Oil Budget Doc Production 11-24-10 - Batch 30 - FINAL

005065
Background Infonnation on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool
.Subject: Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool

From: "Mark. W.Miller" <Mark. W.MilIer@noaagov>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul2010 15:49:35 -0400
To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff <dwh.staff@noaagov>, 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 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 brieflooked to be from the Oil Budget tool for July 22 from the high flow scenario.
Category
Remaining
Low Flow July 15

480,000
High Flow July 22
16%
1,470,000
28%
Direct Recovery
820,000
27%
823,000
16%
Natural Dispersion
400,000
13%
826,000
Evaporated
670,000
22%
1,346,000
*
*
Skimmed
100,000
3%
120,000
2%
Burned
260,000
8%
266,000
5%
Chemically Dispersed
340,000 ll%
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 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 verbaUy briefing the tool this evening.
lof2
9/27120103:39 P
005066
Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) Through July 21 (Day 93)
S;.
Pr",!
Ci.imuillt'Vt)
<
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - Through July 21 (Day 93) ~~
"
P",,(
DeepwaterHorizon_ briefiolLschematic2.png
of2
Ror.-~
",..
image/png
Content-Type:
Content-Encoding: base64
9/2712010 3:39 F
005067
[Fwd: USGS Oil Budget Tool
Write~up]
SUbject: [Fwd: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write~up]

From: Mark Miller <Mark. W.MiIler@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 22 Ju12010 17:25:32 ~0400
To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>,_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.staff@no&a.gov>, William Conner <WiIliam.Conner@noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the write-up on Oil Budget tool and example output that USGS and I put
together.
Mark
SUbject: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up .

Fro~: Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@usgs.gov>
Date: Thu, 22 Ju12010 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" <ToddJ.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
US Geological Survey
Chief Emergency Operations Office,
National Geospatial Program
'
Reston, VA
703-648-5033 (w)
703-648- 5792 (fax)
USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up.eml
Content-Type:
message/rfc822
Content-Encoding: 7bit
Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget background 20100721.pdf
Content-Type:
application/pdf
DeepwaterHorizon oil buget tool briefing 7-22-10 FInal.doc Content-Type:
of2
application/msword
9127/20103:39 P
005068
[Fwd: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up]
: of2
9127/20 I 0 3 :39 Pi
005069
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

.High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) - Through July 21 (Day 93)
" J~1l units
Inland Recovery
Deep'Nater Horizon MC252 Gujf incident Oil Budgot

Report generated t)y rnark. \tv
See end notes section of the
.A.pplication operated
the !j.S. CORst Guard and
Oceanic ond Atmospheric ,~dnl~n1S7r.8.tlc'n.
',cn'fue!::,
;;1 barrels. See end notes for assurnpt~ons,
005070
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) - Through July 21 (Day 93)
1,500,000
I1
1 ,250,000
1,000,000
,1 ,750,000
~
~
Cumulative Remaining
750,000 J
500,000
250,000
oj==~~~~~~==~========~~~=====
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Upper/Lower Confidence Bounds
!ncident Oil
Report generated by mark.w.mi!!er(f?noaa.gov on 01!22/201 0 ~;1 ::39 PM MDT.
See end notes section of the reDOt, for reference !1iateria! on ~epon eiems'')ts.
Application
the U.S, Coasi Guard and
the U.S,
Oceanic and i.17m,"',,",',hr;;~, il.drninistratior: .
Deepwater Horizbn MC252
in
005071

Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - Through July 21 (Day 93)
jO
AH units in
barrels~
Inland Recovery
Deepwater
Ho~izon
Iv1C252 Guif !--:cident 011
on 07/22!201 001 :3f; PM tviDT.

See end notes sec:jon of the report for reference
ma~eria!
on :--epon elernents~
the LLS. Geoiogica!
SeE; end notes for
a5surnpUons~
005072
700,000
650,0001
600,000 i
550,0001
500,0001
.!
G)
L.
450,0001
400,000
:; 350,0001
300,000
.Q
250,0001
200,000 ~
150,000
100,000
50,000
o
30-Apr
15-May
Expected Value -
30-May
14-Jun
fa,d;n?n~str8.tio~;.
14-Jul
Deepvvater Horizon fv1C2S2 Ch{r fncicent OH

Report generated ~y mark.w
on 07/22/20; 001 :39
Jv1DT.
See end notes section of the.
for reJE:rence rY1a,teda~ on
eiements.
and provided
the U.S.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast
Oceanic and Atmospheric
29-Jun
StJr'J8Y in cooperation with tbe Nationa!
005073
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" 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 m()del 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.
Dispersant Used
The amount of dispersant used is recorded each day of the incident by National Incident Command
personnel. It is an actual measurement of the total dispersant used via all methods employed.
Burned
Total burned values are entered daily by National Incident Command personnel and used in daily and
cumulative totals.
-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.
Deepvv2ter Horizon i'v1C2S2 C;U\T incident
on
Buc~ge~
Reper: generated ~y mark.i.v.miner({(noaa.gov an 07!22/201 00 i :39 PM tv1DT.

See end notes section of the repo!"t rOl- reference materia: on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and orovided by the 0.3. Geologica! Survey in coo;)e,aton with the I'Jatior-a'
Oceanic and Atmospheric ;.\dministm,ic;n.
005074
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:
-Measured amount removed via RIIT and Top Hat
-Calculated amount of subsurface dispe(sion
-Calculated amount of evaporation and dissolution
Recovered via RITT and Top Hat

RIIT and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
spill flow. Values for the amount recovered 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.
Chemical oil dispersion is the result of a scienUfic 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
oNo natural surface disperSion assumed
International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) IIplanning 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
discussion of the scientific methodology used in this calculation.
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.
Horizo:"l V1C252 Gu:f !nddont OH
Repor;
See end notes

App!ication
Oceanic and
ma'k.'!J,m:!ler(q!noaa.go'J on
sec~ion
of the report for reference materiai on re;.;or: elements.

the lJ.S. Geololc8.!
in cooperation ~NHh the f'Jafona!
005075
Dispersed Naturally
Natural oil dispersion is estimated using the methods described in this annotation and background
documentation. The following assumptions and factors apply:
-No natural surface dispersion assumed
-Subsurface natural dispersion based' upon plume turbulent energy dissipation
Natural 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
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 IIremoved." See background documentation for
more information.
Note: Refer to the section on Dispersed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas (link) document for a full
Evaporated or Dissolved
Evaporation and dissolution occur naturally with oil on the surface. This element in the report is the
result of a scientific calculation using the methods described in this annotation and background
-Evaporation formulas include dissolution as well
-Largest oil removal mechanism for surface oil
-Most evaporative losses occur during the first 24 hours
Evaporation i's 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 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.
Deepwa~er
Horizon MC252 Gu:t Incident 0;;
BUOg8~
Report generated by mark,\V,milierCi:i:noaa.gcv on 07/22/2010 Q; :39 PM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference materiai on

elements.
Application ?perated
~he ~.S. Coast Guard and nrn\f'r,<,n by the U
Geoiogical Survey in
Ocearnc ana At:-nosphenc ACf'tHnistratrorL
witl~
the r'llational
005076
Note: Refer to the section on Evaporated and Dissolved Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document
for!l full discussion of the scientific methodology u~ed in this calculation.
Discharged
The Discharge values shown in the reports come from the low and high estimates determined by the
Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) for the Deepwater Horizon incident. Discharge rates are adjusted
over time in the data behind the application based on analyses by the FRTG of changing dynamics in
the
incid~nt
(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 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
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
AAA data which
helps increase the scientific confidence in the accuracy of the estimate. As the Government continues
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.
Report generated by mark,w.miHerCi1:?ncaa,gov on 07/22/20: 0 OJ :39 PM tvDT.

See end notes sec:ion of the report for reference ;l1sts y iai on reporte;emen~s,
Application operated by the U,S, Coast Guaf(,~ anG

Oceanic and Atmospher~c ;:\on"linlstfatioG.
by the U.S,.
in cOOQerc3.tion
'the National
005077

Synopsis: In collaboration with the USCG, NOAA, and NIST, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has
developed a Web application, known as Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget, which
allows comprehensive tracking and graphical display of the daily and cumulative oil budget in the
Gulf.
Federal personnel collaborated to ensure that the oil budget tool supports absolute data integrity,
comprehensive data entry and management, and simple Web accesS, eliminating the need for
specialized software. The tool offers a basic user interface for daily data entry and reporting,
allowing rapid visualization of oil volumes in the Gulf.
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; and
Generation of executive summaries, showing the most up-to-date calculated daily and
cumulative values.
The tool incorporates 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.
For example: Skimmed oil is a rough calculation based on the daily reported amount of oily w~ter
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.
The Oil Budget tool is being updated 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.
Background: Since the blowout on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil-drilling rig. the (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.
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.
005078
Fwd: oil budget tool]
Subject: [Fwd: oil budget tool]

From: Charlie Henry <Charlie.Henry@noaa.gov>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 201012:19:32 -0500
To: "Christina. Durham" <Christina.Durham@noaa.gov>
Subject: oil budget tool

From: Bill Lehr <Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul2010 14:20:36 -0700
To: Charlie Henry <Charlie.Henry@noaa.gov>, Steve Lehmann <Steve.Lehmann@noaa.gov>,.
William Conner <William.Conner@noaa. gov>
CC: Mark W"Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Ed Levine <Ed.Levine@noaa.gov>, Doug Helton
<Doug.Helton@noaa.gov>, Robert Pavia <Robert.Pavia@noaa.gov>
Charlie,
You asked to be notified when we finished with the mass balance calculations.
According to the USGS programmer, the new oil budget tool (IeS 209) is now
operational (see attached).
In cooperation with a couple of NIST folks, I am
polishing up the technical documentation.
Bill
oil budget tool.eml
message/rfc822
Content-Type:
Content-Encoding: 7bit
. Content-Type:
application/pdf
DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100706-1.pdf C
E
d'
b 64
ontent- nco 109: ase
of!
9/23/2010 5: 19 PM
005079

Executive Summary (Mean Values) - Through July 05 (Day 77)
Cumulative
July 05
Discharged
2,797,500.00
45,000.00
653,756.00
24,982.00
Dispersed Naturally
291,886.30
2,337.00
671,242.10
5,447.70
1,180,615.60
12,233.30
Skimmed
73,028.20
1,351.40
Burned
238,854.00
0.00
197.35.40
4,437.70
Dispersant Used
32,560.71
296.48
Remaining
670,898.00
6,444.20
"
AJI units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 07/06/2010 08:03 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
Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm:nistration.
005080
Cumulative Released (VR)

3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
a;
2,000,000
110..
110..
cu
.a
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
o J :(;;;e.~
30-Apr
15-May
30-May
14-Jun
29-Jun
Cumulative Remaining (VS)
1 ,000,000 ..
900,000 .
800,000
700,000
600,000
j:
i
I
500,0001
400,0001
300,000
200,0001
100,0001 !
o "-=======::;::::::========:::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::==::::;:::======::::::;:::::::::::==::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::
30-Ap r
15-May
30-May
14-Jun
29-Jun

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 07/06/201008:03 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report elements.
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
005081
Discharged
The Discharge values shown in the reports 'come from the low and high estimates determined by the
Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) for the Deepwater Horizon incident. Discharge rates are adjusted'
the incident (e.g., severing the riser).
The current oil budget calculation uses a different range of discharge rates for the start of the incident
through June 3 when the riser was cut and then after that time:
-Start of incident through June 3 - 20,000 to 40,000 bbl/day
-After June 3 - 35,000 to 60,000 bbl/day
The cumulative total in the executive summary and the "Disposition of
oW' graph are calculated using
the mean of the discharge range (45,000 bbl/day after June 3).

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 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
-Subsurface natural dispersion based upon plume turbulent energy dissipation
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
005082
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oil "removed." See background documentation for
more information.
-Eyaporation formulas include dissolution as well
-Most evaporative losses occur during the 'first 24 hours
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh" oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil
l\Iote: 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.


ReDort generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 07/06/201008:03 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U.S, Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and AtmOSPheric Administration.
005083
Skimmed
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
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
.Chemically Dispersed
Chemical oil dispersion is the result of a scientific calculation based on the amount of chemical
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20:.1 used
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident on Budget

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.govon 07/06/2010 08:03 AM MDT.
005084
Dispersant Used
Deepwater Horizon IVIC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

. Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 07/06/201008:03 AM MDT.
Applicaton operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministJation.
005086
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 the 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
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
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 (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, to determine what has happened
to the oil. The interagency scientific report below builds upon the calculator and summarizes the
disposition ofthe oil to date.
oil
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, ancljust 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 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.
'
Deepw;ater Horizon Oil Budget
II
Based on estimated release of 4.9m barrels of oil
Residual indudes oil

that is on or just below
the surface as light
5ht'en and weathered
tar balls, h.as washed
ashore or been
collected flom th.e
~hQre; or b buried in
sand and sediments.
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
Skimmed
3%
Chemically
Dispersed*
1
)
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.
I
:I
'
005087
Explanation of Findings
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 column 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 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 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 column 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 just
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.
005088
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 Mexico through natural seeps.
Explanation of Methods and Assumptions

Flow Rate: The Oil Budget Calculator starts with an estimate of the cumulative amount of oil released
over the course of the 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
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.
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 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. 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 NOAAand 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
005089
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 threat to sho"relines, 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.
005090
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget:

What happened to the oil?
Acknowledgements
Author~
Jane Lubchenco, NOAA, DOC

Marcia McNutt, USGS, DOl
Bill Lehr, NOAA, DOC
Mark Sogge, USGS, DOl
Mark Miller, NOAA, DOC
Stephen Hammond, USGS, DOl
William Conner, NOAA, DOC
Credits
The following scientists were involved in developing the Oil Budget Calculator tool:
LTGg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
David Mack and Jeff Allen (USGS) - Application development and engineering
Rebecca Uribe (USGS) - Graphic design
Bill Lehr (NOAA) - Lead mass balance and oil budget scientist
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espina (NIST) - Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
LCDR Lance Lindgren, CDR Peter Hoffman, CDR Sean O'Brien, and LT Amy McElroy
(USCG) - Application requirements and user stories
'
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (USGS) - Project vision and management
Kevin Gallagher, Martha Garcia, and Stephen Hammond (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
Independent Scientists
Ron Goodman, U. of Calgary
Al 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.
005097
Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill
Subject: Federal Science Report Details Fa~e of Oil from BP Spill

From: NOAA Communications <Press.Releases@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:43:40 -0400
To: Intemalpa.distribution@noaa.gov
NOAA Ui~!r::i? S,h"';;~

....
Contact:
Justin Kenney
Scott Smullen
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
<;:-,,;:
::;.;:;0
'1';1:.;;",'"
1J!~,gz,?r:;;;;
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 4, 2010
202482-6090
The vast majority of the oil from the BP oil spill has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed,
recovered from the wellhead or dispersed - rnuch 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
captured or mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations, including buming, 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
10f2
9/2012010 12:41 Prv
005098
. 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
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 dally 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.comlposted
/2931/0il Budget description 8 3 FINAL.844091.pdf
2of2
9/20/201012:41 Pl\
005099
Subject: Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill
From: NOAA Communications <Press.Releases@noaa.gov>

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12: 11 :45 -0400
To: Intemalpa.distribution@noaa.gov
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 HorizonlBP spill was
captured or mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations, including buming, 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.
and the Department of the Interior (001), who jointly developed what's known as an Oil Budget
calculator is based on 4.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gulf, the govemment's Flow Rate
Technical Group estimate from Monday. More than 25 of the best govemment 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."
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
lof2
9/20/2010 12:41 pJ\r
005100
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, and 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 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://vmw.deepwaterhorizonresponse.comJposted
12931/0il Budget description 8 3 FINAL.844091.pdf
Deepwater Horizon Qil Budget

Be,sed on estimo!ed release oJ 4.9m barrelS of oil
Residual indude:;. oil

'that is en or jl'i~t ~!ow
!h"'S;;rf<l'~ a~ Hghl
$h~r; and ...,,,;;;~r.~fC
t~: 1J;;li~. bas ......;~~~f>(l
~>ho('(: Or b-t.>1"!f1
coilected rrem the
Unified
GommiJl'lod
Re$ponse
Op~r3ttOnS
<;kir,-,mi"rl\
~ho(,,~.
or i~ b:,:t:t'd m
sa-na and st?-::Iimem:;;,
8%
"011 in :hli:'se .~ c;'irtgom:$ i$
O.l'f'iiflt!y b...irig d'~gra<i(~tl
2of2
9/20/2010 12:41 Pl'v
005128
OJ)1-0-:-
Gv-ScvtkCCI2.I\/t i
Associated Press
Cappiello _
Associated Press
13th Street NW
W:a.c.hjn~tU)O. DC 2000S
o-t:..~
-\-0 \~
Marb
Leader. NOAA FOIA staff
Carter-Johnson, NOAA FOrA nffioel'
N~ttional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
R.eferenuFacilily (OFA56)
Eillt't West liighway (SSMC3)

10730
Spring. Maryland 20910
pur$U8Jnt to \he federal Freec10m of lofonna1.ion Act, S U.S.C. 552.1 tequest access tQ 0I8CI copies of ::ill
commUlIication$ rel~ to tilt produetiol'l and disClosure (If the report "8P l)eer)water Horizon OU .8w:lget:
wfu..l Happened. to Ihc Oil?" 1'CtCll.~ AugUSl4. 20 I0. incJu.diIl~ aU communicatioN with the New York
Tub.es.
Thl CClmmurriCll.tiu~
ctnail~
IIbullhl include
(llltcst IlJId writ:n con'eSpOJldence related to the repon's
prddUCtiOb and diSCI{)sute from anyone in NOAA' s Communications and Dxteroal Affairs Office as welllll!
tm;joftice of .NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco. and fedet".d scientists Bill T.ehr. Robcrl.lunc.." Mark
Miner, William CQnfte!'.
.
:
III~
PlL
eom.ider thls IQ upcditlKi roqucst Under ForA. lI.$ lhilS infotrtwtio4 is urgently required to infQml
th~ public about :In actual or alleged federal government aetM.ty. namely the respon$C to the. Gulf nil spill
ancl the dissemination of d.m:a regardio& the sPiU to the DeWS media. I certify that I am a fulltime employee
fQrlne Assoeiated. Press. the world's 11ltgtSt ne'S'gathering organization with more than I billion rcadCl'li,
listbnCrs and viewecs.
w~
at1 ''W'aeney to ill.furm" exists depeads on several t'actor$: (I)
whether d!.e i:nfonuation relates to a
curtenuy wolding story; (2) whemer delaying [olC1IC uf Ihe inrormaoon harms the public Inter~ IUld (3)
wh~ the request concerns 6:deral govemmeotalltCtivu.y (Ice J\l-Fa~d v. CIA. 24S F.3J 300 (D.C. Cir.
2OOJ)}. In addition, "the credibility of areClUCSIet" 1$ also a relevant CODSideration.
i~
Pli release any informadol1 pursualll to my re(llteStS &'1 it received and/or reviewed by your
offi~
tathe: than wail:inc to send me aU die m~rial Thave r~uc.~t.cd.lf ),OLl ha~ queslio.llS or neecl to contact
.ne! I can be reached at

I .
and ~iello@lI$
.
As ~ am makiog Ibis requesl on btbDlf of the AP for use in reporting mo ~WS. DO fees may be &."lCSSM fot
searc:bing or ~wing documents souabt by this request.. an4 no duplication fees should be clwSed to the
1100 13t11 St. NW? Suite 700. Washington, DC 20005-4076

T: 2ot.641..9000 voice; www.ap.org
I
.
S~td..~J2Q~l8iHlL~'.l
,... 4-f!!\
~:Il't'til
005129
..,
4.
AP~Orthe first
100 paces ofmate:riaI (sec S U.S.c.:. 552(aX4J(A)(ii)(I/). APherooyconsents to pay
dup icat.ion chargg up 1.0 illoml lml to exceed $100. Please notify me in advance before incurring any
ctup ~cation cJ:I.'lIges in. exc.css of this llIllQunt
~ ~u kDow. the Ad permits you to ttd~ or waive tbe i'ee$ when the telease of the infol1Jli,\don is
co~idered as "'primarily bcncli1ing the puhHc."l believe that thill n:quc~ filK that category and Ttherefore
:u;k
you wal\'e any fees.
If all or any part of this request is denied. please cite the $p~fic exemption(s) th~t you think justifies your
. refu!.al to rolease the infollllAtioJl and mfotm me of your a.geru:ly's administra.tive- appeal p.tOCMI1teS
avaiiablo to me ~ W law.
To ~extent Otat yOll affirm. in whole or in part. lite denial (If dlsclosure..we ask that you provide us with CI
Ii$t desctibln& with spccilieit)' the cnlcgurics or dm:l.ll11cnil! \.hal have been withheld and cxplumrnl,!; the
grodnds for the withhoJdin& (9U Vtulglm \'. RO~', 4841'.2(1 82() (D. C. Cir. 1971)).
I 'Wi IUld appreciate your handling this reqIJest
YO~
a.~ quicldy a.<; pos.'1iblc. and 1lOOk forward to hearing from
[lJk torward to your fupl)' wilhin 20 blL'li1leAA duY!C1 w: Ute IIt1U.ut.c rcquUu-;.
. Th<lilk you for your llSS~t\Dce.
sinderelY,
J~~
005146
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Mark,W,Mjller
Jane Lubchenco: HO Deep water Horjzon Staff: Bm Conner
Background Information on Pie Chart and 011 Budget Tool
Thursday, July 22, 2010 3:49:40 PM

DeeowaterHorlzon briefing schematjc2,png
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 NOM 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.
ICategory
IRemaining
IDirect Recovery
INatural Dispersion
IEva porated
ISkimmed
IBurned
IILow Flow July

480,000
II
820,000
II
400,000
II
670,000
II
100,000
II
260,000
II
340,000
II
High Flow July 22

1,470,000 28%
823,000
16%
826,000
*
1,346,000 *
120,000
2%
266,000
5%
344,000
II
*
15
16%
27%
13%
22%
3%
8%
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.
. . . . ., , _ . _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
005147
"
leepwater Horizon MC25i Gut( Incident Oil Budget
Prlot
Chart Information
Low Flow Scenario (35,OGO barrels/day) Through July 21 (Day 93)
Print
Chart Information
005155
DRAFT 7.30v2
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget Calculator:
Where did the oil go?
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.
Deepwater Horizon on Budget

Based on 60,000 barrels/day flow rate
*Remaining oil is
either at the surface
as light sheen or
weathered tar balls,

ha!>been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
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.
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 8 percent of the oil.
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
005156
water column or fonn 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.
Sixteen percent of the oil dispersed naturally into the water column, and 8 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).
Some portion of the dispersed oil that is in droplets smaller than 100 microns 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).
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
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, 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.
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
removed from 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 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 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.
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 bums were measured directly and reported in daily
operational reports. The rest of the numbers 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.
005157
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident 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
categories 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,
which is the same as the pie chart used above. The image on page three uses the low flow rate estimate
of 35,000 barrels/day.
Appendix B: Acknowledgements
005158

Authors
Steven Hammond, USGS, DOl
Credits
David Mack (USGS) - Lead application developer
Jeff Allen (USGS) Interface designer
LCDR Lance Lindgren and CDR Peter Hoffman (USCG) - Application requirements
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) - Technical advisors
'Kevin Gallagher and Martha Garcia (USGS) Executive sponsors
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
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv Fingas, Env. Canada(ret)
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
Michel Boufadel, Temple Univ.
005171
Jystin Kenney
Deepwater Staff Idwh staff@noaa.goy); DEEPWATER Leadership Idwh.leadership@noaa.gov)
FW: [Fwd: Federal Science Report Details Fate of Oil from BP Spill]
Wednesday, August 04, 2010 11:31:27 AM
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
FYI, also going up on NOAA.gov soon.

Justin Kenney
NOAA Director of Communications & External Affairs
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell:
Email: justin.kenney@noaa.gov
NOAA
Responds to the BP oil spill: www.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
information: (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 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, 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 HorizonlBP 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.
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
005172
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 (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.
"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."
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.
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
005173
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 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 ~.
Visit this link to unsubscribe
Chris Vaccaro
Acting Media Relations Director
NOAA Communications & External Affairs
v.202-482-6093 / c.
/ NOAA.gov
005187
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
DWH leadership
OIL BUDGET REPORT - PDF ATTACHED
Oil Budget description 8 3 fINAL.pdf
Attachments:
Final Oil Budget Report attached.
005196
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Jane Lubchenco
Jennifer Austin
HO DeeP Water Hodmn Staffi KSard@doc.gOVi KGriffis@doc.gOV; justin kenney@noaa goy
all Budget Report
Wednesday, August 04, 20108:51:53 AM
Oil Budget description 8 3 FINAL.dgC)(
Jen - please convert the report to a PDF and send it around. Thanks!
005197

estimate the quantity of BP Deepwater Horizon oil that has been released from the well and the fate of
calculated the flow rate and total oil released. Led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and United States
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) developed a tool called the Oil Budget Calculator to determine
disposition of the oil to date.
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
quarter (26%)
is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed
becomes available.
Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget

Unified
Command
Response
Operations
Residual includes oil

sheen and weathered
tar balls, has washed
ashore or been
collected from the
shore, or is buried in
sand a nd sediments.
8%
"'Oil in these 3 categories is
naturally.
005198
biodegrade.
005199
barrels of oil flowed from the BP Deepwater Horizon wellhead between April 22 and July 15,2010, at
above is based on this group's estimate of 4.9 million barrels of oiL
The numbers for direct recovery and bums were measured directly and reported in daily operational

understanding of the fate, transport and impact of the oiL The federal government will continue to report
DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oiL NOAA
005200
Even though the threat to shorelines, fish and wildlife, and ecosystems has decreased since the capping
005201

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espina (NIST) - Statistical oil bu~get model encoded as an R
program
. (USCG) - Application requirements and user stories
The following experts were consulted on the oil hudget calculations, contributed field data, suggested
formulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms 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
Per Daling, SINTEF
'Wl L-L
o Atlanta
o Goleta
o Wilminton
e.o VlT A.LI
o Dallas
DSoston
Houston
0 _ _ _ __
Ole.-. kY1AL--'{<;t;'S
o Dearborn
o Sacramento
o Olympia
o Okemos
o Walnut Creek
o Edmond'
o East Greenwich
me '2e.j 2CUent: ---'2f.
Entrlx C~ntact
o Ventura
o Tacoma
CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND ANALYTICAL REQUEST RECORD

Site:
o Gig Harbor
Page
of _ __
ANAL YTfCAL REQUEST
m. LO\J\ ~ lCAmm QY\ S
r--r--~~--,-~r--r--,--'~'--'---'~r----------I
'
Project No. ______________
Sampler(s)
Airbill No
Slgnature:
.. \ ~ t..~mple 10
Date
Time
I Comp I Grab
\\ of\~ I oi
7-
Comments
"c.r
cO~
-i.....'J:
l<aira..rct(C2Qv ?i ~'\
I'
1-----------+1-
1.
Total Number of ContaIners
Relinquished By
111-0<.0vuQ~
\
!,
FOI'IM IENT-131
1-
,.
1----------+----+-----.---+----+--+---+---+--+--+1
I,
LI ~"7.
Lou\.('p] av"v\.YY\oYl(
--+-+---+-t--t----'I---t----1i---t---------
1._ I'
1\
Date
Time
1l/!?fJ/l0 loqO<b
!Jp.e~erAd By
~~1-rx~j
r
77 -\7/JVI
Date
.Time
5/z/,{'j IJ1!Il>
Ii'
005214
tv\Cr W'2. ~~-erFt\J~I1fJ'L7Aol bif lI4
No. of :\ Sample
Cant
Media
005215
5/3/2010
ZymaX 10
Sample 10
41824-1
MC-252 RIser Fluid
Evaporation
n-Pentane In-Heptane
2-Methylpentane /2-Methylheptane
0.60
1.07
Waterwashlng
Benzene / Cyclohexane
Toluene / Methylcyclohexane
.Aromatics I Total Paraffins (n+/so+cyc)
Aromatics I Naphthenes
0.34
0.43
0.31
1.22
Biodegradation
(C4 - C8 Para + Isopara) I C4 CB Olefins
3-Methylhexane / n-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

% Paraffinic
30.20
% Isoparaffinic
% Aromatic
27.26
% Naphthenlc
% Olefinic
19.14
Submitted by I
zy~~pany
Shan-Tan Lu, Ph.D.
Director of Forensic Geochemistry
23.40
0.00
005216
5/3/2010
ZymaXlO
Sample 10
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34A
34B
35
I.S.#1
41824-1
MC-252 Riser Fluid
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
2,4-0imethylpentane
Benzene
5-Methyl-1-hexene
Cyclohexane
2-MethylhexanelTAME
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-frans-3-0Imethylcyclopentane
1-cis-3-Dimethylcyclopentane
2,2,4-Trlmethylpentane
8,8,8-Triftuorotoluene
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
,--------_.- ----,-,,- - ------- -------- ----""---------,---
005217
5/3/2010
ZymaXlO
Sample 10
36
n-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
37
38
2,5-0imethylhexane
39
2,4-0imethylhexane
40
Toluene/2,3.3-Trimethylpentane
41
2,3-0imethylhexane
42
2-Methyll~eptane
43
4-Methylheptane '
44
45
3,4-0imethylhexane
3-Ethyl-3-methylpentane
46A
466
1,4-0imethylcyclohexane
47
3-Methylheptane
48 . 2,2.5-Trimethylhexane
n-Octane
49
2,2-Oimethylheptane
50
2,4-0Imethylheptane
51
52
Ethylcyclohexane
53
2,6-Dlmethylheptane
Ethylbenzene
54
55
m+pXylenes
56
4-Methyloctane
2-Methyloctane
57
58
3-Ethylheptane
3-Methyloctane
59
60
o-Xylene
i-Nonene
61
n-Nonane
62
I.S.#2 p-aromofluorobenzene
Isopropylbenzene
63
64
3,3,5-Trimethylheptane
65
66
n-Propylbenzene
1-Methyl-3-ethylbenzene
67
68
69
1.3.5-Trimethylbenzene
70
41824-1
MC-252 Riser Fluid
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
..... _.
__. _-_._-.--_.---
._."
--
005218
5/3/2010
41824-1
MC-252 Riser Fluid
ZymaXID
Sample ID
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
3-Methylnonane,
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Isobutylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
n-Decane
Indan
1,3-Diethylbenzene
1,4-Diethylbenzene
n-ButyJbenzene
1,3-Dimethyl-5-ethylbenzene
1,2-Dlmethyl-4-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
005219
C3-C44 Whole Oil Analysis.

1) Whole Chromatogram
2) Expanded Chromatogram (in 3 pages)
3) Quantitation Report with peak areas
Reviewed by: STL
-0
9'
Response. MIlliVolts
[
0
!!lL
<:)
::J
0-;-1-
~.....
.....
<:)
__ ,
.....
II.)
~
<:)
!!l
<:)
I,
!'t
......
in
at
(J1
(J1
<:)
<:)
-s.
0
6'
Ot
-28
30
!il
0
0
38
---37
~I
...~
~
.....
0
11
-20
s::
<:)
18
0'"
-0
""I
. - - II
CS2
..... i
H:
en
III
CJl
0
----S....--k.---L--......l.
~--~g
41A
49
52
59
eo
55
I,S, #2
76
",,-I ~0'~18283'
(')
::r
n-C11
a3
iJ
n-C12
Ot . 1
n-C13
::11
~
I
I
s:
:!::
n-C14
IC1a
If
1-C18
'"
<:)
,00
n-C15
n-C16
-n-C11
3'
c
n-C1a
n-C19
elm'Uiia
~j
~
!
I
-j
lr=:
.
~27
!.=l
ii
3
s::
!l
c
g;
-I'I-C26
'UI
0
n-C26
it
0
n-C28
~C2S
~
!II
18#3
n-C24
'~
...
I\)
n-C22
n-C23
g
~
I'I-Cao
4-
Iii
1'I-C31
......-g
n-C32
}t<I
...
i.....
Q.
----..
.....
,,~
-----
~-
....
- ... ...-- _. -"
a3
III
61
"0
0
;::l.
005220
.~
Response - MillIVolts
0
I
I,
0
I
0
I
0
I
O!
0
0 0 0
I
I
I
o
N
:J.
~
~~i
II
c01
~
c
b
== "
i~~==-5~';~7~_~5'Zl76U2
"'5.984
____
6.65 8
~.
7.31 11
.....
16
9.09 17
90
- 12.24
. -13.72
s:
10.65 20
-".03"
21
13.36 26
-13.94 30
, 14.52 31
'" 15.07 33
;: 14.62_14.79 J2
="'t"bI"?-
i.
"" 9.29
'" 9.67 19
'=
6
l '"
-'
0-8.08 CS2
B.21
"tI
CO
15.48;: 15.66_
15
.84 34A 348
a-.
16.46 ; 16.70 IS #1 36
F
b~[=1A~?~=-----~------~,
".03 37
!l
~
'"
...~
~
fJp---19.94_ 20 .13
20.69 42
:><20.36 41A
:.!l
6}
5 ., 21.31 43
E"Zi.2=2Vll_211.o,,2UI2_~1.94_22.07 4aB 46A
t
47
44
!!I
f!~:.45~
22~~.6~8..~2C2:.8:3'~22:.:92::..._4_6_ _ _ _ _ _ _~. 23.64 49
- 2uS
C---25.23-25.31 51
- ... "'" ....... J'\t'i 53
~+
.:23.26
r=
25.6552
'til
o
Cii
~
....
.....
'U-~_ft';A""
-",,,--
:>-27.36 55
:-11,'"
.46_ 30.64
63
.87. 31.13 64 31.01_ 31.23. 31.34
., 301A A% 30.28 1.8.#2
I",=-., 3
52. "t.69- 31.76_ 31.67_ 32.01 65

32.30- 32.39_ 32.66 66
_2.75_33.1067 so
.
. 33.56
69
.'
2 34.07- 33.92 70
~
- 34.45
73
1.70_34697,.
35.01-35.10..35.19_35.27
.
~.
!Ill
it ..~5.n.
35. ___
87 ....
74_ 75.
",..36.32. __
.
.__
__ ........... ..
"'36.0B 76
-..
" .~"-------
005221
So
w
I...
'"
gi
iil
3
;:+
"tI
igl
Response - MilliVolts
.....
.....
(]I
C
-'--~ .. .....L
I _.77- .J. .
./tl ......
~'aa.
Q)
0
0
c:n
<J1
8
." 36.97_ 37.27. 31.43 7
N
-"
!Il
o
. 36.81
~l..t1. 31.81.. 98.00
.....
79
98.26_ 38.46. 9a.a9
SI
"'0 "
"tI
s::
i
0
....
80
99.04. 39.27, g~.# 99.63 82 8S 84

'5::-3997 40.07 85
I
~
'So
.1:19'40.90..41.01
14_41
M
:
!!l
~
b
.
,. 4146 n-011
8.....
.78_41.95'42.1087 88
.21. 42.41. 42.76
- 42.95 'S27
~.
-43.67
~i>'t't89 ..,.
43.B7. 44.04 u 28- AA .94
-..........
90
~4.54.
44.75. #.83_ 5.08
4
'.
45.30. 45.40. 45.61
48.43 n-012
~5.n-45.81'48.10
:...0.58. 46.1't 47.09 1-013

1_ 41.51_ 47.83
- 48.04- 48.13_ 4B.38
g: . j
i
48.52-48.60_48.78_48.93
!:All.S1_ 49.46 I-C14 91
--
"tI
(I)
~- 52.15_ 52.37
so ..::tin ~ ...
.~
!-C15
~ rn""
:!t
(lII
,55.16 n-C15
1-\.i1t1
, 57.10 n-C16
""-l>tI'O>56.44-"""""OO.",
. 58.71_ 66.86
- ... - :l :l~.U..3 I"'UIU
i8.36 58.22_ 58.42
~I
58.82 n-C17
M.OO Pilstane
.O~'Oij.Qli- OS.tlll- 59.70.. 59.83

0eo PhYiiine
6 ~
Hi I
aO.S8 n-C18
.81.62 n-Ci9
-61.31.61.45
.. 83.16
.. 64.43
51
,. 64.0B IS #3
n-02
- or .uu_ 87.79
E-
.v'~'_7Q38
.. 87.95 n-024
,70.49 n-C26
'iN
'fi
N
st
<.t.\
.....
.....
co
"66.79 n-C23
6 l!l:I..It
Q4
;...._ _......:.-.n
!t.-""""S9.1B n-025
'~hBa
g
iii
"" 65.64 n-C22
:f:.tw
Ci
~
0
n-C20
en
.86
];
~3.99
3 .. tiC. Ie 00."",_ 65
...f
it.
0
::t
62.1:13- 62.62. 62 .89 - tI<I..tll!

