Pique the Geek 20100502: Gulf Disaster

(11 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

The explosion of the BP oil platform in the Gulf on 20100420 will certainly be amongst the worst, if not the worst, oil release into the environment in United States history.  Already at over 2.6 million gallons of oil split, there is no plan to contain the gushing until it will exceed the Exxon Valdez incident decades ago.

I have in intention of speculating on the cause of the explosion at this point, because a proper investigation has yet to be completed.  As attractive as is might be to blame Halliburton, there is, in my opinion, a dire dearth of information to blame anyone at this point.  Investigations will uncover the facts.  This incident is too big and too well publicized not to have sunlight.  However, I do intend to voice my thoughts about events prior to the explosion that were not done that should have been, and actions (or lack thereof) after the explosion for good or ill.

Before we start, let me tell you that is has been raining extremely hard here in the Bluegrass.  No personal threat to house for me, since I am on high ground, but there have been automobile water rescues today in my county and surrounding ones.  If any of you have been caught up in this, please let us know.  Tennessee got it much worse than I did, and I feel for the families of those who have lost their lives in the flooding.

First of all, BP does not have the very best of reputations for safe operations.  Remember, a BP operated refinery exploded in Texas in 2005 of years ago, killing 15 workers.  BP released 5000 barrels total (the estimated daily release in the gulf) in Alaska, forcing the closure at Prudhoe Bay, due to poor maintenance on their pipeline, and in 2007 spilt 2000 gallons of methanol at the bay.  Despite their TeeVee commercials, they are not very environmentally friendly.  As a matter of fact, I will not knowingly buy BP products, and will not stop at their branded stores.

Second, government oversight of the oil industry, especially in the exploration and development arena, is quite lacking.  This is because of pressure on Congress by the oil industry, and is not surprising.  Oil companies want to make profit above all other concerns, and the less regulation, the greater the potential for profit.  Just ask the investment banking industry.

Third, offshore platforms, particularly in relatively enclosed bodies of water like the Gulf of Mexico, are the highest risk types of platforms.  Spills on land do not spread by the wind and the waves, are relatively easy to contain, and offending wells are relatively easy to cap.

Offshore platforms, especially deep water ones like the one in question, are extremely difficult to cap.  On land, the offending well is approachable and can be dealt with directly.  Even shallow (meaning accessible to divers) are much more difficult to approach, and at 5000 feet, like the one in mind, only equipment can get near it.  In this case, at 5000 feet of depth, the pressure of the oil must be very considerable, because to release 200,000 gallons of oil (about 5,000 barrels) per day from a seven-inch pipe is significant, working out to about 150 gallons per minute.

It has been reported that this pipe is broken in three places, so there are three holes to patch or go below to deal with to stop the flow. Construction workers have had to shop steel pipes to find a pipe that can replace the broken one. Conditions are difficult there, and visibility is a real issue because of the turbulence of the oil escaping from the pipe causing cloudiness as it mixes with the water.

In my opinion, an inadequate hazards analysis was performed before the well was even drilled.  From the dribs and drabs of information that have been released, BP considered the likelihood of a significant environmental event from a leak extraordinarily unlikely to virtually impossible.  When I worked for the Army I developed hazards analyses on a routine basis since I ran a pyrotechnics development laboratory, so I know something about HA’s.

The protocol that we used had five levels of probability of occurrence and five levels of potential consequence.  The lowest level of probability was extremely unlikely (there are some statistical figures that define it), but we did not have one called virtually impossible.  The consequences went from negligible personal injury and/or property damage to loss of life and/or catastrophic property damage.  Then we grouped each of those together, and used a prescribed table to determine the relative risk.  Depending on the probability and severity, the lowest risk ones were left to local decision, the more risky ones left to a higher command, the next ones to the MACOM, and the highest ones to the Department of the Army.  However, some combinations were so risky that it required approval from DoD, and I have never seen any of those be approved.

By the way, all of these scenarios were conducted twice, one with no mitigation efforts, and a second with mitigation.  For example, the consequence of being burned by a pyrotechnic mixture becoming alit can be mitigated by wearing the proper personal protective equipment, and the probability can be mitigated by grounding and bonding of containers, using water wet mixes when possible, etc.

In my experience, operations that involved catastrophic consequences were NEVER approved, regardless of how vanishingly small the probability of occurrence was.  BP, in my opinion, used poor judgment in their hazards analysis, and (and this is preliminary, based on news reports) conflated probability with consequence.  As more information becomes available, we will be better able to make a call on it.  I would love to see their original hazards analysis for this project.

