Static kill could start today BP testing pressure before pumping mudMonday, August 02, 2010 By John Pope Staff writer The latest attempt to stop the flow of oil that has been gushing into the Gulf of Mexico since April 20 could start as early as today, the federal government's man in charge of the operation said Sunday. Tests are under way to determine whether the well can withstand the mud that will be pumped in during a process called static kill, retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said during a telephone news conference. To reduce that risk, the mud will be added at "a very slow rate" to overcome the pressure of the oil pushing against it, he said. On Sunday, Allen said the pressure exerted by oil in the well was 6,980 pounds per square inch and that figure is expected to rise when the mud is added. Citing scientists' recommendations, Allen said static kill would stop if the pressure reached 8,000 pounds per square inch. But, he said, the scientists doubt that the pressure will approach that level. The original plan called for also adding cement to seal the leak, but Allen said a decision on using it will hinge on how the mud does in bringing down the pressure in the well as it pushes against the oil. During the briefing, Allen was asked about whether too much dispersant has been used to try to dissipate the spill. He said he and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson have set a goal of reducing the use of dispersants by 75 percent. So far, he said, dispersant use has been cut by 72 percent. But, Allen said, there are times when nothing else will do. "If oil is spotted, rather than have it wind up in a marsh or on a beach, we have allowed them to use dispersants," he said, adding that a strict protocol must be followed on those occasions. Allen took issue with congressional investigators who have said the government is too lenient in letting BP use those chemicals, whose long-term effects on marine life are unknown. Moreover, he said, the person who decides whether dispersants should be used is the federal coordinator on the scene, not a BP official, and the chemical use is strictly supervised. The primary relief well, to intercept the blown-out well, is considered as the ultimate solution to the spill. Allen had said earlier that he expects the drilling to be finished by Saturday. The relief well will then perform what is known as a bottom kill by pumping mud and cement into the blown-out well. On Sunday, Allen declined to predict when bottom kill might start, saying it would be "a minimum of five to seven days" after static kill. The spill, which has become the worst environmental disaster in American history, was triggered by an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon offshore rig that killed 11 men. In an unrelated incident, the Coast Guard said Sunday night that the leak in Bayou St. Denis in lower Jefferson Parish was capped at 6:05 p.m. Sunday. "The Unified Command was able to accomplish this in less than a week due to the fantastic cooperation between the federal, state and local officials and efforts of the contractors," said Capt. John Arenstam, the Coast Guard federal on-scene coordinator, in a news release. The leak, which was spotted Tuesday, had been spewing a combination of natural gas and paraffin, with some oil, Coast Guard spokesman Bob Donaldson said earlier Sunday. So far, Donaldson said, slightly more than 1,200 gallons have been recovered. The Coast Guard estimates that 10 percent of the mixture has been dispersed and half has evaporated. On Sunday, Doug Suttles, BP's chief operating officer, said he would eat fish from the Gulf of Mexico and serve it to his family. Doug Suttles took reporters on a boat tour of beaches and marshes about 25 miles south of Venice. Some nearby areas were reopened to fishing late last week, and some observers have questioned whether it's really safe. "They wouldn't open these waters ... if it wasn't safe to eat the fish," Suttles said. He also said he believes Gulf Shore residents will still find oil and tar balls washing ashore into the winter. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will be in New Orleans today. In addition to discussing her department's response to the BP spill, she will be speaking to the National Sports Safety and Security Conference on the role of sports in the department's "If You See Something, Say Something" to encourage alertness and the reporting of suspicious activity. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who is in charge of the Gulf Coast recovery from the oil spill, will be holding town-hall meetings this week in the four states bordering the Gulf. http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-15/1280730011195170.xml&coll=1 FYI The GOv has been TELLING BP to STOP using certain amounts of the dispersant, but THEY JUST DID WHAT THEY WANTED TOO!!!!!!:shock: That gives me grave concerns when a co. just thumbs it's nose at the FEDS!!!:shock:
Ted don't know if you know this , but the scientists say that the loop current WILL NOT take the oil past to the panhandle and up the E. coast. Soooo I hope that holds true. No reason to take y'all down w/ us....:ball: :beer
Maybe the millions of pounds of Corexit sprayed will disperse all that oil. I would like to see televised the BP officials eating fresh caught fish from the Gulf. Talk is cheap.
