The BP Deepwater Oil Spill - the Dispersant Meeting Report - and Open Thread 2

This thread is being closed. Please move discussion to

Concerns about the use of dispersant by the Rapid Response Teams (RRT) working on the Deepwater Horizon spill led to the ”Deepwater Horizon Dispersant Use Meeting” that was held on May 26 -27. A report of that meeting is now available (h/t NatResDr). After a brief review of the current status at the well, with inclinometer readings going on, nuts apparently removed, and the apparent tear of one of the seals in the cap, we’ll get back to that report. First the status:

For the first 12 hours on June 10th (midnight to noon), approximately 7,630 barrels of oil were collected and 15.3 million cubic feet of natural gas were flared.

On June 9th, a total of approximately 15,800 barrels of oil were collected and 31 million cubic feet of natural gas were flared.

And here is the apparent seal that has torn, and slipped out of the cap.

View from the Skandi ROV 2 at 10 pm 10th June 2010.

And so on to what the report says.

The panel included experts from a variety of universities and agencies. To justify the use of dispersants, the report provides a background.

To prevent landfall of the oil, mechanical recovery techniques were used, including skimming and booming, as well as in situ burning. However, when poor weather conditions limited the effectiveness and suitability of mechanical recovery and burning, dispersants were applied to disperse surface oil and prevent landfall. In early May, responders began injecting dispersants at the source of the release in order to prevent oil from reaching the surface. These techniques have largely been successful, and have reduced the amount of oil reaching the nearshore.

The meeting was divided into four breakout groups that addressed

(1) Efficacy and effectiveness of surface and deep ocean use of dispersants;

(2) Physical transport and chemical behavior of dispersants and dispersed oil;

(3) Exposure pathways and biological effects resulting from deep ocean application of dispersants; and

(4) Exposure pathways and biological effects resulting from surface application of dispersants.

What follows are direct quotes from the report.

As background they were also told that:

1. Surface dispersant operations have only been conducted in pre-approved zones (> 3 miles offshore, >10 m water depth).

2. Most dispersants have been applied 20-50 miles offshore where the water is much greater than 100 ft deep;

3. The footprint of surface dispersant application is relatively small;

4. The body of water in which the dispersants are applied is constantly changing; and

5. This meeting focused on oil effects and dispersants in general.

Group One (Effectiveness of dispersants)

They stated that the current state of knowledge was:

 Oil emulsion (> 15 – 20% water) is non-dispersible
 Plume is between 1100 – 1300 m deep moving SW direction
 DWH oil high in alkanes, and has a PAH composition similar to South Louisiana reference crude
 Lighter PAHs (< C15) are likely volatilizing
 Viscosity of emulsified oil is between 5500-8500 centistoke
 Emulsion may be destabilizing (50-60%)
 Primary detection method, C3 (fluorometer), only gives relative trends – does not accurately measure concentration of total oil or degree of dispersion

Their conclusions included the following.

For surface applications

1. Surface application of dispersants has been demonstrated to be effective for the DWH incident and should continue to be used.

2. The use of chemical dispersants is needed to augment other response options because of a combination of factors for the DWH incident (i.e., continuous, large volume release).

3. Winds and currents may move any oil on the surface toward sensitive wetlands.

4. Limitations of mechanical containment and recovery, as well as in situ burning.

5. Weathered DWH oil may be dispersible. Further lab and field studies are needed to assess the efficacy and efficiency and optimal dispersant application (e.g., multiple dispersant applications).

6. Spotter airplanes are essential for good slick targeting for large scale aerial applications (e.g., C-130), so their use should be continued.

7. In order to most effectively use the assets available, the appropriate vessels or aircraft should be selected based on the size and location of the slick and condition of oil.

Dispersing the oil reduces surface slicks and shoreline oiling. The use of chemical dispersants enhances the natural dispersion process (e.g., the smaller droplet size enhances potential biodegradation). Dispersing the oil also reduces the amount of waste generated from mechanical containment and recovery, as well as shoreline cleanup.

For underwater applications

1. The subsurface dispersant dosage should be optimized to achieve a Dispersant to Oil Ratio (DOR) of 1:50. Because conditions are ideal (i.e., fresh, un- weathered oil) a lower ratio can be used, reducing the amount of dispersant required. The volume injected should be based on the minimum oil flowrate, however an accurate volumetric oil flowrate is required to ensure that the DOR is optimized.

2. If we assume a 15,000 bbls/day oil rate and a 1:50 DOR, then actual dispersant flowrate is roughly similar to the current application rate of 9 GPM.

3. To further optimize dispersant efficacy, the contact time between dispersant and oil should be maximized. Longer contact time ensures better mixing of oil and dispersant prior to being released into the water, and should result in better droplet formation.

4. Contact time can be increased by shifting the position of the application wand deeper into the riser, optimizing nozzle design on the application wand to increase fluid sheer, and increasing the temperature of the dispersant to lower viscosity.

5. Effectiveness should be validated by allowing for a short period of no dispersant application followed by a short time of dispersant usage to look for visual improvements in subsurface plume.

Dispersants are never 100% effective. The flow rate of oil out of the damaged riser is not constant, and significant amounts of methane gas are being released. Because the effective DOR is a function of oil flow rate, changes in the oil flow rate may significantly impact the actual DOR. If the DOR is too low, dispersion may not be maximized, while if it is too high, dispersant will be unnecessarily added to the environment. Assumptions are based on knowledge at standard temperatures and pressures (STP), while conditions at the riser are significantly different.

Group members suggested that the oil escaping the damaged riser may be in excess of 100°C, and it is unclear what effect this has on the dispersant, or the efficacy or effectiveness of droplet formation. These conditions may drastically alter fluid behavior. Finally, there is an opportunity cost of changes to application wand position and development and deployment of a new nozzle. When optimized, subsurface dispersant application may reduce or eliminate the need for surface dispersant application, and will reduce surfacing and resurfacing of oil.

Group 2 (Transport and behavior of dispersed oil)

The current state of knowledge is:

 Surface models are effective and continuously improving
 SMART protocols are improving
 Increase of sampling at depth
 Well researched region (oceanographic and ecological studies)
 Well established baseline data
 Airborne application protocols are established

Their conclusions included the following:

1. Create an on-scene environmental review committee to advise SSCs that will be responsible for providing immediate operational and scientific advice, and aid in dispersant decisions.

2. Clearly define geographic area/water volume of concern.

3. Establishment of a more comprehensive sampling and monitoring program to understand transport of oil on the surface and potential for long-term increases to TPH, TPAH, oxygen demand, or lowering of DO with continued dispersant application. This could be done by implementing off-shore water (first 10 m) monitoring stations (e.g., fixed stationary positions such as other drill rigs).

Continued dispersant use trades shoreline impacts for water column impacts. This increases the uncertainty of the fate of the oil, and potentially increases the oil sedimentation rate on the bottom.

Continued dispersant use reduces the threat distance, protects shorelines, likely increases the biodegradation rate of the oil, inhibits formation of emulsions, reduces waste management, and potentially reduces buildup of VOCs in the air.

