May 11th 2010 is 11/05/10 in many countries.

:blush:

It's called spin. Tell someone something. Then facts based in reality that arrive later will be challenged. Humans just do not challenge the first fact with equal vigor. From the NY Times of 14 May 2010: So is this an Exxon Valdez scale disaster? No. Other factors apply such as this is 'sweeter' oil, water temperature, and oil dissipation causing natural actions to become more effective.

I repeatedly write it as 11 Sept for the same reason.

NATO, for example, does not permit 11/05/10 or 05/11/10 phrasing because the date (as shown on the picture) is how most of the world does it. As if we do not create enough confusion in the world with inches, pounds, and miles. Or waste a perfectly good spacecraft to Mars because America still uses different number systems.

One number that is standard - barrels. And British Petroleum still cannot get it right?

Ah. Ha ha. I love a funny tw.

What happens when an industry benchmark is based in a drinking song. The Barrel Polka:
Roll out the barrel.
We'll have a barrel of fun. ...

Well, the president got pissed at them today. Dad just does not understand how much fun they are having down there in New Orleans.

It's only 70,000 barrels a day.:rolleyes:

Can someone contextualize this a bit for me?

How much would the Deepwater Horizon have been pumping, if all things were perfect, per day? or: How does the spill compare to an oil rig that's just dumping it over the side?

How large is the deposit / reservoir of oil that is being tapped? or: how much oil will be left after they cap this thing with the relief well in 2 months?

Good questions.

NPR reported that the ship was there in a supply role before the explosion.

Ther might be some answers at The Oil Drum?

Thanks, Buster. 50 to 100 million barrels in that hole.

Deepwater Horizon is a drilling rig. It does not pump oil. They were in the process of moving out - the process of capping a completed oil well. Another platform would have taken over to pump oil.

I believe my previous post listed the estimated size of that well and estimates of how much is being released daily.

Originally. But the ship was asked to standby for reasons that were not provided. As reported only from one crewman on that ship.

Thanks BB. Great link.

To answer my questions:

1) Similar wells seem to produce roughly 40,000 barrels/day (+/- 2-5k) at peak production. I haven't really come across a coherent discussion of productive oil flow vs. hypothetical absolutely unchecked oil flow, but it is pretty clear that 70,000 b/d would be an extremely productive well.

2) via xoB, "50 to 100 million." (It's somewhere in the 400+ comments to the post linked above; great reading, kind of hits the full spectrum of the arguments.)

As an aside, one significant complicating factor that is discussed in threads on The Oil Drum attempting to estimate the size of the spill, but that I haven't really come across anywhere else (MSM, here, etc), is that the well is spewing a mixture of both natural gas and crude oil. If you're strictly concerned with an oil slick coming to shore, your volumetric estimates need to account for what that ratio is -- which is unknown, but apparently quite high at this particular well/deposit. Said volumetric estimates are also complicated because a particle velocity analysis needs to somehow distinguish between particle acceleration due to gas expansion and particles just accelerating out of the pipe.

I'm finding my internal, personal guess trending towards something more moderate since I read through those comments. But I'm more convinced than ever that BP is deliberately obscuring all information about the whole damn thing.