301
'"
: 60.11. BQ 21
1.24'61.37
~
.....
~
N
j]
fil H?
.. 52.89 n-C14
jl)
:.M~54.41
.76
,. 50.10 n-013
3_<l99S 92
-~
9
a3
~
ra
iil
3
(il
005222
"'CI
::l.
::l
II0
::l
'"
~I
:..;.
01
0c.o
"'CI
~
I
'"I
tll
0
,
t.I
'",
<:>
73.6G n.o28
?-74.15_ 7440
- 74.72_ 74.93
_75 B8
75.40 n-029
~
-75.88_ 78.06
-"
'"'"
J.13
is ,... ufl_ 7
i\3
0
Responsa MillIVolts
...
Ol
0
'"
Q
Q
'I~
i~
II
-76.73
inc
~.
I~
r, _77.19- 7698
s:
jl!
'"I
77 /':" ...r.!IIn
'"
'"'"
....
t-80.45 - - 79.98 n.o31
g--j
-80.84
-81.60
tJ---
~j
B2.84 n-C32
-83.26
- 83.81
9
a3
86.18 n-C33
"'CI
(!)
;.
!4
r='.M~
=1<0
3til '"
s:
~
CD
~
"'"
91.35
!J:
2
<n
I'"
93.48
ii!
<II
Iii
I~
94.60 n..(l3S
ml
::::
'liI
Q
*
E
'"
I~...
-99.15
...
p- 99.88 n-C36
<:>
CD
'103.54
-'
gl
-106.13
(,)
g,
--'
1.. _._-
c.o
9
a
~
~
iiJ
3
005223
005224
Chrom Perfect Chromatogram Report
Sample Name = 41824-1 [(MC-252 Riser Fluid)) [500+500cs21J + IS F-D1181 0-1
=DP#
Instrument Instrument 1
Heading 1 I::
Heading 2 =
Acquisition Port
Raw File Name = C:\CPSplrlt\2010\May10\050310.0001.RAW

Method File Name C:\CPSplrlt\C344.met
Calibration File Name = C:\CP8plrlt\041610.cal
Date Taken (end) 513/2010 1 :18:56 PM

Method Version 44
Calibration Version 2
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 5/3120102:16:18 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
15.64
16.48
16.70
18.03
18.25
18.83
18.91
19.05
19.43
19.53
19.94
20.13
20.36
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
0.7764
0.2219
0.0502
0.0218
0.4911
0.6671
0.2437
0.0832
0.0439
0.0411
0.0973
0.0175
0.2643
1.5336
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
13164.64
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
15236.56
19241.90
Page 1 of6
005225

Peak Name
61
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
62
1.8.#2
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
72
73
74
76
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
26.33
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 %
0.1068
0.0832
0.7837
0.2117
0.1363
0.0446
0.2389
0.1507
1.1167
0.0870
0.2576
0.3136
0.0662
0.3696
0.3234
0.0526
0.0859
0.2576
0.1506
1.3739
1.6339
0.1901
0.0593
0.0506
0.0339
0.1283
0.0969
0.1118
0.0583
0.0285
0.1252
0.2948
0.0725
0.0828
0.2269
. 0.0713
0.0389
0.1536
0.2079
0.2053
0.1179
0.4263
0.1749
0.2507
0.1854
0.0353
0.2647
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
49678.13
467110.10
129735.20
81234.09
26572.54
142362.60
89826.98
665578.60
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
56969,49
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
162779.30
48239.26
131564.40
22607.22
124294.80
Page2of6
005226
Peak Name
80
81
82
83
84
85
n-C11
87
88
89
90
n-G12
I-C13
I--C14
91
92
n-C13
PrInted on 513/2010 2:16:18 PM
Ret. Time
38.4B
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
45.0B
45,30
45.40
45.61
45.77
45.87
46.10
46.43
46.58
46.77
47.09
47.41
47.51
47.63
47.79
48.04
48.13
4B.27
48.3B
48.62
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
0.0684
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
52542.55
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
93340.88
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 30f6
005227
Peak Name
1-015
n-C14
i-C16
n-C15
n-C16
1..c18
n-C17
Pristane
Printed on 51312010 2;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
52.89 '
53.03
53.13
53.22
53.40
53.63
53.68
53.80
53.89
53.98
64.10
54.28
64.41
64.55
54.63
64.76
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
68.42
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
0.2266
0.6562
0.2003
0.2943
0.1812
0.0675
0.1158
1.7917
1.1887
0.1566
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
73933.64
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
84243.72
74771.53
50835.60
26151.75
135022.20
391076.00
119393.30
175376.90
106003.00
40233.45
69004.23
1067890.00
708491.90
93282.68
109615.60
78584.42
38470.45
156106.50
150641.50
Page4of6
005228
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
68.30
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
n.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
Nea
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
62900.49
76098.4B
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
81301.39
84143.93
109672.10
40483.64
92791.74
56260.07
32024.61 .
Page5of6
005229
Peak Name
n-C25
n-C26
n-C27
n-C2B
n-C29
n-C30
n-031
n-032
n-C33
n-C34
o.C35
o.C36
Total Area
=5.960118E+07
Printed on 51312010 2:16:18 PM
Ret. TIme
69.18
69.27
69.57
69.63
70.01
70.38
70.49
70.66
70.97
71.34
7MB
71.85
71.94
72.07
72.1B
72.48
72.74
72.89
73,13
73.56
74.16
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
60.45
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
448368.20
109605.90
30658.45
114115.10
84207.34
24343.50
372933.40
27168.13
111818.60
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
48023.98
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
0.0616
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
0.0373
0.0444
0.D195
0.4678
0.0246
0.0378
0.0302
004091
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:: 0
Page 60fa
005244
From:
Robert Haddad
To:
"Steve Block"
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
"Jennifer Austin": Iony.penn@noaa.gov; "Mark W Miller"; " HO Deep Water Horizon State'; "Dave Westerholm"
BE: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA

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 dear, 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: 301.713,4248xl10
Cell:
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';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
On 8/4/2010 10:44 AM, Robert.Haddad wrote:
> Jennifer:
>
> The oil budget will not immediately impact BP's liability with regards to
> I\lRDA. 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 daim) 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.
>
> Is this helpful? Bob
>
> Robert Haddad, Ph.D.
> Chief, Assessment& Restoration Division
> NOAA/Office of Response& Restoration
> Office: 301.713.4248xll0
> cell:
> www.darrp.noaa.gov
005245
.:
> www.response.restoration.noaa.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message----> From: Jennifer Austin [mailto;Jennjfer.Austjn@noaa.s;Joy]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 10: 19 AM
> To: Robert Haddad; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; Mark W Miller; _HQ Deep Water
Horizon
> Staff
> Subject: need quick help with Q on 011 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 impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial
> liability for this spill? *
>
>
>
005246
From:
To:
cc:
Robert,Haddad
"Jennifer Austin"; Ioov,Penn@noaa,gOYi "Mark W Miller";" HO Deep Water Horizon Stafr'
"Dave Westerholm"
Subject:
REi need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
Date:
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.
Is this helpful? Bob
Office: 301.713.4248xll0
. Cell:
www.darrp.noaa.gov
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennjfer.Austin@noaa,gov]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04,2010 10:19 AM
To: Robert Haddad; Tony.Penn@noaa.gov; Mark W Miller; _HQ Deep Water Horizon
Staff
Subject: need quick help with Q on 011 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 impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's finandal
liability for this spill? *
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office)
(cell)
www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
'W\LL
o Atlanta
o Goleta
o Wilminton
o Boston
o0 _
Houston
_ _ __
C.OVlTAc-r
o Dallas.
o Okemos
o Walnut Creek
t=b~ kY\Al-'1<;-t'S
o Dearborn
o Edmond'
o Tacoma
o East Greenwich
o Sacramento
o Olympia
CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND ANALYTICAL REQUEST RECORD
Client:
Entrlx C~~tact:
rY\0 %1-
Site:
0f'
rYl.
o Gig Harbor
o Ventura
Page
of _ __
ANAL YTfCAL REQUEST
LO\J\ ~ La.rnmpYlS
Project No. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sampler(s)
Uignatu""
\~~t{
.
Sample ID
Alobill No
Date
TIme
I Camp I Grab
Cont.
Media
Comments
cO~l?tt
1\ of\~1 Di I
1-.:;:
. lf2i(Q.rdCt20v \>i ~'\
1I trl
I
I
I I
Total Number of ContaIners
Relinquished By
111o<.o~~_ . Loul.fJiJ Qv"\'\.yy\OJ1(
Ii
i
FOflM
*ENT-131
1---+
-+-1- + - - 1 - + - - - - - - - -
L-...:I~\_...-I
Date
TIme
lifP.IJ/I0 IDqD~
/lReceJd By
-=S~1 rx~j
'Vf){/J
Date
.11me
57'S/If).
,,~
... v
005295
~c- ;5'2.. ~b.erf\\J~11fft.7JfOl oifl.M
No. of .\ Sample
005296
5/3/2010
ZymaXlD
Sample ID
41824-1
MC-252 Riser Fluid
Evaporation
n-Pentane In-Heptane
2-Methylpentane 12-Methylheptane
0.60
1.07
waterwashlng
Benzene 1 Cyclohexane
Toluene I Methylcyclohexane
.Aromatics 1Total Paraffins (n+lso+cyc)
.Aromatics / Naphthenes
0.34
0,43
0.31
1.22
Biodegradation
(C4 - CB Para + Isopara) I C4 - C8 Oletins
3-Methylhexane In-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane In-Heptane
Isoparaffins + Naphthenes / 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
% Naphthenlc
% Olefinic
30.20
27.26
23.40
19.14
0.00
Submitted by,
ZY;Z:Z:Z:P~
Shan-Tan Lu, Ph.D.
Dlreotor of Forensic Geochemistry
----_.-_._--------
005297
513/2010
ZymaXID
Sample ID
Propane
Isobutane
Isobutene
ButanelMethanoJ
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
1
2
3
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
2~Methyl-2-butene
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34A
34B
35
I.S. #1
0"-"'---.. _ _ _ __
418241
MC-252 Riser Fluid
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~cls-3-Dlmethylcyclopentane
a,a,B-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
005298
5/3/.2010
41824~1
ZymaX ID
Sample ID
MC~252
Riser Fluid
36
n~Heptane
5.91
37
Methylcyclohexane
6.94.
0.32
0.46
0.07
38
2,5~Dimethylhexane
39
40
2,4~Dimethylhexane
41
42
43
Toluene/2,3,3~Trimethylpentane
2.96
2,3~Dimethylhexane
0.56
2~Methylheptane
2.58
44.
4~Methylheptane
3,4~Dimethylhexane
0.74
0.17
3~Ethyl-3-methylpentane
2.21
1,4-Dimethylcyclohexane
3-Methylheptane
2,2,5-Trimethylhexane
1.63
0.00
0.32
5,08
0.00
0.36
45
46A
46B
47
48
49
2,3,4~Trimethylpentane
n~Octane
50
2,2~Dimethylheptane
51
2,4~Dimethylheptane
52
53
Ethylcyclohexane .
2.60
2,6~Dlmethylheptane
54
55
Ethylbenzene
m+pXylenes
56
57
4~Methyloctane
58
3~Ethylheptane
0.72
0.79
3.70
0.85
1.04
0.23
2~Methyloctane
59
3~Methyloctane
1.22
60
61
a-Xylene
1~Nonene
1.07
0.00
62
n~Nonane
4.55
I.S.#2
p~Bromofluorobenzene
0.00
63
Isopropylbenzene
3,3,5~Trimethylheptane
2,4,5~Trimethylheptane
0.37
0.76
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
0.17
n~Propylbenzene
0.69
1~Methyl~3-ethylbenzene
1~Methyl-4-ethylbenzene
0.68
0.39
1.41
0.61
005299
5/3/2010
ZymaX 10
Sample 10
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
3-Methylnonane
1,2,+Trimethylbenzene
Isobutylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
n-Oecane
Indan
1,3-Diethylbenzene
1,4-Diethylbenzene
n-Butylbenzene
1,4-Dlmethyl-2-ethylbenzene
1,3-0imethyl-4-ethylbenzene
1,2-0imethyl-4-ethylbenzene
Undecene
1.2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene
1,2.3,4-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
_.. __.. -...... .

~
71
72
41824-1
MC-252 Riser Fluid
005300
C3-C44 Whole Oil Analysis.

1) Whole Chromatogram
2) Expanded Chromatogram (in 3 pages)
3) Quantltation Report with peak areas
Reviewed by: STL
Ii
c.
l!lL.__
"
o-~
....~
..
....
0
Response. MilliVolts
<.n
"I
tl
0
<3
0
-..l..........-_
<:)
fA
Ot
0
0
Ot
Ot
"I
tJl
0
0
I
I
-"
iii
(Jl
18
0'<
'1l
::
-!
~.....
-20
-26
30
11
S---CS2
.... i
U\
C>l
80
36
.....
37
~I
'1:1
I
Q
(h
<
Ot
0
~-uo
43 41A
49
52
55
I.S.#2
~J
BO'~1
85
76
82
63
0;:r
n-C11
a3
"'CI
::J
g.1
<D
n-C12
i4
1014 91 92
Sl.
n-C13
I-C-I6
gj.1
1-C18
n-C18
n-C19
I"IIV tall8
n-C20 1613
I
I
al
J
I
!
I
gJ
-i
iIE:
---11-025
n-028
n-024
n-C22
11-023
-n-C27
n-C28
II-C30
!a.
....
I\)
fi.
!!I
::!l
,c
igJ
'ttl
"c
-
.....
I~
n-C33
._...... '-'._-"
005301
CD
(ij
n-C31
....
11
....
s:
c
Ij
ID
0
!=l
n-C3.2
~
....
iii
0
1=:'}
(XI
n-C15
n-C1a
n-017
:;
:!::
n-C14
iiii
3
;;0
(II
-0
0
;::!.
I
g
a:
;;
0
ll~
....
o
~
~
1!l
cOo
81
0
li
I
01
~
0
~
(;)
!!l
0
Hi
C)
,~""
~
0
6Q
!j
P.l
01
~.5.j7_5.75
""5.984
E ': "
8.21
II
I
,6.85 8
8.08
"'7.31 11
!:iE
CS2
9.09 17
a il~
L
:=======:"~9:.8~71=-9_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10.85 20
<>-9.29 18
690_,... "
... ,
"" 13.94 311
I,
16
-I
~
<1>
13.36 28
i..,.._ 15.48,15.66_ 15.64 34A '48
r:
~.,
ie." 18.70
Fe6
.
.. .
. ~~v3~6"'~- ..... v_
24.96. 25.23 _ 25.31 61
26.01. 28.09
, 2U4 49
" 26.65 62
53
27.36 5S
28.41 59
28.80
~ J,I 30~!-S1.13
-. B~
I
-3064
60
-29.18_ 29.41
29.27
30.28 I.S.#2
"
-S1.01. s1 .2 3.31.S4
81 -: ..........
il. ~5.n35.B7 74 75
... _._. ___ .....
j;..3A.3~
I
.j.
.92-21.98 56 57
!I
en
.........~
54
28.60. 2700
~
....
~
!II
"7
-23':7'5
[i
..
t:: 26.4~
:!::
01
?J
, 21.31 43
Z.o"n.82.~l94_22.07 48B 4eA
I ~-24.24
tll I kI
2~
'" 20.38 41A
21.41_21
'so, "
ie.03 37
....20.13
.62
r;a,
'" 14.52 31
0-15.07 33
'".Ik 14.79 32
=20.8942
i....
9
a3
==.,R5"
._.u3 26
38.08 76
:..: _________._.
<AI
f{
005302
"'[]
i
o::::s
ii
-I>
iii
0,
';'
am
81
i31 ' ~8
C"l
;
.
,
.....
o
I':l
.....
OJ
~ - 41-14
QU,,,u-41.u,
, -AiM
_ 41 ,46 n-C11
,. ~~~2;8- 41 ,95_ 42,10
is
67 68
- 42,47_ 4276
-42,95
'
~,
-43,27
~."qq 89
-4357
_
;!:87_ 44,04_ 44.28- 44.34
L~4,54_ 44.75- 44,83_ 45.08 90
- 45.30.. 45.40_ 45,61
~::-~~'~:-46.10
01.
"j
, 48.43 n-C12
I:,~~i . f;i~4!;1.">1-48.4tl
~-~~ ~~ 92
- - .. '"
, 50,10 n-C13
C1
a-
"'[]
::=-=-",
'w_ 0';."0_ 52.15_ 52.37
12.4>1 52 75. 52.S0
1-015
, 62_89 n-C14
_ 53,22 - 53.03_ 53.13
~
,
<tI
f 81-
~:
-OQ'lu-5428.........".54.41
- . _ ~ gg.:b_
54.76
I
I
-1
I
I
065,16 n-C15
-. 5.38
I
I
I-C16
-",,",u
~
,:
- -57.66_
- 56,36
057,10 n-C1a
-wu,-uu'w,
-57,75
56,031-C16
. - 58.42
56.62 n-C17
,I
,1
0 63,16 n-C20
"" 64.43
0-
-70,01_ 70 38
(I)
'"s.
~+
~
.....
.....
~
"" 70.49 n-C28
iI
&
&
a
6.07-"65,33 .. 65 .16- 65,22. 6551

"" 65.64 n-C22
i g,!5.i8. 65,96. 66,09. 66.16. 6633
, ..~ - 66.39_ 66,50.. 66,60_ 6B.72 '
, 66,79 n.C23
:;~ - 67,09. 67 22
! $a7.48. 67,66 . 67.53_ 67,79
j
67,95 n-024
.; $..88, 13._ 68.30. 66.39 . 68 88
i~ -88,73. 68_86
' . 69 04 "" 69,18 n-C25
~1't.'21 .69,67- 69.63
:f""-
;g
rtI
!!l
Vi
64.06 IS #3 n-C2 1
~64,67 6492
:~'RI3
;;0
01
'UI
a
61.82 n-C19
.~
-6337
.~
. - 63,70_ 8391. 6'3.,99
-64.22
iil
:!I
c:
- 62.40_
62_53_ 62,62-62, ~9 - 62.69
,_-62.61
.. 6301
31 I
;;:
g
n-C16
I
L_
....
(,)
-.--~
Dl
2
I\)
~::~~~~~~~;;;~~iB--------------<>~aO'38
~!i~~;'~-~6~2'~0:~~6=2=27~~6~2~3;3~~~------------------~
i
!
~
56 44
=-s6:5ll"_
56.71_ 56 .6a .
569 9
- 57 38- :rr:-.a_ 57.46
--
!CD
I\)
i9
3
~
0
;::I.
005303
"tl
::I.
Response, MilliVolts
ig
..
l!l
18 __ ~_
=~--_Q
....oo
N
....
~
~
g
~
0
c o o
m
n
~
"
fl~
73,5E1 11-C28
~o
'4.15,74.40
"74.72_ 74,93 0 75.40 11-C29
'
r:=
;:;t
-!
:75.68, 75.88_ 76.08
-76.73_ 7698
77.19
77.52
rrCao
0,
-77.89
-78.27
79.98 n..o31
L 8045
..,
I tIJ
'80.84
-81.60
1:::..._
o 82.84
rrCa2
-83.26
-83.B1
RI
-85.34
86.18 rrC33
a3
-:
~
~:g
(11
-91.S5
l=!
s:
~
til
N
- 93.48
94.ElO n-C35
lSl
a3
!!l.
t8
m
.3
'i
!l
:
~
'01
0
~
~+
0
.. I
81
en
" 99.15
99.88 n-C38
......J1
...
0>
.I
I'::> 103.54
!iii
-10a.13
(II
(,)
a
C..:I
t._.....
-~.-.----
005304
-.--.~.-
.....-- .. ,--.-,--,.,,---" ._- .
005305
Chrom Perfect Chromatogram
R~port
Sample Name = 41824-1 [(MC.252 Riser Fluid [500+500cs2]] + IS P-D118101

Instrument::: Instrument 1
Heading 1:::
Heading 2
Acquisition Port = DP#
Raw File Name = C;\CPSplrll\2010\May10\05D310.0001.RAW

Method File Name::: C:\CPSplrlt\C344.met
Calibration File Name = C:\CPSplrlt\041610.cal
Date Taken (end)::: 5/3(20101:18:56 PM

Method Version = 44
Calibration Version = 2
Peak Name
4
8
11
CS2
15
17
18
19
20
26
27
28
ReI. Time
5.47
5.75
5.98
6.85
7.31
8.08
8.21
9.09
9.29
9.B7
10.65
11.90
12.03
12.24
13.36
13.72
30
13.94
31
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
32
33
34A
348
IS #1
36
37
38
39
40
41A
42
43
44
45
466
46A
48
49
Printed on 5/3/2010 2:16:18 PM
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
20.13
0.0221
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
23.84
23.75
24.24
24.96
. 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
397616.60
145234.90
49574.00
26192.46
24491.65
57993.90
10426.39
169473.50
914177.00
106228.90
15238.56
19241.90
Page 1 of6
005306
Peak Name
61
52
53
54
65
56
57
68
59
60
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
62
I.S.#2
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
72
73
74
75
76
77
79
Printed on 51312010 2;16:18 PM
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
0.2177
0.1363
0.0446
0.2389
0.1507
1.1167
0.0870
0.2578
0.3138
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
o.o~79
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
818846.90
973807.30
113296.80
35348.11
30297.56
20223.20
76496.52
58969.49
66658.46
34734.37
16979.93
74632.52
175113.80
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
803485.00
13045.00
12266. eo
107981.00
23229.11
51195.95
65037.45
182779.30
46239.26
131564.40
22607.22
124294.080
Page20UI
005307
Pea,k Name
80
81
82
83
84
85
OoC11
87
88
89
90
n-C12
I-C13
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
47.63
47.79
48.04
48.13
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
52542.55
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
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
189987.80
264036.60
56254.38
120458.90
217363.20
954778.00
55958.26
24953.55
152711.10
Page 30f 6
005308
.;

Peak Name
j..C15
n-C14
i-C16
n-Ci5
n-C16
IC18
Ret. Time
.50.71
50.85
51.00
51.16
61.38
51.44
51.61
51.69
51.83
51.96
52.15
52.31
52.44
52.15
52.80
52.89
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
56.88
56.99
57.10
57.22
57.38
57.46
57.66
57.75
57.92
58.03
56.14
58.22
58.36
58.42
n-C17
Prlstane
58.68
58.82
59.00
59.23
59.52
69.59
59.65
59.75
59.83
Area
109861.10
29883.19
55920.09
54229.93
24863.02
162509.70
86016.48
14610.32
114885.60
188915.20
99045.52
223498.70
108032.60
128861.30
142390.80
1004966.00
64489.43
252388.90
206091.60
25612.71
13933.54
60203.95
39988.37
44196.18
46426.64
312948.00
102999.60
431746.20
128205.90
27101.03
42274.14
54741.50
1215221.00
110414.70
58161.71
80519.13
22619.60
87161.24
174097.30
66705.08
269046.20
218288.10
160749.10
79321.63
23923.84
100933.00
1085821.00
156363.70
64243.72
74771.53
50635.60
26151.75
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
Area %
0.1843
0.0501
0.0938
0.0910
0.0417
0.2127
0.1443
0.1252
0.1928
0.3170
0.1662
0.3150
0.1813
0.2162
0.2389
1.6862
0.1082
0.4235
0.3458
0.0430
0.1240
0.1010
0.0671
0.0742
0.0719
0.5251
0.1728
0.1244
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
0.2691
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
0.1156
1.7917
1.1887
0.1585
0.1839
0.1319
0.0845
0.2619
0.2527
,
Printed on 6/3/2010 2:16:18 PM
Page4of6
005309
Chrom Perfect Chromatogram
Peak Name
n-C18
Phytane
n-C19
n-C20
18#3
n-C21
n-C22
n-C2S
n-024
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
66.13
68.30
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
0.0645
0.1160
0.1213
0.0761
0.9135
0.1364
0.1412
0.1840
0.0679
0.1557
0.0944
0.0537
Nea
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
50362.86
69121.72
72285.24
45376.06
544454.20
81301.39
84143.93
109672.10
40483.64
92791.74
56260.07
32024.61
Page50f6
005310
Peak Name
n-C25
n-C26
o-C27
o-C28
n-C29
o-C30
n-C31
n-C32
n-C33
n-C34
o-C35
o-C36
, Total Area
=5.960118E+07
Printed on 5/312010 2:16:18 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
99.15
99.88
103.54
106.13
Total Helght:= 2.252017E+07
Area
448388.20
109605.90
30858.45
114115.10
84207.34
24343.50
372933.40
2716B.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
22547.68
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
0.0373
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
Total Amount =0
Page
005347
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Jennjfer AUstjn
Jane Lubchenco
HO Deep Water Horizon Staff: KSarri@docgoy; KGrjffis@doc goy; justin kennev@noaa,goy; Scott Smullen;
Margaret.Sprjng@noaa,goy; Mark W Mjller
Re: OjJ"Budget Report
OJ! Bydget descrjPtion 8 3 FINAL.pdf
PDF version.
Jen Pizza, can you please forward to leadership list. thanks, Jen
Jane Lubchenco wrote:
> Jen - please convert the report to a PDF and send it around. Thanks!
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office)
cell)
005348

The Natienal Incident Cemmand (NIC) assembled a number ef interagency expert scientific teams to.
estimate the quantity efBP Deepwater Herizen eil that has been released frem the well and the fate ef
that eil. The expertise ef gevernment scientists serving en these teams is cemplemented by
nengevernmental and governmental specialists reviewing the calculatiens and conclusions. One team
calculated the flow rate and tetal eil released. Led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and United States
Geelegical Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, this team anneunced en August 2,2010, that it
estimates that a total ef 4.9 millien barrels ef eil has been released frem the BP Deepwater Herizen well.
A secend interagency team, led by the Department of the Interior (DOl) and the National Oceanic and
Atmespheric Administratien (NOAA) develeped a teel called the Oil Budget Calculator to determine
what happened to. the oil. The calculater uses the 4.9 millien barrel estimate as its input and uses beth
direct measurements and the best scientific estimates available to. date, to. determine what has happened
to. the eiL The interagency scientific repert belew builds upen the calculator and summarizes the
dispesitien efthe eil to. date.
In summary, it is estimated that burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead remeved ene
quarter (25%) efthe oil released from the wellhead. One quarter (25%) efthe tetal oil naturally
evaperated er disselved, and just less than ene quarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally er as a
result ef eperatiens) as micrescepic dreplets into. Gulfwaters. The residual ameunt -just ever ene
quarter (26%)
is either en or just be lew the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed
ashore or been cellected from the shere, or is buried in sand and sediments. Oil in the residual and
dispersed categories is in the precess efbeing degraded. The report below describes each of these
categeries and calculatiens. These estimates will continue to. be refined as additional informatien
becemes available.

Unified
Command
Response

sheen and weathered
ashore or been
collected from the
sand and sediment!>.
Operations
8%
*011 in these 3 categories is
currentlv being degraded
naturally.
005349
Dispersion: Based on estimates, 16% of the oil dispersed naturaIJy into the water column and 8% was
of the oil to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose ofthis analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as
biodegrade.
combination of categories an of which are difficult to measure or estimate. It includes oil still on or just
005350
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in. the water column and oil on the surface of the water biodegrade
naturaUy. 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
academia are working to calculate more precise estimates ofthis rate. It is well known that bacteria that

Flow Rate: The Oil Budget Calculator starts with an estimate ofthe cumulative amount of oil released
over the course of the spill. The newest estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions ofthe
barrels of oil flowed from the BP Deepwater Horizon wellhead between April 22 and July 15, 2010, at
above is based on this group's estimate of4.9 million barrels of oil.
Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug], 2010 (available online). The tool was created by the US

understanding ofthe fate, transport and impact of the oil. The federal government will continue to report
www.geop]atform.gov.
DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
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,
005351
ofthe 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 wild1ife, habitats, and natural resources
005352

Acknowledgements
Authors
Mark Sogge, USGS, 001
Stephen Hammond, USGS, 001
Credits
LTUg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
program
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
005365
::: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
Subject: RE: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA

From: "Robert.Haddad" <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:59:29 -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. Westerholm@noaa.gov>
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;
Bob
Office: 301.713.4248x110
Cell:
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
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
and these injuries quantified. Thus, the NRD liability (or the damages
arising from the NRD claim) will be based directly on those measured
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:
www.darrp.noaa.gov
-----original Message-----
of2
8/4/2010 3:45 PM
005366
E: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

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
this morning, we're pulling together Q&Afor 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? *
of2
8/4/20 \0 3 :45 PM
005380
DRAFT 7.30
Deepwater HorizonfBP Oil Budget Calculator:

"Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
weathered tar ball;;,
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
t__ ,"" .
R <> . . . . . . . . .- .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ _ _ _ _ _ _
'"""_.R _ " . _ .... _ .,..,._ _" .............. _
. _,.""_."""" , __ ,_
~_._nm_.......... _.. _.... _ ,."..........,__... __
g , , _ _ , , _ _ _ . _ _
,,~_~ ~"_
....
wellhead.
significant portion of the spilled oiL Sixteen percent of the oil was captured directly from the wellhead
water column or form residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific
005381
Sixteen percent of the oil 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
caused some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the diameter of a human hair).
continued monitoring- and research.
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
on additional information and further analysis.
005382
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 28, 2010, contains
005383

Authors

Credits
Jeff Allen (USGS) - Interface designer
LCDR Lance Lindgren and CDR Peter Hoffinan (USCG) - Application requirements
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
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
005387
. Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

All units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.goyon 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT..
005388
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
fI'I
(I)
1,000,000
lI-
m
.c
750,000
500,000
250,000
May-201O
Expected Value -
Jun-201
JUI-2010

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section the report for reference material on report elements.
of
005389

hiland Recovery

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
005390
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
:r.:r.-
350,000
..Q
ca
300,000
til
G)
400,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
May-201O
Expected Value -
Jun-201
Jul-201

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
005391
Reference Notes

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

The Cumulative Disposition of Oil II Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amount of oil
budget model. The values used in the chart come from the calculations in a statistical model and
reference material.
Discharged
Note: Refer to the section on Leakage in the Mass Balar'!ce 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
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the' National
005392
. Recovered via RITT and Top Hat

spill '!'low. 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
'No natural surface dispersion assumed
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oil IIremoved." See background documentation for
more information.
Evaporated. or Dissolved
'Largest oil removal mechanism for surface oil

005393
. by removing the following from the total discharge:

Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
The actual amount of skimmed oil should ultimately be based on actual measurement
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
005394
of the methodology used inthis calculated measurement.
dispersant applied and recorded daily arid acting on both surface and subsurface oil. The following
International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20:1 used
Note: Refer to the section on Dispersed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document for
a full
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
Volume of oil remaining after other known volume totals are removed from the total discharged.

005395
DRAFT 7.29
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 detennine 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.

'"Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
weathered tar balis,
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 hat systems. In addition, burning and skimming operations collected
approximately 11 percent of the oil.
water column or fonn residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific
005396
16 percent of the oil has dispersed physically illto the water column, and 8 percent of the oil was
surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of a diffuse cloud of dispersed oil between 3300 and
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 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 Gulf, early indications are that the light
crude oil from this well is biodegrading quickly.
surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore on
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 Gulfwaters. 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.
005397
Attachments
005398
. -,'
:'I

Authors
Credits
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
Per Daling; SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
005399
,
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
'.
Steve Block
Robert.Haddad
"Jennifer Austin"; Tony !?enn@noaa,goy; "Mark W Miller";" HO Deep Water Horizon Staff"; "Dave Westerho1m"
Re: need quick help with Q on 011 Budget NROA
impact BP's liability of a evil fine under the Clean Water Act. Under
Gulf.--Steve
> Jennifer:
>
> The 011 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.
>
> Is this helpful? Bob
>
> Robert Haddad, Ph.D.
> Chief, Assessment& Restoration Division
> NOAA/Office of Response& Restoration
> Office: 301.713.4248xl10
> Cell:
> www.darrp.noaa.gov
> www.response.restoration.noaa.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message----> From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:Jennjfer.Austin@noaa.gov]
> Sent: WednesdaYI August 041 2010 10:19 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
>
> Hi Bob and Tony and DWH Staff,
> Quick question for you, related to the the oil budget report gOing out
> this moming, we're pulling together Q&A for Dr. for her briefing with
> Gibbs this afternoon, Can you answer this question? Thanksl Jen
>
>1.*
> What impactl if anYI will this report have in determining BP's finaneal
> liability for this spill? *
>
>
>
005406
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Amanda Hallberg Greenwell

NOM HO leadership; "dwh,staff@Qoaa.gov"; Michael Jarvis; Jessica Kendel
[Fwd; Fw: ent to reporters]
Wednesday, August 04, 2010 1:12:16 PM
Fw ent to reoorters,eml (12,4 KB),msg
Amanda Hallberg,ycf
Markey statement re the Oil budget report.
005407
005412
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Mark Mjller
Jane Lubcheoco; HO Deep Water Horizon Staff; Wjlljam Conner
[Fwd: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up]
USGS OU Budget Tool Write-up.emi (420 KB),msg
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the write-up on Oil Budget tool and example output that USGS and
I put together.
Mark
005413
005418
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Jennifer Austin
HO Deep Water Horizon Staff
final 011 budget calculator descriptive report
Tuesday, August 03, 2010 4:59:02 PM
Ol! Budoet description 8 3 FINAL.dops
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
202-482-5757 (office)
(cell)
005419

Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, this team announced on August 2,2010, that it
quarter. (25%) of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally
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.

sheen and weathered

tar balis, has washed
ashore or been
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
collected f(om the
sand and sediments.
*OiJ in these 3 categories is

naturally.
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows CUITent best estimates of what happened to the oil.
005420
"
shown-in the pie chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in addressing 33% of the spilled oil.
water until it is biodegraded, as discussed belQw.
1m and 8% was
Dispersion: Based on estimates, 16% of the oil dispersed naturally into the water co
droplets that are less than 100 microns
about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this
biodegrade.
molecules from the oil separate and dissolve into the water just as sugar can be dissolved in water;
Residual: After accounting for the categories that can be measured directly or estimated (Le., recovery
005421
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the sutface of the water biodegrade
break down the dispersed and weathered sutface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part

over the course of the spilL The newest estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions of the
above is based on this group's estimate of 4.9 million barrels of oil.
The numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational

submerged oil, and researchers continue subsutface scanning and sampling to monitor the concentration,
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,
005422
Even though the threat to shorelines, fish and wildlife, and ecosystems has decreased.since the capping
Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the. impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources
005423
Deepwater HorizonfBP Oil Budget:

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
LTOg) Charity Drew (USCG) Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
.
program
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
005439
"
*Subject:* Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the latest version that includes comments from you,

Marcia
me~
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 ~eport 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
15
005440
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.
W e 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, 2818 12:57 PM
,
To: Mark WMiller; william Conner; Scott Smullenj Dave
Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring; Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov

<mailto: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.
Jennifer Austin wrote:
Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pager,
incorporating
16
005441
edits from this morning.
The pie chart uses

July 26
be
6e~000
daily oil budget report.
barrels/day flow rate, numbers from
The latest of htese reports would
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
IASG) to see
- I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NrC
who USGS thinks should be identified for this "document. A' .

short list
should probably include Dr.
McNutt~
Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond
(NIC
17
005442
that
IASG) , Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis
created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
For NOAA - Bill Lehr.
>:>
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office)
(cell)
<http://www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco>
18
005443
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office)
(cell)
>> www.face.book.com/noaa .lubchenco
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications & External Affairs .
202-482-5757 (office)
(cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
.",
19
005445
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Gilson. Shannon [SGilson@doc.gov] .

Friday. July 30. 2010 5:29 PM
Lubchenco, Jane; Spring, Margaret
Shah, Parita; Smullen, Scott
Oil budget evolving
Just hearing wh may rollout the budget tomorrow. They are waiting for sign off, but the idea
is to have Dr. L, Carol Browner and Tom Hunter on a press call tomorrow.
21
005446
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gilson, Shannon [SGilson@doc.gov] .