Now to the concept of fail safe.  In a fail safe design, if everything goes wrong, whatever bad thing that can happen automatically is shut down, regardless of operator intervention.  I maintain that this concept is unrealistic.  This is not to say that this ideal should not be sought, but, as with any ideal, this is a very abstract concept.  Obviously the fail safe design did not work at the platform.  This was the greatest predrilling flaw, in my opinion.

One should NEVER rely on fail safe designs.  First of all, they rely on certain critical parts NOT to fail and “fall” into place in event of failure of other systems.  In other words, if the basic elements of the fail safe design fail, it is not fail safe.  No device designed by humans is that sophisticated, especially in heavy industry like oil drilling.  Once again, every effort should be made to design in the fail safe manner, but never to rely on it.

In addition to designs approaching fail safe, mitigation measures must be part of the overall design of an operation of this magnitude.  BP seems to have done this at least as far as personnel were concerned, because they had “bug out” craft that personnel could board and quickly escape from the rig.  I believe that this measure prevented a good amount of loss of life, but still 11 souls were lost.  No one knows, or at least is not saying, what the fate of the 11 was, but the many were able to get clear of the rig before they also died.  I applaud BP for providing these craft.  They did, I am confident, mitigate the loss of a great many lives.

One thing that they did not have in place was a remote controlled shut off valve at the wellhead.  Why not?  The United States does not require them, but some other countries do.  Why they are not required, in one of, if not the, most environmentally sensitive and economically important bodies of water on the planet almost seems to defy logic.  Here is the reason:  they cost about half a million dollars.  Big Oil has lobbied the Congress very effectively to keep this requirement from being made.  So for half a million bucks a multi-billion dollar seafood industry is threatened with ruin, and for a long time.  We need to hold the Congress responsible for this.

However, they had no plan for mitigation of a large (in this case huge) spill.  The best that they had were some little skimmer boats that were in place for incidental leaks associated with punching down to the oil reservoir and sealing the interface between the seabed and the pipe.  This is expected when drilling, until the casement and well head are properly installed.  They are fine for a couple of barrels here and there, but totally inadequate for 5000 barrels per day.  As a matter of fact, I am not sure that there is a way to mitigate a release as large and prolonged as this one is.  Well, no, there is one, but it would be expensive.  It would involve having on site, a large funnel, constructed of steel and what amounts to landfill liner, with enough flexible conduit, to be dropped into place over the wellhead to divert the oil into waiting barges.  It would be expensive, but not many of them would be required.  I shall explain.

Such a structure would not have to be that massive.  I did the maths, and if BP’s estimate is correct in that 5000 barrels of oil are being release per day, that works out to about 150 gallons per minute.  It does not take highly sophisticated equipment to handle 150 gallons per minute.  The risk of a blowout is highest in the first few weeks of a new well, so the funnel, conduit, and holding barges could be moved from site to site as new wells come on line.  Of course the engineering is more complicated than I indicated, but is is quite feasible.  I welcome submarine oil development engineers to comment on this idea.

This concept is not my own.  It is actually one of the ideas being considered to control the leak.  What is original with me, as far as I know, is the preplacement of such devices as new wells are drilled.  It would take weeks to build such a device and then to barge it in place, but preplacement of them would reduce the duration of an uncontrolled leak into open water from weeks to days, and perhaps only hours.  This is how mitigation works.  You do not mitigate weeks or months later, you have the equipment for mitigation at hand.  They estimate that they might be able to have one on site in around a week from today, so let us do the maths.  The blowout happened on 20100420, and today is 21010502.  That is 13 days, so another 7 make 20 days.  At 200,000 gallons per day, that is 4 millions of gallons.  For some perspective, the Exxon Valdez spilt 11 million gallons.  However, Alaska and the gulf are two very different environments.

The other plan is to drill a relief well into the same cell and pump oil from it.  That is expected to take months.  So what happens in the meantime?  IF the funnel gets in place, that will buy the time necessary to drill a relief well.  But a relief well is not a panacea.  With the kind of pressure this oil in under, a relief well will only diminish, not halt, the flow from the damaged well.  Only proper capping the well will eliminate the release of oil.

IF we can believe the BP estimate of 5000 barrels per day (a barrel of oil is 42 US gallons), that means that every day around 200,000 gallons of oil are released.  Now, remember, BP first said that “only” 1000 barrels (42,000 gallons) were being released.  The latest news item says that the area of the slick is now (Saturday) three times what it was yesterday.  This leads to the following questions.