Group 3 (Biological Effects of Dispersants)

The current state of knowledge is:

 Minerals Management Services, Gulf of Mexico deep water studies/reports:

 Natural hydrocarbon seepage in the Gulf of Mexico approximately 40 million gallons per year
 Some knowledge and past studies on deep water species in the Gulf of Mexico
 Preliminary modeling
 Preliminary monitoring data (Fluorometry data, Particle size analysis, Temperature, Salinity, D.O., Hydrocarbon, Acute toxicity, Acoustic data, sonar, Genomics)

Their conclusions included the following:

1. Dispersant risk assessment should consider volume of DWH incident relative to natural seepage

2. There is a net benefit to continued subsurface dispersant use and application should continue, these include:

 Surface water column and beach impacts vs. vertical water column impacts  Observed reduction in volatile organics at surface
 Enhances the interaction between oil and suspended particulate material
 Accelerated microbial degradation through increased bioavailability
 Rapid recovery of downward sulfate diffusion and upward methane diffusion related to shallow sediment geochemistry
 Based on current knowledge, subsurface dispersant use confines the aerial extent of impact
 Current impact zone is less than 50 km radius
 Reduction in emulsified oil at the surface
 Reduction of phototoxic impacts

Group 4 (Biological Effects of Dispersant on surface water species)

The current state of knowledge is:

 The oil is being dispersed in the top ten meters of the water column from surface dispersant application (fluorescence methods)

Their recommendations included:

1. Surface application of dispersants is acceptable. Transferring the risk from the surface to the top 10 m is the lesser of the many evils.

2. Additional monitoring is required to better model where dispersed oil is going. Long term (monthly) monitoring is required at a minimum, and should be conducted in a grid formation inshore to open ocean. Passive samplers (i.e., SPME) should be used in selected areas, while a active water sampling program should be implemented to measure dispersant and dispersed oil, dissolved oxygen, and standard CTD + chlorophyll concentrations, as well as selected bioassays.

The report has 26 references, some of which are web accessible, and several appendices, listing the agenda, those present, and those in each group.

If you have further questions the report is available.

Prof. Goose's Comment:

A continued humble and sincere thank you to all who have donated thus far. It will help us pay for the fourth server we brought online to accommodate the increased traffic. (See point 3 below.)

1. The Oil Drum is a special place. We strive to maintain a high signal to noise ratio in our comment threads. Short, unengaging comments, polemics, diatribes, or comments that are off topic, are likely to be deleted without notice. (to be clear--engaging, on point humor and levity, more than welcome.)

We are trying to perform a service to the public here to coordinate smart people who know their stuff with other people who want to learn about what's going on. Promotion of that ideal will be the criteria by which we make our decisions about what stays and what goes.

Flame wars, polemic exchanges, and other content deleterious to the community will be removed, either by an editor or by the community through its moderation process.

2. If you see a problematic comment USE THE COMMENT MODERATION SYSTEM--see the "Flag as inappropriate" and (?) beside it? Learn more there. If you see comments that are questionable after you've done that (that aren't being removed), let us know at the eds email address.

It is up to this community to enforce the norms we have established here (a high signal to noise ratio), keep. it. up.

Our guide to commenting at TOD can be found here: . Please check it out if you are unfamiliar with it, but it is essentially 1) citations welcome (if not necessary), 2) be kind to others, and 3) be nice to the furniture.

3. We have gotten a lot of queries whether this bump in traffic is adding costs to keep the site functioning. Truth is, yes, we are incurring added expenses from these events. It is also true that we try not to beg from you very often as we are not the types to bother you with constant queries.

That being said, if you are inclined to help out, your support is always welcome and very much appreciated. To those who have already given, thank you very much.

You can find the donate button in the top left hand corner of the main page.

4. If you have come here to vet your plan to kill the well, understand that you will be queried on whether or not you have read the other 10 previous comment threads and all the myriad plans that have already been run by the kind folks in this room; if you have actually read all 10 comment threads and still think your plan has legs, well, then maybe yours really is the one that will save the Gulf of Mexico.

This is not to say that well considered questions about current attempts and modifications to those attempts are not welcome; they are. But try to place them in context and in what's actually going on, as opposed to your MacGyver dream solution where you have a 10 megaton bomb, an ice pick, and Commander Spock at your side.

5. Also, if you're looking for live chat to talk about the ROV/LMRP video, etc., and are IRC capable, go to freenode, the channel is #theoildrum

(google MIRC and download it; Hit the lightening bolt and fill in your info; select the server as "freenode" (it is in the server list), hit connect; when connected type /join #theoildrum)

or you can get there just via a browser: / Just enter a nickname and #theoildrum in the boxes; then when connected type /join #theoildrum)

6. Don't be afraid to go back and read the last couple of open threads yesterday and today before you start on this thread. They are really good, and will likely catch you up if you have been out of the loop for a while. We shut down threads when we get to 300-400 comments, as it's really unmanageable. Lots of good stuff in there though.

Sad but comical, spraying dispersant at a nonexistent seafloor breach

to those interested
Potential field evidence for a volcanic rifted margin along the Texas Gulf coast henningkemner a utuber had that link.
Hope this helps your knowledge base .There are some charts showing the geology. I have seen requests for that here

PS that utuber has quite a few other good links, talking geology, salt content/domes/traps etc. Worth looking up. Going back for more.. You guys got a good site, but zerohedge is my real home.
that was posted utube may 21

Start providing screen captures, or drop the breached-seafloor crusade.

As I asked in a previous thread, take my test. Which frames in this composite show a plume from the seafloor?

(Answering a question on the previous thread)

That flange is capable of handling plenty of pressure, it is massive. It was previously assumed that it was impossible to remove the huge bolts with an ROV, but that was proven wrong yesterday. They brought down the right tool, removed a bolt, and took it home for a souvenir. :-)

I personally don't think there is any danger of the BOP itself rupturing as it is a massive piece of steel capable of handling extreme forces, but that is some people's expressed concern..

I think the real concern as far as trying to shut it in is the integrity of the well casing down the hole a little ways. They don't want a blowout around the casing or for the whole thing to blow out of the sea bed.

But... they COULD now bolt something onto that flange that would allow them to capture all of that oil and send it somewhere other than into the gulf, if they had a place to put it. That would not put any stress on the well casing.

If flange were unbolted, how would drill pipe be removed/cut? Back to the diamond wire saw?
Not sure I would open the can of worms.

maybe just sit inside the cap? dunno

Remove 4 Bolts at 90°. Use those holes to bolt on a new larger flat plate flange adaptor leaving the existing broken flange & riser in place.

To Alan:

Are they restoring the barrier islands or building a 128 mile uninterrupted sand berm to keep out the oil? As I understand it the COA approved a project that is differeint from the various proposals to restore the Chandeleur Islands. I defer to your local knowledge.

However, I have seen up close and personal what happens to wetlands when you cut them off from the sea. You do get a changed landscape and politicians magically sprout new BMWs in their driveways. So please don't think I'm just being flippant about the subject. I know this latest crisis is further heartbreak for you and your neighbors.

An excellent article in today's paper (we really do have a good local paper IMO).


Yes, the Times-Picayune. They were wonderful in the aftermath of Katrina. First rate; showed why we will always need good, independent local newspapers.

The article shows how pathetically inadequate the federal response to that tragedy has been. Those carefully-planned and extensive restorations could have been complete by now. And for the cost of maybe one month in Iraq.

Instead, it seems we'll get hastily constructed berms that will last until the first bad storm.

Their motto:

We publish come Hell AND High Water !

Best Hopes for the Times-Pic,


I agree to an extent, but the Times-Pic has been pretty conservative in their rhetoric compared to their sister pub at Maybe cautious due to the many pro-oil interests in New Orleans, certainly not wanting to miss out on the years of media purchases that BP may make. Just MHO.

