Why is BP unprepared to respond to the Deepwater Horizon spill when oil

companies have been thinking about how to manage such spills

since 2000?
A Gulf Restoration Network Research Brief
Prepared by Nick Poggioli
Relevance:
BP and the Coast Guard should have been more prepared to deal with a deepwater oil spill in
the Gulf of Mexico. The following summary of a year 2000 intentional deepwater oil spill
research experiment undercuts the Coast Guard's claims that the Deepwater Horizon spill is
something that no one could have been prepared for.
The following summary of the DeepSpill Joint Industry Project—an intentional deepwater
oil spill experiment in 2000—suggests that BP and the Coast Guard should have been more
prepared to deal with the “unique challenges” of a deepwater spill. The funding of the study
indicates that oil companies and the US government were thinking about the problem of
deepwater spills over a decade ago. Why then have the Coast Guard, BP and Transocean
seemed so unprepared in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon?
“The array of strategies underscores the unusual nature of the leak. Pipelines
have ruptured and tankers have leaked, but a well 5,000 feet below the water’s
surface poses new challenges,” officials said.
“This adds a new dimension for us,” Admiral Landry said. “We haven’t had a well
release like this.”1
The DeepSpill project was undertaken to test and improve existing deepwater spill
models and was funded by 21 oil companies and the US government via the Minerals
Management Service. While the DeepSpill test occurred at depths shallower than the
Deepwater Horizon, oil companies and the US government would not have funded this
experiment unless they were concerned about the need to understand deepwater spills.
It therefore seems untenable for the Coast Guard to claim that the Deepwater Horizon
spill “adds a new dimension for us.” Why then have the Coast Guard, BP and
Transocean seemed so unprepared to respond to this spill?

Motivation for Conducting the Intentional Spill Experiment:

In June 2000 SINTEF Applied Chemistry executed the DeepSpill Joint Industry Project, 78
miles off the Norwegian coast. In four experimental runs SINTEF intentionally released
nitrogen (control), 15,850 gallons of marine diesel fuel, 15,850 gallons of crude oil and 10,000
cubic meters of natural gas from a deepwater oil well.2
The goal of the intentional spill was to study how oil and natural gas move through the water
column after a deepwater oil spill in order to prepare for spills emanating from deepwater
wells:
1 Robertson, C. and Kaufman, L. “Oil Spill May Threaten Wildlife Near Louisiana.” New York Times, April 28, 2010.
Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/us/29spill.html.
2Øistein Johansen, Henrik Rye, Cortis Cooper. 2003. DeepSpill––Field Study of a Simulated Oil and Gas
Blowout in Deep Water. Spill Science & Technology Bulletin, Volume 8, Issues 5-6, pg. 433-443.
 With the world's increasing demand for oil and gas and dwindling
onshore reserves, the need to exploit oil and gas has moved into deep
water. This move brings with it the potential of accidental releases from
well blowouts and pipeline or riser ruptures. While there is a low risk of
such accident thanks to today's technology, the oil industry has to be
prepared” (433, emphasis added).
Preparing for such accidents requires operators to understand how spilled oil disperses as it
moves upwards, how to track spilled oil in water, and how to clean it up “once it reaches the
surface” (434).
If the 2000 study mentions this, why aren't BP, Transocean and the Coast Guard prepared to
respond to these issues in 2010? With recent plans to burn the oil on the Gulf surface and to
scare coastal birds away using cannons, it seems the following lessons learned from the
DeepSpill experiment never stuck with oil companies and the US government, even though
they paid to learn them.
Key Observations from the DeepSpill experiment:
• “The composition of the crude oil and diesel changed on its way to the sea surface due
to dissolution of the water soluble components into the ambient water” (438).
• The surface slick was much thinner (1 mm.) than experiments in which the oil was
released at the surface (2-9 mm.).
• Crude oil formed an emulsion at the surface of 50% water after ½ hour on the surface,
75% water after 5 hours on the surface. It is likely that this emulsion forms at the
surface, not as the oil moves through the water column.
Will burning the oil at the surface work?
Slick thickness and emulsion affect whether burning off the oil will work. The emulsion has to
have a minimum thickness and oil content to actually burn. As seen above in Key Findings,
the slick from DeepSpill was thinner than observed slicks from surface spills and also
emulsified to a high water content within 5 hours of surfacing, suggesting difficulties for
burning the oil.
This is supported in the most recent NYT article about the Deepwater Horizon: “Such burning
also works only when oil is corralled to a certain thickness. Burns may not be effective for
most of this spill, of which 97 percent is estimated to be an oil-water mixture.” 1
How oil and gas development in the Gulf has made spill response more difficult:
The expansion of oil and gas production in the Gulf into areas of deep water—where the
interaction of oil with deepwater conditions are poorly understood—has made preparing for a
deepwater spill very difficult, as we are seeing with the Deepwater Horizon:
• From 1996-2006, Gulf of Mexico oil production in water deeper than 300m increased to
30% of total Gulf oil production
• Water at these depths is much colder and under much higher pressure than shallower
water, presenting new engineering challenges
 • Currents and thermal stratification at depth tend to be very complicated
“In all drilling you have the challenge of dealing with pressurization, and in the case of
deepwater Gulf of Mexico that process is assisted by tens of thousands of super computers,”
she said. “It’s as technically challenging as space travel, but safer.”3
The last word of that argument is now in question given the 11 likely deaths resulting from the
Deepwater Horizon explosion.

