Oil Leak at Gulf of Mexico Oil Well

[Luke_Wilbur]

I sent a question to NOAA media representative, Rachel Wilhelm, yesterday.

 

Rachel,

Can you please explain why all the oil was just not controlled burned?

 

Luke Wilbur

 

Rachel responded with the following:

 

As people like to say, that's just one tool in the toolbox. We have to use a variety of methods for clearing up the oil depending on weather conditions and other assets that are available, e.g. skimming, letting the oil break down naturally, using dispersants to help the oil break down, and funneling it up to ships for capture.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Luke_Wilbur

[Guest HUMAN]

The Republicans that I know want me to post the answer.

 

The Democrats that I know don't want me to post the answer because it is too dangerous.

 

I have always known that the answer was too dangerous to post online.

 

Though the waters, wild life, and people lose.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HUMAN,

As I stated before, I would love for you to post a solution. I would gladly say it came from a Republican.

 

Once again, I post what is actually being stated by both sides of the aisle to quash your spin.

 

From my vantage point all the words I see you write are just simple rants with little thought behind them.

 

Where are your valid alternatives to clean up the oil? There are members of your side that are very thoughtful with their responses. But, you have none.

 

You look at this disaster like a political game. So I will give you this analogy.

 

There are many unforeseen moves that cause one to revise their strategy to change the situation. In this circumstance their are less moves you can make to drift around. Soon their will be little moves to reveal your true position. The only hope for you is to hope nobody will be watching.

 

I look at this disaster for what it is. Not a political disaster, but a disaster for everyone.

 

Statements and decisions both sides make that effect the outcome are important to me. I will be the first one to admit mistakes have been made by Obama administration. But, I will not just listen to the lies of pundits trying to undermine the effort.

 

 

Lori,

I can understand your frustration. This decade has been an emotional roller coaster for everyone. No one knows who to believe anymore.

 

It is difficult for me to believe that four Koseq ships would be able to solve this massive problems. But, the Dutch are masters of the waterways. They are building the largest port in the world. No one can dispute they are masters at constructing artificial dikes and islands in Hong Kong, Dubai, and Japan.

 

I am personally surprised we have not asked for more assistance from them. But, I do not claim to know the whole back end story. I will see what I can dig up.

 

I will be posting more statements here. I will highlight areas that I consider important. And from time to time I will make my own personal statement if I consider it appropriate dialogue.

[Luke_Wilbur]

Luckily I do not think we will have to go nuclear or any other drastic option.

 

I am getting pretty optimistic that well will be closed fairly soon.

 

I also confronted NOAA about the following statement sent to me:

 

Apparently NOAA had a documented federal response plan that was "not" put into action. If it was carried out, 95% of the oil would have been captured via burn off methods.

 

Rachel Wilhelm, of NOAA stated,

 

Sounds like an urban legend. I've never heard of such a thing.

 

I am trying to find the source this information. It would be a major news story if it is true.

[Guest DCpages Staff]

Here are some sources we found about using explosives.

 

In mid-April, United States Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, assembled a team of nuclear physicists including hydrogen bomb designer Richard Garwin and Sandia National Laboratories director Tom Hunter.

 

The five-man team – which includes a man who helped develop the first hydrogen bomb in the 1950s – is the brainchild of Steven Chu, President Obama's Energy Secretary.

 

He has charged the men with finding solutions to stop the flow of oil.

 

The five scientists visited BP's main crisis centre in Houston earlier this week, along with Mr Chu, and are to continue to work with the company's scientists and external advisers to reach an answer.

 

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Hayward said the five-hour meeting involved a "very deep dive" into the situation at hand, with "lots of nuclear physicists and all sorts of people coming up with some quite good ideas actually."

 

Pressed further about the meeting, he said they had "come up with one good idea" but declined to elaborate.

 

The five include 82-year-old Richard Garwin, who designed the first hydrogen bomb, and Tom Hunter, head of the US Department of Energy's Sandia National Labs.

 

In addition, Mr Chu has already despatched Marcia McNutt, the head of the US Geological Service, to the oil company.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7726142/Barack-Obama-sends-nuclear-experts-to-tackle-BPs-Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-leak.html

 

Federal officials ruled out nuclear devices because of both environmental and political risks

 

Government and private nuclear experts agreed that using a nuclear bomb would be not only risky technically, with unknown and possibly disastrous consequences from radiation, but also unwise geopolitically — it would violate arms treaties that the United States has signed and championed over the decades and do so at a time when President Obama is pushing for global nuclear disarmament.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html

 

Admiral Thad Allen also ruled out the use of conventional explosives.

