Oil Budget Doc Production 11-24-10 - Batch 10 - FINAL

000004
DRAFT 8.2v 7pm

BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget!.
What has happened to the oil?
The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled "":iiJlT!b~~'Llllt\:'[:Ag~J.>;;)_stellar scientific teamli.!Q
1;1 ima!..: ih..: JJ~mn!i1;. of ill.:J~-':'1,,~-,}.t;;TiJ\)J:L<::5)'.L\1il!l!;lUbl-U~~.lu.,~Ic'l~..:d and thl! .tiw~ (If' tilat oil. The
Lcviewinlllh"".,\-:,;licuJalie'lls ;l}1.!LE',\~l,,:L~LQ!i.L.il!l~ l<.';Jl!U,]lS!l'l\~j thc ]1"", rale <lll.\.U'c'Ull oil relea~..::d.
L~.h.yJ!I1.iI~d :-;t!lI~~.{i<;.!'J,';!k~.l '-'ltD:';'.' fL~!"'i.SI [)jr~~hlr.~hir.,;lltM~~!L:J!tQ..L!JJ:n.!v ~Cl\rel:.ln.' Steven
Chu. thG.l,'tllll anl1'2.;!l1C~<lQ!l./'-Pf.\!~t 2. ~O I \I th.;l1.!is;,)imm;;s thai '1.9m barr':!); ,)1' oj I have been rl'lcascd.
;\ sc-n)nc,!l!l!.\:J:J$.!.:ncJ It:am .. Lc,:dJ:'.'.1 k i\lt:j:s.llLt.,-("'''"~-'tl-off.O\'<'FI1me~d';'[)c'!lliel11' ;;eiemislS R'
rl'(",:!< +'l<J. "t!-\-~ 'lfI-I:",4",r,.,;!~tt<'fH,j.1~,-tl~1-~~+rllUln(;d. contained, 1;)', I:l:peFated afld
d~''''-'ei--!-t'ji1Hh.:.I~lq-)i:'''f}''+lt''I'I~*'f-t7'(HH)i!''~i~tll,j.f*,'.'~_developed a tool, called the Oil Budget
Calculator. to determine what hllopened to th~~' oil i.. ll<;.in!.t'qg-;ll~.,:::;h::JJjjn~};J"!!!!lJ1t'IQ.':v builds on
ill'" c l1i)rl ~ (' 1:JN.lh.lqW'i, iJI.~m~:i..!lE' l!Lh.\.i[j_Qi.rf.;,;tl.11\':l:il!I;;'L115Cm~JI[l.Ql ildS1i!~.:;Isal1ill<': ~:;ti mal t!S
a\-ailubk;1.Q...!,!al.\.'.J!~!gs!Lt~,'l".l!'!.!....L1;1'l.:1""Q.C;r!;;."UE..!.!l~:Jjr.l1.h'.iJ)Wi!tl'Llli<Dl.:..Q!.LQ.i1~-+I"'" AUffibeLi ffi
!h"'-aJ.tlla!Hf-;itl'e'~s~l-<'>fl+)""l\.."",l~'lfla~,,,,,,,,-Hl'~\'.'-l-nli<;;flt"i~,'ritio ft'l,"il5et~H1I.iIltl""',-tIW,;''l-il-is''Il'HWifl~Hd
d~ft!Ji.I~I"'"'Itgt:lTI:H.~J--l<-;!~~';<l;;S,~fi7+~9-'1TtiiH'>Hh-aI'l"'f,,:-ffi-H~tHfl(45l--f-t!~~atlfIE'l;tRe.!<l"'->r-l
Atll5t.tS~~~.(+ b)' !!~a!,tNlit;,-t;K:.id,,*Ti:-X~lfHt!fm.kN,'''''...Rl:!!~~+Ti-a-I+ir'')HMj..:.f{.:r<';h..Ie.:j..~,
~J*I",-,&~,ffi~I~<i",a-h-"'H1",.....y-+I+.I.;~;';+.j~if<$,){*w,,,.ht!'~~tt-<lt;,.-k-Hetlf1-K7H)"'f.Af-L'f'm;fi"~H~
ti:;:l8-;i<:lit!!t~is-H'~"",~H'k:H*;;,-1~7+'+h:~~y"-I.;"'"*,,..!li:I!7'-~tH:::t~,
111 surill!!llQ,.t-kt'<..-'4-+'A-Hw!i<'-ffil+H~"-"fS-; it is estimated that burning. skimming and direct recovery from
the wellhead removed one quarter of oil released from the wellhead. One quarter of the total oil
naturally <!vaporated or diss.:1 ,'c:d, ,and just less than one quarter \\<,1" dispersed (either naturally or as a
result of operations) as mi.[Q?G.'':f:i;::ifll-<'l1 droplets into the Gulf waters. The residual amount, just over
one quarter. is either on or jusl b<:!ow the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore
or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments, 'l'h..: report bdow de~~'l'jbes ..::"ch of
these c~t!<~~OI'it'S tlnd c,dcuhJli(,l~~_'! h~;: ,slir,1;,H~!i \~ill c<mtinu.: to be relined as udditiotllli informatj,)n
bl,'conl eS.ill1lll ah k.
000005
Deepwater Horizon Oil

Booed 011 "stimoted re/err,1? of '1.9 /Vi
~ R~~idud!
uil
Response.
Operations.
bt'low V'I!' ~ .!lr:ar:.e:::5

r~!.tdJ,,!:
f,i'"ld
lI~i~
DOm?!:; of oI}
Federal
iHt..L.Jtt~
Oil:j-,1t i'.iUlll1! .ll~l
t.-:-rb;,lb
Budge~
w~therHi
vJ'.:)Ju,;"d
ri~hore' (':r t-rlf::li
e" lec(~ IrQI1111'"

''lhf)r(~. Of -..on)f"
i..
In ~.;)~d and
hedirnr:nb..
bun~d
Figure I; Oi I Budget - Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
ExplanatioD of Findings
Federal Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with the oil have been aggressive. As shown in the
pie chart (Figure I). response dl(}rts wen: sucees~'hl 1n dca:i!1g with 33% of the spilled oiL This .
includes oil that was captured directly frem the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat
systems (17%). burning (5%). skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct capture, burning
and skimming remove. the oil from the water entirely. while chemically dispersed oil remains in the
water until it is biodegraded. as discussed below.
Dispersion: Based on estimates. 16% ofthe oil dispersed naturally into the water column and 8% was
dispersed by the application of nearly 50.000 barrels HI' ch.:.mica[ dispersants on and below the surface.
Natural dispersion occurs as a resu Irof the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the
water column. which caused some of the 011 to spray off in sma!1 droplets. For the purpose ofthis
analysis. "dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than [00 microns - about the diameter of a
human hair. Oil droplets tAat
this smal~ 1.m; Jli:.'lIill!!b:...hLli::;';!.!!U;tlld thus remain in the water column
where they then begin to biodegrade. Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to
k.eep it from coming ashore in large suri~ slicks and make it mort readily available for biodegradation.
Chemical dispersants were applied at the surfac<; and below the surface. therefore the chemically
dispersed oil ended up both in the water column and at the surface. Dispersion increases the likelihood
~lhat.the oil .\IoIlLw-be biodegraded, bOlh in the water column and at the surface. Until it is
biodegracied. dispersed oil. even in dilute amounts. can be toxic to vulnerable species.
are
000006
All of the naturally dispersed oil and ~~);lh,::mH<:h orthe oillhal was chemically dispersed remained well
below the surtace in diffuse clouds. where it began 10 di,,:,iJ';l1d4\:i;in"mlJ~x and biodegrade. Previous
analyses have shown evidence ofdilTusc clouds ordi~pcrscd oil between 3300 and 4300 feet in ,!D::JOW
concentrations.tm\I:t:L[1:;':Lmj!!i;':.i':r,,!~:~:~}. mnviilg in the tiin:clinll of known ocean currents and
decreasing with distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal .!oim Analysis Group Report I and 2,
h!!rl;/ie\1',l\~llJ~_h.nedQc.ng;!ikgmD/~,,{~i.n:.ru:rt,;iJlI.mJ). Oil thaI was chemically dispersed at the surface
remained at
surface and began to biodegrade there.
Evaporation and Dissolution: It is estimated thal2S% of the oil volume quickly iwrt..!lJ.ttlmlli::
evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The evaporation and dissolution rate estimate is based
on scientific research and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident. Different
evaporation rates are used for fresh oil and weathered oil to provide the most accurate number.
Dissolution iH!l+,;-'wHk"'l'-f+kJlHHi~ di.!:l~Fm~!-H*', from dispersion. f};~'ffl<:\..h7fl~Hll dt=eJ3!et; ef(1iL
wltt!""",!llissolution J1,\i'::;Hii,,,,,lhe proccs:; by wnk:h ""';H"'indilliduai hydrocarbon molecules from the
oil separate and dissolve into the waterjust as sugar .:an be dissolved in water. J)ili..R\!..~Ipn is the process
Residual: Aner accounting tbr IJ)..;,.!!!,g!..\r.i.,;~JJE!..L.9~idt~~_iJ!~.,!~.l!!~'1'-.illL~0y-_~~~i.i.llIa{~t. i.e.. recovery

operations. dispersion, evaporation and dissolution. an estimaled 26% remains. This figure is a
combination of categories that are difficult to measure or estimate. It includes oil still on or just below
the surface in the form of light shet:n or tarballs. oil that has washed ashore or been collected from the
shore. and some that is buried in sand and sedimems and may resurface through time. This oil has also
begun to degrade through a number of natural processes.
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column ".nd oil on the surtace of the water r1-al~
biodegrade,1.llil!.li'<lih. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of
biodegradation ill the Gult: early observations and preliminary research results from a number of
scientists show that the oil from ,iJl!i_llL!2":.l~:',;!i",:LI ,:,!.f,,,(~r:_~!ltLlthh-~~ is biodegrading quickly.
Scientists from NOAA. EPA.-;!"'! DOF.,jIDJ-'lc:;),i~:m Ie ~~:j;:J1!i~,i:j.are working to calculate tl-more precise
estimate~ of this rate. It is well kml\'m that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered
surface oil are abundant in the Gul r of Mexico in large part beeause of the wann water-lfu!fe, the
favorable nutrient and oxygen Ie\-~Is. and the laCl thaI oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural
seeps regularly.
Explanation of Methods and Assumptions
Flow Rate: The Oil Budget Calculator starts with an estimate of the cumulative amount of oil released
over thc course ofthe spill. The newest cstimaloS rel'leCI the coilaborative work and discussions of the
National Incident Command's \'/,)W Rate Technical Group (FRTG). led by United States Geological
Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNut!. and a Icafrl ~)f Department of Energy (DOE) scientists and
engineers. led by Energy SecT.::tary Steven Chu. This group esHmates that approximately 4.9 million
barrels of oilllowed from the Deepwater Horizon/HI' wellhead between April 22. 2010 and July 15,
2010. at which time the flow of oil was suspended. The ulicrtain:ty on this estimate is 10% (cite:
Flow Rate Technical Group. website or report). Th.: pie charI abi)ve is based on this group's estimate of
4.9 million barrels of oil.
000007
Direct Measures and Best E~limal(!s: Tht~ oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
wherever possible and the best available scientilic estimates whcre measurements were not possible.
The numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational
reports. The skimming numbers were also based 011 daily reported estimates. The rest ofthe numbers
were based on previous scientilic analyses. best available information and a broad range of scientific
expertise. Further information on these methods is available in Appendix A. These numbers will
continue lobe relined based on additional information and further analysis.
Continued monitoring and resE'!Ilrch:
Our knowledge of the oil. dispersants. ecosystem impacts and human impacts will continue to evolve.
Federal agencies and many academic and independent scientists are activc;ly pursuing better
understanding of the fate. transport and impact or the oil. The federal government will continue to repon
activities. results and data to the I)ublic Oil a regular basis. Updates and information can be found at
www.re~ton:lhc~ulr.>!.o~. and data from the respOllse and monitoring can be found at
www.l!cnplatj{wnl!!.QY
001. NASA and NOAA contir,ue \0 refine underslllr,Jing of amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
responders arc ,.,./orking with tht: Unified Command ,In monitoring strategie3 for tar balls and near shore
submerged oil. and researchers conlinue ~ub!;urraCC s,;anning and sampling to monitor the concentration,
distribution and impact of oi I there. EPA has carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in the Gulf and
cOlltinul!.s to monitor the air. v"a,01 and sediments near the shoreline for the presence of dispersant and
crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA- and NSFfunded academic researchers s!i't,,j ti~L!i1.A0.".lliL'.k.;,::;':_"'f<')flvestigaling rates of hi odegradation,
ecosystem and wildlife impacts. 001 iH1i;J1Uj.resjJlludel's are working to ensure control of the well and,
to ensure accurate measurement or oil released and oi; remaining in the environment. DOl is leading
.
to mitigate impacts of oil to i,;.!!;,::::l1:i1.J wildlife. natural resources, and public lands.
Scientists from DOE laboratories are worr.:ing to ensure the accurate measurement of oil released from
the well and are investigating the rates of biodegradation of sub-surtace oil.
Even though the threat to shorciii1"::s, fish ano wiidiili:;. and <:cosysrems has decreased since the capping
ofthe BP wellhead. federal scientists remain extrCilll:iy l:ollcemed about the impact of the spill to the
Gulfecosyslem. Fully understanding the impacts orthis spill on wlldiite. habitats. and natura) resources
in the Gulf region lViII take time and continued monitoring and research.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tm)1 Report from July 30, 20 I 0, contains
detailed explanation of cal cui ation methods. The tool Wa$ crealed by the US Geological Survey in
collaboration with US Coast Guard. NOAA. and NISi.
Note: The attached report (Apr..mdix A) contains cylindrical images. which are an alternate way of
representing. the same numbers U:l the pie chart ab(wc. Thes/~ cylindrical images combine the three
categories or chemically dispersed. naturaliy di.spcrscd. and evaporated or dissolved, into one colored
000008
segment. The image on pug~ em: af Appendix A U:i!;.S the. cumulative rekase estimate of 4.9 M barrels,
which is the same us the pie (;hml llsed above. The lh.-ce images represent the actual estimate, as well as
the upper and lower bound of the 10 % uncertainty oCthe estimate.
Appendix B:
Acknowledgem.en~!i
000009
Df!epwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget.;.

Appendix B: Ackll(lwledgements
Authors
Jan~
Lubchenco. NOAA. DOC

Marcia McNutt. USGS. DOl
William Conner. NOAA, DOC
Mark Sogge. USGS. 001
Mark Miller. NOAA. DOC
Stephen Hammond. USGS. DOl
Credits
The following scientists were illv(.1 "cd in dcvel{J~ illg ihe 0;, Butiget Calculator tool:
David Mack (USGS) - Lead application developer
Jeft Allen (USGS) -Interface designer
Bill Lehr (NOAA) - Lcad mass balance and oil budget scientist
LCDR Lance Lindg.-en and CDR Peter Hoffman (USCG) - Application requirements
Steve Hale. Kent Morgan. Kt:vin Laurent. and Jerry McFaul (USGS) Technical advisors
Sky Bristol and Tim KCI'11 (USGS) Project vision and management
Kevin Gallagher. Stephcn Ilammond and Martha Garcia (USGS) - Executive sponsors
The following experts wt:re consulted on the oil budgel calculations. contributed field data, suggested
formu;as. analysis methods. or p;'viewed Ihe a'gt'rir1-"llS t'ec ill the c?.Iculator. The team continues to
refine the analysis and this document will be lIpd~tcd as aupropriate.
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr. NOAA
Robert Jones. NOAA
Antonio Possolo. NIST

Independent Scientists
Ron Goodman. U. ofC[,.Ig:w),
AI Allan. SpilTcc
James Payne. Payne Env.
Tom Coolbaugh. Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton. LSU
Juan Lasheras. UCSD
Merv Fingas. Env. Canada (ret I
Ali Khelifa. Env. Canada
Pat Lambert Env. Canada
Per Daling.. SINTEF

Michel Boutadcl, Temple ~ Iniv.
000011
Justin Kenney
__________~_------_I_------------------------------------------------------------..
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
.Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

Monday, August 02,20106:52 PM
Jennifer Austin
RE: [Fwd: latest version]
Oil Budget description 8 2 v 6pm JL.docx
Am out of time, so here are a few quick suggestions/comments

-----Original Message- --From: J"'l')ni,f~r- A.usti n ~m;::d.JTol&>nni.fpr A"stin@no'3a.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 62, 2e18 6:82 PM
To: Jane Lubchenco
Subject: [Fwd: latest version]
latest version, 1'11 j:.lug in the new numbers r.O"'J. Here they are.
Discharged - 4,928,848
Recovered via RITT and Top Hat - 827,e46 (17%) Dispersed Naturally - 763,936 (15.5%)
Evaporated or Dissolved - 1,243,712 ( 25%) Available for Recovery - 2,893,346 Ch~mically
Dispers('d - 488, 792 (a~~) Burned - 265,450 (5%) Skimmed - 165,293 (3%) Remaining 1,253,8:1'
-------- )riginal Message -------Subject:

latest version
Date:
Mon, 02 A~g ~~10 17:45:25 -0400
From:
Jennifer' Austin <Jer.:-,i"fer'.!I;ustin@noaa.gov)
To:
Mark Miller- <fAark. ~J.Miller@noaa. gOV), Justin kenney
<Justin. '(erln'-!y@noaa.gov;-
Hi
Mark -
here' is the latest for your review.
Justin ca:i you have a ::'':'.:k z.gair, too a:.d see i f you think it's better.
thanks, ]en
JennifE. . . A..JE.ti;.
NOAP. COi~im .... nications & ::;xterr.al
Affairs
202-392-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
, Jennif:[' ;:.. ~E;:.:'.:

2
000012
2132-3132-91347
www. noaa. q~
www.climate ; gov'
www.facebook.com!noa~l
:_tubchenco
000013
Justin Kenney
Sent:
Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

lVIonday, August 02, 2010 5: 18 PM
To:
.-"~nnifer.Austin@noaa.gov
Subject:
residual
From:
Jen - some possible text and thoughts:

TEXT:
Residual oil is a combination of categories that are difficult to measure or estimate. It
include~ oil still on or just below the surface oil that has washed ashore or been collected
from the !~a~~, ?nrl !~~~ 0~ ~~~ Oil that has be~n biodegraded.
J
Question: how importart is it for us to flag that that category contains 'biodegraded'?
Might i t be easier to (:-.mH it in the text above and just in the biodegradation paragraph
indicate that oil in ffiultiple categories includes oil that has been biodegraded.
000039
Justin r{enney
_ _ _ _::c:aa:tilf:Uaa......
di_""'..._
.....
_H...,DD!_............___________________________
_ _.....
Ii5:'Vf"J:1:t~'lIlil..,
,.~are
Lubchencc [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.govj
i'Jk)(lday, August 02,20101:35 PM
Mdrk.W.Milier
W'!liam Conner; Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov
~(i: authors
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Great. th ;lI1;':s
-----Or~g:d1dl
Frnm' f,A.,;
Sent: /":'}r
;'leSS3f,E.: ... -
I,~ ~rillA'"
~'"
> Augus1~
+nM:>I"'i( "/ Mi'l1p",(nlno~::> ~(\\l]
82. 2816 1: 33 PM
To: Jane Lubchenco

Cc: William Conner; Je~nifer,Austjn@noaa.gov
SI!bj ect: ~(e: authors.
We have incorporated u.;es requested changes in their list. I believe that everyone from our
side (BUl Lehr's gt,':l.:, 3nd revie:~e,~s) is addr'essed.
Mark
Ja:,,~
~ ".~"
'~'.
,....:
, ........., . ; . ,
'
> ,!i,ny L:'.E. .. g,':s t,) th2 ,:'j :hon; in Vii?,4 of the additional work that has been done on the report?
> (I'm ,-,O!: 5.Jggesting eny, just w2r.ting to be sw'e we've thought about
> that.)
>
.-
30
000040
_ _ _ _al.=
_ _.;.&,
_ _ _ _zuu"''''_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Justin_~ney
I;:me Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

;'J:onday, August 02, 2010 1:23 PM
i'Jlark.W.Miller; WHliam Conner
.IHrmifer.Austin@noaa.gov
aJthors
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Any cha.-,gcs t)
iii vie"i i)i: the additional work that has been done on the report?
just wanting to be sure we've thought about that.)
t.h~ ':L.'t~ ..:0"5
(I'm not 5uggesting
(j(j;
31
000042
DRAFT 8.2v 6pm

BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget
What has happt'ned to the oW?
The National Incident Command (NIC) assemhlcd a $le1lar scientific team composed of government and
independent scientists to produce and review an estimate orhov, much oil has been skimmed, burned,
contained. ,:\'aporatcd and di~pc"sl;d from the BP Dco:pwater Horizon oil spill. They developed a tool,
called thc Oil Budget Calcula'or. to deterl11ine what happened to the oil. The numbers in the calculator
are based on hest estimates hm" much oil wag rdc<J5cd and how this oil is moving and degrading.
or
Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget

Bc::;,';! or. cs,imatcd rcl~'c'''c
~':!'h," rcsi~ua~
eitf]'.;r;)L
']! 4.9 I\-1 t.::mcls cj ei)

Federal
Response
o ;lerations
oil f:>
th~
!,urfll:e
.)'; !~!f.ht :iP ::'l~n or
',,~l(' .lthcri~d t~(
.,U~
balls,
ht,;.cr
biodcgrcctc:l. 0' "<IS
Jln.":ld.,. ('cme ashore.
7%
Figure I: Oil Budg;:: Shows cum:nt hest t'~'1i11'9ti~S of what hru happened to the Qil.
Summary of Findings
Burning. skimming and direct recovery fTom the wellhead removed roughly one quarter of the 4.9 m
barrels of oil. Around a quarter oftbe total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved and less than one
quarter :iispnsd (either nalllml!:, or as 3 :'!~suil d I)P~ll!tiCl~51 as small droplets into the Gulfwaters.
The remaining amount. just over "ne quarter. is eHh~:r on the surface. in tar balls. on the shore, already
removed from the shore or has been biodegraded.
Explanation of Findings
r:--'-'---~--'-'-'-"---"-"'---'"
i Comment fj2]: w. need 10 iflS011 a little mOlnl

jibe beginning of this paragraph to indica1e that the
; FRTG+DOE came up will> 4.9 ett, Then.oflhis.
; 2moum, roU!lhly ene qIIlUler.. ,etc. Maybe a little
more; this should be thouglrt of as the abstraCl or
cxeeutive summ~_~ _ _ _ .. _~.'~ _____.. ~
i
!
!
t
000043
Federal Response E;fforts: Rcs!,or;se efforls (0 deal with the oil havt: been aggressive. As shown in the
pie c.:hart (Figure I). response <.:t'i(,rts wcre successrul in dealing wilh 30% of the spilled oil. This
includes oil that was captured directly Ii'om the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat
systems ( 15%). burning (5%). skimming (3%) and chemica! dispersion (i,%). Direct capture. burning
and skimming rL!move the oil i"rnl'll the waleI' entirc!y. while chemically dispersed oil remains in the
water column until il is biodeg.l'lldl~d. as discussed helow.
Dispersiol1: Ba,ed on estimales. 16% of Ihe oil dispersed naturally into the water column aod 7% was
dispersed by the application or l1..:arly 50.000 harrd;; or chemical dispersants on and below the surface.
Natural dispersion occurs as a re!mlt orlhe oil coming out or the broken riser pipe at high speed into the
water column. which caused som..: of the oil to spruy offin small droplets. For lhi! purpose Oflhis
analysis. 'disl)..:rscd nit' is ,klill.,:\!.a,; tin.!,')I..:!,; tIW~,JI\' Jes; than 100 microns about the diameter of a
human hair. Oil ul'(lolets llml m:,<' lhis ,111<111 bC(;"lh- ncutmllv bUfiVllll1 and remain inlhe water column
where th,v Ihen hegin to bh dc"!:'Jili;. Chemical di.persion also breaks tne oil up into small droplets to
'
keep it {rorr, coming ashore in lar!~c surface sl;cks "no make it more readily available tor biodegradation.
Chemk;1i.JJi;ipcl'>ants wcre..;u:m.U,,;tl.ill,,!ll"'~illr!.~ICL .'~!l!Ltl' lo~ the smi'acc,JjlcJ'ctbreJi1t! chL'micall v
dispcrsl:d <);1 cl1lkd UI) hoth in t,I,l;:..II'<it,Yi' eolul1lJlilll,j;lU.i.ll.! ~lirfacc,- Dispersion increases the likelihood
for the oil 10 he naturally dil>sClivcd and biodegrudlU.l\1th iii lhe waH:!' cnllltnl1 anQ..m.the wrl'itce,
however. until it i, biodegrad(;d. riispersed oil. eVen in dilute amounts. can be toxic to vulnerable
species,-itHj*'-W:~.
.
All o1'1;,oe; fllmil,llIv dispcrsccL'.lJl;HJQJ]tlch of [il": -:dhkn '",as_chemically dispersed remained well below
the surfaceln ,linits,; douds. \\'D';';'; it h':I!Ulll() di;'l~b~ anti bl,)dcl.!.r.1lk,,-Previous analyses have shown
evidence of ditliJse clouds or disp~,'sed oi I between 3300 lind 4300
the dir~qi'!!l.;?L1g~~~ean .-;,\!f.I',;!l!!iJ!!!lL9!:ffb,j)llLsigni licanliy ~t!ll]_~:UJj:!.illlg;:JI~!!!J!:~~!l!:!!~.
(citation: Ft!deral Joint Analy$i~ Croup Report I and 2.
',[. htlp:ifee(lw'lt;,;h.llcddc.!1oaa.Il"~f.L\(;/rq)Ol'ls.hlmi)" ,Oil lflill was chemicallv dispersed at the surface
remllincd Ul the :mrfacc: and b.;g,\![) 10 biodegrade; lh0r\:~
Evaporation and DixsoluthJfl: II is estimated that 26%, of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved
into the WaleI' COiumn. The evaporation !inti dbo(ll!!f.!l.rate estimate is based on scientific research and
observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident. Different evaporation rates are used for
fresh oil and weathered oil to provide the most accurate number.
Diss,)lutinn in the walcr clllwll.!!)" disiin(;l lium ili,',Il0:.~2!L Di:;pel ~..:d nil is small droplt!ts of oil. while
Iyhidl SOOlt.: i\l.,iLyj.\!!!l!iJ]voJ'(1carbon nwlccuh:s n'on) the oil separate
und db,,)ih.' in1<) ihe wmcr jllS.dli5u!.!:<11' ":,Ul bl,; t;i~'<lh<.!cJ il1.~vah:r,
diss()llIthl!l-,Jl'~cdbcs the [)rt\c~!:'1iJw
Rt?sidl(fL,Afler accounting !{>r "c(!)vcry npcl'atio!',s. dispersion. evaporation and dissolution, an

estimated 28% remains. This 1'1;~'[l' ilik1 cll1111'lD.4t':J!l!ll nllqoric~ that w'e difficult It) measure or
estimllte. I; includl::, oil still Of1.r.U,!.!5.Lr...:iow lhl:"'"r!lt~t'. nil that has wa"hcd astJ(lre or been collected
. from the ;)Ilorc. and :\ome that i;,J~.lricti in sand ~l!l!L,!~inlcnt:i and nlll\' rCSUI'l'ilC";: through lime. This oil
has also ;~o;g,U!!J.~l!,!gr3dc U)}}l.lIgh ,'UHtillk':LIJ.(r:<il.u!~!LI1!\ll'';Ji!i'"
..
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in :he water columr. <,ri;l nil (Jolne ~urjbcc nfthc water-naturally
biodegl'aJ~.
VJhil,.;: there is IllQL~.H\;Jlvsis
ttl
be 9JEt<: h' ~aHtirv tht' t:Mld r;)te ofbiodegrJdation in the
"'----
----------------,
i Comment [i3]: Why say this here? Budge,

l..~~I.lOf ..ys ""!!"g~~lcily._==_~
I Comment (4): I added this be<:ause we don"t
i want to imply that just because u', been dispersed
; that all'. well. Yeo. it is more available for
, biodegradation, bul is .till tox;" JUSt being hone,,! ,
[ So maybe this !hough! Soc:' in !he next ~__ ,_ . _ ;
r--------------------~~-~-,
l Comment [is]: Do we know where it g<ms!___;
000044
~Iulr. ':.~ldl:.!il~\,'L'illll(lIlS ;'l1HLIl):..,E~Eim\r\'L'~":ll!~h 1~~lli.l;U.h..m.llllU\11!J..I::U)r scientists sl1<lw that the oil

Ib!.l.D.JI. 1.i~~(luT.:<.: ..i,~ . . ri.9~J.I'.gt:;!iJ.i.i12.. Ljlll"JJ:.-:. .. ~<;j~!lli:,(,. Ih.)I.l.l. N.\.)f\.,:\J.]~/\iJ)1&Ln.QL'1LL\SQ[bing.1Q
!Jlc.illltb.: . ;J..!H'lr.'_L1J:..(jsc ~slil!li.I-,.,; .').UJ.1i~..r.<.l!.., ..!1 is \:,.';.:.L.kl1\)wl1 that bacteria that break down the
dispersed alld weathered surlac-: (Iii are abundant in thc Gulf ot' Mexico in large part because of the
warm welter therc. thc favorable nUlrknt and oxygen levels. and the fact that oi I enters the Gulf of
Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
Explanation of Metbods and A,,!;umptions
Flow Rare: The Oil Budget Cak[, Cltor starts with an estimate ofthe cumulative amount of oii released
over the course ofthe spill. The !~ewcsl estimates n.:!lect the cotlaborative work and discussions ofthe
National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group IFRTG). led by UnitlXl States Geological
Survey (US(iS) Director Mar.::b McNutt. and a team of Department of Energy (DOE) scientists and
cngincers. Icd by Energy Secrcta,:; Steven Chu. This group C51imates that approximately 4.9 million
barrels ,)1' oil nowed Irom the Deepwater Horizon/HI' wellhead between April 22.2010 and July 15,
2010. at which time the now 01 ,'il was suspendw. Thl:: unc..::rtainty on this cstimate is 10% (cite:
Flow Rate Technical Group. w..:r.si,e or fep0l't).ihc pie ehart above is ba"ed on this group's estimate
of 4.9 miilioi1 b<lrrCiS of' oil.
Direct Af~CJ.\lIres and Best Esfil7.!Clies: The oil budget calculalions are bas..::d on direct measurements
wh';rc.vcr [i".;sic)lr.: J.nd Ille b(;3t .~\:j;;ablc: sc.;;entitic estimates wllere measurements were not possible.
reports. The ,kimming numb..::r5 '"ere aiso based on daily reported es'im!.t<::s. The rest of the numbers
were based mi previous seientif:c :lnalyscs. be&t avai::).ble information and a broad range of scientific
expel1bc. Further information Ull tnese methods 15 available in Appendix A. These numbers will
continue 10 t1": refined based m', ddditior;ai ~nf()rr,lali()11 and Ihrlher analysis.
Ongoing RE:sponse
Continued illOnitoting and ,"e.w!.:i,ch: Our kilowkdp.c of the ell. dispersants. ecosystem impacts and
human impal:'ls will cominul! tf, .;\olvc. Federal ag.<r,,:ic:,; and man)' 3..:ademic and independent scientists
are actively pursuing better understanding of tile i~,te. transport and impact ofthe oil. The federal
government will continue to report activities. results and data to the public on a regular basis. Updates
and information can be tound m.'~ \\.\u(;"I<1relhe~u:[I!'\v. and data Irom the response operations can be
found at '~Y.~\!.l!,\XlPlUlI(;rlJl.gil': .. "
001. NA3A and NOAA continue to rel'~ne understanding c-l"amounts of remaining surface oiL NOAA
continues t() IraL:k the movement (nhe oil stili on the surface and in the water column. NOAA
responders are \vorkil'g. with the IJnificd Command <>n rnonitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore
submerl;!cd mi. and researchers continue ;,ubsllrfii~e ),canning and sampling to monitor the concentration,
distribution und impact of oi I ti">cn:. EPA cominlles in tnl>nitor coastal air and water, with special
aitl.!ntior: \(, h,.lllarl health impfl':t~ Numerous NOAf\" and NSF-Hmded academic researchers are
investigadng ral(:S or biodegmda~jon. eC(lsySlem and wifdli!~: impacts. DOl respondeis are working to
ensure ennlml of the well; to ,:nSlirc aCCUl'lito;: mel!$lIr,~menl (\roil released lind oil remaining in the
envirolll1'ent: and to mitigate imv,,;ts ofni] to wild;lfe. ,"Iatural rCSOUiCCS. and public lands. Scientists
from DOE lahoratories are wGrkiiig to ensure thc accurate measurement (if oil released from the well
and are investigating the ral..:s {1 t' ~.iodcgnldation of sub-surface oi1.
000045
Even though the thrClIt to shorc!i,1:S, fish and 'Jii:;.Lir;:. Hilt.! ~',:osyslcms has decreased since the capping
oflile L~I) ,,'dlhcad, I'i!dcral :ici,':-,1 sts remain ~,Al,..::m:::; com:,:rncu about th~ impact of tile spill to the
Gulf ee(\~.yslem, Fully 1Il1dcr:;tuid n1,', Iii..: impa(:!;; u:' ;I,ls spill or. wildlife_ habitats_ and natural resources
in thc \Jed r I egion will take tin-;,; ::nd (;ominucd II\(l'li~!lring and n:scarch_
Attachmellts
Appendix .\: Deepwater I-Im:z"Y'I G1Mlneidl!nt
Tool Report from July 30. 2010. contains
detailed cxplon()tion of calculatior methods_ The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in
collabora!iof1 with LIS Coa"t G~lard. NOAA. and N~ST.
Note: The lllt<lehed report (Af'!wndix A) clmtains c.',lindrj,,::al images. which are an alternate way of
repres":lliing. the sallle numbCl"S ;t-; tht: pic chan <l(,"\";, B(fth imag.es in 'h.:: attachment combine the three
and '- vupor'dleu 0'- dissol ved. into one colored
cah::go.. j<.:~ (,f chem ically disfl~i _inL mlluml,!
segm..:nl. The image on pagc onc' or Appendix A j,,;;:;; th!:: high.;r flow ,-at'; .;;stimate. which is the same
as thc pi.: ..:1'1:!.rt lIsed ubovl::_ ; h~ . Tlage 01' pug..: 1I It!-,: IlS(;S the lower !low rate estimate.
Appendix B: Acknowledgemt'llt:;
000046
lJ,:epwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget

What has happened to the oH?
Appendix B: Acklllowledgements
Authors
Jane Luhchenco. NOA.A.. DOC

Marcia f>.kNutL USGS. 001
William Conner, NOj\.;\" DOC
Murk Soggc. USGS, nOI
~I\ark
Miller. NOAA. I)~)~:

I'lammond, l !~U'. DOl
Slcp~cn
Credits
The j()II('.wi ng scientists were il1v<,.1 \'c~ in . li.;vclo~ill1!'
;h~
0;, Bu,;get Calculator tool:
David Mack (USGS) .! .l'ad application d'J"';!oper

In\<.~I'!uce designer
Hi II Lehr (NOAA) I.(~;\(J iliass balance and oil budget sch:ntist
LC))R Lanee- Lindgil.:r, 1",1 C[)R Peler Ho!Tnlan (USCG) - Application requirements
Sll.:l\, Hale. Kent lViol'.:~an. Kevin Laurent. und Jerry McFaul (lISGS) - Technical advisors
Sky Bl'i~lol and Tim K;;;, (USGS) - Projc" , yisioB and management
Kcv;n Ga:lagh.;r. Skrl~<:p ! iamlnond and r-,'lu:-lhu Garcia (USGS) Executive sponsors
Jdf Allen (USGS) -
..:aiculalions. c()l1lrlhuted field data. suggested

The (ollcwing. c"perts were c:)i::;:ll<:d em [he oil
formUlas. analysis methods, or .;; i,~wl!d 'he al':,()rllh~I'~ 1I;':d in the c;:;!cuhtor. The team continues to
refine th,~ a.1aly~is and this ,kc.lrr:('nt wili be lmdatcd a<; :mproflrialc.
b:dcral Scientists
",iii Leh,'. NOAA
Roo!,!rt Jones. NOAA
Antonio Fossolo. NIST

ir'lkncnut:nt Sciendst,.
I... on Goodman, U, (,rCUIlUl'Y
Ai Aliali. SpilTec
.lames Payne. Payne En.,
i'om CCJOlhaugh. Exxtln ~lobll
Ed Overton. LSU
J .JUII Lasheras, UCSD
Mel\' Fingas, Env. CamlCla(re(J
A.li Khelifa. Env. Canatl;j
hit L'lmbert. Eov, Canaua
?':r Dilling, SINTEF
Michel Bouladel, remplc Iiniv.
000047
Justin Kenney
...
--
Jane Lubchenco [Jane,Lubchenco@noaa,gov]

Sunday, August 01, 2010 9:25 PM
Jennifer Austin
Justin Kenney
RE: text on monitoring and research for pie chart document
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Thanks 500':;00 much fot vourgreat effort; on this front!

jane
Fl:'om: Jennifer Austin [mailto:jennifer.austin@noaa.gov]

Sent: Sunday, August 01, 201G 9:2'~ Pt,
To: 'janeJubchenco@noaa.gov'
Subject: Re: text on monitoring and research for pie chart document
Hi, Yes I will. standing by for that next model run, incorporating these as
Jennifer Austin, NOAA Communications, 2023029047
we go,
From: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>

To: Jenn,fei',A.ustin@noaa.oQv <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
Sent: Sun A... g 01 20:57:-H 2010
Subject: FW: text on rnon:tcJ['ing anj research for pie chart document
JE:n -, car.
V0U
captUi'e
the~E
and aS50:i;',ole ther.l once we have a number?
From: Steve Murawski [mailto:Steve,Murawski@noaa.gov]
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 7:29 PM
To: Jane Lubchenco

Cc: '1IIJark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'Jennifer.Atlstin@noea.gov'; 'William.Conner@noaa.gov'; 'margaret.spring@noaa.gov'i
'ksarri@Q0c.qov'
Sub,iect~ Rc:; tX(
em
mOil;~D.'i.)y
and resecild; for pic-) chart document
Here are a few sentences n~, NSF, I can socialize them:

Academic researchers funded by the National Science Foundation are examining a number of the aspects of the
oil budget and the effects of submerged oil. NSF research has focused on the distribution and concentration of
deep submerged oil and gas (in the form of methane hydrates), impacts on dissolved oxygen at depth and the
rate of bacterial composition. NSF is planning a new research effort involving two ships to examine these
aspects thot is :;etto depmt in mid-Augu~t.
Jane Lubchenco wrote:

Thanks, Marl,! Plz prccee() IN' g!':lt~,ng short de~;criptiolls as you i.1C:icated,
The text i dr::lfted for NSF rpoS'}' suffice, St&"e: Ijo you think so? Plz add more if needed.
I think what 's '1~eded is 8 simple explanati':l'1 0f what dissolution and dispersion mean and how they are different.
,Cheers,
Jane
1
000048
Jane Lubchenco
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
Administrat.JI of the Natior.;;;f Oceanic and Atmcspheric Administration
Jane,Lub:~henco@noaa,acv
(202) 482-3436
Join me on Facebook:
www.facebook.com/noaa. lubc:tlenco
From: Mark Miller <mark",W",IJ.l)Uer@noaa.gQ.'L?

To: Jane L.~lbchenco ~JaD5)~~~;'~Il.~f]";Q.w~9.<,1.g,.9:21:~
Cc: Jennif~Lf\ustin<Q)noaa.go\~ .<Jennifer.AusJintcbnoaa.qov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Steve
Murawski .~5teveJv1urawskijWn.oaa.qov>; jvlamaret.spring@noaa.qov < Margaret.Spring@noaa.qov>; Kris Sarri
(ksarri@cjoc.qov) < ksarrii,OldQ.t;.,gov>
Sent: Sun Aug 0118:57:19 2010
1. Unless Bill has a strong desire I'll volunteer to coordinate getting short descriptions from the other agencies
of their monitoring and research (I sit next to USGS and DOl). In particular I understand we want DOl, USGS,
and DOE and the text is dir.x;ted to'ward oil and oil impact related work. Is that true?
Steve do you have a fed
WI'
NSF activities'!
2. I am stj \I not completely :sure what EPA's issue with these are. Do we just define dissolution and dispersion
or i: the~';~':::-Hne other qUt:~l.i:::on about these processes EPA feels we need to explain. If we want basic definitions
I wi:! tG!kc a "'ack at it. ;'i! a::;k Bill Leb' and ;;o;i1pany to help me put something together.
Mark
Jane Lu\Jchenco wrote:
Jen, Bill. Mark and Steve"
Here is the shol.t text (bf:tOW) I started :'0 capture in a single paragraph for the oil budget document which
ag0ncies and other researchers ar.e doing what by way of monitoring and research. The trick is to do
jusriee to the diversity without having this become a huge laundry list. I've asked Bob Perciasepe to send
a few :::.eni:ences on '.Jvi',at EPA is doing. What is the best way to get comparable information from the other
relevant agencies? Marcia Mcl.J'utt is Ollt oftouch for the week Is Ann Castle the next best person?
Who would be best suitediable to reach out to DOl. DOE, and NSF to get a few sentences from each by mid
afternoon tomorrow?
Mark and Bi II EPA is declining to explain in the document just what dissolution is and how it differs from
dispt'mi(.II1. Can one r./you compose some language about that, or ask Steve's assistance in doing so?
NOAA w(,i:lnues to tral:\; the movem{~nt of the oil still on. the surface and in the water column. It will issue
daily surfaJ..e oil ti'8:jectones for as long as necess&l'Y and continue subsurface sampling to monitor the
concentration. disttibutivn and impact ofl)il tht:re. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command
to develop monitoring strategies for tar balls and near-shore submerged oil. DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to
retine undt:rstel1ding or amounts of remaining suriace oil. EPA continues to' monitor coastal air and water for
contaminant'), including dispersants and oil products, with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous
2
000049
NOAA- and j'-lSf'-funded ;:,.c;dcmic reseurc~lers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife
impacts, Ul..::ed om rr.;)nitming and research on wildlife; DOE?) ??
000050
______.c_~
__~__~
_____~mam_~____mmm.~~mmmu. .____a . . a____. ._____________________________________
Justin !::!I.nney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
,lane Lubchenc(, [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

Sunday, August 01, 20i 0 8:58 PM
J,=.nniferAustin@r'oaa.gov
FW' text on monit:)ring and research for pie chart document
From: Steve 1'-1urawski [mailtc:Steve.Murawskl@noaa.gov]
Sent: Sl",'(;'; \:, .l.ugust 01, 20:. . 07:29 PM

To: Jane Lut'chenco
C'!:: 'l"Iark.W.MiUer@noaa.gov, 'Jermifer..!\L!~:ti:':0!10c<l.gc\l'; 'Wiiiiam.Conner@noaa.gov'; 'margaret.spring@noaa.gov';
'ksal ri@doc.gov'
Subject~ Re: text on monito,:ng and resli:Ci:ch tG!' p,e chart document
Here are a rev,,' sentences re NSF. I can sC):;ialize them:

Academic researchers flli1deci by the Na112nal Science Foundation are examining a number of the aspects of the
oil budget ufld the effect~,t.1f submerged oil. NSF research has focused on the distribution and concentration of
de~p sul"'Y't:rge-tl oil and g"'f (ir. the form of methane hydrates), impacts on dissolved oxygen at depth and the
If,".e ,,)fbclC'.;'Ti,:,j COIllPU;:S;liol1. j"';-Sf is IJil1J!uing a ut:w r~:scarch effort involving two ships to examine these
aspects th~:I: is -seliO dep(l/'~ i'~1 rni,:f... .t\.ug:;~~
Jane Lubdicnco wrote:

Thanks i'4::1' !,' PI" pr"('e.""" ',' O""'''r'o "pI" r' rl'"'Niptbns as ycu i:Y"icated
The ~e>:~ ; ..i;~ft~-:-f~r NSF'~;,;,~'~~;ffi';8. ~~te'\I'~~';;~ Y~'~i think SQ"
add ~ore if needed,
- ' : ..
.. -I ...rI 'I<'!"
r."/h~
..Ii",,,, ....,I,,iC!1 and
d'lspers'lon mean and how they are d'ifferent..
I th ;"''''
'... ".1.
" ....
"'" --~
.'_ "'''.f''*''~
..... ~.~'-''':''''-0
'r"'- ".-.1-;')">
..... tc., ....... ' .............
, . . -: .. ~J.i"I:;:>\.'I...A.,
Cheers,
Jane
PI;
Jane Lubchenco
Under Secretary of Commer(;.~ for Oceans and Atmosphere
AdministrateI' of the Nation;.1 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(202) 48::2+33
Join me en :=a:::ebook:
WWW.fac... 90ok.com/noaa. iubchanco
------_. _._----
.. _.- ..... ---.- ...

-_.
From: Mark Miller ~mar~~w:mll~r@lnoaa.gov_:::.
To: Jane Lubchenco :;.Jan~.!:!"J.ibch~nco@llc@'tl_.g~...?:.
Cc: Jennl~2i ,.A.1.,stin(Cilno6a.,fllit <.ennj:(;r.l~u.:.ljjl~no<@....gpv>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.aov>; Steve
MUr~\'/5k :~:~:,;::s,,:!Juruw~!sIili.g:ia<.l.g,Jv~::~ l'la;garet.sQ;ingJi:n~a.gov <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; KriS Sam
(ksarri(a)(!o)(: (10\') ;S!:sarrii'l;'J~iC.goV>
------~--.
"
_.
000051
Sent: SV'1 ;:.)(; 01 :18:57:1'1 ?'Jl0
Subject: P.;;; text on mo<.'~'(,;J and research for pie chart document
1. Unless Bill has a strong desire ['II voluilteer to coordinate getting short descriptions from the other agencies
of their moni:oring and rf:fC'arch (I sit nex~ to USGS and 001). In particular I understand we want DOl, USGS,
and DOt: and the text is dir~ded toward oil and oil impact related work. Is that true?
Steve do you have a feel fc', NSF activities?
2. I am ::J II not complete!:, .:.ure what
l\ '" iSSi.ie with these are. Do we just define dissolution and dispersion
O!';: lhr '" "m: Ol:~'c.r Cjn.,':i:n 8bout the~-;( processes EPA feds we need to explain. Ifwe want basic definitions
I \\~.:
,: L",d, BI it : i; .. '::'.
:':.Ild co:npa,iy ta h:!Jp me put something together.
Mark
Jane Lu\:;clienco wrote:
Jen, BilL Mark and Steve.
Here is the ~hort .ext {b~:,ow) I slatted to capture in a single paragraph for the oil budget document which
agt~'(.;e3
and other re3~archers are doing what by way of monitoring and research. The trick is to do
the djv(~.;;:.J \v:th{)L,'t havi::g this become a. huge laundry list. I've asked Bob Perciasepe to send
a ;- _\'., . "..n-,:c,;;;,;;s Cit "it:i~ EPA is G\)ing., 'vVh2.l is the best way to get comparable information from the other
rekvdil dgc.rlcies'i Jl/iZ,h~ia ;v1d',hLt l~ (Ji.ll oftoilch f0i the week. Is Ann Castle the next best person?
Who would be best suited/able to reach (H.It to DO!, DOE. and NSF to get a few sentences from each by mid
afternoon tomorrow?
'
Mark and Bill EPA:3 declining to explain in the document just what dissolution is and how it differs from
dispe(sion. Can one OfYOli compose some language about that, or ask Steve's assistance in doing so?
jUS'.iC;; ~(I
NOAA \;l)\",l;lliltS to tnicJ.: the. movemf'n! .:.fthe oil still on the surface and in the water column. It will issue
daily surfli...e oii '(raicc~urlt;; ior as ~oni~ as necessary and continue subsurface sampling to monitor the'
conCI;1I 11 Ylui" distribmii'l\ ;:,I,d impact of ,',;: there. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command
to develop mOftitoring stra1t.:;gie& for tar bails and near-shore submerged oiL DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to
refine under~jtc.nding Or~\ili(!unts of rernaining surface oiL EPA continues to monitor coastal air and water for
contarninm:t:;, including ~ispersants and nil products, with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous
NOAA.. and ~~SF-funded ;jc!i(lei'(ticfe~~,~atchers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife
impacts. {need 001 I!1onit()ring and research on wildiife; DOE?) ??
:s
000052
__n_e_Y_____.__nm'______.mmm_m__.m_________________________________________________
Justin~~~I
From:
Sent:
Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.govj

Sunday, August 01,20107:09 PM
To:
Cc:
'r,.'.::rk.W.Miller@noaa.gov'
, .! 5" ,nifef.ALJs';in(r;.1oaa.gov'; 'WiHiam. Conner@noaa.gov'; 'Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov';
Subject:
'-;:arganet.spring@noaa.gov'; 'ksarri@doc.gov'
Q,:; te)(t on moni:or:ng a:ld research for pie chart document
Thanks. ~ii2:1~! Plz proceed 'N r.:etting short .jp.s~riptions as you indicated.
The text; drF./!ed for NSF 1"":8V suffice Steve do you thin!< so? Plz add more if needed.
I tt.i;)K vA .c:. ,5 ,.-":Eded is a sirn[Jie explanation of what dissolution and dispersion mean and how they are different.
Cheers.
Ja:.,.;.
Jane Lubcr1t!!]CC
Administrat0r oi the National Oceanic and 1':I.t'nospheric Administration

Jane
Lut(,:1!~rl:::o@no(:ja.g()v
(202) 4823436
Join me en Facebook:
www.facebr.ok.cominoaa.iu bcnp.nco
From: Mark Milier <mark.w.111iiler@noaa.go\!>

To: Jane L.bchenco <Jcme.Lul)chenco@noaa.gov>
Cc: Jenni'"e. Austin@noaa.gm/<Jennifer.P,us;::n@noaa.gov>; Wi!!iam Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Steve

Mlirawsk
':':~e"10.rllu'i.lwsld~~n.::laa.gov>; 1~1a:-9tlretspring@i1oaa.gov
<KS;:'Irri 0H .- r QOv""
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Kris Sarri
(ksarri@~:J~.(' ~C''.,)
Sent: Sun Aug 01 18:57:19 2010

Subject: Re: text on monit(xng and research for pie chart doc.ument
1. Unle&F. Dill has a stro;'jtl

I'll v{)h;".te~r to coordinate getting short descriptions from the other agencies
of their E:o;:itoring and r:~~!:'al'ch (I sit 1'1,:::,;1: i{) U;:;GS and DOl). In particular I understand we want DOl, USGS,
and DOE a;-,j ~ he text is di l,:(.teci tcvvarJ land 0:'1 impact related work. Is that true?
Steve dc' YOll have a reel for f,lSF activities'i

2. I ~.m ',l.:li ::!.It t::omr:lete:v !~lJre what EPA's. issue with these are. Do we just defme .dissolution and dispersion
there ~~;ime other questi ::'lJ about these processes EPA feels we need to explain. If we want basic definitions
I nm :akc a crack at it. I'll
Bill Leh E.mi cC'lnpany to help me put something together.
0:' i ~
Mark
Jane LU\Jc!Wi!( (} wlOte:
Jen, Bill. Mark and Steve.
short texl (t.r;'Q",,') J ~1talted ~(! ca.pt'.1re in a single paragraph for the oil budget document which
Here i
s.g1:Tli:il'::~ and o:her ,e~~~;m'ch(;:!rs ale r.\;:ng \\"1':at by '~'ay of monitoring and research. The trick is to do
j u.:.~~.;:; .:.:; l1~ .:!~ve;:,;::)' :a'tout
. h3.vbg this become a huge laundry list. I've asked Bob Perciasepe to send
/)
000053
a :.
"'0:
EPA is !.~:,: g. Vv'La.t is the best way to get comparable information from the other
'.,;,!(;ia ;;'lcNw, : " ~H]: "f touch felt" the week. Is Ann Castle the next best person?
best SU;!,cc'able l{) rta~h out to DOL DOE ..and NSF to get a few sentences from each by mid
;:<::p1ences cr
"Ii.! ,';.
rd'",~ ,1genc;e~':>
Who \Nor'lei
l)e
afterno(l'~ !': :110 iT(\\iV?
Mark :"'r' P,:!l - EPA i- dl~(:linipg to e),n 1:1in in the document just what dissolution is and how it differs from
rJit ',Pl' nn (~nn r"~.I:' (:'(VDt: (:'Jm~'Hl~:':' ~;0mE'1(Jngt~age about that, or ask Steve"s assistance in doing so?
NOAA (;(,ni.inues to track ',11.7 moveme:t the oil still on the surface and in the water column. It will issue
daily su;~;ijl:1.! oiluajeclo<c: ~0r as ~on):; ;.:,; 1itce~:>ary arid c.)ntinue subsurface sampling to monitor the
concelli! dw." t. disLribu1.;';)j'i ",;j imps(.t \J;
ther:;:, NO/\!. responders are working with the Unified Command
to devu.,p ,~<:d0i'ing s~ra\;';[~le~ llH lai' ~'(l\;S ilild nt:itr-;-:n,n'e submerged oil. DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to
ret1n,~ 1l!~0:::!S':;'.f!di!lg of PPc,',l!l1tS of n:,.r"I<:'.~',iDg surface oil. EllA continues to monitor coastal air and water for
COnt~1.:ilj.:~ . ,c>. iiiCI~ldiil?, :.: ,.;:);:~rsants an~1 ,,'J pr(),~'.lcts., V'i!',; special attention to human health impacts. Numerous
NOAf\- ,\." ','1c;F-f..;!":0,':: ,.,~J{!irl!':: 1"(:2.';, ':.i~~r~ .lr,~
gating rates ofbiodegrad.ation, ecosystem and wildlife
impacLi, , ... : ... DO; In'':':'~''~~:b J.lld [t;",t ;::l: Oli '""ildi;le; DOE?) ??
000054
Justin
t}!;nney
r"rLEII~&ftDCI:I!:~_""
__
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
.' ::oe LulJchenco [.}ane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

J.\u9ust ;j~, 2010 5:55 PM
_:-:r.nifer.Austin(Qnoaa.gov; William Conner; Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov; Steve Murawski
.,/ "rgar-et.sprin9(Y 10aa.gov; Kris Sarri (ksarri@doc.gov)
"(ext on rnonitorin;> :md research for pie chart document
From:
Sent:
~;"nday,
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jen, Bill, Mark and
Stev~~.
Here is the short text (below) r slan:xl to capture in a single pardgraph for the oil budget document which
ag:',,:';'=<' :md othe!~ ~CC:;~.1rcbers are d0ing what by way of monitoring and research. The trick is to do
jU"iH.:i; to lflt: diver:,;":' wi"tilOlll lWV\'T LfII:-:' Dtxomt: i:1 huge laundry list. I've asked Bob Perciasepe to send
a t;?'N ;5entences on v:i-."~ EP /. L; ({".>,;. \ii,'hf!t:$ t~le hest way to get comparable information from the other
rek','ant agencies? ":L~rcia McNtH.i: i:O Oilt (.ftouch tor the week. Is Ann Castle the next best person?
Who v,o'.,!d De best suitt'"(':(lhk to reHeh :1ut to DOL DOE, and NSF to get a few sentences from each by mid
aftt~moo!'"\ tomorrow?
2) Mnrk '::-lv! Bill- EPI.-, is declining to ;;xplain in the document just what dissolution is and how it differs
from dispersion. Can one of you compose some language about that, or ask Steve's assistance in doing
..,
so:
1)
[ra~L l;'{~ mO'H:iTlci1( ,;~l11e
oil si:ili on the sur.iace and in the water column. It will issue
daily Slir;a~:,; oil trajectnn" " ;',11' a:, ~(jj!g ,,:- :J;!Cf:::;saiY and continue subsurface sampling to monitor the
concent.?"~~-li",. disuibution ;::,(1 ;mr.ae; '.>;' ':.d tllere. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command
to devel;:.J '{10aitoring s~r:;',';:.>~; L)r t:';:i b<:~, and nea.r-shore submerged oil. DOr, NASA and NOAA continue to
refine uL"kr3,anding of s'n':'Vl!ls of"rel~,".;' ;:,g surface oiL EPA continues to monitor coastal air and water for
contal1li"h.':~:",r,c.:Judjr.g (;',(Krsants ar;,: ,:;] rrG.::ucts, with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous
NOAA- ..nd ;'\SF-funded c'.::adcrnic rt::it:i::l.fchers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife
impacts. (need 001 monito,ing and resf;:]rch on wildlife; DOE?) ??
NOAA '.:iJiJ1;nues to
000098
000099
De~'~;"
I, f"
! Comment [j1l1 Removal cflhis word may make
H orizf)n.!1:];l' r.HI U3ml'get-(.:':"1 ,,' '~.'!':

"Nliere .:1\,; ille oil gO?
; it clearer how this document is different from the oil

;'"-_____
tool.
___ ___ ____ __
.
~
The N"!!t\',,: !,: ic;enl Com\\':,,.I'l'HC) Hssemb/.;t1 S",;1(; urihe best scicnlilic minds in the government
and !l~d'''I':'1 ,:;;1 ~.;ienli!1c ': ." !' il1.y to nroduc ~ '1 I;::limall: "rhow m:dl oil has been skimmed,
burned. ':".1' ;:;I,,:d. cvaporal<.'; "':.' :'isp_:'.';,,:';. Th.!; +~vcic.pc.j a tool. ealh:d the Oil Budget Calculator to
dctcr:n! ',': ,:1"': lilt: nil wc:" r ~ nUllifiers
',':' ,1'!:':r. are based on best estimates of how much
. oil \Vtt~ :c":',:' .. i and ho'v thi; 1 i') nl0":ng tlfid <.k~r;F~ing~
">
:}f~~p1i'lc.ter l"~.::hil,~jn
.:j~:~;ed
on Budget
an 50,OGO !.'t!_ilreJs/doy [Iovv ratj~
.....~ ....\
Feder'al
\
",
I I',
IJ
-.11;
,;!h'.~::'
,. ~1~ I"~\'
~I!':'I"'"
Re$ponsc:
Operations
'\
\~
<:
\,
/
has happened to the oil.
Flow R.o :.. "'",; nil Ihdgel !.: ..... :h:~()r ~';l'~S wi:;', ,", ;::;~1m'~lc o!"~~le cllrt:l.1irJ.tive amount of oil released
over 1\1:: :~ .1l,r :c ollh,,: spill. i :., i :'I'::'1r:Cf is bf1!.l": ,"- r,ow rale eslin;lt\cs from I+he Flow Rate Technical
Group i ::rnn\, [Isscmblcd b:- :.1" i':anm~:ll Incide:,1 ~."'mnmnd. The- mos' r~cent estimate of the Flow
Rate TC'_:1;1:C.~: tiroup is tim! :!" ~ ',';',;i:lm'civ 4.4 .'1i:;~;!l hr.n.";. of oU !lowed from the Deepwater
I !('rl;,o:, i'I' ,vl;,ihC'lt'. tfJe u,.<','" ",,_: ,',:, til:,: '::" ,::,.. ,~ .'," ; ,'YOi,1 . I.::...;):\".\ Rat.: Technical Group.
",; '1". i";',J. TheJi~:" ,::;1iml![c,,; ~::l',i l':~ j :'!:. 1":(',';; rate rang,.:d j~om 62.000 barrels per day
on Apri: 1::.2010 to 53.000 1"0, ,"':Is perdayon.l ;:. ;~i. 20Ft at which 'ime the flow of oil was
suspend., T., c,:or,!SClll ill'. " 'I :)dcc::l 'I:';;;:I"L... ;!,. : i :n.; (.Im r'c1tc l:,!l'CJute, the Oil Budget Calculator
shows, ",,:,:or"')5. one 1m: c' . ,'1 :!Je l!\tin:LtcL i1 '.\ :l:lI.: p:t. '~en pen.::~;;t. referred to at the "higher
flow" ,. ,:d;:: .!I::J 01:<.: on C '. :.inJa1l::..l now r::',: '::;U$ ',:'::', :;:!rcent. rc!t:l1"ed to as the "lower flow"
c~timatt
~iL': ~~ ..: .;h~rt ab()\' '. h;:~c.;d on the hlgi~l :' !lev.' c~\trn:;~c.
._,~,,
,~
.'"_W_~~~_
_~
000100
;'(,i,S: Thc oil hue!:,:, ci:llcul:nions aI'C ba~cd on direct measurements

' .. possible and :;1>.: "i~,ll1V:l;i<lbk sCL',:;fic cSlimatcs \I'here measurements were not
n,;, i'dl1lbcrs for l!;r"':'.",;OWf\' und i~!i::!.': '.cre i:1I.:agured directly and reported in daily
Direct il!'as:;;','s antI: Best i- 'f!

>,ii''''''':
possible-
opcnni("l:,:i '-,',,('rls. The ski,,:'l in;~ numbe!"s Wt;l\' ,,:':" ba,d n:l daily reported estimates. The rest of the
numher:: ',,-,,re h:'lsed on pre,;'" ; scienti!il: an<liy~,~" i-cst C!\'ailabk inl(xillalion and a broad range of
scientifi; t:'P'::<:;c. These I' '.1:,,:;'~ wili cr,min",' I. '1': rdillcd based on udditional information and
further
Explatll:u'iml of !Findings
Federal f<e.\!>.'ii:ie F,fforls: H(::i':'l"~ Cm)rlS 10 tk'; .-:,111 oil have becn "ggressive. As shown in the pie
chart (Fi,.!)'C I i, response c!r':", '\'c,c s:zcce~Srl!; 'P .\~'ulillg \,vilh 32% of the spilled oil. This includes
oil thaI w,::: .,",!i'1.\lP~d dircctlv :'/,'.1 '1 Ihl! wcllht:ad IY'" ',ill' riser ni!)'~ inscrtion tube and top hat systems
(16%).
'~:;:i~:
't, :5%). skim.:':;'!,
skimmin'~ 1'l~:1Hl'iC
,';~{.) and (;hcr;;i.;.:: .1' ,pus,,; ... i S%). Din::.:t capture. burning and
the tiil 1'1'0:'" ."': hall:r .;r.,;rciy, ,\',,,.<:' ch~mi..:aliy disp,~rscd oil rt:malns in the water
colun)!! :1,:ii:t i.:. ;'''I~odc.;:gxad{:,;~ ',; Ji~~'CU3S~'d Cl~,t\; .~I.
Dispe;-s '(,'ii, l},,;"d 01:, ~still1,\,,"', it',% ,,r i,'!e (Jil . ~;:" h;,~.::d miHually i'lill the water column and 8% was
disper:;e,: ~,:, "~'C app.i<;alior, '"
Sr>,COO hi" 1'; ,: ,,;' eil,:,,,.,';;al dispe;~Nlts on and below the surface.
NaUll'<li ,hi"~ :r,;nn occurs as ;' ", ':;lil or! ,'c oil
o:;t c ;'I,;-,e broken riser pipe at high speed into the
water COiliiT, n. \.\hich CauscCi ';0'11(: uflhe oil to spra:.' off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the
dia"(,(;t(;1 Vi' <:i " ..un"'i hair). Ci'L,'i;cal disperSion :,',' .. ,:;".";'H';~"tl;d:... brellks the oil up into smaller droplets
which "':::ps ;: from com in%,', : :;i, .;,' in large surj<l'~'. ;did~s and makes it m~)re readily available for
blodegl:,,:3l:t'llL!.;':i:SC:S"::,: ..:,,~;;' i:l'}~:L
. ,.:
l'vluch o!
dinus~",
RCp0!1 '
to be ir.
r',: ":"J)..:rscd oill\:i~",,' ".': "ein\\' :hc su,t:,:;"
!:'rc'iloli;; analysc~; tiave shown evidence of

",:dispersed (I:' k,.\,.:.:;n 33,')\; i:i1!~j".:ilO l~i. \i.alUtioJl: \'t:;ucral Joint Analysis Group
:... : l!,ll2;ic.<.;!I\!i!" :, ::' \!',;":"j'!\ 'im,g~:',,!.; '" :, i..,:!'!.'>It>J'\mJ). ,Ii.S d<!scribed below. this oil appears
,(:'.1 ,','c
<'1K:
'i:'le p:\)CCSS ofnatur~, bi(ll:~grail1:'lio!l.
Evapor. li!,u: :( !.; ;:st;ma!cd :' ,:.' ?," ";" (;I'lile oi I \'\:'~.;"l<': quick;)' cvapOI':c.l.;J or di.;sulved into the water
columj', ; 1'1>:; $)lat;k comp.,;,.~:, (.l\,i, cvapo;',\..:, \,,~,; I;; ti',,: ;:omponcll(s .hat are not volatile dissolve
into the \b'.:" ~l.>lumn or form r<:,;,uues such oS u: h~;;:;. 'I'll!.! r;.:~iduaj i:; it. eluded in the category of
remainmg ,),: Ji:,.:uss~d ;,.::1,.", ',','.;.; $va~()raiio~1 !,!l,,' "slimalc is baset! on scientific research and
observli'.:oih ",f.)nciuc(ed du611i: . 1,: DCCj)w;Jtcr I If.; ';on,. incioCiiL DilIer.!l:! evaporation rates are used for
fresh oi: ,,;iiJ "cuthercd oil~:l r:c,l'\dc the Oos! <:'(,C"fi:IC nllmb,:r.
Rem1inillg: ;.. !kr aCl.!olJntin~ ... j' I'!~l'(ivery (l;"Cr:Ji;' ;<',;. cherI' ;~il'! and nalill'al dispersion and evaporation,
an eslin:aIC(1 :1'; "/0 remains, !,,:, oil IS I;;tllcra; 11;,. ::;jJ fa . . c <:.~'hght she.;n or weathered tar balls, orithas
b~odcgr;..hi.:.ll
I.;
alrt~ad'y COlni.. :\"::,~'dt"' .~ !.~ Vl~.\.~!j; t~i~,!
/Jioril!J{I',l'{'I'ir)11:
i)ispcrscd n:i > n.e wa(cr wi"",!" ,,'1(l :;UI'~',,;C oil a"e naturally biodegraded. Naturally
havc oon:.l :, ";'.. and biodcgru/.ktf :l ~;gni!i.;!II1t amollnt .)1' the oil. Bac';eria that break
occurril;~: bi:.:!er1<i
000101
down thl.' ,.ii:;;oers<!d and WC<I".:r,J wrft.cc nil arc

":' ahundant in th: Gulf of Mexico in large part
because ,/r"" ,',mn water 1b.:r,:. iilt.: j;l\'orable nul'icl1! and oxygen lev<!k and the fact that oil enters the
Gul r 01' Hcxic() through nalm.d '.~Cj)S r':gl:larly. \1..:'1':,: ',hen! is more analysis to be done to quantifY the
exact !"<1'." ",J'hioj,:gradation i: .... ,.. (;ull: early i!".:i,:::!iu~s a"'~ that tht.: oil !"rom this well is biodegrading
quickly.
Conchls',I/i: in summary. hllm'n2. skimmi!1g and direct recovery from lr.,~ wellhead removed roughly
one quancr ::i'.he ';.o')..Lu.-'~;I''''
.: oii. J\rlJund a lw,,rl~r orthe total naturallY evaporated or dissolved
and less 'h~;11 01':': quarter di:,n:rs,::i (either natun.:l!:. I),' as a r.::sult of oper,ltions) into Gulfwaters. The
remaining a'l1o~;nt..il!st over ,',n,: '.~1Ia;1cr is either t'n II, ..; sul"fuce. in tar ha!ls. on the shore. already
removed !rem iii': shore or b:" '.,:"" hiodegraded.
>: .:,: ~}~ ~:".:J.i i:-~ r

.; ~ LUI)i..:; ii.J,,:: 1:: .
:\ .'~"; .: ',\:;, /_ ~:~~'. '. ~ ;~;.:-;Jlf:'.; . .:.::~.1.i.~ .. ~:~~:.i.!\l:"':~_~ljc a1ld irLll~f~~I1(lt:nl s('ierltists
.:: :',)1; 14~: !"\ili.'; ,.j.. : ;i".~~!.':1 ~t; .:u.}i-L ;~!.!l '~)~.!. ~!Jb..~_~~iJ~~f~lh.;ral
'c; 1, '"
,., ..... ".
''''
j.,:"
in
:k'. i";',';': a'~... ~')";.l ;!~.[l.<'~>ihl..;" ..c..@d !ink
to track the 11"!('vement ofthe n;";"'i';!lHgoil.~il!l~D...1.ll'...)!j1"lacc and in ihe water

h will ;5:;UC daily :;'.ii';;.. (:,; 'Jil trajectories ler ',;s iO.1g a:. necessary and continue subsurface
samplii",g :.,:; ll1onitor the conc<.:!,J ~:l.iun .. ui5tributio; .nd impact of oil tlJl:r:::.l.?Or. l\:"\S"\.<IDd NOAA.
'2n1 ; i 1.!~~.:::, :.:..:..:.~~,~~.lL::; . h~l.~L;,;)~,u~..!.:'.:; .: :~::..~: ,:~...l!.r!lQ.~.l~,~~L~,\~l..:,,,( .i :.Li. !.Ug..:,?..:..l.!:jh~'~:~~~h"~~)/,,:\ rt:'~p\ "1~ili~Ii.Hre \vorking
illlhjl.~.. .: .~. j~~:.:",,~.i'!n)..!,.i..llU.bL:. ,,:...:.:" ~ ~..;":.~e_D..~.lLI.L\lIj.r.h .......t.i>i.~h'l~. ~..;'.~!I..1j.v~i.u.L~.,,:,~.ill..Jl~f.tL"! H ~r<;_i~.!l1~rQ:ed oj l.
NOAA
,::ol'linllc~;
~gl\ln!3).
?:i~!I.P.~.!~.~:' ~ ~ \, ~ :'. :\.:7,_~I!5LN..).j . <;. ;'::.1 ;E~~~::~:~.~1.~.i:.:, 1. :~>..:: : . ~ ~.;~t~jJ,~::';.. .i~ :~.:;.:5..!.~S..:.~IJ;.! 11,IDJ'_::Ul!J~Q9.~g.Ia~!ffiil1TI:.
eC(}~"~).i:.. ~:. " :'j~;,., :..j,blLi.C~:llJ.JJ> l.
;', i .. ;,;. -,~,. ;::,;.-:!~(.~.l .. :~:~. -: !:".~~~?i:;-:i Flf.!:-~'~;'~::-+;kt,:'ttt+t~4..Ff>ffHBitHtHt) develop
+itS1-l.j.+Hr~:l ,:- ~ :F~tL.':::=f~~-+(*"h'H' :'.... \' ;', ,: :+t_~,,~};,:,:;.r'~~H~"-~ .~~:;i~ .~~'2,:::;~'~.~ ...,:}it."U2i~tT:~~ . ~1i ti.'fi Ilg.:lI1d 1'C'scarel, on
wil\JE!':
Even tb{;~!gh tlK threat to sk""c::"'~:;. fish and W!::~lil';. and ~t.:osystel1ls ha:; decreased since the capping
ofthe B!' \V,~!lhcad. federal sci':,!l ists remain ext"e::"~!Y concerned about !he impact of the spill to the
Gulf eeL''''Y,;,,'!;!, Fully ,JIldt:,:i;,." 1::i1g (be impacts "I' ~his spii, on wildlij~~. habitats. and natural resources
in the (;,11: :.:g.;r,;, wiil Lake,: ,',,' ",1;] continued il"lC'!liloring :.'lTHj research.
Attachments
Appendbi {',! D~ep\\iater He:;,:';:i Culrincidenl 8uJg..:t Tool Report from July 30, 2010. contains
detaik-d '::\I'b~ati()n of cale'.. ';,'i,', 'nelhotis. The. (Oil: was cil:ated by !he '..is Geologicai Survey in
collabor. ,ti 0 , \':;(h US Coast'.,;. Jrlt NOA A. and Ni~T.
Note: T!',: a,lll,:h,:d report (/\rp.,'Ji); A) cnr!ain>, '::"!~ndrk~:l images. wh1::h are an alternate way of
reprcsl!!lii',g tlil: same nurnh::"':;I; lile pi..; \;r.:in 1:,;'.;'. ,. BO'ih images in the attachment combine the three
catcgorj,:, 0" ch':J11iCally disp;,;!:,,,,,i. nat,lra!,)- di5p~J:;':L!. and cVdporated 0, dissolved. into one colored
segmeiit \'11': Image 011 pag" ,'.!11: of !\pp';ndix ;\ '.. ;'.::, Iht: high;;r now ;',itt;; estimate. which is the same
as the P',: "\>;''-i lIsed abovt:. ,i, ..: ;",<I!!:c ,',11 page !h',.:,.' d~CS E.e IOWei flow rate estimate.
r--------_ ___. . __________
. i Comment liZl: Needs to be refined, so is
j balanced and comprehensive, bu. not a lengthy
~~ry liS!: ____ ._. ___ ._.___ _____.__'
000102
000103
Deepi ,',-::er Horizon/m l Oil BudgeH,::'Hj;:''';-Ia1{H':

Where did llie oil go?
Ap!)CIHHx B: /I.
~;:('owil'dgeme[Jts
AuthQ[',
.lane LlI:,dl';,;';u. NOAA. DO',:

Marcia fVi..:NlHI. lJSGS. DOl
William :":1'lt:!'. NOAA. [)fie
Mark S.l!,!gc. lJ~,(JS. DOl
Stephen' !a:llnl lnd. USGS. '~:():
'hl'.j',i
j,/lack (USGS) ,. : ,,',id application d,,:"<;"iDper
.'-:If .'elkn (USGS) - !;':,:(:,l~e d;,:;;ign'~r

!}i:: ;,.:111 (NOAA) - ; .,:;;,d Illass halance and oil budgct scientist
l.<..T>lt Lance Linc.Jgr'~i1 "lI'd CDR Pcter HolTman ([JSCG) - Application requirements
~;.':':; I
i;,:\c. Kent M\"'~,!<'1. Kcvin Laurent. <tnd Jerry McFaul (USGS) - Technical advisors
a,-is.ol ar,d Tim Ke:T, \ USGS} - Projcc< ;,;sion and management
\,~, ",;'dllagher and :;l;,;"ha Garcia (USGS) - Executive sponsr,!'s
~,;,:-
The folic', ii:',g ::';pcrts were ,;,." ,:i:,..:d on the oil be dg~i calculations. cOJ1irihuted tield data. suggested
for'Tlu,"~' Hll:,dy~is l11ethod<, ",' ",,';\'W'~::llhe HI!'.c)' :;;11'1" 'ISl"d ;:1 the caiculalor. The team continues to
refine th: ;'\:1;:".lysis and this lh.:::inc:nt will fJe lIpd~,!('(; <Ie; aDI:"GDTiate.
l'cd~ral
Scientists
,;;j, I.cil,. NOAA

l<chc;\ .:oiles. 'NCJA/\
! .. c:',.c";li,\ Possolo. NII.;'I
i :'~~:!;':J!;!",nt 5.fJemi;l:,:
hl'n Goodman. U. of' ..:l.,.:ary
/\i Allall. SpilTec
,hlln.;:; Payne. Payne Ell".
,'(,m Conlbaugh. E,,-;.-,,, ,d,)hil
!Cd On::n,ln. LSU
",I",,'
L:.Ishera~. UCSL~
Mcrv I:ingas. Env.

.'\ I ~
~.~;:l~ ~i I"Ci.
I:'~:
! ,:inhert Ell\,.
;:,\!ing. SIJ'..
.''';1
En v.
Carm~ldr;::t)
Cal1~;i3'J
C:.l~1:1~~.!
nor
~,li,:;:,:1 n':lUradl~l_
Ie!,.pk Univ.
000120
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Saturday, July 31, 2010 6: 15 PM
'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'margaret.spring@noaa.gov'; 'William.Conner@noaa.gov';
'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'; 'Sgilson@doc.gov'; 'KGriffis@doc.gov'; 'ksarri@doc.gov';
'Pshah@doc.gov'
Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
Mark - thx for this. I agree we should mirror the tool language. Feel free to modify the changes I made accordingly.
I agree with your solutions on each of the other points.
#1) It would be disingenuous to combine chemically and naturally dispersed categories under the guise of greater
certainty. Combining them does not remove any uncertainties. And I believe we owe it to everyone to provide the best
estimates we can where direct measurements are not possible. We also need to be forthright about how certain we are
about each number, which we've done. We have provided numbers for lumped categories in the text, so readers can see
both lumped and split categories.
#2 I agree this distinction can be better explained and would welcome their suggestions.
#3) I agree with your points and think your text addresses this well.
Mark/Jen - plz address Kris' comments in the next draft.
In view of your upcoming call and the need for the scientists to resolve the scientific issues, I'll hold off on sending the
document until we have text that reflects the above points.
Thanks to all!
Jane
Jane Lubchenco
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Jane. Lubchenco@noaa.gov
(202) 482-3436
www.facebook.com/noaa.lu bchenco
From: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>

To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; William Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott Smullen <Stott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov)
<Sgilson@doc.gov>; Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov) <kgriffis@doc.gov>; Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov)
<KSarri@doc.gov>; Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov) <Pshah@doc.gov>
Sent: Sat Jul 31 17:57:582010
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: 011 budget tool update - coordination]
Dr. Lubchenco,
Steve Hammond (USGS on IASG) just called and we (USGS, UCSG, and NOAA) will be having a conference
call shortly to discuss several topics about the tool. They are proceeding now with the tool in in present
configuration (two scenarios) using the flowrate from the graphic +10% as the "High Flow" rate and - 10% as
the "Low Flow" rate. Jen and I discussed this earlier and thought that we would just mirror how they described
the flow rate (use as similar words as possible) and then use the "High Flow" numbers for the pie chart as we
have done.
1
000121
In addition, the call is supposed to.address questions raised by EPA EP A suggestes in the interest of getting these out this weekend that we:
1) combine natural and chemical into one category of dispersed oil on charts and in narrative.
I already gave feedback to Steve that it is important to keep them separate because we can better
describe the response impact while still being able to include them in the biodegradation statement.
2) clear up the dissolution and dispersion potential confusion with some additional explanation.
I am not sure what this means.

3) if no estimate can be made of biodegradation at least have a robust discussion about it both in terms of oil
that will remain in marshes to be biodegraded and in terms of our expectations and evidence of the dispersed oil
subsea.
I will share our statements on biodegradation. I would like to stay away from rates (or any time
estimates) in this document. I will also say that most likely there will be a follow-on document that
focuses on biodegradation and includes rates as they get developed and refined.
Mark
Jen and Mark - good job!
My modifications to Mark's/Jen's version .are attached as track changes in one doc and a
clean version labeled 5.30pm.
We can circulate it more broadly as is (clean versionl, but will need to make final
changes based on a new Appendix.to come from the GS group.
I've not been able to reach McNutt by phone or email.
I will send it to McNutt, Chu and Perciaseppe with a note about the changes.
Mark please see if you can find out when the GS group will have a new Appendix.
Jane
-----Original Message----~
From: Mark Miller [mai lto:rrtark.w.m i ller@noaa.qov]
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 4:01 PM
To: Jennifer Austin
Cc: Margaret Spring; William Conner: Scott Smullen: Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
(SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (.!5:g..!.!Jfis@doc ...9:9v) i Kristen Sarri (doc)
(KSarri@doc.qov); Parita ShahIPshah@doc.qov)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination)
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the latest copy (prior to final numbers from the Oil Budget tool). As soon as you
provide the okay my understanding is that Kris will forward to Bob Perciasepe and Marcia
McNutt. Then as soon as the Oil Budget tool team completes their update then Jen and I
.will update our document and send it on to continue with the clearance process.
Mark
2
000122
Jennifer Austin wrote:
Apologies, attached is the latest document.
Margaret
wrote:
If anyone else needs to be on the call, we have a different call

in
number than I sent outlet me know.
From: Jennifer Austin [~ennif~r:Austin@no~~~q~~]

To:
Spring
Cc: Mark Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchencoi
Shannon Gilson (SGilson@dcc.:wv); Kevin Griffis
(~~.:~-~.~~~-~-.
(doc) (KSarri@do(;. gov); Parita Shah
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update I can be on at 2 pm.
Will send the latest document
Margaret Spring wrote:
Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with

Jane, Mark, Jen,
Bill Conner on this? 2 pm?
She wants to understand what was agreed to at EPA

last night. And
work out why this is a better approach than the bar
chart idea, but
try to work on better representing uncertainty.
Then we need to loop in Marcia, then Heather, and
then if we are on
the same page, go back to EPA with a revision and how
we tried to
work on their concerns.
Jane is available between now (lpm) and 5 EST
we do 2 pm?
Mark -
- can
do we have a call-in we can use?
From: Margaret Spring [margaret.spring@noaa.gov]

To: Mark Miller; Margaret Spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen;
Jane Lubchenco;
Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis
Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov): Parita Shah
(Pshah@doc.gov)
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update coordination]
3
000123
Mark - want to make sure you have these ocmments from
USGS and EPA
(HQ)
Marcia McNutt said that whatever EPA and NOAA work
out on how
dispersed oil is handled, pIs communicate to Sky
Bristol and Mark
Sogge
Adm Jackson said : (1) she \-1as concerned about the
level of
certainty implied in the pie and cylinder charts
(adding to 100%)
and suggests instead bar chart with ranges for each
bar instead
-(Jane, let's discuss what to make of this - are we
going with a
non-pie chart?);
(2) she said Al Venosa did not revierw the
calculations for the oil
budget calculator till last night so she is concerned
about listing
him as a reviewer (this one you should probably check
with Alan) :
Note we will need to vet the product with EPA HQ
(Perciasepe) to
clear. When can we send it over?
.,.
From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 11:45 AM
To: Margaret Spring
Jane Lubchenco;
Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis
(kgriffis@doc.gov) ;
Kristen Sar~i (doc) .~~~~~~~_,; Parita Shah
(Pshah@doc.gov)
-Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw; Oil budget tool update coordination]
Margaret,
Bill and I have talked several times this morning so
I feel that we
have captured all his thoughts (his and Al Venosa
from EPA). He and
Al talked multiple times last night going over the
methodology (AI
apparently was giving a presentation this AM to
someone). Bill sent
me an email at midnight PDT and then called my at
3:00 AM PDT.
have sent Jennifer a marked up copy of the doc and we

are poised to
4
000124
enter the new numbers from the updated Oil Budget
tool which is
presently targeted to be done approximately 2:00 PM
EDT. We will
also update the Oil Budget Report which is included
as an appendix.
I am in regular communication with the USGS Oil
Budget team. The one
outstanding question is the appropriate level of
QA/QC from NIST (Dr.
Possolo). NIST performed the statistical analysis
which provides the
Upper and Lower Confidence lines in the Oil Budget
Report. Bill Lehr
is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and address
this. Bill is on
his way to the Sand Point facility in order to set up
for the FRTG
meeting starting in approximately an hour.
Mark
Circling in shannon, parita, kevin, kris
Also, what is timeline for incorporating

those changes?
From: Margaret Spring

To: Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin;
Margaret Spring; William Conner;
Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool
update - coordination]
Mark,
Jennifer-
there were conversations about changes to

the oil budget document
between epa (paul anastas) and noaa (bill
lehr) last night related
to the dispersed oil and pie charts.
Are you in that loop and is that document
being reworked at your end?
From: Mark Miller

[mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 11:00 PM
To: Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring;
William Conner; Scott Smullen
5
000125
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool .update
coordination]
So it looks like we should have a new Oil
audg~t tool report and
numbers for the
chart tomorrow
afternoon.
Mark
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications & External Affairs
202-302-9047
www.noaa.qov
~"'w>-J. climate. gl)V
Ivl'M. facebo:)k. ,.:':olll!n ,:.a a . lubchenco
>
000126
Justin~~t,"ey
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
.
Jane Lubchenco [Jane.lubchenco@noaa.govl
Saturday, July 31,20105:27 PM
Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin
Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc,gov); Kevin
Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov); Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov); Parita Shah
(Pshah@doc.gov)
RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
Oil Budget description 7 31 v 4pm (2).docx JL.docx; Oil Budget description 731 v 5.30 pm (2)
docx.docx

My modifications to Mark's/Jen's version are attached as track changes in one doc and a clean
version labeled 5.38pm.
We can circulate it more broadly as is (clean version), but will need to make final changes
based on a new Appendix to come from the GS group.
Jane
--- -Original Message----From: Mark Miller [mailto:mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]
To: Jennifer Austin
Cc: Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
(SGilson@doc.gov)j Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov); Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov);
Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
Dr. Lubchenco,
"McNutt. Then as soon as the Oil Budget tool team completes their update then Jen and I will
update our document and send it on to continue with the clearance process.
Mark
> Apologies, attached is the latest document.
>
>
>
> Margaret Spring wrote:
If anyone else needs to be on the call, we have a different call in

------------------~~--~------~~
From: Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
7
000127
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Mark Miller; William Connerj Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchencoj
Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov)j Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov);
Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov)j Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
I can be on at 2 pm. Will send the latest document shortly.
> Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane, Mark, Jen,
> Bill Conner on this? 2 pm?
>
> She wants to understand what was agreed to at EPA last night. And
> work out why this is a better approach than the bar chart idea, but
> try to work on better representing uncertainty.
>
> Then we need to loop in Marcia, then Heather, and then if we are on
> the same page, go back to EPA with a revision and how we tried to
> work on their concerns.
>
> Jane is available between now (lpm) and 5 EST - can we do 2 pm?
>
> Mark - do we have a call-in we can use?
>
>
> ------------------------------------From: Margaret Spring [margaret.spring@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 12:59 PM
> To: Mark Miller; Margaret Spring
> Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchencoj
> Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov);
> Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov)j Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
>>>
> Mark - want to make sure you have these ocmments from USGS and EPA
>>> (HQ)
>>>
> Marcia McNutt said that whatever EPA and NOAA work out on how
> dispersed oil is handled, pIs communicate to Sky Bristol and Mark
> Sogge
>>>
> Adm Jackson said : (1) she was concerned about the level of
> certainty implied in the pie and cylinder charts (adding to 108%)
> and suggests instead bar chart with ranges for each bar instead
> -(Jane, let's discuss what to make of this - are we going with a
> non-pie chart?)j
>
> (2) she said Al Venosa did not revierw the calculations for the oil
> budget calculator till last night so she is concerned about listing
>>> him as a reviewer (this one you s~ould probably check with Alan):
>
> Note we will need to vet the product with EPA HQ (Perciasepe) to
> clear. When can we send it over?
)
>
>>>
8
000128
>
> ------------~--~--~--~~~~----
> From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Saturday. July 31, 2919 11:45 AM
> To: Margaret Spring
> Cc: Jennifer Austinj William Connerj Scott Smullen; Jane Lub~hencoj
> Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov)j Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov)j
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Margaret,
Bill and I have talked several times this morning so I feel that we
have captured all his thoughts (his and Al Venosa from EPA). He and
Al talked multiple times last night going over the methodology (AI
apparently was giving a presentation this AM to someone). Bill sent
me an email at midnight PDT and then called my at 3:99 AM PDT. I
have sent Jennifer a marked up copy of the doc and we are poised to
enter the new numbers from the updated Oil Budget tool which is
presently targeted to be done approximately 2:ge PM EDT. We will
> also update the Oil Budget Report which is included as an appendix.
>
> I am in regular communication with the USGS Oil Budget team. The one
> outstanding question is the appropriate level of QA/QC from NIST (Dr.
> Possolo). NIST performed the statistical analysis which provides the
) Upper and Lower Confidence lines in the Oil Budget Report. Bill Lehr
> is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and address this. Bill is on
> his way to the Sand Point facility in order to.set up for the FRTG
> meeting starting in approximately an hour.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
Circling.in shannon. parita. kevin. kris
Also, what is timeline for incorporating those changes?
----------------~------------------From: Margaret Spring

To: Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner;
Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
Mark,
Jennifer-
there were conversations about changes to the oil budget doeument

between epa (paul anastas) and noaa (bill lehr) last night related
Are you in that loop and is that document being reworked at your end?
------------------------------------9
000129

Sent: FridaYJ July 30, 2010 11:00 PM
To: Jennifer Austinj Margaret Springj William Connerj Scott Smullen
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
So it looks like we should have a new Oil Budget tool report and
numbers for the pie chart tomorrow afternoon.
Mark
Jennifer Austin
282-302-9847
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
>
10
000130
000137
I DRAFT 7.31v 4 pm (lL comments)

Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget Calculator:
Where did the oil go?
The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled some orthe best scientific minds in the government
and independent scientific community to produce an estimate of how much oil has been skimmed,
burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed. They developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator to
determine where the oil went. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much oil was Ieleased
and how this oil is moving and degrading.
~~"".~",
,_".,
~_.
____
~~
___
.~,,
__
_ . "
,.~
___
~~~".
....
_.~,_~.'-
_ _ _
_.
m'_"'~'''"~
._~
.. ___ .... _
.. , .... _. ""'.'"
~.~,._,,_
,. ___ .......... __ ., _____ ,_,"_
~w~.,,
___

Based on 60,000 barrels/day flow rate
/""\,
fed.ral
\\,
ItRe-rnainlng oil i~ either at
the surfacl$.' as light s.heen

"rw.. th~,.d la, bali'_
Response
Operations
\\.-/
ha:!l been 1:;'!I\)d.;~rJdt:d, 01
has iih eady (;OI1lE- iI!Jhore.
Skimmed
3%
:)
'- c,fle"",,,,IV Di,persp.d

8~"
.. ...
~"
~.-"
.."
-'~,""".~,"--.,
..
~~
~~~-",~"",
.. ..- , - ,..
~
-~".-~.~-.~~~-
..--...
--~-.~~.--
.~~~.,- .,,"~~
.. ,.
Figure I: Oil Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oil.

Flow Rate: Thl'; Flow Rate Technical GI'OUp (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command,
estimates that approximale1y 4.9 m (+ 10%) harrds of ali !lowed as ofJu[y [S. bet-weet~tiHffi.A
i3~ls()f o.ilhael beee I'elea~ed from the Deepwater HorizonIBP wellhead. They estimate that the daih'
tlaw:rateranged thllll 53,000 to 62.000 bun'cls pCI' dB". wilh declining now "vel' those days, ~
tld",l'late estimates Bre 35.(lOO to 60,000 Barrel:. ofoil ~er sa)'. The oil budget tool calculations are based
o,n:XXXX numbers (range or number) the graphic above is based on the high estimate of 60,000 barrels
of oil per clay,
Direct Measures versus Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based on direct measureinents
where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The
numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports.
The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest orlhe numbers were
000138
based on previous scientific analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific
expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based on additional information and further
analysis.
EXplanation of Findings
Federal Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with oil have been aggressive. As shown in the pie
chart (Figure I), response efforts were successful in dealing with 32% of the spilled oil. This includes
oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systenis
(16%), burning (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct capture, burning and
skimming remove the oil from the water entirely. while chemically dispersed oil remains in the water
column until it is biodegraded, as discussed below.
Dispersion: Based on estimates, 16% of the oil dispersed naturally into the water column and 8% was
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants on and below the surface.
Natural dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns the
diameter of a human hair). Chemical dispersion also deliberately breaks the oil up into smaller droplets
which keeps it from coming ashore in large surface slicks and makes it more readily available for
biodegradation.
l'vIuch&)m~t-it)H of the dispersed oil remained below the surface. Previous analyses have shown
evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis
Group Report 1 and 2, hllp:/!ecowlllch.llcddc.lloaagov/JAG/reports.hlml). As described below. Ihis oil
!ill12~!'!IJQJ)e in Ihe !]!J~~;;iQfl.lill1i)}).Lbjj~k:gm)jl\liD!1,
Evaporation: It is estimated that 25 % ofthe oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
column. The volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are not volatile disilolve
into the water column or form residues such as tar balls. The residual is included in the category of
remaining oil discussed below. The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific research and
Remaining: After accounting for recovery operations, chemical and natUral dispetsidn and evaporation,
an estimated 27 % remains. This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has
biodegraded or already come ashore.
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and surface oil are naturally biodegraded. Naturally
occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the oil. Bacteria that break
down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part
because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the
Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is more analysis to be done to quanti IY the
exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the oil from this well is biodegrading
quickly.
000139
Conclusion: In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed roughly
one quarter of the oi I. Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated or dissolved and less than one
qua11er dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) into Gulf waters. The remaining amount,
just over one quarter is either on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore. already removed fi'om the shore
or has been biodegraded.
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oil. It will issue daily surface oil trajectories
for as long as necess~ry and continue subsurface sampling to monitor the concentration,--R+ltl-distribution
and impact of oil there. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command to develop
monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oil.
Even though the threat to shorelines. fish and wildlil~. and CCOS\'slcms -has decreased since the capping
of the BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concel11ed about the impact "rIlle spill to the
Gulfecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats. and natural resources
in the Gulfregion will take time and continued monitoring and research.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulflncident Budget Tool Report from July 28, 2010. contains
detailed explanation of calculation methods. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in
collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NIST.
Note: The attached report (Appendix A) contains cylindrical images, which are an alternate way of
representing the same numbers as the pie chart above. Both images in the attachment combine the three
catgorie.s of chemically dispersed, naturally dispersed, and evaporated or dissolved,into one colored
segment. The image on page one of Appendix A uses the high flow rate estimate of 60,000 barrel/day,
whlQhis the same as the pie chart used above. The image on page three uses the low flow rate estimate
of35,000 barrels/day.
fc;';;:';;:~t[ji~;~;;;~f~~ITRG~s-d~~i~;~;;s
I today: we should include only one estimole and
l figure, i.e. that for either 60 000 or one for 58,000

1
Appendix B: Acknowledgements
i (unless lb. Budgel Team Ihink, they should do
! 53.000 and 462,000 in which case Ihal', fine. We

\l~1 need it as~ ... __ ._
.. ,
000140
"

.. Where did the oil go?
Apl)endix B: Acknowledgements
Authors
Jane Lubchenco, NOAA, DOC
Marcia McNutt, USGS, 001
William Conner, NOAA, DOC
Mark Sogge, USGS, 001
Stephen Hammond, USGS, 001
Credits
The following scientists were involved in developing the Oil Budget Cafculator tool:
Jeff Allen (USGS) Interface designer
Bill Lehr (NOAA) - Lead mass balance and oil budget scientist
LCDR Lance Lindgren and CDR Peter Hoffman (USCG) - Application requirements
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) - Technical advisors
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (USGS) Project vision and management
Kevin Gallagher and Martha Garcia (USGS) - Executive sponsors
The following experts were consulted on the oil budget calculations, contributed field data, suggested
formulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The team continues to
refine the analysis and this document will be updated as appropriate.
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Antonio Possolo, NIST
Ron Goodman, U. of Calgary
AI Allan, SpilTec
James Payne, Payne Env.
Tom Coolbaugh, Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv Fingas, Env. Canada(ret)
Ali Khelifa, Env. Canada
Pat Lambert, Env. Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
Michel Boufadel, Temple Univ.
000141
DRAFT 7.31v 4 pm (JL comments)

Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget Calculator:
Where"did the oil go?
The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled some of the best scientific minds in the governnlent
determine where the oil went. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much oil was released

"'Remaining oil i~ either at
the surface as light sheen

or weathered tar ball~.
has been biodegraded. or
has already come a~hore"
~!:::~se
\.:perations
5% 7\
SkimmE'd
3%
Chemically Di$persed
8%
Figure 1: Oil Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oil.
FlqwRa(e: The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command,
e~t@.~ws that approximately 4.9m ( 10%) barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonlBP
we1l11~1:ld. They estimate that the daily flow rate ranged from 53,000 to 62,000 barrels per day, with
d~.plinihgflow over those days. The oill>udget tool calculations are based on XXXX numbers (range or
nilinbe.r)the graphic above is based on the high estimate of 60,000 ban-els of oil per day.
Direct Measures versus Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were
000142
analysis.
chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 32% of the spilled oil. This includes
oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systems
skimming remove the oil from the water entirely, while chemically dispersed oil remains in the water
Dispersion: Based on estimates, 16% of the oil dispersed naturally il).to the water column and 8% was
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns the
diameter of a human hair). ChemiCal dispersion aiso deliberately breaks the oil up into smaller droplets
biodegradation.
Much of the dispersed oil remained below the surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of
diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group
Report 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.htm1).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
to be in the process of natural biodegradation.
Evaporation: It is estimated that 25 % of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
column. The volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are not volatile dissolve
Remaining: After accounting for recovery operations, chemical and natural dispersion and evaporation,
Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the
exact rate of biodegradation in the Gull, early indications are that the oil from this well is biodegrading
quickly.
one quarter of the oil. Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated or dissolved and less than one
000143
quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) into Gulf waters. The remaining amount,
just over one quarter is either on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already removed from the shore
for as long as necessary and continue subsmface sampling to monitor the concentration,distribution and
impact of oil there. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command to develop monitoring
strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oil.
Even though the threat to shorelines, fish and wildlife, and ecosystems has decreased since the capping
of the BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact of the spill to the
Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources
in the Gulf region will take time and continued monitoring and research.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool: Report from July 28, 2010, contains
collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NIST:
categories of chemically dispersed, naturally dispersed, and evaporated or dissolved, into one colored
which is the same as the pie chart llsed above. The image on page three uses the low flow rate estimate
of 35,000 barrels/day.
000144
Deepwater HorizonfBP Oil Budget Calculator:

Authors
Marcia McNutt, USGS, DOl
Mark Sogge, USGS, DOl
Stephen Hammond, USGS, DOl
Credits
The following scientists were involved in developing the Oil Budget Calculator tool:
David Mack (USGS) Lead application developer
LCDR Lance Lindgren and CDR Peter Hoffman (USCG) Application requirements
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) - Teclmical advisors
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (USGS) - Project vision and management
fonnulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The team continues to
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robeli Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
000149
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.goY]

Thursday, July 29,20109:13 PM
Mark Miller
'jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; margaret.spring@noaa.gov
RE: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
This captures them. I hadn't seen this version. Thanks! Looks good to go.
Jane
From: Mark Miller [mailto:mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 29,20108:52 PM

To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: 'jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'
Subject: Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
The version that Jelmifer just sent (Oil Budget description 7 29 v 7.doc) should have your comments
incorporated and the percentages from the pie chart entered into the text of the document. Did we miss some?
Mark
Who is making the changes I requested (plugging in #s) to the document?
Jane Lubchenco
Administrator of the National Oceanic and,Atmospheric Administration
Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov
(202) 482-3436
WWIN. face book. comfnoaa.lubchenco

To: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Cc: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>i 'Jane.lubchenco@noaa.qov'
<Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>i 'wiliiam.conner@noaa.gov' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>i 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; 'Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov> i 'David. Kennedy@noaa.goY'
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>i 'dwh.staff@noaa.qov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; 'Sgilson@doc.gov' <Sgilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:53:07 2010
Margaret,
We have asked for and received comments/response from
Mark Sogge, Steven Hammond, and Marcia McNutt, (representing USGS development team) and Bill Lehr
(representing the calculation team)
5
000150
In addition- Steve Murawski
I would like to send to NIC and OR&R operations people when the WH clearance begins.
Mark
PIs confirm to me which authors have signed off so I can report
----- Original Message
From: Jennifer Austin
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark.W.Miller
Wi 11 i am Conner <vJi 1 ~ i am. C":::mnerl!iI":":=2..-?~. :_9g.:!}:";

Dave Westerholm <Dave. lrJesterholm@noaa.qov>; David
Deep Water Horizon Staff <dl'Jh.staff@noaa'5Lov>.i
Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.qov>
Kennedy
Margaret
Sent: Thu
Hi All,
Attached is the latest version. Those who saw it earlier should note an
additional line explaining subsurface oil that Steve suggested adding
following the explanation of dispersed oil.
and I reviewed and
reconciled the edits. This should be final from a NOAA perspective.
Authors and science contributors are acknOl.;ledged in Appendix B.
Also attached is the report from the budget calculator from July 28,
which will serve as Appendix A.
Margaret will move through inter-agency and WH clearance.
Mark will inform others at the NIC.
I've added Shannon to this distribution list, so she can
a heads up
to WH communications and be in touch with Heather and others about
release plans as necessary.
Any further comments, let me know, Jen
Thanks, Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortable with
the document.
I've corrected a couple of typos. This looks good to me and the
descriptions of the people involved is fine. Please plug the numbers
that are in the pie chart into the text and finalize it and send it to
everyone copied here. Margaret will start it through interagency
clearance.
I greatly appreciate everyone working so quickly qn this.
Jane
*From: * Mark. W. Miller [fila i l to: Hark. tv .l"lillex@noaa. gCl'l]
*Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:08 PM
*To:* Jane Lubchenco
*Cc:* Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
6
000151
*Subject:* Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the latest version that includes comments from you, me, Marcia
and Bill Lehr.
From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark Sogge still
outstanding. I forwarded Steve's comments to Jennifer moments ago.
As for "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on the final list
but have broken them out between the actual Tool development (the web
interface etc) and the calculations (Bill Lehr's team) .
I have included also the latest report from the Tool to be included
with the document sent forward. Does this report satisfy the "brief
description of the process used to do the calculations"? Bill Lehr has
a long, highly technical document but it would take some time to
produce a simplified version.
Mark
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror
what is in the pie chart.
Because this is an interagency document, I've
modified one of the NOAA references toward the end.
If authors are not in
agreement with that statement, we can simply remove it.
We will need to add:
A brief description of the process used to do the calculations and the
names of the individuals involved plus reviewers, as per the FRTG doc.
We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full list
yet.
This is urgent.
thanks
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin
Sent: Thursday, July 2
To: Mark W Miller: William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm: David
Kennedy: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov
Subject: Re: budget tool calculator explanation,
Sorry! I attached the wrong document.
Please use this version dated 7.29.
Hi,
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager, incorporating

edits from this morning.
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26
daily oil budget report.
The latest of htese reports would be
000152
attached as an
to explain calculations in further detail.
Let us know immediately if you have comments.
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email -
For USGS
- I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see
who USGS thinks should be identified for this document. A short list
should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC
IASG) , Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NIST - Antonio Pas solo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that
created the'upper and lower confidence bounds)
For NOAA - Bill Lehr.
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications &'External Affairs
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
<http://"v>M\v. facebook. com/noaa .lubchenco.>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
'II\-!W.
facebook.(x.rn/n:-,aa.lubchenco
000153
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'
Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Who is making the changes I requested (plugging in #5) to the document?

Jane Lubchenco
(202) 482-3436

To: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.goY>
Cc: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.goy' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.goy>; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'

<Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>; 'wiUiam.conner@noaa.gov' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>i 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>i 'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'dwh.staff@noaa.goY' <dwh.staff@noaa.goY>; 'Sgilson@doc.gov' <Sgilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:53:07 2010
Margaret,
In addition - Steve Murawski
Mark
Pls confirm to me which authors have signed off so I can report
From: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
Cc: Mark. W. Miller:CHark.IILMiller@noaa. gov>; William Conner <William. Conner@noaa. gO'l~;
Scott Smullen <Scott. Smullen@noaa.gov>; Dave Westerholm <Da\re. Westerbolm@nQaa. q-ov.'>; David
Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>i HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.qov>;
Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>i Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov>
9
000154
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,
following the explanation of dispersed oil. Mark and I reviewed and
Authors and science contributors are acknowledged in Appendix B.
Margaret will move through inter-agency and WH
I've added Shannon to this distribution list, so she can give a heads up
the document.
clearance.
I greatly appreciate everyone working so quickly on this.
Jane
*From: * Mark. W. Miller [I!!:"~il to: tvtark. iii. rEller@noaa. gov]
David. Kennedy;
Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
Dr. Lubchenco,
and Bill Lehr.
interface etc) and the calculations (Bill Lehr's team).
descrip:tion of the process used to do the calculations"? Bill Lehr has
10
000155
Mark
what is in the pie chart. Because this is an interagency document, I've
modified one of the NOAA references toward the end. If authors are not in
We will need to add;
yet. This is urgent.
thanks
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mail te: Jenni fer. r.l.lst in(~noaa. g.:,,-,]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:57 PM
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David
Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring; ,1ane .1 ubc.henco@nQaa ~~

Hi,
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager
incorporating
The
chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26
attached as an appendix to explain calculations in further detail.
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email
For OSGS
11
>
000156
IASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NIST
Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that
created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
For NOAA
Bill Lehr.
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell) W\-lW. facebo'::,k. c:.:,m!JKaa. lubchenc(
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications & External Affai"rs
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
12
000157
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:27 PM
'Mark.W.lVliller@noaa.gov'; 'jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'

Jane Lubchenco
(202) 482-3436
From: lII1ark lII1iller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>

Cc: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>i 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
<Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>i 'william.conner@noaa.gov' <William .Conner@noaa.gov>i 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'
<Scott.5mullen@noaa.gov>; 'Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>i 'Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov'
<Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; 'Sgilson@doc.gov' <Sgilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu lui 29 19:53:07 2010
Margaret,
Mark Sogge, Steven Hammond, and Matcia McNutt, (representing USGS development team) and Bill Lelu'
I would like to send to NIC and OR&R operations people when the wij clearance begins.
Mark
Pis confirm to me which authors have signed off so I can report
----- Original Message ----From: Jennifer Austin <,Jennifer. Austin@noaa.90v>
Cc: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.\l.~1iller@noaa.gov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>;
Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov.>; David
Kennedy <David. Kennedy@noaa. gOY>; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh. staff@noaa. gov:::.;
Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov>
13
000158
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,
Attached is the latest version. "Those who saw it earlier should note an
following the
of dispersed oil. Mark and I reviewed and
Authors and scienc& contributors are acknowledged in Appendix B.
Thanks, Mark. It's great that all of the authors axe comfortable with
the document.
that are in the
chart into the text and finalize it and send it to
everyone
here. Margaret will start it through interagency
clearance.
Jane
*From: * Mark. W. Miller [mail to: Had:. t1. Miller@noaa. 5l9v]
tSent:* Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:08 PM
*Cc:* Jennifer Austin: William Conner: Scott Smullen: Dave Westerholm;
D~vid K~nnedy;
HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff: Margaret Spring
Dr. Lubchenco,
and Bill Lehr.
From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark 80gge still
As for "author" credii Jennifer and I are working on the final list
but-have broken-them out between the actual Tool development (the web
14
000159
Mark
thanks
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin
Sent: Thursday, July 2
To: Mark W Milleri William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David
Cc: Margaret Spring; cTan:? lubch_~nC'(::.@n0aa. go~

Hi,

For OSGS
should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NrC
15
000160
Jennifer Austin
Communications & External Affairs
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell) \'J''iw.facebo:k.cm/n('aa.lubchen'::-:,
<http://1f{''';'oJ. :t;ac:bQok. com/noaa .lubchenco;~
NOAA
.~
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
16
000161
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

'margaret.spring@noaa.gov'; 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'William.Conner@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov';
'dave.westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'dw.h.staff@noaa.gov';
'Sgilson@doc.gov'
Mark should confirm, but it's my understanding that all have signed off
Jane Lubchenco
(2132) 482-3436
----- Original Message ----From: Margaret Spring <margaret.spring@noaa.gov>
To: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>j 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
<Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Cc: 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; 'william.conner@noaa.gov'
<william.conner@noaa.gov>; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov' <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>;
'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>;
'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov' <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; 'Sgilson@doc.gov' <Sgilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:33:16 213113
----- Original Message ----From: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
Cc: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>j William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov~; Scott
Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>j _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 213113
Hi All,
Attached is the latest version. Those who saw it earlier should note an additional line
explaining subsurface oil that Steve suggested adding following the explanation of dispersed
oil. Mark and I reviewed and reconciled the edits. This should be final from a NOAA
perspective.
17
000162
Also attached is the report from the budget calculator from July 28, which will serve as
Appendix A.
Margaret will move through inter-agency and WH
~learance.
I've added Shannon to this distribution list J so she can give a heads up to WH communications
and be in touch with Heather and others about release plans as necessary.
>
> Thanks~ Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortable with
> the document.
>
> I've corrected a couple of typos. This looks good to me and the
> descriptions of the people involved is fine. Please plug the numbers
> that are in the pie chart into the text and finalize it and send it to
> everyone copied here. Margaret will start it through interagency

> clearance.
>
> I greatly appreciate everyone working so quickly on this.
>
> Jane
>
> *From:* Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

> *Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 2818 4:88 PM
> *To:* Jane Lubchenco
> *Cc:* Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
> David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
> *Subject:* Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
>
> Dr. Lubchenco,
>
> Here is the latest version that includes comments from you, me, Marcia
> and Bill Lehr.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
outstanding. I. forwarded Steve's comments to Jennifer moments ago.
>
> I have included also the latest report from the Tool to be included
> with the document sent forward. Does this report satisfy the "brief
> description of the process u.sed .to do the ca.lculations"? Bill Lehr has
> a long, highly technical document but it would take some time to
> produce a simplified version.
>
> Mark
>
> Jane Lubchenco wrote:

>
18
000163
> I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror what is in the
pie chart. Because this is an interagency document I've modified one of the NOAA references
toward the end. If authors are not in agreement with that statement we can simply remove
it.
>
> We will need to add: .
> A brief description of the process used to do the calculations and the names of the
individuals involved plus reviewers as per the FRTG doc.
> We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full list yet. This is
urgent.
> thanks
>
> -----Original Message----> From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, July 29 2ele 12:57 PM
> To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullenj Dave Westerholmj
> David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
> Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov
> <mailto:Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>
> Subject: Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
>
> Sorry! I attached the wrong document. Please use this version dated 7.29.
J
>
> Jennifer Austin wrote:

>
>
>
Hi J
>
>
>
>
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager)
> incorporating
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 26
>
>
The pie chart uses
6e eea barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July

J
Qaily oil budget report.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
For USGS
- I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to
> see
>
19
000164
>
wh~ USGS thinks
> list
sh~uld
be identified for this document.
Ash~rt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
For NIST - Ant6n10 Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that
>
IASG), .Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
)
)
> Jennifer Austin

> NOAA Communications & External Affairs
> 202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)

> www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
> <http://www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco>
>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 292-302-9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
20
000165
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Thursday, July 29, 20107:47 PM
'margare~;5pring@noaa.gov'; 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'William.Conner@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov';
'dave.westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov';
'Sgilson@doc.gov'
Jane Lubchenco
(202) 482-3436
To: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
Cc: 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; 'william.conner@noaa.gov'
<william.conner@noaa.gov>; Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov' <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>;
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>;
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:33:16 2e10
Subject: Re: budget tool calculator explanation) latest
Cc: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott
Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; Dave Westerholm <Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy
<Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Gilson~ Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2e10
Hi
All~
~~plaining subsurface oil that Steve suggested adding following the explanation of dispersed
oil. Mark and I reviewed and reconciled the edits. lhis should be final from a NOAA
perspective.
21
000166
Appendix A.
Mark will inform others >at the Nrc.
I've added Shannon to this distribution list) so she can give a heads up to WH communications
>
> Thanks, Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortable with
> the document.
>
> clearance.
>
>
> Jane
>
) *From:* Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

> *Sent:* Thursday, July 29) 2010 4:08 PM
) *To:* Jane Lubchenco
) *Cc:* Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
)'*Subject:* Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
>
> Dr. Lubchenco,
)
) Here is the latest version that includes comments from you, me, Marcia
> and Bill Lehr.
>
> From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark Sogge still
> outstanding. I forwarded Steve's comments to Jennifer moments ago.
>
) As for "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on 'the final list
> but have broken them out between the actual Tool development (the web
> interface etc) and the calculations (Bill Lehr's team).
>
> description of the process used to do the calculations"? Bill Lehr has
>
> Mark
>
>
22
000167
pie chart. Because this is an interagency document, I've modified one of the NOAA references
toward the end. If authors are not in agreement with that statement, we can simply remove
it.
>
> We will need to add:
A brief description of the process used to do the calculations and the names of the
individuals involved plus reviewers, as per th~.JRTG doc.
urgent.
> thanks
>
>
> Sent: Thursday J July 29 J 2811:) 12: 57 PM
> To: Mark WMillerj William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
> Cc: Margaret Springj Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov
>
>
>
>
>
Hi,
>
>
>
>
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager,
> incorporating
>
>
>
>
>
The pi.e chart uses 6e,eee barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July
>
> 26
>
daily oil budget report. The latest of htese reports would be
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mark viII ~hare with the authors listed in his earli~f em~il >
>
>
>
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NrC IASG) to
>
> see
>
23
000168
>
who USGS thinks should be identified for this document. A short
> list
>
>
should probably include Dr.
McNutt~
Mark
Sogge~
Steve Hammond (NIC
>
>
IASG)) Sky Bristol (led the development team) and Tim Kern.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
For NIST
Antonio Passolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that
Jennifer Austin
282-482-5757 (office) 282-382-9847 (cell)
>
Jennifer Austin
24
000169
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.govl

'Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'William. Conner@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov';
'dave.westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.goy'; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov';
'Sgilson@doc.gov'
Jane Lubchenco
(202) 482-3436
----- Original Message ----From: I~argaret Spring <margaret.spring@noaa.gov>

To: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov
<Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Cc: 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.goy' <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; 'william.conner@noaa.gov'
<william.conner@noaa.goy>; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov' <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>;
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>j
'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov' <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Sgilson@doc.gov <Sgilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:33:16 2e10
To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Cc: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>j Scott
Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>j David Kennedy
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 lele
perspective.
1
000170
Appendix A.
I've added Shannon to this distribution list, so she can give a heads up to WH communications
>
> the document.
>
> clearance.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I greatly app-reciate everyone working so quickly on this.

Jane
*From:* Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

*Cc:* Jennifer Austin; William Connerj Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholmj
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the latest version that includes comments from_
and Bill Lehr.
you.J~.
me, Marcia
>
> As for "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on the final list
>
> with the document sent forward. Do!=s this report satisfy tlie"brfef
> description of the process used t6 do the calculations"? Bill Lehr has
> a long, highly technical document but it would takesome-tilne to
>
> Mark
>
> Jane Lubchentb wrote~
>
2
000171
it.
>
individuals involved plus reviewers, as per the FRTG doc.

> We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full list yet.
urgent.
> thanks
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:57 PM
> To: Mark WMiller; William (onner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
>
> Sorry! I attached the wrong document.
>
>
>
>
Hi,
>
>
>
>
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager)
> incorporating
>
>
>
>
>
>
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July
> 26
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
For USGS
> see
>
This is
000172
>
> list
>
>
should probably include D-r. - McNi.Jtt~ M"'ark Sogge~ Ste've Hammond (NIC
>
>
IASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team)~ and Tim Kern.
>
>
>
>
-.
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jennifer Austin

> 202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchen~p
000173
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.govj

'Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'William.Conner@noaa.gov'; 'Scott. Smullen@noaa.gov';
'dave.westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov';
'Sgilson@doc.gov'
Jane Lubchenco
(202) 482-3436
To: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
Cc: 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov' <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; william.conner@noaa.gov
<william.conner@noaa.gov>; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov' <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>j
'Dave.Westerholrn@noaa.gov' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>j 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>j 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>j
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:33:16 2019
PIs confirm to me which authors have signed off so
can report

Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>j Dave Westerholm <Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy
<Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; ~HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>j Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>j Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2919
Hi All,
oil. Mark and I reviewed and reconciled the edits. This. should be final from a NOAA
perspective.
5
000174
Appendix A.
Mark will inform others at the Nrc.
>
> the document.
>
> clearance.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Jane
*Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 201e 4:e8 PM
*Subject:* Re: budget tool calculator explanation) latest
Dr. Lubchenco
and Bill Lehr.
>
>
> interface etc) and the calculations (Bill lehr's team).
>
> I have included also the latest report from t~e Tool to be included
> descripti6n of the process used to do the calculations"? Bill lehr has
> a long" highly technical document but it would take some time to
>
> Mark
>
>
6
000175
it.
>

> A brief descriJ;ltion of the process used to do the calculations and the names of the
individuals involved plus reviewers) as per the FRTG doc.
urgent.
> thanks
>

> Sent: Thursday, July 29) 2ele 12:57 PM
> To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
>
>
>
>
>
Hi,
>
>
>
>
> incorporating
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 26
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> see
>
The pie chart uses 6e,eee barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July
The latest of htesereports would be
let us know immediately if you have comments.
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email' -
For
USG~
- I woulq like to check with
~teve
Hammond (NIC IASG) to
000176
>
> list
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge J Steve Hammond (NIC
For NIST - Antonio Possoio (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -> Jennifer Austin

> 202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
>
Jennifer Austin
000177
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Mark.W.Miller
Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ
Oil Budget description 729 v 6.doc ,1L.doc; DeepwaterHorizonOiIBudget20100728.pdf
Thanks, Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortable with the document.
I've corrected a couple of typos. This looks good to me and the descriptions of the people involved is fine. Please plug
the numbers that are in the pie chart into the text and finalize it and send it to everyone copied here. Margaret will start
it through interagency clearance.
Jane
From: Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff;
Margaret Spring
DL Lubchenco,
Here is the latest version that includes comments from you, me, Marcia and Bill Lehr.
From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark Sogge still outstanding. I forwarded Steve's
comments to Jennifer moments ago.
As for "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on the final list but have broken them out between the actual
Tool development (the web interface etc) and-the ~alculations (Bill Lehr's team).
I have included also the latest report from the Tool to be included with the document sent forward. Does this
report satisfy the "brief description of the process used to do the calculations"? Bill Lehr has a long, highly
technical document but it would take some time to produce a simplified version.
Mark
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror what is in
the
chart. Because this is an interagency document, I've modified one of the NOAA
references toward the end. If authors are not in agreement with that statement, we can
simply remove it.
We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full list yet. This
is urgent.
thanks
-----Original Message----9
000178
From: Jennifer Austin [mail to: ,Jenni fer. Austin@noacl. go,:,:)
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ
Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.qav

Hi,
incorporating
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hpmmond (NIC IASG) to see
IASG), Sk~ Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
Jennifer Austin
10
000179
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Thursday. July 29,20107:04 PM
Mark.W.Miller
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 6.doc JLdoc; DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget201 00728. pdf
Jane
From: MarkoW.MiIler [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholmi David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff;
Margaret Spring
Subject: Re: budget tool calculator exPlanation, latest
Dr. Lubchenco,
As for "author" credit Jemlifer and I are working on the final list but have broken them out between the actual
Tool development (the web interface etc) and the calculations (Bill Lehr's teanl).
. ..
Mark
the
chart. Because this is an interagency document, I've modified one of the NOAA
references toward the end. If authors are not in agreement with that~statement, we can
simply remove it.
is urgent .
. thanks
11
000180
Sent: Thursoay, July 29,
Cc:
Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov

Hi,
oil budget report. The latest of htese reports would be
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS
I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see
who OSGS thinks should be identified for this document. A short list
should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark 80gge, Steve Hammond (NIC
For NIST
Jennifer Austin
12
000181
Justin Kenney
Mark.W.Miller
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 6.doc JL.doc; DeepwaterHorizonOiIBudget20100728.pdf
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Thanks, Marlc it's great that all of the authors are comfortable with the document.
Jane
From: Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Mlller@noaa.gov]

To: Jane Lubchenco
.
Margaret Spring
Dr. Lubchenco,
As for Ifauthor" credit Jennifer and I are working on the final list but have broken them out between the actual
Tool development (the web interface etc) and the (!aiculations (Bill Lehr's teanl).
teclmical document but it would take some time to produce a simplified version.
Mark
the pie chart. Because this is an interagency document, I've modified one of the NOAA
simply remove it.
is urgent.
thanks
Message----13
000182
From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.E...?~l
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy;

Hi,
incorporating
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers -from July 26
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see
Jennifer Austin
14
HQ
000183
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Thursday, July-29,2010 7:04 PM
Mark.W.Miller
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 6.doc JL.doc; DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100728.pdf
Thanks, Marlc It's great that all of the authors are comfortable with the document.
Jane
From: Mark.W.Milier [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

To: Jane Lubchenco
Margaret Spring
Dr. Lubchenco,
comments to Jelmifer moments ago.
As for "authortl credit Jennifer and I are working on the final list but have broken them out between the actual
Tool development (the web interface etc) and the calculations (Bill Lehr's teanl).
report satisfy the "brief description of the process used to do the calculations"? Bill Lehr has a long, high.ly
Mark
simply remove it.
A brief
of the process used to do the calculations and the names of the
We need to
this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full list yet.
This
is urgent.
thanks
-----Original
15
000184
From: Jennifer Austin [rnai1to: ,Jennifer .Austin@noaa.govJ
Water Horizon Staff
Sorry!
I attached the wrong document.

Hi,
incorporating
"
attached as an
to explain calculations in furttler detail.
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see
should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark
, Steve Hammond (NIC
created the upper .and lower confidence bounds)
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
16
000185
Justin Kenney
From:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jennifer Austin; Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David
Margaret Spring
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 3 Jl.doc
Flag Status:
Flagged
Sent:
To:
Cc:
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror what is in the
pie chart. Because this is an interagency documentJ I've modified one of the NOAA references
toward the end. If authors are not in agreement with that statement> we can simply remove
it.
individuals involved plus reviewers J as per the FRTG doc.
We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have-the full list yet. This is
urgent.
thanks
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer,Austin@noaa.gov]
Sent: Thursday> July 29 J 2010 12:57 PM
To: Mark WMillerj William Connerj Scott Smullenj Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep
Water Horizon Staff
Sorry! I
atta~hed
the wrong document.

> HiJ
>
> Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pagerJ incorporating
> edits from this morning.
>
> The pie chart uses 6e,eee barrels/day flow rate> numbers from July 26
> daily oil budget report. The latest of htese reports would be
> attached as an appendix to explain calculations in further detail.
>
> Let us know immediately if you have comments.
>
> Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email >
> For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NrC IASG) to see
> who USGS thinks should be identified for this document. A short list
> should probably include Dr. McNutt J I~ark Sogge J Steve Hammond (NIC
> IASG Sky Bristol (led the development team)J and Tim Kern.
>
> For NIST - Antonio Pas solo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that
> created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
>
17
000186
> For NOAA - Bill Lehr.
>
>
>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 2e2-302-9847 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
18
000187
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jane Lubchenco [Jane. Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

Thursday, July 29,20107:55 AM
Mark Miller
Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; Irobinson@noaa.gov; Dave
Westerholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy; Amrit Mehra; dwh.staff@noaa.gov
RE: pie chart
Hi, Mark,
All of these folks sound just right. The challenge will be having them reply rapidly so we can work through any issues
anyone raises then get this into interagency clearance asap. I'm assuming that the earlier discussions and development
of tools and flow rate have enabled most of the issues to be raised, but we want to be sure! Am happy to discuss any of
this right after the 8:00 if need be.
Thanks
Jane
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:53 AM

To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; Irobinson@noaa.gov; Dave Westerholm; Margaret
Spring; C8itlyn Kennedy; Amrit Mehra; dwh.staff@noaa.gov
Subject: Re: pie chart
Dr. Lubchenco,
For the Oil Budget tool I would include:
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to seewho USGS thinks should be
identified for this document. A short list should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond
(NIC IASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that created the upper and lower confidence
bounds)
For NOAA - Bill Lehr. I also included below the team he pulled together to review the calculations)
Mark
Team Member
affiliation
Ron Goodman
U. of Calgary
Ai Allan
SpilTec
James Payne
Payne Env.
Tom Coolbaugh
Exxon Mobil
E:d Overton
Juan Lasheras
LSU
UCSD
19
000188
Albert Venosa
Merv Fingas
EPA
Env Canada (ret)
Ali Khelifa
Env. Canada
Robert Jones
NOAA
Pat Lambert
Env. Canada
Per Daling
SINTEF
David Usher
ISCO
Peter Carragher
BP
Michel Boufadel
Temple U.

This is a great start. Many thanks for pulling this together quickly. I've added a
summary paragraph at the end and changed one sentence so it does not imply something that
is scientifically inaccurate. We will also need to add an appendix that spells out the
bases for the calculations. I think it should go to the interagency team that has been
working on these calculations.
An please run it by the relevant folks in our science
box.
The FRTT is trying to finalize a flow rate number by COB Friday. We are being asked
to have this ready to announce Saturday, but it
fine to have the document go through
expedited interagency review without the final numbers, then slot the final numbers in on
Friday.
Bill and Mark, can you tell me who are the other people in other
(as well
as ours) who are the team who have been working on this. Are you envisioning them as
'authors' of this interagency report? Let me know if you need anything to move ahead.
Many thanks,
Jane
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:,.Teftnifer.Al.lst:i.n(~noaa.go'.!)
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:45 PM
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy;
Westerholmi Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy
lrobinson@noaa.go~;
Dave
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
Attached is a draft document to describe the oil budget calculator. This was drafted in
the Communications Office and reviewed by Bill Conner.
Please let us know what comments you have.
The numbers and figure will be updated with the latest numbers when they are available.
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC, as you suggested
in point 1.
20
000189
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
p.s.~

Thursday, July 29,20105:22 AM
Jennifer Austin
Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; Irobinson@noaa.gov; Dave
Westerholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy
RE: pie chart
it's ok if the document is slightly longer than 2 pages.
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer,Austin@noaa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, July 28 J 2010 4:45 PM
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark WMillerj William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
Attached is a draft document to describe the oil budget calculator. This was drafted in the
Communications Office and reviewed by Bill Conner.
The numbers and figure will be updated. with the latest numbers when they are available.
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NIC, as you suggested in
point 1.
>
~
Mark} Bill, Scott and Jen,
>
> Thanks for your willingness to move quickly on this. A few
> thoughts/suggestions:
>
> 1. It would be good to id a few key folks from other agencies to work
> on this early on so they are not blindsided.
>
> 2. I think it's likely that the 'new' rate will not be outside the
> bounds of the current range, so it might be useful to prepare two pie
> charts: one at the low flow rate (35,009) and the other at the high
> rate (60,000).
>
> 3. It's my understanding that 'Remaining' simply means 'left over
> after subtracting the other categories from the total', (i.e., at the
> surface, on beaches, in tar balls or biodegraded, removed from
> beaches, etc.) as opposed to 'remaining at the surface and on beaches'
> (which is what most folks will think). It will be important to clarify
> this.
>
> 4. In the text, it will be useful to bin the categories:
> a. removed by response efforts at the surface (burning + skimming +
21
000190
> recovered)
>
> b. subsurface (dispersed naturally and chemically)
>
> c. evaporated
>
) d. remaining (specify what this is)
>
> 5 .. Other questions folks will ask: what fraction of oil released made
> it to surface?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jane
>
Jennifer Austin
22
000191
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) - Through July 28 (Day 100)
All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
Inland Recovery
Deepwator Horizon MC252 Cluif Incident Oil Budget

Report geneiat{~,d by mark.w.rni!!er'@'noaa.fJOV on 07!29/20'1011 :20 AM rv1DT.
See end notes section of the report for reference materia! on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geoiogical Survey in cooperation with 11'1e National
Oceanic and Afmospheric Administration,
000192
Cumulative Remaining
1,750,000
i.
!
1,500,0001
i
I
1,250.0001
i
"
U)
Q)
1,000,0001
''-
!
i
co
.c
750,0001.
500,000
1;
250,000 'I
i
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Upper/Low.er Confidence Bounds
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil BudgE,t

Report gener'ated by rnark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for referencG material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in coopel'alion vvith thEJ National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
000193

Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - Through July 28 (Day 100)
. AI! units in barrels. SBe end r;ot..~s fol' assumptions
Hs,cO\rsry

Report gener:i\ied by iTIC!i"!cw.milh?,r@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report elements,
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geoioqical Survey in cooperation wiih the National
Oceanic and l\tl11ospheric Administration.
000194
LoW Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - ThroughJ.uly 28 (Day. 100)
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
lJ)
400,000
~ 350,000
lIo.o
,g
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
a
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Upper/Lower Confidence Bounds
Deepwater Horizon IVlC:252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report gell(~rated
m<'lrk.w.miller(g,?noaa.gov on 07/29120'10 i 1:20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the r(-:port 101' reference nmterial on repol1 elernelTis.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geoloqical Survey !n cooperation witli thf.'J l\lational
000195
Reference Notes
Chart - Cumulative/Daily Volume Remaining of the Surface

The volume of oil that each day is added to the volume of oil already on the surface is computed taking
into account the effective discharge (total discharge minus volume collected via the Top Hat), and the
volume that is evaporated or dissolved, skimmed, burned, or dispersed (either chemically or naturally).
Chart - Deepwater Horizon MC-252 - Cumulative Disposition of Oil

The Cumulative Disposition of Oil "Barrel Graph ll provides a representation of the total amount of oil
released over time based on low and high discharge estimates, the relative amounts of oil recovered or
dispersed by both natural and management methods, and the total remaining oil calculated by the oil
budget model. The values used in the chart come from the calculations in a statistical model and
correspond to the cumulative values in the table. See the footnotes (available in the Web application by
clicking on the labels in the table) for further information on the individual calculations and further
reference material.
Discharged
The Discharge values shown in the reports come fro.m the low and high estimates determined by the
Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) for the Deepwater Horizon incident. Discharge rates are adjusted
o.ver tirne in the data behind the application based on analyses by the FRTG o.f changing dynamics in
the incident (e.g., severing the riser).
Discharge rates use flow limits from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements.
Chosen because same measurement method used pre- and post-riser cut.
Other estimation metho.ds provided higher and Io.wer values.
Note: Refer to the section on Leakage in the Mass Balance Fo.rmulas document for a full discussion of
the scientific methodo.lo.gy used in this calculatio.n.
Background
On June 15, 2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from the leaking BP well was
announced. The most likely flow rate of oil is between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels per day. This
improved estimate is based on more and better data that is available after the riser cut -- data which
helps increase the scientific confidence in the accuracy of the estimate. As the Government continues
Deepwater Horizon iv1C252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget
rnarkw.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/~?,01 0 11 :20 M",j MDT
See end notes section of t.he report for reference materia! on report elements.
Application operatE:~d by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geoioqical Survey in coope!'ation wilh the National
Report generatBd
000196
to collect additional data and refine these estimates, it is important to realize that the numbers can
change. In particular, because the upper number is less certain, it is important to plan for the upper
estimate plus additional contingencies immediately.
Recovered via RITT and Top Hat

RITT and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil-from the
spill flow. Values for the amount recovered by the vessels Helix Producer, Discoverer Enterprise and
the Q4000 are reported by BP, entered daily by National Incident Command personnel, and used in the
calculation of remaining oil. Cumulative totals are a sum of all daily values entered.
Dispersed Naturally
Natural oil dispersion is estimated using the methods described in this annotation and background
documentation. The following assumptions and factors apply:
Droplets smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed
No natural surface dispersion assumed
oSubsurface natural dispersion based upon plume turbulent energy dissipation
Natural subsurface dispersion is a calculation of the total discharge minus a calculation of subsu rface
chemical dispersion multiplied by a factor of natural dispersion effectiveness derived from a scientific
method of determining oil dispersion in the water column. A higher factor is used for the "Maximum
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oil "removed." See background documentation for
more information.
Note: Refer to the section on Dispersed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas (link) document for a full
discussion of the scientific methodology used in this calculation.
Evaporated or Dissolved
Evaporation and dissolution occur naturally with oil on the surface. This element in the report is the
result of a scientiHc calculation using the methods described in this annotation and background
documentation. The following assumptions and f.actors apply:
Evaporation formulas include dissolution as well
oLargest oil removaLrnechanism for surface oil
Most evaporative losses occur during the first 24 hours
D,'?epwate,- Horizon iv1C?!;2 Guif Incident Oil Budget

Report generaied bV rnafLw.miiler@noaa.gov on 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report elements.
Applicaiion operaiuQ by thE; U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
000197
Evaporation is c::alculated differently for "fresh" oil within 24hour.s (daily total in the report) and older oil
for the cumulative total over time. Different factors are used to represent the difference in this rate. The
evaporation/dissolution calculation first determines the remaining oil available for evaporative processes
by removing the following from the total discharge:
-Measured amount removed via RITT and Top Hat
-Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion
-Reported amount of oil burned
-The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor based on scientific research and
current observations conducted on the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Note: Refer to the section on Evaporated and Dissolved Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document
for a full discussion of the scientific methodology used in this calculation.
Available for Recovery

The amount available for recovery,. both daily and cumulative, is simply the remaining oil after removing
the following from the total discharge:
-Calculated amount of evaporation and dissolution
Skimmed
Skimmed oil is a rough calculation based on the daily reported amount of oily water multiplied by a
factored estimation of net oil content. The net oil factor is different for the Maximum and Minimum
Removal scenarios.
-The skimmed oil estimate is very rough
-The actual amount of skimmed oil should ultimately be based on actual measurement
Note: Refer to the section on Skimmed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a discussion of
this calculation.
Burned
Total burned values are entered daily by National Incident Command personnel and used in daily and
cumulative totals.
DeepwatHI Hori?()n MC/252 Guif Incident orr Budget
Report geOE!ralo(! by !"na:kw.mi!ler@noaa.goY on 07/29/201011:20 AM MDT.
See ena notos section Of the report lor reference material on report Hlernents.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the f\lationa!
Oceanic and Atrnospl!eri';. Administra1ion.
000198
-American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) burn rate standards are used
-Different rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil
Note: Refer to the section on Burning Losses in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a discussion
of the methodology used in this calculated measurement.
Chemically Dispersed
Chemical oil dispersion is the result of a scientific calculation based on the amount of chemical
dispersant applied and recorded daily and acting on both surface and subsurface oil. The following
assumptions and factors apply:
-Droplets smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed
-No natural surface dispersion assumed
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose ll dosage of 20:1 used
as estimate for successful chemical dispersant application
Note: Refer to the section on Dispersed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a full
Dispersant Used
The amount of dispersant used is recorded each day of the incident by National Incident Command
personnel. It is an actual measl:lrement of the total dispersant used via all methods employed.
Oil Remaining
Volume of oil remaining after other 'known volume totals are removed from the total discharged.
Df3epwater Horizon i\'1C:;25~,: Gulf IncIdent Oil Budget

;T1ailcw.rniller@noaa.govon 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
Report 9(merated
See 811lj notes ~>~j(:tion ul the report lor reference material on report elHrnents.
Application opcr!i{f(:)d by thE: U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation witl! the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric f.l,drninistration.
000199
DRAFT 7.29
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget Calculator
The National Incident Command has assembled the best scientific minds in the government and
independent scientific community to produce an estimate of just how much oil has been skimmed,
burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed. They have developed a tool, called the Oil Budget
Calculator to determine where the oil has gone. The nwnbers are based on best estimates of how much
oil was released and how this oil is moving and degrading.

*Remail1ing oil i~
either at the !>urface
as light sheen or
weathered tar balls,
has been
biodegraded, or hel!>
already come ashore
on beaches.
kimmed
3% .
Figure 1: Oil Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oiL
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July 15 between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonIBP
wellhead. (*When announced, new FRTG flow rate I total escape wiUadjust this and the percentages in
the oil budget.)
As shown in the pie chart (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
significant portion of the spilled oil. %% percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead by
the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systems. In addition, burning and skimming operations
collected just over %% percent of the oil.
000200
It is estimated that %% percent of the oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The
volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are not volatile dissolve into the water
column or form residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific research
and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident. A different evaporation rate is used
for fresh and weathered oil to provide the most accurate number.
%% percent of the oil has dispersed naturally into the water column, and %% percent of the oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which
caused some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the diameter of a human hair).
We know that naturally occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the
oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf
of Mexico in large prut because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and
the fact that oil enters the Gulf o{Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is more ru1alysis
to be done to quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the light
crude oil from this well is biodegrading quickly.
After accounting for operations, dispersion and evaporation, %% percent remains. This oil is either at
the sUlface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore on
beaches.
In summary, burning, skinm1ing and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 114 of the
oiL Around a qumter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another qualter dispersed into Gulf
waters. The remaining amount, roughly 114 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
beaches or has been biodegraded.
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oil and will issue daily surface oil trajectories
for as long as necessary. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command to develop
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead, federal
scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the
impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and
continued monitoring and research.
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 26,2010 for detailed
explanation of calculation methods. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in collaboration
with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NIST.
'
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: The Oil Budget calculations are based on direct
measurements where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not
possible. The numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily
operational reports. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available
000201
infol111ation and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based
on additional information and further analysis.
Science Team
The following scientists at USGS were involved in developing the Oil Budget Calculator tool:
Marcia McNutt
Mark Sogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
Tim Kern
The following scientists created and reviewed the calculation methods used the oil budget calculator:
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Antonio PossoIo, NIST
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv Fingas, Env Canada(ret)
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCa
Peter Carragher, BP
Michel Boufadel, Temple U.
",
000202
;J

, .'\Ii units in
b<;HT,~ls.
See end Holt};;; tor assumptions.
Inland Recovery
Deepwater HOrf<:':,: iAC:.~.';2 Guif Incicienl Oil Budget

Report g-:I1(1<!;'H/
;:,.i.
See end no',,, ::.. ;;:;(;.
k.w.iniHer;(noaa.\:!Ov on 07/29i201D '1" :20 AM MDT

1116 rpon for relel'ence material on report eJernBnts,
AppHcatiofl;1j,d ::'; !hH U.S, COHst Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the l'-Jaiional
Oceanic a n d c t\drmnistration.
000203
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) .. Through July 28 (Day 100)

, Cumulative Remaining
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
t/i
Q.)
:..
:..
1,000,000 '
.Q
750,000
500,000
250,00)
0
May-201O
Deepwaler Hor!;:!,,!
Repoi'1 gE!p(,!r8!!,~d
See end n()tt:'~::
Expected Value -
r'iF,;?5~)
Jun-2010
Jul-201
Gulf Incident Oil Budge!

on 07/29/2010 1i :20 AM MDT.
:,;{;i;llon of the repcn ;01' rei(;)fenCe material Oil report elements,
the U,S. C()8,st Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in cooperaUon with the National
Administration,
n'i:lr:',w,mil!(:;r(Dno~ia.gov
000204

, All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
Inland Recovery
Fieport gent',';}<
"k.F.i;;ii!'r(;-"nqaa.gov on 07/29/20101 i ::20 .AM MDT.
S(W end no',.. ,. '.;i' :.11\:, i :.:;PI! 'or re[f:"'enCe mater-iaJ on fl'tJori fliement~;,
Application <)iY" . " .
dll:.' lL::; Coast GI1i:irfj and provided by the U,S, Geo!oqicai Survey in cooperaiion with the [;)alionai
Oceanic ane! ;\i1 ~;( :'~f'~t':;'::; ;{,; f\chTi?ni:-3iraUof"1.
000205

, Cumulative Remaining
650.000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450.000 :
CJ)
400,000;
-'"
(J.)
.Q
350,000
300,000
250,000 :
200,000 :
!
150,000 :
100,000 '
50,000
o
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
hi\C25~) Guif lncideni Oil Budqel

Report genemls,:, . rna!'k,vd.mil!er@noaa,go\/ on 07/29/2010 1'1 :20 AM MDT.
See end nOf0:S -,,,hi;tj')fl ul HIB repDrt rur reference material on report eiements.
Deepwater Heri,,),'
Application
Oceanic
U.S. Coast Guard and pmvlded by the U.S. Geoiooicai Survey in cooperation wilh the National
Admlnir,;tratior1.
!jiS
000206
Reference Notes

The volume of oil that each day is added to the volume of 0!1 already on the surface is computed taking
volume that is evaporated or dissolved, .skimmed, burned, or dispersed (either chemically or naturally).
Chart - Deepwater Horizon MC-2S2 - Cumulative Disposition of Oil

The Cumulative Disposition of Oil II Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amount of oil
u
reference material.
Discharged
The Discharge values shqwn in the reports come from the low and high estimates determined by the
over time in the data behind the application based on analyses by the FRTG of changing dynamics in
-Discharge rates use flow limits from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements.
-Chosen because same measurement method used pre- and post-riser cut.
-Other estimation methods provided higher and lower values.
Note: Refer to the section on Leakage in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a full discussion of
the scientific methodology used in this calculation.
Background
helps increase the scientific confidence in the accuracy of the estimate. As the Government conti n ues
Deepwater Ho:i2.on MI.;;;:':)2 {:luli' i!lt:i(.if.;,nt Oi!
Bud~lei
Report
tlidf\<.w.n!ifler"':i ioacl.. \;iOv on 07i29f2010 1 i :20 AM fvlDT
See ~md not.;';;c; o,(.dj(r; 01 tl18
[OJ rei'E);'(;nce material on report elements.
Application
Oceanic
lrl/7 U,S, CO!!,,! Guard and provided by the U.S. C:leoloqicai Survey in cooperation with the r-lalional
'Sf li1t~riG A(!mini'irll"'.tion
000207
change. In particular, because the upper number is less certain, it is important to plan for the upper.

RIIT and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
Dispersed Naturally
-Subsurface natural dispersion based upon plume tu!bulent energy dissipation
l\Iatural subsurface dispersion is a calculation of the total discharge minus a calculation of subsurface
chemical dispersion multiplied by a factor of natural disperSion effectiveness derived from a scientific
RemovaP' scenario to result in a larger amount of oil "removed. 1I See background documentation for
more information.
result of a scientific calculation using the methods described in this annotation and background
documentation. The following assumptions arid factors apply:
-Evaporation formulas include dissolution as well
-Largest oil removal mechanism for surface oil
-Most evaporative losses occur during the first 24 hours
on 0'1;29/201 0 11 :20 AM fllml '

Report
See end n()i",',~ '.',j,;,,'i,;' "'the repert (Oi' rl:ij~m,mce materiai on report eierneni's.
Applicati0!1
>\; fhe U.s. C08,S! GUflrd and provided by the U.S, Gt'loloqlcal Survey in cooperH.lion with tile National
Oceanic <:~!1(J /\UU)'5u!,,:,nc; A(ii'i'Hni;3irHiion.
000208
Evaporation is calculated differently for lIfresh ll oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil
'Measured amount removed via RITT and Top Hat
'Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion
'The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor based on scientific research and

The amount available for recovery, both daily and cumulative, is Simply the remaining oil after removing
.. "'"
Measured amount removed via RITT and Top Hat

.
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
The skimmed oil estimate is very rough
The actual amount of skimmed oil should ultimately be based on actual measurement
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
on Budget
Rapor: ge!!8LrtG(i
on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See Hnd pot"", ;~''''(H'Hl "! tile
for reh".renGEl material on report elements.
Application
i:iI! ihe US. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
Admini,!.tretiofl.
Oceanic i:md
Deepwat<7[ Hori:wn M(;,~62 Guit lw:,dent
000209
Different rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil
Chemically Dispersed .
Chemical oil dispersion is the result of a scientific calculation based on the ~mount of chemical
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose!! dosage of 20:1 used
Dispersant Used
personnel. It is an actual measurement of the total dispersant used via all methods employed.
Oil Remaining
Volume of oil remaining after other known volume totals are removed from the total discharged.
Im;irlent Oil Budget
on 07/29J201 011 :20 AM ~<1DT.

Report
See ~~rf(j note:o '.c!!v'
\:iU
relprence maleria! on rHport eiements.
if,,,) U.S. Co",s!. GUHrd and provided by the U.S. Geological SUfl/ayil1 cooperation with the National
Application OnC(i\:('ej
Oceanic and i-"'~n F~.l::)~)!':".~i";(; A(~n !irtl'::!x(~i.i(Jn.
000210
000211
DRAFT 7.29
Calculator to determine where the oil has gone. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much

Remaining oil i~
either at the ~lIrface
a~ light ~heell or
weathered tar balls.
h<'ls been
biodegraded. or ho~
already come a~hore
on beaches.
kimmed
3%
The Flow Rate Teclmical Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July 15 between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonfBP
wellhead. (*When announced, new FRTG flow rate / total escape will adjust this and the percentages in
the oil budget.)
As shown in the pie cha11 (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
000212
caused some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the dian1eter of a human hair).
of Mexico in large part because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and
the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is more analysis
the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraqed, or has already come ashore on
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 114 of the
oil. Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into Gulf
for as long as necessary. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Comn1and to develop
impacts of this spill 011 wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July 26,2010 for detailed
measurements where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measW'ements were not
operational reports. The rest of the nwnbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available
000213
information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refmed based
Science Team
Marcia McNutt
Mark Sogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
TimKem
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Dating, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
000214

, Ali unit;; in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
Inland Recovery
Deepwater'
Repo!'t
'j. ',"
' .. "
:;;.'
gen','.~,;>':';
,LI,pp!icatioi1 CiY':
Oceanic HPci ,\1[""
".:\.""
(,,)if iF/ion!
O!~
Budge!
" vv.no:k:,i; . :nul:li.' . qov on
O{i29!~:O'!
() : 1:70 AM biDr.
'he' U::, CO.;ist C!.a.,-d and provided by Uk U.S. Geoloqical Survey in cooperation with the ~ja!im'nl
C / . drn,;"1j::;!.! aUon,
000215

1,750,000
1,500.000 "
1,250,(h")0
-...m
Q)
...
1,000.COO
.0
I
i
I
(tI
750,000
,I
i
500,000
!
,I
2S0,CQ:)
May-2010
.......... Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Deepwatr.,r Hwi:"
Report gen':::Y d',(> i l r'l "<1,:'1
on 07129J201 011 :20 AM MDT,
rd!",!'coce materia! on report eleri'ltmts.
See '.mel HoltS
Applicalion,;
nIl;; U.'.: Co::;s\ Gu':w! anti prov:c!eej by the U.S. GeolOfjical Survey in cooperation with the National
Oceanic cH1(} ;!:';tr;' (;A;)f):,; ic :i~drrnnh~lfHth}n,
000216

, Ail units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions,
Inland Recovery
Deepwnier i i
Report
9fJ1W .. , , '
See end nev

Application '" ,! ;' '
Oceanic an'.; b,T,
[i'!,
,,!
((c:.'
":1'),\. '.
:,1', or: (\ i /29/:;'01 () .
1 ,~!fl
AM MDT
matHria! on n':pori e!em'.;nt::.
tilt
U~~ Gee!Ofj1ca! Survey in cooperation will) the
National
000217

650 J}() il
600,0(1)
550,000
500,000
450,OO()
-en
(1)
~
~
400,000
350,000
m
.c 300,00
250.00:;
200,000
,!
150,000
"
100,000
50,000
c;
Jun-2010
May":20iO
........ Expected Value -
See end nUl".',:
Oceanic;
on 07129 /2010 11 :20 AM MDT,
Report genEHili,.,c :)\'

Application
JUI-2010
r' in; i?,l'" i,)nc':~ mat'elri,,! on report elements.

U5. C>3;sj G,;wd r.ln( prCi'iirierJ by the U.S. Geoio[!ical Survey in cooperation with the Na.lionsl
Uv,
','tl',:'
iG J.\drnlri~!,:~i.1<c;.tj{j{!,
000218
Reference Notes


The Cumulative Disposition of OilllBarrel Graph ll provides a representation of the total amount of oil
clicking on the labels in the table) for further information on the individual calculati.ons and further
reference material.
Discharged
The Discharge values shown in the reports come from the low and high estimates determined by the
Flow Rate Techmcal Group (FRTG) for the Deepwater Horizon incident. Discharge rates are adjusted
Note: Refer to tna section on Leakage in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a full discussion of
---------_._------------------------Background
improved estimatE.:) is based on more and better data that is available after the riser cut -- data which
Deepwater
j';t::' i/.;}li
Ctt;jt ~n;.~iI.:jt" . ll~it
Report g<:i!'k
or) 07J2H!~:Ol 0 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end 11(,(, i.;cr)jc , ,..,l t1le
n::J;;rence material on report elements,
Application cf;,'r:;ir'C ::rv ;rl(0 U. S, Coas! Cili!:Hd and DrovidHd by th(~ U.S. GeOlogical Survey in cooperi'ltion with thfl Naljonal
Oceanic ar,'';
,:\r)':,ini':;ir:;;.!iof!..
000219

RITT and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
the Q4000 are reported by SP, entered daily by National Incident Command personnel, and used in the
Dispersed Naturally
Natural oil dispersioll is estimated using the methods described in this annotation and background
documentation. Tile following assumptions and factors apply:
-Subsurface natural dispersion based upon plume turbulent energy dissipation
Natural subsurface dispersion is a calculation of the total discharge minus a calculation of subsurface
chemic,al dispersion multiplied by a factor of natural dispersion effectiveness derived from a scientific
method of determining oil dispersion in the water column. A higher factor is used for the IIMaximum
Removal ll scenario La result in a larger amount of oil"removed." See background documentation for
more infonnation.
Note: Refer to '{he section on Dispersed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas (link) document for a full
documentation. fhe following assumptions and factors apply:
-Evaporation formulas inciude dissolution as well
Deep\iV3t(~r
Report
on 0712.9/20101 :20 Aill! MDT.
(1.':!((-}
<,;l'-!,nC(~
{~n:,st
mflterial on
n~pon. eiBtT;c~nts,
Guar(! and IJI'ovided by the U,S, Geoloqical Survey in cooperation wil.1"l the Naiionai
000220
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh" oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil
current obselv&tions conducted on the Deepwater Horizon incident.

The amount available for recovery, both daily and cumulative, is simply the remaining oil after removing
the following lrom tr.J total discharge:
-Measured 81110:..lnt removed via RITT and Top Hat
Skimmed
Skimmed oil is
CI
rough ca!cu,ta'iion based on the daily reported amount of oily water multiplied by a
Removal scenarios .
this calculation.
--_._-_.. _..--------------------------------
Burned
cumulative totals.
Deep'Natf.1r
Repon
j.
n'(ik,v' JnHi'2':/n08a. ;]OV on 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.

iilr.:. n::lY!'l 'eli r.:'.fHf:inCe materia! on mport elements.
i ' . :'. die 1.: .~: C,_.,:;\ GUlfrJ and provided tJV the U.S. Geological Survey in Goop~)[ation with the National
' j ' '.'.,
Applic8l.iOi\ cr.n:'
Oce<'1nic em:!
';':'7";:.:
('\dn':qc.tr'tiion.
000221
'International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose lt dosage of 20:1 used
I\lote: Refer to tlle section on Dispersed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a full
discussion of the SCientific methodology used in this calculation.
Dispersant Used
The amount
at dispersant used is recorded
each day of the incident by National Incident Command
Oil Remaining
DeepWi:iiHf Hei;
Hi
::i)~'
(,.uj1 !T:vkml Oil f:3uci9s1
Report \)eil'f.'(::\lih
on 07!2D!201 0 1! :20 AM MDT.
. See end noV's ,::.:.;( i}
'.~ n)f~ 'T'T):'':"!,
r(;l(~u:!nG(:: rnateriBJ on rBpori E~it?!n1Hnt~;r, Applicalicn np-e:
J,',~ U.s, (>;d~;i CUdf(1 and provided by thE; U.S. Gcmloqical Survey in Goop8raHon with the National
Oceanic ~ln(! f'tr;'(i';;:,!'(" 'G A.d)ni,w~;,r~:iiion
>
000222
DRAFT 7.29
Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget Calculat~r
The National Incident .command has assembled the best scientific minds in the government and
burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed. They have developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator to determine where the oil has gone. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much
reo.

Based on 60;000 barrels/day flow rate
"Remaining oil i~
eilher at the StH lace
as light sheen OJ
weathered tar UJlb.
ha:. been
biodegraded. or hil~
already corne aslH.l/f~
on beaGhes.
kimmed
3%
Figure 1: Oil Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oiL
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTO), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July 15 between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonlBP
wellhead. (*When announced, new FRTO flow rate I total escape will adjust this and the percentages in
the oil budget.)
As shown in the pie cha11 (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
collected just over Vo% percent of the oil.
000223
volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components thaLare not volatile dissolve into the water
and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizonincident. A different evaporation rate is used
for fresh and weathered oil to provide the most aCCUl:ate number.
caused some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns the diameter of a human hair).
of Mexico in large Palt because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and
After accoullting for operations, dispersion and evaporation, %% percent remains. This oil is either at
the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore on
beaches.
monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submer~ed oil.
impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulfregion will take time and
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 26, 2010 for detailed
explanation of calculation methods. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey iIi- collaboration
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: The Oil Budget calculations are based 011 direct
measurements where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurC'I11ents were not .
possible. The numbers for direct recovery alld burns were measured directly and reported in daily
operational report!;. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available
000224
information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based
Science Team
Marcia McNutt
Mark Sogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
Tim Kern
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albelt Venosa, EPA
Ron Goodman, U. of Cal gary
AI Allan, SpilT e(;
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Pat Lambert. Env. Canada
Per Daling, Sfi\lTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, tiP
000225
Deepwater Horizon MC252 ~ulf Incident Oil Budget

, ,iI,1! units in barrels. See end notes tor assumptions
Iniano Recovery
Deepwater'
Report gerH." .' .", .
See end r",
Applicat!or
,
Oceanic 211'<
U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National

~.
.:
000226
High flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) - Through July 28 (Day 100)
1.500.000
1,250,000
750,GOO
500,000 :
25(LW)~'
May-2010
t:"'' ' Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Deepwate! Hun/:.
Report
See end not," ,:'
;'.
Application p!.H!(\j:."i' .h, ,;"

,,:';j (\,,;,"(1 <,nd n,(]v!d,:';;i
Oceanic cme /\f;
",.in;.>"";:)::'):;
i!1,:, U,S, Geological Survey in cooperation willi the NatioflHI
000227

-- --,-"
--'-
'-
_._."
---
--"-"~--~--'-~~~':"';'"
and Top ;at
------
, All unJis in barrels. See end notes for assumptions
Inlana Recovery
Deepwater
Report gen'"
See end pc"
AppHci=l tiOi" ; .r,"
Oceanic an',' c",
Survey in cooperation with the National
000228
650.000
600,000
550,00,.1
500,OOU
450.000
400,000
('J
300.00G
(D
CU
IIII-
.Q
350,000 I
250.00n
200,OOd
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
May<>010
Jun-2010
Vaiue -
Deepwatf'7f' !'<:.lri/'i
fiepor!
genf~~ ::~l~~:d ;x;
,;-:
:"".(k.\\',
q;n
'i
',,;:'
See end no!",:; :,,).j;

Application
OrH~;
Oceanic an(j
al,C,(... \
;t'\Ln:y.;
Upper/L.ower Confidence Bounds
"
~",
U ':,
r:~)2f,~,q\~'/
;'., .r.\dnn;::;:::l;
vP
rri/t.:~~rj?C 10
; :20 t\f\!1
r'1DT,
,he U.S. Geoiogical Survey in cooperai.ion wiH) the NiiliorFl1
000229
Reference Notes
Chart - Cunlulative/Daily Volume Remaining of the Surface

volume that is evaporated or dissolved, skimmed, burned, or dispersed (either chemically or naturally) ..

The Cumulative Disposition of Oil "Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amount of oil
released over time lJased
011
low and high discharge estimates, the relative amounts of oil recovered or
correspond to the .:umulative values in the table. See the footnotes (available in the Web application by
reference material.
Discharged
The Discharge values shown ill the reports corne from the low and high estimates determined by the
over time in the data behind the application based on analyses by the F:RTG of changing dynamics in
-Other estimati'::m methods provided higher and lower values.
Note: Refer to tne section on Leakage in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a full discussion of
the scientific rnethndology used in this calculation.
--------------_.._--_ ..
Background
On June 15, 2010,
en improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from the leaking BP well was
announced. The most like~y flow rate of oil is between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels per day. This
improved estimate iG based on more and better data that is available after the riser cut -- data which
helps increase the ;")cientific Gonfidence in the accuracy of the estimate. As the Government continues
DeepwC1lC:,j'
Report 9"X'~;f;i"':(i U,r","k \\'J:-"I;,.,,;
See end nr
,". :j,,, . ~
Applicalion
Ocea!1!c anti
O~l
Ur ;;::;,'?C u
nt,"""",,,,.
t)jl
I :20 AM MDT
el(:'Jments.
ihe U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nalional
000230

Dispersed Naturally
documentation. 1'116 l:ollowing assumptions and factors apply:
Droplets smaller than -j 00 micron are considered dispersed
-No natural suriace dispersion assumed
method of deterrninii)g oil diwersion in the water column. A higher factor is used for the "Maximum
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oil"removed." See background documentation for
more information.
Note: Refer to 'ih6 section on Dispersed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas (link) document for a fu II
discussion
at tile scientific methodology used in this calculation.
Evaporated or Dlssolved
documentation. 'T he following assumptions and factors apply:
-Evaporation 10nnulas include dissolution as well
Largest oil removal mechanism for surface oil
Deepw,,(I,t:i' 1+ HL;:
Report ger,f;; c,
See end
Application
Oceanic ;'1nrJ
,;
0'1 n',!'!:'rl
elements.
Ihf~ U ,S, GeoloGicfli Survey in GOop(~ral.ion
wilh the National
000231
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh l1 oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil
evaporationfdissolution calculation first determines the remainiAgoilavailable for evaporative processes
Measured amount removed via RIIT and Top Hat
Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion
Reported amount of oil burned
The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor based on scientific research and
for a full discussion of the scientit'ic methodology used in this calculation.

The amount avaiiable lor recovery, both daily and cumulative, is simply the remaining oil after removing
the following lrciTI
I:-,e total discharge:
Measured amount removed via Rln and Top Hat

'Calculated amcunt of subsurface dispel'Sion
Calculated amount of evaporation and dissolution
._-_._--------------------------------
Skimmed
Skimmed oil is a rough ca,(;uia'iicn based on the daily reported amount of oily water multiplied by a
factored estimation Q1 net eil conte;,t. The net oil factor is different for the Maximum and Minimum
Removal scenario&.
The skimmed oil estimate is W.Hy rough
this calculation.
-----_._--...... _... _-_.__..
Burned
cumulative totals.
i'.::::L:.:r::;~H)2 rn~,:ttt~r!~.ii
", 1Ll::
';1
,i
'.,
t\,rin~!pi:;
,'r'i
", dipn
',!,,:j
and
on
H!e~nents.
by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in cooperation with the f\!atioral
000232
Note: Refer to the section on BurningL()sses in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a discussion
assumptions and
~aGtors
apply:
Droplets smaller than "', 00
rn~cron
are considered dispersed

-International. Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (lTOPF) II planning purpose ll dosage of 20: 1 used
Note: Refer to t~le B6ction Ofl Dispersed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a full
discussion of the sch:mti'fic metllodology used in this calculation.
Dispersant Used
The amount oJ dispGrsarrt used is recorded each day of the incident by National Incident Comman d
personnel. It is an actual measurement of the total dispersant used via aI/ methods employed.
Oil Remaining
DeGpvVrJ.i.f.:H
Repurt
Hor~ ,:' '-.
'; ~ i;
': ' ;:.
;', :..':
''', ...
rn1.
()ii 8udDt.~t
,}~~ik t :' ri(1rH).,~jOlj
Application ope;,),. ' i V : i U ::;

Oceanic and J\1!" ~ \',~.
::~ b,!,~;"'r;!;'!
(~u;;lrd
<:.~~ ":~iiOn.
un
O("/~~~)!)(;'l ()
'1'1 :20
;\~lf
h,mJr
and j:J!TJ'lickJd by lh<'! U.S. Geolo[Jical Survey in cooperation with the r"Jatj,mal
000233
Deepwatc, HorizonlBP Oil Budget Calculator

4
Budge~
Deepwater Horizon Oil
"Remaining 011 I~,
either allhe :,uif;!cp

a~ light sheell O!
weathered Lal' l)all~J.
ha::. been
biodegraded, or lIa:>
already corne (I:>llOr~~
on beadles.
mmed
3%
the oil budget.)
significant portion of the spined oil. %% percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead by
the riser pipe insertjon tube and top hat systems. In addition, burning and skimming operations
collected just 0 vel' 'to% percent of the oil.
000234
It is estimated that %% percent of the oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water c.olumn. The ..
volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are not volatile disso.Ive into the water
%% percent of the oil has dispersed naturally into the water c.olumn, and %% percent of the oil was
We know that naturally occulTing bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the
oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are n~turally abundant in the Gulf
of Mexico in large pat1 because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and
beaches.
oil. Around a quar1er of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into Gulf
waters. The remaining amount, roughly 1/4 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
NOAAcontinues to track the movement of the remaining oil and will issue daily surface oil trajectories
monitoring strategies for tar balls &.nd near shore submerged oil.
scientists remain extremely concerned about the inwact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the
impacts of this spili on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulflncident Budget Tool Report from July 26,2010 for detailed
explanation of cakulation methods. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in collaborati()n
measurements where possible and the best aVailable scientific estimates where measurements were not
possible. The numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured directly and reported in daily
operational Teport~,. The rest [)fthc numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available
000235
information and a broad range of sCientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based
on additional information-and further analysis.
Science Team
The following scientists at TJSGS were involved in developing the Oil Budget Calculator tool:
Marcia McNutt .
Mark Sogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
Tim Kern
The following scientists created and reviewed the calculation methods used the oil budget calculator: .
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones. NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Antonio Passolo, NIST
Al Allan, SpilTe<.:
Ed Ovelion, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Mel'v Fingas, Env Canada(ret)
Ali Khelifa, En\'. Canada
Per Daling, SiNTEF
David Usher, is CO
Peter Carragher, Br
Michel Boufadel. Temple lJ.
000236
000237
DRAFT 7..29
Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget Calculator
TIle National Incident Command has assembled the best scientific minds in the government and
independent scientitic community to produce an estimate of just how much oil has been skimmed,
oil was released and how this oil is moving and degradiilg.
r .-

'Remaining oill~
either <'11 lile !,uriacl:'
a~
light
~heell
or
I . W!:'dtlH:'red t<ll t)ali~_
II
I
i
ha::. bp\:"-I
biodegra{jpd.
01
already cornE:
"~ho!e
on
11;;:>
beach<:~.
ed
wellhead. (* When announced, new FRTO flow rate / total escape will adjust this and the percentages in
the oil budget.)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
. collected just over llo% percent of the oil.
000238
as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high pressures into the water column, which
caused some of it to spray off in sma)] droplets (less than 100 microns - the diameter of a human hair).
of Mexico in large pa11 because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and
the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly .. While there is more analysis
crude oil from this well is blodegl'ading quickly.
beaches.
In surrunary, burnil1g, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 1I~ of
the oil. Around a quarter ofthe total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into
Gulf waters. The remaining amount, roughly lI:1ft is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed
from beaches or has been biodegraded.
.
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead, ftxieral
scienti::asWOAJ\ remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully
understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will
take time and continued monitoring and research.
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 26, for detailed
explanation of calculation methods.
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: This analysis is based on direct measurements where
possible arld the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The
numbers for di:re<.~t recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports.
The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available information and a
broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based on additional
information and Further analysis.
000239
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:17 AM
Jennifer Austin
Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave
Westerholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy; 'margaret.spring@noaa.gov'; Amrit Mehra;
dwh.staff@noaa.gov
RE: pie chart
Oil Budget description 7 28 v3 JL.doc
This is a great start. Many thanks for pulling this together quickly. I've added a summary
paragraph at the end and changed one sentence so it does not imply something that is
sCientifically inaccurate. We will also need to add an appendix that spells out the bases
for the calculations. I think it should go to the interagency team that has been working on
these calculations.
An please run it by the relevant folks in our science box.
The FRTT is trying to finalize a flow rate number by COB Friday. We are being asked to
have this ready to announce Saturday, but it is fine to have the document go through
Friday.
Bill and Mark, can you tell me who are the other people in other agencies (as well as
ours) who are the team who have been working on this. Are you envisioning them as 'authors'
of this interagency report? Let me know if you need anything to move ahead.
Many thanks,
Jane
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
To: Jane lubchenco
Cc: Mark WMiller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
point 1.
>
>
000240
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jennifer Austin
Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lro.binson@noaa.gov; Dave
Westerholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy; 'margaret.spring@noaa.gov'; Amrit Mehra;
dwh.staff@noaa.gov
RE: pie chart
Oil Budget description 7 "28 v3 JL.doc
paragraph at the end and changed one sentence so it does .not imply something that is
scientifically inaccurate. We will also need to add an appendix that spells out the bases
these calculations.
The FRTT is trying to finalize a flow rate number by COB Fr"iday. We are being asked to
have this ready to announce Saturday~ but it is fine to have the document go through
expedited interagency review without the final numbers J then slot the final numbers in on
Friday.
Bill and Mark, can you tell me who are the other people in other agencies (as well as
ours) who are the team who have been working on this. Are you enviSioning them as 'authors'
of this interagency report? Let me know if you need anything to move ahead.
Many thanks,
Jane
--- -Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
Sent: WednesdaYJ July 2S, 2e19 4:45 PM
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark- W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave
Hi Dr Lubchenco J
point 1.
>
>
000241
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:

Wednesday, July 28. 2010 9:34 AM
Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jennifer Austin
David Kennedy; Irobinson@noaa.gov; Dave Westerholm; Margaret Spring
pie chart
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark, Bill, Scott and Jen,

Thanks for your willingness to move quickly on this. A few thoughts/suggestions:
1. It would be good to id a few key folks from other agencies to work on this early on so they are not blind sided.
2. I think it's likely that the 'new' rate will not be outside the bounds of the current range, so it might be useful to
prepare two pie charts: one at the low flow rate (35,000) and the other at the high rate (60,000).
3. It's my understanding that 'Remaining' simply means lleft over after subtracting the other categories from the
total', (Le., at the surface, on beaches, in tar balls or biodegraded, removed from beaches, etc.) as opposed to
'remaining at the surface and on beaches' (which is what most folks will think). It will be important to clarify
this.
4. In the text, it will be useful to bin the categories:
a. removed by response efforts at the surface (burning + skimming + recovered)
b. subsurface (dispersed naturally and chemically)
c. evaporated
d. remaining (specify what this is)
5.
Other questions folks will ask: what fraction of oil released made it to surface?
Thanksl
Jane
000242
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jen.Pizza [Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov]
Wednesday, August 04,20109:00 AM
DWH leaderShip
OIL BUDGET REPORT - PDF ATTACHED
Oil Budget description 8 3 FINAL.pdf
Final Oil Budget Report
attached.
000243
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jen.Pizza [Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov]
DWH leadership
NY Times: U.S. Finds Most Oil From Spill Poses Little Additional Risk - Oil Budget Tool
FYI, oil budget story is already in NY Times;

http://www.nytimes.com/2919/9S/84/science/earth/940il.html? r=l&hp
000244
DRAFT 7.28
Prepared /1y: Caillyn Kennedy. Jell Austin
Reviewed 81':
. Bill Conner
..
The National Incident Command has assembled the best scientific minds in the
government and independent scientific community to produce an estimate of just how
much oil has been skimmed, burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed. They have
developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator to determine where the oil has gone.
The numbers are based on best estimates of how much oil was released and how this oil
is moving and degrading,

. ChelTlic~lIy
. Dispersed
11%
.... ...
. '''. .
....... ...... ............
......: ... ____: ....................._ - , ..........." ........_J
Figure I: Oil Budget Calculator.. Shows what has happened td the oil.
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command,
estimates that as of July 15 between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the
Deepwater Horizon/BP wellhead. (*When announced later this week (t), new FRTG
flow rate I total escape will adjust this B.nd the percent!ges in the oil budget.)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure I), aggressive response efforts have been successful in
recovering a significant portion of the spilled oil. %% percent of tile oil was captured
directly from the source by the riser pipe insertion tube or top hat systems. In addition,
burning and skimming operations collected just over %% percent of the oil.
000245
It is estimated that %% percent of the oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
column. The volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are not
volatile dissolve into the water column or form residues such as tar balls. The
evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific research and observations conducted
during the Deepwater Horizon incident. A different evaporation rate is used for fresh and
weathered oil to lirovide the most accurate number.
%% percent of the oil has dispersed naturally into the water column, and %% percent of
the oil was dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants.
Natural dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out of tile broken riser pipe at high
pressures into the water column, which caused some of it to spray off in small droplets
(less than 100 microns - the diameter of a human hair).
We know that naturally occ.uliing bacteria have consumed 1;lnd biodegraded a significant
amount of the oil. Bacteria tha1 break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are
naturally 8.bundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water there,
the favorable nutrient and oxygeillevels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico
through natural seeps regularly,-SB-HHHtJ1.e...OO';I-efia-H:!e-Ft)-aJ'tHIt)t'w.itomN-to breaking it
~\'fl. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of
biodegradation in the GulF, early indications are that the light crude oil from this well is
biodegrading quickly.
These estimates leave about %% I)ercent ofthe oil. This oil is either at the surface as
light sheen or weathered ta.r balls, has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore on
beaches.
1!.L8!!.l}m.'Jr:l .. I).U':tl~I1.!.Lihj.m.min.\Limg...r.~~!y'.SIY~!lQl.tUl.ave removed roughly 1!;L~fthe
9jL6'::'~!lt!HljL'[lI'1I:ll:':I.QLth":.~~!t<'I.U.l~!!;,... !.l';:f.!!J:!!lt..\!I:~lli:~..!mlQLl!.led and another guaner
Qim~rst.:.t:J.~r,'&Jlu1.C~~'1)!~~I~._Ul';.fs,:ln.1l.iJlU.lli.Qmm!!.]L,.rr\.I}ghl~L.Ij.Js ,m fhe Sllrfa~ in tar
hi!lb. Q'Lh~?I~; 11 ;;"1. r~!1E~y.:~~t .n:m.lJ.b.s!.iL~!K~.W:.lH!i.!l;;:..tIl.biQf!Qg!] de(j,

NOAA continues to' track the movement of the remaining oil and will issue daily surface
oil trajectories for as long as necessary. NOAA responders are working with the Unified
Command to develop monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oil.
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreaed since til? capping of the BP wellhead,
NOAA remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully
understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife; habitats; and natural resources in the
Gulf region will take time and continued monitoring and research.
/" ___ _' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

~
~'~'~'~_~
___
~_
~~_'_r
i Comment [J1]: Thesc fractions were delivcd
_. _
! from the earlier oil budgelloal and will need 10 b.

....
! adjusted W:':~ we ~~~:~_ti,:..r.nal n~~,:,:::
000246
DRAFT 7.28
Prepared I~F' Caiflyn Kenne((I' . .fen Alistin
Reviell'ed By Bill Conner
Deepwater Hol"izon/BP Oil Budget Calculator


Chemically
. Di'rr.:rsed
11'
8%
Dispersion
13%
3%
'". '" .. ' __ " _
~"'",,"~
.. ,,"
.".," _
,_, __ ,, _ _
~,_~._m_''''''H''--'_''''~~'''~' _ _ _ !
Explanation of Ji'indings
The Plow Rate Technical Group (PRTG), assembled by the Nati9nal Incident Command,
estimates that as of July! 5 between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the
Deepwater Horizon/BP wellhead. ("'When announced later this week (t), new FRTG
flow rate I total escape will adjust this and the percentages in the oil budget.)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure I), aggressive response efforts have been successful in
recovering a significant portion of the spilled oiL %% percent of the oil was captured
directly frol11lhe source by the riser pipe insertion t'Jbe or top hat systems. In addition,
000247
weathered oil to provide the most accurate number.
Natural disl)ersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser p.ipe at high
(less than 100 microns the diameter of a human hair).
We know that naturally occurring bacteria have consLlmed and biodegraded a significant
amount cf the oil. Bacteria th!!! break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are
naturally abundant in the Gul f of Mexico in large part because of the warm water there,
the favorable nutrient and oxygl"n levels, and the fact that oi I enters the Gulf of Mexico
through natural seeps regularly. ~O,{fH!H~"-"I",'fia4lwr-e-ftFe-HC...:tf5t~fl'le<.H&hFeakffig-it
tk",\'It. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of
biodegradation in the Gult'. early indications are that the light crude oil from this well is
biodegrading q~lickly.
These estimates leave about %% percent oHhe oil. This oil is either at the surface as
light sheen or weathered tar balls . has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore on
beaches.
Jn~U!)Jl2gL\J:"tDli i.1g:~t(jmilljpf~ ,l!.llf!J~~<;:9Y~IY,~.ffu.lt,- .hill&l!:~novecJ rou~h.IX 1/3 of the
Q.i1....\!:mmcJ. 1L'l!!(t!J~::L~l.U ly','~ '_I')LLl.}':'.~'~<:n Jml!.!I,-Yh:_~~:l![~(JK!i.ted and another quarter
fE.!?-,~rg:~t~l.!.~l.Ptllt. \-\'\1k'q ! 1I,; r'-;:!lli)illin~ll.m~llml,jl'JJp.:Jili:__ 1i6 J~9n Ille sudace. in ta~
rr,)!lltJ.'~i!~llQ5!)r ht'l:'iJ!!~~!lj~fldeg[adt;Q.,
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oil and will issue daily surface
Command to develop mOllitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oil.
Even though the threat to shor~lines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead,
understanding the impacts of this spill 011 wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the
IrCom~-;;tearlier[31]:oil Th~; frac~;;;;;;';d~ri;;.d

and will need be
from Ihe
budget 1001
to
t ~.i:'~ ~~~_:,-=~~.-,,:th-= ~Ul!~~:.'!~b_,:,,~ .
000248
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

Wednesday. August 04,201012:41 PM
Oil Media
madelyn.appelbaum
Oil Budget report
Hi guys,
In case there is confusion on the Oil Budget report.
the press release is now up,
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100804_oil.html
on NOAA.gov and RestoreTheGulf.gov
There are two links there, one to the Report itself - which is 5 pages, that is not a
summary, that is the whole thing.
there is a second link for additional information about calculation methods. which is about
7 pages.
That's all there is. There is no 200 page report, reporters seem to think there is, there
was a mis-communication earlier. Please send them to those linksJ and help bat down the
rumor that there is another longer report.
thanks,
Jennifer Austin
000249
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Wednesday, August 04, 2010 11 :04 AM
Mark.W.Miller
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Bill Conner; Scott Smullen
Re: [Fwd: AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS what happened to oil
report]
Hi Mark J
You don't have to call him, he's been calling us all, as has every network.
We've already gotten back to him. '
For now we are telling everyone to stay tuned for the release,hopefully coming soon, and the
White House just announced that Dr Lubchenco will be with Gibbs for this afternoon's
briefing, so that will take care of a lot of questions. We'll handle follow up after that.
Thanks, Jen
Mark.W.Miller wrote:
> Can I call Mr. Borenstein?
>
> Mark
>
> -------- Original Message -------> Subject:
AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS what
> happened to oil report
> Date:
Wed, 04 Aug 201e 09:31:03 -0500
> From:
Borenstein, Seth <SBorenstein@ap.org>
> To: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov
>
>
>
> Mark,
> I'm Seth Borenstein, science writer at the Associated Press. Can you
> call me as soon as possible at
> Thanks,
> 5eth
>
>
> Seth Borenstein
> As'sociated Press Science Writer
> 11e0 13th St. NW, Suite 700
> Washington, DC 20005-4076
>
>
ap.org <mailto:
ap.org>
>
>
>
> The information contained in this communication is intended for the
> use of the deSignated reCipients named above. If the reader of this
> communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that you have received this communication in error, and that any
> review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
> +1-212-621-1898 and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
2
000250
> [IP_US_DISC]msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
Jennifer Austin
000251
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.govj

Robert Haddad; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; Mark W Miller; _HQ Deep Water Horizon
need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
Staff
Hi Bob and Tony and DWH Staff,

Quick question for you J related to the the oil budget report going out this morning, we're
pulling together Q&A for Or. for her briefing with Gibbs this afternoon, Can you answer this
question? Thanks, Jen
1.
What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial liability for this
spill? *
Jennifer Austin
Communications & External Affairs
2e2-482-5757 (office) 2e2-3e2-9047 (cell)
NOAA
000252
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jane Lubchenco
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; KSarri@doc.gov; KGriffis@doc.gov;
justin.kenney@noaa.gov; Scott Smullen; Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov; Mark W Miller
Re: Oil Budget Report
.
Oil Budget description 8 3 FINAL.pdf
PDF version.
Jen Pizza, can you please forward to leadership list.
thanks, Jen
Jane lubchenco wrote:

> Jan - please convert the report to a PDF and send it around.
Thanks!
Jennifer Austin
000259
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.govJ

Tuesday, August 03,20104:59 PM
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
final oil budget calculator descriptive report
Oil Budget description 8 3 FINAl.docx
DWH Staff, attached is the final report, cleared and reviewed by the NIC, Bill Connor, Dr
Lubchenco and other agencies. FYI, will be public soon.
Jennifer Austin
12
000260
000270
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget:

_What Happened To the Oil?
The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled a number of interagency expert scientific teams to
estimate the quantity of BP Deepwater Horizon oil that has been released from tIte well and the fate of
that oil. The expertise of government scientists serving on these teams is complemented by
nongovernmental and governmental specialists reviewing the calculations and conclusions. One team
calculated the flow rate and total oil released. Led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, this teanl announced on August 2, 2010, that it
estimates that a total of 4.9 million barrels of oil has been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon well.
A second interagency team, led by the Department of the Interior (001) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) developed a tool called the Oil Budget Calculator to determine
what happened to the oil. The calculator uses the 4.9 million barrel estimate as its input and uses both
direct measurements and the best scientific estimates available to date, to determine what has happened
to the oil. The interagency scientific report below builds upon the calculator and summarizes the
disposition of the oil to date.
In summary, it is estimated that burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one
quarter (25%) of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally
evaporated or dissolved, and just less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally or as a
result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulfwaters. The residual amount -just over one
quarter (26%) - is either 011 or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed
ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Oil in the residual and
dispersed categories is in the process of being degraded. The report below describes each of these
categories and calculations. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional information
becomes available.

Based on estimated release of 4.9m barrels oj oil
Unified
Residual includes oil
Command
Response
Operations
that is on or just below

the surface as light
sheen and weathered
tar balls, has washed
ashore or lJeen
collected from the

shore, or is buried in
sand and sediments_
Skimmed
3%
Chemically
Dispersed*
8%
*Oilln the~e 3 categories is
currently being d!:'grat:ied
naturally.
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows currellt best estimates of what happened to the oil.
000271
Unified Command Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with the oil have been aggressive. As
shown in the pie chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in addressing 33% of the spilled oil..
This includes oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat
systems (17%), burning (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct capture, burning
and skimming remove the oil from the water entirely, while chemically dispersed oil remains in the
water until it is biodegraded, as discussed below.
Dispersion: Based on estimates, 16% of the oil dispersed naturally into the water colunm and 8% was
dispersed by the application of chemical dispersants on and below the surface. Natural dispersion occurs
as a result of the oil coming out of the riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which caused some
of the oil to spray offlll small droplets. For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as
droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this
small are neutrally buoyant and thus remain in the water column where they then begin to biodegrade.
Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to keep it from coming ashore in large
surface slicks and makes it more readily available for biodegradation. Chemical dispersants were applied
at the surface and below the surface; therefore, the chemically dispersed oil ended up both deep in the
water column and just below the surface. Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be
biodegraded, both in the water column and at the surface. Until it is biodegraded, naturally or chemically
dispersed oil, even in dilute amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species.
All of the naturally dispersed oil and some of the oil that was chemically dispersed remained well-below
the surface in diffuse clouds where it began to dissipate further and biodegrade. Previous analyses have
shown evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3,300 and 4,300 feet in very low
concentrations (parts per million or less), moving in the direction of known ocean currents and
decreasing with distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2,
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
moved into the top 20 feet of the water colunm where it mixed with surrounding waters and began to
biodegrade.
Evaporation and Dissolution: It is estimated that 25% of the oil volume quickly and naturally
evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The evaporation and dissolution rate estimate is based on
scientific research and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Dissolution is different from dispersion. Dissolution is the process by which individual hydrocarbon
molecules from the oil separate and dissolve into the water just as sugar can be dissolved in water.
Dispersion is the process by which larger volumes of oil are broken down into smaller droplets of oil.
Residual: After accounting for the categories that can be measured directly or estimated (i.e., recovery
operations, dispersion, and evaporation and dissolution), an estimated 26% remains. This figure is a
combination of categories all of which are difficult to measure or estimate. It includes oil still on or .i ust
below the surface in the .form of light sheen or tar balls, oil that has washed ashore or been collected
from the shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface through time. This oil
has also begun to degrade through natural processes.
000272
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface of the water biodegrade
naturally. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf,
early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil from
the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE and
academia are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate. It is well known that bacteria that
break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part
because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil regularly
enters the Gulf of Me~dco through natural seeps.
over the course of the spill. The newest estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions of the
National Incident Command's Flow Rate Teclmical Group (FRTG) led by United States Geological
Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and a team of Department of Energy (DOE) scientists and
engineers, led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu. This group estimates that approximately 4.9 million
barrels of oil flowed from the BP Deepwater Horizon wellhead between April 22 and July 15, 2010, at
which time the flow of oil was suspended. The uncertainty of this estimate is 10%. The pie chart
above is based on this group's estimate of 4.9 million barrels of oil.
Direct Measures and Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
wherever possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible.
reports. The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers
were based on previous scientific analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific
analysis. Further information on these calculation methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf
Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1,2010 (available online). The tool was created by the US
Geological Survey in collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA and NIST.
Continued monitoring and research:
Our knowledge of the oil, dispersants, ecosystem impacts and human impacts will continue to evolve.
Federal agencies and many academic and independent scientists are actively pursuing better
understanding of the fate, transport and impact of the oil. The federal government will continue to report
activities, results and data to the public on a regular basis. Updates and information can be found at
www.restorethegulf.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
www.geoplatform.gov.
DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
responders are working with the Unified Command on monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore
submerged oil, and researchers continue subsurface 'scanning and sampling to monitor the concentration,
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA and NOAA have carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in
the Gulf and continues to monitor the air, water and sediments near the shoreline for the presence of
dispersant and crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA~
and NSF-funded academic researchers and NOAA scientists are investigating rates of biodegradation,
ecosystem and wildlife impacts. DOl and DOE responders are working to ensure control of the well and
000273
accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the environment. DOl is leading efforts to
mitigate impacts of oil to terrestrial wildlife, natural resources, and public lands.
Gulf ecoSystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources
000274
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget:

What happened to the oil?
Acknowledgements
Authors
Jane Lubchertco, NOAA, DOC
Bill Lehr, NOAA, DOC
Mark Miller, NOAA, DOC
Credits
LT(jg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
David Mack and Jeff Allen (USGS) - Application development and engineering
Rebecca Uribe (USGS) - Graphic design
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espina (NIST) Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
LCDR Lance Lindgren, CDR Peter Hoffinan, CDR Sean O'Brien, and LT Amy McElroy
(USCG) - Application requirements and user stories
Kevin Gallagher, Martha Garcia, and Stephen Hammond (USGS) Executive sponsors
formulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algoritluns used in the calculator. The team continues to
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan; SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv Fingas, Env. Canada (ret)
Per Daling, SINTEF
Michel Boufadel, Temple Umv.
000275
Oil Budget Calculator Overview Talking Points
The oil budget calculator provides an account by experts of what's

happened with the oil from the BP spill and makes clear that the
administration's response removed significant amounts of it from the Gulf.
A few things about the report:

o First, this report is the result of very careful, peer~reviewed
calculations by some of the nation's best scientists, working together
across a number of agencies.
o Secondly, we have found that the aggressive and unprecedented
response efforts were effective in dealing with roughly a third of the
oil released - representing about 1.6 million barrels. The men and
women who were working so hard to remove oil through skimming,
burning, and direct capture really did make a significant dent in the
total amount of oil in the Gulf. Direct capture is one of the actions
the government directed BP to do.
o Mother nature is also assisting this response effort and together we .
are seeing Significant progress.
o We continue to be extremely concerned about what this oil spill
means for the health of the Gulf ecosystem and the millions of
people who depend on the Gulf for the livelihoods and enjoyment.
But we are making very good progress and doing as much as possible
to deal with this tragedy in as aggressive a fashion as possible.
000276
As you know, teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking
the oil since Day One of this spill, and based on the data from those efforts
and their collective expertise, they are now able to provide these useful
estimates.
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements where that is
possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements
were not possible. The report is based on the most recent estimates of the
Flow Rate Technical Group, released yesterday, which is a cumulative
release of 4.9 million barrels of oil.
From that, we estimate that the Unified Command's aggressive recovery

operations, including burning, skimming and direct recovery from the
wellhead were successful in removing one quarter of the oil.
An additional one quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved;
And just less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed, either naturally or
chemically, into microscopic droplets.
The residual amount, just over one quarter (26%), is either on or just below
the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balis, has washed ashore or
been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments.
Thu.s far, 37,000 tons of oiled debris have been removed from shore,
. rComment [kil: I he';;'. se-;-':;-';:;;';-u;;-thi;,-b~~I"
Idreamed
hay.en'! Independentlv confirmed. It's' possible that I
it.
'
I
000277
The dispersed
a~.)resfdual oil that is still in the system is degrading through
a number of natural processes. Even oil that might have been there
originally is being degraded naturally.
While further analysis remains to be done to quantify the rate of

degradation, early indications are that this oil is degrading quickly.
Other research efforts are currently underway to further understand and

quantify the location and concentrations of subsurface oil, and results, as
you know, so far have shown that diffuse concentrations in the low parts
per million, exist at depth. Our ~atest information is that those
concentrations are being degraded through time.
We will continue to monitor and sample and conduct a number of other

studies to quantify the rate of degradation. Because that is a key question
about which we'd like more information.
000278

What Happened To the Oil?
The National lncid<mt Command (NIC) assembled a number of interagency expert scientific teams to
estimate the quantity of BP Deepwater Horizon oil that has been released from the well and the fate of
Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, this team announced on August 2, 2010, that it
A second interagency team, led by the Department of the Interior (DOl) and the National Oceanic al1d
. direct measurements and the best scientific estimates available to date, to determine what has happened
to the oil. The interagency scientific report below builds upon the calculator and sUllmlarizes the
result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulf waters. The residual amount - just over one
quarter (26%)
is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed
becomes available.

Based on estimated release of 4.9m barrels a/Oil
Unified
Command
that is on or jusl below

the surface .as light
Response
Operations
sheen and weathered

lar balls, has washed
ashore or been
collected frortl the
sand and sedimenls.
8%
*Oil in these 3 categories is

currently being degraded
naturally.
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows current best,estimates of what happened to the oil.
000279
shown in the pie chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in addressing 33% of the spilled oil.
as a result of the oil coming out of tlle riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which caused some
of the oil to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as
small are neutrally buoyant and tlms remain in the water colunID where they then begin to biodegrade.
the
All of
naturally dispersed oil and some of the oil that was chemically dispersed remained well-below
decreasing with distance :fr.9m the wellhead. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2,
moved into the top 20 feet of the water column where it mixed with surrounding waters and began to
biodegrade.
Evaporation and Dissolution: It is estimated that 25% of the oil volwne quickly and naturally
Residual: After accountingfor the categories that can be measured directly or estimated (Le., recovery
combination of categories all of whi,cil are 'difficult to measure or estimate. It includes oil still on or just
below the surface in the form of lighf sheen or tar balls, oil that has washed ashore or been collected
000280
academia are working to calculate more precise estimates of tins rate. It is well known that bacteria that
because ofthe warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil regularly
enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps.
National Incident Command's Flow Rate Teclmical Group (FRTG) led by United States Geological
barrels of oil flowed from the BP Deepwater Horizon wellhead between April 22 and July 15,2010, at
which time the flow of oil was suspended. The uncertainty of tllls estimate is 10%. The pie chart
above is based on tllls group's estimate of 4.9 million barrels of oil.
expertise. These nunlbers will continue to be refined based on additional infonnation and further
analysis. Further infornmtion on tllese calculation methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf

001, NASA and NOAA continue to refine Understanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
submerged oil, and researchers continue subsurface scanning and sampling to monitor the concentration,
dispersant and crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAAand NSF-funded academic researchers and NOAA scientists are investigating rates of biodegradation,
ecosystem and wildlife impacts. 001 and DOE responders are working to ensure control of the well and
000281
000282

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
.
LTOg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
program
LCDR Lance Lindgren, CDR Peter Hoffman, CDR Sean O'Brien, and LT Amy McElroy
(USCG) Application requirements and user stories
Kevin Gallagher, Martha Garcia, and Stephen Hammond (USGS) Executive sponsors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Dating, SINTEF
000307
Justin Kenney
Jane Lubchenco
Mark.W.Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep
Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring; Gilson, Shannon
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 7,doc; DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100728.pdf
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi All,
perspective.
Appendix A.
~
I've'added Shannon to this distribution list, 50 she can give a heads up to WH communications
and be in touch with Heather and others about release plans as neces5ary~
Jane Lubchenco
wrote~
>
) Thanks, Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortable with
> the document.

>
> that are in the pie chart into the text and 'finalize it ,and,send it to

> clearance.
>
>
> Jane
>
> *From:* Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 2e10 4:08 PM
> *TQ:* Jane Lubchenco
> *Cc:* JeRnifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
> David Kennedy; _HQ Deep water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
>
> Dr. Lubchenco,
>
> Here is the latest version that
> and Bill lehr.
inc~udes
comments from you, me, Marcia
25
000308
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
it.
>

urgent.
> thanks
>

> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2ele 12:57 PM
> To: Mark WMiller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholmj
> David Kennedy; _HQDeep Water Horizon Staff
> Subject: Re: budget tool calculator -ex~lanation, latest
>
) Sorry! I attached the wrong document.

>
>
>
Hi,
>
>
>
>
>
> incorporating
>
>
edits fromth~s mo~ning.
>
>
>
>
> 26
>
26
This is
000309
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
attached as an appendix to explaincalculiltion's"
in "further" detail.
>
>
>
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to
>
> see
>
>
> list
>
. should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
)
)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jennifer Austin
> 292-482-5757 (office) 2e2-3e2-9047 (cell)
> www.facebook.com/noaa .llibchenco
>
Jennifer Austin
NOAA ~pmmunications & External Affairs
27
000310
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jane Lubchenco
Mark.W.Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep
Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring; Gilson, Shannon
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 7.doc; DeepwaterHorizonOiIBudget20100728.pdf
Hi All,
perspective.
Authors and science contributors are acknowledged in Appendix B.'
Appendix A.
>
> Thanks J Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortable with
> the document.
>
> I've corrected a couple of typos. this looks good to me and the
> clearance.
>
>
> Jane
>
> *From:*Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 29 J 2010 4:08 PM
> *To:* Jane lubchenco
> *(c:* Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholrn;
> David Kennedy; _HQ Deep water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
> *Subject:* Re: budget tool calculator explanation J latest
>
> Dr. lubchenco J
>
> and Bill Lehr.
>
28
000311
> outstanding. I. forwarded Steve's comments to Jennifer moments ago.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
it.
>
>

urgent.
> thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>

To: Mark WMillerj William Connerj Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholmj
David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
) Cc: Margaret Springj Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov
) Sorry! I attached the wrong document.

)
>
>
>
>
HiJ
>
> incorporating
>
>
)
>
>
,{
The pie chart uses
60~000
barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July
> 26
>
29
This is
000312
>
>
The latest of htese reports would be.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> see
>
>
> list
>
should probably include Dr. McNutt J Mark Sogge J Steve Hammond (NIC
>
>
IASG)~ Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
)
>
)
--
) Jennifer Austin
> NOAA Communications & External Affairs.
> 202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
> <http://www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco)
>
Jennifer Austin
30
000313
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep
Water Horizon Staff
Margaret Spring; Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov
. Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 3.doc

> Hi,
>
> Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager, incorporating
>
> The pie chart uses 60,00e barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26
>
>
> Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email >
> For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see
) should probably include Dr. McNutt> Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC
> IASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
>
> For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis. that
>
> For NOAA - Bill Lehr.
>
>
>
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communi~ations & External Affairs
31
000314
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov1

Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerhotm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep
Water Horizon Staff
Margaret Spring; Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov
budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Oil Budget description 7.28 v3.doc; DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget Appendix A.pdf
Hi,
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager, incor.porating edits from this
morning.
The pie chart uses 60,,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26 daily oil budget
report. The latest of htese reports would be attached as an appendix to explain calculations
in further detail.
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see who USGS thinks should
be identified for this document. A short list should probably include Dr. McNutt) Mark Sogge J
Steve Hammond (NIC IASG)J Sky Bristol (led the development team and Tim Kern.
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that created the upper and
lower confidence bounds)
For NOAA - Bill lehr.
Jennifer Austin
32
000317
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark.W.Milier [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
Tuesday, August 03, 2010 7:41 AM
Jennifer Austin
[Fwd: EPA Comments.]
-------- Original Message -------Subject:EP A Comments.

Date:Tue, 03 Aug 2010 07:33:58 -0400
From:Perciasepe.Bob@epamail.epa.gov
To:Mark.W.Miller(@noaa.gov, Jane.Lubchenco(@noaa.gov, Paul Anastas
<Anastas.Paul@.epamail.epa.gov>
.
.
Jane and Mark.
Paul Anastas will have several additional important comments. Lisa and I
have this edit.
Please change
EPA has carefully monitored EP's use of dispersant in the Gulf and
continues to monitor the air, water and sediments near the shoreline for
the presence of dispersant and crude oil components with special
attention to human health impacts.
to
EPA and NOAA have carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in the Gulf
and continue to monitor the air, water and sediments near the shoreline
for the presence of dispersant and crude oil components with special
Please change
EPA has carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in the Gulf and
continues to monitor the air, water and sediments near the shoreline for
the presence of dispersant and crude oil components with special
to
EPA and NOAA have carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in the Gulf
and continue to monitor the air, water and sediments near the shoreline
for the presence of dispersant and crude oil components with special
Bob Perciasepe
Office of the Administrator
(0) 202 564 4711
(c) 202 368 8193
000319
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark.W.Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
Monday. August 02, 2010 5:05 PM
Jennifer Austin
[Fwd: Re: Checking in]
Here are the new numbers for the official government estimate. This will allow us to update our chart and the
%. I added % but they don't add up to 100. You may have to show decimal %.
Mark
-------- Original Message -------Subject:Re: Checking in
Date:Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:44:40 -0600
From:Sky Bristol <sbristoliCllllSgS.gov>
To:Stephen E Hammond <sehaLmnonlll{nsgs.gov>
CC:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov, Mark K Sogge 
References:<OF39DAB48B.F260ACA9-0N85257773.0070FFBE-85257773.0070FFF7@LocalDomain>
We have the basic new report roughed out and being tested in beta now. We still have a number of tasks to
complete like the range in the cumulative remaining graphs and some cosmetic improvements. I'll pull the plug
on the minor stuff if necessary, but it is not in the way at the moment. 1 indicated COB today on this to Mark
Miller, which means about 1700 MDT. We are on track for that close out with version 1.3 released to
production.
I do have the actual cumulative numbers from the model run on the official government estimates if you want
those for the pie chart:
Discharged - 4,928,040
Recovered via RITT and Top Hat - 827,046 (17%)
Dispersed Naturally - 763,936 (15.5%)
Evaporated or Dissolved - 1,243,712 (25%)
Available for Recovery - 2,093,346
Chemically Dispersed 408,792 (8%)
Burned - 265,450 (5%)
Skimmed - 165,293 (3%)
Remaining - 1,253,811(25%)
These % don't add up to 100% because I rounded them.
Note: We obviously have not rounded these figures yet, and I'm still just a little hesitant to do so in the tool
itself. Let us know if we should go ahead and round to the nearest 100, 1000, or even further.
<.--<.(<--<.(<
Sky Bristol
sbristo!(ifV,usgs.g,ov
Office: 303202-4181
<.~<.(<--<.
000320
On Aug 2,2010, at 2:34 PM, Stephen E Hammond wrote:
Hey Sky,
I agreed to assist my NOAA colleague here at the NIC and ask you how you are doing with the Tool
update. Do you have a projection on time until completion of the new reports.
Stephen E. Hammond
US Geological Survey
Chief Emergency Operations Office t
National Geospatial Program
Reston t VA
703-648-5033 (w)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
000321
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Monday, August .02, 2010 1:34 PM
Jennifer Austin'
Mark Up for Oil Budget
Oil Budget description 8.1 v 7pm_Miller.docx
Jen,
Here is a mark up. It includes:
1. Agency statements concerning their monitoring and measuring activities. (DOl, BOEM, USGS,
and DOE).
2. At the end of the document are paragraphs from Bill on dissolution and diseprsion. Was not
sure the best way to integrate.

Mark
000322
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark.W.Milier [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
Jane Lubchenco
William Conner; Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov
Re: authors
We have incorporated USGS requested changes in their list. I believe that everyone from our
side (Bill Lehr's group and reviewers) is addressed.
Mark
) Any changes to the authors in view of the additional work that has been done on the report?
) (I'm not suggesting any, just wanting to be sure we've thought about
) that.)
)
000353

Government Estimates Through August 01 (Day 104)
All unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
'" Government estimate of discharge ranged from 62.200 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 52.700 bbl on July 14, 2010
Deepwater .Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/02i2010 05:30 PM MDT.
See end notes section of. the report for reference material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in cooperation Witt1 the National
000354
Government Estimates - Through August 01 (Day 104)
1,500,000
1,250,000
en 1,000,000
......
ca
CD
.g
750,000
500.000
250,000
May-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Aug-20 10

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.govon 08/02/2010 05:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
000355

Higher Flow Estimate Through August 01 (Day 104)
All unlabelec! values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

<. Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate plus 10% uncertainty.
~.*
Ma)(imurn disGharge ranged from 68,390 bbl on April22. 2010 to 58.022 bbl on ,July 14. 2010.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/0212010 05:30 PM MDT.
000356
Higher Flow Estimate - Th~ough August 01 (Day 104)
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
-... 1,000,000
(J)
CIJ
...
ttl
.c
750,000
500,000
250.00: j
May-2010
Expected Value -
. Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2010

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by Ihe U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
000357

Lower Flow Estimate - Through August 01 (Day 104)
"
*' Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10Q;', uncertainty.
*'* Maximum discharge ranged frolll 55,956 bbl on April 22. 2010 to 47,472 bbl on July 14,2010.
Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/021201005:30 PM MDT.

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the
N~)tional
000358
Lower Flow Estimate - Thro~gh August 01 (Day 104)
1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
-m......
800,000
.c
600,000
til
C'G
700,000
500,000 "
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Expected Value -
Aug-2010 .

