( – promoted by buhdydharma )
BPravda Today
Macno Nc4e3aet !
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Because the original documents are always so much better than anything I could hope to make up:
August 4, 2010, Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response, Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information CenterFederal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill
WASHINGTON – The vast majority of the oil from the BP oil spill has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed using chemicals – much of which is in the process of being degraded. Much of this is the direct result of the federal response efforts.
A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater Horizon/BP spill was captured or mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations, including burning, skimming, chemical dispersion and direct recovery from the wellhead, according to a federal science report released today.
An additional 25 percent of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, and 16 percent was dispersed naturally into microscopic droplets. The residual amount, just over one quarter (26 percent), is either on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Dispersed and residual oil remain in the system until they degrade through a number of natural processes. Early indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.
These estimates were derived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of the Interior (DOI), who jointly developed what’s known as an Oil Budget Calculator, to provide measurements and best estimates of what happened to the spilled oil. The calculator is based on 4.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gulf, the government’s Flow Rate Technical Group estimate from Monday. More than 25 of the best government and independent scientists contributed to or reviewed the calculator and its calculation methods.
“Teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since day one of this spill, and based on the data from those efforts and their collective expertise, they have been able to provide these useful and educated estimates about the fate of the oil,” says Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “Less oil on the surface does not mean that there isn’t oil still in the water column or that our beaches and marshes aren’t still at risk. Knowing generally what happened to the oil helps us better understand areas of risk and likely impacts.”
The estimates do not make conclusions about the long-term impacts of oil on the Gulf. Fully understanding the damages and impacts of the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something that will take time and continued monitoring and research.
Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column and at the surface. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE, and academic scientists are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate.
It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
Residual oil is also degraded and weathered by a number of physical and biological processes. Microbes consume the oil, and wave action, sun, currents and continued evaporation and dissolution continue to break down the residual oil in the water and on shorelines.
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements wherever possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports. The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional information becomes available.
7/9/2010 Gulf of Mexico 6 days before the leaking well was capped. photo NASA
67% of this is going to go away all by itself, naturally, according to the finest scientific minds available. Image from NOAA and the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center.
Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget:
What Happened to the Oil ?
AcknowledgementsAuthors
Jane Lubchenco, NOAA DOC
Marcia McNutt, USGS DOI
Bill Lehr, NOAA, DOC
Mark Miller, NOAA, DOC
Stephen Hammond, USGS, DOI
William Conner, NOAA, DOCThe following scientists were involved in developing the Oil Budget Calculator Tool
LT(jg) Charity Drew (USCG) original Excel Spreadsheet and application inspiration
David Mack and Jeff Allen (USGS) Application development and engineering
Rebecca Uribe (USGS) Graphic Design
Bill Lehr (NOAA) Lead mass balance and oil budget scientist
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espina (NIST) Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R program
LCDR Lance Lindgren, CDR Peter Hoffman, CDR Sean O’ Brien, and LT Amy McElroy (USCG) Application requirements and user stories
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (USGS) Project vision and management
Kevin Gallagher, Martha Garcia, and Stephen Hammond (USCG) Executive sponsorsThe Following experts were consulted on the oil budget calculations, contributed field data, suggested formulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The team continues to refine the analysis and this document will be updated as appropriate.
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr NOAA
Robert Jones NOAA
Antonio Possolo NIST(ARC note: I added biographical resumé links next to each independent scientist name on the list continued below )
Independent Scientists
•Ron Goodman, U. of Calgary. according to the Icelandic National League of North America March 2008 newsletter, Dr Ronald Goodman, educated as a nuclear physicist, “the bulk of Ron’s career was spent with Exxon and Imperial Oil. Ron has been flown in to consult on many major oil spills, including the Exxon Valdez in 1989. Although retired, Ron continues to write and publish as an adjunct Professor of the Univ of Saskatchewan and the Univ of Calgary.”
