BULLSHIT ALERT.....BP: 'Majority' of leaking oil is being captured

[spanone]

look like a majority????? http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/spill_cam/


ON BARATARIA BAY, La. - A containment cap fitted onto a leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico is capturing 10,000 barrels of oil per day, BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward said Sunday.

Hayward, the subject of speculation that he may be forced out of his position due to the political fallout from the environmental disaster, also told the BBC that he had strong support from BP's board.

"The containment cap is producing around 10,000 barrels of oil a day to the surface which is being processed on the surface," he said.

Asked what proportion that represented of the total oil leaking, Hayward said: "At the moment it's difficult to say but we would expect it to be the majority, probably the vast majority of the oil."

Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said Saturday that after its first full day of work, the cap placed on the gusher near the sea floor trapped about 252,000 gallons of oil, which is somewhere between a quarter to half of the oil flowing from the well, according to government estimates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37536554/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf/

[tekisui]

1. BP= Bullshit Peddlers

[spanone]

2. the last sentence above confirms the bullshit...is 1/4 or 1/2 a majority?

absolutely NO way of confirming any claims by bp

[safeinOhio]

3. Not what the live camera

looks like. Looks as bad as ever to my untrained eye.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Important: The 12,000 to 19,000 number is from analyzing surface oil....

Last week's much-ballyhooed new federal estimate of how much oil is spewing into the Gulf of Mexico -- 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day, or two to four times as much as the original estimate -- remains a low-ball figure.

The numbers released by the government last week and quickly adopted by the mass media actually represent the lower range of "lower bounds" generated by using conservative assumptions and flawed measures, according to documents released on Thursday.

The newly-released summary of the report from the Department of Interior's "Flow Rate Technical Group" doesn't disclose the higher bounds, however, declaring that a reliable upper figure was incalculable due to -- get this -- "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns."

....

One of the methods the team used to arrive at its numbers was based on an estimate of the oil detected on the ocean surface. The new report states that: "The team then corrected the value for oil evaporated, skimmed, burned, and dispersed up to that day and divided by time to produce an average rate."

But there is nothing remotely like agreement in the scientific community about how much of the oil remains beneath the surface. Some scientists think the vast majority remains suspended in the water column. By contrast, NOAA's director has a hard time acknowledging there is any at all.

How the flow-rate team "corrected" for something they didn't know about remains a secret. Overall, however, even including the amount of oil evaporated, skimmed or burned, the team's lower bound for the flow amounted to less than double the amount visible on the surface.

.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/gulf-oil-spill-latest-fed_n_599615.html

Bottom line: If you believe, like Tony Hayward, that all the oil is on the surface, 12,000 to 19,000 bbd is a good number. Otherwise the true number is much, much higher.

[spanone]

5. i don't really buy anything tony hayward is selling

[Junkdrawer]

6. CBS: How The Oil Leak Estimates Got Low-Balled

Just last week, the Interior Department released a range of 12-to-19,000 barrels a day -- up to four times what the government and BP had claimed. That's 504,000 to 798,000 gallons each day. That's bad enough. But it turns out that's not exactly what the scientists conducting the analysis found.

Sources tell CBS News that 12-19,000 barrels a day is actually the minimum believed to be leaking from the well based on the most "conservative assumptions." The upper end of the range, a maximum, hasn't yet been released. But those facts were lost somewhere in the translation between the scientists and the Interior Department press release.

....

Many involved in the effort were unhappy with what they considered incorrect reporting and interpretation of the scientific work. The estimates matter greatly because BP could have to pay fines of up to $4,300 per barrel for each barrel spilled. They may also be required to pay royalties to the U.S. for the lost oil. The range means differences of millions of gallons and billions of dollars.

....

But if the upper bounds of the range are "significantly larger," as sources believe, BP's fine could easily jump to upwards of $4 billion dollars for just the first 40 days.

Faced with questions as to whether some in the government were "low balling" the oil flow estimates, the Interior Department today revised their original press release. It now reflects that 12-25,000 barrels a day is a "lower bound" estimate and that scientists are still working on the "upper bound."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20006881-10391695.html

[Statistical]

13. No they didn't. The flow group used 3 different methods to calculate the flow.

I posted the actual report when it was released.

[Junkdrawer]

14. CBS News reports that the scientists involved with the report are unhappy....

about how their work is being spun...

Just last week, the Interior Department released a range of 12-to-19,000 barrels a day -- up to four times what the government and BP had claimed. That's 504,000 to 798,000 gallons each day. That's bad enough. But it turns out that's not exactly what the scientists conducting the analysis found.

Sources tell CBS News that 12-19,000 barrels a day is actually the minimum believed to be leaking from the well based on the most "conservative assumptions." The upper end of the range, a maximum, hasn't yet been released. But those facts were lost somewhere in the translation between the scientists and the Interior Department press release.

....

Many involved in the effort were unhappy with what they considered incorrect reporting and interpretation of the scientific work. The estimates matter greatly because BP could have to pay fines of up to $4,300 per barrel for each barrel spilled. They may also be required to pay royalties to the U.S. for the lost oil. The range means differences of millions of gallons and billions of dollars.