I wish they would give Oilgator a try, especially in the marshlands and wetlands. Yeah, their web page is kind of hokey, but this is an all-natural bioremidation of the oil, which will contain it while it consumes it over time. This has been approved by the EPA, the FWS, and all other US governmental agencies. Why aren't we using it in the Gulf? The company has tried to contact everyone they can and has sent free samples, but it receives no response from officials.

I think the cap is failing, it is listing about 25 degrees and there is an awful large amount of oil billowing out. The ROV's are having a look at the situation right now.

Either it has clogged up with methane ice or the flow out the well has increased. Either way this does not look good. :-(

Something bad is happening.

I see the tilt. Perhaps a blown grommet (got to actually seal to be a gasket) has moved it off center.

I'm not sure it makes any difference as long as they are collecting at capacity. Until they get more capacity on site there's no point in changing the cap.

Exactly. They've never had, nor do they really want, a seal. If all of the oil and gas that's gushing out came up through the riser, they might end up with a replay of what happened to the Deepwater Horizon. They need to have more capacity to process/capture/flare in place before they think about getting a good seal to the BOP.

I was looking earlier and the flow looked reduced. I just looked at Ocean Intervention and they had a fan on it to look at something. When they removed the fan, it looked the same as earlier today.

When they use that fan it always looks like something bad happened on the opposite side. Someone post that the cap is failing and that the flow has exploded about three or four times a day.

Let me throw out a little hypothesis based on a possible series of events escalating into something horrific and unimaginable...

A super hurricane (category 5+) with 200+mph winds fueled by a sea (Gulf of Mexico) with surface temperatures of over 100 degrees Fahrenheit because the ocean is almost black and opaque from the oil disbursed in it and then... when water vapor and hydrocarbon mist from massive emulsified plumes is further atomized by the winds, it is ignited by lightening causing atmospheric combustion... morphing the hurricane into a super fire storm of several hundreds of miles per hour (300-500+mph) and incinerating everything in it's path... and then the hydrates on the sea floor effervesce to the surface of a rolling, boiling ocean and also ignite... I can see that happening... good-bye to EVERY living thing in coastal portions of Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Cuba, and all the lesser islands of the Caribbean. Such a cataclysmic series of events will make a nuclear bomb look like a fire cracker. Why would such an event even be considered a possibility? Oh, I don't know...

Ah, probably not.

Granted, great chance for big hurricane season. Follow that with this guy

Based on the concentrations needed for atmospheric ignition from say anywhere from 3,000 to 15,000 feet from a few microns of aged oil on the surface ? Surely you are joking.

The first three references have been disproved to some level by the lack of a firestorm in the current situation, so I didn't bother to follow the rest.

Side note: Caffeinated drinks are neurotoxins.

I appreciate the humor and your dismissive response to my post. Gee, I guess you're the expert on what concentrations of hydrocarbons are necessary in the atmosphere to ignite from lightening. I had no idea that it was so easy to dismiss out of hand because the links provided did not relate specifically to the conditions of the current situation. Thanks for your expert OPINION and your side note.

Oh, boy. Now, you've done it!

By this time tomorrow, at least a dozen new sites will be up, with horrifying graphics of the coming doom.

I've already seen several "authoritative" claims that military units are on standby, awaiting orders to evacuate all residents within 100 miles of the Gulf, in preparation for the planned thermonuclear kill shot.

It's just gonna get worse, now. And it will be your fault, wundermaus. ;^)

Yeah, I thought about that, too. Nice how you tied my hypothesis to the insanity of a "thermonuclear kill shot". Kinda makes for a dismissive snark. Yeah, you're probably right. (I hope you are right) It would be interesting, though, watching hundreds of thousands of people fry instead of considering something as crazy as a KT event caused by the stupidity of greed. What are the chances of That? Yeah, Never mind.

Let's throw a little math at this, wundermaus. Assume 40,000 barrels a day spilling into the Gulf for 120 days, times 42 gallons per barrel. That's about 200 million gallons by the end of August, a g*dawful mess, for sure.

If every bit of it got miraculously sucked up into a hurricane and covered the Gulf (600,000 sq. mi.) and coastal areas from Mexico to Alabama and into the Caribbean (say another 300,000 sq. mi.), well, do the math and you end up with about a thousandth of an ounce per square foot. Convert to BTUs at around 140,000 BTU per gallon of crude, you get roughly one BTU per square foot, which is more or less equal to a blue tip safety match every foot (and that's a match that burns out in a few seconds).

It might make a pretty little flash if it was all close to the surface.

But the scenario was to atomize it, right? Spread that thousandth of an ounce of oil up into the air just a couple hundred feet and I doubt you'd notice it, even if you could get it to ignite in the middle of a hurricane. Kind of hard to get from there to making "a nuclear bomb look like a firecracker", IMHO.

note: the numbers and conversions here come from first line Google searches.

Already covered by, although you left out James Carville riding a burning alligator...

Either that or someone's been watching too many grade B SyFy Channel movies...

Lightning and oil, gawd hep us?

A few days back at, Jeff Masters laid out possible coming attractions (admitting that, since no hurricane has passed over a sizable oil spill before, no one really knows what might happen). But as to the Wundermaus ScenarioTM:

... Could a lightning strike from a hurricane ignite oil from the spill, and the hurricane's winds hurl the flaming oil inland, creating a fiery maelstrom of water, wind, and flame? This would make a great scene in a typical bad Hollywood disaster movie, but it's not going to happen with the universe's current laws of physics. Lightning could set an oil slick on fire, in regions where the oil is most dense and very fresh. About 50-70% of the evaporation of oil's most flammable volatile compounds occurs in the first 12 hours after release, so fresh oil is the most likely to ignite. However, the winds of a hurricane are so fierce that any surface oil slick of flaming oil would quickly be disrupted and doused by wave action and sea spray. Heavy rain would further dampen any lightning-caused oil slick fires. ...

You might want to read the rest of that post, wundermaus.

crimper on June 11, 2010 - 10:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
There has been some discusion regarding the hydraulic coupling at the BOP flex joint/riser connection.
Why decoupling the entire assembly has not been attempted seems to be up in the air?
1) Concern for placing any more stress on the BOP/well casing?
2) No seperate external hydraulic line capacity to connect and attempt operation of the coupling?
3) Couldnt handle the flow top side if successfully connected to new full size riser?
4) Concerned there is a stress on the coupling/connector and it would not re-seal properly over a new riser package?
Any one else have a better understanding why activating this coupling has not been attempted/might be/might not be a good idea?
I am very frustrated over the fact that we are all waiting on BP to get additional processing to the area at this time. I am having a hard time looking at the live feeds any more. I am grateful to have found TOD as a resource to help get real info and thoughtful discussion on this disaster.

I have been asking the same questions for a while as well. I think the main reason is that the flex joint is tilted beyond its operational range, which means that the decoupling may not work, leaving a hydraulically unsealed but mechanically jammed joint.

The other main concern is that if a new production riser is connected, the oil pros here worried about topside risk, now that you've attached yourself to an uncontrollable wild well. I think that a valve/splitter system can easily be spliced into the new riser, so the flow can be diverted into the water to mitigate topside risk.

Contrary to the statement above about lack of success in bolt removing, I think that one of BP's massive untorquing tools did start to unbolt one trial connection.

