Tag Archives: Gulf Oil Spill

First gulf oil plumes, now oil eating microbes: Conspiracy or Mother Nature?

This microscopic image shows how oil is degraded by microbes that break it up into even smaller globulets.

It’s either very interesting or very “convenient” timing this story just pops up soon after the story about NOAA covering up thinks like oil plumes and oil in the gulf food chain.

A newly discovered type of oil-eating microbe suddenly is flourishing in the Gulf of Mexico and  gobbling up the BP spill at a much faster rate than expected, scientists reported Tuesday.

Conspiracy theory would dictate that perhaps somebody is being paid-off on one way or another to suddenly find oil eating microbes, or perhaps it’s just proof that Mother Nature likes to maintain a balance and that she’s come up with her own solution to oil spills.

I’ll take Mother Nature for $1,000 Alex.  I would have my doubts that anyone at NOAA would come up with something this strange or convenient, this fast. Besides, the science behind it in the article pretty much goes along with the this is real theory.

Terry Hazen, a microbial ecologist at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in Berkeley, California, reports the following….

“Our findings show that the influx of oil profoundly altered the microbial community by significantly stimulating deep-sea” cold temperature bacteria that are closely related to known petroleum-degrading microbes, Hazen reported.

Their findings are based on more than 200 samples collected from 17 deep-water sites between May 25 and June 2. They found that the dominant microbe in the oil plume is a new species, closely related to members of Oceanospirillales.

Sounds very good on the face of it doesn’t it.  However,  at the end of the article you get this little aside, which leads me back to the conspiracy theory.

The research was supported by an existing grant with the Energy Biosciences Institute, a partnership led by the U.C. Berkeley and the University of Illinois that is funded by a $500 million, 10-year grant from BP. Other support came from the U.S. Department of Energy and the University of Oklahoma Research Foundation.

Makes one wonder if this was good old Mother Nature? Or, is this perhaps a case of BP or the DOE, or both dangling the carrot of hundreds of millions of dollars more research money in front of someone and having them bite?

You can read the whole article below at the “source” link and judge for yourself.  I can’t say one way or the other, but I sure can ask questions about it.

Please make your own judgement.

Source:  MSNBC

1 Comment

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Government, Gulf Oil Spill


Suggested new NOAA logo

We now appear to have twin-sisters to Satellitegate (of which you can read about here, here, herehere, and here), that I’m dubbing Plumegate and Seafoodgate.

It appears NOAA wasn’t just content with covering up problems with their satellites such as kaput sensors, sensors relaying faulty data and new satellites being sent into space with missing sensors. We now have what appear to be more cover-ups courtesy of NOAA, and who knows who else might be involved? Perhaps BP? Perhaps Obama? I can’t say but it would not surprise me if either of them were in on this.

Per this article at Mother Jones we have reports of NOAA trying to suppress scientists (ala BP read here) by trying to cover up the oil plumes they claim are still floating around the gulf……

Speaking of the BP cover-up, there are two very important pieces of news today about the extent to which the real impacts of the disaster have been hidden. In the St. Petersburg Times, Craig Pittman has this scathing report on how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration attempted to silence scientists who discovered the vast undersea plumes of dispersed oil in the Gulf:

The reaction that USF announcement received from the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agencies that sponsored their research: Shut up.

So, NOAA first tries to get USF to retract their report about the oil plumes and when that nefarious plan fails, they then proceed to try to talk them into keeping it a secret by not revealing it to the public. Per the article…..

Lubchenco confirmed Monday that her agency told USF and other academic institutions involved in the study of undersea plumes that they should hold off talking so openly about it. “What we asked for, was for people to stop speculating before they had a chance to analyze what they were finding,” Lubchenco said. “We think that’s in everybody’s interest. … We just wanted to try to make sure that we knew something before we speculated about it.”

Sounds like a lot of back-pedaling to me to cover up them trying to keep this out of the public eye so we’ll all thing everything is just wonderful in the Gulf of Mexico,  not to mention at NOAA, when it appears that is not the case. This isn’t the only nefarious thing that appears to be going on in the gulf either.  It appears we also have what I’ll call Seafoodgate.

There’s another extremely important piece out today, wherein the Associated Press documents how oil is already finding its way into the food web. Scientists are finding traces of oil in crab larvae:

The government said last week that three-quarters of the spilled oil has been removed or naturally dissipated from the water. But the crab larvae discovery was an ominous sign that crude had already infiltrated the Gulf’s vast food web — and could affect it for years to come.

