Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists: Oil leaking up to 2.52M gallons daily
AP on Yahoo ^ | 6/15/10 | Pat Henry - ap

Posted on 06/15/2010 2:37:24 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

NEW ORLEANS – Scientists provided a new estimate for the size of the Gulf oil spill on Tuesday that indicates it could be worse than previously thought.

A government panel of scientists said that the ruptured well is leaking between 1.47 million and 2.52 million gallons a day of oil. That is an increase over previous estimates that put the maximum size of the spill at 2.1 million gallons per day.

"This estimate brings together several scientific methodologies and the latest information from the sea floor, and represents a significant step forward in our effort to put a number on the oil that is escaping from BP's well," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.

The latest numbers reflect an increase in the flow that scientists believe happened after undersea robots earlier this month cut off a kinked pipe near the sea floor that was believed to be restricting the flow of oil, just as a bend in a garden hose reduces water flow. BP officials has estimated that cutting the kinked pipe likely increased the flow by up 20 percent.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: gulf; leaking; oil; scientists

1 posted on 06/15/2010 2:37:24 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Heckuva job, Barry!


2 posted on 06/15/2010 2:39:32 PM PDT by counterpunch (Heckuva job, Barry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

And who says we can’t get much more energy from offshore?

This sounds like one damn big well!


3 posted on 06/15/2010 2:40:18 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
There is a very omonous posting by an oil engineer at Oil Drum about this. He claims the oil well core could collapse and release the entire oil supply uncontrolled.
4 posted on 06/15/2010 2:41:29 PM PDT by Col Frank Slade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
A government panel of scientists said that the ruptured well is leaking between 1.47 million and 2.52 million gallons a day of oil. That is an increase over previous estimates that put the maximum size of the spill at 2.1 million gallons per day."

Huh? Increase? Huh? What? Read that again. Huh?

Just in time for POtuS Big Adventure tonight.

5 posted on 06/15/2010 2:42:06 PM PDT by jessduntno (Afghanistan: Lithium is the new oil. Where are the NO WAR FOR LITHIUM protests?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

From 1,000 per day to 20,000 per day to up to 60,000 per day to 2.5 million a day. See the pattern here? It keeps going up!


6 posted on 06/15/2010 2:43:57 PM PDT by Terry Mross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Col Frank Slade

Was that an oil engineer? Whatever an “oil engineer” is.


7 posted on 06/15/2010 2:44:39 PM PDT by Terry Mross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
NUKE IT!
8 posted on 06/15/2010 2:48:13 PM PDT by Ancient Drive (DRINK COFFEE! - Do Stupid Things Faster with More Energy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Every other day, they pull a new number out of their a$$.


9 posted on 06/15/2010 2:48:39 PM PDT by packrat35 (Planned Parenthood - Keeping healthcare costs down, one fetus at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Col Frank Slade

can you link the thread/post this is on?

thanks


10 posted on 06/15/2010 2:53:38 PM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
At first, the spill was reported in barrels/day (the most common way to report sizable quantities of oil). Then, the reporting switched to gallons/day -- probably, because that makes the disaster seem 42 times worse. It's going up, and up, no matter how it's measured.
11 posted on 06/15/2010 2:56:59 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Col Frank Slade

Aren’t you full of good news! :( This oil thing is beginning to freak me out. Maybe a collapse will close it off!


12 posted on 06/15/2010 2:57:04 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

Apparently they don’t thing we can handle the truth and they are using some sort of incremental method in releasing the true figures. Kinda scary!


13 posted on 06/15/2010 2:58:13 PM PDT by acoulterfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Why do they measure the leak in gallons and the recovered oil in barrels?


14 posted on 06/15/2010 3:00:15 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

The reason why there is a 1 million gallon (or approximately 20,000 barrel) difference between the high and the low estimates is because there is so much natural gas in the formation, the flow has been extremely inconsistent. If you look at the actual figures BP is producing, they are recovering about 18,000 barrels of oil and water emulsion, and flaring off several million cubic feet of gas. As the gas rises it expands many times in volume and it directly effects how much oil can make it up the pipe to the surface.

The gas in this reserve is what has troubled this well from the very start. I recall reading that one of the reasons why the concrete seals failed is because there was likely bits of liquid methane that leaked into the concrete when it was being set, and as the concrete cured and heated up, the gas expanded and forced the concrete particles apart, ruining the seal. I’m not sure there is anything to be done about that once that happens except to immediately move to plug the well, but it’s clear they didn’t do that.

It’s a shame they have to flare that gas off instead of trying to capture it for resale but under these extreme circumstances there is nothing else to be done.

As I write this the new estimate of flow is 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day...


15 posted on 06/15/2010 3:01:05 PM PDT by Bean Counter (Stout hearts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

This is the question I just asked before seeing your post. Can anyone tell me how many gallons are in a barrel?


