This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Oil Pressure Stopping Short of Target ... Does that Mean the Well Integrity Test Is Failing?
The well integrity test is arguably failing, as the pressures are not
reaching the 8,000 psi minimum
target.
CBS News notes:
The
federal pointman for the BP oil spill says results are short of ideal
in the new cap but the oil will stay shut in for another 6 hours at
least.Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said on a Friday
afternoon conference that pressure readings from the cap have not
reached the level that would show there are no other leaks in the well.He
said the test will go ahead for another 6-hour period before being
reassessed to see if BP needs to reopen the cap and let oil spill out
again.
MSNBC writes:
Allen said two possible reasons were being debated by
scientists: The
reservoir that is the source of the oil could be running lower than
expected three months into the spill. Or there could be an undiscovered
leak somewhere down in the well.
The New York Times reports:
Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who
is overseeing the response to the gulf oil spill, said that while there
were indications from the test that the well was in good shape, it was
not yet possible to rule out damage that could complicate efforts to
halt the leak permanently.
“We want to be careful not to do
any harm or create a situation that could not be reversed,” he said in a
conference call with reporters Friday afternoon.
***
Admiral Allen said the test would continue in six-hour increments and
that any new data would be reviewed by scientists and engineers from the
government, BP and other companies. He said there would be “enhanced
monitoring” of the seabed, including acoustic tests that could detect
tiny bubbles of methane gas coming from the bed, which would be evidence
of damage to the well.
***
Admiral Allen said that such
a pressure buildup suggested that the well was not damaged. But he
said that the pressure level reached — about 6,700 pounds per square
inch, or more than 450 times atmospheric pressure — was below that
expected for an intact well.
One explanation for the ambiguity,
he said, is that the reservoir of oil 13,000 feet below the seabed
could have been depleted by the well as it galloped out of control for
nearly three months. But another possibility is that the well is
breached, with oil and gas escaping into the rock or, worse, into the
gulf through the sea floor.
BP states
that the pressure in the well is only rising 2 pounds per square inch
each hour.
I will post a transcript of Allen's report when it becomes available (here is an unofficial, rough transcript). In the meantime, blogger Wang - who attended the press conference by
telephone - added
details from Allen's press conference (I simply edited for clarity of
reading; I will update with corrected and expanded transcript as I
receive it):
Uncertainty about the meaning of the pressure. Could
be lower because of well integrity, or the reservoir has become
somewhat depleted and so is lower in pressure than expected.The
initial curve of pressure build up was normal but stopped short of our
target which is the concern.
Don't want to create harm or an
irreversible situation.
Was the reservoir depleted or is there an
ongoing way for the oil to leave the well bore? We do not know the
condition of the well bore. There's a good chance it could be
depletion. Checking out the well bore. Checking for leaks. We have no
indication of a seafloor breach so it could be reservoir depletion.
Additional seismic surveys are required.
This kind of formation
can maybe heal itself if we do damage it, the quickest way to reduce
pressure is opening the kill and choke line.If there is a problem we
will vent the oil.Reservoir depletion can be measured by
determining if there was an aquifer beneath the reservoir but there is
not one. If the seismic and acoustic show no sign of leakage we will
continue with the testing.NOAA boat looking for methane from the
sea floor with acoustic device. There is some concern about methane.
We want to make sure there is no methane. If we were to detect
methane we would lower the pressure by venting or ramp up Helix
Producer.We will reevaluate in 6 hours and have a series of
meetings (with the committee) everything moving forward is condition
based. We should have results in the next 6 hours. The 6 hour period
starts now.
There are actually at least four potential explanations for the low pressure
readings:
(1) There are substantial
leaks in the well;(2) There is leakage in the sands deep
under the seafloor. Oil industry professionals posting at the Oil Drum hypothesize:
What this could indicate is that there is a
possibility of crossflow at the bottom of the well. What this
means that the oil and gas that are flowing out of the reservoir into
the bottom of the well, are, under the pressure in the well, now flowing
into a higher reservoir of rock, now that they can't get out of the
well. Depending on where that re-injection flow is, this may, or may
not, suggest that the casing has lost integrity. This is a topic that
has been covered in the comments at The Oil Drum, where fdoleza -
"a petroleum engineering consultant retired from a major
multi-national oil company" - has noted:... I
believe the flow will be coming out of the bottom sand and going into
the upper sand. It would not be a leak, but it would tell them why
their pressure data ain't a classical surface buildup. And I sure hope
they're modeling temperatures and so on, because this is a very
interesting case. They don't have downhole gauges, so they'll have to
take the way the oil cools down as it sits to get a better idea of the
way things are moving down below.If there are
questions whether there is still flow in the formation or from the
original formation into surrounding rock, then it is possible that the
relief well (RW) is close enough to the original well (WW) that
putting a set of very sensitive microphones down the RW might allow
some triangulation to estimate where such a flow might be occurring.
