According to the numbers in
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8257501#8261715">flyarm's excellent OP, 100,000 barrels equals 4.2 million gallons.
SALAZAR: From day one, there has been the assumption here on the worst-case scenario. And so the--
CROWLEY: What is the worst-case scenario, while we're on that?
SALAZAR:
The worst-case scenario is we could have 100,000 barrels or more of oil flowing out. And the requirements BP has is to have the capability to respond to that kind of a spill. And it means doing everything that's going on, including containing the well down at the bottom, mitigating the impacts on the sea, mitigating impacts as things happen on shore.
You're talking about a multi-billion dollar company here who is, I believe, the fourth-largest company in the world. And we will not spare any effort on the part of the United States of America to make sure that all of their resources are brought effectively to address the problem.
CROWLEY: Admiral Allen, just while we have that 100,000 figure, that being sort of disaster, is that something you fear the most? Do you think that could happen?
ALLEN: Well,
if we lost the total wellhead, it could be 100,000 barrels or more a day. I think -- just to follow up on what Secretary Napolitano said, this whole thing has been kind of a process of discovery. It wasn't until they remotely-operated vehicles down, were able to survey the entire length of the 5,000-foot pipe-riser that was crumpled on the ocean floor, that we finally found three sequential leaks over a period of about 72 hours.
And as I told some folks, you know, the difference between 1,000 and 5,000 barrels a day, when you look at the potential discharge of 100,000, leads me to believe that there are a lot of inaccuracies associated with trying to estimate flow from a broken pipe at 5,000 feet. That's the reason it's so very, very important we focus on stopping this leak right away.
CROWLEY: Something else that Secretary Salazar brought up, saying, look, BP is a very wealthy company, we expect them to bring everything to the barricades on this. And I want to read you a quote, Admiral. This is from BP's chief operating officer in The New York Times. And he said, quote: "There are not much additional available resources in the world to fight this thing offshore. We've basically thrown everything we have at it."
Full transcript:
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1005/02/sotu.02.htmlClarification of measurement units seems to be needed. I wish they would stop using barrels as a measurement as if everyday folks know how much is in a barrel and expect them to do the math. Everyone knows what a gallon is.
Candy Crowley got it wrong during her conversation with them earlier on in that interview and she wasn't corrected...
CROWLEY: Did you rely too much on BP's assessment early on? We first heard, well, everything is fine. And then we're told, well, there's a little leak. Next thing we know it's 1,000 or 5,000 gallons.
However, on the morning of April 22, 2010,
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/22/coast-guard-oil-rig-that-exploded-has-sunk/">CNN quoted Coast Guard Petty Officer Ashley Butler as saying that "oil was leaking from the rig at the rate of about
8,000 barrels of crude per day."
BP originally estimated up to
1,000 barrels of oil a day (1.84 litres/second) were leaking from the wellhead, but by April 28, the NOAA said that the rate was probably five times that estimate, i.e.,
5,000 barrels, or about
210,000 U.S. gallons (790,000 liters), per day (9.2 liters/second).
(References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_drilling_rig_explosion">here)
We are hearing a 'relief well' would take 90 days to be in place. How would they be able to put a relief well in place when the sea is basically full of oil? How about that dome they're talking about? How will they be able to put that in place and continually have a series of barges to fill up sailing around within a sea full of oil?
I'm usually an optimistic person but to me this sounds like ocean murder that goes way beyond just destroying habitats in the gulf coast.
Does anyone else think these "semi-submersibles" would have looked like a recipe for disaster at the design stage? A platform floating in deep (sometimes very rough) sea with a 5 foot wide 30,000 foot long pipe drilled into the sea bed just sounds totally irresponsible in the 1st place.
Additionally, as stated in
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8259665">flyarm's OP, there's an increasing likelihood of losing the well head because, according to petroleum engineers, "the oil is sandblasting the piping as it rushes through with tremendous force."
These, however, are sources of energy that would make for an infinitely more sensible and unquestionably safer use of the sea bed...
More info and video: http://www.biopowersystems.com/technologies.php (edited to fix formatting error)