Is Offshore Oil Drilling Truly Safe?

[Astronuc]

'What drillers need to learn from nukes'
04 May 2010

If there's one lesson to be learned from the Three Mile Island accident, it's that one player can drag down an entire industry, wrote Mark Mills for Forbes. He called for the offshore drilling industry to learn from the nuclear industry's response to that serious event in creating a peer-based safety regime along the lines of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, or its sister organisation the World Association of Nuclear Operators. . . .

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/indtalk.aspx (May 4)

 

[mheslep]

Or you could just have the same safety standards as the rest of the world - we manage to drill in the much worse conditions in the North Sea and off Nova Scotia without the Gulf's accident record.

- Not just spills, the accident rate in the Gulf is pretty bad.

Apparently the Gulf does have a high accident rate with regards to personnel. But I don't believe the evidence shows there is high rate for oil spills from drilling in the Gulf. Aside from that PEMEX owned Ixtoc I Mexico spill I can't find any major spills in the Gulf.

 

[mgb_phys]

Apparently the Gulf does have a high accident rate with regards to personnel. But I don't believe the evidence shows there is high rate for oil spills from drilling in the Gulf.

Spills from rigs anywhere are very rare - most major spills are tankers sinking or minor spills from loading/offloading accidents.

The problem with any event that is rare - like plane crashes - is that nothing you do has any immediate effect. It's the same problem persuading drivers to wear seatbelts.

But an ingrained safety culture does lead to reduced accidents in the long run. The reason planes don't fall out of the sky is the conservative nature of the engineers at Boeing and the training of pilots - not the number of FAA inspections.

unfortunately if this doesn't lead to many photogenic mammals being covered in oil the media will move on to the next sportsman's infidelity. Remember the terrible mining accident a couple of weeks ago? Remember all the calls for something to be done?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A good link. The link below the photo will take you to the main page.

[URL]http://s.ngeo.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/198/cache/gulf-oil-spill-satellite-picture-timeline-may-1_19874_600x450.jpg[/URL]
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/photogalleries/100504-gulf-of-mexico-oil-spill-environment-nation-pictures/#gulf-oil-spill-satellite-picture-timeline-april-21_19871_600x450.jpg

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe we'll get lucky and the leak won't be as bad as thought... Some projections of hundreds of billions of dollars in losses, are already being tossed around. That would put it in the same league as the Iraq war and the bailouts.

I'm not sure where you got that from, but the idea that this might cost something in the ballpark of the Iraq war or the bailouts is pretty silly. The cleanup from the Valdez cost $1.2 billion (I assume not inflation adjusted). So the idea that this could cost hundreds of times more to clean up is, well, just silly. Note, the litigation was settled for another half billion.

Here's an excerpt from a good opinion column on the hype: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-05-04-column04_ST_N.htm

Katrina falsehoods

But in one area the Katrina parallel works: the news media. This was anything but the press' finest hour. Many outlets reported that rape gangs were rampant in New Orleans, that snipers were keeping the feds at bay, that the Superdome was littered with rotting bodies, that poor black people were left to die in disproportionate numbers. None of that was true, as several newspapers admirably reported after the frenzy dissipated. Meanwhile, most outlets either missed or downplayed the efforts by the federal government, particularly the Coast Guard, which conducted heroic air and sea operations soon after the storm passed. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's efforts were certainly lacking, but the focus on Michael Brown's "heckuva job" — in the infamous words of President Bush— often had more to do with editorializing than the facts on the ground.

Once again, many people are eager to turn a Gulf Coast catastrophe into something more apocalyptic, this time not to tear down a president but to discredit offshore drilling. It most certainly is a horrific disaster, but the "worse than Valdez" theme, hyped on the Drudge Report and cable news, hasn't been validated. Estimates of how much oil has been spilled have varied wildly, in part because satellite imaging is great at capturing the "sheen" from a spill but not so good at measuring its thickness.