Thursday, July 29,20107:46 PM
Smullen, Scott
Story on oil budget is a no go tonight
22
005454

., ft.H
Iiniand Recovery
~ntts
in barn?!s. See end notes '(or assumptions.
32,640 tons
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gu!f Incident Oil Budget

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. Geologica! Survey in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. .
005455

1,500,000 1
1,250,000 "
(J)
Gi
-.
-.
ell
..Q
1,000,000
750,000
500,000
250,000 J
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-201
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gu!f Incident on Budget

Report generated by mark..w.milier@noaa.govon C7i29!2010 11 :20 AM ~,;1DT.
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica; Survey in cooperation with the National
005456
005457

Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - "rhrough July 28 (Day 100)
"7
IInland Recovery
An un~ts in barrels.
See end notes tor assumptions.
32,640 tons

Report generated by mark.w.milier@noaa.govon 07i29!2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material.on report elements.
.
005458

650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450.000
-~
tJ)
a..
400,000
350,000
~ 300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-20i 0
Jul-2010

Report generated by mark.w.m!ller@noaa.govoil 071291201011 :20 AM MDT.
005459
Reference Notes
Chart - Curnulative/Daily Volume Remaining of the Surface

Chart - Deepwater Horizon MC-2S2 - Cumulative Disposition of Oil

The Cumulative Disposition of Oil"Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amount of oil
released overtime based on low and high discharge estimates, the relative amounts of oil recovered or
budget model. The values used in the chart come from the calculations in a statistical model and'
correspond to the cu'mulative values in the table. See the footnotes (available in the Web application by
reference material.
Discharged
Discharge rates use flow limits from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements,
Chosen because same measurement method used pre- and post-riser cut.
Background
announCed. The most likely flow rate of oil is between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels per day. This
Report generated by mark.w.miUer@noaa..gov on 07/2912010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference materia! on report eiements.
Application operated by the U.s. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
.
'
005460

RITI and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
spill flow. Valuesfor 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
Dispersed Naturally
Droplets smaller than 100 micron are considered dispersed
No natural surface dispersion assumed
Removalll 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
-Most evaporative losses occur during the firsr24 hours
DeepVv81er Horizon MC:252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark.w.milier@noaa.govon 07i:2912010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference' material on report eiements.
005461
Evaporation is calculated differently for IIfresh" oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil
The remaining amount is then multiplied with
a different factor based on scientific research and


-Measured amount removed via RITIand Top Hat
Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion
. -Calculated amount of evaporation and dissolution
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident on Budget
Report generated by mark.IN .mil!er@noaa.gov on 07J29/201 0 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report ror reference materiai on report elements.
Appiication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologicai Survey in cooperation with the National
005462
-Different rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oiL
dispersant applied and recorded daily and acting on both surface and subsurface oiL The following
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20:1 used
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Report generated by mark,w.miUcr@noaa,govon 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
005476
DRAFT 7.29
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 theOil Budget
Calculator to determine where the oil has gone. The numbers are based on best estimates of how much
~
_ _ _ _ H __ ., _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ . , . , __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _H _ _ _ _ _ _ H _ _ _ ' ,
H"'"l

'Rt'maining oil is
as iight sheen or
w~thered tar balis,
has been .
biodegraded, or has
already come
asllore.
, . , _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . , _ _ _ _ _ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
, , __ ... _ _ ,,, _
.....
'"
. H
_,~
__ ... _ _ ...
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRIO), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
wellhead.
.
significant portion of the spilled oiL f6 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.
005477
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
of Mexico in large part because of the wann 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
surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore on
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly one
quarter ofthe 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.
for tar balls and near shore submerged oiL
. 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 nQt
005478
Attachments
005479

Authors

Credits
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Albert Venosa, EPA
Antonio Possoio, NIST
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
_ Pat Lambert, Env. Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
005480
Justin Kenney
From:
. Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Grace Wahlbrink [Grace. Wahlbrink@noaa.gov]

Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:17 PM
Jennifer Austin; Scott Smullen
DWH Oil Budget Pie Chart v1
DWH Budget Oil Pie Chart 7.29.2010 v1.xlsx
005555
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jana Goldman [Jana.Goldman@noaa.gov]

Wednesday, August 04,201010:27 AM
scott smullen; Christopher Vaccaro; Jennifer Austin; Rachel Wilhelm
[Fwd: NOAA oil budget report] -- CBS News
NOAA oil budget report; j
FYI
005580
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

Mark. W. Miller
Jennifer Austin; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ
Deep Water Horizon Staff; Margaret Spring
RE: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Message Text.txt; Oil Budget description 7 29 v 6.doc JL.doc;
DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget201 00728. pdf
Thanks, Mark. It's great that all ofthe authors are comfortable with the document.
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 wil! 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, 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
Subject: Re: budget tool calculator explanation, lat~st
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the latest version that includes comments from you, me, Marcia and Bill Lehr.
>Frorn the standpoint ofthe 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 r.eed to add:
individuals invo~ved 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
28
005581
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailt;:): JeL~,2.;:'2!::'. Austift(~noc.&.. q,)'::]
Sent: Thursday,
29, 2010 12:57 p~
To: Mark W iYlilleri, William Cor:ner; Scott: Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ
Deep Water Horizon S~aff
Cc: Margaret S9ring;
Subject: Re: budget
latest
Sorry! I attached t:te 'Y,r::l::i.;)" dDc'..rrnen":.
P':"ease use this version da'ted 7.29.
Jennifer Acstin wrote:

Hi,
Attached is the
edits from ~tis
upda~ed
oil budget calculator two-pager,
~orr.in~.
The p:'e char;: uses 6C,OOObarrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26
oil
repor":. The latest cf htese
would be
attached as an apper:dix to explain calculations in further detail.
Let us know immediately if you have comments.
Mark wi':"l share with the authors listed in his earlier
e~ail
For uSGS - I wO'.1ld like to check with, Steve Harn.rnond iKI:: IASG) to see
who USGS thinks should be iden;:ified for this document. A short list
should
inc':"ude Dr. McNu~t, Mark Sogge, Steve Ha~mond (NIC
IASG), Sky E::istol (led tlle development team), and Tirr. Kern.
For NIST - F~tonio Passolo (NIST did the uncertainty
Greated the ~pper and lower ccnf!dence bounds)
For NOAA - B!ll Lehr.
Jennifer l>.ustin
& Ex~e::nal Affairs
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell) www
NOF~ Corrmunicatio~s
..
~~~-~;~;=~:,-~,,"=~, :~~~.~~=,~
29
that
005582
Justin Kenney
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Birnbaum, Amy
Jana Goldman; Rachel Wilhelm
Smith, Melissa Marie; Baur, Brandon
NOAA oil budget report
Message Text.txt
Flag Status:
Flagged
From:
Sent:
To:
Would NOAA director Lubchenko be available today for an interview on the report on the oil collection - the "oil
budget" report. Or couid you let me know if there is a press conference or other briefing to discuss this report? .
Amy Birnbaum
CBS News Producer
524 W. 57th St.
NY NY 10019
005584
Message Text (2).txt

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
under secretary of commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
Administrator of the National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov
(202) 482-3436
Join me on Facebook:
From: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>
TO: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Cc: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Aust;n@noaa.gov>; Margaret spring
<Margaret.spring@noaa.gov>; william Conner <william.conner@noaa.gov>; Scott smullen
<scott.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 17:57:58 2010
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: oil 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 confip,uration (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.
In addition, the call is supposed to address questions raised by EPA EPA suggestes in the interest of getting these out thi"s-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 ;s important to keep them separate because
we can better describe the response impact while still being able to include them in
page 1
005589
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 possible. 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.
Key conclusions of the report:

o The majority of the oil has either evaporated or been burned,
skimmed, and recovered from the wellhead or has been 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.
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). Direct capture 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 1,666,681m barrels, or about
one third of the total amount of 011 removed or dispersed.
005590
o 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. (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 sheen, just below the surface as tar balis, washed ashore or
already removed from the shore. This residual amount totals
1,253,829 barrels, or one quarter of the total.
o Thus far, 37,000 tons of oil,ed 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 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.
005591
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.
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 base.d 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.
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 latest information is that those
concentrations are being degraded through time.
005592
We will continue to monitor and sample and conduct a number of other

studies to quantify the rate of deg"radation. Because that is a key question
about which we'd like more information.
005593
IDRAFT 7.31v 4 pm (JL COl1l1llents)

The National Incident Command (NIt) assembled
best scientific minds in the government
and independent scientific community to produc~ 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.

"Remaa,ing or!
j~
eithe-r
.$t
tllesuffac.~
as light:ihE!t1"t
crWf:atnet~(j tar baH:.
hJ5 b~ b.odl:!'gl adet.:l6 Or
ha~ .;ilr~ady
("cmE'
~ll'Qre.
,/"\
Fed.ra'
Response
Oil<!rati"ns
\,
"\
\'Oispersp.d
Figure I: Oil Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oil.
Explanation of Metbods and Assumptions
Flow Rate: The fl<,)w Rate Technical Group (FR TO), assembled by the National Incident Command,
estimates that ~ppr~)'''imj1L:ill__t.9 OJ (- ! ~}<>.;!'. :'i!!!:;:,L"..!)( oj i !1\~~(t w. tl:' Ju:; .+,"i... bl'!we~!l.< E IHillien
I'Iarrd!> "'~. "ii had-h;:t::'n re'e~~ from the Deep"'atcr Horizon/BP wellhead. The~ <.:~tjlT:ate that the daih
nO\,' nne r;in~,-"dJl'\ml 53;000 t;'J>.1..J100 barrels per J ..r,_ ,\'ith dedinil~:': f:..)'W lIver thos~ davs. ~
IlftW rate c;t:ma:es lll'e _'~'('(UJ'='0 twref';"E'lf ',Iit per I,k~', The oilhudget tool calculations are based
on XXXX numbers (range or number) the grnphic above is based on the high estimate of 60,000 barrels
of oil per day.
Direct 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 directly and reported in daily operational reports.
The skimming numbers were also based Oil daily reported estimates, The rest of the numbers were
005594
based on previous scientific analyses. best avai lable information and a broad range of scientific
analysis.
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 rlser pipe insertion tube and top hat systems
(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 inthe water
column until it is biodegraded, as discussed below.
dispersed by the application of nearly 50.000 barrels of chemical dispersants on and below the s.urface.
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 smaJ I 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.
!\IlucbStlfl'lt!-!"<*~ 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, hHD:!iec()wutch.ncddc.noaa.goviJAG/reports.hlmlL.6:!Ldescribed heloihjNs llil
Y:J:!P.s;..~s t.QJ2e il1..!b.s:::.pn)~:;;.tU;;[m!tvnll_Qj(~~!s:..[lJSL.~]!.,
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
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
observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident. Different evaporation rates are used for
fresh oil and weathered oil to provide the most accurate number.
Remaining: After accounting for recovery operations, chemical and natural dispersion 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 quantify the
exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the oil from this well is biodegrading
quickly.
005595
Conclusion: 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 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 removed from the shore
or has been biodegraded.
for as long as necessary and continue subsurface sampling to monitor the concentration,-flfTd.distribution
and immKt 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 Cc{'5'islcms -has decreased since the capping
of the SP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact
to the
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Guifincident Budget Tool Report from July 28,2010, contains
collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NlST.
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 imagesinth,c attachment combine the three
categories of chemically dispersed. naturally dispt..'tscd. and cvaporated or dissolved. into one colored
segment. The image Qnpage one of Appendix A u'><!s the high flow rate estimate of 60.000 barrel/day.
of35,OOO barrels/day.
CO;;_""Dl-j: i~'~;e~~ftb~~mG:';'d~i'~i'~~~
today, we should include only one estimate and

figure, j.e., that for either 60.000 or one for 58.000
(unless the Budget Team thinks they should do
53.000 and a 62,000 in whiCh ease that's fine. W.
005596
Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget Calculator:

Autbors
Credits
Jeff Allen (USGS) -Interface designer
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Independent Sciemists
AI Allan, SpilTec
James Payne. Payne Env.
Torn Coolbaugh, Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
005607
DRAFT 7.31v 4 pm (JL, comments)

The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled some of the best scientific minds in the government
and independent scientific community to produce an estimate of how much oil has been skimmed,

"Remaining oil is either at
the surface as light sheer.
or weathered tar balls.
has been biedegraded, or
has alre~dy come .ils~ore.
,-_-,,,,,mmE'd
3%
Federal
Response
Operations
8%
Figure 1: Oil Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oiL

-.
Flow Rate: The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG). assembled by the National Incident Command,
estimates that approximately 4.9 m ( 10%) barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonlBP
weUhead. They estimate that the daily flow rate ranged from 53,000 to 62,000 barrels per day, with
declining flowover those days. The oil budget tool calculations are based on XXXX numbers (range or
number) the graphic above is based on the high estimate of60.000 barrels of oil per day.
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 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
005608
analysis.
Federal Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with oil have been aggressive. As sho~n in the pie
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
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 offin small droplets (less than 100 microns - the
which keeps it from coming ashore-in large surface slicks and makes it more readily available for
biodegradation.
Much of the dispersed oil remained below the'surface. Previous analyses have sho~ 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.htm]).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
to be in the process of natural biodegradation.
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,
the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part
quickly.
do~
Conclusion: In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed roughly
one quarter of the oil. Around a quru:ter of the total naturally evaporated or dissolved and less than one
005609
quarter dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) into Gulf waters. The remaining amount~
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 to develop monitoring
strategies for tar balls and neat shore submerged oil.
in the Gulf region will take time arid continued monitoring and research.
Attachments
which is the same as the pie chart used above. The image" on page three uses the low flow rate estimate
005610

Authors
Credits
Bill Lehr (NOAA) Lead mass balance and oil budget scientist
fOImulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The team continues to
refine the arialysis and this document will ~e updated as appropriate.
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
Michel Boufadel, T~mple Univ.
005611

High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) - Through July 2~ (Day 100)
Recovered via RIIT and Top Hat

Dispersed Naturally
0
Burned
Skimmed
0
266,375
0
78
Dispersant Used
Jlnland Recovery
DeeDwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark, W .miiier@noaa,go'! on 07/29/2010 "11 :20 AM MDT,
end notes section 01 the report for reference material.on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and ;xovided by the U.S, Geoiogicai Survey in cooperation V'!itn the
005612
1,750,000~
1,500,0001
1,250,000 :
750,000 . :
500.000 ~
250,000
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Deel::wvater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by markw.miller@noaa.gov on 07!29!201 0; 1 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cOOD6,atior, with the t-.jationa!
Oceanic and Atmosphedc Administration.
005613

Burned
Skimmed
Dispersant Used
IInland Recovery
Deepwate: Horizon MC252 Gulf incident Of! Blfdget

Report generated by mark.w.milier@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes sec:ion of the ;sport tor reference material on report elements.
.
005614
650,000
i
I
;
600,0001
550,000 -;
500,000
450,0004
;
en 400,000 ~i
-~
350,0001
300,000
250,0001
200,000 ~ :
150,0001,
100,000
r
I
50,0001
oJ=====~========================~.=-===._========
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-201
Jul-201
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Guif !nciden~ Oil Budget

Report generated by maik.vv.mi!ier@noaa.gov on 07/29;201011 :20 ,,:;,M MDT.
Appiication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provrdedby IheU.S. Geologica! Survey in cocDera,ion with the
005615
Reference Notes


The Cumulative Disposition of Oil "Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the totql amount of oil
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 cumulativevalues in the table. See'the footnotes (available in the Web application by
reference material.
Discharged
-Discharge rates use flow limits from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements ..
Other estimation methods provided higher and lower values.
Background
announced. The most likely flow rate of oil i.s between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels per day. This
~ncident O~! -Budget
Deepwater Horizon IviC252
Report generated by mark,w,miller@noaa,gov an 07/29!201O 11 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geo!ogica! Survey in cooperation with lhe r-Jationa i
005616
change. In particular, because the upper number is I~ss certain, it is important to plan for the upper

spill flow. Values for the amount recovered by the vessels Helix Producer, Discoverer Enterprise and
Dispersed Naturally
Natural subsurface dispersion is a calculation of the total discharge minus a calculation of subsur:face
. 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.
result of a.scientific calculation using the methods described in this annotation and background
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gu:f Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by ma,k.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 Nationa!
005617
Evaporation is calculated differently for flfresh ll oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil,
by rem'oving the following from the total discharge:
'The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor based on scientific research and
Note: Reterto the section on Evaporated and Dissolved Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document

. 'Measured amount removed via RITT. and Top Hat
'Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion
'Calculated amount of evaporation and dissolution
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Incident Oil Budget
Deepv\,'ater HoriZOt"! MC252
hy mariuv ,miiier@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section oj the report for reference material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in cooperation vvith the Nationai
Repo~ generated
005618
Chemical oil dispersion is the resultof a scientific calculation based on the amount of chemical
dispersant applied and recorded daily and acting on both surface and subsurface oiL The following
~International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20:1 used

Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gu!f Incident Oil Budget

Repo:i generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 1 i :20 At\(1 MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report eiements.
005619
DRAFT 7.29
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget Calculator
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
weathered tar balls.
has been
biodegraded. or has
already come ashore
on beaches_
Chemically
5%
kimmed
3%
as of July 15 between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonlBP
wellhead. (*When announced. new FRTG flow rate I total escape will adjust this and the percentages in
the oil budget.)
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.
005620
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 fonn 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
We know that naturally occurring bacteiiihave 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
" to be done to quantify the exact rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early indications are that the light
After accounting 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.
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
waters. The remaining amount, roughlyJ/4 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
. See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 26,2010 for detai1~d
explanation of calculation methods. The tool was created by the US Geological Survey in collaboration
with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NIST.
005621
inf6rili.atiori and a-broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based
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
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Merv Fingas, Env Canada(ret)
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, ISCO
Peter Carragher, BP
Michel Boufadel, Temple U.
005622
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]

Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:28 PM
Jennifer Austin; Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David
Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Margaret Spring
Oil Budget description 7 29 v 3 JL.doc
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 J we can simply remove
it.
A brief description of the process used to do the calculation~ and the names of the
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: ThursdaYJ July 29 J 2818 12:57 PM .
To: Mark WMiller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep
Water Horizon Staff
.
'
Subject: Re: budget tool calculator explanation J latest

> HiJ
>
> Attached is the updated oil budget calculator two-pagerJ incorporating
> edits from this morning.
>
> The pie chart uses 68 J a88 barrels/day flow rate J 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 (NIC IASG) to see
> who USGS thinks should be identified for this document. A short list
> should probably include Dr. McNutt J Mark Sogge J Steve Hammond (NIC
> IASG)J Sky Bristol (led the development team)J and Tim Kern.
>
> For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that
> created the upper and lower confidence bounds)
>
> For NOAA - Bill Lehr.
>
1
005623
>
>
Jennifer Austin
282-482-5757 (office) 282-302-9047 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
005624
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jen. Pizza [Jen. Pizza@noaa.gov]

Wednesday, August 04, 2010 9:00 AM
DWH leadership
OIL BUDGET REPORT - PDF ATIACHED
Oil Budget description 8 3 FINAL.pdf
Final Oil Budget Report
attached.
005625
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!2010/08/04!science/earth/940il.html? r=l&hp
005629
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 ne 200 page report, reporters seem to think there is, there
was a mis-communication earlier. Please send them to those links, and help bat down the
rumor that there is another longer report.
thanks,
Jennifer Austin
005632
005639
that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat
This includes
and skimming remove the oil from the.water entirely, while chemically dispersed oil remains in the
oil
. droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this
dispersed oil, even in dilute amounts, can be toxic to vulnerable species."
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html). Oirthat was chemically dispersed at the surface
biodegrade.
operations,- dispersion, and evaporation and dissolution), an estimated 26% remains. This figure is a
below the surface in the fonn of light sheen tlr tar balls, oil that has washed ashore or been collected
005640
National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTO) led by United States Geological
barrels of oil flowed from the BP Deepwater Horizon wellhead between April 22 and July 15, 2010, at
activities, results and data to the public on a regular basis. Updates and information can be found at .
www.restorethegutf.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
w\vw.geoplatfonn.gov .
.001, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts ofremaining surface oil. NOAA
dispersant and crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Numerous NOAAand NSFfunded academic researchers and NOAA scientists are investigating rates of biodegradation,
005641
005642

What ha ppened to the oil?
Acknowledgements
Authors
. Stephen Hammond,USGS, DOl
Credits
The following sCientists were involved in developing the Oil Budget Calculator tool:
L TUg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
program
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Ron "Goodman, U. of Calgary
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
005643
DRAFT 7.29

Based on 60~OOO barrels/day flow rate
"Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
aiready come ashore
on beaches.
mmed
3%
Figure 1:. Oil Budget Calculator- Shows what has happened to the oiL
The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRIG), assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that
as of July 15 between 35 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater HorizonlBP
wellhead. (*When announced, new FRIG 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 directly from the wellhead by
the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systems. In addition, burning and skimming operations
collected just over %% percent oft?e oil.
005644
It 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 rate-estimate is based on scientific research
as a result of the oil coming out of the broken riser pipe at high pressures into the water column, which
the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through na~al seeps regularly .. While there is more analysis
beaches.
In summary, burning. skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly llH of
the oil. Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into
Gulf waters. The remaining amoWlt, roughlyV~ is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed
from beaches or has been biodegraded.
scientistsNO}':A 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 Reportfrom July 26, for detailed
.
explanation of calculation methods.
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: This analysis is based on direct measurements where
possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible: . The
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.
005645
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 of the 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 (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 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.
005646
That said, we continue to monitor the water, we continue to assess and we continue to
be concerned apout 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 Gu If for 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) andthe 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 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 Gulf, the government's 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
005647
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
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. 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 (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 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
the oil in this incident elude your efforts, winding up in the Gulf?
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
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 spill originated more
than a mile below the surface, and 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 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 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 ~ Exxon Valdez spills...., not an insignificant amount.
005648
Chemical dispersion 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.
.
EPA continues to conduct testing to understand the toxicity of dispersants to marine life, and
has recently released it second report about that subject.
of
Dispersant was one many response techniques employed to combat this environmental
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 Fecteral 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 of the oil.
NOAA and the Federal Government remain vig.ilant -- 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 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.
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, is buried
in sand and sediments, or has been biodegraded.
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.
005649
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
I
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 oit is degrading quickly.
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.
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 or tar mats'essentiaUy 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 materia" 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.
'
11. Do you believe this is the worst environmental disaster?

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.
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 quickly, so that is positive.
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 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 lea'rll from this.
'
12. A recent JAG report said that you found oil subsurface in the 4-7 ppm range. Is that still the
case?
005650
That is the range for the dataset in the most recent JAG report. Our first report found
concentrations ofl-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 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
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.
005651
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 resultof 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.
005652
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
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 ofthe 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 balls, has washed ashore or
been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments.
Thus far, 37,000 tons of oiled debris have been removed from shore.
:&;I;;;m;;;t"1:k1i~il"hh~e:~a;rd;;;S:~e~al~n;mention this, but I

haven't independently confirmed. It's possible that I
dreamed it.
005653
The dispersed and residual 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

degra"dation, ear~y indications are that this oil is degrading quickly.

you know, so far have shown .that diffuse concentrations in the low parts
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
005654

accountfor 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 buried 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
microns - about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this small are neutrally
at the surface.
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.
Is there oil on the seafloor?

No. Oil that is beneath the surface, as far as we Gan determine, is primarily in the water column
itself not sitting on the 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?

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.\\'ill have beneath the
surface.
relatively quickly, so that is positive.
005655
There is still likely a significant amount of oil outthere 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'
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 mi~~ions 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
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.
005656
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. 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.
, 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 metho.dologies.
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 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
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.
surface slicks and makes it more readily available for biodegradation.
005657
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.
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 mOfe 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
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 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.
8. What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financiailiability for
this spill?
005658
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 agen-cies.
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
005659
estimates.

wellhead were successful in removing one quarter of the oil.
An additional one quarter ofthe total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved;
And just less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed"either naturally or
chemically, into microscopic droplets.
"""'""'",a" ~ ".nnn",._ m
Thus far, 37,000 tons of oiled debris have been ,removed from shore.
; Comment: [kl]: I heard Sean mention thi., but I
! haven't independently confirmed, It's possible that I

dreamed it.
005660
The dispersed and residual oil thatis still in the system is degrading through
a number of natural processes .. Even oil that might have been there
While further analysis remains to be done to quantify the rate of .



about which weld like more information.
005661
Justin Kenney
JenniferAustin [Jennifer:Austin@noaa.gov]
Jane Lubchenco
_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff; KSarri@doc.gov~ KGriffis@doc.gov;
justin.kenney@noaa.gov; Scott Smullen; Margaret.Spring; Mark W Miller
Re: Oil Budget Report
Oil Budget description 8 3 FINAL.pdf
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
PDF version.
Jen
Pizza~
can you please forward to leadership list.
thanks> Jen
Jane lubchenco wrote:

> Jen - please convert the report to a PDF and send it around.
Thanks!
Jennifer Austin
Communications & External Affairs
NOAA
005662
Justin Kenney
From:
. Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jennifer Austin [Jennifer.Austin@noaa.govJ

Tuesday, August 03,20106:21 PM
Griffis, Kevin
Scott Smullen; Justin kenney
oil budget description TPs
Oil Budget TPs 8 3 as deliv.docx
Attached is essentially what she said to open her interview today.
Jennifer Austin
292-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (rell) www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
005681
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Scott Smullen; Justin .kenney
oil budget release
Oil Budget Press Release v 1145.docx
Jennifer Austin
& External Affairs

2e2.-482-5757 (office) 2e2-3e2-ge47 (cell) www.facebook.com/noaa .lubchenco
NOAA Communications
21
005682
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1:49 PM
oil budget TPs
Oil Budget TPs 8.3.docx
want to do anything with these based on Sean's advice?

Jennifer Austin
22
005684
005701
BP Deepwater Hori~on Oil Budget:

-estimate the quantity ofBP Deepwater Horizon oil that has been released from the well and the fate of
what happened to the oiL The calculator uses the 4.9 million barrel estimate as its input and uses both
.
quarter (25%) of the oil released from the weilhead. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally
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
dispersed categories is ih the process of being degraded. The report below describes each of these
becomes available.

Unified
Command

sheen and weathered
tar balis, has washed
Response
Operations
ashore or been
collected from the

sllore.. or is buried in
sand arid sediments.
Skimmed
3%
Chemically
Dispersed
8%
*Oil in l11e5e 3 categories is

naturally.
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows current
happened to the oil.
005702
systems (i7%); 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
of the oil to spray offin small droplets. For the purpose of this analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defined as
All of the naturally dispersed oil and some of the oil that was chemically dispersed remained wellMbelow
biodegrade.
Evaporation and Dissolution: It IS estimated that 25% of the oil volume quickly and naturally
evaporated or dissolved into the water colwnn. The evaporation and dissolution rate estimate is based on
operations, dispersion, and evaporation and dissolution),.an estimated 26% remains. This figure is a
below the surface in the form ofiight sheen (id:ar balls, oil that has washed ashore or been collected
from the shore, and some that is buried iiI sand and sediments and may resurface through time. This oil
005703
"Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and oil on the surface of the water biodegrade
naturally. While there i~ more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf,
academia are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate. It is well knovvn that bacteria that
Our'knowledge of the oil, dispersants, ecosystem impacts and human impacts will continue to evolve.
activities, results and data to the public on a regular basis. Updates and infonnation can be found at
'wVv-w.geoplatform.gov.
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
005704
005705

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
The followingscientists were involved in developing the Oil Budget Calculator tool:
David Mack and Jeff Allen (USGS) - Application development and engineerin.g
program
LCDR Lance Lindgren, CDR Peter Hoffman, CDR Sean O'Brien, and L T Amy McElroy
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Ro"n Goodman, U. of Calgary
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSD
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
005706
Oil Budget Calculator Description

Overview Talking Points - Lubchenco, 8.3.10
We have just released 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 would like to point out a few things right up front:

o First, This report is the resu.lt 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.
o Secondly, we have fou~d that the very aggressive response efforts
were effective in dealing with roughly a third of the oil released. 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. Direct capture is one of the actions
the oil since day one of this spill, and based on the data from those efforts
005707
estimates.
possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements.

An additional one quarter of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved,
chemically, into microscopic droplets into Gulf waters.
The dispersed and residual oil that is still in the system is degrading through
We are fortunate in this situation that the rate of degradation in the guif is
quite high.
While further analysis remains to be done to quantify that rate of


005708
per million, exist at depth. Our latest information is that is being degraded
through time.

005709

A second interagency team~ led by the Department of the Interior (DOl) and the National Oceanic and
. what happened to the oil. The calculator uses the 4.9 million barrel estimate as its input and uses both
result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulf waters. The residual amount - just over one
becomes available.
'
Deepwater Horizon' Oil Budget

Unified
Command

sheen and weathered
Response
Operations
tar bails, has washed

ashore or been
c;oliected from the
s<lod and >ediments.
8%
"'Oil in the,e 3 categorie, i;
naturally.
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of what happened to the ojl.
005710
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.govIJAG/reports.html). Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface
biodegrade.
below the surface in the fonn of light sheen or tar balls, oil that has washed ashore or been collected
005711
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column arid oil on the surface of the water biodegrade
because of the warm water, the favorablenutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil regularly
Flow Rate: The Oil Budget Calculator starts with an estimate of the cumulative amount of oiheleased
over the course of the spill. The newesfestimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions of the
barrels of oil flowed from the BP Deepwater Horizon wellhead between Apri122 and July 15,2010, at
were based on previous scientific analyses, best available infonp.ation 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.restorethegulf.2:ov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
"Vv'Volw.2:eoplatform.gov.
ecosystem and wildlife impacts. DOl and DOE responders are working to ensure control of the well iild
005712
.
005713

Aclrnowledgements
Authors
Jane Lubchenco, NOAA~ DOC
Marcia McNutt, USGS~ DOr
Credits
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
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Antonio Possolo, N[ST
Al Allan~ SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSD
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
005714
DRAFT -for internal review only

Federal Government Releases Measurements and Best Estimates of Oil Fate
A federal government report released today estimates that Unified Command recovery operations,.
including burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one quarter ofthe oil
released from the wellhead.
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.
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 chart here *

"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 somethi ng
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
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 bec~use 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.
005715
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.
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.
005716
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?
estimate~.
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.

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.
005717

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 concentrations 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 shorel~ne 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.
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)
005718
DRAFT 7.31v 2 pm
The National Incident Command (N[C) 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 aTooI, called the Oil Budget Calculator to

Based on 60,000 barrels/day flow rote
~R~mail\ing
oil
j~
at the $urlacli:
a!> light .scneu or
~ith~,
we<lther~d !ar
ball!>.
r.asbeen
biodegraded. or has
already come
:ashore.
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. The current flow rate estimate::; are 35.000 to 60.000 barrels of oil per dav. lhe graphic abo:LI!
is based on the high es1imate of 60.000 harrd~ oroil ocr ua".
Efforts to rcc<>'-'er oil have been ag2ressive. As shown in the pie chart (Figure I), aggre;,.;ivclFtlqhm.i.!
ellons We-Foe S!:lee<,ssti:;jr~~p~)n5e ,,!lOftS were suc~'essftJI ill ,dealing with 32% of in rt't'OI'ering a
.iigRifkam ~t)ftien of the spilled oil. This includes s.~\~l-p<:'t"'t>'ftl,"f,the oil th,,( was captured directly
from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat systemsJl':'::~1,,--II"i1,k4~1; burning
(5%L-ae4-skimming {3'%) ~ltioAS <elh:'!ct-eJ-ai3f!ffi~7',.gf":l'l""''Tll:--eHflt'-~H and <,hemical
dis;pcrsion (R%). _7
1 Fonnatteli:
005719
It is estimated that 25~'(jr">eI'IM:'fl1 of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column.
water column or form residues such as tar balls.
pr rs;.ill!li!ling.~!.iJ (j.1'i~u-,'i&QJ~s!L<,.D:~c..The evaporation rate estimate

is based on scientific research and observations conducted during the Deepwater Horizon incident. A
i:l.!2ifferent evaporation rate~-i5-used for fresh nil and weathered oil to provide the most accurate
number.
l!le..Is.:ihh~;:I,LL'i-jn11Ijl~JnJilc.ut(,;g(.\r.:__
Based on cstimatrs. ~lQ ~~ of the oil dispersed naturally into the water column~ and 8
:h~ of the oil was disperse~ by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants.
water column, which caused some of the nili;; to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the
diameter of a human hair).
,. Some portion of the dispersed oil that b iFi t1F'lf'll..~Ie~.J.(.J4.;'R.ji'E;'ftHemained below the
http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAGtreports.html).
Naturally occurring bacteria have consumed and biodegraded a significant amount of the oil. Bacteria.
large part because of the warm water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels. and the fact that oil
After accounting for rcc,)Vcl'\' operations, dispersion and evaporation, all cSlimatc:d 27 ~~
remains. This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has biodegraded or
already come ashore.
waters. The remaining amount,just over one quarter is on the surface. in tar balls, on the shore, already
NOAA continues to track the movement ofthe remaining oil. It will issue daily surface oil trajectories
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead. federal
005720
Note on degree of confidence in calculations! The Oil Budget calculations are based on direct
operational reports. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses. best available
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July 28. 2010, contains
Note: The attached report (Appendix A) contains cylindrical images, which are an alternate way 'of
categories of chemically dispersed, naturally dispersed, and evaporated or dissolved. into one colored
of35,000 barrels/day.
005721
Deepwater Hprizon/BP Oil Budget Calculator:

Authors
Marcia McNutt, USGS. DOl
William Conner, NOAA. DOC
Credits
Bill Lehr (NOAA) - Lead"mass balance and oil budget scientist
Kevin Gallagher and Martha Garcia (USGS) Executive sponsors
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
005722
DRAFT 7.30v2

"'Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
bio~.egraded. or has
already come
ashore .
~"."".
..." ....'."'.. m_._ ..', ... _ .......
""'~"
..
~m_'_
,,_ ...........
~~"_.m_
.... _ ... _ .... ........

~
m'~
.. _.' ............. _" ..... .. .. _.m ... _m."""""".'''''' __ ''''

~
.m,"""""",,, ............... _
.m."'.""" ..." ...... ~ _",,"'. __ " ' "
." . ' ... _ ...... "._,,," .. ,.,
'"m.....
.......
The Flow Rate Technical Gr9uP (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 HorizonlBP
wellhead.
by the riser pipe insertiop. tube and top hat systems. In addition, burning and skimming operations
collected approximately 8 percent of the oiL
005723
Sixteen percent of the oil dispersed naturally into the water column, and 8 percent of the oil was
fot as long as necessary and continue subsurface sampling to monitor the concentration and distribution
005724
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulflncident Budget Tool Report from July 28, 2010, contains
005725

Authors
Marcia McNutt, USGS, 001
Mark Sogge, USGS, 001
Credits
David Mack (USGS) - Lead application developer.
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
005726
DRAFT 7.30
The NatiQnal Incident CQmmand assembled the best scientific minds in the gQvernment and independent
scientific cQmmunity tQ prQduce an estimate QfhQW much .oil has been skimmed, burned, cQntained,
evapQrated and dispersed. They develQped a tQQ1, called the Oil Budget CalculatQr tQ determine where
the .oil went. The numbers .are based .on best estimates .of hQW much .oil was released and hO\v this .oil is
mQving and degrading.

~Rf1miiining oil is
as light sheen or
1103$ bee,) ,
biodegraded, or has
already come
ashore,
Figure 1: Oil Budget CalculatQr- ShQWS what has happened tQ the .oil.
The FIQW Rate Technical GrQUP (FRTG), assembled by the NatiQnal Incident CQmmand, estimates that
as .of July 15, between 3-5 milliQn barrels .of ~iI had been released frQm the Deepwater HQrizQnlBP
wellhead.
As shQwn in the pie chart (Figure 1), aggressive reSPQnse effQrts were successful in recQvering a
significant PQrtiQn .of the spilled .oil. Sixteen percent .of the .oil was captured directly frQm the wellhead
by the riser pipe insertiQn tube and tQP hat systems. In additiQn, burning and skimming QperatiQns
cQllected apprQximately 8 percent .of the .oil.
It is estimated that 25 percent .of the .oil vQlume quickly evapQrated .or dissQlved intQ the water cQlumn.
The vQlatile cQmpQnents .of .oil evapQrate, wlrile the cQmpQnents that are nQt vQlatile dissQlve intQ the
water CQlumn .or fQrm residues such as tar balls. The evapQratiQn rate estimate is based .on scientific
005727
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 hair),
Some portion of the dispersed oil that is in droplets smaller than 100 microns remained below' the
. surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has biodegraded or already come ashore.
.
inforniation and it broad range of scientific experlise. These numbers will continue to be refined based
005728
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon GulfIncident Budget Tool Report from July 28, 2010, contains
005729
Deepwater HorizonlBP on 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
005745

Inland Recovery
Deepwater Horizon MC252: Gulf In<;:ident Oil Budget

Report generated by ma:i<.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report fo~ refereilce material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey iii cooperation with the Nationa;
005746
1,750.0001
i.
1,500,000 J
1,250.000 J '
(J)
Q)
1,OOO,OOO~j
l..
l..
coo
.c
750,000
1
500.000!
250,000
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gu!f Ir.cident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark, w,rniHer@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geo!ogica! Survey in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra1ion.
005747

Inland .Recovery
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Guif incident OU Budget

Report generated by mark.w.mWer@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 1/ :,20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U:S. Geologica! Survey in cooperation'with the Nationa!
'
005748
Cumulative Remairiing
650,000
,,<:.
600,000
550,000
500,000
......:
450,000
CI)
Q)
:r...
:r...
400,000
350,000
co 300,000
.c
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
May-2019
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Report generated by mark.w.miiler@?noaa.gov on 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geoiogica! Survey in cooperatioil with the National
005749
Reference Notes


The Cumulative Disposition of OilllBarrel Graph ll provides a representation of the total amount of oil
reference material.
Discharged
Background
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Guif Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark. ~v,miller@ noaa.gov on 07!29/201 0 '; 1 :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. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nationa'
005750
to collect additional data and refine these estimates, it is important to realize that thenumbers can

Dispersed Naturally
-Subsurface natural dispersion based upon.plume turbulent energy dissipation
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oililremoved." See background documentation for
more information.
. discussion of the scientific methodology used in this calculation.
-Largest oil rernoval.r:nechanism for surface oil
-Most evapo~ative losses occur during the first 24 hours
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Guff Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark.w.rniller@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 SUivey in cooperation with the Nationa i
005751
for the cumulative total over time. Different factors are used to represent the difference in this rate, The
Measured amount removed via RITT and Top Hat
Reported amount of oil burned
The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor based on scienti'fic research and

The amount ava,ilable for recovery, both daily and cumulative, is simply the remaining oil after removing
Calculated amount of evaporation and dissolution
Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf incident Oil Budget
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 cooperation vvith :he National
005752
'American Society. for Testing and .Materials (ASTM) burn rate standards are used
'Different rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil
'No natural surface dispersion assumed
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) !!planning purpose ll dosage of 20:1 used
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gul1 Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by rnark.w.1"1iller@naaa.goY on 07/29!2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
005753
DRAFT 7.29

*Remaining oil is .
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded. or has
already come ashore
on beaches.
mmed
3%
"
_ ..
.",
" .
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 / 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 ofthe oil was captured directly from the wellhead by'
005754
It is estimated that %% percent of the oil 'quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water' column. The
column or fonn residues such as tar balls. The evaporation rate estimate is based on scientific research
%% percent ofthe Dil has dispersed naturally into the water column, and %% percent of the oil was
oiL Bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf
the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly .. While there is more analysis
.
.
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 113 of the
waters. The remaining amount, 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.
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 26, for detailed
possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The
infonnation and further analysis ..
005755
DRAFT 7.29
. oil was released and how this oil is moving and degrading.

Based on 60,000 barrels/day flow rate.
"'Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or ha$
already come ashore
on beaches.
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 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 wellhead'by
collected just over %% percent oft~e oil.
005756
It 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 rate estimate is based on scientific research
%% percent of the oil has disp"ersed naturally into the water column, and %% percent of the oil was
caused some of it to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the diameter of a human harr).
the surface as light -sheen or weathered tar balls, has been biodegraded, or has already come ashore qn
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 1/3 of the
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 Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 26, for detailed "
explanation of calculation methods. "
005757

Ali units i;; barrels. See end notes for assur:lptions ..
Inland Recovery

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 Natior:al
005758

1,750,000
1,500,000 -,
:
1 ,250,000
U)
(1)
~
1 ,000,000 ~ .
ca
..Q
750,000
500,000 ~
250,000
i.
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-201
Jul-2010

Report generated by mark,w,miller@noaa,govon 07!27i2010 09:27 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guar9 and provided by the U.S, Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nationat
005759

All units in barrels. See end !1o!es for assumptions.
IInl""'\I'1
Recovery
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf IncidentDil Budget

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa,gov on 07/27/2010 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
005760
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) Through July 26 (Day 98)

700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
.; 400,000
:: 350,000
ca
..c 300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
May-2010
-Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-201

Report generated by mark,w,miller@noaa.gov on 07!27i2010 09:27 AM MDT.
005761
Reference Notes

The vo~ume of oil that each day is added to the volume of oil already on the surface is computed taking

. The Cumulative Disposition of Oil "Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amount of oil
correspond to the cumulative values in the table. See the footnotes (available in the .Web application by
reference material.
Discharged
Background
On June 15,2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from the leaking BP well was
improved estimate is based on more and
better data that is. available after the riser cut - data Which
.

Report generated by mark.w.mil!er@noaa.gov on 07/2712010 09:27 AM MDT.
See end notes section of tile report for reference material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provjd~d by the U.S. Geologicai Survey in cooperation with the National
005762
Recovered via RllT and Top Hat

Dispersed Naturally
more information.
discussion of the scientific methodology used .in this calculation.

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/27/2010 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
005763
evaporation/dissolution calculation first determines the remaining .oil available for evaporativ.e..processes

Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark.w.milier@noaa,gov on 07!27i2010 09:27 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U,S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S, Geological Survey in cooperation with tile Nationa!
005764
-Different rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil.
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07!27i2010 09:27 AM MDT.
005765
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident au Budget

Ali units in barrels. See end notes fer assumptions.
Recovery

Report generated by mark.w,mi!!er@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
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
005766
I
1,750,000-1
I
!
1,500,000 's
1 ,250,000 ~
1 ,000,000 ~
1
750,000 -1
500,0001
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Report generated by mark.w.milier@noaa.gov on 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nationai
005767

Low. Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - Through July 26 (Day 98)
Recovery

005768
700,000
i.
I
650,0001
600.001
550,000 jI,
500,000
i:
450,000
~
400,000 ~;
Q,)
~ 350,0001
.c 300,000 i
I
250,000 i
i
200,000 i
1 50 ,000 1i h."~~,~:i
100,0001
I
50.000
iI
.
OJ======~================~==============~===============
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-201
Jul,..2010

005769
Reference Notes
'"
Chart - Cumulative/Daily Volume 'Remaining of the Surface


The Cumulative Disposition of Oil "Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the totc:;ll amount of oil
'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
reference material.
Discharged
Background

Report generated by mark,w,miller@noaa.gov on 07/27/2010 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
005770
to collect additional data and refine these estimates, it is important to realize thatthe numbers can
cha'nge. In particular, because the upper number is less certain, it is important to plan for the upper

Dispersed Naturally
more information ..
documentation. The following assumptipns and factors apply:

005771
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh" oil within 24 hours (dally total in the report) and older oil
'-Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion
Reportedamount of oil burned

The amount available for recovery, both daily and cumulative, is simply the remaining oilafier removing
-Measured amount removed via RID and Top Hat
Skimmed
. Skimmed oil is a rough calculation based on the daily reported amount of oily water multiplied by a
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov
on 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
005772
-Differe'nt rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil
of the methodology used in. this calculated measurement.
Chemical oil dispersion is the resultof a. scientific calculation based on the amount of chemical
~International
Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "plaFlning purpose" dosage of 20:1 used

Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07127/2010 09:27 AIVI IVIDT.
Oceanic and AtmospheriC Administration.
005773
DRAFT 7.28
Prepared By: Caitlyn Kennedy, Jen Austin
Reviewed By: 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,

Chemically
Dispersed
11%
Burned
8%
3%
13%
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 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 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.
005774
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
pressures into the water column, which caused some of it to spray off in small droplets
(less than 100 microns - the di~eter 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 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
biodegrading quickly.
These estimates leave about %% 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.
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 subm~rged oil.
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 anq continued monitoring and research. "
. i;.
.,
005791
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);
p'arita 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. 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
Margaret Spring wrote:
> Circling in shanrionj parita, kevin) kris >
> Also) what is timeline for incorporating those changes?

>
> ------------------------------------From: Margaret Spring
>
>
>
>
>
Sent: Saturday) July 31) 2010 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]
>
> Mark) Jennifer>
> there were conversations about changes to the oil budget document between epa (paul
anastas) and noaa (billlehr) 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
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
005792
10
005793
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Margaret Spring [Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov]

Saturday. July 31.201012:59 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)
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 188%) and suggests instead bar 'chart with ranges for each bar
instead -(Jane" Iet'~ 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?
- From: Mark Miller [mark.w.miIler@noaa.gov]

Sent: Saturday" July 31, 2018 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)j
Parit.a 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
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:e8 PM EDT. We will also update the Oil
Budget .Repor~ which is included as an appendix.
I am '1n regular communication with the USGS Oil Budget team. The one outstanding question is
the appropriate level -of QA/QC from NIS't (Dr . , PossoIo). 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
11
005794

> Circling in shannon, parita, kevin, kris >
> Also, what is timeline for incorporating those changes?

>
>
> -------------------------------------From: Margaret Spring
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2818 11:21 AM
> To: Mark Miller; Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner;
> Scott smullen
> Cc: Jane Lubchenco
>
> Mark, Jennifer>
anastas) and noaa (bill lehr) last night related to the dispersed oil and pie charts.
>
>
> ------------------------------------->
> Sent: FridaYJ July 38, 2813 11:88 PM
> To: Jennifer Austin; Margaret spring; William Conner; 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
>
12
005812
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
30
005817
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To: . .
Cc:
Subject:
Margaret Spring [Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov}

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, i.5 NIST clear?
-----Original Message----From: Jane Lubchenco [mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2e1e 1:28 PM
To: Jennifer Austin; Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David
Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring
Subject: RE: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
rive 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 need to get this to the authors ASAP even if we don't have the full list yet. This is
urgent.
thanks
Sent: Thursday, July 29} 2e1e 12:57 PM
To: Mark WMiller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep
water Horizon Staff
Sorry! r attached the wrong document.

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

The pie chart uses 6e,eee barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July
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.
>
35
26
005818
> 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.
J
>
>

>
>
>
Jennifer Austin
36
005819
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

'Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov'; 'Jane. Lubchenco@noaa.gov'
'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov'; 'william.conner@noaa.gov'; 'Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov';
'Dave.Westerholm@noaa.gov'; 'David.Kennedy@noaa.gov'; 'dwh.staff@noaa.gov';
'Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov'
Re: budget tool calculator explanation, latest
Message Text. txt
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.Milier <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>

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
<Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
Sent: Thu Jul 29 14:01:50 2010
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
I've made corrections to the suwmary paragraph so that the fractions mirror what is in
the pie chart. Because this is an interagency document, I've modified one of
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
From: Jennifer Austin [~l.9.ilto:Jenr,:"fe::::.Austin:9_noaa ...~J
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy;
DeepWater Horizon Staff
37
005820
Cc: Marga:::-et Spring; ~2:9.:,~~_1_~~-.b~~co'~ca..ij.....:S_?y'

Hi,
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow =ate, numbe:::-s from July 26
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlie= 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
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the uncertainty analysis that
Jennifer Austin
NOAA Communications & ~xternal Affairs
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
V'Vi~~t..9.E~e..~_?l~.:...s:_om!no~~~;1,l_~chr::ncCJ
38
005821
Justin Kenney
From:
Margaret Spring [Margaret. Spring@noaa.gov]

Wednesday, July 28,20108:17 AM
Scott Smullen; Margaret Spring
sgilson@doc.gov
RE: Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26 - pie chart
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
And they update daily or weekly?

-----Original Message----From: Scott Smullen [mailto:Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:13 AM
To: Margaret Spring
Cc: sgilson@doc.gov
Subject: Re: Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26 - pie chart
yes .... Mark Miller sent it to her before yesterday's telephone news conference wi Adm. Allen
>
> So this was prepared by the NIC .. has Jane seen?
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Smullen [mailto:Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:07 AM

> *To:* sgilson@doc.gov; Margaret Spring
> *Subject:* Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26 - pie chart
>
: >
>
> This is yesterday's pie chart ....
>
> -------- Original Message ------->
> *Subject: *
>
>
>
> Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26

>
> *Date: *
>
>
>
> Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:56:34 -0400

>
> *From:
>
>
>
> Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov><mailto:Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>

>
> *To:
>
39
005822
>
>
> Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>
> <mailto:Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov Jennifer Austin,

> <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov> <mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>J Jane
> Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov) <mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
>
>
>
> Dr. Lubchenco J

>
> Here is the report I created this morning. If there are any questions
> please call.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Scott Smullen
> Deputy Director

> NOAA Communications & External Affairs
> 292-482-1997 0 I 292-494-6515 c
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
292-482-1997
I 292-494-6515 c
40
005823
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Scott Smullen; sgilson@doc.gov
RE: Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26 - pie chart
Message Text.txt
So this was prepared by the NIC .. has Jane seen?
From: Scott Smullen [mailto:Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:07 AM
To: sgilson@doc.gov; Margaret Spring
Subject: Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26 - pie chart
This is yesterdayfs pie chart....

-------'. Original Message -------Subject:OiI Budget T901 Report for July 26
. Date:Tue, 27 Ju12010 12:56:34 -0400
From:Mark. W.Miller <Mark. W .Millena;,noaa.gov>
To:Scott Smullen <Scott.Smul1en@noaa.gov>, Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.Q:ov>, Jane
Lubchenco <J ane.Lubchenco(qi.noaa. gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the report I created this morning. If there are any questions
please call.
Mark
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c .
41
005824
Message Text.txt
Can you send around to all of us on this email the current TPS and Q&AS
budget document, so we have them?
Kennedy has to be on a call at 3 pm.
data can be found.
on the oil
Hill is asking questions like where the raw
Amanda and John - pls let oPAand 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
u.s. Department of Commerce
.
14th & constitution Avenue NW, Room 5128
wpshington, DC 20230
(202) 482-3436
page 1
005829
Subject: RE: need quick help with Q on Oil Budget NRDA
F,rom: "Robert. Haddad" <Robert.Haddad@noaa.gov>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:59:29 -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. Westerholm@noaa.gov>
This is very true - but that deals with the total amo~nt 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
would be assessed on all 100 bbls;
Bob
Office: 301.713.4248x110
Cell: 240.328.9085
\,,tvTv","!. dal~=c,. noaa . qO~"VT
-----Original Message----From: Steve Block [mailc:o:Steve.BJ.ock@Noaa.gov]
To: RObert.Haddad
Cc: 'Jennifer Austin'; Tony.penn@~oaa.aov; 'Mark W Miller'; ,
Deep Water
