Animal Autopsies in Gulf Yield a Mystery

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/sc...=1&ref=science

Quoted for lol.

Not to be too cynical and a henny penny, but recall from the other "oil spill" thread we had on here and the tinfoil hatish conspiracy theory (that many science and oil drilling blogs said was entirely plausible) that was posited by some anonymous dude who claimed to be familiar with the situation posted on The Oil Drum:

So from today:

Engineers Detect Seepage Near BP's Capped Oil Well

This would of course be worst case scenario.

This article is a bit more optimistic and encouraging:

BP Shares Fall on Worries Over Well Cap Test

The pressure in the capped well is 6,792 pounds per square inch and continues to rise slowly, BP said. Rising pressure at the well head should indicate that there are no hydrocarbon leaks from other locations on the well bore.

However, the top U.S. government official overseeing the oil-spill response effort asked BP late Sunday to closely monitor hydrocarbons seeping from the seabed some distance from the Macondo well to ensure that the well bore has not ruptured.

"I authorized BP to continue the integrity test for another 24 hours and I restated our firm position that this test will only continue if they continue to meet their obligations to rigorously monitor for any signs that this test could worsen the overall situation," said the National Incident Commander Adm. Thad Allen in a statement Monday. "Full analysis of both the seepage and methane will continue in coordination with the science team."

If a leak is found, it would lead to the well being reopened, but, "the new cap appears to be working well with pressure in the system building up steadily," said Evolution Securities analyst Richard Griffith. "The testing of the system may continue for some time longer though before BP and the U.S. authorities are satisfied that it is working properly."

Adm. Allen asked BP to have in place a plan to reopen the well cap as quickly as possible in case the well bore is shown to be damaged. BP said it should have two vessels, the Q4000 and the Helix Producer, in place to capture between 28,000 and 33,000 barrels a day of oil from the well if the cap has to be reopened.

All this seems reasonable to me FWIW.

Really? I don't really understand the technical issues here, but if there are problems near the wellhead that wouldn't necessarily reduce the chance of the relief well from working, would it?

Deepwater Horizon alarms were switched off 'to help workers sleep'

Brilliant.

Like we said: There is barely a drop in the bucket off our shores, nor on Alaska's North Slope. THAT'S why "drill baby drill" is a hope-based claim. If it was here in any significant amount, it would be drilled. Period. Wonder how long Alaska will be cutting that annual check for its citizens.

The latest round of corroboration:

USGS Drops a Bomb on Alaska's Oil Future

Last week, the U.S. Geological Survey dropped on bomb on Alaska's future oil reserves.

The USGS revised a 2002 estimate for the amount of conventional, undiscovered oil contained in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA).

We're not talking about a little tweaking of the numbers here...

The USGS report estimated that the NPR contains approximately 896 million barrels of oil — 90% less than its previous estimate.

That's a huge blow to future reserves.

The NPRA was previously thought to hold approximately 10.6 billion barrels of oil.

This time, the public can't put the blame on BP. Because according to the USGS, the new estimate is due to the fact that recent exploration drilling revealed gas in most of the area, not oil.

To add even more insult to injury, the USGS also revised their gas estimates, which are now eight trillion cubic feet less than they were before.

And don't get your hopes up for tapping that gas, because there's no infrastructure in place.

In other words, there's no pipeline to bring the gas to market.

You should know by now that Alaska's oil output is circling the drain, thanks to peak oil.

You are aware that even though the Obama administration rescinded the moratorium on offshore drilling, they are issuing 0 permits? So we play the politics as usual game.

Irrelevant. Drilling is not exploration. Where is the oil? Please show a significant discovery anywhere around our continent. I challenge anyone to link to a find of proven recoverable light crude in excess of, say, 10 billion barrels. Heck, how about 5... Still miniscule, but the point remains.

You seem to be missing the point. You can't find oil if you can't drill holes. The easy oil is found. All new relevant discoveries will be made in difficult hostile environments like BP's deepwater. The present administration is blocking attempts to prove up new projects.

Deepwater Horizon wasn't exploration, it was a production hole. And by your definition, the easiest task in extraction. Now if a simple task can't be completed, why should they allow a difficult one to proceed?

So by your way of thinking we should never allow another plane to fly? Or ship to cross the Ocean? Or space shuttle launch? Things happen and we learn from them. Thought processes like yours would have kept us in the stone age.

but the air and water were pure back then!

Has the fast response plan for emergencies been updated yet? Or is it still based on what was required 20 years ago, and calls on people to direct efforts that are already dead?

...and the women were easy!

No, that would be you. And, 5 months after missing the point the first time you engaged me on this, you're apparently still unable to do anything but pretend this is ALL about politics. It isn't.

Excuse me? You find oil through seismic surveys. You only drill after you are reasonably certain by way of these surveys.

Now there, we agree. There is no more "easy oil" left to find. Anywhere. And such existing capacity is also dying rapidly.

There have been zero "relevant discoveries" for 30 years. But at least you're getting closer to admitting the conditions of peak. The fact that they're being made in more difficult environments (thus, exponentially more expensive to extract) only underlines the predicament, it does NOT refute it.