Appears that we have yet another incident of government dishonesty. What I have been hearing on the news as of late is about how the seafood is just fine, the oil is gone, and y’all come on down to N’awlins and have some Shrimp Etouffee. This just doesn’t sound like it is an honest assessment of the situation to me.

I post this to again show how NOAA seems to have possibly caught a contagious disease called “Pinocchio Syndrome,” which causes what appear to be lies, cover-ups, ignoring facts, altering data, and other similar problems with the truth.

It seems like Ronald Reagan may have been thinking of the gulf oil spill when he said “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” Terrifying indeed, because it appears this is coming true.

Source: Mother Earth


Filed under Co2 Insanity, Gulf Oil Spill, NOAA, Plumegate, pollution, Sattelitegate, Seafoodgate

Dead birds: oil bad, wind good?

During my Sunday morning internet review to see what’s happening I was prompted by my reading to ask myself why does the general public get very over-excited about dying birds slathered in oil but for the most part (other than some groups who are aware of it) why do we not have similar mass excitement about the massive amount of our feathered friends who are killed by wind turbines?

According to this article from Time Magazine published on July 29, 2010, the official tally of dead birds from the Gulf oil spill is about 3,000.

So far, the teams have collected nearly 3,000 dead birds, but fewer than half of them were visibly oiled; some may have died from eating oil-contaminated food, but others may have simply died naturally at a time when the Gulf happened to be crawling with carcass seekers.

Yes, 3,000 is about it, more wouldn’t surprise me, but I doubt we’re talking 100’s of thousands. Is this a  significant number? Yes. But what about the big man-made cause of bird deaths, wind turbines?

Obviously, I’m not the only one raising this question. According to a Politifact article found here, even the low-end counts are significantly higher. Here’s their math.

“With the increased capacity over the last seven years, we now estimate that 100,000 – 300,000 birds are killed by wind turbines each year,” said Conservancy spokesman Robert Johns.

By our math, that comes to 274 to 822 birds a day killed by wind farms across the country.

Per their math the best case is that it will only take about 11 days to equal the amount of birds killed in the Gulf oil spill to a worst case of 3.64 days. To put it another way, annually, that is about 33 times the amount of birds killed on the low-end, to about 100 times more on the high-end.

Yet, I see little to no excitement about the astounding number of birds killed by wind turbines each year. But there’s a whole lot of hollering, yelling, bitching and moaning about the significantly smaller amount of  birds killed by the Gulf oil spill.

It’s an amazing premise, but one that seems to hold true. People just don’t get all worked up about birds killed by wind farms, or at least most don’t. You certainly do not hear the outcry that’s been heard about the birds in the Gulf spill.

This gets me wondering about the reason we don’t seem to care.  Is it because we love the “green” wind farms so much that we’re willing to accept the bird kill for them, but we hate oil so much that we’re going to make a mountain out of a molehill when we get a large oil spill? Does common sense not prevail anymore? Is it that rare a commodity in today’s society?

Or, is it because the mainstream news media hasn’t flogged this issue to death and it’s the old out of sight out of mind thing? We’ve had a little over 100 days of CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC and all the thousands of local TV and radio stations with their own news broadcasts flogging this spill like the proverbial dead horse. Day after day and hour after hour we’ve been bombarded with news about this spill.  We’ve been bombarded over and over with video of birds covered in oil that were dying or dead. It’s like the 24 x 7 news media equivalent of carpet bombing

Seeing the dying birds is no doubt an ugly sight. I hate looking at it, and regardless the number of dead birds, it doesn’t change my mind that it’s something we need to try to prevent from happening again. I’m certain millions of people will agree with that. But, why does no one seem to give a “hoot” about the wind farms except a few organizations and the birds themselves? Is this accepted “collateral damage?”

My personal take on this that it’s apathy and selfishness.  In general people don’t get worked up about what they can’t see and/or about things if it doesn’t affect them personally. It’s like people are saying, “Dead birds? Not my problem because as long as I get my ‘green’ power I’m all for it.” Or, “dead birds? Who cares? I only worry about myself, screw everybody and everything else.”

It’s like no news media ballyhooed about this, so no one will get worked up about it. Does the general public need cheerleaders in the form of the 24 x 7 mainstream news media to get worked up about something? Seems the mantra is something like “if it’s not on CNN I’m clueless.”

