathering here. None of that has any relevance to what I said. My "good business" comment was only about their downplaying the damage and if you missed that, you need to step back, take a deep breath, and regain your composure.IcedEcliptic said:This is good business? I did not realize that, I had assumed that good government and business does not stand to lose drilling rights, and helps a potential environmental disaster to fester. I did not realize that good engineering did not have working fail-safes, like a nuclear reactor without ability to SCRAM. I think you are too invested in your "purpose".
We have the media and a large group of people here going after BP pretty hard. You don't need me to add anything to it and even if I did, my sensible statements would get lost in the firestorm of propaganda anyway.jreelawg said:What about countering the misinformation that BP, is putting out...
What are you talking about?...what about the misinformation that led to this disaster?
I've done no such thing.You can't excuse some misinformation because it is good for business.
Probably not. The leak is uncontrolled. If there was any oil coming out before the leak, it wouldn't necessarily have any relation to the size of the leak.Evo said:How many barrels of oil per day was the well producing at the time of the accident? Wouldn't that be a good rule of thumb for what the spill rate would be?
Who measured it and made that claim?jreelawg said:Claiming that the leak was 1000 barrels a day.
That's not misinformation, that's suppressing information. There is a difference.Refusing to measure the leak.
Lol, c'mon - you're not serious, are you? You really think the video has some value? It doesn't. The only thing it does is cause people to go blind, as we can clearly see here.Refusing to put out footage which would make it possible for others to measure the leak.
Who knows what? All this is just estimates being thrown around and you [and others] are trying to turn estimates into facts. They aren't.Now sticking by 5,000 when they know it isn't accurate.
Using it that way, it doesn't seem like you know what the word "fraud" means. Why don't you explain why you think it is fraud. You're making the claim, you need to support it.How is this not fraud.
Again, based on what?Also claiming they had the capability to clean up a spill of 300,000 gallons a day in order to get their permit to drill was fraud.
Yes, certainly that method also has flaw. The bottom line here is that the size of the leak currently has a number of estimates that cover more than an order of magnitude. What does that mean? It means we really don't have a very good idea of what the real flow rate is.turbo-1 said:The problem with BP's "method" is that it measures only the extent of the slick formed by the light fraction of the crude, from a well that is a mile underwater. What about the stuff that is dispersed by ocean currents and hasn't yet risen to the surface? In this case, estimating spill-rate by looking at the rate of movement of the discharged oil is about as accurate as we can hope for, and the results of that method dwarfs BP's assertions about the spill rate.
An order of magnitude? The real flow rate may well be well over an order of magnitude, and likely is.russ_watters said:Yes, certainly that method also has flaw. The bottom line here is that the size of the leak currently has a number of estimates that cover more than an order of magnitude. What does that mean? It means we really don't have a very good idea of what the real flow rate is.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/14/bp-exec-gulf-mexico-relatively-tiny-compared-big-ocean/The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume," he said...
russ_watters said:Honestly, you're just blathering here. None of that has any relevance to what I said. My "good business" comment was only about their downplaying the damage and if you missed that, you need to step back, take a deep breath, and regain your composure.
I think the objection is the other way around. BP is estimating, as I understand them, on what they believe is coming out at the source. The academic is estimating based on what they can see on the surface. (And what can one see from low Earth orbit?). How does one tell how much is reaching the surface?turbo-1 said:The problem with BP's "method" is that it measures only the extent of the slick formed by the light fraction of the crude, from a well that is a mile underwater. What about the stuff that is dispersed by ocean currents and hasn't yet risen to the surface? In this case, estimating spill-rate by looking at the rate of movement of the discharged oil is about as accurate as we can hope for, and the results of that method dwarfs BP's assertions about the spill rate.
Ivan Seeking said:A statement from the CEO of BP caught my attention today.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/14/bp-exec-gulf-mexico-relatively-tiny-compared-big-ocean/
That isn't the correct argument. We have to consider the area involving the plume, and also that most the action is near the surface of the ocean. That is where most of the biology exists. And that is where the oil goes in the short term. One doesn't divide by the volume of the entire column of water to the ocean floor when considering the potential effects on biological systems. One might think he would know better. Perhaps not.
I believe that 0-300 feet, was the range loosely cited by one biologist as the major biosphere. I know that some plants like microalgae [base of the food chain sort of stuff] are only active at first millimeter or so of depth.
mheslep said:I think the objection is the other way around. BP is estimating, as I understand them, on what they believe is coming out at the source. The academic is estimating based on what they can see on the surface. (And what can one see from low Earth orbit?). How does one tell how much is reaching the surface?
russ_watters said:Who measured it and made that claim? That's not misinformation, that's suppressing information. There is a difference. Lol, c'mon - you're not serious, are you? You really think the video has some value? It doesn't. The only thing it does is cause people to go blind, as we can clearly see here.
<snip>
That would perhaps provide an upper limit. I would expect that BP would have a production rate planned for the well, and perhaps MMS would have an estimate for the purposes of royalty calculations.Evo said:How many barrels of oil per day was the well producing at the time of the accident? Wouldn't that be a good rule of thumb for what the spill rate would be?
Yes I see now that the Wereley estimate (mech eng. professor) is made from video flow. I did not see where BP is using a surface calculation. BP came out with the 5k bbl /day estimate early, well before any dispersants could have been used.IcedEcliptic said:Other way around, BP is using surface calc, the other estimate is from 30 seconds of video of the flow. .
Huh? I mean the difference between the current estimates covers more than an order of magnitude - a factor of 10. Ie, 5000-100,000 is a little more than one order of magnitude.turbo-1 said:An order of magnitude? The real flow rate may well be well over an order of magnitude, and likely is.
