Oil Spill -- Non-Legal Issues

[ronocnikral]

My point is that it's a myth that with the right management and equipment we could go out there and clean up this mess.

mmm...one thing is for sure, we'll never know unless we have some action.

There is some measure of water using a foot... AHH... like acre feet... that would be the better measure as the oil looks like it is not even a foot deep... so I agree that T-Al is a bit off with cubic mile

ERD... I know you said it is not together... but I doubt that the ship could scoop up 10X the leak even if it were together... it will be ingesting a lot of water with any oil... I am not sure of the ratio... but would not be surprised if it were 10X.... or even 100X of water to oil...

i am highly skeptical that the oil is a foot deep on average. even an inch would surprise me...

i'm surprised the gov't won't let them skim...if the tools are available something is better than nothing. I'm having a hard to coming up with a downside to skimming...

 

[Texas Proud]

mmm...one thing is for sure, we'll never know unless we have some action.



i am highly skeptical that the oil is a foot deep on average. even an inch would surprise me...

i'm surprised the gov't won't let them skim...if the tools are available something is better than nothing. I'm having a hard to coming up with a downside to skimming...

I agree that it is probably not a foot thick... I was just trying to remember how they measure water volume in big chunks... and with T-Als cubic mile...

I also agree about the downside to skimming... heck, even if the process kept 50% of the oil... that is less in the GOM than before they took it out... this being based on the dumping rule that people have talked about ... 99% plus clean water etc...

 

[TromboneAl]

However, oil floats - this thing is called a 'skimmer'. So I don't see cubic mile as applicable - it's not pumping water up from 5,280 feet below the surface.

Unless these reports of plumes are correct.

The government and university researchers confirmed Tuesday that plumes of dispersed oil were spreading far below the ocean surface from the leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[ronocnikral]

Unless these reports of plumes are correct.

The government and university researchers confirmed Tuesday that plumes of dispersed oil were spreading far below the ocean surface from the leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico.

sigh...this again. i personally think this is a shakedown of "researchers" to get money. a couple of quotes from this other article, which does a better job reporting it imo (and has some of the same quotes from the Nytimes).

"These are not like rivers of oil flowing down deep," said Daniel Torres, a scientist with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. "We're detecting pretty low levels."

The oil is "in very low concentrations" around 0.5 parts per million," and other NOAA research ships are in the Gulf to gather additional samples, she said.

NOAA has been trying to "fingerprint" the oil to confirm that it came from the BP well. Surface samples taken 40 miles northeast of the well were "consistent with the BP oil spill," but hydrocarbons from samples taken 42 miles and 162 miles from the well "were in concentrations too low to do the actual fingerprinting," Lubchenco said.

 

[Rustic23]

I would think A Whale would be used close to the source, to capture oil coming to the surface before it spreads too far, with smaller skimmers trying to get the surface plume that has spread. If A Whale can get a large percentage of the oil before it spreads, then it would appear to help.

However, this is another subject I have opinions but no expertise, like I suspect many in the media that are trying to say how things could be done better.

 

[ERD50]

Unless these reports of plumes are correct.

I am really having trouble following where you are going with this T-Al. Even if a high % of the leaked oil exists in those plumes ( and ronocnikral seems skeptical of those descriptions, and he seems well informed on these matters), that does not negate the fact that there are oil slicks, and that the A-Whale might be able to capture some of that.

In other threads (like the Cash for Clunkers), you seemed to be saying that any amount of $ was OK to spend if it resulted in any amount of conservation. But here, you seem to want to set a standard for a high level of effectiveness for the clean-up. Effectiveness and efficiency are not the key drivers in this situation, results are.

If your house is burning down, and 4 firetrucks show up, you don't stop to ask questions about which truck produces the most amount of fire reduction per gallon of water applied. Those are minor concerns relative to results - get the hoses out, all of them, and put out the fire.