Perhaps to some degree. But if the previous administration felt there was much of anything down there, they'd have had Big Oil drill, themselves. Considering the USGS keeps revising the figures downward in both the Gulf and ANWR, they were right to not waste money on it.

Senior fellow from Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment says, "Relax baby, easiest peak oil ever."

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-oil-price.html

Quote:

Regarding whether or not we are running out of oil, estimates of the world's oil reserves have continually increased over the past 50 years, and global reserves are at an all-time high. From that perspective alone, the world is not running out of oil. [...]

The world may very well go through a peak in oil use, but a peak and decline is far more likely to reflect a decrease in oil demand rather than production choked by perilously low global availability of oil. The line between conventional liquid oil and unconventional oil, such as that derived from Canadian oil sands, will blur. Beyond that, major consuming nations will likely shift away from using conventional oil for transportation as concerns grow over security, stability and the environment. Based on the history of other nonrenewable Earth resources, it is likely that the world will move away from oil long before our global oil resources are exhausted.

what say you, jiggs

Wrong again Einstein. You find the most likely place for oil to be with seismic and geology, but the only way to prove up a prospect is a drill bit. Which sends us back to the point I was trying to make- no permits= no drilling.

I'm not arguing about peak oil with you. There are no more middle east or east Texas oilfields to be discovered. New discoveries will be hard to find and hard to produce.

What do I really need to say? It's right in the interview. How is it different than any narrative presented right on this forum? It's really not.

Heck, I can "the Google" and find an endless array of "peak oil debunked" essays, on everything from abiotic theory to markets will fix all.

In this case, the man spends two sentences insisting there's plenty of light crude, and the rest of the Q&A assessing the reasons we MUST turn to alternatives. Odd. But more important, to his first point: Where is the data? How is he, a professor, correct and countless geologists and retired oilmen wrong?

A commenter under the Q&A put it best... there's "never been more...:

... If you believe the national oil companies. They won't allow third-party verification of their reserves, so those reserves could just as well be marketing spin as honest assessments. If you realize they have incentives to fudge the numbers, and look at their stated reserves history, it would be silly to take their word for it. But Prof. Gorelick seems to be doing just that.

I'm familiar with Gorelick, though. He debated Amos Nur at Stanford in 05 or 06, and really sounded more like an attorney than a geologist. He's classic denial, in that he insists demand dictates supply. He also insists the U.S. only peaked in 1971 because bigger tankers made it cheaper to get oil elsewhere. This notion was crushed long ago, as the reality is the reverse was true. The U.S. built a fleet of huge30 tankers because it knew it had to increase imports due to peak.

He sees a transfer over to ever-heavier, dirtier, more expensive oil as a "blur." Most everyone else sees is as a process that will lead to severe civil dislocation and upheaval.

At the end of the day, however, when dealing with someone like Gorelick, you need only apply critical analysis and ask "show me your data?" Where is the oil people like Gorelick are alluding to? In what amount? Up against what rate of consumption, as he sees it? If he can't point to it, and must pretend the transition to alternatives will be seamless, like so many here, what is the EROEI he sees going forward for these alternatives?

Because the USGS, the IEA, the Join Chiefs, the U.S. Dept. of Energy, Lloyds of London, Oxford U., Total Oil of France, the German and British governments and endless petrol geologists seem to have very different figures, and a far more imminent scenario than anyone in denial is willing to acknowledge.

still waiting for the NEW fast response plan.

wul hai!!!!

Deepwater remnant, or some exciting new challenge for Team D.B.D.?

U.S. Coast Guard Investigating Oil Slick Reports in Gulf
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

HOUSTON -- The U.S. Coast Guard said late Saturday that it is investigating reports of a miles-long oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico.
...
Ranel said the area where the substance has been reported is about 20 miles west of where the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded last April, killing 11 and unleashing the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

Possible New Oil Spill 100 By 10 Miles Reported in Gulf Of Mexico
http://www.examiner.com/environmenta...sheen-reported

The site of the sheen, near Mississippi Canyon 243, lies 30 miles from the Louisiana coastline. The Matterhorn field, at a depth of 2,789 feet (850 meters) of water, was discovered in 1999, leased and permitted in July 2001, and came into production in November 2003. It is located 30 miles SE of the mouth of the Mississippi River.

Update March 20, 2011: A Coast Guard officer with a command center in Morgan City, LA, said today the Coast Guard has confirmed that the new oil is not coming from the Deepwater Horizon well but that they have found new oil slicks in the Gulf. Their investigation continues. Additional photos from pilot John Wathen have been released and can be viewed in the slideshow attached to this article.

Mmmmmm.... delicious.

UGH Could this be leftover from the DH disaster?

U.S. exports of gasoline, diesel and other oil-based fuels are soaring, putting the nation on track to be a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011 for the first time in 62 years.

"Will The EPA Choke Oil Shale Production"

http://news.investors.com/Article/59...a-keystone.htm