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.govon 08/02i2010 05:30 PM MDT.
000359
Reference Notes
Chart - Cumulative/Daily Volume Remaining on the Surface

The volume of oil that each day is added to the volume of oil already on the surface is computed, taking
into account the effective discharge (total discharge minus volume collected via the Riser Insertion tool
or the Top Hat), and the volume that is evaporated or dissolved, skimmed, burned, or dispersed (either
chemically or naturally).
Chart - Deepwater Horizon MC-2S2 - Cumul~tiv~ Disposition of Oil

released over time based on low and high discharge estiml;ltes, the relative amounts of oil recovered or
clicking on the labels in the table) for further information on the individual calculations and additional
reference material.
Discharged
On July 31,2010, the U.S. scientific teams charged by National Incident Commander Thad Allen with
determining the flow of oil from BP'sleaking well refined their estimates of the oil flow. The teams
estimated that the discharge rates ranged from 62,000 bbllday at the start of the incident to 53,000
bbl/day when the well was capped on July 14 with an uncertainty factor of 10%. The uncertainty factor
in the best government estimate was used to create a Higher Flow Estimate and a Lower Flow Estimate
report in the Oil Budget Tool.
Based on reports of major explosions and burning oil from the first two days of the incident (April 20-21),
the estimate begins on April 22, 2010. In general, the discharge rate trended down over time due to
decreaSing reservoir pressure observed after the well was capped. Severing the riser on June 4 (Day
45), resulted in an estimate of discharge increase of approximately 4%. Placement of the containment
cap on July 12 (Day 84) resulted in a flow decrease of approximately 4%
Previous Fixed Flow Rate

. Previous versions of the Oil Budget Tool used a constant low and high flow estimate based on
estimations from the Flow Rate Technical Group Plume Team PIV measurements. This method was
chosen at the time as the best available process and because the same measurement method was
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Inoident Oil Budget
Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov
on 08/0212010
05:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U,S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S, Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
000360
used pre- and post-riser cut. On June 15, 2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from
the leaking BP well was announced. The most likely flow rate of oil at that time was estimated between
35,000 and 60,000 barrels per day. This improved estimate was based on more and better data that
was available after the riser cut -- data which helped increase the scientific confidence in the accuracy
of the estimate at that time.

RITT and Top Hal are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
Dispersed Naturally
Natural subsurface dispersion calculates the total discharge minus an estimation of subsurface
method of determining oil dispersion in the water column.
-Evaporation formulas include dissolution
-Evaporation is the largest oil removal mechanism for surface oil
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident
on Budget
Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/02/201005:30 PM MDT.

000361


Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion
Skimmed
Skimmed oil is a rough calculation based on the daily reported amount of oily water multiplied bya.
factored estimation of net oil content in oily water.
-The actual amount ,of skimmed oil should ultimately be based on actual measurement
Burned
cumulative totals.
oAmerican Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) burn rate standards are used
oNo natural surface dispersion assumed

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/02/2010 05:30 PM MDT ..
000362
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20:1 used
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S, Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
000363
DRAFT 8. Iv 7pm
The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled some of the best scientific minds in the government
determine where the oil went. The numbers in the calculator are based on best estimates of how much

Ba.r,ed Of} higher flow rate estimate
.----......
Rem~irlng
all is
either at the ~urtace
as lieht sheen or
weathered Dr b~1I5.
h~~ be~"
biodeeradeo, or ras
~lr(,;H1y
r.nmr. ilshnrf'.
"-\.
Burned
Federal
'"
Response
Operations
"(
mcd \
Figure 1: Oil Budget Calculator- Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
over the course of the spill. This number is based on flow rate estimates from the Flow Rate Technical
Group (FRTG), assembled by the Nalionallncident Command. The most recent estimate of the Flow
Rate Technical Group is that approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater
HorizonlBP wellhead, the uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (dte: Flow Rale Technical Group.
website or report). The FRTG estimates that the daily flow rate ranged from 62,000 barrels per day on
April 22, 2010 to 53,000 barrels per day on July 15, 20 I0, at which time the flow of oil was suspended,
To represent the ten percent uncertainty in the flow rate estimate, the Oil Budget Calculatoi' shows two
scenarios, one based on the estimated flow rate plus ten percent, referred to at the "higher flow"
estim~te. and one on the estimated flow rate minus ten percent, referred to as the "lower flow" estimate.
The pie chart above is based on the higher flow estimate.
I Comment [ill: USGS team h<lpes 10 have Ihe
Iactuill"govemment estimates (witbout the
i uncertainly) progmmmed by COB lomorTow (Ihal is '
MDD They plan 10 have a copen formallhal has.1I
three scenarios - actual estimates, + I0010, and -10%.

II Then
our Pie Chari could be updaled 10 show Ihe
t 4.9M barrel scenario.
.
:
000364
wherever possible and the best available sciehtific estimates where measurements were not possible.
were based on previous scientific analyses. best available information and a broad range of scientific
expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based on additional information and Further
analysis.
chart (Figure I), response effOits were successful in dealing with 30% of the spilled oil. This includes
Natural dispersion occurs as a result of the oil com ing out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns -the
diameter of a human hair). Chemical dispersion aLso breaks the oil up into smaller droplets which keeps
it from coming ashore in large surface slicks and makes it more readily available For biodegradation.
However, until it is degraded, dispersed oil, even in dilute amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species in
the water column.
diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feel. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group
Report I and 2, htlp:i!ecowalch.ncddc.noaa.gov/.lAGlrcnorts.hlmi). Dispersion increases the Iikeh11O(1d
(Of the oil to benaturallv dissolved and biode!l.raded-As-f1~ed helol\', this oil appo:!QI'S to I;t!! in the
proeeGs of natural bill degmlil'.4i<lll.
Evaporation: It is estimated that 26% of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
After acCounting for recovery operations, chemical and natural dispersion and evaporation, an estimated
28% remains. This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has biodegraded
or already come ashore. Of the oil that has washed ashore. some has been removed by clean-up teams.
some remains on beaches and marshes, and some is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface
through time.
000365
down the dispersed and weathered surtace oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because
of the warm water there. the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of
Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact
rate of biodegradation in the Gult: early indications are that the oil from this well is biodegrading
quickly.
one quarter oflhe 4.9 OJ barrels of oil. Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated or dissolved
and less than one quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) into Gulf waters. The
remaining amount, just over one quarter is either on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already
Continued monitoring and research: Our knowledge of the oil, dispersants, ecosystem impacts and
human impacts will continue to evolve. Federal agencies and many academic and independent scientists
are actively pursuing better understanding of the fate, transport and impact of the oil. The federal
government will continue to report activities, results and data to the public as soon as possible.
(www.restorethegulf.gov).
NOAA continues to track the movement of the oil still on the surface and in the water column. NOAA
responders are working with the Unified Command on monitoring stmtegies for tar balls and near shore
submerged oil, and researchers continue subsurface scanning and sampling tomonitor the concentration,
distribution and impact of oil there. Do!, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of
amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command to
develop monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oiL EPA continues to monitor
coastal air and water, with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA- and NSP
funded academic researchers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife impacts.
DOl re.~J)ondcrs are working to ensure control of the well; to ensure accurate measurement of oil
r<:leased and oil remaining in the envimnlncnt: and 10 mitigate impacts of oil to wildlife. natural
resources. and public lands man8!!ed by DOl. Scientists from DOE laboralories are workin!! 10 ensure
the accurate measuremenl (lroil released n'om the well and are investigating the rates ofbiodegradalion
of sub-surface oil. (DOl Il'lonitoring ana fesearch 011 wihllife?)
ofthe BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact of the spill to the
Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts ofthis spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 30, 20 I0, contains
Formatted: Font: limes New Roman
000366
Note: The attached report (Appendix A) contains cylindrical images., which are an alternate way of
segment. The image on page one of Appendix A uses the higher flow rate estimate, which is the same
as the pie chart used above. The image on page three uses the lower 110w rate estimate.
DISPERSION
The oil and gas flow from the pipe at high pressure and velocity. The impact of th eoil and the
water tears the oil into small droplets. The bigger droplets float to the surface. forming the
visible surface slick. but for droplets less than 100 microns in diameter (thickness of human
hair), the natural mixing in the ocean keeps it mixed in the water just as atmospheric
turbulence keeps small dust particles mixed in the air.
Chemical dispersants enhance this natural process and causes the oil droplet sizes to be
smaller and therefore less likelv to float to the surface.
...
"
"
"" "
In general, the old saying that oil and water do not mix is true. However, some individual
hydrocarbon molecules from the dispersed oil droplets will dissolve into the water just as sugar
can be dissolved in water. ThIs process is caned dissolution. For oil SPilled on the water
surface, dissolution is usually a minor process as evaporation removes many of the same
molecules that might dissolve (The smaller molecules in the oil are more likely to dissolve),
Because thiS spill happened a mile below the water surface, there was more time for
dissolution to take place so much more dissolution occurred than in most oil spills.
'
DISSOLUTION
___ .. _. __._ ... __ ..... .
!..!'O!".'~t:t~: .Le~.......... .
000367
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget:.

Authors
Stephen Hammond. USGS. DOl
Credits
Bill Lehr (NOAA) Lead mass balance and oil budget scientist
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) Technical advisors
Kevin Gallagher, Stephen Hammond and Martha Garcia (USGS) Executive sponsors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Antonio Possolo. NIST
AI Allan, SpiiTec
James Payne, Payne En\,.
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv F'ingas, Env. Canada(ret)
Per Daling, SINTEF
000368
DRAFT 7.31v I1pm

Deepwater- HorizonlBP Oil Budget Calculator:
burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed. They developed a tool, call~d the Oil Budget Calculator to
and how tlus oil is moving and degrading.

Federal
""Remaining Qil is either at

the sur [ace as light sheen
or weathered tar ball"
has been biodegraded, or
has already com.. ashore_
Response
Operations
5%
3%
8%
over the course of the spill. This number is based on flow rate estimates from The Flow Rate Technical
Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command. The most recent estimate of the Flow
HorizonlBP wellhead, the uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite: Flow Rate Technical Grollp.
website or report?). They estimate that the daily flow rate ranged from 62,000 barrels per day on April
22,2010 to 53,000 barrels per day on July 15,2010, at which time the flow of oil was suspended. To
represent the ten p~rcent uncertainty in t~e flow rate estimate, the Oil Budget Calculator shows two
estimate, and one on the estimated flow rate minus ten percent, referred to as the "lower flow" estimate.
000369
Direct Measures ands Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
analysis.
(16%), burning (5%), skiinming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct capture, burning and
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the
biodegradation.
Report 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
into the water column or form residues such as tar balls. The residual is induded in the category of
an estimated 27 % remains. Tlus oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls. or it has
because of the warm water there. the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the
000370
exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, eady indications are that the oil from this well is biodegrading
quickly.
one quarter of the oiL Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated or dissolved and less than one
NOAA continues to track the movement ofthe remaining oil. It will issue daily surface oil trajectories
for as long as necessary and continue subsurface sampling to monitor the concentration,distribution and
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July 30, 2010, contains
representing the same numbers as the pie chart above. Both images in the attaclul1ent combine the three
as the pie chaIt used above. The image on page three uses the lower flow rate estimate.
000371

Authors
Marcia McNutt, USGS, DOL
Mark Sogge, USGS, DOL
Stephen Hammond, USGS, DOL
Credits
Jeff Allen (USGS) - Interface designer
refme the analysis and this document will be updated as appropriate.
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Ali KheHfa, Env. Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
000372
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Jennifer Austin
Re: [Fwd: Re: Where is]
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Completed
To:
I don't see Marci McNutt, Steve Hammond, or Mark Sogge in that list though - These are the bosses.
I would like to include these and Bill Lehr's list but want to do it in a more subtle way than just listing themthey add almost a page to the document. Can we somehow acknowledge them by reference - "for the team that
developed the Tool see the "About" item in the Help"
Mark

I'd say it's your call on the names. This list is slightly different than what we have now, but it does say who did
what, which is nice.
I don't see Marci McNutt, Steve Hammond, or Mark Sogge in that list though.
However you or the larger teanl thinks it's most appropriate is fine by me.
Mark.W.MiIler wrote:
Steven Harnrnond's comments.
One issueIn the Tool there is an About where they listCredits
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern(USGS) - Project vision and management
Since we refer people to the tool can we skip listing everyone?
Mark
-------- Original Message -------Subject: Re: Where is
1
000373
Date: Thu, 29 Jul2010 15:50:20 -0400
From: Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
To: Mark.W.Miller <Mark..W.MilIer@noaa.gov>
CC: Marcia K McNutt <mcl1utt@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge 
References: <4C51 BEEF .6080501 @noaa.gov>
Quick comments.
Stephen E. Hammond
Chief Emergency Operations Office,
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
---n"Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov> wrote: ----To: Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt(ci{usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge
 , "Hammond, Stephen E" <sehammon@usgs.gov>
From: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Millerl@noaa.gov>
Date: 07/29/2010 01:48PM
Subject: Where is
Dr. McNutt,
Here is the latest draft of the "where is the oil" document.
Please send
any comments or question to me. Thanks.
Mark Miller
NIC IASG
[attachment "Oil Budget description 7 29 v 3 JL,doc" removed by Stephen E Hammond/GEOGIUSGS/DOI]
000374
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jane Lubchenco
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 6.doc; DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100728.pdf
Dr. Lubchenco,
As for "author" credit Jemlifer and I are working on the final list but have broken them out between the actual
Tool development (the web interface etc) and the calculations (Bill Lehr's team).
I have included also the la,test report from the Tool to be included with the document sent forward. Does this
Mark
simply remove it.
We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full list yet.
This
is urgent.
thanks

Hi,
3
000375
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS - I would like-to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see
should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond {NIC
Jennifer Austin
000376
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Mark. W.Miller [Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov]

Jennifer Austin
[Fwd: Re: Where is]
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 3 JL - seh.doc
Follow up
Completed
Steven Hammond's comments.

One issueIn the Tool there is an About where they listCredits
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jeny McFaul (USGS) Technical advisors
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern(USGS) - Project vision and management
Since we refer people to the tool can we skip listing everyone?
Mark
-------- Original Message -------Subject:Re: Where is
Date:Thu, 29 Ju12010 15:50:20 -0400
From:Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
To:Mark. W.Miller <Mark. W.Miller@noaa,gov>
CC:Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge 
References:<4C51BEEF.6080501(al,noaa.gov>"
Quick comments.
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
---n"Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov> wrote: ----5
000377
To: MClrcia.K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge , "Hammond, Stephen
E" <sehammon@usgs.gov>
From: "Mark.W.Milier" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: 07/29/2010 01 :48PM
Subject: Where is
Dr. McNutt,
Here is the latest draft of the "where is the oil" document. Please send
any comments or question to me. Thanks.
Mark Miller
NrC IASG
[attachment "Oil Budget description 7 29 v 3 JL.doc" removed by Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI]
000378
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Thursday, July 29. 2010 3:39 PM
Jennifer Austin
Re: latest draft with comments incorporated
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 3 JL_McNutt.doc
Thanks for all your help. Here is Marcia McNutt's copy. She had only minor edits.
> attached.
>
000379
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jennifer Austin
[Fwd: Re: List of folks on your oil budget team]
Flag Status:
Flagged
------- Original Message -------Subject:Re: List of folks on your oil budget team
Date:Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:54:20 -0700
From:BiII Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Reply-To:BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov
To:Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
References:<4C4F29BS.6000103@noaa.gov>
Expert
affiliation
Ron Goodman
U. of Calgary
Al Allan
James Payne
Tom Coolbaugh
Ed Overton
Env.
Exxon Mobil
LSU
Juan Lasheras
UCSD
Albert Venosa
EPA
Merv Fingas
Env Canada (ret)
Ali Khelifa
Env. Canada
Robert Jones
NOAA
Pat Lambert
Env. Canada
Per Daling
SINTEF
David Usher
ISCO
Peter Carragher
BP
Michel Boufadel
Temple U.
List is subject to revisions at any time

8
000380
On 7/2711011:47 AM, Mark.W.Millerwrote:
Bill,
I know you sent me the list before but I can't find it. Could you send me your roster? Thanks.
Mark
000381
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark. W.Miller [Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov]

Jennifer Austin; Scott Smullen; Bill Conner; Dave Westerholm
Lehr's feedback
Oil Budget description 7 29 (revLLehr.doc
10
000382
Justin Kenney.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark. W.Miller [Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov]

Jane Lubchenco
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 3 JL_MM.doc
I had a few small edits - all our dissolution, evaporation, and natural dispersion estimates are based on previous
analyzes on similar Gulf oil not DWH oil. Also I was wondering if we wanted to delete reference to our oil
trajectories if there is a chance they will stop early next week.
I sent to the USGS folks and Bill Lehr to review.
Mark
simply remove it.
indi viduals involved pI us reVie'llerS, as per the FRTG doc.
We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full list yet.
This
is urgent.
thanks
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mai 1to: Jermi fer .Austin@noaa . .9:0,!:]

Hi,
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS - I would like to check with steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see
11
HQ
000383
Jennifer Austin
12
000384
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jen Pizza; David Kennedy; Dave Westerholm; Bill Conner; Scott Smullen; Jennifer Austin;
Pie Chart Doc - NIC Update
Dr. Lubchenco J
I apologize for the lateness of this update - my conversations with USGS) NIC CoS) and
Juliette Kayyem's CoS took much longer that I expected. CAPT Gautier gave complete okay for
us to use the Oil Budget tool report in our document. Bill Grawe raised the same issue that
Jennifer and scott mentioned that we need to understand that the tool report combines some of
the removals differently that we present in the pie chart (we separate the the evaporation
and dispersion entries while the report lumps them as "evaporation and biodegradation". I
think we have addressed that in our text. The question came up on why we are displaying the
same information differently. After some length of time I think I convinced them (USGS and
Bill Grawe) that we needed to separate the numbers that way so we could discuss what oil is
sub-surface and that biodegradation is a big factor in the "remaining" category.
Steve Hammond- (USGS on IASG) believes that only Dr. McNutt) Mark Sogge and he need to see the
document for USGS. He sent out an email giving them a heads up that it would be coming out
today: Bill Lehr is also all set for his review;
Just got off the phone where Scott and Jennifer did their magic to move toward a final
inhouse draft.
Mark
13
000385
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Wednesday, July 28,20103:52 PM
Scott Smullen; Jennifer Austin; Caitlyn H Kennedy
Bill Conner
Representative Oil Budget Numbers
Oil Budget Numbers 7_27_1 O.png
Here is a screen shot of today's numbers. Bill and I thought we could use them as
placeholders in order to start the clearance process. FRTG (Marcia McNutt and team) is
meeting but there is not a timeframe for a new flow rate.
Mark
14
000386
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Wednesday, July 28,20109:09 AM
Scott Smullen
Bill Conner; Jennifer Austin; Caitlyn H Kennedy
Re: [Fwd: Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool]
ATI62753.png
No problem - I really hope that this is simple and straightforward (at least the initial production - not the
clearance). The struggle will be expressing the assumptions in an wlderstandable manner. Talk to everyone at
9:30.
Mark
Scott Smullen wrote:
I have a 9:30 with Dr. L and the gang. I expect I won't be free till 10:45. Go without me. Jen and Caitlyn can
help. -s
Scott and Bill,
Here are all the docs that I thirik are applicable to the 1-2 pager Dr. L wants. Can we talk at 9:30? If so we can
use:
Talked with USGS and they have a call this moming to discuss the new number. I asked that they implement it
as quickly as possible in the Oil Budget tool because those would be the numbers we need for the pie chart.
We do want to capture the biodegradation issue.
Mark
-------- Original Message -------Subject:Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool
Date:Thu, 22 Ju120IO 15:49:35 -0400
From:Mark. W.Miller <MarIe W.Miller(a),noaa.gov>
To:Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner <William.Conner(@,noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the background information for the pie chart developed for the What Next document.
In order to initialize our model for the long-term modeling analysis we used the Oil Budget tool NOAA l1elped
USGS to develop. The Oil Budget tool (see attached screen dUlllp) uses two scenarios to estimate oil remaining
(floating on the surface) - one based on the low flow estimate of the FRTG (35,000 bbls/day) and one based on
the high flow estimate (60,000 bbls/day). For our model initialization we used the estimated oil remaining on
15
000387
July 15 (500,000 bbls) which was the date that the well was shut-in using the low flow scenario. The pie chart is
made of the cumubitive removals and remaining oil percentages for that date (see numbers below). The other set
of removal and remaining numbers that appeared in the brief looked to be from the Oil Budget tool for July 22
from the high flow scenario.
iC~t~g~ry""'"
. . . . ,. . . . ,. . ._. . . . . . .
rL~;Fi~;J~ly15-
~~ i~~";
iRemaining
..
'::
~-.:"''..:"'~.---~--
.. --.-- __
.... _ .. '.'_"' __ " __ " _ _ ' __ ______ " __
16%
820,000
27%
823,000
16%
~'
1,470,000 28%
13%
826,000
22%
1,346,000
'"
,"m"
Evaporated
:Burned
i Chemically
. ---.
480,000
iNatural Dispersion
~_
rHighFi~-;J~iy22
"
'Direct Recovery
r-
-----'"
'_'""_._~_~_'~_"'_H
Dispersed
100,000
3%
2%
260,000
8%
5%
340,000 11%
* These three categories are displayed as one element in the Tool and have a combined total of 48%
For the second action item from this mornings call I am working with USGS to prepare a short briefing
document (1 pager) for the Oil Budget tool. USGS is refining the document at this time but does not have an
expected availability. RADM Neffenger mentioned that he would be verbally briefing the tool this evening.
16
000388
D&epwater HorizonMC252
Gun Incident on Budget
liigh Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) Through July 21 (Day 93,) ;:~,;; Pf\rl
C'Olmtl!:aIPIiC DIsposition o( Oil
Cumulatlv~
Ci>a~t
Rcmaioiflll
Informancm
L.ow Flow scenario (35.000 barfeJs/day) Through July 21 (Day 93) ,:o~ P"'in!
Gmm Inforrn..ticm
000389
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
18
000390
Justin Kenney
Bill Conner; Scott Smullen; Jennifer Austin
[Fwd: Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool]
DeepwaterHorizon_briefing_schematic2.png; DeepwaterHorizonOiIBudget20100726.pdf;
DWH Whats Next v.2.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Scott and Bill,

Here are all the docs that I think are applicable to the 1-2 pager Dr. L wants. Can we talk at 9:30? If so we can
use:
Talked with USGS and they have a call this morning to discuss the new number. I asked that they implement it
as quickly as possible in the Oil Budget tool because those would be the numbers we need for the pie cllart.
Mark
- Original Message -------Subject:Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool
Date:Thu, 22 Jul2010 15:49:35 -0400
From: Mark. W.Miller <Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov>
To:Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco(ajnoaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.staff(a)noaa.gov>, Bill Conner <William.COlUler@noaa.goy.::.
Dr. Lubchenco,
In order to initialize our model for the long-term modeling analysis we used the Oil Budget tool NOAA helped
USGS to develop. The Oil Budget tool (see attached screen dump) uses two scenarios to estimate oil remaining
the high flow estimate (60,000 bbls/day). For our model initialization we used the estimated oil remaining 011
July 15 (500,000 bbls) which was the date that the well was shut-in using the low flow scenario. nle pie chart is
made of the cumulative removals and remaining oil percentages for that date (see numbers below). The other set
f"-
jLow Flow July 15
iDirect Recovery
-"',' ... ,. -....
...-.
tNatural Dispersion
,~-,
..
,-~-~.-~"' ~-
~ .~-~
>
__
28%
~
1,470,000
_F_ _ _
'
".--_.-_.._---
16%
'
, ' __ , . '
'
_,
"
w_
~.w"~.r-w
~W.
480,000

_~
iHigh Flow July 22
....
W~""
--~-,,-
~_~_"
..
. . - - _ '_ _
-.~~---
IRemaining
......
~~
...
"
iCategory
820,000
27%
823,000 . 16%
400,000
13%
826,000
-.,-
19
000391
!"
!Evaporated
_____ _A. _
~
~"_~"_,_m,
Skimmed
>I<
___ " ___
._.~"._
___ " .. __
~'".~~"
670,000
22%
1,346,000
_._.100,000
..-
3%
120,000
2%
8%
266,000
11%
344,000
..
....._... ,........
These three categories are displayed as one element in the Tool and have a combined total of 48%
For the second action item from this mornings call I am working with USGS to prepare a short I?riefing
20
000392
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget"

High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) - "rhrough July 28 (Day 100)
, Ali units in barrels. See end noles for assump1ions.
Inland Recovery
Deepwater Horiz.on MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budgel

Repoli generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by Ihe U.S. Coast Guard and provided by Ihe U,S. Gcmlogical Survey in cooperation witl) the Na.tional
000393
1.750,000
Cumulative Remaining'
i
I
1,500,000 -I
I
i
1,250,0001
-~
en
0) 1 000 ,000 'i

J...
i~
1
750,000'\
500,000
jI
~
250,000
j
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jut-2010
Deepwater Horizon lVlC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Repot1 generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/201011 :20AlVl MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference ITIHterial 011 report elements,
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by tho U,S. Geolo9ieal Survey in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric }\dministration,
000394

Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) Through July 28 (Day 100)
Ali units in barrels. SeH end notes for assumptions,
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budgei

Report generfJted by mark.w.milier@noaa.gov on 07i29/201 01 'I :20 AM [vlOT.
See end notes section 01 the repol1 for reference material on report elements.
Application operated by lhe U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
000395

650,000
~i
.
600,001
550,000
'500,000"\
450,000
~ 400,000
"-
j.
i
350,0001
I.
~ 300,000]
250,000
200,000 -\
150,000
i.
100,000 J . . ,-.
50,000'
.
---_. ._-..,.-_._---------.---_._---.
. . ----.. . . . ----.-----.-. .--..-----.--.--.

,
~:.'.:'
.~
--.~-.--- --~
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-20i
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gli!f Incident Oil Budge!

Repon generated by markw.miller@?noaa.gov on 07i29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section 01 the reporl for reference material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast G.uard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric A()ministration.
000396
Reference Notes


correspond to the cumulative values in the table. See the-footnotes (available in the Web application by
clicking on the labels in the table) for f~rther information on the individual calculations and further
reference material.
Discharged
The Discharge values shown in the reports come 'from the low and high estimates determined by the
-Chosen because same measurement method used pre- and
post~riser
cut.

Background

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in COOr)eration with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
000397

RIIT and Top Hat are mechanical devices tnat British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
Dispersed Naturally
more information.
'Largest oil removal mechanism for surface oil
Deepwater Horiz.on MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budgel

Report generated by mark,w,miller@noaa,govon 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section 01 the report for reference material on report elements.
Application operaled by Iho U.s. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nat.iona!
Oceanic and Atmospheric AdlTIinistration,
000398
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh ll oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil
-Measured amount removed via RIIT and Top Hat

the.following from the total discharge:
-Calculated amoLint of evaporation and dissolution
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
Total burned values are entered daily by National Incident Command personnel a'nd used iil daily 'and
cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark,w.miller@noaa.govon 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT
See end notes section of the report for reference material 011 report elements,
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
000399
Chemical oil dispersion is the result of a scientific calculation based on the amount of chemiGal
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Repo!i generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section 01 the report for reference material on report elements.
Oceanic and Atmosplleric Administration.
000400
DRAFT 7.29
f'-'-'-'--'-"~---'----"'---'---'-'-'--'---'-'--'--'----.----.--.--.---.-~--,--.-.-
...------.--.---.--.----...- ..-.----..------------.-----.------.---..... ----...-----...--..----)

*Remaining oil ;5
either at the surface
as light sheen or
has been
biOdegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
mmed
3%
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates t11at
wellhead. (*Wheil announced, new FRTG flow rate / total escape will adjust this and the percentages in
the oil budget.)
000401
crude oil from this"well is biodegrading quickly.
the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balis, has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore on
beaches.
oil. ArolUld a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another qua11er dispersed into Gulf
beaches or has been biodegraded. "
Noteon degree of confidence in calculations: The Oil Budget calculations are based on d"irect
000402
Science Team
The following scientists at USGS were involved in developing the Oil-Budget Calculator tool:
Marcia McNutt
Mark Sogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
TimKem
The Following Scientists created and reviewed the calculation methods used the oil budget calculator:
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
000403
Draft Version 1.0 -- July 20, 2010.
For Internal Use Only
Direct .Rev.474Deepwater Horizon .BP Response

. What Happens When the Oil Stops Flowing?
When the release of oil from the Deepwater Horizon BP well is brought under control, whether
by the new Top Cap system or a relief well, it will be important to understand the continuing
response and restoration efforts to aid the recovery of the Gulf of Mexico economic and
ecol9gical systems .. This document discusses how much oil is present in the Gulf, the oil's fate,
and how the response and restoration operations will change in the next several months as
conditions change.
I.
How much oil was spilled and where did it go?
As of July 15, it is estimated that between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the
Deepwater Horizon BP (DWH) well since the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit capsized and sank on
April 22. This estimate is based on the work of the Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) which
was assembled by the National Incident Commander (NIC) to support the oil spill response. In
comparison, the Ixtoc oil spill released 3.3 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico over a 9
month period starting in 1979.
The FRTG also developed an Oil Budget Calculator that can be used to estimate where the
DWH oil has gone. Of the total amount that left the sea bed, approximately 820,000 barrels was
captured directly from the source by riser pipe insertion tube or Top Hat systems. Another
670,000 barrels quickly
evaporated or dissolved into the
water column. Roughly 400,000
Chemically
barrels dispersed naturally while
Dispersed
11% .
340,000 barrels was dispersed
by the application of nearly
50,000 barrels of chemical
dispersants. Over 260,000
barrels of oil were burned in situ
and 100,000 barrels of oil had
been recovered by skimmers.
8%
This leaves roughly 500,000
barrels' of oil remaining on the
surface, in the form of surface
slicks, tar balls, or deposits on
Gulf beaches.
3%
Dispersion
13%
What will happen to the oil that is still on the surface?

Any oil remaining on the surface when the flow of oil is stopped will continue to move with the
winds and ocean currents. The longer the oil travels, the more it will degrade, disperse, lose
toxicity, and break into streamers and tarballs. NOAA has conducted an analysis of the threat
of additional oil coming shoreline now that the flow of oil is stopped. Consistent with the Oil
000404
Draft Version 1.0 -- July 20, 2010
Budget Tool, this analysis looked at the long-term movement of 500,000 barrels of oil over the
next 60 days.
Here are key findings from the Shoreline Threat Analysis:
The coastlines with the highest probability (41-100%) of further impact-from the
Mississippi River Delta to the Alabama Coast-have already received oil.
The analysis shows that oil left on the surface could move as far west as the southern
coast of Texas with the region near the Mexico border showing a probability of 1-10% of
impact.
The west coast of Florida has a low probability 1%) for impact while the threat
probabilities for the Florida Keys, Miami, and Fort Lauderdale areas are 1-10%. The
likelihood of oil movement through the Florida Straits (approximately 15%) is significantly
reduced by control of the well in combination with the present state of the Loop Current,
which is not conducive to significant transport of oil to the Florida Straits.
Most of the shoreline impacts will have occurred within 30 days after the well has been
brought under control.
of New Shoreline Threat

<1%
~21-30%
1-10%
~31-40%
I---------------------I------------------------j-----------.-.----~
11 - 20%~1 - 100%
This image is a composite 0(91 scenarios,
one scenario will occur.
250
Miles
More information on the analysis can be found at NOAA Shoreline Threat Analysis.
What threats are associated with the oil plume in deep water?
One of the unique concerns about the DWH spill is the development of a deep cloud of
dispersed oil. This cloud results from a combination of physical dispersion as the oil escapes
from the sea bed under as a high-pressure flow, and chemical dispersants that reduce surface
tension of the oil drops causing smaller drops to form. Whether from physical or chemical
dispersion, the drops that are smaller than approximately 100 microns were left behind as the
larger drops make the one-mile journey to the surface where a slick is formed.
To examine the occurrence of subsurface oil dispersed as tiny droplets, the NIC chartered an
000405
Draft Version 1.0 - July 20, 2010
interagency Joint Analysis Group (JAG) that has issued two reports. These reports are based
on data from fluorometers, dissolved oxygen sensors, LlSST particle size analyzers, and
laboratory chemical analysis. The primary tool for screening for the presence of oil is a eDOM
fluorometer that has an oil sensitivity of only about 1ppm (part per million). A diffuse oil cloud
was found extending from the area of the well out to a distance of about 25 km (15 miles) with
the oil primarily found between the depths of 1000 to 1300 meters (see figure). Beyond 25 km,
there is a clear decrease in oil concentration with distance from the well. However, there are
likely to be areas beyond those
12
surveyed with ecologically relevant
Normalized eDOM Fluorescence
oil concentrations. Most transport
as a Function of Distance to
has been to the southwest with
Wellhead.
some excursions to the northeast.
Peak oil concentrations are about
I
50
ppm for total petroleum
Brooks McCall Cruise 36 I
Gordon Gunler Cruise 1 I
hydrocarbons. There is a very
Wallon Smllh Cruise 1-2 I
high degree of spatial and
o Ocean Verilas Cruise 4
temporal variation in observations
likely due to both the diffuse
nature of the oil and to sampling
limitations a mile under the surface
of the Gulf of Mexico. More
detailed analysis of existing data
and models has begun to examine
the long-term transport potential of
subsurface oil away from the DWH
site, and to better understand the
tb .~
concentrations of dispersed oil in
I....:LA.
...
l
4..
o~
- 1
-- ,-;- -....- .
-<IFT--.----+r~,.---.
the cloud of droplets.
o
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
10000
.:
, ..:..
.. .
...-.-
r---.'"-.,----,-.
Distance to Wellhead (m)
Given these references to dispersed oil concentrations, it's worthwhile to understand the
concentrations at which marine organisms show toxic effects. The toxicity of dispersed oil has
been tested in a wide variety of marine species, but not in the specific organisms occurring in
the deep areas where the DWH plume has been found. Toxicity test results, expressed as the
concentration that causes mortality in 50% of the test organisms (LC50), generally have been in
the range of 10 to over 100 parts per million (ppm) for most species for Corexit 9500, the
predominant dispersant used for sea ped injection at the DWH well site .. For fish, 95% of the
species tested had LC50s above 0.3ppm and, for crustacea, 95% of the species tested had
LC50s higher than 1 ppm 1 in 4-day test exposures. Although these results from acute toxicity
tests provide some useful reference points, it's important to remembE3r that the deepwater
species actually exposed to DWH dispersed oil have not been tested, and that some organisms,
notably corals and coral eggs show effects at even lower concentrations.
I Based on data from NRC 2005. Understanding Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects. The National Research
Council, Ocean Studies Board. NRC 2005. Understanding Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects. The
National Research Council, Ocean Studies Board.
000406
Will the DWH' dispersed plume contribute to dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico?
In addition to oil, dissolved oxygen levels (002) are an emerging area of concern, particularly
given the low oxygen levels that already occur in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. 002 sensors
sometimes show a depression in oxygen in at the depths at which oil is also found. Those
depressions can atsO"corresponq to high fluorescence signals, indicating the potential presence
of dispersed oil as well. The depressed oxygen levels reported to date are not low enough to be
considered problematic, but to fully interpret these data, high quality Winkler titration data are
needed to check the calibration of the oxygen sensors. Efforts are now underway to perform
this calibration. In addition, the JAG is beginning to examine 002 data from gliders to confirm
whether far-field 002 impacts have occurred.
II.
What are the implications for the Gulf of Mexico?
Different ecosystems of the northern Gulf of Mexico have and will continue to be exposed to oil
from the Deep Water Horizon. Habitats that we know have been impacted include marsh edges
in Louisiana, beaches in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, west Florida and Texas, the sea
surface both nearshore, near-surface offshore waters (upper 10 meters), and deepwater at
depths of 1000 to 1300 meters deep. Sources of stress to these environments include not only
fresh and weathered OWH oil but also physical disturbances associated with the response
activities including boom anchor disturbance along marsh edges, berm building, the activity of
over 6500 vessels, dispersant use, burn activities, overflights, etc.
Marshes
Oil deposited on marsh plants is already changing from a sticky substance to a dried flaky
material that will erode. At marsh edges some vegetation has died. Oil has not penetrated
marsh muds, so it is likely marsh plant roots (rhizomes) have survived and will produce new
shoots either later this season or definitely next late-winter and spring.
No mass mortalities of marsh animals have been observed due to the oil, but many may have
been displaced or killed. large portions of marsh habitat have not been oiled and marsh
inhabitants (fish, crabs, shrimp) will move into the oiled areas within months to a year following
cleanup. Fortunately the response has minimized human and mechanical injury to marshes and
marsh sediments, so recovery should proceed quickly.
Beaches, Seabird Colonies, Turtles

Oiled beaches are being cleaned rapidly but traces of residual oil will remain until the next
series of storms. We are currently in the high storm season so a few storms could complete' the
cleansing process by fall. Buried oil layers still need removal in selected locations.
Pelicans and other colonial sea birds have suffered mortality. Fortunately, large populations
remain. In past spills colonial bird colonies recovered in one to three years following large oilcaused mass mortalities. Pelicans were totally absent from the Gulf in the earlier 1970's due to
DDT poisoning. but source control, rehabilitation and naiural recovery returned pelicans to their,
recent abundant status within 30 years. The many thousands that have survived this spill . :should return the populations much more quickly, possibly within 3 to 5 years.
Turtle eggs have been removed to Florida. It remains to be seen whether the hatchlings will find
their way back to beaches of the northern Gulf. This may take years.
000407
Draft Version 1.0 - July 20, 2010
Nearshore Coastal Waters

Oil emulsion has combined with sediment and sand forming hardening tar mats on the bottom in
nearshore areas. This oil is not sticky. It will likely breakup into hard clumps and tar balls, some
of which may appear on area beaches for a year or more. However, because they are not
sticky, these tar balls pose little threat to nearshore fish and shellfish, There have been no
reports of fish or shellfish kills due to the oil. Thus forage fish should be abundant and, once the
surface oil is gone, available to sea birds and mammals.
One sperm whale is known to have died during the spill, and its death may not have been die to
the oiL Thus the population remains intact. Dolphin mortality has occurred during the spill but it
is not clear whether this rate is higher than background levels that would have occurred without
the spill.
Deepwater
The footprint of the deepwater dispersed oil plume (10's of square miles) is a small fraction of
the area (thousands of square miles) that has been occupied at the surface and the
concentrations of dispersed oil have been low (see figure below). Deepwater species are
distinctly different from those near the surface and they are distributed all around the Gulf, the
Caribbean and the western Atlantic Ocean. In fact many deepwater species actually migrate to
near the surface where they gorge on plankton at night. Their abundance is also low relative to
life near the surface. Thus their exposure to dispersed oil has been of a very small scale relative
to their total habitat size, and for only a portion of the time. Therefore, that fraction of their
population that may have been injured (we have no evidence that they have) should be
replaced quickly by deepwater animals migrating into the area via deepwater currents.
We have no evidence that the deep sea floor has been contaminated by DWH oil. While most
of the bottom is mud containing a variety of bottom dwell animals, there are important and
protected deepwater coral and vent communities. We have no evidence yet that they have
been injured by deepwater dispersed oil and must await ongoing studies. However, because
the deep-water oil plume has a relatively small footprint, only a few of these special habitats
have or will likely be exposed. If there is injury, recruitment of new organisms will come from
those nearby habitats that have not been exposed.
000408
1'""","", KlClllion rl1r oil
on 21.July.1O at Jm CDT
11us sc! of In!joelories does not in<lud. any additional

r<!I~n.'ie from the !lU~ Sif1Ce 7i1S. TmjectJ.lrie.o% will
continue", be updated doily os the situation evol....
15-mile radius representing the maximum

distance from the source that subsurface
dispersed oil has been detected.
Next Foreenst:
July 19thPM
Lessons from Ixtoc Oil Spill

After nine months of discharge from the Ixtoc blowout in the southern Gulf of Mexico in 19791980, a few studies were done to look at recovery. Surprisingly little injury to shoreline and
nearshore marine life in Mexico and Texas was reported. Hardening tar mats were observed in
shal10w water offshore of south Texas and .persisted for many years. Benthic marine
communities suffered minor changes in diversity and recovered within several years. From
what we can determine from fisheries reports, shrimp fisheries in Mexico and Texas returned to
productivity within several years.
III.
What are the next steps to recovery frOln DWH?
When will the federal fisheries closures be lifted?

NOAA manages fisheries closure areas to protect public health and ensure that the public can
purchase with confidence seafood from the Gulf of Mexico area. In conjunction with EPA and
FDA, NOAA will continue to conduct baseline and surveillance sampling in selected areas to
ensure the adequacy of the closed areas, understand pre-exposure conditions, and verify that
seafood from those areas is safe for human consumption. NOAA Fisheries and FDA will
continue to review seafood safety sampling data and the results of sensory testing and chemical
analyses. NOAA Fisheries will then determine whether to re~open portions of the closed area to
fishing on the basis of specific re 0pening criteria and coordinate with adjoining states as they
consider the re-opening of their waters.
8
If, within 30-days the bulk of the oil on the surface can no longer be detected, it is anticipated
that most closed areas could be reopened after safety of the public has been evaluated by
000409
Draft Version 1.0 -July,20, 2010 .
For Internal Use Only ..
testing of.tissues collected from seafood species. This process will likely take several weeks
after oil is no longer observed on the surface of the water. See Fisheries Closure for updated
information on the statues of closed areas.
How long will the cleanup continue?

As it is confirmed that the source of the oil is secured, cleanup operations will begin to transition
and ultimately demobilize. As less oil is present on the surface and continues to spread and
weather, it becomes less conducive to dispersant application, in-situ burning, and recovery with
skimmers. Dispersant use, both on the surface and at the sea bed has essentially been
discontinued at this time. In-situ burning becomes more difficult because of weathering and the
ability to gather large quantities of oil to burn, so this method will no longer be used about a
week after the flow of oil stops. Skimmers will be the last on-water recovery tool employed as
long as the oil is in quantities sufficient to skim. As oil at sea diminishes and shoreline oiling
threats are removed, shoreline protection measures (booming and nearshore skimmers) will
then be demobilized.
Shoreline cleanup of beaches and marshes will continue for weeks to months moving into
"Stage 3" and final shoreline sign off. Stage 3 starts when the bulk of the oil has come ashore.
The Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Teams (SCAT) continue to evaluate and monitor shoreline
cleanup as final cleanup endpoints agreed to by the Unified Command are met. Finally, one or
two SCAT Teams will become "Sign Off Teams" (SOFT) with members having authority to
speak for federal, state and Responsible Party commanders to certify that cleanup has met the
standards and is complete. These final steps are an iterative process that may take several
weeks to accomplish. Once all shorelines have been signed off, the response will demobilize.
How will restoration be accomplished?

Federal planning for the long-term economic and environmental restoration of the Gulf Coast
region is being overseen by the Secretary of the Navy. This Support Plan, currently under
development, requires detailed coordination with the States, local communities, tribes, people
whose livelihoods depend on the Gulf, businesses, conservationists, scientists, and other
entities. In addition, The Secretary will coordinate, as needed, with the State, Federal, and tribal
trustees who are directing the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process under
the Oil Pollution Act.
.
The Deepwater Horizon NRDA process is a major component of the long-term restoration of the
Gulf. The purpose of the NRDA is to determine the appropriate type and amount of restorationneeded to compensate the public for injuries to natural resources from the spill. During the
.
NRDA process, the trustees will develop a plan for restoring the natural resources injuries and
lost uses of natural resources caused by the DWH incident. After the restoration plan is
reviewed by the public, the Responsible Parties are required under the Oil Pollution Act to pay
for implementing the restoration plan.
At the onset of the spill, trustees began collecting time-sensitive data on baseline conditions and
affected natural resources th~ougho!.lt tbe. Gulf. The Trustees are also examining information .
collected as part of the response, and by other entities, to make efflcie[lt use ofa!lthe:
..... ;
information available. At this time, raw data is being released to the public after it is properly' .
quality checked.
..
..
A Trustee Steering Committee has been convened to provide initial oversight and guidance for
the assessment. The resources now being assessed include fish and shellfish, bottom dwelling
000410
biota, birds, marine mammals, turtles, and sensitive habitats such as wetlands, submerged
aquatic vegetation, beaches, mudflats, deep and shallow corals, and the water column,
including bottom sediments. In addition, Trustees are planning public meetings throughout Fall
2010 to discuss the damage assessment process and begin collecting input on projects that
could compensate the public by restoring, rehabilitating, replacing, or acquiring the equivalent of
the natural resources lost or injured by the oil spill.
.'
IV.
What are the time frames for recovery of the Gulf of Mexico?
The Gulf of Mexico started to recover the moment that the flow of oil was stopped. The surface
slick was reduced in size within a day, and the deep plume has become separated from the
DWH well site as bottom currents move it away and disperse it. As shown in the list below,
different components of the system will recover at different rates, and some, like marshes that
will erode due to toxicity to marsh grasses, will not recover at all without human intervention.
Within 1 month:
Use of dispersants, in situ burning, and mechanical cleanup will end in 7 days
Most new shoreline oiling will end
Demobilization of certain Incident Command (IC) functions begins
NRDA data collection and assessment ongoing
Within 2 months:
Investigations into buried and submerged oil will be completed
Protective booming removed
Half-life of sub-surface plume (1-2 months). Plume not detectable from background
Within 6 months:
Shoreline cleanup completed (2-5 months)
Opening of fisheries closure areas
Final sign-off of shoreline segments complete (6 months)
Most of IC functions are demobilized
NRDA restoration planning underway
Within 1 year
Transition from response to NRDAIrestoration complete (6-8 months)
Within 2 years:
Completed restoration plans in place
Within 10 years:
NRDA litigation or negotiated settlement with BP and other Responsibie Parties
V.
TBD
Conc1usion
000411
Draft Version 1,0- JuLy. 20, 2010
For lriternai Use Only
REMOVED FROM DOCUMENT
The Loop Current is one of the major oceanographic features that influences the movement of
oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. Much of the time, the Loop Current moves north past the
Yucatan Peninsula and flows toward Mobile Bay before it loops back toward the Florida Strait,
passes by Miami and becomes the Gulf Stream. In May, the Loop Current briefly entrained a
small amount of oil from the DWH ~pill, but during the third week of May, a major eddy formed
and interrupted the previous flow pattern, making it much less Itkety that the Loop Current would
move significant amounts of oil to southern Florida, or even the east coast (see Loop Current
figure). As long as this configuration persists, it will be difficult for any remaining oil to affect
South Florida. NOAA will continue to monitor the status of the Loop Current until surface oil is
no longer observed.
Configuration of the Loop Current

and Surface Slick on July 19,2010
Exlen' of oil Slid< visible in

salellite imasery July 19. 2010
J)eepwah!:l'
Hcrima MCl52
lnddeatl..ccortlon
I'.<;u........
~l\l<lin
~.,
ifJ.
.*
. . . . . . . . ..
..+
.....
."....
.,..
...... .
. .,.'"
..
Slick loaItion derived by NOAANESDIS frnm NASA

MODIS Aqua datn aquired July 19. ~1!10 111 1408 CDT and
COSMO SkyMed-l daI. _",ired July 19 at 0656 CD1:
Loop QIITentandeddy onaJysisupdated on July 19, lOll! by
NOAA! AOML li"olllsakilile RUimelIyderived ..o
lu:ight fields obtained ftom NASA and ESA.
,."1'.",,
65
110
l'
Mile'
220
I
000412
DRAFT 7.29
The National Jncident Command has assembled the best scientific minds in the government and
burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed. ~~oped II tool, called tl~e Oil Budg,![
Coleulawf to deter1l1ifle where tile oil RaG gl1ll<!A tool has been developed to track and do~'tln1ent whcre
the oil has I.Wlle. The numbers do~'um.:ntim: [he [olal nil discharged are based on best estimates of how
much oil was releasedjh)OlJh.: W(:il! and how this oil is movinglU;lpdegradjng.
Deepwater Horizon on Budget

Based on 60,000 barrelS/day flow rate
'.Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
weathEred tar balls,
has beEn
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore

on beaches.
as of July 15 be~weenj.5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonlBP
wellhead. (*When imnollilced, new PlUG flow tate / totalescape will adjust this and the percentages in
the oil budget.)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure I), aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
significant portion ofthe spilled oil. %% percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead by
icom~tiSEiiij;ifu.v v.ould thi;;rrect

.
I discharge'] ThiS is not consistent with the definilion
[ in the oil budget tool.
~mmerlt lsE!i21= What irib;mo;:;,':'~

I backWi!Jt a hi /I!. low "I.ilnat.e. How will you
i deSonh<! thai dIe..? em ...... say Vlitb <eI1oimy there
is now subsurface oil mass that has not been
, documented? This figure suggest Ihat a nUinbcr of
I.~.~ bpd ~"..~ NUMBER ____.......... .... .
000413
the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systems. I.n addition, burning and skimming operations
%% percent of the oil has dispersed naturally into the water column, and %% percent ofthe oil was
as a result ofthe oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high pressures into the water column, which
caused some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns.- the diameter of a human hair).
the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.~ While there is more analysis
crude oil fTOm this well is biodegrading quickly.
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly lIJ:l of
the oil. Around a quarter ofthe total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into
Gulf waters. The remaining amount, roughly 1116 is on the surface, in lar balls, on beaches, removed
(i'om beaches at has been biodegraded.
'
for as long as necessary. NOAA responders are working with the Unitied Command to develop
scientistsN4t\A remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully
possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The
numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports.
000414
broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be retined based on additional
information and further analysis.
000415
DRAFT 7.29

., Remaining oil is
either at the ~urface
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
_.,--
. ..
..
as of July 15 between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonIBP
the oil budget.)
significant portion of the spilled oil. %% percent ofthe oil was captured directly from the wellhead by
000416
%% percent ofthe oil has dispersed naturally into the water column, and %% percent of the oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly 50~000 barrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Glllf
the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore 011
beaches.
.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 1/:11 of
the oil. Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into
Gulf waters. The remaining amount, rotigli1y 1I:!"li is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed
scientistsNO.A,A remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 26,2010, for detailed
explanation of calculation methods. The toot was created by the US Geological Survey in collaborati on
with US Coast Guard. NOAA. and NIST.
possible and the best available scientific estin'iates where measurements were not possible. The
000417
000418
DRAFT 7.29
Oil, a complex mixture of hydrocarbon molecules, begins to change its properties as soon as it is
released into the environment. Cleanup of oil is generally designed to enhance or add to natural
removal mechanisms. The National Incident Command has assembled leading experts in spilled
oil behavior to produce an estimate of just how much oil has been skimmed, burned, contained,
evaporated and dispersed. They have developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator, that
graphically displays the likely fate of the Deepwater HorizonlBP oil.

Based on 60/000 barrels/day flow rate
*Remaining ollis
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or ha!>
already come ashore
on beaches.
kimrned
3%
. .... ..
..
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that,
as of July 15, between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonIBP
wellhead. ("'When announced, new FRTG flow rate I total escape will adjust this and the percentages in
the oil budget.)
000419
Based upon scientific analysis of samples of the spilled oil, a large fraction of this relatively light
crude oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column. Much of the remaining surface
oil formed water-in-oil emulsions, giving the reddish color as seen in images of the floating oil.
as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high turbulence into the water colunID,
which caused some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the diameter of a human
hair).
oiL Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf
beaches.
waters. The remaining anlount, roughly 116 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead, NOAA
remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts
of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and continued
monitoring and research.
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: This analysis is based on direct measurements'where
000420
000421
Deepwater Horizon. MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

High-Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) - Through July 26 (Day 98)

Repol1 generated by marl(.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
000422
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) Through July 26 (Day 98)
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
en
Q)
:...
:...
1,000,000'
co
..c
750,000
500,000 .
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07127/2010 09:27 AM MDT..
000423

All unlls in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

Report generated by mark,w,miller@noaa,gov on 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
000424
700,000
650,000 .
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
en
C1)
~
n:s
400,000
350,000
.c 300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Report generated by rnark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/2712010 09:27 AM MDT
000425
Reference Notes


reference material.
Discharged
-Chosen becaus!3 same measurement method used pre- and post-riser cut.
Background
helps increase the scientific confidence in the accuracy of the estimate. As the Government cantin ues

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/27/201009:27 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
000426

Dispersed Naturally
more information.
result of a scientific calculatior using the methods described in this annotation and background

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/27/201009:27 AM MDT. .
000427
DRAFT 7.29
independent scientitic community to produce an estimate of just how much oil has been skimmed,
burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed. They have developed a 1001, called the Oil Budget

*Remaining oil is
either at the surfac!!

as light sheen or
has been
biodegrilued, or h(l;
already come a5hor~
on beaches.
as of July I5 ~tween 3-5 mHlion barr~l~ of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonIBP
wellhead. (4<When announced. new FRTG flow rate I total escape will adjust this a.rid the percentages in
the oil budget.)
000428
available information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be
refined based on additional information and fUl1her analysis.
000429
[t is estimated that %% percent of the oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The
column or form residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rale estimate is based on [In:.wioLls ,11lalvsi~ or
simi lar ()j I IrOJ11 the Qui t.*,k'fj~~~ll"'"l'e9tlai""~"HII:ltkt~f\'8lt!)H!H_"t)ntl\:leleJtlul~flg-f:h.e;I~I'lWfrtel'-Har~;!:t))l
~. A different evaporation rate is used for fresh and weathered oil to provide the most accurate
number.
as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high pressures into the water col umn, which
caused some ofit to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns the diameter of a human hair).
of Mexico in large part because ofthe warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and
the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly,. While there is more analysis
to be done to quantifY the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the light
After accoullting for operations, dispersion and evaporation, %% percent remains. This oil is either at
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the \vellhead have removed roughly 1/;1 of
"the oil. Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into
Gulf waters. The remaining amount, roughly I/!!Ji is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed
NOAA continues to track the movement oflhe remaining oil and will issue daily surface oil trajectories
scientistsNQAA remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully
understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulfregion will
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident BudgetTool Report from July 26, for detailed
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: +R"ifHltlal~sThe Oil Budgel calculali(lllS is-are based on
direct measurements where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements
were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured directly and reported in
daily operational reports_ The rest ofthe numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best
rComment [JK1]: wit';;~-;~t~;;;;"~;;;bably
I ending early next week do want to remove the

t last p~!.~ sentence? _._""_.__,_.,~.___
\"Je
000430

Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
Total burned values are entered daily by National Incident Command personnel and used in dai Iy and
cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark,w.miller@noaa,govon 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.

Application operated by the U,S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological SlIrvey in cooperation with the Natlonai
000431
'No natural surface dispersion assumed
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Report generated by marl<,W,miller@noaa.gov on 07127/2010 09:27 AM MDT. .
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
000432
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Maureen Wylie [Maureen.Wylie@noaa.gov]

'James.Anderton@noaa.gov'; 'jon.bailey@noaa.gov'; 'NOAAHQ.Leadership@noaa.gov';
'Eric.Schwaab@noaa.gov'; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'Craig.Mclean@noaa.gov';
'mary. kicza@noaa.gov'; 'jack.hayes@noaa.gov'; 'Thomas. R. Karl@noaa.gov';
'Laura.Furgione@noaa.gov'; 'Maureen.Wylie@noaa.gov'; 'john.oliver@noaa.gov';
'SamueI.Rauch@noaa.gov'; 'Holly. Bamford@noaa.gov'; 'Alexander. E. MacDonald@noaa.gov';
'Judy.Gray@noaa.gov'; 'charles.s.baker@noaa.gov'; 'AbigaiI.Harper@noaa.goy';
'Chester..I.Koblinsky@noaa.goY'; 'paul.n.doremus@noaa.gov'; 'RusseII.Caliender@noaa.gov';
'Todd.C.Stiles@noaa.gov'; 'John.Potts@noaa.gov'
'pat.A.Simms@noaa.gov'; 'Richard.M.Love@noaa.gov'; 'Unda.LawhornBrown@noaa.gov';
'Adele.Stevens@noaa.gov'; 'Ann.Rivers@noaa.gov'; 'Cassandra.R.Calloway@noaa.gov';
'Gina.Jackson@noaa.goy'; 'Ruby.Johnson@noaa.gov'; 'Kathy.Connors@noaa.gov';
'Jen. Pizza@noaa.gov'; 'Dianne. Burgess@noaa.gov'; 'Gloria. Thompson@noaa.gov';
'Usa.Banana@noaa.gov'; 'rose.dyson@noaa.gov'; 'Velna.L.Bullock@noaa.gov';
'JeneII.C. Wildgoose@noaa.gov'; 'Nicky. D.Mcclurkin@noaa.gov'; 'rose. fleming@noaa.gov';
'Kashira.D. Laskey@noaa.gov'; 'Leslie. Bentley@noaa.gov'; 'Beverly. Morgan@noaa.gov';
'Sheridan.HiII@noaa.gov'; 'Donna.Buckley@noaa.gov'; 'Trenika.Tapscott@noaa.gov';
'Kim. Hough@noaa.gov'; 'Allandra. Washington@noaa.gov'; 'Susan. Ware-Harris@noaa.gov';
'Anthony.Waddy@noaa.gov'; 'Charles.McLeod@noaa.gov';
'Jacqueline.J.Rousseau@noaa.gov'; 'Julia.Tolbert@noaa.gov'
Re: Friday, July 30 AA-HQ Leadership Tag Up Meeting - AGENDA
Fy 12 Budget
From: James Anderton <James.Anderton@noaa.gov>

.
To: Jon Bailey <Jon.Bailey@noaa.gov>; _NOM HQ leadership <NOMHQ.Leadership@noaa.gov>; Eric'Schwaab
<Eric.Schwaab@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; Craig Mclean <Craig.Mclean@noaa.gov>;
Mary Kicza <Mary.Kicza@noaa.gov>; Jack Hayes <Jack.Hayes@noaa.gov>; Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>;
Laura Furgione <lauraJurglone@noaa.gov>; Maureen Wylie <Maureen.Wylie@noaa.gov>; John Oliver
<John.Oliver@noaa.gov>i Samuel Rauch <Samuel.Rauch@noaa.gov>; Holly Bamford <Holly.Bamford@noaa.gov>;
Alexander E MacDonald <Alexander.E.MacDonald@noaa.gov>; Judy Gray <Judy.Gray@noaa.gov>; Charles S. Baker
<Charles.S.Baker@noaa.gov>; Abigail Harper <Abigail.Harper@noaa.gov>; Chet Koblinsky
<Chester.J.Koblinsky@noaa.gov>; Paul N Doremus <Paul.N.Doremus@noaa.gov>; Russell Callender
<RusseII.Callender@noaa.gov>; Todd C Stiles <Todd.C.Stiles@noaa.gov>; John Potts <John.Potts@noaa.gov>; James
Anderton <James.Anderton@noaa.gov>
.
Cc: Pat.A.Simms <Pat.A.Simms@noaa.gov>; Richard rvl Love <Richard.IVI.Love@noaa.gov>; Unda.Lawhornbrown
<Linda.LawhornBrown@noaa.gov>; Adele Stevens <Adele.Stevens@noaa.gov>; Ann Rivers <Ann.Rivers@noaa.90v>;
Cassandra R Calloway <Cassandra.R.Calloway@noaa.gov>; Gina Jackson <Gina.Jackson@noaa.gov>; Ruby Johnson
<RubyJohnson@noaa.gov>; Kathy Connors <Kathy.Connors@noaa.gov>; Jen Pizza <Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov>; Dianne
Burgess <Dianne.Burgess@noaa.gov>; Gloria Thompson <Gloria.Thompson@noaa,gov>; Lisa Banana
<Lisa.Banana@noaa.gov>; Rose Dyson <Rose.Dyson@noaa.gov>; Velna L Bullock <Velna.L.Bullock@noaa.gov>; Jenell
C Wildgoose <Jenell.C.Wildgoose@noaa.gov>; Nicky D McClurkin <Nicky.D.Mcciurkin@noaa.gov>; Rose Fleming
<Rose.Fleming@noaa.gov>; Kashira D Laskey <Kashira.D.laskey@noaa.gov>; Leslie Bentley
<Leslie.Bentley@noaa.gov>; Beverly Morgan <Beverly.Morgan@noaa.gov>; Sheridan Hill <Sheridan.HiII@noaa.gov>;
Donna Buckley <Donna.Buckley@noaa.gov>; Trenika Tapscott <Trenika.Tapscott@noaa.gov>; Kim Hough
<Kim.Hough@noaa.gov>; Allandra Washington <Allandra.Washington@noaa.gov>; Susan Ware Harris <Susan. WareHarris@noaa.gov>; Anthony Waddy <Anthony.Waddy@noaa.gov>; Charles McLeod <Charles.McLeod@noaa.gov>;
Jacqueline J Rousseau <Jacqueline.J.Rousseau@noaa.gov>; Julia Tolbert <Julia.Tolbert@noaa.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 18:26:39 2010
Subject: Friday, July 30 M-HQ Leadership Tag Up Meeting - AGENDA
I have only 2 items on tomorrows agenda. If you wish to submit any items, please do so before 0700.
Thanks,
000433
Jim Anderton
Deputy Chief of Staff,
Office of the Under Secretarv
National Oceanic Atmospheiic Administration
14th & Constitution Ave., NW. Room 5811
Washington, DC 20280
Office: (202)482-2388
Cell: (202)527-4381
Emai1: jal11es.allderton@noaa.gov
000438
Justin Kenney.
NOAA Communications [Press.Releases@noaa.gov]
Wednesday, August 04,2010 12:12 PM
Internalpa.distribution@noaa.gov
Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill
image001.jpg; imqge002.jpg
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
'O'1M
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
.' ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATI'ON
. '.' !
i . .. ,
'
r:.:;, '. ,,, t ::
(,""
f'.\ ;. '; f,l i: q 'I
.j?
::::
\"i
::.:,~
~::
000439
Contact:
Justin Kenney
Scott Smullen
202-482-6090
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 4, 2010

The vast majority of the oil from the BP oil spill has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed,
recovered from the wellhead or dispersed - much of which is in the process of being degraded. A
significant amount of this is the direct result of the robust federal response efforts.
A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater Horizon/BP spill was
captured or mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations, including burning, skimming,
chemical dispersion and direct recovery from the wellhead, according to a federal science report
released today.
An additional 25 percent of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, and 16 percent was
dispersed naturally into microscopic droplets. The residual amount, just over one quarter (26 percent), is
either on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been
collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Dispersed and residual oil remain in the
system until they degrade through a number of natural processes. Early indications are that the oil is
degrading quickly.
These estimates were derived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
and the Department of the Interior (DOl), who jointly developed what's known as an Oil Budget
Calculator, to provide measurements and best estimates of what happened to the spilled oil. The
calculator is based on 4.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gulf, the government's Flow Rate
Technical Group estimate from Monday. More than 25 of the best government and independent
scientists contributed to or reviewed the calculator and its calculation methods.
"Teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since day one of this spill,
and based on the data from those efforts and their collective expertise, they. have been able to provide
these useful and educated estimates about the fate of the oil," says Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of
commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. "Less oil on the surface does not mean
that there isn't oil still in the water column or that our beaches and marshes aren't still at risk. Knowing
generally what happened to the oil helps us better understand areas of risk and likely impacts."
The estimates do not make conclusions about the long-term impacts of oil on the Gulf. Fully
understanding the damages and impacts of the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something that
will take time and continued monitoring and research.
Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column and
at the surface. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf,
early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil from the
BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE, and academic
scientists are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate.
It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are
abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and
oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
Residual oil is also degraded and weathered by a number of physical and biological processes.
Microbes consume the oil, and wave action, sun, currents and continued evaporation and dissolution
continue to break down the residual oil in the water and on shorelines.
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements wherever possible and the best
8
000440
available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. Th~ numbers for direct recovery
and burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports . .The skimming numbers were
also based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific
analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These estimates will
continue to be refined as additional information becomes available.
NOAA's mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, from the
depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine
resources. Visit us at http://www.noaa.gov or on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/usnoaagov.
On the web:
BP oil spill budget report:
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/0il Budget description S 3 FINAL.S44091.pdf

Bosed 011 estimated refe(Jse of 4.9m bcurefs (if oil
-"""'-
"
fle~idual
inr.iudeo; oil
that is em 01' ]ll:,l u"itl'.",
tlH, ~Wf4t;<:" ;~; hgtH
Opef3tlotlS
I,
MUs, h3~ wa,;,hl,'d
~,~m't<
Respolls'
'>fVi~E!'n .iJ!ltl we .. HH!'~d
[iif
UnUl!i!rI
Command
\,,-,--,1'
I,
or b(!er'l
<;kimm",d'\
COI!p.[lE'CI hom tht'

~ho-rc, or b bwii!d in
~;;~nd and ~;.()rl!mqnt~.
Chemituih,
S%
*011 in tile;,!: 3 cl:ltegClril'!> L

t:UJw!lti'1 b~in-g ,j(!!l,rOl'dmf
nat~Hatty.
._ ..... _. _ ............ __. _............ __ ....... _.. __ .. ___ .__ ... _,., .. ,. ________ .. _.H .... __ ... _. __ . __ ... _ .... _._. __ .__ .. _. _______ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _._...... _ .. ___ . H. __________ .__ ...... _ .... _ .... _ _
~_._ ~_. ~~~~~_ _J

..
____
.. _ ...
000441
Justin Kenney
NOAA Communications [Press.Releases@noaa.gov]
August 04, 2010 11 :44 AM
Internalpa.distribution@noaa.gov
image001.jpg
From:
Sent:
Wednes.~ay,
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
":N: 0"'"'M'
,
,
"
".
," '

,
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
t
I)~',;:"i:'
'~';',1<
'))'1"'
10
"~.'J'i1!i
,~,,-
\~::,
000442
000443
Contact:
Justin Kenney
Scott Smullen
202-482-6090

August4,2010

released today.
degrading quickly.
These estim~tes were derived by the National Oceanic al"!d Atmospheric Administration (NOM)
and the Department of the Interior (001), who jointly developed what's known as an Oil Budget
and based on the data from those efforts and their collective expertise, they have been able to provide
these useful and educated estimates about the fate of the oil, n says Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of
commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOM administrator. "Less oil on the surface does not mean
that there isn't oil still in the water column or that our beaches and marshes aren't still at risk. Knowing
at the surface. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf,
early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil from the
BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOM, EPA, DOE, and academic
abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and
Residual oil is also degraded and weathered by a number of phYSical and biological processes.
11
000444
available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery
and burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports. The skimming numbers were
analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These estimates will
depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine
resources. Visit us at http://www.noaa.gov or on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/usnoaagov.
On the web:
BP oil spill budget report:
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/0il Budget description 8 3 FINAL.844091.pdf
12
000448
Pat SimmS
Executive Assistant to the Under Secretary U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA 14th & Constitution
Ave' J N.W. -- Room 7316 Washington, DC 20230
(office) 202-482-3436 (Fax) 202-408-9674
Cell: 202-309-0278
000455
Justin Kenney
From:
Subject:
Robert. Haddad [Robert. Haddad@noaa.gov]

Wednesday. August 04.201010:59 AM
'Steve Block'
'Jennifer Austin'; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; 'Mark W Miller'; '_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff;
'Dave Westerholm'
RE: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Completed
Sent:
To:
Cc:
This is very true - but that deals with the total amount of oil released.
It has nothing to do with the oil budget. Just so that's clear, if 100 bbls of oil are
released, the per bbl penalty would be assessed on all 100 bbls; even if 50% of the oil that
was released evaporated.
Bob
Robert Haddad, Ph.D.
Chief, Assessment & Restoration Division NOAA/Office of Response & Restoration
Office: 301.713.4248x110
Cell: 240.328.9085
www.darrp.noaa.gov
www.response.restoration.noaa.gov
-----Original Message----From: Steve Block [mailto:Steve.Block@Noaa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 10:50 AM
To: Robert.Haddad
Cc: 'Jennifer Austin' j Tony.Penn@noaa.govj 'Mark WMiller'; '_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff';
'Dave Westerholm'
Subject: Re: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
The estimated barrels of oil released into the Gulf may, however, impact BP's liability of
a civil fine under the Clean Water Act. Under a clause added to the CWA following the Exxon
Valdez spill, the federal government can fine BP up to $4 J 300 per barrel of oil released into
the Gulf.--Steve
On 8/4/2010 10:44 AM, Robert.Haddad wrote:
> Jennifer:
>
> The oil budget will not immediately impact BP's liability with regards
> to NRDA. This is because the under OPA, the Natural Resource injuries
> have
to
> be documented by the trustees and the causal linkage between the
> spilled
oil
> and these injuries quantified. Thus, the NRD liability (or the damages
> ariSing from the NRD claim) will be based directly on those measured
> ecosystem impacts that are related to either the spill or to response
> actions arising as a result of the spill. In other words J we can't
> say because X bbls of oil were released, the NRD liability is Y.
>
9
000456
> Is this helpful? Bob
>
> Robert Haddad~ Ph.D.
> Chief, Assessment& Restoration Division NOAA/Office of Response&
> Restoration
> Office: 381.713.4248x118
> Cell: 248.328.9885
> www.darrp'.noaa.gov
> www.response.restoration.noaa.gov
>
>

> Sent: WednesdaYJ August 84, 2818 18:19 AM
> To: Robert Haddad; Tony.penn@noaa.gov; Mark WMiller; _HQ Deep Water
Horizon
> Staff
> Subject: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
>
,> Hi Bob and Tony and DWH Staff)

> Quick question for you, related to the the oil budget report going out
> this morning, we're pulling together Q&A for Dr. for her briefing with
> Gibbs this afternoon, Can you_answer this question? Thanks) Jen
>
> 1. *
> What impactJ if any, will this report have in determining BP's
> financial liability for this spill? *
>
>
>
10
000457
Justin Kenney
Subject:
Robert. Haddad [Robert. Haddad@noaa.gov]

'Steve Block'
'Dave Westerholm'
Follow Up Flag: ~
Flag Status:
Follow up
Completed
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
It has nothing to do with the oil budget. Just so that's clear> if lee bbls of oil are
released, the per bbl penalty would be, assessed on all lee bbls; even if 5e% of the oil that
was released evaporated.
Bob
Office: 301.7l3.4248xl10
Cell: 240.328.Q085
www.darrp.noaa.gov
-----Original Message----From: Steve Block [mailto:Steve.Block@Noaa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04j 201e 10:50 AM
To: Robert.Haddad
Cc: 'Jennifer Austin'; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; 'Mark WMiller'j '_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff',
'Dave Westerholm'
Subject: Re: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
Valdez spill, the federal government can fine BP up to $4,300 per barrel of oil released into
the Gulf.--Steve
On 8/4/2010 ,10:44 AM, Robert.Haddad wrote:
> Jennifer:
>
> have
to
> be documented by the trustees and the causal linkage between the
> spilled
oil
> and these ~nJuries quantified. Thus, the NRD liability (or the damages
) arising from the NRD claim) will be based directly on those measured
) ecosystem impacts that are related to either the spill or to response
) actions arising as a result of the spill. In other words, we can't
> say because X bbls'of oil were released, the NRD liability is Y. '
>
11
000458
>
>
>
>
>
Is this helpful? Bob
Robert Haddad, Ph~D.

Chief, Assessment& Restoration Division NOAA/Office of Response&
Restoration
> Office: 301.713.4248x110
> Cell: 248.328.9085
> www.darrp.noaa.gov
>
>"
> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 10:19 AM
> To: Robert Haddad; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; Mark WMiller; _HQ Deep Water
Horizon
> Staff
>
> Hi Bob and Tony and DWH Staff,
> Gibbs this afternoon, Can you answer this question? Thanks, Jen
>
> 1. *
> What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's
>
>
>
12
000459
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Robert.Haddad [Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov]
'Jennifer Austin'; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; 'Mark W Miller'; '_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
'Dave Westerholm'
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Completed
To:
Cc:
Jennifer:
The oil budget will not immediately impact BP's liability with regards to NRDA. This is
because the under OPA, the Natural Resource injuries have to be documented by the trustees
and the causal linkage between the spilled oil and these injuries quantified. Thus, the NRD
liabili ty (or the damages arising from the NRD claim) will be based directly on those
measured ecosystem impacts that are related to either the spill or to response actions
arising as a result of the spill. In other words, we can't say because X bbls of oil were
released, the NRD liability is Y.
Office: 391.713.4248xl19
Cell: 249.328.9085
www.darrp.noaa.gov
Sent: Wednesday, August 04) 2010 19:19 AM
To: Robert Haddad; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; Mark WMiller; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Subject: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
Quick question for you J related to the the oil budget report going out this morning, we're
pulling together Q&A for Dr. for her briefing with Gibbs this afternoon, Can you answer this
1.
What impact, if any, will this report hpve in determining BP's financial liability for this
spill? *
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 292-392-9047 (cell)
13
000460
Justin Kenney .
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Robert.Haddad [Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov]
'Jennifer Austin'; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; 'Mark W Miller'; '_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff'
'Dave Westerholm'
Jennifer:
The oil budget will not immediately impact BP's liability with regards to NRDA. This is
because the under OPA, the Natural Resource injuries have to be documented by the trustees
and the causal linkage between the spilled oil and these injuries quantified. Thus, the NRD
liability (or the damages arising from the NRD claim) will be based directly on those
measured ecosystem impacts that are related to either the spill or to response actions
arising as a result of the spill. In other words, we can't say because X bbls of oil were
released, the NRD liability is Y.
Office: 301.713.4248x110
Cell: 240.328.9085
www.darrp.noaa.gov
To: Robert Haddad; Tony.Penn@noaa.govj Mark WMiller; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Hi Bob and Tony and DWH Staff>
Quick question for you, related to the the oil budget report going out this morning> we're
pulling together Q&A for Dr. for her briefing with Gibbs this afternoon} Can you answer this
1.
What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial liability for this
spill? *
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications & Exter~al Affairs
292-482-5757 (office) 292-302-9047 (cell)
www.facebook;com/noaa.lubchenco
14
000461
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sarri, Kristen [KSarri@doc.gov]

Wednesday, August 04, 20109:00 AM
Shah, Parita; Griffis, Kevin
Austin, Jennifer
Urgent -- Oil Budget Report
080410 Oil Budget TPs 080310 730 pm.doc; Oil Budget description 83 FINAL.PDF
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Completed
Parita -- saw that you ,got TP.

as FYI.
Also attached is the report.
Also, Jen, can you get Parita topline TPs on dispersants?

Thanks, Kris
?'
We might want him to have copy
The Secretary is in Florida today.
000530

estimate the quantity ofBP Deepwater Horizon oil that has been released from the well and the fate of
Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, this team announced on August 2,2010, that it
estimates that a total of 4.9 million barrels of oil has been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon we 11.
A second interagency team, led by the Department of the Interior (DOl) and the National Oceanic and
to the oil. The interagency scientific report below builds upon the calculator and sUlnmarizes the
In summary, it is estimated that buming, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one
evaporated or dissolved, and just less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed (either natmally or as a
quarter (26%) - is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed
becomes available.

Based on estimated release of 4.9m barrels of oil
Unified
Command
Response
Operations


sheen and weathered
tar balls. ha$ washed
ashore or bn
collected from the
shore. or is buried itl
sand and 5ediment~.
8%
*Oil in lhe5e 3 categories is

naturally.
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of what happened to the oil.
000531
shown in the pie chart (Figure I), response efforts were successful in addressing 33% of the spilled oi I.
This includes oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe inseltion tube and top hat
ofthe oil to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose ofthis analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as
decreasing with distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report I and 2,
biodegrade.
Evaporation and Dissolution: It is estimated that 25% ofthe oil volume quickly and naturally
combination of categories all ofwliich are difficult to measure or estimate. It includes oil still on or just
below the surface in the form of light sheen or tar balls, oil that has washed ashore or been collected
000532
Flow Rate: The Oil Budget Calculator starts with an estimate ofthe cumulative amount of oil released
National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) led by United States Geological
barrels of oil flowed from the BP Deepwater Horizon wellhead between Apri 122 and July 15, 2010, at
Geological Survey in c?lIaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA and NIST.
Continued monitoring and I"esearch:
001, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
the Gulfand continues to monitor the air, water and sediments near the shoreline for tiJe presence of
dispersant and crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA~
and NSFfunded academic researchers and NOAA scientists are investigating rates of biodegradation,
000533
mitigate impacts of oil to terrestrial wildlife. natural resources, and public lands.
Even though the threat to shorelines,Jish and wildlife, and ecosystems has decreased since the capping
-in the Gulf region will~ake time and continued monitoring and research.
000534

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
David Mack and Jeff Allen (USGS) Application development and engineering
program
Kevin Gallagher, Martha Garcia, and Stephen Hammond (USGS) - Executive sponsors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
000535
The oil budget calculator provides an account by experts of whars


o First, this report is the result of very careful, peer-reviewed
JO

women who were working so hard to remove oil through ~kimming,
bur"ning, and direct capture really did make a significant dent in the
o Mother nature is also assisting this response effort and together we
are seeing significant progress.
000536
estimates.

wellhead were successful in removing one quarter of the oiL
the surface as light sheen and weathered tar bails, has washed ashore or
Thus far, 37,000 tons of oiled debris have been removed from shore.
I heard Sea n ",enUon thl$, but I

haven't Independentlv confirmed. It'$ possible that I
dreamed it.
000537
The dispersed and residual oil that is still in the system is degrading through


you know, so far have shown that diffuse contentrations in the low parts
per million, exist at depth. Our latest information is that those

000538

Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt. this team rumounced on August 2.2010. that it
direct measurements and the best scientific estimates available to date, to detelmine what has happened
to the oiL The interagency scientific report below builds upon the calculator and summarizes the
In summary. it is estimated that burning. skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one
quarter (25%) of the oi1 released from the wellhead. One quarter (25%) of the total.oil naturally
evaporated or dissolved. and just less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally or as a
quarter (26%)
becomes available.

Based on eshmoted release of 4.9m barrels a/Oil
the surface .as light
sheen and weathered
tar ball~, has washed
ashore or been
collected from the
shere, or is buried in
sand and sediments.
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
5%
Skimmed
3%
Chemically
8%
"'Oil in the5E1 3 categories is
naturally_
000539
systems (17%), buming (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct capture, buming
as a result ofthe oil coming out of the riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which caused some
of the oil to. $pray off in small droplets. For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as
droplets that are less than 100 microns about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this
Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small-droplets to keep it from coming ashore in large
http://ecow8tch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
biodegrade.
scientific research and observatiqns conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident.
011
Dissolution is different from dispersion~ Dissolution is the process by which individual hydrocarbon
Residual: After accounting for the .categories that can be measured directly or estimated (Le., recovery
operations, di~persion", and evaporation and dissolution), an estimated 26% remains. This figure is a
combination of categories .allofw.l1i~h are difficult to measure or estimate. It includes oil still on or just
000540

barrels of oil flowed from the BP Deepwater Horizon wellhead between Apri122 and July 15,2010, at
The numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured directly and reported in daily operational
expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based on additional infomlation and further
analysis. Further infonnation on these calculation methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf

understanding of the fate, transport and impact of the oil. The federal goverrunent will continue to report
www.geoplatfonn.gov.
responders are working with the Unified Command on monitoring strategies for tar balls and near sh()re
000541
000542
000543

Acknowledgements
Authors
Bill Lelw, NOAA, DOC
Credits
LTGg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
David Mack and Jeff Allen (USGS) Application development and engineering
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espina (NIST) - Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
formulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algoritlmls used in the calculator. The team continues to
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robe11 Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
000550
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sarrt, Kristen [KSarri@doc.gov]

Saturday, July 31, 2010 5:33 PM
Lubchenco, Jane; Miller, Mark; Austin, Jennifer
Spring, Margaret; Conner, William; Smullen, Scott; Gilson, Shannon; Griffis, Kevin; Shah,
Parita
Jane,
Thanks. Can you cc Heather, Margaret, and me on email so we are able to help track.
Thanks, Kris
----- Original Message ----From: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
To: Miller, Mark; Austin, Jennifer
Cc: Spring, Margaret; Conner, William; Smullen, Scott; Gilson, Shannon; Griffis, Kevin;
Sarri, Kristen; Shah, Parita
Sent: Sat Jul 31 17:26:44 2e1e
My modifications to Mark's/Jen's version are attached as track changes in one doc and a clean
version labeled 5.3epm.
We can circulate it more broadly as is (clean version), but will need to make final changes
based on a new Appendix to come from the GS group.
Jane
-----Original Message----From: Mark Miller [mailto:mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]
To: Jennifer Austin
Cc: Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
(SGilson@doc.gov)j Kevin Griffis (kgriff,is@doc.gov)j Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov)j
Dr. Lubchenco,
McNutt. Then as soon as the Oil Budget tool team completes their update then Jen and I will
Mark
7
000551
>
>
>
If anyone else needs to be on the
call~
we have a different call in

To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Mark Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchencoj
Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov)j Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov)j
> Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane, Mark, Jen,
>
> She wants to understand what was agreed to at EPA last night. And
> work out why this is a better approach than the bar chart idea, but
> try to work on better representing uncertainty.
>
> ,Then we need to loop in Marcia, then Heather, and then if we are on
>>>
> Jane is available between now (lpm) and 5 EST
- can we do 2 pm?
>>>
> Mark -
>>>
>
> ----------------~--~----------~~
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 31, '2818 12:59 PM
> Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Connerj Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;
> Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov)j Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov);
>
> (HQ)
>
> dispersed oil is handled) pIs comm~nicate to Sky Bristol and Mark
> Sogge
>>>
> Adm Jackson said : (1) she was concerned about the level of
> certainty implied in the. pie and cylinder charts (adding to lee%)
> and suggests instead bar chart with ranges for each bar instead
> -(Jane, let's discuss what to make of this - are we going with a
8
000552
> non-pie chart?);
>>>
> him as a reviewer (this one you should probably check with Al on):
>>>
> clear. When ~an we send it OYer?
>>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2e18 11:45 AM
> Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullenj Jane Lubchencoj
> Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov)j Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov);
> Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov); Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
>>>
>>> Margaret,
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>
Bill and I have talked several times this morning so I feel that we
nave captured all his thoughts (his and Al Venosa from EPA). He and
Al talked multiple times last night going over the methodology (AI
apparently was giving a presentation this AM to someone). Bill sent
me an email at midnight PDT and then called my at 3:0e AM PDT. I
have sent Jennifer a marked up copy of the doc and we are poised to
enter the new numbers from the updated Oil Budget tool which is
presently targeted to be done approximately 2:00 PM EDT. We will
also update the Oil Budget Report which is included as an appendix.
I am in regular communication with the USGS Oil Budget team. The one
>>> Uppe.r, and Lower Confidence lines in the Oil Budget Report. Bill Lehr
> is contacting Dr. Possolo to disc:us~ and address this. Bill is on
> his way to the Sand Point facility in order to set up for the FRTG
>
> Mark
>
>>>

>
>>>
Circ:Jing in shannon) parita, kevin, kris Also, what is timeline for inco.rp()rating those changes?
Sent: Saturday, July 31) 2010 11:21 AM
To: Mark Miller; Jennifer Austi-n; Margaret Spring; William Conner;
Scott Smullen
Cc: jane Lubchenco
9
000553

Mark,
Jennifer-
there were conversations about changes to tha oil-budget document

--------------------------------------From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

To: Jennifer Austinj Margaret Springj William Connerj Scott Smullen
Mark
Jennifer Austin
202-392-9947
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
>
10
000554
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Thanks Mark.
Sarri, Kristen [KSarri@doc.gov1

Saturday, July 31, 20104:39 PM
Miller, Mark; Austin; Jennifer . Spring, Margaret; Conner, William; Smullen, Scott; Lubchenco, Jane; Gilson, Shannon; Griffis,
Kevin; Shah, Parita
I am on standby for when we get the final document and will send forward.
I hav~ 2 edits to suggest to document.

Estimates vs. "versus"?
First) are we better to say Direct Measures AND Best
Second) and this is a picky junior high english teacher edit, when we use % in the text of a
sentence, can we change to "percent"?
From: Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
Sent: Saturday) July 31, 2010 4:00 PM
To: Austin, Jennifer
Cc: Spring, Margaret; Conner, William; Smullen, Scott; Lubchenco, Jane; Gilson, Shannon;
Griffis, Kevin; Sarri, Kristen; Shah, Parita
Dr. Lubchenco,
Mark
>
>
>

To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Mark Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;
Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov);
I can be on at 2 pm.
Will send the latest document shortly.
11
000555
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane, Mark, Jen,
She wants to understand what was agreed to at EPA last night. And
work out why this is a better approach than. the.bar chart idea, but
) Then we need to loop in Marcia, then l4~therJ and then i f we are on

>
) Jane is available between now (lpm) and 5 EST
- can we do 2 pm?
)
> Mark >
> ------------------------------~~~--------------------~~
> From: Margaret Spring [margaret.spring@noaa.gov]
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 31; 2818 12:59 PM
>
>
>
>
>

Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;
Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov); Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update ~ coordination]
>
> (HQ)
>>>
>
>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
)
Marcia McNutt said that whatever EPA and NOAA work out on how
dispersed oil is handled, pIs communicate to Sky Bristol and Mark
Sogge
Adm .Jackson said : (1) she was concerned about the level of
certainty implied in the pie and cylinder charts (adding to 108%)
and suggests instead bar chart with ranges for each bar instead
-(Jane, let's discuss what to make of this - are we going with a
non-pie chart?);
>
> him as a reviewer (this one you should probably check with Al on):
>>>
> clear. When can we send it over?

>
>>>
>
>
->>> -------.,......,..-.,...----------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
From: 'Ma'rk Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

To: Margaret Spring
>>>
> Margaret",
12
000556
>
> Bill and I have talked several times this morning so I feel that we
> have captured all his thoughts (his and Al Venosa from EPA). He and
> Al talked multiple times last night going over the methodology (AI
> apparently was giving a presentation this AM to someone). Bill sent
> me an email at midnight PDT and then called my at 3:00 AM PDT. I
> have sent Jennifer a marked up copy of the doc and we are poised to
> enter the new numbers from the updated Oil Budget tQol ~h~~h ~~
> presently targeted to be done approximately 2:00 PM EDT. We will
>
> I am in ~egulaF~ommunication with the USGS Oil Budget team. The one
> Upper and Lower Confidence lines in the Oil Budget Report. Bill Lehr
> is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and address this. Bill is on
> his way to the Sand Point facility in order to set up for the FRTG
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
Circling in shannon) parita) kevin) kris
Also) what is timeline for incorporating those changes?

Sent: Saturday) July 31) 2010 11:21 AM
Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Mark) Jennifer
there were conversations about changes to the oil budget document
From: 'Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

Sent:, Friday) July 30, 2010 11:00 PM
To: Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Connerj Scott Smullen
Subject:,~~Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coOrdination]
,
Mark
13
000557
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9B47
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
>
14
000558
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sarri, Kristen [KSarri@doc.gov]

Austin, Jennifer; Miller, Mark
lOl. I barely passed english, however, Ms Procraskey had 2 things she drilled into us - no
passive voice and no % in sentences. That said, it is not a big deal to me. However, if you
don't write out a number at or below ten then I'll take out the red pen!
Original Message ----From: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
To: Sarri, Kristen; Miller, Mark
Sent: sat Jul 31 16:45:32 2ele
Thanks. I do like AND better than VERSUS. let's definitely change that.
I went back and forth on percent or %. I ended with % thinking it's kind of a science
document so maybe we can get away with that. Same with using the numbers as numbers. not
written out, though it doesn't conform to AP style. I think it makes it easier for people to
follow the math and groupings we are doing, and jump back and forth between the image and the
explanations. That's my two cents. If you actually were an English teacher and feel
strongly about "percent" I could be persuaded.
Sarri, Kristen wrote:
> Thanks Mark. I am on standby for when we get the final document and will send forward.
>
> I have 2 edits to suggest to document. First, are we better to say Direct Measures AND
Best Estimates VI. "versus"?
>
> Second, and this is a picky junior high english teacher edit, when we use % in the text of
a senten6e. can we change to "percent"?
>
> ------------------------------------>
From: Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Saturday~ July 31. 201e 4:040 PM
> To: Austin~ Jennif~r
> Cc: Spring) Margaret; Conner) William; Smullen, Scott; Lubchenco.
> Jane; Gilson, Shannon; Griffis, Kevin; Sarri) Kristen; Shah, Parita
>
> Dr. lubchenco)
>
> Here is the latest copy (prior to final numbers from the Oil Budget
> tool). As soon as you provide the okay my understanding is that Kris
> will forward to Bob Perciasepe and Marcia McNutt. Then as soon as the
> Oil Budget tool team completes their update then Jen and I will update
> our document and send it on to continue with the clearance process.
>
> Mark
>
15
000559
>
> If anyone else needs to be. on the-call, we have a different,-'call in

> number than I sent outlet me know.
>
>
> ------------------------------------From: Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2018 1:48 PM
> Cc: Mark Millerj William Connerj Scott Smullenj Jane Lubchencoj
> Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov)j Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov)j
>>>
> I can be on at 2 pm. will send the latest document shortly.
>>>
>>>
>
Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane, Mark,
Jen, Bill Conner on this? 2 pm?
work out why this is a better approach than the bar chart idea, but
try to work on b~tter representing uncertainty.
Then we need to loop in Marcia, then Heather, and then if we are on

the same page, go back to EPA with a revision and how we tried to
>>>>
Jane is available between now (lpm) and 5 EST - can we do 2 pm?
,Mark - do we have a call-in we can use?

'
------------------------------------
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchencoj
Mark - want to make sure you have these ocmments from USGS and EPA
(HQ)
Sogge
- ;
Adm Jackson said : (1) she was concerned about the level of
16
000560
-(Jane, let's discuss what to make of this - are we going with a
non-pie chart?);
(2) she said Al Venosa did not revierw the calculations for the
oil budget calculator till last night so she is concerned about
listing him as a reviewer (this one you should probably check with Al on):
Note we will need to vet the product with EPA HQ (Perciasepe) to

------------------------------------
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullenj Jane lubchenco;
Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov)j Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov)j
Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov); Pari~a Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
Margaret,
Bill and I have talked several times this morning 50 I feel that we
have captured all his thoughts (his and Al Venosa from EPA). He
and Al talked multiple times last night going over the methodology
(AI apparently was giving a presentation this AM to someone). Bill
sent me an email at midnight PDT and then called my at 3:00 AM PDT.
I have sent Jennifer a marked up copy of the doc and we are poised
to enter the new numbers from the updated Oil Budget tool which is
presently targeted to be done approximately 2:00 PM EDT. We will
also update the Oil Budget Report which is included as an appendix.
I am in regular communication with the USGS Oil Budget team. The

one outstanding question is the appropriate level of QA/QC from NIST (Dr.
Possolo). NIST performed the statistical analysis which provides
the Upper and Lower Confidence lines in the Oil Budget Report. Bill
Lehr is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and address this. Bill is
on his way to the Sand Point facility in order to set up for the
FRTG meeting starting in approximately an hour.
Mark
> Circling in shannon, parita, kevin~ kris >

> Also, what is timeline for incorporating those changes?
>
>
------------------------------------> From: Margaret Spring
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 11:21 AM
17
000561
>>>>> To: Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; WiUiam Conner;
> Scott Smullen
> Cc: Jane Lubchenco
>>>
> Mark, Jennifer>>>
> there were conversations about changes to the oil budget document
> between epa (paul anastas) and noaa (bill lehr) last night related
> "to the dispersed oil and pie charts.
>>>
> Are you in that loop and is that document being reworked at your endr
>>>
>
> From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 11:00 PM
> To: Jennifer Austinj Margaret Spring; William Connerj Scott
>>> Smullen
> Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
>>>>>
> So it looks like we should have a new Oil Budget tool report and
>>> numbers for the pie chart tomorrow afternoon.
>
> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> Jennifer Austin
> 202-302-9047
> www.noaa.gov
> www.climate.gov
>>>
>
> >
Jennifer Austin
202-302-"9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
www.face"book.com/noaa .lubchenco
18
000562
Justin Kenney
From:
Scott Smullen [Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov]
Sent:

Andrew Winer
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Justin Kenney; Jennifer Austin

Re: FW: C-SPAN TELEVISION
we have this one ... thx

Andrew Winer wrote:
>
> FYI
>
> Andy Winer
>
> Director of External Affairs
>
>
> (2132) 482-4649
>
> andrew.winer@noaa.gov
>
> *From:* Smith, Lindley [mailto:LKSmith@c-span.orgl
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 94, 2919 9:59 AM
> *To:* andrew.winer@noaa.gov
> *Subject:* C-SPAN TELEVISION
>
> Andrew
>
> Hope you're well. (-SPAN would like the opportunity of revisiting
> having Administrator Jane Lubchenco on Washington Journal on Thursday
> morning from 8:313 to 9:15 for a discussion on the oil report and the
> Administrator briefing today at the White House.
>
> Washington Journal is (-SPAN's public affairs program where we also
> take calls from our viewers as well. It is my hope that Administrator
> Lubchenco will be able to join us. I look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Lindley Smith
>
> Producer, Washington Journal
>
> C-SPAN, Network
>
>
>
>
mobile/blackberry
>
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
000563
0 I 202-494-6515 c
202-482-1097
000564
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Wednesday, August 04, 2010 10:46 AM
John Ewald
Justin kenney; Jennifer Austin; Christopher Vaccaro; Ben Sherman
Re: CNN Request - Dr. L for today at 1 :09PM
We already have this. Thx You will get a number of calls today.
First question should be, "Have you already called downtown?"
John Ewald wrote:
> All,
>
> Just got a call from CNN - they would like Dr. Lubchenco on the air
> for a segment at 1:89PM to talk about the breakdown of the oil, per
> today's report. They can travel to us or host us at their DC studio.
>
> Marie Malzberg
> CNN
>
>
@turner.com
>
> Thanks!
>
> VIR,
> John
>
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
282-482-1897 0 I 282-494-6515 c
000565
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Wednesday, August 04.201010:33 AM
Oil Media
'Oil budget: send reporter's email I tel. # to jerry too
he will make sure they are on the list to get the release .....
soon
;)
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097
0 /
202-494-6515 c
coming
000566
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Griffis, Kevin
Austin, Jennifer; Kenney, Justin; Miller, Mark
Re: FW: DEEPWATER/Oil budget calculator draft release
ATT59720.gif
No. There is only one flow estimate - the one from Monday. There is no longer a high and a low.
Griffis, Kevin wrote:
Please see below. Are we good with these edits?
From: Zaidi, Ali A. [mailto:AIi A. Zaidi@omb.eop.gov]

To: Griffis, Kevin
Subject: Fw: DEEPWATER/Oil budget calculator draft release
If you can make the edits two emails down -- we're good.
From: Weatherly, Mark A.

To: Levenbach, Stuart; Zaidi, Ali A.
Cc: QUinlan, John P.; Lyon, Randolph M.; Kumaraiah, Divya; Crutchfield, J c.; Irwin, Janet E.
Sent: Tue Aug 03 18:37:57 2010
Subject: RE: DEEPWATER/Oil budget calculator draft release
Thanks Stu. I agree a discussion of the alternative flow should be in there. If for some reason there is strong resistance
to that, at a minimum your edits to this included.
From: Levenbach, Stuart
Sent: Tuesday, August 03,20106:18 PM
To: Weatherly, Mark A.
Cc: QUinlan, John P.; Lyon, Randolph M.
Subject: RE: DEEPWATER/Oil budget calculator draft release
Mark- I have the same concerns with this document as the similar version that was circulated on 7/30. It is
based on estimates of max flow (5 million barrels). Under a minimum flow scenario (3 million barrels), 58% of
the spilled oil was "captured or mitigated" and 12% is "Residual". I would prefer to include two pie charts
based on the max and minimum flow estimates. As an alternative, I provided the edits in red font below:

A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater HorizonJBP spill was captured or
mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations, including burning, skimming, chemical dispersion and
direct recovery from the wellhead, according to a federal science report released today.
An additional 25 percent of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, and 16 percent was dispersed
naturally into microscopic droplets. The residual amount, just over one quarter (26 percent), is either on or just
below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is
5
000567
buried in sand and sediments. Dispersed and residual oil remain in the system until they degrade through a
number of natural processes. Early indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.
These estimates were derived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
Department of the Interior (DOl), who jointly developed what's known as an Oil Budget Calculator, to provide
measurements and best estimates of what happened to the spilled oiL The calculator is based on 4.9 million
barrels of oil released into the Gulf, the government's Flow Rate Technical Group high flm-\! estimate from
Monday. The amount of oil captured or mitigated is 58% under the low now estimate of 3 million bands of
oiL More than 25 ofthe best government and independent scientists contributed to or reviewed the calculator
and its calculation methods.
G.a:;l!:'r;;! err 'C'stimo/I;:rf licf,N):5l! of ,19m film ('(5 olOiI
... r"~",:"",,,,,
Ul'Il{led
ReSpoM$t.
O~f"'I<NO"
h"lt b~.;;:",
~!~;,. t~~'~l~tn:d
!':,4;'r~~:ti:l(
Lh;1'fl
. .
tiIJtt'\?1~1!i'~ t!~'rl ~~.1e
)f.tn'm~~~
-S+ID'tr:. ";iio1 ", ntr:rm..J ,,':
}':t,
~,"'t.4ij N''',! :~"'J: ""m~ 'f,
\
"\
~o!t ,,' 11'","'.>t"'''I_;-''''_' ",
@
I:
r:\IHf,."ftt~" til)~'l!!i 4~*r~td~;:1
r~~lctf;'';I'''.
I
I
I
~'L"'It~~'tIi').I:!f.tr....'U
...... _..... -
.. ,--
"Teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since day one of this spill, and based on
the data from those efforts and their collective expertise, they have been able to provide these useful and
educated estimates about the fate of the oil," says Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and
atmosphere and NOAA administrator. "Less oil on the surface does not mean that there isn't oil still in the
water column or that our beaches and marshes aren't still at risk. Knowing generally what happened to the oil
helps us better understand areas of risk and likely impacts."
Quote from McNutt?
The estimates do not make conclusions about the long-tenn impacts of oil on the Gulf. Fully understanding the
damages and impacts of the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something that will take time and
Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column and at the
surface. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early
observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil from the BP
Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE, and academic scientists
are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate.
n is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf
of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil
enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
Residual oil is also degraded and weathered by a number of physical and biological processes. Microbes
consume the oil, and wave action, sun, currents and continued evaporation and dissolution continue to break
down the residual oil in the water and on shorelines.
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements wherever possible and the best available scientific
estimates where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured
directly and reported in daily operational reports. The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported
estimates. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available information and a
broad range of scientific expertise. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional infonnation
becomes available.
6
000568
###
Kevin Griffis
Director of Public Affairs
U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave., NW
(0) 202-482-8290
(c) 202-412-8377
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 I 202-494-6515 c
..... :.:....
000569
Justin Kenney
Wednesday. August 04.20107:56 AM
Oil Media
buc.tget will go out @ 1Dam I send calls
From:
Sent:
To:
oil
Subject:
The New York Times ran the story this morning.

send media calls to us downtown. Thanks -s
The release will be issued at 18am.
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097
0 /
to us. please...
202-494-6515 c
Please
000570
Justin Kenney

Griffis, Kevin
Kenney, Justin; Austin, Jennifer
Re: initial thoughts on release
oil budget press release v3.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Incorporating Kevin's edits and the pie chart .. here's the latest
version.
Jane has not seen this (she ran to the Enforcement Summit) ..
and, in general, she doesn't like the grouping of chemically dispersed 8% with the skimmed,
burned and captured.
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1e97
0 /
2e2-494-6515 c
000577
Justin Kenney
Scott Smullen [ScottSmullen@noaa.gov]
Thursday, July 29.20106:40 PM
Gilson, Shannon
Austin, Jennifer
Re: Latest shoreline threat
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jane is in Silver Spring tomOlTOW with a bunch of must-do meetings. We could try to grab half her lunchtime,
12-1230, but it would be phone only.
Gilson; Shannon wrote:
Could you? I think we are going to need to know the answer.
Also, can we get some of her time tomorrm'>l for local
press around this? What do you think?
-----Original Message----From: Scott Smullen [mailto:Scott.Smullen@noaa.~~l
To: Gilson, Shannon
Cc: Austin, Jennifer
Subject: Re: Latest shoreline threat
Conner says: South Florida
Miami/Dade, Fla.
We could say the
whole Florida Peninsula, but we'd have to run the words by his
oceanographers. Tampa/St. Pete already had a reduced threat before
(less than 10 percent, maybe), virtually zero now.
Gilson, Shannon wrote:
Does that include Tampa and St. Pete? What are we defining as southern
florida?
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:,Jennifer.Austin@noaa.qov]
To: Gilson, Shannon; Smullen, Scott
Subject: Latest shoreline threat
attached.
ready for clearance
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
.,
16
000578
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Scott Smullen [Scott.Smullen@noaa.govl

Thursday, July 29, 2010 11 :35 AM
Margaret Spring
'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'; 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov';
'william.conner@noaa.gov'; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'Larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov';
'Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'caitlyn. kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'Amrit. Mehra@noaa.gov;
'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'
Re: pie chart
Based on our discussions with Dr. L this morning, Mark is working with us on modifications to text of 2-pgr
and clarifying descriptions in the pie chart. We are still more than an hour away.
Hi, just got a call - plan is slightly changing - sat is too late. They would like to see if we can get the pie chart diagram run
at 60K and finished today to share. If the text is slower in clearing that is OK, but they said Carol Browner and Thad Allen
would make any calls necessary to get clrarances done ASAP.
So:
(1) How long would it take to construct the pie chart at 60K? Can we do that ASAP?
(2) When are you sending text around? When you do that we can activate high level attention for quick clearance if whe
know who needs to clear.
Thx

To: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>
Cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>i Scott Smullen
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; Irobinson@noaa.gov
<Larry.Robinsonl@noaa.gov>; Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; caitlyn Kennedy <caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>; Amrit Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>;
dwh.staff@noaa.gov <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 07:54:52 2010
Subject: RE: pie chart
Hi, Mark,
anyone raises then get this into interagency clearance asap. 1'm assuming that the earlier discussions and development
of tools and flow rate have enabled most of the issues to be raised, but we want to be sure J Am happy to discuss any of
Thanks
Jane
From: Mark Miller [mailto:mark.w.millernoaa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:53 AM
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave Westerholm; Margaret
Spring; caitlyn Kennedy; Amrit Mehra; dwh.staff@noaa.gov
Dr. Lubchenco,
17
000579
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC rASG) to see who USGS thinks should be
(NIC IASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kem.
bounds)
Mark
Team Member
affiliation
Ron Goodman
U. of Calgary
Al Allan
SpilTec
James Payne
Payne Env.
Tom Coolbaugh
Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton
LSO
Juan Lasheras
OCSD
Albert Venosa
EPA
Merv Fingas
Env Canada(ret)
Ali Khelifa
Env. Canada
Robert Jones
NOAA
Pat Lambert
Env. Canada
Per Daling
SINTEF
David Usher
ISCO
Peter Carragher
BP
Michel Boufadel
Temple U.

This is a great start. Many thanks for pulling this together quickly. i r' ve added a .
summary. paragraph at the end and changed one sentence so it does not imply somethirfg that
An please run it by the relevant. folks in our science
box.
to have this ready to announce Saturday, but it is fine to have the document go through
18
000580
expedited interagency review without the final numbers, theo slot the final numbers in on
Friday.
Bill and Mark, can you tell me who are the other people in other agencies (as well
'authors' of thi~ interagency report? Let me know if you need anythin~ to move ahead.
Many thanks,
Jane
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [rnailto:Jennifer.p.ustin!~noa_~.:.go:,::,:l

To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy;
lro~inson@n()aa~q0v;
Dave
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NrC, as you suggested
in point 1.
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 I 202-494-6515 c
19
000581
Justin. Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jennifer Austin
Re: oil budget
Oil Budget3k_v2 ss.doc
We're currently doing a very careful analysis to better understand where the oil has gone and where the
remaining impacts are most likely to occur. To do this we're working with the best scientific minds in the
government as well as independent scientific community to produce an estimate of just how much oil has been
skinuned, burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed.
Hi Scott, want to have a quick look at this. then we can circulate back to Bill and Mark.
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
20
000582
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Mark.W.Miller
Bill Conner; Jennifer Austin; Caitlyn H Kennedy
Re: [Fwd: Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool]
ATT62772.png
I have a 9:30 with Dr. L and the gang. I expect I won't be free till 10:45. Go without me. Jen and Caitlyn can
help. -s
Scott and Bill,
Here are all the docs that I think are applicable to the 1-2 pager Dr. L wants. Can we talk at 9:30? If so we can
use:
Talked with USGS and they have a call this morning to discuss the new number. I asked that they implement it
as quickly as possible in the Oil Budget tool because those would be the numbers we need for the pie chart.
Mark
-------- Original Message -------Subject:Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool
Date:Thu, 22 Jul2010 15:49:35 -0400
From:Mark.W.Miller <Marl<.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
To:Jane Lubchenco <.Jane.Lubchenco(ci).noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.stafflZzlnoaa.gov>, Bill Conner <William.Conner(Q)noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the background information for the pie chaIt developed for the What Next document.
In order to initialize our model for the long-term modeling analysis we used the Oil Budget tool NOAA helped
USGS to develop. The Oil Budget tool (see attached screen dump) uses two scenarios to estimate oil remaining
the high flow estimate (60,000 bbls/day). For our model initialization we used the estimated oil remaining on
July 15 (500,000 bbls) which was the date that the well was shut-in using the low flow scenario. The pie chart is
made of the cumulative removals and remaining oil percentages for that date (see numbers below). The other set
!Category
21
000583
iRemaining
--------_._--_._._--_.. _.__ ........._.._... _._.-......-'- ,......-...

_
"
.._
__w
. . . ."
.._ _ "._ _ _ _ ..... _
.,. _ _ __ , ' . _
16%
1,470,000
..
iNatural Dispersion
!E~~p~;~t~d
:Skimmed
,mo..
27%
............. __.. _...-.................... _-_..............
400,000 13%
670,000
100,000
28%
,~
820,000
!Direct Recovery
__480,000
._-
22%
-3%
.. ..,.. ...... ..."

,,~.~
823,000
16%
826,000
1,346,000
120,000
2%
266,000
5%
344,000
... ,,"",. ,....-.-,.- -- ,---_.... _... '"., --><_ . __... ,. ..,....._._. _..._,,-....
~
'Burned
260,000
8%
iChemically Dispersed
340,000 11%
.i
For the second action item from this mornings call I am working with USGS to prepare a short briefing
22
000584
Deepwater HorizDn MC252 QuI'!' Incident Oil Bud~et
P(m
CumU~91iVC'
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrelsldayi Through July 21 (Day 93)
Dlsposit!on of all
Cumulatlvo R.omahling
'.~.;:; P'int
Cumulative Disposition
oe Oil
Ctl.r.Ht Informatior-
000585
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 I 202-494-6515 c
24
000586
000587
DRAFT
Federal Science Report Answers: Where is the Oil?
captured or mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations, including burning,
skimming, chemically dispersion and direct recovery from the wellhead, according to a federal
science report released today.
dispersed naturally into microscopic droplets. The residual amount, just over one quarter (26
percent), is either on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed
ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Dispersed and
residual oil remain in the system until they degrade through a number of natural processes. Early
indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.
and the Department of the Interior (DOl), who jointly developed what's known as an Oil Budget
. Calculator, to provide measurements and best estimates of what happened to the spilled oil. The
calculator is based on 4.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gulf, the government's Flow
Rate Technical Group estimate from Monday. More than 25 of the best government and
independent scientists contributed to or reviewed the calculator and its calculation methods.
Dased on estimated release of 4.9m barrels of oil
,-....,
Residual include, oil
[hill is Oil or IUS: below
lhe!iurlace as light
$11,:<'1\ a-,d wc~th(:r<,d
t:H b?II ha; ~i2S"ed
?shore or 3een
collected irom Ih!1

shur~! Of
i;; 'JUfh::d h,
sand .an~; sE'dill1l:!:nts.
'\
Unified
Command
~
~--t'
Re~pollS@
.",rrmeo
Operations
'\
:m
ChLmically
*Oil in ::'\f!~ 3l.:'at-:'6ories is

clIIrt'utly iJeillB dElal.~"d
l"te-lt.1rally.
and based on the data from those efforts and their collective expertise, they have been able to
provide these useful and educated estimates about the fate of the oil," says Jane Lubchenco,
under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. "Less oil on
the surface does not mean that there isn't oil still in the water column or that our beaches and
marshes aren't still at risk. Knowing generally what happened to the oil helps us better
understand areas of risk and likely impacts."
000588
Quote from McNutt?

understanding the damages and impacts of the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is
something that will take time and continued monitoring and research.
at the surface. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in
the Gulf, early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show
that the oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from
NOAA, EPA, DOE, and academic scientists are working to calculate more precise estimates of
this rate.
abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient
and oxygen levels, ~d the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
Microbes consume the oil, and wave action, sun, currents and continued evaporation and
dissolution continue to break down the residual oil in the water and on shorelines.
available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct
recovery and bums were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports. The
skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were
expertise. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional infonnation becomes
available.
###
000589
DRAFT ~ for internal review only

FOR EMBARGOED RELEASE
Contact:
Federal Science Report Answers: Where is the Oil?

A federal science report released today estimates that a third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil
released in the Deepwater Horizon/BP spill was captured or addressed by the Unified Command
recovery operations, including burning, skimming, chemically dispersion and direct recovery from the
wellhead.
An additional one quarter (25 percent) of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, and 16 percent
was dispersed naturally into microscopic droplets into Gulf waters. The residual amount, just over one
quarter (26 percent), is either on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has
washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Dispersed and
residual oil remain in the system and until they degrade through a number of natural processes. Early
indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.
*embed pie charthere*
"Teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since day one of this spill, and
based on the data from those efforts and their collective expertise, they have been able to provide these
useful estimates about the fate of the oil," says Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for
oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. "Less oil on the surface does not mean that there
isn't oil still in the water column or that our beaches and marshes aren't still at risk. Knowing generally
what happened to the oil helps us better understand areas of risk and likely impacts."
Quote from McNutt?
This tool does not make conclusions about the long term impacts of oil on the different part so the Gulf.
Fully understanding the damages and impacts of the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something
that will take time and continued monitoring and research.
Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE, and academic
It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in
the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels,
and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
000590
consume the oil, and wave action, sun, currents and continued evaporation and dissolution continue to
break down the residual oil in the water and on shorelines.
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements wherever possible and the best available
scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and burns
were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports. The skimming numbers were also
based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses,
best available information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These estimates will continue to be
refined as additional information becomes available.
Department ofthe Interior (DOl), who jointly developed what's known as an Oil Budget Calculator, to
provide measurements and best estimates of what happened to the spilled oil. The calculator is based
on 4.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gulf,the government's Flow Rate Technical Group estimate
from Monday. More than 25 of the best government and independent scientists contributed to or
reviewed the calculator and its calculation methods.
###
000591
DRAFT 7.28
Scientists at the National Incident Command have developed a tool, called the Oil Budget
Calculator, to help quantify what has happened to all the oil that has spilled into the Gulf.
This tool assumes no further releases of oil from the well as of July 15 when the cap was
put in place. Conclusions are based on estimates of how much oil was released and our
understanding of how this oil is moving and degrading,
Comment [$1]: I dlink we should nome from

wh iell agencies, independent sdentists~ universities.
etc,
..,., ..."-'."- ... --.

'
--. --...... .'
., ..
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command
Center estimates that as of July 15 between 3-5 million batrels of oil had been released
from the Deepwater Horizon/BP wellhead.-1:When anllounced lare,," this weeklO, new
FRTG flow rate I total escape will adjust this and the,percentages in the oil budget.)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure I), aggressive operations on the water's surface have
been highly successful. %% percent of the oil was captured directly from the source by
the riser pipe insertion tube or various top hat systems. [n addition, burning and
skimming operations collected just over %% percent of the oil.
column. The volatile components of oil evaporate as gas, while the components that are
not volatile dissolve into the water column or form'resi~ue$liuc.'" astBi\j:all~.
We know that naturally occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant
amount of the oil. Bacteria that break down oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf of
Mexico in large part because of the warm water there and because of favorable nutrient
and oxygen levels. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of
biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications show that light crude oil is biodegrading
quickly.
These estimates leave us with about %% percent of the oil remaining in the form of
surface slicks, tar balls, and deposits 011 Gulf beaches. Recent satellite imagery indicates
the surface oil is continuing to break up into smaller scattered patches. Some of the
remaining oil also includes tar balls and near shore oil that is submerged beneath the
surface and therefore not readily detectable by over flights and satellites. These tar balls
may wash up on shore, or they may continue to degrade as winds and ocean currents
continue to spread them into the Gulf.
f Com"""t [l~1l: NCIld~ line to ,<etl-;-;~"
I eWjicmltiQJi;
What IiVaj>Omtes wijat ;loem 'j?

,Areii't lilrblllis Jell behind, plIfI of",lmt is counled 3'
l~!:~!,~~~!~._. '-
,,,,,., ....__....
Comment [103]: Why do we call illigill crude

here an DO where else?
000592
Even though the threat to shore Iines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead,
understanding impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf
region will take time and continued monitoring and research.
000602
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Smith, Sean [Sean.Smith@dhs.gov]

Wednesday, August 04, 2010 4:09 PM
Justin Kenney; KGriffis@doc.gov; Smith, Sean; Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov;
Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov
RE: Urgent Followup
image001.gif
Do it
From: Justin Kenney [mailto:justin.kenney@noaa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 3:37 PM
To: KGriffis@doc.gov; Smith, Sean; Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov; Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov
Subject: FW: Urgent Followup
NOAA's Bill Lehr, one of the co-authors, would be my recommendation.
Justin Kenney
NOAA Director of Communications & External Affairs
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
Email: justin.kennev@noaa.gov
NOAA Responds to the BP oil spill: www.noaa.gov
From: Gillis, Justin [mailto:jgillis@nytimes.com]
To: 'sean.smith@dhs.gov'; 'Justin Kenney'
Subject: Urgent Followup
Gents,
As I'm sure you've seen on the wires, a lot of scientists -- Mandy Joye, Ian MacDonald and others -- are attacking the
report, specifically its reliance on assumptions and modeling. We have others defending it ~s reasonable, of course, but
the story tonight will need a government voice on this subject. Can you put somebody on the phone with us, well below
Lubchenco's level, who can talk about the methodology, the decisions that had to be made to come up with the estimates,
and why those are reasonable?
Thanks.
Justin Gillis
Environmental Science Writer
ebe NrUflork ~hnf.'s

620 Eighth Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10018

E-mail:
@nvtimes.com
10
000603
11
000614
000633

All unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions .

.... Government estimate of discharge ranged from 62.200 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 52,700 bbl on July 14, 2010.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs,gov on 08/03/201009:43 AM MDT.
000634
1,500,000
1,250,000
-en
1,000,000
tV
750,000
Q)
10..
10..
.c
500,000
250,000
May-2010
Jun-201
Expected Value -
Jul-201
Aug-2010
Deepwater Horiz.on MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/03/201009:43 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
000635

Higher Flow Estimate - Through August 02 (Day 105)
All unlabeled values in ban's!s. See end notes for assumptions .

... Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate plus 10% uncertainty.
'*" Maximum discharge ranged from 68,390 bbl on April 22,2010 to 58.022 bb! on July 14,2010.

Report generated by sbristo!@usgs.gov on 08/03/2010 09:43 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the repoli for reference material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U,S, Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
000636
Higher Flow Estimate Through August-02 (Day 105)
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
I/)
(I)
1,000,000
co
.Q
750,000
500,000
250,000
J _ _.___...--_ _ _ _~_ _....__--
May-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
JUI-2010
Aug-2010
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Bupget

Report generated by sbristol@usgs,gov on 08/03/2010 09:43 AM MDT.
000637

Lower Flow Estimate - Through August 02 (Day 1O~)
All unlabeled values in barrels. See end noies for assumptions.
*' Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10% uncertainty,
Maximum discharge ranged from 55,956 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 47.472 bbl on July 14, 2010.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/03/2010 09:43 AM MDT.
See end not~s section of the report for reference material on report elements.
Application operated by the U,S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
000638
Lower Flow Estimate Through August 02 (Day 105)
I
1,300,000
1,200,000 .
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
i
I
-... 800,0001
... 700,000
en
Q)
cv
.Q
600,000
500,000-1
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
O"~
__
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-201
Aug-2010
Deepwater Hori4on MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

000639
Reference Notes


The Cumulative DispOSition of Oil "Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amount of oil
clicking on the labels in the table) for further information on the individual calculations. and additional
reference material.
Discharged
On July 31, 2010, the U.S. scientific teams charged by National Incident Commander Thad Allen with
determining the flow of oil from BP's .leaking well refined their estimates of the oil flow. The teams
estimated that the discharge rates ranged from 62,000 bbl/day at the start of the incident to 53,000
bbllday when the well was capped on July 14 with an uncertainty factor of 10%. The uncertainty factor
decreasing reservoir pressure observed after the well was capped. Severing the riser on June 4 (Day

Previous versions of the Oil Budget Tool used a constant low and high flow estimate based on
.
000640
used pre- and post-riser cut. On June 15,2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from
the leaking BP well was announced. The most likely flow rate of oil at that time was estimat~d between
Recovered
via~:RITT
acd Top Hat
Dispersed Naturally
chemical dispersion multiplied by a factor of natural dispersion effectiveness derived from a scie ntific
Evapqrated or Dissolved
-Evaporation is the largest oil removal- mechanism for surface oil
for the cumulative total over time. Different factors are used to represent the difference in this ra teo The
evaporation/dissolution calculation first determines the remaining 'air available for evaporative processes
Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/03/201009:43 AM MDT.
000641

Skimmed
Burned
cumulative totals.
Chemical oil dispersion is the result of a sci~ntific calculation based on the amount of chemical

Report generated by sbristol@usgs,gov on 08/03/2010 09:43 AM MDT.
000642
International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20: 1 used
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
Deepwat~r Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nationa!
000643
Justin Kenney
Subject:
Steve Block [Steve.Block@Noaa.gov]

Robert. Haddad
'Dave Westerholm'
Re: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Completed
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
the Gulf.--Steve
> Jennifer:
>.
> to NRDA. This is bec.ause the under OPA, the Natural Resource injuries
> have to be documented by the trustees and the causal linkage between
> the spilled oil and these injuries quantified. Thus, the NRD liability
> (or the damages arising from the NRD claim) will be based directly on
> those measured ecosystem impacts that are related to either the spill
> or to response actions arising as a result of the spill. In other
> words, we can't say because X bbls of oil were released, the NRD liability is Y.
>
>
> Robert Haddad, Ph.D.
> Restoration
> Office: 301.713.4248x118
) Cell: 240.328.9885
>
>
> -----Driginal Message----> From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
> Horizon Staff
>
>
> 1. *
> what impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's
>
1
000644
000645
Ju~tin .Kenney .
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Steve Block [Steve.Block@Noaa.gov]

Wednesdc!'y, August 04,201010:50 AM
Robert. Haddad
'Dave Westerholm'
the Gulf.--Steve
> Jennifer:
>
> have to be documented by the trustees and the causal linkage between
> the spilled oil and these injuries quantified. Thus, the NRD liability
> (or the damages arising from-the NRD claim) will be based directly on
> those measured ecosystem impacts that are related to either the spill
> or to response actions arising as a result of the spill. In other
> words J we can't say because X bbls of oil were released, the NRD liability is Y.
>
>
> Robert Haddad, Ph.D.

> Restoration
> Office: 301.713.4248xl10
> Cell: 240.328.9085
>
>
> Horizon Staff"
>
> Gibbs this afternoon, Can you answer this question? Thanks~ Jen
>
> 1. *
> What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's
>
>
>
3
000646
Justin Kenney
Subject:
Steve Murawski [Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov]

Sunday, August 01, 20107:29 PM
J;:me Lubchenco
'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'William.Conner@noaa.gov';
'margaret.spring@noaa.gov'; 'ksarri@doc.gov'
Re: text on monitoring and research for pie chart document
Flag Status:
Flagged
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Here are a few sentences reo NSF, I can socialize them:

oil budget and the effects of submerged oil. NSF research has focused on the distribution and concentration of
rate of bacterial composition. NSF is planning a new research effort involving two ships to examine these
aspects that is set to depart in mid-August.
Steve

Thanks, Mark! Plz proceed w getting short descriptions as you indicated.
The text I drafted for NSF may suffice. Steve: do you think so? P(z add more if needed.
I think what is needed is a simple explanation of what dissolution and dispersion mean and how they are different
Cheers.
Jane
Jane Lubchenco
(202) 482-3436
WWW.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
From: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.qov>

Cc: Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>i William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Steve
Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>; Marqaret.spring@noaa.gov <Marqaret.Sprinq@noaa.gov>; Kris Sarri
(ksarri@doc.gov) <ksarri@doc.gov>
Sent: Sun Aug 0118:57:192010
of their monitoring and research (I sit next to USGS and DOl). In particular I understand we want 001. USGS,
4
000647
and DOE and the text is directed toward oil and oil impact related work. Is that true?
Steve do you have a feel for NSF activities?
2. I am still not completely sure what EPA's issue with these are. Do we just define dissolution and dispersion
or is there some other question about these processes EPA feels we need to explain. If we want basic definitions
I will take a crack at it. I'll ask Bill Lehr and company to help me put something together.
Mark
Jen, Bill, Mark and Steve,
Here is the short text (below) I started to capture in a single paragraph for the oil budget document which
agencies and other researchers are doing what by way of monitoring and research. The trick is to do
justice to the diversity without having this become a huge laundry list. I've asked Bob Perciasepe to send
a few sentences on what EPA is doing. What is the best way to get comparable information fl.-om the other
relevant agencies? Marcia McNutt is out of touch for the week. Is AIm Castle the next best person?
Who would be best suited/able to reach out to DOl, DOE, and NSF to get a few sentences from each by mid
afternoon tomorrow?
Mark and Bill EPA is declining to explain in the document just what dissolution is and how it differs from
dispersion. Can one of you compose some language about that, or ask Steve's assistance in doing so?
NOAA continues to track the movement of the oil still on the surface and in the water column. It will issue
daily surface oil trajectories for as long as necessary and continue subsurface sampling to monitor the
concentration, distribution and impact of oil there. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command
refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. EPA continues to monitor coastal air and water for
contaminants, including dispersants and oil products, with special attention to hwnan health impacts. Numerous
NOAA- and NSF-funded academic researchers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife
impacts. (need DOl monitoring and research on wildlife; DOE?) ??
000648
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Tim A Tomastik [Tim.A.Tomastik@noaa.govl

Scott Smullen; David P Miller; Jennifer Austin
Radio Reporter
Follow up
Completed
All:
Kevin Gallagher of the Louisiana Radio Network would like to do a short interview with a
NOAA spokesperson about the report -- specifically the idea about "underwater plumes",
Tim
000649
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tim A Tomastik [fimATomastik@noaa.gov]

Scott Smullen
David P Miller; Jennifer Austin
Reporters want reaction
Scott ....... Wash Post and Bloomberg News both want call backs and statements in relation to
the NYT article.
Post: Dave Fahrenthold
Kimberly Kindy got from Murawski)
Bloomberg: Allison Bennett
(He picked up all the info
Let me know if I can do anything.

Tim
000650
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tony.Penn@noaa.gov
Wednesday,August 04,201010:19 AM
This is an automatic reply. I will be out of the office on leave 7/30 - 8/6. I will respond
to your message - if need be - as soon as possible once I return to the office. If you need
to reach someone in the meantime, please contact Mary Baker at mary.baker@noaa.gov. For
Thanks.
urgent matters, you can try to reach me on my cell phone
000651
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
william.conner (William. Conner@noaa.gov]

Wednesday. August 04. 2010 11 :10 AM
Jennifer Austin
Re: [Fwd: AP science writer seeks to talk" to you about NOAA-USGS what happened to oil
report]
0'
Subject:
-,"
Thanks, Jenn.
> Hi Mark,
> You don't have to call him, he's been calling us all, as has every
> network. We've already gotten back to him. For now we are telling
> everyone to stay tuned for the release, hopefull~coming soon, and the
> White House just announced that Dr lubchenco will be with Gibbs for
> this afternoon's briefing, so that will take care of a lot of
> questions. We'll handle follow up after that.
>
> Thanks, Jen
>
> Mark.W.Miller wrote:
Can I call Mr. Borenstein?

Mark
-------- Original Message -------Subject:

AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS
what happened to oil report
Date:
Wed, e4 Aug 2010 09:31:03 -esee
From:
To:
Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov
Mark,
I'm Seth Borenstein, science writer at the Associated Press. Can you
call me as soon as possible at
Thanks,
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
1100 13th St. NW, Suite 7ee
Washington, DC 20005-4076
ap.org <mailto:
ap.org>
The information contained in this communication is intended for the

use of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you have received this communication in error, and that any
review~ dissemination J distribution or copying of this communication
9
000652
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error~ please notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
+1-212-621-1898 and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438fecf467d9a4938
>
William-G. Conner J Ph.D.

Chief, HAZMAT Emergency Response Division NOAA Office of Response and Restoration
Phone: 301-713-3038 (190)
Cell: 240-46e~6475-
10
000653
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
william.conner [William.Conner@noaa.gov]
Jennifer Austin
[Fwd: AP Science writer seeks to talk to you about the NOAA-USGS what happened to oil
report]
To:
Subject:
JenI sent this to Justin and Scott, but probably should have sent it to you first.
It would be great if Dr. L could speak with this gentleman. Unot, I can call him.
Bill
-------- Original Message -------Subject:AP Science writer seeks to talk to you about the NOAA-USGS what happened to oil report
Date:Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:37:03 -0500
From:Borenstein, Seth <SBorenstein@ap.org>
To: WiIliam.Conner!a{noaa.gov
William,
I'm Seth Borenstein, science writer at the Associated Press. Can you call me as soon as possible at
Thanks,
Seth
Seth Bo'renstein
1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700
@ap.org
The information contained in this communication is intended for the use

of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this
that you have received this communication in error, and that any review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at +1-212-621-1898
and delete ~his e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISClmsk dccc60c6d2c3a6438fOcf467d9a4938
William G. Conner, Ph.D.
Chief, HAZMAT Emergency Response Division
11
000654
NOAA Office of Response and Restoration
Phone:
301-713-3038 (190)
Cell:
240-460-6475
12
000655
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Monday, August 02. 2010 1 :43 PM
Jane Lubchenco
Mark.W.Miller; Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov
Re: authors
I do not feel that I have contributed enough to be listed as an author (was surprised to see
that 'over the weekend)".
Please remove me from the listing.
Thanks.
Bill
Jane lubchenco wrote:

> Any changes to the authors in view of the additional work that has been done on the report?
> (I'm not suggesting any, just wanting to be sure we've thought about
> that.)
>

Chief} HAZMAT Emergency Response Division NOAA Office of Response and Restoration
Phone: 301-713-3038 (190)
Cell: 240-460-6475
13
000678
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Wednesday, July 28, 20104:08 PM
Jennifer Austin
Mark A Miller; Caitlyn Kennedy
Re: Oil.Budget 2 pager
Oil Budget_ck_v2 S8 JA wgc.doc
Thanks for drafting this.
I thought it came out"well. A few comments are attached.
Bill
> Hi Mark and BillJ
>
> Attached is a draft one and a half page document about the oil budget
> calculator.
> We would plan to add in the pie chart) and obviously fill in the
> newest numbers.
>
> Please let us know what you think.
William G. Conner) Ph.D.

Chief) HAZMAT Emergency Response Division NOAA Office of Response and Restoration
Phone: 391-713-3938 (199)
Cell: 249-469-6475
20
000692

Higher Flow Estimate - Through July 30 (Day 102)

Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate plus 10% uncertainty.
Maximum discharge ranged from 68.390 bbl on April 22. 2010 to 58,022 bbl on July 14. 2010.

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 08/01/2010 04:23 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with th National
000693
I
I
1 ,750,000
1,500,000
(/)
1,250,0001
Q)
~
1,000,000
co
..0
750,000
500,000
250,000
1
J
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2C
,

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 08/01/201004:23 AM MDT.
000694
000695

Lower Flow Estimate - Through July 30 (Day 102)

Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10% uncertainty.
Maximum discharge ranged from 55,956 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 47,472 bbl on July 14, 2010.

Report generated by mark.w,miUer@noaa.gov on 08/01/2010 04:23 AM MDT.
000696
Lower Flow Estimate Through July 30 (Day 102)
Expected Value -

Report generated by mark.w,miller@noaa.gov on 08/01/201004:23 AM MDT
000697
Reference Notes

into account the effective discharge (total discharge minus volume collected via Top Hat), and the

reference material.
Discharged
On July 31,2010, the Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) released new government estimates for the
Deepwater Horizon incident based on the best available data. The FRTG estimated that the discharge
rates ranged from 62,000 bbllday at the start of the incident to 53,000 bbl/day when the well was
capped on July 14 with an uncertainty factor of 10%. The uncertainty factor in the best government
estimate was used to create a Higher Flow Estimate and a Lower Flow Estimate report in the Oil Budget
Tool.
Based on reports of major explosions and burning oil from the first two days of the incident (April 20-21).
the FRTG estimate begins on April 22, 2010. In general, the discharge rate trended down over time due
to decreasing pressure observed after the well was capped. Severing the riser on June 4 (Day 45),
resulted in an estimate of discharge increase of approximately 4%.

estimations from the FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements. This method was chosen at the time as
the best available process and because the same measurement method was used pre- and post-riser
cut. On June 15, 2010, an Jmproved estimate of how much oil is flowing from the leaking BP well was
announced. The most likely flow rate of oil at that time was estimated between 35,000 and 60,000
Report generated by mark.w,miller@noaa.gov on 08/01/2010 04:23 AM MDT
Oceanic and AtmospheriC Administration,
000698
barrels per day. This improved estimate was based on more and better data that was available after the
riser cut -- data which helped increase the scientific confidence in the accuracy of the estimate at that
time.
Recovered via RITT
a~d
Top Hat
RID and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
Dispersed Naturally
-Evaporation is t~e largest oil removal mechanism for surface oil
Measured amount removed via RITTand Top Hat

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 08/01/201004:23 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference malerial on report elements.
000699

Skimmed
Burned
cumulative totals.
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20: 1 used
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Blldget
Report generated by mark.w,miller@noaa.gov on 08/011201004:23 AM MDT.

See end notes section af the report for reference material on report elements.
000700
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 08101/201004:23 AM MDT.
000701
DRAFT 7.31v Ilpm

determine where the oil went. l11e numbers are based on best estimates of how much oil was released

Federal
Response
Operations
*Remaining oil is either at

or weathered lar balls.

has been biodegraded. or
has alreadv come ashore.
5%
Skimmed
3%
8%
over the course of the spill. This number is based on flow rate estimates from The Flow Rate Technical
.1 HorizonlBP wellhead, the uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite: Flow Rate Technical Group_
website or report?). They estimate that the daily flow rate ranged from 62,000 barrels per day on April
22,2010 to 53,000 barrels per day on July 15,2010, at which time the flow of oil was suspended. To
represent the ten percent uncertainty in the flow rate estimate, the Oil Budget Calculator shows two
000702
Direct Measures ands Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest ofthe numbers were
analysis.
Federal Response Efforts: Response effolis to deal with oil have been aggressive. As shown in the pie
chart (Figure 1), response effOlis were successful in dealing with 32% of the spilled oil. This includes
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants on and below. the surface.
water column. which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the
biodegradation.
Report 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.l1oaa.gov/JAGlreports.html).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
remaining .oil discussed below. The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific research and
an estimated 27 % remains. This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it bas
.
Biodegradatiori:'Dispersed oil in the water column and surface oil are naturally biodegraded. NaturaHy
occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount ofthe oil. Bacteria that break
Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify tile
000703
quickly.
quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) into Gulfwaters. The remaining amount,
for as long as necessary and continue subsurface san1pling to monitor the concentration,distribution and
strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oiL
Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wi1dlife, habitats, and natural resources
Attachments
as the pie chart used above. The image on page three uses the lower flow rate estimate.
000704

Where did the oiLgo?
Authors
Credits
Kevin Gallagher and Martha Garcia (USGS) Executive sponsors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Antonio Possoio, NIST
Al Allan, SpilTec.
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Dating, SINTEF
000705
DRAFf7.28
The National Inci.dent Command has assembled the best scientific minds in the
developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator based on estimates of how much oil
was released and their understanding of how this oil is moving and degrading, to
determine where the oil has gone.
Findings
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG). assembled by the National Incident Command
~stimates that as of July 15 between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released
from the Deepwater Horizon/BP wellhead. (*When announced later this week (t), new
FRTG flow rate I total escape will adjust this and the percentages in the oil budget.)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts OIJeFatjoAs OR the
'>Yater's smface have been ~uccessful in recovering a significant portion of the
spilled oil. %% percent ofthe oil was captured directly from the source by the riser pipe
insertion tube or ~top hat systems. In addition, burning and &kimming operations
collected just over %% percent of the oil. TRese AHA'lbeFS fire bast'a on tHe daily
operational reports recei'lee by the UAified COlllA'latla.
it is estimated that %% percent of the oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
column. The volatile components of oil eV$.porate~, while the components that are
not volatile dissolve into the water column or form residues such as tar balls. The
evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific research and observations conducted on
the Deepwater Horizon incident. A different evaporation rate is used for fresh and
weathered oil to provide a more accurate estimate.
[wgc1]: Is there any other way to
Natural dispersion happened under the water and occurs as a result of the oil coming out
of the broken riser pipe at high pressures into the water column, which ~aused
sOlTie of it to spray off in small droplets DI"O)'llets SAlaller (less than 10.0 niirons - the
:diiimetetrii\a'J'lUri)an;hak'(,re eOIl:liael'eel ais)'lersed.l
I CORI.ment [JKAll: ellll you gi ve me an e.<ample

\ of how smAil a micron is?
---.--~-~~---~-~.,,~~,--
amount of the oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered oil are naturally
abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water there-iffid
beeatlse of. the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels. and the fact Ihal oil enters the Gulf
of Mexico through natural seeps so that the bacteria art' acclimated to breakin it down.
While there is more analysis to be done to quantifY the exact rate of biodegradation in the
Gulf, early indications show that the light crude oil from this well is biodegrading
quickly.
.....-.- .." ...
,,-~
.......
:
.
~.
000706
These estimates leave us with about %% percent of the oil to be accounted for. This oil
is either at the surface as light sheen Or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraded, or has
already come ashore on beaches.
ReceAt sfHellite imagery iRaieates the Sl:1l'fnee oil is contilluing 10 break UI~~
scfHterea patches, 80me of the rel'AaiAiflg oil abo iAelmles tar ealls aAd lIeaf shore oil tlint
is sliemerged beAeath ilie sl:Il'fnee tma therefore Rot Feasil), d~tfffab~l'..er flight-a
sfHelliles. These tar balls l'fIay wash Ufl en sl~ore, or Ihey "'lny eentinlle 10 degrade Blf
..... ines anel ocean cl:ll'fents eeHtiA1H? to sflread theAl iAtO tJ:ie Gull:
NOAA continues to track the movement ofthe remaining oil and will issue daily surface
Command to develop monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oi\.
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping oftlle BP wellhead,
understandingjhe impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the
000770
000780
DRAFT 8.3v 11:30am

that oil. The expertise of government scientists on these teams is complemented by non-governmental
specialists reviewing the calculations and conclusions. One team calculated the flow rate and total oil
released. Led by Energ I' Se(;relarV Steven Chu und United States Geological Survey (USGS) Director
Marcia McNutt, aae 15nergy eeerelary SleY1I CRu. this team announced on August 2,2010 that it
estimates that a total of 4.9_million barrels of oil have been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon
well. A second interagency team, led by the Deprutment \lr Interior 1001) and the Nationul Oceanit: :.Ind
Atmospheric AdministrationlNOAA} developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator, to determine
what happened to the oil. The calculator uses the 4.9.million barrel estimate as its input and uses both
to the oil. The interagency scientific report below describes the outputs of the oil budget calculator.
quarter of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated or
dissolved, and just less than one quarter was dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as
microscopic droplets into Gulf waters. The residual amount, just over one quarter, includes oil that ha~
washed IlShore Of been wlleeled from lhe shor.:: or is i.!h'il.i'elow the surface us resi9.ue and wea1l1S1rr;;i
~:!f.Q!llls.J!l eith<i!r 611I)rjl:l:il AeiOI'< the Burlaee a" re!,idlle tlnd v..tlal'h<!l'ed UlfAalb. has ,<'.-asHed a!IR~
~se.J.t~-ofTl lhe ;;hHI~buried in !mnd and :;ea.iffi;:.nts. Of has degraded. The report below
describes each of these categories and calculations. These estimates will continue to be refined as
additional information becomes available.
000781
, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >c _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ , .
I
I
I Comment ~1): Reoidual includes oil that has
j washed ashore or bee. collected from Ihe shore or is
IjUll' below the surf as residue and ",..thered
Based on estimoted release of 4.9m barrels 01 oil
~~=..----..-.. -..-.. .---..-.-....
Unified
R.,,;dllal incluces oil

th.t is on or jll>! ~elow
Command
Response
th surface as re:;idue
Operations
and vo'e.athf;fed tarb:rtllt..

hal;, Wi:lSfH:tI ~is.horf.' Uf
b " colioLled .rom lhe

shore or is uuried in
:..... fld~nd sediments.
*nIHt.'
3 percentages represent
oll initially in ;hesl;I calegories lhrH

i~ flOW
-Fig~~~et:OiIB.;dget:Sho;scurrenti:iesi;;StTnlateS of
rJegrading.
what has happenedtotheoil.
shown in the pie chait (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in .iealiHg-wimuddressim! 33% of the
spilled oil. This includes oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube
and top hat systems (17%), burning (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct
capture, burning and skimming remove the oil from the water entirely, while chemically dispersed oil
remains in the water until it is biodegraded, as discussed below.
Dispersion: Based on estimates, 16% oflhe oil dispersed naturally into the water column and 8% was
dispersed by the application of JltlflFly SfJ.OOO barrel:; at' chemical dispersants on and below the surface.
Natural dispersion occurs as a result ofthe oil coming out of the riser pipe at high speed into the water
column, which caused some of the oi I to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose of this analysis,
'dispersed' all; is deti'ned as droplets that aCe less than 100 microns - about the diameter ofa human hair.
Oil droplets that are this small are neutrally buoyant and thus remain in the water column where they
then begin to biodegrade. Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to keep it from
coming ashore in large surface slicks and make it more readily available for biodegradation. Chemical
dispersants were applied at the surface and below the surface, therefore the chemically dispersed oil
ended up both deep in the water column and just below the surfa<:e. Dispersion increases the likelihood
that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column and at the surface. Until it is biodegraded,
naturally or chemically dispersed oil, even in dilute amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species.
All of the naturally dispersed oil and some ofthe oil that was chemically dispersed remained well below
the surface in diffuse clouds, where it began to dissipate further and biodegrade. Previous analyses
have shown evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet in very low
concentn~tions (parts per million or less), moving in the direction of known ocean currents and
decreasing with distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report I and 2,
000782
httD:llecoVv'lltch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG!reports.htm\}. Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface

biodegrade.
on scientific research and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Residual: After accounting for the categories that can be measured directly or estimated, i.e., recovery
operations, dispersion. and evaporation and dissolution, an estimated 26% remains. This figure is a
combination of categories that are difficult to measure or estimate. It includes oil still on or just below
the surface in the form of light sheen or tarbans, oil that has washed ashore or been collected from the
shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface through time. This oil has also
begun to degrade through a number of natural processes.
naturally. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in (he Gulf,
the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE, and
academic scientists are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate. It is well known that
bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in
large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil
enters the GulfofMexico through natural seeps regularly.
Flow Rate: The Oil Budget Calculator stal'ts with an estimate of the cumulative amount of oil released
over the course ofthe spill. The newest estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions of the
National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), led by United States Geological
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonlBP wellhead between April 22, 2010 and July 15,
2010, at which time the flow of oil was suspended. The uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite:
Flow Rate Techhlj,wGroup, webSite or rePQrt). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
wherever possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible..
000783
continue to be retined based on additional information and further analysis.
OUf knowledge ofthe oil, dispersants, ecosystem impacts and human impacts will continue to evolve.
www.I'estorelhegulf:gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
.
dispersant and crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA
to ensure accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the environment. 001 is leading
efforts to mitigate impacts of oil to terrestrial wildlife, natural resources, and public lands. Scientists
from DOE laboratories are working to ensure the accurate measurement of oil released from the well
and are investigating the rates of biodegradation of sub-surface oi I.
of the BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact ofthe spill to the
Gulfecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts ofthis spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon qulfIn~ident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1,2010, contains
representing the same numbers as the pie chart above. These cylindrical images combine the three
segment. The cylindrical image on page one of Appendix A uses the cumulative release estimate of 4.9
M barrels, which is the same as the pie chart used above. The cylindrical chart on pages 3 and 5 of the
report are based on the Higher Flow Estimate and Lower Flow Estimate representing the upper and
lower bound of the 10% uncertainty on the 4.9 M barrel cumulative release estimate.
000784

Authors
Mark Miller. NOAA, DOC
Credits
LTOg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheel and application inspiration _
program
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Antonio Possolo, N 1ST
AI Allan, SpiiTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras. UCSD
Pat Lambert. Env. Canada
Per Daling. SINTEF
Michel Bouradel, Temple Univ.
000835
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
. Cc:
Subject:
Thanks Markl
Margaret Spring [Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov]

Satur-clay,-July 31-,201012:15 PM
Mark Miller; Margaret Spring
Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
(SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov); Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov);
Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov).
.
Sounds like 2 pm EDT) plus or minus - assuming we can get NIST ok.
what a way to spend (another) weekend - thanks to you) Bill lehr and the entire team for this
great work!
Sent: Saturday) July 31 J 2010 11:45 AM
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
(SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin.Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov); Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov);
Margaret"
Bill and I have talked several times this. morning so I feel that we have captured all his
thoughts (his and AI Venosa from EPA). He and Al talked multiple times last night going over
the methodology (AI apparently was giving a presentation this AM to someone). Bill sent me an
email at midnight PDT and then called my at 3:00 AM PDT. I have sent Jennifer a marked up
copy of the doc and we are poised to enter the new numbers from the updated Oil Budget tool
which is presently targeted to be done approximately 2:00 PM EDT. We will also update the Oil
Budget Report which is.included as an appendix.
I am in regular communication with the USGS Oil Budget team. The one outstanding question is
the appropriate level of QA/QC from NIST (Dr.
Possolo). NIST performed the statistical analysis which provides the Upper and Lower
Confidence lines in the Oil Budget Report. Bill lehr is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and
address this. Bill is on his way to the Sand Point fadiity in order to sef"up for the FRTG
Mark
> Circling in shannon, parita, kevin, kris > ..
> Also" what is timelille for i~c?rporating . t~ose changes?
>
> ---------------------------------->
> Sent: Saturday, July 31,. 2e10 11:21 AM
> To: 'Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner;
> Scott Smullen
> Cc:'Jane lubchenco
> Subject:. RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
1
000836
>
> Mark,
Jennifer-
>
> there were conversations about changes to the oil budget document between epa (paul
anastas) and noaa (bill lehr) last night related to the dispersed oil and pie charts.
>
> Are you in that loop and is that document being reworked at your end?
>
> -----------------------------------> From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

> To: Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen

>
> numbers for the pie chart tomorrow afternoon.

>
> Mark
>
. 2
000837
Justin Kenney

Saturday, July 31,201011:24 AM
Margaret Spring; Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen
Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov);
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Circling in shannon, parita, kevin, kris Also, what is timeline for incorporating those changes?
To: Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Mark,
Jennifer-
there were conversations about changes to the oil budget document between epa (paul anastas)
and noaa (bill lehr) last night related to the dispersed oil and pie charts.
To: Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen
So it looks like we should have a new Oil Budget tool report and numbers for the pie chart
tomorrow afternoon.
Mark
'
....
000838
Justin Kenney
Saturday, July 31, 201011 :21 AM
Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen
Jane Lubchenco
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark J
Jennifer -
there were conversations about changes to the oil budget document between epa (paul anastas)
and noaa (bill lehr) last night related to the dispersed oil and pie charts.
Sent: Friday) July 30, 2010 11:00 PM
To: Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Connerj Scott Smullen
So it looks like we should have a new Oil Budget tool report and numbers for the pie chart
tomorrow afternoon.
Mark
000876
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Jane. Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'william.conner@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov';
'Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov';
'Margaret.Spring@noaa.goy'; 'Sgilson@doc.goy'
can report

Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>j Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>j Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Gilson~ Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Attached is the latest. version. Those who saw it earlier should note an additional line
perspective.
Also attached is the report from the budget calculator from July 28~ which will serve as
Appendix A.
I've added Shannon to this distribution list~ so she can give a heads up to WH communications
>
> Thanks J Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortable with
> the document.
>
> clearance.
>
> I greatly ,appreciate everyone working so quickly on this.
>
> Jane
>
41
000877
> *From: * M~r;k~,W.MUler jmailto: Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 20.10 4:08 PM
> *To:* Jane lubchenco '
> *Cc:* Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholmj
> *Subject:* Re: budget tool calculator explanation) latest
>
> Dr. Lubchenco)
>
> Here is the latest version that includes comments from you) me, Marcia
> and Bill Lehr.

>
>
>
> a long, highly technical docume~t but it would take some time to
>
> Mark
>
> Jane Lube-henco wrote:
>
it.
>
> A brief des~ription of the process used to do the calculations and the names of the
> We need to get this to the authors ,ASAP even if. we, don 't, have t,he :full list yet... This is
urgent'.
> thanks
>
> -----Original Message----> From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:)enriifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
> To: Mark WMiller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
> Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchencQ@noaa.gov
>
> sor.ry!' I 'attached 'the ~rong document. Please use this version dated 7.29.
>
>
>
Hi,
>
>
42
000878
>
>
>.
> incorporating
>
>
>
>
>
The pie chart uses 66,660 barrels/day flow rate~ numbers from July
>
> 26
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email >
>
>
>
For USGS
>
> see
>
>
> list
>
>
>
>
IASG), Sky Bristol {led the development team), and Tim Kern.
)
)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis tnat
For
NOAA -
Bill lehr.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jennifer Austin
43
000879
> NOAA Communications _& .xte.r..nalAffairs ..
> 202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-.9047 (cell)
. > www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
.> <http://www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco>
>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-.9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
000880
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Margaret Spring [MargaretSpring@noaa.gov]

'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov';
'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'; 'Sgilson@doc.gov'
can report

Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2919
Hi All,
perspective.
Appendix A.
.
>
> the document.
>
> clearance.
>
>
> Jane
>
4S
000881
> *From:* Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Millen@noaa.gov]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July-29, 20104:08 PM
> David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Sprin~
> *Subject:* Re: budget tool calculator explanation~ latest
>
> Dr. Lubchenco,
>
> Here is the latest version that includes comments from

> and Bill Lehr.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
you~
me, Marcia
As for "author" credit Jennifer and ! are working on the final list
> a long~ highly technical document but it would take some time to
>
> Mark
>
> Jane lubchenco wrote:

>
it.
>
> We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full last yet. This is
urgent.
> thanks
>
> ----Original Message----> From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
> Cc: -Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchencQ@noaa.gov
> <mailto: Ja~e.lubche~co@noaa. gov> .. -.
.
> Subject: Re,: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
>
.
. ..
> Sorry! I attached the wrong document Please use this"'versiori datet:!"7.29.
>
>
>
Hi"
>
>
46
000882
>
>
>
> incorporating
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 26
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> see
>
>
> list
>
>
>
>
IASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team) and Tim Kern.
>
>
>
>
>
>
For NIST .. Antonio Possolo (NISi did the uncertainty ani:l1ysis" that"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jennifer Austin
47
000883
> 202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
> www.facebook.com/npaa.lubchenco
.
>
Jennifer Austin
000884
DRAFT 7.29
_!
The National Incident Command assembled the best scientific minds in the government and independent
scientific community to produce an estimate of how much oil has been skimmed, burned, contained,
evaporated and dispersed. They developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator to determine where
the oil went. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much oil was released and how this oil is
moving and degrading.
--.-----l
.. _. _ _ _ _ n
';
Based on 60.. 000 barrels/day flow rate

"Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
weathered tar balis,
has been
biodegraded. or has
already come
I,
Ii
i
ashore.
,
j
t_"_._._..._...... ~ ..".~.. ~."~.,,._ ...~_~_"'_""~
. _._. . . . . . . _. . . . . . . _._._. _. ._. . . . . . . . . . ._. . . . . __. . ____. _. . ._. . . . . . . . . ._. . . . __ ._~. . . _. . ___. J
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG). assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
wellhead.
As shown in the pie chart (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts were successful in recovering a
significant portion of the spilled oil. Sixteen percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead
by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systems. In addition, burning and skimming operations
collected approximately 11 percent of the oil.
It is estimated that 25 percent ofllie oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column.
The volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are not volatile dissolve into the
water column or form residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific
000885
research and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident. A different evaporation
ra.te is used for fresh and weathered oil to provide the most accurate number.' ,
Sixteen percent of the oil dispersed physically into the water column, and 8 percent of the oil dispersed
by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants. Physical dispersion occurs as a
result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which caused
some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the diameter of a human hair).
Some portion of the dispersed oil that is in droplets smaller than 100 microns remained below the
surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of a diffuse cloud of dispersed oil between 3300 and
4300 feet. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2,
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html).
Naturally occurring bacteria consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the oil. Bacteria that
break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in
large 'part because of the warm water there, tl}e favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil
enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is more analysis to be done to
quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the light crude oil from
this well is biodegrading quickly.
After accounting for operations, dispersion and evaporatio~ 27 percent remains. This oil is either at the
surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has biodegraded or already come ashore on beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed roughly one quarter of
the oil. Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated and less than one quarter dispersed into Gulf
waters. The remaining amount, just over one quarter is on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already
for as long as necessary and continue subsurface sampling to monitor ,the concentration and distribution
of oil there. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command to develop monitoring strategies
for tar balls and near shore submerged oil.
.-. . .
Even though the threat to shorelines decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead, federal scientists
remain extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of
this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and continued
possible and the best available scientific estimates where -measurements were not
possible. The, number~ for direct recovery and burns were measured'directlY and'rePorted in daily
operation8Ireports. The rest of the numbers were based on previous, scit:intific..analyses, best available
information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers Wi!I' contiiiue to be refined based
measurC?rnent~ where
Attachments
000886
Appendix A: Deep\Af-ater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July 28,2010, contains
000887
Deepwater HorizonIBP Oil Budget Calculator:

Appendix. B: Acknowledgements
Authors

Steven Hammond, USGS, 001
Credits
The follovving scientists were involved in developing the Oil Budget Calculator tool:
LCDR Lance Lindgren and CDR Peter Hoffman (USCG) ~ Application requirements
The Following Scientists created and reviewed the calculation methods used in the oil budget calculator:
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Antonio Possolo, NISI
Ron.Goodman, U. of Calgary
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per DaIing, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
000888
DRAFT 7.29

Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
.weathered tar balls,
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
wellhead.
As shown in the pie chart (Figure i), aggressive response efforts were successful in recovering a
by the riser pipe insertion tube and top-.hat systems. In addition, burning and skimming operations
It is estimated that 25 percent of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column.
000889
rate is used for fresh and weathered oil to provide the most accurate number.
result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which caused
some of it to spray off in small droplets Uess than 100 microns - the diameter of a human hair).
large part because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil
After accounting for operations, dispersion and evaporation, 27 percent remains. This oil is either at the
. removed from the shore or has been biodegraded.
for as long as necessary and continue subsurface sampling to monitor the concentration and distribution
this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and continued ..
measurements where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were no~ .
possible. The nUmbers for direct recovryandbwns- Were-measured directly and reported indaily
information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These.numbers will continue to be refined based .
Attachments
000890
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 28, 2010, contains
000891

Authors
Mark Sogge, USGS, DOr
Steven Hammond, USGS, DOr
Credits
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
James Payne,Payne Env.
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
Michel Boufadel, Temp]e Univ.
000892
000893
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Thursday, July 29,20107:33 PM .
'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Jane. Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
'MargaretSpring@noaa.gov'; 'Sgilson@doc.gov'
,'"

Cc: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>j William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>j Scott
Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>j Dave westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2818
-.Subject: Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Hi All,
perspective.
Appendix A.
Mar~aret will move through inter-agency and WH clearance.
and be in touch with Heather and others about release plans as necessary_
>
> the document.
>

> clearance.
>
>
> Jane
>
1
000894
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

*Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 2e10 4:08 PM
*To:* Jane lubchenco
*Subject:* Re: budget tool calculator explanation~ latest
> Dr. Lubchenco~

>
> and Bill Lehr.
>
>
>
> a long, highly technical docum~nt but it would take some time to
>
> Mark
>
>
it.
>

> We need to ,get th~s to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full
urgent.
> thanks
lis~,
>
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2ela 12:57 PM
> Cc: Margaret' Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov
> Subject: 'Re: budget tool calculator expla~ation, latest
>
,
,,' "
> Sorry! I attached the wrong document "'Please 1Jse,thi:s version dated 7.29.
>
>
>
>
Hi',
>
2
yet.
This is
000895
>
>
>
> incorporating
>
>
>
>
>
>
The pie chart uses 60 J 0ee barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July
> 26
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> see
>
>
> list
>
>
>
>
IASG)J Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -> Jennifer Austin
3
000896
>
>
>
>
>

202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
<http://www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202,.-302-9047 (c.ell) www.facebook.com/noaa .lubchenco
'.
000897
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
'Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'dwh.staff@noaa.goy';
'Margaret.Spring@noaa.goy'; Sgilson@doc.gov'
can report

To: Jane lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,
perspective.
Appendix A.
>
> the document.
>
> I~ve corrected a couple of typos. This looks good to me and the
> clearance.
>
>
> Jane
>
5
000898
> *From:* Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Millen@noaa.gov]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:08 PM
>
> Dr. Lubchenco,
>
> Here is the latest version that includes comments from you~ me~ Marcia
> and Bill Lehr.
>
>
> but have broken, them out between the actual Tool development (the web
>
> a long) highly teChnical document but it would take some time to
>
> Mark
>
>
pie chart. Because this is an interagency document) I've modified one of the NOAA references
toward the end. If authors are not in agreement with that statement) we can simply remove
it.
>
individuals involved plus reviewers, as,per the FRTG doc.
> We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't'have the full list yet. This is
urgent~
- , .. .'
> thanks
>
> -----Original Message----> From: Jennifer Austi.r:I [mailto:Jennifer.Aus.tin@noaa.gov]
>
> Sorry! I attached-the 'wrong' ilE>cument. Please use this version dated 7.29.
>
>
>
>
Hi,
>
6
000899
>
>
, ."
. , ...
>
: Attached 1S. "tlie-iJp_C:l~rted ,oilb.udget .c:~lculator two-pager."
> incorporating
>
>
>
>
>
The pie-chart uses 6e~eee barrels/day flow rate~ numbers from July
>
> 26
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
For USGS
> see
>
>
> list
>
>
should probably include Dr. McNutt) Mark Sogge J Steve Hammond (NIC
>
>
IASG) , Sky Bristol ,(led .the development team)., and Tim Kern.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
For NOAA- Bill Lehf'.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jennifer Austin,
'7
000900
> 202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (ceil)
>
Jennifer Austin
000901
Justin
Kenn.~Y
,-_. -From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
'"
,~.

Jane Lubchenco; Jennifer Austin; Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave
Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Margaret Spring
OK they have gone to the authors; Mark is making clear to them that timing is of the essence
and we need to get this done no later than COB (sooner better). OECC may be making calls.
Mark, is NIST clear?
-----Original Message----From: Jane Lubchenco [mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]
Sent: ThursdaY1 July 29 1 2010 1:28 PM
To: Jennifer Austin; Mark WMiller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David
Kennedy; _HQ Deep water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring
Subject: RE: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror what is in the
it.

We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full list yet. Thi~ is
urgent.
thanks
To: Mark WMiller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep
Water Horizon Staff

> Hi,
>
> Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager, incorporating
> edits from this morning
>
> The pie chart uses 6e~000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26
>.
>
9
000902
> Mark will 'share with the authors listed in his earlier email >
>
>
>
>
should, probably include Dr,.- McNutt~ Mark Sogge~ Steve Hammond (NIC
IASG)., Sky Bristol (led the development team) .. and Tim Kern.
>
> For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that
>
> For NOAA - 'Bill Lehr.
>
>
>
Jennifer Austin
10
000903
Justin Kenney
.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
- Margaret Spnng [Margaret.Spring@nO'aa.90v]

Thursday~ -July 29, 20102:27 PM
'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'william.conner@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov';
'MargarelSpring@noaa.gov'
Did you send to Marcia McNutt? Also when did you say we needed clearance by?
OECC wants to make calls to ensure we get the right level of attention and speed.
Give me the list of authors and any help you might need.
Am getting hourly calls!
Thx.
From: Mark. W.Miller <Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov>

Cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott Smullen
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy
<Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov>i _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Sent: Thu lui 29 14:01:502010
SUbject: Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
I had a few small edits - all our dissolution, evaporation, and natural dispersion estimates are based on previous
analyzes on similar Gulf oil not DWH oil. Also I was wondering if we wanted to delete reference to our oil
trajectories if there is a chance they will stop early next week.
Mark
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the f=actions mirror what is in
the pie chart. Because this-is an interagency document, I've modified one of the NOAA
simply remove it.
A brief description of the process.used to do the calculations and the names of the
indi vidualsinvol ved plus re.viewers f as. per "the FRTGdoc .. "..
We need to get this to the authors ASAP even 'if we'don't have the full list yet. This
is urgent ... "
thanks
To: M~rk W"Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave. Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ
Deep Water" Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.-qov
11
000904
Subject: Re: budget tool calc:ulator explanation, latest
Sorry! ..r attached the wrong. document.

Hi,

Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NrC IASG) to see
ForNIST ..., Antonio Possolo- (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that
Jennifer Austin
12
000905
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent: .
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Margaret Spring (Margaret.Sprfrig@noaa.gov]

'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'; 'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'
'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'; 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov';
'william.conner@noaa.gov'; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'Larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov';
'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov';
.
Re: pie chart
Thanks. The main question has to do with how long it would be to get a pie chart that is run at the 60k flow rate.
Mark?
From: Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>

Cc: 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov> i 'Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>;
'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; 'william.conner@noaa.gov' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>;
'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'Larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov' <Larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov>;
'Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; 'caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov'
<caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov' <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Sent: Thu JuI2911:35:27 2010
Based on our discussions with Dr. L this morning, Mark is working with us on modifications to text of 2-pgr
and clarifying descriptions in the pie chart. We are still more than an hour away.
at -SOK and finished today to share. If the text is slower in clearing that is OK, but they said Carol Browner and Thad Allen
So:
(1) How long would it take to construct the pie chart at SOK? Can we do that ASAP?

Thx

Cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>i Scott Smullen
<~.Smullen@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy <Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gQv>; Irobinson@noaa.gov
<Larrv.Robinson1@noaa.gov>: Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>: Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; C8it1yn Kennedy <caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>; Amrit Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>i
Sent: Thu Jul 29 07:54:52 2010
SUbject: RE: pie chart
Hi, Mark,
anyone raises then get this into interagency c1~arance asap. I'm assuming that the earfier discussions anddevelopment
13
000906
'
,
Thanks
Jane
From: Mark Miller [mailto:mark.w.miUer@noaa.qov]

Sent: Thursday, July 29, 20105:53 AM
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; Irobinson@noaa.goy; Dave Westerholm; Margaret
Spring; caitJyn Kennedy; Amrit Mehra; dwh.staff@noaa.goY
Dr ~ Lubchenco,
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC lAS G) to see who USGS thinks should be
identified for this document A short list should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond
(NIC IASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern. ,
bounds) ,
Mark
Team, Member
aff:il:iation
Ron Goodman
U. of Calgary
Al Allan
SpilTec
James Payne
Payne Env.'
Tom Coolbaugh
Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton
LSU
Juan Lasheras
UCSD
Albert Venosa
EP]\.
Merv Fingas
Env Canada (ret)
Ali Khelifa
Env. Canada
Robert Jones
NOAn.
Pat Lambert
Env. Canada
Per Daling
SINTEF
..
14
000907
David Usher
ISCO
PetOer Carragh-er
Michel Boufadel
Temple U.

bases for the calculations. I think.it should go to the interagency team that has been
box.
Friday.
f:.1any thanks,
Jane
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.govj
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark W Miller: William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
in point 1.
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
15
000908
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Thursday, July 29, 2010 11 :27 AM
'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'; 'Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov'
'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'william.conner@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov';
'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'Larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov'; 'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov';
'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'; 'caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov';
Re: pie chart
at 60K and finished today to share. If the text is slower in clearing that is OK, but they said Carol Browner and Thad Allen
So:
(1) How long would it take to construct the pie chart at 60K? Can we do that ASAP?
Thx

Cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>i William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>i Scott Smullen
<5cott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; Irobinson@noaa.gov
<Larry.Robinsonl@noaa.gov>; Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; caitlyn Kennedy <caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>; Amrit Mehra <Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov>;
Sent: Thu Jul 29 07:54:52 2010
Hi, Mark,
All of these folks sound just right. The chaltenge will be having them reply rapidly so we can work through any issues
anyone raises then get this into interagency clearance asap. I'm assuming that the earlier discussions and development
Thanks
Jane
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 20105:53 AM

To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc; Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave Westerholm; Margaret
Spring; caitIyn Kennedy; Amrit Mehra; dwh.staff@noaa.gov
Dr. Lubchenco,

For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC lAS G) to see who USGS thinks should be
16
000909
bounds)
.
Mark
Team Member
affiliation
Ron Goodman
U. of Calgary
Al Allan
SpilTec
James Payne
Payne Env.
Tom Coolbaugh
Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton
LSU
Juan Lasheras
UCSD
Albert Venosa
EPA
Merv Fingas
Env Canada(ret)
Ali Khelifa
Env. Canada
Robert Jones
NOAA
Pat Lambert
Env. Canada
Per Daling
SINTEF
David Usher
ISCO
Peter Carragher
BP
Michel Boufadel
Temple U.

box.
Friday.
Many thanks,
Jane
17
000910
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennlfer.Austin@noaa.qov]
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark W Miller; vhlliam Conner; Scott Smullen;' David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.qo'r; Dave
Westerholm; Margaret Spring: Caitlyn Kennedy
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the NrC, as you suggested
in point 1.
18
000911
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachm!nts:' .
Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

Wednesday, August 04,20107:05 PM
Jennifer Austin
[Fwd: Peer review challenge]
. Peer review challenge.eml (1.56 KB)
HMMm. This is interesting.

I just asked if this means Mark Sogge too.
Mark
000912
Justin Kenney
Mark Miller [Mark.W.Mil/er@noaa.govJ.
Jennifer Austin
Re: Fw: also .. _
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Answer one is just what I would answer. The real problem is that some (small dispersed droplets) will
biodegrade very quickly (days to weeks) while some (larger weathered tarballs) will take much longer (months
to years).
Question 2 - that list includes contributors (like citations, previous research, equations) as well as reviewers. So
to be slightly more accurate I would say that many of the scientists listed on the last page reviewed the product
and provided written comments.
Mark
Question 2 with my answers to both
To: 'KGriffis@doc.gov' <KGriffis@doc.gov>; 'scott.smullen@noaa.gov' <scott.smullen@noaa.gov>;

'justin.kenney@noaa.gov' <justin.kenney@noaa.gov>; 'jennifer.austin@noaa.gov' <jennifer.austin@noaa.gov>
Sent: Tue Aug
03 20:30:31 2010
Subject: Re: also ...

I forwarded your questions to Mark to confirm, but think the answers are- we don't yet have a figure for biodegradation
rates, it varies a lot depending on oil type and water conditions. NOAA NSF and 001; are studying, may have results
soon.
Work has been peer reviewed by at least all the scientists listed on the last page of the actual report.
Jennifer Austin, NOAA Communications,
From: Griffis, Kevin <KGriffis@doc.gov>
To: Smullen, Scott <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; Kenney, Justin <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>; Austin, Jennifer

<Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
Sent; Tue Aug 0319:17:052010
Subject: also .
Has the data already been peer-reviewed, or is it going to be peer-reviewed?
First, this report is the result of very careful calculations by some of the nation's best
scientists, working together across a number of agencies and then submitting
their work for peer review to scientists both inside and outside the government.
000913
Kevin Griffis
]40 1 Constitution Ave., NW
(0) 202-482-8290
(c) 202-412-8377
000914
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.govl

Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1:56 PM
Jennifer Austin
Re: talking points, .
I am okay separating the appendix from our report.

Will wait to hear back from you.
On Aug 3, 2010, at 1:47
PM~
Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov> wrote:
> ok thanks. will check in again in a few. interview is now at 2:45,

> need to finalize the doc asap. dont' send to heather yet, let me
> incorporate her and Jane's most recent changes. will send youfor a
> final sanity check soon
>
>
> also they want to separate the appendix~ post it onlin, but not as an
confusion. thta ok with you?
>
Really good. I would probably not include -
attachment~
to avoid
Therefore approximately half the oil is no longer in the system.
Also looks like you are including evap and dissolved with response? So dissolved probably
can't be assumed is out of the system.
Mark

> can you take a quick look at these and let me know if they seem ok. can you add a line to
describe the sentinal program toward the end.
>
>
>
> Jennifer Austin
> 202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)

> www. facebook .com/noaa .lubchenco
>
000915
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments :

Tuesday, August 03,.20105:06 AM
Jennifer Austin
[Fwd: Re: Final Draft Oil Budget Document for Review]
Re_ Final Draft Oil Budget Document for Review.eml (102 KB)
000916
Justin Kenney
Monday, August 02, 20108:12 PM
Jennifer Austin
Re: ~ppendix A
DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget201 0080 1. pdf
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
There's does not add to 100 - there's is 99% You rounded to exactly what I would have. I
checked all the numbers.
.1'
I attached it to the review email. Here it is again.

I vote to wait until morning.
> Ugh, probably, good catch, a pie chart pretty much has to" round to 100 though. I rounded
remaining up, bc it was closest to being rounded up, and if anything is the most appropriate
category in which to stick added uncertainty or error, I think.
> Does theirs add to 100?
> Have they sent the actual new report? I was going to work on the descrlption of how the
figures differ once I saw their actual report out.
>
> I'm open to recommendations,

> And generally inclined to wait until morning to see what other comments we get.
>
> I do think we're better off rounding to whole numbers than going to decimal places.
>
> Jennifer Austin, NOAA Communications,

>
> ----- Original Message ----> From: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>
> To: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
> Sent: Mon Aug 02 19:58:00 2010
> Subject,: appendix A
>
> Jen,
>
> The first figure in the report the %'5 don't add up to 100% - all the
> categories match ours except Residual/Remaining which they have as 25%
> and we have as 26%. It all comes down to the fact that there are a
> bunch of round downs in the categories and it adds up to almost a
> percent. So is this going to be a problem?
>
> Mark
>
000917
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jen

Jennifer Austin
appendix A
The first figure in the report the %'s don't add up to 1aa% - all the categories match ours
except Residual/Remaining which they have as 25% and we have as 26%. It all comes down to the
fact that there are a bunch of round downs in the categories and it adds up to almost a
percent. So is this going to be a problem?
Mark
000919
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark Miller {Mark.W.Miller@noaa.govj

Monday, August 02 r 201 0 6:59 PM
Jennifer Austin
Re: latest version
Oil Budget description 8.2 v 6pm_Miller.docx
Looks good. Here's mine.

> just updated that. Justin had no comments, said it looks better.
> Jane just sent me a few more will send latest in a few minutes.
>
>
>
> ~ark Miller wrote:
Jen,
So I think we should to update the numbers in the chart before we

send it out.
Discharged - 4,928)040
Recovered via RITT and Top Hat - 827,046 (17%) 16.8 Dispersed
Naturally - 763)936 (15.5%) Evaporated or Dissolved - 1)243,712 (
25%) 25.2 Available for Recovery - 2,093)346 Chemically Dispersed 408,792 (8%) 8.3 Burned - 265,450 (5%) 5.4 Skimmed - 165)293 (3%) 3.4
Remaining - 1,253,811(25%) 25.4

> Hi Mark - here is the latest for your review.
>>>
> Justin can you have a look again too and see if you think it's better.
>>>
>>> thanks) Jen
>>>
>
000920
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Monday, August 02. 2010 6:44 PM
Jennifer Austin
Re: latest version
len ..
So I think we should to update the numbers in the chart before we send it out.
Discharged - 4,928,e4e
Recovered via RITT and Top Hat - 827,e46 (17%) 16.8 Dispersed Naturally - 763,936 (15.5%)
Evaporated or Dissolved - 1,243 .. 712 ( 25%) 25.2 Available for Recovery - 2 .. e93,346 Chemically
Dispersed - 4e8 .. 792 (8%) 8.3 Burned - 265,4Se (5%) 5.4 Skimmed - 165,293 (3%) 3.4 Remaining 1,253,811(25%) 25.4

> Hi Mark - here is the latest for your review.
>
> Justin can you have a look again too and see if you think it's better.
>
> thanks, Jen
>
10
000921
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Sunday, August 01,20106:57 PM
Jane Lubchenco
Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov; William Conner; Steve Murawski; Margaret.spring@noaa.gov; Kris
Sarri (ksarri@doc.gov)
Re: text on monitoring and research for pie chart document
of their monitoring and research (1 sit next to USGS and DOl). In particular I understand we want DOl, USGS,
2. r am still not completely sure what EPA's issue with these are. Do we just define dissolution and dispersion
or is there some other question about these processes EPA feels we need to explain. If we want basic definitions
I will take a crack at it. I'll ask Bill Lehr and company to help me put something together.
Mark
Jane Lubchenco "'Tote:
Here is the short text (below) I started to capture in a single paragraph for the oil budget document which
agencies and other researchers are doing what by way of monitoring and research. The trick is to do
justice to the diversity without having this become a huge laundry list. I've asked Bob Perciasepe to.send
a few sentences on what EPA is doing. What is the best way to get comparable. information from the other
relevant agencies? Marcia McNutt is out of touch for the week. Is Ann Castle the next best person?
%0 would be best suited/able to reach out to DOr, DOE, and NSF to get a few sentences from each by mid
afternoon tomorrow?
Mark and Bill- EPA is declining to explain in the document just what dissolution is and how it differs from.
NOAA continues to track the movement of the oil s~l1 on the surface and in the water co~umn. It will issue
to develop monitoring strategies for tar balls and near-shore submerged oil. DOI, NASA and NOAA continue to
contaminants, including dispersants and oil products, with special attention to hwnan health impacts. Numerous
NOAA'" ain.i NSF-funded academic researchers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife
11
000922
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov}

Jennifer Austin; William Conner
Re: EPA and pie chart
Explaining better the difference between dissolved and dispersed? - did we do that?
I just spoke with Bob Perciasepe about the issues he raised earlier. I walked him thto~gh the changes we are
making in response to his suggestions, and the rationale for the changes we're not making.
In the former category: clarifying what numbers are measured directly and which are estimates; being clearer
about where there is less or greater uncertainty; explaining better the difference between dissolved and
dispersed. He was pleased with these changes.
In the latter: I explained the reasons why we think it's better to keep chemically and naturally dispersed oil as
separate categories. He said he understands that rationale and accepts the decision.
I let him know the latest timetable and said we expected to have another draft ready to share tomorrow after
we've plugged in numbers from the new run at 4.9m.
I asked him to send me some short text about what EPA is doing on the ecosystem monitoring and research
front from here on out so we can include that in the new paragraph we're adding on what different agencies
are doing.
Jane
12
000923
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Stephen E Hammond [sehammon@usgs.gov]

Stephen Hammond
Peer review challenge
MarkJThe Mexico meeting is over. need a favor. I sure appreciate you giving authorship to
USGS on the "Where' s the Oil?"
Unfortunately, being named and not having gone through our peer review process, no-compliance
with the policy is going to be a problem. It can be an arduous process and the bureau
recommends that for expediency and simplicity my name should be removed. I have no problem
with that. You all did the heavy lifting.
So I need to request that you remove USGS from authorship. Sorry if this creates a problem.
We can discuss tomorrow. Have a great evening.
Steve
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
000924
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sky Bristol [sbristol@usgs.gov]

Monday, August 02, 2010 8:20 PM
Mark Miller
Mark KSogge
Re: Final Draft Oil Budget Document for Review
Oil Budget description 8.2 v 720pm-Sky.docx; ATT60367.txt
Mark,
You may not have been asking me, but I included an alternate wording on the description of
Appendix A, a correction on the date of that report, and an alternate listing of credits for
the tool. The document looks great and provides a very clear and understandable explanation
(from my standpoint at least).
000925
DRAFT 8.2v 7pm

. The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled a stellar scientific team composed of government and
independent scientists to produce and review an estimate of how much oil has been skimmed, burned,
contained, evaporated and dispersed from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They developed a tool,
called the Oil Budget Calculator, to determine what happened to the oil. The numbers in the calculator
are based on best estimates of how much oil was released and how this oil is moving and degrading.
The figure used for release oil, 4.9 million barrels, is the most recent estimate announced on August 2,
2010 by the National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), led by United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and a team of Department of Energy (DOE)
scientists and engineers, led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
Based on these numbers, it is estimated that burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead
removed one quarter of oil released from the wellhead. One quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated
or dissolved and just less than one quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as
small droplets into the Gulf waters. The residual amount, just over one quarter, is either on or just below
the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is
buried in sand and sediments.

Based on estimated release of 4.9 M barrels of oil
Federal
Response
Operations
"'Residual oil includes

oil that is on or just
below the surface as
residue and weathered
tarbaJls, has washed
ashore or been
collected from the
shore, or some is
buried in sand and
sediments.
kimmed
3%
g o;.:
,0
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
000926
000927
Federal Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal \\ith the oil have been aggressive. As shown in the
pie chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing v:ith 33% of the spilled oil. This
includes oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose of this
analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter of a
human hair. Oil droplets that are this small remain in the water column where they then begin to
biodegrade. Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to keep it from coming
ashore in large surface slicks and make it more readily available for biodegradation. Chemical
dispersants were applied at the surface and below the surface, therefore the chemically dispersed oil
ended up both in the water column and at the surface. Dispersion increases the likelihood for the oil to
be biodegraded both in the water column and at the surface. Until it is biodegraded, dispersed oil, even
in dilute amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species.
All of the naturally dispersed oil and much of the oil that was chemically dispersed remained well below
the surface in diffuse clouds~ where it began to diffuse and biodegrade. Previous analyses have shown
evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet in low concentrations, moving in
the direction ofknoVvTI ocean currents and decreasing with distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal
Joint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.eov/JAG/reports.html). Oil that was
chemically dispersed at the surface remained at the surface and began to biodegrade there.
Evaporation and Dissolution: It is estimated that 25% of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved
into the water column. The evaporation and dissolution rate estimate is based on scientific research and
. fresh oil and weathered oil to provide the most accurate number.
Dissolution in the water column is distinct from dispersion. Dispersed oil is small droplets of oil, while
dissolution describes the process by which some individual hydrocarbon molecules from the oil separate
and dissolve into the water just as sugar can be dissolved in water.
Residual: After accounting for recovery operations, dispersion, evaporation and dissolution, an
estimated 26% remains. This figure is a combination of categories that are difficult to measure or
estimate. It includes oil still on or just below the surface in the form of light sheen or tarballs, oil that
has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments and
may resurface through time. This oil has also begun to degrade through a number of natUral processes.
000928
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface of the water naturally
biodegrade. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the
Gulf, early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil
from this source is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA and DOE are working to
calculate a more precise estimate of this rate. It is well known that bacteria that break down the
dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the
warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters, the Gulf of
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonIBP wellhead between April 22, 201 0 and July 15,
Bow Rate TechlitcalGroup, website.or.repoI't). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
continue to be refined based on additional information and further analysis.
understanding of the fate, transport and impact of the oiL The federal government will continue to report
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA has carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in the Gulf and
continues to monitor the air, water and sediments near the shoreline for the presence of dispersant and
crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA- and NSFfunded academic researchers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife impacts.
DOl responders are working to ensure control of the well; to ensure accurate measurement of oil
000929
released and oil remaining in the environment; and to mItigate impacts of oil to wildlife, natural
resources, and public lands. Scientists from DOE laboratories are working to ensure the accurate
measurement of oil released from the well and are investigating the rates of biodegradation of sub
surface oil.
Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this, spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources
Attachments
categoriesofcbemicaHy dispersed; naturally dispersed, and evaporated or dissolved, into one colored
segment..Th~imageon page one of Appendix A uses the Cumulative release estimate of 4.9 M barrels,
which is The s,axne as the pie chartusedaboe.The'~ee images represent the actual estimate, as well as
the upper andlowerboundofthelO%uncertamty oftheestimate.
000930
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget

Authors
Jane Lubchenco, NOA..A.., DOC

Mark Sogge, USGS, Dor
Credits
Bill Lehr(NOAA) - Lead mass balance and oil budget scientist
Kevin Gallagher, Stephen Hammond and Martha Garcia (USGS) - Executive sponsors
refme the analysis and this document "will be updated as appropriate.
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Antonio Possalo, NIST
Al Allan, SpilTec
James Payne, Payne Bnv.
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Ali Khelifa, Bnv. Canada
Pat Lambert, Bnv. Canada
Per Daling, SlNTEF
000931

35,818 tons
* Ail unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions .
... Government estimate of discharge ranged from 62.200 bb! on Aprii 22, 2010 to 52,700 bbl on July
14. 2010.

Report generated by ~bristol@usgs.gov on 0810212010 05:30 PM MDT.
~plication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and prolped by the U.S. Geological Survey in cogperation wHh the National
. Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
',,".
"')l:ij:
000932
1,500,000
1,250,000
en 1,000,000
CD
s..
s..
,g
750,000
500,000
250,000
May-2010
Jun-201
Expected Value -
Jul-201
Aug-2010

Report generated by sbiistol@usgs.gov on 08{02l2010 05:30 PM MDT.
AppQation operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
000933

Higher Flow Estimate Through August 01 (Day 104)
35,818 tons
.. All unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
~. Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate pius 10% uncertainty.
H* Maximum discharge ranged from 68,390 obi on April 22, 2010 to 58,022 bbl on July 14,2010.

.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guarcimd provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in coo~ration with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."
,."
000934
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
en
(1)
...m 1,000,000
a...
.Q
750,000
500,000
250,000
0
-
May-201O
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Expected Value -
Aug-201O
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil ~udget. . ....

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in coo~tion with the National
>
000935
~USGS
=~f/I;C (f):f iii {;9..1:"!I i"!J ''WJ.f~

Lower Flow Estimate .. Through August 01 (Day 104)
.818 tons
.. Ail unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions .
~ Lower Flow Estimate is based on the govemment discharge estimate minus 10% uncertainty.
"H Maximum discharge ranged from 55,956 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 47,472 bbl on July 14,2010.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/02J20~O 05:30
MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference~material on report elements.
Oceanic and AtmospheriC AdministratiOn.
eM
000936
1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
en
800,000
(1)
~
~
700,000
.0
600,000
co
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
-
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Expected Value -
Aug-2010

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in COQl?Fration with the National
+, ;
.
000937
Reference Notes
Chart- Cumulative/Daily Volume Remaining on the Surface


The Cumulative Disposition of Oil "Barrel Graph" provides a repre~entation of the total amount of oil
reference material.
Discharged
On July 31,2010, the U.S. scientific teams charged by National Incident Commander Thad Allen with
determining the flow of oil from BP's leaking well refined their estimates of the oil flow. The teams
bbl/day when the well was capped on July 14 with an uncertainty factor of 10%. The uncertainty factor
Based on reports of major explosions and burning oil from the first two days of the incident (April 2021),

Application 'operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. GeolOgical Survey in cooperation with the National
000938
was available after the riser cut - data which helped increase the scientific confidence in the accuracy

"RITI and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
the Q4000 are reported by BP,"entered daily by National Incident Command personnel, and used in the
Dispersed Naturally
chemical dispersion multiplied by a factor of natural disperSion effectiveness derived from a scientific
Deepwater Horiz.on MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budg~t
.
Report generated by sbristol@usgs.govon 08/0212010 05:30 PM MDT.
See end notes section ()f the report for reference material on report elements,
OceaniC and Atmospheric Administration.
. "
"
000939

Skimmed
Burned
cumulative totals.
-No natural surface dispersIon assumed

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 0810212010 05:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in cooperation with the National
.
000940
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
DeepWater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/0212010 05:30 pM MDT..
Appli~tion operated by ~he U7.~' poa~t Guard and provided by the U.S. GeolOgical Survey in coo~ration with the Natipnal
Oceanic and Atmosphenc Ad~lmstratiol'\
'.
000941

Used
Inland Recovery (Cumulative)
~
43,900
35,818 tons
Ail unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions ..

Government estimate of discharge ranged from 62200 bbi on April 22, 2010 to 52]00 obl on Ju!y 14,2010.
~.

Report gen~rated by sbris~ol@usgs.gov on 08/0212010 05:30 PM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for. reIerence material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in .cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospneric
Administration.
.
..-,,'
000942
1,500,000 '1
11
1.250,000
.. 1,000,000 J
~
~
750,000 1
500,000
J
I.
250,0001
~: : : : ;=: : : =: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :;:;:::=:::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::~~~
aj
-
May-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Aug-2010
D.eepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.govon
08/0212010 05:3Q;PM MDT.
.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.s. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
, .
000943

Skimmed
DisperSant Used
43,900
35,818 tons
.. Ai! unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions .

..... Higher Flow Estimate is based on the govemmel1t discharge estimate plus 10% uncertainly.
....... Maximum discharge ranged from 68,390 obIon April 22. 2010 to 58,022 bbl on July 14, 2010

. Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/021201005:30 PM MDT.
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administn!ion.
.
000944
1,750,000
1,500,000 i
1,250,000
.!!
:;
~ 1,000,000 1
.Q
750,000
500,000
250,000
~.
OJ~==~==========~==========~==========~===
-
May-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Ju!-2010
Aug-2010

See end noteS section of the report for reference material on report elementS.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. GeologicatSurvey in cooperation with the National
"
'
"
10
~.
,,'
- -
000945
Deepwater Horizon MC252. Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Lower Flow Estimate Through August 01 (Day 104)
Dispersant Used
43,900
35.818 tons
.. Ali unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions .

Lower Flow Estimate is based on the govemment discharge estimate minus 10% uncertainty .
...... Maximum discharge ranged from 55,956 bbl on April 22. 2010 to 47,472 bbl on July 14. 2010.