Incredible graphic animation. Day-by-day of the spill... All you ever needed to know....:shock: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/deepwater-disaster/index.ssf
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/08/gulf_of_mexico_oil_spill_relie.html Gulf of Mexico oil spill relief well down to final, tricky 100 feet Published: Monday, August 09, 2010, 5:30 PM Updated: Monday, August 09, 2010, 5:40 PM The Associated Press The Associated Press The relief well being drilled to ensure crude never again spills into the ocean from BP's paralyzed oil well in the Gulf of Mexico has been dubbed the ultimate solution to the drama that's unfolded over the past three months. It's the final, suspenseful act as one man guides a drill more than two miles beneath the sea floor and three miles from the surface, trying to hit a target less than half the size of a dartboard. The drill is about as wide as a grapefruit, and the target now lies less than 100 feet away. If John Wright misses, BP engineers will pull the drill bit up, pour concrete in the off-track hole and then try again. Wright is 40-for-40 , though, having helped capped wells across the world in four decades of work. And he seemed confident in a June video put out by BP that he could make it 41-for-41. "Out of 40 relief wells that I've drilled, we've never missed yet," Wright said. "I've got high confidence we will take care of this problem as soon as we can get there." Work began during the weekend to finish drilling the well, and company and government officials say they could hit their target as early as Friday. If it hits, engineers will perform a "bottom kill" by pouring in mud and cement to permanently seal the blown-out well that's spewed an estimated 207 million gallons since April. In three months, the relief well has been run more than 17,900 feet from its rig. But drilling the final stretch, a section slightly longer than the distance from third base to home on a baseball field, will be a time-consuming and careful process. Crews dig about 20 to 30 feet at a time, then run electric current through the relief well. The current creates a magnetic field in the pipe of the busted well, allowing engineers to calculate exactly where and how far they need to drill. A "static kill" last week pushed mud and cement into the top of the crippled well, leaving very little chance oil could leak into the Gulf again, said retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the government's point man overseeing the cleanup operation. Neither he nor BP officials have been willing to declare victory yet -- but Allen said that day isn't far off. "This step, in our view, will permanently seal the well," he said Monday. Finishing a relief well can be tricky. It took five tries last fall for crews trying to stop a blown well in Australia to hit the target. But the area around this well has been thoroughly mapped and carefully tracked, said Eric Smith, associate director of the Tulane Energy Institute. "I think they know exactly where they need to go," Smith said. "I think they can get this on the first try." BP, however, has only emphasized the caution being used and won't talk about its chances of hitting the target the first time. "We are doing everything we can to ensure success," company spokesman John Curry said. As engineers work to finish the relief well, Allen is planning a three-day trip to Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama this week to talk with local officials about how to speed up cleanup efforts as the peak of hurricane season approaches. BP and the Coast Guard currently are keeping an eye on thunderstorms over Florida that forecasters say should move across the Gulf near the site of the leak this week. They say the system has a small chance of becoming a tropical storm, but there are no plans yet to suspend drilling operations. Meanwhile Monday, BP announced it has spent $6.1 billion responding to the spill since the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon killed 11 workers, sending the rig to the bottom of the sea and oil spewing 5,000 feet underwater. Also, the Justice Department and BP announced they have finished negotiations to implement a $20 billion fund for victims of the Gulf oil spill and that BP has made a $3 billion initial deposit. The spill has taken its toll on the tourism and seafood industries, but there have been encouraging signs that things are returning to normal. Fishing waters have started to reopen. Beaches begun reopening this weekend on Grand Isle, a popular vacation spot on a Louisiana barrier island, after closing in May. "It's certainly a sign of recovery," Jefferson Parish Councilman Chris Roberts said Monday. "The sad part is the busiest time of year for Grand Isle is typically between May and September."
