iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Gulf Oil Spill Size: How Big Is It?

SETH BORENSTEIN and GREG BLUESTEIN   05/21/10 07:22 PM ET   AP

Gulf Oil Spill Size
A boat hauling a boom makes its way through oily waters near the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil leak Wednesday, May 19, 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico. (AP Photo/Press-Register, G.M. Andrews)

COVINGTON, La. — Day by day, the oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico is adding up to mind-boggling numbers.

Using worst case scenarios calculated by scientists, a month's worth of leaking oil could fill enough gallon milk jugs to stretch more than 11,300 miles. That's more than the distance from New York to Buenos Aires, Argentina, and back. That's just shy of 130 million gallons.

If the government's best case scenario is used – and only 5.25 million gallons have spilled – those milk jugs would cover a bit more than a roundtrip between New York and Washington. But the government is revising that number, with a team of scientists working around the clock to come up with a more realistic and likely higher figure.

Here's another way to think of just how much oil has gushed out since April 20: At worst, it's enough to fill 102 school gymnasiums to the ceiling with oil.

That's nothing compared to the vast expanse of the Gulf of Mexico, where there are 643 quadrillion gallons. Even under the worst case scenario, the Gulf has five billion drops of water for every drop of oil. And the mighty Mississippi River pours 3.3 million gallons of new water into Gulf every second.

Under the rosiest scenario, little more than four gyms would be filled. That's how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration visualizes oil spill volumes on one of its websites.

At worst, the amount of oil that has already spilled is a dozen times more than the Exxon Valdez disaster. At best, it's only half as bad. Realistically, it's probably somewhere in that huge middle in between.

No matter what, it already is way too much oil for the delicate parts of the Gulf ecosystem, said Darryl Felder, a biologist at the University of Louisiana Lafayette.

"A lot of this is diffused now in deep layers," said Felder, who is coordinating a seven-volume scientific encyclopedia on the Gulf. "It's like it's under the rug. You can't see it on the surface, so it's kind of out of sight, out of mind. But it's not out of mind to most of the biologists who are concerned about its long-term effects."

There are many uncertainties about how much has spilled. It's not even clear if the leak began on April 20, when the rig exploded, or April 22 when the rig sank, or on April 24 when the Coast Guard first noticed two leaks.

Originally, BP and the federal government said 42,000 gallons were flowing per day. Then the number was upped to 210,000 and that's been the best case scenario, with calculations that the spill didn't start until April 24.

The best case scenario seems increasingly unlikely. On Thursday, BP acknowledged more oil than that is pouring into the Gulf. The company said its makeshift tube put in place to suck up the leak is siphoning 210,000 gallons a day into a barge – the full amount of oil the company said was leaking. Yet, there's still lots of oil flowing out into the Gulf that can now be seen live on a webcam.

"Anyone can look at that and determine that even though it can't be metered or measured, it's significantly less than it was," said company spokesman Steve Rinehart. "That suggests pretty clearly that taking 5,000 barrels a day (210,000 gallons) out of that stream puts a real dent in it."

BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said Friday the tube is now sucking about 92,400 gallons of oil a day to the surface. It was much less than the figure the company used several times a day earlier, but Suttles said the higher number is the most the tube had been sucking up at any one time, while the lower number is the average over 24 hours.

Federal officials acknowledge their 210,000 gallons-a-day figure for the total amount spilling needs to be revised. NOAA director Jane Lubchenco said the old estimate was based on a long-held international scientific formula based on surface slick observations. But the way this oil slick changed makes that calculation no longer useful, she said.

The worst-case scenario is based on the upper end of broad estimates from several scientists for the daily flow rate of the leak based on video observation – somewhere between 840,000 gallons a day and 4.2 million gallons a day.

New live video of the oil spill – along with criticism from BP – had scientists altering those estimates in both directions.

Tim Crone of Columbia University said that he was "really saddened" when he looked at the new video. He said he had hoped his estimate of 840,000 to 4.2 million gallons a day was wrong, but the video showed it wasn't. Crone upped his lower estimate to 1.68 million gallons and is sticking with his higher estimate for the main oil leak.

But Purdue University professor Steve Wereley said he will likely cut his estimate of 3.9 million gallons a day after BP said about half of what is flowing out of the pipe is gas, not oil. His estimate has a 20 percent margin of error and includes about 1 million gallons coming from a leak at the blowout preventer, away from the main leak.

Some experts say the 4.2 million gallon rate is probably way too high, just like the government figures are way too low. That's because somewhere around 1.2 million to 1.6 million gallons a day is all that can realistically be expected from that type of well if it were working right, they said.

Ian McDonald, a Florida State University oceanographer and expert tracking the spill, said both estimates were wrong, but the government figure is especially wrong.

"We don't know how bad this is," McDonald said Thursday. "One of the problems is it's going to be very hard to know."

McDonald said the spill's surface slick is now more than 14,600 square miles, larger than the states of Maryland and Delaware combined.

