Oil Math 101

[old farmer]

Math of oil:

40000 barrels of oil per dayX

42 gals per barrelX

50 days equals

84 million gals divided by


7.48 gals is one cubic foot equals


11,223,000 cubic foot divided by

5280 feet in one mile

2125 miles long ribbon 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot from Brownsville, Texas to Myrtle Beach, North Carolina


Would you please, check the math or adjust to barrels per day or starting point. The bottom line this is a lot of oil.

[TexasGal]

Marine biologists are saying the recovery from this will still be going on for the next 3-4 generations and there is no end to it yet. There is growing concern the much talked about relief wells are not going to be happening so quick either. I saw a story on CNN this morning saying the government actually knew in the first 24 hours that this was spewing far far more oil than was being reported and it refused to allow experts from other countries (some of whom have more experience with deep sea rigs) to come to our aid saying there was a law against foreign ships in our waters. I am guessing there was stuff they didn't want the international community to find out about. After all, this oil isn't going to just hang out in US waters. This was just one rig. What if terrorists decide to start blowing up these things for grins? It's time to get really serious about alternative fuels. Natural Gas, Hydrogen, Wind, Solar. They aren't perfect, but at least the billions of dollars they cost stays home and they don't have the potential to pollute the entire ocean and destroy the livelihoods of untold numbers of people who depend on it.

[TDDude]

You don't REALLY want to start this do you? Is it the fault of BP being forced by our interior department to drill in super deep waters? Is it the fault of our government stopping some efforts while letting others that are doomed to fail proceed?

To make a long post short, I'm pretty convinced that there is a large contingent in this administration that wants this to be a huge natural disaster. Cannon fodder for the next several generations to keep us from doing any off shore drilling.

The simple fact that this could have been avoided had these companies not been forced to go in mile deep waters to look for oil.

I wonder what they're going to say when Cuba or Mexico or China or any other third world contry has an accident in the gulf. Wait, I know!! They are allowed to drill in shallow waters so they never have to worry about a disaster that they can't contain.

$10/gal gas, here we come!!

Ok boys, FLAME ON!!!!

[TexasGal]

I'm not interested in any flaming, but I do want to hear how you came to that viewpoint.
I had not heard our government forced BP to drill there. Why would any group in power enough in our government to control this thing to this degree want a natural disaster to stop drilling in the future? I can't see it being Democrats because the anger of the public will hit the current administration. I can't see it being Republicans who want drilling for the most part. Would it be for economic advantage of foreign oil interests or simply to bring America down? If so, and they have that much power, we are in really big trouble. Just interested in your logic, not flaming.

[G26ster]

I'm not interested in any flaming, but I do want to hear how you came to that viewpoint.
I had not heard our government forced BP to drill there. Why would any group in power enough in our government to control this thing to this degree want a natural disaster to stop drilling in the future? I can't see it being Democrats because the anger of the public will hit the current administration. I can't see it being Republicans who want drilling for the most part. Would it be for economic advantage of foreign oil interests or simply to bring America down? If so, and they have that much power, we are in really big trouble. Just interested in your logic, not flaming.

Oil companies must drill where a) they believe thru geological studies they have a chance to find oil, and b) only in places permitted by government regulation. If you think they "want" to drill far offshore, think again. Given the cost of drilling hundreds of miles offshore vs. drilling on land, an oil company will drill on land everytime. Trouble is the environmental rules prevent further drilling on land (i.e. Anwar, etc.) so the oil companies are forced far offshore. You can't imagine the expense difference between renting a multi-million dollar offshore drilling rig, and supplying it with equipment and personnel by helicopter, vs. a land rig where everything needed comes by truck, including the workers.

[SQLGeek]

It's time to get really serious about alternative fuels. Natural Gas, Hydrogen, Wind, Solar. They aren't perfect, but at least the billions of dollars they cost stays home and they don't have the potential to pollute the entire ocean and destroy the livelihoods of untold numbers of people who depend on it.

They are already being researched and developed...by all of the oil/energy companies. They know the era of the easy to obtain oil is coming to an end and they know that if they want to stay competitive, they will need to develop all energy technologies. It won't happen over night and it won't be cheap.

Reducing the demand for crude oil is by no means a simple to resolve issue. How quickly do you wean the entire world off of an energy source that has been in use for more than a hundred years?