Or, is it propaganda? It seems that generally, when I hear anything about wind farms it’s a news item about how “green” it is and how it’s going save us from Al Gore’s profitable version of hell known as global warming. Are millions of Americans being led down the primrose path while forgetting there’s a collateral cost to wind power?

Want more examples of the silliness? Below are links to articles in British news and other sites that are moaning and groaning about bird deaths from last winter’s non-global warming caused cold, and links to other articles about how they want to increase wind power in the UK. Very oxymoron like.

Those are the same “green” people who love that good old “green” wind power that may be around for decades, killing birds. Yet, they will rail about a 100 day or so oil spill that by comparison, kills very few birds and is basically about over and won’t be killing more birds for long.

This is proof that, for whatever the reason or reasons, people are clueless and they obviously don’t live in reality. They’ll go out of their way to save birds covered in oil, freezing birds and starving birds, yet they could care less about the massive amount of wind turbine kills we currently have and will increase as more wind farms are added.

Amazing evidence that there is indeed  CO2 Insanity. Have a desire for more information?

At the bottom of my post is a video produced by KQED about the bird kills at the wind farm at Altamont Pass, California. As you can see they seem to be having a problem reconciling their “green” need to protect birds with their “green” desire for wind power. Another “Catch 22.”

While there are partial solutions like eliminating certain turbines, changing the type and height, shutting down 50% of the turbines during the winter when there are more birds and even a proposed total shutdown during the winter , the bottom line is it’s still going to kill a lot of birds.

The other bottom line is that if they shut the whole thing down during the winter, then where’s the power going to come from? Coal? Nuclear? Solar? Natural gas? Something is either going to have to take the slack up or we’re going to suffer power shortages, which is conveniently ignored in the video.

The other problem is costs.  There’s no mention of what all this mitigation for birds is costing the taxpayers or the people purchasing electricity for homes, businesses and the new wave of plug-in electric vehicles.

Wind power is also heavily subsidized (aka: your tax dollars are paying for it). Think not? Here is an article about how Los Angeles is rasing their rates to subsidize wind and solar power generation.

Want to know how much it really costs? From here we get the following.

Renewable energy apologists often assert that renewable energy subsidies are necessary to “level the playing field” regarding subsidies given to coal. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, however, solar power already receives more than $24 in subsidies per megawatt hour of electricity produced. Wind power receives more than $23 dollars per megawatt hour. Coal power, by comparison, receives less than 50 cents per megawatt hour.

Note that it doesn’t matter where the money comes from. regardless if it is subsidized by state or federal government, or via a rate hike  it’s ultimately your money coming out of your wallet.

So, next time you fire up that electric car, watch TV, turn on the lights, cook dinner or whatever you do that uses electricity think about all the 100’s of thousands of birds that are dying if you get any of your electricity from wind turbines.

Funny we here a constant din about “evil” big oil, but nada about this. No common sense there, financially or otherwise.

Comments Off on Dead birds: oil bad, wind good?

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, Gulf Oil Spill, Renewable Energy, Truth Stranger than Fiction

Is the “CLEAR” bill really transparent?

I picked up these little tidbits snooping around this afternoon about the CLEAR bill and it appears to me that it’s another case of the government not being as “transparent” as advertised by Obama. I’m sure you will remember President Obama’s promise that “”Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,” Obama said.” Well, that was good for a laugh anyway.

I can’t say I remember seeing much “transparency” so far, and here we have yet another instance of something going on that is not very “transparent” or very “CLEAR.” “Rule of law?” Just look at how well our immigration laws are “enforced” and you should get an ides of what I am referring to.

Below are some snippets from the CBO regarding this bill.  You can read the whole letter here (PDF).

CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would increase direct spending by $20.5 billion over the 2011-2020 period and would increase revenues by $22.2 billion over the same period. CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would increase direct spending by $20.5 billion over the 2011-2020 period and would increase revenues by $22.2 billion over the same period.

In total, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3534 would reduce future deficits by $5.3 billion over the 2011-2015 period and $1.7 billion over the 2011-2020 period (see enclosed table).

OK, it would appear based upon this report that this will actually reduce the deficit, i.e., it’s not going to cost the tax-payers one cent and will in fact have the net effect of reducing the deficit by a combined $7 billion through 2020. Well, that’s nice, but someone’s got to pay for all this, if the tax-payers aren’t then who is? You got that right, the tax-payers, they’ll just get screwed by an indirect method.

