In a new video explaining the "top kill" strategy, BP senior vice president Kent Wells shows this graphic for the amount of oil being captured from the Deepwater Horizon by the suction tube. Wells says that BP has been tweaking the tube to "maximize" the collection of oil from the gushing well.
"There's been a lot of questions around how much oil is being collected," Well says at around 4:11, pointing to the graph. But if you look closely at the chart -- bigger version here -- those green bars go up because the tube has been in place since May 16. The longer it stays, the more gallons it collects. It's not necessarily collecting more oil on successive days, let alone "most" of the oil as Wells says they're trying to do.
Wells mentions some of the technical adjustments to the siphon, then says, "Here you can see how we've continued to ramp up." If only that were so.
From commenter Brandon Green: "Wow, if you look at the tapering off in the last few bars, it would seem the graph proves the exact opposite point they are trying to use it to make - that they are somehow managing to become LESS efficient at collecting the oil.
"Here's a thought - They should take this graph and all others like it, and block the oil leak with them."
[BP video]
Leave a Comment:
How stupid do they think we are?
Very stupid, that's why they do it. The thing is that many people are THAT stupid.
many people would rather do the 'see no evil, hear no evil' thing... it hasn't affected them yet.
Yes, this is an environmental disaster that affects ALL of us, and will for decades to come... but if it isn't in their back yard, its no big deal. unfortunately, I think that's the typical American way of thinking.
Considering the number of people who think Fox is News, they have a pretty good idea as to how stupid most people are,,,,, Sad but true,,
Alter-Egotistical "BPVP Kent Cap T Wells," categorically defends his Oily Graphics, as being American O'Cartel Gothic Gospel [Mormon Tabernacle Choir softly humming in background], and duly filed in the Library of Congress under:
"TRICKLE DOWN EXXONOMICS"
"Keeping Us in the BLACK, Keeps U.S. in the BLACK!"
There's NO DEPTH to which we won't go for "You, You Ignorant, Poor, Newly Unemployed & Greasey, Bunch of Retards, Little, Small People!"
Moreover, we are committed to Siphoning Off Truth, Justice, and thereby Top Killing the American Way [of Life], as incontrovertibly proven by the ironically colored Green Bars.*
So Stick that in Your Deepwater Horizon Suction Tubes, all you Hippy, Commie, Pinko, God's Formerly Blue-Green Earth Hugger, Crybaby Clean AirHeads!
God Bless America, Ordained as Our Personal Oil-Bin-Laden PiggyBanks!
*Named for infamous commentator Brandon Green, who unequivocally endorsed our subversive presentation by going "All Counter-Intuitive on Us!"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Never one to miss a 'Photo-Propertunity,' Her Royal Robber Barreness SarAH Pain'in [a.k.a. Her BP], blowing-out about all the above gushed, "I couldn't have said it more Irrationally-Incoherently Myself, even if Aided and Abbetted by Transparent Ghost Writers, and self-inflicted Hand Crib-Texting!"
-----------------------------------------------------------
As Sworn Under Oath to,
Focus1776,
On this the 17th Day of June, 2010
I think that BP should not be in charge of their own clean up, too many conflicting interests.
I think that overall, the Federal Government should be assessing what needs to be done, the States effected should be monitoring to report if the work is unsatisfactory and BP should be implementing the directives and pay for the cleanup.
Then, when they Gulf is cleaned up, Exxon should be doing the same thing in Alaska, seeing as they're still being effected by the spill even years and years later.
Great the BP has the only expertise, just so long as they know they will pay for every possible insanely expensive way necessary to clean up the oil until it is all up. Q-Tips anyone?
Wow, if you look at the tapering off in the last few bars, it would seem the graph proves the exact opposite point they are trying to use it to make - that they are somehow managing to become LESS efficient at collecting the oil.