It might make it easier that the well hasn’t been finally cased yet.
But the test has 2 days to run, and will be evaluated every 6 hours.
With time some of these questions may be answered as the test
continues. (If there is no flow anywhere, after a while all the
readings should become quite stable).(3) A
hypothesis proposed
by Roger N. Anderson - professor of marine geology and geophysics at
Columbia University - that the pressure could be rising slowly not
because of a leak, but because of some kind of blockage in the well:
"If it's rising slowly, that means the pipe's integrity's still there.
It's just getting around obstacles"or
(4) The reservoir
has been depleted more than engineers anticipated (although many experts
have said that the reservoir is much
bigger than BP has forecast; in any event, there are factors other
than size which determine pressure. For example, blowouts can reduce
pressure pretty quickly in some reservoirs)
While many oil industry experts are betting on damage to the well
bore or communication between layers of sand, Don Van Nieuwenhuise -
Director of the Professional Geoscience Programs at the University of
Houston - thinks
reservoir pressure has simply "deflated", and that 6,700 psi isn't
unexpected:
The
6,700 pound- per-square inch pressure reading logged inside the
blown-out Macondo well this morning may suggest that the well has lost
power over the almost three-month-long period it has flowed into the
Gulf of Mexico and not that the well is leaking somewhere beneath the
sea floor, a geologist who has been following the gusher said.The
reservoir could have "deflated" since it began leaking April 20,
reducing the amount of pressure it is capable of producing, said [Van
Nieuwenhuise].***
But Van Nieuwenhuise said this
morning's 6,700 pounds per square inch reading should not cause worry.
"I
don't think it's a cause for immediate concern, because it could
reflect a natural loss of oil in the reservoir," Van Nieuwenhuise said.
"It's amazing that it has held its strength for as long as it has."
***
When
they first said this, I said if they can get to 7,000 (pounds per
square inch) that would be good," Van Nieuwenhuise said. "The 8,000 to
9,000 estimate reflects its initial pressure, but since it's been
bleeding so much, I'm not surprised it's at 7,000."
Note 1:
Because pressures are still rising
(if only 2 lbs per hour), it probably means that the well
integrity test hasn't caused any new leaks so far.
Note 2: Oil
industry expert Robert Cavner
notes that seismic testing isn't
as straightforward as it sounds:
Seismic puts
sound into the sea floor, and
measures the time it takes for those sound waves to return. Different
kinds of rocks reflect sound waves at certain velocities, or speeds.
By measuring the time it takes for the sound to return from a certain
depth of rock, geo-scientists can draw maps of the subsurface. Often
you can get an idea of the fluid within the pore space of rocks by the
way it returns sound waves. They ran a baseline survey a couple of
days ago, and will compare that data to the data that they'll get today
to see if anything has changed around the well to indicate fluid
movement. But, as one of my geologist friends of mine likes to say,
reading seismic for precise conclusions is often like trying to observe
airplanes flying overhead while lying on the bottom of a swimming
pool. It's difficult to draw definite conclusions, even using high
frequency seismic, but it will be another data point.
»
- advertisements -
yes, open everything up and pray anything in there that
might screw up the new bop flies out. (pieces of pipes, etc.
whatnot). then close it back up.?
i haven't read the entire thread yet but ...idea.
anyway.. it seems there may be a possibility of entirely
rehabilitating this original well? ( not close it ), fix it
by using the relief wells to pump mud OUTSIDE the casing
at the bottom. watch the pressure at the head. if it climbs
as you inject mud around the well any fissures of releases from
the "system" would be corrected? then they proceed as they
would have on april 20th with the new bop in place.
as for the missing drill pipe, i thought that was observed in
the annulus, where it really doesn't belong my friend. all crushed
and with some other pipe also. two deformed misplaced pipes
in one dysfunctional annulus, i think that is by definition a cluster fuck.
