the BP oil scandal and clean up

[IndyBrit]

80,000 barrels, not gallons. Those terms get bandied about loosely, I urge you to make sure you are looking at the right one. My numbers are correct - I was going from the 100,000 gallons per day from the well which has been thrown around in the news (and is actually 2380 bopd), and the 400,000,000 gallons per day of gasoline usage, which is exactly 1/40th of 1%, or 40 wells like this would be required.

The specific example you gave was a 1% bump in the gasoline regulation requirement, with five significant digits (22.725) and exclamation marks and everything. Your "Yep, crazy I know!" just wasn't anywhere close to the truth.

I just now looked at the cite you sent. The amount listed is 3 Billion barrels of oil equivalent. The oil is only a small fraction of that, so when they say 450 million barrels they are not talking about 15% recovery as your post suggests. The 3 Billion is the reserves number they use on their record keeping, which represents, in all likelihood depending on the specific circumstances, about 60% of the hydrocarbons in place (i.e. there is likely estimated 5 Billion barrels of oil equivalent in place). The 450 million barrels is the oil fraction, suggesting 2.55 billion barrels of recoverable natural gas.

I agree with you about cutting consumption. That doesnt' change anything about offshore oil being a significant resource. In fact, if we could cut consumption, offshore oil becomes an even more significant resource.

I'm arguing that adding a tax to reflect the true cost of oil is better at cutting consumption than regulating fuel efficiency. If you were to achieve a 10% cut with fuel efficiency regulations, experience teaches us that a much larger number would be required - maybe a 30% increase in efficiency. How much more effective would your original post have been if you said, "instead of offshore drilling, let's get a serious change in fuel economy implemented, like from 22 mpg to 30 mpg?" Instead, you went for the 1% figure which is totally wrong, and the 22.725 with exclamation marks, which will not achieve the desired effect 1% consumption cut.

I know you mean well, and I'm sorry for any part I've played in making it difficult to have a reasonable conversation here.

[Macabee]

[quote=""IndyBrit""]The specific example you gave was a 1% bump in the gasoline regulation requirement, with five significant digits (22.725) and exclamation marks and everything. Your "Yep, crazy I know!" just wasn't anywhere close to the truth..[/quote]

It's pretty close to the truth. I was demonstrating how asinine it is that Americans' cars only average a little over 22 miles to the gallon and insist we need to drill baby drill. I gave an example and you insist it was THE only possible example of reduced oil use. I said "Instead, too many in the US listen to the ignorant Drill Baby Drillers instead of cutting our gluttonous oil needs by just that very same 1%." See, I said reduce oil use by 1% and then I gave an example of where we can do just that and I add "you get the idea". Apparently you don't and you got stuck on it. Instead you parsed my words and focused on a phrase out of context.

[quote=""IndyBrit""]I just now looked at the cite you sent.[/quote]

Good. You need to read what's being said before you you reply.

[quote=""IndyBrit""]The amount listed is 3 Billion barrels of oil equivalent. The oil is only a small fraction of that, so when they say 450 million barrels they are not talking about 15% recovery as your post suggests. The 3 Billion is the reserves number they use on their record keeping, which represents, in all likelihood depending on the specific circumstances, about 60% of the hydrocarbons in place (i.e. there is likely estimated 5 Billion barrels of oil equivalent in place). The 450 million barrels is the oil fraction, suggesting 2.55 billion barrels of recoverable natural gas.[/quote]

The Bloomberg article says:

"BP, whose partners at Tiber are Petroleo Brasileiro SA and ConocoPhillips, said its discovery may hold 3 billion barrels of crude and natural gas. OF THAT TOTAL, THE COMPANIES MAY BE ABLE TO EXTRACT THE EQUIVALENT OF 450 MILLION BARRELS OF OIL, said Leta Smith, a director at IHS Cambridge in Houston. At current prices, that amount of oil would be worth more than $30 billion."

BP's press release says it may be able to extract only 400,000 barrels. there may be a number of reasons why this is true.

[quote=""IndyBrit""]I agree with you about cutting consumption. That doesnt' change anything about offshore oil being a significant resource. In fact, if we could cut consumption, offshore oil becomes an even more significant resource.[/quote]

You're saying the less we need it the more we need it? Now you're talking about offshore oil when we're still talking about deep water oil.