16 posted on 06/15/2010 3:02:47 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Want your name in the news? Top the previous doomsayer.


17 posted on 06/15/2010 3:03:21 PM PDT by UB355 (Slower traffic keep right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ditter

@ 55 gallons in a barrel


18 posted on 06/15/2010 3:04:11 PM PDT by UB355 (Slower traffic keep right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ditter
“Can anyone tell me how many gallons are in a barrel?”

Oil is measured at 42 gal/barrel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel

“Oil has not actually been shipped in barrels [1] since the introduction of oil tankers, but the 42-US-gallon size is still used as a unit for measurement, pricing, and in tax and regulatory codes. Each barrel is refined into about 19.74 US gallons (16.44 imp gal; 74.7 L) of gasoline[2], the rest becoming other products such as jet fuel and heating oil, using fractional distillation.[3]

The current standard volume for barrels for chemicals and food is 55 US gallons (46 imp gal; 208 L).”

19 posted on 06/15/2010 3:11:02 PM PDT by Polynikes (Haakkaa Paalle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: UB355; Ditter

It’s 42 gallons per barrel, different than the 55 gal. oil drum sitting in the garage.


20 posted on 06/15/2010 3:11:17 PM PDT by 21twelve ( UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES MY ARSE: "..now begin the work of remaking America."-Obama, 1/20/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PGR88
One tenth of America's daily needs, drill ten more and we're covered. I'm not buying these leak estimates for a second! I suspect BP’s original estimation will come closer to being the actual flow rate.
21 posted on 06/15/2010 3:12:37 PM PDT by Dusty Road
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

don’t confuse barrels with gallons

some estimates describe the leak in terms of barrels, others use gallons which sounds lots worse

I’m sure the dum dum press is not careful about this


22 posted on 06/15/2010 3:12:46 PM PDT by silverleaf (Every time history repeats itself the price goes up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ditter; UB355
There are 42 U.S. gallons in a barrel; 55 in a drum. In Canada (pre-metric) a 55 gallon (U.S.) drum held 45 Imperial gallons.
23 posted on 06/15/2010 3:13:47 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ditter

Because then the leak looks WAY bigger. Just like with “global warming” and CO2 - it is always in tons of CO2. 2,000,000,000 tons of CO2 looks like a huge problem. Expressed as 0.4 % of the atmosphere - not so much.

NOT to minimize the awful effects of this oil leak - but I imagine that they are trying to make it look as bad for BP and “Big Oil” as possible.


24 posted on 06/15/2010 3:15:16 PM PDT by 21twelve ( UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES MY ARSE: "..now begin the work of remaking America."-Obama, 1/20/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Col Frank Slade

I was reading that earlier and had to stop. Ominous doesn’t come close to describing the possible destruction if that thing cannot be stopped or worse, if that thing collapses on itself and opens up the seabed. I don’t think most people can get their minds around such a calamity.


25 posted on 06/15/2010 3:15:48 PM PDT by Trust but Verify
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: UB355

Thats a drum.


26 posted on 06/15/2010 3:16:27 PM PDT by Dusty Road
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bean Counter

Here’s a good article from 2009 about the first of its kind deep water rig (BP). Amazing the difficult conditions and the technology required to overcome it. They are producing lots of oil with no problem at this site (Thunder Horse) - with flow rates of up to 50,000 barrels/day per well (and multiple wells from one rig).

http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/7929620548/articles/offshore/volume-69/issue-12/top-5_projects/thunder-horse__first.html

EXCERPT:

“One of the most obvious challenges for BP was the location of the project (Thunder Horse Project, 2009) in ultra deepwater in a region notorious for both loop currents and the menace of hurricanes. A new generation of drilling rigs, such as the derrick rigs on the Discoverer Enterprise drillship and the PDQ had to be designed for these extremes.

The project also had to deal with reservoir temperatures up to 270º F (132° C), pressures up to 18,000 psi (124 MPa), and reservoir flow rates of up to 50,000 b/d of oil per well.”


27 posted on 06/15/2010 3:19:49 PM PDT by 21twelve ( UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES MY ARSE: "..now begin the work of remaking America."-Obama, 1/20/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Polynikes

I just saw your post; & I checked my figures about Imperial gallons in a drum— you are closer than I was in #23. I was going on memory; where, I guess we always just rounded down & called them “45 gallon drums”. (45.797 gallon drum, just doesn’t roll easily off the tongue.)


28 posted on 06/15/2010 3:24:25 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

“Because then the leak looks WAY bigger. Just like with “global warming” and CO2 - it is always in tons of CO2. 2,000,000,000 tons of CO2 looks like a huge problem. Expressed as 0.4 % of the atmosphere - not so much.”

I completely agree with your point. In fact, the exaggeration about CO2 is an order-of-magnitude greater; it being only 0.04% of the atmosphere.


