This would be so much easier if you had a modi of reading comprehension or weren't too lazy to read the whole thing.
Ok, I see what you did. My bad. And I concede that this spill is as bad, if not worse, than the Ixtoc (regardless of how much we estimate is burned, evaporated, etc.)
It is not 20 years…We don’t even know what month or year the relief station will be completed so the pipe can be shut off…Meanwhile BP has a plan to save the walruses? (Which are not found in the gulf)…Is there any better example of gross incompetence?
Sorry. I cleaned up the bit so that the figures and origin were more clear.
Some amount of oil was burned for the entire length of the spill. That is not disputed.
So let's re-run our calculation.
IXTOC calculation:
Assume that only 1/6, not one half the oil was burned, i.e. only 1/3 of what they claimed to have burned was burned (they exaggerated by 300%)
Total oil leaked, Wiki figure, generally accepted:
3,000,000 barrels
Minus reported mitigating factors, burning and evaporation
3,000,000/2 *1/3= 500,000 (burned portion)
3,000,000/3= 1,000,000 (evaporated portion)
1,500,000 + 500,000= 1,500,000 (total burned and evaporated)
Equals:
3,000,000 - 1,500,000 = 1,500,000 barrels released into the environment, some portion of which was cleaned up.
Deepwater Horizon Calculation.
Assume: use of dispersants underwater limits evaporation by a factor of 1/2, given massive observed plumes of oil underwater.
Total oil leaked:
126,000,000 gallons (given in the OP) / 42 gallons per barrel = 3,000,000 barrels (total spill volume, as given in the OP)
By the way, 3,000,000 is a *bit* more than half, Darrin, but continuing on...
Minus total oil evaporated:
3,000,000/3/2 = 500,000 (total evaporated)
Equals:
3,000,000 - 500,000 = 2,500,000 barrels released into the environment, some portion of which is cleaned up at the surface, likely a smaller portion than ixtoc due to aforementioned underwater plumes.
Which is the bigger number, Darrin:
1,500,000 or 2,500,000 ?
Sorry for not being clearer. Looking back on it, it should have been a bit easier to read.
I don't know why this is being harped on so badly. It is a PR coup for BP. I can see it now. BP CEO: "We have finally capped the runaway oil leak that has been fouling the waters of this fine ocean, the gulf of mexico. I would also like to point out that due to BP's impeccable planning, and disaster response team's excellence that we were able to save every single walrus that has called the Gulf of Mexico home over the last 3 million years."
No problemo.
could Texans come to the rescue again?
watch the video all the way through.
Last edited by The Reckoning; 06-22-2010 at 10:35 AM.
Fair enough. Sorry for the condescension, it was undeserved. That's what I get for talking to Mr. sommerset.
Given that the total spill according to some fair estimates equals the Ixtoc spill NOW, and given:
3,000,000 barrels divided by days since spill equals assumed flow rate (as of date of article in the OP, June 21st):
3,000,000/56 (56 days of spillage) =53,000 barrels per day
Given:
The EARLIEST that BP estimates the relief wells will kick in is August.
We can estimate how much more will spill.
Assuming some of that 53,000 is captured at a rate less than the optimistic 22,000 barrels BP promises at some point in the future, lets split the distance in capture/time and call the reduction 11,000 barrels for the entire period.
This gives us 42,000 barrels for 55 days (assume Aug 15th)
This is approximately another 2,310,000 barrels of oil.
Given:
That this operation is by no means (according to the experts I have heard talking about it) sure to succeed, it is entirely possible that some amount will continue to spill for months further.
If we assume that they can at least cut the flow rate by 3/4, but it takes another 4 months to finally stop it...
42,000 barrels * 1/4 multiplied by 4 months (122 days or Dec 15th)
=1,281,000 barrels.
Total estimate spill = 3,000,000 + 2,310,000 + 1,281,000 = 5.6 Million barrels, well in excess of the Ixtoc spill.
Basically it is likely we are now only about at the halfway point in this spill, and quite possibly most of the oil ultimately spilled is yet to pour into the Gulf.
This will be the largest accidental spill in history by any reasonable estimation, even if you assume that the overall flow rate and/or spill was less than 53,000 barrels/day or 3,000,000 total spill so far.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-22-2010 at 10:38 AM. Reason: clarity
I truly shudder to think about the damage to the Gulf's ecosystem that caused.
Relativism weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Well .
According to wiki, maybe not.
Ok folks: here is the Lakeview Gusher of 1911.
Spilled oil for well over a year, from 14 March 1910 – September 1911.
For a total spill of 9,000,000 barrels. Yowza.
This was on land, so the damage was fairly contained, and glops of ossified oil are still to be found near the area. Click on the link above to see pictures.
This wasn't listed at the wiki entry before to my memory. Always good to double check sources, and demonstrates the strengths/weaknesses of wiki.
Also, for comparison, that spill, according to wiki was 11 million barrels total.
My rough estimate of some 5.6 million barrels for this won't quite come close to that, although there is a good chance that 5.6 is at the low end of the spectrum, if the spill continues for a length of time longer than December 2010.
Gulf war oil spill extract from wiki
Environmental impact
The oil spill, which began on January 23, 1991, caused considerable damage to wildlife in the Persian Gulf especially in areas surrounding Kuwait and Iraq.[2] Estimates on the volume spilled usually range around 11 million barrels (462 million gallons or 1.75 billion liters);[3] the slick reached a maximum size of 101 by 42 miles (4242 square miles or 10860 km²) and was 5 inches (13 cm) thick in some areas. Despite the uncertainty surrounding the size of the spill, figures place it several times [4] the size (in gallons spilled) of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and almost twice the size of the 1979 Ixtoc I blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
The New York Times reported that a 1993 study sponsored by UNESCO, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the United States found the spill did "little long-term damage": About half the oil evaporated, a million barrels were recovered and 2 million to 3 million barrels washed ashore, mainly in Saudi Arabia.[5]
More recent scientific studies strongly disagree with this [optimistic] 1993 assessment. Marshlands and mud tidal flats continued to contain large quan ies of oil, over ten years later, and full recovery is likely to take decades.