Oil guru and major BP oil critic Matt Simmons has conveniently died by accidental drowning in his hot tub in Maine. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100809/us_nm/us_simmons_2 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...nker-peak-oil-theory-advocate-dies-at-67.html Some of his work. http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/7/17_Matt_Simmons.html http://www.rense.com/general91/sid.htm
New report about oil accumulation on the ocean floor near Panama City http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/17/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2
Gulf oil estimate draws doubts Skeptics don't believe 74% is gone Wednesday, August 18, 2010 By Aimee Miles Some scientists are voicing doubts over the accuracy of an Aug. 4 intergovernmental agency report asserting that just 26 percent of the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil released from BP's ruptured wellhead remains to be dealt with onshore and at sea. The highly publicized report, trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times and unveiled later that day by NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco in a White House ceremony attended by Deepwater Horizon incident commander Thad Allen and White House energy adviser Carol Browner, was hailed as a sign of remarkable progress in the Gulf, and led many to question the severity of the spill. But the report hasn't marinated well over the past two weeks, attracting increasing criticism from scientists who doubt its conclusiveness and say it lacks substantiation. Written by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey, the five-page report includes a pie chart that describes the fate of the oil, broken into seven categories. According to the chart, much of the oil that gushed from the wellhead is definitely gone: recovered directly or eliminated by burning, skimming or chemical dispersion.While that represents roughly 19 percent of the oil removed from the water by response teams, the report reads as if natural processes have eliminated more than twice that amount through evaporation, dissolution or natural dispersion. Some scientists suspect the figure for oil remaining in the water is much higher than the report's estimates, and complain that federal officials have refused to reveal the algorithms used to derive its calculations, which relied on measurements and estimates provided by Gulf response teams in daily operational reports. The dearth of supporting data has led to grumbling from environmental scientists, who say they'll reserve judgment until they can verify the math. A congressional investigator, who asked not to be named, said his repeated requests to NOAA for specific formulas and calculations have gone unmet. The obfuscation surrounding the origins of the figures, he said, would never be accepted if the report were presented for publication in an academic journal. No confidence in figures Kerry St. Pe, director of the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program, has no confidence in the figures, despite their being reported "as gospel." Federal scientists can't determine exactly how much oil has even entered the Gulf, let alone calculate with accuracy what's happened to it, St. Pe said. A group of scientists under the Georgia Sea Grant program, part of a NOAA-sponsored university network of ocean and coastal researchers, released an alternative report Tuesday that addresses what they see as faulty conclusions in the federal report. Their report claims that most of the oil that leaked into the Gulf is still present. They concede that much of it is dissolved or in the form of dispersed micro-droplets, but caution that oil in that state isn't harmless. According to the Georgia report, between 70 and 79 percent of the oil remains in the ecosystem. Other scientists are also dubious of the specifics in the NOAA report. "Some members of the scientific community are putting more credibility into what these figures mean than what was meant," St. Pe said. "They're just estimates ... to give the public a general idea of the fate of the oil and not with any precision." Advertisement Ed Overton, an LSU environmental scientist who specializes in the chemistry of oil spills, estimates the margin of error in the federal report could be as high as 30 percent. The amount of oil that remains, he said, could be anywhere between a quarter and one-half of the spill's total volume -- a volume that itself is not precisely defined. Overton, one of 11 independent scientists that NOAA consulted for analysis, said he was contacted by the agency a couple months ago to provide comments on "significant figures" in early versions of the report. Other scientists consulted included faculty from the University of Calgary and the University of California, San Diego, as well as the chairman of Exxon Mobil's research and engineering department and BP's consultant on dispersants and controlled burns, Alan Allen. Too many variables Overton said the seeming precision of the Aug. 4 report gave the illusion that federal scientists knew more than they do. "Models will only give you a ballpark number," he said. "If you say 24 (percent), you are implying it's not 23 and it's not 25." The problem, Overton said, is that scientists are using a finite number of variables to model an environmental system that is