.
pressurized and turbulent fluid dynamics involving toxic, flammable and
explosive gasses in phase transition should scare the piss out of anyone.
.
and then to politicise the event with pending legal action, i don't know
the words for this, but i am always impressed by thoughtful and provocative
use of language, not that i understand much of it.
if they pump mud outside the casing and the pressure at the head
doesn't increase after some time then either the well is and has been
good or other down hole problems cannot be remedied with mud on the
outside. they may then, back to the original problem (to close or
not close) ... mud the original well and see how that goes or let it
flow, using the gulf as a temporary primary container, and collect / skim.
etc..etc...? relief well becoming new well?
all guesswork from a laptop. so many bad options! i think this is why,
one reason, there is so much ..... consternation and confusion...
yes! they do NOT know what they are doing, how could they? but..
they are doing it and they are professionals, in service of the machine!
onward!
and now this from Politico and the Sunday talk shows (predictable)
GOP senators: Obama failing in oil clean-upThere is another amusing detail from Feinberg & BP:
So, the "regular" oil industry professionals, ship owners and any cleanup crew members who work on the cleanup effort will be paid in full, as long as they have no claim against the company for damages. And if those with claims are able to relocate and find work elsewhere, they can keep THOSE wages. This is fabulous. Really fantastic.
There is a copy of the BP contract for boat owners on the Rikki Ott website.
I think these two headlines just hours apart from Bloomberg are telling
U.S. Instructs BP to Reopen Gulf Well, Capture Oil After Concluding TestsBy Katarzyna Klimasinska - Jul 18, 2010
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-18/u-s-orders-bp-to-reopen-gulf-we...
BP Plans to Keep Gulf of Mexico Well Sealed Until Plugging It PermanentlyBy Katarzyna Klimasinska - Jul 18, 2010
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-18/bp-plans-to-keep-gulf-of-mexico...
here's the transcript of the call (unofficial_
take away - the integrity test could go on for weeks
http://unixwiz.net/bp/tech-2010-07-18-am.txt
wang,
I listened in on the briefing and I was surprised when Doug Suttles floated the concept that the "test" might proceed right up until the relief well kills the Macondo well. And it appears I wasn't alone because a number of major news organizations returned to this question during the call.
The relief well is now at 17,864 feet and after they conduct another ranging run, they will begin to place the final casing, which will take about a week and bring us to the end of July. They have 100 feet left to drill and they are 4 feet laterally from the Macondo well casing.
Doug did say that ifthey do begin "containment" again, they would need to open the well to the GoM because it takes up to 3 days to ready the processing equipment on the surface. No explanation for why the well must run freely into the GoM while they ready the surface equipment rather than simply opening the kill/coke lines when the surface equipment is ready. No one asked that question, which to me seemed obvious.
Considering the political disaster that would ensue if they began to spill oil into the GoM again, I suspect they will do everything they can to prevent this from happening. And considering they understood before hand that once they stopped the flow into the GoM it would be difficult politically to start it again, they must have had pretty high confidence before the "test" began that it would be successful.
But some one else brought up a good point. We were clearly told that they wanted to see 8-9,000 PSI as the all clear signal. They spoke of lower readings as iffy. Now they have walked us down to the lower readings as most likely OK. The well currently stands at 6,778 PSI. I suspect they have a clear understanding that short of a gusher popping up from the sea floor, they will keep this thing capped.
This is why they waited to bring the cap down until the relief well was within 2 weeks of breaking through and killing the well. I suspect the newest cap was ready for a month or more and they didn't say anything about it until the relief well was close. Remember how this newest cap came out of the blue with no prior discussion about this process until suddenly it was presented as the latest plan? Just my opinion.
Absolutely correct. The reason that they didn't ask is because being a reporter for the MSM does NOT require strong cognitive skills. Career training is communication not thinking. I'm not being a smart-ass: my point is that career and advancement in that career is based on COMMUNICATION skills rather than THINKING skills. The results show.
Just try to remember these are the same people who believe Matt Simmons is an "energy industry expert" and that any professor of engineering anywhere is an expert on what was happening in this well. Folks - NO ONE is an expert on what happened here and NO ONE actually KNOWS precisely what the subsurface situation is at the moment.
+1 to that. But there is a rather large difference between the objective levels of 'knowledge' available at various point downstream from the well's physical coordinates. And the actions (allegedly) being taken do not correspond to previous rationales and data provided.
Regarding the briefing itself -- why does it seem like the briefing text was pre-provided, questions vetted/screened and access to briefing very narrowly defined? My suggestion is that the journalists are not THAT dumb; but there is only so much questioning one can put out from behind a securely placed gag...
Sadly, the vast majority of MSM "reporting" is done by people who are "repeaters" and not "reporters". Now a days, mostly what passes for reporting is putting in your own words what you found in the "official" gvt or corporate news release. Reminds me of 6th grade when our "reports" were taken from encyclopedias and made "our own" by changing words and style, then submitted as original work.
And the term "investigatory reporter" might as well be abandoned in regard to the MSM. But we shouldn't blame the "repeater" because they have no control over what is published or broadcast. Those decisions are made higher up the food chain. So it's not surprising that as the MSM "repeaters" roles has changed, lower IQ, more photogenic people would fill the shoes prior "reporters" retired from and left to be filled.
Oh my - I like that. "Repeaters not Reporters". Captures the problem succinctly and precisely.
+1 agreed!
Serious politics at work here and it would seem BP just put Adm Thad in check by forcing him to make the call to open up the well, which of course would be the end of his very short post retirement career. By having it stay shut it's a hedge against the relief wells not working, and did you catch Suttles highlighting that there is less and less oil near the shore. There is not a chance this thing is going to be opened back up short of an undersea volcano. I would be interesed in comments from the pros on the possibility of long term (slo motion) damage that could be taking place as a result of the cap (problems that will be for somebody else to resolve).
"Serious politics at work here and it would seem BP just put Adm Thad in check by forcing him to make the call to open up the well,"
While the relationship may appear to be one of cooperation, it's clear there is a chess match going on between BP and the Gvt. And as you pointed out, BP just placed Allen in danger of checkmate. We are past the beginning game of pawn and minor piece exchanges, past the middle game of piece placement and strategy and have entered the end game, where plans laid out months ago are coming into play.
Since it's now clear BP was readying this full containment cap for the past 2 months, they must have been thinking about how they could shed liability, political and legal, if it failed or it had to be opened up to the GoM once again. Masterful move by BP to place the decision squarely on Allen's shoulders. It has seemed for the past week or so that Allen has been contradicted a few times by BP, setting the stage for this little slap and declaration of "check". Your move Allen.
Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark.
they should have had Rham on the case or maybe Rattner, not a chance they would have allowed themselves to be boxed in like that.
I agree with you about the sequence of opening the flow to containment vessels. I can't think of a reason why they would not hook up first, and then open flow. Seems like a no-brainer, but I do not have any direct experience in these types of operations. Perhaps there is a very good reason. It will be interesting to know what it is, if it is ever revealed.
Your point about the new cap however, I must disagree. I do not see how they could have come up with the attack plan, design plan, component specification, component aquisition, fabrication, testing protocol development, simulation testing (for all known possible scenarios), implementation plan, and delivery any more quickly than they did. Particularly with the Govt. oversight panel looking over their shoulder (not to mention BP's legal dept.) and presumably questioning each detail of the design, component selection, testing protocol, testing data, and implementation plan. Recall, the deployment was delayed 24 hours in order for the Govt. panel and BP to agree on the implementation plan. Also, the implementation had to be scripted and choreographed so that the umpteen ROV's could act in concert and precision regarding valve actuation sequence and etc.
To some people the cap might look like a couple of steel pipes welded together with a few valves hanging off of it. However, it is not.
In what fundamental way is the current cap different from being a secondary BOP? The reason why you can't just directly connect a producing well to collection capacity up top is the need to be able to regulate the flow in case of problems up top, so you need such a device. Fine. But as I agree there is no way the current cap could have been fabricated and assembled from scratch in such a short period, they must have scavenged and ripped existing components from other ongoing orders (I am sure BP is paying Cameron a pretty penny for all the production fines they thus caused). The question is the delta -- and also why an existing, fully functional BOP could not have been used (much earlier) instead of the current design.
Last but not least, what troubles me is the stated rationale for halting the top kill. If the issue was not the risk to the well's integrity, and mud escaping downhole, why stop the effort? And where did the kill mud go? If the stated reason is valid, how were the alleged well integrity issues magically self-healed? Remember the drilling engineer's testimony regarding his changes in the cementing design, how models were run by BP that gave them confidence that his changes would address and solve the issues they were encountering during the initial "completion" of the well? I am a bit wary as to the predictive reliability of the modeling being used to ascertain that the current pressure readings and rate of pressure increase is not indicative of any issues. I also love the continued use of the double negative: there is NO proof that the well is NOT intact. But our models tell us it may very well be intact. So it's all good.