Given the attention placed on the orientation of the BOP, the weight of 5000 feet of drill pipe from a ship meandering a few feet here and there, not to mention ocean currents, is a concern. Even the static, forgetting the dynamics of moving , forces in the current situation are greatly differing from design that would have much weight downhole rather than sitting on the BOP.

It must be a delicate balancing act from the surface.

Thanks Dimitry and James and crimper.

I suspect that the prime reason that it was initially jammed was due to the drill pipe still in the riser/LMRP. Once it was Craw's off a new riser would fit back over the stub and re-engage with the Flex joint. Control topside would be a bear, but should be a lot more manageable than the mess on the seabed at present. If it hadn't been able to attach, they'd be no worse off than now with the top-hat. I also wonder why a couple of extra tankers were not redirected into the area to help offload the oil taken up, seems too little thought went into the initial staging of assets. Maybe next time.

My comment (a reply to the chemical composition of Corexit thread) got hijacked by the thread change, so here's a slightly shorter version. The NYT reports that the EPA quietly posted all ingredients of Corexit 9527 and 9500 on its website on June 9. Not only did the EPA post it quietly, it made it extremely hard to find. Unfortunately, exact proportions of the chemicals are not given. Hopefully that will not be a huge problem.

Here's what I could find on the EPA website (after a long time searching). Hope this helps.

The components of COREXIT 9500 and 9527 are: CAS Registry Number Chemical Name
57-55-6 1,2-Propanediol
111-76-2 Ethanol, 2-butoxy-*
577-11-7 Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1)
1338-43-8 Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate
9005-65-6 Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.
9005-70-3 Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs
29911-28-2 2-Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-
64742-47-8 Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light
*Note: This chemical component (Ethanol, 2-butoxy-) is not included in the composition of COREXIT 9500.

This info is about 3/4 down this page:

Thank you.

Yes, but.

When the components of unrefined crude oil are considered ... I think that the study group may have a point by saying surface dispersion at 50:1 (?) is the lessor of the evils. At least there are is a group of independent experts considering this. BP would have little to gain financially if the dispersants cure proves to be worse than the disease. No?

The undersea application of dispersants? That is a whole 'nother matter that hasn't been fully addressed.

"When the components of unrefined crude oil are considered..."

I think the larger concern (for those of us who are concerned) is that there is significant evidence that dispersed oil may be more harmful to a number of organisms than either the water accommodated fraction of crude alone or the dispersants alone. See links in preceding two threads and TOD discussion around 5/20-23.

"The undersea application of dispersants? That is a whole 'nother matter that hasn't been fully addressed."

To say the least. So far, I haven't found anything that comes close to addressing the situation we have here.

I think BP is concerned about the organism that can get a lawyer. Crude reaching beaches contains many of the best human carcinogens known. Weathered oil, not so much, but a valid claim for inhalation hazards of the higher VOC fractions are likely. Frankly, clean-up workers not wearing masks with VOC cartridges are a class action group with high probability for big damages.

If the undersea organisms could get lawyers, things may be different. That is just the current reality.

Edit: Those humans burning or working around the "new oil" offshore are in significant danger without VOC masks. I am not sure how the drill floor people or ROV mechanics are handling this at all. Tough duty. Hats off. Likely health damage.

Philosophically, our military casualties and our oil field casualties are to support our need to have 2,000 lb vehicles propel our increasing mass selves from place to place. Viewed from another world, a sick situation.

"If the undersea organisms could get lawyers, things may be different. That is just the current reality."

I think we all understand that those of us who are primarily interested in the health of the biosphere, and human civilization as a whole, may have concerns that BP doesn't find pressing, at this moment. However:

1. BP's (or anyone's) interest or lack thereof doesn't affect the validity of the concerns.

2. The undersea organisms *do* have lawyers, who *will* be seeing BP in court.

WRT to VOC's and the humans, yup: I'll bet the air monitoring data from topside is pretty scary.

And our military and resource-extraction casualties (on all sides) look pretty sick from the world *I* live in. From another world? Well, the Tralfamadorians would just say, "So it goes."

Ok then. If I say all your points are valid and you have solved the problem, would that help?

This is the only question that comes to my mind that will help me discern the point you are making , or more plainly, what is your point?

If you really wanted to know the answer to that question, you would read back through the discussion. You don't want to know: you have some other agenda or just enjoy being annoying. Very common on the net, and not even a little entertaining.

Air Monitoring on Gulf Coastline

EPA's air monitoring conducted through June 10, 2010, has found that air quality levels for ozone and particulates are normal on the Gulf coastline for this time of year.

EPA has observed odor-causing pollutants associated with petroleum products along the coastline at low levels. Some of these chemicals may cause short-lived effects like headache, eye, nose and throat irritation, or nausea. People may be able to smell some of these chemicals at levels well below those that would cause short-term health problems.

Keep in mind this is the same EPA that said the air quality at Ground Zero was good too.

Below is a citation that I quoted earlier in the week (

Corexit 9527, a frequently mentioned oil spill dispersant,
was developed for use on open sea oil slicks. This dispersant is
composed of about 48% nonionic surfactants, including
ethoxylated sorbitan mono- and trioleates (Tween 80 and
Tween 85) and sorbitan monooleate (Span 80), about 35%
anionic surfactants, including sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate
(AOT), and about 17% ethylene glycol monobutyl ether as a
solvent (13).
Apr. 1999, p. 1658–1661

Although these proportions are from more than 10 years ago and for Corexit 9527, I suspect that they are similar for Corexit 9500 with the exception of ethylene glycol monobutylether (aka 2-butoxyethane) which is in 9527 but not 9500. The butanedioic acid in the newer formulation may be the anionic detergent that replaced sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate shown above.

The list below relates the components in the blockquote to the ones listed on the EPA website.

mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate is Span 80 also called Tween 80.

Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs is also known as Polysorbate 85 and Tween 85.
mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate is Span 80 sometimes called Tween 80

By now, I am pretty sure that my earlier statement about Corexit containing Tween 20 is probably wrong. It appears to differ from the nonionic detergents above by having a shorter hydrophobic side chain.

Each of the nonionic detergents uses a hydrophilic head group rich in glycols or hydroxyl groups to confer a hydrophilic region and a single long hydrophobic tail.

This is the "Trending Now" list on the Yahoo! News homepage. What is America searching for info on..?


1.O.J. Simpson
2.John Goodman
3.Jodie Foster
4.Carrie Underwood
5.Beach Weddings
6.Angelina Jolie
7.Mr. T
9.BP Oil Spill
10.Pool Safety

People are still seeking info about OJ??? Anyway, with the oil spill being no. 9 one could say we get what we deserve, don't you think? I can understand, (easiest way to find a pizza place is just to search online) but Mr T?

Angelina Jolie, of course, is a result of the neverending search for fap material. (Let's hope Mr T and John Goodman's popularity isn't even remotely related.)

Beach Weddings? Did a lot of people have Gulf Coast ceremonies planned, and now think it will be easier to move to a different coast than to just have the darn thing indoors?

TOD fan -- I can offer some insight to your second question: why displace mud with seawater. A year ago I would have been neutral as to leaving the OBM (oil based mud) in the casing while waiting to complete a well a few years down the road. But last January I re-entered a well in S. La to sidetrack and drill deeper. The previous operator left OBM in the temp. abandoned csg. No problem: just drill the plug out, displace that old OBM, set my whip and get after it. Had one day on the plan to clean that OBM out. Two weeks and $500,000 later I got the hole cleaned out. The OBM set up like epoxy in the csg. Had to make dozens of wiper trip to clean it out and remove about 60# of metal frags stuck in it. First whip prematurely set due to the OBM and had to fish it. If this had been a DW GOM well the cost would have been closer to $8 million…or more.

