The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling has issued several drafts of Staff Working papers. Inside the text is a devastating assessment of the federal government’s (in this case, the Obama administration) handling of the oil spill and a time line (with considerable footnotes) concerning the government’s “struggle to accurately estimate the rate of oil flow from the Macondo well.” From the large sample of mainstream media news stories, there is no way to spin this positively (though some will try).
From the Wall Street Journal: (emphasis added in bold — hold onto your seats as it’s going to get pretty bumpy)
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration’s response to the BP PLC oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was affected by “a sense of over optimism” about the disaster that “may have affected the scale and speed with which national resources were brought to bear,” the staff of a special commission investigating the disaster found.
In four papers issued Wednesday by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, commission investigators fault the administration for making inaccurate public statements about a report on the fate of oil spilled by a BP well in the Gulf of Mexico.
The commission papers also are critical of the administration for initially underestimating how much petroleum was flowing into the Gulf. Together, the inaccurate statements created the impression the government “was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid” about the accident.
The Associated Press and accompanying headline on Yahoo News are equally stunning:
Panel: Gov’t thwarted worst-case scenario on spill
By DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writer Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writer – Wed Oct 6, 11:48 am ETWASHINGTON – The White House blocked efforts by federal scientists to tell the public just how bad the Gulf oil spill could have been.
In documents released Wednesday, the national oil spill commission reveals that in late April or early May the White House budget office denied a request from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to make public the worst-case discharge from the blown-out well.
BP estimated the worse scenario to be a leak of 2.5 million gallons per day. The government, meanwhile, was telling the public the well was releasing 210,000 gallons per day – a figure that later grew closer to BP’s figure.
The bar graph at the top of this post comes from the Appendix of Staff Working Paper No. 3 titled THE AMOUNT AND FATE OF THE OIL. Link to the Oil Spill Library PDFs
The government’s estimates were clearly low-balled during the first several weeks after the rig explosion with estimates of 1,000 barrels per day (bbls/day) to 5,000 bbls/day. Indeed, 5,000 bbls/day “was to remain the government’s official flow-rate estimate for a full-month, until May 27, 2010.”
Non-governmental estimates were significantly higher than the official government estimates. These were based upon satellite imagery and, then after the release of the 30-second video by BP on May 12, 2010, flow-based estimates. “Within 24 hours, at least three scientists had used various methodologies to derive estimate of the flow rate substantially greater than the government’s then-current estimate.”
Conclusion from the Panel: (page 7)
It is possible that the early official flow estimates would have been more accurate if the government had either enlisted greater in-house scientific expertise, or enlisted outside scientific expertise by making available the data on which government estimates were based.
And finally, the Panel believes that this decision was made “above the operational level.” (page 10)
It is the understanding of the Commission staff that the possibility of releasing the worst-case discharge figures was at least discussed at the Unified Command level. The Commission staff has also been advised that, in late April or early May 2010, NOAA wanted to make public some of its long-term, worst-case discharge models for the Deepwater Horizon spill, and requested approval to do so from the White House‟s Office of Management and Budget. Staff was told that the Office of Management and Budget denied NOAA‟s request.
It wasn’t until mid-June when Secretary Chu (Nobel Prize winner, remember) provided the Flow-Rate Group data necessary to make an arguably accurate flow-rate estimate!
Then, again, what’s 50,000 barrels among friends? Initial government estimates suggested 1-5k bbs/day. Current estimates suggest 52.7-62.2k bbs/day. Only off by 98%. This is only one-half of the Staff’s Report on the Fate of the Oil. The second half of the report describes the FATE OF THE OIL RELEASED: how much went where …
Sidebar: While the administration and NOAA were not particularly forthcoming with doom-and-gloom “worst-case scenarios”, NCAR scientists picked up the slack with the following report issued (and screamed worldwide with a press release) on June 3, 2010.
Ocean currents likely to carry oil along Atlantic coast
BOULDER—A detailed computer modeling study released today indicates that oil from the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico might soon extend along thousands of miles of the Atlantic coast and open ocean as early as this summer. The modeling results are captured in a series of dramatic animations produced by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and collaborators.
This animation shows one scenario of how oil released at the location of the Deepwater Horizon disaster on April 20 in the Gulf of Mexico may move in the upper 65 feet of the ocean. This is not a forecast, but rather, it illustrates a likely dispersal pathway of the oil for roughly four months following the spill. It assumes oil spilling continuously from April 20 to June 20. The colors represent a dilution factor ranging from red (most concentrated) to beige (most diluted).The research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor. The results were reviewed by scientists at NCAR and elsewhere, although not yet submitted for peer-review publication.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I thought the bugs ate the oil.
At least Bush and Cheney would have known where to go to find drilling engineers who could actually supervise the effort to plug the thing. “O” and his merry band of organizers, lawyers, professors, and other wordsmiths didn’t even know who to ask for guidance to find a list of people who might know someone who knows something about oil.
Thank you, Ryan,
I wondered when the truth would come out.
The standards of the Nobel Peace Prize show their true qualities, again.
Didn’t they say most of the oil it evaporated?
The models only shows part of the story:
http://www.bigmarinefish.com/currents.html
I thought news was supposed to inform you – not tell you what you already knew.
This is a non event imo. The Obama administration did the right thing in banning the MSM as much as possible. More economic damage was done by media hysteronics than as a result of the oil itself. What, a few beaches closed? Maybe 2000 birds died? A couple of square kilometers of wetlands fouled? Small potatoes indeed.
The media needs to pay 10 billion at least for creating a climate of fear and shutting down tourism to the Gulf.
BOULDER—A detailed computer modeling study released today…
No comments needed.
“When Dr. James Hansen released his model estimates of oil released at 1-5k bbl/day, and was later confronted with the 50k bbl/day correction, he simply said, ‘You don’t understand my models. They’re all correct. That’s the end of the debate.” Then he turned and walked away.
seems like the initial estimates from the “outside” scientists was also off by a huge factor … looks like around 80% off …
Does anyone think Obama would have responded differently if the flow had been estimated at 50K/day from day 1 ?
And speaking of superlatives, wasn’t the PEMEX spill much, much larger? Didn’t the bugs eat that too?
Is Trenberth looking for the missing oil?
Ten times the oil the administration claimed, but one one-hundredth the long-term ecological damage.
Fascinating.
Can’t wait for Nov.
“A detailed computer modeling study released today indicates that oil from the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico might soon extend along thousands of miles of the Atlantic coast and open ocean as early as this summer.”
Pesky ocean currents and wind shouldn’t be allowed to create havoc with models.
Now if you replace “oil from the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico might soon extend along thousands of miles of the Atlantic coast and open ocean as early as this summer” with “CO2 increases might cause catastrophic global warming” ………
The estimates of the leak rate might have been below reality, but the damage done was way less than all the rumors flying around the MSM.
OT
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8046586/A-stronger-Sun-actually-cools-the-Earth.html
“An increase in solar activity from the Sun actually cools the Earth, suggests new research that will renew the debate over the science behind climate change.”
Sorry, OT, has anyone read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11480916
“So we might have the ultimate paradox that in a globally warming world we’d have cold winters in Europe. But it would be an awful lot warmer in Greenland,”
Sorry, I meant to add this to the quote, but hit the ‘post’ button:
“Professor Lockwood was not involved in the Nature paper; but his research has shown that even though short-term changes in solar output may not affect the global big picture, they can have a powerful impact on local weather patterns, particularly over Europe and Eurasia.”
I don’t get it, how does solar output affect Europe and Eurasia, but not Greenland?
The lackadaisical attitude to the crisis was inexcusable. The top priority for President Obama was squeezing $20 billion out of BP. Then he went on a golfing vacation.
We’re taking them to task for not being alarmist enough? Yes, they should have acted much quicker. The delay was inexcusable. They should have sought experts with knowledge, not some underwater movie maker. But giving out low-ball estimates vs. high-ball? So what? Would anything have changed if they parroted what others were stating?
What is generally overlooked in all the stories of the Gulf spill is that the government made it worse at almost every step, most importantly in the initial reaction to put out the fire. Because they didn’t have the proper equipment available, they just poured a continuous flow of water on the platform until its buoyancy system failed and it sank taking the riser pipe with it. Creating a tangled mess on the sea floor that hampering containment efforts for the duration. If they had fought the fire with foam instead of water the platform might have remained afloat and the riser erect, which would have made the subsequent process of sealing the wellhead much less problematic.
Barrel of oil = 42 US gallons and ± 35 UK gallons.
I read somewhere that a Russian geologist suggested that this was a deep ‘abiotic’ oil well and if not successfully capped it would continue for a very long time.
A post on abiotic oil please.
Relying on modeling reminds me of a comment years ago from a professor that if the map and the terrain disagree, believe the terrain.
It looks like they want to shut down the American oil industry under the guise of safety and errors. The fact is nothing is without risk and there is no such thing as zero defects. Competent people can deal with risks and defects where the paranoid or devious cannot. And when the first effort is to go for the money then there is doubt of any resolve to solve the problem. But then people do what they know.
I really don’t care. This seems like stretching to make something political that really has nothing to do with politics. I wouldn’t expect either Obama or his fellow white house dwellers to be experts on estimating the flow of oil from a well breach of this nature.
So what is the job of the White House in this kind of situation. In terms of the powers that the White House actually has (the president is just a guy in a suit – he isn’t superman), the ideal response is probably to ensure as much as possible that the engineers are not obstructed in their efforts to fix the problem and have all the resources they need. So as I see it the most helpful thing the president can do in such situations is probably to keep the Washington three ring circus of media, politicians, and lawyers from interfering.
Nothing blocks progress on an engineering project quite as effectively as a bunch of lawyers, politicians and reporters running around. Indeed perhaps next time they should try mulching a mixture of lawyers, politicians and reporters and injecting it into the well head. It probably would block the flow of oil quite effectively.
[ryanm: you are missing the entire point of every article — and this entire posting. But thanks for trying to spin and deflect…]
Behold our Nobel Prize winning Energy Secretary in action.
Remember in November….. Let’s take the Senate, which would make Senator Inhofe Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public works. Just imagine the hearings his committe would then hold on the specious science surrounding cAGW.
@ur momisugly Olen says:
October 6, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Relying on modeling reminds me of a comment years ago from a professor that if the map and the terrain disagree, believe the terrain.
It looks like they want to shut down the American oil industry under the guise of safety and errors.
Don’t mean to belabor the point, but it’s not just the oil industry. It’s every industry. Remember that comment about “Never letting a good crisis go to waste”? To understand what that really means, one must understand the agenda from which it springs, and who stands to benefit.