 

... REAL LINE IN THIS CASE. REGARDING THE USE OF EXPLOSIVES, THERE HAS BEEN SOME TALK -- IT HAS NOT...

 

Go to 00:12:17 in the video.

 

http://wwww.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/224987

[Guest August]

I think the source is coming from a New York Times article. But, there is no mention of a Federal Response Plan.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us/04burn.html?src=mv

 

Rear Adm. Mary E. Landry, the federal on-scene coordinator for the gulf effort, said last week that in the past burns had been “effective in burning 50 to 95 percent of oil collected in a fire boom.”

 

The downside, Admiral Landry said, is a “black plume” of smoke that puts soot and other particulates into the air.

 

Birds and mammals are believed to be more capable of handling the risk of a local fire and a temporary plume than of handling the risk posed by a spreading oil slick.

[Luke_Wilbur]

Happy Fourth Everyone.

 

Actually, the story originates from a May 27, New York Post article.

 

 

 

Turns out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration back in 1994 drafted plans for responding to a major Gulf oil spill, a response called "In-Situ Burn."

 

Ron Gourget, a former federal oil-spill-response coordinator and one author of the draft, told the Times of London: "The whole reason the plan was created was so that we could pull the trigger right away." The idea was to use barriers called "fire booms" to collect and contain the spill at sea -- then burn it off. He believes this could have captured 95 percent of the oil from this spill.

 

 

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/where_was_plan_rlt5oDKad55hkqHe64BgqM#ixzz0sj7gGmPj

[Guest HUMAN]

We do have the tech, it's just that if I post it? folks who are not our allies will see it as a gift.

 

Not worth it, winning a point over.

[Guest ALWAYS RED]

Finally, you all are starting to realize that government has mismanaged this crisis from the beginning. Even NOAA cannot admit the truth Luke.

 

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6598/pub_detail.asp

 

Whether fire boom and in situ burning was the best possible idea or not is debatable. Good weather and favorable seas are required to make it an effective technique, and while those conditions prevailed for some eight days after the spill began there was a week or so afterward when it would have been difficult to burn off the oil.

 

But that’s not the point. The point is that the federal government was caught with its pants down, didn’t have a supply of the equipment necessary to implement a plan it’s had in place for 16 years and did an entirely poor job of attempting to remedy the situation before the oil slick spread beyond anything the feds could control.

 

Had an in situ burn been available and implemented according to the 1994 plan, the current controversy about chemical dispersants and invading oil could well have been minimized if not made moot. But even if it hadn’t, the feds look particularly unqualified to lead the response or even to judge the efforts of locals or private individuals when they had a plan and not only didn’t follow it but didn’t even have the equipment necessary to do so. With so basic a failure at the outset, is it any surprise that this response has become so monumental a Charlie Foxtrot?

[Luke_Wilbur]

Ok I found it.

 

RRT VI

IN-SITU BURN PLAN

 

U.S. Department of Transportation

United States Coast Guard

Commander

Eighth Coast Guard District

Hale Boggs Federal Building

501 Magazine St.

New Orleans. LA 70130

Staff symbol: M

Phone: (504) 589-6271

 

March 14, 1994

 

This in-situ burn plan was developed by the Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC), Lake Charles, Louisiana in cooperation with the Region VI Regional Response Team (RRT). In January 1994, the plan was approved by the RRT and preapproval was granted to Coast Guard predesignated Federal On-Scene Coordinators (FOSCs) within Region VI. The preapproval allows FOSCs to permit responsible parties to employ the plan seaward of three miles of the coasts of Louisiana and Texas, with areas excluded offshore in the vicinity of certain reefs and an area off Grand Isle, Louisiana. This provision for preapproval is in accordance with the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.910. The plan may also be employed inshore of three miles, including bays, lakes, sounds, and rivers, but incident specific RRT approval must be granted in all such cases.

 

Three general categories of oil spill response options include the mechanical containment and recovery of oil, the application of chemical dispersants, and the controlled burning of oil in place (or "in-situ"). The use of each of these techniques involves a series of tradeoffs in relation to environmental impacts and disposal options.

 

Mechanical skimming of crude oil is initially the least harmful to the environment. However, mechanical skimming generates a large quantity of oil and water mixture that must be stored temporarily on location, transferred to onshore storage, and ultimately land filled, recycled, incinerated or disposed of in another environmentally acceptable manner.

 

Chemical dispersants allow the oil to break into small droplets that can be mixed into and decomposed within the water column. Efficiency rates are highly variable depending on application method and oil type as well as many environmental factors. Although mortalities of aquatic organisms exposed to dispersed oil have been documented in laboratory conditions, actual environmental impacts are generally minimal, especially when compared to the

environmental consequences that could result if the untreated oil were allowed to impact sensitive areas on shore.