Here's a thought - They should take this graph and all others like it, and block the oil leak with them.
perhaps there's another cumulative effect which may challenge a 4 inch wide mile long pipe tasked with sucking up crude? A dirty tube? A pressure variance? Something "other" than oil collected?
Bottom line: What the hell do you know?
..I know how to read a graph.
so my question is.. have they done this ever..and where are they basing the data on?
no. estimations.
Powerpoint and giving the job to an intern?
Don't wish to appear to be defending BP here, but it's only misleading to those that don't understand the word cumulative. It's written in quite big letters.
I agree with you about the "cumulative" being in big letters, but he also says they've "continued to ramp up." To me, that conflates the increasing daily tally with the idea that they're catching more oil as they get better at using the suction tube. It's a convenient conflation.
I am with you V9N> The video shows the strategies in graphic detail but the reality at the well head is real...not graphics. It is complicated. I do hope the top kill works though because the followup to that looks weak.
Yeah. Ramping up the BS!
This chart was created for the image, not the distribution of information. I'm an analyst and I see it all the time. You chart the data in the best way to tell the story you want the data to show. Using the data on hand, you always have a choice on how to represent the numbers. While this is clearly labeled, anyone who works with data knows that the picture will communicate the message of improvement regardless of what's actually being reported.
" The team is doing all they can do to capture more of that oil"...There is nothing conflated nor misleading about the data he presented. I would have liked to see the total as a percentage of the entire flow, but I doubt that they have a handle on that number
Kerrie> Thats not the fault of the presenter. You, as an analyst should know this. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see what the graph is presenting. But labeling it as "Misleading" is overkill.
Pavana, I have to disagree. I was recently tasked with charting results using extremely limited data. While I communicated to my client in the strongest terms I could that, while technically correct, the charts are likely to be misinterpreted, I was instructed to move forward. I've accompanied the charts with clear labeling on what the data actually is, but I have no faith that the audience will read the words and not just the picture. The only reason to show cumulative data is to get the nice, increasing bars so that casual observers take away the message that things are getting better. That's misleading.
(side note, I don't think Rachel's audience can be classified as casual observers of anything)
@ pavana tanaya,
It IS misleading to point to the graph and say, "You see here how we've continued to ramp up..." when nothing is being "ramped up." Notice how he stopped the sentence there and started a new train of thought so he couldn't be said to have actually claimed that oil collection was "ramped up."
It is also misleading to use a bar graph for successive cumulative totals when that kind of data is not only useless but is never displayed in that fashion. Viewers assumes that the graph represents daily totals and even if they read the label most of them won't understand the difference.
It's just as deceptive as switching to a logarithmic graph at the tip of one specific bar/point and switching back at the tip of another to exaggerate or hide a difference.
I don't think it warrants a press conference to announce a pipe that continues to draw oil has a larger "cumulative" amount of oil drawn through it as time passes?
This is news? Gimme a break, this was an effort to deceive. Companies take advantage of people not reading the fine print, like "cumulative" every day. They count on people glancing at the chart while daily life goes on for them and missing what it means and believing what it is made to seem to mean..
I'm interested in learning about the actual capabilities of our gov't to intervene in the cleanup even if it wanted to. I have a sinking feeling that over the years the experts have bled out of gov't to such an extent that we really have very little intellectual and physical capabilities anymore. It seems we've been privatizing technical and general capability in most areas just like we are privatizing the military.
I think we've been bled dry. I don't think there are very many people "there" anymore who are actually able to give an accurate assessment, mandate a course of action, and then follow through with that action. The obvious problems with the MMS, to give one example, are just the tip of the iceberg.
I think I'd still rather have people who may not have "technologically superior" knowledge and expertise yet are actually willing to do something, as opposed to corporate hirelings whose sole job seems to be to give BP some kind of cred. Or to put it another way, "a lazy genius isn't one".
Ecosphere, Escosphere, Ecosphere-----Featured last night on ABC news. On the way to the Gulf. Cleans water when separated from oil. Google them and read for yourself.