___

Borenstein reported from Washington.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

COVINGTON, La. — Day by day, the oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico is adding up to mind-boggling numbers. Using worst case scenarios calculated by scientists, a month's worth of leaking oil c...
COVINGTON, La. — Day by day, the oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico is adding up to mind-boggling numbers. Using worst case scenarios calculated by scientists, a month's worth of leaking oil c...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 295
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
11:25 AM on 07/11/2010
Let's do a little math. The article states the oil slick in 14,600 square miles. Suppose the slick is just 1/64 of an inch thick, this would equate, to date, to 1.1 billion barrels floating around in the gulf. This is the oil that was leaked into the gulf and not captured. Even if BP is successful in claiming that they should not be fined for the oil they recover and successful in covering up the oil they dispersed using toxic solvents so they can avoid being fined for this oil, the fine [USD4,320 per barrel] on the 1.1 billion barrels in the slick would amount to about $4.9 trillion. Slice that slick in half to 1/128th of an inch thick and the fine would be nearly $2.5 trillion.
photo
Chopin
Multiply the truth. Speak truth through power.
03:03 AM on 05/25/2010
A year ago, there was "teachable moment" in Obama's presidency and America. When black Harvard Prof. Gates was arrested by white Cambridge police Sargent Crowley when Gates broke into his own home. This monthlong ongoing Gulf oilspill is MUCH LARGER "TEACHABLE MOMENT" for Obama's presidency + all Americans, and by extension the whole world.

This oilspill is not first serious environmental disaster. Earlier incidents were Exxon Valdiz and Chernobyl. They did traumatic damage to life-sustaining ecosystem with widespread consequences. They were series of progressively stronger warnings to humankind, that these forms of energy production + consumption are unstable + unsustainable. These major events are dots distinctly tracing out a wide arc in human history pointing towards ultimate self-destruction. They appear like constellation of stars of Big Dipper pointing towards North Star in clear night sky.

Humankind are reaching the limits of individual selfish instincts and collective institutionalized amoral corporate selfishness. The global community of 21st century approacing 9 billion people is approaching limits of selfishness. The magnitude of damage from collective selfishness are no longer localized in space nor constrained to one generation in time. They threaten destabilization + destruction of biosphere and all lifeforms.
06:16 PM on 05/23/2010
Not to worry, we've been reassured at Congressional Hearings that "It's a TINY spill". Mother Nature has a way of taking care of or neutralizing organisms that tend to destroy the Earth, which it seems we have been doing now for a couple of hundred years.
11:46 AM on 05/23/2010
It's awful and catastrophic and criminal, yes, but I cringe when I hear people say "We're killing Mother Earth" or "Save the Planet!" The planet, having survived cometary impacts in the past (comets!!) will do just fine, thankyouverymuch. It's WE who might be threatened. Phrase it THAT way and folks might start perking up and begin to tremble. Because, at a very deep level, people know there's NOTHING we can do to actually "kill" or "destroy" "Mother Earth," and so such hyperbolic warnings don't ring true, and are dismissed, even if unconsciously. So: "Save ourselves!" should be your warcry, environmentalists!
photo
tribalogical
FANTASYLAND is over there, on the right.
08:17 PM on 05/22/2010
Now, is it just me feeling a little bit "disturbed" by this mad rush BP is on to drill a "relief well"?

Oh, and by the way?

It's no longer just one relief well. Now they're drilling TWO relief wells...

They get to drill TWO new full-sized holes (with no reason they can't move rigs into place and be right back to 'business as usual" X2 in a few months), without any of the normal red-tape, review, environmental safeguards, and other processes they would normally have to go through to ensure it's safe and reasonable to drill there.

And you know what ELSE?

They're drilling TWO MORE large holes a mile deep, but are still no closer to having TESTED and PROVEN methods for containing spills at those depths....

God help us if something goes wrong with either of the new wells, huh?
photo
tribalogical
FANTASYLAND is over there, on the right.
08:07 PM on 05/22/2010
A quick hats-off to Seth and Greg (and/or the editors) for actually paying attention to our comments, and being responsive to them...!

The original opening words of this article ("drip by drip") have been changed to "day by day"...

It is now much more appropriate to the nature of the topic, and doesn't "lose me..." Good job! :)
03:51 PM on 05/22/2010
The gulf should fully recover. In about 20,000 years.
03:44 PM on 05/22/2010
Why is the idea of a "school gynasium" being used to measure the oil? Doesn't that just recall a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling of our younger days? How about if we measure the spilt oil in terms of how many acres of land it could contaminate? Or how many fishermen's jobs could be terminated?
03:43 PM on 05/22/2010
I'm not a scientist, but with the multitude of currents in the oceans, tropical storms and hurricanes, I'm wondering if this oil is going to end up around the globe. Maybe washing up on that huge land mass of garbage in the South Pacific.

I'm also wondering what animals and plants that were near near extinction before this spill have now joined the ranks of the dinosaurs.