AFAIK, that isn't BP's method, it is the government's method. In any case, certainly BP would choose the one most favorable to them to favor.BP's "method"...
...except that they don't actually know the exit pipe diameter, nor do they know the fraction of what is coming out that is gas and what is liquid!Engineers and scholars have applied real-world tools, and have pretty convincingly debunked BP's claims. I know which evaluations I would value and which I would dismiss.
When you have to evaluate a spill or leak in a remote location, you have to get back to engineering basics. We don't have the luxury of a laminar-flow trench and a V-notch weir a mile under the sea, so we need to settle for measured exit-velocity and known pipe diameter. I trust the engineering approach, not a "guess" by the responsible party, anxious to down-play public reaction to the failure.
Or even what fraction of the liquid is oil, or seawater mixed in from earlier entry points.russ_watters said:...except that they don't actually know the exit pipe diameter, nor do they know the fraction of what is coming out that is gas and what is liquid!
No, you wouldn't get an infraction. "Blather" is a word that means a foolish or thoughtless argument. Which is what you did there. You made an argument that didn't come anywhere close to addressing what I said. Clearly, it was thoughtless.IcedEcliptic said:Insulting me does not strengthen your position, and it is a disservice to your position on the site. If I said that you were blathering, would I not get an infraction? Oh keeper of the truth russ, act as though you are staff.
Damage can't be confirmed, and regardless, I disagree. This is a fast developing situation, which lends itself well to overreaction and emotional responses at the start... which is what happened. From a business standpoint, downplaying the damage until the emotion wears off is the "correct" response.Downplaying damage when that damage can be confirmed is foolish in the long run.
What facts? Leak rate estimates are not facts!You are spouting nonsense, when there is now a great deal of information from Ivan, Ms. Evo and Astronuc, and I am still waiting for you to engage in the facts.
Clearly, because it is to BP's benefit to not release inflammatory information and to cling to a government estimate that is favorable to them.You say we do not have an idea what the flow rate is, and why is that? Why do we only have 30 seconds of video for researches to estimate a flow of nearly 70,000 barrels per day, when releasing more could help confirm or deny this?
We know the BoP failed. We know it had problems prior to failing. We know people made bad decisions. Perhaps realizing that in the past few days was a revelation to you, but it wasn't a revelation to me. Big engineering failures all have the same hallmarks. That said, none of this provides a specific conclusion about what happened. It is still just bits and pieces of information...and either way, what does it really matter at this point what the particulars of the failure were? Either way, BP is liable and they are going to be made to pay for it.What of the dead battery in the BOP, and the statements being given by the BP CEO to British papers speaking of how small this leak is?
I've said/done no such thing. You're reading into my posts things that I am not saying.You would happily speculate about physical theories, but this can only be analyzed in a few years? BS russ.
russ_watters said:Huh? I mean the difference between the current estimates covers more than an order of magnitude - a factor of 10. Ie, 5000-100,000 is a little more than one order of magnitude. AFAIK, that isn't BP's method, it is the government's method. In any case, certainly BP would choose the one most favorable to them to favor. ...except that they don't actually know the exit pipe diameter, nor do they know the fraction of what is coming out that is gas and what is liquid!
No:IcedEcliptic said:Wrong, the diameter is known, it is 21" in diameter.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/obama-blasts-oil-companies-over-spill-20100515-v4vg.html
Maybe it's time for a little reading and a break for you.
Salvin also says these analyses should not assume that the oil is spewing from the 21-inch pipe, called a riser, shown in the video.
"The drill pipe, from which the oil is rising, is actually a 9-inch pipe that rests within the riser," Slavin said.
russ_watters said:No:
.....
NPR said:"We've said all along that there's no way to estimate the flow coming out of the pipe accurately," said Bill Salvin, a BP spokesman.
Instead, BP prefers to rely on measurements of oil on the sea surface made by the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Those are also contentious. Salvin also says these analyses should not assume that the oil is spewing from the 21-inch pipe, called a riser, shown in the video.
"The drill pipe, from which the oil is rising, is actually a 9-inch pipe that rests within the riser," Slavin said.
But Wereley says that fact doesn't skew his calculation. And though scientists say they hope BP will eventually release more video and information so they can refine their estimates, what they have now is good enough.
"It's possible to get a pretty decent number by looking at the video," Wereley said.
This new, much larger number suggests that capturing — and cleaning up — this oil may be a much bigger challenge than anyone has let on.
In this case, I would say that BP would know what is in the riser.IcedEcliptic said:Slavin, the BP spoke?! Are you a shill, or just getting kicks from confrontation? Let me finish that quote for you rusty.
So do we trust the man who is the PR flak, or the people including Wereley who are not beholden to BP?
Why not stay on point. What is the diameter of the pipe where the leaks emit, and what is your source? The link you sited above only uses a BP source, and its not clear for what section.IcedEcliptic said:Slavin, the BP spoke?! Are you a shill, or just getting kicks from confrontation? Let me finish that quote for you rusty.
So do we trust the man who is the PR flak, or the people including Wereley who are not beholden to BP?
Evo said:In this case, I would say that BP would know what is in the riser.
mheslep said:Why not stay on point. What is the diameter of the pipe where the leaks emit, and what is your source? The link you sited above only uses a BP source, and its not clear for what section.
IcedEcliptic said:Slavin, the BP spoke?! Are you a shill, or just getting kicks from confrontation? Let me finish that quote for you rusty.
WhoWee said:There is no reason to be rude.
IcedEcliptic said:He said I was blathering earlier, so I am no longer respectful of him. Being insulted is a fine reason to return that favor.
mheslep said:Sources for anyone of those claims?