....

But if the upper bounds of the range are "significantly larger," as sources believe, BP's fine could easily jump to upwards of $4 billion dollars for just the first 40 days.

Faced with questions as to whether some in the government were "low balling" the oil flow estimates, the Interior Department today revised their original press release. It now reflects that 12-25,000 barrels a day is a "lower bound" estimate and that scientists are still working on the "upper bound."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20006881-10391695.html

[Statistical]

16. Thats fine but it doesn't validate your claim that they only looked at surface oil.

They used 3 distinct methods to determine flow rate of oil.

[Junkdrawer]

20. I didn't say that. I said: "The 12,000 to 19,000 number is from analyzing surface oil...."

What the scientists are angry over is that that half of the results are being portrayed as the group's findings.

[Statistical]

21. No it isn't.

"The 12,000 to 19,000 number is from analyzing surface oil...." = wrong.

The 12,000 to 19,000 number is based on the 3 independent methods used. The scientists are upset because the 12K-19K number is lower bound and the report indicates it is the complete bound (i.e 12K lower bound and 19K upper bound). This has nothing to do with "they only got this number from analyzing surface oil" nonsense you keep claiming.

Have you even looked at the report? It is in public domain.

[Junkdrawer]

22. From the report :

Mass Balance: 12,000 to 19,000 barrels per day

The mass balance team used data from the AVIRIS airborne sensor flown over the Gulf of Mexico on May 17, 2010. The sensor can map both the aerial extent and thickness of oil by observing changes in reflectance that occur in the near infrared because oil absorption is less in that waveband. AVIRIS can only observe a portion of the total spill area in one day, and there is some uncertainty in estimating what proportion of the total spill area is represented in the scene that is imaged. On May 17, the mass balance team calculates that they observed 15% of the total spill, and assumes that the portion they observed is representative of the total spill. An adjustment is made for additional dull oil and sheen that coat the surface in fairly uniform layers too thin to be sensed by AVIRIS but from other sensors have been shown to persist in known ratios to the area of the thick oil (88:10:2 for sheen to dull oil to thick oil). On May 17, the amount of thick oil was 70,000 to 150,000 barrels. Bounds on the contribution of sheen and dull oil that need to be added to those totals are 60,000 to 120,000 barrels depending on reasonable thicknesses chosen for sheen and dull oil. Therefore, lower and upper bounds on the oil spill on May 17 are between 130,000 and 270,000 barrels of oil. This is the amount of oil that poses the largest threat to the coastal environment, and a large proportion of the oil released after this date was either disperser subsea or collected with the riser insertion tube tool (RITT).



http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=33972

[Statistical]

23. Interesting you ignored the next paragraph.

Corrections are then made for the amount of oil that was evaporated, skimmed, burned, and dispersed either subsea or on the sea surface. These corrections nearly double the total amount of oil as of May 17th. The total oil is then divided by the number of days to get an average rate. This method is not without its biases that might not be captured by formal uncertainty bounds as well. For example, all of the corrections made to the surface oil were to add in losses of oil to the system. To the extent that there are other unknown processes that remove oil naturally from the system that are unaccounted for,

The 12K to 19K wasn't the amount of oil seen of the surface. The amount of oil seen on the surface was only roughly half that. They increased the number based on the amount of oil dispersed subsea.

How do they know how much was dispersed subsea? Simple dispersents weren't added to undersea plume on day one thus they have two sets of data. 7 days without subsea dispersents and 5 days with. This changed the rate that slick of surface grew and thus provided a method to calculate overall flow rate not just surface oil component.

[Junkdrawer]

25. What about the oil that hasn't made it (and may never make it) to the surface?

You know the giant sub-sea plume that Tony Hayward says doesn't exist?

[Statistical]

26. That is why the 12K to 19K INCLUDES oil that didn't make it to the surface.

The amount recorded on the surface was less than HALF that.

So if they had said
we observe a surface rate of 5K to 9K bpd you might have a point.

However they DIDN'T do that. They took surface amount and compensated for oil that never made it to the surface thus more than DOUBLING the estimate.

You claim that they simply looked at surface oil is 100% wrong, intentionally so, and without merit.

[Junkdrawer]

28. The amount they compensated for subsea dispersal is not given:

Two posts back you correctly quote the report:

"Corrections are then made for the amount of oil that was evaporated, skimmed, burned, and dispersed either subsea or on the sea surface."

And if that is what they did, I'd venture to say that the amount of compensation for subsea oil in general (either with or without dispersants added) is woefully inaccurate.

[Statistical]

29. Wasn't given really. You couldn't read on to the VERY NEXT SENTENCE.

Corrections are then made for the amount of oil that was evaporated, skimmed, burned, and dispersed either subsea or on the sea surface. These corrections nearly double the total amount of oil as of May 17th.

[Junkdrawer]

30. The correction is for evaporated, skimmed, burned, and dispersed either subsea or on the sea surface

Not just for subsea oil

[HughMoran]

15. Not true

They analyzed the flow from the pipes. One thing working for a lower estimate was the larger than expected amount of methane present.