You get the idea: I will never leave OBM in a cased hole I plan to re-enter. But I also wouldn't displace unless I was very sure of my cmt job. And then I would monitor my mud returns while displacing as though my life depended upon it. Because it does.

a bit off topic, but where has T Boone Pickens gone? He spent a fortune advertising for gas and wind power a couple of years ago. Is natural gas really a bridge that can get us to a new green energy alternative?

Not sure where TBP is, but Natural Gas is critically important to producing fertilizer, which is critically important to producing food needed to feed the worlds ballooning population. "Sustainable agriculture" probably has already exceeded its possibility to feed the world. Today, it has to supplemented greatly by fertilizer.

In the calculation, you can reduce a variable and still make sustainable agriculture work. But that variable is population. How do you reduce that in a socially acceptable manner?

I saw T. Boone Pickens on Larry King, perhaps a bit more than a week or so ago. I think
he's a very clever man. He said that "top kill" had a minimal chance of success, that
the relief wells were the most probable solution, and that the US obtains about
1.3 million barrels per day from deep water wells in the GOM (he said deep was beyond
about 500 ft, if I remember rightly).

That ~1.3 million bbl per day of our domestic oil production is coming from deep water
wells in the GOM was a surprise to me. It showed me clearly that for the moment
the US has no option but to continue producing oil from deep waters in the GOM,
because that number is close to 5% of US daily oil consumption.

In my opinion: natural gas is not a bridge technology and neither is wind. Hydrocarbons
are just too precious in too many other ways to be using them to produce energy. I'm
all in favour of building windmills, though. I think wind, solar, hydro and geothermal
power are the best sources for humanity, and the planet in the long run. But solar and
wind power are very large scale projects to implement given current populations, the
very low density of those energy sources, the state of the art in those technologies,
and current rates of energy use per capita, for example, in a country like the US.
No solution based on any finite resource can possibly ever work, if the problem of
exponential population growth is not addressed. So the question is, how to get to
the point where exponential population growth can be addressed.

Nuclear power (fission) seems like the most promising bridge technology, IMHO. The
energy density is about a million times greater than is available from petro-chemical

The oil spill is extremely shocking and goes to the heart of the global systemic sustainability crisis that is appearing in so many other forms.

Here is one idea: Pres. Obama should declare a moratorium on new car sales beginning in one year. No more new cars. Old ones can still be sold and bought. This will precipitate some systemic and necessary changes in the economy.

I like that-- then for a prescribed amount of time each year only repair the ones that can operate at a mpg standard to eliminate inefficient vehicles. Slowly increase restrictions on the vehicles that can operate and you will have new industry of mechanics outfighting older cars with new technology.

Better yet put microchips in cars that turn them off for one week of each year forcing people to walk wherever they need to go, imagine the experienc3 points you would earn in a week of walk-commuting.

Then cross your fingers that nobody needs to make an emergency trip to the hospital during "shut-off week". =p

(I can't afford an ambulance trip either)


Why not force the US automakers to make a few TDI Diesel cars instead? None of the US companies even offer one model this year. Not a single one. These cars can run on bio-diesel without any modifications. But oh no, we can't do that now can we?

Wouldn't it make more sense to impose a tax on older vehicles, with the intended result to have them traded in favor of newer models? Older vehicles are less fuel efficient and pollute more than newer models, so replacing them would both help air quality and reduce fuel use.

Mandating a stop to new vehicle sales would be like throwing a big wrench into our economy's machinery.


I am glad you appreciate comments, my first one would be:

my second would be: What is a black swan?

Black Swan: a singular event that forces a fundamental shift in basic beliefs. If it is accepted as fact that "All swans are white," it only takes the discovery of one black swan to force this belief to be abandoned.

Please do not shout.

In the last thread, there was some discussion on emulsions that I am trying to extend here.

I too found the term emulsion confusing. I usually think of emulsifying relatively small amounts of oil into larger volumes of water, but when high volumes of oil go into water, as in an oil spill, the situation can be turned on its head so that small amounts of water are emulsified into large amounts of oil. I think this can account for the "chocolate mousse" effect.

What is in blockquote below is from, Extending Temporary Storage Capacity Offshore with Emulsion Breakers ( This contains a good discussion of detergents and how they work.

In the case of petroleum emulsions, it is high molecular weight components of the oil itself that act as the stabilizers, so oil is the external phase containing droplets of water as the internal phase, hence the term water-in-oil emulsions. It is evident then that the molecular structure of the emulsifying agent, which determines its relative solubility in water or oil, also determines the type of emulsion for which it can act as a stabilizer. Thus, an oil-compatible surfactant (HLB = 1-10) promotes oil as the continuous phase (water-in-oil dispersion) and a water compatible surfactant (HLB = 10-20) promotes water as the continuous phase (oil-in-water emulsion).

The surfactants that are being used as dispersants are in the higher HLB range, and are chosen to be more soluble in the water phase than in the oil phase. (Something I learned from Speaking To Animals earlier in the week.) Several of these dispersants have a nonionic hydrophilic "head" region that is compatible with the charged ends of water molecules and a hydrophobic tail region that shuns water and is "happier" associating with the uncharged molecules of petroleum. These detergents are often referred to as amphipathic (both feeling). It is this ability of the detergent to associate its hydrophobic end with the hydrocarbons and its hydrophilic end with the water that allows the detergents under the right conditions to disperse large globs of oil into smaller globules and increase the surface to volume ratio. (That, at least is how the biological detergent, bile, produced by your liver and dispensed to your small intestine via your gall bladder increases the surface to volume ratio of fat globs so that they can be digested by lipase from your pancreas.) Of course the action of bile in your intestine is in a closed system whereas dispersants in the GOM are effectively in an open system.

Thanks for that!

Bedtime thought:


I met traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".
• P. B. Shelley (1792-1822)

Many a green isle needs must be
In the deep wide sea of Misery,
Or the mariner, worn and wan,
Never thus could voyage on
Day and night, and night and day,
Drifting on his dreary way,
With the solid darkness black
Closing round his vessel's track...

Lines Written among the Euganean Hills.

Slightly OT, I know, but for those interested in the idea that BP will declare BK (some talk last thread), please review the financials on this oil GIANT.

Seriously (and per their 12/31/2009 Annual Report) this is a company with a net worth of $100B US that earned over $16B, down from $20B in 2008. They produce at the rate of 2.5mbbd liquid and 8.5 bcfd gas - yes that's per DAY. Proven reserves are net 18.3mboe. They reported profit of $6B 2010Q1 and had as much cash on hand at that time.

Conservative estimates I've seen ( put their liability here at $30B. There was a report by MarketWatch today that they are "likely" to bank their next quarterly dividend ($2.5B due 6/21) and up this liability figure:

Wall Street estimates have put the size of BP's liabilities as high as $60 billion this week, but the company's asset base of $130 billion and its annual cash flow north of $30 billion are seen as bulwarks against the financial challenges of the spill.

While S&P Equity Research cut its rating on the oil major to hold from buy, analyst said this week the sharp fall in BP's shares has been "overdone" and that it's trading well below its true worth.

FWIW Morningstar puts that "Fair Value" at $40 a share, not much above their closing price today.