[quote=""IndyBrit""]I'm arguing that adding a tax to reflect the true cost of oil is better at cutting consumption than regulating fuel efficiency. If you were to achieve a 10% cut with fuel efficiency regulations, experience teaches us that a much larger number would be required - maybe a 30% increase in efficiency.[/quote]

I've said nothing of regulations and I haven't argued with you or anyone else on pricing to reflect tertiary costs of oil.

[quote=""IndyBrit""]How much more effective would your original post have been if you said, "instead of offshore drilling, let's get a serious change in fuel economy implemented, like from 22 mpg to 30 mpg?" Instead, you went for the 1% figure which is totally wrong, and the 22.725 with exclamation marks, which will not achieve the desired effect 1% consumption cut.[/quote]

Because I was giving an example relevant to deep water oil drilling of which Deepwater Horizon is an example. As I'm sure you know, we don't have anything like 40 wells in deep water regions. This is obviously a good thing as we obviously lack the technology to drill it safely. Can you imagine what can happen with 40 wells just like this one?

[quote=""IndyBrit""]I know you mean well, and I'm sorry for any part I've played in making it difficult to have a reasonable conversation here.[/quote]

Anyone can turn on a TV or computer and see that we lack the technology to drill deep water oil safely. It is irresponsible to advocate drilling in these deep water regions, especially when the US has done so little to conserve. Drill baby drillers have had their say and it's time for them to sit down and shut up (to borrow a phrase from the most prominent drill baby driller).

Mac

[Soccerman771]

[quote=""Macabee""][quote=""IndyBrit""]I know you mean well, and I'm sorry for any part I've played in making it difficult to have a reasonable conversation here.[/quote]

Anyone can turn on a TV or computer and see that we lack the technology to drill deep water oil safely. It is irresponsible to advocate drilling in these deep water regions, especially when the US has done so little to conserve. Drill baby drillers have had their say and it's time for them to sit down and shut up (to borrow a phrase from the most prominent drill baby driller).

Mac[/quote]

I hate to break into you two going at each other's neck here, but I'd like to point out that the safety record of the offshore drilling in the US far surpasses the safety record of any airline or other mode of transportation. Should we stop flying, driving, etc.? We have the technology and the ability to gather oil from deep sea very safely. Up to the year 2,000 - 37,000 wells were drilled in the GOM, so conservatively speaking, 1/37000 = 99.9973% success rate
(obviously that doesn't account for the wells that have been drilled since 2000)

Moreover, according to wikipedia:

Gulf of Mexico

See Offshore oil and gas in the US Gulf of Mexico

The western and central Gulf of Mexico, which includes offshore Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, is one of the major petroleum-producing areas of the United States. In 2007, federal leases in the western and central Gulf of Mexico produced 25% of the nation's oil and 14% of the nation's natural gas.[10] In 2008, federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico produced 418 million barrels of oil, down from 568 million barrels in 2002; however, due to new deep-water discoveries, the MMS projects that oil production from the Gulf of Mexico will increase to 686 million barrels per year by 2013.[11]

Major fields include Atlantis Oil Field, and the Tiber oilfield (discovered 2009). Notable oil platforms include Baldpate, Bullwinkle, Mad Dog, Magnolia, Mars, Petronius, and Thunder Horse. Notable individual wells include Jack 2 and Knotty Head.

The eastern Gulf of Mexico, which includes offshore Gulf Coast Florida, has never been a petroleum-producing area.

mine: oil that has been drilled from here is used for by far many more things than just driving around.

I completely agree with you that we do need to do more to conserve and use alternate forms of energy, mainly nuclear.

[Macabee]

[quote=""Soccerman771""]I hate to break into you two going at each other's neck here, but I'd like to point out that the safety record of the offshore drilling in the US far surpasses the safety record of any airline or other mode of transportation.[/quote]

We're not talking about offshore drilling, we're talking about deep water offshore drilling like Deepwater Horizon. That rig is one of only about 200 offshore rigs supposedly capable of drilling in waters over 5,000 ft. These rigs are pushing the safety envelope.