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
lled
oil
and these
uries quantified. Thus, the, NRD liability (or the damages
arising from the NRD claim) will be based directly on those measured
actions arising as a result of the
11. 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. 4248xl'l0
Cell: 240.328.9085
www.darro.noaa.gov
www.response.restoration.noaa.gcv
-----Original Message-----
005830
From: J~nnifer Austin [mailtC':,Tennifer.Aastin@noaa.c;ov]
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
this morning, we're pulling together Q&A for Dr. for her briefing with
Gibbs this afternoon, Can you answer this
on? Thanks, Jen
1. *
What impact, if any, will this report have in determinir:g BP's financial
liability fbi this
17 *
005831

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>
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 <M~rgaret.spring@noaa.gov> .
Sent: Thu Jul 29 14:01:50 2010
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
live made corrections to the summary paragraph so that the fractions mirror what is
in the pie chart. Because this is an interagency document, live 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 FRTGdoc.
This is urgent.
thanks .
-----original Message----From: Jennifer Aust1n [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]
To: Mark w Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave westerholm; Da.vid 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.
Jennifer Austin wrote;

Hi,
Attached is the updated oil budget calcuiator two-pager, incorporating
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26
page 1
005832

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.
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco<http://www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco>
page 2
005833

From: Scott smullen [mailto:scott.smullen@noaa.gov]
Sent: wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:07 AM
TO: sgilson@doc.gov; Margaret spring
.
subject: oil Budget Tool Report for July 26 - pie chart
This is yesterday's pie chart ....
-------- original Message -------subject:
oil Budget Tool Report for July 26
Date:
Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:56:34 -0400
From:
Mark.w.Mi1ler <Mark.w.Miller@noaa.gov><mailto:Mark.w.Miller@noaa.gov>
To:
Scott Smullen <scott.smullen@noaa.gov><mailto:scott.smullen@noaa.gov>, Jennifer
Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov><mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Jane Lubchenco
<Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov><mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Or. Lubchenco,
. please call.
Mark
Scott smullen
Deputy Director
NOAA
Communications & External Affairs
202-482-1097
0 /
202-494-6515 c
page 1
005834
DRAFT 7.29

Based on 60;000 barrels/day flow rate
*Remaining oil is
Clslight shn or
has been
bl,odegraded, or has
already come
ashore.
wellhead.
005835
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).
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 wann water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil
surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has biodegraded or already come ashore on beaches.
waters. The remaining amount, just over one quarter is on the surface, in tar balls; on the shore, already
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
.
_ on additional information and further analysis.
Attachments
005836
005837

Authors

Credits
LCDR Lance Lindgren and CDR Peter Hoffman (USCG) Application requirements
Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) - TechDical 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
005839
A From: Stephen E Hammond [sehalllll1on(@,usgs.gOv]

A Sent: 07/3112010 07:53 PM AST
.
A To: Bob Perciasepe
ACe: mark.w.milleriii{noaa.gov; biIJ.lehr@,noaa.gov; Sky Bristol <sbristoU02us!?s.gov>; Mark K Sogge <mark sogsre(a;usl!s.gov>:
sean.k.o'brien(a:.usc2.;gOV; Stephen E Hammond <sehammon@us2s.goV>
A Subject: Fw: Oil Budget - EPA Comments - follow up and a request
Hi Bob,
I'm with USGS and serve as a member of the Interagency Solutions Group as a liaison between the FRTG
and t~e the NIC.A A A USGS spent some time this afternoon with NOAA and USCG discussing the
threeA suggestions you madeA below in preparation to update and modify the oil budget tool that has
been developed.A I'll give you a quick update on the discussionA of suggestion 1 & 3, then ask you
toA provide some additional feedback on suggestion 2.
Suggestion 1 - combine natural and chemical into one catgory of dispersed oil on charts and in narrative.
Decision - Based on how NOAA is developing a commmunication product with the WH,A the dispersion
types (Natural & Chemical)A will not be combined.A We appreciate the case for combining them however
the goal is to show chemical dispersion as part of the Federal response to the spill.
Suggestion 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 expectaions and
evidence of the dispersed oil subsea.
.
Decision - NOAA is in general agreement that more is needed here.A A They indicated that theyA tried 'to
make this explanationA as robust as possible.A A We believe thatA a second document will be prepared in
the near future that addresses oiodegradationA as theA primary focus.A ItA will include as much as it can
on biodegradation rates.
Suggestion 2 - clear up the dissolution and dispersion potential confusion with some additional
explanation.
Decision - There is agreement on this yet we have found it difficult to describe in a short paragraph.A
We'd like to ask you to provide a short write-up that we can consider for thsi explanation in the oil budget
tool.
.
A
We are working to get tell toll updated by this evening. Any feedback you can offer quickly is greatly
appreciated.
A
Steve
A
Stephen E. Hammond
Chief Emergency Operations Office,
National Geospatial Program
.
Reston! VA
703-648-5033 (w)
..
703-648- 5792 (fax)

-----Forwarded by Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI on 07/31/2010 07:24PM ----To: Stephen E Hammond/GEOG/USGS/DOI@USGS
From: Mark K Sogge/DO/USGS/DO(
Date: 07/31/2010 04:19PM
Subject: Fw: Oil Budget - EPA Comments
2
005844
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]

Saturday, July 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'; 'KGriffis@doc.gov'; 'ksarri@doc.gov';
'Pshah@doc.gov
Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget tool update - coordination]
Message Text.txt
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 maintai!l~the existing format for the tool with two scenarios renamed
"Higher Flow Estimate ll and IlLower 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 FRTO 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 flot 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.
MarklJen - plz address Krist 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
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(202) 482-3436
7
005850
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Saturday, July 31,20106:28 PM
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
Bill Lehr sent this from the FRTG meeting. I will see if USGS can give us a time weighted
average flowrate with Report.
Mark
13
005856
005860
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Saturday, July 31,201011:46 AM
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)
Re: [Fwd: Fw: Oil budget too! 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'
copy of the doc and weare 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
Mark
> Circling in shannon) parita J kevin, kris >
> Also, what is timeline for incorporating those changes?
.>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------->
From: Margaret Spring
) Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 11:21 AM
> To: Mark Miller; jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; Scott Smullen
> Cc: Jane Lubchenco
>
> Mark~ Jennifer>
anastas) and noaa (bill lehr) last night related to the dispersed oil and pie charts.
>
>
> ----------------~------~--------->
> Sent: Friday~ July 3e~ 201e 11:0e PM

> To: Jennifer Austin; Margaret Spring; William Conner; 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
22
005861
> for the pie chart tomorrow afternoon.
:>
> Mark
>
23
005862
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 - coordination]
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
24
005867
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Bill.Lehr [BiII.Lehr@noaa.gov]
Saturday, July 31,20107:56 AM
Sky Bristol
Mark Miller; Stephen Hammond; Sean CDR O'Brien; Antonio Possolo; Tim Kern
Re: Oil budget tool update - coordination
Screen shot 2010-07-31 at11.52.30 AM.png
Flag Status:
Flagged
Sky,
Attached is the agreed flow rate estimate with 10% 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>J Antonio POSSQlo <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" variables as an 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, and we'll be in touch later today.
>
>
>
>
>
<.~~~~<.--~~<.
Sky Bristol
sbristol@usgs.gov
> <.~---<.-~-<.{<
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
1
005868
>
> > Steve ..

> >
> > 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
> >
> > 2(36-526- 631(3 (w)
(c)
> >
>>
> > 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 u~e 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 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 ..
> <;an you help me t.o 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
Chief Emergency Operations Office .. National Geospatial Program
Reston, VA
7(33-648-5(333 (w)
(c)
7(33-648- 5792 (fax)

-----Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov> wrote:
To: "Stephen E Hammond" <sehammon@usgs.gov>
From: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov>
Date: (37/31/2(310 09:51AM
cc: Mark Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>, Bill Lehr
<Bill.Lehr@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Oil budget tool update - coordination
Greetings again ..
2
005869
>
> 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 Pbssolo 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 w~s 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?
>
> <.(-~--<.----<..
>
Sky Bristol
>
sbristol@usgs.gov
>
>
<.~
<.~
N<.
>
> On Jul 31,
2810~
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 12:80 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
3
005870
> > - 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
> >
passcode
#
> >
> > 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 NIC. 00 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
> > US Geological Survey
> >>> Chief Emergency Operations Office, National Geospatial Program
> > Reston, VA
> >>> 7e3-648-Se33 (w)
(c)
> >>>
> > 7e3-648- 5792 (fax)
> >
> > -----Mark Miller < Mark.W.Millen@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: e7/31/2e1e e6:11AM
> > 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 gOQd" 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.
>
> >>>> <.~~--<.----<.
Sky Bristol
>
>
sbristol@usgs.gov
>
>
> <.
----<.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
----<.
005871
> >>>>.
> > From: Sky Bristol <sbristol@usgs.gov >
> >. Date: July 3e, 2ele 9:54:59 PM MDT
> > To: Stephen E Hammond < sehammon@usgs.gov >
> > ec: sean.k.obrien@uscg.mil , bill.lehr@noaa.gov ,
> mark.w.miller@noaa.mil ,
et,
> antonio.possolo@nist.gov J "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 3S,eee and 6e,eee
> 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)
Dispersants Used) Surface (VeS)
Dispersents Used Subsurface (VeB)
> )>>
> > 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?
> >
) >>>> =
> >>>>
> >>>>>
5
005872
>
>
>
>
.>
>>>>>
>>>>> <. (<"''''''''''<. (<"'M"''''<. (<
>
Sky Bristol
>
sbristol@usgs.gov
>>>>>
> >
> > <.----<.----<.

> )>>
> > On Jul 38> 2818, at 8:89 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
>
>
>
> >>>
>
>
>
005884

Higher Flow Estimate - Through July 30 (Day 102)
Ali unlabeled values in barrels. See end notes for assumptions .

Higher Fiow Est:maie is based on t.f-)e government discharge estimate plus 10% uncertainty.
Maximum discharge ranged from 68,390 bbi on April 22, 2010 to 58.022 bb: on JUlY 14. 2010.

Report generated by mark.w.milier@noaa.gov on 08/01 i201 0 04:23 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Natior.al
005885
Cumulative ReOl.aining .
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
-::rn
Q,)
1,000,000
C'O
.c
750,000
500,000
250,000
o
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2C
D~epwater
Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 08/01/2010 04:23 AM MDT.
Application ope~ated by the U,S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nationai
005886
005887

Lower Flow Estimate - Through July 30 (Day 102)
Ali unlabeled vaiues in barrels. See end noles for assumptions.

Lower Flow Estimate is based on the government discharge estimate minus 10% t:ncertainty,
*.
Maximum discharge ranged from 55,956 bbl on April 22, 2010 to 47.472 bbi on July 14,2010,

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov oil 08/01/201004:23 AM MDT.
005888
Lower Flow Estimate - Th~~ugh July 30 (Day 102)
1,400,000
i.
1,300,000 {
1 ,200,00oi ..
1,100,000i'
!
1,000,000 i
900,001:
iI
rn
........
700,000 i
.c
600,0001I
OJ
C'G
800,000
500,000 i
400,000 i
300,000
i.
;
200,000 i
;,
.-
100,000,
oJ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May-20JO
-
Expected Value -
Jun-201
JU/-201
Aug-2C

Report generated by mark.w.miUer@noaa.gov on 08/01/201004:23 AM MDT.
005889
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 Top Hat), and the

clicking on the labels in the table) for further information on the individual calculations and additional
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 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.
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%.
Previous Fixed Flow Rate

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.govon 08iQ1i2010 04:23 AM MDT.
.
.
005890
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 c~nfidence in the accuracy of the estimate at that
time.

the Q4000 are reported by BP, entered daily by National Incident Command personnel, and used ill the
Dispersed Natu rally

. -Subsurface natural dispersion based upon plume turbulent energy dissipation
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

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa,gov on 08/01/201004:23 AM MDT.
005891

-Measured amount removed via RITI and Top Hat
Skimmed
factored estimation of net oil content in oily water.
':Burned
cumulative totals.
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (lTOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20:1 used
005892
Dis'persant Used
The amount of dispersanfused is recorded each day oUhe incident by National Incident Command
Oil Remaining

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.s. Geologica! Survey in cooperation with the Nationai
005902
DRAFT 7.31v JJpm

and independent scientific community to produce an estimate of how much oil has been skimmed.

Federal
Response
"'Remaining oil is either at
the surface as light sheen
or w<;athered tar b;;!lIs,
has been biodegraded, or
has already come ashorE!.
Operations
Bllrned
5%
Skimmed
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
Rate Technical Group is that approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater
HorizonIBP wellhead, the uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite: Flow. Rate Technical Group.,
website or repoI1?). 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
scenarios, one based on the estimated flow rate plus ten percent, referred to at the "higher flow"
estimate, 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.
005903
Direct Measures ands Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
based on previous scientific analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific .
analysis.
chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 32% ofthe spilled oil. This includes
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'
biodegradation.
Much ofthe dispersed oil remained below the surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of
Report 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
Evaporation: It is estimated that 2S % of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
ch~mical and natural dispersion and evaporation,
Remaining: After accounting for recovery operations,
oil are
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and surface

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 oxygeri'levels, and the fact that oil enters the
005904
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
impact of oil there. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command to develop monitoring
strategies for tar balls and near shore submerged oil.
of the BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extrem~ly concerned about the impact of the spill to the
Attachments
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 flow rate estimate.
005905

, -- Where did the oil go? ,-Appendix B: Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
fonnulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The, team continues to
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA

Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
-Tom Coolbaugh, Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Pat-Lambert, Env. Canada
Per Daling, SINTEF
005910
DRAFT 7.31v 4 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
--------------------------_..... --'---'"

Federal
Response
"'Remaining oil is either at
the surface a~ light sheen

or wealh<:!red lar ball.,
has been biodegradecj, or
has already come ashore.
5%
Operations
Skimmed
3%
8%
Flow Rate: The Flow Rate Technical;'Group(FRTG)~ assembled by the National Incident Command,
estiDlates thaasof July 15, between 3-5 million barrels of oil had been released from the Deepwater
HorizonlBP wellhead. The current flow rate ~$timates are 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil per day. The
oil budget toolcalculations are based on XXXX numbers (range or number) the graphic above is based
on the high estimate of 60,000 barrels of oil per day.
005911
analysis.
Federal Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with oil have been aggressive. As sho"wTI in the pie
water col~ which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets (less than 100 microns - the
biodegradation.
oil
remained below the surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence

Some portion of the dispersed
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/lAG/reports.html).
into the water column or form residues such as tar balls. The residual is "included in the category of
quickly.
005912
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oiL It will issue daily surface oil trajectories
of oil there. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command, to develop monitoring strategies
Even though the threat to shorelines has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead, 'federal
'
Attachments
collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA, and NISI.
005913
. .

Authors
Credits
David Mack (USOS) - Lead application developer
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
, Ron Goodman, U. of Calgary
Al Allan, SpilTec
James Payne, Payne Env .
. -Tom Coolbaugh, Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Pat Lambert,Env .. Canada
. per Daling, SINTEF
005915
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark.W.Milier [Mark.W.Miller@noaa:gov]
Jane Lubchenco
Message Text.txt; Oil Budget description 729 v 6.doc;
DeepwaterHorizonOiIBudget20100728.pdf
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 th~ 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.
This
is urgent.
thanks
-----Original Message----From: Jennifer Austin [mailt~:Jennifer.Aust_in@r1..?a:?_:gg_~~~l
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy;
Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring; Ja~~.lubchenco@noaa.qov
Sorry! I attached .the wrong document.
Plea.se use this version dated 7.29.

Hi,
2
HQ
005916
The pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 2.6.
attached as an appendix to explain calc~lations in further detail.
Let us know immediately if you have
co~~ents.
Mark will share with the authors listed in his earlier emailFor USGS - I would like to check with Steve Hammond (NrC IASG) to see
should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC
created the upper and lower confide~ce bounds)
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell)
www.faceboot.com!noaa.lubche~co
005917
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark.W.Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa~gov]
Jane Lubchenco
Message Text-txt; Oil Budget description 729 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 Lehrto review.
Mark

I've made corrections to the summary paragraph so that tne fractions mirror what is in
the pie chart. Because this is an interagency document, I've modified one of the NOA.z\
references toward the end. If authors are not in agreement with tha~ statement, we can
simply remove it.
-individuals involved plus reviewers, as per the FRTG doc.
We need to
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 I
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ
Deep Water Horizon Staff
Cc: Margaret Spring; ,Tane.1 ubchence@noaa. qC-7
Subject: Re: budget tool calculator explanation, lates~

Hi,
Attached is the updated oi~ budget calculator two-pager, incc=porating
pie chart uses 60,000 barrels/day flow rate, numbers from July 26
attached as an appendix to explain calcula~ions in further detail.
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
4
005918
should'probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC
IASG), Sky Eris~ol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
For NIST - Antonio Possolo (NIST did the u~certainty analysis that
For NOAA - Eill Lehr.
Jennifer Austin
202-482-5757 (office) 202-302-9047 (cell) www
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
005919
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark. W.Milier [Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov]

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:52 PM
Scott Smullen; Jennifer Austin: Caitlyn H Kennedy
Bill. Conner
Representative Oil Budget Numbers
Oil Budget Numbers 7:27:10.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
005920
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark.W.Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:09 AM
Scott Smullen
Bill Conner; Jennifer Austin; Caitlyn H Kennedy
Re: [Fwd: Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool]
Message Text.txt; Message Text
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 understandable 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
Mark. W.Miller wrote:
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.
We do want to capture the biodegradation issue.
Mark
-------- Original Message -------Subject:Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool
Date:Thu, 22 Ju12010 15:49:35 -0400
From: Mark. W.Miller <Mark. W.Millerfalnoaa.gov>
To:Jane Lubchenco <Jane. Lubchenco(iUnoaa.eov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.staff(a~noaa.gov>, Bill Conner <Wi11iam.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
7
005921
July 1"5 (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.
Low Flow July 15
:Category
_ . . . . . . . . . . . _,"
"" _
..
__ . _
,~
..
._._ .
,_~.......
_ " ,
"_"_"~"_"''
High Flow July 22

.... _,.
. ..
....u .. __ ."_.......... ,,._.. '. ____ ....
_ _ ....
. . . . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . _,
'Remaining
480,000
16%
1,470,000
,Direct Recovery
820,000
27%
823,000
16%
13%
826,000
1,346,000
120,000
2%
. '"
............................
Natural Dispersion
............................... " .....
22% .
:Evaporated
_. ______ ._u._,_,,_.............. ". __ .
:Skimmed
- - - --- .. ---.-------.-.---------.-.
"._.~
.. _...__ v. ___ .. __._ _ _ .....' ___.... __
100,000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_ _ _ _
... A.'
.~
. ... __
~
~'
___
8%
~_"'_'_"_'_"'n
____ "R
..
w_. __ .. __ ._ .. __ ... _....u_ .. __._.. ___ ...__._ .._._. __
3%
.
260,OGO
Burned
. p _ , . _ _
28%
__
n~
"._~_
.... ,.. u.. _ .. ,.. _."" ..
_ _ _ " ..._ ......
266,000
5%
344,000
,,"_.
;
__
.........
.. ..
340,000 11%
. ______ ._. _ _ . _" ... _ .. __ .__ . _ _ _ _ _ ........ _ _ _ _ .,._,______ ................. _ _ _ _ _ , .. _. ___ .. .. _w .. _. _ _ __ .__._ __ .. _... _ .. ,, __ _.._, __ ._. _ _ .' .................. .
~,
* These three categori~s 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 bdefing
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.
005922
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident 011 Budget
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) Through July 21 (Day 93), P'rt
low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day} Through July 21 (Day 93)
~.
:J"0'-
005923
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
10
005924
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark.W.Miller [Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov]
Wednesday. July 28,20109:00 AM
Bill Conner; Scott Smullen; Jennifer Austin
[Fwd: Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool]
Message Text. txt; DeepwaterHorizon_briefing_schematic2. png;
DeepwaterHorizonOiIBudget20100726.pdf; DWH Whats Next v.2.docx
Scott and Bill,

use:
Mark
Date:Thu, 22 Ju12010 15:49:35 -0400
From:Mark.W.Miller <Mark. W,MlJler(qJ.noaa.gov>
To:Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco;-a,;noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
.
<dwh.staffXev.noaa.gov>, Bill Conner <William.Conner(qJ.noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
July 15 (500,000 bbls) which was the.date that the well was shut-in using the low flow scenario. The pie chart is
of removal and remaining numbers that appeared in the brieflooked to be from the Oil Budget tool for July 22
Category
:Low Flow July 15

, "" ......................- ... " ..
Remaining
",-."'~+
....." .. _" ..- .."-
......... "-...... " . ,,.,.....
High Flow July 22

~".
48Q,000
16%
1,470,000
28%
820,000
27%
823,000
16%
400,000
13%
826,000
--.-<--,-------.--.------- . ". . . .- .
~.-"
11
-.''''.-.
005925
670,000
22%
1,346,000
.Skimmed
100,000
3%
120,000
2%
Burned
260,000
8%
266,000
5%
340,000 11%
344,000
Evaporated
.._........ ,.... _.................._._.........-
For the second action item from this mornings call I am working with USGS to prepare a short briefing
document (l pager) for the Oil Budget tool. USGS is refining the document at this time but does not have an
12
005926
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dr.
Mark. W. Miller [Mark. W. Miller@noaa.gov]

Tuesday, July 27,201012:57 PM
Scott Smullen; Jennifer Austin; Jane Lubchenco
Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26
DeepwaterHorizonOil Budget201 00726. pdf
Lubchenco~
Here is the report I created this morning. If there are any questions please call.
13
005927
Dr. Lubchenco,
Message Text.txt
Here is the latest version that includes comments from you, me, Marcia
and Bi 11 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 w~b
interface etc) and the calculations (Sill Lehr's team).
I have included also the latest
the document sent forward. Does
description of the process used
long, highly technical document
simplified version.
report from the Tool to be included with.

this report satisfy the "brief
to do the calculations"? sill Lehr has a
but it would take some time to produce a
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
>
>
>
>

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 Austln [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

To: Mark WMiller; 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, latest
>
>
>
>
>
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
should probably include Dr. McNutt, Ma.rk Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC
IASG) , sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
. page 1
005928
Message Text.txt
For NOAA -Bill Lehr.
>
> -> Jennifer
>
>
>
Austin
NOAA communications & External Affairs
page 2
005929

calculated the flow rate and total oil released. Led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and United States'
direct measurements and the best scientific estimates available to. date, to determine what has happened
quarter (25%) of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally .
result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulf waters. The residual amount -just over one
ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand .and sediments. Oil in the residual and
becomes available.

Unjfied
Command
Response

that is on or jus.t below
the !>urface .as light
Operations
.sheen and weathered

tar ball~, has washed
ashore or been
collected from the

shQre, or is buried in
::.and and ~ediments.
n;>rn,r;:l'iy
8%
*Oil in these 3 categorie; is
naturally_
005930
droplets that are less than 100 microns - about the diameter of a human hair. oii 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
at the surface and below the surface; therefore, the chemically dispersed'oil ended up both deep in the
.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
biodegrade.
Residual:- After accounting for the categories that can be measured directly or estimated (i.e., recovery
below the surface in the foqn of light ~heen'0r 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
005931
naturally. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf~
because of the warm water, th~ favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil regularly
, analysis. Further information on these calculation methods is available in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf
Geological Survey in collaboration with US Coast Guard, NOAA and NISI.
\\'-wv\i.restorethegulf.gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
responders are working with the Unified," Command on monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore
005932
Even though the threat to shorelines, fish and wildlife, and. ecosystems has decreased since the capping
Uulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources
005933

- What happened to the oil?
Acknow1edgements
Authors
Bill Lebr, NOAA, DOC
. Credits
LTGg) Charity Drew (USCG) Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
Bill Lebr (NOAA) - Lead mass balance and oil budget scientist
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espina (NISI) - Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
LCDR Lance Lindgren, CDR Peter Hoffman, CDR Sean OtBrien, and LI Amy McElroy
fonnulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The team continues to
Federal Scientists
Bill Lebr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
005934

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 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
>
>
>
>

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.
>
This is urgent.
> thanks
>
>
>
>
>
-----original Messa~e----From: Jennifer Austln [mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov]

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, latest
>
>
>
>
>

Hi,

daily 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
should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC
IASG), sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
>
>
>
Jennifer Austin
page 1
005935
>
>
>

NOAA communications & External Affalrs
page 2
005936
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budgef

. High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) Through July 28 (Day 100)
Dispersed Naturally .
Burned
Skimmed
Inland Recovery
Jeepwate:- Horizon MC252 Gu!f incident Oil Budget

Report generated by mark.w,milier@noaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See and notes section of the report for reference material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and orovidedby theU.S. Geological Survey i:1 coooeration with the Nat!onai
005937
1,750.000 {
1.500.000
~;
.
.
.:.
1,250,0001
CI)
Ci) 1,000,000
"'"'""
(tJ
.c
750,000 i
500,000
250,000 .
May-2Q.10
-
Expected Value -
Jun~201
Jul-2010

Report generated by mark.w.mi!ler@noaa.gov on 07!29/2010 1; :20 P,Jvl MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geo!og1cal Survey in cooperation with the f\Jationa!
005938

Inland Recovery
Deepvvate r Horizon MC252

Incide;'lt Oil Budget
Report generated by mark,V\!,miller@noaa,gov on 07/28/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the ~eport for reference materia! on report elements.
Application operated by ~he U.S, Coast Guard arid provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nationai
Oceanic and Atr.lospheric Administration.
.
005939
650,000 .:
600,000
550,000 "
500,000'
450,000'
-en
Q)
~
400,000
350,000 -
ca 300,000
.c
250,000
200,000 ~,
15o,000~
100,000.i
50,000 .
0
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Ju!-2010
Deepwater HOrizon MC252 Guif incident Oli Budget

Report generated by mark.'N.miller(gjnoaa.gov on 07/29/2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section 01 the report for reference material on report elements.
005940
Reference Notes


reference material.
Discharged
-Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) for the Deepwater Horizon incident. Discharge rates are adjusted
over time in the data behind the application based on analyses by the FATG of changing dynamics in
Background
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf lncident Oil Bud~et
Report generated by rnark.w.miller@noaa.gov an 07/29!201 0: 1:20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and p:-ovided by the U.S. Geological Survey in coopera.tion with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminislration.
005941

RITI and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
I
Dispersed Naturally
Subsurface natural dispersion based upon plume turbulent energy dissipation
method of determining oil dispersion in the water column. A higher factor is used for the If Maximum
Removal" scenario to result in a larger amount of oil "removed. 1l See background documentation for
more information.

Report generated by marKX{.mmer@noaa.gov on 07129/2010 1 ~ :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report fer reference material on report elements.
Appiication operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in cooperation with the Nat:or:al
.
005942
for the cumulative total over time. Different factors are used to represent the difference in this.rate. The
Measuredamount removed viaRITT and Top Hat
-The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor based 01} scientific research and

Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
Total burned values are entered daily by National Incident Command personnel and used in daily C;lnd ~ .
cumulative totals.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 GUff incident Oil Budget
Report generated by mark. w.miiier@noaa.gov on 07/29!2010 11 :20 AM MDT.
See end notes section 01 the report for reference material on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geolog:ca i Survey in cooperation with 'the Natior.al
005943
Note: Refer to the section on Burning Los~es in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a discussion
assumpUons and factors apply:
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose ll dosage of 20:1 used
Note: Refer to the section on Dispersed Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas docume.nt fora full
Dispersant Used
Oil Remai ning

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gu:: !ncident OU Budget

Report generated by mark.w.milier@noaa.gov on' 07/29/201011 :20 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S, Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in coopera1ion with the Natio;1ai
.
005944
DRAFT 7.29

"'Remaining oil is
either at the ~urfaCE'
as light sheen or
i
1
has
been
l
iI biodegraded, or has
already come ashore
! on beaches.
I
l
mmed
3%
wellhead. (*When announced,I)ew FRTGflow rate I total escape will adjust this and the percentages in
the oil b~dget.)
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
collected just over %% percent of the oiL
005945
.After accounting for operations, dispersion and evaporation, %% percent remains. This oil is either at
beaches.
.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 1/4 of the
oiL Around a quarter of the total has been naturally evaporated and another quarter dispersed into Gulf
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.
measuremfmts where possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not
005946
infonnation and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be refined based
on additional infonnation and further analysis.
Science Team
The following scientists at USGS were involved in developing the Oil Budget Calculator tool:
Marcia McNutt
Mark Sogge
StevenHarnmond
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
Merv Fingas, Env Canada(ret)
Per Daling, SINTEF
David Usher, Isca
Peter Carragher, BP
Michel Boufadel, Temple U.
005947
MessageText -(3).txt
NO problem - I really hope that .th.is ,'.S simple and straightforward (at
least the initial production - not the clearance). The struggle will be
expressing the assumptions in an understandable 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
>
> Mark.w.Miller wrote:
Scott and Bill,
Here are all the docs that I thfnk 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: ihu, 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 <wil1iam.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 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.
category'
Low Flow July 15
High Flow July 22
Remaining
480,000
16%
1,470,000
28%
Direct Recovery
page 1
005948
820,000
27%
16%
823,000
Natural Dispersion
400,000
13%
826,000
*
Evaporated
670,000
22%
1,346,000
Skimmed
100,000
3%
120,000
2%
Burned
260,000
8%
266,000
5%
chemically Dispersed
340,000
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

USGS to prepare a short briefing document (1 pager) for
Budget tool. USGS is refining the document at this time
have an expected availability. RADM 'Neffenger mentioned
be verbally briefing the tool this evening.
working with
the oil
but does not
that he would
>
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
>202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
page 2
005949
DRAFT 7.29
Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget Calculator
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
-----_._-----,._------_._,,_...,----,----- -,--,---Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget

'Remair:iog oil j;
either ilt the ,urface
as light sheen 0'
weathered tar ball$.
ha~
been
biodegraded. or has
already come "shore
on beach",.
as of July 15 between 3-5 milIion 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.)
As shown in the pie graph (Figure I), aggressive response efforts have been successful in recovering a
significant~rtion of the spilled oil. %% percent ofthe oil was captured directly from the wellhead by
005950
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 m~:l.L(}J..l~.Umilb::.5..i;:;. Slr
s iIn i Iar (1 i i ii"<llll 1.11-: <: ill 11.5l'fcnlifi,, rcscHf"h"H!1 dt'b~~I\"llii'I-b"0~'I;tiU()lc,J.. .J;friH~ ,he . lk0f>'.";;h:r Il"~ril:()l1
i';~~i~;;;~"Adiff~~~~t-~~;poration rate is used for fresh and weathered oil to pr'Ovide the' most accurate
number.
.
%% percent of the oil has dispersed naturally into the water column. and %% percent of the oil was
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 small droplets (less than 100 microns - the diameter of it 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
beaches.
In summary, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly 1131 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/~ is on the surface, in tar balls, on beaches, removed
from beaches or has been biodegraded.
for as long as neCessary. NOAA responders are working with the Unified Command to develop
scientistsNGAA remains- extremely concerned about the impact to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully
understanding the impacts of this spi II on wildlife, habitats. and natural resources in the Gulf region wi II
take time and continued monitoring and research.
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from July 26, for detailed
Note on degree of confidence in calculations: This-HiltlIY!iisIbs.:J.2iJ..-'lydgd CillS;l.1.!.;l.Ji~~I.1'.is-i,m~. 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
'c;;~;;;tilKlj;-
Wi;;; ~aject~;;~~;~b.bi;:-
ending early next week do we want to remove the

, last part~:.~':.~~~:~:~!
___. _" .._.__ . _. __. . ___ . ._._ . . _.
005951
available information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These numbers will continue to be
refined based on additional information and further analysis.
005952
Scott and Bi 11 ,.
Here are all the docs that I think are applicable to the 1-2 pager Dr. L
wants. Can we talk at 9:307 If so we can use:
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 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,
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 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 bb1sjday). 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
Category
LOW Flow July 15
High Flow July 22
Remaining
16%
480,000
1,470,000
28%
Direct Recovery
820,000
27%
16%
823,000
Natural Dispersion
400,000
13%
826,000
Evaporated
22%
670,000
1,346,000
*
Skimmed
100,000
3%
2%
120,000
Burned
260,000
8%
page 1
005953
266,000
340,000
11%
344,000
5%
For the second action item from this mornings cal' 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.
page 2
005954

'T
Ali un;ts in barrels. See end i10tes for assumptions.
Inland Recovery

.
005955
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) - Through July .26 (Day 98)
1 ,750,000 ~
1.500,000" .
1 ,250,000 .
-...f
t/)
1,000,000.i
C'CI
.Q
750,000
500,000
250,000 -i
May-2010
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

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 Survey in cooperation with tt1e National
005956
005957

Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) .. Through July 26 (Day 98)
AH units in barrels. See end notes fer assumptions.
nland RecoverY
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident OB Budget

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on o7!27i2 0 10 09:27 AM MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference materiai on report elements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Nationai
005958

700,000
650,000
600,000
550.000
500,000
450,000
-i... 400,000
~ 350,000
J:2
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
May-201,0
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with tt16 National
005959
Reference Notes


The Cumulative Disposition of Oil "Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amount" of oil
dispersed by both natural and management methods, and the total remaining aU calculated by the oil
reference material.
Discharged
Background

Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Natronal
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
005960
to collect additi9nal.9ata and refine these estimates, it is important to realize that the numbers can
Recovered via ,RITT and Top Hat

Dispersed Naturally
more information.
Evaporated or. Dissolved


Report generated by mark.w.miller@noa~.gov on 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with Ule National
005961
-Reported amount of oil burned .
. current observations conducted on the Deepwater Horizon incident.
. Note: Refer to the section on Evaporated and Dissolved Oil in the Mass Balance Formulas document

Skimnled
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
. cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark.w.miUer@noaa.gov on 07!27i2010 09:27 AM MDT.
Oceanic and AtmosphericAdmlnistration.
005962
-American Society forTesting and Materials (ASTM) burn rate standards are used
Note: Refer to the sectionon Burning Losses in the Mass Balance Formulas document for a disGussion
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20: 1 used
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

005963
Draft Version 1.0 - July 20, 2010
For Internal Use Only .
Direct Rev474Deepwater 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
ecological 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 spiJled and where did it go?
As of July 15, it is estimated that between 35 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 ~stimate 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 i 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
Dispersion
barrels of oil remaining on the
13%
3%
surface, in the form of surface
slicks, tar balls, or deposits on
L_.. _ . _ . _ _ .. _ . ____ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ ._ _ _ __ _ . _ . _ . _ ...
Gulf beaches.
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
005964
Draft Version 1.0 -- July 20, 2010
For Internal Use Only .
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%) offurther 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.
Probability of New Shoreline Threat

DWH BP Oil Spill 60-day Analysis
MiS$;";??' C""~OQ 252

Incident Lotan on
<1%
't;o~~,c21
110%
~~31-40%
30%
:,~
11 20%-":1 - 100%
This ,mage 1$ a eompost1e of 91 scenarios,
L.~_",,~ o.~.~r.~~.~e...~.~~.~~~..~1! .~~.:'~!:... ___"" . "." ... _,,..,_,,_

0
!
125
250
'
500
t;hles
,
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 cnemical
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
005965
For Internal Use Only
interagency Joint Analysis Group'(JAG)that has issued two reports. These reports are based
on data from fluorometers; dissQlved oxygen s-ensprs, LlSST particle size analyzers, and
laboratory chemical analysis. The primary tool for screening for the presence of oil is a CDOM
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 CDOM 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
50
ppm for total petroleum
Brooks McCall CruIse 38
hydrocarbons. There is a very
Gordon Cunter Cruise 1
Walton Smith Cruise 12
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
concentrations of dispersed oil in
, ~.
the cloud of droplets.
20000
30000
40000
60000
10000
50000
o
..
Distance to WellheaO (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 bed 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 hig her than 1 ppm 1 in 4-day test exposures. Although these' results from acute toxicity
tests provide some useful reference paints, it's important to remember 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.
005966
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 also corre~pond 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.
\lVhat are the im,plications 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 ne~rshore, 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 DWH 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, bum 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 natural 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.
005967
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 t9 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.
005968
Forecast k'C3rion f\)( cal

on 21.]ulyl!).t 1200 CDT
ThIS: set of trnjec(c.,rics docs n(lt includ<.! arrl/ additional

r~I~s:-"~ from the- source since 7il". Trnjeclode!'> will
eonu:'lU tt) bl! upCated daUy as the situation evolves
!
I
IS-mile radius representing the maximum

distance from the source that subsurface
dispersed oil has been detected.
Pcn;istent ESE to SE winds OU'e foreca<t to cor.tinue through Wednesday wi';' spttds of I QIS ~1S. Sa!A:Rile analysis and overflights indi",,,,
.mace oil has moved west tow3l!.i the Dell<.. Tl"dJ<ct<:>rics indicat. this oil will contmw: to spread belli n<>,lliwald and w(ward OV< the ""~J iew
days. O\$<",ed tlooting <'if from today's overflights ill<iicare llult the large band. of <.'IiI are disper!Unt inh;> numerous smuller bands. Satel!!",
analysis indicated som. anomali.:s we.st "fthe Delta which may r",,<:It in 1>pOradic tarballs impacts between 1l"T:"aria Day and )''la.-sh Island
dunng the f",ec-dSl period.
NeX1: Forecast:
Miles
July I 9th PM
Lessons from Ixtoc Oil Spill

After nine months of discharge from the Ixtoc blowput in the sollthern 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
shallow 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-opening criteria and coordinate with adjoining states as they
consider the re-opening of their waters.
If, within 3D-days the bulk of the oil on the surface can no longer be detected, it is anticipated
that most closed areas could be re-opened after safety of the public has been evaluated by
005969
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 (SeAT) 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 restoratiofl
needed to compensate the public for injlJries 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 throughout the Gulf.. The Trustees are. also examining infor.mation .
collected as part of the response, and by other entities, to make efficient use of all the
._. . ."
information available. At this time, raw data is being released fo 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
005970
.
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 r.estoring, rehabilitating, replacing, or acquiring the equivalent of
the natural resources lost or injured by the oil spill.
IV.
What are the thne 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 welt 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 Ie functions are demobilized
NRDA restoration planning underway
Within 1 year
Transition from response to NRDAlrestoration complete (6-8 months)
Within 2 years:
Completed restoration plans in place
.Within 10 years:
NRDA litigation or negotiated settlement with BP and other Responsible Parties
V.
TBD
Conclusion
005971
Draft Version 1.0 - July 20,2010
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 spill, but during the third week of May, a major eddy formed
and interrupted the previous flow pattern, making it much less likely 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. NOAAwil1 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
l>apwatlr Harb:an MCZ%

InddettLoc';ttiOll
...,.n1din
:.... ....... .
' ..'7.. ...

~.
'b.
........,
'"
..~
..
f>.f> ..
tlj.
:
","i::~~..
f>....
.+
..
......
Slickloc::ation derived by NOAANESDIS from NASA
:s
:~
.T~:l!.
;, .
'''''':r.''''~
PD3
MODIS Aqua data aquiredJuly 19, 2010 at 140S CDT and

COSMO SkyMed-l datil aquired July 19 at 0656 CDT.
Cuba
Loop Olmnt and edcly analysis updated on July 19, 2010 by

NOAA/AOML 1i'om satellite allimeay-derived~. SlIrf.""
ht:i8ht fields olXained ltom NASA and ESA
5!'
t
liO
,
'Miles
005980
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Scott Smullen [Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov]

Wednesday, August 04,20102:31 PM
John Gray; Amanda Hallberg
oil budget talking pOints and Q&A
oil budget Q&A v1.docx; Oil Budget Additional Q&A_MillerAustin.docx; 080410 Oil Budget TPs
080310 730 pm.doc
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
005981
Justin Kenney
Scott Smullen [Scott.SmuUen@noaa.gov]
Oil Media
oil budget: send reporter's email! tel. # to jerry too
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
he will make sure they are on the list to get the release .....
soon
:)
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
282-482-1897
0 /
282-494-6515 c
10
coming
005982
Justin Kenney
Oil Media
budget: send reporter's email I tel. # to jerry too
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
oil
he will make sure they are on the list to get the release ....
soon
:)
Scott Smullen
D~puty Director
202-482-1097
0 /
292-494-6515 c
11
coming
005983
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jerry Siaff
another add for oil budget press list
Message Text.txt; NOAA oil budget report
-------- Original Message -------Subject: [Fwd: NOAA oil budget report] -- CBS News
Date:Wed, 04 Aug 201010:26:48 0400
From:Jana Gqldman <Jana.Goldman(a)noaa.gov>
To:scott smullen <Scott.Smullen(czmoaa.gov>, Christopher Vaccaro <Christopher.Vaccaro(q;noaa.wv>,
Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Rachel Wilhelm <Rachel. Wilheim@noaa.!l.ov>
FYI
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 I 202-494-6515 c
12
005992
.
a~count 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 sediments.
microns ... about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this small are neutrally
at the surface.
. natural processes. Early indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.
and oxygen levels, and the factthat oil enters the GuIfof Mexico through natural seeps regularly.

No. Oil that is beneath the surface, as far as we can determine, is primarily in the water column
a misconception.

surface. What we have yet to determine is the full impact that the oil will have beneath the
surface.
relatively quickly, so that is positive.
005993
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.
the case?
.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
Dilute does not mean benign, but it is in very small concentrations and we continue to measure
005994
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. 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.
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 (DOl) 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 tbe skimming and the burning, why did 67
percent of the oil in this incident eJude your efforts, winding up in the Gulf?
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 bas bad 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. Chemica) 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.
surlace slicks and makes it more readily available for biodegradation.
005995
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.
These results confirm that the dispersant used in response to the oil spill in the gulf, Corexit
9500A, 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
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 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.
8. What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's financial liability for
this spill?
005996
Justin Kenney
Subject:
Attachments:
Birnbaum, Amy
Jana Goldman; Rachel Wilhelm
Smith, Melissa Marie; Baur. Brandon
NOAA oil budget report
Message Text. txt
Flag Status:
Flagged
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
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 Birnbaum
CBS News Producer
524W. 57th St.
NY NY 10019
005997
Message Text.txt
-------- original Message -------subject: [Fwd: NOAA oil budget report] -- CBS News
Date: wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:26:48 -0400
From: Jana Goldman <Jana.Goldman@noaa.gov>
To: scott smullen <scott.smullen@noaa.gov>, Christopher vaccaro
<christopher.vaccaro@noaa.gov>, Jennifer Austin
<Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Rachel wilhelm <Rachel.wilhelm@noaa.gov>
FYI
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
page 1
006010
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
yes

Gene Louden
Re: oil budget will go out @ 1Dam I send calls to us, please ...
thx
Gene Louden wrote:

> Scott,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I am sure you know, but NBC did a major piece on this with Browner as
spokeswoman.
Lauer questioned the validity of NOAA findings based on the early flow
prediction discrepancies. FYI.
Gene
On 8/4/2010 7:55 AM, Scott Smullen wrote:
The New York Times ran the story this morning. The release will be
issued at 10am. Please send media calls to us downtown. Thanks -s
>
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
_NOAA Communications & External Affairs
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
006011
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Scott Smullen [Scott.Smullen@noaa:gov]

Wednesday, August 04, 20107:56 AM
Oil Media
budget will go out @ 10am I send calls to us, please ...
oil
The New York Times ran the story this morning.

send media calls to us downtown. Thanks -s
The release will be issued at leam.
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
2e2-482-le97 0 / Ze2-494-6515 c
Please
006012
Justin Kenney
Oil Media
oil budget will go out @ 10am I send calls to us, please ...
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
The New York Times ran the story this morning.

send media calls to us downtown. Thanks -5
The release will be issued at leam.
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1e97
0 /
2e2-494-6515 c
Please
006013
Justin Kenney
From:

Sent: .
To:
kgriffis
Cc:
Subject: .
Attachments:
Jennifer Austin
Q&A oil budget
oil budget Q&A v1.docx
Scott Smullen
Deputy D-irector
202-482-1097
I 202-494-6515 c
006014
Justin Kenney
Pat A Simms
Justin kenney; Jennifer Austin
DEEPWATER/Oil budget calculator draft release
080410 oil budget press release 080310 5 pm.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Pat,
Please include the attached press release for her book that she will see tomorrow morning.
Many thanks -5
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
NOAA Communications
202-482-1097
& External
Affairs
I 7e2-494-6515 c
006015
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Scott Smullen [Scott.Smullen@noaa:gov]

Thursday. July 29. 2010 11 :54 AM
William Conner
[Fwd: [Fwd: Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool]]
-------- Original Message -------Subject:[Fwd: Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool]
Date:Wed, 28 Ju12010 08:59:50 0400
From:Mark. W.Miller <Mark. \V .Miller@noaa.gov>
To:Bill Conner <William.Conner(a)noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen;~vnoaa.gov>, Jennifer
Austin <Jenniter.Austin(Cl~noaa.gov>
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
Mark
-------- Original Message -------Subject:Background Infonnation on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool
Date:Thu, 22 Ju12010 15:49:35 -0400
From:Mark. W.Miller <Mark. W.Miller(i4noaa.gov>
To:Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchencofa:noaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.staffm;noaa.llov>, Bill Conner <William.Connerrq),noaa.llov> .
Dr. Lubchenco,
Here is the background infonnation for the pie chart developed for the What Next document.
In order to initialize our model for the long-tenn modeling analysis we used the Oil Budget tool NOAA helped
July 15(500,000 bbls) which was the date that the well was shut-in using the low flow scenario. The pie chart is
6
006016
.
,-,
Low Flow July 15
Category
. '"" ",.,_
._~
'_m...
...... -,
""
,.,,~
... ,
'High Flow July 22
_........ ,. , ...._._
~.
1,470,000
28%
480,000
16%
820,000
27%
823,000" 16%
400,000
13%
826,000
670,000
22%
1,346,000
*
*
Skimmed
100,000
3%
120,000
2%
Burned
260,000
8%
, 266,000
5%
'Chemically Dispersed
340,000 11%
'Remaining
.......
.Direct Recovery
'Natural Dispersion
........ - ... ,'.".",,_......-.
Evaporated.
... _....,-.-, .... " ....
. 344,000
'
document (1 pager) forthe Oil Budget tool. USGS is refining the document at this time but does not have an
Scott Smullen
Dept:ty Director
202-482-1097 0 /
202-494-6515 c
006018
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Sandra Honda
DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100726.pdf; DWH Whats Next v.2.docx
-------- Original Message -------Subject:[Fwd: Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool]
Date:Wed, 28 Jul 201008:59:50 -0400
From:Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller(?j:moaa.!!ov>
To:Bill Conner <WiIliam.Collner(~i:noaa.!!ov>, Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen(a2noaa.gov>, Jennifer
Austin <Jennifer.Austinra)noaa.!!ov>
Scott and Bill,

use:
Mark
''I'!'-'
Date:Thu, 22 Ju12010 15:49:35 -0400
From: Mark. W .Miller <Mark. W.MiIler(C?inoaa.gov>
To:Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco(@.noaa.gov>,_HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<d\:llh.staff(q1noaa.gov>, Bill Conner <William.Conner(qlnoaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
July 15 (500,000 bbls) which was the date that the well was shut-in using the low flow scenario. The pie chart is
9
006019
High Flow July 22
Low Flow July 15
.Category
.Remaining
480,000
16%
1,470,000
28%
Direct Recovery
820,000
27%
823,00(J
16%
Natural Dispersion
400,000
13%
826,000
Evaporated
670,000
22%
1,346,000
*
*
100,000
3%
120,000
2%
260,000
8%
266,000
5%
340,000 11%
344,000
...-" '--,", .....
~~
....,,,, .-..
~-,~.,,~.~~.~
Skimmed
Burned
.. "". , .. ..
~
document (1 pager) for' the Oil Budget tool. USGS is refining the document at this time but does not have an
would be verbally briefing the tool this evening.
expected availability. RADM Neffenger mentioned that
he
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482~1097
202-494-6515 c
10
006020
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Wednesday, July 28,.20109:15 AM
Sandra Honda
[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil BudgetTool]]
Message Texttxt; Message Text
Sandy,
You may want to dial into this in 15 mins if you can ... Thx
-------- Original Message -------SUbject:Re: [Fwd: Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool]
Date:Wed, 28 Ju12010 09:09:06 -0400
From:Mark. W .Miller <Mark. W.Miller(alnoaa.gov>
To:Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen(ii),noaa.eov>
CC:Bill Conner <William.Conner(a)noaa.eov>, Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin(q:'noaa.gov>, Caitlyn
H Kennedy <caitlvn.kennedv@noaa.gov>
References:<4C5029C6.1 070904@noaa.20\l> <4C502A83.5060502@noaa.20v>
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 understandable manner. Talk to everyone at
9:30.
Mark
Scott Smullen wrote:
help. -s
Mark. W.MiIler wrote:
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 9:301 If so we can
use:
Mark
Date:Thu, 22 Ju12010 15:49:35 -0400
Fro m: Mark. W.Miller <Mark. W.Miller@noaa.gov>
11
006021
To:Jane Lubchenco <Jane.LubchcncoCainoaa.ov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.staffrmnoaa.gov>, Bill Conner <William.Conner[a)noaa.gov>
.
c .
Dr. Lubchenco,
July 15 (500,000 bbls) which was the date that the well was shut-in using ~he low flow scenario. The pie chart is
made of the cumulative removals and remaining oil percentages for that date (see numbers b~low). The other set
480,000
Remaining
_ . _ _ _ "
~.
_ _ _ _ _ . _. _ _
_~
.Direct Recovery
. Natural Dispersion
.Evaporated
____
~._'w~_~.
High Flow July 22
Low Flow July 15
Category
___ .._.'" ....,
...
n ... _ .... _ , _ _ . _ . _ ..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 _ _ _ .. _ _ _ ._
1,470,OqO 28%'
16%
"'_'_h __ ,"_ ..,.. _
~_nW"'_R''''''''
.... , __
_~~.
___
~.
m"., .. "
, .. ,,, ..... .
~
_~
____
820,000
27%
823,000
16%
400,000
13%
826,000
670,000 2'2%
1,346,000
*
2%
""~"~"~_V""
_ _ _ _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ ......
~
~~.
Skimmed
100,000
3%
120,000
:Burned
260,000
8%
266,000
:Chemically Dispersed
340,000 11%
344,000
. For the second action item from this mornings call I am working with USGS to prepare a short briefing
document (l pager) for the Oil Budget tool. USGS is refining the document at this time but does not have an
12
006022
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident all Budget
E~S~-~~l~i'
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrelsfday) - Through July 21 (Day 931:;,' "l
32.640 t"IS
low Flow Scenario (35.0aO b.arrelsiday) - Through July 21 (Day 93),
Chemic.aHy Disp.."fSed
266.315
101,758
11
!:),
"t,
006023
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
NOA~ Communications & External Affairs
202-482-1097 0 I 202-494-6515 c
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 I 202-494-6515 C
14
006024
006025
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Caitlyn H Kennedy
Message Text. txt; DeepwaterHorizon_briefin9_schematic2. png;
-----~-~
Original Message ~------Subject:[Fwd: Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool).
Date:Wed, 28 Jul2010 08:59:50 -0400
From: Mark. W.Miller <Mark. W.Miller(aJ.noaa.Qov>
To:Bill Conner <William.Conner@noaa.Qov>, Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen(ffmoaa.gov>, Jennifer
Austin <J ennifer.A lIstin(amoaa. !Wv>
Scott and Bill,

use:
Mark
Date:Thu, 22 Jul2010 15:49:35 -0400
From:Mark. W.Miller <M.ark. W.Millerramoaa.gov>
To:Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco fai,l1oaa.gov>, _HQ Deep Water Horizon Staff
<dwh.staffrtV.noaa.gov>, Bill Conner <William.COlUler(a;noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
July 15 (500,000 bbls) which was the date that the well was shut-in using the low flow ~cenario. The pie chart is
15
006026
of removal and remaining
numbers that appeared
.
. in the brief looked to be from the Oil Budget tool for July 22
Low Flow July 15
.Category
~-
High Flow July 22
.....
.Remaining
480,000
1,470,000
16%
_,
28%
. , . . ..... M . " " " " , .
Direct Recovery ,
820,000
27%
823,000
iNatural Dispersion
400,000
13%
*
*
16%
Evaporated
670,000
22%
826,000
- -- .
1,346,000
.Skimmed
100,000
3%
120,000
2%
266,000
5%
,,'
,..
-~--..
~-.-
..
Burned
..." ... _....._....
260,000
"""._
_~.,,,
.,,
,~
.. _,.,.,h _
~~
8%
....... ,......--..
~.---
...." ...-,
...
-~
_ .. -,.....,,'--'-"
~-.,~".--~
""""
.',
--".
344,000
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 (l pager) forthe Oil Budget tool. USGS is refining the document at this time but does not have an
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-l097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
16
006027
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]
Message Text.t~; Message Text
help. -s
Mark. W .Miller wrote:
.Scott and Bill,
use:
as quickly as possible in the Oil Budg~t tool because those would be the numbers 'we need for the pie chart.
Mark
Date:Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:49:35 -0400
From:Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.MiIlerta)noaa.20v>
To:Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>,_HQ DeepWater Horizon Staff
<d\:vh.staft!w'noaa.gov>, Bill Conner <William.Conner(a1noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
july 15 (500,000 bbls) which was the date that the well was shut-in using the low flow scenario. The pie chart is
:Category
Flow July 15
17
006028
,"P"
Remaining
--.
_ . _ _ . _ .... _ . "., .
.. , ..
_........ -
.........
16%
1,470,000
28%
27%
823,000
16%
826,000
480,000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p . . . . . . . .
_..
.. ..................................
Direct Recovery