As to their "market cap" that is a simplified way of looking at the value of a company from today's market price times the number of outstanding shares. Means very little in terms of the actual value of a company, that's better represented by the Price/Earnings (P/E) ratio, which for BP is at 5.5. Again, nothing to do with the resources available to fight the spill, and better viewed in light of the industry. Still, they are #7 on the sector rankings of MCap among the majors.

May be politically difficult to do but if things look dire don't be surprised if they try to "wall off" their US operations to try to contain the total damage, and I've seen it said that BK is a possibility in THAT scenario. Not sure they can get away with that - awfully strong headwinds to fight. They've already announced that their post-containment efforts will be separated PR 6/4/2010:

In its March presentation, prior to the Gulf of Mexico incident, BP indicated that its cash inflows and outflows were balanced at an oil price of around $60/barrel. "Under the current trading environment we are generating significant additional cash flow," Hayward said. "In addition, our gearing is currently below the targeted range, and our asset base is strong and valuable, with more than 18 billion barrels of proved reserves and 63 billion barrels of resources. All of this gives us significant flexibility in dealing with the costs of this incident."

Hayward announced that BP will create a separate stand-alone organisation to manage the long-term response once the spill is over. Managing Director Bob Dudley will lead this new organisation reporting directly to the Group Chief Executive.

Now, as to the dispersant use, what is in BP's best interest? They have unlimited liability on the cleanup, so using dispersant to transform the oil into a form they will not have to pick up is a no-brainer. The product they use is not prohibited or violating environmental laws I've hear of (corrections welcome) so why not? [From BP's perspective now!]

And finally, from the 2009 BP Annual Report witness the following:

Deepwater Gulf of Mexico: Deepwater Gulf of Mexico is our largest area of growth in the US. In addition, we are the largest producer and acreage holder in the region. Significant events were:
•In May 2009, BP announced it had begun production from the Dorado(BP 75% and operator) and King South (BP 100%) projects. Both projects are subsea tiebacks to the existing BP Marlin Tension Leg Platform (TLP) infrastructure. Dorado comprises three new subseawells located about two miles from the Marlin TLP. King South comprises a single subsea well located 18 miles from the Marlin TLP. Both projects leverage existing subsea and topsides infrastructure and the latest subsea and drilling technology to enable the efficient development of the fields. Dorado utilizes dual completion technology enabling production from five Miocene zones and King South is produced through the existing King subsea pump.
•In June 2009, the Atlantis Phase 2(BP56%) project achieved first oil ahead of schedule, signalling the official start-up.
•In July 2009, BP announced the drilling of a successful appraisal well in a previously untested southern segment of the Mad Dog field (BP60.5% and operator). The 826-5 well is located in the Green Canyonblock 826, approximately 100 miles south of Grand Isle, Louisiana, in about 5,100 feet of water. The results from this well continue the successful phased development of the Mad Dog field and build upon the success from 2008.
•In September 2009, BP announced the Tiber discovery in thedeepwater Gulf of Mexico (BP 62% and operator). The discovery well, located in Keathley Canyon block 102, approximately 250 miles south-east of Houston, is in 4,132 feet of water. It was drilled to a total depth of approximately 35,055 feet making it the deepest oil and gas discovery well ever drilled. The well found oil in multiple LowerTertiary reservoirs. Appraisal will be required to determine the size and commerciality of the discovery.

Care to guess what they might have to say about that "Mad Dog" field today?

Slightly OT, I know, but for those interested in the idea that BP will declare BK (some talk last thread), please review the financials on this oil GIANT.

yes and no.. there is one scenario where we have an uncontrolled subsea blow out and we leak ungodly amount of oil that no one can estimate. And government decide to assess 4300 a bbl penalty with 20-30B of fine.. At that point, BP will have a decision to make.. They may bk the us sub to buy time and fight it in court. UK doesn't have BK but they have recievership (which is close to ch 7 in US I guess)... And US government will have to go to UK court to try to pierce the corporate veil. The downside of the bk US sub strategy is that they pretty much has to leave US completely afterward. There are some additional BK scenario out there. But they are pretty much center on a US government that disregard US law and make unreasonable demand and penalty. Remember last week, our interior secretary suggested that BP should pay for all workers affected by the 6 months delay in exporatory drilling in the gulf (I guess Obama back off of that one later and concede that US current law won't allow that.. but you see teh potential by a party that is facing big loss in mid term election)..

Credit Suisse reported that they estimate cleanup and reimbursement for lost income at $37 billion. That excludes criminal fines, civil fines, punitive damages in state courts and real estate losses.

Now add these other things into the mix and the cost could be $60 - $80 billion here. Those numbers are being tossed about by publications such as the WSJ - certainly not a bastion of the liberal media. BP has only $11 billion cash in hand including some highly liquid assets.

BP's assets are $130 billion. They now have a current market value of only $106 billion (as of todays closing). That means they are really in play and if the future was not so bleak companies would already be storming the gates to buy them up.

They deferred their $2.5 billion dividend today till they have a better handle on the costs here. This oddly enough came just after Florida sent them a demand letter requesting they put $2.5 billion in escrow so that they have the funds available when Florida bills them etc.

The cost to insure their debt is precariously high but is swinging wildly day to day. I'm sure the oil business is extremely capital intensive meaning BP is probably always issuing short term debt to cover. The higher the cost to insure their debt the higher the less demand there is for it.
Each negative headline sends the costs soaring higher. I saw this happen in the summer/fall of 2008. Several very healthy companies were nearly bankrupted by headlines that caused their cds spreads to go through the roof. BP's swap costs would make me sell sell sell if I owned any.

I'd say they are teetering. The only question is how they will be broken up and who will end up with the pieces. There is an outside chance the UK will put their taxpayers on the hook and back BP with government guarantees - basically a bank bailout with oil in the vault. TBTF? We'll see.

Food for thought:

1. What if it had been a "lean and mean" independent operator drilling this well? Same contractors, same equipment. Would they really have adopted a more cautious safety approach to reflect a market cap a fraction of BP and hence much less ability to finance a clean up?

2. What if the Deepwater Horizon had sunk directly onto the wellhead? I can't begin to imagine how you get anywhere near the BOP to try a top kill or top hat or any form of collection. Just sit and wait for the relief well(s).

Seems to me that in hindsight the chances of either of the above (or both) were pretty even, compared to the scenario we actually have.

friday night coil tubing ops.

Can anyone tell me what's going on down on the seabed now? It looks like an apocalypse. I'm using the video feed that avonaltendorf provided at 10:59 PM. Is this really just the result of using a fan?

Never mind. Things have calmed down considerably and the ROV is doing its copper ops I guess. Oh, now I'm seeing the fan. Sheesh. I really don't know how that little fan could have made the enormous explosive type viewing I've been seeing for the last hour or so.

the ocean intervention iii rov2 is using the prop to move the oil you see the other side is it still a fan underwater i dont know but its there

Sometimes, seeing an event from more than one point of view turns "APOCALYPSE!!omg FIRE!! BOP exploded!!!1" into "oh, they just broke a hose on a dispersant wand."


From an earlier thread:

The group of expert engineers who the White House claimed recommended the moratorium has issued a statement that they did, in fact, make no such recommendation.

Any further word on this?

McClatchy has story:

Engineers say Interior changed oil report after they signed it
Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: June 11, 2010 07:47:56 PM

WASHINGTON — A group of engineers and oil experts said Friday that the Interior Department changed the language of a high-profile oil spill report after they'd signed it, falsely signaling their support for a drilling moratorium that they thought went too far.