[Junkdrawer]

19. Yes it is true: There were two estimates:

The surface (Mass Balance) team got 12,000 to 19,000

The team that analyzed the pipe got a LOWER bound of 12,000 to 25,000

http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=33972

So BP and the Government presented the surface team's results and the scientists involved are unhappy and are complaining to the press.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/04/eveningnews/main6549077.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20006881-10391695.html

[Dr.Phool]

24. My estimate is the most accurate.

There's a whole shitload of oil coming out of that pipe!

And that's a median estimate.

[ananda]

7. The propaganda is also gushing out thick and fast.

nt

[Stuckinthebush]

8. Perhaps it is not

I hope that they are correct about that.

Of course, there is not a damn thing any of us can do about it one way or the other.

Sucks.

[PCIntern]

9. I'm shocked...SHOCKED that they would lie about this...

I mean...who would THINK in a million years that an oil company wouldn't tell the whole truth about something like this? Unbelievable...

The way these bastards do things is: if they say a given number of anything (gallons, barrels),then add a zero and divide by 2/3... e.g. 15000 really means 150000 X 3/2 = 225000...

Then later, they 'revise' their estimates...maybe...or maybe they just go with the utter lie ad infinitum if and only if they can get away with it completely (see: Warren Commission Report)...

[HughMoran]

10. Assuming the flow is about 20,000 bpd, that's only about half

Which is more like it.

[Junkdrawer]

11. I think the flow is much higher...and so do some of the scientists on the panel...

who are pissed about being used.

See Post #6 above...

[HughMoran]

17. There's no way for me to argue this

It could be accurate, it could be way off. When they reverse the Top Kill lines, they should easily be able to double the recovery amount - I'd guess close to 25,000 bpd. At that point we'll have a better idea of which estimate was most accurate.

[Feron]

12. If the cap is sucking in 10k barrels a day to the surface...

and it's still gushing out the side like it did when they first capped it...then the flow is a lot higher than 19k.

Seriously though, these BP people never learn. Yesterday nola.com said that they were making a new cap.

[Statistical]

18. 10,000 barrels in tanker is 10,000 barels not in Gulf.

I think the max capacity of ship is 15K bpd (barrels per day).

The next step is to keep the cap operation in place and re-attached top kill lines to the BOP. Instead of pumping mud the goal is to siphon oil directly from BOP.

They pushed about 20K barrels of mud via those lines. Not sure how much oil they can "pull out". Lets say it is only 10K.


So if they can get flow rate to ship to max (15K) and reverse top kill works (10K) that is 25K barrels not flowing into Gulf.

[HughMoran]

27. Agreed - that is my estimate as well

I think a capacity of 25,000 bpd will significantly reduce the appearance of oil leaking around the cap (it can't be stopped altogether due to clathrate formation if seawater gets in.)

[Statistical]

31. The one bad thing from BP point of view is the more they capture ...

the more the lower bound confidence is pushed up.

The flow team has an estimate of 12K - 25K as the lower bound but they haven't provided a confidence level for that assesment. Likely it is 95%. That means they are saying it is 95% likely that the minimum flow of the well is 12K - 25K.

However we do have a 100% confidence lower bound and that is 11K. How? Because the siphon at one point pulled in oil at a rate of 11K bpd. So we absoultely know the flow is >11K.

If BP captures say 25K bpd that provides a 100% confidence at the 25K bpd mark and causes the statistically probable spill rate to rise. From a legal point of view it doesn't matter how much oil spilled, it matter how much oil you can show spilled with any level of certainty.

I am sure there are some executives in BP who don't want the captured rate to get to 25K bpd for the reason that is moves the probable spill amount upward.

[HughMoran]

34. They will, of course, claim that that the rate was lower before they cut the riser

You can't blame them for wanting to minimize their liability, though it is reprehensible.

[Statistical]

35. True but given it is at least 50 more days until relief wells are complete

that movement in lower limit adds up to a lot of oil (a LOT).

[spanone]

38. i agree 100% - every spoonful counts...my gripe is with the pr.....majority...

[annabanana]

32. 10,000 barrels of oil per day?? . Isn't that TWICE what they said

was leaking?

Does anyone know if BP plans to add this "captured product" to it's bottom line?

[City Lights]

33. If Tony's lips are moving, he's lying.

I cannot type what I'd like to do with that fucker.

[Parker CA]

36. This is where the true number will be realized. Poor Tony is in a position of wanting to claim

that the highest number of barrels possible are being captured, but he will run into the point where that number exceeds their high estimate of gushing oil while the cameras continue to show gushing oil. The reality will set in and either BP will be forced to adjust the gush number to an accurate total, or they will take other measures such as cutting off all camera feeds, then claiming the flow has stopped.

One way or another BP is going to run into their real number and their lies about flow rate will be exposed, unless of course they continue to create their own reality and disconnect any observer from the videos.

Should be an interesting few days as BP tries to get that "majority or vast majority" claim up even higher while oil continues to spew.

[spanone]

37. m$nbc STILL has this headline on their website

www.msnbc.com