•Al Allan, Spil Tec .(sic, name misspelled) http://www.spiltec.com/ holds 3 patents on oil cleanup burning and chemical dispersants. See next name below. Has been NOAA funded. http://www.crrc.unh.edu/center…
•James Payne, Payne Env. link showing 2009 NOAA funded Coastal Response Research Center at the U of New Hampshire where he is listed under “Transport and Weathering of Released Materials” “Field Verification of Oil Spill Fate….” Payne Environmental Consultants Inc does government studies on oil pollution
Dr James Payne works with the above Dr Alan Allen of Spil Tec. Name Listed with his under “Use of Natural Seeps for Evaluation of Dispersant Application and Monitoring Techniques”
http://www.crrc.unh.edu/center…•Tom Coolbaugh Exxon Mobil, http://giwacaf.org//contacts.a… On the Strategic Committee Global Initiative for West and Central Africa http://giwacaf.org/activities.asp
•Ed Overton, LSU. Prof. of Enviro Sciences Currently being quoted on the LSU homepage BP May Not Need Oil Relief Wells After All “Frankly, if they can shut it off from the top and it’s a good, permanent seal, I’ll take it.” http://www.sce.lsu.edu/8/3/10
•Juan Lasheras, UCSD. Prof Dept of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. Lasheras designed the first medical device approved by the USDA to induce hypothermia, and holds 39 medical patents. Co founder of InnerCool Therapies, Inc. Expert in bio mechanical fluid dynamics. http://www.jacobsschool.ucsd.e…
•Merv Fingas, Env Canada (ret) http://www.oilspilltaskforce.o… worked with Coast Guard
•Ali Khelifa, Env Canada http://www.boemre.gov/tarproje… note date on link, 4/9/2010 *
•Pat Lambert, Env Canada•Per Daling, SINTEF Norwegian research company, Daling Per Snorre is full name, wrote papers on dispersants for Oil on Arctic ice http://www.sintef.no/Home/Publ…
•Michel Boufadel, Temple Univ. Dr. Boufadel works on testing dispersants and is studying shale gas fracking water pollution http://www.philly.com/inquirer…
Boufadel also serves on an oil spill modeling committee at the University of New Hampshire’s Coastal Response Research Center, which gets funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
* link from above re Ali Khelifa Env Canada and MMS
http://www.boemre.gov/tarproje…Technology Assessment & Research (TA&R) Program
Project Number 637
Date of Summary April 09, 2010
Subject Validation of the Two Models Developed to Predict the Window of Opportunity for Dispersant Use in the Gulf of Mexico
Performing Activity Environment Canada
Principal Investigator Dr. Ali Khelifa and Mr. Ben Fieldhouse
Contracting Agency Minerals Management Service
Estimated Completion December 31, 2010Description In a previous MMS-funded research project entitled: Identification of Window of Opportunity for Chemical Dispersants on Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects… two correlation models were developed to predict the window of opportunity (or time-window) for successful chemical dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). The models consist of correlation relationships established using best-fit correlation between readily available fresh oil properties and the window of opportunity for successful chemical dispersant use estimated using data from GOM crude oils and spill volumes of 1,000 and 10,000 barrels. The study showed that combination of Sulfur, Saturate and Wax contents of the fresh oils correlated best with the time-window for dispersant use.
This project aims to validate and improve the two correlation models using a well know oil spill model OILMAP, adding crude oils from outside the GOM for which physical and chemical properties are available, introducing ten new crude oils from the GOM for which physical and chemical properties will be measured in this study, considering existing data from large tank tests and field trials/spills, and using data from new small tank tests. The project also aims to evaluate the sensitivity of the models to water temperature, wind speed and the oil viscosity with the aim to include effects of these parameters into the models.Objectives: the goals of the one-year research project are:
1. To validate the time-window predicted by SL Ross for the 24 crude oils selected from the Environment Canada’s oil propriety database and using the SLROSM oil spill model.
2. To validate and to improve the two correlation models proposed by SL Ross using 24 or more additional crude oils outside the GOM for whish physical and chemical properties are available in the Environment Canada’s oil property database or provided by the MMS;
3. To validate and to improve the two correlations models using ten new crude oils from the GOM. Physical and chemical properties of these new oils will be measure in this study;
4. To perform sensitivity analysis of the correlation models to show how the time-window varies with temperature, wind speed, viscosity cutoff (threshold) and the spill volume;
5. To validate and to improve the correlation models using existing data from large tank tests and field spills;
6. To validate and to improve the correlation models using new experimental data from small tank tests. The new dispersion experiments will be conducted in this project.
7. Data Analysis and Final Report Preparation.
Progress MMS has sourced two crude oils from the Gulf of Mexico and ten crude oils from offshore California for this project. Samples have been sent to Environment Canada for analyses and reporting. EC has initiated analyses of these crude oils. Researchers at EC are conducting modeling experiments to validate the time-window predicted by SL Ross (Task 1). The completion date for this project has been extended until December 31, 2010. It took MMS more than ten months to acquire the crude oil samples from platforms offshore California and the Gulf of Mexico. The delay on this project was due to the government, not the contractor Environment Canada
Even Environment Canada is a U.S. government Federal contractor for MMS, Mineral Management Services, not an “independent scientist.”
Can you say “the Federal Government of the United States paid you to draw the conclusion before developing the hypothesis and researching possible outcomes ?”
And we were wondering why the EPA’s director Lisa Jackson backed off cracking down on BP’s continued use of Corexit dispersant underwater, after initially saying that EPA would do so.
I think you can now conclude without any risk of being labeled a CT, that MMS was indeed in the middle of a big “science experiment” on the humans and wildlife in the Gulf, using toxic chemicals to hide the true volume of the spill, on behalf of a private foreign owned corporation operating in U.S. territories.
______
edit update. added 2 pictures.