The new language called for a stronger and wider moratorium on some oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico than the experts thought necessary. In fact, one said Friday, the stronger moratorium might instead increase the risks slightly.

"The reason we don't agree is that we think it makes the system less safe. It increases risk, it doesn't reduce risk," Texas oil consultant Ken Allen said in an interview.

Allen was among a group of experts who read and signed a May 27 statement by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announcing new safety measures for offshore drilling, as well as a six-month moratorium on some drilling.

"The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering," Salazar said in the report.

However, as Allen and the others said in a statement, Salazar changed two key recommendations after they'd signed it.

The version they'd signed said Salazar recommended a six-month moratorium on permits for new exploratory wells in water deeper than 1,000 feet.

The final version recommended a six-month moratorium on "new wells being drilled using floating rigs." That included rigs in water deeper than 500 feet and covered more of them, Allen said.

Also, the version the experts signed called for "a temporary pause in all current drilling operations for a sufficient length of time" to perform additional safety tests for the 33 exploratory deepwater wells already working in the Gulf.

The final version urged "an immediate halt to drilling operations on the 33 permitted wells, not including the relief wells currently being drilled by BP, that are currently being drilled using floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Drilling operations should cease as soon as safely practicable for a 6-month period."

Allen and the others said they agreed with all the other safety recommendations. "However, we do not agree with the six-month blanket moratorium on floating drilling," they said. "A moratorium was added after the final review and was never agreed to by the contributors."

An Interior spokeswoman said the government didn't mean to say the experts agreed with the moratorium.

"By listing the members of the (National Academy of Engineering) that peer-reviewed the 22 safety recommendations contained in the report, we didn't mean to imply that they also agreed with the moratorium on deepwater drilling," Kendra Barkoff said.

"We acknowledge that they were not asked to review or comment on the proposed moratorium and that they peer-reviewed the report on a technical basis. The moratorium on deepwater drilling is based on the need for a comprehensive review of safety in deepwater operations."

In Part 1 of this thread Rockman wrote:

“bb -- the RW will work. Might take two of them...might take 5. Might get done this August. Might be next January. The RW will be the solution for one simple reason IMHO: there's no other option I can envision. The situation could be as bad as you describe ...or worse.”

Rockman, JQuest suggested an option a few lines above your post. What he wrote is astonishing. There was some good discussion of it, but it ended far too soon.

If the first containment dome might actually have worked as JQuest suggests, and there was no problem with clathrate formation plugging the flow as BP claimed (and as was assumed here, see my posts in earlier threads about using a gas lift pump which were mostly ignored), then they could have been collecting most, if not all, of the oil and gas almost from the beginning - no dispersants, vastly less damage to the life and lives in the GOM and beyond, BP handles the cost without going bankrupt (apologies to DumbButNotStupid), no chance of damaging the casing and causing a greater leak, the tinfoil hats receive much less wear and tear, the lawyers have a much smaller payday, etc.

If, at first, BP didn’t have the capacity to handle all of the oil and gas that came to the surface, at least they could have burned it off there until the capacity was in place.

Was the containment dome just a PR stunt? This is the most astounding possibility I have read here yet. Give me some help, my hair is on fire. Is it spontaneous combustion, or arson? If the Oil Drum is going to live up to its name, we ought to do whatever is necessary to find out if what JQuest is suggesting is true. Many thanks to him for that post. If this proves out, he ought to get a medal for spotting it.

Just one question for you, JQuest. I know you said that sometimes things slip out by accident. But you might have uncovered something huge. I don't understand how BP could have missed those videos, or why they allowed them to be made, if they wanted to keep this thing secret. How did those videos get out? I know you might not be able to answer that, but maybe you and others could give it a try.

I have studied the video that JQuest posted. I am sure that there is only one cap for the containment dome shown there, and that cap has about a 1” hole for the oil and gas to enter the riser. How can this be, if their intent was to capture the leak? We have got to work this thing out.

Regarding the gas lift pump, I am grateful to Onlooker for his two links to the Ixtoc blowout and Operation Sombrero in a previous thread, Here is an excerpt from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences report “Ixtoc 1: A Case Study of the World’s Largest Oil Spill” (1981):

“Next a funnel-shaped oil collection device, a ‘sombrero’, was placed over the well in another attempt to reduce the flow of oil [actually to capture it]. The Sombrero weighed about 310 tons in the air…it was positioned with its wide end down above the well head in the middle of October [1979]. The oil and gas contained under it was pumped [actually gas-lifted] through a flexible hose at the top to a platform. However, due to logistic problems at the platform, only a minor part of the oil that could be recovered via the Sombrero was actually disposed of. In the early part of December [1979] rough seas damaged the device and it was removed from the well site.”

Some details learned elsewhere:

Divers working on the well head, which was 150’ below the surface, reported that the sound of the blowout was like 30 locomotives. One diver, Alan Anderson, got caught in the upwash and could not get out of it, because his lifeline snagged on some debris. When they recovered his body, his suit and gear had been stripped away by the tremendous force of the blowout.

Those who wish to continue to ignore the gas lift idea should not go to

Remarked in the earlier thread about how the cap seemed to be tilting. Came back a few hours later and now I see that it appears to have completely slipped off the flange. That can't be good...

I notice that Enterprise ROV 1 is the only one monitoring the cap and oil flow now.

They had one of the Oceaneering ROVs, not sure which, looking at the other side earlier. There is an obvious gap between the bottom of the cap and the upper half of the flange. They were using a fan to blow the oil out of the way to see it. I'm wondering why they haven't moved the cap back to its original position - perhaps there is a build-up of hydrates that is pushing the cap off-center? No clue.

maybe cause its all tilted and fughly

Consider that moving anything requires moving a drilling ship a mile away from the BOP through the tons of flexing drill pipe with all of the ocean currents between, gives some idea of the difficulty.

I heard the ROV operators are getting good at playing table tennis deep down there. Current score: Titans - Heroes 12490 - 12205

Nice quiet evening on the seafloor, a bit snowy.

I was reading commentary on another news site ( ) and someone mentioned the Tampa desalination plant. I was just wondering how many desalination plants are operating in the Gulf area, and what the effect of oil and Corexit contaminated sea water would be on the plant, and the communities dependent on them? What about the various coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants that may require the cooling water provided by the desalination plants?

Has the sheared off riser piece been recovered to surface and the ends examined? The kink, it’s expanding holes, and the internal pipes (drill pipe and casing?) will tell a lot about flow restrictions and oil gas sand erosion.

Back on April 20 if the lower riser had disconnected and the rams did not shear drill pipe but held it, would the wind/current effects on the drifting powerless DH rig have been strong enough to pull the BOP stack over, break H4 type connector, or break/rip out upper casings? That would have stopped O/G flow up riser, and possibly up drill pipe and rig could have been saved. But the blowout ( maybe 35,000 B/D) would have been uncontrollable since the BOP and bent riser restrictions would have been lost.

Back to present day reality, on the next recovery system why will rapidly raising O/G go out 3” choke/kill lines at 90 degrees to flow?

Do the heave compensator and bumper subs keep present cap in low compression on sheared old riser stub to compensate for heave of Discoverer Enterprise. Do not want to be bashing down on that leaned over ball joint.