Even if the higher estimates turn out to be true, the spill so far is relatively minor in size compared with others in history. (For instance, the Exxon Valdez spill— though certainly disastrous — isn't anywhere near the Top 10 spills of all time). Obviously, that's hardly reassuring given the sensitive location of the spill and the fact that it could continue indefinitely if not contained. But it's worth remembering that the damage from previous, and much larger, spills wasn't nearly so lasting as people had feared. For example, if the Deepwater spill is releasing 5,000 barrels a day, as the government estimates, it would take several years to spill the 252 million to 336 million gallons Saddam Hussein released into the Persian Gulf during the 1991 Iraq war.

Here's an article with an estimate:

The total bill related to the oil spill drifting toward Louisiana from a well operated by BP in the Gulf of Mexico, could exceed $14 billion, analysts said.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36907210

 

[mheslep]

By comparison we know the 1979 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36852827/ns/us_news-environment/" and blew into the Texas beaches. No doubt it did horrible damage, but I don't recall any disasters of epic proportions reported back then.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ, the price of the spill is not meausured only in terms of cleanup, but also affected industries including tourism. The numbers cited were in the context of the potential worst case; including this going on for 90 days at a million gallons a day, and the oil making it around the corner to the East Coast. For starters, for some time to come, this could kill the tourism industry for many States, including Florida. That is surely the sort of thing that motivated the California Governer to reverse his position.

Recall again that right now, the estimated upper limit on this is a 90 million gallon spill [315,000 tons]. When we consider the potenial impact and whether we should allow this sort of thing, we have to consider the worst case and not assume that we get lucky.

The fact is that Alaska still hasn't recovered completely from the Valdez spill over two decades later. Sure, life goes on, but how many livelihoods and businesses were lost. What was the real price of the spill? It was certainly far greater than the cost of cleaning it up. And this one has the potential to be over four times bigger in a highly populated area.

The fact is that these idiots weren't ready for something like this! QED. There is no excuse for this. Industry cannot be trusted. And it isn't just BP; this is now an industry-wide effort. No one has a fix.

Remember folks, we are only talking about the ability to make a safe emergency valve - not exactly as complicated as making a nuclear power plant. One would think we could make a reliable valve [emergency shutoff] by now.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

By comparison we know the 1979 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36852827/ns/us_news-environment/" and blew into the Texas beaches. No doubt it did horrible damage, but I don't recall any disasters of epic proportions reported back then.

This leak could be releasing as much as 3500 tons per day. The spill that you cited was spilling about 1700 tons per day; about half as fast. The rate is as important as the total end volume of the spill. Also critical is the season [esp the breading seasons for aquatic life], the temp, the ocean currents, the wind, and the location.

Also, in the '79 spill, the Texas coast had months to prepare before the oil hit. What did wash up was mainly tar balls. What was the effect on marine life and the fisheries? Do we have any idea of the impact on the unseen ecosystems of the deep ocean; or is this a case of, out of sight, out of mind? Fish populations all over the globe are diminishing. Do we want to help that process along?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The dome is now on its way. Too bad they have never actually tested this approach at depth before. But why would anyone bother with that?

 

[Astronuc]

The dome is now on its way. Too bad they have never actually tested this approach at depth before. But why would anyone bother with that?

Well, I think the well site is the closest practical place to test it perhaps. Of course, BP never expected to need to use such a device. Oil companies will probably be required to do so in the future.

 

[turbo]

Well, I think the well site is the closest practical place to test it perhaps. Of course, BP never expected to need to use such a device. Oil companies will probably be required to do so in the future.

Let's hope that in the future, oil companies will be required to use the acoustic isolation devices and isolation valves mounted below the blow-out preventers. From what I have read, oil rigs off Brazil, Norway, and in the North Sea all have such devices.

 

[mheslep]

This leak could be releasing as much as 3500 tons per day. The spill that you cited was spilling about 1700 tons per day; about half as fast. The rate is as important as the total end volume of the spill.