Did you notice that the daily amount collected appears to be going down over time? The difference between the third and fourth bars is greater than between the 7th and the last bar.
Rachel -- If you don't already know who Edward Tufte is, you should get him on the show to discuss the charts, graphs and visual displays BP is using: http://www.edwardtufte.com
Agree. A TRMS discussion of charts & graphs with Tufte would be outstanding.
:/
Why on earth would we want to have fewer people working on a solution? The idea of "getting rid of BP" so we can taunt them on the playground is not helpful. We want more people, more experts, more resources thrown at the problem.
You'd want to have fewer people working on a solution if some of those people have a conflict of interest. They're glossing over stuff or not being completely forthcoming because they're going to be compelled to try to save their image.
Don't understand all the folks who blast the federal government (eg. TP's) and then turn around and want the Feds to do something about this. Our government is capable of great things...you can't have it both ways. Agree with Samirah above and worry that what RLaird says above is, sadly, true.
That said, BP is clearly not equipped to handle this. They need every expert available out helping and the only entity with the influence to get that done is the Fed gov't. The impact of this event is nationwide and minutes are critical. I fear if the plan they have for today doesn't work...what then?? How terrible for the Gulf Coast and all the animal and plant life! I for one want the government in helping in some way.
Who cares about CUMULATIVE ?!
Yes, cumulatively, you have been removing more oil each day. But .....
1) At the same snails pace of 2000 barrels /day
2) 60+% of the oil is STILL BLASTING INTO THE OCEAN.
So lets not worry about how much you have already taken out (a shotglass at a time) and worry more about plugging this thing.
Makes me wonder if there is some sort of extra large 'Jaws of life' so they could just crimp the damn pipe shut !
I sincerely doubt that anything BP does will be above "stupid" to this audience. The bottom line is that nearly 14,000 barrels have been captured "this way" since the tube's insertion. How about the skimming effort (they've been doing that too)... You lot wouldn't be 'happy' until they all commit suicide and volunteer their bodies to be stuffed into the bloody thing.
no jamie - if the allegations that BP execs ordered transocean to fill the drill column w saltwater v drill mud (mud is standard), then its way worse than stupid. >its 11 counts of manslaughter.
eh? explain.
This blog entry is also interesting:
http://mathinthenews.blogspot.com/2010/05/bp-oil-spill.html
Misleading and stupid. Stupid because you can't see the horizontal axis markings therefore you can't even tell if it is a linear scale. Did anyone else notice how they are experimenting with the placement of the insertion tube so they can collect "most" of the oil (about 4:40)? Pathetic.
As a fellow geek, I thought you'd like this info from C-net. The iRobot folks are providing underwater robots to deploy in the Gulf to monitor the oil flow.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20005910-54.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0
The thing I noticed that this device is not something that could have been developed just since April 20. Now, who would want a device that can maneuver unassisted for up to ten months without propeller sound...
What a thoroughly unfortunate last name for this man to have...
hey guys, pro-tip, make the title text smaller if you don't want us to know what you're actually showing us.
I think the government needs to intervene and send in fuel specialists and hazard specialist from the military and a cleaning crew from the Navy. I also think that other oil companies need to step in and help.
This is beyond capitalism and corporate. It is now becoming an ever increasing environmental hazzard that can not wait for one business to learn responsibility. This is our ocean - and these are our wild life. Not just The USA's but all of ours.
Our consumption is globally. Our Corporate oil companies are global and a neighbor to one another. In accidents, despite differences, we help one another.
This is a crisis that can not afford being stubborn into "it's their responsibility!"
Anyone who is in the oil business, and has experience, needs to come into the arena without asking for a contract first.
The chart that is missing -- and is extremely important -- is how much of the oil is BP "not" collecting and is escaping into the Gulf.
