Reply #21: part 1 of Working Paper 1 by the presidential panel. [View All]

[jaxx]

<snip> The NOAA scientist‟s 5,000 bbls/day estimate did not take into account the kink leak, and his methodology for estimating the velocity of the leaking oil was imprecise. Further, there is no indication that the scientist had expertise in estimating deep-sea flow velocity from video data or that he used an established or peer-reviewed methodology when doing so. This is not a criticism of the scientist, who made clear his assumptions and that the 5,000 bbls/day figure was a “very rough estimate.” His stated intent in disseminating the estimate was to warn government officials that the flow rate was multiple times greater than 1,000 bbls/day. . . . .

The
The June 10, 2010 press release also noted an estimate by researchers with Woods Hole, led by Dr. Richard Camilli, who were conducting their work outside of the auspices of the Flow Rate Group but in coordination with Unified Command. . . .Their initial rough estimate was a flow for total flux (oil plus gas) of between 65,213 and 124,991 bbls/day . . . . Yet, seemingly because this estimate was given in cubic meters/second rather than bbls/day, it did not attract media attention.

he Flow Rate Group did not succeed in releasing an accurate high-end estimate until mid-June and that Secretary Chu’s team, rather than any of the Group‟s teams, appears to have been responsible for the accuracy of that June 15 estimate.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7012#comment-729607