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 <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> ;
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> ; Jayanty, R. K. M.
<mailto:[email protected]> ; [email protected]
<mailto:[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
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/mcclatchy/sc_mcclatchy/storytext/3560950/36837151/SIG=12245goih/*http://media.mcclatchydc.com/static/pdf/Schoof-TechnicalPlan.pdf>
Another Gulf mystery: Who's in charge of oil spill research?
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/mcclatchy/sc_mcclatchy/storytext/3560950/36837151/SIG=10mu5mp57;_ylt=AgcneYSyFI0Yjk307d7PSyym0rJ_;_ylu=X3oDMTFodGJpb2ZzBHBvcwM1BHNlYwN5bl9zdG9yeV9wcmludF9jb250ZW50BHNsawNhbm90aGVyZ3VsZm0-/*http://bit.ly/dynFRT>
Oil containment effort facing 2 key moments
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/mcclatchy/sc_mcclatchy/storytext/3560950/36837151/SIG=12gq83oke/*http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/07/97155/oil-containment-effort-facing.html>
Effort to kill BP's runaway well enters crucial phase
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/mcclatchy/sc_mcclatchy/storytext/3560950/36837151/SIG=12j7p254i/*http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/24/96510/relief-may-not-come-soon-for-bps.html>
BP warns that its new oil collection plan has safety risks
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/mcclatchy/sc_mcclatchy/storytext/3560950/36837151/SIG=12n32os5l/*http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/14/95867/bp-warns-that-its-new-oil-collection.html>
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 "Climate Intervention" 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/climateintervention?hl=en.