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the V.:s. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
000946
Lower FI~w E~timate - Through August 01 (Day 104)
,.,..,.,.----,....,
1,300,000 i
!
1,200,0001
1,100,oooi
1,000,000
1
i
.!
900,000 ,
800,000 i
700,001'
600,000
500,000 i
400,000 ~
300,000i
200,001
100,0001
ol~==~============~============~==========~===
May-2010
Jun-20 10
Jul-2010
Aug-2010
-
Expected Value -

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov ()n 08/02/201005:30 PM MDT...
See end notes. section of the report for reference material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.s, Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
000947
Reference Notes


reference material.
Discharged
On July 31, 2010, the U.S. scientific teams charged by National Incident Commander Thad Allen with
determining the flow of oil from BP's leaking well refined their estimates 'of the oil flow. The teams
bbl/day when the well was capped on July 14 with an uncertainty factor of 1 0%. The uncertainty factor.
report in the Oif Budget Tool.
Based on reports of major explosions and burning oil from the first two days of the incident (April 20-21).
45). resulted in an estimate of discharge increase of approximately 4%. Placement of the containment

chosen at the time as the best available process and because th~ same measurement method was
Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/02/2010 05:30 PM MDT.
See end notes section qf the report for reference material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast GUStO and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nationsl
,
000948
used pre- and post-riser cut. On June 15,2010, an improved estima~e of how much oil is flowing from
the leaking BP well was announced. The most likely f1ow.rate of oil at that time was estimated between

Dispersed Naturally
Evaporation and diss6Iutiorfoccu(riaturallywith'oil bn'thefsurface. This element in the report is the
Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/021201005:30 PM MDT.
Oceanic and AtmospheriC Administration.
000949
-Measured amount removed via RITI and Top Hat

Skimmed
Burned
cumulative totals.
-American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) bum rate standards are used
Deepwater Horizon IVIC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.govon 08102;2010 05:30 PM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report e~ments.
.
000950
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.govon 0810212010 05:30 PM MDT.
000951
DRAFT 8.2v 6pm

The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled a stellar scientific team composed of government and
contained, evaporated and dispersed from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They developed a tool,
called the Oil Budget Calculator, to detennine what happened to the oil. The numbers in the calculator