Any measurable amount of clean up that is a net positive is a step in the right direction. Within reason of course, we can't throw unlimited amounts of money at this, but there's no indication that the A-Whale costs are dramatically out of line relative to what it might be able to collect and relative to other methods. The only negatives I can see to letting the A-Whale do an 'on the job' evaluation is if it collected so little, or if its presence was interfering with other clean up efforts beyond what it was collecting - that could be a net negative. But those don't seem like valid concerns.

-ERD50

 

[TromboneAl]

I am really having trouble following where you are going with this T-Al.

Sorry I wasn't more clear. Here's where I'm going:That A-Whale ship is not going to do much at all, compared with what the press is saying, and a statement like "this ship can remove almost as much oil in a day as has been removed in total -- roughly 500,000 barrels [21 million gallons] of oily water per day..." gives a false sense of manageability to the entire mess.

That's all I'm saying. Joe Sixpack is saying "Gee, what a screw-up. If they'd put that ship out there 60 days ago, we'd have this pretty much cleaned up."

Yes, I'm now convinced: most of the water is on the surface. But the vastness of the gulf and the area of the oil spill totally dwarfs those pathetic little ports on the front of that supertanker. Just picture a surface with waves as you drive this humongous ship through the water. How often will that top inch of water be right at the level of the ports?

Picture those guys with the paper towels wiping the reeds. That's not helping, it's just making people feel good.

Again, the point: This isn't as manageable as the press may make it appear.

 

[TromboneAl]

If you were driving, how much of this:

do you think you could get into these ports?

 

[ERD50]

OK - No matter what the subject, I'd probably agree that the press is giving a false (at least inaccurate/misleading) sense of the situation. I'll take that bet anytime

As far as :

That's all I'm saying. Joe Sixpack is saying "Gee, what a screw-up. If they'd put that ship out there 60 days ago, we'd have this pretty much cleaned up."

I can't say what Joe Sixpack is thinking, but I kinda doubt that anyone following close enough to even know that the A-Whale exists is really thinking it is a near 100% solution. It seems pretty obvious to me that the oil is all spread out, it isn't a simple task (especially after so much time has passed).

I'll stand by what I said earlier. Two parts, really:

1) If this thing was out there earlier, we'd be ahead of where we are now. Even in the worst case, 'ahead' may only mean - 'ships like this don't really work very well under these conditions'. Similar to Edison saying that he was making progress with the light bulb because he learned xxxxx number of things did not work.

2) We would be in far, far better shape if the right management and equipment were in place right at the start.

Maybe the A-Whale isn't the right equipment, maybe it is 'good enough' to at least be of some benefit. Again, I don't want to get political, but as I see it, it was BP's responsibility to have reasonable clean up equipment on standby, and the regulator's responsibility to ensure that they did. I'll go so far as to say that if there is no reasonable clean-up technology, that we ought to consider eliminating these sorts of wells - but that would need to be made in light of the environmental risks of whatever replaces that energy source. We don't want to go from the frying pan to the fire.

Whether the A-Whale works well or not, I'm impressed that the CEO was able to get it modified and delivered in such short time.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

If you were driving, how much of this:


do you think you could get into these ports?

I have no idea. The TMT CEO does not sound like a dummy, I'm willing to guess that he has at least some idea that it could help. I assume they can control the level pretty well by taking on water, in calm water, maybe the ship would actually clean athe majority of that slick up. I really have no way of knowing.

I have an idea though - why don't we try it and see? Is there a downside to that, like taking in 500,000ppm oil/water and releasing 16ppm oil/water?

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

Sorry I wasn't more clear. Here's where I'm going:That A-Whale ship is not going to do much at all, compared with what the press is saying, and a statement like "this ship can remove almost as much oil in a day as has been removed in total -- roughly 500,000 barrels [21 million gallons] of oily water per day..." gives a false sense of manageability to the entire mess.

That's all I'm saying. Joe Sixpack is saying "Gee, what a screw-up. If they'd put that ship out there 60 days ago, we'd have this pretty much cleaned up."

Yes, I'm now convinced: most of the water is on the surface. But the vastness of the gulf and the area of the oil spill totally dwarfs those pathetic little ports on the front of that supertanker. Just picture a surface with waves as you drive this humongous ship through the water. How often will that top inch of water be right at the level of the ports?