Mac

[Macabee]

[quote=""Soccerman771""]In 2007, federal leases in the western and central Gulf of Mexico produced 25% of the nation's oil and 14% of the nation's natural gas.[10] In 2008, federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico produced 418 million barrels of oil, down from 568 million barrels in 2002; however, due to new deep-water discoveries, the MMS projects that oil production from the Gulf of Mexico will increase to 686 million barrels per year by 2013.[11]
[/quote]

Technically speaking, what we've been referring to as deep water drilling (like Deepwater Horizon), the MMS is currently defines as ultra-deep water meaning 5000 feet deep or more. What the MMS refers to as deep water is between 1000 and 5000 feet. Ultra-deep water drilling like Deepwater Horizon will be a relatively small supply of oil.

[IndyBrit]

Macabee,
We're talking so far past each other, it's difficult to continue the conversation in a reasonable manner.

E.g. - offshore oil becomes more significant if we reduce consumption as a mathematical fact not as a subjective opinion; if we cut consumption 50%, then a 120-day supply becomes a 240-day supply. You are just getting chippy there and looking for a place to argue. That seems unnecessary.

I explained to you how reserves are reported. I used to consult with oil companies helping them determine and report their reserves - if you want to insist on your reading that's fine. The "oil and natural gas" of 3 Billion and "oil" of 450 million is absolutely critical in those statements. What you're saying is just not true. You wouldn't have any way to check it out because the reporters don't know, I don't know where you could look it up without years of training and industry practice, and you aren't taking my word for it, so we have nowhere to go on that point.

There are 128 rigs (not 200, which I guess would support my point better but isn't the case) that drill in water deeper than 4,000 feet (as of April 9, 2010) with 67 on order and some of those 67 under construction. They are mostly operating in the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil, and West Africa. That rig data is taken from a news story by Tom Fowler which I can't find now, but it's in line with the general sense of the industry because this work is being done every day. Hundreds of these wells, worldwide, have been drilled. Some credible people believe there may be more oil in the deep offshore waters than all on-land oil, although most reservoir engineers are more conservative because these reserves are largely speculative (but we do keep making huge finds).

Anything below about 600 feet is pushing the "safety envelope", as you say, because that is as deep as a human can dive. Therefore, although the PVT situation changes somewhat as you go deeper (changing the hydrates and freezing recipe, depending on your natural gas composition), it's pretty much dependent upon BOPs and robots as soon as you go below the 600 foot mark, leaving us where we are with this accident. Tens of thousands of the sub-600 foot wells have been drilled, and the failure record of the below 4000- and below 600- is not significantly different (although Deepwater Horizon is clearly a catastrophic failure).

There is a lot of oil in deepwater offshore, and we have the technology to get it. And we will clearly make mistakes along the way, although we will learn from them and improve. With that reality, there may still be great reasons to conserve and to seek alternate sources of energy (and I think there are). However, if you ignore the real situation, you will just continue to be frustrated that we're running around chasing nothing because - what? We like to build big rigs and go drill deep dry holes?

When you have the experts explain to you the real situation rather than the one published by some pro-environmental blogger who's in a rage over the latest oiled pelican picture, and when you are faced with being the guy that is going to tell the poor that we're going to triple food prices because we're cutting back on natural gas, the world looks like a different place even as your heart bleeds over the damage being done in the gulf. That explains the actions of the current occupant of the Oval Office and why we will continue to drill there. We will continue to drill offshore because of the reality of life, regardless of what you or I think about it. It's not crazy or stupid, although it is perhaps uncreative.

I'll let you have the last word because I doubt we can progress this conversation much further - I'm sure I've said something here to upset you, so have at me. I sympathize with your frustration and I won't hold it against you.

[Macabee]

[quote=""IndyBrit""]Macabee,
We're talking so far past each other, it's difficult to continue the conversation in a reasonable manner.[/quote]

That's probably true. You view the Deepwater Horizon disaster as nothing more than the cost of doing business. I happen to think that if an offshore windmill farm had a spill, it would be a wind spill.

[quote=""IndyBrit""]E.g. - offshore oil becomes more significant if we reduce consumption as a mathematical fact not as a subjective opinion; if we cut consumption 50%, then a 120-day supply becomes a 240-day supply. You are just getting chippy there and looking for a place to argue. That seems unnecessary.[/quote]

I understand your math. I don't share your premise. By the way, from my first post in this topic I have consistently said "deep water" in an attempt to not confuse you with offshore oil in general.