The following is a more detailed summary of the DeepSpill experiment results.

Detailed Summary:

In June 2000 SINTEF Applied Chemistry—funded by 21 oil companies along with the US
Minerals Management Service—executed the DeepSpill Joint Industry Project in which
SINTEF intentionally released 120 cubic meters of crude oil and 10,000 cubic meters of
natural gas from a deepwater oil well 125 kilometers off the Norwegian coast. The goal of the
intentional spill was to study how oil and natural gas move through the water column after a
deepwater oil spill.
While models generally predict how oil and natural gas move through shallow water,
deepwater wells present conditions not incorporated into spill models in the year 2000.
These deepwater conditions include extremely cold water and high pressures as well as
complicated currents and thermal stratification. As oil and gas development moves into
increasingly deep water, shallow water spill models become less useful in predicting the
movement of oil and natural gas in the event of a spill.
Comparison of Conditions:
DeepSpill Experiment and Deepwater Horizon Spill Conditions
DeepSpill Experiment (2000) Deepwater Horizon Spill
(2010)

Wellhead depth (feet) ≥ 2,300 ~5,000

31,700 (planned) 215,000 (per day)

Crude oil released (gallons)
13,200 (actual) ~1,000,000 (28 Apr 2010)
50 (spill site)
Miles from shoreline 77
20 (slick on 28 Apr 2010)

DeepSpill site selection process and relevance to Deepwater Horizon Spill

Two deepwater well sites were initially chosen, both at depths of at least 2,300 feet. To obtain
necessary permits for the intentional spill, extensive modeling attempted to predict spill
impact, particularly troubling given that the motivation for the experiment was to improve
inadequate deepwater spill models. Results from these inadequate models were used to
obtain permits from the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority. Additionally, the experiment

3 Robertson, C. and Kaufman, L. “Robots Working to Stop Oil Leak in Gulf of Mexico.” New York Times, April 27, 2010.
Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/us/27rig.html.
was set to occur in June because the weather was expected to be mild and “because there
was no known migrations of marine life near the area at that time of year” (434). Contrast this
with the Deepwater Horizon spill that occurred at the beginning of hurricane season and looks
like it will persist well into the summer months. Additionally, there are known populations of
sperm whales in the spill area as well as other fish and shellfish populations.
Even with the above modeling and environmental concerns, the second test site was dropped
when the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority deemed it “too close to sensitive coastal
biological resources” (434). That the Authority judged a one-time release of 31,700 gallons of
crude oil 78 miles offshore as too dangerous to permit suggests the potential risk of the
Deepwater Horizon spill of 215,000 gallons per day just 50 miles offshore.