Liked your piece...and another story for you....why is there NO media coverage linking this story: Halliburton bought an oil disaster recovery firm on the weekend before the blowout! http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/energy/halliburton-buy-boots--coots/, reported widely in the days before the 'spill', and the fact that Halliburton was the company that cemented the sub-par plug?
Could it be that Rupurt Murdoch, who basically owns most U.S. news, is invested in Halliburton? Just follow the money! Hope you'll cover, it's a good'un.
Today on MSNBC: The Immigration Debate Special Report. Showing on MSNBC all Day: The Oil Spill. So many problems, we can't just pick one.
Has anyone tried to calculate how much oil ( it's value) BP has managed to draw out of this well since the collapse and is it more than compensating for the costs of running the "rescue mission"
What is the story of encircling the disaster area with oil tankers linked together over the spill site each tanker able to suck up huge amounts of oil via hoses in the water
Rusty, I have family in the oil spill cleanup business (who offered their services to BP but remarkably were turned down - but that's another story) and I can assure you there is no way BP is going to make any money on the recovered oil. It cannot be shipped directly to the refinery for processing but has to be expensively filtered several times to assure all the seawater and dispersants and other contaminates are removed, or the refinery cracking towers will be damaged. By the time it reaches the gas pump it's being sold for less than the total cost of recovering it. The only reason the companies process the contaminated oil is because there is no other way to dispose of it.
Mind you, I am not in any way saying BP shouldn't have to bear this cost or in any way implying it's unfair or anything - it's their mess, they should have to clean up every last drop and pay for everything, but the economic reality is that if the EPA would allow it, they would rather burn off the recovered oil rather than incurring the extra expense of pre-processing it for the refinery. There is absolutely no profit for BP in the recovered oil.
Ms. Maddow-
Any person who has ever worked for the government or a government vendor knows that vendors change, but skilled employees remain. Corporate heads and upper level management Know nothing about the intricate operations of complex and risky ventures. Oil workers, operating engineers, electricians, miners etc know from daily experience, but we are only expendable extensions of our tools. If you go to corporate heads or top level military, including the Coast Guard, all you will get is obfuscation, distortion, and lies. You broadcast the image of people desperately digging up oil off of the beach with a shovel and the head of BP standing there in his clean slacks, pressed shirt, and polished shoes saying "I feel your pain." Now he is addicted to something- maximum profit, the largest accumulation of wealth going to swells just like himself, no matter what the cost. There are no expletives sufficiently filthy or furious to convey my complete disgust. Why didn't some person whack that criminal upside the head with an oily shovel? Why is he not in a prison orange jumpsuit with a shovel, cleaning up his mess? Why is Ken Salazar not under indictment for conspiracy and corruption charges? Why are the entirety of the MMS and the corporate lobbyists for the Oil thieves not behind bars for conspiracy to commit murder? And why do you treat as truth the assertions of oil company CEOs and Washington politicians who are quite often literally in bed with these company grease balls? John Kerry is not believable; Brian Williams is not credible; Ken Salazar is not credible; Joe Lieberman has never been credible. Your credibility is definitely on the line.
Why arent you talking about the the Obama lack or response to the oil spill? All you talk about is the gay in the military issue (probably because you would have been one). You are a coward
I agree with other comments that suggest we need more data (maybe that's just not available). Isn't it also possible that less total oil is coming out (amount captured + amount escaped could be decreasing)? We'd need that figure to make a truly accurate assessment of how well they are doing. Graph is just meaningless.
At least it wasn't a nuclear plant...
From the beginning of this catastrophe it appeared to me that BP was more interested in harvesting the oil than in protecting the environment. If they were interested in protecting the environment, they would have taken early measures to plug "the dyke." Good ole' Franklin's stitch in time.
And it is pretty clear that both the coal and oil harvesters are not so interested in protecting human life as in protecting profits.
Altruism in business is frowned upon and even ridiculed.
We have lost our conscience.
For shame.