Based on estimated rcie~se oj 4. 9 M barrels of eii
"The rcsicual oil is
as light .h2cn or
weathered wf balls.
Federal
Res:ponse
Opl1!rations
has beer
biodcgredcd, or hilS
alre3dy come ashore.
Summary of Findings
Burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed roughly one quarter of the 4.9 m
barrels of oil. Around aquarterof the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved and less than one
~ dispersed (either naturally oTasuesult of operations) as small droplets into the Gulf waters.
The remaining amount, justovr,oneq~, is either on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already
ExplanatioD of Findings
000952
Federal Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with. the oj! have be~n aggress_iv~. As shown in the
pie chart (Figure J), response efforts were successful in dealingwith 300/0 of the spilled oil. This
water column until it is biodegraded, as discussed below.
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray offin small droplets. For the pumosc of this
ana(vsis. 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets tbat are less than 100 microns - about the diameter ofa
human hair. Oil droplctslhat are this smallaeesFHe ReHtfal]y l:ll:lSyaHt aRe remain in the water column
where they then begin to bioderz:radc. Chemical dispersion also breaks the'oil up into small droplets to
keep it from coming ashore in large surface slicks and make it more readily available for biodegradation.
Chemical dispersants were apRli.:d at the sUJta~.:: ,and below th.:: surnlce. therefore the .:hl!micalJv
disncrsed oil end'.':d up both in the water column and at th.:: :mrt~lc'.':, Dispersion increases the likelihood
for the oil to be naturally dissolved and biodegraded both in the water columttJmd 31 the :mrfacc;
~. ","iritis ei{l('I.~rst!a ail, e. . .~A iRffil~oofits. eaB 9tl-lOXie taw_ble
~~~~l-;
All ofthe natura"\, dispersed oil and much cfth.:: oil that \-vas chemically dispersed remained well below
the surface in diffuse douds, where it h.!e:an to diffuse and t>iodee:rade. Previous analyses have shown
evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet in low concentrations. moving ill
the direction ofkl1.9J.l:'n o.:;eruLcurrel)ts and decreasing with distance Ii'om the wellhead. (citation: Federal
Joint Analysis Group Report I and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaagov/JAG/reports.html). -Oil that was
chemicallv dispersed at the sllfface remained at the surfact' and began to biodegrade there.
into the water column. The evaporation and dissol ution rate estimate is based on scientific research and
Dissolution in the water ~~\)lumn is distinct from dispersion. Dispersed oil is small droplets of {)iL while
dissolution describes the process bv which some individual hvdroc<'lrbon molecules from the ~)i1 SCl)arate
and diss()lve into the water Jus~ ~s SUtrnr can fie dissolved in water.
Residll11f: After accounting for recovery operations, dispersion. evaporation and dissolution. an
estimated 28% remains. This tigure is a combination of categories that.are difficult to measure or
estimate. It includes oil still on or just below the surface. oil that has ",~shed a$hore or been collected
from the shore. and some that is i:>uried in sand and st.>diments and mav resurface through time. This oil
has also begun to degrade throuS!h a number of natural processes.
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface of the water-naturally
biodegrad~.
While there is more analvsis t6 lie aone to guantifv the exact rate of biooeQradatioI1 in the
! Comment IllJ: \Vhy say'"mrs hCt;?"~Bud~~t--~~~"'~"

I Caleulalor says nothing .aboUlloxieity Do we know
----...
: who adeled tilis'/hy

'----~.~--
....
-~----
....~,-~-.- ...-,,-~,-,~~--~,
000953
GulL earl\' observations and preliminarv research results from a number of scientists shm,\/ that
th~
oil
:!tQlJHbj~_!lQ.\JI\e..c;j~Jlj,m:IC'grJ!gi[lg~1l,!I,~!'y'~.Sgjj~1~t>.lt91rUY(:)/~J;1'!.1.ill)5LJ?J2r:.,,~Ic,,~'LQ.d:;,.ing_!.!)
cakllJ..!llS< Ii nlQLc precise e:;:tirnat~ or this fate. It is ",.::II known that bacteria that break down the
warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of
oil
Flow Rate: The Oil Budget Calculator starts with an' estimate of the cumulative amount of released
Survey (USGS) Directt>r Marcia McNutt, and a team of Department of Energy (DOE) scientists and
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonIBP wellhead between April 22, 2010 and July 15,
Flow Rate Technical Group, website or report). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate
of 4.9 million barrels of oil.
Ongoing Response
Continued monitoring and research: Our knowledge of the oil, dispersants, ecosystem impacts and
human impacts will continue to evolve. Federal agencies and many academic and independent scientists
are actively pursuing better understanding of the fate, transport and impact of the oil. The federal
government will continue to report activities, results and data to the public on a regular basis. Updates
and information can be foundat www.restoretheeulgov, and data from the response operations can be
found at www.geopJatform.gov.
DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to refme understanding of amounts of remaining surface oi I. NOAA
continues to track the movement of the oil still on the surface and in the water column. NOAA
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA continues to monitor coastal air and water, with special
attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA- and NSF-funded academic researchers are
investigating rates of biodegradation. ecosystem and wildlife impacts. DOl responders are working to
ensure control of the well; to ensure accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the
environment; and to mitigate impacts of oil to wildlife, natural resources, and public lands. Scientists
from DOE laboratories are working to ensure the accurate measurement of oil released from the well
and are investigating the rates of biodegra~tion of sub-surface oil..
000954
Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats. and natural resources
Attacbments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 30, 20 10, contains
detailed expJanation of calculation methods. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in
cQllaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NIST.
as the pie chart used above. The image on page three uses the lower flow rate estimate.
000955
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil BHdget

What bas happened to the oil?
Authors
wtHtam-Gennel'.NOA.\. DOC
Credits
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
AntonioPossolo, NIST
AI Allan, SpiiTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Oaling, SINTEF
000956
000957
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Jennifer Austin
Re: First attempt
Jen,
2 emails - just got one saying USGS is almost done with the tool update but am forwarding a
second from some DHS folks working the Press Release and they say it won't be out until
Monday or Tuesday.
I
would say that would affect our turnaround time.
Mark

> III send you some ideas on this but we're still waiting on the output numbers right?
turn around time do we need?
> Jennifer Austin, NOAA Communications, 2023029047
>

> Sent: Sat Jul 31 20:22:58 2010
> Subject: First attempt
>
> Jen,
>
> Here is my attempt at describing the Oil Budget tool flow regime.
>
> Higher Flow Estimate = 62,990 +10% on Day 3 to 52,990 +19% on day 87
>
> Lower Flow Estimate = 62,009 - 10% on Day 3 to 52,900 - 10% on day 87
>
> And our pie chart will use the cumulative number from the Higher Flow
> Estimate
>
> Mark
>
What
000969
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gol/]

Jennifer Austin
[Fwd: Fwd: Need feed back from. USCG and NOAA on potential changes to oil budget tool]
Fwd_ Need feed back from USCG and NOAA on potential changes to oil b.... eml (32.8 KB)
I hope your day wasn't too crazY4 Here is one small edition to the credits.
Mark
12
000975
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Miller [Mark,W.Miller@noaa,gov]

Saturday; july 31~ 201011 :39 PM
Jennifer Austin
Re: First attempt
Well my son who is in the military just transferred to DC and we are getting together
tomorrow. I will be very efficient in the morning. Also I asked Bill Conner to cover for me
for non technical aspects of the paper.
Mark
> yes~ I did see that, but I think you're right that Dr L will stick to
> her guns on the dispersant issue, and I think she's right and
> anticipate she'll get her way on that.
>
> I am fine with sharing the document now. my basic philosophy is the
> sooner we share the sooner we know if anyone h'as any major concerns.
> (still only sharing in your limited development team group). I'm
> around tomorrow, standing by until I get the next request. If you
> need quick turn around, call me so I look at it, in case I'm not right
> at my computer (being optimistic)

>
> goodnight!
>
> Mark Miller wrote:
Press release is Flow rate only - Mark Sogge gave us the cliff notes
version - but it was just what Dr L wrote - 4.9 M bbls released~ 62K
- 53k bbls/day rate decreasing.
This looks good to me. I am wondering when we will get something

official that we can cite from FRTG.
The tool tema is running pretty late. I asked for two corrections
after I got on - one minor and the other the label on the barrel
graph. They were going to put the statement on the trailing pages. I
thought up front was better.
I am okay with checking in tomorrow. All we need to move forward is

the Report. I will make a pdf of it and then are good good with me
sending the document out?
Did you see EPA's response to our response to their issues - "I guess
I will take it up with the whitehouse".
Mark

> How about this? I reworked that paragraph a bit and took the other
>>> edits.
>
> Also who'isworking on the press release? have they seen our
) ' document?
we need to make sure they are consistent and that all the
> comments that have gone into this also are addressed in that.
18
000976
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Unless you mean a press release about the flow rate only. I don't
need to. be .involved in that, but do want to be involved .in
development of any oil budget tool press materials, to ensure
consistency, and because I think NOAA will end, up as the
spokesperson on that part.
At this point I think we call it a night, and see where things stand
in the morning. Not much more I can do from here I think.
>))

Jen,
2 emails - just got one saying USGS is almost done with the tool
update but am forwarding a second from some DHS folks working the
Press Release and they say it won't be out until Monday or Tuesday.
I would say that would affect our turnaround time.

>)
Mark
>)

> III send you some ideas on this but we're still waiting on the
> output numbers right? What turn around time do we need?
> jennifer Austin) NOAA Communications, 2823829847
>))>>
> Sent: Sat Jul 31 28:22:58 2818
>
> Jen)
>))>>
>
)>> Higher Flow Estimate. = 62,000 +10% on Day 3 to 52,088 +10% on'day
> 87
>))
> lower Flow Estimate = 62)088 - 10% on Day 3 to 52,000 - 18% on day
> 87
>
> And our pie chart will use the cumulative number from the Higher
> Flow Estimate
>>>
>)) Mark
>))>>
>))
>
19
. "'"
000977
Justin Kimney
Jennifer Austin
Re: First attempt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Press release is Flow rate only - Mark Sogge gave us the cliff notes version - but "it was
just what Dr 1 wrote - 4.9 M bbls released) 62K - 53k bbls/day rate decreasing.
This looks good to me.
from FRTG.
am wondering when we will get something official that we can cite
The tool tema is running pretty late. I asked for two corrections after I got on - one minor
and the other the label on the barrel graph. They were going to put the statement on the
trailing pages. I thought up front was better.
am okay with checking in tomorrow. All we need to move forward is the Report.
pdf of it and then are good good with me sending the document out?
will make a
<0-
Did you see EPA's response to

the whitehouse".
ou~
response to their issues - "I guess I will take it up with
Mark
> How about this? I reworked that paragraph a bit and took the other edits.
>
> Also who is working on the press release? have they seen our
> document? we need to make sure they are consistent and that all the
> comments that have gone into this also are addressed in that. Unless
> you mean a press release about the flow rate only. I don't need to be
> involved in that) but do want to be involved in development of any oil
> budget tool press materials, to ensure consistency, and because I
> think NOAA will end up as the spokesperson on that part.
> At this pl?~nt :J;.t~~nk we caH. it.a night, and see where things stand
> in the morning. Not much more I can do from here I think.
>
Jen,
2 emails - just got one saying USGS is almost done with the tool
update but am forwarding a second from some DHS folks working the
Press Release and they say it won't be out until Monday or Tuesday.
I would say that would affect our turnaround time.
Mark

> III send you some ideas on this but we're still waiting on the
> output numbers right? . What turn around: time dO we need?
>
...
'.0"_:
......... .:. ... : ...
20
000978
>>> ----- Original Message ----> From: Mark Miller <mark.w~miller@noaa.gov>
> Sent: Sat Jul 31 20:22:58 2010
>
> Jen.,
>>>
>
> Higher Flow Estimate = 62,000 +10% on Day 3 to 52.,000 +10% on day 87
>
> Lower Flow Estimate = 62,000 - 10% on Day 3 to 52,000 - 10% on day
>>> 87
>
> And our pie chart will use the cumulative number from the Higher
> Flow Estimate
>
> Mark
>>>
>
21
000985
"
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.govJ

Jennifer Austin
Draft Report
DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100730.pdf
This is not the final report but thought I would show you what they are working on. They
agreed to add a note to the barrel diagram that indicates what values are include in the evap
and biodegradation segment.
So is there a time when we get to call it a night?
Mark
28
000986
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark Miller [Mark.W.MiIler@noaa.gov]

Jane Lubchenco; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Jennifer Austin; Kristen Sarri (doc)
(KSarri@doc.gov); Scott Smullen; Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis
. (kgriffis@doc.gov); 'Sgilson@doc.gov'
[Fwd: Re: Oil Budget - EPA Comments - follow up and a request]
Re_ Oil Budget - EPA Comments - follow up and a request.eml (13.6 KB)
EPA's response to the teams decisions.

Mark
29
000999
DRAFT 7.31v Ilpm

and how this oil is moving" and degrading.

Based on "60,000 barrels/day flow rate
Federal
""Remaining oil is either at
or weathered tar balls.
has already come ashor"e;
Response
Operations
'-- ~."n""lIc",ly Dispersed

8%
over the course of the spill. TIrls number is based on flow rate estimates from The Flow Rate Technical
HorizonIBP wellhead, the uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite: Flow Rate Technical Group.
website or report?). They estimate that the daily flow rate ranged from '62,000'barrelsper day on April
22, 201 0 to" 53,QOO l?arrels per day on July 15,201 0, ~t which time the flow of oil was suspended. To
represent the ten percent uncertainty in the flow rate. estimate,the Oil Budget Calculator shows two
scenarios, oile based on the estimated flow rate plus ten percent, referred to at the "higher flow"" ..... .
001000
Direct Measures ands Best Estimates: The oil budget calculatioI\s are based on direct measurements
where possible and the best available scientific estimates whe'te' measurements were not possible. The
analysis.
oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertiqn tube and top hat systems
diameter ofa human hair). Chemical dispersion also deliberately breaks the oil up into smaller droplets
which keeps it from coming ashore in large suxface slicks and makes it more readily available for
biodegradation.
Report 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.llcddc.noaa.gov/JAGlreports.htmI).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
to'be in the process of natural biodegradation.
Evaporation: It is estimated that 25 % of the oil volume quickly evaporated 'or dissolved into the water
colurim. The volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are not vol.atile dissolve
down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are na~ly abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part
001001
quickly.
Conclusion: In summary, burning, skimmingOand direct recovery from the wellhead removed roughly
quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) into GJllf waters. The remaining amount,
just over one quarter is either on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already removed from th-shore
o
Attachments
as the pie chart used-above. The image on page three uses the lower flow rate estimate.
Appendix B:o Acknowledgements
001002
.-
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil B~dg.~t Calculator:

Authors

Credits
David Mack (USGS) - Lead application deveLoper
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
001003
Justin Kenney
From:
Mark Miller TMark.W.Miller@noaa,gov] ...
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jennifer Austin
Re: First attempt
2 emails - just got one saying USGS is almost done with the tool update but am forwarding a
second from some DHS folks working the Press Release and they say it won't be out until
Monday or Tuesday.
I
would say that would affect our turnaround time.
Mark

> III send you some ideas on this but we're still waiting on the output numbers right?
turn around time do we need?
> Jennifer Austin~ NOAA Communications~ 2823829847
>

> Sent: Sat Jul 31 28:22:58 2818
>
> Jen,
>
>
> Higher Flow Estimate = 62,888 +18% on Day 3 to 52,888 +18% on day 87
>
> lower Flow Estimate = 62,888 - 18% on Day 3 to 52,888 - 18% on day 87
>
> And our pie chart will use the cumulative number from the Higher Flow
'> Estimate
>
> Mark
>
What
001004
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jennifer Austin
[Fwd: Re: Need feed back from USCG and NOAA on potential changes to oil budget tool]
Re_ Need feed back from USCG and NOAA on potential changes to oil bud .... eml (125 KB)
Just some changes to the developers page. I told him we just copied what was on the website.
Mark
001005
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jennifer Austin
First attempt
Oil Budget description 7 31 v 8.30 pm (2) .docx
Jen.,
Here is my attempt at describing the Oil Budget tool flow regime.

Higher Flow Estimate = 62",999 +19% on Day 3 to 52.,999 +19% on day 87
Lower Flow Estimate = 62,999 - 19% on Day 3 to 52,999 - 19% on day 87
And our pie chart will use the cumulative number from the Higher Flow Estimate
Mark
001006
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.govJ

Saturday, JlIly 31, 20107:42 PM
Jane Lubchenco
'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'margaret.spring@noaa.gov'; 'William.Conner@noaa.gov';
'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'; 'Sgilson@doc.gov'; 'KGnffis@doc.gov'; 'ksarri@doc.gov';
'Pshah@doc.gov'
Dr. Lubchenco,
Just wrapped up the Oil Budget tool call. USGS expects to have the tool updated with the new flow regime
within two hours. It was decided to maintain the existing format for the tool with two scenarios renamed
"Higher Flow Estimate" and "Lower Flow Estimate" (based on the flow estimate for the day +10% and -10%).
We discussed the questions form EPA and the consensus followed the recommendations I included in the
previous email- no lumping dispersion slices, no additional language required for biodegradation, and (using
your suggestion) we have gone back to EPA for language to help address the potential confusion between
dissolution and dispersion.
Jen and I will update our document as soon as the tool is in production status and then route as previously
discussed.
The FRTG press release is out of USGS and at DOE for review. Mark Sogge did not have an estimate of when
it would be released.
.
Mark
Mark - thx for this. I agree we should mirror the tool language. Feel free to modify the changes I made accordingly.
I agree with your solutions on each of the other pOints.
#1) It would be disingenuous to combine chemically and naturally dispersed categories under the guise of greater
certainty. Combining them does not remove any uncertainties. And I believe we owe it to everyone to provide the best
estimates we can where direct measurements are not possible. We also need to be forthright about how certain we are
about each number, which we've done. We have provided numbers for lumped categories in the text, so readers can see
both lumped and split categories.
#2 I agree this distinction can be better explained .and would welcome their suggestions.
#3) I agree with your pOints and think your text addresses this well.
Mark/Jen - plz address Kris' comments in the next draft.
In view of your upcoming call and the need for the scientists to resolve the scientific issues, I'll hold off on sending the
document until we have text that reflects the above paints.
Thanks to all!
Jane
Jane Lubchenco
Jane, Lubchenco@noaa.gov
(202) 482-34~6
4
001007

To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.qov>
Cc: JenniferAustin<Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>i Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; William Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott Smullen <Scott.5mullen@noaa.gov>; Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov)
<Sgilson@doc.gov>; KeVin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov) <kgriffis@doc.gov>; Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov)
<KSarri@doc.goY>; Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov) <Pshah@doc.gov>
Sent: Sat Jul 31 17:57:58 2010
Dr. Lubchenco,
Steve Hammond (USGS on IASG) just called and we (USGS, UCSG, and NOAA) will be having a conference
configuration (two scenarios) using the flowrate from the graphic +10% as the IIHigh Flow" rate and - 10% as
have done.
In addition, the call.is supposed to address questions raised by EPA EPA suggestes in the interest of getting these out this weekend that we:
3) if no estimate can be made of biodegradation at least have a robust discussion about it both in tenns of oil
that will remain in marshes to be biodegraded and in terms of our expectations and evidence of the dispersed oil
subsea
. .
estimates) in this document.. I will also say that most likely there will be a follow-on document that
focuses on biodegradation and includes rates as they get developed and refmed.
Mark
Jen and Mark - good job! .
My modifications to Mark's/Jen's versioh are attached as track changes in one doc and a
We can circulate it more broadly as is (clean version), but will need to make final
.~hanges based on a new Appendix to come from the GS group.
5
001008
Mark please see if you can find out when the GSgroup will have a new Appendix.
Jane
-----Original Message----F:::om: Mark Miller [mail to :mark. \'-1.'miller@noaa.qovJ
To: Jennifer Austin
Cc: Margaret Spring; William Conner: Scott Smullen; Jane Lub.chenco; Shannon Gilson
(SGilson@doc.,:p,::::); Kevin Griffis (~fis@d6C. ~); Kristen Sarri (doc)
(KSarri@doc.qov); Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
Dr. Lubchenco,
will update our document and send it on to continue with the clearance process.
Mark
~argaret
Spring wrote:

in
From: Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov)
To: Margaret Spring
Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov}; Kevin Griffis
(kgriffis@doc.gov):
Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov): Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
Am on phone with Jane now - can we

Jane, Mark, Jen,
h~ve
a call with
She wants to understand what was agreed to at EPA

last night. And
work out why this is a better approach than the bar
chart idea, but
6
001009
then if we are on
the same page, go back to EPAwith.a revision and how
we tried to
Jane is available between now .( 1pm) and 5 EST
we do 2 pm?
Mark-
- can
do'we have a call-in' we' can use?
From: Margaret Spring [marqaret.sprinq@r:oaa.go".J]

Jane Lubchenco;
Shannon Gilson (SG:Ison@doc.qov); Kevin Griffis
(kqriffis@doc.qov);
Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov); Parita Shah
(Pshah@doc.qov)
USGS and EPA
(HQ)
Marcia McNutt said that whatever EPA and NOAA work
out on how
dispersed oil is handled, pIs communicate to Sky
Bristol and Mark
Sogge
Adm Jackson said: (1) she was concerned about the
level of
(adding to 100%)
bar instead
going with a
non-pie chart?);
calculations for the oil
about listing
with Al on):
(Perciasepe) to

7
001010
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smu}leni
Jane Lubchenco;
Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov,); Kevin Griffis
(kgriffis@dcc.gov);
Kristen Sarri (doc)
; Parita Shah
(Psi:":ah@doc.qov)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update coordination]
Margaret,
Bill and I have talked several times this morning so
I feel that we
from EPA). He and
methodology (Al
someone). Bill sent
me an email at midnight PDT and ther. called my at
3:00 AM PDT. I
are poised to
tool which is
EDT. We will
as an appendix.
which provides the
Report. Bill Lehr
is contacting Ox::. Possolo to discuss and address
this. Bill is on
for the FRTG
meeting starti'ng
approximately an hour.
in
Mark

those changes?'
From: Margaret Spring,
,
Sent: Saturday~ July 31, 2010 11:21 AM
8
001011
To: Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin:
Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
update - coordination]
Mark,
Jennifer-

From: Mark Miller
[mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update
- coordination]
Budget tool report and
numbers for the pie chart tomorrow
afternoon.
Mark
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9047
'<1W'..r. noaa. gov
www.climate.gov
>
001012
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Marl< Miller [Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov]

Jane Lubchenco
Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Shannon Gilson
Dr. Lubchenco,
Steve Hammond (USGS on IASG) just called and we (USGS, UeSG, and NOAA) will be having a conference
configuration (two scenarios) using the flowrate from the graphic +10% as the "High Flow" rate and - 10% as
have done .
.In addition, the call is supposed to address questions raised l?y EPA EPA suggestes in the interest of getting these out this weekend that we:

3) ifno estimate can be made of biodegradation at least have a robust discussion about it both in tenns of oil
that will remain in marshes to be biodegraded and in tenns of our expectations and evidence of the dispersed oil
subsea.
estimates) in this document. I will also say that most likely there will be a follow-on document that
focuses on biodegradation and includes rates as they get developed and reimed.
Mark
My modifications to Mark's/Jen's version are attached as track changes in one doc and a
We can circulate it more broadly as is (clean version), but will need to make final
changes based on a new Appendix to come from the GS group.
.
10
001013
~ark
please see if you can find out when the GS group will have a new Appendix.
Jane
-----Original Message----From: Mark Miller [mailto:mark.I.v.miller@no,3.a.qo\T]
To: Jennifer Austin
Cc: Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchencoi Shannon Gilson
(SGilson@doc~ov); Kevin Griffis (kqriffis@doc.qov); Kristen Sarri (doc)
(KSarri@doc.gov); Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.qov)
Dr. Lubchenco,
will update our document and send it on to continue with the clearance process.
Mark

in
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Mark Miller; William Conner: Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;
Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov): Kevin Griffis
(kgriffis@doc.gov);
Kristen Sarri (doc), (KSarri(~doc.go',); Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.go"J
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination}
Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with

Jane, Mark, Jen,
Bill Conner on tQis? 2 pm?
She wants to understand'what"was,agreed to at EPA
last night. And
~ork out why this is a better approach-than the bar
chart idea, but
try to work on better representing' uncertainty'; ., ..
11
001014
then if we are on
the same page, go back to EPA with a revision and how
we tried to
Jane is available between now (1pm) and 5 EST
we do 2 pm?
Mark -
- can
From: Margaret Spring [margaret. s..e,ing@!:,:9~~~..9'0v]

Jane Lubchenco;
Shannon Gilson (~Gilscn@dcc.gov); Kevin Griffis
(kgriffis@doc.gov);
Kristen Sarri(doc) (KSarri@doc.gov); ~arita Shah
(Pshah@doc. gmT)
USGS and EPA
(HQ)
Marcia McNutt' said that whatever EPA and NOAA work

out on how
dispersed oil is handled, pls communicate to Sky
Bristol and Mark
Sogge
Adm Jackson said: (1) she was concerned about the
level of
(adding to 100%)
bar instead
going with a
non-pie chart?);
calculations for the 'oil
about listing
with Al on):

(Perciasepe) to
clear. Wben can we send it over?

Sent: Saturday,-J'uly 31, 2010 11: 45 AM
To: Margaret Spring
12
001015
Jane Lubchencoi ..
Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc. QOv); Kevin. Gr.iffis ...
(kgriffis@doc.qo\7);
.~.. ..
...
..
Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov); Parita Shah
(Pshah@doc.~)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update coordination]

Margaret,
Bill and I have talked several times. this. morning.. so
I feel that we
from EPA). He and
methodology (AI
someone). Bill sent
me an email at midnight PDT and then called my at
3:00 AM PDT. I
are poised to
tool which is
EDT. We will
as an appendix.
which provides the
Report. Bill Lehr
is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and address
this. Bill is on
for the FRTG
Mark

those changes?
From: Margaret Spri~g
Sent: Saturday; Jul~i 31,'2010 1l:21 .. ~
To: Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin;
13
001016
Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
update
coordination]
Mark,
Jennifer-

From: Mark Miller
[rnark.w.miller@noaa.gov]
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update
- coordination]

Budget tool report and
numbers for the pie chart tomorrow
afternoon.
Mark
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9047
W~..n.~l.
noaa... gov
w",,-w. climate. gov

WW\..; fa ceboo k. com/ noaa. 1 ubchenco
>
14
001019
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jennifer Austin
Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
Oil Budget description 7.31 v 4pm.docx
Dr. lubchenco,
Mark
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------From: Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

To: Margaret Spring
Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov); Parita ~hah (Pshah@doc.gov)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update- coordination]
> Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane J Mark, Jen,
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
work out why this is a better approach than the bar chart idea, but
Then we need to loop in Marcia, then Heather, and then if we are on
the same page, go back to EPA with a revision and how we tried to
>>>
> Mark - do.we have a call-in
we
can use?
17
001020
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------From: Margaret Spring [margaret.spring@noaa.gov]
Sent: Saturday~ July 31, 2919 12:59 PM

Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov)j
Mark - want to make sure you have these ocmments from USGS and EPA
(HQ)
Sogge
Adm Jackson said : (1) she was concerned about the level of
-(Jane, let's discuss what to make of this - ~re we going with a
non-pie chart?);
(2) she said Al Venosa did not revierw the calculations for the oil
budget calculator till last night so she is concerned about listing
him as a reviewer (this one you should probably check with Al on):
Note we will need to vet the product with EPA HQ (Perciasepe) to
----------~~--~------~--------From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

Sent: Saturday~ July 31, 2010 11:45 AM
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchencoj
>
> Margaret J
>
> apparently was giving a presentation this AM to someone). Bill sent
> me an email at midnight PDT and then called my at 3:00 AM PDT. I
> have $ent Jennifer a marked up copy of the doc and we are poised to
> enter the new numbers from the updated Oil Budget tool which is
> presently targeted to be done approximately 2:00 PM EDT. We will
>
18
001021
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Upper and Lower Confidence lines in the Oil Budget Report. Bill Lehr
is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss- and address this. Bill is on
his way to the Sand Point facility in order to set up for the FRTG
Mark

>>>
>
Circling in shannon, parita kevin, kris
-----------------------------------From: Margaret Spring

To: Mark Millerj Jennifer Austinj Margaret Springj William Connerj
Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Mark) Jennifer
there were conversations about changes to the oil budget document
>>>>
-----------------------------------From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

<To: Jennifer Austin; Margaret Springj William Conner; Scott Smullen
>>>>
Mark
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
>
19
001022
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jennifer Austin
Re: 3 pm version .
Oil Budget description 7.31 v 3pm_MM.docx
Just highlights. Trying
to.g~t
a firm.read.on the final flow number.
Mark
> this is my best attempt~ see what you think I stopped tracking
> changes J it was getting really messy, I re-arranged it too, and did
> more sub section labeling which I hope helps, but tell me what you think.
>
> I'll work on the graph options now, but wanted to let you read the
> text now.
>
> I'm supposed to be on this 3 pm call, but will do that from another
> phone line, call me if we need to discuss.
20
001023
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jane Lubchenco; Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Kristen Sarri (doc)
(KSarri@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov); Shannon Gilson; Parita Shah
(Pshah@doc.gov); Scott Smullen
[Fwd: Re: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
Re_ Oil budget tool update - coordination.em! (114 KB)
Bill Lehr sent this from the FRTG meeting. I will see if USGS can give us a time weighted
average flowrate with Report.
Mark
21
001024
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Miller [Mark. W. Miller@noaa.govJ

Jennifer Austin
Re: 3 pm version
Great. Let me take a quick look and then I will call you.
Mark
> this is my best attempt, see what you think . I stopped tracking
> changes, it was getting really messy, I re-arranged it too, and did
> more sub section labeling which I hope helps, but tell me what you think.
>
> I'll work on the graph options now, but wanted to let you read the
> text now.
>
>~I'm
supposed to be on this 3 pm call, but will do that from another
> phone line, call me if we need to discuss.
22
001025
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Margaret Spring
Jennifer Austin; William Conner
- Re: [F-wd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
Call in - '
Jen is working on scheduling conflicts with one hand while typing int he changes to the doc
with the other. We do not have uncertainty on a category basis (the uncertainty is overall on
the remaining) so we thought if we went with a simple bar chart with two bars per category
for Low flow and High Flow that would indicate our uncertainty in a simple straightforward
manner.
I do not know if Sec Chu's information would have any effect on our estimates for natural
dispersion. I will try to get more information on that but am concerned that the time frame
will impact that.
.
We will remove Al Venosa from the contributors. I talked to Bill Lehr and asked him exactly
what he and Al talked about. He said they went through the calculations and methodology. He
said there were no changes or recommendations that came from those conversations. Bill is on
the FRTG call now and he is the best source for details of those conversations.
Talk to you at 2:00.
Mark

> Jane would also like to discuss how we worked out the information from Steve Chu .
>
> also - can you send around latest draft before the call? thx
>
> ----------------~------------------>
> Sent: Saturday~ July 31, 201e 1:e3 PM
> To: Mark Miller
> Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner;' Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco; :
>
........ .
> Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane" .Mar.k, Jen, Bill, Conner on this? 2
pm?......"
>
. "
> She wants to understand what was agreed to 'at EPA last night. And work out why this is a
bett~r .approach than the bar chart idea, but try to work on better representing uncertainty.
>
.) Then we need to loop in Marcia,. then Heather, and then if we ar~.on1;he 'sa~e page, go back
to EPA with a revision and how we tried to work 'on their concerns.
)
23
001026
>
> Mark -
- can we do 2 pm?
>
> ----------------~--~------------->
> Sent: Saturday~ July 31~ 2e18 12:59 PM
> Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov); Parita Shah (~shah@doc.gov)
>
> (HQ)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sogge
Adm Jackson said : (1) she was concerned about the level of certainty
implied in the pie and cylinder charts (adding to 188%) and suggests
instead bar chart with ranges for each bar instead -(Jane, let's
discuss what to make of this - are we going with a non-pie chart?);
(2) she said Al Venosa did not revierw the calculations for the oil budget calculator till
last night so she is concerned about listing him as a reviewer (this one you should probably
check with Al on):
>
> Note we will need to vet the product with EPA HQ (Perciasepe) to clear. When can we send it
over?
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------->

> Cc: Jennifer.Austin; William Conrier; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchencoj
>
> Margaret,
>
> apparently was giving a presentation this AM to someone). Bill sent me
> an email at midnight PDT and then called my at 3:e8 AM PDT. I have
> sent Jennifer a marked up copy of the doc and we are poised to enter
> the new numbers from the updated Oil Budget tool which is presently
> targeted to be done approximately 2:ee PM EDT. We will also update the
> Oil Budget Report which is included as an appendix.
>
24
001027
> outstaQding question is the appropriate level of QA/QC from NIST (Dr.
> is. contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and address this. Bill is on his
> way to the Sand Point facility in order to set up for the FRTG meeting
> starting in approximately an hour.
>
> Mark
>
>
>

-----------------------------------------------------------From: Margaret Spring

Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenc~
Mark, Jennifer
there were conversations about changes to the oil budget document between epa (paul
---------------------------------------------------------------From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

Mark
25
001028
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Saturday, July 31, 201011:46 AM
Margaret Spring
Margaret,
Bill and I have talked several times this morning so I feel that we have captured all his
thoughts (his and Al Venosa from EPA). He and Al talked multiple times last night going over
copy of the doc and we are poised to enter the new numbers from' the updated Oil Budget tool
Budget Report which is included as an appendix.
Possolo). NIST performed the statistical analysis which provides the Upper and lower
Confidence lines in the Oil Budget Report. Bill lehr is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and
address this. Bill is on his way to the Sand Point facility in order to set up for the FRTG
Mark
> Circling in shannon, parita, kevin, kris >
>
>
> ----------------------------------From: Margaret Spring
> To: Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin; Margaret Springj William Conner; Scott Smullen
> Cc: Jane lubchenco
>
> Mark, Jennifer>
> there were convepsations about changes to the oil budget document between epa (paul
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------From: Mark Miller [mark.w.millen@noaa.gov]
> To: Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen
>
> So it looks like we should have a new Oil Budget tool report and numbers
26
001029
> for the pie chart tomorrow afternoon.
>
> Mark
>
27
001030
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Saturday, July 31, 2010 11:15AM
Jennifer Austin
[Fwd: Re: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
Re_ Oil budget tool update - coordination.eml (12.7 KB)
So they are sticking with the flow range.

Mark
28
001031
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent: .
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sky Bristol [sbristol@usgs.gov]

Saturday. July 31,20109:37 PM
Mark Miller
Stephen Hammond
Re: Need feed back from USCG and NOAA on potential changes to oil budget tool
Oil Budget description 7 31 v. 1930MDT-Sky.docx; ATI6109B.htm
I don't mean to be picky and it's not a huge deal~ but I made some modifications to the credits section here to
better represent the folks involved with the Oil Budget Tool.
.-~
...
..
... ...;
001032
DRAFT 7.31v 4 pm (JL comments)

The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled some of the best scientific minds in the govenunent
detennine where the oil went. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much oil was released

Federal
Response
Operations
'"Remaining orl is either at

or weathered tar ball~,
has already come ashore.
2%
Figure 1: Oil Budge~ Calculator- Shows what h~happened to the oil.
Explanation of Methods and M,sumptions
Direct Measures'~e~sus:iJest Estiniat~~.::the oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
001033
based on previous scientific analyses, best available infonnation and a broad range of scientific
expertise. These numbers wiIlcontinueto be refined based on additional information and further
analysis.
chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 32% of the spilled oiL This includes
column unti~ it is biodegraded, as discussed below.
biodegradation.
diffuse clouds of dispersed oiLbetween 3300 and 4300 feet. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group
Report 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.Qov/JAG/reports.html).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
Evaporation: It is estimated that 25 % of the oil volume quickly evaponited or dissolved into the water
remaining oil discussed below. The evaporation ra.te estimate is based on scientific research and
down the dispersed and weathe~ed su;rfa~e oil are n~tura11y abun~t in ~e Gulf ofM,exico in large part
because' of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the faet that oil enters the
Qulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is mote analysis to be done to quantify the
exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indic~~ons are that the oil from this well is biodegrading
quickly.
001034
one quarter o[the oil. Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated or dissolved and less than one
strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oiL
Attachments
segment. The image on page one of Appendix A uses the higher flow rate estimate of 60.000
earrel/dayof dailv oil release, which is the same as the pie chart used above. The image on page three
uses the lower flow: rate estimate of 35,000 earrels.!day.
....
....
001035

Authors

Credits
David Mack (USGS) - Lead application 6ieveloper
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) - Techriical advisors
refine the analysis an~ this docurneI1:t will be updated as appropriate.
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
001036
DRAFT 7.31v 4 pm
Where did the oil go? .
The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled the best scientific minds in the government and
independent scientific community to produce an estimate of how much oil has been skimmed, burned,
contained, evaporated and dispersed. They developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator to
detennine where the oil went. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much oil was released

Federal
Response
Operations
"'Remaining oil is either at

or weathered tar balls,
has already come ashore.
Btlrnecl
5%
3%
8%
'Fi~e 1: Oil
Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oil.

"'~"i""''J~ assem.b.leO, '"DY,:iU,le National Incident Command,
had:been released from the Deepwater
'to
CUIlren1;11owdi\et~~stiln.atc~;lIlre' 35,000 60,000 barrels of oil per day. The

baS~)~n;"~~:XX:julmb,ers,\.ntJ[lge or number)the graphic above is based
Direct Measures versus Best Estitnates:The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
where possible and .the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The
numbers for direct recovery and'bums'were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports.
The skimming numbers Were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were
001037
expertise. These numbers will continue .to

analysis.
be refined based on a~ditional infonnation and further
chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 32% of the spilled oil. this includes
water column" which caused some of the oil to spray 9ffin small droplets (less than 100 microns - the
biodegradation.
Some portion of the dispersed oil remained below the surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence
of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group
Report 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html).
an estimated 27 % remains. This oil is either at the surface as light.sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has
down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part ..
because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact thatoH enters the
Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is more analysis to be done to quantifY the
quickly.
one quarter of the oiL Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated or dissolved and less than one
001038
just over one quarter is either on the surface, in tar balls,on the shore, already removed from the shore
.
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oiL It will issue daily surface oil trajectories
for tar balls and near shore-submerged oil.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 28,2010, contains
which is the same as the pie chart used above. The image on page three uses the low flow rate estimate
001039

. Where did the oil go?
Authors

Credits
Feaeral'Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSD
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
. Pat Lambert, Env. Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
001040
Justin Kenney
BiII.Lehr@noaa:gov .
Sky Bristol
Mark Miller; Stephen Hammond; Sean CDR O'Brien; Antonio Possolo; Tim Kern
Re: Oil budget topl update - coordination
Screen shot 2010-07-31 at 11.52.30 AM.png
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sky~
Attached is the agreed flow rate estimate with 18% uncertainty. I have not been able to get
hold of Antonio.
Bill
Original Message ----From: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
Date: Saturday, July 31, 2010 8:42 am
Subject: Re: Oil budget tool update - coordination
To: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Cc: Stephen Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>, Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Sean CDR O'Brien
<sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil>, Antonio Possolo <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>, Tim Kern
<kernt@usgs.gov>
> Great! The artifacts to work with will include:
>
> - The R program modified to work with a variable daily discharge
> (We'll be doing this on our end, but Antonio can work with his
> original latest version for his own method on this (see note below).)
> - A new table of daily values to include new variable high and low
> estimates to be provided by the FRTG group today
>
> We'll provide the new daily variables input table as a CSV file once
> we get the results from the FRTG.
>
.....
> Note: The only difference between the R script we use in the Oil
> Budget Tool and the one developed by NIST is the adaptation to receive
> "live" va'riables ,as. C!n array from the Web application where USCG
> personnel enter daily values. The NIST version takes a spreadsheet as
> input. Comparing two methods on the same model with the same daily
> values and two sets of reviewers should provide us a nice crosscheck
> on each other and make sure we get the best numbers out.
>
> Thank you 1 and we'll be in touch later today.
>
> <. "'......"'<. (<"'-"'(. '
>
Sky Bristol
>
sbristol@usgs..i0V
>
Office: 303-202-4181
>
> <. .....,..,....<. ( <N..._< .{(-( <<<
>
> On Jul 31, 201a, at 9:24 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> > Steve,
001041
> >
> > Sorry I missed the call. Bill is on his way to work and will give
Antonio a call to line something up. Bill will reply to this message
when he has details. He of course will also be tied into the FRTG
discussion starting shortly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill's contact info >

> 206-526- 6310 (w)
>
>
> > Mark
> >
> > Stephen E Hammond wrote:
>
> We just completed a short conference call with Mark Sogge. Mark S.
> is going to work toward providing Sky's team with a product that
> includes a table of daily 10 & hi flow estimates. We're also' seeking
> information from the team on the logic they use to define changes in
> flow at the various breakpoints that will be included.
>
> Based on a draft press release in the works, Mark thinks the WH
> will be working only with the final la/hi estimates. At some point
> however, the oil budget tool may need to include a timeseries line
>
>
>
>
>
graph that shows the cumulative total of oil for the 10 and hi estimates.
What is needed immediately upon completion of the USGS work is a

review for logic and accuracy of the numbers that are will be plugged
into the program and the information output from the program. We'd
> like the help of CG, NOAA and NIST to review the work. Bill, Mark,
> can you help me to line up our NIST colleagues? For consistency, I'd
> like to follow whatever process was used before if you think that is reasonable.
>
> Steve
>>>
>
>
> Stephen e. Hammond

> US Geological ,Survey
> Chief Emergency Operations Office, National Geospatial Program
> Reston, VA
> 703-648-5033 (w)
>
> 703-648- 5792 (fax)
>
> -----sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov> wrote:
>
> To: "Stephen E HamAlond" <sehammon@usgs.gov>
>. From: Sky Bri.stol ~$br:'iSi:ol@usg~.gov> .
> Date: 07/31/2010 09:51AM
> ~c: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Millef.@noaa.gov>;BillLehr
> <Biil. Lehr@noaa gov>
.
, ..
> Subject: Re: Oil budget tool update - coordination
>>>
> Greetings again,
>
> One of the things that we strive for in our application development
2
001042
> process is the same type of rigorous peer review and crosschecking
> used in developing a scientific paper. Something that would be helpful

> in this case would be "an independent person or group who can work this
> application through in a slightly different way .to validate the final
> results.
>
> The core of this application is now the R program developed by
> Antonio Possolo and his colleagues at NIST. We had essentially this
> type of independent review previously as Antonio and his group ran the
> numbers (via spreadsheet) through their original version of the R
> program~ and we ran them dynamically as part of the online application
> through a version of the R program set up to receive the numbers
> through a slightly different route. We could look at both results,
> compare numbers and the slightly different charts, and make sure
> everything was on track.
>
> I don't know what the process will look like with the group meeting
> today and what the level of expertise there will be. If _they could
> just work with the R program and the spreadsheet of current values,
> adding new values as necessary to reflect variable discharge over
> time, that would be ideal. It would give them the tool to run through
> a number of scenarios and see the resultant figures, and it would give
> us the multiple angles of review we would like. If they don't have
> that sort of expertise, then if would be useful to either get Antonio
> engaged again if available or someone else who can work through the
> model from a different angle. We have some other colleagues in USGS
> who could do this, but they may be a bit difficult to reach on the weekend.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> <.~-~<.----<.
>
Sky Bristol
>
sbristol@usgs.gov
>
Office: 303-202-4181
>
> <.~
N_<.
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Stephen E Hammond wrote:
>
> > Good morning,
> >>>
> > I spoke to Sean O'Brien this morning. He does not have e-mail but
> is prepared to head to the office which is about 1/2 hr walk. He does
> not have the ability to look at e-mail at his hotel.
> >
> > I was just blind cc'd on an e-mail form Mark Sogge to 001 perhaps
> you saw these. These were the highlights of his message:
> > - looks like the meeting today will-begin at 12:00 noon cor
> > - He expects the refined numbers will fall within our earlier flow
> rate range
> > - The flow teams will describe how the flow rate has changed
> (decreased) over time
> > - there is high-level interest in releasing this number to the
> media today
> > - Matt Lee-Ashley is working with DOE, OHS, and WH communication
> folks regarding the release
3
001043
> > Here is a phone bridge when we are ready to meet
> >
> >
> > BIll, Sky, you're furthest west, you all let. us know when you want
> to meet",
> > Mark,
> > I'm prepped to come in to the Nrc. Do you want to work on the
> "Where's the Oil?" piece while Sky and Co. are modifying the model.
> ~e'd also be better prepared to pull in CG if we were on site.
> >>>
> >
> >>> Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > Stephen E. Hammond
> >>> US Geological Survey
> >>> Chief Emergency Operations Office, National Geospatial Program
> > Reston, VA
> > 703-648-5033 (w)
> >
> >>> 703-648- 5792 (fax)
> >>>
> > -----Mark Miller < Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov > wrote: ----> >
> > To: Sky Bristol < sbristol@usgs.gov >, Stephen E Hammond <
> sehammon@usgs.gov >, Bill Lehr < Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov >
> > From: Mark Miller < Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov >
> > Date: 07/31/2010 06:11AM
> > Subject: Re: Fwd: Oil budget tool update - coordination
> >>>
> >>> Sky,
> > I agree with your take on this. Maybe a quick call with the small
> group - Steve, you" me and Bill just to get the "eyes on, everything
> looks good" take would be good. Unfortunately our work starts when
> yours ends.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > Sky Bristol wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Looks like my last ended up with the wrong forwarding address.
> Cheers.
>
~<._N~<.
>
Sky
Bristol
>
sbristol@usgs.gov
>
Office: 303-202-4181
>
> >>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
. > >>>>
> ) From: Sky Bristol sbristol@usgs.gov >
<. __
<.----<.----<.
<
001044
> > Date: July 30, 2010 9:54:59 PM MDT
> To: Stephen E Hammond < sehammon@usgs.gov >
> Cc: sean.k.obrien@uscg.mil J bill.lehr@noaa.gov ,
mark. w. miller@noaa mil ,
.~
antonio.possolo@nist.gov , "Tim Kern" < kernt@usgs.gov >
> Subject: Re: Oil budget tool update - coordination
>
> > Here's the message I just sent with some thoughts on our
> approach. Depending on what Bill and/or Antonio think about the
> approach, we may not need to get everyone together. If you all like
> the direction, we can put things together and beta and get a review
> before going live. In particular, we should make sure we get some
> input from CDR O'Brien on any changes to the message the report will
> be putting out under the new scenario.
> >))
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From Marcia McNutt's description of the approach and "Mark

Sogge's input, I'm pretty sure this is a relatively simple
modification. The current application (attached FYI) sets oilFlowRate
as a constant value for low and high discharge at 35,000 and 60,000
bbllday, respectively. When we run it from the Web application, we
send it an array of values from the daily variable input:
>))
>
>
>
>
>
>))
the day
Oily Water Collected (VOW)
Oil Burned (VBU)
Oil Collected via RITT/TopHat (VDT)
Dispersants Used, Surface (VCS)
Dispersents Used Subsurface (VCS)
>
> > It sounds like what we are doing is changing oilFlowRate from a
> constant to a variable that will start at some estimated initial flow
> rate and then decrease daily by a small fraction (less than 1% from
> Marcia McNutt's note). We would place both the high and low starting
> values and the estimated decrease rate into the application as global
> values (editable by administrators) and pass these into the R program
> as variables instead of fixed values coded into the program. Unless we
> think we need to use a more complex calculation with statistical
> variation on the discharge rate decrease, we probably don't need to
> make any other major changes in the R program.
> >
> > We would need some other changes to the executive summary output
> and barrel graph footnotes to show the ,actual daily discharge rate
> used in the calculation, but as Mark indicated, this does not
> fundamentally change the behavior and visual display of the
> application. It will obviously change the daily figures and cumulative
> totals over time.
> >
> > Am I missing something (especially for Bill and Antonio), or:is
> this about right?
) )>>
> =
>
> >>>>>
> >
> > <._....<.(<--...,<.(< .
001045
> >>>
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 393-292-4181.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> <.~---<.(----<.
> > On Jul 39, 2919, at.8:99 PM, Stephen E Hammond wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Colleagues,
We'll be asked to make some changes to the oil budget tool

tomorrow with
product delivery by about 2pm EDT tomorrow.
Sky and Tim Kern are prepared to make changes based on

requirements shared
this evening by USGS Director McNutt. They'll develop a beta
version for
review before going live for release of results.
>)
I thinks are going to move quickly. Would it be useful to have

a conference
call at some point tomorrow morning to coordinate efforts and
information
or review?
Have I overlooked anyone? If so, please advise.
>>>> Steve
------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
)
> )>>
)
)>
> h =
> >>>
)
>
>
001046
001047
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Stephen E Hammond [sehammon@upgs.gov]

Mark Miller; Bill Lehr
Sky Bristol; sean.k.o'brien@uscg.mil; antonio possolo; Stephen E Hammond
Re: OH budget tool update - coordination
We just completed a short conference call with Mark Sogge. Mark S. is going to work toward providing
Sky's team with a product that includes a table of daily 10 & hi flow estimates. We're also seeking
information from the team on the logic they use to define changes in flow at the various breakpoints that
will be included.
Based on a draft press release in the works, l\1ark thinks the WH will be working only with the final lo/hi
estimates. At some point however, the oil budget tool may need to include a timeseries line graph that
shows the cumulative total of oil for the 10 and hi estimates.
What is needed immediately upon completion of the USGS work is a review for logic and accuracy of the
numbers that are will be plugged into the program and the information output from the program. We'd
like the help of CG, NOAA and NIST to review the work~ Bill, Mark, can you help me to line up our NIST
colleagues? For consistency, I'd like to follow whatever process was used before if you think that is
reasonable.
Steve
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
-----Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov> wrote: ----To: "Stephen E Hammond" <sehammon@usgs.gov>
From: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
Date: 07/31/2010 09:51AM
cc: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Greetings again!
One of the things that we strive for in our application development process is the same type of rigorous
peer review and crosschecking used in developing a scientific paper. Something that would be helpful in
this case would be an independent person or group who can work this application through in a slightly
different way to validate the final results.
The core of this application is now the R program developed by Antonio Possolo and his colleagues at
NIST. We had essentially this type of independent review previously as Antonio and his group ran the
numbers (via spreadsheet) through their original version of the R program, and we ran them dynamically
as part of the online application through a version of the R program set up to receive the numbers through
1
001048
a slightly different route. We could look at both results, compare numbers and the slightly different charts,
and make sure everything was on track.
I don't know what the process will look like with the group meeting today and what the level of expertise
there will be. If they could just work with the R program and the spreadsheet of current values, adding
new values as necessary to reflect variable discharge over time, that would be ideal. It would give them
the tool to run through a number of scenarios and see the resultant figures, and it would give us the
multiple angles of review we would like. If they don't have that sort of expertise, then it would be useful
to either get Antonio engaged again if available or someone else who can work through the model from a
different angle. We have some other colleagues in USGS who could do this, but they may be a bit difficult
to reach on the weekend.
Any thoughts on this?
<.
< <"'''"VIV<. < < IVI'V'" IV <. < <

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
< NI'VI'VI'V< .( < < < NI'VIVI'V<
.< <
On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Stephen E Hammond wrote:

Good morning,
I spoke to Sean O'Brien this morning. He does not have e-mail but is prepared to head to the office which
is about 1/2 hr walk. He does not have the ability to look at e-mail at his hotel;
I was just blind cc'd on an e-mail form Mark Sogge to DOl perhaps you saw these. These were the
highlights of his message:
- Looks like the meeting today will begin at 12:00 noon CDT
- He expects the refined numbers will fall within our earlier flow rate range
- The flow teams will describe how the flow rate has changed (decreased) over time
- there is high-level interest in releasing this number to the media today
- Matt Lee-Ashley is working with DOE, DHS, and WH communication folks regarding the release
Here is a phone bridge when we are ready to meet
1-866-719-3641 passcode 7309196#
Bill, Sky, you're furthest west, you all let us know when you want to meet.
Mark,
['m prepped to come in to the NIC. Do you want to work on the "Where's the Oil?" piece while Sky and
Co. are modifying the model. We'd also be better prepared to pull in CG if we were on site.
Steve
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
703-648- 5792 (fax)

2
001049
-----Mark Miller < Mark.W.Milier@noaa.gov > wrote: ----To: Sky Bristol < sbristol@usgs.gov > I Stephen E Hammond < sehammon@usgs.gov > I Bill Lehr <
Bill.Lehr@noaa.qov >
From: Mark Miller < Mark.W.Milier@noaa.qov >
Date: 07/31/2010 06:11AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Oil budget tool update - coordination
I agree with your take on this. Maybe a quick call with the small group - Steve, you, me and Bill just to
get the "eyes on, everything looks good" take would be good. Unfortunately our work starts when yours
ends.
Mark
Sky Bristol wrote:
Mark,
Looks like my last ended up with the wrong forwarding address. Cheers.
<.{ <tvIVIVIV<.( <"'''''lVtV<.( <

Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
<.< < ",,"'tVlV <.{ < I'JtvtvlV<.( <

Begin forwarded message:
From: Sky Bristol < sbristol@usgs.gov >

Date: July 30, 20109:54:59 PM MDT
To: Stephen E Hammond < sehammon@usgs.gov >
Cc: sean.k.obrien@uscg.mil , biILlehr@noaa.gov , mark.w.miller@noaa.mil ,
comcost.net , antonio.possolo@nist.gov , ''Tim Kern" < kernt@usgs.gov >
Here's the message I just sent with some thoughts on our approach. Depending on what Bill and/or
Antonio think about the approach, we may not need to get everyone together. If you all like the direction,
we can put things together and beta and get a review before going live. In particular, we should make
sure we get some input from CDR O'Brien on any changes to the message the report will be putting out
under the new scenario.
From Marcia McNutt's description of the approach and Mark Sogge's input, I'm pretty sure this is a
relatively simple modification. The current application (attached FYI) sets oilFlowRate as a constant value
for low and high discharge at 35,000 and 60,000 bbl/day, respectively. When we run it from the Web
application, we send it an array of values from the daily variable input:
-----
the day
Oily Water Collected (VOW)
Oil Burned (VBU)
Oil Collected via RITT/TopHat (VDT)
3
001050
-- Dispersants Used, Su rface (VCS)
-- Dispersents Used Subsurface (VeS)
It sounds like what we are doing is changing oilFlowRate from a constant to a variable that will start at
some estimated initial flow rate and then decrease daily by a small fraction (less than 1% from Marcia
McNutt's note). We would place both the high and low starting values and the estimated decrease rate
into the application as global values (editable by administrators) and pass these into the R program as
variables instead of fixed values coded into the program. Unless we think we need to use a"more complex
calculation with statistical variation on the discharge rate decrease, we probably don't need to make any
other major changes in the R program.
We would need some other changes to the executive summary output and barrel graph footnotes to show
the actual daily discharge rate used in the calculation, but as Mark indicated, this does not fundamentally
change the behavior and visual display of the application. It will obviously change the daily figures and
cumulative totals over time.
Am I missing something (espeCially for Bill and Antonio), or is this about right?
=
<.
< </"VIV"",..,,< .( < < <"''''''''IV<.({( <
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usqs.qov
Office: 303-202-4181
<.( <IVIV""""<
<tVNlVtv<.( <
On Jul 30, 2010, at 8:09 PM, Stephen E Hammond wrote:
Colleagues,
We'll-be asked to make some changes to the oil budget tool tomorrow with
product delivery by about 2pm EDT tomorrow.
SkyandTim Kern are prepared to make changes based on requirements
shar:-~d
this evening by USGS Director McNutt. They'll develop a beta version for
review before going live for release of results.
I thinks are going to move quickly. Would it be useful to have a conference
call at some point tomorro!,,# morning to coordinate efforts and information
or review?
Have I overlooked anyone? If SOl please advise.
4
001051
Steve
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handht;Jd
001052
DRAFT 7.31v 3 pm
The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled the best scientific minds in the government and
independent scientific community to produce an estimate of how much oil has been skimmed, burned,
contained, evaporated and dispersed. They developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator to

"Remaining oil is.
either at the
surface as light
sheen or
weathered tar
balis, has been
biodegraded, or
has already come
ashore.
5%
Skimmed
3%
8% .
Figure 1: oii Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oil.
Explanation of Methods- and Assumptions
Flow Rate: The Flow Rate Technical Group:(FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command,
estimates that as of July 15, between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater
HorizonIBP wellhead. 'fh~current }Vnlte,~!~~ilt~s ar~35,()OO to 60,()00 barrels of oil per day. The
oil budget tool calcUlations are', .~n:ufubersi(rangeoI number) the graphic above is based
on the high e~ate of60,000 b~els ~f oil per day.
Direct Measures versus Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
001053
based on previous scientific analyses, best available infonnatjon and a broad range of scientific
expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based on additional infonnation and further
analysis.
Federal Response Efforts.:"'Response efforts to deal with oil have been aggressive. As shown in the pie
chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 32% of the spilled oiL This includes
water column, which caused some of the oil t6 spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the
biodegradation.
Some portion of the dispersed oil remained below the surface~ Previous analyses have shown evidence
of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group
Report 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html).
into the water column or fortifresidues such as<tar balls. The residual is included in the category of
fresh oil and weathered .oil.to proyideJhe most accurate number.
Remainil:zg.: After accounting fOJ; ~ecovery operations, chemi~al and natural dispersion and evaporation,
occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the oiL Bacteria that break
quicldy. . ...-
Conclusion:. In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed roughly
001054
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon QulfIncident.Budget Tool Report from July 28, 2010, contains
001055

Authors

Credits
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan. Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) - Technical advisors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Da1ing~ SINTEF
001056
Justin KEmney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Jennifer Austin
Re:. Sort of Final from Miller - Oil Budget Doc
I actually raised that issue (the biodegradation segment) with the tool team. They have not
responded but if they say they can then I will pass on our recommendation. They are
definitely more under the gun than we are so I don't want to contribute to more stress.
Mark
> Great, I don't think it will take much to update our document. I'll
> have a look now at what you sent me this morning in terms of edits to
> the text and contributors list. 50 we're ready to just plug in the
> new numbers.
>
> Will the new budget read out have a high and low flow estimate, or at
> they zeroing in on one number? Without making any changes to their
> outputs, or names, it would be nice if they could at least add an
> asterisk or explanatory phrase on their cylindrical image on the light
> blue partto describe, *'Evaporation and Biodegradation' here is the
> sum of naturally dispersed, chemically dispersed and evaporated or
> dissolved from chart above. If that's not possible, .that's ok, and
> we'll keep our explanatory note, but that's not so much a design
> change as written description of what their colors mean, so maybe
> they'd be willing without the full consult.
.
> Either way, I'll be standing by for numbers.
>
Jen,
This has the updated Expert list with the exception that it includes
Al Venosa from EPA and we expect to hear from him whether his
management will permit him to be included.
The numbers will change when the FRTG finalizes their numbers and
then the Oil Budget is updated. This is expected mid afternoon.
will call you when it looks like the dust has settled and the
numbers are final.
Mark
>
001057
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Saturday, July 31, 2010 9:26 AM
Jennifer Austin
Sort of Final from Miller - Oil Budget Doc
Oil Budget description 7.31 v 2 Miller.docx
Jen J
This has the updated Expert list with the exception that it includes Al Venosa from EPA and
we expect to hear from him whether his management will permit him to be included.
The numbers will change when the FRTG finalizes their numbers and then the Oil Budget is
updated. This is expected mid afternoon.
I
will call you when it looks like the dust has settled and the numbers are final.
Mark
001058
Justin Kenney
Jennifer Austin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jennifer~
.
..
Toss my edited copy (titled Oil Budget description 7.31 v 1 am). I will send you an updated
one when I have the final "experts list".
Mark
Mark Miller wrote:
> Jennifer~
>
> I think any edits to the website other than the changes to the flow
> rates that are coming out won't be possible. USGS rightly believes
> that they would need to pull in a broader group of the design team
> (which means field and NIC USCG staff) to discuss. I don't think that
> could be done in the tie frame we have.
>
> I have attached the more detailed markup we received from the 001
> contingent at the NIC (BOEM~ USGS~ and 001). Most of their comments
> are style and I think that many of their other comments we address
> in one form or another. Consistency with the tool Report is in several.
>
> The other copy is a critical one. Bill Lehr needed to update his list
> of experts because some of them although provided the opportunity to
> comment chose not to. Those names need to be removed from the list of
> contributors. I also made a change to the brief statement that
> precedes the list.
>
> I am sure I will have more for you later when I am fully awake.
>
.> Mark
>
any chance we can work out some of the naming and grouping
and get some of our edit suggestions in? I'm
available all day tomorrow~ for whatever you need.
Hi~
discrepancies~
Jen
Jennifer
Austin~
NOAA
Communications~
2023029047
----- Original Message ----From: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>

To: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; Margaret.Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; William Conner <William.Connen@noaa.gov>;
Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>
Sent: Fri Jul 30 23:ee:02 2010
3
001059
>:>
Mark
001060
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments~
Mark Miller [Matk.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

Saturday. July 31. 2010 6:22 AM
Jennifer Austin
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 7 seh-b.doc; Oil Bl:ldget description 7.31 v 1 am.docx
Jennifer,
I think any edits to the website other than the changes to the flow rates that are coming out
won't be possible. USGS rightly believes that they would need to pull in a broader group of
the design team (which means field and NIC USCG staff) to discuss. I don't think that could
be done in the tie frame we have.
I have attached the more detailed markup we received from the 001 contingent at the NIC
(BOEM~ USGS, and 001). Most of their comments are style
and I think that many of their other
comments we address in one form or another. Consistency with the tool Report is in several.
The other copy is a critical one. Bill Lehr needed to update his list of experts because some
of them although provided the opportunity to comment chose not to. Those names need to be
removed from the list of contributors. I also made a change to the brief statement that
precedes the list.
am sure I will have more for you later when I am fully awake.
Mark
> Hi, any chance we can work out some of the naming and grouping discrepancies, and get some
of our edit suggestions in? I'm available all day tomorrow, for whatever you need.
>
> Jen
>
> To: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring
> <Margaret.Spring@noaa.go.v>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>;
> Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>
> Sent: Fri Jul 30 23:00:02 2010
>
> numbers for the pie chart tomorrow afternoon.
>
> Mark
>
001061
..
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Friday, July 30, 2010 11:00 PM
Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen
[Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update coordination1
Fw_ Oil budget tool update - coordination. em I (1.85 KB)
So it looks.like we should have a new Oil Budget tool report and numbers for the pie chart
tomorrow afternoon:
Mark
001062
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark Miller [Mark.W.MiUer@noaa.gov]

Friday, July 30. 2010 5:26 AM
Jennifer Austin
Very Small Change
Jennifer,
It was a real pleasure working with you yesterday. You get stuff done and I appreciate that.
There was one small edit (one of the percentages in the text) that
Mark
think we should make.
001063
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jane Lubchenco
'jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'
Oil Budget description 729 v 7.doc
The version that Jennifer just sent (Oil Budget description 7 29 v 7.doc) should have your comments
Mark
Jane Lubchenco
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans ~nd Atmosphere
(202) 482-3436

Cc: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
<Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>; 'william.conner@noaa.gov' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'
<Scott.5mul1en@noaa.gov>i 'Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; 'David. Ken nedy@noaa.gov
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>i 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>i 'Sgilson@doc.gov' <Sgilson@doc.gov>
sent: Thu Jul 29 19:53:07 2010
Margaret,
We have asked for and received comments/response
from
.
"
"
(representing the calculation team) .

Mark
8
001064
Margaret Spring wrote: .
PIs co"nfirm to me which authors have signed" off so I can report
----- Original Message ----From: Jennifer Austin
To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.Qov>
Cc: Mark. W. Miller <r.'1ark. ~\1. Miller@noaa;gov>; William Conner <Wj lliarn. Conner@noaa.gov>;
Scott Smullen <Scott. Smullen@noaa.9Yv>; Dave West-erholm <Dave. r'iesterhclm@noaa.c.o",,:>; David
Kennedy <David.Kennedv@noaa.gov>; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.aov>;
Margaret Spring <Ma:rs..?..E.et. Spring(~noa::.. gov>; Gilson, Shannon <SGilsor:@doc..:2.2v>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,
reconciled the edits. Thi~ should be final from a NOAA perspective.
the document.
de"scriptions of the people involved is fine. Please" plug the numbers
clearance.
Jane
*Cc:* Jepnifer Austin; WillIam Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
*Subject:* Re: budget "tool calculator explanation, latest
Dr. Lubchenco,
aneCSill Lehr.
9
001065
As for "author" credit Jennifer and I are ,:working on the final list
Mark
what is in the pie chart. Because this is an inter~gency document, I've
thanks
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.oov]
Cc: Margaret Spring; ,Jane .lubchenco@noaa.qov <mail to: Jane .lubchenco@noaa.oov>

Hi,

Let us know immediately if you
h~ve
10
comments.
001066
For USGS
IASGl, Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NIST -
.~tonio
Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty
that
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
<htto: I /v./WvL facebook. corn/noaa. lubchenco>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
11
~w~w~w~~~~~~~~~~~~~=
001067
,
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark Miller [Mark..W.Miller@noaa.gov]

,.,
Jane Lubchenco
'jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'
Re: budget tool calcolator explanatron, latest
Oil Budget description 729 v 7.doc
The version that Jennifer just sent (Oil Budget description 7 29 v 7.doc) should have your comments
Mark
Who is making the changes [ requested (plugging in #s) to the document?
Jane Lubchenco
Administfator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Jane. Lu bChenco@noaa.gov
(202) 482-3436

CC: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
<Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>; 'william.conner@noaa.goY' <William.Conner@noaa.gov>: 'Scott.5mullen@noaa.qov'
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; 'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.goY'
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>: 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; 'Sgilson@doc.gov' <Sgilson@doc.goY>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:53:07 2010
Margaret,
I woul4like to send to NIC and OR&R operations people when the WH clearance begins.
.Mark
12
001068
Margaret Spring wrote: .
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark.W.Miller
Kennedy
Gilson, Shannon
Margaret Spring
Sent: Thu Jul 29
Hi All,
additional line
subsurface oil that Steve suggested adding
which will serve as
A.
the document.
clearance.
Jane
*From: * Mark. W.Miller [mailto:Mark. 1-v.Hiller@noaa.gov]
*Cc:*Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
David Kennedy; HO Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
*Subj ect>: *> Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Dr. LUbchenco,
and B.il! Lehr.
13
001069
I forwarded Steve's comments to Jennifer moments ago.
outstan9in~.
As for "author" credit Jennifer and I are, working on the final list
Mark
with that statement, we can simply remove it.
names of the individuals_involved plus reviewers, as per the FRTG doc.
thanks
Kennedy; . HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.qov <mailto:Jane.lubchenco@noaa.qov>
Please use this version dated ,7.29.

The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers'from July. 26
The latest of htese reports wo~ld 'be

14
001070
For USGS
should probably include Dr. McNutt{ Mark Sogge, Steve
Ha~~ond
(NIC
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.1ubchenco
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
www.facebook.com!noaa.lubchenco
15
001071
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.goll]

Margaret Spring
'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov'; 'william.conner@noaa.gov';
'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'; 'Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov';
'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'; Sgilson@doc.gov
Margaret,

I would like to send to NIe and OR&R operations people when the WH clearance begins.
Mark
To: Jane Lubchenco <.Jane. Lubchenco@noaa. gOY>
Cc: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.t"{.r.1iller@noaa.gov>i William Conner <vii;Lliam.Conner@noaa.gov>;
Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerho 1 m@noaa.gov>; David
Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>i _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>i
Margaret Spring <Margaret.Sprinq@noaa.gov>; Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.qov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,
which will Serve as Appendix A.

16
001072
the document ..
des
of the people involved is fine. Please plug the numbers
that are in the pie chart.into the text and finalize it and send it to
clearance.
I greatly appreciate everyone
workin~
so
ckly on this.
Jane
"'From: * Mark.W.Miller [mailto:[vjark.i:J.Jl:liller@noaa.gov]
"'Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:08 PM
"'Cc:* Jennifer Austin; William Conner: Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm:
David Kennedy: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the latest version that includes comments from you, me, -Marcia
and Bill Lehr.
From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark 80gge still
Mark
thanks
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jenniier.Austin@noaa.crov]
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholmi David
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov <mailto:Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>
17
001073
S~rry!
~ttached
the wrong document.

Hi,

For USGS
Jennifer Austin
18
001074
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
<http:lh.. 'tJw.fac:ebo(:k.com/noaa.lubchenco>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
19
l,'MV"
______
.~~~~~'c~~~~~~~
__ .
~ c~_~_~~~~~~.
001075
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Margaret Spring
'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'; 'william.conner@noaa.gov';
'ScottSmullen@noaa.gov'; 'Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov';
'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'; 'Sgilson@doc.gov'
Margaret,
Mark
----- Original Message ----From: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer . .1':.ustin@noa.::;.go'1>
Cc: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>i William Conner <',.rilliam.Ccnne:::-@r:oaa.gov>;
Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>i Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>i David
Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; _HQ DeepWater Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.qov>;
Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.qov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All;
Attached is the latest version. Those"who saw it earlier should note an
Mark will inform others at the NrC.
20
001076
Thanks, Mark. It/s great that all of the authors are comfortable with
the document.
I've corrected a couple of ty~os. This looks good to me and the
everyone copied here. Margaret.will start it through interagency
clearance.
Jane
* From: * Mark. W. Miller [mail to: !"la rk. iIi. t-1ill.er@noaa . crov]
Dr. Lubchenco,
and Bill Lehr.
Mark
We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don '.t have the full list
thanks
-----Original Message----FrQm: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
Kennedy; HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.qov <fuailto:Jane.lubchenco@noaa.qov>
21
001077

Hi,
Attached is the
updatedoi~budget
calculator two-pager, incorporating
edits' from this morning.
The
daily oil budget report,
The latest of htese r.epo:r:ts would be
For USGS
who USGS thinks should be identified for this doeu.ment. A short list
Jennifer Austin
22
001078
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell) www.
--~~~~~~~~~~~;~.=:~~.:~~~.
<htto: I
!WWvL
facebook. com/noaa.lubchenco>
Jennifer Austi:1
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
wWN.facebooK.com!noaa.lubchenco
23
001079
J'ustin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Margaret Spring
'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'; 'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov';
'dwh .staff@noaa.gov'; 'Sgilson@doc.gov'
Margaret,
I would like to send to NIe and OR&R operations people when the WH clearance begins.
Mark
Cc: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.1J.l'1iller@noaa.gov>i William Conner <~hlliam.Conner@noaa.gov>i
Scott Smullen <Scott.Srnullen@noaa.gov>i Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>i David
Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>i _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <cwh.staff@noaa.qov>i
Margaret Spring <Margaret.Sprinq@noaa.gov>i Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.qov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
.
Hi All,
24
001080
the document.
clearance.
Jane
*Frorn:* Mark.W.Miller
*Sent:* Thursday, July
*Cc:* Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholrn;
~avid Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff: Margaret Spring
Dr. Lubchenco,
and Bi 11 Lehr.
Mark
I've made corrections- to the summary paragraph so that the' fractions mirror
what is in the pie chart. Because .this is an interagency document, I've
modified one of the NOAA references toward,the end. If authors are not in
thanks
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov <mailto:Jane.lubchenco@noaa.qov>
25
001081

Hi,
Attached is
the~pdated
oil budget calculator two-pager, incorporating
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from
The latest of htese
26
would be
For USGS
created the upper and lower confidence bounds) .
Jennifer Austin
26
001082
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
<http://'tJ'r.rw . facebook. com/noaa .lubchencc->
Jennifer Austin

202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
27
;'oJ\4W.
fac''book.
corn{no~_~;b,..,=,bchenco
001083
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Margaret Spring
'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'; 'Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'David. Kennedy@noaa.gov';
'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'; 'Sgilson@doc.gov'
Be: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Margaret,
Mark
Cc: Mark. W. Miller <1':IarK. ~1. Miller@noaa. QOV> i William Conner <~Jilliarn. Conner@noaa. gov> i
Scott Smullen <Scott. Srnullen@noaa. gOV>i Dave Westerholm <Dave. tvesterholrn@noaa.gov>; David
Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>i _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>i
M~rgaret Spring <Margaret.Sprinq@noaa.gov>i Gilson, Shannon <SGilSon@doc.aov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,
28
001084
the document.
that are in the pie chart into the text and finalize it and send it to .
clearance.
Jane
*From:* Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.qov]
David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margar~t Spring
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here isthe latest version that includes comments from you, me, Marcia
and Bill Lehr.
description of the process used to do the calculatipns"? Bill Lehr has
Mark
..

yet. This is urgent ..
thanks
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov <mailto:Jane.lubchenco@noaa.qov>
29
001085

Hi,
Attached is the updated oil budget caLculator two-pager, incorporating

For USGS
Jennifer Austin
30
001086
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
<http://wvvw.fa:::ebo(.k.com/:r:oaa .1 ubchenc(.'>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
W'' ' 'l. acebook. com/noa.a. 1 ubchenco
31
;<]'.'114.
facebook. com/noaa .lubchenco
001087
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jennifer Austin
Steve Murawski
Re: Oil Budget, Steve Murawski revisions
Oil Budget description 729 v 6 SM_MM.doc
Looks good. I saved a new copy. Is there more that is going into the submerged oil paragraph?
> Hi Mark~ attached are reV1Sl0ns from Steve Murawski~ wanted to make
> sure these are ok with you J or whoever else you would need to run them
> by.
>
> Change name "naturally dispersed" to "physically dispersed" (nothing
> "natural" about oil spewing out of a pipe)
>
> and added some more specific mentions of subsurface oil.
>
>
> track changes attached.
>
>
32
001088
DRAFT 7.30v2
moving and degradi!lg.

"Remaining oil i;
eitrn:r at the surface
a~ light sheen or
weathered :arb"lls,
ha~been
biodegraded. or has
already com
ashore.
' - -_ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~_~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ M
as of July IS, between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonlBP
wellhead.
It is estimated that 25 percent of the. oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column.
The volatile components of oil evapqrate, while the components that are not volatile dissolve into the
001089
Sixteen percent of the oil dispersed naturally into the water column, and 8 percent of the oil was
dispersed by the appl ication of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and
4300 feet. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report I and 2,
Naturally occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the oil. Bacteria
that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in
surface as"light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has biodegraded or already come ashore.
Note 00 degree of confidence in calculations: The Oil Budget calculations are based on direct
001090
Attachments
0[35,000 barrels/day.
.~
<0.,'
001091
Deepwater HorizonIBP Oil Budget Calculator:

Authors

~H-Slephen Hammond, USGS, 001
Credits
Jeff Allen (USGS) -Interface designer
.
The following experts were consulted on the oil budget calculations, j'll'Oyised contributed field data,
suggested formulas, analysis methods, atl4ior reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The terun
continues to Tefl ne the anah.'si5 and this document will be updated as apmopriatt'.
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv Fingas, Env_ Canada(ret)
Ali KheIifa, Env_ Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
De-AEl UsheF, 18GO
PeteF G8I'fagheF, 8P
------_.._-,......
l Formatted: Not Strikethroug:::;.;h_ _
001092
.,._--_._--------_._--_..
Michel BoufadeL Temple Univ.
_--_ .
i Formatted: Not Strikethrough

..
..
~---.-------,~-,~ --~-.~-
,.,,,,-,,-,.~,,,,-
001093
DRAFT 7.30v2
the oil went .. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much oil was released and how this oil is

"'Remaining oil is

as light sheen or

has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
I'----_._--_._--- _---_.
.....
,-~,-~-~-----.--,---.---~-,-,.-......--~-- . - - j
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRIG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
wellhe.ad.
. ....
significant portiOB of the spilled oil. Sixteen percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead
001094
enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is more analysis to be dene to
surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has biodegraded or already come ashore.
the oiL Around a quarter of the total naturally evaporated and less than one quarter dispersed into Gulf
for as long as necessary and continue subsurface sampJing to monitor the concentration and distribution
of oil there. NOAA responders are working With the Unified' Command to develop monitoring strategies
measurements where possible and the best available scientific estimates where me.asurements were not.
001095
Attachments
001096

Authors

Steven Stephen Hammond, USGS, DOl
Credits
T~e
following scientists were involved in developing the Oil Budget Calculator tool:
LCDR Lance Lindgren and CDR Peter Hoffinan (USCG) - Application requirements
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (USGS) -'- Project vision and management
The following experts were consulted on the oil budget calculations, provided field data, suggested
formulas, analysis methods, and/or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator.
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Ali Khelifa; EftTI. CaBatia
Pat Lambert; Ewl. Caaada
Pet" DaliBg, SINTEF
Davia UsBe!', ISCQ
Peter Cmaghef, BP
Michel Bematle1, Temple Umv.
001097

The National Incident Command (NIC) has assembled the best scientific minds in the government and
independent scientific community to produce an estimate ofjust how much oil has been skimmed,
burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed,'They have developed a tool, called the Oil Budget
Calculator to determine where the oil has gone, The numbers are based on best estimates of how much
oil was released and how this oil is moving and degrading,
,
"'----'~'--.-'--.-'----.------~-.------.--.~-.--.-"

Based on 60,000 barrels/day flOW rate
~Remaintng
oil is
either at the $u:nacQ
a$ljght ~hE'en or
weathered tar b~!",.
h.ls~n
biodegraded, or ha~
already come
3~hore.
- !
Figure :1: Oil Budget Calculator= Showswhlithas happene,ftothe oi1:
as of July 15. b~tween 3-5 1l1illioll b~elsofoil hadbe:llr~leasedfromthe Deep~r liorizoniBP
wellhead. :Fb uITeutl1o\\",mte ....'
, , ~ ~oohtt~6t):' .' ';Ismf~)il ~1(ttv.The ';hic abOve
F
isbasl."d;rirrthC ,. ih:csi.jmrif()f6(),()()();~c
As shown in the pie chart (Figure 1), ~5i'ie.rc:n>ollSciefforts have been Successful in recovering a
significant portion of the spilled oiL The total oil manaeed bv response operations is 32% of the tt)tal
oil. This includ..."S JI) pC!l'EeAt (lfthe oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe
insertion tube and ~J00 Hat systems (16%). III addition, burning (5%'Hl:Hd, skimming; ~eRS;
OE'lleetea l!:f'PfOlHIl'Ul:tely .lJ~ PCl'scNt afthe {>II and chcmicallv dispersed (8%).
Like sugar, oil has the abilitv to dissolve in water. It is estimated that 25 percent of the oil volume
quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The volatile components of oil evaporate, while
the components that are not volatile dissolve into the water column or form residues such as tar balls.
(C;mment [SEH1]: Readers tend-;.,~.~;;;;---,

. i ~ ftonl1hclOp. Pic chart needs to follow
: !mOl' ..isavezsi:.1n tIt= pi"""" !m desl:ribcs
i.......
~OD &dissolwon, then physical

i4i..-ant 'I'M ehan shows dispetSaIU operations
i_~Consider changing the ehan to

) matchthetcxtorrevisethe1l:xt. Irccommendtbe
; former.
iRec:;~.1llaI
you add 'wbisker.;' to the chart to

!delineate. betwt:tn the operations and the adjacent
~~ICGoflhepie.
...
! CoIMIent (SEH2]: DOl SIrOngly recommends
.1
i :-rwOll~the upper..nd lower bounds of the flow

i l'aIIUMge to more accu13IeIy reflect the 1<We1 of
I co.wdence iii the estimates. Please intludc this

! sentence cilber hen: or elsewbere in tbe documcnl.
j COmment [SEH3]: !he pie ehan cannot iUUSInIIC
r.zl~:ta.oIl_"""".c~-e;!:'J)ir.'1:1:.
i ~"'"
Needto~_jfyouwant to .
.: convey how ~ the response has been.
! I'erbaps: EAbtuto recover oil have been aasmssive. i

~ The Pie chart in (Figun: I) ilIUSln11eS the success
i docIImented in recoverilIg a sisnific:ant pollion of the
Lspilled oil.
'
Comment [SEH4]: Text needs to read consistent

will! the figure.
! COmment [SEH5]: Math error. Check the

l numbers.
001098
Th~ residual is induded In ~lC total ofremuining oiL The evaporation rate estimate is based on
scientific researcfi and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident. fie
EH41~AtDiner<!1JJ; evaporation ral-e-isr:mC...ill:S: used for fresh oil and weathered oil to provide the most
accurate humber.
.J.4.Based on estimat,,-;>..J(l_percent of the oil has dispersed physically into the water column, and 8
percent of the oil was dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants,
Physical dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the
water column, which caused some e+-+t1)i1 to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the
diameter of a human hair).
Some portion of the dispersed oil #!:at-is in droplets smaller than 100 microns remained below the
surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence ofa diffuse cloud of dispersed oil between 3300 and
4300 feet, (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2,
http://eoowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html).
We know that naturally occurriligbacterm. have. consum.~cland ~iodegradt:,da signifit:ant amoul1tofthe
oil.jBacterla.thatbreak down the dispcz$ed and w~thered$~ oil arenatIJrally abundant in the Gulf
ofMcxico in iarge pan becausc ofthewarmwat.ertllC1'e,tllefa~~ nutrlent.andoxygenlevels;:.and
the fatthaf.9~lcnte1'!rtbc Gulf ofMexicothr:PughnaturalseepsreguJatly; While there is more analysis
. : COmment [SEH6]: Who is 'We' and 'How do

: we know?' Use third person.
1Perhaps: Based on pl1wious analysis (7) it is known
;
,
: mal...
;
"'=r--="",'1
,CoIrIment.[SEH7]: This may be a fac' but it is
i nouasyto connect Ihis 10 how we imowthe
ibacteria! have. done; their work. Need to connect the
!dots~.
After ac.counting for operationg', phvsical dispersion .and evaporation, an .estimated g+.~rcent oflM
dill'emams, This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraded,
or has already come ashore on beaches.
..
..
In summary, burning, skimming. chemical dispersion and direct recovery from the wellhead have
removed roughly one-thjrd~ of the oil. Around a quarter of the total has been naturally
evaporated and 16% has been ph":;:icallvjt;,;{ iers tl=!aJ:! lillie ljtiarter dispersed into Gulf waters. The
remaining amount, just over one quarter is on the sUrface, in tar balls, on the shore, already removed
from the shore or has been biodegraded.
of oil there. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Commandlo develop monitoring strategies
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the SP wellhead, federal
impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, arid natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and
continued monitoring and research oVer man. brc<!ding seasons of the species affected.
Nete 98 degree 9f eSBfideBee iB eftJeul&liieftsDirect measures versus best estimates: The Oil Budget
calculations are based on direct measurements where possible and the best available scientific estimates
where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured
:
~-""'-::-='=>\..,
! (iomment.[SEH8]: FimmeJ\uon of 'light crude' ;
. rddel~ thl$(or this product unless. you introduce
,~~,~~':".-.~,~,.,~~~~~=",.""""",,,,<
1 Cc:Immett [SEH9): Again differs from

: d~m the tisurc.
tC;';~~;Y;~=;i;';;;;=;i~'if"
voIutn<oreleaseci
' .. i[ ..... biOw.lhewtal
-.
_w __....
.QommentlsetU ]: Asain,need consistcncy
'._":~
.:.\Wb thepluhan.
'
...i
001099
directly and reported in daily operational reports; The -rest of the numbers were based on previous
scientific analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers
will continue to be refined based on additional information and further analysis.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July 28,2010, contains
001100

- - Where did the" go?-'
.
oil
Authors

Marcia McNutt. USGS, DOl
~1.<i!""el:l-l(;p.heILHammond, USGS, DOl
Credits
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Antonio Possalo, NIST

AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, SP
..
001101
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Stephen E Hammond [sehammon@usgs.gov1

Friday, July 30,201010:13 PM
Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov
Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination
Wrong e-mail address again

Sorry Mark.
Original Message
From: Stephen E Hammond
Sent: e7/3e/2ele le:e9 PM EDT
To: sean.k.obrien@uscg.mi1; Sky Bristol; bi11.1ehr@noaa.gov; mark.w.mil1er@noaa.mil;
@comcost.net; antonio.possolQ@nist.gov; Tim Kern
Cc: Stephen Hammond
Subject: Oil budget tool update - coordination Colleagues~
We'll be asked to make some changes to the oil budget tool tomorrow with product delivery by
about 2pm EDT tomorrow.
Sky and Tim Kern are prepared to make changes based on requirements shared this evening by
USGS Director McNutt. They'll develop a beta version for review before going live for
release of results.
I thinks are going to move quickly. Would it be useful to have a conference call at some
point tomorrow morning to coordinate efforts and information or review?
Have I overlooked anyone? If'sO., please advise.
Steve
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless .Handheld
001102


"'Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
weathered tar bails,
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), as~embled by the National Iilcident Command, estimates that
wellhead.
significant .portion of the spilled oil. ,16 percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead by the
riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systems. In addition, burning and skimming operations collected
approximately ~H percent of the oil.
It is estimated that 25 percent (}fth~ oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column.
001103
16 percent of the oil has dispersed physically into the water column, and 8 percent of the oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants. Physical dispersion occurs
surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of a diffuse cloud of dispersed'oil between 3300 and
oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil, are naturally abundant in the Gulf
'
surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore on
beaches.
In sununary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly one
quarter of the oil. Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and just less than one
quarter dispersed into Gulf Waters. The remaining amount, just over one quarter is on the surface, in tar
balls, on the shore, already removed from the shore or has been biodegraded.
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oil. It willJssue daily surface oil trajectories
-
possible. The numbers for dir~ct recovery and b~ were m~ured directly aI.1d'teported in daily
operational reports. The rest bf the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available
Attachments
001104
collaboration with US" Coast Guard~ "NOAA, and NIST.
001105

. Authors

Steven Hammond, USGS, DOl
Credits
David Mack (USGS) -.Lead application developer
The Following Scientists Greated and reviewed the calculation methods used in the oil budget calculator:
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehro' NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Iitdependent Scientists
Al Allan, SpilTec
James Payne, Payne Env~
Ed Overton, LSU
Jwin Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
001106
DRAFT 7.29
The National Incident Command has assembled the best scientific minds in the govemment and
. oil was released and how this oil is moving and degrading.
Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget'

Based on 60~OOO barrels/day flow rate
"Remaining oil is
either at the :>urface
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
wellhead.
As shown in the pie chart (Figure 1); aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
significant portion of the spilled oiL 16 percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead by the
riser pipe insertion tube and top ha~: systems. In addition, burning and skimming operations collected
approximately 11 percent the oil. '
of
water column or fomi residues such as 'taT 'balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific
001107
We know that naturally occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount ofth.e
of Mexico in large part because of the wann water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly one
quarter of the oiL Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and just less than one
quarter dispersed into Gulf waters. The remaining amount, just over one quarter is on the surface, in tar
for as lopg as necessary and continue subsurface sampling to monitor the concentration and distribution
for tar balls and near shore submerg~d oil.
Note on degree o( confi~ence in calculations: The Oil Budget calculations are based on direct
possible. The numbers for direct recovery and burns were ,measJ.lI'ed directly and reported 'in daily ..
operational reports. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analySes; best available ::.
infonnatiop. and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based ..
on additional inforn.lation and further analysis.
..
001108
"
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf InCident Budget Tool Report from July 28, 2010, contains
Appendix B: AckIrowledgements
~.
001109

.
Authors
Jane Lubchenco, NOAA., DOC

William Conner, NOAA., DOC
Credits
Bill Lehr (NOAA.) - Lead mass balance and oil budget scientist
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA.
Robert Jones, NOAA.
Albert Venosa, EPA
Ron Goodman, U.ofCalgary
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
001110
DRAFT 7.29
The National Incident Command has.assembled the best scientific minds in the government and

"Remail1ing oil is
either at the .surfa(;e
as light shlren or
weathered tar bans,
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
wellhead.
.As shown in the -pie chart (Figure' 1),' aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
significant portion of the spilled oil. 16 percent of the oil waS captured directly from the wellhead by the
approximately 11 percent of the oil.
' '.'.
the
It is estimated that 25 percent of

oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column.
water column or fonn residues such as tar b~l~; The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific
001111
caused some ofit t6 spray offfnsmall'droplet-s (less than lOG micr0ns- the diameter of a human hair).
the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natUral seeps regularly. While there is more analysis
to be done to quantify the exact rat~ of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the light
beaches.
Note.on degree of confidence in calculations: The Oil Budget calculations are based on direct
measurement~where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurementS'werenot '.:
possible,' The numbers for direct' recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily
information and a broad range of scientific expertise, These numbers will continue to be refined based .
001112
Attachments
001113
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil,Budget Calculator:

Authors
Credits
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) -Technical advisors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
001114
DRAFT 7.29
burned, contained, evaporated and dispersed. They have developed a tool, calJed the Oil Budget

"Remainin! oil is
either <It the surface
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already corne ashore
on beaches.
Figure 1: OiIBudget Calcu)Stor- Shows what
has happened to tile oii.
The Flow Rate Technical9roup (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July 15 betWeen3~?~!llt()h'ban;e1S of oil had been rel~ed from the. Deepwater HorizonIBP
wellhead. (twitlm,8nnt,bn~.newFR:tQ\tl()W:\i'atc:A~Qt8J,\~~~ll adjust.this:andthei~es;in
iheod~bi.i4gei.)
As shown in the pie chart (Figure I), aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
collected just over %$ percent of the oil.
001115
It is estimated that %% percent of the oil YQlumS'-.quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column.
The volatile components of oil evaporate, while the components that are not volatile dissol ve into the
%% percent of the oil has dispersed phvsica II \' into the water column, and %% percent of the oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly S<tOOObarrels of chemical dispersants. Phvsiq[ dispersion occurs
as a result of the oil corning out of the broken riser pipe at high speed into the water column; which
Smne portiol1 of the dispers~d oil that is in droplet, smaller than 100 microns remained below the
surface. ~Sample unalvsis have shO\vn evidence ora diffuse doud of dispcrs.:d oil at eeafhs
efuetween 3.~OO and 4300 tt. (cite: JAG! and 2 l. Further unalvsis ???
After accoWlting for operations, dispersion and evaporation, %% percent remains. This oil is either at
the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls., has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore on
beaches.
oil. Around a ,quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another'quarter dispersed into Gulf
waters. The remaining arnoWlt, rolighlyJl4 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
NOAA continues to track the movement oftheoremaining oil!-~.!.twill issue daily surface oil
trajectories for as long as necessary and continue subsurface sampling to monitor the concl!ntl"cltion 'and
distribution of oil there. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command to develop
scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully Wlderstanding the
impacts of this splIi on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from JUly 2~', 2010 for
detailed explanation of.calculation methods. The tool was cre,ated by the US Geological Survey in
collaboration with US Coast Guard. NOAA, and NIST.
001116
measurements where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were Bot
Science ~e.!lm:
Marcia McNutt
MarkSogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
TimKem
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv Fingas, Env Canada(ret) .
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
001117
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jennifer Austin
Steve Murawski
Re: Oil Budget, Steve Murawski revisions
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 6 SM_MM.doc
Looks good. I saved a new copy. Is there more that is going into the submerged oil paragraph?
> Hi Mark, attached are reV1S1ons from Steve Murawski, wanted to make
> sure these are ok with you, or whoever else you would need to run them
> by.
>
> Change name "naturally dispersed" to "physically dispersed" (nothing
> "natural" about oil spewing out of a pipe)
>
> and added some more specific mentions of subsurface oil.
>
>
> track changes attached.
>
>
001118
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Jennifer Austin
Re: [Fwd: Re: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments on the draft]
Thanks Jennifer.
> I' m on the phone with Murawski
> is still subsurface.
now~
he wants to add a .line about what
>
Last reviewer just checked in. No more edits.
Mark
-------- Original Message ------- Subject:

Re: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer
comments on the draft
Date:
Thu~ 29 Jul 2818 17-:81:46 -8488
From:
Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
To:
Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>
CC:
References:
.
<OFE7BBE4E1.316BDCD1-0N8525776F.887288A5-8525776F.887288A9@LocalDomai
n>
<OF469F484F.6C84F698-0N8625776F.8872C8AC-8625776F.8872D281@LocalDomai
n>
Thank you sir.
Stephen E. Hammond
Chief Emergency Operations Office~
Reston, VA
783-648-5833 (w)
783-648- 5792 (fax)
-----Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI wrote: ----
To: Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI@USGS

From: Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI
Date: 87/29/2818 84:54PM
Subject: Re: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments
on the draft
I thought that you and Marcia covered it well.
responded to that affect. Sorry!
2
I should have
001119
Mark
Mark Sogge
Deputy Chair, NICFlow Rate Technical Group
Chief of Staff, USGS Western Region
2255 Gemini Drive, Flagstaff~ AZ 86991
Cell: 928-686-1286; FAX: 928-556-7266
mark sogge@usgs.gov
- .
Stephen E Hammond---87/29/2818 83:45:15 PM---Stephen E. Hammond

From:
Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI
To:
Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI@USGS
Date:
87/29/2918 83:45 PM
Subject:
NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments on the

draft
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Stephen E. Hammond
National Geospatial P.rogram.
Reston, VA
783-648-5833' (w)
7e3-648- 5792 (fax)
001120
001121
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Jennifer Austin
Re: [Fwd: Re: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments on the draft]
Thanks Jennifer.
> I'm on the phone with Murawski now} he wants to add a line about what
> is still subsurface.
>

Mark
-------- Original Message ------- Subject:

Re: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer
comments on the draft
Date:
Thu, 2~ Jul 2010 17:01:46 -0400
From:
To:
Mark K Sogge <mark_sogge@usgs.gov>
CC:
References:
<OFE7BBE4El.316BDCD1-ON8525776F.007200A5-8525776F.007200A9@LocalDomai
n>
<OF469F484F.6C04F698-0N8625776F.0072C0AC-8625776F.0072D281@LocalDomai
n>
Thank you sir.
Stephen E. Hammond
Nat~onal Geospatial Program
Reston J VA
703-648-5033 (w)
(c)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
-----Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI wrote:
To: Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI@USGS
Date: 07/29/2010 04:54PM

Subject: Re: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments
on the draft
I thought that you and Marcia covered it well.
responded to that affect. Sorry!
4
I should have
001122
Mark
Mark Sogge
Deputy Chair, NIC Flow Rate Technical Group
Chief of Staff~ USGS Western Region
2255 Gemini Drive) Flagstaff, AZ 86091
Cell: 928-696-1286; FAX: 928-556-7266
mark sogge@usgs.gov
Stephen E Hammond---97/29/2919 93:45:15 PM---Stephen E. Hammond
From:
To:
Date:_
97/29/2010 03:45 PM
Subject:
NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments on the

draft
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. Hammond
Chief Emergency Operations Office)
Reston) VA
793-648-5933 (w)
(c)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
>
001123
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.govl

Thursday, July 29, 20105:53 AM
Jane Lubchenco
Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; Irobinson@noaa.gov; Dave
Westerholm; Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy; Amrit Mehra; dwh.staff@noaa.gov
Re: pie chart
Dr. Lubchenco,
For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see who USGS thinks should be
identified for this document: A short list should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond
bounds)
Mark
Team Member
affiliation
Ron Goodman
U. of Calgary
Al Allan
SpilTec
James Payne
Payne Env.
Tom Coolbaugh
Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton
LSU
Juan Lasheras
UCSD
Albert Venosa
EPA
Merv Fingas
Env Canada(ret)
Ali Khelifa
Env. Canada
Robert Jones
NOAA
Pat Lambert
Env. Canada
Per Daling
SINTEF
David Usher
ISCO
Peter Carragher
BP
Michel Boufadel
Temple U.
6
;1
001124
Jane Lubciierico wrote:
An-please run it by the relevant. folks in our science
box.
to -have this ready to announce Saturday, but it is fine to have the document go through
Friday.
Many thanks,
Jane
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.g~]
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Ma~k W Miller; William Conner: Scott Smullen: David Kennedy: lrobinson@noaa.gcv; Dave
Hi Dr Lubchenco,
in point 1.
001125
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark.W.MiIler [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
Jennifer Austin
Re: Q&A
Oil Budget Q&A v 8.4 combined_Miller.docx
Jen~
Here is a few markups.

Mark
> Jane~ attached are all the Q&A's in one document.
> merging the talking points now.
1"11 work on
>
> Mark, please review and let me know if there is anything inaccurate in
> this combined Q&A document. Thanks, Jen
>
001126
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark.W.Miller [Mark. W.Miller@noai3.gov]

Jennifer Austin
(Fwd: Fwd: Calculation Data]
-------- Original Message -------Subject:Fwd: Calculation Data

Date:Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:32:52 -0600
From:Sky Bristol <sbristol@,usgs.gov>
To:Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Stephen Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>, Sean
CDR O'Brien <Sean.K.O'Brien@.uscg.mil>
References:<OF ADAC52-7235-428F-805D-5EF5BF90A599!'Q),usgs.gov>
=
I suppose this is why we've been careful about where naIlies go on this thing. I maybe should have forwarded
this on to someone else to respond, so please advise if you don't want me answering any questions.
This was my mistake in introducing a reference to the Web site in the PDF output note for the chart. I've
corrected that one reference so that ev~rything refers to the "end notes.
I!
<.-<.(<--<.
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-2024181
<.-<.---<.
From: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>

Date: August 4, 2010 2:26:49 PM MDT
To: "Ohly, Johnfl <John.Ohly@mail.house.gov>
Cc: Stephen Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
Subject: Re: Calculation Data

Good afternoon,
The Oil Budget Calculator report that you reference is generated from an internal Web application. That
particular note probably needs to be updated to clear up any confusion, but all ofthe "footnotest! in the Web
application are included at the end of the PDF file as end notes. The PDF has all of the annotation that the Web
site does. We'll clear up the confusion in the print report. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
<.(<-<.(<-<.{<
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
Office: 303-202-4181
<.---<;-<.(<
9
001127
On .Aug 4,2010, at 2:03 PM, Obly, John wrote:
Good Afternoon Sky,

I am trying to get a better understanding of the calculations used in the Oil Budget Calculator. In the 8/1 report, under
Reference Notes/Chart Deepwater Horizon MC-252 - Cumulative Disposition of Oil, the report states, "See the footnotes
(available in the Web application by clicking on the labels in the table) for further information on the individual calculations
and additional reference materiaL"
(http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget201 D080i.pdf). I have been unable to
track down what is referenced in the report and want to make sure I am not overlooking anything. Any information you
can share to help clarify my understanding of the calculations, or the budget calculator in general, would be greatly
appreciated.
Regards,
John
John Ohly
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Ranking Member- Rep. Darrellissa (CA-49)
(202)-225-5074
'.
10
001128
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark. W.Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

Bill Conner; Bill Lehr; Jennifer Austin
Call on Oil Budget
At 2:15 EDT 11:15 PDT

Call in:
11
001129
DRAFT 7.29

-Remaining oil is

as light sheen or
has been
blodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
Figure I: Oil Budget CaIcuiator- Showswllat'has happened to the oil.

,Explanation of Findings
The Flow Rate Technical Group(FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July 15~~:~f~l'nilli~bmre.~ ofoil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonIBP
wellhead. '
.. !,ann.o\inc~ne'N~l'G:flowrat;I~o@ esc~:pe;Will !i:ijusf'thi$ ancithe percentages in
mimI.
001130
It is estimated that %% percent of the oil ypl!!JJJIt.quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column.
%% percent of the oil has dispersed phvsicall v into the water column, and %% percent of the oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,OOObanels of chemical dispersants. J)hvsicaJ dispersion occurs
Some portion oft),.;: dispersd oil that i" in droplets sll1aIlerthan 100 microns remained bch)w the
surface. ~Sample un;]J "sis have Sh<)\~'11 t'V idence of a diffuse cloud of dispersed oil at de(lili,;
efbetwc.:n 3300 and 4300 fl. (cit~: Ji\O 1 and 2). Further analvsis ???
.
of Mexico in large part because of the warm water there. the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and
to be done to quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf; early indications are that the light
crude oil :from this well is biodegrading quickly.
beaches.
oil. Around aqu3rtcr of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into Gulf
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oil:....-aHtI-lLwill issue daily surface oil
trajectories for as long necessary and continue subsurface sampJin!! to monitor the conc<!ntration and
distribution of oil there. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command to develop
as
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from JulY 2~&, 2010 for
'"
.'.
........
001131
measurerpents where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not
Science rrea~
Marcia McNutt
Mark Sogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
TimKem
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA

Albert Venosa, EPA
Ron Goodman. U. of Calgary
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv Fingas. Env Canada(ret)
Per DaIing, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO ,
Peter Carragher, BP
.. '.
001132
'9
1.
How long does it take for dispersed oil to biodegrade? Is there an appro~imate length of time
or a range?
We don't yet have a figure for biodegradation rates of this oil in the Gulf. Biodegradation speed
varies greatly depending on oil type and water conditions.:... Dispersed and residual Oil'NiII
biodegrade, and that
NOAA NSF and DOE are actively studying this important question to studying, and we hope to
have results soon.
2.
Has the data already been peer-reviewed, or is it going to be peer-reviewed? Also, did outside
scientists help with the calculations?
The Oil Budget Calculator was developed by a team at the Department of the Interior (001) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The tool was created by the US
A number of outside scientists contributed to or reviewed the calculation methodologies._
3.
With all the ships and dispersants and the skimming and the burning, why did 67 percent of
the oil in this incident elude your efforts, winding up in the Gulf?
There are a Al:lmber sf factors, SReDne thing to keep in mind} is that oil that was natural
dispersed-ien, evaporated~ afI4.or dissolved~ which happen~ pretty much right away and
se-that oil Is not available to respond to.
Of what was left, the Unified command addressed more than half of that, between burning,
skimming, and direct recovery.
4.
You say the federal effort has had a significant impact, but what's the precedent? How can
you say that if there's nothing to compare it to? Why is 33 percent a positive number? Why
not SO percent? See answer above.
It is hard to give a direct comparison, as each spill is unique. Because this is further from the
shore, the impacts have been different.
We are still trying to get definitive data - it appears that for the Exxon Valdez the total
accounted for by response was approximately 1M gal or around 10%.
S.
Chemical dispersants were only responsible for eliminating 8 percent of the oil, according to
the oil budget report. If that's so, why did the federal government allow BP to use such
unprecedented amounts of an ineffective toxic chemical, the effects of which have hardly
been tested on the natural environment and certainly not in these amounts?
It is important to note that 8% of the spilled oil represents approximately 16 million gallons oil
that might otherwise have washed up on beaches and marshes.
001133
Chemical dispersion breaks the oil up into small drop"lets to keep it from coming ashore in large
surface slicks and makes it more readily available for biodegradation.
EPA continues to conduct testing to understand the toxicity of dispersants to marine life, and
has recently released it second report about that subject.
These results confirm that the dispersant used in response to the oil spill in the gulf, Corexit
9S00A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than mixtures with the other
available alternatives. The results also indicate that dispersant-oil mixtures are generally no
more toxic to the aquatic test species than oil alone.
Dispersant was one of many response techniques employed to combat this environmental
disaster, and as we have said all along, was a question of environmental trade-ofts.
6.
Using the oil budget report as a guide, given the effectiveness of the various mitigation
efforts, how should the federal government have changed its response efforts?
What this report shows is where the oil ended up. We can see that the very aggressive and
coordinated response by the Federal Government and Unified Command were successful in
dealing with nearly one third of the oil. We have also been fortunate that mother nature has
helped as well, with natural disperSion, evaporation and dissolution accounting for a significant
portion ofthe oil.
NOAA and the Federal Government remain vigilant- we continue to monitor shoreline areas
where tar balls may still come ashore, and we continue to collect data and do research to
quantify the concentrations and location of subsurface oil, and better understand the long term
impacts of this spill.
7.
How long will the oil be present and visible in the Gulf There is very little visible 011 left in Gulf waters. At this point there are small amounts of residual
oil on or just below the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls.
8.
What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial liability for this spill?
This report has no impact on BPs financial liability for this spill. They are still required to restore
for all damages to natural resources (NRDA) and they can be fined based on the volume
released as outlined in the Clean Water Act. As we have said all along we will hold BP fully
accountable for the damage they have done.
9.
Where is the remaining oil?

The remaining oil is found in two categories, residual oil and dispersed oil, which combined
account for half (SO%) of the total release of oil from the spill.
.
The residual amount, just over one quarter (26%), is either on or just below the surface as light
sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried
in sand and sediments.
001134
The dispersed amount contains both oil dispersed naturally through the water column, which
we estimate to be 16% and chemically dispersed, which we estimate to be 8% broken up by the
application of chemical dispersants on and below the surface.
For the purpose of this analysis, (dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100
microns - about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this small are neutrally
buoyant and thus remain in the wat~r column where they then begin to biodegrade
Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column
and at the surface.
Dispersed and residual oil remain in the system and until they degrade through a number of
natural processes. Early indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.
and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps
regularly.
10. Is there oil on the seafloor?
There is not oil on the deep sea floor. Oil that is beneath the surface, as far as we can
determine, is primarily in the water column itself not sitting on the sea floor.
In some of the near shore areas there are reports of tar balls essentially laying on the sea floor,
or tar mats, this can occur in cases where the tar balls have come ashore onto beaches and have
picked up sand or other material, then washed back out in the surf. The sand and sediment
causes them to sink and stay on the bottom.
11. Do you believe this is the worst environmental disaster?

The sheer volume of oil that was released means there will be some significant impacts.
We've seen some of those impacts play out in ways that are more obvious because they're at
the surface. What we have yet to determine is the full impact that the oil will have beneath the
surface.
And we have a very aggressive research effort underway to determine exactly that. As we
mention in this report, the oil that is beneath the surface appears to be being biodegraded
relatively quicklYI so that is positive.
There is sti.lllikely a ~ignificalJtam(;unt of oil out there simply because there was so much
.n~I~.a~ed~ So t.his is ~11"ar~a where it will take time to evaluate exactly what the impact is both
short term and long term and that underscores the importance of having this very aggressive
monitoring and research effort underway to help us actually better understand the situation
and learn from this
. ",
001135
12. A recent JAG report said that you found oil subsurface in the 4-7 ppm range. Is that still the
case?
That is the range for that dataset. Our first report found concentrations of 1-2 parts per million
based on chemical analysis of water samples. The second report used fluorometric data and
based on calibrations of fluorometers, indicated a likely concentration of 4-7 ppm or less in the
sampled areas. There are yariations depending on the methods used to analyze subsurface oil
concentrations. The Jojnt Analytical Group will soon release chemical analytical data from the
research missions that will add to our understanding of the overall picture of where oil is below
the surface.
The main point here is that the oil that is subsurface is, as far as we can tell, in very small
droplets, microscopic droplets and in very, very dilute concentrations falling off very steeply as
one goes away from the well site.
Dilute does not mean benign, but it is in very small concentrations and we continue to measure
where it is and track it and try to understand its impact.
001136
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark.W.Miller [Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov]

Wednesday. August 04,20101:15 PM
Jennifer Austin
Re: documentation of calculations
Bill does have a longer document tnat describes the calculations. The release of that report
is being managed through the FRTG. ~ will ask him if he has any idea when that might be. I
also asked him to put together a shorter document with the basic assumptions used for each
estimate and why.
Mark
> Hi Mark"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
follow on questions are going to start asking about the details of our
calculation methods" is there a longer more technical write up of the
calculations? would Bill Lehr have that? It's not public friendly"
but if a more technical person wanted to know, is that written in up
somewhere? what would it take to be ready to share that?
001137
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
MCirk. W.Miller [Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov]

Jennifer Austin
Re: [Fwd: AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS what happened to oil
report]
Perfect. That's what I hoped. I will be watching that briefing this afternoon. BTW - you
really did an incredible job on this.
l"1ark
> Hi Mark,
> You don't have to call him, he's been calling us all, as has every
> network. We've.already gotten back to him. For now we are telling
> everyone to stay tuned for the release, hopefully coming soon, and the
> White House just announced that Dr lubchenco will be with Gibbs for
> this afternoon's briefing, so that will take care of a lot of
> questions. We'll handle follow up after that.
>
> Thanks, Jen
>

Mark
-------- Original Message -------Subject:

AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS
what happened to oil report
Date:
Wed, 94 Aug 2919 99:31:93 -9599
From:
To:
Mark,
I'm Seth Borenstein, science writer at the Associated Press. Can you
call ~e as soon as possible at
Thanks,
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science'Writer
. llee 13th St. NW, Suite 799
>,>
ap.org <mailto:
ap.org>
' The information ,contained in this communication is intended for the

use of the deSignated recipients named above. If the reader of this
2
001138

that you have received this communication in error, and that any
review, dissemination, distribution or copyi~g of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received .this communication in
error please notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
+1-212-621-1898 and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]msk dccc68c6d2c3a6438f8cf467d9a4938
J
>
001139
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark.W.Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa:gov]
Jennifer Austin
Re: please send Aug 1 report out
Deepwatet:HorizonOiIBudget201 00801. pdf
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Completed
Here it is.
mark
> thanksl
>
001140
Justin Kenney
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Jennifer Austin; Bill Conner; Scott Smullen
[Fwd: AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS what happened to oil report)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Mark
-------- Original Message -------Subject:AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS what happened to oil report
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 201 0 09:31 :03 -0500
From:Borenstein, Seth <SBorenstein(ai,ap.or!!>
To:Mark. W.MilIer@noaa.s4Qv
Mark,
Thanks,
Seth
Seth Borenstein
@ap.org

of the. designated recipients named above. If the reader of this
and delete this e-mail. Thank you' .....
[IP_US_DISC]msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438fOcf467d9a4938
001141
Justin Kenney
Mark.W.Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov] ,
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Jennifer Austin; Bill Conner; Scott Smullen
[Fwd: AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS what happened to oil report]
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Can I Call Mr.Borenstein?

Mark
------- Original Message -------Subject:AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS what happened to oil report
Date:Wed, 04 Aug 201009:31:03 -0500
From:Borenstein, Seth <SBorensteinauap.org>
To:Mark.W.Millerra~noaa.gov
Mark,
Thanks,
Seth
,-
Seth Borenstein
@ap.org

and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
001142
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jennifer Austin
Re:attached
Oil Budget Additional Q&A_Milier.docx
I will give a callas S09n as I am able.

>
001143
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark.W.Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov] .
Jennifer Austin
Re: [Fwd: RE: additional questions for the Q&A]
yes - I really wanted to listen to Dr. L on the Governor's call.

Have a 9:38 and 18:88 ERMA presentation.
Mark
> Hi,
>
> Can we work on these together this morning?
> Might be easiest to do some together on the phone?
>
>
>
RE: additional questions for the Q&A
> Date:
Wed, 84 Aug 2818 87:59:15 -8488
Griffis, Kevin <KGriffis@doc.gov>
> From:
> To:
Griffis, Kevin <KGriffis@doc.gov>, Kenney, Justin
> <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>, Smullen, Scott <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>,
> Austin, Jennifer <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
Miller, Mark <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
> CC:
> References:
> <7FA7859FSE135343A28CFAC81A78e67Se17B165CF96A@EMAIL1.email.doc.gov>
>
>
>
> How are we looking on this?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
> *From:* Griffis, Kevin
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 83, 2818 11:18 PM
> *To:* Kenney, Justin; Smullen, Scott; Austin, Jennifer
> *Cc:* Miller, Mark
> *Subject:* Re: additional questions for the Q&A
>
> Also, did outside scientists help with the calculations?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
> *From*: Griffis, Kevin
.> *To*: Kenney, Justin; Smullen, Scott; Austin, Jennifer
> *Cc*: Miller, Mark
.. > *Sent*: Tue Aug 93 23:91:19 2919
> *Subject*: additional questions for the Q&A
>
8
001144
> In editing the Q&A, I came up with a few more questions that I can't
> answer from the talking points. Please see below.
>
> *With all the ships and dispersants and the skimming and the burning,
> why did 67 percent of the oil in this incident elude your efforts,
) winding up in the Gulf?*
>
>
>
**
> *You say the federal effort has had a significant impact, but what's
> the precedent? How' can you say that if there's nothing to compare it
> to? Why is 33 percent a positive number? Why not 58 percent?*
>
> * *
>
> *Chemical dispersants were only responsible for eliminating 8 percent
> of the oil, according to the oil budget report. If that's so, why did
> the federal government allow BP to use such unprecedented amounts of
> an ineffective toxic chemical, the effects of which have hardly been
> tested on the natural environment and certainly not in these amounts?*
>
>* *
>
> *Using the oil budget report as a guide, given the effectiveness of
> the various mitigation efforts, how should the federal government have
> changed its response efforts?*
>
> * *
>
> *How long will the oil be present and visible in the Gulf?*
>
> * *
>
> *What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's
>
> Kevin Griffis
>
) Director of Public Affairs
>
> U.S. Department of Commerce
>
> 1491 Constitution Ave., NW
>
> Washington, DC 28238
>
> (0) 282-482-8298
>
> (c) 282-412-8377
>
>
001185
Justin .Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject: .
Mark.W.Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa."govl
_.Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:35 PM
Jennifer Austin
Genevieve Contey; Justin kenney; Scott Smullen
Re: for sanity read
Looks like it is fully cooked, ready to serve. Are we going to replace the citation reference
with ageneric statement?
Mark
> hopefully this is final
>
> Mark please review

>
> Gen is giving it a sanity copy edit read
>
49
001186
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark.W.Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa,gov]
Jennifer Austin
Re: talking points,
Really good. I would probably not include Therefore approximately half the oil is no longer in the system.
Also looks like you are including evap and dissolved with response? So dissolved probably
can't be assumed is out of the system.
Mark
> can you take a quick look at these and let me know if they seem ok.
> can you add a line to describe the sentinal program toward the end.
>
50
001189

1t:\I'ao<)raltea orDissolved
CherriicaUyDispersed
Burned
43,900
35,818 tons
Government estimate of discharge ranged from 62.200 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 52.700 bbl on Juiy 14. 2010.

See end notes section 9.f the report for reference material on report elements.
001190
Government Estimates Through August 01 (Day 104)"
Cumulative Rel'!'aining
I
1,500,0001
1,250,0001
I
Il
t/)
1,000,0001
750,000
j
!
500,0001
250,000
~i
I
oJ~==~==========~==========~==========~==
Jun-2010
May-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2010
-
Expected Value -

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey ill; cooperation with the National
...
001191

* At! unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
_. Higher Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate plus 10'% uncertainty.
*H
Maximum discharge ranged from 68,390 bbi on April 22, 2010 to 58,022 bbl on July 14, 2010.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.govon 08/021201005:30 PM MDT.
001192
Higher Flow Estimate ThrQ~gtl August 0_1 (Day 104)
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
U)
CD
a.. 1,000,000 '

a..
cu
.Q
750,000 .
500,000
250,000
May-201O
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Aug-2010

Application operated by the U.S. Coast GlJard and provided by the U.S. Geological SurveYi{n cooperation with the NCltional
Oceanic and Atmo~pherio Administration:.
.~
"'"
001193

35;818 tons
~
Ail unlabeled values in barreis, See end notes for assumptions .
... Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10% uncertainty,
"** Maximum discharge ranged from 55,956 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 47,472 bbl on July 14, 2010,
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident on Budget

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard ahd provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
",
001194
Lower .F.low E.stim.ate .- .Through .August 01 (Day 104)
1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
en
800,000
......
700,000
.Q
600,000
(l)
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
May-201O
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-20 1O
Aug-2010

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.govon 08/0212010 05:30 PM MDT.
OceaniC and Atmospheric Administration.
.
001195
Reference Notes


reference material.
Discharged
On July 31,2010, the U.S. scientific teams charged by Nationallncid~nt Commander Thad Allen with
determining the flow of oil from BP's leaking well refined their estimates of the oil flow. The teams
estimated that the discharge rates ranged from 62,000 bbllday at the start of the incident to 53,000
bblfday when the well was capped on July 14 with an uncertainty factor of 10%. The uncertainty factor

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov, on 08/0212010 05:30 PM MOt: ..
001196
of the estimate at that time ..

Dispersed Natu rally

evaporation/dissolution. calculation first determines the remaining oil available for evaporative processes
Report generated by sbristol@usgs.govon 08/0212010 05:30
MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Gegogical Surveys.in cooperation with the National
,..
eM
001197

-Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion'
Skimmed
Burned
cumulative totals.

Report generated by sbristo/@usgs.gov on 08/0212010 05:30 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. GeG)ogical Survey in cooperation with the National
001198
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooReration with the National
'""
001199
1. How long does it take for dispersed oil to biodegrade? Is there an approximate
length of time or a range?
We don't yet have a figure for biodegradation rates of this oil in the Gulf. Biodegradation speed varies
greatly depending on oil type and water conditions. Dispersed and residual oil will biodegrade, and that
NOAA NSF and DOE are actively studying this important question to studying, may have results soon.
2. Has the data already been peer-reviewed, or is it going to be peer-reviewed? Also,

did outside scientists help with the calculations?
A number of outside scientists contributed to or reviewed the calculation methodologies.
3. With all the ships and dispersants and the skimming and the burning, why did 67
percent of the oil in this incident elude your efforts, winding up in the Gulf?
There are a number factors, one thing to keep in mind, is that oil that was naturally
dispersed or dissolved was naturally mitigated almost immediately and was therefore not
avai lable to respond to.
Oil that evaporated was not there to be responded to.
,When you look at the oil that was burned, dispersed, coJlected at wellhead, and skimmed
as well as Residual oil - the unified response l;ddressed approximately 50%. 26%.is what
we arguably could have dealt with.
+.You say the federal effort has had a significant impact, but what's tbe precedent?
How can you say that if there's nothing to compare it to? Wby is 33 percent a
positive number? Why not 50 percent? See answer above.
It is hard to give a direct comparison, as each spill is unique, however, given that this
happened so far out in the water,

Valdez- (with current flow rate Valdez approx every 4 days)
5. Chemical dispersants were only responsible for eliminating 8 percent orthe oil,
according to tbe oil budget report. If that's so, why did tbe federal government
allow BP to use such unprecedented amounts of an ineffective toxic chemical, the
effects of which have hardly been tested on the natural environment and certainly
not in these amounts?
It is important to note that 8% of the spilled oil represents approximately 16 million
gallons oil that might otherwise have washed up on beaches and marshes.
Fonnatted: Font: Not Bold
Bullets and
Fonnatted: Font: Not Bold
001200
Chemical dispersion breaks the oil up into small droplets to keep it from coming ashore in large
EPA continues to conduct testing to understand the toxicity of dispersants to marine life,
and has recently released it second report about that subject
9500A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than mixtures with the other
more toxic to the aquatic test spedes than oil alone.
disaster, and as we have said all along, was a question of environmental trade-offs.
6. Using the oil budget report as a guide, given the effectiveness of the various
mitigation efforts, how should the federal government have changed its response
efforts?
What this report shows is where the oil ended up. We can see that the very aggressive
and coordinated response by the Federal Government and Unified Command were
successful in dealing with nearly one third of the oil. We have also been fortunate that
mother nature has helped as well, with natural dispersion, evaporation and dissolution
accounting for a significant portion of the oil.
NOAA and the Federal Government remain vigilant- we continue to monitor shoreline
areas where tar balls may still come ashore, and we continue to collect data and do
research to quantify the concentrations and location of subsurfac~ oil, and better
understand the long term impacts of this spill.
+.-How long will the oil be present and visible in the Gulf - The surfat-:e expression is
almost alll!:one, Tarballs 'will continue to impacts lur a while l!l:.
8. What impact, if any, will tbis report have in determining BP's financial liability for
this spill?
Formatted: Bullets and

Formatted: Font: Not Bold
001201
From: Jennifer Austin [mai1to:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.govl
Sent: wednesday, August 04, 2010 10:19 AM
. To:. Robert Haddad; Tony.Penn@noaa.qov; Mark W Miller; _HQ Deep Water
I
Horizon
Staff
Quick question for you, related to the the oil budget report going out
this morning, we're pulling together Q&A for Dr. for her briefing with
Gibbs this afternoon, Can you answer this question? Thanks, Jen
1.
What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial
liability for this spill? *
001214
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:.
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Margaret Spring [IVlargaret.Spring@noaa.gov]

Saturday. July,31.,201 0 12:59 PM
(SGilson@doc,gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov); Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov);
Mark - want to make sure you have these ocmments from USGS and EPA (HQ)
Marcia McNutt said that whatever EPA and NOAA work out on how dispersed oil is
communicate to Sky Bristol and Mark Sogge
handled~
pIs
Adm Jackson said : (1) she was concerned about the level of certainty implied in the pie and
cylinder charts (adding to 188%) and suggests instead bar chart with ranges for each bar
instead -(Jane, let's discuss what to make of this - are we going with a non-pie chart?);
'(2) she said Al Venosa did not revierw the calculations for the oil budget calculator till
check with Al on):
Note we will need to vet the product with EPA HQ (Perciasepe) to clear. When can we send it
over?
From: Mark Miller [mark.w.millen@noaa.gov]

To: Margaret spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane LUbchencoj Shannon Gilson
Bill'and I have talked several times this morning so I feel that we have captured all his
copy of the doc and we are poised to enter the new numbers from the updated Oil Budget tool
which is presently targeted to be done approximately 2:08PM EDT. We will also update the Oil
Budget Report which is included as' an'appendix.
.
am in regular communication"'with the'USGS"Oil Budget team. The b~e outstanding question is
the ~ppropriate level of QA/QC from NIST (Dr.
Possolo).NIST performed the statistical analysis which provides the Upper and Lower
Confidence lines in the Oil Budget Report. Bill Lehr is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and
meeting. starting iD approxiDla~ely . anhour..
_ . ,.
",
I
Mark
17
001215
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
Parita, Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
Margaret ..
Bill and I have talked several times this morning so I feel that we have captured all his
copy of the doc and we are poised to enter the new numbers'from the updated Oil Budget tool
Budget Report which is included as an appendix.
Possolo). NIST performed the statistical analysis which provides the Upper and Lower
Confidence lines in the Oil Budget Report. Bill Lehr is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and
Mark
> Circling in shannon, parita.. kevin, kris >
>
> ----------------------------~----------------------------->
> To: Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner;
> Scott Smullen
> Cc: Jane Lubchenco
>
> Mark; Jennifer>
> there were conversations about changes to the oil budget document between epa (paul
anastas) and noaa (bill lehr) last night ['elated to the dispersed oil and pie charts.
>
>
>
> ----------~~~----~----~--~~~~----From: Mark Miiler [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]
> To: jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen
>
......
> numbers fOr"the pie chart tomorrow afternoon.
>
> Mark
>
~
16
001216
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Margaret Spring [Margaret.Spring@rioaa.gov]

Saturday, July 3-1,20101:03 PM
Mark Miller
(SGi/son@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov); Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov);
Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane,

pm?
Mark~
Jen, Bill Conner on this? 2
She wants to understand what was agreed to at EPA last night. And work out why this is a
better approach than the bar chart idea, but try to work on better representing uncertainty.
Then we need to loop in MarCia, then Heather, and then if we are on the same page, go back to
EPA with a revision and how we tried to work on their concerns.
Mark
do we have a call-in we-can use?
From: Margare~ Spring [margaret.spring@noaa.gov]

Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2B1e 12:59 PM
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
Mark - want to make sure you have these ocmments from USGS and EPA (HQ)
Marcia McNutt said that whatever EPA and NOAA work Out on how dispersed oil is handled, pIs
communicate to Sky 'Bristol and Mark Sagge
Adm Jackson said : (1) she was concerned about the level of certainty implied in the pie and
cylinder' charts (adding to 1ee%) and suggests instead bar chart with ranges for each bar
instead -(Jane, let's discuss what to make of this - are we going with a non-pie chart?);
(2) she said Al Venosa did not revierw the calculations for the oil budget calculator till
check'with Al on):
Note we will need to vet the product with EPA HQ (Perciasepe) to clear. When can we send it
over?
From: Mark Mi.ller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2.010 11:45 AM .
To: Margaret Spring
15
001217
To: Mark Millerj Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner;
Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update -, coordination]
Mark. Jennifer
-------------------------------------From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

Sent: Friday~ July 39, 2919 11:99 PM
Mark
Jennifer Austin
292-392-9947
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
www.faceboo~.com/noaa.lubchenco
14
001218
>
> Adm Jackson said : (1) she was concerned about the level of certainty
> implied in the pie and cylinder charts (adding to 198%) and suggests
> instead bar chart with ranges for each bar instead -(Jane~ let's
~ > discuss what to make of this. - are we goingwith anon-pie chart?);
>
> (2) she said Al Venosa did not revierw the calculations for the oil budget calculator till
last night so she is concerned about listing him as a reviewer (this one you should ~obably
check with Alan):
>
over?
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@hoaa.gov]
> Sent: Saturday~ July 31~ 2919 11:45 AM
> Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;
>
-.
> Margaret,
>
> an email at midnight PDT and then called my at 3:99 AM PDT. I have
> the new numbers from the updated Oil Budget tool which is presently
> targeted to be done approximately 2:99 PM EDT. 'We will also update the
>
> is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and' address this. Bill is on his
>
> Mark
>
>
>
Circling in shannon~ parita) kevin, kris -
-----------------~-----------------From: Margaret Spring

13
001219
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Margaret Spring [Margaret.Spring@noaa.govJ

Jennifer Austin'
Mark Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
here is a call in number

You can use this number

Sent: Saturday~ July 31) 2010 1:40 PM
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: Mark Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco; Shannon Gilson
Parita Shih (Pshah@doc.gov)

> Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane, Mark, Jen, Bill Conner on this? 2
pm?
>
> She wants to understand what was agreed to at EPA last night. And work out why this is a
better approach than the bar chart idea, but try to work on better representing uncertainty.
>
> Then we need to loop in Marcia, then Heather} and then if we are on the same page, go back
to EPA with a revision and how we tried to work on their concerns.

>
>
> Mark - do we have a call-in we can use?
>
- can we do 2 pm?
-----------~--------~------...----~~From: Margaret Spring [margaret.spring@noaa.gov]

> Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;
> Shannon. Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov);
> Kristen'Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov); Parita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
>
>
>
>
>
> (HQ)
>
> dispersed oil is handled~ pIs communicate to Sky Bristol and Mark
> Sogge
12
001220
>..AI talked multiple times last night going over the methodology (AI"
> an email at midnight PDT and then called my at 3:00 AM PDT. I have
) the new numbers from the updated Oil Budget tool which is presently
> targeted to be d~ne approximately 2:00 PM EDT. We will also update the
>
> PossoIo). NIST performed the statistical analysis which provides the
> is contacting Dr. Possolo to discuss and address this. Bill is on his
>
> Mark
>
.>

>

-----------------------------------From: Margaret Spring

i
To: Mark Mill,er; Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner;
Scott Smullen
Cc: Jane Lubchenco
Mark, Jennifer
--------~------~------~~-------From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]

Mark
11
001221
> Am on phone with Jane now - can we have a call with Jane., Mark, Jen, Bill Conner on this? 2
pm?
.
>
> She wants to understand what was agreed to at EPA last night. And work out why this is a
better approach th~n the I;>ar chart idea) but trY to .work on bett.er J'epresenting uncertainty.
>
> Then we need to loop in Marcia., then Heather, and then if we are on the same page., go back
to EPA with a revision and how we tried to work on their concerns.
>
>
> Mark
>
- can we do 2 pm?
> --------------------~------------~
>
> Sent: Saturday) July 31.1 2818 12:59 PM
> Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc.gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov)j

> Subject: RE: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update ~ coordination]
>
> (HQ)
>
> dispersed oil is handled., pIs communicate to Sky Bristol and Mark
> Sogge
>
> Adm Jackson said : (1) she was concerned about the level of certainty
> implied in the pie and cylinder charts (adding to 188%) and suggests
> instead bar chart with ranges for each bar instead -(Jane, let's
> discuss what to make of this - are we going with a non-pie chart?);
>
> (2) she said Al Venosa did not revierw the calculations for the oil budget calculator till
last night so she is concerned.aboutHsting him as a reviewer (this one you snould probably
check with Al on):'
>
over?
>
>
>
>
.>> -----------------------------------From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miller@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Saturday) July 31) 2818 11:45 AM
> Cc: Jennifer Austin; .Will~~m. Conner; Scott Smullen; Jane Lubchenco;
> Kristen Sarri. (doc) (KSarri@doc~gov); ParitaShah (Pshah@doc.gov)
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - 'coordination]
>
> Margaret"
>
> Bill andlt'rc:rve talket::rseveral times this morning so I feel that we

10
001222
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:.
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Margaret Spring [MargaretSpring@noaa.gov]

Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Jane Lubchenco
Oops let's go with Mark Miller's number

Sent: Saturday, July 31J 2010 1:42 PM
To: l"largaret Spring
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner
Call in Jen is working on scheduling conflicts with one hand while typing int he changes to the doc
with the other. We do not have uncertainty on a category basis (the uncertainty is overall on
the remaining) so we thought if we went with a simple bar chart with two bars per category
for Low flow and High Flow that would indicate our uncertainty in a simple straightforward
manner.
I do not know if Sec Chuts information would have any effect on our estimates for natural
dispersion. I will try to get more information on that but am concerned that the time frame
will impact that.
We will remove Al Venosa from the contributors. I talked to Bill Lehr and asked him exactly
what he and Al talked about. He said they went through the calculations and methodology. He
said there were no changes or recommendations that came from those conversations. Bill is on
the FRTG call now and he is the best source for details of those conversations.
Talk to you at 2:00.
Mark

.
.
> Jane would also like to discuss how we worked out the information from Steve Chu.
>
> also - can you send around latest draft before the call? thx
>
>
> ----------~--~--~~----~-------From: Margaret Spring..
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 1:03 PM.
> To:Mark Miller

> Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullenj Jane Lubchencoj
> Shannon Gilson (SGilson@doc~gov); Kevin Griffis (kgriffis@doc.gov);
> Kristen Sarri (doc) (KSarri@doc.gov);.P.ar.ita Shah (Pshah@doc.gov)
>
9
001225
Narragansett~ RI 02882
v: 401-782-3235
f: 401-782-3281
=======================
001226
> Hope this helps.
>
>
Can you send around to all of us on this email the current TPS and
Q&As on the oil budget document, so we have them?
Kennedy has to be on a call at 3 pm. Hill is asking questions like

where the raw data can be found.
Amanda and John - pIs let OPA and NOAA Comms know of other Qs being
asked - so we can get the Q&As out to the staff.
Thx
Margaret
Margaret Spring
Chief of Staff
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
14th & Constitution Avenue NW, Room 5128
(202) 482-3436
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
Kate Clark, Regional Resource Coordinator NOAA Office of Response and Restoration Assessment
and Restoration Division www.darrp.noaa.gov
-----------------------
NOAA Headquarters Detail (7/10-6/11)

1305 East-West Highway
RM 10110, SSMC4
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(Office) 301-713-3038 x105
(Cell)
301-785-7802
(Fax) . 301-713-4387
=======================
----------------------Permanent Duty Station:

28 Tarzwell Drive
001229
> Hope this helps.
>
>
Can you send around to all of us on this email the current TPS and
Q&As on the oil budget document, so we have them?
Amanda and John - pIs let OPA and NOAA Comms know of other Qs being
asked - so we can get the Q&As out to the staff.
Thx
Margaret
Margaret Spring
Chief of Staff
u.s.
Department of Commerce
(202) 482-3436
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-392-9047 (cell)
Kate Clark, Regional Resource Coordinator NOAA Office of Response and Restoration. Assessment
and Restoration Division www.darrp.noaa.gov
----------------------NOAA Headquarters Detail (7/10-6/11)

RM 10110, SSMC4
..
(Office) 391-713-3938.x~95
(Cell)
391-785-7892
391~713-4387
(Fax)
=======================
----------------------Permanent Duty Station:

28 Tarzwell Drive
001232
These tarballs continue to come ashore intermittently in some areas and

NOAA and Unified Command are continuing to actively monitoring at risk
near shore areas. (asked Mark for extra line or two about the sentinel
program)
001233
From that, we estimate that the Unified Command's aggress.ive recovery

An additional one quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved,
And just less than one quarter was dispersed, either naturally or chemically,
into microscopic droplets into Gulf waters.
The residual amount, just over one quarter, is either on or just below the
surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been
collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments.
Therefore approximately half the oil is no longer in the system.
The dispersed and residual oil do remain in the system until they degrade
through a number of natural processes.
While further analysis remains to be done to quantify that rate of

degradation, early indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.
Other research efforts are underway to quantify the location and

concentrations of subsurface oil, and results thus far have shown diffuse
clouds of oil, in concentrafions in the low parts per million, at depth.
NOAA and other scientists continue that monitoring and water sampling,
while NOAA, NSF and DOE are conducting studies to better quantify the
rate of biodegration.
As for residual oil, some of it is on shorelines, and we know that over 600
miles of Gulf shoreline have been impacted.
Much of it remains in the water where it continues to weather and degrade

into small tarballs. At this point most tarballs are just below the surface
and are very difficult to see with our normal surveillance activities.
001234
We are about to release a report that shows what happened to the oil. This
report helps answer the question that everyone is asking - where did all
the oil go?
A few things I would like to point out right up front:

o This report is the result of the best scientific minds within
government and our academic partners.
o Aggressive response efforts resulted in roughly a third of the oil being
removed from the Gulf, either as a result of skimming, burning,
dispersants, or containment (the latter being something the
government demanded BP to do).
means for the health of ecosystem and the millions of people who
depend on the Gulf for the livelihoods and enjoyment.
the oil since day one of this spill, and based on the data from those efforts
estimates.
.
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements wherever

were not possible. The tool uses the Flow Rate Technical Group's estimate
from yesterday as "its starting point, which is a cumulative release of 4.9m
barrels of oil.
001235
a few sentences on what EPA is doing. What is the best way to get comparable information from the other
relevant agencies? Marcia McNutt is out oftouch for the week. Is.Ann Castle the next best person?
Who would be best suited/able to reach out to DOl, DOE, and NSF to get a few sentences from each by mid
afternoon tomorrow?
..
Mark and Bill- EPA is declining to explain in the document just what dissolution is and how it differs from
NOAA continues to track the movement of the oil still on the surface and in the water column. It will issue
contaminants, including dispersants and oil products, with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous
NOAA- and NSF-funded academic researchers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife
39
001236
rate of bacterial comp<?~iti0D:' .. ~~F is planning a new research effort involving two ships to examine these
.
aspects that-is set to depart in mid-August. Steve

Thanks, Mark! Plz proceed w getting short descriptions as you indicated.
The text I drafted for NSF may suffice. Steve: do you think so? Plz add more if needed.
I think what is needed is a simple explanation of what dissolution and dispersion mean and how they are different.
Cheers,
Jane
Jane Lubchenco
Jane. Lubchenco@noaa.qov
(202) 482-3436
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.--------_._----------_.

Cc: Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Steve
Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>; Margaret.spring@noaa.gov <Marqaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Kris Sarri
(ksarri@doc.gov) <ksarri@doc.gov>
Sent: Sun Aug 0118:57:19 2010
Subj~ct: Re: text on monitoring and research for pie chart document
of their monitoring and research (I sit next to USGS and DOl). In particular I understand we want DOl, USGS,
2. lam still not completely sure what EPA's issue with these are. Do we just define dissolution and dispersion
or is there some other question about these processes EPA feels we need to explain. Ifwe want basic definitions
I will take a crack at it. I'll ask Bill Lehr and company.tq help me P1:l:t something toge$er.
Mark
Here is the short text (below) I started to capture in aO single paragraph for the oil budget document which
agencies and other researchers are doing what by way of moilitorirtg and research: .The trick is to do
justice to the diversity without having this become a huge laundry list I've asked Bob Perciasepe to send
38
001237
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Justin Kenney [Justin.kenney@noaa.gov]

Sunday, August 01, 201010:14 PM
'jennifer.austin@noaa.gov'
Fw: text on monitoring and research for pie chart document
Nice. Are you coming to SS on Monday too?

Justin Kenney
NOAA Director of Communications
and External Affairs
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
Facebook: www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
(Sent from my BlackBerry)

To: Jennifer Austin <jennifer.austin@noaa.gov>
Cc: Justin Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa!gov>
Sent: Sun Aug 01. 21:25:24 2010
Subject: RE: text on monitoring and research for pie chart document
Thanks SOOOOO much for your great efforts on this frontl
jane
From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:jennifer.austin@noaa.gov]
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 9:24 PM
To: 'jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov'
Hi, Yes I will, standing by for that next model run, incorporating these as we go.

To: Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
Sent: Sun Aug 0120:57:412010
SUbject: FW: text on monitoring and research for pie' chart document
Jen - can you capture these pieces and assemble them once we have a number?
From: Steve Murawski [mailto:Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov]
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 7:29 PM '
To: Jane Lubchenco'
,
Cc: 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'Wiiliam,Conner@noaa.gov'; 'margaret.spring@noaa.gov';
'ksarri@doc.gov'
, " ....
'
SUbject: Re: text on monitoring and research for pie chart document
Here are a few sentences reo NSF, I can socialize them:

oil budget and the effects of submerged oil. NSF-research has focused on the distribution and concentration of,
37
001238
> Deputy Administrator
>
> (0) +1 292 564.4711
> (c) +1 292 368 8193
>
>
>
Jennifer Austin
36
001256
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject: .
Attachments:
Justin Kenney [Justin.kenney@noaa:gov]

Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1;56 PM
Jennifer Austin . . '
..
..
RE: oil budget TPs
Oil Budget TPs 8 3.jk edits.docx
Justin Kenney
Office: 292-482-6999
Cell: 292-821-6319
Email: justin.kenney@noaa.gov
Sent: Tuesday, August 93, 2919 1:49 PM
To: Scott Smullen; Justin kenney
Subjec~: oil budget TPs
want to do anything with these based on Sean's advice?
Jennifer Austin
19 .
001257
Justin Kenney
'justin.kenney@noaa.gov'; 'jennifer.austin@noaa.gov'; 'scott.smullen@noaa.gov'
Justin Gillis interview
VN00048-20100803-1449.amr
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
Facebook: www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco (Sent from my BlackBerry)
i
18
001258
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Tuesday, August 03, 2010 4:44 PM
Griffis, Kevin; Smullen, Scott
Austin, Jennifer
RE: initial thoughts on release
Yes) although Jane hasn't cleared her quote so we may edit that. But let's move along.
Many thanks"
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
-----Original Message----From: Griffis" Kevin [mailto:KGriffis@doc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 4:15 PM
To: Smullen, Scott
Cc: Kenney, Justin; Austin, Jennifer
Subject: Re: initial thoughts on release
We have to get this into the omb process. Are you good wi me circulating?
Original Message
From: Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>
To: Griffis" Kevin
Cc: Kenney, Justin; Austin, Jennifer
Sent: Tue Aug 03 16:05:11 2010
Incorporating Kevin's edits and the pie chart .. here's the latest
version . . Jane has not seen this (she ran to the Enforcement Summit) ...
and, in general, she doesn't like the grouping of chemically dispersed 8% with the skimmed,
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
17
001259
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Austin, Jennifer; Smullen, Scott
FW: Call seth at ap asap -
Flag Status:
Flagged
Justin Kenney
Office: 292-482-6990
Cell: 292-821-6319
-----Original Message----From: Borenstein~ Seth [mailto:SBorenstein@ap.org]
To: justin.kenney@noaa.gov
Subject: Call seth at ap asap
Justin,
I need report you guys gave to ny times
I am at
The information contained in this communication is intended for the use of the designated
recipients named above. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that you have received this.communication in error, and that any
review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify The Associated Press
immediately by telephone at
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f9cf467d9a4938
16
001260
Justin Kenney
Subject:

Smullen, Scott; Austin, Jennifer
FW: Ny times exclusive? Please release your info to cnn
Flag Status:
Flagged
From:
Sent:
To:
More fan mail

Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310

From: Ryan, Marylynn [mailtO:

To: justin.kenney@noaa.gov
Subject: Ny times exclusive? Please release your info to enn
Hey can you please release what you gave to ny times?

How can a govt agency give one outlet this info?
How can this be embargoed ifu give to a media outlet.
/
15
001261
Justin Kenney
Subject:

'scott.smullen@noaa.gov'; 'jennifer.austin@noaa.gov'
'jerry.slaff@noaa.gov'
Please bring me the most current press release. Jane wants to review.
Importance:
High
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
14
001262
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Justin Kenney [Justin.keririey@noaa:gov]

'jennifer.austin@noaa.gov
Please send Jane the most current TPs. She wants to correct.
Justin Kenney

Office: 282-482-6898
Cell: 282-821-6318
13
001263
Seth Borenstein
@ap.org
The information contained in this communication

intended for the use
communication' is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
dissemination, distribution or copying of this comm~nication is strictly
12
001264
.,Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Wednesday, AUgust 04,20109:50 AM
'jennifer.austin@noaa.gov'; 'scott.smullen@noaa.gov
Fw: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
Are we releasing the full report?

Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-8216310
Facebook: www.facebook.ccim/noaa.lubchenco
---------------------------------------~-""~.""
From: Borenstein, Seth <SBorenstein@ap.org>

To: Justin Kenney <justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
Sent: Wed Aug 04 09:46:27 2010

Subject: RE: Need immediate yes no answer. Is t~is the full report?
Thanks.
Can i get full report soon.
really soon
From: Ju~n Kenney [mailto:justin.kenney@noaa.gov]

To: Borenstein, Seth
Subject: Re: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full-report?
The full report is 200 plus pages. You have-the exec summary.
Justin Kenney
and Extemal Affairs
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202821-6310
From: Borenstein, Seth <SBorenstein@ap.or:;i>To: Justin Kenney <juStin. keri'ney@noaa.gov> .

Sent: Wed Aug 04 09:41:54 2010
Subject: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
Justin,
I've got this 5 page report. Is this all there is or is this just part?
11
001265
> --------------------------------------------------------------------->
> *From:* Justin Kenney [mailto:justin.kenney@noaa.gov]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 94, 2919 9:46 AM
> *To:* Borenstein, Seth
> *Subject:* Re: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
>
> The full report is 290 plus pages. You have the exec summary.
>
>
> Justin Kenney
> NOAA Director of Communications
> and External Affairs
> Office: 202-482-6090
> Cell: 202-821-6310
> Facebook: www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco (Sent from my BlackBerry)
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------->
> *From*: Borenstein, Seth <SBorenstein@ap.org>

> *To*: Justin Kenney <justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
> *Sent*: Wed Aug 94 09:41:54 2010
> *subject*: Need immediate yes ~o answer. Is this the full report?
>
. > Justin,
> I've got this 5 page report. Is this all there is or is this just part?
>
>
> Seth Borenstein

> Associated Press ScienGe Writer
> 1199 13th St. NW, Suite 799
> Washington, DC 29995-4976
>
>
>
>
@ap.org <mailto:s
ap.org>
>
> The information contained in this communication is intended for the

> use of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this
> communication is not the intended recipient~ you are hereby notified
> that you have received this communication in error, and that any
> review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
> +1-212-621-1898 and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
> [IP_US_DISC]msk dccc69c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
Jennifer Austin
10
001273
Justin Kenney
NOAA Director of CommUnications
Office: 292-482-6999
c
Cell: 292-821-63i9 .
--------------------------------------------------------------------*From*: Borenstein~ Seth <SBorenstein@ap.org>
*To*: Justin Kenney <justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
*Sent*: Wed Aug 94 99:46:27 2919
*Subject*: RE: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
Thanks.
Can i get full report soon.
>> really soon
--------------------------------------------------------------------*From:* Justin Kenney [mailto:justin.kenney@noaa.gov]

*Sent:* Wednesday, August 94, 2919 9:46 AM
*To:* Borenstein~ Seth
.
*Subject:* Re: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
The full report is 299 plus pages. You have the exec summary.
Justin Kenney
Office: 292-482-6999
Cell: 292'-821-6319
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*From*: Borenstein, Seth <SBorenstein@ap.org>
*To*: Justin Kenney <justin~kenney@noaa.gov>
*Sent*: Wed Aug 94 09 :41: 54 2910.
*Subject*: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
Justin,
I've got this 5 page report. Is this all there is or is this just part?
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press.Sci~nce Writer
n99 13th St. NW, suIte 790
washington, DC 29905-4976
>>
@ap.org <mailto:
@ap . ~rg>
001274
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Re: Fw:. Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
Thx. Jane is reviewing now.

Justin Kenney
Office: 282-482-6898
Cell: 282-821-6318
To: Justin Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
.
Sent: Wed Aug 84 18:88:49 2818
Subject: Re: Fw: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
It's a yes, we are releasing the report, put the report is not 288 pages.
Justin Kenney wrote:
> Thx. Is that a yes or no answer?!
>
>
> Justin Kenney

> NOAA Director of Communications
>
> Office: 282-482-6898
> Cell: 282-821-6318
> Facebook: www.facebook.com/noaa.lubch~nco (Sent from my BlackBerry)
>
> ----- Original Message ----> From: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>

> To: Justin Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
> Cc: 'scott.smullen@noaa.gov' <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>
> Sent: Wed Aug 84 89:55:252818
> Subject: Re: Fw: Need immediate yes no answer. Is this the full report?
>
> Hey,
_
> we are releasing our report, which is a description of the calculator
> output, and the calculator daily output, from Aug 2, which is this .
> one with barrels.
.
>
.
. .. .. .
> both-attached . the scientists-have more detail on their calculations,
> but that's not being released.
>
~
>
> Justin Kenney wrote:

>
Are we releasing the full report?
001275
Justin Kenney
From;
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Justin Kenney [Justin.kenney@noaa,gov]

Wednesday, August 04,201010:35 AM .
'scott.smullen@noaa.gov'; 'jennifer.austhi@noaa.gov'; 'PShah@doc.gOv'; 'kgriffis@doc.gov
Fw: C-SPAN TELEVISION
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
Facebook: wwwJacebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
From: Smith, Lindley <LKSmith@c-span.org>

To: justin.kenney@noaa.gov <justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
Sent: Wed Aug 04 09:59:17 2010
Subject: C-SPAN TELEVISION
Justin
Hope you're well. C-SPAN would like the opportunity of revisiting having Administrator Jane Lubchenco on Washington
Joumal on Thursday morning from 8:30 to 9:15 for a discussion on the oil report and the Administrator briefing today at
the White House.
Washington Journal is C-SPAN's public affairs program where we also take calls from our viewers as well. It is my hope
that Administrator Lubchenco will be able to join us. I look forward to hearing from you.
Many thanks
Lindley Smith
Producer, Washington Journal
C-SPAN, Network
202-626-4650
mobilelblackberry
19
001276
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Wednesday, August 04, 2010 to:48AM
'dwh.leadership@noaa.gov'; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'
Fw: UPDATED: Press Secretary Gibbs, Jane Lubchenco, Thad Allen and Carol Browner to
hold briefing at 1:OOPM EDT
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
From: White House Press.Office <noreply@messages.whitehouse.gov>
To: justin.kenney@noaa.gov <justin.kenRey@noaa.gov>
Sent:
Wed Aug 04 10:42:162010

Subject: UPDATED: Press Secretary Gibbs, Jane Lubchenco, Thad Allen and carol Browner to hold briefing at 1:00PM
EDT
Updated Briefing Schedule

NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, National Incident Commander Admiral Thad
1:00PM
. Allen and Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner will join Press
Secretary Robert Gibbs at the Press Briefing
Unsubscribe
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. N'iV . Washington DC 20500 . 202-456-1111
18
001277
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Justin Kenney [Justin.kenney@noaa,gov]

'Oil.Spill@noaa.gov'
Fw: UPDATED: Press Secretary Gibbs, Jane Lubchenco, Thad Allen and Carol Browner to
hold briefing at 1:OOPM EDT
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
Facebook: www.facebook.com/noaa.lu bchenco
From: White House Press Office <noreply@messages.whitehouse.gov>

Sent: Wed Aug 04 10:42:162010
Subject~ UPDATED: Press Secretary Gibbs, Jane Lubchenco, Thad Allen and Carol Browner to hold briefing at 1:00PM
EDT
- Updated Briefing Schedule

NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, National Incident Commander Admiral Thad
1:00PM
Allen and Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner will join Press
Secretary Robert Gibbs at the Press Briefing
Unsubscribe
The iNhite House' 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. NV"; '{Vashington DC 20500 202-456-1 i 11
17
001286
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

_HDQ Oil Spill
FW: [Fwd: Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill]
image001.jpg
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
From: Chris Vaccaro [mailto:Christopher.Vaccaro@noaa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04,201011:27 AM
.
To: Justin kenney; Scott Smullen; Jennifer Austin
Subject: [Fwd: Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill]
Just sent...
-------- Original Message ------Subject:Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill
Date:Wed, 04 Aug 201008:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
From:Deepwater Horizon Response External Affairs <donotrep!v!@deepwaterhorizonresponse.com>
'"
RepJy-To:Deepwater Horizon Response External Affairs <donotreply(a{deepwaterhorizonresponse.com>
To: Christopher. Vaccaro@.noaa.gov
DATE: August 04, 2010 10:22:24. CST
Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP

Spill
Key contact numbers
Report oiled shoreline or request volunteer infonnation:

(866) 448-5816
Submit alternative response technology, services or
products: (281) 366-5511
Submit your vessel for the Vessel of Opportunity Program:
(866) 279-7983
Submit a claim for damages: (800) 440-0858
Report oiled wildlife: (866) 557-1401
Deepwater Ilorizon
Incident
Joint Information Center
Phone: (713) 323-1670
(713) 323-1671
001287
estimates where measurements were not possible. The nwnbers for direct recovery and burns were measured
directly and reported in daily operational reports. The skimming nwnbers were alsobased on daily reported
estimates. The rest of the nwnbers were based on previous sCientific analyses, best available information and a
broad range of scientific expertise. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional information
becomes available.
To view the full BP oil spill budget report, click here.
Visit this link to unsubscribe
Chris Vaccaro
Acting Media Relations Director
v.202-482-6093 I c.202-536-8911 I NOAA.gov
001288
An ad4itional.25
perc~nt
of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, and 16 percent was dispersed
naturally into microscopic dropl~ts. The residual amount, just over one quarter (26 percent), is either on or just
buried in sand and sediments. Dispersed and residual oil reinain in the system until they degrade through a
number of natural processes. Early indications are iliat the bil is degtadingquickly.
These estimates were derived by the Natiohal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
measurements and best estimates of what happened to the spilled oiL The calculator is based on 4.9 million
barrels of oil released into the Gulf, the government's Flow Rate Technical Group estimate from Monday.
More than 25 of the best government and independent scientists contributed to or reviewed the calculator and its
calculation methods.
"Teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since day one of this spill, and based on the
data from those efforts and their collective expertise, they have been able to provide these useful and educated
estimates about the fate of the oil," says Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and
The estimates do not make conclusions about the long-term impacts of oil on the Gulf. Fully understanding the
damages and impactS of the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something that will take time and
. Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE, and academic scientists
It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf
of Mexico in large part because of the wann water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil
COnsUme the oil, and wave action, sun~ currents and continued evaporation and dissolution continue to break
do"Wn the residual oil in the water and on shorelines.
6
001289
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Justin Kenney [Justin.kenney@noaa.gov1

Deepwater Staff (dwh.staff@noaa.gov); DEEPWATER Leadership
(dwh.leadership@noaa.gov)
image001.jpg
FYt also going up on NOAA.gov soon.

Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
DATE: August 04,2010 10:22:24 CST
Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil front BP

Spill
Key contact numbers

(866) 448-5816
products: (281) 366-5511
(866) 279-7983
Deep,vater Jlori1:o1]
Incident
. Joint IuformatiouCenter
Phone: (713)323-1670
(713) 323-1671
WASHINGTON - The vast majority of the oil from the BP oil spill has either evaporated or been burned,
skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed - much of which is in the process of being degraded. A
significant amounf of this is the direct result of the robust federal response efforts.
A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater HorizonlaP spill was captured or
001290
Vaccaro
v.202-482-6093 / c.202-536-8911 / NOAA.gov
001291
"Teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since day one of this spill, and based on the
The estimates do not make conclusions about the long-teon impacts of oil on the Gulf. Fully understanding the
estimates where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and bums. were measured
esti.mates. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available infoonation and a
broad range of scientific expertise. These estimates will continue to be refmed as additional information
becomes available.
To view the full BP oil spill budget report, click here .
.Share ..
3
001292
Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil fronl BP

Spill
Key contact nu~bers
Report oiled shoreline or request volunteer information:

(866) 448-5816
products: (281) 366-5511
Submit your vessel for the VesseI of Opportunity Program:
(866) 279-7983
In
Phone: (713) 323-1670
(713) 323-1671
A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater HorizonlBP spill was captured or
measurements and bes:t estimates of what happened to the spilled oil. The calculator is based on 4.9 million
calculation methods. _
001293
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov; Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov
FW: [Fwd: Fede'raJ Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill]
image001.jpg
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
From: Steve Murawski [mailto:Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04,2010 11:37 AM
To: 'justin.kenney@noaa.gov'
SUbject: Re: [Fwd: Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill]
Justin
David Farenthold from the Post called me and was reactinh to the NYT story. I walked him throughj the pie slices, He was
particularly interested in the level of precision on the components. I responded that some were very precise (recovered at
the well) some were based on assumptions (chemically dispersed). Expect more of the same. My bottom like was that
these are first order calculations
Steve
From: Justin Kenney <justin.kenney@noaa.gov>

To: Deepwater Staff (dwh.staff@noaa.gov) <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; DEEPWATER Leadership
(dwh.leadership@noaa.gov) <dwh.leadership@noaa.gov>
sent: Wed Aug 04 11:30:45 2010
Subject: FW: [Fwd: Federal SCience Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill]
FYI, also going up on NOAA.gov soon.

Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
DATE: August 04, 201010:22:24 CST
001294
.
....
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Justin Kenney [Justin.kenney@noaa.-gov]

WedQesdaY,_AugustQ4:, 2010 12:10 PM .
'jennifer.austin@ooaa.gov'; 'scott.smullen@noaa.gov'
Fw: Today's science report
More fan mail.

Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
Facebook: www.facebook.com/noaa.lu bchenco
From: mschleifstein@timespicayune.com <mschleifstein@timespicayune.com>

Sent: Wed Aug 04 12:08:44 2010
Subject: Today's science report
To say we're a bit perturbed about the leaking oftoday's oil spill report to national media,
ignoring local media of areas directly affected by the spill, would be an understatement.
Mark Schleifstein
Staff writer
The Times-Picayune
3800 Howard Ave.
New Orleans LA 70125
VVork: 504-826-3327
Facebook: Mark Schleifstein

Twitter: mschleifsteinTP
Web: nola. com
001295
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Justin Kenney [Justin.kenney@noaa ..gov]

Fw: Outside experts
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
----- Original Message ----From: David Fahrenthold <fahrenthold@Washpost.com>
To: Justin Kenney <justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
Sent: Wed Aug 04 13:42:41 2010
Subject: Outside experts
Justin--can you provide the names of non-government academic experts who were consulted in
the formation of this report on the fate of the oil?
Thanks~
OF
Sent from my BlackBerry handheld.
001296
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Wednes9ClY, Augu.st 04, 2010 2:43 PM
'Oil.Spill@noaa.gov'
Happening noW in WH briefing room
IIVIG00260-20-100804-1426.jpg
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
001297
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Justin Kenney [Justin.kenney@noaacgov]

KGriffis@doc.gov; Smith, Sean; Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov; Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov
FW: Urgent Followup
.
image001.gif
NOAA's Bill Lehr, one of the co-authors, would be my recommendation.

Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
Sent: Wednesday, August 04,20103:34 PM
To: 'sean.smith@dhs.gov'; 'Justin Kenney'
Gents,
As I'm sure you've seen on the wires, a lot of scientists - Mandy Joye, Ian MacDonald and others - are attacking the
report, specifically its reliance on assumptions and modeling. We have others defending it as reasonable, of course, but
the story tonight will need a government voice on this subject. Can you put somebody on the phone with us, well below
Lubchenco's level, who can talk about the methodology, the decisions that had to be made to come up with the estimates,
Thanks.
Justin Gillis
l)r.~tWlerk itDltS
620 Eighth Avenue
CMfice: 212-556-5159
001298
Ll,Jbchenco's level, who can talk about the methodology, the decisions that had to be made to come up with the estimates,
Thanks.
Justin Gillis
etbe ~t'\tJHOTk imes:
620 Eighth Avenue
Office: 212-556-5159
001299
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Wednesday, August 04, 20105:46 PM
_
Smith, Sean; KGriffis@doc.gov; Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov; Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov
RE: Urgent Followup
image001.gif
Dr. Lehr spoke with Gillis and Farenthold and walked them through the methodology and certainties for each of the
different pieces of the pie chart. In response to scientific critics of the report Lehrs best answer was (tin an emergency
response situation/ no answer is not an option-this report is the based on the best information we have and we will
certainly refine it as new information becomes available.
l
1I
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
-_.._ - - - - _ .
From: Smith, Sean [mailto:Sean.5mith@dhs.gov]

To: Justin Kenney; KGriffis@doc.gov; Smith, Sean; Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov; Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov
Subject: RE: Urgent Followup
Do it
From: Justin Kenney [mailto:justin.kenney@noaa.gov]

To: KGriffis@doc.gov; Smith, Sean; Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov; Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov
Subject: FW: Urgent Followup
NOAA's Bill Lehr/ one of the co-authors/ would be my recommendation.
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
To: 'sean.smith@dhs.govi 'Justin Kenney'
Gents,
As I'm sure you've seen on the wires, a lot of scientists - Mandy Joye, Ian MacDonald and others - are attacking the
report, specifically its reliance on assumptions and modeling. We have others defending it as reasonable, of course, but
the story tonight will need a govemment voice on this subject can you put somebody on the phone with us, well below
3
001300
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
John Gray [John.Gray@noaa.gov]

'dwh.staff@noaa.gov
Amanda Hallberg Greenwell; Michael Jarvis
FW: oil budget?
I would like to speak to someone about possibility of briefing Markey's staff on the topic she mentions in the e-mail
below
From: Unruh-Cohen, Ana [mailto:Ana.UnruhCohen@mail.house.gov]

To: John Gray; Amanda Hallberg Greenwell
Subject: oil budget?
John and Amanda - Admiral Allen mentioned yesterday in his conference call that NOAA was working on an oil budget"
of where all the oil went. Is there any chance we could get a briefing on it sometime next week?
Ana
Ana Unruh Cohen, Ph. D.
Deputy Staff Director
Select Committee on Energy Independence
& Global Warming
B243 Longworth House Office Building
(202) 225-:4012
ana.unruhcohen@mail.house.gov
www.globalwarming.house.gov
001301
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
John Ewald [John.Ewald@noaa.gov] "

Justin kenney; Scott Smullen; Jennifer Austin; Christopher Vaccaro
Ben Sherman
CNN Request - Dr. L for today at 1:09PM
Just got a call from CNN - they would like Dr. lubchenco on the air for a segment at 1:99PM
to talk about the breakdown of the oil~ per today's report. They can travel to us or host us
at their DC studio.
Marie Malzberg
CNN
Thanks!
VIR,
John
John Ewald
Public Affairs Specialist
National Ocean Service
1395 East-West Highway, Room 13238
Office: (391) 713-3966 x191
Mobile: (249) 429-6127
Fax: (391) 713-9337
john.ewald@noaa.gov
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov!
001302
Natural dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high
amount of the oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are
naturally abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water there,
the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico
through natural seeps regularly so that the bacteria there are accustomed to breaking it
down. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of
biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the light crude oil from this well is
These estimates leave about 0/(1% percent of the oil. This oil is either at the surface as
light sheen or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore on
beaches.
Command to develop monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oiL
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead,
understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the ..
Gulf region will take time and continued men,itoring and research.
001303
DRAFT 7.28
Prepared By: Caitlyn Kennedy, Jen Austin
Reviewed By: Bill Conner
I Chemically
j Dispersed
1,
11
i
8%
Skimmed
3%
Dispersion!
13%
!
,I
L !_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~--------------------~.
The Flow Rate Technical Grou~(FRTG),asselIlble~by the National Incident Command,

estimates that as of July 15~; ...":.;~fJl1i~lS~f~il.h~~ been r71~ased from the
D~epwater HorizonIBP . \V~llhead. )
,c#.1;lti$!t~~'tW;tlilg:w#k(~),1i!le~'~'I'6
~~iwi'm~$~tiji~lWiI~~~:....c,~.'r'/' "'~.;ijt!~.,pi1~~~~
As shown in the pie graph (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts have been successful in
recovering a significant portion of the spilled oil. ~% percent of the oil was captured
directly from the source by the riser.pipe insertion tube or top hat systems. In addition,
burning and skimming operations collected just over ~~ percent of the oil.
001304
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20:1 "used
ElS estimate for successful chemical dispersant application
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
DeepwalerHorizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

R~port generated by mark.w.mil~r@noaa.gov on 07127/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report element,s.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U~.$. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nationa!
001305
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh" oil within 24 hOLirs (dp.ily total in the report) and older oil
for the cumulative total over time. Different factors are Ul~ed to represent the difference in this rate. The
evaporation/dissolution calculation first determines the remaining oil available for evaporative pro.cesses

Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
-The actual amount9f skimmed oil should ultimately be base~ on actual measurement
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/2712010 09:27 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard ariel provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
001306

spiIl1~ow.
Values for the amount recovered by the vessels Helix Producer, Discoverer Enterprise and
Dispersed Naturally
-Subsurface natural dispersion based upon plume turbulent energy diSSipation
more information.

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa;govon 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
001307
Referenc~
Notes
..
"
Chart .. Cumulative/Daily Volume Remaining of the Surface

volume that is evaporated or dissolved, ~kimmed, burned, or dispersed (either chemically or naturally).
Chart - Deepwater Horizon MC..252 - Cumulative Disposition of Oil

correspond to the cumulative values in the table. See the footnotes (available in the Web application by ,
reference material.
Discharged
-Discharge rates use 'How limits from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements.
Other estimation methods provided higher and lower values.
Background
improved estimate is based on more and better data that is available after the riser cut - data which
Report generated by mark.w.mUler@noaa.govon 07/271201009:27 AM MDT., ,.,
Application operated by the U.S. CoastGuard and provided by.the U~S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
001308
Cumulative Rem'aining
700,000
i
i
650,001
600,000 i
550,0001
500,000
450,000 {
en
~cu ;~~:~~~ 1
.c 300, 000 j
!
250,000
200,000
150,0001
100,0001
50,0001
oJ~====~============~==============~============
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
-
Expected Value -

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/271201009:27 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material, on report,elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and.j:>rovlded by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
001309

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident 011 Budget. .

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/27/2010 O~:27 AM MOT.
001310
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrel~/day) - Through July 26 (Day 98)
1
,I
.1,750,000 i
1,500,000
1,250,000
tI)
......
ns
cu 1,000,000
..Q
750,000
500,000
250,000
0
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 0712712010 09:27 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provi~ed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and AtmosPheric Administration.
001311

Ali units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf ~lJcident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
001312

Authors
Credits
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
001313
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Iool Report from July 28, 2010, contains
collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NISI.
001314
causea some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns ~ the diameter of a human hair),
<
<
. After accounting for operations, dispersion and evaporation, 27 percent remains. This oil is either at the
beaches.
quarter of the oiL Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and just less than one
quarter dispersed into Gulfwaters. The remaining amount, just over one quarter is on the surface, in tar
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oil. It will issue daily surf~e oil trajectories
meaSurements where possible and the best available sCientific estim!ltes where measurements were
possible. The ni.unbers for direct recovery and bums were measuredairectlya.nd reporten in daily' .< ;,:: '''',:
operational reportS. The 'rest of the lumbers were based on preVious scientific aDaIyses~best available ,<:'
infonnation and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based
nof
001315
DRAFT 7.29
The National Incident Command has assembled the best scientific minds in the government.andindependent scientific community to produce an estimate of just how much oil has been skimmed,

Based on 60~OOO barrels/day flow rate
*Remaining oif is
as light sheen or
. weathered tar balls, .
has been
, biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
Fimue 1:
Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oiL
wellhe&i.
significant portion of the spilled oil. 16 percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead by the
.. , ... '-:
approximately 11 percent of the oiL
water column or form residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate, is based on scientific
001316
-Different rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil.
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
Deepwa1er Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark,w,miller@noaa,govon 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the O.S, Geologica! Survey in cooperation with the National
001317
Evaporation is calculated differently for IIfreshll oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil
for the cumulative total over time. Different factors are u$ed to repres~nt the difference in this rate. The
evaporation/dissolution calculation first determines the..remCiin.irlg.oil ~va.iI~~I.~ .f?~. evaporative processes
..

The amount available for recovery, both daily and cumulatiye, is simply the remaining oil after removing
Skimmed
Removal scenarios: .
this calculation.
Burned
....
Total burned values are entered daily by Nationallncident.Cor:nmand personnel and used in daily'anci':- . : .
cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark.w.miUer@noaa.govon 07/29J2Q10 11 :20 AM MDT.
001318

RITT and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (SP) has'used to reC0ver oil from the
the Q4000 are reported by SP, entered daily by National Incident Command personnel, and used in the
Dispersed Naturally
documentation. The following assumptiqns and factors apply:
more information.
discussion of the scientific methodology used in this calculation ..
-largest oil removal mechanism for surface oil
.Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and prov~ed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
.
001319
..... Reference Notes-:
Chari: ~ CumulativeibailyVolume Remaining of the Surface

Chart .. Deepwater Horizon MC .. 252 .. Cumulative Disposition of Oil

The Cumulative Disposition of Oil 11 Barre I Graph l1 provides a representation of the total amount of oil
reference material.
Discharged
Background
On June 15, 2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from the leaking BP we" was
Application operated by the U.s. Coast Guard and provided by the 0.8. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
001320
i
650,000 i
600,0001
!
550,0001
!
500,000
450,000 i
o 400,000
.....
~J
~. 350,000-j
Jo..
fa
.c
300,000 i!
250,000
200,000 i
i
150,000 ~
100,0001
50,000
OJ~==~==========~========~===========
Jun-2010
May-2010
Jul-2010
-
Expected Value -

Report generated by mark.w.mUler@noaa.gov on 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministratiPn.
001321
mUSGS
:;:;;w.t:Ce f()f Ii t*~9m9 ,,~.id
II
.......i . -

'

Report generated by mark.w.mi"er@noaa.govon 07i29!2010 11 :20.AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.s. Coast Guard and provided by the ~U.s. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
.
001322
..
1, 750,000 ~
I
(
1,50.0,000
1,250,00.0
U)
G) 1,000,000
:a:a-
..Q
750,000
500,000
250,0001
Ik
J=====;::::::========::;::::====::::::=:::;:::========
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
-
Expected Value -
. Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

.Report generated by mark,w,miller@noaa,gov on 07/29/201 OJ 1:20 AM MDT,
Application operated by the U.S. Coa!$.'t Guard and proVided by the U.S. GeologicalSurvey in cooperation with the National
001323


See end n01es section of the report for reference materia! on report elements.
Oceanic and Atmospheric' Administration.
001324
Deep.water-Hor-izonIBPOII Budget ~aic!llator:

~' "
.. -'
Appendix B: AckDowl~~gements
Authors

Credits
Jeff Allen (USGS) - Interf,!-ce designer
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (uSGS) - Project vision and management
Kevin Gallagher and Martha Garcia (USGS)- Executive sponsors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr,. NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
pat.J':'Umbert, Env. Canada
Per'Daling;' SINTEF . -,.,
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
,Michel Boufadel, Temple Univ.
~..
. ""..
'to' ,
001325
Attachments
detailed explanation of c~culation methods. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in
001326
16 percent of the oil has dispersed physically intothe water column, and 8 percent of the oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barr~ls of chemical dispersants. Physical dispersion occurs
caused some ofit to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns '- the diameter of a human:hair);-'"
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.htmI).
oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface. oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf
of Mexico in large pan because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and ,oxygen levels, and
the fact that oil enters' the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly. WIllIe There is more analysis
to be done to quantify the exact rate-ofbiodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the light
crude oil from tJtis well is biodegrading quickly.
beaches.
,
quarter of the oil. Around a quarter of the total has been natur811y evaporated and just less than one
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oil.. It will issue daily surface oil trajectories
continued..m.onitoring and research.
Note on degree of confi~ence in calculations: The Oil Budget calculations are based on direct
measurements where possjble and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not'
... , ., .. ,.
possible. The numbers for direct recovery and burns were m~ured dn:ect1y ~d repot:.ted in daily
operational reports. The rest of the numbers were based on'previoUs scientific analyses, best available
on additional inforrilation and further analysis.
001327
-DRAFT 7.29
Calculator to detennine where the oil has gone. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much
:--------

"Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
5%
3%
i. ._~. . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . ._._. . . . . . . _. _. . . . .___. . . . .__. ___.____.-. . . -._. .___._. . . . . . . . . . . . ._. _. . . ._. . . . . . . . _. . . . . . ._. . ._. . ._. .
.1
The Flow Rate Technical Group'(FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
wellhead.
As shown in the pie chart (Figure 1); aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
significant portion of the.spilled oiL 16 percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead by the
approximately 11 percent of the ?~f
'
water column or fonn residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific
001328
-American Society forTesting and Materials (ASTM) burn rate standards are used
'Droplets smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed
'No natural surface dispersion assumed
'International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (lTOPF) "planning purpose!! dosage of 20:1 used
;)
discussion of the scientific methodOlogy used in this calculation.
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Of! Budget

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07i29!2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by 1he U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
001329
for the cumulative total over time. Different factors are lJ.sed to represent the difference in this rate. The
for a full discussion of the scientific meth~dology used in this calculation.

the following fromthe total discharge:
Measured amount removed via RIIT and Top Hat
Calculatedamount of subsurface dispersion
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
Note: Refer to the s~ction on Skimmed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a discussion of
this calculation.
Burned
. .
Total burned values are entered daily by National-Incident.Command:

personnel
and-used -in -dallY arid:~ .
.
.
cumulative totals.
"

Report generated by mark.w.mHler@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. cOast Guard and provided by the U.S, Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
001330
change. In particular, because the upper number is less-certain, it is important to plan for the upper

RITT and Top Hat are mechanical devices thatBritish Petroleum (BP) haS used to recover oil-from the
the Q4000 are reported by B!;., entered daily by National Incident Command personnel, and used in the
Dispersed Naturally
-No natural surface dispersJon assumed
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oil ll removed." See background documentation for
more information.
Note: Refer to the s~ction on Dispersed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas (link) document for a full
result of a scientific calculatio.n using the methods described in this annotation and background

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/291201011 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on rep-art elements.
Application operated by the U.s. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
001331
Reference Notes
Chart - Cumulative/Daily Volume .Remaining of the Surface

volume that is ~vaporated or.dissolved., ~kimmed, burned, or dispersed (either chemically or naturally).
Chart - Deepwater Horizon MC-252 - Cumulative Disposition of OH

The Cumulative Disposition of OilllBarrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amount of oil
clicking on the labels in the table) for further information on the individual calculations 'and further
reference material.
Discharged
-Discharge rates use flow limits 'from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements.
Background
announced. The most likely flow rate of oil is between 35,000 and 60,000 bar~els per day. This
improved estimate is based on more and better data that is available after the riser cut - data which
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report el~ments.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the V;S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National.
.
001332
,
......
650 ..000
"\>-
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
400,000
-...... 350,000
t/J
Q)
as 300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,00.0
a
May-201O
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/29/201011:20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report eJements.
Application operated by the U.s. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
001333
...
. ...
'::'--!~.

Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) .. Through July 28 (Day 100)

Report ~enerated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/2912010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference materia! on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.s. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
001334
1,750,000
1,500,000 '
1 ,250,~000
(/)
'ii
t
1,000,000 i
cui
.Q
750,000 i
500,000 .
1
250,000 i
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
JUI-2010
. Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark.w.milter@noaa.govon 07/291201011 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the o.S; Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and A~mospheric Administration.
.
.
001335


Report generated by mark,w.mfller@noaa.goYon 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.s. Coast Guard and provided by the U.s. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
.
001336
.,
'
On
Deepwater HorizonlBP
Budget Calculator:
Authors
Steven Hammond, USGS, 001
Credits
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, ~evin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) - Technical advisors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSD
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Pat Lambe~ Env. Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
001337
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncid~nt Budget Tool Report from July 28,2010, contains
detailed explanation of calculation methods. 'The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in
collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NISI.
001338
research an4 obserVati9rlS conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident. A different evaporation
Sixteen percent of the oil dispersed physically into the water column,and 8 percent of the oil was
caused some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than~ 100 microns - the diameter of-a human hair1~ ..
Naturally occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the oiL Bacteria
large part because of the wann water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil
.
Even thQugh the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead, federal
operational reports. The rest of the numbe,rswere based on previous scientific analyses~.best ayailableinfoI'lIllifion and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based
001339
DRAFT 7.30
The National. Incident Command as~embled the best scientific minds in the government and independent
~eepwater Horizon Oil Budget
~Remainil1g oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
Figure 1: Oil ..... u .... /::..... Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oil.
The Flow Rate Technical Group'{FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
wellhead.
by the riser pipe insertion tub~ and.~op 4at systems. In addition, burning and skimming operations
collected approximately 8 pe~.~!1!gf the oiL
It is estimated that 25 percent ofllie oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column.
001340
Deepwater" Hodz"oiiIBP" on "Budget (~alcuhitor:
. ":
. Where did the oil go?
Authors
Credits
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (l.!SGS) - Technical advisors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
James Payne, Payne Env."
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv Fingas.. Env. Canada(ret)"
Ali Khelifa, Env. Canada .
Per Daling, . SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
"
001341
Attachm.ents
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident, Budget Tool Report from July 28, 2010, contains .
collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NIsr.'
..,.
..
,
..
001342
,
column
".
-.. "
......
's'uch
the
water
":or1'orm~esldues
astar'bruls~'
'evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific
research'and observations conducted dtit'ing the Deepwater Horizon inCident. A different evaporation
aispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high speed -into the water column, which'
4300 feet. (citation: FederaUoint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2,
- http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html).
enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly. While there is more analysis to be done to '"
quantify the exact rate ofbiodegracl.ation in.:the G:qlf, ,early indications are that the light crude oil from
,
...
After accounting for operations, dispersion and evaporation~ 27 percent remains. This oil is either at the
scientists
extremely concerned about the impact to' the Gulf ecosystem. 'Fully understanding the :
impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time.and
~ontinued monitoring and. researcb.
remain
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: The Oil Budget'caic1i1ations are based on direct
. measurements where po.ssib~ and the be.st available scientific estimates where measurements were not
possible...The numbersJor direct recovery and burns were measured di.n!ctlYaI1d rePQrted,in,daily" ". ,.,
operational reports. The rest of the numbers were baSed on previous' scientific analyses, best
information and a broad. range of scientific expertise. These numbers'will continue to be refined based
on additional infonnation and further analysis.
availahie
001343
DRAFT 7.30v2
Deepwa~er HorizonlBP
o-n Budget Calculator:

The National Incide;nt ~ornrnand assembled the best scientific minds in the government and independent
scientific community to produce an estimate. of how much oil has been skimmed, burned, contained,

.Based on 60,000 barrels/day flow rate
!
"'Remaining oil is
.1
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
I!
ashore.
!,
I
f
II
I
II
-.----.~----
I
1
............. -.~----.----.~-,.---...----.--------,-----.-----,
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG). assembled by the National Incident Command., estimates that
wellhead.
by the riser pipe insertion,tube:andtop hat systems. In addition, burning and skimming operations
collected approximately 8 "percent of the oil.
.
..
..
001344
aild has recently released it second rejiort about that subject. __
9S00A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than mixtures with the other
available alternatives. ::r'he-results also indicate that dispersant-oil mixtures are generally no
mQ.re toxic tothe aquatic test species than oil alone.
disaster, and 'as we have said all along, was a question of environmental trade-offs.
~
efforts?
successful in dealing with nearly one third of the .oil. We have alsQ been fortunate that
accounting for a significant portion of the oit
. NOAA and the Federal Government remain vigilant- we continue to monitor shoreline
research to quantify the concentrations and location of subsurface oil, and better
understand the long tenn impacts of this spill.
7. How long will the oil be present and visible in the Gulf There is very little visible oil left in Gulf waters. At this point there are small amounts of
residual oil on or just below the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls.
8. What impact, if any, wiD this report have in determining BP's fmancialliability for
this spill?
001345
length time or a range?,
"
,
,
,
of
varies greatly depending on oil type and water conditions. Dispersed and residual oil will
" ' "
'
biodegrade, and that ' '
NOAA NSF and DOE are actively studying this important question to studying, 'and we hope to '
have results soon.

percent of the oil in this incident elude your efforts, winding up in the GuU?
There are a number of factors) one thing to keep in mind, is that oil that was natural
dispersion, evaporation and dissolution happen pretty much right away and so that oil Is
not available to respond to.
Of what was left, the Unified command addressed more than half of that, between
burning, skimming, and direct recovery.
4. You say the federal effort has had a significant impact, but what's the precedent?
How can you say that if there's nothing to compare it to? Why is 33 percent a
positive number? Why not 50, percent? See answer above.
.,' ,',,' ,.','"
It is hard to give a direct comparison, 'as each spill is unique. Because this is further from
the shore, the impacts have been different.
5. Chemical dispersants were only responsible for eliminating 8 percent of the oil,
according to the oil budget report. If that's so, why did the federal government
It is important to 'note 'that 8% 'of the spilled 'oil represents approximately'16 million '
gallons oil that might otherWise have washed up on "beaches and 'marshes:'
Chemical dispersion breaks_the oil up into sm~JI droplets to keep it from coming ashore in large
surface slicks and makes it more readily av~ilable for biodegradation.
.,
001346
Dispersant 'Used
personnel. It is an actual measurement of the total dispersant used via all methods e.mp)oyed.
Oil Remaining

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/31/201008:38 PM MDT.
ApPlication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
001347
-The remaining al11o~nt)~ ~~~~'! :m.ultiplied with a different factor based on scientific research and
current observations' conductea on' the Deepwater Horizon inCident-
Avai lable for Recovery

The amount available for recovery, b~~h daUy .and cumulative, is simply the remaining oil after removing
Skimmed
,-
Burned
Total burned values are entered daily by National-Incident Command personnel and used in daily and
cumulative totals.
-Different rates for non-emulsified arid emulsified oil
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (lTOPF) ~planning purpose" dosage of 20:1 used
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
See end notes section of tOe report for reference material on report elements.
Appllcation operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by ~e U.S. GeolOgical Survey in cooperation with the National
.
...
001348
barrels per day. This improved estimate was based on more and better data that was available after the
riser cut -- data which helped increase the scientific confidence in the accuracy of the estimate at that
time.
Recovered via RITI and Top Hat

the Q4000 are reported by ~P, entered daily by National Incident Command personnel, and used in the

Natural oil drspersion is estimated using the methods described in this annotation and background
documentation. The following assumptions and .factors apply:

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/31/201008:38 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with ti)e National
001349
Reference Notes

The volume of oil that each day is added to the volume of oil already on t~e surface is computed, taking
into account the effective discharge (total discharge minus volume collected via Top Hat), and the
volume that is ev'aporated or dissolved, skimmed, burned, or dispersed (either chemically or naturally).

released over time based on low and high discharge estimates, the rel~tive amounts of oil recovered or
reference material.
Discharged
On July 31,2010, the Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) released new government estimates for the
Deepwater Horizon incident based on the best available data. The FRTG estimated that the discharge
rates ranged from 62,000 bbl/day at the start of the incident to 53,000 bbllday when the well was
capped on July 14 with an uncertainty factor of 1 0%. The uncertainty factor in the best government
estimate was used to create a Higher Flow Estimate and a Lower Flow Estimate report in the Oil Budget
Tool.
the FRTG estimate begins on April 22, 2010. In general, the discharge rate trended down over time due
to decreasing pressure observed after the well was capped. Severing the riser on June 4 (Day 45),
resulted in an estimate of discharge increase of approximately 4%.

. Previous versions of the Oil Budget Tool used a constant low and high flow estimate based on
estimations from the FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements. This method was chosen at the time as
the best available process and because the same measurement method was used pre- and post-riser
cut On June 15,2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from the leaking BP well was
announced. The most likely flow rate of oil at that time was estimated between 35,000 and 60,000
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
l,ipplication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard am:J:provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminiption.
"'"
001350
Lower Flow Estimate - Through July 30 (Day 102)

1,400,000
1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
..
tn
G)
CD
.Q
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,.000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000 .
. ~,----~.~j~----~----~~--~--~--~~--~~~~~. .~,~,~
May-20 10
1-Expected Value -
... Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Upper/Lower Confidence Bou nds
Aug-2C

Report generated by mark.w.mille~@noaa.gov on 07131/201008:38 PM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference,material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with thee.Nationai
001351

Lower Flow Estimate Through July 30 (Day 102)
., AI! units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
'* Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10% uncertainty.
Maximum discharge ranged from 55.956 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 47,472 bbl on July 14. 2010.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget. "

Report generated by mark,w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/31/201008:38 PM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report elements. .
Application operated .by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
001352

1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
U)
CD
lI..
1,000,000
.c
750,000
500,000
250,000
0
May-2010
1- Expected Va1ue -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2C

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/31/201008:38 PM MDT.
See end notes section of the report;for reference material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. GeofOgical Survey in cooperation with the National
001353

Higher Flow Estimate Through July 30 (Day 102)
* All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
... Higher Flow Estimate is based on the govemment discharge estimate plus 10% uncertainty.
Maximum discharge ranged from 68.390 bbl on April 22. 2010 to 58,022 bbl on July 14.2010.
Deepwater Horizon I'y1C252 Gulf Incident Oil Bu(:lget .

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noa;;l.govon 07/31/2()10 08:38 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in coqperation with the National
""
001354
There is still likely a significant amount of oil out there simply because there was so much
released. So this is an area where it will take time to evaluate exactly what the impact is both
short tenn and long tenn and that underscores the importance of having this very aggressive
monitoring and research effort underway. So that we can actually better understand this and learn
from this.
A recent JAG report said that you found oil subsurface in the 4-7 ppm range. Is that still
the case?
That is the range for that dataset. But there are variations depending on the methods used to
analyze subsurface oil concentrations. The Joint Analytical Group will soon release chemical
analytical data from the research missions that may show different values.
But the main point here is that the oil that is subsurface is, as far as we can tell, in very small
.where it is and track it and try to understand its impact.
001355

account for half (50%) of the total release of oil from the spill.
The residual amount, just over one quarter (26%), is either on or just below the surface as residue
and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is burled in sand
and sediments.
The dispersed amount contains both oil dispersed naturally through the water column, which we
estimate to be 16% and chemically dispersed, which we estimate to be 8% broken up by the
For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100
buoyant and thus remain in the water column where they then begin to biodegrade
at the surface.
abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the wann water, the favorable nutrient
and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
Is there oil on the seafloor? .

No. Oil that is beneath the surface, as far as we can determine, is primarily in the water column
itself not sitting on $e sea floor. That's an important distinction to make because I think there's
a misconception.
Do you believe this is the worst environmental disaster?

We've seen some of those impacts play out in ways that are more obvious because they're at the
surface. What we have yet to determine is the full impact that the oil will have beneath the
surface.
And we have a very ~gressive research effort underway to determine exactly that. As we
mention in this rePort, the oil that is beneath the surface appears to be being biodegraded
relatively quickly, so that is positive.
001356



001357
estimates.
possible and the best available scientific estimates wh.ere measurements
were not possible. The report rs based on the most recent estimates of the

the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or
cOmment [It1]: lheard Sean mentiOll this:but I 'j

~~COfIfirmed.lt's possible that I
d~,it.
",.,<;
i
,
001358


people who depend on the Gulf fpr the livelihoods and enjoyment.
001359
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Amanda Hallberg Greenwell [Amandc;:l,Haliberg@noaa.gov]

_NOAA HQ leadership; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'; Michael Jarvis; Jessica Kondel
[Fwd: Fw: ent to reporters]
Fw_ ent to reporters.eml (12.4 KB); Amanda_Haliberg.vef
Markey statement re the Oil budget report.
001360
Justin Kenney
From:
\ Sent:
To:
Subject:
Unruh-Cohen, Ana [Ana.UnruhCoMn@mail.house.gov]

'amanda.haliberg@noaa.gov'
Fw: ent to reporters
Fyi. Our statement. Ana

Ana Unruh Cohen, Ph.D.
& Global Warming
From: Sharp, Jeff

To: Sharp, Jeff; Chenault, Jacqueline; Phillips, Jonathan; Gray, Morgan; Gallagher, Mark; McClory, Maggie; Dirico, Rocco;
Goo, Michael; Baussan, Danielle; Butler, Sarah; Scozzaro, A.Tianna; Steinbuck, Jonah
Cc: Unruh-Cohen, Ana; Duncan, Jeff; Freedhoff, Michal; Joseph, Avenel
Sent: Wed Aug 04 12:40:26 2010
Subject: ent to reporters
For Immediate Release

Contact: Jeff Sharp, Chairman Markey,
MARKEY: Administration Report Suggests Progress in Cleaning up the Gulf, but Vigilance Still
Required
WASHINGTON DC (August 4, 2010) - Today the National Incident Command released an interagency
report estimating the amount and fate. of the oil spilled out of BP's Deepwater Horizon leak.
In response, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass), Ch~irman of twin climate and energy panels iii the House of
Representatives, released the following statement:
.
"I applaud the efforts by federal, state and local governments who have worked with local fisherman and
workers in the Gulf on an unprecedented response effort to capture, burn and skim oil following BP's horrific
oil spill. However, at least 50% of the oil from what is now the largest oil spill in history remains in the
environment in some fonn. That is the equivalent of nine Exxon Valdez-sized spills and does not account for
the methane that has also been released from this well.
"Families working in the Gulf s imperiled fishing and tourism industry deserve nothing less than a 100% effort
to ensure that both the environment and the economy fully recover from the damage caused by BP' s oil spill.
"We still have an environmental crime: scene.in .the Gulf of Mexico, and all Americans, especially Gulf Coast
residents, fully expect investigators to continue monitoring health and safety hazards in the months and years
ahead so the region can fully recover."
###
1
001361
001362
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Amrit Mehra [Amrit.Mehra@noaa.gov]

.
Margaret Spring; John Gray; Andrew.Winer@noaa.gov; Amanda.Haliberg@noaa.gov;
mary.glackin@noaa.gov; Monica Medina; Scott Smullen (Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov); Larry
Robinson; Jacqueline.J. Rousseau@noaa.gov; Jennifer. Lukens@noaa.gov; Christine
Blackburn; Justin kenney; Jennifer Austin
Pat A. Simms; Richard M Love; Jim Anderton (James.Anderton@noaa.gov)
August-September Calendar v4
image001.png; Lubchenco August-September 2010 v4.doc
All:
Attached is an updated version of the calendar based on comments received today. Thanks to all who have provided input.
For those who have not yet chimed in, this is a last call to please weigh in by 9am tomorrow morning. This calendar will be used to
inform a meeting with Dr. Lubchenco tomorrow morning.
Thanks!
Amrit
From: Amrit Mehra [mailto:amrit.mehra@noaa.gov]

To: Margaret Spring; John Gray; Andrew.Winer@noaa.gov; Amanda.Hallberg@noaa.gov; mary.glackin@noaa.gov;
Monica Medina; Scott Smullen (Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov); Larry Robinson; JacquelineJ.Rousseau@noaa.gov;
Jennifer.Lukens@noaa.gov; Christine Blackburn
Cc:Pat A. Simms; Richard M Love; Amrit Mehra; Jim Anderton (James.Anderton@noaa.gov)
Subject: RE: Dr L August-September calendar v2 - pis provide input to Amrit
. All:
Please see and review the attached updated version of the August-September calendar.
We have not received input from ANYONE yet (XA, Leg, Policy, Comms, etc.). Per Margaret's request, we're specially looking for
recommendations on what Jane should be spending her time on in the coming two months. Please send Jim Anderton and I any
edits you have by COB tomorrow so we can tee up an informed discussion with Jane.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns with the calendar. Thanks!
Amrit
From: Margaret Spring [mailto:margaret.spring@noaa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, Ju!y 28, 2010 9:52 AM
To: jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov
Cc: Amrit Mehra; Pat A. Simms; Jim Anderton (James.Anderton@noaa.gov); John Gray; Andrew.Winer@noaa.gov;
Amanda.Haliberg@noaa.gov; mary.glackin@noaa.gov; Monica Medina; Scott Smullen (Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov); Larry
Robinson; JacquelineJ..Rousseau@noaa.gov
Subject: Dr L August-September calendar v2 - pis provide input to Amrit
. .
Jane, we hadn't had the chance to go over this - but wanted you to know Amrit and I are working to try to get a handle
on Aug and Sept for you, working with 'Pat.
001363
This calendar just tries to identify the big trips on your calendar and identify when you would be in DC and then lists
issues that are yet to be scheduled. I will want to get input from policy and leg and xa on what else you should be doing.
I also want to figure out how to keep you here for some management issues, including a retreat.
I would like to discuss with you tomorrow. Pat can you get a call with us (you, me, amrit, jane, jim) tomorrow?
Amrit and Jim can help round up input from XA, Leg, Policy - and Monica and Mary G and Larry before our call
tomorrow.
Note something new that came up is the Oil Spill Commission hearing on Aug 25 in DC. We need to figure out something
there.
Also Bob Gagosian will be in Woods Hole -I believe Larry was willing to do the NIST thing for you and he could meet
with Bob, but you could do that too. Murawski and Larry and! had a call with him yesterday.
Thanks,
Margaret
From: Amrit Mehra [mailto:amrit.mehra@noaa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, July 27,2010 11:21 AM
To: Margaret Spring (Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov)

Subject: August-September Calendar v2
Margaret,
Attached here with changes. In addition to your changes, I got some more info on some items. Here are some notes/questions to
go with the attached calendar:
8/4-8/5 - WHOI and NE visits: Chris Smallcomb is working with Leg (Amanda) on theirgameplan for the 5
th
While he's
waiting for items to fill the schedule from them, he is putting down on paper a few other NOAA in-reach activities for Jane
(e.g. fisheries science lab Visit, weather forecast office visit, staff meeting with WHOI on Ocean Policy Task Force). Chris is
not actually activating or setting any of these up in deference to Leg's agenda, but shoulc! he?
8/12 - ONRL: Where did you get this date? Kent Laborde in PCO tells me there is no Oak Ridge National Lab event on Aug
12 or any other date. It was put on hold indefinitely because NOAA couldn't deliver the right folks (Lubchenco/Robinson,
Karl, Glackin) on the dates that were being discussed. The discussion with ORNL was left at doing a later event around
"flipping the switch" on the computer, but there's n,o date attached to that idea.
9/24: Bowdoin College event was taken off the calendar. We declined it back in May - it just never made it to Pat.
Amrit
Amrit Mehra
Special Assistant to the Administrator
Direct: 202.482.5921 I Mobile: 202.510.5561
Room6015A
STAY CONNECTED
-~w:
~(It!l:. , ,~
~:;.__ ,._;i""
.
i;lII
JL on .,.avel
--
JL on travel (telllative),
JL on leave
Au gu st 20 10
~~.... ~t=:.""Ho-~
~:::::::Z=~,...-
Sun
Tue
Mon
...... '.:
Enforcement
tclepresel1ce
event (SS)
Summit
. (DC)
Sat
DC
Okeana!;
Fri
Thu
Wed
. FYJ:WI-fOI
......
(lr9~!\d})rcitkin~
',t'.'(R.qljipson)
,.
,
.'.~.cli:
10
II
DC
DC
".~;~
,I
,---
\121
Great Am,
.Seafood Cook-off
(Nola) (Schwaab)
Schum~r
L.ls/and mtg
II ~C
JSL(FL) p,
Fung(PCO)
14
Gray/Hal/berg
Okeanos TBD (record~d video message?) (DC) - S.w. lIan'is (IA)
15
16
119
18
17
001364
Begich Field llem'ing on Arctic

and climate THD (Barrow)
li'avel-
22
olltre(lCh TBD
123
DC
XA: OPTP constituent briefing

(2 hoursl Aug! DC)
XA: Meeting with I'CC fishing leaders
(1 hour/Aug-SeptlDC)
XA: Dinner w/Frhlllds ofNQAA
(2 hoursl Aug/DC) .. Coliclon. Gagosian; others?
HOUSE AND SENATE RECESS:

August 9- September 12
OLA: Member trips/visits TBD (West CA, NE,

Gulf, CO (climate). HI. NW)
,Ol,A:New r;llg1.~.'.-!1d()utr~~bpl~ttQb
,
DWHlRobinson: long!shorHerm restoration plan

DWH: Mabus Gulf trip TBD
DWH/Comms: Seafood safety, GOM fisbery
reopening
f~~~~~U;~PJRtown~!lII~
on Travel
JL on Travel (tentative)
Mon
Sun
September 2010
Jl.onLeave
Tue
Wed
Tentat;veluncerta~n '
Fri
Thu
Sat
001365
DC
24
L"~~;~';::~~/d' j:J
z:
NOAA leadership retreat TBD

Climate Service!> events TBO
i 28DC
Awards Ceremony
(DC)
30
';;
DC
DC
HOUSE AND SENATE RECESS:
125
I DC
DC
August 9- September 12
OlA: Member trips/visits TBO (West CA, NE,
Gulf,CP.(~li~~tc)~JiI . l>I\\I)
.....,......
()lA:N~W Eilil~q4 911~ach ~Iail TaR

....
Ocean/Atmosphere modeling meeting (ESRL)?

DWH/Robinsoll: longlshort.:.term restoratiQn plan
DWH: Mabus Gulf trip TBD
.
001367
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Andrew Winer [Andrew.Winer@noaa,gov]

Justin Kenney; Scott Smullen; Jennifer Austin
FW: C-SPAN TELEVISION
.
FYI
Andy Winer
Director of External Affairs
(202) 482-4640
andrew.winer@noaa.gov
From: Smith, Lindley [mailto:LKSmith@c-span.org]
sent: Wednesday, August 04,
2010 9:59 AM
To: andrew.winer@noaa.gov
Subject: C-SPAN TELEVISION
Andrew
Hope you're well. C-SPAN would like the opportunity of revisiting having Administrator Jane Lubchenco on Washington
Journal on Thursday morning from 8:30 to 9:15 for a discussion on the oil report and the Administrator briefing today at
the White House.
Washington Journal is C-SPAN's public affairs program where we also take calls from our viewers as well. It is my hope
that Administrator Lubchenco will be. able to join us. I look forward to hearing from you.
Many thanks
Lindley Smith
Producer, Washington Journal
C-SPAN, Network
202--626-4650
. -".:
001368
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Andrew Winer [Andrew.Winer@noaa.gov1

Jennifer Austin
looking for off the record guidance as to when the oil report will be released today
sse
FYI
Andy Winer
Director of External Affairs
(202) 482-4640
andrew.winer@noaa.gov
From: Adi Raval [mailto:Adi.Raval@bbc.co.uk]

To: Adi Raval; justin.kenney@noaa.gov; scott.smullen@noaa.gov; andrew.winer@noaa.gov
Subject: RE: sse looking for off the record guidance as to when the oil report will be released today
HI guys, just wondering if you had any guidance on this. Many thanks, Adi.
--Original Message-
From: Adi Raval
Sent: Wed 8/4/201006:24 AM
To: Justin.kenney@noaa.gov'; 'scott.smullen@noaa.gov'; 'andrew. winer@noaa.gov'
Subject: Bt3C looking for off the record guidance as to when the oil report will be released today
Hi Justin, Scott and Andrew,
My name is Adi Raval and I'm the BBC's senior White House producer. I read in the NY Times about the oil report that you might
release today.
I'd like to know for off the record purposes when this report would be released and in which format. Also, would it possible to get an
embargoed copy of the report before it is released?
And also to see if anyone from NOAA would do an interview with the BBC today about this report. Our preference would be to
interview Dr. Lubchenco.
Many thanks, Adi
Adi Raval
BBCNews
Senior White House Producer
.'.
http://\v\\;w.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the
BBC unless specifical~y stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
5
001369
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communic~tion will signify your consent to this .
.....
001370
Justin Kenney
Subject:
Andy.Adora@epamail.epa.gov
Shannon (Commerce) Gilson; Justin Kenney; Jennifer Austin
HEADS UP: NOAA report in NYT
Importance:
High
From:
Sent:
To:
PIs see below
From: "Cappiello, Dina"
@ap.org]
Sent: 08/04/20 I 0 07:52 AM AST
To: Adora Andy

Subject: NOAA report. in NYT
Trying everyone 1 know on this one ...

You guys don't have copy of NOAA report mentioned in NYT this morning. Trying to get my hands on copy. Will not reveal source
of course.

and delete this e-mai1~ Thank you.
001371
.
.....
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ben Sherman [Ben.Sherman@noaa.gov]

Justin kenney; Scott Smullen; Jennifer Austin
[Fwd: BBC NEWS CHANNEL - INTERVIEW REQUEST - URGENT}
ben_sherman. vcf
Folks - Told her that Dr. L was doing WH briefing - but she wants interview if possible - was shooting for
Murawski - but I discouraged that angle given 9: 15 call instructions that Dr. L was lone spokesperson for
NOAA on topic ..... Should this be past along to Gibbs shop for Browner to do ..... Ben S.
-------- Original Message .------Subject:BBC NEWS CHANNEL - INTERVIEW REQUEST - URGENT
Date:Wed, 04 Aug 201016:25:00 +0100
From:Elisabeth Ukanah <Elisabeth.Ukanah@bbc.co.uk>
To:Ben.Shennan(CiJ.noaa.Qov
Dear Mr Sherman
One of our main stories is on the news that the White House says three-quarters oUhe oil from the massive BP spill in the
Gulf of Mexico now seems to have gone. The energy advisor to President Obama, Carol Browner, said the oil had either
been captured, burned off, evaporated or broken down by nature.
Earlier, BP announced that it had succeeded in the first phase of plugging the damaged oil well with heavy mud, a
process known as "static kill".
Almost five-million barrels of crude oil have poured into the sea since .an explosion in April, making this the worst
accidental oil spillage in modern times.
I understand Dr. Steve Murawski has prior engagements today. However, do you think one of his colleagues might be
able to do a brief television or phone interview with the BSC News Channel. We has a studio based in Washington and
we wondered whether anyone might be available at 1400,1500 or 1600 local time.
Please let me know what you think

Many thanks
Kind regards
Elisabeth
BBC News Channel
.'http://W\\'W.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the
8
001372
BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received ~t i~ error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way n0r act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
001373
Justin Kenney
Ben Sherman [Ben.Sherman@noaa.gov]
Justin kenney; Scott Smullen; Jennifer Austin
John Ewald
[Fwd: media request - report on 'where the oil went']
ben_sherman.vef
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Folks - How do you want to handle his specific questions - do you want NOS to find a oil evap/dispersant
person (likely Alan Mearns) or is this something you'll handle. Ben S.
-------- Original Message -------Subject:media request -- report on 'where the oil went'
Date:Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:22:16 +0200
From:Marlowe HOOD <Mariowe.HOODrq),afp.com>
To: 'ben.shermanrcvnoaa.gov' <Ben.Sherrnan@noaa.gov>
CC:A.n:D.e CHAON <Anne.CHAON@afp.com>
,
<
Bonjour Ben
Suite a notre conversation telephonique.,. we would very much like to read the report mentioned by the New York Times
saying that % of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon leak has already uevaporated, dispersed, been captured or otherwise
eliminated", If you could, per our discussion, send me a link to the report as soon as it is available, that would be grand
(especially as our local deadlines are looming).
Also, would it be possible to speak with one of your scientists to get a technical explanation of how oil evaporates or is
dispersed? It is, for me at least, a somewhat counterintuitive concept.
Merci!
Cheers, Marlowe
Marlowe Hood
Science. Environment & Health Writer
Agence France Presse
13 place de la Bourse
75002 Paris
www.afp.com
This e-mail, and any file transmitted with it, is confidential and intended solely for
the use 'of.,.the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this
email in error, please contact the sender and delete the email from your system. If you
are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email.
For more information' on' Agence:. France-Presse, please visit our web site at
http://w-......;.afFcom
10
001376
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brady Phillips [Brady.Phillips@noaagov]

...
Jana Goldman; Jennifer Austin; John Leslie; Justin Kenney; Nicky D McClurkin
Re: [Fwd: Meeting with you and Jana next week?]
Hello
Just talked with Keri from Resource Media today .. How does Thursday, Aug. 6 at 3:30 PM work
for folks .. we can decide if it should be in 5S or Downtown later? Thanks
Brady Phillips wrote:
> Hello
>
>
>
>
>
>
How about a meeting on Thursday afternoon (time TBD). If most people

are at HCHB we can meet here, or else in Silver Spring. I would like
to include Justin and Jen if possible as well.
Thanks.
Jana Goldman wrote:
I'd love to meet with them) but I will be out on Friday Aug. 6 and
Monday Aug. 9 -- I'm going back to Michigan for the unveiling
ceremony of my mother's gravestone -- Any other time that week
(except lunch on Monday) woudl work for me as of this writing thanks
jana
Brady Phillips wrote:

>>> Hello
>
> The last time Keri and Kirk from ResourceMedia
> (http://resource-media.org/) were in town) I ended up meeting with
> them briefly ... Jen was caught up in the oil spill frenzy and
> Justin was out. As you know, Resource Media has particularly been
> helpful in helping us get more bang for our press releases and
> working with Susan Hassol with folks at NCDC. It may be good to have
> them meet with all of us including Justin when they are in town.
>>> What do you think?
>>>
Meeting with you and Jana next week?
> Date:
Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:09:13 -e700
> From:
Keri Bolding <keri@resource-media.org>
> To:
Brady Phillips <Brady.Phillips@noaa.gov>
>
>
>>>
>>> Brady,
> Kirk and I will be back in DC next week and I wanted to see if you
> and Jana have an opening for an in-person meeting. Later Thursday
> afternoon or anytime Friday 8/6 would work for us. If I remember
> from our last conversation in DC, you mentioned Jana is located at
> NOAA's OAR headquarters in Silver Spring. Since we have not met Jana
> in-person, would it make sense for Kirk and I to go out there to
> meet her and conference you in for the discussion?
> Let me know if you are available and what makes sense.
> Best,
2
..
001377
> Keri
>
>
> Keri Bolding
> Vice President, Energy/Climate
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Resource Media
325 Pacific Ave.) 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
office: 415.397.5000, ext. 306
www.resource-media.org
>
>
Brady Phillips
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Communications and External Affairs
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW washington, DC 28230 USA
Tel: 202-482-2365
Cell:
202-407-1298
Fax:
202-482-3152
E-mail: Brady.Phillips@noaa.gov
001378
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ok~
Brenda Landis [Brenda, Landis@noaa:gov]

'Jennifer Austin'; 'Julie Bedford'
RE:.pdfs to accompany today's release of oil budget
thanks
-----Original ~essage7---From: Jenni~er Austin"[mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

Sent~ Wednesday~ August 04
2010 11:17 AM
To: Brenda Landis; Julie Bedford
Subject: pdfs to accompany today's release of oil budget
J
When it goes out.

"Inter-Agency Report Describing the Oil Budget Calculator"
attachment} the document called oil budget description v
8.3 final
should link to the first
And then say) less prominently:

Further information on the calculation methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf
Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1) 2010.
and link to the second attachment called DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100801
Jennifer Austin
001379
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
caitlyn. kennedy@noaa.gov
Pie chart
Quality's not great but it works as an eKample ...
001380
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov
.
Meet again about oil budget piece?
Oil Budgecck_v2.doc
Second version attached ... have your way with it!

-Caitlyn
~.
001381
Since the Deepwater Horizon BP wellhead was capped on July 15, people have
wondered: where is the all of the oil, "and wliat"is-its fate?
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command
Center, estimates that as of July 15, between 3-5 million barrels of oil have been released
from the wellhead. Based on estimates of how much oil was released and our
understanding of how this oil is moving and degrading, the FRTG has developed and
employed an oil budget calculator to help quantify where all the leaking oil has-gone.
As shown in the pie graph (Figure 1), the FRTG estimates that aggressive operations on
the water's surface have been effective in capturing approximately one quarter of the oil
(%%) released. %% percent of this oil was captured directly from the source by riser pipe
insertion tube or Top Hat systems. In addition, burning and skimming operations
So what has happened to the rest of the oil that has not yet been captured? Oil is a
complex substance made up of many parts. Some of these parts disperse naturally, some
disperse chemically, and some evaporate into gases, leaving behind residue.
%% percent of the oil has dispersed naturally into the water column. We know that
naturally occurring bacteria have dispersed and biodegraded a significant amount of the
oil. Bacteria that break down oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large
part because of the warm water there and the conditions afforded by nutrients and oxygen
availability. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of
biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications show that light crude oil is biodegrading
quickly.
%% percent of the oil was dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of
chemical dispersants, and then another %% percent of the oil evaporated. During
evaporation, the volatile components of oil evaporate as gas, while the components that
are not volatile fo,nn residue such as tar balls.
These estimates leave us~th about %% percent of the oil remaining in the form of
surface slicks, tar balls, and deposits on Gulfbeaches. R~cent satellite imagery indicates
the surface oil. is continuing to break up into smaller scattered patches. Some of the
remaining oil also includes tar balls and near shore oil that is submerged beneath the
surface and therefore undetectable by over flights and satellites. These tar balls may wash
up on shore, or they may continue to degrade as winds and ocean currents continue to
spread them into the Gulf.
_.. NOAA will continue to track the movement of the remaining oil and issue .daily surface
oil trajectories for ~ long, as necessary. ~OAA responders are worlcing)vi$ the Unified
...
-.
Even tho~ the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead,
001382
understanding impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf
region will take time and continued monitoring and research.
001383
Justin-Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cancelmo, Denney [dcancelmo@simmonsco-intl.com]

ALready got it - After media of course
image001.png
Federal Science Report Oeta.ils Fate of Oil from BP Spill

Key contact numbers
Report oiled shoreline or request volunteer information: (866) 448-5816
Submit alternative response technology, services or products: (281) 3665511
Submit your vessel for the Vessel of Opportunity Program: (866) 2797983
Phone: (713) 323-1670

(713) 323-1671

WASHINGTON -
The vast majority of the oil from the BP oil spill has either evaporated or been
burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed - much of which is in the process of
being degraded. A significant amount of this is the direct result of the robust federal response efforts.
released today.
dispersed naturally into microscopic droplets. Th~ residual amount, just over one quarter (26
percent), is either on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore
or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Dispersed and residual oil
remain in the system until they degrade through a number of natural processes. Early indications are
that the oil. is degrading quickly.
These estimates were 'derived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
the Department of the Interior (DOl), who jOintly developed what's known as an Oil Budget Calculator,
to provide measurements and best estimates of what happened to the spilled oil. The calculator is
based on 4.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gulf, the government's Flow Rate Technical
Group estimate from Monday. More than 25 of the best government and independent scientists
contributed to or reviewed the calculator and its calculation methods.
001384
based on the data from those efforts and their collective expertise, they have been able to provide
these useful and educated estimates about the fate of the oil," says Jane Lubchenco, under secretary
of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. "Less oil on the surface does not
mean that there isn't oil still in the water column or that our beaches and marshes aren't still at risk.
Knowing generally what happened to the oil helps us better understand areas of risk and likely
impacts."
understanding the damages and impacts of the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something
Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column and at
the surface. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf,
the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists 'from NOAA, EPA, DOE, and
academic scientists are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate.
It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant
in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen
.
-.
levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through naturalseeps regularly.
Residual oil is also ..degr~ded and weathered by a number of physical and biological processes.
Microbes consume the oil, and wave action,sun, currents and continued evaporation and dissolution
recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports. The skimming
numbers were also based on daily reported.:estimates.The rest ot"thenumbers were based on
previous scientific analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific expertise.
These estimates will continue to be refined as additional information becomes available .
. To view the full BP oil spill budget report, click here.
SIMMONS & COMPANY
2
001385
lNTERNATlONAL
700 Louisiana, Suite 1900 HOiJston, TX 77002
L.
Denney Cancelmo
Director-Trading
~anaging
lain: 800.856.3241
irect: 713.223.7854
:IX:
713.223.7845
cancelmo@simmonsco-intl.com
v1:denneycan
This internet e-mail correspondence contains confidential and/or privileged information. The information is intended to be
only for the use of the recipient named. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this
. internet e-mail correspondence is unauthorized and strictly prohibited.
Please note: All electronic mail sent to or received from this address will be archived by Simmons & Company
Intemational's electronic mail system and is subject to review by someone other than the recipient.
- - -..--..-..
---<----~.---
..
--~--.---------------------
001386
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Christy Loper [Christy.loper@noaa.gqv]

.
Jennifer Austin
Jen Pizza
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 3_cel.doc
Hi Jen.,
I'm new to the war room but took a quick look. Looks great! Some minor edits are included
(very minor grammatical corrections and minor corrections for consistency).
Christy
> 7.29.
Hi,
Please use this version dated

incorporating edits from this morning.
see who USGS thinks .should be identified for this document. A short
list should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond
(NIC IASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern ..
created the upper and lower confidence bounds) .
For NOAA - Bill lehr.
>
26
001387
DRAFT 7.29
independent scientific community to produce an estimate of just how much oil has been skimmed.,

"Remaining oll is
either at the !oLirfa,,,
as light sheert or
weathered tar balls.

has bt''1
biodegraded, or has
already corne ashore
on beadle~.
kimmeo
3%
Figure I: Oil Budget Calculator- Showswhat has happened to the oil.

The Flow Rate Technical Oroup (FRTO), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July 15 between three and tive3-?- million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater
HorizonIBP wellhead. (*When announced, new FRTO flow rate I total escape will adjust this and the
percentages in the oil budget)
As shown in the pie ehartgra~R (Figure I), aggressive response efforts have been successful in
recovering a significant portion of the spilled oil. %% percent of the oil was captured directly from the
weI Ibead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systems. In addition, burning and skimming
operations collected just over %% percent of the oil.
001388
and observations conducted during the Deepwater HorizonJ?E incident. A different evaporation rate is
used for fresh and weathered oil to provide the most accurate number.
as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high pressures into the water column. which
oil. Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oi I are naturally abundant in the Gul f
of Mexico in large part because-of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and
the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through-natural seeps regularly,. While there is more analysis
beaches.
tblt:..cB4 of the oil. Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter
dispersed into Gulfwaters. The remaining amount, rQugb1y one si)t1h+~ is on the surface, in tar balls,
on beaches, !ms been removed from beaches or has been biodegraded.
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the Dt-cpwater Horizon!BP
well head, NOAA remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully
understanding the impacts ofthis spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulfregion will
. See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon- Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 26, for detailed
"eXplanation of calculation methods.
.
.
broad range of scientific expertise. Thes~ numbers will continue to be refined based on additional
001397
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Deepwater Horizon Response External Affairs [donotrepfy@deepwaterhorizonresponse.com]

DATE: August 04,2010 10:22:24 CST
Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP

Spill
Key contact numbers

(866) 448-5816
Submit alternative response technology, services' or
products: (281) 366-5511
(866) 279-7983
Phone: (713) 323-1670

(713) 323-1671
A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater Horizon/BP spill was captured or
mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations, including burning, skimming, chemical, dispersion and
Department of the Interior (001), who jointly developed whafs known as an Oil Budget Calculator, to provide
measurements and best estimates of what happened to the spilled oil. The calculator is based on 4.9 million
.
001398
"Teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since day one ofthis spill, and based on the
Residual oil is also degraded and weathered by a number of physical and biological processes. ,Microbes
estimates where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured
estimates. The rest 'of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available information and a
becomes available.
.
To view the fultBP oil 'spill budget repo~ 'click here:

10
001399
Justin Kenney
Deepwater Horizon Response External Affairs [donotreply@deepwaterhorizonresponse.com]
. Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov
The Ongoing Administration-Wide Response to the Deepwater BP Oil Spill
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
DATE: July 29,201019:27:53 CST
The Ongoing Administration-Wide Response to the

Deepwater BP Oil Spill
Key contact numbers

(866) 448-5816
products: (281) 366-5511
Submit your,vessel for the Vessel of Opportunity Program:
(866) 2797983
I
Phone: (713) 323-1670
(713) 323-1671
The Ongoing Administration-Wide Response to the Deepwater BP Oil Spill

Pr~pared
by the Joint Information Center
UPDATED July 29, 2010 7 PM
* For afull timeline of the Administration-wide response, visitthe White House Blog.
PAST 24 HOURS
Admiral Allen Provides an Update on the BP ()il Spill Response
National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen provided a briefing to infonn the American public and
answer questions on the administration-wide response to the BP oil spill. A full transcript is available here.
Admiral Allen provided an update on ongoing cleanup operations and the progress of preparations for the static
kill procedure and. relief well drilling, and reported on bis meeting today with Louisiana Governor' Bobby Jindal
and the Parish Presidents. He described a "fran.k, open, productive meeting" and discussed three areas of
agreement that were reached:
,A set of principles and protocols on how to proceed with an assessment of when oil cleanup has been
completed, which in collaboration with the parishes and the state will drive resource and organizational
decisions;
More granularity on hurricane and stonn plans, to ensure an appropriate and efficient evacuation of
personnel and equipment;' and
11
001400
An evaluation of the Vessels of Opportunity program, which included finding new work opportunities to
meet the needs of an evolving response and helping out-of-work fisherman with the claims process.
Drilling of the Relief Well Continues
Development Driller III is preparing to lay the casing line, a necessary step before beginning the static kill
procedure, which involves pumping mud and cement in through the top of the well. Development Driller: II is
conducting maintenance and will hold operations and await results of the DDIII reliefwell. Development
Driller III has drilled the first relief well to a depth of 17,864 feet below the Gulf surface and Development
Driller II has drilled the -second relief well-a redundancy measure taken at the direction of
the administration-to a depth of 15,963 feet below the surface.
Seismic and Acoustic Testing Continue to Ensure the Integrity of the Wellhead
In order to ensure the integrity of the wellhead and search for and respond to anomalies, the research vessel
Geeo Topaz is conducting seismic surveys of the seafloor around the wellhead, and the NOAA Ship Gordon
Gunter is conducting acoustic surveys-part of continued efforts to use the best scientific tools available in
response to the BP oil spill. As of this morning, the pressure continues to rise, demonstrating that it has
integrity, and is currently at 6,951 pounds per square inch.
FWS Personnel Continue Wildlife Rescue and Recovery Missions Across the Region
From the Houma, La., Incident Command Post, 256 field personnel, 82 vessels and 2 helicopters participated in
reconnaissance and wildlife rescue and recovery missions. From the Mobile, Ala., Incident Command Post, 28
two-person wildlife recovery teams and 21 support personnel and 18 vessels participated in wildlife recovery
operations and received 34 calls on the Wildlife Hotline. To report oiled wildlife, call (866) 557-1401.
Approved SBA Economic Injury Assistance Loans Surpass $17.3 Million
SBA has approved 201 economic injury assistance loans to date, totaling more than $17.3 million for small
businesses in the Gulf Coast impacted by the BP oil spill. Additionally, the agency has granted deferments on
707 existing SBA disaster loans in the region, totaling more than $3.7 million per month in payments. For
information on assistance loans for affected businesses, visit the SBA's.Web site at
\~7\Vw.sba.!Zov/services/disasterassistance, call (800) 659-2955 (800-877-8339 for the hearing impaired), or
email disastercustomerservice0:;sba.!Zov.
Administration Continues to Oversee BP's Claims Process; More than $250 Million Disbursed
The administration will continue to hold the responsible parties accountable for repairing the damage, and
repaying Americans who've suffered a financial loss as a result of the BP oil spill. To date, 135,217 claims have
been opened, from which more than $258 million have been disbursed. No claims have been denied to date.
There are 1,267 claims adjusters on the ground. To file a claim, visit www.bp.comlclaims or call BP's helpline
at 1-800-440-0858. Those who have already pursued the BP claims process and are not satisfied with BP's
resolution can call the Coast.Guard at (800) 280-7118. Additional information about the BP claims process and
all available.avenues of assistance' can be found at www~disasterassistance.gov.
By the Numbers to Date:
The administration has authorized the deployment of 17,500 National Guard troops from Gulf Coast
states to respond to this crisis; cUITently, 1,708 are active.
12
001401
More than 33,200 personnel are currently responding to protect the shoreline and wildlife and cleanup
vital coastlines.
Approximately 4,400 vessels are currently responding on.site, including skimmers, tugs, barges, and
recovery vessels to assist in containment and cleanup efforts-in addition to dozens of aircraft, remotely
operated vehicles, and multiple mobile offshore drilling units.
More than 3.48 million feet of containment boom and 7.88 million feet of sorbent boom have been
deployed to contain the spill-and approximately 935,000 feet of containment boom and 2.92 million
feet of sorbent boom are available.
More than 34.7 million gallons of an oil-water mix have been recovered.
Approximately 1.84 million gallons of total dispersant have been applied-I.07 million on the surface
and 771,000 sub-sea. Approximately 577,000 gallons are available.
411 controlled bums have been conducted, efficiently removing a total of more than 11.14 million
gallons of oil from the open water in an effort to protect shoreline and wildlife. Because calculations on
the volume of oil burned can take more than 48 hours, the reported total volume may not reflect the most
recent controlled burns.
17 staging areas are in place to protect sensitive shorelines.
Approximately 625 miles of Gulf Coast shoreline is currently oiled-approximately 359 miles in
Louisiana, 105 miles in Mississippi, 65 miles in Alabama, and 93 miles in Florida. These numbers
reflect a daily snapshot of shoreline currently experiencing impacts from oil so that planning and field
operations can more quickly respond to new impacts; they do not include cumulative impacts to date, or
shoreline that has already been cleared.
Approximately 57,539 square miles of Gulf of Mexico federal waters remain closed to fishing in order
to balance economic and public health concerns. Approximately 76 percent remains open. Details can be
found at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.lZov!.
To date, the administration has leveraged assets and skills from numerous foreign countries and
international organizations as part of this historic, all-hands-on-deck response, including Argentina,
Belgium, Canada, China, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Mexico,
Netherlands, Norway, Qatar, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United
Kingdom, the United Nations' International Maritime Organization, the European Union's Monitoring
and Information Centre, and the European Maritime Safety Agency.
Resources:
For information about the response effort, visit \\-'V\,'vJ.RestoreTheGulf.gov.
For specific information about the federal-wide response, visit http://www.whitehouse.lZov/deepwaterbp-oil-spill
To contact the Deepwater Horizon Joint Infonnation Center, call (713) 323-1670.
-To volunteer, or to report oiled shOreline, call (866) 448-5816. Volunteer opportunities can also be
13
001402
found here.
,;
To submit your vessel as a vessel of opportunity skimming system, or to submit alternative response
technology, services, or products, call 281 ~366~5511:
To report oiled wildlife, call (866) 557~1401.
For information about validated environmental air and water sampling results, visit
WW\V .epa, go\' /bpspi 11.
For National Park Service updates about potential park closures, resources at risk, and NPS actions to
protect vital park space and wildlife, visit http://v\'''\v\v.nps.gov/abolltus/oil-spill-response.htm.
For Fish and Wildlife Service updates about response along the Gulf Coast and the status of national
wildlife refuges, visit http://,;vww.n:vs.gov/home/dhoilspil1/.
For daily updates on fishing closures, visit http://sero.nmfs.noaa.!lov.
For information on assistance loans for affected businesses, visit the SBA's Web site at
www.sba.gov/services/disasterassistance, call (800) 659-2955 (800-877-8339 for the hearing impaired),
or email disastercustomerservice@sba.gov.
To file a claim With BP, visit w-ww.bp.com/claims or call BP's helpline at (800) 440~0858. A BP fact
sheet with additional information is available here. Those who have already pursued the BP claims
process and are not satisfied with BP's resolution, can call the Coast Guard at (800) 280~7118. More
information about what types of damages are eligible for compensation under the Oil Pollution Act as
well as guidance on procedures to seek that compensation can be found here.
In addition, \v\vw.disasterassistance.gov has been enhanced to provide a one-stop shop for information
on how to file a claim with BP and access additional assistance-available in English and Spanish.
Any members of the press who encounter response personnel restricting their access or violating the
media access policv set forth by Admiral Allen should contact the Joint Information Center. Click here
for more information, including a list of regular embed opportunities.
..
###
14
-.-
001403
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Deepwater Horizon Response External Affairs [donotreply@deepwaterhorizonresponse.comj

CORRECTION MEDIA ADVISORY: Press Briefing and Teleconference to Provide
Operational Update on Ongoing Deepwater HorizonfBP Oil Spill Response Efforts
DATE: July 29,2010 18:18:29 CST
CORRECTION MEDIA ADVISORY: Press

Briefing and Teleconference to Provide Operational
Update on Ongoing Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Spill
Response Efforts
Key contact numbers
Report oiled shoreline or request volunteer information:

(866) 448-5816
products: (281) 366-5511
(866) 279-7983
Phone: (713)323-1670
(713) 323-1671
Who: Adm. Thad Allen, National Incident Commander .
What: Press Briefmg 'and teleconference to provide' operational update on ongoing Deepwater HorizonlBP oil
spill response efforts
Where: Aviation Coordination Command headquarters, 601st Air & Space Operations Center, Tyndall Air
Force Base, Fla.
When: Friday, July 30, 2010, 11 :45 a.m. CDT. The call-in number for press unable to attend is (866) 304-5784
for domestic callers; and (706) 643-1612 for international callers. Conference ID# 91684547
The press briefmg will be held'inside the gates of Tyndall Air Force Base and media will require escort to the
briefmg. Press should meet at the Tyndall Visitors Center parking lot at the Sabre Gate (just east of the DuPont
Bridge) no later than 11 :00 a.m., CDT to be escorted to the venue. For answers to logistical questions about the
press briefing, contact Air Forces Northern Public Affairs at (850) 283-8080.
###
15
001404
"
....
16
001405
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-'
Deepwater Horizon Response External Affairs [donotreply@deepwaterhorizonresponse.com]
MEDIA ADVISORY: Press Briefing and Teleconference to Provide Operational Update on
Ongoing Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Spill Response Efforts
DATE: July 29,2010 18:04:56 CST
MEDIA ADVISORY: Press Briefing and

Teleconference to Provide Operational Update on
Ongoing Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Spill Response
Efforts
Key contact numbers

(866) 448-5816
products: (281) 366-55] 1
(866) 279-7983
Phone: (713)323-1670
(713) 323-1671
Who: Adm. Thad Allen, National Incident Commander

What: Press Briefing and teleconference to provide operational update on ongoing Deepwater HorizonlBP oil
spill response efforts
Where: Aviation Coordination Command headquarters, 60 1st; Air & Space Operations Center, Tyndall Air
Force Base, Fla.
When: Friday, July 30, 2010, 11 :45 p.m. CDT. The call-in number for press unable to attend is (866) 304-5784,
for domestic
callers, and (706) 643-1612 for international callers. Conference ID#. 91684547
The press briefing will be held inside the gates of Tyndall Air Force: Base and media will require escort to the
briefing. Press should me~t:at ~e Tyndall Visitors Center parking lot at the Sabre Gate Gust east of the DuPont
Bridge) no later than 11 :00 a.m., CDr to be escorted to the venue. For answers to logistical questions about the
press briefing, contact Air Forces Northern Public Affairs at (850) 283-8080.
###
17
001406
18
001407
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Deepwater Horizon Response Extern'al Affairs [donotreply@deepwaterhorizonresponse.com]

Transcript - Press Briefing by National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen
DATE: July 29,2010 17:49:11 CST
Transcript - Press Briefing by National Incident

Commander Admiral Thad Allen
Key contact numbers

(866) 448-5816
products: (281) 366-:~511.
(866) 279-7983
...
Phone: (713) 323-1670

(713) 323-1671
Below is a transcript from Thursday's teleconference press briefmg by Admiral Thad Allen, National
Incident Commander for the Deepwater HorizonlBP oil spill.
A downloadable audio file of the conference is available here.
July 29, 2010
12:45 p.m. CDT
Thad Allen: Thank you, Megan. Let me give you a quick operational update and then I'd like to discuss the
meeting I had this morning with Governor Jindal and the Louisiana Parish presidents.
We continue to make good progress towards both the static kill and the bottom relief well. We look to be laying
the casing line into the relief well later on this evening and cementing that. That will set the stage for us to
move on with the static kill which will be pumping the mud and then the cement in through the top of the welL
I briefed you in the past that that was scheduled to take place tentatively next Monday. There is a chance that
schedule could be accelerated but it's going to depend on how successful they are and how efficient they are in
laying the casing and moving forward.
The pressure in the wellhead is up to 6,951 PSI. It continues to exhibit all of the characteristics of a well with
integrity. We continue to do seismic runs and testing, visual monitoring, hydrophone and geophone testing and
again there are no indications of anomalies that would lead us to believe we have a problem with well integrity.
19
001408
We continue to conduct intensive surveillance in the post stonn week looking for oil. As we have talked before
it's more dispersed and harder to find. So we had 121 surveillance flights yesterday, we have 92 scheduled
today plus we have the air ship out there cond.ucting surveillance as well.
We're going to try and be as aggressive as we can with skimmers offshore to try and deal with this oil offshore
but again we're finding less and less oil as we move forward. The thing I'd like to talk about probably most
today is we had a very, very consequential meeting earlier today, a little over two hours, attended by Governor
Jindal and the Parish Presidents of Southern Louisiana.
We talked about a range of issues including local coordination for spill response, coordination as we move from
response into recovery, what the implications are of the static kill and the potential bottom kill of the well, how
we might want to move forward together, how we can involve the local parishes in that planning, how the
parishes then integrate with the state to combine with us to understand the way forward as we shift from more
recovery intensive ol?erations excuse me response operations to long-term recovery operations.
And there were three general areas that we had a discussion on and reached agreement. The first one was to
involve the state and the parishes in a set of principles or criteria by which we can assess how to move forward
from response to recovery and this includes how we want to take a look at how much oil is out there, how it's
coming to shore.
As there becomes less oil how to we basically get to the inevitable question of how clean is clean? How do we
come back and respond where oil shows up on beaches after we've already dealt with oil beaches and removed
the threat.
We are seeking input by next week from the parishes into that set of criteria That will help us develop a longer
term plan. As we move towards the static kill and the bottom kill we want to be ready when we finally remove
the threat of oil discharge at all to understand where it is we want to go in the future and how we want to work
together in an integrated at the federal, state and local level.
We also had a significant discussion about the preparations we made for the passing of Tropical Storm Bonnie
last week to the extent that we can refine our hurricane plans we pretty much were at a what I would call an on
or off switch. It was either a hurricane or it wasn't. We didn't quite get a hurricane but we made preparations to
remove equipment and personnel as if it was a hurricane.
I think we all agreed there are going to be gradations of impact on tropical depressions and storms and there
might be some intermediate or mid-level types of actions we can take in conjunction with the parishes that
would not be as extreme in tenhs of where the equipment goes that would allow us to make sure it was safely
guarded during the storm passage but could be brought back to the scene more qUickly.
We engaged in very frank and open discussions with Parish Presidents on that including some of the processes
and negotiations and activities that took place over the last week or so. And we have committed to go back and
take a look at our storm plans and graduating them in terms oflevel of severity as it relates to where we would
move the equipment and how we would work with the local parishes.
The third 'area 'was- sigliifidmt, you know the vessels of opportunity. Obviously as we transition to a point
where there is not a threat of a spill and this is all conditioned on the fact that we will have a successful static
kill and bottom kill of the well the employment of vessels of op~~~ty is going to n~cessarily .have to change .. " '.
That doesn't mean that there is not going to be work to do but it will be a different type of work to do and we're
going to have to understand how we're going to apply these vessels. These vessels are also caught up in the
issue of whether or not the fishing areas are open.
20
001409
They're also caught up in whether or not they're involved as a vessel of opportunitY'and if they're not whether or
not they fall into the claims process. It's a v~ry, very complicated issue. What we decided to do was come up
with a joint vessel of opportunity employment plan that would take us through the end of August. It would
overlap decisions that are forthcoming on either fishing areas being open.
The Gulf Coast claims process being stood up. So we had to wait to know how we were going to use vessels of
opportunity and employ to all these other decisions that are being made external with the response or activities
will be brought about - will be conducted.
Those three areas I have Task Admiral Zukunft who is the Unified Area Commander down here to work with
the state and the parish presidents. We all committed in the room and that included Governor Jindal and all the
parish presidents to move forward in the next week to attack all those three areas.
Let me just summarize them again because I think they're very important. One of them is an agreed upon set of
principles and protocols on how we progress to assess whether or not oil cleanup has been completed. And that
will necessarily ultimately drive resource and organizational decisions but that would be done with the complete
input and collaboration cooperation with the parishes and the state.
Second is greater granularly on hurricane and storm plans.. So if we have less severe front that moves through,
we know we have a graduated response where we put equipment and how we evacuate personnel or if we need
to evacuate personnel so that's done in the most efficient way possible.
And third, is a program to take a look at vessels of opportunity, how we want to manage them, how we want to
employ them. There is an interaction with vessels of opportunity. How we use oil spill response contractors.
How missions are assigned between those. And then in what areas and how we use them.
Again we're going to develop a plan moving forward that will cover us through the month of August. All in all
it was a very frank open productive meeting. You know these parish presidents, nobody held anything back.
We got everything on table I think we needed to talk about.
I thought it was a refreshing cOllversation. I look forward to having more of these conversations moving
forward because I thought it was very productive. Again, I want to thank Governor Jindal and the parish
presidents for their participation this morning.

I'll be glad to take any questions you have for me.
Female: Hi, (inaudible), this is not on the topic of the parish president but a question about containment at well
site ...
Thad Allen: Yes.
Female: (inaudible) mentioned early this week that the containment strategy was continuing to be filled out.
And I'm wondering what's the current capacity now particularly since the Q4000 is being retrofitted to pump
mud again. How many vessels are out there and if you did have to return containment today what would be
capacity.
Thad Allen:lfwe had to return the containment it would take quite a catastrophic event for that to happen. I
think you know given where we're at with the cap. We would have the Helix Producer lout on line and we
21
001410
actually have the Discoverer Enterprise that is there as well as with another top hat variation that could come in
and go back over the top of the capping stack should we need to do that..
So we would have the capacity of the Discoverer Enterprise and the Helix Producer but we would not be able to
do that right away. It would take a few days to give that up and operating.
And I don't have the notes in front of me right now but I think we're probably dealing with Discoverer
Enterprise somewhere between 15 and 18,000 barrels a day. And I think the Helix Producer if! remember right
somewhere between 20 and 25,000 barrels a day.
So that would be the aggregate containment capability we would had such we need to use it. Of course we're
happy with where we're at with the capping stack. We've seen no anomalies and we did have well integrity. So
I'm not sure that's going to be required but we have out there in case we need it.
Female: (inaudible).
Thad Allen: That's being sequenced after the seismic runs and the static kill. As soon as the static kill- -well,
actually the static kill is done in the bottom kill when we may be at the need for the second riser package but
that - remains some work to be done laying some of the lines to be able to complete that and build it out.
Right now because ofthe - what we call simultaneous operations and everybody can't be doing everything at
once in the area. We have prioritize the laying the casing for the relief well and the static kill and the seismic
runs and they're helping us assess whether or not we have vessel integrity as the highest priorities with the
containment for the second vertical riser to come behind that.
Male: (Mac Davis) (inaudible). Is there any indication of how many vessels of opportunity may still be in
water, come this employment plan that's going through August? That there is 1,500 today. Is it going to half or
what's going to happen there?
Thad Allen: I'm not sure we really know and that's where we've really got to sit down and work this out with
the parish presidents and actually this will happen all along the coast.
There are some other things we need to have done. We have enormous amount of boom out there. And some
of that boom was actually washed over very sensitive marsh areas in the last storm that came through.
And as we intend to move from response to recovery, we're going to go out and recover that boom: We don't
want plastic, non-biodegradable boom out there in these marshlands forever. In some places it's gotten very,
very far up into the marshes. So there is going to be a significant amount of work to do. It's just plain boom
recovery, decontamination and then putting that back into storage so where we might need it the future.
We've also taken a look at putting out some monitoring equipment. This is very simple but It's kind of very
effective to let us know whether or not there might be subsurface oil in the back areas with the marshes and so
forth. It involves basically putting snare boom which oil would adhere to inside a crab trap and putting a buoy
up and then checking that every day to see if its detected any oil that's working through that might come .into .: "
the bottom where you might normally have a crap trap;
"
..... .
We want to put these out in a variety of areas. We have these out in a Chandelier Islands and Breton Sound
right now. So another we might want to use the vessels of opportunity to be put those sensors out.
22
001411
We know there also is going to be some opportunities working with NOAA regarding fisheries areas, actually
catching fish that can be tested in advance of decisions that will be forthcoming regarding the opening in
fisheries areas.
So a lot of different things but not quite what they've been doing right now. If you can imagine just moving
away from skimming type, working lane boom to the types of things we're going to have to do in this transition
and then it moving in long-tenn recovery.
What we needed to figure out is what kind of size of force we're going to need to do that and do that openly and
cooperatively with the parishes.
(Jamie Carvic): Hi, (Jamie Carvic) from NPR. What is the current situation with the vessels of opportunity?
How many do you have and what - I mean if you could sort of group you know how many you know are
working, how many are not. And are they all being paid including the ones that aren't working at the moment.
Thad Allen: I'm going to give - we're going to give you the exact details later on today. We will follow-up with
the numbers. Let me just give you generically kind of the way they're group right now.
We have vessels that are enrolled in the program. There is a certain amount of compensation that comes with
that. And then on a day-to-day basis when they employ them all sort of actually go do something. So there are
kind of two levels of compensations thai they might get.
There are also some vessels that have been involved in the program and other vessels that want to enter so in
some areas we're actually rotating them out after they've served for awhile. We bring some other vessels in.
We have vessel of opportunity operating in areas where we also have contractors. So obviously we can make a
decision moving forward on whether or not it's best to use a contractor or use a vessel of opportunity if they can
do the same thing. This has to do with the capability of the vessel, the operators and so forth.
As long as we're doing that then we don't have an economic loss of income and never have to move into the
claims process for as far as maintaining their livelihood and making the payments on the boat and so forth.
Those are the exactly discussions that we were having this morning with the parish presidents. It's not a one
size fits all. Because the vessels are different in each parish depending on what type of fisheries they're
involved in and actually the geography of the waterway and how much they know about it versus what kind of
contracting help is available.
That's the reason I said we need to sit down over the next 9 or 10 days and develop a plant that takes us through
the end of August. And so we by that time we will know exactly where we're going with the Gulf Coast claims
facility and we can have a plan to deal with them versus how many contractors we want to use.
As you can imagine this is fairly complicated and almost has to be negotiated down to the local level.
Female: (Inaudible).
Thad Allen: A vessel of opportunity would be most likely a commercial fishing vessel that Calmot fish right
now because of the closure, so there's a loss of income. We have an opportunity to use them as part of the
response, to lay boom, pull skimmers, do logistics and things like - nonnally we would do that with contractors.
23
001412
You could do it with contractors. So it was a question of the mix in contractors versus vessels .of opportunity
and what may be better for us to employ the vessels of opportunity in lieu of contractors to make sure they
maintain employment.
But as the operation shifts from oil spill response to recovery the types of things we have to do out there are
going to change. We just need to negotiate what is the best use of the vessels that are in the area. And that's
best on a local leveL
And those were the basis of our conversations today.
Camille Whitworth: Good Afternoon, Camille Whitworth, WDSU news. We talked to some parish presidents
this morning. You know as you say they don't bite their tongue much. There's some concern that the Coast
Guard and BP is pulling out early sort of dwindling what they need and things of that nature.
Can you kind of talk about your timeline on that and is there a pullout of some sort and if so, what?
Thad Alan: Sure. First of all we didn't talk about an exact timeline. We talked about getting the parish
presidents and the state involved and all agreeing to the things that would need to happen as we make a
transition.
Assuming that the oil flow has stopped and four to six weeks we don't have a lot of oil out there on the water we
may be picking it up on the beaches and in the marshes. How do we transition? And what needs to be left in
terms or resources? And we also know we're in the middle of hurricane season.
So we know there's going to have to be some residual equipment and capacity at the parish level for them to be
able to deal with the remaining hurricane season, any oil that still may be out there.
There's the issue of whether or not we may fmd oil under the water. That's the reason we're doing some of the
testing that I talked about earlier. All of that relates to what the follow on levels ofresourcing we need to
support the plan.
And I think it was more of an issue of how do we talk to them about how we create the plan and bring them into
the process rather than what the ultimate resource level is. I think we all know if you need fewer skimming
vessels out there then there's going to be some kind of a resource leveling that we're going to need to consider.
But we all need to know what that is and we also need to know there needs to be somewhat of an insurance
policy. Number one we stay there long enough. And number two that there's enough to handle what could
reasonably be expected to happen in terms of re-oiling the beaches, tar balls and so forth regarding the fate of
the oil moving forward.
And then that was the second point we had a long discussion on this morning. And that's what the planning is
going to be going forward.
Female: (Inaudible) like you were pulling out without necessarily being forthcoming with them?
Thad Alan: Well there are a couple different issues. First of all there was an issue about pulling out equipment
before that last storm to protect it and then bring it back in, and whether or not that was properly communicated..
We had along conversation that led to the discussion about graduated plans based on the sever,ity oftb,e storm -::.
and what we would do. The second thing is to come up with a set of assumptions or criteria about how we want
to deal with cleaning the beaches.
24
001413
How clean is clean? 'What kind of resources need to be there and whatever that resourcing level is that supports
that would involve the parishes in the planning.
~
Harry' Web~r: Harry Weber from the .Associated Press. Aqmiral Alan on the off sh9r~4rilling moratorium,
there's a long term response plan that some of the industry are putting together. But that's not going to be ready
for about 14 months after the current moratorium ends of November 30th.
is
The question I have "do you - given what you've been dealing with for the last three months, think that that's
running a risk worth taking letting that moratorium expire without that plan alrea4y in place at that time?
And secondly a housekeeping question can you just tell us the current depth of the two relief wells?
Thad Alan: Well first of all, the moratorium is a policy issue that's above my pay grade. And the consortium
that's being put together for deep sea drilling response with the other companies is something I think certainly is
a worthy idea they need to be looking at.
But it is not connected directly to this response so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment. I
think from a policy standpoint when we're all through this response and looking at lessons learned, I think there
may be some significant things they would like to know as far as the consortium goes about what actually
happened in bottom in terms of well control..
And I don't have the figures in front of me right now but I think we're at development driller three, I'm thinking
it's probably around 17,800 and I'll get that exactly for you. And I think we're around 16,000 on development
driller two.
I just didn't walk out with the numbers with me. But we'll get you the exact numbers.
Megan Maloney: Operator at this time we're prepared to take some questions from the phone please.
Operator: You have a quest!on from (Deirise Haywold) with (Clearwater Perspective).
(Denise Haywold): Hi, thank you for taking my call. I just ~ve a quick question for you in regards to the static
kill. With the containment cap currently holding all the oil in the well, what is the logic behind actually putting
forth the static kill?
Is there any way we could possibly just put that to the side and then wait for the relief wells to come in and to
intersect them to drill? I mean are we kind of playing with fire here?
Thad Alan: I don't think so. If we had indication there was a problem with well integrity, in other words we
could attribute the current pressures in the capping stack to the fact that there was a problem with the casing or
the well bore that was allowing oil or hydrocarbons to leak out into the fonnation in such quantity they could
seep up to the floor of the ocean, that would be a significant concern to us.
But once we were able to close in or the cap, and then conduct seismic sw::vey,. acoustic surveys, take th~
temperatures of the well head, the pressures at the well head,-use hydrophenes andgeopb.ones, and basically .... ::.'
create what I would call a.three dimensional MRI of the fonnation surrounding the-well, our science team has.
come to the conclusion that we do have well integrity.
The well is safe to do a static kill that this would actually enhance and make more effective the ultimate bo.ttom,
.kill because we would be filling the well with mud and then cement from the top down.
25
001414
That would mean that when we intersect the annulus at some point after the static kill we would then fill the
well with mud and cement from the bottom up outside the casing. We would then check to see if the static kill
had worked then you actually have the option then, you don't need the final step of the bottom kill by drilling
into the pipe and having to fill that as well.
.
That would already be accomplished by the static kilL There's a lot of discussion over the last several weeks
about the pros and cons of the fact that we started with a low pressure inside the cap.
The pressure has steadily risen and its risen in a pattern that' sconsistent with: the well with integrity and I
believe the general consensus between the science team and BP right now is we're probably had depletion of the
reservoir due to the oil that was released to date that resulted in a lower starting pressure when we put the cap
on.
So for those combined reasons, we feel it's safe to go ahead with the static kill and then follow that with a
bottom kill.
(Denise Haywold): Thank you.
Operator: Your next question comes from (David Fleshier) \Vith the (South Florida Sun).
(David Fleshier): Hi, (David Fleshier) with the (South Florida Sun Sentinel). I wanted to ask about the loop
current and the possibility of oil reaching the Florida Keys or the rest of South Florida.
Assuming the well gets permanently plugged is that danger over?
.Thad Alan: Yes it will be. Once the well is killed we will secure the source of oil relation to the Macondo well.
I would tell you this, for the past almost several months now there has been an eddy that has broken off from
the loop current between the well head.
And where that current actually comes north and then turns and goes back down to the straits of Florida, so
there's actually been a eddy that's created a barrier, hydraulic barrier if you will between the well head and the
loop current.
And the chances that oil would become entrained in the loop current are very, very low and will go to zero as
we continue to c<?ntrol the leakage at the well with the cap and ultimately kill it.
Male: That's even counting the oil that's already out there all the (different) very small amounts at the surface.
Thad Allen: That's correct the recent storm Tropical Depression Bonnie that came through actually drove most
of the oil that's out there to the North West. And so where we're seeing oil in any concentration and it's not a
lot is somewhere between the middle to Western end of Mississippi Sound down through the Chandelier Islands
to the Breton Sound to the passes into the Mississippi River over to Barataria Bay, (Tembalara Bay), and
Terrebonne.'
....
,
,.
..
And very little to the East so if you get past the Perdido Pass over into the panhandle of Florida w~'r-e.~eirig
very little impact over there. And this is' all moving in the opposite direction' of where the 011 woul<fn.eed to be
to enter the loop current.
... . ,..
Male: Thank you.
Operator: Your next question comes from Brian Walsh with Time Magazine.
26
001415
Brian Walsh: Hi, Admiral where does the sand berm plan stand at this point. I mean is it - is construction still
proceeding on those given the fact that the oil-as you point out has been so considerably in zone that is likely to
flow longer? Is that just going to be stopped I mean what actually is the (inaudible)?
Thad Allen: Brian, I think I didn't get the first half of your question could you repeat it please.
Brian Walsh: Yes, sorry I was wondering what's happening with the sand berm, Governor Jindal plan, given
that the oil now has stopped flowing for the most part is much thinner. Is that simply going to be stopped I
mean what actually is happening with this.
Thad Allen: Well the process for building out the sand berms was actually past to a relationship between BP
and the state subject to the dredging permits that were provided to the state. And they've been pretty much
doing that bilaterally. It doesn't involve national incident command and I'd almost refer you to go Governor
Jindal and BP for the status on that.
Megan Maloney: Operator we'll take the next question please.
Operator: Your next question comes from (Brett Lanton) with Houston Chronicle.
(Brett Lanton): Hi, Admiral thanks for taking the question. Two quick questions under what circumstances
would the static kill procedure move forward ahead of schedule first question. And then secondly, any more
detail today on the flow rate from the well thank you.
Thad Allen: Things would allow us maybe to move faster on the static kill would be increased schedule gain
and laying the casing and cementing that in, which is a pre condition of the static kill. After that it would be the
preparations would be made on the Q4000 and there are two boats working with the Q4000.
One is a mud supply boat the other one is a boat that actually pumps the mud from the mud supply boat to the.
Q4000 and down into the manifold before it enters the well head itself. There are certain final preparations that
they are going through in advance of that. Should any of those gain some time in the detail the types of steps
they have to go through we could maybe see this thing accelerated into the weekend.
But right now let's hold it Monday until we see whether or not they're actually able to gain -any time. And on
the fate of the oil on the old budget the flow rate a lot of discussion on that the last week or so. Our science
folks are really working this hard.
We know that as we come to the end of potentially being able to put an end to the oil flow the question of how
much oil is actually released is out there we've always said that the range of 35 to 60,000 barrels a day was just
a range. And we're going to try and narrow that..
.,
We now have more information than we did before we have pressure readings from the capping stack as we'put
that on. Wehave all the data that's been taken in around the well we're going to have more data as we do the
static kill in relationto pressure -inside the well. And that all collectively is being analyzed by our science'tearn';:';
..
.
.
"
..
.
right now.
They're also taking a look at the amount of oil that's been detected on the surface through various types of
sensors and we'll be bringing all that together until the extent that we can come up with a refined flow rate we
will do that. But that in tum will allow us to come up with a better estimate on the total amount of oil and then
we can start taking a look at what's been skimmed,. burned, disbursed, what should have been evaporated.
27
001416
And hopefully in the end we'll get a good handle on the fate of the oil since it was discharged into the
environment and what may not be accounted for out there. And that's of great interest to us and to everybody
else and we're working on it right now and I think you'll see that forthcoming in the next week or so.
Megan Maloney: Operator at this time we'll take our final question.
Operator: Your final question comes from Susan Daker with Dow Jones.
Susan Decker: Oh, you know my question's been answered thank you so much.
Thad Allen: Astounding. Thank you folks.
Operator: Thank you for participating in today's conference call you may now disconnect.
28
001417
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
DH Response StratCom Plans [dhrstratcomplans@gmail.com]

. ..
.
.
adam. fetcher@dhs.gov; Andrew Grenier; Bill Travis; Bob Davis; Bobby Whithorne;
001418
Cc:
Subject:
Ell, Daily Report 29 JUL 2010
For your reading and infonnation,

R,
Patti
001421
Justin Kenney' ..
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Fetcher, Adam [Adam.Fetcher@dhs.Qov]

Jane Lubchenco; Griffis, Kevin; Smullen, Scott
Kenney, Justin; Austin, Jennifer
FW: Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill
From: bounces+557f203@piersystem,com [mailto:bounces+557f203@piersystem,com] On Behalf Of Deepwater

Horizon Response External Affairs
To: Fetcher, Adam
Subject: Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill
DATE: Au' 'USf:()4t':20to" O
~::t.;;
;;.;;, ,!. ;',~ ~
, .:, ' ,
"
.'
.'
.. '
Federal Science R.eport Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill

Key contact numbers
Report oiled shoreline or request volunteer information: (866) 448-5816
Submit alternative response technology, services or products: (281) 3665511
Submit your vessel for the Vessel of Opportunity Program: (866) 2797983
incident
t If
+'
.C
4~oln .. n. ormadon. enter
R
Phone: (713) 323-1670

(713) 323-1671

WASHINGTON - The vast majority of the oil from the BP oil spill has either evaporated or been
burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed - much of which is in the process of
being degraded. A significant amount of this is the direct result of the robust federal response efforts.
released today.
001422
percent), is either on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore
or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand a"rid sediments. Dispersed and residual oil
remain in the system until they degrade through a number of natural processes. Early indications are
that the oil is degrading quickly.
These estimates were derived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
the Department of the Interior (001), who jointly developed what's known as an Oil Budget Calculator,
to provide measurements and best estimates of what happened to the spilled oil. The calculator is
based on 4.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gulf, the government's Flow Rate Technical
Group estimate from Monday. More than 25 of the best government and independent scientists
contributed to or reviewed the calculator and its calculation methods.
~,.,.,.
,..
,
impacts."
understanding the damages and impacts of the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something
the BP Deepwater Horizon spW is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE, and
academic scientists are .w0.rking to calculate more precise estimates of this rate.
It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant
in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient a.nd oxygen
levels, and the f~ct that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
001423
Microbes consume the oil, and wave action, sun, currents and. c.ontinued evaporation and dissolution
recovery.and bl!rns were measured directly and reported in daily operational ref3orts. The skimming
numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were based on
previous scientific analyses, best. av~ilableinform_~tion and a b.road range of scientific expertise.
These estimates will continue to be refined as additional information becomes available.
To view the full 8P oil spid budget report, click here.
Share
001432
DRAFT 8.2v 7pm

The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled a stellar scientific team composed of government and
contained. evaporated and dispersed from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They developed a tool.
called the Oil Budget Calculator, to determine what happened to the oil. The numbers in the calculator
The figure used for release oil. 4.9 million barrels. is the most recent estimate announced on August 2,
2010 by the National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), led by United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt. and a team of Department of Energy (DOE)
scientists and engineers. led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
Based on these numbers. it is estimated that burning. skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead
removed one quarter of oil released from the wellhead. One quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated
or dissolved and just less than one quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as
small droplets into the Gulf waters. The residual amount just over one quarter, is either on or just below
the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collepted from the shore, or is
buried in sand and sediments.

8a:'li:d on ef>limuu:d re/eo,!:! oJ 4.9 M barre.'s vf oii
"Residual oil it~(kdes

oil ~rar i, on or ju';t
~Iow l"~
:'Jr!ace zs
r~iid Je a1d
t';fh;;lh,
Federal
Response
Operations
wilalhered
ha~ vp..'.. h~d
~h()r.~()r
b<:'cn
l.<.>1"~l...J r,,;,rtl It '"
shore, or :;orne is
buried in sa1d and
5ftdirnents
Figure I: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
001433
Federal Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with the oil have been aggressive. As shov;n in the
pie chart (Figure I). response efforts were successful in dealing with 33% of the spilled oil. This
systems (17%). burning (5%). skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct capture, burning
,
Dispersion: Based on estimates. 16% of the oil dispersed naturally into the water column and 8% was
dispersed by the application of nearly 50.000 barrels of chemical dispersants on and below the surface.
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets: For the purpose of this
analysis. 'dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter of a
human hair. Oil droplets that are this small remain in the water column where they then begin to
biodegrade. Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to keep it from coming
ashore in large surface slicks and make it more readily available for biodegradation. Chemical
dispersants were applied atthe surfaceandbelow the surface, therefore the chemically dispersed oil
ended up both in the water column and at the surface. Dispersion increases the likelihood for the oil to
be biodegraded both in the water column and at the surface because it increases the surface area
available for microbial activit\'. Until it is biodegraded, dispersed oil, even in dilute amounts, can be
toxic to vulnerable species.
All of the naturally dispersed oil and much of the oil that was chemically dispersed remained well below
the surface in diffuse clouds, where it began to diffuse and biodegrade. Previous analyses have shown
evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3300 and 4300 feet in low concentrations, moving in
the direction of known ocean currents and decreasing with distance from the wellhead. (citation: Federal
Joint Analysis Group Report I and 2. hup:/!ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.!!ov/JAG/reports.html). Oil that was
chemically dispersed at the surface remained at the surface ~d began to biodegrade there;
into the water column. The evaporation and dissolution rate estimate is based on scientific research and
fresh oil and weathered oil to. provide the most accurate number.
Dissolution in the water column is distinct from dispersion. Dispersed oil is small droplets of oil, while
dissolution describes the process by which some individual hydrocarbon molecules from the oil separate
and dissolve into the water just as sugar can be dissolved in water.
Residual: After accounting for recovery operations, dispersiori, evaporation and dissolution, an
estimated 26% remains. This figure is a combination of categories that are difficult to measure or
estimate. It includes oil still on or just below the surtace in the form of light sheen or tarballs, oil that
has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments and
may resurface t~rough time. This oil has also begun to degrade through a number of natural processes.
.._.
__._..__._-_._-_......_--_.-...__...............-.........-.
: Comment [fmpl]: Odd te"" considering the
i sou~fthe spray isa manmade pipe.
' - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _. _ _ _ _ _ _ H . _ H H
; Comment{fmp2}:Tbe independent nature of

; these inetricsls a challenge. Can oil that \WS
natUrally' also evaporate? Can oil that
i WI' disperSed naturally also be effected by sub-
;.dispersed
~rface_~~~~!
____._. __ .... ________ . . . . _. . ,
L~~~J~~~~t~~~~~.~==~~:::~~::::.::~
~
_______._____ M_._.__ ._. __ ._......_..._
: Comnient [fmp4]: Tbealgorithm for this

: calclllation is complicated and not clearly described.
i How was Ibe surface applied surfactant
,
: dilT=tiated fromsul>-surfaee? What algorithm
!. wos used 10 =timale a:dispersion rate? How was the ;
; rale InIIIsfonned .Uuo a static amount? Does the 20: I ,
; llIIio2SSume that you are dispersing pure oil?
001434
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface of the water naturally
biodegrade. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the
Gulf. early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil
from this source is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA and DOE are working to
calculate a more precise estimate of this rate. It is well known that bacteria that break down the
warm water there. the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of
over the course of the spilL The newest estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions of the
National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technica! Group (FRTG), led by United States Geological
Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt. and a team of Department of Energy (DOE) scientists and
engineers. led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu. This group estimates that approximately 4.9 million
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater Horizon/BP wellhead between April 22, 2010 and July 15,
2010. at which time the flow of oil was suspended. The uncertainty on this estimate is:!:: 10% (cite:
Flow Rate Technical Group, website or report). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
were based on previous scientific analyses. best available information and a broad range of scientific
OUf knowledge of the oil, dispersants. ecosystem impacts and human impacts will continue to evolve.
Federal agencies and many academic and independent scientists are actively pursuing better .
activities. results and data to the public on a regular basis. Updates and information can be found at
www.restoretl1c.mlf:!?ov. and data from the response and monitoring can be found at .
. www.geopJatform.gov.
. . . '
DOL NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
submerged oil. and researchers continue subsurface scanning and sampling to monitor the concentration,
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA has carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in the Gulf and
continues to monitor the air. water and sediments near the shoreline for the presence of dispersant and
crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA and NSF
funded academic researchers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and wildlife impacts.
DOl responders are working to ensure control of the well; to ensure accurate measurement bfoil
001435
released and oil remaining in the environment; and to mitigate impacts of oil to wildlife, natural
res6lJrces. and public lands. Scientists from DOE laboratories are working to ensure the accurate
measurement of oil released from the well and are investigating the rates of biodegradation of subsurface oil.
of the BP wellhead. federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact of the spill to the
Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts ofthis spill on wildlife. habitats, and natural resources
Attacbments
collaboration with US Coast Guard. NOAA. and NIST.
categories of chemically dispersed, naturally dispersed. and evaporated or dissolved, into one colored
segment. The image on page one of Appendix A uses the cumulative release estimate of 4.9 M barrels,
which is the same as the pie chart used above. The three images represent the actual eStimate, as well as
the upper and lower bound of the 10 % uncertainty of the estimate.
001436
Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget

Authors
Jane Lubchenco. NOAA, DOC

Marcia McNutt. USGS, DOl
Mark Sogge, USGS. 001
Mark Miller. NOAA, DOC
Stephen Hammond. ,USGS. DOl
Credits
Steve Hale. Kent Morgan. Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) - Technical advisors
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (USGS) - Pr~iect vision and management
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones. NOAA
Antonio Possoio. NIST
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton. LSU
Juan Lasheras. UCSD
Merv Fingas. Env. Canada (ret)
Ali Khelifa. Env. Canada
Per DaIing, SINTEF
Michel Boufadel. Temple Univ.
001437
Justin
K~nney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Frank Parker [Frank.Parker@noaa.gov]

NOAA DWH Science Box
'Patrick Sweeney'
REQUEST: review pie chart
Oil Budget description 728 v3 JL.doc; Frank M Parker.vcf
Please review the attached document that describes the oil budget calculator and submit
comments and questions by noon FridaYJ July 38 J to Frank Parker and Patrick Sweeney.
Thanks,
frank

Sent: ThursdaYJ July 29, 2818 85:17
To: Jennifer Austin
Cc: Mark WMiller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; David Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.gov; Dave
Westerholmj Margaret Spring; Caitlyn Kennedy; 'margaret.spring@noaa.gov'; Amrit Mehraj
dwh.staff@noaa.gov
paragraph at the end and changed one sentence so it does not imply something that is
SCientifically inaccurate. We will also need to add an appendix that spells out the bases
these
calculations.
The FRTT is trying to finalize a flow rate number by COB Friday. We ar2 being asked to
have this ready to announce Saturday, but it is fine to have the document go through
Friday.
Bill and Mark, can you tell me who are the other people in other. agencies (as well as
ours) who are the team who have been working on this.
Are you envisioning them as 'authors' of this interagency report? 'Let me know if you need
anything to move ahead.
Many thanks"
Jane
Sent: wednesday" July 28, 2818 4:45 PM
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Mark WMiller; william Conner; Scott Smullen;.Oavid Kennedy; lrobinson@noaa.govj Dave
Hi Dr L,ubchenco,
001438
After we hear from you, Mark can share with his colleagues at the
point 1.
>
>
NIC~
as you suggested in
001439
DRAFT 7.28
Prepared By: Caitlyn Kennedy. Jen Austin
government and independent scientific community to produce an estimate ofjust how

Chemically
Dispersed
11%
3%
.Figure I: Oil Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oil.
'----...,-~--~.",.--.-.------"--.-.--
estimates that as of July 15 between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the
Deepwater HorizonlBP wellhead. ("'When announced later this week (t), new FRTG
flow rate / total escape will adjust this and the percentages in the oil bUdget.)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts have been succeSSful in
recovering a significant portion of the spilled oil. %% percent of the oil was captured
001440
It is estimated that %% percent of the oi I quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
through natural seeps regularly,-!>~. ~l,e h<l ..!eria 11'lerc Me ac.twtsR'leEi te I3reakiAg it
00wn. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of
biodegradation in tbe Gulf, early indications are that the light crude oil from this well is
These estimates leave about %% percent of the oil. This oil is either at the surface as
beaches.
Inslimmarv. burnin..,g. skimmit~ al1(tr~C~)Y.Sr.Y efforts have removed roughlv 1!3 of the
gil. ALoun! a qumttr.pflhe_Jg.J:.~1l1.'.l?'p~~UlI!turaliv evap0l'ated and another quarter
Qimersed into Gulf\'yat~LTll.e reJllll.!!ling ~m(~t!!1t. t'Oui!hlyl/6 is on the ~urface. in tar
tal1s._Q!l..~aches .Ell10~:Qjb.?J.ll b~ach:s or llas been biodegraded.
Command to develop monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submergCxt oil.
understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the
comment [ll]: These fractions were derived

from the earlier oil budget tQOJ and will need to be
adjusted when we have the final numbers.
._)
001446
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Genevieve Contey [Genevieve.Contey@noaa.gov]

Jennifer Austin
Re: for sanity read
Oil Budget description 8 3 v 215 final,...2.docx
Changed tarballs to tar balls (AP style.)

GREAT JOB on this. SEe file name change to #2
gen
> hopefully this is final
>
> Mark please review
>
> Gen is giving it a sanity copy edit read
>
Genevieve Contey
NOAA Communications &. ::::<ternal Affairs
282-482-8702 (direc~)
282-482-6999 (main)
Join us on racebook & Twi~ter:
www.facebook.com/usnoaagov
www.twitter.com/usnoaagov
001467
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gilson, Shannon [SGilson@doc.gov] "

Austin. Jennifer
Can you send me the final oil budget chart
27
001468
FINAL DRAFT

What Hhappened Tto the Oeil?
that oil. -The expertise of government scientists~t:Q'in!! on these teams is complemented by nongovernmental and govemmental specialists reviewing the calculations and conclusions. -One team
calculated the flow rate and total oil released. -Led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, this team announced on August 2, 2010~ that it
A second interagency team, led by the Department of Interior (DOl) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) developed a tool~ called the Oil Budget Calculator; to determine
what happened to the oil. -The calculator uses the 4.9 million barrel estimate as its input and uses both
direct measurements and the best scientific estimates available to date,at present to determine what has
happened to the oil. -The interagency scientific report below builds upon the calculator and summarizes
the disposition of the oil to date.
quarter (25%) of the oil released from 'llie wellhead. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally
result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulfwaters. -The residual amount t.just over one
quarter (26%)-==.-=-is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar_balls, has
washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Oil in the residual
and dispersed categories is in the process of being degraded. The report below describes each of these
categories and calculations. - These estimates will continue to be refined as additional information
becomes available .
- .........._......._.............. --.......
..........
",
_-_
............................................
.............
_.... _._--_.,,---_._ -------------_._._--,

""..
..

Based 0;1 estimated release of 4.9m barrels of oil
Unified
Re~idual
include$ oil
that is on or jU5t below
thl:1 sullCl<.:<' a:; light
sheen and w;:oatr-r:red
Command
Response
Operations
tarball>. has wa~ht.'d

ashore 01' been
collected from the
~hore or is buried in
sand and
~edirnl1t$.
8%
*OiJ in th~ 3 categories is
naturally.
001469
Unffied Command Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal With the oil have been aggressive. As
systems (17%), burning (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). -Direct capture, burning
dispersed by the application of chemical dispersants on and below the surface. -Natural dispersion
occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which
caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets. -For the purpose of this analysis, :.!.cl.ispersed oie'
is defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns --"- about the diameter of a human hair. -Oil
droplets that are this small are neutrally buoyant and thus remain in the water column where they then
begin to biodegrade. -Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into small droplets to keep it from
coming ashore in large surface slicks and make;:: it more readily available for biodegradation. -Chemical
dispersants were applied at the surface and below the surface;, therefore.:>, the chemically dispersed oil
ended up both deep in the water column and just below the surface. -Dispersion increases the likelihood
that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column and at the surface. -Until it is biodegraded,
naturaHy or chemically dispersed oil, even in dilute anlounts~ can be toxic to vulnerable species.
All of the naturally dispersed oU and some of the oil that was chemically dispersed remained well:
below the surface in diffuse clouds; where it began to dissipate further and biodegrade. -Previous
analyses have shown evidence of diffuse douds of dispersed oil between 3:.300 and 4. .300 feet in very
low concentrations (parts per million or less), moving in the direction of known ocean currents and
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAGfreports.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
biodegrade.
evaporated or dissolved into the water column. -The evaporation and dissolution rate estimate is based
on scientific research and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Dissolution is different from dispersion. -Dissolution is the process by which individual hydrocarbon
Residual: After account] ng for the categories that can be measured directly or estimated; iLe., recovery
operations, dispersion, and evaporation and dissolution}, an estimated 26% remains. -This figure is a
. combination of categories all of which are difficult to measure or estimate. -It includes oil ~remaining
on or just below the sihface in the form of light sheen or tar_balls, oil that has washed ashore or been
collected from the shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface through time.
This oil has also begun to degrade through natural processes.
001470
Biodegradation.: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface of the water biodegrade
naturally. "While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf,
the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. -Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE; and
aeatlemie :;cie::lilAs(:l.gadeJnia are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate. -It is well
known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of
Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact
that oil regularh' ,enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
over the course of th.e spill. -The newest estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions of the
National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG:r.led by United States Geological
barrels ,of oil flowed from theBP Deepwater Horizon,g.}! wellhead between April 22_, 2010 and July 15,
2010. at which time the flow of oil was suspended. -The uncertainty tffi-()f this estimate is 10% (cite:
Flow Rate Technical Group, website or report). -The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
reports. -The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. -The rest of the numbers
were based on previous scientiiic analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific
expertise. -These numbers will continue to be refined based on additional infonnation and further
analysis. -Further information on these calculation methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf
Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1,2010. -The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in
understanding of the fate, tt.-alISport and impact of the oil. The federal government will continue to report
www.restorethegulf.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can'be found at
www.geoplatfom1.gov.
DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. -NOAA
respo:t1ders are working with 'Jle L'i1i1~ed Command on monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore
distribution'and impact of oil there. -EPA and NQAA have carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in
001471
dispersant and crude oil components with special attention to'human health impacts. -Numerous NOAAand NSF-funded academic researchers and NOAA scientists are investigating rates of biodegradation,
accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the environment. -DOl is leading efforts to
mitigate impacts of oil to telTestrial wildlife, natural resources, and public lands.
Even though the threat to shorelines, fish and wildlife. a.l1d ecosystems has decreased since the capping
Gulf ecosystem. -Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources
001472
Acknow ledgements
Authors
Jane Lubchenco. NOAA, DOC
Credits
program
formulas, anaiysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The team continues to
Fed.eral Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Ron Goodman, ll. of Calgary
Ai Allan, Spi1Tec
Tom Coolbaugh, Exx.on Mobil
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv fingas, Env. Canada (ret)
Per Daling, SINTEF
Michel Boufadel, Temple lJniv.
001473
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
===
Google Alerts [googlealerts-noreply@google.com]

Google Alert - "Tom Karl"
Google Web Alert for: "Tom Karl"
::::=:
Tom Karl I NewsBusters.org

Click here for details. Tom Karl. AP Cites Discredited NOAA Bureaucrat to Push Global Warming
Alarmism Report. By Jeff Poor! Fri> 07/30/2010 - 15:41 ...
<http://newsbusters.org/people/tom-karl>
This as-it-happens Google Alert is brought to you by Google ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Remove this Google Alert:
http://www.google.com/alerts/remove?s=AB2Xq4hr7AIlBshMh6aRuJhWyWFTOgpaCOScswU&hl=en&gl=us&sou
rce=alertsmail
Create another Google Alert:
http://www.google.com!alerts?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail
Sign in to manage your alerts:
http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail
001474
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Grace Wahlbrink [Grace. Wahlbrink@noaa.gov]

Jennifer Austin; Scott Smullen
.
DWH Oil Budget Pie Chart v1
DWH Budget Oil Pie Chart 7.29.2010 v1.xlsx
001491
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Importance:
Griffis, Kevin [KGriff!s@doc.govJ

.
Austin, Jennifer; Kenney, Justin; Smullen, Scott; Miller, Mark
FW: DEEPWATER/Oil budget calculator draft release
image001.gif
High
Please see below. Are we good with these edits?
From: Zaidi, Ali A. [mailto:AIC.A._Zaidi@omb.eop.gov]

To: Griffis, Kevin
Subject: Fw: DEEPWATER/Oil budget c.alculator draft release
If YOLI can make the edits two -emails down -- we're good.
From: Weatherly, Mark A.

To: Levenbach, Stuart; Zaidi, Ali A.
Cc: Quinlan, John P.; Lyon, Randolph I'vl.; Kumaraiah, Qivyai Crutchfield, J C.; Irwin, Janet E.
Sent: Tue Aug 03 18:37:57 2010
SuiIJject: RE: DEEPWATER/Oil budget calculator draft release
Thanks Stu. I agree a discussion of the alternative flow should be in there. If for some reason there is strong resistance
to that, a-. a minimum your edits to this included.
From: Levenbach, Stuart
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 20106:18 PM

To: Weatherly, Mark A.
Cc: Quinlan, John P.; Lyon, Randolph M.
Su~iect:
RE: DEEPWATER./Oli blldget calculator draft release
Mark- I have the same concerns with this document as the similar version that was circulated on 7/30. It is
based on estimates of max flow (5 million barrels). Under a minimum flow scenario (3 million barrels), 58% of
the spilled oil was "captured or mitigated" and 12% is "Residual". I would prefer to include two pie charts
based on the max and minimum flow estimates. As an alternative, I provided the edits in red font below:
:Federai Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill
A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater HorizonIBP spill was captured or
mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations, including burnirtg, skimming, chemical dispersion and
direct recovery flom the wellhead, according to a federal science report released today.
19
001492
buried in sand and sediments. Dispersed and residual oil .remain in the system until they degrade through a
number of natural processes. Early indications are L1.at the oil is degrading quickly.
barrels of oil released into the Gulf, the government's Flow Rate Technical Group high now estimate from
Monday. The arnount ot' oil G<Jl'tured or miligated is 58,,; under the low flow estimate of 3 million bands of
oil. More than 25 of the best government and independent scientists contributed to or reviewed the calculator
and its calculation methods.
UnifIed
Cbm~nd
R;e<sponse
O~iort$
f CHr>~,ti~C::;'t"'~"::ir~~;~.~ l:~
': \,:::R'(Qf".{~t-:':;;lf.~f::;jtJ~
l n..:;:.:.:f,''f,i~\(
~
.~
the data from those efforts and their collective expertise, they have been able to provide these useful and
educated estimates about the fate of the oil," says Jane Lubchenco, ul'lder secretary of commerce for oceans and
Quote from McNutt?

danlages and impacts of the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something that will take time and
'
Dispersion increases the likelitlOod that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column and at the
surface. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of hiodegradation in the Gulf, early
20
001493
The oil budget caiculations are based on direct measurements wherever possible and the best available scientific
estimates where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured
directly a..'1d reported in daily operational reports. The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported
estimates. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available information and a
becomes available.
###
Kevin Griffis
(0) 202-482-:8290
(c) 202-4128377
21
001494
Naturally Dispersed
Burned
Skimmed
Evaporated or Dissc
Direct Recovery fro
Remaining*
826216
343633
266375
..... ...~ .. .w _ _ _ _ ~_.
_ __ . _ " __ _ _ _.~ _ _ _ _ _ _
Deepwater
HOI
Based on 60~OOO bl
*Remaining oil is either at the

surface as light sheen or weathered
tar balls, has been biodegraded, or
has already come ashore on
_..__ ..._.__._-_.....-....... ._.. ..._-_ ..... ..

__
_ __.._._,---",---
,--------------
001495
rizon Oil Budget

arrels/day flow rate
Chemically
Dispersed
6%
Skimmed
3%
001496
FOR iMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Justin Kenney
Scott Smullen
202-482-6090

WASHINGTON -- A third (33 p~cent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater
Horizon/BP spiil was captured or mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations,
including burning, skimming, chemical dispersion and direct recovery from the wellhead,
according to a federal science report released today.
An additional 25 percent of the total oil naturally evaporated or ~issolved, and 16 percent was
percent), is either on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed
ashore or been collected froIn "(he shon~, or is buried in sand and sediments. Dispersed and
residual oil remain in the system until they degrade through a number of natural processes. Early
indications are tilat tile oil is degrading quickly.
The5e estimates ,\vere der;'v'ed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
and the Department cf the Interior (001), who jointly developed what's known as an Oil Budget
calculator is bas.;d (';'14.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gulf, the government's Flow
Rate Technical Group eS'cimate from Monday. More than 25 of the best government and
independent scienti:,ts contributed to or reviewed the calculator and its calculation methods.
Based on e5timored release of 4.9m barrels of oil
r;;-':.~~L.,;I in::.I.!~~':J
rha;: is Vi' ,~J'
{in
J~::J:. b,:-.(!'.v
~
(
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
Ch"mi<:aIlV)
g O'
'"
*Oil in th"'S 3 c2tegorie~ is

naluraily.
"Teams ::>f scientists and expelts have been carefully tracking the oil since day one of this spill,
and based on the data from those efforts and their collective expertise, they have been able to
provide these useful and educated estimates about the fate of the oil," says Jane Lubchenco,
under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. "Less oil on
001497
the surface does not mean that there isn't oil still in.the water column or'that our beaches and
marshes aren't still at risk. Knowing generally what happened to the oil helps us better
understand areas of risk and likely impacts."
understanding the damages and impacts of the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is
something that will take time and continued monitoring and research.
at the surface. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in
the Gulf, early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show
tha-.: the oli from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from
NOAA, EPA, DOE, and academic scientists are working to calculate more precise estimates of
this rate.
.
abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because ofthe warm water, the favorable nutrient
and oxygen levels, and the fact .that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
Residual oit" is also degraded and weathered by a number of physical and biological processes.
Microbes consume the oil, and 'wave action, sun, currents and continued evaporation and
dissoiution continue to break down the residual oil in the water and on shorelines.
recovery an.d burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports. The
skimrning numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were
e~pertise. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional infonnation becomes .
available.
###
001498
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
Griffis, Kevin [KGriffis@doc.gov]

_
. Griffis, Kevin; Kenney, Justin; Smullen, Scott; Austin, Jennifer
Miller, Mark
RE: additional question.s for the Q&A
To:
Cc:
Subject:
How are we looking on this?
From: Griffis, Kevin
Sent: Tuesday,
August 03,2010 11:10 PM

To: Kenney, Justin; Smullen, Scott; Austin, Jennifer
Cc: Miller, Mark
Subject: Re: additional questions for the Q&A

Also, did outside scientists help with the calculations?
From: Griffis, Kevin

Cc: Miller, 1\1ark
Sen\:: Tue Aug 03 23:01:102010

Subject: additional questions for the Q&A .
In editing the Q&A, I came up vvith a few more questions that I can't answer from the talking pOints. Please see below.
With all the ships and dispersants and the skimming and the burning, why did 67 percent of the oil in this
incident elude your efforts, winding up in the Gulf?
You say the federal effort has had a significant impact, but what's the precedent? How can you say that if
there's nothing to compare it to? Why is 33 percent a positive number? Why not 50 percent?
Chemical dispersants were only responsible for eliminating 8 percent of the oil, according to the oil
budget report. If that's so, why did the federal government allow BP to use such unprecedented amounts
of an ineffective toxic chemical, the effects of which have hardly been tested on the natural environment
and certainly not in these amounts?
Using the oil budget 1I"~port as a guide, given the et'fectiveness of the various mitigation efforts, how
should the federal government have changed its response efforts?
How loug wHi tbe oii
b~
present and visible in the Gulf?
""hat inlpact, if ally, will ibis report have in determining BP's financial liability for this spill?
Kevin Griffis
Director of Pub lit: Affairs
U.S. Depanment of Commerce
1
001499
140 I Constitution Ave., NW
(0) 202482-8290
(c) 202412-8377
2,
001500
Justirl Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Griffis, Kevin [KGriffis@doc.gov)

..
Tuesday, August 03, 201011 :10 PM
Kenney, Justin; Smullen, Scott; Austin, Jennifer
Miller, Mark
Re: additional questions for the Q&A
Cc:
Subject:
Also, did outside scientists help with the calculations?
From: Griffis, Ke'/in

Cc: Miller, Mark
Sent: Tue Aug 03 23:01:102010
Subject: additional questions 'for th,: Q&A

In editing the Q&A, I came up with a few more questions that I can't answer from the talking pOints. Please see below.
incident elude your efforts, winding up in the Gulf?
You say tite federal effort has had a significant impact, but what's the precedent? How can you say that if
there's nothing to compare it to? Wby is 33 percent a positive number? Why not 50 percent?
c;;,
of an ineffective toxic chemical, the effects of which have hardly been tested on the natural environment
Using the oil budget !'eport as a guide, given the ~ffectiveness of the various mitigation efforts, how
How long wilk the oil be present and \tisible in the Gulf?
Waat impact, if any, will this rep(rrt nave ill determining BP's flnancialliability for this spill?
Kevin Griffis
Director of Public A,ffairs
Washi:1g~or;, DC 20230
(0) 202482-8290
(c) 202-412-8377
001501
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Griffis, Kevin [KGriffis@doc.govJ

Tuesday, August 03, 2010 11 :01 PM
Kenney, Justin; Smulien, Scott; Austin, Jennifer
Miller, Mark
'
additional questions for the Q&A
In editing the Q&A, I came up with a few more questions that I can't answer from the talking points. Please see below.
il!drlen': ~!'~~e y(!ur effort~, ~l!~.:U~g vp j!! the GuU'?
You say the federal effort has had a significant impact, but what's the precedent? How can you say that if
there's nothing to compare it to? "'hy is 33 percent a positive number? Why not 50 percent?
of 3.111 un effective toxic chemkal1 the effects of which have hardly been tested on the natural environment
U~ing
lht oii i:mcigd l'ltpor~ as a guide, giVt;H tbe t;ffectiveness of the various mitigation efforts, how
How long will tbe oil b~ present and visible in the Gulf?
";:bat impact, if any, will this report nave in adermining BP's financial liability for this spill?
Kevin Griffis
Director of PubJit; Affairs
Was.hbgwfi, DC 202030
(0) 202-482-8290
(c) 202-41:>8~77
001505
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Tuesday; August 03, 2010 7: 17 PM
Smullen, Scott; Kenney, Justin; Austin, Jennifer
also ...
Importance:
High
Has the data already been peer-reviewed, or is it going to be peer-reviewed?
') First,
th!~ :I?P0 rt
is 1:ht?
fl?SlJlt
of very careful calculations by some of the nation's
best scientists, working together across a number of agencies and then submitting
their work for peer review to scientists both inside and outside the government.
Kevin Griffis
1401 Constitution Ave., N W
Washington. DC 20230
(0) 202-482-8290
(c) 202-412-8377
........
001506
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Smullen, Scott; Kenney, Justin; Austin, Jennifer
quick question
How long does it take for dispersed oil to biodegrade? Is there an approximate length of time or a range?
For the purpose of this analysis, ~dispersed oil' is defined as droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the
dia.meter 0; it iii.il1iali hail. Cil JlvjJlc~.:> ~lla.i. ale thi::i small are neutrally buoyant and thus remain in the water
column where they then begin to biod~~g;:-ade
Kevin Griffis
140 I Constitution Ave., NVv
(0) 202-482-8290
(c) 202-412-8377
001510


calculations by some of the nation's best scie<ntists, working together
oil released - representing about 1.6 mi!lion barrels. The men and
o Mother nature is also aSSisting this response effort and together we
to deal witti this tragedy in as aggressive a fashion as possible.
001511
and their collective expertise, they are now abie to provide these useful
estimates.
Flow Rate Technical Group, reieased yesterday, which is a cumulative
release of4.9 million barrels of oil.

The residual amount, just over one quarter (26%)1 is either on or just below
,..--'_ _
Thus far, 37,000 tons
9f oiled debris have been removed from shore.
_ _ _ _ _ __ff.,
~
, Comment [kl]: I heard Sean mention this, but I i

haven't independently confirmed. It's possible that I t
1. dreamed it.
____ ,____ J
001512

Other research efforts are curr~ntly underway to further understand and


001514
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Tuesday, August 03, 20104:15 PM
Smullen, Scott
Kenney. Justin; Austin, Jennifer
Re: initial thoughts on release
We have to get this into the omb process. Are you good wi me circulating?
----- Original Message ----From: Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov)

To: Griffis~ Kevin
Cc: Kenney ~ Justin; Austin, Jennifer
Sent: Tue Aug 03 16:05:11 2010
Incorporating Kevin's edits and the pie chart ... here's the latest
version.
Jane has not seen this (she ran to the Enforcement Summit) ...
and~ in general~ she doesn't like the grouping of chemically dispersed 8% with the skimmed)
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
NOAA Communications & E~~ter,:al Affairs
202-482-1097 a I 202-494-6515 c
,'.-
.;;.
001515
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
T.o:
Cc:
Subject:

Smullen, Scott; Kenney, Justin
Austin, Jennifer
initial thoughts on release
DRAFT - for internal review only

Contact:
FOR EMBARGOED RELEASE
Federal Science Report Details Fate of Gulf Oil
A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oii released in the Deepwater HorizonlBP spill was captured or
mitigated by the Unified COIllmat,d recovery operations, including burning, skimming, chemically dispersion
and direct recovery from the wellhead, according to a federal science report released today.
naturally into microscopic d.roplets. The residual amo'Qnt, just over one quarter (26 percent), is either on or just
More than 25 of the best government and independent scientists c9ntributed to or reviewed the calculator and its
*embed pie chart here*
the data from those efforts and their collective expertise, they have been able to provide these useful (and
educated? - seems like we need to characterize the estimates so people don't think they're just shots in the dark)
estimates about the fate of the oil,'" says Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and
atmosphere and NOAA administrator. Less oil on the surface does not mean thatthere isn't oil still in the
helps us better understalld areas of risk and iikely impacts."
Quote from MeN utt?
The estimates do not make conclusions about the long-term impacts of oil on fue Gulf. Fully understanding the
continued monitoring and research ..
Dispersion increases L.~e likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water. column and at the
. are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate.
of Mexico in iarge part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil
down the residual oil ill the water and on shorelines.
estimates where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured
3
001516
directly and reported in daily operational repo:is. The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported
estimates. The rest of the numbers were based on previous ,scientific analyses, best available information and a
becomes available.
###
Kevin Griffis

140] Constitution Ave., NW
Washington. DC 20230
(0) 202-482-8290
(c) 202-412-8377
001520
001527
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
James Anderton [James.Anderton@nbaa.gov]

Jon Bailey; _NOAA HQ leadership; Eric Schwaab; David Kennedy; Craig Mclean; Mary Kicza;
Jack Hayes; Thomas R Karl; Laura Furgione; Maureen Wylie; John Oliver; Samuel Rauch;
Holly Bamford; Alexander E MacDonald; Judy Gray; Charles S. Baker; Abigail Harper; Chet
Koblinsky; Paul N Doremus; Russell Callender; Todd C Stiles; John Potts; James Anderton
Pat.A.Simms; Richard M Love; Linda.Lawhornbrown; Adele Stevens; Ann Rivers; Cassandra
R Calloway; Gina Jackson; Ruby Johnson; Kathy Connors; Jen Pizza; Dianne Burgess; Gloria
Thompson; Lisa Banana; Rose Dyson; Velna L Bullock; Jenell C Wildgoose; Nicky D
McClurkin; Rose Fleming; Kashira D Laskey; Leslie Bentley; Beverly Morgan; Sheridan Hill;
Donna Buckley; Trenika Tapscott; Kim Hough; Allandra Washington; Susan Ware Harris;
Anthony Waady; Charles McLeod; Jacqueline ..I Rousseau; Julia Tolbert
Friday, July 30 AA-HQ Leadership Tag Up Meeting - AGENDA
AA. HQ Agenda 7-30-201 O.docx
I have only 2 items on tomorrows agenda. If you wish to submit any items, please do so before 07qO.
Thanks,
Jim Anderton
Deputy Chid of Staff,
Office ofthe Onder Secretary
Natbn<:J Oceanie Atmospheric Administration
l~th & Constitution Ave., N\V, Room :;$[;
Office: (,W2)482-2388
Cell: (202)S::Q-4381
Email: james.anderton(a)noaa.gov
001528
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
James Chang [James.Chang@noaa.gov]

Stephanie Herring
Jennifer Austin; Brady Phillips
[Fwd: Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill]
Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill.eml (30.6 KB); James_Chang.vef
fyiJ stephanie ... brady indicated
you
were interested in this.
001529
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jana Goldman [Jana.Goldman@noaa.gov]

scott smullen; Christopher Vaccaro; Jennifer Austin; Rachel Wilhelm
[Fwd: NOAA oil budget report] - CBS News
NOAA oil budget report.eml (3.96 KB); jana-.9oldman.vcf
FYI
"
001530
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jana Goldman (Jana.Goldman@noaa.gov}

Wednesday; August 04,201010:13 AM
Scott Smullen; Christopher Vaccaro; Jennifer Austin
Oil SPILL: Today's release re: oil - please send to--jana_goldman. vef
@bbc.co.uk
thanks
001531
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jana Goldman [Jana.Goldman@noaa.gov]

Scott Smullen; Christopher Vaccaro; Jennifer Austin
OIL SPILL: Media request -TODAY - re; NYT piece
Clean Skies News on ABC_ Interview Request.eml (4.09 KB); jana_goldman.vcf
see request
jana
001532
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
NOAA Communications [Press. Releases@noaa.gov]

I nternalpa.distribution@noaa.gov
image001.jpg
'
.
AA
NO
.'
ATfv10S~HERIC ~D~[NIt)TR~TION
001533
Contact:
Justin Kenney
Scott Smullen
202-482-6090

August.4,2010

<
released today.
collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sedime.nts. Dispersed and residual oil remain in the
system untii they degrade through a number of natural processes. Early indications are that the oil is
degrading quickly.
and the Department of the Interior (DOl), who jointiy developed what's known as an Oil Budget
and based on the data from those efforts and their collective expertise, they have been able to provide
these useful and educated estimates about the fate of the oil," says Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of
commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. "Less oil on the surface does not mean
that there isn't oil stili in the water column or that our beaches and marshes aren't still at risk. Knowing
will take time and continued monitOring and research.
at the surface. While there is more analysiS to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf,
eariy observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil from the
. BP Deepwater Horizon spili is biodegrading q!Jickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE, and academic
scientists are working to calcuiate more precise estimates of this rate.
abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in iarge part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and
Residual oil is also degraded and weathered by a number of phYSical and biological processes.
The oil budget ca:culations are based on direct measurements wherever possible and the best
2
001534
available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery
and burns were measured cJirecVy and reported in daily operational reports. The skimming numbers were
analyses, best available information and a broad range of s'cientific expertise. These estimates will
continue to be refined as additional informat;on beccmes available.
depths of the' ocean to the surfac:e of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine
resources Visit us at http:/Avwvinoaa.g'J,{ or on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/usnoaagov.
On the web:
Oil spm budget report:
BP
http://www.q~...p_w.aternoq?.9El@.~p..9nse.com!pc....tedg931/011 Budget description 8 3 FINAL844091.pdf
001535
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Birnbaum, Amy [AMB@cbsnews.com]

Jana Goldman; Rachel Wilhelm
Smith, Melissa Marie; Baur, Brandon
NOAAoi! budget report
Would NOAA director Lubchenko be available today for an interview on the report on the oil collection - the "oil
budget" report. Or could you let me know if there is a press conference or other briefing to discuss this report?
Amy 3;iilb<ii..liT,
CBS News Producer
524 W. 57th St.
NY NY 10019
001536
Justin KenneyFrom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ashley Bernardi
@cleanskies.tv]
jana Goldman
Clean Skies News on ABC: Interview Request
Hi Jana!
I hope you've been well. You may remember that we have worked together in the past with NOAA guests on
broadc3S[S I yvanted to let you know we are covering the BP oil spill on our Sunday show this week, which airs
on ABC in Washington, D.C. We are looking for an oceanographer expert to talk to about the latest with the
spill, the disappearance of the oil, and the current impact of it. We'd like to peg the interview to a recent NY
Times article on the spill that says its poses little additional risk. You can read that here:
htt,)"jIv/vV\v.nvtimcs.comCO 1()/Og!04/:..,,~~ienc~/ealih/04oi l.htm I? r= 1&partner=rss&emc=rss
I apologize this is such short notice -- but if we could interview someone today or tomorrow -- that would be
ideal. We can come to the guest or the guest can come tc? us to our studio on Capitol Hill. If the guest is not
location in the Washington, D.C. region, we can conduct a remote interview. Our anchor Susan McGinnis
would conduct the interview, which would last between 5-7 minutes.
I look forward to hearing from you about this opportunity!
Best,
Ashley
Ashley Bernardi
Senior Booker i Producer
Ciean Skies News
,v\vw.clemdzies.com
750 1st Street NE
Washington, D.C., 20002
We can be rOU!ld at http://www.cieanskies.com.

Follow us on Twitter at httQ.;l!twitter.cleanskies.c.om.
View our Youtube channel at http://www.voutube.comiCleanSkiesNews.
Friend us on Facebook at b~tp:!tJll.cleanskL~s.con.1
001537
Agenda"
Weekly Strategy Meeting with Assistant Administrators and NOAA HQ Leadership
Friday 30, July 2010
9:30-10:30 AM
th
HCl-lB 6205 and SSMC 3, 15 Floor 15537':'" Under Secretary's Suite

Dial-in
1. Arctic rueid Hearing in Ai<.

2.
{~eg/Amanda}
House Natura! Field Hearing in NO (LeglAmanda)
001538
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Wednesday, August 04, 20108:04 PM
Jennifer Austin; Jane Lubchenco
Scott Smullen; Justin kenney; Mark W Miller
REQ&A
Oil Budget QA v 84 combined 8 4 v 7pm.docx JL.docx; 080410 Oil Budget TPs v 847
pm.doc JL.doc
Jen - revisions attached. Yes, please do send to Heather and Sean for clearance.
Many thanks for your continued very helpful work on this.
jane
----~Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Scott Smullen; Justin kenney; Mark WMiller
Subject: Re: Q&A
Dr Lubchenco,
_
Here are the Talking Points consolidated to include most of Heather's language plus more of
the detail from your version.
Attached also is the updated Q&A including revisions from you, Mark and me.
Should I send to Heather and Sean for final clearance?
> Revisions attached.
>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 4:51 PM
> To: Jane Lubchenco; Scott Smullen; Justin kenney; Mark WMiller
> Subject: Q&A
>
> Jane, attached are all the Q&A's in one document. I".ll work on mer.ging the talking points
now.
>
> Mark, please review and let me know if there is anything inaccurate in
> this combined Q&A document. Thanks} Jen
>
>
> Jennifer Austin
> 202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-3e2-9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
1
001539
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jennifer Austin; Jane Lubchenco; Scott Smullen;
RE: Q&A
Oil Budget QA v 8 4 combined JL.docx
Justin
kenney; Mark W Miller
Revisions attached.
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer' Austin [Mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday~ August 04~ 2010 4:51 PM
To: Jane Lubchenco; Scott Smullen; Justin kenney; Mark WMiller
Subject: Q&A
Jane,. attached are all the Q&A' 5 in one document.
now.
I"11 work on merging the talking points
Mark please review and let me know if there is anything inaccurate in this combined Q&A
document. Thanks) Jen
j
Jennifer Austin
001546
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Wednesday, August 04. 2010 3:44 PM
Jennifer Austin; Justin kenney; Scott Smullen
revised DEEPWATER/Oil budget calculation talking points]
080410 Oil Budget TPs.doc
These were revised following the WH press briefing. They need to be fact-checked and
finalized.
Ball's in your court. WH asked U5 to run these by them (Heather J Sean) before using/sending.
Plz rn'rk lrith l(E'vj n ;::J<:; well.
Plz also add urI where report and supplementary materials can
be found.
001559
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jennifer Austin
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; KSarri@doc.gov; KGriffis@doc.gov;justin.kenney@noaa.gov
Oil Budget Report
Oil Budget description 8 3 FINAL.docx
Jen - please convert the report to a PDF and send it around.
22
Thanks!
001560
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jane Lubchenco (Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

Jennifer Austin
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; KSarri@doC.gov; KGriffis@doc.gov; justin.kenney@noaa.gov
Oil Budget Report
Oil Budget description 8 3 FINAl.docx
23
Thanks!
001563
1.
How long does it take for dispersed oil to biodegrade? Is there an approximate length of time
or a range?
varies greatly depending on oil type and water conditions. NOAA NSF and DOE are actively
studying this important question to studying, and we hope to have results soon.
2.
Have the data already been peer-reviewed, or are theyi-i.t going to be peer-reviewed? Also,
The Oil Budget Caiculator was developed by a team at the US Geological Survey (USGS) in the
Departrne'nt of the Interior (DOl) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). The tool was created by the USGS in collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA and
NIST.
A number of outside scientists reviewed the calculation methodologies. The names of scientists
on the teams and those reviewing the calculations are aI/listed at the end of the document.
3. With all the s.hips and dilpe:-sants and the skimming and the burning, why did 67 percent of
25% of the oil evaporated, and 16% of it dispersed naturally, so 41% was not even available to
be skimmed or burned. The response efforts targeted the remaining 59% of the oill and
addressed more than half of that between burning, skimming, direct recovery and chemical
dispersion.
Skimming and burning are not effective when oil
oil could not be effectively removed.
is on the surface in thin layers, so some of the
4. You say the federal effort has had a significant impact, but what's the precedent? How can
not 50 percent? See ansvlfer above.
It is hard to give a direct comparison, as each spill is unique. Because this is spill originated more
than a r:1i1e below the surface, and further from the shore, the impacts have been different.
5.
be~n tested on the natllial .:!nvironment and certainly not in these amounts?
!t is importa:,t to note that 13% of the spilled oil represents over 400,000 barrels of oil, oil that
might otherwise have washed up on beaches and marshes. For context, 400,000 barrels is
slightly more than 1 Y2 Exxon Valdez spills -- not an insignificant amount.
001564
Chemical dispersion breaks the oil up into smalJ droplets to keep it from coming ashore in large
6.
efforts, now shot.lId the federal government have changed its response efforts?
coordinated response by the Federal Government and Unified Command to a spill of
:.J~lprecedE'n:ec scope were successful in reTr.cvi:ig completely removing 25%one quarter of the
oil and dispersing another 8%. We have also been fortunate that mother nature has helped as
well, with natural dispersion, evaporation and dissolution accounting for a significant portion of
the oil.
NOAA and the Federal Government remain vigilant..:- we continue to monitor shoreline areas
where tar b::.d.5 may stW C)ITIE ashc-:-e, and we continue to collect data and do research to
q<l,m~ify th<? cf.)nc:~:-,trati()n~ and locatio7'l of su'Jsurface oil, and better understand the long term
impacts of ::his spill.
7.
How long wHi the oil be present and vfisible in the GulfThere is very little visible ollleft in Gulf waters. At this point there are small amounts of residual
. oil on or just below the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls. There is also some oil in
the subsurface, at depth, in dilute amounts that is undergoing natural biodegradation.
8. What impar.t, if any, wilf tl1 is rep"" have in determining BP's. financial liability .for this spill?
This report has no impact on BPs financialliabiJity for this spilL They are still required to restore
n:lease-:.:l a.: outlined in tre ('(lan \I'/ate:- Act. P.s we have said all along we will hold BP fully
9.

c;c,:ount fer h::J!f {SO%l of the totc:! release cf c;! from the spill.
'The residual amour.tl" just over one.quarter (26%), is either on or iusfbelow the surface as light. .
s~l(;:er: and v...::athert!::! tar bat Is, has 'washed ashore or been collected from the shore, is buried
in sand and sediments, or ha~ been biodegraded.
001565
For the purpose of this ana"lysis, 'dispersed oil' is clefi-ned as droplets that are less than 100
and at the surface.
Dispersed and residual oll remain in the system and until they degrade through a number of
natural processes. Early indications are that the oil is degrading qUickly.
It is well knov-m that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are
abunda:;tt in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient
and oxygen :evels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps
regularly.

There is r.c~ .0;1 on the deep sea floor. Oil that is beneath the surface, as far as we can
d!'terrnine, i3 primar;ly in t~e i/vater column itself not sitting on the sea floor.
In some 0; '~;i':: near shore areas there are reports or tar balls or tar mats essentially~!.Yl.!:!.g
on the sea floor~;...;;;." :Jh;~,3"L'5, this can occur in cases where the tar balls have come ashore onto
beaches and have picked up sand or other material, then washed back out in the surf. The sand
and sediment causes them to sink and stay on the bottom, but this oil remains close to the
shore. not in the deeoer por.:ions of the Gulf.

The sheer volume o'f oil thai: was released sets this disaster apart. 4.9 million barrels released
will means there 'Nill undoubtedly havebe some significant impacts.
We've. seen some of those impac.ts play out in obvious ways_ tAat are more o9'1ioL:ls because
they're at the surface. What we have yet to determine is the full impact that the oil will have
bene-atr. the surface.
mention il". this report, "die oi! that i::; beneath the surface appears to be being biodegraded
There is still likely a sign:ficant amount of oil out there simply because there was so much
short teml ani long term and that l!ndeiSCores the importance of having this very aggressive
001566
and learn from this.
12. A recent JAG report said that 'ifOU found oil subsurface in the 4-7 ppm range. Is that still the
case?
That is the range for th~a-i: datasetjD..!h~JJJ.Qi.t.I..~c;ent JAG report. Ourfirst report found
concentrations of 1-2 parts per million based on chemical analysis of water samples. The
second repc:1: used fluo;'ometric data and based on calibrations of fluorometers, indicated a
likely concentration of 4-7 ppm or less in the sampled areas. There are variations depending on
the methc:d:. L:sed tc analyze 5ubsul-facE oil concentrations. The Joint Analytical Group will soon
release ch<::mical analytical data from the research missions that will add to our understanding
of the overall picture of where oil is below the surface.
Th..:: main point here is that the oil that is subsurface is, as far as we can tell, in very small
one goes aw-ay from the well site.
Di!ute dOE!:; ;lot mean bc:~lgn, but it is in 'Jery small concentrations and we continue to measure
i~ is and trac:, it and tl-,. to ;.mdersta;;d its impact.
where
001567
Oil Budget Overview Talking Points 8.4 updated 7pm
The Oil Budget Calculator provides an account by experts of what's happened with the
oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill and makes clear that the administratkm's
response removed significant amounts of oil from the Gulf.
Overall the report shows that the vast majority of the oil from the BP Deepwater
Horizon oil spill has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the
wellhead or dispersed. The dispersed oil is in the process of being degraded.
A significant amount of this is the direct result of the robust federal response efforts.
The historic response, which has included more than 6,000 vessels and 40,000
individuals, has been effective.
o
The Unified Ccmmand's aggressive recovery operations, including burning,

skimmir:g and d(['ect recoverv from the wellhead were successful in removing
frcm t'1e Gulf appreximately l,257J89 million barrels (one quarter of the oil).
Dir2ct capture is or.e of the actions the government directed BP to do.
More than an addit~cl-.<:llGther- 400,000 barrels (408,792) barrels was chemically
:::Iispe;-sed, bringing the total result of Unified Command efforts to more than 1.6
million barrels,
0['
about one third of the total amount of oil removed or
dispersed.
o
One qua,"ter (l,172,792m barrels) was dlspersed, either naturally or chemically.

The r~sult of d~sPer.>i'Jr, is to bl'eak the oil up into microscopic droplets, about
the width of a r,Llrna:1 hair. These droplets are in the process of being naturally
jeg{~ded
Tw;.:e
CiS
by [",(Ilcrobes.
much oil was dispersed naturally as was dispersed chemically. (763,948
b21Tels or 16% was disp2rsed naturally; 408,792 or 8% was dispersed with

cheIT.:cals at and be!ow the surface.)
o
Or:=: qU5.rter of the total oil (1,243,732 m barrels) evaporated or dissolved

!'lctU!:J!!'/.
~~": :':.slc:i.Jal clrrr:>l.i?1t of o~l, i.e., oil that cannot be measured directly or estimated
INith (onfidence, inrjude!; oil that remains at the surface as light sheen, just
~~Sl0Iij th,= S'Jrf2lce ,1S
t=.r balls, washed ashore or already removed from the
.:;h(,1[E:. This residu~1 amO!Jnt totals 1,253,839 barrels, or one quarter of the total.
T!-,'~ oil tt-a':: is left in the
wc;te:r is light ~heen, itjs weathered and diluted, and if
af,,j 'IIvhcn it \\'3shes ashore, it
will largely be in the form of tar balls and not
C tI th ::': is dispersed beneath the surface, on the surface as light sheen or washed
ashore j:; in t~;E.! prxessJf natural degradation.
001568
That said, we continue to monitor the wate'r, we continue to assess and we continue to
be concerned about the'long term effects of this spill and what it means for the health
of the Gulf ecosystem and the millions of people who depend on the Gulf for their
livelihoods and enjoyment.
The Federa! Government is not going anywhere, We are committed to this region and its
long term recovery. We are here until the oii from this spill is cleaned up and the people
from this region are made whole.
As you know, teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since
Day One of this spill, and based on the data from those efforts and their collective
expertise, they are now abl~! to pmvide these useful estimates,
These estimates were derived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) a.:d '~he Department of the Interior (001), who jOintly developed what's known
as an Oil BuC:get Calculator, to provide measurements and best estimates of what
happened to the spilled oil. The report was produced by scientific experts from a
number of federal agencie, ied by NOAA and USGS, with peer-review of the
calculatio~s
by other governmental and non-governmental scientists. The calculator is
based on 4.9 mil!bn barre!~ of oil released into the Gulf, the government's Flow Rate
Technical Group e.5tit"nclte from !Vlonday, August 2,2010.
The oil budget calculation.; are based on direct measurements where that is possible
and thE~ best iwailable sch::ntific estir.1ates where measurements were not possible.
Other research efforts :are curn:nt,'y underway to further understand and quantify the
~ocation
ana concE:r.trc:tions of subsurface oil, and results, as you know, so far have
shown th~t d:ffus~ concentrations in the
10',/\1'
parts per million, exist at depth. Our latest
information is thal those concentrations are being degraded through time.
We wilt c.oiibnue to monitor and sar,lple and conduct a number of other studies to
quantify'Ci1c rate of degradct;cri. Because that is a key question about which we'd like
more inf0i'iih:ition. While ftmher analysis. remains to be done to quantify the rate of
degradatiun, early l!1dicatiol1s are that this oil is degrading quickly.
001569
1. How long does it take for dispersed oil to biodegrade? Is there an approximate length oftime
or a range?
I\lOAA NSF and DOE are actively studying this important question to studying, and we hope to
have results soon.
2.
~2\ie5 the
data
i!k~~dV been pee;-!cviewerl.
or is it going to be peer-reviewed? Also, did
ol..I'i:side scientists help with the calculations?

The Oil Budget Calculator was developed by a team at the US Geological Survey (USGS) in the
Department of the Interior (DOl) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
{NOAA}. The tool was created by the USGS Geological Survey in collaboration with US Coast
Guard, NOAA and NIST.
A number of outside scientists Ge."'Iffibtl-tetl-"8.:i-6f reviewed the calculation methodologies. The
names of sc.lgntis~~_on the teems and those reviewing the calculations are all listed at the end of
the dOL\..!. n~.m.:
3. With all the ships and dispersants and the skimming and the burning, why did 67 percent of
the oil i ,/ this incidel"at elr",ds your efforts, winding up in the Gulf?
25:y.; of th..:: .Jii,':'lapo 'a:Ed, an;,:i 16'7:~, of it disjJl~rsed naturally, so 41% was not even available to
be skimmE.tg or burned. The response efforts targeted the remaining 59% of the oil. Skimming
and burn!ng.~!f.,g.lg~t effe,ctlvg. "'''hen oil is...Qn the surface in thin layers, so some of the oil could
Dot b,? Effct!\!~j;:_:emo\~~d .-:T't-:er: are r. number of factors, one thing to I(cop in mind, is that oil
that 'NO: natural dispersior., Q\,/aporation and dissolution happen pretty ffHJch right o'Ney and so
~H-e4: aV"lili:lbie 1:0 rc:.!~oAci to.
Ofuhat W'tlS I ?ft, thE! U~lifiec command addressed more than half of that, between .burning,.
sklmr'1ing, .1r--ci i.'lir~ct icc')ver: i
4. You say the federal effort has had a significant impact, but what's the precedent? How can
you say that if there's nothing to c~mpare it to? Why is 33 percent a positive number? Why
not 50 percent? See answer above.
It is hard to give a direct comparison, as each spill is unique. Bec;ause this is further from the
shore, t:~le Impacts have been different.
5.
Cfu~micaldisl='l:'I'5:ants were 0:'11'1 re5'pcm~ible for eliminating 8 percent of the 1)j(~according: to.
thf: ~F.' bu'tiiJ,nt r'~r.~!t !f "th~t'. 50, \\'r.y did the federal government allow BP to use such
be'~r. tp.sted (ift thn mHllTal ~m,jror"tle\"lt=rld t:ertainly not in these amounts?
001570
It is important to note that 8% of the spilled oil represents over 400.000 barrelsapproximately
cf oil!....oi! that might otherwise have washed up on beaches and marshes. For
context, 40Q,.:.200 b2[rel?Js sfu!htiy more th~1n 1 Y; Exxon Valdez spills.
s-~-gafiBfl-5
T~e:;:: re5~~j;5-tBf}ff;:.;~H~c~@"sge:":;:::f'lt.-:...;seGl :p. re!:por:se :0 '!:hc o:i spill in the gul~J Corexit
9::00A7-:v!t'::'Piiqth'<fl~{LV.;8::4,";5-f:,"?;"lec!iy p.:: A18fC 0: less toxic than mixtures 'Nith the other
ai:il3laj-e-a~t;e;-H-a-t~ver,-H::t-f";'Si;llt-;.-a+:;e :~j.;2':e that dispersant oil mixtures are generally no
ffi9,C :O?~i-2'.;)tf:;e~ ... :tj-t-ts;eec::::$ tht:~~
Dispersant was one of many response te\:hniques employed to combat this environmental
disaster, Clr.d (l$ we have said all a!ong, was a question of environmental trade-offs.
6.
Using the ~Ij! budget report as a guide, given the effectiveness of the various mitigation
efforts, huw :-;.houkf the fedeira! government have changed its response efforts?
coordinated response by the Federal Government and Unified Command were successful in
removi'ig-da!:rtE-'N.f~ nearly one third of the oil and dispersing another 8%. We have also been
fortunate that mother nature has helped as well, ~ith natural dispersion, evaporation and
dissolution accounting for a significant portion of the oil.
NO;~A and the ;:ed.eial Goverr.:nent "emein vigilant- we continue to monitor shoreline areas
qu:; rtify th~! (.:ro:<?otratlnn; llnr' 1::II:ati of1 of stibsurface oil, and Detter understand the long term
rrppa:ts cf ~h;~. sr"l
7. How long ~'ii'm the oil be pre:seD"lt and visible in the GulfTht1 re is very little visible oil !eft in Gulf waters. At this point there are small amounts of residual
oil on or just below the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls. There is also some oil in
the subsurt;::-:r~r 2t..ci~ptt:1ln (nut~ amounts that is undergoing natural biodegradation.
8. What iM[lod; If fln\'; l'l.,m thh ~(i'p;'!'t halle in determining BP's financial liability for this spill?
TI~rs re-po:-t ~i?:; ro) :trpact on BPs ftnancialliability for this spill. They are still required to restore
n:lp.as~:~:: ou:nned in th: r:!e:cm "'Jat\-:- A,ct. j~S we have said all along we will hold BP fully
9.
Where is the :remaining oil?

2C'::) tint fc:' !, ~:.' ;$C~~} of tb: t::.tc;! n:lea$e cf c:! from the spill.
001571
The residual amount, just over one quarter (26%), is either on or jusfb"e"low the surface as light
sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, af is buried
in sand and sediments,...QI has been.biodegraded.
buoyant and thus remain'in the water co:umn where they then begin to biodegrade
Dispersion increases the !ike Ii hood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column
and at the surface.
Dispersed c.I1C residual all remain in the system and until they degrade through a number of
natural processes. EaL'jr indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.
It is weI! !~n(>\!I:l that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are
abundant in thE. Gt..!f of Mexico :n large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient
and ".)xygen :.'vels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps
regularly.
There is
110"':
de"~er:'Tline,
0;1 en tbe d::ep sea fioar. 01: that is beneath the surface, as far as we can
is primady in the water column itself not sitting on the sea floor.
in some cr;- ":r;e .1ear shor2 areas there are r;;ports of tar balls essentially laying on the sea floor,
or tar mats, this can occur in ~2.ses where the tar balls have come ashore onto beaches and have
picked up sand or other materi;;l, then I.... ashed back out in the surf. The sand and sediment
causes them to sink and stay on the bottom, ,iose to the shore.
11. IDe" V(Jl.! bi!Ji~I{E. this is the worst environmental disaster?
-:-1'.02 sheer voiume \:it oil that was reieased means there will undoubtedly be some significant
im;;acts.
We've seEn S0me ;;,f tho!.:e jii1pac~$ play OLit in ways that are more obvious because they're at
thE: surface. What we hove ,,'et to determine is the full impact that the oil will have beneath the
sun:a,::e.
mE.m-c;cr; ;:, "Ld:-. n.:por~, "[I;e oil that is beneath the surface appears to be being biodegraded
001572
12. A recent JAG report said that you found oil subsurface in the 4-7 ppm.range. Is that still the
case?
That is the range for that dataset. Our fjrst report found concentrations of 1-2 parts per million
ba::;ed en cher,'kal analysis.;:;f wat21" samples. The second report used fluorometric data and
based C't: c;.~lib:ctions of f!uorcmeters, indicated a likely concentration of 4-7 ppm or less in the
sampled dn::a~. TI';~e are variations depend:ng on the methods used to analyze subsurface oil
ccnce:rt(2tiol1s. The Joint A;;alvt:cal Group w:1l soon release chemical analytical data from the
rese~rch mls!;'o;Js that will add to our understanding of the overall picture of where oil is below
the surface.
Th~
main point here is that the oil that is subsurface is, as far as we can tell, in very small
one goes aW:;:'1 from ;:~le weli site.
Dlli..tt: cbes not me.E:(j benign, but it is in very 5rnall concentrations and we continue to measure
;Jr~derstand its impact.
where it i.:.i an!."! tra.::.~< it and try to
001573
Oil Budget Overview Talking Points
Today the federal government released a new scientific analysis that

addresses the question "Where did the oil go?"
The analysis uses the
recently released calculation of 4.9 m barrels of oil ( 10%), and includes

both direct measurements and best estimates where direct measurements
were. not \Jossib~'2. The report was produced by scientific experts from a
number of federal agencies, led by NOAA ~ndU.SGS, with peer-review of
the calculations by other governmental and non-governmental scientists.
Key conclusions 0:- the report:

-
c The majority
~.:;.f :1'-"2
oil h3S either evaporated or been burned,
.;kir.r.!-;!c:cl, and iecov0red from the wellhead or has been dispersed.

The dispersed oii is in the process of being degraded. A significant
amo',tnt of this is the dlrect result of the robust federal response
efforts.
o One quarter of the total oil (1,243,732 m barrels) evaporated or
dissolved naturally.
o The Unified Command's aggressive recovery operations, including"
burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead were
successful in removing from the Gulf 1,257,899 m barrels (one
quarter of the oil), Directcapture is one of the actions the
government directed BP to do.
o Another 400,000 barrels was chemically dispersed, bringing the total
result of Unified Command efforts to l,666,681m barrels, or about
one third of the total amount of oil removed or dispersed.
001574
o One quarter (1,172,792m barrels) was dispersed, either naturally or

chemically. The result of dispersion is to break the oil up into
microscopic droplets} about the width ofa human hair. These
droplets are in the process of being naturally degraded by microbes.
Twice as much oil was dispersed naturally as was dispersed
chemically. (764,000 barrels or 16% was dispersed naturally; 408,792
or 8% was dispersed with chemicals at and below the surface.)
o The residual amount of oil, i.e., oil that cannot be measured directly
or estimated with confidence, includes oil that remains at the surface
as light sheef"!, just below the surface as tar balls, washed ashore or
already removed from the shore. This residual amount totals
1,253,829 barrels, or one quarter of the total.
o T~us far, 37,000 tons of oiled debris have been removed 'from shore.
o Oil that is dispersed beneath the surface, on the surface as light

sheen or washed ashore is in the process of natural degradation.
$
o In summary, at least 50% of the 4.9 m barrels of oil released from the"
BP Deepwater Horizon well is now gone from the Gulf system, as a
result of both aggressive and unprecedented response efforts and
the work of Mother Nature.
o We continue to be extremely concerne.d about what this oilspill
mear;s for thE! health of the Gulf ecosystem and the millions of
people who deoend on the Gulf for the livelihoods and enjoyment~'
001575
But \,ve are m3idng very good progress and doing as much as possible
to dr.:al with this tragedy in as aggressive a fashion as possible.
the oil siner:: Day One of this spilL and based on the data from those efforts
and their col!ective exoertise, they are now able to provide these useful
estimates.
-
possible and the best aVr.Jilable scientific estimates where measurements


degradation., early indications
are that ..this oil
is degrading
quickly.
.
-'.
..
"

quantify the location and concentrations of subsurface oil l and results} as
per million; exist at depth. Our latest information is that those
concentrations are be.lng degraded through time.
001576

studies to quantify the. rate of degradation. Because that is a key question
about VJhich we'd like more information.
....
001577
-

that oil. The expertise of government scientists serving on these teams is complemented by.. . ...
estimates that a total of 4.9 miHion barrels of oil has been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon well.
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ci.evtluped a tool caned the Oil Budget Calculator to determine
direct measurements and. rhe best scientific eS'dmates available to date, to determine what has happened
to the oil. The interagency scientific ieport below builds upon the calculator and summarizes the
disposition of the oB to date.
In summary, it is estimated that burniilg, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one
quarter (25%) of the oil released fi'om the ..,vellhead. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally
evaporated or dissolved, and just les.~ than one q.uarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally or as a
result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gillfwaters. The residual amount -just over one
categories arId calCUlations. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional infonnation
becomes available.
- - - - -..
---,.,.~,.
,_.__ .... _------ -----------------------------,

Boseti en "':;iimotecJ re-lease of 4.9m barrels a/ail
Resi(}ual
th-"t
irdudt:~
oi I
IS (.'r~ (,r jv:,t I)I.'I{),~
the slJdllce ;;~, light

sheen ano w~a!.r.'f!d
tar bi:ll;~, lias \V;'Isht:'d
a~hore
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
or been
collected f ror\' tl ."

shore.o! is bur!';,d j)
sand and ~edimt' ll,.

naturally.
Figure 1: Oi I Bud get - Shows current best estimates of what happened to the oil.
001578
shown in the pie chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in 'addressing 33% of the spilled oil.
dispersed by the applicarion of chemical dispersants on and below the surface. Natural dispersion occurs
biodegraded. both in the water column and at the surface. Until it is biodegraded, naturally or chemically
the surface in diffuse douds where ii: begai110 dissipate further and biodegrade. Previous analyses have
concentrations (pans per million or less), moving in the direction of known ocean currents and
decreasing with distance iTom the wellhead. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2,
http://ecow'atch.ncdd(.;.lloaa.gov!JAG!reports.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
biodegrade.
Evaporation ana Dis~'bluti6n: It is estimated that 25% of the oil volume quickly and naturally
evaporated or dissolved into the water coiwnn. TIle evaporation and dissolution rate estimate is based on
scientific researeh and o-o5ef'llatioIlS conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident.
molecules from the oil separate and dissoive into the water just as sugar can be dissolved in water.
Dispersion is the process by which larger volumes of oil are broken down into small~r droplets of oil.
Residual: After accounting for the categories that can be measured directly or estimated (Le., recovery
operations, dispersion~ and evaporation and dissolution), an estimated 26% remains. lbis figure is a
combination of categories 'ali of'which ,m~ difficult to measure or estimate. It includes oil still on or just
below the swface in th.e form of light sheeri iil'tar balis, oil that has washed ashore or been collected
from the shore, and some t"la:t is buried in sand arId sediments and may resurface through time. This oil
001579
Biodegradation: Dispersed. oil in the water 'column 'and oil on the surface of the water biodegrade
academia are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate. It is well k:rlown that bacteria that
because of the warm water. the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil regularly
above is based on this group's estimate of 4. 9 million barrels of oil.
Direct Measures and Best Estimates: The oil budget-calculations are based on direct measurements
analysis. Further information 011 these calcuiation methods is available in the De~pwater Horizon Gulf
Illcident Budget Too! Report from Aug i, 2010 (available online). The tool was created by the US
Continued monitor"ing and research:
Federal agencies and many academic and independent scientists are actively 'pursuing better .
understanding of the fate, transpon aJ'id impa.ct of the oil. The federal government will continue to report
activities, results and data to the public on a regul&r basis. Updates and information can be found at
\vv..w.restorethegui[fll\~. and datEl from the response and monitoring can be found at
W\VW .geoplatfonn.go\'.
responders are worki!lg with ihe Cnliied Command on monitoring strategies for tar balls and near,shore
distribution and impact of oil1.here. EPA and NOAA have carefully monitored BP's use ofdispersimt in
dispersant and crude oit components with special attention hUman healthnnpactS. NumeroUs NOAA
to
001580
accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining.in the environment. DOl is leading efforts to
mitigate impacts of oil to terrestrial wildlife. natural resources, and public lands.
Even though the thre~t to shorelines . fish and wildlife, and ecosystems has decreased since the capping
of the BP wellhead, .fed~~:~al s~ientist:~ r:::m2.in extremely concemed about the impact of the spill to the
Gulf ecosystem. FLill~i l!nders~anding the im~)acts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources
in the Gulfregic1n v. ;iP tHke tinle :ind continued monitoring and research.
001581
Deepwater HorizonfBP Oil Budget:

Acknowledgements
Authors
Mark Sogge, USGS. DOl
Mark Miller, NOAA. DOC
Stephen Hammond. USGS. Dor
William Conner. NOAA. DJC
Credits
.
.
LTGg) Chari'ty Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
David Iviack and Jeff Allen (USGS) - Application development and engineering
Antonio Fossulo and Pedro Espira (1\fIST) - Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
Sky Bristol and Tim Kein (USGS) - Project vision and management
Kevin Gallagher. Martha Garcia, and Stephen Hammond (USGS) - Executive spo~sors
The following expert:) were consulted on the oil budget calculations, contributed field data, suggested
formulas, analysis mdhods, or reviev.,'ed the algorithms used in the calculator. The team continues to
refine the analysis and this dot;ument will be updated as appropriate.
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Independent S.cientis1s
Al Allan. SpilT';-G
Tom Coolbaugh, Exxon Mo!)i}
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras. UCSD
Ali Khelifa. Sf/v. Canada
Per Daling, SiNTEF
Michel Boufadet Temple t;niv.
001582
that oil. The expertise of government scientists serving on these teams is complemented hy
A second interagency team, lea by the Department ofthe Interior (DOl) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 0.cvduped a tool called the Oil Budget Calculator to detennine
what happened to the oiL The calculator uses the 4.9 million barrel estimate as its input and uses both
direct measurements and the best sciemific es~imates available to date, to determine what has happened
to the oil. The interagency sClcntific report below builds upon the calculator and summarizes the
quarter (25%) of the oil released fi'om the wellhead. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally
evaporated or dissolved, andju~,t ~e5s than one quarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally or as a
result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulf waters. The residual amount -just over one
quarter (26%) - is either on or just beiow the suriace as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed
ashore or been collected from thr.: shore, or is buried in sat"1d and sediments. Oil in the residual and
categories and calculat!(,ns. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional infonnation
becomes available.
DeepvJater Horizon Oil Budget

B1Set1
Re5i~lual
th:'lt
1$ ('I"'
ir,dIJ::C'l oil
('I'
jll,) iy!IO,N
the ';\Jrfac1? ~s JiFht

5h~en ana wea!herr,d
tar boli~, i;a:; "v:~~hE:'d
ashorE! or been
en :::;UmCJf:ed r;-!eosl? of 4.9m barrels %il

Unified
Command
Response
Operations
COllec.tE..j fron' U 'il

~hore, or I:; bur IIN.I iil
sand iJlnd ;edimt:ll;,

naturally.
Figur.e 1; Oil B:.rdget Shows current best estimates of what happened to the oil.
001583
. Unified Command Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with the oil have been aggressive. As
dispersed by the appli(;8Iion of chemical dispersants on and below the surface. Natural dispersion occurs
ofthe oil to spray off in small dropiets. For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as
droplets that are less than ] 00 micror.s - about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are "this
Chemical dispersion also breaks the oil up into smaH droplets to keep it from coming ashore in large
surface slicks and makes it more readily availab1e for biodegradation. Chemical dispersants were applied
the surface in diffuse clouds where it began to dissipate furUler and biodegrade. Previous analyses have
" sho"Wn evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil between 3,300 and 4,300 feet in very low
decreasing with distance iyom the wellhead. (citation: Federal Joint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2,
http://ecoviatch.ncddc.rwaa.gov!JAO/rcports.htmI). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
moved into the top 20 feet of the water colunm where it mixed with surrounding waters and began to
biodegrade.
of
Evaporation and Dissolution: It is estimated that 25% the oil volume quickly and naturally
scientific research and ob~ervations conducted during "the Deepwater Horizon incident. "" "
Disso111tion is different from dispersion. Dissolution is the process by which individual hydrocarbon
molecules from the oil separate and dissolve ,into the water just as sugar can be dissolved in water.
Residual: After acco:.mting for the categories that can be measured directly or estimated (Le., recovery
operations, dispersion: and evaporation and dissolution), an estimated 26% remains. This figUre is
combination of categories all of which are difficUlt to measure or "estimate. It inchides oil still on or just " '"
below the suiface ih the form of iight
or tar balls, oil that has washed aShore been tollected "" ";
from the shore, ~lT1d !>ome that i:; buried in sand and sediments and may resurface through time. "This oil
has also begWl to degrade through natur~I processes.
a " '"
sheen
or
001584
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column arid oil on the surface of the water biodegrade
academia are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate. It is weIi known that bacteria that
break do'W-u the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part
wherever possible and the Dest available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible.
Tne numbers lor direct recovery and bums 'were measured directly and reported in daily operational
were based on previouS scientific analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific
expeltise. These numbers wiH continue to be refii1ed based on additional information and further
analysis. Further informai:ion Oil these calculation methods is available-in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf
Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug L 2010 (available online). The tool was created by the US
Continued monitorirAg and research:
Our knowledge of the oil. dispersants. ecosystem irnpacts and human impacts will continue to evolve.
understanding ofthe fate. transpon and impact of the oil. The federal government will continue to report
ww\v.restorethegult:g(!~, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
WVvW .geop latfonn.go\.
DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oiL NOAA
responders &l: workiJlg with Lhe l.n11ied Command on monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore
distribution and impact \if oil there. EPA and NOAA. ha'Je carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in
the Gulf and continues to monitor the aiT, water an.o sediments near the shoreline for the presence of
dispersant and crude nil compo[]ents with special attention 1O human health impacts. Numerous NOAA
ecosystem and wildlife impact5. DOl and DOE responders are working to ensure control of the well and ..
001585
or
accurate measurement oil released and oil rernaining.in the environment. DOr is leading efforts to
mitigate impacts of oj i E, tem;~;!ri::J '.vi ;cii f~" natural r;sources, and public lands.
Eventhough the threat i shorelines. fish a~d wildlife. and ecosystems has decreased since the capping
of the BP wellhead. f(~deral s;:-.icntist; remair: extremeI:;' concerned about the impact of the spill to the
Gulf ecosyste;n. FuIIY';)nders!aading "the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources
in the Gulf region will take t:rne ;1~1d c:c,mi'1LIed mor:itoring and research.
001586
001587
V.'bat bappened to the oil?
AcknoV\:ledgements
Authors
Jane Lubchenc(), NOAA DOC
Marcia McNutt, JSGS, DOl
William Conner. NOAA, D()C
Credits
LT(jg) Charity Drew (USCG) Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espifla (NIST) - Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (USGS) - Proj':;;ct vision and management
Kevin Gallagher. Martha Garcia. and Stephen Hammond (USGS) - Executive sponsors
The following experts were consuited on the oil budge'( calculations, contributed field data, suggested
refine the analysis and this dOCWllent will be updated as appropriate.
Federai Scientisr~
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Antonio PossoJo, NIST
Independent ~i&misls
At AHan, SpilTec
Tom Coolbaugh, Exx('ifJ Mobii
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras. UCSD
Merv Fillgas. Env. Canada (ret)
Ali Khelita, EfIv. Carlada
Per Dalir!g. S~NTE1~
:viicheI Boufadel, Temple Univ.
001644
001662
_J_u_s_ti_n_K_e_n_"_e";;Y___"',""""lIlIIw_ _ _ _.....
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~-----------_
From:
Sent:
Ja.'1e Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa,gov]

Tuesday, August 03, 2010 12:39 Pf'A
~"=-"1nifer Austin; Pat.A.Simms@noaa.gov'; Mark W Miller
To:
Cc:
~:'.lstin
f(enney: SCGtt Smullen
RE: Latest Draf{ - NYTimes at 3 pm

Oil Budget description 8 3 v 1'lam JL.docx
Subject:
Attachments:
Jen and Mark,

Here are t:l fe\v slight "evisions to 'che 11am draft.
Please let me know if you disagree with
anv' of thl""::fJ (h;:mp.'
Thanks
Jane
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin; ::lailto: J~!1"d.{E~r ,1\usti:"l@nouCl.goV]
Sent. Tue::day) August F~:;" 2110 11.; 19 J':!,M
To: Jane Lubchenco; 'Pat.A.Simms@noaa.gov'; Mark W Miller

Cc: Justin kenney; Sco~~ Smullen
Subject: Latest Draf';: - NYTimes a~: 3 pm
Pat :an you please

WH wants
pri~t
this out for Dr. Lubchenco.
to do the i.,tec-viev.! llItth Dr Lubchenco and the NYTimes at 3 pm.

':h-e p: '2:';~; !"'(~1::2: E: ;,nd t<Jlkir.g !="oints now.
We're Itl01":'ng O:'!
Dr Lubchenco 1
,_
~.... ill ~.r:it -1=01'
send it to t~ierll ).f Yd:.
Notable ed::' ts from
'fi
:;.i:<e.
(.n;e;~nlght
yow' 60- a;lead b,:fo!"e sending to Heather and Sean J or you can
to
i"\l'.?s5. ,j'
Added asterisk to ind:t(:lte whi.ch
r:. 3g
'for them:
Re\,lo~:~:i!;g :;t::s~:::.~~p-~-:3,"'~ r-...:
th~'ee
categories are now degradingJ and Change from Federal
Response E'fforts.. t:) l'~.:i_ -fi.::d C.:.mman.j Re5p0!1S .2f-Forts.
Mark- ~I/e'd like to ;.;(:0 B::1 Lehr as. an a;.rt:--l;);'" arxi c"'cdit the calculator to DOl and NOM in
the oper:i;';g ;:ar.::gra;:...... :'::'eas,~ .::.,:,',h,:'m i',: h~ is :.:.k with that. Dr L will review one more time
before '..Je send -For'wal~d~o ti:c rest 0-;' the group.
Jennifer Jl.ustin
NO{.\,!!. Cull1l'm..mica~icns (;(
:,<ternal
2e:! -~~:32 ;.; '::':'
...',:':'302 Sf:>,!7
~ ;,;;":'fic. . ;
A-.:".=2,. I~;;
c:~E) l'ilrI'.\J. facebook.
74
com/noaa .lubchenco
001665
c:::.
.':';':8 Ll.'~1C;lf~nC) l.;=mt~. ~.;j:lCt"lei'c()@no2a.govl
From:
Sent:
~I.~(::~('ia,;~ ll.u~r.:"::t ~~JJ 2~.~jQ 1G:~1
!'4.M
:-::; . ::,.s~lrn5:;> :"'';;.91)'1': 'ienr:ifel' .A.ustin@noaa.gov'
To:
-! ;:: ~: i<. .~;
Subject:
Jen - can lrie check j.n cr-ieHy in ;:;fYL" 10 min so I know where tile are w the oil budget
revisions TPs, PR, "t:. Later 5.::: :. . ~( j,T you're busy.
Thx!
Jane Lubchenco
Adr:linisti~a-:o'"'
p';:
thf~ ~Ia:. ion21 O('~all:;.~
and Atmospheric Administration
Join me on Faceb6ok:
\-1\~~.
fa ::e~~~j:<. ._c...Q!nl no~"}.: ;..!'>:-:,~g..r}.~i~
77
001666
HI~
Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget:

The Nati()llul (ndden! Comm:u,i ~'HC) a>s:':1l1bh~d "\ "..!lnkl of intcmgem;y expert scientific teams to
estimate the quantity of BP Ikc'}\\lller Ilori7.on nil Ibm h~js been released from the well and the fate of
that oil. The expertise or gO\crr.n:cn! sci:.:misls ol11h..:sc teams ;s compkmenteci by non-governmental
