It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Deepwater: 95,000 barrels per day!

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   


No oil leaking.
1,000 barrels per day.
5,000 barrels per day.
25,000 barrels per day.
65,000 to 75,000 barrels per day.
95,000 barrels per day.




The latest glimpse of video footage of the oil spill deep under the Gulf of Mexico indicates that around 95,000 barrels, or 4 million gallons, a day of crude oil may be spewing from the leaking wellhead, 19 times the previous estimate, an engineering professor told Congress Wednesday.

The figure of 5,000 barrels, or 210,000 gallons, a day that BP and the federal government have been using for weeks is based on observations of the surface slick made by satellites and aircraft. Even NASA's satellite-based instruments, however, can't see deep into the waters of the gulf, where much of the oil from the gusher seems to be floating. The well is 5,000 feet below the surface.

Read more: www.mcclatchydc.com...



:shk:

[edit on 20-5-2010 by loam]




posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 



On Wednesday, Wereley told a House of Representatives Energy and Commerce subcommittee that his calculations of two leaks that are on videos BP released on Tuesday showed 70,000 barrels from one leak and 25,000 from the other.

He said the margin of error was about 20 percent, making the spill between 76,000 and 104,000 barrels a day. However, Wereley said he'd need to see videos that showed the flow over a longer period to get a better calculation of the mix of oil and gas from the wellhead.


That sounds about as relevant as knowing how much liquid is spewing out.

Since something like 49% of crude oil evaporates (like in a tanker spill I thought), is the natural gas component what is that 49%, or the the natural gas its own separate animal?

It seems with the data I have that the natural gas is seperate from that 49%, as 'wikipedia claims' that often NG is just burnt off near the well.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

How much material is flowing out is relevant, but without knowing how much is natural gas, assuming its not the typical 49% of crude would also be crucial to understand the scale of threat and cleanup.

Consider this: 49% of the crude will evaporate, and then near 100% of the NG will. Knowing how much is flowing OF EACH is dire. Knowing how much is actual crude is needed, in particular to know how much of crudes 6% tar (which doesn't evaporate or dissolve) is what we need to know to assess the long term effects, as most of the 94% of the crude will go away naturally in relatively short time.


Camilli develops instrument sensors and robotic technology to detect pollution in the ocean below the surface. He suggested using multi-beam sonar and an acoustic current profiler to measure the flow of oil and gas. That would help scientists determine if the blowout preventer was partially constricted and what happened to it, he said.

BP was at first interested, but a few days later declined the offer.

Camilli said the same instruments could be used to estimate the total spill volume.


BP should hang for that. Day one should have been placing sensors in front of it to know whats happening.


[edit on 20-5-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
This hole could have been covered up in less than 24 hours if they wanted to. They have let all of this oil spill for some twisted agenda. I know this to be the truth in my heart and it makes me sick.




posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Well any way you go it is going to make the price of oil go up. So guess who is going to pay for it.


Yeah that is right. Consumers.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Lindsey Williams: "Oil is not a fossil fuel and is created by a chemical process deep underground"



I wanted to create a new thread for this, but I don't have 20 responses yet.

Lindsey Williams: "Oil is not a fossil fuel and is created by a chemical process deep underground" "They don't know how to stop it" "They tried to copy the Russian's in their deep oil drilling"

He also talks about a huge oil reserve under the Dakotas.


Here are his latest videoes regarding the GOM oil spill.


Video #1



Videos #2 - #4:


www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

This oil "leak" is huge.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by drkid
 

Well you are wrong on that one. You forget that the wellhead is about one mile under water. The pressure at that depth is about 2200 pounds per square inch. No human can go there, the work must be done by robotically controlled submersibles. The pressure of the oil and gas coming out of the well is possibly in the tens of thousands of pounds per square inch.

They literally got in over their head.

This event will probably take down BP and as well it should.

EVERYONE needs to use this event as an opportunity to put extreme pressure on Congress to make them force the release of the suppressed energy technology that would make fossil fuels obsolete. The technology exists, and has existed for a long time. The government and the energy companies have suppressed it to the point of killing people who have made discoveries that threatened TPTB.

Lets all hope we survive to be able to use the new technology.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Well any way you go it is going to make the price of oil go up. So guess who is going to pay for it.


Yeah that is right. Consumers.



Rest easy, this is only a tiny percent of the total oil supply of the world. It wont even make a dent in the prices. Not even a dent.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   
I just found this on BBC. It looks like it's going to be everyone's problem if this gets into the Atlantic. I wonder if this will have an effect on the global conveyor currents?