Hi CD
I think they didn't use the second BOP for political reasons. They didn't want to completely cap the well until the relief well was in position to kill the Macondo well within 1 or 2 weeks if all hell broke loose. So they concocted an excuse not to use the second BOP. And there was enough uncertainty about the condition of the Macondo well to justify the excuse. See my comments above and below.
I think the top kill effort was also a political decision. "They" needed to be seen as making some kind of effort to shut the well down before they proceeded to do what they always planned on doing, which was the loose fitting cap, then the full cap, then the relief well kill. Just my opinion.
In politics, it's always about managing public opinion and expectations that lead to public opinion. And make no mistake about it, this BP well is a political issue more than a technical issue.
CD & CogDiss - they halted the top kill because IT WASN'T WORKING. They had pumped much more mud than they thought would be needed but had not been able to push back the flowing hydrocarbons enough to get the process started. The inability to get above 6000 psi worried BP because they weren't sure what was going on; it worried the gov't because the media was hosting Matt Simmons every half hour claiming underground blowouts all over the incredibly deep Gulf of Mexico.
The Top Kill effort had a low probability of success from the beginning. But the high probability solution (relief wells) was going to take 3 months. You try a less than 50% chance of success process in HOPES IT MIGHT WORK. It didn't. I'm amazed that people continue to read so much into that process. Everything doesn't have to have deep hidden meanings. Occam's razor should be applied to every logical analysis you make - it's been around a long time because it is so powerful.
I am fine with that, and do not claim there was anything wrong with trying the operation.
It is also becoming increasingly clear that speculation about the actual sequence and reasons for events is pointless, until/unless another type of 'leak' is found or subpoenaed. Little sceptical about the latter, for if 5th amendment issues do not intervene, NS considerations very well may.
I understand, and think you are probably not far from the truth. Again, my concern is that if there is integrity, top kill should have worked. If there is integrity, installing a new BOP as soon as technically feasible seals the well sooner, limiting the hemorrhaging both oilwise and financially. So the current setup could have been arrived at much, much sooner -- unless there is a specific reason why the current setup is only temporarily viable. The question is -- if that is the conclusion (that this can only work temporarily) -- how much does one trust the calculations and models on how long the cap can hold without [further] damaging the well?
"The question is -- if that is the conclusion (that this can only work temporarily) -- how much does one trust the calculations and models on how long the cap can hold without [further] damaging the well?"
I trust the engineers at the level of design, fabrication and installation. I do not trust their overlords, whether that be the BP management and executives nor the Gvt at any level. I suspect in a few years we shall find out how many decisions were politically determined as feasible and how many were actually based upon the facts as determined by the engineering teams.
The higher up you go in any corporate/government structure, the more the decisions are based (almost entirely) upon bottom line and politics. I've been around for decades in two entirely different fields (construction and finance) and there is no difference between them at the higher levels. Many good decisions at lower levels are killed at higher levels for reasons that have nothing to do with facts or execution capability. And I'm always amazed how much CYA goes on the higher you climb.
See my comment below - two short points on this:
1) You are incorrect that "if there is integrity top kill should have worked". Top kills work on low (relatively) pressure/low rate blowout wells, they are not certain by any means.
2) Static pressures are being held. Noting that is happening now will "[further] damage the well". In fact having the flow shut is better for the wellbore condition than having the flow.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/29/business/main6530758.shtml
This is after the initial estimate of 60-70% success rate.
Regarding your point #2 -- yes, that is understood -- unless there is a means for the oil to escape the bore anywhere other than through the BOP/cap. Isn't that what we are all waiting for yay/nay confirmation on? My question is, if these are/were the underlying assumptions all along, why not aim for containment through capping and sealing in the first place?
Jim,
You present a reasonable explanation for it taking a few months to fabricate the cap and I will defer to your greater knowledge and understanding in this matter. I agree that the cap (and the BOP for that matter) is an extremely sophisticated piece of equipment. Most people don't understand that making equipment that works under a mile of water (2000 PSI) is as difficult as making equipment that must survive on Mars or Venus. I'm not talking about getting it to Mars. I'm talking about surviving on Mars once there. 2000 (or more) PSI is very difficult to deal with on a number of levels, let alone the higher pressures found inside the actual wells. This isn't like soldering a few copper pipes at home that must deal with only 100 PSI.