Was BP lowballing the initial figure?  I do not know.  I do know that everyone tries to spin negative events in the best possible light, but I am not accusing BP of any nefarious action in this regard.  Perhaps they had insufficient data in the early days to determine a good figure.  On the other hand, with BP’s record, it is difficult to believe that they did not know what was happening.

Now we shall discuss the actions now being taken.  In my opinion, many are are ineffective, ill-advised, and perhaps even more damaging than doing nothing.

The first mistake was putting out the fire.  Now, saving the rig was a legitimate reason for fighting the fire, because collapse of it, tethered to the wellhead at the bottom, could damage the wellhead.  It did damage the pipe, and that is why it is leaking in three places.  (And that may be why the submersibles could not cut off the flow, because of that damage).  However, allowing the drifting oil to burn would have been smart.  Of course it causes air pollution, but as the old adage goes, “dilution is the solution to pollution”.  The combustion products of the oil are distributed in three dimensions, and air currents disperse them rapidly.  Not a good thing, but much better than a two dimensional dispersion of liquid oil, headed to the coast.

If they had allowed that oil to burn almost 50 miles offshore, there would be little oil left to hit the shore.  The Coast Guard tried a test burn, way too late, when it was way too close to shore.  That oil should have burnt way out at sea.  But they did not do that.  Since the platform is gone now, I maintain that they should ignite the newly spewed oil right now.  Burning is not perfect, but it does reduce the amount of petroleum adrift, and also causes the residuum to become less dispersible and to clump into chunks of tar that finally sink.  Whilst still toxic, the carbonized outer shell slows the leaching process, and makes pieces big enough to vacuum up in some cases.

In my opinion, the very worst thing that could be done is now the primary plan.  That is using dispersants to cause the oil to make essentially an emulsion with water, making the oil particles so small and in micelles such that they do not make it to the surface.  Eventually they fall to the bottom or are transported elsewhere.  Well, that is GREAT!  Now all of the pollutants stay in the sea.  The dispersants do not much change the toxicity of the oil, just reduce the particles so that they eventually blend with water.  In cooking terms, now it is very thin mayonnaise, and can go anywhere depending on the currents, and NONE of the components are burnt away.  Bad, bad mistake!

So, we find ourselves here.  The oil sheen is already hitting the coast, and more will come, of that there is no doubt.  The little socks that they are putting down will no NOTHING to prevent it from hitting the shores, because the winds and tides are working against them.   They have, however, completely shut down the fishers’ season, because they are so close to shore that fishing boats can not get out to sea in unoiled areas to fish.  Bankruptcy for them, unless they have a LOT of savings or insurance.  I would not look to BP to offer much help, unless they can buy a settlement on the cheap.

Good-bye to the oyster beds and shrimping grounds for at least 10 years.  And good-bye to those who made their living off of those occupations.  I see no way to keep them from being destroyed, and I am not wont to use that term.  Even if some of the creatures live, they will have a flavor that most folks would call less than palatable.

But, Doc, Alaska recovered, right?  No, not really.  Some of the fish have not returned yet, and the shores are still replete with crude.  Turn over some rocks, and there it is.  The waters are cold there, reducing the rates of chemical reactions, so it lingers.  In the gulf, there is no telling what will happen.  Perhaps we will luck up and microbes will degrade it into more innocuous products, or perhaps into more pernicious ones.  We simply do not have enough data to say for sure.

Copyright May 2, 2010 by Dr. David W. Smith.  Anyone is free to cite this as long as this notice is displayed.

Now I shall tread into the political arena.  I do not often to this in Pique the Geek, but the politics are extreme here.  Those of you who like to use my science writings for your school lectures are welcome to delete this part if you wish.  That is why I inserted the copyright information above this part.

The politics of this situation are awful.  Big Oil controls a lot of money, and, with the recent Supreme Court decision, controls a lot of donations.  This is wrong.  In my personal opinion, a corporation is not a person, and can be controlled better.  But that is for another essay.

Big Oil desires us to keep burning oil for energy.  That is a horrible waste.  Oil has so many unique components that it should be used for pharmaceuticals, plastics, and other items derived from it.  Burning it is just, well, stupid.  If we, as a planet, were to stop burning oil for energy and find alternative sources, there would be oil enough for many generations yet to come.  If we keep burning it, it will run out in any significant quantity before my unborn grandchildren are adults.  Good-bye to raw materials for needed items.

The oil lobby needs to be dismantled.  Instead of being an energy lobby, it needs to become a much less powerful specialty chemicals lobby.  I can not say this loudly enough.  Every molecule of oil burnt is a drug of benefit, a polymer of good use, or some other material yet to be discovered that will help us.  But we just burn it.

Here are my suggestions for safer exploration and drilling.  They are few, simple, and, I think, significant.

First, better environmental impact statements need to be provided by the corporations.  Better oversight of those statements needs to be done by the regulatory bodies, and more strict regulations have to be applied.  That implies more regulatory authority by the agencies, and I believe that is imperative.  This includes responsible Hazards Analyses, better mitigation plans, and the requirement that those mitigation plans are implemented before the first drill is twisted.  Of course, the remote shut off device needs to become mandatory.

Second, multiple offending corporations, especially when their offenses involve loss of life and/or environmental damage, should be reviewed harshly, and, if they show a pattern of disregard for life and the environment, be banned from drilling in US territories or operating rigs in our space.    

Third, drilling support corporations should be subjected to the same rules so that they can not perform shoddy work and blame it on poor specifications from the oil companies.  Watch Halliburton try to weasel out on this technicality.

Forth, pass a law that requires Federal inspectors on every new well drilled, on or off shore.  These should be trained technicians, engineers, or scientists who can make stop work commands instantly.  Newer platforms would need more, and older, demonstrated safe ones, fewer.

Fifth, and most important, put an end to fossil fuel as an energy source as far as possible.  I realize that they well never go away, but they can be minimized.  I am a strong advocate of nuclear fission electricity, wind, tide, and geothermal energy sources.  Not so much for hydroelectric because of the injury to watersheds and the species of plants and animals inhabiting them.

Finally, decorporealize corporations.  Make all of their officers and directors subject to both civil and criminal sanctions as individuals, not under the corporate shield.  When the ramifications of their decisions to maximize profit at the expense of people, the economy, or the environment become personal, look for improvement.

I would point out that the hard right media, including The Fox “News” Channel, Limbaugh, and Hannity, to name just few, are blaming this situation on the administration, comparing it with Hurricane Katrina.  This is yellow journalism at its worst.  The administration was handcuffed by the Congress insofar as regulation of these platforms is concerned, and to think that Federal resources are at fault for preventing the explosion is ridiculous.  But those jingoists blame the administration for nonresponse for mitigating the disaster.  BP is at fault, and the administration is trying, using poor technology, to do the best that it can.

Let me be crystal clear:  this catastrophe was fully caused by a publicly held (foreign) corporation that was lax, and has a history of safety laxity, in this case.  It was no “act of God”.  It was an act of a corporation, with humans making the decisions.  If proper regulation and monitoring had been in place, it very likely would not have happened.  The administration had nothing to do with the initial event, but will be blamed for the outcome.  This is like blaming the firefighters after a building burns to the ground.  It is wholly in BP’s hands to deal with this, although it is important to assist the effort for mitigation with Federal assets because of the extreme urgency of this situation.

On a completely different subject, Fox “News” needs to retire the dottery Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld.  On his regular piece this morning, he was trying to make the point that a new study links some soft drinks with certain metabolic disorders, apparently due to the phosphate content of many of them.  (Look on the ingredient statement, and if you see “phosphoric acid”, then that drink contains phosphate.  As a very general rule of thumb, the clear citrus ones use citric acid as the acidulent, whilst the brown ones use phosphoric acid, but check the label).  One of the fact-challenged Fox anchors mentioned club soda, and he did not correct her or him, and then went on to say that phosphoric acid is the ingredient that makes soda fizzy.  This is just basic (middle school level) chemistry, and is just untrue.  It is carbon dioxide that makes them fizzy, not phosphoric acid.  For the record, club soda contains only water, carbon dioxide, and some salts as flavor enhancers.  Seltzer is just water and carbon dioxide.

Well, you have done it again!  You have wasted many more einsteins than usual of photons to read this oily rot.  And even thought Michelle Malkin claims not be an anchor baby when she reads me say it, I always learn much more than than I could possibly hope to teach by writing this series.  Please keep correction (especially), questions, insight, and other feedback coming.  Your participation is what keeps me writing!

Copyright 02 May 2010, by Dr. David W. Smith.  Any part of this work can be used without charge as long as the copyright notice is affixed.

Warmest regards,

Doc

Crossposted at Dailykos.com