[The Annoyed Man]

The government has basically not allowed oil companies to develop new leases in shallower water (like they used to do back when gas cost 25¢ a gallon), nor has government allowed much in the way of developing new oil leases on-shore, or in developing the Alaskan oilfields further. Thus, oil companies - all oil companies, not just BP - are forced to drill new wells in 5,000 ft deep water instead of 500 ft deep water. The complexities and engineering requirements are like an Apollo moon shot at that depth, and the risks of engineering failures go up exponentially. Drilling closer in is MUCH safer to the environment, but the trade-off is that people have to look at oil rigs on the skyline when they are vacationing at their Malibu homes.

There is a huge NIMBY reaction to this, just like when Ted Kennedy objected to marine based windfarms in sight of his Hyannis Port property. The eco-lobby plays to these kinds of fears, convincing politicians that their wealthy supporters' beach front homes will become despoiled by pollution if oil companies drill in shallower water - which is actually the reverse of the truth.

While the current administration is responsible for pushing this folly even further, the problem goes back through a number of administrations and congresses, and republicans are as guilty for lacking the political stones to fix the problem as are democrats for being absolutely feckless on energy policy in the first place. Even George W. Bush, who was supposedly so in bed with "Big Oil" that he went to war on their behalf, according to the pretzel logic of some of his critics, refused to allow development of Alaskan oilfields, or to open up new leases closer to shore.

None of these people who are at the decision making level on these things, whether they are politicians, or oil company executives, has to really live with the impact of their decision making the way any regular middle class citizen does. They don't care, which is why it is time to throw all of them out of office and start with a clean slate. Personally, I look forward to the day when mobs chase down ecology activists and tar and feather them for the frauds that they are.

I have no problem with alternative sources of energy, particularly for home use, but we are a heck of a long way away from the point where we will no longer be depending on fossil fuels for all of our transportation needs. And by the way, "alternative" includes building nuclear power generation plants. The same liberals who would have us look to Europe for models of how to run our socialized health care, or how to restrict our firearms ownership, conveniently look the other way when they are reminded that France generates about 75%-80% of its power from nuclear plants, and they have a pretty much perfect safety record. But get a liberal to support the construction of a nuke plant here? Heaven forbid!



And in the meantime, they offer nothing in the way of real, workable solutions which we can put into practice now to solve our dependence on oil for transportation. Why? Because such methods either don't exist and are still the stuff of pipe dreams, or the technologies do exist (barely), but they are still in their infancy and not yet ready to be brought to market. It's all a wish sandwich. You slap two pieces of bread together and wish you had some meat.

And by the way, is there anyone crazy enough to think that a typical HOA, for instance, is going to allow its homeowners to start building windmills or slapping solar panels on their roofs? And speaking of that, I had a roofer tell me just yesterday that you can now have solar roofing tiles installed on your home when you have your roof redone. They only operate at about 10% efficiency compared to other solar panels, but a roof is a large area, so there is still significant power generated. Anybody got the bucks to run right out and install that? Of course, you have to have your home's electrical systems redesigned to take advantage of the power generated, but what's a penny here and a penny there?

...not that I have any particular opinion in the matter.

[KD5NRH]

refused to allow experts from other countries (some of whom have more experience with deep sea rigs) to come to our aid saying there was a law against foreign ships in our waters.

Uhh...Deepwater Horizon, Discoverer Enterprise, (the current drillship handling the recovery) and a lot of Transocean's other vessels are Marshall Islands flagged.

Drilling closer in is MUCH safer to the environment, but the trade-off is that people have to look at oil rigs on the skyline when they are vacationing at their Malibu homes.

Exactly; if this same problem had occurred onshore, the media wouldn't have bothered to go look because it would have been shut down before they could get there.

I had a roofer tell me just yesterday that you can now have solar roofing tiles installed on your home when you have your roof redone. They only operate at about 10% efficiency compared to other solar panels, but a roof is a large area, so there is still significant power generated. Anybody got the bucks to run right out and install that?

Sounds like your roofer needs to get up to date. Thin-film PV of the type that can be laid directly on metal roofs is capable of roughly 18% overall conversion efficiency, which is about half the maximum efficiency of standard panels, but also at a significantly reduced materials cost. The process is quite a bit different, but like any product, as they gain market share and increase production, costs are going down. When we priced it for the house we were considering building, total add-on for a grid-tied PV system covering about 1,000 sq ft of roof with the capability to add wind turbines later would have been around $12,500. That includes a lot of custom wiring that wouldn't be necessary for most people, and really isn't that bad on a ~$200k house plan. A basic system would be closer to $6-8k.

