My attempt to send this to the groups failed yesterday as I was informed today that messages must be less than 4Mb. So I try once more.
Here is the attachment that blew Google's gasket: http://media.mcclatchydc.com/static/pdf/Schoof-TechnicalPlan.pdf ----- Original Message ----- From: Alvia Gaskill To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] ; Jayanty, R. K. M. ; [email protected] Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 7:23 Subject: What Lies Beneath-the Plan to Find Out I read the plan this afternoon. It is well conceived and if carried out would provide valuable information on not only the fate and transport of hydrocarbons from the well, but also on what we might expect from large natural releases of methane from sediment hydrates, although the mechanisms involved here are different. They note that formation of hydrates seems to take place higher up in the water column in the form of "flakes," but these can be seen emerging from the column of gas and oil in the TV camera videos as white particles. They form as soon as the water temperature is cold enough, which is immediately above the riser pipe. Whether additional hydrates continue to form is unknown. In a recent posting (June 18), I presented some arguments about the possible fate of the hydrates and the methane: http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention/browse_thread/thread/154df5baa7e7e85e?hl=en The results from previous studies including the deliberate release of oil and methane 10 years ago off the coast of Norway as part of an experiment (hadn't heard about that one before) seem to agree with what little is known from this incident. One experiment I would include is the determination of methane in the water just below the surface and above it as this would tell how much does make it into the atmosphere. NOAA and others have supposedly been taking water samples at varying depths, but I am not aware of how close to the site these have occurred or if this matters as the plume seems to become shifted horizontally at the thermocline (~600 ft). The proposed plan discusses sampling of water for methane, but isn't clear about the depths or whether atmospheric samples will be taken. One of the researchers claims that the spill is so large compared to previous ones that it has altered the boundary conditions, affecting how the slick moves. I doubt this is enough to impact evaporation or weather (the idea of coating the surface to affect tropical storm development), but it would be interesting to see the results and how they might relate to this proposal. The rising oil also appears to bring with it colder more anoxic water. Unfortunately, this plan is about 60 days too late, but given the haphazard way the response and the "scientific" research has been conducted, it seems unlikely they will be given the go ahead to do this important work, especially if BP is able to clamp the shut off valve onto the riser pipe over the next few days. However, since a lot of people associated with government agencies and the petroleum industry will get this message, consider this an opportunity. After all, BP has been known to be wrong. http://media.mcclatchydc.com/static/pdf/Schoof-TechnicalPlan.pdf http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100708/sc_mcclatchy/3560950 Scientists propose big experiment to study Gulf oil spill By Renee Schoof, McClatchy Newspapers Renee Schoof, Mcclatchy Newspapers Thu Jul 8, 6:18 pm ET WASHINGTON — Frustrated with limited data on the BP oil gusher, a group of independent scientists has proposed a large experiment that would give a clearer understanding of where the oil and gas are going and where they'll do the most damage. The scientists say their mission must be undertaken immediately, before BP kills the runaway well. They propose using what's probably the world's worst oil accident to learn how crude oil and natural gas move through water when they're released at high volumes from the deep sea. Since the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and sank into the Gulf of Mexico in late April, more than 200 million gallons of oil have gushed from the blown well. The scientists also want to see how the oil breaks down into toxic and safer components in different ocean conditions, information that would help predict which ocean species are most at risk. The experiment also could provide data that would help in dealing with any future spills. "Without this understanding, we're no better off when the next one occurs," said Ira Leifer , a researcher at the Marine Science Institute of the University of California at Santa Barbara who's leading the team that's proposed the experiment. The plan calls for about two weeks of experiments with two research vessels and robotic vehicles at a cost of $8.4 million . The scientist would use monitoring equipment and sampling to conduct experiments at various levels in the water column. Leifer said BP should pay for it, or the federal government should pay and send BP the bill. The choice is really up to BP, he said. "You can either let science happen and everyone wins, or you're going to find yourself torpedoing that. It's going to look bad in the history books when people look at it, and maybe in court," Leifer said. Scientists from universities, oceanic