For starters it appears it will possibly wipe-out the uranium mining business in the United States. From Mine Web we get this.

Speaking on behalf of the National Mining Association, Uranium One Americas Executive Vice President warned the House Natural Resources Committee Thursday the proposed energy and aquatic legislation will mean the end of domestic uranium mining and exploration, and illegally seize current uranium mining claims.

Well that’s not going to be very good for business.  It’s going to kill jobs and illegally seize claims. It will shift the profits to other uranium producing countries like Canada, Australia, South Africa and a host of others. Considering the importance of this mineral to the military, one would have to question why anyone would want to make the US dependent upon foreign sources.

There seems to be other motivation.  As noted in the quote this will “illegally seize current uranium mining claims.” So what is the reasoning behind that? Cathy Carlson of NGO Earthworks is quoted as saying.

“We hope that by moving uranium to a leasing system, only public lands that are truly suitable for uranium mining will be leased, while Native American communities and sacred sites and National Forests around the Grand Canyon National Park will be protected from further uranium development,” she added.

See what we have here is more telling.  We have NGO Earthworks approval of this bill because it’s going to lock up a lot of federal land from mining operations, which it appears they don’t like very much. From what I see of the Obama Administration there may never be any “public lands that are truly suitable for uranium mining.” I have to question if protecting Native American communities is fancy talk for another way for the administration to transfer wealth.  I could envision them charging a uranium mine up the wazoo for permission to mine on a reservation.

If they do manage to find any land that is “truly suitable” they will now be able to charge royalties to the uranium mines ala the gas and oil industry. That sounds good on the face of it, too, doesn’t it? But, think about it.  We compete against other uranium mining countries with less environmental regulations and lower labor costs than we have.  If the government charges royalties, then the uranium that gets mined in the US is probably going to be overpriced. If no one buys it then it’s rather obvious that the uranium mines will falter and disappear taking jobs with them.

That is what I feel is the real onus of this section of this bill. The ecotards want to effectively ban uranium mining on public lands, just like they want to lock up public lands with more wilderness areas, more national monuments and more national parks. They could care less about putting people out of work and causing more trade deficits. How much more is that going to cost the tax-payers when we get to foot the bill for all the unemployment checks and welfare checks for unemployed miners?  If they close up mines, this will also trickle down to local business who sell mining equipment, food, trucks, cars, houses, etc.  No miners = no money = no business = more people collecting unemployment checks.

So what else will this bill that’s supposed to be regulating off-shore oil drilling accomplish? Per the Republican Natural Resources Committee here is some more this bill will “accomplish.”

The CLEAR Act is being sold as a response to the Gulf oil spill crisis, yet the bill itself stretches far beyond addressing this tragedy to include page after page of provisions that are unrelated to the oil spill, will kill American jobs, and are premature by acting before Congress has the full facts from the numerous ongoing investigations into the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill.

So, we have a bill about one thing that’s mysteriously morphed into a bill to control all kinds of things not related and moreover the Democrats appear to be in another rush to push this through before anyone wakes up. Some transparency. So what else do the Republicans note about it?

With this bill, Democrats are exploiting the Gulf oil spill tragedy as a political opportunity to push through provisions that are unrelated to the spill response or reforms to offshore drilling. The latest version of the CLEAR Act:

Imposes job-killing changes and higher taxes for onshore natural gas and oil production. It fundamentally changes leasing onshore by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, which affects not just leasing for natural gas and oil, but also for renewable energy including wind and solar. Forest Service and BLM leasing are shoved into the three new agencies that are replacing the former Minerals Management Service (MMS).

–     Creates over $30 billion in new mandatory spending for two programs that have nothing to do with the oil spill (the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic Preservation Fund). In the version of the bill headed to the House floor, Democrats added brand new language that expressly allows this $30 billion to be earmarked by the Appropriations Committee.

–     Raises taxes by over $22 billion in ten years – with the taxes eventually climbing to nearly $3 billion per year. This is a direct tax on natural gas and oil that will raise energy prices for American families and businesses, hurt domestic jobs, and increase our dependence on foreign oil. This tax only applies to U.S. oil and gas production on federal leases – giving an advantage to foreign oil and hurting American energy jobs.