specialists reviewing the calcubli;ns and conciusjons, One team calculated the flow rate and total oil
released. Lcd hy
:-'::,;\ ":: :.':\i.! '1'; l ~njtcd Slale:; Geological Survey (USGS) Director
Murcia McNutt. ; U \ t 1 ' , ' ':;, ':"."":,,'V,'H-{ ':::, this learn annolinced on August 2, 2010 that it
estimates that a total or 4.9,l11i; r . , : harrels or oil have been released from the BF' Deepwater Horizon
\,1.1'. A :,.xrnd ;nh'rugcocy t,,r,. I:::' by ;b~' L):,;:~:r.:,I,;:.
and.11K ~,Hj"i1~l1 Oceanic :1nd
, : NO!\A) developed u tool. called the Oil Budget Calculator. to determine
what happened to the oil. Th ~ .:l'!;:I!lator uses the 4.9 mi.i ii,,;! barrel estimate as itS input and uses both
direct mcasur.::ments and the !1":Sl scienLric estimates ava!lable to date. to determine what has happened
to the oil. The interagt!ncy sciePLi fic !ell,,1t (,el Y.\ dC5C;-io(;$ Ihe ou,puts of the oil budget calculator.
(0 summar.Y. ii is estimaled ;_h,~ l,,;rlling. :,;,;mmi"g Jr,"'; J;r,!;.;\ r",'Cove;"y n;:)nl the wellhead removed one
quarter of Ihe oi 1 released (h)'I! I h,. '"ell n..:uJ , D,lC \.( u;;;licr or the to',al oi! naturally evaporated or
dissolved. andjusl less than ".n..: 'i""rter "a:; dispel'S;;,:; (ci(h::r naturaliy ()r as a result of operations) as
microscopic droplcls into Gt.;,i w",crs. The i'csid"i:l! "mount.j;;st ()\ocr on.;: quarter, hl.;;llJf.h~"'i.9il thalhas
..
:-~~
~}t!tfr~1"+1~1i"'!~d-f:i:~;~!~t ~~-~h1:~;':'; A~
! :'J"'-''';~::';~~"i.~'t.:.: 'i!---- ::i:.,.o..;.h-: ;-~;~

;
~~!:i,:"J .h-::...,,",,,;
(,e'>t::ib,;.' ea.;h JflLc;,c '-<1'.1::;':;' t; ';,,:1 cak;ulution;;.

additional information become, ~;/ .. ilahl:.:"
::-.: ~ ~: .~~\:.~..-,~ ;~. .i~, -,:J.-~d~~~!t}~s:~rla~-\~:Tf:U::-tH~~
;.,;"'+.,~"...,j;~"'.':"'""',,. ":i'.";;:
. The report below

l hesc estimates wi;; continue to be refined as
001667
Comment [zl]: Residual includes oil that has
washed ashore or been collected from the shore or is

weathered
Unified
;;',,!t
~;.,.. ,
i'\I.,rllH
;'.1:_:
Command
Response
Operations
IJ~~in.~..
.1;!i,tlF' ;,i', rr'~ir:~J(\
f1'1f;~''.:~'>1:t~I!''ll i.1rL~l::"., ~
h,;', '.V~""i!j:d ,.)';1)(,,1\"
:.:,(-t;;"
iJl 1':- ~ .. w
....;::,~~ ,,11'1\;
:.'d
~);
1I~
:.~dWI1':'!1t:...
\J
./
$%
J!I.
fht.~(.. 3 1:r,:!:(C!ltar.:l?!~ n:~pn?:;t2rlt
(~! Jail h:,lliy 1:'1 th~:,f;:' Ct1lt:g~l'ie;; thal
i:. 'IOW degf..JOU If-.
Figure I: Oil Budge! - Shows current best ",stimates or'wl1al has happened to lheoil .
. Explanation of Findings
Unified Command Response I:,ffor!s: Response ellon:> to deal with the oil have been aggressive. As
shown in the pie chart (Figure I). l"I.lsponse efforts wcre successful in ~kf;;+I~".j!hgMn;.:i.'illl!; 33% of the
spilled oil. This includes oil ~.h<!( sas caplur..:d dir:;;:;!iy from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube
and top hat systems ( 17%). burni!~g (5%:. sk;mCling n%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct
capture. burning and skimming ... :movc th.:: Gil from :h~ wa.!~~r enlkeiy. while chemically dispersed oil
remains inthc water until it is oaxh:grad..:u. (is dis~'ussd helow.
.
Dispersion: Based on estimate:;. 16% of the oil dispcrs..:d naturally into the water column and 8% was
dispersed by the application of ::,,:"rf~(.~,H4lH);:I;:;:dii.;;;chemical dispersants on and below the surface.
Natural dispersion occurs as a p;$'Jlt of the oil coming out of the riser pipe at high speed into the water
column. which caused ~om<! li;t~.C oil to spray offill S:ll"l1 GfI;plets. For the purpose of this analysis,
'dlspersc6 Gil" ;s dcflnd as droplets that are iess than 100 microns - about the diameter ot a: human hair:
Oil droplets that are this small. ~!e neutrally buoyant and thus remain in the water column where they
then begin 10 biodegrade. Chcrr.ical.dispcrsion a;:;o ')rcak, ~he oil up imo small droplets to keep it from
coming ashore in large surface slit:ks and make it nlG:<: r.;;adi~y ~nailable jor biodegradation. Chemical
dispersants werc applied at the sUI';ace and oclow the surface her~lbl'e the chemically dispersed oil
ended up both deep in the \~ale, cdumn OJlli JUSt below the surface. Dispersion increases the likelihood
that the oil wiiI be biodegJ"'ddcd. b:~!h in th,~ watt:r c,'h,!TIn a;,:J ai Inc surface. Until it is biodegraded.
naturally or chemically dispersed oi!. even in dilul" amOtdii". ;.;an be (oxic to vulnerable species.
All ofthe nal.uJ"'d.lly dispersed ~)il and some ofth-: \Ji! t!lat ..... <>.$ chemically dispersed remained well below
the surface in ditTusc clouds. wh~rt: it began to dissipl)tc further and hiodegrade. Previous analyses
have shown evidence of ditlli"e d,)uds of dbpcrsec1 (,ll betvvecn 3300 ar.a 4300 feet in very low
concentrations (Pal1S per rnilij'.)!1 ,)1' less). moving in me dircc(ioil orlmown ocean currents and
decreasing with dil>tancc t;'om thc wellhead. (Citali{,n: Fedt:rai Joint Analysis Group Report 1 and 2,
001668
hlt[l:/!ei.:<)Wj!h.:h.nc~hk.n(xll!.:,~,;.::,l.
). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
moved into the top 20 (eet of the water column wher-:: h mixed with surrounding waters and began to
biodegrade.
Evaporalion and DissolUlion: h is estimated thai 25% (li' the oil volume quickly and naturally
evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The <'vapt'r!ltion and dissolution rate estimate is based
on scientific research and ohservations c{)ndLiCied during th..: Deepwater Horizon incident.
Dissolution is different Irom disticrsion. Dissolution is the process by which individual hydrocarbon
molecules 1i'om the oil separi:lt,,; <;lno dissolve into the water just as sligar can be dissolved in water.
Dispersion is the process by '.vhich large,' volumes or ,)il are broken down into smaller droplets of oil.
Residual: Aller accounting (or the categories that can be measured directly or estimated. i.e., recovery
operations. dispersion. and C\uroru!ion and uis:;olutlOl'o. an estimated 26% remains. This figure is a
combination of categories tha, ~lre difl1cul! 10 rneasme or estimate. 11 includes oil still on orjust below
the surtace in the form of light $h(\~n or tarhall::. oi I that has washed ashore or been collected from the
shore. and some that is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface through time. This oil has also
begun 10 degrade through a number of natural pn.n.;csscs.
BiodegradJli<;n: Dispersed 0;1 in the water colurr.r. <md 'Jii en ihe surface of the water biodegrade
naturally. While there is more al1::iysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf,
early observations and prelimim,ry resear-':11 re~HlItl> from a r:umber ofsci.entists show that the oil from
the BP Dcep",ater Horizcn spin ;3 biodegrading quic"ly. Sden~ists Irom NOAA. EPA. DOE. and
academic scientists l:lre working ,0 calculate more pn>;ise <!stilllates ctthis rate, It is well known that
bacteria that break down the di~persed and weathcr!!d surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in
large part b~cause of the warIn \,Hltcr. 111,;: ia-vorahlc Jlul.ric"t and m;ygcn levels, and the tact that oil
enters the Gulf of Mexico lhwugr. ilatural seeps r.;;g.ul<lrly.
Explanation of Metbods and A:;siJmptioris

Flow Rate: The Oil Budget Calculator start::; with <:!i1l;stimate of the cumulative amount of oil released
Nationai Incident Commanu's iIe,';i Rate Technical Group {l-RTG}.lcd by United States Geological
Survey (USGS) Di;'ector Mar.:ia r"k~utt. and a lcam .A' Depanmem ~)fEnergy (DOE) scientists and
engineers. led by Energy Secn:,ury Steven Cllu. 'rtlis gwup estimates that approximately 4.9 million
barrels or od ilowed Irom the Deepwate,' rlorizo:,iI:W wellh~ad between April 22, 20 I0 and July 15,
2010. at which tim(! (he flow 01 oil was suspended, The uncertainty en this estimate is 10% (cite:
Flow Rate Technical Group. website or report). lh~ pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
4.9 million halTds ()roil.
Direct Measures and Best Estimates: Th~ oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
pos:.j'')lc and the b(.:;,[ hH".abk: s(..i;.:ntiiic csi.:mates where measurements were not possible.
The numbers lor direct recovery ~ild burns wert~ me'"'~t1red directly and reported in daily operational
reports. The skimming numbers ..~'.!rc also based ~m duily icpor1cd eStimates. The rest ofthe numbers
were based on previous scienti lie ,:nalyscs. best avai;able inf<lnl1ution and a broad range of scientific
wh';r~vcr
001669
CXPCI1isc. Further information on these methods is ,Ivai lanle in Appendix A. TIlesc numbers will
continue 10 be rl!fined based on <lL;Jitional inlormaliol1 and further analysis.
Continued monitoring and n:sea!'ch:
Our knowledge of the oil. dispersants. ecosystem :mp~l"t:ts and human impacts wiJl continue to evolve.
Federal agencies and many acaJC'illic and intkpend<.:n! scientists arc a..:tively pursuing better
understanding of the fale. transpol1 and impact ort!'..: ,Iii. The federal g.overnment will continue to report
activities. results and data to the pllhlic on a regulur basis. Updates and infonllation can be found at
w\\w.rc~\.Qfcq]g~dr.~. and <.Jaw from thl! response and monitoring can be found at
:!.1::~!:.\!.,g.".t~Jlla.\.I(mDA;!J~X.
DOl. NASA and NOAA continue to reline under,tanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
responders are worKing with the t Inilied Command <m monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore
submerged oiL and rescarcher~ c01ilinue Sotlbsurh:,,:;c ,.,canning and sampling to monitor the concentration,
distribution and impact of oi I there, EPA and NOAA have carefully monltored BP's use of dispersant in
the Gull" dm) e()1I';nu~s W rr.,)lli[,,! the:. air. waleI' c,nd s(:Jiments near the shoreline tor the presence of
dispersant and crude oil complllI<!l1ts with special att<.:iuion [0 human health impacts. Numerous NOAA
and NSF-limdeo a<.:ademic rc:;cCli"chers ailO i\OAA .~cicntisd arc in,..estigaling rates ofbiQdegradation,
ecosystem and wiIri!ifc impac'''' DO! and DOE rcspOildc!'s are working tu ensure control of the well and
to ensure accurate measurcm..::nt 01' oil reieas..:d and oi; remainil:g il1lhe environment. DOl is leading
efforls to mitigate impa;;ts of t;ii to l!.!m;str:ai wildlif;:. natura! r~soui"(.;es. and public lands. Scientists
from DOE laboratories are \~0j"killg tv er.:;.ure tho; a,;cu:ate m;!8.suremc:nt of oil released from the well
and are investigating the rates of biodegradation of suo-surface oil.
Even though the threat to shor.:;; ~i1';s. l1sh an<i ',,:ikJ);;e. and ecosy~tei11S has decreased since the capping
of the BP vvcllhead. hxieral scientists remain .::xll";:;,neiy '::OnCi;;mea about the impact of the spill to the
Gulf ecosystem. Fully understandmg the impacts o;"ti",:;; spill on wildlife. habitats. and natural resources
in the Gulfregion will take ;ir"" emd cvnlinued rnnni'{iring a.nO rt!search.
Attachments
Appendi~ A: Deepwater Horiz6'1 Gulflnc\<.It:nt Budgl.!l Tool Report from Aug I. 2010. contains
detailed explanation ol'calcui<nioli methods. Tht: IDOl inls created by the US Gt:ological Survey in
coliabof"dtion with US Coast Guard. NOAA. and NIST.
Notc: Tht; attached report (APPt:lidix A) contains cylindrical images. which are an alternate way of
representing the same numbers as the pie chart abovl.!. These cylindrical images combine the three
categories or chem;cally dispci";;;;'.i. naturally disp~rsoo. and evaporated ordissolved; ir:u:o:one colored
segment. The cylindrkal imugc on page OI'C or Apocndix A uses the cumulative release estimate of 4.9
M barrels. which is the same as Ill..: pie chart used ..!hove. n.e cylindrical chart on pages 3 and 5 of the
report arc based on the l'ligh!f' i'lew Estimale and! .ower Flow Estimate representing the upper and
lower bound of the 10% uncertainty on the 4.9 M harrel cumulative release estimate.
Appendix B:
Acknowledgem~ilt<;
001670
001671
Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget:

What happ:~ned to the oil?
APPcll(li" B: .'\ckrwv,ledgements
Authm-s
.lane I ,ubchenco. NO:\,':.. ~OC
Marcia McNutl. USGS. !)Ol
Bill Lehr. NOAA. DOC
Mark Sogge. USGS. D(~i

Mark Miller. NOAA. DOC
Stephen Hammond. ll';<iS. DOl
William Conner. NOJ\!\_ DOC
Credits
The following scientists were im'o! ~ed
In
acvelopill.:,! the: ~)i! l1uagct Calculator tool:
LT(ig) CharilY Drew \~)SC(,: -- ,jligin"j:::",,;:1 SP!\.,,,,:~hc.;t <md application inspiration

David Mack and kff Al kr: (USGS)- Application development and engineering
R-.:bccea Uribe (L:SG~.) - (;raphic design
Bill Lchr (NOAA) - j,<':;<!CJ mass balance and oi! budget scientist
Antonio Possolo and Pcdro Espina (NIST) Sialistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
.
LCDR Lance Lindg;>!i1. C DR Peter Hoffrmm. CDR Sean O'Brien. and LT Amy McElroy
(USCG) - /Ipplieatiull r,;:quiren1enlS and user s/ories
Sky BrisL01 and Tim K.;:n i USGS) - Project \'jsion and management
Kevin Gallagher. Martha Garcia and Stephen Hammond (USGS) - Executive sponsors
The foi;owing experts wcre C()l1su;1cd QfJ In,' oil b. KI':!d calclJlmiom. cO;1tributcd Held data suggested
formula". analysis methods. or l'cl':cwed the al!f,orili1ll1s used in the calculator. The team continues to
refine the analysis and this I.k);;ul>,.::r.t Wall 11;,: upd,n,,;:~ tiS apPl'\)pri,w.:.
j:cderal Scientis.s
aill L~hr. NUAA
Robert Jones. NOAA
Antonio Po:;soio. t,IS r

lndcocndent Scientists
Ron Goodman. U. of Cdl~".ry
AI Allan. SpilTec
James Payne. Payne En v.
Tom Coolbaugh. Exx()11 fV4 ,)h1!
Ed Overton. ""SU
Juan Lasheras. UCSD

Merv I:jngas. Env. (',lI,at;a iret)
Ali Khdifla.. En\<. Can'1ca
?at Larc,bert. Env. Ca:1ada
?er Daling. SI1\ fEF

Michd BouladcL Temple Univ.
001672
DRAFT 8.3v llanl

IlP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget:
","Vhat !Hb happened to the oil?
The National Incident Comm,:nJ (NIC) assembled a Illlmbcr of interagency expert scientific teams to
estimate the quantity of BP D.::cpwatcr Horizon oil thaI has been released from the well and the fate of
that oj 1. The expertise of government scientists on these tcams is compkmented by non-governmental
~\fill~(~~ \.Ti!!r;~IH& specialists rcv;t:wing the calcul:.1!ioi.s and conclusions, One team calculated thS! flow
rate and lOtal oil released. I.ed hy United St"tes Ci:.:d(}gical Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt,
and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. this tcam anr:oun;;,~d on August 2. 20] 0 that it estimates that a total of
4,901 barrels of oil ha.;\-<', beell rcll.:ascd Ii-om the BP Dcepwaw' Horizon well. A second interagency
t'!.:r.!. led by DO; In.! N',)\.~, ;', \.~Iopcd a tool. called the Oil Budg.et Calculator. to determine what
happened to the oil. The calcuhllof uses the 4.9m barrel estimate as its input and uses both direct
measurements and the hest SCi,'lJfific estimates u\uilablc to date. to determine what has happened to the
oil. The interagency scientific renort helow hllijJ~J'i".:I.;)!~-',:i!\S;jLl;l~o~L:.!.l),L~IJJ!lL't)ar.i.<:':;:Ull.;disDositit)lf
s:!LQ.J~~j~,~, L, I,,~~:
In summary. it is \!stimaled lhal hurning. skimmjng <ll'ld direct recovery fl'Om the wellhead removed one
quarter L~-,i'~:'L,)r the oil rdedsc,: i'mm the wellhead. One quarter i.~,!:;~:,Lofthe total oil naturally
evaporated or dissolv~d. and,i ... si li.:ss than one qU<irlCi
dispersed (either naturally or as a
result of operations} as micl'O~copi';; droplets into Gulrwalci'S, The residual amount,just over one
quarter_L~r,'::u. is eithc!f on or ,iu.'l below tht: .>urra<...: .is
ai.d weathered tarballs, has
washed ashore or been collcct~w ii'om th' shon.:. \\;: 1;i :),Jricd i1~ sand and sediments,'M~rt';:H:le;raded. Qil
iILillaO::ihh,;q! .l!!hL.X ~j;;;:J}.~_': .,: "::;,::~;"j'j.Lb_,,.; ),\ '.~ ,;,~ . .:-:.!.....:..:.,. i.'L:!_.~lC:':';;:j} .:s.:,LThe report below describes
each OfiLcsr ; c~,,~g'.ll ies an"": ,',.'1 ;u:ation$. Thcs;') \::;ti,n<:lt~$ wi!; CGntirlU~ to be refined as additional
information becomes avaii,wi,.;,
001673
Comment [ll]: All wording for Oil in these 3

. categories is cun-endy being de~raded "aturaily:____ ,
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
8(".u;:: . ,01 if";l:hJth~!> (li1

tlu1 i~ f)rl O( !'.i:~ bJ~Ii.';"
I!'-... ur :,"K~' w~ rc~kht(
nt,d ~'..'{\(lt;~t':"d J,;;:dXtl: ' .~~.
h.'J!. w.v>i:(d A'~rWtl' .,~'
L.N:1 (O;j"'l.tf><j II.en'] '."1;

:.;.l,):'i:t'H I~;)urlt:,d tn
:.. ::.tJ ..111Ui;>t,du'!1c,*nb.
~n)~:.>:" 3 ;.le(cent~~~~ f!:presenl

:.>it IrAllillly !;i !:'H;,:t." c:at~t:lles thaI
:~ /Im'ol
der.r.,dic{t
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows current bcst ,;stimales of what has happened 10 the oil.
Unified Command Response F;fTo/'!s: Response efforts to deal with the oil have been aggressive. As
shown in the pie chart (Figure I). response efforts were sllecessful in dealing with 33% of the spilled oil.
This includes oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by ti)c riser pipe insertion tube and top hat
systems (17%). burning (5%). skimming (3%) and ch(!micai dispersion (8%). Direct capture, burning
and skimming remove the oil frol'll the water entirdy. whik chemically dispersed oil remains in the
water until it is biodegraded. as di<;cusscd bdcw.
Dispersion: Based on estimates. 16% of the oil disp.::rscd naturally into the water column and 8% was
dispersed by the application or nCllrly 50.000 barrels of chemical dispersants on and below the surface.
Natural dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the riser pipe at high speed into the water
column. which caL.:;ed wme (;;- Ir,e oil to spray off in Sl;:l,!ll droplets. For thc purpose of this analysis
. disperst:.:l oi I' ;s c;ctinc:.l as dropiets that are less !.han lOO microns - about the diameter of a human hair.
Oil droplets that are this small are neutrally buoyant ,md thus remain in the water column where they
then begin to biodegrade. Chemical disp;rsion also hrcak;;. ,he 0;: l.p into small droplets to keep it from
coming ashor~ in large suriacc slicks and mak..:: it nmrc fi,';adHy E;\ailable ior biodegradation. Chemical
dispersants were applied at tbe surfac~ and helm..... he 3uf'"i:iCC. I.herdoi~ the chemically dispersed oil
ended up both d~p in the water ci)lumr, and jU51 i;eb'ii the $ur"ihcc. Dispersion increases the likelihood
that the oi I will be biodegraded. both in ,;1'; water .:<'!tnlUl ;:.n.) at the surface. Until it is biodegraded,
naturally or chemically dispersed oiL <.!\,cn in dilute ~mounts. can be toxic to vulnerable species.
All of the naturally dispers\"!d oil and some of tile oiilnat Vias chemica!ly dispersed remained well below
the surface in ditTuse clouds. wnc.-I.: it hegan to di~s!pille further 2nd ~1iodegrade. Previous analyses
have shown evidence of difi\.i,;c cl"uds or di~persl!J oii between 3300 ar;d 4300 feet in very low
concentratiolls (Pal1S per rnilii,1!1 or j,;;ss). moving in tile direction ofknc.wn ocean currents and
decreasing with distance from lhr~ well bead. (cilatic,{.: Fcdci"al Joilit An&lysis Group Report I and 2,
001674
hllp:!j~~,!~;n~h.ncth1i:':!!Uilil.,.g'\\:',I,\~i!E'l')~"t'J!D.I}n. Oil thUi was chemically dispersed at the surface

whCf\.~ it mixcd with ~urrounding waters and began to
moved into the top 20 leet orlh,; ";aler column

biodegrade.
Evaporation and Dissolution: It i" estimated th~1 25% of the oil volume quickly and naturally
evaporated or dissolved into the \valCr column. The C\,;,.pN;.uion and dissolution rate estimate is based
on scientific research and obscrv<Ilions conducled during the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Dissolution is different from disrcn;ion. Dissolution;~ the process by which individuai hydrocarbon
molecules from the oil separ<.'le and dissoln: int(' tnc ",'ate; just as sugar can be dissolved in water.
Dispersion is the process by ~\ h;dl larger volumes or :',:1 art: hroken down into smaller droplets of oil.
Residua!: AIter accounting for the categories that can be measured directly or estimated. i.e., recovery
operations. dilipersion. and evapmHtion and dissolU~iO". an ('stima'Led 26% remains. This figure is a
are ciir,{kult to n;~aSl!1'1! or estimate. [t includes oil still on or
combination of calegoriesu:,!, ;.1' '.',:
just below the surJace in the !<tr;r, of!ight sheen_or tarballs. oil that has washed ashore or been collected
from the shore. and some that is huried in sand and scdimems and may resurface through time. This oil
has also begun to degrdde thmug:l "'-i'i'"';'',',''''' +>r'nalllr~,1 prCC~~$t::S.
Biodegradation: Dl~persed oi: in tht: wato::r COIU{,ill and oil on tile sUl'iace of the water biodegrade
naturally. While there is more amdysis to b~ done (0 quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf,
early obsl!rvations and prelimin.:.ry research result~ I'm,,", a r.umber of scientists show that the oil from
the BP Deepwater Horizon spi:l.s t)iodcgrading quid,ly. Scientists from NOAA. EPA. DOE, and
academic scientist;; are workiJ~ll calculate mor.: pr",;ise \!s!imaleS of til is ,ate. It is well known that
bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in
large part b;!causc of the warm \\Jter. Ihl! 11;volCihk ntltricr" and oxygen lev~ls. and the fact that oil
enters the GuifofMexico tlmmgcl ;latllfi.ll sc.:p!> rqJ,\li~rly.
,0
Explanation of Metbods llInd AS!.t1mptiol1s
Flow ROle: The Oil Budget Cakulator start..; with ,U', i..'Sd!i1(l(c of the cumulative amount of oil released
over the course'of the spill: The newest estimates rei lect the collaborative work and discussions of the
National Incident Command's Flm~ Rate Te.::hnicai \.;;'(>up (FRTO). led by United States Geological
Survey (USGS/'Director Mari:ia MeNu!!. and a I.ea,,, .:.j' DerJamnem ~fEnergy (DOE) scientists and,
engineers. led by Energ), Se;;Cl::tal"Y Stevell Chu. This g.roup estimates that approximately 4.9 million
barrels of 0:1 flowed trom the Deepwater HOrizoniB r' wellhead between April 22. 2010 and July 15,
2010. at which time the tlow OJ oii was suspended. The u!1ccnainty em this estimate is 10010 (cite:
Flow Rate Technical Group. wehsite or report). The pie chart aiY.)ve is based on this group's estimate of
Direct Measures and Best F-slinu.Iles: The oil budget ca!cul<ltions are based on direct measurements
whe!'Cvcr pos:'>iDle <llld the best h\:a"abk; s,;;;entiiic estimates where measurements were not possible.
The numbers for direct recovery and burns wert~ n:casLired dirt'Clly and reported in daily operational
reports. The skimming nUll1h:l"~ \ivl~rc als() baseJ on dailY reported estimates. The rest of the numbers
were based on previous scientific snalyscs. best av,~k,~'le l!lfommtion and a broad range of scientific
001675
expertise. Further inlormalion on these methods is nvailahlc in Aprcildix A. These numbers will
continue to be retincd based 0:' mldilh)lwl inrOrl'llIlinn and Itnther analysis.
Our knowledge of'the oil. dispcr,mllts. ecosystem :mp<lC1S and human impacts will continue to evolve.
understanding of the fatc. transr,orl and impact of the r,il. Tht~ federal government will continue to report
activities. results and data to lhe public on a regular basis. Updates and infOrmation can be found at
~v.n.~l()r~J!.ls:.!:aill':'~ov. and delta from the n:sponse lli1d monitoring can be fbund at
'!y.~!~~.g.~{l!?li!.U\:l.:!l1..:.!l.(.).\.' .
001. NASA and NOAA conli nue to reline understanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. . NOAA
respond~($ arc wor"ing with the 'UuiJicd ComnlanJ 1)11 monitoring slrat(;gies for tar balls and near shore
submerged oiL and researcher;.; continue ;,ubslir{acc :;~anning and sampling to monitor the concentration,
distribution and impact of oillh;:rc. EPA and NOAA have carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in
the Gulf ana cominucs to {{'vnilvr the air'. water and sediments near the shoreline for the presence of
dispersant and crude oil componcnts with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAAand NSFfundeci academic re:;~aidlcrs ar,d NOAA 3(;ienti:;',,, are investigating rates of biodegradation,
ecosystem and wildlife impacts. DOl and DOE rcsp(mders arc worki!lg to ensure control of the well and
bh!-lm:f;:,-accurate measurcr'iC~lt of oil reicas~d and oii remaining in the environment. 001 is leading
efforts to mitigate impacts of l)ii ~(J lcrrestrlai wBJ!ik. naturai resourceS. and public lands. ~eft~
~~+-i~J~,;:-~e~'~1riH~fi.~~-Hf't:~ .. ~...r:~~~~~~;~~-i'f,+C1:f~~:~;'t:"::':~~"i;"'~"';~'::"~i~--rB-d~+rlH"t;:i:h;f~-:+~'~iH~~~!~~rHt!++A-e-~
Even though the threat to shor.::.l;.c:;. Jist-. (U",d wiJdj:iC. and ecosystems ha5 decreased since the capping
ofthe BP wellhead. federal sci. mt::ils rcmairt extr';;,;1..:iy COl1(:;;.:med about tile impact of the spill to the
Gulf ecosystem. Fully undcrsti:H1,ilr.g the impacls (~fi;,:5 $pi!! on wildlire. habitats. and natural resources
in th~ Gulfrcgion will take ,ir;,t:; and con;inucd mnni,t;rlrig uno research.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater f!o,il.,m Gulf Incid.enl Budgei Tool Rcport Irom Aug 1.2010. contains
detailed explanation 01 caJcuim:(;11 methods. Tho: lool wa:; created by the US Geo!ogical Survey in
collaboration with US Coast Guard. NOAA. and N!ST.
Note: Thc attached report (Appendix A) contains cylindrical images. which are an alternate way of
representing the same .inl.tU:Ll.h.1i\'i'. 'J),HI;if}!f.-;..,.,,a" the Die chart above. These cylindrical images combine
the three categories or chemic~lI:, djsperscd. natura!!;; dispersed. and evaporated or dissolved, into one
colored segmenL The cylmdr'cJ! image ,in "ag,,~ on: :)f Ap~cndiA A uscs, ti1e cumulative release
estimate of 4.9 M oarreis. \\-hid, is the same as the pie: chart used above. The cylindrical chart on pages
3 and 5 orthe report are ba~e,j or- the l-iigh;;;r Flow Si~rnate and Lo-wcr Flow Estimate representing the
upper and lower bound of the 10% uncertainty on the 4.9 M barrel cumulative release estimate.
Appendix B: Acknowledgemil!lltS
001676
D\!("pwater Horiz(\n/BP Oil Budget:

Appendix B: Ad;!!owle'.lgements
AuthQrs
June Lubch:enco. NO;\'.. DDC

Marcia McNutt. USG~: 1:'01
Bill Lchr. NOAA. DOC
Mark Sogg'~. USGS. r: c"
Mark Miller. NOAA. DeC
Stephen Hammond. USGS. 001
WiPiam Conner. NO/\i'. noe
Credits
The following sdentists were i!wni .:ed m acvcioping. the Oil Buaget Calculator tool:
I ,TOg) Charity Drew (USCG; -- Origind L,,(..:I spr:..ucshcet and application inspiration
David Mack and JetI' Aller; (USGS) - Application development and engineering
R.;:bccca Uribe (USGS) -- \.Iraphic design
'"
Bill Lchr (NOAA) - i.,~H I mass balance ad c:iI budget scientist
Antonio PO::lsolo and i\:;dro Espinu (NIST) - ';tatisticai oil budget model encoded as an R
program
LCDR Lance Lindgfcn. CDR Peter Hoffman. CDR Scan O'Brien. and LT Amy McElroy
(LSCG) - Application n~quirements and u~er :,torie5
Sky Bristol arid Tim ~.l" i' (USGS) - Project vision and management
Kevin Gallagher. Mar!hll Garcia. and Slcph<!n ilammond (USGS) - Executive 5ponsors
Tile rollow;ng I.!xpcrts were I.!ollsui'cd 0;'1 the oil bm1i!ct calcu!,,;:;ons. GOlltributed field data. suggested
formulas. analysis meti1ods. or reviewed the algorithms lIsed in the calculator. Ti1e team continues to
refine the analysis and this dOCLi!lH::nt wII, be updated a<; apPl'opdate.
Bill Lchr. NOAA
Kolx:rt Jone~. NOAA
Antonio Pos::,,,;\).l\I$(
Ron Goodman. U. ore::;l!!,-'r)

AI Allan. SpilTec
James Payne. Payne E:i'.
Tom Coolbaugh. EXX0'1 t:!t~b:!
Ed Overton. LSU
Juan Lashel'aS. UCSD
. Merv l:jngas. Env. Canadu (ret)
Ali Khelita. En Canat}a
i'at Lambert. En\,. Cal'mi:l
Fer DaHllg. SI1\ilEF
Michd Bouli:ldcl. Tcrnple ~.Iniv.
8:00 AM DWH Leadership briefing notes and action items 7,26.2010
001677
Subject: 8:00 AM DWH Leadership briefing notes and action items 7.26.2010
From: "Jen.Pizza" <Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:54:49 -0400
To: DWH leadership <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>
Good morning everyone,
Attached are the notes 'from this morningts 8:00 AM daily DWH leadership briefing meeting.
Below are the pending action items.
Please review.
Best,
Jen
Shoreline threat modeling discuss further.
lof2
7/26
Conner/Kennedy
/Miller
7/26
Conner/Kennedy
/Miller
7/26
Steve Murawski to
Dr. Luchenco
7126
Adm.
KenullKennedy
/Steve Murawski
Request further discussion on Fleet priorities within

NOM - meet then advance up the chain of
leadership for approval.
7126
Comms
Send DWH Leadership to review 100 days / 100

ways website.
7/22
Gary Reiser
Budget proposal on hiring more vessels proposal to

Dr. Lubchenco.
7/22
C.
Blackburn/Policy
Standard Briefing to the Commission outline
7/22
Mark Miller
7/11
David Miller
7/12
Keruwy/Conner
/Ewald
7120
Jacqui Michel
Qualitative discussion - rate of oil on the surface,

provide bulleted points.
Looking Forward document- Gulf of Mexico
discussion.
Vessels - planning One paragraph on impacts of
rescheduling vessels.
FDA - panel of experts - opening state waters.

Need to interface with them to get them good
information on where state can reopen state
waters, in an orderly way.UPDATE: Monica sent an
email to FDA offering support and we are waiting
for a response.
Day 100 : need to start tee-ing up the stories of
what we are doing - due to leadership - sent.
Send to NOM Staff and outside sources Wed.
Pull together a short document that would
summarize the lesson learned on previous oil spills
- ixtoc and Exxon Valdez - Conner, Kenney and
others met yesterday and developed a 3-part plan
that is responsive to this tasker. Justin will develop
a summary and discuss with Dr. Lubchenco.
Connor drafting document, will work with John
Ewald to finalize. Document drafted. Being
reviewed.
Product from Jacqui Michel - leadership would like
to review asap - SCAT
In progress
In progress
In progress
iT
IO/20/20l011t 14~AM
001678
8:00 AM DWH Leadership briefing notes and action items 7.26.2010
Post inventory of data I tools / etc. up on noaa.gov

(data.gov) site by Friday AND post a link on the
FOIA site indicating where the data is.
Get group together today at 5 pm. Come back with
a plan as to how we are going to move forward to
speed the process up. Completed I Next steps?
UPDATE: still working to get data through to
comms for posting. Got a good amount from
NODC website over the weekend. Need POC to
help navigate NODC webpage.
In progress/
update?
7/14
Joe Klimavicz
7/14
Steve/Joe (data
lead) IJustin
/Kennedy
IWesterholm
7/14
Kennedy to meet
with group
Next steps for Response Effort - Short report to

discuss next steps
7/19
Steve Murawski
Find out if we are archiving seafood samples to

compare to future testing on dispersants.
7/16
Allison Reed
UAC set up International observers program.

Allison to ~et more info and send out today.
Status update?
7/16
Comms
Post data policy on the web
Status update?
Seafood data
7/14
Justin Kenney/Jen
Austin
Status update?
Meeting complete
- status on comms
postin~
In progress
work on policy.
Sperm Whale tracker info - get up today.
Status update?
UPDATE: Comms can't get access to the data, still

want it. UPDATE: Comms has information
20f2
10/20/2010 11: 14 AM
001679
July 26,2010
DEEPWATER HORIZON INCIDENT NOM LEADERSHIP BRIEFING CALL
Time: 0800- CaJJ in Number: 210-839-8783 -Pass Code: 554982
MEETING PURPOSE: To update key NOAA officials on the current status of the situation and the NOAA response.
Please put your phones on mute if you are not speaking.
DAILY UPDATES:
1. SITUATION UPDATE
~
OPERATIONS:
~
Pressure: 6909 - helix producer - back over the source. Static ki1l8.4.2010. No oil observed at the source.
Near shore tar balls in Texas - nickel size and 6" tar ball taken for analysis. ICC - looking at scat. Looking to
reduce where possible. Trajectories - oil sheens and tar balls could move to chandelier island, westward.
Temporary trend, could push back in a few days.
~
Local Weather: conditions improve - se winds 10 knots, seas 2-3 ft level. Getting back to typical summer
ridge pattern - should maintain. Impacts = 100 - 105 degrees. Reprieve - 50% Chance of rain. High
indices mitigated through rain activities.
~
Hurricane Center: on hiatus
~
ICC: DHS - current shoreline is 637 miles, AL commercial and recreation fish open within mobile bay. 8.7
hrs of NOAA flights today. Pisces - DWH well head monitoring, Nancy Foster- deep sea coral monitoring.
94 personnel deployed NOAA. Bigalow had engine malfunction, may be delayed to the gulf region.
~
NIC:
~
NGA -leadership arrive at NIC. Due date today - NIC strategy implementation.
~
RESPONSE:
~
Two documents in review:
~
Shoreline threat - is it relevant given state of surface area. NOAA needs to get message out re: threat to S.
florida. Problem - used 500,000 bbls of oil on the surface - proven to be high. Questions about whether we
are overstating the threat given that model. If we try to run with current situation, how do you estimate
current amt of oil in the water. Still need to message that S. Florida is possibly threatened. May be a better
way to message that instead of sending out unrealistic model. Are we willing to start over - or pull it.
Inclined to think try to think of how to message S. florida and not moving current doc. Comms: it is useful for
messaging- still relevant from stakeholders and press. Are interested in an update. Try to come up with
defensible rational and rerun the model. Will LC be active again? Following the next 20 days.
Mark Miller - the only info available is the website that we have that has the old info. Need to have answers
- update website or take it down. Talk about this offline.
Broader document drafted - looking forward- Gulf of Mexico - decide if we are going to proceed or take
another path. - Dr. Lubchenco - very useful need to discuss further?
2. LIVING MARINE RESOURCES
~
Wildlife
Turtle observer contract in place last week. Observers trained over the weekend. 12 ready to go should
deploy this week.
~
Seafood safety
~
closure I reopening
Oliver I Conner - discuss 3 day trajectory and oil disappearing - affect reopening of closed fisheries.
Had a call this monitoring - USCG-, boarded 2 ships that were fishing in the closed area. USCG - spoke about
vessels of opportunity program - getting more people to help in Seafood safety. Discussion at the NIC level helpful to move this program forward. TO the south - slower than should I could be. Do we need 50 vessels
- high? Cost of labs? Can we use FDA labs? - FDA is only doing 40-50 samples now. FDA doesn't have the
capacity to handle all the incoming sampling. Talking with the NIC folks - may need to call on Monica to
help push this forward. Gary is going to discuss sample cost. Need a few hours to get more information.
Last week - FDA I WH I NOAA - begin having Tues/Thurs calls to discuss reopening of fisheries closures.
Lauren Lugo going to take the lead.
3. SCIENCE
NOAA fleet - request from WH - command for two and .5 vessels to do monitoring. Had planning meeting
last week and continue today to make sure we maintain all monitoring activities and take on science missions.
How long do they need to continue? - next two weeks - ongoing discussions.
Dr. Lubchenco - emphasized to principals how we are happy to help but comes at a significant cost and that
there is
001680
Vessels - planning One paragraph on what we are able to do or putting on hold. Need to understand what
the priorities are not clear yet. Got official request from Fosse to monitor over well head.
Are there any other vessels available to help backfill -looking at charters. Idea = what needs to be done and
what fisheries mission can we charter. Ongoing discussions.
Air Quality - Elevated mercury levels - ARL is working to obtain and analyze - initial outcomes mercury
below.
4. COMMUNICATIONS
Wed - 100 day. Put together 100 days / 100 ways NOAA has responded. Beta site has been reviewed by
leadership. Cinch that up for tomorrow. Plan is to have all hands email message Wed. morning and push to
media.
Research ships - press release. The storm pushed back win send out today.
Shoreline threat discussion - need to be included.
OTHER UPDATES:
Legislative Sen commerce committee - shore act did not get through on Wed. did not have quorum. Will
discuss tomorrow. Leadership working on bill - policy made comments to ensure we are included as we move
forward.
REMINDERS / UPCOMING EVENTS:

Tuesday Briefings to DWH Leadership 8:00 AM:
Policy
Budget
7/26
Conner/Kennedy
/Miller
Looking Forward document- Gulf of Mexico

discussion.
7/26
Vessels planning One paragraph on impacts of

Steve Murawski to
rescheduling vessels.
Dr. Luchenco
7/26
Request further discussion on Fleet priorities within

Adm.
KenullKennedy/S NOAA - meet then advance up the chain of leadership
teve Murawski
for
7126
Comms
Send DWH Leadership to review 100 days / 100 ways

website.
7/2Z
Gary Reiser
Budget proposal on hiring more vessels proposal to Dr.

Lubchenco.
7/22
C.
7/22
Mark Miller
In progress
7111
David Miller
In progress
Blackburn/Policy
Standard Briefing to the Commission outline
001681
7/12
7/20
7/14
7/14
Pull together a short document that would summarize

the lesson learned on previous oil spills - ixtoc and
Exxon Valdez - Conner, Kenney and others met
~/Conner/E yesterday and developed a 3-part plan that is
wald
responsive to this tasker. Justin will develop a
summary and discuss with Dr. Lubchenco. Connor
drafting document, will work with John Ewald to
finalize. Document drafted.
reviewed.
Product from Jacqui Michel leadership would like to
Jacqui Michel
review asap - SCAT
Post inventory of data / tools etc. up on noaa.gov
(data.gov) site by Friday AND post a link on the FOIA
Joe Klimavicz
site
. where the data is.
group together
pm.
a
plan as to how we are going to move forward to speed
Steve/Joe (data
the process up. Completed / Next steps? UPDATE:
lead) /Justin/Kenn still working to get data through to comms for
edy /Westerholm posting. Got a good amount from NODC website over
the weekend. Need POC to help navigate NODC
In progress
In progress
In progress/
update?
Status update?
Meetmg
- status on
comms
7114
Kennedy to meet
with group
Next steps for Response Effort - Short report to discuss

next steps
7/19
Steve Murawski
Find out we are archiVIng

samples to
compare to future testing on dispersants.
7/16
Allison Reed
UAC set up
observers program. Allison
to get more info and send out
Status update?
7/16
Comms
Post data policy on the web
Status update?
Seafood data - work on policy.

Sperm Whale tracker info - get up today.
UPDATE: Comms can't get access to the data, still want
it. UPDATE: Comms has information
Status update?
Ahsah Tribble
Update from Ahsah on Contingency Plan
Completed
7/22
Monica Medina
Monica check in on venue for Reopening

announcement.
Completed
7/20
Phil Kenul
Kenul finalize DWH near and long term plan and send
to Mary Glackin.
Completed
7/13
DWH Staff
(Bern/Brysen)
Send Q and A's from Closed Areas. - DWH staff to

send around.
Completed
7/22
Mark Miller
Completed
7124
Mark Miller
Completed
7/24
Mark Miller
Completed
In progress
001682
7/16
Science Box
7116
RDML Phil Kenul
7116
Roy Crabtree
7/16
Murawski/Gray
7/19
7/19
7/19
7/20
7/20
Next P3 flight likely not funded by USCG. Need to

decide if we wanted to continue these flights. Meeting
today at 3:00 pm. Recommendations to leadership.
Will follow up after decision. Dr. Lubchenco to appeal
to Admrl Allen if necessary.
Gunter mission - consult clear way ahead Kenul/Kennedy/Steve Murwaski - consult clear way
ahead. Paul Zukunft Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard.
- Steve answer on consultation issue.
LA / MS / AL / FL? - checking into reopening state
waters decisions.
Completed by
Science - Check
on status of
recommendations
Completed
,Completed
Trying to clear the JAG report. Waiting on OSTP.

Want to notify Sen. Nelson before we make this public.
Completed
Kennedy /Kenul/
Muraski to meet
Vessels - future plans discussion
Completed
Kennedy
Approve Data list to post to the web
completed
I~ill Connor to Dr.
Shoreline threat model document - distribute to Dr. L 17120

for review.
Bill Connor to Dr. Shoreline threat draft completed distribute to Dr. L for 1 7/20
review.
L
Meeting Steve, Mark, Phil, Marsha, Chu to discuss how 7120
Murawski to
asset planning works and long term plan for
Marsha
aircraft/vessels.
completed
completed
Completed
7/20
Ahsah Tribble
Tropical storm update - ongoing
Ongoing
7/22
S.Walker
Proposed NOAA science symposiums list
Ongoing
7112
Sally/Policy /
NRDA
Weekly update on Mabus /
7115
Mark Miller
7116
Mark MilIer
7/16
Monica Medina
7/22
Conner
7113
Schiffer
7/14
Murawski
7/14
ICharlie Henry
7/14
LMR/Oliver
7/15/ Tribble
lon~
term restoration
Report back on long term trajectories plan. Draft for

review COB today 1 Send draft to K. Sarri.---Also
report back to International on impacts to Mexico.
Lol1~ term plan will go up for clearance today.
Send new trajectory to Monica- for Fisheries reopening clarification.
Monica - circulate roll out plan for reopening
Copies of Job Aid readily available re: Observer
training
Seattle - 315 copies
Mobile - 6 copies
Call lawYers to 001 jurisdiction of NecropsiesI pelicans
Check in with Ben Shorr to see if we have access to
Hi??;h Res maps.
Questions/requests from Commission to dwh.staff list
- received and will distribute/respond appropriately
JQ - forward notice LA open large scale area to
recreational fishing late yesterday_
Review contingency plan. Mark Miller will provide
copy done / being reviewed and will discuss further
with Kennedy/Westerholm after full review / Ahasha
Ongoing
Long term plan
completed.
Completed
Complete
Complete
Completed
Complete
Completed
Completed
Completed
001683
will visit the NIC today (7/16) to discuss / clarify
7/13
Murawski
Status of DO manuscript wai ting approval from

OSTP. will )};et / send out
Completed
7/13
Murawski
Document how the JAG operates / distribute to the

dwh.leadership group
Completed
........
AITACHED: Threat Update Analysis docmnent ... Press Release ..... .
001684
Subject: ATTACHED: Threat Update Analysis document ... Press Release ... Q&A ... new
shoreline threat materials announced today.
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:53:09 -0400
CC: Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov
with said attachments.
Jen.Pizza wrote:
Attached are the new shoreline threat materials announced today.
Threat Update Analysis document
Press Release
Q&A
Link to the press release on the homepage:
/stories20l0/20100730 threat.html
Thanks
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov
-Scott
-Shoreline_ThreaCUpdate 7 30 finaLdoc--
~ShorelineThreatUpdate 7;30:::final;docx--~'-----------------------
;1~horelineThreatUpdate 7.30.Jinal.docxJ
I of 1
10/20/2010 11: 15 AM
001685
Shoreline Impacts Update 7.30 Q&A
Q: Why is this so different from the last projection for Southern Florida?
The main difference between these two threat projections is that this update is based on the
current observed amount of oil on the surface, and the present configuration of the loop
current, which includes a large pinched off eddy.
The previous projection, issued in early July, was based on oceanographic models using
historical data records of ocean currents and winds that are typical for this time of year. That
model was useful for long term threat assessment, but was based on several simplifying
assumptions that made it less reflective of conditions on the ground;
It modeled the spill beginning at day one, based on historical weather and current
patterns and did not start with the current footprint ofthe spill.
The model took average historical conditions, which did not account for the fact that the
loop current has been in a less common configuration, with a large eddy separated from
the top, keeping the loop current itself far from the oil.
The analysis did not adjust for effects of dispersants on the volume, weathering and
movement of oil on the water's surface.
Because there is now so little oil on the surface, the oceanographic modeling used for the first
analysis is no longer the most appropriate method for making shoreline threat predictions.
Q: What part of Florida is Southern Florida?

This update is specifically for South Florida, meaning the Miami/Dade area and the Florida Keys.
These areas were of particular concern throughout this event because of the possibility that the loop
current and eddy could reconnect and create a pathway for oil to move from the spill site through the
Florida Straits.
With this update we are saying that is no longer a threat, because the eddy is now clearly disconnected
from the loop current and is expected to remain detached for the next few months. Should it reconnect
at that time, essentially all of the remaining surface oil will have dissipated.
Q: What about the rest of Florida?

The good news is the threat of new oiling to the entire gulf coast has reduced significantly as the
amount of oil on the surface quickly dissipates. The threat to rest of the West Coast of Florida has gone
from .less than 20% in the last projection to essentially zero.
001686
Q: What about the rest of the Gulf coast?

The good news is the threat of new oiling to the entire gulf coast has reduced significantly as the
amount of oil on the surface quickly dissipates. There is a small chance of new oiling from the
Mississippi River Delta to Mobile Bay. The impacts are expected to be in the form of scattered tarballs,
which are not observable from overflights, this could be largely from oil that was ashore and has washed
out into the water and is now coming back. NOAA will continue to issue daily shoreline threat maps for
as long as they are useful and necessary.
001687
Shoreline Threat Update: Southern Florida, Florida Keys and East Coast
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Spill, July 30, 2010
Given that the Deepwater HorizonIBP wellhead has been temporarily capped and the flow of oil has been
suspended until the relief well is complete and the well is finally killed, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is issuing this update of its shoreline threat analysis. Given current
conditions, Southern Florida, the Florida Keys and the East Coast of the United States are not likely to
experience any effects from the remaining oil on the surface of the Gulf.
The updated shoreline threat predictions for Southern Florida, the Florida Keys and the East Coast are based
on two factors: 1) the current amount of oil on the surface of the water and, 2) the present configuration of
the loop current. This analysis is based on the assumption that there will be no further release of oil from the
BP wellhead.
Overflights in the past week have found only scattered patches of light sheen near the Mississippi Delta an
indication that aggressive efforts to capture and disperse the oil have been effective and that the remaining
oil is naturally dispersing and biodegrading.
Around May 24, a large loop current eddy, called Eddy Franklin, started to "pinch off' and detach, from the
loop current. For a number of weeks, Eddy Franklin and the loop current showed varying levels of
connectivity. The eddy is now clearly disconnected from the loop current and will likely migrate to the west
over the next few months. As of July 25,2010, Eddy Franklin was more than 100 miles from the nearest
surface oil associated with the Deepwater HorizonIBP source.
There is no clear way for oil to be transported to Southern Florida, the Florida Keys or along the East Coast
of the United States unless the loop current fully reforms with Eddy Franklin, or moves northward, neither of
which is likely to happen for several months. At that point, essentially all of the remaining surface oil will
have dissipated.
(-"
C ~..It"',-J ,. ~
..... :.
o
o
I
:(\--Iln
~:
it
. . . . . . . . ..
\/0
62.5
I
..".
~.
125
I
250
l
Miles
Figure 1. Configuration of the loop current and footprint of sheen from satellite analysis on July 26,
2010. Eddy Franklin has separated from the loop current.
Tracking the Loop Current
001688
The loop current is a warm ocean current in the Gulf of Mexico that flows northward between Cuba and the
Yucatan Peninsula, moves north into the Gulf of Mexico, then loops east and south before exiting to the east
through the Florida Straits. The loop current is one of the world's strongest currents, sometimes reaching
speeds of up to 4 knots.
When in its classic configuration, the northern edge of the loop current can extend quite close to the site of
the Deepwater HorizonfBP spill site. Often times, the loop current can serve as a significant transport
mechanism from the northern Gulf of Mexico to the Florida Straits, and ultimately the East Coast.
When the Deepwater HorizonlBP spill began on April 22, the loop current was in its classic configuration,
with its northern boundary approximately 60 miles from the spill site. About a month after the accident, a
counter clockwise eddy formed along its northeast boundary that served to move some of the surface slick
toward the loop current. Most of that slick, which was comprised of sheens and tar balls, appeared to stay
primarily in the counter-clockwise eddy, rather than entering the main loop current. There has been no sheen
detected in the eddy since June 9. No oil has been found anywhere else in the loop current system that has
been identified as Deepwater HorizonfBP oil.
NOAA ships, planes and oceanographic modelers have been carefully monitoring the loop current since the
spill began. NOAA Ship Nancy Foster sailed at the edge of the eddy and the loop current in late June to
monitor connectivity between the two, and spent a week studying surface and subsurface waters in the east
and north parts of the eddy.
One of the NOAA WP-3D aircraft flew eleven research missions to monitor the loop current, dropping
sensors into the ocean to collect additional real time data on temperature and salinity. Information from
these flights, sensors, and missions combined with oceanographic current modeling allowed NOAA to keep
careful track of where the loop current was relative to the spill.
NOAA has been producing graphics showing the location of the surface oil and location of the loop current
so responders and officials in coastal areas all around the Gulf could better understand the likelihood of
shoreline impacts.
NOAA continues to playa vital role in the Deepwater HorizonfBP oil spill response, using all the scientific
methods at its disposal, including satellites in space, planes in the air, ships on the water, autonomous
underwater vehicles and gliders under the water, and scientists in the field. There are five NOAA vessels
currently operating in the Gulf of Mexico from homeports as far north as New England with missions
ranging from seafood safety to detecting submerged oil.
Previous Projections
NOAA is committed to providing timely and useful scientific information about the spill through tactical
observations, monitoring, modeling, and specific studies. Previous projections of shoreline threat, available
at this web site (http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/dwh.php?entry id=81 5), used an oil trajectory model
driven by historical data records of ocean currents and winds. Trajectory modeling is not the preferred
method for making predictions at this time because recent overflights report very small amounts of surface
oil.
001689
Contact:
Scott Smullen
Jennifer Austin
202-482-6090

July 30, 2010
NOAA: Gulfs Surface Oil Not a Threat to Southern Florida, Keys, and East Coast
Southern Florida, the Florida Keys, and the East Coast are not likely to experience any effects
from the remaining oil on the surface of the Gulf as the oil continues to degrade and is hundreds of
miles away from the loop current, according to a new NOAA analysis. This analysis assumes the
Deepwater Horizon/BP wellhead will remained capped.
"For southern Florida, the Florida Keys, and the Eastern Seaboard, the coast remains Clear,"
said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA
administrator. "With the flow stopped and the loop current a considerable distance away, the light
sheen remaining on the Gulfs surface will continue to biodegrade and disperse, but will not travel far."
This latest analysis is part of NOAA's ongoing work related to the Deepwater Horizon/BP
response and recovery efforts, including aerial and satellite-based observations of surface oil and
monitoring of the loop current.
Overflights in the past week found only scattered patches of light sheen near the Mississippi
Delta - an indication that aggressive efforts to capture the oil have been effective and that the
remaining oil is naturally dispersing and biodegrading.
A large loop current eddy, called Eddy Franklin, has pinched off and detached from the loop
current. As of July 25, Eddy Franklin was more than 100 miles from the nearest surface oil associated
with the Deepwater Horizon/BP source.
Until the loop current fully reforms, there is no clear way for oil to be transported to southern
Florida or beyond, which is not projected to occur for several months. At that point, essentially all of the
remaining surface oil will have dissipated.
ot;....<c.{b'..........~
........"?
~Jln
C)
tlJ.:
:
-..:
\.,.
o
I
au;
I
125
I
...",
::
........ "
r\
}
~_/
250
I
Miles
- 30-
AITACHED: Threat Update Analysis docmnent ... Press Release ......
001690
Subject: ATIACHED: Threat Update Analysis document ... Press Release ... Q&A ... new
shoreline threat materials announced today.
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:48:40 -0400
Attached are the new shoreline threat materials announced today.
Threat Update Analysis document
Press Release
Q&A
Link to the press release on the homepage:
/stories2010/20100730 threat.html
Thanks
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov
-Scott
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
I of 1
10120/201011: 16 AM
Congressional Events Addition - Oil Spill Hearing
001691
Subject: Congressional Events Addition - Oil Spill Hearing

From: Michael Jarvis <MichaeI.Jarvis@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:01:06 -0400
To: Velna L Bullock <Velna.L.Bullock@noaa.gov>
CC: timothy bagley <timothy.bagley@noaa.gov>, John Gray <John.Gray@noaa.gov>,
Amanda Hallberg Greenwell <Amanda.Haliberg@noaa.gov>, Rebecca Holyoke
<Rebecca.Holyoke@noaa.gov>, Christina Durham <Christina.Durham@noaa.gov>, Jessica
Kondel <Jessica.Kondel@noaa.gov>, MaryLee Haughwout
<MaryLee.Haughwout@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, Jen
Pizza <Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, David Holst
<David.Holst@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr
<BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Robert Haddad <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>, Tony Penn
<Tony.Penn@noaa.gov>, Tom Brosnan <Tom.Brosnan@noaa.gov>, Anthony Waddy
<Anthony. Waddy@noaa.gov>
HiVelna,
Please add the following hearing to the next Congressional Events update.
Thanks,
Mike
Date: Thursday, August 19th

Time: 10:00am
What: Hearing
Location: 2123 Rayburn
Staff: House Energy and Commerce Committee, Energy and Environment Subcommittee
Member(s) Attending: Yes
Topic: The BP Oil Spill: Accounting for the Spilled Oil and Ensuring the Safety of Seafood
NOAA participants: Bill Lehr, NOS/Office of Response and Restoration
OLlA: John Gray, Mike Jarvis
Background:
This oversight hearing is being held in response to the Gulf of Mexico BP oil spill. This
issue has received a high level of Congressional interest and attention from members of this
Committee, members representing areas in the Gulf, as well as members across other
regions of the country. Committee staff has expressed particular interest regarding the
recently-released BP oil spill budget report and on the safety of the region's seafood.
Michael G. Jarvis
Congressional Affairs Specialist
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 5224
E-mail: ~icha~l. jarvi~@noa~v
Office: 202-482-3595
of2
10/20/2010 11 :23 AM
Congressional Events Addition - Oil Spill Hearing
20f2
001692
10/20/2010 11 :23 AM
Re: DWH New Products NoteslAction IternslNext Steps
001693
Subject: Re: DWH New Products Notes/Action Items/Next Steps

From: "william.connerll <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 201009:51:52 -0400
To: Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov
CC: DWH leadership <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>
Comments regarding notes on shoreline oiling product.
1. Showing progress - the simple graph of heavy plus moderate oiling miles against time
will show progress.
2. How long to produce the product - at this point, we are shooting for Level 3 cleanup
guidelines to be met sometime in November. The product would hold interest until
then. Following that, the plan is for a second and final evaluation that guidelines are
still met in early spring. If interest is sustained, we could track that as well.
3. How much work - if we keep the map, it will need to be produced each week by
modifying the shape file in ERMA and compiling the graphic. This is on the order of
an hour's work by a skilled practitioner.
I hope that this information is useful.
Bill
Jen.Pizza wrote:
Good morning everyone,
Below you'll find notes, action items, and next steps.
We will discuss on the 0800 AIVI DWH Leadership Briefing this morning.
All the best,
Jen
DWH NEW PRODUCTS:

DISCUSSION NOTES, ACTION ITEMS and NEXT STEPS
DISCUSSION: Three new products were discussed with Dr. Lubchenco and several others
on a Sunday call with the intention that they might be distributed beyond. NOAA. The
intention will be to do a quick overview of this e-mail at the 8 am call and then follow-up
with specific meetings with public and external affairs. Suggestions and comments from that
meeting are found below:
Shoreline cleanup status and miles of oiled shoreline (1 product): Currently
this graphic shows the location of shoreline oil as a product that was derived from
ERMA and modified to remove the dark blue "no oiled observed" locations. It also
included a historical bar graph on how the miles of oiled shoreline changed over
time. Discussion on this product centered on these areas:
1.
10f4
Who would use or benefit from this product being produced?

It was determined that the UC and ICs had all the information they needed from
ERMA and the current reports being produced, so a new product would be geared
towards the public. The thought was people may want to know that we (NOAA
10/20/201011 :23 AM
Re: DWH New Products NoteslAction ItemslNext Steps
001694
and federal and state partners) are still working hard even though the well is
capped. The status of oiled shoreline and progress being made is one way to
demonstrate this.
2.
How often should the product be produced? The group came to an initial
decision that weekly would be sufficient.
3.
How should we show progress? There is still some uncertainty of the best way to
display this information. Dr. Lubchenco mentioned "USA TODAY" graphics which
are simple and self-explanatory to a wide range of readers. Public affairs is going
to meet with DWH staff on Monday and then check internally to see if we have
someone with talent that can take this data and turn it into a graphic that captures
the progress in a simple format. Currently data is collected and reported out by
state and we should look for a display table that can show this information.
4. How long would this product need to be produced? It is expected that we will
have continuing progress for the next several months but we will get a better
estimate from the SCAT group and UC on Monday.
5. Are we sending the right message? Some discussion centered around how people
would view this information. Will the number of miles of oiled shoreline and the
colored graph give the impression that there is still a lot of oil on the beaches and
therefore be a detrimental to the economy and tourism? It was decided that
external and public affairs would use a test product with key constituents to
determine if and how this information should be presented.
6. How much work will it be to produce this info? We may not have this answer until
we address the above issues but the intention would be to try and minimize any
additional collection of information. Ideally if the information could be entered
in by DWH staff or others into a system that would then update itself in terms of
miles cleaned over time.
7. Ideas for graph. Add cities or other landmarks and include a key for number of
miles.
Sea Turtle/Dolphin collection status (2 products): During the review Dr.

Lubchenco felt this graphic was not user friendly and may not be understandable
on its' own. Discussion centered around the below topics:
1. Who would be interested in this product. Like the shoreline product, it was
determined that the UC and ICs had all the information they needed in our
current reports being produced, so a new product would be geared towards an
outside audience. Public affairs indicated that there is interest in turtles and there
may be value in providing this product although there was some debate that it
might only be of interest to "wildlife" people and they may already be tracking
some of this information. It was decided that we should reach out to select people
identified by public and external affairs to see if there would be value in
producing this product.
20f4
2.
How often should they be produced? The group came to an initial decision that
this product should also be produced weekly.
3.
How should we show progress? There was discussion and some debate of the
best way to display this information. We know mortality could be caused by a
10/20/20 I 0 II :23 AM
Ke: OWH New Products Notesl Action ltemslNext Steps
001695
number of factors unrelated to the spill or related to spill activity but not oiling.
We probably will never know the cause so the question remains how best to
display or describe this uncertainty (or do we just leave as it). Also collection in
oiled areas and strandings fluctuated with time. At a minimum we would want to
show, turtles collected, deaths, rehabilitation and release. It was suggested that
Public affairs meet with DWH staff on Monday for this graphic and again see if
we have someone with talent that can take this data and turn it into a graphic that
captures the progress in a simple format. However, it was also decided that
before too much work is done on any graph or table that a determination be made
as to whether this information had enough value to be produced on a weekly
basis.
4. How long would this product need to be produced? Like the shoreline product, it
is expected that we will have continuing progress for the next several months but
we will get a better estimate from the protected species group on Monday.
5. Are we sending the right message? Some discussion centered around how people
would view this information and whether we needed to include F&W data,
especially given turtle nest relocation. While there is lots of turtle data there is
only one dolphin in rehab and it was briefly discussed whether there was value in
even reporting this. No final decision was made in this regard.
6. How much work will it be to produce this info? Like the shoreline product, we
may not have this answer until we address the above issues but the intention
would be to use existing data to tell a story of how we are still in the area working
on our goal of "protecting wildlife".
7. One item that was not discussed but probably still needs to be, is how current
figures relate to the population as a whole and mortality in past years as these
issues may come up if we start producing this document.
Elimination of existing products:

1. It was decided that we should go ahead and eliminate the existing trajectories
coordinating the timing with Response and Public Affairs (potentially an announcement).
ACTION ITEMS:
1.
1. Dave Westerholm
discuss on 0800 AM DWH Leadership Call- Monday (8/16/2010)
2. 2. Dave Westerholm - Touch base with Bill Conner regarding the end date (in conjunction
with the press release) of the trajectories/loop current graphic/ shoreline impacts graphic.
3. 3. COMMS Qustin Kenney): Comms will draft a press release announcing the end of
trajectories, loop current graphic, and shoreline impact graphic and inform the public that
we are working on several other products - reiterating the message that NOAA has not left
the area and will continue to be a presence in the Gulf.
4.
30f4
4. COMMS / EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Qustin Kenney/ Andy Winer) : If decided we need to

hire a graphic designer to move on option 2 of the SCAT doc - Comms / External Affairs will
review and find the most suitable person to modify the existing graphic.
10/20/201011:23 AM
Re: DWH New Products Notes! Action ItemslNext Steps
5.
001696
5. Jen Pizza I Christy Loper will track down the following information:
6. COMMS / EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (Tustin Kenney/ Andy Winer) : Both groups will
identify select users which could get a beta version of the product to give their assessment of
the usefulness of producing these products on a determined frequency (currently once a
week)
NEXT STEPS:
1.
Discuss on 0800 AM DWH Leadership Call tomorrow (8/16/2010)
2.
Press Release goes out re: trajectories/loop current graphic/ shoreline impacts graphic
3.
If decided we need to hire a graphic designer to move on option 2 of the SCAT doc - Comms
/ External Affairs will review and find the most suitable person to modify the existing
graphic.
4. Jen I Christy will provide information (as stated above) to the group to determine what
further modifications need to be made.
William G. Conner( Ph.D.

Chief( HAZMAT Emergency Response Division
Phone: 301-713-3038 (190)
Cell: 240-460-6475
40f4
10/20/2010 11 :23 AM
For Review: Shoreline Threat Update
001697
Subject: For Review: Shoreline Threat Update

From: "william.conner" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:30:31 -0400
To: DWH leadership <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Attached is the updated shoreline threat document discussed on this morning's call.
The information in the document will be added to the shoreline threat web site and could
also serve as the basis for a short press release.
There is very little new information in the discussion so careful consideration should be
given to the level of review required. Both figures are already available to the public, and
the straightforward conclusion is that it is unlikely that any oil would move from offshore
Louisiana to Florida.
Thanks.
Bill

Phone:
301-713-3038 (190)
Cell:
240-460-6475
!ShorelineThreat
1 of 1
UPd~tev.1.dot:r;1
10/20/2010 11 :24 AM
001698
DRAFT
July 26, 2010
Not for Public Release
Shoreline Threat Update: Florida and East Coast

Deepwater Horizon MC252 BP Oil Spill
By assuming that the present controls on the flow of oil from the Deepwater Horizon well site continue to be
successful, NOAA is able to update previous shoreline threat predictions for Florida and the East Coast of the US
based on 2 factors: 1) the amount of oil now seen on the surface of the water and, 2) the present configuration of
the Loop Current. Previous projections, available at this web site, used an oil trajectory model driven by
historical data records of ocean currents and winds. Trajectory modeling is not the preferred method for making
predictions at this time because recent overflights report very small amounts of surface oil and the present
configuration of the Loop Current makes it unlikely that any oil would move from offshore Louisiana to Florida.
Loop Current Configuration

The Loop Current is a warm ocean current in the Gulf of Mexico that flows northward between Cuba and the
Yucatan Peninsula, moves north into the Gulf of Mexico, loops east and south before exiting to the east through
the Florida Straits. When in its classic configuration, the northern edge ofthe Loop Current can extend quite
close to the site of the Deepwater Horizon MC252 spill site (see Figure 1). The Loop Current is one of the
world's strongest currents, sometimes reaching speeds of up to 4 knots. It could therefore serve as a significant
transport mechanism for surface floating oil from the northern Gulf of Mexico to the Florida Straits, and
ultimately the East Coast.
Figure 1. Configuration of the Loop Current and footprint of surface oil slick from satellite analysis on
May 21, 2010. The Loop Current was still in its "classic" configuration at this point.
However, the Loop Current occasionally "pinches off," forming a clockwise rotating warm core eddy or "Loop
Current Ring" that is independent of the Loop Current. Surface oil entrained into the northern end of such an
eddy would then circulate around the Gulf rather than being transported more directly to the Florida Straits. These
001699
DRAFT
July 26,2010
rings are fonned slowly, often appearing to separate and reattach to the Loop Current a number oftimes before
completely separating. Once separated, these eddies drift to the west, and the Loop Current eventually extends
once again farther north into the Gulf. This process generally takes several months to complete. In addition, the
Loop Current and Loop Current Rings often have counter clockwise eddies associated with them that could serve
to bring floating oil into and out of the main currents.
Loop Current and the BP Oil Spill

When the Deepwater Horizon spill began, the Loop Current was in its classic configuration, with its northern
boundary approximately 60 miles from the spill site (Figure 1). About a month after the accident, a counter
clockwise eddy fonned along its northeast boundary that served to move some of the surface slick toward the
Loop Current. Most of that slick appeared to stay primarily in the counter-clockwise eddy, rather than entering
the main Loop Current. Oil sampled by a ship in the vicinity of the boundary between the Loop Current and this
counter clockwise eddy matched the Deepwater Horizon oil, but there has been no sheen detected in that region
since June 9 th . No oil has been found anywhere else in the Loop Current system that has been identified as
Deepwater Horizon oil.
Around the 24th of May the "pinch off' process began, fonning an eddy named "Eddy Franklin." For the next six
weeks, Eddy Franklin and the Loop Current showed varying levels of connectivity. At this point (July 25,2010),
Eddy Franklin appears to be cleanly separated (Figure 2), and will likely migrate to the west over the next few
months. The Loop Current wi II slowly begin to extend again to the north over that time.
Until the Loop Current fully refonns (months from now), there is no clear pathway to bring surface oil from the
northern Gulfto the Florida Straits, south Florida, and beyond. NOAA will continue to monitor the Loop Current
as long as floating oil remains.
?!. -..
il",tt1.+
~.....
:f"- ....
........ .
. . :. 0
~:
...... -
.,
Figure 2. Configuration of the Loop Current and footprint of sheen from Satellite analysis on July 26,2010. Eddy
Franklin has now separated from the Loop Current.
RE: For Review: Shoreline Threat Update
001700
Subject: RE: For Review: Shoreline Threat Update

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 201009:49:56 -0400
To: "william.conner" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
CC: DWH leadership <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh .staff@noaa.gov>
BiII- thanks for doing this so quickly. I think this is the right solution for an update. And I agree it needn't
go through extensive review because it is based on existing information. What is needed is a slight
reordering. The document makes sense to a scientist - first things first, and what's the history, etc.;
however as a document whose main audience is the public, we need to put the bottom line first and the
most relevant graphics first. The first paragraph gives the bottom line, but not enough context; and showing
the May 1 configuration of the LC first will be confUSing. I suggest putting Fig 2 first, and devising headers
for the sections that are more descriptive: 'Current Conditions: Little Surface Oil and No LC Transport' (or
something like that) and 'How does this differ from conditions in May' (or something like that). It would be
good to also insert some boilerplate at the outset about NOAA's commitment to provide timely and useful
information about the spill.
In other words, the content is fine, but the document needs to be more user friendly to a non-technical
audience. Many thanks,
Jane
From: william.conner [mailto:william.conner@noaa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, July 27,2010 9:31 AM
To: DWH leadership; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
The information in the document will be added to the shoreline threat web site and could also serve as
the basis for a short press release.
There is very little new information in the discussion so careful consideration should be given to the
level of review required. Both figures are already available to the public, and the straightforward
conclusion is that it is unlikely that any oil would move from offshore Louisiana to Florida.
Thanks.
Bill

Phone:
301-713-3038 (190)
Cell:
240-460-6475
1 of I
10/20/2010 11:24 AM
Oil Budget Application Downtime for one hour on Sunday July 25
001701
Subject: Oil Budget Application Downtime for one hour on Sunday July 25
From: Tim Kern <kernt@usgs.gov>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:44:05 -0600
To: Tony.Penn@noaa.gov
All,
As previously mentioned in conference calls, the Oil Budget Application (https:llmy.usgs.gov/oiIBudget) will be
unavailable from 11am to noon EDT (9am-10am MDT) on Sunday July 25. This outage is due to some
long-scheduled work.
We have arranged an alternative way to access the site if necessary during this outage. It would involve going to
a different URL, but would provide the same Executive Summary and printable reports. Please contact me
directly for this temporary URL
Thanks for your time.
Tim Kern
Information Science Branch
USGS Fort Collins Science Center
2150 Centre Ave, Building C
Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118
970-226-9366
970-226-9230 (fax)
1 of 1
10120/2010 11:24 AM
OIL BUDGET REPORT - PDF AITACHED
001702
Subject: OIL BUDGET REPORT - PDF ATIACHED

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 201009:00:07 -0400
attached.
r-IO=il--'B-'-U=--d'--g;"';';;'e=t'-d=~s=c=..~=iP=ti=.~=.~"'-8=3=F=I=.~c.c.cA"'-'L=.P"';";d-"fIJ
I of I
10120120 I 0 11 :24 AM
001703

that oi l. The expertise of government scientists serving on these teams is complemented by
disposition ofthe oil to date ..
quarter (25%) of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter (25%) ofthe total oil naturally
result of operations) as microscopic dropiets into Gulf waters. The residual amount -just over one
becomes available.

Unified
ReSidual includes oil
Command
Response
Operations

sheen and weathered
a$hore or been
collected from the
sand and sediments.
8%
naturally.
Figure I: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of what happened to the oil.
001704
shown in the pie chart (Figure I), response efforts were successful in addressing 33% ofthe spilled oil.
ofthe oil to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as
droplets that are less than 100 microns
about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this
biodegrade.
combination of categories all of which are difficult to measure or estimate. It includes oil still on or just
001705
naturally. While there is more analysis to be done to quantifY the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf,
academia are working to calculate more precise estimates ofthis rate. It is well known that bacteria that
which time the flow of oil was suspended. The uncertainty ofthis estimate is 10%. The pie chart
above is based on this group's estimate of 4.9 million barrels of oiL
dispersant and crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAA. and NSF-funded academic researchers and NOAA scientists are investigating rates of biodegradation,
ecosystem and wildlife impacts. 001 and DOE responders are working to ensure control ofthe well and
001706
accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the environment. 001 is leading efforts to
001707

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
Rebecca Uribe (USGS) Graphic design
Antonio Possalo and Pedro Espina (NIST) Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
OR&R Evening report
001708
Subject: OR&R Evening report

From: "Christopher.S.Moore" <Christopher.S.Moore@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 201007:25:45 -0400
To: Deepwater. Horizon Dist@noaa.gov
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY / NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
CAPT Christopher S. Moore, NOAA
Director, NOAA Homeland Security Program Office
Office: (301) 713-3310 x 129
Fax: (301) 713-1641
Cell: (202) 577-8492
E-mail: christopher.s. moore@noaa.gov
I of I
10/20/2010 I 1:25 AM
001709
NOAA Emergency Response Division (ERD)

Report # 101: August 3, 2010 2345 PDT
MC 252 DEEPWATER HORIZON Incidents, Gulf of Mexico, Major Spill Incident
Incident status, Day 106:

Static Kill Begins:
Last night during final inspections of the BOP/capping stack assembly before the injectivity test,
ROYs discovered a hydraulic leak involving two valves on the kill side of the capping stack.
Source Control repaired the leaks overnight and successfully conducted the injection test earlier
today. By pumping base oil at several different rates into the MC252 well, the injectivity test not
only confirmed the ability to inject oil back into the reservoir, but also provided critical data
concerning well pressure, pumping rates, and mud volumes necessary to perform Static Kill
operations.
After the science team headed by DOE Secretary Chu reviewed the data collected during the
injectivity test, BP received final approval to commence Static Kill operations. Approximately
1500 CDT Static Kill began. That marked another significant milestone in the sealing process of
the MC252 well. At this time, Source Control continues to pump heavy drilling mud through the
choke side of the Deepwater Horizon BOP. As mud enters through the top of the well bore, it
will displace the oil back into the reservoir. Once the oil is completely evacuated from the well,
only mud will remain in the bore and the well head pressure will be hydrostatically neutralized.
Static Kill may take more than two days to complete.
Evaluation of the Static Kill results may provide data to support injecting cement through the top
ofthe well. BP describes this as a potential third phase of the Static Kill operation. Similar to
how the mud displaces oil during the current Static Kill phase, cement would displace mud into
the reservoir. Should BP conduct this procedure, the relief well must still be completed to ensure
no oil exists in the annulus external to the well bore casing. On Thursday following routine
checks, Source Control will resume drilling the primary relief well.
Submerged Oil:
As a result of the shutting in MC252 well with the capping stack, no new oil has been released
from this source for nearly three weeks. During that time, most ofthe remaining surface oil has
spread and dissipated leaving only thin sheens and scattered tarballs in the area. Although the
amount of surface oil has decreased significantly, there remain concerns about submerged oil.
Recently public reports of encounters with submerged oil have increased. To address and
confirm these observations the Unified Command is developing protocols for anomalous oil
reports. This will provide individuals a standardized mechanism for including their observations
and samples into the response ensuring immediate and appropriate evaluation of the data. This
will help the Unified Command capture this data and, through analysis, develop a picture of
where oil is and where it is not below the surface.
001710
Turtle Relocation Program:

As part of the unprecedented sea turtle rescue program, last night more than 45 threatened and
endangered sea turtle hatchlings (primarily loggerhead) were released on a remote Florida east
coast beach. Since June 26 th , the US Fish & Wildlife Service, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, National Park Service and NOAA
with FedEx to relocate
135 nests from the MC252 oil
threatened beaches of
Alabama, Mississippi and the
Florida Panhandle to a secure,
climate-controlled facility at
the NASA Kennedy Space
Center on Merritt Island, FL.
Facing potential catastrophic
loss without intervention, to
date 2,168 hatchlings
completed their incubation
and were released into the
Atlantic Ocean. The number
of nests relocated will
continue to increase during
the next few weeks, reaching
its peak the week of August
23 rd During that week FedEx will transport more than 4,000 eggs per day, 500-plus miles across
Florida using air-ride suspension, temperature-controlled vehicles for the vibration and
temperature sensitive sea turtle eggs. Although the nest relocation program is a high-risk
evolution, the initial positive results show promise of its success.
Tropical Weather Update:

Since last night's report, Tropical Depression Four intensified to become Tropical Storm Colin
then subsequently weakened to a remnant low pressure system. Now located 250 miles east of
the Leeward Islands, showers and
Graphical Tropical Weather Outlook
National Hurricane Center Miami. Florida
thunderstorms have increased in what
remains ofTS Colin. However, upper
level wind forecasts remain unfavorable
for redevelopment in the next two days
leaving a low chance (10%) of the system
becoming a tropical cyclone again during
this period. NHC also continues to watch
an area of disorganized cloudiness,
showers and thunderstorms associated
with the tropical wave located over the
central Caribbean Sea. Possible slow
development of this disturbance could
occur during the next few days resulting in
Outlined areas denote current position of systems discussed in the Tropical Weather
a low chance (20%) of tropical cyclone
Outlook, Color indicates probability of tropical cyclone formation within 48 hours,
_High>50%
Low <30%
development within 48 hours.
Ii!I!!iIIlI!II Medium 3050%
001711
Trajectories:
No recoverable oil has been reported from overflights since Saturday, July 31 st. The NESDIS
satellite data analysis showed a few small scattered anomalies offshore. No new shoreline
impacts are expected in the forecast period. The 72-hour forecast shows no recoverable oil.
Tonight marks the beginning of the potential end ofMC252 surface oil trajectory forecasts.
Specifically, the 72-hour trajectory forecast predicts "no recoverable oil" for Friday, August 6th
Unless circumstances at the source change and a release recurs, it is reasonable to anticipate "no
recoverable oil" in the forecasts beyond 72 hours as well. Since tarballs and thin sheens are not
considered "recoverable oil" the trajectories do not account for their presence or predict their
transport. Therefore the absence of "potential beached oil" indications (ie red "x") on the
trajectories does not preclude tarballs and thin sheens from continuing to contact shorelines
during the weeks and months ahead. The trajectories continue to carry the following label: This
product will be phased out when it is no longer needed to support operations.
------ -~---,..::rd.,-=-.,,==-\=;..._""+----::.:"--~"":.~.+....\_ ........ -~---+---Mississ:ippi Canyon

Location
ForecaSt for CJ&.Aug.-lO iiI 1200

NOTE: no observable oil expected in forecast; however.
sheens may be observed within the uncertainty bound. Expect
continued scattered tarbaU impacts throughout the area.
No recoverable oil h.s been reporterl from overfligbts since SalllrdllJ'. July 31. The NESDIS satellite dala analysis showed a few small scattereJ
anorrialiC$ offshore. No new shorelines impacts are expected in Ute forecast period. The 72 hour forecaSt shows no visible oiL
OR&R Evening report
001712
Subject: OR&R Evening report

From: IChristopher.S.Moore" <Christopher.S.Moore@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 201007:25:45 -0400
To: Deepwater.HorizonDist@noaa.gov

Office: (301) 713-3310 x 129
Fax: (301) 713-1641
Cell: (202) 577-8492

E-mail: christopher. s. moore@noaa.gov
1 of 1
10/20/2010 II :25 AM
001713

Report # 101: August 3, 20102345 PDT

Static Kill Begins:
Last night during final inspections of the BOP/capping stack assembly before the injectivity test,
ROVs discovered a hydraulic leak involving two valves on the kill side of the capping stack.
only confinned the ability to inject oil back into the reservoir, but also provided critical data
concerning well pressure, pumping rates, and mud volumes necessary to perfonn Static Kill
operations.
1500 CDT Static Kill began. That marked another significant milestone in the sealing process of.
choke side ofthe Deepwater Horizon BOP. As mud enters through the top of the well bore, it
of the well. BP describes this as a potential third phase of the Static Kill operation. Similar to
Submerged Oil:
As a result of the shutting in MC252 well with the capping stack, no new oil has been released
from this source for nearly three weeks. During that time, most of the remaining surface oil has
001714

coast beach. Since June 26th , the US Fish & Wildlife Service, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, National Park Service and NOAA partnered with FedEx to relocate
Since last night's report, Tropical Depression Four intensified to become Tropical Stonn Colin
'the Leeward Islands, showers and
National Hurricane Center
Florida
thunderstonns have increased in what
leaving a low chance (10%) of the system
development of this disturbance could
a low chance (20%) of tropical cyclone
Outlook. Color indicates probability of tropical cyclone formation within 48 hours.
c:=::J Low <30%
I!II!III!IlIIl! Medium 30-50%
_
High >50%
001715
Trajectories:
No recoverable oil has been reported from overflights since Saturday, July 31 5\ The NESDIS
Specifically, the 72-hour trajectory forecast predicts "no recoverable oil" for Friday, August 6th
product will be phased out when it is no longer needed to support operations.
M1S.S1SSlppl
This product will be phased out wlrert. it is

no longer needed to support operations.
ForecaSt for 06-Aug,-10 at 1200

NOTE: no observable oil expected In forecast; however,
stleens may be obse!'\l'ed within the uncertainty bound. Expect
contiRued scattered tarball impacts throughoutthe area.
No =overable oil has been reported from overflights since Saturday, July 31. The NESms satellite data analysis showed arew small scattered
anomalies offshore. No new shorelines impacts are expected in the forecast period TIle 72 hour forecast shows 110 visible oil.
Canyon
Location
OR&R Evening Report
001716
Subject: OR&R Evening Report

Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 05:47:55 -0400
To: Deepwater.HorizonDist@noaa.gov

Office: (301) 713-3310 x 129
Fax: (301) 713-1641
Cell: (202) 577-8492

ID~ep~ater~Horiz~n_Report_99.Pdf:rl
I of 1
10/20/2010 11 :25 AM
001717

Report # 99: August 1,20102345 PDT
Source Control:
As of early this afternoon, the casing for the primary relief well was completely set. Afterward
Source control began circulating mud to condition the casing prior to applying cement. If all goes
as planned, the casing will be cemented starting tonight through tomorrow and tested once
complete. At that time Static Kill operations could commence, possibly as soon as August 3rd
However, the science team still must complete its comprehensive review ofthe hydrostatic
control procedures as well as the data provided by the Well Integrity Test monitoring effort.
Observations from the BOP and capping stack remain
. though. No anomalies have
been detected by monitoring equipment
.
..
and pressure continues to slowly
increase past 6985 psi. All indications
continue to support the MC252 well
having and maintaining integrity.
A faulty Pressure Transducer Gage on
a flexible hose of the BOP and capping
stack assembly kill side was secured
and removed for repair. BP believes
that leaks resulting from the
malfunctioning gage were responsible
for the oil sheens reported routinely at
the source. Overflights should confirm
this during the next few days.
The Fate of Subsurface Dispersed Oil:

Does all the oil released from a 5,000 feet deep submerged source rise to the surface? Ifnot, how
can the subsurface oil be characterized and modeled to describe its fate and transport? These
were the earliest and most significant questions that challenged ERD modelers from the
beginning of this response. Initially, concerns arose from the public that oil in the water column
remained in a cohesive plume which could travel great distances according to subsea currents
and impact unsuspecting coastlines. However, following extensive water sampling and
fluorometer data collections, scientists now can characterize the oil below the surface as
becoming widely dispersed as distances increase from the source. Overall subsurface dispersed
oil droplets and dissolved oil have been systematically found in a water layer between about
3300 and 4300 feet deep in the area near the well. Based on models and observations, oil
concentrations fade to background levels (1-10 parts per billion) within 20-200 kilometers from
the source.
With a high degree of confidence ERD modelers do not believe that the subsurface dispersed oil
will be carried out of the Gulf of Mexico or affect the coastal waters and beaches of Florida,
001718
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, or Texas. First, the very small oil droplets in the water layer
between about 3300 and 4300 feet are not buoyant enough to rise to the surface. This subsurface
oil moves with the deep water layer in which it is found: cold Antarctic Intermediate Water that
generally flows counter-clockwise and only connects to the Caribbean Sea through the Yucatan
Straits. This water does not connect to the Florida Straits. This deep water layer, and the oil
within it, does not move onto the shallow (600 feet) Continental Shelf. In fact, it is so cold and
dense that it lies well below water that can be pulled up onto the shelf. Plus there are no eddies or
upwelling events that can lift this deep layer of Antarctic Intermediate Water and the oil within it
onto the Continental Shelf. Above all else this oil in the deep water will diffuse and degrade to
background concentrations long before it exits the Gulf of Mexico. Monitoring and modeling
simulations will continue to provide more details on the long term fate and transport ofthe
subsurface dispersed oil.
Oil Observations:
As part of an effort to right-size overflight operations, the Unified Command adopted a three-day
exit strategy for these missions. Specifically ifno recoverable oil is observed for three
consecutive days, then oil observation flights for the given location will be suspended. Since this
policy took effect, Mobile offshore missions were discontinued after a third flight on Saturday
reported negative findings. As a result, this also initiated a recovery of offshore skimming assets
for the Mobile AOR. Shifting its focus to the remaining threat of nearshore surface oil, Mobile
began a systematic three-day combing of coastal waters. Today the Mobile overflight observed
only a small patch of sheen in vicinity of Pensacola otherwise all clear. Additionally, Houma
and Venice observed no recoverable oil during their overflights today. Once discontinued the
Unified Command may not immediately demobilize overflight capacity until satisfied that the
MC252 well is completely secured.
The National Hurricane Center continues to watch the two tropical weather systems discussed in
Friday's report. The first is a large area oflow pressure located about 950 miles west-southwest
of the Cape Verde Islands. Although
the associated cloudiness and
Florida
thunderstorm activity remain fairly
well organized, satellite microwave
imagery does not yet indicate a welldefined surface center of circulation.
Conditions appear favorable for
continued development, reSUlting in a
high chance (90%) that a tropical
depression could form at any time
during the next two days. As the
second system approaches the coast
of Nicaragua, there is a near zero
percent chance that the disorganized
showers and thunderstorms will
Outlined areas denote current position of systems discussed in the Tropical weather
significantly develop before making
Outlook. Color indicates probability of tropical cydone formation within 48 hours.
landfall.
c:::::J Low <30%
IIIIIlIIi!!!I Medium 30-50%
_
High >50%
001719
Trajectories:
Significantly less oil is currently being observed on overflights and from satellite data analysis.
Sunday's overflights did not report any recoverable oil. The NESDIS satellite data analysis
showed a few scattered anomalies well offshore and west ofthe Mississippi Delta. The threat of
new shoreline impacts is low due to weak onshore winds and the reduced amount of floating oil.
As discussed on Friday, the trajectories have been labeled with the following: This product will
be phased out when it is no longer needed to support operations.
OR&R Evening Report #93 for July 25
001728
Subject: OR&R Evening Report #93 for July 25

From: Tim Gallagher <timothy.gallagher@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 201000:09:33 -0400
To: Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>,
John Tarpley <john.tarpley@noaa.gov>, Christopher S Moore
<Christopher.S.Moore@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>,
brian julius <Brian.Julius@noaa.gov>, Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>, Joshua
Slater <Joshua.Slater@noaa.gov>, Glen Watabayashi <Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>,
Nickie Lambert <Nickie.Lambert@noaa.gov>, David Holst <David.Holst@noaa.gov>, Robert
Haddad <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>, Peter Murphy <Peter.Murphy@noaa.gov>, Tony
Penn <Tony.Penn@noaa.gov>, Elizabeth Jones <Elizabeth.Jones@noaa.gov>,
ICC.Deputy@noaa.gov, dwh.staff@noaa.gov, Tom Callahan <tom.callahan@noaa.gov>,
Nickie Lambert <Nickie.Lambert@noaa.gov>
Please find attached the OR&R evening report #93 for July 25, 2010.
LCDR Timothy J. Gallagher, NOAA

XO, Emergency Response Division
NOS Office of Response & Restoration
Tel: (301) 713-2989 x109
Cell: (301) 938-7607
IDeepwater_Horizon_Report_93.Pdf
1 of I
lj
10/20/20 I 0 II :26 AM
001729

Report # 93: July 25,20102345 PDT
MC 252 DEEPWATER HORIZON Incidents, GulfofMexico, Major Spill Incident
In the Wake of Tropical Depression Bonnie:

After emerging from Florida as a weakened storm, TD Bonnie did not reorganize or re-intensifY
beyond tropical depression strength during its short transit over the Gulf of Mexico. As a result
by the time TD Bonnie approached the MC252 well location yesterday afternoon it struggled as
a relatively low energy, fast moving storm with sustained winds of only 25-35 knots and seas 4-6
feet. As the storm moved through the area, the higher winds and waves helped to distribute and
"weather" the remaining oil further. Overflights today observed very little oil throughout the
area, mostly sheens and some scattered tar balls. Any impacts to shorelines and marshes will
need to be assessed in the next few days as SCAT teams return to the field and response
operations resume. Once ashore, TD Bonnie quickly dissipated into a remnant low pressure
system bringing gusty winds and increased shower activity in its path across Louisiana.
Sonrce Control Resumes Operations:

On Friday most of the Source Control vessels departed the MC252 well location to the southwest
to avoid the approaching storm. Due to TD Bonnie's small footprint, they did not have to travel
far to remain out of harm's way. The Q4000 and the BOA SUB C stayed behind to continue
monitoring the shut in well. With the capping stack remaining in place, the pressure has
increased to more than 6910 psi. Confidence remains high in the well's integrity.
Early this morning the Development Driller III returned on station and began deploying its riser.
Once the riser is secured to the lower marine riser package of the primary relief well, the crew
will retrieve the storm packer set as protection for the well during the suspended operations.
After the storm plug is removed the well bore will be conditioned in preparation to set and
cement the casing. Most likely casing will not begin until Wednesday.
Meanwhile preparations for static kill operations resumed on the Q4000 as authorized last week.
However final approval must be obtained from the Unified Command following final review of
the preparations and procedures. Static kill procedures involve pumping heavy drilling mud
through the choke and kill manifold into the top of the well to hydrostatically neutralize the oil in
the well. Subsequently cement may be applied to begin the final sealing ofthe well. Regardless
of the success of static kill, bottom kill remains the only ultimate solution for securing the well.
Until the final casing of the primary relief well is set and cemented, no attempts of the static kill
will be conducted; perhaps August 4th at the earliest.
Other Source Control vessels arrived on scene throughout the day and operations should return to
normal early in the week. Seismic runs have already been conducted and no anomalies were
detected. Although TD Bonnie interrupted the progress toward securing the well potentially 7-10
days overall, leaving a capped well behind was much more acceptable than the alternative.
001730
Paths Forward:
Incident Command Posts Houma and Mobile operated at reduced capacity today. Only
"retained" (essential) personnel were required to report for duty. All "released" (non-essential)
personnel were provided a day off as a result ofTD Bonnie. Work at the ICPs focused on
determining the paths forward. Although the current status ofthe MC252 well is encouraging,
ICP Houma has expressed reluctance to demobilize equipment and personnel before the well is
completely secured. Some oil still remains afloat continuing to "weather" and dissipate. This oil
could potentially contact shorelines and marshes during the next week. In some areas, there
remain shorelines to clean. Plus Operations will need to address stranded boom resulting from
TD Bonnie. SCAT is reviewing Stage 3 sign-offs and discussing "How clean is clean?" in an
effort to work toward Stage 4 - probably late winter to early next spring.
Trajectories:
The trajectories continue to reflect no additional release since July 15th An overflight this
afternoon observed no oil in vicinity of the source. Winds on Sunday-Wednesday are forcast to
be SE/SSE/S at 5-15 knots. Satellite imagery indicates the surface oil is continuing to break up
into smaller scattered patches. Moderate winds during this forecast period may bring some of the
remaining oil the Chandeleur Islands, Breton Sound, Mississippi Delta and shorelines west to
Caillou Bay within this forecast period.
OR&R Evening Report for August 1st
001731
Subject: OR&R Evening Report for August 1st

Date: Mon, 02 Aug 201005:44:46 -0400
John Tarpley <john.tarpley@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>,
Nickie Lambert <Nickie.Lambert@noaa.gov>, Christopher S Moore
<Christopher.S. Moore@noaa.gov>
Please find attached the OR&R evening report for August 1st.
LCDR Timothy J. Gallagher, NOM

Tel: (301) 713-2989 x109
Cell: (301) 938-7607
loeepwater_Horizon""",Report..99.pdf rI
1 of 1
10/20/2010 11 :27 AM
001732

Report # 99: August I, 2010 2345 PDT
Source Control:
As of early this afternoon, the casing for the primary rei ief well was completely set. Afterward
Source control began circulating mud to condition the casing prior to applying cement. Ifall goes
as planned, the casing will be cemented starting tonight through tomorrow and tested once
complete. At that time Static Kill operations could commence, possibly as soon as August 3rd
However, the science team still must complete its comprehensive review of the hydrostatic
control procedures as well as the data provided by the Well Integrity Test monitoring effort.
Observations from the BOP and capping stack remain
though. No anomalies have
been detected by monitoring equipment
and pressure continues to slowly
increase past 6985 psi. All indications
continue to support the MC252 well
having and maintaining integrity.
A faulty Pressure Transducer Gage on
a flexible hose of the BOP and capping
stack assembly kill side was secured
and removed for repair. BP believes
that leaks resulting from the
malfunctioning gage were responsible
for the oil sheens reported routinely at
the source. Overflights should confirm
this during the next few days.
The Fate of Subsurface Dispersed Oil:
Does all the oil released from a 5,000 feet deep submerged source rise to the surface? Ifnot, how
can the subsurface oil be characterized and modeled to describe its fate and transport? These
were the earliest and most significant questions that challenged ERD modelers from the
beginning ofthis response. Initially, concerns arose from the public that oil in the water column
remained in a cohesive plume which could travel great distances according to subsea currents
and impact unsuspecting coastlines. However, following extensive water sampling and
fluorometer data collections, scientists now can characterize the oil below the surface as
becoming widely dispersed as distances increase from the source. Overall subsurface dispersed
oil droplets and dissolved oil have been systematically found in a water layer between about
3300 and 4300 feet deep in the area near the welL Based on models and observations, oil
concentrations fade to background levels (1-10 parts per billion) within 20-200 kilometers from
the source.
With a high degree of confidence ERD modelers do not believe that the subsurface dispersed oil
will be carried out of the Gulf of Mexico or affect the coastal waters and beaches of Florida,
001733
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, or Texas. First, the very small oil droplets in the water layer
between about 3300 and 4300 feet are not buoyant enough to rise to the surface. This subsurface
oil moves with the deep water layer in which it is found: cold Antarctic Intermediate Water that
generally flows counter-clockwise and only connects to the Caribbean Sea through the Yucatan
Straits. This water does not connect to the Florida Straits. This deep water layer, and the oil
within it, does not move onto the shallow (600 feet) Continental Shelf. In fact, it is so cold and
dense that it lies well below water that can be pulled up onto the shelf. Plus there are no eddies or
upwelling events that can lift this deep layer of Antarctic Intermediate Water and the oil within it
onto the Continental Shelf. Above all else this oil in the deep water will diffuse and degrade to
background concentrations long before it exits the Gulf of Mexico. Monitoring and modeling
simulations will continue to provide more details on the long term fate and transport of the
subsurface dispersed oil.
Oil Observations:
As part of an effort to right-size overflight operations, the Unified Command adopted a three-day
exit strategy for these missions. Specifically ifno recoverable oil is observed for three
consecutive days, then oil observation flights for the given location will be suspended. Since this
policy took effect, Mobile offshore missions were discontinued after a third flight on Saturday
reported negative findings. As a result, this also initiated a recovery of offshore skimming assets
for the Mobile AOR. Shifting its focus to the remaining threat of nearshore surface oil, Mobile
began a systematic three-day combing of coastal waters. Today the Mobile overflight observed
only a small patch of sheen in vicinity of Pensacola - otherwise all clear. Additionally; Houma
and Venice observed no recoverable oil during their overflights today. Once discontinued the
Unified Command may not immediately demobilize overflight capacity until satisfied that the
MC252 well is completely secured.
Tropical Weatber Update:
The National Hurricane Center continues to watch the two tropical weather systems discussed in
Friday's report. The first is a large area of low pressure located about 950 miles west-southwest
of the Cape Verde Islands. Although
the associated cloudiness and
.
Florida
thunderstorm activity remain fairly
well organized, satellite microwave
imagery does not yet indicate a welldefined surface center of circulation.
Conditions appear favorable for
continued development, resulting in a
high chance (90%) that a tropical
depression could form at any time
during the next two days. As the
second system approaches the coast
of Nicaragua, there is a near zero
percent chance that the disorganized
showers and thunderstorms will
significantly develop before making
landfall.
low <30%
_
Medium 3050%
_
High >50%
001734
Trajectories:
Significantly less oil is currently being observed on overflights and from satellite data analysis.
Sunday's overflights did not report any recoverable oil. The NESDIS satellite data analysis
showed a few scattered anomalies well offshore and west of the Mississippi Delta. The threat of
new shoreline impacts is low due to weak onshore winds and the reduced amount of floating oil.
As discussed on Friday, the trajectories have been labeled with the following: This product will
be phased out when it is no longer needed to support operations.
OR&R Evening Report for August 3,2010
001735
Subject: OR&R Evening Report for August 3,2010

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 201006:23:35 -0400
<Christopher.S.Moore@noaa.gov>
Please find attached the OR&R evening report for August 3,2010.

Tel: (301) 713-2989 x109
Cell: (301) 938-7607
loeepwater_Horizon_Report...,.101.pdfrl
I of I
10/20/20 lO II :27 AM
001736

Static Kill Begins:

Last night during final inspections ofthe BOP/capping stack assembly before the injectivity test,
ROVs discovered a hydraulic leak involving two valves on the kill side of the capping stack.
only confirmed the ability to inject oil back into the reservoir, but also provided critical data
concerning well pressure, pumping rates, and mud volumes necessary to perform Static Kill
operations.
1500 CDT Static Kill began. That marked another significant milestone in the sealing process of
choke side of the Deepwater Horizon BOP. As mud enters through the top of the well bore, it
ofthe well. BP describes this as a potential third phase of the Static Kill operation. Similar to
Submerged Oil:
As a result ofthe shutting in MC252 well with the capping stack, no new oil has been released
from this source for nearly three weeks. During that time, most of the remaining surface oil has
001737

coast beach. Since June 26th , the US Fish & Wildlife Service, Florida Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Commission, National Park Service and NOAA
with FedEx to relocate
Since last night's report, Tropical Depression Four intensified to become Tropical Storm Colin
the Leeward Islands, showers and
thunderstorms have increased in what
leaving a low chance (l 0%) ofthe system
development ofthis disturbance could
Outlined areas denote current position of systems discussed in Ihe Tropical Weather
a
low chance (20%) oftropicai cyclone
Outlook Color indicates probability of tropical cyclone formation Within 48 hours.
c::::::::J Low <30%
_
Medium 3050%
_
High >50%
001738
Trajectories:
No recoverable oil has been reported from overflights since Saturday, July 31 st, The NESDIS
Specifically, the 72-hour trajectory forecast predicts "no recoverable oil" for Friday, August 6th ,
product will be phased out when it is no longer needed to support operations,
Mississ:ippi Canyon
Location
Forecast for 06-Aug.-10 at 1200

NOTE: no observable oil expected in forecast; however,
sheens may be observed within the uncertainty bound. Expect
continued scattered tarballimpacts throughout the area.
No re.:overnble oil has been reported from overtlightssince SaturdllY. July 31. TheNESDIS satellite dmaanaiyliissnowed a few small scattered
an6rrialies otrshore. No new shorelines impactS are exPected in the fore.:ast period. The 72 hour forecast shoWs i16.visible oil.
OR&R Evening Report for August 4, 2010
001739
Subject: OR&R Evening Report for August 4,2010

Date: Thu, 05 Aug 201007:14:15 -0400
Nickie Lambert <Nickie.Larnbert@noaa.gov>, Christopher S Moore
Please find attached the OR&R evening report for August 4,2010.

Tel: (301) 713-2989 x109
Cell: (301) 938-7607
IDeepwater_Horizon..,.Report~102.Pdffl
I of I
10/20/2010 11 :27 AM
001740

Static Kill Successful:

Before midnight last night Source Control hydrostatically neutralized the MC252 well- Static
Kill was a success! Beyond a doubt, that marked a significant milestone toward ultimately
securing this well, but critical steps still remain in the process.
Yesterday afternoon at approximately 1500 CDT, the Q4000 started pumping heavy drilling mud
through the choke side ofthe BOP at a rate of five barrels per minute to begin Static Kill
operations. The heavier drilling mud displaced the oil back into the reservoir until only mud
remained in the well bore. After completely vacating the oil, source control increased the flow of
mud up to 15 barrels per minute to determine if the system could withstand the higher rates
necessary to inject cement through the top of the well. After more than eight hours of pumping
2,300 barrels of mud into the MC252 well, Source Control successfully completed the Static Kill
procedures. The well head pressure registered 3,525 psi at depth and the Q4000 read zero psi at
the surface. Now the well is hydrostatically killed. The well pressure has held steady since then
with no anomalies detected.
Reviewing the data gathered during Static Kill operations, BP and the science team are
evaluating whether or not to cement the well through the top. Based on the low mud volume
used, experts concluded that mud only filled the well bore casing during Static Kill, thereby
confirming the casing seals remain intact. That means Bottom Kill could require two steps to
cement the well: first to seal the annulus followed by the well bore now filled with mud from
Static Kill. If the team decides to cement the well bore through the top, Bottom Kill will need
only to address the unknown condition of the annulus to permanently secure the well.
Eliminating one step in the Bottom Kill process could save more than a week overall. Regardless
of the cementing decision, primary relief well drilling should resume tomorrow, targeting
intercept of the annulus by late next week.
Oil Budget Tool Released:

During any response one of the most important questions asked is - What happened to all the
oil? Although the question seems basic, the answer has broad-reaching implications to response
and restoration operations as well as Responsible Party liabilities. For a given total amount of
product released, an oil budget accounts for all ofthat oil in terms of the individual fates it
encounters as a result ofthe release. Typically the release is a fixed amount from a finite source.
However, the 87-day continuous release of oil from the one-mile deep MC252 well posed
significant challenges to determining the starting point for this oil budget. Once the stacking cap
shut in the well, the interagency Flow Rate Technical Group refined and finalized its total release
estimate: 4.9 million barrels of Louisiana sweet crude oil. With that total amount defined, the
individual fates of the oil were tallied to balance the equation. Here are the results:
001741

Unified
Command
Response

sheen and weathered
tar balls, has wa shed
ashore or been
collected from the
sand and sediments.
Operations
8%
"'Oil in these 3 categories is

naturally.
According to the oil budget summary, burning, skimming, and direct recovery from the MC252 .
well removed one quarter of the total oil released - approximately 1.23 million barrels. Another
twenty-five percent of the oil naturally evaporated or dissolved. Twenty-four percent ofthe oil
was dispersed as microscopic droplets into the Gulf of Mexico waters naturally or as the result of
operations. The residual amount of oil (twenty-six percent) is on or below the surface as thin
sheen and weathered tarbalIs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in
sand and sediments. Oil in the residual and dispersed categories is in the process of being
degraded.
Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the
Gulf region will take time and continued monitoring and research. Accurate measurement of oil
released and oil remaining in the environment playa significant role in determining the potential
threat to the environment. Calculating the oil budget is an important exercise to account for all
the risks t~e MC252 oil poses. to the
area. The mteragency team Will
Florida
continue to refine its oil budget
calculations to ensure the best
information is always available to
response and restoration activities.

The remnant low ofTS Colin is located
about 200 miles north of the Leeward
Islands. Satellite images indicate
organization within the associated
cloud pattern but surface observations
Outlined areas denote current position of systems discussed in the Tropical VVealher
c:::=J low <30%
. . . Medium 3050%
_
High >50%
001742
suggest a lack of well-defined circulation. Most likely tropical storm force winds exist to the
northeast. Although upper level winds are not favorable for significant development, the system
has a medium chance (40%) of regaining tropical storm status in the next two days. The tropical
wave located over the western Caribbean Sea continues to produce disorganized cloudiness and
thunderstorms. NHC estimates a low chance (20%) of this system becoming a tropical cyclone as
some development occurs in the next two days before it moves over Central America.
Trajectories:
No recoverable oil has been reported from overflights since Saturday, July 31 st. The NESDIS
satellite data analysis has not shown any anomalies from the Deepwater Horizon spill for the last
two days. No new shoreline impacts are expected in the forecast period. The 48 and 72-hour
forecast shows no recoverable oil.
As discussed last night, the trajectory forecast predicts "no recoverable oil" for Friday and
Saturday. With the success of Static Kill, risk of release at the source continues to decrease.
Consequently it is reasonable to anticipate "no recoverable oil" in the all three forecasts
tomorrow. Since tarballs and thin sheens are not considered "recoverable oil" the trajectories do
not account for their presence or predict their transport. Therefore the absence of "potential
beached oil" indications (ie red "x") on the trajectories does not preclude tarballs and thin sheens
from continuing to contact shorelines during the weeks and months ahead. The trajectories
continue to carry the following label: This product will be phased out when it is no longer
needed to support operations.
OR&R Evening report for July 1
001777
Subject: OR&R Evening report for July 1

From: Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:40:45 -0700
To: William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
cc: John Tarpley <john.tarpley@noaa.gov>, Christopher S Moore
Haddad <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>, Timothy Gallagher <timothy.gallagher@noaa.gov>,
Peter Murphy <Peter.Murphy@noaa.gov>, Tony Penn <Tony.Penn@noaa.gov>, Elizabeth
Jones <Elizabeth.Jones@noaa.gov>, ICC.Deputy@noaa.gov, Beth Dieveney
<Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>, Tom Callahan <tom.callahan@noaa.gov>
Please find the OR&R evening report for July 1, 2010 attached
Doug Helton
Incident Operations Coordinator
NOAA Emergency Response Division
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
206-526-4911 (24-hour Duty Officer)
h!!E..:.ljrespons~. restoratism. noaa~ov
:_ .............. u .. _m
. . . . _m.......
. . ... .... m .. ___..

~
il.~~~~~~!~~~l-Ior.i:z.~-:a~~~~~rt~l~.Pd~~
1 of 1
10120/2010 11:31 AM
001778

Report # 73: July 1,20102030 PDT
MC 252 DEEPWATER HORIZON Incident, Gulf of Mexico, Major Spill Incident
Situation Update, Day 73:

Hurricane Alex was downgraded to a tropical storm today but many operations were still
impaired. Drilling operations were never shut down and other response activities are expected to
resume slowly as on-scene weather improves and seas subside. Shoreline survey operations are
expected to find new areas of oiling as high water likely spread oil farther into marshes. Many
media outlets are reporting that the spill may have gained the dubious distinction of be the largest
in North America based on extrapolations of the NIC's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG)
estimates (60,000 barrels/day), surpassing the 1979-80 Ixtoc I spill off Mexico's coast.
Seafloor Recovery:
Approximately 23, 080 barrels were captured in the last 24 hours. Approximately 14,880 barrels
of oil were collected, and 8,200 barrels were flared. The total oil recovered from both the LMRP
Cap and Q4000 systems since they were implemented is approx. 509,810 barrels. The Helix
Producer, a new collection vessel, is expected to be attached to the new floating riser mid-week
next week. This vessel will bring collection capacity up to 53,000 barrels per day. 13,749
gallons of dispersants were applied at the sub-surface
Sea Surface Activity
No in-situ burns or surface dispersant operations were conducted due to weather. Most
skimmers were off the water but approximately 290 barrels of oily water was recovered from
skimming.
Turtle Nest Transplantation:
Hundreds of sea turtle nests in the northern Gulf of Mexico are being transplanted to protect the
nests and hatchlings from Deepwater Horizon oil. The relocation efforts are expected to
continue throughout the hatching season. Transportation is being provided by FedEx.
BON SECOUR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, Ala. - Responders remove sea turtle eggs from a nest
on the Fort Morgan Peninsula on June 27, 2010. The nest was the tenth found in the area this year and
contained 114 eggs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service photo.
001779
Slick off Coast of FloridaAbout 2 p.m. today, observers

spotted what they thought may
be oil 4-11 miles off the coast of
Clearwater, FL. NOAA sent a
second trained observer out on a
flight and the Florida
Department of Environmental
Protection deployed a vessel to
sample the oil. Observations
from the second overflight
confirmed an anomaly but it
seemed inconsistent with MC
252 oil and was more likely an
unrelated spill or algae. Samples
collected from the vessel will be
analyzed to determine source.
Threatened Whale Sharks Observed in Oil:
Three whale sharks, a threatened .
large fish that feeds near the sea
surface, were seen swimming
between and through wide
streamers of heavy oil about four
miles from the MC 252 well.
Whale sharks can be oiled as
they swim at the surface and
they will swallow oil if they feed
in oiled surface water. The
observed sharks did not appear
distressed and their whitespotted hides were not visibly
oiled. Recent observations
found about 100 whale sharks in
Ewing Bank about 70 miles
southwest of Port Fourchon, and
Whale shark photographed on 6f2111O about 60 miles southwest ofthe
about 60 miles from the western
spill site. Photo from University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast
edge of the spill. NOAA
Research Lab, Eric Hoffinayer
worked with the Area
Command Environment Unit to convene a small group of experts to look at ways to influence the
whale sharks behavior and move them away from the oil. The group agreed that cleaning up
heavy oil near the source as much as possible with dispersants, burning, and skimming would be
more effective than trying to deter the sharks from entering oiled water.
Trajectory:
Winds are forecast to continue to have an onshore component (predominantly SE) through next
week, with speeds from 5 to 15 kts. These onshore winds will continue to move the northern
001780
edge of the slick northwest threatening the barrier islands of Mississippi/Alabama and the
Florida Panhandle west of Freeport, FL. The Chandeleur Islands, Breton Sound and the
Mississippi Delta also continue to be threatened by shoreline contacts. To the west of the Delta,
these winds may bring oil ashore between Barataria Bay and Caillou Bay - any remaining
floating oil may be moved quickly to the west due to the development of a strong westward
coastal current in this region.
001781

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:05:59 -0700
CC: John Tarpley <john.tarpley@noaa.gov>, Christopher S Moore
<Christopher.S. Moore@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>,
Doug Helton
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
1 of 1
10/20/201011:31 AM
001782

Report # 74: July 2,2010 1930 PDT

The remnants of Hurricane Alex
continue to slow near-shore skimming
operations. Skimming effectiveness
declines in waves greater than three to
four feet. Meanwhile responders are
closely watching a weak low pressure
area off the coast of Florida.
According to the National Hurricane
Center there is a 10% chance of this
system becoming a tropical or
subtropical cyclone during the next 48
hours. The proximity of this system to
the spill location may become
problematic even if it does not form
into a tropical storm.
Seafloor Recovery:
Collection of oil via the LMRP cap and Q4000 rig continued uninterrupted today. A total of
approximately 25,150 barrels was collected on July 1st, up from 23, 080 the day before. BP is
also continuing to drill two relief wells. While BP expects at least one of the relief wells to
intercept the well head, success is not guaranteed. For this reason, BP is working with the
government on another series of options to direct and divert flow from the leaking well. Details
on these other options are not yet available.
Dispersants:
NOAA and other response agency leaders met today and will meet again next week to discuss
issues surrounding dispersant use in the MC 252 response. NOAA is taking the lead in preparing
a short 2 page dispersant summary and compiling information from workshops focused on MC
252 dispersants for the next meeting. This information is intended to provide agency leaders
with a common set of information for understanding dispersants. At the local level OSHA is
leading discussions with the fishing community regarding their concerns about health effects of
dispersants.
Sea Turtle Observer Program

The Unified Command (UC) continues to build a sea turtle observer program for all on-water oil
clean-up operations. This effort was highlighted by a lawsuit filed by a coalition of
environmental groups against BP and the U.S. Coast Guard to end the inadvertent killing of
endangered sea turtles trapped inside containment booms during controlled bums and skimmer
operations. The environmental groups withdrew their request for a temporary restraining order
001783
blocking the bums on the condition they may renew the request later ifthe turtle-rescue
settlement falls apart. As part of this effort, the UC is assessing when, where, and how observers
can be best positioned and will begin to train additional sea turtle observers this weekend.
Skimming surge:
Since June, skimming capability in the Gulf has increased from approximately 100 large
skimmers to 550 skimming vessels. The increase reflects an adaptation to the changing
characteristics of the spill, which
is no longer a single slick, but a
collection of smaller patches of
oil. The Unified Command plans
to continue increasing skimmer
capability with a target of more
than 750 skimmers by mid July,
and more by the beginning of
August. Also, to help direct
skimmers to oil locations, BP
plans to bring in blimps to help
with aerial spotting efforts.
Meanwhile the skimmer A Whale
One of 12 vents or "jaws" aboard
is undergoing sea trials and the
the skimmer "A Whale"
USCG is evaluating its potential
effectiveness.
Report of Oil off Coast of Florida:

The oil sheen spotted four - eleven miles west of Clearwater, FL yesterday does not seem to be
linked to the MC 252 spill. Trained observers reviewed video from shipboard observations of
the sheen and determined it was not likely related to the MC252 spill and was probably a
mystery pollution event from a local source. The quick response by local and federal response
agencies prevented unnecessary fears ofMC 252 oil moving closer to the Southern Florida coast.
Long Term Oil Movement Released:

NOAA released today a model of long term oil movement from the MC 252 leak based on
historical wind and ocean currents to project the likelihood that surface oil from the Deepwater
HorizonIBP oil spill will impact additional U.S. coastline. This modeling, part of NOAA's
comprehensive response to the unprecedented Gulf oil disaster, can help guide the ongoing
preparedness, response and cleanup efforts. NOAA will continue to closely monitor the
movement of the oil slick and develop daily 72-hour forecast projections. NOAA will also
produce updated models of the long-term outlook as new data are gathered. There will be a press
call tomorrow to answer media questions regarding the potential impacts.
Trajectory:
Moderate NE winds on Saturday are forecast to become SE by Saturday night and continue to
have a southerly component through next week with speeds from 9-14 kts. Due to the
northwestward movement ofthe slick over the past several days, the coastlines ofMS, AL, and
the FL panhandle west of Pensacola continue to be threatened by shoreline contacts. The
001784
Chandeleur Islands, Breton Sound and the Mississippi Delta also continue to be threatened. To
the west of the Delta, overflights on Friday observed only scattered sheens offshore west to
CaiIlou Bay; no oil was observed offshore of Atchafalaya. However, models suggest more oil
may be moved west of the Delta threatening shorelines as far west as Caillou Bay within this
forecast period. The leading edge may contain tarballs that are not readily observable from the
imagery. Oi I near bay inlets could be brought into that bay by local tidal currents.
001785

Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 20:17:28 -0700
<Beth. Dieveney@noaa.gov>, Tom Callahan <tom.callahan@noaa.gov>
Doug Helton
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
I of 1
10/20/2010 11:31 AM
001786

Report # 75: July 3, 2010 2030 PDT
Me 252 DEEPWATER HORIZON Incident, Gulf of Mexico, Major Spill Incident
No evening report is planned for July 4, 2010 unless there is breaking news to report

The weak low pressure area reported yesterday off the coast of Florida. Today, this system is
now considered to have a 20% chance of becoming a tropical cyclone in the next 48 hours ..
Another system is also being tracked. This second system has a 10% chance of becoming a
tropical cyclone in the next 48 hours.

National HUrricane Center
Miami, Florida
Outlined areas denote current position of systems discussed in the Tropical \1\I<o,..tl".......
I low <30%
! Medium 30-50%
High >50%
BP Continues to Optimize Oil Recovery Rates from its Leaking Well

Under the direction of the federal government, SP continues to capture some oil and bum gas at
the surface using its containment dome technique-collecting oil aboard the Discoverer
Enterprise, which is linked by a fixed riser pipe to the wellhead, and flaring off additional oil and
gas on the Q4000, which is connected to the choke line. The collection capacity is expected to
increase to an estimated 53,000 barrels per day once the third vessel, the Helix Producer, begins
bringing additional oil up through the kill line
001787
Progress Continues in Drilling Relief Wells; Ranging Process Continues

The drilling ofreliefwells continues and has not been interrupted by elevated sea states.
The Development Driller III has drilled the first relief well to a depth of approximately 17,400
feet below the Gulf surface. The Development Driller II has drilled the second relief well-a
redundancy measure taken at the direction of the administration-to a depth of more than 13,800
feet below the surface. BP continues the "ranging" process-which involves periodically
withdrawing the drill pipe and sending an electrical signal down to determine how close they are
getting to the wellbore.
Report of Oil off Coast of Cuba:

Today the NESDIS imagery analysis team reported a potential oil 125 km anomaly
approximately 35 km north of Cuba. The USCG is conducting an overflight to evaluate whether
this may be oil. It is important to note that this anomaly is in a shipping lane and it is oil, it may
not be related to the Deepwater Horizon spill.
$1'7fW
It'ICIW
....w
EXPERIMENTAL MARINE
POLLUTION SURVEILLANCE
REPORT
8"'"',
:
... -:.;
""'alysis Provided by: The National Oceanic and

.l\Imospheric .A.dministration/Nationa I Environmenlal
Satellite, Oa,a and Informalion Service (NOMINESOIS)
"'" elongated swath of possible oil can be s n aboul33

kin north of Santa Marta, Cuba. Additional sman slicks
are seen to the north of Ihis about halfway between
Cuba and the fL Keys.
Additional information on Long Term Oil Movement Released:

Yesterday NOAA released a model oflong term oil movement from the MC 252 leak based on
historical wind and ocean currents to project the likelihood that surface oil from the Deepwater
HorizonIBP oil spill will impact additional U.S. coastline. Additional information was released
today to clarify that although there is a high statistical chance of south Florida seeing some oiling
based on 15 years of wind and current data, the risk of weathered oil and tar balls from the
Deepwater HorizonIBP oil spill coming to the Florida Peninsula and the Florida Keys remains
low under current ocean and wind conditions.
Trajectory:
Strong E winds are forecast to persist into Sunday then transition to persistent SE winds through
001788
next week with speeds of 1O~ 15 kts. Due to the northwestward movement of the slick over the
past several days, the coastlines ofMS, AL, and the FL panhandle west of Pensacola continue to
be threatened by shoreline contacts. An overflight today to western MS Sound saw light sheens
near Horn and Ship Island, but no oil further to the west. This observation indicates a reduced
short term threat to western Louisiana and Texas. With strong easterly winds, the Chandeleur
Islands, Breton Sound and the Mississippi Delta also continue to be threatened. Only scattered
sheens have been observed on recent overflights to the west of the Delta strong westward
currents will transport these sheens rapidly to the west. Models suggest more oil may be moved
west ofthe Delta threatening shorelines as far west as Caillou Bay within this forecast period.
The leading edge may contain tarballs that are not readily observable from the imagery. Oil near
bay inlets could be brought into that bay by local tidal currents.
001789

Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 17:37:33 -0700
<Christopher.S. Moore@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm <Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov>,
Haddad <Robert. Haddad@noaa.gov>, Timothy Gallagher <timothy.gallagher@noaa.gov>,
Doug Helton
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
1 of I
10/20/201011:31 AM
001790

Report # 76: July 5, 2010 1800 PDT
Poor weather continues to idle many of the on-water cleanup operations. Storms have damaged
and displaced booms but thus far have not slowed drilling work on the relief well. BP reported
today that it may complete the reliefwell ahead of schedule. The reI ief well is now with 5 feet
laterally and 200 feet vertically of the target, but drilling is proceeding very cautiously. It is
unclear how long it may take after the well completion to implement the "bottom kill."
Weather Challenges:
The National Weather Service continues to provide critical information for the response. The
low pressure area reported yesterday off the coast of Florida is now (5 pm PDT) centered about
25 miles south of Morgan City, Louisiana. Now that the system is over land and will move
farther inland tonight, tropical cyclone development is no longer expected. There is a low
chance, near zero percent, of this system becoming a tropical cyclone during the next 48 hours.
However, heavy rainfall associated with this low is possible over portions of central and
southeastern Louisiana. A broad area of low pressure over the northwestern Caribbean Sea and
the Yucatan Peninsula continues to produce widespread cloudiness and disorganized
thunderstorms. Upper-level winds are forecast to become more conducive for development, and
a tropical depression could still form over the next couple of days as this system moves
northwestward at 10 to 15 mph. There is a medium chance, 30 percent, of this system becoming
a tropical cyclone during the next 48 hours. Regardless of development, locally heavy rainfall
and gusty winds are possible over the Yucatan Peninsula and western Cuba over the next day or
so.
001791
Report of Oil off Coast of Cu ba:

The satellite observed anomaly reported Saturday north of Cuba does not appear related to the
Deepwater Horizon spill. USCG overflights suggest that the material may be biological in origin.
Oil observed on Texas Shorelines:
Coast Guard today reported that small tar balls found over the weekend on Galveston Island and
the Bolivar Peninsula were a match to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The small tar balls,
ranging in size from I to 3 centimeters in diameter, were described as widely scattered, less than
1 % coverage over a 2 mile stretch of shoreline. This is the first conclusive report of oil reaching
Texas, but there is some uncertainty whether this oil arrived via surface currents or perhaps was
carried in the bilge/ballast water of a transiting response vessel. Whatever the transport
mechanism of this oil, there are likely to be other tarballs heading in that direction. Today there
were also reports oftar patties on McFaddin Beach, just west of Sabine Pass, TX, and a large
patch of oil 10 miles off Cameron Louisiana.
Oil Observed in Louisiana's Lake Pontchartrain:

Tar balls believed to be from the Deepwater Horizon were reported in the far eastern portion of
Lake Pontchartrain near Slidell, LA. Analytical results are not yet available, but this
observation is consistent with the latest trajectory forecast of oiling into the Lake Bourne area,
driven by strong easterly winds and higher than normal tides.
Skimmer Tests Inconclusive:
Tests ofthe oil skimmer the "A Whale" were inconclusive due to the rough seas. The Coast
Guard will extend the testing two additional days to allow for operational and technological
adjustments aimed at improving skimming effectiveness for the sea states expected in the Gulf.
The Taiwanese parent company TMT hopes to secure a contract with BP to skim oil and it is also
preparing two additional ships for the task.
001792
The MIV "A Whale"

conducts on a shakedown
voyage to evaluate its oil
skimming capabilities on
open water as part of the
Deepwater Horizon
response July 4. 2010. U.S.
Coast Guard photo.
Trajectory:
Moderate to strong (15-22 kts) winds, predominantly from the SE, are forecast throughout this
forecast period. The coastlines ofMS, AL, and the FL panhandle west of Pensacola continue to
be threatened by shoreline contacts. Overflights from Sunday and Monday have observed little
floating oil outside the source region; however this may be due in part to poor observing
conditions. For Louisiana, models continue to show winds and currents moving oil from the
source region west around the Delta and then to the north, with potential new shoreline oiling in
the area between Barataria Bay and Caillou Bay. Further west, only scattered sheens have been
observed on recent overflights, but satellite-based observations from Monday indicate possible
small patches of oil south of Vermillion Bay. Models indicate that oil in this region will be
subject to rapid westward movement by strong coastal currents which could result in scattered
tarbalt impacts to Texas.
001793

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 201023:28:19 -0700
<Christopher.S.Moore@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm <Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov>,
Haddad <Robert. Haddad@noaa.gov>, Timothy Gallagher <timothy.gallagher@noaa.gov>,
Doug Helton
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
ht!Q://response.rest?ration.noaa.~
r---- "____unuu. .n_ . . . . . . . . . . _-". ___"1
1[)~~PVtf'!te~.".tI()nzol1=~ep()!:l=7!.pdfl~
1 of I
10/20/2010 1I:32 AM
001794
Division (ERD)
Report # 77: July 6,2010 2300 PDT
MC 252 DEEPWATER HORIZON Incident, GulfofMexico, Major Spill Incident

Seafloor Recovery:
Collection of oil via the LMRP Cap and Q4000 rig continued uninterrupted over the July 4
weekend and holiday. On July 5, the total oil recovered was approx. 24,980 barrels:
Total oil recovered from both the LMRP Cap and Q4000 systems since they were implemented
is approx. 635,300 barrels. By the end of this week a third containment vessel, the Helix
Producer, should be attached to a floating riser and begin collecting oil. Addition of this vessel
will increase collection capacity to 53,000 barrels. BP continues to make progress on to relief
wells. The first well reached a depth of 17,725 feet on July 4 and a sixth 'ranging' run was
completed. The second reliefwell, which started May 16, has now reached a measured depth of
13,871 feet.
Weatber Challenges:
Weather on-scene continues to present operational challenges as a stalled low pressure system is
bringing rain and rough seas to the region. The National Hurricane Center is watching a low
pressure system over the northern Yucatan Peninsula and the south central Gulf of Mexico.
Environmental conditions appear marginally conducive for slow development of this system as it
moves west-northwest at 10 to 15 mph. There is a medium chance .. .40 percent. .. ofthis system
becoming a tropical cyclone during the next 48 hours.
Beacb and Sand Cleaners:

The Regional Response Team Environmental Unit today approved the use of a mechanical beach
cleaner for use on oiled sand. The cleaner is approved for use with water only and should be
ready to deploy by the beginning of next week.
Blimp to Assist with Response Efforts:

The U.S. Navy deployed a blimp to assist
in the response to the oil spill in the Gulf
of Mexico. The blimp is capable of
staying in the air for 12 hours, much
longer than helicopters or airplanes, and
will be used to monitor oil, support
skimming operations, target in-situ burn
operations, and detect wildlife that may be
in distress. It is expected to arrive in the
Gulf Coast sometime after July 6, weather
permitting. The airship will operate from
a mooring three miles southeast of
Alabama's Mobile Bay shoreline.
001795
More tarballs observed in Texas:

More tarballs were found in eastern Texas today, including 10% coverage of 114 inch to football
sized tar balls on 5 to 6 miles of beach starting on McFaddin Beach and continuing to Crystal
Beach. The oil is believed to be Deepwater Horizon oil. Thus far the concentration oftarballs
reaching Texas is within levels the State responds to on a routine basis. Most of the tarballs
observed over the weekend have already been removed. The Texas General Land Office
(TGLO) is the designated lead response agency for Texas. The USCG has set up a small
command center in Galveston and BP is sending a few responders to the center to determine
what additional support ifany, may be needed in Texas
Small tar balls

from East Beach
on Galveston
Island July 4,
2010. U.S. Coast
Guard photo
Barrier Island Berm Projects:

The Army Corps of Engineers announced its decision to deny a second emergency authorization
request from the state of Louisiana. This action denies permission to construct three additional
barrier island berm projects in the western part of Louisiana, in Terrebonne Parish. Construction
in the Chandeleur Islands in on-going
Berm
Construction
Activity
001796
Unexploded Mine Found:

Response crews today found an unexploded mine in the surf zone east of Perdido Pass, AL. The
area was cordoned off for much ofthe day for the arrival of a Navy explosives team. The device
was identified as an inert Navy practice mine. The explosives team removed the device and took
it back to Panama City for further identification and disposal.
Mine on Shoreline.
001797

Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:36:37 -0700
To: William Conner <Williar:n.Conner@noaa.gov>
Please find the OR&R evening
for July 7, 2010 attached
Doug Helton
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
iID~~P\N~ter",,"Horizon_RepOrt,-78.pdf'~
I of 1
10/20/201011:32 AM
001798

Report # 78: July 7, 2010 1930 PDT

More than 45,400 personnel are currently responding. More than 6,200 vessels are currently
engaged, including skimmers, tugs, barges, and recovery vessels to assist in containment and
cleanup efforts. Approximately 3 million feet of containment boom and 5.46 million feet of
sorbent boom have been deployed to contain the spill-and approximately 870,000 feet of
containment boom and 2.3 million feet ofsorbent boom are available. More than 28.6 million
gallons of an oil-water mix have been recovered.
Shoreline Oiling:
Approximately 507 miles of Gulf Coast shoreline is currently oiled-approximately 290 miles in
Louisiana, 69 miles in Mississippi, 62 miles in Alabama, and 86 miles in Florida.
Fisheries Closures:
There is no change from the July 4 status. Approximately 81,181 square miles of Gulf of Mexico
federal waters remain closed to fishing. More than 66 percent remains open.
Tropical Depression may be forming:
A large low pressure system located about 290 miles southeast of the TexasfMexico border is
moving west-northwestward at 10 to 15 mph. This system has become much better organized
this afternoon and evening, and thunderstorm activity has become more concentrated near the
center. There is a high chance, 80 percent, of this system becoming a tropical cyclone. This
disturbance is forecast to bring locally heavy rains and gusty winds to portions of eastern and
southern Texas and northeastern Mexico over the next few days.
Source Recovery:
The LMRP containment cap and QV4000 rig recovered or flared a total of25,000 barrels on July
6,2010. The Helix Producer production vessel is ready to be attached to the free floating riser
connected to the leaking well. BP hopes that over the next 48 hours the sea state will die down
as forecast this weekend and allow that hook-up to take place. Once the seas calm to I -2 foot
waves, BP will attach the vessel and begin procedures required to test and start production.
These procedures could last up to three days. The new vessel will increase collection capacity to
53,000 barrels/day.
Dispersant Webinar:
The National Incident Command will host a Webinar next week in Dispersants. The webinar
discussion will focus on what data exist on dispersants for the MC 252 spill and what data gaps
exist. The purpose of the discussion is gain a join understanding of dispersants use and efficacy
in the Gulf spill. Approximately 1.72 mi Ilion gallons of total dispersant have been applied to
date-I.07 million on the surface and 657,000 sub-sea.
Surface Clean Up:
Choppy seas have held up oil skimming and in-situ burning operations along the Gulf coast for
the past week. Only 218 barrels of oily liquid was recovered yesterday and no burns were
001799
conducted. Some skimmers hope to be back at work before the end of today. Waves were seven
feet in places, well above the four feet that is the upper limit for most skimmers.
Loop Current Product:

ORR's Loop Current product is currently being reviewed for public release. This product
depicts the location of the Loop Current relative to the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico. The
information will help keep responders and the public informed of how far the oil is from the
Loop Current each day. To date, there has not been significant transport of oil in the Loop
Current.
Administration Launches New Gulf Spill Web-site:

National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen today announced the launch of a new federal
web portal-RestoreTheGulf.gov. The new site is dedicated to providing public access to clear
and accessible information and resources related to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill response
and recovery. RestoreTheGulf.gov is designed to serve as a one-stop repository for news, data
and operational updates related to administration-wide efforts to stop the BP oil leak and mitigate
its impact on the environment, the economy and public health. The site
Deepwaterhorizonresponse.com will be phased out as information is transferred.
Tar Ball reports:

With the heightened public awareness, tar balls continued to be reported throughout the Gulf and
Atlantic coasts. On Tuesday, dozens of tar balls washed up on Cocoa Beach, Florida on
Tuesday, sparking conjecture about whether they drifted in from the Deepwater Horizon spill.
Cocoa Beach is near Cape Canaveral. Fingerprinting is being conducted but these are unlikely to
be from the spill. However, oiling in Lake Borgne and Lake Pontchartrain does match
Deepwater Horizon, and tarballs collected in eastern Texas also had positive fingerprints. Some
ofthe tarballs from Galveston did not fingerprint back and some did.
Trajectory:
SE winds are forecast to continue decreasing in magnitude to 5-10 kts by Thursday, then become
weak 5 kts) and variable over the next few days. Conditions for overflight observations remain
poor. Remote sensing imagery and overflights have indicated scattered areas of potential oil
remaining in Chandeleur and Mississippi Sound, which will continue to threaten the coastlines of
MS and AL west of Mobile Bay. Models continue to indicate winds and currents are moving oil
from the source region west around the Delta and then to the north, with potential new shoreline
oiling in the area between Barataria Bay and Caillou Bay. Further to the west, no oil has been
observed west ofCaiIlou Bay since Monday. However, models indicate that any oil in this region
would be subject to rapid westward movement by strong coastal currents which could continue
to result in scattered tarball impacts to Texas.
001800

Date: Thu, 08 Jul 201022:02:22 -0700
<Christopher. S. Moore@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm <Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov>,
brian julius <8rian.Julius@noaa.gov>, Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>, Joshua
Jones <Elizabeth.Jones@noaa.gov>, ICC.Deputy@noaa.gov, 8eth Dieveney
<8eth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>, Tom Callahan <tom.callahan@noaa.gov>
Please find the OR&R evening
for July 8, 2010 attached
Doug Helton
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov
1 of 1
10/20/2010 11:32 AM
001801

Report # 79: July 8, 20102200 PDT

Source Recovery:
The LMRP containment cap and QV4000 rig recovered or flared a total of24,575 barrels on July
7, 2010. Oil recovered from both the LMRP Cap and Q4000 systems since they were
implemented is approx. 684,700 barrels. BP continues to wait for wave activity to subside so
they can attach the Helix Producer collection vessel to the flexible risers attached to the wellhead. The Helix Producer will increase collection capacity to almost 53,000 bbls. Plans also
continue to replace the current LMRP containment cap with an upgraded version. BP is working
with Unified Command to conduct table top exercise to prepare for this operation. The
replacement could take several days and although the flow of oil will continue to be restricted by
other collection devices, there will be a significant increase in flow during the cap replacement
period. The new cap would make it possible for BP to eliminate most of the flow and help
facility the relief well kill operation.
Relief wells ahead of schedule:
The first of two relief wells could be completed ahead ofthe mid-August deadline ifthere are no
major disruptions. BP said today that the "bottom kill" of the well, a mud and cement shot
through a relief well, could start in late July. The final approach will be slow. The Development
Driller III will penetrate the rock formation only 10 feet at a time before withdrawing the drill bit
and sending down a probe that detects the magnetic signal ofthe steel casing and pipe in the
well. The process of killing the well might take another seven to 10 days and might have to be
done a number oftimes.
A Whale Testing:
The giant Taiwanese oil skimmer known as 'A Whale' will have another opportunity this week to
test skimming capability in the Gulf of Mexico. There have been mixed reports on the
effectiveness of initial test runs. Several modifications have been made in an effort to increase
the A Whale's skimming potential for this spill. The Unified Command will have to make
decision fairly quickly regarding investment in this new skimming technology.
Science Updates:
Submerged oil: Scientists in ORR are preparing talking points regarding what is known to date
about the submerged oil sampling efforts. This summary will help guide NOAA support to the
response on this particular topic. Also, six BP contract vessels deployed today to begin
conducting submerged plume sampling activities to determine the extent of the plume.
Improving Instrumentation: There are currently three makes of fluorometry instruments on
sampling cruises. Each type detects different oil components. The difference among
instruments is complicating the analysis of observations. NOAA is working with the Submerged
Oil Monitoring Team to calibrate each flourometer to fresh and weathered MC 252 oil. The
calibration should improve interpretation and the ability to compare data among instruments.
001802
Gliders: Many gliders have been collecting physical oceanography and fluorometry data since
the start of the spill. The Joint Analysis Group is systematically analyzing these observations to
provide a more complete picture of the extent of subsurface oil.
Tropical Depression moves Inland near Texas-Mexico Border

The tropical depression in the western gulf has moved inland over South Texas, well away from
the spill site. Sustained winds in the vicinity of the remnant surface circulation are 15 to 20 mph
with gusts to near 35 mph in passing squalls. Winds will gradually diminish during the evening
as the Depression continues to move northwest and weaken.
Drilling Moratorium Appeal:
The Obama administration today asked a federal court in Louisiana to reinstate the ban on
deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, saying that the six-month ban on drilling in more than
500 feet of water, imposed in late May, was necessary to allow time to adopt stricter safety and
environmental regulation of deepwater wells. Last month, Judge Martin L. C. Feldman of the
United States District Court in New Orleans issued an order blocking the moratorium, saying the
Obama administration had failed to justify the need for a blanket moratorium on drilling.
More tarballs found in Texas:
Tarballs found in Matagorda TX were collected yesterday may be the westernmost-oil from the
spill. The Texas General Land Office has collected samples for analysis. Tar balls from the spill
also have been confirmed on the Bolivar Peninsula and on Galveston Island.
Tar balls from Lake Pontchartrain blamed on dispersants:
St. Tammany Parish President Kevin Davis said Wednesday that the dispersants being used to
break down the oil in the Gulf of Mexico are causing the tar balls to travel underwater, later
resurfacing beyond the protective walls of the barges. He urged officials to cease the use of
dispersants. However, the use of dispersants has little or nothing to do with the fate and behavior
oftar balls. Dispersants do the exact opposite- they break oil up into tiny droplets, much smaller
than the head of a pin, which do not reform or re-congeal into a visible mass of oil. Tar balls are
weathered oil that has lost its lighter components. Thus they are denser than fresh oil and closer
to the density of seawater. They still float, but in the estuarine (less dense) waters of Lake
Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne, they would be easily entrained by currents and roll under booms
Trajectory:
Weak and variable winds forecast for Friday are expected to become SWat 10 kts overnight then
WSW/W at 10-13 kts over the weekend. Remote sensing imagery and overflights have indicated
scattered areas of potential oil remaining in Chandeleur and Mississippi Sound, which will
continue to threaten the coastlines ofMS and AL west of Mobile Bay. Models continue to
indicate winds and currents are moving oil from the source region west around the Delta and
then to the north, with potential new shoreline oiling in the area between SW Pass and Caillou
Bay. Further to the west, no oil has been observed west of Atchafalaya Bay since Monday.
Models suggest westward currents in this region will begin weakening over the next few days.
However, scattered tarballs may continue to impact Texas shorelines until up-coast (eastward)
flow resumes.
001803

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:47:44 -0700
Please find the OR&R evening report for July 9 1 2010 attached.
Unless there is breaking news we will not have a report on July 10.
Doug Helton
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
..
<.
1 of I
10/20/2010 11:32 AM
001804

Report # 80: July 9, 20101730 PDT
MC 252 DEEPWATER HORlZON Incident, Gulf of Mexico, Major Spill Incident
Unless there is breaking news there will be no evening report on Saturday, July 10

New Collection Cap and Containment Vessel Moving Fonvard Simultaneously:
BP is taking advantage of favorable weather to complete hook up ofa third production platform,
the Helix Producer, and replace the leaking cap with a tighter one. The Helix Producer is
attached to the collection riser and BP hopes to complete checking leaks and purging the lines in
time to begin oil collection on Sunday. The addition of this vessel will increase the total capacity
for the containment effort to 53,000 barrels/day and also assist with controlling pressures during
the "bottom kill." On Saturday, BP will also begin the process of replacing the existing cap.
Fitting the new cap could take from 3-7 days during which time oil released into the Gulfwill
increase substantially. In the best case scenario, the combination of the cap and the new vessel
could collect most of the leaking oil by Monday.
Cumulative amount of oil recovered to

date, in barrels, combining the containment
cap and flared from the Q4000.
700,000
!i
000.000
500llOO
40QllOO
1t
:
3OOllOO1
200llOO
j
;
loo~L_,."'IIJI__...................
6t~
Relief~ell
G{f,
1>/& 6110 6/11 6{14 /Iil 6/18 6/2() f,j21 6/24 6/26 6!211 6nD 7/2
1/4
7/(;
7/B
Nearing Well-Head:
As of yesterday, the first relief well reached 17,780 feet below the sea surface and it currently
conducting ranging run #9. USCG reports that the reliefwell is essentially alongside the well
bore and within 300 feet vertically of the target depth. Progress will be very slow at this point.
Drilling will occur in very small spurts. BP will drill as short distance, withdraw, and then
insert a sensor to assess the distance horizontally and vertically to the well bore. Within the next
week or so the drill should reach the target area outside the drill pipe. BP will then move
forward with killing the welL
001805
Loop Current Status:

The loop current remains distinctly separated from Eddy Franklin. Based on historic
information, NOAA scientists expect it to takes many weeks or months to rebuild north to the
point where it may again threaten to entrain oil from the leaking well. Under these conditions,
oi I movement south and toward the Florida Peninsula will be minimal. The threat of oiling in
Southern Florida continues to be low. Based in part on the Loop Current forecast, NOAA
Fisheries plans to reassess the current fishery closure area by mid next week.
NOAA Ship Bigelow to Join Submerged Oil Monitoring Research

The NOAA Ship Bigelow was deployed from New England to the Gulf and is expected to arrive
in 2 weeks. The vessel will support submerged oil monitoring efforts near the MC 252 well.
The science plan is expected to include acoustics and oxygen depletion observations. The
Unified Command is working to get a portable GCMS on board the ship to allow near real time
hydrocarbon assessments.
New Oil Spill Commission to meet:

The new presidential oil spill commission will hold its first meeting next week in New Orleans.
NOAA SSC Charlie Henry will be a witness. The commission will focus on the adequacy of
clean-up technologies and response plans. The panel will examine the root causes ofthe April 20
oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, looking deeper than just equipment failures.
The Discoverer Enterprise and other ships, seen from the deck of Coast Guard Cutler Resolute, flare off gas and oil
at the site ofthe BP oil spill Thursday night. U.S. Coast Guard photo
001806
Tar Balls in Texas:

Coast Guard lab tests found most of the tar balls that have washed up on Texas shores in the past
few days are from sources other than the Deepwater Horizon. More testing will be done to try to
find out where the tar balls came from.
Trajectory:
Winds are expected to be southwesterly to westerly at 10 kts or less throughout this forecast
period. Remote sensing imagery and overflights have indicated scattered areas of potential oil
remaining in Chandeleur and Mississippi Sound, which will continue to threaten the coastlines of
MS and AL west of Mobile Bay, as well as within Lakes Borgne and Ponchartrain in Louisiana.
To the west, models indicate that patches of oil observed off Marsh Island, Caillou Bay, and
Terrebonne Bay will begin to move eastward, with scattered shoreline impacts between Caillou
Bay and Southwest Pass. Further to the west, no oil has been observed west of Atchafalaya Bay
since Monday. For the Alabama-Florida Panhandle coast, models show eastward coastal currents
occurring over the next few days, leading to an eastward extension of forecast uncertainty
bounds into Florida.
OR&R Evening report for July II
001807

Date: Sun, 11 Jul2010 21:40:53 -0700
Jones <Elizabeth.Jones@noaa,gov>, ICC.Deputy@noaa.gov, Beth Dieveney
Please find the OR&R evening report for July 11, 2010 attached.
Doug Helton
NOAA Emergency
Division
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
http:LiJe.sp<?n.se.rep,tnrfltion.noflfl.gov
. ' ....... ........
. .. . ....... ..... ". . . ......... . I

~
IDeeJl~at~~~t:I~~!:Zc?r1=~~Jlort=~1.p~fI11
I of 1
10/20/20]0] 1:33 AM
001808

Report # 81: July 11,2010 1930 PDT

More than 46,200 personnel are currently responding to the spill. More than 6,400 vessels are
currently responding on site, including skimmers, tugs, barges, and recovery vessels to assist in
containment and cleanup efforts. More than 30.25 million gallons of an oil-water mix have been
recovered. Approximately 1.78 million gallons of total dispersant have been applied-l.07
million on the surface and 706,000 sub-sea. Approximately 541 miles of Gulf Coast shoreline is
currently oiled-approximately 302 miles in Louisiana, 97 miles in Mississippi, 65 miles in
Alabama, and 77 miles in Florida.
Changes in containment resulting in short term increase in flow:
On Saturday, 10 July, BP began the process of replacing the existing containment cap. ROVs
removed the cap that had been placed on top of the leak in early June. In the best case scenario,
the combination of the cap and the new vessel could collect most of the leaking oil by Monday,
but it could take more time. On Sunday, officials said the work was going according to plan. BP
hopes the capping operation will be done within three to seven days, during which time oil
released into the Gulfwill increase substantially. NOAA overflights crews said today that the
surfacing oil was substantially greater than during previous days.
Well head uncapped.

The new cap will
hopefully recover
most ofthe flow but
will be a temporary
solution until the
retiefwells are
completed.
Will the NOAA modeling have to be changed?

This increase in flow during the cap replacement is not expected to have noticeable difference to
trajectories for a number of reasons - NOAA has already initialized the model with a continuous
release at the source that results in the "heavy" oil contour on the trajectories; adding more
particles won't make a difference because NOAA models already portray a heavy oil volume
there. The extent or footprint ofthe "heavy" oil depends more on the winds and currents. Under
001809
calm wind conditions footprint tends to appear larger. The overall aerial extent ofthe spill also
depends on currents and winds, therefore the aerial extent will not be affected by an increase in
spill volume
NOAA uses observations of surface oil (from satellite and overflights) to reinitialize the model
every day. If overflight observers begin seeing more widespread areas of heavier coverage,
NOAA will include those observations in the trajectory modeling and ultimately increases in the
"medium" contour would be apparent.
Will there be greater shoreline impacts?
Switching the top hat is expected to increase the amount of oil spilling over the next several days
but it is unclear whether the increased flow will have any noticeable change in the amount of oil
that comes ashore. Spill volume is only one factor in shoreline oiling. Oi I spilled today will take
several weeks to strand and weather conditions over that time period is a substantial variable
affecting the quantity, location, and timing of shoreline impacts. Where the oil goes will not be
affected. How much oil gets there will increase but by how much will depend on how long it
takes to get there and how much is skimmed, burned, and dispersed on water. If it takes the extra
oil 1 week to get to the shoreline, there could be an increase in concentration by a factor of2 or
3. If it takes 1 month to get to shore, the increase in concentration will be much less because of
natural processes.
Weather allows for additional in-situ burning:
Favorable weather conditions allowed responders to conduct a successful controlled bum
operation for the third consecutive day. To date, more than 10J million gallons of oil have been
removed from the water by controlled bums.
An oil bum observer

watches a recently ignited
In-Situ Bum in the Gulf of
Mexico July 10,2010. A
wildlife observer maintains
watch for any oiled
wildlife, particularly turtles.
Stranded boom becoming a problem:

SCAT and Air Recon teams are noting large amounts of stranded and broken booms in marsh
areas along the Gulf Coast. Biloxi Marsh has roughly 5-10 km of mostly hard boom stranded in
the marsh. Barataria Bay has as much as 15-30 km of mostly sorbent boom stranded in the
001810
marsh. Some of this is likely from hurricane and storm damage. Ifwe get an active tropical
weather season, could be a growing problem. Derelict boom can cause shading and smothering
of vegetation, especially as storms move booms around. One issue is how to get boom out of the
marsh without causing additional physical damage.
Blimp patrols begin:

A Navy blimp started looking for oil and distressed wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico. The Coast
Guard said initial flights are over the coast of Alabama, but the missions will be expanded as
needed and as the weather allows. Observers typically operate from an altitude of 300 to 500 feet
in the 178-foot-Iong airship, which can come to an almost complete stop.
Trajectory:
Winds are expected to be mostly southwesterly to westerly at 10 kts or less throughout this
forecast period for the entire northern Gulf of Mexico. Remote sensing imagery and overflights
have indicated scattered areas of potential oil remaining in northern Chandeleur and Mississippi
Sound, which will continue to threaten the coastlines ofMS and AL. For the Alabama-Florida
Panhandle coast, models show eastward coastal currents occurring over the next few days,
leading to an eastward extension of forecast uncertainty bounds into Florida. To the west, models
indicate that patches of oil observed off Marsh Island, Caillou Bay, and Terrebonne Bay will
begin to move eastward, with scattered shoreline impacts between Atchafalaya Bay and
Southwest Pass. Further west, a patch of floating oil that was observed between Galveston and
Sabine Pass is projected to move eastward, threatening the shoreline around the Texas-Louisiana
border.
001811

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:02:17 -0700
Please find the OR&R evening report for July 12/ 2010 attached.
Doug Helton
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
206-526-4911 (24-hour Duty Off~cer)
(I.Deepwater_Horiz~~~Report_82.Pdfiril
.~._.,
I!
_____ " n _
1 of 1
..... _
___
_ _ _ _ , __ n
_". ____
.h_ .. __ .. .__ . _________ ... ___ .. ___
.. ____ ,, ____ . ,___ . _. __ .___ -'
10/20/2010 11:33 AM
001812

Report # 82: July 12, 2010 1900 PDT
Me 252 DEEPWATER HORIZON Incident, Gulf of Mexico, Major Spill Incident

Source Control Progressing Quickly:
BP continued the 'capping stack' operation today and succeeded late this afternoon in using
undersea robots to lower a new, tighter-fitting cap over the leaking well. The original LMRP cap
was removed on Saturday and oil has been flowing freely from the well with the exception ofthe
Q4000 containment operation continued to flare gas and oil through most of the 'capping stack'
operation. The new cap is an important step in both temporary and permanent control of the
well but much uncertainty remains. Video images of the newly placed cap showed a tight fit with
no oil leaking, and overflights today at the source showed only light oiling. NOAA flight crews
had a difficult time discerning the surfacing oil and no burns or aerial skimming operations were
conducted today because there were no actionable targets. However, the lighter than normal
surface oiling was observed today before the cap was in place, leading to some speculation on
why the flow, which was largely unrestricted, seemed to be so dramatically reduced. Subsea
dispersant application was increased in the last 24 hours, from approximately 8 gallons per
minute to 12 gpm, and may explain part of the decline.
At source, silver sheen and dull brown with orange emulsion - 30% cover
Integrity Testing:
BP will perform a "Well Integrity Test" starting tomorrow morning on the new cap. The tests
could take from 6- 48 hours. One or more of the new caps valves will be closed and opened for
a period oftime to allow BP to measure pressure in the well. The measurements taken will
provide valuable information about the condition ofthe well below the sea level and help
001813
detennine whether or not it is possible to shut the well for a period oftime, such as during a
hurricane or bad weather, between now and when the relief wells are complete. During the test
period the Helix Producer and Q4000 collection systems be ramped down and placed in standby
mode during the test essentially shutting down the well. BP expects, but cannot be certain, that
no oil will be released to the ocean for the duration of the test.
Helix Producer Collection Vessel Begins Operations:

After a several days of testing, The Helix Producer began collecting oil from a flexible riser
attached to the blowout preventer around noon today. BP anticipates initially collecting 8,000
barrels/day and then increasing up to 25,000 barrels.
Relief Wells Continue:
The first of two relief wells reached a measured depth of 17,810 feet on July 11 and a tenth
'ranging' run was completed. Following further ranging runs, the relief well is should intercept
the original well at approximately 18,000 feet. Operations will then begin to kill the flow of oil
and gas from the reservoir by pumping specialized heavy fluids down the relief well. The second
reliefwell isjust below 16,000 feet. The first halfof August remains the current estimate of the
date by which the first relief well will be completed and kill operations performed.
Sea Turtle Observer Program Ramps Up:
Sea turtle impacts from operation activities continue to be an issue of concern. NOAA and other
trustee agencies are working with BP to increase the number of observers on skimmers and other
platfonns as well as improve information collection and processing. BP has agreed to add a
second contract to get additional observers on scene as soon as possible and to take steps
necessary to expedite data flow, analysis, and documentation. The goal is to quickly assess
information and adapt operations toward minimizing impacts on sea turtles.
NMFS Expands Fisheries Closure to the West:
NMFS Southeast Regional Office expands the federal fisheries closure area today. The new
closure measures 84,101 sq mi (217,821 sq km) and covers about 35% of the Gulf of Mexico
exclusive economic zone. This is an increase of 1% from the previous July 4 closure. The
majority of federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico are open to commercial and recreational fishing.
The new closure measures 84,101 sq mi (217,821 sq km) and covers about 35% of the Gulfof
Mexico exclusive economic zone. The majority offederal waters in the GulfofMexico are open
to commercial and recreational fishing. This change extends the closure further west along the
Louisiana coastline. At the same time, NMFS continues to consider reopening federal fishery
areas along Southern Florida. Limited oil is reaching this region due to the continued separation
of the Loop Current from Eddy Franklin. NMFS hopes to reach a decision regarding this area
within the next few days.
Drilling Moratorium:
The Department of the Interior issued revised rules on today on a new moratorium on deepwater
oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The new moratorium will last through Nov. 30. Unlike the last
moratorium, which applied to waters of more than 500 feet, the new one applies to any deepwater floating facility with drilling activities.
001814
Dispersant Web-Ex:
The National Response Team is sponsoring a "Deepwater Horizon Dispersant Data Webinar"
tomorrow. Participants will include federal and state partners. The role ofBP is still somewhat
uncertain. The purpose of this webinar is to determine what data is available on the effectiveness
and effects of subsurface and surface dispersant application in the Deepwater Horizon response.
The webinar will NOT involve discussion of policy, strategy, or risk assessment related to
dispersant use.
Presidential Oil Spill Commission:
The panel held its first meeting today in New Orleans. Witnesses included Rear Adm. Peter
Neffenger of the Coast Guard, the deputy incident commander, and Kent Wells, senior vice
president ofBP North America. It also heard from business operators and tourism officials who
spoke about the economic effects of the spill. The meeting will continue tomorrow. SSC
Charlie Henry is scheduled to testifY.
Trajectory:
SW winds are forecast to continue at to-I3 kts through Tuesday, then become W at less than 10
kts. Remote sensing imagery and overflights have indicated only scattered areas of potential oil
remaining in northern Chandeleur and Mississippi Sound; any remaining oil in this region will be
moved eastward, continuing to threaten the coastlines of MS, AL and the Florida Panhandle east
to Pensacola. Imagery and overflights also indicate little oil remaining offshore west of the Delta,
however, with prevailing southwesterly winds, shorelines from Atchafalaya Bay to Southwest
pass continue to be threatened by scattered tarball impacts. The leading edge may contain
tarballs that are not readily observable from the imagery (hence not included in the model
initialization). Oil near bay inlets could be brought into that bay by local tidal currents.
001815

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 201021:39:48 -0700
Slater <Joshua.Slater@noaa.gov>, Glen Watabayashi <Glen. Watabayashi@noaa.gov>,
Please find the OR&R
report for July 13, 2010 attached
Helton
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
206-526-4911 (24-hbur Duty Officer)
loft
10/2012010 11 :33 AM
001816

Report # 83: July 13,20102130 PDT

More than 45,000 personnel are currently responding. More than 6,800 vessels are currently
responding on site, including skimmers, tugs, barges, and recovery vessels to assist in
containment and cleanup efforts-in addition to dozens of aircraft, remotely operated vehicles,
and mUltiple mobile offshore drilling units. More than 3.15 million feet of containment boom
and 6.34 million feet of sorbent boom have been deployed to contain the spill. More than 31.4
million gallons of an oil-water mix have been recovered. Approximately 1.81 million gallons of
total dispersant have been applied-I.07 million on the surface and 735,000 sub-seas.
Approximately 502,000 gallons are available. 330 controlled burns have been conducted,
removing a total of more than 10.3 million gallons of oil
New Capping Stack Well Integrity Testing Delayed
Late today BP delayed the well integrity testing ofthe new 'capping stack' placed over the well
head yesterday_ BP delayed the testing to allow for more analysis on the plan. National Incident
Commander Thad Allen said in a statement Tuesday night the process "may benefit from
additional analysis" that would be performed overnight and Wednesday_ He did not say when the
tests would start. The decision was reached after Allen met with federal officials, scientists and
New cap in place
Provisional Testing plan:

During the integrity test BP will cease production through the Q4000 and the Helix Producer 1
which are attached to the original blowout preventer and divert all the oil into the new capping
stack. Valves on the new capping stack will then be sequentially closed. Once the cap is
001817
completely sealed BP will take pressure readings for up to 48 hours depending upon reading
results. In this situation, higher pressure readings are good news. Pressures of8 and 9,000 PSI
inside the capping stack would indicate that the hydrocarbons are being forced up and the well
bore and cap are able to withstand high pressure. Ifpressures are closer to the 4 to 5 to 6,000 PSI
range, this could indicate that hydrocarbons are being diverted and BP would work with the
Unified Command to assess the implications of such findings. Ultimately the readings will help
determine the best approach for shutting down the well. In addition, the pressure measurements
will be utilized by the NIC Flow Rate Technical Group to reevaluate flow rates. Ifpressure
within the stack reaches 8- 9,000 PSI and the capping stack can withstand these pressures for an
extended period, BP may keep all valves closed and shut in the well via the capping stack.
Increased Collection Capacity:

If BP is not able to shut in the well via the capping stack, they will be in a position around July
18 to contain oil from four lines, the choke and the kill line from the original blowout preventer
plus the choke and the kill lines form the new stacking cap. If the four planned containment
vessels are successfully attached collection capacity would increase to 60 to 80,000 barrels a day
and will likely exceed the flow rate.
Joint Assessment Group Submerged Oil StatusThe Joint Assessment Group has set up a web-portal to provide responders with access to up to
date information on submerged plume monitoring reports. All completed and approved reports
will be available via this site. A new report addressing uncertainties surrounding oxygen
concentrations at depth will be available soon be available and the second full analysis report of
submerged plume cruise data through mid-July is currently undergoing agency clearance.
Fishery closure expanded slightly
NMFS made a slight adjustment to the closed area boundary to reopen a small area closed
yesterday which was not impacted nor projected to be impacted by oil. The area measures about
174 sq mi and is located on the northwestern edge of the closure, south of Atchafalaya Bay,
Louisiana. The new closure became effective at 6 PM Eastern Time tonight. The new closure
measures 83,927 sq mi (217,371 sq km) and covers about 35% of the GOM EEZ, compared to
yesterday'S closure, which measured 84,101 sq mi (217,821 sq km) and also covered about 35%
of the GOM EEZ. The Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission on Tuesday said it will
hold a special meeting Wednesday to consider allowing recreational fishing only in all areas
closed to fishing due to the BP oil disaster. Frustration with the closures has been mounting in
the recreational community because, according to the state, none of the tests in the closed areas
has detected any threats to human health. Controversy was added to the frustration last week
when the commission overturned a decision by the LDWF to allow catch-and-release fishing in
the closed areas.
More tarballs analyzed:
Tarballs that washed up on Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral, Florida, last were not a match to
Deepwater Horizon. This is the sixth incident of tar balls appearing on Florida's East Coast since
June 15. However the U.S. Coast lab confirmed that tar balls found on the Bolivar Peninsula near
Galveston Texas were from the Gulf spill.
001818
SCAT Surveys continue:

Approximately 550 miles of Gulf Coast shoreline is currently oiled-approximately 311 mi les in
Louisiana, 102 miles in Mississippi, 66 miles in Alabama, and 71 miles in Florida.
Cat Island, MS:

Clean up of
pooled oil
SCAT Team 1
Mobile Sector
Arrowhead - found
at wildlife refuge
on north side Lake
Ponchartrain
Archaeologists are a key member of the SCAT teams. They document site conditions prior to
response and help indentify sensitive areas - just like a nesting site or spawning area of
biological concern.
Algal Bloom Surfactants and Birds:

The Fish and Wildlife Service has observed that birds contaminated by surfactants do not appear
to be oiled. This observation is consistent with an event in California earlier this year where the
surfactants were linked back to an algal bloom. The Unified Command is starting a project to
assess whether natural surfactants are produced by Gulf algal blooms and to what extent these
001819
surfactants may be impacting birds. This information will help scientists better differentiate
between spill impacts and natural processes.
Trajectory:
Southwesterly winds are forecast to become W late Tuesday at 5-10 kts then be variable in
direction for the next few days (WINWIN). SE winds are forecast to begin late Thursday and
continue through the weekend at speeds of 5-1 0 kts. Remote sensing imagery and overflights
indicate that oil from the source is continuing to move to the south/southeast and there is very
little oil remaining to the north. Imagery and overflights also indicate only several scattered
sheens offshore to the west ofthe Delta; however, shorelines from Atchafalaya Bay to Southwest
pass continue to be threatened by scattered tarballs for the next few days.
001820

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 201020:37:15 -0700
<Christopher.S.Moore@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm <Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov>!
Doug Helton
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
, ................. ... .... . . ........ . . . .. ......... . . . . .... .. . . ,'1
iIQ~e.~;:t~~~=I-ic;)~i~()~~~f)e()~~~~~e~fj~
1 of I
\0/20/20 IO II :34 AM
001821

Report # 84: July 14,20102030 PDT

Well Integrity Test Underway
BP received approval late today to initiate the testing procedures for the new 'capping stack' and
began the operation at 6 p.m. EDT. Integrity tests were delayed yesterday to allow additional
time for review of the operation and address concerns such as the strength of the cap and how
tests might impact the leaking well. During preparations for commencement of the well integrity
test a leak was detected in the choke line. The leak was isolated and repaired prior to moving
forward. It will likely take anywhere from six to 48 hours depending upon pressure
observations to complete the testing. BP will be in regular contact with the government during
the test, and the Unified Command will halt the test ifthe risks of doing further damage to the
surrounding formation are significant.
Recovery from the Helix Producer and the Q4000 has been temporarily suspended to allow for
the well integrity testing. And BP also halted drilling for the duration of the test on the two relief
wells because it was not clear what effect the testing of the cap could have on the wells.
Sand Berms:
Discovery News (http://news.discovery.com/earthlbenlls-erosion-oil.html) is reporting evidence
of the failure of the some of the sand berms being built to stop oil from reaching the Louisiana
coast. Photos taken last week show berms in the Chandeleur Islands being deeply eroded by
wave action while still under construction. Earth-moving equipment and fuel tanks appear to be
sinking into the waves.
001822
Stranded Booms
More than 3.21 million feet of containment boom and 6.6 million feet ofsorbent boom have been
deployed to contain the spill. Large volumes of this boom stranded in marshes and on islands
during the recent storms and extremely high tides. SeAT conducted an aerial survey to
document the extent and magnitude of stranded boom in marsh habitat. Plans have been now
been developed to remove these booms while minimizing collateral shoreline impacts. Several
methods of removal are allowed, based on the shoreline type, location, and accessibility of
stranded boom on the shoreline.
001823
Post Kill Spill Trajectories

Once the MC 252 well is killed, ORR will continue to produce trajectories for as long as surface
oil is present. Based on previous experience and the behavior ofMC 252 oil, ORR scientists
anticipate the oil will persist at the surface for approximately 1 month and will continue
producing trajectories for even longer ifneeded. Unified Command will consider the postkill
trajectories for a variety of actions such as when to stand down command posts and how to shift
operations. ORR scientists are also initializing preliminary projections of long term oil
movement under a various climatological conditions and well kill dates. If, after analysis, these
projections prove useful they could provide another source of information for post kill response
planning and operations.
Loop Current:
There has been no indication of oil in or near the Loop Current for over two weeks. Much of the
visible slick has moved to the south and east, but with little northerly wind in the forecast, Eddy
Franklin separated from the Loop Current, and no eddies in position to move oil toward Eddy
Franklin, the risk of the Loop Current transporting a significant amount of oil is very low.
NOAA will continue to monitor the situation daily.
Trajectory:
Winds are forecast to be NW at 10 kts on Wednesday night and into Thursday AM. A persistent
period of SE winds is forecast to begin on Thursday and continue through the weekend at speeds
of up to 15 kts. Remote sensing imagery and overflights indicate that oil from the source is
continuing to move to the south/southeast and there is very little oil remaining to the north.
Imagery and overflights also indicate only several scattered sheens offshore to the west of the
Delta; however, shorelines from Atchafalaya Bay to Southwest pass continue to be threatened by
scattered tarballs.
Re: OR&R Evening report for July 15
001824
Subject: Re: OR&R Evening report for July 15

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 201022:16:26 -0700
please discard the previous memo: corrected report date
Doug Helton wrote:

Please find the OR&R evening report for
15, 2010 attached
Doug Helton
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
1 of 1
10/20/2010 11 :34 AM
001825

Report # 85: July 15,20102030 PDT

Well Temporarily Secured, Integrity Testing Continues:
The well was secured today, at least temporarily, after well integrity tests that started last night
were delayed overnight in order to repair a leak detected in the choke line of the capping stack.
Test preparations resumed this morning and full closure ofthe choke valve occurred at
approximately 2:25 pm today local time. Pressure readings continue to rise and as of this
evening are in line with expectations. At this point, BP would only terminate the test quickly is
if there is a low pressure reading. A low reading might indicate oil leaking somewhere in the
well bore or at another location in the formation. Every six hours, BP will consult with BP and
government scientists to make a decision regarding whether to continue the tests. lfnot before,
the test will terminate after 48 hours, the valves will be reopened and the Q4000 and Helix
Producer will resume collection. At the end oftesting, BP expects to do another seismic run
over the area to assess the sea floor and the oil formation for pockets of oil that may have formed
as a result of testing. The purpose of the pressure tests is to determine the integrity ofthe well
and is meant to guide engineers as they determine the best approach for killing the well.
The Q4000 and Helix Producer containment operations were shut down today between 10:30
a.m. - 12:30 p.m. as part of the testing procedure and were stopped periodically yesterday.
Even with being shut down for portions of the day yesterday, the containment operations still
contained 12,843 barrels. The Q4000 flared approximately 5000 barrels and the Helix Producer
was able to produce 7,680 barrels. Reliefwell drilling is also on hold pending well integrity
testing.
Oil Budget Tool:

The NIC Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), an expert team of scientists from across response
agencies, created an Oil Budget Tool that is now available to the NIC and Command Posts. The
tool analyzes inputs including oil dispersion, evaporation, in-situ burns, mechanical clean up, and
dispersants and projects how much oil remains at the surface. Projections from this system are
based on several assumptions regarding efficiency of operations that mayor may not hold true
for any given day. Outputs should be viewed as rough estimates and are intended to help
responders assess effectiveness of clean up operations and focus effort.
Skimmer Strike Team:

The NIC recently formed a Skimmer Strike Team tasked with evaluating skimmer efficiency
during the MC 252 incident. The skimming activities during this spill are the largest in history
and the Team hopes to gain valuable insights on skimming operations. As part of the evaluation,
observers will join skimming vessels in an effort to determine effectiveness and efficiency rates.
The Team plans to develop recommendations for improving skimming operations in the MC 252
and future incidents.
001826
"Turtle Talk" Virtual Town Meeting:

The Unified Area Command and Audubon Nature Institute are co-hosting a live-streamed town
hall meeting, bringing together sea turtle experts from NOAA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Park Service to discuss the status of sea turtles affected by the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill and efforts to protect them. Participants will be able to view and participate in
the event virtually by visiting turtletalk.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com. The event will take
place from 2 3 p.m. CDT on Friday, July 16 and will be streamed live from Audubon
Aquarium of the Americas in New Orleans.
Tropical Weather on the horizon:

A large tropical wave located about 400 miles west ofthe Cape Verde Islands is moving
westward at 20 to 25 mph. Environmental conditions are expected to gradually become more
conducive for some slow development to occur over the next couple of days. There is a
10 percent chance of this system becoming a tropical cyclone during the next 48 hours.

Miami, Florida
OutHned areas denote current pOsition of systems discussed in the Tropical

Outlook. Color indicates probability of tropical cycloneformaUon within 48 hours.
c::::::J Low <30%
. . . Medium 30-50%
_
>50%
Trajectory:
Persistent onshore winds (SE/S) are forecast through Sunday with speeds of 5-15 kts. Remote
sensing imagery and overflights indicate that oil from the source is continuing to move to the
south/southeast and there is very little oil remaining to the north. However, trajectories indicate
oil from the source region may begin spreading north and west over the next few days. Observed
floating oil from today's overflights and satellite analysis is not expected to landfall within the
forecast period but scattered tarballs may continue to impact previously impacted shorelines.
001827

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:58:47 -0700
Doug Helton
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
I of 1
10/20/20 I0 11 :34 AM
001828

Report # 86: July 16,2010 1900 PDT
Me 252 DEEPWATER HORIZON Incidents, Gulf of Mexico, Major Spill Incident
Unless there is breaking news there will not be an evening report on July 17, 2010
Well Shut In, Integrity Testing Continues:

The Me 252 well has been shut down since 2:30 p.m. yesterday when well integrity tests began
using the new capping stack. Although pressure readings since that time have been less than
ideal, pressure continues to rise and as of 6 p.m. eDT today pressure was above 6700 psi.
Engineers have decided to keep the system sealed while engineers look for evidence of a leak.
Every six hours, government scientists and BP engineers will be convening to decide whether to
keep the well shut in, at the risk of creating new leaks, or open it back up. Four underwater
robots scoured the sea floor today but found no signs of new leaks. BP engineers would expect
pressures of 8,000-9,000 psi with no other leaks in the wellhead or other parts ofthe formation.
Another alternative explanation of the lower pressure readings is that the three-month spill
depleted the reservoir of oil. Regardless of whether the capping stack is effective, the relief welt
remains the ultimate solution. The reliefwell is four feet laterally and 150 feet vertically from
the target intercept but drilling has been suspended as a precaution during the integrity testing.
Floating Oil:
With the tentative shut in of the well, OR&R has received many questions about how long oil
may remain floating. Once the wellhead is fully secured, the remaining floating oil will continue
to weather and degrade. Over time this floating oil will become more widely scattered and
become less easily skimmed, burned, or dispersed. We expect that floating, recoverable oil may
persist for several weeks. After approximately a month, oil will be weathered and dispersed to
the point that at-sea response efforts and recovery equipment will likely have marginal
productivity and become impractical, but this oil may still be visible in aerial overflights and
satellite imagery. Shoreline cleanup operations will likely be required for several months or
longer, but substantial new oiling will not be an issue after approximately 4 to 6 weeks. Unless
oceanographic and weather conditions change substantially, the areas that already have been
impacted are the areas most likely to be impacted in the future. Episodic and intermittent
shoreline impacts could be possible after this time, but would most likely be in the form of
heavily weathered tarballs and tarmats. Oil stranded on shorelines or buried in beach sediments
could also be,eroded and remobilized and result in localized impacts. These episodic impacts
could persist for months, but could probably be addressed through hot-shot or rapid response
crews rather than daily cleanup operations. In the long run, tarballs from the Deepwater Horizon
could persist for years, but at levels near background for the Gulf.
In summary, we predict the following time line:
Several weeks- Floating, actionable oil at sea
Up to a Month- Floating oil where at sea recovery is possible, and where trajectory
modeling may be needed
4 to 6 weeks- Potential for daily/chronic shoreline impacts
001829
Up to 6 months- Shoreline Cleanup operations on-going to address episodic oiling
Potential for Severe Weather:

The National Hurricane Center is tracking two systems:
I. A broad area of low pressure located just east of Nicaragua continues to produce disorganized
showers and thunderstorms over a large portion of the southwestern Caribbean Sea. Significant
development of this system is not expected due to proximity to land. However ...heavy rain will
spread over portions of Central America during the next couple of days as this system moves
slowly westward. There is a low chance ... l 0 percent...ofthis system becoming a tropical
cyclone during the next 48 hours.
2. Showers and thunderstorms over the north-central Gulf of Mexico are associated with a trough
of low pressure. There are no signs of organization at this time ... and development...if any ... will
be slow to occur as the system moves generally westward at 5 to 10 mph. There is a low
chance .. .10 percent...ofthis system becoming a tropical cyclone during the next 48 hours.
Trajectories Based on Controlled Source:

ORR continues to generate near-shore trajectories and conduct overflights. As of this evening,
trajectories will be initialized based on a secured source or no more oil released from the MC
252 well head. This change will not impact the footprint or extent ofthe trajectory nor where oil
is predicted to move. It will only impact the oil concentrations and more specifically there will
be less heavy oil.
Today's trajectory:
Persistent onshore winds (SE/S) are forecast through Sunday with speeds of 10-15 kts. Remote
sensing imagery and overflights indicate that remaining surface oil is in a northeast-southwest
oriented band situated -40 miles off the Mississippi Delta. Trajectories indicate this band will
continue to spread both northward and westward over the next few days. Observed floating oil
from today's overflights and satellite analysis is not expected to landfall within the forecast
period but scattered tarballs may continue to impact previously impacted shorelines.
001830
USCG redirecting staffing:

The USCG is looking to reduce their workforce in the Gulf in order to redirect staff back to other
critical missions. They are looking for other federal agencies to provide 2500 more people by
December to support the full range of USCG functions in the response.
'A Whale' Meets With Limited Success
Taiwanese-owned "super skimmer" ship sent to help clean up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has
collected very little oil in two weeks oftests. The 1,lOO-foot (335-metre) "A Whale," an ore and
oil carrier refitted for skimming arrived in the Gulf the first week of July and began undergoing
tests, which were hampered at first by bad weather. Conditions have since improved, and the
tests have continued, but almost no oil has been collected. Under heavy surface oil conditions
the vessel owners estimated that they could collect up to 500,000 barrels (21 million gallons) of
contaminated water per day.
SCAT Surveys Continue:
This marsh shoreline had been heavily oiled. There is sorbent boom in the marsh in adjacent
areas. It is not clear whether the "mowing" of the oiled vegetation was a result ofthe storm alone
or storm + boom abrasion. The vegetation was broken off at a relatively uniform height
suggesting a "boom factor" in the process.
001831

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 201022:34:16 -0700
Nickie Lambert <Nickie.Larnbert@noaa.gov>, David Holst <David.Holst@noaa.gov>, Robert
Doug Helton
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
I of I
10/20/2010 11:35 AM
001832
NOAA Emergency Response Division (ERO)

Report # 87: July 18,20102230 PDT
Well remains shut-in:

The well capped last Thursday remains shut in but pressure readings remain lower than expected.
Engineers are focusing on two theories to explain the lower pressure: the reservoir is depleted
more than anticipated from the release, or there is damage to the well bore or casing. Testing
continues but there is some uncertainty over how long the trial shutdown will continue. Some
seepage and anomal ies have been reported near the well head and additional test conditions are
being called for by the USCG. The primary relief well is on track to reach the target depth before
the end of July and the bottom kill may occur in early August. The drilling resumed after a
temporary shut-down during the initial well integrity testing.
Floating oil dissipating:

Overflights over the well site continue to report less recoverable oil but large patches of oil are
still observed in the Gulf Approximately 615 miles of shoreline impacts have been observed,
including 352 miles in Louisiana, 1] 2 miles in Mississippi, 6p miles in Alabama, and 82 miles in
Florida.
Severe Weather:
The national hurricane
center is tracking two
low pressure systems.
The first is in the
vicinity of the
Leeward Islands. The
second is in the
Central Caribbean.
There is a low chance
of either of these
systems becoming
tropical cyclones
during the next 48
hours.
Graphical Tropical Weather Outlook.

Nallonal Hurricane Center
. FlOOds
Oulfmed areas denote cuneot position of systems discussed in the Tropica1 WBamE!fl
Outlook.. Cofot indic:;.ates probability of tropical eycIone formation within 48 hours.

c::::::J Low <30%
. . . Medium 3050%
_
High >50,%
001833
Closures
The July 13 closure remains in effect. All commercial and recreational fishing including catch
and release is prohibited in the closed area; however, transit through the area is allowed. The
current closure measures 83,927 square miles (217,371 square kilometers) and covers about 35%
of the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone.
Trajectory:
Persistent ESE to SE winds are forecast to continue through Wednesday with speeds of 10-15
kts. Satellite analysis and overflights indicate surface oil has moved west toward the Delta.
Trajectories indicate this oil will continue to spread both northward and westward over the next
few days. Observed floating oil from today's overflights indicate that the large bands of oil are
dispersing into numerous smaller bands. Satellite analysis indicated some anomalies west of the
Delta which may result in sporadic tarballs impacts between Barataria Bay and Marsh Island
during the forecast period.
001834

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 201000:07:58 -0400
To: Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>
CC: William Conner <Wi"iam.Conner@noaa.gov>, John Tarpley <john.tarpley@noaa.gov>,
Christopher S Moore <Christopher.S.Moore@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm
<Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, brian julius <Brian.Julius@noaa.gov>, Debbie Payton
<Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>, Joshua Slater <Joshua.Slater@noaa.gov>, Glen Watabayashi
<Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>, Nickie Lambert <Nickie.Lambert@noaa.gov>, David Holst
<David.Holst@noaa.gov>, Robert Haddad <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>, Peter Murphy
<Peter.Murphy@noaa.gov>, Tony Penn <Tony.Penn@noaa.gov>, Elizabeth Jones
<Elizabeth.Jones@noaa.gov>, ICC.Deputy@noaa.gov, Beth Dieveney
Please find the OR&R evening report for July 19,2010 attached.

Tel: (301) 713-2989 x109
Cell: (301) 938-7607
IDeepwater_Horizon_Rep~rt~88.Pdf:lj
lofl
10/20/2010 II: 35 AM
001835

Report # 88: July 19,2010 2345 PDT
Incident status, Day 91 :

Since last Thursday at 2:22PM CDT the MC 252 well remains shut in. Although initial pressure
readings fell within the range of concern, Source Control has continued the Well Integrity Test,
extending past the originally planned 48 hour duration. Due to sustained pressure increases (1-2
psilhour) and the absence of anomalies detected by seismic and acoustic testing, the procedure
will continue under close monitoring.
Early this morning, a small leak was discovered in vicinity of the capping stack connector. ROVs
continue to monitor the leak as well as the accumulation of hydrates on the capping stack ram
and valve assemblies. At any point should circumstances necessitate reopening the well, expect
48 - 96 hours of uncontrolled flow while valves are opened slowly to mitigate possible damage.
Before the Q4000 and Helix Producer could resume containment operations, the pressure within
the BOP must fall below 3,400 psi; currently the pressure is increasing through 6,806 psi.
Additionally the DIS Discoverer Enterprise recently deployed Top Hat #7 to the seabed, standing
by to augment containment.
Potential for Severe Weather:

One of the two tropical waves being tracked by the National Hurricane Center has dissipated
over the Yucatan Peninsula showing no signs of development in the next 48 hours. The second, a
vigorous tropical wave located over Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands continues to produce
widespread cloudiness and thunderstorms across the northern Leeward Islands. Although surface
pressures are not falling
significantly over the area
recent upper air data
indicate the system is
becoming better organized,
providing a medium
chance ... 30 percent ... of
this system becoming a
tropical cyclone during the
next 48 hours.
Fisheries Closures:
While the July 13 federal
fishery closure remains in
effect, NMFS continues to
assess the possibility of
reopening some of the closed areas along the west coast of peninsular Florida. To assist, ORR
scientists are providing detailed information regarding oil distribution and observations in this
001836
area under consideration throughout the course ofthe spill. NMFS will consider this information
in combination with field collected fish sampling data to make a decision regarding any changes
to the current closure. Continued separation of Eddy Franklin from the Loop Current has limited
the transport of oil to this region.
Florida Considers Downscaling Monitoring Observations:

Eddy Franklin continues to be separated from the Loop Current and very little oil is being
entrained in the eddy. Good news for the Florida Peninsula because the main path for oil
reaching this region is via the loop current. Under the current circulation pattern there is very low
probability of significant oil entering this pathway. With the threat of oil decreasing, the Miami
Incident Command Post is considering downscaling monitoring observations while maintaining
the capacity to rapidly mobilize.
Navy Airship Fully Operational:

On July 10, a Navy blimp airship arrived
in Gulf Shores, Alabama, from New
Orleans. The airship completed its first
full operational mission and is now
scheduled to fly twice daily, weather
permitting. The blimp airship
successfully proved its ability to collect
useful data that has aided in directing
skimmers to oil, to detect
broken/damaged boom, and to detect oildistressed wildlife. Installing a marine
band VHF radio should improve
communications with response vessels.
ERMA:
ORR's Environmental Response Management Application continues to provide invaluable
situational awareness and the common operating platform for data and information related to the
MC 252 spill. As of today ERMA offers responders more than 5,000 data layers to choose
among. The public version of the site, GeoPlatform, serves 500 layers. The ERMA application
currently supports more than 900 users and that number is growing daily.
Trajectories:
Persistent ESE and E winds are forecast to continue through Thursday with speeds of 10-20 kts.
Satellite analysis and overflights indicate surface oil has moved west toward the Delta but has
not yet crossed the convergence line associated with the Mississippi River outflow. Scattered
streamers and tar patties were also observed to the west of the Delta. With moderately strong
easterly winds in the forecast, the Delta and shorelines west to Terrebonne Bay are threatened by
shoreline contacts within this forecast period. Trajectories also indicate some oil may move
northward threatening the Chandeleur Islands.
001837

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 201000:21:12 -0400
Nickie Lambert <Nickie.Lambert@noaa.gov>, David Holst <Oavid.Holst@noaa.gov>, Robert
ICC.Oeputy@noaa.gov, dwh.staff@noaa.gov, Tom Callahan <tom.callahan@noaa.gov>
Please find the OR&R evening report for July 20, 2010 attached.
LCOR Timothy J. Gallagher, NOAA

Tel: (301) 713-2989 x109
Cell: (301) 938-7607
1 of I
10/2012010 11 :35 AM
001838

Report # 89: July 20, 2010 2345 PDT

After five days since the Well Integrity Test began, the MC252 well remains shut in. Pressure
continues to build slowly past 6840 psi beneath the capping stack at less than one psi per hour.
Geophones (vibration) and "big ears" (acoustic) sensors have been installed to augment visual
monitoring of the BOP and capping stack assembly; these sensors have detected no anomalies.
However five small leaks of methane hydrate bubbles have developed and remain under close
watch. According to BP the system was pressure tested to 15,000 psi using water and these leaks
should be no cause for concern. BP continues to conduct seismic and acoustic monitoring of the
seabed to ensure no leaks or seeps develop in the surrounding formation. The Unified Command
has agreed to move forward with another 24-hour period of testing ending mid-day tomorrow.
GORDON GUNTER will replace PISCES in seafloor acoustic mapping. When BIGELO arrives
on station next week, BP requested a two-on, one-off rotation for the three NOAA ships,
recognizing the unique capabilities our fleet offers. In addition to monitoring for new leaks and
seeps resulting from the Well Integrity Test, this effort is helping to better characterize the
natural methane seeps in this area.
BP Proposes New Hydrostatic Control Procedure

BP proposed a hydrostatic control plan as a parallel path to bottom kill toward securing oil flow
in the well. In this "static kill" procedure, the Q4000 will slowly pump weighted drilling mud
through the choke and kill manifold into the top ofthe well. Because the capping stack currently
contains the well, the heavier mud will displace oil into the reservoir until only mud fills the
bore. During the process, there is no anticipated external release of mud or oil. While this may
seem similar to the top kill approach attempted in May, the hydrostatic control plan will pump
mud much more slowly into a contained system and decrease pressure within the well. Cement
could be applied following the mud to kill the well from the top down. However BP must still
complete the relief well and execute bottom kill procedures to ensure static kill effectively
stopped the flow of oil in both the well annulus and casing. As part of its review of BP's request,
the Unified Command requires that BP must have enough driHing mud available to conduct
hydrostatic control and bottom kill. BP would not attempt static kill before the primary relief
well final casing is complete - Friday at the earliest.
Impacts of Containment Boom on Marshes:

OR&R responders estimate there could be as much as 100 miles of sorbent and containment
boom loose along the Gulf coast. This adds to growing concerns over the potential impacts of
boom stranded on marsh habitat. Some boom was staged by local parishes without consulting
agreed upon Unified Command booming strategies. As a result incident responders do not have
accurate records of some boom locations. In addition to providing shoreline treatment
recommendations for stranded boom removal, OR&R has suggested working with the parishes in
001839
order to better assess the extent

of the problem and gather
information to aid with retrieval.
Marshes are particularly
susceptible to impacts from
stranded boom. Boom has been
observed up to ISO feet into
marsh areas leaving a path of
damaged vegetation. The
impacts from boom in marshes
may be more damaging than the
direct impacts from oil.
Severe Weather Potential:

The National Hurricane Center continues to monitor a strong tropical wave located near the
Dominican Republic and extending northward over the Atlantic for a few hundred miles. This
system is producing a large area of showers and thunderstorms. Although a closed circulation
has not yet developed, there is a
high chance (70%) ofthis system
becoming a tropical depression or
storm during the next 48 hours.
Based on early model guidance,
this system may enter the Gulf
and impact response operations.
The Unified Command Hurricane
Contingency Plan bases its
demobilization strategy on time
to impact of an approaching
storm's gale force winds.
Beginning five days out response
operations will cease, followed by repositioning personnel and assets out of the storm's projected
path. Tomorrow will be a critical day as the tropical system moves within the first decision
trigger point.
Trajectories:
Persistent ESE and SE winds at 10-15 knots are forecast to continue through Thursday then
become NE on Friday. Overflights today indicate the surface oil is breaking up into numerous
patches separated by clean water - for the first time no surface oil was observed in vicinity ofthe
source. Satellite analysis and overflights indicate that the leading edge continues to move
northwestward towards the Mississippi Delta. The Delta and shorelines west of Terrebonne Bay
are threatened by shoreline contacts within this forecast period. Trajectories also indicate some
oil may move further northward threatening the Chandeleur Islands. Weather forecasts through
001840
72 hours do not predict any influences or impacts on the response area from the developing
tropical system.
New Look:
Please note an important change to the scaling of the trajectories. To
more accurately represent the decreased coverage of surface oil, the
light oil shading zone now includes distributions of less than one
percent. This captures the continued presence of oil while
simultaneously depicting reduced amounts throughout the area.
Trajectory
D Uncertainty
I:., ' Light
Medium
Heavy
x Potential
beached oil
I ::;~'
II
'
001841

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 201000:02:31 -0400
ICC.Deputy@noaa.gov, dwh.staff@noaa.gov, Tom Callahan <tom.callahan@noaa.gov>
Please find the OR&R evening report for July 21,2010 (Day 93) attached.
LCDR Timothy J. Gallagher, NOM

Tel: (301) 713-2989 x109
Cell: (301) 938-7607
:IDeepwater~Horizon_RepOrt=90.P~fl,1
loft
10/20/2010 11:35 AM
001842

Report # 90: July 21,20102345 PDT

The capping stack continues to shut in the MC252 well causing the pressure to slowly increase
past 6860 psi. Proceeding for another 24-hour period, the ongoing Well Integrity Test has
revealed no irregularities or anomalies. However with the possibility of a tropical weather system
heading toward the Gulf of Mexico, BP has ceased drilling operations and installed storm
packers into each of the two relief wells. A storm packer is a temporary device inserted into the
well bore approximately 300 feet below the BOP designed to prevent flow up or down the well
bore. Should the drilling platforms need to relocate during severe weather, the storm packer
serves as an additional barrier to protect the well and prevent release. Once the threat of severe
weather subsides, BP estimates it will require 3-4 days to remove the plug, clean the bore,
reposition the drill pipe and set and cement the final casing for the primary relief well. The
Unified Command is still reviewing BP's hydrostatic control request. If approved, BP would not
conduct static kill operations until the final casing is set and cemented.
Tropical Weather Outlook:
Currently the National
Hurricane Center is watching
two tropical systems:
e'
',~ "." .

Nalional Hurricane Center
Miami, Florida
System # 1 in the southeastern

Bahamas - showers and
thunderstorms associated with
a trough of low pressure have
increased during the past
several hours. However
thunderstorm activity remains
displaced from the trough and
data from the NOAA G-JV jet
indicate that upper-level winds
are not currently conducive for Outlined areas denote current position of systems discussed in the Tropical Weather
development but could
Outlook, Color indicates probability of tropical cyclone formation within 48 hours,
become marginally favorable
c::::::J Low <30%
. . . . . Medium 30-50%
_
High >50%
in a day or two. There is a medium chance (40% - down from 70% yesterday) ofthis system
becoming a tropical cyclone during the next 48 hours. Should the system develop, early model
guidance suggests general movement toward the MC252 response location.
System #2 in the Bay of Campeche - shower and thunderstorm activity has become a little more
concentrated in association with a broad area of low pressure. Environmental conditions appear
to be conducive for some development of the low. There is a medium chance (40%) of this
system becoming a tropical cyclone before it reaches the coast of Mexico in the next day or two.
001843
In preparation for the possibility of tropical cyclone impact to the response area, the Hurricane
Contingency Plan is being reviewed by Unified Area Command as well as ICPs Houma, Mobile
and Florida. All NOAA response personnel in Houma will meet tomorrow to discuss specific
procedures and accountability should the order be given to "release" them. With the deployment
of the storm packers in the reliefwells, BP has taken the first steps toward potential offshore
equipment demobilization, which can take up to five days for some of the vessels.
Senate Hearing on Oil Spill Research and Development:

Doug Helton, Incident Operations Coordinator for the Office of Response and Restoration
testified today at a U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee hearing.
Entitled "Turning Ideas into Action: Ensuring Effective Clean Up and Restoration in the Gulf'
the hearing focused on understanding gaps in response and restoration technology as well as how
to determine the best path forward with research and development of new technologies. In his
testimony, Doug highlighted that "Additional funding should go through organizations that can
bridge the worlds of science and spill response. The Minerals Management Service, U.S. Coast
Guard, Coastal Response Research CenterlNOAA, and the Oil Spill Recovery Institute all are
organizations that have established that bridge." Testimony from the hearing may help shape
legislation regarding research and development for spill response. Perhaps even more important
than new legislation like the Oil Spill Technology and Research Act introduced last week is the
dedicated and sustained support necessary to effectively conduct this time and rcsourcc
consuming work in the years to come.
Science Box Planning:

With the well temporarily capped, the response has time to consider the next phase: the transition
from response to restoration. The Science Box met today to discuss science planning for this new
response phase across a variety of disciplines. They have identified a few key questions that must
be answered: what is the off switch; what do we need to do; and how long do we need to do it?
For example, the submerged oil monitoring program is evaluating how to best utilize resources
including ships, equipment, and personnel based on analysis of research to date and source
containment. In addition, the Science Box is preparing to host a series of research planning
workshops addressing a variety of disciplines. The workshops will provide a forum for including
academic and scientific partners, indentifying research goals and coordinating across numerous
organizations. Seemingly each question raises five more. However the science stands at a unique
crossroads to pursue these answers. With the help of the Science Box, significant progress is
being made toward understanding the extent of the oil's impact and ensuring the science follows
the best course ahead.
Today's Trajectory:
Winds are forecast to weaken to 10 knots overnight and become easterly through Thursday.
Friday winds are forecast to be ENEINE at lO-15 knots. Today's overflights and satellite
imagery indicate the surface oil is continuing to break up into numerous patches. The leading
edge continues to move north towards the Chandeleur Islands and northwestward towards the
Mississippi Delta. The Chan de leur Islands, Breton Sound, the Mississippi Delta and shorelines
west to Terrebonne Bay are threatened by shoreline contacts within this forecast period.
001844

Date: Fri, 23 Jul 201000:50:18 -0400
ICC.Deputy@noaa.gov, dwh.staff@noaa.gov, Tom Callahan <tom.callahan@noaa.gov>
Please find the OR&R evening report for July 22,2010 attached.

Tel: (301) 713-2989 x109
Cell: (301) 938-7607
IOeePViater,......'orizon_Report_91 .pd
Iofl
fIJ
10/20/2010 II :36 AM
001845

Report # 91: July 19,2010 2345 PDT
One Week - No Oil Released:

One week ago the capping stack completely shut in the MC252 well. As a result the well has
released no oil into the Gulf of Mexico for a week. Originally scheduled to last 48 hours, the
Well Integrity Test continues, provided BP conducts visual, seismic and acoustic monitoring of
the BOP, capping stack and surrounding seabed and routinely reports the results to the Unified
Command. Additionally BP received authorization to complete preparations to hydrostatically
control the well. Before executing static kill operations, the Unified Command will conduct a
final review and approval of the procedure.
The increasing confidence in the capping stack's ability to contain the well comes at an
opportune time, because tonight ADM (ret) Allen announced the decision to relocate Source
Control assets out of harm's way with Tropical Storm Bonnie approaching the spill zone. BP
already initiated preparations yesterday by installing storm packers into the relief wells.
Beginning this evening, they will start disconnecting and moving the drilling rigs and other
response vessels to safety. The capping stack will remain in place with the well completely shut
in. In order to maximize
monitoring of the well,
vessels operating the ROVs
will be the last to leave and
the first to return. BP is
also determining how to
record well integrity data
with no vessels on scene.
BP estimates a total
schedule setback of 10-12
days in the wake ofTS
Bonnie.
Tropical Storm Bonnie

Tracks toward MC252:
At 6: 15PM EDT the
reclassified Tropical
Depression Three as
Potential Track Area:
Watches:
Tropical Storm Bonnie
Trop.Storm
c:::::,..Oayl-3 a
Day~
Hurricane
based on 40 mph winds
observed during a hurricane reconnaissance mission. The official NHC forecast predicts that TS
Bonnie will track toward the MC252 response area and go ashore on the Mississippi Delta early
001846
Sunday morning. Initial intensity forecasts indicate that TS Bonnie will remain a tropical storm
during the transit over the Gulf.
After weeks of reviewing the Hurricane Contingency Plan, the Unified Area Command has
initiated relocation procedures for all response vessels. Currently UAC NOLA, ICP Houma, and
ICP Mobile plan to shelter in place; Venice, LA will evacuate tomorrow. OR&R personnel are
verifying the accuracy of the security badge database to ensure accountability for all deployed
NOAA and contracted personnel. Should any of the command posts decide to evacuate, essential
personnel will be retained and nonessential personnel released.
NOAA to Reopen One-Third of Closed Gulf Fishing Area:

NOAA reopened 26,388 square miles of Gulf waters to commercial and recreational fishing
today. The reopening ofa third of the overall closed area was announced after consultation with
FDA and under a reopening protocol agreed to by NOAA, the FDA, and the Gulf states. Since
mid-June, NOAA data have shown no oil in the area. Plus United States Coast Guard overflights
of this area in the last 30 days have observed no oil. Additionally, trajectory models show the
area is at a low risk for future exposure to oil due to the separation of Eddy Franklin from the
Loop Current and the southern retreat of the Loop Current. Most importantly, fish caught in the
area and tested by NOAA
experts have shown no signs of
contamination. At its closest
point, the reopened area is about
190 miles southeast of the
MC252 wellhead. Along
the west Florida shelf where the
majority of fishing will occur is
nearly 220 miles from the
wellhead.
Deepwater Rapid-Response
. System Being Developed:
Four of the world's largest oil
companies Exxon Mobil,
Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell. and
ConocoPhillips are forming a
joint venture to design, build and
operate a rapid-response system to capture and contain up to 100,000 barrels of oil a day flowing
10,000 feet below the surface of the sea. Consisting of several oil-collection ships and an array of
subsurface containment equipment, the new system resembles the one developed by BP during
the three month attempt to stop the MC 252 well. Taking an estimated 18 months to construct,
the companies have designed the containment system to deal with well blowouts, making it
compatible with the wide variety of equipment found in the deepwater Gulf. Deployable at all
times, a response team would be able to start mobilizing within 24 hours of an oil spill; fully in
place within weeks.
001847
Other Tropical Weather:

Showers and thunderstorms associated with the broad area of low pressure in the western Gulf
are beginning to move over eastern
Mexico. As a result, additional
development ofthe low is not
likely, leaving a low chance (10%)
of the system becoming a tropical
cyclone in the next 48 hours.
Today's Trajectory:
Winds are forecast to be ENE on
Friday at 10- 15 knots, and then
begin increasing as TS Bonnie
moves into the north central Gulf.
On Saturday, winds are forecast to
be ElSE at 20-30 knots then
decrease on Sunday to 10-15 knots.
Today's overflights and aerial
Outlook, Cofor indicates probability of tropical cyclone formation within 48 hours.
imagery indicate the surface oil is
c::J Low <30%
_Medium 30-50%
_
High >50%
continuing to break up into
numerous patches. Trajectories indicate the leading edge to the north will continue to move
northwestward into Breton Sound and towards the Chandeleur Islands. Oil moving westward
around the Mississippi Delta is collecting in the convergence line associated with the fresh water
outflow this oil will continue moving westward threatening the Delta and shorelines west to
Caillou Bay.
001848

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 201000:23:01 -0400
Please find the OR&R evening report for July 23,2010 attached. Unless there is breaking
news there will not be an evening report on July 24, 2010.

Tel: (301) 713-2989 x109
Cell: (301) 938-7607
I of I
10/20/201011:36 AM
001849

Report # 92: July 23, 2010 2345 PDT
Me 252 DEEPWATER HORIZON Incidents, Gulf of Mexico, Major Spill Incident
Tropical Depression Bonnie Approaches:

The National Hurricane Center forecasts TD Bonnie to be a 35-knot storm as it approaches the
MC252 well location Saturday afternoon. Already a majority of the response vessels have sought
safe harbors to ride out the storm and the Source Control vessels have begun relocating out of
harm's way. With the well shut
in and the flow of oil into the
Gulf stopped for more than a
week, what can be expected as
the storm transits through the
response area?
Oil currently on the surface has
already "weathered" at least
seven days with lighter
components of the oil
evaporating. During the past
week, overflights have observed
decreasing volume and coverage
while distribution of oil
continues to spread, echoing
satellite imagery and reflected in
~Hurrlclne .
Trop.Storm
trajectories. High winds and seas
associated with TS Bonnie will distribute and "weather" the remaining oil further. Currently the
forecasted northwestward track should keep TS Bonnie north ofthe MC252 well location
creating offshore flow as the storm passes over much of the oiled waters. As a result winds will
most likely distribute the oil away from land over the Gulf and waves should break up large
slicks into tarballs and disperse
some into the water column.
However should the track
forecast shift further west and
cause TS Bonnie to pass to the
south, onshore winds would be
present over most of the oiled
area pushing oil towards shore.
Combined with a possible tidal
surge of2-5 feet, wind and water
could carry oil, boom and
contaminated debris above the
001850
high tide line and into the interior marshes and upper beaches. Additionally, wave action from
the 8-11 foot seas could bury oil beneath the sand in some locations as occurred during
Hurricane Alex and cause significant beach erosion in others.
Overall, TS Bonnie is a low energy, fast moving storm with a relatively small footprint that may
dissipate much of the remaining oil without severely impacting coastal communities as it comes
ashore tomorrow afternoon.
Unified Command Prepares for TD Bonnie:
The Unified Area Command began executing its Hurricane Contingency Plan as TS Bonnie
came ashore near Miami this morning with gusty winds and rain showers. All ICP Miami
personnel were directed to remain at home. As TS Bonnie weakened into a tropical depression
and emerged into the Gulf, ICPs Houma and Mobile are making final preparations for TD
Bonnie's arrival. Minimizing field operations tomorrow, none are scheduled for Sunday. Many
non-essential workers have been evacuated from the spill site. Only essential "retained"
personnel have been directed
to report to ICP Houma on
Sunday. Through the SSCs,
OR&R will maintain
accountability for NOAA
personnel assigned to various
command posts throughout
this storm event.
Most of the Source Control

vessels are scheduled to leave
the MC252 well location by
tonight. Response ships
collecting seismic and acoustic
data, plus those operating the
ROV s monitoring the capped
well would be the last to leave, and could stay behind if seas do not become too rough. If fully
evacuated, BP will leave hydrophones
at the base of the well to enable
continued monitoring for anomalies.
Additionally, BP has coordinated with
Admiral Zukunft to fly Coast Guard
aircraft to check for any leakage or
seepage at the surface as was reported
today by a NOAA observer.
Reestablishing primary relief well
operations will be the highest priority
after the TD Bonnie passes. BP must
finish the final casing run, the last step
before drilling into the annulus to begin
the bottom kill process. The casing run
001851
is also required to stabilize the relief well bore so BP can conduct the static kill from the top
which will enhance the ability to accomplish the bottom kill and secure the well.
Sea Turtle Protection Efforts Continne:

To ensure that sea turtle hatchlings on Florida beaches do not encounter oil from the MC252
incident, the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, US Fish & Wildlife Service and
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service are relocating nests today in Franklin, Okaloosa, Gulf
and Bay Counties. Nest excavations have been occurring on Northwest Florida and Alabama
Gulf coasts this past month and could continue throughout the summer. Because of the
tremendous risks involved with nest relocations and no more oil being released into the Gulf, the
trustee organizations in Sector Mobile are reevaluating this procedure. Allowing the nests to
remain may be a better solution if the well remains secured
Second Federal Analysis on Subsurface Oil Sampling Released:
The National Incident Command Joint Analysis Group (JAG), comprised of representatives from
NOAA, EPA and the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy released its second
peer-reviewed, analytical summary report about subsurface oil monitoring in the Gulf of Mexico.
The JAG report contains preliminary data collected at 227 sampling stations extending from one
to 52 kilometers from the MC252 wellhead. Additionally the report provides the data analyses of
fluorometric measurements and comments on the methods used to monitor dissolved oxygen
levels. Most importantly the data show that the movement of subsurface oil is consistent with
ocean currents and that concentrations continue to be more diffuse as you move away from the
source. This confirms the findings of the JAG's previous report. Although the JAG reports have
improved understanding ofthe subsurface oil and it transport, additional data collection,
monitoring and analyses are required to completely characterize the composition and behavior of
the subsurface plume.
2010 Island Aid Festival Saturday on Grand Isle:
Despite TD Bonnie approaching
and oil still in the sand, Grand
Isle plans to hold a nine hour
music festival tomorrow. Called
2010 Island Aid, the festival will
raise money to shore up Grand
Isle's economy. With
mechanical sand cleaners only
cosmetically cleaning the sand,
parts of the beach were reopened
to the public. SCAT teams in the
field today noted that tarballs
had not been completely
removed and were still washing
ashore. However that did not
deter the beachgoers from using
the beach and entering the water.
It reinforces the question, "How
clean is clean?"
Cherrington beach cleaners on Grand Isle.

Photo: Amy Holman
001852
Trajectories:
Winds and seas will be increasing Friday night as TD Bonnie moves into the region. Maximum
winds by late Saturday are forecast to be 30-40 knots (from NE then SW). Winds on SundayMonday are forecast to be SE from 10-20 knots. Today's overflights and aerial imagery indicate
the surface oil is continuing to break up into numerous patches. Trajectories indicate the leading
edge to the north will continue to move northwestward into Breton Sound and towards the
Chandeleur Islands. Oil moving westward around the Mississippi Delta is collecting in the
convergence line associated with the fresh water outflow this oil will continue moving
westward threatening the Delta and shorelines west to Caillou Bay.
OR&R Evening Report for July 26
001853
Subject: OR&R Evening Report for July 26

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 201000:34:24 -0400
Please find attached the OR&R evening report for July 26, 2010.

Tel: (301) 713-2989 x109
Cell: (301) 938-7607
ofl
10/20/201011:36 AM
001854

Report # 94: July 26, 2010 2345 PDT
Source Control:
After ten days the capping stack continues to contain the MC252 well with increasing pressure in
excess of 6920 psi. The ongoing Well Integrity Test has not reported any seismic, acoustic or
visual anomalies with the BOP/capping stack assembly or in the surrounding formation. All
Source Control vessels have returned on station following Tropical Depression Bonnie's transit
through the area.
The Development Driller III completed running the riser and latching to the Lower Marine Riser
Package of the primary relief well. Next the DD III must remove the storm packer and condition
the hole before setting and cementing the final casing. The Development Driller II is in the
process of redeploying its riser for the backup relief well. However after it removes the storm
plug and prepares the well bore, it will not recommence drilling pending the results of the
primary relief well and the Static and Bottom Kill procedures. Additionally, BP continues
preparing the Q4000 for Static Kill while the Unified Command scientific team began reviewing
the detailed Static Kill procedures. Following inspection of the "yellow pod" this weekend, BP
repositioned this electronic and hydraulic control head back onto the MC252 BOP. If all
progresses according to the revised schedule, Static Kill could begin as early as August 4th.
Reopening Plan for Closed Fisheries Areas:

With the oil leak capped and surface oil degrading, NMFS is considering how to best manage the
reopening process for the fishery closure area currently 57,539 square miles or about 24% of the
Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone. To help expedite sampling required as part of the
reopening process, NMFS has proposed employing Vessels of Opportunity (VOO) to assist the
seafood surveillance program. These vessels would expand capacity to conduct fish sampling for
toxicity testing, a requirement ofthe reopening protocols. Together with the Unified Command,
NMFS is working through budget estimates, observer requirements and issues related to properly
decontaminating VOOs previously involved in oil clean up. Because many VOOs have been
fouled by oil to varying degrees, catch contamination and false positives could occur during the
seafood sampling process. Incorporating VOOs may take more than a week to get started, but
could provide a significant boost to seafood surveillance capacity and local economies as well as
facilitate reopening of safe fishing areas.
TarbaU and Submerged Oil Monitoring Plans:
As the surface oil continues to "weather" and break up into smaller patches, OR&R responders
are working with the Unified Command to develop monitoring strategies for tarballs and near
shore submerged oil. In general with the well already shut in for ten days, the threat of oil
reaching shorelines continues to decrease. Monitoring for any remaining oil in the form of
tarballs or potential submerged oil will inform responders and local communities when the threat
of new oiling has reduced to below background. Monitoring plans will likely incorporate various
001855
strategies already used in the MC 252 response and past spills. For example, OR&R scientist
Alan Mearns developed a surface water tar ball surveillance program which defines sampling
protocols using neuston net tows. By determining tar weight per net tow, one can predict how
much mass is exists, and ultimately
net tow for tiger-tail tarballs in the Loop Current
the level of beach cleanup response
aul Joyce-June 2010
required. Also the LOOP Terminal
in Louisiana implemented a
submerged oil sentinel program
mainly to assure transport vessels
that submerged oil would not foul
intakes, ballast and pumps below
their waterlines. The unified
command may adopt and adapt these
strategies to other Gulf Coast
regions and incorporate into plans as
appropriate. The Unified Area
Command would like to coordinate
the monitoring efforts across the
entire response area as a long term
means of assuring local
communities there is minimal threat
of new MC252 oiling.
Trajectories:
Onshore (predominantly SSE/S/SE) winds
are forecast to continue through Wednesday
with speeds of 5-1 0 knots, then become
WINW by Thursday. Satellite imagery
indicates the surface oil is continuing to
break up into smaller scattered patches.
Observations from overflights indicate these
patches are predominantly light sheens
containing little recoverable oil. Moderate
onshore winds during this forecast period
may bring some remaining oil ashore - the
Mississippi and Alabama barrier islands, the
Chandeleur Islands, Breton Sound, the
Mississippi Delta and shorelines west to
Caillou Bay continue to be threatened by
scattered shoreline contacts within this
forecast period.
Oily coffee grounds on EImers Island.
Photo: Doug Helton
001856

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 201000:34:21 -0400
Please find attached the OR&R evening report for July 27,2010.

Tel: (301) 713-2989 x109
Cell: (301) 938-7607
!Deepwater_Horizon_Report_95.pdf
lofl
10/20/2010 11:37 AM
001857

Report # 95: July 26,20102345 PDT
Source Control:
Twelve days after the capping stack shut offthe flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, the MC252
well continues to remain secure, stable and demonstrate integrity. Pressure is still increasing now
holding more than 6935 psi. The Geco Topaz completed two seismic runs today. The NOAA
Pisces operating within a 1500 meter radius of the well plus the NOAA Gordon Gunter working
beyond that inner circle are conducting comprehensive acoustic mapping of the BOP and
capping stack assembly and the surrounding seabed. The seismic and acoustic data are helping
to create a complete three-dimensional visualization of the strata within the formation
particularly as it relates to well integrity.
Yesterday the Development Driller III completed redeployment of the riser and reconnecting to
the lower marine riser package ofthe primary relief wei I. Currently the riser is being vented of
seawater and displaced with drilling mud and a 24-hour BOP test is underway. Upon successful
completion of that routine procedure, the storm packer inserted prior to Tropical Depression
Bonnie's arrival will be removed and conditioning ofthe well performed. Setting and cementing
the final casing could potentially begin tomorrow. Simultaneously final preparations continue on
the Q4000 to ready systems for a Static Kill attempt as early as August 2nd ,
For the third successive day overflights ofthe source reported similar conditions: observation of
more than two dozen small, circular patches of silver and rainbow sheens. The pattern and
distribution of the smaller sheens suggests oil droplets rising to the surface from a subsurface
source. The droplets drift together and appear to coalesce into small 1 kilometer x 10 meter)
cohesive slicks consisting of silver, rainbow and dull colored sheens. Several of the sheens had
less than one percent emulsified oil. Potentially the result of reconnecting all ofthe source
control vessels, overflights will continue to monitor this phenomenon and report changes.
Photos depicting oil blossoming and sheening in vicinity of the source. Pbotos: USCG P02 Del Valle
001858
Mud Lake Well Head Rupture:

Early this morning, the dredge barge Captain
Buford pushed by TN Pere Ana C collided with
the abandoned Cedyco Corporation natural gas
wellhead SL 8357 Number 1 well (SN 170436).
The collision occurred while the tug and barge
combination exited Mud Lake into the Barataria
Waterway between Lafitte and Grand Isle,
Louisiana. As a result of the impact, the well is
discharging natural gas mixed with light crude
oil 50-100 feet into the air at an unknown rate. It
may take 1-2 days to cap the leak. Responders
deployed approximately 6,000 feet of boom
around the facility and initial over flights have
been conducted. The Coast Guard established a
two mile safety perimeter around the spill area
which not only restricted response vessel traffic
using the Barataria Waterway but also limited
NRDA oyster sampling in the area. Already
Mud Lake ruptured well head.
there are concerns that impacts from the new oil
Photo: WWLTV
may be difficult to differentiate from MC 252
impacts further complicating damage
assessment. Sector New Orleans established a separate response for this incident. The Seattle
home team is already providing trajectory support through Charlie Henry, the SSC on scene.
USCG Staffing Relief Request on Hold:

USCG decided to put on hold a request for other federal agencies to relieve 1200-2500 USCG
Gulf response support positions. The original request was made before BP had successfully
capped the well and scheduled the kill operations. USCG will reevaluate resource demands postkill to determine if they still need additional help. While many federal agencies are staffing spill
operations, the USCG has allocated the most resources. Certain USCG core functions have been
significantly understaffed in order to fulfill spill demands. However, those reduced levels cannot
be sustained long term.
Louisiana Coastal Fisheries Reopening Process:

Representatives from NOAA, FDA, and the State of Louisiana met today to discuss the process
for reopening parts to Louisiana State and possibly some Federal waters to specific types of
fishing. The State areas under consideration are just east of the Mississippi Delta. NOAA
agreed to target overflights in the fisheries closure areas in order to provide up to date
information on the presence of oil. In addition for areas under consideration, the FDA and the
State agreed to send NOAA an e-mail to request information on current oil and shoreline threats
as well as a projection for the next 72 hours. This information will factor into the reopening
process for state and federal waters. NOAA is focused on minimizing the potential for reopening
state waters that are likely to be re-oiled and match the federal and state reopening procedures to
the greatest extent possible. Above all else the goal remains to ensure that all seafood caught in
Federal and State waters is safe to consume.
001859
Trajectories:
Winds are forecast to be SE at 5-10 knots tonight, then become offshore (NEINW) by
Wednesday afternoon. NW winds at 5-15 knots are forecast to continue through Saturday.
Satellite imagery indicates the surface oil is continuing to break up into smaller scattered
patches. Observations from overflights indicate these patches are predominantly light sheens
with little recoverable oil seen. Moderate onshore winds overnight may bring some remaining oil
ashore, however, potential shoreline impacts will begin to be reduced by the offshore winds and
natural dispersion of remaining floating oil. The Mississippi/Alabama barrier islands, the
Chandeleur Islands, Breton Sound, the Mississippi Delta and shorelines west to Point Au Fer
continue to be threatened by scattered tarball impacts within this forecast period.
OR&R Evening Report for July 28 - Day 100!
001860
Subject: OR&R Evening Report for July 28 - Day 100!

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:26:43 -0400
Please find attached the OR&R evening report for Day 100 - July 28,2010.

Tel: (301) 713-2989 x109
Cell: (301) 938-7607
1 of I
10/20/2010 1I:37 AM
001861

Report # 96: July 28, 2010 2345 PDT

100 Days of Gulf Spill:
Within two hours and fourteen minutes of initial notification ofthe explosion aboard the
Deepwater Horizon MODU, ERD issued its first of many spill trajectory maps. From that point,
OR&R has remained continuously mobilized throughout the first 100 days ofthis response
providing scientific expertise that enables response operations to anticipate where the oil is going
and to predict what areas could be impacted. The efforts ofOR&R personnel have helped federal
response coordinators more effectively deploy resources to minimize damage and protect highly
sensitive ecosystems and wildlife habitats. The continuous release for 87 days from the MC 252
well 5,000 feet deep in the Gulf of Mexico challenged many response paradigms. By applying
new and fresh perspective to traditional methodology, OR&R developed unique science based
solutions to solve the complex problems resulting from this dynamic incident. At every turn, for
each question answered several new ones are asked. Ultimately the fundamental drive to answer
each of these questions has expanded our understanding of response related science.
In recognition of NOAA's total support of the Deepwater Horizon spill, NOAA launched a new
website which highlights activities and contributions to date. The site entitled, Deepwater
HorizonlBP Oil Spill: 100 Days - A Snapshot of NOAA IS Response, highlights NOAA
accomplishments across the agency in areas including science, ecosystem damage, seafood
safety and wildlife habitat protection.
Source Control:
On day 100 the MC252 well released no oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The capping stack
continues to shut in the well behind increasing pressure of more than 6945 psi. Source Control
successfully completed the 24-hour test ofthe primary reliefwell BOP. The storm packer has
been removed and the well is being conditioned. Once complete the final casing will be set and
cemented. Preparations continue on the Q4000 to ready it for Static Kill operations to begin by
as early as next Monday. Bottom Kill through the primary reliefwell could occur as soon as
August ih.
Trajectories May End Soon:
With the stacking cap still in place, the MC252 well has released no oil for nearly two weeks.
Additionally with the prospect of static and bottom kill operations commencing soon, the amount
of oil on the surface should continue to decline. As surface oil decreases there becomes a
decreasing need for OR&R trajectory maps. OR&R scientists are working with other response
agencies to determine when to phase out trajectories altogether. SCAT teams have already
transitioned to daily shoreline overflights to guide their efforts. Because the distribution of the
larger patches of oil has spread into tarball fields which are not modeled in the trajectories, onwater surface oil clean up operations rely less on trajectories to identify recoverable oil.
001862
Based on predetermined end point criteria, the trajectories and associated overflights could be
phased out as early as next week. Working with NOAA public affairs, OR&R will help develop
messaging to manage the expectations of an audience who has grown accustomed to regular
trajectory updates. The press release will highlight that oil monitoring will transition to new
approaches more suited to tarballs. Specifically, OR&R in coordination with Area Command is
developing a tarball monitoring program for nearshore areas to help determine the location of
tarballs, how to best recover them, and the threat they pose to shorelines. Should the source
begin to release oil again, OR&R would be prepared to immediately restart trajectories.
Potentially, overflights may continue longer than trajectory forecasts. In recognition of the
expertise of NOAA aerial oil observers, the Area Command transition plan specifically
identifies the end point for overflights as when a "NOAA-trained observer does not report oil on
the water for three consecutive days." This criterion will also be a primary factor in
discontinuing the trajectories. The following note appears in tonight's trajectory: Significantly
less oil is currently being observed on overflights. The Surface Oil Forecast will be suspended
once there have been three days in a row of no significant recoverable oil observed.
Today's Trajectories:
Winds are forecast to become NW overnight and continuing through Saturday at speeds of 5-15
knots. Observations from overflights indicate the remaining scattered "anomalies" observed by
remote sensing are predominantly light sheens with very little recoverable oil being observed.
With light winds and calm seas today, many of these anomalies were also confirmed to be false
positives. Patches of emulsified oil and sheens were observed to the west of the Delta nearshore
offTimbalier and Barataria Bays. Shoreline impacts will begin to be reduced by the offshore
winds, however, trajectories indicate Breton Sound, the Mississippi Delta and shorelines west to
Timbalier Bay continue to be threatened by scattered impacts within this forecast period.
...... Op W.t.r Horizon
. . , b!;~tc tOt;t l'EJOO, 1/22110No.u/BAZftAT (20ti) 5'26-'(911
Prepe.nO: no., 4/Z1/10
I!!IIIt.inlaU,s ar~ based :011' tbe l(li:~lJt t'lwll$ble 1-t:ltornltiol\. Pll!!MI!!

"he tt!:lj:c(:t.Qry IUUl.lye1# britt!'!!)" o.ml your SO'iCDti:fic Support Coordinator
1"M'$1!
I"";:,,:":~':::d:intor'll:e.t;ion.
111
\WI
Thj:J OtU'.plolt.
NOAAINOIllOR&R
IN......ho'" I
l!.lttirMlffot: I,lOOCDT.Salllniay, 1131/10
[>aN 1''''_0: 2000 (Tn; \\Odn.=;d.y. 7'2g!1O
Thl<f~"boMdmtJ&M'IS~tlr~_lTronV.~.JlItybl:PM.elll~wa"II~iI~fh:H; ~......w.(NOMoC,riMiM.lffi,"'_tFIOOa.
:tor
l!Iholl~ e~thlllt.t.ed d1.0tccibtu.iol>' ot hcvy,

lUI OU1:.er eOMldl:fl1: UtUIL 'Tli:
cOEWentret:1ol1' AS ftll U
Nearshore
Surface Oil Forecast
Deepwater Horizon MC252
......
._.
$hd.M:J:U:'tULCVf.\Ml}.NAVO'h1tJ.)-.dnFRnJO_urnm... 1"btItl\il4rl_~1hnIT~"'('drIDldI!J'~hin1llllG}.~, .. NO.', .....~PlS)~

~~<MIiOOl- tbt~~lTM1fA'l"inW1lt.UfIIl.lf'flt(lJl':tI6iiY.t.fa'V~IkJp.r ~.hcnc"nIntWcdjn!htlMddiMI.linl'(oI!(l..Oil,,"r
bayinkt.-(Wld~~u..tt.lb:J!. t>rkultlo.W~
--
1i!IiID_
--~--+_------~------~-4~-=
zer'N
'"r" -----t---+"'-_-.~+----:::::
:lI:8'>SON=:=:-::-=;'::-:==-:::-;;T::;-::;-;-:=:::-t-!--------!-------,
.t.Dal~1:1 b~ed 011 t:tlJl.tinuo\l.$ l$pil1 of oil :;tart.lDg
1'rOll> 4/20{10-ZZ00 CDT,
<::Ul:r~tits U~
tr(.llp N011 Gulf ot Itextco IlIOctel.
(;e~20'H !,;;vt;,;;_;,;"";;;.",;;f<;;;;""~""';;;;,;;;
;;;;;".;;;;
..;;;
=,,===='-=+_===+_=__I
e9~C'
Ii!
~'UfOrcca'it;
July 29th P~;I
001863

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 201005:32:30 -0400
Please find attached the OR&R evening report for July 29.

Tel: (301) 713-2989 x109
Cell: (301) 938-7607
IDeepwater...t-t()~izon ~Rf)Port_97.
loft
pcif:rl
10/20/2010 11:37 AM
001864

Report # 97: July 29,20102345 PDT
Source Control:
After two weeks the stacking cap still prevents oil from the MC252 well from flowing into the
Gulf of Mexico. Pressure continues to build past 6955 psi at a rate of approximately Y2 psi per
hour. The well exhibits all signs of having integrity alleviating some initial concerns that a
ruptured bore was releasing oil into the formation and causing the lower-than-expected
pressures. Consensus is growing between BP and the science team that reservoir depletion during
87 days of unchecked flow may have reduced pressures at the well head. Source Control
continues to seismically, acoustically and visually monitor the BOP/capping stack assembly plus
the surrounding formation with no anomalies detected. A BOP leak causing hydrate formation
remains under constant watch.
With conditioning of the primary relief well nearly complete, Source Control will most likely
begin setting and cementing the final casing tomorrow. Once the cement has dried, drilling
toward the Bottom Kill intercept point will resume. Meanwhile preparations continue on the
Q4000 for Static Kill operations. Pending reliefwell casing installation and final approval by the
science team, Static Kill could start as soon as Sunday by pumping heavy drilling mud through
the choke side of the well.
What Surface Oil Remains:

With the well shut in for two weeks the surface oil continues to spread and "weather." Following
Tropical Depression Bonnie, much ofthe remaining surface oil has collected in convergence
zones or rip lines south of the IH1;;);;)1;;)"1If.lI-'1
observed bands, streamers and
pancakes of emulsified oil, as
well as sheens and scattered
tarball fields throughout the
area south of Barataria and
Timbalier Bays. Skimmers in
that area focus attention on
what may be the last
recoverable oil remaining.
Within the reach of its flight
path, the Mobile overflight
had difficulty locating any oil
today. Although the source
has been secured, daily
overflights of the MC252 well
VOO in convergence oil
location still report oil
Photo: NOAA Simecek~Beatty
blossoming and coalescing
001865
into a cohesive slick about

Yz mile long by 100 yards
wide. Initially suspected to
be the result of
reconnecting Source
Control vessels to
subsurface containment
and control systems after
TD Bonnie, the exact
cause of this phenomenon
is still unknown. Other
possible sources: scraping
and cleaning hydrates
from subsea equipment,
release of diesel from the
submerged Deepwater
Horizon MODU or the release of oil from damaged original riser. BP will investigate further.
Meeting with the Parish Presidents:

As the response looks ahead toward a transition to recovery and restoration, ADM Allen and
SSC Steve Lehmann met with the Louisiana Governor and Parrish Presidents to start shaping a
plan forward. The Unified Command is soliciting their input to create a transition plan that will
adequately satisfY the needs of those communities heavily hit by this oil spill. In addition to
transition plans, the hurricane response and area contingency plans will be revisited as part of
this process. When TD Bonnie threatened the area, local communities feared that relocated
response equipment would not return after the storm passed leaving them to fend for themselves.
Allowing communities to participate in planning should foster an increased awareness of the
response decision making process and permit concerns to be addressed beforehand. Additionally,
from recovery perspective, the communities will have an opportunity to determine the best use of
local assets and resources complete the rebuilding process. In other words by helping to create
their respecti~e paris? transition
plans, the parIshes WIll be able to
Florida
facilitate their own recovery.

The National Hurricane Center
identified two new tropical weather
systems which are being monitored
for potential development. First an
area of disorganized cloudiness,
showers and a few thunderstorms
associated with a tropical wave is
moving westward over the
Windward Islands. NHC expects
any development of this system to
be slow and provides a low chance
(10%) ofit becoming a tropical
Outlined areas denote curren! position of systems discussed in the Tropical Weather
c=:J Low <30%
1!1!11/111!!1 Medium 30-50%
_
High >50%
001866
cyclone during the next 48 hours. Secondly an area of disturbed weather (AL90) is located over
the eastern Atlantic about 700 miles southwest of the Cape Verde Islands With limited signs of
organization and development it receives a low chance (20%) of becoming a tropical cyclone in
the next two days.
Trajectories:
Winds are forecast to have an offshore component tonight and tomorrow (WNW/NW) with
speeds of 10-15 knots, then become westerly late Friday and into Saturday at 5-10 knots.
Onshore (SWIS) winds are forecast for Sunday at 5-10 knots. Observations from overflights
indicate the remaining scattered "anomalies" observed by remote sensing are predominantly light
sheens with very little recoverable oi I being observed. Patches of emu lsified oil and sheens were
observed to the west of the Delta, nearshore offTimbalier Bay and Barataria Bay. Shoreline
impacts will continue to be reduced by the offshore winds however, trajectories indicate
potential impacts on the west side of the Mississippi Delta due to the westerly component of the
winds. As a reminder: because significantly less oil is currently being observed on overflights the
Surface Oil Forecast will be suspended once there have been three days in a row of no significant
recoverable oil observed.
001867

Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:32:50 -0400
Please find attached the OR&R evening report for July 30.

Tel: (301) 713-2989 x109
Cell: (301) 938-7607
lofl
1012012010 11:38 AM
001868
NOAA Emergency Response Division (ERO)

Report # 98: July 30, 2010 2345 PDT
Source Control:
For more than two weeks the capping stack has shut in the MC252 well. Confidence remains
high that the well has integrity. All acoustic, seismic and visual monitoring suggest no anomalies
within the BOP-capping stack assembly or in the surrounding formation. Pressure continues to
build slowly past 6965 psi behind the three rams. Overall news continues to be encouraging.
In the primary relief well approximately 46 feet of well fill must be removed and the bore
conditioned before the casing can be set. By Saturday or Sunday BP may be ready to run the
final casing. In the meantime, the Q4000 has completed all the preparations for Static Kill
operations. The science team continues to review the Static Kill procedures and collected data approval must still be granted before operations can begin. Based on delays of casing the relief
well, the soonest Static Kill could start is August 3rd
Field Observations:
Houma SSC Ed Levine deployed to the field today to inspect cleanup operations following
reports of damages to mangroves during stranded boom removal. According to his observations
he witnessed no discrepancies "Nothing negative to report." He commented that crews
removed boom according to Shoreline Treatment Recommendations. In other areas deployed
boom was being tended to correctly. Unfortunately the actions of one crew not following
procedures may have caused unnecessary damage to the mangroves. Additionally it called into
question whether or not the procedures were being followed. In reaction, Operations is making
each crew demonstrate proficiency in its assigned tasks (specifically, stranded boom removal)
before permitting it to reenter the field. Overall crews appear to be following the proper
procedures.
Transition Planning and Demobilization:

Transition plans have become a primary topic of discussion at every level throughout the Unified
Command. The installation of the capping stack and the subsequent securing of oil flow into the
Gulfwas a significant milestone in the response. As the remaining surface oil continues to
spread, "weather," dissipate and come ashore, the need for on-water assets diminishes
considerably. In recognition of expert calibrated eyes, Operations in Mobile is using NOAA
overflight observers to help define end points for on water skimming operations. Using a
comprehensive flight pattern to survey the waters within its AOR, Mobile plans to secure the
open-water portion of the response following three days of "No Recoverable Oil Observed."
Based on observations for the past two days, the determination may occur following tomorrow's
flight. Similar to other areas, vessels will not be demobilized until after the well is completely
secured with the Bottom Kill.
001869
Revisions to the End of Trajectories:

As part of the scientific support provided to the Deepwater Horizon Response, the Emergency
Response Division produces several different analysis products that have become primary tools
for responders within the Unified Command and decision-makers throughout various levels of
government. Most notably the Near Shore Trajectory Maps, but also products like the Loop
Current Status and Shoreline Outlook Maps are used for a variety of operational purposes. ERD
will continue producing these products as long as they are needed to support operations. In
general, the Unified Area Command should make that determination. However, Agency
Principles must also be confident that the transition process gives the stakeholders, clients and
users of the information, as well as the public adequate time and information to accept the
change and accommodate the transition.
ERD will coordinate with UAC to develop a mutually agreed upon recommendation for phase
out timing, criteria and approach for the operational products. Additionally all products will be
labeled with a message indicating their conditional future: Product will be discontinued when no
longer needed to support operations. A press release will announce the end of operational
necessity of these products and provide a specific termination date. It will also provide an
opportunity to highlight the accomplishments ofthe response so far and celebrate the transition
from on-water operations to shoreline cleanup. Not to mean that the response is over, but to
indicate the next important phase is underway cleaning and remediating the shorelines. ERD
will also emphasize that the products can be restarted should circumstances require.

The National Hurricane Center continues to monitor two tropical weather systems each with a
low chance (20%) of tropical cyclone development during the next 48 hours. Since yesterday the
first tropical wave moved westward past the Windward Islands and is now located over the
southeastern and south-central Caribbean Sea. It continues to produce disorganized showers and
a few thunderstorms. NHC
expects little development of
this system until it reaches the
southwestern Caribbean Sea
in the next few days. Should it
develop, that system could
potentially impact Static &
Bottom Kill efforts late next
week. The second area of
interest consists of a large
area of disorganized showers
and thunderstorms associated
with a tropical wave near the
Cape Verde Islands and a
small trough of low pressure
750 miles. NHC anticipates
that development of either
system (if any) should be slow
c:::::::::J Low <30%
_
Medium 3050%
_
High >50%
to occur.
001870
Trajectories:
Offshore (NW/N) winds at 5-10 knots are forecast to continue through Saturday morning, then
become SE later in the day. Onshore winds (SE/S/SSE) at 5-10 are forecast for Sunday-Monday.
Observations from overflights indicate the remaining scattered "anomalies" observed by remote
sensing are predominantly light sheens with very little recoverable oil being observed. The threat
of new shoreline impacts is low due to the offshore winds - however, trajectories indicate
potential impacts on the west side of the Mississippi Delta during this forecast period.
OR&R evening report v2.0
001871
Subject: OR&R evening report v2.0

Date: Thu, 22 Jul2010 08:13:06 -0400
To: Deepwater. Horizon Dist@noaa.gov
Office: (301) 713-3310 x 129
Fax: (301) 713-1641
Cell: (202) 577-8492
1 of!
10/20/201011:38 AM
001872

Report # 90: July 21, 2010 2345 PDT

The capping stack continues to shut in the MC252 well causing the pressure to slowly increase
past 6860 psi. Proceeding for another 24-hour period, the ongoing Well Integrity Test has
revealed no irregularities or anomalies. However with the possibility of a tropical weather system
heading toward the Gulf of Mexico, BP has ceased drilling operations and installed storm
packers into each of the two relief wells. A storm packer is a temporary device inserted into the
well bore approximately 300 feet below the BOP designed to prevent flow up or down the well
bore. Should the drilling platforms need to relocate during severe weather, the storm packer
serves as an add itional barrier to protect the well and prevent release. Once the threat of severe
weather subsides, BP estimates it will require 3-4 days to remove the plug, clean the bore,
reposition the drill pipe and set and cement the final casing for the primary reliefwell. The
Unified Command is still reviewing BP's hydrostatic control request. Ifapproved, BP would not
conduct static kill operations until the final casing is set and cemented.
Tropical Weather Outlook:

Miami, Florida
Currently the National

Hurricane Center is watching
two tropical systems:
System # 1 in the southeastern
Bahamas - showers and
thunderstorms associated with
a trough of low pressure have
increased during the past
several hours. However
thunderstorm activity remains
displaced from the trough and
data from the NOAA G-IV jet
indicate that upper-level winds
are not currently conducive for Outlined areas denote current position of systems discussed in the TropiClilI Weather
development but could
become marginally favorable
c:::::::J Low <30%
_ _ Medium 30-50%
_
High >50%
in a day or two. There is a medium chance (40% - down from 70% yesterday) of this system
becoming a tropical cyclone during the next 48 hours. Should the system develop, early model
guidance suggests general movement toward the MC252 response location.
System #2 in the Bay of Campeche - shower and thunderstorm activity has become a little more
concentrated in association with a broad area of low pressure. Environmental conditions appear
to be conducive for some development of the low. There is a medium chance (40%) of this
system becoming a tropical cyclone before it reaches the coast of Mexico in the next day or two.
001873
In preparation for the possibility of tropical cyclone impact to the response area, the Hurricane
Contingency Plan is being reviewed by Unified Area Command as well as ICPs Houma, Mobile
and Florida. All NOAA response personnel in Houma will meet tomorrow to discuss specific
procedures and accountability should the order be given to "release" them. With the deployment
of the storm packers in the reliefwells, BP has taken the first steps toward potential offshore
equipment demobilization, which can take up to five days for some of the vessels.
Senate Hearing on Oil Spill Research and Development:
Doug Helton, Incident Operations Coordinator for OR&R's Emergency Response Division
testified today at a U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee hearing.
Entitled "Turning Ideas into Action: Ensuring Effective Clean Up and Restoration in the Gulf'
the hearing focused on understanding gaps in response and restoration technology as well as how
to determine the best path forward with research and development of new technologies. In his
testimony, Doug highlighted that "Additional funding should go through organizations that can
bridge the worlds of science and spill response. The Minerals Management Service, U.S. Coast
Guard, Coastal Response Research CenterlNOAA, and the Oil Spill Recovery Institute all are
organizations that have established that bridge." Testimony from the hearing may help shape
legislation regarding research and development for spill response. Perhaps even more important
than new legislation like the Oil Spill Technology and Research Act introduced last week is the
dedicated and sustained support necessary to effectively conduct this time and resource
consuming work in the years to come.
Science Box Planning:
With the well temporarily capped, the response has time to consider the next phase: the transition
from response to restoration. The Science Box met today to discuss science planning for this new
response phase across a variety of disciplines. They have identified a few key questions that must
be answered: what is the off switch; what do we need to do; and how long do we need to do it?
For example, the submerged oil monitoring program is evaluating how to best utilize resources
including ships, equipment, and personnel based on analysis of research to date and source
containment. In addition, the Science Box is preparing to host a series of research planning
workshops addressing a variety of disciplines. The workshops will provide a forum for including
academic and scientific partners, indentifYing research goals and coordinating across numerous
organizations. Seemingly each question raises five more. However the science stands at a unique
crossroads to pursue these answers. With the help ofthe Science Box, significant progress is
being made toward understanding the extent of the oil's impact and ensuring the science follows
the best course ahead.
Today's Trajectory:
Winds are forecast to weaken to 10 knots overnight and become easterly through Thursday.
Friday winds are forecast to be ENEINE at 10-15 knots. Today's overflights and satellite
imagery indicate the surface oil is continuing to break up into numerous patches. The leading
edge continues to move north towards the Chandeleur Islands and northwestward towards the
Mississippi Delta. The Chandeleur Islands, Breton Sound, the Mississippi Delta and shorelines
west to Terrebonne Bay are threatened by shoreline contacts within this forecast period.
Revised Version: Shoreline Threat Update
001874
Subject: Revised Version: Shoreline Threat Update

From: "william.conner" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:10:04 -0400
CC: DWH leadership <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Dr. Lubchenco Attached is a new edition of the Shoreline Threat document, revised to reflect your input.
If this seems to be on target, I think that we should move forward with any additional review
needed while working on a press release and talking points.
Thanks again for the quick review.
Bi".
Jane Lu bchenco wrote:
Bill- thanks for doing this so quickly. I think this is the right solution for an update. And I agree it
needn't go through extensive review because it is based on existing information. What is needed is a
slight reordering. The document makes sense to a scientist - first things first, and what's the history,
etc.; however as a document whose main audience is the public, we need to put the bottom line first
and the most relevant graphics first. The first paragraph gives the bottom line, but not enough
context; and showing the May 1 configuration of the LC first will be confusing. I suggest putting Fig 2
first, and devising headers for the sections that are more descriptive: 'Current Conditions: Little
Surface Oil and No LC Transport' (or something like that) and 'How does this differ from conditions in
May' (or something like that). It would be good to also insert some boilerplate at the outset about
NOAA's commitment to provide timely and useful information about the spill.
In other words, the content is fine, but the document needs to be more user friendly to a
non-technical audience. Many thanks,
Jane
From: william.conner [mailto:william.conner@noaa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:31 AM
To: DWH leadership; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
The information in the document will be added to the shoreline threat web site and could also
serve as the basis for a short press release.
There is very little riew information in the discussion so careful consideration should be given to
the level of review required. Both figures are already available to the public, and the
straightforward conclusion is that it is unlikely that any oil would move from offshore Louisiana
to Florida.
Iof2
10/20/2010 II :38 AM
Revised Version: Shoreline Threat Update
001875
Thanks.
Bill

Phone:
301-713-3038 (190)
Cell:
240-460-6475

Chief, HAZMAT Emergency
Division
Phone:
301-713-3038 (190)
Cell:
240-460-6475
. - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - ' - "- - - - - " ' - - - - - - " 1
IShoreline Threat Update v.1.2_July 27 2010.doc1J
20f2
10/20/2010 11:38 AM
001876
July 26,2010
DRAFT
Shoreline Threat Update: Florida and East Coast

Deepwater Horizon MC252 BP Oil Spill
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is committed to providing timely and useful scientific
information about the spill through tactical observations, monitoring, modeling, and specific studies. By assuming that
the present controls on the flow of oil from the Deepwater Horizon well site continue to be successful, NOAA is now
able to update previous shoreline threat predictions for Florida and the East Coast of the US based on two factors:
1) the small amount of oil now seen on the surface of the water and, 2) the present configuration of the Loop Current.
Previous projections of shoreline threat, available at this web site, used an oil trajectory model driven by historical data
records of ocean currents and winds. Trajectory modeling is not the preferred method for making predictions at this
time because recent overflights report very small amounts of surface oil and the present configuration of the Loop
Current makes it unlikely that any oil would move from offshore Louisiana to Florida.
Present Conditions: The release of oil from the well stopped, little surface oil remains,
and there is little possibility of Loop Current transport
At this time, July 25, 2010, the Loop Current system is more than 100 miles from any surface oil from the Deepwater
Horizon BP oil spill. In addition, helicopter overflights since the passage of Tropical Storm Bonnie are showing little
more than scattered sheens on the surface of the water near the Mississippi River Delta. Around the 24th of Maya
large Loop Current eddy, called Eddy Franklin,started to "pinch off" from the Loop Current. For the next six weeks,
Eddy Franklin and the Loop Current showed varying levels of connectivity. Eddy Franklin now appears to be cleanly
separated (Figure 1), and will likely migrate to the west over the next few months. The Loop Current will slowly
begin to extend again to the north over that time. Until the Loop Currentfully reforms (monthsfrom now), there is
no clear pathway to bring sUiface oilfrom the northern Gulf to the Florida Straits, south Florida, and beyond.
NOAA will continue to monitor the Loop Current as long as floating oil remains.
o
o
I
62.5
!!
C0 ..-T
~y.lill
~~.........
'!S!".
Jj.1f
..,,-".
~
.........:
~..:c-)
125
250
I
Miles
Figure I. Configuration of the Loop Current and footprint of sheen from Satellite analysis on July 26, 2010. Eddy Franklin has now
separated from the Loop Current.
001877
July 26, 2010
DRAFT
Conditions in May: Loop Current entraining small amounts of oil

When the Deepwater Horizon spill began on April 22, 2010, the Loop Current was in its classic configuration, with its
northern boundary approximately 60 miles from the spill site. About a month after the accident, a counter clockwise
eddy formed along its northeast boundary that served to move some of the surface slick toward the Loop Current.
Most of that slick, which was comprised of sheens and tar balls, appeared to stay primarily in the counter-clockwise
eddy, rather than entering the main Loop Current. Oil sampled by a ship in the vicinity of the boundary between the
Loop Current and this counter clockwise eddy matched the Deepwater Horizon oil, but there has been no sheen
detected in that region since June 9th . No oil has been found anywhere else in the Loop Current system that has been
identified as Deepwater Horizon oil.
Dupwater Horizon MC252 '.

.(~l:::"--~....
I.elden. Location
o
I
62.5
!
125
!
250
I
Miles
Figure 2. Configuration of the Loop Current and footprint of surface oil slick from satellite analysis on
May 21, 2010. The Loop Current was still in its "classic" configuration at this point.
The Loop Current is a warm ocean current in the Gulf of Mexico that flows northward between Cuba and the Yucatan
Peninsula, moves north into the Gulf of Mexico, loops east and south before exiting to the east through the Florida
Straits. When in its classic configuration, the northern edge of the Loop Current can extend quite close to the site of
the Deepwater Horizon MC252 spill site (see Figure 2). The Loop Current is one of the world's strongest currents,
sometimes reaching speeds of up to 4 knots. It could therefore serve as a significant transport mechanism for surface
floating oil from the northern Gulf of Mexico to the Florida Straits, and ultimately the East Coast.
001878
Subject:
[Fwd: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up]
From:
Mark Miller <Mark.W .Miller@noaa.gov>
Date:
Thu, 22 Jul2010 17:25:32 -0400

To:
Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,
William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the write-up on Oil Budget tool and example output that USGS and I put together .
. Mark
001879
Subject:
USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up
From:
Date:
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:45:06 -0400
To:
"Grawe, William" <William.R.Grawe@uscg.mil>
CC:
"Sturm, Francis" <Francis.J.Sturm@uscg.mil>, "Brown, Baron CDR" <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>,
"O'Brien, Sean CDR" <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>, Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
"Offutt, Todd CDR" <Todd.J.Offutt@uscg.mil>, Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
Bill,
It was close but we made it. Here is the one page summary of the oil budget tool and a pdf
of the tool's output. Thanks for your help and guidance today.
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
001880
Subject:
RE: DWH OIL BUDGET TOOL
From:
Lois Schiffer <Lois.schiffer@noaa.gov>
Date:
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:11:00 -0400
To:
"Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov" <Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov>
Thanks. by the way, are there 8 am calls this weekend?

-Original Message-From: Jen.Pizza [mailto:Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov]
To: James Anderton; Lois Schiffer
Subject: DWH OIL BUDGET TOOL
attached
001881
Subject:
[Fwd: [Fwd: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up]]
From:
"william.conner" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Date:
Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:52:07 -0400
To:
Jen Pizza <Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov>
cc:
Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Jen This email and attachment complete action item #2 from yesterday's call assigned to Mr. Miller.
Thanks.
Bill
-------- Original Message -------Subject:[Fwd: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up]
Date:Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:25:32 -0400
From:Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
To:Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the write-up on Oil Budget tool and example output that USGS and
I put together.
Mark

Phone:
301 713-3038 (190)
Cell: 240-460 6475
001882
Subject:
USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up
From:
Date:
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:45:06 -0400
To:
"Grawe, William" <William.R.Grawe@uscg.mil>
CC:
"Sturm, Francis" <FrancisJ.Sturm@uscg.mil>, "Brown, Baron CDR" <Baron.K.Brown@uscg.mil>,
"O'Brien, Sean CDR" <Sean.K.O'Brien@uscg.mil>, Mark Miller - NOAA <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
"Offutt, Todd CDR" <Todd.J.Offutt@uscg.mil>, Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
Bill,
It was close but we made it. Here is the one page summary of the oil budget tool and a pdf
of the tool's output. Thanks for your help and guidance today.
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
001883
Subject:
From:
Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 201012:54:27 -0400
To:
Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
CC:
Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov
Hi,
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager, incorporating edits from this morning.
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26 daily oil budget report. The latest ofhtese
reports would be attached as an appendix to explain calculations in further detail.
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NrC IASG) to see who USGS thinks should be identified
for this document. A short list should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC IASG), Sky
Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
www.facebook.comlnoaa.lubchenco
001884
Subject:
From:
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 201012:54:27 -0400
To:
CC:
Margaret Spring <Margaret.spring@noaa.gov>, Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov
Hi,
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see who USGS thinks should be identified
for this document. A short list should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC lAS G), Sky
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
001885
Subject:
From:
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:56:41 -0400
To:
CC:
Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov
Sorry! I attached the wrong document. Please use this version dated 7.29.
Hi,
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC lAS G) to see who USGS thinks should be identified
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
001886
Subject:
From:
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul2010 12:56:41-0400
To:
Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, William Conner <WilIiam.Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen
CC:
Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov
Hi,
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier email For USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NIC IASG) to see who USGS thinks should be identified
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
001887
Subject:
NY Times: U.S. Finds Most Oil From Spill Poses little Additional Risk Oil Budget Tool
From:
"Jen.Pizza" <Jen.Pizza@noaa.gov>
Date:
Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:40:42 -0400
To:
DWH leadership <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>
FYI, oil budget story is already in NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/0S/04/science/earthl04oil.html?
1- I &hp
001888
Subject:
Fwd: Re: Oil Budget Tool gets high praise - ACTION by 3:30PM today
From:
Bililehr <Bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
Date:
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:26:49 -0700
To:
Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
CC:
Robert Jones <RobertJones@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy
<David. Kennedy@noaa.gov>
Dave,
While I don't claim to understand DC politics, it seems like USGS is upstaging NOAA on the oil budget
tool. NOAA provided the formulas, got the expert reviews (still underway), and arranged for the NIST
statisticians to make the error bounds work. USGS did a great job on programming the interface, so I
don't want to minimize their achievements. Also, USCG staff are collecting the data but if Lubchenko is
talking to Obama, she might want to do some bragging on her own.
Bill l
-------- Original Message -------Subject:Re: Oil Budget Tool gets high praise - ACTION by 3:30PM today
Date:Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:17:40 -0400
From:Kevin T Gallagher <kgallagher@usgs.gov>
To:Barbara W Wainman <bwainman@usgs.gov>, Judy J Nowakowski <jnowakowski@usgs.gov>,
Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>, Mark K Sogge . Sky Bristol
<sbristol@usgs.gov>, Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>, Suzette M Kimball
<suzette kimball@usgs.gov>, William H Werkheiser <whwerkhe@usgs.gov>,
Billolehr@noaa.gov, Martha N Garcia <mgarcia@usgs.gov>, Victor F labson
<vlabson@usgs.gov>, Cheryl A Morris <cmorris@usgs.gov>
All,
Please see the initial draft of the one-pager and graphics which may be headed for the white house
today_
This is a 3:30 PM deadline - So I would very much appreciate your timely review and comment.
Thanks,
Kevin
001890
Subject:
Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool
From:
"Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date:
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:49:35 -0400
To:
Jane lubchenco <Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,
Bill Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
In order to initialize our model for the long-term modeling analysis we used the Oil Budget tool NOAA
helped USGS to develop. The Oil Budget tool (see attached screen dump) uses two scenarios to estimate
oil remaining (floating on the surface) - one based on the low flow estimate of the FRTG (35,000
bbls/day) and one based on the high flow estimate (60,000 bbls/day). For our model initialization we
used the estimated oil remaining on July 15 (500,000 bbls) which was the date that the well was shut-in
using the low flow scenario. The pie chart is made of the cumulative removals and remaining oil
percentages for that date (see numbers below). The other set of removal and remaining numbers that
appeared in the brief looked to be from the Oil Budget tool for July 22 from the high flow scenario.
lILO;,~I~;J~I~~_~' " ' ' ' , .. ,JI~!~~ . ~!~~~~~Y~~:', ,'. ,
;t~~te~~"ry,
,IRemai~i_n,~_,,_.
![~i~:~.t ~~~~very
'INatu,r~I,~is~:rsio~,
:1
""_'_ ,.
.,:1, ..
l,~00'~9.0,_"1~C)()__J
:1
.. , .."
lBurn~9"",_
u,
1,~70,000
",J. m_S.2~0~~ __ 27~,_,_,_"_, __,,,J,,_,_82~/00E_
:IEvaporated,
,I~kimme,~
480,OO~ ~~%
670,000
22%.1,.
100,0~~
,3C)() ,.",
260,000
8%
m""
1,
,..'I
28%,,,,__, ..
"~6%
' ... ,,,'_''''''',,
..._~26!.9.o.9. __ ,,~
1,346,000
120,O~0 ",2%
266,000
5%
am
For the second action item from this mornings calli

working with USGS to prepare a short briefing
document (1 pager) for the Oil Budget tool. USGS is refining the document at this time but does not
have an expected availability. RADM Neffenger mentioned that he would be verbally briefing the tool
this evening.
DeepwaterHorizon_briefing_schematic2.png
001891
Subject:
FW: oil budget?
From:
John Gray <John.Gray@noaa.gov>
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:36:24 -0400
To:
"'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
cc:
Amanda Hallberg Greenwell <Amanda.Haliberg@noaa.gov>, Michael Jarvis <MichaelJarvis@noaa.gov>
I would like to speak to someone about possibility of briefing Markey's staff on the topic she mentions in
the e-mail below

To; John Gray; Amanda Hallberg Greenwell
John and Amanda - Admiral Allen mentioned yesterday in his conference call that NOAA was working on
an "oil budget" of where all the oil went. Is there any chance we could get a briefing on it sometime next
week?
Ana
& Global Warming
(202) 225-4012
001892
Subject:
From:
"Mark.W.Milier" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:01:50 -0400
To:
Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
cc:
Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott
Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy
<David,Kennedy@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring
I had a few small edits - all our dissolution, evaporation, and natural dispersion estimates are based on
previous analyzes on similar Gulf oil not DWH oil. Also I was wondering if we wanted to delete reference
to our oil trajectories if there is a chance they will stop early next week.
Mark
thanks
--Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
To: Mark W Milleri William Conneri Scott Smulleni Dave Westerholmi David
KennedYi _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff

Hi,
001893
IASG) , Sky Bristol (led the development team)/ and Tim Kern.
Jennifer Austin
001894
Subject:
From:
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:01:50 -0400
To:
Cc:
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring
I sent to the USGS folks and Bililehr to review.
Mark
thanks
To: Mark W Miller; William Conneri Scott Smulleni Dave Westerholm; David
Cc: Margaret Springi Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov
sorry! I attached the wrong document.

Hi,
001895
For NOAA
Bill Lehr.
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications ~ External Affairs
001896
Subject:
From:
Margaret Spring <Margaret.5pring@noaa.gov>
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:26:52 -0400
To:
"'Mark.W.lV1iller@noaa.gov'" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, "'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'"
CC:
I'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'" <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, "'william.conner@noaa.gov'"
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>, "'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'" <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>,
"'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'" <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, "'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'"
<David. Kennedy@noaa.gov>, "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,
"'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'" <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Did you send to Marcia McNutt? Also when did you say we needed clearance by?
OECC wants to make calls to ensure we get the right level of attention and speed.
Give me the list of authors and any help you might need.
Am getting hourly calls!
Thx.
From: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>

Cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott
.
Sent: Thu Jul 29 14:01:50 2010
Mark
001897
thanks
-----Original Message-From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

Hi,
For NOAA
Bill Lehr.
Jennifer Austin
202 482-5757 (office) 202-302 9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
001898
Subject:
From:
Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:14:16 -0400
To:
Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Mark W
Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen
CC:
OK they have gone to the authors; Mark is making clear to them that timing is
of the essence and we need to get this done no later than COB (sooner
better). OECC may be making calls.
Original MessageFrom: Jane Lubchenco [mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]
To: Jennifer Austin; Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave
westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring
thanks
--Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

> Hi,
>
>
001899
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
For USGS
>
>
>
>
>
For NIST
>
>
For NOAA
Bill Lehr.
>
>
>
Jennifer Austin
001900
Subject:
From:
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:14:16 -0400
To:
Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Mark W
Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen
cc:
OK they have gone to the authors; Mark is making clear to them that timing is
of the essence and we need to get this done no later than COB (sooner
better). OECC may be making calls.
Westerholmi David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring
yet.
This is urgent.
thanks

> Hi,
>
> Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager,
incorporating
001901
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For USGS

>
>
>

>
>

>
>
>
>
>
For NOAA
Bill Lehr.
Jennifer Austin
001902
Subject:
From:
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:08:15 -0400
To:
cc:
Dr. Lubchenco,
>From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark Sogge still outstanding. I forwarded Steve's
As for "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on the final list but have broken them out between the
actual Tool development (the web interface etc) and the calculations (Bill Lehr's team).
I have included also the latest report from the Tool to be included with the document sent forward.
Does this report satisfy the "brief description of the process used to do the calculations"? Bill Lehr has a
long, highly technical document but it would take some time to produce a simplified version.
Mark
yet.
This is urgent.
thanks
-Original Message-- -From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
001903

Hi,
Jennifer Austin
202-482 5757 (office) 202 302-9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
001904
Subject:
From:
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:08:15 -0400
To:
Jane Lubchenco <Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>
CC:
<Ma rga ret.Spri ng@noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
>From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark Sogge still outstanding. I forwarded Steve's
As for "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on the final list but have broken them out between the
actual Tool development (the web interface etc) and the calculations (Bill Lehr's team).
I have included also the latest report from the Tool to be included with the document sent forward.
Does this report satisfy the "brief description of the process used to do the calculations"? Bililehr has a
long, highly technical document but it would take some time to produce a simplified version.
Mark
yet.
This is urgent.
thanks
-----Original Message-From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
To: Mark W Miller; William Conneri Scott Smulleni Dave Westerholmi David
001905

Hi,
Attached is the updated oil budget. calculator two-pager, incorporating
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty
For NOAA
that
Bill Lehr.
Jennifer Austin
202 482 5757 (office) 202 302 9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
001906
Subject:
From:
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:29:21 -0400
To:
Jane Lubchenco <Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>
CC:
"Mark.W.Milier" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott
<Margaret.spring@noaa.gov>, "Gilson, Shannon" <SGilson@doc.gov>
Hi All,
Attached is the latest version. Those who saw it earlier should note an additional line explaining subsurface oil that
Steve suggested adding following the explanation of dispersed oil. Mark and I reviewed and reconciled the edits.
This should be final from a NOAA perspective.
Also attached is the report from the budget calculator from July 28, which will serve as Appendix A.
I've added Shannon to this distribution list, so she can give a heads up to WH communications and be in touch with
Heather and others about release plans as necessary.
I've corrected a couple of typos. This looks good to me and the descriptions of the people involved is fme. Please
plug the numbers that are in the pie chart into the text and finalize it and send it to everyone copied here. Margaret
will start it through interagency clearance.
Jane
*Cc:* Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water
Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
Dr. Lubchenco,
001907
From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark Sogge still outstanding. I forwarded Steve's comments to
Jennifer moments ago.
As for "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on the final list but have broken them out between the actual Tool
development (the web interface etc) and the calculations (Bill Lehr's team).
I have included also the latest report from the Tool to be included with the document sent forward. Does this report
satisfy the "brief description of the process used to do the calculations"? Bill Lehr has a long, highly technical
document but it would take some time to produce a simplified version.
Mark
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror what is in the pie chart. Because this is
an interagency document, I've modified one of the NOAA references toward the end. If authors are not in
A brief description of the process used to do the calculations and the names of the individuals involved plus
reviewers, as per the FRTG doc.
We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full list yet. This is urgent.
thanks
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon
Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.Jubchenco@noaa.gov <mailto:Jane.Jubchenco@noaa.gov>
Hi,

daily oil budget report. The latest ofhtese reports would be
Mark wiII share with the authors listed in his earlier email -
001908
Jennifer Austin
<http://www.facebook.comlnoaa.lubchenco>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
001909
Subject:
From:
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:29:21 -0400
To:
CC:
"Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, "Gilson, Shannon" <SGilson@doc.gov>
Hi All,
Attached is the latest version. Those who saw it earlier should note an additional line explaining subsurface oil that
Steve suggested adding following the explanation of dispersed oil. Mark and I reviewed and reconciled the edits.
This should be final from a NOAA perspective.
Also attached is the report from the budget calculator from July 28, which will serve as Appendix A.
I've added Shannon to this distribution list, so she can give a heads up to WH communications and be in touch with
Heather and others about release plans as necessary.
I've corrected a couple of typos. This looks good to me and the descriptions of the people involved is fine. Please
plug the numbers that are in the pie chart into the text and finalize it and send it to everyone copied here. Margaret
will start it through interagency clearance.
Jane
*From:* Mark.W.MiIler [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
*Sent:* Thursday, July 29,20104:08 PM
*Cc:* Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water
Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
Dr. Lubchenco,
001910
From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark Sogge still outstanding. I forwarded Steve's comments to
As for "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on the final list but have broken them out between the actual Tool
I have included also the latest report from the Tool to be included with the document sent forward. Does this report
satisty the "brief description of the process used to do the calculations"? Bill Lehr has a long, highly technical
document but it would take some time to produce a simplified version.
Mark
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror what is in the pie chart. Because this is
an interagency document, I've modified one of the NOAA references toward the end. If authors are not in
A brief description ofthe process used to do the calculations and the names of the individuals involved plus
reviewers, as per the FRTG doc.
We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full list yet. This is urgent.
thanks
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon
Staff
Hi,

001911
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell) www.facebook.comlnoaa.1ubchenco
<http://www.facebook.comlnoaa.lubchenco>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
001912
Subject:
From:
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul2010 19:33:16 -0400

To:
'"Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'" <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, "'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'"
CC:
"'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov"' <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, "'w illiam.conner@noaa.gov'"
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>, "'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'" <Scott.5mullen@noaa.gov>..
"'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov"' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, '"David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'"
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov 1t <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,
'"Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'" <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, "'Sgilson@doc.gov'" <Sgilson@doc.gov>
----- Original Message ---From: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
Cc: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; William Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; Dave
Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy
<David. Kennedynoaa.gov>; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>;
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,
Also attached is the report from the budget calculator from July 2B,

>
> the document.
>
001913
>
>
>
clearance.
>
>
>
>
Jane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

*Cc:* Jennifer Austinj William Connerj Scott Smullenj Dave Westerholmj
>
>
Dr. Lubchenco,
>
> and Bill Lehr.
>
>
>
>
>
and the calculations
Lehr's team).
> interface etc)

>
>
>
>
> Mark
>

>
>
>

>
>
We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full
list yet. This is urgent.
> thanks
>
>
-----Original Message-----

> To: Mark W Milleri William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David
001914
<mailto;Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
Hi,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The
>
>
For USGS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
001915
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jennifer
Austin
> 202 482-5757 (office) 202 302-9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202 302-9047 (cell)
001916
Subject:
From:
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:33:16 -0400
To:
"'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'" <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, "'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'"
CC:
'"Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, "'william.conner@noaa.gov'"
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>, "'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'" <ScoU.smullen@noaa.gov>,
"'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'" <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, "'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov lll
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, '''dwh.staff@noaa.govlll <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>,
'"Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'" <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, "'Sgilson@doc.gov'" <Sgilson@doc.gov>
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>i Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>; Dave
Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>i David Kennedy
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>i _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>i
Margaret Spring <Margaret.spring@noaa.gov>i Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,

>
> the document.
001917
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

clearance.

>
>
Jane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

*Cc:* Jennifer Austini William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
>
>
Dr. Lubchenco,
>
>
>
and Bill Lehr.
>
>
>
>
>
(the web
> but have broken them out between the actual Tool development
>
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror
>
>
>

>
list yet. This is urgent.
> thanks
>
> - ---Original Message---> From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, July 29,
2010 12:57 PM
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smulleni Dave Westerholmi David
>
001918
<mailto:Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>
>
>

>
>
>
Hi,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
For USGS
>
>
>
>
>
>
should probably include
D~.
McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
001919
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jennifer Austin

202-482 5757 (office) 202-302 9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
>
>
>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
001920
Subject:
From:
Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date:
Thu, 29 Jul 201019:53:07 -0400
To:
cc:
"'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'" <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, tt'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'"
<Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, "'william.conner@noaa.gov'tt <William.Conner@noaa.gov>,
"'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'" <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, "'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov,tt
<Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, IIIDavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov'" <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,
"'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, "'Sgilson@doc.gov'" <Sgilson@doc.gov>
Margaret,
Mark Sogge, Steven Hammond, and Marcia McNutt, (representing USGS development team) and Bill
Lehr {representing the calculation team}
Mark
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>;
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,
001921

the document.
that are in the
chart into the text and finalize it and send it to
clearance.
Jane
Dr. Lubchenco,
and Bill Lehr.
>From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark Sogge still
Mark
001922
yet.
This is urgent.
thanks
- ---Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
To: Mark W Milleri William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David
Hi,

For USGS
001923
Jennifer Austin
Jennifer Austin
202-482 5757 (office) 202-302 9047 (cell)
001924
Subject:
From:
Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date:
rhu, 29 Jul 2010 19:53:07 -0400
To:
CC:
u'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'" <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, "'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'U
<Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, "'william.conner@noaa.gov'" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>,
'"Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov'" <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, n'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov lll
<Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, IIlDavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov,n <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,
"'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, 1I Sgilson@doc.gov"' <Sgilson@doc.gov>
Margaret,
Mark Sogge, Steven Hammond, and Marcia McNutt, (representing USGS development team) and Bill
Lehr (representing the calculation team)
Mark
PIs confirm to me which authors have signed off so I
can report
---- original Message ----From: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>

<William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>i Dave
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,
001925

the document.
clearance.
Jane
Dr. Lubchenco,
and Bill Lehr.
Mark
001926
yet.
This is urgent.
thanks
--- -Original Message---From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholmi David
Hi,

For USGS
001927
Jennifer Austin
Jennifer Austin
202 482-5757 (office) 202 302-9047 (cell)
001928
Subject:
Re: oil budget?
From:
Date:
Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:14:08 -0400
To:
'"Ana.UnruhCohen@mail.house.gov'" <Ana.UnruhCohen@mail.house.gov>, "'john.gray@noaa.gov'"
<John.Gray@noaa.gov>, '''amanda.hallberg@noaa.gov'" <Amanda.Haliberg@noaa.gov>
CC:
"'michael.jarvis@noaa.gov'" <MichaeUarvis@noaa.gov>, "'david.Kennedy@NOAA.gov"'
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>
I asked about this and we will try to arrnge to brief you through the NIC. I believe that it is more than just
NOAA involved in this topic.
From: Unruh-Cohen, Ana <Ana.UnruhCohen@mail.house.gov>

To: John Gray <john.gray@noaa.gov>; Amanda Hallberg Greenwell <Amanda.Haliberg@noaa.gov>
Cc: Michael Jarvis <Michael.Jarvis@noaa.gov>
Sent: Fri Jul 30 10:07:102010
Subject: RE: oil budget?
John - anything more on this? Will anyone be on the Congressional call today at 3 who can discuss it in a
little more detail?
Thanks,Ana
From: John Gray [mailto:john.gray@noaa.gov]

July 29, 2010 12:35 PM
To: Unruh-Cohen, Ana; John Gray; Amanda Hallberg Greenwell
Sent: Thursday,
Ana: Let me look into this and get back to you.

July 29, 2010 12:20 PM
Sent: Thursday,
an "oil budget" of where all the oil went. Is there any chance we could get a briefing on it sometime next
week?
Ana
001929
& Global Warming
(202) 225-4012
www.qlobalwarming.house.gov
001930
Subject:
RE: oil budget?
From:
"Unruh-Cohen, Ana" <Ana.UnruhCohen@maiLhouse.gov>
Date:
Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:14:21 -0400
To:
John Gray <John.Gray@noaa.gov>, Amanda.Haliberg@noaa.gov
CC:
M ichae Ua rvis@noaa.gov, David. Kennedy@noaa.gov
Great. Any chance we can do something next week? I'll be out of the office the following 2 weeks.
I'm not looking for a final analysis, I know that will probably take sometime. I'd just like to better
understand what you are trying to do and how you are trying to do it.
Thanks, Ana

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 10:14 AM
To: Unruh-Cohen, Ana; 'john.gray@noaa.gov'; 'amanda.hallberg@noaa.gov'
Cc: 'michael.jarvis@noaa.gov'; 'david.Kennedy@NOAA.gov'
Subject: Re: oil budget?

NOM involved in this topic.

To: John Gray <john.gray@noaa.gov>; Amanda Hallberg Greenwell <Amanda.Hallberg@noaa.gov>
Cc: Michael Jarvis <Michael.Jarvis@noaa.gov>
Sent: Fri Jul 30 10:07:102010
John - anything more on this? Will anyone be on the Congressional call today at 3 who can discuss it in a
little more detail?
Thanks, Ana

To: Unruh-Cohen, Ana; John Gray; Amanda Hallberg Greenwell
Ana: Let me look into this and get back to you.

001931
an "oi! budget" of where all the oil went. Is there any chance we could get a briefing on it sometime next
week?
Ana
& Global Warming

(202) 225-4012
ana. unruhcohen@mail.house.gov
001932
Subject:
Re: oil budget?
From:
Date:
Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:23:48 -0400
To:
n'Ana.UnruhCohen@mail.house.gov'" <Ana.UnruhCohen@mail.house.gov>, "'john.gray@noaa.gov'"
<John.Gray@noaa.gov>, "'amanda.hallberg@noaa.gov'" <Amanda.Haliberg@noaa.gov>
CC:
"'michael.jarvis@noaa.gov'" <MichaeLJarvis@noaa.gov>, n'david.Kennedy@NOAA.gov'"
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>
I understand. I will reach out and find out next steps.
From: Unruh-Cohen/ Ana <Ana.UnruhCohen@mail.house.gov>

To: John Gray <john.gray@noaa.gov>; amanda.hallberg@noaa.gov <amanda.hallberg@noaa.gov>
Cc: michael.jarvis@noaa.gov <michael.jarvis@noaa.gov>; david.Kennedy@NOAA.gov
<david.Kennedy@NOAA.gov>
Sent: Fri Jul30 10:14:21 2010
Great. Any chance we can do something next week? I'll be out of the office the following 2 weeks.
I'm not looking for a final analysis, I know that will probably take sometime. I'd just like to better
understand what you are trying to do and how you are trying to do it.
Thanks, Ana

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 10:14 AM
To: Unruh-Cohen, Anai 'john.gray@noaa.gov'; 'amanda.hallberg@noaa.gov'
Cc: 'michael.jarvis@noaa.gov'; 'david.Kennedy@NOAA.gov'
Subject: Re: oil budget?
NOAA involved in this topic.

To: John Gray <john.gray@noaa.gov>; Amanda Hallberg Greenwell <Amanda.Hallberg@noaa.gov>
Cc: Michael Jarvis <MichaeI.Jarvis@noaa.gov>
Sent: Fri Jul 30 10:07:10 2010
John - 'anything more on this? Will anyone be on the Congressional call today at 3 who can discuss it in a
little more detail?
Thanks, Ana
002012
Subject:
From:
Date:
Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:18:42 -0400
To:
Robert Haddad <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>, Tony.Penn@noaa.gov, Mark W Miller
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Quick question for you, related to the the oil budget report going out this morning, we're pulling together Q&A for
Dr. for her briefmg with Gibbs this afternoon, Can you answer this question? Thanks, Jen
1.*
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
002013
Subject:
From:
"Robert. Haddad" <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
Date:
Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:44:51 -0400
To:
'Jennifer Austin' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Tony.Penn@noaa.gov, 'Mark W Miller'
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, '_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
CC:
'Dave Westerholm' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
Jennifer:
The oil budget will not immediately impact BP's liability with regards to
NRDA. This is because the under OPAl the Natural Resource injuries have to
be documented by the trustees and the causal linkage between the spilled oil
and these injuries quantified. Thus, the NRD liability (or the damages
arising from the NRD claim) will be based directly on those measured
ecosystem impacts that are related to either the spill or to response
actions arising as a result of the spill.
In other words, we can't say
because X bbls of oil were released, the NRD liability is Y.
Chief, Assessment & Restoration Division
NOAA/Office of Response & Restoration
Office: 301.713.4248x110
Cell: 240.328.9085
www.darrp.noaa.gov
-- --Original Message-From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov)

To: Robert Haddadj Tony.Penn@noaa.govi Mark W Mil1eri _HQ Deep Water Horizon
Staff
1.
002014
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
002015
Subject:
From:
Steve Block <Steve.Block@Noaa.gov>
Date:
Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:50:09 -0400
To:
"Robert. Haddad" <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
cc:
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, '_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, 'Dave
Westerholm' <Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov>
The estimated barrels of oil released into the Gulf may, however, impact BP's liability of a civil fine under the
Clean Water Act. Under a clause added to the CWA following the Exxon Valdez spill, the federal government can
fine BP up to $4,300 per barrel ofoi! released into the Gulf.--Steve
On 8/4/201010:44 AM, Robert.Haddad wrote:
Jennifer:
NRDA. This is because the under OPA, the Natural Resource injuries have to
be documented by the trustees and the causal linkage between the spilled oil
actions arising as a result of the spill. In other words, we can't say
Chief, Assessment& Restoration Division
NOANOffice of Response& Restoration
Office: 301.713.4248xll0
Cell: 240.328.9085
www.darrp.noaa.gov

Sent: Wednesday, August 04,20 I 0 10: 19 AM
To: Robert Haddad; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; Mark W Miller; _HQ Deep Water Horizon
Staff
002016
1.*
What impact, ifany, will this report have in determining BP's financial
002017
Subject:
From:
"Robert. Haddad" <Robert. Haddad @noaa.gov>
Date:
Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:59:29 -0400
To:
'Steve Block' <Steve.Block@Noaa.gov>
CC:
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, '_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, 'Dave
Westerholm' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
It has nothing to do with the oil budget.
Just so that's clear, if 100 bbls
of oil are released, the per bbl penalty would be assessed on all 100 bbls;
even if 50% of the oil that was released evaporated.
Bob
Office: 301.713.4248x110
Cell: 240.328.9085
www.darrp.noaa.gov
-----Original Message--- From: Steve Block [mailto:Steve.Block@Noaa.gov]

To: Robert.Haddad
Cc: 'Jennifer Austin'i Tony.Penn@noaa.govi 'Mark W Miller';
Horizon Staff' i 'Dave Westerholm'
Subject: Re: need quick help withQ on Oil Budget NRDA
'_HQ Deep Water
The estimated barrels of oil released into the Gulf may, however,
impact BP's liability of a civil fine under the Clean Water Act. Under
a clause added to the CWA following the Exxon Valdez spill, the federal
government can fine BP up to $4,300 per barrel of oil released into the
Gulf.--Steve
> Jennifer:
>
>
>
NRDA. This is because the under OPA, the Natural Resource injuries have
to
>
be documented by the trustees and the causal linkage between the spilled
oil
> and these injuries quantified. Thus, the NRD liability (or the damages
> arising from the NRD claim) will be based directly on those measured
002018
>

In other words, we can't say
> actions arising as a result of the spill.

>
>
>
>
> Robert Haddad,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ph.D.
NOAA/Office of Response& Restoration
Office: 301.713.4248x110
Cell: 240.328.9085
www.darrp.noaa.gov
>
----Original Message- --From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov}

> To: Robert Haddad; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; Mark W Miller; _HQ Deep Water
>
>
Horizon
> Staff
>

>
>
>
> 1. *
> What impact,
>
>
>
>
if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial

002039


calculations by some ofthe nation's best scientists, working together
002040
estimates.

chemically, i.nto microscopic droplets.
Con!~[~]:ll\eardseanrilentiqlitIJlS,bui;I'
hi,,;'n'tlndepeml<lntlYconfitmed.lt's pdSSI~I~tfUit.1
'dr;,.riiedit.
.i.
..:
002041
a number of natural processes, Even oil that might have been there

degradation, early indications are that this oil is degrading quickly,


studies to quantify the rate of degradation, Because that is a key question
about which we'd like more information,
002042
Synopsis: In collaboration with the USCG, NOAA, and NIST, the USGS has developed a Web
application, known as Deepwater Horizon MC252 GulfIncident Oil Budget, that allows
comprehensive tracking and graphical display of the daily and cumulative oil budget in the
Gulf.
Since the April 20, 2010, blowout and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oildrilling rig, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been actively involved with the National
Incident Command Center, helping to inform decisions in response to the ensuing oil spilL
The USGS is collaborating with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) to provide scientific and technical expertise to aid the oil spill management and
recovery effort. In particular, USGS science staff participate in a Flow Rate Technical Group
established and led by the USGS Director, Dr. Marcia McNutt, to calculate the discharge rates
and calculate an overall mass balance of oil given different mitigation and cleanup methods.
The USGS developed a Web application, known as Deepwater Horizon MC252 GulfIncident
Oil Budget, to track the discharged oil and results of subsequent processes that affect oil
volumes in the Gulf. Secure Web architecture and a rapid application development process,
instituted for other Web-based applications used by USGS scientists, was used to construct
the Oil Budget application, synthesizing information collected and maintained by the USCG.
The application offers a basic user interface for daily data entry and reporting, allowing
rapid visualization of oil volumes in the Gulf.
USGS, NOAA, NIST, and USCG scientists and logistics personnel collaborate to ensure that
the oil tracking application supports absolute data integrity, comprehensive data entry and
management, and simple Web access, eliminating the need for specialized software. The
application allows:
National Incident Command personnel to input daily variables;

Scientific support staff to edit the computing program for the Oil Budget Model as
improved information becomes available;
Dynamic creation of graphs showing modeled low flow rate/maximum removal and
high flow rate/minimum removal scenarios;
Incorporation of succinct descriptions, including assumptions and factors used for
calculations such as amount of oil burned, skimmed, or remained unaffected, in the
online application and printed reports; and
Generation of executive summaries, showing the most up-to-date calculated daily
and cumulative values.
The USGS team continues to provide technical support and introduce incremental
improvements to the Oil Budget tool as new information becomes available and desired
capabilities are identified. Based on the rapid response to this incident, the USGS is poised
to apply extensive scientific and technical expertise to benefit other environmental
emergencies.
002043
Daily actions by
incident command
personnel
Data and the oil

budget model
Periodic update by
Assumption and
authorized personnel factor review by
NOAA
Update rales,
estimates,
assumptions, and
other supporting
figures
Input Oaily Values
Data inputs rates,

estimates,
assumptions, and
supporting figures
ScienHfic Review of
data inputs,
calculations, and
assumptions
"Oil Budget
Model"
Calc'Jlation
based on Oil
Budget Formula
Technical Support (singl,', secure Webapp/ication)
002044
have results soon.

The Oil Budget Calculator was developed by a team at the Department of the Interior (DOl) and
There are a number of factors, one thing to keep in mind, is that oil that was natural
It is hard to give a direct comparison, as each spill is unique. Because this is further from
002045
EP A continues to conduct testing to understand the toxicity of dispersants to marine life,
and has recently released it second report about that subject.
efforts?
successful in dealing with nearly one third of the oiL We have also been fortunate that
7. How long will the oil be present and visible in the GulfThere is very little visible oil left in Gulf waters. At this point there are small amounts of
8. What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial liability for
this spill?
002046
DRAFT 7.29

*Remaining oil is

as light sheen or
weathered tar baUs,
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
kimmed
3%
The Flow Rate Technical (}rollp (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July 15 ~~t':Veyn3r~"m.illignbarrt~1$()f oilhad lJeen releasedfrolll the Deepwater Horiz0niBP
wellhead. (*\hen tlnildll11<ied,'new'FRTG flO\Vr~tel'tQtarescapeWin,a(ljustthis' and the, percentages
in
the oil budget.)

significant portion of the spilled oil. %0/0 percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead by
002047
dispersed by the application of nearly 50;000 barrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
After accounting for operations, dispersion and evaporation, %~ percent remains. This oil is either at
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellheadhave r~Illoved roughly },%3, of the
dispersed into Gulf
oil. Around a,::q;4arter of the total has been naturally evaporated and
waters. The remaining amount, rotighly~:116 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
artother'q'Uarier
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead, NOAA
remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts
of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and continued
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July 26, for detailed
002048
DRAFT 7.29
Deepwater HorizoRIBP Oil Budget Calculator

*Remaining oil is
a, light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore

on beaches.
as of July 15 between3~5tnillionbarr.els ofoil had been released from the Deepwat~rI-IorizonIBP
well head. (*Wlien allIlouriccil,llew FRTG flow rate I tOtal. escapewf1l' aqjqsrthist@;l;ff)e'percentagesiri
theoilhudget. )
002049
column or form residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on previous analysis of
similar oil from the Gulf.seiefltifie researeh ,mel obseFatioRS eORElHeteEi EluFiflg the Deepwater HorizoR
~. A different evaporation rate is used for fresh and weathered oil to provide the most accurate
number.
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 'barrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly". While there is more analysis
to be done to quantii'y the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the light
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead h~vere[noved roughly l(~ of
the oil. Around aquan:er of the total has been naturally evaporated and anofuet<filafter dispersed into
Gulf waters. The remaining amount, tougllty:lI~e is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed
for as long as ~eGes8aiSLl'!Q~_i\X~2(:)nd_er~_~!_~_':':'()X~!I1.K:'I'!t~Jh~J!!"!mt:~f_<?~m~9J~.~~y~I.<?p"_ ... __________ .---- 'Com' ~ltPKli:wk'idth'l!lIj~lori~i>ro)ltiblYlli"c',:
d
~~tl~":'r~~;;;:~,/we~to~~
,,'~~
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping ofthe BP wellhead,
scientistsNf)AA remains extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully
understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulfregion will
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Guifincident Budget Tool Report from J~l)tf~, for detailed
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: This sflslysisThe Oil Budget calculations -i&-are based on
direct measurements where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements
were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured directly and reported in
daily operational reports. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best
002050
available information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be
refined based on additional information and further analysis.
002051
DRAFT 7.29

*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
alreadv come
ashore.
as of July 15, between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonlBP
wellhead.
It is estimated that 25 percent ofthe oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column.
002052
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/lAG/reports.html).
beaches.
NOAA continues to track the movement ofthe remaining oil. It will issue daily surface oil trajectories
002053
Attachments
002054

Authors

Credits
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) -:- Technical advisors .
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
002055
DRAFT 7.29

II'R,m"'i" oil i,

as light sheen or
hasbt!en
biodegraded. or has
already come
ashore.
.... . ...................- ......... ..cc.... .................:............... ::.........:..............:........................... c:............"" .......... : ...... ...... :............ ......:....-
...... ............. : .................:..... ....:.'C............ J
wellhead.
002056
result of the oil coming out ofthe broken riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which caused
some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns ~ the diameter of a human hair).
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa. gov/JA G/reports.html).
waters. The remaining amount, just over one quarter is on the surface, in tar balls, on the shore, already'
Attachments
002057
002058

Authors

Credits
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
002059
DRAFT 7.28
Prepared By: Caitlyn Kennedy, Jen Austin


Chemically
Dispersed
11%
Burned
8%
3%
Dispersion
13%
estimates that as of July 15 betWeen3,,5<111illio.~bafft}Is of ~i1 ha~ beenr~le~edfrom the
Deepwater lIoriz~nI13Pwel1head. (~)vh~~~~~~~dlat~r.Yiis"'~~,tt)"n~wl?R.TG
flow.rateltQtaJ.escapewill adjust.thisandthelier~Il&g~si1tth:e,olFbUdg~t:)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure 1), aggressive response efforts have been successful in
recovering a significant portion of the spilled oil. %% percent of the oil was captured
002060
(less than 100 microns the diameter of a human hair).
through natural seeps regularly so that the bacteria there are accustomed to breaking it
down. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the exact rate of
biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the light crude oil from this well is
These estimates leave about %,~ percent of the oil. This oil is either at the surface as
beaches.
understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the
002061
DRAFT 7.30

~Rernail1ing oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
as of July 15, between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater Horizon/BP
wellhead.
significant portion of the spilled oiL Sixteen percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead
002062
Sixteen percent of the oil dispersed physically into the water column, and 8 percent of the oil was
enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regUlarly. While there is more analysis to be done to
002063
Attachments
002064

Authors
Credits
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Ali Khetifa, Env. Canada
Per Dating, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
Michel BoufadeI, Temple Univ.
002065
DRAFT 7.30v2
is
the oil went. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much oil was released and how this
oil

*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or

has-been
biodegraded, or has
already corne
ashore.
wellhead.
significant portion of the spilled oiL Sixteen percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead
002066
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa. govIJ A Glreports.html).
002067
Attachments
002068

Authors
Credits
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) Technical advisors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
002069
and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand
and sediments.
at the surface.
Is there oil on the seafloor?

itself not sitting on the sea floor. That's an important distinction to make because I think there's
a misconception.

We've seen some ofthose impacts play out in ways that are more obvious because they're at the
surface.
002070
from this.
A recent JAG report said that you found oil subsurface in the 4-7 ppm range. Is thatstill
the case?
002071
High Flew Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) . Through July 21 (Day 93) C~ Print
Cumutawe DIsposItion of 011
All "'",i$ In barrels, CUero rr.t.. label lor m"", ,,,formaIt<J(L
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day; - Through July 21 {Day 93)
.. .
.
CI~rt
Information
Print
Cumuialive Disposition of 011
Chart Information
[Fwd: RE: Oil Budget Request}
002072
Subject: [Fwd: RE: Oil Budget Request]

From: "william.conner" <William.Conner@noaa.gov.>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:58:32-0400
To: Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov.>
CC: Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>
How USCG HQ is looking at the oil budget. Comments are welcome.
---- Original Message
Subject:RE: Oil Budget Request
Date:Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:53:56 -0400
From:Lloyd, Anthony CAPT <Anthony.S.Lloyd@uscg.mil>
To:William.Conner@noaa.gov
References:<4BD87832.5090505@noaa.gov> <BD67B5D0A3F52544975EB13C45F4864A0232DFD7@emo-exmb-m-102.main,ads,uscg.mil>
<4BD87FCA. 7030700@noaa.gov>
Attached is the slide created today.

Respectfully,
Anthony Lloyd, Capt, USCG
Chief, Office of Incident Management

Vice-Chair, National Response Team ~~~~~E~~~~~f11~~~~~~~~~~~~
International Oil Spill (IOSC) ESC
http://www. iose .orgl
Coast Guard Headquarters 2100 2nd St SW
phone: 202 372 2231
fax: 202 312 2905
Cell: 202 4~1 5041
This cOllUTlunication, along with any attacrunents l
is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain confi
-----Origino1 Message-----
From: William. Conner.@noaa.gov (mail to: William.Conner@noaa.90v)

Sent, Wednesday, April 28, 2010 2:35 PM
To: Lloyd, Anthony CAPT
Subj ect: Re: Oil Budget Request
Thanks.
We will offer improvements if we can.
Lloyd, Anthony CAPT wrote:

> We developed a breakdown (estimated} of what the oil does on a per day basis.
("a day in the life" of the DM oil) Weill pass
the slide she
>
> Respectfully,
> Anthony Lloyd, Capt, USCG
> Chief, Office of Incident Mana'gelnellt Preparedness (eG-533)

> Vice-Chai r, National
:> International Oil Spill
http://www nrt . org I ProductioniNRT IRTWeb. 05 f I HomePaqe

ESC member
> http://www.iosc.orq/
> Coast Guard Headquarters 2100 2nd St sw
> phone: 202 372 2231
fax: 202 312 2905
Cell, 202 441 5041
> This communication t along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain cor:
>
>
> -----Original Messaqe----> From: William.Conner@noaa.qov [mailto:William.Conner@noaa.gov1
> Sent: Wednesday, April 2B, 2010 2: 02 PM

> To: Lloyd, Anthony CAPT
> Cc: Richard R Wingrove
> Subject: Oil Budget Request
to your question from this am, given all the uncertainties

rising through a mile of water column, 1'm unable to develop
> even a rough oil budget until we get a source sample analyz.ed - this
> will happen tomorrow.

Chief t HAZMAT Emergency Response Division
Phone: 301-713-303B {190)
cell: 240-460-6475

NOAA
Office of Response and Restoration
Phone: 301-713-3038 (190)

Cell: 240-460-6415
!OilBudget.pptf!
I of 1
10/20/2010 11:39 AM
EstimatedOUBudget*
UNCLAS/FOUO 28 APR 10
Time for released oil to rise to the surface = 3 hours

Parameter
Approximate Measurement
Of Oil Per Day
Mechanically naturally
recovered dispersed
* Fate of the oil per day
Oil life Cycle
002073
Amount
002074
Appendix X - "Bench Top" LISST Particle Size Analysis
K. Lee, Z. Li and H. Niu - Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research,
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
The standard operational procedure (SOP) for LISST-IOOX particle size analysis used in
the Gulf of Mexico oil spill monitoring program (Le., Deepwater Horizon Spill) was
developed for the measurement of particle-size distributions under two scenarios. The
first was bench top measurement of small particles, and the second was continuous in-situ
monitoring with the instrument deployed over the side of the vessel at specific depths.
Laboratory "bench-top" measurements with the LISST-IOOX instrument on board the
vessel were specifically targeted at measuring small particles (d < 70 pm) suspended in
the water column. For this purpose, discrete samples were collected from both the
surface (with bucket), and from different depths in the water column using CTD casts
with a Niskin rosette sampler. On average, the total length of time between the recovery
of sample and the bench-top LISST-I OOX analysis was more than half an hour including
casting of rosette Niskin bottles, sub-sampling, and data acquisition by LISST-I00X.
Due to the buoyant nature of dispersed oil droplets in the water column, larger particles
(Lunel, 1993; Lunel, 1995) would have risen at a speed that is beyond the limit of the
time period for handling discrete seawater samples (Table 1).
TABLE 1 - Rise time of oil droplets
Diameter
IIImI
10
20
30
40
50
70
80
lOO
150
200
300
400
500
Rise Velocity
lem/min)
Time to rise 1 metre
0.03
3330
0.294
0.522
0.84
346
190
1.62
2.10
3.30
7.20
13.20
29.40
52.2
81.6
.62
0.1S2
(mit!)
76Q
120
48
SO
14
8
3
.2
1
The LISST-lOOX particle size analyzer (Type C) is an optical device that measures light
intensity over a series of detector rings (numbered 1 through 32). After the acquisition of
light intensity for the 32 discrete rings and eight other auxiliary parameters, the raw data
are subsequently processed with the manufacturer provided inversion algorithm to
automatically calculate volume concentrations (in 11111) for particle size bin number 1
through 32 (corresponding with the detector ring numbers), along with output of 10 other
parameters including laser transmission sensor power, laser reference sensor in calibrated
002075
units, pressure, temperature, computed optical transmission over path, and beamattenuation, etc.
Under ideal conditions, the data acquired using the bench-top measurement SOP would
have recorded discrete particle size volume concentrations over the first 20 size bins (bins
1-20 or 2.5 - 68.8 /lm) only, and would have shown zero or close to zero readings for the
large-sized bins (#21 - 32, or 68.8 to 500 /lm). However, the recorded data do not always
show the low readings expected. Instead, extremely high values over the last several bins
were recorded. A number of conditions may exist that lead to high apparent values of
large particles:
(1) Variation of the seawater temperature of the samples collected from different depths
in the water column and the ambient air temperature. The water temperatures vary
widely from close to freezing (4C) at maximum depths to very warm water at the
surface (30C). Stratification of the water inside the small chamber may cause laser
beam reflection and a false signal of the presence oflarger particles (Mikkelsen et aI.,
2008; Styles, 2006). Corrective action was taken in late June, 2010 to overcome the
effect of temperature variation by introducing a full-path mixing chamber.
(2) Slight miss-alignment of the LISST-IOOX (#1215 and #1174) that may impact the
inner ring light intensity reading. This will subsequently propagate through inversion
process to affect several numbers of upper-end particle size bins, but negligible
impact on medium and small particle size data (communication with the manufacturer)
(3) The presence of actual particles larger than the upper limit of our targeted small
particles (68.6 /lm). This is not unexpected, for a number of reasons such as the
retention oflarger oil droplets within the counting cell of the instrument due to (a) the
relatively short time between sample recovery and analysis for the samples that were
collected from the surface or near the surface (0-50m depth), (b) the potential
presence oil droplets with a density close to the seawater because of the dissolution of
light components, and (c) potential coalescence of small particles into larger ones.
Furthermore, large particles other than oil (e.g., biogenic material) may also exist.
Considering the high uncertainties involved in the analysis of large particles, analysis of
"bench top" data and interpretation should be focused on the small sized particles (d < 70
/lm) which have been recognized in the oil spill community as permanently dispersed oil
droplets. We discourage over-interpretation of particle size distribution data that were
collected for this specific purpose during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill emergency response
operations. Under this emergency response effort, rapid, less than perfect actions had to
be taken to support the requirement for immediate action to monitor the fate and transport
of the oil following subsurface injection of dispersant.
Preliminary data analysis was performed with particle size bins 1 through 25,
corresponding to particle size ranges of 2.5 to 157 /lm (Table 2). Figures 1 and 2 display
discrete particle size distribution of the surface samples for all stations, and Figures 3 and
4 the peak total particle concentrations in sub-surface samples. The peaks that were used
are defined as the maximum small particle concentration at depth for each station. These
particle size distribution histograms clearly demonstrate the presence of a large amount of
002076
very small particles (d < 10 )lm), suggesting the presence of chemically dispersed oil
droplets (Li et aI., 2008; Li et aI., 2009; Lunel, 1993; Lunel, 1995). The strong signal of
the chemically dispersed oil particles is also indicated by the observed multimodal
distribution profiles rather than a mono-modal size distribution that is often generated by
natural dispersion (Li et aI., 2009).
Figures 5 to 8 summarize the fraction of small particles (d < 68.8 )lm) within the
complete range of particle sizes (2.5 - 157 )lm). These data clearly indicate that the vast
majority of volume fractions of the measured particles are in the small particles range.
However, exceptions do exist for a number of stations where large fractions of particles
appear to fall in the range above 70 )lm (e.g. the surface samples of stations 101-104 and
subsurface samples of stations 101 and 102 of RN Brooks McCall, surface samples of
stations 60-80 and subsurface samples of stations 60-80 of RN Ocean Veritas). This
needs to be further investigated.
Figures 9-12 present the cumulative particle size distribution of all measured particles
from all the surface stations and all the peak sub-surface stations. These graphs show that
nearly 80-90% of the measured surface and subsurface particles are::;; 70 )lm (bin 1 to 21),
and the median diameters of the measured particles of both surface and subsurface
particles are nearly 20 to 30 )lm. These size data are in good agreement with previous
observations at sea (Lunel, 1993; Lunel, 1995).
Due to the restriction of time, more detailed data analysis and interpretation are certainly
yet to be done. The association with field operational and oceanographic parameters
needs to be further investigated. Nevertheless, the preliminary results and elementary
data analysis suggest high effectiveness of chemical dispersants in oil dispersion from
subsurface application. An estimation of the amount of oil dispersed based on the
operational parameter, namely dispersant to oil ratio, in calculating the amount of
chemically dispersed oil may not be the most accurate approach. A thorough inspection
of all the field collected data, including discrete samples and continuous in-situ (over-theside) vessel deployment data (to be addresses in future reports), and numerous other field
sampling data should be synthesized and digested to provide a more scientifically sound
estimation of dispersant effectiveness, the amount of oil naturally or chemically dispersed
from the subsurface and surface dispersant application, and the oil mass balance on the
whole. The possible impact of dispersant-containing oil in rising and after rising to the
water-air interface should not be neglected. Effective chemical dispersion of oil after
adding dispersant in calm sea proves still effective after prolonged standing time in static
and flowing waters before increased wave energy becomes available (Lewis et al., 2010).
Such a scenario may happen to the subsurface dispersant injection situation, in which an
excellent mixture of oil and dispersant in situ at depth can facilitate continued dispersion
of oil wherever turbulent mixing energy is encountered - regardless of whether it is at the
surface or subsurface.
002077
Table 2: The lower, medium and upper limit of each size bin in microns for the LISST-IOOX particle
counter
Size bin #
1
2
3
4
5
6
'7
'8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Lower
2.50
2.95
3.48
4.11
4.85
5.72
6.75
7.97
9.40
11.1
13.1
15.4
-L.l!:2
21.5
)5.4
0.0
35.4
41.7
49.2
58.1
68.6
80.9
195.5
I 113
133
Medium
2.72
3.20
3.78
4.46
5.27
6.21
7.33
8.65
10.2
12.1
14.2
16.8
19.8
23.4
27.6
32.5
38.4
45.3
53.5
63.1
74.5
87.9
104
122
144
Upper
2.95
3.48
4.11
4.85
5.72
6.75
7.97
9.40
11.1
13.1
15.4
18.2
21.5
25.4
30.0
35.4
41.7
49.2
58.1
68.6
80.9
95.5
113
133
157
002078
Brooks McCall - Station Particle Size Bin Averages - Surface
l,(")
0
<::;;
"'""
"5
""-'
c
0
~
.1=
c
IJ:1
(1)
<..>
C
0
(.)
C=!
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
Particle Size Bin No.
Figure 1: Particle-size distributions (see Table 1 for size range of corresponding Bin No.) for the
surface samples of all stations of the RIV Brooks McCall.
002079
Ocean Veritas - Station Particle Size Bin Averages - Surface

!,O
(V")
0
(V")
IJ:1
.-..
S
::I
'-"
r:::
:;:::;
....
(Il
Q)
(.)
r:::
IJ:1
II ,_ J
I~
11 LL
-L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I I I I I I I I I
I
I I I
I I I
I
I I I
3
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
Figure 2: Particle-size distributions for the surface samples of all stations of the RN Ocean Veritus.
002080
Brooks McCall - Station Particle Size Bin Averages - Max at Depth

~ ~--------------------------------------------~-,
.--.
S
:::l
"-'
(0
c:
:;:::I
ro
.....
c:
Q)
(.)
c:
...,.
0
<..)
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
Figure 3: Particle-size distributions for the peak total concentration in sub-surface samples of all
stations of the R/V Brooks McCall.
002081
Ocean Veritas - Station Particle Size Bin Averages - Max at Depth
c
0
("')
16
'.....
c
Q.)
<.>
C
0
~. il
.1
1
ai_I
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
:'!:-
23
25
Figure 2: Particle-size distributions for the peak sub-surface samples of all stations of the R/V Ocean
Veritus.
002082
Brooks McCall SP Fraction from Max SP at Surface
.,.........\ .,""
.,..,.

....,. --.:
.....
"" ...
...
. .
CC!_
..,.
o
:;=
u
ro
....
~o
LL.
a..
(f)
"":o
C"!_
o
o~
I
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
station
Figure 3: Small particle (d < 68.6 urn) fraction of the total measured particles (2.5
surface samples of all stations of the RIV Brooks McCall.
157 urn) for the
002083
Ocean Veritas - SP Fraction from Max SP at Surface

C!_
..-
CC!_
0
-..
Oo
t;
<1:l
....
IJ..
a..
c.o
6-
.-

Oo Oo- Oo.
'10
.-
.-
..
..
..
C!_
..
Oo.
..
..
to
.,.
..-.
.-
. .
~-
:..
Cl:!_
"Oo
,..:
50
100
150
200
Station
Figure 6: Small particle (d < 68.6 urn) fraction of the total measured particles (2.5 -157 urn) for the
surface samples of all stations of the RIV Ocean Veritas.
10
002084
Brooks McCall - SP Fraction from Max SP at Depth
:: - -... :.. "' ...., *.-........ . ... ..

..... .... .
.
.
.~
6c::
<.C!_
0
+=
<.>
m
fit
., ...:-..... . ..-..
'-
u...
0...
CD
ci
...
"'!0
;;I
50
100
150
Station
Figure 7: Small particle (d < 68.6 urn) fraction ofthe total measured particles (2.5
peak sub-surface samples of all stations of the RN Brooks McCall.
157 urn) for the
11
002085
Ocea.n Veritas SP Fraction from Max SP at Depth

~-
....
~-
:;:::
u
<It
+

<\0
..
=!0
ro
....
u..
CL
00
c:
d-
<"!-
.+
...
..
...".
50
1 00
150
200
Station
Figure 4: Small particle (d < 68.6 urn) fraction of the total measured particles (2.5 -157 urn) for the
peak sub-surface samples of all stations of the RN Ocean Veritas.
12
002086
Brooks McCall - Cumulative Particle Size Fraction - Sul1ace
"......
#.
"-"
co
c::
0
;;:::
<..>
....
(I:l
LL.
Q)
!:!
C)
00
~
w
=e
(I:l
0...
Q)
""'"
C)
:::l
E
:::l
()
C"!
C)
C)
10
15
20
25
Particle Size Bin
Figure 5: Cumulative particle-size distribution for all the surface samples of all stations of the RIV
Brooks McCall.
13
002087
Ocean Veritas Cumulative Particle Size Fraction Surface
CC!
Cl
C
0
:;:::.
(.)
ro
....
lL..
<V
.tl
OC!
Cl
CJ)
(.)
'E
ro
a..
Q.l
:6
ro
"":
Cl
'5
:::l
()
Cl
Cl
~--------'---------.---------.---------r-------~~
10
15
20
25
Particle Size Bin
Figure 10: Cumulative particle-size distribution for all the surface samples of all stations of the R/V
Ocean Veritas.
14
002088
Brooks McCall Cumulative Particle Size Fraction Max At Depth
""'
~
co
C)
c:
0
+=
(,.)
ro
....
u..
Q.l
(0
c::i
00
5!!
(,.)
'E
ro
a..
Q.l
>
'<t
c::i
+=
ro
S
E
::J
c::i
C)
c::i
10
15
20
25
Particle Size Bin
Figure 11: Cumulative particle-size distribution for all the peak sub-surface samples of all stations of
the RIV Brooks McCall.
15
002089
Ocean Veritas - Cumulative Particle Size Fraction - Max At Depth
....,.,
'#
"-'
ro
c:
0
:;:::;
<..>
~
u...
Q)
.t:::l
(D
CO
Q)
'E
m
CL
Q)
...,.
d
>
~
~
E
~
o
o
10
15
20
25
Particle Size Bin
Figure 6: Cumulative particle-size distribution all the peak sub-surface samples of all stations of the
RIV Ocean Veritas.
References:
Lewis, A, K. Trudel, B., Belore, R.C. and Mullin, J.V., 2010. Large-scale dispersant
leaching and effectiveness experiments with oils on calm water. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 60(2): 244-254.
Li, Z., Lee, K., King, T., Boufadel, M.e. and Venosa, AD., 2008. Oil droplet size
distribution as a function of energy dissipation rate in an experimental wave tank
2008 International Oil Spill Conference. Americal Petroleum Institute,
Washington D.C., Savannah, GA, pp. 621-626.
Li, Z., Lee, K., King, T., Boufadel, M.C. and Venosa, AD., 2009. Evaluating Chemical
Dispersant Efficacy in an Experimental Wave Tanle 2, Significant Factors
Determining In Situ Oil Droplet Size Distribution. Environmental Engineering
Science, 26(9): 1407-1418.
Lunel, T., 1993. Dispersion: Oil droplet size measurement at sea. In: Proceedings of the
Sixteeth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Pp.
1023-1056
16
002090
Lunel, T., 1995. Understanding the mechanism of dispersion through oil droplet size
measurements at sea. In: P. Lane (Editor), The Use of Chemicals in Oil Spill
Response, ASTM STP 1252. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA, pp. 240-270.
Mikkelsen, O.A. et al., 2008. The influence of schlieren on in situ optical measurements
used for particle characterization. Limnology and Oceanography-Methods, 6:
133-143.
Styles, R., 2006. Laboratory evaluation ofthe LISST in a stratified fluid. Marine Geology,
227(1-2): 151-162.
17
burn parameters
002091
Subject: burn parameters

From: Bill Lehr <biIUehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:56:05 -0700
To: imaac@lInl.gov, Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Burn regression rate
0.05 nun/sec
Smoke yield is uncertain but will be bound between 10-15 % by mass burned
Heat of combustion will be bound between 35-40 MJ/kg
Radiation fraction (heat escaping by radiation) is 10%
Start time is 0900 hrs, local
oil specific gravity is 0.85
Still waiting for confirmation of planned burn area
I of]
10/20/20] 0 11 :40 AM
002092
TECHNICAL INFORMATION PAPER
Introduction
When used appropriately, chemical dispersants can be
an effective method of response to on oil spill. They are
capable of rapidly removing large amounts of certain oil
types from the sea surface and transferring it into the
water column. Following dispersant application, wave
energy will cause the oil slick to break up into small oil
droplets that are rapidly diluted and subsequently
biodegraded by micro-organisms occurring naturally in
the marine environment. They can also delay the
formation of persistent water-in-oil emulsions. In
common with other response techniques, the decision to
use dispersants must be given careful consideration and
take into account oil characteristics, sea and weather
conditions, and environmental sensitivities. Significant
environmental and economic benefits can be achieved,
particularly when other at-sea response techniques are
limited by weather conditions or the availability of
resources. In certain situations, dispersants may provide
the only means of removing significant quantities of
surface oil quickly, therefore minimising or preventing
damage to important sensitive resources.
Mechanism of Dispersion and

Dispersant Composition
Following an oil spill, some of the oil will disperse naturally into
the water column. The extent to which this occurs depends on the
type of oil spilt and the mixing energy. Oils with a lower viscosity
are more amenable to natural dispersion than the ones with a
higher viscosity. Natural dispersion tokes place when the mixing
energy provided by the waves and wind is sufficient to overcome
Aerial application of dispersant using an ADDS pack and

Hercules aircroft.
surface tension at Ihe oil/water interface and break the oil slick
into droplets of variable sizes. Generally, larger oil droplets will
rapidly resurface and then coalesce 10 form on oil slick, but the
smaller droplets will remain suspended in the water column
where they will be diluted by turbulence and subsurface currents.
The process of natural dispersion tokes place in moderately
rough seas with breaking waves and winds above 10 knots
(5 m/s). Severe storm conditions in Shetland, UK, at the time of
the grounding of the M.T. BRAER caused virtually all of the 84,000
tonne cargo of Gulfaks North Sea crude oil to be dispersed
naturolly and resulted in minimal shoreline impact.
Chemical dispersants are designed to enhance natural dispersion
by reducing the surface tension at the oil/water interface, making
it easier for waves to creole small oil droplets. Modern chemical
dispersants are a blend of surfactants (surface active agents) in a
solvent. The solvent has two funclions: il reduces the viscosity of
the surfactant which enables it to be sprayed and it promotes the
penetration of the surfactant into the oil slick.
The surfaclant molecules are the key component of the
dispersant. They are made up of two ports: on oleophilic port (oilloving) and a hydrophilic port (water-loving). When dispersants
are sproyed onto on oil slick, the solvent transports and distributes
the surfactants through the oil slick to the oil/water interface
where they re-arrange so that the oleophilic port of the molecule
is in the oil and the hydrophilic part is in the water. This creates a
sharp reduclion in the surface tension of the oil/water interface
and small oil droplets break away from the oil slick with the help
of wave energy. Re-coalescence is minimised by the presence of
the surfactant molecules on the droplet surface and the reduced
probability of encountering other oil droplets as they move apart.
Nafural dispersion of spilled oil during the M. T. BRAER

grounding, Shetland Islands, UK, 1993.
No.4
To achieve an efficient dispersion, oil droplet size must be in the

ronge of 1 pm" to 70 Jim with the most stable size being less than
45 pm. Smaller droplets are belter as they remain suspended in
/-1m = micro-metres = Jcrs metres.
2005
002093
Successful dispersion in laboratory conditions. a) Oil without

dispersant (natural dispersion), b) Oil with dispersant and c)
Oil with dispersant a few seconds later, demonstrating rapid
dilution. (Photos courtesy of Delft Hydraulics Institute.)
concentration of surfadants (25% to 65%) and can be applied
either undiluted (neat) or pre-diluted with sea water although
it is more common to apply them undiluted. A typical dosage
ranges between 1:5 to 1:30 (undiluted dispersant to oil).
The chemical dispersion process. A, Dispersant droplets

containing 5uriactants ore sprayed on to the oil. B: The
solvent carries the surfactant into the oil. C: The surfactant
molecules migrate to the oil/water interface and reduce
surface tension, allowing 0: small oil droplets to break away
from the slick. E, The droplets disperse by turbulent mixing,
leaving only sheen on the water surface.
It is imporlant to remember that dispersants are manufadured

primarily for use in the marine environment. Their efficiency will be
optimum in waters with a salinity of around 30-35 paris per
thousand (ppf) but will decrease rapidly in waters with a salinity
below 5- 10 ppt, especially when pre-diluted. Similarly, efficiency is
also affeded when salinity rises above 35 ppt. In freshwater,
dispersant effectiveness is dramatically reduced because the
surfadanls tend to travel through the oiflayer into the water column
instead of stabilising 01 the oil/water interface. Nevertheless, some
dispersants have been specially formulated for use in freshwater. In
a confined freshwater system, other fadors also need to be
considered, such as whether there is sufficient water depth or
exchange of water to achieve adequate dilution.
Limitations of Chemical Dispersants

Dispersant effectiveness is limited by cerlain physical and
chemical parameters, the most important of which are sea state
the water column where they will be diluted rapidly in the top few
metres of the sea to below harmful concentrations. The increased
surface area provided by the small droplets also enhances the
opportunity for ?iodegradation of the oil.
The dispersants which are available an the market today
comprise a solvent and a blend of two or three surfactants. The
most common surfactants used are non-ionic (fatty acid esters
and ethoxylated fatty acid esters) and anionic (sodium alkyl
sulphosuccinate). Generally, around the world, two main
compositions are encountered:
Hydrocarbon-based dispersants The solvent is a hydrocarbon
with a low or no aromatic content. These dispersants typically
contain between 15-25% surfactant and are intended for neat
application to oil. They should not be pre-diluted with sea
water since this renders them ineffective. They also require a
high application rate of between 1: 1 to 1 :3 (dispersant to oil).
Hydrocarbon-based dispersants are less effective and may be
more toxic than concentrate dispersants and, as a
consequence, in many countries are not now commonly in use.
Concentrate or self-mix dispersants These dispersants
conlain a blend of different surfactants with both oxygenated
and hydrocarbon solvents. They contain a higher
from spray booms at the bow of the vessel starts to disperse

as it is hit by the vessel's baw wave; and b) and c) turbulent
mixing in the bow wave continues to disperse and dilute the
oil into the water column.
The Use of Chemical Dispersants to Treat Oil Spills
002094
Dispersion starting after application to Forties

during
the SEA EMPRESS spill. (Photo courtesy of AEA Technology).
"",tt"",,.-,,",,. treatment HFO by dispersant ;s characterised by

a white plume in the water. The oil remains unaffected.
and oil properties. An awareness af these limitations is important

to identify circumstances when dispersant use is appropriate.
oil viscosities increase. They are likely to be ineffective for oils with
on initial viscosity above 10,000 cSt at the time they are spilled.
Pour point is also an important parameter. Any oil with a pour
point higher than the ambient temperature (such oils are usually
transported heated) will start to become very viscous as they cool
after spillage and may even become solid. As a general rule, oil
with a pour point 10-15"C below sea temperature will be difficult
to disperse chemically.
Sea Stale A minimum amount af wove energy is required to

achieve successful chemical dispersion at sea. In the absence af
sufficient wave energy to form and maintain the dispersion of oil
droplets into the water column, they may re-surface and form a
slick. Hawever, the efficiency af chemical dispersian will imprave
with increasing sea state only to a certain level. In severe sea
conditions, the oil will be submerged by breaking waves,
preventing direct contact between the dispersant and the oil.
Dispersant sprayed on to water rather than ail will be ineffective.
Field trials indicate that a wind speed between 4 to 12 m/s (about
5 to 25 knots) is optimum.
Oil properties The properties of the oil and the way these
properties change with time on the sea are important when
assessing Ihe likelihood of successful chemical dispersion. The
viscosity and pour point of on oil provide a good indication of ils
dispersability. As a general rule, fresh light to medium crude oils
(group 2 or 3 oils-see ITOPF Technical Information Paper No.2
'Fate of Marine Oil Spills') are considered to be readily
dispersible whereas highly viscous oils are not. The upper limit of
dispersability is likely to be reached with heavier oils (group 4
oils). As a general rule, dispersant effectiveness will decrease as
2000~----'-~~r-~~-----r----~----r---~
5000~--~~--~~~~~-+----+---~~~~
2000+-----~--~----~~--~--~----_+~~~
1000+-----r----1-----r--~t_--~r_--_+----~
500'~----+---~----~----+_~~r_~~~~~
100
50
.., 30
~
0
'tii
...
z,.
"
:>'"
""5
E
II>
'"
!:2
20
Deorees Celsius
Approximate relationship belween temperature and oil

viscosity for representative crude and fuel oils.
Group 1 oils, such as diesel, gasoline and kerosene, spread to

form very thin films of oil on the water surface (often referred to
as 'sheen' because they are iridescent) and they readily evaporate
without need for the use of dispersants. It is therefore not
advisable to use dispersants on oils from this group or on sheens
which have formed from any crude or fuel oil. This is because the
dispersant droplets tend to punch through the thin film or sheen
and couse 'herding' of the oil. This effect creates an immediate
area of clear water that should not be mistaken for dispersion.
Once an oil has been spilled, the viscosity rapidly increases from
its initial value due to the loss of volatile components through
evaporation and through emulsification. Some oils are
particularly prane to forming water-inoil emulsions (especially
those that have a relatively high asphaltene content (>0.5%) and
a combined nickel/vanadium concentration greater than 15 ports
per million). Emulsification causes an increase in both viscosity
and volume.
The increase in viscosity caused by evaporation and emulsion
formation restricts the ability of the dispersant to reach the
oil/water interface and makes it difficult to overcome the
mechanical resistance to mixing. This prevents the formation of
small oil droplets. However, if the emulsion is unstable,
concentrate dispersants may be able to break it back to its parent
oil, releasing the waler and allowing the relatively fresh oil to be
dispersed by a second application of dispersant. Given these
changes in oil properties over time, the opportunity for the
successful application of dispersants is limited. The time available
usually ranges from a few hours to a few days depending on the
type of oil involved and the environmental conditions.
Dispersant Choice and Dosage The choice of dispersant and the
dosage will affect the amount of oil actually dispersed. In many
circumstances it is preferable to use undiluted concentrate
dispersants in open waters. Dispersants are manufactured to
slightly different formulations, and their effectiveness varies to a
greater or lesser degree with the type of oil treated. Some
dispersants have been formulated specifically with the aim of
treating viscous oils. Laboratory tests may be carried out to rank
one dispersant relative to another for a particular oil and some
countries require operators of oil terminals or rigs to undertake
such studies to identify the most effective dispersant for the oil
involved. However, the results from these tests cannot be
3
002095
Unsuccessful application of dispersants on a non dispersible

heavy oil using fire monitors on a tug.
Boat application using spray arms mounted near the bow of

the vessel.
extrapoloted to predict the amount of oillhat will be dispersed at

sea as the test conditions are nol designed to mimic sea
conditions. For plonning purposes a dosage of 1:20 dispersant 10
oil is commonly used ond sproying equipment is often preconfigured to achieve this. This dosage may be decreased on
fresh oils and conversely increased for viscous ails or emulsified
oils where more than one application moy be needed.
it is frequently forced through the oil making it ineffective. Thus

fire monitors are unlikely to be an effedive application tool unless
specially modified for the purpose.
Application Methods
Dispersonts con be applied to spilled oil on open water by boats
or aircroft. Large multi-engine aircraft ore best suiled to dealing
with major off-shore spills whereas, boats, single-engine aircraft
and helicopters are suitable for treating smaller spills thai ore
closer to the shore. In the right circumstonces, helicopters con
olso reload with dispersants from a vessel or offshore oil platform
for open water response.
The droplet size of the dispersant is important as it needs to be
sufficiently large to overcome the effects of wind and evaporative
loss but not so large that it will result in the droplets being able to
"punch" through the oil slick. The optimum droplet size is belween
600 and 800 pm. Ultimately, whichever method of application is
used, the key to a successful response using chemical dispersants
is the ability to target the thickest port of the oil slick within a short
time and before weathering or sea state render the oil
undispersable.
Vessel spraying Dispersants are usually applied from boots
equipped with spray arms. In a typical spray arm system, diesel
or electric pumps are used to pump dispersants from a storage
tank through a set of nozzles calibrated to produce a uniform
spray pattern of droplets. Spray units can be portable or
permanently installed on a vessel and systems are available that
deliver the dispersont either undiluted or diluted with sea water.
Vessels offer certain advantages for dispersant spraying because

they are usually readily available, easy to load and deploy, have
cost odvantages over aircraft and can apply dispersant fairly
accurately to specific areas of a slick. Nevertheless, they also have
serious limitations, particularly for larger spills, because of the low
treatment rate which they offer and the added difficulty of locating
the heaviest concentrations of oi I from the bridge of a vessel.
Furthermore, when slicks become fragmented or form narrow
windrows, it is inevitable that some dispersant will be sprayed
onto c1eor sea. These problems con be partially overcome by
controlling the operation from a spotter aircraft.
Aerial spraying Aerial spraying of dispersant offers the
advantages of rapid response, high treatment rates and optimum
dispersant use. Two categories of aircraft are used: those
designed for agricultural or pest control operations which require
minor modification for dispersant application and those that have
been adapted specifically for the application of dispersant. Some
helicopters are able to carry under-slung bucket spray systems,
usually without the need for modifications.
The ideal aircraft will be determined primarily by the size and
location of the spill, although in reality local availability will be the
crucial factor. The aircraft should be capable of operating safely
at a low altitude (typically 50 to 100 feet for larger aircraft) and
at relatively slow speeds (50 to 150 knots) and in addition need
to be highly manoeuvrable. Endurance, fuel consumption, turn
around time, payload and the ability to operate from short or
improvised landing strips are also important considerations when
selecting suitable aircraft.
Spray arms ore usually mounted as for forward on the vessel as

possible to avoid the effect of the bow wove which can push the
oil beyond the spray swath. Mounting the spray arms on the bow
allows the vessel to travel fasler and, because freeboard is often
greater at the bow, also allows the spray arms to be mode longer.
However, if the arms are too long Ihey risk damage when the
vessel rolls. This combination of benefits optimises the amount of
oil thai can be treated ('encounter rote') with a limited dispersant
payload.
If spray arms are not available, fire hoses or monitors are
sometimes used to apply diluted concentrate dispersants.
However, optimum dilution of the dispersant is difficult to achieve
because of the very high flow rates and wastage of dispersant is
a common problem. The high-powered jet of water.also makes it
difficult to apply the dispersant as a uniform spray of droplets and
4
Aerial application of dispersanl using a helicopler and

underslung spray bucket system.
002096
be 50 litres/hedare (10 imp. gal/acre). The discharge rate can
then be calculated by multiplying the application rale (Iilre/m') by
the swath width of the spraying arm (m) and the speed of the
aircraft (m/s).
In our example, if dispersants were applied by an aircraft
travelling at a speed of 90 knots (45 m/s) with a swath width of
15 m and on application rate of 50 litres/hectare (0.005Iitre/m'),
the discharge rate would be:
Discharge rate = 0.005 litres/m' x 15 m x 45 m/s
(or about 200 litres/minute).
Spraying boom under a Cessna 406 (Photo courtesy of

CEDRE).
3.37Iitre5/s
Thus, to disperse a slick of 0.1 mm thickness at a dose rate of

1 :20, the discharge role of the pump of the spraying system
would need to be adjusted to a rate of about 200 litres per
minute. The same calculation is made to determine the discharge
rate for vessel application.
Only concentrate dispersants are suitable for aerial spraying as

they require no mixing beyond that provided by the natural
movement of the sea. The relatively low dosage (typically 1:20)
also makes the best use of the available payload. Aircraft
spraying systems will consist of a pump that draws dispersant at
a controlled rate from a tank into spray arms fitted on the aircraft.
The dispersant is discharged through either pressure nozzles or
wind driven rotating cylindrical gauze units spaced at regular
intervals along the spray arm. These units are designed to
produce dispersant droplets of the optimum size. Both types of
discharge unit can be used on most smaller aircraft (helicopter,
single and twin engine) but larger aircraft will use pressure
nozzles.
In practice, it is impossible to evaluate precisely the amount of oil

in a slick and determine the optimum dosage since the thickness
varies significantly within the slick. Provided that the thickest part
of a slick is targeted, it is unlikely that over-application of
dispersants will be an issue. Application rates of the order of 50
litres/hectare have been found to be appropriate in many
situations, but adjustment is required to compensate for possible
variation in slick thickness caused by different types of oil and
environmental conditions. The application rate may be controlled
by varying the discharge rate of the pumps or the speed of the
vessel or aircraft.
Shoreline application Dispersants are sometimes used to remove

oil from hard surfaces such as rocks, sea walls and other manmade structures. They are generally applied to the surface and
scrubbed into the oil before flushing with sea water. The dispersed
oil cannot be colleded and for this reason dispersant use on the
shoreline is restricted to areas of low environmental concern.
Shoreline cleaners may also be used but it is important to note
that their mechanism of action is different to that of dispersants.
Degreasers are often carried on board ships to deal with small
spillages of oil on deck but most are more toxic than dispersant
and should not be used as a dispersant at sea or as a shoreline
cleaner.
The effectiveness of chemical dispersion should be monitored

continually and the response terminated as soon as the
dispersant is no longer working. In clear weather conditions
successful dispersion will often produce a coffee-coloured plume
seen to spread under the water surface. However, visual
observation of effectiveness may be impaired in poor weather
conditions, in waters with a high sediment content, when
dispersing pale-coloured oils, and in poor light. Clearly, it is
impractical to spray effectively at night.
Application rate
One of the main challenges for the application of dispersants lies
in the estimation of the volume of oil to be treated and, hence,
the calculation of the appropriate application rate. To achieve
this, assumptions must be made concerning the average
thickness and volume of an oil slick. The ratio of dispersant to oil
required for effective dispersion varies between 1:3 and 1 :50
depending on the type of dispersant, the type of oil and the
prevailing conditions. For planning purposes, the application rate
can be calculated in twa sleps as follows:
Monitoring Dispersant Effectiveness
Experience has shown that for the application of dispersants to be

worthwhile, the oil will need to disperse sufficiently rapidly to
effect a change in appearance of the slick and a subsequent
reduction in oiled area, which should be visible from the air
shortly after spraying. Conversely, if there is no change in oil
appearance or coverage, and the dispersant runs off the oil to
create a milky white plume in the water, these are signs that the
dispersant is not working. Equally, if the oil has become
fragmented and widely scattered, it is unlikely thaI sufficient oil
1. Estimation of the volume of oil (in litres/hectarel

2. Calculation of the quantity of dispersant needed to achieve the
dose required (Hires) and the application rate (Iitres/hectare)
As a general rule, most fresh oils on the sea surface will spread
within a few hours to reach an overage thickness of 0.1 mm
(10"'m). At this thickness, the volume of oil in one hectare (104m')
would be:
, O"m x 10'm' == 1m' or 1,000 litres
For a dosage of 1:20, the quantity of dispersant required would
be: 1000 Htres I 20 = 50 litres, and the application rate would
~
Shoreline cleanup using chemicals during the SEA EMPRESS

incident, UK, 1996.
____________________________________________________________________
~5
002097
Seo surface
Sea surface
High
II)
1 ...
....
oVI
c:
II)
1~
Low
Fluorimeter response to oil from 0.5 to 5 metres water depth under an surface slick before (left) and a few minutes after
dispersant application (right). Oil rapidly disperses and dilutes to deeper than 5 metres after treatment. (Illustrations courtesy of
AEA Technology).
will be removed from the water surface by the dispersant to
achieve a significant reduction in pollution damage.
Ultra-violet fluorimetry (UVF) is sometimes used to provide 'realtime' data on the concentration of dispersed oil in the waler
column during the application of dispersants. Typically, the
variation in the concentration of fluorescent components is
measured at least 1 metre under the slick using a fluorimeter that
is towed behind a sampling boat. In open water, dispersion is
demonstrated by a significant increase in the concentration of oil
deteded by the sensor compared with that measured prior to
dispersant application. However, when used operationally, UVF
does not provide a quantitative measurement of the amount of oil
that is adually being removed from the sea surface and it should
be used in combination with visual observations to decide
whether a worthwhile response can be achieved.
Logistics and Control

Dispersant application is a specialised operation that requires
preparation and trained operators. In the interests of safety and
effediveness if is desirable to use spotter aircraft to guide and coordinate spraying vessels and aircraft. The crew of the spotter
aircraft should be able to identify the heavier concentrations of oil
or the slicks posing the greatest threat and they need to have
good communication with the spraying aircraft or vessel crews in
order to guide them to the target. During the spraying operation
itself, spotter aircraft can be used to judge the accuracy of the
application and the effediveness of the treatment. These fundions
are particularly important when large multi-engine aircraft are
used for spraying because from a low altitude the crew have great
difficulty in distinguishing between oil and sheen, especially if the
slick is broken up.
To ensure safety during the spraying operation, aircraft exclusion
zones need t6 be in force during spraying. Relief crews may be
called for as flying over the sea at low altitude is extremely
arduous. Periodic checks of the aircraft are also recommended to
ensure that the dispersant does not contaminate lubricants,
particularly in the tail rotor of helicopters, or attack exposed
rubber components of aircraft flight control systems. It is
advisable to wash down the aircraft frequently with fresh water to
remove both dispersant and salt water spray.
Good organisation on the ground is also needed to enable
spraying operations to continue for the maximum available time
during daylight hours. This may require routine maintenance and
transport of additional supplies of fuel and dispersant to be
carried out at night. Consequently, stockpiles of dispersant should
be sufficiently well stocked and conveniently located in order to
supply vessels or aircraft with the minimum delay. Thought should

also be given to the equipment required for reloading vessels or
aircraft, such as high capacity pumps and road tankers.
Dispersants can either be stored in 200 litre drums or in
intermediate bulk containers (IBCs). While dispersants in drums
will be adequate to support a small-scale operation, a large
aircraft would have to be supplied from bulk containers or rood
tankers.
For long-term storage of dispersants, plastic drums are preferable
provided that they are kepf auf of dired sunlight. Dispersants that
are stored unopened should lost for many years. However, once
opened, the dispersant should be tested periodically for its
effediveness. Recommendations from manufadurers include an
annual visual inspection together with a confrol of the main
physicol charaderistics such as density, viscosity and flash point.
If these physical parameters have significantly changed or the
expiry date has been reached, a dispersant effectiveness test
should be conduded. Dispersants of different types, ages or
brands should not be mixed in the some tank or storage container
as this may alter the viscosity of the dispersant or couse some
components to precipitate or coagulate. Dispersants should not
be stored after they have been diluted with sea wafer. The
optimum storage temperature for most dispersants is between
- 15C and 30C and manufacturers recommend that
temperature fluduations ore kept minimal during storage. In very
cold temperatures, some dispersants may become too viscous to
pass through the spray nozzles.
Environmental Considerations
Dispersant use has always been controversial. It may be viewed
as a way of minimising potential impads on sensitive resources
by preventing or reducing shoreline contamination, but it is also
sometimes seen as adding another pollutant to the environment.
Despite improvements in dispersant formulations, toxicity of the
dispersant/oil mixture to marine fauna and flora is often the
major environmental concern. Approval processes for dispersant
use are normally in place which are designed to take both
effediveness and toxicity into account. For example, some
countries require the dispersant/ail mixture to be no more toxic
than the oil alone.
In open water, elevated oil concentrations are normally only
observed in the upper layers of the water column 10 metre) and
are rapidly diluted by water movement. Studies have shown that oil
concentrations in the range of 30 to 50 ppm can be expeded in the
surface 10 metres or so of the water column immediately after
dispersant application, diminishing to 1 to 10 ppm after a few
hours. The exposure for marine organisms is thus acute rather than
002098
chronic and the limited exposure time reduces the likelihood of
long-term adverse effects on fauna and floro. However, spraying
dispersants in shallow water is inadvisable if dilution of the
dispersed oil plume may be restricted or if the dispersed oil moy
interact with suspended sediment in the water column and sink.
An estimation of the dilution potential is a useful basis for making
the decision whether dispersants should be used to protect certain
resources without risking undue damage to others. Relevant
factors to toke into account are water depth, oil quantity per unit
area, the distance between the application site and sensitive
areas as well as the direction of currents and the mixing depth of
the surface waters.
By removing oil from the water surface, dispersants minimise
impacls on sea birds and sensitive shorelines such as salt
marshes, mangroves and tourist beaches. In addition, the ability
of many free swimming fish species to detect and ovoid oil in the
water column will help to reduce their potential exposure.
However, corals, sea grass and fish spawning areas may be
highly sensitive to dispersed oil and dispersants are nat normally
used if these resources could be affected. The use of dispersonts
would not normally be recommended in the vicinity of fish cages,
shellfish beds or other shallow water fisheries due to the increased
risk of tainting. Similarly, the use of dispersants close to industrial
water intakes is not advisable.
Dispersed oil can cause problems for farmed fish cultivated in

cages by tainting the fish flesh.
The faclors influencing the decision to use dispersants are seldom

clear-cut and the choice is necessarily a compromise between
other options, cost-effectiveness and conflicting priorities for
protecting different resources from pollution damoge. Because
the opportunity to use dispersants may be limited, the
circumstances when dispersants may ar may not be used should
be agreed upon before a spill occurs to avoid delays. The
advantages and disadvantages of their use need to be evaluated
and compared with other response methods, a process often
referred to as Net Environmental and Economic Benefit Analysis
(NEEBA). This process enables responders to balance the positive
and negative aspects of different response options (including
leaving to natural processes) according to the priorities for
protection, the type of oil and the environmental conditions.
Contingency Planning
Faclors to be considered during the contingency planning phose
are: types of oil likely to be involved in a spill, dispersant
effectiveness on these oils, sensitive resources in the area and
logistics. Logistics relate mainly to the location and availability of
dispersants, spraying equipment, vessels, aircraft, airstrips and
refuelling capability, as well as to customs clearance for any
international support required. Thought also needs to be given to
the cost of maintaining an effective dispersant response
capability, including consideration of sources of additional
supplies of dispersant. The outcome of these discussions should
be documented clearly in a contingency plan. Sensitivity mops are
particularly useful to indicate when and where dispersants mayor
may not be used.
Dispersant use is not appropriate in environmentally sensitive

areas like coral reefs and seagrass beds except in special
circumstances and after careful consideration of the potential
environmental consequences of using them. A balanced
assessment of the net enviranmental and economic benefits is
necessory.
Dispersant use can help protect vulnerable sea birds by

rapidly removing oil from the sea surface.
7
002099
without further consultation, provided that certain criteria have
been met.
Training and exercises are an essential part of planning for
dispersant use, as indeed they are for all aspects of spill response.
Operational crews should receive comprehensive training on all
aspects of dispersant application and safety, and practical
exercises to mobilise resources and deploy and run spraying
equipment should be held regularly.
Summary
Chemical dispersants enhance the natural break-up of the oil
and remove it from the water surface to the water column,
where it is rapidly diluted and ultimately biodegraded. They
can be a rapid and effective way of minimising pollution
damage to sensitive coastal resources.
Two main types of dispersants exist. Of these, concentrote
dispersants are the most effective and have the lowest toxicity.
Concentrations of dispersed oil in the water column generally
decrease within a few hours to below harmful levels, thereFore
minimising the risk of long-term adverse effects to marine
organisms.
The limitations of dispersants must be understood and
carefully evaluated before any application. In particular, their
inability to Ireat very viscous oils, stable emulsions and the
inappropriateness of treating oil sheen should be appreciated.
Mops are often used in contingency plans to zone dispersant

use. In the example, dispersant use is prohibited in the red
area because of year-round commercial fishing, but is preapproved seasonally for treating oil around a bird colony at
Pelican Island (blue) and to treat floating oil to protect overwintering duck using coastal marshes (green).
In many countries, national regulations require dispersant use to

be approved by the competent national authority. For
responders, an awareness of dispersant use policy is important
as conflicts may arise and fines may be imposed when a facility
or ship spills oil and dispersants are used without prior consent
or regard for the policy of the country involved. Some countries
maintain a list of dispersants that have been approved for use on
the basis of efficacy and toxicity testing. In certain situations, the
competent authority may also grant pre-approvals to oil
handling facilities or ports allowing them to use dispersants
For most crude oils spilled at seo, the opportunity to apply

dispersant is generally of brief duration and 0 fast response is
essential.
Whilst vessels are suitable for dealing with small oil spills close
to port, large multi-engined aircraft offer a potentially more
effective response for major spills offshore.
The dilution potential in the area where dispersants are to be
used is an important consideration. Dispersant applicotion
should be avoided in situations where the dispersed oil plume
may cause secondary damoge to sensitive resources like
shellfish beds or industrial water intakes.
The use of dispersants should be discussed and agreed by all
parties involved in the response before an oil spill occurs. A .
well prepared and practised contingency plan, and a clear
policy for dispersant use, significantly increases the likelihood
of an effective dispersant operation.
The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited (/TOPF) is a non-profit making organisation involved in all aspects of
combating oil spills in the marine environment. Its highly experienced technical staff have responded to more than 500 shipsource spills in aver 90 countries to give advice on clean-up measures, environmental and economic effects, and compensation.
They also regularly undertake contingency planning and training assignments. ITOPF is a source of comprehensive information on
marine oil pol/ution through its library, wide range of technical publications, videos and website.
The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited (ITOPF)

1 Oliver's Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1 HQ, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7566 6999
Fax: +4420 7566 6950
Email: cenlral@itapf.com
Web site: www.itopf.com
The international Tanker Owners Pollution Federation limited
FW: Dispersibility of South Louisiana crudes
002101
Subject: FW: Dispersibility of South Louisiana crudes

From: "Lambert,Patrick [NCR]"
t@ec.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:18:52 -0400
To: Debra.Simecek-Beatly@noaa.gov, bill lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>
CC: "Fieldhouse,Ben [NCR]" <
@ec.gc.ca>, "Brown,Carl [NCR]"
@ec.gc.ca>
Debra and Bill,

Ben has prepared a summary of our most recent information on SL crude oil and dispersants.
Patrick Lambert
(central) 613-~98-9622, (office) 613 991-1110, (cell)
w
From:
Fetlhouse,Ben [NCR]
Sent: Aprl 22, 2010 1:34 PM

To:
Lambert,Patrtk [NCR]
Subject:
Dispersbi;y of South Louisiana crudes
Pat,
Here are the 3 catalogue reference sheets to S. Louisiana:
.
The first was tested in 1989, and does not include C9500 data, but gives results for C9527 (55% effective on
fresh oil).
w
- The second (2001) has C9500 data only (25% effective on fresh oil)
- The third sheet (2004) does not have dispersibility data, but gives detailed chemical composition data for the
EPA reference oil. We have the dispersant test data for the EPA reference oil and it is 45% effectiveness for the
fresh oil using C9500.
Over the years we have tested several Gulf of Mexico from specific lease blocks. Our 1996 publication on GaM
oils has 15 individual oil sources, tested with 4 dispersants - C9500, C9527, Dasic LTS and Enersperse 700. We
have also completed a group of 7 additional in 2003 (C9500 only), and just this year 2 more from the Gulf. The
range of dispersibility for this group of oils by the 8FT using C9500 is from 15 to 90 % effectiveness depending
on the oil, with most being around 30 - for reference the EC standard A8MB#4 has a dispersibility of abour 40
by this test. If a more specific oil identity can be given, we may be able to match it to an oil in the database.
It is important to note that the dispersant effectiveness determined by this test is not the percentage expected to
be dispersed at sea, but a relative comparison between oil and dispersant combinations tested by this method.
The test uses low energy swirling and a settling period prior to sampling to determine the chemical enhancement
of dispersion; there is typically no natural (untreated) dispersion of the oil by this test. The values derived for
GaM oils tested in the past indicate that chemical dispersants will increase the dispersion of the oil significantly the actual experience at sea will vary depending on the conditions (mixing energy, oil type and composition,
salinity, sediment interaction, ocean currents).
Oils from the Gulf of Mexico are generally light oils with low asphaltene and high saturate content, which should
favour dispersion. However, the distribution of alkanes is critical, as dispersion is correlated with the lighter
alkanes below about C14, and inversely with the waxes above C22, so the alkane distribution of the particular oil
will heavily influence the dispersant effectiveness.
Another consideration is the degree of weathering. As the oil weathers, dispersion decreases as lighter
lof2
10/20/2010 11:41 AM
FW: Dispersibility of South Louisiana crudes
002102
compounds are lost by evaporation. The dispersant effectiveness will fall dramatically after several hours of
exposure relative to the fresh oil.
Ben
South_Louisiana.pdf South_Louisiana_(2001).pdf
South_Louisiana_(USEPA_Reference_StandardL(2004).pdf
ISOUth.,..LOUiSiana~(USEfJ,6.=R~ferenC~~Stan~~rdLJ2004).PdfW
2of2
10/20/201011:41 AM
002103
South Louisiana
Reference 10
Origin:
Louisiana, USA
API Gravity
37.0
API 81
0.21
API
Sulphur (weight %)
Density (g/ml)
Temperature
Lill
15.6
0.8390
API 81
Chemical Dispersibility (volume %)

Corexit 9527
Dasic LTS
Enersperse 700
EETD89
55
30
30
Distillation (OC)
Total Distillate
(volume 0/0)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
FBP
Boiling Point
Lill
76
105
132
156
178
203
221
239
254
271
284
302
321
341
362
384
411
440
468
530
API 81
1.1
0.9
API 81
API 81
Metals (ppm)
Nickel
Vanadium
Other Elements (weight %)
Aqueous Solubility (mg/l)

23
38
(a)
(b)
Anderson 74
Murray 84
(a) salt water; (b) distilled water

Acute Toxicity of Water Soluble Fraction (mg/L)
Test Organism
Neanthes arenaceodentata
24h LC50
Capitella capitata
Mysidopsis almyra
Palaemoneted pugio
18
>19.8
12
>16.8
Copyright Environment Canada, Emergencies Science and Technology Division
Rossi 76
Anderson 74
002104
South Louisiana
Reference 10
Acute Toxicity of Water Soluble Fraction (mg/L)
Test Organism
24h LC50
Penaeus aztecus
Menidia beryllina
Fundulus similis
Cyprinodon variegatus
48h LC50
Platynereis dumerilii
Capitella capitata
Mysidopsis almyra
Leander tenuicornis
Palaemoneted pugio
Penaeus aztecus
Menidia beryllina
Fundulus similis
96h LC50
Platynereis dumerilii
Capitella capitata
Leander tenuicornis
Palaemoneted pugio
Penaeus az!ecus
Menidia beryllina
Fundulus similis
Acute Toxicity. Oil in Water Emulsion (mg/L)
Test Organism
24h LC50
Mysidopsis almyra
Palaemonetes pugio
Penaeus aztecus
Menidia beryllina
Fundulus similis
Mysidopsis almyra
48h lC50
Palaemonetes pugio
Penaeus aztecus
Menidia beryllina
Fundulus similis
96h LC50
Palaemonetes pugio
Penaeus aztecus
Menidia beryllina
Fundulus similis
>19.8
10
17
>19.8
12
14
16
9
10
>16.8
>19.8
9
17
>19.8
10
13
12
6
>16.8
>19.8
6
17
>19.8
Anderson 74
165
1700
>1.000
7600
6610
80000
38
1650
>1,000
5000
6000
33000
200
>1,000
3700
6000
29000
Anderson 74
Copyright Environment Canada, Emergencies Science and Technology Division
Neff 76
Rossi 76
Anderson 74
Neff 76
Rossi 76
Neff 76
002105
South Louisiana (2001)

Origin
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A. (Exxon-Mobil)

Synonyms
Louisiana
API Gravity
32.72 (ca/c)
Equation for Predicting Evaporation
%Ev =(2.74 + 0.045 T) In t

Where: %Ev = weight percent evaporated; T = surface temperature ("C); t
=time (minutes)
Sulphur Content
Weathering
(weight %)
Sulphur
(weight %)
0.49
(n=3)
10.9
0.71
(n=3)
19.7
0.79
(n=3)
27.7
0.88
(n=3)
Water Content
Weathering
(weight %)
Water
(volume %)
<0.1
(n=3)
10.9
<0.1
(n=3)
19.7
<0.1
(n=3)
27.7
<0.1
(n=3)
Copyright Environment Canada, Emergencies Science And Technology Division
002106

Flash Point
Weathering
(weight %)
Flash Point
(0C)
<-10
(n=2)
10.9
42.3
(n=3)
19.7
80.7
(n=3)
>110
27.7
(n=2)
Density
Weathering
(weight %)
10.9
19.7
27.7
Temperature
(0C)
Density
(g/mL)
0.8668
(n=3)
15
0.8562
(n=3)
0.8888
(n=3)
15
0.877
(n=3)
0.9025
(n=3)
15
0.8906
(n=3)
0.9135
(n=3)
15
0.9018
(n=3)
Pour Point
Weathering
(weight %)
Pour Point
(OC)
-41
(n=2)
10.9
-19
(n=2)
19.7
-14
(n=1)
27.7
-11
(n=2)
002107

Dynamic Viscosity
Weathering
(weight %)
0
10.9
19.7
27.7
Temperature
(0G)
Viscosity
(cP)
18.5
(n=3)
15
10.1
(n=3)
54.8
(n=3)
15
23.7
(n=3)
217.3
(n=3)
15
48.9
(n=2)
515.9
(n=3)
141
(n=3)
15
Chemical Dispersibility
Weathering
(weight %)
using Corexit 9500 (%)
26.5
(n=6)
10.9
23.5
(n=6)
19.7
15.8
(n=6)
27.7
10.3
(n=6)
Adhesion
Weathering
(weight %)
Adhesion
(91m2)
24
(n=4)
10.9
34
(n=4)
19.7
50
(n=5)
27.7
28
(n=4)
002108

Surface and Interfacial Tensions
Surface Tension (OillAir Interfacial Tension)
Weathering
(weight %)
Temperature
(OC)
10.9
19.7
27.7
Surface Tension
(mN/m)
28.3
(n=3)
15
26.1
(n=3)
29.3
(n=3)
15
28.1
(n=3)
30.4
(n=3)
15
29.4
(n=3)
31.1
(n=3)
15
29.8
(n=3)
OillBrine (33%0) Interfacial Tension

Weathering
(weight %)
10.9
Temperature
(OC)
20.9
(n=2)
15
16.8
(n=3)
22
(n=3)
19.4
(n=2)
22
(n=3)
15
22.2
(n=2)
20.6
(n=4)
15
18.4
(n=3)
0
15
19.7
27.7
Surface Tension
(mN/m)
002109

OillFresh Water Interfacial Tension
Weathering
(weight %)
Temperature
("C)
Surface Tension
(mN/m)
20.8
(n=3)
15
15.5
(n=2)
25.2
(n=3)
15
15.8
(n=3)
25.3
(n=3)
15
22.3
(n=3)
24.7
(n=3)
15
21.9
(n=3)
10.9
19.7
27.7
Emulsion Formation
Weathering
(weight %)
Visual Stability
Unstable
10.9
Unstable
19.7
Unstable
27.7
Unstable
Complex
Modulus
(Pa)
Emulsion
Water Content
(%)
002110

Boiling Point Distribution
Cumulative Weight Fraction (%)
Boiling Point
(OC)
0%
weathered
10.9%
weathered
19.7%
weathered
27.7%
weathered
40
1.2
60
1.6
80
2.1
100
5.6
0.9
120
8.2
2.4
0.1
140
11.1
4.8
0.4
160
14.1
7.8
1.6
0.1
180
17.5
11.4
0.3
200
20.6
14.9
7.2
1.4
250
29.8
25.2
18.1
10.6
300
39.9
36.6
30.6
24.1
350
49.7
47.7
42.8
37.5
400
58.1
57.0
53.1
49
450
65.8
65.7
62.7
59.6
500
72.0
72.7
70.4
68.2
550
77.1
78.5
76.7
75.2
600
80.9
82.8
81.5
80.5
650
83.8
86
85
84.5
002111

Hydrocarbon Groups
Concentration
(%)
Component
0%
10.9%
19.7%
27.7%
weathered
weathered
weathered
weathered
Saturates
80.8
80.4
78.4
77.3
Aromatics
12.6
12.3
12.5
13.3
Resins
5.9
6.4
Asphaltenes
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.5
Waxes
1.7
1.8
2.2
Volatile Organic Compounds
Concentration
(l1g/g oil)
Component
0%
27.7%
weathered
weathered
Benzene
1598
Toluene
3552
10
891
Xylenest
6164
C3-Benzenest
6680
190
Total BTEX
12210
12
Total BTEX and C3 Benzenest
18890
202
Ethylbenzene
t"Xylenes' include 0-, m-, and p-xylene isomers.
rC3-Benzenes' include eight isomers.
002112

nAlkane Distribution
Concentration (mg/g oil)

nAlkane Component
n-C8
n-C9
n-C1O
n-C11
n-C12
n-C13
n-C14
n-C15
n-C16
n-C17
Pristane
n-C18
Phytane
n-C19
n-C20
n-C21
n-C22
n-C23
n-C24
n-C25
n-C26
n-C27
n-C28
n-C29
n-C30
n-C31
n-C32
n-C33
n-C34
n-C35
n-C36
n-C37
n-C38
n-C39
n-C40
n-C41
TOTAL
0%
weathered
4.33
4.12
4.12
4.56
4.25
4.14
3.81
3.88
3.48
3.05
2.1
2.24
1.35
2
1.7
1.55
1.33
1.13
1.03
0.92
0.72
0.54
0.49
0.42
0.38
0.31
0.23
0.18
0.16
0.15
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
59
27.7%
weathered
0.21
1.81
3.81
4.94
5.19
5.29
4.75
4.13
2.76
3.11
1.84
2.61
2.27
2.11
1.81
1.58
1.44
1.28
1.08
0.78
0.7
0.62
0.54
0.46
0.34
0.27
0.24
0.2
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.04
56.7
C17/PRISTANE
1.45
1.5
C18fPHYTANE
1.65
1.68
PRISTANEfPHYTANE
1.55
1.49
CPI
0.95
1.02
002113

South Louisiana A'esh
5
4
0
<Xl
c::
t;;c::
(3
!!::
...
'It
Y
c::
CD
III
(3
~
"C::
!!::
Q)
c::
c::
N
'" yc::
0..
0..
N
N
Q
'It
N
Q
c::
CD
N
<Xl
N
Y
Y
c::
c::
<')
t!:
t!:
'It
CD
<Xl
<')
<')
<')
Y
c::
c::
0
'It
Y
c::
South Louisiana 27.7% w

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
00
c::
(3
(3
!!::
c!::
... t;;
c::
'It
Y
c::
CD
Q)
c::
"C
0..
III
C
III
0
N
>- Yc::
.t=
0..
N
N
Q
c!::
'It
N
Y
c::
co
<')
Y
Y
c::
c::
'It
Y
c::
Y
Y
c::
c
<')
<')
<')
co
<')
0
'It
~ Yc::
n-Alkane Distribution for South Louisiana Crude Oil (mg/g oil)
002114

PAH Distribution
Concentration (119/9 oil)
0%
weathered
Alkylated PAH
27.7%
weathered
Naphthalene
CO-N
Cl-N
C2-N
C3-N
C4-N
Sum
248.6
952.7
1500.1
1765.7
886.3
5353
164.1
1058.9
1965.6
2403.6
1222.3
6815
134.4
569.8
654.6
427.4
251.8
2038
188.3
777.8
887.1
574.6
349.6
2777
40
125.7
237.4
205.5
609
55.4
172.4
323.1
272.6
823
67.3
181.7
291.4
246
804
94.8
253.2
396.4
354.1
1098
23
58.8
81.6
69.1
233
9037
1.63
1
1:0.62:0.31
3004
80.1
108.4
90.7
310
11823
1.59
1.01
1:0.61:0.31
Phenanthrene
CO-P
C1-P
C2-P
C3-P
C4-P
Sum
Dibenzothiophene
CO-D
Cl-D
C2-D
C3-D
Sum
Fluorene
CO-F
C1-F
C2-F
C3F
Sum
Chrysene
CO-C
Cl-C
C2C
C3-C
Sum
TOTAL
2-m-N/1-m-N
(3+2 -m/phen )/(4-/9+ 1m-phen)
4-m:2/3m: 1-m-DBT
OtherPAHs
Biphenyl
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Perylene
Indeno(l,2,3cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a, h)anthracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
TOTAL
94.32
8.15
17.9
2.47
3.7
8.64
5.19
2.1
0.37
4.07
0.49
30.37
0.5
0.86
1.23
180
120.6
10.7
24.27
3.61
5.1
11.33
6.35
3.73
1.24
5.97
0.62
38.95
1.12
1.12
1.99
237
002115

South Louisiana
Fresh
2500
2000
1500
1000
Qher EPA Priority PAH
u:::
';j
!Xl
50~ 1
.1111
!
.. III
0I
I
Iii
("')
iii
c:
ZI
o
..o
c:
Q)
Q)
.:
.0
0..
Ci
("')
:i2'
:0
, III
a.
9:
ro
!Xl
!Xl
a.0)
!Xl
_111l1li
U;
o
U;
N
0
South Louisiana
27.7%w
l
~~gg
I
1~~~1 ,.dJ
.:
c..
z
I
ZI
ro
"..
("')
ZOO
3000
a.0)
!Xl
c:
Q)
.:
0..
.1 I I II I
III
0..I
0..I
c:
0I
.0
..-
("')
Q)
Ci
..-
... 1111 I
11111
,
I
I
u..
0
I
("')
u..I
~
.r:.
- -I-0
I
0I
..-
PAH Distribution for South Louisiana crude oil (jJg/g oil)
("')
002116

Biomarker Concentrations
Concentration (... 9/9 oil)
Biomarker
C23
C24
C29
C30
C31(S)
C31(R)
C32(S)
C32(R)
C33(S)
C33(R)
C34(S)
C34(R)
Ts
Tm
C27cx:1313 steranes
C29cx:13/3 steranes
TOTAL
0%
weathered
16.9
11.2
59.9
81.5
31
27.5
20.1
13.6
12.2
8.8
6.1
4.4
19
23.1
65
12.8
473
27.7%
weathered
22.7
14.7
75.9
105.6
40.2
35.7
25.1
17.4
15.4
10.5
7.3
5.2
24.3
30.3
85.8
94.3
610
Diagnostic Ratios
TsITm
1.5
0.21
0.14
0.73
1.13
1.48
1.39
1.37
0.82
C27 cx:PR'C29cx:pp
0.89
C23/C24
C23/C30
C24/C30
C29/C30
C31 (S)/C31 (R)

C32(S)/C32(R)
C33(S)/C33(R)
C34(S)/C34(R)
1.54
0.21
0.14
0.72
1.13
1.44
1.46
1.41
0.8
0.91
002117
South Louisiana (USEPA Reference Standard) (2004)

Origin
Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A.
Physical Properties
South Louisiana (USEPA Reference
Standard) (2004)
% Evaporative Mass Loss
Density (g/mL)
0.0%
10.3%
20.1%
30.8%
5C
0.8456
0.8649
0.8773
0.8893
15C
0.8389
0.8579
0.8701
0.8815
30C
0.8277
0.8472
0.8597
0.8713
37.1
API Gravity
Dynamic Viscosity (mPa-s)
Hydrocarbon Groups (%w/w)
Surface Tension
(mN/m)
5C
10.7
20.1
41.6
113.9
15C
7.1
12.6
23.8
46.4
30C
5.1
8.0
13.4
22.6
Saturates
79.4%
78.2%
77.7%
73.8%
Aromatics
16.9%
17.1%
17.4%
18.2%
Resins
3.4%
4.1%
4.4%
7.2%
Asphaltenes
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.8%
5C
26.7
28.7
29.6
30.5
15C
26.6
28.1
29.2
29.9
30C
27.2
27.5
28.2
28.9
........................................................................... u ....................................................................................... u ...... u . _ ........................ ~ ..................................... _ ................. ~
Interfacial Tension
(OillWater, mN/m)
5C
25.0
24.0
20.5
19.8
15C
24.9
25.0
24.6
22.4
30C
24.0
24.8
24.2
21.7
....................... u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u .............................................................. u ................. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Interfacial Tension
(Oil/330/0o Brine, mN/m)
5C
22.3
22.5
20.5
19.4
15C
22.0
22.7
22.2
19.4
30C
23.7
23.7
23.2
21.4
002118

GCTPH Distributions
Fraction
Total GC-TPHt
GC-Saturates/GC-TPHt

Concentration (mgJg oil)
0% evap.
10.3% evap.
20.1% evap. 30.8% eva~.
747
719
688
693
82.5
82.0
81.7
80.2
GC-Aromatics/GC-TPHt
17.5
18.0
18.3
19.8
Resolved Peaks/GC-TPH
20.8
20.6
18.5
15.9
68A
196
369
55.0
61.2
210
367
55.6
29.1
240
414
63.2
GC-TPH in ranges: t
n-Ca. ;!; to s; n-C1O

n-C 10 < to s; n-C 16
n-C 16 < to s; n-C 34
n-C34 +
1.03
195
456
66.9
tlncluding both resolved peaks and unresolved complex mixture areas.
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
meta- and para-Xylene
ortho-Xylene
Sum BTEX
Isopropylbenzene
Propylbenzene
3- and 4-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
2-Ethyltoluene
Sum C3benzenes
Isobutylbenzene
1-Methyl-2isopropylbenzene
1,2-Dimethyl-4
ethyl benzene
Amylbenzene
n-Hexylbenzene
BTEX + C3 -benzenes
All Target BTEX and
Alkyl-benzenes

0% eva~.
10.3% eva~.
20.1% eva~. 30.8% eva~.
2.65
0.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.33
3.51
0.06
1.12
0.00
1.32
0.19
5.30
5.76
1.29
0.00
2.31
1.94
0.72
0.00
18.37
12.50
2.26
0.00
1.73
1A9
0.51
2.12
0.17
6.76
0.34'
OA4
1.75
1.52
0.53
2.18
0.18
6.94
0.15
0.23
1.10
1.10
0.36
1.68
0.77
5.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.06
0.11
0,12
0.07
0.00
0.05
0.14
0.05
0.00
0.38
0.04
0.03
0.41
0.05
0.04
0.38
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.04
25.1
19A
7.65
0.06
25.7
20.2
8.23
0.18
0.34
OAO
002119

n-Alkane Distributions
Concentration (mglg oil)
n-Alkane Component
n-C~
n-C s
n-C ,0
n-C
n-C "'2
n-C '3
n-C,
n-C ,S
n-C'6
n-C17
Pristane
n-C,
Phytane
n-C ,S
n-C20
n-C 21
n-C22
n-G"
n-C,.
n-C 2S
n-C26
n-C27
n-C28
n-C29
n-C,o
n-C31
n-C 32
n-C'3
n-C34
n-C35
n-C 36
n-C'7
n-C3
n-C,
n-C40
n-C41
n-C'2
n-C'3
n-C.4
0% evap.
4.23
4.68
4.71
5.54
5.21
4.94
4.71
4.54
4.12
3.87
3.06
3.15
1.57
2.56
2.49
2.11
1.85
1.61
1.47
1.33
1.17
0.93
0.78
0.62
0.48
0.39
0.32
0.30
0.27
0.22
0.13
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
10.3% evap.
3.46
4.77
4.84
6.06
5.87
5.56
5.39
5.18
4.57
4.38
3.48
3.59
1.80
2.89
2.85
2.36
2.06
1.80
1.65
1.46
1.39
1.05
0.90
0.69
0.53
0.48
0.35
0.33
0.28
0.25
0.16
0.11
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
20.1% evap.
30.8% evap.
0.29
2.38
4.34
6.63
6.63
6.26
5.80
5.64
5.27
4.98
3.91
3.98
2.00
3.31
3.06
2.65
2.32
2.03
1.83
1.61
1.45
1.09
0.94
0.76
0.65
0.49
0.36
0.36
0.32
0.30
0.18
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.15
1.78
4.18
5.53
5.88
6.13
5.42
5.33
4.22
4.35
2.19
3.57
3.40
2.80
2.51
2.21
1.99
1.83
1.68
1.23
1.01
0.80
0.64
0.54
0.41
0.39
0.36
0.33
0.21
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.04
TOTAL
73.8
81.0
82.4
71.8
C,7IPRISTANE
C,i PHYTANE
1.26
2.00
1.95
33.9
35.3
0.96
1.26
2.00
1.94
37.6
38.1
0.98
1.27
1.99
1.96
38.8
37.7
1.03
1.26
1.98
1.93
32.9
32.5
1.01
PRISTANE/PHYTANE
Odd Alkanes
Even Alkanes
CPI
002120

7
South Louisiana USEPA Reference

Standard 120041 (Fresh Oil)
6
5
I
<3
0
C)
4
3
2

Standard (2004) (Evap. 10.3%)
6
5
~
g
0
C)
~~~=~~~~~~~~~~gN~~~~~N~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~;~
uuuuuuuuuu~u~uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
...
1
<3
"
.f
South Louisiana USEP A Reference