BP should get out of the way; if they knew how to stop this leak it would have been accomplished by now. Are they going to wait until the oil washes up in Long Island?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
surfsupdude
Left Coast Hooooo!!!!!
03:13 PM on 05/22/2010
I have read a lot of articles on this spill over the last week and I always read the comments after the articles, so it's not surprising seeing a lot of complaining about how little the Obama administration is doing about the spill. Then I decided to look at the map. I counted at least 7 "Red States" that have the potential to be affected economically and/or enviromentally by this spill. The irony is just so juicy. These are the same states that are heavily involved in Republican and lately, Tea Party political activity. Smaller gov't and "Drill Baby Drill" have been themes heard at most of these activities. So now there is much hand wringing about how the Federal Gov't. is supposed to respond to this crisis. Again 7 Red States will be potentially affected by this spill. I wonder how many of these states Obama carried in 2008, my guess would be "0". So now, why is it that Obama and any of his supporters should give a rats ass about these" asshat" tea bagger states? Let Haley Barber, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindahl and the other "states rights " governors respond to this. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, I'm sure that "Rhodes Scholar", Sarah Palin(Drill Baby Drill) has some great ideas about how to deal with this, after all her state had the last huge oil industry enviromental disaster.
photo
bluntobject
Gandhi didn't like your attitude either!
03:41 PM on 05/22/2010
Because Obama is the President of ALL the United States, not just a few errant red states that surround the Gulf, and because what is going on in the Gulf effects us ALL, not just republican nitwits.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Matt Nappo
03:43 PM on 05/22/2010
The mess in the gulf is a world problem not just 7 states. Those 7 states do happen to be part of the country Obama is chief executive of though so if the global environment effect isn't enough he should still give a "rat's ass" about the effect on the overall country. Your punish the states for not having enough voters of your side response is a really immature position.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cadawa
02:59 PM on 05/22/2010
A commission?!! Obama is an incompetent as Bush. BP is still in charge because the president thinks keeping the corporations happy is the most important thing he can do.
Leaving them in charge has allowed them to conceal the extent of the damage and the extent of their criminal negligence for a month, minimizing the cost to them and maximizing the cost ot us. The environment doesn't vote or give campaign contributions. .
Obama isn't even trying to use all ready in place public resources because it will expose BP and his own bungling.
At least with Exxon Valdez they tried to contain the spill.
photo
bluntobject
Gandhi didn't like your attitude either!
03:33 PM on 05/22/2010
Unfortunately, I have to agree. Obama is failing this country and the entire world on this, and seems to be dragging his feet for some unknown reason. It's the same sinister forces that are at work on stopping the Fed audit. I don't really think Administration, or any administration wants the people to know the truth.
02:49 PM on 05/22/2010
This is a war on our Gulf, our marine life, our coasts and those who live and work there. Obama should realize it and declare war on BP, Transocean and Halliburton; nationalize them and their resources; mobilize our scientists, our energy workers and technology to stop the oil flow now. Then, since the clean-up must be done, it's time to restart the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corp), hire every able bodied person, unemployed person, to go down there and work cleaning it up.

Once it's cleaned up, take all the costs out of the nationalized companies and re-privatize them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
surfsupdude
Left Coast Hooooo!!!!!
03:15 PM on 05/22/2010
I'm game, been out of work for 10 month's.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Mensch99
02:45 PM on 05/22/2010
Breaking News From “The Onion” -

Oilzilla Attacks Louisiana Coast - There’s No Stopping It!

Oh, wait, that’s not The Onion, that’s real news.

“History shows again and again
How nature points out the folly of men . .
.
Godzilla!”

"Godzilla"
by Blue Oyster Cult”
03:47 PM on 05/22/2010
From my favorite B.O.C. album!
garystartswithg
el sueno de la razon produce republicans
02:28 PM on 05/22/2010
heres a problem -- scientists strive for accuracy and so noaa is going to have to be uber conservative -- don't depend on noaa for anything less than the minimal -- their reports are going to be from information gathered a few weeks ago too. The sciences of oceanography and climatology weren't meant to handle disasters like this -- they can only gauge and study so much.
Nobody really knows what the best way to deal with this magnitude of mess is -- thats our biggest problem. That and we have nobody at the helm. Its really not the president's job to step forward, and nobody from one of the involved corporations wants to be the gulf disaster go to person.
And everyone is still in denial of the elephant in the living room -- how many people have significantly changed their consumption to make sure this never happens again? i won't hold my breath waiting for anyone who has anything more to say than "i don't buy bp anymore".
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
MAX1
Climate and Peace Advocate
02:35 PM on 05/22/2010
I gave up driving a car in '02...
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
MAX1
Climate and Peace Advocate
02:26 PM on 05/22/2010
.

Using their exact math...
... I'm between 150lbs and 750lbs.

.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wonmean
University of Michigan Class of 2010
05:07 PM on 05/22/2010
Also that grizzly bear is between 150lbs and 750lbs.
We only need a pellet rifle, yea?