Originally Posted by k1vsk
One last, probably futile try ---
the differential pressure to which I and other refer is that between the well head and the water column above it, nothing to do with the well pressure. I assume you confuse that point intentionally?
The so-called "science" and you ignores the fact the well head is under 5000 feet of water.
I'm not trying to confuse anything. It's a simple fact that when the oil exits the pipe; the pressure is equal. It does not matter if it is at the surface or 5000 feet down. The measured flow rate via video analysis DOES take into account the depth; because it is being measured at the source; get it? If the same flow rate from a pipe was shown at 100 feet depth it would look exactly the same. The water is no "thicker" down there than it is at any other depth in the ocean. The only difference is the static pressure of the water and oil (which again is equal); and those two fluids are incompressible and do not change in viscosity or flow properties. Do you have ANY background in fluids or physics?
I think a big reason we don't see a much bigger oil slick on the surface is because much of the oil is not making it up to the surface before it emulsifies and remains in the water column.
Again, it is irrelevant as the volume released and the environmental impact of any spill are more often than not mutually exclusive things but that too I will presume you want to ignore.
How can the environmental impact NOT be a function of the spill volume? If the Valdez had spilled 1/10'th of the volume; the damage and lasting effects would not have been nearly so severe. Recently there was a much smaller bunker fuel spill (1000 gallons) on SF Bay and there were little to no effects; compared with the 48,000 gallon spill 2 years prior.
Environmental impact is DIRECTLY related to spill volume; how can anyone say otherwise? Oh yeah; the CEO of BP - who says that the spill (that they can't stop) will have very, very little environmental impact. In what timeframe? The entire history of the Earth (5 billion years)? BS
- maybe that should be their new name.
If we don't know a good ballpark number of how much is spilled; how can one determine what how much cleanup is needed, what the long term effects are; and how much or how long BP should do the remediation work and/or cover the cost of fishing and economic losses? Is it fair for BP to get off the hook saying they cleaned 90% of a spill rather than 9%? What will happen if BP gets cut free in a few years and then giant blobs of goo start washing ashore 20 years from now (you know the stuff that was not quantified, accounted for or recovered)?
The Cosco Busan bunker fuel spill here on SF Bay was first listed as "less than 1000 gallons"; then it went to 10k, and when the fog lifted and everyone could see the slick that encircled Yerba Buena and Treasure Island; and was washing out the SF Gate; they finally published the total number of 48,000 gallons. While this may seem small by comparison; SF Bay is a much smaller body of water than the Gulf. Had the volume been correctly disclosed at the beginning; the widespread damage may have been prevented due to a more urgent response.
So who would you rather believe? The Government who is on the defensive for not acting quickly enough in the beginning, no oversight, and are taking flak for not letting the surface oil burn; BP who has a massive financial stake in this (remember Exxon; what happened to Exxon after the Valdez?); or a respected professor from Purdue who has his professional name and possibly his career on the line by pointing out that the flow velocity puts the daily volume closer to 70k BPD?
The more you dismiss these realities, the less credibility your statements have so feel free to continue.
What realities? You have given no analytical proof that this spill is the smaller number. All you have said is that "it can't be" 70k/day. Explain with some numbers why (with some detailed analysis) so we can all know what the reason is for us to believe your theory.
Ever seen the old pictures of oil wells "gushing"; shooting oil a hundred feet in the air? Do you think the flow velocity was just a bit more than 1 MPH? Why is it so hard to understand that a 1 MPH flow velocity out of a 2foot diameter pipe (a very slow velocity) would result in 70k BPD? It's not a high velocity or pressure that is required; it's the large pipe diameter that results in such a huge net volume. If the BOP had not partially closed; I think the flow would be much, much higher until the gas pressure escapes the deposit. Hopefully they will get the well sealed before the BOP fails due to erosion (if there is truth in that theory).