5
4
C)

Standard [20041 (Evap. 30.8%)
~
g
<3
"
4
3
C)
n-Alkane Distributions for South Louisiana USEPA Reference Standard (2004)
002121

PAH Distributions
Concentration (tJ9/9 oil)
Alkylated PAHs
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Dibenzothiophene
Fluorene
Chrysene
Total
al~lated
PAHs
C2-N/C1-N
Ratios of C3-D isomers
Ratio of C1-P isomers
(C2D/C2P):(C3DfC3P)
CON:C1 N:C2N:C3N:C4N
l:N:l:P:l:DBT:l:F:l:C
EPA Priori~ PAHs
Biphenyl
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphll1ene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anll1racene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(k)ffuoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Perylene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Total EPA Priori~ PAHs
TOTALPAHs
CO-N
C1-N
C2-N
C3-N
C4-N
Sum
CO-P
C1-P
C2-P
C3-P
C4-P
Sum
CO-D
C1-D
C2-D
C3-D
Sum
CO-F
C1-F
C2-F
C3-F
Sum
CO-C
C1-C
C2-C
C3-C
Sum
0% evap.
806
2026
2920
2563
1544
9858
145
396
460
371
229
1601
35.0
85.0
201
170
491
58.9
178
300
273
809
8.07
23.3
31.1
24.0
86.6
12844
10.3%evap.
938
2335
3324
2777
1697
11070
157
439
505
393
255
1748
35.2
88.1
216
184
523
61.9
195
314
312
883
8.47
24.9
34.0
26.8
94.3
14320
20.1% evap.
953
2500
3622
3093
1821
11989
177
481
557
451
274
1939
40.4
102
232
202
576
72.1
220
363
337
993
9.73
28.9
37.5
28.7
105
15601
30.8% evap.
398
1951
3523
3337
2060
11270
212
551
629
514
319
2224
46.2
117
264
227
654
72.0
231
382
363
1047
10.9
32.1
43.6
33.8
120
15315
1.57
1.51
1.59
1.59
1.00:0.54:0.18
1.00:0.55:0.21
1.00:0.54:0.20
1.00:0.54:0.17
0.89
0.88
0.87
0.87
0.43:0.47
0.42:0.45
0.42:0.44
0.44:0.46
0.52:1.31 :1.89:1.66:1. 0.55:1.38:1.96:1.64:1. 0.52:1.37:1.99:1.70:1. 0.19:0.95:1.71:1.62:1.
00
00
00
00
6.16:1.00:0.31 :0.51 :0. 6.33:1.00:0.30:0.51:0. 6.18:1.00:0.30:0.51:0.5.07:1.00:0.29:0.47:0.
05
05
05
05
153
15.9
13.6
3.64
3.27
4.83
2.67
2.08
0.09
1.45
0.59
21.2
0.00
0.23
0.70
223
13067
180
18.8
16.5
4.31
3.87
5.62
3.25
2.20
0.12
1.50
0.62
24.6
0.00
0.25
0.78
262
14582
197
20.5
18.4
4.69
4.30
6.19
3.40
2.45
0.17
1.89
0.82
27.6
0.00
0.32
0.83
289
35890
179
20.4
21.6
4.89
4.61
7.02
4.01
2.54
0.24
2.03
0.97
30.8
0.00
0.36
0.89
279
194
002122

4500
3600
2700
=
U
1800
South Louisiana USEPA Reference 200

ISO
so
0
!~~~ii:l'~~~~~.te.~S
.;
Q
Other EPA Priority PARs
100
900
0
.r!
fir
Z
4500
3600
2700
=
U
1800
3
u
Ii 0,- N0:>;- M0:>;- 0:>;~ z

<t
.r!
M
u u u~ ~ u u u u
c:
Q)
.Q
South Louisiana USEPA Reference 200

ISO
Standard 120041 (Evap. 10.3%)
Other EPA Priority PAHs
100
50
"-
!~~~ii:l'~~~~~.te.~S
.;
Q
0 't <> ~ I"-. ";
ri>
u u u ri>
u '"
u
u u u'" G:'" G u '"
't
900
0
-'"
ZI
Q.
~
4500
3600
~
.:!:
~ c<l
~
cQ)
-'"
~
Il..
I
0,-
0:>;-
U U'" u
'"
c
0:>;'t
0 a" U
.Q

=
U
't
'"u
~ .... ~:! u y
N
t"l
u u u ri>
G u '"
u U
<> ~
;:;
G:
200
150
100
50
2700
i~~~ii:l'~~~~~.te.25S
.;
Q
1800
900
0
.r;
" 3
U
0.
4500
3600
--=
:<;; :<;; ~
N
<t
U
'"
""
0,U
""Uri>
0:>;-
'"
U

cQ)
,s
0
<>
;:;
G:
....
U
I"-.
I
N
U
'"
.r;
Y NY MY
U U u
200
150
100
so
2700
i~~~ii:l'~~~~~.te.i5s
.;
Q
0
~ ri> 't
'"
U U
1800
900
0
.r;
0.
Z'"
;;;;; :<;; ~ ;;;;; c

N
<t -'"
'"
""
""ri> M
'"
"" G U U
I
Il..
..J. ,s
'"
't ~ 't
'"
U U
<>
U5:
I"-.
ri>
.... c
'" U.r!
:!U
y y
N
PAH Distributions for South Louisiana USEPA Reference Standard (2004)
'"
002123

Biomarker Distributions
Concentration (1-I9/g oil)
Biomarker
0% evap.
10.30/0 evap.
20.1% evap.
30.8% evap.
C21
C22
C23
C24
C29 hoapne
C30 hopane
C31 (8)
C3(R)
C32(S)
C32(R)
C33(S)
C33(R)
C34(S)
C34(R)
C35(S)
C35(R)
C27app steranes
C28app steranes
C29app steranes
9.43
3.53
14.8
10.7
74.6
100
26.4
21.5
15.2
9.94
8.96
5.48
4.65
2.78
3.33
2.27
20.3
29.6
89.3
67.4
89.8
10.2
3.85
15.8
11.2
79.1
105
29.0
23.4
16.6
10.8
9.63
6.40
5.30
3.56
3.46
2.46
21.4
30.5
94.5
73.4
93.8
10.9
4.23
17.7
12.7
90.3
120
31.9
26.1
18.0
11.6
10.4
6.83
6.20
3.63
3.99
2.53
23.3
32.6
105
80.3
103
12.3
4.49
20.8
15.3
97.7
132
33.9
27.9
21.5
13.9
11.0
7.96
6.46
3.80
4.63
2.96
25.2
35.4
117
91.0
118
TOTAL
610
649
722
804
Ts
Tm
C23/C24
C23/C30
C24/C30
C29/C30
C31(S)/C31(R)
C32(8)/C32(R)
TslTm
C27apptC29app
2:(C31 to C35)
homohopanes
C30!L(C31 to C35)
1.39
0.15
0.11
0.75
1.23
1.53
0.69
0.99
1.41
0.15
0.11
0.75
1.24
1.53
0.70
1.01
1.39
0.15
0.11
0.75
1.22
1.55
0.71
1.01
1.35
0.16
0.12
0.74
1.21
1.55
0.71
0.99
101
0.99
111
0.95
121
0.99
134
0.98
002124

180
Soutb Louisiana USEPA Reference

150
~
c.i
5
u
120
90
60
30
0
M
U
;;;
Dg
U
180
~
~ ~ ~ g
~ ;$, g '" ~ .:::
N
U
"" 13 U 0 0 U U'" 0
U
U
M
'OJ;
,3
E
t-<
.0
.0
. ..
.0
.0
:g
....
oo
N
'"'"

150
..
120
.;
90
60
30
0
M
U
~
U
'"0 130
~
M
180
c;:;
i:i'
g
N
c.i
u'"
'" ....u'" ~
13
\3
~
f}.
.0
.0
:g
:l5
r" oo 8t
0 0 u'"

Standard (20041 (Evap. 20.5%)
150
~
,3
13 G 13
~
u
120
90
60
30
0
;::;
'"
u
N
B U'"
'" 0
U
~
M
u
180
g ~ ~ g ~ g ~ ~
'" 0 u u::; 0 u:;. 0 13
u u
;;;
.;
c
f}.
.0
.0
.0
r-
'"
'"
0 0
'"
Soutb Louisiana USEPA Reference

ISO
120
90
60
30
0
:::1
...
B '"
U
i?:l
:;:
u
~
u
M
g
G
c;:;
i:i'
M
u
g
0'"
*
M
g ~ ~
G 0 0" u 0
M
j!l
.0
.0
.0
.0
:l5
" oo" a-"

u 0 U
rN
Biomarker Distributions for South Louisiana USEPA Reference (2004)

Fwd: RE: challenge to smart Canadian experimental chemists
002125
Subject: Fwd: RE: challenge to smart Canadian experimental chemists

From: Bill Lehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 17:12:58 -0700
To: Kate Clark <Kate.Clark@noaa.gov>
Kate,
Here is another suggestion.
Bill
-------- Original Message -------Subject:RE: challenge to smart Canadian experimental chemists
Date:Sun, 02 May 2010 19:57:15 -0400
From:Lambert,Patrick [NCR] <Patrick.Lambert@ec.gc.ca>
To:Merv Fingas
@shaw.ca>, BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov, "Brown,Carl [NCR]"
<
@ec.gc.ca>
CC:Fieldhouse,Ben [NCR]
@ec.gc.ca>, Khelifa,AIi [NCR]
<
@ec.gc.ca>
Bill,
We have bounced the idea around here with Ali and Ben.
Merv's
of a submersible camera plan is like the best option
especially at that depth.
Option 2 is to consider suggest deploying few LISSTs within the plume
area.
These units can not go to the depth of the well head but are meant to be
submersible. That may actually be a benefit in terms of having a more
consistent or representative dispersed droplet size distribution if
measurement are taken further away from the well head. I believe Ohmset
have used one of these models but not certain. It will take some
expertise to calibrate and interpret the data from the LISSTs.
Option 2 - Water samples
Water samples can be ran in standard
icle size analysers, such as
our Malvern Laser Diffraction-based instruments, using UV-fluorescence
microscopy, or direct imaging of oil droplet like the procedure we have
developed here at ESTS. The later may be used on site using quickly
fabricated, but adequate, samplers. Can provide more details if he
wants.
The Norwegians did do a paper on this a few years ago and we are
to locate it.
We will put some more thought into this.
10f2
10/20/201011:41 AM
Fwd: RE: challenge to smart Canadian experimental chemists
Patrick Lambert
(central) 613-998 9622,
002126
(office) 613-991-1110,
(cell) 613-794-3192
-----Original Message----From: Merv Fingas [mailto:f

shaw.ca]
Sent: May 2, 2010 6:54 PM
To:
Lambert,Patrick [NCR]
Subject: Re: challenge to smart Canadian experimental chemists
this was attempted during a recent (may 5 to 7 year old) Norwegian
experiment - basically didn't work
They attempted to put in a simple sampling cup -- what one needs is a
micro-camera than you can shove in but one that doesn't get dirty or
that you can clean
since you are using a submersible anyhow, this should work there are cameras available for submersibles, what you need is a
different lens -- or the last possibility is to take a series of
pictures with conventional submersible cameras and then blow these up many of these cameras have high resolution anyhow
so camera
then analyze photos
cheers
Merv
Bill Lehr wrote:
> Pat and Merv,
>
> We've got
oil plume at 5000' coming out at about 10,000 cU.cm per sec
> if I did my math right (5000 bbl/day). They are trying to disperse it
> at the well head. A big question is the droplet size distribution of
> the plume. Any good ideas on how to sample oil droplet size in the
plume?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
of2
10/20/201011:41 AM
Fwd: Opinion
002127
Subject: Fwd: Opinion

From: <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 04:36:03 -0700
To: Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov
Jordan,
I have been so totally engaged with the leak rate group that I have lost track
of who is advising the research vessels. Please pass this idea on to the
appropriate person. It looks like a simple measurement.
Bill
Fwd: O p i n i o n . e m l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: ira leifer
@bubbleology.com>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 20:31:59 -0700
To: Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Juan Lasheras , "Espina, Pedro
I."
@nist.gov>, Alberto A1iseda <
@u.washington.edu>, James J Riley
@u.washington.edu>,
@gso.urLedu, Poojitha Yap a
@clarkson.edu>,
@newton.berkeley.edu, Paul Bommer
@mail.utexas.edu>
Dear Colleagues,
I was requested to forward this opinion by one of my fellow seep researchers here at UCSB.
Warmest regards,
ira
From: David Valentine
@geol.ucsb.edu>
Date: May 23, 20107:52:43 PM PDT
To: Ira Leifer
@bubbleology.com>
Hey Ira,
Please take a moment to glance over the attached Opinion piece publised today. If
this approach gains traction, one key issue will be how much methane made it to the
surface, as we chatted about a couple weeks ago when wrote this. What data from
satellite and over-flights is available to constrain methane release to the atmosphere?
Cheers,
Dave
100
10/20/2010 11:42 AM
Fwd: Opinion
002128
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
David L. Valentine
Professor of Microbial Geochemistry
Department of Earth Science
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
ucsb.edu
http://methane.geol.ucsb.edu/Home.html
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
David L. Valentine
Professor of Microbial Geochemistry
Department of Earth Science
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
@geol.ucsb.edu
http://methane.geol.ucsb.edu/Home.html
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
<:}}}}}>< * <:}}}}}>< <:}}}}}><

Marine Sciences Institute
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5080 USA
http://www.bubbleology.com
OFF CAMPUS OFFICE - Preferred for ship/Fax/mail
6740 Cortona Dr, UCSB Engineering Research Center

Ocean Engineering Laboratory,
! of3
10/20/2010 11 :42 AM
Fwd: Opinion
002129
<:}}}}}>< <:}}}}}><" <:}}}}}><
- Valentine Nature Opinion 2010 v465n27p421
IY4!~~~ti~E! . t-!4!.t~r~9pini0I1.?O~O . ,!~65n27p421.pdfrl

-Part
30f3
1.2.1.1.3~--~~--~~~~---------~------------------
10/20/20 I0 11 :42 AM
002130
OPINION
Measure methane to quantify the oil spill
Plumes of dissolved gas could be used to determine how much oil has leaked in the Gulf of Mexico,
says David Valentine - if the studies are done soon.
s oil continues to gush into the Gulf of
Mexico in the wake of the Deepwater
Horizon rig explosion, the question
remains: how big an environmental disaster is
this? Observing the surface slick and the deepsea leak are oflimited use in this situation. A
more effective approach might be to quantify
the leaked methane gas dissolved in the water something that hasn't been done before to assess
the size of a spill, but that in theory should work
well. Although researchers are already measuring methane in some Gulf water samples, a
larger-scale project is urgently required to map
the methane plumes in real time.
The 20 April blowout was caused by the violent eruption of pressurized methane gas from
a well about 1.5 kilometres below sea level. A
series of explosions sank the rig, rupturing the
riser pipe that ran between the rig and the oil
well. This left oil gushing from multiple sources
along the riser, which is now lying on the sea
floor, creating a massive oil slick.
Knowing how much oil has been spilled will
be useful for comparing one spill to another,
predicting ecological effects, assessing the
efficacy of remediation measures and tracking
the fate of dispersed oil. Moreover, the US Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 requires the completion
of a natural-resource damage assessment to
determine liability, and the quantity spilled is
a factor in damage assessment models.
Federal agencies are putting the release rate
at 5,000 barrels per day. Publicized estimates
have ranged from 1,000 to 100,000 barrels
per day, with little detail available about the
methods being used. Visual observations of
leakage from the ruptured
pipe are unreliable because
of the turbulent flow and the
uncertain water content of
the oil-water-gas mixture.
Spot measurements of the
flux at any given moment can't be scaled up
reliably, because the flow may not be constant.
Satellite photos and boat measurements help
to assess the distribution and thickness of the
surface slick, but these measures are also highly
variable with time, place, weather conditions
and dispersant application. In what is likely
to be the worst oil spill in US history, a more
accurate way to estimate the spill's magnitude
is needed.
A promising technique is to measure the
Dissolved methane could

help quantify Deepwater
Horizon leakage (inset).
plumes of dissolved
methane emanating from
the site. Methane gas is the
most abundant compound in
the spill, constituting approximately 40% of the leaking petroleum
by mass, according to energy company BP,
which controls the resevoir. Although methane from surface vessel spills or shallow water
blowouts escapes into the air, I expect that the
vast majority of methane making the long trip
to the sea surface from a deep water spill would
dissolve. Unlike oil, methane dissolves uniformly in seawater. And the tools are available
to measure it accurately and sensitively.
Assuming a flow rate of 5,000 barrels per day
and a methane-in-oil content
of 80 cubic metres per barrel
(at standard temperature and
pressure), about 7,500 tonnes
of methane were released to
the Gulf of Mexico during
the fIrst 27 days of the spill. This is enough to,
for example, triple normal background methane concentrations in a volume of water 5,000
square kilometres at the surface and 1.5 kilometres deep. In reality, it is probable that there
will be higher-concentration plumes than that,
stretching tens or hundreds of kilometres from
the sources.
This approach is not immune to uncertainties. Some methane will be lost to bacterial
metabolism and perhaps to the air. Background
concentrations will fluctuate because of processes such as natural methane seepage from the
sea floor. However, these sources oferror can be
reduced through other methane measurements,
including isotopic composition, oxidation rates
in the water, partitioning into oil. and concentrations in the air. The biggest difficulty is likely
to be locating and measuring all major plumes
before they disperse.
The first research ship on the scene has made
great efforts to document the spill (see Nature
465,274-275; 2010), but more work is
needed. In June, we should aim to get
to grips with the size and shape of
the methane plumes by tracking
water flow with 'drifting proming floats' and through further
spot analyses. This should be
followed by a thorough twovessel expedition, to ensure
the plumes are quantifIed as
comprehensively as possible.
Although this could not realistically identify all of the released
methane, it would at least put a lower
bound on the total amount of spilled oil.
Measures of methane-plume movement could
also be used to estimate the rate of the spill.
The US academic research fleet alone has
a dozen vessels capable of such work, at costs
of probably a few million dollars or less. Systems are available for measuring methane
concentration in real time from overboard
instruments, allOWing plumes to be mapped.
Spot observations from water samples would
provide a higher-accuracy reference for these
measurements. Such a project would be the
best chance of quantifying the spHl, and would
prove an excellent opportunity for scientists to
test and calibrate methane-detection systems.
Capitalizing on this idea requires immediate
action. I am calling for a concerted community
effort, with appropriate commitment from the
US government, the trustees of the Deepwater
Horizon incident and BP. The likely rewards
far exceed the costs.
David Valentine is in the Department of Earth

Science and the Marine Science Institute,
University of California, Santa Barbara, California
93106, USA.
e-mail: valentine@geol.ucsb.edu
For updates, or to comment, see the online version
of this story atgo.nature.com/hs2nWG.
421
:l;
Fwd: Re: challenge to smart Canadian experimental chemists
002131
Subject: Fwd: Re: challenge to smart Canadian experimental chemists

Date: Sun, 02 May 201017:10:38 -0700
Kate,
Here was Merv Fingas' recommendation.
Bill Lehr
-------- Original Message -------Subject:Re: challenge to smart Canadian experimental chemists
Date:Sun, 02 May 2010 16:54:13 -0600
@shaw.ca>
From:Merv Fingas
To:Bili. Lehr@noaa.gov, "Lambert, Patrick [ETC]" <
@ec.gc.ca>

They attempted to put in a simple sampling cup
what one needs is a
micro-camera than you can shove in but one that doesn't get dirty or
that you can clean
since you are using a submersible anyhow, this should work there are cameras available for submersibles, what you need is a
so camera -- then analyze photos
cheers
Merv
Bill Lehr wrote:
> Pat and Merv,
>
> We've got oil plume at 5000' coming out at about 10,000 cU.cm per sec
> if I did my math right (5000 bbl/day). They are trying to disperse it
> at the well head. A big question is the droplet size distribution of
> the plume. Any good ideas on how to sample oil droplet size in the plume?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
lofl
10120/2010 11:42 AM
mass balance
002132
Subject: mass balance

Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 07:41 :32 -0700
@bp.com, Gary Ott
To:
@genwest.com>
Mr. Rollins,
As you can appreciate,
way your team can help
recovered oil, burned
that I am engaged with
days.
developing a mass balance for this spill is challenge. One

us is by providing the best up-to-date information on
oil and oil captured through the RITT. The various groups
hope to then have a first cut at a mass balance in a few
Best Regards,
Bill Lehr
Senior Scientist
NOAA/ORR
206 526 6310
) of)
10/20/2010 11:43 AM
mass balance reports
002133
Subject: mass balance reports

Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 18:10:00 -0700
CC: Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>, Mark W Miller
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>, Robert Jones
<Robert.Jones@noaa.gov>, Chris Barker <Chris.Barker@noaa.gov>, CJ Beegle-Krause
<CJ.Beegle-Krause@noaa.gov>, Alan Mearns <Alan.Mearns@noaa.gov>, Jim Farr
<Jim.Farr@noaa.gov>
Bill,
I strongly caution against producing/distributing mass balance numbers at this

time. I think the other members of our science team are in agreement with this.
The results of the surface oil samples, leak rate calculations, and NASA surface
data may significantly change any numbers we release now, based upon incomplete
data.
Bill L
Iofl
10/20/20 \0 II :43 AM
Mass balance review
002134
Subject: Mass balance review

From: Bill Lehr <biILlehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 24 May 201011:21:37 -0700
To: Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
Dear Dr. McNutt,
I notice from your FTRG update of May 24, 1400 hrs, that USGS will be providing a
mass balance based upon the AVIRIS flights, presumably from the May 17 mssion. If
you would like we (NOAA/ORR) could review the calculations. I have been involved
in the AVIRIS mission since its beginnings and our group developed the standard
model used by USCG to estimate oil fate and behavior.
Depending upon time
constraints, I can also calIon members of the subgroup that I co-chair of
international experts on oil fate and behavior and leading oil
11 remote
sensing experts.
Regards,
Bill Lehr
206 719 1813
1 of I
10/20/2010 ] 1:43 AM
002135
002136
002137
002138
002139
002140
Esllmated Minimum 01$ch8r~e Rates 01 the Oeepwater

Horizon Spill-lnltrim Report to the Flow Rate Tecbnle&1
Group from the 1.11$$ Bal.ne< Team
tnt}/'. ~~ .. c.::ro.c.rJWA.hlfW.bft"'_,",~IiI:uoy.It!:I.M.
~_kowt<l~,f.~,N~."""",,
*trV-f
...
002141
002142
002143
002144
002145
Oil Emulsion
Thickness
2010 Gull Oil Spill

sample OWH1G-3
USG$I>fm<m~Rro.COP"
PRELIMINARV
Lab
002146
002147
MC-2S2 Skimmer Oil - Total Ion Chromatogram

.At:> 0.... n d a n <::;E>
GRIVI0116C>.C>
26000
25000
24000
23000
22000
21000
20000
19000
18000
17000
16000
002148
15000
14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,-~~~~~~~,-~~~~~~~~
10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.0050.00 55.00 60.00 65.00

,i",6-->-
MC-2S2 Skimmer Oil - Aliphatic Components

Abundance
Ion
57.00 (56.70
.70): G RM0116D. D
24000
C-17
23000
22000
21000
20000
19000
18000
17000
16000
002149
15000
14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
C-14
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
~~~\.J~'ij~ ~rluv~ 'WJ '''VI
20.00
Tirne-->
25.00
'VW , . .
30.00
---...-
35.00
40.00
45.00
~"--
50.00
MC-2S2 Skimmer Oil - Biomarkers

Abundance
Ion 191.00 (190.70 to 191.70): GRM0116D.D
380
360
340
320
300
002150
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00 60.00 62.00 64.00 66.00
Time-->
MC-2S2 Skimmer Oil - Biomarkers

~bur,cI<ancE.>
Io>n 2 1 7 . 0 0 (216.701:0> 2 1 7 . 7 0 ) : C3RIVI0116C>.C>

280
270
260
2S0
240
230
220
210
002151
200
190
180
170
160
1S0
140
130
120
110
100
47.SC48.0C48.SC49.0C49.SCSO.OCSO.SCS1 .OCS1 .SCS2.0CS2
Tinoeo-->-
MC-2S2 Source Oil - Total Ion Chromatogram

Abundance
TIC: GR10118D.D
300000
280000
260000
High concentration of aromatic

hydrocarbons
240000
220000
200000
002152
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
o
Tirne-->
i\.JIJ"'J'vII'W1f~I'-'I"'ll'
'"
'"
".""IV
"
-,,~
I
10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.0050.0055. 0060. 0065. 00
MC-2S2 Source Oil - Aliphatic Components
Abundance
Ion
57.00 (56.70 to 57.70): G R 1 01 1 8 D . D
240000
C-17
220000
C-14
200000
180000
1 C-ll
002153
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
LJ~~\J~!~~~W~r~.;v: '~ '~iv
I 'i
" "
1 0 .0(1 5 .0(2 0 .0 (2 5 .0 (3 0 .0 (3 5 .0 (4 0 .0(45 .0 (5 0 .0 (5 5 .0(60 .0 (6 5 .00

Tim e-->
MC-2S2 Source Oil - Biomarkers

Abundance
to 191.70): GR10118D.D
Ion 191.
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
002154
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
JL~~~~~~-,~~~-,,-~~.-~~~,-~~~~~~~~~~==~~~::~~~~
48.00
Tirne-->
50.00
52.00
54.00
56.00
58.00
60.00
62.00
64.00
MC-2S2 Source Oil- Biomarkers

Abundance
Ion 217.00 (216.70 to 217.70): GR10118D.D
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
002155
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
~ I' ,
I '
I ' ,
,v:
~~:
47.0047.5048.0048.5049.0049.5050.0050.5051 .0051.5052.0052.50
Time-->
002156
Mechanical Recovery in the Gulf of Mexico
Summary
The mechanically-recovered oil in the Gulf of Mexico contained a large amount of water.
In order to determine the actual amount of oil in the water, typical oil recovery rates were
examined and found to be about 33%. The emulsion recovered contained about 60% water. The
typical amount of oil in the recovered mixture is then 0.6 X 0.33 or 0.20 (20%). The amount of
liquid recovered was 735,000 barrels and then the amount of oil recovered was 20% of this or
147,000 barrels. This is 3% of the total of 4,900,000 barrels spilled.
Recovery of Oil
Skimmers were the most commonly-used mechanical devices use to remove oil from the
Gulfwater surface. These skimmers varied greatly in size, application, and capacity, as well as in
recovery efficiency and water pickup. 1,2 In the particular case of the Gulf oil spill the major issue
is the amount of water recovered. It is known that 4,900,000 barrels of oil were spilled. The
question to answer is how much of this was oil.
A skimmer's performance is affected by a number of factors including the thickness of
the oil being recovered, the extent of weathering and emulsification of the oil, the presence of
debris, and weather conditions at the time of recovery operations. A skimmer's overall
performance is usually determined by a combination of its recovery rate and the percentage of oil
recovered. The maximum amount of oil that a skimmer could recover is called the 'Nameplate
Recovery Rate' and is typically provided by the manufacturer of a skimmer?-4 A similar
definition is the 'Effective Daily Recovery Capacity', which is the amount that a skimmer could
recover in daylight hours under ideal conditions. The recovery rate is the volume of oil recovered
under specific conditions. It is measured as volume per unit oftime, e.g., m 3 /h, and is usually
given as a range. If a skimmer takes in a lot of water, it is detrimental to the overall efficiency of
an oil spill recovery operation. The summary results of performance testing on various types of
skimmers are given in Table 1.1.3
Table 2 shows the three most important values of skimmer performance, ORR, TE, and
RE. This is a sample table showing a fraction ofthe skimmers tests reported in the reference. 3
The Oil Recovery Rate(ORR) is the quantitative rate in volume per unit time, usually m 3/hour
and is corrected for water recovery. The throughput efficiency (TE) is applicable only to
advancing skimmers. The throughput efficiency is the percentage of oil presented to a skimmer
versus that recovered, in percent. The recovery efficiency (RE) is the percent of oil recovered out
of the total oil and water recovered. For the Gulf recovery effort, the RE is the most important
factor. We know the total liquids recovered, but we do not know exactly how much oil was in
this liquid and therefore must estimate the actual oil recovered. Table 2 shows that the average
RE of the skimmers in wave conditions is 33%.
The emulsion recovered typically contained about 60% water. 5 Therefore, the typical
amount of oil in the recovered mixture is 0.6 X 0.33 or 0.20 (20%). The amount of liquid
recovered was 735,000 barrels and thus the amount of oil recovered was about 20% of this or
147,000 barrels. This is 3% of the total of 4,900,000 barrels spilled.
002157
Another interesting statistic is the total efficiency of the skimmers used in the Gulf spill.
There were about 800 skimmers deployed for about 100 days. If the average recovery rate
(derated) is 15 m3 per hour (about 75 barrels per hour) and they were used for 8 hours per day,
48,000,000 barrels could have potentially been recovered. Actually 147,000 barrels of actual oil
were recovered so that the overall efficiency was 0.003 or .3%. This is to be expected given that
much of the oil was emulsified, was often over-washed, was spread over vast distances and was
increasingly difficult to encounter.
1
Schulze, R., Oil Spill Response Performance Review ofSkimmers, ASTM Manual Series,
ASTM, 1998
Schwartz, S.H., Performance Tests of Four Selected Oil Spill Skimmers, AMOP, 493,
1979
Fingas, M.F., Weather Effects on Oil Spill Countermeasures, Chapter 13 in Oil Spill
Science and Technology, p. 339-426,2010
Meyer P., W. Schmidt, l-E. Delgado, D. DeVitis, S. Potter, E. Haugstad and M.

Crickard, Application of the American Society of Testing and Materials' (ASTM) New
Skimmer Test Protocol, AMOP, 323, 2009
SINTEF, Laboratory study of the dispersibility ofDWH surface emulsions, 2010
002158
Table 1
Performance of Typical Skimmers
Recovery Rate (m;\/hr) for given oil

type*
Skimmer Type
Bunker C
Heavy Crude
Light Crude
Oleophilic Skimmers
small disc
0.2 to 2
large disc
10 to 20
10 to 50
brush
0.5 to 2
0.5 to 20
0.5 to 2
large drum
10 to 30
small drum
0.5 to 5
large belt
1 to 20
3 to 20
3 to 10
inverted belt
10 to 30
rope
2 to 20
2 to 10
Weir
Skimmers
small weir
large weir
advancing weir
0.5 to 5
30 to 100
5 to 30
Percent
Oil**
80 to 95
80 to 95
80 to 95
80 to 95
80 to 95
75 to 95
85 to 95
2 to 20
5 to 10
5 to 25
3 to 5
20 to 80
50 to 90
30 to 70
Elevating Skimmers
paddle
conveyer
1 to 10
1 to 20
1 to 5
10 to 40
Submersion Skimmers
large
1 to 80
1 to 20
Suction Skimmers
small
0.3 to 2
large trawl unit
2 to 40
large vacuum
unit
3 to 20
70 to 95
3 to 10
20 to 90
3 to 10
Vortex/Centrifugal Skimmers
centrifugal unit
0.2 to 10
10 to 80
2 to 20
Recovery rate depends very much on the thickness of the oil, type of oil, sea state,
and many other factors
This is the percentage of oil in the recovered product or recovery rate. The higher the value,
the less the amount of water and thus the better the skimmers' performance
002159
Table 2
Skimmer Performance (Sample cases)*
Skimmer
Year
of Test
Oil
Type
Oil
Slick
Viscosity Thick.
#of
Speed
mPa. S
mm
Tests
m/s
200
200
200
120
120
120
3
5
545
545
545
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.75
0.38
0.38
1.5
0.75
Wave
height
m
Wave
RE
Conditions
Harbour/small skimmers
Skimming Barrier
Skimming Barrier
Skimming Barrier
Sirene Skimming Barrier
Lori Brush Skimmer
Lori Brush Skimmer
Disc skim. flat -CCG tests
Disc skim. - flat -CCG tests
Disc skim. - flat -CCG tests
Disc skim. -T -disk -CCG tests
Disc skim. -T -disk -CCG tests
Paddle skimmer
Paddle skimmer
Rope Mop towed single
Rope Mop towed single
Oil MopZRV
Oil MopZRV
Marco Belt skimmer
Marco Belt skimmer
DIP 2001
DIP 2001
DIP 2001
Stationary skim. - Manta Ray
Stationary skim. - Manta Ray
Stationary skim. - Skim pak
Stationary skim. Skim pak
Destroil weir skimmer
Destrail weir skimmer
GT-185
GT-185
Walosep
Walosep
Veegarm towed weir
Veegarm towed weir
Veegarm towed weir
1977
1977
1977
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1977
1977
1978
1978
1976
1976
1976
1976
1973
1975
1975
1975
1975
1980
1980
1979
1979
1988
1988
1988
1988
1980
1980
1980
Averages (taken from whole Table)

* See reference 3 for the full table
med. oil
med. oil
It. crude
It. crude
It. crude
It. crude
It. crude
heav. oil
heav. oil
med. oil
med. oil
It. crude
It. crude
heav. oil
heav. oil
-erta crude
~rab crude
~rab crude
DOP
DOP
medium
medium
heavy
heavy
Bunker c
Terra Nov.
Bunker c
Bunker c
600
600
5 to 50
5 to 50
5t050
5 to 50
5 to 50
1900
1900
793
793
65
65
837
837
8
24
24
79
79
200
200
810
810
11700
100-600
>100k
>100k
3.2
3.2
ns
ns
10
10
25
10
10
26
26
5
5
4 ave
4 ave
8 to 11
8 to 11
.7 ave
0.5
1
20
20
7
7
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
4
1
1
1
6
1
3
o
o
1.3
1.5
1.25
1.5
0.5
1.5
1.3
1
0.5
0.8
calm
0.2
0.6
0.6
calm
0.6
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
calm
0.4
1
1
476
regular
regular
0.4
calm
1.9
0.19
11
99
99
harbour chop
harbour chop
0.47
0.4
0.25
0.25
0.25
58.2
47.4
regular
71.7
15.8
harbour chop 18.6
regular
16.4
0.96
regular
0.35
harbour chop
0.4
calm
0.6
calm
0.26
calm
5
2
1
light
o
o
o
o
o
calm
0.3
0.3
calm
0.6
0.5
calm
0.16
0.4
0.8
calm
9.4
regular
91
70
natural
36
21
85
62
88
77
81
4.8
harbour chop
5.7
harbour chop
5
7
harbour chop
4.8
11.5
harbour chop 20.6
2.7
0.9
0.9
27
20.1
harbour chop 15.2
2.5
regular
2
16.2
harbour chop 11.5
regular
15
30
22
8
7
38
regular
regular
harbour chop
mixed wave conditions
10
11
10
5
56
34.5
48.9
26
31
27
78
81
65
48
96
46
24
84
18
49
46
23
10
57
76
30
94
95
100
40
60
69
59
50
100
2
2
8
5
5
15
58 44
under test condition
under typical wave conditions
33
Re: mixing efficiency estimation
002160
Subject: Re: mixing efficiency estimation

From: ira leifer
@bubbJeology.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 23:45:51 -0700
@sintef.no>, Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>
To: Mark Reed <
Hi Mark,
Hope all is well. I talked with Bill who clarified that the dispersant would be
introduced near the seafloor rather than at the sea surface. See you in a few
weeks!
"
Ira
On Apr 29, 2010, at 11:37 PM, Mark Reed wrote:

Hello Ira and Bill,
We had understood that the dispersant would be injected into the blowout stream
at the well-head near the seafloor. The results that we sent last night were
based 0 that assumption.
Mark
-----Original Message----From: ira lei fer [mailto
bubbleology.com]
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 00:35
To: Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov
Cc:
@clarkson.edu; Mark Reed;
@lsu.edu
Subject: Re: mixing efficiency estimation
Hi Bill,
From what I hear, winds, (Station 42364 has 19.4 knots), will I think
greatly reduce the efficiency, and also potentially (likely), the
ability to get the dispersant on the oil. Might have best luck late at
night if the winds die down. Saw the same problem during an ohmsett
test when it was windy
-ira
On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Bill
Leh~
wrote:
Pooj i and Mark,
II
In regard to injecting dispersants at the well-head, BP has given us

their best estimate of mixing efficiency (20-70%) during a 3 second
mixing period. Not sure if I believe these numbers, but you might
want to use them in your model estimation. Ed and Ira, what do you
think?
Bill Lehr
<: }}}}} ><
<: } } } } }><
< : } } } } }><

lof2
10/20/2010 1\ :44 AM
Re: mixing efficiency estimation
002161
OFF CAMPUS OFFICE - Preferred for
ship/Fax/mail

Goleta CA 93117
Fax
}><
<: } } } } }><
<; } ) } } }><

Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5080
<: } } } } }><
<: } } } } } ><
USA
(Tel)
OFF CAMPUS OFFICE - Preferred for
ship/Fax/mail

Goleta CA 93117
Fax
<: } } } } }><
2of2
<: } } } } }><
<: } } } } }><
10/20/2010 II :44 AM
My paper surface oil estimation
002162
Subject: My paper surface oil estimation

Date: Thu, 27 May 201009:03:00 -0700
To: Larry Robinson1 <Larry.Robinson1@noaa.gov>
cc: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, William Conner
<William. Con ner@noaa.gov>
Dear Dr. Robinson,
It was a pleasure to talk to you and Margaret this morning. Good luck on the
Markey testimony. The NASA/AVIRIS system is a magnificent tool but, like all
tools, has its limitations. Attached is my paper to be presented in two weeks at a
technical conference in Canada discussing the challenges of estimating surface
volume of oil by 'looking at it'.
Best Regards,
Bill Lehr
Senior Scientist
NOAA/ORR
lofl
10/20/201011:45 AM
002163
VISUAL OBSERVATIONS AND THE BONN AGREEMENT

William 1. Lehr
Emergency Response Division
7600 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, Wash 98115
Bili.Lehr@noaa.gov
Abstract
By far the most common remote sensing techniques for estimating spill thickness are
systems based upon the visual spectrum (400-750 nm). Usually the 'system' is a trained observer
who records with hislher eye and a simple camera the appearance of the slick. Various fonnulas
have been built to link slick appearance with spill thickness. The Bonn Agreement Aerial
Surveillance Handbook (BAASH) uses an appearance code based upon previously published
scientific papers, small-scale laboratory experiments, mesoscale outdoor experiments and field
trials. The author examines the theoretical and practical limitations of estimating thickness and
volume using such visual appearance methods. These limitations include atmospheric visibility
constraints, spatial and temporal inhomogeneity of the oil, irregularity of the water surface and
optical characteristics of hydrocarbons. The expected limitations of BAASH and equivalent
fonnulas for practical volume estimation are discussed. A possible modification, using separation
into simple thick oil and sheen areas is presented.
1
Introduction
Wherever oil is produced, stored, or transported there will be a risk of oil spills. The size of
the response is usually dependent upon the volume released but often this quantity is not known.
Therefore, attempts have been made over the last four decades to develop technology or operating
procedures that can quantify the spill by the size and visible appearance of the slick (Fin gas and
Brown, 2005). Unfortunately, there still does not exist a recognized method or equipment that can
reliably provide the response team with an accurate answer. This paper reviews the difficulties,
both theoretical and practical, that have prevented the advancement in this area.
Oil spill behavior and properties:
Oil spills provide an interesting challenge to the environmental scientist because oil is not a
pure chemical but rather a mixture of thousands of different hydrocarbons. As it interacts with the
environment, the properties of the material, including its optical properties, change. Oil begins to
spread as soon at it is spilled, but it does not spread unifonnly. Any shear in the surface current
will cause stretching, and even a slight wind will cause a thickening of the slick in the downwind
direction. Most spills quickly fonn a comet shape where a small, thick oil, region is trailed by a
much larger sheen that can be of varying colors. Figure 1 shows such a situation for an
experimental spill of 50 bbl of Arabian crude oil (Lehr et ai., 1983). Competing theories exist to
explain this phenomenon (Elliot, 1986, Mackay et aI., 1980). It is unknown whether a vertical cross
sectional profile of such a slick would be wedge-shaped, i.e. linear change in thickness as one
moved away from the thick oil center, or be more non-linear, with a large thickness gradient at the
thick-sheen boundary and a small gradient elsewhere. Personal experience of the authors from
2
002164
actual spills suggests the latter 'fried egg' model would be more appropriate but lack of rigorous
experimental data leaves this question unresolved.
thicl< oil
sheen
Figure 1 Processed image of a 50-bbl test spill showing separation into thick part and sheen,
plus the beginning of streamers.
As the slick spreads further, it is not uncommon to have it split into separate streamers due
to wave action or Langmuir effects (Lehr and Simecek-Beatty, 2001). The latter refers to a pattern
of repeating Langmuir cells below the surface that create a system of ridges and troughs on the
surface. The troughs become natural collection areas for floating oil. The end result is lines of oil
that may be spread over a large geographical area but effectively cover only a small percentage of
the water surface.
As the slick spreads, it also weathers, i.e. changes its physical properties and composition,
mainly due to evaporation of the more volatile hydrocarbons. Such chemical composition changes
can affect the bulk physical properties of the slick. The viscosity of the slick can, for example,
increase to such an extent that it is no longer a Newtonian fluid and its surface roughness is altered.
Oil density may increase, reducing the slick buoyancy and increasing wave overwash. Organic
matter and suspended particulates in the water column may become imbedded into the slick. Waves
and turbulence can break highly viscous oil into small I tar balls'. All these factors may affect spill
detection. One final factor for some oil spills is water-in-oil emulsification. Many crude oils and
some refined oils may form a stable emulsion where water droplets get bonded into the oil slick.
Such emulsified oils are opaque, highly viscous, and quite thick, as much as several centimeters.
Measuring oil thickness
Mechanical thickness measurements of the surface slick in open water are prone to a high
degree of uncertainty, particularly for thinner films. Usually they involve isolating a section of the
oil slick and collecting all the oil in that section (Allan and Schlueter, 1969; Goodman and Fingas,
1988; Fazal and Milgram, 1979; Dahling et aI., 1999) although alternative techniques are also used
(Brown et al. , 1998). Clingage to the sampler, failure to collect all the oil, leakage into the
sampled area from surrounding regions, and slick disturbance from the sampling device are just
some of the difficulties with these methods.
The author and other researchers performed a series of experimental crude oil spills with
surface mechanical measurements in coordination with visual observations from a helicopter as
well as a special aerial survey plane (Lehr et al. 1984). While there was a wide scattering in the
002165
data, the results indicate that oil thicker than 70-100 microns was opaque (black or brown). This
was in agreement with the assessment of Lewis (2000), based upon a literature review. Lewis
classified oil films between three and fifty microns as thickness that will absorb enough light to
produce no overall rainbow affect caused by wave interference with reflected light. Fingas et al.
(1999) report even more restrictive limits on dark oil appearance. According to them, oil thicker
than 8 microns will appear brown. For diesel fuel the number is about 4 microns and for heavy fuel
oils about 2 microns.
It is important to note that spill responders report actual oil thicknesses that are much
greater than these minimum thicknesses and recovered volumes tend to support this observation.
One common rule-of-thumb in the response community, based upon the studies of Hollinger and
Mennella (1973), is that 90% of the oil spill volume is in the opaque 'thick' slick area, while, at
least early in the spill, this same thick regime represents only 10% of the total slick surface area.
Unfortunately Lehr et al (1983) found no reliable relationship for different spills between the ratio
of thick oil! sheen volume and thick oil! sheen surface area. However, they did report that the major
volume portion of the slick was in the opaque area.
Oil spill thickness- non-visual frequencies

Both the ocean and oil emit black body radiation that can be detected in the microwave
region. Water has an emissivity that is higher than oil causing the latter to appear cooler even
though the fluids are at the same temperature. Musseto et al. (1994) showed that sensors using
microwaves showed poor correlation with thickness. They are not widely used at present to detect
oil. A more commonly utilized wavelength is the thermal IR band, 8 to 14 microns. In this band, oil
emissivity is 0.94-0.97 compared to water emissivity of 0.988 so that oil appears slightly cooler
than water, all else being equal. Unfortunately, all else is seldom equal. Oil may, for example,
absorb solar radiation, dissipate heat more slowly, and be at an actual higher temperature than the
surrounding water. Field instruments used to detect oil usually are calibrated for the specific field
conditions. Brown et al. (1998) found no correlation between the thickness of oil and its infrared
signal strength.
Brown and Fingas (2003) review various remote sensing techniques, using special
equipment and/or frequencies outside the visual range. They found that laser flourosensor signals
are completely absorbed by any slick greater than 20 microns, and infrared bands suffer
interference from thermal emission from the oil. Their suggested approach is to use a three-laser
system that operates on certain acoustic properties of the slick. The system has worked under
controlled laboratory tests but has not been developed to the rigor required for actual field use.
Passive systems in the visual bands
By far the most common remote sensing techniques for estimating spill thickness are
systems based upon the visual spectrum (400-750 nm). Usually the 'system' is a trained observer
who records with his eye and a simple camera the appearance of the slick. Various formulas have
been built to link slick appearance with spill thickness. The earliest reported system in the literature
was a 1930 report to the U. S. Congress that listed six thickness categories from .04 microns to 2
microns. A more widely circulated standard, done by API in 1963 closely followed this earlier
report. Hornstein in 1972 developed a standard that was based upon actual experiments (Hornstein,
1972). Under controlled laboratory lighting, he spilled known quantities of different crude and
refined oils into dishes and then documented their appearances. This standard is still widely used in
response guidebooks. It divides oil thickness into five groups ranging from 0.15 microns to 3.0
002166
microns. The European response community have produced their own set of standards, the most
widely disseminated being those connected with the Bonn Agreement (Anon., 2007). The Bonn
Agreement Aerial Surveillance Handbook (BAAS H) uses an appearance code based upon
previously published scientific papers, small-scale laboratory experiments, mesoscale outdoor
experiments and field trials. However, its thickness codes below 1 micron are derived from
Hornstein's work and the description of oils greater than 100 microns are taken from an earlier
International Tanker Owner's Pollution Federation guide (ITOPF, 1981).
Figure 2 Geometrical diagram of light reflected from oil slick

Examination of the optical process involved in visual observation of oil films explains the
physics and limitations behind this approach. For the very thinnest oils, the oil-water and oil-air
interfaces operate as mirrors. As noted earlier, oil has a higher reflection coefficient than water.
Fresnel Equations give the reflection coefficient R as
(1)
where the angles are shown in Figure 1 and no is the refractive index of air and no is the refractive
index for oil. The sand p subscripts refer to polarization. For normal incidence light ( 4> = 0) and a
typical crude oil (no =1.50, R= 4%) if we neglect the small correction due to light internally
002167
reflected from the oil-water interface. While this is twice what we would expect for reflection from
seawater, the actual contrast seen by the observer for real spills is greater because the oil slick
dampens capillary waves on the water surface, reducing light scatter.
As the viewing angle moves away from the vertical, a larger percentage of the light is
reflected. This increase is highly non-linear with rapid increase in reflected percentage at angles
greater than 60 degrees. The reflected light becomes more polarized with optimum polarization at
the Brewster angle. The above calculation assumes that the seawater is pure but coastal waters
often contain contaminants that reflect light much better than water, at least in certain frequencies.
The author's experience indicates that it is the dampening of the capillary waves and the reduction
in light scatttering that makes the slick visible in thin sheen situations.
Light scattered by subsurface water can penetrate thin slicks from below. Otrembe and
Piskozub (2001) have proposed using this reflected radiance as a mechanism for monitoring oil
slicks.
If we include all multiply reflected light and neglect interference and absorption, the
reflected energy ratio would increase by slightly more than a quarter of a per cent. Using an
average absorption coefficient of 10,000 m- I , assuming that the variation in slick thickness can be
neglected (ill = 0 in Figure 1), still ignoring interference, then, by Lambert's Law, the total radiant
energy for normally incident light will show an order of magnitude drop in value every 230
microns. Table 1 shows the percent of normally incident radiant energy that would be expected to
reflect off the oil-water interface to return to the air-oil interface for different color-defined film
thicknesses, as specified by the Bonn Agreement and by the ASTM standard. It is interesting to
note that the the ASTM standards generally specify a thinner oil slick limit for each color category,
silver being the lone exception.
Table 1 Returning radiant energy from oil-water interface
appearance
silver
rainbow
metallic
discontinuous true
oil color to black
micron thickness
(ASTM)
0.1 - 0.3
0.2 -3
-3
>3
micron thickness
(BAASH)
0.04 - 0.3
0.3 - 5.0
5.0 - 50
>50
returning radiant energy (per cent)

0.28 (0.25 microns thickness)
0.26 (2.5 microns thickness
0.17 (25 microns thickness)
0.0019 (250 microns thickness)
There is obviously considerable drop off in returning radiant energy as the true appearance of the
oil becomes apparent to the observer. There is very little difference between silver and rainbow
sheen. For these two thicknesses, the key factor is wave interference. Light returning from the oilwater interface will be pi radians out of phase with light reflected from the oil-air interface. For
normal incidence and continuing to neglect oil thickness variation, interference occurs at
002168
0= Am
destructive
2no
0= A(2m-l)
(2)
constructive
4no
where m is any positive integer representing the number of wavelengths, A is the light
wavelength, and 0 is the oil film thickness. Because only a small amount of light impacting the
oil-water interface is reflected, all but singly reflected light can be ignored. Moreover, there will be
potential for more interference at the longer wavelengths than at the shorter wavelengths, due to
increased absorption at the shorter wavelengths. Using A = 550 nm, the energy available for
destructive interference at m = 1 (0 = 0.18 microns) thickness is 7% of the reflected light energy at
the oil-air interface, According to the Bonn Agreement, rainbow sheen is replaced by metallic color
at 0 equal to 5 microns. This corresponds to approximately m = 28 (28 wavelengths), at which
thickness the ratio of energies is about 6%. Hence, the implication is that even a small reduction in
the number of returning photons from the oil-water interface can reduce the detectibly of
interference patterns. The ASTM standards suggest an even more restrictive limit on the visibility
of interference pattern since they place the transition from metallic (some remaining interference
affects) to dark (true color according to BAASH) at 3 microns.
Of course, the observation platform, unless it is a satellite or high altitude aircraft, will not
see a synoptic picture of the oil spill from a purely vertical angle. A typical spill observation
helicopter overflight altitude is 300 m. Even a reasonably small spill can extend for tens of
kilometers. Hence, the angle of observation may vary by eighty degrees or more. The Bonn
Agreement aerial surveillance handbook recommends flying a racetrack with the sun behind the
observer and the observer looking at the object from an angle of 45 degrees or less from a vertical
direction.
The extension of Equation 2 to cases where the viewing angle is not normal and the oil film
is not uniform is
A=
4n 0
_0_
2m
cos( 0 + co)
destructive
4n 0
(3)
A = -_O-cos(O + co) constructive
2m-1
where sin(O) = sin() by Snell's Law. Assuming that co "" 0, we get interference equivalent to a
n
perpendicular slick view whenever
0' = ocos[arcsin(sin()/ n)]
(4)
where 0' would be the equivalent slick thickness for the normal view, for interference purposes, to
get the same result as an incident angle of with thickness O. For the 40 degrees viewing angle
recommended by the Bonn agreement, this corresponds to an apparent 10% equivalent increase in
thickness, or 16% if the wave surface is tilted away from the observer. The path length of the light
will be correspondingly larger, with increased dampening of light intensity. However, the biggest
002169
change occurs in the ratio of the reflected energies from the air-oil and oil-water interfaces. For
vertical views, the author found that the energy reflected from the oil-water surface was about 7%
of the oil-air surface energy if we neglect internal absorption. However, if the view angle is 40
degrees, the percentage changes to 20%. If the oil slick surface is tilted so the angle is increased
45%, the percentage increases to 30%. Hence, rainbow appearance of the slick is conditional upon
the viewing angle. The increased path length of the light through the oil will decrease these
percentages somewhat, but the increase in ratio with increase in viewing angle will remain. This
suggests that a key factor in assigning thickness based upon appearance is the viewing angle.
Dahling et al (1999) concluded that silver sheen and metallic' appearing oil may be difficult to
distinguish, while the analysis above suggests that there is an ambiguity between 'metallic' and
rainbow, depending upon viewing angle.
There are additional factors to consider. The water surface is not flat. Most wind-generated
waves have a steepness of 3-6%. If we assume a maximum wave height of 1 m (Beaufort scale
number 3), the corresponding (water) wavelength will be between 15-30 m. This means that
incident viewing angles of the water surface will have an inherent uncertainty of 5 degrees or
more.
As mentioned earlier, oil slicks are not uniformly thick. Some of the steepest thickness
gradients will occur in windrows caused by the Langmuir affects mentioned earlier. Langmuir cells
in the open ocean have widths of between 10-100 m with a typical width of 30 m (Rye, 2001).
Thicker oil will collect in the troughs of these cells. An experimental spill of 100 tons in the North
Sea reported thick parts of the slick reaching 8-9 mm (Rye, 2001). While this was due in large part
to emulsification, even non-emulsified oils can easily exceed a mm in thickness in the thicker part
of the slick. Using 30 m as a Langmuir cell width, 1 mm as the thickness of the oil in the trough
center and 1 micron as the thickness of the sheen, co in Figure 2 is much less than a degree if the
increase in thickness were linear across the cell. It almost certainly is not, however, so that
estimating the impact of variable thickness becomes challenging. Unfortunately, there is no
generally accepted algorithms that describe the cross sectional thickness variation of an oil slick.
Most responders assume, based upon appearance, that the slick is relatively uniform in the sheen
part with a rapid increase in thickness as the edge of the thick part. If this is true, then co may be
several degrees in the transitional regime from sheen to dark oil and the color boundary
determination between the sheen and dark (or true color oil) may depend slightly upon viewing
angle. This is probably a small affect.
When the slick is thick enough, light cannot make it through the slick and will not be
reflected back to the surface. Instead, the photons are absorbed and partly re-emitted at longer
wavelengths, primarily in the infrared but some in the visible range. These fluorescence properties
of oil are commonly used to detect dispersed oil in the water column, and the greater emissivity of
oil compared to water makes slicks appear warmer in IR images. The Bonn agreement classifies the
thickness region between 5-50 microns as metallic appearance. In this region, photons emitted by
the oil compete with the greatly reduced number of photons reflected from the oil-water interface
and light reflected from the surface. The actual color of oil in this region then depends upon the
type of oil and the incident light conditions.
The above discussions assume ideal viewing conditions and equipment. Real spill
conditions are never ideal. Should the surface wind reach greater than seven to ten knots, whitecaps
will form, breaking the oil sheen. As viewing angle increases, so does glitter from the water
surface, making viewing very difficult. Very clear conditions require that the sun be behind the
002170
observer to prevent glare. Human eyes are variable in their sensitivities to color and acuity, causing
different observers to see different patterns.
A further complication is the increase in viscosity of the oil as it weathers on the water
surface. Fresh crude oil typically has a kinematic viscosity of a few hundred cSt. However,
weathered oil can easily have a viscosity of more than 100,000 cSt, giving it the characteristics of
molasses. The surface of such a slick is no longer mirror smooth, resulting in an increase of light
scattering from the surface due to a faceting condition.
The above discussion explains why the author is skeptical about sheen thickness
measurements based upon appearance. Depending upon viewing angle and environmental
conditions, the sheen may appear to be silver, rainbow, or metallic, regardless of its actual
thickness. Moreover, as BAASH notes, roughly 90% ofthe oil will be contained within 10% of the
overall slick area for fresh spills. This 10% is the usual part of the spill where the oil true colors are
visible, i.e. the opaque part of the slick.
Since so little light is reflected from the oil-water surface for a thick film, it is impossible to
estimate oil thickness by wavelength interference in the visual range. Beyond a certain thickness,
increased oil depth does not contribute to change in surface appearance. One millimeter thick oil
will visually look the same as one centimeter thick oil. Observers usually map the extent of the
dark slick area and assign an estimated thickness value, based upon past experience or additional
spill information. These estimates can sometimes vary by orders of magnitude. Since the majority
of the oil is often in the thick, dark part of the. slick, the error in estimating its volume is apt to be
significantly larger than the entire sheen volume estimate. From a practical point of view, this
makes sheen volume estimation of little value in total spill volume estimation. Barring alternative
methods, an educated estimate of a spill expert of thick oil volume is probably the best operational
choice for spillage amount.
Conclusions
While the calculations will be uncertain, volume estimation of oil sheen to within an order
of magnitude is possible. This is, however, of little value for total spill volume estimation in most
cases since the majority of the oil will be in the optically thick portion, which cannot be accurately
estimated by visual observation. Hence, accuracy in estimating sheen thickness is often of little
value in determining total spill volume. Rather, careful mapping of the thick oil areal extent will
usually prove more valuable to the response team, who should probably look to other methods to
estimate spill volume, if available.
Disclaimer
The conclusions of this paper are solely those of the author and do not reflect any position
of the US government or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
7
References
Allan, A. and R. S. Schlueter, "Natural Oil Seepage at Coal Oil Point, Santa Barbara, California",
Science Vol. 170, pp 974-977,1970.
Anon, Bonn Agreement Aerial Surveillance Handbook, Version 25 October 2007,96. p, 2007.
Brown, H. M. J.J. Baschuk, and R.H. Goodman, "Infrared Sensing and the Measurement of Oil
Slick Thickness, Proceedings of the Twenty-First Arctic and Marine Oi/spill Technical Program
Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, pp. 805-816, 1998.
002171
Brown, H. M. and M.F. Fingas, Development of Airborne Oil Thickness Measurements", Marine
Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 47, pp485-492, 2003.
Eliot, AI., "Shear Diffusion of Bubbles Below the Sea Surface", Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol.
17, pp. 308-313,1986.
Dahling, P., A Lewis, and S. Ramstad," The use of colour as a guide to oil film thickness - Main
Report", SINTEF Report STF66 F99082, Trondheim, Norway, 38 p., 1999.
Fazal, R A and J. H. Milgram, " The Effects of the Surface Phenomena on the Spreading of Oil
on Water", Report No. MITSG 79-31, Mass. Institute of Tech. Cambridge, Mass. USA 70 pp. ,
1979.
Fingas, M. F., C.E. Brown, and L. Gamble, "The Visibility and Detectability of Oil Slicks and Oil
Discharges on Water", Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Arctic and Marine ai/spill Technical
Program Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, pp. 865-886, 1999.
Goodman, Rand M.F. Fingas, "The Use of Remote Sensing for the Determination of Dispersant
Effectiveness", Proceedings of the Eleventh Arctic and Marine ai/spill Technical Program
Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, pp. 377-384, 1988.
Hollinger, J.P. and R A. Mennella, "Oil Spills: Measurements of Their Distributions and Volumes
by Multifrequency Microwave Radiometry", Science, Vol. 181, pp54-56, 1973.
Hornstein, B. The Appearance and Visibility of Thin Oil Films on Water, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Report EPA-R2-72-039, Cincinnati, OH, 1972.
ITOPF, A Guide to the Relation Between the Appearance, Thickness, and Volume of Floating Oil,
London, UK, 8 p., 1981.
Lehr, W.J., M.S. Belen, H.M. Cekirge, G. D. Crosbie, RJ. Fraga, F. Ince, and C. Zerel, Final
Report on Estimating Oil spill Size by Visual Observation, Project No 24028, Vol. 1." Prepared by
U. of Petroleum and Minerals Research Institute for Arabian-American Oil Company, Dhahran,
Saudi Arabia, Volume 1,225 p., 1983.
Lehr, W. J. , H. M. Cekirge, R. Fraga, and M.S. Belen, " Empirical Studies of the Spreading of Oil
Spills", Oil and Petrochemical Pollution Vol. 2, pp 7-12, 1984.
Lehr, W. and D. Simecek-Beatty," The Relation of Langmuir Circulation Processes to the Standard
Oil Spreading, Dispersion, and Transport Algorithms", Spill Science and Technology Bulletin, Vol.
6, pp247-254, 2001.
Lewis, A "The Use of Colour as a Guide to Oil Film Thickness; Phase 1 -A Literature Review,
SINTEF Report STF66 F97075, Trondheim Norway, 25 p., 2000.
002172
MacKay, D., 1. Buist, R. Mascarenhas, and S. Patterson, Oil Spill Processes and Models,
Environment Canada, Ottawa, 86 p., 1980.
Mussetto, M. S. ,L. Yujiri, D. P. Dixon, B. I. Hauss, and C.D. Eberhard, " Passive Millimeter Wave
Radiometric Sensing of Oil Spills", Proceedings of the Second Thematic Conference on Remote
Sensing for Marine and Coastal Environments, Ann Harbor, Mich. USA, ppI-35-46, 1994.
Otrembe, Z. and 1. Piskozub, "Modelling of the Optical Contrast of an Oil Film on a Sea Surface",
Optics Express Vol 9, pp. 411-416, 2001.
Rye, H. ,"Probable Effects of Langmuir Circulation Observed on Oil Slicks in the Field", Spill Sci.
and Tech., Vol. 6, pp. 263-271, 2001.
Estimated Oil Budget*

UNCLAS!FOUO 28 APR 10
Time for released oil to rise to the surface

Parameter
=3 hours
Approximate Measurement
Of Oil Per Day
Artlount rernaining'iittt'lewater
* Fate of the oil per day
.<4aSfJarr~l$
Oil life Cycle
002173
Amount
naturally
Mechanically dispersed
recovered
5%
002174
1
GULF OIL SPILL
3
4
A Lot of oil on the Loose,

Not So Much to Be Found
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
scientists and the public alike watched

with horror this summer as oil gushed into
the Gulf of Mexico for 85 days. But where did
it all go? A federal report released last
week should have begun to answer that
question. Instead, political spin and media
hype transformed scientists' message even
before it was released. According to one CNN
reporter, the interagency report led by the
Department of the Interior and the National
oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
said that of the 4.9 million barrels of oil
spilled, "75% has been cleaned up by Man or
Mother Nature."
Nothing in the report supports that
interpretation. But there are multiple ways
to read the report's iconic pie chart while
remaining grounded in fact. One is that
responders have--with Herculean effortintercepted 25% of the oil, leaving 75% to
have its way with the environment. under this
interpretation, "raising the flag and
declaring victory is premature," says
biogeochem;st samantha Joye of the university
of Georgia, Athens.
Another take on the report finds that
three-quarters of the oil is gone from the
environment or is dispersed in the water in
its most easily degraded form. This remaining
oil "is degrading quickly right now," says
marine geochemist Edward overton of Louisiana
State university, Baton Rouge.
Overton and other optimists note that
today no oil is to be found on official maps
of surface oil in the Gulf. And the "massive"
deep oil plumes of media fame now appear to
have been faint shadows of their public
images. Resolving the inevitable
uncertainties and filling in the gaps of such
an early report will no doubt take many
months more.
The report's most certain conclusion was
that responders managed to collect or remove
about 25% of the oil that came up the damaged
002175
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
well. seventeen percent was collected at the

wellhead in an unprecedented technological
feat. About 5% was burned at the surface, an
exceptionally large proportion for a U.s.
spill, experts say. But skimmers captured
only 3% of the total despite the high-profile
effort. such meager results are to be
expected in the open ocean, says william Lehr
of NOAA'S oil response division in seattle,
washington, who worked on the report. Less
than 0.1% had been recovered from beaches and
marshes.
That leaves 75% of the spill that
remained in the environment, which is where
major uncertainties arise. That's because
these flows were calculated, not measured.
Despite the impression conveyed by the sharp
lines and precise numbers on the pie chart,
"there's a 1arge degree of uncertai nty," says
Lehr. uncertainties crop up, for example, in
calculations of "natural dispersion." These
depend on using the physics of oil and gas
jetting into seawater to estimate how much
oil ends up dispersing as droplets smaller
than 100 micrometers in diameter. That's the
size range that can drift away in a
horizontal plume the way dust can float in
the air.
Add up all the uncertainties and they
can be considerable. There are uncertainties
in calculating natural dispersion, the
dispersion due to chemicals added at the
wellhead and on the surface, and dissolution
in seawater or evaporation from the surface.
Then there is the plus-or-minus-10%
uncertainty in the total volume of the spill.
All told, the "residual oil"-what could not
be measured or estimated but is left to float
as tarballs or washed ashore-could be as high
as 39% of the total or as low as 13%, by a
simple accounting from charts in the report's
supplement. [[Obviously these links won't be
live in print. Do we spell out the addresses?
Don't know, but copyeditors should do the
right thing.]]
perhaps the most muddled part of the
report's calculations involves the fraction
of oil dispersed into the dreaded subsurface
plumes. The media "created an image of an
002176
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
underwater ri ver of oi 1 ," says Steven

Murawski, NOAA's chief scientist for
fisheries in Silver spring, Maryland, who is
overseei ng spi 11 sci ence for NOAA. "In a
glass, [plume water] looks like clear
seawater." He says that anal ysi s of water
samples as well as towed remote-sensing
surveys reveal a principal plume confined to
depths of 1000 meters to 1300 meters that in
spots contained 1 to 2 parts per million of
oil (lor 2 milliliters in a cubic meter of
seawater). Most parts of the plume, however,
had lower concentrations; farther than 10
kilometers from the wellhead, concentrations
were in the parts-per-billion range.
parts-per-billion plumes may be a bit
dilute if something like 20% of the oil15,000 barrels a day-dispersed into
subsurface plumes. That raises the issue of
biodegradation and how quickly microbes might
be consuming the oil. The report states that
according to early signs the oil "is
biodegrading quickly." It provides no
documentation for that claim, while hearsay
about observations awaiting publication and
pub 1i c release is mi xed. "The message I've
heard is that everywhere we look, oil is
degradi ng extremel y rapi dly," says overton.
Joye, who has generated some of the relevant
data, is more cautious. "sure it's getting
degraded, but we don't know how fast," she
says.
Ultimately, determining the rates of oil
degradation, evaporation, and dilution in the
Gulf rather than this report's parsing of the
oil's immediate fate will show where the oil
went. such analysis should determine whether,
as Lehr puts it, "Mother Nature is almost
always the best removal mechani sm.
II
--RICHARD A. KERR
oil characteristics
002177
Subject: oil characteristics

From: Jim Farr <Jim.Farr@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 201008:25:42 -0700
To: bushy <Glen.Watabayashi@noaa.gov>, Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>,
Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>, billiehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Here's an oil characteristics writeup. Scott is picking up some fresh oil samples
so we may have a little better characterization later, smarter later.
Jim
1 of 1
10/20/201011:46 AM
002178
Deepwater Horizon Floating oil - Will have a brown to orange looking
appearance and may change upon exposure to sunlight. It has little or no
odor. Because of its' composition, this oil will be very sticky. The oil may
exist as bands of floating oil and as patches or tar balls that contain water
and oil mixtures (emulsions). This particularly is the case when in rough
seas the seawater would readily mix with the oil. The oil may sink in the
water column especially in the intertidal areas where the oil may pick up
grit and sand and become heavier than water.
Shoreline impacts of the oil - The oil on the shoreline will be very sticky
and will coat and stick to everything making it rather difficult to clean up
except by physical removal. It will look like an asphalt roadway with a
sticky surface that will cover and smother material that it may coat.
Environmental fate and degradation
because the oil has such a large amount
of components that are extremely resistant to degradation this oil will not
readily biodegrade. It will when reaching shorelines, take the appearance of
an asphalted road. There may be tar balls of all sizes that may wash up on
the beaches and attach to structures there.
Toxicity - The environmental toxicity of the oil is not great as there is
very little of the toxic components of oils that are contained in this
particular oil. The bigger impact will be contact of the oil, smothering and
coating to surfaces due to the stick nature of this oil.
Burning the oil - this will be difficul.t at sea and when the oil washes up on
beaches, because of the oil composition doesn't accommodate combustion
easily.
Dispersant use - dispersants will not be effective on this type of oil.
oil composition
002179
Subject: oil composition

From: Robert Jones <Robert.Jones@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:06:25 -0700
To: LTJG Joshua Slater <Joshua.Slater@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Scott
Miles
@lsu.edu>, Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, John Tarpley
<john.tarpley@noaa.gov>, Buffy Ashton
@lsu.edu>
I just spoke with David
(
). He could not
me with the data
inconsistencies in the spreadsheet he sent but can send me new data from a little
deeper in the field.
Maybe I will get it tonight.
He said they did collect samples from the reservoir and had them analyzed and the
data he will send is from that.
He said there is essentially no H2S in this oil.
I of I
10/2012010 11 :46 AM
oil evaporation
002180
Subject: oil evaporation

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 22:47:52 -0700
To: Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>. Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, LTJG
Joshua Slater <Joshua.Slater@noaa.gov>
I did a rough psuedo component calculation on the data sent by BP. What I see is
that you have to get out to the cut at 344C (650F) before you see the stuff really
persist. We can put it in ADIOS on friday.
lofl
10/20/2010 11 :46 AM
oil properties
002181
Subject: oil properties

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:09:20 -0700
To: LTJG Joshua Slater <Joshua.Slater@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
I need a number for David Epps (I think BP), the source of the best data we have
so far on the oil.
If you happen to have a number, please let me know.
lofl
10/20/2010 1l:47 AM
Re: Evaporation rates
002182
Subject: Re: Evaporation rates

From: <BiILLehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 07:45:25 -0700
CC: Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>
Marcia,
The evaporation rate declines exponentially. The challenge for this spill is that
the oil comes as droplets from a mile
so that dissolution, a competitive
process with evaporation, is significant in this case. We have been trying for
weeks to get oil sampoles right above the leak source to compare with oil that
have moved further away, to be able to estimate which fraction is lost to the
atmosphere and what part is lost in the water column.
Bill
Original Message ----From: Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
Date: Sunday, May 23, 2010 7:33 am
Cc: Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>
Bill Is your guess that the rate of evaporation is linear over the month
time
period, or would you guess that the rate is much higher during say the
first week, and then it greatly tails off during the next few weeks
(e. g.,
an exponential decrease thereafter)?
Marcia
***************************************
Dr. Marcia McNutt
Director
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 100
Reston, VA 20192
mcnutt@usgs.gov
www.usgs.gov
***************************************
From:
Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>

Cc:
Robert J Rosenbauer <brosenbauer@usgs.gov>, Geoffrey S Plumlee
<gplumlee@usgs.gov>, Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
Date:
OS/23/2010 10:14 AM
Subject:
100
10/20/2010] 1:47 AM
002183
From the report I am preparing to deliver to the NIC today

Spilled oil can take several pathways in the environment as shown in
the
diagram In the process of rising through the water column and
weathering
on the sea surface, oil loses many constituents to dissolution and
evaporation. Since this oil contains a high fraction of volatile
compounds, we expect that a large fraction of the oil is lost to
evaporation. We used the pseudo-component evaporation model used in
the
NOAA model, AD~OS2, initialized with data on the oil composition
provided
by BP, to estimate the fraction of oil possibly lost to evaporation
over
the period on the order of weeks to months. After the more volatile
compounds have evaporated, the remaining oil tends to persist without
evaporative change for many months, but other mechanisms such as
photo-oxidation and biodegradation can reduce the remaining oil.
Our
models suggest that as much as half of the oil can be lost to natural
processes over several weeks on the sea surface. Without further
samples,
we
cannot sub-divide the amount lost to evaporation compared to dissolution.
We measured the composition of weathered oil collected from the sea
surface on 16 May using GC/MS, and analyzed the results using the
pseudo-component evaporation model. We found that the weathered oil
sample had lost 38% of its mass to the combination of evaporation and
dissolution.
This analysis could be improved with a careful simulated
evaporation study on the fresh oil, but we have not yet initiated this
study. Therefore, as a first approximation, 30-50 % of the spilled
oil,
not removed by the response, has been removed by natural processes
Original Message ----From: Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>

Subject: Evaporation rates
To: Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Robert J Rosenbauer
<brosenbauer@usas.gov>
Cc: Geoffrey S Plumlee <gplumlee@usgs.gov>, Marcia K McNutt
<mcnutt@usgs.gov>
Bill and Bob,
We are trying to refine the estimates of the oil-spill volume and we
find
we have no estimate of the evaporation rate of the oil spill to
account
20f3
10/20/2010 1l:47 AM
002184
for loss prior to the May 17 AVIRIS overflight we are using in our
estimate. Can either of you provide a rate we can use or point us
to
someone how can?
Thanks,
Vic
Victor F. Labson, Ph.D.
Director - Crustal Geophysics and Geochemistry Science Center
Denver, Colorado
Phone 1(303)236-1312, fax 1(303)236-122ge-mail
30f3
10/20/201011:47 AM
Re: challenge to smart Canadian experimental chemists
002185

From: Bill Lehr <bilUehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 17:14:46 -0700
@ec.gc.ca>
To: "Lambert,Patrick [NCR]"
CC: Merv Fingas
@shaw.ca>, "Brown,Carl [NCR]"
@ec.gc.ca>,
"Fieldhouse,Ben [NCR)" <
@ec.gc.ca>, "Khelifa,AIi [NCR]"
@ec.gc.ca>
Thanks, all you guys who mispronounce aluminum. ~
I have forwarded your recommendations to the research vessel on-scene.
Bill Lehr
On 5/2/10 4:57 PM, Lambert,Patrick [NCR] wrote:
Bill,
We have bounced the idea around here with Ali and Ben.
Merv's suggestion of a submersible camera plan is like the best
ly at that depth.
Option 2 is to consider
area.
deploying few LISSTs within the plume
http://www.seguoiasci.com/products/LISST Inst.aspx
These units can not go to the depth of the well head but are meant to be
submersible. That may actually be a benefit in terms of having a more
consistent or representative dispersed droplet size distribution if
measurement are taken further away from the well head. I believe Ohmset
have used one of these models but not certain. It will take some
expertise to calibrate and interpret the data from the LISSTs.
Option 2 - Water samples
Water samples can be ran in standard particle size analysers, such as
our Malvern Laser Diffraction-based instruments, using UV-fluorescence
microscopy, or direct imaging of oil droplet like the
we have
developed here at ESTS. The later may be used on site using quickly
fabricated, but adequate, samplers. Can provide more details if he
wants.
The Norwegians did do a paper on this a few years ago and we are trying
to locate it.
We will put some more thought into this.
Patrick Lambert
Message----From: Merv Fingas

shaw.ca]
Sent: May 21 2010 6:54 PM
To: Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov; Lambert,Patrick [NCR]
lof2
10/20/2010 11 :48 AM
Re: challenge to smart Canadian experimental chemists
002186

They attempted to put in a simple sampling cup -- what one needs is a
micro-camera than you can shove in but one that doesn't
or
that you can clean
since you are using a submersible anyhow, this should work
there are cameras available for submersibles, what you need is a
so camera -- then analyze photos
cheers
Merv
Bill Lehr wrote:
Pat and Merv,
We've got
oil plume at 5000' coming out at about 10,000 cU.cm per sec
if I did my math right (5000 bbl/day). They are trying to

it
at the well head. A big question is the droplet size distribution of
the plume. Any good ideas on how to sample oil
size in the
plume?
Thanks,
Bill
2of2
10120/2010 1l:48 AM
Re: Dispersant modeling
002187
Subject: Re: Dispersant modeling

Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 13:10:54 -0700
To: Robert Jones <Robert.Jones@noaa.gov>

Robert,
Pooji is
0.1 m2/sec for horizontal dispersion and 1100 that amount for
vertical. With regard to buoyancy, it depends on the degree of dissolution as the
droplet rises. Need some samples from the field.
Bill
On 5/4/10 12:50 PM, Robert Jones wrote:
After messing around with Gnome a bit I came to the conclusion that the first go
at this problem should just be a gaussian plume model with constant currents
(which is pretty darn close to what the models predict anyway).
We have some current data.
I am now looking for the appropriate dispersion
parameters for deep water.
I have a question in the back of my mind about the
buoyancy of dispersed oil in the low-energy environment in deepwater (is it
bouyant enough to
to the bottom of the picnocline) .
I of I
10/20/201011:48 AM
002188

Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 07:14:21 -0700
To: Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>
CC: Robert ,.I Rosenbauer <brosenbauer@usgs.gov>,Geoffrey S Plumlee
<gplumlee@usgs.gov>,Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
Spilled oil can take several pathways in the environment as shown in the diagram
In the process of rising through the water column and weathering on the sea
surface, oil loses many constituents to dissolution and evaporation.
Since this
oil contains a high fraction of volatile compounds, we expect that a large
fraction of the oil is lost to evaporation. We used the pseudo-component
evaporation model used in the NOAA model, ADIOS2, initialized with data on the
oil composition provided by BP, to estimate the fraction of oil possibly lost to
evaporation over the period on the order of weeks to months. After the more
volatile compounds have evaporated, the remaining oil tends to persist without
evaporative change for many months, but other mechanisms such as photo-oxidation
and biodegradation can reduce the remaining oil.
Our models suggest that as
much as half of the oil can be lost to natural processes over several weeks on
the sea surface. Without further samples,
we
cannot sub-divide the amount lost to evaporation compared to dissolution.
We measured the composition of weathered oil collected from the sea surface on 16
May using GC!MS, and analyzed the results using the pseudo-component evaporation
model.
We found that the weathered oil sample had lost 38% of its mass to the
combination of evaporation and dissolution.
This analysis could be improved with
a careful simulated evaporation study on the fresh oil, but we have not yet
initiated this study. Therefore, as a first approximation, 30-50 % of the spilled
oil, not removed by the response, has been removed by natural processes
Original Message ----From: Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>
To: Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Robert J Rosenbauer <brosenbauer@usgs.gov>
Cc: Geoffrey S Plumlee <gplumlee@usgs.gov>, Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
Bill and Bob,
We are trying to refine the estimates of the oil-spill volume and we
find
account
estimate.
Can either of you provide a rate we can use or point us to
someone how can?
Thanks,
Vic
Denver, Colorado
Phone 1(303)236-1312, fax 1 (303) 236-122ge-mail vlabson@usgs.gov
lofl
10/20/20 I 0 11 :48 AM
Re: Fw: Evaporation rates
002189
Subject: Re: Fw: Evaporation rates

Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:12:38 -0700
@lsu.edu>, Robert
To: Barbara A Bekins <babekins@usgs.gov>, Ed Overton
Jones <Robert.Jones@noaa.gov>, Jim Farr <Jim.Farr@noaa.gov>, Alan Mearns
<Alan. Mearns@noaa.gov>
Barbara,
I am cc'ing the NOAA-LSU group that is working on this issue.
Best Regards,
Bill Lehr
On 5/24/10 3:56 PM, Barbara A Bekins wrote:
Bill,
I received your very informative e-mail below on the results of simulating oil loss through evaporation and
dissolution. Is there any chance you can send me the information on oil composition that you received from
BP?
I would use the information plus your results to brief some USGS wetland biologists on the oil
composition. My own work is on crude oil biodegradation in groundwater under methanogenic conditions.
Thank you,
Barbara Bekins
====================================================
Barbara Bekins, Ph. D.
Research Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey, MS 496
345 Middlefield Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025
Ph: (650) 329-4691; Fax: (650) 329-4463
===================================================
---- Forwarded by Barbara A BekinslWRDIUSGSIDOI on 05/2412010 03:53 PM --Bob Rosenbauer <brosenbauer@usgs.gov>

From:
To:
babekins@usgs.gov
Date:
05/24/201003:14 PM
Fwd: Re: Evaporation rates
Subject:
>X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
>X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result:
>AmYCAH7V+EuMWnIUe2dsb2JhbACeEBUBARYiBR28AwKCbAcBghOEgOE
>X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,285,1272870000";
>
d="scan'208,223";a="300135400"
lof3
I 0/20/20 I0 II :49 AM
002190
>Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 07:14:21 -0700

>From: Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov
>Subject: Re: Evaporation rates
>To; Victor F Labson
>Cc: Robert J
> Geoffrey S
>X-Accept-Language: en
>Priority: normal
K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
>
>From the report
am preparing to deliver to the NIC today
>
>Spilled oil Can take several pathways in the environment as shown in
>the diagram In the process of rising through the water column and
>weathering on the sea surface, oil loses many constituents to
>dissolution and evaporation.
Since this oil contains a high
>fraction of volatile compounds, we expect that a large fraction of
>the oil is lost to evaporation. We used the pseudo-component
>evaporation model used in the NOAA model, ADIOS2, initialized with
>data on the oil composition provided by BP, to estimate the fraction
>of oil possibly lost to evaporation over the period on the order of
>weeks to months.
After the more volatile compounds have evaporated,
>the remaining oil tends to persist without evaporative change for
>many months, but other mechanisms such as photo-oxidation and
>biodegradation can reduce the remaining oil. . Our models suggest
>that as much as half of the oil can be lost to natural processes
>over several weeks on the sea surface.
Without further samples,
we
>cannot sub-divide the amount lost to evaporation compared to dissolution.
>
>We measured the composition of weathered oil collected from the sea
>surface on 16 May using GC/MS, and analyzed the results using the
>pseudo-component evaporation mOdel.
We found that the weathered oil
>sample had lost 38% of its mass to the combination of evaporation
>and dissolution. This analysis could be improved with a careful
>simulated evaporation study on the fresh oil, but we have not yet
>initiated this study. Therefore, as a first approximation, 30-50 %
>of the spilled oil, not removed by the response, has been removed by
>natural processes
>
>
>----- Original Message
>From: Victor F Labson
>Date: Sunday, May 23,
>Subject: Evaporation rates
>To: Bill Lehr
>Cc: Geoffrey S
J Rosenbauer
>
Bill and Bob,
We are trying to refine the estimates of the Oil-spill volume and we

find
account
estimate. Can either of you provide a rate we can use or point us to
someone how can?
Thanks,
Vic

Denver, Colorado
Phone 1(303)236-1312, fax 1(303)236-122ge-mail vlabson@usgs.gov
Bob Rosenbauer
FAX: 650-329-5441
Mail:
U.S. Geological Survey
Mail Stop 999
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
20f3
10/20/201011:49 AM
30f3
002191
10/20/201011:49 AM
Re: new gas/oil ratio
002192
Subject: Re: new gas/oil ratio

From: Bill Lehr <bilUehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:06:33 -0700
To: "Espina, Pedro I." <pedro.espina@nist.gov>
CC: Marcia McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>, "Possolo, Antonio" <antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Pedro,
How does more gas at the surface mean less gas fraction at the bottom?
Bill
On 6/10/10 11:38 AM, Espina, Pedro I. wrote:
Dear Marcia,
2100 ft3/bbl corresponds to a volume fraction, V_gas/V_total 0.37 at a deep of 5000ft of sea
water and a temperature of 1 C.
The old number for the 3000 ft3/bbl was V_gas/V_total 0.29 .
You might like to share this number with the team.
Pedro
On 6/10/10 11:51 AM, "Marcia McNutt" <mcnutt@usgs.gov> wrote:
Pedro The GOR at the surface is 2100 cu feet of gas per barrel of oil. Through various
choke settings, the relationship is fairly steady. That would need to be recompressed
to the seafloor for both gas and oil to get a new oil to gas ratio. I think when I
calculated it before I compressed the gas but not the oil. Can you let me know what
you get when you do the calculation?
Marcia
From: Espinal Pedro 1. <pedro.espina@nist.gov> [mailto:Espina, Pedro 1.

<pedro.espina@nist.gov> ]
Sent: ThursdaYI June 10, 2010 11:16 AM
To: Marcia McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
Cc: Bill Lehr <bill.lehr@noaa.gov>; "Possolo, Antonio"
<antonio.possolo@nist.gov>
Subject: After the conversation with Pat
Importance: High
Dear Marcia,
lof2
10/20/2010 11:49 AM
Re: new gas/oil ratio
002193
Pat said that you had a better estimate on the oil/gas ratio based on the production
a board the enterprise after the installation of the LMRP. Can you give me that new
number?
Thanks, Pedro
Pedro I. Espina, Ph.D.
Progra mAna Iyst
Program Office, Office of the Director
Tel: + 1 301 975 5444
Pedro I. Espina, Ph.D.

Program Analyst
Program Office, Office of the Director
Tel: +1301975 5444
2of2
10/20/2010 11:49 AM
Re: Thickness of oil slick
002194
Subject: Re: Thickness of oil slick

Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 15:08:58 -0700
To: Ed Levine <Ed.Levine@noaa.gov>
CC: "Powers, Jane" <Jane. Powers@mms.gov>, Mark Bloemker
<Mark.Bloemker@mms.gov>, Rusty Wright <Harold.Wright@mms.gov>, "Moore, David M."
<David.Moore@mms.gov>, Elizabeth Peuler <Elizabeth.Peuler@mms.gov>, "Metcalf,
Margaret" <Margaret.Metcalf@mms.gov>, "Mullin, Joseph" <Joseph.Mullin@mms.gov>,
Sonia Gallegos <Sonia.Galiegos@nrlssc.navy.mil>
Greetings Joe, Rusty, and the rest of you MMS folks.
Getting in-situ thickness measurements of the oil is not a trivial manner. I believe that Jim
Payne has done it with the California seeps and may be equipped to do it here but possibly
not in a timely manner.
You cannot determine oil thickness accurately by looking in the visual frequency bands
although there are some tricks that a trained observer or smart algorithm can use to get an
answer within an order of magnitude. Ocean Imaging, funded by MMS and on-scene, can
identify thick from sheen with their multi-spectral scanner. I am hoping to get a NASA plane,
equipped with a hyper-spectral scanner, to fly high enough to give us a synoptic picture of
the thick oil at better resolution than satellite images.
Bill Lehr
2067191813
On 5/3/10 2:45 PM, Ed Levine wrote:
We have some samples that were collected samples of oil from skimmer vessels.
There is still a few gallons around here that i could probably get a sample from. Also
our lab at LSU has some samples. The illusive surface oil samples are being worked
out. The weather and logistics did not work out last week. If possible I can try to get
Sonia out on a vessel take her samples and test her instrument.
Bill Lehr is our POC for remote sensing data. He is copied on this email.
ED
On May 3, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Powers, Jane wrote:

Our MMS inspectors will not be going to collect a sample of oil. We would have to get the
hazardous material collectiOn/transport approved and that is not a priority at this time.
From: Bloemkerl Mark
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:05 PM

To: Wright, Rusty; Moore, David M.; Peuler, Elizabeth; Metcalf/ Margaret; Mullin/ Joseph
Cc: 'ed.levine@noaa.gov'i Gallegos/ Sonia; Powers, Jane
of3
10/20/2010 11: 51 AM
002195
Subject: Thickness of oil slick

Do any of you know if data is being collected on the thickness of the oil slick? I know it is not a
continuous slick and that there are areas of sheen and other areas of crude. This information is
needed by our research partner at NRL, Dr. Gallegos.
Also, any lead on getting a sample?
Thanks
Mark
From: Wright, Rusty
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 9:19 AM

To: Bloemker, Mark; Moore, David M.; Peuler, Elizabeth; Metcalf, Margaret; Mullin, Joseph
Cc: 'ed.levine@noaa.gov'
Subject: RE: Need crude oil sample
Mark,
I am passing this over to Ed Levine the SSC here in Houma.
Ed,
Can you help coordinate this?
Thanks,
From: Bloemker, Mark
Sent: Friday, April 30, 20109:14 AM

To: Moore, David M.; Peuler, Elizabeth; Metcalf, Margaret; Wright, Rusty; Mullin, Joseph
The analysis will not be the same. A sample is still needed.

NRL intends to do optical spectral analysis rather than chemical analysis. The results will be used
to calibrate the in situ data with satellite image spectral data. Satellite image data are being
collected from the Hyperion hyperspectral sensor on board USGS's EO-1 satellite, and GeoEye's
IKONOS satellite.
Mark
From: Moore, David M.
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 4:36 PM
To: Peuler, Elizabeth; Metcalf, Margaret; Wright, Rusty; Mullin, Joseph
Cc: Bloemker, Mark
I believe that the USCG has already taken some samples for the investigative part of the incident.
Will try to find out who, when, where, and what analysis. No need in taking another sample if they
are going to do the same analysis. Will let you know.
David
20f3
10/2012010 11:51 AM
002196
From: Peuler, Elizabeth

To: Metcalf, Margaret; Wright, Rusty; Mullin, Joseph; Moore, David M.
Cc: Bloemker, Mark

How have we accomplished oil samples in the past? And. how would we get Mark the sample he
is requesting for NRL?

To: Peuler, Elizabeth

Similar to Deepwater Horizon.
NRL has requested to collect in situ samples bot approval appears to be difficult.
Mark
From: Peuler, Elizabeth

To: Bloemker, Mark

Are you targeting a particular oil?
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 20101:12 PM

To: OMM GOM FO; OMM GOM LE; OMM GOM New Orleans District Office; OMM GOM PD; OMM
GOMRE
Cc: Gallegos, Sonia
Subject: Need crude oil sample
Folks.
I need a crude oil sample for spectral analysis. The analysiS will be done by the Naval Research
Lab (Stennis). The sample will be destroyed by the analysis; and thus. cannot be returned.
Thanks for your help.
Mark Bloemker
Office of Production and Development
736-2636
30f3
10/20/201011:51 AM
total evaporated
002197
Subject: total evaporated

Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:19:26 -0700
To: Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Mark,
Environment Canada gave us the distillation data and other parameters for South
Louisiana crude. We are using this as our surrogate oil until we get better data
from L8U.
ADI082 assumes a well-mixed model for eveporation where all the oil
components with boiling point less than 400 F will eventually evaporate. Merv
Fingas has developed a different diffusion limited model where some of the
lighter components can be permanently trapped in the oil. Under ADIOS2, we would
expect, ignoring other losses, that around 58% of the oil would evaporate. The
Fingas model says that 30% would evaporate. These probably provide you with good
bounds for the problem.
Bill Lehr
10ft
10120/2010 11:52 AM
Venosa
002198
Subject: Venosa
From: "alan.mearns" <Alan.Mearns@noaa.gov>
Date: Sat, 01 May 201007:21:50 -0700
To: bililehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Nicolle R Rutherford <Nicolle.R.Rutherford@noaa.gov>,
John Tarpley <john.tarpley@noaa.gov>
Bill
Al Venosa, EPA Cincinnati, has been following the deep dispersant trial, seen some
video,
and is quite impressed.
Talked to him briefly and suggest we include him
as part of the deep dispersant assessment team.
(Venosa lead development of EPA's current dispersant effectiveness technology
testing ... etc
513-569-7668 (office)
I of J
10/20/201011:52 AM
002199
A Protocol for Estimation of Oil Volumes Removed

During Controlled Burns
Deepwat~r
Horizon Me 252
07/22/10
AI Allen I Nere Mabile
002200
Contents
Field Observations and Data Collection ...; .................................................................................................... 1
Burn Volumes Calculation Background ......................................................................................................... 1
Calculation Sequence .................................................................................................................................... 2
Example Calculation .................................................................................................................................. 2
Appendix A - F 1788 - 97 (Reapproved 2003)
Appendix B - Estimating Emulsion Burn Rates
Appendix C - Fractional Area Coverages for 500 ft. Long Boom
Appendix D
Sample Calculation Notes
Appendix E - Burn Volume Calculation Work Flow

Appendix F- Burn Volume Calculation Timeline
MC252 Incident
7/22/2010
002201
Field Observations and Data Collection

Detailed field observations have a great importance for the accuracy of burn estimation. Observers
should monitor burns simultaneously from the water and from the air, for example:
1.
Aerial Observation from 1500 ft allows great perspective at all angles.
2.
Observation from the deck of the larger supply vessels with good angle from an elevation.
3.
Observation from smaller boats and boom-pulling vessels.
Observers should take notes of the following:

Date, time, burn number, latitude and longitude, Burn Team number.
Record the time of the beginning and end of burn as well as every interval when burn fire
changes in shape and size.
For each interval record:
o
Area inside the boom filled with oil.
How much of this area is occupied by the fire or a diameter of the fire if it has roughly
round footprint.
Any relevant observations (type of the boom, length of the boom, shape of the boom,
was burn ignited once or re-ignited at certain times, is the burn spilling over the boom?
etc.).
Specialists on the vessels may want to:
take a sample of oil collected in the boom, prior to the burn, for future analysis of
viscosity, water content, etc. Collect only oil/emulsion
no free water.
estimate the amount of burn residue remaining in the boom following the burn, if
possible and feasible.
take a sample of the residue.
Burn Volumes Calculation Background

According to the ASTM standard F 1788 - 97 (Reapproved 2003) Standard Guide for In-Situ Burning of
Oil Spills on Water: (Appendix-A) Environmental and Operational Considerations:
"Xl.1.8 Most oil pools burn at a rate of about 3 mm/min (17). This means that the depth of oil is
reduced by 3 mm/min. As a rule of thumb, oil burn rate is about 5000 l/m2/day (or about 100
gal/fe/day). Several tests have shown that this does not vary significantly with oil type and weathering.
Emulsified oil, due to its water content and thus reduced spreading rate and the increased heat
requirement of the water, may burn slower." This is a widely accepted methodology referenced in
several in-situ burning manuals (e.g. In-Situ Burn Guide by Environment Canada 1993 and 2000).
MC252 Incident
7/22/2010
002202
100 gal/ft2/day translates into 0.07 gal/min/fe. Attached (Appendix-B) is a summary by Ian Buist of SL
Ross indicating that fresh oils could burn at even higher rates and 0.07 gal/min/fe is representative for
burns of oil with water content of 10-20%. The value of 0.05 gal/min/fe could be used for burns of
emulsified oil with water content of 25-40%. For fresh oil burns, this later coefficient can provide a very
conservative "minimum volume" estimation. It is important to keep in mind that these numbers provide
a "best estimate" of burn volumes and shall not be used as exact numbers, but rather as a range.
Calculation Sequence
To calculate the volume of oil removed during each burn:
1.
For each burn interval, estimate the area occupied by the fire (in square foot). For round
fires use Area==rrR 2, where R is a radius of the fire and rt=3.14. For the established fire inside
the boom use the attached charts (Appendix-C) developed by AI Allen relating the fraction
2.
of boom filled to the area.

Multiply the area in (ft2) by the burn interval duration (in min) .
3.
Multiply the above number by 0.07 gal/min/fe for the efficient burn/maximum value or by
0.05 gal/min/fe for less efficient burn/minimum value.
4.
Sum up min and max volumes calculated for each interval to calculate the total min and max
volume of oil removed during this particular burn.
5.
Repeat for other burns.
The above calculations are performed after capturing the data regarding the burn area estimation,
duration of burns, aerial observations data, photographs, sketches and field notes from the offshore
support vessels. This data is compiled, then characterized by a technical specialist before volume
calculations are performed as outlined above. Below and Appendix-D show examples of this
calculation. Appendix-E depicts this burn volume estimation workflow.
Examp]e Calculation
Burn 1 4/28/10 - "lest Burn"
Total Burn Time::: 28 min (1640-1708)
15 min. at::: 50'
75' = 3,750 ft2
13 min. at::: 25'
25' = 625 fe
Max. Vol. Burned (based on 0.07 gpm/ft2)

3,750 ft2 x 0.07 gpm/fe x 15 min. = 3,938 gal. '"
625 2ft x 0.07 gpm/ft 2 x 13 min. :: 569 gal. :::
Max. Total:::
94 bbl
14 bbl
108 bbl
Min. Vol. Burned (based on 0.05 gpm/tr)
fe
3,750
x 0.05 gpm/fe x 15 min. == 2,813 gal. '"
2
625 ft x 0.05 gpm/ft2 x 13 min. == 406 gal. :::
Min. Total'"
MC252 Incident
67 bbl
10 bbl
77 bbl
7/22/2010
002203
Appendix A - F 1788 - 97 (Reapproved 2003)

Designation: F 1788 - 97 (Reapproved 2003)
INTEflNATIONAL
Standard Guide for
In-Situ Burning of Oil Spills on Water: Environmental and

Operational Considerations 1
This. standard is issu~d under the fixed ?csignation F 1788: the numher immediately foHowing the designation indicates the year of
ongmal adopll~n or. In lhe case of revlSIon. the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscnpt epsilon (E) mdlcates an edllonal change since the last revision or re.~pproval.
1. Scope
1.1 This guide covers the use of in-situ burning to assist in

the control of oil spills on water. This guide is not applicable to
in-situ burning of oil on land.
1.2 The purpose of this guide is to provide information that
will enable spill responders to decide if burning will be used as
part of the oil spill cleanup response.
1.3 This is a general guide only. It is assumed that conditions at the spill site have been assessed and that these
conditions are suitable for the burning of oil. It is also assumed
that permission to bum the oil has been obtained. Variations in
the behavior of different oil types are not dealt with and may
change some of the parameters noted in this guide.
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
2. Terminology
2.1 Definitions:
2.1.1 burn efficiency-burn efficiency is the percentage of
the oil rexpoved from the water by the burning.
2.1.1.1 Discussion-Bum efficiency is the amount (volume)
of oil before burning; less the volume remaining as a residue,
divided by the initial volume of the oil.
2.1.2 bum rate-the rate at which oil is burned in a given
area.
2.1.2.1 Discussion-Typically, the area is a pool and bum
rate is the regression rate of the burning liquid, or may be
described as a volumetric rate.
2.1.3 contact probabiliry.:-the probability that oil will be
contacted by the flame during burning.
2.1.4 controlled burning-burning when the combustion
can be started and stopped by human intervention.
I This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee F20 on Hazardous
Substances and Oil Spill Response and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee
F20.IS on In-Situ Burning.
Current edition approved May 10. 1997. Published July 1997.
2.1.5 fire-resistant booms-devices that float on water to

restrict the spreading and movement of oil slicks and constructed to withstand the high temperatures and heat fluxes of
in-situ burning.
2.1.6 in-situ burning-use of burning directly on the water
surface.
2.1.6.1 Discussion-In-situ burning does not include incineration techniques, whereby oil or oiled debris are placed into
an incinerator.
2.1.7 residue-the material, excluding airborne emissions,
remaining after the oil stops burning.
3. Significance and Use
3.1 This guide is primarily intended to aid decision-makers

and spill-responders in contingency plann'ing, spill response,
and training.
3.2 This guide is not specific to either site or type of oil.
4. Background
4.1 Overview of Oil Burning:
4.1.1 In-situ burning is one of several oil-spill countermeasures available. Other countermeasures could include mechanical recovery, use of oil-spill dispersants, and leaving the oil to
natural processes.
4.1.2 In-situ burning is combustion at the spill site without
removing the oil from the water. Containment techniques may
be used, however, to increase the thickness of the oil. The
thickness of the oil slick is an important factor in the use of
in-situ burning.
4.1.3 In-situ burning does not include incineration techniques whereby oil or oiled debris are placed into an incinerator.
4.2 Major Advantages and Disadvantages of In-situ Burning:
4.2.1 Advantages of in-situ burning include the following:
4.2.1.1 Rapid removal of oil from the water surface,
4.2.1.2 Requirement for less equipment and labor than
many other techniques,
4.2.1.3 Significant reduction in the amount of material
requiring disposal,
Copyright ASTM International. 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C7OO, West Conshohocken. PA 194262959. United States.
002204
F 1788 - 97 (2003)
6.2 Safety Monitoring and Control Requirements-The operation must be monitored to meet safety requirements. Burning shall be monitored to ensure that fire may not spread to
adjacent combustible material. Situation-specific contingency
methods of extinguishing, such as boats with fire monitors,
shall be available. In towed-boom operations, it has been
proposed that the fire may be extinguished by increasing the
tow speed so that the oil is entrained in the water. Other options
for controlling the fire or the bum rate might include releasing
one side of the oil containment boom or slowing down to
reduce the encounter rate.
6.3 Oil Thickness-Most oils can be ignited on a water
surface if they are a minimum of 2 to 3 mm thick. Once ignited,
the oils will burn down to a thickness of about I mm. Physical
containment, such as with oil-spill containment booms, is
usually necessary to achieve the minimum thicknesses required. Specific information on this is provided in the appendix.
6.4 Oil Type and Condition-Highly weathered oils will
bum, but will require sustained heat during ignition. Oil that is
emulsified with water may not bum. Not enough data are
available to determine water-content levels that limit ignition.
Indications are, however, that stable emulsions which typically
contain about 70 % water cannot be ignited and that oils
containing less than about 25 % water will bum. Treatment
with chemicals to remove water before burning can permit
ignition.
6.5 Wind and Sea Conditions-Strong winds may extinguish the fire. In-situ burning can be done on the sea with
winds less than about 40 krnIh (about 20 knots). High sea states
are not conducive to containment by booms. Wave heights of 1
m or more may result in splash-over of the oil.
6.6 Burn Efficiency-Bum efficiency, which is the percentage of oil removed by burning, has been measured as high as
99 % for contained oil. Bum efficiency is largely a function of
oil thickness and flame-contact probability. Contact probability
is the probability that oil will be contacted by the flame during
burning. Inhomogeneous oil distribution on the surface can
result in an incomplete bum. This can result as the flame may
be extinguished over a patch that is not thick enough to bum,
while adjacent patches that are thick enough will subsequently
not be burned. Contact is usually random and is influenced by
wind speed and direction and can be controlled by human
intervention in some cases.
6.7 Burn Rate-Oil bums at the rate of about 3 nunimin,
which means that the surface of the oil slick regresses
downwards at the rate of 3 mrnlmin. This translates to a rate of
about 5000 Um2/day (or 100 gallfe/day). Burn rate is relatively independent of physical conditions and oil type. Using
these values, it is possible to calculate the rate of burning in
booms and in other bum operations.
6.8 Containment-Oil slicks must be a minimum of 2 to 3
mm thick to be ignited. As oil naturally spreads quickly to
much thinner slicks than this under normal circumstances,
physical containment is generally necessary for burning. Fireresistant booms are commercially available for this purpose.
While these booms can be used in a variety of configurations,
they are best used in a catenary mode and towed at speeds less
4.2.1.4 Significant removal of volatile emission components, and

4.2.1.5 May be the only solution possible, such as in
oil-in-ice situations.
4.2.2 Disadvantages of in-situ burning include the following:
4.2.2.1 Creation of a smoke plume,
4.2.2.2 Residues of the bum must be dealt with,
4.2.2.3 Time in which to ignite the oil may be limited,
4.2.2.4 Oil must be a minimum thickness to bum, which
may require containment, and
4.2.2.5 The fire may spread to other combustible materials.
S. Environmental Considerations for Deciding to Use

In-Situ Burning
5.1 Air Quality:
5.1.1 Several studies have been done of the air emissions
resulting from i'n-situ burning. It has been found that the smoke
plume consists largely of carbon and that toxic compounds are
not created. The high temperatures achieved during in-situ
burning result in efficient removal of most components of the
oil. The thick, black smoke can be of concern to nearby human
populations or ecologically sensitive areas. Since most soot
precipitation occurs near the fire, this is the main area of
concern. The smoke plume is, however, generally an aesthetic
concern. In-situ burning should be avoided within 1 km
upwind of either an ecologically sensitive or a heavily populated area, depending on meteorological conditions. No emissions greater than one fourth of the 1994 human health
exposure limits have been detected at ground level further than
I km from an oil fire. The values of the human health exposure
limits vary with jurisdiction, and, thus, the appropriate documents should be consulted. The environmental and economic
trade-offs of burning the oil, as opposed to contamination of
the shoreline, must be considered.
5.1.2 Burning can be safely conducted near populated areas
if there is sufficient air turbulence for mixing, and in the
absence of a low-level atmospheric inversion.
5.2 Water Quality...,-Measurements show that burning does
not accelerate the release of oil components or combustion
by-products to the water column. Highly efficient burns of
heavy oils may form a dense residue that sinks.
5.3 Wildlife Concerns-Although no specific biological
concerns related to the use of in-situ combustion have been
identified to date, benthic resources may be affected by sunken
oil bum residue.
6. Operational Considerations for In-situ Burning

6.1 Safety Considerations-The safety of the proposed
operation shall be the primary consideration. Secondly, the
burning operation shaH not result in unintentional flashback to
the source of the oil, for example, the tanker or the production
platform. The third consideration is the spread of the fire to
other combustible material in the area, including trees, docks,
and buildings. Flashback and fire spread can often be prevented
by using containment booms to tow away the oil to be burned.
A fourth consideration is the safety of the ignition operation,
which is often done from helicopters, and the safety of the
boom tow operation must be ensured.
2
002205
F 1788 - 97 (2003)
than 0.35 mls (0.7 knots). At speeds greater than this, oil is lost
under the boom by entrainment. Slicks can sometimes be
naturally contained by ice or against shorelines.
6.9 Ignition-Slicks can be ignited with a variety of devices. Enough heat must be supplied for a sufficient length of
time. Weathered oils generally require a longer heating time to
ignite.
6.10.2 Floating residue can be removed manually with

sorbents, nets, or similar equipment
7. Summary
7.1 In-situ burning is a viable countermeasure that has the

potential to quickly remove large amounts of oiL The air
emissions of in-situ burning are below health and environmental concern levels at nominal distances from the combustion
source.
6.10 Residue Cleanup:

6.10.1 Residue is the material remaining after the oil stops
burning. Residue is similar to a highly weathered oil, depending on the bum conditions. It is viscous and often highly
adhesive. Highly efficient bums result in heavier and denser
residue. These residues may actually be more dense than sea
water.
8. Keywords
8.1 fire-resistant booms; in-situ burning; oil-spill burning;
oil-spill containment; oil-spill disposal
APPENDIX
(Nonmandatory Information)
Xl. INTRODUCTION TO THE IN-SITU BURNING OF OIL SPILLS
INTRODUCTION
In-situ burning has been used as an oil-spill countermeasure around the world (1,2)? Recently,
extensive research has been conducted on the many facets of burning oil (3,4,5). The emissions from
and basic principles of oil-spill burning are now relatively well-understood.
have occasionally been contained by shorelines. Burning could
be applied in these instances, if the shoreline is remote and no
combustible materials such as trees and docks are nearby.
XLl.4 It is uncertain whether oil that is completely emulsified with water can be ignited. Oil containing some emulsion
can be ignited and burned (10). During the successful test bum
of the Exxon Valdez oil, some patches of emulsion were
present (probably less than 20 %) and this did not affect either
the ignitability or the efficiency (11). It is suspected that fire
breaks down the water-in-oil emulsion, and thus water content
may not be a problem if the fire can be started. There is
inconclusive evidence at this time on the water content at
which emulsions can still be ignited. One test suggested that a
heavier crude would not bum with about 10 % water (10),
another oil burned with as much as 50 % (12), and still another
burned with about 70 % water (13). One study indicated that
emulsions may burn if a sufficient area is ignited (13). Further
studies indicate that stable emulsions will not bum but oil
containing less than 25 % water can be ignited. Emulsions may
not be a problem because chemical de-emulsifiers could be
used to break enough of the emulsion to allow the fire to start.
Xl.L5 Most, if not all, oils will burn on water if slicks are
thick enough. Except for light-refined products, different types
of oils have not shown significant differences in burning
behavior. Weathered oil requires a longer ignition time and
somewhat higher ignition temperature (12).
XL1.6 Burning efficiency is the amount of oil before
burning, less the volume left as residue, divided by the initial
volume of the oil. The amount of soot produced is usually
ignored in calculating burn efficiency. Efficiency is largely a
X1.1 Basic Principles of Burning Oil

X 1.1.1 Oil slicks can be ignited if they are at least 2 to 3 mm
thick and will continue to bum down to slicks of about I to 2
mm thick (6)2. These thicknesses are required because of heat
transfer. Sufficient heat is required to vaporize material for
continued combustion. In a thin slick, most of the heat is lost
to the water, vaporization is not sustained, and combustion
ceases.
X 1.1.2 Containment is usually required to concentrate oil
slicks so that they are thick enough to ignite and bum (7).
Fire-resistant containment booms can be used to keep fire from
spreading back to the spill source, such as an oil tanker (8).
Burning in situ without the benefit of containment booms can
be undertaken only if the oil is thick enough (2 to 3 mm) to
ignite. For most crude oil spills, this only occurs for a few
hours after the spill event unless the oil is confined behind a
barrier. Oil on the open sea spreads rapidly to equilibrium
thicknesses. For light crude oils, this is about 0.01 to 0.1 mm,
for heavy crudes and heavy oils, this is about 0.05 to about 0.5
mm.
Xl.i.3 Oil can be contained by natural barriers. For example, ice has been shown to serve as a natural boom. Several
successful experiments and bums of real spills have shown that
burning is a proven countermeasure for spills in ice (4,9). Spills
2 The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to a list of references at the end of

this guide.
002206
F 1788 - 97 (2003)
function of oil thickness. Oil thicker than about 2 to 3 mm can

be ignited and bums down to about I to 2 mm (6,14). For
example, a slick of 2 mm burning down to I mm yields a
maximum efficiency of 50 %. A pool of oil 20 mm thick bums
to approximately I mm, yielding an efficiency of about 95 %.
Current research has shown that other factors such as oil type
and low water contents only marginally affect efficiency (4).
XU.7 The residue from oil-spill burning is largely unburned oil with some lighter or more volatile products removed
(15,16). Highly efficient bums of some types of heavy crude oil
may result in oil residue that sinks in sea water.
Xl.1.8 Most oil pools bum at a rate of about 3 rnrnJmin
(17). This means that the depth of oil is reduced by 3 mm/min.
As a rule of thumb, oil burn rate is about 5000 Um 2 /day (or
about 100 gallfe/day). Several tests have shown that this does
not vary significantly with oil type and weathering. Emulsified
oil, due to its water content and thus reduced spreading rate and
the increased heat requirement of the water, may burn slower.
XL!. 9 Studies conducted in the last ten years have shown
that the type of ignition device is relatively unimportant,
however, heavy oils require longer heating times and a hotter
flame to ignite than lighter oils. Many types of ignition sources
can supply sufficient heat for a sufficient length of time. A
number of simple devices consisting of flotation and propellant
have been developed (1822). A helicopter-slung device that
dispenses packets of burning, gelled fuel is the only commercial unit available at this time. Actual burns at some incidents
and experiments have been ignited using much less sophisticated means including lighting oil-soaked paper and sorbent.
many of these were at concern levels directly downwind of the

fire. Tests of emissions for these same compounds without
burning, however, showed higher levels in most cases.
X1.2.4 Burning nearly always produces partially oxidized
materials. In the case of oil, many of these materials are
alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, and similar compounds. Extensive testing at one bum site showed that low quantities of these
compounds were present downwind, but at well below health
concern levels and, in fact, at near ambient levels.
X1.2.5 Crude and residual oils contain metals such as
vanadium, chromium, and nickel in the range from 10 to 40
ppm. While the fate of these metals during the combustion
process is uncertain, they appear to be concentrated in the
residue. Measurements during a series of experimental burns
have shown the metal content in the soot to be below detection
level (15,16).
Xl.2.6 The most obvious atmospheric emission is particulate matter, smoke, or soot. The quantity of soot produced by
in-situ oil fires is not well established. Direct measures in small
pan bums result in soot production values of 0.7 to 3.5 % for
crude oil and about 11 % for diesel fuel. No measurement
techniques are available at this time for large-scale burns,
however, estimates range up to 15 % (27,28). These estimates
are complicated by the fact that particulates precipitate from
the smoke plume. The proportion of the soot that consists of
respirable particles (less than lO!lm in diameter) is a relatively
low value at ground level. Respirable particles measured at
ground level are below concern levels several hundred metres
downwind (16). A typical exposure limit is 150 flg/m3, (8-h
average).
XI.2.7 The combustion of oil reduces the starting materials
to fundamental gases. Most emissions are carbon dioxide,
which have been measured and rarely exceed five times the
background levels (16,20,29). This is not a health concern.
Levels of carbon monoxide have been measured and found to
be near measurement thresholds and thus well below healthexposure levels. Sulfur dioxide emissions are usually much
lower than indicated by the sulfur content of the oil (20). Sulfur
compounds in oil range from about 0.1 to 5 % of the oil weight.
Nitric oxides have not been detected as a result of in-situ
combustion of oil (15,16).
X1.2.8 One concern about the burning of crude oil is the
formation of new toxic compounds. A study was conducted in
which soot and residue samples were extracted and "totally"
analyzed in various ways. While the study was not conclusive,
no compounds of the several hundred identified were of serious
environmental or health concern (15). The soot analysis
revealed that the bulk of the material was carbon and that all
other detectable compounds were present on this carbon matrix
in abundances of parts-per-million or less. The most frequent
compounds identified were aldehydes, ketones, esters, acetates,
and acids, which are formed by incomplete oxidation of the oil.
Specific analysis was performed for the highly toxic compounds, dioxins and dibenzofurans. Results of this analysis
were negative-including those for oils burned on salt water
(15).
X1.2.9 The burning process leaves a bum residue. Studies
show that the residue is largely composed of oil with little
Xl.2 Emissions from Burning

X 1.2.1 The atmospheric emissions of concem include PAHs
(polyaromatic hydrocarbons), volatile organic compounds,
oxygenated compounds, metals, particulate matter, and gases.
X1.2.2 The PAHs have been measured in soot particles and
as gaseous emissions at several test spills (15.17,2325).
Gaseous emissions were found to be negligible. The soot from
several experimental bums has been collected and the PAH
content measured. In all cases, the quantity of PAHs is less in
the soot and residue than in the originating oil. All crude oils
contain PAHs, varying from as much as 1 % down to about
0.001 %. These PAHs are burned to fundamental gases, except
for those left in the residue and those on the soot. Studies have
shown that PAHs are produced in great abundance at temperatures of 600 to SOOC. At combustion temperatures higher than
this, fewer and fewer PAHs are produced. In-situ oil fires are
known to reach temperatures of up to 1300C. One overall
finding is that most compounds of concern are associated with
the particulate matter, which is largely precipitated downwind
from the burn. The deposition is approximately square root
with distance; little is carried far from the site. In summary,
PAHs are not a serious concern in assessing the impaet of
burning oil.
X1.2.3 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are organic
compounds that have a sufficiently low vapor pressure to be
gaseous at normal temperatures. The emission of volatile
compounds was measured at several test bums (15,16,26). It
was found that emissions were very high for many of the
compounds measured. About 70 compounds were detected and
4
002207
~
F 1788 - 97 (2003)
even in shallow, confined test tanks. Thermal transfer to the
water is limited by the insulating oil layer and is actually the
mechanism by which the combustion of thin slicks is extinguished.
XL2.l1 Water samples under burning oil have been analyzed in four cases (15,16). No organic compounds were
detected.
removed other than some of the more volatile materials

(15,16). It appears to be the same as weathered oil of the same
type. The residue contains PAHs at lower concentrations than
the starting oil, although it may also contain metals at a slightly
higher concentration.
X 1.2.1 0 The temperature to which the water body is raised
has been another concern (5,17). Measurements during recent
bum trials show no significant increase in water temperature,
REFERENCES
(1) Evans, D. D., "In-situ Burning of Oil Spills: Appendix B-Case
Histories of Attempts to Use Burning in Response to an Oil Spill,"
Alaska Arctic Offshore Oilspill Response Technology Workshop Pro
cee(lings, Washington, DC, 1988, pp. 77-81.
(2) Goodier, 1. L., and Siclari, R. J., Combustion: An Oil Spill Mitigation
Tool Phase II: TIle Burning of the M/J' Burmah Agate (Ex-Danaland),
U.S. Department of Energy Report DOEITIC-11471, Washington, DC,
198J.
(3) Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Combustion: An Oil Mitigation Tool, prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental
Control Technology Division, Washington, DC, 1979.
(4) Fingas, M. F., and Laroche, N., "An Introduction to the In-situ Burning
of Oil Spills," Spill Technology Newsleller, Vol 15. No.4, 1991, pp.
1-11.
(5) Fingas, M. F., Halley, G., Ackerman, F., Vanderkooy, N., Nelson, R .
Bissonnette, M. C., Laroche, N., Lambert, P., Jokuty, P., Li, K., Halley,
W., Warbanski, G., Campagna, P. R., Turpin, R. D., Trespalacios, M. 1.,
Dickins, D., Tennyson, E. J., Aurand, D., and Hiltabrand, R., "The
Newfoundland Offshore Bum Experiment-NOBE Experimental Design and Overview," Proceedings of the Seventeenth Arctic arul Marine
Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Ont., 1994, pp. 1053-1061.
(6) Evans, D. D. Mulholland, G. W.. Lawson, J. R., Tennyson, E. J.,
Tebeau, P. A. Fingas, M. E, and Gould. J. R.. "Burning of Oil Spills,"
Proceedings of Ihe 1991 Oi/spill Conference, American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, DC, 1991.
(7) Williams, R. E., and Cooke, T. S., "Feasibility of Using a Bubble
Barrier for the Containment/Incineration of Spilled Oil," Proceedings
of the Eighth Annual Arctic Marine Oilspill Program Technical
Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ont., 1985, pp. 212-227.
(8) Buist, I. A, and McAllister, I. R., "Dome Petroleum's Fireproof
Boom-Development and Testing to Date," Proceedings of the Fourth
Annual Arctic Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Onl., 1981, pp. 479-497.
(9) Belicek, K., and Overall, 1., Some Aspects of Weathering and Burning
of Crude Oil in a Water-and-lce Environment, Canadian Marine
Drilling Ltd. Technical Report, Calgary, Alla., 1976.
(10) Smith, N. K., and Diaz, A., "In-place Burning of Crude Oils in
Broken Ice," Proceedings of the 1987 Oil Spill Conference, American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 1987, pp. 383-387.
(11) Allen, A. A.," Contained Controlled Burning of Spilled Oil During
the EXXON VALDEZ Oil Spill," Spill Techoology Newsleller, Vol
15. No.2, 1990, pp. 1-5.
(12) Twardus, E. M., A Study 10 Evaluate the Combustibility and Other
Physical and Chemical Properties of Aged Oils and EmulsiollS,
Environment Canada Report EE-5, Ottawa, Ont., 1980.
(13) Bech, C, Sveum, P., and Buist, L, "In-situ Burning of Emulsions: The
Effects of Varying Water Content and Degree of Evaporation,"
Proceedings of the Fifteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program
Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ont.. 1992, pp.
547-559.
(14) Evans, D., Walton, D., Baum, H., Lawson, R., Harris, R., Ghoniem,
A, and Holland, J., "Measurement of Large Scale Oil Spill Burns,"
Proceedings of the Thirteenth AnnualArctic Marine Oi/spill Program

Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ont., 1990, pp.
\-38.
(15) Fingas. M. E, U, K., Ackerman, E, Campagna, P. R., Turpin, R. D.,
Getty, S. J., Soleki, M. E, Trespalacios, M. 1., Pare J., Bissonnette, M.
C., and Tennyson, E.l., "Emissions from Mesoscale In-situ Oil Fires:
The Mobile 1991 and 1992 Tests," Proceed/nKs of the Sixteenth
Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ont., 1993, pp. 749-821.
(16) Fingas. M. E, Ackerman, E, Li. K., Lambert, P.. Wang. Z., Bissonnette, M. C, Campagna, P. R., Boileau, P., Laroche, N., Jokuty, P.,
Nelson, R., Turpin, R. D., Trespalacios, M. J., Halley, G . Beanger, 1.,
Pare J. R. J., Vanderkooy, N., Tennyson, E. J .. Aurand, D., and
Hiltabrand, R., 'The Newfoundland Offshore Burn ExperimentNOBE-Preliminary Results of Emissions Measurement," Proceed
ings (If the Seventeenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program
Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ont., 1994, pp.
1099-1164.
(17) Evans, D. D., Walton, W. D., Baum, H. R., Notarianni, K. A.,
Lawson, J. R., et aI, "In-situ Burning of Oil Spills: Mesoscale
Experiments," Proceedings of the Fifteenth Arctic and Marine
Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Onl., 1992, pp. 593-657.
(18) Allen, A. A" Refinemenr of Aerial Ignition Systems (Test and
Evaluario/l of the Helitorch for the Ignition of Oil Slicks). Alaska
Clean Seas, Anchorage, AK, 1987.
(19) Energetex Engineering. Environmental Testing of the Dome Air
Deployable igniter, Final Report to Dome Petroleum Ltd., 1982.
(20) Frish, M. B., DeFaccio. M. A, Nebolsine, P. E .. and Simons, G. A ..
"Laser Ignition of Arctic Marine Oil Spills," Oil & Chemical
Pollution, Vol 3, No.5, Elsevier Science Publishers, New York,
1986/87, pp. 355-365.
(21) Meikle, K. M., "Incendiary Device for Oil Slick Ignition," Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Arctic Marine Oilspill Program Technical
Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Onl., 1981, pp. 499-513.
(22) Twardawa, P., and Couture, G., "Incendiary Devices for the In-situ
Burning of Oil Spills," Proceedings of Ihe Third Allnual Arctic
Marine OilspiU Program Technical Seminar, Environment Canada,
Ottawa, Ont., 1980, pp. 281-289.
(23) Benner. B. A., Jr., Bryner, N. P., Wise, S. A., Mulholland, G. w., Lao.
R. C., and Fingas, M. F.. "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Emissions from the Combustion of Crude Oil on Water," Environmental
Science Techllology, Vol 24. No.9, 1990, pp. 1419-1427.
(24) Fingas, M. E, Halley. G., Ackerman, E, Nelson, R., Bissonnette, M.
c., Laroche, N., Wang, Z., Lambert, P., Li, K., Jokuty, P., Sergy, G.,
Halley, W., Latour, J., Galarneau, R., Ryan, B., Campagna, P. R.,
Turpin, R. D., Tennyson, E, J., Mullin, J., Hannon, L., Aurand, D.,
and Hiltabrand, R., "The Newfoundland Offshore Burn Experiment,"
Proceedings of the 1995 bUemalional Oil Spill COIiference, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 1995, pp. 123-132.
(25) Mitchell, J. B. A., and Moir, M. E., "Smoke Reduction from Pool
Fires Using Ferrocene and Derivatives," Proceedings of Ihe Fifteenth
002208
~
F 1788 - 97 (2003)
Ottawa,Ont., 1993, pp. 679-734.
(28) Fingas, M. F., Li, K., Ackerman, F., Wang, Z., Lambert, P., Gamble,
L., Trespalacios, M. J., Schuetz, S., Turpin, R. D., and Campagna, P.
R., "Soot Production from In-Situ Oil Fires: Review of the Literature,
Measurement and Estimation Techniques and Calculation of Values
from Experimental Spills," Proceedings oj the Nineteenth Arctic alld
Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar, Environment Canada,
Ottawa, Ont., 1996, pp. 999-\032.
(29) Campagna, P. R., and Humphrey, A., "Air Sampling and Monitoring
at the Kuwait Oil Well Fires," Proceedings ojthe Fifteenth Arctic and
Marine Oilspill Program Technical Semillar, Environment Canada,
Ottawa, Ont., 1992, pp. 575-592.
Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, Environment

Canada, Ottawa, Ont., 1992, pp. 681-687.
(26) Li, K., Caron, T., Landaiult, M., Pare J. R. J., and Fingas, M.,
"Measurement of Volatiles, Semi-volatiles and Heavy Metals in an
Oil Burn Test," Proceedings (!f the Fifleenrh Arctic and Marine
Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Ont., 1992, pp. 561-573.
(27) Walton, W. D., Evans, D. D., McGrattan, K. B., Baum, H. R., Twilley,
W. H., Madrzykowski, D., PUlorti, A. D., Rehm, R. G., Koseki, H.,
and Tennyson, E. J., "In Situ Burning of Oil Spills: Mesoscale
Experiments and Analysis," Proceedings oj the Sixteenrh Arclic and
Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar, Environment Canada,
ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned
in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk
of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.
This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed eve/}' five years and
if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards
and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the
responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel thaI your comments have not received a fair hearing you should
make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.
This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box ClOO, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,
United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above
address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or service@astm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website
(www.astm.org).
002209
Appendix B - Estimating Emulsion Burn Rates

Estimating Emulsion Burn Rates (by Ian Buist, SL Ross, Canada)
Based on a variety of experimental crude oil emulsion bums on water 0.4 III to 9.5 III
(13' to 31 ') III diameter:
m:3.S(1-
%H2oyl-e~!'1
100 / \.
J
Where: m == crude oil btUn rate [lll1n1min]
%l!]O == water content of emulsion 0/0 volume]
e == exponential
D == diameter of bum (em)
Valid for ignitable emulsion in .situ bums up to::: 50 to 60% water content
For burns> 3.5 m (12 feet) in diameter (ie" most burns in fire boomsi
'Am'
. m '==.
0 08{1 - %HlO)
m: 3,51f t - %H'I0j'
~
. or tn
encan 11lUt'i:
- US. gpm1ft"
L
\.
100
100
Table 1. Predicted Oil Burn Rates" for Luge III Situ Crude Oil Emulsion Burns
Predicted Oil Burn Rate for
Predicted Oil Burn Rate for
Emulsion 'Vater
Content ['Yo]
111 Situ Fire> 12 ft. dia.
111 Situ Fire> 3.5 m dia.
I
[US gpmlft,2]
[mm/min]
3,5
0.085
0
0.075
10
3
0.065
2.5
25
50
0.04
2
Likely accuracy is 10%
1 The bum. nite of extremely lat'ge in situ oil fires (}) 30 m or 100 ft) diameter may be t'educed by as much as
20% by poOl" mi.'ting, 'Oxygen stanranoo melior a layer of 'cold" smoke in the center are.a of the fi.-e.
MC252 Incident
7/22/2010
002210
Appendix C - Fractional Area Coverages for 500 ft. Long Boom
~-------150'--------+-I
Full 27,000 ft2

1+--------150--------..
23,5001f
14--------149---------101--,----/
1+--------147'--------..
16,960 ft2
\-01--------142---------1..,.
13,765 ft2
- -133'- - -
\ < I l - - - - - - - 1 2 5 - - - - - - - - I....
7,900 ft2
\<Il------114-------...
;..----97'------JIooj(
~---71--__l~
1,065 ft2
MC252 Incident
Source - AI Allen July 20 I0
002211
Appendix D - Sample Calculation Notes
~,
~
!~
~-------------------~~.:
I:
'}:.
MC252 Incident
7/22/2010
n
N
~
"C
"C
BURN VOLUME CALCULATION WORK FLOW
V1
N
~
c:
C1l
~
.....
('I)
Aerial Spotting
:=
Q.
Offshore Operations
~.
t:'!'.I
Spotter Ail'Clafi
ScMQuled (Day Before}
CO
c:
"'1
=
<:
Offshore Ope'Boons, Tactics,
loglslics. Maln1l:lnance
Commend
Vessel
Spotter Notifies
Command V&S$"I
upon ermal
Support Vessels
Supply Boals
Ign~er Boats
c:
9
('I)
Shrimp Boals (Pulllng
Fire Boom)
P.J
t"l
t;r
t"'1'
:=
"'1
:;:;-
"'r.l
Area CalM rage at Fife

Bum Duration
Area Coverag!! 01 FIliI<
Bum Ourat~fI
Pl><>!ogf"ph~
~
N
N
.......
N
....oo
Skelche!1
Fl.eid Notes
Plwtcgraphs
Sko!ltch9S
Field Notes
002212
....
o
~---
(')
N
In
>
"0
"0
.;:;.,..
::l
c:
I'll
::l
.....
,,/
...",._. -wb"/
'fl....
...
Q..
.....
~
O:l
s:
Controlled
Burning
800m
Deployment
,,/
('D
:::
Gather Boat
Burn Data
-a.
s:
:3('D
-;rs:
~
~
7;00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11;00
12;00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4;00
5:00
6:00
7;00
8;00
9:00
Aerial Spotting
Sortie 1
-s
~
Refuel
=
-3
.....
:3('D
('D
Compile and
Characterize Previous
Day's Bum Data
Aerial Spotting
c:.....l'tid 2
Complete
Previous Day's
Calculations
oI-'
o
7;00
8:00
9;00
10:00
11 :00
12:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5;00
6:00
Aerial SpottinglTechnical Advisor
7:00
8:00
9:00
002213
,.,.
.....
o
Offshore Operations
~J
I"'l
Re: water content
002214
Subject: Re: water content

From: Ed Levine <Ed.Levine@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 201013:09:04 -0400
To: BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov
CC: Charlie Henry <Charlie.Henry@noaa.gov>, Martin SMiles
@lsu.edu>
Scott is getting coming to pick up the oil samples this afternoon. Hopefully he
will be able to answer that question.
ED
On Apr 26, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Bill Lehr wrote:
Any numbers on the water content of the recovered oil?
I ofl
10/20/2010 11: 52 AM
water content
002215
Subject: water content

Date: Mon, 26 Apr 201009:52:21 -0700
To: Charlie Henry <Charlie.Henry@noaa.gov>, Ed Levine <Ed.Levine@noaa.gov>
Any numbers on the water content of the recovered oil?
10fl
10/20/201011:52 AM
002216
GC
AT
R~~~#
~~~~~~
~~~~~~
Cotnpounck
~~~
14
12
BP040110
BP040204
__ BP039951
10
_BP040203
-=-
BP040224
Q..
.,::,
c
BP040229
-:*- BP040236
~
GI
-BP040314
- t - BP040315
-BP040316
BP040322
BP040368
--Q-.- BP040406
BP040219
o
~
~
~
~~~
~
~~~C~~~~C~~~C~vvvv~~~~~~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Compounds
002217
.......C
MC252#1BP1
18086 ft md
BP039952
0000
::xx:JO
0000
::xx:JO
::xx:JO
JOOO
002218
:.~-~-=-".
~.-r:J.plce:t<>C>C>:::34-~5-..<:~
<>
(>
<>
::>
1
'1 - evaporated light alkanes
NS010527010003
Offshore Alabama
BP040203
-Pr/Phy not diagnostic
IZ
UJ
?:i
oen
(>
<>
-. :2ii:>-
L J
.I",L
~
~
.'.' ."".".'>
Retumto~
.~
:::a.::K:>
.~
MC252#1BP1
18086 ft md
BP039952
0000
:xxx>
0000
:xxx>
:xxx>
:xxx>
002219
30000 ~k lC(tI)J.J.S6-QS5
BP040224
West of Gulf
Shores Alabama
- light-end loss significant

- Pr/Ph ratio affected
25000.
';!""OOOJ IZ
.:..V
UJ
- - =:i
lS01'JOj
0
en
10000
5000
_~..l':.~
itl.F/L.~i"b',.;
40
Gf):.
::'2,,0
MC252#1BP1
18086 ft md
BP039952
0000
::xxx>
0000
::xxx>
::xxx>
::xxx>
002220
SaDlIlre l00034;86..Q9Q
250,::)0.
- light-end loss
20i):O(l'
I150\)OJ
z
w
::i
o
1UOG(l
(f)
o
!:!2
I-
PAMS0529TB0006
BP040229
Petit Bois
Mississippi
MC252#1BP1
18086 ft md
BP039952
DOOO
:xxlO
DOOO
:xxlO
JOCX)
JOCX)
l.2.O

- Pr/Ph ratio affected by evaporation
BP040236
Alabama Offshore
I-
,.-,~~"~-~-.--
..-
..
--,,,~,-~
......
-.. ..
,,~,~,,
002221
::.-="}:.....
0000
lIv'lC252.#1
BP1
18086 ft md
:xxx>
BP039952
0000
:xxx>
:xxx>
:xxx>
002222
=--:~.H_
Sample 1(0)34'86-11)1
40000.
-light-end loss
PEFL0601010001
BP040314
Pensacola, Florida
300f)O
~I
,;,nnOOJ
~~0~
en
18000
Ic
en
-
~:
!
1 !, !'
~
! I 'I
......
ill
ii".
JilllJJ.lu.L~
MC252#1BP1
18086 ft md
BP039952
0000
:lOOO
0000
:lOOO
:lOOO
:lOOO
002223
.~~t~._!:!>OO3::!:~6- 1. 02
_ _. ______.
~
t:t:>i:',;.'D
r.'.:-j
DlAL0601 TB0002
BP040315
Alabama

IZ
UJ
o
U)
cl
I-~
~]
"-_ _ .J;._.____
l_. ____ ,,_

----~~~'~---6~--.--.,-"~-~"~-
_~~_4"
-. .... ' " -
-.~
...... .- ......
a;;;
""""'-"...._..... _.... _..",,, .
MC252#1BP1
18086 ft md
BP039952
0000
:xxx>
0000
:lOOO
XKX>
:lOOO
002224
::::.:-~~~.,..
10000;<)ample lOOCtJ-436-1U3
25{)OOj
2:0000~
IlZ
""""(1("j!
W
..l"'-"_
'-";;::'
:...J
ig
10:aOO~
4
~
s{ltooj
- light end loss
I
I
BP040316
Alabama
- Reversed Pr/Ph ratio, low ratio

-
-Possible affected by evaporation

little, if any, biodegradation
I1
C
l-
en
I
!
I
.,.,.~l .il
.
1L
1
.,Lac
'.t.
<'
1111
l_l-~-----,,--
Whole Oil Gas Chromatogram Comparisqn of

MC252#1 BF1 Oil and Grand Isle, LA Tar Sample OL-
._.
N-29.23238 -89.99085-001
.t'.~,
.~
MC252#1BP1
18086 ft md
BP039952
0000
JOOO
0000
:>000
JOOO
:>000
002225
=..~~(
...
BP040322
Grand Isle, LA
- minor light-end loss

I-
I-
::i
CI)
CI)
-",~,,,
....
~~--1JJ~~"~~:~ I
~
Retumto
____ ::l.-"''_,_
-\;:I<-~~
~''''~
1
'\
"-'H'-~-"i"c'c~""""--'''''"''''''~-~'''''~-~''''''-''''-.."-,,,." - ' ~,3"'cj
MC252#1BP1
18086 ft md
BP039952
0000
:xxx>
0000
XKlO
:lOOO
:lOOO
002226
=-r::::-~*.-n
Sample looo..'W86-153
oj
250001
20000j
j
1-1
:150CI01
~l
z'
;..J}
::()ODOi
BP040368
Grand Isle
Louisiana
- light-end loss
- reversed Pr/Ph due to weathering
I-
I!
CI)'
-"j
~~
50BOj
l
------..
.I
Eti..."'e'~.."""
20
40
60
e:n
~~:O
002227
Cl
C
"i:
CI)
..c
ctI
CI)
CI)
::l
'"0
..c
tna..
.2 a..
C/)"i:::
"C"C
C CI)
~ ~
~
~
CI)
..c >
-
"~ ~
alSI
~-.-,,--,
lN3J\.10S
d"'r--r--:~I'
<;'j
(~
J t
l-II
C)
i'i
!'4
41
ul
Cl
_ _ _ _,.J
MC252#1BP1
18086 ft md
BP039952
0000
XJOO
0000
XJOO
XJOO
XJOO
-~'''iii103-1S6..(18(,
352810
Offshore Louisiana
BP040219
- evaporated light alkanes

151HHl
IZ
Ul
JJ
jL~JJ1~
"
"
---.Jl_,~----..I-__
-~
~~------~----------~------~--------------~----------~--~--------------~~------------~~
002228
"_'lQMJI~
bp
~
"",~~
Sa
MC252#1BP1
18086 ft md
BP039952
0000
:JOOO
0000
:xJOO
:xxx>
002229
:lOCO
'I. -
extensive light-end loss to nC20

Pr/Ph ratio affected by evaporation
- little, if any, biodegradation
1-"
Z
:'i
o
70046804-1
TAF20May10-006
BP040110
Mississippi
Harrison County
I~
(/)
..
~.
:s-7C~'
-:::w-._
""-'-
"''''''''-.~-''p.,..
)".>.-.,.....1. . ::1'
=-
-L-~.J_L--,--.. ,-__.j1j
. '
~
- -,._-
"1::.:;:'.;::
bp
~r
. ~~~~~~E>~~==~~~~~________________________________________________~
MC252#1BP1
18086 ft md
BP039952
002230
,~LU~l.J_L1_LL_Ll_.J. _ L._J.--.'.--~
__
.. -
:oQa.~""'3.1::J1'o--=---oC:l_
~&~~1:>.ao_"'I:33o
ggg
NS010527010004
BP040204
g
~
N29.26000 W88.11755;
very thick sheen/emulsified oil
approximately 300 meters wide stretching _
g
g
!S
Q
gg~
~g~
g~~
g
~
!;;!g Q
~
!=i!!
Why we need a good scientific estimate
002231
Subject: Why we need a good scientific estimate

From: <Bill. Lehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 23:07:07 -0700
To: William.Conner@noaa.gov
CC: Doug.Helton@noaa.gov
Doug and Bill,
Below is what the newspapers are saying. I have talked with the BP source experts
about leak rate estimates and am working with the USGS, NASA, and UCSB folks to
get a quantitative value of surface oil. With the apparent decent set of surface
samples being processed by LSU, we should get a handle on natural mass losses.
But we need some time for all this to come together.
Bill L
Wed May 12, 7:02 pm ET

So, how much oil is leaking out of BP's busted well at the floor of the Gulf of
Mexico? Shortly after the April 20th rig explosion, it was widely reported that
the well was leaking oil at a daily rate of roughly 40,000 gallons.
But as the spill continued, the estimates were revised dramatically upward
more
than fivefold, to 210,000 gallons per day, and that's been the consensus figure
over the past couple of weeks. But some experts insist that figure is far too low
- and that the number needs to go up another fivefold.
Ian MacDonald, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University, recently
told the Wall Street Journal that oil is escaping into the Gulf at a daily rate
of more than a million gallons (or 25,000 barrels). MacDonald and his colleagues
at the FSU Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science Department based their estimates
on satellite images and government maps forecasting the slick's trajectory.
lofl
10/20/201011:53 AM
Re: [Fwd: RE: Oil Budget Request]
002232
Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Oil Budget Request]

From: "william,conner" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 201015:07:27 -0400
Maybe come back with a better approach after we get the chemistry tomorrow,
Bill Lehr wrote:
Bill,
How do you want me to respond? These emails may one day be FOIA'd
Bill L
On 4/28/1011:58 AM, william,conner wrote:
How USCG HQ is looking at the oil budget. Comments are welcome.
- - Original Message ----Subject:RE: Oil Budget Request
Date:Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:53:5e -0400
From:Lloyd, Anthony CAPT <Anthony,S,Lloyd@uscg,mi!>
To:William, Conner@noaa.gov
References:<4BD87832.5090505@noaa,gov> <BD67B5DOA3F52544975EB 13C45F4864A0232DFD7@emo-exmb-m-102,main.ads,uscg,mil>
<4BD87FCA. 7030700@noaa,gov>
Attached is the slide created today.
Respect full Yt
Anthony Lloyd, Capt, USCG
Chief, Office of Incident ManageJ~el't & Preparedness (CG-533)
Vice-Chair, National Response
http://www. nrt .org/ProductionINRT/NRTWeb. nsf/HomePaqe
International Oil Spill (lOSC) ESC member
http://www. iose .orgl
Coast Guard Headquarters 2100 2nd St 5\11
phone: 202 372 2231
fax: 202 372 2905
Cell: 202 441 5041
This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may con a n
Thanks.
We will offer improvements if we can.
Lloyd, Anthony CAPT wrote:

> We developed a breakdown (estimated) of what the oil does on a per day basis.
>
> Respectfully,
> Anthony Lloyd, Capt, USCG
> Chief, Office of Incident Man.'~ernerlt & Preparedness (CG-533)
(na day in the life" of the DH oill We'll pass
the s id
> Vice-Chair National Re.sponse

http://www ,nrt. org/Production/NRT INRTWeb. nsf/Home:Page
> International Oil Spill (rOSC) ESC member
t
> http://www. iosc.org/
> Coast Guard Headquarters 2100 2nd St SW

> phone: 202 372 2231
> fax: 202 372 2905
> Cell: 2Q2 441 5041
>
>
> This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may c n ai
>
>
'> -----original Message-----
> From: William.Conner@noaa.gov (rnailto:William~Conner@noaa.90vl

> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 2:02 PM
> To: Lloyd, Anthony CAPT
> Cc: Richard R Wingrove
> Subject: Oil Budget Request
>
> In response to your question from this am,
all the uncertainties
> with oil rising through a mile of water
I'm unable to develop
> even a rough oil budget until we get a source sample analyzed - this
> will happen tomorrow.
>
William G. COhner, PhyO.