820,000
Natural Dispersion
400,000
670,000
22%
1,346,000
. .................
*
*
Skimmed
100,000
3%
120,000
2%
Burned
260,000
8%
266,000
5%
340,000 11%
344,000
... ........ _-_ ..... ,-_. '.'-"'--
............. ,
Evaporated
........,-- ..--.
"
--
.... -... .. ....
...
,,',-
....... _. __ ..
.-- ...........
13%
...... ,_ ............... ,,' ..... ,.
....... . 0.. ... ... ".

~
...........................
For the second action item from this mornings call I am working with USGS to prepare a sh~rt briefing
document (1 pager) for the Oil Budget tool. USGS is refining the document at this time but does not have an
18
006029
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gut" Incident Oil Budget
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrelsfday) - Through July 21 {Day 93)
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrel:sJday) - Through July 21 (Day 93) ..,
P'I'I
0,:,..,(
006030
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
NOAA Co~~unications &
202-482-1097
Ex~ernal
Affairs
I 202-494-6515 c
20
006031
Justin Kerlllet
Scott Smullen [Scott.Smullen@noaa~gov]

Margaret Spring
sgilson@doc.gov
Re: Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26 - pie chart
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
I think daily ....

> And they update daily or weekly?
>
> -----Original Message----> From: Scott Smullen [mailto:Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov]
> Sent: WednesdaYJ July 28 J 2010 8:13 AM
> To: Margaret Spring
> Cc~ sgilson@doc.gov
> Subject: Re: Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26 - pie chart
>
> Yes ... Mark Miller sent it to her before yesterday's telephone news
> conference wi Adm. Allen
>
> Margaret Spring wrote:

>
*From:* Scott Smullen [mailto:Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov]

*Sent:* WednesdaYJ July 28 J 2010 8:07 AM
*To:* sgilson@doc.govjMargaret Spring
*Subject:* Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26 - pie chart
-------- Original Message -------*Subject:
Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26

*Date: *
Tue J 27 Jul 2010 12:56:34 -04e0

*From: *
21
006032
Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
<mailto:Mark.W.Miiler@noaa.gov>
*To: *
Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>

<mailto:Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>~ Jennifer Austin
<Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov> <mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>J Jane
Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchencq@noaa.gov> <mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Dr.
Lubchenco~
>.>
Here is the report I created thfs morning. If there are any questions
please call.
Mark
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
292-482-1e97 0 / 2e2-494-6515 c
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
2e2-482-1e97
0 /
292-494-6515 c
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
292-482-1e97 0 / 292-494-6515 c
22
006033
Justin Kenney

Margaret Spring
sgilson@doc.gov
Re: Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26 - pie chart
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Yes ... Mark Miller sent it to her before yesterday's telephone news conference wi Adm. Allen
>
> So this was prepared by the NIC .. has Jane seen?

>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Smullen [mailto:Scott.Smullen@noaa.govl
> *Sent:* Wednesday~ July 28, 2010 8:07 AM
> *To:* sgilson@doc.gov; Margaret Spring
> *Subject:* Oil Buaget Tool Report for July 26 - pie chart
>
>
>
> This is yesterday s pie chart ....
>
I
> -------- Original Message ------->
> *Subject: *
>
>
>
> Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26

>
> *Date: *
>
>
>
> Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:56:34 -0400
>
> *From: *
>
>
>
> Mark.W.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov> <mailto:Mark.W.Miiler@noaa.gov>

>
> *To: *.
>
>
>
> Scott Smullen <Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>

> <mailto:Scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>J Jennifer Austin
> <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov> <mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, Jane
> Lubchenco <Jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov> <mailto:Jane.lubchencg@noaa.gov>
>
>
>
23
006034
> Dr. Lubchenco)
>
> Here is the report I created this morning. If there are any questions
) please call.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 I 202-494-6515 c
--
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 I 202-494-6515 c
24
006035
Justin Kenney
Scott Smullen [Scotl.Smullen@noaa.govJ
Wednesday, July 28,20108:07 AM.
sgilson; Margaret Spring
Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26 - pie chart
lVIessage Text.txt; DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100726.pdf
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
This is yesterday's pie chart....

-------- Original Message -------Subject:Oil Budget Tool Report for July 26
Date:Tue, 27 Jul2010 12:56:34 -0400
From:Mark. W.Miller <Mark. W.Miller(cl::.noaa.szov>
To:Scott Smullen <Scott. Smu lIeniamoaa.gov>, Jennifer Austin <Jenni fer.Austin(umoaa. !.wv> , Jane
Lubchenco <Ja.l1c.Lubchencora;noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
please call.
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097
I 202-494-6515 c
25
006036

account for half (50%) of the total release of oil from the spill.
and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand .
and sediments.
.
at the surface.

a misconception.

We've seen some of those impacts play out in ways. that are more obvious because they're at the
surface.
relatively quickly, so that is positIve.
006037
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
from this.
-
A recent JAG report said that y~u found oil subsurface in the 4-7 ppm range.. Is that still
the case?
analyze subsurface oil concentrations. The loint 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
Dilute does not mean benign, but it is in v~ry small concentrations and we continue to measure
006038
Message Text.txt
-------- original Message -------subject: [Fwd: Background Information on Pie chart and oil Budget Tool]
Date: wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:59:50 -0400
From: Mark.w.Miller <Mark.w.Mi11er@noaa.gov>
To: Bill Conner <william.conner@noaa.gov>, scott smullen
<scott.smullen@noaa.gov>, Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
Scott and Bill,
number. I asked that they implement it as quickly as possible in the oil
Mark
-------- original Message -------subject: Background Information on Pie chart and oil Budget Tool
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:49:35 -0400
staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner <william.Conner@noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
what Next document.
of the FRTG (35,000 bblsjday) and one based on the high flow estimate
(60,000 bbls/day). For our model initialization we used the estimated
numbers below). The other set of removal and remaining numbers that
category
Low Flow July 15
High Flow July 22
Remaining
480,000
1,470,000
16%
28%
820,000
823,000
27%
Direct Recovery
16%
page 1
006039
Natural Dispersion
400,000
13%
826,000
Evaporated
22%
670,000
1,346,000
Skimmed
100,000
3%
]:20,000
2%
Burned
8%
260,000
5%
266,000
340,000 11%
344,000
*
Message Text.txt
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
Scott smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
page 2
006040
Deepwater Horizon' MC252 Gulf Incident
OirBuaget- -
1!'
Ali unlts :r: barre!s. See end notes for <;1SSiJmpUons.
Jnland Recovery

Report generated by mark.w,miller@noaa.gov on 07/27/201009:27 AM MDT.
006041
j
I
1,750,0001
I,
(
1.500,0001
!
!
1 ,250,000 ~
en
1,000,000
...
tU
.c
if
750,000 ~
500,000i
i
250,000
-1
i
;,
OJ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~==~
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
JUI-2010

Application operated by the U:S Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in cooperation with the National
.
006042

Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) .. Through July 26 (Day 98)
.A.l! units in-barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
Recovery

006043
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) Through July 26 (Day 98)
700,000 i l
650,000 ~ .
!
600,000 ~
550,000
500,000
en
Q)
:a...
:a...
ct'I
450,000
400,000
350,000
.c 300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
May-201O
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010

See end notes section of the report for reference materia! on report etements.
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey .in cooperation with the National
006044
Reference Notes

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).

The Cumulative Dispo~ition of Oil "Barrel Graph" provides a representation of the total amount of oil
correspond to the cumulative values in the table. See the footnotes (available in .the Web application by
clicking on the labels in the table) fOf further information on the individual calculations and further
reference material.
Discharged
Background
On June 15,2010, an improved estimate of how much oil is flowing from the leaking BP well was

Report generated by mark.w,miller@noaa.gov on 07/27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
006045
to collect additional.data and refine these estimates, it is important to realize that the numbers can
Recoyered via RITT and Top
~at
RID and Top Hat are mechanical devices that British Petroleum (BP) has used to recover oil from the
calculation of remaining oil. Cumulative totals are a sum of a" daily values entered.
Dispersed Natu r~"y

Hemoval" scenario to result in a larger amount of oil "removed." See background documentation for
more information.

Report generated by mark.w.mi!ler@noaa.gov on 07/27/201009:27 AM MDT.
006046
for t~e cumulative total over time. Different factors are used to represent the difference in this rate. The
-Measured ~mount removed via RITT and Top Hat
-The remaining amount is then multiplied with a different factor based on scientific research and.

Skimmed
factored estimation of net oil content. The net oil factor is different for the Maximum and Minimum,
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07i27/2010 09:27 AM MDT.
006047
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.
CherTlically Dispersed
discussion of the scientific methodology used in thiscalculation.
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/271201009:27 AM MDT.
006048
Direct Rev474Deepwater Horizon BP Response

conditions change.
How ~~ch oil was spined and where did it go?
I.
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
DWH oil has gone. Of the total amount that left the sea bed, approximately 820,000 barrels was
.....--..---.-------------..-.-..,,---...- .....--........-._..- ..- ....._--.. . ._"................-.. evaporated or dissolved into the
water column. Roughly 400,000 . Chemically
barrels dispersed naturally while , Dispersed
11%
and 100,000 barrels of oil had'
8%
Dispersion .
13%
3%
slicks, tar balls, or depOSits on
Gulf beaches.
i

006049
Draft Version 1.0 - July 20,2010 .
. next 60 days.
The coastlines with the highest probability (41-100%) of further impact-from the
Mississippi River Delta to the Alaoama Coast-have already received oil.
impact.
probabilities forthe Florida Keys, Miami, and Fort Lauderdale areas are 1-10%. The
.

DWH BP Oil Spill GO-day Analysis .
... MiSSISsippi Canyoo 252
inc,dent Location ,
<1%
ci"";:;;':i'21 - 30%
1- 10% 1;;,,;;;;;:;;;>31 - 40%

11 - 20%~1 - 100%
This Image is; ,omposite of91 scenarios
. .,,~~~!r ,~~~:.,.~~~~,~,~~. ~~~. ~.~.~~~.__."",""_"~" _..

125
2!iO
dispersed oil. This cloud results from a combination of phYSical dispersion as the oil escapes
tension of the oil drops causing smaller drops to form. Whether from physical or chemical
006050
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 pnmary tool for screening for the presence of oil is a CDOM
was found extending from the area of the well out to a distance of about 25 km (15 miles) ~ith
Normalized eDOM Fluorescence
Wellhead.
50 ppm for total petroleum
BrOCk$ McCall Cruise 38
'"'" 8--!
hydrocarbons.
There is a very
Gordon
Gunter
Cruise
1
B ie
WalloI': Smith Cruise 12
of
spatial
and
high
degree
:i!
:
'"
5
o Oooal" Veril2S Cruise 4
u::'"
::E
"C
of the oil and to sampling
nature
:
..
,:::!
~. 4...J;._of the Gulf of Mexico. More
;
1,.
..
the long-term transport potential of .
1.:
i
it : .
I eo- .~
o ~J ~'#.$..i
i
~.
the cloud of droplets. '
o
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Q.l
i.i-I ...
Distance to Wellhead (01)
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
predominant dispersant used for sea bed injection at the DWH well site, For fish, 95% of the
LC50s higher than 1 ppm 1 in 4-day test exposures. Although these results from acute toxi~ity
tests provide some useful reference pOints, it's important to remember that the deepwater
006051
given the low oxygen levels that already occur in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. D02 sensors
depressions can also correspond to high fluorescence signals, indicating the potential presence'
this calibration. In addition, the JAG is beginning to examine D02 data from gliders to confirm
n.
\tVhat are the implications for the Gulfof Mexico?
in Louisiana, beaches in Louisiana, Mississ.ippi, Alabama, west Florida andTexas, the sea
surface both nearshore, near-surface offshore waters (upper 10 meters), and deepwater at
over 6500 vessels, dispersant use, bum activities, overflights, etc.
Marshes
inhabitants (fish, crabs, shrimp) will move lnto the oiled areas within months to a year following
Oiled beaches are being cleaned rapidly but traces of residual oil will remain until the next
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
006052
For Jnternal Use Only'
. _... _.

nearshore areas. This' oil is not sticky. It will likely breakup into hard clumps and tar balls, some
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 (1 D's of square miles) is a small fraction of
. the area (thousands of square miles) that has been occupied at the surface and the
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
006053
Draft Version t ..o -- July 20, 2010
F"",,,,,~
k",.,;oo for 0,1
on 21*luiy.. 10at ~2(~O CDT'

Th15 .c' of traJcc,orics do.:s nN lncludc any addinonal

releAse from the $Ource ::-oincC' 7.'1,. TrnjcetoriC5 will
emU"u. to be updat<d daily as the si,uation .:volves.
Persistent ESE to SE winds .,.. foreca.'Il10 comll'lU< through Wednesdar wuh speeds of 101 $ kts. Satellile anal)"sis and overflight!< indica",
surface oil has moved weS! tow3r<l the Delta. Trajectories indicate this oil will contmue to spr.oo both noraw,oro and westward over the rnXl tow
days Ohse!ved !looting oil Irom today's overflights indic.t< rh.r rhe large band< of oil
dlSper<l"e into nwnerou, "",aU.,. bands. Satellite
analysis indi<;lllcd so",. anomalies \\'CSt of the Delta which may rcsult in sporadic tarballs impacts between Barataria Bay and:"1llrsh Island
due",!! the forecast period.
'If.
Next Forecast:
July 19th PM

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
shallow water offshore of south Texas and persisted for many years. Benthic marine
communities suffered minor changes in diversity and recovered within severalyears. From
III.
What are the next steps to recovery troln DWH?

If, within 30-days the bulk of the oil on the surface can no longer be detected, it is anticipated
006054
after oil is no longer observed on the surface of the water. See Fisher~es Closure for updated

weather. it becom'es less conducive to dispersant application, in~situ burning, and recovery with
ability to gather large qu.antities of oil to burn, so this method will no longer be used about a
long as the oil is in quantities suffiCient to skim. As oil at sea diminishes and shoreline oiling
"Stage 3" and final shoreline sign off. Stage 3 st.arts when the bulk of the oil has come a,shore.
The Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Teams (SCAT) continue to evaluate and monitor shoreline
two SCAT Teams will become "Sign Off Teams" (SOFT) with members having authority to '
Federal planning for the long~term economic and environm'ental restoration of the Gulf Coast
Gulf. The purpose of the NRDA is to determine the appropriate type and amount of restoration
needed to compensate the pubiic for injuries to natural resources from the spill. During the
affected natural resources throughout the Gulf. The Trustees are also examining information
collected as part of the response, and by other entities, to make effic,iem use of all~the,
.,
information availabl'e. At this time, raw data is being released to the public after iUs properly
quality checked.
A Trustee Steering Committee has been convened to provide'initial oversight and guidance for
the assessment. The resources now being as~essed include fish and shellfish. bottom dwelling
006055
biota, birds, marine mammals, turtles, and sensitive habitats such as wetlands, submerged
could compensate the public by restoring, rehabilitating, replacing, or acquiring the equivalent of
IV.
What are the thne frames for recovery of the Gulf of Mexico?
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,
Within 1 month:
Within 2 months:
Within 6 months:
Most of IC functions are demobilized
Within 1 year
. TranSition from response to NRDAlrestoration complete (6-8 months)
Within 2 years:
Within 10 years:
V.
TBD
Conclusion
006056
.and interrupted the previous flow pattern, making it much less likely that the Loop Current would
move significant amounts of oil to southern Florida, or even the east coast (see Loop Current
South Florida. NOAA will continue to monitor the status of the Loop Current until surface oil is
no longer observed.

'>.-:
Fli>wa
Exlenl of oil slick visible in

salellilo imagery July 19. 2010
DRpWlota" Kcrir:cm MOS2
lnddent Loc:atIaa
~n\C.lin
. -
,.<;v ""
~.
-0.
..\
.""A. ..
tlJ.
a
...
..
~
...
.....

/:~",,-:.:-:...ce~~
~,5
:~~
'-0'"
,.~;:;,/
...po~
Slick location derived bv NOAANESDIS from NASA

MODIS Aqua data aqui;ed July 19. 2010.r 1408 eDTalld
COSMO SkyMed-1 data aquired July 19 at 0656 eDT.
Cuba
Loop Olrrent and eddy analysis updated on JUly 19.2010 by

NOAAlAOML from satdlite altimellyderived sea slIrfaco
heighlfields obtained from NASA and ESA.
5:..
,
110
I
MIles
220
006057
DRAFT
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 burning,
skimming, chemical disp~rsion and direct recovery from the wellhead, according to a federal
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 ofthe Interior (DOl), who jointly developed what's known as an OirBudget
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.
Based on estimated release of 4.9m barrels oj oil
Re$idual include$ oil

that is on or i"S1 be,ow
th'!' $cur face as-light

sheen anti weathered
tar balls. has washed
ashore or been
coliecteo from the
shore, (}!" ;5 buried in
sand and sedimt'" ts.
Oi! in theM> 3 c.alegories.

curr ..mlv bing d'i'graGl .. d
1$
n~lurally.
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."
006058
Quote from McNutt?

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.
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.
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 information becomes
available.
###
006059
Message Text (Z).txt

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 skimmed, burned, contained,
evaporated and dispersed.
Hi Scott, want to have a quick look at this.
back to Bill and Mark.
>
>
>
Scott smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
page 1
then we can circulate
006060
006061
Direct Rev474Deepwater Horizon 8P Response

conditions change.
l.
How mnch oil was spilled and where did it go"
Deepwater Horizon BP (DWH) w~1I 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
. . . . . . . .....
water column. Roughly 400,000
Chemically
barrels dispersed naturally while
Dispersed
11%
Burned
8%
13%
3%
Gulf beaches.

006062
For Internal Use Only'
next 60 days.
impact.
probabilities forthe Florida Keys, Miami, and Fort Lauderdale areas are 1-10%. The

DWH BP Oil Spill 60-day Analysis
Ca.tJ~on
.. Ms:a:;SIPPl
2.52
InCident Locfbon
iProbablity of New Shoreline Threat

h""'c;
<1%
1- 10%
11
?2::?E:;~)21
- 30%
ir~31
- 40%
20%~1
100%
This image is a composile of91 scenarios,
.. ,. 'r'" ."... . ._ ..... ".
only one scenario will occur .

250
,
500
Miles
tension of the oil drops causing smaller drops to form. Whether from physical or chemical
006063
Draft Version 1.0 -- July 20, 2010'
on data from fluorometers, dissolved oxygen sensors, LlSST particle size analyzers, and
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
Wellhead.
50
ppm for total petroleum
Brooks McCall Cr."se :Hl
GordGnGunter Gruis'< 1
Wallon Smith Cnlise 1-2
o Ocean Veritas Cruise 4
the cloud of droplets.
10000
30000
40000
o
20000
60000
50000
..
::>istance to Welll1ead (m)
predominant dispersant used for sea bed injection at the DWH well site. For fish, 95% of the
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 remember that the deepwater
006064
Draft Version 1.0 -- July 20,20.10
given the low oxygen levels that already occur in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. 002 sensors'
depressions can also correspond to high fluorescence signals, indicating the potential presence
whether far-field D02 impacts have occurred.
II.
What are the iInpJications for the Gulf of Mexico?
in Louisiana, beaches in LouiSiana, Mississippi, Alabama, west Florida and Texas, the sea
depths of 1000to 1300 meters deep. Sources of stress to these environments include not only
over 6500 vessels, dispersant use, burn activities, overflights, etc.
Marshes
inhabitants (fish, crabs, shrimp) will move into the oiled ar~as within months to a year following
cleansing process by fall. Buried oil layers still need removal in selected lo.cations.
006065

the spill.
Deepwater
concentrations of dispersed. oil have been low (see figure below). Deepwater species are
near the surface where they gorge on plp,nkton at night. Their abundance is also low relative to
population that may have been inJured (we have no evidence that they have) should be
006066
Forecast location for oil

ou21-July-lOat 12ooC)T
11m; sC'l (\r Irajcclmic:o: ",-",s "('ot Include any additional

rtkmw fton1 the ,Ollrcc ,il)\~~ 7;J" Trnitct(l1'ie:!l will
c~ntinue tu b..: updated daily as the si1uatfon ,:\'olvcs,

distance from the source Ihat subsurface
P.",;Sl"'" ESE to SE w.nds .... fa,eoa.<llo ""'>tinuc through WedMsJay with sp.=cd, of 10-1~ kts. Sal.:Jlil. analysis and overflighl" indicate
"1ft.",, oil h.., moved w<Sllowanllho Della. Tr"J<Ctorio. indic.al< this oil will continue to spread both northward and westward 0\'" th. next Itw
d:Jys Ohs.",cd "",ting oillrom lOOny'S overllights indicnle thai the hllge band.. of oil sre disperong into ""mero'" "",.lI.. hands Satelhte
analysis indicaroo ,om nomali.. wO$! "rlhe Dellll which may result in sporadic larballs impacls bclw.~ Ba,atan.Bay and Marsh Island
donns the forecast period
Next Forecast:
Miles
July 19lhPM

After nine months of discharge from the Ixtocblowout in the southern Gulf of Mexico in 19791980, a few studies were done to look at recovery. Surprisingly little injury to shoreline and
communities suffered minor changes in diversity and recovered within several years. From
III.
What are the next steps to recovery from D\J\lH?

006067

weather, it becomes less conducive to dispersant application, in-situ burnill9, and recovery with
long as the oil is in quantities sufficient to skim. As oil at sea diminishes and shoreline oiling
two SCAT Teams will become "Sign Off Teams" (SOFT) with members having authority to

development, requires detailed coordination with the States, local communities., tribes, people
Gulf. The purpose of the NRDA is to determine the appropriate type and amount of restoration
needed to compensate the public for injuries to natural resources from the spill. During the
information available. At this time, raw data is being released to the public after it is properly
quality checked.
.
006068
biota, birds, marine mammals, turtles, and sensitive habitats such as wetlands, submerged '
What are the tiIne frames for recovery of the Gulf of Mexico?
IV.
slick was reduced in size within a d~y, and the deep plume has become separated from'the
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,
Demobilization of certain Incident Command (lC) functions begins
Within 2 months:
Half-life of sub-surface plume (1-2 months)_ Plume not detectable from background'
Within 6 months:
Within 1 year
_
Transition from response to NRDAIrestoration complete (6-8 months)
Within 2 years:
Within'10 years:
V.
TBD
Conc1usion
006069
Draft Version 1.0 --. July 20, 2010
'Yucatan Peninsula and flows toward Mobile Bay before it loops back toward the Florida Strait,
no longer observed.

and Surface Slick on July 19,2010
I)wpwatft liorb.~n
1'r1C::5:t
InddeUl LO('3ftan
Slit\( location doriitod lIy NOAA NESDlS frolll NASA

MODIS A",. data aquir~d July 19.2010 al1408 CDTaud
COSMO SkyMcd-l dal. >",!ired July 19 01 06S6 CDT.
Loop Olrrentand eddy analysis updated on July 19. ~OlO by

NOANAOML from satellite .!timmyderived sea sUlface .
h';~t fields obtained from NASA and ESA.
~5
I
11(1
:riO
Miles
006070

-------- original Message -------subject: [Fwd: Background Information on pie Chart and oil Budget Tool]
Date: wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:59:50 -0400
From~
Mark.w.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov>
To: Bill Conner <william.conner@noaa.gov>, Scott smullen
<scott.Smullen@noaa.gov>, Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
Scott and Bill,
wants. Can we talk at 9:30? If so we can use:
we do want to capture the biodegradation issue.
Mark
-------- original Message -------..
subject: Background Information on.Pie Chart and oil Budget Tool
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,
what Next document.
of the FRTG (35,000 bbls/day) and one based on the high flow estimate
appeared in the brief looked to be from the Oil Budget tool for July 22
Category
Low Flow July 15
High Flow July 22
Remaining
16%
480,000
1,470,000
28%
Direct Recovery
820,000
27%
823,000
16%
Natural Dispersion
Page 1
006071
400,000
13%
826,000
*
Evaporated
670,000
22%
1,346,000
Skimmed
100,000
3%
120,000
2%
Burned
8% ..
260,000
266,000
5%
340,000
11%
344,000
*
* These
three categories are displayed as one element in the Tool and

For the second action item fr6m this mornings call I am working with
Scott Smullen
'Deputy Director
202-482-1097 a / 202-494-6515 c
page 2
006072

, Ail units in barrels. See end no\(:s for
aSH)rnpti()n~.
Inland Recovery
DeEnwval(:;r Horizon MC2[,);Z Gulf Incident Oil Budgel

Report gener8tecl by m'::lIl,.\N.rniUer@noaa.gov on 07127;2010 09:27 !-\M MDT.
S(~e
end nOtes section of the report for refereno; material on report elements.
Application operated [.lY the U.S. Coast Guard and provided IN thl.') U.S. GeolofJical Survey
O(,eanic arlcJ Almosplleric f",(')ministration.
In
cooperation vliitll the N8tioiH;1
006073

1,750,001
!
1.500,000 .
1,250,000 -I
.!!!.
~ 1.000,000i
750.000
500,000
250,0001
o 'i. . _____ ----,.__.~._.. _... __.______....._. . .,_ ........__...... __..... .

May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Deepv-mter liorizor MC25~? Gulf Incident Oil BtHJ[.!ei

Report generated by rrlHrk.w.mii!er@rO<:lcl,g<JV on 07i27i2010 09:27 AM MDT
See end t1cies section of the report for reference material on report e!elllents_
/;pplicaiio[1 opefalt')(i by ttl(, U. S. C08st GumcJ i:1nd
Oceanic ;1f1(J !\irrlOspheric /-I.clnllflistr<llion.
.
Jul-2010
006074

., All units in barrels. See find notes lor asslJrnplk;(l:;.
Inland Recovery
Deepwater Horizon MC2S;l Gulf Incident Oil Bud~Jet

l';;eport generatEHI by mark.w.rniller@noaa.[l,ov on 07!27!2010 09:27 AM rvlDl.
See emJ notes
Sf';C\iOf1
of 111e report for rE;:fer~:nGG material on report elements.
f-\pplicaUon opnratE!cJ I)y trH:~ U.S. Coast Guard and rroviejc-Jd by the U.S. Geoloqieal SurvHY in cooperation Vvlnl U)<; f\l<-Jti(jlVli
Oceanic '.'md ;;trnosphe,'ic Administration.
006075

,
700,0001
650,000,I
600,000
'I
550,000
500,000;
450,0001
i
(f)
CIJ
tcu
.c
400, 000 '1

350 000.1
t
300,000
250,000
'i
200,000'1
150,000
100,000 .\
50,000
0.1
May-2010
-
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Deepw<)ter Horizon MC25? Gulf l'1cident 0.ii Buciry.:i

Report generated by In;1rl\ w.rnil!er@noaa.fJov on 07!27i2010 0927 ArvfrvlDT
See end notes S0lCliOfl of Ihe report for refor,wlLE: nV;lterifli on report eicmur"ils.
Application op,:?(cllcej t',y Ihe US. Coast CuarrJ
Oceanic <:)n(j 1"trno.~.~pi1(;ri(, ;\dlninistrc.1tioil.
~Jlld
provided iOJ\! !hl, lJ .S. Cf}f,loCjH;a! SlliV(;)i Ii' cooperr!tiO!) '.;'.'lih
rh,c
;'):311(;:',:':
006076
Reference Notes
..


reference material.
Discharged
-Discharg,e rates use flow limits from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements.
Other estimation methods provided higher and lower values.
Background
DeHpwatol Horizon [vlC25::' Gud incident Oii f3udgHt
Report yeneriltnd by mark,';'.!.rnil!er(d!noCla.gov 01"1 Ol!27i2010 OB:27 AM MDT
Se(~ ~;n(J
notes sectior: Df the [ppm! fot r(~fer1nC(~ material on reporl elements.
Applicc1tion operaieu by ihe U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geologica! Survey in cooperation \,viil) the ['Jarionnl
Oce.::mic I~!l(j Atrnospheric /vin1inistr::.ltion
006077

Dispersed Naturally
Natural oil dispersion is estimated using the methods described in this annotation and backgroun'd
more information.
Del:?pw,at(}!" Horizon MC2S:? Gull Incident Oil Budget

Repol! gener<:1t~~(j by i'Y181i';\N,miller(tJ:!noaa:gov on 07/27/20100$3:27 AM ~JiDl
See end notes section of tile rnport fo!" reference ;n'::lterial on report (,:!ements
Application opemted hy IhH US, Cmlst Guard and provider! by U1e US G(~!)!0:JiC;:,ll SU!'.ifJV!n Co()pPf8ti'}n 1Nilht!l(; Na1ioflcli
Oceanic and i:>.lrnospi1eric Admlnistr:",tion,
006078
Evaporation is calculated differently for "frash" oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) and older oil

Skimmed
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Deepwater Horizon fvlC2:,)2 Guif Incid(:ml Oil Budget
Report generated by mark w rnilier;c>~noai'l,gov on 01!2lf20 10 09:27 Arvl MDT
Se~ end no\e~3 section of the repor1, for refemnco m8terial on report elements,
ti,e U,S Coast Guare] and provided by the U.S GE;olog:cai Survey in cooperation with tll~; Nati'll1[j!
Applic<:llion op,erateej
Oc~~ank; <:Hld Atrr;ospheric {\( hnird~;trtJlion,
006079
of the methodology used in this calculated measurement
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
Oecpwc,terHoriz()t: MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budqel
Report generated by rnark.w.milier@noaa,gov on [)7/27/2010 Oft27 Alv1 [\flO!.

38(" end notes sf;clion 01 the report for reference rnal<;rial on report elements,
Apf)Hcation openJle(] by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. GeolOGica! Survev in coo[,)er~ltii)n wilh the !\i",,;tionai
OCf;~mic and Atmospheric Administration
006080
DRAFT 7.28
Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Budget Calculator
~.
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 fUliher 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 [51]: I think we should ,,"rne from

which agencies.. independent scientists. ul1tvCrsities.
etc.
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 had been released
.Ir:~~(~\~~:;~~~~;1~~_:~~~~_!~=:R~~~1hI~~i~h.~~1~~~~~~::~:e~1t~g~~j~~!~<L~~h~!~lY
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. In addition, burning and
skimming operations collected just over %% percent of the oil.
It is estimated that %% percent of the oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
column. The volatile components of oil evaporate as gas, while the components that are
not volatile dissolve into the water column or form residues such as tar balls.
%% percent of the oil has dispersed nalurally into the water column, and %% percent of
the oil was dispersed by the application of nearly 50,000 barrels of chemical dispersants.
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 liS with about %% percent of the oil remaining in the form of
surface slicks, tar balls, and deposits on 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.
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.
_-
,,---_.. .------.-- ....

: Comment [lKA2]: Need. line 10 better describe
; evaporation. What evaporates what does,,'t?
i Aren'l tar balls left behi"d, pen ofwhm is counted,
: urcmainingT'
Comment [53]: \\1IY do we call it light crude

here an 110 where else?
006081
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 impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf
region will take time and continued monitoring and research.
006082

sandy,
You may want to dial into this in 15 mins if you can ... Thx
-------- original Message -------subject: ~e: [Fwd: Background Information on Pie Chart and oil Budget
Tool]
Date: wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:09:06 -0400
To: Scott smullen <scott.smullen@noaa.gov>
CC: Bill Conner <William.conner@noaa.gov>, Jennifer Austin
<Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>, caitlyn H Kennedy <caitlyn.kennedy@noaa.gov>
References: <4C5029C6.1070904@noaa.gov> <4C502A83.5060502@noaa.gov>
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 understandable manner. Talk to everyone
at 9:30.
NO
Mark
Scott Smu 11 en wr"ote:
> 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
>
> Mark.w.Miller wrote:

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 9:307 If so we can use:
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 Jul 2010 15:49:35 -0400
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.

we used the oil Budget tool NOAA helped USGS to develop. The oil
page 1
006083

estimate (60,000 bbls/day). for our model initialization we used the
.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
Category
low Flow July 15
High Flow July 22
Remaining
480,000
16%
1,470,000.
28%
Direct Recovery
27%
820,000
823,000
16%
Natural Dispersion
400,000
13%
826,000
Evaporated
670,000
22%
1,346,000
*
skimmed
100,000
3%
120,000
2%
Burned
260,000
8%
266,000
5%
340,000
11%
344,000
*
For the second action item from this mornings call I am
USGS to prepare a short briefing document (1 pager) for
Budget tool. USGS is refining the document at this time
have an expected availability. RADM Neffenger mentioned
be verbally briefing the tool this evening.
working with
the oil
but does not
that he would
---------------------------------------------- -------------------------
>
> -> Scott smullen
> Deputy Director
> NOAA communications & External Affairs
> 202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
Scott smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
page 2
006084
006085

Inland Recovery
Deepwater Horizon fv1C252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget
R(;;por! gHler<:.ted by rr1i:3rlcw.rniller@n08cl.gov on 07/27/201009:27 AM MDT.

See enci notes section
()f
the report for reference material on report elements.
/\ppiication operated r)y ihe US Coast GU;;lfd and IJrovidecl by thp U.S. Geologiral SllrVGY in COOfll'!ri3iior; wiH, ifv~
On=;3I1ic and Atmospheric I\dministration
f.-.j':ll!()n;.d
006086
1,750,000~!
i
1,500,000 i
1,250,0001
!
i
~ 1,000,0001
tn
...
750,0001
500,000 ~
250,0001
l
o .! '.'_"_.'__
'";00 _ _ ""'_
'~."-~--~--"-
_ _ _ _ _ _
_______
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
~_"'''~'-"''.
-."" '"'''''''' _., .- _ .._
Jun-2010
.......,..,,_._ .... ",,-., -......
. ' " " __ ,,",,.
,.
, . , _ ..
~."'""".".
""
V_"
Ju\-2010
D~epw;:"tef Horizon MC252 Gulf Incid"~nl Ojl Rt!dgei
Report generat~3d by marl<.w,rnillnr@I1()('Ja qov on 07 i27/201 009:27 Afv1 MDT
See end notes section of the report for
rehmmce I11nterial on report elements,
Application operatecJ by the U S CCJ(~lsi Guarc! ond provided by the: U.S GC()!Otlicai Slirvc:y
Oceanic amJ Airnospheric !v:lmini!3i.r8tit!r1
!t,
:::O()!~H.:m:l!i0n
"Jilli
!rHo
i'S:;J;;I!"l;j;
006087

f\1i units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.
Inland Recovery
Deepwater Horizon NlC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Roport gener<~ted by rnark.w.rniller@noaa.qov on 07/27i201 009:27 Afv1 Iv1OT.
See e!1(j notes section of ihe report for referenct;l material on report elements.
p,pplication operateej bv tl18 U S. eliasl Guard and provided hy the U.s Geohgic81 Survr;y in c:ooperalion 'NiH! ifli !');l!i{\n~)i
()ceanic and /J,trnospheric
/vin)in~stratjon
006088
Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) Through
~uly
26 (Day
~8)
700,000 {
!
650,000
i,
600,01
550,000
500,0001
450,0001
:
...
...
.~
~
I
350,0001
400,000
300 , 000 j1
250,0001
200,000
150,000 i
i
100,000i
50,0001
o1
.! ___ ._ .._______ ...__._. ____ .._._. _____. ____ '_. _____ ' ___ .,... " ._ .. ". __ ..... _............. _..... ___ ....... __. "....... .
Jun-20 1 0
May-20 10
-
Expected Value -
J ul-20 10
Deepwat(')i" Horizon rvlC?52 C;uli Incident Oil BU(jgei

Report generatnd by
rnark.w.miller@no,~aqo\j
on 07!2l!2010 09:27 AM fv1DT.
tile U S emlst Guard ami provided by the LJ. S. Geological Survey in coopet'atiorl Witl11il!;
Application opc:r;,lteeJ
Oceanic <3nd J\irno:;phr:ric ;\i}nlini,:tralioo
t\lclij()tl~li
006089
Reference Notes
Chart - Cumulative/Daily Volume Remaining of the Suliace

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

released over ti,me based on low and high discharge estimates, the relative amounts of oil recovered or
reference material.
Discharged
The Discharge values shown in the reports come from the low. and high estimates determined .by the
,Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) for the Deepwater Horizon incident. Discharge rates are adjusted
Discharge rates use flow limits from FRTG Plume Team PIV measurements.
. the scientific methodology used in this calculation.
Background
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf IncidHnt Oil Buclget

Report generat{j(j by rnarkw.rnill!:";(@lloaa.gov on 07/27/201009:27 AM MDT.
See encj notes sF;ction of !r18 l"C,;port for reference material on report elements.
P'iJplicBtiofl operc1!n(j by ql~;; !J S Co;,st (;u~)ffi ami providecl by the U S
Oceanic and !\lmo!"pheric !\d:ninistration
Survey in coopmation wiii, ihi;
t-.!;7j[iOi":'"I
006090

calculati(;,m of remaining oil. Cumulative totals are a sum of all daily values entered.
Dispersed Naturally
. -No natural surface dispersion assumed
method of determining oil dispersion in the water column. Ahigher factor is used for the "Maximum
more information .
. Note: Refer to the section on Dispersed Oil tn the Mass Balance Formulas (link) document for a full
-Most evaporative losses occur during the first24 hours
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gu!f inddent Oil 8udge!

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.fjov on 07/27i20'1 009:27 AM MDT.
See end notes section o[ th(~ report for reference mAterial on report elemenis.
Application OpEl rated by thG U.S Coast Guard and provided by
Oceanic and I\trno~;pller!c t"clmin!siralion.
it)!}
U.S. Geolonical Survey in coopl:;rationwiih !I!e hl cliiofl;;l
006091
Evaporation is calculated differently for "fresh" oil within 24 hours (daily total in the report) arid older oil
for the cumUlative total over time. Different factors are used to represent the difference in this rate. The
-Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion _
Ava.ila.ble for Recovery

The amount available for recovery, both daily and cumUlative, is simply the remaining oil after removing
-Measured amount removed via RITTand Top Hat
- -Calculated amount of subsurface dispersion
-Calculated amount of evaparation and dissolution
Skimmed
_Skimmed oil is a rough calculation based on the daily reported amount of oily water multiplied by a
Removal scenarios.
this calculation.
Burned
cumulative totals.
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident (J"i! Budgel
Report generated t)y marlcvVrniller@nO;FL!:jOV on 07!27J20-10 09:27 ,'.\M MDT.
See end notes section of the report for reference material on report elements_
!\pplication oper;-iled by tile US _Coast GU1:lrci and pnJVided by the US (3l'::oloqica l Survey in cooperation \P.'itil H1C N;':lh:H1i:~!
OGcani~ and .I\irnosphfHic !\rJminisiraiion
006092
. -Different rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil
of the methodology used in this' calculated measurement.
-International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) "planning purpose" dosage of 20:1 use.d
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining
DF:epwater Horizon IvlC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Report genert3ted by rnarKw,miller@noH8.gov on 07!27/20H) 09:21 Af"'1 MDT
See (;nd notes section of the report for mferc.;nce material on report elements.
i\pplication operated by the U S CO;:;lst Guard and provided by
()ceanic c)n<i l\trn0sphcrir:, l\(il11ini~,tr;~tion
trw
US Geoioqicai :3urvf::Y in
u.)OPC!Dt!()1!
wilh irH~
IJ<;'i(;I';:
006093

-------- original Message -------subject: [Fwd: Background Information on Pie chart and oil Budget Tool]
Date: wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:59:50 -0400
.TO: Bill Conner <william.conner@noaa.gov>, Scott Smullen
<scott.smullen@noaa.gov>, Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>"
Scott and Bill,
Mark
-------- original Message -------subject: Background Information on Pie chart and oil Budget Tool
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:49:35 -0400
From: Mark.W.Miller <Mark.w.Miller@noaa.gov>
Staff <dwh.staff@noaa.gov>, Bill Conner <william.conner@noaa.gov>
Dr.
Lubchenco~
what Next document.
of the FRTG (35,000 bbls/day) and one based on the high flow estimate
category
LOW Flow July 15
High Flow July 22
Remaining
480,000
16%
1,470,000
28%
Direct Recovery
820,000
27%
823,000
16%
Natural Dispersion
13%
400,000
page 1
006094
826,000
Evaporated
670,000
22%
1,346,000
1,
skimmed
100,000
3%
120,000
2%
Burned
260,000
8%
266,000
5%
340,000
11%
1<
344,000
USGS to prepare a ,short briefing document (1 pager) for the oil Budget
Scott smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
page 2
006095
I have a 9:30 with Dr.

10:45. Go without me.

and the gang. I expect I won't be free till
Jen and Caitlyn can help.
-5
Mark.w.Miller wrote:
> 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:
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 Jul 2010 15:49:35 -0400
From: Mark.w.Miller <Mark.W.Miller@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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

we used the Oil Budget tool NOAA helped USGS to develop. The oil
estimate (60,000 bbls/day). For our model initialization we used the
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
category
LOw Flow July 15
High Flow July 22
Remaining
16%
480,000
28%
1,470,000
Direct Recovery
27%
820,000
16%
823,000
Natural Dispersion
400,000
13%
826,000
Evaporated
670,000
22%
1,346,000
page 1
006096
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
skimmed
Burned

100,000
1LO;000
3%
2%
260,000
8%
266,000
5%
340,000
11%
344,000
*
* these three categories are displayed as one element in the Tool and
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------->
Scott Smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
page 2
006097
For Internal Use Only'
Direct Rev474Deepwater Horizon BP Response,

,When the release of oil from the Deepwater Horizon BP well is brought under control, whether
conditions change.
l.
How much oil was spilled and where did it go'?
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 spil! respqnse. In
....... " ...........
water column. Roughly 400,000
Chemically
.
barrels dispersed naturally while , Dispersed
11%
Burned
8%
13%
3%
Gulf beaches.

006098
Draft Version 1.0 - July 20,2010 .
next 60 days.
impact.
probabilities for the Florida Keys, Miami, and Fort Lauderdale areas are 1-10%. The
. brought under control.
Missi ipPl C.. ~on 252

Inc, dent
LOere.
'Proltlabiiitv of New Shoreline Threat ;

<1%
Q):;;~~J21
30%
1- 10% r7i.~~1- 40%
11 20%~1. 100%
Th~s image is a composite of91 scenarios.
only Doe
scenariO
will occur.
I
....
. .......
500
tension of the oil drops causing smaller drops to form. Whether from phYSical or chemical
006099
on data from fluorometers, dissolved oxygen sensors, lISST particle size analyzers, and
was found extending from the area of the well out to a distance of about 25 km (15 miles) .with
Wellhead.
50 ppm for total petroleum
Brooks McCall Cruise 38
G<.)rdon Gunler Cruis: 1
Wallon Smith CllJise 12
Ocean Verilas Cruise 4
o
the cloud of droplets:
20000
40000
50000
60000
lll000
:~OOOO.
o
Dis!Hm;e to Wellhead (m)
concentration that causes mortality in 50% of the test organisms (lC50), generally have been in
predominant dispersant used for sea bed 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 to~icity
tests provide some useful reference points, it's important to remember that the deepwater
006100
given the low oxygen levels that already occur in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. 002 sensors
depressions can also correspond to high fluorescence signals, indicating the potential presence
II.
What are the i111plications for the Gulf of Mexico?
in Louisiana, beaches in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, west Florida and Texas, the sea
over 6500 vessels, dispersant use, burn activities, overflights, etc.
Marshes
inhabitants (fish, crabs, shrimp) will move into the oiled areas within months to a year following
DDT poisoning. but source control, rehabilitation and natural recovery returned pelicans to their
Turtle eggs have been removed to Florida. It remains to be seem whether the hatchlings will find
006101
For InternaJ Use Only

the spill.
Deepwater
near the surface where they gorge on plankton at night. Their abundance is also low relative to
006102
Fl'lfeea~1lf.lCalion r."r u11

on21July.1('OI1:![)(\ COT
1blS Sl!t
(~r tr'"di~Cl,-'ncs ck."'C!;
n("it include anv aucijtlonal

rel(Mf fram ihe S(')UI~ !;in~e 7;'5. Trflic"'cltlrie!< win
continue h",": be updntw daily as the sttll~n{(m c\."olve!t

dispersed oil has been detected,
PerSlst"nIES!! to SE wind:; .refor.ea.'\! to colllinue through Wedntsday "ilhsp""d:; of 1<)15 k1.S. S.~nil. anal),>;o and ,,.,,flights indie"1<
.w'l.ce oil h.. mu.ed w<st Howard tho Dellll, T"'Je~orics intlilhis oil ",ill."nl;nu. to spread both norlhward and we.tward ovcr thr ""XI rew
days Ohscrved tkQung ~Il trom '~y's overllights indicate ,hoI Ill<! large hand, of oil are disper<lng into numtrom small... bands. Safeillte
""alysis indicated some anomalies west "flhe Della which may result in "JX'radic tarbalL, impaet.' bel,""n (3",.olati. l3ay and ~i"rsh Island
dum!; tho f<lr.-"" period.
Next Forecast:
Miles
July 191h PM

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
, communities suffered minor changes in diversity and recovered within several y~ars. From
III.
v\lhat are the next steps to recovery froID DWH?

ensure the adequacy of the closed areas, 'understand pre-exposure conditions, and verify that
006103
Draft Version 1,0 -- July 20, 2010
testing of tissues collected from seafood species; This process will likely take several weeks

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
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
two SCAT Teams will become "Sign Off Teams" (SOFT) with members having authority to'

Gulf. The purpose of the NRDA is to determine the appropriate type' and amount of restoration
needed to compensate the public for injuries to natural resources from the spill. During the
reviewed by the public, the Responsible Parties are required ,under the Oil Pollution Act to pay
information available. At this time, raw data is being released to the public after it is properly
quality checked.
006104
For Internal Use Only.
biota, birds, marine mammals, turtles; and sensitive habitats such as wetlands, submerged
IV.
What are the time frcuues for recovery of the Gulf of Mexico?
slick was reduced in size within a day, and the deep plume has become separated from the
Within 1 month:
Within 2 months:
Within 6 months:
.Opening of fisheries closure areas
Within 1 year
Transition from response to NRDNrestoration complete (6-8 months)
Within 2 years:
Within 10 years:
V.
TBD
Conclusion
006105
Draft Version 1.0 . -- ~uly 20, 2010'
For Internal Use- Only
oil spilled. into the Gulf of Mexico. Much of the time, the Loop Current moves north past the
passes by Miami and becomes the Gulf Stream .. In May, the Loop Current briefly entrained a
no longer observed.

Extent of oil slick viable in

sutcllite imagery lilly 19.2010
tltC'PW4l11:1
Horizon MCl52
h.ddellt Locatiun
:' CC'1},Sa(
S?JL':.lt:J.:r:;
Slid: location derived hy NOAANESDlS from NASA

MODIS Aqua dala uqu;... d Jldy 19. :!!110 011405 CDT .,,0
COSMO SkyMed-1 data aquired July 19 al0656 CDT.
Cuba
Loop CUrrentand eddy .nlllyas updated 011 July 19.2.010 by

NOAAlAOML ITom .utellite altimellyderived sea surface
lu:il'.hlfields obtained from NASA and ESA.
5;'
no
f'
Mllez
. 220
I
006106

-------- original Message -------Subject: oil Budget Tool Report for July 26
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:56:34 -0400
To: Scott Smullen <scott.smullen@noaa.gov>, Jennifer Austin
<Jennifer.Aust;n@noaa.gov>, Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Dr. Lubchenco,
please call.
Mark
Scott smullen
Deputy Director
202-482-1097 0 / 202-494-6515 c
page 1
006111
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
tfrady
Wednesday, August 04, 2010 5:28 PM
Scott. Smullen
Oil Budget Query: USA TODAY clarification
Dennis Kelly
What is the difference between "naturally dissolved" and "dispersed"?
006131
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kuo, Vivian
Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:02 AM
Justin Kenney
CNN inquiry
Justin, good morning.

Was wondering if there was a timetable for when the "oil budget" report from Adm. Allen and Dr. Lubchenco will be
released? Any guidance is appreciated. Thanks!
Vivian Kuo
CNN Southeast Bureau
006132
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Justin Kenney _
Sunday, AugusC01, 2010 10:14 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)
--_....._----".
From: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
__ ,----_._._-.--_. ,,-----,--,--..
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
efforts on this front!
jane
From: Jennifer Austin [mailto:jennifer.austin@noaa.gov]

Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 9:24 PM
To: 'jane.lubchenco@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 we go.
Jennifer Austin, NOAA Communications, 2023029047
-----,-,_.',..
From: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
To: Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>

Sent: Sun Aug 01 20:57:41 2010
Subject: FW: text on monitoring and research for pie chart document
Jen - can you capture these pieces and assem ble 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' ~ 'William.Conner@noaa.gov'; 'margaret.spring@noaa.gov';
'ksarri@doc.gov
Here are a few sentences teo NSF, I can socialize them:

Academic researchers fundea by the National Science Foundation are examining a number'ofthe aspects of the
oil budget and the effects of submerged oil. NSF research has focused on the distribution and concentration of
1
006133
deep submerged oil and gas (in the fonn of methane hydrates), impacts on dissolved oxygen at depth and the
rate ofbacterial 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? 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
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(202) 482-3436
Join me on Facebook:
From: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.qoY>

To: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
Cc: Jennifer.Austin@noaa.qoY <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.qov>; William Conner <William.Conner@noaa.qov>; Steve

Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>; Margaret.spring@noaa.gov <Margaret.Sprinq@noaa.gov>; Kris Sarri .
. (ksarri@doc.gov) <ksarri@doc.qov>
.
.
sent: Sun Aug 0118:57:19 2010
1. Unless Bill has a strong desire rll 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 DOr, USGS,
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 Bol;> PetCiasepe to send
2
006134
a few sentences on what EPA is doing. What is the b..est way to get comparab~e infonnation from the other
relevant agencies? Marcia McNutt is out of touch for the week. Is Ann Castle the next best person?
. Who would be best suited/able to reach out to 001, 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
to develop monitoring strategies for tar balls and near-shore submerged oiL 001, NASA and NOAA continue to
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 human 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?) ??
....
3
006135
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Justin Kenney
Monday, August 02, 2010 5:46 AM
'jennifer .austin@noaa.goy'
Re: Fw: text on monitoring and research for pie chart document
Sure) it would be good to catch up on everything.

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)
----- Original Message ----From: Jennifer Austin <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.goY>
To: Justin Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
Sent: Sun Aug 01 23:33:13 2010
Subject: Re: Fw: text on monitoring and research for pie chart document
I can, do you want me to?
Let me know, I can do either.
Justin Kenney wrote:

> Nice. Are you coming to SS on Monday too?
>
>
> Justin Kenney

> NOAA Director of Communications
>'and Externa-l 'Affai'rs
> Office :202-:482-6e90 ....
> Cell: 202-821-6310 ..
>Facebook: www.facebook.coin/noaa.lubchenco (Sent from my BlackBerry)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------> --
> *From*: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>

> *To*: Jennifer Austin <jennifer.austin@noaa.gov>
> *Cc*: Justin Kenney <Justin.kenney@noaa.gov>
> *5ent*: Sun Aug 01 21:25:24 2010
> *Subject*: RE: text on monitoring and research for pie chart document
>
> Thanks 500000 much for your great efforts on this front!
>
> jane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
*From:* Jennifer Austin [mailto:jennifer.austin@noaa.gov]

*5ent:* Sunday) August el, 2ele 9:24 PM
*To:* 'jane.lubchenco@noaa.gov'
*5ubject:* Re: text on monitoring and research for pie chart document
1
006136
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hi, Yes I. will, standing by for that next model run, incorporating
these as we go.
Jennifer 'Austin,'NOAA Communications, 2823829347
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*From*: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>

> *To*: Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov <Jenhifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
> *Sent*: Sun Aug 31 28:57:41 2810
> *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 81, 2310 7:29 PM
> *To:* Jane Lubchenco
> *Cc:* 'Mark.W.Miller@noaa.gov'; 'Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov';
> William.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:
>
> Academic researchers funded by the National Science Foundation are
> examining a number of the aspects of the oil budget and the e~fects 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 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

>
2
006137
> Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
>
, .. > Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

>
> Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov <mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
>
> (202) 482-3436
>
> Join me on Facebook:
> www.facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco
> <http://www:facebook.com/noaa.lubchenco>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> *From*: Mark Miller <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>
> <mailto:mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>
> *To*: Jane Lubchenco <Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
> <mailto:Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov>
> *Cc*: Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov <mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>
> <Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov> <mailto:Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>j William
> Conner <William.Conner@noaa.gov> <mailto:William.Conner@noaa.gov>j
> Steve Murawski <Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>
> <mailto:Steve.Murawski@noaa.gov>j Margaret.spring@noaa.gov
> <mailto:Margaret.spring@noaa.gov> <Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>
>. <mailto:Margaret.Spring@noaa.gov>; Kris Sarri (ksarri@doc.gov
> <mailto:ksarri@doc.gov <ksarri@doc.gov> <mailto:ksarri@doc.gov>
> *Sent*: Sun Aug 01 18:57:19 201e
> *Subject*: Re: text on monitoring and research for pie chart document
>
> 1. Unless Bill has a strong desire I'll volunteer to coordinate
::> 'getting ,short descriptions from the other-agen~ies of their::monftor:ing
.>and research (I sit next to.USGSand DOl). In particular.1, unde!;,stand
> we want DOl" USGS, 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
>
> Jane Lubchenco wrote:
>
> 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 ~o do justice to the diversity without having this become a
> huge laundry li~~. I've asked Bob Perciasepe to send a few sentences
3
006138
> 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 forthe 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 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 to develop monitoring
> strategies for tar balls and near-shore submerged oil. DOl, NASA and
> NOAA continue to 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
> human health impacts. Numerous NOAA- and NSF-funded academic
> researchers are investigating rates of biodegradation, ecosystem and
> wildlife impacts. (need 001 monitoring and research on wildlife; DOE?
??
>
>
>
Jennifer Austin
202-302-9047
www.noaa.gov
www.climate.gov
006139
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Justin Kenney
Monday, August 02, 20J 0 10:39 AM
Kuo, Vivian
RE: CNN inquiry
. Did you connect with my office last week?

Justin Kenney
NOAA Director of Communications and External Affairs
Office: 202-482-6090 I Cell: 202-821-6310
From: Kuo, Vivian

Sent: Thursday, July 29,20109:02 AM
To: Justin Kenney
Subject: CNN inquiry
Vivian Kuo
006142
Justin Kenney
Kuo, Vivian
Monday, August 02, 201010:52 AM
Justin Kenney
RE: CNN inquiry
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Justin,
I put in one other call but ended up being referred back to you anyway, actually.
Any details on when this report will be completed/released? Thanks.
Vivian
--_._-----_.... ,.,-.. -_._--From: Justin Kenney [mailto:justin.kenney@noaa.gov]

Sent: MondaYI August 021 2010 10:39 AM
To: Kuo/ Vivian
Subject: RE: CNN inquiry
Did you connect with my office last week?
Justin Kenney
NOAA Director of Communications and External Affairs
Office: 202-482-6090 I Cell: 202-821-6310
From: Kuo/ Vivian

Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:02 AM
To: Justin Kenney
Subject: CNN
... .inquiry.
,
. "

Vivian Kuo
006226
006261
>
>
> Date:
>
>
>
>
> 07/31/2010 10:56 AM
>
>
> Subject:
>
>
.>
>
> RE: Oil Budget - EPA Comments
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bob -
Thanks for these very helpful and constructive points. I will pass'
these on to Mark Sogge and Sky. Bristol to take into account in the
next iteration of the tool. We are happy to follow the lead of NOAA
and EPA as to how to deal with what we agree are a lot of poorly
constrained areas currently with what was happening to the oil in the
subsurface. I think your point about the low flow rates resulting in
low dispersant application is a good one~ although in my conversations
with BP and the ROV pilots it seems that the efficiency of dispersant
application accounts for everything. For example) surface dispersant
application on a thin sheet of oil has one rate of efficiency which is
low, Very high rates of disperSion were seen by the pilots when they
were able to put dispersion wands directly into concentrated oil
> plumes such as inside the end of the broken riser or a narrow jet from
> the kill line.
>
> Marcia
>
.>
> /USGSUSGSUSGSUSGSUSGSUSGSUSGSUSGSUSGS/
> Dr. Marcia K. McNutt
> Director, U.S. Geological Survey
> 12291 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 10e
> Reston, VA 2e192
> (793) 648-7411 (office)
> (703) 648-4454 (fax)
>.
> www.usgs.gov <http://www.usgs.gov>
> /USGSUSGSUSGSUSGSUSGSUSGSUSGSUSGSUSGS/
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
006338
006339
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1:49 PM :
oil budget TPs
Oil Budget TPs 8.3.docx

Jennifer Austin
006340
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Tuesday, August 03,20101 :51 PM :
oil budget release
Oil Budget Press Release v 1145.docx
Jennifer Austin
006341
DRAFT - for internal review only

A federal government report re!eased today estimates that Unified Command recovery operations,
including burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one quarter of the oil
quarter was dispersed, either naturally or chemically, into microscopic droplets into Gulf waters. The
Dispersed and residual oil remain in the system and until they degra?e th~ough a number of natural
processes. Early indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.
*erribedpie'chart'hel'e*
"Teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since day one of this spill, and
useful estimates about the fate of the oil," says Jane lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for
oceans and atmosphere and NOM administrator. Illess oil on the surface does not mean that there
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 Gu!f of Mexico ecosystem is something
Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water co!umn and at the
observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil from the BP
the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen leve!s,
Residual oil is also degraded and weathered by a number of physical and biological processes. Microbes
break down the residual oil in the water and on shorelines.
006342
The oil budget calculations are bi3seq on~irect,m~as!Jr.~.rD~nt? w,i)er~yer.possibie and the best available
scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and burns
based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were ,based on previous scientific analyses,
~

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
006346
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 United States Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and Energy
Secretary Ste:ven Chu, this team announced on August 2, 2010 that it estimates that a total of 4.9m
barrels of oil have been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon well. A second interagency team, led
by DOl and NOAA developed a tool, called the Oil Budget Calculator, to determine what happened to
the oiL The calculator uses the 4.9m 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 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, is either on or just
below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore,
is buried in sand and sediments, or has degraded. The report below describes each of these categories
and calculations. These estimates will continue to berefined as additional information becomes
available.
___ ____. l
Deepwater Horizon Oi I Budget
,I
I
Unified
Residualincludes oil
the surface as residue
and weathered tarballs,
Command
Response
Operations
has washed ashore or

been cot lected from the
shore or is buried in
sand a nd sediments.
8%
*These 3 perc~ntages represent
oit initially in these categories that
is now degrading.
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
006347
-
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 dealing with 33% of the spilled oil.
systems (I 7%), burning (5%), skimming (3%) and chemical dispersion (8%). Direct capture, burning
Natural dispersion occurs as a result of the oil coming out of the riser pipe at bigh 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 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,
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 3300 and 4300 feet in very low
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.
Dispersion is the process by which larger volumes of oilare 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. 1ms 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. 1bis oil has also
begun to degrade through a number of natural processes.
006348
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column arid oil on the surlace of the water biodegrade
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 surlace 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.
. Explanation of Methods and Assumptions

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% (Gite:
flowRateTechnicalGroup, website or report). The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
4.9 million barrels of oil.
The numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured direct1y and reported in daily operational
reports. The skimming numbers were also based-on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers
expertise. Further information on the~e methods is avai1able in Appendix A. These numbers will
continue to be refined based on additional information and further analysis.

OuT knowledge of the oil, dispersants, ecosystem impacts and human impacts will continue to evolve.
www.geoplatfonn.gov.
DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surlace oil. NOAA
submerged oil, and researchers oontinue s~l:>~~ce _s~ing and sampling to monitor the concentration,
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA and NOAA have carefully monitored Bpls use of dispersant in
the Gulf and continues to monifor the air, water and sediments near the shoreline for the presence of
006349
to ensure accurate measurement of oil released and oil re~aining in.the environment. DOl is leading
efforts to mitigate impacts of oil to terrestrial wildlife, natural resources; and publtc "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.
Even though the threat to shorelines, fish and wildlife, and ecosystems has decreasedsincethe capping
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1,2010, contains
representing the same numbers as the pie chart above. These cylindrical images combine the three
categories of chemically dispersed, -naturally dispersed, and evaporated or dissolved, into one colored
