What’s big, slick and floating towards the WA coast…
|
How big is the Montara oil leak off the northern coast of Western Australia? Tiny, says the company responsible, Thailand energy giant PTTEP. Large but heading away from the coast, says the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. Huge and dangerously close to the Kimberley coastline, say the Greens. The leak might have dropped out of the media cycle but it continues to discharge oil into an area 25 nautical miles by 70 nautical miles about 180 kilometres off the Western Australian coast, according to Australian Maritime Safety Authority data. There has been no advice from either PTTEP or AMSA about the rate of discharge. The Greens used similar wells in the region to estimate that 3000 barrels of oil a day were being released. In the seven weeks it is expected to take to bring a mobile offshore drilling rig to the site and drill a relief well to stop the leak, that means just over half-a-billion litres of oil will be discharged. According to PTTEP’s own data, the area features 12 endangered or vulnerable species under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, including the blue whale. PTTEP last week said the resulting oil slick was eight nautical miles long and 30 metres wide (about 14 sq kilometres) “and showing no signs of expanding.” On Saturday, AMSA, which is in charge of cleaning up the leak, said its over-flights showed it was much larger: “the slick covers a rectangular area approximately 15 nautical miles to the north of the Montara Well head platform and 60 nautical miles to the east of the rig. Only 25% of this area is affected by the leak, consisting of streaks of oil and patches of sheen. The heavier concentrations of oil surround the rig out to a distance of 3 nautical miles.” After flying over the spill on Friday, Greens Senator Rachel Siewert said the leak was 180 kilometres in length and had reached 20 kilometres from the coast. AMSA seemed at pains to contradict her indirectly in an update on Saturday, in which AMSA said the slick was “in excess of 80 nautical miles” from the coast:
It seemed an unsubtle suggestion that Senator Siewert didn’t know what she was talking about. AMSA’s Mick Spinks denied that, however. “That wasn’t intended to counter any views anyone has put,” he told us this morning. He did point out, however, that AMSA used over-flights, data from buoys deployed in the slick to monitor wind and surface drift and satellite photos, such as this one taken yesterday, to track the slick.
“The slick has spread north-east from the well-head, with heavy clustering in that area around the rig. It’s 100 nautical miles from the coast.” It would take, Spinks said, an “act of God” for the wind and tidal patterns to change sufficiently for the slick to head toward the coast. With the leak continuing for several weeks, AMSA has relied on oil dispersants delivered from aircraft to break up the slick. The actual dispersant being used has not been publicly revealed, although AMSA has an extensive FAQ on what they do and what problems they can cause, which are significantly greater in shallower waters, which is why the proximity to the coast is such an important issue. According to the Australian Institute of Marine Science, natural oil and gas seeps in the region are fairly common and there is evidence of naturally occurring oil-degrading microbes. Meanwhile, more evidence is emerging of the background of PTTEP. Perth journalist Tony Serve uncovered close links between PTTEP and the junta in Burma, where PTTEP has four major oil and gas projects either at exploration stage or in production, some in co-operation with Chinese giant CNOOC. Access to, and exploitation of, Burma’s extensive oil and gas reserves is a critical part of Thailand’s energy strategy. PTTEP is also developing a major gas venture in Iran, which has been significantly slowed by Security Council sanctions against the Iranian regime. |
|
|
|
The slick from space
10 Comments
By ‘act of god’ I expect AMSA mean natural phenomena and it sure does look like the slick will miss the Kimberley coast altogether. Much more likely it will hit Kupang and southern Timor so that’s ok then.
Even sillier than the Greens’ amateur remote sensing is their idea that the discharge rate can be estimated from production rates of ‘similar wells in the region’. Even if the other wells tapped the same reservoir (and I don’t think they do), the local permeability conditions can still be completely different. And as a general rule you’d expect leak rates (remembering that the origin of the leak is sub-seafloor) to be considerably less than production rates, for obvious reasons.
Bernard’s arithmetic is lacking: 3000 bbl/d x 129 L/bbl x 49 days is about 23 million litres, not “half a billion”. Still, that’s more than half what the Exxon Valdez spilled, so this will be a huge slick (albeit of thinner oil, in warm water, and far from the coast - for now). It will be easily the biggest ever in Australian waters. And that’s assuming this “relief well” hits first time, kilometres below the sea bed, a target a few metres wide (the location of which might not even be accurately known).
The AMSA needs to stop spinning selectively cropped sat pics and start explaining what they’re doing with a few pretty obvious questions:
1. Why did the blowout preventers fail? Those who remember the heady days of Red Adair and offshore blowouts might wonder what changed to end all that. The answer is these high tech, ultra powerful wellhead valves that can shut off a well when the mud doctor stuffs up.
2. What are they doing to stop this happening again, particularly in the seriously deep water at Gorgon where plugging will be no six week exercise?
3. This was a brand new rig from a major operator. Did it perhaps also come with a brand new, inexperienced crew?
4. If so, how good was their well survey on an incomplete well? Do they actually know where the target well is, to hit and plug it? And what will you do when they fail?