HAZMAT Emergency Response Division
Phone: 301-713-3038 (190)
Cell: 240-460-6475
Chief ,
lof2
10/201201011:40 AM
Re: [Fwd: RE: Oil Budget Request]
002233

Phone:
301-713-3038 (190)
Cell: 240-460-6475
William G. conner,
Ph.D~
Chief. HAZMAT Emergency Response Division

Phone:
Cell
20f2
301-713-3038 (1901
240-460-6475
10/20/2010 11 :40 AM
ADIOS
002234
Subject: ADIOS
Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 20:08:09 -0700
To: Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
It would be cool if we could set up ADIOS to run for this spill: month long
duration, variable weather,
chart.
I'll try ROC first to see if that does
what we want.
1 of]
10/20/2010 1l:40 AM
Fwd: mass balance group
002235
Subject: Fwd: mass balance group

Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 17:12:29 -0700
To: Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
CC: Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm
<Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
Mark,
See my suggestion below. I have looked at the preliminary AVIRIS data and it will be very
popular so there will be mass balance estimates irregardless. I would like to have a number
that has some science behind it.
Bill Lehr
-------- Original Message -------Subject:mass balance group
Date:Tue, 11 May 201011:39:21 -0700
From:BiII Lehr <biIUehr@noaa.gov>
Reply-To:bill.lehr@noaa.gov
To:Wiliiam Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Doug Helton
<Doug:Helton@noaa.gov>, Charlie Henry <Charlie.Henrv@noaa.gov>,John
Tarpley <john.tarpley@noaa.gov>, Debbie Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>,
Mark Dix <Mark.Dix@noaa.gov>
As to be expected, we are being pressured to do mass balance

calculations. I recommend that we need to collect data in five different
areas, surface oil, mass losses due to natural removal, mass losses due
to response, subsurface oil, and initial leak rate. I further recommend
that we assemble a blue ribbon panel to assist in this process and have
CRRC
set up a conference call. Recommended panel members
Al Allen Spilltec
Al Venosa EPA
Ira Leifer UCSB
Jan Svejkovsky - Ocean Imaging
Tom Coolbaugh -Exxon
Kurt Hansen - USCG
Jim Payne - Payne Environmental
Ed Overton - LSU
Carl Brown
Environment Canada
Ali Khelifa - Environment Canada
Ron Goodman- U. of Calgary
Bill Lehr
NOAA
Debra Simecek-Beatty - NOAA
Bill Pichel - NOAA
Robert Frost - BP
Victoria
e- Shell
Dan Stoltz
BP
Joe Mullins - MMS
Mark Reed - SINTEF
10f2
10/20/2010 11:41 AM
Fwd: mass balance group
of2
002236
10/20/2010 lJ:41 AM
in-situ droplet sizes
Subject: in-situ droplet sizes

Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 16:57:49 -0700
CC:
@asascience.com,
@sintef.no>
002237
@clarkson.edu, "'Reed, Mark!!!
Kate,
It will be of great assistance to the modeling of the subsurface oil plume to have
in-situ measurements of oil droplet size. The researchers on the NOAA vessel can
contact me for more information if needed.
Bill Lehr
loft
10/20/2010 11 :42 AM
002238
Background:
Spill is leaking at feast 35,000 bbl/day of 35 API oil, mixed in with produced gas. The source is one mile
underwater in the Gulf of Mexico, average water temperature around 32 C. Sea state has generally been
low.
Calculating Oil dispersed into the water column:

The oil and gas leaking out at the Deep Horizon oil spill are all buoyant and, therefore would, neglecting
other processes, rise to the surface. However, one cannot neglect other processes. Originally, the
escaping plume will be a mixture of gas and oil, with additional gas dissolved within the oil. According to
the Clarkson University model CDOG, this plume will maintain its integrity for at most a few hundred
meters with a strong positive ~uQyaflC~: _S~\I~r~! _co!,!,_p~tiTlg_p!.C?~~~s.~~ _~_I1!!~_t_(!rfer_~_'.:<:it~t~!~pr.oce_ss._
The gas will rise faster than the oil, 'slipping' past the droplets but will also form hydrates with the
surrounding water. Water will be entrained into the plume by turbulence that will also contribute to
changing droplet size distribution of the oil mixed into the plume. These oil droplets will rise to the
"- .CoMRlent (Mc81]:)thinkth<!IiI~1T1<Ibreak> .

. apart In. mlnlJt~Jteo;';.sfrOmth . plPe,duet~th~ .
hlgh~~w : I think a hundredrililteri;(a f~Whu~dred
'eetllSp
.
. . ,.
.- .
"'~lntlilll
surface based upon Stokes law, where, for the smallest droplets, the rise velocity can be approximated
by the formula
u.
nse
= gd /lp
18,u
formatted: Lowered by 5 pt
diameter and g is the gravitational acceleration constant. For small enough oil droplet size, the rise
velocity is so small that competing processes affect it before it can make it to the surface. These
processes include horizontal currents. turbulent mixing. dissolution, biodegradation, and particle-oil
interaction. These processes will vary in strength depending upon where the oil droplet is located. Field
measurement may help to quantify these processes but, as an arbitrary cut-off value, one can take 70
microns as the minimum droplet size below which that droplet is considered permanently dispersed.
The droplet size distributions in the plume are greatly affected by use of dispersant chemicals that lower
the surface tension of the
011 and produce smaller droplet sizes. There is extremely little data on the
droplet size distribution for oil in the water column for this incident. Some limited data exists from the
RV Brook McCall Survey LlSST measurements performed by the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. If
one, extrapolates their results to the entire spill" aflEl.._dangerous exercise with a high degree of
uncertainty, to tl1e eAtire spill, then one can conclude that perhaps 30% of the oil released during nondispersant operations were dispersed into the water column and up to 60 % were dispersed for
011 in
contact with dispersant chemicals. However, since the samples were subsurface, they may be
preferentially sampling the droplet distribution formed initially. Moreover, the NOAA model, ADIOS2,
suggests that if the spill occurred at the surface, less than 8 % of the oil would disperse. Different reports
formatted: Lowered by 5 pt
002239
from the Ixtoc 1 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979 claim that between 3% to 26% of the oil released
from a much shallower depth ended up in the water column or on the bottom.
As an operational estimate, we suggest the following values for natural dispersion for the subsurface oil
release:
Minimum: 10%
Maximum: 20%
Best Guess: 15 %
Chemical dispersion
Chemical dispersants lower oil surface tension, resulting in smaller droplet sizes. Traditionally,
emulsified oil, because of its high viscosity, is difficult to chemically disperse. Much of the surface oil is
emulsified. However, SMART Tier 1 and Tier 2 observations suggest that surface dispersant spray
operations are at least partially successful. Current assumptions assume a 3 to 1 effectiveness (three
gallons of oil dispersed for every gallon of dispersant applied).
Chemical dispersants added to the plume at the source are certainly more effective than surface
spraying. In fact, it is almost a perfect situation for dispersant application; fresh oil, direct contact
between dispersant and oil, high turbulent ~i1erm1. ~~.ry Jlr~Jl'!l!llary. sll~s!-!rfa~.e .plur~!e}?bs!.rvati()r1;;. and.. _ .....
modeling suggest that a 20 to 1 effectiveness number is not unreasonable
Suggested operational estimate:
Surface operations (includes problems with hitting the oil):
3 to 1 effectiveness average.
1 to 1 low,
5 to 1 high
Subsurface operations:
15 to 1 effectiveness average,
10 to 1 low,
20 to 1 high
-Evaporation
In the process of rising through the water column and weathering on the sea surface, oil loses many
constituents to dissolution and evaporation. Since this oil contains a high fraction of volatile
compounds, we expect that a large fraction of the oil is lost to evaporation. We used the pseudocomponent evaporation model used in ADIOS2, initialized with data on the oil composition provided by
BP, to estimate the fraction of oil possibly lost to evaporation over the period on the order of weeks to
months. After the more volatile compounds have evaporated, the remaining oil tends to persist without
002240
evaporative change for many months. Our models suggest that as much as 46% of the oil can be lost to
evaporation over several weeks on the sea surface.
We measured the composition of weathered oil collected from the sea surface on 16 May using GerMS,
and analyzed the results using the pseudo-component evaporation model. We found that the
weathered oil sample had lost 38% of its mass to the combination of evaporation and dissolution. This
analysis could be improved with a careful simulated evaporation study on the fresh oil, but we have not
yet initiated this study.
As an operational estimate, we suggest the following values for evaporation:

1st day: 37% of the oil that makes it to the surface
2nd day: 4% of surface oil that is less than two days old
Burning;
AI Allen is conducting the burn operations and reporting the amount burned. He is using 0.07 gpm/sqft
for un-emulsified oil and 0.05 for the emulsified oil. He notes that these two burn rates have been used
for years and are generally accepted as conservative burn rates. We suggest that we simply accept his
reported values.
Skimming:
Operations are reporting the volume of oily water rather than the volume of oil. The skimmers are of
different types, are operated at different skifllevels, and in different states of weathered oil. The results
are often then blended in common storage tanks. Rather than estimate oil-water ratios, we suggest
simple measurements of the barge oil.
002241
Evidence of dispersed oil droplets using the LISST-I00X laser particle analyzer
Kenneth Lee, Zhengkai Li, Paul E. Kepkay
Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research (COOGER)
Bedford Institute of Oceanography
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Objective
In response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, at the request from US EPA, NOAA, USCG, and BP,
scientists from DFO Canada have joined other experts on board vessel RfV Brooks McCall to
conduct on site monitoring of dispersed oil in the surrounding area of the exploration platform.
The mission objectives ofthe team are: (1) to verify the presence and chemical characteristics of
dispersed oil at locations identified by predictive trajectory models (NOAA, SINTEF, etc.) and,
(2) Conduct transects for the recovery of water column samples at discrete depths to identify and
track the subsurface plume of oil released from depth following the Deepwater Horizon blowout.
Methodology
Based on our expertises in oil spill chemical dispersion and evaluation of dispersant
effectiveness, we have conducted field survey of the dispersed oil droplet size distribution
analysis using 2 in situ scattering and transmissometry (LISST-100X, Sequoia Scientific Inc.,
Seattle, WA).
One LISST was equipped with a small test chamber (120 ml), and is used to conduct bench top
particle size analysis in the Geochemistry lab on board the RIV Brooks McCall. Grab samples of
surface waters were collected by "bucket casts" and 3 different depths in the water column (l m,
275m and 550m) were recovered by Niskin bottles on an autonomous rosette sampler from 18
different stations, including station 1 as a background, stations 2 to 9 (taken on May 9, 2010
before underwater injection of chemical dispersants), stations 10 to 15 (taken on May 10, 2010
after underwater injection of dispersant), and stations 16 to 18 (taken on May 11 the second day
after injection of dispersant). These samples were immediately transferred into the test chamber
ofLISST-lOOX to perform particle size distribution analysis every 2 seconds for 40 seconds.
A 2nd LISST is deployed in water at the end of a transponder boom at approximately 5m depth
off the port side of the RIV Brooks McCall for in situ particle size analysis. The LISST was
deployed on May 10, 20 I 0 for approximately 6 hours, and then re-deployed on May 11, 20 I 0 for
about 8 hours.
A Shimadzu ultraviolet scanning fluorometer is currently in place at the BP Office at Port
Fourchon to provide accurate estimates of the spectral characteristics of dispersed versus nondisfersed oil. This information will hopefully be obtained by analysis of 200 samples on May
Ii and the complex spectra reduced to simple ratios of fluorescence emission at 340 nrn divided
002242
by emission at 445 nrn. With these ratios, we will attempt to define if oil collected in the samples
is poorly or well dispersed.
Results
LlSST Particle Size Analyzer
The LISST-1 OOX records 32 particle size intervals logarithmically spaced from 2.5 500 urn in
diameter, with the upper size in each bin 1.18 times the lower. Dispersed oil droplets of size less
than or equal to 60 urn are considered more permanently dispersed oil in the water column. For
comparison, these dispersed small oil droplets is summed and plotted as a function of time. In
addition, the mean and standard deviation of the 20 measures within 40 minutes was also
summarized and presented for each station and depth.
Figure 1 shows the bench-top measurement results of the mean dispersed oil droplets volume
concentrations from the samples collected from a background station (station #1), which is
approximately 50 miles away from the oil platform. Duplicate samples were collected from 1 m
depth and 550 m depth, respectively. The average background small particle concentrations was
about 0.5 ullL at 1 m depth, and not significantly different from 0 at 550 m depth.
Small particle (2.5 - 60 urn) volume concenlrations: May 8, 2010
B01B-WAOl
B01BWA02
B01D-WAOl
aOl D-WA02
!Station and depth
Figure 1: Background particle concentrations measured from station #1, which is of 50 miles
distance away from the drilling platform. Columns and error bars indicate mean and one standard
deviation of 20 measurements.
Figure 2 summarize the bench-top measurement results of the mean dispersed oil droplets
volume concentrations of samples collected in the surrounding area of the oil platform for three
days. These data illustrate that samples collected from surface water (collected by bucket) and
1m depth samples from all stations showed the presence of dispersed oil droplets (i.e. particles
<60 urn in diameter). The difference in <60 um particle count between the surface and 1 m
samples varies from station to station. Low concentrations of <60 um particles were observed in
the 2 lower depths (275 and 550 m).
002243
Small particle (2.5 - 60 um) volume concentration: May 9. 2010

12
10
.'i!. 6
"
o
AWA01
B-WA01
B-WA02
B-WA03
C-WAOl
C-WA02
D-WAOl
D-WA02
s1.at'on and depth
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (a)
Small particle (2.5 - 60 um) volume concentratioN: May 10. 2010
12
10
.'i!. 6
"
o
A-WAOl
B-WAOl
Il-WA02
C-WAOl
C.WA02
D-WAOl
D-WA02
Itatlon and depth
1 - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - - - - '
(b)
Small particles (2.5 - 60 um) volume concentrations: May 11, 2010
B1SA-WA01
B16S-WAOl
B16B-WA02
Bl6C-WACl
Bl6C-WA02
B16D-WAOI
816D-WA02
station and depth
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (C)
Figure 2: Dispersed small oil droplets measured with bench-top LISST-I00X particle size
analyzer: stations 2 to 9 were sampled on May 9 (a), stations 10 to 15 were sampled on May 10,
and stations 16-18 were sampled on May 11,2010 (c). Columns and error bars indicate mean and
one standard deviation of 20 measurements.
A second LISST-100X particle counter was deployed at a depth of about Sm on May 10, 2010
and May 11, 2010 from a transponder boom off the port side of the RIV Brooks McCall for
continuous monitoring while simultaneously conducting a SMART protocol survey based on oil
fluorescence. The instrument has been recovered for downloading of data. Data were recovered
from the instrument on May 12, 2010, and the raw data were processed.
002244
Figure 3 illustrates typical dispersed oil droplet distribution profiles that were measured on May
10, 2010 and May 11, 2010, respectively. This could be attributed to lower concentrations of
residual oil on the ocean surface due to the addition of dispersants and/or differences in physical
dispersion processes after May 11,2010.
Figure 3: Snapshots of the dispersed oil droplet size distribution measured with LISST100X particle size analyzer deployed at the flank of the vessel. Detection window
submerged approximately 5 m underwater. Left panel shows typical droplet size
, distribution of oil underwater measured on May 10, 2010; Right panel shows the droplet
size distribution of oil underwater measured on May 11,2010. Dispersant application
commenced at 04:50 on May 10, 2010. NOAA predicted rise times for dispersed oil to
take 15+ hours. Note the lower concentration of dispersed oil in the less than 60um
fraction on May 11,2010 due to dilution.
Ultraviolet Fluorescence Analyses

A Shimadzu ultraviolet scanning fluorometer is currently in place at the BP Office at Port
Fourchon to provide accurate estimates of the spectral characteristics of dispersed versus
non-dispersed oil. This information will hopefully be obtained by analysis of 200 samples
on May 12th and the complex spectra reduced to simple ratios of fluorescence emission at
340 nm divided by emission at 445 nm. With these ratios, we will attempt to define if oil
collected in the samples is poorly or well dispersed.
When used in conjunction with the data on droplet size that has already been collected
using the LISST laser particle counter, the results obtained with the fluorometer should
provide a reasonably clear indication of the effect of dispersant.
002245
The possibility of obtaining rapid feedback from fluorescence ratios measured onboard
the RN Brooks McCall awaits delivery of the two fixed wavelength fluorometers
requested in the original science plan.
These preliminary results show that we could not detect a sub-surface plume of
chemically dispersed oil at these stations.
Our results illustrate the capability of the LISST-100X to resolve particles in the size
range expected for both physically and chemically dispersed oil.
The possibility of obtaining rapid feedback from fluorescence ratios measured onboard
the RN Brooks McCall awaits delivery of the two fixed wavelength fluorometers
requested in the original science plan.
mass balance group
002246
Subject: mass balance group

Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 11 :39:21 -0700
To: William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Doug Helton <Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>,
Charlie Henry <Charlie.Henry@noaa.gov>, John Tarpley <john.tarpley@noaa.gov>, Debbie
Payton <Debbie.Payton@noaa.gov>, Mark Dix <Mark.Dix@noaa.gov>
As to be expected, we are being pressured to do mass balance calculations. I
recommend that we need to collect data in five different areas, surface oil, mass
losses due to natural removal, mass losses due to response, subsurface oil, and
initial leak rate. I further recommend that we assemble a blue ribbon panel to
assist in this process and have CRRC help set up a conference call. Recommended
panel members
Al Allen Spilltec
Al Venosa EPA
Ira Leifer UCSB
Jan Svejkovsky - Ocean Imaging
Tom Coolbaugh -Exxon
Kurt Hansen - USCG
Jim Payne
Payne Environmental
Ed Overton - LSU
Carl Brown
Environment Canada
Ali Khelifa
Environment Canada
Ron Goodman- U. of Calgary
Bill Lehr - NOAA
Debra Simecek-Beatty
NOAA
Bill Pichel - NOAA
Robert Frost - BP
Victoria Bruje- Shell
Dan Stoltz - BP
Joe Mullins - MMS
Mark Reed - SINTEF
loft
10120/201011:43 AM
002249
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulflncident Oil Budget
Synopsis: In collaboration with the USCG, NOAA, and NIST, the USGS has developed a Web
application, known as Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget, that allows
comprehensive tracking and graphical display of the daily and cumulative oil budget in the
Gulf.
Since the April 20, 2010, blowout and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oildrilling rig, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been actively involved with the National
Incident Command Center, helping to inform decisions in response to the ensuing oil spill.
The USGS is collaborating with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) to provide scientific and technical expertise to aid the oil spill management and
recovery effort. In particular, USGS science staff participate in a Flow Rate Technical Group
established and led by the USGS Director, Dr. Marcia McNutt, to calculate the discharge rates
and calculate an overall mass balance of oil given different mitigation and cleanup methods.
The USGS developed a Web application, known as Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident
Oil Budget, to track the discharged oil and results of subsequent processes that affect oil
volumes in the Gulf. Secure Web architecture and a rapid application development process,
instituted for other Web-based applications used by USGS scientists, was used to construct
the Oil Budget application, synthesizing information collected and maintained by the USCG.
The application offers a basic user interface for daily data entry and reporting, allowing
rapid visualization of oil volumes in the Gulf.
USGS, NOAA, NIST, and USCG scientists and logistics personnel collaborate to ensure that
the oil tracking application supports absolute data integrity, comprehensive data entry and
management, and simple Web access, eliminating the need for specialized software. The
application allows:
National Incident Command personnel to input daily variables;

Scientific support staff to edit the computing program for the Oil Budget Model as
improved information becomes available;
Dynamic creation of graphs showing modeled low flow rate/maximum removal and
high flow rate/minimum removal scenarios;
Incorporation of succinct descriptions, including assumptions and factors used for
calculations such as amount of oil burned, skimmed, or remained unaffected, in the
online application and printed reports; and
Generation of executive summaries, showing the most up-to-date calculated daily
and cumulative values.
The USGS team continues to provide technical support and introduce incremental
improvements to the Oil Budget tool as new information becomes available and desired
capabilities are identified. Based on the rapid response to this incident, the USGS is poised
to apply extensive scientific and technical expertise to benefit other environmental
emergencies.
002250
Daily actions by
incident command
personnel
Data and the oil

budget model
Periodic update by
Assumption and
authorized personnel factor review by
NOAA
rates,
estimates,
assumptions, and
other supporting
figures
Input Daily Values
Data inplJts - rates,

estimates,
assumptions, and
supporting figures
Scientific Review of
data inputs,
calculations, and
assumptions
"Oill3udget
Model"
Calc'Jlation
based on Oil
Budget Formula
Technical Support ($Ingle. $ecure Web application)
oil samples
002251
Subject: oil samples

Date: Tue, 11 May 201008:54:09 -0700
@compuserve.com, Robert Jones <Robert.Jones@noaa.gov>, Jim Farr
To:
<Jim.Farr@noaa.gov>, Ed Overton <
@lsu.edu>
Jim,
Believe it or not, this is not a nagging reminder to get your report in to the
CRRC fate and behavior modeling group. I will wait at least until next week for
that. ' "
Instead, we (response group) are desperately seeking good data on the surface and
subsurface oil. Got any emulsion water content or density results yet. Subsurface
droplet size?
Thanks,
Bill
206 719 1813
lof!
10120/201011:47 AM
Re: Oil Volumes
002252
Subject: Re: Oil Volumes

From: <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 02:03:10 -0700
@clarkson.edu>
To: Poojitha Yapa
Pooji,
I forgot to pass on to you thtat the 3000 GOR is the oil company dimensional
ratio.
Bill
Original Message ----From: Poojitha
@clarkson.edu>
Date: Friday, May 14, 2010 10:15 am
Subject: Oil Volumes
To: CJ Beegle-Krause <CJ.Beegle-Krause@noaa.gov>, Robert Jones
<Robert.Jones@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>
there is a lot of news discussing the oil discharge rate.
do these people really know deep water stuff ?
I think some estimates are misguided
because
may not have taken gas amount into their
quantification.
I am in my office if you want to discuss this.
Pooji
1 of 1
10/20/2010 11:47 AM
002253
Time frame and procedures
Completion of First Draft - Around Sept. 8
Internal review by contributing experts completed - Around Sept 15
Revised document sent to experts - Around Sept 22
Final draft sent for external review - Sept 27
Comments back from reviewers - Oct. 8
Authors comments and revisions completed Oct 15.
This report will be a consensus report of qualified experts in the field. Such
documents traditionally take longer than normal peer-reviewed technical papers.
The expedited schedule above has been suggested to meet the needs of the NIC and
interested community.
Peer review will follow the guidelines of OMB Bulletin of Dec. 15, 2004.
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE A SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC EFFORT, UTILIZING THE
SERVICES OF LEADING EXPERTS WHO ARE OFTEN VOLUNTEERING THEIR TIME
PRO BONO. IT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR, MODIFIED BECAUSE OF, NORANY OF THE
EXPERTS SUBJECT TO POLITICAL PRESSURES OR INFLUENCES OF ANY KIND.
WHILE WE WILL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO MEET THE ABOVE TIMELINE,
SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY WILL BE THE OVERIDING CONSIDERATION.
Re: RE: burn data
002254
Subject: Re: RE: burn data

From: <Bill. Lehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 06:13:01 -0700
To:
@spiltec.com
Thanks AI. Hope the cold is better. Any ideas about the oil as it comes up? It
looks like it is emulsifying either by the time it gets to the surface or shortly
thereafter. Also, I wonder if we are not underestimating the release rate.
Bill
Original Message ----From: "Alan A. Allen"
@spiltec.com>
Date: Monday, May 10,2010 5:50 am
Subject: RE: burn data
Cc: 'Ed Levine' <Ed.Levine@noaa.gov>
Hello Bill and Ed,
I'm including Ed on this response since he had asked about similar
calculations.
We've conducted 13 burns to date.
They range from only a few bbl/burn
to
many in the 100s of bbl/burn, to several in the l,OOOs of bbl/burn.
We monitor the burns from the air (several of us on site with King Air
for
about 6 hours or more each day, leaving instructions for surface teams
to
complete a final burn if possible after we vector them into the heaviest
slicks.
Surface and aerial observations are kept throughout the burn
in
order to estimate the size of the burn and the duration of burn. A single
burn may have several segments where the burn takes on different areas
for
period of time.
I use each area/duration segment for a burn and do a max/min calculation
based on relatively fresh oil one might find near its source (which is
where
we work each day) and on an emulsion where the oil has weathered downstream
of its source.
I use 0.07 gpm/sqft for the max. calc., and 0.05 for the
emulsion.
These two burn rates have been used for years and are generally
accepted as conservative burn rates. Actually, a fresh crude oil
could burn
even faster than the 0.07 gpm/sqft rate.
r sum up all the space/time segments of a burn for each of the max/min
values.
Let me give you an example from our Burn #10:
Consensus of opinion by the aerial observers, combined with photos and
sketches of boom drawn to scale, revealed that the burn was approximately
100' by 100' for 15 min. and 50' by 75' for 43 min.
These are actually
conservative estimates because we wait each time until the burn
reaches a
stable area. Often oil is burning while we wait to get to that point.
In this case, 100 x 100
10,000 sqft x 0.07 gpm/sqft x 15 min =
10,500 gal
or 250 bbl.
11,288
The 50 by 75 area yields 3,750 sqft x 0.07 gpm/sqft x 43 min
gal or
268 bbl.
Together the max. estimate yields about 519 bbl burned over a 58 min.
10f3
10/20/201011:47 AM
Re: RE: bum data
002255
period.
I then do the same calc for a minimum estimate replacing the 0.07 with
0.05
and get 179 bbl + 192 bbl, for a total of 371 bbl.
Therefore we feel reasonably comfortable saying that the burn likely
eliminated several hundred bbl of oil.
If pinned down (as we always
are), I
say that based on the conditions at the time and the estimates of personnel
on site, one could make rough calculations that fall somewhere in the
neighborhood of 300 to 500 bbl.
I never like to give "a number". A range,
carefully qualified, is much better (as you well know).
We had some very large burns in which the boom was filled way beyond the
normal area for containment in a U-configuration. As you know from my
classes and figures on boom holding capacity, a 500 foot boom (as
these are)
can hold (at proper towing speeds) about 500 to 1000 bbl in the apex with
the oil only 1/3 of the way toward the leading ends of the boom.
In that
area, you can hold about 100 bbl/inch of oil depth. As one fills the
boom
farther forward, as we often do during this spill, the numbers can easily
run up toward 2,000 bbl in a single boom. Then, the best part is:
This oil
when uncontained, does not support combustion, which allows us to cruise
along burning oil while allowing dark oil layers (slightly emulsified)
to
enter the boom.
The oil does not ignite until it reaches the burning
oil,
joins that oil, possibly thermally breaks down its emulsion, and then
adds
to the fire.
We've had burns that were far bigger than the one I did
during
the Exxon Valdez (about 700 bbl in a 500 ft boom), with flames 150 to
200
feet in the air, and oil entering the boom causing the burn to last
from an
hour to 2 hours or more. We can actually conduct a burn that goes on
and on
and on by allowing oil to continue to flow into the burn area.
Not a
good
practice with highly flammable oil that could ignite and burn up
toward the
towing vessels. We maintain a close watch on this condition, and stand
ready with evasive/corrective tactics should oil start burning beyond
the
control area within the boom.
I hope this helps.
I've attached a photo from one of our medium-sized
burns.
I have to head down to Venice tomorrow for more training of crews, checking
of burn equipment, etc. during the weekend. We hope to start burning
again
on Monday, weather permitting.
Ai
-----Original Message----From: Bill Lehr [
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 1:47 PM
To:
@spiltec.com
Subject: burn data
Ai,
20f3
10/20/201011:47 AM
Re: RE: burn data
002256
Could I get the details of the latest burn? Area of burn and burn duration?
Thanks,
Bill
30f3
10/20/2010 1l:47 AM
002257
Dear people who know something about oil spills,
My career in oil spills has often put me in unpleasant places; freezing cold of Alaska,
stifling heat of Louisiana, emergency helicopter landings on the Olympic peninsula,
scud missile dodging in Arabia. None of it prepared me for the three recent days in
Washington DC. As a former boss said in an email he sent me, "Guess this gives
you a real look at the under belly. Not a pretty sight, huh? "Even with my
cynical nature, I had to laugh when a foreign newspaper claimed that my
testimony contradicted my earlier statements on amount remaining. Since I
had given no earlier statements, I wonder how they think this is even
theoretically possible.
It's easy to second guess in hindsight the wisdom of presenting the five page
summary of the calculator while we were still refining and improving its
estimates. That was a decision that was made, as they say, above my
paygrade, by folks who were facing pressures that I can hardly imagine. I
personally wish that the report had included the uncertainty that we know
exists and is built into the calculator. If you have not read it yet, I recommend the
August 13 issue of Science that does a great job of presenting the summary of the
results with the uncertainty.
My apologies to all of you for the harassment by the media that many of you have
received. August is a slow news month and newspapers thrive on controversy, even
if it means turning legitimate scientific differences into irreconcilable disputes. Dr.
Macdonald and I were prevented from continuing our pleasant discussions at the
hearings by the swarms of reporters although Ian did subsequently send me a nice
email offering his assistance. Much appreciated.
However, the Press interest does point toward the overall importance of our effort
and the need for the scientific community, both within and outside of government,
to provide our best guess (Yes, it is a guess) of the fate of the spilled oil. While I
thank all of you from the bottom of my heart for your past contributions, I now must
call on all of you one more time to help, in your different ways, to expedite the final
report. This may be a historic document and one that deserves your expertise.
My true best regards,
Bill Lehr
Re: FRTT
002258
Subject: Re: FRTT
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 13:29:27 -0700
To: "Moran, Kathryn" <Kathryn_Moran@ostp.eop.gov>
CC: "Moore, David M." <David.Moore@mms.gov>, "Cesnik, Catherine Mil
<Catherine_Cesnik@ios.doi.gov>, austin.j.gould@uscg.mil,
Richard.R.Wingrove@noaa.gov, Edward.D.Cokelet@noaa.gov, "Miller, Jerry L."
<Jerry_L._Miller@ostp.eop.gov>
To bring everyone up to speed:
Original calculation of 5000 bbll day leak rate was designed simply as a working number to
ascertain the level of response effort.
BP Background information:
From verbal discussions with BP:
Fluid in reservoir has GOR (cu ft to bbl) of 3000

Available footage is not representative of average flow( We have asked BP repeatedly for
longer video)
Pipe has an interior dimension of 19.5 inches with a 6 in interior pipe that contains no flow.
Pipe mouth is damaged and constrained (70% area)
Attached are some of the oil data we have collected from BP
Academics
We have been in contact with Prof. Wereley of Purdue and Prof Savas of UC Berkeley, who
have both produced rather large estimates of leakage. I have recieved permission to provide
these Professors and other fluid dynamics experts with the information given to us by BP.
We have done preliminary arrangements with Prof. Riley of the University of Washington to
reproduce the method of Prof. Wereley
We have begun contacting the Petroleum Engineering Departments of UT and LSU to verify
the translation of fluid leakage into surface bbl of oil.
Surface Oil
Visual estimates of surface volume using the Bonn Agreement method are very inaccurate. I
will provide a copy of my paper discussing this for those who are interested. The AViRIS
team should have an estimate soon, based upon more rigorous analysis.
Oil Fate
Standard oil weathering models such as ADIOS2 and the SINTEF model are not reliable for
this spill due to its subsurface release from great depths and the application of dispersants
Iof4
10/20/20 10 11 :48 AM
Re:FRTT
002259
at the source. Actual field measurements are preferrable for this situation.
On 5/17/10 11 :33 AM, Moran, Kathryn wrote:
Dear David,
For the USACE modeling,! suggest asking Captain Gould at the USCG R&D Center for an expert in
modeling. Modeling of the oil particles as a buoyant jet that evolves into a buoyant plume would
also provide input to the other two teams, so we may want to integrate with these two groups on this
aspect.
The university colleague I mentioned was Peter Cornillon at the University of Rhode Island who
operates a PIV laboratory and could assist with particle imagery velocimetry (PIV) interpretations of
video. I can contact him, if you'd like.
There was a mention of WHOI scientists this morning. I've since learned that James Witkop was
correct this morning about WHOl's potential to measure flow rates. WHOI proposed to use an
instrument that was used on the black smokers for measuring flow rates. My understanding is that
the WHO I team proposed this to BP, but because of limited ROV time, it was not possible to use their
instrument. I am trying to contact them to get more information. A direct measurement to calibrate
these other estimating methods would be ideal.
Is there a protocol for engaging the academic community? For example, are there funds available to
contract them or are we asking them to volunteer?
Kate
From: Moore, David M. [mailto:David.Moore@mms.gov]

Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:29 PM
To: Cesnik, Catherine M; austin.j.gould@uscg.mil; Richard.R.Wingrove@NOAA.GOV;
BiII.Lehr@NOAA.GOV; Edward.D.Cokelet@NOAA.GOV; Moran, Kathryn
Cc: Robert.G.Pond@uscg.mil; Wingrove/ Richard CDR; Mark W Miller; William Conner; Absher, David;
Prendergast, Michael; Herbst, Lars; Saucier, Michael; Buffington, Sharon; Slitor, Doug; McCammon,
Joanne
Subject: FRTT
Importance: High
All,
This is my take on where we are at now and where we need to be at the end of the day. Any feedback on
identification of subject matter experts on fluid flow modeling is appreCiated. We will need to identify staff
for the team to come up with the numbers and then a group to peer review. Again. no industry input other
than from BP supplying raw data from the well under review.
Please feel free to edit this at will. Need any and all ideas on how we will reach a consensus on numbers
that we will ultimately have to defend. (Apologies for typos, grammar, etc.)
Thanks,
David
2of4
10/20/2010 11:48 AM
Re: FRTf
002260
Objective
Develop a consensus on the flow rates from well MC252 #001 at multiple time periods following the loss
of the Deepwater Horizon. (I envision a number in barrels per day beginning at t=O, immediately after the
rig went down, and then at 24-hour intervals thereafter.)
Methodology
Obtain all data that is available on the reservoir, well bore, leak points, plume, and surface observations.
Where firm data is unavailable, develop best estimates. Run state of the art models to calculate flow rates
and compare results.
Organization
Lead - MMS - Don McClay (Gulf of Mexico Region)
NOAA - Pending: Bill Lehr; Ned Cokelet
USCG - Captain Gould to provide name of confirmed volunteer from Academy
USCG - Bob Pond providing name of volunteer to assist in getting data from BP
USCOE - Kate Moran to provide name of confirmed volunteer
DOE - Call for volunteer out
DOT - Working with Richard Lolick to identify DOT SME at Volpe Center at Cambridge.
USGS - Catherine Cesnick to provide name of confirmed volunteer.
National Laboratories - Catherine Cesnick to provide name of confirmed volunteer
Tulsa University - Dr Mike Volk and Dr. Scot Graham (I will confirm their interest)
Texas A&M - Call for volunteer out
SINTEF - Mark Reed (I will confirm his interest. He is in Norway so may be a delay in response.)
Data Requirements
Reservoir (MMS has access to some core data, PVT analysis (underway by lab), logs.
Wellbore - Will need to obtain survey data from BP
Plume images for periods throughout spill event as pressure have fluctuated 4,000 psi since beginning of
event. (Will need to request data from BP)
BOP flowing pressure readings - Will need to request data from BP.
Arial observation analysis prior to application of dispersants and use of mechanical recovery
Flow measurement on Enterprise separator since initiation of RITT
Time line of subsea dispersant injection.
Modeling ReqUirements
Reservoir (Needed to understand reservoir flow characteristics and to feed nodal analysis. MMS can do
with Merlin software.)
Nodal Analysis (Needed to understand frictional forces in wellbore. MMS has Avalon software).
Particle Velocity
Acoustic Modeling?
Others?
Schedule
Need to fast track effort but should not do so at the expense of the generation of credible estimates. Note
that we will be pushed to get this out quickly.
30f4
10/20/201011:48 AM
Re: FRIT
002261
Subject: Fw: Macondo flowrate

From: Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>
Date: Fri, 14 May 201011:12:44 -0400
To: Illbill.lehr@noaa.gov'" <Bill. Lehr@noaa.gov>, UlOebbie. Payton@noaa.govlll
<Oebbie.Payton@noaa.gov>
Blackberry message from:

Steve Lehmann, NOAA-SSe
Please excuse typos
From: Herbst, Lars <Lars.Herbst@mms.gov>

To: steve.lehmann@noaa.gov <steve.lehmann@noaa.gov>
Sent: Fri May 14 11:10:172010
Subject: Macondo flowrate
Details- bottom of stack pressure is 3800 psi and top of stack pressure is 2650 psi. I have staff looking at these
pressures and the 5000 BOPD estimate. The 2650 psi would actually be only 400 psi over the seawater
hydrostatic pressure. If you look at the 400 psi and the 5000 barrel per day, we should be able to estimate
choke size and determine if the choke size makes sense. The difficulty is that this is multi phase flow.
Lars Herbst
IOildata.Pdfl l
- Fw_ Macondo flowrate.eml--.. -------------------------.-------.--...- ....-.------
40f4
10/20/20 I 0 II :48 AM
BP
Constant Composition Expansion at 243F

Data Presentation Figures
011 Comp,,,,,slbilily
30.0
. ...
~ 25.0
!:-20,0
"
'in
;150
:s 10 0
'i
8E
5.0
$,5
.,a
3.0
,,2.5
~2Q
.'
Uquld Oen..ity
0575
..M'
0.570
0,565
'I
2l"
:!2
!Z
"
..J
~1.5
1.0
0,5
0.0
002262
V .. Function
4.0
.. - .... --.-....
~--
2000
Ple~ (psial 6000
..........................
_60
E
:!1
alSO
4,0
"
~
1ij
a;
a:
PENCOR
info.pencor@corelatJ,com (800) 2344205
7000
9000
Pressure (psjllj
11000
13000
3.0
2,0
II.
1,5
1.0
_.
.........
0.5
0,0
All ISO 900'1 Registered Company
"
2.5
E
:;I
..
.!lI
3.5
'':;
a: 10
Pressu,... VOlume Relatlons
Ii
.~ 20
4,5
:ii! 40
0.535
5000
8000
Llquld VOlume PO"'''I'f!
~
",50
0,540
0.525
70
0,550
0.545
0,$30
0.0
15000
5000
10000
P,essure (psi.)
0.560
(1.5-~5
2000
4000
Pressure (psia)
6000
8000
!l
2000
4000
6000 8000
Pressure (psla)
10000 12000 14000
Report No, 36126-Preflmmary

Project Manager: JaSon leBlanc
0412812010, pg 2 of 2
BP
Constant Composition Expansion at 243"F

Pressure-Volume Relations
PENCOR 10 No. 36126-53: 18.142 it Depth
Pressure
(psia)
002263
11,856
10.000
9.500
9,000
8.500
8.000
7.500
7.000
6,504
6,495
6.475
6.450
6.400
6.:300
6.200
6.100
6,000
Relative
Volume
ry I V",,)
011
Density
0.927
0.934
0.9430.952
0.962
0.973
0.986
1.000
1.001
1.002
1.0031.005
1.009
1.0131.018
1.023-
0.570
0.565
0.560
0.555
0.549
0.5430.536
0.528
i9lcm'l
Relative
Liquid
Volume
(%)
011
Y-Function
Compressibility
(6.VNl'~Qsl) x 10"
(P ..,-P)IPryN",1)
Reservoir
Saturallon
5,500
1.052
5,000
4,500
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
1.090
1.139
1.208
1.3031.442
1.645
1.982
2573
3.812
16.75
17.66
16.88
21.42
22.54
0.00
26.60
28.17
9.22
31.2339.76
50.10
5549
56.82
57.80
59.96
59.75
59.37
58.57
57.60
57.11
55.39
54.10
53.45
50.99
49.63
3.64
3.63
3.63
3.50
3.36
3.20
302
2.83
264
248
2.29
212
1.96
Notes:
Cl
D
Relative Volume 011 V...) Is the fluio volume at the indicated pressure and temperature
relative to the saturated fluid volume.
Density (Iblft') " Density (gfcm') x 62.428
Cl Compressibility Is the average compressiblfily between Che indicated and the next highest pressure
o Relalive Liquid Volume % is tile volume of liquid relative to volume at saturation pressure
PENCOR
An ISO 9001 Registered Company
Info.pencar@corelatJ.com (800) 234-4205
Report No 35126.Pre/tminart
Project Manager Jason LeBlanc
0412at.201O. pg 1 of 2
Re: RE: in-situ droplet sizes
Subject: Re: RE: in-situ droplet sizes

Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 18:59:41 -0700
To: Debbie French McCay <
002264
@asascience.com>
Debbie,
I left the office before I forgot to send those dispersant images to you. Will do
it first thing in the morning.
Bill
Original Message ----From: Debbie French McCay
y@asascience.com>
Date: Sunday, May 2, 2010 6:32 pm
Subject: RE: in-situ droplet sizes
To: "Kate.Clark" <Kate.Clark@noaa.gov>, "Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov" <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Cc: "Greg Baker (Greg.Baker@noaa.gov)" <Greg.Baker@noaa.gov>, "James R. Payne
@sbcglobal.net)"
@sbcglobal.net>, "Troy Baker
(Troy.Baker@noaa.gov)" <Troy.Baker@noaa.gov>, Stephanie Willis
<Stephanie.Willis@noaa.gov>
Kate,
For the NRDA we are planning on getting water samples in and around
the rising plume, as well as under oil near the surface. We also are
looking at getting water samples in deeper water in the rising plume.
Today we discussed potentially getting microphotographic images of oil
droplets along with ichthyoplankton samples.
However, that will be
possible only in the top 200m (still important for characterization
high near the surface), and we won't be able to sample deep near the release.
The droplet size distribution is very important to determining the
rise rate of droplets, dissolution rate of soluble components, and so
exposure concs to the biota we are evaluating in the NRDA.
Thus,
getting microphotographic images (or some measurements of oil droplet
size) and rise-rate data on the oil emerging from the pipe (or where
it becomes far-field and not a buoyant plume) is very important information.
In addition, if the rise to the surface does not all happen in a few
hours, as Bill says the response modelers are thinking, then there is
considerable oil underwater not on the surface.
This influences the
release rate (vol/time), a critical input to what we are doing for the
NRDA.
My understanding is there still is no measurement data anywhere about
droplet size distributions from deepwater releases such as this one
(as discussed with Bill this eve) So, this is critical information,
particularly for the NRDA.
Kate, you can give me a call if you would like to discuss.
I am
working with Jim Payne and Greg Baker on details of the water col
sampling for NRDA.
Thanks,
Deb
PS I left off Pooji and Mark only because I was not sure about
discussing sampling outside NOAA.
I also Stephanie as per protocol.
Iof2
10/20/2010 11:49 AM
Re: RE: in-situ droplet sizes
Deborah French McCay

Applied Science Associates! Inc.
55 Village Square Drive
South Kingstown! RI 02879 USA
@asascience.com
002265
(ASA)
From: Kate.Clark [Kate.Clark@noaa.gov]

Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 8:00 PM
Cc: Debbie French McCay;
Subject: Re: in-situ drop
'Reed, Mark'
Bill et al. - we are ordering all equipment to outfit the vessels, so

we
need to know what we would need.
Bill Lehr wrote:
Kate,
It will be of
assistance to the modeling of the subsurface oil
plume to have in-situ measurements of oil droplet size. The
researchers on the NOAA vessel can contact me for more information
if
needed.
Bill Lehr
Kate Clark
Regional Resource Coordinator
NOAA Assessment and Restoration Division
28 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882
v: 401-782-3235
f: 401-782-3201www.darrp.noaa.gov
20f2
10/20/2010 11:49 AM
Re: ISB Bum Amounts
002266
Subject: Re: ISB Burn Amounts

Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 08:24:24 -0700
@genwest.com>
To: Gary Ott
CC: Jordan.Stout@noaa.gov
Thanks,
Sorry to put you to the effort. You would think they would
these things.
better tabs on
Bill
Message ----From: Gary Ott
@genwest.com>
Subject: ISB Burn Amounts
To:
Cc:
Bill,
From the ISB unit
unoffical.
This is also incomplete.
Very frustrating,
May
May
May
May
17
18
19
20
max 3,722 bbbls

min 2,659 bbls
max
914 bbls
min 653 bbls
max 31,900 bbls
min 22,800 bbls
11,000 bbls
unknown if max or min
This info on one sheet has been asked for - 3 days.

but not there.
Gary
Making progress,
From
-0700
Desparately need those CUMULATIVE cleanup numbers.
loft
10/20/2010 11:49 AM
Re: Oil Burned and Collected
002267
Subject: Re: Oil Burned and Collected

Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 06:08:24 -0700
To: Gary Ott
@genwest.com>
Thanks, Gary, I know I can count on you. Ever thought about coming back full time NOAA? Conner is retiring
soon.
On 5/22/10 5:54 AM, Gary Ott wrote:
Bill,
This information is important and I will make first priority to get and send to you.
The ISBurn folks have a report - I have asked for it.
The details of oil skimmed and collected - however accurate this information might be - is on an ICS for
209. That's the official numers.
My goal is to send to you this part of the plan.
Gary
From: Bill Lehr [mailto:BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov]

To: GaryO@Genwest.com
Sent: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:19:03 -0700
Subject: request
No pressure but .. Jor the mass balance for this spill:

recommend/request that the NIC staff prepare for/arrange a conference call involving Agency Heads
from USCG, NOAA, USGS, MMS, DOl, and the UAC (including BP) to review the
findings of the FRTG prior to the release of those findings to the general public late Sunday afternoon
or early Monday mornin
Any chance you could assemble for me a cumulative amount of oil burned,
oil collected through that straw-thing and oil skimmed up as of today?
loft
10/20/2010 11:49 AM
002268

Date: Sun, 23 May 201008:13:04 -0700
If you have the chemistry,
Essentially anything with carbon number lower than 14 should be gone by now
unless encased in less viscous oil, e.g. tar balls.
Right now, my very rough calculations, that may change drastically, are something
like this:
by May 17
on surface 150,00 - 250,000 bbl
cleanup or burned 50,000-75,000 bbl
evaporated or dispersed 150,000 -250,000
water column as dispersed 100,000 -200,000
Even on the low end, that's in the neighborhood of 15-20 K bbls/day.
But we need better numbers. For example, I am having difficulty even getting good
9leanup numbers. Do you have goos values for them?

To: Bill.Lehr@noaa.qov
OK - I will assume exponential.
Thanks.
Marcia
***************************************
Dr. Marcia McNutt
Director
Reston, VA 20192
www.usgs.qov
***************************************
From:
Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov
To:
Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
Cc:
lof4
10120/2010 I] :49 AM
Victor F Labson
Date:
OS/23/2010 10:45 AM
Subject:
002269
@usgs.gov>
Marcia,
The evaporation rate declines exponent
. The challenge for this
spill
is that the oil comes as droplets from a mile
so that
dissolution, a
competitive process with evaporation, is significant in this case. We
have
been trying for weeks to
oil sampoles right above the leak source
to
compare with oil that have moved further away, to be able to estimate
which fraction is lost to the atmosphere and what part is lost in the
water column.
Bill
To:
Bill Is your guess that the rate of evaporation is linear over the month
I
I
time
period, or would you guess that the rate is much higher during say
the
first week, and then it
tails off during the next few weeks
(e. g.,
an exponential decrease thereafter)?
Marcia
***************************************
Dr. Marcia McNutt
Director
Reston, VA 20192
)
mcnutt@usgs.gov
www.usgs.gov
***************************************
20f4
10/2012010 11:49 AM
002270
From:
Victor F Labson <vlabson@usgs.gov>

Cc:
Robert J Rosenbauer <brosenbauer@usgs.gov>, Geoffrey S Plumlee
<gplumlee@usgs.gov>, Marcia K McNutt <mcnutt@usgs.gov>
Date:
OS/23/2010 10:14 AM
Subject:

led oil can take several pathways in the environment as shown in
the
diagram In the process of rising through the water column and
weathering
on the sea surface, oil loses many constituents to dissolution and
evaporation.
Since this oil contains a high fraction of volatile
compounds, we expect that a large fraction of the oil is lost to
evaporation. We used the pseudo-component evaporation model used in
the
NOAA model, ADIOS2,
initialized with data on the oil composition

provided
by BP, to estimate the fraction of oil possibly lost to evaporation
over
the period on the order of weeks to months.
I compounds
After the more volatile
have evaporated, the remaining oil tends to persist
without
evaporative change for many months, but other mechanisms such as
photo-oxidation and biodegradation can reduce the remaining oil.
Our
models suggest that as much as half of the oil can be lost to
natural
processes over several weeks on the sea surface. Without further
samples,
we
cannot sub-divide the amount lost to evaporation compared to
dissolution.
We measured the composition of weathered oil collected from the sea
surface on 16 May using GC/MS, and analyzed the results using the
pseudo-component evaporation model. We found that the weathered oil
I
I
I sample
had lost 38% of its mass to the combination of evaporation
and
dissolution.
simulated
30f4
This analysis could be improved with a careful
10/20/201011:49 AM
002271
evaporation study on the fresh oil, but we have not yet initiated
this
study. Therefore, as a first approximation, 30-50 % of the spilled
oil,
not removed by the response, has been removed by natural processes
Original Message ----From: Victor F Labson <

@usgs.gov>
To: Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>, Robert J Rosenbauer
<brosenbauer@usgs.gov>
Cc: Geoffrey S Plumlee <gplumlee@usgs.gov>, Marcia K McNutt
<mcnutt@usgs.gov>
! Bill
and Bob,
Iwe are trying to refine the estimates of the oil-spill volume and
we
I find
f account
Ii estimate.
Can either of you provide a rate we can use or point us
iI
to
someone how can?
Thanks,
Vic
Victor F. Labson, Ph.D .
Director
Crustal Geophysics and Geochemistry Science Center
! us Geological Survey
Denver, Colorado
Phone 1(303)236-1312, fax 1(303)236-122ge-mail
@usgs.gov
lof4
10/20/2010 11:49 AM
002272
The model assumes the input data provided to the NIC (Appendix 3). The logical
structure of the Calculator is straightforward.
(1) Subtract off direct recovery from the total amount escaping from the reservoir. While
this oil does not enter the Gulf waters, it was important to record this amount for the
Unified Command since logistical assignments depend upon it. IfVR(t) is the oil volume
discharged on day t and VDT(t) is the amount of oil directly recovered, then the effective
discharge, VRE (t), is given by
(1 )
(2) Determine the bottom chemical dispersion amount. The amount of oil that is
dispersed as a result of the injection of dispersants is calculated. To guarantee that
mass balance is maintained, this amount cannot exceed the effective discharge. Some
of the oil that is dispersed as small droplets will have a portion of their hydrocarbons
dissolve into the surrounding water. Subtracting this gives VDC (t) , the net chemically
dispersed oil
(2)
Here, VCB(t) is the volume of dispersing chemicals injected into the subsurface jet. k2 ,k7
are unit normalized rate constants that are defined in Appendix 1 along with the other
rate constants. They are random variables whose distribution properties are determined
by the uncertainty inherent in our knowledge of the physical process they represent.
(3) Determine natural dispersion from the leaking jet. From oil that is not chemically
dispersed, compute the fraction that is naturally dispersed. Again, subtract oil that
dissolves from the droplets.
(3)
(4) Calculate the dispersed oil at the bottom. Add the amount that is chemically
dispersed and naturally dispersed at the bottom. This oil is not available for evaporation,
nor is the oil that dissolved at the bottom.
(4)
(5) Compute skimmed oil as a fraction of oil water recovery. Not all the liquid recovered
by mechanical recovery, Vow, is oil. The rate constant k6 specifies that fraction.
VNW (t) = k6 Vow (t) then defines the net skimmed oil. Oil at all stages of weathering is
002273
skimmed. The model makes the assumption that the majority of the skimmed oil is
'older' oil. Hence, this oil is not considered removed for evaporation calculations.
(6) Determine oil that evaporates or dissolves. Compute oil that evaporates from
surface oil during its first day on the surface or dissolves. Add evaporation from the
second day on the surface plus oil that dissolves from dispersed oil. Let
Z = VRE (t) - VDB (t) I (1- k7) be the oil that makes it to the surface on day t. The oil that
rose to the surface on day t-1 and is still left (neglecting natural surface dispersion and
skimming) is Wet -1) = (1 k 4 )Z(t -1) VBU(t -1). Since evaporation and dissolution are
combined, dissolution from the bottom is added to VE , the net evaporated or dissolved,
where
(5)
Here VBU is the oil that is burned in-situ. The model takes reported values for burns
although these sometimes exceed the amount of surfacing oil for that day.
(7) Determine natural surface dispersion. Surface dispersion, VNS , is a competitive

process with emulsification and the potential for dispersion decreases as the oil
weathers on the surface. Disperse the surface oil that is available for surface dispersion,
after subtracting evaporation and burning,
VNS (t)= kg max(O, W
(t
(6)
(8) Determine chemically dispersed oil at the surface. Compute chemically dispersed oil
from surfactants sprayed on the surface slicks, VDS (t). Check that it does not exceed oil
on the surface, based upon Vs (t -1), the sum total of surface oil from the day before.
(7)
Here, Ves(t) is the volume of dispersants used on day t. Whatever is left is then added to
the 'Other' oil category. For the purpose of the Calculator, this "Other' oil is treated as
being on the surface although some of it is not.
Complete details on the formulas with uncertainty analysis can be found by the reader
in Appendix 1. The various sections discussing the individual processes explain the
rationale for the choice of the rate constant distributions. The Oil Budget Calculator uses
a Monte Carlo process based upon these distributions to compute its estimates.
002274
UNIVERSITY of NEW HAMPSHIRE
date
Via email:
Dear
We are writing to request that you provide a peer review ()tfW~;~~~epwater Horizon Oil Budget
Calculator Report. The documentation of the Oil BudgetCat&'UI~tQrused for the Deepwater
Horizon spill is undergoing a thorough audit. A com;mj~t~~;of sci~\jif!!?::t~involved in this project is
currently writing this report. It is important to no.tEl;.~m:at the calculaf~;r.i8 a response tool only, not a
device for damage assessment or a detailed mq?,~;\~~Iance of the fate oftl\oil released.
';';Y/;,'},'
The Coastal Response Research Center, a partne~~~{f~;~betweenthe National dt~anic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the UniversFiy;\:qfN~~~\Bampshire (UNH)'i.has been asked
to manage the peer review process
. iI Budget C~I~QJ~'tt>f Report. The Center;seeks individuals
with a variety of scientific and engin
ise to revf~~!;!?'roposals and projects to ensure the
documentation is of the highest qualitY'~\"il\
the Cerit~t0:!*.asking you to serve as a peer
;;.:{i;".
reviewer.
'''''''\
"\~ . \';~;~i~~;\'.~.
"""'~~IfRteri1'ber 24. Due to the great
. Congr~~~\'among others, and must be

very quick turnaround for your review.
Your review will be due n6':\1~t~r
a y , . r 4 at 4:30 pm EST. We hope you will be
able to reS,Bqm9\:~'@\~b.l?reque:t~; 'i. .'
.bjs
;t&~ational importance and on a very short
timeline,f~i,~~rr6fus~t;y~~~,.namel;~!!1 be listecfPi~;')t.b\~.,A'~pendix as a Reviewer, however, individual
commer:tt~:and reviews 'a:Ee:;';~~pt sfrl~ly!,confidenMltfo the Coastal Response Research Center.
';l:":~;}'~i,~. ;,'
'\(W:;~;\.'\'"
'iV;'t\~~:;<;,~~::\
'
We are as'~i'W~(aU reviewers ta~"\'it~d the'~'~~P\JJive Summary, Introduction, Purpose of the Oil Budget
,-;d';i'H'
Calculator, Prevl'O'lJs Experience ~',.,. e Ixtoc Spill; and the Assessment and Future Plans sections.
While you may c6rt1fment on anY~~1ber sections as well, we are asking that you review the following
specific sections: . '\'"""
!;:~;J:';:~:
:.4.l~1~fl
"'\'\:;Y::1i
'f:tf:~)N;:-})~
It is our sincere hope that'~~q\iGHl agree to serve as a peer reviewer as we strongly believe your
recommendations and insights will be crucial to our evaluation of the DWH Oil Budget Calculator
Report. Please reply to Kathy Mandsager (kathy.mandsager@unh.edu , 603-862-1545) as to
whether you can serve as a reviewer. We will also be contacting you by phone to confirm your
willingness to serve. If you have any questions regarding the Center or this review process, please
contact me directly. Additional information on the Center can be obtained at the website:
http://www.crrc.unh.edu.
Coastal Response Research Center

Gregg Hall, 35 Colovos Road, Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3534
Tel: 603-862-0832 fax: 603-862-3957 http://www.crrc,unh.edu
002275
UN IVERSITY of NEW HAMPSH I RE

Page 2
Date
Thank you very much for your consideration of this request. We look forward to your participation.
Sincerely,
~--Nancy E. Kinner, Ph.D.

UNH Co-Director
Professor of CiviVEnvironmental Engineering
nancy.kinner@unh.edu
603-862 -1422 (0)

603-479-3777 (c)
Coastal Response Research Center

Gregg Hall, 35 Colovos Road, Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3534
Tel: 603-862-0832 fax: 603-862-3957 http://www.crrc.unh.edu
002276
COASTAL RESPONSE RESEARCH CENTER
Rules of Engagement for Reviewers

Peer reviewers for the Coastal Response Research Center should be aware of the following
requirements when agreeing to serve:
1. The role of a reviewer is to critically and impartially evaluate the report. Reviewers
should base their evaluations solely on the merits of the proposed research using the
report.
2.
If you were contacted by any of the report authors about the report prior to agreeing
to serve as a reviewer this information should be revealed at the time you are asked
to serve, as a conflict of interest may exist.
3.
Once you have agreed to serve as a reviewer for the Center, any contact with any
authors of the report should avoid discussions of the report. Avoid contact during the
review process, if possible.
4. The individual reviews are kept confidential to the maximum extent possible. Once you
have agreed to serve as a reviewer for the Center, we ask that you not reveal your
assessments or details about your review to anyone at any time (present or future).
5. Center reviewers are not paid for their time or reviews. Individuals who review reports
for the Center provide a much needed service.
6.
All reviewer comments must be destroyed once your service as a reviewer has been
completed. Do not discuss these confidential documents with anyone without obtaining
permission from the UNH Center Co-Director first.
002277
COASTAL RESPONSE RESEARCH CENTER
Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Statement for Center Reviewers
Your Potential Conflicts of Interest

Your designation as a Center reviewer requires that you be aware of potential conflict situations that
may arise. Should any conflict arise during your term as a reviewer, you must bring it to the attention
of the UNH Center Co-Director.
Confidentiality of the Review Process and Reviewer Names
The Center keeps individual reviews confidential to the maximum extent pOSSible, except that we send
the report authors copies of the individual reviews without names attached. The names of all of the
report's reviewers will be released in an appendix to the report.
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
Your Potential Conflicts of Interest

To the best of my knowledge, I have no affiliation or relationship that would prevent me from giving a
fair and impartial review of the report. I understand that I must contact the UNH Center Co-Director if
a conflict exists or arises during my service. I further understand that I must sign and return this
Certification to the Center before I may serve.
Maintaining the Confidentiality of others
I will not divulge or use any confidential information that I may become aware of during my service.
Your Identity as a Reviewer will be Kept Confidential
I understand my identity as a reviewer will be kept confidential to the maximum extent pOSSible,
except that copies of written reviews that I submit will be sent to the report authors without my name,
affiliation or other identifying information.
Reviewer Name (Please Print) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Reviewer
Oil Spill Budget Calculator Technical Report
002278
(j SINTEF
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry
P.O.Box:
Address:
Location:
Telephone:
Fax:
4760 Siuppen
NO-7465 Trondheim,
NORWAY
Bralt0rkaia 17C,
4.elg.
+47 4000 3730
+47 930 70730
SINTEF REPORT
TITLE
Laboratory study of the dispersibility ofDWH surface

emulsions.
I
AUTHOR(S)
I
Enterprise No.: NO 946 007 029 MVA
Frode Leirvik, Kjersti Almas and Per S. Dating

I
CUENT(S)
BP
REPORT NO.
.1 ~~:SIFICATION
SINTEF Al6134
CLASS. THIS PAGE
Unrestricted
restricted
I978-82-14-05008-0
ISBN
ELECTRONIC FILE CODE
CLIENTS REF.
David Fritz
PROJECT NO.
801599
PROJECT MANAGER (NAME. SIGN.)
Report dispersibilily lesting DWI-Cnnal.docx
Per Dating
FILE CODE
DATE
APPROVED BY (NAME. POSITION. SIGN.)
2010-07-13
Tore Aunaas, Research Director
NO. OF PAGES/APPENDICES
17
CHECKED BY (NAME, SIGN.)
Ivar Singsaas
ABSTRACT
A study using the MNS and IFP dispersibility tests has been performed at SINTEF on three emulsions from the
PWH spill.
bifference in effectiveness of different dispersant products: The products Corexit 9500, Corexit 9527 and OSR 52
!Were tested on two emulsions with different degrees of weatering (Viscosities of 2700 and nOOmPas). Corexit
9500 show good efficiency for both emulsions, Corexit 9527 showed reduced effectiveness for the heavily
weatered emulsion, while OSR 52 showed reduced dispersibility for both tested emulsions
Disoersant dosage:Tests were performed on two emulsions with a range of dispersant dosages. Results show that a
elatively high dosage (DER t :25 or higher) was required to obtain good dispersant efficiency for the heavily
weathered emulsion. For less weathered emulsions a lower dosage was sufficient..
Aerial application of dispersants at a low dosage (5USGPA) can be recommended for moderately weathered
emulsion (dark brown colour)
Boat application is recommended for highly weathered emulsions (light brown/orange).A high dosage should be
used (25USGP A), and reapplication should be considered if necessary.
Mixing energy requirements: Results from tests with different energy input were compared to assess the
equirement for mixing energy on the sea surface to disperse the emulsions. Results show that as long as mixing
energy is sufficiently high (i.e. breaking waves) even the most weathered sample showed good dispersibility (given
sufficient dosage of dispersants)_ At low sea states artificial mixing energy may be a recommended option 0.5-1
hour after dispersant application.
Viscosity Limit for use of dispersants: Testing indicate reduced dispersibility for emulsions with viscosity >9000
mPas, and poor dispersibility >25000mPas. These limits are valid for DER==l :25.
KEYWORDS
ENGLISH
NORWEGIAN
I
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
SELECTED BY AUTHOR
002279
~SINTEF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background .......................................................................................................................... 13
Experiemental Setup.............................................................................................................. 4
2. I The MNS Test .................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 The IFP Test ..................................................................................................................... 5
Sampling and Physical Characterisation of the Test Emulsions ....................................... 6
Experimental Results ............................................................................................................. 8

4.1 Testing with Various Dispersants ..................................................................................... 8
4.2 Testing with Various Dispersant Emulsion Ratios COER) ............................................... 9
4.3 Testing with Different Energy Input .............................................................................. to
4.4 Chemical Dispersibility vs Viscosity ............................................................................. 11
4.5 Visual Observations During Testing .............................................................................. 13
Conclusions and Operational Recommendations ............................................................. 15

5.1 Testing with different dispersant products ..................................................................... 15
5.2 Dispersant dosage requirement ...................................................................................... 15
5.3 Sea state dependency ...................................................................................................... 16
5.4 Viscosity limit for use of dispersants ............................................................................. 16
References
............................................................................................................................. 17
002280
((jJ) S I NTEF
1 Background
A sampling campaign were conducted in the vicinity of the DWH release point cruise in the
period June 2-5. Three samples were taken of weathered DWH-oil and the physical properties of
the samples have been characterised. The sampled emulsions had a span in weathering time
estimated to 1 to 5 days on the sea surface. The span in weathering gives the emulsions very
different physical properties. Sampling and physical characterisation of the emulsions are
described in the cruise report (Leirvik,et.al.20 10).
As the physical properties change the dispersibility of the emulsions will change. From an
operational point of view this would mean that different dispersant application strategies may be
needed for emulsions at different stages of weathering.
A dispersibiltiy study has been performed at SINTEF on the sampled emulsions. The following
operational aspects have been studied:
Dosage of dispersant at different stages of emulsion weathering.
Effectiveness of three dispersant products at different stages of emulsion weathering
Mixing energy required to efficiently disperse the DWH emulsions.
Viscosity Limit for the dispersibility ofDWH emulsions.
The IFP and MNS dispersibility tests are described in Chapter 2. Sampling positions and the
physical properties of the emulsions are summarised in Chapter 3. Results from the dispersibility
testing are given in Chapter 4. Conclusions and operational recommendations are given in Chapter
5.
002281
~SINTEF
2 Experiemental Setup
There are several different tests for evaluating the effectiveness of chemical dispersants. Energy
input will differ in different tests, and the obtained effectiveness will be representative for
different wave energies. Most tests in this study is performed using the medium-to-high energy
MNS test (representing breaking wave conditions). The MNS test is described in chapter 2.1. To
assess the energy requirement for dispersing emulsions at different stages of weathering. Tests
have also been performed with the low energy IFP test. The IFP test is described in chapter 2.2.
2.1 The MNS Test

The MNS test (Mackay-Nadeau-Szeto, Mackay and Szeto, 1980) is estimated to correspond to a
medium to high sea-state condition with breaking waves. The energy input in this system, applied
by streaming air across the oil/water surface, produces a circular wave motion. The sample of the
oily water is taken under dynamic conditions after a mixing period of 5 min. The test apparatus is
shown in Figure 2.1.
MNS Test
Air outlet
~l
Thermometer
Water sampling tube

Manometer
Oil containment ring
Cooling coil
Figure 2.1 MNS test apparatus.

When the test results in the MNS test shows an effectiveness> 70 - 80%, the emulsion is
considered to be easily (good) dispersible. In the range down to 5% effectiveness, the emulsion is
still dispersible, however, the dispersion process may need some more time. Effectiveness < 5%
means that the emulsions is poorly dispersible when using dispersant. These laboratory-derived
dispersibility borders have been established based on correlations to field studies (Daling and
Stmm, 1999).
002282
(j)) SINTEF
2.2 The IFP Test

The IFP Test (Institute Francais du Petrole test, Bocard et at, 1984) is a low energy test estimated
to represent low wave energies (2 - 5 mls wind speed). A ring beating up and down in the test
vessel at a given frequency, gives energy input to the seawater column. The water column is
continuously diluted, which gives a more realistic approach to field conditions compared to other
tests. The test apparatus is shown in Figure 2.2.
IFPTest
I. Bxperimental beaker
2. Peristaltic pump
3. Storage water
4. Sampling boltle
S. Surge beater
6. Electro-magnet
7. Timer
8. Oil containment ring
Figure 2.2 IFP test apparatus.

When the test results in the IFP test shows an effectiveness - 50%, the emulsion is considered to
be easily (good) dispersible- even at low sea conditions. If the effectiveness is below 40 -50%
effectiveness, the emulsion may still be dispersible. During a response operation under calm
conditions in the field, additional mixing energy may be required. This extra turbulence can be
supplied by e.g. propel-washing from vessels or by using high delivery Ff-FI monitors 1-2 hours
after a dispersant application in order to fulfil the dispersion process.
002283
<G)) SINTEF
3 Sampling and Physical Characterisation of the Test Emulsions

The physico-chemical properties ofthe sampled emulsions were characterised both on site, and in
analysis at SINTEF laboratories. The results from the measurements are summarised in Table 3.1.
The sampling positions are shown in Figure 3.1, and the samples are described in brief below.
Sampling and analysis is described in detail in the cruise report (Leirvik et,al.,201O).
Table 3.1 Summary o/physical and chemical properties o/the sampled emulsion
Evaporative loss (wt%)
Estimated time on sea surfacei days)
Emulsion thickness (mm)
Water content (vol%)
Density (g/ml)
Viscosity (mPas)lO SI at 32e
Viscosity (mPas)10 SI at 27e
Viscosity (mPas) 10 SI at 25e
Viscosity (mPas) 10 SI at 22e
Viscosity (mPas)lO s at 200 e
Position 2
47
1-1.5
1.3
67
0.961
2770
3540
Figure 3.1 Sample positions compared to the DWH source
Position 3
50
4-5
2.6-3.7
50
0.975
ffi30
500
17900
24700
32300
Position 4
44
2-3
0.9-1.4
33
0.956
1250
2030
002284
~SINTEF
Position 2
Samples were taken 12 nm miles NE
(downwind) from the DWH source. The
slick was only 100-200 m long and 210m wide, and the oil was readily
spreading on the sea surface. The
emulsion was light brown in color,.
indicating significant emulsification.
Figure 3.2 Emulsion in Position 2

Position 3
Samples were taken 17nm NE
slick was approximately 100 x 30
meters. The emulsion was light brown
lorange Ireddish in color and appeared
more elastic and less prone to spreading
on the sea surface, which indicates that
this slick had been heavily weathered
(evaporative loss, emulsification and
photo-oxidation).

Position 4
Samples were taken 10 nm miles NE
sampled slick was approximately 50 x
30 meters, and was part of a continuous
belt of slicks aligned downwind from
the DWH source. The emulsion was
dark brown, and darker than the
emulsions in Positions 2 and 3. This
dark color indicates a lower degree of
weathering than the emulsion in
Positions 2 and 3.
002285
j)) SINTEF
4 Experimental Results
Laboratory tests have been perfonned to study different operational aspects. Comparative testing
between different dispersant products is described in chapter 4. L Results from testing with
different dispersant dosages are shown in chapter 4.2. The requirement for energy is studied by
testing witha low energy test representing sea states without breaking waves (IFP), and a
Mediumlhigh energy test (MNS) representing sea states with breaking waves. The results are
shown in chapter 4.3. Viscosity limits for the dispersibility ofDWH emulsions have been
established by testing at increasing viscosities. This work is presented in Chapter 4.4.
4.1 Testing with Various Dispersants
Tests have been perfonned with different dispersant products for samples from position 2 and
position 3. The three tested products were Corexit 9500, Corexit 9527 and OSR52. The
comapartive tests were perfonned with a dispersant/emulsion-ratio (DER) of 1:25.
Table 4.1 Results from the MNS test with different dispersant products. DER= 1.' 25 in all tests.
Corexit 9500
Corexit 9527
OSR52
blank
Position 3
Position 2
(7200 mPas) (2770 mPas)
86
91
55
90
71
62
44
2
100
90
80
*'!
70
60
1;;
<II
:e.,
50
40
30
.s.5
..
c
20
10
0
Corexit9500
Corexit9S27
OSR52
blank
Figure 4.1 Results from the MNS test with different dispersant products. The dosage is 1.'25 in all
tests.
Reduced effectiveness in the MNS test is defined as <75% (Daling and Stmm, 1999), while poor
dispersibility is defined as <5%. The two Corexit products show good efficency for the moderatly
weathered emulsion from position 2, while OSR 52 have a somehow reduced dispersibility. For
the heavily weathered emulsion sampled in position 3, only Corexit 9500 show good
dispersibility, while Corexit 9527 and OSR 52 showed reduced dispersibility.
002286
(j)) SINTEF
4.2 Testing with Various Dispersant Emulsion Ratios (DER)

Tests have been perfonned to study the dispersant effectiveness as a function of dispersant
dosage. The tests have been done on the emulsions from position 3 and position 4. The
mediumlhigh energy MNS test has been used in the study. Results are shown in Table 4.2 and in
Figure 4.2.
Table 4.2 Results/rom the MNS test with Corexit 9500 at different dispersant dosages
%Effectiveness in the MNS test
DER
I: 10
1:25
1:50
1:100
1:250
no dispersant
Position 3
(7200 mPas)
81
86
44
31
15
2
Position 4
(1 250mPas)
99
99
96
99
I
I
I
I
48
100
90
80
~
70
60
it
c:
.~
so
t:
IV
II!
..
C
40
III
Q,
30
20
10
0
....;.:.
0
....
'"
....
V.
....
;.:.
0
....
::I
'"
Vi'
N
0
a.
"
~
Figure 4.2 Results from the MNS testing with Corexit 9500 at different dispersant dosages.
Results show that at a dosage of 1:25 and higher, the dispersant efficiency is high for the highly
weathered emulsion sampled in position 3. At lower dosages the efficiency will gradually
decrease. Tests perfonned on the least weathered emulsion (position 4) show a good efficiency
for all the tested dosages.
002287
tfj SINTEF
10
4.3 Testing with Different Energy Input

To study the effect of energy input on the dispersibility testing has been performed with both the
MNS and IFP tests. The MNS is a high energy test representative to high sea states. The IFP test
supply a relatively low energy input and is thought to be representative for low sea states without
breaking waves. Results from testing with the two methods are shown in Table 4.3 and in Figure
4.3.
Table 4.3 Results from the MNS and IFP tests with samples from the different positions using
Corexit 9500 and DER=25.
Test effectiveness (wt%)
Position 4
Position 2
Position 3
wi Corexit 9500 and DER=1:25
MNS
IFP
99
91
86
46
48
34
100
90
80
t;
...!!:II
.....
<II
70
60
::e
OJ
-5
50
.5
i::' 40
c
.!1
e...
30
20
10
0
Positioo4
PositiQn2
Increasing degree ofweathering
Position 3
~
Figure 4.3 Results from the MNS and IFP tests with samples from the different postions using
Corexit 9500 and DER=1:25.
Results show that whith a dosage of 1:25 of Corexit 9500 all the samples show a relative good
dispersibility for the MNS test. This is in accordance to the conclusions for the tests performed
with the Field Effectiveness Test onboard Mr. Joe (Leirvik,et.al.2010). For the low energy IFP
samples from positions 2 and 4 show a slightly reduced dispersibility. The heavily weathered
sample from position 3 show a significant reduction in dispersibility.
002288
~SINTEF
11
4.4 Chemical Dispersibility vs Viscosity

In systematic weathering studies performed over the past 20 years at SINTEF (Daling and
Str0m, 1999) an upper viscosity limit for an oils dispersibility is determined. The viscosity Iimit is
strongly related to the specific oil that is investigated. In this study with a limited amount of
emulsions even the most weathered emulsion had a good dispersibility (at32C), a viscosity limit
could not be established. Therefore additional testing where performed at lower temperatures to
yield dispersibility data on higher viscosities. The results from all tests done with the MNS test is
compared with the emulsion viscosities in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Resultsfrom the MNS test and the Viscosity of the emulsions. The table includes the
additional tests performed at lower temperatures. Tests are performed with Corexit 9500 and
DER=J:25.
Position Temperature
CC)
4
32
2
32
32
3
3
28
3
25
3
22
3
20
Temperature
(OF)
90
90
90
82
77
72
68
Viscosity at shear rate MNS dispersant

lOs' I (mPas)
efficiency (wt%)
1250
99
3700
91
7230
86
12500
66
44
17000
24700
16
32300
0
The dispersant effectiveness from the MNS test is plotted against the emulsion viscosity in Figure .
4.4.
o +-------~--~--~~~~~~----------~~.~~~~. . ~~
1000
10000
100000
Viscosity (mPas)
Figure 4.4 Dispersant efficiency in the MNS tests plotted against viscosity. Viscosity is reported at
shear rate JOSI.
002289
~SINTEF
]2
As described in chapter 2.1, in the MNS test reduced dispersibility is defined as below 75%, while
poor dispersibility is defined below 5%. Based on the curve drawn in Figure 4.4 reduced
dispersibility will occur for viscosites above] OOOOmPas, while poor dispersibility can be
expected for viscosities exceeding 25000 mPas. The drawn limits is based on studies using a
dispersant/emulsion-ratio of 1:25.
The time it take for emulsions to reach the defined viscosity limits will depend on the wind speed
and temperatures. The weatering time for the tested emulsions where estimated based on the
evaporative loss of the samples in the cruise report (Leirvik,et.al.,20 10). The estimated time on
the sea surface for the emulsions is shown in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 - Tentative time at sea based on evaporative loss and use of the SINTEF Oil Weathering
Model.
',....
Position 2
Position 3
Position 4
Eviiiporativeloss
.;{wt$) .
47%
50%
44%
/ViscOSity
I......
.(I1lPasf
3700
7200
1250
.Tn~ti\tetime.
..>at.$ea l
. i
2-3 days
I
4-5 days
I
1-2 days
I
002290
(j)) SINTEF
13
4.5 Visual Observations During Testing

The moderately weathered emulsions sampled in position 2 and 4, generally dispersed well. For
the emuslion from position 4 small droplets were formed within the first minute of the test as
shown in Figure 4.5
Figure 4.5 Gradual formation ofsmall droplets with time in the MNS test. The image is from
testing with Emulsion 4 and Corexit 9500 at DER= 1:25
In tests performed with the heavily weathered emulsion from position 3, the formation of small
droplets was slower. After five minutes (the test duration) a significant amount of small droplets
were formed, but strings of emulsion were still present in the water. This is demonstrated in
Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6 Gradual formation of small droplets with time in the MNS test. The image is from
testing with Emulsion 3 and Corexit 9500 at DER=1:25
002291
({; SINTEF
14
In the IFP test the same effects could be observed. For the less weathered emulsions (Position 2
and 4) small droplets were formed to make a cafe au lait coloured suspension. In the tests with the
heavily weathered emulsion from position 3 the particles in suspension were non-spherical and
larger in size. This is examplified in Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.7 Droplet formation in the IFP test with the emulsion from position 3. The test is
peiformed with Corexit 9500 and DER= 1: 25.
Even though not all dispersed particles are within the optimal particle size range, the dispersant
will contribute to breaking up the viscous emulsion and significantly reduce the lifetime of oil on
the sea surface.
Emulsions were also tested without addition of dispersants. Images from the tests are shown in
Figure 4.8. The natural dispersion in the tests with emulsions from position 2 and 4 were
relatively high. The emulsion from position 2 even formed quite small droplets. The emulsion
from position 3 did not spread on the surface of the test vessel, and few droplets formed at all.
Figure 4.8 Droplet formation in the MNS tests without addition ofdispersant in the different
positions.
002292
(jJ) SINTEF
15
5 Conclusions and Operational Recommendations

5.1 Testing with different dispersant products
Tests have been performed with different dispersant products for one moderately weathered
emulsion (position 2 I 2770mPas) and one heavily weathered emulsion (position 3 I 7250mPas).
The three tested products were Corexit 9500, Corexit 9527 and OSR52. The comapartive tests
were performed with a DER of 1:25.
The two Corexit products show good effectiveness for the moderatly weathered emulsion from
position 2, while OSR 52 showed a somehow reduced dispersibiIity. For the heavily weathered
emulsion sampled in position 3, only Corexit 9500 show good dispersibility, while Corexit 9527
and OSR 52 showed reduced dispersibility 75% effectiveness in the MSN test).
5.2 Dispersant dosage requirement

A minimum DER is required to yield efficient dispersion of a slick. The required dosage usually
increases as the oil weathers on the sea surface. As the physical properties of the emulsion change
the thickness of the slick will also increase and the required dosage will increase accordingly. In
dispersant application operations the dosage is often given in US Gallons Per Acre (USGPA).
DispersantiEmulsion-ratio at different dosages is given at differing slick thicknesses in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 DispersantlEmulsion-ratio at different dosage and slick thickness
OER at varying Slick thickness :
USGPA
5
25
2x25
1mm
1:200
1:50
1:25
2mm
1:400
1:100
1:50
4mm I
1:800 i
1:200 I
1:100
LowlModerately weathered emulsions (dark brown appearance)

The results show good dispersibility in the MNS test for the least weathered emulsion (Position
4). The emulsion disperses even at DER as low as 1:250 in the MNS test. The slick sampled in
position 4 had a thickness of ~lmm. To achieve a dispersant/emulsion-ratio of 1:250 for a slick of
this thickness an application dosage of 5 USGPA is required (Table 5.1). This mean that the low
dosage used in standard aerial application will be sufficient for emulsions at a such low degree of
weathering.
002293
G SINTEF
16
Highly weathered emulsions (light brown/orange appearance)

The results show good dispersibility in the MNS test for the most weathered emulsion (Position 3)
at DER of 1:25 and above. At ratios under 1:50 the efficiency in the MNS test were gradually
decreasing. The highly weathered slick sampled in position 3 had a documented thickness of up to
4 mm. A dosage of 5 USGPA would correspond to a dispersant/emulsion-ratio of 1:800 for a slick
with this thickness (Table 5.1). According to the test results, this is a too low dosage to disperse
the emulsion. A dispersant/emulsion-ratio above I :50 is recommended as the minimum dosage for
heavily weathered emulsions such as the sample from position 3. According to Table 5.1 a
minimum dosage of25 USGPA is required to efficiently disperse heavily weathered emulsion
similar to the tested emulsion from position 3.
The slick should be monitored after the dispersant treatment, and if emulsion is still on the surface
are-treatment of the slick should be considered in order to achieve sufficient dosage.
5.3 Sea state dependency

Tests were conducted with the high energy MNS test and with the low energy IFP test. The MNS
is thought to be representative for energy at high/medium sea states with presence of breaking
waves (typically >5m/s). The IFP test is representative to calmer sea states with no breaking
waves. The comparative tests were carried out on all the sampled emulsions and with a
dispersant/emulsion-rate of 1:25. At this dosage all emulsions dispersed readily in the MNS test.
The dispersibility was slightly reduced in the IFP test for the moderately weathered emulsions
from position 2 and 4, while dispersibility was significantly reduced for the heavily weathered
sample from position 3. This means that the emulsions are dispersible given sufficient wave
energy. In calm sea conditions, introduction of additional mixing-energy/turbulence 0.5-1 hour
after dispersant treatment, could be a rational operational strategy. Such mixing energy could be
supplied to the treated slick e.g. by prop-washing or by spraying the slick with the vessels FI-FI
system.
5.4 Viscosity limit for use of dispersants

As an emulsion weather on the sea surface the physical properties will change, and the
dispersibility will gradually decrease. The change in physical properties and thus the changes in
dispersibility are highly dependent on the wind/wave conditions. In the systematic weathering
studies performed in general at SINTEF, dispersant effectiveness is linked to the viscosity of the
emulsion. The viscosity is predicted by use of the SINTEF Oil Weathering Model (Daling and
Strem, 1999) and a time window for effective use of dispersants can be estimated. The weathering
properties of the DWH oil are not studied and predictions of the change in physical properties can
not be done. A defininite time window for use of dispersants can therefore not be established. In
this study only the relationship between dispersibility and viscosity has been established.
The most weathered sample tested in this study had a viscosity of7200 mPas after an estimated
weathering time of 4-5 days on the sea surface under relative calm weather conditions. This
emulsion still showed good dispersibility in the high energy MNS test at a dispersant/emulsionratio of 1:25. In lack of more viscous emulsions the emulsion from position 3 is tested at lower
temperatures to gain higher viscosities. The tests indicate that at a dispersant/emUlsion-ratio of
I :25 the dispersibility will be reduced at a viscosity of 10000 mPas. Poor dispersibility will occur
as the emulsion reaches a viscosity of approximately 25000mPas.
002294
~SINTEF
17
6 References
Bocard C. Castaing, C. G. and Gatillier, C. 1984: "Chemical oil dispersion in trials at sea and in
laboratory tests". In: Oil Spill Dispersants, ASTM STP 840 (T.E. Allen ed.) Philadelphia,
USA, pp 125- 142
Daling, P.S., T. Str0m, 1999. Weathering of Oils at Sea: ModellField Data Comparisons. Spill
Science and Technology Bulletin, Vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 63-74,1999
Leirvik,F., Daling,P .S., Trudel,K.,Parschal,B.20 10. "Cruise report - Assessment of dispersibility

ofDWH oil at different stages of weathering"
Mackay, D.and Szeto, F. 1980. Effectiveness of oil spill dispersants - development ofa
laboratory method and results for selected commercial products. Institute of Environmental
Studies, University of Toronto, Publ. no. EE-] 6.
002295
Spill Related Properties of

MC 252 Crude Oil
Sample ENT..052210 ..178
For
BP
by
SL Ross Environmental Research Ltd.
July, 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Physical Property Tests: Methods and Results ............................................................................ 1
2.1 Results ................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Evaporation ........................................................................................................................ 2
2.1.2 Density ............................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Viscosity ............................................................................................................................. 6
2.1.4 Interfacial Tension ............................................................................................................. 6
2.1.4 Pour Point. .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.5 Flash Point .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.6 Emulsification Tendency and Stability .............................................................................. 6
3. References ................................................................................................................................... 7
Appendix A. Oil Property Test Methodology and Relationship to Spill Behavior ......................... 8
A.l
Evaporation ...................................................................................................................... 9
A.2
Physical properties ........................................................................................................... 9
A.2.1
Density ....................................................................................................................... 10
A.2.2
Viscosity .................................................................................................................... 10
A.2.3
Interfacial Tension ..................................................................................................... 10
A.2.4
Pour Point .................................................................................................................. 11
A.2.S
Flash Point ................................................................................................................. 11
A.2.6
Emulsification Tendency and Stability ...................................................................... I I
Appendix B. Oil Property Analysis Results for MC 252 ENT-05221 0-178 Crude Oil.. .............. 13
002296
INTRODUCTION
When oil is spilled in the marine environment its physical and chemical properties will change
over time through processes such as evaporation and emulsification. These changes will affect
both the fate and behavior of the spill and the opportunities for using countermeasures
effectively. For example, an oil may be relatively fluid and non-viscous when initially spilled,
but may become viscous within a short time. It is important to know whether this will happen
and how long it will take, defining the so-called Window of Opportunity for countermeasures.
The objective of this study was to conduct simulated oil spill weathering experiments on MC 252
ENT-052210-178 crude oil. The quantitative results of the tests (involving both fresh and
weathered oil) can be used as input to most oil spill models that are used internationally to
predict the fate and behavior of spills of specific oils.
2. PHYSICAL PROPERTY TESTS:
METHODS AND RESULTS
The laboratory testing described here involved 2.7 L ofthe crude oil. The oil was subjected to
the analyses outlined in Table 2-1. Test temperatures were chosen to cover the typical range of
seasonal variation for the open water season in the target region. Temperature of Is"C and 3SoC
were chosen.
A discussion of the methodology of each of these tests is presented in Appendix A, along with an
explanation of the effect that each oil property has on spill behavior.
The results ofthe weathering and analyses ofthe crude oil are presented separately in the
following section. Complete test results can be found in Appendix B.
Table 2-1 Test Procedures for Spill-Related Analysis ofMC 252 ENT-052210-178 Crude Oil
Property
Test
Equipment
Temperafure(s)
Procedure
Evaporation
Ambient
ASTMD86
Density
15 and 35
Viscosity
15 and 35
Interfacial Tension
Room
Temperature
Pour Point
N/A
Flash Point
N/A
Emulsification
Tendency/Stability
15 and 35
Wind TunnelASTM
Distillation Apparatus
Anton Paar Densitometer
Brookfield DV III+ Digital
Rheometer c/w Cone and
Plate
CSC DuNouy Ring
Tensiometer
ASTM Test Jars and
Thermometers
Pensky-Martens Closed Cup
Flash Tester
Rotating Flask Apparatus
-1-
ASTMD4052
Brookfield M/98211
ASTMD971
ASTMD97
ASTMD93
(Mackay and
Zagorski 1982;
Hokstad and Daling
1993)
002297
2.1
RESULTS
The results of the property analysis ofMC 252 ENT-052210-178 are summarized in Table 2-2. The
complete test results can be found in Appendix B. The two levels of evaporation noted in the
table represent the amounts evaporated from a 2 ern-thick slick in the wind tunnel after two days
and two weeks, respectively.
2.1.1 Evaporation
MC 252 ENT-OS221O-178 is a light crude with an API gravity of 37.2. Approximately 35% of
the oil evaporated after two days in the wind tunnel, and about 45% evaporated after two weeks
of exposure.
Figure 2-1 is a predicted evaporation curve for a spill involving a 10-mm thick slick in a 5 knot
wind at 2SoC (77F). Please note that the curve only applies at a water temperature of2SQC. If
other temperatures (or slick thicknesses and wind speeds) are of interest, these curves can be
generated using the equations in Appendix A and data in Appendix B 1 Computerized oil spill
models automatically do these calculations.
Figures 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4 show the effect of evaporation on the properties of oil viscosity, density
and pour point.
I The evaporation curve of the oil in the wind tunnel is shown in Appendix B, plotting the volume fraction of oil
evaporated, fv, on the y-axis versus evaporative exposure,
on the x-axis, where I@ is the unit of time expressed in
dimensionless form. Equations described in Appendix A and data in Table 2-2 of Appendix B can be used to convert
this curve into a more usable form for estimating oil evaporation under various spill conditions of temperature,
elapsed time and wind speed.
-2-
002298
Table 2-2 Spill-Related Properties of MC252 Crude Oil

Spill-related properties
API" = 37.2
BP MC252 ENT-052210-178
34.50
44.66
0.839
0.825
0.882
0.868
0.897
0.883
at approx 460 S-l

4.1
1.4
43
10
85
23
4.8
1.7
49
12
95
26
23.5
23.3
26.8
22.6
30.1
22.5
<-9
Evaporation (Volume %)
Density (g/cm s)
15 C
35 C
Dynamic Viscosity (mPa.s)
15 C
35 C
Kinematic Viscosity (mm 2/s)
15 C
35 C
Interfacial Tension (dyne/cm)
Oil/ Air
Oill Seawater
Pour Point (OC)
Flash Point (0C)
<-8
Emulsion Formation-Tendency and Stability @
Tendency
Unlikely
Stability
Unstable
Water Content
0%
Emulsion Formation-Tendency and Stability @
Tendency
Unlikely
Stability
Unstable
Water Content
0%
ASTM Modified Distillation
Evaporation
(% volume)
IBP
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
54
22.5C
Unlikely
Unstable
0%
34C
Unlikely
Unstable
0%
liquid
Temperature
(C)
84
111.6
124.4
137
151.2
168.8
188.2
208
227
248
Weathering Model
Fv
In[1 + (C 1ITk)gexp(C2 -CJTk)]

(C 1ITk)
where:
Fv is volume fraction of oil evaporated
e is evaporative exposure
Tk is environmental temperature (K)

C1
5472
C2
12.90
Cs
5739
-3-
100
Unlikely
Unstable
0%
Unlikely
Unstable
0%
Vapour
Temperature
(0C)
39.8
77.4
91.7
102.4
115.8
116
126.4
150
129.7
142.5
002299
Figure 2-1 Evaporation of MC252 Ent-052210-178
0.700
c
o
0.600
_
(I)
LL
1iS
(I)
...
0.400
0.300
_
>
0.200
-0 w
>
>
LL
....
I---
0.500
ns"t.'l
...
-_
/'
~.
!
I
i
i
0.100
-l-
1
I
0.000
12
24
I
36
48
60
72
25
Water Temp CC ):
Wind Speed (knots): 5
Thickness (mm): 10
i
i
84
96
108
120
132
144
Elapsed Time (hr)
Figure 2-2 Effect of Evaporation on Oil Viscosity

100.0
--,----..,...----~-~--~--~
,./i)
a-tIJ
0 r-
.- 0
tlJCD
~
0-
.f!
~ ~
10.0 +-----+-:-.tL----i----~ld_--t--___l
'E ')(
c
E
Q.
CIS
CIS
~Q.
~
1.0
+---..,----i-------if-----f--___l
10
20
30
40
Percent Loss to Evaporation (volume)
-4-
50
I 0 Viscosity @ 15C I ,
0 Viscosity @ 35C I
002300
Figure 2-3 Effect of Evaporation on Oil Density

0.910
0.900
0.890
E 0.880
.2
C)
0.870
'---.
~
0.860
en
i
c
.
. . .-
0.850
0.820
..
.' .
0.840
0.830
..
.. .
CY
o
.. .
..
.
.. .
. ..
.6
'
/'
.. ,:;
.
... -
jJ
/'
,/
o Density @ 15C
o Density @ 35C
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 2-4
Effect of Evaporation on Pour Point
10
-....
00
A.
...::s
I
I
I
'0
a.
A.
-5
a. -10
-15
~~
20
40
60
-5-
002301
2.1.2 Density
3
MC 252 oil is a light crude oil, with a density of 0.839 g/cm at 15C (API gravity of 37.2\
2.1.3 Viscosity
The oil has a very low viscosity that is typical of light oils. At 15C the viscosity of the fresh oil
is about 4.1 cP (mPa.s). The viscosity increases to 42.9 cP after 35% evaporation and to 85.1 cP
after 45% evaporation. The crude oil exhibits minor non-Newtonian behavior (slightly pseudoplastic, or shear-thinning, characteristics) at 15C. It is a Newtonian fluid at 35C.
2.1.4 Interfacial Tension

The oil/water interfacial tension ofMC 252 ENT-052210-178 crude was measured using
standard laboratory water with 35 ppt of salt. The value measured was 23.7 dynes/em, which is
in the range of most crude oils.
2.1.4 Pour Point

MC 252 ENT-05221 0-178 crude has a pour point ofless than _9C when fresh. This increases to
6C at 35 and 45 percent evaporation.
2.1.5 Flash Point

MC 252 ENT-052210-17S has a low flash point (below -SoC) when fresh. This rises after 45%
evaporation to 100C.
2.1.6 Emulsification Tendency and Stability

From the viewpoint of spill countermeasures and slick persistence, emulsification is a very
negative process because strongly emulsified oils are highly viscous
they can have ten to 100
times the viscosity of the parent oil. It is general believed that oils that have relatively high
concentrations of asphaltenes are the most likely to form stable water-in-oil emulsions. Some oil
spills do not form emulsion immediately, but once evaporation occurs and the asphaltene
concentration increases, the emulsification process begins and usually proceeds quickly
thereafter.
The MC 252 ENT-052210-178 crude oil has no tendency to form stable water-in oil emulsions
when mixed with seawater. At sea, it is observed that MC 252 crude does eventually form stable
emulsions. The reason that the ENT-052210-178 sample does not could be due to several factors:
The ENT-052210-178 sample evaporated in the wind tunnel for two weeks is equivalent
to only about 10 hours at sea for a I-mm thick slick or 100 hours for a 10-mm thick slick
and the onset of emulsification may not occur until greater degrees of evaporative
exposure that this are reached.
The sample may have been exposed to an anti-foaming agent andlor methanol during it's
collection from the damaged riser by the RITT and this exposure may inhibit
emulsification.
-6-
002302
Exposure to sunlight (not a part of the SL Ross weathering protocol) can produce photooxidation products that promote emulsification.
Enough of the two-week weathered sample from the wind tunnel remains to place a thinner slick
back into the wind tunnel and further expose it to the equivalent of one week at sea for a I-mm
slick. The emulsification of this sample will then be measured. As well, during the earlier
alternative field-testing program, surface samples of the slick were collected and shipped to the
SL Ross lab. Aliquots of these will be subjected to the laboratory emulsification test to determine
their emulsification characteristics.
3.
REFERENCES
Fingas, M., B. Fieldhouse and J. Mullin. 1998. Studies of Water-in-Oil Emulsions: Stability and
Oil Properties. Proceedings o/the 2Ft Arctic and Marine ai/spill Technical Seminar.
Environment Canada, Ottawa. pp 1-26
Hokstad, J. and P. Daling. 1993. Methodology for Testing Water-in-Oil Emulsions and
Demulsifiers. Description of Laboratory Procedures. In Formation and Breaking o/Water-inOil Emulsions: Workshop Proceedings Marine Spill Response Corporation, Washington DC,
MSRC Technical Report Series 93-108, pp 239-254
Mackay, D., W. Stiver and P.A. Tebeau. 1983. Testing of crude oils and petroleum products for
environmental purposes. In Proceedings of the 1983 Oil Spill Conference, American
Petroleum Institute, WaShington, D.C., pp 331-337.
Zagorski, W. and D. Mackay. 1982. Water in oil emulsions: a stability hypothesis, in
Proceedings o/the 5th Arctic and Marine ai/spill Program Technical Seminar, Environment
Canada, Ottawa, ON, pp 61-74.
-7-
002303
ApPENDIX
A.
OIL
PROPERTY TEST
METHODOLOGY
RELATIONSHIP TO SPILL BEHAVIOR
-8-
AND
002304
A.1
EVAPORATION
The oil was divided into three aliquots. Two aliquots were weathered in a wind tunnel: one for
two days and one for two weeks. Depending on the conditions at a spill site, this is typically
equivalent to a few hours and a few days at sea. In addition, the fresh oil was subjected to a
modified ASTM distillation (ASTM D86-90, modified in that both liquid and vapor temperature
are measured) in order to obtain two oil-specific constants for evaporation prediction purposes.
Evaporation is correlated using Evaporative Exposure (9), a dimensionless time unit calculated
by:
9 = kt/x
where: k = a mass transfer coefficient [m/s] (determined
experimentally in the laboratory wind tunnel or by an
equation related to wind speed for spills at sea)
t elapsed time [s]
x = oil thickness [m]
The distillation information is used in conjunction with the wind tunnel data to predict
evaporation rates for oil spills at sea.
A.2
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
The oils were subjected to the analyses outlined in Table 1. Test temperatures are chosen to
represent typical values for the region for those tests that are temperature-sensitive, such as
density and viscosity.
Table 1: Test procedures for oil analysis

Property
Test Temperature(s)
Procedure
Equipment
Evaporation
Ambient
o
Wind Tunnel
ASTM Distillation Apparatus
ASTMD86
Anton Paar Densitometer
ASTM D4052
Density
15 and35 C
Viscosity
IS and 35 C
Brookfield DV III+ Digital Rheometer

c/w Cone and Plate
Brookfield
M/98-211
Interfacial Tension
Room Temperature
CSC DuNouy Ring Tensiometer
ASTM D971
Pour Point
N/A
ASTM Test Jars and Thermometers
ASTMD97
Flash Point
N/A
Pen sky-Martens Closed Cup Flash Tester
ASTMD93
Rotating Flask Apparatus
(Mackay and
Zagorski 1982;
Hokstad and
Dating 1993)
Emulsi fication
Tendency/Stability
15 and 35 C
-9-
002305
A.2.1
Density
Density, the mass per unit volume of the oil (or emulsion), determines how buoyant the oil is in
water. The common unit of density is grams per millilitre or cubic centimetre (glmL or glcm\
the SI unit is kglm3 , which is numerically 1000 times the value in glmL. The density of spilled
crude oil increases with weathering and decreases with increasing temperature. Density affects
the following spill processes:
A.2.2
Sinking - if the density of the oil exceeds that of the water it will sink;
Spreading - in the early stages of a spill, more dense oils spread faster;
Natural dispersion - more dense oils stay dispersed more easily; and,
Emulsification stability - dense oils form more stable emulsions.
Viscosity
Viscosity is a measure of the resistance of oil to flowing, once it is in motion. The common unit
of dynamic viscosity is the centi-Poise (cP); the Sf unit is the mill i-Pascal second (mPas), which
is numerically equivalent to the centi-Poise. The common unit of kinematic viscosity (calculated
by multiplying the dynamic viscosity by the density) is the centi-Stoke (cSt) the SI unit is the
square millimetre/second (mm 2/s), which is numerically equivalent to the centi-Stoke. The
viscosity of spilled crude oil increases as weathering progresses and decreases with increasing
temperature. Viscosity is one of the most important properties from the perspective of spill
behavior and affects the following processes:
Spreading - viscous oils spread more slowly;

Natural and chemical dispersion - highly viscous oils are difficult to disperse;
Emulsification tendency and stability - viscous oils form more stable emulsions; and,
Recovery and transfer operations - more viscous oils are generally harder to skim and
more difficult to pump.
A.2.3 Interfacial Tension

Interfacial tension is a measure ofthe surface forces that exist between the interfaces ofthe oil
and water, and the oil and air. The common unit of interfacial tension is the dyne/cm; the SI unit
is the milli-Newtonlmetre (mN/m), which is numerically equivalent to the dyne/cm. Chemical
dispersants work by reducing the oil/water interfacial tension to allow a given mixing energy
(i.e., sea state) to produce smaller oil droplets. Emulsion breakers also work by lowering the
oil/water interfacial tension; this weakens the continuous layer of oil surrounding the suspended
water droplets and allows them to coalesce and drop out of the emulsion. Interfacial tensions
(oil/air and oil/water) are fairly insensitive to temperature, but are affected by evaporation.
Interfacial tension affects the following processes:
Spreading - interfacial tensions determine how fast an oil will spread and whether the oil
will form a sheen;
Natural and chemical dispersion - oils with high interfacial tensions are more difficult to
disperse naturally, chemical dispersant work by temporarily reducing the oil/water
interfacial tension;
Emulsification rates and stability; and,
-10-
002306
A.2.4
Mechanical recovery - oleophilic skimmers (e.g., rope-mop and belt skimmers) work best
on oils with moderate to high interfacial tensions.
Pour Point
The pour point is the lowest temperature (to the nearest multiple of 3C) at which crude oil will
still flow in a small test jar tipped on its side. Near, and below this temperature, the oil develops
a yield stress and, in essence, gels. The pour point of an oil increases with weathering. Pour point
affects the following processes:
Spreading - oils at temperatures below their pour points will not spread on water;
Viscosity - an oil's viscosity at low shear rates increases dramatically at temperatures
below its pour point;
Dispersion - an oil at a temperature below its pour point may be difficult to disperse; and,
Recovery - crude oil below its pour point may not flow towards skimmers or down
inclined surfaces in skimmers
A.2.5 Flash Point

The flash point of crude oil is the temperature at which the oil produces sufficient vapors to
ignite when exposed to an open flame or other ignition source. Flash point increases with
increasing evaporation. It is an important safety-related spill property.
A.2.6 Emulsification Tendency and Stability
The tendency of crude oil to form water-in-oil emulsions (or "mousse") and the stability of the
emulsion formed are measured by two numbers: the Emulsification Tendency Index (Zagorski
and Mackay 1982, Hokstad and Daling 1993) and the Emulsion Stability (adapted from Fingas et
al. 1998). The Emulsification Tendency Index is a measure of the oil's propensity to form an
emulsion, quantified by extrapolating back to time = 0 the fraction of the parent oil that remains
(i.e., does not cream out) in the emulsion formed in a rotating flask apparatus over several hours.
If a crude oil has an Emulsification Tendency Index between 0 and 0.25 it is unlikely to form an
emulsion; if it has a Tendency Index between 0.25 and 0.75 it has a moderate tendency to form
emulsions. A value of 0.75 to 1.0 indicates a high tendency to form emulsions. Recently the
Emulsion Stability assessment has been changed to reflect the four categories suggested by
Fingas et at. 1998. Emulsion types are selected based on water content, emulsion rheology and
the visual appearance of the emulsion after 24 hours settling. The four categories, and their
defining characteristics, are:
1. Unstable -looks like original oil; water contents after 24 hours of 1% to 23% averaging
5%; viscosity same as oil on average
2. Entrained Water - looks black, with large water droplets; water contents after 24 hours of
26% to 62% averaging 42%; emulsion viscosity 13 times greater than oil on average
3. Meso-stable - brown viscous liquid; water contents after 24 hours of 35% to 83%
averaging 62%; emulsion viscosity 45 times greater than oil on average
4. Stable - the classic "mousse", a brown gel/solid; water contents after 24 hours of 65% to
93% averaging 80%; emulsion viscosity 1100 times greater than oil on average
Under the old emulsion stability assessment scheme, the stability was determined by the fraction
of the original oil that remained in the emulsion after 24-hours settling (0 to 0.25 = unstable, 0.25
to 0.75 fairly stable, 0.75 to 1 = very stable).
-11-
002307
Both the Tendency Index and Stability generally increase with increased degree of evaporation.
Colder temperatures generally increase both the Tendency Index and Stability (Le., promote
emulsification) unless the oil gels as the temperature drops below its pour point and it becomes
too viscous to form an emulsion. Emulsion formation results in large increases in the spill's
volume, enormous viscosity increases (which can reduce dispersant effectiveness), and increased
water content (which can prevent ignition of the slicks and in situ burning).
-12-
002308
ApPENDIX B. OIL PROPERTY ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR MC 252 ENT052210-178 CRUDE OIL
-13-
Oil Weathering
Tray Mass (g)
Datefrime
Tray 7
240.4
Tray 8
240.8
Mass of Oil + Tray

Tray 7
Tray 8
(g)
19)
1032.7
1040.2
1001.2
1009.5
963.1
971.6
949.0
957.7
927.1
936.0
833.6
839.6
815.1
822.3
795.8
800.7
786.8
791.8
776.3
763.3
742.2
732.0
728.4
713.9
Volume Weathered(ml)
970
Volume for 2cm thick
969.50
0.02001031
TrCl}' thicknesslml
Average Air Temp

24.7
C
Mass of Oil
Tray 7
Tray 8
(g)
792.3
760.8
722.7
708.6
686.7
593.2
574.7
555.4
546.4
Fm
Tray 7
Tray 8
Oil
Density
Fv
Tray 7
Tray 8
(g/cm~
(g)
799.4
768.7
730.8
716.9
695.2
598.8
581.5
559.9
551.0
535.5
522.5
501.4
491.2
487.6
473.1
Fm
0.000
0.040
0.088
0.106
0.133
0.251
0.275
0.299
0.310
0.000
0.038
0.086
0.103
0.130
0.251
0.273
0.300
0.311
0.330
0.346
0.373
0.386
0.390
0.408
0.832
0.837
0.844
0.847
0.850
0.868
0.871
0.874
0.876
0.879
0.881
0.885
0.887
0.887
0.890
2-day
0.310
2-week
0.408
Fv
-14-
0.000
0.046
0.101
0.121
0.152
0.282
0.307
0.333
0.345
0.000
0.045
0.099
0.119
0.149
0.282
0.305
0.334
0.345
0.366
0.383
0.410
0.423
0.428
0.447
2-day
0.345
2-week
0.447
Fv vs. Theta Modeling

Evaporative
Model
Exposure
Evaporate
(CorrecteQl
ff'!l
0.0
0.000
199.0
0.108
621.1
0.165
802.0
0.178
1917.5
0.224
6228.9
0.288
9485.1
0.311
14863.8
0.335
17324.0
0.343
23492.6
0.360
33454.1
0.379
59328.6
0.410
75440.6
0.423
84648.3
0.429
121370.6
0.449
002309
07/06/201017:17
07/06/2010 17:50
07/06/201019:00
07/06/201019:30
07/06/201022:35
08/06/2010 10:30
08/06/2010 19:30
09106/2010 10:22
09/06/201017:10
10/061201010:13
11106/2010 13:45
14/061201013:16
16/06/20109:48
17/06/201011:15
21/06/201016:45
BP MC252 ENT-052210-118
Density
BP MC252 ENT-052210-178
Measurements
Mass
Density
Temperature
(g/cm 3)
Evaporated
eC)
(Fm)
0
0.838
16.6
0
0.823
37.8
0.31
0.880
17.3
0.31
0.866
37.4
0.41
0.896
17.1
0.41
0.881
38.2
0
0.832
24.69
0.31
0.875
24.69
0.41
0.891
24.69
-r.e
-a~
'iii
c
CC)
15
15
15
35
35
35
1S.5
0.142
0.832
0.999
910
900
890
880
870 f-...
860
850
840
830 V820
0.00
Calculations
Temperature
-------0.10
0.20
Density
(g/cm 3)
0.839
0.882
0.897
0.825
0.868
0.883
0.897
----.
---
0.30
"iii
c
0.40
0.50
Fv
Volume
Evaporated
(Fv)
910
900
890
880
870
860
850
840
830
820
-0.56
0.56
-0.56
19.44
19.44
19.44
0.345
0.447
0
0.345
0.447
0.000
..
1---.
-5
10
T-To
-15-
288.72
838.736
37.21
T-To
(K)
839
882
897
825
868
883
897
-.e
-a-
..
Density
3
(kg/m )
API Gravity
Standard Density Temperature, To (K)
3
Standard Density (kg/m )
API Gravity@ 15.5C
128.770
0.705
002310
slope
intercept
Density Constants for SL Ross Model

3
Density Constant 1 (slope, kg/m )
Density Constant 2 (kg/K.m3)
15
20
25
002311
002312
002313
002314
Wind Tunnel Calibration
BP MC252 ENT-052210-178
ASTM Distillation
Toluene
200 ml Fresh oil
Tray Mass (g)
Mass Toluene
Elapsed
Time
(s)
Tray 9
1980
6180
7980
19080
Water Subtracted
Tray 9
slope
Distilled
(mL)
Tray 6
(9)
825.0
765.3
673.2
630.7
549.1
829.2
776.1
686.7
645.7
567.0
Tray 6
Fraction
Distilled
Volume
Average
-0.01384046 -0.013238 -0.013539
Ideal Gas Constant (R, kPa.m'3Ikg.mol.K)

Molecular Weight of Toluene rN. kg/kg. mol)
Tray Area (A, m'2)
-1.3539E-05
297.8499
3.733
8.314
92.13
0.048475
K = ERTIAPW (mls)
-0.002011016
E (kgls)
Wind Tunnel Temperature, T (K)
Toluene Vapor Pressure. P (kPa)
Temperature
Liquid
Vapor
IBP
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
(Fv)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
slope
intercept
344.1
B7.8
(OC)
84.0
111.6
124.4
137.0
151.2
168.B
lBB.2
20B.0
227.0
24B.O
(OC)
39.8
77.4
91.7
102.4
115.8
116.0
126.4
150.0
129.7
142.5
1c
24.69
344.1
360.9
Distillation Constant A (slope, K)
Distillation Constant B (intercept, K)

Used original data set
Wind Tunnel Calibration
g>
900
:~-~~~1
s
~
~
ASTM Distillation
-.----------------------~
300.0 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ 250.0 t------------------------------~--------":::::O.------
600 +~-------------------''-------__i
500+----------------------~
400
+-----------------------------------------------~
2000
4000
6000
10000
8000
+-___________
------=~--""O:=:::..-------
150.0 t - - - -~
-_
--------::::;;
___
....-.,::=--....:....-Y""=::c3;-:4-;-4.:-:13;::'-,.+-;;.7:;c.7:;;6:::-7-------------
~ 100.0t---~~----------------------------------------
,
,
,
,
300+-----.------,--------~------_r------~
I
200.0
50.0
t------------------------------------------------
0.0
+-----____----~------_.------~------~-
0.00
Elapsed Time (s)
0.10
0.20
0.30
Volume Fraction Evaporated (Fv)
Mackay Constants
BP MC252 ENT-052210-178
(automated)
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Fv
0.022
0.072
0.109
0.134
0.215
0.293
0.319
0.339
0.356
0.374
0.396
0.417
0.426
TblT
1.238
1.295
1.338
1.367
1.461
1.551
1.581
1.604
1.623
1.644
1.670
1.693
1.704
H
2.244E-04
1.287E-04
1.089E-04
2.737E-05
3.071E-05
7.128E-06
5.345E-06
4.785E-06
3.308E-06
1.708E-06
1.060E-06
8.178E-07
5.036E-07
In(H)
-8.402
-8.958
-9.125
-10.506
-10.391
-11.851
-12.139
-12.250
-12.619
-13.280
-13.757
-14.017
-14.501
calculated adjusted
Fv VS. Theta B (-slope)
Fv vs. Theta A (intercepti
12.30515
7.032316
-17-
15.9
12.9
0.40
0.50
Viscosity
BP MC252 ENT-052210-178
002315
Mass
Evaporated Viscosity Temperature
(Fm)
(cP)
eC)
4.1
15.0
0
0
1.4
35.0
42.9
15.0
0.31
35.0
0.31
10.3
0.41
85.1
15.0
0.41
22.8
35.0
rpm
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
Volume
Evaporated Viscosity Temperature In (Viscosity)
. (cP)
(Oe)
(Fv)
1.399
0
4.1
15.0
0
1.4
35.0
0.329
3.759
0.34
42.9
15.0
2.332
10.3
35.0
0.34
4.444
0.45
85.1
15.0
3.127
0.45
22.8
35.0
Spindle #
CP-42
CP-42
ep-42
CP-42
CP-42
CP-42
Shear
Rate
(s')
In(Viscosity)
461.0
461.0
461.0
461.0
461.0
461.0
1.399
0.329
3.759
2.332
4.444
3.127
Viscosity Constants for SL Ross Model

Standard Viscosity Temperature (K)
Standard Viscosity (cP)
Viscosity Constant 1
Viscosity Constant 2 (K")
5.000
~ 4.000
~
3.000
(J
5 2.000
:s 1.000
11T-Uro
(1(")
0.000
-0.0005
-0.000190564
-0.000415685
0.000190443
-0.000415685
-0.000190443
-0.000415685
-----
-0.0004
273.16
9.03
6.49
5646.99
..........
-0.0002
-0.0003
.-_._--
5.000
Viscosity
1e
(cP)
0
4.1
0.34
42.9
85.1
0.45
Volume
Evaporated
(Fv)
-0.0001
11T-11To
Viscosity
15C
(cP)
1.4
10.3
22.8
4.000
~(J 3.000
2.000
:s 1.000
0.000
0
---0.1
.-----:
~
0.3
0.2
Fv
-20-
0.4
0.5
Pour Point
BP MC252 ENT-052210-178
Interfacial Tension
Test Results
Pour Point Constants for SLR Spill Model
Fv
Fv
Pour Point
Measured Reported
(CC)
i'C)
0.000 <-10
0.345
0.447
Inilial Pour Point (K)

Pour Point Constant
264.6211
0.136472
9 less than
6
6
5
5
BP MC252 ENT-052210-178
Interfacial Tension
Dial Reading
Correction Factor IF)
OillWater OiUAir
OillWater Oil/Air
OillWater Oil/Air
Ildvnefcml (dvnefcm) I(dvneJcm) dvne/cm)
0.000
23.3
23.5
23.7
26.4
0.985
0.893
0.345
22.6
26.S
22.4
30.0
1.007
0.S96
33.4
1.019
0.447
22.5
0.900
30.1
22.1
slope
intercept
-1.841
23.273
Interfacial Tension Constants for SL Ross Model

OillWater Interfacial Tension (dyne/em)
23.273
OillWater Interfacial Tension Constant
0.079
OilfAir Interfacial Tension (dyne/cm)
23.300
Oil/Air Interfacial Tension Constant
0.574
13.365
23.300
slope 36.11327
intercept -8.528878
----------~
-------
10
E
i:
..
'0
"
Q.
Q.
002316
-10
0.000
--------
0.100
0.200
0.300
Fv
..--.
35.0
c
30.0
0
.~ - 25.0
~- < ~
20.0
I)
.~ ;. 15.0
~:s 10.0
0.400
0.500
..5
5.0
0.0
0.000
-----
0.100
0.200
0.300
Fv
-21-
---
0.400
0.500
OillWater
Oil/Air
1 - Linear (Oil/Air)
~ear (OillWater)
Flash Point
BP MC252 ENT-052210-178
SL Ross Model
Test Results
Flash Point Constants for SLR Spill Model

Initial Flash POint (K)
170.989
Fv
Flash Point
Flash Point Constant
2.647
(OC)
<-8
0.000
0.345
54
0.447
100
slope 452.664693
intercept 170.989269
---
120
~ 100
.c
.,
iF.
80
60
40
20
0
0.000
----~
0.100
Fv
002317
---
0.300
0.200
0.400
BP MC252 ENT-052210-178
Modeling Constants
0.500
Standard Density
Standard Density Temperature
Density Constant 1
Density Constant 2
Standard Viscosity
Standard Viscosity Temperature
OillWater Interfacial Tension
Air/Oillnterfacial Tension
OillWater Interfacial Tension Constant
Air/Oillnterfacial Tension Constant
Initial Pour Point
Pour Point Constant
ASTM Distillation Constant A (slope)
ASTM Distillation Constant B (intercept)
Emulsification Delay
Initial Flash Point
Flash Point Constant
Fv VS. Theta A
Fv VS. Theta B
B.Tg
B.To
838.736
288.720
128.770
0.70499
9.03203
273.160
6.4856
5646.99
23.2729
23.3002
-0.07910
0.57362
264.621
0.13647
344.133
360.927
9999999999
170.989
2.64733
12.90000
15.90000
5471.72
5738.73
kg/m3
K
kg/m3
kg/K.m3
cP
K
K-1
dyne/em
dyne/cm
K
K
K
K
-22-
Emulsification Formation - Tendency and Stability

- ... -.- ...
... _.. _.. - .. - -- _... ,
- -~~.-
Test Results
300ml H2C
22.5 C
oil@
39.0 C
mixing don
22.7 C
22.7 C
settling dar
22.7 C
Final 24 hr
two replicates of each oil
002318
Emulsion
All measurements in mm
Start
0
10
After first hour mixing
plus 10 minutes
0
plus 20 minutes
0
plus 30 minutes
0
0
After second hour mixing
plus 10 minutes
0
plus 20 minutes
0
plus 30 minutes
0
After third hour mixing
0
plus 10 minutes
0
0
plus 20 minutes
plus 30 minutes
0
After fourth hour mixing
0
plus 10 minutes
0
plus 20 minutes
0
0
plus 30 minutes
Appearance
BP MC252 ENT-052210-178
Brown solid
Brown viscous
liQuid
Black with
large droplets
Looks like oil
plus 24 hour
Conclusions:
Tendency
Stability
Water Content
X
0
X
0
Fresh Oil
Free Oil Emulsion
10
0
0
10
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
0
8
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
0
9
Free Oil
10
0
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Fresh Oil
Unlikely
Unstable
0%
-- --
Emulsion
0
11
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
Weathered Two Days

Unlikely
Unstable
0%
Weathered Two Days

Free Oil
Emulsion
10
0
0
11
0
0
0
9
9
0
0
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
10
0
10
0
9
0
9
0
0
10
9
0
9
0
9
0
~
~
--9
Weathered Two Weeks

Unlikely
Unstable
0%
(after 24 hr)
-23-
X
0
X
0
Free Oil
10
0
Emulsion
0
10
0
0
0
10
10
10
0
10
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
9
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
9
0
9
9
9
~
~
Weathered Two Weeks

Free Oil Emulsion Free Oil
10
0
10
10
0
0
10
9
0
0
9
9
9
0
9
0
10
0
0
10
0
0
10
0
9
10
0
0
10
0
9
0
9
9
9
0
9
9
0
0
0
10
0
10
0
9
0
9
0
9
9
--- --- ---
~
9
/'
9
X
0
_ _ ......... ....- ........ , ................... .......:1 _ ....... _
................. ..1
---
Test Results
300ml H2C
34.0 C
40.0 C
oil@
mixing don
36.0 C
22.0 C
settling dar
36.0 C
Final 24 hr
two replicates of each oil
All measurements in mm
Emulsion
Start
After first hour mixing
plus 10 minutes
plus 20 minutes
plus 30 minutes
After second hour mixing
plus 10 minutes
plus 20 minutes
0
plus 30 minutes
0
After third hour m ixi ng
0
plus 10 minutes
0
plus 20 minutes
0
plus 30 minutes
After fourth hour mixing
plus 10 minutes
plus 20 minutes
0
plus 30 minutes
0
002319
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Fresh Oil
Free Oil Emulsion
a
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
a
a
a
Appearance
Brown solid
Brown viscous
liauid
Blackwilh
large droplets
Looks like oil
plus 24 hour
note:
Conclusions:
Tendency
Stability
Water Content
(after 24 hr)
0
0
0
X
0
a
a
a
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
/
/
--- ---
0
Fresh Oil
Unlikely
Unstable
0%
a
a
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Emulsion
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
0
Free Oil
10
0
X
0
Weathered Two Davs

Unlikely
Unstable
0%
Weathered Two Days

Free Oil
Emulsion
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
~
~
.--
~
9
Weathered Two Weeks

Unlikely
Unstable
0%
-24-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
Free Oil
10
Emulsion
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
0
0
~
~
----9
a
0
0
Weathered Two Weeks

Free Oil Emulsion Free Oil
10
10
9
0
9
9
0
9
9
0
9
9
0
9
9
0
9
9
0
9
9
0
9
0
0
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
a
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
X
0
--9
Viscosity Measurements with Brookfield DV-III+ Rheometer

Nominal Test Temperature
15.0
RPM
120.0
120.0
120.0
Spindle
CP-42
CP-42
CP-42
Shear Rate
461.0
461.0
461.0
Spindle
RPM
% Torque
15
30
45
60
90
120
180
250
15
30
45
60
90
120
180
250
15
30
45
60
90
120
180
15
30
45
60
90
120
180
250
15
30
45
60
90
120
180
250
15
30
45
60
90
120
180
250
0.3
0.8
1.5
1.B
2.B
3.8
5.8
8.1
6.8
12.3
17.4
22.3
31.5
40.2
57.0
75.6
15.1
26.9
37.1
46.3
63.7
79.8
-over0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.3
2.2
3.0
1.2
2.4
3.7
4.9
7.3
9.7
14.4
19.9
2.8
5.5
8.3
10.9
16.1
21.4
31.6
43.4
Fresh
2 Day Weathered
2 Week Weathered
Fresh
2 Day Weathered
CP-42
CP-42
.
2 Week Weathered
Fresh
2 Day Weathered
2 Week Weathered
CP-42
CP-42
CP-42
CP-42
-25-
002320
Viscosity
4.1
42.9
85.1
Viscosity
1.4
10.3
22.8
RPM
120.0
120.0
120.0
Viscosity Shear Rate

cP
2.6
57.6
115.0
3.4
3.7
173.0
3.B
230.0
4.0
346.0
4.1
461.0
4.1
691.0
4.2
960.0
58.0
57.6
52.5
17.4
49.5
173.0
47.6
230.0
44.8
346.0
461.0
42.9
691.0
40.5
38.7
960.0
128.9
57.6
114.8
115.0
105.5
173.0
98.8
230.0
90.6
346.0
85.1
461.0
-over691.0
57.6
0.9
115.0
0.9
1.4
173.0
1.5
230.0
1.4
346.0
461.0
1.4
691.0
1.6
1.5
960.0
10.2
57.6
10.2
115.0
173.0
10.5
230.0
10.5
10.4
346.0
10.3
461.0
10.2
691.0
10.2
960.0
57.6
23.9
115.0
23.5
23.6
173.0
230.0
23.3
22.9
346.0
22.8
461.0
22.5
691.0
960.0
22.2
35.0
Spindle
CP-42
CP-42
CP-42
Temp
C
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
15.1
15.1
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.1
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
Shear Rate
461.0
461.0
461.0
1<===
<===
<===
<=:::::::
<==
<===

Origin
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A. (Exxon-Mobil)
Synonyms
Louisiana
API Gravity
32.72
(ca/c)
Equation for Predicting Evaporation

%Ev =(2.74 + 0.045
n In t
Where: %Ev = weight percent evaporated; T surface temperature (ee); t = time (minutes)
Sulphur Content
Weathering
(weight %)
Sulphur
(weight %)
0.49
(n=3)
10.9
0.71
(n=3)
19.7
0.79
(n=3)
27.7
0.88
(n=3)
Water Content
Weathering
(weight %)
Water
(volume %)
<0.1
(n=3)
10.9
<0.1
(n=3)
19.7
<0.1
(n=3)
27.7
<0.1
(n=3)
002321

Flash Point
Weathering
(weight %)
Flash Point
(0C)
<-10
(n=2)
10.9
42.3
(n=3)
19.7
80.7
(n=3)
27.7
>110
(n=2)
Density
Weathering
(weight %)
10.9
19.7
27.7
Temperature
(OC)
Density
(g/mL)
0.8668
(n=3)
15
0.8562
(n=3)
0.8888
(n=3)
15
0.877
(n=3)
0.9025
(n=3)
15
0.8906
(n=3)
0.9135
(n=3)
15
0.9018
(n=3)
Pour Point
Weathering
(weight %)
Pour Point
(0C)
-41
(n=2)
10.9
-19
(n=2)
19.7
-14
(n=1)
27.7
-11
(n=2)
002322

Dynamic Viscosity
Weathering
(weight %)
0
10.9
19.7
27.7
Temperature
(0C)
Viscosity
(cP)
18.5
(n=3)
15
10.1
(n=3)
54.8
(n=3)
15
23.7
(n=3)
217.3
(n=3)
15
48.9
(n=2)
515.9
(n=3)
141
(n=3)
15
Weathering
(weight %)
using Corexit 9500 ( %)
26.5
(n=6)
10.9
23.5
(n=6)
19.7
15.8
(n=6)
27.7
10.3
(n=6)
Adhesion
Weathering
(weight %)
Adhesion
(g/m2)
24
(n=4)
10.9
34
(n=4)
19.7
50
(n=5)
27.7
28
(n=4)
002323

Surface and Interfacial Tensions
Surface Tension (OillAir Interfacial Tension)

Weathering
(weight %)
Temperature
CC)
10.9
19.7
27.7
Surface Tension
(mNfm)
28.3
(n=3)
15
26.1
(n=3)
29.3
(n=3)
15
28.1
(n=3)
30.4
(n=3)
15
29.4
(n=3)
31.1
(n=3)
15
29.8
(n=3)
OillBrine (33%0) Interfacial Tension

Weathering
(weight %)
10.9
Temperature
(0C)
20.9
(n=2)
15
16.8
(n=3)
22
(n=3)
19.4
(n=2)
22
(n=3)
15
22.2
(n=2)
20.6
(n=4)
15
18.4
(n=3)
0
15
19.7
27.7
Surface Tension
(mNfm)
002324
002325

OillFresh Water Interfacial Tension
Weathering
(weight %)
Temperature
(0C)
Surface Tension
(mN/m)
20.8
(n=3)
15
15.5
(n=2)
25.2
(n=3)
15
15.8
(n=3)
25.3
(n=3)
15
22.3
(n=3)
24.7
(n=3)
15
21.9
(n=3)
10.9
19.7
27.7
Emulsion Formation
Weathering
(weight %)
Visual Stability
Unstable
10.9
Unstable
19.7
Unstable
27.7
Unstable
Complex
Modulus
(Pa)
Emulsion
Water Content
(%)
002326

Boiling Point Distribution
Cumulative Weight Fraction (%)

Boiling Point
(0C)
0%
weathered
10.9%
weathered
19.7%
weathered
27.7%
weathered
40
1.2
60
1.6
80
2.1
100
5.6
0.9
120
8.2
2.4
0.1
140
11.1
4.8
0.4
160
14.1
7.8
1.6
0.1
180
17.5
11.4
0.3
200
20.6
14.9
7.2
1.4
250
29.8
25.2
18.1
10.6
300
39.9
36.6
30.6
24.1
350
49.7
47.7
42.8
37.5
400
58.1
57.0
53.1
49
450
65.8
65.7
62.7
59.6
500
72.0
72.7
70.4
68.2
550
77.1
78.5
76.7
75.2
600
80.9
82.8
81.5
80.5
650
83.8
86
85
84.5
002327

Hydrocarbon Groups
Concentration
(%)
Component
0%
10.9%
19.7%
27.7%
weathered
weathered
weathered
weathered
Saturates
80.8
80.4
78.4
77.3
Aromatics
12.6
12.3
12.5
13.3
Resins
5.9
6.4
Asphaltenes
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.5
Waxes
1.7
1.8
2.2

Concentration
(1-19/9 oil)
Component
0%
27.7%
weathered
weathered
Benzene
1598
Toluene
3552
10
891
Xylenest
6164
Ca-Benzenes:j:
6680
190
Total BTEX
12210
12
Total BTEX and C aBenzenes:j:
18890
202
Ethylbenzene
tXylenes" include 0-, m-, and p-xylene isomers.

:rC"Benzenes" include eight isomers.
002328

n-Alkane Distribution
n-Alkane Component
n-CS
n-C9
n-C1O
n-C11
n-C12
n-C13
n-C14
tr-C15
n-C16
n-C17
Pristane
n-C18
Phytane
n-C19
n-C20
n-C21
n-C22
n-C23
n-C24
n-C25
n-C26
n-C27
n-C28
n-C29
n-C30
n-C31
n-C32
n-C33
n-C34
n-C35
n-C36
n-C37
n-C38
n-C39
n-C40
n-C41
TOTAL

27.7%
0%
weathered
weathered
4.33
4.12
4.12
4.56
4.25
4.14
3.81
3.88
3.48
3.05
2.1
2.24
1.35
2
1.7
1.55
1.33
1.13
1.03
0.92
0.72
0.54
0.49
0.42
0.38
0.31
0.23
0.18
0.16
0.15
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
59
0.21
1.S1
3.81
4.94
5.19
5.29
4.75
4.13
2.76
3.11
1.84
2.61
2.27
2.11
1.81
1.58
1.44
1.28
1.08
0.78
0.7
0.62
0.54
0.46
0.34
0.27
0.24
0.2
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.04
56.7
C17/PRISTANE
1.45
1.5
C18/PHYTANE
1.65
1.68
PRISTANEIPHYTANE
1.55
1.49
CPI
0.95
1.02
en
o
o
~
:::!,
(Q
:::T
a:
m
:::J
:S,
o
:::J
3(1)
:::J
....
11/
iG
Q.
p.a
m
3(1)
ca
n-C10
C"
:::!.
n-C12
n-C12
n-C14
n-C14
0'
...,
n-C16
n-C16
:
:::J
(J)
o
S.
iii
::::l
11/
()
Phytane~
n-C20~
n-C22
en
o
c::
g:
b
c
!:
Phytane
n-C20=
n-C22
n-C24
c.
(1)
::::I
I
n-C26
n-C26
n-C28
::
n-C28
3'
(')
(Q
cO
:.....
?ft
n-C30
n-C30
n-C32
n-C32
'<
n-C34
n-C34
:cr
n-C36
n-C36
S'
n-C38
n-C38
n-C40
n-C40
iii'
:::J
(N
.j>.
s::
iii'
OT
i'
:::s
Pristane
Pristane
n-C24
:::J"
:::J
o
0'
(Q
I\)
i.m'
il
;'
III
::r
002329
iii"
";;}
<ll
n-C1O
(6'
Q.
OT
III
CJ)
>
:::J
.j>.
n-C8
b
c:
(')
(1)
(,.)
(1)
:::J
(')
I\.)
n-CS
::r
(6'
:::J
.....
~
:::J
(1)
(')
ro
002330

PAH Distribution
Concentration (... glg oil)
0%
27.7%
weathered
weathered
Alkylated PAH
Naphthalene
COoN
C1-N
C2-N
C3-N
C4-N
Sum
248.6
952.7
1500.1
1765.7
886.3
5353
164.1
1058.9
1965.6
2403.6
1222.3
6815
134.4
569.8
654.6
427.4
251.8
2038
188.3
777.8
887.1
574.6
349.6
2777
40
125.7
237.4
205.5
609
55.4
172.4
323.1
272.6
823
67.3
181.7
291.4
246
804
94.8
253.2
396.4
354.1
1098
23
58.8
81.6
69.1
233
9037
1.63
1
1:0.62:0.31
30.4
80.1
108.4
90.7
310
11823
1.59
1.01
1:0.61 :0.31
Phenanthrene
COop
C1-P
C2-P
C3-P
C4-P
Sum
Dlbenzothiophene
CO-D
C1-D
C2-D
C3-D
Sum
Fluorene
CO-F
C1-F
C2-F
C3-F
Sum
Chrysene
CO-C
C1-C
C2-C
C3-C
Sum
TOTAL
2-m-Nf1-m-N
(3+2-m/phen)/( 4-19-+ 1m-phen)
4-m:2/3m:1-m-DBT
Other PAHs
Biphenyl
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo{k)f1uoranthene
Benzo{e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Perylene
Indeno( 1.2.3cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a.h)anthracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
TOTAL
94.32
8.15
17.9
2.47
3.7
8.64
5.19
2.1
0.37
4.07
0.49
30.37
0.5
0.86
1.23
180
120.6
10.7
24.27
3.61
5.1
11.33
6.35
3.73
1.24
5.97
0.62
38.95
1.12
1.12
1.99
237
002331

South Louisiana
Fresh
Qher e>A Priority PAH
150
':11.-,.,-, u:: -
, , , , ,
.11 II
,
(::
CD
..c
a.
a.
()
..-
()
()
()
..-
(")
I ....
I
ZI
......
()
(")
()
c:
CD
..c
a.
a.I
..-
()
0...I
()
CD
.0
(")
(::
i:5
..
II
,I ,I
Ol
- ,- I
..c
N
()
0-
u.I
0
()
(")
ro
:c
m
u.I
,
0-
()
..-
()
III
()
()
(")
()
Other EPA Prior'ty PAH
-I-I-
u::
8
<
<gj
m
11111
, I
0-
Co
C\'l
0I
..c
II
0I
':: 1
South Louisiana
27.7%w
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0...I
,III
0-
:52
0I
......
()
0I
(")
()
:52
<gj
m
u.
()
()
()
()
()
0
()
0-
ro
u.
f!:
0-
:c
m
..c
......
PAH Distribution for South Louisiana crude oil (119/9 oil)
Ol
(")
()
002332

Biomarker Concentrations
Concentration (lIg/9 oil)
Biomarker
C23
C24
C29
C30
C31 (8)
C31(R)
C32(S)
C32(R)
C33(S)
C33(R)
C34(S)
C34(R)
Ts
Tm
C27 al3l3 steranes

C29app steranes
TOTAL
0%
weathered
16.9
11.2
59.9
81.5
31
27.5
20.1
13,6
12.2
8,8
6.1
4.4
19
23.1
65
72.8
473
Diagnostic Ratios
C23/C24
C23/C30
C24/C30
C29/C30
C31(S)/C31(R)
C32(8)/C32(R)
C33(S)IC33(R)
C34(S)/C34(R)
TslTm
1.5
0.21
0.14
0.73
1.13
1.48
1.39
1.37
0.82
C27 a[:WC29apP
0.89
27.7%
weathered
22.7
14.7
75.9
105.6
40,2
35,7
25.1
17.4
15.4
10.5
7.3
5.2
24.3
30.3
85.8
94.3
610
1.54
0.21
0.14
0.72
1.13
1.44
1.46
1.41
0.8
0.91
002333

Origin
Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A.
Physical Properties
South Louisiana (USEPA Reference
Standard) (2004)
% Evaporative Mass Loss
0.0%
10.3%
20.1%
30.8%
5e
0.8456
0.8649
0.8773
0.8893
15e
0.8389
0.8579
0.8701
0.8815
0.8277
0.8472
0.8597
0.8713
Density (g/mL)
30 e
37.1
API Gravity
Dynamic Viscosity (mPas)
Hydrocarbon Groups (%w/w)
5e
10.7
20.1
41.6
113.9
15e
7.1
12.6
23.8
46.4
30"e
5.1
8.0
13.4
22.6
Saturates
79.4%
78.2%
77.7%
73.8%
Aromatics
16.9%
17.1%
17.4%
18.2%
Resins
3.4%
4.1%
4.4%
7.2%
Asphaltenes
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.8%
5"e
26.7
28.7
29.6
30.5
15"e
26.6
28.1
29.2
29.9
27.2
27.5
28.2
28.9
Surface Tension
(mN/m)
30 e
...... " ......................... n ... u.u,. ..... ... u *u ..
~
~_
... ............. .. * ........................ n ........ ......... _ ...................................................................................... _ U.n ................

~
5e
25.0
24.0
20.5
19.8
15"e
24.9
25.0
24.6
22.4
24.0
24.8
24.2
21.7
Interfacial Tension
(OillWater, mN/m)
30 e
............................... n
..............................................................u
Interfacial Tension
(Oil/33%o Brine, mN/m)
.......u
.......................... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5e
22.3
22.5
20.5
19.4
15e
22.0
22.7
22.2
19.4
23.7
23.7
23.2
21.4
30 e
002334

GC-TPH Distributions
Fraction
Total GC-TPHt

0% evap.
10.3% evap.
20.1% evap. 30.8% evap.
688
693
747
719
GC-Saturates/GC-TPHt
82.5
82.0
81.7
80.2
GC-Aromatics/GC-TPHt
17.5
18.0
18.3
19.8
Resolved Peaks/GC-TPH
20.8
20.6
18.5
15.9
68.4
196
369
55.0
61.2
210
367
55.6
29.1
240
414
63.2
GC-TPH in ranges: t
n-C B_ s to s n-C 10
n-C 10 < to s n-C 1S
n-C lS < to s n-C 34
n-C 34 +
1.03
195
456
66.9
tlncluding both resolved peaks and unresolved complex mixture areas.
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
meta- and para-Xylene
ortha-Xylene
Sum BTEX

10.3% eva~.
20.1% eva~. 30.8% eva~.
0% eva~.
2.65
0.63
0.00
0.00
3.51
0.06
0.00
6.33
1.12
0.19
0.00
1.32
5.76
5.30
1.29
0.00
2.31
1.94
0.72
0.00
18.37
12.50
2.26
0.00
Isopropylbenzene
Propylbenzene
3- and 4-Ethyltoluene
2-Ethyltoluene
Sum C3 -benzenes
0.34
0.40
1.73
1.49
0.51
2.12
0.17
6.76
0.34
0.44
1.75
1.52
0.53
2.18
0.18
6.94
0.15
0.23
1.10
1.10
0.36
1.68
0.77
5.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.06
Isobutylbenzene
1-Methyl-2isopropylbenzene
1,2-Dimethyl-4ethylbenzene
Amylbenzene
n-Hexylbenzene
0.11
0.12
0.07
0.00
0.05
0.14
0.05
0.00
0.38
0.04
0.03
0.41
0.05
0.04
0.38
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.04
25.1
19.4
7.65
0.06
25.7
20.2
8.23
0.18
BTEX + C 3-benzenes
All Target BTEX and
Alkyl-benzenes
002335

n-Alkane Distributions
Concentration (mglg oil)
n-Alkane Component
n-Cs
n-eg
n-e'Q
n-C l1
n-C'2
n-C n
n-C"
n-e ,S
n-C ,S
n-C17
Pristane
n-C a
Phytane
n-C ,S
n-C 20
n-C2l
n-C22
n-C23
n-C2
n-C2S
n-e28
n-C27
n-C 28
n-C 29
n-G so
n-G ll
n-C n
n-C.3
n-C,.
n-elS
n-C36
n-eS?
n-C3a
n-C3a
n-C.o
n-G4l
n-C 42
n-C 43
n-C 44
0% evap.
4.23
4.68
4.71
5.54
5.21
4.94
4.71
4.54
4.12
3.87
3.06
3.15
1.57
2.56
2.49
2.11
1.85
1.61
1,47
1.33
1.17
0.93
0.78
0.62
0.48
0.39
0.32
0.30
0.27
0.22
0.13
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
TOTAL
73.8
G'7/PRISTANE
C,8/PHYTANE
PRISTANE/PHYTANE
Odd Alkanes
Even Alkanes
CPI
1.26
2.00
1.95
33.9
35.3
0.96
10.3% evap.
20.1% evap.
30.S % evap.
3.46
4.77
4.84
6.06
5.87
5.56
5.39
5.18
4.57
4.38
3.48
3.59
1.80
2.89
2.85
2.36
2.06
1.80
1.65
1.46
1.39
1.05
0.90
0.69
0.53
0,48
0.35
0.33
0.28
0.25
0.16
0.11
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
81.0
1.26
2.00
1.94
37.6
38.1
0.98
0.29
2.38
4.34
6.63
6.63
6.26
5.80
5.64
5.27
4.98
3.91
3.98
2.00
3.31
3.06
2.65
2.32
2.03
1.83
1.61
1.45
1.09
0.94
0.76
0.65
0.49
0.36
0.36
0.32
0.30
0.18
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
82.4
1.27
1.99
1.96
38.8
37.7
1.03
0.00
0.00
0.15
1.78
4.18
5.53
5.88
6.13
5.42
5.33
4.22
4.35
2.19
3.57
3.40
2.80
2.51
2.21
1.99
1.83
1.68
1.23
1.01
0.80
0.64
0.54
0.41
0.39
0.36
0.33
0.21
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.04
71.8
1.26
1.98
1.93
32.9
32.5
1.01
002336
South Louisiana (US EPA Reference Standard) (2004)

1

I
.;
u"
0

Standard [2004) (Evap. 10.3%)
6
5
u"
.;
0

6
5
.;
~~~=~~~~~~~~j~~N~~~~~~~~gM~~~~~~~~~~~~~
uuuuuuuuiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
p..
'"

Standard 12004) (Evap. 30.8%)
.;
0
u
2
n-Alkane Distributions for South Louisiana USEPA Reference Standard (2004)
002337

PAH Distributions
Concentration (119/9 oil)
Alkylated PAHs
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Dibenzothiophene
Fluorene
Chrysene
Total alkylated PAHs

C2-N/C1-N
Ratios of C3-D isomers
Ratio of C1-P isomers
(C2D/C2P):(C3D/C3P)
CON:C1 N:C2N:C3N:C4N
rN:rp:rDBT:rF:rC
EPA Priority PAHs
Biphenyl
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b )fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Perylene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Total EPA Priority PAHs
TOTALPAHs
CO-N
C1-N
C2-N
C3-N
C4-N
Sum
CO-P
C1-P
C2-P
C3-P
C4-P
Sum
CO-D
C1-D
C2-D
C3-D
Sum
CO-F
C1-F
C2-F
C3-F
Sum
CO-C
C1-C
C2-C
C3-C
Sum
0% evap.
806
2026
2920
2563
1544
9858
145
396
460
371
229
1601
35.0
85.0
201
170
491
58.9
178
300
273
809
8.07
23.3
31.1
24.0
86.6
12844
10.3%evap.
20.1% evap.
30.8% evap.
938
2335
3324
2777
1697
11070
157
439
505
393
255
1748
35.2
88.1
216
184
523
61.9
195
314
312
883
8.47
24.9
34.0
26.8
94.3
14320
953
2500
3622
3093
1821
11989
177
481
557
451
274
1939
40.4
102
232
202
576
398
1951
3523
3337
2060
11270
212
551
629
514
319
2224
46.2
117
264
227
654
72.0
231
382
363
1047
10.9
32.1
43.6
33.8
120
15315
72.1
220
363
337
993
9.73
28.9
37.5
28.7
105
15601
1.59
1.59
1.57
1.51
1.00:0.54:0.17
1.00:0.54:0.18
1.00:0.55:0.21
1.00:0.54:0.20
0.88
0.89
0.87
0.87
0.44:0.46
0.43:0.47
0.42:0.45
0.42:0.44
0.52:1.31:1.89:1.66:1. 0.55:1.38:1.96:1.64:1. 0.52:1.37:1.99:1.70:1.0.19:0.95:1.71 :1.62:1.
00
00
00
00
6.16:1.00:0.31:0.51:0. 6.33:1.00:0.30:0.51 :0. 6.18:1.00:0.30:0.51 :0.5.07:1.00:0.29:0.47:0.
05
05
05
05
153
15.9
13.6
3.64
3.27
4.83
2.67
2.08
0.09
1.45
0.59
21.2
0.00
0.23
0.70
223
13067
180
18.8
16.5
4.31
3.87
5.62
3.25
2.20
0.12
1.50
0.62
24.6
0.00
0.25
0.78
262
14582
197
20.5
18.4
4.69
4.30
6.19
3.40
2.45
0.17
1.89
0.82
27.6
0.00
0.32
0.83
289
15899
179
20.4
21.6
4.89
4.61
7.02
4.01
2.54
0.24
'2.03
0.97
30.8
0.00
0.36
0.89
279
15594
002338

4500
3600

Standard 12004) (Fresh Oil)
200
100
50
2:
Cl. 2700
&:~ ~ .p::.t~
.;
I:
C>
Other EPA Priority PAns
ISO
1800
~ ~ ~
of: e.;5
900
0
.<::
Q,
4500
3600
z'"
-u u~
(>

200
Otber EPA Priority PAHs
150
100
50
2700
&:~~~u;.t~~~~~of:e.;5S
.;
cQ
c
u
P;- i:i '1 0 '1 ::> It
c
~ ....
~ .<:: P;- NP;- P;- ....
.<:: t.:r ~
N
.to
N M
u u e.." u u u'" u i5 u u u G:: U u u u U u U'"
1800
900
0
. :t
e..
..c Z Z ~
~ .! N M
Z
4500
3600
&i
.<::
u u u U~ e.. U
P;-
(3
~ 0J!
2700
1800
C
It ..c
:!U
t.(
N
t.:r
u
'"
100
50
&:~~~ii:.t~*~~~.l!e.;5S
.;
C>
South Louisiana US EPA Reference 200

150
~
'-'
. 0 ,..,
0 '1 ::I
'1 N
....
U U G:: U
900
0
..c Z
ft .!
Z
4500
3600
2700
cQ
1800
~ U~,.., U~ J!e..
.~
e.. e..
e..
N :'.t: ....
South Louisiana US EPA Reference 200

150
'1
.!. N
'"
(>
:::I
G::
It
U U~ U'"
It
E Ut.:r
t.:r Mt.(
100
50
'-'
&:~~~ii:.t~*~~~.l!e.;5S
.;
900
0
..c
li' ~ N~
~ ~
-.j-
U u '"
U
J!
e..
c..
l>;- e.. P;- ..j.
N
u
'"
...
d
c t.( t.( t.(
N J; .c
..8 '1 ~ '1 r;:;::> ~
u u u u u uN u'"
i5 u u u'"
(>
PAH Distributions for South Louisiana USEPA Reference Standard (2004)

002339

Biomarker Distributions
Concentration (Ilg/g oil)
Biomarker
C21
C22
C23
C24
C29 hoapne
C30 hopane
C31(S)
C3(R)
C32(S)
C32(R)
C33(S)
C33(R)
C34(S)
C34(R)
C35(S)
C35(R)
Ts
Tm
C27 a]3]3 steranes
C28ap]3 steranes
C29a]3]3 steranes
TOTAL
C23/C24
C23/C30
C24/C30
C29/C30
C31(S)/C31(R)
C32(S)/C32(R)
TslTm
C27a.]3p/C29app
L(C31 to C35)
homohopanes
C30tL(C31 to C35)
0% evap.
9.43
3.53
14.8
10.7
74.6
100
26.4
21.5
15.2
9.94
8.96
5.48
4.65
2.78
3.33
2.27
20.3
29.6
89.3
67.4
89.8
610
10.3% evap.
10.2
3.85
15.8
11.2
79.1
105
29.0
23.4
16.6
10.8
9.63
6.40
5.30
3.56
3.46
2.46
21.4
30.5
94.5
73.4
93.8
649
20.1% evap.
10.9
4.23
17.7
12.7
90.3
120
31.9
26.1
18.0
11.6
10.4
6.83
6.20
3.63
3.99
2.53
23.3
32.6
105
80.3
103
722
1.39
0.15
0.11
0.75
1.23
1.53
0.69
0.99
1.41
0.15
0.11
0.75
1.24
1.53
0.70
1.01
1.39
0.15
0.11
0.75
1.22
1.55
0.71
1.01
101
0.99
111
0.95
121
0.99
30.8% evap.
12.3
4.49
20.8
15.3
97.7
132
33.9
27.9
21.5
13.9
11.0
7.96
6.46
3.80
4.63
2.96
25.2
35.4
117
91.0
118
804
1.35
0.16
0.12
0.74
1.21
1.55
0.71
0.99
134
0.98
002340

180

Standard [20041 (Fresh Oil)
150
j
..;
u"
120
90
60
30
0
N
u
N
N
.,.
N
'"
N
180
g Gl g
0 0 u~ u~
'M
120
2-
90
u"
60
..;
Gl
g.,.
~
0 u
f-
.0
"
U
N
.0
00
N
.0
N
'"

150
~ 0~
30
0
N
U
N
N
.,.
N
g
N
'"
U
180
g
~ ~ ~ .,. ~ ~
0 0 0 U 0 U 0 0 0
~
..;
u"
f-
.0
.0
.0
"U
00
.0
.0
~
'"

150
120
90
60
30
0
N
U
N
N
.,.
N
180
'" 0 ~ g ~ g ~ g ~ ;;!;g ~
U
0 U U~ 0 U~ 0 U U
N
f-
.0
.0
.0
00
.0
.0
N
'"
120
2-
90
8"
60
..;
South Louisiana USEP A Reference

Standard [2004[ (Evap. 30.8%)
150
30
0
N
u
N
N
N
'"
u
g
U
~ g
0 U
M
g
N
~ ~
Gl
~ ;;!;
~ ~
f-
.0
.0
"U
00
Biomarker Distributions for South Louisiana USEPA Reference (2004)

.0
N
'"
Talking points for Markey testimony
002341
Subject: Talking points for Markey testimony

Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 17:05:20 -0700
To: "', Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, Frank Parker
<Frank.Parker@noaa.gov>
Dear Dr. Lubchenco, I have had experience with Rep. Markey and his staff so let me give you some
suggested talking points.
NOAA was concerned about the official estimates (see attached scan) of 1000 bbllday that, as late as
April 28, showed only 435 bbls on the water.
When we produced the 5000 bbl/day number (April 26), we stated that we would revisit it later as
more evidence became available.
The head of NOAA (you) took the lead in bringing in the NASA plane to help accurately map the
surface oil volume. You should have the exact date.
As early as May 12 NOAA was asking (I think through Charlie Henry as that was the date of my
email to Charlie) BP to give us their revised leak rate estimates
~ NOAA started assembling its own team of flow experts (I can fmd emails dated on the 13 th of May
but I think the initial contact was a day or two before) well BEFORE the NIC started the Flow Rate
Technical Team. On May 19.
THE POINT IS THAT NOAA, UNDER YOUR LEADERSHIP, WAS THE DRIVING AGENCY TO
GET ACCURATE VOLUME ESTIMATES.
We still are the lead agency on this. The team of experts, assembled by NOAA, will produce a
revised volume release range tomorrow for the President to announce on Thursday.
I think you should point out that NOAA stepped up when no one else would.
!SKMBT_C45010052516290.pdf rl
lofl
10/20/2010 11:50 AM
Estimated Oil Budget*
UNClAS!FOUO 213
Time:fo"re'ea$~d'(Jiltbti~~toi tttt;!:~UJf;J~~':='3>h()drs ". ,. '

Appr()Xi.nateM~a$~ren.ient"
()f()UPe"P~Y) ,,
:,6;rn~Q~t released
f1a~e,dori:(:icontinU6U$ release i(jf42
'(;itlJrmsYi/ayx8 days
002342
Amount naturally evaporated
450 Barrels
'Mchallically recovered
Amount naturally dispersed
50 Barrels
;iri;.:sl~u':B4r'l1i ng
Amount remaining in the water
Fate of the oil per day
Mechanically
recovered
7%
435 Barrels
Amount
naturally
dispersed
5%
Oil Life Cycle
002343
K..t:
ouogenool calcwaror explananon, lateSt

From: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:14:16 -0400
To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, Jennifer Austin
<Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, William Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, Dave
Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
CC: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
OK they have gone to the authors; Mark is making clear to them that timing is of
the essence and we need to get this done no later than COB (sooner better). OECC
may be making calls.
-----Original Message----From: Jane Lubchenco [mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.qov]
.
Westerholm; David Kennedy; HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror what
is in the pie chart. Because this is an interagency document, I've modified one
of the NOAA references toward the end. If authors are not in agreement with that
statement, we can simply remove it.
A brief description of the process used to do the calculations and the names of
the individuals involved plus reviewers, as per the FRTG doc.
thanks
HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff

Hi,
10f2
10/112010 3:44 PM
002344
KJ::,: ouaget tOOl calcwamr explanatiOn, latest
For NIST
Jennifer Austin
20f2
10/1/20103:44 PM
002345
JU:..
UUU~CL
LUUl
~i:1J~UHnUJ
cxpJi:1Jli:1UUJJ, li:1LC:;L

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:14:16 -0400
To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, Jennifer Austin
<Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, William Conner
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
CC: Margaret Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
OK they have gone to the authors; Mark is making clear to them that timing is of
the essence and we need to get this done no later than COB (sooner better). OECC
may be making calls.
-----Original Message----From: Jane Lubchenco [mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov)
Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring
is in the pie chart.
Because this is an interagency document, I've modified one
of the NOAA references toward the end.
If authors are not in agreement with that
statement, we can simply remove it.
A brief description of the process used to do the calculations and the names of
the individuals involved plus reviewers, as per the FRTG doc.
We need to get this to the ~uthors ASAP even if we don't have the full list
yet.
This is urgent.
thanks
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov)
Cc: Margaret Spring;Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov

Hi,
lof2
101112010 3:48 PM
002346
IU:,; uuugta LOUl \,;i:1l\,;Wi:1LUr t:xpli:1l1i:1L1UIl, Ii:1Lt::;L
Jennifer Austin
2of2
101112010 3:48 PM
002347
Ke: bUdget tool calculator explanatIOn, latest

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:08:15 -0400
CC: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, William Conner
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Margaret Spring
Dr. Lubchenco,
>From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark Sogge still outstanding. I
forwarded Steve's comments to Jennifer moments ago.
As for "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on the final list but have broken them out
between the. actual Tool development (the web interface etc) and the calculations (Bill
Lehr's team).
I have included also the latest report from the Tool to be included with the document sent
forward. Does this report satisfy the "brief description of the process used to do the
calculations"? Bill Lehr has a long, highly technical document but it would take some time
to produce a simplified version.
Mark
list yet.
This is urgent.
thanks
10f2
10/1/20103:48 PM
002348
Ke: Duaget toOl calcwator explanaTIOn, latest
Hi,
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell) www.facebook.cam/noaa.lubchenco
Content-Type:
application/msword
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 6.doc C
E
d
b
64
ontent- nco mg: ase
- DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget201 0 0 7 2 8 . p d f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Content-Type:
application/pdf
DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100728.pdf C
E
d
b
64
ontent- nco mg: ase
2of2
1011/2010 3:48 PM
002349
DRAFT 7.29
independent scientific community to produce an estimate of just how much oil has been skimmed.

Based on 60;000 barrels/day flow rate
"'Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
kimmed
3%
as of July 15 betweeD.3~5rriil1ionb~1~ of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonIBP
wellhead. (*Whenaimou:nced,new.FRtOfldwrate4~tdf81:'~sc~pew1n adjustthisand the.:percel1tages in
the oil budget.)
As shown in the pie chart (Figure 1). aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
collected just over %o/ii percent of the oil.
002350
dispersed by the application of nearly 50,QOQbarrels of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
beaches.
waters. The remaining amount, toughly 114 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
.
002351
Science Team
Marcia McNutt
MarkSogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
Tim Kern
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
002352


Report generated by mark,w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/2912010 11 :20 AM MDT.
002353
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
-tn
(1)
1,000,000
''-
.c
750,000
500,000
250,000
0
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-201

Report generated by mark.w.milier@noaa.gov on 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
002354

All units in barrels. See end notes for assump1ions.
Inland Recovery

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07129/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
002355
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
UJ 400,000
GJ
........
350,000
.Q
300,000
eel
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
May*2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Report generated by mark,w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
002356
Reference Notes


The Cumulative Disposition of Oil"Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amount of oil
reference material.
Discharged
Background
002357

the Q4000 are reported by BP entered daily by National Incident Command personnel, and used in the
I
Dispersed Naturally
more information.

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
002358

Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
002359
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) burn rate standards are used
International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (lTOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20:1 used
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

002360
.KC::
DUUgc:~
LOUI Cll.ICUli:l.LOf c:.x.pli:l.ru:mon,
I<m~:SL

From: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu. 29 Jul 2010 16:08:15 -0400
CC: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, William Conner
Dr. Lubchenco,
>From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark Sogge still outstanding. I
forwarded Steve's comments to Jennifer moments ago.
As for "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on the final list but have broken them out
between the actual Tool development (the web interface etc) and the calculations (Bill
Lehr's team).
I have included also the latest report from the Tool to be included with the document sent
forward. Does this report satisfy the "brief description of the process used to do the
calculations"? Bill Lehr has a long. highly technical document but it would take some time
to produce a simplified version.
Mark
what is in the
chart. Because this is an interagency document, I've
list yet.
This is urgent.
thanks
Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
Kennedy;
HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
10f2
1011120103:48 PM
002361
Ke: Duaget tOOl calculator explananon, latest
Hi,

oil budget report. The latest of htese reports would be
IASG), Sky Bristol (led the
team), and Tim Kern.
For NIST
For NOAA
Bill Lehr.
Jennifer Austin
Content-Type:
application/msword
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 6.doc, C
d'
b e64
ontent-Enco mg: as
- DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget201 0 0 7 2 8 . p d f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
,
Content-Type:
application/pdf
DeepwaterHorizonOiIBudget20100728.pdf C
E
d'
b 64
ontent- nco rng: ase
2of2
1011/2010 3:48 PM
002362
DRAFT 7.29
Deepwater HorizonIBP Oil Budget Calculator

*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
ad
The Flow Rate Technical (}roup (FRTG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July 15 p~~een-~;Smilj'i.t)~:'hcitrels of oil had. beenreleased from the Deepwater Horizo'Y'BP
wellhead. (~When:'annQil#g~i$;:ri~il;FitrGftQw~ia!~~J~j~esca~wlIFaaJUst tQrs:and.thepercentagesin
theoiibudget)
significant portion of the spilled oil. o/d% percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead by
002363
%% percent of the oil has dispersed naturally into the water column, and %% percent ofthe oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly 5.0;900~ba:tt~ls of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
to be done to quantifY the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the light
beaches.
oil. Around aqtiarter of the total has. been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into Gulf
waters. The remaining amount, roughly 1/4 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oiL
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from Ju1y 26,2010 for detailed
.
002364
infonnation and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based
on additional infonnation and further analysis.
Science Team
Marcia McNutt
Mark Sogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
TimKem
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
PruLambert, Env. Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
002365


002366
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
UJ
Q)
1,000,000
'"-
'('IS
.c
750,000
500,000
250,000
0
May~201
Expected Value -
Jun~201
JUI-2010

002367


002368
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
--.en
G)
-.
as
400,000
350,000
..a 300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-20 1O
Upper/lower Confidence Bounds

002369
Reference Notes


reference material.
Discharged
Discharge rates use flow limits from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements.
Background
002370
to collect additional data and refine these estimates, it is important to 'realize that the numbers can

Dispersed Naturally
Natural subsurface dis'persion is a calculation of the total discharge minus a calculation of subsurface
chemical disperSion multiplied by a factor of natural dispersion effectiveness derived from a scientific
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oil "removed.uSee background documentation for
more information.
'Most evaporative losses occur during the first 24 hours

002371
-The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor based on scienti'fic research and

Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
002372
oDifferent rates for non-emulsi'fied and emulsified oil
oDroplets smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed
olnternational Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20:1 used
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

002373
trwu:
1\.~:
l'lVfV\.
wants
to KnOW II
you are gomg to ou~r comm~n[S
Subject: [Fwd: Re: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments on the draft]
From: IMark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:06:57 -0400
To: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Jennifer Austin
<Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm
<Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, Margaret
Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>

Mark
-------- Original Message ------Subject:Re: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments on the draft
Date:Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:01:46 -0400
From:Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs~gov>
To:Mark K Sogge 
CC:Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov
References:<OFE7BBE4E1.316BDCD1ON8525776F. 007200A5-8525776F. 007200A9@LocaIDomain>
<OF469F484F .6C04F698-0N8625776F. 0072COAC8625776F. 0072D281 @LocaIDomain>
Thank you sir.
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
-----Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI wrote: ----To: Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI@USGS
Date: 07/29/2010 04:54PM
Subject: Re: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments on the draft
I thought that you and Marcia covered it well. I should have responded to that affect. Sorry!
Mark
Mark Sogge
lof2
10/1120103:49 PM
002374
Lt.wa:
Ke: NUAA
wants to KnOW
IT you
are gomg to orrer commems 0 ...
2255 Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Cell: 928-606-1286; FAX: 928-556-7266
mark sogge@usgs.gov
Stephen E Hammond---07/29/2010 03:45:15 PM---Stephen E. Hammond US Geological

Survey
From:
To:
Date:
07/29/201003:45 PM
Subject: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments on the draft
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
2of2
101112010 3:49 PM
002375
Lrwu .
.!\.v. J'IVrvI. WIl/lI.:; tV IIJIVW 11
yuu
WV gUlllg lV UBv! I,;UIIO/l"'1I1.:; U ...
Subject: [Fwd: Re: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments on the draft]
From: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul2010 17:06:57 -0400
<Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm
<Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy <David .Kennedy@noaa.gov>, Margaret
Spring <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Mark
-------- Original Message -----Subject:Re: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments on the draft
Date:Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:01:46 -0400
From:Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
To:Mark K Sogge 
CC:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov
References:<OFE7BBE4E 1. 316BDCD 1ON8525776F. 007200A5-8525776F. 007200A9@LocaIDomain>
<OF469F484F .6C04F698-0N8625776F .0072COAC8625776F. 0072D281 @LocaIDomain>
Thank you sir.
Stephen E. Hammond
National Geospatlal Program
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
-----Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DOI wrote: ----To: Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI@USGS
Date: 07/29/2010 04:54PM
Subject: Re: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments on the draft
I thought that you and Marcia covered it well. I should have responded to that affect. Sorry!
Mark
Mark Sogge
lof2
10/1/20103:49 PM
002376
Ll.wa: Ke:
l~Uf\A
wanlS to KnOW II you are gomg to Oller commenlS 0...
2255 Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Cell: 928-606-1286; FAX: 928-556-7266
mark sogge@usgs.gov
Stephen E Hammond---07/29/2010 03:45:15 PM---Stephen E. Hammond US Geological

Survey
From:
To:
Date:
07/29/201003:45 PM
Subject: NOAA wants to know if you are going to offer comments on the draft
Stephen E. Hammond
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
20f2
10/1/2010 3:49 PM
002377
.K.C: budget tool calcUlator explanatlOn, latest

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:04: 11 -0400
To: "Mark.W.Miller" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
CC: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, DaveWesterholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, David Kennedy
I've corrected a couple of typos. This looks good to me and the descriptions ofthe people involved is fine. Please plug the
numbers that are in the pie chart into the text and finalize it and send it to everyone copied here. Margaret will start it through
interagency clearance.
Jane
From: Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margaret
Spring
Dr. Lubchenco,
>From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark Sogge still outstanding. I forwarded Steve's comments to
As for "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on the fmal list but have broken them out between the actual Tool
I have included also the latest report from the Tool to be included with the document sent forward. Does this report satisfy
the "brief description of the process used to do the calculations"? Bill Lehr has a long, highly technical document but it
would take some time to produce a simplified version.
Mark
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror what is in the pie chart.
A brief description of the process used to do the calculations and the names of the individuals in\
We need to get this to the authors ASAF even if we don't have the full list yet. This is urgent.
thanks
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horj

Hi,
lof2
10/112010 3:49 PM
002378
Kb: Duoget toOl calcUlator explananon, latest

Jennifer Austin
. t'
Con t en t -Descrlp Ion: JL.doc
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 6.doc JL.doc Content-Type:

Content-Encoding:
application/msword
base64
- DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget201 0 0 7 2 8 . p d f - - - - - - - - - - -
Content-Description: DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget201 00728. pdf I

DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100728.pdf Content-Type:
. Content-Encoding:
20f2
application/pdf
base64
I
I
10/1/2010 3:49 PM
002379
DRAFT 7.29

*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
as of July 15 betWeeri3~5rt1iHionba.i-t:ls of oil had been ~eleased~omtheDeep\Vater Horiz~nlBP
wellhead. (*Wheil.~ounced~-:p.~*-Jt~ttG-fi'q\Y,r4t~I.)#?taJ;~s~~i:t~.Wl1"adjust;JhlSand.tlte~p~rceJ:1tages,:in
the oil 'budget.)
collected just over%% percent of the oil.
002380
It is estimated that 0/0% percent of the oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The
to be done to quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the Hght
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 1/4 of the
oil. Around aquatter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into Gulf
waters. The remaining amount, roughlyJ/4 is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed from
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from Jrily26, 2010 for detailed
002381
Science Team
Marcia McNutt
Mark Sogge
Steven Hammond
Sky Bristol
Tim Kern
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
002382

High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) .. Through July 28 (Day 100)

002383
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
-...cP 1,000,000
...m
(I)
Jl
750,000
500,000
250,000
May-201O
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-201

002384


002385
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
-~
til
:10.
400,000
350,000
~ 300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-201

002386
Reference Notes


The Cumulative Disposition of Oil II Barre I Graph" provides a representation of the total amount of oil
reference material.
Discharged
Background
announced. The most likely 'flow rate of oil is between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels per day. This
002387

RID and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the

more information.

002388
'The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor based on scientific research and

Measured amount removed via RITT and Top Hat
Skimmed
factored estimation of net oil content. The net oil factor is different for the Maximum and Minimum .
Removal scenarios .
'The actual amount of skimmed oil should ultimately be based on actual measurement
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark.w.milier@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Na,tional
002389
oDifferent rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

002390
Ke: budget tool calculator explanatIon, latest

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:29:21 -0400
CC: "Mark.W.Milier" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, William Conner
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, "Gilson, Shannon" <SGilson@doc.gov>
Hi All,
Attached is the latest version. Those who saw it earlier should note
line explaining subsurface oil that Steve suggested adding following
explanation of dispersed oil. Mark and I reviewed and reconciled the
should be final from a NOAA perspective.
serve as Appendix A.
an additional
the
edits. This
which will

I've added Shannon to this distribution list, so she can give a heads up to WH
communications and be in touch with Heather and others about release plans as
necessary.
I
I
Thanks, Mark. It's great that all of the authors are comfortable with the
document.
I've corrected a couple of typos. This looks good to me and the descriptions of
the people involved is fine. Please plug the numbers that are in the pie chart
into the text and finalize it and send it to everyone copied here. Margaret will
start it through interagency clearance.
Jane
*Cc:* Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David
Kennedy; HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the latest version that includes comments from you, me, Marcia and Bill
Lehr.
From the standpoint of the document review we have Mark Sogge still outstanding.
I forwarded Steve's comments to Jennifer moments ago.
Ion
101112010 3:50 PM
002391
Ke: DUGger toOl calcmawr explananon, latest
As for "author" credit Jennifer and I are working on the final list but have
broken them out between the actual Tool development (the web interface etc) and
the calculations (Bill Lehr's team).
I have included also the latest report from the
document sent forward. Does this report satisfy
process used to do the calculations"? Bill Lehr
document but it would take some time to produce
Tool to be included with the

the "brief description of the
has a long, highly technical
a simplified version.
Mark
is in the
chart.
Because this is an interagency document, I've modified one
of the NOAA references toward the end.
If authors are not in agreement with
that statement, we can simply remove it.
A brief
of the process used to do the calculations and the names
of the individuals involved plus reviewers, as per the FRTG doc.
thanks
-.----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:JeDnifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
Kennedy;
Cc: Margaret
; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov <mailto:Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re:
tool calculator explanation, latest

Hi,
The
chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from
26

who OSGS thinks should be identified for this document. A short list
20f3
10/1/20103:50 PM
002392
Ke: budget tool calculator explananon, latest
Jennifer Austin
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
. .
. .
. Content-Type:
application/msword
011 Budget description 7 29 v 7.doc: C
E
d'
b
64
. ontent- nco mg: ase
-HeepwaterHorizoI'l0i1Btldget2:B1Be'72.a:pdf-----------------------.- -
..
--
,,"
,."
....
-.-
'"
..
. --
..,,'
.. ., . -.-
......- ... -." - "'---- ----" .....-" _.,-"".
-~.
.. - ',.-
- - ... -
i Content-Type:
application/pdf
.Dee p waterHorizonOilBud g et20100728. Pdf. C
d'
b 64
; ontent-Enco mg: ase
.
30f3
.-
,.
-,'"
,.,-
,.
10/112010 3:50 PM
002393
DRAFT 7.29

*Remaining oil is
<15 light sheen or
has been
biodegraded. or has
already come
ashore.
5%
3%
;
1........ _ .........._ ................... _ ............ _ _ ........_ ....._............. ......... _ .._ _ ................_ .................................._ ...._.................. ............................................
Figure 1: Oil Budget Ca1culator- Shows what has happened to the oil.
wellhead.
002394
beaches.
002395
Attachments
002396

Authors
Credits
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) ~ Technical advisors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
002397
Deepwater Horizon
MC2~2
Gulf Incident Oil Budget

002398
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
-tn
(1)
1,000,000
'-
'-
as
.c
750,000
500,000
250,000
0
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
JuJ-2010

002399

Inland Recoyery

002400
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) .. Through July 28 (Day 100)
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
w 400,000
CD
~
~
C\1
.a
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
May-201O
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
JUI-201
Upper/Lower Con'fidence Bounds

Report generated by mark,w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
002401
Reference Notes


released over time based on low and high discharge estimates, the relattve amounts of oil recovered or
reference material.
Discharged
The Discharge values shown in the reports come Jrom the low and high estimates determined by the
Background
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
002402
Recovered via RID and Top Hat

spill now. Values for the amount recovered by the vessels Helix Producer, Discoverer Enterprise and
Dispersed Naturally
chemical dispersion multiplied by a factor of natural dispersion effectiveness derived from a scienti"fic
method of determining oil dispersion in the water column. A higher factor is used for the IIMaximum
Removal u scenario to result in a larger amount of oilllremoved. u See background documentation for
more information.
Evaporation and dissolution occur naturaliy with oil on the surface. This element in the report is the

002403
Evaporation is calculated differently for "freshll oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil

Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
002404
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) burn rate standard~ ciire used
International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20:1 used
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

002405

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:33:16 -0400
To: "'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'" <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>,
"'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'" <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
CC: "'Mark.W. Miller@noaa.gov'" <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>, "'william.conner@noaa.gov'"
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>, "'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov''' <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>,
"'Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov'" <Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov>,
"'David. Kennedy@noaa.gov'" <David. Kennedy@noaa.gov>, IIIdwh .staff@noaa.govlll
<dwh .staff@noaa.gov>, "'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'" <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>,
IIISgilson@doc.gov'" <Sgilson@doc.gov>
Westerholm <Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy <Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov>;
HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,

the document.
clearance.
lof3
10/1/20103:51 PM
002406
Jane
Dr. Lubchenco,
and Bill Lehr.
with the document sent forward. Does this 'report satisfy the "brief
'Mark
!

A brief description of the process used to do the calculations and the names
thanks
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner: Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm: David
Kennedy: HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov <mailto:Jane.lubchenco@noaa.Gov>

Hi,

2of3
1011120103:51 PM
002407
For USGS
Jennifer Austin
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
30f3
10/1120103:51 PM
002408

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:46:43 -0400
To: IIImargaret.spring@noaa.gov'" <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>,
"'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'" <JennifEir.Austin@noaa.gov>, IIIJane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'"
CC: "'Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov" <Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov>, "'William. Conner@noaa.gov'"
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>, "'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov" <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>,
IIIdave. westerholm@noaa.gov" <Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov>,
"'David. Ken nedy@noaa.gov" <David. Kennedy@noaa.gov>, "'dwh .staff@noaa.gov'"
<dwh .staff@noaa.gov>, "'Sgilson@doc.gov'" <Sgilson@doc.gov>
Jane Lubchenco
(202) 482-3436
----- Original Message ----From: Margaret Spring <marqaret.spring@noaa.gov>
To: 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>i
'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov' <Jarte.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Cc: 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov' <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>; 'william.conner@noaa.gov'
<william.conner@noaa.gov>: 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>;
'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>: 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'
<David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>;
'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov' <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; 'Sgilson@doc.qov'
<Sgilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul.29 19:33:16 2010
Cc: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>: William Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>: Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>: Dave
Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>; David Kennedy <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>:
HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; Margaret Spring
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>: Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,
lof4
10/1120103:51 PM
002409

Any further
comments~
let me know, Jen

the document.
clearance.
Jane
*From:* Mark.W.Miller [mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.govl
David Kennedy; HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
Dr. Lubchenco,
and Bill Lehr.
Mark
2of4
10/1/20103:51 PM
002410

A brief description of the process used to,do the calculations and the names
thanks

Hi,

For USGS
'who USGS thinks should be identified for this document. A short list
30f4
10/1/2010 3:51 PM
002411
Jennifer Austin
I
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
40f4
1011120103:51 PM
002412
Subject:Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest

From: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:53:07 -0400
CC: IIIJennifer.Austin@noaa.govlll <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>,
"'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'" <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, "'william.conner@noaa.gov'"
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>, "'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov''' <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>,
"'Dave. Westerhol m@noaa.gov'" <Dave. Westerhol m@noaa.gov>,
"'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'" <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'"
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, "'Sgilson@doc.gov'" <Sgilson@doc.gov>
Margaret,
Mark Sogge, Steven Hammond, and Marcia McNutt, (representing USGS development
team) and Bill Lehr (representing the calculation team)
Mark
Cc: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>i William Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>; Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>i Dave
Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>i David Kennedy
Sent: Thu Jul 29 19:29:21 2010
Hi All,
lof4
10/1/20103:51 PM
002413

the document.
clearance.
I
appreciate everyone working so quickly on this.
Jane
*Cc:* Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholmi
David Kennedy; HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
Dr. Lubchenco,
and Bill Lehr.
Mark
I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions
mirror what is in the
chart. Because this is an interagency
document, I've modified one of the NOAA references toward the end. If
authors are not in agreement with that statement, we can simply remove
it.

A brief description of the process used to do the calculations and
the names of the individuals involved plus reviewers, as per the FRTG
doc.
We need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the
full list yet. This is urgent.
20f4
10/1/20io 3:51 PM
002414
thanks
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner: Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm;
David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<mailto:Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov>
7.29.
Please use this version dated

Hi,

The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July
26
For USGS
see
30f4
10/1/20103:51 PM
002415
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco <http://www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
40f4
10/1120103:51 PM
002416

From: "Sarri, Kristen" <KSarri@doc.gov>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:21:33 -0400
To: "Spring, Margaret" <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, IIIdwh.staff@noaa.gov'"
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, "Westerholm, Dave <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, "Kennedy,
David" <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>
ll
Hey AlIt
I am seeing this report for the first time and am not sure if NOAA or DOC OLIA
are aware of it.
We have to make sure that for critical document like these go through the
clearance process.
Thanks.
lofl
10/1120103:51 PM
002422
DRAFT 7.29

*Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .1
wellhead.
002423
Sixteen percent of the oil dispersed physically into the water column, and 8 percent ofthe oil dispersed
result of the oil coming out of the broken'riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which caused
some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the diameter of a human hair).
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.govI JA G/reports.html).
Attachments
002424
002425
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil "Budget Calculator:

Authors
Credits
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
002434
DRAFT 7.30

"Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
i
i
I
..................,"""""..",,,,""""'",,',,'' ' ..,,'''''.,,''--'"'''''-''"'"-''''',-"'-"""""'---_.,-'"-,-""""'"""""""""., ,,""'""'' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' "' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' "."",j
Figure 1; Oil Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oil.
wellhead.
002435
Sixteen percent of the oil dispersed physically into the water column, and 8 percent of the oil was
002436
Attachments
002437
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil "Budget Calculator:

Authors

Credits
LCDR Lance Lindgren and CDR Peter Hoffman (USCG) -Application requirements
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
Michel BoufadeI, Temple Univ.
002449
DRAFT 7.30v2

"Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
wellhead.
002450
Naturally occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the oiL Bacteria
continued monitoring and research. Note on degree of confidence in calculations: The Oil Budget calculations are based on direct
information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refmed based
002451
Attachments
002452

Authors
Marcia McNutt, USGS, DOr
Mark Sogge, USGS, DOr
Steven Hammond, USGS, DOr
Credits
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, rsco
Peter Carragher, BP
002469
nnal 011 bUdget calcUJator descnphve report
Subject: final oil budget calculator descriptive report

Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:58:58 -0400
To: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
DWH Staff, attached is the final report, cleared and reviewed by the NrC, Bill Connor, Dr
Lubchenco and other agencies. FYI, will be public soon.
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (officel 202-302-9047 (cell)
~ww~acebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
Oil Budget description 8 3 FINAL.docx
I of I
.C t t T
application/vnd.openxmlformatson en - ype.
officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Content-Encoding: base64
101112010 3:54 PM
002470

quarter (26%)
becomes available.
Deepw,ater Horizon Oil Budget

sheen and weathered

ashore or been
collected from the
sand and sediments.
Unified
Command
Response
Operations

naturallv.
002471
Dispersion: Based on estimates, 16% ofthe oil dispersed naturally into the water column and 8% was
shown evidence of diffuse clouds of dispersed oil-between 3,300 and 4,300 feet in very low
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/lAG/reports.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
biodegrade.
002472

were based on previous scientific analyses, best available infonnation and a broad range of scientific
expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based on additional infonnation and further
analysis. Further infonnation on these calculation methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf

activities, results and data to the public on a regular basis. Updates and infonnation can be found at
www.geoplatfonn.gov.
002473
002474

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
LTOg) Charity Drew (USCG) Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
Rebecca Uribe (USGS) Graphic design
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espina O'l"IST) - Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
002476
VII ouugct KCpon
Subject: Oil Budget Report

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 201008:51:49 -0400
To: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
CC: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, "KSarri@doc.gov" <KSarri@doc.gov>,
"KGriffis@doc.gov" <KGriffis@doc.gov>, "justin.kenney@noaa.gov" <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
Thanks!
Content-Description: Oil Budget description 8 3 FINALdocx

.

application/vnd. openxmlformats011 Budget description 83 FINAL.docx Content-Type.
officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Content-Encoding:
loft
'I
base64I
10/1120103:54 PM
002477

becomes available.

Based an estimated release of 4.9m barrels of oil
Unified
Command
Response
Operations

sheen and weat~ered

ashore or been
collected from the
sand and sediments.
Chemically
Dispersed*
8%
naturally.
002478
1ms includes oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat
biodegrade.
molecules from the oil separate and dissolve into the waterjust as sugar can be dissolved in water.
operations, dispersion, and evaporation and dissolution), an estimated 26% remains. 1ms figure is a
from the shore, and some that is buried in sand and sediments and may resurface through time. 1ms oil
002479
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water colwnn and oil on the surface of the water biodegrade
reports. The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest ofthe numbers
Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1, 2010 (available online). The tool was created by the US
understanding of the fate, transport and impact of the oiL The federal government will continue to report
DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to refme understanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
ecosystem and wildlife impacts. DOr and DOE responders are working to ensure control of the well and
002480
Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spil1 on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources
002481
Deepwater HorizonfBP Oil Budget:

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
program
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (USGS) - Project vision and management ,
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
002482
Ke: VII tiuaget Kepon
Subject: Re: Oil Budget Report

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 201008:56:09 -0400
CC: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, "KSarri@doc.gov"
<KSarri@doc.gov>, "KGriffis@doc.gov" <KGriffis@doc.gov>, "justin.kenney@noaa.gov"
<Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>,
Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov, Mark W Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
PDF version.
Jen Pizza, can you please forward to leadership list.
thanks,

- please convert the report to a PDF and send it around.
I Jen
Jen
Thanks!
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
; Content-Type:
application/pdf
Oil Bu~get description 8 3 FINAL.pdf:
.
b
64
: Content-Encodmg: ase
1 of 1
10/1/2010 3:54 PM
002483

becomes available.

Unified
Command
Response

sheen and weathered
ashore or been
collected from the
sand and sediments.
Ope.rations
ed
8%
naturally.
Figure 1: Oil B?dget - Shows current best estimates of what happened to the oil.
002484
of the oil to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defmed as
biodegrade.
002485

analysis" Further information on these calculation methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf

002486
accurate measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the environment. 001 is leading efforts to
002487

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
program
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
002488
UiL HUUUET Kl.:iPUKT - PUJ:' AlTACtlliU
Subject: OIL BUDGET REPORT - PDF ATTACHED

Date: Wed. 04 Aug 2010 09:00:07 -0400
attached.
.
Content-Type:
application/pdf
E
d"
b
64
Oil Budget description 8 3 FINAL.pdf C
. ontent- nco mg: ase
10ft
1011/20103:55 PM
002489

ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Oil in the reSIdual and
becomes available.

Unified

sheen and weathered
ashore or been
collected from the
sand and sediments.
Command
Response
Operations
8%
naturally.
002490
as a result of the oil coming out ofthe riser pipe at high speed into the water column, which caused some
ofthe oil to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defIned as
biodegrade.
scientifIc research and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident.
operations, dispersion, and evaporation and dissolution), an estimated 26% remains. This fIgure is a
002491
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water colwnn and oil on the surface of the water biodegrade


\\VIW.restorethegulf.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oiL NOAA
002492
002493
Deepwater Horizon/UP Oil Budget:

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
program
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
002494

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:18:42 -0400
To: Robert Haddad <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>, Tony.Penn@noaa.gov, Mark W Miller
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Quick question for you, related to the the oil budget report going out this
morning, we're pulling together Q&A for Dr. for her briefing with Gibbs this
afternoon, Can you answer this question? Thanks, Jen
1.
What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial liability
for this
? *
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
lofl
1011120103:55 PM
002495
10E- can you help here?: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
Subject: JOE- can you help here?: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
From: Christy Loper <Christy.Loper@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:41:17 -0400
To: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
cc: Robert Haddad <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>, Tony.Penn@noaa.gov, Mark W Miller
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Joe
Inslee <Joe.lnslee@noaa.gov>
.
Hey Joe,
Kate Clark is out of the office accompanying Dave Westerholm for his
Can you help with the answer to this question?
Many thanks! ! !
Christy
Quick question for you, related to the the oil budget report going out this
morning, we're pulling together Q&A for Dr. for her briefing with Gibbs this
afternoon, Can you answer this question? Thanks, Jen
1.
lofl
10/)/20103:55 PM
002496
Fw: UPDATED: Press Secretary Gibbs, Jane Lubchenco, Thad Allen...
Subject: Fw: UPDATED: Press Secretary Gibbs, Jane Lubchenco, Thad Allen and Carol
Browner to hold briefing at 1:OOPM EDT
From: Justin Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:48:04 -0400
To: '"dwh.leadership@noaa.gov''' <DWH. Leadership@noaa.gov>, IIIdwh .staff@noaa.gov'"
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
Facebook: www.facebook.comlnoaa.lubchenco
From: White House Press Office <noreply@messages.whitehouse.gov>

To: justin,kenney@noaa.gov <justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
Sent: Wed Aug 04 10:42:16 2010
Subject: UPDATED: Press Secretary Gibbs, Jane Lubchenco, Thad Allen and carol Browner to hold briefing at
1:00PM EDT
Updated Briefing Schedule

1:00PM
NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, National Incident Commander
Admiral Thad Allen and Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol
Browner will join Press Secretary Robert Gibbs at the Press Briefing
Unsubscribe
The White House' 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW . Washington DC 20500 . 202-456-1111
lof1
101112010 3:55 PM
[Fwd: AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS wha

...
002497
Subject: [Fwd: AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS what happened to
oil report]
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:49:59 -0400
<Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner <William. Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen
<Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>
Mark
-------- Original Message -------Subject:AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS what happened to oil
report
Date:Wed, 04 Aug 201009:31:03 -0500
From:Borenstein, Seth <
@ap.org>
To:Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov
Mark,
Thanks,
Seth
Seth Borenstein
@ap.org

ofl
10/1/20103:55 PM
002498
Re: [Fwd: AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USG ...
Subject: Re: [Fwd: AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS what
happened to oil report]
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:04:26 -0400
To: "Mark.W.Milier" <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
CC: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>
Hi Mark,
You don't have to call him, he's been calling us all, as has every network. We've
already gotten back to him. For now we are telling everyone to stay tuned for the
release, hopefully coming soon, and the White House just announced that Dr
Lubchenco will be with Gibbs for this afternoon's briefing, so that will take care
of a lot of questions. We'll handle follow up after that.
Thanks, Jen
Mark
Original Message -------Subject:
AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USGS what
happened to oil report
Date:
Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:31:03 -0500
From:
Borenstein, Seth
@ap.org>
To:
Mark,
I'm Seth Borenstein, science writer at the Associated Press. Can you call me as
soon as possible at
Thanks,
Seth
Seth Borenstein
@ap.org>

[IP_US_DISCjmsk dccc60c6d2c3a6438fOcf467d9a4938
Jennifer Austin
lof2
10/1120103:55 PM
002499
Re: [Fwd: AP science writer seeks to talk to you about NOAA-USG ...

202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
20f2
10/1120103:55 PM
002503
Subject: FW: [Fwd: Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill]
From: Justin Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov> .
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:30:45 -0400
To: "Deepwater Staff (dwh.staff@noaa.gov)" <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, "DEEPWATER
Leadership (dwh.leadership@noaa.gov)" <DWH.Leadership@noaa.gov>
FYI, also going up on NOAA.gov soon.
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
DATE: August 04, 2010 10:22:24 CST
Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from

BP Spill
Key contact numbers
Report oiled shoreline or request volunteer
infonnation: (866) 448-5816
products: (281) 366-5511
Submit your vessel for the Vessel of Opportunity
Program: (866) 279-7983
Deepwater Horizon
Incident
Joint Information
Center
Phone: (713) 323-1670
(713) 323-1671
WASHINGTON - The vast majority of the oil from the BP oil spill has either evaporated or been
burned, skinuned, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed - much of which is in the process of being
degraded. A significant amount of this is the direct result of the robust federal response efforts.
A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater HorizonlBP spill was
released today.
dispersed naturally into microscopic droplets. The residual amount, just over one quarter (26 percent),
is either on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been
10f3
10/1/2010 3:55 PM
002504
degrading quickly.
These estimates were derived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
the Department of the Interior (DOl), who jointly developed what's known as an Oil Bridget
impacts."
understanding the damages and impacts of the spill on the Gu~ of Mexico ecosystem is something that
the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE, and
academic scientists are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate.
It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in
the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels,
and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements wherever possible and the best available
20f3
10/1/20103:55 PM
002505
scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The nwnbers for direct recovery and
burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports. The skimming nwnbers were
also based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the nUmbers were based on previous scientific
analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These estimates wiIi
To view the full BP oil spill budget report, click here.

v.202-482-6093 I c.202-536-8~11 I NOAA.gov
30f3
10/1/20103:55 PM
[Fwd: Fw: ent to reporters]
002506
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: ent to reporters]

From: Amanda Hallberg Greenwell <Amanda.Haliberg@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:12:15 -0400
To: _NOAA HQ leadership <NOAAHQ.Leadership@noaa.gov>, "'dwh.staff@noaa.gov'''
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Michael Jarvis <MichaeI.Jarvis@noaa.gov>, Jessica Kondel
<Jessica.Kondel@noaa.gov>
Markey statement re the Oil budget report.
Subject: Fw: ent to reporters

From: "Unruh-Cohen, Ana" <Ana.UnruhCohen@mail.house.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:59:31 -0400
To: lIIamanda. hallberg@noaa.gov'" <Amanda. Hallberg@noa~.gov>
Fyi.
OUf
statement. Ana
Ana Unruh Cohen, Ph. D.

& Global Warming
From: Sharp, Jeff

To: Sharp, Jeff; Chenault, Jacqueline; Phillips, Jonathan; Gray, Morgan; Gallagher, Mark; McClory, Maggie;
Dirico, Rocco; Goo, Michael; Baussan, Danielle; Butler, Sarah; Scozzaro, A.Tianna; Steinbuck, Jonah
Cc: Unruh-Cohen, Ana; Duncan, Jeff; Freedhoff, Michal; Joseph, Avenel
Sent: Wed Aug 04 12:40:26 2010
Subject: ent to reporters
For Immediate Release

Contact: Jeff Sharp, Chairman Markey, 202 225 4079
MARKEY: Administration Report Suggests Progress in Cleaning up the Gulf, but Vigilance
Still Required
WASHINGTON DC (August 4, 2010) - Today the National Incident Command released an
interagency report estimating the amount and fate of the oil spilled out ofBp 1 s Deepwater
Horizon leak.
In response, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass), Chairman of twin climate and energy panels in the
House of Representatives, released the following statement:
"1 applaud the efforts by federal, state and local governments who have worked with local fisherman
and workers in the Gulf on an unprecedented response effort to capture, bum and skim oil following
BP's horrific oil spill. However, at least 50% of the oil from what is now the largest oil spill in history
remains in the environment in some form. That is the equivalent of nine Exxon Valdez-sized spills and
10f2
10/1120103:55 PM
002507
[Fwd: Fw: entto reporters]
does not account for the methane that has also been released from this well.
"Families working in the Gulfs imperiled fishing and tourism industry deserve nothing less than a
100% effort to ensure that both the environment and the economy fully recover from the damage
caused by BP's oil spill.
"We still have an environmental crime scene in the Gulf of Mexico, and all Americans, especially Gulf
Coast residents, fully expect investigators to continue monitoring health and safety hazards in the
months and years ahead so the region can fully recover."
###
--------..
Amanda Hallberg Greenwell <amanda.hallberg@noaa.gov> I

I
Associate Director
Office of Legislative Affairs

i Fw: ent to reporters.eml

i _____ ____
20f2
__ ___ _
Content-Type:
message/rfc822
_~~~~~~_~_~~:~~_i~~~_~_~!~_______________ _
10/1/20103:55 PM
Federal Science Report Details Fate ofOiJ from BP Spill
002508
LATEST PRESS RELEASE ISSUED FROM THE JIC:

Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from SP Spill
WASHINGTON - The vast majority of the oil from the SP oil spill has either
evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed
using chemicals - much of which is in the process of being degraded. Much of
this is the direct result of the federal response efforts.
A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater
Horizon/SP spill was captured or mitigated by the Unified Command recovery
operations, including burning, skimming, chemical dispersion and direct recovery
from the wellhead, according to a federal science report released today.
An additional
percent of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, and
16 percent was dispersed naturally into microscopic droplets. The residual
amount, just over one quarter (26 percent), is either on or just below the
surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected
from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Dispersed and residual oil
remain in the system until they degrade through a number of natural processes.
Early indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.
These estimates were derived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the Department of the Interior (DOl), who jointly
developed what's known as an Oil Budget Calculator, to provide measurements and
best estimates of what happened to the spilled oil.
The calculator is based on
4.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gulf, the government's Flow Rate
Technical Group estimate from Monday. More than 25 of the best government and
independent scientists contributed to or reviewed the calculator and its
"Teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since day
one of this spill, and based on the data from those efforts and their collective
expertise, they have been able to provide these useful and educated estimates
about the fate of the oil,n says Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for
oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. "Less oil on the surface does not
mean that there isn't oil still in the water column or that our beaches and
marshes aren't still at risk. Knowing generally what happened to the oil helps
us better understand areas of risk and likely impacts."
The estimates do not make conclusions about the long-term impacts of oil on the
Gulf. Fully understanding the damages and impacts of the spill on the Gulf of
Mexico ecosystem is something that will take time and continued monitoring and
research.
Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the
water column and at the surface. While there is more analysis to be done to
quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early observations and
preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil from
the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA,
EPA, DOE, and academic scientists are working to calculate more precise estimates
of this rate.
It is well kn6wn that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered
surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm
water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the
Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.
Residual oil is also degraded and weathered by a number of physical and
biological processes. Microbes consume the oil, and wave action, sun, currents
and continued evaporation and dissolution continue to break down the residual oil
in the water and on shorelines.
2of3
, 1011120103:55 PM
002509
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements wherever possible
and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not
possible. The numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directly and
reported in daily operational reports. The skimming numbers were also based on
daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were based on previous
scientific analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific
expertise. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional information
becomes available.
To view the full Inter-Agency Report Describing the Oil Budget Calculator click:
here.
Further information on the calculation methods is available in the Deepwater
Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1, 2010 at:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories20l0
!PDFs/DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100801.pdf
Very Respectfully,
Nate MacKenzie
Lieutenant, USCG
Congressional and Governmental Affairs
(202) 437-6197
30f3
10/112010 3:55 PM
002515


people who depend on the Gulffor the livelihoods and enjoyment.
002516
estimates.

~hus far, 37,000 tons of oiled debris have been removed from shoreL .. __ .
Comment [kll: I heard Sean mention this, but I

haven't Independently c:onflrmed.lf$ possible that I
dreamed It.
002517


- quantify the location and concentrations of subsurface oil, and results, as

002518

and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand
and sediments.
at the surface.
Is there oil on the seafloor?

itself not sitting on the sea floor. That's an important distinction to make because I think there's
a misconception.

We've seen some of those impacts play out in ways that are more obvious because they're at the
surface.
002519
from this.
A recent JAG report said that you found oil subsurface in the 4-7 ppm range. Is that still
the case?
droplets, microscopic droplets and in very, very dilute concentrations falling offvery steeply as
002520
have results soon.

There are a number of factors, one thing to keep iIi mind, is that oil that was natural
It is hard to give a direct comparison, as each spill is unique. Because this is further from
002521
and has recently released it second report about that subject.
These results confirm that the dispersant used in response to the oil spill in the gult Corexit
available alternatives. The results also indicate that dispersant-pil mixtures are generally no
efforts?
successful in dealing with nearly one third of the oil. We have also been fortunate that
7. How long will the oil be present and visible in the Gulf There is very little visible oHleft in Gulf waters. At this point there are small amounts of
8. What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial liability for
this spill?
002529
SUbject: RE: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
From: "Robert.Haddad" <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 201010:59:29 -0400
To: 'Steve Block' <Steve.Block@Noaa.gov>
CC: 'Jennifer Austin' <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Tony.Penn@noaa.gov, 'Mark W Miller'
<Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, '_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, 'Dave Westerholm'
<Dave. Westerho1m@noaa.gov>
It has nothing to do with the oil budget. Just so that's clear, if 100 bbls
of oil are released, the per bbl penalty would be assessed on all 100 bblsi
even if 50% of the oil that was released evaporated.
Bob
Office: 301.713.4248x110
Cell: 240.328.9085
www.darrp.noaa.gov
-Original Message----From: Steve Block [mailto:Steve.Block@Noaa.gov]
To: Robert.Haddad
Cc: 'Jennifer Austin'; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; 'Mark W Miller'; '_HQ Deep Water
Horizon Staff'; 'Dave Westerholm'
Subject: Re: need quick help with Q on oil Budget NRDA
The estimated barrels of oil released into the Gulf may, however,
impact BP's liability of a civil fine under the Clean Water Act. Under
a clause added to the CWA following the Exxon Valdez spill, the federal
government can fine BP up to $4,300 per barrel of oil released into the
Gulf.--Steve
Jennifer:
NRDA. This is because the under OPA, the Natural Resource injuries have
Itobe
documented by the trustees and the causal linkage between the spilled
oil
actions arising as a result of the spill. In other words, we can't say
NOAA/Office of Response& Restoration
Office: 301.713.4248xl10
Cell: 240.328.9085
www.darrp.noaa.gov
-----Original Message-----
002530
From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
'Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 ~0:19 AM.
To: Robert Haddad; Tony,Penn@noaa.gov; Mark W Miller; _HQ Deep Water
Horizon
Staff
Subject: need quick help with Q on oil Budget NRDA
1.
RE: Q&As and TPS on Oil budget - - pIs help!
002531
(Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov) I; Medina, Monica; Larry Robi,nson; Sarri,

Kristen; John Gray (work) (john.gray@noaa.gov); Amanda Hallberg;
'Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov'; Oil spill staff (dwh.staff@noaa.gov);
Costanza, Jennifer
Subject: Re: Q&As and TPS on Oil budget - - pls help!
Attached are the latest, TP's and 2 separate Q&A's. We are working on a
transcript of the briefing, there were a few sections where she explained
things very well. I'll send that as well when I get it.
To be clear, the raw data are not available, the report is available online.
This is a result of measurements where possible (collected from Unified command
daily reports, etc), and best estimates where measurements were not possible.
Bill Lehr was the NOAA science lead for the group putting together
calculations, they have not released a technical report on the calculations.
That has to go through the FRTG and is not yet available.
Online now is the 5 page report. As well as the Daily Report From the
Calculator itself, which does provide, in the reference notes section, further
information about the calculations, just not ALL the details.
Hope this helps.
C~n you send around to all of us on this email the current TPS and
Qo.As on the oil budget document, so we have them?

Amanda and John - pls let OPA and NOAA Comms know of other Qs being
asked - so we can get the Q&Asout to the staff.
Thx
Margaret
Margaret Spring
Chief of Staff
(202) 482-3436
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
20f3
10/1/20103:57 PM
RE: Q&As and TPS on Oil budget - - pIs help!
002532
Kate Clark, Regional Resource Coordinator NOAA Office of Response and Restoration
Assessment and Restoration Division www.darrp.noaa.gov
NOAA Headquarters Det-ail (7/10-6/11)
RM 10110, SSMC4
(Office) 301-713-3038-x105
(Cell)
301-785-7802
(Fax)
301-713-4387
Permanent Duty Station:
28 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882
v: 401-782-3235
f: 401-782-3201
30f3
10/1120103:57 PM
002598
quarter (26%)
becomes available.

Unified
Command

sheen and weathered
tar balis, has washed
asllore or been
Respons@
Operations
collected from the

sand and sediments..
8%
naturally.
002599
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.govIJAGlreports.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
biodegrade.
002600

The numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured directly and reported in daily operational

Our knowledge ofthe oil, dispersants, ecosystem impacts and human impacts will continue to evolve.
002601
mitigate impacts of oil to terrestrial wildlife, natural resources, and publiclands.
in the Gulf region will take time and .continued monitoring and research.
002602

Acknowledgements
Authors
Stephen Hammond, USGS, Dor
Credits
program
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
J ames Payne, Payne Env.
Ed Overton, LSD
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Dating, SINTEF
Michel Boufade!, Temple Univ.
o Atlanta
o Goleta
o Wilminton
o Walnut Creek
0 _ _ _ __
CHAIN
0\"
o East Greenwich
o Sacramento
o Olympia
o Edmond-
o Gig Harbor
o Ventura
o Tacoma
OF CUSTODY AND ANALYTICAL REQUEST RECORD
Entrix C~ntact
rY\0%2
A--nAI.-Y <;t S
o Dearborn
o Dallas
o Okemos
o Boston
o Houston
role..
to \It T ALI
WiLL
Page
of--_
ANALYTICAL REQUEST-
m. LO\,)\ ~ .Lo..mm OYl
. l
Project No.
:$r(s)
~'1::I
_.ure:
",\~t.Sample
'1 10
Alrbill No
Date
lime
Comp
Grab
1\
oft:'
Ii t
"
Comments
1I
co~ P, L...:r;
. .G:7'
t IGUt:l.(t2bll t>i IC*'\
ft
002605
"-' c,.. 1.!5 '2.. (U<;;.e rf\\J~ lf12-7fr.o b4l.14
No.of _ Sample /
Cont.
Media
-"
--->
- r-
"-
!
-
Total Number of Containers

Relinquished By
1\
Date
1'YI-o<.o~~. l..o\Jl ,\Jll.Jll'\o\rnon~ lj/?{J/10
(J
lime
I1Rece d By
-~-/
DC10~
~(~ ill.
VjJVI
.... _.-
.... -
FOl"M # ENT-131
--
....... -
....
_--
Date
.lime
5bJltJ b'jff
v
002606
5/3/2010
ZymaXID
Sample ID
41824-1
MC-252 Riser Fluid
Evaporation
n-Pentane In-Heptane
2-Methylpentane 12-Methylheptane
0,60
1.07
Waterwashing
Benzene I Cyclohexane
Toluene I Methylcyclohexane
Aromatics I Total Paraffins (n+iso+cyc)
Aromatics I Naphthenes
0.34
0.43
0,31
1,22
Biodegradation
(C4 - C8 Para + Isopara) I C4 - C8 Oletins
3-Methylhexane In-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane In-Heptane
Isoparaffins + Naphthenes I Paraffins
0.00
0.39
1.17
1,54
Octane rating
2,2,4,-Trimethylpentane I Methylcyclohexane
0.00
Relative percentages Bulk hydrocarbon composition as PIANO

w
% Paraffinic
% Isoparaffinic
% Aromatic
% Naphthenlc
% Olefinic
Submitted by,
Zymax Forensics, a DPr;fo Company
~~
Shan-Tan Lu, Ph.D.

Director of Forensic Geochemistry
30.20
27.26
23.40
19.14
0.00
002607
5/3/2010
41824-1
MC-252 Riser Fluid
ZymaXID
Sample ID
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34A
34B
35
I.S.#1
Propane
Isobutane
Isobutene
Butane/Methanol
trans-2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3-Methyl-1-butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-1-butene
Pentane
trans-2-Pentene
cis-2-Pentene/t-Butanol
2-Methyl-2-butene
2.2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane/MTBE
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
3-Methylcyclopentene
3-Methyl-2-pentene
cis-2-Hexene
3-Methyl-trans-2-pentene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
5-Methyl-1-hexene
Cyclohexane
2-MethylhexanelTAME
'2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-trans-3-Dimethylcyclopentane
1-cis-3-Dimethylcyclopentane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
13,13,13-Trifluorotoluene
0.00
0.35
0.00
1.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.19
0.00
0.00
3.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.93
2.77
1.76
5.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.91
0.35
1.05
0.00
3.10
2.13
0.71
2.30
0.73
1.24
0.00
0.00
002608
5/3/2010.
41824-1
MC-252 Riser Fluid
ZymaXID
Sample ID
36
37
38
39
40.
41
42
43
44
45
46A
46B
47
48
49
50.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60.
61
62
I.S.#2
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70.
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,5-Dimethylhexane
2,4-Dimethylhexane
Toluene/2,3,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3-Dimethylhexane
2-Methyl~eptane
4-Methylheptane
3,4-Dimethylhexane
3-Ethyl-3-methylpentane
1,4-Dimethylcyclohexane
3-Methylheptane
2,2,5-Trimethylhexane
n-Octane
2,2-Dimethylheptane
2,4-Dimethylheptane
Ethylcyclohexane
2,6-Dimethylheptane
Ethylbenzene
m+pXylenes
4..Methyloctane
2-Methyloctane
3-Ethylheptane
3-Methyloctane
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
p-Bromofluorobenzene
Isopropylbenzene
3,3,5-Trimethylheptane
'2,4,5-Trimethylheptane
n-Propylbenzene
1-Methyl-3-ethylbenzene
5.91
6.94
0..32
0.46
0.07
2.96
0.56
2.58
0.74
0.17
2.21
1.63
,0.00
0.32
5.0.8
0.00
0.36
2.60
0.72
0.79
3.70
0.85
1.04
0.23
1.22
1.07
0.00
4.55
0.00
0.17
0.37
0..76
0..69
0.68
0.39
1.41
0.61
002609
5/3/2010
ZymaXIO
Sample 10
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89'
90
91
92
41824-1
MC-252 Riser Fluid
3-Methylnonane.
Isobutylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
n-Decane
Indan
1,3-Diethylbenzene
1,4-Diethylbenzene
n-Butylbenzene
1,3-Dimethyl-5-ethylbenzene
Undecene
1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene
Naphthalene
2-Methyl-naphthalene
0.00
0.08
1.41
0.14
0.31
4.47
0.60
0.00
0.69
0.29
0.33
0.52
0.98
0.40
0.33
0.00
0.32
0.39
0.51
0.58
1.47
1.21
002610
C3-C44 Whole Oil Analysis.

1) Whole Chromatogram
2) Expanded Chromatogram (in 3 pages)
3) Quantitation Report with peak areas
Reviewed by: STL
002611
.,...
'IS
,...
OJ
E&O-U
a;
,..
.,...
ZE::ru
U.
e1
If
0
!!!
r~
gl:O-U
yC:O-u
tf
lZO-U
12.
ar
0::
SZO-U
aZ0-U
0
0
080-11
i 2
H:O-u
...
I~
ac:o-u
EZO-ll
ZZ::ru
Iii
E#SI
6~o-U
a~o-u
0
<D
l~O-u
:E
:::::
.~
!!::>
9~O-u
9~O-U
Ii)
\1~O'u
::t
III
8~o-U
1)
~
Q)
1=
11)
j:!~o-u
Cl.
E
.c
HO-U
()
..;~
at
l:# 'S'I
gS
09 69
1:9
v~"
i....
8\1
It:
0
0
at:
:;s
0&
I
i
0..
a1:
De:
....
0
9~
Q.
Iil
<D
'"
c
l()
.....
C\i
68
I.f)
IR
I.f)
'<t
'"~
0
0
(Q
911011111111'4 esuociS9H
'"
10
'"
0
.....
~
~
c
0
!
0..
1[
g
<5
c
~
~
....
61
(;)
~l
I\)
:.l
Rl
~
tII-
<::I
-I
t:".
IE
a,.
:1-9.09 17
"'" 10.85 20
0-12.03 28
0-13.36 28
3
1..:62: 14.79
11
<>-9.29 18
-???7
7,31
0.9.87 19
~--
! ~-13.72
r=
~ -I g
e,"
~j~
.....
05.911 4
p=-5P_S.762
'"
9
~
1394 30
:>-14.52 31
.. 1507
. 33
32
~~iiE::.:-1~5~.48~-15.BB_15.B4 34A 346
5l
""16.48 ,,"16.70 18 #1 36
3
III
::!
I
16.03 37
;s::
18.83- 1B.9L 19.05 38 39
-19AL1~63
-I
I
-19.94_ 20.13
"'20.3841A
~'E
20.!:IlO 21
~"ill .21 7.0:021.82_
44
45 - 21.31 43
469 46A
21.94_ 22.07
f}
III
06.. - "".~u_
-23.26
I~
;!'<.Ool.
~i r
i
~ 23.64 49
ifJ.."'"
-"'''.~~- . . ~.v . "" .. 26.65 52
en
"-".w
"" 27.36
56
~
~
i
I
i
~ -I
~
o
.!.
~~~ffi_ _ _~===-=======-ao..:ta.1~30.28
I.S. #2
i
i
s.w
38.08 76
---------
002612
i....
::::::
-hFi'?t
:!::
CD
....~
al.
I
g
Response. MilliVolts
....
a
!sl
0
iii
en
en
01
I
f)
"1:1
....
Q
.....
~ .. 4114 -........
r:===
41 34"- .. ,.\1'__
H
...
04148o.C11
<:)
b
Q
Q
.....
. :O'~(:(-~4~6~'~~f~_4~6~.1~O~~~_____________________ .,. 48.43 nC12
~..o,5B-48.7t47.09
.- ..
I-C13
'.51. 47.68
04.. 48.13. 48.38
.48.'~i
48.eo. 48.78. 48.93
- 4ii 4i.31. 49.46 I-C14 91