But I've been following this closely since the blow out and I never read or heard any discussion by official voices that they were reading a full containment cap of the type they just installed. Meaning one that is bolted to the stack. All I ever heard of was of the different types of caps that were fabricated to be placed on the LMR after the riser was cut off. There were some differences in caps depending upon how clean the cut wound up to be.
So I suspect they were hedging their bets, they being the government and BP. Like a lawyer who never asks a question s/he doesn't already know the answer to, the gvt/BP weren't going to talk about something until they knew they could do it. To talk about a full containment cap before it was ready may have started the dogs howling about BP not being properly prepared for the potential blowout they claimed they were ready for. Howling dogs such as found here on ZH as well as just about everywhere else, including www.theoildrum.com.
I don't have any experience with projects such as these. I am only extrapolating from my experience with IT projects and the developement cycle. When there is a lot at stake, a minute project can require a ton of design, documentation, testing, coordination, and heavy prayer that it doesn't blow up during implementation.
I suspect that BP had an action plan in place and was committed to following it. In the meantime, some techies were probably in the break room and came up with a boxternal solution such as "why don't we design and fabricate our own mini-BOP, break the flange, and bolt it on top of the flex joint?" From there maybe the idea evolved and eventually got buy-in from the very top.
I have seen solutions occur this way. The cavalry is charging over the hill while in the rear a few guys are hooking up wires and batteries and saying "Let's call this a "LASER" gun". <Dr. Evil grin>
BP is hosting regular technical briefings to provide updates on its subsea containment efforts. The next briefing will be held at 7:30 AM CDT on Sunday 18 July.
The dial-in details for these briefings are as follows:
US/Canada Dial-In Number: (877) 341-5824
International/Local Dial-In Number: (706) 758-0885
Password for morning briefings: AM Technical Briefing
Password for afternoon briefings: PM Technical Briefing
Conference ID: 86956141
very interesting thread over at oil drum
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6742#comment-679916
around this Bloomberg article
U.S. Instructs BP to Reopen Gulf Well, Capture Oil After Concluding Testshttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-18/u-s-orders-bp-to-reopen-gulf-we...
...and we have a bingo:
CROCK!
My thoughts exactly. The flow rate is known, and within much tighter limits than 35K-60K bpd. So how can "they" continue to claim otherwise? Why is no one calling this out?
The Bloomberg article quoted below is repeating the same meme:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-18/u-s-orders-bp-to-reopen-gulf-well-capture-oil-after-concluding-tests.html
Because, if you try to shine the light of logic and/or reason on anything that challenges the pop culture conspiracy-porn belief structure, you will be classified as a BP and/or Govt. and/or MSM shill. Notwithstanding the fact that a lot of this conspiracy porn is provided through the MSM viaduct. I reference NYT above and CNN from my previous brawl regarding the exaggerated mortality rates of EVOS workers.
Also, instructing readers about mathematic formulas to derive flow rates is not sexy and will not get your article referenced in a youtube video or in an incestuous blog feeding frenzy. It is much more sexy to write a bunch of bullshit that sounds incredible and caters to peoples' fears and paranoia. I keep waiting for Cognitive Resonance to write an essay about it, given the wealth of research material right here on this very site.
Ummm. 'Kay. Not really sure where that came from. I am not referencing conspiracy porn, merely asking why it is/was so difficult to get flow readings via indirect, transducer methods in the days when the new cap was set up and installed (or any point prior, using the pipe section beneath the previous temporary cap). Also, after the new cap was installed but before it was shut it -- you have a segment of the flow fully "contained" (in the sense that it is enclosed, running through the closed system of the new cap) -- why/how can you NOT have an accurate estimate? Or at least one with a margin of error lower than the currently propagated +/- 50%
The oil does not have to be "flowing" in order to establish the flow rate. Bore depth, fluid density, and static pressure are sufficient to derive flow rate. I guarantee you the Govt. panel of scientists can throw a few parameters into a computer and generate a model of this well as if it were in free flow. That's why I originally stated "Crock!".