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Did you people notice how brtish scum news where trying to play down this, seeing as its bp, being british petroleum.

Who knows how bad it is, but do not listen to uk propaganda on this.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   
hmm I'm suspicious of that number simply because i have never heard of an oil well being able to produce 95 thousand barrel's of oil a day.

could you refer me to one? I'm not saying its impossible, just improbable.
Edited typo's

[edit on 5/20/2010 by Alaskan Man]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Alaskan Man
 



Originally posted by Alaskan Man
hmm I'm suspicious of that number simply because i have never heard of an oil well being able to produce 95 thousand barrel's of oil a day.

could you refer me to one? I'm not saying its impossible, just improbable.


It took some time to find an example large enough...

I had trouble understanding if references to a "field" involved a single offshore platform. The following article makes that pretty clear:






Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) says it has suspended production at its EA field, offshore western Niger Delta.

The field produces 100,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Shell spokesman, Precious Okolobo, told newsmen in Port Harcourt on Wednesday that the field, a joint venture, was temporarily shut down for repairs.

“The Shell Petroleum Development Company’s joint venture-operated EA field offshore western Niger Delta has been temporarily shut down as a precaution. “This is to facilitate repairs to the equipment which connects the floating, production, storage and offloading (FPSO) facility and ‘Sea Eagle’ with the mooring platform,” he said. Okolobo explained that the equipment was scheduled for overhaul in May 2009, but bad weather forced its postponement.

“Production of some 100,000 barrels of oil per day has been deferred,” he said, but did not say when the repairs would be completed.

Link.



Clearly, a single production rig is involved.

I also found this example, that seemed less clear, but also likely involves a single well site at the initial 100k bpd number:




Initially, Tupi will produce about 100,000 barrels a day but may ramp up to as much as 1 million before 2020—more than the biggest U.S. field in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, says Hugo Repsold, Petrobras' exploration and production strategy manager. "It's monstrous," says Matthew Shaw, a Latin America energy analyst at consultant Wood Mackenzie in London.

Link.



Based upon what I have read, unlike wells on land or near offshore platforms, deep-water wells produce much, much more oil initially.

I had no luck finding what the largest daily output from such a well would be.

Maybe someone else could find that.


Hope that helps.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by loam]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


We need more specifics about the numbers of platforms & well pipes, and the bore diameters of the well pipes.

I was hoping anyone could answer my other questions up above about natural gas so we can all gain a better understanding about the amount of damage coming out of the gusher. Furthermore, since natural gas is a 'gas', not a liquid, isn't it possible that it could give the crude oil the appearance of being more voluminous than it is?

[edit on 20-5-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
The live feed of the spill is offline: globalwarming.house.gov... and has been for the last few hours ... in fact the whole website seems to be down.

Either the servers can't handle the hits or someone decided that it's not good for business.


[edit on 20 May 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


thats a field tho, a series of wells going to one facility, not a single well like the horizon.





[edit on 5/20/2010 by Alaskan Man]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Alaskan Man
 


It wasn't very clear to me, but when I read the following, it did appear they were talking about a single platform:



“This is to facilitate repairs to the equipment which connects the floating, production, storage and offloading (FPSO) facility and ‘Sea Eagle’ with the mooring platform,”


Is that not the case, then?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


it is a single platform, but its getting its oil from multiple well heads, the horizon is a single well head.

horizon has a single well, so it shouldn't be able to produce 95k bpd from that one well, if the platform your referencing sunk, and the b.o.p.'s failed, it would have multiple (if multiple bop's failed) pipes linking oil, not a single pipe like the horizon.



[edit on 5/20/2010 by Alaskan Man]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Alaskan Man
 


How about this example--though I don't think its an offshore example?




BRINGS IN BIG OIL WELL.; Mexican Petroleum 100,000-Barrel Gusher Makes Shorts Cover.

The Mexican Petroleum Company yesterday announced it had brought in another new well, No. 8, with an initial flow of approximately 100,000 barrels, on the border of the Cerro Azul-Toteco fields.




posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
....edit

[edit on 20-5-2010 by loam]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


that article is from 1921, and very brief, it also mentions well 7 and well 9, i would need a better example then that to believe horizon is capable of 95K

(sorry for being so stubborn)



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Alaskan Man
 




I didn't see the date.

I quite agree.... Why are production volumes so difficult to confirm?

Frustrating....



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join