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.
006350
Deepwater HorizonfBP Oil Budget:

Authors
. Marcia McNutt, USGS, DOl
Bill Lebr, NOAA, DOC
Credits
LTG g) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
Bill Lebr (NOAA) - Lead mass balance and oil budget scientist
program
LCDR Lance Lindgren, CDR Peter Hoffman, CDR Sean O'Brien; and LT Amy McElroy
formulas, analysis methods,.or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The team continues to
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Inde.pendent Scientists
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras~ UCSD .
Merv Fingas, En". Canada (ret)
Per Daling, SINTEF
006351
will guide the full range of recovery efforts, both short and long term, and ensure all
affected populations are included.
b) Coordinate the resolution of outsta nding federal agency program and policy issues
identified in after-action and other evaluations that present ongoing barriers or challenges
for effective support for state, tribal and local community planning and capacity necessary
to facilitate an effective recovery process.
'
c)
Development of multi-disciplinary recovery tools and best practices.
d)
Promote resiliency measures and enhance coordination ,of programs that build local
leadership capacity, citizen involvement, partnerships and education ondisaster
preparedness for recovery.
e)
I~entify, coordinate and leverage programs for bunding community capacity to manage
crucial operational aspects recovery including city management, financial management,

building inspection and permitting, PQst-.dis-aster contracting, leveraging of grant funds,
bridge financing and other types of skills~ts that communities I~tkafter a large event.
t)
Promote the importance of,iPf-disaster mitigatiolJasan essential component of pre

disaster community recov~~~dp~~l'laredness planrili'ig, including use of multi-hazard risk
" ":':' :l":"'.';::;i:';"
": c,
ass'essment.
:":';,:;!;:'"
,:::::
g}
Identify and leverclge of progra~~~~:~at a~~i'

munities to prepare, collect and analyze
relevant exi~~ti.~,j~~~,l!t;lt.ure data 'rt~H~,ssary,l~nd manage complex disaster recovery.
:
h)
'1:,:'",>::,.,; ...
.~;~~, ."
: ,; " . ' , '.', ::"::: ,:': .
~':.
~:;:;. ~:~ \
"I'>"
'f':"
Integrate~e~very, miti~hon and ot~~r:,'~8~:disaste'rpjans into existing state, tribal and
local plans, s;i.i~f.l:;;~{i comp~~~ensive pla:M~~~conomic development plans, affordable housing

plans, zoning orci~~,a.n,~e,~:~~ii:l:iP~~r;,[ deve~ment regulations through technical assistance.
-';:,~;
, .'- :::~, ;,- - ", ~ \l~i~l::,
~;;~i~j~~:!~t
.,i) ,poordinate:~dtlcationa1~:m:l cross-tfa .

pportunities to key participants in community
'Uding but not limited to emergency managers,
, ,,'recovery planningi;lnd a~~~~~ support
City managersr plao~il,1g, ecb~;'
development and other local officials and other nonptg~ and 'private s~p.r partn
r long term recovery.
,
j)
Devel6ppr~disaster p~J'itnerships, such as with federal agency extension programs,

urilversitieS,;~ational.J:jf.dfessional associations, and non-governmental organizations, to
facilitate reCovery <::~P.acity building activities and expansion of resources available to
communities aft~r'cf:disaster for planning and decision making.
2.
Post-Disaster
a)
Identify the range and significance of the disaster's affects on tribes, regions, and local
governments in the impacted area.
b) Coorqinate the provision of resources to units of government for recovery planning

technical assistance and to support recovery capacity and surge needs' in a variety of
tribal/city/county functional areas {ego city management, financial management, hazard
mitigation and risk assessment, damage assessment, building inspection and permitting}
and other skills sets communities often lack capacity in after large disasters.
006352
c)
Develop community focused technical assistance teams for uniquely or heavily impacted
tribes or communities, integrating the use of federal agency'resources organized under
other RSFs.
d) Activates and deploys primary and supporting departments and agencies in support of roles
in managing or delivering any element ofthe CPCB RSF.
e)
Identify and track resolution of gaps and conflicts in multiple federal planning requirements
and assistance programs, as well as programs that support and build community capacity
and surge needs for recovery management.
f)
Coordinate the application and treatment of hazard mitigation and sustainability principles
in federally supported recovery planning efforts.
g)
Coordinate CPCB supported community-centric technical assistance teams with the

establishment of local unmet needs committe~sor groups for assisting individuals and
families.
to
h) Aid state, tribal and local governments

identify and integrate the consideration of all
affecte~ stakeholders, including. vulnerable populations and persons with disabilities, into
the public sector recoyery pl~ns and decisiul1:making-Process.
i)
(~:~I: ;~~i~: ~ ~i1~ ~ : j : :"'
Provide technical assistance:;~IJi~:!;~!~JiI.ping support to aid all levels of government to during

the post disaster
j)
UI.A
B.
periOd.t:~~'::'!'::i;,::((:.'::"':!i.;::::i;;::i;:';
Capture after.~<~~~nJFE:!COmmend:~~pns and':l~~~~'~.learned.
,d~@!i!WW'!;~i~;"i~~jiii~il:1i:i'i;' : ,', !l:t; ,
'::::::S~~\~:l~~~il!~111:1!!1~\\48H:~!\l!tlil
tti~munity PI~'~'~i~g:as a'~~~~~',Qr rati~~:~~:~~~
equitable decision making and improvement

ofCPromunity capacitY;.
'"ft;?'~".
.
pf.*flisaster plannirt"gis essen"t
improve the capacity of communities to organize, lead
andr~$.9urce recovery." .
Post-disaster planningi-i$.essential to provide the vehicle for disaster recovery decision
making .: .
.
.;....
....
C. Application of place-;:~~~~d policy

D. Primacy of local and state government
Relationship to emphasis on support to enable and building capacity
E.
Importance, reievance and in~~~tion of hazard mitigation, sustainability and smart growth
F.
Citizen engagement and inclusiven~ss as the fo~nd~~ion for sound and long term decision
making
Development of a more integrated, holistiC, comprehensive and simplified planning process to

expedite sound decision making across all sectors at the local level.
006353
IV.
Concept of Operations
A. Steady State Operati9ns
Prepare resources and capabilities to support field deployments through interagency personnel.
1. Development of interagency SME Resources to support CPCB deployments

All partner federal agencies will identify staff within their agency to be rostered to a CPCB SME
list. It is expected that these personnel will be reasonably available for deployments and be
prepared for the nature of disaster recovery work and for supporting technical assistance for
community and regional planning, and the various facets of capacity building and support.
The Coordinating Agency will maintain a surge contract for proviS;tQ.fl of state and local
community recovery planning and technicat~sTstance. FEMA res~hfists and this contract
resource will serve as the primary manpoWe~resource, with
interageri~personnel utilized
when the nature of the work would benefit frop_,:ngage.:!9~n~ of partner~~[~.~nnel, or in large
disasters as an additional surg~:{:e~ource. Effort will be made to ensure that agency perSOnnel
are utilized so that capability ~'i~1f~~p.~rientiallearnirig~n be developed.
of6~'~BSUpb~r,t::'Resources
Annual training:(,':' ""~!!:~f~~!~,~d by the :', rdin,~~l:~irkkeI!!9Y to partner agencies to ensure their
2.
Preparation and Readiness
key
personnei~~~:'~apable6f;~~pporting' .,:.;~<~~pl~ymen't:~:aspart of community based teams
c.:,,; "; 'p,.:_:,: ,
and/or workinglri!~::~9int Fiel~,~P.ffice. Trairlihkwill also be provided for regional personnel and
headquarters
~ ::';' .
pers~M~~!:I'\
.,'
""'!!:::~~{;:;~~;:i~';(
"~ft~g~ment~@\cOordination process for the CPCB RSF.

~I':::\'-:;;!lt:::;.:
'I: ~: ~: : : ..;
t,.
B. ,;:Rt~;'DjsasterCOI!lm.lInity'P'~~n!ng andca~~w.Buildjng Work Program

.
':.::::!::f::"
,
: :.
.,,;",
'::!;~!;~:;;;: ""
An annual wot!<"program will be:pr:epared~_lwill guide pre-disaster activities of the CPCB RSF to
include identifi~ati,qn of major activi~ies exp~i~d to contribute to the advancement of the CPCB missio~
andfunctional el~~~qts, agency participation in activities, and expected outcomes. The work program
will identify efforts irta:i,:t~ast thef91lbwing areas:
1. State and Local Capability Assessment and Pre-Disaster Technical Assistance Coordination
? Who will do what, when?

? Overlap or integration with other in;tiatives
Define concept and process for evaluating overall current.capabilities and resiliency for recovery
at state and local level and coordination process for applying TA, in conjunction with grants and
existing agency programs.
How will this relate to development of national doctrine and guidance on recavery planning? Is
this the interagency forum to coordinate that development?
7
006354
?
?
?
?
?
?
DHS/FEMA Preparedness Directorate

CERT and Citizen Corps
Community and Regional Resilience Institute
DHS resiliency programs
Target Capabilities List
Non-DHS programs that could be used for assisting with disaster preparedness, or
integrating respective equities into recovery plans
Other planning assistance that could or should be more integrated with pre-disaster
recovery planning
2.
Improving Federal Support to Community Planning After Disasters
?
?
?
Who will do what, when?

Requires some analysis of specific programs, authorities, timelines - ongoing effort
Identification of ongoing challenge~(qpportunities for federal planning support
"""':'"
3.
Resolution of Program, Policy and ProcEidural Gaps, Conflicts or Limitations
1.
~ can it be handltHif>at higher level so th~re is consistency in
Common element for .
"on?
:
how issues are followed
?
?
?
;~ '.
Who will do what, when ?':'>
4.
::',?
:1
':r.i:"~n""'''''Q'' grant procedures.
surge capacity resources of agencies

i;I".... ,i,.rr'~D capacity building resources and training
?
? Reib:utc~s, data, a~~s to information, and nonfederal resources
? Work wlthoan
EMlc:jor recovery .
. :;::.::
;~':.
5.
Development
?
?
1
"
'
:~;~;.
'
ofto~isand Best Practices
Who will do what, when?

Outcome, use, communication?
Draw on current efforts of agencfes in variety of disciplines - cross integration
opportunties
6.
Engagement and Coordination with Non-Federal Partners and Other Stakeholders
'1
.?
What is the scope ofth(s activity -outcome?' Support to other components

Formulation of partnerships - Universities" associations, etc. .
006355
?
Jdentify linkages with planning processes active after disasters. Identify opportunities
for resources and leveraging.
?
?
Ongoing effort to build resources

May require some linkage with the larger SOPs or CONOPs that might guide overall
interaction with non-federal partners.
Action mechanism?
--
C. Post Disaster Support Elements

The CPCB RSF will support major disaster events, as requested by the FDRC, per the CONOPS for that
office. Deployment procedures will follow standard protocols set Qythat office.
1. Assessment and Analysis
ACTIVATION
OFRSFs
Two separate components of analysis are prepared by the.CPCB RSF. The disaster-wide
assessment is used to identify the magnitude and:-gener~I;CJ:taHenges across-the full range of
communities impacted and
mendatidi:1sforprovision of community liaisons and
RSF SMEs. The LTCR T
Needs Ass~gsment is used to identify the most
retovery planning resources and technical
challenged jurisdictions and
assistance teams.
a)
CPCB
Disast~~~~!?r ASs~es;~:FJne
to communities {organized by counties

area. Identify the ranges and
. Identify unique communities or
special or underserved populations. Integrate major
imp~tts identified frol:other
this community-centric analysis. CPCB federal and
non~f~~eral partners
contribute organized input and data analysis (to be defined
separatelvh
'
ml'\"rl'C:
djsiastE~r affected
Wil'l
This analysis WifHQe,-~~~tl for initial' FDRC situation assessment reports and will be used by
the FDRC and the:(;6h-tmunity Technical Assistance and Liaison Branch ICTAL) to tdentify
which communities would benefit from the provision of an FDRC Community Recovery
liaison and/or RSF SMEs in the form of Community Support Task Force. The CTAl Branch
provides and manages these task forces, liaisons, and SMEs .
..?
?
Further definition? '

Linkage with other,RSFs" use by Coordination branch and advisement ofCTAL Branch
fot formulation' of Community Task Forces
Specify Roles of Agendes Contributing to Analysis
006356
b)
Long Term Community Recovery (LTCR) Planning and Technical Assistance Targeted Needs
Assessment
The CPCB RSF will support the CTAL Branch in preparation of this assessment to guide the
identifcation and recommendation of communities that may benefit from provision of
expedited planning support and possible surge recovery management support. This assessment will be based on an evaluation of the magnitude, depth, and breadth of impacts
to a community, the capacity of the community to conduct planning and manage recovery,
and other socio-economic and pre-existing challenges that would likely be exacerbated by
the disaster. CPCB partners, and non-federal partners will contribute organized input and
data analysis (to be defined separately)
? Distinct and separate report from Disaster-Wide Assessment
?
?
?
Specify Roles of Agencies Contributing to Analysis

Use of the Social Vulnerability Index (SOVI)?
Use by CTAL Branch to formulate scope
pI tTCR support
Unkage with the coordinati0l! '!tPrts to identify resources among federal

agencies to support LTCR.pj~#rflng
2.
Interagency Coordination
I:
..
;. IIMPLEMENTATION "
.
SUPPORT &
MONITORING
"
,: ,.,
".
..
TRANSITION &
:' I DEMOBILIZATION
-' -, ~'.
:-:', an:flr1~-fe,asib{e, resolve gaps, issues,
"'!;.,:::
crc'ss,:t::~ittjfi,a
:a):;~elevantPartl1;er age
, .:. 'programs to identify nnlr.s~tiil:i,1
issues for discussion with other RSFs
assessments and potentially available
,i.
nn:r",n,T1al gaps, conflicts, limitations and challenges
':related to CPCB iritefests.

b)
Ei~:~~~~,to FORC un~e~~~able
c)
Agende~:will identify tq;-~e Coordinating Agency any supplementals, new or modified
for escalation to the National FORC
regulation~orprogram~~~nder development to address the disaster needs, or other changes
or waivers that:;may,pe'nefit or adversely affect ability of states and communities to conduct

recovery plannirlg:affncrease their capacity.
d) Coordinate the provision of information on planning and capacity resources to units of
tribal, state and local government
e)
Establish a coordination forum with non-federal partners, and other potentially interested
non-governmental partners that may have interests, information or resources to apply to
aiding communities iil orgariiiing~
f)
planning or managing recovery.
Coordinate any LTCR Technical Assistance Teams with the FEMA Voluntary Agency Liaision
and any local unmet needs committees or groups for assisting individuals.
10
006357
3.
Technical Assistance CPCB Support
TRANSITION .&
OEMOBfLIZA nON
ACTIVATION
OF RSFs
Define technical assistance...... Long term recovery communi,ty planning, recovery

management financ;al management,. hazard mitigation and risk assessment, land use
planning, project management, damage assessment. building inspection and permittin g and
other skills sets communities often lack capacity in afterlarge disasters
a)
Recommendations for SME Support and LTCR TechniCalAssistance Teams

The CPCB RSF develops recommendations for input into theqAL Branch establishment and
management of SMEs from the RSFs and the establishment 6ftT(:;R Planning Assistance
Teams. For uniquely or heavily impal;:tMtribes or communities the (PCB recommends
partner agency personnel and expertise fOfSUpport to the LTCR Plahnjng Assistance Teams.
Coordination of SUI;?i!,f!!rt.to FDRC CommE,lnityRecovery Liaisions for other RSF SME

supportT:PI!i:::t:,'::"
'
.':;,~!i
:. j
';~:
b)
,very CPCB Technical Assistance Programs
':-<!:,:.~~~)?'..
hi~e,dF!y~!~:~~tfi',
Certain
.,
'l,ti"agreements with the coordinating
applicatiQh:~Nheir their ted,nical assistance programs. CPCB

heavily":: ,acted communities. These resources will be
period of the operation, and will also be a
'eded followon support and consultation .
'".':
"',:::: ' ?
;:';:'~
Services Center
? '>f!EMA Ha?~r~ Mitigation Planning

?N~q~ ~i3-te~hed Planning
US~!i"'"
','
?
'?
Community Planning LTCR Assistance

Linkage with CTAL Branch
Lin~age in transition section
11
006358
Community Technical Assistance
and Uasion (CT AL)Branoh
manages the formulation and
oversight of the Task Force,
Uaisions, and the LTCR teams
FORe Community Uaison
epeB Coordinates with the
CTAL
Branch to. advise reg.arding
formulation of the SMEs anc LTCR
Teams
ACTIVATION
OF RSFs
The CPCB RSF will'~rQf;!ue'~ transition and demobilization plan that identifies assisted
communities, commuriitV requiring monitoring or implementation suppo,rtThe CPCB RSF will
establish agreements for partner agency assistance to and through the state prior to
demobilization.
The initial RSF and JFO structure under the FORC will transition to a recovery support and
management structure, as defined for th~ particular disaster. FORC will continue to consult
with state regarding CPCB issues and have access remotely to regional CPCB agencies, as well a~
the CPCB HQ RSF group.
12
006359
CPCB partner agencies with defined roles at the time of transition and demobilization
will
monitor assisted communities after the initial. technical assistance phase.

CPCB will be key to aiding the FDRe in collecting information on community health and resiliency
during the extended recovery implementation period. CPCB RSF partners will contribute data
to maintainance of recovery metrics, and tracking of the implementation of recovery plans in
assisted communities.
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
v.
What is "implementation support"?

Defining this as different from transition?
Remote implementation support?
Ongoing tracking and resolution of issues
Continued consultation for areas identifiediJy LTCR planning assistance teams
Trans;t;on and linkage with Community'Ljaisons
,
How do we know when the CPCB RSFhdfful/illed its mission, or can demobilize and
operate with remote support?
Organization
'.:-,':.
it is unclear what, if anythin

groups. Do we identify " .'
Preparedness, etc
.. '
,eds to be
,d her~;
.,than coordination with other related
. 'i,,of
groupsrnQnage;~i1.lJ.i;!' agencies? g CARRI groups,
':'::"
"
, ~ ~":l~J!
':;;::.i~?:'!: : ' ;'" '
,5:-;;,"
,.. ,',
~.
""':~_-;;:: ::~:,:.~ ;;-:',
o~~t.iilmental Affairs
1.
::;,..: ,
working with the support of the Primary AgenCies, will

The CPCB Coordin~tirig:l.\gen ,
tion group. As necessary, members will convene as the
ma'nag~ta national int~t~g~ncy C
disaster dictate, as one larger group under the FDRC
CPCBRsf{)r if the circum~nces
0
. -::::;;
,,-
Each Suppoft;;OepartmentiYIii! organize its own internal coordination group to build internal
capability and 'p~gram linka~es.
"~:"
";'," :'"
',\.:.
? Several items need t;:b~:'consjdered for FDRC Annex or SOP- how the chain of issue resolution
works. The significance and meaning of the FDRC escalating issues, communicating
information, status, tracking of issues and recovery progress. This is unlike other lFO operations
were information and involvement of HQ is generally kept to a minimum.
B. State Level Support and Coordination
? How does this relate to most CPCB work which is organized from federal regional offices? 'could
talk about application of CPCB resources being focused on areas outside emergency
management, such as community development, economic development and planning agendes. \
? Could talk about the importance 0/ regional planning
13
006360
? Could talk about the role of the state in assisting Its communities, and importance of building
state capacity to field resources in support of communities
C. Regional Level Support and Coordination
? Relevant organizations for planning, preparedness, resiliency and communit- capacity

? Interaction with states, emphasis on housing and community development and planning
agencies of states
? Could talk abo'ut HQ level interaction with regional offices

? Could talk about steady state regional coordination groups - build awareness, familiarity,
capabmty, and organize for supporting pre and post disaster planning
D. Field Level Support and Coordination
? TBD - Not sure relationship of this to larger organizationallHements

? This could be a small or large section - more guldance is neecii!ifondepth of Annex content
expected
VI.
Departments and Age l1:cies
This chart identifies the capabilities

state, regional, local government and
disaster.
that each agency brings to bear in supporting tribal,

.
pla~ningand capacity before and after
commJ~lw Capacity and Surge Capacity Support Capabilitie~

Techn~r Assistance:
~r~I;f't#:~d Financial Assistance: .
DHS/FEMA
See above
HUD
Management Capability:
Planning Support Capability:

Technical Assistance:
Grants and Financial Assistance:
14
006361
.Community Capacity and Surge Capacity Support Ca"abilities

CNCS
Planning Support Capability:

Community capacity and Surge Capacity Support Capabilities

Grants and Financial:AsSIStance:
:.,.
15
006362
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 United States Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, and Energy
Secretary Steven Chu, this team announced on August 2,2010 that it estimates that a total of 4.9m
barrels of oil have been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon welL A second interagency team, led
by DOl and NOAA developed a tool,called the Oil Budget Calculator, to determine what happened to
the oil. The calculator uses the 4.9m 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 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, is either on or just
below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore,
is buried in sand and sediments, or has degraded. The report below describes each of these categories
and calculations. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional information becomes
available.

Unified
Command
Response

that is.on or just below
the surface as residue
Operations
and weathered tarballs,

has washed ashore or
been collected from the
shore or is buried in
sand and sediments.
*These 3 percentages represent

oil initially in these categories that
is now degrading.
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
006363
shown in the pie chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 33% of the spilled oil.
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 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 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 an,d make it more readily available for biodegradation. Chemical
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 3300 and 4300 feet in very low
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. Disso111tion is the process by which individual hydrocarbon
molecules from the oil separate and.disso1ve into the water just as sugar can be dissolved in water.
Residual: .After accounting for the categories that can be measured directly or estimated, Le., recovery
operations, dispersion, and evapQration 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 nmnber of natural processes.
006364
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and Qi1 on the surface ofthe water biodegrade
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.

National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), led by United States Geological
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonIBP 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 T~chnicalGroup, websiieorrepoI1:); 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
expertise. Further information on these methods is available in Appendix A. These numbers will

understanding of the fate, transport and impact of the oiL The federal government will continue to report
www.restorethegulfgov, and data from the ,response and monitoring can be found at
www.geoplatfonn.gov.
DOl, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts' of remaining surface oiL NOAA
responders are wor1cing with the Unified Command on monitoring strategies for tar balls and near shore
submerged oil, and researchers continue scibsurface scanning and sampling to monitor the concentration,
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA and NOAA have carefully monitored Bpls use of dispersant iri
the Gulf and continues to monitor the air, water and sediments near the .sp.oreline for lbe presence of
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,
006365
to ensure 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. 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
" Even though the thr~Jlt to shorelines; fish and wildlife, and ecosystems has decreased since the capping
of the BF wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact of the spill to the
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from Aug 1, 2010, contains
rep.resenting the samenumbers..as the pie. chart ahove. Thes.e cylindrical images combine theihree
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 Sof 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.
006366

Authors
Credits
LTUg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
--R.ebecca-:Dribe(USGS) - Gtaphic design
program
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
. Robert J ones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
J ames Payne, Payne Env.
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per.Daling, SINTEF
006367
We are about to release' a report that shows what happened to the oil. This
the oil go? .
the oil since day one of this spill, and based on the data from those efforts'
estimates.
,.,., possible and the best avai1a'bl'e scientific estimates wh-ere measurements
barrels of oil.
From that, we estimate thatthe Unified Command's aggressive recovery

wellhead
w~re
successful in removing one quarter of the oil.
surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been
collected from the shore, or is buried in sa,nd an~ sediment~ ...
Therefore approximately half the oil is no longer in the system.
006368
While further analysis remains to be d.one to quantify that rate of


NOAA and other scientists continue that monitoring and water sampling,
As for residual oit some of it is on shorelines, and we know that over 600
miles of Gulf shoreUne have been .impacted.


NOAA and Unified Command are continuing to actively monitoring at risk
program)
006369

A federal government report released today estimates that Unified Command recovery operations,
including burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one quarter of the oil
quarter was dispersed, either naturally or chemically, into microscopic droplets into Gulfwaters. The
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 chart here*
''.Teams of scientists and experts have _be.en carefully trackingthe oil since day-one of this spill, and
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
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 onthe Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something
observations and preliminary research results from a number of Scientists show that the oil from the BP
the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels,
RE!sidiial
oil is als6 aegraded ana weathered by a number of physical and biological processes.
Microbes
break down the residual oil in the water a nd on shorelines.
006370
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
based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses,
.-
..
" ,

Department ofthe Interior (DOl), who jointly developed what's known as an Oil Budget Calculator, to
provide measurements and best estimates of what happenedto the spilled oil. The calculator is based
006371
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Justin Kenney
Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1 :56 PM .

'Jennifer Austin'
RE: oil budget TPs
Oil Budget TPs 8 3.jk edits.docx
Justin Kenney
Office: 202-482-6090
Cell: 202-821-6310
NOAA Responds to the BP oil spill: www.noaa.gov
Sent: Tuesday~ August 03~ 2010 1:49 PM
To: Stott Smullen; :;Justin k-enney
Subject: oil budget TPs
Jennifer Austin
006372
We are about to release a report that shows what happened to the oil. This
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).
o We continue to be extremely concerned about what this oil spill .
means for the health of ecosystem and the millions of people who
depend on the Gulf for the livelihoods and enjoyment.
As you know1 teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking
estimates.

barrels of oil.
006373
From that, we estimate that the Unifi,ed Command's aggressive recovery

surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashere or been
collected from the shore, or i,s buried in sand and sediments.
Therefore approximately half the, oil is no longer in the system.



NOAA and other scientists continue that monitoring and water s?lmpling,
As for residual oil, some of it is on shorelines, and we know that over 600
miles of Gulf shoreline have been impacted.

006374

NOAA and Unified Cornmand are continuing to actively monitoring at risk
program)
006375
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Justin Kenney
Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1:57 PM .
'Tim A Tomastik'; Smullen, Scott; 'Jennifer Austin'; 'ben.sherman@noaa.gov';
jana.goldman@noaa.gov
pospone the 2:00 please
We are crashing on the oil budget documents right now. Can we try 4:00 eastern?
Sorry
Justin Kenney
Office: 2024826090
Cell: 202-8216310
NOAA Responds to the BP oil spill: www.noaa.gov
006415
BP Deepwater Horjz.on Oil Budget:

Th.e National Incident Command (NIC) assembled a number of interagency expert scientific teams to
A second interagency team, led by the Department of the Interior (001) and the National Oceanic and
In summary, it is estimated that burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed -one
quarter (26%) - is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has~<;ish~4 .
becomes available.
,-----I
..----------------------t
I
,
Based on estimated release of 4.9m barrels of on

Unified

sheen and weathered
Command
Response
Operations

ashore or been
collected from the
.sand and sediments_
8%
"Oil in these 3 categories is
I naturally.
Figure 1: Oil Budget - Shows cUlTent best estimates of what happened to the oil.
006416
Explanation of Findings - .Unified Command Response Efforts: Response efforts to deal with the oil have been aggressive. As
shown in the pie chart (Figpre 1), response efforts were successful in addressing 33% of the spilled oiL
This includes 011 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
small are neutrally buoyant and thus remain in the water cohunn where they then begin to biodegrade.
surface slicks and makes it more readily available for biodegfadation. Chemical dispersants were applied
at the surface_and below the surface; therefore, the chemically. dispersed oil enGOO up 00th: deep-in the
All of the naturally dispersed oil and some of the oil that was chemicaUy dispersed remained well-below
biodegrade.
.
.
Dispersion is the process by which larger volumeS of oil are broken down into smaller droplets of oil.
Residual: Afteraccounting 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 a
combination of ~f;lfegQries anpfwhich are difficult to measure or estimate. It includes oil still on or just
below the surface in the form of light ~~en 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 ~egun to degrade through natural processes.
006417
Biodegradation: Dispersed oil in the water column and 9il on the surface of the water biodegrade

Survey (USGS}Director Marcia McNutt, and a team of Department of Energy (DOE) scientists and
engin~ers, led by Energy Secretary StevenChu. This group estimates that approximately 4.9 million
barrels of oil flowed from the BP Deepwater Horizon wellJ-:tead between April 22 and July 15, 2010, at
... whichJime the flow of oil was suspended. The uncertainty-of this estimate. is 10%. The pie chart
wherever-possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible.
were based on previous scientific analyses, best available infonnation and a broad range of scientific
analysis. Further iIiformation 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

viww.restorethegu.l gov, and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
responders ar.~ working with the Unified Comman9, on ~onitoIjng str?-tegi~s for tar balls and near shore
submerged oil, and researchers continue subsurface scaniring and samplirig to monitor the concentration,
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA and NOAA have carefully monitored BFs use of dispersant in
the Gulf and continues to monitor the air; water and sediments near the sh.oreline for the presence of
dispersant and crude oil components with special attention to human health impacts. Nwnerous NOAAand NSF-funded academic researchers and NOAA scientists are investigating rates of biodegradation;
~cosystem and wildlife impacts. DOl and DOE responders are working to ~ure control of the well and
006418
accurate- measurement of oil released and oil remaining in the environment. DOl is leading efforts to
006419
Deepwater HorizonIBP Oil Budget:

Acknowledgements
Authors
Mark Sogge, USGS, Dor
Credits
Rebecca Uribe (USGS) ""'" Graphic design
program
fonnulas, analysis methods, or reviewed the algorithms used in the calculator. The team continues to
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
AI Allan, SpilTec
Tom Coolbau~ Exxon Mobil
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SlNTEF
006420
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
Griffis, Kevin [KGriffis@doc,gov]

Smullen, Scott; Kenney, Justin
Austin, Jennifer
initial thoughts on release
To:
Cc:
Subject:

FOR EMBARGOED RELEASE
Federal Science Report Details Fate of Gulf Oil
Contact:
A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater HorizonlBP spill was 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.
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 quicldy.
These estimates were derive(tby the N_llti.onal9ceanic and At:Q.1ospheric .~_ciministratiol!- (NOMta,nd th~.
bepartiileni of
InteriorCOOl), 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.
the
*embedpie .chart here*

.
"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? - 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 oi1,~ 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?
'I1ie,~$.ates 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
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 oilfrom 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 ~e 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 oif
enters the GulfbfMexico 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 recover:y and bums were measured
1
006421
directly and reported in daily operational reports. The skimming numbers were als.o based on daily reported
estimates. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available infonnation and a
broad range of scientific expertise. These estimates will.continue to be refined as additional information
becomes available.
###
Kevin Griffis
Director of Public Affairs
U.s. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20230
(0) 202-482-8290
(c) 202-412-8377
Proposed NOAA Asset DWH Response Schedule

Asset
Delaware
II
Gunter
Pisces
Oregon II
End Date
tbd
GU-lO-02 Marine Mammals, Leg 3lose 14 DAS. Currently this project is

scheduled for Atlantic Ocean, but
there are discussions of moving this
effort to the Gulf instead. If project
remains in Atlantic, GU isn't an option
August S September 3 PC-10-04 CoOp Reef Fish Survey loses
23 DAS
September September Rd-10-02, Shark/Snapper Longline
28
loses all of Leg 4 and most of Leg 3'.
3
Estimate losss of,..., 20 DAS. However,
much of the project's survey area is
impacted by oil
tbd
tbd
East coast cetacean turtle abundance
survey
July 18
----
----
August 4
SHIPS
Impacted Projects
DE-lO-OS Benthic Habitat
Comments
Alongside Pascagoula, MS
GU would have to resupply fresh water one
time during this mission period
This 30 day mission would have to be broken

into 2 or 3 legs w LT&Gs for water
This 26 day mission would have to break into
2 or 3 legs for water and reprovisioning
Making preparations for DWH response

(seafood safety-trawling missions)
006425
Henry
Bigelow
Start Dale
June18
End Date
Aircraft
Impacted Projects
Hurricane Season
Asset
tJ42RF
WP-3D
Start Date
N48RF
Twin
Otter
N57RF
"Twin
Otter
N68RF
King Air
July 23
August 30
Alaska Marine Mammal Surveys
June 7
S'eptember
30
Northeast Right Whale
April
'September
30
National Coastal Mapping Priorities
tbd
Comments
Gulf Loop Current flights could be
rescheduled around any tasking for
Hurricanes. Hurricane taskings would delay
Gulf LooQ Current flights by several days.
N48RF to relieve N46RF upon completion of
CALNEX project. BWASP project begins in
,.
Alaska in early September
DWH Marine Mammal flights tasking
resumed June 7. Anticipated schedule is
apQroximately 5 flights every 14 days.
Risk of not meeting GPRA goals for shoreline
mapping.
006426
88"W
90W
92W
94W
86W
32N;~:
32N
LA
AL
MS
f=L
:.,
300 N
:
30 N
006427
@ Deepwater Horizon Platform
Deepwater Horizon MC252:

Documented Dolphins in Northern
Gulf of Mexico from 4/30/108/02/10
28N
, "~
Strandings:
New.
..
Confirmed location
o Unconfirmed location
28N
Trajectory - 24Hr
FORECASTHEAVY
FORECASTMEDIUM
[j1:ij FORECASTLIGHT
FORECASTUNCERTAINTY
D
26N
Uncertainty - 24Hr
e+
W
. 94"W
~Kilometers
20 40
80
120
92W
160
26N
90'W
88W
86W
92W
94W
90 0 W
88W
86W
32N
32N
MS
'1:
AL
i
I
I
!
FL
30'N
30"N
2S"N
006428
@ Deepwater Horizon Pial form
Deepwater H'orizon MC252:

Documented: Large Whales In Northern
Gulf of Mexico from 4/30/10 - 8102110
Strandings:
New
C Confirmed location
o Unconfirmed location
28"N
@
Trajectory - 24Hr
FORECASTHEAVY
FORECASTMEDIUM
rr~?:1 FORECASTLIGHT
FORECAS1UNCERTAINTY
...
D
26"N
Uncertainty.: 24Hr
94W
',
r--L-J
25 SO
, Kilometers
100
92W
150
200
26"N
900W
ssW
86W
006431
DRAFT
A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater HorizonIBP spill was
skimming, chemical dispersion and direct recovery from the wellhead, according to a federal
percent), is either on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed .
residual oil remain in the system until they degrade through a number of natural pro'cesses. Early
...and the Department of the Interior.(DOI), who jointly developed what's known-as anOil Budget
calculator is based on 4.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gulf, the government's Flow
Based on esrimated reieosecj <I.9m barrels oj oil
Residu<li in(l(;des oil

that i 5 0" or j .1st o:>elow
the~urface~s iR~t
sheen and weatheced

tar bal s, ha:: ",a::h~d
oshor.: o' ;;cor.
collected from the
AAore, Of i.; ouriet-: in
sane a.,d sediments.
.~
.... -1
!
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
)
*Oil ill the~ .. 3 <:attlgodl:. io
clJrrantly bein.: degraded

ntturOlIl;r.
-'==========-",
and based on the data from those efforts, and their collective expertise, they have been able to
provldethese useful and educated eStimates about the fate of the oil," says Jane Lubchenco,
under secretary of commerce for-oceans and-atInosphere and NOAA administrator. "Less oil on
the surface does not mean that there isn't oil still in the water column or that our b~aches and
marshes aren't still at risk. Knowing generally what happened to the oil helps us bette:r
understimd areas of risk and likely impaCts." .
006432
... Quote from McNutt?

the Gulf~ early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show
NOAA, EPA, DOE, and academic scientists are working to calculate more precise estimates of
this rate.
_ Residual oil is also. degraded and weatheredhy a number of physical and biological processes.
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
expertise. These estimates will continue to'be refined as additional information becomes
available.
###
006454
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Griffis, Kevin
oil budget description TPs
Oil Budget TPs 8 3 as deliv.docx
Attached is essentially what she said to open her interview today_
Jennifer Austin
006455

report helps answer the question that everyone is asking -: where did all the
oil go?

o First, This report is the result of very careful calculations by some of
agencies and then su bmitting their work for peer review to scientists
o Secondly, we have found that the very aggressive response efforts
means for the health of.the Gulf ecosystem and the millions of
the on since day one'of thi_s-spif IT a nd based on- the data, from-those -effol1S '~.
........
.....,..; ..
',
.
'<
" . : ' ,
\>"J" '.::..:..--~ .... ,_":
";
006456
estimates.
possible and the best availaple scientific estimates where measurements

weUhead were successful in removing one-quarter of the oil.
We are fortunate in this situation that the rate of degradation fn the gulf is
quite high.
While further analysiS remains to be done to quantify that rate of


'-
....... .. .
,."
006457
through time.

aboutwhich weld like more information.
'"
....-"._-
'.,.
-...
"
..
~-,,::
,,'
- ':..
..,....
..
'~,:
,;.-
... - ; ,
..
........
006459

report" helps answer the question that everyone is asking - where did all the
oil go?

o First, This report is the result of very careful calculations by some of
agencies and then submitting their work for peer review to scientists
o Secondly, we have found that the very aggressive response efforts
are seeing significant progress.'
---
-~~
...; ... ".",
",' .. "'.
006460
"andtherrcolle-ctive expertise, they a"re" now able to provide these useful

estimates.
possible and the best ayailable scientific estimates where measurements
From that, we estimate that the Unified Command's ~ggressive recovery

wellhead were successful in removing one qu.arter of the oil
We are fortunate in this situation that the rate of degradation in the gulf is
quite high.

a"ncfco~centratlo'ns
ofsubsurface oil,
and results, as
"qliantifyth"e]m:ation
- .. .....
..
- ....
.. ".
.
'
,.
',:
"
":',
"'~::--'.:~~'
~. ~
..:..
,',.
006461
_.. you know,'so far have shown that diffuse'concentrations rn the low parts
th rough time.

006462
Where is the re~~ining oil?" .

account for half (50%) of the total release of oil from the spill.
and sediments.
at the surface.
and oxygen levels; and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly.

a misconception.

,
surface.
.relatively quickly, so that is positive.
."
'_\.~1-.:="
006463
'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
from this.
the case?
analytical data from t4e 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
droplets, microscopic droplets and in very, very dilute concentrations falling offvery steeply as
one goes away from the wen site.
,Dilute does .not mean benign, but it is in v..ery small concentrations and we continue to measure
006464
.. _DRAFf
A third (33 percent) of-the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater HorizonlBP spill was
skimming, chemical qispersion and direct recovery from the wellhead;'a:ccording to a federal
residua1 oil remain in the system until they degrade through a number of natural processes. Early
.. and the Departmeilt of the Interior (DOl), who jointly developed what's.knoWBas-an Oil Budg.et
calculator is based on 4.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gulf, thegovernment's Flow
[PIE CHART HERE]
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-term impacts .of oil on the Gulf. Fully
.the Gulf, early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show
NOAA, EPA, DOE; and academic scientists are working to' calcuiate more pr~cise estimates of
this rate.
..
, .... ' j r . . -
...::..:-....
.~
006465
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
available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direcf
recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports. The
skimming numbe~ were also based,on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were
based on previous scientific analyses, best available infonnation and a broad range of scientific
expertise. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional infonnation becomes
available.
###
006472
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Griffis, Kevin [KGriffis@doc.govJ

Tuesday, August 03, 2010 11 :01 PM'
Kenney, Justin; Smullen, 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.
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 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 imanciaI liability for this spill?
Kevin Griffis
U.S. Department of Commerce
(0) 202-482-8290
(c) 202-412-8377
" ..
006473
Justin Kenney
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Griffis, Kevin [KGriffis@doc.gov]

Tuesday, August 03, 2010 11 :10 PM'
_ ..
Miller, Mark
Re: additional questions for the O&A
Also, diq outside scientists help ~ith the calculations?
From: Griffis, Kevin

To: Kenney, Justin; Smullen, Scotti Austin l Jennifer
Cc: Miller, Mark
Sent: Tue Aug 03 23:01:102010
Subject: additional questions for the Q&A
In editing the O&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 ~d the burning, why did 67 percent of the oil in this
there's nothing to compare it to? Why is 33 percent a positive number? Why not 50 percent?
.
What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's fmancialliabllity for this spill?
Kevin Griffis
(0) 202-482-8290
(c) 202-412-8377
006474
Justin Kenney
Griffis, Kevin [KGriffis@doc.gov] .
Tuesday, August 03, 2010 11 :01 PM
Miller, Mark
additional questions for the Q&A
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
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
there's nothing to compare it to? Why is 33 percent a positive number? Why not50 percent?
.
What impact, if any, will this report have in determining BP's fmancialliability for this spill?
Kevin Griffis
(0) 202-482-8290
(c) 202-412-8377
..:- .'.
""',- .
.......
006477
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Borenstein, seth
Wjl!iam,Cooner@noaa,gov
AP Science writer seeks to talk to you about the NOAA-USGS what happened to oil report
William,
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 700
Washington, DC 20005-4076
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_DIsclmsk dccc60c6d2c3a6438focf467d9a4938
006512
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Mark.W.Miller
Jane Lubchenco; HO Deep Water Horizon Staff; Bill Conner
Background Information on Pie Chart and 011 Budget Tool
PeepwaterHodzoo brIefing schemat!c2.po9
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 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 bblsjday). 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.
ICategory
II Low Flow July 15
Remaining
II
IDirect Recovery
II
480,000
820,000
16%
27%
IIHigh Flow July 22

II
II
IL
I Natural Dispersion,_,,J1 ,400[000 13% ,_

1:=[g=va=p=or=at=ed=='======iIl, __~q~__,?_~~[_,
li=IS=ki=m=m=ed======i11
II Burned
II
'l=IC=he=m=ic=a=IIY=D=i=sp=e=rs=ed=~1I
100[000 3%
260,000
8%
340[000 11%
II
"
II
1,470,000
823,000
28%
16%
826,000
120[000
266,000
344[000
2%
5%
,J
___~~~!.QQQ.,___~_,_,_~
*
* 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.
006513
Deepwater Horizon MC252. Gulf Incident01f Buduet
High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day} Through July 21 (Day 93)
Print
CUMUUltlve Disposition of 011 :i~C;~'!}iJlll~f.UI~~.j.
ChiaI1l nfcJrmatioo
Low Flow Scenario (3S,GOO barrels/day) Through July 21 (Day 93)
Print
Chart I:mormation
006780
Deputy Director of Public Affairs

Department of Commerce
202-482-5035 (direct)
006867
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Jane Lubchenco
Jennifer Austin; Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; Dayid Kennedy;
Water Horizon Staff
Margaret Spdng
Oil Budget description 7 29 Y 3 JL.doc
HO Deep
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.
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:Jennjfer.Austin@noaa.goy]
To: Mark W Miller; William Conner; Scott Smullen; Dave Westerholm; David Kennedy; _HQ Deep Water
Horizon Staff
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 IASG) to see
> should probably include Dr. McNutt, Mark Sogge, Steve Hammond (NIC
> IASG), Sky Bristol (led the development team), and Tim Kern.
>
>
>
>
>
Jennifer Austin
006868
006869
DRAFT 7.29

"Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already corne ashore
on beaches.
The Flow Rate Technical
as of July 1
wellhead.
assembled by the National Incident Command, estimates that

oil had been released from the
HorizonIBP
As shown in the pie graph (Figure 1), a essive 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
collected just over ~4i percent of the oil.
006870
It is estimated that ~11 percent of the oil quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water column. The
~'I percent of the oil has dispersed natu
. to the water column, and 1,1 percent of the oil was
dispersed by the application of nearly
of chemical dispersants. Natural dispersion occurs
After accounting for operations, dispersion and evaporation, ~:I percent remains. This oil is either at
beaches.
In summary, bum in skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead have removed roughly '7"""._,:~_:-_-_c__
oil. Around
ofthe total has been naturally evaporated and i1i~it~~F dispersed
waters. The remaining amount, fQH~fi~z!!...i_~~!1. ~~_~~Ij~~~!.i.~ _~_ b_alls~_()!1.l:Je~che~~.~IIl().\I~_4 _fI:<>_IIl._ ... ___ ' .-' -{~D.....eI.....e.....ted'___l~......_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~
~~;:~t:t~'iihl~~~{IT~~~:!f<i~:'9hiJ;f1a~;:~!~~:a1~~ts~~~~s1~I{h~~d~i\7~!n~~11i~~~fr:!~~!~~-" -':::::1>=:-:;..:;..:;..:=:=~O;..AA;..;..=========(
See Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from [iIr~_ for detailed
006903
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Mark Miller
Jennifer AYstin i William Conner
Re: EPA and pie chart
Sunday, August 01, 2010 5:20:44 PM
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 through 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
006909

Government Estimates - Through August 02 (Day 105)
* 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.

006910
Government Estimates - Through August 02 (Day 105)

1,500,000
1,250,000
-... 1,000,000
til
CD
...a:s
.c
750,000
500,000
250,000
0
May-2010
1- Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2010
Upper/Lower Confidence Bounds 1

006911

Higher Flow Estimate - Through August 02 (Day 105)
Dispersant. Used
Inland
(Cumulative)
All unlabeled values in barrels, 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 bbl on July 14, 2010.

006912
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
-...
rn
c.u
... 1,000,000
cu
.0
750,000
500,000
250,000
o
-
May-2010
Jun~201
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Aug-2010

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/03/2010 09:43 AM MDT,
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U,S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
006913

Lower Flow Estimate - Through August 02 (Day 105)
35,818ton5
* All unlabeled values 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,

Report generated by sbrlstol@usgs.govon 08/03/2010 09:43 AM MDT.
006914

1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
-........rn
CD
ca
.a
800.000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
-
May-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Jul-2010
Aug-2010

Report generated by sbristot@usgs.gov on 08/03/2010 09:43 AM MDT,
Application operated by the U.S, Cpast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
006915
Reference Notes
Chart - Cumulative/Daily Volume Remaining on the Surface

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).

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
bbl/day 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 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 %

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
006916
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.

Dispersed Naturally
evaporation/dissolution calculation 'first determines the remaining oil available for evaporative processes
006917

Skimmed
Burned
Total bumed values are entered daily by National Incident Command personnel and used in daily and
cumulative totals.

006918
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

007063
For subsurface oil, we're having a hard time finding it at-this point
within 100km of the spill site, and have no reason to believe it would
have been transported out with the LC -- so no reason to expect any
would get to Georgia.
I still think there is some chance of some tarballs making it that far,
but it sure looks like whatever does will be lost in the background.
As Debbie said -- I hope my tax dollars aren't going to pay for that.
-CHB
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.

Oceanographer
Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOSjOR&R
(206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115
(206) 526-6317 main reception
Chris.Barker@noaa.gov
007110
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
PerCiaseoe.BQb@epamaU.epa.gov
Jane lJ!bchenco; Anastas Pall!@epamajl.epa.<;Iov
Marls W Miller@oQaa goy; Jeoojfer,AYstin@opaa,goy: William Conner
Re: Oil Budget - EPA Monitoring.
Monday, August 02, 2010 5:15:24 PM
Thanks Jane.
Paul is available to review.
Bob Perciasepe
Office of the Administrator
(0)2025644711
(c) 202 368 8193
From: Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noail.gov]
Sent: 08/02/2010 03 :24 PM AST
To: Bob Perciasepe; Paul Anastas
Cc: "mark.w.miller@noaa.gov" <mark. w.miller@noaa.gov>; "Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov"
<Jennifer.Austin@noaa.gov>; Wi1liam Conner <WilIiam.Conner@noaa.gov>
Subject: RE: Oil Budget - EPA Monitoring.
Bob - many thanks. This is most helpful and I greatly appreciate your sending it quickly. As you
know, this will need to be condensed, as we are including a single paragraph on all agency
activities. We'll run the final text by you and Paul once we've constructed that challenging
paragraph!
Stay tuned.
Jane
From: Perciasepe.Bob@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Perciasepe.Bob@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 02,20103:13 PM

To: Jane Lubchenco; Anastas.Paul@epamail.epa.gov
Cc: mark.w.miller@noaa.gov
Subject: Re: Oil Budget - EPA Monitoring.
Jane and Mark

Here are some sentences for EPA monitoring
EPA's focus for dispersants has been on monitoring, testing and the identification of future
research needs. EPA has carefully monitored BP's use of dispersant in the Gulf. EPA
continues to monitor the air, water and sediments near the shoreline for the presence of
dispersant and crude oil components. All monitoring data are posted daily on EPA's website
(www.epa.gov/bpspill). EPA with NOAA, has also provided oversight for monitoring in the
deep sea during subsurface application to determine the effectiveness of the dispersant
application and to monitor for any early signs of environmental effects (e.g., dissolved
007111
oxygen. rotifer toxicity test, fluorescence, LISST) ..

To ensure that decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf are grounded in the best
available science, EPA has conducted independent toxicity testing. This includes toxicity
testing on eight dispersants listed on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule using
Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil. EPA has ongoing tests on effectiveness and tests on the effects
of dispersant on the biodegradation of oil.
EPA has identified research to help determine the long-term impacts of the spill and to guide
restoration and recovery activities. EPA is seeking to develop 1) a better understanding of
the impacts of oils spills on human health and the environment and 2) innovative techniques
to effectively restore affected ecosystems with specific focus on coastal impacts. Additional
research has been identified to be conducted in the near term and longer term to aid EPA's
decision-making with regard to the effect of and recovery from oil spills.
Bob Perciasepe
Office of the Administrator
(0)2025644711
(c) 202 3688193
From: Jane Lubchenco [Jane.Lubchenco@noaa.gov]
Sent: 08/0212010 01:24 PM AST
To: Bob Perciasepe; Paul Anastas
Cc: "mark.w.miller@noaa.gov" <mark.w.miller@noaa.gov>
Subject: RE: Oil Budget - EPA Comments
Hi, Bob,
Will do.
Paul- we need the couple of sentences by 2 pm today to be able to include it. Thanks for that!
Jane
From: Perciasepe.Bob@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Perdasepe.Bob@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 9:07 AM

To: Jane Lubchenco
Cc: anastas.paul@epa.govi mark.w.miller@noaa.gov
Subject: RE: Oil Budget - EPA Comments
Jane,
Make sure Paul Anastas see the next draft. I have asked him to draft a few sentances on our research
plans related to dispersants and the regulations of subpart J.
Bob Perciasepe
007149
From:
wlillam,conner
To:
Cc:
Marls W Miller
Subject:
[Fwd: [Fwd: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up]]

friday, July 23, 2010 7:52:07 AM
USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up,eml (420 KB),msg
Date:
Attachments:
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:Thu1 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> I 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
William G. Conner, Ph.D.

Chief, HAZMAT Emergency Response Division
NOAA Office of Response and Restoration
Phone:
301-713-3038 (190)
Cell:
240 -460 - 6475
007150
007181

estimate the quantity ofBP Deepwater Horizon oil that has been released from the well and the fate of
A second interagency team, led by the Department ofthe Interior (DOl) and the National Oceanic and
becomes available.

Unified

sheen and weathered
Command
Response
Operations

ashore or been
collected from the
sand and sediments.
- 8%

naturally.
007182
shown in the pie chart (Figure I), response efforts were successful in addressing 33% of the spilled oil.
biodegrade.
007183

over the course of the spill. The newest estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions ofthe

www.restorethegulf.gov. and data from the response and monitoring can be found at
001, NASA and NOAA continue to refine understanding of amounts of remaining surface oil. NOAA
distribution and impact of oil there. EPA and NOAA have carefully monitored Bpls use of dispersant in
007184
ofthe BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact of the spill to the
007185

Acknowledgements
Authors
Mark Sogge, USGS, DOr
Credits
L TOg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
David Mack and Jeff Allen (USGS) Application development and engineering
program
LCDR Lance Lindgren, CDR Peter Hoffinan, CDR Sean O'Brien, and LT Amy McElroy
Kevin Gallagher, Martha Garcia, and Stephen Hammond (USGS) Executive sponsors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Antonio PossoIo, NIST
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
007186

estimates that a total of 4.9 million barrels of oil has been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon welL
becomes available.

Based on estimated release oj 4.9m barrels oj oil
sheen and weathered
ashore or been
collected from the
Unified
Command
Response
Operations
sand and sediments.

natural IV.
007187
droplets that are less than 100 microns
about the diameter of a human hair. Oil droplets that are this
water column and just below the sUrface. Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be
biodegrade.
Dispersion is the process by which larger volumes of oil are broken down into smaller droplets of oiL
007188
were based on previous scientific analyses, best -available information and a broad range of scientific
007189
007190

Acknowledgements
Authors
Credits
LTOg) Charity Drew (USCG) - Original Excel spreadsheet and application inspiration
Antonio Possolo and Pedro Espina (NIST) Statistical oil budget model encoded as an R
program
refme the analysis and this document will be updated as appropriate.
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
AI Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
007191
DRAFT 8.Iv 2pm


Based on higher flow rate estimate
Federal
Response
Operations
"'Remaining oil is
as light sheen or
has been
biodegraded, or has
already come ashore.
Skimmed
3%
Chemically
Dispersed
7%
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
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 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
007192
The pie chart above is based on the higher flow estimate.
Direct Measures ands Best Estimates: The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements
analysis.
biodegradation.
Much of the dispersed oil remained below the surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of
Report 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/lAG/reports.html).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
Evaporation: It is estimated that 26% of the oil volume quickly evaporated or dissolved into the water
an estimated 28% remains. This oil is either at the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, or it has
007193
because of the wann water there, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the
quickly.
NOAA continues to track the movement of the remaining oil both on and below the surface. NOAA
distribution and impact of oil there.
Attachments
007194

Authors
Credits

Steve Hale, Kent Morgan, Kevin Laurent, and Jerry McFaul (USGS) Technical advisors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
007195
DRAFT 8.1v7pm
determine where the oil went. The numbers in the calculator are based on best estimates ofjIow much
-.------ . _.--..-..--.-.-.. -.-.. . .--.-.. --..-.--..--- . . . .-..-..-..-.-.-.. .-.--.. .-.. --..-----..---.-.-----.. . .--..- ..-..----..----------1
Based an higher [jaw rate estimate
"Remaining oil is
ill Ih~ ,,,rfner.

as light shNm or
~ither

hos b~en
biodegraded, or has
already come a~hore.
l%
.~ ....._.._....___.._ .._..._ ..............._..__.___.. H.... _.. _ .... __ .. H._ .......,_ ....... ____ ..... _ ....__ ._ ..._.....____.__ .H. ____ ..... _. ___.__._. ___.._..__
' . H _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__ ...... _ _ _ _
_.J
Figure I: Oil Budget Calculator- Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.

Flow Rate: The Oil Budget Calculator starts with an estimate ofthe cumulative amount of oil released
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 ofthe Flow
HorizonIBP wellhead, the uncertainty on this estimate is 10% (cite: Flow Rate 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 15,2010, at which time the flow of oil was suspended.
trorepresentthe ten percent uncertainty in the flow rate estimate; the Oil Budget Calculator shows two
,
The pie chart above is based on the higher flow estimateL __________________________________________________________ /
, Comment [ji]: USGS team hopes to have the

0' actual government estimates (without the
uncertainly) programmed by COB tomorrow (that is
MDT). They plan to have a report format that has all
three scenarios - actual estimates, +10"10, and -10"10.
Then our Pie Chart could be updated to show th.e
4.9M barrel scenario.
007196
analysis.
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.
Much of the dispersed oil remained below the surface. Previous analyses have shown evidence of
Report I and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/reports.html).Asdescribedbelow,this oil appears
Evaporation: It is estimated that 26% ofthe 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. Ofthe 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.
007197
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 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 Gulf, early indications are that the oil from this well is biodegrading
quickly,
Conclusion: In summ~, burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed roughly
one quarter ofm.,;mI~sf4f 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 Gulfwaters. 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 ofthe fate, transport and impact of the oil. The federal
govemment will continue to report activities, results and data to the public as soon as possible.
(www.restorethegulfgov).
NOAA continues to track the movement of the oil still on the surface and in the water column. NOAA
NASA and NOAAeontinueto refine.understanding of
distribution and impact of oil there.
amounts of remaining surfaceoi!. NOAA responders are working with the UriifiedCommand to
develop monitoring strategies for tar balls and
shore .submerged oil. EPA cOntinues to monitor
coastal air and water, with special attention to hutnanheaIthimpacts. Numerous NOAA~and NS'ffunded academic researchers are investigating rates ofbiodegradatiol),eCosystem and wildlife impacts.
roOI monitoring and research on wildlife?]
iDOl.
near
u . n n
................... n
................ n
......................... .
of the BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact ofthe spill to the
Attachments
Comment fj2]: Awaiting input from other

. agencies to round out this paragraph.
007198
007199

Authors
Credits
Sky Bristol and Tim Kern (USGS) Project vision and management
Kevin Gallagher, Stephen Hammond and Martha Garcia (USGS) - Executive sponsors
Federal Scientists
Bill Lehr, NOAA
Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpiiTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per DaJing, SINTEF
007200
DRAFT 8.2v 7pm

BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget
What has happened to the oil?
The National Incident Command (NIC) assembled a f~i.~I1~m~ ~~ru.tl. ~()~p~s~_d.()f g()~~~~I1~_~~.. _........ _..... COmment [wgcl]: This is probably a malter of
. d
dent ,l!p~1'al'Is1s ~~.P!'~.~(;~~
d
d
'
,
fh
h '1 h b
k'
d b
d
'
style, but the word "steUar" strikes me as a little self
III
epen
___
~~~~i?~.~.~~.t}~~!~.~.u~~.I.:I1!-!(;._.l?!._.~u~i?!l.~_!Il1_~~_L~~~_L._ ".
serving.
contained, evaporated and dispersed from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They developed a tool,
. . >-De--Ie";ted;""=-stel-I.-r-------~=<
called the Oil Budget Calculator, to determine what happened to the oil. The numbers in the calculator
Deleted: scientists
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 the 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 .Q~~f.~I:l!~!.~'.. I~.i? Xi?~.i.c!1:l:l!lu~~\J.~!! j~~t ().':~!. ~I1~ .q~~!2. j~. ~J!!1.i?~.()~. <;I!.. _."."
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
below the surf~cc <IS
----J
COmment [wgc2]: The comment on "Residual"