This source says IXTOC I leaked up to http://www.incidentnews.gov/entry/508790" tons per day (30k bbls/day) initially, a historical fact, and it declined later. The 3500 tons per day figure is a speculative upper limit for Deepwater Horizon so far.

Also critical is the season [esp the breading seasons for aquatic life], the temp, the ocean currents, the wind, and the location.

No doubt, so why not engage some of those points before making your initial affirmative statement about potential for the 'greatest manmade disasters of all time'? BTW, while this accident killed eleven so far, that 'greatest' claim lays aside disasters that immediately killed thousands, Johnstown Flood (2200), Bhopal India Union Carbide (~8000).

Also, in the '79 spill, the Texas coast had months to prepare before the oil hit.

Two months. Louisiana has now had two weeks, most land fall will have at least another week. Meanwhile, as of today some 70 miles of boom have been laid for example in http://www.bhamweekly.com/2010/05/05/deepwater-horizon-calamity-continued/"

What did wash up was mainly tar balls.

?? http://www.incidentnews.gov/entry/517522

What was the effect on marine life and the fisheries? Do we have any idea of the impact on the unseen ecosystems of the deep ocean; or is this a case of, out of sight, out of mind? Fish populations all over the globe are diminishing. Do we want to help that process along?

Many things are probably impacting the fish population all over the world: red tides maybe brought on by endemic pollution (or maybe not, I dunno), the damming of rivers, destruction of tidal wetlands, over fishing collapsing populations, ocean dead zones, and so on. I suspect that any of those continuing problems over the many years far outweigh the actual marine life damage brought on by this once in forty year event (so far), if not its press coverage.

So I'm inclined towards alternative fuels, holding BP accountable, improving the safety regs, cleaning up the coast and covering those who lose livelihood. I don't find your approach: greatest disaster, not just BP but the entire industry can't be trusted, they lied, they're idiots - reasonable or serious.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Can anyone tell me if it is true that BP is limited in their liability to $79 million Dollars, US currency, for punitive damages? Is it also true that this is to be raised to $10 billion? I don't know about drilling too much, but it doesn't look safe for the company when this happens! This is not a good thing, but as mheslep is saying above, this is a small part of what is a big problem. Most of that problem is farming runoff and overfishing. Industrial pollution is a factor I think, but just one factor and more visible and easily hated than farmers or fishers. Why are the people who overfish victims? Only victims here are the people killed in the explosion, and things like sea turtles (just saw on CNN) that are probably in trouble. What is in danger now, was in danger before this, and will be after. No oil drilling will not stop damage in the Gulf of Mexico, and what would be the economic effects? Terrible I think.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, the price of the spill is not meausured only in terms of cleanup, but also affected industries including tourism. The numbers cited were in the context of the potential worst case; including this going on for 90 days at a million gallons a day, and the oil making it around the corner to the East Coast. For starters, for some time to come, this could kill the tourism industry for many States, including Florida.

Ivan, that's not "worst case", that's silly case.

The fishing industry's annual revenue from the gulf coast is about $4 billion: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608104575220622021775434.html

The idea that it could "kill the tourism industry" in Florida is beyond even silly. It's crackpot nonsense on at least two levels (1. that the spill cover the east coast of Florida, 2. that a spill that choked the entire coast of Florida could "kill" a tourism industry based in the center of the state).

Please cite your source for this so we know you're not just making this stuff up or reading it from a crackpot site. It strains credulity to believe you could have gotten this from a reputable source.

That is surely the sort of thing that motivated the California Governer to reverse his position.

Agreed.

...we have to consider the worst case and not assume that we get lucky.

"we" don't have to do anything. Policy makers and planners, however, should use sound logic and judgement and not succomb to silly, idle fears in the heat of the moment. Otherwise, they simply aren't doing their jobs.

Remember folks, we are only talking about the ability to make a safe emergency valve - not exactly as complicated as making a nuclear power plant. One would think we could make a reliable valve [emergency shutoff] by now.