infinitely complex. That introduces a large margin of error. Both Overton and St. Pe said the greatest potential for error is contained in the amount of oil said to have evaporated or dissolved. The federal report's estimate was roughly 1.2 million barrels, or about 30 percent of the oil that entered the Gulf. Scientists agree the oil in the Gulf is prone to rapid biodegradation. They believe that because the oil is buoyant, it's likely to remain closer to the water's surface, where it may evaporate, disperse or dissolve, or provide food for crude-eating microbes. But the rates of those natural processes depend on water temperature, weather conditions, currents, and the depth and molecular content of the oil -- all of which can be difficult to quantify. "When push coves to shove," said Overton, "a lot of times you have to put parameters into the model, and sometimes those parameters are your best guess." Those best guesses draw upon existing scientific literature from previous spills and from laboratory simulations, which don't necessarily match Gulf conditions, Overton said. He believes NOAA's estimate for evaporative losses may actually be conservative, and that the actual amount may be as high as 50 percent. "I know there's questions about (the report's) accuracy, but I think at this point in time it's the most accurate compilation ... that's available," said Jay Grimes, a marine microbiologist at the University of Southern Mississippi's Gulf Coast Research Laboratory. Grimes also believes the most inconclusive variable is the amount of oil that decomposed at sea. Questions persist Bill Lehr, the lead scientist on the report, said changes in environmental conditions were taken into account. Although conditions at sea changed from day to day, Lehr said averaging the numbers would smooth out differences. He said NOAA's figures were consistent with experiments performed in Canada and Norway. "The unusual feature of this was the spill being a mile deep and therefore we would have some components that would normally evaporate dissolved in the water column," Lehr said. For that reason, the report groups evaporation and dissolution into a single category. Lehr believes the budget's greatest uncertainties are not in its evaporation and dissolution rates, as other scientists have claimed, but in the rates of dispersion. Parts of the oil-gas mixture that exited the wellhead dispersed naturally, Lehr said, but the fluid dispersal rate is a calculated estimate, and not a measurement. Lehr said other sources have suggested that the dispersants may be more effective than NOAA presumed, which could mean the report is also conservative in this aspect. But as oil emulsifies at the water's surface, it becomes stickier, which also renders dispersants less effective, he acknowledged. Other questions persist. While the report said only 3 percent of the oil spilled was picked up by skimmers, that number is likely high, Lehr said, because skimmers' measurements include both oil and water. Lehr said the federal report, whose figures have been widely discussed by the media, was meant to provide functional information to the incident command, not to stand up to rigorous academic evaluation. He expects a more detailed report on the oil budget will soon be released, one that contains data, assumptions, references and comments from peer reviewers. "It'll be what people are used to seeing in terms of a scientific report," Lehr promised. http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-15/1282113287137010.xml&coll=1
Massive oil plume found underwater Report raises doubts on decomposition Friday, August 20, 2010 By Mark Schleifstein A massive, 22-mile-long underwater plume of oil droplets flowed to the southwest of the BP's failed Macondo well at the end of June, and the threat it poses to natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico remains uncertain, scientists who mapped the plume said Thursday. The finding confirms that plumes of oil from the failed well have existed deep beneath the surface, and that the oil is not seeping from natural fissures on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, according to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute scientists who authored the peer-reviewed article published Thursday in the online research magazine ScienceXpress. The question of whether there are large oil plumes in the Gulf, hidden underwater, has been hotly debated. And the release of the new plume study comes as a debate rages over the rosy picture painted by an Aug. 4 federal interagency report on the fate of the vast majority of the 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled from the well. That report, released in a White House ceremony, concluded that only 26 percent of the oil remained on or near the surface of the Gulf or onshore, and that much of the rest of the oil had dissolved or was dispersed and is degrading naturally. But on Tuesday, Bill Lehr of NOAA, the lead scientist on the White House report, backtracked from those estimates, telling a congressional committee that only about 10 percent of the spilled oil had been skimmed or burned off and between 60 and 90 percent is still in the Gulf in some form. The new plume study uses the concentration of four toxic chemicals found in the plume that are ingredients of crude oil to estimate that twice as much oil was