Picture those guys with the paper towels wiping the reeds. That's not helping, it's just making people feel good.

Again, the point: This isn't as manageable as the press may make it appear.

If that is the case... then Joe Sixpack is not paying attention..

From what I heard on the news.... the A Whale was not in existence when the well blew... the owner of the vessel had the modifications done AFTER it blew... I assume it took awhile to get them done...

At least the company was thinking outside the box... and we do not know if it wil work or not...

But... I would think that it could suck in a lot of oil and water... at 21 million gallons of SOMETHING a day... that would add up to 210,000 gallons of oil if the concentration was 100 to 1...

They are also not saying it will clean everything up.... but it might make a dent..

As people here in Texas know... tar balls are a way of life...

 

[TromboneAl]

Joe Sixpack is not paying attention.

That's my assumption.

I'm all for trying it also, and it might just work. Probably not as well as the x skimmers that would cost the same amount (if available), but who knows?

I guess it's my cynicism, but here's a scenario I have in my mind: Some businessman/ship owner hears about the oil spill and sees an opportunity to profit. He cuts some holes in the pointy end of his supertanker, puts in an oil separator, and offers his services. He knows it doesn't have to actually work, and there's no time for testing. Supply and demand is on his side (he's got the only one in the world). The public will demand that he be hired.

Or this:

The vessel, completed earlier this year, has had trouble lining up business. Bockmann suggests that the marketing savvy CEO may be using this as an advertising ploy.​

And Michelle Wiese Bockmann, markets editor for the seafaring chronicle Lloyd’s List, speculated that TMT CEO Su, who owns 51 percent of the privately held company, may be using the attention focused on the BP disaster to publicize his new vessel.
“He likes to have an air of mystery and be seen as very influential,” she said. “And when he wants publicity, he’s very good at getting it.”
​

 

[ERD50]

I guess it's my cynicism, but here's a scenario I have in my mind: Some businessman/ship owner hears about the oil spill and sees an opportunity to profit. ...

I've thought about that, it could well be the case. But who knows? One way to find out if it works - try it!

What sets off the alarms, lights, bells, & whistles of my cynicism detector is the idea that some Govt agency is/was holding it up over the legal issue of emitting water with more than 15ppM of oil in it. That, and the Jones Act issues with other vessels.

-ERD50

 

[ronocnikral]

...( and ronocnikral seems skeptical of those descriptions, and he seems well informed on these matters)...

only on the internet am i well informed...

I've thought about that, it could well be the case. But who knows? One way to find out if it works - try it!

the only downside i could come up with is if the ship is out there skimming, starts on fire, sinks and releases all the oil + their diesel + more deaths.

but, if i were king for a day...that ship would be skimming even if it looked like "the perfect storm." who cares, BP's paying for everything else, might as well through another tanker or two on the bill as well...who cares if it only picks up 1% water, pump out the water and fill em up again. horribly inefficient, but so is sitting at the dock.

the relief wells can't get here soon enough.

 

[Texas Proud]

That's my assumption.

I'm all for trying it also, and it might just work. Probably not as well as the x skimmers that would cost the same amount (if available), but who knows?

I guess it's my cynicism, but here's a scenario I have in my mind: Some businessman/ship owner hears about the oil spill and sees an opportunity to profit. He cuts some holes in the pointy end of his supertanker, puts in an oil separator, and offers his services. He knows it doesn't have to actually work, and there's no time for testing. Supply and demand is on his side (he's got the only one in the world). The public will demand that he be hired.

Or this:

The vessel, completed earlier this year, has had trouble lining up business. Bockmann suggests that the marketing savvy CEO may be using this as an advertising ploy.​

And Michelle Wiese Bockmann, markets editor for the seafaring chronicle Lloyd’s List, speculated that TMT CEO Su, who owns 51 percent of the privately held company, may be using the attention focused on the BP disaster to publicize his new vessel.
“He likes to have an air of mystery and be seen as very influential,” she said. “And when he wants publicity, he’s very good at getting it.”
​

Have not read the articles.... must get some sleep

But... if I were BP... I would be paying anybody based on the number of barrels they picked up (for skimming operations... other cleanup is different).... so if A Whale is doing what they say... they make a mint... if it is burning more oil than it picks up... it loses...