Dr. Jacqueline Michel, US geochemist (2010 interview – transcript of radio broadcast):[6]
The long term effects were very significant. There was no shoreline cleanup, essentially, over the 800 kilometers that the oil – - in Saudi Arabia. And so when we went back in to do quan ative survey in 2002 and 2003, there was a million cubic meters of oil sediment remained then 12 years after the spill.... [T]he oil penetrated much more deeply into the intertidal sediment than normal because those sediments there have a lot of crab burrows, and the oil penetrated deep, sometimes 30, 40 centimeters, you know a couple of feet, into the mud of these tidal flats. There’s no way to get it out now. So it has had long term impact.
Dr. Hans-Jörg Barth, German geographer (2001 research report):[7]
The study demonstrated that, in contrary to previously published reports e.g. already 1993 by UNEP, several coastal areas even in 2001 still show significant oil impact and in some places no recovery at all. The salt marshes which occur at almost 50% of the coastline show the heaviest impact compared to the other ecosystem types after 10 years. Completely recovered are the rocky shores and mangroves. Sand beaches are on the best way to complete recovery.
The main reason for the delayed recovery of the salt marshes is the absence of physical energy (wave action) and the mostly anaerobic milieu of the oiled substrates. The latter is mostly caused by cyanobacteria which forms impermeable mats. In other cases tar crusts are responsible. The availability of oxygen is the most important criteria for oil degradation. Where oil degrades it was obvious that benthic intertidal fauna such as crabs re-colonise the destroyed habitats long before the halophytes. The most important paths of regeneration are the tidal channels and the adjacent areas. Full recovery of the salt marshes will certainly need some more decades.
What is the current estimate of oil?
If it was limited to the 120 yards x 55 yards of a football field, it would take 10,680 barrels of oil per foot in height.
At the low end of estimation, the 68 million gallons, this patch of oil would be
153.03 ft. high. At the high end, 126.3 million gallons, it would be 284.24 ft high.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-22-2010 at 01:52 PM.
See... people were just worried over nothing. Well done, Obama.
You are confusing barrels and gallons.
The 126.3M figure in the OP was in gallons. 42 gallons per barrel. (126.3M gal/42 gal/bbl = 3Mbbl)
The wiki bit has a fair history on the subject.
Current upper end on the rate, after the riser cut, is 60,000 bbl/day. My calculations assumed 53,000, and it was likely a bit less before they snipped the pipe at the BOP.
On June 15, after taking into account the increased flow rate after the riser was cut, McNutt estimated that the leak spilled between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels (1,500,000 and 2,500,000 US gallons; 5,600 and 9,500 cubic metres) a day.[70][71] The updated estimates are believed to be more accurate because it was no longer necessary to measure multiple leaks, and detailed pressure measurements were available as was more than a week of high-resolution newly-released video by BP.[72]
Barrels, gallons, who cares? It can't fill up the Superdome, so it doesn't matter.
Silly me, I forgot that part.
/thread?
No, I did the math a bit funny, but correct.
42 gallons to the barrel x 231 cubic inches per gallon = 9702 cubic inches per barrel. 120 x 55 yards = 8553600 square inches. One barrel covers this area at a height of 0.001134 inches. It takes 881.6327 barrels for one inch in height. One foot in height would take 10,509.59 barrels. I divided the two gallon estimates by 42 to use barrels. Then, divided the barrels into the 10,509.59 for feet of height.
Don't you ever verify before making a statement of fact?
It was more of a typo than a math error, but your calculations weren't really all that clear to me to be certain of your math/analysis.
OK, I'll go back and correct it if I said that. Yes, typo rather than math error if anything.
The first figure was correct. (got it, the 10,509 figure would be barrels/foot)
A football-field sized tank of oil would need to be 284.24 feet tall, although my spreadsheet gives it at 283.56, the minor difference is probably rounding.
Except that the United States does not benefit in that way from the oil drilled from the Gulf.
All of the oil goes to a "pool" of oil that is sold to the highest bidders.
It helps your trade 'balance sheet'. I know that the price of oil is set on an open market...funny that the globe uses capitalism but individual countries reject it...neither here nor there in this discussion. American oil means less money we have to spend buying oil overseas. It's a product, like entertainment in the form of movies and music ( pop culture is Americas biggest export in case you didn't know that . This is why there is so much yelping going on with intellectual property in countries that steal it. CHINA being the greatest offender ) or cars or anything else. Either you make it or you buy it from someone else.
People don't realize this either. Foreigners can own in America. We are one of the few countries that doesn't have a lot of limits on that. Foreingers can't hold majority stake in a news orgaization for example. That's why a Saudi owns 49% of Reuters. He can't own the majority. But you can influence with 49%. There is no limit to real estate they can own. An American, for example, can't own property on the Mexican coast. Yet, Mexican citizens can buy homes or business's on the US coast. Or anywhere else. We are the least protectionist nation in the world. The problem with China for example, is you can go over there as a corporation and invest and make money but you can't get your money out. In the US, you can make money in the US if you're a foreigner, and then invest or send your money anywhere you want. You make US dollars in the US, it's yours to do with as you please. That is not true everywhere else.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