[quote=""IndyBrit""]I explained to you how reserves are reported. I used to consult with oil companies helping them determine and report their reserves - if you want to insist on your reading that's fine. The "oil and natural gas" of 3 Billion and "oil" of 450 million is absolutely critical in those statements. What you're saying is just not true. You wouldn't have any way to check it out because the reporters don't know, I don't know where you could look it up without years of training and industry practice, and you aren't taking my word for it, so we have nowhere to go on that point.[/quote]

OK. You've gone from playing dumb (eg: "I don't know where you get your 450 million figure from") when I posted a source right in my post. Also, I told you it was in a BP press release as well. But if you claim to be familiar with that well I'll defer.

[quote=""IndyBrit""]There is a lot of oil in deepwater offshore, and we have the technology to get it. And we will clearly make mistakes along the way, although we will learn from them and improve.[/quote]

That would be the unfortunate cost of doing business for you.

[quote=""IndyBrit""]With that reality, there may still be great reasons to conserve and to seek alternate sources of energy (and I think there are). However, if you ignore the real situation, you will just continue to be frustrated that we're running around chasing nothing because - what? We like to build big rigs and go drill deep dry holes?[/quote]

Your ideas of conservation appear to be nothing more than token half measures. You don't consider conservation without the context of getting more oil.

[quote=""IndyBrit""]When you have the experts explain to you the real situation rather than the one published by some pro-environmental blogger who's in a rage over the latest oiled pelican picture,[/quote]

That's kind of a sleaze bag move to make up something like that.

[quote=""IndyBrit""]and when you are faced with being the guy that is going to tell the poor that we're going to triple food prices because we're cutting back on natural gas, the world looks like a different place even as your heart bleeds over the damage being done in the gulf. That explains the actions of the current occupant of the Oval Office and why we will continue to drill there. We will continue to drill offshore because of the reality of life, regardless of what you or I think about it. It's not crazy or stupid, although it is perhaps uncreative.[/quote]

But it is where the money is and that's what matters to you. As a national policy it is in fact stupid though.

[quote=""IndyBrit""]I'll let you have the last word because I doubt we can progress this conversation much further - I'm sure I've said something here to upset you, so have at me. I sympathize with your frustration and I won't hold it against you.[/quote]

It's frustrating in that people with connections to the oil industry insist on telling us what's best for us. It's frustrating when the oil industry buys politicians who do their bidding. When all is said and done though, Bin Laden thanks the oil industry for their aid comfort. Let's get serious with alternatives and conservation for a change.

I also think it's a stupid to believe that a foreign oil company (no disrespect for our British friends), on a rig built by Hyundai of Korea, owned by Transocean of Switzerland, that flew the flag of the Marshall Islands necessarily makes the US energy independent. Isn't that what you're trying to make us believe? That foreigners drilling our oil and selling it to us makes us more energy independent?

[IndyBrit]

I am not reviving this discussion - I'm just posting this link because some folks may find it informative. The SPE is an academic group that is neutral on the BP spill, but it is an industry-based group that is not neutral on continued drilling operations generally.

http://www.spe.org/notes/2010/07/faqs-o ... ulf-spill/

[wicked_assassin]

Mac, it's highly irrelevant if the companies were forgein. They were western based. It's not like us companies posses better technology then other western countries.

ps: You can only gain true indipendency by national companies. lol

[huGGy]

It's just a shame for the animals living there and the landscape itself. You can't repair that with money or anything. That makes me sad every day

[Soccerman771]

[quote=""HuggyPierre""]It's just a shame for the animals living there and the landscape itself. You can't repair that with money or anything. That makes me sad every day [/quote]

The animals - no. The landscape - well oil is organic and will eventually disappear.


Not towards you, but I'm amazed by how much everyone is outraged about the environment and I've barely heard anyone say anything about the 12 HUMAN lives that were lost. That's more sad than anything, IMO.

[Bart331]

the ecological disaster is much worse then the 12 ppl who died, if the oil ends up in the marshlands it will take MANY years before it gets out, the total ecological system could be ruined.

[Sporting_Lisbon]

I was about to say that there's also the people that are dying in the beaches because they think that it's safe to go and swim in oil contaminated water.

[etrips888]

Or the people that depend on the gulf for their livelihood, like fishermen and such

[Soccerman771]

Yeah, tell that to the families of the 12 people that lost their lives.....