Indeed, we should hope so. But again, the requirement of perfection here is just a red herring. Absolute perfection is neither necessary nor possible.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Ivan, that's not "worst case", that's silly case.

Please cite your source for this so we know you're not just making this stuff up or reading it from a crackpot site. It strains credulity to believe you could have gotten this from a reputable source. Agreed.
"we" don't have to do anything. Policy makers and planners, however, should use sound logic and judgement and not succomb to silly, idle fears in the heat of the moment. Otherwise, they simply aren't doing their jobs. Indeed, we should hope so. But again, the requirement of perfection here is just a red herring. Absolute perfection is neither necessary nor possible.

In the same CNN show that was talking about the liability, they were saying that some of this oil may drain through the Florida Keys, and damage tourism. It's CNN, so I don't know beyond that, it certainly is not just random stuff. Hurricanes kill tourism too, I don't see this is the big issue with people dead.

 

[russ_watters]

So I'm inclined towards alternative fuels, holding BP accountable, improving the safety regs, cleaning up the coast and covering those who lose livelihood. I don't find your approach: greatest disaster, not just BP but the entire industry can't be trusted, they lied, they're idiots - reasonable or serious.

Agreed.

 

[russ_watters]

In the same CNN show that was talking about the liability, they were saying that some of this oil may drain through the Florida Keys, and damage tourism. It's CNN, so I don't know beyond that, it certainly is not just random stuff. Hurricanes kill tourism too, I don't see this is the big issue with people dead.

Ivan claimed the potential for "hundreds of billions of dollars in losses". Florida's tourism industry is $57 billion http://www.stateofflorida.com/Portal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=95

...so even if the spill somehow shut down *all* tourism on both coasts and in theme parks a hundred miles from either coast, it is still just silly nonsense that the spill could cost "hundreds of billions of dollars".

It would be very difficult for this spill to cost more than $20 billion, including lawsuits to BP.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Ivan claimed the potential for "hundreds of billions of dollars in losses". Florida's tourism industry is $57 billion http://www.stateofflorida.com/Portal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=95

...so even if the spill somehow shut down *all* tourism on both coasts and in theme parks a hundred miles from either coast, it is still just silly nonsense that the spill could cost "hundreds of billions of dollars".

It would be very difficult for this spill to cost more than $20 billion, including lawsuits to BP.

OH! I did not see the "hundreds of billions" remark. If you counted every fish and they could sue, maybe, but who wants to be in Fish-Court?! ;) I'm sorry, hundreds of billions is just as laughable as you say.

 

[Astronuc]

So I'm inclined towards alternative fuels, holding BP accountable, improving the safety regs, cleaning up the coast and covering those who lose livelihood.

Concur.

Some interesting commentary:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/05/06/am-oil-industry-talks-drilling-safety/

There was a comment on MarketPlace this morning about the fact that only two countries currently mandate the use of the 'acoustic switch/valve', and the US is not one of the two. A person interviewed suggested making safety/reliability regulations globally.

Also, Transocean has had previous violations in England, where the HSE cited two blowout preventers that were in disrepair, or otherwise, not properly functional. I hope to find the interview.

 

[turbo]

There was a comment on MarketPlace this morning about the fact that only two countries currently mandate the use of the 'acoustic switch/valve', and the US is not one of the two. A person interviewed suggested making safety/reliability regulations globally.

One would think that such safety devices would be required for rigs in a location that is routinely raked by strong hurricanes (the Gulf).

Of course the oil industry will fight such safety rules tooth and nail. Notice the blackmail/extortion implicit in this statement:

SCHMITZ: Well, many here are pretty worried that this is going to lead to a more regulated industry. They think their industry is over-regulated as it is, and with more regulation, they say the cost of business will increase, leading to higher prices at the gas pump for consumers.

Oil is a global commodity, and the companies with off-shore rigs will not be able to price their oil out of range of the rest of the market to recover the costs of the safety equipment. It's a hollow threat meant to protect their profits.

 

[mgb_phys]

A person interviewed suggested making safety/reliability regulations globally.

