idyllic: i've said this before, but there's a level of empathy for you and other folk who live on the coast that's affected by this fiasco that runs at a level deeper than the differences we may have in terms of how each interprets the fiasco itself, how one explains it and from that how one imagines what should be altered because of it. my place looks out over a salt marsh. i see it in the morning; i watch the sunset over it every night. i'm really fascinated by it. i cannot imagine how i would react to tarballs rolling into the grasses...worse than the beach to my mind anyway (btw--is it true where you are that localities are "dealing with" oil that washes up by bulldozing it under the sand? there are lots of reports from lousiana and alabama of that happening...)
so i kinda understand.
of course i don't entirely because i'm not in it.
but i do kinda understand where you're coming from, what you're saying, why you say it as you do.
====
here's the letter that thad allen wrote bp:
Quote:
Dear Mr. Dudley,
My letter to you on July 16, 2010 extended the Well Integrity Test period contingent upon the completion of seismic surveys, robust monitoring for indications of leakage, and acoustic testing by the NOAA vessel PISCES in the immediate vicinity of the well head. Given the current observations from the test, including the detected seep a distance from the well and undetermined anomalies at the well head, monitoring of the seabed is of paramount importance during the test period. As a continued condition of the test, you are required to provide as a top priority access and coordination for the monitoring systems, which include seismic and sonar surface ships and subsea ROV and acoustic systems. When seeps are detected, you are directed to marshal resources, quickly investigate, and report findings to the government in no more than four hours. I direct you to provide me a written procedure for opening the choke valve as quickly as possible without damaging the well should hydrocarbon seepage near the well head be confirmed.
As the National Incident Commander, I must remain abreast of the status of your source control efforts. Now that source control has evolved into a period beyond the expected 48 hour interval of the Well Integrity Test, I am requiring that you provide me a written update within 24 hours of your intentions going forward. I remain concerned that all potential options to eliminate the discharge of oil be pursued with utmost speed until I can be assured that no additional oil will spill from the Macondo Well.
You may use your letter of 9 July as a basis for your update. Specifically, you must provide me your latest containment plan and schedule in the event that the Well Integrity Test is suspended, the status and completion timelines for all containment options currently under development, and details of any other viable source control options including hydraulic control that you are
considering. You should highlight any points at which progress along one option will be impacted by resource trade-offs to achieve progress along another option. Include options for and impacts of continued twice-a day seismic testing versus once a day testing.
As you develop the plans above, note that the primary method of securing the source is the relief well and this effort takes precedence. Therefore, I direct you to provide a detailed plan for the final stages of the relief well that specifically addresses the interaction of this schedule and any other activity that may potentially delay relief well completion.
Have your representative provide results on the monitoring efforts and source control requirements described above during today’s BP and Government Science Team call at 8:00 PM CDT.
Sincerely,
THAD W. ALLEN
|
link to a copy ("original") and commentary courtesy of the oil drum:
The Oil Drum | BP's Deepwater Oil Spill - (Breaking) Anonymous Official Expresses Concern about Seeps and Pressure (and Open Thread 2)
the basic lines of debate amongst the oil people who post to TOD (death in german btw..i just noticed that) separates folk who are concerned about seep as over against people who think that the seep is being generated by the ROVs which are carrying out the pressure tests. fact is that there's no way to know which is the source and that explains the demand for more extensive monitoring.
i'd also direct attention to the posts by someone called "rovman"---he positions himself as having operated these vehicles for many years and so is able to decipher the imagery better than most i think. a persistent issue from the spectator position: the feeds from the leak area we can watch but not see in a sense because the feeds are at best thin on context.
btw this isn't a criticism.
it's simply the nature of the beast. and because that's the case, there's a basic level of indeterminacy in the meanings of what's being seen, far more indeterminacy than is customary (if television footage, for example, is edited to support a particular interpretive or political line that is being read by a given talking head, there is manipulation of the viewership but no indeterminacy. television is geared around erasing indeterminacy---but i think that's largely unwitting. i mean, no-one sets out to do it. it's a side-effect) it appears that in a community like TOD you get a version of what seems always to happen: folk muster their technical understanding around positions which are a priori. so folk who think that the bubbles and elevated methane levels are caused by the rovs themselves are inclined one way, and those who think about the same phenomena as maybe problematic are inclined another.
so it's a matter of predisposition.
TOD is obviously a kind of mystery-science theater operation, in that they are watching the same infotainment that you and i have access to, but watch it a little better because of the technical backgrounds that are brought to bear on the data.
but keep in mind that there's a very considerable gap separating the data we in the public have access to and the data that's "proprietary"...because, well, this is "private"...but i digress.
a couple other articles from different sources that elaborate on what idyllic posted and/or on allen's letter:
BP oil cap may not have stopped leak | Environment | guardian.co.uk
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/us...ef=global-home
here is a piece that steps back a little and provides more context, more data that dovetails with the general explanation for this fiasco that's been developed not only here but in most places outside the confines of the dwindling drill baby drill set:
The well is capped. But what else lurks below the surface for BP? | Business | The Observer