Comments on: Truth and lies in oil-skimming statistics A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: BrianJDonovan Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:41:00 +0000 Collection of the BP oil spill has never been a “skimming” operation. This “spill” is a gusher of oil being released from the seafloor, approximately one-mile below the sea surface. USCG is using conventional skimmers, boom and dispersants normally deployed for inland waterway surface oil spills.

BP and USCG will eventually use tankers to collect the oil that has been released into the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the Deepwater Horizon blowout of April 20, 2010. Unfortunately, this decision will be made after the devastation of many coastal communities.

The blowout of April 20, 2010 aboard the Deepwater Horizon was clearly preventable. The fact that the BP oil spill has been allowed to reach coastal areas is inexcusable.

For a clear understanding of the issues involved, visit:  /bp-is-not-the-only-responsible-party/

and 0/06/05/the-oil-pollution-act-provides-f or-the-federalization-of-the-bp-oil-spil l/

and 0/06/14/why-bp-does-not-want-an-accurate -measurement-of-the-gulf-oil-spill/

By: BrianJDonovan Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:39:47 +0000 BP and USCG have been employing an “Out-of-Sight, Out-of-Mind” strategy with the excessive use of dispersants and media control and restriction.

The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, more commonly called NCP, is the federal government’s blueprint for responding to both oil spills and hazardous substance releases.

Pursuant to NCP Section 300.310, “As appropriate, actions shall be taken to recover the oil or mitigate its effects. Of the numerous chemical or physical methods that may be used, the chosen methods shall be the most consistent with protecting public health and welfare and the environment. Sinking agents shall not be used.”

Sinking agents means those additives applied to oil discharges to sink floating pollutants below the water surface.

The question is whether BP’s dispersants are “sinking agents” when they are applied a mile underwater at the source of the well leak.

BP and USCG are knowingly and systematically underestimating the size of the spill to limit the financial impact on the oil company. Under the CWA, the company faces fines of up to $4,300 for each barrel spilled. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 2702 of OPA 90, BP may be required to pay royalties (18.75%) owed to the federal government for the oil gushing from the well.

For a clear understanding of the issues involved, visit: 0/06/14/why-bp-does-not-want-an-accurate -measurement-of-the-gulf-oil-spill/

By: knut Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:25:14 +0000 GA_Chris is correect.
BP has been denied by US companies to use Piper Alpha and later equipment. The US companies use existing laws to block assistance.

To skim and recover 500 000 bbl per day would be a huge operation – that is a new VLCC (tanker) every 4 day. But, remove the drilling turret on a FPSO, and you have the device – of course, not invented in the “land of the brave”. The recovery will be easy, waves here never exceed 10m / 30 feet. What to do with the recovered crude remains to be addressed, because a refinery cannot take it since the condensates will have evaporated.

There has been a similar disaster further south. PDVSA in Venezuela lost an oil rig on one of their (wet-gas) fields. But with safety regulations in place, identical to the North Sea, not a pint was spilled, nobody was killed – but the rig sank.

Just as when a person is about to drown at sea, he should not deny help because “I only want to be saved by Pamela Anderson as in Baywatch”. When you drown – your relatives have no sympathy here (or anywhere else). They will admit that silliness killed you. The same is the law in the Mexican Gulf: deny help and do not blame anyone later.

By: lakosh Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:03:09 +0000 Spill response plans are designed to fail because they emphasize the amount of oil that can be pumped rather than the amount of area that can be covered by skimming systems. Spills spread very quickly to a very thin average oil layer, much less than 1 mm average thickness, so the real problem is concentrating the oil so the it can be recovered faster than it spreads. Regulators must first account for the spreading of spills in high currents and severe weather and only then approve the skimming systems that can reliably and quickly cover the large areas predicted by spill dispersion models. There are fast skimmers that can be configured to safely operate in high seas but they are not used because regulators only calculate the theoretical oil pumping rate when approving response plans. For example, BP claimed its skimmers could recover 491,000 bbl/day but they actually recovered less than 900 bbl/day, more than 545 times less than claimed. Once the industry is compelled to use the ASTM F1780-97 methodology or the NOAA Mechanical Equipment Calculator, that factor in the area that can be covered by skimming systems, we’ll have a much more effective spill response capability.

By: HBC Tue, 06 Jul 2010 21:48:50 +0000 In this deregulated world of ours, there’s a whole lot of skimming going on. Just not much of it actually helping clean up carelessly spilled oil, or any of the other greasy lubricants of inhumane unkindness.

Truth is, things won’t get a whole lot better until guys in expensive suits can be reduced to tears over every last drop of milken spillage they have wrought.

By: GA_Chris Tue, 06 Jul 2010 21:07:56 +0000 I hear that BP shareholders are planning to sue the US gov bc BP did not use the safety equipment which was developed after the 1988 Piper Alpha explosion (google it), which is mandatory in most of the world. The US gov standards are lax and thus caused the spill, wiping out shareholder value, so they are seeking compensation… makes sense….?

By: EagleDriver Tue, 06 Jul 2010 20:57:29 +0000 A huge boodoogle by the Obama admin and BP. There are many good and better solutions that be implemented by the more experienced professionals, but BP has to save face and the Obama conies are too inept to make a difference.
This mess has turned into an colossal disaster. The worst part of it is we cannot fix it until Obama is removed from office.

By: Woltmann Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:59:41 +0000 It’s hard to keep your foot on somone’s throat when you got your hands in their wallet ..

By: hsvkitty Tue, 06 Jul 2010 18:04:00 +0000 (oops reckless)

By: hsvkitty Tue, 06 Jul 2010 18:01:12 +0000 There was/is a lot of research completed, but like most things the cleanup was self regulatory and permits given at their word. MasterListofOSRRProjects.htm

Are other oil companies as wrecklass in their estimates? I hate to answer your question with a question… but here it is…

“Clueless and inept is really the only way to describe the ongoing situation at MMS,” said Mike Senatore, vice president for Conservation Law at Defenders of Wildlife.

“This agency is at the epicenter of the worst environmental disaster in our nation’s history and yet it’s still going about business as usual. How else do you explain MMS’s approval of the right to drill hundreds of new wells in the Gulf, including 13 for BP, based on the same fundamentally flawed and patently illegal environmental documents used to green-light the Deepwater Horizon operation?”

The most recent lease was handed out on June 10 and all over-state their capacity for clean up, hastily handed out to beat the moratorium.

Now that the MMS has been renamed “The New Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) things are bound to get better. Right?