–     Requires the federal takeover of state authority to permit in state waters, which reverses sixty years of precedent. The mismanagement, corruption and oversight failures of the federal government are being used as justification to expand federal control by seizing management from the states.

–     Allows 10% of all offshore revenues – an amount possibly as high as $500 million per year – to be spent on a new fund controlled by the Interior Secretary to issue ocean research grants (ORCA fund). There is no requirement that the fund is used for the Gulf region or anything related to oil spills or offshore drilling. These funds can be earmarked.

–     Establishes “marine spatial planning” regulatory authority – which allows for ocean zoning that could lead to restrictions on fishing, energy production and even onshore activities such as farming. This vague new regulatory authority could cost fishing jobs, energy jobs, manufacturing jobs, farming jobs, and many more jobs that may impact waterways that drain into the ocean.

The bill includes unlimited spill liability for offshore operators, which could effectively eliminate independent producers from operating offshore if they cannot obtain insurance policies to cover their operations. According to an independent study from IHS Global Insight, “by 2020 an exclusion of the independents from the Gulf of Mexico would eliminate 300,000 jobs and result in a loss of $147 billion in federal, state, and local taxes from the Gulf region over 10 years.”

Democrat leaders also deleted a provision adopted without objection in the House Natural Resources Committee just two weeks ago to establish a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the oil spill – a provision that has also passed a Senate Committee in a bipartisan vote.

See what we get? Transparency? No. We get more taxes, fewer jobs, fewer tax-payers, we’re creating more government bureaucracies that in turn will cost even more money, we’re giving more authority to non-elected officials to take their little fiefdoms and do as they please with little or no recourse for the voters, we’re skewing the oil business in favor of non-US companies, probably reducing the amount of oil that US owned companies can produce, which at the same time creates more dependency on foreign oil, the federal government will be taking more authority away from states.  Talk about a mess, this is it.

The last one I find particularly interesting because what it will do is skew the Gulf oil spill investigation. You won’t have an investigation by a committee with anyone on it who’s in the oil industry and who may actually have a clue about what happened. You will have a committee with the investigative “deck” stacked with “jokers” from the environmental movement, who no doubt will do everything in their power to skew things to try to justify a complete ban on off-shore oil drilling. They also can CYA the President and the people at the EPA.  Per Rep. Doc Hastings (R) Washington…..

“By deleting the bipartisan, independent oil spill commission that’s received bipartisan support in both House and Senate committees, Democrats have shown they are more interested in protecting the President than getting independent answers to what caused this tragic Gulf spill.  Some of the biggest failures that contributed to the Gulf disaster are the direct responsibility of the federal government and by deleting this bipartisan, independent commission, Democrats ensure that only the President’s hand-picked commission will be digging into any failures of his own Interior Department appointees.  There is widespread agreement that no member of the President’s commission possesses technical expertise in oil drilling, and several are on the record in opposition to offshore drilling and support a moratorium that will cost thousands of jobs,” Hastings said.

You can bet that they probably possess the “technical expertise” to cover things up, skew facts, ignore reality, CYA Obama, be obtuse,  and shift blame towards any direction as long as it’s not pointing at the White House. So who do we have to thank for eliminating this provision?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stripped out authorization for an independent investigation into the Gulf disaster.

Yes, good old Nancy Pelosi, that’s who has single-handily covered Obama’s ass on this. That’s what I call real “transparency.”

Just to add to it, on another note, there is more “transparency” coming out of the Obama Administration.  The SEC doesn’t have to respond to Freedom of Information Act Request anymore.  Still more “transparency” from the Obama Administration.

Think cap & trade and carbon taxes are kaput? Think again. What do you think the tax on energy is in this bill? Why it’s a concealed carbon tax, that’s what. How “transparent” can they get in Congress?

This is more CO2 Insanity at it’s best, right in the nation’s capitol. Better hang on to your gas cap.

Sources: CBO, Mine Web, Republican Natural Resources Committee

Comments Off on Is the “CLEAR” bill really transparent?

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Government, Gulf Oil Spill, Legal, Obama, Politics, pollution

BP: “Plug the damn piehole!”

From Insaneminds we get the following article.

Alleged BP Contract to Silence Scientists

Obama: “Plug the damn hole!”                                          BP: Plug the damn pie-hole!”

Seems BP just isn’t content with its semi-successfull plugging of the hole at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, they are alleged to now want to plug scientist’s pie holes in what appears to be an effort to prevent scientist from testifying against them in the 300 or so lawsuits they currently are facing over the Gulf oil spill.