17 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
…. my computer browser is sticking badly and I didn’t want to risk losing the entire thing, and I didn’t want to risk opening photomucket and locking up.
I know this is sort of dry. Hang in there and go to the bottom and check the links and the date that Minerals Management started their ongoing dispersant study. And then they had these contractors sign off on the document saying the oil was gone. Even cynical moi was a tad gobsmacked.
note. attempted humor, I don’t read Russian (obviously), used a web translator, can’t figure out the letters, and was trying to say “oil is disappeared.”
they fall as rain.
From your quote today from Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center
BUT, of course we have it good authority(sic) that crude oil DOES NOT evaporate.
Doesn’t evaporate until today that is, when it’s time to turn on the media spin to make people believe the oil is gone.
Raining Oil in Louisiana? Not Likely, June 23, 2010
It sure is relieveing to know that we can restore the gulf to a pristine state again!
July 29, 2010
Just because BP sank the giant hundreds of millions of gallons oil blob below the surface with poison chemical dispersants and turned it into a giant hundreds of millions of gallons blob of invisible poison[1] doesn’t mean it’s not still there… and continuing to grow.
[1] Toxicologist: Oil/Corexit mix caused heart trouble, organ damage, rectal bleeding, Stephen C. Webster, July 2010
When the oceans evaporate they fall as rain.
But since it’s now invisible nobody will make the connection when their next child is born with one eye, an arm growing out of his forehead, webbed fingers, and dies of cancer screaming in pain and bleeding from the rectum at six months old.
…………………………
Blow by Blow
First 100 days of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill:
An animated timeline of events
animation here
I just long a super long comment! Makes me utterly ill!
Anyway, it’s so obvious that since Dudley came on board, as the guy who said he would create a “leaner BP,” certainly seems he’s doing his job. Imagine, just since he came on the board, the Gulf is all better and, in fact, well now — about a week later.
This is ALL unmitigated BS. Where is ALL the oil unaccounted for? It’s in the columns or on the Gulf-bed’s floor, but it’s definitely BELOW the surface. Over 100 days of gushing, with occasional relief, and over 400,000 million barrels of oil and IT’S ALL GONE? It’s all about the money — BP doesn’t want to spend a dime more and have yet to live up to a number of promises made by them.
But just as BushCo et al. got away with literal MURDER, it appears BP will, as well. Afterall, they are the major supplier of OIL for our wars of obscenities.
What really, really, concerns me is that “capping” this gusher by stuffing it full of crap, even to the point, where I’ve read they may not even need the relief wells now, is the possible ramifications. BP could just declare their job is done (BS)and move on — and WHO will be on the lookout for ruptures to the ocean floor resultantly? WHO? Not BP! They’ll abandon the whole thing in their inimitable depraved fashion. But, again, I ask, WHO will tend to and be concerned for a gusher looking for an “escape?”
everything and anything BP does and a subsequent government go-aheads. I have a very distinct feeling we’re being snowed and bamboozled. Dudley promised a “leaner BP.” And in just one week, hey, it’s almost all over. Yep, they’re claiming 75% of the oil is GONE via skimming, natural occurrence, burning, etc. Can you imagine, 4,300,000 gallons of oil is 75% gone (note, I made an error above [400,000 million])? We can only hope that Oceana, the Project Gulf Impact and others really do a thorough search and find of oil in the columns and on the ocean floor. I still also worry about a “rupture” elsewhere on the ocean floor, as a result of the capping and mudding.
And guess what, the shrimp, oysters, etc. are “safe to eat,” according to Carol Browner, of the EPA. How irresponsible can that be?
Apparently, no one in the government or BP gives a damn about what Dr. Riki Ott, marine toxicologist and biologist, has warned. Her experience and knowledge is irrefutable, in my view — she was heavily involved in what happend with the Exxon Valdez spill.
Just look at the Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years later. That oil spill has naturally degraded….NOT!
It is not as visual , but is more informative. It doesn’t show the oil just below the rocky beach surface, but rather it talks more about the effect on the local population and fishing economy.)
So yes, the report is a load of crap.
Also mentioned in this video is that there is NO technology that can clean up a disaster like this and now all of a sudden, toxic dispersants are that technology? If they are as great as they say they are and if they are the so called “magic technology” so wanting in Alaska, then why wouldn’t they have tried and tested them there? After all, the area is still a dead zone.
anything and they’re draggin’ their arses to pay the coastal residents for their losses, as well.
I mention that because I just had another thought about all this “rush” to get it over, let everyone know the Gulf is all well, etc. and to move on.
They’re probably all too aware that there are scientists/organizations who are planning to try and examine the columns and sea floor for oil. I’m thinking, when scientists/oceanographers have had time to so a thorough assessment and the oil is found, how will it be cleaned up, once found and by whom? BP would probably try to say it’s not the oil from the Deepwater Horizon, or some such, and demand proof that it is! Who knows? But a thought!