5. At what point will the obvious fix of igniting the leaking well be considered?
The uncropped NASA image is here (~3MB), and the explanation here. The interpretation (slick wave damping affecting sun glint) appears unlikely to detect a thin oil film likeSenator Siewert reported seeing much closer to the coast.
If a thin oil film doesn’t affect sun glint, how did Senator Siewert’s Mark I eyeball see what the satellite couldn’t?
Much more likely that the Senator was misled by one or more of the confounding factors suggested by AMSA. Or, more to the point, the Senator went looking for signs of the apocalypse and duly saw what she wanted to see.
Mark: you are extremely confident in your mocking of Senator Siewert’s observations. Let’s hope your are right, and she is wrong - for the coast’s sake. (If she proves to be right, will you apologise?)
I imagine she hopes she is wrong too. The Greens would rather see this slick miss the coastline, than win a point.
Mark, are you going to canvas the federal govt re the you beaut $50 billion(alleged) gas extraction and sale to China - requesting that they move the proposed drill to a safer site? This all has a predictable air about it, and to a novice like me, there’s not sufficient attention paid to preventing these terrible outcomes. And, as Jim asked, if Senator Siewart is right, will you apologise? I have a horrible feeling that somewhere along the line, and closer to the shore, this will happen again. Then what? Too late after the fact? How many species have been affected so far? How many could be affected if this escallates? I suppose they can’t speak or vote, so who cares?
Jim, I felt fairly secure in having a go at the Greens not just on technical grounds, but because it won’t matter too much if I am wrong. A ‘thin film’ implies relatively small hydrocarbon molecules and a low concentration of them. The warm waters of the Timor Sea will promote the destruction of any such slick in short order by microbial activity and evaporation.
And I’m afraid I don’t have as high a conception of the Greens’ motivations as you. Vested interest is the main reason. In the end, they’re in the business of politics. Which scenario (miss vs hit) would result in the greater boost to their electoral stocks? Together with their penchant for apocalypse porn, I suspect there’s a dark corner in their heart of hearts that wouldn’t mind seeing the worst happen.
Liz45, I can’t work out what on earth you’re on about. ‘Move the proposed drill to a safer site’? The gas is where it is, so that’s where the gear to extract it has to be; no amount of government petitioning will change that. Why are you so exercised about this area in particular? Why not Bass Strait, or Brunei, or West Africa, the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, or any other of the dozens of areas around the globe where offshore hydrocarbon extraction takes place, and has done for several decades? Sure, like everything else it’s a calculated risk, and whatever can reasonably be done to mitigate it should be. But are you seriously saying that all offshore oil and gas drilling should cease forthwith?
Thanks for the extra comments Mark. I guess we can disagree on the Greens Party. While it is small it remains reasonably untainted by such evils as political double dealing and hoping for disasters to improve their popularity.
I have been an active member in the Victorian Greens for 6 years now, and I know no one in the party who would want to see the environment hurt just to win some more votes. In fact, I have sat through many a meeting where we lament at things that are happening (the double dealings of Peter G in the Labor Party for example), and we realise they such things increase out vote, but we actually verbalise how we would prefer it not to happen that way. And such feelings are heart felt.
We would rather not have seen Port Phillip Bay dredged, than to win some votes from angry locals; we would rather not see Gunns destroy more old growth forests in Tassie, than win some votes from concerned Tasmanians; we would rather not see a new uranium mine opened up, than win some votes by angry Labor voters, or locals whose health will be at risk. We would rather not see climate change and extremes in weather conditions, than win some votes from people as they see things changing….. the list is long and horrible. I really can assure you that we don’t want the West Australian coast line to suffer under an oil slick, just to say “I told you so, now vote for us”.
Of course, some suggest that if and when the Greens grow and become a major player on equal status with Labor and Libs, then the Greens will become more hardened and corrupt and willing to compromise for expediency. Some say that growth and influence will cause the Greens to attract the Peter G’s of the world: people who seem to have our ideals but who are happy to change once they are sitting in power with nice salaries. I still have hope for the Greens despite the history of other parties. The Greens have a rule: they do not accept politicial donations from any coporations. The Greens only accept donations from like minded groups that have no agenda to change the parties policies. And despite that financial “sacrifice” the Greens have replaced and outgrown the old Democrats (gaining more votes now than they did even in their hay-day).
If the Greens ever dump that rule about political donations, then I would get worried about them.
The extent of the slick on the latest imagery (thanks to Glen Fergus for sourcing this series) is now becoming quite impressive. This is part of what I meant with my crack about amateur Green remote sensing: For the price of Senator Siewert’s travel and charter flights, they could have commissioned themselves some spectacular higher resolution imagery targeted on the leak area. Not to mention avoiding the carbon penalty of all that flying. Hopefully AMSA are doing precisely this; ‘twould be nice if they released it.
Notwithstanding the increased area of the slick, I still stand my comment above to the effect that this does not equate to ecological catastrophe.
As you say, Jim, we agree to disagree on what Greens actually like to see. Bear in mind I’m mainly talking about subconscious motivations, and of course am generalising grossly.