supplied by the wellhead to the plume during the time of the study than was released by all natural petroleum seeps in the northern Gulf of Mexico during the same time. The results of the survey and previous surveys also indicate "that this plume persisted at this depth interval for months," the report said, and calls into question assumptions used by some federal officials that the oil will be quickly eaten by microbes in the Gulf and disappear. "The evidence we collected showed conclusively that the plume existed at that depth," said Woods Hole oceanographer Richard Camilli, lead author on the scientific paper, during a Thursday news conference. "Furthermore, it shows fairly clearly that it was created by the Macondo site, the Deepwater Horizon well, and it was not created by naturally occurring seeps." Camilli said the monitoring indicated the plume stayed at a constant depth, flowing through what amounts to an underwater valley away from the wellhead, instead of floating to the surface. He said the research cruise had to be cut short at the end of June as Hurricane Alex entered the Gulf. "The data suggests the plume extended much further than we tracked it," he said. The scientists found droplets of dispersed oil in a layer between 1,067 meters and 1,300 meters beneath the Gulf's surface, that contained concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in excess of 50 parts per billion, which they said indicates that at least 12,125 pounds of the oil component entered the plume each day. They based that conclusion on samples taken from the plume in several locations that were tested for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene, also known as BTEX. Based on those measurements and the assumption that the well released between 53,000 and 62,000 barrels a day, they also concluded that between 6 percent and 7 percent of all BTEX leaking from the well was contained in the plume. On Thursday, Camilli and Woods Hole marine geochemist Christopher Reddy said more work remains to be done on the samples collected from the plume. Reddy said the researchers are not yet sure how much oil actually was contained in the plume, or its potential effects on biological activity. "We will know more with time as more data comes out of the pipeline, with the hundreds of samples we collected with NOAA," he said. Reddy warned that the data represent a snapshot in time, and the fate of the oil that was measured then is unknown. And it likely won't be found in the same location, as the plume was moving at about 4 mph, due to currents at that depth. Photographs taken during the cruise from a remotely operated vehicle about 1,500 feet southwest of the well site, which is about 65 miles south of the mouth of the Mississippi River, show the beginning of brownish cloudy water at 1,065 meters, turning to a deeper brown color at 1,100 meters and 1,200 meters, and lessening in intensity at 1,300 meters. Photos from above and below those levels show purple- or blue-tinged water. The scientists reported that small oil droplets temporarily collected on the camera lens within the plume. The scientists also found that oxygen levels near the plume did not seem to be affected by the presence of hydrocarbons, which they said raises questions about the ability of bacteria and other organisms to break down oil in deep water. But that may also be a plus for fisheries, they said. "This suggests that if the hydrocarbons are indeed susceptible to biodegradation, then it may require many months before microbes significantly attenuate the hydrocarbon plume to the point that oxygen minimum zones develop that are intense enough to threaten Gulf fisheries," they wrote. Researchers from the Australian Centre for Field Robotics at the University of Sydney in Australia, and Monitor Instruments Co., LLC, also participated in the cruise aboard the R/V Endeavor between June 19 and June 28. The research was funded by three grants under the National Science Foundation RAPID grant award program, which has already spent $10 million on 90 grants for spill-related science. The research also was conducted under testing protocols set up by federal officials as part of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process. Water samples were shared with NOAA and BP. The scientists collected data using the National Deep Submergence Facility's autonomous underwater vehicle Sentry, which has no physical connection to the surface when lowered into the water, but is controlled by on-board computers. The Sentry carried a mass spectrometer that was able to determine the constituents of the petroleum, and other chemical sensors to analyze the water. The research on the plume was conducted from June 23-27, during which time the Sentry made three surveys and traveled in a zig-zag pattern totaling 146 miles. Water samples also were collected with a "rosette" of scientific instruments lowered into the water at different locations. http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-15/1282286070323160.xml&coll=1
First day of shrimp season- no shrimp to be found. Corexit did it's job! I wouldn't eat anything out of the Gulf for a long time. http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/s...othing-at-all-generations-of-shrimping-…-done
After what I found on the beach here, I know I won't. Good luck getting me to step foot in the water as well.