Normally that reduces safety standards.
You end up with either an average, so halfway between Norway's and Tadzhikstan's regulations, or you pay off (sorry consult with) a bunch of 3rd world countries to vote to water them down.
Or in the best case you end up with the standard's of the current biggest player - in this case the US.

Then if any local authority try and impose higher standards you can go the WTO and claim that they are blocking you.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Normally that reduces safety standards.
You end up with either an average, so halfway between Norway's and Tadzhikstan's regulations, or you pay off (sorry consult with) a bunch of 3rd world countries to vote to water them down.
Or in the best case you end up with the standard's of the current biggest player - in this case the US.

Then if any local authority try and impose higher standards you can go the WTO and claim that they are blocking you.

You really know what you're talking about! This is a major problem across many industries, these "standards" that help literally no one.

 

[mgb_phys]

We are really lucky that IATA (international air travel standards) were set when only the rich and powerful could fly.
Can you imagine what aviation standards would be like if they had been set today by a combination of airline companies and the UN !

After the Exxon Valdez the US decided to unilaterally enforce much stricter standards for tankers. It can do that for offshore oil, not only would that make it safer but it would make the US oil companies, their suppliers and most importantly their people the world leaders.

At the moment the high-tech end of the oil industry is dominated by the europeans. On any operation the experts are all Brits/Dutch/Norwegians - the guys doing the grunt work are Americans (as are the bosses and the lawyers of course).
The high tech gear, directional drilling, ROVs etc will have come from Schlumberger or a small company in Aberdeen or Stavanger.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

We are really lucky that IATA (international air travel standards) were set when only the rich and powerful could fly.
Can you imagine what aviation standards would be like if they had been set today by a combination of airline companies and the UN !

After the Exxon Valdez the US decided to unilaterally enforce much stricter standards for tankers. It can do that for offshore oil, not only would that make it safer but it would make the US oil companies, their suppliers and most importantly their people the world leaders.

At the moment the high-tech end of the oil industry is dominated by the europeans. On any operation the experts are all Brits/Dutch/Norwegians - the guys doing the grunt work are Americans (as are the bosses and the lawyers of course).
The high tech gear, directional drilling, ROVs etc will have come from Schlumberger or a small company in Aberdeen or Stavanger.

Having flown in a few OOOOLLLLDDDDDDDddddd.d.d...d.dd...dddd...
...ddd...

Russian aircraft that were not even pressurized, yes I can imagine clearly, and it would not be pretty! The Dutch really know how to stay relevant to trade and such I think, for centuries, it's very impressive.

 

[mheslep]

Oil is a global commodity, and the companies with off-shore rigs will not be able to price their oil out of range of the rest of the market to recover the costs of the safety equipment.

That's right in the short term, so less Gulf oil will be pumped; it will be replaced with cheaper mid-east and Canadian oil imports and US jobs oil sector jobs will be lost. Then in the longer term with ever increasing import reliance and lower net worldwide production, the price will increase at the pump too.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Right now, workers are trying to maneuver the dome into position. As reported [CNN], they have to be careful to avoid damaging the blow-out preventer or the leak could be made as much as ten times worse. So that appears to be the upper limit worst case scenario - something more like 50,000 barrels per day, or two-million gallons per day. Given the worst case, this would put the theoretical limit on the volume of this spill at 180 million gallons, or 630,000 tons of oil.

Let's hope that we get lucky. Hope and luck, not much to go on.

Why would a well be designed such that a two-million gallons per day leak is possible under ANY circumstances?

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Right now, workers are trying to maneuver the dome into position. As reported [CNN], they have to be careful to avoid damaging the blow-out preventer or the leak could be made as much as ten times worse. So that appears to be the upper limit worst case scenario - something more like 50,000 barrels per day, or two-million gallons per day. Given the worst case, this would put the theoretical limit on the volume of this spill at 180 million gallons, or 630,000 tons of oil.

Let's hope that we get lucky. Hope and luck, not much to go on.

Why would a well be designed such that a two-million gallons per day leak is possible under ANY circumstances?

That same report interviewed a marine biologist, and showed him footage of the oil and dispersant aka Detergent aka surfactants, and his take was that this is a serious problem for marine life. Just one man granted, but it isn't a cheerful thought, as the detergent is toxic itself, and now this oil is suspended in the first foot or two of the water column.

Oh, to your question, you drill a well for flow, not sipping. This wasn't poorly drilled well from what I can see, but standard.

 

[mheslep]

Here's the containment / dome fixture. Looks to be about 50' tall. I expected something larger to contain the BOP? I'm also curious as to how a fixture this massive is precisely positioned hanging a mile down. I don't imagine the ROVs could do any more than spot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8acPbITk0c

 

[mgb_phys]

That same report interviewed a marine biologist, and showed him footage of the oil and dispersant aka Detergent aka surfactants,

That's why nobody uses detergents anymore - they are much worse than the oil.
No idea why they chose to do it this time.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

That's why nobody uses detergents anymore - they are much worse than the oil.
No idea why they chose to do it this time.

Well, now the majority of the slick is under the surface, which makes it LOOK better. Covering their asses perhaps?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

... At depths accessible only by remote vehicles, Allen [CEO of BP] said it's "more like Apollo 13 than the Exxon Valdez, except it's got an oil spill attached to it that is very, very serious...

Like trying to rescue the Apollo 13? I don't recall that level of difficulty being mentioned in the pro-drilling propaganda.

Meanwhile, a Mason-Dixon poll released Friday uncovered a significant shift from last year in Floridians' opinions of offshore drilling.

The poll conducted this week found only 35 percent of Florida voters support offshore drilling, while 55 percent oppose it. That's in stark contrast to last June, when 55 percent of voters favored offshore drilling and 31 percent opposed it.

"Republicans are now the only group to still favor drilling, but even that support has dropped significantly," said Mason-Dixon pollster Brad Coker.

In the lastest poll, 57 percent of Republicans support drilling, a drop from the 80 percent who favored drilling last year...

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/05/07/1256227/giant-dome-lowered-toward-gulf.html#ixzz0nHRbKkeB

Good! It is time to take a deep breath and recognize the risks associated with our energy choices. Probably as much as anyone, I want to see energy independence for the U.S., but not that we pursue any and every option with reckless abandon. This is what bothered me so much about the drill baby drill nonsense: It was a mindless fervor used for political gain. Our energy choices need to be well considered and well regulated and not driven by the rants of the political bubblegum crowd.

 

[russ_watters]

Good! It is time to take a deep breath and recognize the risks associated with our energy choices. Probably as much as anyone, I want to see energy independence for the U.S., but not that we pursue any and every option with reckless abandon. This is what bothered me so much about the drill baby drill nonsense: It was a mindless fervor used for political gain. Our energy choices need to be well considered and well regulated and not driven by the rants of the political bubblegum crowd.

You have this all exactly backwards. It is making decisions and polling opinions in the middle of a crisis that reflects "mindless fervor" and "rants" (not sure what a "bubblegum crowd" is though). Most of your posting in this thread has been a clear example of this: lots of emotion, little logic and very light on factual basis. "Taking a deep breath" is what happens after a crisis, when people who are blinded by the crisis are more likely to "take a deep breath" and consider logically the risks instead of just losing control and letting their minds wander to "nonsense" conclusions and opinions, making them spew "mindless" "propaganda".

Right now, workers are trying to maneuver the dome into position. As reported [CNN], they have to be careful to avoid damaging the blow-out preventer or the leak could be made as much as ten times worse. So that appears to be the upper limit worst case scenario - something more like 50,000 barrels per day, or two-million gallons per day. Given the worst case, this would put the theoretical limit on the volume of this spill at 180 million gallons, or 630,000 tons of oil.

That's reasonable.

Let's hope that we get lucky. Hope and luck, not much to go on.