should remove the word "some" from the third line
up from ill. bottom.
"Residual oil includes

011 that is on or just
1. .D_e_leted
_ _th_e_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Federal
Response
Operations
residue and weathered

tarbails. h~s washed
a.hore or been
toU"Ltecl from tbe
shore. or some i~
hlJrip,d in sand ,,~d
sediments.
Figure 1: Oil Budget Shows current best estimates of what has happened to the oil.
007201
'federal Response EJfort~. ~~~P.~~~~. ~Kt:~~~. !~. ~~!i:I. ~.i~h .th-~ ~~L~~.':~. ~~~J!.. ~g~.t?~~JY.~: .~~. ~h<.'-"-"-I).!~ ~h~.... _.. ' _.'
pie chart (Figure 1), response efforts were successful in dealing with 33% of the spilled oiL This
includes oil that was captured directly from the wellhead by the riser pipe insertion tube and top hat
Comment [wgc3): I wonder whether the term

"Federal Response Efforts" i. appropnate. The
; ..ponse has no! been federalized, but i.lead by a
unified command that includes the USCG, BOEM,
BP, and the stales.. BP is the lead in coiulucting the
response under government overnigbt.. liP is paying
for the response. I suggest Ih~ we consider del.ting
the work "FedeniJ" trom the beading.
water column, which caused some of the oil to spray off in small droplets. For the purpose of this
analysis, 'dispersed oil' is defmed 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
ended up both deep in the water column andJ1,I~t_~~!~~_~~~~_~!1~!.?~:uP'!~p'~~~j~~_!!l.!.?~~_~~~_~~h~.!!~_t*~~~~.n._'-'-{ Deleted: at
for the oil to be biodegraded both in the water column and at the surface. Until it is biodegraded,
'-:--------------'
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 1 and 2, http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.govIJAG/reports.html).
thatwas
chemically dispersed at the surface kuo~ed i!1to!~e!()Jl_20J~et_ <:>.f.th~_ :vY~~~~.~~~l;1!I1n as small 9:~()JlI~ts~? . ___ could no longer be detected within hours of dispersant application as it mixed with surrounding waters.l u __,
PH
~ ~ ~ ~-
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
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 oflight 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.
Deleted: remained at the surface and began to

biodegrade there
Comment [j4]: Comment from Dr L I can't

answer Do we know where it goes?
, 'Comment [wgcS]: I drafted lbi. statement based
on results of SMART monitoring thet WlIS conducted
doring the surface application of dispersants.
007202
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 thef~'?_!>.t:~~9!:!~~~!:!~~!~~jl!_tI1l?g!1IJL ____ ---- Co!nment[wgc6]:Itbinkthatthiswordimplies
". .on
too mucb IlCCllIlICYwith respect to what can be done
estimating biodegradation rates.
this source is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA and DOE are working to calculate a
". :---.;;........;;;...---~==~
Deleted: exact
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 Mexico through natural
seeps regularly.
National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), led by United States Geological
barrels of oil flowed from the Deepwater HorizonIBP wellhead between April 22, 2010 and July 15,
'me the flow of oil was
ed. The uncertainty on this estimate is 10% ti~
The pie chart above is based on this group's estimate of
expertise. Further information on these methods is available in Appendix A. These numbers will
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 of oil
007203
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 subsurface oil.
Attachments
Appendix A: Deepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report from ~m.J" 2010, contains
Note: The attached report (Appendix A) contains cylindrical images, which are an alternate
e same numbers as the
chart above. These
007204
Deepwater HorizonlBP Oil Budget

What has happened to the oil?
Authors
Credits
David Mack (USGS) Lead application developer
Kevin Gallagher, Stephen Hammond and Martha Garcia (USGS) - Executive sponsors
Bill Lehr, NOAA

Robert Jones, NOAA
Al Allan, SpilTec
Ed Overton, LSU
Juan Lasheras, UCSD
Per Daling, SINTEF
007213

Government Estimates Through August 02 (Day 105)
* 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.

007214
Government Estimates Through August 02 (Day 105)
1,500,000
1,250,000
-...tn
1,000,000
..c
750,000
CD
...ca
500,000
250,000
o
-
May-2010
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Expected Value -
Aug-2010

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.goyon 08/03/2010 09:43 AM MDT.
007215

* All unlabeled values in barrels. 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 bbl on July 14. 2010.

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.gov on 08/03/2010 09;43 AM MDT.
007216
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
-::rn 1,000,000
CD
m
..c
750,000
500,000
250,000
l\I1ay-2010
Jun-201
Expected Value -
Jul-201
Aug-2010

.
007217

All unlabeled values 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.

007218
1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
-......
en
800,000
(1)
ns
.c
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
-
Jul-2010
lVIay-2010
Jun-2010
Expected Value -
Aug-2010

Report generated by sbristol@usgs.govon 08/03/2010 09:43 AM MDT.
007219
Reference Notes

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).

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 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 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.
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%

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
007220
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.

Dispersed Naturally
Application operated by the U.S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological SUlvey in cooperation with the National
007221

oMeasured amount removed via RITT and Top Hat
oCalculated amount of evaporation and dissolution
Skimmed
oThe 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
oDifferent rates for non-emulsified and emulsified oil

007222
Dispersant Used
Oil Remaining

007223

*. 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.
Inland Recovery

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 07/31/2010 08:38 PM MDT.
Application operated by the U.S. C9ast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with' the National
.
007224

1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
UJ
CD
lI-
1,000,000
eG
.0
750,000
500,000
250,000
May-201O
-
Expected Value -
Jun-201
Jul-201
Aug-2C

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.gov on 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
007225

., All 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.
Recovery .

Report generated by mark.w.miller@noaa.govon 07/31/201008:38 PM MDT.
007226

1,400,000
1.300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
U)
(I)
""CU
.Q
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
a
May-2010
-
Expected Value -
Jun-2010
Jul-2010
Aug-2C

007227
Reference Notes

into account the effective discharge (total discharge minus volume collected via Top Hat), and the
Chart - Deepwater Horizon MC-252 - CUrTlulative Disposition of Oil

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 1Q%. 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%.

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
007228
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.

Dispersed Naturally

007229

Calculated amount of evaporation and dissolution
Skimmed
Burned
cumulative totals.
Application operated by the U,S. Coast Guard and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National
007230
Dispersant Used
The amount of dispersant u~ed is recorded each day of the incident by National Incident Command
Oil Remaining


Oil Budget Doc Production 11-24-10 - Batch 30 - FINAL

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Oil Budget Doc Production 11-24-10 - Batch 30 - FINAL

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

005065

Background Infonnation on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool

.Subject: Background Information on Pie Chart and Oil Budget Tool

Low Flow July 15

High Flow July 22

High Flow Scenario (60,000 barrels/day) Through July 21 (Day 93)

Low Flow Scenario (35,000 barrels/day) - Through July 21 (Day 93) ~~

SUbject: [Fwd: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write~up]

SUbject: USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up .

703-648- 5792 (fax)

USGS Oil Budget Tool Write-up.eml

Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget background 20100721.pdf

DeepwaterHorizon oil buget tool briefing 7-22-10 FInal.doc Content-Type:

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

" J~1l units

Deep'Nater Horizon MC252 Gujf incident Oil Budgot

;;1 barrels. See end notes for assurnpt~ons,

Upper/Lower Confidence Bounds

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Iv1C252 Guif !--:cident 011

on 07/22!201 001 :3f; PM tviDT.

SeE; end notes for

Upper/Lower Confidence Bounds

Deepvvater Horizon fv1C2S2 Ch{r fncicent OH

StJr'J8Y in cooperation with tbe Nationa!

Chart - Cumulative/Daily Volume Remaining of the Surface

Chart - Deepwater Horizon MC-252 - Cumulative Disposition of Oil

Deepvv2ter Horizon i'v1C2S2 C;U\T incident

Reper: generated ~y mark.i.v.miner({(noaa.gov an 07!22/201 00 i :39 PM tv1DT.

Available for Recovery

Recovered via RITT and Top Hat

See end notes

of the report for reference materiai on re;.;or: elements.

in cooperation ~NHh the f'Jafona!

Horizon MC252 Gu:t Incident 0;;

Report generated by mark,\V,milierCi:i:noaa.gcv on 07/22/2010 Q; :39 PM MDT.

See end notes section of the report for reference materiai on

(e.g., severing the riser).

AAA data which

Report generated by mark,w.miHerCi1:?ncaa,gov on 07/22/20: 0 OJ :39 PM tvDT.

Application operated by the U,S, Coast Guaf(,~ anG

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

National Incident Command personnel to input daily variables;

Subject: [Fwd: oil budget tool]

Subject: oil budget tool

oil budget tool.eml

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Recovered via RITT and Top Hat

Available for Recovery

AJI units in barrels. See end notes for assumptions.

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Cumulative Released (VR)

Cumulative Remaining (VS)

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

oW' graph are calculated using

Recovered via RITT and Top Hat

Available for Recovery

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident on Budget

Deepwater Horizon IVIC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget

BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget:

Deepw;ater Horizon Oil Budget