I haven't heard hardly anything on the news around here since they capped the leak. I sure would like to know what is going on in the clean up efforts and the status of this oil.
They (Federal government and BP)are taking the "out of sight out of mind, everything will be ok" approach. It makes me sick to my stomach sitting around paying taxes when we can be railed when we screw up since we are small, but big corporations aren't held to the fire the entire time they create a huge problem. I will likely never buy another product from BP as long as I live unless they start heading out there with something new to suck up the stuff under the surface, or start subsidizing the entire gulf economy to do it themselves (I actually like the second option since it seems that every time the locals clean something they do it better since they actually care about it).
That's the problem. They are all private owned corporations every one of them. The government,BP,the Bankers,etc. and they can and do whatever they want. To hell with the citizens and the welfare of the Gulf. It's all a big fraud. BP brags on tv about having millions in reserve for claims. HA! Good luck with that and we'll see how much they pay out. BTW, that Corexit poison is still being sprayed over the Gulf at night. Got to keep that oil out of sight! http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/08/chemist-mercenaries-hired-by-bp-are-now.html
Fellas, I'm sorry to say this, but I spoke today to a friend who has shrimped for over2 decades. He said he would NEVER eat the shrimp. That's saying something to me. Now he makes $1,500 daily working for BP but what when it's done??? Now I know where to go where the crabbing and shrimping is good and safe, but it's not enough for commercial-just our local bar and personal boils. So maybe for now til BP starts their testing of shellfish , I would unfortunately have to advise not buying. And yes this is a big deal, but I gotta be honest. Buy chinese farm-raised I guess:moonu:
here is some more news on the Corexit spraying and potential affects on humans. It can make you bleed to death. They certainly don't care about the welfare of anyone. Another gov. failure. http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/a...s-show-2-butoxyethanol-from-9527-video-photos
The bar up the street does a boil , like every other night .:beer A bunch of guys just drop off hampers of crabs and coolers of shrimp. (Crabbin' is still good, they're everywhere and available and safe)I can still buy some shrimp off some neighbors, but I HATE PICKING CRABS!!!!:rant: So tonight I just ate onions,garlic,sausage potatoes and corn. But at least it was good and spicy!!! YUM!!!!! :grin: Now what will suck is that the shrimp won't have enough toxins to kill you, but up the food chain are the trout and Redfish and so on that eat the $hit out of THEM. It stays and builds in their systems till eaten by bigger predators-then us. :shock: So y'alls guess is as good as mine.o No: I will say that , at a restaurant, ask if they know where the seafood came from-no one wants to sell bad stuff believe it or not so you will be good.:Smarty: They're keeping up on point of catch as a lot of the gulf IS SAFE. Just ask.:TU: Hell ,it 'aint eggs. :shock: :shock: :laugh:
More proof that we truly do not have a representative government. The Senate blocks a BP investigation. The US government as a private Banker owned corporation will only look out for the big corporations. To hell with the "will of the people". The senate blocks investigation of BP. The House voted 420 to 1 to give the presidential commission investigating the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico full subpoena power. The Senate blocked it. No subpoena powers. No real investigation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rORbqq_FHoM&feature=player_embedded There seems to be a huge BP coverup going on. This report has pics. http://theintelhub.com/2010/08/27/large-oil-corexit-plumes-fish-kill-coverup-and-wackenhut/
Gift that keeps on giving. 50.3 ppm of Corexit in Homosassa swimming pool of sickened family. http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/e...t-one-hour-north-of-tampa-lab-report-included Our heads are still swimming, stated Barbara Schebler of Homosassa, Florida, who received word last Friday that test results on the water from her familys swimming pool showed 50.3 ppm of 2-butoxyethanol, a marker for the dispersant Corexit 9527A used to break up and sink BPs oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
