Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Allen & Salazar have told CNN losing the well head would mean more than 4.2 million gallons a day!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 01:19 AM
Original message
Allen & Salazar have told CNN losing the well head would mean more than 4.2 million gallons a day!
Edited on Mon May-03-10 02:15 AM by Turborama
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.html




Clarification 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)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. "Process of discovery" doesn't sound too scientific, incompetents over their heads
in so many ways, and some bean counter fussing with outlay.

Revenge for the Ami Rev?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. American Revolution, revenge for that I mean nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 03:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. K&R! And off to The Greatest Page with you!
Thanks for all the information and for such a comprehensive look at this tragedy. David Gregory is asking about the oil spill, as I write this (late night repeat of MTP), and Lamar Alexander should have read your post before he said that we "need to make it safer..." :wtf:

(With apologies to Bill Richardson, who gave a better answer, emphasized the need for caution, when it comes to our oceans...) :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I saw this on Faux the other day and almost threw up
Bill Kristol, sitting on a Fox News panel, argued that drilling, by and large, is a safe activity. "The oil spill, itself, I don't think will be a huge disaster over the medium and long term, honestly." He added that drilling is, "very environmentally clean, except when there is a disaster like the spill."

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004290054

Thanks for the Kick & 5th Rec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. "...except when there is a disaster like the spill."
We are only learning about the lasting damage from the Exxon Valdez spill and this one threatens to be exponentially worse... I cannot watch FAUX, don't even know what channel it's on here, LOL, but I already see enough of these jokers on the actual news channels. A few weeks ago on MTP, Karen Hughes was on and told a complete lie about Bush*. I shouted "what?!" at the TV screen, but nobody in the studio said a thing... If they repeat lies often enough, with no challenges, people will accept and believe them. It's a scary world... As for FAUX, there are people out there who believe what they hear there is the only truth. That's even more frightening... :scared: :grr: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. In related news cancer is very survivable except when it kills you. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
5. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. K & R
Well done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jus_the_facts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
9. k'n'r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC