Oil Spill Estimates Raised Fivefold

Oil Spill Estimates Raised Fivefold


Crews Aim to Mop Up Gulf Spill With Fire, a Technique Experts Laud But Which Has Never Been Applied So Widely


By ROBERT LEE HOTZ And ANGEL GONZALEZ

Bloomberg News


VENICE, La.—Coast Guard crews in the Gulf of Mexico Wednesday set fire to a portion of an oil slick spreading from a deepwater well, which the agency said was leaking at a much greater rate than previously believed.
Rear Adm. Mary Landry said that 5,000 barrels a day was now estimated to be leaking, five times the previous estimate of 1,000 barrels, after the agency found a significant new oil leak.
Ms. Landry said that she briefed President Barack Obama and that the government has offered the services of the Department of Defense to help contain the spill.
The upgraded estimates, announced late Wednesday night, came after the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration studied aerial surveys of the oil's trajectory, Ms. Landry said.
View Full Image



AFP/Getty Images Satellite images Wednesday show the oil slick near the Louisiana coast, top, and ships at its edge, above.
Doug Suttles, chief operating officer for BP Exploration and Production, which leased the rig, said the location of the newly detected leak was just atop an automatic shutoff mechanism—known as a blowout preventer—that the company has been trying to activate since Sunday to shut off the well.



The spill is expected to strike the Louisiana coast before the end of the week, Mr. Suttles added.
Mr. Suttles earlier had suggested that the Coast Guard's 5,000-barrel estimate wasn't accurate. "We do not believe this changes the amount currently estimated to be released,'' Mr. Suttles had said.
But early Thursday, he said on NBC's "Today" show that the leak may be as high as the government's new estimate. He said there was no way to measure the flow at the seabed.
"Using the satellite imagery and our overflights, we can now say it looks like it's more than a thousand. It's a range," Mr. Suttles said. He said the range was up to 5,000 barrels a day.
The burning technique conducted earlier in the day was deemed by experts to be the safest, cheapest way to limit environmental damage. But it has never been tried on this scale.



"Burning oil on the water is the most environmentally friendly technique that one can think of," said combustion expert Anil Kulkarni at Pennsylvania State University, who has studied the technique for the National Institutes of Standards and Technology.
The controlled oil fire at sea started Wednesday evening in a small area of the gulf spill and lasted for a little over an hour, said Coast Guard spokesman David Mosley.
Results of the test burn weren't immediately disclosed. These oil fires pose some problems. Smoke plumes from the burning oil are thick with soot. Typically, there are also traces of toxic sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide.
However these tend to dissipate quickly, say researchers who have studied the process, and the toxic oil compounds that might be most harmful to wildlife are consumed in the fire.
Experiments conducted by the Canadian government have shown that the chemical byproducts of oil burning appear to have little effect on marine species.
Although the spill already covers an area about the size of Jamaica, crews can burn only a small portion at a time.
They have to corral a patch of oil with fireproof booms and then ignite it with a flare—a job made harder by wind and waves. To keep the burning oil contained, they then must tow the entire setup, so that the current keeps the burning oil floating between the booms.
"We are trying to light on fire wet oil in the middle of the ocean," said Chris Reddy, who studies oil spills as director of the Coastal Ocean Institute at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.
It already may be too late to incinerate the oldest portions of the spill, which has been growing from damaged well pipes 5,000 feet underwater since the Transocean rig Deepwater Horizon caught fire and sank last week.
As the oil spreads across the surface, it mixes with the water into an incombustible sludge with the consistency of mayonnaise. "The thinner it gets, the more difficult it is to burn and the more residue it leaves," Dr. Kulkarni said.
Researchers have experimented with the burning technique since it was first tried after the spill from the tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989, when about 715 barrels of crude were incinerated in Prince William Sound, Alaska. But it has never been tried at open sea on this scale, federal and academic oil-spill experts said.
Crews are also spreading thousands of gallons of chemical dispersants—usually detergents or alcohol-based solvents—to speed the rate at which the oil dissolves in seawater.
In Venice, a fishing and oil-field-services outpost at the southern tip of Louisiana that is the closest community to the oil spill, residents and local officials hoped that the controlled burning would help keep the crude away from the fragile ecosystem—and from valuable fisheries.
"If the oil reaches the shore it will kill all the shrimp, all the crabs and all the oysters," said Kim Vo, owner of the largest shrimp distributor in Venice, Sharkco Seafoods International. "I hope [the burning] is going to help, but I don't know if it's good for the shrimp."
Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser was all for burning off the oncoming oil tide. "It's a lot easier to see that stuff dissipate in the air than in the marsh," where birds and fish can become trapped, he said.
—The Associated Press contributed to this article.

This is a sad thing. It's going to effect the water for years.

I thought it was interesting that they want to light it on fire to get rid of it. They also said the slick was the size of Jamaica

SUCKS!!

That would be a big fire and how would that impact the area??

I would love to see video of the robots they are using on the sea floor to fix the leaks.

Fire is the best-safest and cleanest means of handling a spill. Usually not the first choice when dealing with oil because of the hazards involved but to protect the coastline it is necessary. Crude oil is lighter than water thus floating. Everything below the waters surface will most likely remain unaffected with the exception of any unfortunate marine mammals that may attempt to surface inside the slick. I have the pleasure of being employed by the company that was leasing teh well head. Unfortunately I have not had time to read any of the emails circulating in regards to our efforts on the situation. Its an extremely unfortunate circumstance especially considering Obama's recent push to allow more drilling in the gulf that would of really helped drive our economy and our dependence on foreign oil. I just pray that they eliminate the problem before it can reach a coastline. Im currently driving on the highway in rush hour traffic or I would go into more detail.

keep us updated on it. I thought I heard it was going to be at the coast of LA soon.

Originally Posted by D3monic

Fire is the best-safest and cleanest means of handling a spill. Usually not the first choice when dealing with oil because of the hazards involved but to protect the coastline it is necessary. Crude oil is lighter than water thus floating. Everything below the waters surface will most likely remain unaffected with the exception of any unfortunate marine mammals that may attempt to surface inside the slick. I have the pleasure of being employed by the company that was leasing teh well head. Unfortunately I have not had time to read any of the emails circulating in regards to our efforts on the situation. Its an extremely unfortunate circumstance especially considering Obama's recent push to allow more drilling in the gulf that would of really helped drive our economy and our dependence on foreign oil. I just pray that they eliminate the problem before it can reach a coastline. Im currently driving on the highway in rush hour traffic or I would go into more detail.

No typing while driving!!!!!!!!!


It does seem horrible timing, being right after Obama's offshore drilling proposal.

i hope this motivates the general population to realize how detrimental petroleum drilling is to the environment; no matter how safe we presume a rig to be, there's always going to be that one in a million chance as murphy's law dictates. this spill should save the rest of america's coastline from oil companies and turn public opinion.

I wish they'd put more effort into biofuels. The technology exists to run all cars and planes on algae derived fuels, but there is no infrastucture to deliver it.

we were talking about this at work today... sickening.... truely


we were talking about algae based tech that has been developed too! great minds like a think....

I saw that LA has declared a state of emergency and AL and MS shorelines are going to be effected too. This is way out of hand. The Navy is involved now too with cleanup. This shouldn't have taken very long to get a grip on it. There have to be faster contingencies for this type of emergency.

I wish they would have burned it at the source. This is really sad and Really bad for the delta and everything else down south. The bad part is b/c they didn't burn it off (i dont even know if they could have) but now they are using the detergents that leach the bad byproducts right into the waters... From an environmental standpoint the detergents are worse than burning it off, and contaminates so much more... Wish we would have had a larger response to this huge problem earlier... Obama was just being formally briefed on this issue yesterday... little bit late when it is going to be the worst oil spill in history... April 20th... and yesterday was the 29th. Crazy. Katrina was a day late... and Bush was down there helping out the best he could w/o putting peoples lives at risk by causing an uproar. No Excuse to wait 9 days to start doing something.

Originally Posted by spinycheek

I wish they'd put more effort into biofuels. The technology exists to run all cars and planes on algae derived fuels, but there is no infrastucture to deliver it.

we've had alternate technology for about 50 years; it's the oil companies which have stifeled advancement. ford and chystler purchased the public train system in LA just to run it into the ground to create a larger market for their vehicles, this is just one example among many. i personally hope this destroys any oposition to expanding offshore drilling. it's time we get over corporate control, what does it matter if a few jobs are created temporarily at the detriment to our future generations?

Photo gallery

Louisiana oil spill - CSMonitor.com

Fox news has a good photo of it too. Here is a story about the chemicals they are dropping

FOXNews.com - Pentagon to Send Two Planes to Drop Chemicals on the Gulf Oil Slick

We are very extensive in alternative fuels. its not just the oil companys. We are more than ready to switch to any form of fuel the country is willing to use. BP is actually starting to vear away from its oil ventures and focusing more on solar and wind power. Not to mention our biofuels. Why they didnt ignight the spill is beyond me. Its to the point now where its too close to shore.

Oh by the way, drilling in the coast will do alot more than just create a few jobs. Our entire economy is driven by oil. Oil prices go up, the entire country suffers. By producing more rigs there will be more production at the refiners. More jobs will be needed. More oil will need to be transported via pipeline all over the country. More jobs will be needed. Lots and lots of contractors to make billions of dollars worth of upgrades, more jobs will be created. Electricians, construction contractors, laborers, pipe-liners, engineers, excavators, lawyers, lawyer, lawyers, admins.....billions of dollars worth of pay going into hard working (and most likely currently laid off) American pockets. Not just along the coast but all the way across the nation.

Originally Posted by Jcling

I wish they would have burned it at the source. This is really sad and Really bad for the delta and everything else down south. The bad part is b/c they didn't burn it off (i dont even know if they could have) but now they are using the detergents that leach the bad byproducts right into the waters... From an environmental standpoint the detergents are worse than burning it off, and contaminates so much more... Wish we would have had a larger response to this huge problem earlier... Obama was just being formally briefed on this issue yesterday... little bit late when it is going to be the worst oil spill in history... April 20th... and yesterday was the 29th. Crazy. Katrina was a day late... and Bush was down there helping out the best he could w/o putting peoples lives at risk by causing an uproar. No Excuse to wait 9 days to start doing something.

Bush waited a week before acknowledging that Louisiana's governor declared a state of emergency and needed federal assistance. They waited too long on this spill too, but Katrina was no example to follow.

Katrina happened Tuesday, Aug. 30, and Bush was down in New Orleans on Thursday... that's two days. After he saw the damage he sent assistance. The mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana did nothing and waited for the federal assistance. It was a mess but I wouldn't have listened to those two either, they did nothing and waited for federal assistance. They could have done some work themselves instead of complaining about lack of assistance till their faces turned blue.

And this was 9 days... not two and I would be Very surprised if Obama leaves his white house to see what is really happening there until everything is fixed.