And this (above) actually drives my point. Do you think the NYT will publish an article about how to model hydraulic flow from a few known parameters? No. It is not sexy enough and it does not cater to people's fear and paranoia. By writing that "with the cap in place, the flow will never be known" (I paraphrase), though scientifically wrong, it will reinforce the belief they have already incubated in their readers that there is some large corporate government conspiracy at work.
There is a conspiracy taking place, one that encourages people not to think for themselves using the tools of science and reason IMHO.
+1
While it is true that we will never know the EXACT amount that went into the Gulf there is plenty of data post "integrity test" (which IMHO wasn't necessary) to model the flow. The result would still be a distribution of potential values (what is constantly and erroneously called a 'range' here and therefore constantly misunderstood). That distribution will be much tighter than 1000-100000 which have been claimed and in fact will be much tighter than 35000-60000. It should easily be within 10,000 +/-. Then you take a measure of central tendency for that distribution and use it for your fines/discussions.
I'd suspect though that when you've done that the resulting number, while more accurate, will likely be similar to the mean of the current estimates - but it will feel better having more data and less uncertainty.
This is more layers to the onion than I can peel or see through, my man. So you are saying that now NYT and Bloomberg are also part of a vicious agitator crowd that wishes to whip up unfounded conspiracy mentality against BP?
Also, my question refers exactly to this -- if you agree that the estimate of the flow which BP and the gov have is substantially more accurate than the one being disclosed: WHY? Beyond, of course the obvious - not wanting it disclosed to limit damage to BP and to avert panic. But then we come back to the starting point of this wonderful circular argument - if it is available but being withheld, the MSM and Social Media prophets of corpoment/goveration entanglement are not unfounded. They may be wrong as to the description of events and effects, and guilty of unsound reasoning following that premise. But the premise being true is what really concerns quite a few people, including myself.
I'm saying that the NYT and Bloomberg have an interest in keeping their readers stupid. I thought that was obvious.
I do not know if they have a flow rate, but I presume that they do. Regardless, a plaintiffs attorney will subpoena the data, hire an independant "expert", and present the derived flow rate in a courtroom. A jury will walk out of the deliberation room where they have been arguing over "who is more sexy, Lady Gaga or Christina Agulierra" and they will announce their verdict. In the meantime, absent a blowout, no more oil needs to flow into the gulf IMHO.
Now for the cleanup battle....as I said before WHY THE HELL AREN'T THEY USING OSE II?!
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/ncp/products/oseater.htm
DOESN'T.MAKE.SENSE.
THEY'RE IDIOTS!!!!!
<sarc off>
24 hours more
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-07-16-bp-oil-spill-cap_N.htm
Please don't disturb the President while he's lopping down lobster in Maine.... Ho, I mean oH wait, he's with Michelle, no butter honey, just eat that crustacean plain.
The End.
We are not here to harm you! Sorry we left the door open on our craft when we zoomed in to fill up 87 days ago!! brit pee almost done cleaning the windshield and we'll blast out of here without to much of a catastrophic earthquake/volcanic oil eruption!! Now about those universal gas masks we sold homeland security? It's gold or no delivery!!
Will you accept Russian gold?
humor alerts destroy the delivery, there wet and sloppy
and i think humor should be treated with more respect
than that, for the most part.
did mark twain use them when he was being funny?
.
jmnsho.
Gulf populace will learn the self evident truth either dead or alive!! Still their choice to remove and watch at safe distance or just hit the road in panic with the rest of the herd should the situation turn deadly; in an instant over night from poisonous gasses moving on shore!!
I never meant to cause you any sorrow
I never meant to cause you any pain
I only wanted one time to see you laughing
I only wanted to see you laughing in the toxic rain
Toxic rain, toxic rain
Toxic rain, toxic rain
Toxic rain, toxic rain
I only wanted to see you bathing in the toxic rain....
.
This new hit by Prince will be at the top of the Charts in August...
.
Thanks to a science experiment conducted by a bunch of fools!
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtrQK8Zqj-g
Cameras, we need cameras inside the well down the entire hole/casing.
Since you've only been around ZH for 8 days, you're considered expendable. So why don't you jump overboard, swim the mile down to the well head (don't forget to tie on some heavy ballast, cement shoes work the best) and take a peek inside.
We await your report. :>)
Since when has it become compulsory to look up how long someone has been registered with ZH when formulating a reply? What does it mean? Oh that's right, it means NOTHING.