29 posted on 06/15/2010 3:28:54 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: acoulterfan

You are right. The EPA made pretend the air was not dangerous in New York during the Twin Towers attack and clean up and it was very dangerous, actually. I think that deception is going on with this oil spill and clean up. That is scarey!


30 posted on 06/15/2010 3:29:40 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Thanks. (I’m surprised I was only a decimal point off!) I should be careful when I’m just tossing numbers out there like that and say “or something like that”. Although I bet I’ve done stuff like that 1,000,000 times and no one ever notices or says anything. ;)


31 posted on 06/15/2010 3:32:27 PM PDT by 21twelve ( UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES MY ARSE: "..now begin the work of remaking America."-Obama, 1/20/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve
I thought I had heard it was different than a 55 gallon drum but I couldn't remember if it was more or less. Oh course they want it to seem as bad as possible. I am really sick of all the dooms day talk done just to keep us hysterical and asking for Big Daddy Government to take care of us.
32 posted on 06/15/2010 3:34:51 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Col Frank Slade

That site is run by a bunch of eco snots, so not sure I would trust it. That is what I am comforting myself with for now anyway. It read like a really bad sci-fi movie. If it gets that bad, we should just nuke it.


33 posted on 06/15/2010 3:35:24 PM PDT by penelopesire ("Did you plug the hole yet daddy?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Col Frank Slade

..the oil well core could collapse and release the entire oil supply uncontrolled.

Can we make it wait until October. :-)


34 posted on 06/15/2010 3:40:39 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire
like a bad sci-fi movie..

Members of the media photograph U.S. oil company executives before they testify on the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico during a House Energy and Commerce hearing on Capitol Hill, June 15, 2010. REUTERS/Larry Downing

35 posted on 06/15/2010 3:42:11 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ditter
I thought I had heard it was different than a 55 gallon drum but I couldn't remember if it was more or less.

42 gallons in a barrel of crude.
36 posted on 06/15/2010 3:42:40 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve
The number is “seared in my memory” (/kerry) — because I like to mention it when “debating” fanatical warm mongers. Most people think it's a much, much greater proportion of the atmosphere. It's been (IIRC) 20 times greater in the past; so your figure was right at some times in the planet's history.
37 posted on 06/15/2010 3:46:08 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

Amazing stuff, and it demonstrates that this technology really is the “tip of the spear” for the Nation’s energy needs.

It also reinforces the extreme conditions that this oil is produced from, and how close to the edge of disaster this whole industry operates on a regular basis. We civilians take all of this for granted, and I admit I had no idea how complicated all of this is until this disaster occurred. I’ve learned more about offshore drilling in the last 2 months than I ever imagined I would want to know, and the people out there running this have my deep respect.

The industry is going to change again because of this, in ways we could not have envisioned without this disaster. Thunder Horse worked out, and that encouraged exploring at the Macondo site, but the Macondo reserve may well be too difficult to develop with existing technology; but that only means that there is already a bunch of engineers who are trying to figure out how to do this better.

It’s how all industry progresses.


38 posted on 06/15/2010 3:51:45 PM PDT by Bean Counter (Stout hearts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
In the 4 sentences you posted, the word estimate was used 4 times.

I am overwhelmed with the certainty of Chu's report.

39 posted on 06/15/2010 3:52:36 PM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch
Heckuva job, Barry!

Biden warned us that something like this would happen. Have faith. 0bama will roll back the oceans like he promised, in his own good time, and then he'll fix that leak with his mighty middle finger.

40 posted on 06/15/2010 4:29:24 PM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (STOP the Tyrananny State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
oil is measured in barrels, but millions(in gals) always sounds more impressive...
41 posted on 06/15/2010 4:52:10 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

It could happen then or who knows ?


42 posted on 06/15/2010 6:01:36 PM PDT by Col Frank Slade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
From 1,000 per day to 20,000 per day to up to 60,000 per day to 2.5 million a day. See the pattern here? It keeps going up!

The Bureaucrats are involved now. Everything they do, makes the problem worse.

43 posted on 06/15/2010 7:21:46 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

I read a month ago that they drilled this well into a field deemed larger than the fields in Saudi Arabia.


44 posted on 06/15/2010 7:23:20 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

“The Bureaucrats are involved now...”

GWB let the banksters pick our pockets so cleanly in September ‘08, that the Enviroweenies are lining up to “get theirs” now...


45 posted on 06/15/2010 7:23:41 PM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
Simple explanation:

If the cement plug in the wellbore was bad, then there was initially a small channel in the plug that oil and gas could leak through. No doubt, the channel through the plug has increased in size over time, as the oil carrying sand and other solids with it erodes the plug.

46 posted on 06/15/2010 9:37:28 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ditter

There are 42 gallons in a stock tank barrel, the standard measure of crude oil.


47 posted on 06/15/2010 9:39:14 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson