Flow rate dust-up shows discomfort with imprecision

Bob Tippee
Editor

Of all the concerns raised by the Macondo blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, imprecision of the flow rate should rank low on a scale of urgency.

Yet the flow rate has become one more controversy.

BP, operator of the ill-fated well, initially estimated the rate at which oil was leaking from the wellhead and damaged riser at 1,000 b/d. Later, it raised the estimate to 5,000 b/d.

This week, though, it disproved its own estimate with a remediation success.

The insertion tube tool with which it is siphoning fluids out of the riser collected 5,000 b/d on May 19, and oil still entered the water.

Obviously, the 5,000-b/d estimate was low. This item of simple logic launched much of the news media into attack strategies typical of political coverage.

Had BP deliberately underestimated the flow rate to make the crisis seem less severe? Was it covering up the real flow rate? What did it know about the flow, and when did it know it?

To some reporters, the apparent underestimation legitimized a scientist’s estimate made days earlier that the rate could be 70,000 b/d or more.

Can a vertical exploratory hole in the Gulf of Mexico really produce that much oil through crimped pipe? Almost certainly not. But no one bothered to ask.

The problem is a combination of understandable anxiety and discomfort with imprecision.

Like most blowouts, the Macondo well doesn’t have a meter. BP has to estimate the flow rate based on what it knows from test results and what it observes on video of natural processes exerting themselves with natural irregulatory under 5,000 ft of water.

The company can’t be right except within a wide range of uncertainty. Still, it’s getting nailed for having been proven wrong.

That’s regrettable. The experience will make BP’s representatives less open than before with best-available information about the catastrophe. They’ll assume that saying nothing beats communicating before events are rock-solid certain.

Not that the company was setting new standards for openness before. It wasn’t.

And the silent strategy makes reporters wonder all the more what’s being covered up.

This feature will appear next on June 4.

(Online May 21, 2010; author’s e-mail: bobt@ogjonline.com)

Related Articles

HSC remains closed, fuel cleanup continues after barge collision

03/24/2014 The Houston Ship Channel (HSC) remained closed to unauthorized vessels Mar. 24 as the result of a temporary emergency safety zone being established...

Judge bars Anadarko e-mails as evidence in Macondo blowout hearing

03/21/2014 A federal district judge in New Orleans refused to accept e-mails between Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and BP PLC as evidence in a hearing to determine...

BOEM extends proposed higher offshore liability limit comment period

03/20/2014 The US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management added 30 days to the public comment period for its proposed higher liability limit for offshore oil and ga...

Begich objects to House Democrats’ NPR-A comment extension request

03/18/2014 US Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alas.) let three US House Democrats know he did not approve of their request for the US Bureau of Land Management to add 30 ...

Careers at TOTAL

Careers at TOTAL - Videos

More than 600 job openings are now online, watch videos and learn more!

 

Click Here to Watch

Other Oil & Gas Industry Jobs

Search More Job Listings >>
Stay Connected