institutions and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have been tracking the layers of partly dissolved oil. NOAA has six research vessels in the Gulf working on assessing the damage from the spill. Leifer said that while those researchers were looking for where the oil was, a larger experiment was necessary to test hypotheses and learn how to make better estimates. It's not clear whether any federal agency agrees. The Department of Energy hasn't been approached about the project, spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller said. Leifer has prepared an 88-page technical report, and he said he could get the experiment under way quickly. It's not clear, however, whether any funding proposal could clear the necessary scientific review in time. Leifer said he hoped that BP would see it as in its own interest to fund the study. BP didn't respond to queries. Rep. Edward Markey , D- Mass. , wrote to BP on June 10 asking for funding for a simpler, earlier version of Leifer's plan. Markey said through a spokesman that it "could help answer some of the fundamental questions about this catastrophe and help us prepare should there be a next one. It is worth serious consideration by BP." Leifer's team is made up of 15 experts on oil and gas in the ocean. He and some of the others also worked on the federal government's Flow Rate Technical Group , which was formed to get a better estimate of the size of the disaster. Leifer said the group did the best it could with limited data provided by BP. The latest official estimate is that 35,000 to 60,000 barrels a day are flowing from the runaway well. Leifer's proposed experiment could help improve the estimate, but because the flow amount can change over time, it would still be impossible to come up with an accurate amount, he said. "We're trying to figure out not just how much is coming out, but where it's going," Leifer said. "The question is where is it going, why is it going there and what is it killing?" The information also will help scientists predict what will happen when conditions change; for example, when the loop current shifts and temperatures rise. McClatchy reported last Friday that many experts say the overall scientific evaluation of the spill is surprisingly uncoordinated, as federal officials and BP have failed to mount a speedy, focused inquiry to understand its impact. Leifer has dubbed the new proposal "Deep Spill 2." The first Project Deep Spill was an experiment off Norway in 2000 in which mixtures of crude oil, diesel oil and natural gas were released half a mile below the surface of the ocean to simulate a blowout. The study was a joint project by the U.S. Minerals Management Service and 23 oil companies. Leifer was part of a Department of Energy-funded experiment last summer on a natural oil seep near the Deepwater Horizon site. The earlier experiment looked at the effects of methane seeping into the atmosphere. "We want to repeat the effort much more thoroughly, because the stakes are much higher with the oil spill," he said. "It would be inexcusable not to learn from this." ON THE WEB Deep Spill 2: Technical Science Plans and Supporting Explanations Another Gulf mystery: Who's in charge of oil spill research? Oil containment effort facing 2 key moments Effort to kill BP's runaway well enters crucial phase BP warns that its new oil collection plan has safety risks I also recently answered a question from a friend at USACE regarding the potential impacts on global warming from the methane emissions associated with the release. It will have none, the total quantity under the worst case scenario adding less than 0.02% to atmospheric levels. Here is part of my response: "The amount of methane released is very small compared to human and natural emissions and would have no impact on climate if it entered the atmosphere. So to call it one of the largest eruptions in human history is an exaggeration, especially when one considers it has taken place over a two month period. [Now 3.] Assuming a maximum of 100,000 barrels of oil per day for 100 days means that at 42 gals per barrel, 420,000,000 gals of oil will have been released. At ~ 8lbs/gal means 3.36 billions lbs of oil or 1.5 million tons. If an amount of methane equal to half that were also released, that would be 0.75 million tons of methane. Human emissions total around 500 million tons annually, so this would be around 0.15% and half that of total emissions as natural emissions are also around 500 million tons. The total methane in the atmosphere is around 5 billion tons, so if all of this methane were to enter the air, it would increase the methane content by 0.02%. Assuming a global warming potential of 70 vs. CO2, the methane would have the same effect as 50 million tons of CO2, but once again, total human emissions are around 30 billion tons annually, so this would only add about 0.2% to the total. A large release of methane, but hardly enough to have any effect on the atmosphere. The 100,000 barrels per day estimate was based on the well without a blowout preventer, not that this one seems to have done much good. That was the estimated flow when the riser pipe was cut off and probably includes both the oil and the natural gas." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