[TexasGal]

In regards to Nuclear power plants as alternative energy; I hope we do not go that route. They are more expensive to build than natural gas powered plants. My brother is a senior nuclear engineer with many years in the industry. He has worked at Comanche Peak, Tennessee Valley, and overseas in Taiwan to name just a few places. He has overseen design and construction of such plants. He doesn't think we should have more unless they were built better and had better security. He sees a problem with making them truly safe from terrorists, and from the poor designs some want to use for the sake of cost savings. He feels Comanche Peak for example is poorly designed and poorly built. Chernobyl is still a wasteland of radioactive death even all these years later. I'm no expert, but he IS and he worries about it. There is no pressing reason to build nuclear plants when we have such huge natural gas reserves.

As someone posted, the oil companies are looking into alternative fuels too. For example, Exxon is supposedly buying XTO Energy who holds many if not most of the leases in the Barnett Shale, including ours. Now, I do wonder if this will turn out like it did when electric companies bought the gas companies. Cheap gas for heating your home instead of electricity disappeared. So the question is are they buying up leases in the Barnett only to control the price of natural gas to keep it from threatening our dependence on oil? One has to wonder.

[KD5NRH]

As someone posted, the oil companies are looking into alternative fuels too.

BP has a decent investment in wind energy here. IMO, that sort of diversity is good business sense.

[cbr600]

In regards to Nuclear power plants as alternative energy; I hope we do not go that route. They are more expensive to build than natural gas powered plants.

It's true that nukes and coal plants have higher capital costs than natgas but that's half the equation. You also have to consider fuel and other operating costs.

When I moved to Texas from North Carolina in 2007, the rate I paid nearly doubled, and a significant portion of that was the total cost to generate the power. Currently, the electricity rates here are 20% to 40% higher than friends are paying in NC with their high fixed cost but lower variable cost power. So, even with cheap natgas, it's still a more expensive way to generate power.

[GOP]

Until they pull the BOP's up we won't know for sure what the cause is, but the initial reports put this squarely at the feet of BP. If the BOP's were damaged, and the early reports are that this was a KNOWN issue before cementing, then BP is in serious trouble, like criminal charges trouble. On the other hand, what all the "experts" are predicting may mean squat in the big picture. The Valdez oil spill had similar expectations in terms of damage and future environmental impact and it never reached the predictions "experts" pegged it at.

I do believe nuclear should be the primary energy for home use, of course we will still need oil for transportation, at least for the next few decades. As to all the issues regarding nuclear, having sailed around the world via nuclear power, I have no doubt we can make them safer in design and security.

[old farmer]

The point of my post was to focus on the size of the event. Why or who will be discussed and debated for generation.

This site gives a picture of what is happening in the gulf (OUR BACKYARD).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37517080/ns ... n_the_gulf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We can not change what has happen but we can learn and remember.

[redlin67]

Alernative sources of energy (wind, nuclear) only accounts for less than 1% of our available energy. Oil and natural gas are the majority by far. To replace oil and natural gas would take decades. The available known reserves of oild and gas will be depleted before these anternatives would ever be a viable replacement. Therefor, we must find new reserves. The exploration and production of these reserves are what the government is restricting. There is a lot of oil and gas still under the U.S. and off shore, but the limitations prohibit these, that is why we are so dependant on foreign oil. A note on the BP spill, there is a lot more natural seepage going on in the ocean, the problem with this one is that is close enough to shore that it doesn't have enough time to break up before reching the shoreline. As you can probably tell, I work in the oil and gas industry.

[texasparamedic]

I know everyone has their opinion (opinions are like A** Ho**s, and every one has them. Some just stink) on what should be done and how to fix the problem. But at the end of the day this accident is going to affect all of us on one way or another. Some will be affected sooner than others. Here is my opinion / story, not that anyone wants to hear it. I am not a political person and am not very good writer. I speak my mind and that usually gets me into trouble.

I myself am a Rig Worker and live in the Far North Central Texas area. I have been a Paramedic for 12 years. I have worked Private Ambulance services ($20k to 30k per year), County Ambulance / City Fire Departments (30-40k per year) and for the past 2 years off shore as a paramedic (50+ per year). I work 14 days on and 14 days off. I see my family more now then i did when i worked close to home because to make close to the max i had to work most all the time 2 and sometimes 3 jobs. All to make sure my wife and kids have the best possible life I can provide.

