Oil Flow Rate More Than Double What BP and Government Have Said

This will not be a shock for anybody paying attention to the ever changing figures from BP on what they are capturing from the containment cap versus what is blindingly obvious from watching the spillcam live video feed, but BP and the US government have yet again been dishonest about the nature and size of the oil gusher leaking into the Gulf of Mexico water.

From Reuters:

The new estimates are considerably higher than the prior “best estimate” of 12,000-19,000 bpd issued on May 27 by the so-called Flow Rate Technical Group.

The flow of crude from the ruptured well could have been as low as 20,000 barrels (840,000 gallons/3.18 million liters) per day and as high as 40,000 bpd, with an average flow rate of 25,000-30,000 bpd, according to the findings announced by U.S. Geological Survey Director Marcia McNutt.

The thing to keep in mind here is that even these new higher figures are before the riser was cut off the Blow Out Preventer (BOP) on June 3. The estimate from BP and the government has been that the cut increased the flow 10%-20% from the baseline before the cut. All of which would indicate the current flow could easily be 48,000 barrels per day (bpd).

Not to mention, of course, there has not once been an estimate by either BP or the US government which was anything but a serious underestimate; so the safe bet is the real flow rate from the Macondo well is even higher yet, especially considering the visual evidence lends the conclusion the cutting of the riser increased the flow noticeably more than 20%. You have to wonder if the public will ever get a straight answer out of BP and the Obama Administration.

[Graphic – BP: Broken Promises. Logo design by Foye 2010 submitted as part of the Art For Change BP Logo Redesign Contest and used with permission]

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

89 Responses to Oil Flow Rate More Than Double What BP and Government Have Said

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq Sorry. Where did I say that? I didn't. You're straw manning again, as usual. @JesselynRadack @BradMossEsq
45sreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq Abt what the jury heard? Me. @JesselynRadack @BradMossEsq
1mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq I have said to those who have asked that 1) Hunt was desperate 2) obv can't be true. @JesselynRadack @BradMossEsq
1mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq Which has nothing to do with what came into the trial (again, not as fact, which I said) @JesselynRadack @BradMossEsq
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq That may be your opinion. But that doesn't change the transcript or sworn testimony. @BradMossEsq @JesselynRadack
3mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq So when I write abt facts--not Hunt's sworn claims--fair to say you weren't lawyer who called? @BradMossEsq @JesselynRadack
4mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq No. I'm reporting what the jury heard, I said ZERO abt legal strategy. @BradMossEsq @JesselynRadack
5mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq Because I actually attended the trial, which you didn't? Because it was? @JesselynRadack @BradMossEsq
6mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq Which I wrote in the piece, which you claim you've read. @JesselynRadack @BradMossEsq
6mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq That's your explanation. Not Hunt's, so not what jury heard. @JesselynRadack @BradMossEsq
11mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq Again, as I noted, it was not entered as fact. But jury still heard it. @BradMossEsq @JesselynRadack
13mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MarkSZaidEsq yes. And it must be or you would have testified. But it came in nevertheless. @BradMossEsq @JesselynRadack
13mreplyretweetfavorite
June 2010
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930