I agree with your cynicism..

 

[ronocnikral]

Have not read the articles.... must get some sleep

But... if I were BP... I would be paying anybody based on the number of barrels they picked up (for skimming operations... other cleanup is different).... so if A Whale is doing what they say... they make a mint... if it is burning more oil than it picks up... it loses...

I agree with your cynicism..

too bad it isn't BP's decision, b/c they would probably have that silly thing out there working.

OTOH, I agree they probably shouldn't be lending credence to every little idea out there. If they listened to kevin costner we would all be peeing in one end of some contraption and drinking whatever comes out the other. ooohhhh...or was that just a movie thing?

but, i think the skimming idea shows effort and at least gets something done, regardless of how efficient it is.

 

[ronocnikral]

First rig sails away over deep-water drilling ban | Business | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

too much uncertainty...we need to get this thing licked...

 

[Rustic23]

That rig will never come back. I heard last night that there are about 100 people that work on a rig, and the are on three weeks and off three weeks, so 200 workers. There are another 500 to 1,000 that support a rig. So there goes a 1,000 jobs. With that the ripple effect through the community that support those folks. This could get real bad for Texas and Louisiana in a hurry!

 

[TromboneAl]

I've been watching the new cap operation off and on. In this picture:

Is that the new cap on the right there?

 

[REWahoo]

Al, I'm not sure. Here is a quote from an MSNBC article on the new cap:

Now that the top flange is removed, BP is considering whether it needs to bind together two sections of drill pipe that are in the gushing well head. The step following that involves lowering a 12-foot-long piece of equipment called a flange transition spool onto the well head and bolting it to the bottom flange still in place.

After the spool is bolted in place, the new cap — called a capping stack or "Top Hat 10" — can be mounted. The equipment, weighing some 150,000 pounds, is designed to fully seal the leak and provide connections for new vessels on the surface to collect oil. The cap has valves that can restrict the flow of oil and shut it in, if it can withstand the enormous pressure.

Maybe what is pictured is the "flange transition spool"?

 

[TromboneAl]

Maybe.

Let's say they get that cap on, and all the oil is captured. In that case, are they going to be less eager to kill the well? A lot of money will be flowing up that pipe. But they don't want to take any chances, so I guess they'll kill it as soon as possible.

 

[REWahoo]

Here's a BP presentation on the installation of the new cap: Sealing Cap Installation Animation with Kent Wells - 9 July 2010

 

[TromboneAl]

Thanks, REW. If I'm correctly interpreting what I'm seeing, it looks like they have the transition spool on there, and are tightening the bolts.

 

[Texas Proud]

That rig will never come back. I heard last night that there are about 100 people that work on a rig, and the are on three weeks and off three weeks, so 200 workers. There are another 500 to 1,000 that support a rig. So there goes a 1,000 jobs. With that the ripple effect through the community that support those folks. This could get real bad for Texas and Louisiana in a hurry!

I actually interviewed to be a controller for a drilling ship... I had not worked in O&G... so did not get the job... but I did learn a thing or two while researching...

The ship had workers from India doing the drilling... so the crew would fly into the US and take a boat to the ship... the other crew would fly home... they worked (IIRC, 4 weeks on, 4 off)... so maybe not as many jobs lost as you might think on the rig... the real loss is the supplies and boats that take the crews etc. out to the rigs... they have to be local... and if a crew is on a rig... more than likely they will be working it when it moves...

STILL, not a good thing if they all leave...

 

[Rustic23]

As with life, it depends. My next door neighbor's kid works a drilling rig. We do not live in India, but Texas, some may get confused, and he works 3 weeks on 3 weeks off. That is why anecdotal evidence, like wasthat used on this board to support many points of view, is often is worthless. Drilling rigs leaving U.S. waters for foreign ports will hurt the U.S. economy, and especially the economy of the gulf states that depend on them, and, IMHO, it is totally unnecessary.