 

In-situ burning alters the composition of the spilled oil by eliminating anywhere from 90% to 99% of the original volume of oil contained in a fire resistant boom. A portion of the original oil is released into the atmosphere as soot and gaseous emissions. Solid or semisolid residues from burning represent a small percentage of the initial volume burned, are relatively easy to retrieve, and can be further reduced in volume through repeated burns and ultimately are collected and removed from the marine environment.

 

This may answer my question.

 

In-situ burning is adapted as a means to augment, not replace, other oil spill response techniques to avert potential impacts from offshore oil spills to the region's coastal beaches, marshes, and inland resources. It could be used as a first strike option for spills 3 nautical miles or farther offshore.

 

isb_plan_part1_operations.pdf

 

isb_plan_part2_information.pdf

 

I still wonder why NOAA did not know about it?

Edited July 5, 2010 by Luke_Wilbur

[Guest Chuck in Milton]

This topic needs some good karma. BP is almost to the wellhead. There is a giant supertanker coming to the rescue that can suck up a half a million barrels of oil per day.

 

[Guest HUMAN]

It's just that the Obama administration who is so green missed an opportunity to contain it.

 

Remember it was nice a quiet for a while in the gulf. Now it's hurricane season and all bets are off.

 

It just shows that that they are more green behind the ears then they are willing to admit, and they got this wrong, what else did they get wrong?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This topic needs some good karma. BP is almost to the wellhead. There is a giant supertanker coming to the rescue that can suck up a half a million barrels of oil per day.

 

[Guest BP]

Two containment systems continue to collect oil and gas flowing from the Deepwater Horizon’s failed blow-out preventer (BOP) and transport them to vessels on the surface.

 

The lower marine riser package (LMRP) containment cap, installed on June 3, takes oil and gas to the Discoverer Enterprise where oil is collected and gas flared. The second system, which began operations on June 16, takes oil and gas to the Q4000 vessel on the surface where both oil and gas are flared.

 

On July 3, a total of approximately 25,198 barrels of oil were collected or flared by the two systems and 57.0 million cubic feet of gas were flared. Specifically, the LMRP containment system connected to the Discoverer Enterprise collected 17,022 barrels of oil, and the Q4000 flared an additional 8,176 barrels of oil. To date, the total volume of oil collected or flared by the containment systems is approximately 585,400 barrels. Information on the volumes of oil and gas that are collected or flared is updated twice daily on BP’s website, www.bp.com.

 

Preparations continue for the next step in containment operations. Work on the first floating riser containment system planned to be connected to the Helix Producer was delayed by heightened sea states caused by Hurricane Alex as it passed through the Gulf of Mexico. The floating riser system is designed to allow more rapid disconnection and reconnection of the system, reducing the time that collection may be impacted in the case of, for example, inclement weather. It is currently anticipated that this first floating riser system will be available to begin first operations towards the end of the week.

Plans also are being developed for additional containment capacity and flexibility. These projects are currently anticipated to begin operations around mid- late July.

 

The LMRP containment cap system, the Q4000 system, and the planned additional containment systems have not been deployed at these depths or under these conditions, and their efficiency and ability to contain or flare the oil and gas cannot be assured.

 

Work on the first relief well, which started May 2, continues. The well reached a depth of 17,725 feet on July 4 and a sixth ‘ranging’ run was completed. The second relief well, which started May 16, has now reached a measured depth of 13,871 feet. Both wells are still estimated to take approximately three months to complete from commencement of drilling.

Surface Spill Response and Containment

Work continues to collect and disperse oil that has reached the surface of the sea, to protect the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, and to collect and clean up any oil that has reached shore.

 

Approximately 44,500 personnel, more than 6,563 vessels and some 113 aircraft are now engaged in the response effort.

 

Operations to skim oil from the surface of the water were temporarily placed on hold for approximately three days because of the effects of Hurricane Alex. To date, these operations have recovered, in total, approximately 673,497 barrels (23.5 million gallons) of oily liquid. In addition, a total of 275 controlled burns have been carried out to date, removing an estimated 238,000 barrels of oil from the sea’s surface.

 

The total length of containment boom deployed as part of efforts to prevent oil from reaching the coast is now almost 2.9 million feet (550 miles).

Additional information

To date, almost 95,000 claims have been submitted and more than 47,000 payments have been made, totalling almost $147 million.

