Two of the scientists on the National Flow Rate Technical Group are disagreeing with how the estimates were put out by the group. The current federal estimate is that the oil spill ranges from 12,000 to 19,000 barrels of oil per day. Here's the story on the disagreement with the oil spill estimate:
The 12,000-to-19,000-barrel estimate was based on individual estimates from three different methods: one that used satellite images to study the amount of oil on the surface of the water, one that analyzed video of the underwater oil "plume," and one that analyzed the amount of oil collected by the Riser Insertion Tube Tool (RITT) that BP installed last week to capture some of the escaping oil.
But it was impossible for members of the team that analyzed the oil plume video to estimate the upper boundary of the oil spilled, according to the Ira Leifer, a researcher at the Marine Science Institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Steven Wereley, a researcher at Purdue University.
That means that what we have is not a full actual range of the numbers of barrels spilled per day, and that this is a lowball estimate.
How did this lowball estimate happen? Well, Ira Leifer and Steven Wereley say it was because BP didn't provide enough video for the scientists to estimate the upper boundary of the amount of oil, and that they only could get a lower estimate as a result of the length of the video for their initial estimate.
Wow. This is why I asked earlier in my diary about BP lying about their estimate of the oil spill:
Just how new is this video footage [from BP to the National Flow Rate Technical Group]? Is this from this week, or at the start of the oil spill, or at the start of the top kill operation? We don't know yet at this point.
Here's more from the story:
"What everyone on the panel agreed was that due to the low-quality data BP provided to us, it would be irresponsible and unscientific to estimate an upper bound to the emission," said Leifer. "So what we presented in the [plume team] report is a range of expert opinions on what the lower bound is." Wereley said he was surprised to see the estimate of 12,000 to 19,000 barrels and was "disappointed" with the way that the press release was phrased.
"I was really confused when I read the press release yesterday," he said. "I had to read it several times." An official from Department of the Interior agreed that the plume analysis did not set an upper limit on the amount of oil spilled, but said that the estimate of 12,000 to 19,000 barrels per day was based on the area of overlap between the three different methods of estimating the flow. But Leifer said that he thought combining the analyses this way was comparing apples to oranges.
So, the 12,000 to 19,000 barrels spilled per day isn't the actual estimate of the oil spill, given that BP was not forthcoming with full data access to their video.
This company just lies, lies, and lies without impunity. They've lied about the Top Kill effort, lied about their original estimate of the oil spill, lied about their efforts on the clean-up operations, lied about their use of dispersants, and yes, even did a major lie yesterday by busing in over 200 workers to the beach where President Obama was for PR efforts.
The rest of the story points out that all panel members say this is a preliminary estimate, and that BP supposedly has provided more video to help these scientists establish an upper boundary limit. So reports establishing this as a final estimate of the oil spill by the National Flow Rate Technical Group are in error. They are still working on this estimate, but BP has been difficult to cooperate with in this regard.
Oh, and did you know the Incident Commander's powers extend towards forcing BP to making the data public and accessible?
And by the way, the Incident Commander’s powers extend to forcing BP to make information public. Section 311(m) of the Clean Water Act, found at 33 U.S. Code Section 1321(m)(2), provides that:
A) Recordkeeping. Whenever required to carry out the purposes of this section, the Administrator or the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall require the owner or operator of a facility to which this section applies to establish and maintain such records, make such reports, install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment and methods, and provide such other information as the Administrator or Secretary, as the case may be, may require to carry out the objectives of this section.
(B) Entry and inspection. Whenever required to carry out the purposes of this section, the Administrator or the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating or an authorized representative of the Administrator or Secretary, upon presentation of appropriate credentials, may-- (i) enter and inspect any facility to which this section applies, including any facility at which any records are required to be maintained under subparagraph (A); and
(ii) at reasonable times, have access to and copy any records, take samples, and inspect any monitoring equipment or methods required under subparagraph (A).
So, Admiral Allen can tell BP to "make such reports" as he sees fit, for example an analysis of the chemical composition of the leaking oil, and may have copies of those reports and of any samples that BP takes, for example of dispersant levels in the water.
How 'bout them damn apples, BP? We could potentially get access to the full data, including actual quality video, in order for these scientists to make an accurate estimate of the oil spill. That's if the Incident Commander chooses to carry out the powers authorized to him in the Clean Water Act.