From the Telegraph we get this.

Researchers hired by the oil giant were reportedly asked to sign “restrictive” contracts for work designed to protect the company from more than 300 lawsuits in the wake of the slick.

It was claimed that contained within the contracts were clauses restricting scientists from publishing any academic research undertaken for the oil giant, sharing them with other researchers or even talking about them for as long as three years.

Prof Cary Nelson, the head of the American Association of Professors, accused the oil giant of making “hugely destructive” decisions.

Nice, first we get BP-Iwantmylifebackgate,then BP-Sailboatgate,  BP Photoshopgate, then BP-Lockerbiebombergate, now we get BP-Silencegate. It appears we’re going to have BP-Trustfundgate next, as I see allegations of them trying to slow the process down to give the people they’ve put out of work assistance.

Of course with Kenneth Feinberg running the trust find it certainly sounds possible. He doesn’t appear to have the cojones to stand up to Wall Street, so I have to wonder if BP is going to make him their sissy-boy, or perhaps already have done so.

Do you think anyone in charge at BP ever took an ethics class in college? I have to ask. Seems to fit what’s going on, it’s like they’re clueless about doing the right thing. They’re making Richard Nixon look like the epitome of honesty.

If you want to see the alleged contract for yourself, it’s here (PDF) at the BBC website.  They even highlighted the offending parts in yellow.

BP evidently doesn’t just want to silence individual scientists, per the below they want to silence whole departments at colleges.

American newspaper reports also claimed that BP attempted to hire the entire marine sciences department at southern US university.

Bob Shipp, head of marine sciences at the University of South Alabama, who was offered one of the contracts, said BP wanted his whole department.

He said that after he stipulated that his team would have complete academic freedom he never heard from BP’s lawyers again.

That certainly makes for a good case that BP wasn’t THAT interested in securing their services.  BP, of course, is claiming they are innocent as the pure-driven snow.

But New Orleans environmental lawyer Joel Waltzer looked over the contract and said BP’s statement did not match up.

“They’re the ones who control the process. They’re depriving the public of the data and the transparency that we all deserve.”

We have a Professor Mendelsson who would work for them for his regular hourly fee.  He has to have the quote of the year below.

“Good scientists, they’re going to be giving their opinions based on the facts and they are not going to bias their opinions. What’s most important is credibility.”

Too bad the IPCC doesn’t hire this guy to head up their next report.  I think I might trust what he said. Basing opinions on the facts? What a novel idea that would be at certain institutions of the global warming persuasion.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of this as I feel it certainly warrants more investigation.

Insane Minds indeed!

Sources: TelegraphBBCWikipedia

1 Comment

Filed under Financial, Gulf Oil Spill, Legal, pollution

Interesting Analysis of Deepwater Horizon Disaster

An interesting read from The Oil Drum on what happened to cause this disaster.

What caused the Deepwater Horizon disaster?

Posted by aeberman on May 21, 2010 – 10:28am
Topic: Geology/Exploration
Tags: deepwater horizongulf of mexico oil spill [list all tags]

Author’s Note: I am grateful to the many drilling and completion engineers that consulted with me on this post to arrive at plausible explanations and interpretations of what happened in the final hours on the semisubmersible drilling rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico. The analysis that follows is based on these discussions as well as my own 32 years of experience as a geologist working in the oil and gas industry.

It is early in the process of discovering what really happened. Because of the gravity and potential impact of this disaster on the nation and my industry, however, I wanted to provide an early and more investigative perspective than much of what has appeared in the media to date. The risk, of course, is that more information will invalidate some of what follows. I, therefore, wish to clarify that this is a fact-based interpretation of what may have happened on the Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010 but, in the end, it is an interpretation. – Art Berman

The blowout and oil spill on the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico was caused by a flawed well plan that did not include enough cement between the 7-inch production casing and the 9 7/8-inch protection casing. The presumed blowout preventer (BOP) failure is an important but secondary issue. Although the resulting oil spill has potentially grave environmental implications, recent efforts to limit the flow with an insertion tube have apparently been effective. Continuous efforts to slow or stop the flow include drilling two nearby relief wells that may intersect the MC 252 wellbore within 60-90 days.

You can read the whole article here.

Source: The Oil Drum

Comments Off on Interesting Analysis of Deepwater Horizon Disaster

Filed under Science