That's not. It doesn't take "luck" for the worst case to not happen, it takes [bad] luck for the worst case to happen!

Why would a well be designed such that a two-million gallons per day leak is possible under ANY circumstances?

Nor is that. Quite obviously, a two-million gallon a day leak is not part of the design and again, zero probability is neither reasonable nor possible.

The [large] size of the well is dictated by how much you pump out of it and how big it has to be to support the required equipment. But at the same time the large size of the well is what sets the limit in the potential spill size.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

You have this all exactly backwards. It is making decisions and polling opinions in the middle of a crisis that reflects "mindless fervor" and "rants" (not sure what a "bubblegum crowd" is though). Most of your posting in this thread has been a clear example of this: lots of emotion, little logic and very light on factual basis. "Taking a deep breath" is what happens after a crisis, when people who are blinded by the crisis are more likely to "take a deep breath" and consider logically the risks instead of just losing control and letting their minds wander to "nonsense" conclusions and opinions, making them spew "mindless" "propaganda". That's reasonable. That's not. It doesn't take "luck" for the worst case to not happen, it takes [bad] luck for the worst case to happen! Nor is that. Quite obviously, a two-million gallon a day leak is not part of the design and again, zero probability is neither reasonable nor possible.

The [large] size of the well is dictated by how much you pump out of it and how big it has to be to support the required equipment. But at the same time the large size of the well is what sets the limit in the potential spill size.

I will say this, for now this leak is unfortunate and damaging to industry and marine life, but it is not "doom". Make that 680,000 gallons of oil per day, and the impact would be catastrophic. That would put BP out of business overnight, and I don't believe anyone knows what the environmental impact would be, other than to say it would be terrible. There is something to the argument that wells of this flow-rate/size should not be drilled so so deep, when a worst-case scenario from the outset would have been catastrophic for everyone involved, including BP!

It is not fit to assume that all will be well; one assumes Murphey's law, and what can go wrong, will, and at the worst possible time. You cannot plan for every failure, or it would make oil impossible, and we do need oil. You also should not allow for failure so massive, that it could result in unforeseeable impact. It is hard enough to cap a 5,000 barrel/day leak at 5,000 feet. I do not know of a rapid way to stop a leak 10x that large at that depth, and how long can such a leak be allowed to continue? 180 million gallons is unthinkable as a spill into this gulf, as is 20 or 30 million. What we have now is no good at all, but it is not Ragnarok either. I hope the 10x figure is simply wrong, and this IS the leak at full flow, and barring this, that the cap and siphon works.

 

[Astronuc]

Once they get the dome in place and start recovering the oil, I would imagine we'd get a better idea of the flow rate from the damaged well.


Bubble of methane triggered rig blast
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill

ON THE GULF OF MEXICO – The deadly blowout of an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico was triggered by a bubble of methane gas that escaped from the well and shot up the drill column, expanding quickly as it burst through several seals and barriers before exploding, according to interviews with rig workers conducted during BP's internal investigation.

While the cause of the explosion is still under investigation, the sequence of events described in the interviews provides the most detailed account of the April 20 blast that killed 11 workers and touched off the underwater gusher that has poured more than 3 million gallons of crude into the Gulf.
. . . .
Up on the rig, the first thing workers noticed was the sea water in the drill column suddenly shooting back at them, rocketing 240 feet in the air, he said. Then, gas surfaced. Then oil.

"What we had learned when I worked as a drill rig laborer was swoosh, boom, run," Bea said. "The swoosh is the gas, boom is the explosion and run is what you better be doing."

The gas flooded into an adjoining room with exposed ignition sources, he said.

. . . .

Presumably, they hit a pocket of methane/methane clathrate.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Once they get the dome in place and start recovering the oil, I would imagine we'd get a better idea of the flow rate from the damaged well.


Bubble of methane triggered rig blast
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill
Presumably, they hit a pocket of methane/methane clathrate.

The leak aside, those poor people on the rig never had a chance if they hit a methane seam.