 

The cost of the response to date amounts to approximately $3.12 billion, including the cost of the spill response, containment, relief well drilling, grants to the Gulf states, claims paid, and federal costs. On June 16, BP announced an agreed package of measures, including the creation of a $20 billion escrow account to satisfy certain obligations arising from the oil and gas spill. It is too early to quantify other potential costs and liabilities associated with the incident.

[Guest BP]

Michael Condon, Environmental Unit Leader, Houma, LA discusses BP's waste recovery processes in the Gulf of Mexico - 5 July

 

http://bp.concerts.com/gom/wasterecovery062210.htm

[Guest ALWAYS RED]

Ok I found it.

 

RRT VI

IN-SITU BURN PLAN

 

This may answer my question.

 

isb_plan_part1_operations.pdf

 

isb_plan_part2_information.pdf

 

I still wonder why NOAA did not know about it?

 

 

NOAA will not tell you that had the plan been followed, it might have prevented oil from reaching the shoreline. A single fire boom can burn up to 1,800 barrels or 75,000 gallons an hour. Yet, despite the plan, not one fire boom was available anywhere in the Gulf at the time of the incident.

[Guest Koolaid]

I agree. Too many people drink Obama Kool Aid these days...

[Guest August]

Pensacola Beach Oil Tar Cover Up

 

Now we know what they have up there sleeve for July 4th weekend.

 

Spread the TRUTH

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlJ-RpQRO10

 

But Wait!!! There is still more good news.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0701/After-Gulf-swimmers-report-illness-questions-about-opening-a-beach

 

Santa Rosa Island officials flew the double-red flag – no swimming – over Pensacola Beach in Florida after a swath of thick oil washed ashore from the Gulf oil spill June 23.

 

Two days later, against the warnings of federal health officials and based on a visual survey of the beach, the local island authority director, Buck Lee, reopened the beaches for swimming, urging residents and tourists to come back to the beach. Officials left the ultimate decision on whether it was safe to swim to beachgoers.

 

This week, health officials in Escambia County, Fla., which includes Pensacola Beach, reported that about 400 people claimed they felt sick after visiting the beach and swimming in the Gulf.

[Guest ProjectGulfImpact]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FxfYqnlQ50

Please take the four minutes it takes to watch this video. Worth it for your health, worth it for your awareness as to the effects of Corexit.

I interviewed Destin, FL residents who confirmed flights spraying Corexit occurred on multiple nights, and once during the day, over nearshore waters and beaches. JOIN a coalition to ban the use of these chemicals near our beaches, water supplies, and cities.

Want to learn more - contact chris at tirn dot net

[Guest DH Unified Command]

 

The U.S. Navy MZ-3A Airship is en route to Gulf Coast and expected to arrive after July 6 at Jack Edwards National Airport in Gulf Shores, Ala. The airship was requested by the U.S. Coast Guard to support Deepwater Horizon Response operations of the Unified Area Command. The airship will be used to detect oil, direct skimming vessels, and look for wildlife that may be threatened by oil. The airship began the flight to the Gulf Coast last month in Yuma, Ariz. The airship is a commercial A-1-70 series blimp, manufactured by the American Blimp Corporation.

[Guest RT]

While the focus has been on the BP oil rig explosion and crude oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP's other spill of more than 100,000 gallons of oil in Alaska has been completely overshadowed.

 

 

The Alaska Pipeline is owned by BP and is dangerously corroded and unmaintained. This neglect caused the pipe to burst and spill gallons of oil off the coast of Alaska.

 

"No one is watching," said investigative journalist Greg Palast.

 

BP is not the worst in the oil business said Palast, citing Chevron's issues in the Amazon and Shell's past spills in the Niger Delta. However, BP has a long history of neglect.

 

"They [bP] were greatly involved and greatly compliable in the spill of the Exxon Valdez. It had Exxon's name on the ship, but it was British Petroleum that was in charge of preventing that oil from hitting shore. They didn't do it. They were in charge of having the emergency spill equipment around the Exxon Valdez, they didn't have it. Just like in the Gulf, they said they could handle a spill. They couldn't," said Palast.

 

Palast said BP operates under a "culture of neglect driven by penny pinching" where a desire for increased production and lower costs has driven the company to cut corners where safety is concerned.

 

"They [bP] have gone after whistleblowers they don't like," said Palast.

 

BP targets those who recommend and encourage spending on safety. Palast said they have continually used political pressure to fire government regulators whom they see as a threat. BP has even gone to the extreme, using ex-CIA agents to tap phones and search houses.

 

"A US judge who heard about this activity said that British Petroleum was acting like Nazis," said Palast.

 

Palast said that if BP listened to the whistleblowers, these type of incidents would not happen.

 

"But of course if they listened they would have to spend some money to fix things," said Palast.