-.49.70. """'~_ 499 92
~.
.:-=-=... _
8l -I
fF1'9~
>
50.10 ""13
9
a3
.~~
1J
~~ ....y-" ';."'''- 52.15. 52.87

32.44 52 75. 52.80
-
~

_A
~"
53.03. 53.1 8
i~1
'---d-54.41
055.16 n-C15
H.illl
W-~W'Y.
":'56.44
1.86
~,.z. 56:22_'53.4'2"
:>057.10 n-C16
a.58.82 o.C17
t-v IV
" IiS.Co Pl1siane
g1
I
).11_ 60 21
"" aO.38
-61.31'61.46
>-61.62o.C19
....... I'I.~
12.53_
62.62 .. 62 89 -1:1<:.01:1
i 01
,. 83.16
' - 63.91_ 63.99

!'0
en
en
"" 65.84 n-C22
65.96. 66.09. 66.1 6. 66 88

66.39_ 66.50. 66.60. ea. 72
- 67,09. 6722
7.4667.66'
n-C20
,. 64.43 .. 84.08 IS #3 0-021
- 65:33 .. 110. Ig .. 00''''''.65 51
fr
n-C18
"" 60.60 Phylane
1.24'61.37
9
a
:!!
0>
~
....
~
RJ
~
:g
!ll
OJ
3
;0
;::I.
~
c:
D'M''''' 0"'.0 .... fjl,j.t<J- 51,j.tI0 52.89 n-C14
I-C15
'gj
0
iii
0
71
:I
.....
0>
.....
"" 66,79 n.C23
- 67.53. 67.79
0-
67.95 l1.d24
: s"t!8.13_ 68 30. 68 39
. ::S-""
' . 68 68
~.6a.73_68.86.
ci
11
~6~ 69.67- 69.63
e-- -70.01_ zn 38
1;; lu.a6' 70,97
. 69Q4
""69.18 n-C25
,.10.49 0-026
I\)
Q,
Q)
I:
002613
"'0
::I.
:::'I
l:Y
0
I
0
::::t
~....
0
0
c:;1-
:.:;.
...
II
I
,
Iz-1'1- 73 .13
Response MilliVolts
at
gj
0
!sl
c
at
<.II
(1)
<:>
~
<:>
<.II
<:>
0
f2
~
~<:>
"0
7ue n-C28
!!?-74.15. 7440
" 74.72_ 74.93
7568
0 76.40 n-029
:> -75.88_ 76.06
-76.73
n_77.19- 76.e8
!
71.52 n-C30
. -77.89
-78.27
I\)
.....
p]
0
(j)
"'0
3:
.....
~
ll
at
0
0>
....
0
b
0
0
....
-I
p-
.~
79.98 n-C31
-BO,45
"80.84
81.80
~ -I.
82.84 n-C32
-83.26
- 83.81
I.
6tl.34
86.18 n-C33
"'0
~
a
(")
r.:9001~
::1<0
3 0
C1I
...""
-91.35
:::::l
:s::
2en
II\)
..;g
-93.48
<II
Ii
,S
94.60 n-C36
<0
01
a.
::::::
'ijl
<:>
~+
I~....
- 99.15
g 1
99.88 n-C36
011
f>
103.54
0..,
en.
.....
I
";9
(Q
(D
(.oJ
!'>-106.13
Ii
L._._.
_",....J
(j)
:::r
a3
iiil
.3
~
~
002614
002615
Chrom Perfect Chromatogram Report
Sample Name
=41824-1 [(MC-252 Riser Fluid [SOO+500cs2]] + IS F.Q11810-1
Instrument = Instrument 1
Heading 1 ::
Heading 2 =
Acquisition Port = DP#
Raw File Name:: C;\CPSpirit\2010\May10\050310.0001.RAW

Method File Name = C:\CP8plrlt\C344.met
Calibration File Name:: C;\CPSplrlt\041610.cal
Date Taken (end) = 5/3/2010 1 :18:56 PM

Method Version:: 44
Calibration Version:: 2
Peak Name
2
4
8
11
C82
15
17
18
19
20
26
27
28
30
31
32
33
34A
346
18#1
36
37
38
39
40
41A
42
43
44
45
466
46A
48
49
Printed on 51312010 2:16:18 PM
Ret. Time
5.47
5.75
5.98
6.85
7.31
8.08
8.21
9.09
9.29
9.87
10.65
11.90
12.03
12.24
13.36
13.72
13.94
14.52
14.62
14.79
15.07
15.48
15.66
15.74
15.84
16.48
16.70
18.03
18.25
18.63
18.91
19.05
19.43
19.53
19.94
20.13
20.38
20.89
21.31
21.41
21.52
21.70
21.82
21.94
22.07
22.45
22.68
22.83
22.92
23.06
23.26
23.64
23.75
24.24
24.96
Area %
0.0721
0.1050
0.4341
0.6622
1.0759
0.4211
0.0294
0.2805
0.8357
0.5299
1.5650
0.0404
0.8771
0.1053
0.3177
0.0235
0.9343
0.6425
0.2137
0.1171
0.6934
0.2299
0.2199
0.0518
0.3746
1.5840
1.7820
2.0934
0.1587
0.1221
0.0974
0.1398
0.1396
0.0288
0.1339
0.0221
' 0.8942
0.1702
0.7784
0.2219
0.0502
0.0218
0.4911
0.6671
0.2437
0.0832
0.0439
0.0411
0.0973
0.0175
0.2843
1.5338
0.1782
0.0256
0.0323
Area
42974.10
62587.52
258748.10
394672.70
641231.90
250985.60
17530.33
167199.50
498087.40
315839.00
932752.90
24083.65
522763.40
62750.78
189327.00
13990.41
556882.60
382947.00
127362.90
69772.29
413255.70
137052.50
131082.20
30853.27
223273.30
944053.80
1062087.00
1247703.00
94574.24
72747.44
58075.26
83347.86
83174.57
17180.12
79780.78
13184.64
532973.10
101428.10
463918.10
132256.70
29940.91
12996.35
292731'.20
397618.60
145234.90
49574.00
26192.48
24491.65
57993.90
10426.39
169473.50
914177.00
106228.90
15238.56
19241.90
Page 1 of6
002616
Peak Name
61
52
63
54
56
56
57
58
69
60
62
1.8.#2
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
72
73
74
75
76
77
79
Printed on 5/3/2010 2:16:18 PM
Ret. Time
25.23
25.31
25.65
26.01
26.09
26.40
26.80
27.00
27.36
27.78
27.92
27.98
28.33
28.41
28.80
28.90
29.18
29.27
29.41
30.16
30.28
30.46
30.64
30.87
31.01
31.13
31.23
31.34
31.52
31.69
31.76
31.87
32.01
32.09
32.30
32.39
32.54
32.66
32.75
33.10
33.23
33.56
33.82
33.92
34.07
34.27
34.45
34.70
34.89
35.01
36.10
35.19
35.27
35.77
35.S7
36.08
36.32
36.46
36.57
36.81
36.97
37.27
37,43
37.71
37.81
38.00
38.26
Area %
0.1088
0.0832
0.7837
0.2117
0.1363
0.0446
0.2389
0.1507
1.1167
0.0870
0.2578
0.3136
0.0682
0.3696
0.3234
0.0526
0.0859
0.2576
0.1506
1.3739
1.6339
0.1901
0.0593
0.0508
0.0339
0.1283
0.0989
0.1118
0.0583
0.0285
0.1252
0.2948
0.0725
0.0828
0.2289
. 0.0713
0.0389
0.1536
0.2079
0.2053
0.1179
0.4263
0.1749
0.2507
0.1854
0.0353
0.2847
0.0507
0.0230
0.4256
0.1520
0.0731
0.1243
0.0417
0.0925
1.3481
0.0219
0.0206
0.1812
0.0390
0.0859
0.1091
0.3067
.0.0809
0.2207
0.0379
0.2085
Area
64821.07
49578.13
467110.10
129735.20
81234.09
26572.54
142362.60
89826.98
665578.80
51878.50
153652.30
186933.10
40672.50
220293.70
192760.10
31369.05
51224.17
153516.20
89761.22
818848.90
973807.30
113296.80
35348.11
30297.56
20223.20
76496.52
58969.49
66658.46
34734.37
16979.93
74632.52
175713.80
43193.43
49362.79
136415.00
42491.60
23159.11
91531.32
123932.40
122342.30
70257.13
254072.00
104220.90
149410.70
110473.30
21061.38
169673.10
30231.18
13697.19
253688.20
90568.94
43548.28
74063.51
24841.08
55140.86
803485.90
13045.00
12266.80
107981.90
23229.11
51195.95
65037.45
182779.30
4B239~26
131564.40
22607.22
124294.80
Page 2 of6
002617
Peak Name
80
81
8;2
83
84
85
nC11
87
88
89
90
nC12
iC13
i-C14
91
92
n-C13
Printed on 5/3/2010 2:16:18 PM
Ret. Time
38.48
38.63
39.04
39.27
39.44
39.63
39.75
39.97
40.07
40.27
40.69
40.90
41.01
41.14
41.34
41.48
41.78
41.95
42.10
42.21
42.47
42.76
42.95
43.27
43.44
43.57
43.87
44.04
44.28
44.34
44.54
44.75
44.83
44.97
45.08
45.30
45.40
45.61
45.77
45.87
46.10
46.43
46.58
46.77
47.09
47.41
47.51
47.68
47.79
48.04
48.18
48.27
48.38
48.52
48.60
48.76
48.93
49.16
49.31
49.46
49.70.
49.83
49.98
50.10
50.19
50.29
50.50
Area %
0.0750
0.0882
0.1009
0.1546
0.1583
0.2946
0.1205
0.1661
0.0991
0.0282
0.1344
0.0700
0.0664
0.0744
0.0990
1.4416
0.0626
0.0966
0.1176
0.0248
0.1089
0.0715
0.1820
0.3060
0.0600
0.1540
0.1295
0.1216
0.1502
0.1566
0.2151
0.2702
0.1749
0.0508
0.1795
0.0479
0.0870
0.1001
0.0850
0.2361
0.1217
1.5127
0.0961
0.0245
0.3472
0.0716
0.0421
0.1099
0.0712
0,2377
0.0782
0.0432
0.0493
0.1862
0.1428
0.1755
0.1954
0.2035
0.3188
0.4430
0.0944
0.2021
0.3647
1.6019
0.0939
0.0419
0.2562
Area
44691.29
52542.65
60165.98
92121.59
94359.02
175568.00
71826.77
98976.03
59090.69
16789.72
80086.56
41703.13
39569.54
44341.32
59011.68
859200.40
37285.39
57553.73
70105.71
14809.26
64889.91
42624.54
108455.10
182388.10
35742.43
91773.38
77178.62
72477.48
89550.37
93340.68
128215.60
161029.90
104235.70
30256.76
107001.10
28549.60
51844.64
59684.01
50683.67
140735.00
'72545.96
901613.10
57305.53
14629.40
206962.00
42693.07
25069.09
65472.50
42406.43
141699.40
46625.50
25763.30
29361.92
110983.70
85100.91
104602.00
116434.60
121301.50
189987.60
264036.60
56254.38
120458.90
217363.20
954778.00
55958.26
24953.55
152711.10
Page 3 of6
002618
Peak Name
I~C15
n~C14
i-C16
n-C15
n-C16
1...c18
n~C17
Pristane
Printed on 5/3/20102:16;18 PM
Ret. Time
50.71
50.85
51.00
51.16
51.38
51.44
51.61
51.69
51.83
51.96
52.15
52.37
52.44
52.75
52.80
52.B9 '
53.03
53.13
53.22
53.40
53.63
53.68
53.80
53.89
53.98
54.10
54.28
54.41
54.55
54.63
54.76
55.00
55.16
55.36
55.60
55.72
55.91
56.04
56.13
56.22
56.31
56.44
56.58
56.71
56.86
56.99
57.10
57.22
57.38
57,46
57.66
57.75
57.92
58.03
58.14
58.22
58.36
58.42
58.68
58.82
59.00
59.23
59.52
59.59
59.65
59.75
59.83
Area %
0.1843
0.0501
0.0938
0.0910
0.0417
0.2727
0.1443
0.1252
0.1928
' 0.3170
0.1662
0.3750
0.1813
0.2162
0.2389
1.6862
0.1082
0.4235
0.3458
0:0430 '
0.1240
0.1010
0.0671
0.0742
0.0779
0.5251
0.1728
0,7244
0.2151
0.0455
0.0709
0,0918
2.0389
0.1853
0.0976
0.1351
0.0380
0.1473
0.2921
0.1119
0.4514
0.3662
0.2697
0.1331
0.0401
0.1693
1.8218
0.2624
0.1078
0.1255
0.0853
0.0439
0.2265
0.6562
0.2003
0.2943
0.1812
0.0675
0.1158
1.7917
1.1887
0.1565
0.1839
0.1319
0,0645
0.2619
0.2527
Area
109861.10
29883.19
55920.09
54229.93
24863.02
162509.70
86016.4B
74610.32
114885.60
188915.20
99045.52
223498.70
108032.60
128861.30
142390.80
1004966.00
64489.43
252388.90
206091.60
25612.71
73933.54
60203.95
39986.37
44195.18
46425.64
312948.00
102999.60
431746.20
128205.90
27107.03
42274.14
54741.50
1215227.00
110414.70
58167.71
80519.13
22619,60
87767.24
174097.30
66705.08
269046.20
218288.10
160749.10
79327.63
23923.84
100933.00
1085821.00
156363.70
64243.72
74771.53
50835;60
26151.76
135022.20
391076.00
119393.30
175376.90
108003.00
40233.45
69004.23
1067890.00
708491.90
93282.68
109615.60
78584.42
38470.45
156106.50
150641.50
Page 4 of6
002619
Peak Name
n-C18
Phytane
n-C19
n-C20
IS #3
n-C21
n-C22
n-C23
n-C24
PrInted on 5/3/2010 2:16:18 PM
Ret. Time
59.96
60.11
60.21
60.38
60.51
60.60
60.76
60.84
60.96
61.15
61.24
61.31
61.37
61.45
61.64
61.82
61.97
62.05
62.24
62.33
62.40
62.53
62.62
62.69
62.81
62.89
63.01
63.16
63.37
63.70
63.91
63.99
64.08
64.22
64.43
64.67
64.92
65.07
65.16
65.22
65.33
65.51
65.64
65.78
65.96
66.09
66.16
66.33
66.39
66.50
66.60
66.72
66.79
67.09
67.22
67.48
67.53
67.66
67.79
67.95
68.13
68.30
66.39
68.68
68.73
68.86
69.04
Area %
0.2422
0.1038
0.1729
1.4437
0.1898
0.6707
0.1071
0.1031
0.3569
0.1075
0.0906
0.1790
0.1126
0.1992
0.1568
1.5267
0.1921
0.2573
0.0721
0.1277
0.2839
0.1005
0.0881
0.1391
0.1277
0.1174
0.1054
1.2108
0.0493
0.2282
0.1690
0.1508
1.3053
0.2377
1.0391
0.0433
0.2331
0.0586
0.0925
0.0964
0.2267
0.3002
1.0240
0.1314
0.1345
0.1167
0.3335
0.0911
0.1948
0.1243
0.1822
0.1051
0.9728
0.2620
0.2461
0.0845
0.1160
0.1213
0.0761
0.9135
0.1364
0.1412
0.1840
0.0679
0.1557
0.0944
0.0537
Mea
144349.30
61881.63
103057.10
860479.10
113093.50
399752.90
63836.06
61471.89
212718.50
64072.16
54017.00
106662.60
67108.88
118739.90
93439.48
909903.50
114474.80
153382.20
42947.65
76106.55
169228.40
59898.06
52533.61
82900.49
76098.48
69963.87
62838.76
721672.70
29372.09
136009.80
100736.70
89890.35
778002.90
141698.40
619334.30
25822.37
138916.10
34918.37
55136.74
57467.06
135111:50
178928.00
610324.30
78308.21
.80184.42
69583.20
198750.30
54268.38
116073.40
74090.40
106611.10
62622.41
579794.10
156169.30
146671.20
50362.86
69121.72
72285.24
45376.06
544454.20
81301.39
84143.93
109672.10
40483.64
92791.74
56260.07
32024.61
Page 5 of6
002620
n-C26
o--C27
n-C28
n-C29
n-C30
n-C31
n-C32
n-C3S
n-C34
n-C35
n-G36
Total Height;:: 2.252017E+07
Total Area;:: 5.960118E+07
-----
-~- ..-
- - -....- - - - .
Printed on 5/3/2010 2:16:18 PM
..
Area
448388.20
109605.90
30868.45
114115.10
84207.34
24343.50
372933.40
27168.13
111818.50
17550.94
93245.61
36745.09
312727.20
29813.53
16437.11
50059.40
66769.80
24717.04
57766.23
300921.90
90977.94
14897.32
11572.45
22540.54
326526.70
17137.30
23257.29
82544.57
39277.10
30006.38
46023.98
285463.70
26622.96
33326.43
281275.40
22242.55
26447.81
11599.81
278816.20
14662.00
22547.66
17995.93
243838.20
18607.03
42522.69
30490.69
217038.20
23149.95
17481.65
215757.10
31664.61
219768.00
116058.60
196337.00
Area %
0.7523
0.1839
0.0518
0.1915
0.1413
0.0408
0.6257
0.0456
0.1876
0.0294
0.1564
0.0617
0.5247
0.0500
0.0276
0.0840
0.1120
0.0415
0.0969
0.5049
0.1526
0.0250
0.0194
0.0378
0.5479
0.0288
0.0390
0.1385
0.0659
0.0503
0.0772
0.4790
0.0447
0.0559
0.4719
0.0373
0.0444
0.0195
0.4678
0.0246
0.0378
0.0302
0.4091
0.0312
0.0713
0.0512
0.3642
0.0388
0.0293
0.3620
0.0535
0.3687
0.1947
0.3294
Ret. Time
69.18
69.27
69.57
69.63
70.01
70.38
70.49
70.66
70.97
71.34
71.48
71.85
71.94
72.07
72.18
72.48
72.74
72.89
73.13
73.56
74.15
74.40
74.72
74.93
75.40
75.68
75.88
76.06
76.73
76.98
77.19
77.52
77.89
78.27
79.98
80.45
80.84
81.60
82.84
83.26
83.81
85.34
86.18
87.30
87.90
89.13
90.07
91.35
93.48
94.60
99.15
99.88
103.54
106.13
Peak Name
n-C26
Total Amount;:: 0
---------,---------------Page 6 of6
to VlT AC-r f=ble..

o Dearborn
o Dallas.
o Olympia
o Okemos
'wILL
o Atlanta
o Goleta
o Wilminton
DSoston
Houston
o Walnut Creek
0 _ _ _ __
knAL){<;-f:$
o East Greenwioh
o Saoramento
CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND ANALYTICAL REQUEST RECORD

Sit):
Client:
m(; %1-
Entrlx C~ntact
lOf
DEdmond'
DTacoma
Gig Harbor
DVentura
Page
of _ __
ANAL YTtCAL REQUEST
m. LoV \ 5A. .Lt1rrwYl OYl 5
Project No. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sampler(s)
Ui9f1atlll1"
.
. \~~L{
Sample1D
Alrt>iI1 No
Date
lime
Comp
Grab
No, of
Sample
Cont. 'Med'la
Comments
n ofr~1 .oi I
I-----------+----+----I---;----I---+----;--+--'--t--!--II
I.
Total Number of ContaIners
Relinquished By
1-[---"------
I ,.-+1-'.-'--+1- 1 - - - 1
1\
Date
lime
;n-o<.ovu(J~' lou 1fp J a V\l\.Y\')on ( Ilf/:!rJ/(O IOti ()<b
FOflM II 'ENT-131
I'
002627
Me- '2.5'2 fU~~rf{\J~I1fh-7Jiol Oil:- 41
~~BY
~-)~ rx~
77 . VIJfll
Date
.Time
5/~/l;j 1J1!le
....17
002628
5/3/2010
ZymaXID
Sample ID
41824~1
MC~252
Riser Fluid
Evaporation
n-Pentane 1n-Heptane
2-Methylpentane I 2-Methylheptane
0.60
1.07
Waterwashlng
Benzene 1 Cyclohexane
Toluene 1 Methylcyclohexane
,Aromatics 1 Total Paraffins (n+iso+cyc)
Aromatics I Naphthenes
0.34
0.43
0.31
1.22
Biodegradation
(C4 - C8 Para + Isopara) I C4 - ca Oletins
3-Methylhexane In-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane / n-Heptane'
Isoparaffins + Naphthenes I Paraffins
0.00
0.39
1.17
1.54
Octane rating
2,2,4,-Trimethylpentane I Methylcyclohexane
0.00
Relative percentages - Bulk hydrocarbon composition as PIANO

% Paraffinic
% Isoparaffinic
% Aromatic
% Naphthenic
% Olefinic
Submitted by,
Zymax Forensics, a DPFJ- Company
~~
Shan-Tan Lu, Ph.D.

Director of Forensic Geochemistry
30.20
27.26
23.40
19.14
0.00
002629
5/3/2010
41824-1
MC-252 Riser Fluid
ZymaXID
Sample ID
2
3
4
Propane
Isobutane
Isobutene
Butane/Methanol
trans~2~Butene
cis~2-Butene
7
8
9
3~Methyl-1-butene
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25<
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34A
34B
35
I.S. #1
Iso pentane
1-Pentene
2-MethYI-1-butene
Pentane
trans-2-Pentene
cls-2-Pentene/t-Butanol
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane/MTBE
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
3-Methylcyclopentene
3~Methyl-2-pentene
cis-2-Hexene
3-Methyl-trans-2-pentene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
5-Methyl-1-hexene
Cyclohexane
2-MethylhexanelTAME
'2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-trans-3-Dlmethylcyclopentane
1-cis-3-Dimethylcyclopentane
8,8,8-Trifluorotoluene
<
0.00
0.36
0.00
1.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.19
0.00
0.00
3.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.93
2.77
1.76
5.19 \
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.91
0.35
1.05
0.00
3.10
2.13
0.71
2.30
0.73
1.24
0.00
0.00
002630
5/3/2010
41824-1
MC-252 Riser Fluid
ZymaXID
Sample ID
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46A
46B
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
1,8,#2
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,5-Dimethylhexane
2,4-Dimethylhexane
Toluene/2,3,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3-Dimethylhexane
2-Methyl~eptane
4-Methylheptane
3,4-Dimethylhexane
3-Ethyl-3-methylpentane
1,4-Dimethylcyclohexane
3-Methylheptane
2,2,5-Trimethylhexane
n-Octane
2,2-Dimethylheptane
2,4-Dimethylheptane
Ethylcyclohexane
2,6-Dlmethylheptane
Ethyl benzene
m+pXylenes
4-Methyloctane
2-Methyloctane
3-Ethylheptane
3-Methyloctane
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
n-Nonane
p-Bromofluorobenzene
Isopropylbenzene
'2,4,5-Trimethylheptane
n-Propylbenzene
1-Methyl-3..ethylbenzene
5.91
6.94
0.32
0.46
0,07
2.96
0.56
2.58
0.74
0.17
2.21
1.63
0.00
0.32
5.08
0.00
0.36
2.60
0.72
0.79
3.70
0.85
1.04
0.23
1.22
1.07
0.00
4.55
0,00
0.17
0.37
0.76
0.69
0.68
0.39
1.41
0.61
002631
5/3/2010
ZymaXIO
Sample 10
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
41824-1
MC-252 Riser Fluid
1-lVIethyl-2~ethylbenzene
3-Methylnonane.
Isobutylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
n~Decane
Indan
1,3-0iethylbenzene
1,4-Diethylbenzene
n-Butylbenzene
1,3-Dimethyl-5~ethylbenzene
1,3-DimethyI4-ethylbenzene
1,2-0imethyl-4-ethylbenzene
Undecene
1,2,~,4-Tetramethylbenzene
Naphthalene
0.00
0.08
1.41
0.14
0.31
4.47
0.60
0.00
0.69
0.29
0.33
0.52
0.98
0.40
0.33
0.00
0.32
0.39
0.51
0.58
1.47
1.21
002632
C3-C44 Whole Oil Analysis

1) Whole Chromatogram
2) Expanded Chromatogram (in 3 pages)
3) Quantitation Report with peak areas
Reviewed by: STL
"3'
!O
a.
0
::1
01
10
10
.L. __ I
Response MilliVolts
....
.....
gj
<:>
10
0
~
0
.t.
(J)
<:>
<:>
<l1
01
<l1
c
c
Ol
10
10
<:>
d)
O!
!':?
.....
B---C82
....
i
o -~
Cl1
f~
i
~ 1
-20
gj
-28
30
33
18
"s:
10
11
19
..,~
i....
~
....
~
.....
10
0
18-#.1--36
37
~W_"t7
41A
49
~.I !5
~,.I
-- 54
1m 57 59 80
52
55
112
1.8.#2
76
~78
~7980
~t 85
00
61 8283
(")
:::r
0.011
a3
I
I
"'CI
<D
n-012
aa
.
~
::l
gj.1
:
n-C14
c:
!!
n-C13
!-C16
I-C18
:y-I
n-C15
n-C16
n-017
81
'.
n-C18
n-C19
Cl r
i l
.f
n-022
0-023
(0
'!i1
10
0
&
0-030
-!o
Cii
n-C31
.......
~
.....
10
1
(II
....
g
;:0
n-C32
<:>
s::
-n-C27
n-C2S
0-029
----...
.....
-.---~~
~-
... ---".--.- .
III
n-C26
I
.j
n-C24
:::::
6i'
...III-n
18#3
-0-025
...~ ~
iil
3
002633
l:Y
::J
Response - MIlilVoils
...
....
N
0
0
<11
0
0
tAl
0
0
tJI
0
~
0
tAl
en
0
en
0
0
g:
0
en
0
0
<l)
g:
..,~
!?:I
.....
0
....
~
-.
I\)
::J.
(J1
"t1
...
b
g
...
0
:s::
tAl
0
en
-5.47_ 5.75 2
- 5.98 4
~:::e
6.85 8
1.31 11
8.06 CS2
9.29 18
19
aj
10.65 20
12.03 26
eo,
13.72
13.36 28
(')
::r
a3
:>-13.94 30
-I
"t1
15.07 33
CD
at
S+
16.70 IS #1 36
::I
(')
::r
<Il
co
1a.o3 37
is:
...~
:3"
-I
2
~
r;
20.3841A
43
!!i
46S 46A
.c.jI;ol"'V.. ~".;:t;G
:::::
..a
'2iI
0
49
~
~+
0
~-
51
25.65 52
Cii
......~
...'i'
!i
01
.....
i
I
~i
30.28 I.S. #2
I
j
Iw
....
81-1
i
l_.
35.01-35.10-35.19..35.21 73
74
. ----....
36.08 76
..-------
(,)
___ .. ____ ._______.J
a
a
3
t8
ii3
3
AJ
002634
"tI
i9
Response. MilliVolts
~
c.I
to
<::I
1:9
1:9
o
Q)
0
0
81
<::I
o~
.....
fl
"CI
...~
o
N
....
I
I
~-
i1i!
....
' . . . . . . U.i<rv.. q.I.\JI

~'41.14.4.U4
I
I
<::I
f:="::,:;.41.78. 41.9fL 42.10 67 68

""lJ:f.21. 42.47. 42.76
-42.95 4327
~69 .. '43.57
<::I
....
i$;= 43.87_ 44.0.( 44.28- 44.34
90
p-. 44.54. 44.75. 44.83. 45.08
'e
I
~-:
41.48n011
45.81
=:45".45,<0_
5n
.... ,... .012
- 45.87. 46.10
:6.Si!.45.7t 47.09 I-C13

.- '1. 47.51- 47.63
-"'''' ..,13_ 46,38
1:9 .'
13
~.M
............
firUij411.31'49.46 1-014 91
~ 9.70_
3_ 4998 92
___
~f
a
3
~;.au. 52. Hl. 52.37 1-015

-S2,~o_ saug: 53.13
~ I
~f!l
'5428
1.76
54.41
~ 62.59
I-l.no
~I
.. n-5792
'~. 68.36
-
- 5a.22. 58.42
liY.aa
Piistane
BO.38 n.C18
.24'131.37 ---61.31.61.45
:>-61.82 n-019
Ii "n nc
5:33""
&1
-O ... Uv
,.
7.66
~=-
:::::..
.i' JhUU
. zn 3 8
-'" ."v- 67.79
:>-67.95 n.024
___
",,:':J;f!1l:I9i..1U4a..-<,," 69.18
"
n.C22
""66.79 n-C23
n-C25
70.49 n-C26
002635
(,)
"" 65.64
tll'.-Io-- 1:10."",_ 6551
"bb.tlUea.i-:r--
63.16 n.C20
"" 64 .43 .. 64.08 IS #3 n-021
-VU ....
tn
III
is:
60.60 phytane
.-6301
0;,:.0<1-1:1".0". 6289
.
l:::::
7063.91,63.9.9
l
.1
"" 58.82 n-C17
t 59.0~ 59.1:10. 59.75- 59.83

_ _
Q)
6J
":)o.u....."._
10.11.
60.21 . _
}Ii __ ,....
55.16 n-C15
" 57.10 n-C1 a
-..
9
a3
~
fL
!l
--:Jt).-1~"'56.44 --W'U .c..--.vu.vI
~6. 71. 56.86
&
n-014
'gJ
<::I
iii
<::I
~+
en
~
.....
.....
CD
cr
<0
ii3
3
::I-
-103.54
....
~1
(,)
-106.13
i____.__. ._ _.___ ._
(,)
002636
002637
Sample Name = 41824-1 [(MC-252 Riser Fluid [500+500cs2]] + IS F-011810-1
Instrument = Instrument 1
Acquisition Port = DP#
Heading 1 '"
Heading 2 =
Raw File Name C;\CPSpirit\2010\May10\050310.0001.RAW

Method File Name = C:\CPSplrit\C344.met
Oallbration File Name = O:\OPSplrlt\041610.cal
Peak Name
2
4
8
11
CS2
15
17
18
19
20
26
27
28
30
31
32
33
34A
348
18#1
36
37
38
39
40
41A
42
43
44
45
468
46A
48
49
Printed on 513/2010 2:16:18 PM
Ret. Time
5.47
5.75
5.98
6.85
7.31
8.08
8.21
9.09
9.29
9.87
10.65
11.90
12.03
12.24
13.36
13.72
13.94
14.52
14.62
14.79
15.07
15.48
15.66
15.74
15.84
16.48
16.70
18.03
18.25
18.83
18.91
19.05
19.43
19.53
19.94
20.13
20.38
20.89
21.31
21.41
21.52
21.70
21.82
21.94
22.07
22.45
22.68
22.83
22.92
23.06
23.26
23.64
23.75
24.24
24.96
Date Taken (end) '" 5/3/2010 1 :18:56 PM

Method Version 44
Calibration Version 2
Area %
0.0721
0.1050
0.4341
0.6622
1.0759
0.4211
0.0294
0.2805
0.8357
0.5299
1.5650
0.0404
0.8771
0.1053
0.3177
0.0235
0.9343
0.6425
0.2137
0.1171
0.6934
0.2299
0.2199
0.0518
0.3746
1.5840
1.7820
2.0934
0.1587
0.1221
0.0974
0.1398
0.1396
0.0288
0.1339
0.0221
0.8942
0.1702
0.7764
0.2219
0.0502
0.0218
0.4911
0.6671
0.2437
0.0832
0.0439
0.0411
0.0973
0.0176
0.2643
1.5338
0.1782
0.0256
0.0323
Area
42974,10
62587.52
258748.10
394672.70
641231.90
250985.60
17530.33
167199.50
498087.40
315839.00
932752.90
24083.65
522763.40
62750.78
189327.00
13990.41
556882.60
382947.00
127362.90
69772.29
413255.70
137052.50
131082.20
30853.27
223273.30
944053.80
1062087.00
1247703.00
94574.24
72747.44
58075.26
83347.86
83174.57
17180.12
79180.78
13184.64
532973.10
101428.10
463918.10
132256.70
29940.91
12996.35
292731.20
397618.60
145234.90
49574.00
26192.48
24491.65
51993.90
10426.39
169473.50
914177.00
106228.90
15238.56
19241.90
Page 1 of6
002638
Peak Name
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
62
1.8.#2
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
72
73
74
75
76
77
79
Printed on 6/3/2010 2: 16: 18 PM
Ret. Time
25.23
25.31
25.65
26.01
26.09
26.40
26.80
27.00
27.36
27.78
27.92
27.98
28.33
28.41
28.80
28.90
29.18
29.27
29.41
30.16
30.28
30.46
30.64
30.87
31.01
31.13
31.23
31.34
31.52
31.69
31.76
31.87
32.01
32.09
32.30
32.39
32.54
32.66
32.75
33.10
33.23
33.56
33.82
33.92
34.07
34.27
34.45
34.70
34.89
35.01
35.10
35.19
35.27
35.77
35.87
36.08
36.32
36.46
36.57
36.81
36.97
37.27
37.43
37.71
37.81
38.00
38.26
Area %
0.1088
0.0832
0.7837
0.211'7
0.1363
0.0446
0.2389
0.1507
1.1167
0.0870
0.2578
0.3136
0.0682
0.3696
0.3234
0.0526
0.0859
0.2576
0.1506
1.3739
1.6339
0.1901
0.0593
0.0508
0.0339
0.1283
0.0989
0.1118
0.0583
0.0285
0.1252
0.2948
0.0725
0.0828
0.2289
. 0.0713
0.0389
0.1536
0.2079
0.2053
0.1179
0.4263
0.1749
0.2507
0.1854
0.0353
0.2847
0.0507
0.0230
0.4256
0.1520
0.0731
0.1243
0.0417
0.0926
1.3481
0.0219
0.0206
0.1812
0.0390
0.0859
0.1091
0.3067
.0.0809
0.2207
0.0379
0.2085
Area
64821.07
49578.13
467110.10
129735.20
81234.09
26572.54
142362.60
89826.98
665578.80
51878.50
153652.30
186933.10
40672.50
220293.70
192760.10
31369.05
51224.17
153516.20
89761.22
818848.90
973807.30
113296.80
35348.11
30297.56
20223.20
76496.52
58969.49
66658.46
34734.37
16979.93
74632.52
175713.80
43193.43
49362.79
136415.00
42491.60
23159.11
91531.32
123932.40
122342.30
70257.13
254072.00
104220.90
149410.70
110473.30
21061.38
169673.10
30231.18
13697.19
253688.20
90568.94
43548.28
74063.51
24841.08
55140.86
803485.90
13045.00
12266.80
107981.90
23229.11
51195.95
65037.45
182779.30
48239.26
131564.40
22607.22
124294.80
Page 2 of6
002639
Peak Name
80
81
82
83
84
85
rrC11
87
88
89
90
n-C12
I-C13
i-C14
91
92
n-Ci3
Printed on 5/3/20102:16:18 PM
Ret. Time
38.48
38.63
39.04
39.27
39.44
39.63
39.75
39.97
40.07
40.27
40.69
40.90
41.01
41.14
41.34
41.48
41.78
41.95
42.10
42.21
42.47
42.76
42.95
43.27
43.44
43.57
43.87
44.04
44.28
44.34
44.54
44.75
44.83
44.97
45.08
45.30
45.40
45.61
45.77
45.87
46.10
46.43
46.68
46.77
47.09
47.41
47.51
47.63
47.79
48.04
48.13
48.27
48.38
48.52
48.60
48.76
46.93
49.16
49.31
49.46
49.70
49.83
49.98
50.10
50.19
50.29
50.50
Area %
0.0750
0.0882
0.1009
0.1546
0.1583
0.2946
0.1205
0.1661
0.0991
0.0282
0.1344
0.0700
0.0664
0.0744
0.0990
1.4416
0.0626
0.0966
0.1176
0.0248'
0.1089
0.0715
' 0.1820
0.3060
0.0600
0.1540
0.1295
0.1216
0.1502
0.1566
0.2151
0.2702
0.1749
0.0508
0.1795
0.0479
0.0870
0.1001
0.0850
0.2361
0.1217
1.5127
0.0961
0.0245
0.3472
0.0716
0.0421
0.1099
0.0712
0.2377
0,0782
0.0432
0.0493
0.1862
0.1428
0.1755
0.1954
0.2035
0.3188
0.4430
0.0944
0.2021
0.3647
1.6019
0.0939
0.0419
0.2562
Area
44691.29
62542.55
60165.98
92121.59
94359.02
175568.00
71826.77
98976.03
59090.69
16789.72
80086.56
41703.13
39569.54
44341.32
59011.68
859200.40
37285.39
57553.73
70105.71
14809.26
64889.91
42624.54
108455.10
182388.10
35742.43
91773.38
77178.62
72477.48
89550.37
93340.68
128215.60
161029.90
104235.70
30256.76
107001.10
28549.60
51844.64
59684.01
60683.67
140735.00
'72545.96
901613.10
57305.53
14629.40
206962.00
42693.07
25069.09
65472.50
42406.43
141699.40
46625.50
25763.30
29361.92
110983.70
85100.91
104602.00
116434.60
121301.50
189987.80
264036.60
56254.38
120458.90
217363.20
954778.00
55958.26
24953.55
152711.10
Page 30f6
002640
Chrom Perfect Chrol'mltogram Report
Peak Name
\-C15
n-C14
Ret. Time
50.71
50.85
51.00
51.16
51.38
51.44
51.61
51.69
51.83
51.96
52.15
52.37
52.44
52.75
52.80
52.89
53.03
53.13
53.22
53.40
53.63
53.68
53.BO
53.B9
i-Ci6
n-C15
n-C16
I~C18
n-C17
Prlstane
Printed on 5/3/20102:16:18 PM
53.98
54.10
54.28
64.41
54.55
54.63
54.76
55.00
55.16
55.36
55.60
55.72
55,91
56.04
56.13
56.22
56.31
56.44
56.5B
56.71
56.86
56.99
57.10
57.22
57.38
57.46
57.66
57.75
57.92
58.03
58.14
58.22
58.36
58.42
58,68
58.82
59.00
59.23
59.52
59.59
59.65
59.75
59.83
Area %
. 0.1843
0.0501
0.0938
0.0910
0.0417
0.2727
0.1443
0.1252
0.1928
. 0.3170
0.1662
0.3750
0.1813
0.2162
0.2389
1.6862
0.1082
0.4235
0.3458
0.0430
0.1240
0.1010
0.0671
0.0742
0.0779
0.5251
0.1728
0.7244
0.2151
0.0455
0.0709
0.0918
2.0389
0.1853
0.0976
0.1351
0.0380
0.1473
0.2921
0.1119
0.4514
0.3662
0.2697
0.1331
0.0401
0.1693
1.8218
0.2624
0.1078
0.1255
0.0853
0.0439
0.2265
0.6562
0.2003
0.2943
0.1812
0.0675
0.1158
1.7917
1.1887
0.1565
0.1839
0.1319
0.0645
0.2619
0.2527
Area
109861.10
29883.19
55920.09
54229.93
24863.02
162509.70
86016.48
74610.32
114885.60
188915.20
99045.52
223498.70
108032.60
128861.30
142390.80
1004966.00
64489.43
252388.90
206091.60
25612.71
73933.54
60203.95
39988.37
44195.18
46425.64
312948.00
102999.60
431746.20
128205.90
27107.03
42274.14
54741.50
1215227.00
110414.70
58167.71
80519.13
22619.60
87767.24
174097.30
66705.08
269046.20
218288.10
160749.10
79327.63
23923.84
100933.00
1085821.00
156363.70
64243.72
74771.53
50835.60
26151.75
135022.20
391076.00
119393.30
175376.90
108003.00
40233.45
69004.23
1067890.00
706491.90
93282.68
109615.60
78584.42
38470.45
156106.50
150641.50
Page 4 of6
002641
Peak Name
n-C18
Phytane
n-C19
n-C20
18#3
n-C21
n-C22
n-C23
n-C24
Printed on 5/3/20102:16:18 PM
Ret. Time
59.96
60.11
60.21
60.38
60.51
60.60
60.76
60.84
60.96
61.15 .
61.24
61.31
61.37
61.45
61.64
61.82
61,97
62.05
62.24
62.33
62.40
62.53
62.62
62.69
62.81
62.89
63.01
63.16
63.37
63.70
63.91
63.99
64.08
64.22
64.43
64.67
64.92
65.07
65.16
65.22
65.33
65.51
65.64
65.78
65.96
66.09
66.16
66,33
66.39
66.50
66.60
66.72
66.79
67.09
67.22
67.48
67.53
67.66
67.79
67.95
68.13
66.30
68.39
68.68
68.73
68.86
69.04
Area %
0.2422
0.1038
0.1729
1.4437
0.1898
0.6707
0.1071
0.1031
0.3569
0.1075
0.0906
0.1790
0.1126
0.1992
0.1568
1.5267
0.1921
0.2573
. 0,0721
0.1277
0.2839
0.1005
0.0881
0.1391
0.1277
0.1174
0.1054
1.2108
0.0493
0.2282
0.1690
0.1508
1.3053
0.2377
1.0391
0.0433
0.2331
0.0586
0.0925
0.0964
0.2267
0.3002
1.0240
0.1314
0.1345
0.1167
0.3335
0.0911
0.1948
0.1243
0.1822
0.1051
0.9728
. 0.2620
0.2461
0.0845
0.1160
0.1213
0.0761
0.9135
0.1364
0.1412
0.1840
0.0679
0,1557
0.0944
0.0537
Area
144349.30
61881.63
103057.10
860479.10
113093.50
399752.90
63836.06
61471.89
212718.50
64072.16
54017.00
106662.60
67108.88
118739.90
93439.48
909903.50
114474.80
153382.20
42947.65
76106.55
169228.40
59898.06
52533.61
82900.49
76098.48
69963,87
62838.76
721672'.70
29372.09
136009.80
100736.70
89890.35
778002.90
141698.40
619334.30
25822.37
138916.10
34918.37
55136.74
57467,06
135111.50
178928.00
610324.30
78308.21
,80184.42
69583.20
198750.30
54268.38
116073.40
74090.40
108611.10
62622.41
579794.10
156169.30
146671.20
50362;88
69121.72
72285.24
45376.06
544454.20
81301.89
84143.93
109672.10
40483.64
92791.74
56260.07
32024.61
Page 5 of6
002642
Peak Name
n-C25
n-026
n-027
n-028
n-C29
n-C30
n-C31
n-C32
n-C33
n-C34
n..o35
n-C36
Total Area = 5.960118E+07
Printed on 5/3/20102:16:18 PM
Ret. Time
69.18
69.27
69.57
69.63
70.01
70.38
70.49
70.66
70.97
71.34
71.48
71.85
71.94
72.07
72.18
72.48
72.74
72.89
73.13
73.56
74.15
74.40
74.72
74.93
75.40
75.68
75.88
76.06
76.73
76.98
77.19
77.52
77.89
78.27
79.98
80.45
80.84
81.60
82.84
83.26
83.81
85.34
86.18
87.30
87.90
89.13
90.07
91.35
93.48
94.60
99.16
99.88
103.54
106.13
Total Height =2.252017E+07
Area
448388.20
109605.90
30858.45
114115.10
84207.34
24343.50
372933.40
27168.13
111818.50
17550.94
93245.61
36745.09
312727.20
29813.53
16437.11
50059.40
66769.80
24717.04
57766.23
300921.90
90977.94
14897.32
11572.45
22540.54
326526.70
17137.30
23257.29
82544.57
39277.10
30006.38
46023.98
285463.70
26622.96
33326.43
281275.40
;22242.55
26447.81
11599.81
278816.20
14662.00
22547.66
17995.93
243838.20
18607.03
42522.69
30490.69
217038.20
23149.95
17481.65
215757.10
31864.61
219768.00
116058.60
196337.00
Area %
0.7523
0.1839
0.0518
0.1916
0.1413
0.0408
0.6257
0.0456
0.1876
0.0294
0.1564
0.0617
0.5247
0.0500
0.0276
0.0840
0.1120
0.0415
0.0969
0.5049
0.1526
0.0250
0.0194
0.0378
0.5479
0.0288
0.0390
0.1385
0.0659
0.0503
0.0772
0,4790
0.0447
0.0559
0.4719
0.Q373
0.0444
0.0195
0.4678
0.0246
. 0.0378
0.0302
0.4091
0.0312
0.0713
0.0512
0.3642
0.0388
0.0293
0.3620
0.0535
0.3687
0.1947
0.3294
Total Amount = 0
Page 6
002643
2010133-02 (Source Oil, Pre-spill) - TIC
IlC MJ10133D.Octata.ns
1a::x:x:x::x:>l1
1ia:x:x:x::x:>l1
S.CO
1UCO
1S.CO
::ao.CO
:25.CO
3:lCO
35.CO
4D.CO
45.CO
201013302 (Source Oil, Pre-spill) - Alkanes
5O.CO
55.CO
eo..CO
002644
2010133-02 (Source Oil, Pre-spill) - C17/Pristane, C1s/Phytane
101 57.00 (53.70 to 57.70} MJ10133DOc::t:mrrs
1a:oXOj
1a::oXOj
1"'-1V1JVJJ
Zl.&>
Zl.OJ
25.&>
28.00
28.&>
In&->
2010133-02 (Source Oil, Pre-spill) - Naphthalene
101128.00 (127.70 to 128.70): MJ10133:lDdi:m.ns
1
1
1
1
1
~
...
1200 122J 1240 1200 128) 13.00 13.2J 13.40 13.00 13.8) 14.00 14.2J 14.40 14.00 14.8)
/"',.
rt.
In&->
002645
2010133-02 (Source Oil, Pre-spill) - Cl-Naphthalenes
len 142.CX>(141.70tD142.7O): MJ101330.o..d3Ia.rTS
1
1
1
1
1
\.
15.:20 15.40 1S.ED 15.CO 16.CXJ 16.:20 16.40 16.ED 16.CO 17.CO 17.:20 17.40 17.ED 17.CO.
lme-->
2010133-02 (Source Oil, Pre-spill) - C2-Naphthalenes
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
., .,
.,
.,
.,aoo
} V\.J
J\
-'"
f'.
002646
2010133-02 (Source Oil, Pre-spill) - C3-Naphthalenes
...
...
/\
j\l
21.CO
Wl
21.60
:22.CO
.J\
\.
:22.60
zaco
i'v
.r-A. AJ\JV'v... ~
za60
24..CO
24..60
:25.CO
A
:25.60
2010133-02 (Source Oil,.Pre-spill) - C4-Naphthalenes
101184.00 (183.70 to 184.70): MJ10133DD.c:l:m.ns
12XXDj
1ax:m
22fD
23.00
23.fD
24.00
24.fD
25..00
25..fD
aioo
aifD
/V\
002647
2010133-02 (Source Oil, Pre-spill) - DBl
1CXXcoj
27.CX>
27.10
27.20
27.70
2010133-02 (Source Oil, Pre-spill) - C1-DBls
1E!OOCX::>l
1S;COCX::>l
1.2ClOCX::>l
11
27.ao
27.S:>
002648
201013302 (Source Oil, Pre-spill) - C20BTs
len 212.00 (211.7010 212.70): MJ10133D.Dc:Eia.ns

11
1CXXXDl
31.00
31.ED
32.00
32.ED
::noo
::nED
34.00
201013302 (Source Oil, Pre-spill) - C3-0BTs
len Z500 (225 7010 Z570): MJ10133D.D.c:Eia.ns
32.00
lITe->
32.ED
::noo
::nED
34.00
34.ED
3500
35ED
33.00
33.ED
002649
2010133-02 (Source Oil, Pre-spill) - Phenanthrene
.
F'
1
1
27.CO 27.10 27.:20 27.SO 27..40 27.50 27.60 27.70 27.f!D 27.90 28.CXl 28.1028.:20 28.SO 28.40
2010133-02 (Source Oil, Pre-spill) - C1-Phenanthrenes
len 192.00(191.701019270): MJ10133D.Oc::Em.rTS
1
1
V
~
....,
\J
)
I
29.00
29.lD
3100
3120
V0
3140
3100
31lD
31.00
31.20
31.40
31.00
31.lD
002650
len 205.CX> (205.70 to 205. 70):
M.J10133DD.~rn:l
1OXXX>1
32CX>
325:>
33.CX>
33.5:>
34.CX>
34.5:>
35.CX>
lne-->

1c:n22D.00(219.70to22D.70): M.J101331:l.D.c:lala.rn;
15CXlCDj
140:lCDj
13CXcoj
1ax:lCDj
11
1CXX::XJOJ
33.5:>
lne-:>
34.00
34.5:>
:35.00
37.00
002651
1Cl1234.oo(233.70to234.70): MJ1013:D.D.c:t:mm;
33.00
34.00
34.00
35.00
35.00
33.00
33.5)
37.00
'31.5)
38.00
111'8->
2010133-02 (Source Oil, Pre-spill) - Hopanes

len 191.00 (100.70 to 191.70): MJ10133D.o..dala.ms
38.00
3';J.00
002652
2010133-02 (Source Oil, Pre-spill) - Steranes
47'.00
,me-=-
51.00
002653
BP
OCs.G42aoe Well No.1 STOO SPOI

Mississippi Canyon Block 252
'Macondo'
Reservoir Fluid Composition

PENCOR 10 No. 3612653: 18,142 Ft. MO
Flash Summary (14,000 psla and 170 of to atmospheric pressure and 80F)
Gas-Uquld Ratio
FVF
Component
(Symbol! Name)
Nitrogen
N,
CO, Carbon Dioxide
H,S Hydrogen Sulfide
Cl
Mathane
C2
Ethane
Propane
C3
i04 l-Bolana
n04 n-BUlane
IC5
~Pentane
nC5 n-Pentane
CB
C7
CB
C9
Cl0
Cl1
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
018
019
C20
C21
C22
C23
C24
C25
C26
C27
028
029
C30
C31
C32
C33
Hexanes
Heptane"
Octanes
Nonanes
Decanes
Undecanes
Dodecanes
Tridecane$
Tatradecanes
Pentedecanes
Hexadecanes
Heptedecanes
Ocjadecanss
Nonadecanes
Eicosanes
Heneicosanes
Docosenes
Triacosanes
Tetrncosanes
Pentacosanes
Hexacosanes
Heplacosanes
Octacosanes
Nonacosanes
Triecontanes
Henlliaconlanes
Dotriacontanes
Tritriacontanes
C34 Tetratriacontanes
C35 Pentatnacontanes
C36 Hexatriacontenes
037 Heplatriecontenes
C3B OcIatriacontanes
C39 Nonalliacontanes
040 Tetraconlanes
041 Henletracontanes
C42 Dotetreconlanas
043 Tritetracontanes
C44 Tetratetracontanas
045 Pantatetracontenes
046 Hexatetrecontanes
047 Heptaletraconlanes
048 OctaCletracontanes
049 Nonatetrecontanes
C50+ Penlacontanes Plus
Total
Calculated Mole Weight
Measured Mole Weignt
PENOOR
An ISO 9001 Registered Compeny

info.penco!,@CoreLeb.com (800) 234-4205
2.819
NIA
sci/sib
VsaWstd
Atmospheric
Vapor Gravity
API Gravity
Water Content
Liquid
(mole%)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.146
0.456
0.263
0.958
0.943
1.536
3.977
8.31B
11.541
9.103
7.837
5.965
4.982
4.754
4.254
3.563
3.455
2.755
2.685
2.274
1.963
1.599
1.421
1.281
1.149
0.938
0.850
0.892
0.791
0.704
0.642
0.607
0.543
0.470
0.458
0.379
0.346
(weight%)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.021
0.097
0.073
0.268
0.327
0.533
1.648
3.747
5.960
5.250
5.048
4.215
3.855
4.000
3.886
3.528
3.688
3.139
3.240
2.674
2.594
2.237
2.083
1.959
1.827
1.555
1.467
1.603
1.474
1.361
1.283
1.255
1.159
1.035
1.039
0.885
0.832
0.823
0.802
0.712
0.717
0.534
0.610
0.557
0.548
0.508
0.450
0.273
0.268
0.195
0.217
0.194
0.186
0.169
0.146
0.160
0.135
0.123
2.482
100.000
(Air - 1.00)
"API at 60 OF (Water Free)
wei ht %
Atmospheric
Liquid
0.333
0.316
0.807
35.2
0.02
0.503
0.434
0.402
11.355
100.000
208.03
Report No. 36126-Prallmlnary

Project Manager. Jason LeBlanc
April 29, 2010, pg 1 of 1
002654
Data File
LSU I
Sample Decription
Misc Info
IntStd Concentration (ng)
Final Volume (mL)
Dilution
Volume Injected (uL)
Initial Weight (mg)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
n 5 Pentadecane
nC-16 Hexadecane
nC-17 Heptadecane
Pristane
nC-18 Octadecane
Phytane
nC-19 Nonadecane
Dibenzoth
C-1 Dibenzoth
C-2 Dibenzoth
C-3 Dibenzoth
1.1
1.0
1.2
0.98
1.0
0.93
0.83
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
Source Oil
MC 252 Incident
10
30
1
1.0
310
SIN = 240
10096643
10674822
10740971
9911441
9273161
7346755
15899523
19491550
13556813
6749843
2597
2573
2583
2514
2377
747
1617
1982
1379
686
7678430
7040931
4471842
5832976
3118413
4935792
4250041
3503929
2955947
2517747
2106924
852959
2217403
2564627
1944525
456436
1441324
1925366
1409833
2353683
5585386
5454129
3296994
1623836
54851
1841
1726
956
1497
771
1332
1288
1114
1034
937
888
130
339
392
297
53
168
224
164
287
680
664
402
198
6.1
002655
nC-27 Heptacosane
nC-28 Octacosane
nC-29 Nonacosane
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
C-1 Pyrene
C-2 Pyrene
C-3 Pyrene
C-4 pyrene
Napthobenzothiophene
C-1 NBT
C-2 NBT
C-3 NBT
Benzo (a) Anthracene
Chrysene
C-1 Chrysene
C-2 Chrysene
C-3 Chrysene
C-4 Ch
nC-35 Pentatriacontane
Benzo (b) Fluoranthene
Benzo (k) Fluoranthene
Benzo (e) Pyrene
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Perylene
Indeno (1,2,3 - cd) Pyrene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Benzo
0.74
0.58
0.50
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.25
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.3
1.6
0.73
0.60
0.81
772897
517707
378111
43099
89589
687615
850447
964367
541314
71248
313606
241393
140608
26151
170150
494025
491260
260533
92070
347
297
249
4.2
8.9
68
84
96
54
11.0
48
37
22
5.5
36
103
103
54
19
330905
169053
109407
72543
55641
39777
5966
6223
17475
2227
2523
256
1307
1757
2.3
1.8
6.6
1.0
0.92
0.20
1.3
1.2
002656
LSU 10#: 2010133-02

Source Oil, Pre-spill
Sample Weight: 310 mg
Final Extracted Volume: 30 mL
Alkane AnaMe:
nC-10 Decane
nC-11 Undecane
nC-12 Dadecane
nC-13 Tridecane
nC-14 Tetradecane
nC-15 Pentadecane
nC-16 Hexadecane
nC-17 Heptadecane
Pristane
nC-18 Oetadecane
Phytane
nC-19 Nanadecane
nC-20 Eicosane
nC-21 Heneicosane
nC-22 Dacosane
nC-23 Trieasane
nC-24 Tetracosane
nC-25 Pentaeasane
nC-26 Hexacosane
nC-27 Heptacasane
nC-28 Oetacasane
nC-29 Nanacosane
nC-30 Triacontane
nC-31 Hentriacontane
nC-32 Datriacontane
nC-33 Tritriacontane
nC-34 Tetratriacontane
nC-35 Pentatriaeantane
Total Alkanes
Concentration f!!9lmg)
2600
2600
2600
2500
2400
2000
1800
1700
960
1500
770
1300
1300
1100
1000
940
890
600
510
350
300
250
230
150
120
100
90
92
30752
LSU 10#: Lab Ref Oil

South Louisiana Crude
Alkane Analyte:
nC-10 Decane
nC-11 Undecane
nC-12 Dadecane
nC-13 Tridecane
nC-14 Tetradecane
nC-15 Pentadecane
nC-16 Hexadecane
nC-17 Heptadecane
Pristane
nC-18 Octadecane
Phytane
nC-19 Nonadecane
nC-20 Eicosane
nC-21 Heneicosane
nC-22 Dacosane
nC-23 Tricosane
nC-24 T etracosane
nC-25 Pentacosane
nC-26 Hexacosane
nC-27 Heptacosane
nC-28 Octacosane
nC-29 Nanacosane
nC-30 Triacontane
nC-31 Hentriacontane
nC-32 Datriacontane
nC-33 Tritriaeantane
nC-34 T etratriacontane
nC-35 Pentatriacontane
Total Alkanes
Concentration (!!glmgl
2600
2700
2600
2600
2300
2200
2000
1900
970
1700
910
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
620
510
360
310
260
230
190
150
110
110
110
32940
002657
LV IV l.;;Jo,l-UL -
~UUI!waV"
LSU ID#: 2010133-02

Source Oil
rllCl-,;:,tJ
LSU ID#: Lab Ref Oil

South Louisiana Crude
Aromatic AnaMe:
Conce!l!!:!!ion (!!!1lmg)
Aromatic Analyte:
Concentration (!!II!mg]
Naphthalene
C 1-Naphthalenes
C2-Naphthalenes
C3-Naphthalenes
C4-Naphthalenes
Fluorene
C1-Fluoranes
C2-Fluorenes
C3- Fluorenes
Dibenzothiophene
C 1-Dibenzothiophenes
C2-Dibenzothiophenes
C3- Dibenzothiophenes
Phenanthrene
C1-Phenanthrenes
C2-Phenanthrenes
C3-Phenanthrenes
C4-Phenanthrenes
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
C1- Pyrenes
C2- Pyrenes
C3- Pyrenes
C4- Pyrenes
Naphthobenzothiophene
C-1 Naphthobenzothiophenes
Benzo a Anthracene
Chrysene
C1- Chrvsenes
C2- Chrysenes
C3- Chrysenes
C4- Chrysenes
Benzo b Fluoranthene
Benzo k Fluoranthene
Benzo e Pyrene
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Perylene
Indeno 1,2,3 - cd Pyrene
Dibenzo a,h anthracene
Benzo-.1g,h i I Dervlene
750
1600
2000
1400
690
130
340
390
300
53
170
220
160
290
680
660
400
200
6.1
4.2
8.9
68
Naphthalene
C 1-Naphthalenes
C2-Naphthalenes
C3-Naphthalenes
C4-Naphthalenes
Fluorene
C1-Fluorenes
C2-Fluorenes
C3- Fluorenes
Dibenzothiophene
C3- Dibenzothiophenes
Phenanthrene
C1-Phenanthrenes
C2-Phenanthrenes
C3-Phenanthrenes
C4-Phenanthrenes
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
C1- Pyrenes
C2- Pyrenes
C3- pyrenes
C4- Pyrenes
Benzo a Anthracene
Chrysene
C1- Chrvsenes
C2- Chrysenes
C3- Chrysenes
C4- Chrysenes
Benzo b Fluoranthene
Benzo k Fluoranthene
Benzo (e) Pyrene
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Perylene
Indeno 1,2,3 - cd Pyrene
Dibenzo a,h anthracene
Benzo (lI,h,ii perylene
710
1300
1500
1100
590
100
270
270
240
56
210
280
240
200
360
340
200
Total Aromatics
8394
Total Aromatics
B4
96
54
11
48
37
22
5.5
36
100
100
54
19
2.3
1.8
6.6
1.0
0.92
0.20
1.3
1.2
11203
B4
6.2
4.5
7.1
43
31
31
20
7.8
30
30
25
5.4
14
28
27
18
5.6
1.7
1.5
2.9
1.0
0.89
0.22
0.92
1.1
OCS-G-32306 Well No.1 STOO BP01

Mississippi Canyon Block 252
BP
'Macondo'
Sample History and Information

Sample Inventory and History
PEN COR
IDNo.
Sample Depth
Sample
Source
Sample
Type
Active Mud pit

MRSC-77
MPSR-4168
MPSR-4096
MRSC-150
MPSR-925
MPSR-4069
MRSC-147
MPSR-3542
MPSR-1268
NIA
4/10/2010
11,850/242
11,850/242
11,850/242
11,841/242
11,841/242
11,841/242
11,856/243
4/12/2010
4/12/2010
4/12/2010
4/1212010
11,856/243
11,856/243
4/12/2010
4/12/2010
4/12/2010
4/12/2010
4/12/2010
Drilling Mud
Reservoir Fluid
Reservoir Fluid
Reservoir Fluid
Reservoir Fluid
Reservoir Fluid
Reservoir Fluid
Reservoir Fluid
Reservoir Fluid
Reservoir Fluid
Chamber
Restoration
Condition
(psia/oF)
14,000/170
14,000/170
14,000/170
14,000/170
14,000/170
14,000/170
14,000/170
14,000/170
14,000/170
Restoration
Time
Original Sample
Volume
(hours)
(cc)
12
120+
120+
12
120+
120+
12
120+
120+
3,500
750
350
345
750
355
360
750
355
360
Sample Validation Data

PEN COR
IDNo.
36126-10
36126-19
36126-20
36126-27
36126-36
36126-37
36126-44
36126-53
36126-54
Opening
Pressure
Laboratory Analyses
GIL
API
Drilling
Liberated Gas
Ratio
Gravity
Fluid
Gravity
(psia/oF)
(scf /stb)
(API)
(wt% STO)
(Air =1.000)
6,440/68
2909
2906
2875
2977
3049
3063
2,840
2,819
2,802
34.7
34.6
34.8
35.0
34.8
34.8
35.0
35.2
35.2
< 1.0
0.812
0.812
0.811
0.801
6,100/66
6,500/66
6,490/68
6,500/66
6,410/66
6,030/68
5,720/66
5,950/66
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.816
0.785
0.807
0.808
Saturation Pressure
(psia @ 100F)
(psia @ 170F)
6,636
(psia @ Tres OF)
6,504
Transfers and testing conducted on samples 36126-10,36126-27,36126-44 was performed in PENCOR's Mobile Lab on the drilling rig.
Transfers and testing conducted on the MPSR samples was performed in PENCOR's Broussard LA facility.
PENCOR
An ISO 9001 Registered Company
info.pencor@CoreLab.com (800) 234-4205
Report No. 36126-Preliminary

Project Manager: Jason LeBlanc
April 29, 2010, pg 1 of 1
002658
NIA
18,124
18,124
18,124
18,086
18,086
18,086
18,142
18,142
18,142
Sample
Date
(psia/oF)
(Ft. MO)
36126-01
36126-10
36126-19
36126-20
36126-27
36126-36
36126-37
36126-44
36126-53
36126-54
Reservoir
Condition
_.
OCs.G-32308 Well No. 1 $TOO SPOI

M""".....~ c..y.n 81""252
BP
_.
Reservoir Fluid ComposHlon

PENCOR 10 No. 36126-53: 18,142 Ft. MO
Flash Summary (14,000 psla and 170 "'F to atmospheric pressure and 80-F)
Gas..Uq\lIdRatJo
F\IF
Abnospherlc
Vapor
Component
"""'
0.'"
(Symbol I NIIm8}
N,
c~
Cl
C2
C3
IC4
oC4
2,819
NIA
--P--NIIJog..
1.1>92
0.000
77.761
CarbonCia:1dd6
H~S~.
""""'
.......
7.597
5....
..
2_
..-
ICS I
>lC5
..__
ll."'"
0.995
C6
OJI26
OM.
C1
CO
C.
C10
C11
C12
e13
.....
"""""
-...
0ecMu
0.104
""'"
Oodecanes
"YO>
Atmospheric
Uquld
mo...
0.000
o..llOO
0.000
0_
0.148
0.456
Abnospheric
UqUfd
.807
1.00)
-API ceoF (Water Free)
'MIWhtlft
Weight
'''"
'.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.0'21
....0.
".08
16,04
.0.01
44.10
58.12
0.943
1.536
0.533
UTI
1....
3.141
5.960
8.318
11.541
9.103
.....
.....
7,631
4,154
(Air
Molcrc:ulaf
0.013
0_
0.327
.....
352
"'"2
.097
"-263
.....
T~
Cl'IT~
VaporGraviIy
APIGravIIy
..... CooI""
58J2
Q.818
O.BO!
.0_
0.356
0.507
o.5ll4
0.1"4
1>63'
""8
93J3
'06'"
5250
119.93
5,'"
134.28
4215
3.855
4.OO1l
3....
147.00
161.00
.....
'75,00
0 ....
0,'/01
0.133
o.7lI4
0.779
0"'90 1
"'0'
Q.812
2D6JlO
0,828
3....
222,"
0_
3,139
C18~
2,685
'240
251.00
C19
C20
227'
2874
2.594
2.237
263.00
275.00
C21
.,..,
....
NONIIdAcaMs
......,...
H",,_
C22 0 T~
CD
C24
C25
TetnIIcoGal'Mll$
...-
C26
H8Xllcz:/RINIS
C28
""""""'"
cv
C29
C30
1.421
1281
1.149
.....
.....
.,.,..
lieptec;ouna
.,791
0,104
.642
0.007
0543
Nol'laCCl!tollft8
Trtacootanatl
CO,
""=
-
2._
I.'"
'.821
.....
.1.461
1,414
1.361
1283
1255
1.15:9
C33
C34
TrttrIIcootaoes
TotralriIIJconIIea
0.470
. 458
',00$
1.039
C35
P.~
0.379
C36
C37
HexId:rI8contaneo
H.......-
0,'"
.,832
O.S23
0.346
0.333
0.316
0.273
--
C3Il~
C39
C40
(>I,
Nonairiacontanes
o....
T_
0.211
0.194-
T-.........
0.1$
.,...-
0.169
0.146
0.160
C44
C45
0_
0.71.2
0.717
0.195
""_
Trl'f.etnlcDntanea
C42
C43
.....
Peralatelraoontlna
0.610
0.557
0....
.....
29'.00
305.00
318.00
331.00
34$,00
358."
314.00
......
......
416.00
430,00
.....00
458.00
472,00
488.00
500,00
514.00
526,00
.......
"'.00
$10,00
......
598.00
612.00
"".00
C47
Hel)tlllkd~
C4IJ
O=~cootanu
0.135
0.""
.503
0,434
C49l1l1.lrud~
0.123
2.4a2
o,<IDa
_..
11.355
goo,71
CSOt
P~P!US
......
""""
"',00
......
1.484
2312
3,""
4"'"
3.490
.2.010
2:'151
1282
.....
.,...
.....
.,,..
0,'"
0,873
O.VB
.,,..
.,...
.,,..
.01!2
3m
......
(t753
2,417
2.$07
0.564
.."'"
2,2.2
.....
(1,541
2,312
1.116.
0,425
2,031
1.11..
0.311
0,'"
0.225
.203
0.182
"'
..
1.627
1.300
'.226
1,1,46
D.1G
.975
0.135
.,,,",
0.141
I ....
0.eg7
0,125
D...,
D.!103
0...7
0.4)10
0.913
0.111
.,925
0,653
0.102
D.096
.,086
0.7S7
.,12'/
0.074
0.073
.652
0,915
C.9le
0.920
D0,825
0.92'/
D,'"
D.931
0.932
0,'"
.....
."'.
.....
D_
0.1l42
0,'"
0,'"
0,060
0.555
0,055
0.521
0.516
.,503
o....
0.050
0.043
0.042
D.03'
0.""
0.031
0"""
0.1121
D.023
.ms
.944
0.021
1.143
.m
O.Ots
002659
3528
2.155
=.00
1.052
...,.
3,563
3.455
0.770
0.000
1!t994
3J!14
3.838
0.951
2,177
..,.os,...,
os.
C17Ii~
Penfltdecanea
6'.418
4.572
0,815
C16~
C1S
0.919
0.000
.......
0,446
D,_
0,333
0.302
0,350
0,343
0.319
0.282
0.315
0212
.....
7,112
lmooo
[) ~1JI'~baedonnom;attonormalceJbondlstribuUm.
C Pristlme Ie inctude<t D Cjf and Phytane is IncI:uded as cu.
Grouetne of ReservoIr Fluid

M.......
Welpht%
100.000
15,813
MW
SG
T.
mel.....
9.977
3,203
27.959
1436
16,571
458,56
636.21
0,951
US8
1._
0.393
7.112
950.11
1,148
1629
1922
Thby~
PENCOR
Art ISO 9001 Registered Company
~Coret.&b.ecm~{8QO):z34..4205
Report No. 36'26-~AIIlmIl'I8ry

Prajad. Manager: Jason L.eBfatIC
April 29, 2010. pg 1 of 1
--
OC~W."
ae
tw. 1 SllJO BPOI
~CIll1)UiBlOck252
Reservoir Fluid Composition
.. Sum
__....
Flash
Qu.Uquid Ratio
FVF
PENCOR 10 No. 36126-54: 18.142 Ft. MD

V_ _
ry (14,000 psis and 170 "F to atmospheric:: pF'8SSUN: and 8fl*f)
2,802
NlA
..u...
_d
AP1Gmity
WatwContm't
eompcnenl
N.
el
e
C3
IC4
ea
c:7
ea
co
010:
en
e12
C13
Uquld
-"_.
.-
1.111
0.000
71.647
7.5911
5.414
Hydrogen SUlfkHI
......,.
......".
........
1.101
2 ....
0.905
1.!)23
0.931
0.8\:5
n-81.1t8.1\e
'C6
nCS ""Pentane
nC4
Atmo$pherlc
uquld
(l.G1
N",-
COa Carbon tliad:le

fitS
Atmospberfc
VePQr
"""""
(Symbol' Name)
H_
..
""""
Nonanes
0."'"
0._
o.:anu
0_
""""",.,.
DodeeanJes
Trk:I9c:anea
C14T~
30.07
0_
0.210
0.002
0.076
58.12
"132
0290
1.077
1.774
0.376
0.619
C28
C2B
""""""""
Nonac:os.atlft
C30
Trfaeol'ltanes
C31
6.062
7.761
5.291
5.044
134,20
5.907
4.93\
4201
3.841
147,00
161.00
'.f!'93
3.974
3 ....
3.418
115.00
190,00
200.00
9.115
'00:1.
2.1134
2.461
251.1)0
1.'"
1.448
2,131
0.623
0.201
0.182
0,111
C4S
HexilIlll'a!:lQI'Itmn
0.'62
0.140
0.145
0.148
0.581
D."'
"
0.518
D."'"
0 ....
.....
0 .....
2.'"
11,417
OJm
OJ""
0.882
O.BOO
0."'"
100000
l00.llOO
"""
0."'"
0_
2.467
1.278
1.566
....7
'.689
.....
3.491
OOO.S1
D."'"
0.944
0.'"
1.153
...'"
I....
t.78O
'.400
om
1.3.42
US7
(1,197
0.191
1.198
0.168
0.'37
1....
0.933
0.139
0.127
0.113
0.022
0.023
0.920
0.923
0.925
0.927
2.147
2.04$
.205
0.026
0.918
2.425
0.672
0.$49
0.435
0.418
0.396
0.3511
0.942
_00
3246
2.639
:2,413
1.27'
0945
0.941
_00
2....,
04.415
640.00
...""
.....
2.235
0.933
1.143
598.00
612.00
6211.00
0,910
.....
0.034
0.1'.3
0.802
0.,,"
0.100
0....
0.63S
0.582
0.504
0.520
0.491
0.468
0.448
0':'01
0.394
0.365
0 ....
0.....
0.3,.
0.2711
D.""
0294
0.307
7.167
100.000
l00.lJOO
0.024
66
23.31
ht
3."""
0_
OJlll2
0 ....
0 ....
0 ....
528,00
542.00
....00
570,00
504.00
D.""
3.651
4.609
.....
O.fOl
0.097
0_
0.075
Q,071
0."'"
0.1'53
0.053
0.D41l
0.04$
0.042
0.036
0.'"
0.032
0-"29
0.027
0.711
D.""
P.nbIttlf'lcontanes
0.'"
0.'"
0.745
0.226
C45
'1lIlJIIlO
0 ....
0.915
co,
CO2
ht
"643
o.w
0,913
0.782
0.000
6.393
..,..
0'.841
472.00
....00
500.00
514,00
0264
0.780
19.e'12:
,.530
"...
458.00
Telracontanes
..=
-"
'.400
.0Z7
''''''
NonatriacDnf1ma
0.000
0.'"
o.9Il7
0.928
0.803
0.629
0222
C."'"
"""
.....00
"'.00
HHt
Reservcb'
Ftuld
0.801
1.215
1,116
1.044
Fluid
mole")
0.'117
Reservoir
0,812
0,815
D.'"
0--.-
Toial
Cak:uIaIedMoJe
MIrasutad Mole W
331,00
Q,611
0....
0.7!l6
0.132
0764
0.779
0.790
402.'"
416.00
C39
C50+ P~Pius
'ABS
L56Il
0.624
374.00
"".00
C38
c.w_
"""-""'-
lS07
1.748
291.00
305.00
318.00
0.350
0.S07
0....
0.504
1....
.--
c...T_
C44 Tetratetracont.anee
us.
0111.
0..."
0.300
un
0.605
0.519
0.471
0 .....
0."..., _
2235
263.00
m.oo
--")}
0....
0.700
o.m
"_. ,'"."...
=00
1.842
0.332
0.333
0.306
0.284
C40
.....
119,96
:m.DO
1.1'47
C31!_
.....
2....
.....
.....
~'IIMS
TeItatria~4IS
44.'0
03.01
107,09
8.763
lUI48
'.228
1.191
""'............
T
__
_
C34
16.04
11119
.....
2.472
037_
C32
C33
C35
C.OOO
58.12
72.1.
12.1'
66.18
2=
ezr_
0.000
Specific
. Gravity
002660
NOf'II'I~
2M
44.01
0.009
3.1)31
2.612
Octadec:arwta
Weight
0 ....
3 .....
"'""""'"
_H.,eICOl5Ml!S
..
M._ -'"
0.000
H~
C20
C21
CO2
"API at eo"F (WalfIf FfM)
0.""
...'"
Pentadecann
H~
...'"
(Air"'JXI)
35.2
0.06
"'...
C16
C17
CIS
C26_
0.000
0.000
4,199
C23 T _
C24 T-...nos
C25 . . - . . . .
_"
C1S
C19
Atmospher1c
0 ....
:206,10
$eo following pages rClf l./qtJld ArIa~~, Oltrel'8nt Compo$itlopal Gn:MJPings, CJIl..9ued Mud C8lc1.1\a1Jons. Ubfttted gu propertlss, etc..
CompcslIjonaI groupings boNd ... normaIlononnal ~ dIstrlOutIon.
Prlstane 1$ fnCIUI:kId as C, r and Phy!ane IS II'IcIIJdbd as c,.<
CQrn~ftkmal
Group
C10+
C20+
e30+
C50+
GroupIngs of Reservotr Auld

Mole %
WeJoht%
100.000
100,000
15.E162
62.805
9.671
51.210
3.237
28.253
1.386
16.771
0.:;91
7.1S7
MW
52.66
SG
T,
211.16
0_852
0.665
0.952
1,00S
N/A
273.17
459.64
637.03
950.57
1.153
'149
1436
163'
1926
"TbbyConetld(ll'l
PIlNCO!I
An ISO 9001 ~ CrnpIny
"lo'~'l"")234-4205
RAPCd No. 36126-Prellmlnary
ptcftdMaNls/oDC
JIIIISOnLeBIanc
AtU29.201o.pg1C1r1
CJ1
o
o
Su Corrected Cone. (ng/mg)

.....
.....
N
g
o
CJ1
o
o
o
o
o
N
CJ1
o
o
Naphthalene
. Cl-NaphthaIOllll.
C2Naphlh.len
C3-Naphlhalenss
C4-Naphlhalene.
Benzolhiophlllle
ClBenzolhlophene
C2Benzolhlophene
C3-Benzothlophene
Biphenyl
Acen.phlh}'tene
::u
_.
Acenaphlhene
Dlbenzofuran
fA
Fluorene
.,CD
ClFluorenes
-s_.::
C2Fluorenes
C3-Fluorenes
."
!
Carbazole
c.
Anlhracene
m-
Phenanthrene
-t~
ClPhenenlhrenelAnlhracen
)(0
C2PhenanlhrenelAnlhracene.
000
0
C3-PIlenanlhranelAnlhrac.ne.
......
C4-PhenanlhranelAnlhracene.
....
~
--
Ow
Dlbenzolhlophene
Cl.Dibenzolhlophene
" tI
ac.
C2.Dibenzolhiophlllle
C3-Dlbenzollliophene
Fluoranlhene
s::
Pyrena
Cl.FluoranlhenosiPyrenes
C2Fluoranihenos/Pyren
C3-Fluoranlllenes/Pyrenes
Naphlhobenzolhiophene
Cl-Naphlhobenzolhlophene
C2-Naphlhobenzollliophena
C3-Naphlhobenzollllophene
Benz(.)anlhracene
CIuy.ene
Cl-Chrysene.
C2.Chryne.
C3-Chrysenes
C4-Chry.ene.
Senzo(blfluoranlhene
aenzo(k)fluoranlhen.
Benzo(e)pyrane
Benzo(.)pyrane
Perylene
Indeno(I,2,3-c,d)pyrane
Dlbenzo(.,h)anlhracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
002661
Su Corrected Cone. (ng/mg)

c:.n
o
o
......
o
""'
01"
I'.)
o
o
o
01
o
o
Naphtllalene
Cl-Naphtllalenes
C2-Naphthalene.
C3-Naphthalene.
C4-Nephlhalenes
Benzothlophene
Cl-Banzothiophene
C2-Banzothlophene
C3-Banzolhlophene
Biphenyl
Acenaphlhylene
Acenaphthene
::rJ
Oibenzofuran
iii"
Fluorene
CD
C1-Ruorenes
""I
C2-Auorene.
."
C
C3-Fluorene.
Camezole
me:
Anthracene
-t)(...1i.
Phenanthrene
Cl-Phenanlhrene/Anthl'llcene.
COO
...... ....
l>W
C2-PhenanthreneiAnthrscen
00
C3-Phenanthrene/Anlhracene'
--a
....
-
0...1i.
C4-Phenanlhrene/Anthrscene.
Dlbenzothlophene
C l-Dlbonzotlllophene
'"tJ
C2-Dlbonzolhlophene
C3-Dlbonzolhlophene
Co
Fluorsnlhene
c
n
Pyrena
Cl-FluorsnlheneslPyren
C2-FluorantheneslPyrenes
C3-FluoranlheneslPyrenes
Naphlhobenzothiophena
Cl-Naphthobenzothiophene
C2-Naphthobenzothiophone
C3-Naphlhobenzothlophene
Benz{a)anthracene
Chrysene
Cl-Corysenes
C2-Chrysene.
C3-Chrys....
C4-Chrysenes
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
eenzo(k)6uoranlhene
eenzo(e)pyrene
eenzo(a)pyrene
Perylene
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Olbenzo(a,h)anthtllcene
Benzo(g,h,l)perylene
002662
c.n
o
o
Su Corrected Conc. (ng/mg)

.....
.....
I\,)
o
o
o
c.n
o
o
o
o
o
I\,)
c.n
o
Naphthalene
CjNaphthalene.
C2Naphthalenes
C3-Naphthalanes
C4-Naphthalenas
Benzothlophene
ClBenzolhlophane
C2-Benzothlophane
C3-Banzothlophane
Biphenyl
I
iii
II
!IIiiiIiiI
Acenaphlhylene
Acenaphthane
Dlbenzofuran
Fluorene
C1Fluorene.
C2..fluonmes
::a
-til
(1)
""I
-c:
me:
.....
)(...:a.
."
C3-FI"orenes
Carbazole
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Cl-PhenanlhreneJAnlhraeenes
00
C2-Phen.nlhreneJAnlhracene.
00
...... -tt
C3-0PhenanthreneJAnthracenes
C4-Phenanthrene/Anthracenes
Oibenzothlophene
Cl.0Ibenzothlo;;hene
C2-Dibenzothiophene
C3-0ibenzothlophen.
Ruoranthene
Pyren.
C1~RuoranthenesJPyrenes
C2-AuoranthenesiPyren.s
C3-FluoranthenesiPyrene.
Naphlhobenzothlophene
Cl.Naphthobanzothiophene
C2-Naphthobenzothlophene
C3-NaphthObanzothlophene .
--
Chrysene
C2-Chrys....
C3-Chrysenes
--a
...:a.
mw
fiJ
"'C
fiDIii!D
Q.
c:
CO)
Ii!!!
f""It.
1&1
Iiii!I
iii
IiIiI
iii!I
iii
Benz(a)anthreeene
Cl-Chrysenes
II
I11III
II
C4-Chrys.nes
8enzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthen.
Senzo(eJpyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Parytena
Indeno(l,2,3-e,d)pyrane
Olbenzo(a,h)anthra"""e
Benzo(g,h,iJperyiene
002663
SU Corrected Cone. (ng/mg)

VI
tvaph
C.z
tvahh
c,J
.
tv
ahht
Catv.. '
c... 'Phe
....VI
o
o
N
VI
o
o
.."tva
8el)~~htt}at.
1
cC ' 8en<Ofhi, ''''l1e'
<'8e"
O/Jhel)b
'"
a "~Othl.
c ' 8el!: Ohhel)e
'lOtl);OPL
"ef/e
8I!J.L
.<lC'ef/
"f)I)J4
"phl
h:V/ef/f)
ef/iJ/Jh
Di/;)
thef/e
-<Ie:
el)~OflJl'qf/
~/i.Jor.
c.z.~". ef/e
"Of'e
cJ.~/lJ, 'l)es
;;tJ
iii"
.,
Ca'~/IJ:~:~:s
c
CD
-_.
ilf'/;)CI~o/,
."
4l)thr.
e
Ph
<tC'el)e
el)iJ!}tl',re!}/!!
C
Q.
m-I..;a.
C1...
cJ...
ca.
><C)
DI6f)!}~o.
C1~:'.
C1'Dib
fhlOhh
f)1!:~o
. e!}/!!
th'o/Jh
e!}e
ca'Dib
th'ophe
&f/~Oth .
fIe
f:/lJ, 'ophe!}e
Ora!}tlIle!}&
PYre/'Je
C,J'DrL
14I&f/~O .
COO
C) ....
-a
....
-
..... ..;a.
'
C)w
-0
Q.
C1..
CJ...
tva
'Phthob
e/'J~Ot.L.
Ca.
".
ph&..
1110
c.z...
cJ.
8&/'J~J"
C.!].
fCl1iJI!:rh
...
riJC'e/'Je
ChI>.
C1' . YSel)&
Ch
c:(
I'Yse!}es
ChIYs.
ca'Ch el)es
C4CIJIYsel)e:s
8
e!}~O(6)", IYsel)es
8&
'I'}~O(Ir)ft.lJorCl'l)thel)e
rCl
IIJO
8e/'J~O(e):thel}e
8ef/~O(CI)p'Yte/'J&
lI)Clel) (.
1'1'&/'J/!!
p&I'''
D ,'L 0 1,J
y'/el)&
141e
' 't;CIJ.
'I'}~O(.. ", 'PYrf)n~
8
"'I<Il)t!,
'"
el)~Oft.
r"C'ef/
;h,i)Pel>1. f)
.Y'el)e
002664
002665
SiloS Laboratori
Project Jl0848
Report 10-2389
Eptrlx,lno.
MC252 011 Spill Project
Polycyollc Aromatic HydrocaJibon Data
Client Submitted Semple.
Sample Name
Client Name
Matrix
Collecllon Date
Received Date
Extraction Date
Extraction eateh
Date Acquired
Method
Sample Weight (mg)
Ollullon
ElXS070.0
Riser Fluid (10 of 13)
Product
04127110
04130110
04130110
EOM 557
05101110
PAH-2002
15.2
NA
Target Compounds
Su Corrected
Conc. (nglmg)
Naphthalene
Cl-Naphthalenes
C2-Naphthalenes
C3-Naphthalenes
C4-Naphthalenes
8enzothiophene
Cl-Senzothlophena
C2'Benzothlophene
C3Senzothlophene
Biphenyl
Acenaphthytene
Aeon.phthene
Diben20furan
Fluorene
C1-Fluo",nes
C2-Fluorene.
C3-Fluorene.
Calt_le
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Cl-PhenanthreneJAnthraeones
C2-PhenanthreneiAnthracene.
C3-PhenanthrenelAn1hracenes
C4-PhenanthreneiAnthracenes
Diberuwthiophene
Cl-Dlbenzothlophene
C2Dlbenzolhlophene
C3-Dibenzothiophene
Fluor.nth.ne
Pyrena
ClFluorenthenaslPyrenes
C2FluorantheneslPY11Ones
Cl-Naphthobenzothlophene
C2-Naphthobenzothlophene
C3-Naphlhobenzolhlophene
Benz(a)anlhraoene
Chrys"""
Cl-Chrysenes
C2-Chrysenes
C3-Chrysenes
C4-Chrysenes
Ben:ro(b)fluoraethene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Perylene
Indeno(1.2,3-c.d)pyrene
Dlbenzo(a,h)anlhraoene
Benzo(g.h,l)perylene
ETX8070A.D
Product
04127110
04130110
04130110
EOM 557
05101110
PAH-2002
15.2
NA
Q
Su Corrected
Conc. (nglmg)
637
1470
2140
1490
869
8.5
41.1
32.4
49.0
181
<10 U
11.3
31.8
136
330
533
445
1.8 J
<10 U
274
676
135
563
309
47.3
184
199
157
5.1
10.4
65.8
118
95.5
40.4
69.8
103
58.6
9.0
39.7
95.5
99
56.6
3.6
0.5
11.0
1.2
1.7
0.6
1.1
1.1
Total PAHs
ETX8070S.D
Product
04127110
04130110
04130110
EOM 557
05101110
PAH-2002
15.2
NA
Q
634
1460
2090
1510
917
9.1
36.4
33.9
46.2
179
<10 U
10.7
30.5
132
373
504
422
1.9 J
<10 U
266
676
616
556
308
46.9
157
204
149
5.7
10.4
64.4
115
96.7
36.3
67.0
91.4
53.5
9.4
36.7
90.0
96.6
50.9
3.6
6.8
0.6
11.2
1.4
1.9
0.7
1.0
1.0
12379
12445
ETXS070.D
Rls.r Fluid (10 of 13)
Product
04127110
04/30110
04130110
EOM 557
ETX8070.0
Riser Fluid (10 0113)
Product
04127110
04130/10
04130/10
EOM 557
Standard Deviation
%RSD
Su Corrected
Cone. (nglmg)
632
1480
2100
1630
917
9.5
39.7
34.5
50.5
182
<10 U
12.5
31.7
130
330
534
420
1.0
<10 U
262
667
796
514
301
48.8
142
192
150
5.1
9.7
62.8
118
92.9
42.1
85.2
97.5
51.2
9.6
39.2
89.7
103
57.8
3.7
6.6
0.5
10.8
1.4
1.7
0.6
1.1
1.0
6.4
Client Project #71084030
12451
2.5
10.0
26.5
20.0
16.2
0.4
0.7
1.3
1.3
1.8
2.4
1.1
2.2
1.5
6.2
3.2
4.5
0.8
0.9
0.7
3.1
24.8
17.0
13.9
0.2
8.0
2.3
2.3
7.2
3.3
3.2
8.6
12.0
5.2
43.0
27.0
4.4
0.9
11.2
6.0
4.4
0.3
0.4
1.5
1.7
2.9
3.0
2.3
5.8
3.8
0.3
0.5
3.3
3.2
3.7
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
4.4
0.8
55
4.9
1.4
1.9
7.3
3.0
2.9
10.8
1.8
8.1
6.5
9.1
5.4
5.6
39.9
0.3
23
15.3
10.0
7.5
4.5
0.3
1.7
1.5
0.9
3.0
2.6
1.5
0.7
1.4
6.5
4.0
2.3
1.5
3.0
7.5
3.4
6.0
7.0
3.3
1.3
3.6
3.2
6.7
2.7
3.0
Individual Alkyl Isomers and Hopanes

1380
1010
1100
242
170
21.7
<10 U
45.4
2-Methylnaphthalene
l-Methylnaphthalene
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
1,6.1-Trimethytn.phthalene
l-Methylphenanthrene
C29-Hopane
16a-Oleanane
C30-Hopane
Surrogate (Su)
NaphthaienEHI8
AoenaphlhenEHI10
PhenanthrenEHI10
Chrysane-d12
ParyienEHI12
1420
963
1090
255
166
22.2
<10 U
44.6
13eO
984
10eO
242
175
22.3
<10 U
45.9
Su Recovery (%)
Su Recovery (%)
Su Recovery (%)
12
108
89
95
76
91
91
93
60
62
73
96
69
96
82
Qualifiers (Q): J=Below the MDL, U=Not detected, B=ln procedural blank> 3. MOL. 1=lnterference, D=Dlluted value. NA=Not Applicable, "=Outside QA limits, rafer 10 narrative
511110
002666
B&B laboratories
Project Jl0846
Report 10-2389
Enlrix.lnc.
MC252 011 Spill ProJm
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Data
Standard Reference Malerlal R.port
Sample Name
CII.nIN.mo
M.trlx
Collection Data
Received Dale
Extracllon Date
Extra.tlon Batch
Data Acquired
Method
Sample Walght (g)
MS30666E\.O
SRM 1582
Petroleum
NA
NA
NA
EOM 5561EOM 557
04130110
PAH-2002
1.7
Targel Campoundo
Su Conec!od
Cone. (uglg)
Q RPO
SRM 1582
B&BAverage
Certified Cone.
Cone.
+15%
Cone.
(uglg)
(ug/g)
754
123
529
1011
881
641
167
715
1367
1193
867
12.0
34.5
29.3
39.7
10.0
16.9
16.'
21.7
4.6
8.7
1.2
3.8
35.8
132
255
242
30,4
112
218
206
41.2
152
284
278
110
326
543
522
275
35.5
125
257
250
93.3
277
234
30
106
218
213
126
375
624
600
316
41
144
296
288
68.8
105
85,4
39.8
58.9
78.1
55.2
58.5
89.3
72.6
33.8
50.1
66,4
46.9
79.1
120.8
98.2
45.8
67.7
89.8
63.5
21.6
86.4
125
58.5
18.4
58.1
106
75.2
24.8
76.7
144
102
33.5
28.4
38.5
(%)
!U9i9)
Naphthalene
Cl-Naphlhalenes
C2-Naphlhalen...
C3-Naphthalen
C4-Naphlhalene.
Benl!Olhlophene
Cl-Benzolhlophane
C2-Bonzothlophene
C3-Benzothlophene
Biphenyl
Aoenephlhylene
Aeenephthene
Oibenzofuran
Fluorene
Cl-Fluoren
C2-Fluoranes
C3-Fluorenes
Carbazole
Anthreeene
154
6.0
558
9.1
9.6
0.7
3.0
1080
Naphlhobenzothlophen.
C l-Naphlhobenzothlophene
C2..Naphthoben2:othiophene
C3-NaphthQbenzothlophene
eenz{a)anlhreeene
Chtysene
Cl-Chtysenes
C2..chtysenes
C3-Chtysene.
C4-Chrysenes
Benzo(b)6uoranth.n.
Benzo(!<lfluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benl!o(a)pyrene
Petyl.n.
Indeno(I.2.3-e.d)pyrene
Dlbenzo(e,h)enthracen.
Benzo(s,h.l)petylene
1030
732
8.7
41.4
79,4
174
30.6
<10
17.1
12.0
34.2
121
253
233
16.6
4.0
103
361
525
513
275
36.2
121
245
249
6.7
7.6
63.3
101
85
42.2
59.3
74.6
56.3
3.6
19,4
80.4
119
60.8
<10
1.6
1.2
6.8
1.3
37.0
2.0
0.6
2.1
Tolal PAHa
7850
Phenanthrene
C1 ..PheoanthreneJAnthracenes
C2-PhenanlhreneiAnthreeenes
C3-PhenanthrenelAnlhreeenes
C4PhenentltrenelAnthraeenes
Dibenzothiophene
ClDibenzothlophene
C2-Dlbenzothfophene
C3-Dlbenzolhlophene
Fluoranthene
pyrene
Cl-FluorenthenesiPyrenes
C2~FluoranthenesJPyrenes
145
622
1189
1037
-15%
6.4
l00:H.O
10.2
3,4-
1.7
0.0
2.0
32.91.7
3.3
4.6
0.4
8.3
3.9
0.1
5.9
0.7
4.6
2.0
10.7
12.4
4.9
9.1
452
444
J
J
J
J
10.0
30.2::t 1.7
Saltad Ratio.
D2fP2
D31P3
0,457
0.485
1.4
1.3
0.473
0,479
0.402
0.407
0.544
0.551
02IC2
D3/C3
2.059
3.052
0.1
8.7
2.066
2.825
1.748
2.401
2.364
3.249
Ft.f'y2lC2
Ft-I'y31C3
0.849
1.056
g.o
1.0
0.840
0.965
0.714
0.820
0.955
1.110
lodlvldual Alkyllaomo", and Hopane

2Methylnaphthatene
I.Mathylnaphthatene
2,6-0Imethylnaphlhalene
1,6.7Trimethylnaphlhalene
1~Methylphenanthrene
C29-Hopane
160-01 nane
C30.Hoeene
Surrogate ISu)
Naphlhalene-d6
Aoenaphthene-dl0
Phenanthrene-dl0
Chty""""'<l12
PerylenlHl12
539
380
549
151
93.6
193
56.5
270
11.0
8.B
9.2
0.7
6.6
602
415
353
602
512
512
152
100
129
85
692
477
892
175
115
4.0
281
239
323
Su Recovety (%1
84
96
86
88
85
Qualifiers (a): J=BeJow tho MOL, U=Not dltec1ed, B=ln procedural blenk > 3x MDL, 1=lnterferenee. D=Dlluled valll&, NA=Not Applicable, "..outside QA limns, refer to narratlve
511110
002667
B&B Laboratories
Project Jl0848
Report 10-2389
Sample Name
Client Nema
Matrix
Collection Date
Received Date
Extra.l1oft Date
Extraction Batch
Date Aequlred
Method
Sample Volume (ml)
Entrlx,lnc.
MC252 011 Spill Project
Polyeyellc Aromatic Hydrocarbon Data
Laboratory Control Material Report
MS306661.D
AR-WKCC-2S0-028
Solution
NA
'NA
NA
EOM 556/ EOM 557
05101110
PAH-2002
1
Target Compounds
Cone. (nglmL)
Naphthalene
C1.Naphthalenes
C2Naphthalenes
C3Naphthalenes
C4Naphthalenes
Benzothlophene
ClBenzolhlophene
C2-Benzothiophene
C3-Benzothiophene
Biphenyl
Acenapl'llhylene
Acenaphlhene
Dibenzo!uran
Fluorene
Cl-Fluorene.
C2Fluorenes
C3-Fluorenes
CarbaZole
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
C1-Phenanthrene/Anthracenes
C2-PhenanthrenelAnthracelies
C3-PhenanthrenelAnlhracenes
C4PhenanlhrenelAnlhracenes
Dibenzolhiophene
Cl-0ibenzolhiophenes
C3Dibenzothiophenes
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Cl-FluorantheneslPyrenes
C2-FluoranthenesiPyren.s
Cl-NaphthOlleozothlophene
C2-Naphlhobenzotrnophene
C3-Naphthobenzolhlophene
Benz(a,anthracene
Chrysene
C1-Chl)'SSnes
C2Chrysenes
C3-Chrysenes
C4-Chrysenes
Benzo(bjfluoranthene
Beozo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Ben%o{a)pyrene
Perylene
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anlhracene
Benzo(g,h.i)perylene
Q RPD
254
NA
NA
NA
NA
242
NA
NA
NA
247
245
201
241
235
NA
NA
NA
233
221
269
NA
NA
NA
NA
246
NA
NA
NA
262
242
NA
NA
NA
266
NA
NA
NA
236
233
NA
NA
NA
NA
256
248
259
255
258
252
245
244
(%)
LCM
Certified Cone.
(nglmL)
-15%
Cone.
(nglmLj
+15%
COI1C.
(nglmLj
1.3
251
213
268
2.3
248
211
285
-0.6
-0.6
0.5
5.4
249
241
200
248
248
211
210
170
211
211
286
283
230
285
285
-6.0
-11.8
8.4
248
249
247
210
211
210
285
2B6
284
-0.5
241
210
284
4.6
-2.0
250
247
213
210
268
284
5.9
251
213
266
-5.S
-S.S
250
247
213
210
288
284
2.0
0.0
3.1
2.2
3.0
2.4
-2.0
-1.8
251
248
251
250
250
246
250
249
213
211
213
212
213
209
213
211
269
265
269
261
268
283
266
286
1.4
1.2
-0.7
-<1.1
-5.6
248
247
251
246
249
210
210
213
211
211
285
288
265
266
7.9
250
213
288
-2.9
Individual Alkyllsom.rs and Hopanes

2-Melhylnaphlhalene
1-Malhylnaphthalene
2,6-0imethylnaphlhalene
1,6.1-Trimathylnaphthalene
1-Methylphananlhrene
C29-Hopane
18a'()leanane
C30-Hopane
SU"01l8te 4Suj
Naphlhalane-d8
Acenaphlhene-dl0
Phenanlhnsne-<l10
Chrysene-<l12
Perylene-d12
251
250
249
233
235
NA
NA
271
2B4
Su Recovery (%)
107
101
112
108
105
Qualifiers (Q): J=Below Iha MDL. U=Not detected, B=ln procedural blank> 3. MOL, 1=lnterierence. D=Dlluted value, NA=Not Applicable, "=Ouiside QA limits, refer 10 narrative
511110
Question on the wellhead
002756
Subject: Question on the wellhead

From: II Lyon , Randolph M." <Randolph_M._Lyon@omb.eop.gov>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:03:39 -0400
To: Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov
cc: "Levenbach, Stuart" <Stuart_Levenbach@omb.eop.gov>
1'm curious why BP doesn't have a pipe connected to collect the oil that is coming out of the top of the new
fixture. Understand that folks will now allow the test to go forward, but while they were evaluating that
matter, why wasn't the oil being collected? And, once they end the test, won't we need to collect this oil
coming out the top of the fixture?
Manythx.
}of1
}0/1l20] 0 4:09 PM
[Fwd: Re: Question on the wellhead]
002757
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Question on the wellhead]

From: "Dave.Westerholm" <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:15:04 -0400
To: Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
------- Original Message -------Subject:Re: Question on the wellhead

Date:Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:14:24 -0400
From:Dave.Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
To:Lyon, Randolph M. <Randolph M. Lyon@omb.eop.gov>
CC:Levenbach, Stuart <Stuart Levenbach@omb.eop.gov>
References:<C963F160879AE2418D26DE5798A83E0408C6E72B@SMOMB01 EVS.eopds.eop.gov>
Randy,
Although not my area of expertise I believe this may be the result of the integrity test they are
working on and the amount of pressure they want on the system at this time. I believe they intend
to start pressure testing this evening (it may have even started)
vIr
Dave
Lyon, Randolph M. wrote:
I'm curious why BP doesn't have a pipe connected to collect the oil that is coming out of the top of the new
fixture. Understand that folks will now allow the test to go forward, but while they were evaluating that
matter, why wasn't the oil being collected? And, once they end the test, won't we need to collect this oil
coming out the top of the fixture?
Many th.x.
10fl
101 1I20 I 0 4:09 PM
Re: Question on the wellhead
002758
Subject: Re: Question on the wellhead

From: "Lyon, Randolph M." <Randolph_M._Lyon@omb.eop.gov>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul2010 21 :39:35 -0400
To: Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov
CC: "Levenbach, Stuart" <Stuart_Levenbach@omb.eop.gov>
Thx very much. Wishing us all luck on the test.
From: Dave.Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>

To: Lyon, Randolph M.
Cc: Levenbach, Stuart
Sent: Wed Jul14 19:14:242010
Subject: Re: Question on the wellhead
Randy,
Although not my area of expertise I believe this may be the result of the integrity test they
are working on and the amount of pressure they want on the system at this time. I believe
they intend to start pressure testing this evening (it may have even started)
vir
Dave
Lyon, Randolph M. wrote:
I'm curious why BP doesn't have a pipe connected to collect the oil that is coming out of the top of the
new fixture. Understand that folks will now allow the test to go forward, but while they were
evaluating that matter, why wasn't the oil being collected? And, once they end the test, won't we
need to collect this oil coming out the top of the fixture?
Manythx.
lof!
10/1/20104:09 PM
[Fwd: Heads up well testing and NOAA]
002759
Subject: [Fwd: Heads up well testing and NOAA]

From: Shelby Walker <Shelby. Walker@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul2010 16:02:52 -0400
To: "dave.westerholm@noaa.gOll' <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
- - Original Message - Subject:Heads up well testing and NOAA

Date:Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:51:01 -0400
From:Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>
To:'David.KennedY@noaa.gov' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, Philip M. Kenul <Philip.M.Kenul@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm
<Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov>
CC:'Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov' <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>, 'Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov' <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>, 'beth.lumsden@noaa.gOll
<Beth.Lumsden@noaa.gov>
The science solutions group in Houston chaired by Secretary Chu has requested NOAA help in testing the integrity of the new cap.
We
are going to use PISCE:S for this mission which will sail with appropriate expertise tomorrow.
More details as available.
We
They want"
have the best and the brightest acoustic
On instructions from the WH please keep close hold.
Steve
Shelby Walker, PhD <shelby.walker@noaa.gov>

SlIategic Planning Team Lead
Office of Policy. Planning and Evaluation
Office 01 Oceanic and Atmospheric Researdl. NOAA
lofl
10/1/20104:09 PM
[Fwd: Re: Heads up well testing and NOAA]
002760
Subject [Fwd: Re: Heads up well testing and NOAA]

From: Shelby Walker <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:04:25 -0400
To: "dave. westerholm@noaa.gov" <Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov>
- - Original Message-SubjectRe: Heads up well testing and NOAA

Date:Tue, 13 Jul2010 15:55:25 -0400
From:Philip M. Kenul <Philip.M.Kenul@noaa.gov>
To:Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>, "'David. Kennedy@noaa.gov''' <David. Kennedy@noaa.gov>, Dave Westerholm
<Dave. Westerholm@noaa.gov>
CC:'Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov' <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>, 'Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov' <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>, 'Beth.Lumsden@noaa.gov'
<Beth.Lumsden@noaa.gov>
What happened to the Gunter:

----- Original Message -----
From: 5te~e Murawski

To: 'Oavid,Kennedv@noaa.gov' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>: Philip M. Kenul: Dave Westerholm
Cc: I Shelby. Walker@noaa.qov' <Shelby.Walker@noaa.gov>: 'Steve .Murawsl:i@noaa.oov' <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>; 'beth .lumsden@noaa.gov' <beth.lun
Sent: Tue Ju1 13 15:51:01 2010
Subject: Heads up well testing and NOAA
The science solutions group in Houston chaired by Secretary Chu has requested NOAA help in testing the integrity of the new cap.
We are going to use PISCES for this mission which will sail with appropriate expertise tomorrow.
More details as available.
They want
We have the best and the brightest acoustic
On instructions from the WH please keep close hold.
Steve
Shelby Walker, PhD <shelby.walker@noaa.gov>

Strategic Planning Team Lead
Office of Policy. PlaMing and Evaluation
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. NOAA
1 of 1
10/1/20104:09 PM
'Plwne' results
002761
Subject: 'Plume' results
From: Justin Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov> .

Date: Thu, 03 Jun 201007:24:16 -0400
To: "'dave.westerholm@noaa.gov'" <Oave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, Robert Haddad
<Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>, "'david.kennedy@noaa.gov''' <Oavid.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,
"'steve.murawski@noaa.gov'" <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>
cc: IIIdwh .staff@noaa.gov''' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Good morning from Baton Rouge,
What is the status of the analyses of water samples from the Pelican, Weatherbird
and other research missions? What do we know and when and how will we release
that information?
I have a 9:30 a.m. call where I need to talk about this issue.
Many thanks,
Justin Kenney

Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
lofl
10/1120104:09 PM
Re: 'Plume' resuJts
002762
Subject: Re: 'Plume' results
From: Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>

Date: Thu, 03 Jun 201007:46:14 -0400
To: Justin Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
CC: "'dave.westerholm@noaa.gov'" <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, Robert Haddad
<Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>, "'david .ken nedy@noaa.gov'" <David. Kennedy@noaa.gov>,
"'dwh.staff@noaa.govlll <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
we will talk on the call Justin, Bob and I are in Baton Rouge this am and can talk with you
Steve
Justin Kenney wrote:
Good morning from Baton Rouge,

What is the status of the analyses of water samples from the Pelican,
Weatherbird and other research missions? What do we know and when and how
will we release that information?
I.have a 9:30 a.m. call where I need to talk about this issue.
Many thanks,
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
loft
1011/20104:09 PM
Re: Access to BP high res film? Re: follow up question -- urgent
002763
Subject: Re: Access to BP high res film? Re: follow up question -- urgent
From: "Gilson, Shannon" <SGilson@doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 201020:36:37 -0400
To: "Westerholm, Dave" <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, "Dieveney, Beth"
<Beth. Dieveney@noaa.gov>
CC: "'dwh .staff@noaa.govlll <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, "Spring, Margaret"
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, "Kenney, Justin" <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>, "Medina,
Monica" <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>, "Conner, William" <William.Conner@noaa.gov>,
"Kennedy, David" <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>, "Parsons, Roger"
<Roger.L.Parsons@noaa.gov>, "Rolfe, Jason" <Jason.Rolfe@noaa.gov>, "Lehr, Bill"
<BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Marcia mcnutt and david hayes directed them to us.
From: Dave.Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>

To: DieveneYt Beth
Cc: Gilsonl Shannon; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; Spring, Margaret; KenneYI Justin; Medina,
IVlonica; Conner, William; Kennedy, David; Parsonsl Roger; Rolfel Jason; Lehr, Bill
Sent: Tue Jun 08 20:34:412010
Beth.
As it was given to the FRTG of the NIC let's go back through the NIC.
Roger/Jason, can you guys determine the process for getting to DOE and pass this request
to the appropriate people.
I thought DOE had someone on the solutions group but I don't know who that is
Bill Lehr, you were cc'd as you were part of the FRTG.
vIr
Dave
Beth Dieveney wrote:
Dave and BillDo we have / can we share access to the high res film that was shared with the
FRTG?
Beth
From: Gilson, Shannon <SGilson@doc.gov>
To: 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov' <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>; Spring, Margaret
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Kenney, Justin <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>; Medina,
Monica <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>
Sent: Tue Jun 08 19:43:09 2010
Subject: FW: follow up question -- urgent
See below. DOE needs access to video below ASAP. Who can help here?
lof2
10/1/20104:09 PM
Re: Access to BP high res film? Re: follow up question
w_
urgent
002764
From: Leistikow, Dan [mailto:Dan.Leistikow@hg.doe.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, J,une 08, 2010 7:39 PM
To: Gilson, Shannon
Cc: Croft, Cammie
Shannon -We need to get access to the High Resolution video of the BOP that was
given to the Flow Rate Technical Group ... CNN has already run the footage (probably
leaked from someone).
Cammie Croft (cc'ed) is the point of contact here who needs to get access to the video
electronically somehow and will know the technical ins and outs of how to do that.
Whoever is responding should send it to her and CC me
THANK YOU
20f2
10/1/20104:09 PM
002765
From: Bill Lehr <BilI.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 18:13:58 -0700
To: "Dave.Westerholmn <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
Dave,
Do you have to go through this stuff every day? If so, demand combat pay.
My understanding is that the USGS folks have a copy (hard drive) of the video. They
received it the same time as we did. I think they are going to arrange to see it posted on
their ftp site. We would use our ftp site but the video is on a protected site and we wouldn't
want just anyone to have access to some of the other materi~ls on the site.
Bill
On 6/8/105:34 PM, Dave.Westerholm wrote:
Beth,
Roger/Jason, can you guys determine the process for getting to DOE and pass this
request to the appropriate people.
Bill Lehr, you were cc'd as you were part 'of the FRTG.
vIr
Dave
Dave and BillDo we have / can we share access to the high res film that was shared with the
FRTG?
Beth
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Kenney, Justin <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>;
Medina, Monica <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>
Sent: Tue Jun 08 19:43:092010
Subject: FW: follow up question - urgent
lof2
10/1/20104:10 PM
002766
From: Leistikow, Dan [mailto: Dan. Leistikow@hg.doe.govl

Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:39 PM
To: Gilson, Shannon
Cc: Croft, Cammie
Shannon -We need to get access to the High Resolution video of the BOP that
was given to the Flow Rate Technical Group ... CNN has already run the footage
(probably leaked from someone).
Cammie Croft (cc'ed) is the point of contact here who needs to get access to the
video electronically somehow and will know the technical ins and outs of how to
do that. Whoever is responding should send it to her and CC me
THANK YOU
2of2
10/1/20104:10 PM
002767
Subject: Re: Access to BP high res film? Re: followup question -- urgent
From: Jason Rolfe <Jason.Rolfe@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 201007:38:14 -0400
To: "Dave.Westerholm" <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>
CC: Beth Dieveney <Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov>, "'SGilson@doc.gov'" <SGilson@doc.gov>,
IIIdwh.staff@noaa.gov'fI <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, "'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>, "'Justin.kenney@noaa.govlll <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>,
"'Monica.Medina@noaa.gov''' <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>, IIIWilliam.Conner@noaa.govlll
<William.Conner@noaa.gov>, "'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov''' <David.Kennedy@noaa.gov>,
Roger L Parsons <Roger.L.Parsons@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr <BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov>
lll
I will ensure Marcia McNutt's representative from USGS here at the NIC has gotten the
video to all members of the FRTG. DOE does have membership in that group.
Thank you,
Jason
Dave.Westerholm wrote:
Beth,
Roger/Jason, can you guys determine the process for getting to DOE and pass this
req uest to the appropriate people.
Bill Lehr, you were cc'd as you were part of the FRTG.
vIr
Dave
Dave and BiIIDo we have / can we share access to the high res film that was shared with the
FRTG?
Beth
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Kenney, Justin <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>;
Medina, Monica <Monica.Medina@noaa.gov>
Sent: Tue Jun 08 19:43:092010
Subject: FW: follow up question - urgent
lof2
10/1120104:10 PM
002768
From: Leistikow, Dan [mailto:Dan.Leistikow@hg.doe.govJ

Sent: Tuesday, June 08,20107:39 PM
To: Gilson, Shannon
Cc: Croft, Cammie
Subject: FW: fOllow up question -- urgent
Shannon -We need to get access to the High Resolution video of the BOP that
was given to the Flow Rate Technical Group ... CNN has already run the footage
(probably leaked, from someone).
Cammie Croft (cc'ed) is the point of contact here who needs to get access to the
video electronically somehow and will know the technical ins and outs of how to
do that. Whoever is responding should send it to her and CC me
THANK YOU
20f2
10/1/20104:10 PM
002769
Flow rate
Subject: Flow rate

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:46:30 -0400
To: '''dwh .Ieadership@noaa.gov''' <DWH. Leadership@noaa.gov>, "'dwh .staff@noaa.govlll
<dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
Close hId til announcement:
35,000-60,000 bpd is new consensus from FRTT + DOE's evaluation of pressure is.
Let's now finalize our long term short paper and get it into clearance along w
response letter to east coast Members .
. I'm at MEDEA meeting this morning, so not on our am calls.
Jane
Jane Lubchenco
(202) 482-3436
lofl
10/1120104:10 PM
002770
Miami Herald get back
Subject: Miami Herald get back

From: Frank Parker <Frank.Parker@noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul2010 15:13:02 -0400
To: Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>
CC: dwh.staff@noaa.gov
Hey Scott,
The natural seepage rate of oil in Gulf of Mexico is not something that NOAA tracks. The Bureau of Ocean
Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE, formerly MMS) reports that natural seepage in
the Gulf of Mexico is 9.5 Million Gallons per year (226,190 bbls/ year). This translates to 26,027 gallons/day or
620 bbls/day. Offering a single concentration (amount/volume) for the entire Gulf of Mexico is challenging
because the concentration varies widely and is dependent upon a number of factors including (but not limited to)
distance from the source of the seepage and the rate of biodegradation.
Hope this helps,
frank
~~~s::"rt.~;.:\:i...
~":'I-~~~.v::t
V".
';40:, C=..~.'f;..t~ ~
, 1.'I"'! S!::;
'J.'J~~~. C(: ~n~
From: Bernard A. Megrey [rnailto:Bern.Megrey@noaa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, July 27,2010 14:58
To: Frank 1"1. Parker
Subject: from Goveners TP 27July
Natural Seepage Rate in Gulf: BOEM utilizes a rate of natural seepage in the Gulf as 9.5
Million
Gallons per year (226,190 bbls/ year). This translates to 26,027 gallons/day or 620 bbd.
Bernard A. Megrey, Ph.D.

Deepwater Horizon Team
Living Marine Resources Lead
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
Herbert C. Hoover Commerce 8uilding, Room #5215
1401 Constitution Avenue, NW
Email: bern.megrey@noaa.gov
Cell: 240-328-4406
1 of 1
Frank M. Parker <frank.parker@noaa.gov>
NOAA Program Coordination Office
10/112010 4:10 PM
Lehr is talking with BP and Working on vohnne
002771
Subject: Lehr is talking with BP and Working on volume

Date: Mon, 26 Apr 201009:59:07 -0700
To: Dave Westerholm <Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov>, William Conner
<William. Con ner@noaa.gov>
Based upon observation of the subsurface plume, discussion with BP, satellite images and the reports
of our trained observer on-scene, NOANERD believes that the release rate is several times larger
than 1000 bb/day. Our scientific staff should have further, more detailed calculations later today.
Doug Helton
206-526-4563 (wk)
206-890-7760 (cell)
lofl
10/1/20104: 10 PM
002774
Oil Budget Overview Talking Points 8.4 updated 9pm
The Oil Budget Calculator provides an account by experts of what's happened with the
oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill and makes clear that the administration's
response removed significant amounts of oil from the Gulf.
Overall the report shows that the vast majority of the oil from the BP Deepwater
Horizon oil spill has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the
wellhead or dispersed. The dispersed oil is in the process of being degraded.
A significant amount of this is the direct result of the robust federal response efforts.
The historic response, which has included more than 6,000 vessels and 40,000
individuals, has been effective.
o
The Unified Command's aggressive recovery operations, including burning,

skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead were successful in removing
from the Gulf approximately 1,257,789 million barrels (one quarter ofthe oil).
Direct capture is one of the actions the government directed BP to do.
More than an additional 400,000 barrels (408,792) barrels was chemically

dispersed, bringing the total result of Unified Command efforts to more than 1.6
million barrels, or about one third of the total amount of oil removed or
dispersed.
One quarter (l,172,792m barrels) was dispersed, either naturally or chemically.

The result of dispersion is to break the oil up into microscopic droplets, about
the width of a human hair. These droplets are in the process of being naturally
degraded by microbes.
Twice as much oil was dispersed naturally as was dispersed chemically. (763,948
barrels or 16% was dispersed naturally; 408,792 or 8% was dispersed with
chemicals at and below the surface.)
One quarter of the total oil (1,243,732 m barrels) evaporated or dissolved

naturally.
The residual amount of oil, i.e., oil that cannot be measured directly or estimated
with confidence, includes oil that remains at the surface as light sheen, just
below the surface as tar balls, washed ashore or already removed from the
shore. This residual amount totals 1,253,839 barrels, or one quarter of the total.
The oil that is left in the water is light sheen, it is weathered and diluted, and if
and when it washes ashore, it will largely be in the form of tar balls and not
heavy oil.
Oil that is dispersed beneath the surface, on the surface as light sheen or washed
ashore is in the process of natural degradation.
002775
That said, we continue to monitor the water, we continue to assess and we continue to
be concerned about the long term effects ofthis spill and what it means for the health
of the Gulf ecosystem and the millions of people who depend on the Gulffor their
livelihoods and enjoyment.
The Federal Government is not going anywhere. We are committed to this region and its
long term recovery. We are here until the oil from this spill is cleaned up and the people
from this region are made whole.
As you know, teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since
Day One of this spill, and based on the data from those efforts and their collective
expertise, they are now able to provide these useful estimates.
These estimates were derived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the Department of the Interior (DOl), who jointly developed whafs known
as an Oil Budget Calculator, to provide measurements and best estimates of what
happened to the spilled oil. The report was produced by scientific experts from a
number of federal agencies, led by NOAA and USGS, with peer-review of the
calculations by other governmental and non-governmental scientists. The calculator is
based on 4.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gult the governmenfs Flow Rate
Technical Group estimate from Monday, August 2, 2010.
The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements where that is possible
and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible.
Other research efforts are currently underway to further understand and quantify the
location and concentrations of subsurface oil, and results, as-you know, so far have
shown that diffuse concentrations in the low parts per million, exist at depth. Our latest
information is that those concentrations are being degraded through time.
We will continue to monitor and sample and conduct a number of other studies to
quantify the rate of degradation. Because that is a key question about which we'd like
more information. While further analysis remains to be done to quantify the rate of
002776
Oil Budget Q&A 8.4.10

1.
How long does it take for dispersed oil to biodegrade? Is there an approximate length of time
ora range?
varies greatly depending on oil type and water conditions. NOAA NSF and DOE are actively
studying this important question to studying, and we hope to have results soon.
2.
Have the data already been peer-reviewed, or are they going to be peer-reviewed? Also, did
outside scientists help with the calculations?
The Oil Budget Calculator was developed by a team at the US Geological Survey (USGS) in the
Department of the Interior (001) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOM). The tool was created by the USGS in collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOM and
NIST.
A number of outside scientists reviewed the calculation methodologies. The names of scientists
on the teams and those reviewing the calculations are all listed at the end of the document.
3.
With all the ships and dispersants and the skimming and the burning, why did 67 percent of
.
25% of the oil evaporated, and 16% of it dispersed naturally, so 41% was not even available to
be skimmed or burned. The response efforts targeted the remaining 59% of the oil, and
addressed more than half of that between burning, skimming, direct recovery and chemical
dispersion.
Skimming and burning are not effective when oil is on the surface in thin layers, so some of the
oil could not be effectively removed.
4.
You say the federal effort has had a significant impact, but what's the precedent? How can
not 50 percent? See answer above.
It is hard to give a direct comparison, as each spill is unique. Because this is spill originated more
than a mile below the surface, and further from the shore, the impacts have been different.
5.
been tested on the natural environment and certainly not in these amounts?
It is important to note that 8% of the spilled oil represents over 400,000 barrels of oil, oil that
might otherwise have washed up on beaches and marshes. For context, 400,000 barrels is
slightly more than 1 Y2 Exxon Valdez spills - not an insignificant amount.
002777
6.
efforts, how should the federal government have changed its response efforts?
coordinated response by the Federal Government and Unified Command to a spill of
unprecedented scope were successful in completely removing 25% of the oil and dispersing
another 8%. We have also been fortunate that mother nature has helped as well, with natural
dispersion, evaporation and dissolution accounting for a significant portion ofthe oil.
NOAA and the Federal Government remain vigilant -- we continue to monitor shoreline areas
quantify the concentrations and location of subsurface oil, and better understand the long term
impacts of this spill.
7.
How long will the oil be present and visible in the GulfThere is very little visible oil left in Gulf waters. At this point there are small amounts of residual
oil on or just below the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls. There is also some oil in
the subsurface, at depth, in dilute amounts that is undergoing natural biodegradation.
8.
This report has no impact on BPs financial liability for this spill. They are still required to restore
for all damages to natural resources {NRDA} and they can be fined based on the volume
released as outlined in the Clean Water Act. As we have said all along we will hold BP fully
9.

The residual amount, just over one quarter (26%), is either on or just below the surface as light
sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, is buried
in sand and sediments, or has been biodegraded.
002778
microns - about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this small are neutrillly
and at the surface.
and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps
regularly.
There is not oil on the deep sea floor. Oil that is beneath the surface, as far as we can
determine, is primarily in the water column itself not sitting on the sea floor.
In some of the near shore areas there are reports of tar balls or tar mats essentially lying on the
sea floor; this can occur in cases where the tar balls have come ashore onto beaches and have
picked up sand or other material, then washed back out in the surf. The sand and sediment
causes them to sink and stay on the bottom, but this oil remains close to the shore, not in the
deeper portions of the Gulf.
The sheer volume of oil that was released sets this disaster apart. 4.9 million barrels released
will undoubtedly have significant impacts.
We've seen some of those impacts play out in obvious ways because they're at the surface.
What we have yet to determine is the full impact that the oil will have beneath the surface.
monitoring and research effort underway to help us actually better understand the Situation
12. A recent JAG report said that you found oil subsurface in the 4-7 ppm range. Is that still the
case?
002779
That is the range for the dataset in the most recent JAG report. Our first report found
concentrations of 1-2 parts per million based on chemical analysis otwater samples. The
second report used f1uorometric data and based on calibrations of f1uorometers, indicated a
likely concentration of 4-7 ppm or less in the sampled areas. There are variations depending on
the methods used to analyze subsurface oil concentrations. The Joint Analytical Group will soon
release chemical analytical data from the research missions that will add to our understanding
of the overall picture of where oil is below the surface.
The main point here is that the oil that is subsurface is, as far as we can tell, in very small
.
002813
Latest Wellhead Integrity Test Input
Subject: Latest Wellhead Integrity Test Input

From: Samuel Walker <Sam.Walker@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:40:10 -0500
To: _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>
AllAttached, please find the latest slide decks (from BP and Federal Science Review
Team) on the wellhead integrity test monitoring. Largely based on seismic and
acoustic data. These at the data and recommendations that are presented to Sect.
Chu's Science Team.
All monitoring will extend until the static kill commences.
monitoring TBD.
Any post kill
NOAA Ships PISCES has been doing amazing work here for several weeks, along with
the GORDON GUNTER. NOAA Ship HENRY BIGELOW will relieve the PISCES on Friday.
Next meeting is Friday.
Will keep you posted.
Best regardsSam
Samuel P. Walker, PhD
Senior Technical Data Manager
NOAA Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Program
1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1225
301.427.2450 - office
301.427.2073 - fax
803.807.1189 - mobile
Content-Type:
application/pdf
GOV Input - WIT 28 JUL 1100.pdf C
E
d'
b
64
ontent- nco mg: ase
-BP Input 28 JUL_11 OOhrs_WIT R e v i e w . p d f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
lofl
,,_
_ _ _ w __ _ __
,.
-I"content-Type:
a~~li~~tion/Pdf'
. BP Input 28 JUL 1100hrs WIT Review, Pdf. IC
E
d'
b
64
, ontent- nco mg: ase
_....
,.
1011120104: 11 PM
Topics for Discussion

July 28, 11:00am COT
Well Integrity/Shut-In Discussion

11:00am CDT
1/2812010
10.1' (";Iii'.' M('t'tU\5t~\lO.l1J'J,r Mf$\ll JUL 1100
7/28/2010
002814
1. Surface Seismics - Marcia McNutt, Kate Moran,

Larry Mayer.
a. 20 seismic data review - Cathy Enomoto, Walter
Mooney
b. NOAA Sonar Monitoring - Larry Mayer
July 28, 2010
Seismic Monitoring
during Shut-in
USGS Geologic Team, July 28,2010,11:00
002815
1.Surface Seismics
a. Update on 2D/seismic data review - Cathy
Enomoto, Walter Mooney
20 Seismic review: Cathy Enomoto, Walter

Mooney
Lines 4, 5, and 2H
7/28{2010
'7/ J8!;:010
002816
Basemap
Line 5 (left) & 3D seismic (right)
002817
002818
:c
N
Q)
c:
:.:J
'"C
c:
CO'
~
Q)
:::-
0-
ro
E
C1J
VI
ro
CO
002819
1. Surface Seismics
b. NOAA Sonar Monitoring - Larry Mayer
NOAA SONAR MONITORING

28 July 2010 11:00 Central Time Presentation
7/28/2010
11
7/28/2010
12
NOAA SHIP PISCES as of 0900 EDT 28

July 2010
COMPARISON OF PISCES WELL-HEAD

TRANSECTS 20 July and 27 July
002820
Well-head acoustic target - 27 July 2010

NOAA Ship Pisces
ROV and Vessel Sonar Sensitivity Test
Acoustic (EK60) Observations: Preliminary Results
7/2812010
15
7!2Si2010
002821
28 July 2010
16
0650Z 28 July - OBLIQUE VIEW Relative Target Strength
1/28/2010
06:40 06:50 07:00 07:10 07:20 07:30 07:40 07:50 08:00 08:10
002822
06:40 06:50 07:00 07:10 07:20 07:30 07:40 07:50 08:00 08;10
1?
7/28{2010
is
002823
..c
....
a.
G1
>
"'tl
G1
"'tl
V
I
(5
S
L&.I
:>
z
:5
Q.
I
>
:i
....
00
N
N
LI'I
\D
::l
~
;0
N
;:::
..c
....
a.
G1
>
"'tl
G1
"'tl
(5
U
S
L&.I
>
L&.I
:J
CI
::J
al
>
:i
....00
N
N
0
LI'I
\D
0
::l
g
;0
FROM THE PISCES:

ROV's Moving toward cage between 06S0Z and 0713Z?
We do see three ROV's, I believe."
7/28/2010
21
7i2S/2010
.22
002824
"Unfortunately, our VOIP line was really bad (first time in 2 weeks -lousy timing), so we
were not able to join in the conference call for the test. Test started in the wee hours of
the morning. We were monitoring the ROV feeds as best we were able. The first bottle
was opened and a charge of gas (not sure what kind) came out in a few seconds, and
that was pretty much it. Similar on the second bottle, except that they had a few
minutes of trickling gas (few drops per second at first, then 1 drop per second,
roughly). Unless it was methane and turned to hydrate, I'm not sure we'd expect free
gas in clean bubbles to make it very far up in the water column. There was some
acoustic interference - both from transponders (speckle in data) and from ships. Not
very different than what we'd expect to see at well head.
NOAA SHIP PISCES 27/28 July 2010

Working >1.S km after dark, SOOm -l.Skm during daylight, over well-head
when possible
Several lines over well-head morning of 27th and 28th , "bottle" test in wee
hours of 28th
Acoustic target observed at well-head - more continuous and somewhat

higher amplitude than those observed last week. Consistent with
observation of steady bubble flow from flange on 3 stack.
002825
"Bottle-test" inconclusive w.r.t. PISCES. ROV's identified in sonar but based

on preliminary analysis no gas signal
PISCES departs -0200CDT 29 July - BIGELOW expected on site 30 July

-0200CDT
7/28i2010
23
Pressure from the Kill Line Pressure Transmitter

Current Pressure = 6942.38 psi; July 28,2010
bp
1000.00
-~
..
6950.00
i<::
1,
eooo.oo
c..
;
.. ,,'''''''_'
.:
,:
6650.00
.
.9:
6800.00
6760.00
!!!
67OD.oo
:g
c..
',',' ,.
.',
...-
665D.00 ." ...
... -.- ...
.. -.
,,~~
".,,,..
6800.00 _.c..
r-"-
.....
"
"
.~ .----
.. "".......
.... I,,-~,.-- ..,..... _-
6850.00
6800.00
1115222
t- .....
".~".".-".
711711:54
7f2:{JQ:Z1
7123 O:5Q
Date & time
712516:32
712SS:05
002826
c(/)
Homer Plot - Data to 05:59 2&July-2010
bp
t)
Derivative and De-convolution Plots (28-Jul)
2010/07/15-1228; OIL
.. ...._
.
, '.
.................. _ .......... u.,...... _u.- .. + -
"DP & Derivative' plot to left, shOwing

"stability" pick (for permeability) and
a "half slope' indicative of channel
behavior
('.
, !
!\
P* ::; 6890 psia
002827
;;
1':::7-_~~.......... .
"\
.'
9
10
102
101
{Tp'" dT)IdT
Pressure increase -9 psi 124 hours

Consistent with reservoir boundaries
HI'
.'
.',
"Deconvolution' plot to right, showing

unit slope behavior (deconvolution
assumed rate of 30mbd)
.0:"
,.'
101
101
o.ltaT(hr)
,,.
.'"
~p
bp
Data
t)
Well head flow indicators
Seabed Vlsual
No obse..""d ""omali...
Seabed Sonar
Data
Anomaly Investigation Log
Me 252, 7/28/10, 10:00
@ 06:30 = 39.68 deg F (7{27)
E;vent:
TImelDa.te:
Lomlnn:
Description:
Actions:
Observation:
Interpretation: BP
Interpretation:
17Jull0
3kmSWof
MC2521
_lIheed
22:30 Reported
plume from
R8IIkIwedon poSl
event lsmlc;
Nogoophysloal
anomalies obsel'\lOd
on data acquired
4126 and 71171110
BP: Colru:ld.nt wHh

MC296-1 (Rigel)
well heed
7126110 - Gordon
Gunter surveyed
712e/l0-Anomaly
obsel'\lOdaml
reeorded by Gordon
Gunter.
Gas plume; note that

Ihe loca!icn Of \Ilis
feature_
surveyed by NOAA
Ship Pisces on four
separate occasIons
and k we. observed
three of the four
tlmes. suggesting
intermittent release
of gas Post shut In
line 3 Imaged; no
Science Team
@04:30 = Peak 41.08 F (7/28)
@ 09:30
Pisces
= 40.71 deg F (7/28)

16" ConducterTemp(FJcammudnt71<J.2010
area.
G... bubbl.. from mud line and cement outlet (no

110
Ttmpmturt wbilellowiu& rntlI.fHM at 48
des f
anomaly at or near
the seafloor, at.or
near 1110 MC296-1
well head location.
cbange. Third sample and fourth
samples enroute to lab.
Hydrocarbon weeps from below the 3 ram stack

connector and at upper annular. Periodic video
assessment being initiated.
18Jull0
54m.45deg
from
wellhead
13:15 Reported
plume from
Pisces
14:50lnvesDgated
No seabed \/isual or
with ROV UHO.
sonar anomaHes
observed
Boa Sub... M36:

4 sect<lr sonar
scan and seabed
survey
No plume found
wKhln +t- 25' of
Iocalion by ROV.
suspect -plume-Is
bubble stream from
cement port
Eftnta 2 & 3 are not two

separale oIettm. They
a!. acoustie
'"'KII'\III" at
!.he aeaftoor and In !he

water column that are
Interpreted as a plume
Initiated in the vicinity of
the Me 252'1 wellhead.
Hlsmoslllkel)'~soeiatBd
with gall lellking from II

1\iInge to flange metal
interface on the wellhead

(as abMrved by ROV
Hydrophone (Big ears)

Good records. No anomalies.
video) because thls l4iak
Geophone Array
Fifth
forms hydrate that

attaches 10 the wellhead
(R observed on ROV
data set being delivered to USGS and Labs. No anomalies.
videoj and intermittently

bA!aks off end rises within
tha pltme. Thue brukoff events are observed
-----------
-~-~~I!~~~---
002828
stade Leaks
hyclrate)
3'
Tempendme
Normal coverage. No ",,<>mali...

Sonar test to 'be repeated with increased gas supply.
'"
Data
t)
Anomaly Investigation Log (cont)
MC 252, 7/'1J3/10, 10:00
Event:
3
TlmeIDate:
18Jull0
Location:
87m,
070dag
from
Oe""rfptlon:
13:15 Report.d
plumafrom
Pisces
wellhead
18 July 10
13:15 Tllrough
water column
plume_ned
from Pisces, up
to 1000m
above seabed
15:45In"".tlgated
wIII1ROVUHD,
Boa Subsea M3S:
4 sector sonar
scan and ....b.d
au,,",v,
17:00 Investigated
SEendol.,...
wIII1F1OVUHO,
Boa Subsea M36:
<I sector sonar

scan and s..bod
ObservatlDn:
l"te'Prolatlo": BP
No seabed visual or
No sfgntfleant plume
sonar anomalies
found
No visual or sonar
No Observed plumo
18 July 10
16:00
36"
corniudor
housing
(mudllne)
Bubble.
observed, 1-5
seconds: per
bubble
TIme/Date:
location:
Description:
19Julyl0
Cement
return valve
Bubbl
observed
19Julyl0
02:00
Capping
stack
Leak, hydrate
fonnation
anomaHes observed
In water column
cutting through
vertlcaloxlenl of
"plume"
column. We cannot
No visual or sonar
anomalies obsel\lfld
No observed plum.
determine 1he source

of these bubbles but
two potential _ress
have been Identified:
g from the C<l1l1.nt
retum line or
in water column
methane.
Minor leak at metal
10 stack
gosket
integrity acceptable
for short term
20 July 10
Horizon
BOP
leak from
flange, hydrate
annular
fonnation
21 July 10
BOP.no
10
21 July 10
BOP and
Capping
Steck
11
23 July 10
BOP and
Capping
Stack
annular - typical of
subsea we!lheads.
at lsotech,
oornposftlon 85%
nRrogen, 15%
Monitor for increase

in bubble lIo_e.
to motel gosket
OvereD steck
Ukely offgasslng
from cemented
Sixtlea" bottl
procured, On route
to field.
Deployment
07121110.
Hydrate monitoring
connector
Capping
Slack
Most likely nnrogen
prod uti of cement
around conductor.
Interprotallon: BP
Inte'Prelatlon:
Awaiting lab
enalysis,
Hydrate monitoring
Minor leak at metal
in bubble fl."",,'e.
to metal gasket.
Overall.lack
integrity acceptable
lor short term ,
Nonnal variability.
preventer
9
sample 1 analyzed
on Enterprise, 16%
me1hane. Sample 2
&nalysfs complete
Observation:
capping slack and

.""oeialed hardware
was hydrostatically
tested to over
11,000psi , build up
of ga. iflslde stack
tikeiy producing I.ak
at ....tello melal
seat
S
mdlane from the

leaking llango on tho
cap,
euHlng through
vertlcaloxlent 01
"plume"
Acllon.:
Science Team
A plume of gas
bubbles In tho water
_bod
R.p.at ROV over
wellh.ad 7/19110
2 samples
obtelned
Event:
Db5efVed
survey.
In_lgallon by
ROVC!ll00m
tnt.Mls through
water column 10
l000m above
Interpratatlon:
SCI.nceTeam
See Event 2
Anomaly Investigation Log (cont.)
Matked
decrease in
bubble count
between 2030
and 2230h..
Bubble count
retumed to
eariier higher
value. at 0830,
Bubble count
approximately
doubled over
24-hrJ'l'ric>d,__
None,
Continue
monrtoring.
Possibly duo to g
build up in stack.
002829
V.rtlcal
plume
223m,
129degto
44m,44deg
from
wellhead
Actions:
Data
MC 252, 7/28/10, 10:00
None.
Continue
monitoring,
Normal variability.
None.
Continue
monitoring.
Normal variability.
---------~---
t,
bp
bp
Data
Me 252, 7/28/10, 10:00
()
Data - Seismic
Geophysical Operations, 7/1J',/10
Event
TlmelDlIfa:~ ~locatron:
DesCrJpQ08;
Ac8on.:
Obse,wth::m:
Interpratatlolt: SP
12
24 July
2010
Bubble
None.
Continue
Normal variability.
SOP"""
COppIng
SIaclt
data count.
Hmned, bill
monitoring.
Interpretation:
Sc:fenceTeam
No seismic operations planned for today 7/28

Topaz acquired Line 1 7/27 and aborted Line 2
values have
fallen back
$Ome'Mtat from
High streamer feather and Q4000 out of position
the observed
peak on July
23.
2SJulY
2010
Note: No
eve"'
"
reported on
14
the2s".
27 July
2010
BOPono
Capping
Slack
Bubble
All data processed and being loaded to workstation

None
ContInue monitoring
l~_
28 July
2010
Normal variability
data count
variable, but
Nikola acquired lines 1 and 2 successfully 7/27
meanvalu.
steady
BOP and
Capping
S1aek
Change In
Bubble
Morphology
Method to assess
\Wep rate under
Continue monltonng
Noonaf wriablltty
Continue monHoring
Notmalvariability
review
BOPono
Capping
Stock
Temperature
None
Proved increased flexibility from short streamer

Proved. that HR (high resolution) data are valid substitution for MR
l!!:!~
15
002830
13
..
---
resolution)
increasetito
41.DeF
ovemigilt.and
subsiding since
4:3Q
Allows consideration of Topaz release
("I.l .
:~
." - '
o
bp
bp
Seismic Data
4000% PSTM Stack: Topaz. Line 2H. July 22ml
""
,,,.
!roOm
002831
""
b P
2400% PSTM Stack: Nikola, Line 2, July 2ih
Comparisons MR to HR
-'
(i
,-
"'0
002832
".,
.......
"
bp
Surface and ROV Sonar
Interpretation & Discussion
Integrated Spatial Accul'llCY and Flux Identification Reliabillo/ test for both Pisces and ROV
Negative Test Indicators (as agreed in protocol with the UAC):
Sonar to be undertaken this afternoon outside of the 500m zone
Cl Pressures plateau less than 6000 psi
anel Protocol flnalized
Procedure
Concerns prior to test on
Attempted to test over night 7/27; however.
Cl Pressure transient or "breakover"
gas volumes available
Cl Visual or sonar evidence of broaching, especially near wellbore
gas volume was only sufficient for -5 minutes
Revising gas supply and will rerun 7/28 pm before P'lSceS departs field
Cl Observed le~ at BOP system
002833
Cl Differences on seismic
Cl Gas in water column
"
"
bp
bp
Recommendations
Forward Plan, 28
10:00
24 hour Data Acquisition & Monitoring Pian
(.)
s.;.,m., Ac.quIalIioII
-
No plartned Sejsmic aC9uisition over wellhead. Wed.ne$day. 28 July
Extend Well Integrity Test with monitoring as per guidelines
Plan to acquire Line I and Line 2 on Thu".ay. 29 July (48 bour data repea').
Surfio:e Sonar FuD Water Column Moultarlng

I'i$c.. daylight operation. within 500-1S00m "uliu. of ...Uhead: will .urvey do.. to ...Db... following seismic v....ls or as SIMOr.
enables.
Pisces night operations outside lSOOm radlus zone until 24:00 hours (Juty 28).
Horny Bigelow to S.dd Friday July 30 am.
Seabed So... Mcaltoring

-
FuU eover.age in place.
Rerun sonar test planned 1/28 pm.
Wdh..& G.opb""" Dobl Ac.quIalIioII

-
5'" data set rotrieved and nod. being redeployed 7/2il am.
Plan to retrieve 6LL data set 7/29 pm.
ROVpLm
-
Continued monitoring of pressure. tl!:mperature, weep rate and passive aemmics.
.&mmo........ !'moure Dobl Loging

Onshore being readied.
002834
002835
Subject; Latest Update from Well-head Integrity Test
Date: Fri, 30 Jul2010 11:39:19 -OSOO
To: Janel Baran <Janet.Baran@noaa.gov>, Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, _DWH
Science Box <DWH.Science.BoX@noaa.gov>
All-
Latest slide
providing- da ta
showing results of. wellhead integrity test monitoring.

the Federal Science Team.
NOAA Ship HENRY BIGELOW has successfully arrived and is
Outstanding work from NOAA Ship PISCES and CO Adams in paving the way for a successful handof! with the BIGELOW.
Many thanks to CAPT. Ablondi and CPR. Longenecker for working so closely with SIMOPS to ensure safe and productive work by PC and HB.
VIr
Sam
Samuel
PhD
Senior
Data Manager
NOAA Integrated OCean Observing System (lOOS) Program
1100 Wayne Avenue, suite 1225
Silver Spring, HP 20910
301. 427.2450 - office
301.427.2073 - fax
603. S07 .n69 - mobile
----~
------------------------------------------------
..
Subject: PRESENTATIONS ATTACHED - WIT BP Science Call- TODAY, Friday, July 30, 11:00am Central (12:00pm Eastem/10:00am Mountain)
From: "Chavez, Anne 1<:' <akchave@sandia.gov>
.
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 201009:29:00 -0600
To: "Chavez, Anne 1<:' <akchave@sandia.gov>, "'Chief.SMU@noaa.gov'" <Chief.SMU@noaa.gov>, "'steven.aoki@nnsa.doe.gov'''
<steven.aoki@nnsa.doe.gov>, "Bums, Michael J. (LANL)" <burns_michaelj@lanl.gov>, "'chinn3@lInl.gov''' <chinn3@lInl.gov>, "
''
<schu@hq.doe.gov>, "'
erkeley.edu>, "'Bryan. Domangue@mms.gov''' <Bryan .Domangue@mms.gov>,
"'richandJJlarwin@ostp.eop.gov''' <richardJJlarwin@ostp.eop.gov>, "Guffee, Ray M. (LANL)"
<guffee@lanl.gov>, "'Iars.herbst@mms.gov''' <Iars.herbst@mms.gov>, "'hickman@usgs.gov''' <hickman@usgs.gov>,
@comcasl.net'"
"'pahsieh@usgs.gov''' <pahsieh@usgs.gov>, "Hunter, Tom" <tohunte@sandia.gov>, "'
"'arun.majumdar@hq.doe.gov''' <arun.majumdar@hq.doe.gov>, "'mcnult@usgs.gov''' <mcnutt@usgs.gov>,
'"mooney@usgs.gov''' <mooney@usgs.gov>, "'kathryn_moran@ostp.eop.gov'''
<kathryn_moran@ostp.eop.gov>, "'rod.oconnor@hq.doe.gov''' <rod.oconnor@hq.doe.gov>, "'craig.pohler2@mms.gov''' <craig.pohler2@mms.golP,
"'tony. rediger@hq.doe.gov''' <tony.rediger@hq.doe.gov>, "'MichaeI.Saucier@mms.gov''' <MichaeI.Saucier@mms.gov>, "'william.shedd@mms.gov'''
<william.shedd@mms.golP,
"Stulen, Rick"
<mstule@sandia.gov>, "'Troy.Trosclair@mms.gov''' <Troy.Trosclair@mms.golP, "'sam.walker@noaa.gov''' <Sam. Walker@noaa.golP, "Ammerman, Curtt N.
(LANL)" <ammerman@lanl.gov>, "6ehr-Andres, Christina B. (LANL)" <beh~-andres@lanl.gov>. "Black, Stephen J. (LANL)" <sblack@lanl.golP,
"Blankenship, Douglas A" <dablank@sandia.gov>, "Bowen, Amy 0" <adbowen@sandia.gov>, "'bowers2@lInl.gov''' <bowers2@lInl.gov>, "Bultman, Nathan
K. (LANL)" <nbullman@lanl.gov>, "'kevin.s.cook@uscg.mil'" <kevin.s.cook@uscg.mil>, "Dunn, Paul S. (LANL)" <pdunn@lanl.gov>. "Dykhuizen, Ronald e"
<rcdykhu@sandia.gov>, "Griffiths, Stewart" <skgriff@Sandia.golP, "Hassan, Basil" <bhassan@sandia.gov>, n'havstad1@lInl.gov'" <havstad1@lInl.gov>,
"'hickman@usgs.gov''' <hickman@usgs.gov>, "Hurst, Kathleen T' <kthurst@Sandia.gov>, "Kornreich, Drew E. (LANL)" <drewek@lanl.gov>,
'"miller99@lInl.gov''' <miller99@lInl.gov>, "'mooney@usgs.gov''' <mooney@usgs.gov>, "Morrow, Charles W' <cwmorro@sandia.gov>, "O'Sullivan, Donald
Q. (LANL)" <dqosulli@lanl.gov>, "'missy.owens@hq.doe.gov''' <missy.owens@hq.doe.gov>, "'perfect1@lInl.gov''' <perfect1@Unl.gov>, "Ratzel, Arthur e"
<acratze@sandia.gov>. uRees, William S. Jr. (LANL)" <wsr@lanl.gov>, "Sims, James Rae Jr. (LANL)" <jsims@lanl.gov>, "Tatro, Maljorie"
<mltatrosandia.gov>, "TIeszen, Sheldon R" <srtiesz@sandia.gov>, "'wapman1@lInl.gov''' <wapman1@lInl.gov>, "'warner2@lInl.gov''' <warner2@lInl.golP,
"'pahsieh@usgs.gov''' <pahsieh@usgs.gov>, 'Philip H Nelson' <pnelson@usgs.gov>, 'Larry Mayer' <Iarry@ccom.unh.edu>, "Behr-Andres, Christina B.
(LANL)" <behr-andres@lanl.gov>, '''Maxted, Sarah Jane'" <Sarah.Maxted@Hq.Doe.Gov>, "'Hampton, Devin'" <Devin.Hampton@hq.doe.gov>,
"'Amy.Bodette@hq.doe.gov''' <Amy.Bodetle@hq.doe.gov>, 'Catherine B Enomoto' <cenomoto@usgs.gov>, "'kat,J)ustay@ios.doi.gov'''
<katpustay@ios.doLgov>, "'Flemings, Peter B'" <pflemings@jsg.utexas.edu>, 'Larry Mayer'
"'kevin.s.cook@uscg.mil'" <kevin.s.cook@uscg.mil>, "Ten Cate, James A (LANL)" <tencate@lanl.gov>, "'Knowles, Sara'"
<Sara.Knowles@Hq.Doe.Gov>, "'Dredd, Travis'" <Travis.Dredd@hq.doe.gov>, "Girrens, Steven P. (LANL)" <sgirrens@lanl.gov>, '''Ferencz, Robert M.'"
<ferencz1@llnl.gov>, "'Patrick.E.Litlle@uscg.mil'" <Patrick.E.Litlle@uscg.mil>
All,
The next WIT 6P Sdence Call will begin TODAY, July 30 at 11:00am Central'(12:00pm Eastern, 10:OOam Mountain), Please use 202-586-5004 for this call.
Presentations are attached and have been posted to the following link on SharePolnt:
https:llcollaborate sandia gQy/sltes/DeepwaterlShared%20Documents%20-%Z0New%20StructureifprIDs
lAIIItems,aspx?RQotFplder=%2fsltes%2fOeepwater%2fShared%20Doc!!ments%20%2d
%ZONew%20Structyre%2f10%2eO%20Dally%20Meetlngs%2f1Q%2e1%2QWIT%2QMtgs%2f3Q%20]Ul&fglderCUD-&
Ylew=%7bBQ3F051Q%2dZDEA%2d488A%2dAA3C%2d40B4A2EBBASQ%7d
TopiCS of discussion:
Seismic Monitoring - Marcia McNutt, Kate Moran, Larry Mayer
Please contact me with any questions. Thank you.
Annie Chavez
Sandia National Labs
505-414-5149
. PRESENTATIONS ATTACHED - WIT BP Science Call - TODAY, Friday, July 3D, 11 ;OOam Central (12:QOpm Eastem/10:DOam Mountain}.eml ccontent-e-T:
:
.
ontent
of2
10/1/20104:13 PM
002836
-BP Inpllt30JUL_l100hrs_WIT R e v i e w . p c : t f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Content-Descriptlon: BP Input 30 JUL_1100hrs_WlT Review.pdf

,BP Input 30 JUL_1100hrs_WIT Review.pdf Content-Type:
application/pdf
Content.encodlng: base64
GQVlnpllt-WlT30JUL 1100.pc:tf
-r
--'~---~----[-----'-
~,--',.-._.-
. . .--------
Content-Description: GOV Input - WIT 30 JUL 1100. pdf

GOV Input WIT 30 JUL 1100.pdf Content-Type:
application/pdf
Content-Encoding: base64
- - -"- ----- ---- _._. -- -_.
.of2
~~.
10/1/20104: 13 PM
bp
"What has changed: July 30, 10:00 pm 24 hour summary

WoIlhoai! Monltoring
-.
6961.13 psi @ 10:00 (9 psi incnwe over 24 hOIlI"$)
Tcmpemtue
Current 40.05 f'

W.m-!W"",
03 ~ep continues from flange at base and bad< or capping stack: initiated Zip pump deaning of essential surfaces as part of BOP inspecti()n
002837
Seiomie 8< W.- Column Monltoring
LiheS 1 &: 2-
atqU~ by Nikcl. agdo july. Topaz unable to Kquin!: due to currents:
Government agreement to reletie Topaz &om Me 252 awaited
I
11:00
hrs JOth July 2010
Sdmtic Lines
Attempted
kquind
Pmc-.i
Interprmd
Total
30
2J
23
21
Since 7J29 pm
s.m.:.Sou.r1'ull W_ Column_rlDc
Pisces dqwted field
sitll!' at
01:00 July 29. NOAA Hemy Bigelow in area; operating 15-20 mib North
Gas monitoring experiment complete. report in
o
bp
Forward Monitoring Plan: July 30, 07:00
bp
Surface and ROV Sonar
(i
Spatial Accuracy and Flux Identification test for both Pisces and ROV Sonar undertaken from
Welibeod MoDltodng
Pressure, Temperature. Weep Rate. Passive Acoustics, ROV visual and sonar ongoing
SeIamk, Seabed a: Wmr Column MonltoriDg

SeI.mW:
Next planned acquisition: lin.. 1&2 by Nikola, Saturday, July 31", am
smoao Sonar Full Wits Column MDDitmIng

-
SIMOPs orientation and HAZid before entering 1500 meter radius around wellhead
Pisces sadly only able to partake for first hour of test at highest flux rate.
Spatial accuracy test of Pisces sonar on five passes derived an average position for the
source with an error of 12.5m, total spread of accuracy 32m
Flux rates identifiable on ROV sonar to low level - all results being compiled.
002838
No seismic acquisition planned for Friday, July 30th
midnight 28/29h July
Recommendations
bp
Forward Plan, 30 July, 10:00

24 hour Data Acquisition & Monitoring Plan
SoiImk .Acquisition
Extend Well Integrity Test with monitoring as per guidelines

Release Topaz seismic acquisition vessel
No planned Seismic acquisition over wellhead, Friday, 30 July

-
Plan to ""Iuir. Lin. I and Line 2 on Saturday, 31 July (48 hour data repeat).
Release Topaz vessel
saraco SOIW" Full Wat..r Column M-CIriDfl

Bigelow daylight operations within S(')O-lSOOm radius of wellhead; will survey <:lose to we~e.ad following seismic vessel as SlMOPs
enahle~,
night operations outside 1500m radius zone.
Hen')' Bigelow to r.eld Friday July 30 am.
Seabed Sonar MooitClriDfl

Full coverage in place.
Wollhoad Geophono Dm .Acquisition

- 6U. dataset being processed
Plan to retrieve 7'" data ",t 8/1
ROVplm
-
Continuc4 monitoring of pressure. temperature. weep rate and passive acoustics.
002839
Pressure from the Kill Line Pressure Transmitter

Current Pressure = 6961.13 psi; 09:30 July 30, 2010
bp
7OOO.00r-
..... _--"- - - , - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - , - - - - - , - - - - , , - - - - - - - -
6950.ooi ......... - ...
-'-----.-,-------+----.--+. . . .-
. . . . . . . -i
6IlOO.oo1' ........ - .. --....-..--~ ....- ..-+..... . . ....t......
... . c..
...j ....... _-
. ".'
...... -[-
6850.00
002840
~II8OO.oo
c..
C7!1l.oo+.... " ......,.......
<:.......--...--l---~+. . -.-.._:_--.........
;::J
U)
:3....
0...
&100.00
OO6I).ooi -- ....--.. ,-.......- ....--...---1----... -+................... -.. 6IlIll.oof......-........-.....---... ..--..- ..-..........-..j ...................+-.........-- -......... ---.. ----------...... .
6!OO.oo-l------.--6500.00 I
1115222
7I1614Ji5
7HB3'29
111916113
11lt4~7
712211:11
71245:41>
Date &time
71l518:19
71276:53
11181917
7.00891
bp
bp
Horner Plot - Data to 05:59 July 30, 2010
.:
............. _.++++++f't+ ..... ff-+
..
t'
No change in trends
,~,
~
~
"
,.
+_ . ..,_____
............................................ ++ ......0:1
~.
".
~
10.1
100
10'
...
,0'
Oetta-T(hr)
10"
10'
10'
(Tp + dTJ/dT
Pressure increase -10 psi I 24 hours

Consistent with reservoir boundaries
10'
"Disconsolation' plot to right. showing

unit slope behavior (deconvolution
assumed rate of 30mbd)
....... .'
.........
~
....
,.,
"p
,OJ
10'
Oela-T(hr)
,,'
.+
~G:I
002841
.. .. .4"..
p. =6885 psia
Derivative and De-convolution Plots July 30
Data
t;
Well head flow indicators
Seabed. VIsual
ti
Anomaly Investigation Log
Me 252, 7/30/10, 10:00
Temperature
No ob........d anollllllies.
@ 06:30 = 40.78 deg F (7/29)

@ 06:30 = 39.92 deg F (7/30)
Normal coverage. No anomalies.

Sonar test report in preparation bubble reflected
36' Conductor Temp IF! commdnl 7202010
image easily differentiated.
l1"",IDate:
Location:
Oescripflon:
Actions:
Observation~
Interpretation: BP
tnterpmtatlon:
17Jull0
3kmSWof
MC2521
wellhead
22;30 Reported
pfumefrom
Re..ewed on post
event seismic:
No ge<>physlcal
anomalies observed
on data atqu1red
4126 and 7/171110
8P: Coincident with

MC.2lIfl..I(RlgeO
well head
Ga. plume; nct. that

the locallon of this
feature was
surveyed by NOAA
Ship Pisces on four
Tcmpctatute while (lowing
MCUUt'Cd
PiSC{lS
...o.~fl'"
separate occaslOO$
7126110 -Gon:lort
Gunter surveyed
*' AS dtg F
area.
(no
7126110 Anom.1y
observed and
recorded by Gordon
Gunter.
anomaly at or near
hydrate) continue. Third sample and fourth samples

nroute to lab.
and Hwas observed

1hre. of the four
I1me suggesting
Intermittent rei....
of gas Post shulln
line 3 Imaged; no
..
~I-
010
~Ai~
~~--'f!S.r .'W~~~ ;~
... ............. - - -
' ...... Itbd
Hydrocarbon weeps from below the 3 ram stack

connector and at upper annular. Periodic video
assessment in place. No signillcant change.
l~HI)
llWtJ':lIG
IJWIIIHKI
._...
the seafloQr. at or
near the MC29fl.l
well head location.
~~'.lIl\C1t
18Jull0
54m.45deg
from
wellhead
13:15 Reported
plumerrom
Pisces
14:50 Investigated
with ROV UHD,
80a Subs.. M36:
scan and seabed
No plume found
within +/. 25' of
Iocalion by ROV.
SUSpect "plume" Is
bubble stream from
survey
cement port
4 ..etorsonar
JJ1J/IIU:OO
No seabed visual or
sonar anomalle$
observed
'/l(VUltl
Hydrophone (Big eus)
Itt. tufloor and in the

water ooIumn thai are
mteJ1)reled .. II plUfM
rniUaled in the vicinity of
tha Me 252'1 'VWlIlhead.
ItltmoslllkfllyltaflOCiaied
.nth flU lealdng from Ii
::.n:::1::::'ad
1",",,,",.101
Good records. No anomalies.
Ewm2&3.ntncttwo
separate .v.~ They

are aeouatle rftponnsat
(as obMrwd by ROV

'<JIcleo) becaun lhhlleak
fOm'lShydndethlt
Geopbone Army
attachu totM wellhead

( obl:ltnt1ldon ROV
vldlioc) and inlermilltenfly
brtUlke oft' and ",0$ 'Wi'thin
lh& ptume. Thtie broekoff eventl .r. obaeMId
Fifth data set delivered to USGS and Labs. No anomalies.

--------------
mm
~~~J!m~~1'I9!f ~Ic
002842
StadtLeab
Event:
Sclon.oTum
Seabed. Sonar
Gas bubble. from mud line and cement outlet
Data
bp
Data
tl
MC 252, 7/30/10, 10:00
event:
l1melllate:
Locotlon:
Oescrlptlon:
Actlon!i: ~
Observation:
Interpretation: 61'
Data
Interpmtallon:
Science Team
18Jul10
18 July 10
87m,
070dog
from
wellhead
PI....
15:45 In""stlgated
wItIlROVUHD.
Boa Subsea M36:
No seabed visual or
No signmcant plume
sonar anomalies
found
scan and seab&d

survey.
11:00 Investigated
Seend of .......
wItIlROVUHD,
Boa Sub.... M36:
No visual or sonar
Momalles o b _
36"
corKhJdor
~.uslng
(mudllne)
Locallon:
De.crlptlon:
Actions:
19 July 10
cement
Bubbles
observed
Six clean bottles

procured. On route
tonold.
Deployment
07121110.
Hydrate montloring
return val""
_eMld
13:15 Through
water column
plume_ned
from I'lsces, up
101!lOOm
above seabed
4 c1or_
scan and seabed
survey.
Bubbles
obselV<ld, 15
seconds per
bubble
Repeal ROV ove,

wellhead 7119110
2 Sample.
obtained
No _e"",d plume
mwater column
culling through
wrtleslextenlof
"plume'
No visual or sonar
18 July 10
16:00
TlmeJDate:
<4 sector..,nar
Investigation by
ROV@!I100m
Intervals through
water cofumn to
1000mabow
seabed
Seee""nt2
Evanl:
No observed plume
anomalIes observed
In water <:alumn
culling through
vertical extent of
'plume'
Sample 1 analyzed
on Enterprtso, 16%
methane. Sampfe 2
.nalys" complete
at tsoleOO,
compos~lon 85%
nKrogen, 15%
melhane.
Aplumeofga.
bubbl.s In the water
corumn. We cannot
determine the source
oltha.. bubbles bill
two polentiDI .0.......
h.... been Identified:
gas from the cement
retum line or
methane tom the
le.klng flange on the
19 July 10
02:00
Capping
stack
connector
to stack
ga""et
Leak, hydrate
formation
20 Juty 10
Horizon
BOP
annular
preventer
Leakfmm
flange, hydrate
10""aUon
Hydrate monKoring
21 July 10
BOP and
Capping
Stack
Marked
decrease In
bubble count
betwe~n 2030
and 2230hrs
Bubble count
relumadto
eariier higher
va!ues at 0630.
Bubble count
apprwcim.taly
doubled over
None.
cap.
Most likely nitrogen
Ukely Offgasslng
product of cement
around conductor.
from cemented
10
21 July 10
BOP and
Capping
Stack
annular - typical 01
subsea wellheads.
11
'--
"
23 July to
60l'aOO
Copping
Stack
- - - - - - - - - -----
Observation:
Interpretation: BP
Monitorforinereas6
in bubble fiowrate.
Minor leak at metal

to metel gasket
Overall stack
integrily accep1able
fo, short te"" .

in bubble flowrale.
Minor leak at metal

to melal gasket.
Overall stack
inlegrity acceptable
for short lerm .
Normal vanabllity.
Continue
monitoring.
None.
Continue
monitoring.
Normal variabi6ty.
None.
Continue
monitoring.
Norma! variability.
_""'f_pe!i~ ___ .
Interpretation:
Selene. Team
Awailinglab
analysiS.
Capping stack and

associated hardware
was hydrostatically
tested 10 over
11 ,DOOpsl, bu~d up
of gas inside stack
likely producing leak
at metal to metal
seal.
Possibly due to gas
bulk! up in slack.
i
i
002843
Ver1lcal
plume
223m,
129degto
44m.44deg
from
wellhead
13:15 Reponed
plume from
Anomaly Investigation Log (cant.)
MC 252, 7/30/10, 10:00
bp
Data
~
~,
Me 252, 7/30/10, 10:00
Data - Seismic
Geophysical Operations. 7/30/10
Event TlmelDate:
12
Locatlon:
Description:
Actions:
Observation:
Interpretation: BP
24 July
BOP and
None.
Continue
Normal variability.
2010
Capping
stack
Bubble
data count is
limited, but
values have
fanen back
No seismic operations planned for today 7/30
Interpretation:
Science Team
monitoring.
Topaz aborted Line 1 twice at decision point due to high currents on 7/29
6ome'hhatfrom
the observed
peak en July
26 July
BOP and
2010
Capping
Slack
Note: No
events
27 July
2010
15
2BJuly
2010
None
Continue monitoring
Normal variability
Awaiting Science Team agreement on Topaz release
steady
reported on
the 25"'.
14
Bubble
data count
variable. but
mean value
002844
Nikola acquired lines I and 2 successfully 7/29 without any current issues
23.
13
BOP and
capping
Slack
BOP and
Capping
stack
Change In
Bubble
I~~~~:aml
Temperature
Increased to
Method to assess
weep rate under
review
Continue monitoring
Normal variability
None
Continue monitoring
Normal variability
None
Continue monitoring
Normal variability
Removed by ROV
INith zip pump.
Continue monitoring
No-rmal variabllitf
41.0BF
overnight but
subsidlna.
16
29 July
2010
17
BOP and
Capping
Slaok
29 JulY'
CappIng
:2010
Stack
Temperature
has reverted to
near ambient.
Ugllt hydrates
accumulaUon
on choke
I
3
connector and
torque bucket
--
--'-"-
----.J
"
~~.,bP
bp
it~
Seismic Data
DATE
~I
UNENAME
Acquisition
QC Sbldr.
Full
Process!n.
2400% PSTM Stack Nikola, Line lA July 29
Workstation
Upload
002845
~~ ~
30 attempts: 23 Lines acquired; 22 since shut in; 23 processed; 21 interpreted
"
bp
2400% PSTM Stack Nikola, Line 2A, July 29
t,
bp
Interpretation & Discussion
Negative Test Indicators (as agreed in protocol with the UAC):

[J Pressures plateau less than 6000 psi
[J Pressure transient or "breakover"
o Observed leak at BOP system

o Differences on seismic
o Gas in water column
002846
o Visual or sonar evidence of broaching. especially near wellbore
bp
Me 252 Monitoring plan, 7/3008:00 DRAFT

Thurs
Weds
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Weds
Tuesday
IJpa>dIaac
DDIII casing & esment
;,
i.
SoIomIc
,l.t..
NU<ola
I ,
1 I"l II1.f
!
II TJB~t W. I
Bigelow
G.aploo=
test
!
:~
i
~.~ii'l!(
Stet/c cJ;agnostic
!
sunLionda.
~:
lA.
I
I'"
f'?~<-~~~_::'!"~,;:",:r.~\I~'i\ ~.;:~Plsces-'~J,~>~';~:,";"~,,: .. 'r>;~!c<;:,r~_

,
..
ROV,
I>.eau ..
Temperature
P. Acoustics
So ....
Visual
OnpJinK )"onitoring
(tkaikJ in ~ures)
- Attempt lines 1 & 2 every 48 hours

- Will not run if operations preclude
NOAA Sonar:
- Bigelow in field until 8/4
- Pisces returns to field 8/4
Geophone:
- Retrieve every --48 hours unUi test
- Left in place during duration of test
002847
So"""
Pi=<
...
Topaz
A
V,
Saturday
~fnJectMty rest:
ManIImiag
Friday
711=
Topics for Discussion

July 30, 11:00am CDT

July 30 2010
1
7/30{2010
10.0 03i1y
Me!!'tm~"E:\1O.1
WIT Mt,:!'>\JO IUl I1t)O
7/3012010
002848
1. Seismic Monitoring - Marcia McNutt} Kate

Moran l Larry Mayer
11:00am CDT
Horner Plot
7,300 - - y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
7,200
\.
.-. 7,100
l'Q;' 7,000
...
ft
5,OOOft
002849
Analysis of shut-in pressure

through July 29, 2010
--"'"''',' Reservoir width

\. = 3,OOOft
:s
:: 6,900
a.
Paul Hsieh, USGS
6,800
6,700
6,600 I
1.0000
" I
10.0000
100.0000
1000.0000
(tp + dt)ldt
Flow rate = 50,000 stb/day

No aquifer support
1/3012010
7/3012010
'I
Flow rate =50,000 stb/day

No aquifer support
Length (ft)
Width (ft)
Aspect ratio
(ft)
k (md)
Cr (10-6
psi-1 )
P(psi)
SSR (psj2)
7/30/2010
28,444
20,642
17,066
Updated analysis uses shut-in pressure data through 10:00

am, July 29, 2010.
3,000
4,134
5,000
Shut-in data can be well matched bya reservoir model with:
-9:1
- 5:1
- 3:1
><w = 5,345
Yw = 1,500
xw= 2,817
Yw =1,234
= 2,014
Yw = 2,470
510
513
420
- Permeability and rock compressibility within expected

range
14.1
10.4
9.9
- Assumed flow rate
7,236
7,042
7,01 n
220
160
438
- Rectangular area of length "'20,600 ft and

width ="'4,100 ft (aspect ratio'" 5:1).
- No aquifer support
Xw
- No casing leak (well has integrity)
=50,000 stb/d
Projected final shut-in pressure ....7,040 psi
7!30n01.0
002850
Well
location
Summary
Seismic Monitoring:
Comparison of Topaz vs Nikola data
Basemap
USGS Geologic Team, July 30, 2010, 11 :00
7/30i2010
002851
Walter Mooney and

Cathy Enomoto, USGS
002852
ro
~
.z
......J
Q)
c
......J
002853
-Z~
Q)
c:
......J
...-.
N
ct'S
c..
()
N
Q)
c:
002854
...
ro
ro
E
til
.Q)
V)
('V")
...
l"-
>:::l
.....,
...
(J)
::J
....
Vl
(J)
0:::
...c
tlO
.:::c
...
ro
~
.-
002855
....
'"
Q)
::s
c.
..s::::
.t:
;=
m
m
m
'I:""i
V')
.Q)
V')
m
Q)
c.
ro
><
UJ
-.
-~
.....
-'=
tIO
'i:
tIO
'i:
OJ
:.:J
...
ro
..e.z
Conclusions
Nikola: high resolution (HR) data, esp. to
3,000'; reveals a natural seep, Line 2;
002856
Nikola: signal strength is less than Topaz for

;;::3,000 feet, but is sufficient;
Nikola: highly agile, fewer aborted missions;
30 July 2010 11:00 Central Time Presentation
We recommend use of the Nikola for all

future active seismic profiles. Topaz can be
released.
7/30/2010
17
7/30l:':010
13
NOAA SHIP PISCES as of 0300 EDT 29

July 2010
2829 July 2010 - PISCES Well-head

Monitoring
002857
7(3012010
20
5 Passes over air-source - initiallOmjmin rise then steady state no bubbles higher than 250 m off bottom - air??
NOAA Ship Pisces
29 July 2009 - Airhose Test
Integrated Spatial Accuracy and Flux Identification Reliability Test
,. -70
1400
"Airhose Test"
..k.:
1200
1600_
Acoustic (EK60) Observations: Preliminary Results
05:10
05:20
05:30
05:40
05:50
05:10
05:20
05:30
05:40
05:50
002858
v:'
-so
-90
29 July 2010
1200
1400
1600
7/3012010
21
7/30/2010
22
Deviation from mean position in bottom 100 m of plume for 5

passes "'1500m of water
5 passes over airsource - vertical

column =bubbles

18 kHz V;\n;\hilitv
15,.-----.-----.-----.---
--T-
""'"
>
..
looking North
Average Location (WGS 84):

28.737871934 N
088.41224823 W
.'"1".
002859
10
010.
::I
o
'I'
n6fth~dund'
-5
Max deviation for given

heading: Ni2.S m
c -10
~
-15'
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
Max difference between

headings: ~ 30 m
Airhose???
east-west deviation (m)

7/30/2010
13
7{3012010
24
NOAA SHIPS PISCES and BIGELOW

28/29/30 July 2010
Working >1.5 km after dark, 500m - 1.5km during daylight, over wellhead when possible
Acoustic target still observed at well-head - still steady, with more

episodic "burps" - no change in backscatter strength. Consistent with
observation of bubble flow from flanges on capping stack and BOP.
"Airhose test" - 5 runs for PISCES - bubbles consistently observed rising 10m/min to height of -250 m off bottom
PISCES departed -0100COT 29 July - BIGElOW just arrived on site data transfer protocols in place
7/301,010
25
002860
Several lines over well-head on 28th and 29th , "airhose" test in wee
hours of 29th
002861
Subject: Latest Update on Wellhead Integrity Test
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:45:05 -0500
To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
AllLatest slide decks from the ongoing wellhead integrity testing. NOAA Ship HENRY BIGELOW continues to serve a critical role
in supporting the Federal Science Team and providing confidence in ongoing preparations for the static kill.
Continued thanks to Drs.
Mayer and Tom Weber at UNH (along with NOAA Corps Officers LT Sam Greenaway and LTjg Glen
Rice) for providing
expertise, and to Dr. Jon Hare and CO Lynch aboard the HB for making it all happen. CAPT
Scott Kuester is
Operations Chief for the Subsurface Monitoring Unit, and working closely with SIMOPS in Houston to
ensure safe and effective operations.
Vir
Sam
Samuel P. Walker, PhD
Senior Technical Data Manager
NOAA Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Program
1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1225
301.427.2450 - office
301.427.2073 - fax
803.807.1189
mobile
Sbm. NalF.~r@n<'aa. "}O\?
l"tp: / I 10c,s, gov
Subject: IN LIEU OF DAILY WIT BP SCIENCE CALLS - Daily Well Integrity Updates and Information
From: "Bowen, Amy D" <adbowen@sandia.gov>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 201009:33:36 -0600
To: "Chavez, Anne K" <akchave@sandia.gov>, "'Chief.SMU@noaa.gov'" <Chief.SMU@noaa.gov>, "'steven.aoki@nnsa.doe.gov'''
<steven.aoki@nnsa.doe.gov>, "Burns. Michael J. (LANL)" <bums_michaeU@lanl.gov>, "'chinn3@lInl.gov''' <chinn3@lInLgov>,
"'schu@hq.doe.gov''' <schu@hq.doe.gov>.
@berkeley.edu"
@berkeley.edu>, "'Bryan.Domangue@mms.gov'''
<Bryan.Domangue@mms.gov>,
@us.ibm.com'"
@us.ibm.com>, "'richard_I ..-Qarwin@ostp.eop.gov'''
<richardJ ..-Qarwin@ostp.eop.gov>, "Guffee, Ray M. (LANL)" <guffee@lanl.gov>, "'Iars.herbst@mms.gov''' <Iars.herbst@mms.gov>,
"'hickman@usgs.gov''' <hickman@usgs.gov>, "'John_P._Holdren@ostp.eop.gov''' <John_P._Holdren@ostp.eop.gov>,
"'pahsieh@usgs.gov''' <pahsieh@usgs.gov>, "Hunter, Tom" <tohunte@sandia.gov>,
'"arun.majumdar@hq.doe.gov''' <arun.majumdar@hq.doe.gov>, "'mcnutt@usgs.gov''' <mcnutt@usgs.gov>,
"'mooney@usgs.gov'" <mooney@usgs.gov>,
"'kathryn_moran@ostp.eop.gov''' <kathryn_moran@ostp.eop.gov>, "'rod.oconnor@hq.doe.gov''' <rod.oconnor@hq.doe.gov>,
"'craig.pohler2@mms.gov'" <craig.pohler2@mms.gov>, "'tony.rediger@hq.doe.gov'" <tony.rediger@hq.doe.gov>,
"'Michael.Saucier@mms.gov''' <Michael.Saucier@mms.gov>, '"william.shedd@mms.gov''' <william.shedd@mms.gov>,
"Stulen, Rick" <rhstule@sandia.gov>, "'Troy.Trosclair@mms.gov'''
<Troy.Trosclair@mms.gov>. "'sam.walker@noaa.gov''' <Sam.Walker@noaa.gov>, "Ammerman, Curtt N. (LANL)" <ammerman@lanl.gov>.
"Behr-Andres, Christina B. (LANL)" <behr-andres@lanl.gov>, "Black, Stephen J. (LANL)" <sblack@lanl.gov>, "Blankenship. Douglas A"
<dablank@sandia.gov>, "Bowen, Amy D" <adbowen@sandia.gov>, "'bowers2@lInl.gov''' <bowers2@lInl.gov>, "Bultman. Nathan K.
(LANL)" <nbultman@lanl.gov>, "'kevin.s.cook@uscg.mil''' <kevin.s.cook@uscg.mil>, "Dunn, Paul S. (LANL)" <pdunn@lanl.gov>,
"Dykhuizen, Ronald C" <rcdykhu@sandia.gov>. "Griffiths, Stewart" <skgriff@sandia.gov>, "Hassan. Basil" <bhassan@sandia.gov>,
"'havstad1@lInl.gov''' <havstad1@lInl.gov>, "'hickman@usgs.gov''' <hickman@usgs.gov>, "Hurst, Kathleen T' <kthurst@sandia.gov>.
"Kornreich, Drew E. (LANL)" <drewek@lanl.gov>. '"miller99@lInl.gov''' <miller99@lInl.gov>, "'mooney@usgs.gov''' <mooney@usgs.gov>,
"Morrow, Charles W' <cwmorro@sandia.gov>, "O'Sullivan. Donald Q. (LANL)" <dqosulli@lanl.gov>, "'missy.owens@hq.doe.gov'''
<missy.owens@hq.doe.gov>, "'perfect1@lInl.gov''' <perfect1@lInl.gov>, "Ratzel, Arthur C" <acratze@sandia.gov>, "Rees, William S. Jr.
(LANL)" <wsr@lanl.gov>, "Sims, James Rae Jr. (LANL)" <jsims@lanl.gov>. ''Tatro, Marjorie" <mltatro@sandia.gov>. "Tieszen, Sheldon R"
<srtiesz@sandia.gov>, '"wapman1@lInl.gov''' <wapman1@lInl.gov>, "'warner2@lInl.gov''' <warner2@lInl.gov>, "'pahsieh@usgs.gov'''
<pahsieh@usgs.gov>, 'Philip H Nelson' <pnelson@usgs.gov>, 'Larry Mayer'
@ccom.unh.edu>, "Behr-Andres, Christina B, (LANL)"
<behr-andres@lanl.gov>, "'Maxted, Sarah Jane'" <Sarah.Maxted@Hq.Doe.Gov>, "'Hampton, Devin'" <Devin.Hampton@hq.doe.gov>,
"'Amy.Bodette@hq.doe.gov''' <Amy. Bodette@hq.doe.gov>, 'Catherine B Enomoto' <cenomoto@usgs.gov>. "'kaUmstay@ios.doi.gov'''
<katJ)ustay@ios.doi.gov>, '''Flemings, Peter B'"
'Larry Mayer'
All,
In lieu of the dally WIT BP 11:00am COT Science call, attached please find BP and Government updates for Monday, August 2. These
presentations have been posted to the SharePoint site at the following link:
Please contact me with any questions.
https:/Icollaborate.sandla,goy/sites/DeepwaterISbared%20Documents%20-%20New%20StructurelEorms
IAIIItems.aspx?RootEolder=%2fsltes%2fDeeowater%2fShared%20Documents%20%2d
~w%20Structure%2fl0%2eO%20Dally%20Meetings%2fl0%2el %20WIT%20Mtgs%2f02%20AUG&EolderCTID=&
Vlew-%7bB03EQS10%2d7DEA%2d48BA%2dAA3C%2d40B4A2FB8ASO%7d
Thank you.
of2
1011120104:14 PM
002862
Amy D. Bowen
Sandia National Labs
575-770-1729
LIEU OF DAILY WIT BP SCIENCE CALLS - Daily Well Integrity Updates and Infonnatioll.ernl
:ontentT:ype:
message/rfc822.
:ontenitEncoding: 7bit
BP Input 02 AUG_11 OOhrs_WIT Review[1].pdf ....
II' .................... ' - . ' - ...................... - ...
Co~tent:[)eSCriPtion:BP
Input 02 AUG_1100hrs_WIT ReVieW[1l.Pdf]
. BP Input 02 AUG_1100hrs_WIT Revlew[1].pdf Content-Type:

application/pdf
i
: Content-Encoding: b a S e 6 4 i
Gov Input-WIT 02 AUG 1100 ppI[1].pdf
! Content-Description: Gov Input-WIT 02 AUG 1100

ov Input-WlT 02 AUG 1100 ppt[1].pdf; Content-Type:
application/pdf
~ Content-Encoding: base64
of2
1011/20104:]4 PM
0:";,
What has changed: August 2nd , 08:00 am 24 hour summary
bp
...~,
.,
"- :>\<
Wellhead Monitoring
Pressure
-
6989.25 psi@ 07:00 (10 psi Increase over 24 hours).
Temperature
_ 39.810 F, taken at 17:00 hrs on August lsi.
Temperature measurement did not resume following ROV maintenance Sunday evening. Issue with ROV
or sensor. Troubleshooting underway.
Oil weep continues from flange at base and back of capping stack.
Bubble samples from seabed weep analyzed at Illinois lab. Isotope analysis indicates biogenic.
Seismic & Water Column Monitoring

Seismic and Geophone
-
No seismic runs on Sunday.
.. No anomalies reported.
Seismic Lines
Attempted
Acquired
Processed
Interpreted
Total
32
26
25
25
2
L~jnce8/1
Surface Sonar Full Water Column.Monltoring
NOAA Henry Bigelow operating in area.
002863
Wellhead and Seabed Weeps
bp
Forward Monitoring Plan: August
2nd,
08:00 am
C)
Wellhead Monitoring
Pressure, Weep Rate, ROV visual and sonar ongoing.
Temperature and Passive Acoustics will re-commence following troubleshooting and ROV
repair.
Geophone 8th dataset scheduled for collection early Tuesday morning, August 3m
Seismic, Seabed & Water Column Monitoring

Seismic
- Seismic will be acquired by Nikola this morning, August 2nd.

No acquisition planned for Tuesday, August 3rt!.
Surface Sonar Full Water Column Monitoring
NOAA Henry Bigelow in the field.
002864
Geophone 7th dataset being processed.

August 2, 2010

2 August 2010 11:00 Central Time Presentation
August 1, .:!:010
A1.JElJst 2,
~010
002865
11:00am eDT
NOAA SHIP BIGELOW as of 0800 EDT

02 August 2010-
01/02 August 2010
BIGELOW transects of well-head
002866
00:00
August
2~
:!010
00:30
01:00
01:30
02:00
4
NOAA SHIP BIGELOW

01 - 02 August 2010
Working >1.S km after dark, SOOm - 1.Skm during daylight, over
well-head when possible.
Ten well-head crossings during daylight hours 01 - 02 August.
Data over well-head is similar in amplitude and behavior to data
collected last week. Bubbles appear relatively steady and rise to
above SOOm water depth. This implies an oil coating on
bubbles. No anomalies.
August 2j 2010
002867
Analysis of shut-in pressure

through Aug 1, 2010
Paul Hsieh, USGS
A\I&lJst 2. ::010
Assumed:
Flow rate 50,000 stb/dav
dt .. time since shut-in (days)

100 40
7,300
-a
No aquifer support
Reservoir width = 3,000 ft

'---
7,100
.. _--"
4 200 ft "".
iooo~,
:::I
:: 7,000
20,400
17,000
Width (ftl
3,000
4,200
5,000
Aspect ratio
"'9:1
"'5:1
"'3:1
><w= 4,600
vw = 600
= 2,900
vw = 1,400
><w =2,070
vw =2,500
720
440
390
12
11
10
7,130
7,060
7,030
450
150
660
(ft)
GI
:5 6,800
6,700
6,600
28,000
Well location
6,900
C\I
length (ftl
002868
I!
D..
"1:1
10
7,200
'iii
I!
20
L _____-.-_____-,_____~
1
Assumed:
Flow rate
100
10
(tp + dt)fdt
=50,000 stb/day
1000
k (md)
Cr
(10-6 psi-1)
P(psi)
SSR (psj2)
Xw
No aquifer support
August 2.
~illO
ALlgust 2~ 2010
Assumed:
Flow rate =50,000 stb/day
Parameter Estimation History
Summary
No aquifer support
ReservolrWidlh
Penneablllty
6,000 T-------------------.,
i'
5,000
!.
3: 4,000
6oo~---------,
1 1 ~
500
fE
400
3.000
+--~--.----.----.--~
300~1-~-~-~r--r-~
23-Jul 2!>-J'" 27-Jul 29-J... 31-J... 2-Aug
23-Jul 2!>-Jul 27-Jut 29-JIJ 31-Jul 2-Aug

Final Shut-In Pressure
Rock CompressIbility
14
T--_-- .................................-............... _. _.-.. .-._.-.,
7,100 T-----------------,
";'
112
'f
w
~ 10
gj
I!
o
August
8
6
--------
+-_-,-_---,__.,....-_-,-_-1
2, 20i9-J'" 2!>-J'" 27-Jut 29-Jul 31-Jul 2-Aug
7,050
7,000
i 6,950
CI.
6,900
Shut-in data can be well matched by a reservoir model with:
=. . .
- Rectangular area of length

20,400 ft and
width = ""'41200 ft (aspect ratio""' 5:1).
002869
If.
Updated analysis uses shut-in pressure data through 11:00

am, August 11 2010 (""'18 days after shut-in).
- No aquifer support
- No casing leak (well has integrity)
- Permeability and rock compressibility within expected
range
- Assumed flow rate = 50,000 stb/d
For the above aquifer setting, the projected final shut-in
pressure .... 7,060 psi
+---.----.---.---.----1
23-Jul 25-Jul 27-J'" 29-Jut 31-Jul 2-Aug
August 2, :!010
10

Oil Budget Doc Production 11-24-10 - Batch 10 - FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oil Budget Doc Production 11-24-10 - Batch 10 - FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

000004

DRAFT 8.2v 7pm

Deepwater Horizon Oil

bt'low V'I!' ~ .!lr:ar:.e:::5

Oil:j-,1t i'.iUlll1! .ll~l

ri~hore' (':r t-rlf::li

e" lec(~ IrQI1111'"

Residual: Aner accounting tbr IJ)..;,.!!!,g!..\r.i.,;~JJE!..L.9~idt~~_iJ!~.,!~.l!!~'1'-.illL~0y-_~~~i.i.llIa{~t. i.e.. recovery

Explanation of Methods and Assumptions

Df!epwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget.;.

Lubchenco. NOAA. DOC

Antonio Possolo. NIST

Per Daling.. SINTEF

.Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

Am out of time, so here are a few quick suggestions/comments

-------- )riginal Message -------Subject:

here' is the latest for your review.

, Jennif:[' ;:.. ~E;:.:'.:

Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

Jen - some possible text and thoughts:

+nM:>I"'i( "/ Mi'l1p",(nlno~::> ~(\\l]

To: Jane Lubchenco

I;:me Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

t.h~ ':L.'t~ ..:0"5

(I'm not 5uggesting

DRAFT 8.2v 6pm

Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget

']! 4.9 I\-1 t.::mcls cj ei)

biodcgrcctc:l. 0' "<IS

Jln.":ld.,. ('cme ashore.

i Comment fj2]: w. need 10 iflS011 a little mOlnl

Rt?sidl(fL,Afler accounting !{>r "c(!)vcry npcl'atio!',s. dispersion. evaporation and dissolution, an

VJhil,.;: there is IllQL~.H\;Jlvsis

be 9JEt<: h' ~aHtirv tht' t:Mld r;)te ofbiodegrJdation in the

i Comment [i3]: Why say this here? Budge,

l Comment [is]: Do we know where it g<ms!___;

~Iulr. ':.~ldl:.!il~\,'L'illll(lIlS ;'l1HLIl):..,E~Eim\r\'L'~":ll!~h 1~~lli.l;U.h..m.llllU\11!J..I::U)r scientists sl1<lw that the oil

Explanation of Metbods and A,,!;umptions

lJ,:epwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget

Jane Luhchenco. NOA.A.. DOC

Miller. NOAA. I)~)~:

The j()II('.wi ng scientists were il1v<,.1 \'c~ in . li.;vclo~ill1!'

0;, Bu,;get Calculator tool:

David Mack (USGS) .! .l'ad application d'J"';!oper

Jdf Allen (USGS) -

..:aiculalions. c()l1lrlhuted field data. suggested

Antonio Fossolo. NIST

Michel Bouladel, remplc Iiniv.

Jane Lubchenco [Jane,Lubchenco@noaa,gov]

Thanks 500':;00 much fot vourgreat effort; on this front!

Fl:'om: Jennifer Austin [mailto:jennifer.austin@noaa.gov]

From: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>

and aS50:i;',ole ther.l once we have a number?

From: Steve Murawski [mailto:Steve,Murawski@noaa.gov]

Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 7:29 PM

To: Jane Lubchenco

and resecild; for pic-) chart document

Here are a few sentences n~, NSF, I can socialize them:

Jane Lubchenco wrote:

From: Mark Miller <mark",W",IJ.l)Uer@noaa.gQ.'L?

Steve do you have a fed

,lane Lubchenc(, [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

r--------_ _. . ________

~~ry liS!: ____ ._. ___ ._._ _.'

From: Jennifer Austin [~ennif~r:Austin@no~q]