Diesel engines are about twice as efficient as gasoline engines, so US cars should use them. Plus you get a lot more gallons of diesel than gasoline from a barrel of oil, and it is cheaper and easier to refine. Also water turbines between Key West and Cuba could use the fast Gulf Stream current of the heavy seawater (64 lbs/ft3) to capture much energy. The continuous steady velocity of this water makes for a better system than ugly, whinny, bird killing, intermittent wind power.

A message left by a teenager after a visit from the oil fairy. Gulf Shores AL 6-11-10


From my collection today.

I Think There Are Lots Of Messages Left On TOD By TEENAGERS!!!!.....But As A 54 Year Old I Am Very Tolerant!!!!

I hope many teenagers post here. As for adults that act like teenagers, that is a different matter.

On Day 346 of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Disaster:

DATE: April 1, 2011 19:22:19 CST

The Ongoing Administration-Wide Response to the Deepwater BP Oil Spill

By the Numbers to Date:

• The administration has authorized 117,500 National Guard troops from Atlantic and Gulf Coast states to participate in the response to the BP oil spill.

• More than 124,600 personnel are currently responding to protect the shoreline and wildlife and cleanup vital coastlines.

• More than 14,500 vessels are responding on site, including skimmers, tugs, barges, and recovery vessels to assist in containment and cleanup efforts—in addition to hundreds of aircraft, remotely operated vehicles, and multiple mobile offshore drilling units.

• Approximately 12.2 million feet of containment boom and 2.6 million feet of sorbent boom have been deployed to contain the spill—and approximately 1,630,000 feet of containment boom and 12.3 million feet of sorbent boom are available.

• Approximately 1,118.1 million gallons of an oil-water mix have been recovered.

• Approximately 81.16 million gallons of total dispersant have been deployed—70,000,000 on the surface and 10,160,000 subsea. More than 500,000 gallons are available.

• More than 4,165 controlled burns have been conducted prior to the halt, efficiently removing a total of more than 13.85 million gallons of oil from the open water in an effort to protect shoreline and wildlife.

• 117 staging areas are in place and ready to protect sensitive shorelines.

* National Incident Commander Admiral Kevin Costner Provides an Operational Update.

Adm Costner said that a new estimate from the leaking wells has been developed by the crack team led by Energy Secy. Chu. Flow from the original blowout well is down to less than 500 bbl/d, however flow from the blown out Relief Wells #1, #2, and #4 has been re-estimated at a total flow of 100,000 bbl/d. Costner expressed confidence that the relief well #3 will be capped today, using a junk shot consisting of wadded up 'Yes We Can' bumper stickers. Relief wells #5, #6, and #7 are ahead of the new schedule that was developed following hurricane Limbaugh.

Costner has said that oil burning as part of the recovery operations have been put on an indefinite hold as a result of the devastating fire which consumed much of the Mississippi delta and Mobile Alabama.

* Approximately 20 miles of boom has been deployed around Manhattan, and the President is meeting with Mayor Bloomberg to discuss the response.

* The boom failure on the Potomac has been reported, but the oil is not expected to reach the Lincoln Memorial.

* Interior Secretary Salazar promises to keep the boot on the neck of Exxon, Chevron, and Murphy Oil until the cleanup is complete.

* Raul Castro has announced that Cuba is now self-sufficient in Petroleum products, thanks to the skimmers provided by the North Koreans. A second refinery is under construction. Exports to the EU will commence next month.

I bet someone misses the date and quotes you as fact.

Quite brilliant....

And in other news - the Mayor of London is to meet today with Sir Matthew Simmons, CEO of BP (Beijing Petroleum), over increasing concerns that the company's tradition of morning outdoors tai-chi exercises by its 10,000 London-based staff is causing unacceptable disruption to the smooth running of the City. Traders have described a "vast lake" of people clogging up the streets, and have asked the Mayor to "find someone's arse to kick". Simmons has said it is "significantly less than 500 staff", but has declined to provide an exact figure.

I have no expertise or training in physics, governance or HR, but it seems to me that the undoubtedly forthcoming proposal for a nuclear solution will meet resistance. It may disturb infrastructure needlessly, as would the greener but still destructive Daisy Cutter option. I propose a neutron bomb, which should actually make the city run even smoother than before. I'd like to hear what the experts think.

Some comments about yesterday's and today's threads:

Re. transport stats:
Luxembourg's stats are distorted by numerous commuters from Belgium, France and Germany (135,000 out of a workforce of 315,000, 2007 stats), tourists and just about anyone else passing through filling up their tanks as prices are 20-25 cents lower per liter than in surrounding countries.

Re. not using cars in the US
Nice thought, but some places will need a major re-think. Banal own experience: went shopping in an outlet center, wanted to get to some other stores on the other side of the road (100 m max!), but with no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings we ended up driving. Only suicidal on Mondays ;-)

Re. renewable energy and low densities
In Europe, the trade-off is tricky: plaster whole continent with wind, solar etc. at the expense of who/what? People? Food production?
But oh no, we can't have nuclear and we must cut emissions (and I agree oil & gas far too valuable for other things than just burning). The debate is at least as politicized as in the US. Very frustrating.

Once again, thanks to all at TOD. I have learned so much since I found this site.

Some comments about yesterday's and today's threads:

Re. transport stats:
Luxembourg's stats are distorted by numerous commuters from Belgium, France and Germany (135,000 out of a workforce of 315,000, 2007 stats), tourists and just about anyone else passing through filling up their tanks as prices are 20-25 cents lower per liter than in surrounding countries.

Re. not using cars in the US
Nice thought, but some places will need a major re-think. Banal own experience: went shopping in an outlet center, wanted to get to some other stores on the other side of the road (100 m max!), but with no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings we ended up driving. Only suicidal on Mondays ;-)

Re. renewable energy and low densities
In Europe, the trade-off is tricky: plaster whole continent with wind, solar etc. at the expense of who/what? People? Food production?
But oh no, we can't have nuclear and we must cut emissions (and I agree oil & gas far too valuable for other things than just burning). The debate is at least as politicized as in the US. Very frustrating.

Once again, thanks to all at TOD. I have learned so much since I found this site.

If they banned all new car sales (as of one or two years from now) then people would start to make the changes in the infrastructure because they would KNOW that cars were going to phase out. They could be sure, they could make investments in that direction that they could be fairly sure would pay off. The government just has to help people to cope here---not just leave them to run out of gas in the middle of a freeway surrounded by empty, vandalized big box shops.

And the government will have to explain this to people. Banning cars 5 years from now, four, three...whatever. This will make the statement that "the oil is over and we`re gonna get through this together".

They could try to build trains. They could try to develop some way for people who need to visit hospitals a lot to be able to do that, like taxi services, satellite clinics, more inpatient care at reasonable cost. They could try to help start local farms to reduce dependence on oil transport of food. The rest of the world would probably follow suit and start the same moratorium on new car sales, by the way. Young people all over the world are particularly disenchanted with cars. They will stay on the planet longer than older people so they need to care more about its health.

It is time to take the planet back from the cars by acting systematically to counter the challenges, not ignoring the glaring problem as it gets worse and worse.

BP plans to incinerate 420,000 gallons of oil per day at the site of the Gulf spill, an unprecedented burn that raises health questions

A question for GFR: So then they are making a vinegarette that is floating around underwater and a kind of mayonnaise on top with the use of Corexit? I am kinda simple. Not a scientist or engineer, just a crane operator and weldor by trade.