 

Palast continued, "We have a big problem with oil companies. They are worth so much that they feel they have immunity and impunity. [...] And baby, in politics it's money that talks!"

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT-WEhD7RvU

[Guest RT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfse0K7sjNc

Is EPA fudging the air quality numbers?

[Guest Unified Area Command]

Just weeks after the first Heavy Oil Recovery Device (HORD) was successfully tested in the Gulf of Mexico off the shores of Alabama, the innovative devices are greatly improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the cleanup operation. The HORD, originally dubbed Tarball Retrieval Device, is being manufactured at the rate of 8-10 units per day in shipyards in Pensacola, Fla., and Bayou La Batre, Ala. Up to 1,000 units are expected to be manufactured and put into service in the coming weeks.

 

The HORD has proven to be especially effective in collecting the thick, heavy oil that hampers traditional skimming methods. It is also able to cleanup the extremely light and difficult to remove sheen left on the water surface after skimming.

 

The brainchild of Capt. Gerry Matherne, the HORD exemplifies the adage “necessity is the mother of invention.” Matherne, a supertanker captain and second generation seaman, who is under contract with BP, realized early on that something different was needed to quickly and effectively deal with the sticky, orange globs of oil (known as tarballs) floating just under the water’s surface.

 

“Standard skimming methods work best on fresh oil on the water’s surface. A lot of the oil we’re dealing with on the Gulf has degraded, changing from a liquid state to a peanut butter-like consistency that floats on the surface and 12 to 18 inches below the surface,” said Matherne. “The HORD reflects creative thinking, a willingness to try new things and a can-do attitude by everyone involved with the clean-up.”

 

Matherne’s invention is essentially a single unit that acts as a filter, containment and disposal system rolled into one. A mesh bag held open by a 3-foot by 3-foot aluminum frame is dragged through the water by shrimp boats put into service as skimmers. The cage-like device scoops up surface oil and sheen, as well as the thick oil lurking beneath the surface of the water.

 

When the bags reach their two-ton capacity, they are switched out for empty ones, loaded onto smaller boats and transported to approved oil disposal units. The bags are later decontaminated and reused.

 

The total downtime for skimmers outfitted with HORDs is measured in minutes, compared to hours or days for a traditional skimmer that has to transport the captured oil to disposal units and wait to be unloaded, before returning to sea.

 

In addition to saving precious time, the HORD’s simple design greatly improves a boat’s maneuverability and ability to safely perform at faster speeds and in higher seas.

 

For more information about the Heavy Oil Recovery Device, please contact the Mobile Joint Information Center at (251) 445-8965.

[Guest Unified Area Command]

Oil observers reported sheen and tar balls in the Rigolets and Lake Pontchartrain this morning to the Slidell Forward Operating Base of the Deepwater Horizon Response.

 

Response crews placed a combined 600-feet of hard and soft boom at a natural choke point in the Rigolets to prevent more oil from getting through to Lake Pontchartrain. Nineteen manual skimming vessels and four decontamination vessels based out of Orleans and St. Tammany were dispatched to the reported oiled areas. Cleanup operations were conducted throughout the day both up and down stream of the choke point.

 

As of 7:30 p.m. cleanup crews have collected 1,020 pounds of tar balls and waste. Collected oil is being tested to determine if from the Deepwater Horizon wellhead.

[Guest gallaghersean]

I live in Clearwater, FL and I smell the oil again today. It actually makes me dizzy and feel sick when I go out side and walk around.

[Guest trish]

I live in Clearwater, FL and I smell the oil again today. It actually makes me dizzy and feel sick when I go out side and walk around.

 

my heart goes out to you and everyone down there. What a awful thing to have done to them. I also believe that this is going to effect all of us in the usa!

[Guest SO SAY WE ALL]

This video was produced by Robert M. Young and Edward James Olmos on a trip to the heart of the oil spill in the Gulf. Edited by Stephen Cohen.

 

Robert Young and I jumped on a plane and went to the Gulf of Mexico just to lend our support by documenting what we saw...

 

Well, the people that we met took up all of our time. It was brutal! I was not ready for the human aspect because no one had prepared me for it.

 

I thought they would be angry. They are devastated.

Take a look at this video and see for yourself. People are afraid to talk and you will learn why watching this...

 

Please pass it on, recommend it.

 

If you feel like doing something, just go down there (anywhere on the Gulf) and support by spending time and energy in the region.

 

They need our support. Thank you for Caring.

Edward James Olmos

 

For More information on what some local organizations are doing on the ground go to:

 

http://SaveOurGulf.org

 

Follow Edward James Olmos on FaceBook!

Twitter: EdwardJOlmos