11 Men lost their lives. My heart goes out to their family's. This accidnet should have ever happened. But as a rig worker they, we, I knew / know the risks and dangers of working in this remote environment and the dangers involved. I can not speak for BP or Transocean, but the Co that I work for and our operators have always encouraged the absolute most safe practices. I can say that there has only been a few times that the since of urgency has ever been stressed to the employees to get something done but it was also said do it fast but do it safe. I have seen the result of people trying to take short cuts to hurry a job. I have seen the Operator and the Drilling Company terminate people for not working safely. Time is money..... But how much is it really worth if you get someone hurt. It was not long ago before the Horizon Accident that our rig was faced with the same situation. But with superior training, equipment, and such a strong safety culture that we did not have the "blow out" as seen with the Horizon. So I could very easily could have been one of the 11.This very easily could have been my rig. This very easily could have been me that did not come home to my family. Again my heart goes out to the families of those that were lost and I do not mean any disrespect if any of them read this. They paid the ultimate sacrifice, doing the absolute best to support their family's. But all those that work off shore are aware of the risks involved and am willing to take that risk to provide the best life for our families.

The rig I am has around 400 people working that live all over our country. The 2 that I work with the most One lives in the Seattle area and the other in Pennsylvania area. No were near the Gulf Coast. With the current Moratorium we are in the 100's. And now I am being told that if the moratorium last for any length of time we will all be laid off. So now we have around 300 men and women not working just on my rig and possibly all of us.

From what I understand, everything we are doing now is for our future 1-5 years. So if we are not working now then in 1 to 5 years we will be hurting as a nation not to mention the current job losses, and as result of this accident the other non-oil industry related jobs that are being lost. So those men and women are not spending so the other local business are not making what they will need to survive. This is a domino effect and will continue to effect everything we use. All of our daily needs: food, clothing, fuel, ect. Imagine your current income with the current price per gallon of milk, fuel, clothing, electricity. Now imagine what would happen if all of our cost increased by 10%. 20%. 30%. Imagine paying $8 for a gallon of gas and $10 for a gallon of milk.... Now imagine that with facing a loss of your job or taking a job that pays less then what you make now and just get by??? I know that many have already been faced with this in the past few years, and now I truly understand the feeling. All I can do now is pray that I do not loose my job and if I do, that I am able to find another quickly.

The Moratorium effects everything. Let me explain a least for myself. I fly from Dallas to New Orleans ($200) each time I go. Rent a car from New Orleans to were I do crew change ($100). Get a hotel the night before crew change ($100). Dinner and Breakfast ($20-$30). I do this at least 13 times a year ($5100+). My wife takes me to the airport and picks me up when I return. Gas about a tank of gas ($40) we usually go out to dinner the night that I leave and when I get home as a family ($125) again 13 times a year ($2145). Lets say approx 1/4 of the people on my rig do this (a number of them do) that would be approx $750k per year spent. just coming and going to work. This don't include our support vessels, workers, ect. My numbers are not exact and I am using it for an example. The moratorium will set us back as far as our economy. I read a article from a economist (if I can find it again i will post it) that if the government enforces the moratorium for 6 months like planned to expect 120K job losses nation wide to start. They explained that the economy will become worse then the past few years. I am sure that there is alot smarter people here that will read this and agree or disagree. It is my opinion, but if people are telling this to our government then why take the chance. Lets continue working, correct the problem, and implement new safety guidelines all while keeping everyone working and spending money locally in a already distressed region and nation. I am pro alternative energy sources. I believe that we need to preserve our natural resources for our future generations. I completely agree with the idea of a Moratorium but disagree with the way it is being handled. I agree that we need time to completely figure out what happened, develop and implement new and improved safety programs and equipment.

I hold BP completely at fault for the accident. This should have never happened but it did, and we all knew it could happen. The Federal Government is equally to blame. Although BP is financially responsible for this accident, they should not be in charge. When I was a firefighter at a house fire or a accident scene, i did not let the property owner call the shots. I did. The same principal applies. Our national leaders should have stepped in, had a plan in place for response long before this ever happened, and taken over. BP should not be responsible for correcting the problem. We should. BP has a general interest to get the well shut-in as soon as possible but they also have a general interest in hiding facts, problems, conditions to preserve as much money as they can. If the government did not have have a plan in place they should brought other drilling / oil operators in to correct the problem. The only response that they should have any participation in is paying all those that have lost as result of this accident. BP should pay for all the expenses but not have a say in how we correct the problem. Don't be fooled. The root cause into why and how this accident has occurred is already known. It was known the first few days into the accident. That information just has not made it out fully. I do not know the real cause but know enough and have talked with enough to understand what had happened.

Sorry got on my soap box.

The size of this accident is going to be felt for generations. This has damaged our ecosystem in the gulf and potentially our eastern sea board not to mention the economic effects that are going to be felt for years.

And yes... Everything come back to the all mighty dollar.