70,000 Barrels a Day - BP oil spill much larger than previous estimates

[Nathanael]

Up until now most media outlets (including this one) have been reporting that the estimated amount of oil gushing out of the broken BP oil pipe in the Gulf of Mexico was about 5,000 barrels a day.

We posted video over the last couple of days showing the oil leak at the source and many of our readers commented that it appeared to be a lot more than BP's estimate of 5,000 barrels.

Today there is news breaking that experts who have analyzed the videos and other data conclude that the original estimate is incorrect and that as much as 70,000 barrels a day are pouring out of the pipe into the Gulf of Mexico.

Read the full story and see the video, here: http://www.energyboom.com/policy/70000-barrels-day-bp-oil-spill-much-larger-previous-estimates

[Aramchek]

1. so that 5-minute video was enough to make a reliable estimate?

I swear, some people actually want this thing to be worse than it already is.

[tekisui]

2. What an odd response.

[Aramchek]

3. wait, wait, It's leaking a Million Barrels a day!

Is that better?

[tekisui]

4. Why do you want to down play it?

It wasn't just one scientist who said the leak is much worse than we've been told. We need to know how much is leaking to respond properly. There has been no evidence that the leak has slowed in any way. Really, I find your attitude on this very strange.

[FBaggins]

5. Isn't that essentially the question that Aramchek is asking?

Lots of people are making off-the-cuff assumptions about how large the spill is. Taking whatever the current largest guess is and assuming that it's the correct total is no better than picking the lower figures (either due to sympathy for the industry or sincere hope for less environmental damage) and assuming that must be the correct one. In that second case how would you feel if someone accused you of fear-mongering without evidence?

We simply don't know what the right answer is. "It's really bad and needs to be fixed as soon as humanly possible" is good enough at this point.

We need to know how much is leaking to respond properly

No... we don't. Unless you know of resources that are sitting on the sidelines because it's just not a big enough deal to need their involvement? When they worked on the cap that they hoped to place over the leak and siphon some of the oil directly to a waiting ship... did they just take a weekend off saying "it's only 5,000 bpd so it isn't a big deal... now if it was 70k we would work a little overtime" ?

The same people (who came up with the far higher figure based on a few seconds of video) wanted to send equipment down that they think can come up with an accurate measurement. Can you imagine? A forest is burning down and the people who can't decide how hot the fire is want the firemen to step aside for a few minutes while they run some tests?

[tekisui]

6. People may be making off the cuff remarks, but

the scientists are not. They are not just guesses. And, we do need to know. Not so that our response would change. Obviously, response is a the highest possible level. But, without a somewhat, independent measure, we will not know how bad it will be.

We need to know for many reasons, especially for future planning. Not only on how to react to these events, but how to prevent them. Already, we have seen that BP has not been fully honest, at every point along the way. Without real-time independent observation, we will not have data that can be trusted.

[FBaggins]

7. They are, in fact, just guesses.

They're educated guesses, but still guesses. They have, for instance, ZERO knowledge that the flow is constant. In the video itself (at least the one I've seen) you can see the flow change from large amounts of gas and virtually no oil... to virtually all oil. How often does that happen?

The amount they came up with is so large that they expect a FAR larger visible slick... yet it isn't there. Do they modify their numbers to account for what is actually observed? No... they assume that the vast majority of the oil is hiding beneath the surface. Now... it that possible? Maybe, but they really don't know (and most people recognize that oil and water don't mix very well).

In my experience, if measurable data doesn't match your assumptions, you have to at least be open to the possibility that your assumptions are incorrect.

And, we do need to know.

We don't. We WANT to know... we FEEL a "need" to know... but we really don't. We'll find out how bad it is... when "it is".

We need to know for many reasons, especially for future planning.

That could certainly be true... but we don't need to know that while it's happening.

For instance. IF this latest "cap and pump" idea works, they'll know fairly precisely how much oil they're getting.

Guessing at this point serves little real purpose.

[kgrandia]

12. Gravity

Gravity is a measurable guess. What's your point?

[Aramchek]

8. "The oil is not evenly distributed, either horizontally or vertically. It's very patchy."

There is now way the Scientists can make a reliable estimate based on surface viewing and satellite images.

The only real way to get any handle on how much is coming out is to watch it at the source with the Robots.
The latest 'reliable estimate' being bandied about as BREAKING NEWS! (Just look at CNN right now) is not based on any time-lapse viewing of the leak sites, aside from one clip a few minutes long.
It is based on extreme guesswork.

No help at all.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aramchek]

13. oh, for fucksakes

just because I don't want to bite at the latest attempt for a "Shocking News Story!"
doesn't mean I support BP or don't think the spill is a very big deal.

I just know manufactured frenzy when I see it.

Running around like chickens with our heads cut off and screaming that "It's the End of the Gulf of Mexico, woe is me!!" helps absolutely noone.

[kristopher]

9. You're right, these estimates are far more than "guesses"

It is telling that BP has not only been restricting access to their own data, but they have also been excluding access to the site by a team with the exact technology needed to determine the rate of flow. Their behavior is a clear demonstration of consciousness of guilt.

Read the NYT article at this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x247502

[kgrandia]

11. Who?

Who would want this worse than it is?